Women's Health

A new report details a comprehensive strategy to prevent preeclampsia, which affects about 250,000 pregnant women a year in the United States and 10 million worldwide.

Preeclampsia is a leading cause of maternal mortality and premature births. The report, published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, developed by a working group of clinicians, researchers, patients, advocates, and payers, recommends daily low-dose aspirin, surveillance, behavioral strategies, patient and provider education, long-term follow-up, and addressing social determinants of health.

Titled “Care plan for individuals at risk for preeclampsia: Shared approach to education, strategies for prevention, surveillance and follow up,” the report includes recommendations for providers and for patients at moderate to high risk of preeclampsia.

Top recommendations for providers include performing a risk assessment, including social determinants of health, medication recommendations (including daily aspirin and antihypertensive therapy), and behavioral recommendations (including specific information about diet, exercise, and sleep.)

The recommendations for patients include asking providers about aspirin use, checking blood pressure at home, and reporting any readings greater than 140/90. For those with BPs measuring 140/90 mm Hg or higher, the plan recommends antihypertensive therapy. The recommendations include making changes to diet, exercise, and sleep in consultation with providers.
 

Home blood pressure checks controversial

James Roberts, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine researcher at the Magee-Women’s Research Institute at University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and lead author on the paper, told this publication the home blood pressure checks may be the most controversial item in the report as not all insurers cover the at-home equipment.

University of Pittsburgh Medical Center

In this report, the authors write that the working group “strongly advocates that payers of health care services cover the modest expense of home blood pressure determination including equipment and training.”

Dr. Roberts is the founding principal investigator of the Global Pregnancy Collaboration (CoLab), a consortium of 40 centers and one of the groups leading the creation of this report.

He said that while most of the recommendations are already recommended in guidelines, the report puts the preeclampsia plan into easy-to-read steps and downloadable checklists and compiles the evidence all in one place.

Dr. Roberts said the working group hopes this report will be adapted into guidelines developed by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, and made part of electronic health records.

So far, the authors say, a comprehensive, integrated preeclampsia care plan has not been widely adopted.
 

Fewer than half of patients at risk receive aspirin

The coauthors note that “today, most pregnant individuals at increased risk do not receive even one of the interventions to prevent preeclampsia. For example, less than half of high-risk patients receive low-dose aspirin.”

A big part of this plan, Dr. Roberts said, calls for further educating both providers and patients.

Vesna Garovic, MD, PhD, a preeclampsia specialist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., who was not part of the working group, said, “This is the first comprehensive plan that provides a safe, cost-effective approach to reduce the risk of preeclampsia in individuals at moderate to high risk for this condition who qualify to receive aspirin for prevention.”

Dr. Garovic said the plan is novel in several ways, including the multispecialty input that also includes patients and advocates. Also, she says, it can be easily included in electronic health records and routine care of patients.

“The recommendations that were made, other than self-monitoring of blood pressure, are already standard of care. It will be important to understand as to which extent this comprehensive program, compared to the standard approach, would reduce further the risk of preeclampsia,” Dr. Garovic said. “A prospective, adequately powered comparative study would not only address this question, but will investigate compliance of providers and pregnant women with this shared approach, as well as patient satisfaction.”

The authors note the approach presented is for care in developed countries and that low- and middle-income countries would need to tailor the plan. The Care Plan is also meant only for prevention and is not meant to guide care for women who have developed preeclampsia.

Funding was provided to The Precia Group and the Global Pregnancy Collaboration to assemble this care plan by Mirvie, which is developing a biochemical predictor for preeclampsia. Precia and CoLab used a portion of these funds to support the time of some of the authors. Mirvie had no part in selecting authors or in the content of the manuscript.

Several authors received an honorarium for participation in the Working Group that developed the Care Plan. Two coauthors are site principal investigators overseeing sample collection on a Mirvie project. The remaining authors and Dr. Garovic report no conflicts of interest.

A new report details a comprehensive strategy to prevent preeclampsia, which affects about 250,000 pregnant women a year in the United States and 10 million worldwide.

Preeclampsia is a leading cause of maternal mortality and premature births. The report, published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, developed by a working group of clinicians, researchers, patients, advocates, and payers, recommends daily low-dose aspirin, surveillance, behavioral strategies, patient and provider education, long-term follow-up, and addressing social determinants of health.

Titled “Care plan for individuals at risk for preeclampsia: Shared approach to education, strategies for prevention, surveillance and follow up,” the report includes recommendations for providers and for patients at moderate to high risk of preeclampsia.

Top recommendations for providers include performing a risk assessment, including social determinants of health, medication recommendations (including daily aspirin and antihypertensive therapy), and behavioral recommendations (including specific information about diet, exercise, and sleep.)

The recommendations for patients include asking providers about aspirin use, checking blood pressure at home, and reporting any readings greater than 140/90. For those with BPs measuring 140/90 mm Hg or higher, the plan recommends antihypertensive therapy. The recommendations include making changes to diet, exercise, and sleep in consultation with providers.
 

Home blood pressure checks controversial

James Roberts, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine researcher at the Magee-Women’s Research Institute at University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and lead author on the paper, told this publication the home blood pressure checks may be the most controversial item in the report as not all insurers cover the at-home equipment.

University of Pittsburgh Medical Center

In this report, the authors write that the working group “strongly advocates that payers of health care services cover the modest expense of home blood pressure determination including equipment and training.”

Dr. Roberts is the founding principal investigator of the Global Pregnancy Collaboration (CoLab), a consortium of 40 centers and one of the groups leading the creation of this report.

He said that while most of the recommendations are already recommended in guidelines, the report puts the preeclampsia plan into easy-to-read steps and downloadable checklists and compiles the evidence all in one place.

Dr. Roberts said the working group hopes this report will be adapted into guidelines developed by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, and made part of electronic health records.

So far, the authors say, a comprehensive, integrated preeclampsia care plan has not been widely adopted.
 

Fewer than half of patients at risk receive aspirin

The coauthors note that “today, most pregnant individuals at increased risk do not receive even one of the interventions to prevent preeclampsia. For example, less than half of high-risk patients receive low-dose aspirin.”

A big part of this plan, Dr. Roberts said, calls for further educating both providers and patients.

Vesna Garovic, MD, PhD, a preeclampsia specialist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., who was not part of the working group, said, “This is the first comprehensive plan that provides a safe, cost-effective approach to reduce the risk of preeclampsia in individuals at moderate to high risk for this condition who qualify to receive aspirin for prevention.”

Dr. Garovic said the plan is novel in several ways, including the multispecialty input that also includes patients and advocates. Also, she says, it can be easily included in electronic health records and routine care of patients.

“The recommendations that were made, other than self-monitoring of blood pressure, are already standard of care. It will be important to understand as to which extent this comprehensive program, compared to the standard approach, would reduce further the risk of preeclampsia,” Dr. Garovic said. “A prospective, adequately powered comparative study would not only address this question, but will investigate compliance of providers and pregnant women with this shared approach, as well as patient satisfaction.”

The authors note the approach presented is for care in developed countries and that low- and middle-income countries would need to tailor the plan. The Care Plan is also meant only for prevention and is not meant to guide care for women who have developed preeclampsia.

Funding was provided to The Precia Group and the Global Pregnancy Collaboration to assemble this care plan by Mirvie, which is developing a biochemical predictor for preeclampsia. Precia and CoLab used a portion of these funds to support the time of some of the authors. Mirvie had no part in selecting authors or in the content of the manuscript.

Several authors received an honorarium for participation in the Working Group that developed the Care Plan. Two coauthors are site principal investigators overseeing sample collection on a Mirvie project. The remaining authors and Dr. Garovic report no conflicts of interest.

A new report details a comprehensive strategy to prevent preeclampsia, which affects about 250,000 pregnant women a year in the United States and 10 million worldwide.

Preeclampsia is a leading cause of maternal mortality and premature births. The report, published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, developed by a working group of clinicians, researchers, patients, advocates, and payers, recommends daily low-dose aspirin, surveillance, behavioral strategies, patient and provider education, long-term follow-up, and addressing social determinants of health.

Titled “Care plan for individuals at risk for preeclampsia: Shared approach to education, strategies for prevention, surveillance and follow up,” the report includes recommendations for providers and for patients at moderate to high risk of preeclampsia.

Top recommendations for providers include performing a risk assessment, including social determinants of health, medication recommendations (including daily aspirin and antihypertensive therapy), and behavioral recommendations (including specific information about diet, exercise, and sleep.)

The recommendations for patients include asking providers about aspirin use, checking blood pressure at home, and reporting any readings greater than 140/90. For those with BPs measuring 140/90 mm Hg or higher, the plan recommends antihypertensive therapy. The recommendations include making changes to diet, exercise, and sleep in consultation with providers.
 

Home blood pressure checks controversial

James Roberts, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine researcher at the Magee-Women’s Research Institute at University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and lead author on the paper, told this publication the home blood pressure checks may be the most controversial item in the report as not all insurers cover the at-home equipment.

University of Pittsburgh Medical Center

In this report, the authors write that the working group “strongly advocates that payers of health care services cover the modest expense of home blood pressure determination including equipment and training.”

Dr. Roberts is the founding principal investigator of the Global Pregnancy Collaboration (CoLab), a consortium of 40 centers and one of the groups leading the creation of this report.

He said that while most of the recommendations are already recommended in guidelines, the report puts the preeclampsia plan into easy-to-read steps and downloadable checklists and compiles the evidence all in one place.

Dr. Roberts said the working group hopes this report will be adapted into guidelines developed by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, and made part of electronic health records.

So far, the authors say, a comprehensive, integrated preeclampsia care plan has not been widely adopted.
 

Fewer than half of patients at risk receive aspirin

The coauthors note that “today, most pregnant individuals at increased risk do not receive even one of the interventions to prevent preeclampsia. For example, less than half of high-risk patients receive low-dose aspirin.”

A big part of this plan, Dr. Roberts said, calls for further educating both providers and patients.

Vesna Garovic, MD, PhD, a preeclampsia specialist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., who was not part of the working group, said, “This is the first comprehensive plan that provides a safe, cost-effective approach to reduce the risk of preeclampsia in individuals at moderate to high risk for this condition who qualify to receive aspirin for prevention.”

Dr. Garovic said the plan is novel in several ways, including the multispecialty input that also includes patients and advocates. Also, she says, it can be easily included in electronic health records and routine care of patients.

“The recommendations that were made, other than self-monitoring of blood pressure, are already standard of care. It will be important to understand as to which extent this comprehensive program, compared to the standard approach, would reduce further the risk of preeclampsia,” Dr. Garovic said. “A prospective, adequately powered comparative study would not only address this question, but will investigate compliance of providers and pregnant women with this shared approach, as well as patient satisfaction.”

The authors note the approach presented is for care in developed countries and that low- and middle-income countries would need to tailor the plan. The Care Plan is also meant only for prevention and is not meant to guide care for women who have developed preeclampsia.

Funding was provided to The Precia Group and the Global Pregnancy Collaboration to assemble this care plan by Mirvie, which is developing a biochemical predictor for preeclampsia. Precia and CoLab used a portion of these funds to support the time of some of the authors. Mirvie had no part in selecting authors or in the content of the manuscript.

Several authors received an honorarium for participation in the Working Group that developed the Care Plan. Two coauthors are site principal investigators overseeing sample collection on a Mirvie project. The remaining authors and Dr. Garovic report no conflicts of interest.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’m Dr. Neil Skolnik. Today’s topic is the new osteoporosis treatment guidelines issued by the American College of Physicians (ACP). The focus of the guidelines is treatment of osteoporosis. But first, I want to discuss screening.

In its 2018 statement, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) says that osteoporosis should be screened for in women older than 65 years of age, and those who are younger who are at increased risk based on a risk assessment tool (usually the FRAX tool). There is not enough evidence to weigh in for or against screening men. The other large organization that weighs in on screening is the Bone Health & Osteoporosis Foundation, which agrees with the USPSTF, but in addition says that we should be screening men over age 70 and men who are younger (age 50 to 69) who have risk factors. We should also screen anyone who has a fracture after low impact or no trauma.

Let’s now go on to the ACP treatment guidelines. Osteoporosis is defined as bone mineral density at the femoral neck or the lumbar spine, or both, with a T score less than -2.5.

For postmenopausal women with osteoporosis, you should use a bisphosphonate as first-line treatment to reduce the risk for future fractures. This is given a strong recommendation based on a high certainty of evidence. Bisphosphonates vs. placebo over 3 years leads to one fewer hip fracture per 150 patients treated and one fewer vertebral fracture per 50 people treated.

All the other recommendations in the guidelines are considered “conditional recommendations” that are correct for most people. But whether they make sense for an individual patient depends upon other details, as well as their values and preferences. For instance, treatment of osteoporosis in men is given a conditional recommendation, not because the evidence suggests that it’s not as effective, but because there is not as much evidence. Initial treatment for a man with osteoporosis is with bisphosphonates. Men do get osteoporosis and account for about 30% of hip fractures. This is not a surprise to anyone who takes care of older adults.

For postmenopausal women or men who you would want to treat but who can’t tolerate a bisphosphonate, then the recommendation is to use a RANK ligand inhibitor. Denosumab can be used as second-line treatment to reduce the risk for fractures. Remember, bisphosphonates and denosumab are antiresorptive drugs, meaning they slow the progression of osteoporosis. The anabolic drugs, on the other hand, such as the sclerostin inhibitor romosozumab and recombinant human parathyroid hormone (PTH) teriparatide, increase bone density. The anabolic agents should be used only in women with primary osteoporosis who are at very high risk for fractures, and use of these agents always needs to be followed by an antiresorptive agent, because otherwise there’s a risk for rebound osteoporosis and an increased risk for vertebral fractures.

Now, how about osteopenia? The guidelines recommend that for women over 65 with osteopenia, use an individualized approach influenced by the level of risk for fracture, including increased age, low body weight, current smoking, hip fracture in a parent, fall risk, and a personal history of fracture. The guidelines note that increasing the duration of bisphosphonate therapy beyond 3-5 years does reduce the risk for new vertebral fractures, but it doesn’t reduce the risk for other fractures and it increases the risk for osteonecrosis of the jaw and atypical hip fractures. Therefore, the guidelines say that we should use bisphosphonates only for 3-5 years unless someone is at extremely high risk. It’s also important to note that there’s a fivefold higher risk for atypical femoral fractures among Asian women.

Don’t forget about adequate vitamin D and calcium. And most importantly, don’t forget about exercise, particularly exercise aimed at improving balance and quadriceps strength, which helps prevent falls.
 

Dr. Skolnik is professor, department of family medicine, Sidney Kimmel Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and associate director, department of family medicine, Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. He disclosed ties with AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Sanofi, Sanofi Pasteur, and Teva.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’m Dr. Neil Skolnik. Today’s topic is the new osteoporosis treatment guidelines issued by the American College of Physicians (ACP). The focus of the guidelines is treatment of osteoporosis. But first, I want to discuss screening.

In its 2018 statement, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) says that osteoporosis should be screened for in women older than 65 years of age, and those who are younger who are at increased risk based on a risk assessment tool (usually the FRAX tool). There is not enough evidence to weigh in for or against screening men. The other large organization that weighs in on screening is the Bone Health & Osteoporosis Foundation, which agrees with the USPSTF, but in addition says that we should be screening men over age 70 and men who are younger (age 50 to 69) who have risk factors. We should also screen anyone who has a fracture after low impact or no trauma.

Let’s now go on to the ACP treatment guidelines. Osteoporosis is defined as bone mineral density at the femoral neck or the lumbar spine, or both, with a T score less than -2.5.

For postmenopausal women with osteoporosis, you should use a bisphosphonate as first-line treatment to reduce the risk for future fractures. This is given a strong recommendation based on a high certainty of evidence. Bisphosphonates vs. placebo over 3 years leads to one fewer hip fracture per 150 patients treated and one fewer vertebral fracture per 50 people treated.

All the other recommendations in the guidelines are considered “conditional recommendations” that are correct for most people. But whether they make sense for an individual patient depends upon other details, as well as their values and preferences. For instance, treatment of osteoporosis in men is given a conditional recommendation, not because the evidence suggests that it’s not as effective, but because there is not as much evidence. Initial treatment for a man with osteoporosis is with bisphosphonates. Men do get osteoporosis and account for about 30% of hip fractures. This is not a surprise to anyone who takes care of older adults.

For postmenopausal women or men who you would want to treat but who can’t tolerate a bisphosphonate, then the recommendation is to use a RANK ligand inhibitor. Denosumab can be used as second-line treatment to reduce the risk for fractures. Remember, bisphosphonates and denosumab are antiresorptive drugs, meaning they slow the progression of osteoporosis. The anabolic drugs, on the other hand, such as the sclerostin inhibitor romosozumab and recombinant human parathyroid hormone (PTH) teriparatide, increase bone density. The anabolic agents should be used only in women with primary osteoporosis who are at very high risk for fractures, and use of these agents always needs to be followed by an antiresorptive agent, because otherwise there’s a risk for rebound osteoporosis and an increased risk for vertebral fractures.

Now, how about osteopenia? The guidelines recommend that for women over 65 with osteopenia, use an individualized approach influenced by the level of risk for fracture, including increased age, low body weight, current smoking, hip fracture in a parent, fall risk, and a personal history of fracture. The guidelines note that increasing the duration of bisphosphonate therapy beyond 3-5 years does reduce the risk for new vertebral fractures, but it doesn’t reduce the risk for other fractures and it increases the risk for osteonecrosis of the jaw and atypical hip fractures. Therefore, the guidelines say that we should use bisphosphonates only for 3-5 years unless someone is at extremely high risk. It’s also important to note that there’s a fivefold higher risk for atypical femoral fractures among Asian women.

Don’t forget about adequate vitamin D and calcium. And most importantly, don’t forget about exercise, particularly exercise aimed at improving balance and quadriceps strength, which helps prevent falls.
 

Dr. Skolnik is professor, department of family medicine, Sidney Kimmel Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and associate director, department of family medicine, Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. He disclosed ties with AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Sanofi, Sanofi Pasteur, and Teva.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’m Dr. Neil Skolnik. Today’s topic is the new osteoporosis treatment guidelines issued by the American College of Physicians (ACP). The focus of the guidelines is treatment of osteoporosis. But first, I want to discuss screening.

In its 2018 statement, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) says that osteoporosis should be screened for in women older than 65 years of age, and those who are younger who are at increased risk based on a risk assessment tool (usually the FRAX tool). There is not enough evidence to weigh in for or against screening men. The other large organization that weighs in on screening is the Bone Health & Osteoporosis Foundation, which agrees with the USPSTF, but in addition says that we should be screening men over age 70 and men who are younger (age 50 to 69) who have risk factors. We should also screen anyone who has a fracture after low impact or no trauma.

Let’s now go on to the ACP treatment guidelines. Osteoporosis is defined as bone mineral density at the femoral neck or the lumbar spine, or both, with a T score less than -2.5.

For postmenopausal women with osteoporosis, you should use a bisphosphonate as first-line treatment to reduce the risk for future fractures. This is given a strong recommendation based on a high certainty of evidence. Bisphosphonates vs. placebo over 3 years leads to one fewer hip fracture per 150 patients treated and one fewer vertebral fracture per 50 people treated.

All the other recommendations in the guidelines are considered “conditional recommendations” that are correct for most people. But whether they make sense for an individual patient depends upon other details, as well as their values and preferences. For instance, treatment of osteoporosis in men is given a conditional recommendation, not because the evidence suggests that it’s not as effective, but because there is not as much evidence. Initial treatment for a man with osteoporosis is with bisphosphonates. Men do get osteoporosis and account for about 30% of hip fractures. This is not a surprise to anyone who takes care of older adults.

For postmenopausal women or men who you would want to treat but who can’t tolerate a bisphosphonate, then the recommendation is to use a RANK ligand inhibitor. Denosumab can be used as second-line treatment to reduce the risk for fractures. Remember, bisphosphonates and denosumab are antiresorptive drugs, meaning they slow the progression of osteoporosis. The anabolic drugs, on the other hand, such as the sclerostin inhibitor romosozumab and recombinant human parathyroid hormone (PTH) teriparatide, increase bone density. The anabolic agents should be used only in women with primary osteoporosis who are at very high risk for fractures, and use of these agents always needs to be followed by an antiresorptive agent, because otherwise there’s a risk for rebound osteoporosis and an increased risk for vertebral fractures.

Now, how about osteopenia? The guidelines recommend that for women over 65 with osteopenia, use an individualized approach influenced by the level of risk for fracture, including increased age, low body weight, current smoking, hip fracture in a parent, fall risk, and a personal history of fracture. The guidelines note that increasing the duration of bisphosphonate therapy beyond 3-5 years does reduce the risk for new vertebral fractures, but it doesn’t reduce the risk for other fractures and it increases the risk for osteonecrosis of the jaw and atypical hip fractures. Therefore, the guidelines say that we should use bisphosphonates only for 3-5 years unless someone is at extremely high risk. It’s also important to note that there’s a fivefold higher risk for atypical femoral fractures among Asian women.

Don’t forget about adequate vitamin D and calcium. And most importantly, don’t forget about exercise, particularly exercise aimed at improving balance and quadriceps strength, which helps prevent falls.
 

Dr. Skolnik is professor, department of family medicine, Sidney Kimmel Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and associate director, department of family medicine, Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. He disclosed ties with AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Sanofi, Sanofi Pasteur, and Teva.

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

A genetic sequencing effort identified more patients to be carriers of risk genes for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer or Lynch syndrome than would have been discovered by following existing genetic testing guidelines, according to new research.

The authors of the clinical trial suggest that these guidelines may need to be revised.

Individuals with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) have an 80% lifetime risk of breast cancer and are at greater risk of ovarian cancer, pancreatic cancer, prostate cancer, and melanoma. Those with Lynch syndrome (LS) have an 80% lifetime risk of colorectal cancer, a 60% lifetime risk of endometrial cancer, and heightened risk of upper gastrointestinal, urinary tract, skin, and other tumors, said study coauthor N. Jewel Samadder, MD in a statement.

The National Cancer Control Network has guidelines for determining family risk for colorectal cancer and breast, ovarian, and pancreatic cancer to identify individuals who should be screened for LS and HBOC, but these rely on personal and family health histories.

“These criteria were created at a time when genetic testing was cost prohibitive and thus aimed to identify those at the greatest chance of being a mutation carrier in the absence of population-wide whole-exome sequencing. However, [LS and HBOC] are poorly identified in current practice, and many patients are not aware of their cancer risk,” said Dr. Samadder, professor of medicine and coleader of the precision oncology program at the Mayo Clinic Comprehensive Cancer Center, Phoenix, in the statement.

Whole-exome sequencing covers only protein-coding regions of the genome, which is less than 2% of the total genome but includes more than 85% of known disease-related genetic variants, according to Emily Gay, who presented the trial results (Abstract 5768) on April 18 at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

“In recent years, the cost of whole-exome sequencing has been rapidly decreasing, allowing us to complete this test on saliva samples from thousands, if not tens of thousands of patients covering large populations and large health systems,” said Ms. Gay, a genetic counseling graduate student at the University of Arizona, during her presentation.

She described results from the TAPESTRY clinical trial, with 44,306 participants from Mayo Clinic centers in Arizona, Florida, and Minnesota, who were identified as definitely or likely to be harboring pathogenic mutations and consented to whole-exome sequencing from saliva samples. They used electronic health records to determine whether patients would satisfy the testing criteria from NCCN guidelines.

The researchers identified 1.24% of participants to be carriers of HBOC or LS. Of the HBOC carriers, 62.8% were female, and of the LS carriers, 62.6% were female. The percentages of HBOC and LS carriers who were White were 88.6 and 94.5, respectively. The median age of both groups was 57 years. Of HBOC carriers, 47.3% had personal histories of cancers; for LS carries, the percentage was 44.2.

Of HBOC carriers, 49.1% had been previously unaware of their genetic condition, while an even higher percentage of patients with LS – 59.3% – fell into that category. Thirty-two percent of those with HBOC and 56.2% of those with LS would not have qualified for screening using the relevant NCCN guidelines.

“Most strikingly,” 63.8% of individuals with mutations in the MSH6 gene and 83.7% of those mutations in the PMS2 gene would not have met NCCN criteria, Ms. Gay said.

Having a cancer type not known to be related to a genetic syndrome was a reason for 58.6% of individuals failing to meet NCCN guidelines, while 60.5% did not meet the guidelines because of an insufficient number of relatives known to have a history of cancer, and 63.3% did not because they had no personal history of cancer. Among individuals with a pathogenic mutation who met NCCN criteria, 34% were not aware of their condition.

“This suggests that the NCCN guidelines are underutilized in clinical practice, potentially due to the busy schedule of clinicians or because the complexity of using these criteria,” said Ms. Gay.

The numbers were even more striking among minorities: “There is additional data analysis and research needed in this area, but based on our preliminary findings, we saw that nearly 50% of the individuals who are [part of an underrepresented minority group] did not meet criteria, compared with 32% of the white cohort,” said Ms. Gay.

Asked what new NCCN guidelines should be, Ms. Gay replied: “I think maybe limiting the number of relatives that you have to have with a certain type of cancer, especially as we see families get smaller and smaller, especially in the United States – that family data isn’t necessarily available or as useful. And then also, I think, incorporating in the size of a family into the calculation, so more of maybe a point-based system like we see with other genetic conditions rather than a ‘yes you meet or no, you don’t.’ More of a range to say ‘you fall on the low-risk, medium-risk, or high-risk stage,’” said Ms. Gay.

During the Q&A period, session cochair Andrew Godwin, PhD, who is a professor of molecular oncology and pathology at University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, said he wondered if whole-exome sequencing was capable of picking up cancer risk mutations that standard targeted tests don’t look for.

Dr. Samadder, who was in the audience, answered the question, saying that targeted tests are actually better at picking up some types of mutations like intronic mutations, single-nucleotide polymorphisms, and deletions.

“There are some limitations to whole-exome sequencing. Our estimate here of 1.2% [of participants carrying HBOC or LS mutations] is probably an underestimate. There are additional variants that exome sequencing probably doesn’t pick up easily or as well. That’s why we qualify that exome sequencing is a screening test, not a diagnostic,” he continued.

Ms. Gay and Dr. Samadder have no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Godwin has financial relationships with Clara Biotech, VITRAC Therapeutics, and Sinochips Diagnostics.

A genetic sequencing effort identified more patients to be carriers of risk genes for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer or Lynch syndrome than would have been discovered by following existing genetic testing guidelines, according to new research.

The authors of the clinical trial suggest that these guidelines may need to be revised.

Individuals with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) have an 80% lifetime risk of breast cancer and are at greater risk of ovarian cancer, pancreatic cancer, prostate cancer, and melanoma. Those with Lynch syndrome (LS) have an 80% lifetime risk of colorectal cancer, a 60% lifetime risk of endometrial cancer, and heightened risk of upper gastrointestinal, urinary tract, skin, and other tumors, said study coauthor N. Jewel Samadder, MD in a statement.

The National Cancer Control Network has guidelines for determining family risk for colorectal cancer and breast, ovarian, and pancreatic cancer to identify individuals who should be screened for LS and HBOC, but these rely on personal and family health histories.

“These criteria were created at a time when genetic testing was cost prohibitive and thus aimed to identify those at the greatest chance of being a mutation carrier in the absence of population-wide whole-exome sequencing. However, [LS and HBOC] are poorly identified in current practice, and many patients are not aware of their cancer risk,” said Dr. Samadder, professor of medicine and coleader of the precision oncology program at the Mayo Clinic Comprehensive Cancer Center, Phoenix, in the statement.

Whole-exome sequencing covers only protein-coding regions of the genome, which is less than 2% of the total genome but includes more than 85% of known disease-related genetic variants, according to Emily Gay, who presented the trial results (Abstract 5768) on April 18 at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

“In recent years, the cost of whole-exome sequencing has been rapidly decreasing, allowing us to complete this test on saliva samples from thousands, if not tens of thousands of patients covering large populations and large health systems,” said Ms. Gay, a genetic counseling graduate student at the University of Arizona, during her presentation.

She described results from the TAPESTRY clinical trial, with 44,306 participants from Mayo Clinic centers in Arizona, Florida, and Minnesota, who were identified as definitely or likely to be harboring pathogenic mutations and consented to whole-exome sequencing from saliva samples. They used electronic health records to determine whether patients would satisfy the testing criteria from NCCN guidelines.

The researchers identified 1.24% of participants to be carriers of HBOC or LS. Of the HBOC carriers, 62.8% were female, and of the LS carriers, 62.6% were female. The percentages of HBOC and LS carriers who were White were 88.6 and 94.5, respectively. The median age of both groups was 57 years. Of HBOC carriers, 47.3% had personal histories of cancers; for LS carries, the percentage was 44.2.

Of HBOC carriers, 49.1% had been previously unaware of their genetic condition, while an even higher percentage of patients with LS – 59.3% – fell into that category. Thirty-two percent of those with HBOC and 56.2% of those with LS would not have qualified for screening using the relevant NCCN guidelines.

“Most strikingly,” 63.8% of individuals with mutations in the MSH6 gene and 83.7% of those mutations in the PMS2 gene would not have met NCCN criteria, Ms. Gay said.

Having a cancer type not known to be related to a genetic syndrome was a reason for 58.6% of individuals failing to meet NCCN guidelines, while 60.5% did not meet the guidelines because of an insufficient number of relatives known to have a history of cancer, and 63.3% did not because they had no personal history of cancer. Among individuals with a pathogenic mutation who met NCCN criteria, 34% were not aware of their condition.

“This suggests that the NCCN guidelines are underutilized in clinical practice, potentially due to the busy schedule of clinicians or because the complexity of using these criteria,” said Ms. Gay.

The numbers were even more striking among minorities: “There is additional data analysis and research needed in this area, but based on our preliminary findings, we saw that nearly 50% of the individuals who are [part of an underrepresented minority group] did not meet criteria, compared with 32% of the white cohort,” said Ms. Gay.

Asked what new NCCN guidelines should be, Ms. Gay replied: “I think maybe limiting the number of relatives that you have to have with a certain type of cancer, especially as we see families get smaller and smaller, especially in the United States – that family data isn’t necessarily available or as useful. And then also, I think, incorporating in the size of a family into the calculation, so more of maybe a point-based system like we see with other genetic conditions rather than a ‘yes you meet or no, you don’t.’ More of a range to say ‘you fall on the low-risk, medium-risk, or high-risk stage,’” said Ms. Gay.

During the Q&A period, session cochair Andrew Godwin, PhD, who is a professor of molecular oncology and pathology at University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, said he wondered if whole-exome sequencing was capable of picking up cancer risk mutations that standard targeted tests don’t look for.

Dr. Samadder, who was in the audience, answered the question, saying that targeted tests are actually better at picking up some types of mutations like intronic mutations, single-nucleotide polymorphisms, and deletions.

“There are some limitations to whole-exome sequencing. Our estimate here of 1.2% [of participants carrying HBOC or LS mutations] is probably an underestimate. There are additional variants that exome sequencing probably doesn’t pick up easily or as well. That’s why we qualify that exome sequencing is a screening test, not a diagnostic,” he continued.

Ms. Gay and Dr. Samadder have no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Godwin has financial relationships with Clara Biotech, VITRAC Therapeutics, and Sinochips Diagnostics.

A genetic sequencing effort identified more patients to be carriers of risk genes for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer or Lynch syndrome than would have been discovered by following existing genetic testing guidelines, according to new research.

The authors of the clinical trial suggest that these guidelines may need to be revised.

Individuals with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) have an 80% lifetime risk of breast cancer and are at greater risk of ovarian cancer, pancreatic cancer, prostate cancer, and melanoma. Those with Lynch syndrome (LS) have an 80% lifetime risk of colorectal cancer, a 60% lifetime risk of endometrial cancer, and heightened risk of upper gastrointestinal, urinary tract, skin, and other tumors, said study coauthor N. Jewel Samadder, MD in a statement.

The National Cancer Control Network has guidelines for determining family risk for colorectal cancer and breast, ovarian, and pancreatic cancer to identify individuals who should be screened for LS and HBOC, but these rely on personal and family health histories.

“These criteria were created at a time when genetic testing was cost prohibitive and thus aimed to identify those at the greatest chance of being a mutation carrier in the absence of population-wide whole-exome sequencing. However, [LS and HBOC] are poorly identified in current practice, and many patients are not aware of their cancer risk,” said Dr. Samadder, professor of medicine and coleader of the precision oncology program at the Mayo Clinic Comprehensive Cancer Center, Phoenix, in the statement.

Whole-exome sequencing covers only protein-coding regions of the genome, which is less than 2% of the total genome but includes more than 85% of known disease-related genetic variants, according to Emily Gay, who presented the trial results (Abstract 5768) on April 18 at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

“In recent years, the cost of whole-exome sequencing has been rapidly decreasing, allowing us to complete this test on saliva samples from thousands, if not tens of thousands of patients covering large populations and large health systems,” said Ms. Gay, a genetic counseling graduate student at the University of Arizona, during her presentation.

She described results from the TAPESTRY clinical trial, with 44,306 participants from Mayo Clinic centers in Arizona, Florida, and Minnesota, who were identified as definitely or likely to be harboring pathogenic mutations and consented to whole-exome sequencing from saliva samples. They used electronic health records to determine whether patients would satisfy the testing criteria from NCCN guidelines.

The researchers identified 1.24% of participants to be carriers of HBOC or LS. Of the HBOC carriers, 62.8% were female, and of the LS carriers, 62.6% were female. The percentages of HBOC and LS carriers who were White were 88.6 and 94.5, respectively. The median age of both groups was 57 years. Of HBOC carriers, 47.3% had personal histories of cancers; for LS carries, the percentage was 44.2.

Of HBOC carriers, 49.1% had been previously unaware of their genetic condition, while an even higher percentage of patients with LS – 59.3% – fell into that category. Thirty-two percent of those with HBOC and 56.2% of those with LS would not have qualified for screening using the relevant NCCN guidelines.

“Most strikingly,” 63.8% of individuals with mutations in the MSH6 gene and 83.7% of those mutations in the PMS2 gene would not have met NCCN criteria, Ms. Gay said.

Having a cancer type not known to be related to a genetic syndrome was a reason for 58.6% of individuals failing to meet NCCN guidelines, while 60.5% did not meet the guidelines because of an insufficient number of relatives known to have a history of cancer, and 63.3% did not because they had no personal history of cancer. Among individuals with a pathogenic mutation who met NCCN criteria, 34% were not aware of their condition.

“This suggests that the NCCN guidelines are underutilized in clinical practice, potentially due to the busy schedule of clinicians or because the complexity of using these criteria,” said Ms. Gay.

The numbers were even more striking among minorities: “There is additional data analysis and research needed in this area, but based on our preliminary findings, we saw that nearly 50% of the individuals who are [part of an underrepresented minority group] did not meet criteria, compared with 32% of the white cohort,” said Ms. Gay.

Asked what new NCCN guidelines should be, Ms. Gay replied: “I think maybe limiting the number of relatives that you have to have with a certain type of cancer, especially as we see families get smaller and smaller, especially in the United States – that family data isn’t necessarily available or as useful. And then also, I think, incorporating in the size of a family into the calculation, so more of maybe a point-based system like we see with other genetic conditions rather than a ‘yes you meet or no, you don’t.’ More of a range to say ‘you fall on the low-risk, medium-risk, or high-risk stage,’” said Ms. Gay.

During the Q&A period, session cochair Andrew Godwin, PhD, who is a professor of molecular oncology and pathology at University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, said he wondered if whole-exome sequencing was capable of picking up cancer risk mutations that standard targeted tests don’t look for.

Dr. Samadder, who was in the audience, answered the question, saying that targeted tests are actually better at picking up some types of mutations like intronic mutations, single-nucleotide polymorphisms, and deletions.

“There are some limitations to whole-exome sequencing. Our estimate here of 1.2% [of participants carrying HBOC or LS mutations] is probably an underestimate. There are additional variants that exome sequencing probably doesn’t pick up easily or as well. That’s why we qualify that exome sequencing is a screening test, not a diagnostic,” he continued.

Ms. Gay and Dr. Samadder have no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Godwin has financial relationships with Clara Biotech, VITRAC Therapeutics, and Sinochips Diagnostics.

Early menopause and delayed initiation of hormone therapy (HT) have been linked to an increase in Alzheimer’s disease (AD) pathology in women, a new imaging study shows.

Investigators found elevated levels of tau protein in the brains of women who initiated HT more than 5 years after menopause onset, while those who started the therapy earlier had normal levels.

Tau levels were also higher in women who started menopause before age 45, either naturally or following surgery, but only in those who already had high levels of beta-amyloid.

The findings were published online in JAMA Neurology.
 

Hotly debated

Previous research has suggested the timing of menopause and HT initiation may be associated with AD. However, the current research is the first to suggest tau deposition may explain that link.

“There have been a lot of conflicting findings around whether HT induces risk for Alzheimer’s disease dementia or not, and – at least in our hands – our observational evidence suggests that any risk is fairly limited to those rarer cases when women might delay their initiation of HT considerably,” senior investigator Rachel Buckley, PhD, assistant investigator in neurology at Massachusetts General Hospital and assistant professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School, Boston, told this news organization.

The link between HT, dementia, and cognitive decline has been hotly debated since the initial release of findings from the Women’s Health Initiative Memory Study, reported 20 years ago.

Since then, dozens of studies have yielded conflicting evidence about HT and AD risk, with some showing a protective effect and others showing the treatment may increase AD risk.

For this study, researchers analyzed data from 292 cognitively unimpaired participants (66.1% female) in the Wisconsin Registry for Alzheimer Prevention. About half of the women had received HT.

Women had higher levels of tau measured on PET imaging than age-matched males, even after adjustment for APOE status and other potential confounders.

Higher tau levels were found in those with an earlier age at menopause (P < .001) and HT use (P = .008) compared with male sex; later menopause onset; or HT nonuse – but only in patients who also had a higher beta-amyloid burden.

Late initiation of HT (> 5 years following age at menopause) was associated with higher tau compared with early initiation (P = .001), regardless of amyloid levels.
 

Surprising finding

Although researchers expected to find that surgical history (specifically oophorectomy) might have a greater impact on risk, that wasn’t the case.

“Given that bilateral oophorectomy involves the removal of both ovaries, and the immediate ceasing of estrogen production, I had expected this to be the primary driver of higher tau levels,” Dr. Buckley said. “But early age at menopause – regardless of whether the genesis was natural or surgical – seemed to have similar impacts.”

These findings are the latest from Dr. Buckley’s group that indicate that women tend to have higher levels of tau than men, regardless of preexisting amyloid burden in the brain.

“We see this in healthy older women, women with dementia, and even in postmortem cases,” Dr. Buckley said. “It really remains to be seen whether women tend to accumulate tau faster in the brain than men, or whether this is simply a one-shot phenomenon that we see in observational studies at the baseline.”

“One could really flip this finding on its head and suggest that women are truly resilient to the disease,” she continued. “That is, they can hold much more tau in their brain and remain well enough to be studied, unlike men.”

Among the study’s limitations is that the data were collected at a single time point and did not include information on subsequent Alzheimer’s diagnosis or cognitive decline.

“It is important to remember that the participants in this study were not as representative of the general population in the United States, so we cannot extrapolate our findings to women from a range of socioeconomic, racial and ethnic backgrounds or education levels,” she said.

The study’s observational design left researchers unable to demonstrate causation. What’s more, the findings don’t support the assertion that hormone therapy may protect against AD, Dr. Buckley added.

“I would more confidently say that evidence from our work, and that of many others, seems to suggest that HT initiated around the time of menopause may be benign – not providing benefit or risk, at least in the context of Alzheimer’s disease risk,” she said.

Another important takeaway from the study, Dr. Buckley said, is that not all women are at high risk for AD.

“Often the headlines might make you think that most women are destined to progress to dementia, but this simply is not the case,” Dr. Buckley said. “We are now starting to really drill down on what might elevate risk for AD in women and use this information to better inform clinical trials and doctors on how best to think about treating these higher-risk groups.”
 

New mechanism?

Commenting on the findings, Pauline Maki, PhD, professor of psychiatry, psychology and obstetrics & gynecology at the University of Illinois at Chicago, called the study “interesting.”

“It identifies a new mechanism in humans that could underlie a possible link between sex hormones and dementia,” Dr. Maki said.

However, Dr. Maki noted that the study wasn’t randomized and information about menopause onset was self-reported.

“We must remember that many of the hypotheses about hormone therapy and brain health that came from observational studies were not validated in randomized trials, including the hypothesis that hormone therapy prevents dementia,” she said.

The findings don’t resolve the debate over hormone therapy and AD risk and point to the need for randomized, prospective studies on the topic, Dr. Maki added. Still, she said, they underscore the gender disparity in AD risk.

“It’s a good reminder to clinicians that women have a higher lifetime risk of Alzheimer’s disease and should be advised on factors that might lower their risk,” she said.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Buckley reports no relevant financial conflicts. Dr. Maki serves on the advisory boards for Astellas, Bayer, Johnson & Johnson, consults for Pfizer and Mithra, and has equity in Estrigenix, Midi-Health, and Alloy.
 

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

Early menopause and delayed initiation of hormone therapy (HT) have been linked to an increase in Alzheimer’s disease (AD) pathology in women, a new imaging study shows.

Investigators found elevated levels of tau protein in the brains of women who initiated HT more than 5 years after menopause onset, while those who started the therapy earlier had normal levels.

Tau levels were also higher in women who started menopause before age 45, either naturally or following surgery, but only in those who already had high levels of beta-amyloid.

The findings were published online in JAMA Neurology.
 

Hotly debated

Previous research has suggested the timing of menopause and HT initiation may be associated with AD. However, the current research is the first to suggest tau deposition may explain that link.

“There have been a lot of conflicting findings around whether HT induces risk for Alzheimer’s disease dementia or not, and – at least in our hands – our observational evidence suggests that any risk is fairly limited to those rarer cases when women might delay their initiation of HT considerably,” senior investigator Rachel Buckley, PhD, assistant investigator in neurology at Massachusetts General Hospital and assistant professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School, Boston, told this news organization.

The link between HT, dementia, and cognitive decline has been hotly debated since the initial release of findings from the Women’s Health Initiative Memory Study, reported 20 years ago.

Since then, dozens of studies have yielded conflicting evidence about HT and AD risk, with some showing a protective effect and others showing the treatment may increase AD risk.

For this study, researchers analyzed data from 292 cognitively unimpaired participants (66.1% female) in the Wisconsin Registry for Alzheimer Prevention. About half of the women had received HT.

Women had higher levels of tau measured on PET imaging than age-matched males, even after adjustment for APOE status and other potential confounders.

Higher tau levels were found in those with an earlier age at menopause (P < .001) and HT use (P = .008) compared with male sex; later menopause onset; or HT nonuse – but only in patients who also had a higher beta-amyloid burden.

Late initiation of HT (> 5 years following age at menopause) was associated with higher tau compared with early initiation (P = .001), regardless of amyloid levels.
 

Surprising finding

Although researchers expected to find that surgical history (specifically oophorectomy) might have a greater impact on risk, that wasn’t the case.

“Given that bilateral oophorectomy involves the removal of both ovaries, and the immediate ceasing of estrogen production, I had expected this to be the primary driver of higher tau levels,” Dr. Buckley said. “But early age at menopause – regardless of whether the genesis was natural or surgical – seemed to have similar impacts.”

These findings are the latest from Dr. Buckley’s group that indicate that women tend to have higher levels of tau than men, regardless of preexisting amyloid burden in the brain.

“We see this in healthy older women, women with dementia, and even in postmortem cases,” Dr. Buckley said. “It really remains to be seen whether women tend to accumulate tau faster in the brain than men, or whether this is simply a one-shot phenomenon that we see in observational studies at the baseline.”

“One could really flip this finding on its head and suggest that women are truly resilient to the disease,” she continued. “That is, they can hold much more tau in their brain and remain well enough to be studied, unlike men.”

Among the study’s limitations is that the data were collected at a single time point and did not include information on subsequent Alzheimer’s diagnosis or cognitive decline.

“It is important to remember that the participants in this study were not as representative of the general population in the United States, so we cannot extrapolate our findings to women from a range of socioeconomic, racial and ethnic backgrounds or education levels,” she said.

The study’s observational design left researchers unable to demonstrate causation. What’s more, the findings don’t support the assertion that hormone therapy may protect against AD, Dr. Buckley added.

“I would more confidently say that evidence from our work, and that of many others, seems to suggest that HT initiated around the time of menopause may be benign – not providing benefit or risk, at least in the context of Alzheimer’s disease risk,” she said.

Another important takeaway from the study, Dr. Buckley said, is that not all women are at high risk for AD.

“Often the headlines might make you think that most women are destined to progress to dementia, but this simply is not the case,” Dr. Buckley said. “We are now starting to really drill down on what might elevate risk for AD in women and use this information to better inform clinical trials and doctors on how best to think about treating these higher-risk groups.”
 

New mechanism?

Commenting on the findings, Pauline Maki, PhD, professor of psychiatry, psychology and obstetrics & gynecology at the University of Illinois at Chicago, called the study “interesting.”

“It identifies a new mechanism in humans that could underlie a possible link between sex hormones and dementia,” Dr. Maki said.

However, Dr. Maki noted that the study wasn’t randomized and information about menopause onset was self-reported.

“We must remember that many of the hypotheses about hormone therapy and brain health that came from observational studies were not validated in randomized trials, including the hypothesis that hormone therapy prevents dementia,” she said.

The findings don’t resolve the debate over hormone therapy and AD risk and point to the need for randomized, prospective studies on the topic, Dr. Maki added. Still, she said, they underscore the gender disparity in AD risk.

“It’s a good reminder to clinicians that women have a higher lifetime risk of Alzheimer’s disease and should be advised on factors that might lower their risk,” she said.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Buckley reports no relevant financial conflicts. Dr. Maki serves on the advisory boards for Astellas, Bayer, Johnson & Johnson, consults for Pfizer and Mithra, and has equity in Estrigenix, Midi-Health, and Alloy.
 

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

Early menopause and delayed initiation of hormone therapy (HT) have been linked to an increase in Alzheimer’s disease (AD) pathology in women, a new imaging study shows.

Investigators found elevated levels of tau protein in the brains of women who initiated HT more than 5 years after menopause onset, while those who started the therapy earlier had normal levels.

Tau levels were also higher in women who started menopause before age 45, either naturally or following surgery, but only in those who already had high levels of beta-amyloid.

The findings were published online in JAMA Neurology.
 

Hotly debated

Previous research has suggested the timing of menopause and HT initiation may be associated with AD. However, the current research is the first to suggest tau deposition may explain that link.

“There have been a lot of conflicting findings around whether HT induces risk for Alzheimer’s disease dementia or not, and – at least in our hands – our observational evidence suggests that any risk is fairly limited to those rarer cases when women might delay their initiation of HT considerably,” senior investigator Rachel Buckley, PhD, assistant investigator in neurology at Massachusetts General Hospital and assistant professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School, Boston, told this news organization.

The link between HT, dementia, and cognitive decline has been hotly debated since the initial release of findings from the Women’s Health Initiative Memory Study, reported 20 years ago.

Since then, dozens of studies have yielded conflicting evidence about HT and AD risk, with some showing a protective effect and others showing the treatment may increase AD risk.

For this study, researchers analyzed data from 292 cognitively unimpaired participants (66.1% female) in the Wisconsin Registry for Alzheimer Prevention. About half of the women had received HT.

Women had higher levels of tau measured on PET imaging than age-matched males, even after adjustment for APOE status and other potential confounders.

Higher tau levels were found in those with an earlier age at menopause (P < .001) and HT use (P = .008) compared with male sex; later menopause onset; or HT nonuse – but only in patients who also had a higher beta-amyloid burden.

Late initiation of HT (> 5 years following age at menopause) was associated with higher tau compared with early initiation (P = .001), regardless of amyloid levels.
 

Surprising finding

Although researchers expected to find that surgical history (specifically oophorectomy) might have a greater impact on risk, that wasn’t the case.

“Given that bilateral oophorectomy involves the removal of both ovaries, and the immediate ceasing of estrogen production, I had expected this to be the primary driver of higher tau levels,” Dr. Buckley said. “But early age at menopause – regardless of whether the genesis was natural or surgical – seemed to have similar impacts.”

These findings are the latest from Dr. Buckley’s group that indicate that women tend to have higher levels of tau than men, regardless of preexisting amyloid burden in the brain.

“We see this in healthy older women, women with dementia, and even in postmortem cases,” Dr. Buckley said. “It really remains to be seen whether women tend to accumulate tau faster in the brain than men, or whether this is simply a one-shot phenomenon that we see in observational studies at the baseline.”

“One could really flip this finding on its head and suggest that women are truly resilient to the disease,” she continued. “That is, they can hold much more tau in their brain and remain well enough to be studied, unlike men.”

Among the study’s limitations is that the data were collected at a single time point and did not include information on subsequent Alzheimer’s diagnosis or cognitive decline.

“It is important to remember that the participants in this study were not as representative of the general population in the United States, so we cannot extrapolate our findings to women from a range of socioeconomic, racial and ethnic backgrounds or education levels,” she said.

The study’s observational design left researchers unable to demonstrate causation. What’s more, the findings don’t support the assertion that hormone therapy may protect against AD, Dr. Buckley added.

“I would more confidently say that evidence from our work, and that of many others, seems to suggest that HT initiated around the time of menopause may be benign – not providing benefit or risk, at least in the context of Alzheimer’s disease risk,” she said.

Another important takeaway from the study, Dr. Buckley said, is that not all women are at high risk for AD.

“Often the headlines might make you think that most women are destined to progress to dementia, but this simply is not the case,” Dr. Buckley said. “We are now starting to really drill down on what might elevate risk for AD in women and use this information to better inform clinical trials and doctors on how best to think about treating these higher-risk groups.”
 

New mechanism?

Commenting on the findings, Pauline Maki, PhD, professor of psychiatry, psychology and obstetrics & gynecology at the University of Illinois at Chicago, called the study “interesting.”

“It identifies a new mechanism in humans that could underlie a possible link between sex hormones and dementia,” Dr. Maki said.

However, Dr. Maki noted that the study wasn’t randomized and information about menopause onset was self-reported.

“We must remember that many of the hypotheses about hormone therapy and brain health that came from observational studies were not validated in randomized trials, including the hypothesis that hormone therapy prevents dementia,” she said.

The findings don’t resolve the debate over hormone therapy and AD risk and point to the need for randomized, prospective studies on the topic, Dr. Maki added. Still, she said, they underscore the gender disparity in AD risk.

“It’s a good reminder to clinicians that women have a higher lifetime risk of Alzheimer’s disease and should be advised on factors that might lower their risk,” she said.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Buckley reports no relevant financial conflicts. Dr. Maki serves on the advisory boards for Astellas, Bayer, Johnson & Johnson, consults for Pfizer and Mithra, and has equity in Estrigenix, Midi-Health, and Alloy.
 

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

A deep learning artificial intelligence (AI) model that used only a single histopathological slide predicted the risk of distant recurrence among endometrial cancer patients in a new study.

Endometrial cancer is the most frequently occurring uterine cancer. Early-stage patients have about a 95% 5-year survival, but distant recurrence is associated with very poor survival, according to Sarah Fremond, MSc, an author of the research (Abstract 5695), which she presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

“Most patients with endometrial cancer have a good prognosis and would not require any adjuvant treatment, but there is a proportion that will develop distant recurrence. For those you want to recommend adjuvant chemotherapy, because currently in the adjuvant setting, that’s the only treatment that is known to lower the risk of distant recurrence. But that also causes morbidity. Therefore, our clinical question was how to accurately identify patients at low and high risk of distant recurrence to reduce under- and overtreatment,” said Ms. Fremond, a PhD candidate at Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center.

Pathologists can attempt such predictions, but Ms. Fremond noted that there are challenges. “There is a lot of variability between pathologists, and we don’t even use the entire visual information present in the H&E [hematoxylin and eosin] tumor slide. When it comes to molecular testing, it is hampered by cost, turnaround time, and sometimes interpretation. It’s quite complex to combine those data to specifically target risk of distant recurrence for patients with endometrial cancer.”

In her presentation, Ms. Fremond described how she and her colleagues used digitized histopathological slides in their research. She and her coauthors developed the AI model as part of a collaboration that included the AIRMEC Consortium, Leiden University Medical Center, the TransPORTEC Consortium, and the University of Zürich.

The researchers used long-term follow-up data from 1,408 patients drawn from three clinical cohorts and participants in the PORTEC-1, PORTEC-2, and PORTEC-3 studies, which tested radiotherapy and adjuvant therapy outcomes in endometrial cancer. Patients who had received prior adjuvant chemotherapy were excluded. In the model development phase, the system analyzed a single representative histopathological slide image from each patient and compared it with the known time to distant recurrence to identify patterns.

Once the system had been trained, the researchers applied it to a novel group of 353 patients. It ranked 89 patients as having a low risk of recurrence, 175 at intermediate risk, and 89 at high risk of recurrence. The system performed well: 3.37% of low-risk patients experienced a distant recurrence, as did 15.43% of the intermediate-risk group and 36% of the high-risk group.

The researchers also employed an external validation group with 152 patients and three slides per patient, with a 2.8-year follow-up. The model performed with a C index of 0.805 (±0.0136) when a random slide was selected for each patient, and the median predicted risk score per patient was associated with differences in distant recurrence-free survival between the three risk groups with a C index of 0.816 (P < .0001).
 

Questions about research and their answers

Session moderator Kristin Swanson, PhD, asked if the AI could be used with the pathology slide’s visible features to learn more about the underlying biology and pathophysiology of tumors.

“Overlying the HECTOR on to the tissue seems like a logical opportunity to go and then explore the biology and what’s attributed as a high-risk region,” said Dr. Swanson, who is director of the Mathematical NeuroOncology Lab and codirector of the Precision NeuroTherapeutics Innovation Program at Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix.

Ms. Fremond agreed that the AI has the potential to be used that way.”

During the Q&A, an audience member asked how likely the model is to perform in populations that differ significantly from the populations used in her study.

Ms. Fremond responded that the populations used to develop and test the models were in or close to the Netherlands, and little information was available regarding patient ethnicity. “There is a possibility that perhaps we would have a different performance on a population that includes more minorities. That needs to be checked,” said Ms. Fremond.

The study is limited by its retrospective nature.

Ms. Fremond and Dr. Swanson have no relevant financial disclosures.

A deep learning artificial intelligence (AI) model that used only a single histopathological slide predicted the risk of distant recurrence among endometrial cancer patients in a new study.

Endometrial cancer is the most frequently occurring uterine cancer. Early-stage patients have about a 95% 5-year survival, but distant recurrence is associated with very poor survival, according to Sarah Fremond, MSc, an author of the research (Abstract 5695), which she presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

“Most patients with endometrial cancer have a good prognosis and would not require any adjuvant treatment, but there is a proportion that will develop distant recurrence. For those you want to recommend adjuvant chemotherapy, because currently in the adjuvant setting, that’s the only treatment that is known to lower the risk of distant recurrence. But that also causes morbidity. Therefore, our clinical question was how to accurately identify patients at low and high risk of distant recurrence to reduce under- and overtreatment,” said Ms. Fremond, a PhD candidate at Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center.

Pathologists can attempt such predictions, but Ms. Fremond noted that there are challenges. “There is a lot of variability between pathologists, and we don’t even use the entire visual information present in the H&E [hematoxylin and eosin] tumor slide. When it comes to molecular testing, it is hampered by cost, turnaround time, and sometimes interpretation. It’s quite complex to combine those data to specifically target risk of distant recurrence for patients with endometrial cancer.”

In her presentation, Ms. Fremond described how she and her colleagues used digitized histopathological slides in their research. She and her coauthors developed the AI model as part of a collaboration that included the AIRMEC Consortium, Leiden University Medical Center, the TransPORTEC Consortium, and the University of Zürich.

The researchers used long-term follow-up data from 1,408 patients drawn from three clinical cohorts and participants in the PORTEC-1, PORTEC-2, and PORTEC-3 studies, which tested radiotherapy and adjuvant therapy outcomes in endometrial cancer. Patients who had received prior adjuvant chemotherapy were excluded. In the model development phase, the system analyzed a single representative histopathological slide image from each patient and compared it with the known time to distant recurrence to identify patterns.

Once the system had been trained, the researchers applied it to a novel group of 353 patients. It ranked 89 patients as having a low risk of recurrence, 175 at intermediate risk, and 89 at high risk of recurrence. The system performed well: 3.37% of low-risk patients experienced a distant recurrence, as did 15.43% of the intermediate-risk group and 36% of the high-risk group.

The researchers also employed an external validation group with 152 patients and three slides per patient, with a 2.8-year follow-up. The model performed with a C index of 0.805 (±0.0136) when a random slide was selected for each patient, and the median predicted risk score per patient was associated with differences in distant recurrence-free survival between the three risk groups with a C index of 0.816 (P < .0001).
 

Questions about research and their answers

Session moderator Kristin Swanson, PhD, asked if the AI could be used with the pathology slide’s visible features to learn more about the underlying biology and pathophysiology of tumors.

“Overlying the HECTOR on to the tissue seems like a logical opportunity to go and then explore the biology and what’s attributed as a high-risk region,” said Dr. Swanson, who is director of the Mathematical NeuroOncology Lab and codirector of the Precision NeuroTherapeutics Innovation Program at Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix.

Ms. Fremond agreed that the AI has the potential to be used that way.”

During the Q&A, an audience member asked how likely the model is to perform in populations that differ significantly from the populations used in her study.

Ms. Fremond responded that the populations used to develop and test the models were in or close to the Netherlands, and little information was available regarding patient ethnicity. “There is a possibility that perhaps we would have a different performance on a population that includes more minorities. That needs to be checked,” said Ms. Fremond.

The study is limited by its retrospective nature.

Ms. Fremond and Dr. Swanson have no relevant financial disclosures.

A deep learning artificial intelligence (AI) model that used only a single histopathological slide predicted the risk of distant recurrence among endometrial cancer patients in a new study.

Endometrial cancer is the most frequently occurring uterine cancer. Early-stage patients have about a 95% 5-year survival, but distant recurrence is associated with very poor survival, according to Sarah Fremond, MSc, an author of the research (Abstract 5695), which she presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

“Most patients with endometrial cancer have a good prognosis and would not require any adjuvant treatment, but there is a proportion that will develop distant recurrence. For those you want to recommend adjuvant chemotherapy, because currently in the adjuvant setting, that’s the only treatment that is known to lower the risk of distant recurrence. But that also causes morbidity. Therefore, our clinical question was how to accurately identify patients at low and high risk of distant recurrence to reduce under- and overtreatment,” said Ms. Fremond, a PhD candidate at Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center.

Pathologists can attempt such predictions, but Ms. Fremond noted that there are challenges. “There is a lot of variability between pathologists, and we don’t even use the entire visual information present in the H&E [hematoxylin and eosin] tumor slide. When it comes to molecular testing, it is hampered by cost, turnaround time, and sometimes interpretation. It’s quite complex to combine those data to specifically target risk of distant recurrence for patients with endometrial cancer.”

In her presentation, Ms. Fremond described how she and her colleagues used digitized histopathological slides in their research. She and her coauthors developed the AI model as part of a collaboration that included the AIRMEC Consortium, Leiden University Medical Center, the TransPORTEC Consortium, and the University of Zürich.

The researchers used long-term follow-up data from 1,408 patients drawn from three clinical cohorts and participants in the PORTEC-1, PORTEC-2, and PORTEC-3 studies, which tested radiotherapy and adjuvant therapy outcomes in endometrial cancer. Patients who had received prior adjuvant chemotherapy were excluded. In the model development phase, the system analyzed a single representative histopathological slide image from each patient and compared it with the known time to distant recurrence to identify patterns.

Once the system had been trained, the researchers applied it to a novel group of 353 patients. It ranked 89 patients as having a low risk of recurrence, 175 at intermediate risk, and 89 at high risk of recurrence. The system performed well: 3.37% of low-risk patients experienced a distant recurrence, as did 15.43% of the intermediate-risk group and 36% of the high-risk group.

The researchers also employed an external validation group with 152 patients and three slides per patient, with a 2.8-year follow-up. The model performed with a C index of 0.805 (±0.0136) when a random slide was selected for each patient, and the median predicted risk score per patient was associated with differences in distant recurrence-free survival between the three risk groups with a C index of 0.816 (P < .0001).
 

Questions about research and their answers

Session moderator Kristin Swanson, PhD, asked if the AI could be used with the pathology slide’s visible features to learn more about the underlying biology and pathophysiology of tumors.

“Overlying the HECTOR on to the tissue seems like a logical opportunity to go and then explore the biology and what’s attributed as a high-risk region,” said Dr. Swanson, who is director of the Mathematical NeuroOncology Lab and codirector of the Precision NeuroTherapeutics Innovation Program at Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix.

Ms. Fremond agreed that the AI has the potential to be used that way.”

During the Q&A, an audience member asked how likely the model is to perform in populations that differ significantly from the populations used in her study.

Ms. Fremond responded that the populations used to develop and test the models were in or close to the Netherlands, and little information was available regarding patient ethnicity. “There is a possibility that perhaps we would have a different performance on a population that includes more minorities. That needs to be checked,” said Ms. Fremond.

The study is limited by its retrospective nature.

Ms. Fremond and Dr. Swanson have no relevant financial disclosures.

Since its introduction in 1950, the combined oral contraceptive pill has been used by countless women as a method for birth control (Liao P. Can Fam Physician. 2012 Dec; 58[12]:e757-e760).

Hormonal contraception (HC) provides women with both contraceptive and noncontraceptive benefits, most notably a method for avoiding unintended pregnancy. In addition to being an effective method of contraception, oral contraceptive pills (OCPs) are well established for treating conditions such as hirsutism, pain symptoms associated with endometriosis and adenomyosis, and pelvic inflammatory disease, among others (Schindler A. Int J Endocrinol Metab. 2013 Winter;11[1]:41-7).

IntimMedicine Specialists

Combined hormonal contraceptives are also first-line treatment for women with menstrual disorders, and in women with polycystic ovary syndrome, can offer an effective long-term method to regulate their menstrual cycle, decrease androgens, clear up oily skin and acne, and reduce facial hair while also providing them with effective contraception (de Melo et al. Open Access J Contracept. 2017;8:13-23).
 

Associations between ‘the pill’ and mood effects remain controversial

More than 100 million women worldwide use hormonal contraceptives today, yet despite this, the data are mixed regarding the prevalence and extent of neuropsychiatric symptoms and mood changes associated with use of “the pill.” Some studies show combined oral contraceptives are associated with a decrease in general well-being, but had no effect on depression, in women compared with placebo (Zethraeus N et al. Fertil Steril. 2017 May;107[5]:1238-45).

However, a large Danish study published in JAMA Psychiatry of more than 1 million women found a significant association between use of hormonal contraception and antidepressant use or first diagnosis of depression, with adolescents having a higher rate of first depression diagnosis and antidepressant use compared with women 20–30 years old (Skovlund C et al. JAMA Psychiatry. 2016 Nov 1;73[11]:1154-62).

Studies have also shown long-term exposure to levonorgestrel is significantly associated with anxiety and sleep problems in women without a history of these issues (Slattery J et al. Drug Saf. 2018 Oct;41[10]:951-8). A recent small nationwide cohort study in France suggests this may also be true of levonorgestrel delivered by intrauterine devices (IUD) and the association may be dose-dependent (Roland N et al. JAMA. 2023;329[3]:257-9).

Of note, a study published in the American Journal of Psychiatry found a nearly twofold risk of suicide attempt and over threefold risk of suicide among women taking hormonal contraception compared with women who had never used hormonal contraceptives (Skovlund et al. Am J Psychiatry. 2017 Nov 17:appiajp201717060616).
 

Knowledge gaps make drawing conclusions difficult

The latest information on use of antidepressant and antianxiety medications in women of reproductive age (18-44 years) is sparse and, in some cases, outdated. According to data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 18.6% of adult women 18 years or older reported using antidepressant medications within the last 30 days in 2017-2018, an increase from 13.8% in 2009-2010. Among women aged 15-44 year with private employer–sponsored insurance surveyed during 2008-2013, the results showed 15.4% of women filled a prescription for an antidepressant. We must look back further to find data on antianxiety medication use among women aged 18-44 years where use of antianxiety drugs (anxiolytics, sedatives, and hypnotics) was 4.3% between 2005 and 2008.

A lack of literature in this area is likely due to significant underreporting, and an inability to select patients who are sensitive to or at risk of developing neuropsychiatric symptoms resulting from hormonal contraception use because the true pathophysiology is unknown. Existing studies tend to use varying methods to assess mood changes, and do not usually specify hormonal contraceptive use type in their analyses (Schaffir J et al. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2016 Oct;21[5]:347-55).

Studies of this nature also require large sample sizes, but the percentage of women who develop neuropsychiatric symptoms from hormonal contraceptive use has historically been relatively small. In the late 1990s, Rosenberg and colleagues found 46% of 1,657 women discontinued oral contraceptives due to side effects within 6 months of starting a new prescription; of these women, 5% reported mood changes as their reason for discontinuing oral contraceptives (Rosenberg M et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1998 Sep;179[3 Pt 1]:577-82).

One might expect that, as lower dosage combined hormonal contraceptives were developed in the 1980s, that the rate of reporting psychological side effects would continue to decrease as well. Yet greater awareness of the potential for mood changes while on “the pill” as outlined by the lay press and social media may be leading to increased reporting of neuropsychiatric effects in women. In a recent cross-sectional survey of 188 women in New York, 43.6% said they experienced mood changes while on hormonal contraceptives, and 61.2% of women with histories of psychiatric illness reported mood changes they attributed to hormonal contraceptives (Martell S et al. Contracept Reprod Med. 2023;8:9).

Martell and colleagues found 48.3% of women cited side effects as a reason for discontinuing hormonal contraception, and 43 participants mentioned psychological side effects unprompted, including 2 patients with suicidal thoughts. The authors said this suggests “psychological side effects, at least in part, may have impacted” HC users’ decisions to switch from OCPs to an alternative method of contraception.

It is also not clear what risk factors exist for women who develop neuropsychiatric symptoms from hormonal contraceptive use. First, it is important to note that both progestin-only contraceptives and combined hormonal contraceptives are classified by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s US Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use, 2016 as having no restrictions for use, including among patients with depression. While women in a smaller subgroup have significant neuropsychiatric symptoms related to their hormonal contraceptives, the underlying mechanism is unknown, and is thought to be largely related to the progestogen component of combined hormonal contraceptives or progestogen-only contraceptives (Mu E. Aust Prescr. 2022 Jun; 45[3]:75-9). We know that some women are hormone sensitive, while others are less so, and some not at all. Progestogens could affect mood as a direct action of the progestogen, because progestogens can be neurosteroids, or the progestogen effect could be mediated secondarily through a change in that woman’s own production of or bioavailability of androgens or naturally occurring estrogens (Giatti S. J Mol Endocrinol. 2016 Aug;57[2]:R109-26).

Here, we also find that currently available evidence limits our ability to draw firm conclusions. A study by Berry-Bibee and colleagues found a “low concern for clinically significant interactions” between hormonal contraception and psychotropic drugs, but was limited by quality/quantity of evidence (Berry-Bibee E et al. Contraception. 2016 Dec;94[6]:650-67). Interestingly, a study by Robinson and colleagues from the mid-2000s posited based on low evidence that “psychological response to the practice of contraception” was a potential explanation for the side effect profile of hormonal contraception (Robinson S et al. Med Hypotheses. 2004;63[2]:268-73).

Further, it may be that women with premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD) might be selected for oral contraceptives, and they are predisposed to other neuropsychiatric problems. Estimates have placed the prevalence of comorbid psychiatric disorders such as anxiety, major depression, bipolar disorder, and posttraumatic stress disorder as high as 70% for women with PMDD (Sepede G et al. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2020;16:415-26). This phenomenon is not new, having been characterized in the lay literature nearly 20 years ago, by endocrinologist Geoffrey P. Redmond, MD (Redmond GP. The Hormonally Vulnerable Woman. New York: HarperCollins; 2005).

While the cause is not exactly idiosyncratic, there do appear to be some women who are more sensitive, either mood-related or otherwise, directly or indirectly to their contraceptive progestogens in terms of mood. They tend to have an entire spectrum of responses to the progestogens in combined or progestin-only contraceptives, ranging from just a flattened affect – which could easily be explained by their flattened level of endogenous hormones – to frank depression. Their frank depression, in turn, can be demonstrated to include suicidal ideation and actual suicide.

Compounding this issue is a woman’s perception of her sexuality. Some women with low sexual desire or sexual problems who are younger may have more distress about their problems compared with women of older reproductive age. While the reason for that is not clear, it may be that in the sexual arena, it is more important for some younger women to be a sexual person than in perimenopausal women, or that women who are younger are more likely to be partnered than women of older reproductive age. While the European Society of Sexual Medicine concluded in a 2019 position statement that there is inconclusive evidence whether hormonal contraception may be contributing to changes in sexual desire and sexual dysfunction, it appears that “a minority of women” experience “better or worse sexual functioning” from taking combined oral contraceptives (Both S et al. J Sex Med. 2019 Nov;16[11]:1681-95), suggesting that the majority of women report no significant changes.
 

Practitioners should discuss mood effects during consultation

An ob.gyn., primary care physicians, or others with prescriptive authority (i.e. nurse practitioners and physician assistants) in clinical practice may encounter a patient who seems to have mood side effects owing to progestogen-containing contraceptives that they prescribe. However, many ob.gyns. are likely unaware of the prevalence, or that some of those same patients can have such significant mood effects that they would become or are suicidal.

I believe questioning patients about mood effects during consultation and particularly during follow-up following the initiation of any hormonal contraceptive is worth a passing comment for every patient, which should include mood effects in broader discussion for anyone currently using an antidepressant, patients with a history of antidepressant use, and patients who have considered suicide. As we do with other drugs, these questions can be posed in the form of a questionnaire followed up by the practitioner in counseling.

Practitioners who encounter a patient with mood changes as a result of hormonal contraceptive use can consider changing to a nonhormonal method of birth control, or recommending the patient use a barrier method during sexual activity, as none of these options have neuropsychiatric side effects.

Ultimately, practitioners of all types need to engage in shared decision-making to identify the key benefits and risks of hormonal contraceptive use for each patient, which may involve trial and error to determine the ideal treatment. It is critical that practitioners of all types strike a balance between alleviating patient concerns about potential mood changes, monitoring patients with an appreciable risk of mood changes, and continuing patients on hormonal contraception for whom the benefits outweigh the risks.
 

Dr. Simon is a clinical professor at George Washington University and the medical director and founder of IntimMedicine Specialists in Washington, which provides patient-focused care for women across the reproductive life cycle. He is a past president of the International Society for the Study of Women’s Sexual Health and the North American Menopause Society. Dr. Simon has been a consultant to, received grant and research support from, and served on the speakers bureau for various pharmaceutical companies that develop combination hormonal contraceptives. Email Dr. Simon at [email protected].

Since its introduction in 1950, the combined oral contraceptive pill has been used by countless women as a method for birth control (Liao P. Can Fam Physician. 2012 Dec; 58[12]:e757-e760).

Hormonal contraception (HC) provides women with both contraceptive and noncontraceptive benefits, most notably a method for avoiding unintended pregnancy. In addition to being an effective method of contraception, oral contraceptive pills (OCPs) are well established for treating conditions such as hirsutism, pain symptoms associated with endometriosis and adenomyosis, and pelvic inflammatory disease, among others (Schindler A. Int J Endocrinol Metab. 2013 Winter;11[1]:41-7).

IntimMedicine Specialists

Combined hormonal contraceptives are also first-line treatment for women with menstrual disorders, and in women with polycystic ovary syndrome, can offer an effective long-term method to regulate their menstrual cycle, decrease androgens, clear up oily skin and acne, and reduce facial hair while also providing them with effective contraception (de Melo et al. Open Access J Contracept. 2017;8:13-23).
 

Associations between ‘the pill’ and mood effects remain controversial

More than 100 million women worldwide use hormonal contraceptives today, yet despite this, the data are mixed regarding the prevalence and extent of neuropsychiatric symptoms and mood changes associated with use of “the pill.” Some studies show combined oral contraceptives are associated with a decrease in general well-being, but had no effect on depression, in women compared with placebo (Zethraeus N et al. Fertil Steril. 2017 May;107[5]:1238-45).

However, a large Danish study published in JAMA Psychiatry of more than 1 million women found a significant association between use of hormonal contraception and antidepressant use or first diagnosis of depression, with adolescents having a higher rate of first depression diagnosis and antidepressant use compared with women 20–30 years old (Skovlund C et al. JAMA Psychiatry. 2016 Nov 1;73[11]:1154-62).

Studies have also shown long-term exposure to levonorgestrel is significantly associated with anxiety and sleep problems in women without a history of these issues (Slattery J et al. Drug Saf. 2018 Oct;41[10]:951-8). A recent small nationwide cohort study in France suggests this may also be true of levonorgestrel delivered by intrauterine devices (IUD) and the association may be dose-dependent (Roland N et al. JAMA. 2023;329[3]:257-9).

Of note, a study published in the American Journal of Psychiatry found a nearly twofold risk of suicide attempt and over threefold risk of suicide among women taking hormonal contraception compared with women who had never used hormonal contraceptives (Skovlund et al. Am J Psychiatry. 2017 Nov 17:appiajp201717060616).
 

Knowledge gaps make drawing conclusions difficult

The latest information on use of antidepressant and antianxiety medications in women of reproductive age (18-44 years) is sparse and, in some cases, outdated. According to data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 18.6% of adult women 18 years or older reported using antidepressant medications within the last 30 days in 2017-2018, an increase from 13.8% in 2009-2010. Among women aged 15-44 year with private employer–sponsored insurance surveyed during 2008-2013, the results showed 15.4% of women filled a prescription for an antidepressant. We must look back further to find data on antianxiety medication use among women aged 18-44 years where use of antianxiety drugs (anxiolytics, sedatives, and hypnotics) was 4.3% between 2005 and 2008.

A lack of literature in this area is likely due to significant underreporting, and an inability to select patients who are sensitive to or at risk of developing neuropsychiatric symptoms resulting from hormonal contraception use because the true pathophysiology is unknown. Existing studies tend to use varying methods to assess mood changes, and do not usually specify hormonal contraceptive use type in their analyses (Schaffir J et al. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2016 Oct;21[5]:347-55).

Studies of this nature also require large sample sizes, but the percentage of women who develop neuropsychiatric symptoms from hormonal contraceptive use has historically been relatively small. In the late 1990s, Rosenberg and colleagues found 46% of 1,657 women discontinued oral contraceptives due to side effects within 6 months of starting a new prescription; of these women, 5% reported mood changes as their reason for discontinuing oral contraceptives (Rosenberg M et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1998 Sep;179[3 Pt 1]:577-82).

One might expect that, as lower dosage combined hormonal contraceptives were developed in the 1980s, that the rate of reporting psychological side effects would continue to decrease as well. Yet greater awareness of the potential for mood changes while on “the pill” as outlined by the lay press and social media may be leading to increased reporting of neuropsychiatric effects in women. In a recent cross-sectional survey of 188 women in New York, 43.6% said they experienced mood changes while on hormonal contraceptives, and 61.2% of women with histories of psychiatric illness reported mood changes they attributed to hormonal contraceptives (Martell S et al. Contracept Reprod Med. 2023;8:9).

Martell and colleagues found 48.3% of women cited side effects as a reason for discontinuing hormonal contraception, and 43 participants mentioned psychological side effects unprompted, including 2 patients with suicidal thoughts. The authors said this suggests “psychological side effects, at least in part, may have impacted” HC users’ decisions to switch from OCPs to an alternative method of contraception.

It is also not clear what risk factors exist for women who develop neuropsychiatric symptoms from hormonal contraceptive use. First, it is important to note that both progestin-only contraceptives and combined hormonal contraceptives are classified by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s US Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use, 2016 as having no restrictions for use, including among patients with depression. While women in a smaller subgroup have significant neuropsychiatric symptoms related to their hormonal contraceptives, the underlying mechanism is unknown, and is thought to be largely related to the progestogen component of combined hormonal contraceptives or progestogen-only contraceptives (Mu E. Aust Prescr. 2022 Jun; 45[3]:75-9). We know that some women are hormone sensitive, while others are less so, and some not at all. Progestogens could affect mood as a direct action of the progestogen, because progestogens can be neurosteroids, or the progestogen effect could be mediated secondarily through a change in that woman’s own production of or bioavailability of androgens or naturally occurring estrogens (Giatti S. J Mol Endocrinol. 2016 Aug;57[2]:R109-26).

Here, we also find that currently available evidence limits our ability to draw firm conclusions. A study by Berry-Bibee and colleagues found a “low concern for clinically significant interactions” between hormonal contraception and psychotropic drugs, but was limited by quality/quantity of evidence (Berry-Bibee E et al. Contraception. 2016 Dec;94[6]:650-67). Interestingly, a study by Robinson and colleagues from the mid-2000s posited based on low evidence that “psychological response to the practice of contraception” was a potential explanation for the side effect profile of hormonal contraception (Robinson S et al. Med Hypotheses. 2004;63[2]:268-73).

Further, it may be that women with premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD) might be selected for oral contraceptives, and they are predisposed to other neuropsychiatric problems. Estimates have placed the prevalence of comorbid psychiatric disorders such as anxiety, major depression, bipolar disorder, and posttraumatic stress disorder as high as 70% for women with PMDD (Sepede G et al. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2020;16:415-26). This phenomenon is not new, having been characterized in the lay literature nearly 20 years ago, by endocrinologist Geoffrey P. Redmond, MD (Redmond GP. The Hormonally Vulnerable Woman. New York: HarperCollins; 2005).

While the cause is not exactly idiosyncratic, there do appear to be some women who are more sensitive, either mood-related or otherwise, directly or indirectly to their contraceptive progestogens in terms of mood. They tend to have an entire spectrum of responses to the progestogens in combined or progestin-only contraceptives, ranging from just a flattened affect – which could easily be explained by their flattened level of endogenous hormones – to frank depression. Their frank depression, in turn, can be demonstrated to include suicidal ideation and actual suicide.

Compounding this issue is a woman’s perception of her sexuality. Some women with low sexual desire or sexual problems who are younger may have more distress about their problems compared with women of older reproductive age. While the reason for that is not clear, it may be that in the sexual arena, it is more important for some younger women to be a sexual person than in perimenopausal women, or that women who are younger are more likely to be partnered than women of older reproductive age. While the European Society of Sexual Medicine concluded in a 2019 position statement that there is inconclusive evidence whether hormonal contraception may be contributing to changes in sexual desire and sexual dysfunction, it appears that “a minority of women” experience “better or worse sexual functioning” from taking combined oral contraceptives (Both S et al. J Sex Med. 2019 Nov;16[11]:1681-95), suggesting that the majority of women report no significant changes.
 

Practitioners should discuss mood effects during consultation

An ob.gyn., primary care physicians, or others with prescriptive authority (i.e. nurse practitioners and physician assistants) in clinical practice may encounter a patient who seems to have mood side effects owing to progestogen-containing contraceptives that they prescribe. However, many ob.gyns. are likely unaware of the prevalence, or that some of those same patients can have such significant mood effects that they would become or are suicidal.

I believe questioning patients about mood effects during consultation and particularly during follow-up following the initiation of any hormonal contraceptive is worth a passing comment for every patient, which should include mood effects in broader discussion for anyone currently using an antidepressant, patients with a history of antidepressant use, and patients who have considered suicide. As we do with other drugs, these questions can be posed in the form of a questionnaire followed up by the practitioner in counseling.

Practitioners who encounter a patient with mood changes as a result of hormonal contraceptive use can consider changing to a nonhormonal method of birth control, or recommending the patient use a barrier method during sexual activity, as none of these options have neuropsychiatric side effects.

Ultimately, practitioners of all types need to engage in shared decision-making to identify the key benefits and risks of hormonal contraceptive use for each patient, which may involve trial and error to determine the ideal treatment. It is critical that practitioners of all types strike a balance between alleviating patient concerns about potential mood changes, monitoring patients with an appreciable risk of mood changes, and continuing patients on hormonal contraception for whom the benefits outweigh the risks.
 

Dr. Simon is a clinical professor at George Washington University and the medical director and founder of IntimMedicine Specialists in Washington, which provides patient-focused care for women across the reproductive life cycle. He is a past president of the International Society for the Study of Women’s Sexual Health and the North American Menopause Society. Dr. Simon has been a consultant to, received grant and research support from, and served on the speakers bureau for various pharmaceutical companies that develop combination hormonal contraceptives. Email Dr. Simon at [email protected].

Since its introduction in 1950, the combined oral contraceptive pill has been used by countless women as a method for birth control (Liao P. Can Fam Physician. 2012 Dec; 58[12]:e757-e760).

Hormonal contraception (HC) provides women with both contraceptive and noncontraceptive benefits, most notably a method for avoiding unintended pregnancy. In addition to being an effective method of contraception, oral contraceptive pills (OCPs) are well established for treating conditions such as hirsutism, pain symptoms associated with endometriosis and adenomyosis, and pelvic inflammatory disease, among others (Schindler A. Int J Endocrinol Metab. 2013 Winter;11[1]:41-7).

IntimMedicine Specialists

Combined hormonal contraceptives are also first-line treatment for women with menstrual disorders, and in women with polycystic ovary syndrome, can offer an effective long-term method to regulate their menstrual cycle, decrease androgens, clear up oily skin and acne, and reduce facial hair while also providing them with effective contraception (de Melo et al. Open Access J Contracept. 2017;8:13-23).
 

Associations between ‘the pill’ and mood effects remain controversial

More than 100 million women worldwide use hormonal contraceptives today, yet despite this, the data are mixed regarding the prevalence and extent of neuropsychiatric symptoms and mood changes associated with use of “the pill.” Some studies show combined oral contraceptives are associated with a decrease in general well-being, but had no effect on depression, in women compared with placebo (Zethraeus N et al. Fertil Steril. 2017 May;107[5]:1238-45).

However, a large Danish study published in JAMA Psychiatry of more than 1 million women found a significant association between use of hormonal contraception and antidepressant use or first diagnosis of depression, with adolescents having a higher rate of first depression diagnosis and antidepressant use compared with women 20–30 years old (Skovlund C et al. JAMA Psychiatry. 2016 Nov 1;73[11]:1154-62).

Studies have also shown long-term exposure to levonorgestrel is significantly associated with anxiety and sleep problems in women without a history of these issues (Slattery J et al. Drug Saf. 2018 Oct;41[10]:951-8). A recent small nationwide cohort study in France suggests this may also be true of levonorgestrel delivered by intrauterine devices (IUD) and the association may be dose-dependent (Roland N et al. JAMA. 2023;329[3]:257-9).

Of note, a study published in the American Journal of Psychiatry found a nearly twofold risk of suicide attempt and over threefold risk of suicide among women taking hormonal contraception compared with women who had never used hormonal contraceptives (Skovlund et al. Am J Psychiatry. 2017 Nov 17:appiajp201717060616).
 

Knowledge gaps make drawing conclusions difficult

The latest information on use of antidepressant and antianxiety medications in women of reproductive age (18-44 years) is sparse and, in some cases, outdated. According to data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 18.6% of adult women 18 years or older reported using antidepressant medications within the last 30 days in 2017-2018, an increase from 13.8% in 2009-2010. Among women aged 15-44 year with private employer–sponsored insurance surveyed during 2008-2013, the results showed 15.4% of women filled a prescription for an antidepressant. We must look back further to find data on antianxiety medication use among women aged 18-44 years where use of antianxiety drugs (anxiolytics, sedatives, and hypnotics) was 4.3% between 2005 and 2008.

A lack of literature in this area is likely due to significant underreporting, and an inability to select patients who are sensitive to or at risk of developing neuropsychiatric symptoms resulting from hormonal contraception use because the true pathophysiology is unknown. Existing studies tend to use varying methods to assess mood changes, and do not usually specify hormonal contraceptive use type in their analyses (Schaffir J et al. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2016 Oct;21[5]:347-55).

Studies of this nature also require large sample sizes, but the percentage of women who develop neuropsychiatric symptoms from hormonal contraceptive use has historically been relatively small. In the late 1990s, Rosenberg and colleagues found 46% of 1,657 women discontinued oral contraceptives due to side effects within 6 months of starting a new prescription; of these women, 5% reported mood changes as their reason for discontinuing oral contraceptives (Rosenberg M et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1998 Sep;179[3 Pt 1]:577-82).

One might expect that, as lower dosage combined hormonal contraceptives were developed in the 1980s, that the rate of reporting psychological side effects would continue to decrease as well. Yet greater awareness of the potential for mood changes while on “the pill” as outlined by the lay press and social media may be leading to increased reporting of neuropsychiatric effects in women. In a recent cross-sectional survey of 188 women in New York, 43.6% said they experienced mood changes while on hormonal contraceptives, and 61.2% of women with histories of psychiatric illness reported mood changes they attributed to hormonal contraceptives (Martell S et al. Contracept Reprod Med. 2023;8:9).

Martell and colleagues found 48.3% of women cited side effects as a reason for discontinuing hormonal contraception, and 43 participants mentioned psychological side effects unprompted, including 2 patients with suicidal thoughts. The authors said this suggests “psychological side effects, at least in part, may have impacted” HC users’ decisions to switch from OCPs to an alternative method of contraception.

It is also not clear what risk factors exist for women who develop neuropsychiatric symptoms from hormonal contraceptive use. First, it is important to note that both progestin-only contraceptives and combined hormonal contraceptives are classified by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s US Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use, 2016 as having no restrictions for use, including among patients with depression. While women in a smaller subgroup have significant neuropsychiatric symptoms related to their hormonal contraceptives, the underlying mechanism is unknown, and is thought to be largely related to the progestogen component of combined hormonal contraceptives or progestogen-only contraceptives (Mu E. Aust Prescr. 2022 Jun; 45[3]:75-9). We know that some women are hormone sensitive, while others are less so, and some not at all. Progestogens could affect mood as a direct action of the progestogen, because progestogens can be neurosteroids, or the progestogen effect could be mediated secondarily through a change in that woman’s own production of or bioavailability of androgens or naturally occurring estrogens (Giatti S. J Mol Endocrinol. 2016 Aug;57[2]:R109-26).

Here, we also find that currently available evidence limits our ability to draw firm conclusions. A study by Berry-Bibee and colleagues found a “low concern for clinically significant interactions” between hormonal contraception and psychotropic drugs, but was limited by quality/quantity of evidence (Berry-Bibee E et al. Contraception. 2016 Dec;94[6]:650-67). Interestingly, a study by Robinson and colleagues from the mid-2000s posited based on low evidence that “psychological response to the practice of contraception” was a potential explanation for the side effect profile of hormonal contraception (Robinson S et al. Med Hypotheses. 2004;63[2]:268-73).

Further, it may be that women with premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD) might be selected for oral contraceptives, and they are predisposed to other neuropsychiatric problems. Estimates have placed the prevalence of comorbid psychiatric disorders such as anxiety, major depression, bipolar disorder, and posttraumatic stress disorder as high as 70% for women with PMDD (Sepede G et al. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2020;16:415-26). This phenomenon is not new, having been characterized in the lay literature nearly 20 years ago, by endocrinologist Geoffrey P. Redmond, MD (Redmond GP. The Hormonally Vulnerable Woman. New York: HarperCollins; 2005).

While the cause is not exactly idiosyncratic, there do appear to be some women who are more sensitive, either mood-related or otherwise, directly or indirectly to their contraceptive progestogens in terms of mood. They tend to have an entire spectrum of responses to the progestogens in combined or progestin-only contraceptives, ranging from just a flattened affect – which could easily be explained by their flattened level of endogenous hormones – to frank depression. Their frank depression, in turn, can be demonstrated to include suicidal ideation and actual suicide.

Compounding this issue is a woman’s perception of her sexuality. Some women with low sexual desire or sexual problems who are younger may have more distress about their problems compared with women of older reproductive age. While the reason for that is not clear, it may be that in the sexual arena, it is more important for some younger women to be a sexual person than in perimenopausal women, or that women who are younger are more likely to be partnered than women of older reproductive age. While the European Society of Sexual Medicine concluded in a 2019 position statement that there is inconclusive evidence whether hormonal contraception may be contributing to changes in sexual desire and sexual dysfunction, it appears that “a minority of women” experience “better or worse sexual functioning” from taking combined oral contraceptives (Both S et al. J Sex Med. 2019 Nov;16[11]:1681-95), suggesting that the majority of women report no significant changes.
 

Practitioners should discuss mood effects during consultation

An ob.gyn., primary care physicians, or others with prescriptive authority (i.e. nurse practitioners and physician assistants) in clinical practice may encounter a patient who seems to have mood side effects owing to progestogen-containing contraceptives that they prescribe. However, many ob.gyns. are likely unaware of the prevalence, or that some of those same patients can have such significant mood effects that they would become or are suicidal.

I believe questioning patients about mood effects during consultation and particularly during follow-up following the initiation of any hormonal contraceptive is worth a passing comment for every patient, which should include mood effects in broader discussion for anyone currently using an antidepressant, patients with a history of antidepressant use, and patients who have considered suicide. As we do with other drugs, these questions can be posed in the form of a questionnaire followed up by the practitioner in counseling.

Practitioners who encounter a patient with mood changes as a result of hormonal contraceptive use can consider changing to a nonhormonal method of birth control, or recommending the patient use a barrier method during sexual activity, as none of these options have neuropsychiatric side effects.

Ultimately, practitioners of all types need to engage in shared decision-making to identify the key benefits and risks of hormonal contraceptive use for each patient, which may involve trial and error to determine the ideal treatment. It is critical that practitioners of all types strike a balance between alleviating patient concerns about potential mood changes, monitoring patients with an appreciable risk of mood changes, and continuing patients on hormonal contraception for whom the benefits outweigh the risks.
 

Dr. Simon is a clinical professor at George Washington University and the medical director and founder of IntimMedicine Specialists in Washington, which provides patient-focused care for women across the reproductive life cycle. He is a past president of the International Society for the Study of Women’s Sexual Health and the North American Menopause Society. Dr. Simon has been a consultant to, received grant and research support from, and served on the speakers bureau for various pharmaceutical companies that develop combination hormonal contraceptives. Email Dr. Simon at [email protected].

Women who underwent bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy with a benign hysterectomy had a higher 10-year mortality rate across all ages than those who had hysterectomies alone, based on data from more than 140,000 individuals.

Although bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO) with hysterectomy has been shown to reduce the risk for ovarian cancer in women at increased risk, current guidelines are touting ovarian conservation, especially in premenopausal women, wrote Mathilde Gottschau, MD, of the Danish Cancer Society Research Center, Copenhagen, and colleagues. However, post-hysterectomy outcomes in women with and without BSO have not been well examined.

In a study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, the researchers reviewed data from a nationwide registry of women in Denmark aged 20 years and older who underwent benign hysterectomies with BSO (22,974 women) and without BSO (120,011 women) between 1977 and 2017. The women were divided into subgroups based on age; those younger than 45 years were defined as premenopausal, those aged 45-54 years were defined as perimenopausal, those aged 55-64 were defined as early postmenopausal, and those aged 65 and older were defined as late menopausal.

The primary outcomes were hospitalization for cardiovascular disease, cancer incidence, and all-cause mortality over a median follow-up period of 22 years.

For women younger than 45 years, the 10-year cumulative risk for all cancer was lower with BSO than without, but the risk of overall cardiovascular disease was higher with BSO, with higher levels of ischemic heart disease and stroke, compared with women without BSO. The 10-year cumulative mortality was higher with BSO than without (2.16% vs. 1.94%).

For women aged 45-54 years, the 10-year cumulative cancer risk was higher in those with BSO than those without BSO (risk difference, 0.73 percentage points) associated mainly with nonbreast cancer, and both 10-year and 20-year mortality were higher in those with BSO than those without.

For women aged 55-65 years, the 10-year cumulative cancer risk was higher in those with BSO than those without BSO. Cumulative overall mortality was higher at 10 years for those with BSO, but lower at 20 years.

For women aged 65 years and older, both 10-year and 20-year cumulative overall cancer risk was higher with BSO than without (RD, 2.54 and 4.57 percentage points, respectively). Cumulative mortality was higher in the BSO group at 10 years, but lower at 20 years.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of age to determine menopausal status and the lack of genetic predisposition data, and the focus only on a relatively homogeneous population that may not be generalizable to other populations, the researchers noted.

However, the results were strengthened by the use of a nationwide registry and the long-term follow-up period, they said. The current study indicates that the health risks outweigh the potential benefits of BSO with benign hysterectomy for premenopausal women and supports the current guidelines for ovarian conservation in these women with low lifetime ovarian cancer risk, they said. For postmenopausal women, the data support a cautious approach to BSO given the lack of a clear survival benefit and cancer excess, they concluded.
 

Delayed diagnosis of ovarian cancers favors BSO

“The question of removing ovaries at the time of benign hysterectomy to prevent ovarian cancer in low-risk women has been widely debated,” which has contributed to the variation in incidence rates of unilateral and bilateral oophorectomy over time, wrote Elizabeth Casiano Evans, MD, of the University of Texas, San Antonio, and Deslyn T.G. Hobson, MD, of Wayne State University, Detroit, in an accompanying editorial.

Ovarian cancer often goes undiagnosed until an advanced stage, and BSO can significantly reduce risk in women with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations, they noted.

For women without increased risk, those who are premenopausal may wish to preserve ovarian function, but women also may benefit from improvements in a range of menopause-related symptoms including vasomotor and urogenital symptoms, sexual dysfunction, and psychiatric and cognitive symptoms, they said.

“In addition, salpingectomy alone has a role in significantly reducing ovarian cancer incidence without compromising ovarian function because the fallopian tube has been found to be at the origin of many ovarian cancer cases,” they noted. In the current study, “the crude ovarian cancer risk was lower with BSO” across all age groups, the editorialists said.

The choice of whether to include BSO at the time of benign hysterectomy is complicated, with many factors to consider, the editorialists wrote, and the current study supports the need for informed, shared decision-making between clinicians and patients.

The study was supported by the Danish Cancer Society’s Scientific Committee and the Mermaid Project. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. The editorial authors had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

Women who underwent bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy with a benign hysterectomy had a higher 10-year mortality rate across all ages than those who had hysterectomies alone, based on data from more than 140,000 individuals.

Although bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO) with hysterectomy has been shown to reduce the risk for ovarian cancer in women at increased risk, current guidelines are touting ovarian conservation, especially in premenopausal women, wrote Mathilde Gottschau, MD, of the Danish Cancer Society Research Center, Copenhagen, and colleagues. However, post-hysterectomy outcomes in women with and without BSO have not been well examined.

In a study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, the researchers reviewed data from a nationwide registry of women in Denmark aged 20 years and older who underwent benign hysterectomies with BSO (22,974 women) and without BSO (120,011 women) between 1977 and 2017. The women were divided into subgroups based on age; those younger than 45 years were defined as premenopausal, those aged 45-54 years were defined as perimenopausal, those aged 55-64 were defined as early postmenopausal, and those aged 65 and older were defined as late menopausal.

The primary outcomes were hospitalization for cardiovascular disease, cancer incidence, and all-cause mortality over a median follow-up period of 22 years.

For women younger than 45 years, the 10-year cumulative risk for all cancer was lower with BSO than without, but the risk of overall cardiovascular disease was higher with BSO, with higher levels of ischemic heart disease and stroke, compared with women without BSO. The 10-year cumulative mortality was higher with BSO than without (2.16% vs. 1.94%).

For women aged 45-54 years, the 10-year cumulative cancer risk was higher in those with BSO than those without BSO (risk difference, 0.73 percentage points) associated mainly with nonbreast cancer, and both 10-year and 20-year mortality were higher in those with BSO than those without.

For women aged 55-65 years, the 10-year cumulative cancer risk was higher in those with BSO than those without BSO. Cumulative overall mortality was higher at 10 years for those with BSO, but lower at 20 years.

For women aged 65 years and older, both 10-year and 20-year cumulative overall cancer risk was higher with BSO than without (RD, 2.54 and 4.57 percentage points, respectively). Cumulative mortality was higher in the BSO group at 10 years, but lower at 20 years.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of age to determine menopausal status and the lack of genetic predisposition data, and the focus only on a relatively homogeneous population that may not be generalizable to other populations, the researchers noted.

However, the results were strengthened by the use of a nationwide registry and the long-term follow-up period, they said. The current study indicates that the health risks outweigh the potential benefits of BSO with benign hysterectomy for premenopausal women and supports the current guidelines for ovarian conservation in these women with low lifetime ovarian cancer risk, they said. For postmenopausal women, the data support a cautious approach to BSO given the lack of a clear survival benefit and cancer excess, they concluded.
 

Delayed diagnosis of ovarian cancers favors BSO

“The question of removing ovaries at the time of benign hysterectomy to prevent ovarian cancer in low-risk women has been widely debated,” which has contributed to the variation in incidence rates of unilateral and bilateral oophorectomy over time, wrote Elizabeth Casiano Evans, MD, of the University of Texas, San Antonio, and Deslyn T.G. Hobson, MD, of Wayne State University, Detroit, in an accompanying editorial.

Ovarian cancer often goes undiagnosed until an advanced stage, and BSO can significantly reduce risk in women with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations, they noted.

For women without increased risk, those who are premenopausal may wish to preserve ovarian function, but women also may benefit from improvements in a range of menopause-related symptoms including vasomotor and urogenital symptoms, sexual dysfunction, and psychiatric and cognitive symptoms, they said.

“In addition, salpingectomy alone has a role in significantly reducing ovarian cancer incidence without compromising ovarian function because the fallopian tube has been found to be at the origin of many ovarian cancer cases,” they noted. In the current study, “the crude ovarian cancer risk was lower with BSO” across all age groups, the editorialists said.

The choice of whether to include BSO at the time of benign hysterectomy is complicated, with many factors to consider, the editorialists wrote, and the current study supports the need for informed, shared decision-making between clinicians and patients.

The study was supported by the Danish Cancer Society’s Scientific Committee and the Mermaid Project. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. The editorial authors had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

Women who underwent bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy with a benign hysterectomy had a higher 10-year mortality rate across all ages than those who had hysterectomies alone, based on data from more than 140,000 individuals.

Although bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO) with hysterectomy has been shown to reduce the risk for ovarian cancer in women at increased risk, current guidelines are touting ovarian conservation, especially in premenopausal women, wrote Mathilde Gottschau, MD, of the Danish Cancer Society Research Center, Copenhagen, and colleagues. However, post-hysterectomy outcomes in women with and without BSO have not been well examined.

In a study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, the researchers reviewed data from a nationwide registry of women in Denmark aged 20 years and older who underwent benign hysterectomies with BSO (22,974 women) and without BSO (120,011 women) between 1977 and 2017. The women were divided into subgroups based on age; those younger than 45 years were defined as premenopausal, those aged 45-54 years were defined as perimenopausal, those aged 55-64 were defined as early postmenopausal, and those aged 65 and older were defined as late menopausal.

The primary outcomes were hospitalization for cardiovascular disease, cancer incidence, and all-cause mortality over a median follow-up period of 22 years.

For women younger than 45 years, the 10-year cumulative risk for all cancer was lower with BSO than without, but the risk of overall cardiovascular disease was higher with BSO, with higher levels of ischemic heart disease and stroke, compared with women without BSO. The 10-year cumulative mortality was higher with BSO than without (2.16% vs. 1.94%).

For women aged 45-54 years, the 10-year cumulative cancer risk was higher in those with BSO than those without BSO (risk difference, 0.73 percentage points) associated mainly with nonbreast cancer, and both 10-year and 20-year mortality were higher in those with BSO than those without.

For women aged 55-65 years, the 10-year cumulative cancer risk was higher in those with BSO than those without BSO. Cumulative overall mortality was higher at 10 years for those with BSO, but lower at 20 years.

For women aged 65 years and older, both 10-year and 20-year cumulative overall cancer risk was higher with BSO than without (RD, 2.54 and 4.57 percentage points, respectively). Cumulative mortality was higher in the BSO group at 10 years, but lower at 20 years.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of age to determine menopausal status and the lack of genetic predisposition data, and the focus only on a relatively homogeneous population that may not be generalizable to other populations, the researchers noted.

However, the results were strengthened by the use of a nationwide registry and the long-term follow-up period, they said. The current study indicates that the health risks outweigh the potential benefits of BSO with benign hysterectomy for premenopausal women and supports the current guidelines for ovarian conservation in these women with low lifetime ovarian cancer risk, they said. For postmenopausal women, the data support a cautious approach to BSO given the lack of a clear survival benefit and cancer excess, they concluded.
 

Delayed diagnosis of ovarian cancers favors BSO

“The question of removing ovaries at the time of benign hysterectomy to prevent ovarian cancer in low-risk women has been widely debated,” which has contributed to the variation in incidence rates of unilateral and bilateral oophorectomy over time, wrote Elizabeth Casiano Evans, MD, of the University of Texas, San Antonio, and Deslyn T.G. Hobson, MD, of Wayne State University, Detroit, in an accompanying editorial.

Ovarian cancer often goes undiagnosed until an advanced stage, and BSO can significantly reduce risk in women with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations, they noted.

For women without increased risk, those who are premenopausal may wish to preserve ovarian function, but women also may benefit from improvements in a range of menopause-related symptoms including vasomotor and urogenital symptoms, sexual dysfunction, and psychiatric and cognitive symptoms, they said.

“In addition, salpingectomy alone has a role in significantly reducing ovarian cancer incidence without compromising ovarian function because the fallopian tube has been found to be at the origin of many ovarian cancer cases,” they noted. In the current study, “the crude ovarian cancer risk was lower with BSO” across all age groups, the editorialists said.

The choice of whether to include BSO at the time of benign hysterectomy is complicated, with many factors to consider, the editorialists wrote, and the current study supports the need for informed, shared decision-making between clinicians and patients.

The study was supported by the Danish Cancer Society’s Scientific Committee and the Mermaid Project. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. The editorial authors had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

Performing intimate exams under anesthesia (EUA) is a standard part of medical training. Yet, some researchers and opponents argue that pelvic and prostate exams too often occur without explicit patient consent, resulting in a professional breach of conduct that undermines institutional trust, leaves learners morally conflicted, raises racial equity concerns, and has more states stepping in to prohibit the practice.

“Whenever I talk about this at conferences around the country, people always come up to me and say it’s still happening at their institutions,” Lori Bruce, MA, MBE, HEC-C, associate director of the Interdisciplinary Center for Bioethics at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., told this news organization.

Most think this is a women’s issue, which occurs only in unconscious patients, she said. But Ms. Bruce found otherwise in a survey last year in which she polled the general public about their intimate exam experiences.

“Unconsented exams happen much more than we imagined, and they happen as often to men [having] prostate exams without consent as to women. Black [respondents] were nearly four times more likely to have reported receiving an unconsented intimate pelvic or prostate exam,” she said, based on her research. And Ms. Bruce believes it can happen across the economic spectrum.

Concern about unconsented EUAs arose in the early 2000s. In a study at that time, 75% of medical students reported that their patients had not given consent to be examined during surgical procedures. An ethics committee of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists published guidelines for EUAs and states began passing legislation with patient protections and medical training consent policies.

California is believed to be the first to adopt legislation outlawing unconsented pelvic exams for training purposes in 2003, followed by Virginia in 2007, along with a handful of other states.

In 2019, on the heels of the #MeToo movement and renewed calls to end unconsented exams, more patients and providers began to speak publicly about their experiences with the practice. Some posted on social media using the #MeTooPelvic hashtag. In 2022, an award-winning documentary was also released about consent, “At Your Cervix.”More states subsequently passed legislation, and some medical schools strengthened their EUA consent policies.

Today, nearly half the states in the country have enacted laws against unconsented intimate EUAs, with some carrying misdemeanor charges for both the individual conducting the exam and the supervising physician. Other states leave open the option to fine the physician and revoke or suspend medical licenses.

Much of the new legislation requires explicit consent for intimate exams involving the pelvis, prostate, and rectum, with exceptions for emergency procedures and, in some cases, the collection of court-ordered forensic evidence. In addition, several states, including Colorado, Indiana, and Ohio, have pending or recently introduced bills. Last month, sister bills in Missouri passed the House and Senate, gaining more traction than previous legislative attempts. A similar bill was introduced in the Kansas House several times, including this year, and is expected to be on the agenda again in the next session. 

Intimate exams on patients without consent are “unethical and unacceptable,” said Alison Whelan, MD, chief academic officer of the Association of American Medical Colleges. Although medical students learn sensitive procedures through simulation labs and gynecological teaching associates – individuals specifically trained to help students develop physical exam skills –  EUAs require strict adherence to widely accepted guidelines.

“Learners in the clinical setting should only perform such examinations for teaching purposes when the exam is explicitly consented to, related to the planned procedure, performed by a student who is recognized by the patient as a part of their care team, and done under direct supervision by an educator,” Dr. Whelan said.
 

Medical students bear moral burden

Arthur Caplan, PhD, director of medical ethics at New York University, has called unconsented intimate exams a “cousin issue” to abusive predatory behavior.

If the public is outraged that physicians “have misused their authority with athletes, then we should be equally outraged if that authority, even for a higher purpose [like] teaching and training, is still misused in terms of getting permission and consent,” he said in a video discussing Connecticut’s legislation to strengthen intimate exam requirements, which went into effect Jan. 1.   

Advocates of stricter EUA consent policies say the variability in consent practices destroys patient trust by ignoring the basic principles of respect and autonomy. Because patients are usually unaware a violation has occurred, reporting typically depends on medical students raising questions with educators and attendings, which they may hesitate to do for fear of repercussions.

Current practices, such as patients signing consent documents in the outpatient setting where students aren’t always privy to the discussion, contribute to the lack of transparency, Karampreet Kaur, MD, a 2nd-year ob.gyn. resident at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said.

A 2019 survey of medical students by Elle magazine found that nearly half did not meet patients before conducting an intimate EUA. Of the 92% who performed a pelvic EUA, 61% reported doing so without obtaining explicit patient consent.

Dr. Kaur recently coauthored a survey of students from six medical schools and found that 84% completed at least one pelvic EUA during their ob.gyn. clerkships. About half of the students surveyed observed patients giving informed consent most or every time. Of those, 67% reported they never or rarely witnessed an explicit explanation that a medical student may perform a pelvic EUA.

This burden weighs on the consciences of medical students. Respondents reported that they wanted to honor patient autonomy but felt they lacked the authority to object to pelvic EUAs when consent was unclear, which led to significant emotional distress.

“It’s not that physicians don’t care,” Dr. Kaur said. “I think most want to make sure patients feel safe and fully informed of the care they are receiving.”
 

To consent or not 

Incorporating a separate EUA consent form, typically signed during a preoperative visit but occasionally on the day of surgery, offers one potential solution as it ensures “clear and consistent language is used and forces documentation of this conversation,” said Dr. Kaur. At her current institution, providers and medical students must review charted EUA documentation, then that information is “made clear to attendings, fellows, residents, students, and even the OR staff,” she said.  

In Dr. Kaur’s survey, 11% of respondents supported a separate consent. Another study of 3rd- and 4th-year medical students published last year found that 45% agreed with having a separate signature line on the surgical consent form.

Legislation introduced recently in Colorado states that medical students must meet the patient, and patients must receive a written or electronic document titled, in at least 18-point bolded font, “consent for examination of breasts, pelvic region, rectum, and/or prostate.” The form must also include the names of medical students performing or observing an intimate exam for educational purposes.

Elizabeth Newman, MPP, public policy director at the Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault and supporter of the state’s intimate exam bill, said the legislation will allow medical students to learn the intricacies of these sensitive body systems and provide better patient care, particularly following the rollback of Roe v. Wade.

“Abortion is available and accessible in Colorado, and we are surrounded by states where it’s not,” said Ms. Newman. “Medical students in states where it’s outright banned are coming to Colorado to learn how to provide abortion care in their residencies and fellowships, so we want to maintain that access and not take those learning opportunities away with this law.”

Opponents of a separate form say it complicates the consent process. Dr. Kaur said she originally thought it would involve a lot of extra work, but it only takes 3-5 minutes. Few patients decline the exam after the conversation, and students benefit from the clear guidelines and transparency, she said.

“I had hoped that the many medical association guidelines [supporting] explicit consent would have influenced hospital policy, but it did not have that effect,” said Ms. Bruce, adding that recent legislative efforts have largely been driven by concerned bioethicists, lawmakers, and some medical students and physicians. “It all circles back to the patient having the right to refuse; it’s their body.”

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

Performing intimate exams under anesthesia (EUA) is a standard part of medical training. Yet, some researchers and opponents argue that pelvic and prostate exams too often occur without explicit patient consent, resulting in a professional breach of conduct that undermines institutional trust, leaves learners morally conflicted, raises racial equity concerns, and has more states stepping in to prohibit the practice.

“Whenever I talk about this at conferences around the country, people always come up to me and say it’s still happening at their institutions,” Lori Bruce, MA, MBE, HEC-C, associate director of the Interdisciplinary Center for Bioethics at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., told this news organization.

Most think this is a women’s issue, which occurs only in unconscious patients, she said. But Ms. Bruce found otherwise in a survey last year in which she polled the general public about their intimate exam experiences.

“Unconsented exams happen much more than we imagined, and they happen as often to men [having] prostate exams without consent as to women. Black [respondents] were nearly four times more likely to have reported receiving an unconsented intimate pelvic or prostate exam,” she said, based on her research. And Ms. Bruce believes it can happen across the economic spectrum.

Concern about unconsented EUAs arose in the early 2000s. In a study at that time, 75% of medical students reported that their patients had not given consent to be examined during surgical procedures. An ethics committee of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists published guidelines for EUAs and states began passing legislation with patient protections and medical training consent policies.

California is believed to be the first to adopt legislation outlawing unconsented pelvic exams for training purposes in 2003, followed by Virginia in 2007, along with a handful of other states.

In 2019, on the heels of the #MeToo movement and renewed calls to end unconsented exams, more patients and providers began to speak publicly about their experiences with the practice. Some posted on social media using the #MeTooPelvic hashtag. In 2022, an award-winning documentary was also released about consent, “At Your Cervix.”More states subsequently passed legislation, and some medical schools strengthened their EUA consent policies.

Today, nearly half the states in the country have enacted laws against unconsented intimate EUAs, with some carrying misdemeanor charges for both the individual conducting the exam and the supervising physician. Other states leave open the option to fine the physician and revoke or suspend medical licenses.

Much of the new legislation requires explicit consent for intimate exams involving the pelvis, prostate, and rectum, with exceptions for emergency procedures and, in some cases, the collection of court-ordered forensic evidence. In addition, several states, including Colorado, Indiana, and Ohio, have pending or recently introduced bills. Last month, sister bills in Missouri passed the House and Senate, gaining more traction than previous legislative attempts. A similar bill was introduced in the Kansas House several times, including this year, and is expected to be on the agenda again in the next session. 

Intimate exams on patients without consent are “unethical and unacceptable,” said Alison Whelan, MD, chief academic officer of the Association of American Medical Colleges. Although medical students learn sensitive procedures through simulation labs and gynecological teaching associates – individuals specifically trained to help students develop physical exam skills –  EUAs require strict adherence to widely accepted guidelines.

“Learners in the clinical setting should only perform such examinations for teaching purposes when the exam is explicitly consented to, related to the planned procedure, performed by a student who is recognized by the patient as a part of their care team, and done under direct supervision by an educator,” Dr. Whelan said.
 

Medical students bear moral burden

Arthur Caplan, PhD, director of medical ethics at New York University, has called unconsented intimate exams a “cousin issue” to abusive predatory behavior.

If the public is outraged that physicians “have misused their authority with athletes, then we should be equally outraged if that authority, even for a higher purpose [like] teaching and training, is still misused in terms of getting permission and consent,” he said in a video discussing Connecticut’s legislation to strengthen intimate exam requirements, which went into effect Jan. 1.   

Advocates of stricter EUA consent policies say the variability in consent practices destroys patient trust by ignoring the basic principles of respect and autonomy. Because patients are usually unaware a violation has occurred, reporting typically depends on medical students raising questions with educators and attendings, which they may hesitate to do for fear of repercussions.

Current practices, such as patients signing consent documents in the outpatient setting where students aren’t always privy to the discussion, contribute to the lack of transparency, Karampreet Kaur, MD, a 2nd-year ob.gyn. resident at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said.

A 2019 survey of medical students by Elle magazine found that nearly half did not meet patients before conducting an intimate EUA. Of the 92% who performed a pelvic EUA, 61% reported doing so without obtaining explicit patient consent.

Dr. Kaur recently coauthored a survey of students from six medical schools and found that 84% completed at least one pelvic EUA during their ob.gyn. clerkships. About half of the students surveyed observed patients giving informed consent most or every time. Of those, 67% reported they never or rarely witnessed an explicit explanation that a medical student may perform a pelvic EUA.

This burden weighs on the consciences of medical students. Respondents reported that they wanted to honor patient autonomy but felt they lacked the authority to object to pelvic EUAs when consent was unclear, which led to significant emotional distress.

“It’s not that physicians don’t care,” Dr. Kaur said. “I think most want to make sure patients feel safe and fully informed of the care they are receiving.”
 

To consent or not 

Incorporating a separate EUA consent form, typically signed during a preoperative visit but occasionally on the day of surgery, offers one potential solution as it ensures “clear and consistent language is used and forces documentation of this conversation,” said Dr. Kaur. At her current institution, providers and medical students must review charted EUA documentation, then that information is “made clear to attendings, fellows, residents, students, and even the OR staff,” she said.  

In Dr. Kaur’s survey, 11% of respondents supported a separate consent. Another study of 3rd- and 4th-year medical students published last year found that 45% agreed with having a separate signature line on the surgical consent form.

Legislation introduced recently in Colorado states that medical students must meet the patient, and patients must receive a written or electronic document titled, in at least 18-point bolded font, “consent for examination of breasts, pelvic region, rectum, and/or prostate.” The form must also include the names of medical students performing or observing an intimate exam for educational purposes.

Elizabeth Newman, MPP, public policy director at the Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault and supporter of the state’s intimate exam bill, said the legislation will allow medical students to learn the intricacies of these sensitive body systems and provide better patient care, particularly following the rollback of Roe v. Wade.

“Abortion is available and accessible in Colorado, and we are surrounded by states where it’s not,” said Ms. Newman. “Medical students in states where it’s outright banned are coming to Colorado to learn how to provide abortion care in their residencies and fellowships, so we want to maintain that access and not take those learning opportunities away with this law.”

Opponents of a separate form say it complicates the consent process. Dr. Kaur said she originally thought it would involve a lot of extra work, but it only takes 3-5 minutes. Few patients decline the exam after the conversation, and students benefit from the clear guidelines and transparency, she said.

“I had hoped that the many medical association guidelines [supporting] explicit consent would have influenced hospital policy, but it did not have that effect,” said Ms. Bruce, adding that recent legislative efforts have largely been driven by concerned bioethicists, lawmakers, and some medical students and physicians. “It all circles back to the patient having the right to refuse; it’s their body.”

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

Performing intimate exams under anesthesia (EUA) is a standard part of medical training. Yet, some researchers and opponents argue that pelvic and prostate exams too often occur without explicit patient consent, resulting in a professional breach of conduct that undermines institutional trust, leaves learners morally conflicted, raises racial equity concerns, and has more states stepping in to prohibit the practice.

“Whenever I talk about this at conferences around the country, people always come up to me and say it’s still happening at their institutions,” Lori Bruce, MA, MBE, HEC-C, associate director of the Interdisciplinary Center for Bioethics at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., told this news organization.

Most think this is a women’s issue, which occurs only in unconscious patients, she said. But Ms. Bruce found otherwise in a survey last year in which she polled the general public about their intimate exam experiences.

“Unconsented exams happen much more than we imagined, and they happen as often to men [having] prostate exams without consent as to women. Black [respondents] were nearly four times more likely to have reported receiving an unconsented intimate pelvic or prostate exam,” she said, based on her research. And Ms. Bruce believes it can happen across the economic spectrum.

Concern about unconsented EUAs arose in the early 2000s. In a study at that time, 75% of medical students reported that their patients had not given consent to be examined during surgical procedures. An ethics committee of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists published guidelines for EUAs and states began passing legislation with patient protections and medical training consent policies.

California is believed to be the first to adopt legislation outlawing unconsented pelvic exams for training purposes in 2003, followed by Virginia in 2007, along with a handful of other states.

In 2019, on the heels of the #MeToo movement and renewed calls to end unconsented exams, more patients and providers began to speak publicly about their experiences with the practice. Some posted on social media using the #MeTooPelvic hashtag. In 2022, an award-winning documentary was also released about consent, “At Your Cervix.”More states subsequently passed legislation, and some medical schools strengthened their EUA consent policies.

Today, nearly half the states in the country have enacted laws against unconsented intimate EUAs, with some carrying misdemeanor charges for both the individual conducting the exam and the supervising physician. Other states leave open the option to fine the physician and revoke or suspend medical licenses.

Much of the new legislation requires explicit consent for intimate exams involving the pelvis, prostate, and rectum, with exceptions for emergency procedures and, in some cases, the collection of court-ordered forensic evidence. In addition, several states, including Colorado, Indiana, and Ohio, have pending or recently introduced bills. Last month, sister bills in Missouri passed the House and Senate, gaining more traction than previous legislative attempts. A similar bill was introduced in the Kansas House several times, including this year, and is expected to be on the agenda again in the next session. 

Intimate exams on patients without consent are “unethical and unacceptable,” said Alison Whelan, MD, chief academic officer of the Association of American Medical Colleges. Although medical students learn sensitive procedures through simulation labs and gynecological teaching associates – individuals specifically trained to help students develop physical exam skills –  EUAs require strict adherence to widely accepted guidelines.

“Learners in the clinical setting should only perform such examinations for teaching purposes when the exam is explicitly consented to, related to the planned procedure, performed by a student who is recognized by the patient as a part of their care team, and done under direct supervision by an educator,” Dr. Whelan said.
 

Medical students bear moral burden

Arthur Caplan, PhD, director of medical ethics at New York University, has called unconsented intimate exams a “cousin issue” to abusive predatory behavior.

If the public is outraged that physicians “have misused their authority with athletes, then we should be equally outraged if that authority, even for a higher purpose [like] teaching and training, is still misused in terms of getting permission and consent,” he said in a video discussing Connecticut’s legislation to strengthen intimate exam requirements, which went into effect Jan. 1.   

Advocates of stricter EUA consent policies say the variability in consent practices destroys patient trust by ignoring the basic principles of respect and autonomy. Because patients are usually unaware a violation has occurred, reporting typically depends on medical students raising questions with educators and attendings, which they may hesitate to do for fear of repercussions.

Current practices, such as patients signing consent documents in the outpatient setting where students aren’t always privy to the discussion, contribute to the lack of transparency, Karampreet Kaur, MD, a 2nd-year ob.gyn. resident at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said.

A 2019 survey of medical students by Elle magazine found that nearly half did not meet patients before conducting an intimate EUA. Of the 92% who performed a pelvic EUA, 61% reported doing so without obtaining explicit patient consent.

Dr. Kaur recently coauthored a survey of students from six medical schools and found that 84% completed at least one pelvic EUA during their ob.gyn. clerkships. About half of the students surveyed observed patients giving informed consent most or every time. Of those, 67% reported they never or rarely witnessed an explicit explanation that a medical student may perform a pelvic EUA.

This burden weighs on the consciences of medical students. Respondents reported that they wanted to honor patient autonomy but felt they lacked the authority to object to pelvic EUAs when consent was unclear, which led to significant emotional distress.

“It’s not that physicians don’t care,” Dr. Kaur said. “I think most want to make sure patients feel safe and fully informed of the care they are receiving.”
 

To consent or not 

Incorporating a separate EUA consent form, typically signed during a preoperative visit but occasionally on the day of surgery, offers one potential solution as it ensures “clear and consistent language is used and forces documentation of this conversation,” said Dr. Kaur. At her current institution, providers and medical students must review charted EUA documentation, then that information is “made clear to attendings, fellows, residents, students, and even the OR staff,” she said.  

In Dr. Kaur’s survey, 11% of respondents supported a separate consent. Another study of 3rd- and 4th-year medical students published last year found that 45% agreed with having a separate signature line on the surgical consent form.

Legislation introduced recently in Colorado states that medical students must meet the patient, and patients must receive a written or electronic document titled, in at least 18-point bolded font, “consent for examination of breasts, pelvic region, rectum, and/or prostate.” The form must also include the names of medical students performing or observing an intimate exam for educational purposes.

Elizabeth Newman, MPP, public policy director at the Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault and supporter of the state’s intimate exam bill, said the legislation will allow medical students to learn the intricacies of these sensitive body systems and provide better patient care, particularly following the rollback of Roe v. Wade.

“Abortion is available and accessible in Colorado, and we are surrounded by states where it’s not,” said Ms. Newman. “Medical students in states where it’s outright banned are coming to Colorado to learn how to provide abortion care in their residencies and fellowships, so we want to maintain that access and not take those learning opportunities away with this law.”

Opponents of a separate form say it complicates the consent process. Dr. Kaur said she originally thought it would involve a lot of extra work, but it only takes 3-5 minutes. Few patients decline the exam after the conversation, and students benefit from the clear guidelines and transparency, she said.

“I had hoped that the many medical association guidelines [supporting] explicit consent would have influenced hospital policy, but it did not have that effect,” said Ms. Bruce, adding that recent legislative efforts have largely been driven by concerned bioethicists, lawmakers, and some medical students and physicians. “It all circles back to the patient having the right to refuse; it’s their body.”

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

Risk-stratified timing of birth at term may reduce a mother’s risk of preeclampsia by half, analysis of a large U.K. cohort suggests.

Timed birth strategies include scheduled labor inductions and cesarean deliveries.

In this observational analysis of nearly 90,000 pregnancies, at-term preeclampsia occurred with similar frequency among women routinely screened during the first trimester and among at-risk women screened during the third trimester.

Overall, on average, at-risk women delivered at 40 weeks, with two-thirds experiencing spontaneous onset of labor. About one-fourth had cesarean deliveries.

“We anticipated that timed birth at 37 weeks could reduce the occurrence of more than half of preeclampsia, [but] this is not an intervention that could be recommended, as complications for the baby would be increased,” Laura A. Magee, MD, of King’s College London, told this news organization.

“However, we were delighted to see that a personalized approach to timed birth, based on an individual woman’s risk of preeclampsia, could prevent a similar number of cases of preeclampsia, with fewer women requiring timed birth and at later gestational ages, when newborn problems would be less frequent.”

Although not currently recommended to prevent at-term preeclampsia, “timed birth by labor induction is a very common timing of birth strategy,” she noted. “At least one-third of women currently undergo labor induction at term gestational age, and one in six choose to deliver by elective cesarean.”

The study was published online in the journal Hypertension.
 

Screening at 35-36 weeks superior

The investigators analyzed data from a nonintervention cohort study of singleton pregnancies delivering at ≥ 24 weeks, without major anomalies, at two U.K. hospitals.

At routine visits at 11-13 weeks’ gestation, 57,131 pregnancies were screened, and 1,138 term preeclampsia cases developed.

Most of these women were in their early 30s, self-identified as White, and had a BMI at the upper limits of normal. About 10% were smokers; fewer than 3% had a medical history of high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, or autoimmune disease; and 3.9% reported a family history of preeclampsia.

At 35-36 weeks, in a different cohort, 29,035 pregnancies were screened and term preeclampsia developed in 619 women. Demographics and pregnancy characteristics were similar to those screened at 11-13 weeks, although the average BMI was higher – in the overweight range – and there were fewer Black women, although they still made up 10% of the screened population.

Patient-specific preeclampsia risks were determined by the United Kingdom National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance, and the Fetal Medicine Foundation competing-risks model, available through an online calculator.

Timing of birth for term preeclampsia prevention was evaluated at 37, 38, 39, and 40 weeks or depending on preeclampsia risk by the competing-risks model at 35-36 weeks.

The primary outcomes were the proportion of term preeclampsia prevented, and number-needed-to-deliver to prevent one term preeclampsia case.

The investigators found that overall, the proportion of term preeclampsia prevented was highest, and number-needed-to-deliver lowest, for preeclampsia screening at 35-36 weeks rather than at 11-13 weeks.

For delivery at 37 weeks, fewer cases of preeclampsia were prevented with NICE criteria (28.8%) than with the competing-risks model (59.8%), and the number-needed-to-deliver was higher (16.4 vs 6.9, respectively).

At 35-36 weeks, the risk-stratified approach had similar preeclampsia prevention (57.2%) and number-needed-to-deliver (8.4), but fewer women would be induced at 37 weeks (1.2% vs. 8.8%).

Although personalized timed birth at term may be an effective way to address at-term preeclampsia, “clinicians should wait for definitive clinical trial evidence,” Dr. Magee said.
 

‘Stay tuned’

Vesna D. Garovic, MD, PhD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and chair of the 2021 AHA Scientific Statement, “Hypertension in Pregnancy: Diagnosis, Blood Pressure Goals, and Pharmacotherapy,” agrees.

The new data “set the stage for adequately designed and powered studies that will provide ultimate response/evidence regarding the efficacy of this approach,” she told this news organization.

“Future studies need to address the safety of this approach,” she added, “as close to 10 timed/planned deliveries will be needed to prevent one case of preeclampsia.”

For now, she said, “While these preliminary data are promising, they are not sufficient to adopt timed birth in daily practice. Prospective studies that will provide sufficient evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of this approach are likely to follow. Stay tuned.”

Indeed, Dr. Magee noted that the Fetal Medicine Foundation is about to launch a randomized trial of a personalized “timing of birth” strategy at term based on the preeclampsia risk described in her group’s study vs. usual care at term – that is, “watchful waiting, and delivery should preeclampsia or another indication for birth develop.”

The study was supported by grants from the Fetal Medicine Foundation, United Kingdom, and various biotech companies provided reagents and relevant equipment free of charge. Dr. Magee and Dr. Garovic reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Risk-stratified timing of birth at term may reduce a mother’s risk of preeclampsia by half, analysis of a large U.K. cohort suggests.

Timed birth strategies include scheduled labor inductions and cesarean deliveries.

In this observational analysis of nearly 90,000 pregnancies, at-term preeclampsia occurred with similar frequency among women routinely screened during the first trimester and among at-risk women screened during the third trimester.

Overall, on average, at-risk women delivered at 40 weeks, with two-thirds experiencing spontaneous onset of labor. About one-fourth had cesarean deliveries.

“We anticipated that timed birth at 37 weeks could reduce the occurrence of more than half of preeclampsia, [but] this is not an intervention that could be recommended, as complications for the baby would be increased,” Laura A. Magee, MD, of King’s College London, told this news organization.

“However, we were delighted to see that a personalized approach to timed birth, based on an individual woman’s risk of preeclampsia, could prevent a similar number of cases of preeclampsia, with fewer women requiring timed birth and at later gestational ages, when newborn problems would be less frequent.”

Although not currently recommended to prevent at-term preeclampsia, “timed birth by labor induction is a very common timing of birth strategy,” she noted. “At least one-third of women currently undergo labor induction at term gestational age, and one in six choose to deliver by elective cesarean.”

The study was published online in the journal Hypertension.
 

Screening at 35-36 weeks superior

The investigators analyzed data from a nonintervention cohort study of singleton pregnancies delivering at ≥ 24 weeks, without major anomalies, at two U.K. hospitals.

At routine visits at 11-13 weeks’ gestation, 57,131 pregnancies were screened, and 1,138 term preeclampsia cases developed.

Most of these women were in their early 30s, self-identified as White, and had a BMI at the upper limits of normal. About 10% were smokers; fewer than 3% had a medical history of high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, or autoimmune disease; and 3.9% reported a family history of preeclampsia.

At 35-36 weeks, in a different cohort, 29,035 pregnancies were screened and term preeclampsia developed in 619 women. Demographics and pregnancy characteristics were similar to those screened at 11-13 weeks, although the average BMI was higher – in the overweight range – and there were fewer Black women, although they still made up 10% of the screened population.

Patient-specific preeclampsia risks were determined by the United Kingdom National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance, and the Fetal Medicine Foundation competing-risks model, available through an online calculator.

Timing of birth for term preeclampsia prevention was evaluated at 37, 38, 39, and 40 weeks or depending on preeclampsia risk by the competing-risks model at 35-36 weeks.

The primary outcomes were the proportion of term preeclampsia prevented, and number-needed-to-deliver to prevent one term preeclampsia case.

The investigators found that overall, the proportion of term preeclampsia prevented was highest, and number-needed-to-deliver lowest, for preeclampsia screening at 35-36 weeks rather than at 11-13 weeks.

For delivery at 37 weeks, fewer cases of preeclampsia were prevented with NICE criteria (28.8%) than with the competing-risks model (59.8%), and the number-needed-to-deliver was higher (16.4 vs 6.9, respectively).

At 35-36 weeks, the risk-stratified approach had similar preeclampsia prevention (57.2%) and number-needed-to-deliver (8.4), but fewer women would be induced at 37 weeks (1.2% vs. 8.8%).

Although personalized timed birth at term may be an effective way to address at-term preeclampsia, “clinicians should wait for definitive clinical trial evidence,” Dr. Magee said.
 

‘Stay tuned’

Vesna D. Garovic, MD, PhD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and chair of the 2021 AHA Scientific Statement, “Hypertension in Pregnancy: Diagnosis, Blood Pressure Goals, and Pharmacotherapy,” agrees.

The new data “set the stage for adequately designed and powered studies that will provide ultimate response/evidence regarding the efficacy of this approach,” she told this news organization.

“Future studies need to address the safety of this approach,” she added, “as close to 10 timed/planned deliveries will be needed to prevent one case of preeclampsia.”

For now, she said, “While these preliminary data are promising, they are not sufficient to adopt timed birth in daily practice. Prospective studies that will provide sufficient evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of this approach are likely to follow. Stay tuned.”

Indeed, Dr. Magee noted that the Fetal Medicine Foundation is about to launch a randomized trial of a personalized “timing of birth” strategy at term based on the preeclampsia risk described in her group’s study vs. usual care at term – that is, “watchful waiting, and delivery should preeclampsia or another indication for birth develop.”

The study was supported by grants from the Fetal Medicine Foundation, United Kingdom, and various biotech companies provided reagents and relevant equipment free of charge. Dr. Magee and Dr. Garovic reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Risk-stratified timing of birth at term may reduce a mother’s risk of preeclampsia by half, analysis of a large U.K. cohort suggests.

Timed birth strategies include scheduled labor inductions and cesarean deliveries.

In this observational analysis of nearly 90,000 pregnancies, at-term preeclampsia occurred with similar frequency among women routinely screened during the first trimester and among at-risk women screened during the third trimester.

Overall, on average, at-risk women delivered at 40 weeks, with two-thirds experiencing spontaneous onset of labor. About one-fourth had cesarean deliveries.

“We anticipated that timed birth at 37 weeks could reduce the occurrence of more than half of preeclampsia, [but] this is not an intervention that could be recommended, as complications for the baby would be increased,” Laura A. Magee, MD, of King’s College London, told this news organization.

“However, we were delighted to see that a personalized approach to timed birth, based on an individual woman’s risk of preeclampsia, could prevent a similar number of cases of preeclampsia, with fewer women requiring timed birth and at later gestational ages, when newborn problems would be less frequent.”

Although not currently recommended to prevent at-term preeclampsia, “timed birth by labor induction is a very common timing of birth strategy,” she noted. “At least one-third of women currently undergo labor induction at term gestational age, and one in six choose to deliver by elective cesarean.”

The study was published online in the journal Hypertension.
 

Screening at 35-36 weeks superior

The investigators analyzed data from a nonintervention cohort study of singleton pregnancies delivering at ≥ 24 weeks, without major anomalies, at two U.K. hospitals.

At routine visits at 11-13 weeks’ gestation, 57,131 pregnancies were screened, and 1,138 term preeclampsia cases developed.

Most of these women were in their early 30s, self-identified as White, and had a BMI at the upper limits of normal. About 10% were smokers; fewer than 3% had a medical history of high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, or autoimmune disease; and 3.9% reported a family history of preeclampsia.

At 35-36 weeks, in a different cohort, 29,035 pregnancies were screened and term preeclampsia developed in 619 women. Demographics and pregnancy characteristics were similar to those screened at 11-13 weeks, although the average BMI was higher – in the overweight range – and there were fewer Black women, although they still made up 10% of the screened population.

Patient-specific preeclampsia risks were determined by the United Kingdom National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance, and the Fetal Medicine Foundation competing-risks model, available through an online calculator.

Timing of birth for term preeclampsia prevention was evaluated at 37, 38, 39, and 40 weeks or depending on preeclampsia risk by the competing-risks model at 35-36 weeks.

The primary outcomes were the proportion of term preeclampsia prevented, and number-needed-to-deliver to prevent one term preeclampsia case.

The investigators found that overall, the proportion of term preeclampsia prevented was highest, and number-needed-to-deliver lowest, for preeclampsia screening at 35-36 weeks rather than at 11-13 weeks.

For delivery at 37 weeks, fewer cases of preeclampsia were prevented with NICE criteria (28.8%) than with the competing-risks model (59.8%), and the number-needed-to-deliver was higher (16.4 vs 6.9, respectively).

At 35-36 weeks, the risk-stratified approach had similar preeclampsia prevention (57.2%) and number-needed-to-deliver (8.4), but fewer women would be induced at 37 weeks (1.2% vs. 8.8%).

Although personalized timed birth at term may be an effective way to address at-term preeclampsia, “clinicians should wait for definitive clinical trial evidence,” Dr. Magee said.
 

‘Stay tuned’

Vesna D. Garovic, MD, PhD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and chair of the 2021 AHA Scientific Statement, “Hypertension in Pregnancy: Diagnosis, Blood Pressure Goals, and Pharmacotherapy,” agrees.

The new data “set the stage for adequately designed and powered studies that will provide ultimate response/evidence regarding the efficacy of this approach,” she told this news organization.

“Future studies need to address the safety of this approach,” she added, “as close to 10 timed/planned deliveries will be needed to prevent one case of preeclampsia.”

For now, she said, “While these preliminary data are promising, they are not sufficient to adopt timed birth in daily practice. Prospective studies that will provide sufficient evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of this approach are likely to follow. Stay tuned.”

Indeed, Dr. Magee noted that the Fetal Medicine Foundation is about to launch a randomized trial of a personalized “timing of birth” strategy at term based on the preeclampsia risk described in her group’s study vs. usual care at term – that is, “watchful waiting, and delivery should preeclampsia or another indication for birth develop.”

The study was supported by grants from the Fetal Medicine Foundation, United Kingdom, and various biotech companies provided reagents and relevant equipment free of charge. Dr. Magee and Dr. Garovic reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Women harboring BRCA1/2 gene mutations are at high risk for breast cancer, and thus it’s recommended they undergo annual breast MRI screening in addition to mammogram screening.
 

However, some women are finding that their insurer is refusing to cover the cost of the MRI.

A new study exploring this issue was presented at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer.

“Despite guidelines supporting annual breast MRI for screening in patients with gBRCA1/2, insurance denials were present in 11% of patients,” said lead author Sushmita Gordhandas, MD, a gynecologic oncology fellow at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York. “In a high-resource setting, up to 14% of patients who were denied coverage did not undergo recommended MRI screening.”

She also pointed out that the rate of denials was rising. “Compared to 2020, there were significantly more denials, and denials on appeal, in 2021,” Dr. Gordhandas said. “This suggested worsening barriers and added burden on health care systems.”

The addition of MRI to mammography is a standard recommendation for women with BRCA mutations, she pointed out, as it has been shown improve detection of early disease and decrease interval cancer development.

An expert not involved in the study noted that the recommendation for annual MRI screening in women at high risk for breast cancer is “substantiated by many publications, including multiple prospective clinical trials.”

Linda Moy, MD, a radiologist at NYU Langone’s Perlmutter Cancer Center and professor of radiology at NYU Grossman School of Medicine, both in New York, noted that the American Cancer Society’s Guidelines for screening breast MRI recommends annual breast MRI in women with a lifetime risk of greater than 20% – which includes women who are BRCA carriers – and recommends the screening begins at age 30.

“The lifetime breast cancer risk is 72% among BRCA1 and 69% among BRCA2 carriers,” she said, adding that the “American College of Radiology also recommends for BRCA carriers to undergo annual screening MRI at age 30.”

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommends that women at high risk for breast cancer undergo a mammogram and breast MRI every year starting at age 25 to 40, depending on the type of gene mutation, noted Dr. Gordhandas. “These guidelines are consistent with those from American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Cancer Society, and the American College of Radiology.”
 

Denials increased over time

For the study, Dr. Gordhandas and colleagues looked at the frequency of insurance denials for indicated breast MRI screening in women with germline BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants, and also looked at recent trends in denials over time.

The cohort comprised 682 women with BRCA1/2 gene mutations who were followed in a specialized high-risk breast cancer clinic, and who had breast MRIs ordered from 2020 to 2021. They were then cross-referenced with a database of insurance denials. Radiology records were also accessed to determine if screening breast MRIs had been performed in 2020 and 2021, and rates of MRI denials and results after appeals were determined. The rates between the 2 years were then compared.

The team found that overall, 73 women (11%) had an MRI denied. The median age of women who received a denial was 38 years, whereas those who had it approved was 44 years. “Patients with denials were significantly younger and more likely to be in the Medicaid population,” said Dr. Gordhandas.

In 2020, 29 breast MRIs (5%) were denied, and on appeal, 8 (28%) were denied and 21 (72%) approved. The number of denials rose in 2021 but approvals remained the same; 45 breast MRIs were denied (8%); on appeal, 23 (51%) were denied, and 22 (49%) approved.

Thus, noted the authors, there were significantly more denials in 2021 as compared with 2020 (P = .044), and the denials in 2021 denials were statistically more likely to be denied on appeal (P = .045).

Among the women whose coverage was denied, four (14%) in 2020 and five (11%) in 2021 did not have an MRI screening performed. And within this group, 17 women (2.5%) received a diagnosis of cancer; 12 (1.8%) had invasive carcinoma, and 5 (0.7%) had ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). One patient with DCIS had an MRI denial prior to receiving her diagnosis.

“The top reasons given for denials were that they were outside the approved time frame, authorization on file for a similar study, and that the clinician failed to show medical necessity,” she explained.

Additional data are needed to establish a trend. “We are working to increase the approval time frame, which is currently 45 days, and provide resources for the patient to deal with denials,” Dr. Gordhandas added. “We also have to advocate for updates to [U.S. Preventive Services Task Force] screening recommendations in high-risk patients.”

Dr. Gordhandas reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Women harboring BRCA1/2 gene mutations are at high risk for breast cancer, and thus it’s recommended they undergo annual breast MRI screening in addition to mammogram screening.
 

However, some women are finding that their insurer is refusing to cover the cost of the MRI.

A new study exploring this issue was presented at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer.

“Despite guidelines supporting annual breast MRI for screening in patients with gBRCA1/2, insurance denials were present in 11% of patients,” said lead author Sushmita Gordhandas, MD, a gynecologic oncology fellow at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York. “In a high-resource setting, up to 14% of patients who were denied coverage did not undergo recommended MRI screening.”

She also pointed out that the rate of denials was rising. “Compared to 2020, there were significantly more denials, and denials on appeal, in 2021,” Dr. Gordhandas said. “This suggested worsening barriers and added burden on health care systems.”

The addition of MRI to mammography is a standard recommendation for women with BRCA mutations, she pointed out, as it has been shown improve detection of early disease and decrease interval cancer development.

An expert not involved in the study noted that the recommendation for annual MRI screening in women at high risk for breast cancer is “substantiated by many publications, including multiple prospective clinical trials.”

Linda Moy, MD, a radiologist at NYU Langone’s Perlmutter Cancer Center and professor of radiology at NYU Grossman School of Medicine, both in New York, noted that the American Cancer Society’s Guidelines for screening breast MRI recommends annual breast MRI in women with a lifetime risk of greater than 20% – which includes women who are BRCA carriers – and recommends the screening begins at age 30.

“The lifetime breast cancer risk is 72% among BRCA1 and 69% among BRCA2 carriers,” she said, adding that the “American College of Radiology also recommends for BRCA carriers to undergo annual screening MRI at age 30.”

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommends that women at high risk for breast cancer undergo a mammogram and breast MRI every year starting at age 25 to 40, depending on the type of gene mutation, noted Dr. Gordhandas. “These guidelines are consistent with those from American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Cancer Society, and the American College of Radiology.”
 

Denials increased over time

For the study, Dr. Gordhandas and colleagues looked at the frequency of insurance denials for indicated breast MRI screening in women with germline BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants, and also looked at recent trends in denials over time.

The cohort comprised 682 women with BRCA1/2 gene mutations who were followed in a specialized high-risk breast cancer clinic, and who had breast MRIs ordered from 2020 to 2021. They were then cross-referenced with a database of insurance denials. Radiology records were also accessed to determine if screening breast MRIs had been performed in 2020 and 2021, and rates of MRI denials and results after appeals were determined. The rates between the 2 years were then compared.

The team found that overall, 73 women (11%) had an MRI denied. The median age of women who received a denial was 38 years, whereas those who had it approved was 44 years. “Patients with denials were significantly younger and more likely to be in the Medicaid population,” said Dr. Gordhandas.

In 2020, 29 breast MRIs (5%) were denied, and on appeal, 8 (28%) were denied and 21 (72%) approved. The number of denials rose in 2021 but approvals remained the same; 45 breast MRIs were denied (8%); on appeal, 23 (51%) were denied, and 22 (49%) approved.

Thus, noted the authors, there were significantly more denials in 2021 as compared with 2020 (P = .044), and the denials in 2021 denials were statistically more likely to be denied on appeal (P = .045).

Among the women whose coverage was denied, four (14%) in 2020 and five (11%) in 2021 did not have an MRI screening performed. And within this group, 17 women (2.5%) received a diagnosis of cancer; 12 (1.8%) had invasive carcinoma, and 5 (0.7%) had ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). One patient with DCIS had an MRI denial prior to receiving her diagnosis.

“The top reasons given for denials were that they were outside the approved time frame, authorization on file for a similar study, and that the clinician failed to show medical necessity,” she explained.

Additional data are needed to establish a trend. “We are working to increase the approval time frame, which is currently 45 days, and provide resources for the patient to deal with denials,” Dr. Gordhandas added. “We also have to advocate for updates to [U.S. Preventive Services Task Force] screening recommendations in high-risk patients.”

Dr. Gordhandas reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Women harboring BRCA1/2 gene mutations are at high risk for breast cancer, and thus it’s recommended they undergo annual breast MRI screening in addition to mammogram screening.
 

However, some women are finding that their insurer is refusing to cover the cost of the MRI.

A new study exploring this issue was presented at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer.

“Despite guidelines supporting annual breast MRI for screening in patients with gBRCA1/2, insurance denials were present in 11% of patients,” said lead author Sushmita Gordhandas, MD, a gynecologic oncology fellow at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York. “In a high-resource setting, up to 14% of patients who were denied coverage did not undergo recommended MRI screening.”

She also pointed out that the rate of denials was rising. “Compared to 2020, there were significantly more denials, and denials on appeal, in 2021,” Dr. Gordhandas said. “This suggested worsening barriers and added burden on health care systems.”

The addition of MRI to mammography is a standard recommendation for women with BRCA mutations, she pointed out, as it has been shown improve detection of early disease and decrease interval cancer development.

An expert not involved in the study noted that the recommendation for annual MRI screening in women at high risk for breast cancer is “substantiated by many publications, including multiple prospective clinical trials.”

Linda Moy, MD, a radiologist at NYU Langone’s Perlmutter Cancer Center and professor of radiology at NYU Grossman School of Medicine, both in New York, noted that the American Cancer Society’s Guidelines for screening breast MRI recommends annual breast MRI in women with a lifetime risk of greater than 20% – which includes women who are BRCA carriers – and recommends the screening begins at age 30.

“The lifetime breast cancer risk is 72% among BRCA1 and 69% among BRCA2 carriers,” she said, adding that the “American College of Radiology also recommends for BRCA carriers to undergo annual screening MRI at age 30.”

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommends that women at high risk for breast cancer undergo a mammogram and breast MRI every year starting at age 25 to 40, depending on the type of gene mutation, noted Dr. Gordhandas. “These guidelines are consistent with those from American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Cancer Society, and the American College of Radiology.”
 

Denials increased over time

For the study, Dr. Gordhandas and colleagues looked at the frequency of insurance denials for indicated breast MRI screening in women with germline BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants, and also looked at recent trends in denials over time.

The cohort comprised 682 women with BRCA1/2 gene mutations who were followed in a specialized high-risk breast cancer clinic, and who had breast MRIs ordered from 2020 to 2021. They were then cross-referenced with a database of insurance denials. Radiology records were also accessed to determine if screening breast MRIs had been performed in 2020 and 2021, and rates of MRI denials and results after appeals were determined. The rates between the 2 years were then compared.

The team found that overall, 73 women (11%) had an MRI denied. The median age of women who received a denial was 38 years, whereas those who had it approved was 44 years. “Patients with denials were significantly younger and more likely to be in the Medicaid population,” said Dr. Gordhandas.

In 2020, 29 breast MRIs (5%) were denied, and on appeal, 8 (28%) were denied and 21 (72%) approved. The number of denials rose in 2021 but approvals remained the same; 45 breast MRIs were denied (8%); on appeal, 23 (51%) were denied, and 22 (49%) approved.

Thus, noted the authors, there were significantly more denials in 2021 as compared with 2020 (P = .044), and the denials in 2021 denials were statistically more likely to be denied on appeal (P = .045).

Among the women whose coverage was denied, four (14%) in 2020 and five (11%) in 2021 did not have an MRI screening performed. And within this group, 17 women (2.5%) received a diagnosis of cancer; 12 (1.8%) had invasive carcinoma, and 5 (0.7%) had ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). One patient with DCIS had an MRI denial prior to receiving her diagnosis.

“The top reasons given for denials were that they were outside the approved time frame, authorization on file for a similar study, and that the clinician failed to show medical necessity,” she explained.

Additional data are needed to establish a trend. “We are working to increase the approval time frame, which is currently 45 days, and provide resources for the patient to deal with denials,” Dr. Gordhandas added. “We also have to advocate for updates to [U.S. Preventive Services Task Force] screening recommendations in high-risk patients.”

Dr. Gordhandas reported no relevant financial relationships.

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