Women's Health

Bariatric surgery for obesity is associated with a reduced risk of developing breast cancer, new data suggest.

In a matched cohort study of more than 69,000 Canadian women, risk for incident breast cancer at 1 year was 40% higher among women who had not undergone bariatric surgery, compared with those who had. The risk remained elevated through 5 years of follow-up.

The findings were “definitely a bit surprising,” study author Aristithes G. Doumouras, MD, MPH, assistant professor of surgery at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., said in an interview. “The patients that underwent bariatric surgery had better cancer outcomes than patients who weighed less than they did, so it showed that there was more at play than just weight loss. This effect was durable [and] shows how powerful the surgery is, [as well as] the fact that we haven’t even explored all of its effects.”

The study was published online in JAMA Surgery.
 

Protective association

To determine whether there is a residual risk for breast cancer following bariatric surgery for obesity, the investigators analyzed clinical and administrative data collected between 2010 and 2016 in Ontario. They retrospectively matched women with obesity who underwent bariatric surgery with women without a history of bariatric surgery. Participants were matched by age and breast cancer screening status. Covariates included diabetes status, neighborhood income quintile, and measures of health care use. The population included 69,260 women (mean age, 45 years).

Among participants who underwent bariatric surgery for obesity, baseline body mass index was greater than 35 for those with related comorbid conditions, and BMI was greater than 40 for those without comorbid conditions. The investigators categorized nonsurgical control patients in accordance with the following four BMI categories: less than 25, 25-29, 30-34, and greater than or equal to 35. Each control group, as well as the surgical group, included 13,852 women.

Participants in the surgical group were followed for 5 years after bariatric surgery. Those in the nonsurgical group were followed for 5 years after the index date (that is, the date of BMI measurement).

In the overall population, 659 cases of breast cancer were diagnosed in the overall population (0.95%) during the study period. This total included 103 (0.74%) cancers in the surgical cohort; 128 (0.92%) in the group with BMI less than 25; 143 (1.03%) among those with BMI 25-29; 150 (1.08%) in the group with BMI 30-34; and 135 (0.97%) among those with BMI greater than or equal to 35.

Most cancers were stage I. There were 65 cases among those with BMI less than 25; 76 for those with BMI of 25-29; 65 for BMI of 30-34; 67 for BMI greater than or equal to 35, and 60 for the surgery group.

Most tumors were of medium grade and were estrogen receptor positive, progesterone receptor positive, and ERBB2 negative. No significant differences were observed across the groups for stage, grade, or hormone status.

There was an increased hazard for incident breast cancer in the nonsurgical group, compared with the postsurgical group after washout periods of 1 year (hazard ratio, 1.40), 2 years (HR, 1.31), and 5 years (HR, 1.38).

In a comparison of the postsurgical cohort with the nonsurgical cohort with BMI less than 25, the hazard of incident breast cancer was not significantly different for any of the washout periods, but there was a reduced hazard for incident breast cancer among postsurgical patients than among nonsurgical patients in all high BMI categories (BMI ≥ 25).

“Taken together, these results demonstrate that the protective association between substantial weight loss via bariatric surgery and breast cancer risk is sustained after 5 years following surgery and that it is associated with a baseline risk similar to that of women with BMI less than 25,” the investigators write.

Nevertheless, Dr. Doumouras said “the interaction between the surgery and individuals is poorly studied, and this level of personalized medicine is simply not there yet. We are working on developing a prospective cohort that has genetic, protein, and microbiome [data] to help answer these questions.”

There are not enough women in subpopulations such as BRCA carriers to study at this point, he added. “This is where more patients and time will really help the research process.”
 

A universal benefit?

“Although these findings are important overall for the general population at risk for breast cancer, we raise an important caveat: The benefit of surgical weight loss may not be universal,” write Justin B. Dimick, MD, MPH, surgical innovation editor for JAMA Surgery, and Melissa L. Pilewskie, MD, both of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, in an accompanying commentary.

“In addition to lifestyle factors, several nonmodifiable risk factors, such as a genetic predisposition, strong family history, personal history of a high-risk breast lesion, or history of chest wall radiation, impart significant elevation in risk, and the data remain mixed on the impact of weight loss for individuals in these high-risk cohorts,” they add.

“Further study to elucidate the underlying mechanism associated with obesity, weight loss, and breast cancer risk should help guide strategies for risk reduction that are specific to unique high-risk cohorts, because modifiable risk factors may not portend the same benefit among all groups.”

Commenting on the findings, Stephen Edge, MD, breast surgeon and vice president for system quality and outcomes at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, N.Y., said, “The importance of this study is that it shows that weight loss in midlife can reduce breast cancer risk back to or even below the risk of similar people who were not obese. This has major implications for counseling women.”

The investigators did not have information on the extent of weight loss with surgery or on which participants maintained the lower weight, Dr. Edge noted; “However, overall, most people who have weight reduction surgery have major weight loss.”

At this point, he said, “we can now tell women with obesity that in addition to the many other advantages of weight loss, their risk of getting breast cancer will also be reduced.”

The study was supported by the Ontario Bariatric Registry and ICES, which is funded by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ontario Ministry of Long-Term Care. Dr. Doumouras, Dr. Dimick, Dr. Pilewskie, and Dr. Edge reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Bariatric surgery for obesity is associated with a reduced risk of developing breast cancer, new data suggest.

In a matched cohort study of more than 69,000 Canadian women, risk for incident breast cancer at 1 year was 40% higher among women who had not undergone bariatric surgery, compared with those who had. The risk remained elevated through 5 years of follow-up.

The findings were “definitely a bit surprising,” study author Aristithes G. Doumouras, MD, MPH, assistant professor of surgery at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., said in an interview. “The patients that underwent bariatric surgery had better cancer outcomes than patients who weighed less than they did, so it showed that there was more at play than just weight loss. This effect was durable [and] shows how powerful the surgery is, [as well as] the fact that we haven’t even explored all of its effects.”

The study was published online in JAMA Surgery.
 

Protective association

To determine whether there is a residual risk for breast cancer following bariatric surgery for obesity, the investigators analyzed clinical and administrative data collected between 2010 and 2016 in Ontario. They retrospectively matched women with obesity who underwent bariatric surgery with women without a history of bariatric surgery. Participants were matched by age and breast cancer screening status. Covariates included diabetes status, neighborhood income quintile, and measures of health care use. The population included 69,260 women (mean age, 45 years).

Among participants who underwent bariatric surgery for obesity, baseline body mass index was greater than 35 for those with related comorbid conditions, and BMI was greater than 40 for those without comorbid conditions. The investigators categorized nonsurgical control patients in accordance with the following four BMI categories: less than 25, 25-29, 30-34, and greater than or equal to 35. Each control group, as well as the surgical group, included 13,852 women.

Participants in the surgical group were followed for 5 years after bariatric surgery. Those in the nonsurgical group were followed for 5 years after the index date (that is, the date of BMI measurement).

In the overall population, 659 cases of breast cancer were diagnosed in the overall population (0.95%) during the study period. This total included 103 (0.74%) cancers in the surgical cohort; 128 (0.92%) in the group with BMI less than 25; 143 (1.03%) among those with BMI 25-29; 150 (1.08%) in the group with BMI 30-34; and 135 (0.97%) among those with BMI greater than or equal to 35.

Most cancers were stage I. There were 65 cases among those with BMI less than 25; 76 for those with BMI of 25-29; 65 for BMI of 30-34; 67 for BMI greater than or equal to 35, and 60 for the surgery group.

Most tumors were of medium grade and were estrogen receptor positive, progesterone receptor positive, and ERBB2 negative. No significant differences were observed across the groups for stage, grade, or hormone status.

There was an increased hazard for incident breast cancer in the nonsurgical group, compared with the postsurgical group after washout periods of 1 year (hazard ratio, 1.40), 2 years (HR, 1.31), and 5 years (HR, 1.38).

In a comparison of the postsurgical cohort with the nonsurgical cohort with BMI less than 25, the hazard of incident breast cancer was not significantly different for any of the washout periods, but there was a reduced hazard for incident breast cancer among postsurgical patients than among nonsurgical patients in all high BMI categories (BMI ≥ 25).

“Taken together, these results demonstrate that the protective association between substantial weight loss via bariatric surgery and breast cancer risk is sustained after 5 years following surgery and that it is associated with a baseline risk similar to that of women with BMI less than 25,” the investigators write.

Nevertheless, Dr. Doumouras said “the interaction between the surgery and individuals is poorly studied, and this level of personalized medicine is simply not there yet. We are working on developing a prospective cohort that has genetic, protein, and microbiome [data] to help answer these questions.”

There are not enough women in subpopulations such as BRCA carriers to study at this point, he added. “This is where more patients and time will really help the research process.”
 

A universal benefit?

“Although these findings are important overall for the general population at risk for breast cancer, we raise an important caveat: The benefit of surgical weight loss may not be universal,” write Justin B. Dimick, MD, MPH, surgical innovation editor for JAMA Surgery, and Melissa L. Pilewskie, MD, both of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, in an accompanying commentary.

“In addition to lifestyle factors, several nonmodifiable risk factors, such as a genetic predisposition, strong family history, personal history of a high-risk breast lesion, or history of chest wall radiation, impart significant elevation in risk, and the data remain mixed on the impact of weight loss for individuals in these high-risk cohorts,” they add.

“Further study to elucidate the underlying mechanism associated with obesity, weight loss, and breast cancer risk should help guide strategies for risk reduction that are specific to unique high-risk cohorts, because modifiable risk factors may not portend the same benefit among all groups.”

Commenting on the findings, Stephen Edge, MD, breast surgeon and vice president for system quality and outcomes at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, N.Y., said, “The importance of this study is that it shows that weight loss in midlife can reduce breast cancer risk back to or even below the risk of similar people who were not obese. This has major implications for counseling women.”

The investigators did not have information on the extent of weight loss with surgery or on which participants maintained the lower weight, Dr. Edge noted; “However, overall, most people who have weight reduction surgery have major weight loss.”

At this point, he said, “we can now tell women with obesity that in addition to the many other advantages of weight loss, their risk of getting breast cancer will also be reduced.”

The study was supported by the Ontario Bariatric Registry and ICES, which is funded by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ontario Ministry of Long-Term Care. Dr. Doumouras, Dr. Dimick, Dr. Pilewskie, and Dr. Edge reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Bariatric surgery for obesity is associated with a reduced risk of developing breast cancer, new data suggest.

In a matched cohort study of more than 69,000 Canadian women, risk for incident breast cancer at 1 year was 40% higher among women who had not undergone bariatric surgery, compared with those who had. The risk remained elevated through 5 years of follow-up.

The findings were “definitely a bit surprising,” study author Aristithes G. Doumouras, MD, MPH, assistant professor of surgery at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., said in an interview. “The patients that underwent bariatric surgery had better cancer outcomes than patients who weighed less than they did, so it showed that there was more at play than just weight loss. This effect was durable [and] shows how powerful the surgery is, [as well as] the fact that we haven’t even explored all of its effects.”

The study was published online in JAMA Surgery.
 

Protective association

To determine whether there is a residual risk for breast cancer following bariatric surgery for obesity, the investigators analyzed clinical and administrative data collected between 2010 and 2016 in Ontario. They retrospectively matched women with obesity who underwent bariatric surgery with women without a history of bariatric surgery. Participants were matched by age and breast cancer screening status. Covariates included diabetes status, neighborhood income quintile, and measures of health care use. The population included 69,260 women (mean age, 45 years).

Among participants who underwent bariatric surgery for obesity, baseline body mass index was greater than 35 for those with related comorbid conditions, and BMI was greater than 40 for those without comorbid conditions. The investigators categorized nonsurgical control patients in accordance with the following four BMI categories: less than 25, 25-29, 30-34, and greater than or equal to 35. Each control group, as well as the surgical group, included 13,852 women.

Participants in the surgical group were followed for 5 years after bariatric surgery. Those in the nonsurgical group were followed for 5 years after the index date (that is, the date of BMI measurement).

In the overall population, 659 cases of breast cancer were diagnosed in the overall population (0.95%) during the study period. This total included 103 (0.74%) cancers in the surgical cohort; 128 (0.92%) in the group with BMI less than 25; 143 (1.03%) among those with BMI 25-29; 150 (1.08%) in the group with BMI 30-34; and 135 (0.97%) among those with BMI greater than or equal to 35.

Most cancers were stage I. There were 65 cases among those with BMI less than 25; 76 for those with BMI of 25-29; 65 for BMI of 30-34; 67 for BMI greater than or equal to 35, and 60 for the surgery group.

Most tumors were of medium grade and were estrogen receptor positive, progesterone receptor positive, and ERBB2 negative. No significant differences were observed across the groups for stage, grade, or hormone status.

There was an increased hazard for incident breast cancer in the nonsurgical group, compared with the postsurgical group after washout periods of 1 year (hazard ratio, 1.40), 2 years (HR, 1.31), and 5 years (HR, 1.38).

In a comparison of the postsurgical cohort with the nonsurgical cohort with BMI less than 25, the hazard of incident breast cancer was not significantly different for any of the washout periods, but there was a reduced hazard for incident breast cancer among postsurgical patients than among nonsurgical patients in all high BMI categories (BMI ≥ 25).

“Taken together, these results demonstrate that the protective association between substantial weight loss via bariatric surgery and breast cancer risk is sustained after 5 years following surgery and that it is associated with a baseline risk similar to that of women with BMI less than 25,” the investigators write.

Nevertheless, Dr. Doumouras said “the interaction between the surgery and individuals is poorly studied, and this level of personalized medicine is simply not there yet. We are working on developing a prospective cohort that has genetic, protein, and microbiome [data] to help answer these questions.”

There are not enough women in subpopulations such as BRCA carriers to study at this point, he added. “This is where more patients and time will really help the research process.”
 

A universal benefit?

“Although these findings are important overall for the general population at risk for breast cancer, we raise an important caveat: The benefit of surgical weight loss may not be universal,” write Justin B. Dimick, MD, MPH, surgical innovation editor for JAMA Surgery, and Melissa L. Pilewskie, MD, both of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, in an accompanying commentary.

“In addition to lifestyle factors, several nonmodifiable risk factors, such as a genetic predisposition, strong family history, personal history of a high-risk breast lesion, or history of chest wall radiation, impart significant elevation in risk, and the data remain mixed on the impact of weight loss for individuals in these high-risk cohorts,” they add.

“Further study to elucidate the underlying mechanism associated with obesity, weight loss, and breast cancer risk should help guide strategies for risk reduction that are specific to unique high-risk cohorts, because modifiable risk factors may not portend the same benefit among all groups.”

Commenting on the findings, Stephen Edge, MD, breast surgeon and vice president for system quality and outcomes at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, N.Y., said, “The importance of this study is that it shows that weight loss in midlife can reduce breast cancer risk back to or even below the risk of similar people who were not obese. This has major implications for counseling women.”

The investigators did not have information on the extent of weight loss with surgery or on which participants maintained the lower weight, Dr. Edge noted; “However, overall, most people who have weight reduction surgery have major weight loss.”

At this point, he said, “we can now tell women with obesity that in addition to the many other advantages of weight loss, their risk of getting breast cancer will also be reduced.”

The study was supported by the Ontario Bariatric Registry and ICES, which is funded by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ontario Ministry of Long-Term Care. Dr. Doumouras, Dr. Dimick, Dr. Pilewskie, and Dr. Edge reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Cooley JJ, Maguire FB, Morris CR, et al. Cervical cancer stage at diagnosis and survival among women ≥65 years in California. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2023;32:91-97. doi:10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-22-0793.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Cervical cancer screening guidelines recommend screening cessation at age 65 once specific exit criteria are met. (According to the American Cancer Society, individuals aged >65 years who have no history of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia [CIN] grade 2 or more severe disease within the past 25 years, and who have documented adequate negative prior screening in the prior 10 years, discontinue all cervical cancer screening.)¹ We know, however, that about one-fifth of all cervical cancer cases are diagnosed among individuals aged 65 or older, and for Black women that proportion is even higher when data are appropriately adjusted to account for the increased rate of hysterectomy among Black versus White women.^2-4

Early-stage cervical cancer is largely a curable disease with very high 5-year overall survival rates. Unfortunately, more than half of all cervical cancer is diagnosed at a more advanced stage, and survival rates are much lower for this population.⁵

Cervical cancer incidence rates plummeted in the United States after the introduction of the Pap test for cervical cancer screening. However, the percentage of women who are not up to date with cervical cancer screening may now be increasing, from 14% in 2005 to 23% in 2019 according to one study from the US Preventive Services Task Force.⁶ When looking at cervical cancer screening rates by age, researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate that the proportion of patients who have not been recently screened goes up as patients get older, with approximately 845,000 American women aged 61 to 65 not adequately screened in 2015 alone.⁷

Details of the study

Cooley and colleagues sought to better characterize the cohort of women diagnosed with cervical cancer at a later age, specifically the stage at diagnosis and survival.⁸ They used data from the California Cancer Registry (CCR), a large state-mandated, population-based data repository that is affiliated with the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program.

The researchers identified 12,442 womenin the CCR who were newly diagnosed with cervical cancer from 2009 to 2018, 17.4% of whom were age 65 or older. They looked at cancer stage at diagnosis as it relates to relative survival rate (“the ratio of the observed survival rate among those who have cancer divided by the expected survival rate for people of the same sex, race/ethnicity, and age who do not have cancer”), Charlson comorbidity score, socioeconomic status, health insurance status, urbanicity, and race/ethnicity.

Results. In this study, 71% of women aged 65 or older presented with advanced-stage disease (FIGO [International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics] stage II–IV) as compared with only 48% in those aged 21 to 64. Five-year relative survival rates also were lower in the older cohort—23% to 37%, compared with 42% to 52% in the younger patients. In a sensitivity analysis, late-stage disease was associated with older age, increasing medical comorbidities, and nonadenocarcinoma histology.

Interestingly, older women of Hispanic ethnicity were less likely to be diagnosed with late-stage disease when compared with non-Hispanic White women.

Study strengths and limitations

Although this study’s conclusions—that patients with advanced-stage cancer are more likely to do poorly than those with early-stage cancer—may seem obvious to some even without the proven data, it is still important to highlight what a clinician may intuit with data to support that intuition. It is particularly important to emphasize this risk in older women in light of the aging population in the United States, with adults older than age 65 expected to account for more than 20% of the nation’s population by 2030.⁹

The study by Cooley and colleagues adds value to the existing literature due to its large study population, which included more than 12,000 patients diagnosed with cervical cancer.⁸ And although its results may not be completely generalizable as the data were gathered from only a California-specific population, the sample was diverse with significant portions of Hispanic and Black patients. This study supports previous data that showed high rates of advanced cervical cancer in women older than age 65, with resultant worse 5-year relative survival in this population of older women specifically.⁴ ●

Cooley JJ, Maguire FB, Morris CR, et al. Cervical cancer stage at diagnosis and survival among women ≥65 years in California. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2023;32:91-97. doi:10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-22-0793.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Cervical cancer screening guidelines recommend screening cessation at age 65 once specific exit criteria are met. (According to the American Cancer Society, individuals aged >65 years who have no history of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia [CIN] grade 2 or more severe disease within the past 25 years, and who have documented adequate negative prior screening in the prior 10 years, discontinue all cervical cancer screening.)¹ We know, however, that about one-fifth of all cervical cancer cases are diagnosed among individuals aged 65 or older, and for Black women that proportion is even higher when data are appropriately adjusted to account for the increased rate of hysterectomy among Black versus White women.^2-4

Early-stage cervical cancer is largely a curable disease with very high 5-year overall survival rates. Unfortunately, more than half of all cervical cancer is diagnosed at a more advanced stage, and survival rates are much lower for this population.⁵

Cervical cancer incidence rates plummeted in the United States after the introduction of the Pap test for cervical cancer screening. However, the percentage of women who are not up to date with cervical cancer screening may now be increasing, from 14% in 2005 to 23% in 2019 according to one study from the US Preventive Services Task Force.⁶ When looking at cervical cancer screening rates by age, researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate that the proportion of patients who have not been recently screened goes up as patients get older, with approximately 845,000 American women aged 61 to 65 not adequately screened in 2015 alone.⁷

Details of the study

Cooley and colleagues sought to better characterize the cohort of women diagnosed with cervical cancer at a later age, specifically the stage at diagnosis and survival.⁸ They used data from the California Cancer Registry (CCR), a large state-mandated, population-based data repository that is affiliated with the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program.

The researchers identified 12,442 womenin the CCR who were newly diagnosed with cervical cancer from 2009 to 2018, 17.4% of whom were age 65 or older. They looked at cancer stage at diagnosis as it relates to relative survival rate (“the ratio of the observed survival rate among those who have cancer divided by the expected survival rate for people of the same sex, race/ethnicity, and age who do not have cancer”), Charlson comorbidity score, socioeconomic status, health insurance status, urbanicity, and race/ethnicity.

Results. In this study, 71% of women aged 65 or older presented with advanced-stage disease (FIGO [International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics] stage II–IV) as compared with only 48% in those aged 21 to 64. Five-year relative survival rates also were lower in the older cohort—23% to 37%, compared with 42% to 52% in the younger patients. In a sensitivity analysis, late-stage disease was associated with older age, increasing medical comorbidities, and nonadenocarcinoma histology.

Interestingly, older women of Hispanic ethnicity were less likely to be diagnosed with late-stage disease when compared with non-Hispanic White women.

Study strengths and limitations

Although this study’s conclusions—that patients with advanced-stage cancer are more likely to do poorly than those with early-stage cancer—may seem obvious to some even without the proven data, it is still important to highlight what a clinician may intuit with data to support that intuition. It is particularly important to emphasize this risk in older women in light of the aging population in the United States, with adults older than age 65 expected to account for more than 20% of the nation’s population by 2030.⁹

The study by Cooley and colleagues adds value to the existing literature due to its large study population, which included more than 12,000 patients diagnosed with cervical cancer.⁸ And although its results may not be completely generalizable as the data were gathered from only a California-specific population, the sample was diverse with significant portions of Hispanic and Black patients. This study supports previous data that showed high rates of advanced cervical cancer in women older than age 65, with resultant worse 5-year relative survival in this population of older women specifically.⁴ ●

Cooley JJ, Maguire FB, Morris CR, et al. Cervical cancer stage at diagnosis and survival among women ≥65 years in California. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2023;32:91-97. doi:10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-22-0793.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Cervical cancer screening guidelines recommend screening cessation at age 65 once specific exit criteria are met. (According to the American Cancer Society, individuals aged >65 years who have no history of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia [CIN] grade 2 or more severe disease within the past 25 years, and who have documented adequate negative prior screening in the prior 10 years, discontinue all cervical cancer screening.)¹ We know, however, that about one-fifth of all cervical cancer cases are diagnosed among individuals aged 65 or older, and for Black women that proportion is even higher when data are appropriately adjusted to account for the increased rate of hysterectomy among Black versus White women.^2-4

Early-stage cervical cancer is largely a curable disease with very high 5-year overall survival rates. Unfortunately, more than half of all cervical cancer is diagnosed at a more advanced stage, and survival rates are much lower for this population.⁵

Cervical cancer incidence rates plummeted in the United States after the introduction of the Pap test for cervical cancer screening. However, the percentage of women who are not up to date with cervical cancer screening may now be increasing, from 14% in 2005 to 23% in 2019 according to one study from the US Preventive Services Task Force.⁶ When looking at cervical cancer screening rates by age, researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate that the proportion of patients who have not been recently screened goes up as patients get older, with approximately 845,000 American women aged 61 to 65 not adequately screened in 2015 alone.⁷

Details of the study

Cooley and colleagues sought to better characterize the cohort of women diagnosed with cervical cancer at a later age, specifically the stage at diagnosis and survival.⁸ They used data from the California Cancer Registry (CCR), a large state-mandated, population-based data repository that is affiliated with the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program.

The researchers identified 12,442 womenin the CCR who were newly diagnosed with cervical cancer from 2009 to 2018, 17.4% of whom were age 65 or older. They looked at cancer stage at diagnosis as it relates to relative survival rate (“the ratio of the observed survival rate among those who have cancer divided by the expected survival rate for people of the same sex, race/ethnicity, and age who do not have cancer”), Charlson comorbidity score, socioeconomic status, health insurance status, urbanicity, and race/ethnicity.

Results. In this study, 71% of women aged 65 or older presented with advanced-stage disease (FIGO [International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics] stage II–IV) as compared with only 48% in those aged 21 to 64. Five-year relative survival rates also were lower in the older cohort—23% to 37%, compared with 42% to 52% in the younger patients. In a sensitivity analysis, late-stage disease was associated with older age, increasing medical comorbidities, and nonadenocarcinoma histology.

Interestingly, older women of Hispanic ethnicity were less likely to be diagnosed with late-stage disease when compared with non-Hispanic White women.

Study strengths and limitations

Although this study’s conclusions—that patients with advanced-stage cancer are more likely to do poorly than those with early-stage cancer—may seem obvious to some even without the proven data, it is still important to highlight what a clinician may intuit with data to support that intuition. It is particularly important to emphasize this risk in older women in light of the aging population in the United States, with adults older than age 65 expected to account for more than 20% of the nation’s population by 2030.⁹

The study by Cooley and colleagues adds value to the existing literature due to its large study population, which included more than 12,000 patients diagnosed with cervical cancer.⁸ And although its results may not be completely generalizable as the data were gathered from only a California-specific population, the sample was diverse with significant portions of Hispanic and Black patients. This study supports previous data that showed high rates of advanced cervical cancer in women older than age 65, with resultant worse 5-year relative survival in this population of older women specifically.⁴ ●

Evidence summary

Multiple analyses suggest HRT worsens rather than improves cognition

A 2017 Cochrane review of 22 randomized, double-blind studies compared use of HRT (estrogen only or combination estrogen + progesterone therapies) with placebo in postmenopausal women (N = 43,637). Age ranges varied, but the average age in most studies was > 60 years. Treatment duration was at least 1 year. Various outcomes were assessed across these 22 studies, including cardiovascular disease, bone health, and cognition.¹

Cognitive outcomes were assessed with the Mini-Mental Status Exam in 5 of the trials (N = 12,789). Data were not combined due to heterogeneity. The authors found no significant difference in cognitive scores between the treatment and control groups in any of these 5 studies.¹

In the largest included study, the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) Memory Study (N = 10,739), participants were older than 65 years. Among those receiving estrogen-only HRT, there were no statistically significant differences compared to those receiving placebo. However, healthy postmenopausal women taking combination HRT had an increased risk for “probable dementia” compared to those taking placebo (relative risk [RR] = 1.97; 95% CI, 1.16-3.33). When researchers looked exclusively at women taking HRT, the risk for dementia increased from 9 in 1000 to 18 in 1000 (95% CI, 11-30) after 4 years of HRT use. This results in a number needed to harm of 4 to 50 patients.¹

Two notable limitations of this evidence are that the average age of this population was > 60 years and 80% of the participants were White.¹

A 2021 meta-analysis of 23 RCTs (N = 13,683) studied the effect of HRT on global cognitive function as well as specific cognitive domains including memory, executive function, attention, and language. Mean patient age in the studies varied from 48 to 81 years. Nine of these studies were also included in the previously discussed Cochrane review.²

There was a statistically significant but small decrease in overall global cognition (10 trials; N = 12,115; standardized mean difference [SMD] = –0.04; 95% CI, –0.08 to –0.01) in those receiving HRT compared to placebo. This effect was slightly more pronounced among those who initiated HRT at age > 60 years (8 trials; N = 11,914; SMD = –0.05; 95% CI, –0.08 to –0.01) and among patients with HRT duration > 6 months (7 trials; N = 11,828; SMD = –0.05; 95% CI, –0.08 to –0.01). There were no significant differences in specific cognitive domains.²

In a 2017 follow-up to the WHI trial, researchers analyzed data on long-term cognitive effects in women previously treated with HRT. There were 2 cohorts: participants who initiated HRT at a younger age (50-54; N = 1376) and those who initiated HRT later in life (age 65-79; N = 2880). Cognitive outcomes were assessed using the Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status-modified, with interviews conducted annually beginning 6 to 7 years after HRT was stopped.³

The investigators found no significant change in composite cognitive function in the younger HRT-treated group compared to placebo (estrogen alone: mean deviation [MD] = 0.014; 95% CI, –0.097 to 0.126; estrogen + progesterone: MD = –0.047; 95% CI, –0.134 to 0.04), or in the group who initiated HRT at an older age (estrogen alone: MD = –0.099; 95% CI, –0.202 to 0.004; estrogen + progesterone: MD = –0.022; 95% CI, –0.099 to 0.055). The authors state that although the data did not reach significance, this study also found a trend toward decreases in global cognitive function in the older age group.³

Editor’s takeaway

Abundant, consistent evidence with long-term follow-up shows postmenopausal HRT does not reduce cognitive decline. In fact, it appears to increase cognitive decline slightly. Renewed interest in postmenopausal HRT to alleviate menopausal symptoms should balance the risks and benefits to the individual patient.

Evidence summary

Multiple analyses suggest HRT worsens rather than improves cognition

A 2017 Cochrane review of 22 randomized, double-blind studies compared use of HRT (estrogen only or combination estrogen + progesterone therapies) with placebo in postmenopausal women (N = 43,637). Age ranges varied, but the average age in most studies was > 60 years. Treatment duration was at least 1 year. Various outcomes were assessed across these 22 studies, including cardiovascular disease, bone health, and cognition.¹

Cognitive outcomes were assessed with the Mini-Mental Status Exam in 5 of the trials (N = 12,789). Data were not combined due to heterogeneity. The authors found no significant difference in cognitive scores between the treatment and control groups in any of these 5 studies.¹

In the largest included study, the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) Memory Study (N = 10,739), participants were older than 65 years. Among those receiving estrogen-only HRT, there were no statistically significant differences compared to those receiving placebo. However, healthy postmenopausal women taking combination HRT had an increased risk for “probable dementia” compared to those taking placebo (relative risk [RR] = 1.97; 95% CI, 1.16-3.33). When researchers looked exclusively at women taking HRT, the risk for dementia increased from 9 in 1000 to 18 in 1000 (95% CI, 11-30) after 4 years of HRT use. This results in a number needed to harm of 4 to 50 patients.¹

Two notable limitations of this evidence are that the average age of this population was > 60 years and 80% of the participants were White.¹

A 2021 meta-analysis of 23 RCTs (N = 13,683) studied the effect of HRT on global cognitive function as well as specific cognitive domains including memory, executive function, attention, and language. Mean patient age in the studies varied from 48 to 81 years. Nine of these studies were also included in the previously discussed Cochrane review.²

There was a statistically significant but small decrease in overall global cognition (10 trials; N = 12,115; standardized mean difference [SMD] = –0.04; 95% CI, –0.08 to –0.01) in those receiving HRT compared to placebo. This effect was slightly more pronounced among those who initiated HRT at age > 60 years (8 trials; N = 11,914; SMD = –0.05; 95% CI, –0.08 to –0.01) and among patients with HRT duration > 6 months (7 trials; N = 11,828; SMD = –0.05; 95% CI, –0.08 to –0.01). There were no significant differences in specific cognitive domains.²

In a 2017 follow-up to the WHI trial, researchers analyzed data on long-term cognitive effects in women previously treated with HRT. There were 2 cohorts: participants who initiated HRT at a younger age (50-54; N = 1376) and those who initiated HRT later in life (age 65-79; N = 2880). Cognitive outcomes were assessed using the Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status-modified, with interviews conducted annually beginning 6 to 7 years after HRT was stopped.³

The investigators found no significant change in composite cognitive function in the younger HRT-treated group compared to placebo (estrogen alone: mean deviation [MD] = 0.014; 95% CI, –0.097 to 0.126; estrogen + progesterone: MD = –0.047; 95% CI, –0.134 to 0.04), or in the group who initiated HRT at an older age (estrogen alone: MD = –0.099; 95% CI, –0.202 to 0.004; estrogen + progesterone: MD = –0.022; 95% CI, –0.099 to 0.055). The authors state that although the data did not reach significance, this study also found a trend toward decreases in global cognitive function in the older age group.³

Editor’s takeaway

Abundant, consistent evidence with long-term follow-up shows postmenopausal HRT does not reduce cognitive decline. In fact, it appears to increase cognitive decline slightly. Renewed interest in postmenopausal HRT to alleviate menopausal symptoms should balance the risks and benefits to the individual patient.

Evidence summary

Multiple analyses suggest HRT worsens rather than improves cognition

A 2017 Cochrane review of 22 randomized, double-blind studies compared use of HRT (estrogen only or combination estrogen + progesterone therapies) with placebo in postmenopausal women (N = 43,637). Age ranges varied, but the average age in most studies was > 60 years. Treatment duration was at least 1 year. Various outcomes were assessed across these 22 studies, including cardiovascular disease, bone health, and cognition.¹

Cognitive outcomes were assessed with the Mini-Mental Status Exam in 5 of the trials (N = 12,789). Data were not combined due to heterogeneity. The authors found no significant difference in cognitive scores between the treatment and control groups in any of these 5 studies.¹

In the largest included study, the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) Memory Study (N = 10,739), participants were older than 65 years. Among those receiving estrogen-only HRT, there were no statistically significant differences compared to those receiving placebo. However, healthy postmenopausal women taking combination HRT had an increased risk for “probable dementia” compared to those taking placebo (relative risk [RR] = 1.97; 95% CI, 1.16-3.33). When researchers looked exclusively at women taking HRT, the risk for dementia increased from 9 in 1000 to 18 in 1000 (95% CI, 11-30) after 4 years of HRT use. This results in a number needed to harm of 4 to 50 patients.¹

Two notable limitations of this evidence are that the average age of this population was > 60 years and 80% of the participants were White.¹

A 2021 meta-analysis of 23 RCTs (N = 13,683) studied the effect of HRT on global cognitive function as well as specific cognitive domains including memory, executive function, attention, and language. Mean patient age in the studies varied from 48 to 81 years. Nine of these studies were also included in the previously discussed Cochrane review.²

There was a statistically significant but small decrease in overall global cognition (10 trials; N = 12,115; standardized mean difference [SMD] = –0.04; 95% CI, –0.08 to –0.01) in those receiving HRT compared to placebo. This effect was slightly more pronounced among those who initiated HRT at age > 60 years (8 trials; N = 11,914; SMD = –0.05; 95% CI, –0.08 to –0.01) and among patients with HRT duration > 6 months (7 trials; N = 11,828; SMD = –0.05; 95% CI, –0.08 to –0.01). There were no significant differences in specific cognitive domains.²

In a 2017 follow-up to the WHI trial, researchers analyzed data on long-term cognitive effects in women previously treated with HRT. There were 2 cohorts: participants who initiated HRT at a younger age (50-54; N = 1376) and those who initiated HRT later in life (age 65-79; N = 2880). Cognitive outcomes were assessed using the Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status-modified, with interviews conducted annually beginning 6 to 7 years after HRT was stopped.³

The investigators found no significant change in composite cognitive function in the younger HRT-treated group compared to placebo (estrogen alone: mean deviation [MD] = 0.014; 95% CI, –0.097 to 0.126; estrogen + progesterone: MD = –0.047; 95% CI, –0.134 to 0.04), or in the group who initiated HRT at an older age (estrogen alone: MD = –0.099; 95% CI, –0.202 to 0.004; estrogen + progesterone: MD = –0.022; 95% CI, –0.099 to 0.055). The authors state that although the data did not reach significance, this study also found a trend toward decreases in global cognitive function in the older age group.³

Editor’s takeaway

Abundant, consistent evidence with long-term follow-up shows postmenopausal HRT does not reduce cognitive decline. In fact, it appears to increase cognitive decline slightly. Renewed interest in postmenopausal HRT to alleviate menopausal symptoms should balance the risks and benefits to the individual patient.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the oral medication fezolinetant (Veozah) for the treatment of moderate to severe hot flashes in menopausal women, according to an FDA statement. The approved dose is 45 mg once daily.

Fezolinetant, a neurokinin 3 (NK3) receptor antagonist, is the first drug of its kind to earn FDA approval for the vasomotor symptoms associated with menopause, according to the statement. The drug works by binding to the NK3 receptor, which plays a role in regulating body temperature, and blocking its activity. Fezolinetant is not a hormone, and can be taken by women for whom hormones are contraindicated, such as those with a history of vaginal bleeding, stroke, heart attack, blood clots, or liver disease, the FDA stated.

The approval was based on data from the SKYLIGHT 2 trial, results of which were presented at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society, reported by this news organization, and published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism.

In the two-phase trial, women were randomized to 30 mg or 45 mg of fezolinetant or a placebo. After 12 weeks, women in placebo groups were rerandomized to fezolinetant for a 40-week safety study.

The study population included women aged 40-65 years, with an average minimum of seven moderate-to-severe hot flashes per day. The study included 120 sites in North America and Europe.

At 12 weeks, both placebo and fezolinetant patients experienced reductions in moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms of approximately 60%, as well as a significant decrease in vasomotor symptom severity.

The FDA statement noted that patients should undergo baseline blood work before starting fezolinetant to test for liver infection or damage, and the prescribing information includes a warning for liver injury; blood work should be repeated at 3, 6, and 9 months after starting the medication, according to the FDA and a press release from the manufacturer Astellas.

The most common side effects associated with fezolinetant include abdominal pain, diarrhea, insomnia, back pain, hot flashes, and elevated liver values, according to the FDA statement. The FDA granted Astellas Pharma’s application a Priority Review designation. Astellas has priced the drug at $550 for a 30-day supply, significantly higher than the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review’s previously recommended range of $2,000 to $2,500 per year.

Full prescribing information is available here.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the oral medication fezolinetant (Veozah) for the treatment of moderate to severe hot flashes in menopausal women, according to an FDA statement. The approved dose is 45 mg once daily.

Fezolinetant, a neurokinin 3 (NK3) receptor antagonist, is the first drug of its kind to earn FDA approval for the vasomotor symptoms associated with menopause, according to the statement. The drug works by binding to the NK3 receptor, which plays a role in regulating body temperature, and blocking its activity. Fezolinetant is not a hormone, and can be taken by women for whom hormones are contraindicated, such as those with a history of vaginal bleeding, stroke, heart attack, blood clots, or liver disease, the FDA stated.

The approval was based on data from the SKYLIGHT 2 trial, results of which were presented at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society, reported by this news organization, and published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism.

In the two-phase trial, women were randomized to 30 mg or 45 mg of fezolinetant or a placebo. After 12 weeks, women in placebo groups were rerandomized to fezolinetant for a 40-week safety study.

The study population included women aged 40-65 years, with an average minimum of seven moderate-to-severe hot flashes per day. The study included 120 sites in North America and Europe.

At 12 weeks, both placebo and fezolinetant patients experienced reductions in moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms of approximately 60%, as well as a significant decrease in vasomotor symptom severity.

The FDA statement noted that patients should undergo baseline blood work before starting fezolinetant to test for liver infection or damage, and the prescribing information includes a warning for liver injury; blood work should be repeated at 3, 6, and 9 months after starting the medication, according to the FDA and a press release from the manufacturer Astellas.

The most common side effects associated with fezolinetant include abdominal pain, diarrhea, insomnia, back pain, hot flashes, and elevated liver values, according to the FDA statement. The FDA granted Astellas Pharma’s application a Priority Review designation. Astellas has priced the drug at $550 for a 30-day supply, significantly higher than the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review’s previously recommended range of $2,000 to $2,500 per year.

Full prescribing information is available here.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the oral medication fezolinetant (Veozah) for the treatment of moderate to severe hot flashes in menopausal women, according to an FDA statement. The approved dose is 45 mg once daily.

Fezolinetant, a neurokinin 3 (NK3) receptor antagonist, is the first drug of its kind to earn FDA approval for the vasomotor symptoms associated with menopause, according to the statement. The drug works by binding to the NK3 receptor, which plays a role in regulating body temperature, and blocking its activity. Fezolinetant is not a hormone, and can be taken by women for whom hormones are contraindicated, such as those with a history of vaginal bleeding, stroke, heart attack, blood clots, or liver disease, the FDA stated.

The approval was based on data from the SKYLIGHT 2 trial, results of which were presented at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society, reported by this news organization, and published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism.

In the two-phase trial, women were randomized to 30 mg or 45 mg of fezolinetant or a placebo. After 12 weeks, women in placebo groups were rerandomized to fezolinetant for a 40-week safety study.

The study population included women aged 40-65 years, with an average minimum of seven moderate-to-severe hot flashes per day. The study included 120 sites in North America and Europe.

At 12 weeks, both placebo and fezolinetant patients experienced reductions in moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms of approximately 60%, as well as a significant decrease in vasomotor symptom severity.

The FDA statement noted that patients should undergo baseline blood work before starting fezolinetant to test for liver infection or damage, and the prescribing information includes a warning for liver injury; blood work should be repeated at 3, 6, and 9 months after starting the medication, according to the FDA and a press release from the manufacturer Astellas.

The most common side effects associated with fezolinetant include abdominal pain, diarrhea, insomnia, back pain, hot flashes, and elevated liver values, according to the FDA statement. The FDA granted Astellas Pharma’s application a Priority Review designation. Astellas has priced the drug at $550 for a 30-day supply, significantly higher than the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review’s previously recommended range of $2,000 to $2,500 per year.

Full prescribing information is available here.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 32-year-old primigravida at 10 weeks’ gestation presents for an initial prenatal visit. Medical history includes hypertension that is currently well controlled on labetalol 200 mg twice daily. The patient’s blood pressure (BP) at today’s visit is 125/80 mm Hg. Should labetalol be discontinued?

Chronic hypertension in pregnancy is hypertension that predates the pregnancy or with onset prior to 20 weeks’ gestation. Diagnostic criteria include systolic BP > 140 mm Hg or diastolic BP > 90 mm Hg, use of antihypertensive medications prior to pregnancy, or pregnancy-related hypertension persisting > 12 weeks postpartum.^2,3 Chronic hypertension affects 0.9% to 5% of pregnancies and is associated with increased risk for complications, such as superimposed preeclampsia, small-for-gestational-age infant, preterm birth, cesarean delivery, and neonatal intensive care unit admission.⁴ Superimposed preeclampsia occurs in about 17% to 25% of pregnancies affected by chronic hypertension, compared with 3% to 5% of the general population.³

Historically, a higher treatment threshold of 160/110 mm Hg was preferred to avoid theoretical complications of low placental perfusion.² Practically, this often meant discontinuing antihypertensives at the onset of prenatal care if BP was well controlled. A few small trials previously demonstrated that tight BP goals reduced the risk for severe hypertension, but they did not show an improvement in pregnancy outcomes.^5-7 This larger RCT evaluated whether treatment of mild chronic hypertension in pregnancy at lower BP thresholds is associated with improved pregnancy outcomes without negative impact on fetal growth.

STUDY SUMMARY

Active BP treatment yielded better pregnancy outcomes

In a US multicenter, open-label RCT, 2419 pregnant patients with chronic hypertension and singleton fetuses at gestational age < 23 weeks were randomized to receive either active pharmacologic treatment with a BP goal of 140/90 mm Hg or standard treatment, in which BP medication was withheld unless BP reached 160/105 mm Hg (severe hypertension). If medication was initiated in the standard-treatment group, the goal was also 140/90 mm Hg. Exclusion criteria included severe hypertension or suspected intrauterine growth restriction at randomization, known secondary hypertension, certain high-risk comorbidities (eg, cardiac or renal disease), or a major fetal anomaly.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Maternal– Fetal Medicine have issued statements recommending a change in practice based on this trial.

First-line medications were labetalol or extended-release nifedipine in the majority of patients in the active-treatment group and in standard-treatment patients who developed severe hypertension. Patients were followed until 6 weeks after delivery. Intention­-to-treat analyses were performed. The primary outcome was a composite of fetal or neonatal death before 28 days of life, superimposed preeclampsia with severe features up to 2 weeks postpartum, placental abruption leading to delivery, and medically indicated preterm birth before 35 weeks’ gestation. Safety outcomes included birthweight < 10th and < 5th percentile for gestational age.

Primary outcome events occurred in 30.2% of the active-treatment group compared with 37% of the standard-treatment group (adjusted risk ratio [aRR] = 0.82; 95% CI, 0.74-0.92; number needed to treat [NNT] = 15). Preeclampsia with severe features (23.3% vs 29.1%; aRR = 0.80; 95% CI, 0.70-0.92) and medically indicated preterm birth before 35 weeks (12.2% vs 16.7%; aRR = 0.73; 95% CI, 0.6-0.89) occurred less often in the active-treatment group compared with the standard-treatment group. There were no differences in rates of placental abruption, fetal or neonatal death, or small-for-gestational-age infants.

WHAT’S NEW

Target BP of < 140/90 mm Hg reduced risk

This trial provides high-quality evidence that initiating or maintaining treatment at a nonsevere BP threshold (< 140/90 mm Hg) in pregnant patients with mild chronic hypertension reduces maternal and neonatal risk without increasing the risk for small-for-­gestational-age infants. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Maternal–Fetal Medicine have issued statements recommending a change in practice based on this trial.^8,9

Continue to: CAVEATS

 

 

CAVEATS

Patient characteristics and medication choices were limited

This trial does not identify a BP goal for patients who are at highest risk for complications of hypertension or who already have been given a diagnosis of a growth-restricted fetus, as those patients were excluded.

Most patients in the trial who required medications received labetalol or extended-­release nifedipine. It is unclear if other medications would produce similar outcomes.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Limited challenges anticipated

There should be limited challenges to implementation.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 32-year-old primigravida at 10 weeks’ gestation presents for an initial prenatal visit. Medical history includes hypertension that is currently well controlled on labetalol 200 mg twice daily. The patient’s blood pressure (BP) at today’s visit is 125/80 mm Hg. Should labetalol be discontinued?

Chronic hypertension in pregnancy is hypertension that predates the pregnancy or with onset prior to 20 weeks’ gestation. Diagnostic criteria include systolic BP > 140 mm Hg or diastolic BP > 90 mm Hg, use of antihypertensive medications prior to pregnancy, or pregnancy-related hypertension persisting > 12 weeks postpartum.^2,3 Chronic hypertension affects 0.9% to 5% of pregnancies and is associated with increased risk for complications, such as superimposed preeclampsia, small-for-gestational-age infant, preterm birth, cesarean delivery, and neonatal intensive care unit admission.⁴ Superimposed preeclampsia occurs in about 17% to 25% of pregnancies affected by chronic hypertension, compared with 3% to 5% of the general population.³

Historically, a higher treatment threshold of 160/110 mm Hg was preferred to avoid theoretical complications of low placental perfusion.² Practically, this often meant discontinuing antihypertensives at the onset of prenatal care if BP was well controlled. A few small trials previously demonstrated that tight BP goals reduced the risk for severe hypertension, but they did not show an improvement in pregnancy outcomes.^5-7 This larger RCT evaluated whether treatment of mild chronic hypertension in pregnancy at lower BP thresholds is associated with improved pregnancy outcomes without negative impact on fetal growth.

STUDY SUMMARY

Active BP treatment yielded better pregnancy outcomes

In a US multicenter, open-label RCT, 2419 pregnant patients with chronic hypertension and singleton fetuses at gestational age < 23 weeks were randomized to receive either active pharmacologic treatment with a BP goal of 140/90 mm Hg or standard treatment, in which BP medication was withheld unless BP reached 160/105 mm Hg (severe hypertension). If medication was initiated in the standard-treatment group, the goal was also 140/90 mm Hg. Exclusion criteria included severe hypertension or suspected intrauterine growth restriction at randomization, known secondary hypertension, certain high-risk comorbidities (eg, cardiac or renal disease), or a major fetal anomaly.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Maternal– Fetal Medicine have issued statements recommending a change in practice based on this trial.

First-line medications were labetalol or extended-release nifedipine in the majority of patients in the active-treatment group and in standard-treatment patients who developed severe hypertension. Patients were followed until 6 weeks after delivery. Intention­-to-treat analyses were performed. The primary outcome was a composite of fetal or neonatal death before 28 days of life, superimposed preeclampsia with severe features up to 2 weeks postpartum, placental abruption leading to delivery, and medically indicated preterm birth before 35 weeks’ gestation. Safety outcomes included birthweight < 10th and < 5th percentile for gestational age.

Primary outcome events occurred in 30.2% of the active-treatment group compared with 37% of the standard-treatment group (adjusted risk ratio [aRR] = 0.82; 95% CI, 0.74-0.92; number needed to treat [NNT] = 15). Preeclampsia with severe features (23.3% vs 29.1%; aRR = 0.80; 95% CI, 0.70-0.92) and medically indicated preterm birth before 35 weeks (12.2% vs 16.7%; aRR = 0.73; 95% CI, 0.6-0.89) occurred less often in the active-treatment group compared with the standard-treatment group. There were no differences in rates of placental abruption, fetal or neonatal death, or small-for-gestational-age infants.

WHAT’S NEW

Target BP of < 140/90 mm Hg reduced risk

This trial provides high-quality evidence that initiating or maintaining treatment at a nonsevere BP threshold (< 140/90 mm Hg) in pregnant patients with mild chronic hypertension reduces maternal and neonatal risk without increasing the risk for small-for-­gestational-age infants. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Maternal–Fetal Medicine have issued statements recommending a change in practice based on this trial.^8,9

Continue to: CAVEATS

 

 

CAVEATS

Patient characteristics and medication choices were limited

This trial does not identify a BP goal for patients who are at highest risk for complications of hypertension or who already have been given a diagnosis of a growth-restricted fetus, as those patients were excluded.

Most patients in the trial who required medications received labetalol or extended-­release nifedipine. It is unclear if other medications would produce similar outcomes.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Limited challenges anticipated

There should be limited challenges to implementation.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 32-year-old primigravida at 10 weeks’ gestation presents for an initial prenatal visit. Medical history includes hypertension that is currently well controlled on labetalol 200 mg twice daily. The patient’s blood pressure (BP) at today’s visit is 125/80 mm Hg. Should labetalol be discontinued?

Chronic hypertension in pregnancy is hypertension that predates the pregnancy or with onset prior to 20 weeks’ gestation. Diagnostic criteria include systolic BP > 140 mm Hg or diastolic BP > 90 mm Hg, use of antihypertensive medications prior to pregnancy, or pregnancy-related hypertension persisting > 12 weeks postpartum.^2,3 Chronic hypertension affects 0.9% to 5% of pregnancies and is associated with increased risk for complications, such as superimposed preeclampsia, small-for-gestational-age infant, preterm birth, cesarean delivery, and neonatal intensive care unit admission.⁴ Superimposed preeclampsia occurs in about 17% to 25% of pregnancies affected by chronic hypertension, compared with 3% to 5% of the general population.³

Historically, a higher treatment threshold of 160/110 mm Hg was preferred to avoid theoretical complications of low placental perfusion.² Practically, this often meant discontinuing antihypertensives at the onset of prenatal care if BP was well controlled. A few small trials previously demonstrated that tight BP goals reduced the risk for severe hypertension, but they did not show an improvement in pregnancy outcomes.^5-7 This larger RCT evaluated whether treatment of mild chronic hypertension in pregnancy at lower BP thresholds is associated with improved pregnancy outcomes without negative impact on fetal growth.

STUDY SUMMARY

Active BP treatment yielded better pregnancy outcomes

In a US multicenter, open-label RCT, 2419 pregnant patients with chronic hypertension and singleton fetuses at gestational age < 23 weeks were randomized to receive either active pharmacologic treatment with a BP goal of 140/90 mm Hg or standard treatment, in which BP medication was withheld unless BP reached 160/105 mm Hg (severe hypertension). If medication was initiated in the standard-treatment group, the goal was also 140/90 mm Hg. Exclusion criteria included severe hypertension or suspected intrauterine growth restriction at randomization, known secondary hypertension, certain high-risk comorbidities (eg, cardiac or renal disease), or a major fetal anomaly.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Maternal– Fetal Medicine have issued statements recommending a change in practice based on this trial.

First-line medications were labetalol or extended-release nifedipine in the majority of patients in the active-treatment group and in standard-treatment patients who developed severe hypertension. Patients were followed until 6 weeks after delivery. Intention­-to-treat analyses were performed. The primary outcome was a composite of fetal or neonatal death before 28 days of life, superimposed preeclampsia with severe features up to 2 weeks postpartum, placental abruption leading to delivery, and medically indicated preterm birth before 35 weeks’ gestation. Safety outcomes included birthweight < 10th and < 5th percentile for gestational age.

Primary outcome events occurred in 30.2% of the active-treatment group compared with 37% of the standard-treatment group (adjusted risk ratio [aRR] = 0.82; 95% CI, 0.74-0.92; number needed to treat [NNT] = 15). Preeclampsia with severe features (23.3% vs 29.1%; aRR = 0.80; 95% CI, 0.70-0.92) and medically indicated preterm birth before 35 weeks (12.2% vs 16.7%; aRR = 0.73; 95% CI, 0.6-0.89) occurred less often in the active-treatment group compared with the standard-treatment group. There were no differences in rates of placental abruption, fetal or neonatal death, or small-for-gestational-age infants.

WHAT’S NEW

Target BP of < 140/90 mm Hg reduced risk

This trial provides high-quality evidence that initiating or maintaining treatment at a nonsevere BP threshold (< 140/90 mm Hg) in pregnant patients with mild chronic hypertension reduces maternal and neonatal risk without increasing the risk for small-for-­gestational-age infants. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Maternal–Fetal Medicine have issued statements recommending a change in practice based on this trial.^8,9

Continue to: CAVEATS

 

 

CAVEATS

Patient characteristics and medication choices were limited

This trial does not identify a BP goal for patients who are at highest risk for complications of hypertension or who already have been given a diagnosis of a growth-restricted fetus, as those patients were excluded.

Most patients in the trial who required medications received labetalol or extended-­release nifedipine. It is unclear if other medications would produce similar outcomes.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Limited challenges anticipated

There should be limited challenges to implementation.

In postmenopausal women with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer, overweight and obesity were overall predictors of lower disease-free survival, but body mass index had no apparent association with the effect of extended endocrine therapy on disease-free survival, new data suggest.

Obesity is a well-known risk factor for breast cancer in postmenopausal women and has been associated with adverse prognosis, said Senna W.M. Lammers, MD, of Maastricht (the Netherlands) University during a presentation at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Breast Cancer annual congress. In addition, some studies suggest that patients with higher body mass index (BMI) experience reduced benefits from endocrine therapy, she said.

Dr. Lammers and colleagues conducted a study to determine the prognostic and predictive effect of BMI on disease-free survival in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor–positive (HR+) breast cancer who were treated with extended endocrine therapy.

The study population included participants in the randomized, phase III DATA trial, which evaluated the use of 6 years vs. 3 years of anastrozole in postmenopausal women with HR+ breast cancer who were disease-free after 2-3 years of adjuvant tamoxifen therapy.

Patients were categorized based on BMI as having normal weight (18.5-24.9 kg/m²), overweight (25-29.9 kg/m²), or obese (30 kg/m² or higher). The primary outcome was disease-free survival (DFS); the median follow-up period was 13.1 years.

DFS for patients with normal weight, overweight, and obesity was 66.2%, 59.5%, and 52.4%, with a P value of less than .001 for the trend, Dr. Lammers said. “These results were confirmed in multivariable analysis,” she said. Overall, patients with overweight and obesity had a worse DFS when compared with patients with normal weight (hazard ratio, 1.16; P = .10, for patients with overweight and HR, 1.26; P = .03 for patients with obesity).

“Next, we aimed to determine whether the prognostic effect of BMI differed by age,” Dr. Lammers said.

In women younger than 60 years, overweight and obesity were significantly associated with worse DFS (HR, 1.29; P = .05 and HR 1.83, P less than .001, respectively). However, this effect was not observed in women aged 60 years and older.

The researchers also examined the treatment effect of extended anastrozole on adapted DFS by weight, and found no significant differences among patients with normal weight, overweight, and obesity (HR, 1.00; HR, 0.74; and HR, 0.97, respectively), said Dr. Lammers.

In the question and answer session, Dr. Lammers was asked about possible explanations for the difference in DFS by age. Potential explanations include possible survival bias “as only the healthier [patients with obesity] survive to old age,” she said. Other potential explanations are biological, such as the potentially higher levels of bone density in older [patients with obesity], she said.

When asked about additional clinical implications, Dr. Lammers emphasized the importance of maintaining a healthy BMI for breast cancer patients of all ages. Other research areas might involve the use of lifestyle interventions, although these are challenging to implement, she noted.
 

Data draw attention to quality of life and lifestyle factors

The need to “look at drug development with new eyes” is particularly important when reviewing patient-reported outcomes, said Otto Metzger, MD, of the Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, who served as the discussant for the session.

Dr. Metzger brought up the association between age and the effect of BMI on DFS, specifically.

Based on data from multiple studies and meta-analyses, “I do believe that obesity does play a role in prognosis,” he said, but the question is how long will researchers continue to simply record data without acting to add lifestyle interventions while also trying to develop new drugs, he said. Although convincing patients to make lifestyle changes remains a challenge, patients are often more motivated to make such changes after a cancer diagnosis, Dr. Metzger noted.

“I am a firm believer in the use of digital therapeutics in the context of clinical trials,” said Dr. Metzger. Digital technology offers great potential to educate patients on [adverse effects] and also to improve treatment adherence and quality of life, he concluded.

The study was supported by AstraZeneca, and Dr. Lammers disclosed financial relationships with AstraZeneca and Eli Lilly. Dr. Metzger disclosed receiving research funding to his institution from Pfizer, Genentech/Roche, and Sanofi, and serving as an adviser/consultant to AstraZeneca, Merck, Oncoclinicas, Resilience, and Roche.

In postmenopausal women with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer, overweight and obesity were overall predictors of lower disease-free survival, but body mass index had no apparent association with the effect of extended endocrine therapy on disease-free survival, new data suggest.

Obesity is a well-known risk factor for breast cancer in postmenopausal women and has been associated with adverse prognosis, said Senna W.M. Lammers, MD, of Maastricht (the Netherlands) University during a presentation at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Breast Cancer annual congress. In addition, some studies suggest that patients with higher body mass index (BMI) experience reduced benefits from endocrine therapy, she said.

Dr. Lammers and colleagues conducted a study to determine the prognostic and predictive effect of BMI on disease-free survival in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor–positive (HR+) breast cancer who were treated with extended endocrine therapy.

The study population included participants in the randomized, phase III DATA trial, which evaluated the use of 6 years vs. 3 years of anastrozole in postmenopausal women with HR+ breast cancer who were disease-free after 2-3 years of adjuvant tamoxifen therapy.

Patients were categorized based on BMI as having normal weight (18.5-24.9 kg/m²), overweight (25-29.9 kg/m²), or obese (30 kg/m² or higher). The primary outcome was disease-free survival (DFS); the median follow-up period was 13.1 years.

DFS for patients with normal weight, overweight, and obesity was 66.2%, 59.5%, and 52.4%, with a P value of less than .001 for the trend, Dr. Lammers said. “These results were confirmed in multivariable analysis,” she said. Overall, patients with overweight and obesity had a worse DFS when compared with patients with normal weight (hazard ratio, 1.16; P = .10, for patients with overweight and HR, 1.26; P = .03 for patients with obesity).

“Next, we aimed to determine whether the prognostic effect of BMI differed by age,” Dr. Lammers said.

In women younger than 60 years, overweight and obesity were significantly associated with worse DFS (HR, 1.29; P = .05 and HR 1.83, P less than .001, respectively). However, this effect was not observed in women aged 60 years and older.

The researchers also examined the treatment effect of extended anastrozole on adapted DFS by weight, and found no significant differences among patients with normal weight, overweight, and obesity (HR, 1.00; HR, 0.74; and HR, 0.97, respectively), said Dr. Lammers.

In the question and answer session, Dr. Lammers was asked about possible explanations for the difference in DFS by age. Potential explanations include possible survival bias “as only the healthier [patients with obesity] survive to old age,” she said. Other potential explanations are biological, such as the potentially higher levels of bone density in older [patients with obesity], she said.

When asked about additional clinical implications, Dr. Lammers emphasized the importance of maintaining a healthy BMI for breast cancer patients of all ages. Other research areas might involve the use of lifestyle interventions, although these are challenging to implement, she noted.
 

Data draw attention to quality of life and lifestyle factors

The need to “look at drug development with new eyes” is particularly important when reviewing patient-reported outcomes, said Otto Metzger, MD, of the Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, who served as the discussant for the session.

Dr. Metzger brought up the association between age and the effect of BMI on DFS, specifically.

Based on data from multiple studies and meta-analyses, “I do believe that obesity does play a role in prognosis,” he said, but the question is how long will researchers continue to simply record data without acting to add lifestyle interventions while also trying to develop new drugs, he said. Although convincing patients to make lifestyle changes remains a challenge, patients are often more motivated to make such changes after a cancer diagnosis, Dr. Metzger noted.

“I am a firm believer in the use of digital therapeutics in the context of clinical trials,” said Dr. Metzger. Digital technology offers great potential to educate patients on [adverse effects] and also to improve treatment adherence and quality of life, he concluded.

The study was supported by AstraZeneca, and Dr. Lammers disclosed financial relationships with AstraZeneca and Eli Lilly. Dr. Metzger disclosed receiving research funding to his institution from Pfizer, Genentech/Roche, and Sanofi, and serving as an adviser/consultant to AstraZeneca, Merck, Oncoclinicas, Resilience, and Roche.

In postmenopausal women with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer, overweight and obesity were overall predictors of lower disease-free survival, but body mass index had no apparent association with the effect of extended endocrine therapy on disease-free survival, new data suggest.

Obesity is a well-known risk factor for breast cancer in postmenopausal women and has been associated with adverse prognosis, said Senna W.M. Lammers, MD, of Maastricht (the Netherlands) University during a presentation at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Breast Cancer annual congress. In addition, some studies suggest that patients with higher body mass index (BMI) experience reduced benefits from endocrine therapy, she said.

Dr. Lammers and colleagues conducted a study to determine the prognostic and predictive effect of BMI on disease-free survival in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor–positive (HR+) breast cancer who were treated with extended endocrine therapy.

The study population included participants in the randomized, phase III DATA trial, which evaluated the use of 6 years vs. 3 years of anastrozole in postmenopausal women with HR+ breast cancer who were disease-free after 2-3 years of adjuvant tamoxifen therapy.

Patients were categorized based on BMI as having normal weight (18.5-24.9 kg/m²), overweight (25-29.9 kg/m²), or obese (30 kg/m² or higher). The primary outcome was disease-free survival (DFS); the median follow-up period was 13.1 years.

DFS for patients with normal weight, overweight, and obesity was 66.2%, 59.5%, and 52.4%, with a P value of less than .001 for the trend, Dr. Lammers said. “These results were confirmed in multivariable analysis,” she said. Overall, patients with overweight and obesity had a worse DFS when compared with patients with normal weight (hazard ratio, 1.16; P = .10, for patients with overweight and HR, 1.26; P = .03 for patients with obesity).

“Next, we aimed to determine whether the prognostic effect of BMI differed by age,” Dr. Lammers said.

In women younger than 60 years, overweight and obesity were significantly associated with worse DFS (HR, 1.29; P = .05 and HR 1.83, P less than .001, respectively). However, this effect was not observed in women aged 60 years and older.

The researchers also examined the treatment effect of extended anastrozole on adapted DFS by weight, and found no significant differences among patients with normal weight, overweight, and obesity (HR, 1.00; HR, 0.74; and HR, 0.97, respectively), said Dr. Lammers.

In the question and answer session, Dr. Lammers was asked about possible explanations for the difference in DFS by age. Potential explanations include possible survival bias “as only the healthier [patients with obesity] survive to old age,” she said. Other potential explanations are biological, such as the potentially higher levels of bone density in older [patients with obesity], she said.

When asked about additional clinical implications, Dr. Lammers emphasized the importance of maintaining a healthy BMI for breast cancer patients of all ages. Other research areas might involve the use of lifestyle interventions, although these are challenging to implement, she noted.
 

Data draw attention to quality of life and lifestyle factors

The need to “look at drug development with new eyes” is particularly important when reviewing patient-reported outcomes, said Otto Metzger, MD, of the Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, who served as the discussant for the session.

Dr. Metzger brought up the association between age and the effect of BMI on DFS, specifically.

Based on data from multiple studies and meta-analyses, “I do believe that obesity does play a role in prognosis,” he said, but the question is how long will researchers continue to simply record data without acting to add lifestyle interventions while also trying to develop new drugs, he said. Although convincing patients to make lifestyle changes remains a challenge, patients are often more motivated to make such changes after a cancer diagnosis, Dr. Metzger noted.

“I am a firm believer in the use of digital therapeutics in the context of clinical trials,” said Dr. Metzger. Digital technology offers great potential to educate patients on [adverse effects] and also to improve treatment adherence and quality of life, he concluded.

The study was supported by AstraZeneca, and Dr. Lammers disclosed financial relationships with AstraZeneca and Eli Lilly. Dr. Metzger disclosed receiving research funding to his institution from Pfizer, Genentech/Roche, and Sanofi, and serving as an adviser/consultant to AstraZeneca, Merck, Oncoclinicas, Resilience, and Roche.

Adverse neonatal outcomes occurred in 24.9% of women treated for gestational diabetes at less than 20 weeks’ gestation compared to 30.5% of controls treated later or not at all, based on data from nearly 800 women.

Screening and treatment for gestational diabetes are currently recommended at 24-28 weeks’ gestation, with earlier testing recommended for women at increased risk, but the potential benefits of earlier intervention remain debatable, wrote David Simmons, MD, of Western Sydney University, Campbelltown, Australia, and colleagues.

“Until now, there has been complete equipoise over whether to treat hyperglycemia below that of overt diabetes early in pregnancy,” Dr. Simmons said in an interview. The conflicting questions: “Would early treatment reduce the excess deposition of fat on the baby with all of its sequelae; but would early treatment reduce fuel supply to some babies at a critical time and lead to SGA [small for gestational age]?” Dr. Simmons noted.

In a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Simmons and colleagues randomized 406 women aged 18 years and older with singleton pregnancies to immediate treatment for gestational diabetes. Another 396 women were randomized to a control group for deferred treatment or no treatment, based on results of an oral glucose tolerance test at 24-28 weeks’ gestation. All participants had at least one risk factor for hyperglycemia, and met the World Health Organization criteria for gestational diabetes. Women with preexisting diabetes or contraindicating comorbid medical conditions were excluded.

The study had three primary outcomes. The first was a composite of neonatal outcomes including birth before 37 weeks’ gestation, birth weight of 4,500 g or higher, birth trauma, neonatal respiratory distress, phototherapy, stillbirth or neonatal death, or shoulder dystocia.

The final sample included 748 women for adverse neonatal outcomes, 750 for pregnancy-related hypertension, and 492 for neonatal lean body mass. The mean age of the participants was 32 years; approximately one-third were white European and another third were South Asian. Overall baseline demographics were similar between the groups, and the initial oral glucose tolerance tests were performed at a mean of 15.6 weeks’ gestation.

Overall, 24.9% of women in the early treatment group experienced an adverse neonatal event vs. 30.5% of controls, for an adjusted risk difference of –5.6% and adjusted relative risk of 0.82.

Notably, in an exploratory subgroup analysis, respiratory distress occurred in 9.8% of infants born to women in the immediate treatment group vs. 17.0% of infants in the control group. “Neonatal respiratory distress was the main driver of the between-group difference observed for the first primary outcome,” the researchers wrote. A prespecified subgroup analysis suggested that the impact of an earlier intervention on adverse neonatal outcomes might be greater among women with a higher glycemic value and those whose oral glucose tolerance tests occurred at less than 14 weeks’ gestation, they noted. Stillbirths or neonatal deaths were similar and infrequent in both groups.

Pregnancy-related hypertension occurred in 10.6% of the immediate-treatment group and 9.9% of the controls group (adjusted risk difference, 0.7%). For the third outcome, the mean neonatal lean body mass was 2.86 g in the immediate-treatment group and 2.91 g for the controls (adjusted mean difference, −0.04 g).

No differences in serious adverse events related to either screening or treatment were noted between the groups.
 

Impact on neonatal outcomes merits further study

Dr. Simmons said that he was surprised by the study findings. “We thought if there was an effect, it would be small, but it isn’t,” he told this publication.

“If you combine the severe adverse outcomes, the perineal trauma and the reduction in days in NICU/special care unit, this is a significant impact on morbidity and likely on cost,” and researchers are currently examining data for cost-effectiveness, he said.

“We did not expect the likely large impact on reducing respiratory distress and perineal trauma,” he noted. “These findings have not been previously reported, perhaps because they were not looked for.” By contrast, “we thought here might be reductions in lower gestational age and cesarean delivery, but there was not,” he added.

The findings were limited by several factors including the nonstandardized approach to gestational diabetes treatment and the use of third-trimester treatment targets that had not been tested in earlier trimesters, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the focus on women already at high risk for hyperglycemia; therefore, the results might not generalize to women not at risk, they wrote.

The current study represents a beginning of answers, with data suggesting that early treatment for gestational diabetes reduces severe adverse pregnancy outcomes, days in NICU/special care unit, and perineal trauma, likely from the first trimester, said Dr. Simmons. However, the findings must be interpreted with caution, as criteria that are too low “might lead to more small babies,” he said. “We look forward to working with others to translate these findings into practice,” he added.

Much more research is needed to answer the many questions prompted by the current study, including who did and did not have complications, Dr. Simmons told this publication. Other studies are needed to collect data on cost-effectiveness, as well as consumer views, especially “different perspectives from different parts of the globe,” he said. Although there is not enough evidence yet to draw conclusions about the role of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in managing gestational diabetes, many studies are underway; “we look forward to the results,” of these studies, Dr. Simmons added.
 

Findings support early screening

Gestational diabetes is one of the most common medical complications of pregnancy, and accounts for more than 80% of diabetes-related diagnoses in pregnancy, said Emily Fay, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at the University of Washington, Seattle, in an interview.

“Previous studies have found that women with gestational diabetes are at higher risk in their pregnancy, including higher chance of developing preeclampsia, higher chance of cesarean delivery, and higher risks for their baby, including risk of shoulder dystocia, birth trauma, and jaundice, and higher birth weights,” she said. “Fortunately, studies have also shown that treatment of gestational diabetes helps lower these risks,” she noted. Currently, patients undergo routine screening for gestational diabetes between 24 and 28 weeks of pregnancy, but some who have risk factors for gestational diabetes may have screening in the early part of pregnancy, said Dr. Fay.

The current findings were not surprising overall, said Dr. Fay, who was not involved in the study. “The study authors looked at a variety of outcomes including neonatal adverse outcomes, neonatal body weight, and pregnancy-related hypertension,” she said.

The researchers found that patients treated early had a lower rate of adverse neonatal outcomes, which was to be expected, Dr. Fay said. “They did not find a difference in neonatal body weight; this also was not surprising, as the women who were not in the early treatment group still received treatment at the time of diagnosis later in pregnancy, which likely helped normalize the weights,” she explained.

“My takeaway from this study is that we should continue to screen patients with risk factors for gestational diabetes early in pregnancy and treat them at the time of diagnosis,” Dr. Fay told this publication. However, barriers that may exist to early treatment involve access to care, including being able to see a provider early in pregnancy, she said. “The treatment for gestational diabetes includes dietary education with diet changes and checking blood sugars frequently. Access to nutrition education can be limited and access to healthy foods can be expensive and difficult to obtain,” she noted. “Checking blood sugars throughout the day can also be difficult for those who are busy or working and who may not have the ability to take time to do this,” she said. However, “these barriers may be overcome by health care reform that improves patient access to and coverage of pregnancy care, improved access and affordability of healthy foods, and employer flexibility to allow the time and space to check blood sugars if needed,” she added.

Looking ahead, the use of continuous glucose monitors in pregnancy is an expanding area of research, said Dr. Fay. “Patients can quickly view their blood sugar without the use of finger sticks, which may help overcome some of the barriers patients may have with using finger sticks,” she noted. “Continuous glucose monitors have been used for those with type 1 and type 2 diabetes with success, and we need to better understand if these can also be helpful in gestational diabetes,” she said. Dr. Fay and colleagues at the University of Washington are currently conducting an ongoing study to explore the use of CGM in gestational diabetes.

The study was supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Region Örebro Research Committee, the Medical Scientific Fund of the Mayor of Vienna, the South Western Sydney Local Health District Academic Unit, and a Western Sydney University Ainsworth Trust Grant. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Fay had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

Adverse neonatal outcomes occurred in 24.9% of women treated for gestational diabetes at less than 20 weeks’ gestation compared to 30.5% of controls treated later or not at all, based on data from nearly 800 women.

Screening and treatment for gestational diabetes are currently recommended at 24-28 weeks’ gestation, with earlier testing recommended for women at increased risk, but the potential benefits of earlier intervention remain debatable, wrote David Simmons, MD, of Western Sydney University, Campbelltown, Australia, and colleagues.

“Until now, there has been complete equipoise over whether to treat hyperglycemia below that of overt diabetes early in pregnancy,” Dr. Simmons said in an interview. The conflicting questions: “Would early treatment reduce the excess deposition of fat on the baby with all of its sequelae; but would early treatment reduce fuel supply to some babies at a critical time and lead to SGA [small for gestational age]?” Dr. Simmons noted.

In a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Simmons and colleagues randomized 406 women aged 18 years and older with singleton pregnancies to immediate treatment for gestational diabetes. Another 396 women were randomized to a control group for deferred treatment or no treatment, based on results of an oral glucose tolerance test at 24-28 weeks’ gestation. All participants had at least one risk factor for hyperglycemia, and met the World Health Organization criteria for gestational diabetes. Women with preexisting diabetes or contraindicating comorbid medical conditions were excluded.

The study had three primary outcomes. The first was a composite of neonatal outcomes including birth before 37 weeks’ gestation, birth weight of 4,500 g or higher, birth trauma, neonatal respiratory distress, phototherapy, stillbirth or neonatal death, or shoulder dystocia.

The final sample included 748 women for adverse neonatal outcomes, 750 for pregnancy-related hypertension, and 492 for neonatal lean body mass. The mean age of the participants was 32 years; approximately one-third were white European and another third were South Asian. Overall baseline demographics were similar between the groups, and the initial oral glucose tolerance tests were performed at a mean of 15.6 weeks’ gestation.

Overall, 24.9% of women in the early treatment group experienced an adverse neonatal event vs. 30.5% of controls, for an adjusted risk difference of –5.6% and adjusted relative risk of 0.82.

Notably, in an exploratory subgroup analysis, respiratory distress occurred in 9.8% of infants born to women in the immediate treatment group vs. 17.0% of infants in the control group. “Neonatal respiratory distress was the main driver of the between-group difference observed for the first primary outcome,” the researchers wrote. A prespecified subgroup analysis suggested that the impact of an earlier intervention on adverse neonatal outcomes might be greater among women with a higher glycemic value and those whose oral glucose tolerance tests occurred at less than 14 weeks’ gestation, they noted. Stillbirths or neonatal deaths were similar and infrequent in both groups.

Pregnancy-related hypertension occurred in 10.6% of the immediate-treatment group and 9.9% of the controls group (adjusted risk difference, 0.7%). For the third outcome, the mean neonatal lean body mass was 2.86 g in the immediate-treatment group and 2.91 g for the controls (adjusted mean difference, −0.04 g).

No differences in serious adverse events related to either screening or treatment were noted between the groups.
 

Impact on neonatal outcomes merits further study

Dr. Simmons said that he was surprised by the study findings. “We thought if there was an effect, it would be small, but it isn’t,” he told this publication.

“If you combine the severe adverse outcomes, the perineal trauma and the reduction in days in NICU/special care unit, this is a significant impact on morbidity and likely on cost,” and researchers are currently examining data for cost-effectiveness, he said.

“We did not expect the likely large impact on reducing respiratory distress and perineal trauma,” he noted. “These findings have not been previously reported, perhaps because they were not looked for.” By contrast, “we thought here might be reductions in lower gestational age and cesarean delivery, but there was not,” he added.

The findings were limited by several factors including the nonstandardized approach to gestational diabetes treatment and the use of third-trimester treatment targets that had not been tested in earlier trimesters, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the focus on women already at high risk for hyperglycemia; therefore, the results might not generalize to women not at risk, they wrote.

The current study represents a beginning of answers, with data suggesting that early treatment for gestational diabetes reduces severe adverse pregnancy outcomes, days in NICU/special care unit, and perineal trauma, likely from the first trimester, said Dr. Simmons. However, the findings must be interpreted with caution, as criteria that are too low “might lead to more small babies,” he said. “We look forward to working with others to translate these findings into practice,” he added.

Much more research is needed to answer the many questions prompted by the current study, including who did and did not have complications, Dr. Simmons told this publication. Other studies are needed to collect data on cost-effectiveness, as well as consumer views, especially “different perspectives from different parts of the globe,” he said. Although there is not enough evidence yet to draw conclusions about the role of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in managing gestational diabetes, many studies are underway; “we look forward to the results,” of these studies, Dr. Simmons added.
 

Findings support early screening

Gestational diabetes is one of the most common medical complications of pregnancy, and accounts for more than 80% of diabetes-related diagnoses in pregnancy, said Emily Fay, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at the University of Washington, Seattle, in an interview.

“Previous studies have found that women with gestational diabetes are at higher risk in their pregnancy, including higher chance of developing preeclampsia, higher chance of cesarean delivery, and higher risks for their baby, including risk of shoulder dystocia, birth trauma, and jaundice, and higher birth weights,” she said. “Fortunately, studies have also shown that treatment of gestational diabetes helps lower these risks,” she noted. Currently, patients undergo routine screening for gestational diabetes between 24 and 28 weeks of pregnancy, but some who have risk factors for gestational diabetes may have screening in the early part of pregnancy, said Dr. Fay.

The current findings were not surprising overall, said Dr. Fay, who was not involved in the study. “The study authors looked at a variety of outcomes including neonatal adverse outcomes, neonatal body weight, and pregnancy-related hypertension,” she said.

The researchers found that patients treated early had a lower rate of adverse neonatal outcomes, which was to be expected, Dr. Fay said. “They did not find a difference in neonatal body weight; this also was not surprising, as the women who were not in the early treatment group still received treatment at the time of diagnosis later in pregnancy, which likely helped normalize the weights,” she explained.

“My takeaway from this study is that we should continue to screen patients with risk factors for gestational diabetes early in pregnancy and treat them at the time of diagnosis,” Dr. Fay told this publication. However, barriers that may exist to early treatment involve access to care, including being able to see a provider early in pregnancy, she said. “The treatment for gestational diabetes includes dietary education with diet changes and checking blood sugars frequently. Access to nutrition education can be limited and access to healthy foods can be expensive and difficult to obtain,” she noted. “Checking blood sugars throughout the day can also be difficult for those who are busy or working and who may not have the ability to take time to do this,” she said. However, “these barriers may be overcome by health care reform that improves patient access to and coverage of pregnancy care, improved access and affordability of healthy foods, and employer flexibility to allow the time and space to check blood sugars if needed,” she added.

Looking ahead, the use of continuous glucose monitors in pregnancy is an expanding area of research, said Dr. Fay. “Patients can quickly view their blood sugar without the use of finger sticks, which may help overcome some of the barriers patients may have with using finger sticks,” she noted. “Continuous glucose monitors have been used for those with type 1 and type 2 diabetes with success, and we need to better understand if these can also be helpful in gestational diabetes,” she said. Dr. Fay and colleagues at the University of Washington are currently conducting an ongoing study to explore the use of CGM in gestational diabetes.

The study was supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Region Örebro Research Committee, the Medical Scientific Fund of the Mayor of Vienna, the South Western Sydney Local Health District Academic Unit, and a Western Sydney University Ainsworth Trust Grant. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Fay had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

Adverse neonatal outcomes occurred in 24.9% of women treated for gestational diabetes at less than 20 weeks’ gestation compared to 30.5% of controls treated later or not at all, based on data from nearly 800 women.

Screening and treatment for gestational diabetes are currently recommended at 24-28 weeks’ gestation, with earlier testing recommended for women at increased risk, but the potential benefits of earlier intervention remain debatable, wrote David Simmons, MD, of Western Sydney University, Campbelltown, Australia, and colleagues.

“Until now, there has been complete equipoise over whether to treat hyperglycemia below that of overt diabetes early in pregnancy,” Dr. Simmons said in an interview. The conflicting questions: “Would early treatment reduce the excess deposition of fat on the baby with all of its sequelae; but would early treatment reduce fuel supply to some babies at a critical time and lead to SGA [small for gestational age]?” Dr. Simmons noted.

In a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Simmons and colleagues randomized 406 women aged 18 years and older with singleton pregnancies to immediate treatment for gestational diabetes. Another 396 women were randomized to a control group for deferred treatment or no treatment, based on results of an oral glucose tolerance test at 24-28 weeks’ gestation. All participants had at least one risk factor for hyperglycemia, and met the World Health Organization criteria for gestational diabetes. Women with preexisting diabetes or contraindicating comorbid medical conditions were excluded.

The study had three primary outcomes. The first was a composite of neonatal outcomes including birth before 37 weeks’ gestation, birth weight of 4,500 g or higher, birth trauma, neonatal respiratory distress, phototherapy, stillbirth or neonatal death, or shoulder dystocia.

The final sample included 748 women for adverse neonatal outcomes, 750 for pregnancy-related hypertension, and 492 for neonatal lean body mass. The mean age of the participants was 32 years; approximately one-third were white European and another third were South Asian. Overall baseline demographics were similar between the groups, and the initial oral glucose tolerance tests were performed at a mean of 15.6 weeks’ gestation.

Overall, 24.9% of women in the early treatment group experienced an adverse neonatal event vs. 30.5% of controls, for an adjusted risk difference of –5.6% and adjusted relative risk of 0.82.

Notably, in an exploratory subgroup analysis, respiratory distress occurred in 9.8% of infants born to women in the immediate treatment group vs. 17.0% of infants in the control group. “Neonatal respiratory distress was the main driver of the between-group difference observed for the first primary outcome,” the researchers wrote. A prespecified subgroup analysis suggested that the impact of an earlier intervention on adverse neonatal outcomes might be greater among women with a higher glycemic value and those whose oral glucose tolerance tests occurred at less than 14 weeks’ gestation, they noted. Stillbirths or neonatal deaths were similar and infrequent in both groups.

Pregnancy-related hypertension occurred in 10.6% of the immediate-treatment group and 9.9% of the controls group (adjusted risk difference, 0.7%). For the third outcome, the mean neonatal lean body mass was 2.86 g in the immediate-treatment group and 2.91 g for the controls (adjusted mean difference, −0.04 g).

No differences in serious adverse events related to either screening or treatment were noted between the groups.
 

Impact on neonatal outcomes merits further study

Dr. Simmons said that he was surprised by the study findings. “We thought if there was an effect, it would be small, but it isn’t,” he told this publication.

“If you combine the severe adverse outcomes, the perineal trauma and the reduction in days in NICU/special care unit, this is a significant impact on morbidity and likely on cost,” and researchers are currently examining data for cost-effectiveness, he said.

“We did not expect the likely large impact on reducing respiratory distress and perineal trauma,” he noted. “These findings have not been previously reported, perhaps because they were not looked for.” By contrast, “we thought here might be reductions in lower gestational age and cesarean delivery, but there was not,” he added.

The findings were limited by several factors including the nonstandardized approach to gestational diabetes treatment and the use of third-trimester treatment targets that had not been tested in earlier trimesters, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the focus on women already at high risk for hyperglycemia; therefore, the results might not generalize to women not at risk, they wrote.

The current study represents a beginning of answers, with data suggesting that early treatment for gestational diabetes reduces severe adverse pregnancy outcomes, days in NICU/special care unit, and perineal trauma, likely from the first trimester, said Dr. Simmons. However, the findings must be interpreted with caution, as criteria that are too low “might lead to more small babies,” he said. “We look forward to working with others to translate these findings into practice,” he added.

Much more research is needed to answer the many questions prompted by the current study, including who did and did not have complications, Dr. Simmons told this publication. Other studies are needed to collect data on cost-effectiveness, as well as consumer views, especially “different perspectives from different parts of the globe,” he said. Although there is not enough evidence yet to draw conclusions about the role of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in managing gestational diabetes, many studies are underway; “we look forward to the results,” of these studies, Dr. Simmons added.
 

Findings support early screening

Gestational diabetes is one of the most common medical complications of pregnancy, and accounts for more than 80% of diabetes-related diagnoses in pregnancy, said Emily Fay, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at the University of Washington, Seattle, in an interview.

“Previous studies have found that women with gestational diabetes are at higher risk in their pregnancy, including higher chance of developing preeclampsia, higher chance of cesarean delivery, and higher risks for their baby, including risk of shoulder dystocia, birth trauma, and jaundice, and higher birth weights,” she said. “Fortunately, studies have also shown that treatment of gestational diabetes helps lower these risks,” she noted. Currently, patients undergo routine screening for gestational diabetes between 24 and 28 weeks of pregnancy, but some who have risk factors for gestational diabetes may have screening in the early part of pregnancy, said Dr. Fay.

The current findings were not surprising overall, said Dr. Fay, who was not involved in the study. “The study authors looked at a variety of outcomes including neonatal adverse outcomes, neonatal body weight, and pregnancy-related hypertension,” she said.

The researchers found that patients treated early had a lower rate of adverse neonatal outcomes, which was to be expected, Dr. Fay said. “They did not find a difference in neonatal body weight; this also was not surprising, as the women who were not in the early treatment group still received treatment at the time of diagnosis later in pregnancy, which likely helped normalize the weights,” she explained.

“My takeaway from this study is that we should continue to screen patients with risk factors for gestational diabetes early in pregnancy and treat them at the time of diagnosis,” Dr. Fay told this publication. However, barriers that may exist to early treatment involve access to care, including being able to see a provider early in pregnancy, she said. “The treatment for gestational diabetes includes dietary education with diet changes and checking blood sugars frequently. Access to nutrition education can be limited and access to healthy foods can be expensive and difficult to obtain,” she noted. “Checking blood sugars throughout the day can also be difficult for those who are busy or working and who may not have the ability to take time to do this,” she said. However, “these barriers may be overcome by health care reform that improves patient access to and coverage of pregnancy care, improved access and affordability of healthy foods, and employer flexibility to allow the time and space to check blood sugars if needed,” she added.

Looking ahead, the use of continuous glucose monitors in pregnancy is an expanding area of research, said Dr. Fay. “Patients can quickly view their blood sugar without the use of finger sticks, which may help overcome some of the barriers patients may have with using finger sticks,” she noted. “Continuous glucose monitors have been used for those with type 1 and type 2 diabetes with success, and we need to better understand if these can also be helpful in gestational diabetes,” she said. Dr. Fay and colleagues at the University of Washington are currently conducting an ongoing study to explore the use of CGM in gestational diabetes.

The study was supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Region Örebro Research Committee, the Medical Scientific Fund of the Mayor of Vienna, the South Western Sydney Local Health District Academic Unit, and a Western Sydney University Ainsworth Trust Grant. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Fay had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

A new Canadian guideline on screening for the primary prevention of fragility fractures recommends risk assessment first, before bone mineral density (BMD) testing, for women aged 65 and older. For younger women and men aged 40 and older, screening is not recommended.

To develop the guideline, a writing group from Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care commissioned systematic reviews of studies on the benefits and harms of fragility fracture screenings; the predictive accuracy of current risk-assessment tools; patient acceptability; and benefits of treatment. Treatment harms were analyzed via a rapid overview of reviews.

The guideline, published online in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, is aimed at primary care practitioners for their community-dwelling patients aged 40 and older. The recommendations do not apply to people already taking preventive drugs.

Nondrug treatments were beyond the scope of the current guideline, but guidelines on the prevention of falls and other strategies are planned, Roland Grad, MD, a guideline author and associate professor at McGill University in Montreal, told this news organization.

The new guideline says that women aged 65 and older may be able to avoid fracture through screening and preventive medication. An individual’s fracture risk can be estimated with a new Fragility Fractures Decision Aid, which uses the Canadian FRAX risk-assessment tool.

“A risk assessment–first approach promotes shared decision-making with the patient, based on best medical evidence,” Dr. Grad said.

“To help clinicians, we have created an infographic with visuals to communicate the time spent on BMD vs risk assessment first.”
 

New evidence

“At least three things motivated this new guideline,” Dr. Grad said. “When we started work on this prior to the pandemic, we saw a need for updated guidance on screening to prevent fragility fractures. We were also aware of new evidence from the publication of screening trials in females older than 65.”

To conduct the risk assessment in older women, clinicians are advised to do the following:

• Use the decision aid (which patients can also use on their own).
• Use the 10-year absolute risk of major osteoporotic fracture to facilitate shared decision-making about possible benefits and harms of preventive pharmacotherapy.
• If pharmacotherapy is being considered, request a BMD using DXA of the femoral neck, then reestimate the fracture risk by adding the BMD T-score into the FRAX.

Potential harms associated with various treatments, with varying levels of evidence, include the following: with alendronate and denosumab, nonserious gastrointestinal adverse events; with denosumab, rash, eczema, and infections; with zoledronic acid, nonserious events, such as headache and flulike symptoms; and with alendronate and bisphosphonates, rare but serious harms of atypical femoral fracture and osteonecrosis of the jaw.

“These recommendations emphasize the importance of good clinical practice, where clinicians are alert to changes in physical health and patient well-being,” the authors wrote. “Clinicians should also be aware of the importance of secondary prevention (i.e., after fracture) and manage patients accordingly.”

“This is an important topic,” Dr. Grad said. “Fragility fractures are consequential for individuals and for our publicly funded health care system. We anticipate questions from clinicians about the time needed to screen with the risk assessment–first strategy. Our modeling work suggests time savings with [this] strategy compared to a strategy of BMD testing first. Following our recommendations may lead to a reduction in BMD testing.”

To promote the guideline, the CMAJ has recorded a podcast and will use other strategies to increase awareness, Dr. Grad said. “The Canadian Task Force has a communications strategy that includes outreach to primary care, stakeholder webinars, social media, partnerships, and other tactics. The College of Family Physicians of Canada has endorsed the guideline and will help promote to its members.”
 

Other at-risk groups?

Aliya Khan, MD, FRCPC, FACP, FACE, professor in the divisions of endocrinology and metabolism and geriatrics and director of the fellowship in metabolic bone diseases at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont., told this news organization she agrees with the strategy of evaluating women aged 65 and older for fracture risk.

“The decision aid is useful, but I would like to see it expanded to other circumstances and situations,” she said.

For example, Dr. Khan would like to see recommendations for younger women and for men of all ages regarding secondary causes of osteoporosis or medications known to have a detrimental effect on bone health. By not addressing these patients, she said, “we may miss patients who would benefit from a fracture risk assessment and potentially treatment to prevent low-trauma fractures.”

A recommendation for younger postmenopausal women was included in the most recent Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists Canada guideline, she noted.

Overall, she said, “I believe these recommendations will reduce the excess or inappropriate use of BMD testing and that is welcome.”

Funding for the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care is provided by the Public Health Agency of Canada. The task force members report no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new Canadian guideline on screening for the primary prevention of fragility fractures recommends risk assessment first, before bone mineral density (BMD) testing, for women aged 65 and older. For younger women and men aged 40 and older, screening is not recommended.

To develop the guideline, a writing group from Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care commissioned systematic reviews of studies on the benefits and harms of fragility fracture screenings; the predictive accuracy of current risk-assessment tools; patient acceptability; and benefits of treatment. Treatment harms were analyzed via a rapid overview of reviews.

The guideline, published online in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, is aimed at primary care practitioners for their community-dwelling patients aged 40 and older. The recommendations do not apply to people already taking preventive drugs.

Nondrug treatments were beyond the scope of the current guideline, but guidelines on the prevention of falls and other strategies are planned, Roland Grad, MD, a guideline author and associate professor at McGill University in Montreal, told this news organization.

The new guideline says that women aged 65 and older may be able to avoid fracture through screening and preventive medication. An individual’s fracture risk can be estimated with a new Fragility Fractures Decision Aid, which uses the Canadian FRAX risk-assessment tool.

“A risk assessment–first approach promotes shared decision-making with the patient, based on best medical evidence,” Dr. Grad said.

“To help clinicians, we have created an infographic with visuals to communicate the time spent on BMD vs risk assessment first.”
 

New evidence

“At least three things motivated this new guideline,” Dr. Grad said. “When we started work on this prior to the pandemic, we saw a need for updated guidance on screening to prevent fragility fractures. We were also aware of new evidence from the publication of screening trials in females older than 65.”

To conduct the risk assessment in older women, clinicians are advised to do the following:

• Use the decision aid (which patients can also use on their own).
• Use the 10-year absolute risk of major osteoporotic fracture to facilitate shared decision-making about possible benefits and harms of preventive pharmacotherapy.
• If pharmacotherapy is being considered, request a BMD using DXA of the femoral neck, then reestimate the fracture risk by adding the BMD T-score into the FRAX.

Potential harms associated with various treatments, with varying levels of evidence, include the following: with alendronate and denosumab, nonserious gastrointestinal adverse events; with denosumab, rash, eczema, and infections; with zoledronic acid, nonserious events, such as headache and flulike symptoms; and with alendronate and bisphosphonates, rare but serious harms of atypical femoral fracture and osteonecrosis of the jaw.

“These recommendations emphasize the importance of good clinical practice, where clinicians are alert to changes in physical health and patient well-being,” the authors wrote. “Clinicians should also be aware of the importance of secondary prevention (i.e., after fracture) and manage patients accordingly.”

“This is an important topic,” Dr. Grad said. “Fragility fractures are consequential for individuals and for our publicly funded health care system. We anticipate questions from clinicians about the time needed to screen with the risk assessment–first strategy. Our modeling work suggests time savings with [this] strategy compared to a strategy of BMD testing first. Following our recommendations may lead to a reduction in BMD testing.”

To promote the guideline, the CMAJ has recorded a podcast and will use other strategies to increase awareness, Dr. Grad said. “The Canadian Task Force has a communications strategy that includes outreach to primary care, stakeholder webinars, social media, partnerships, and other tactics. The College of Family Physicians of Canada has endorsed the guideline and will help promote to its members.”
 

Other at-risk groups?

Aliya Khan, MD, FRCPC, FACP, FACE, professor in the divisions of endocrinology and metabolism and geriatrics and director of the fellowship in metabolic bone diseases at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont., told this news organization she agrees with the strategy of evaluating women aged 65 and older for fracture risk.

“The decision aid is useful, but I would like to see it expanded to other circumstances and situations,” she said.

For example, Dr. Khan would like to see recommendations for younger women and for men of all ages regarding secondary causes of osteoporosis or medications known to have a detrimental effect on bone health. By not addressing these patients, she said, “we may miss patients who would benefit from a fracture risk assessment and potentially treatment to prevent low-trauma fractures.”

A recommendation for younger postmenopausal women was included in the most recent Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists Canada guideline, she noted.

Overall, she said, “I believe these recommendations will reduce the excess or inappropriate use of BMD testing and that is welcome.”

Funding for the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care is provided by the Public Health Agency of Canada. The task force members report no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new Canadian guideline on screening for the primary prevention of fragility fractures recommends risk assessment first, before bone mineral density (BMD) testing, for women aged 65 and older. For younger women and men aged 40 and older, screening is not recommended.

To develop the guideline, a writing group from Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care commissioned systematic reviews of studies on the benefits and harms of fragility fracture screenings; the predictive accuracy of current risk-assessment tools; patient acceptability; and benefits of treatment. Treatment harms were analyzed via a rapid overview of reviews.

The guideline, published online in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, is aimed at primary care practitioners for their community-dwelling patients aged 40 and older. The recommendations do not apply to people already taking preventive drugs.

Nondrug treatments were beyond the scope of the current guideline, but guidelines on the prevention of falls and other strategies are planned, Roland Grad, MD, a guideline author and associate professor at McGill University in Montreal, told this news organization.

The new guideline says that women aged 65 and older may be able to avoid fracture through screening and preventive medication. An individual’s fracture risk can be estimated with a new Fragility Fractures Decision Aid, which uses the Canadian FRAX risk-assessment tool.

“A risk assessment–first approach promotes shared decision-making with the patient, based on best medical evidence,” Dr. Grad said.

“To help clinicians, we have created an infographic with visuals to communicate the time spent on BMD vs risk assessment first.”
 

New evidence

“At least three things motivated this new guideline,” Dr. Grad said. “When we started work on this prior to the pandemic, we saw a need for updated guidance on screening to prevent fragility fractures. We were also aware of new evidence from the publication of screening trials in females older than 65.”

To conduct the risk assessment in older women, clinicians are advised to do the following:

• Use the decision aid (which patients can also use on their own).
• Use the 10-year absolute risk of major osteoporotic fracture to facilitate shared decision-making about possible benefits and harms of preventive pharmacotherapy.
• If pharmacotherapy is being considered, request a BMD using DXA of the femoral neck, then reestimate the fracture risk by adding the BMD T-score into the FRAX.

Potential harms associated with various treatments, with varying levels of evidence, include the following: with alendronate and denosumab, nonserious gastrointestinal adverse events; with denosumab, rash, eczema, and infections; with zoledronic acid, nonserious events, such as headache and flulike symptoms; and with alendronate and bisphosphonates, rare but serious harms of atypical femoral fracture and osteonecrosis of the jaw.

“These recommendations emphasize the importance of good clinical practice, where clinicians are alert to changes in physical health and patient well-being,” the authors wrote. “Clinicians should also be aware of the importance of secondary prevention (i.e., after fracture) and manage patients accordingly.”

“This is an important topic,” Dr. Grad said. “Fragility fractures are consequential for individuals and for our publicly funded health care system. We anticipate questions from clinicians about the time needed to screen with the risk assessment–first strategy. Our modeling work suggests time savings with [this] strategy compared to a strategy of BMD testing first. Following our recommendations may lead to a reduction in BMD testing.”

To promote the guideline, the CMAJ has recorded a podcast and will use other strategies to increase awareness, Dr. Grad said. “The Canadian Task Force has a communications strategy that includes outreach to primary care, stakeholder webinars, social media, partnerships, and other tactics. The College of Family Physicians of Canada has endorsed the guideline and will help promote to its members.”
 

Other at-risk groups?

Aliya Khan, MD, FRCPC, FACP, FACE, professor in the divisions of endocrinology and metabolism and geriatrics and director of the fellowship in metabolic bone diseases at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont., told this news organization she agrees with the strategy of evaluating women aged 65 and older for fracture risk.

“The decision aid is useful, but I would like to see it expanded to other circumstances and situations,” she said.

For example, Dr. Khan would like to see recommendations for younger women and for men of all ages regarding secondary causes of osteoporosis or medications known to have a detrimental effect on bone health. By not addressing these patients, she said, “we may miss patients who would benefit from a fracture risk assessment and potentially treatment to prevent low-trauma fractures.”

A recommendation for younger postmenopausal women was included in the most recent Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists Canada guideline, she noted.

Overall, she said, “I believe these recommendations will reduce the excess or inappropriate use of BMD testing and that is welcome.”

Funding for the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care is provided by the Public Health Agency of Canada. The task force members report no relevant financial relationships.

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

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) on May 9 released a draft recommendation statement and evidence review that provides critical updates to its breast cancer screening recommendations.

The major change: USPSTF proposed reducing the recommended start age for routine screening mammograms from age 50 to age 40. The latest recommendation, which carries a B grade, also calls for screening every other year and sets a cutoff age of 74.

The task force’s A and B ratings indicate strong confidence in the evidence for benefit, meaning that clinicians should encourage their patients to get these services as appropriate.

The influential federal advisory panel last updated these recommendations in 2016. At the time, USPSTF recommended routine screening mammograms starting at age 50, and gave a C grade to starting before that.

In the 2016 recommendations, “we felt a woman could start screening in her 40s depending on how she feels about the harms and benefits in an individualized personal decision,” USPSTF member John Wong, MD, chief of clinical decision making and a primary care physician at Tufts Medical Center in Boston, said in an interview. “In this draft recommendation, we now recommend that all women get screened starting at age 40.”

Two major factors prompted the change, explained Dr. Wong. One is that more women are being diagnosed with breast cancer in their 40s. The other is that a growing body of evidence showing that Black women get breast cancer younger, are more likely to die of breast cancer, and would benefit from earlier screening.

“It is now clear that screening every other year starting at age 40 has the potential to save about 20% more lives among all women and there is even greater potential benefit for Black women, who are much more likely to die from breast cancer,” Dr. Wong said.

The American Cancer Society (ACS) called the draft recommendations a “significant positive change,” while noting that the task force recommendations only apply to women at average risk for breast cancer.

The American College of Radiology (ACR) already recommends yearly mammograms for average risk women starting at age 40. Its latest guidelines on mammography call for women at higher-than-average risk for breast cancer to undergo a risk assessment by age 25 to determine if screening before age 40 is needed.

When asked about the differing views, Debra Monticciolo, MD, division chief for breast imaging at Massachusetts General Hospital, said annual screenings that follow ACR recommendations would save more lives than the every-other-year approach backed by the task force. Dr. Monticciolo also highlighted that the available scientific evidence supports earlier assessment as well as augmented and earlier-than-age-40 screening of many women – particularly Black women.

“These evidence-based updates should spur more-informed doctor–patient conversations and help providers save more lives,” Dr. Monticciolo said in a press release.
 

Insurance access

Typically, upgrading a USPSTF recommendation from C to B leads to better access and insurance coverage for patients. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2010 requires insurers to cover the cost of services that get A and B recommendations from the USPSTF without charging copays – a mandate intended to promote greater use for highly regarded services.

But Congress created a special workaround that effectively makes the ACA mandate apply to the 2002 task force recommendations on mammography. In those recommendations, the task force gave a B grade to screening mammograms every 1 or 2 years starting at age 40 without an age limit. 

Federal lawmakers have sought to provide copay-free access to mammograms for this entire population even when the USPSTF recommendations in 2009 and 2016 gave a C grade to routine screening for women under 50.

Still, “it is important to note that our recommendation is based solely on the science of what works to prevent breast cancer and it is not a recommendation for or against insurance coverage,” the task force acknowledged when unveiling the new draft update. “Coverage decisions involve considerations beyond the evidence about clinical benefit, and in the end, these decisions are the responsibility of payors, regulators, and legislators.”
 

Uncertainties persist

The new draft recommendations also highlight the persistent gaps in knowledge about the uses of mammography, despite years of widespread use of this screening tool.

The updated draft recommendations emphasize the lack of sufficient evidence to address major areas of concern related to screening and treating Black women, older women, women with dense breasts, and those with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS).

The task force called for more research addressing the underlying causes of elevated breast cancer mortality rates among Black women.

The USPSTF also issued an ‘I’ statement for providing women with dense breasts additional screening with breast ultrasound or MRI and for screening women older than 75 for breast cancer. Such statements indicate that the available evidence is lacking, poor quality, or conflicting, and thus the USPSTF can’t assess the benefits and harms or make a recommendation for or against providing the preventive service.

“Nearly half of all women have dense breasts, which increases their risk for breast cancer and means that mammograms may not work as well for them. We need to know more about whether and how additional screening might help women with dense breasts stay healthy,” the task force explained.

The task force also called for more research on approaches to reduce the risk for overdiagnosis and overtreatment for breast lesions, such as DCIS, which are identified through screening.

One analysis – the COMET study – is currently underway to assess whether women could be spared surgery for DCIS and opt for watchful waiting instead.

“If we can find that monitoring them carefully, either with or without some sort of endocrine therapy, is just as effective in keeping patients free of invasive cancer as surgery, then I think we could help to de-escalate treatment for this very low-risk group of patients,” Shelley Hwang, MD, MPH, principal investigator of the COMET study, told this news organization in December.

The task force will accept comments from the public on this draft update through June 5.

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

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) on May 9 released a draft recommendation statement and evidence review that provides critical updates to its breast cancer screening recommendations.

The major change: USPSTF proposed reducing the recommended start age for routine screening mammograms from age 50 to age 40. The latest recommendation, which carries a B grade, also calls for screening every other year and sets a cutoff age of 74.

The task force’s A and B ratings indicate strong confidence in the evidence for benefit, meaning that clinicians should encourage their patients to get these services as appropriate.

The influential federal advisory panel last updated these recommendations in 2016. At the time, USPSTF recommended routine screening mammograms starting at age 50, and gave a C grade to starting before that.

In the 2016 recommendations, “we felt a woman could start screening in her 40s depending on how she feels about the harms and benefits in an individualized personal decision,” USPSTF member John Wong, MD, chief of clinical decision making and a primary care physician at Tufts Medical Center in Boston, said in an interview. “In this draft recommendation, we now recommend that all women get screened starting at age 40.”

Two major factors prompted the change, explained Dr. Wong. One is that more women are being diagnosed with breast cancer in their 40s. The other is that a growing body of evidence showing that Black women get breast cancer younger, are more likely to die of breast cancer, and would benefit from earlier screening.

“It is now clear that screening every other year starting at age 40 has the potential to save about 20% more lives among all women and there is even greater potential benefit for Black women, who are much more likely to die from breast cancer,” Dr. Wong said.

The American Cancer Society (ACS) called the draft recommendations a “significant positive change,” while noting that the task force recommendations only apply to women at average risk for breast cancer.

The American College of Radiology (ACR) already recommends yearly mammograms for average risk women starting at age 40. Its latest guidelines on mammography call for women at higher-than-average risk for breast cancer to undergo a risk assessment by age 25 to determine if screening before age 40 is needed.

When asked about the differing views, Debra Monticciolo, MD, division chief for breast imaging at Massachusetts General Hospital, said annual screenings that follow ACR recommendations would save more lives than the every-other-year approach backed by the task force. Dr. Monticciolo also highlighted that the available scientific evidence supports earlier assessment as well as augmented and earlier-than-age-40 screening of many women – particularly Black women.

“These evidence-based updates should spur more-informed doctor–patient conversations and help providers save more lives,” Dr. Monticciolo said in a press release.
 

Insurance access

Typically, upgrading a USPSTF recommendation from C to B leads to better access and insurance coverage for patients. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2010 requires insurers to cover the cost of services that get A and B recommendations from the USPSTF without charging copays – a mandate intended to promote greater use for highly regarded services.

But Congress created a special workaround that effectively makes the ACA mandate apply to the 2002 task force recommendations on mammography. In those recommendations, the task force gave a B grade to screening mammograms every 1 or 2 years starting at age 40 without an age limit. 

Federal lawmakers have sought to provide copay-free access to mammograms for this entire population even when the USPSTF recommendations in 2009 and 2016 gave a C grade to routine screening for women under 50.

Still, “it is important to note that our recommendation is based solely on the science of what works to prevent breast cancer and it is not a recommendation for or against insurance coverage,” the task force acknowledged when unveiling the new draft update. “Coverage decisions involve considerations beyond the evidence about clinical benefit, and in the end, these decisions are the responsibility of payors, regulators, and legislators.”
 

Uncertainties persist

The new draft recommendations also highlight the persistent gaps in knowledge about the uses of mammography, despite years of widespread use of this screening tool.

The updated draft recommendations emphasize the lack of sufficient evidence to address major areas of concern related to screening and treating Black women, older women, women with dense breasts, and those with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS).

The task force called for more research addressing the underlying causes of elevated breast cancer mortality rates among Black women.

The USPSTF also issued an ‘I’ statement for providing women with dense breasts additional screening with breast ultrasound or MRI and for screening women older than 75 for breast cancer. Such statements indicate that the available evidence is lacking, poor quality, or conflicting, and thus the USPSTF can’t assess the benefits and harms or make a recommendation for or against providing the preventive service.

“Nearly half of all women have dense breasts, which increases their risk for breast cancer and means that mammograms may not work as well for them. We need to know more about whether and how additional screening might help women with dense breasts stay healthy,” the task force explained.

The task force also called for more research on approaches to reduce the risk for overdiagnosis and overtreatment for breast lesions, such as DCIS, which are identified through screening.

One analysis – the COMET study – is currently underway to assess whether women could be spared surgery for DCIS and opt for watchful waiting instead.

“If we can find that monitoring them carefully, either with or without some sort of endocrine therapy, is just as effective in keeping patients free of invasive cancer as surgery, then I think we could help to de-escalate treatment for this very low-risk group of patients,” Shelley Hwang, MD, MPH, principal investigator of the COMET study, told this news organization in December.

The task force will accept comments from the public on this draft update through June 5.

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

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) on May 9 released a draft recommendation statement and evidence review that provides critical updates to its breast cancer screening recommendations.

The major change: USPSTF proposed reducing the recommended start age for routine screening mammograms from age 50 to age 40. The latest recommendation, which carries a B grade, also calls for screening every other year and sets a cutoff age of 74.

The task force’s A and B ratings indicate strong confidence in the evidence for benefit, meaning that clinicians should encourage their patients to get these services as appropriate.

The influential federal advisory panel last updated these recommendations in 2016. At the time, USPSTF recommended routine screening mammograms starting at age 50, and gave a C grade to starting before that.

In the 2016 recommendations, “we felt a woman could start screening in her 40s depending on how she feels about the harms and benefits in an individualized personal decision,” USPSTF member John Wong, MD, chief of clinical decision making and a primary care physician at Tufts Medical Center in Boston, said in an interview. “In this draft recommendation, we now recommend that all women get screened starting at age 40.”

Two major factors prompted the change, explained Dr. Wong. One is that more women are being diagnosed with breast cancer in their 40s. The other is that a growing body of evidence showing that Black women get breast cancer younger, are more likely to die of breast cancer, and would benefit from earlier screening.

“It is now clear that screening every other year starting at age 40 has the potential to save about 20% more lives among all women and there is even greater potential benefit for Black women, who are much more likely to die from breast cancer,” Dr. Wong said.

The American Cancer Society (ACS) called the draft recommendations a “significant positive change,” while noting that the task force recommendations only apply to women at average risk for breast cancer.

The American College of Radiology (ACR) already recommends yearly mammograms for average risk women starting at age 40. Its latest guidelines on mammography call for women at higher-than-average risk for breast cancer to undergo a risk assessment by age 25 to determine if screening before age 40 is needed.

When asked about the differing views, Debra Monticciolo, MD, division chief for breast imaging at Massachusetts General Hospital, said annual screenings that follow ACR recommendations would save more lives than the every-other-year approach backed by the task force. Dr. Monticciolo also highlighted that the available scientific evidence supports earlier assessment as well as augmented and earlier-than-age-40 screening of many women – particularly Black women.

“These evidence-based updates should spur more-informed doctor–patient conversations and help providers save more lives,” Dr. Monticciolo said in a press release.
 

Insurance access

Typically, upgrading a USPSTF recommendation from C to B leads to better access and insurance coverage for patients. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2010 requires insurers to cover the cost of services that get A and B recommendations from the USPSTF without charging copays – a mandate intended to promote greater use for highly regarded services.

But Congress created a special workaround that effectively makes the ACA mandate apply to the 2002 task force recommendations on mammography. In those recommendations, the task force gave a B grade to screening mammograms every 1 or 2 years starting at age 40 without an age limit. 

Federal lawmakers have sought to provide copay-free access to mammograms for this entire population even when the USPSTF recommendations in 2009 and 2016 gave a C grade to routine screening for women under 50.

Still, “it is important to note that our recommendation is based solely on the science of what works to prevent breast cancer and it is not a recommendation for or against insurance coverage,” the task force acknowledged when unveiling the new draft update. “Coverage decisions involve considerations beyond the evidence about clinical benefit, and in the end, these decisions are the responsibility of payors, regulators, and legislators.”
 

Uncertainties persist

The new draft recommendations also highlight the persistent gaps in knowledge about the uses of mammography, despite years of widespread use of this screening tool.

The updated draft recommendations emphasize the lack of sufficient evidence to address major areas of concern related to screening and treating Black women, older women, women with dense breasts, and those with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS).

The task force called for more research addressing the underlying causes of elevated breast cancer mortality rates among Black women.

The USPSTF also issued an ‘I’ statement for providing women with dense breasts additional screening with breast ultrasound or MRI and for screening women older than 75 for breast cancer. Such statements indicate that the available evidence is lacking, poor quality, or conflicting, and thus the USPSTF can’t assess the benefits and harms or make a recommendation for or against providing the preventive service.

“Nearly half of all women have dense breasts, which increases their risk for breast cancer and means that mammograms may not work as well for them. We need to know more about whether and how additional screening might help women with dense breasts stay healthy,” the task force explained.

The task force also called for more research on approaches to reduce the risk for overdiagnosis and overtreatment for breast lesions, such as DCIS, which are identified through screening.

One analysis – the COMET study – is currently underway to assess whether women could be spared surgery for DCIS and opt for watchful waiting instead.

“If we can find that monitoring them carefully, either with or without some sort of endocrine therapy, is just as effective in keeping patients free of invasive cancer as surgery, then I think we could help to de-escalate treatment for this very low-risk group of patients,” Shelley Hwang, MD, MPH, principal investigator of the COMET study, told this news organization in December.

The task force will accept comments from the public on this draft update through June 5.

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

Young patients with breast cancer can safely interrupt adjuvant endocrine therapy to attempt pregnancy without increasing their risk of breast cancer recurrence or new contralateral breast cancer.

The results provide the “strongest evidence to date on the short-term safety of this choice,” Sharon Giordano, MD, MPH, with University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, wrote in an editorial accompanying the study.

“Physicians should now incorporate these positive data into their shared decision-making process with patients,” Dr. Giordano said.

The POSITIVE trial findings were published online  in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Before the analysis, the risks associated with taking a break from endocrine therapy among young women with hormone receptor (HR)–positive breast cancer remained unclear.

In the current trial, Ann Partridge, MD, MPH, and colleagues sought prospective data on the safety associated with taking a temporary break from therapy to attempt pregnancy.

The single-group trial enrolled more than 500 premenopausal women who had received 18-30 months of endocrine therapy for mostly stage I or II HR-positive breast cancer. After a 3-month washout, the women were given 2 years to conceive, deliver, and breastfeed, if desired, before resuming treatment. Breast cancer events – the primary outcome – were defined as local, regional, or distant recurrence of invasive breast cancer or new contralateral invasive breast cancer.

The results, initially reported at San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) 2022, showed that a temporary interruption of therapy to attempt pregnancy did not appear to lead to worse breast cancer outcomes.

Among 497 women who were followed for pregnancy status, 368 (74%) had at least one pregnancy, and 317 (64%) had at least one live birth.

After a median follow-up of 3.4 years, 44 women had had a breast cancer event – a result that was close to, but did not exceed, the safety threshold of 46 breast cancer events.

The 3-year incidence of breast cancer events was 8.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.3-11.6) in the treatment-interruption group compared with 9.2% (95% CI, 7.6-10.8) among historical controls, which included women who would have met the entry criteria for the trial.

“These results suggest that although endocrine therapy for a period of 5-10 years substantially improves disease outcomes in patients with hormone receptor–positive early breast cancer, a temporary interruption of therapy to attempt pregnancy does not appear to have an appreciable negative short-term effect,” wrote Dr. Partridge, vice chair of medical oncology at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues.

The authors cautioned, however, that the median follow-up was only 3.4 years and that 10-year follow-up data will be “critical” to confirm the safety of interruption of adjuvant endocrine therapy.

Dr. Giordano agreed, noting that “recurrences of breast cancer are reported to occur at a steady rate for up to 20 years after diagnosis among patients with hormone receptor–positive disease; the protocol-specified 10-year follow-up data will be essential to establish longer-term safety.”

The study was supported by the International Breast Cancer Study Group and by the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology in North America in collaboration with the Breast International Group (BIG). Disclosures for authors and editorial writer are available at NEJM.org.

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

Young patients with breast cancer can safely interrupt adjuvant endocrine therapy to attempt pregnancy without increasing their risk of breast cancer recurrence or new contralateral breast cancer.

The results provide the “strongest evidence to date on the short-term safety of this choice,” Sharon Giordano, MD, MPH, with University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, wrote in an editorial accompanying the study.

“Physicians should now incorporate these positive data into their shared decision-making process with patients,” Dr. Giordano said.

The POSITIVE trial findings were published online  in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Before the analysis, the risks associated with taking a break from endocrine therapy among young women with hormone receptor (HR)–positive breast cancer remained unclear.

In the current trial, Ann Partridge, MD, MPH, and colleagues sought prospective data on the safety associated with taking a temporary break from therapy to attempt pregnancy.

The single-group trial enrolled more than 500 premenopausal women who had received 18-30 months of endocrine therapy for mostly stage I or II HR-positive breast cancer. After a 3-month washout, the women were given 2 years to conceive, deliver, and breastfeed, if desired, before resuming treatment. Breast cancer events – the primary outcome – were defined as local, regional, or distant recurrence of invasive breast cancer or new contralateral invasive breast cancer.

The results, initially reported at San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) 2022, showed that a temporary interruption of therapy to attempt pregnancy did not appear to lead to worse breast cancer outcomes.

Among 497 women who were followed for pregnancy status, 368 (74%) had at least one pregnancy, and 317 (64%) had at least one live birth.

After a median follow-up of 3.4 years, 44 women had had a breast cancer event – a result that was close to, but did not exceed, the safety threshold of 46 breast cancer events.

The 3-year incidence of breast cancer events was 8.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.3-11.6) in the treatment-interruption group compared with 9.2% (95% CI, 7.6-10.8) among historical controls, which included women who would have met the entry criteria for the trial.

“These results suggest that although endocrine therapy for a period of 5-10 years substantially improves disease outcomes in patients with hormone receptor–positive early breast cancer, a temporary interruption of therapy to attempt pregnancy does not appear to have an appreciable negative short-term effect,” wrote Dr. Partridge, vice chair of medical oncology at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues.

The authors cautioned, however, that the median follow-up was only 3.4 years and that 10-year follow-up data will be “critical” to confirm the safety of interruption of adjuvant endocrine therapy.

Dr. Giordano agreed, noting that “recurrences of breast cancer are reported to occur at a steady rate for up to 20 years after diagnosis among patients with hormone receptor–positive disease; the protocol-specified 10-year follow-up data will be essential to establish longer-term safety.”

The study was supported by the International Breast Cancer Study Group and by the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology in North America in collaboration with the Breast International Group (BIG). Disclosures for authors and editorial writer are available at NEJM.org.

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

Young patients with breast cancer can safely interrupt adjuvant endocrine therapy to attempt pregnancy without increasing their risk of breast cancer recurrence or new contralateral breast cancer.

The results provide the “strongest evidence to date on the short-term safety of this choice,” Sharon Giordano, MD, MPH, with University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, wrote in an editorial accompanying the study.

“Physicians should now incorporate these positive data into their shared decision-making process with patients,” Dr. Giordano said.

The POSITIVE trial findings were published online  in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Before the analysis, the risks associated with taking a break from endocrine therapy among young women with hormone receptor (HR)–positive breast cancer remained unclear.

In the current trial, Ann Partridge, MD, MPH, and colleagues sought prospective data on the safety associated with taking a temporary break from therapy to attempt pregnancy.

The single-group trial enrolled more than 500 premenopausal women who had received 18-30 months of endocrine therapy for mostly stage I or II HR-positive breast cancer. After a 3-month washout, the women were given 2 years to conceive, deliver, and breastfeed, if desired, before resuming treatment. Breast cancer events – the primary outcome – were defined as local, regional, or distant recurrence of invasive breast cancer or new contralateral invasive breast cancer.

The results, initially reported at San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) 2022, showed that a temporary interruption of therapy to attempt pregnancy did not appear to lead to worse breast cancer outcomes.

Among 497 women who were followed for pregnancy status, 368 (74%) had at least one pregnancy, and 317 (64%) had at least one live birth.

After a median follow-up of 3.4 years, 44 women had had a breast cancer event – a result that was close to, but did not exceed, the safety threshold of 46 breast cancer events.

The 3-year incidence of breast cancer events was 8.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.3-11.6) in the treatment-interruption group compared with 9.2% (95% CI, 7.6-10.8) among historical controls, which included women who would have met the entry criteria for the trial.

“These results suggest that although endocrine therapy for a period of 5-10 years substantially improves disease outcomes in patients with hormone receptor–positive early breast cancer, a temporary interruption of therapy to attempt pregnancy does not appear to have an appreciable negative short-term effect,” wrote Dr. Partridge, vice chair of medical oncology at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues.

The authors cautioned, however, that the median follow-up was only 3.4 years and that 10-year follow-up data will be “critical” to confirm the safety of interruption of adjuvant endocrine therapy.

Dr. Giordano agreed, noting that “recurrences of breast cancer are reported to occur at a steady rate for up to 20 years after diagnosis among patients with hormone receptor–positive disease; the protocol-specified 10-year follow-up data will be essential to establish longer-term safety.”

The study was supported by the International Breast Cancer Study Group and by the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology in North America in collaboration with the Breast International Group (BIG). Disclosures for authors and editorial writer are available at NEJM.org.

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