Gynecologic Cancer

Immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors has ushered in a new era of cancer therapy, with some patients showing dramatic responses and significantly better outcomes than with other therapies across many cancer types. But some patients do worse, sometimes much worse.

A subset of patients who undergo immunotherapy experience unexpected, rapid disease progression, with a dramatic acceleration of disease trajectory. They also have a shorter progression-free survival and overall survival than would have been expected.

This has been described as hyperprogression and has been termed “hyperprogressive disease” (HPD). It has been seen in a variety of cancers; the incidence ranges from 4% to 29% in the studies reported to date.

There has been some debate over whether this is a real phenomenon or whether it is part of the natural course of disease.

HPD is a “provocative phenomenon,” wrote the authors of a recent commentary entitled “Hyperprogression and Immunotherapy: Fact, Fiction, or Alternative Fact?”

“This phenomenon has polarized oncologists who debate that this could still reflect the natural history of the disease,” said the author of another commentary.

But the tide is now turning toward acceptance of HPD, said Kartik Sehgal, MD, an oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard University, both in Boston.

“With publication of multiple clinical reports of different cancer types worldwide, hyperprogression is now accepted by most oncologists to be a true phenomenon rather than natural progression of disease,” Dr. Sehgal said.

He authored an invited commentary in JAMA Network Openabout one of the latest meta-analyses (JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4[3]:e211136) to investigate HPD during immunotherapy. One of the biggest issues is that the studies that have reported on HPD have been retrospective, with a lack of comparator groups and a lack of a standardized definition of hyperprogression. Dr. Sehgal emphasized the need to study hyperprogression in well-designed prospective studies.
 

Existing data on HPD

HPD was described as “a new pattern of progression” seen in patients undergoing immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy in a 2017 article published in Clinical Cancer Research. Authors Stephane Champiat, MD, PhD, of Institut Gustave Roussy, Universite Paris Saclay, Villejuif, France, and colleagues cited “anecdotal occurrences” of HPD among patients in phase 1 trials of anti–PD-1/PD-L1 agents.

In that study, HPD was defined by tumor growth rate ratio. The incidence was 9% among 213 patients.

The findings raised concerns about treating elderly patients with anti–PD-1/PD-L1 monotherapy, according to the authors, who called for further study.

That same year, Roberto Ferrara, MD, and colleagues from the Insitut Gustave Roussy reported additional data indicating an incidence of HPD of 16% among 333 patients with non–small cell lung cancer who underwent immunotherapy at eight centers from 2012 to 2017. The findings, which were presented at the 2017 World Conference on Lung Cancer and reported at the time by this news organization, also showed that the incidence of HPD was higher with immunotherapy than with single-agent chemotherapy (5%).

Median overall survival (OS) was just 3.4 months among those with HPD, compared with 13 months in the overall study population – worse, even, than the median 5.4-month OS observed among patients with progressive disease who received immunotherapy.

In the wake of these findings, numerous researchers have attempted to better define HPD, its incidence, and patient factors associated with developing HPD while undergoing immunotherapy.

However, there is little so far to show for those efforts, Vivek Subbiah, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said in an interview.

“Many questions remain to be answered,” said Dr. Subbiah, clinical medical director of the Clinical Center for Targeted Therapy in the division of cancer medicine at MD Anderson. He was the senior author of the “Fact, Fiction, or Alternative Fact?” commentary.

Work is underway to elucidate biological mechanisms. Some groups have implicated the Fc region of antibodies. Another group has reported EGFR and MDM2/MDM4 amplifications in patients with HPD, Dr. Subbiah and colleagues noted.

Other “proposed contributing pathological mechanisms include modulation of tumor immune microenvironment through macrophages and regulatory T cells as well as activation of oncogenic signaling pathways,” noted Dr. Sehgal.

Both groups of authors emphasize the urgent need for prospective studies.

It is imperative to confirm underlying biology, predict which patients are at risk, and identify therapeutic directions for patients who experience HPD, Dr. Subbiah said.

The main challenge is defining HPD, he added. Definitions that have been proposed include tumor growth at least two times greater than in control persons, a 15% increase in tumor burden in a set period, and disease progression of 50% from the first evaluation before treatment, he said.

The recent meta-analysis by Hyo Jung Park, MD, PhD, and colleagues, which Dr. Sehgal addressed in his invited commentary, highlights the many approaches used for defining HPD.

Depending on the definition used, the incidence of HPD across 24 studies involving more than 3,100 patients ranged from 5.9% to 43.1%.

“Hyperprogressive disease could be overestimated or underestimated based on current assessment,” Dr. Park and colleagues concluded. They highlighted the importance of “establishing uniform and clinically relevant criteria based on currently available evidence.”
 

Steps for solving the HPD mystery

“I think we need to come up with consensus criteria for an HPD definition. We need a unified definition,” Dr. Subbiah said. “We also need to design prospective studies to prove or disprove the immunotherapy-HPD association.”

Prospective registries with independent review of patients with suspected immunotherapy-related HPD would be useful for assessing the true incidence and the biology of HPD among patients undergoing immunotherapy, he suggested.

“We need to know the immunologic signals of HPD. This can give us an idea if patients can be prospectively identified for being at risk,” he said. “We also need to know what to do if they are at risk.”

Dr. Sehgal also called for consensus on an HPD definition, with input from a multidisciplinary group that includes “colleagues from radiology, medical oncology, radiation oncology. Getting expertise from different disciplines would be helpful,” he said.

Dr. Park and colleagues suggested several key requirements for an optimal HP definition, such as the inclusion of multiple variables for measuring tumor growth acceleration, “sufficiently quantitative” criteria for determining time to failure, and establishment of a standardized measure of tumor growth acceleration.

The agreed-upon definition of HPD could be applied to patients in a prospective registry and to existing trial data, Dr. Sehgal said.

“Eventually, the goal of this exercise is to [determine] how we can help our patients the best, having a biomarker that can at least inform us in terms of being aware and being proactive in terms of looking for this ... so that interventions can be brought on earlier,” he said.

“If we know what may be a biological mechanism, we can design trials that are designed to look at how to overcome that HPD,” he said.

Dr. Sehgal said he believes HPD is triggered in some way by treatment, including immunotherapy, chemotherapy, and targeted therapy, but perhaps in different ways for each.

He estimated the true incidence of immunotherapy-related HPD will be in the 9%-10% range.

“This is a substantial number of patients, so it’s important that we try to understand this phenomenon, using, again, uniform criteria,” he said.
 

Current treatment decision-making

Until more is known, Dr. Sehgal said he considers the potential risk factors when treating patients with immunotherapy.

For example, the presence of MDM2 or MDM4 amplification on a genomic profile may factor into his treatment decision-making when it comes to using immunotherapy or immunotherapy in combination with chemotherapy, he said.

“Is that the only factor that is going to make me choose one thing or another? No,” Dr. Sehgal said. However, he said it would make him more “proactive in making sure the patient is doing clinically okay” and in determining when to obtain on-treatment imaging studies.

Dr. Subbiah emphasized the relative benefit of immunotherapy, noting that survival with chemotherapy for many difficult-to-treat cancers in the relapsed/refractory metastatic setting is less than 2 years.

Immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors has allowed some of these patients to live longer (with survival reported to be more than 10 years for patients with metastatic melanoma).

“Immunotherapy has been a game changer; it has been transformative in the lives of these patients,” Dr. Subbiah said. “So unless there is any other contraindication, the benefit of receiving immunotherapy for an approved indication far outweighs the risk of HPD.”

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

Immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors has ushered in a new era of cancer therapy, with some patients showing dramatic responses and significantly better outcomes than with other therapies across many cancer types. But some patients do worse, sometimes much worse.

A subset of patients who undergo immunotherapy experience unexpected, rapid disease progression, with a dramatic acceleration of disease trajectory. They also have a shorter progression-free survival and overall survival than would have been expected.

This has been described as hyperprogression and has been termed “hyperprogressive disease” (HPD). It has been seen in a variety of cancers; the incidence ranges from 4% to 29% in the studies reported to date.

There has been some debate over whether this is a real phenomenon or whether it is part of the natural course of disease.

HPD is a “provocative phenomenon,” wrote the authors of a recent commentary entitled “Hyperprogression and Immunotherapy: Fact, Fiction, or Alternative Fact?”

“This phenomenon has polarized oncologists who debate that this could still reflect the natural history of the disease,” said the author of another commentary.

But the tide is now turning toward acceptance of HPD, said Kartik Sehgal, MD, an oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard University, both in Boston.

“With publication of multiple clinical reports of different cancer types worldwide, hyperprogression is now accepted by most oncologists to be a true phenomenon rather than natural progression of disease,” Dr. Sehgal said.

He authored an invited commentary in JAMA Network Openabout one of the latest meta-analyses (JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4[3]:e211136) to investigate HPD during immunotherapy. One of the biggest issues is that the studies that have reported on HPD have been retrospective, with a lack of comparator groups and a lack of a standardized definition of hyperprogression. Dr. Sehgal emphasized the need to study hyperprogression in well-designed prospective studies.
 

Existing data on HPD

HPD was described as “a new pattern of progression” seen in patients undergoing immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy in a 2017 article published in Clinical Cancer Research. Authors Stephane Champiat, MD, PhD, of Institut Gustave Roussy, Universite Paris Saclay, Villejuif, France, and colleagues cited “anecdotal occurrences” of HPD among patients in phase 1 trials of anti–PD-1/PD-L1 agents.

In that study, HPD was defined by tumor growth rate ratio. The incidence was 9% among 213 patients.

The findings raised concerns about treating elderly patients with anti–PD-1/PD-L1 monotherapy, according to the authors, who called for further study.

That same year, Roberto Ferrara, MD, and colleagues from the Insitut Gustave Roussy reported additional data indicating an incidence of HPD of 16% among 333 patients with non–small cell lung cancer who underwent immunotherapy at eight centers from 2012 to 2017. The findings, which were presented at the 2017 World Conference on Lung Cancer and reported at the time by this news organization, also showed that the incidence of HPD was higher with immunotherapy than with single-agent chemotherapy (5%).

Median overall survival (OS) was just 3.4 months among those with HPD, compared with 13 months in the overall study population – worse, even, than the median 5.4-month OS observed among patients with progressive disease who received immunotherapy.

In the wake of these findings, numerous researchers have attempted to better define HPD, its incidence, and patient factors associated with developing HPD while undergoing immunotherapy.

However, there is little so far to show for those efforts, Vivek Subbiah, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said in an interview.

“Many questions remain to be answered,” said Dr. Subbiah, clinical medical director of the Clinical Center for Targeted Therapy in the division of cancer medicine at MD Anderson. He was the senior author of the “Fact, Fiction, or Alternative Fact?” commentary.

Work is underway to elucidate biological mechanisms. Some groups have implicated the Fc region of antibodies. Another group has reported EGFR and MDM2/MDM4 amplifications in patients with HPD, Dr. Subbiah and colleagues noted.

Other “proposed contributing pathological mechanisms include modulation of tumor immune microenvironment through macrophages and regulatory T cells as well as activation of oncogenic signaling pathways,” noted Dr. Sehgal.

Both groups of authors emphasize the urgent need for prospective studies.

It is imperative to confirm underlying biology, predict which patients are at risk, and identify therapeutic directions for patients who experience HPD, Dr. Subbiah said.

The main challenge is defining HPD, he added. Definitions that have been proposed include tumor growth at least two times greater than in control persons, a 15% increase in tumor burden in a set period, and disease progression of 50% from the first evaluation before treatment, he said.

The recent meta-analysis by Hyo Jung Park, MD, PhD, and colleagues, which Dr. Sehgal addressed in his invited commentary, highlights the many approaches used for defining HPD.

Depending on the definition used, the incidence of HPD across 24 studies involving more than 3,100 patients ranged from 5.9% to 43.1%.

“Hyperprogressive disease could be overestimated or underestimated based on current assessment,” Dr. Park and colleagues concluded. They highlighted the importance of “establishing uniform and clinically relevant criteria based on currently available evidence.”
 

Steps for solving the HPD mystery

“I think we need to come up with consensus criteria for an HPD definition. We need a unified definition,” Dr. Subbiah said. “We also need to design prospective studies to prove or disprove the immunotherapy-HPD association.”

Prospective registries with independent review of patients with suspected immunotherapy-related HPD would be useful for assessing the true incidence and the biology of HPD among patients undergoing immunotherapy, he suggested.

“We need to know the immunologic signals of HPD. This can give us an idea if patients can be prospectively identified for being at risk,” he said. “We also need to know what to do if they are at risk.”

Dr. Sehgal also called for consensus on an HPD definition, with input from a multidisciplinary group that includes “colleagues from radiology, medical oncology, radiation oncology. Getting expertise from different disciplines would be helpful,” he said.

Dr. Park and colleagues suggested several key requirements for an optimal HP definition, such as the inclusion of multiple variables for measuring tumor growth acceleration, “sufficiently quantitative” criteria for determining time to failure, and establishment of a standardized measure of tumor growth acceleration.

The agreed-upon definition of HPD could be applied to patients in a prospective registry and to existing trial data, Dr. Sehgal said.

“Eventually, the goal of this exercise is to [determine] how we can help our patients the best, having a biomarker that can at least inform us in terms of being aware and being proactive in terms of looking for this ... so that interventions can be brought on earlier,” he said.

“If we know what may be a biological mechanism, we can design trials that are designed to look at how to overcome that HPD,” he said.

Dr. Sehgal said he believes HPD is triggered in some way by treatment, including immunotherapy, chemotherapy, and targeted therapy, but perhaps in different ways for each.

He estimated the true incidence of immunotherapy-related HPD will be in the 9%-10% range.

“This is a substantial number of patients, so it’s important that we try to understand this phenomenon, using, again, uniform criteria,” he said.
 

Current treatment decision-making

Until more is known, Dr. Sehgal said he considers the potential risk factors when treating patients with immunotherapy.

For example, the presence of MDM2 or MDM4 amplification on a genomic profile may factor into his treatment decision-making when it comes to using immunotherapy or immunotherapy in combination with chemotherapy, he said.

“Is that the only factor that is going to make me choose one thing or another? No,” Dr. Sehgal said. However, he said it would make him more “proactive in making sure the patient is doing clinically okay” and in determining when to obtain on-treatment imaging studies.

Dr. Subbiah emphasized the relative benefit of immunotherapy, noting that survival with chemotherapy for many difficult-to-treat cancers in the relapsed/refractory metastatic setting is less than 2 years.

Immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors has allowed some of these patients to live longer (with survival reported to be more than 10 years for patients with metastatic melanoma).

“Immunotherapy has been a game changer; it has been transformative in the lives of these patients,” Dr. Subbiah said. “So unless there is any other contraindication, the benefit of receiving immunotherapy for an approved indication far outweighs the risk of HPD.”

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

Immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors has ushered in a new era of cancer therapy, with some patients showing dramatic responses and significantly better outcomes than with other therapies across many cancer types. But some patients do worse, sometimes much worse.

A subset of patients who undergo immunotherapy experience unexpected, rapid disease progression, with a dramatic acceleration of disease trajectory. They also have a shorter progression-free survival and overall survival than would have been expected.

This has been described as hyperprogression and has been termed “hyperprogressive disease” (HPD). It has been seen in a variety of cancers; the incidence ranges from 4% to 29% in the studies reported to date.

There has been some debate over whether this is a real phenomenon or whether it is part of the natural course of disease.

HPD is a “provocative phenomenon,” wrote the authors of a recent commentary entitled “Hyperprogression and Immunotherapy: Fact, Fiction, or Alternative Fact?”

“This phenomenon has polarized oncologists who debate that this could still reflect the natural history of the disease,” said the author of another commentary.

But the tide is now turning toward acceptance of HPD, said Kartik Sehgal, MD, an oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard University, both in Boston.

“With publication of multiple clinical reports of different cancer types worldwide, hyperprogression is now accepted by most oncologists to be a true phenomenon rather than natural progression of disease,” Dr. Sehgal said.

He authored an invited commentary in JAMA Network Openabout one of the latest meta-analyses (JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4[3]:e211136) to investigate HPD during immunotherapy. One of the biggest issues is that the studies that have reported on HPD have been retrospective, with a lack of comparator groups and a lack of a standardized definition of hyperprogression. Dr. Sehgal emphasized the need to study hyperprogression in well-designed prospective studies.
 

Existing data on HPD

HPD was described as “a new pattern of progression” seen in patients undergoing immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy in a 2017 article published in Clinical Cancer Research. Authors Stephane Champiat, MD, PhD, of Institut Gustave Roussy, Universite Paris Saclay, Villejuif, France, and colleagues cited “anecdotal occurrences” of HPD among patients in phase 1 trials of anti–PD-1/PD-L1 agents.

In that study, HPD was defined by tumor growth rate ratio. The incidence was 9% among 213 patients.

The findings raised concerns about treating elderly patients with anti–PD-1/PD-L1 monotherapy, according to the authors, who called for further study.

That same year, Roberto Ferrara, MD, and colleagues from the Insitut Gustave Roussy reported additional data indicating an incidence of HPD of 16% among 333 patients with non–small cell lung cancer who underwent immunotherapy at eight centers from 2012 to 2017. The findings, which were presented at the 2017 World Conference on Lung Cancer and reported at the time by this news organization, also showed that the incidence of HPD was higher with immunotherapy than with single-agent chemotherapy (5%).

Median overall survival (OS) was just 3.4 months among those with HPD, compared with 13 months in the overall study population – worse, even, than the median 5.4-month OS observed among patients with progressive disease who received immunotherapy.

In the wake of these findings, numerous researchers have attempted to better define HPD, its incidence, and patient factors associated with developing HPD while undergoing immunotherapy.

However, there is little so far to show for those efforts, Vivek Subbiah, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said in an interview.

“Many questions remain to be answered,” said Dr. Subbiah, clinical medical director of the Clinical Center for Targeted Therapy in the division of cancer medicine at MD Anderson. He was the senior author of the “Fact, Fiction, or Alternative Fact?” commentary.

Work is underway to elucidate biological mechanisms. Some groups have implicated the Fc region of antibodies. Another group has reported EGFR and MDM2/MDM4 amplifications in patients with HPD, Dr. Subbiah and colleagues noted.

Other “proposed contributing pathological mechanisms include modulation of tumor immune microenvironment through macrophages and regulatory T cells as well as activation of oncogenic signaling pathways,” noted Dr. Sehgal.

Both groups of authors emphasize the urgent need for prospective studies.

It is imperative to confirm underlying biology, predict which patients are at risk, and identify therapeutic directions for patients who experience HPD, Dr. Subbiah said.

The main challenge is defining HPD, he added. Definitions that have been proposed include tumor growth at least two times greater than in control persons, a 15% increase in tumor burden in a set period, and disease progression of 50% from the first evaluation before treatment, he said.

The recent meta-analysis by Hyo Jung Park, MD, PhD, and colleagues, which Dr. Sehgal addressed in his invited commentary, highlights the many approaches used for defining HPD.

Depending on the definition used, the incidence of HPD across 24 studies involving more than 3,100 patients ranged from 5.9% to 43.1%.

“Hyperprogressive disease could be overestimated or underestimated based on current assessment,” Dr. Park and colleagues concluded. They highlighted the importance of “establishing uniform and clinically relevant criteria based on currently available evidence.”
 

Steps for solving the HPD mystery

“I think we need to come up with consensus criteria for an HPD definition. We need a unified definition,” Dr. Subbiah said. “We also need to design prospective studies to prove or disprove the immunotherapy-HPD association.”

Prospective registries with independent review of patients with suspected immunotherapy-related HPD would be useful for assessing the true incidence and the biology of HPD among patients undergoing immunotherapy, he suggested.

“We need to know the immunologic signals of HPD. This can give us an idea if patients can be prospectively identified for being at risk,” he said. “We also need to know what to do if they are at risk.”

Dr. Sehgal also called for consensus on an HPD definition, with input from a multidisciplinary group that includes “colleagues from radiology, medical oncology, radiation oncology. Getting expertise from different disciplines would be helpful,” he said.

Dr. Park and colleagues suggested several key requirements for an optimal HP definition, such as the inclusion of multiple variables for measuring tumor growth acceleration, “sufficiently quantitative” criteria for determining time to failure, and establishment of a standardized measure of tumor growth acceleration.

The agreed-upon definition of HPD could be applied to patients in a prospective registry and to existing trial data, Dr. Sehgal said.

“Eventually, the goal of this exercise is to [determine] how we can help our patients the best, having a biomarker that can at least inform us in terms of being aware and being proactive in terms of looking for this ... so that interventions can be brought on earlier,” he said.

“If we know what may be a biological mechanism, we can design trials that are designed to look at how to overcome that HPD,” he said.

Dr. Sehgal said he believes HPD is triggered in some way by treatment, including immunotherapy, chemotherapy, and targeted therapy, but perhaps in different ways for each.

He estimated the true incidence of immunotherapy-related HPD will be in the 9%-10% range.

“This is a substantial number of patients, so it’s important that we try to understand this phenomenon, using, again, uniform criteria,” he said.
 

Current treatment decision-making

Until more is known, Dr. Sehgal said he considers the potential risk factors when treating patients with immunotherapy.

For example, the presence of MDM2 or MDM4 amplification on a genomic profile may factor into his treatment decision-making when it comes to using immunotherapy or immunotherapy in combination with chemotherapy, he said.

“Is that the only factor that is going to make me choose one thing or another? No,” Dr. Sehgal said. However, he said it would make him more “proactive in making sure the patient is doing clinically okay” and in determining when to obtain on-treatment imaging studies.

Dr. Subbiah emphasized the relative benefit of immunotherapy, noting that survival with chemotherapy for many difficult-to-treat cancers in the relapsed/refractory metastatic setting is less than 2 years.

Immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors has allowed some of these patients to live longer (with survival reported to be more than 10 years for patients with metastatic melanoma).

“Immunotherapy has been a game changer; it has been transformative in the lives of these patients,” Dr. Subbiah said. “So unless there is any other contraindication, the benefit of receiving immunotherapy for an approved indication far outweighs the risk of HPD.”

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

It has been more than 120 years since Ernst Wertheim, a Viennese surgeon, performed and described what is considered to have been the first radical total hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy for early-stage cervical cancer, yet this morbid procedure remains the standard of care for most early-stage cervical cancers. The rationale for this procedure, which included removal of the parametrial tissue, uterosacral and cardinal ligaments, and upper vagina en bloc with the cervix and uterus, was to obtain margins around a cancer that has a dominant radial growth pattern. The morbidity associated with this procedure is substantial. The parametrium houses important vascular, neural, and urologic structures. Unlike extrafascial hysterectomy, often referred to as “simple” hysterectomy, in which surgeons follow a fascial plane, and therefore a relatively avascular dissection, surgeons performing radical hysterectomy must venture outside of these embryologic fusion planes into less well–defined anatomy. Therefore, surgical complications are relatively common including hemorrhage, ureteral and bladder injury, as well as late-onset devastating complications such as fistula, urinary retention, or incontinence, and sexual dysfunction.¹ More recently, variations of the Wertheim-Meigs radical hysterectomy have been described, and objective classifications created, which include modified radical procedures (removing less parametria) and nerve-sparing procedures to facilitate standardized nomenclature for tailoring the most appropriate procedure for any given tumor.²

Courtesy Dr. Emma Rossi

The trend, and a positive one at that, over the course of the past century, has been a move away from routine radical surgical procedures for most clinical stage 1 cancers. No better example exists than breast cancer, in which the Halsted radical mastectomy has been largely replaced by less morbid breast-conserving or nonradical procedures with adjunct medical and radiation therapies offered to achieve high rates of cure with far more acceptable patient-centered outcomes.³ And so why is it that radical hysterectomy is still considered the standard of care for all but the smallest of microscopic cervical cancers?

The risk of lymph node metastases or recurrence is exceptionally low for women with microscopic (stage IA1) cervical cancers that are less than 3 mm in depth. Therefore, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines recommend nonradical surgical remedies (such as extrafascial hysterectomy, or cone biopsy or trachelectomy if fertility preservation is desired) for this earlier stage of disease.⁴ If there is lymphovascular space invasion (an indicator of poor prognosis and potential lymphatic involvement), a lymphadenectomy or sentinel lymph node biopsy is also recommended. For women with stage IA2 or IB lesions, radical excisions (either trachelectomy or hysterectomy) are considered the standard of care. However, this “gold standard” was achieved largely through legacy, and not a result of randomized trials comparing its outcomes with nonradical procedures.

Initial strides away from radical cervical cancer surgery focused on the goal of fertility preservation via radical trachelectomy which allowed women to preserve an intact uterine fundus. This was initially met with skepticism and concern that surgeons could be sacrificing oncologic outcomes in order to preserve a woman’s fertility. Thanks to pioneering work, including prospective research studies by surgeon innovators it has been shown that, in appropriately selected candidates with tumors less than 2 cm, it is an accepted standard of care.⁴ Radical vaginal or abdominal trachelectomy is associated with cancer recurrence rates of less than 5% and successful pregnancy in approximately three-quarters of patients in whom this is desired.^5,6 However, full-term pregnancy is achieved in 50%-75% of cases, reflecting increased obstetric risk, and radical trachelectomy still subjects patients to the morbidity of a radical parametrial resection, despite the fact that many of them will have no residual carcinoma in their final pathological specimens.

Therefore, can we be even more conservative in our surgery for these patients? Are simple hysterectomy or conization potentially adequate treatments for small (<2 cm) stage IA2 and IB1 lesions that have favorable histology (<10 mm stromal invasion, low-risk histology, no lymphovascular space involvement, negative margins on conization and no lymph node metastases)? In patients whose tumor exhibits these histologic features, the likelihood of parametrial involvement is approximately 1%, calling into question the virtue of parametrial resection.⁷ Observational studies have identified mixed results on the safety of conservative surgical techniques in early-stage cervical cancer. In a study of the National Cancer Database, the outcomes of 2,543 radical hysterectomies and 1,388 extrafascial hysterectomies for women with stage IB1 disease were evaluated and observed a difference in 5-year survival (92.4% vs. 95.3%) favoring the radical procedure.⁸ Unfortunately, database analyses such as these are limited by potential confounders and discordance between the groups such as rates of lymphadenectomy, known involvement of oncologic surgeon specialists, and margin status. An alternative evaluation of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database including 2,571 patients with stage IB1 disease, all of whom had lymphadenectomy performed, showed no difference in 10-year disease-specific survival between the two surgical approaches.⁹

Ultimately, whether conservative procedures (such as conization or extrafascial hysterectomy) can be offered to women with small, low-risk IB1 or IA2 cervical cancers will be best determined by prospective single-arm or randomized trials. Fortunately, these are underway. Preliminary results from the ConCerv trial in which 100 women with early-stage, low-risk stage IA2 and IB1 cervical cancer were treated with either repeat conization or extrafascial hysterectomy with sentinel lymph node biopsy showed acceptably low rates of recurrence (3%) with this approach.¹⁰ If the mature data supports this finding, it seems that, for appropriately selected and well-counseled patients, conservative surgery may become more broadly accepted as a reasonable option for treatment that spares women not only loss of fertility, but also the early and late surgical morbidity from radical procedures.

In the meantime, until more is known about the oncologic safety of nonradical procedures for stage IA2 and IB1 cervical cancer, this option should not be considered standard of care, and only offered to patients with favorable tumor factors who are well counseled regarding the uncertainty of this approach. It is critical that patients with early-stage cervical cancer be evaluated by a gynecologic cancer specialist prior to definitive surgical treatment as they are best equipped to evaluate risk profiles and counsel about her options for surgery, its known and unknown consequences, and the appropriateness of fertility preservation or radicality of surgery. We eagerly await the results of trials evaluating the safety of conservative cervical cancer surgery, which promise to advance us from 19th-century practices, preserving not only fertility, but also quality of life.

Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She has no disclosures and can be contacted at [email protected].

References

1. Trimbos JB et al. Eur J Cancer. 2004;40(3):375-8.

2. Querleu D and Morrow CP. Lancet Oncol. 2008;9:297-303.

3. Sakorafas GH and Safioleas M. Eur J Cancer Care. 2010 Mar;19(2):145-66.

4. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Cervical Cancer (Version 1.2021). https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/cervical.pdf. Accessed 2021 Apr 21.

5. Plante M et al. Gynecol Oncol. 2011;121:290-7.

6. Wethington SL et al. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2012;22:1251-7.

7. Domgue J and Schmeler K. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2019 Feb;55:79-92.

8. Sia TY et al. Obstet Gyenecol. 2019;134(6):1132.

9. Tseng J et al. Gynecol Oncol. 2018;150(1):44.

10. Schmeler K et al. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2019;29:A14-5.

It has been more than 120 years since Ernst Wertheim, a Viennese surgeon, performed and described what is considered to have been the first radical total hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy for early-stage cervical cancer, yet this morbid procedure remains the standard of care for most early-stage cervical cancers. The rationale for this procedure, which included removal of the parametrial tissue, uterosacral and cardinal ligaments, and upper vagina en bloc with the cervix and uterus, was to obtain margins around a cancer that has a dominant radial growth pattern. The morbidity associated with this procedure is substantial. The parametrium houses important vascular, neural, and urologic structures. Unlike extrafascial hysterectomy, often referred to as “simple” hysterectomy, in which surgeons follow a fascial plane, and therefore a relatively avascular dissection, surgeons performing radical hysterectomy must venture outside of these embryologic fusion planes into less well–defined anatomy. Therefore, surgical complications are relatively common including hemorrhage, ureteral and bladder injury, as well as late-onset devastating complications such as fistula, urinary retention, or incontinence, and sexual dysfunction.¹ More recently, variations of the Wertheim-Meigs radical hysterectomy have been described, and objective classifications created, which include modified radical procedures (removing less parametria) and nerve-sparing procedures to facilitate standardized nomenclature for tailoring the most appropriate procedure for any given tumor.²

Courtesy Dr. Emma Rossi

The trend, and a positive one at that, over the course of the past century, has been a move away from routine radical surgical procedures for most clinical stage 1 cancers. No better example exists than breast cancer, in which the Halsted radical mastectomy has been largely replaced by less morbid breast-conserving or nonradical procedures with adjunct medical and radiation therapies offered to achieve high rates of cure with far more acceptable patient-centered outcomes.³ And so why is it that radical hysterectomy is still considered the standard of care for all but the smallest of microscopic cervical cancers?

The risk of lymph node metastases or recurrence is exceptionally low for women with microscopic (stage IA1) cervical cancers that are less than 3 mm in depth. Therefore, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines recommend nonradical surgical remedies (such as extrafascial hysterectomy, or cone biopsy or trachelectomy if fertility preservation is desired) for this earlier stage of disease.⁴ If there is lymphovascular space invasion (an indicator of poor prognosis and potential lymphatic involvement), a lymphadenectomy or sentinel lymph node biopsy is also recommended. For women with stage IA2 or IB lesions, radical excisions (either trachelectomy or hysterectomy) are considered the standard of care. However, this “gold standard” was achieved largely through legacy, and not a result of randomized trials comparing its outcomes with nonradical procedures.

Initial strides away from radical cervical cancer surgery focused on the goal of fertility preservation via radical trachelectomy which allowed women to preserve an intact uterine fundus. This was initially met with skepticism and concern that surgeons could be sacrificing oncologic outcomes in order to preserve a woman’s fertility. Thanks to pioneering work, including prospective research studies by surgeon innovators it has been shown that, in appropriately selected candidates with tumors less than 2 cm, it is an accepted standard of care.⁴ Radical vaginal or abdominal trachelectomy is associated with cancer recurrence rates of less than 5% and successful pregnancy in approximately three-quarters of patients in whom this is desired.^5,6 However, full-term pregnancy is achieved in 50%-75% of cases, reflecting increased obstetric risk, and radical trachelectomy still subjects patients to the morbidity of a radical parametrial resection, despite the fact that many of them will have no residual carcinoma in their final pathological specimens.

Therefore, can we be even more conservative in our surgery for these patients? Are simple hysterectomy or conization potentially adequate treatments for small (<2 cm) stage IA2 and IB1 lesions that have favorable histology (<10 mm stromal invasion, low-risk histology, no lymphovascular space involvement, negative margins on conization and no lymph node metastases)? In patients whose tumor exhibits these histologic features, the likelihood of parametrial involvement is approximately 1%, calling into question the virtue of parametrial resection.⁷ Observational studies have identified mixed results on the safety of conservative surgical techniques in early-stage cervical cancer. In a study of the National Cancer Database, the outcomes of 2,543 radical hysterectomies and 1,388 extrafascial hysterectomies for women with stage IB1 disease were evaluated and observed a difference in 5-year survival (92.4% vs. 95.3%) favoring the radical procedure.⁸ Unfortunately, database analyses such as these are limited by potential confounders and discordance between the groups such as rates of lymphadenectomy, known involvement of oncologic surgeon specialists, and margin status. An alternative evaluation of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database including 2,571 patients with stage IB1 disease, all of whom had lymphadenectomy performed, showed no difference in 10-year disease-specific survival between the two surgical approaches.⁹

Ultimately, whether conservative procedures (such as conization or extrafascial hysterectomy) can be offered to women with small, low-risk IB1 or IA2 cervical cancers will be best determined by prospective single-arm or randomized trials. Fortunately, these are underway. Preliminary results from the ConCerv trial in which 100 women with early-stage, low-risk stage IA2 and IB1 cervical cancer were treated with either repeat conization or extrafascial hysterectomy with sentinel lymph node biopsy showed acceptably low rates of recurrence (3%) with this approach.¹⁰ If the mature data supports this finding, it seems that, for appropriately selected and well-counseled patients, conservative surgery may become more broadly accepted as a reasonable option for treatment that spares women not only loss of fertility, but also the early and late surgical morbidity from radical procedures.

In the meantime, until more is known about the oncologic safety of nonradical procedures for stage IA2 and IB1 cervical cancer, this option should not be considered standard of care, and only offered to patients with favorable tumor factors who are well counseled regarding the uncertainty of this approach. It is critical that patients with early-stage cervical cancer be evaluated by a gynecologic cancer specialist prior to definitive surgical treatment as they are best equipped to evaluate risk profiles and counsel about her options for surgery, its known and unknown consequences, and the appropriateness of fertility preservation or radicality of surgery. We eagerly await the results of trials evaluating the safety of conservative cervical cancer surgery, which promise to advance us from 19th-century practices, preserving not only fertility, but also quality of life.

Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She has no disclosures and can be contacted at [email protected].

References

1. Trimbos JB et al. Eur J Cancer. 2004;40(3):375-8.

2. Querleu D and Morrow CP. Lancet Oncol. 2008;9:297-303.

3. Sakorafas GH and Safioleas M. Eur J Cancer Care. 2010 Mar;19(2):145-66.

4. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Cervical Cancer (Version 1.2021). https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/cervical.pdf. Accessed 2021 Apr 21.

5. Plante M et al. Gynecol Oncol. 2011;121:290-7.

6. Wethington SL et al. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2012;22:1251-7.

7. Domgue J and Schmeler K. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2019 Feb;55:79-92.

8. Sia TY et al. Obstet Gyenecol. 2019;134(6):1132.

9. Tseng J et al. Gynecol Oncol. 2018;150(1):44.

10. Schmeler K et al. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2019;29:A14-5.

It has been more than 120 years since Ernst Wertheim, a Viennese surgeon, performed and described what is considered to have been the first radical total hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy for early-stage cervical cancer, yet this morbid procedure remains the standard of care for most early-stage cervical cancers. The rationale for this procedure, which included removal of the parametrial tissue, uterosacral and cardinal ligaments, and upper vagina en bloc with the cervix and uterus, was to obtain margins around a cancer that has a dominant radial growth pattern. The morbidity associated with this procedure is substantial. The parametrium houses important vascular, neural, and urologic structures. Unlike extrafascial hysterectomy, often referred to as “simple” hysterectomy, in which surgeons follow a fascial plane, and therefore a relatively avascular dissection, surgeons performing radical hysterectomy must venture outside of these embryologic fusion planes into less well–defined anatomy. Therefore, surgical complications are relatively common including hemorrhage, ureteral and bladder injury, as well as late-onset devastating complications such as fistula, urinary retention, or incontinence, and sexual dysfunction.¹ More recently, variations of the Wertheim-Meigs radical hysterectomy have been described, and objective classifications created, which include modified radical procedures (removing less parametria) and nerve-sparing procedures to facilitate standardized nomenclature for tailoring the most appropriate procedure for any given tumor.²

Courtesy Dr. Emma Rossi

The trend, and a positive one at that, over the course of the past century, has been a move away from routine radical surgical procedures for most clinical stage 1 cancers. No better example exists than breast cancer, in which the Halsted radical mastectomy has been largely replaced by less morbid breast-conserving or nonradical procedures with adjunct medical and radiation therapies offered to achieve high rates of cure with far more acceptable patient-centered outcomes.³ And so why is it that radical hysterectomy is still considered the standard of care for all but the smallest of microscopic cervical cancers?

The risk of lymph node metastases or recurrence is exceptionally low for women with microscopic (stage IA1) cervical cancers that are less than 3 mm in depth. Therefore, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines recommend nonradical surgical remedies (such as extrafascial hysterectomy, or cone biopsy or trachelectomy if fertility preservation is desired) for this earlier stage of disease.⁴ If there is lymphovascular space invasion (an indicator of poor prognosis and potential lymphatic involvement), a lymphadenectomy or sentinel lymph node biopsy is also recommended. For women with stage IA2 or IB lesions, radical excisions (either trachelectomy or hysterectomy) are considered the standard of care. However, this “gold standard” was achieved largely through legacy, and not a result of randomized trials comparing its outcomes with nonradical procedures.

Initial strides away from radical cervical cancer surgery focused on the goal of fertility preservation via radical trachelectomy which allowed women to preserve an intact uterine fundus. This was initially met with skepticism and concern that surgeons could be sacrificing oncologic outcomes in order to preserve a woman’s fertility. Thanks to pioneering work, including prospective research studies by surgeon innovators it has been shown that, in appropriately selected candidates with tumors less than 2 cm, it is an accepted standard of care.⁴ Radical vaginal or abdominal trachelectomy is associated with cancer recurrence rates of less than 5% and successful pregnancy in approximately three-quarters of patients in whom this is desired.^5,6 However, full-term pregnancy is achieved in 50%-75% of cases, reflecting increased obstetric risk, and radical trachelectomy still subjects patients to the morbidity of a radical parametrial resection, despite the fact that many of them will have no residual carcinoma in their final pathological specimens.

Therefore, can we be even more conservative in our surgery for these patients? Are simple hysterectomy or conization potentially adequate treatments for small (<2 cm) stage IA2 and IB1 lesions that have favorable histology (<10 mm stromal invasion, low-risk histology, no lymphovascular space involvement, negative margins on conization and no lymph node metastases)? In patients whose tumor exhibits these histologic features, the likelihood of parametrial involvement is approximately 1%, calling into question the virtue of parametrial resection.⁷ Observational studies have identified mixed results on the safety of conservative surgical techniques in early-stage cervical cancer. In a study of the National Cancer Database, the outcomes of 2,543 radical hysterectomies and 1,388 extrafascial hysterectomies for women with stage IB1 disease were evaluated and observed a difference in 5-year survival (92.4% vs. 95.3%) favoring the radical procedure.⁸ Unfortunately, database analyses such as these are limited by potential confounders and discordance between the groups such as rates of lymphadenectomy, known involvement of oncologic surgeon specialists, and margin status. An alternative evaluation of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database including 2,571 patients with stage IB1 disease, all of whom had lymphadenectomy performed, showed no difference in 10-year disease-specific survival between the two surgical approaches.⁹

Ultimately, whether conservative procedures (such as conization or extrafascial hysterectomy) can be offered to women with small, low-risk IB1 or IA2 cervical cancers will be best determined by prospective single-arm or randomized trials. Fortunately, these are underway. Preliminary results from the ConCerv trial in which 100 women with early-stage, low-risk stage IA2 and IB1 cervical cancer were treated with either repeat conization or extrafascial hysterectomy with sentinel lymph node biopsy showed acceptably low rates of recurrence (3%) with this approach.¹⁰ If the mature data supports this finding, it seems that, for appropriately selected and well-counseled patients, conservative surgery may become more broadly accepted as a reasonable option for treatment that spares women not only loss of fertility, but also the early and late surgical morbidity from radical procedures.

In the meantime, until more is known about the oncologic safety of nonradical procedures for stage IA2 and IB1 cervical cancer, this option should not be considered standard of care, and only offered to patients with favorable tumor factors who are well counseled regarding the uncertainty of this approach. It is critical that patients with early-stage cervical cancer be evaluated by a gynecologic cancer specialist prior to definitive surgical treatment as they are best equipped to evaluate risk profiles and counsel about her options for surgery, its known and unknown consequences, and the appropriateness of fertility preservation or radicality of surgery. We eagerly await the results of trials evaluating the safety of conservative cervical cancer surgery, which promise to advance us from 19th-century practices, preserving not only fertility, but also quality of life.

Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She has no disclosures and can be contacted at [email protected].

References

1. Trimbos JB et al. Eur J Cancer. 2004;40(3):375-8.

2. Querleu D and Morrow CP. Lancet Oncol. 2008;9:297-303.

3. Sakorafas GH and Safioleas M. Eur J Cancer Care. 2010 Mar;19(2):145-66.

4. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Cervical Cancer (Version 1.2021). https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/cervical.pdf. Accessed 2021 Apr 21.

5. Plante M et al. Gynecol Oncol. 2011;121:290-7.

6. Wethington SL et al. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2012;22:1251-7.

7. Domgue J and Schmeler K. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2019 Feb;55:79-92.

8. Sia TY et al. Obstet Gyenecol. 2019;134(6):1132.

9. Tseng J et al. Gynecol Oncol. 2018;150(1):44.

10. Schmeler K et al. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2019;29:A14-5.

The Food and Drug Administration granted accelerated approval to the immunotherapy dostarlimab (Jemperli) for the treatment of recurrent or advanced endometrial cancer with deficient mismatch repair (dMMR), which are genetic anomalies abnormalities that disrupt DNA repair.

Usage of the new checkpoint inhibitor is limited to patients who have progressed on or following prior treatment with a platinum-containing chemotherapy. Eligibility must also be determined by an FDA-approved test for the dMMR biomarker. Approximately 25%-30% of patients with advanced endometrial cancer have dMMR tumors, according to the FDA.

The approval is “evidence of the FDA’s progress in applying precision medicine to expand treatment options for patients with cancer,” said Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence and acting director of the Office of Oncologic Diseases in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

He explained that the immunotherapy was “specifically studied to target dMMR endometrial cancer and leverages scientific knowledge surrounding the mechanism of immunotherapy response.”

The new drug also addresses an unmet medical need, as there are limited therapeutic options in this setting following frontline standard treatment with a platinum-containing chemotherapy.

The approval is based on safety and efficacy data from a single-arm, multicohort clinical trial. Of the 71 patients with dMMR recurrent or advanced endometrial cancer who received dostarlimab, 42.3% had a response. For 93% of that group, the response lasted 6 months or longer.

The drug’s maker, GlaxoSmithKline, is currently conducting additional, larger trials in more patients with dMMR endometrial tumors to verify and further describe clinical benefits.

Common side effects of dostarlimab include fatigue, nausea, diarrhea, anemia, and constipation. Like other checkpoint inhibitors, the new drug can cause immune-mediated side effects such as pneumonitis, colitis, hepatitis, endocrinopathies, and nephritis.

Dostarlimab is contraindicated in women who are pregnant or breastfeeding because it may cause harm to a developing fetus or newborn baby.

The FDA approval comes a month after the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use of the European Medicines Agency recommended granting conditional marketing authorization for dostarlimab for use as monotherapy in this same patient group.

In the United States, dostarlimab received Priority Review designation and Breakthrough Therapy designation for this indication.

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

The Food and Drug Administration granted accelerated approval to the immunotherapy dostarlimab (Jemperli) for the treatment of recurrent or advanced endometrial cancer with deficient mismatch repair (dMMR), which are genetic anomalies abnormalities that disrupt DNA repair.

Usage of the new checkpoint inhibitor is limited to patients who have progressed on or following prior treatment with a platinum-containing chemotherapy. Eligibility must also be determined by an FDA-approved test for the dMMR biomarker. Approximately 25%-30% of patients with advanced endometrial cancer have dMMR tumors, according to the FDA.

The approval is “evidence of the FDA’s progress in applying precision medicine to expand treatment options for patients with cancer,” said Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence and acting director of the Office of Oncologic Diseases in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

He explained that the immunotherapy was “specifically studied to target dMMR endometrial cancer and leverages scientific knowledge surrounding the mechanism of immunotherapy response.”

The new drug also addresses an unmet medical need, as there are limited therapeutic options in this setting following frontline standard treatment with a platinum-containing chemotherapy.

The approval is based on safety and efficacy data from a single-arm, multicohort clinical trial. Of the 71 patients with dMMR recurrent or advanced endometrial cancer who received dostarlimab, 42.3% had a response. For 93% of that group, the response lasted 6 months or longer.

The drug’s maker, GlaxoSmithKline, is currently conducting additional, larger trials in more patients with dMMR endometrial tumors to verify and further describe clinical benefits.

Common side effects of dostarlimab include fatigue, nausea, diarrhea, anemia, and constipation. Like other checkpoint inhibitors, the new drug can cause immune-mediated side effects such as pneumonitis, colitis, hepatitis, endocrinopathies, and nephritis.

Dostarlimab is contraindicated in women who are pregnant or breastfeeding because it may cause harm to a developing fetus or newborn baby.

The FDA approval comes a month after the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use of the European Medicines Agency recommended granting conditional marketing authorization for dostarlimab for use as monotherapy in this same patient group.

In the United States, dostarlimab received Priority Review designation and Breakthrough Therapy designation for this indication.

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

The Food and Drug Administration granted accelerated approval to the immunotherapy dostarlimab (Jemperli) for the treatment of recurrent or advanced endometrial cancer with deficient mismatch repair (dMMR), which are genetic anomalies abnormalities that disrupt DNA repair.

Usage of the new checkpoint inhibitor is limited to patients who have progressed on or following prior treatment with a platinum-containing chemotherapy. Eligibility must also be determined by an FDA-approved test for the dMMR biomarker. Approximately 25%-30% of patients with advanced endometrial cancer have dMMR tumors, according to the FDA.

The approval is “evidence of the FDA’s progress in applying precision medicine to expand treatment options for patients with cancer,” said Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence and acting director of the Office of Oncologic Diseases in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

He explained that the immunotherapy was “specifically studied to target dMMR endometrial cancer and leverages scientific knowledge surrounding the mechanism of immunotherapy response.”

The new drug also addresses an unmet medical need, as there are limited therapeutic options in this setting following frontline standard treatment with a platinum-containing chemotherapy.

The approval is based on safety and efficacy data from a single-arm, multicohort clinical trial. Of the 71 patients with dMMR recurrent or advanced endometrial cancer who received dostarlimab, 42.3% had a response. For 93% of that group, the response lasted 6 months or longer.

The drug’s maker, GlaxoSmithKline, is currently conducting additional, larger trials in more patients with dMMR endometrial tumors to verify and further describe clinical benefits.

Common side effects of dostarlimab include fatigue, nausea, diarrhea, anemia, and constipation. Like other checkpoint inhibitors, the new drug can cause immune-mediated side effects such as pneumonitis, colitis, hepatitis, endocrinopathies, and nephritis.

Dostarlimab is contraindicated in women who are pregnant or breastfeeding because it may cause harm to a developing fetus or newborn baby.

The FDA approval comes a month after the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use of the European Medicines Agency recommended granting conditional marketing authorization for dostarlimab for use as monotherapy in this same patient group.

In the United States, dostarlimab received Priority Review designation and Breakthrough Therapy designation for this indication.

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

Al-Hendy A, Lukes AS, Poindexter AN 3rd, et al. Treatment of uterine fibroid symptoms with relugolix combination therapy. N Engl J Med. 2021;384:630-642. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2008283

Expert Commentary

By age 50, approximately 70% of White women and 80% of Black women will have uterine fibroids.¹ Of these, about 25% will have symptoms—most often including heavy menstrual bleeding,² and associated pain the second most common symptom.³ First-line treatment has traditionally been hormonal contraceptives. Injectable gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist like leuprolide acetate have been commonly employed, although their actual approved indication is “for concomitant use with iron therapy for preoperative hematologic improvement of patients with anemia caused by uterine leiomyomata (fibroids).”⁴ Recently, an oral GnRH antagonist, elagolix, combined with estrogen and progestogen, was approved for treatment of uterine fibroids for up to 24 months. However, it is dosed twice per day because of its short half-life and results in a loss of bone mineral density at 1 year.^5,6

Details of the studies

Al-Hendy and colleagues report on two double-blind 24-week phase 3 trials involving women with heavy menstrual bleeding associated with fibroids. There were just under 400 women in each trial. There was a 1:1:1 randomization to: placebo, once-daily oral relugolix 40 mg with 1 mg estradiol and 0.5 mg norethindrone acetate, or oral relugolix by itself for 12 weeks followed by the combination for 12 weeks (referred to as the “delayed relugolix combination therapy” arm).

Results. The primary end point was the percentage of patients who had a volume of menstrual blood loss less than 80 mL and a ≥50% reduction in blood loss volume as measured by the alkaline hematin method. The baseline blood loss in these studies ranged from approximately 210–250 mL. Secondary end points included amenorrhea, volume of menstrual blood loss, distress from bleeding and pelvic discomfort, anemia, pain, uterine volume, and the largest fibroid volume.

In trials one and two, 73% and 71% of patients in the relugolix combination groups, respectively, achieved the primary endpoint, compared with 19% and 15% in the placebo groups (P <.001). In addition, all secondary endpoints except largest fibroid volume were significantly improved versus placebo. Adverse events, including any change in bone mineral density, were no different between the combination and placebo groups. The delayed combination groups did have more hot flashes and diminished bone density compared with both the placebo and combination groups.

Strengths and weaknesses

The studies appropriately enrolled women with a mean age of 41–42 years and a mean BMI >30 kg/m², and more than 50% were African American. Thus, the samples are adequately representative of the type of population most likely to have fibroids and associated symptoms. The results showed the advantages of built-in “add back therapy” with estrogen plus progestogen, as the vasomotor symptoms and bone loss that treatment with a GnRH antagonist alone produces were reduced.

Although the trials were only conducted for 24 weeks, efficacy was seen as early as 4 weeks, and was clearly maintained throughout the full trials—and there is no scientific reason to assume it would not be maintained indefinitely. However, one cannot make a similar assumption about long-term safety. As another GnRH antagonist, with a shorter half-life requiring twice-daily-dosing with add back therapy, has been approved for use for 2 years, it is likely that the once-daily formulation of combination relugolix will be approved for this timeframe as well. Still, with patients’ mean age of 41–42 years, what will clinicians do after 2-year treatment? Clearly, study of long-term safety would be valuable. ●

Al-Hendy A, Lukes AS, Poindexter AN 3rd, et al. Treatment of uterine fibroid symptoms with relugolix combination therapy. N Engl J Med. 2021;384:630-642. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2008283

Expert Commentary

By age 50, approximately 70% of White women and 80% of Black women will have uterine fibroids.¹ Of these, about 25% will have symptoms—most often including heavy menstrual bleeding,² and associated pain the second most common symptom.³ First-line treatment has traditionally been hormonal contraceptives. Injectable gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist like leuprolide acetate have been commonly employed, although their actual approved indication is “for concomitant use with iron therapy for preoperative hematologic improvement of patients with anemia caused by uterine leiomyomata (fibroids).”⁴ Recently, an oral GnRH antagonist, elagolix, combined with estrogen and progestogen, was approved for treatment of uterine fibroids for up to 24 months. However, it is dosed twice per day because of its short half-life and results in a loss of bone mineral density at 1 year.^5,6

Details of the studies

Al-Hendy and colleagues report on two double-blind 24-week phase 3 trials involving women with heavy menstrual bleeding associated with fibroids. There were just under 400 women in each trial. There was a 1:1:1 randomization to: placebo, once-daily oral relugolix 40 mg with 1 mg estradiol and 0.5 mg norethindrone acetate, or oral relugolix by itself for 12 weeks followed by the combination for 12 weeks (referred to as the “delayed relugolix combination therapy” arm).

Results. The primary end point was the percentage of patients who had a volume of menstrual blood loss less than 80 mL and a ≥50% reduction in blood loss volume as measured by the alkaline hematin method. The baseline blood loss in these studies ranged from approximately 210–250 mL. Secondary end points included amenorrhea, volume of menstrual blood loss, distress from bleeding and pelvic discomfort, anemia, pain, uterine volume, and the largest fibroid volume.

In trials one and two, 73% and 71% of patients in the relugolix combination groups, respectively, achieved the primary endpoint, compared with 19% and 15% in the placebo groups (P <.001). In addition, all secondary endpoints except largest fibroid volume were significantly improved versus placebo. Adverse events, including any change in bone mineral density, were no different between the combination and placebo groups. The delayed combination groups did have more hot flashes and diminished bone density compared with both the placebo and combination groups.

Strengths and weaknesses

The studies appropriately enrolled women with a mean age of 41–42 years and a mean BMI >30 kg/m², and more than 50% were African American. Thus, the samples are adequately representative of the type of population most likely to have fibroids and associated symptoms. The results showed the advantages of built-in “add back therapy” with estrogen plus progestogen, as the vasomotor symptoms and bone loss that treatment with a GnRH antagonist alone produces were reduced.

Although the trials were only conducted for 24 weeks, efficacy was seen as early as 4 weeks, and was clearly maintained throughout the full trials—and there is no scientific reason to assume it would not be maintained indefinitely. However, one cannot make a similar assumption about long-term safety. As another GnRH antagonist, with a shorter half-life requiring twice-daily-dosing with add back therapy, has been approved for use for 2 years, it is likely that the once-daily formulation of combination relugolix will be approved for this timeframe as well. Still, with patients’ mean age of 41–42 years, what will clinicians do after 2-year treatment? Clearly, study of long-term safety would be valuable. ●

Al-Hendy A, Lukes AS, Poindexter AN 3rd, et al. Treatment of uterine fibroid symptoms with relugolix combination therapy. N Engl J Med. 2021;384:630-642. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2008283

Expert Commentary

By age 50, approximately 70% of White women and 80% of Black women will have uterine fibroids.¹ Of these, about 25% will have symptoms—most often including heavy menstrual bleeding,² and associated pain the second most common symptom.³ First-line treatment has traditionally been hormonal contraceptives. Injectable gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist like leuprolide acetate have been commonly employed, although their actual approved indication is “for concomitant use with iron therapy for preoperative hematologic improvement of patients with anemia caused by uterine leiomyomata (fibroids).”⁴ Recently, an oral GnRH antagonist, elagolix, combined with estrogen and progestogen, was approved for treatment of uterine fibroids for up to 24 months. However, it is dosed twice per day because of its short half-life and results in a loss of bone mineral density at 1 year.^5,6

Details of the studies

Al-Hendy and colleagues report on two double-blind 24-week phase 3 trials involving women with heavy menstrual bleeding associated with fibroids. There were just under 400 women in each trial. There was a 1:1:1 randomization to: placebo, once-daily oral relugolix 40 mg with 1 mg estradiol and 0.5 mg norethindrone acetate, or oral relugolix by itself for 12 weeks followed by the combination for 12 weeks (referred to as the “delayed relugolix combination therapy” arm).

Results. The primary end point was the percentage of patients who had a volume of menstrual blood loss less than 80 mL and a ≥50% reduction in blood loss volume as measured by the alkaline hematin method. The baseline blood loss in these studies ranged from approximately 210–250 mL. Secondary end points included amenorrhea, volume of menstrual blood loss, distress from bleeding and pelvic discomfort, anemia, pain, uterine volume, and the largest fibroid volume.

In trials one and two, 73% and 71% of patients in the relugolix combination groups, respectively, achieved the primary endpoint, compared with 19% and 15% in the placebo groups (P <.001). In addition, all secondary endpoints except largest fibroid volume were significantly improved versus placebo. Adverse events, including any change in bone mineral density, were no different between the combination and placebo groups. The delayed combination groups did have more hot flashes and diminished bone density compared with both the placebo and combination groups.

Strengths and weaknesses

The studies appropriately enrolled women with a mean age of 41–42 years and a mean BMI >30 kg/m², and more than 50% were African American. Thus, the samples are adequately representative of the type of population most likely to have fibroids and associated symptoms. The results showed the advantages of built-in “add back therapy” with estrogen plus progestogen, as the vasomotor symptoms and bone loss that treatment with a GnRH antagonist alone produces were reduced.

Although the trials were only conducted for 24 weeks, efficacy was seen as early as 4 weeks, and was clearly maintained throughout the full trials—and there is no scientific reason to assume it would not be maintained indefinitely. However, one cannot make a similar assumption about long-term safety. As another GnRH antagonist, with a shorter half-life requiring twice-daily-dosing with add back therapy, has been approved for use for 2 years, it is likely that the once-daily formulation of combination relugolix will be approved for this timeframe as well. Still, with patients’ mean age of 41–42 years, what will clinicians do after 2-year treatment? Clearly, study of long-term safety would be valuable. ●

Preoperative endometrial thickness is associated with the risk of endometrial cancer in patients with endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia (EIN) and could potentially be used to guide lymph node assessment, according to investigators.

In a retrospective study of 378 patients who had hysterectomies for EIN, those with a preoperative endometrial stripe of 20 mm or greater were two times more likely to have endometrial cancer on final pathology, and those with an endometrial thickness of 15 mm or greater were 1.8 times more likely to have cancer.

“This data suggests that increasing endometrial thickness may be a useful preoperative marker to identify who’s at higher risk of concurrent endometrial cancer. It could also be considered a criterion for selectively using a sentinel lymph node algorithm in patients with a preoperative diagnosis of EIN. However, prospective studies are warranted to further establish this association,” said Devon Abt, MD, of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.

She presented the data at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Virtual Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer (Abstract 11103).
 

Risk of overtreatment

There are no clear consensus guidelines on lymph node assessment for patients with EIN, Dr. Abt noted. She pointed out that roughly 40% of patients with EIN are diagnosed with endometrial cancer. However, it’s usually low-stage, low-grade disease, and only about 10% of patients will have high-risk features that warrant lymph node evaluation.

“Typically, we identify patients with concurrent endometrial cancer based on intraoperative pathology, or frozen section,” Dr. Abt explained. “We then apply the Mayo criteria, which stratifies patients as high or low risk for lymph node metastasis based on pathologic criteria. ... This information helps guide our intraoperative decisions to perform, or not perform, pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy.”

Dr. Abt noted, however, that “lymphadenectomy is not benign” and increases surgical time as well as the risk of complications.

Taking these factors into account, some centers have implemented routine sentinel lymph node algorithms for staging endometrial cancers, Dr. Abt said.

What she and her colleagues wanted to determine is if there is value in this practice. Should sentinel lymph node mapping and biopsy be offered routinely to all patients with a preoperative diagnosis of EIN?
 

Study details

Dr. Abt and colleagues conducted a retrospective, single-center study of 378 patients with EIN. Ultimately, 27% (n = 103) of the patients were diagnosed with endometrial cancer – 95% with stage 1a disease and 5% with stage 1b.

Increasing age, White race, and hypertension were significantly associated with the presence of endometrial cancer. Body mass index, parity, hormone therapy exposure, and baseline CA 125 were not.

The median preoperative endometrial thickness was 14 mm among patients with endometrial cancer and 11 mm in patients without cancer (P = .002).

Overall, 31% of the cancer cases were considered high risk for nodal metastases by Mayo criteria, but an endometrial stripe of 15 mm or higher increased the chance of being considered high risk.

The risk of cancer was 47% among patients with an endometrial stripe of at least 20 mm versus 21% among patients with a measurement below 15 mm.

Only 10 patients underwent lymph node evaluation, 5 with sentinel lymph node dissection and 5 with lymphadenectomy. Six of the 10 patients had endometrial cancer on final pathology, but none had positive lymph nodes.

“Given the low-grade and early-stage disease in this cohort, adherence to a routine sentinel lymph node algorithm in all patients with EIN would result in overtreatment,” Dr. Abt said.

Discussant Nicole Fleming, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said she would advocate for more selective use of sentinel lymph node biopsies in EIN as well.

Dr. Fleming said, in general, lymph node biopsy may be reasonable in settings where frozen sections are unreliable and the patient seems to be at high risk of invasive cancer. However, at academic centers with dedicated gynecologic pathologists, given the low risk of invasive cancer and the fact that lymph nodes “are probably not going to provide you a lot of useful therapeutic decision-making tools,” potentially eliminating sentinel lymph node biopsy might make sense, Dr. Fleming said.

Dr. Fleming disclosed relationships with Tesaro, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, and GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Abt reported having no relevant disclosures and did not report any study funding.

[email protected]

Preoperative endometrial thickness is associated with the risk of endometrial cancer in patients with endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia (EIN) and could potentially be used to guide lymph node assessment, according to investigators.

In a retrospective study of 378 patients who had hysterectomies for EIN, those with a preoperative endometrial stripe of 20 mm or greater were two times more likely to have endometrial cancer on final pathology, and those with an endometrial thickness of 15 mm or greater were 1.8 times more likely to have cancer.

“This data suggests that increasing endometrial thickness may be a useful preoperative marker to identify who’s at higher risk of concurrent endometrial cancer. It could also be considered a criterion for selectively using a sentinel lymph node algorithm in patients with a preoperative diagnosis of EIN. However, prospective studies are warranted to further establish this association,” said Devon Abt, MD, of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.

She presented the data at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Virtual Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer (Abstract 11103).
 

Risk of overtreatment

There are no clear consensus guidelines on lymph node assessment for patients with EIN, Dr. Abt noted. She pointed out that roughly 40% of patients with EIN are diagnosed with endometrial cancer. However, it’s usually low-stage, low-grade disease, and only about 10% of patients will have high-risk features that warrant lymph node evaluation.

“Typically, we identify patients with concurrent endometrial cancer based on intraoperative pathology, or frozen section,” Dr. Abt explained. “We then apply the Mayo criteria, which stratifies patients as high or low risk for lymph node metastasis based on pathologic criteria. ... This information helps guide our intraoperative decisions to perform, or not perform, pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy.”

Dr. Abt noted, however, that “lymphadenectomy is not benign” and increases surgical time as well as the risk of complications.

Taking these factors into account, some centers have implemented routine sentinel lymph node algorithms for staging endometrial cancers, Dr. Abt said.

What she and her colleagues wanted to determine is if there is value in this practice. Should sentinel lymph node mapping and biopsy be offered routinely to all patients with a preoperative diagnosis of EIN?
 

Study details

Dr. Abt and colleagues conducted a retrospective, single-center study of 378 patients with EIN. Ultimately, 27% (n = 103) of the patients were diagnosed with endometrial cancer – 95% with stage 1a disease and 5% with stage 1b.

Increasing age, White race, and hypertension were significantly associated with the presence of endometrial cancer. Body mass index, parity, hormone therapy exposure, and baseline CA 125 were not.

The median preoperative endometrial thickness was 14 mm among patients with endometrial cancer and 11 mm in patients without cancer (P = .002).

Overall, 31% of the cancer cases were considered high risk for nodal metastases by Mayo criteria, but an endometrial stripe of 15 mm or higher increased the chance of being considered high risk.

The risk of cancer was 47% among patients with an endometrial stripe of at least 20 mm versus 21% among patients with a measurement below 15 mm.

Only 10 patients underwent lymph node evaluation, 5 with sentinel lymph node dissection and 5 with lymphadenectomy. Six of the 10 patients had endometrial cancer on final pathology, but none had positive lymph nodes.

“Given the low-grade and early-stage disease in this cohort, adherence to a routine sentinel lymph node algorithm in all patients with EIN would result in overtreatment,” Dr. Abt said.

Discussant Nicole Fleming, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said she would advocate for more selective use of sentinel lymph node biopsies in EIN as well.

Dr. Fleming said, in general, lymph node biopsy may be reasonable in settings where frozen sections are unreliable and the patient seems to be at high risk of invasive cancer. However, at academic centers with dedicated gynecologic pathologists, given the low risk of invasive cancer and the fact that lymph nodes “are probably not going to provide you a lot of useful therapeutic decision-making tools,” potentially eliminating sentinel lymph node biopsy might make sense, Dr. Fleming said.

Dr. Fleming disclosed relationships with Tesaro, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, and GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Abt reported having no relevant disclosures and did not report any study funding.

[email protected]

Preoperative endometrial thickness is associated with the risk of endometrial cancer in patients with endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia (EIN) and could potentially be used to guide lymph node assessment, according to investigators.

In a retrospective study of 378 patients who had hysterectomies for EIN, those with a preoperative endometrial stripe of 20 mm or greater were two times more likely to have endometrial cancer on final pathology, and those with an endometrial thickness of 15 mm or greater were 1.8 times more likely to have cancer.

“This data suggests that increasing endometrial thickness may be a useful preoperative marker to identify who’s at higher risk of concurrent endometrial cancer. It could also be considered a criterion for selectively using a sentinel lymph node algorithm in patients with a preoperative diagnosis of EIN. However, prospective studies are warranted to further establish this association,” said Devon Abt, MD, of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.

She presented the data at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Virtual Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer (Abstract 11103).
 

Risk of overtreatment

There are no clear consensus guidelines on lymph node assessment for patients with EIN, Dr. Abt noted. She pointed out that roughly 40% of patients with EIN are diagnosed with endometrial cancer. However, it’s usually low-stage, low-grade disease, and only about 10% of patients will have high-risk features that warrant lymph node evaluation.

“Typically, we identify patients with concurrent endometrial cancer based on intraoperative pathology, or frozen section,” Dr. Abt explained. “We then apply the Mayo criteria, which stratifies patients as high or low risk for lymph node metastasis based on pathologic criteria. ... This information helps guide our intraoperative decisions to perform, or not perform, pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy.”

Dr. Abt noted, however, that “lymphadenectomy is not benign” and increases surgical time as well as the risk of complications.

Taking these factors into account, some centers have implemented routine sentinel lymph node algorithms for staging endometrial cancers, Dr. Abt said.

What she and her colleagues wanted to determine is if there is value in this practice. Should sentinel lymph node mapping and biopsy be offered routinely to all patients with a preoperative diagnosis of EIN?
 

Study details

Dr. Abt and colleagues conducted a retrospective, single-center study of 378 patients with EIN. Ultimately, 27% (n = 103) of the patients were diagnosed with endometrial cancer – 95% with stage 1a disease and 5% with stage 1b.

Increasing age, White race, and hypertension were significantly associated with the presence of endometrial cancer. Body mass index, parity, hormone therapy exposure, and baseline CA 125 were not.

The median preoperative endometrial thickness was 14 mm among patients with endometrial cancer and 11 mm in patients without cancer (P = .002).

Overall, 31% of the cancer cases were considered high risk for nodal metastases by Mayo criteria, but an endometrial stripe of 15 mm or higher increased the chance of being considered high risk.

The risk of cancer was 47% among patients with an endometrial stripe of at least 20 mm versus 21% among patients with a measurement below 15 mm.

Only 10 patients underwent lymph node evaluation, 5 with sentinel lymph node dissection and 5 with lymphadenectomy. Six of the 10 patients had endometrial cancer on final pathology, but none had positive lymph nodes.

“Given the low-grade and early-stage disease in this cohort, adherence to a routine sentinel lymph node algorithm in all patients with EIN would result in overtreatment,” Dr. Abt said.

Discussant Nicole Fleming, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said she would advocate for more selective use of sentinel lymph node biopsies in EIN as well.

Dr. Fleming said, in general, lymph node biopsy may be reasonable in settings where frozen sections are unreliable and the patient seems to be at high risk of invasive cancer. However, at academic centers with dedicated gynecologic pathologists, given the low risk of invasive cancer and the fact that lymph nodes “are probably not going to provide you a lot of useful therapeutic decision-making tools,” potentially eliminating sentinel lymph node biopsy might make sense, Dr. Fleming said.

Dr. Fleming disclosed relationships with Tesaro, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, and GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Abt reported having no relevant disclosures and did not report any study funding.

[email protected]

People who identify as transgender experience many health disparities, in addition to lack of access to quality care. The most commonly cited barrier is the lack of providers who are knowledgeable about transgender health care, according to past surveys.

Even those who do seek care often have unpleasant experiences. A 2015 survey conducted by the National Center for Transgender Equality found that 33% of those who saw a health care provider reported at least one  unfavorable experience related to being transgender, such as being verbally harassed or refused treatment because of their gender identity. In fact, 23% of those surveyed say they did not seek health care they needed in the past year because of fear of being mistreated as a transgender person.

To find out how physicians can provide more compassionate, effective care for this group, this news organization spoke with K. Ashley Brandt, DO, gender-affirming surgeon and obstetrician/gynecologist in West Reading, Penn. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Question: Surveys have shown that many people who identify as transgender will seek only transition care, not primary or preventive care. Why is that?

Dr. Brandt: My answer is multifactorial. Transgender patients do seek primary care – just not as readily. There’s a lot of misconceptions about health care needs for the LGBT community in general. For example, lesbian or bisexual women may be not as well informed about the need for Pap smears compared with their heterosexual counterparts. These misconceptions are further exacerbated in the transgender community.

The fact that a lot of patients seek only transition-related care, but not preventive services, such as primary care and gynecologic care, is also related to fears of discrimination and lack of education of providers. These patients are afraid when they walk into an office that they will be misgendered or their physician won’t be familiar with their health care needs.

What can clinics and clinicians do to create a safe and welcoming environment?

Dr. Brandt: It starts with educating office staff about terminology and gender identities.

A key feature of our EHR is the sexual orientation and gender identity platform, which asks questions about a patient’s gender identity, sexual orientation, sex assigned at birth, and organ inventory. These data are then found in the patient information tab and are just as relevant as their insurance status, age, and date of birth.

There are many ways a doctor’s office can signal to patients that they are inclusive. They can hang LGBTQ-friendly flags or symbols or a sign saying, “We have an anti-discrimination policy” in the waiting room.  A welcoming environment can also be achieved by revising patient questionnaires or forms so that they aren’t gender-specific or binary.

Given that the patient may have limited contact with a primary care clinician, how do you prioritize what you address during the visit?

Dr. Brandt: Similar to cisgender patients, it depends initially on the age of the patient and the reason for the visit. The priorities of an otherwise healthy transgender patient in their 20s are going to be largely the same as for a cisgender patient of the same age. As patients age in the primary care world, you’re addressing more issues, such as colorectal screening, lipid disorders, and mammograms, and that doesn’t change. For the most part, the problems that you address should be specific for that age group.

It becomes more complicated when you add in factors such as hormone therapy and whether patients have had any type of gender-affirming surgery. Those things can change the usual recommendations for screening or risk assessment. We try to figure out what routine health maintenance and cancer screening a patient needs based on age and risk factors, in addition to hormone status and surgical state.

Do you think that many physicians are educated about the care of underserved populations such as transgender patients?

Dr. Brandt: Yes and no. We are definitely getting better at it. For example, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists published a committee opinion highlighting transgender care. So organizations are starting to prioritize these populations and recognize that they are, in fact, underserved and they have special health care needs.

However, the knowledge gaps are still pretty big. I get calls daily from providers asking questions about how to manage patients on hormones, or how to examine a patient who has undergone a vaginoplasty. I hear a lot of horror stories from transgender patients who had their hormones stopped for absurd and medically misinformed reasons.

But I definitely think it’s getting better and it’s being addressed at all levels – the medical school level, the residency level, and the attending level. It just takes time to inform people and for people to get used to the health care needs of these patients.

What should physicians keep in mind when treating patients who identify as transgender?

Dr. Brandt: First and foremost, understanding the terminology and the difference between gender identity, sex, and sexual orientation. Being familiar with that language and being able to speak that language very comfortably and not being awkward about it is a really important thing for primary care physicians and indeed any physician who treats transgender patients.

Physicians should also be aware that any underserved population has higher rates of mental health issues, such as depression and anxiety. Obviously, that goes along with being underserved and the stigma and the disparities that exist for these patients. Having providers educate themselves about what those disparities are and how they impact a patient’s daily life and health is paramount to knowing how to treat patients.

What are your top health concerns for these patients and how do you address them?

Dr. Brandt: I think mental health and safety is probably the number one for me. About 41% of transgender adults have attempted suicide. That number is roughly 51% in transgender youth. That is an astonishing number. These patients have much higher rates of domestic violence, intimate partner violence, and sexual assault, especially trans women and trans women of color. So understanding those statistics is huge.

Obesity, smoking, and substance abuse are my next three. Again, those are things that should be addressed at any visit, regardless of the gender identity or sexual orientation of the patient, but those rates are particularly high in this population.

Fertility and long-term care for patients should be addressed. Many patients who identify as transgender are told they can’t have a family. As a primary care physician, you may see a patient before they are seen by an ob.gyn. or surgeon. Talking about what a patient’s long-term life goals are with fertility and family planning, and what that looks like for them, is a big thing for me. Other providers may not feel that’s a concern, but I believe it should be discussed before initiation of hormone therapy, which can significantly impact fertility in some patients.

Are there nuances to the physical examination that primary care physicians should be aware of when dealing with transmasculine patients vs. transfeminine patients?

Dr. Brandt: Absolutely. And this interview can’t cover the scope of those nuances. An example that comes to mind is the genital exam. For transgender women who have undergone a vaginoplasty, the pelvic exam can be very affirming. Whereas for transgender men, a gynecologic exam can significantly exacerbate dysphoria and there are ways to conduct the exam to limit this discomfort and avoid creating a traumatic experience for the patient. It’s important to be aware that the genital exam, or any type of genitourinary exam, can be either affirming or not affirming.

Sexually transmitted infections are up in the general population, and the trans population is at even higher risk. What should physicians think about when they assess this risk?

Dr. Brandt: It’s really important for primary care clinicians and for gynecologists to learn to be comfortable talking about sexual practices, because what people do behind closed doors is really a key to how to counsel patients about safe sex.

People are well aware of the need to have safe sex. However, depending on the type of sex that you’re having, what body parts go where, what is truly safe can vary and people may not know, for example, to wear a condom when sex toys are involved or that a transgender male on testosterone can become pregnant during penile-vaginal intercourse. Providers really should be very educated on the array of sexual practices that people have and how to counsel them about those. They should know how to ask patients the gender identity of their sexual partners, the sexual orientation of their partners, and what parts go where during sex.

Providers should also talk to patients about PrEP [pre-exposure prophylaxis], whether they identify as cisgender or transgender. My trans patients tend to be a lot more educated about PrEP than other patients. It’s something that many of the residents, even in a standard gynecologic clinic, for example, don’t talk to cisgender patients about because of the stigma surrounding HIV. Many providers still think that the only people who are at risk for HIV are men who have sex with men. And while those rates are higher in some populations, depending on sexual practices, those aren’t the only patients who qualify for PrEP.

Overall, in order to counsel patients about STIs and safe sexual practices, providers should learn to be comfortable talking about sex.

Do you have any strategies on how to make the appointment more successful in addressing those issues?

Dr. Brandt: Bedside manner is a hard thing to teach, and comfort in talking about sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation can vary – but there are a lot of continuing medical education courses that physicians can utilize through the World Professional Association for Transgender Health.

If providers start to notice an influx of patients who identify as transgender or if they want to start seeing transgender patients, it’s really important for them to have that training before they start interacting with patients. In all of medicine, we sort of learn as we go, but this patient population has been subjected to discrimination, violence, error, and misgendering. They have dealt with providers who didn’t understand their health care needs. While this field is evolving, knowing how to appropriately address a patient (using their correct name, pronouns, etc.) is an absolute must.

That needs to be part of a provider’s routine vernacular and not something that they sort of stumble through. You can scare a patient away as soon as they walk into the office with an uneducated front desk staff and things that are seen in the office. Seeking out those educational tools, being aware of your own deficits as a provider and the educational needs of your office, and addressing those needs is really key.

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

People who identify as transgender experience many health disparities, in addition to lack of access to quality care. The most commonly cited barrier is the lack of providers who are knowledgeable about transgender health care, according to past surveys.

Even those who do seek care often have unpleasant experiences. A 2015 survey conducted by the National Center for Transgender Equality found that 33% of those who saw a health care provider reported at least one  unfavorable experience related to being transgender, such as being verbally harassed or refused treatment because of their gender identity. In fact, 23% of those surveyed say they did not seek health care they needed in the past year because of fear of being mistreated as a transgender person.

To find out how physicians can provide more compassionate, effective care for this group, this news organization spoke with K. Ashley Brandt, DO, gender-affirming surgeon and obstetrician/gynecologist in West Reading, Penn. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Question: Surveys have shown that many people who identify as transgender will seek only transition care, not primary or preventive care. Why is that?

Dr. Brandt: My answer is multifactorial. Transgender patients do seek primary care – just not as readily. There’s a lot of misconceptions about health care needs for the LGBT community in general. For example, lesbian or bisexual women may be not as well informed about the need for Pap smears compared with their heterosexual counterparts. These misconceptions are further exacerbated in the transgender community.

The fact that a lot of patients seek only transition-related care, but not preventive services, such as primary care and gynecologic care, is also related to fears of discrimination and lack of education of providers. These patients are afraid when they walk into an office that they will be misgendered or their physician won’t be familiar with their health care needs.

What can clinics and clinicians do to create a safe and welcoming environment?

Dr. Brandt: It starts with educating office staff about terminology and gender identities.

A key feature of our EHR is the sexual orientation and gender identity platform, which asks questions about a patient’s gender identity, sexual orientation, sex assigned at birth, and organ inventory. These data are then found in the patient information tab and are just as relevant as their insurance status, age, and date of birth.

There are many ways a doctor’s office can signal to patients that they are inclusive. They can hang LGBTQ-friendly flags or symbols or a sign saying, “We have an anti-discrimination policy” in the waiting room.  A welcoming environment can also be achieved by revising patient questionnaires or forms so that they aren’t gender-specific or binary.

Given that the patient may have limited contact with a primary care clinician, how do you prioritize what you address during the visit?

Dr. Brandt: Similar to cisgender patients, it depends initially on the age of the patient and the reason for the visit. The priorities of an otherwise healthy transgender patient in their 20s are going to be largely the same as for a cisgender patient of the same age. As patients age in the primary care world, you’re addressing more issues, such as colorectal screening, lipid disorders, and mammograms, and that doesn’t change. For the most part, the problems that you address should be specific for that age group.

It becomes more complicated when you add in factors such as hormone therapy and whether patients have had any type of gender-affirming surgery. Those things can change the usual recommendations for screening or risk assessment. We try to figure out what routine health maintenance and cancer screening a patient needs based on age and risk factors, in addition to hormone status and surgical state.

Do you think that many physicians are educated about the care of underserved populations such as transgender patients?

Dr. Brandt: Yes and no. We are definitely getting better at it. For example, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists published a committee opinion highlighting transgender care. So organizations are starting to prioritize these populations and recognize that they are, in fact, underserved and they have special health care needs.

However, the knowledge gaps are still pretty big. I get calls daily from providers asking questions about how to manage patients on hormones, or how to examine a patient who has undergone a vaginoplasty. I hear a lot of horror stories from transgender patients who had their hormones stopped for absurd and medically misinformed reasons.

But I definitely think it’s getting better and it’s being addressed at all levels – the medical school level, the residency level, and the attending level. It just takes time to inform people and for people to get used to the health care needs of these patients.

What should physicians keep in mind when treating patients who identify as transgender?

Dr. Brandt: First and foremost, understanding the terminology and the difference between gender identity, sex, and sexual orientation. Being familiar with that language and being able to speak that language very comfortably and not being awkward about it is a really important thing for primary care physicians and indeed any physician who treats transgender patients.

Physicians should also be aware that any underserved population has higher rates of mental health issues, such as depression and anxiety. Obviously, that goes along with being underserved and the stigma and the disparities that exist for these patients. Having providers educate themselves about what those disparities are and how they impact a patient’s daily life and health is paramount to knowing how to treat patients.

What are your top health concerns for these patients and how do you address them?

Dr. Brandt: I think mental health and safety is probably the number one for me. About 41% of transgender adults have attempted suicide. That number is roughly 51% in transgender youth. That is an astonishing number. These patients have much higher rates of domestic violence, intimate partner violence, and sexual assault, especially trans women and trans women of color. So understanding those statistics is huge.

Obesity, smoking, and substance abuse are my next three. Again, those are things that should be addressed at any visit, regardless of the gender identity or sexual orientation of the patient, but those rates are particularly high in this population.

Fertility and long-term care for patients should be addressed. Many patients who identify as transgender are told they can’t have a family. As a primary care physician, you may see a patient before they are seen by an ob.gyn. or surgeon. Talking about what a patient’s long-term life goals are with fertility and family planning, and what that looks like for them, is a big thing for me. Other providers may not feel that’s a concern, but I believe it should be discussed before initiation of hormone therapy, which can significantly impact fertility in some patients.

Are there nuances to the physical examination that primary care physicians should be aware of when dealing with transmasculine patients vs. transfeminine patients?

Dr. Brandt: Absolutely. And this interview can’t cover the scope of those nuances. An example that comes to mind is the genital exam. For transgender women who have undergone a vaginoplasty, the pelvic exam can be very affirming. Whereas for transgender men, a gynecologic exam can significantly exacerbate dysphoria and there are ways to conduct the exam to limit this discomfort and avoid creating a traumatic experience for the patient. It’s important to be aware that the genital exam, or any type of genitourinary exam, can be either affirming or not affirming.

Sexually transmitted infections are up in the general population, and the trans population is at even higher risk. What should physicians think about when they assess this risk?

Dr. Brandt: It’s really important for primary care clinicians and for gynecologists to learn to be comfortable talking about sexual practices, because what people do behind closed doors is really a key to how to counsel patients about safe sex.

People are well aware of the need to have safe sex. However, depending on the type of sex that you’re having, what body parts go where, what is truly safe can vary and people may not know, for example, to wear a condom when sex toys are involved or that a transgender male on testosterone can become pregnant during penile-vaginal intercourse. Providers really should be very educated on the array of sexual practices that people have and how to counsel them about those. They should know how to ask patients the gender identity of their sexual partners, the sexual orientation of their partners, and what parts go where during sex.

Providers should also talk to patients about PrEP [pre-exposure prophylaxis], whether they identify as cisgender or transgender. My trans patients tend to be a lot more educated about PrEP than other patients. It’s something that many of the residents, even in a standard gynecologic clinic, for example, don’t talk to cisgender patients about because of the stigma surrounding HIV. Many providers still think that the only people who are at risk for HIV are men who have sex with men. And while those rates are higher in some populations, depending on sexual practices, those aren’t the only patients who qualify for PrEP.

Overall, in order to counsel patients about STIs and safe sexual practices, providers should learn to be comfortable talking about sex.

Do you have any strategies on how to make the appointment more successful in addressing those issues?

Dr. Brandt: Bedside manner is a hard thing to teach, and comfort in talking about sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation can vary – but there are a lot of continuing medical education courses that physicians can utilize through the World Professional Association for Transgender Health.

If providers start to notice an influx of patients who identify as transgender or if they want to start seeing transgender patients, it’s really important for them to have that training before they start interacting with patients. In all of medicine, we sort of learn as we go, but this patient population has been subjected to discrimination, violence, error, and misgendering. They have dealt with providers who didn’t understand their health care needs. While this field is evolving, knowing how to appropriately address a patient (using their correct name, pronouns, etc.) is an absolute must.

That needs to be part of a provider’s routine vernacular and not something that they sort of stumble through. You can scare a patient away as soon as they walk into the office with an uneducated front desk staff and things that are seen in the office. Seeking out those educational tools, being aware of your own deficits as a provider and the educational needs of your office, and addressing those needs is really key.

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

People who identify as transgender experience many health disparities, in addition to lack of access to quality care. The most commonly cited barrier is the lack of providers who are knowledgeable about transgender health care, according to past surveys.

Even those who do seek care often have unpleasant experiences. A 2015 survey conducted by the National Center for Transgender Equality found that 33% of those who saw a health care provider reported at least one  unfavorable experience related to being transgender, such as being verbally harassed or refused treatment because of their gender identity. In fact, 23% of those surveyed say they did not seek health care they needed in the past year because of fear of being mistreated as a transgender person.

To find out how physicians can provide more compassionate, effective care for this group, this news organization spoke with K. Ashley Brandt, DO, gender-affirming surgeon and obstetrician/gynecologist in West Reading, Penn. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Question: Surveys have shown that many people who identify as transgender will seek only transition care, not primary or preventive care. Why is that?

Dr. Brandt: My answer is multifactorial. Transgender patients do seek primary care – just not as readily. There’s a lot of misconceptions about health care needs for the LGBT community in general. For example, lesbian or bisexual women may be not as well informed about the need for Pap smears compared with their heterosexual counterparts. These misconceptions are further exacerbated in the transgender community.

The fact that a lot of patients seek only transition-related care, but not preventive services, such as primary care and gynecologic care, is also related to fears of discrimination and lack of education of providers. These patients are afraid when they walk into an office that they will be misgendered or their physician won’t be familiar with their health care needs.

What can clinics and clinicians do to create a safe and welcoming environment?

Dr. Brandt: It starts with educating office staff about terminology and gender identities.

A key feature of our EHR is the sexual orientation and gender identity platform, which asks questions about a patient’s gender identity, sexual orientation, sex assigned at birth, and organ inventory. These data are then found in the patient information tab and are just as relevant as their insurance status, age, and date of birth.

There are many ways a doctor’s office can signal to patients that they are inclusive. They can hang LGBTQ-friendly flags or symbols or a sign saying, “We have an anti-discrimination policy” in the waiting room.  A welcoming environment can also be achieved by revising patient questionnaires or forms so that they aren’t gender-specific or binary.

Given that the patient may have limited contact with a primary care clinician, how do you prioritize what you address during the visit?

Dr. Brandt: Similar to cisgender patients, it depends initially on the age of the patient and the reason for the visit. The priorities of an otherwise healthy transgender patient in their 20s are going to be largely the same as for a cisgender patient of the same age. As patients age in the primary care world, you’re addressing more issues, such as colorectal screening, lipid disorders, and mammograms, and that doesn’t change. For the most part, the problems that you address should be specific for that age group.

It becomes more complicated when you add in factors such as hormone therapy and whether patients have had any type of gender-affirming surgery. Those things can change the usual recommendations for screening or risk assessment. We try to figure out what routine health maintenance and cancer screening a patient needs based on age and risk factors, in addition to hormone status and surgical state.

Do you think that many physicians are educated about the care of underserved populations such as transgender patients?

Dr. Brandt: Yes and no. We are definitely getting better at it. For example, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists published a committee opinion highlighting transgender care. So organizations are starting to prioritize these populations and recognize that they are, in fact, underserved and they have special health care needs.

However, the knowledge gaps are still pretty big. I get calls daily from providers asking questions about how to manage patients on hormones, or how to examine a patient who has undergone a vaginoplasty. I hear a lot of horror stories from transgender patients who had their hormones stopped for absurd and medically misinformed reasons.

But I definitely think it’s getting better and it’s being addressed at all levels – the medical school level, the residency level, and the attending level. It just takes time to inform people and for people to get used to the health care needs of these patients.

What should physicians keep in mind when treating patients who identify as transgender?

Dr. Brandt: First and foremost, understanding the terminology and the difference between gender identity, sex, and sexual orientation. Being familiar with that language and being able to speak that language very comfortably and not being awkward about it is a really important thing for primary care physicians and indeed any physician who treats transgender patients.

Physicians should also be aware that any underserved population has higher rates of mental health issues, such as depression and anxiety. Obviously, that goes along with being underserved and the stigma and the disparities that exist for these patients. Having providers educate themselves about what those disparities are and how they impact a patient’s daily life and health is paramount to knowing how to treat patients.

What are your top health concerns for these patients and how do you address them?

Dr. Brandt: I think mental health and safety is probably the number one for me. About 41% of transgender adults have attempted suicide. That number is roughly 51% in transgender youth. That is an astonishing number. These patients have much higher rates of domestic violence, intimate partner violence, and sexual assault, especially trans women and trans women of color. So understanding those statistics is huge.

Obesity, smoking, and substance abuse are my next three. Again, those are things that should be addressed at any visit, regardless of the gender identity or sexual orientation of the patient, but those rates are particularly high in this population.

Fertility and long-term care for patients should be addressed. Many patients who identify as transgender are told they can’t have a family. As a primary care physician, you may see a patient before they are seen by an ob.gyn. or surgeon. Talking about what a patient’s long-term life goals are with fertility and family planning, and what that looks like for them, is a big thing for me. Other providers may not feel that’s a concern, but I believe it should be discussed before initiation of hormone therapy, which can significantly impact fertility in some patients.

Are there nuances to the physical examination that primary care physicians should be aware of when dealing with transmasculine patients vs. transfeminine patients?

Dr. Brandt: Absolutely. And this interview can’t cover the scope of those nuances. An example that comes to mind is the genital exam. For transgender women who have undergone a vaginoplasty, the pelvic exam can be very affirming. Whereas for transgender men, a gynecologic exam can significantly exacerbate dysphoria and there are ways to conduct the exam to limit this discomfort and avoid creating a traumatic experience for the patient. It’s important to be aware that the genital exam, or any type of genitourinary exam, can be either affirming or not affirming.

Sexually transmitted infections are up in the general population, and the trans population is at even higher risk. What should physicians think about when they assess this risk?

Dr. Brandt: It’s really important for primary care clinicians and for gynecologists to learn to be comfortable talking about sexual practices, because what people do behind closed doors is really a key to how to counsel patients about safe sex.

People are well aware of the need to have safe sex. However, depending on the type of sex that you’re having, what body parts go where, what is truly safe can vary and people may not know, for example, to wear a condom when sex toys are involved or that a transgender male on testosterone can become pregnant during penile-vaginal intercourse. Providers really should be very educated on the array of sexual practices that people have and how to counsel them about those. They should know how to ask patients the gender identity of their sexual partners, the sexual orientation of their partners, and what parts go where during sex.

Providers should also talk to patients about PrEP [pre-exposure prophylaxis], whether they identify as cisgender or transgender. My trans patients tend to be a lot more educated about PrEP than other patients. It’s something that many of the residents, even in a standard gynecologic clinic, for example, don’t talk to cisgender patients about because of the stigma surrounding HIV. Many providers still think that the only people who are at risk for HIV are men who have sex with men. And while those rates are higher in some populations, depending on sexual practices, those aren’t the only patients who qualify for PrEP.

Overall, in order to counsel patients about STIs and safe sexual practices, providers should learn to be comfortable talking about sex.

Do you have any strategies on how to make the appointment more successful in addressing those issues?

Dr. Brandt: Bedside manner is a hard thing to teach, and comfort in talking about sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation can vary – but there are a lot of continuing medical education courses that physicians can utilize through the World Professional Association for Transgender Health.

If providers start to notice an influx of patients who identify as transgender or if they want to start seeing transgender patients, it’s really important for them to have that training before they start interacting with patients. In all of medicine, we sort of learn as we go, but this patient population has been subjected to discrimination, violence, error, and misgendering. They have dealt with providers who didn’t understand their health care needs. While this field is evolving, knowing how to appropriately address a patient (using their correct name, pronouns, etc.) is an absolute must.

That needs to be part of a provider’s routine vernacular and not something that they sort of stumble through. You can scare a patient away as soon as they walk into the office with an uneducated front desk staff and things that are seen in the office. Seeking out those educational tools, being aware of your own deficits as a provider and the educational needs of your office, and addressing those needs is really key.

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

Pneumonitis is an uncommon and potentially life-threatening complication of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy. A fraction of patients with ICI-related pneumonitis fail to respond to initial therapy with high-dose systemic steroids.

The recently published experiences at two major cancer centers shed light on the outcomes from treatment and can provide some advice to clinicians for dealing with affected patients.
 

The Johns Hopkins experience

Because ICI-related pneumonitis typically improves within 48-72 hours of steroid therapy, at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, steroid-refractory pneumonitis is defined as pneumonitis that demonstrates no clinical improvement after high-dose corticosteroids for 2-14 days. If the immune toxicity–specialized, multidisciplinary management team implements additional immunosuppressive therapy, that is regarded as confirmatory evidence.

Aanika Balaji, a medical student at Johns Hopkins University, and colleagues retrospectively summarized the clinical course of 12 patients with ICI-related pneumonitis between 2011 and 2020. Clinical improvement with subsequent treatment was evidenced by reduction in either level of care or oxygen requirements.

Three-quarters of the patients were current or former smokers, and the same proportion had lung cancer. Most patients (91.6%) had received chemotherapy, 58.3% had prior chest radiotherapy, and 58.3% had achieved partial response or stable disease with an ICI.

Steroid-refractory ICI-related pneumonitis developed between 40 and 127 days (median, 85 days) after the first dose of ICI therapy. Subsequent immunosuppressive management included IVIg, infliximab, or the combination, in addition to ICU-level supportive care.

Among the seven patients who received IVIg alone, two patients (29%) achieved clinical improvement and hospital discharge. The remainder died.

The two patients treated with infliximab and the three patients treated with sequential IVIg and infliximab died. All deaths were attributed to ICI-related pneumonitis or infectious complications.

Overall, clinically relevant findings were:

• Steroid-refractory ICI-related pneumonitis was seen in 18.5% of patients referred for multidisciplinary care.
• Steroid-refractory ICI-related pneumonitis occurred at a median of 85 days into a patient’s ICI treatment.
• Some patients improved clinically after IVIg therapy, but mortality was high overall.
• Infliximab therapy, alone or in combination with IVIg, was ineffective.

The Memorial Sloan Kettering experience

Jason Beattie, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, and colleagues performed a retrospective study of patients who had pneumonitis after ICI therapy and/or received immune modulator therapy after corticosteroids in the setting of ICI cancer treatment.

Manual record review was performed to exclude cases of pneumonitis from other causes. The period reviewed was roughly contemporaneous with the Johns Hopkins series.

Patients with ICI-related pneumonitis were divided into “steroid refractory” (i.e., no response to high-dose corticosteroids) or “steroid resistant” (i.e., initial response, followed by worsening) categories.

The researchers identified 26 patients with ICI-related pneumonitis, all of whom had advanced malignancy (8 lung cancer, 4 malignant melanoma, 4 renal cell cancer, and 10 “other” cancers).

A majority of patients (85%) were current or former smokers, 73% had received ICI monotherapy, 35% had received prior chest radiation at a median interval of 4.9 months prior to pneumonitis onset, and 27% had preexisting pulmonary disease.

Twelve patients (46%) had steroid-refractory ICI-related pneumonitis, and 14 (54%) had steroid-resistant ICI-related pneumonitis.

The two groups differed in time to pneumonitis onset (a median of 68 days in the refractory group and 182 days in the resistant group) and time to immune modulator therapy after beginning steroids (median 7 days and 2.9 months, respectively). In the steroid-refractory cases, pneumonitis was more severe.

In addition to corticosteroids, most patients received infliximab monotherapy or infliximab with mycophenolate mofetil. In contrast to the Johns Hopkins series, IVIg was not used in the Memorial Sloan Kettering cases.

Outcomes from immune modulators were graded based on clinical evidence (progress notes, oxygen requirements, level of care, radiologic information, etc.) of resolution of pneumonitis on imaging at least 8 weeks after cessation of steroids and immune modulator therapy, durable improvement for at least 8 weeks after immune modulator therapy, transient improvement followed by pneumonitis relapse or inadequate follow-up because of death or hospice referral, or no improvement.

Ten patients (38%) had durable improvement of ICI-related pneumonitis, of whom three (12%) had complete resolution. Two of the patients with complete resolution had steroid-refractory pneumonitis, both of whom had received infliximab followed by mycophenolate mofetil.

Among the seven patients with durable improvement, four remained alive on immune modulators. Time to resolution of pneumonitis was protracted, ranging from 2.3 months to 8.4 months in the steroid-refractory patients.

Durable response was less common with steroid-refractory (25%) than steroid-resistant (50%) disease, with a significant difference in 90-day survival of 25% and 71%, respectively.

Among the 13 (50%) patients with transient improvement in ICI-related pneumonitis, 8 ultimately died, either because of recurrent ICI-related pneumonitis or infection. All three patients with no improvement from immune modulators died.

The 90-day all-cause mortality was 50%, with durable pneumonitis improvement and freedom from severe infectious complications occurring in only about a third of patients.
 

Lessons for clinicians

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network, the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer, and the European Society of Medical Oncology have all published guidelines and recommendations for immunosuppression for steroid-refractory adverse events from ICIs.

Unfortunately, there is little experience with steroid-unresponsive ICI-related pneumonitis. The ideal sequence, dose, and duration of additional immune modulator therapy for ICI-related pneumonitis are unclear and may differ from the approaches to other immune-related toxicities.

This is important because, as suggested in an editorial by Margaret Gatti-Mays, MD, and James L. Gulley, MD, PhD, it is likely that ICI-related pneumonitis will be seen more in routine practice than in clinical trial populations. In addition, across all tumor types, ICI-related pneumonitis is the most common cause of ICI-associated death from toxicity.

The retrospective studies from Johns Hopkins and Memorial Sloan Kettering constitute the largest published experience with ICI-related pneumonitis and yield important clinical insights.

Uniform definitions of potentially important patient subgroups (e.g., steroid refractory vs. steroid resistant) are needed. The steroid-refractory and steroid-resistant subgroups have distinctly different clinical features and outcomes. Uniformity in the subgroup definitions would be a useful starting point from both clinical and research perspectives.

Preferred treatment choices need to be tested systematically in multi-institutional studies. Any potential impact of treatment for ICI-related pneumonitis on antitumor immune control should be identified.

Endpoints of interest need to be defined and measured prospectively. All-cause mortality after 90 days is important, but, as the authors of both reviews noted, there are vitally important narratives and differences in functionality that are completely concealed by restricting the focus to mortality.

Potential causal relationships with antecedent exposure to tobacco, radiation, intrathoracic tumor burden, or other factors need to be defined.

Clinicians need predictive biomarkers for ICI-related pneumonitis (e.g., in peripheral blood, pulmonary function testing, or bronchoscopy specimens). At-risk patients may benefit from early intervention.

The limitations of single-institution record reviews in guiding real-world patient management notwithstanding, these reviews illustrate the value of registries and prospective studies to guide the path forward. Taking these next steps will ensure for our patients that the success of immune-targeted therapy against their cancer never becomes a Pyrrhic victory.

The Johns Hopkins investigators and the editorialists reported having no disclosures. The Memorial Sloan Kettering investigators disclosed relationships with Targeted Oncology, Merck, Array BioPharma, Novartis, and many other companies.

Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

Pneumonitis is an uncommon and potentially life-threatening complication of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy. A fraction of patients with ICI-related pneumonitis fail to respond to initial therapy with high-dose systemic steroids.

The recently published experiences at two major cancer centers shed light on the outcomes from treatment and can provide some advice to clinicians for dealing with affected patients.
 

The Johns Hopkins experience

Because ICI-related pneumonitis typically improves within 48-72 hours of steroid therapy, at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, steroid-refractory pneumonitis is defined as pneumonitis that demonstrates no clinical improvement after high-dose corticosteroids for 2-14 days. If the immune toxicity–specialized, multidisciplinary management team implements additional immunosuppressive therapy, that is regarded as confirmatory evidence.

Aanika Balaji, a medical student at Johns Hopkins University, and colleagues retrospectively summarized the clinical course of 12 patients with ICI-related pneumonitis between 2011 and 2020. Clinical improvement with subsequent treatment was evidenced by reduction in either level of care or oxygen requirements.

Three-quarters of the patients were current or former smokers, and the same proportion had lung cancer. Most patients (91.6%) had received chemotherapy, 58.3% had prior chest radiotherapy, and 58.3% had achieved partial response or stable disease with an ICI.

Steroid-refractory ICI-related pneumonitis developed between 40 and 127 days (median, 85 days) after the first dose of ICI therapy. Subsequent immunosuppressive management included IVIg, infliximab, or the combination, in addition to ICU-level supportive care.

Among the seven patients who received IVIg alone, two patients (29%) achieved clinical improvement and hospital discharge. The remainder died.

The two patients treated with infliximab and the three patients treated with sequential IVIg and infliximab died. All deaths were attributed to ICI-related pneumonitis or infectious complications.

Overall, clinically relevant findings were:

• Steroid-refractory ICI-related pneumonitis was seen in 18.5% of patients referred for multidisciplinary care.
• Steroid-refractory ICI-related pneumonitis occurred at a median of 85 days into a patient’s ICI treatment.
• Some patients improved clinically after IVIg therapy, but mortality was high overall.
• Infliximab therapy, alone or in combination with IVIg, was ineffective.

The Memorial Sloan Kettering experience

Jason Beattie, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, and colleagues performed a retrospective study of patients who had pneumonitis after ICI therapy and/or received immune modulator therapy after corticosteroids in the setting of ICI cancer treatment.

Manual record review was performed to exclude cases of pneumonitis from other causes. The period reviewed was roughly contemporaneous with the Johns Hopkins series.

Patients with ICI-related pneumonitis were divided into “steroid refractory” (i.e., no response to high-dose corticosteroids) or “steroid resistant” (i.e., initial response, followed by worsening) categories.

The researchers identified 26 patients with ICI-related pneumonitis, all of whom had advanced malignancy (8 lung cancer, 4 malignant melanoma, 4 renal cell cancer, and 10 “other” cancers).

A majority of patients (85%) were current or former smokers, 73% had received ICI monotherapy, 35% had received prior chest radiation at a median interval of 4.9 months prior to pneumonitis onset, and 27% had preexisting pulmonary disease.

Twelve patients (46%) had steroid-refractory ICI-related pneumonitis, and 14 (54%) had steroid-resistant ICI-related pneumonitis.

The two groups differed in time to pneumonitis onset (a median of 68 days in the refractory group and 182 days in the resistant group) and time to immune modulator therapy after beginning steroids (median 7 days and 2.9 months, respectively). In the steroid-refractory cases, pneumonitis was more severe.

In addition to corticosteroids, most patients received infliximab monotherapy or infliximab with mycophenolate mofetil. In contrast to the Johns Hopkins series, IVIg was not used in the Memorial Sloan Kettering cases.

Outcomes from immune modulators were graded based on clinical evidence (progress notes, oxygen requirements, level of care, radiologic information, etc.) of resolution of pneumonitis on imaging at least 8 weeks after cessation of steroids and immune modulator therapy, durable improvement for at least 8 weeks after immune modulator therapy, transient improvement followed by pneumonitis relapse or inadequate follow-up because of death or hospice referral, or no improvement.

Ten patients (38%) had durable improvement of ICI-related pneumonitis, of whom three (12%) had complete resolution. Two of the patients with complete resolution had steroid-refractory pneumonitis, both of whom had received infliximab followed by mycophenolate mofetil.

Among the seven patients with durable improvement, four remained alive on immune modulators. Time to resolution of pneumonitis was protracted, ranging from 2.3 months to 8.4 months in the steroid-refractory patients.

Durable response was less common with steroid-refractory (25%) than steroid-resistant (50%) disease, with a significant difference in 90-day survival of 25% and 71%, respectively.

Among the 13 (50%) patients with transient improvement in ICI-related pneumonitis, 8 ultimately died, either because of recurrent ICI-related pneumonitis or infection. All three patients with no improvement from immune modulators died.

The 90-day all-cause mortality was 50%, with durable pneumonitis improvement and freedom from severe infectious complications occurring in only about a third of patients.
 

Lessons for clinicians

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network, the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer, and the European Society of Medical Oncology have all published guidelines and recommendations for immunosuppression for steroid-refractory adverse events from ICIs.

Unfortunately, there is little experience with steroid-unresponsive ICI-related pneumonitis. The ideal sequence, dose, and duration of additional immune modulator therapy for ICI-related pneumonitis are unclear and may differ from the approaches to other immune-related toxicities.

This is important because, as suggested in an editorial by Margaret Gatti-Mays, MD, and James L. Gulley, MD, PhD, it is likely that ICI-related pneumonitis will be seen more in routine practice than in clinical trial populations. In addition, across all tumor types, ICI-related pneumonitis is the most common cause of ICI-associated death from toxicity.

The retrospective studies from Johns Hopkins and Memorial Sloan Kettering constitute the largest published experience with ICI-related pneumonitis and yield important clinical insights.

Uniform definitions of potentially important patient subgroups (e.g., steroid refractory vs. steroid resistant) are needed. The steroid-refractory and steroid-resistant subgroups have distinctly different clinical features and outcomes. Uniformity in the subgroup definitions would be a useful starting point from both clinical and research perspectives.

Preferred treatment choices need to be tested systematically in multi-institutional studies. Any potential impact of treatment for ICI-related pneumonitis on antitumor immune control should be identified.

Endpoints of interest need to be defined and measured prospectively. All-cause mortality after 90 days is important, but, as the authors of both reviews noted, there are vitally important narratives and differences in functionality that are completely concealed by restricting the focus to mortality.

Potential causal relationships with antecedent exposure to tobacco, radiation, intrathoracic tumor burden, or other factors need to be defined.

Clinicians need predictive biomarkers for ICI-related pneumonitis (e.g., in peripheral blood, pulmonary function testing, or bronchoscopy specimens). At-risk patients may benefit from early intervention.

The limitations of single-institution record reviews in guiding real-world patient management notwithstanding, these reviews illustrate the value of registries and prospective studies to guide the path forward. Taking these next steps will ensure for our patients that the success of immune-targeted therapy against their cancer never becomes a Pyrrhic victory.

The Johns Hopkins investigators and the editorialists reported having no disclosures. The Memorial Sloan Kettering investigators disclosed relationships with Targeted Oncology, Merck, Array BioPharma, Novartis, and many other companies.

Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

Pneumonitis is an uncommon and potentially life-threatening complication of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy. A fraction of patients with ICI-related pneumonitis fail to respond to initial therapy with high-dose systemic steroids.

The recently published experiences at two major cancer centers shed light on the outcomes from treatment and can provide some advice to clinicians for dealing with affected patients.
 

The Johns Hopkins experience

Because ICI-related pneumonitis typically improves within 48-72 hours of steroid therapy, at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, steroid-refractory pneumonitis is defined as pneumonitis that demonstrates no clinical improvement after high-dose corticosteroids for 2-14 days. If the immune toxicity–specialized, multidisciplinary management team implements additional immunosuppressive therapy, that is regarded as confirmatory evidence.

Aanika Balaji, a medical student at Johns Hopkins University, and colleagues retrospectively summarized the clinical course of 12 patients with ICI-related pneumonitis between 2011 and 2020. Clinical improvement with subsequent treatment was evidenced by reduction in either level of care or oxygen requirements.

Three-quarters of the patients were current or former smokers, and the same proportion had lung cancer. Most patients (91.6%) had received chemotherapy, 58.3% had prior chest radiotherapy, and 58.3% had achieved partial response or stable disease with an ICI.

Steroid-refractory ICI-related pneumonitis developed between 40 and 127 days (median, 85 days) after the first dose of ICI therapy. Subsequent immunosuppressive management included IVIg, infliximab, or the combination, in addition to ICU-level supportive care.

Among the seven patients who received IVIg alone, two patients (29%) achieved clinical improvement and hospital discharge. The remainder died.

The two patients treated with infliximab and the three patients treated with sequential IVIg and infliximab died. All deaths were attributed to ICI-related pneumonitis or infectious complications.

Overall, clinically relevant findings were:

• Steroid-refractory ICI-related pneumonitis was seen in 18.5% of patients referred for multidisciplinary care.
• Steroid-refractory ICI-related pneumonitis occurred at a median of 85 days into a patient’s ICI treatment.
• Some patients improved clinically after IVIg therapy, but mortality was high overall.
• Infliximab therapy, alone or in combination with IVIg, was ineffective.

The Memorial Sloan Kettering experience

Jason Beattie, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, and colleagues performed a retrospective study of patients who had pneumonitis after ICI therapy and/or received immune modulator therapy after corticosteroids in the setting of ICI cancer treatment.

Manual record review was performed to exclude cases of pneumonitis from other causes. The period reviewed was roughly contemporaneous with the Johns Hopkins series.

Patients with ICI-related pneumonitis were divided into “steroid refractory” (i.e., no response to high-dose corticosteroids) or “steroid resistant” (i.e., initial response, followed by worsening) categories.

The researchers identified 26 patients with ICI-related pneumonitis, all of whom had advanced malignancy (8 lung cancer, 4 malignant melanoma, 4 renal cell cancer, and 10 “other” cancers).

A majority of patients (85%) were current or former smokers, 73% had received ICI monotherapy, 35% had received prior chest radiation at a median interval of 4.9 months prior to pneumonitis onset, and 27% had preexisting pulmonary disease.

Twelve patients (46%) had steroid-refractory ICI-related pneumonitis, and 14 (54%) had steroid-resistant ICI-related pneumonitis.

The two groups differed in time to pneumonitis onset (a median of 68 days in the refractory group and 182 days in the resistant group) and time to immune modulator therapy after beginning steroids (median 7 days and 2.9 months, respectively). In the steroid-refractory cases, pneumonitis was more severe.

In addition to corticosteroids, most patients received infliximab monotherapy or infliximab with mycophenolate mofetil. In contrast to the Johns Hopkins series, IVIg was not used in the Memorial Sloan Kettering cases.

Outcomes from immune modulators were graded based on clinical evidence (progress notes, oxygen requirements, level of care, radiologic information, etc.) of resolution of pneumonitis on imaging at least 8 weeks after cessation of steroids and immune modulator therapy, durable improvement for at least 8 weeks after immune modulator therapy, transient improvement followed by pneumonitis relapse or inadequate follow-up because of death or hospice referral, or no improvement.

Ten patients (38%) had durable improvement of ICI-related pneumonitis, of whom three (12%) had complete resolution. Two of the patients with complete resolution had steroid-refractory pneumonitis, both of whom had received infliximab followed by mycophenolate mofetil.

Among the seven patients with durable improvement, four remained alive on immune modulators. Time to resolution of pneumonitis was protracted, ranging from 2.3 months to 8.4 months in the steroid-refractory patients.

Durable response was less common with steroid-refractory (25%) than steroid-resistant (50%) disease, with a significant difference in 90-day survival of 25% and 71%, respectively.

Among the 13 (50%) patients with transient improvement in ICI-related pneumonitis, 8 ultimately died, either because of recurrent ICI-related pneumonitis or infection. All three patients with no improvement from immune modulators died.

The 90-day all-cause mortality was 50%, with durable pneumonitis improvement and freedom from severe infectious complications occurring in only about a third of patients.
 

Lessons for clinicians

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network, the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer, and the European Society of Medical Oncology have all published guidelines and recommendations for immunosuppression for steroid-refractory adverse events from ICIs.

Unfortunately, there is little experience with steroid-unresponsive ICI-related pneumonitis. The ideal sequence, dose, and duration of additional immune modulator therapy for ICI-related pneumonitis are unclear and may differ from the approaches to other immune-related toxicities.

This is important because, as suggested in an editorial by Margaret Gatti-Mays, MD, and James L. Gulley, MD, PhD, it is likely that ICI-related pneumonitis will be seen more in routine practice than in clinical trial populations. In addition, across all tumor types, ICI-related pneumonitis is the most common cause of ICI-associated death from toxicity.

The retrospective studies from Johns Hopkins and Memorial Sloan Kettering constitute the largest published experience with ICI-related pneumonitis and yield important clinical insights.

Uniform definitions of potentially important patient subgroups (e.g., steroid refractory vs. steroid resistant) are needed. The steroid-refractory and steroid-resistant subgroups have distinctly different clinical features and outcomes. Uniformity in the subgroup definitions would be a useful starting point from both clinical and research perspectives.

Preferred treatment choices need to be tested systematically in multi-institutional studies. Any potential impact of treatment for ICI-related pneumonitis on antitumor immune control should be identified.

Endpoints of interest need to be defined and measured prospectively. All-cause mortality after 90 days is important, but, as the authors of both reviews noted, there are vitally important narratives and differences in functionality that are completely concealed by restricting the focus to mortality.

Potential causal relationships with antecedent exposure to tobacco, radiation, intrathoracic tumor burden, or other factors need to be defined.

Clinicians need predictive biomarkers for ICI-related pneumonitis (e.g., in peripheral blood, pulmonary function testing, or bronchoscopy specimens). At-risk patients may benefit from early intervention.

The limitations of single-institution record reviews in guiding real-world patient management notwithstanding, these reviews illustrate the value of registries and prospective studies to guide the path forward. Taking these next steps will ensure for our patients that the success of immune-targeted therapy against their cancer never becomes a Pyrrhic victory.

The Johns Hopkins investigators and the editorialists reported having no disclosures. The Memorial Sloan Kettering investigators disclosed relationships with Targeted Oncology, Merck, Array BioPharma, Novartis, and many other companies.

Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

Last year, cancer screening programs around the world ground to a halt as SARS-CoV-2 infection rates surged globally. The effect of this slowdown is now becoming clear.

Thousands of cancer diagnoses are “missing,” and oncologists worry that this will lead to more advanced cancers and higher mortality for years to come.

“I feel like this is an earthquake that’s rocked our health care system. My guess is that you’ll probably still see repercussions of this over the next couple of years at least,” said Sharon Chang, MD, an attending surgical oncologist in the Permanente Medical Group, Fremont, Calif.

She was senior author of a study that analyzed the effects of the slowdown in mammography screening as a result of California’s “shelter-in-place” order on March 17, 2020. In the 2 months that followed, there were 64% fewer breast cancer diagnoses at 21 Kaiser Permanente medical centers, compared with the same period in 2019 (250 vs. 703).

In effect, approximately 450 breast cancer patients had “disappeared,” said coauthor Annie Tang, MD, a research fellow at the University of California, San Francisco, East Bay surgery program.

“What surprised me most from our data was the sheer number of breast cancer patients that were missing,” Dr. Tang said in an interview.

A similar picture has emerged elsewhere.

In Boston, an estimated 1,438 cancerous and precancerous lesions “went missing” during the first 3 months of pandemic shutdown, according to a study from the Massachusetts General Brigham health care system.

In this study, the investigators assessed screening rates for five cancers – breast cancer (mammography), prostate cancer (prostate-specific antigen testing), colorectal cancer (colonoscopy), cervical cancer (Papanicolaou tests), and lung cancer (low-dose CT).

Screening rates during the first peak of the pandemic (March 2 to June 2, 2020) were compared with those during the preceding and following 3 months and during the same 3 months in 2019.

The results showed a pronounced drop in screening rates during the peak pandemic period, compared with the three control periods. Decreases occurred for all screening tests and ranged from –60% to –82%.

There were also significant decreases in cancer diagnoses resulting from the decreases in screening tests, ranging from –19% to –78%.

“Quantifying the actual problem made us realize how much work needs to be done to get us back to prepandemic numbers,” said senior author Quoc-Dien Trinh, MD, FACS, codirector of the Dana Farber/Brigham and Women’s prostate cancer program.

In the Canadian province of Alberta, a similar decrease in cancer diagnoses occurred during the early days of the pandemic.

By the end of 2020, Alberta was “missing” approximately 2,000 cases of invasive cancers and 1,000 cases of noninvasive cancers, Doug Stewart, MD, senior medical director at the Cancer Strategic Clinical Network (SCN) of Alberta Health Services, told this news organization.

Dr. Stewart is able to track cancer diagnoses in Alberta almost in real time through a mandatory cancer registry. Within a month of shutdown, there was a 30% decrease in diagnoses of invasive cancers and a 50% decrease “in the kind of preinvasive cancers that, for the most part, are picked up by screening programs,” said Dr. Stewart.

After the health care system opened up again in the summer, Stewart said, noninvasive cancer diagnoses continued to be 20% lower than expected. There was a 10% shortfall in invasive cancer diagnoses.

The number of diagnoses had returned to normal by December 2020. However, Dr. Stewart is worried that this fact conceals a terrible truth.

The worry is over the backlog. Although the number of diagnoses is now similar to what it was before the pandemic, “people are presenting later, and maybe the cancer is more advanced,” he speculated.

His team at Alberta Health Services is assessing whether the cancers that are being diagnosed now are more advanced. Initial results are anticipated by late April 2021.

In the United Kingdom, there was a similar halt in cancer screening as a result of the country’s lockdown. Researchers now predict an uptick in cancer diagnoses.

Ajay Aggarwal, MD, PhD, consultant clinical oncologist and associate professor at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, and colleagues have estimated that at least 3,500 deaths from breast, colorectal, esophageal, and lung cancer will occur during the next 5 years in England that could have been avoided had it not been for the lockdown measures necessitated by the pandemic.

Speaking to this news organization, Dr. Aggarwal warned that these numbers, which are from a modeling study published in August 2020, are “extremely conservative,” because the investigators considered diagnostic delays over only a 3-month period, the analysis involved only four cancers, and it did not reflect deferral of cancer treatment.

“It felt like it was the tip of the iceberg,” Dr. Aggarwal said. He warns that more recent data suggest that “diagnostic delays are probably worse than we predicted.”

He suspects that there is more at play than screening cancellations.

In another study conducted in the United Kingdom, data show “a falling edge of referrals” from primary care to cancer centers early in the pandemic. In that study, investigators analyzed real-time weekly hospital data from eight large British hospitals and found that urgent cancer referrals fell 70% at their lowest point.

“It really surprised me that the urgent referrals dropped so drastically,” said lead author Alvina Lai, PhD, a lecturer in health data analytics at University College London.

She attributed this in part to patients’ adherence to lockdown rules. “Patients are trying to follow government guidelines to stay home and not go to [general practitioners] unless necessary,” Dr. Lai explained in an interview.

Canada, like the United Kingdom, has a publicly funded health care system. Dr. Stewart came to a similar conclusion. “Some patients who have been diagnosed with cancer ... have told me it took them an extra couple of months to even contact the family doc, because they ... didn’t want to bother the family doctor with something that wasn’t COVID, this kind of guilt. They want to do something good for society. You know, most people are just really nice people, and they don’t want to bother the health care system if they don’t have COVID,” Dr. Stewart said.

Shelley Fuld Nasso, CEO of the National Coalition for Cancer Survivorship, a nonprofit organization based in Silver Spring, Md., agreed that screening shutdowns are not the only danger. “While we agree that screening is really important, we also want to make sure patients are following up with their physicians about symptoms that they have,” she said.

“Some of the speculation or concern about increased mortality for cancer is related to screening, but some of it is related to delayed diagnosis because of not following up on symptoms. ... What concerns me is not everyone has that ability or willingness to advocate for themselves,” she said.

Speaking at a press briefing held by the American Society for Radiation Oncology on March 30, Dr. Nasso related a case involving a patient who experienced severe arm pain. In a teleconsultation with her primary care physician, her condition was diagnosed as arthritis. She was subsequently diagnosed in the ED as having multiple myeloma.

Patients who “feel fine” may postpone their checkups to avoid going to the hospital and risking exposure to COVID-19.

“Some patients are still hesitant about returning for their mammograms or coming in if they feel a breast lump,” Dr. Tang said. “That fear of COVID-19 is still out there, and we don’t know how long patients are going to delay.”

In London, Dr. Aggarwal saw a similar response to the pandemic. “People were overestimating quite significantly what their risk of death was from acquiring COVID-19, and I think that balance was never [redressed] explicitly,” he said.

Public health initiatives to rebalance the messaging are now underway.

Public Health England and National Health Service England launched their Help Us Help You campaign in October 2020. The public information campaign urges people to speak to their doctors if they were “worried about a symptom that could be cancer.”

In Canada, the provincial government in Alberta has launched a public awareness campaign that conveys the message, “cancer has not gone away.”

“Cancer is still the No. 1 cause of potential life-years lost, despite COVID,” Dr. Stewart said. “We need to do what we can to make sure there’s no slippage in survival rates.”

Dr. Tang, Dr. Chang, Dr. Lai, Dr. Stewart, and Dr. Aggarwal have disclosed no relevant financial relationship. Dr. Trinh has received personal fees from Astellas, Bayer, and Janssen and grants from Intuitive Surgical.

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

Last year, cancer screening programs around the world ground to a halt as SARS-CoV-2 infection rates surged globally. The effect of this slowdown is now becoming clear.

Thousands of cancer diagnoses are “missing,” and oncologists worry that this will lead to more advanced cancers and higher mortality for years to come.

“I feel like this is an earthquake that’s rocked our health care system. My guess is that you’ll probably still see repercussions of this over the next couple of years at least,” said Sharon Chang, MD, an attending surgical oncologist in the Permanente Medical Group, Fremont, Calif.

She was senior author of a study that analyzed the effects of the slowdown in mammography screening as a result of California’s “shelter-in-place” order on March 17, 2020. In the 2 months that followed, there were 64% fewer breast cancer diagnoses at 21 Kaiser Permanente medical centers, compared with the same period in 2019 (250 vs. 703).

In effect, approximately 450 breast cancer patients had “disappeared,” said coauthor Annie Tang, MD, a research fellow at the University of California, San Francisco, East Bay surgery program.

“What surprised me most from our data was the sheer number of breast cancer patients that were missing,” Dr. Tang said in an interview.

A similar picture has emerged elsewhere.

In Boston, an estimated 1,438 cancerous and precancerous lesions “went missing” during the first 3 months of pandemic shutdown, according to a study from the Massachusetts General Brigham health care system.

In this study, the investigators assessed screening rates for five cancers – breast cancer (mammography), prostate cancer (prostate-specific antigen testing), colorectal cancer (colonoscopy), cervical cancer (Papanicolaou tests), and lung cancer (low-dose CT).

Screening rates during the first peak of the pandemic (March 2 to June 2, 2020) were compared with those during the preceding and following 3 months and during the same 3 months in 2019.

The results showed a pronounced drop in screening rates during the peak pandemic period, compared with the three control periods. Decreases occurred for all screening tests and ranged from –60% to –82%.

There were also significant decreases in cancer diagnoses resulting from the decreases in screening tests, ranging from –19% to –78%.

“Quantifying the actual problem made us realize how much work needs to be done to get us back to prepandemic numbers,” said senior author Quoc-Dien Trinh, MD, FACS, codirector of the Dana Farber/Brigham and Women’s prostate cancer program.

In the Canadian province of Alberta, a similar decrease in cancer diagnoses occurred during the early days of the pandemic.

By the end of 2020, Alberta was “missing” approximately 2,000 cases of invasive cancers and 1,000 cases of noninvasive cancers, Doug Stewart, MD, senior medical director at the Cancer Strategic Clinical Network (SCN) of Alberta Health Services, told this news organization.

Dr. Stewart is able to track cancer diagnoses in Alberta almost in real time through a mandatory cancer registry. Within a month of shutdown, there was a 30% decrease in diagnoses of invasive cancers and a 50% decrease “in the kind of preinvasive cancers that, for the most part, are picked up by screening programs,” said Dr. Stewart.

After the health care system opened up again in the summer, Stewart said, noninvasive cancer diagnoses continued to be 20% lower than expected. There was a 10% shortfall in invasive cancer diagnoses.

The number of diagnoses had returned to normal by December 2020. However, Dr. Stewart is worried that this fact conceals a terrible truth.

The worry is over the backlog. Although the number of diagnoses is now similar to what it was before the pandemic, “people are presenting later, and maybe the cancer is more advanced,” he speculated.

His team at Alberta Health Services is assessing whether the cancers that are being diagnosed now are more advanced. Initial results are anticipated by late April 2021.

In the United Kingdom, there was a similar halt in cancer screening as a result of the country’s lockdown. Researchers now predict an uptick in cancer diagnoses.

Ajay Aggarwal, MD, PhD, consultant clinical oncologist and associate professor at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, and colleagues have estimated that at least 3,500 deaths from breast, colorectal, esophageal, and lung cancer will occur during the next 5 years in England that could have been avoided had it not been for the lockdown measures necessitated by the pandemic.

Speaking to this news organization, Dr. Aggarwal warned that these numbers, which are from a modeling study published in August 2020, are “extremely conservative,” because the investigators considered diagnostic delays over only a 3-month period, the analysis involved only four cancers, and it did not reflect deferral of cancer treatment.

“It felt like it was the tip of the iceberg,” Dr. Aggarwal said. He warns that more recent data suggest that “diagnostic delays are probably worse than we predicted.”

He suspects that there is more at play than screening cancellations.

In another study conducted in the United Kingdom, data show “a falling edge of referrals” from primary care to cancer centers early in the pandemic. In that study, investigators analyzed real-time weekly hospital data from eight large British hospitals and found that urgent cancer referrals fell 70% at their lowest point.

“It really surprised me that the urgent referrals dropped so drastically,” said lead author Alvina Lai, PhD, a lecturer in health data analytics at University College London.

She attributed this in part to patients’ adherence to lockdown rules. “Patients are trying to follow government guidelines to stay home and not go to [general practitioners] unless necessary,” Dr. Lai explained in an interview.

Canada, like the United Kingdom, has a publicly funded health care system. Dr. Stewart came to a similar conclusion. “Some patients who have been diagnosed with cancer ... have told me it took them an extra couple of months to even contact the family doc, because they ... didn’t want to bother the family doctor with something that wasn’t COVID, this kind of guilt. They want to do something good for society. You know, most people are just really nice people, and they don’t want to bother the health care system if they don’t have COVID,” Dr. Stewart said.

Shelley Fuld Nasso, CEO of the National Coalition for Cancer Survivorship, a nonprofit organization based in Silver Spring, Md., agreed that screening shutdowns are not the only danger. “While we agree that screening is really important, we also want to make sure patients are following up with their physicians about symptoms that they have,” she said.

“Some of the speculation or concern about increased mortality for cancer is related to screening, but some of it is related to delayed diagnosis because of not following up on symptoms. ... What concerns me is not everyone has that ability or willingness to advocate for themselves,” she said.

Speaking at a press briefing held by the American Society for Radiation Oncology on March 30, Dr. Nasso related a case involving a patient who experienced severe arm pain. In a teleconsultation with her primary care physician, her condition was diagnosed as arthritis. She was subsequently diagnosed in the ED as having multiple myeloma.

Patients who “feel fine” may postpone their checkups to avoid going to the hospital and risking exposure to COVID-19.

“Some patients are still hesitant about returning for their mammograms or coming in if they feel a breast lump,” Dr. Tang said. “That fear of COVID-19 is still out there, and we don’t know how long patients are going to delay.”

In London, Dr. Aggarwal saw a similar response to the pandemic. “People were overestimating quite significantly what their risk of death was from acquiring COVID-19, and I think that balance was never [redressed] explicitly,” he said.

Public health initiatives to rebalance the messaging are now underway.

Public Health England and National Health Service England launched their Help Us Help You campaign in October 2020. The public information campaign urges people to speak to their doctors if they were “worried about a symptom that could be cancer.”

In Canada, the provincial government in Alberta has launched a public awareness campaign that conveys the message, “cancer has not gone away.”

“Cancer is still the No. 1 cause of potential life-years lost, despite COVID,” Dr. Stewart said. “We need to do what we can to make sure there’s no slippage in survival rates.”

Dr. Tang, Dr. Chang, Dr. Lai, Dr. Stewart, and Dr. Aggarwal have disclosed no relevant financial relationship. Dr. Trinh has received personal fees from Astellas, Bayer, and Janssen and grants from Intuitive Surgical.

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

Last year, cancer screening programs around the world ground to a halt as SARS-CoV-2 infection rates surged globally. The effect of this slowdown is now becoming clear.

Thousands of cancer diagnoses are “missing,” and oncologists worry that this will lead to more advanced cancers and higher mortality for years to come.

“I feel like this is an earthquake that’s rocked our health care system. My guess is that you’ll probably still see repercussions of this over the next couple of years at least,” said Sharon Chang, MD, an attending surgical oncologist in the Permanente Medical Group, Fremont, Calif.

She was senior author of a study that analyzed the effects of the slowdown in mammography screening as a result of California’s “shelter-in-place” order on March 17, 2020. In the 2 months that followed, there were 64% fewer breast cancer diagnoses at 21 Kaiser Permanente medical centers, compared with the same period in 2019 (250 vs. 703).

In effect, approximately 450 breast cancer patients had “disappeared,” said coauthor Annie Tang, MD, a research fellow at the University of California, San Francisco, East Bay surgery program.

“What surprised me most from our data was the sheer number of breast cancer patients that were missing,” Dr. Tang said in an interview.

A similar picture has emerged elsewhere.

In Boston, an estimated 1,438 cancerous and precancerous lesions “went missing” during the first 3 months of pandemic shutdown, according to a study from the Massachusetts General Brigham health care system.

In this study, the investigators assessed screening rates for five cancers – breast cancer (mammography), prostate cancer (prostate-specific antigen testing), colorectal cancer (colonoscopy), cervical cancer (Papanicolaou tests), and lung cancer (low-dose CT).

Screening rates during the first peak of the pandemic (March 2 to June 2, 2020) were compared with those during the preceding and following 3 months and during the same 3 months in 2019.

The results showed a pronounced drop in screening rates during the peak pandemic period, compared with the three control periods. Decreases occurred for all screening tests and ranged from –60% to –82%.

There were also significant decreases in cancer diagnoses resulting from the decreases in screening tests, ranging from –19% to –78%.

“Quantifying the actual problem made us realize how much work needs to be done to get us back to prepandemic numbers,” said senior author Quoc-Dien Trinh, MD, FACS, codirector of the Dana Farber/Brigham and Women’s prostate cancer program.

In the Canadian province of Alberta, a similar decrease in cancer diagnoses occurred during the early days of the pandemic.

By the end of 2020, Alberta was “missing” approximately 2,000 cases of invasive cancers and 1,000 cases of noninvasive cancers, Doug Stewart, MD, senior medical director at the Cancer Strategic Clinical Network (SCN) of Alberta Health Services, told this news organization.

Dr. Stewart is able to track cancer diagnoses in Alberta almost in real time through a mandatory cancer registry. Within a month of shutdown, there was a 30% decrease in diagnoses of invasive cancers and a 50% decrease “in the kind of preinvasive cancers that, for the most part, are picked up by screening programs,” said Dr. Stewart.

After the health care system opened up again in the summer, Stewart said, noninvasive cancer diagnoses continued to be 20% lower than expected. There was a 10% shortfall in invasive cancer diagnoses.

The number of diagnoses had returned to normal by December 2020. However, Dr. Stewart is worried that this fact conceals a terrible truth.

The worry is over the backlog. Although the number of diagnoses is now similar to what it was before the pandemic, “people are presenting later, and maybe the cancer is more advanced,” he speculated.

His team at Alberta Health Services is assessing whether the cancers that are being diagnosed now are more advanced. Initial results are anticipated by late April 2021.

In the United Kingdom, there was a similar halt in cancer screening as a result of the country’s lockdown. Researchers now predict an uptick in cancer diagnoses.

Ajay Aggarwal, MD, PhD, consultant clinical oncologist and associate professor at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, and colleagues have estimated that at least 3,500 deaths from breast, colorectal, esophageal, and lung cancer will occur during the next 5 years in England that could have been avoided had it not been for the lockdown measures necessitated by the pandemic.

Speaking to this news organization, Dr. Aggarwal warned that these numbers, which are from a modeling study published in August 2020, are “extremely conservative,” because the investigators considered diagnostic delays over only a 3-month period, the analysis involved only four cancers, and it did not reflect deferral of cancer treatment.

“It felt like it was the tip of the iceberg,” Dr. Aggarwal said. He warns that more recent data suggest that “diagnostic delays are probably worse than we predicted.”

He suspects that there is more at play than screening cancellations.

In another study conducted in the United Kingdom, data show “a falling edge of referrals” from primary care to cancer centers early in the pandemic. In that study, investigators analyzed real-time weekly hospital data from eight large British hospitals and found that urgent cancer referrals fell 70% at their lowest point.

“It really surprised me that the urgent referrals dropped so drastically,” said lead author Alvina Lai, PhD, a lecturer in health data analytics at University College London.

She attributed this in part to patients’ adherence to lockdown rules. “Patients are trying to follow government guidelines to stay home and not go to [general practitioners] unless necessary,” Dr. Lai explained in an interview.

Canada, like the United Kingdom, has a publicly funded health care system. Dr. Stewart came to a similar conclusion. “Some patients who have been diagnosed with cancer ... have told me it took them an extra couple of months to even contact the family doc, because they ... didn’t want to bother the family doctor with something that wasn’t COVID, this kind of guilt. They want to do something good for society. You know, most people are just really nice people, and they don’t want to bother the health care system if they don’t have COVID,” Dr. Stewart said.

Shelley Fuld Nasso, CEO of the National Coalition for Cancer Survivorship, a nonprofit organization based in Silver Spring, Md., agreed that screening shutdowns are not the only danger. “While we agree that screening is really important, we also want to make sure patients are following up with their physicians about symptoms that they have,” she said.

“Some of the speculation or concern about increased mortality for cancer is related to screening, but some of it is related to delayed diagnosis because of not following up on symptoms. ... What concerns me is not everyone has that ability or willingness to advocate for themselves,” she said.

Speaking at a press briefing held by the American Society for Radiation Oncology on March 30, Dr. Nasso related a case involving a patient who experienced severe arm pain. In a teleconsultation with her primary care physician, her condition was diagnosed as arthritis. She was subsequently diagnosed in the ED as having multiple myeloma.

Patients who “feel fine” may postpone their checkups to avoid going to the hospital and risking exposure to COVID-19.

“Some patients are still hesitant about returning for their mammograms or coming in if they feel a breast lump,” Dr. Tang said. “That fear of COVID-19 is still out there, and we don’t know how long patients are going to delay.”

In London, Dr. Aggarwal saw a similar response to the pandemic. “People were overestimating quite significantly what their risk of death was from acquiring COVID-19, and I think that balance was never [redressed] explicitly,” he said.

Public health initiatives to rebalance the messaging are now underway.

Public Health England and National Health Service England launched their Help Us Help You campaign in October 2020. The public information campaign urges people to speak to their doctors if they were “worried about a symptom that could be cancer.”

In Canada, the provincial government in Alberta has launched a public awareness campaign that conveys the message, “cancer has not gone away.”

“Cancer is still the No. 1 cause of potential life-years lost, despite COVID,” Dr. Stewart said. “We need to do what we can to make sure there’s no slippage in survival rates.”

Dr. Tang, Dr. Chang, Dr. Lai, Dr. Stewart, and Dr. Aggarwal have disclosed no relevant financial relationship. Dr. Trinh has received personal fees from Astellas, Bayer, and Janssen and grants from Intuitive Surgical.

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

Endometrial cancer patients should be screened for frailty before hysterectomies, and frail patients should be counseled thoroughly about their increased risk for poor outcomes, according to a review of 144,809 cases in the Nationwide Readmissions Database.

©Wavebreakmedia Ltd/thinkstockphotos.com

Overall, 1.8% of the women were frail according to the Johns Hopkins Adjusted Clinical Groups (ACG) frailty indicator, which characterizes patients as frail or not based on diagnostic codes in a range of areas, including abnormal weight loss, dementia, urinary or fecal incontinence, difficulty walking, inadequate social support, and other matters.

Frailty was associated with an almost fourfold increased risk of intensive care after surgery; a more than twofold risk of inpatient mortality, and a 59% increased risk of something other than routine discharge to home. Frail patients were 33% more likely to be readmitted within 30 days and 21% more likely to be readmitted within 90 days, and they had a higher risk of dying on readmission. Hospital costs and lengths of stay were higher for frail women, according to the report, which was published online in Gynecologic Oncology.

The findings were adjusted for patient, hospital, and clinical factors, and the readmission outcomes were unchanged when limited to patients who had minimally invasive surgery.

Frailty is a well-known risk factor for poor surgical outcomes, so it “comes as little surprise” that it was associated with worse outcomes in hysterectomies for endometrial cancer. Even so, “frailty is oftentimes not screened for in oncology clinics” leading to “a large number of potentially unrecognized frail patients who are recommended to undergo surgery,” said investigators led by Tiffany Sia, MD, an obstetrics and gynecology resident at Columbia University, New York.

“We believe that each potential patient’s frailty status should be assessed during the preoperative period ... frail patients should be counseled regarding these risks in the perioperative setting,” Dr. Sia said in an interview.

“Researchers and clinicians have adopted the scoring instrument that corresponds best with the data they have available,” but “lack of a widely recognized gold standard or easily utilized diagnostic tool makes frailty rather difficult to formally assess in a clinical setting,” she said.

The investigators found a “surprisingly high rate” of frail patients (82%) who underwent total abdominal hysterectomies compared to less invasive options, with 16.5% undergoing extended procedures. The reason is unknown because stage, tumor grade, and histology – factors that likely influenced decision making – were not captured in the analysis.

However, almost half of the frail subjects were 70 years or older, and increasing age is associated with more aggressive tumor characteristics and worse prognosis.

The team said future research should integrate screening instruments into routine clinic workflow, but there have been a number of roadblocks. Current screening instruments are “cumbersome to use and difficult to implement ... as they typically require measurement of a frailty phenotype such as a timed up-and-go test or grip strength and require numerous patient surveys,” they added.

Proposed screening tools include the Frailty Index, Memorial Sloan Kettering–Frailty Index, Hopkins’ frailty indicator, and the Vulnerable Elders Survey, but no preferred method has emerged, and each scale captures different subpopulations of frailty and differs in its prognostic ability.

There was no external funding, and Dr. Sia didn’t have any disclosures.

[email protected]

Endometrial cancer patients should be screened for frailty before hysterectomies, and frail patients should be counseled thoroughly about their increased risk for poor outcomes, according to a review of 144,809 cases in the Nationwide Readmissions Database.

©Wavebreakmedia Ltd/thinkstockphotos.com

Overall, 1.8% of the women were frail according to the Johns Hopkins Adjusted Clinical Groups (ACG) frailty indicator, which characterizes patients as frail or not based on diagnostic codes in a range of areas, including abnormal weight loss, dementia, urinary or fecal incontinence, difficulty walking, inadequate social support, and other matters.

Frailty was associated with an almost fourfold increased risk of intensive care after surgery; a more than twofold risk of inpatient mortality, and a 59% increased risk of something other than routine discharge to home. Frail patients were 33% more likely to be readmitted within 30 days and 21% more likely to be readmitted within 90 days, and they had a higher risk of dying on readmission. Hospital costs and lengths of stay were higher for frail women, according to the report, which was published online in Gynecologic Oncology.

The findings were adjusted for patient, hospital, and clinical factors, and the readmission outcomes were unchanged when limited to patients who had minimally invasive surgery.

Frailty is a well-known risk factor for poor surgical outcomes, so it “comes as little surprise” that it was associated with worse outcomes in hysterectomies for endometrial cancer. Even so, “frailty is oftentimes not screened for in oncology clinics” leading to “a large number of potentially unrecognized frail patients who are recommended to undergo surgery,” said investigators led by Tiffany Sia, MD, an obstetrics and gynecology resident at Columbia University, New York.

“We believe that each potential patient’s frailty status should be assessed during the preoperative period ... frail patients should be counseled regarding these risks in the perioperative setting,” Dr. Sia said in an interview.

“Researchers and clinicians have adopted the scoring instrument that corresponds best with the data they have available,” but “lack of a widely recognized gold standard or easily utilized diagnostic tool makes frailty rather difficult to formally assess in a clinical setting,” she said.

The investigators found a “surprisingly high rate” of frail patients (82%) who underwent total abdominal hysterectomies compared to less invasive options, with 16.5% undergoing extended procedures. The reason is unknown because stage, tumor grade, and histology – factors that likely influenced decision making – were not captured in the analysis.

However, almost half of the frail subjects were 70 years or older, and increasing age is associated with more aggressive tumor characteristics and worse prognosis.

The team said future research should integrate screening instruments into routine clinic workflow, but there have been a number of roadblocks. Current screening instruments are “cumbersome to use and difficult to implement ... as they typically require measurement of a frailty phenotype such as a timed up-and-go test or grip strength and require numerous patient surveys,” they added.

Proposed screening tools include the Frailty Index, Memorial Sloan Kettering–Frailty Index, Hopkins’ frailty indicator, and the Vulnerable Elders Survey, but no preferred method has emerged, and each scale captures different subpopulations of frailty and differs in its prognostic ability.

There was no external funding, and Dr. Sia didn’t have any disclosures.

[email protected]

Endometrial cancer patients should be screened for frailty before hysterectomies, and frail patients should be counseled thoroughly about their increased risk for poor outcomes, according to a review of 144,809 cases in the Nationwide Readmissions Database.

©Wavebreakmedia Ltd/thinkstockphotos.com

Overall, 1.8% of the women were frail according to the Johns Hopkins Adjusted Clinical Groups (ACG) frailty indicator, which characterizes patients as frail or not based on diagnostic codes in a range of areas, including abnormal weight loss, dementia, urinary or fecal incontinence, difficulty walking, inadequate social support, and other matters.

Frailty was associated with an almost fourfold increased risk of intensive care after surgery; a more than twofold risk of inpatient mortality, and a 59% increased risk of something other than routine discharge to home. Frail patients were 33% more likely to be readmitted within 30 days and 21% more likely to be readmitted within 90 days, and they had a higher risk of dying on readmission. Hospital costs and lengths of stay were higher for frail women, according to the report, which was published online in Gynecologic Oncology.

The findings were adjusted for patient, hospital, and clinical factors, and the readmission outcomes were unchanged when limited to patients who had minimally invasive surgery.

Frailty is a well-known risk factor for poor surgical outcomes, so it “comes as little surprise” that it was associated with worse outcomes in hysterectomies for endometrial cancer. Even so, “frailty is oftentimes not screened for in oncology clinics” leading to “a large number of potentially unrecognized frail patients who are recommended to undergo surgery,” said investigators led by Tiffany Sia, MD, an obstetrics and gynecology resident at Columbia University, New York.

“We believe that each potential patient’s frailty status should be assessed during the preoperative period ... frail patients should be counseled regarding these risks in the perioperative setting,” Dr. Sia said in an interview.

“Researchers and clinicians have adopted the scoring instrument that corresponds best with the data they have available,” but “lack of a widely recognized gold standard or easily utilized diagnostic tool makes frailty rather difficult to formally assess in a clinical setting,” she said.

The investigators found a “surprisingly high rate” of frail patients (82%) who underwent total abdominal hysterectomies compared to less invasive options, with 16.5% undergoing extended procedures. The reason is unknown because stage, tumor grade, and histology – factors that likely influenced decision making – were not captured in the analysis.

However, almost half of the frail subjects were 70 years or older, and increasing age is associated with more aggressive tumor characteristics and worse prognosis.

The team said future research should integrate screening instruments into routine clinic workflow, but there have been a number of roadblocks. Current screening instruments are “cumbersome to use and difficult to implement ... as they typically require measurement of a frailty phenotype such as a timed up-and-go test or grip strength and require numerous patient surveys,” they added.

Proposed screening tools include the Frailty Index, Memorial Sloan Kettering–Frailty Index, Hopkins’ frailty indicator, and the Vulnerable Elders Survey, but no preferred method has emerged, and each scale captures different subpopulations of frailty and differs in its prognostic ability.

There was no external funding, and Dr. Sia didn’t have any disclosures.

[email protected]

Lowering the starting dose of lenvatinib for recurrent, advanced endometrial cancer reduces adverse events without compromising efficacy, according to a retrospective study.

The study included 70 patients who received lenvatinib in combination with pembrolizumab. Patients who were started on 14 mg of lenvatinib per day had fewer dose reductions and a longer time to the first dose reduction, compared with patients who were started on the recommended 20-mg dose. There were no significant differences in response, progression-free survival, or overall survival between the two dose groups.

“Published studies and these results may support using lenvatinib at a starting dose of 14 mg daily in clinical practice,” said Jeffrey How, MD, a gynecologic oncology fellow at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

Dr. How presented the results at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Virtual Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer (Abstract 10775).

This is not the first time a recommended starting dose has been deemed too high to use in practice, according to Carol Aghajanian, MD, chief of gynecologic medical oncology at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York and a panelist for the session where Dr. How presented his research.

Dr. Aghajanian noted that pegylated liposomal doxorubicin and topotecan are “rarely, if ever” started at the labeling doses for recurrent ovarian cancer. Those doses proved to be too high for general practice and “not tolerable with multicycle treatment,” she said.

“We may again be experiencing the effect of single-cycle, dose-limiting toxicity information not guiding us well in how to treat patients over time,” she added.
 

Study rationale

Based on a 38% overall response rate in the phase 2 KEYNOTE-146 trial, lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab was approved in September 2019 to treat patients with advanced endometrial carcinoma that is not microsatellite instability–high or mismatch repair deficient who have progressed on systemic therapy and are not candidates for curative surgery or radiation.

However, the rate of grade 3/4 adverse events with the combination was 66.9% in the trial, leading to dose interruptions or reductions and a discontinuation rate of 17.7%.

MD Anderson oncologists noticed similar toxicity rates at the approved lenvatinib dose of 20 mg per day when they started using the combination in October 2019. It raised a question about the feasibility of implementing the regimen in general practice as well as concerns about compliance, Dr. How said.

“As a consequence, our team started patients on a reduced dose of lenvatinib to improve safety and tolerability,” he added.

The mean dose intensity in the phase 2 trial was 14.4 mg/day, so the team began to start patients on 14 mg daily.
 

Results and implications

Of the 70 patients studied, 16 were started at 20 mg, and 54 were started at 14 mg. There were no significant differences between the two groups at baseline.

In the entire cohort, the median age was 65.5 years, and patients had received a median of two prior lines of therapy (range, one to nine). Most patients (90%) had a performance status of 0 or 1, 92.9% had microsatellite stable tumors, and 27.1% each had endometrioid or serous histology.

There was no significant difference between the dose groups with regard to any hospitalization (P = .46), hospitalization due to treatment-related adverse events (P = .55), dose interruption (P = .18), or treatment discontinuation due to treatment-related adverse events (P = .54).

However, the average number of dose reductions per patient was higher in the 20-mg group than in the 14-mg group – 1.1 and 0.4, respectively (P = .003).

The increased dose reductions with the higher starting dose were due mostly to gastrointestinal and hematologic adverse events as well as fatigue and anorexia, all of which were far more common in patients started at 20 mg.

Patients in the 14-mg group had a longer time to the first dose reduction or discontinuation due to toxicity – 107 days vs. 42 days in the 20-mg group (P = .001).

There was no significant difference in response rates between the 14-mg and 20-mg groups – 38.2% and 28.6%, respectively (P = .51) – and no significant difference in clinical benefit rates – 72.3% and 57.1%, respectively.

The median progression-free survival was 3.2 months in the 20-mg group and 5.5 months in the 14-mg group (P = .25). The median overall survival was 8.6 months and 10.3 months, respectively (P = .95).

Dr. How noted that this study was limited by its retrospective nature, and the small number of women started at 20 mg may have limited the ability to detect differences with a lower starting dose. Still, these results seem to support a starting dose of 14 mg, he concluded.

In a discussion after Dr. How’s presentation, panelist Judith Smith, PharmD, of UT Health in Houston, noted that her practice is starting women on lenvatinib at 12 mg per day.

“You can use the 14-mg convenience pack, but, from a cost perspective ... we have to be cognizant of the financial toxicity,” she said. “[Combining the] 10-mg and 4-mg tablets is going to be more expensive, so we’ve been using the 4-mg tablets [three per day] and starting at 12 mg.”

This study was funded by MD Anderson and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. How reported having no conflicts of interest. Dr. Aghajanian and Dr. Smith did not provide disclosures.

[email protected]

Lowering the starting dose of lenvatinib for recurrent, advanced endometrial cancer reduces adverse events without compromising efficacy, according to a retrospective study.

The study included 70 patients who received lenvatinib in combination with pembrolizumab. Patients who were started on 14 mg of lenvatinib per day had fewer dose reductions and a longer time to the first dose reduction, compared with patients who were started on the recommended 20-mg dose. There were no significant differences in response, progression-free survival, or overall survival between the two dose groups.

“Published studies and these results may support using lenvatinib at a starting dose of 14 mg daily in clinical practice,” said Jeffrey How, MD, a gynecologic oncology fellow at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

Dr. How presented the results at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Virtual Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer (Abstract 10775).

This is not the first time a recommended starting dose has been deemed too high to use in practice, according to Carol Aghajanian, MD, chief of gynecologic medical oncology at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York and a panelist for the session where Dr. How presented his research.

Dr. Aghajanian noted that pegylated liposomal doxorubicin and topotecan are “rarely, if ever” started at the labeling doses for recurrent ovarian cancer. Those doses proved to be too high for general practice and “not tolerable with multicycle treatment,” she said.

“We may again be experiencing the effect of single-cycle, dose-limiting toxicity information not guiding us well in how to treat patients over time,” she added.
 

Study rationale

Based on a 38% overall response rate in the phase 2 KEYNOTE-146 trial, lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab was approved in September 2019 to treat patients with advanced endometrial carcinoma that is not microsatellite instability–high or mismatch repair deficient who have progressed on systemic therapy and are not candidates for curative surgery or radiation.

However, the rate of grade 3/4 adverse events with the combination was 66.9% in the trial, leading to dose interruptions or reductions and a discontinuation rate of 17.7%.

MD Anderson oncologists noticed similar toxicity rates at the approved lenvatinib dose of 20 mg per day when they started using the combination in October 2019. It raised a question about the feasibility of implementing the regimen in general practice as well as concerns about compliance, Dr. How said.

“As a consequence, our team started patients on a reduced dose of lenvatinib to improve safety and tolerability,” he added.

The mean dose intensity in the phase 2 trial was 14.4 mg/day, so the team began to start patients on 14 mg daily.
 

Results and implications

Of the 70 patients studied, 16 were started at 20 mg, and 54 were started at 14 mg. There were no significant differences between the two groups at baseline.

In the entire cohort, the median age was 65.5 years, and patients had received a median of two prior lines of therapy (range, one to nine). Most patients (90%) had a performance status of 0 or 1, 92.9% had microsatellite stable tumors, and 27.1% each had endometrioid or serous histology.

There was no significant difference between the dose groups with regard to any hospitalization (P = .46), hospitalization due to treatment-related adverse events (P = .55), dose interruption (P = .18), or treatment discontinuation due to treatment-related adverse events (P = .54).

However, the average number of dose reductions per patient was higher in the 20-mg group than in the 14-mg group – 1.1 and 0.4, respectively (P = .003).

The increased dose reductions with the higher starting dose were due mostly to gastrointestinal and hematologic adverse events as well as fatigue and anorexia, all of which were far more common in patients started at 20 mg.

Patients in the 14-mg group had a longer time to the first dose reduction or discontinuation due to toxicity – 107 days vs. 42 days in the 20-mg group (P = .001).

There was no significant difference in response rates between the 14-mg and 20-mg groups – 38.2% and 28.6%, respectively (P = .51) – and no significant difference in clinical benefit rates – 72.3% and 57.1%, respectively.

The median progression-free survival was 3.2 months in the 20-mg group and 5.5 months in the 14-mg group (P = .25). The median overall survival was 8.6 months and 10.3 months, respectively (P = .95).

Dr. How noted that this study was limited by its retrospective nature, and the small number of women started at 20 mg may have limited the ability to detect differences with a lower starting dose. Still, these results seem to support a starting dose of 14 mg, he concluded.

In a discussion after Dr. How’s presentation, panelist Judith Smith, PharmD, of UT Health in Houston, noted that her practice is starting women on lenvatinib at 12 mg per day.

“You can use the 14-mg convenience pack, but, from a cost perspective ... we have to be cognizant of the financial toxicity,” she said. “[Combining the] 10-mg and 4-mg tablets is going to be more expensive, so we’ve been using the 4-mg tablets [three per day] and starting at 12 mg.”

This study was funded by MD Anderson and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. How reported having no conflicts of interest. Dr. Aghajanian and Dr. Smith did not provide disclosures.

[email protected]

Lowering the starting dose of lenvatinib for recurrent, advanced endometrial cancer reduces adverse events without compromising efficacy, according to a retrospective study.

The study included 70 patients who received lenvatinib in combination with pembrolizumab. Patients who were started on 14 mg of lenvatinib per day had fewer dose reductions and a longer time to the first dose reduction, compared with patients who were started on the recommended 20-mg dose. There were no significant differences in response, progression-free survival, or overall survival between the two dose groups.

“Published studies and these results may support using lenvatinib at a starting dose of 14 mg daily in clinical practice,” said Jeffrey How, MD, a gynecologic oncology fellow at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

Dr. How presented the results at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Virtual Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer (Abstract 10775).

This is not the first time a recommended starting dose has been deemed too high to use in practice, according to Carol Aghajanian, MD, chief of gynecologic medical oncology at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York and a panelist for the session where Dr. How presented his research.

Dr. Aghajanian noted that pegylated liposomal doxorubicin and topotecan are “rarely, if ever” started at the labeling doses for recurrent ovarian cancer. Those doses proved to be too high for general practice and “not tolerable with multicycle treatment,” she said.

“We may again be experiencing the effect of single-cycle, dose-limiting toxicity information not guiding us well in how to treat patients over time,” she added.
 

Study rationale

Based on a 38% overall response rate in the phase 2 KEYNOTE-146 trial, lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab was approved in September 2019 to treat patients with advanced endometrial carcinoma that is not microsatellite instability–high or mismatch repair deficient who have progressed on systemic therapy and are not candidates for curative surgery or radiation.

However, the rate of grade 3/4 adverse events with the combination was 66.9% in the trial, leading to dose interruptions or reductions and a discontinuation rate of 17.7%.

MD Anderson oncologists noticed similar toxicity rates at the approved lenvatinib dose of 20 mg per day when they started using the combination in October 2019. It raised a question about the feasibility of implementing the regimen in general practice as well as concerns about compliance, Dr. How said.

“As a consequence, our team started patients on a reduced dose of lenvatinib to improve safety and tolerability,” he added.

The mean dose intensity in the phase 2 trial was 14.4 mg/day, so the team began to start patients on 14 mg daily.
 

Results and implications

Of the 70 patients studied, 16 were started at 20 mg, and 54 were started at 14 mg. There were no significant differences between the two groups at baseline.

In the entire cohort, the median age was 65.5 years, and patients had received a median of two prior lines of therapy (range, one to nine). Most patients (90%) had a performance status of 0 or 1, 92.9% had microsatellite stable tumors, and 27.1% each had endometrioid or serous histology.

There was no significant difference between the dose groups with regard to any hospitalization (P = .46), hospitalization due to treatment-related adverse events (P = .55), dose interruption (P = .18), or treatment discontinuation due to treatment-related adverse events (P = .54).

However, the average number of dose reductions per patient was higher in the 20-mg group than in the 14-mg group – 1.1 and 0.4, respectively (P = .003).

The increased dose reductions with the higher starting dose were due mostly to gastrointestinal and hematologic adverse events as well as fatigue and anorexia, all of which were far more common in patients started at 20 mg.

Patients in the 14-mg group had a longer time to the first dose reduction or discontinuation due to toxicity – 107 days vs. 42 days in the 20-mg group (P = .001).

There was no significant difference in response rates between the 14-mg and 20-mg groups – 38.2% and 28.6%, respectively (P = .51) – and no significant difference in clinical benefit rates – 72.3% and 57.1%, respectively.

The median progression-free survival was 3.2 months in the 20-mg group and 5.5 months in the 14-mg group (P = .25). The median overall survival was 8.6 months and 10.3 months, respectively (P = .95).

Dr. How noted that this study was limited by its retrospective nature, and the small number of women started at 20 mg may have limited the ability to detect differences with a lower starting dose. Still, these results seem to support a starting dose of 14 mg, he concluded.

In a discussion after Dr. How’s presentation, panelist Judith Smith, PharmD, of UT Health in Houston, noted that her practice is starting women on lenvatinib at 12 mg per day.

“You can use the 14-mg convenience pack, but, from a cost perspective ... we have to be cognizant of the financial toxicity,” she said. “[Combining the] 10-mg and 4-mg tablets is going to be more expensive, so we’ve been using the 4-mg tablets [three per day] and starting at 12 mg.”

This study was funded by MD Anderson and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. How reported having no conflicts of interest. Dr. Aghajanian and Dr. Smith did not provide disclosures.

[email protected]