User login
Atezolizumab fails to improve outcomes in postsurgery kidney cancer
Adjuvant immunotherapy with atezolizumab for patients with renal cell carcinoma who have had a nephrectomy with or without a metastasectomy, failed to improve clinical outcomes in a group of patients who are at high risk of recurrence, finds a new international study conducted across 28 countries.
The study, called IMmotion010 and published in The Lancet, was a randomized, double-blind, multicenter, phase 3 trial of 778 adult patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) with a clear cell or sarcomatoid component. The study failed to meet its primary endpoint which was defined as a statistically significant improvement in disease-free survival as compared with placebo.
“Our results add to an emerging body of literature around the role of adjuvant immunotherapy for renal cell carcinoma. With the longest duration of follow-up to date to our knowledge. We observed no evidence of clinical benefit in disease-free survival or overall survival with adjuvant atezolizumab in patients with high-risk localized or fully resected renal cell carcinoma,” wrote the authors who were led by Sumanta Kumar Pal, MD, of City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, Calif. “Given a growing list of trials that have not shown benefit with adjuvant immunotherapy, the results call for greater attention to patient selection with this approach.”
Dr. Pal and associates conducted the study to gain more insight into the potential role of adjuvant immunotherapy in patients with renal cell carcinoma who have undergone the standard treatment of nephrectomy with or without metastasectomy. Previous studies of anti-VEGF treatments have produced mixed results, including the large phase 3 ASSURE trial, the authors wrote. “Given these mixed results, use of adjuvant targeted therapy in renal cell carcinoma remains infrequent,” Dr. Pal and associates wrote.
However, pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck) a programmed death receptor-1–blocking antibody, is an immunotherapy which, in combination with axitinib, is approved as a first-line treatment for patients with advanced RCC.
Atezolizumab (Tecentriq, Genentech) is approved for treatment in urothelial carcinoma, non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), small cell lung cancer (SCLC), hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and melanoma. There are currently a number of ongoing studies that are exploring the use of atezolizumab as a treatment for renal cell carcinoma.
The study details
This new study was conducted between 2017 and 2019. It included 778 patients from 215 clinics in 28 countries who were assigned to the treatment arm (1,200 mg of IV atezolizumab (n = 390, 50%) once every 3 weeks for 16 cycles or 1 year, which ever came first – or, they were assigned to the placebo group (n = 388, 50%). The two groups were similar: average age 60-61, 72%-74% male, 78%-83% white, and 36%-37% based in North America. Most patients, (92%-93%) had clear cell cancer, and 64%-65% were at pathological disease stage T2 or T3a.
The 3-year disease-free survival rate at 36 months was 65.0% (95% confidence interval, 59.9-70.2) in the treatment group and 62.7% (95% CI, 57.5-67.9) in the placebo group. At follow-up at 44.7 months, there was no statistically significant difference in median disease-free survival between atezolizumab (57.2 months; 95% CI, 44.6 to not evaluable) and placebo (49.5 months; 95% CI, 47.4 to not evaluable).
While there were no deaths attributable to treatment, 69 (18%) patients who received atezolizumab and 46 (12%) patients who received placebo experienced a serious adverse event.
“. Future work will include exploration of clinical-based or biomarker-based subsets that might derive benefit from this approach,” the authors wrote.
The researchers acknowledge their findings contrast with those of the KEYNOTE-564 trial of adjuvant immunotherapy with pembrolizumab after nephrectomy in renal cell carcinoma. KEYNOTE-564 reported a disease-free survival benefit of over 24 months and in an analysis done at 30 months. But in KEYNOTE-564, the study comprised only 6% of patients with M1 no evidence of disease. And, it included only patients with synchronous metastases or metastases resected within 1 year of nephrectomy. In the new study, 14% of patients had M1 no evidence of disease, and it included both synchronous and metachronous disease with recurrence within 1year of surgery.
Adjuvant immunotherapy with pembrolizumab is considered optional for patients with intermediate-risk or high-risk operable clear cell renal cell carcinoma per European Society for Medical Oncology and European Association of Urology guidelines because of the lack of confirmed overall survival benefit and toxicity-related considerations associated with immunotherapy.
“These factors must be considered in the adjuvant setting as, following nephrectomy, patients are cancer free and might be cured by surgery alone. As such, additional trials are needed to clarify the role of adjuvant immunotherapy in this disease space,” the authors wrote.
What’s next? “Biomarker work is underway to determine whether tumor genomic characteristics or circulating biomarkers can identify patient populations who derive benefit from adjuvant atezolizumab,” Dr. Pal and associates wrote. “There is precedent for tissue-based adjuvant therapy selection in other diseases, such as HER2-based and endocrine receptor–based approaches in breast cancer and EGFR mutation–directed therapy in lung cancer.”
The study was funded by F Hoffmann-La Roche and Genentech. The academic authors of the study collaborated with F Hoffmann-La Roche and Genentech on all facets of the trial.
Adjuvant immunotherapy with atezolizumab for patients with renal cell carcinoma who have had a nephrectomy with or without a metastasectomy, failed to improve clinical outcomes in a group of patients who are at high risk of recurrence, finds a new international study conducted across 28 countries.
The study, called IMmotion010 and published in The Lancet, was a randomized, double-blind, multicenter, phase 3 trial of 778 adult patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) with a clear cell or sarcomatoid component. The study failed to meet its primary endpoint which was defined as a statistically significant improvement in disease-free survival as compared with placebo.
“Our results add to an emerging body of literature around the role of adjuvant immunotherapy for renal cell carcinoma. With the longest duration of follow-up to date to our knowledge. We observed no evidence of clinical benefit in disease-free survival or overall survival with adjuvant atezolizumab in patients with high-risk localized or fully resected renal cell carcinoma,” wrote the authors who were led by Sumanta Kumar Pal, MD, of City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, Calif. “Given a growing list of trials that have not shown benefit with adjuvant immunotherapy, the results call for greater attention to patient selection with this approach.”
Dr. Pal and associates conducted the study to gain more insight into the potential role of adjuvant immunotherapy in patients with renal cell carcinoma who have undergone the standard treatment of nephrectomy with or without metastasectomy. Previous studies of anti-VEGF treatments have produced mixed results, including the large phase 3 ASSURE trial, the authors wrote. “Given these mixed results, use of adjuvant targeted therapy in renal cell carcinoma remains infrequent,” Dr. Pal and associates wrote.
However, pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck) a programmed death receptor-1–blocking antibody, is an immunotherapy which, in combination with axitinib, is approved as a first-line treatment for patients with advanced RCC.
Atezolizumab (Tecentriq, Genentech) is approved for treatment in urothelial carcinoma, non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), small cell lung cancer (SCLC), hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and melanoma. There are currently a number of ongoing studies that are exploring the use of atezolizumab as a treatment for renal cell carcinoma.
The study details
This new study was conducted between 2017 and 2019. It included 778 patients from 215 clinics in 28 countries who were assigned to the treatment arm (1,200 mg of IV atezolizumab (n = 390, 50%) once every 3 weeks for 16 cycles or 1 year, which ever came first – or, they were assigned to the placebo group (n = 388, 50%). The two groups were similar: average age 60-61, 72%-74% male, 78%-83% white, and 36%-37% based in North America. Most patients, (92%-93%) had clear cell cancer, and 64%-65% were at pathological disease stage T2 or T3a.
The 3-year disease-free survival rate at 36 months was 65.0% (95% confidence interval, 59.9-70.2) in the treatment group and 62.7% (95% CI, 57.5-67.9) in the placebo group. At follow-up at 44.7 months, there was no statistically significant difference in median disease-free survival between atezolizumab (57.2 months; 95% CI, 44.6 to not evaluable) and placebo (49.5 months; 95% CI, 47.4 to not evaluable).
While there were no deaths attributable to treatment, 69 (18%) patients who received atezolizumab and 46 (12%) patients who received placebo experienced a serious adverse event.
“. Future work will include exploration of clinical-based or biomarker-based subsets that might derive benefit from this approach,” the authors wrote.
The researchers acknowledge their findings contrast with those of the KEYNOTE-564 trial of adjuvant immunotherapy with pembrolizumab after nephrectomy in renal cell carcinoma. KEYNOTE-564 reported a disease-free survival benefit of over 24 months and in an analysis done at 30 months. But in KEYNOTE-564, the study comprised only 6% of patients with M1 no evidence of disease. And, it included only patients with synchronous metastases or metastases resected within 1 year of nephrectomy. In the new study, 14% of patients had M1 no evidence of disease, and it included both synchronous and metachronous disease with recurrence within 1year of surgery.
Adjuvant immunotherapy with pembrolizumab is considered optional for patients with intermediate-risk or high-risk operable clear cell renal cell carcinoma per European Society for Medical Oncology and European Association of Urology guidelines because of the lack of confirmed overall survival benefit and toxicity-related considerations associated with immunotherapy.
“These factors must be considered in the adjuvant setting as, following nephrectomy, patients are cancer free and might be cured by surgery alone. As such, additional trials are needed to clarify the role of adjuvant immunotherapy in this disease space,” the authors wrote.
What’s next? “Biomarker work is underway to determine whether tumor genomic characteristics or circulating biomarkers can identify patient populations who derive benefit from adjuvant atezolizumab,” Dr. Pal and associates wrote. “There is precedent for tissue-based adjuvant therapy selection in other diseases, such as HER2-based and endocrine receptor–based approaches in breast cancer and EGFR mutation–directed therapy in lung cancer.”
The study was funded by F Hoffmann-La Roche and Genentech. The academic authors of the study collaborated with F Hoffmann-La Roche and Genentech on all facets of the trial.
Adjuvant immunotherapy with atezolizumab for patients with renal cell carcinoma who have had a nephrectomy with or without a metastasectomy, failed to improve clinical outcomes in a group of patients who are at high risk of recurrence, finds a new international study conducted across 28 countries.
The study, called IMmotion010 and published in The Lancet, was a randomized, double-blind, multicenter, phase 3 trial of 778 adult patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) with a clear cell or sarcomatoid component. The study failed to meet its primary endpoint which was defined as a statistically significant improvement in disease-free survival as compared with placebo.
“Our results add to an emerging body of literature around the role of adjuvant immunotherapy for renal cell carcinoma. With the longest duration of follow-up to date to our knowledge. We observed no evidence of clinical benefit in disease-free survival or overall survival with adjuvant atezolizumab in patients with high-risk localized or fully resected renal cell carcinoma,” wrote the authors who were led by Sumanta Kumar Pal, MD, of City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, Calif. “Given a growing list of trials that have not shown benefit with adjuvant immunotherapy, the results call for greater attention to patient selection with this approach.”
Dr. Pal and associates conducted the study to gain more insight into the potential role of adjuvant immunotherapy in patients with renal cell carcinoma who have undergone the standard treatment of nephrectomy with or without metastasectomy. Previous studies of anti-VEGF treatments have produced mixed results, including the large phase 3 ASSURE trial, the authors wrote. “Given these mixed results, use of adjuvant targeted therapy in renal cell carcinoma remains infrequent,” Dr. Pal and associates wrote.
However, pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck) a programmed death receptor-1–blocking antibody, is an immunotherapy which, in combination with axitinib, is approved as a first-line treatment for patients with advanced RCC.
Atezolizumab (Tecentriq, Genentech) is approved for treatment in urothelial carcinoma, non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), small cell lung cancer (SCLC), hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and melanoma. There are currently a number of ongoing studies that are exploring the use of atezolizumab as a treatment for renal cell carcinoma.
The study details
This new study was conducted between 2017 and 2019. It included 778 patients from 215 clinics in 28 countries who were assigned to the treatment arm (1,200 mg of IV atezolizumab (n = 390, 50%) once every 3 weeks for 16 cycles or 1 year, which ever came first – or, they were assigned to the placebo group (n = 388, 50%). The two groups were similar: average age 60-61, 72%-74% male, 78%-83% white, and 36%-37% based in North America. Most patients, (92%-93%) had clear cell cancer, and 64%-65% were at pathological disease stage T2 or T3a.
The 3-year disease-free survival rate at 36 months was 65.0% (95% confidence interval, 59.9-70.2) in the treatment group and 62.7% (95% CI, 57.5-67.9) in the placebo group. At follow-up at 44.7 months, there was no statistically significant difference in median disease-free survival between atezolizumab (57.2 months; 95% CI, 44.6 to not evaluable) and placebo (49.5 months; 95% CI, 47.4 to not evaluable).
While there were no deaths attributable to treatment, 69 (18%) patients who received atezolizumab and 46 (12%) patients who received placebo experienced a serious adverse event.
“. Future work will include exploration of clinical-based or biomarker-based subsets that might derive benefit from this approach,” the authors wrote.
The researchers acknowledge their findings contrast with those of the KEYNOTE-564 trial of adjuvant immunotherapy with pembrolizumab after nephrectomy in renal cell carcinoma. KEYNOTE-564 reported a disease-free survival benefit of over 24 months and in an analysis done at 30 months. But in KEYNOTE-564, the study comprised only 6% of patients with M1 no evidence of disease. And, it included only patients with synchronous metastases or metastases resected within 1 year of nephrectomy. In the new study, 14% of patients had M1 no evidence of disease, and it included both synchronous and metachronous disease with recurrence within 1year of surgery.
Adjuvant immunotherapy with pembrolizumab is considered optional for patients with intermediate-risk or high-risk operable clear cell renal cell carcinoma per European Society for Medical Oncology and European Association of Urology guidelines because of the lack of confirmed overall survival benefit and toxicity-related considerations associated with immunotherapy.
“These factors must be considered in the adjuvant setting as, following nephrectomy, patients are cancer free and might be cured by surgery alone. As such, additional trials are needed to clarify the role of adjuvant immunotherapy in this disease space,” the authors wrote.
What’s next? “Biomarker work is underway to determine whether tumor genomic characteristics or circulating biomarkers can identify patient populations who derive benefit from adjuvant atezolizumab,” Dr. Pal and associates wrote. “There is precedent for tissue-based adjuvant therapy selection in other diseases, such as HER2-based and endocrine receptor–based approaches in breast cancer and EGFR mutation–directed therapy in lung cancer.”
The study was funded by F Hoffmann-La Roche and Genentech. The academic authors of the study collaborated with F Hoffmann-La Roche and Genentech on all facets of the trial.
FROM THE LANCET
Chronic hepatitis B infections associated with a range of liver malignancies
, shows a new study conducted in South Korea.
In this study, which was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, researchers found that long-term treatment with nucleos(t)ide analogues (NAs) for patients with chronic hepatitis B lowered their risk of developing extrahepatic cancer types.
In addition to lowering the risk of liver cancers, treatment with nucleos(t)ide analogues, including tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, entecavir, lamivudine, telbivudine, adefovir, and clevudine, lowered the risk of developing cancer of the pancreas and prostate, but increased the risk of breast cancer.
By controlling chronic hepatitis B infections (CHB), NAs have been known to reduce the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. About half of the 700,000 people who die each year from chronic hepatitis B infections also have an intrahepatic malignancy.
But extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, in which tumors grow outside of the liver in the bile ducts, is exceedingly rare, affecting only 8,000 people each year in the United States.
The study was led by Jeong-Hoon Lee, MD, PhD, Seoul National University, South Korea.
The study details
Researchers sought to understand whether CHB treatment with NA drugs could reduce the risk of extrahepatic cancer. The study is based on an analysis of South Korean medical insurance claims data that included 90,944 patients (6,539 treated with NAs) with a newly diagnosed chronic hepatitis B infection, and 685,436 controls. The median age of the groups ranged from 47 to 51, and the percentage of men ranged from 51.3% to 62.5%.
Over the median 47.4-month study period, 3.9% (30,413) of subjects developed cancer outside the liver. Patients with CHB who weren’t treated with NAs had a higher overall risk vs. the NA-treatment group (adjusted subdistribution hazard ratio = 1.28; 95% confidence interval, 1.12-1.45; P < .001) and vs. controls (aSHR = 1.22; 95% CI, 1.18-1.26; P < .001).
The researchers write that “the direction of the original result was maintained” even after adjustment for cancer risk factors such as smoking and alcohol consumption. “Randomized controlled trials might be warranted to explore whether NA treatment will reduce the risk of extrahepatic malignancy in patients with CHB outside the current treatment indication,” they wrote.
In an accompanying commentary, Lewis R. Roberts, MBChB, PhD, of Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said that what is perhaps “the most controversial result ... one that is not the direct subject of their study, the observation that NA treatment was not associated with a decrease in risk of primary intrahepatic malignancy – hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) or intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. The observed decrease in risk of intrahepatic malignancy was 12%, with an adjusted subdistribution hazard ratio of 0.88 (95% CI, 0.77-1.01; P = .08).”
As Dr. Roberts wrote, the authors suggested this could be related to the low prevalence of cirrhosis in the study group. “This explanation is plausible, as it has previously been shown that the major impact of NA treatment in reducing HCC incidence is in those with CHB-induced cirrhosis,” he wrote.
Dr. Roberts added that randomized trials of NA in CHB would be difficult because the drugs are so effective. “The most important implication of this study may be the observation that CHB is associated with a higher risk of a range of extrahepatic malignancies, and the opportunity to advise patients with CHB to adhere to current recommendations for screening for the major cancer types.”
The study was publicly funded, but several study authors report numerous disclosures including relationships with Yuhan Corporation, Bayer, Gilead Sciences, Bristol Myers Squibb, and others. Dr. Roberts reports numerous personal and institutional disclosures including relationships with Bayer, Gilead Sciences, Medscape, Roche, and others plus a patent and royalties.
, shows a new study conducted in South Korea.
In this study, which was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, researchers found that long-term treatment with nucleos(t)ide analogues (NAs) for patients with chronic hepatitis B lowered their risk of developing extrahepatic cancer types.
In addition to lowering the risk of liver cancers, treatment with nucleos(t)ide analogues, including tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, entecavir, lamivudine, telbivudine, adefovir, and clevudine, lowered the risk of developing cancer of the pancreas and prostate, but increased the risk of breast cancer.
By controlling chronic hepatitis B infections (CHB), NAs have been known to reduce the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. About half of the 700,000 people who die each year from chronic hepatitis B infections also have an intrahepatic malignancy.
But extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, in which tumors grow outside of the liver in the bile ducts, is exceedingly rare, affecting only 8,000 people each year in the United States.
The study was led by Jeong-Hoon Lee, MD, PhD, Seoul National University, South Korea.
The study details
Researchers sought to understand whether CHB treatment with NA drugs could reduce the risk of extrahepatic cancer. The study is based on an analysis of South Korean medical insurance claims data that included 90,944 patients (6,539 treated with NAs) with a newly diagnosed chronic hepatitis B infection, and 685,436 controls. The median age of the groups ranged from 47 to 51, and the percentage of men ranged from 51.3% to 62.5%.
Over the median 47.4-month study period, 3.9% (30,413) of subjects developed cancer outside the liver. Patients with CHB who weren’t treated with NAs had a higher overall risk vs. the NA-treatment group (adjusted subdistribution hazard ratio = 1.28; 95% confidence interval, 1.12-1.45; P < .001) and vs. controls (aSHR = 1.22; 95% CI, 1.18-1.26; P < .001).
The researchers write that “the direction of the original result was maintained” even after adjustment for cancer risk factors such as smoking and alcohol consumption. “Randomized controlled trials might be warranted to explore whether NA treatment will reduce the risk of extrahepatic malignancy in patients with CHB outside the current treatment indication,” they wrote.
In an accompanying commentary, Lewis R. Roberts, MBChB, PhD, of Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said that what is perhaps “the most controversial result ... one that is not the direct subject of their study, the observation that NA treatment was not associated with a decrease in risk of primary intrahepatic malignancy – hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) or intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. The observed decrease in risk of intrahepatic malignancy was 12%, with an adjusted subdistribution hazard ratio of 0.88 (95% CI, 0.77-1.01; P = .08).”
As Dr. Roberts wrote, the authors suggested this could be related to the low prevalence of cirrhosis in the study group. “This explanation is plausible, as it has previously been shown that the major impact of NA treatment in reducing HCC incidence is in those with CHB-induced cirrhosis,” he wrote.
Dr. Roberts added that randomized trials of NA in CHB would be difficult because the drugs are so effective. “The most important implication of this study may be the observation that CHB is associated with a higher risk of a range of extrahepatic malignancies, and the opportunity to advise patients with CHB to adhere to current recommendations for screening for the major cancer types.”
The study was publicly funded, but several study authors report numerous disclosures including relationships with Yuhan Corporation, Bayer, Gilead Sciences, Bristol Myers Squibb, and others. Dr. Roberts reports numerous personal and institutional disclosures including relationships with Bayer, Gilead Sciences, Medscape, Roche, and others plus a patent and royalties.
, shows a new study conducted in South Korea.
In this study, which was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, researchers found that long-term treatment with nucleos(t)ide analogues (NAs) for patients with chronic hepatitis B lowered their risk of developing extrahepatic cancer types.
In addition to lowering the risk of liver cancers, treatment with nucleos(t)ide analogues, including tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, entecavir, lamivudine, telbivudine, adefovir, and clevudine, lowered the risk of developing cancer of the pancreas and prostate, but increased the risk of breast cancer.
By controlling chronic hepatitis B infections (CHB), NAs have been known to reduce the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. About half of the 700,000 people who die each year from chronic hepatitis B infections also have an intrahepatic malignancy.
But extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, in which tumors grow outside of the liver in the bile ducts, is exceedingly rare, affecting only 8,000 people each year in the United States.
The study was led by Jeong-Hoon Lee, MD, PhD, Seoul National University, South Korea.
The study details
Researchers sought to understand whether CHB treatment with NA drugs could reduce the risk of extrahepatic cancer. The study is based on an analysis of South Korean medical insurance claims data that included 90,944 patients (6,539 treated with NAs) with a newly diagnosed chronic hepatitis B infection, and 685,436 controls. The median age of the groups ranged from 47 to 51, and the percentage of men ranged from 51.3% to 62.5%.
Over the median 47.4-month study period, 3.9% (30,413) of subjects developed cancer outside the liver. Patients with CHB who weren’t treated with NAs had a higher overall risk vs. the NA-treatment group (adjusted subdistribution hazard ratio = 1.28; 95% confidence interval, 1.12-1.45; P < .001) and vs. controls (aSHR = 1.22; 95% CI, 1.18-1.26; P < .001).
The researchers write that “the direction of the original result was maintained” even after adjustment for cancer risk factors such as smoking and alcohol consumption. “Randomized controlled trials might be warranted to explore whether NA treatment will reduce the risk of extrahepatic malignancy in patients with CHB outside the current treatment indication,” they wrote.
In an accompanying commentary, Lewis R. Roberts, MBChB, PhD, of Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said that what is perhaps “the most controversial result ... one that is not the direct subject of their study, the observation that NA treatment was not associated with a decrease in risk of primary intrahepatic malignancy – hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) or intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. The observed decrease in risk of intrahepatic malignancy was 12%, with an adjusted subdistribution hazard ratio of 0.88 (95% CI, 0.77-1.01; P = .08).”
As Dr. Roberts wrote, the authors suggested this could be related to the low prevalence of cirrhosis in the study group. “This explanation is plausible, as it has previously been shown that the major impact of NA treatment in reducing HCC incidence is in those with CHB-induced cirrhosis,” he wrote.
Dr. Roberts added that randomized trials of NA in CHB would be difficult because the drugs are so effective. “The most important implication of this study may be the observation that CHB is associated with a higher risk of a range of extrahepatic malignancies, and the opportunity to advise patients with CHB to adhere to current recommendations for screening for the major cancer types.”
The study was publicly funded, but several study authors report numerous disclosures including relationships with Yuhan Corporation, Bayer, Gilead Sciences, Bristol Myers Squibb, and others. Dr. Roberts reports numerous personal and institutional disclosures including relationships with Bayer, Gilead Sciences, Medscape, Roche, and others plus a patent and royalties.
FROM JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
Previous breast cancer doesn’t increase poor outcomes in pregnancy, study finds
A new retrospective study provides more evidence that previous breast cancer diagnoses don’t disrupt the health of mothers and newborns in pregnancy: Women who became pregnant at least 12 months after breast cancer diagnosis weren’t more likely than a control group to have preterm births or suffer maternal/neonatal morbidity – even though they were more likely to undergo cesarean section.
“For patients who are more than 1 year out from the diagnosis of breast cancer, it may be safe and reasonable to consider pregnancy without significantly increased odds of maternal or neonatal complications,” said study lead author Kirsten Jorgensen, MD, a gynecologic oncology fellow at the University of Texas Houston School of Public Health, in an interview. “This study does not suggest there is no risk, but it does place the risk that exists in context with the risk that is associated with any pregnancy.”
The study appears in Obstetrics & Gynecology.
The researchers launched the analysis because “there is relatively little data to help guide patients, their oncologists, and their obstetricians as they navigate the potential for pregnancy after a cancer diagnosis,” Dr. Jorgensen said. “There have been prior studies looking at birth outcomes, but they often include people who become pregnant very shortly after diagnosis, which may skew results.”
Researchers used databases to track 30,021 women in California aged 18-45 who were diagnosed with breast cancer from 2000 to 2012. Of those, only 553 met the study criteria and conceived at least 1 year after a stage I-III breast cancer diagnosis (median age at delivery = 36; 50.6% non-Hispanic White, 23.9% Hispanic, 6.0% Black; 83.2% private insurance).
Study authors compared these women to a matched control group of 1,659 women without breast cancer.
After adjustment for various factors, there was no significant difference between the groups in terms of maternal outcomes – preterm birth at less than 37 weeks of gestation (12.5% in the breast cancer group vs. 10.0% in the control group; odds ratio = 1.29; 95% confidence interval, 0.95-1.74) or preterm birth at less than 32 weeks of gestation (1.3% vs. 1.6%, respectively, OR = 0.77; 95% CI, 0.34-1.79).
Researchers didn’t find a significant difference in neonatal outcomes either – small for gestational age (less than the 5th percentile, 3.1% vs. 5.0%, respectively; OR = 0.60, 95% CI, 0.35-1.03; less than the 10th percentile: 9.4% vs. 10%, respectively; OR = 0.94; 95% CI, 0.68-1.30), or neonatal morbidity (8.7% vs. 7.7%, respectively; OR = 1.15; 95% CI, 0.81-1.62).
“It is possible that breast cancer may have little impact because some breast cancer is treated only with surgery or radiation to the chest,” Dr. Jorgensen said. “These treatments likely do not impact fertility and may not impact a developing pregnancy.”
There were neonatal deaths: one in the breast cancer group and four in the control group. The researchers said the small number of deaths limited their ability to interpret the data.
Researchers found no evidence that treatment with chemotherapy affected outcomes. They did turn up a difference between the groups: those who’d had breast cancer were more likely to undergo cesarean delivery (45.6% in the breast cancer group, and 40.1% in the control group; OR = 1.25; 95% CI 1.03-1.53), However, offspring of women in the cesarean group weren’t more likely to have neonatal morbidity (OR = 1.15; 95% CI 0.81-1.62).
It’s hard to explain the higher rate of cesarean deliveries in the breast cancer group, Dr. Jorgensen said. “Overall, among our study population and the matched controls there was a high rate of cesarean section. It is possible there was bias on the provider side. Perhaps they intervened with cesarean section earlier among those with a history of breast cancer – a type of bias due to knowing the history of the patient. We attempted to match for other comorbidities that impact obstetric outcomes, but it is possible that we did not account for all of them.”
In an interview, Patricia A. Ganz, MD, director of cancer prevention and control research at University of California, Los Angeles, praised the new research.
It’s “a well-conducted study with state-of-the-art analysis and interpretation,” she said. “Based on my experience with patients I have cared for with breast cancer, there were no surprises here. Most have had uncomplicated pregnancies. This should be reassuring for women who wish to have children after treatment for breast cancer and clinicians should support this decision.”
As for the higher rate of cesarean delivery in breast-cancer survivors, she said “there may be a tendency to think of these as ‘high risk’ pregnancies, and C-sections may be selected at a more frequent rate as a result.”
The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, including grants from the National Cancer Institute and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. Dr. Jorgensen has no disclosures. Other authors disclosed advisory board service (Delfina Care) and payments from the NIH, Guidepoint, the Schlesinger Group, and Johnson & Johnson. Dr. Ganz has no disclosures.
A new retrospective study provides more evidence that previous breast cancer diagnoses don’t disrupt the health of mothers and newborns in pregnancy: Women who became pregnant at least 12 months after breast cancer diagnosis weren’t more likely than a control group to have preterm births or suffer maternal/neonatal morbidity – even though they were more likely to undergo cesarean section.
“For patients who are more than 1 year out from the diagnosis of breast cancer, it may be safe and reasonable to consider pregnancy without significantly increased odds of maternal or neonatal complications,” said study lead author Kirsten Jorgensen, MD, a gynecologic oncology fellow at the University of Texas Houston School of Public Health, in an interview. “This study does not suggest there is no risk, but it does place the risk that exists in context with the risk that is associated with any pregnancy.”
The study appears in Obstetrics & Gynecology.
The researchers launched the analysis because “there is relatively little data to help guide patients, their oncologists, and their obstetricians as they navigate the potential for pregnancy after a cancer diagnosis,” Dr. Jorgensen said. “There have been prior studies looking at birth outcomes, but they often include people who become pregnant very shortly after diagnosis, which may skew results.”
Researchers used databases to track 30,021 women in California aged 18-45 who were diagnosed with breast cancer from 2000 to 2012. Of those, only 553 met the study criteria and conceived at least 1 year after a stage I-III breast cancer diagnosis (median age at delivery = 36; 50.6% non-Hispanic White, 23.9% Hispanic, 6.0% Black; 83.2% private insurance).
Study authors compared these women to a matched control group of 1,659 women without breast cancer.
After adjustment for various factors, there was no significant difference between the groups in terms of maternal outcomes – preterm birth at less than 37 weeks of gestation (12.5% in the breast cancer group vs. 10.0% in the control group; odds ratio = 1.29; 95% confidence interval, 0.95-1.74) or preterm birth at less than 32 weeks of gestation (1.3% vs. 1.6%, respectively, OR = 0.77; 95% CI, 0.34-1.79).
Researchers didn’t find a significant difference in neonatal outcomes either – small for gestational age (less than the 5th percentile, 3.1% vs. 5.0%, respectively; OR = 0.60, 95% CI, 0.35-1.03; less than the 10th percentile: 9.4% vs. 10%, respectively; OR = 0.94; 95% CI, 0.68-1.30), or neonatal morbidity (8.7% vs. 7.7%, respectively; OR = 1.15; 95% CI, 0.81-1.62).
“It is possible that breast cancer may have little impact because some breast cancer is treated only with surgery or radiation to the chest,” Dr. Jorgensen said. “These treatments likely do not impact fertility and may not impact a developing pregnancy.”
There were neonatal deaths: one in the breast cancer group and four in the control group. The researchers said the small number of deaths limited their ability to interpret the data.
Researchers found no evidence that treatment with chemotherapy affected outcomes. They did turn up a difference between the groups: those who’d had breast cancer were more likely to undergo cesarean delivery (45.6% in the breast cancer group, and 40.1% in the control group; OR = 1.25; 95% CI 1.03-1.53), However, offspring of women in the cesarean group weren’t more likely to have neonatal morbidity (OR = 1.15; 95% CI 0.81-1.62).
It’s hard to explain the higher rate of cesarean deliveries in the breast cancer group, Dr. Jorgensen said. “Overall, among our study population and the matched controls there was a high rate of cesarean section. It is possible there was bias on the provider side. Perhaps they intervened with cesarean section earlier among those with a history of breast cancer – a type of bias due to knowing the history of the patient. We attempted to match for other comorbidities that impact obstetric outcomes, but it is possible that we did not account for all of them.”
In an interview, Patricia A. Ganz, MD, director of cancer prevention and control research at University of California, Los Angeles, praised the new research.
It’s “a well-conducted study with state-of-the-art analysis and interpretation,” she said. “Based on my experience with patients I have cared for with breast cancer, there were no surprises here. Most have had uncomplicated pregnancies. This should be reassuring for women who wish to have children after treatment for breast cancer and clinicians should support this decision.”
As for the higher rate of cesarean delivery in breast-cancer survivors, she said “there may be a tendency to think of these as ‘high risk’ pregnancies, and C-sections may be selected at a more frequent rate as a result.”
The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, including grants from the National Cancer Institute and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. Dr. Jorgensen has no disclosures. Other authors disclosed advisory board service (Delfina Care) and payments from the NIH, Guidepoint, the Schlesinger Group, and Johnson & Johnson. Dr. Ganz has no disclosures.
A new retrospective study provides more evidence that previous breast cancer diagnoses don’t disrupt the health of mothers and newborns in pregnancy: Women who became pregnant at least 12 months after breast cancer diagnosis weren’t more likely than a control group to have preterm births or suffer maternal/neonatal morbidity – even though they were more likely to undergo cesarean section.
“For patients who are more than 1 year out from the diagnosis of breast cancer, it may be safe and reasonable to consider pregnancy without significantly increased odds of maternal or neonatal complications,” said study lead author Kirsten Jorgensen, MD, a gynecologic oncology fellow at the University of Texas Houston School of Public Health, in an interview. “This study does not suggest there is no risk, but it does place the risk that exists in context with the risk that is associated with any pregnancy.”
The study appears in Obstetrics & Gynecology.
The researchers launched the analysis because “there is relatively little data to help guide patients, their oncologists, and their obstetricians as they navigate the potential for pregnancy after a cancer diagnosis,” Dr. Jorgensen said. “There have been prior studies looking at birth outcomes, but they often include people who become pregnant very shortly after diagnosis, which may skew results.”
Researchers used databases to track 30,021 women in California aged 18-45 who were diagnosed with breast cancer from 2000 to 2012. Of those, only 553 met the study criteria and conceived at least 1 year after a stage I-III breast cancer diagnosis (median age at delivery = 36; 50.6% non-Hispanic White, 23.9% Hispanic, 6.0% Black; 83.2% private insurance).
Study authors compared these women to a matched control group of 1,659 women without breast cancer.
After adjustment for various factors, there was no significant difference between the groups in terms of maternal outcomes – preterm birth at less than 37 weeks of gestation (12.5% in the breast cancer group vs. 10.0% in the control group; odds ratio = 1.29; 95% confidence interval, 0.95-1.74) or preterm birth at less than 32 weeks of gestation (1.3% vs. 1.6%, respectively, OR = 0.77; 95% CI, 0.34-1.79).
Researchers didn’t find a significant difference in neonatal outcomes either – small for gestational age (less than the 5th percentile, 3.1% vs. 5.0%, respectively; OR = 0.60, 95% CI, 0.35-1.03; less than the 10th percentile: 9.4% vs. 10%, respectively; OR = 0.94; 95% CI, 0.68-1.30), or neonatal morbidity (8.7% vs. 7.7%, respectively; OR = 1.15; 95% CI, 0.81-1.62).
“It is possible that breast cancer may have little impact because some breast cancer is treated only with surgery or radiation to the chest,” Dr. Jorgensen said. “These treatments likely do not impact fertility and may not impact a developing pregnancy.”
There were neonatal deaths: one in the breast cancer group and four in the control group. The researchers said the small number of deaths limited their ability to interpret the data.
Researchers found no evidence that treatment with chemotherapy affected outcomes. They did turn up a difference between the groups: those who’d had breast cancer were more likely to undergo cesarean delivery (45.6% in the breast cancer group, and 40.1% in the control group; OR = 1.25; 95% CI 1.03-1.53), However, offspring of women in the cesarean group weren’t more likely to have neonatal morbidity (OR = 1.15; 95% CI 0.81-1.62).
It’s hard to explain the higher rate of cesarean deliveries in the breast cancer group, Dr. Jorgensen said. “Overall, among our study population and the matched controls there was a high rate of cesarean section. It is possible there was bias on the provider side. Perhaps they intervened with cesarean section earlier among those with a history of breast cancer – a type of bias due to knowing the history of the patient. We attempted to match for other comorbidities that impact obstetric outcomes, but it is possible that we did not account for all of them.”
In an interview, Patricia A. Ganz, MD, director of cancer prevention and control research at University of California, Los Angeles, praised the new research.
It’s “a well-conducted study with state-of-the-art analysis and interpretation,” she said. “Based on my experience with patients I have cared for with breast cancer, there were no surprises here. Most have had uncomplicated pregnancies. This should be reassuring for women who wish to have children after treatment for breast cancer and clinicians should support this decision.”
As for the higher rate of cesarean delivery in breast-cancer survivors, she said “there may be a tendency to think of these as ‘high risk’ pregnancies, and C-sections may be selected at a more frequent rate as a result.”
The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, including grants from the National Cancer Institute and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. Dr. Jorgensen has no disclosures. Other authors disclosed advisory board service (Delfina Care) and payments from the NIH, Guidepoint, the Schlesinger Group, and Johnson & Johnson. Dr. Ganz has no disclosures.
FROM OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Pain in Cancer Survivors: Assess, Monitor, and Ask for Help
SAN DIEGO—As patients with cancer live longer, pain is going to become an even bigger challenge for clinicians, a palliative care specialist told cancer specialists in a presentation at the annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO) in September, and decisions about treatment are becoming more complicated amid the opioid epidemic.
Fortunately, guidelines and clinical experience offer helpful insight into the best practices, said hematologist/oncologist Andrea Ruskin, MD, medical director of palliative care at Veterans Administration (VA) Connecticut Healthcare System (VACHS).
As Ruskin pointed out, two-thirds of newly diagnosed cancer patients are living for at least 5 years, “but with this progress comes challenges.” More than one-third (37%) of cancer survivors report cancer pain, 21% have noncancer pain, and 45% have both. About 5% to 8% of VA cancer survivors use opioids for the long term, she said, although there have been few studies in this population.
Among patients with head and neck cancer, specifically, chronic pain affects 45%, and severe pain affects 11%. Subclinical PTSD, depression, anxiety, and low quality of life are common in this population. “We may cure them, but they have a lot of issues going forward.”
One key strategy is to perform a comprehensive pain assessment at the first visit, and then address pain at every subsequent visit. She recommended a physician resource from the American Society of Clinical Oncology, and a template may be useful to provide helpful questions, Ruskin said.
At VACHS certain questions are routine. “Is pain interfering with your function? Sometimes people say it’s always a 10, but it’s not affecting function at all. Ask if the medicine is working. And how are they taking it? Sometimes they say, ‘I’m taking that for sleep,’ and we say ‘No, Mr. Smith, that is not a sleep medication.’”
Be aware that some patients may use nonmedical opioids, she said. And set expectations early on. “Safe opioid use starts with the very first prescription,” she said. “If I have somebody with myeloma or head and neck cancer, I make it very clear that my goal is that we want you off the opioids after the radiation or once the disease is in remission. I really make an effort at the very beginning to make sure that we're all on the same page.”
As you continue to see a patient, consider ordering urine tests, she said, not as a punitive measure but to make sure you’re offering the safest and most effective treatment. “We don’t do it to say ‘no, no, no.’ We do it for safety and to make sure they’re not getting meds elsewhere.”
What are the best practices when pain doesn’t go away? Should they stay on opioids? According to Ruskin, few evidence-based guidelines address the “more nuanced care” that patients need when their pain lasts for months or years.
But there are useful resources. Ruskin highlighted the National Comprehensive Cancer Network’s survivorship guidelines, and she summarized a few of the available painkiller options. “Opioids are great, and adjuvants are so-so. They work in some people, but we definitely have room for improvement.”
What if patients have persistent opioid use after cancer recovery? “I try to taper if I can, and I try to explain why I’m tapering. It could take months or years to taper patients,” she said. And consider transitioning the patient to buprenorphine, a drug that treats both pain and opioid use disorder, if appropriate. “You don’t need a waiver if you use it for pain. It’s definitely something we’re using more of.”
One important step is to bring in colleagues to help. Psychologists, chiropractors, physical therapists, physiatrists, and pain pharmacists can all be helpful, she said. “Learn about your VA resources and who can partner with you to help these complicated patients. They’re all at your fingertips.”
SAN DIEGO—As patients with cancer live longer, pain is going to become an even bigger challenge for clinicians, a palliative care specialist told cancer specialists in a presentation at the annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO) in September, and decisions about treatment are becoming more complicated amid the opioid epidemic.
Fortunately, guidelines and clinical experience offer helpful insight into the best practices, said hematologist/oncologist Andrea Ruskin, MD, medical director of palliative care at Veterans Administration (VA) Connecticut Healthcare System (VACHS).
As Ruskin pointed out, two-thirds of newly diagnosed cancer patients are living for at least 5 years, “but with this progress comes challenges.” More than one-third (37%) of cancer survivors report cancer pain, 21% have noncancer pain, and 45% have both. About 5% to 8% of VA cancer survivors use opioids for the long term, she said, although there have been few studies in this population.
Among patients with head and neck cancer, specifically, chronic pain affects 45%, and severe pain affects 11%. Subclinical PTSD, depression, anxiety, and low quality of life are common in this population. “We may cure them, but they have a lot of issues going forward.”
One key strategy is to perform a comprehensive pain assessment at the first visit, and then address pain at every subsequent visit. She recommended a physician resource from the American Society of Clinical Oncology, and a template may be useful to provide helpful questions, Ruskin said.
At VACHS certain questions are routine. “Is pain interfering with your function? Sometimes people say it’s always a 10, but it’s not affecting function at all. Ask if the medicine is working. And how are they taking it? Sometimes they say, ‘I’m taking that for sleep,’ and we say ‘No, Mr. Smith, that is not a sleep medication.’”
Be aware that some patients may use nonmedical opioids, she said. And set expectations early on. “Safe opioid use starts with the very first prescription,” she said. “If I have somebody with myeloma or head and neck cancer, I make it very clear that my goal is that we want you off the opioids after the radiation or once the disease is in remission. I really make an effort at the very beginning to make sure that we're all on the same page.”
As you continue to see a patient, consider ordering urine tests, she said, not as a punitive measure but to make sure you’re offering the safest and most effective treatment. “We don’t do it to say ‘no, no, no.’ We do it for safety and to make sure they’re not getting meds elsewhere.”
What are the best practices when pain doesn’t go away? Should they stay on opioids? According to Ruskin, few evidence-based guidelines address the “more nuanced care” that patients need when their pain lasts for months or years.
But there are useful resources. Ruskin highlighted the National Comprehensive Cancer Network’s survivorship guidelines, and she summarized a few of the available painkiller options. “Opioids are great, and adjuvants are so-so. They work in some people, but we definitely have room for improvement.”
What if patients have persistent opioid use after cancer recovery? “I try to taper if I can, and I try to explain why I’m tapering. It could take months or years to taper patients,” she said. And consider transitioning the patient to buprenorphine, a drug that treats both pain and opioid use disorder, if appropriate. “You don’t need a waiver if you use it for pain. It’s definitely something we’re using more of.”
One important step is to bring in colleagues to help. Psychologists, chiropractors, physical therapists, physiatrists, and pain pharmacists can all be helpful, she said. “Learn about your VA resources and who can partner with you to help these complicated patients. They’re all at your fingertips.”
SAN DIEGO—As patients with cancer live longer, pain is going to become an even bigger challenge for clinicians, a palliative care specialist told cancer specialists in a presentation at the annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO) in September, and decisions about treatment are becoming more complicated amid the opioid epidemic.
Fortunately, guidelines and clinical experience offer helpful insight into the best practices, said hematologist/oncologist Andrea Ruskin, MD, medical director of palliative care at Veterans Administration (VA) Connecticut Healthcare System (VACHS).
As Ruskin pointed out, two-thirds of newly diagnosed cancer patients are living for at least 5 years, “but with this progress comes challenges.” More than one-third (37%) of cancer survivors report cancer pain, 21% have noncancer pain, and 45% have both. About 5% to 8% of VA cancer survivors use opioids for the long term, she said, although there have been few studies in this population.
Among patients with head and neck cancer, specifically, chronic pain affects 45%, and severe pain affects 11%. Subclinical PTSD, depression, anxiety, and low quality of life are common in this population. “We may cure them, but they have a lot of issues going forward.”
One key strategy is to perform a comprehensive pain assessment at the first visit, and then address pain at every subsequent visit. She recommended a physician resource from the American Society of Clinical Oncology, and a template may be useful to provide helpful questions, Ruskin said.
At VACHS certain questions are routine. “Is pain interfering with your function? Sometimes people say it’s always a 10, but it’s not affecting function at all. Ask if the medicine is working. And how are they taking it? Sometimes they say, ‘I’m taking that for sleep,’ and we say ‘No, Mr. Smith, that is not a sleep medication.’”
Be aware that some patients may use nonmedical opioids, she said. And set expectations early on. “Safe opioid use starts with the very first prescription,” she said. “If I have somebody with myeloma or head and neck cancer, I make it very clear that my goal is that we want you off the opioids after the radiation or once the disease is in remission. I really make an effort at the very beginning to make sure that we're all on the same page.”
As you continue to see a patient, consider ordering urine tests, she said, not as a punitive measure but to make sure you’re offering the safest and most effective treatment. “We don’t do it to say ‘no, no, no.’ We do it for safety and to make sure they’re not getting meds elsewhere.”
What are the best practices when pain doesn’t go away? Should they stay on opioids? According to Ruskin, few evidence-based guidelines address the “more nuanced care” that patients need when their pain lasts for months or years.
But there are useful resources. Ruskin highlighted the National Comprehensive Cancer Network’s survivorship guidelines, and she summarized a few of the available painkiller options. “Opioids are great, and adjuvants are so-so. They work in some people, but we definitely have room for improvement.”
What if patients have persistent opioid use after cancer recovery? “I try to taper if I can, and I try to explain why I’m tapering. It could take months or years to taper patients,” she said. And consider transitioning the patient to buprenorphine, a drug that treats both pain and opioid use disorder, if appropriate. “You don’t need a waiver if you use it for pain. It’s definitely something we’re using more of.”
One important step is to bring in colleagues to help. Psychologists, chiropractors, physical therapists, physiatrists, and pain pharmacists can all be helpful, she said. “Learn about your VA resources and who can partner with you to help these complicated patients. They’re all at your fingertips.”
Hormone therapy–depression link may depend on mode of administration
An analysis of more than 800,000 women in Denmark offers more insight into the murky links between female hormones and midlife mental illness in women: It hints that hormone therapy (HT) may boost the risk of depression, have no effect, or lower it – all depending on how it’s administered and when.
Women who took systemic HT had a higher risk of depression from age 48 to 50 (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.50; 95% confidence interval, 1.24-1.81), researchers reported in JAMA Network Open. However, there was no overall link between depression and locally administered HT (aHR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.70-1.87) – except when HT was begun between ages 54 and 60, when there were signs of a protective effect (aHR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.70-0.91).
“Women in menopause who initiate systemically administered HT should be aware of depression as a potential adverse effect,” epidemiologist and study corresponding author Merete Osler, MD, PhD, DMSc, of Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg (Denmark) Hospitals and the University of Copenhagen, said in an interview. ”Further, women and clinicians alike should be aware of any misinterpretation of symptoms of depression as menopausal disturbances.”
Dr. Osler said the researchers launched the study to better understand potential hormone-depression links in light of suspicions that lower levels of estrogen in menopause may contribute to depression.
Several randomized clinical trials and cohort and cross-sectional studies have explored whether systemic HT affects depression during menopause, Dr. Osler said, “but the results from these studies have been inconsistent, and few have explored the role of the route of administration.”
For the new registry-based study, researchers retrospectively tracked all women in Denmark who were aged 45 between 1995 and 2017 without prior oophorectomy, certain kinds of cancer, prior use of HT, or ongoing depression.
During follow-up to a mean age of 56, 23% of the women began HT (at a median age of 55), and 1.6% were hospitalized for depression. Of those on HT, 65.8% received locally administered HT.
Researchers adjusted hazard ratios for a long list of factors such as educational level, marital status, number of still births or live births, prior use of hormonal contraceptives, several medical conditions, and prior depression.
“We were surprised by our findings, which to some degree contradicted our prior hypothesis that systemic HT with estrogen would not be associated with first-time depression diagnosis in women aged 45 and above, while HT with progesterone would be associated with a slightly increased risk,” Dr. Osler said. “In our study, systemically administered HT was associated with an increased risk of depression with no difference between estrogen alone or in combination with progestin. As findings from previous studies have been inconsistent, our findings fit with some but not all previous studies.”
Why might the mode of administration make a difference? It’s possible that local administration may contribute less to the systemic circulation, Dr. Osler said, “or that menopausal symptoms including depression are more likely to be treated with systemic HT.”
As for age differences, Dr. Osler said “it is possible that women are more sensitive to the influence of HT on mood around menopause than at later ages. However, it should be noted that in the present study it was not possible to calculate precise risk estimates for use of systemic HT in menopausal women above age 54 because less than 1% initiated treatment with systemic HT after age 54 years.”
In an interview, psychiatrist Natalie Rasgon, MD, PhD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, who’s studied hormones and depression, said the study is “remarkably large and consistently executed.”
She cautioned, however, that the findings don’t prove any causality. “Saying that estrogen therapy or hormone therapy causes depression is patently incorrect.”
How can the findings be useful for medical professionals? “Women and physicians alike need to be very mindful of pre-existing mood disorders,” Dr. Rasgon said. “Women who in the past had anxiety disorders, mood swings, PTSD, or prior episodes of depression might have a differential response to hormone therapy in menopause.”
Also keep in mind, she said, that the transition from menopause to post menopause is “very volatile,” and depression may break through even in women undergoing treatment for the condition.
For her part, Dr. Osler said this study and others “emphasize the need for clinical guidelines to further consider the psychological side effects of systemic HT.”
Funding information was not provided. The study authors and Dr. Rasgon have no disclosures.
An analysis of more than 800,000 women in Denmark offers more insight into the murky links between female hormones and midlife mental illness in women: It hints that hormone therapy (HT) may boost the risk of depression, have no effect, or lower it – all depending on how it’s administered and when.
Women who took systemic HT had a higher risk of depression from age 48 to 50 (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.50; 95% confidence interval, 1.24-1.81), researchers reported in JAMA Network Open. However, there was no overall link between depression and locally administered HT (aHR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.70-1.87) – except when HT was begun between ages 54 and 60, when there were signs of a protective effect (aHR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.70-0.91).
“Women in menopause who initiate systemically administered HT should be aware of depression as a potential adverse effect,” epidemiologist and study corresponding author Merete Osler, MD, PhD, DMSc, of Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg (Denmark) Hospitals and the University of Copenhagen, said in an interview. ”Further, women and clinicians alike should be aware of any misinterpretation of symptoms of depression as menopausal disturbances.”
Dr. Osler said the researchers launched the study to better understand potential hormone-depression links in light of suspicions that lower levels of estrogen in menopause may contribute to depression.
Several randomized clinical trials and cohort and cross-sectional studies have explored whether systemic HT affects depression during menopause, Dr. Osler said, “but the results from these studies have been inconsistent, and few have explored the role of the route of administration.”
For the new registry-based study, researchers retrospectively tracked all women in Denmark who were aged 45 between 1995 and 2017 without prior oophorectomy, certain kinds of cancer, prior use of HT, or ongoing depression.
During follow-up to a mean age of 56, 23% of the women began HT (at a median age of 55), and 1.6% were hospitalized for depression. Of those on HT, 65.8% received locally administered HT.
Researchers adjusted hazard ratios for a long list of factors such as educational level, marital status, number of still births or live births, prior use of hormonal contraceptives, several medical conditions, and prior depression.
“We were surprised by our findings, which to some degree contradicted our prior hypothesis that systemic HT with estrogen would not be associated with first-time depression diagnosis in women aged 45 and above, while HT with progesterone would be associated with a slightly increased risk,” Dr. Osler said. “In our study, systemically administered HT was associated with an increased risk of depression with no difference between estrogen alone or in combination with progestin. As findings from previous studies have been inconsistent, our findings fit with some but not all previous studies.”
Why might the mode of administration make a difference? It’s possible that local administration may contribute less to the systemic circulation, Dr. Osler said, “or that menopausal symptoms including depression are more likely to be treated with systemic HT.”
As for age differences, Dr. Osler said “it is possible that women are more sensitive to the influence of HT on mood around menopause than at later ages. However, it should be noted that in the present study it was not possible to calculate precise risk estimates for use of systemic HT in menopausal women above age 54 because less than 1% initiated treatment with systemic HT after age 54 years.”
In an interview, psychiatrist Natalie Rasgon, MD, PhD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, who’s studied hormones and depression, said the study is “remarkably large and consistently executed.”
She cautioned, however, that the findings don’t prove any causality. “Saying that estrogen therapy or hormone therapy causes depression is patently incorrect.”
How can the findings be useful for medical professionals? “Women and physicians alike need to be very mindful of pre-existing mood disorders,” Dr. Rasgon said. “Women who in the past had anxiety disorders, mood swings, PTSD, or prior episodes of depression might have a differential response to hormone therapy in menopause.”
Also keep in mind, she said, that the transition from menopause to post menopause is “very volatile,” and depression may break through even in women undergoing treatment for the condition.
For her part, Dr. Osler said this study and others “emphasize the need for clinical guidelines to further consider the psychological side effects of systemic HT.”
Funding information was not provided. The study authors and Dr. Rasgon have no disclosures.
An analysis of more than 800,000 women in Denmark offers more insight into the murky links between female hormones and midlife mental illness in women: It hints that hormone therapy (HT) may boost the risk of depression, have no effect, or lower it – all depending on how it’s administered and when.
Women who took systemic HT had a higher risk of depression from age 48 to 50 (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.50; 95% confidence interval, 1.24-1.81), researchers reported in JAMA Network Open. However, there was no overall link between depression and locally administered HT (aHR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.70-1.87) – except when HT was begun between ages 54 and 60, when there were signs of a protective effect (aHR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.70-0.91).
“Women in menopause who initiate systemically administered HT should be aware of depression as a potential adverse effect,” epidemiologist and study corresponding author Merete Osler, MD, PhD, DMSc, of Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg (Denmark) Hospitals and the University of Copenhagen, said in an interview. ”Further, women and clinicians alike should be aware of any misinterpretation of symptoms of depression as menopausal disturbances.”
Dr. Osler said the researchers launched the study to better understand potential hormone-depression links in light of suspicions that lower levels of estrogen in menopause may contribute to depression.
Several randomized clinical trials and cohort and cross-sectional studies have explored whether systemic HT affects depression during menopause, Dr. Osler said, “but the results from these studies have been inconsistent, and few have explored the role of the route of administration.”
For the new registry-based study, researchers retrospectively tracked all women in Denmark who were aged 45 between 1995 and 2017 without prior oophorectomy, certain kinds of cancer, prior use of HT, or ongoing depression.
During follow-up to a mean age of 56, 23% of the women began HT (at a median age of 55), and 1.6% were hospitalized for depression. Of those on HT, 65.8% received locally administered HT.
Researchers adjusted hazard ratios for a long list of factors such as educational level, marital status, number of still births or live births, prior use of hormonal contraceptives, several medical conditions, and prior depression.
“We were surprised by our findings, which to some degree contradicted our prior hypothesis that systemic HT with estrogen would not be associated with first-time depression diagnosis in women aged 45 and above, while HT with progesterone would be associated with a slightly increased risk,” Dr. Osler said. “In our study, systemically administered HT was associated with an increased risk of depression with no difference between estrogen alone or in combination with progestin. As findings from previous studies have been inconsistent, our findings fit with some but not all previous studies.”
Why might the mode of administration make a difference? It’s possible that local administration may contribute less to the systemic circulation, Dr. Osler said, “or that menopausal symptoms including depression are more likely to be treated with systemic HT.”
As for age differences, Dr. Osler said “it is possible that women are more sensitive to the influence of HT on mood around menopause than at later ages. However, it should be noted that in the present study it was not possible to calculate precise risk estimates for use of systemic HT in menopausal women above age 54 because less than 1% initiated treatment with systemic HT after age 54 years.”
In an interview, psychiatrist Natalie Rasgon, MD, PhD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, who’s studied hormones and depression, said the study is “remarkably large and consistently executed.”
She cautioned, however, that the findings don’t prove any causality. “Saying that estrogen therapy or hormone therapy causes depression is patently incorrect.”
How can the findings be useful for medical professionals? “Women and physicians alike need to be very mindful of pre-existing mood disorders,” Dr. Rasgon said. “Women who in the past had anxiety disorders, mood swings, PTSD, or prior episodes of depression might have a differential response to hormone therapy in menopause.”
Also keep in mind, she said, that the transition from menopause to post menopause is “very volatile,” and depression may break through even in women undergoing treatment for the condition.
For her part, Dr. Osler said this study and others “emphasize the need for clinical guidelines to further consider the psychological side effects of systemic HT.”
Funding information was not provided. The study authors and Dr. Rasgon have no disclosures.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
Post Roe, pregnant SCD patients facing “dire” risks
When maternal-fetal medicine specialist Andra James, MD, MPH, trained as a midwife decades ago, women with sickle cell disease (SCD) were urged to never get pregnant. If they did, termination was considered the best option.
“If they did carry a pregnancy, the baby would not survive to the point of viability,” Dr. James, emeritus professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Duke University, Durham, N.C., recalled in an interview.
The fates of women with SCD have transformed dramatically since those grim days. In general, this blood disorder no longer robs patients of decades of life, and many women with SCD bear healthy children. But their pregnancies are still considered high risk with significant potential for health crises and death. Now, there’s a new complication: The overturning of Roe v. Wade.
For example, women with SCD may be unable able to seek elective abortions in some states even if their pregnancies pose a danger to their lives. And abortion restrictions are imperiling access to a medication that’s used to treat miscarriages, which are more common in women with SCD.
“The situation with Dobbs is dire, and maternal health care is being compromised,” Johns Hopkins University pediatric hematologist Lydia Pecker, MD, who treats young people with SCD and studies its impact on pregnancy, said in an interview. “Women with sickle cell disease who are pregnant constitute an underserved and understudied population with special health care needs, and the Dobbs decision will only make providing their care even more difficult in many parts of the country.”
For her part, Dr. James described the risk to pregnant women with SCD this way: In the wake of the court ruling, “we increase the opportunity for them to lose their lives and for their babies to die.”
SCD’s impact on pregnancy
While physicians no longer advise women with SCD to avoid motherhood, pregnancy is still uniquely dangerous for them. “Most of them have babies and children who are thriving, but it’s not easy for them,” University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill hematologist and SCD specialist Jane Little, MD, said in an interview. And in some cases, she said, pregnancies “do not end well.”
For a 2022 report, Dr. Pecker and colleagues analyzed 2012-2018 data for 6,610 U.S. hospital admissions among women with SCD (87% of whom were Black). These women were more likely than were unaffected women to suffer severe maternal morbidity (odds ratio[OR], 4.63, 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.16-5.16, P < .001). Cerebrovascular event were especially more common in SCD (OR, 13.94, P < .001).
According to a 2019 report, pregnant women with SCD “are more likely to develop a host of complications, particularly hypertensive syndromes (such as preeclampsia), venous thromboembolism (VTE), preterm labor, and fetal loss. Newborns are more likely to have growth problems and prematurity.”
Although data are sparse, experts say it’s also clear that women with SCD face significantly higher risk of death in pregnancy compared to other women. In fact, the maternal mortality rate for females with SCD “is higher than for Black females without SCD, who already suffer from a higher mortality rate than White females during pregnancy and childbirth,” Andrea Roe, MD, MPH, assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in an interview.
Women with SCD also are more likely to have premature and stillborn births.
Some of the health challenges in pregnant women with SCD stem from the body’s inability to boost blood production in order to supply the placenta, said Dr. James, the Duke University emeritus professor. “Her bone marrow is already turning out red blood cells as fast as it can.”
In addition, she said, these women are more susceptible to infection, blood clots, and damage to the kidneys and lungs.
Still, in most cases of SCD in pregnancy, “we counsel a woman that we can get you safely through it,” Dr. James said. “But there is a subset of patients that will have organ damage from their sickle cell disease and should not become pregnant or stay pregnant if they become pregnant.”
Court ruling limits options in some states
The Dobbs ruling affects pregnant women with SCD in two ways: It allows states to restrict or ban abortion to greater extents than were possible over the last 50 years, and it has spawned further limitations on access to mifepristone, which is commonly used to treat early miscarriages.
In some cases, Dr. James said, abortions in this population are elective. “People with sickle cell disease are frequently in pain, they are frequently hospitalized. They may have suffered strokes or subclinical strokes or have some cognitive impairment, and they don’t have the mental and physical fortitude [to tolerate pregnancy and birth].”
In other cases, abortions are medically necessary to preserve the mother’s life. The American Society of Hematology highlighted the risks posed by SCD to maternal health in a June 24 statement that criticized the Dobbs ruling. “In some cases, denying women their right to terminate a pregnancy puts them at risk of serious illness or death,” wrote Jane N. Winter, MD, president of ASH and professor of medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago.
There do not appear to be any statistics about abortion rates among women with SCD in the United States or whether the rates are higher than in other groups.
As for miscarriages in SCD, an analysis of first pregnancies in California women with SCD from 1991 to 2016 found that about 16% were “incomplete,” mainly (59.3%) from miscarriage.
The Dobbs ruling allows states to further restrict the drug combination of mifepristone and misoprostol, which is used to trigger abortions and to treat early pregnancy loss. Access to mifepristone was already limited prior to the ruling due to tight regulation, and advocates say it’s now even harder to get.
What now? Physicians urge focus on contraception
As the ramifications of the Dobbs ruling sink in, SCD specialists are emphasizing the importance of providing gynecological and contraceptive care to help women with the condition avoid unwanted pregnancies. At the University of North Carolina, “we’re pretty aggressive about trying to give women the option to see a gynecologist to get the best care they can,” Dr. Little said. “We have a shared gynecology and sickle cell clinic because we really want women to be making the choice [to become pregnant] when they are ready because it’s a strain on their health and their lives.”
Dr. Pecker, the Johns Hopkins University pediatric hematologist, urged colleagues to partner with maternal-fetal medicine specialists so they can quickly get help for pregnant patients when needed. “That way they can get high-quality pregnancy care and help to end pregnancies that need to be ended.”
She recommended “highly effective” progesterone-based birth control as the best first-line contraceptive for women with SCD. And, she said, every woman of child-bearing age with SCD should be assessed annually for their intentions regarding pregnancy. As she put it, “there’s so much that we can do to reduce harms.”
Dr. Pecker disclosed financial relationships with the National Institutes of Health, American Society of Hematology, Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, the Mellon Foundation, Global Blood Therapeutics, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Little disclosed financial relationships with Global Blood Therapeutics, Bluebird Bio, and Forma Therapeutics. Dr. Roe has no disclosures.
When maternal-fetal medicine specialist Andra James, MD, MPH, trained as a midwife decades ago, women with sickle cell disease (SCD) were urged to never get pregnant. If they did, termination was considered the best option.
“If they did carry a pregnancy, the baby would not survive to the point of viability,” Dr. James, emeritus professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Duke University, Durham, N.C., recalled in an interview.
The fates of women with SCD have transformed dramatically since those grim days. In general, this blood disorder no longer robs patients of decades of life, and many women with SCD bear healthy children. But their pregnancies are still considered high risk with significant potential for health crises and death. Now, there’s a new complication: The overturning of Roe v. Wade.
For example, women with SCD may be unable able to seek elective abortions in some states even if their pregnancies pose a danger to their lives. And abortion restrictions are imperiling access to a medication that’s used to treat miscarriages, which are more common in women with SCD.
“The situation with Dobbs is dire, and maternal health care is being compromised,” Johns Hopkins University pediatric hematologist Lydia Pecker, MD, who treats young people with SCD and studies its impact on pregnancy, said in an interview. “Women with sickle cell disease who are pregnant constitute an underserved and understudied population with special health care needs, and the Dobbs decision will only make providing their care even more difficult in many parts of the country.”
For her part, Dr. James described the risk to pregnant women with SCD this way: In the wake of the court ruling, “we increase the opportunity for them to lose their lives and for their babies to die.”
SCD’s impact on pregnancy
While physicians no longer advise women with SCD to avoid motherhood, pregnancy is still uniquely dangerous for them. “Most of them have babies and children who are thriving, but it’s not easy for them,” University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill hematologist and SCD specialist Jane Little, MD, said in an interview. And in some cases, she said, pregnancies “do not end well.”
For a 2022 report, Dr. Pecker and colleagues analyzed 2012-2018 data for 6,610 U.S. hospital admissions among women with SCD (87% of whom were Black). These women were more likely than were unaffected women to suffer severe maternal morbidity (odds ratio[OR], 4.63, 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.16-5.16, P < .001). Cerebrovascular event were especially more common in SCD (OR, 13.94, P < .001).
According to a 2019 report, pregnant women with SCD “are more likely to develop a host of complications, particularly hypertensive syndromes (such as preeclampsia), venous thromboembolism (VTE), preterm labor, and fetal loss. Newborns are more likely to have growth problems and prematurity.”
Although data are sparse, experts say it’s also clear that women with SCD face significantly higher risk of death in pregnancy compared to other women. In fact, the maternal mortality rate for females with SCD “is higher than for Black females without SCD, who already suffer from a higher mortality rate than White females during pregnancy and childbirth,” Andrea Roe, MD, MPH, assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in an interview.
Women with SCD also are more likely to have premature and stillborn births.
Some of the health challenges in pregnant women with SCD stem from the body’s inability to boost blood production in order to supply the placenta, said Dr. James, the Duke University emeritus professor. “Her bone marrow is already turning out red blood cells as fast as it can.”
In addition, she said, these women are more susceptible to infection, blood clots, and damage to the kidneys and lungs.
Still, in most cases of SCD in pregnancy, “we counsel a woman that we can get you safely through it,” Dr. James said. “But there is a subset of patients that will have organ damage from their sickle cell disease and should not become pregnant or stay pregnant if they become pregnant.”
Court ruling limits options in some states
The Dobbs ruling affects pregnant women with SCD in two ways: It allows states to restrict or ban abortion to greater extents than were possible over the last 50 years, and it has spawned further limitations on access to mifepristone, which is commonly used to treat early miscarriages.
In some cases, Dr. James said, abortions in this population are elective. “People with sickle cell disease are frequently in pain, they are frequently hospitalized. They may have suffered strokes or subclinical strokes or have some cognitive impairment, and they don’t have the mental and physical fortitude [to tolerate pregnancy and birth].”
In other cases, abortions are medically necessary to preserve the mother’s life. The American Society of Hematology highlighted the risks posed by SCD to maternal health in a June 24 statement that criticized the Dobbs ruling. “In some cases, denying women their right to terminate a pregnancy puts them at risk of serious illness or death,” wrote Jane N. Winter, MD, president of ASH and professor of medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago.
There do not appear to be any statistics about abortion rates among women with SCD in the United States or whether the rates are higher than in other groups.
As for miscarriages in SCD, an analysis of first pregnancies in California women with SCD from 1991 to 2016 found that about 16% were “incomplete,” mainly (59.3%) from miscarriage.
The Dobbs ruling allows states to further restrict the drug combination of mifepristone and misoprostol, which is used to trigger abortions and to treat early pregnancy loss. Access to mifepristone was already limited prior to the ruling due to tight regulation, and advocates say it’s now even harder to get.
What now? Physicians urge focus on contraception
As the ramifications of the Dobbs ruling sink in, SCD specialists are emphasizing the importance of providing gynecological and contraceptive care to help women with the condition avoid unwanted pregnancies. At the University of North Carolina, “we’re pretty aggressive about trying to give women the option to see a gynecologist to get the best care they can,” Dr. Little said. “We have a shared gynecology and sickle cell clinic because we really want women to be making the choice [to become pregnant] when they are ready because it’s a strain on their health and their lives.”
Dr. Pecker, the Johns Hopkins University pediatric hematologist, urged colleagues to partner with maternal-fetal medicine specialists so they can quickly get help for pregnant patients when needed. “That way they can get high-quality pregnancy care and help to end pregnancies that need to be ended.”
She recommended “highly effective” progesterone-based birth control as the best first-line contraceptive for women with SCD. And, she said, every woman of child-bearing age with SCD should be assessed annually for their intentions regarding pregnancy. As she put it, “there’s so much that we can do to reduce harms.”
Dr. Pecker disclosed financial relationships with the National Institutes of Health, American Society of Hematology, Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, the Mellon Foundation, Global Blood Therapeutics, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Little disclosed financial relationships with Global Blood Therapeutics, Bluebird Bio, and Forma Therapeutics. Dr. Roe has no disclosures.
When maternal-fetal medicine specialist Andra James, MD, MPH, trained as a midwife decades ago, women with sickle cell disease (SCD) were urged to never get pregnant. If they did, termination was considered the best option.
“If they did carry a pregnancy, the baby would not survive to the point of viability,” Dr. James, emeritus professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Duke University, Durham, N.C., recalled in an interview.
The fates of women with SCD have transformed dramatically since those grim days. In general, this blood disorder no longer robs patients of decades of life, and many women with SCD bear healthy children. But their pregnancies are still considered high risk with significant potential for health crises and death. Now, there’s a new complication: The overturning of Roe v. Wade.
For example, women with SCD may be unable able to seek elective abortions in some states even if their pregnancies pose a danger to their lives. And abortion restrictions are imperiling access to a medication that’s used to treat miscarriages, which are more common in women with SCD.
“The situation with Dobbs is dire, and maternal health care is being compromised,” Johns Hopkins University pediatric hematologist Lydia Pecker, MD, who treats young people with SCD and studies its impact on pregnancy, said in an interview. “Women with sickle cell disease who are pregnant constitute an underserved and understudied population with special health care needs, and the Dobbs decision will only make providing their care even more difficult in many parts of the country.”
For her part, Dr. James described the risk to pregnant women with SCD this way: In the wake of the court ruling, “we increase the opportunity for them to lose their lives and for their babies to die.”
SCD’s impact on pregnancy
While physicians no longer advise women with SCD to avoid motherhood, pregnancy is still uniquely dangerous for them. “Most of them have babies and children who are thriving, but it’s not easy for them,” University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill hematologist and SCD specialist Jane Little, MD, said in an interview. And in some cases, she said, pregnancies “do not end well.”
For a 2022 report, Dr. Pecker and colleagues analyzed 2012-2018 data for 6,610 U.S. hospital admissions among women with SCD (87% of whom were Black). These women were more likely than were unaffected women to suffer severe maternal morbidity (odds ratio[OR], 4.63, 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.16-5.16, P < .001). Cerebrovascular event were especially more common in SCD (OR, 13.94, P < .001).
According to a 2019 report, pregnant women with SCD “are more likely to develop a host of complications, particularly hypertensive syndromes (such as preeclampsia), venous thromboembolism (VTE), preterm labor, and fetal loss. Newborns are more likely to have growth problems and prematurity.”
Although data are sparse, experts say it’s also clear that women with SCD face significantly higher risk of death in pregnancy compared to other women. In fact, the maternal mortality rate for females with SCD “is higher than for Black females without SCD, who already suffer from a higher mortality rate than White females during pregnancy and childbirth,” Andrea Roe, MD, MPH, assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in an interview.
Women with SCD also are more likely to have premature and stillborn births.
Some of the health challenges in pregnant women with SCD stem from the body’s inability to boost blood production in order to supply the placenta, said Dr. James, the Duke University emeritus professor. “Her bone marrow is already turning out red blood cells as fast as it can.”
In addition, she said, these women are more susceptible to infection, blood clots, and damage to the kidneys and lungs.
Still, in most cases of SCD in pregnancy, “we counsel a woman that we can get you safely through it,” Dr. James said. “But there is a subset of patients that will have organ damage from their sickle cell disease and should not become pregnant or stay pregnant if they become pregnant.”
Court ruling limits options in some states
The Dobbs ruling affects pregnant women with SCD in two ways: It allows states to restrict or ban abortion to greater extents than were possible over the last 50 years, and it has spawned further limitations on access to mifepristone, which is commonly used to treat early miscarriages.
In some cases, Dr. James said, abortions in this population are elective. “People with sickle cell disease are frequently in pain, they are frequently hospitalized. They may have suffered strokes or subclinical strokes or have some cognitive impairment, and they don’t have the mental and physical fortitude [to tolerate pregnancy and birth].”
In other cases, abortions are medically necessary to preserve the mother’s life. The American Society of Hematology highlighted the risks posed by SCD to maternal health in a June 24 statement that criticized the Dobbs ruling. “In some cases, denying women their right to terminate a pregnancy puts them at risk of serious illness or death,” wrote Jane N. Winter, MD, president of ASH and professor of medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago.
There do not appear to be any statistics about abortion rates among women with SCD in the United States or whether the rates are higher than in other groups.
As for miscarriages in SCD, an analysis of first pregnancies in California women with SCD from 1991 to 2016 found that about 16% were “incomplete,” mainly (59.3%) from miscarriage.
The Dobbs ruling allows states to further restrict the drug combination of mifepristone and misoprostol, which is used to trigger abortions and to treat early pregnancy loss. Access to mifepristone was already limited prior to the ruling due to tight regulation, and advocates say it’s now even harder to get.
What now? Physicians urge focus on contraception
As the ramifications of the Dobbs ruling sink in, SCD specialists are emphasizing the importance of providing gynecological and contraceptive care to help women with the condition avoid unwanted pregnancies. At the University of North Carolina, “we’re pretty aggressive about trying to give women the option to see a gynecologist to get the best care they can,” Dr. Little said. “We have a shared gynecology and sickle cell clinic because we really want women to be making the choice [to become pregnant] when they are ready because it’s a strain on their health and their lives.”
Dr. Pecker, the Johns Hopkins University pediatric hematologist, urged colleagues to partner with maternal-fetal medicine specialists so they can quickly get help for pregnant patients when needed. “That way they can get high-quality pregnancy care and help to end pregnancies that need to be ended.”
She recommended “highly effective” progesterone-based birth control as the best first-line contraceptive for women with SCD. And, she said, every woman of child-bearing age with SCD should be assessed annually for their intentions regarding pregnancy. As she put it, “there’s so much that we can do to reduce harms.”
Dr. Pecker disclosed financial relationships with the National Institutes of Health, American Society of Hematology, Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, the Mellon Foundation, Global Blood Therapeutics, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Little disclosed financial relationships with Global Blood Therapeutics, Bluebird Bio, and Forma Therapeutics. Dr. Roe has no disclosures.
Fertility physicians say they lack access to miscarriage drugs
In a survey taken before the Supreme Court’s Dobbs ruling regarding abortion rights, two-thirds of assisted reproduction technology (ART) physicians who don’t offer mifepristone/misoprostol to patients with early pregnancy loss (EPL) reported that they lack access to the drugs.
The numbers are likely higher now. In the wake of the court ruling, some physicians in states with new abortion restrictions fear they won’t be able to properly treat women with miscarriages. Access to mifepristone, a component of medication abortions along with misoprostol, is at the center of their concerns.
“These restrictions that were put in place to restrict abortion care have far-reaching implications regarding miscarriages and early pregnancy loss and the assisted reproduction community is not immune,” obstetrics and gynecology specialist Zachary Anderson, MD, a resident physician at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said in an interview. He presented the findings at the American Society for Reproductive Medicine’s 2022 meeting.
Early pregnancy loss – defined as a miscarriage within 12 weeks and 6 days of conception – is common in all pregnancies and affects an estimated 15% of those who rely on in vitro fertilization (IVF). In women who conceive through intrauterine insemination or IVF, “an abnormal karyotype embryo/fetus is the cause of miscarriage in more than two-thirds of cases,” Mark P. Trolice, MD, director of the IVF Center and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando, said in an interview. “The options of management are observation – with no ability to determine when passage of the products of conception will occur – vs. mifepristone/misoprostol or suction D&C.”
Dr. Trolice added that “most woman select the medical treatment protocol, which is 200 mg mifepristone orally followed by 800 mcg misoprostol vaginally 24 hours later. If no signs of heavy bleeding occur after 3 hours following misoprostol, the patient should repeat the dose of 800 micrograms vaginally.”
According to the Reuters news service, some abortion bans target mifepristone. In October 2022, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists asked the Food and Drug Administration to approve mifepristone for use in miscarriage management; such use is now off label, although it is approved to end early pregnancies in conjunction with misoprostol.
For the new study, researchers sent anonymous surveys to 826 members of the Society of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility and received 101 responses (12% response rate, 51% women, 86% non-Hispanic White, average age 52, 52% urban, and 51% in private practice).
More than two-thirds (70%) said they diagnosed early pregnancy loss at least once a week; 47% prefer treatment with misoprostol alone, 18% surgery in an operating room, 15% expectant management (monitoring a miscarriage as it occurs without medical intervention), 10% surgery in the office, and 3% mifepristone-misoprostol.
Of those who don’t offer mifepristone-misoprostol, 68% said they lack access, and 26% said they lack familiarity with the treatment.
Study coauthor Brian T. Nguyen, MD, MSc, assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at USC, said in an interview that mifepristone, a highly effective drug, is treated differently from other medications “for no good reason.”
Dr. Anderson, who led the study, urged colleagues to get the appropriate certification to prescribe mifepristone. “Providers overestimate how difficult it is to become certified to prescribe it,” he said.
Dr. Trolice, who is familiar with the study findings, said the response rate is low, and the results might be biased because those with preconceived opinions may be more likely to respond.
However, he said, “The results are not surprising in that medication is more commonly preferred (nearly 50%) given the devastation of a miscarriage and the desire to expedite resolution. Approximately one-third prefer surgical management, which would allow for genetic testing of the embryo/fetus to potentially determine a cause of the pregnancy loss.”
As for the medications used to treat early pregnancy loss, many ART physicians “treat pregnancy loss with misoprostol both pre- and post Dobbs,” he said. “The difficulty in obtaining mifepristone remains.”
The study authors and Dr. Trolice report no disclosures.
In a survey taken before the Supreme Court’s Dobbs ruling regarding abortion rights, two-thirds of assisted reproduction technology (ART) physicians who don’t offer mifepristone/misoprostol to patients with early pregnancy loss (EPL) reported that they lack access to the drugs.
The numbers are likely higher now. In the wake of the court ruling, some physicians in states with new abortion restrictions fear they won’t be able to properly treat women with miscarriages. Access to mifepristone, a component of medication abortions along with misoprostol, is at the center of their concerns.
“These restrictions that were put in place to restrict abortion care have far-reaching implications regarding miscarriages and early pregnancy loss and the assisted reproduction community is not immune,” obstetrics and gynecology specialist Zachary Anderson, MD, a resident physician at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said in an interview. He presented the findings at the American Society for Reproductive Medicine’s 2022 meeting.
Early pregnancy loss – defined as a miscarriage within 12 weeks and 6 days of conception – is common in all pregnancies and affects an estimated 15% of those who rely on in vitro fertilization (IVF). In women who conceive through intrauterine insemination or IVF, “an abnormal karyotype embryo/fetus is the cause of miscarriage in more than two-thirds of cases,” Mark P. Trolice, MD, director of the IVF Center and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando, said in an interview. “The options of management are observation – with no ability to determine when passage of the products of conception will occur – vs. mifepristone/misoprostol or suction D&C.”
Dr. Trolice added that “most woman select the medical treatment protocol, which is 200 mg mifepristone orally followed by 800 mcg misoprostol vaginally 24 hours later. If no signs of heavy bleeding occur after 3 hours following misoprostol, the patient should repeat the dose of 800 micrograms vaginally.”
According to the Reuters news service, some abortion bans target mifepristone. In October 2022, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists asked the Food and Drug Administration to approve mifepristone for use in miscarriage management; such use is now off label, although it is approved to end early pregnancies in conjunction with misoprostol.
For the new study, researchers sent anonymous surveys to 826 members of the Society of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility and received 101 responses (12% response rate, 51% women, 86% non-Hispanic White, average age 52, 52% urban, and 51% in private practice).
More than two-thirds (70%) said they diagnosed early pregnancy loss at least once a week; 47% prefer treatment with misoprostol alone, 18% surgery in an operating room, 15% expectant management (monitoring a miscarriage as it occurs without medical intervention), 10% surgery in the office, and 3% mifepristone-misoprostol.
Of those who don’t offer mifepristone-misoprostol, 68% said they lack access, and 26% said they lack familiarity with the treatment.
Study coauthor Brian T. Nguyen, MD, MSc, assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at USC, said in an interview that mifepristone, a highly effective drug, is treated differently from other medications “for no good reason.”
Dr. Anderson, who led the study, urged colleagues to get the appropriate certification to prescribe mifepristone. “Providers overestimate how difficult it is to become certified to prescribe it,” he said.
Dr. Trolice, who is familiar with the study findings, said the response rate is low, and the results might be biased because those with preconceived opinions may be more likely to respond.
However, he said, “The results are not surprising in that medication is more commonly preferred (nearly 50%) given the devastation of a miscarriage and the desire to expedite resolution. Approximately one-third prefer surgical management, which would allow for genetic testing of the embryo/fetus to potentially determine a cause of the pregnancy loss.”
As for the medications used to treat early pregnancy loss, many ART physicians “treat pregnancy loss with misoprostol both pre- and post Dobbs,” he said. “The difficulty in obtaining mifepristone remains.”
The study authors and Dr. Trolice report no disclosures.
In a survey taken before the Supreme Court’s Dobbs ruling regarding abortion rights, two-thirds of assisted reproduction technology (ART) physicians who don’t offer mifepristone/misoprostol to patients with early pregnancy loss (EPL) reported that they lack access to the drugs.
The numbers are likely higher now. In the wake of the court ruling, some physicians in states with new abortion restrictions fear they won’t be able to properly treat women with miscarriages. Access to mifepristone, a component of medication abortions along with misoprostol, is at the center of their concerns.
“These restrictions that were put in place to restrict abortion care have far-reaching implications regarding miscarriages and early pregnancy loss and the assisted reproduction community is not immune,” obstetrics and gynecology specialist Zachary Anderson, MD, a resident physician at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said in an interview. He presented the findings at the American Society for Reproductive Medicine’s 2022 meeting.
Early pregnancy loss – defined as a miscarriage within 12 weeks and 6 days of conception – is common in all pregnancies and affects an estimated 15% of those who rely on in vitro fertilization (IVF). In women who conceive through intrauterine insemination or IVF, “an abnormal karyotype embryo/fetus is the cause of miscarriage in more than two-thirds of cases,” Mark P. Trolice, MD, director of the IVF Center and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando, said in an interview. “The options of management are observation – with no ability to determine when passage of the products of conception will occur – vs. mifepristone/misoprostol or suction D&C.”
Dr. Trolice added that “most woman select the medical treatment protocol, which is 200 mg mifepristone orally followed by 800 mcg misoprostol vaginally 24 hours later. If no signs of heavy bleeding occur after 3 hours following misoprostol, the patient should repeat the dose of 800 micrograms vaginally.”
According to the Reuters news service, some abortion bans target mifepristone. In October 2022, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists asked the Food and Drug Administration to approve mifepristone for use in miscarriage management; such use is now off label, although it is approved to end early pregnancies in conjunction with misoprostol.
For the new study, researchers sent anonymous surveys to 826 members of the Society of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility and received 101 responses (12% response rate, 51% women, 86% non-Hispanic White, average age 52, 52% urban, and 51% in private practice).
More than two-thirds (70%) said they diagnosed early pregnancy loss at least once a week; 47% prefer treatment with misoprostol alone, 18% surgery in an operating room, 15% expectant management (monitoring a miscarriage as it occurs without medical intervention), 10% surgery in the office, and 3% mifepristone-misoprostol.
Of those who don’t offer mifepristone-misoprostol, 68% said they lack access, and 26% said they lack familiarity with the treatment.
Study coauthor Brian T. Nguyen, MD, MSc, assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at USC, said in an interview that mifepristone, a highly effective drug, is treated differently from other medications “for no good reason.”
Dr. Anderson, who led the study, urged colleagues to get the appropriate certification to prescribe mifepristone. “Providers overestimate how difficult it is to become certified to prescribe it,” he said.
Dr. Trolice, who is familiar with the study findings, said the response rate is low, and the results might be biased because those with preconceived opinions may be more likely to respond.
However, he said, “The results are not surprising in that medication is more commonly preferred (nearly 50%) given the devastation of a miscarriage and the desire to expedite resolution. Approximately one-third prefer surgical management, which would allow for genetic testing of the embryo/fetus to potentially determine a cause of the pregnancy loss.”
As for the medications used to treat early pregnancy loss, many ART physicians “treat pregnancy loss with misoprostol both pre- and post Dobbs,” he said. “The difficulty in obtaining mifepristone remains.”
The study authors and Dr. Trolice report no disclosures.
FROM ASRM 2022
HPV-positive women who undergo IVF don’t have worse outcomes
A new study provides more evidence that HPV infection doesn’t raise the risk of poor outcomes in women who undergo fertility treatment via in vitro fertilization with fresh embryos. In fact, HPV-positive women were somewhat more likely than HPV-negative women to become pregnant (relative risk, 1.20; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.39) and have live births (RR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.13-1.70), researchers reported Oct. 24 at the American Society for Reproductive Medicine’s 2022 meeting .
“This evidence should reassure women that being HPV positive will not affect live birth rates after a fresh embryo transfer cycle,” said study coauthor and ob.gyn. Nina Vyas, MD, a clinical fellow at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, in an interview.
According to Dr. Vyas, previous studies have offered conflicting results about whether HPV affects pregnancy outcomes. In 2006, for example, her group performed a pilot study (Fertil Steril. Jun 16. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.01.051) that linked lower pregnancy rates to HPV-positive tests on the day of egg retrieval.
“We sought to reevaluate this finding in a retrospective manner,” Dr. Vyas said. “You’re taking eggs out of their home, injecting with sperm, and putting them back. There’s so much that we don’t know, and we want to make sure there’s no extra risk.”
Also, she added, “prior studies had a relatively low sample size. We sought to use our patient volume to address this question on a larger scale. Our current study benefits from a large sample size and using the clinically meaningful endpoint of live birth as our primary outcome.”
For the new study, researchers retrospectively analyzed 1,333 patients (of 2,209 screened) who received first fresh embryo transfers from 2017 to 2019. All had cytology or HPV status documented per cervical cancer screening guidelines within 6 months before embryos were transferred.
The researchers looked at only fresh embryo transfers “so we could account for pregnancy outcomes closest to the documented HPV status at the time of egg retrieval,” Dr. Vyas said.
Ten percent (133) of patients were HPV positive. Of those, 60.1% became pregnant, and 43.6% of them had live births. Of the HPV-negative women (90% of subjects, n = 1,200), 52.2% became pregnant and 33.5% had live births. The researchers didn’t calculate P values, but Dr. Vyas said an analysis determined that the differences between HPV-positive and HPV-negative women were statistically significant.
The study size doesn’t allow researchers to determine whether HPV actually has a protective effect on pregnancy/live birth rates in IVF, Dr. Vyas said. Even if it did, the virus is dangerous.
What else could explain the discrepancy? “Some elements driving this could the smaller sample size of the HPV-positive group, differences in HPV prevalence between the general population and our population,” she said, “or other confounding factors we were not able to appreciate due to the limitations of the retrospective study.”
Researchers also reported that they found “no significant difference in biochemical or spontaneous abortion rates” between HPV-positive and HPV-negative women.
What is the message of the study? “Women with HPV can rest assured that they won’t have worse outcomes than their non-HPV [infected] counterparts after a fresh embryo transfer cycle,” Dr. Vyas said.
In an interview, McGill University, Montreal, epidemiologist Helen Trottier, PhD, MSc, noted that she recently coauthored a study that linked persistent HPV infection in pregnancy to premature births. The findings appear convincing, she said: “I think we can say that HPV is associated with preterm birth.”
She praised the new study but noted “the relative risks that are reported need to be adjusted for race and possibly other factors.”
Dr. Vyas said that kind of adjustment will occur in a future study that’s in progress. “We are now prospectively enrolling patients and collecting cytology data to understand whether there might be a difference for women with higher malignancy potential/different types of HPV genotypes.”
The study authors have no disclosures. Disclosure information for Dr. Trottier was unavailable.
A new study provides more evidence that HPV infection doesn’t raise the risk of poor outcomes in women who undergo fertility treatment via in vitro fertilization with fresh embryos. In fact, HPV-positive women were somewhat more likely than HPV-negative women to become pregnant (relative risk, 1.20; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.39) and have live births (RR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.13-1.70), researchers reported Oct. 24 at the American Society for Reproductive Medicine’s 2022 meeting .
“This evidence should reassure women that being HPV positive will not affect live birth rates after a fresh embryo transfer cycle,” said study coauthor and ob.gyn. Nina Vyas, MD, a clinical fellow at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, in an interview.
According to Dr. Vyas, previous studies have offered conflicting results about whether HPV affects pregnancy outcomes. In 2006, for example, her group performed a pilot study (Fertil Steril. Jun 16. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.01.051) that linked lower pregnancy rates to HPV-positive tests on the day of egg retrieval.
“We sought to reevaluate this finding in a retrospective manner,” Dr. Vyas said. “You’re taking eggs out of their home, injecting with sperm, and putting them back. There’s so much that we don’t know, and we want to make sure there’s no extra risk.”
Also, she added, “prior studies had a relatively low sample size. We sought to use our patient volume to address this question on a larger scale. Our current study benefits from a large sample size and using the clinically meaningful endpoint of live birth as our primary outcome.”
For the new study, researchers retrospectively analyzed 1,333 patients (of 2,209 screened) who received first fresh embryo transfers from 2017 to 2019. All had cytology or HPV status documented per cervical cancer screening guidelines within 6 months before embryos were transferred.
The researchers looked at only fresh embryo transfers “so we could account for pregnancy outcomes closest to the documented HPV status at the time of egg retrieval,” Dr. Vyas said.
Ten percent (133) of patients were HPV positive. Of those, 60.1% became pregnant, and 43.6% of them had live births. Of the HPV-negative women (90% of subjects, n = 1,200), 52.2% became pregnant and 33.5% had live births. The researchers didn’t calculate P values, but Dr. Vyas said an analysis determined that the differences between HPV-positive and HPV-negative women were statistically significant.
The study size doesn’t allow researchers to determine whether HPV actually has a protective effect on pregnancy/live birth rates in IVF, Dr. Vyas said. Even if it did, the virus is dangerous.
What else could explain the discrepancy? “Some elements driving this could the smaller sample size of the HPV-positive group, differences in HPV prevalence between the general population and our population,” she said, “or other confounding factors we were not able to appreciate due to the limitations of the retrospective study.”
Researchers also reported that they found “no significant difference in biochemical or spontaneous abortion rates” between HPV-positive and HPV-negative women.
What is the message of the study? “Women with HPV can rest assured that they won’t have worse outcomes than their non-HPV [infected] counterparts after a fresh embryo transfer cycle,” Dr. Vyas said.
In an interview, McGill University, Montreal, epidemiologist Helen Trottier, PhD, MSc, noted that she recently coauthored a study that linked persistent HPV infection in pregnancy to premature births. The findings appear convincing, she said: “I think we can say that HPV is associated with preterm birth.”
She praised the new study but noted “the relative risks that are reported need to be adjusted for race and possibly other factors.”
Dr. Vyas said that kind of adjustment will occur in a future study that’s in progress. “We are now prospectively enrolling patients and collecting cytology data to understand whether there might be a difference for women with higher malignancy potential/different types of HPV genotypes.”
The study authors have no disclosures. Disclosure information for Dr. Trottier was unavailable.
A new study provides more evidence that HPV infection doesn’t raise the risk of poor outcomes in women who undergo fertility treatment via in vitro fertilization with fresh embryos. In fact, HPV-positive women were somewhat more likely than HPV-negative women to become pregnant (relative risk, 1.20; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.39) and have live births (RR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.13-1.70), researchers reported Oct. 24 at the American Society for Reproductive Medicine’s 2022 meeting .
“This evidence should reassure women that being HPV positive will not affect live birth rates after a fresh embryo transfer cycle,” said study coauthor and ob.gyn. Nina Vyas, MD, a clinical fellow at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, in an interview.
According to Dr. Vyas, previous studies have offered conflicting results about whether HPV affects pregnancy outcomes. In 2006, for example, her group performed a pilot study (Fertil Steril. Jun 16. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.01.051) that linked lower pregnancy rates to HPV-positive tests on the day of egg retrieval.
“We sought to reevaluate this finding in a retrospective manner,” Dr. Vyas said. “You’re taking eggs out of their home, injecting with sperm, and putting them back. There’s so much that we don’t know, and we want to make sure there’s no extra risk.”
Also, she added, “prior studies had a relatively low sample size. We sought to use our patient volume to address this question on a larger scale. Our current study benefits from a large sample size and using the clinically meaningful endpoint of live birth as our primary outcome.”
For the new study, researchers retrospectively analyzed 1,333 patients (of 2,209 screened) who received first fresh embryo transfers from 2017 to 2019. All had cytology or HPV status documented per cervical cancer screening guidelines within 6 months before embryos were transferred.
The researchers looked at only fresh embryo transfers “so we could account for pregnancy outcomes closest to the documented HPV status at the time of egg retrieval,” Dr. Vyas said.
Ten percent (133) of patients were HPV positive. Of those, 60.1% became pregnant, and 43.6% of them had live births. Of the HPV-negative women (90% of subjects, n = 1,200), 52.2% became pregnant and 33.5% had live births. The researchers didn’t calculate P values, but Dr. Vyas said an analysis determined that the differences between HPV-positive and HPV-negative women were statistically significant.
The study size doesn’t allow researchers to determine whether HPV actually has a protective effect on pregnancy/live birth rates in IVF, Dr. Vyas said. Even if it did, the virus is dangerous.
What else could explain the discrepancy? “Some elements driving this could the smaller sample size of the HPV-positive group, differences in HPV prevalence between the general population and our population,” she said, “or other confounding factors we were not able to appreciate due to the limitations of the retrospective study.”
Researchers also reported that they found “no significant difference in biochemical or spontaneous abortion rates” between HPV-positive and HPV-negative women.
What is the message of the study? “Women with HPV can rest assured that they won’t have worse outcomes than their non-HPV [infected] counterparts after a fresh embryo transfer cycle,” Dr. Vyas said.
In an interview, McGill University, Montreal, epidemiologist Helen Trottier, PhD, MSc, noted that she recently coauthored a study that linked persistent HPV infection in pregnancy to premature births. The findings appear convincing, she said: “I think we can say that HPV is associated with preterm birth.”
She praised the new study but noted “the relative risks that are reported need to be adjusted for race and possibly other factors.”
Dr. Vyas said that kind of adjustment will occur in a future study that’s in progress. “We are now prospectively enrolling patients and collecting cytology data to understand whether there might be a difference for women with higher malignancy potential/different types of HPV genotypes.”
The study authors have no disclosures. Disclosure information for Dr. Trottier was unavailable.
FROM ASRM 2022
Tips on Better Patients Communication
SAN DIEGO—Don’t stand when you talk at bedside. Ditch the white gowns, turn away from your computers and pagers, and stop yourself from interrupting all the time.
These tips—and more—can help clinicians provide better and more effective care, said a colorectal surgeon who spoke about communication skills at the annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO).
Research has suggested that nearly half of Americans don’t think their health care practitioners (HCPs) are compassionate, “and that’s really sad,” said Lorene Valdez-Boyle, MD, MS, surgery chief at the New Mexico VA Health Care Service.
To combat this perception, she said, HCPs can adopt multiple strategies as they work with veterans and their families. The goal, she said, is “to try to get them to trust you and want to be part of their treatment. This is how we're going to have better outcomes.”
Some strategies are simple. Dr. Valdez-Boyle, for example, doesn’t wear a white gown when she sees patients. “Obviously, they’re really gross,” she said. “But also, I want them to be comfortable with me. I sit down at their level, and we have a conversation. We talk about our dogs and we bond, because that’s going to help them trust me and want to work with me. I do that with families too. We joke, and we laugh.”
Sitting bedside instead of standing is important, she said, and a 2016 study backs up this idea. “It’s difficult when you’re running around or you want to get to the next one, and the patient just keeps talking,” she said. But research showed that “when the clinician sat, the patient felt like they listened more carefully, and they explained things in a better way that was much easier for them to understand. They definitely had an improved perception of their [clinician’s] communication skills.”
She highlighted another 2016 study that examined a Commit to Sit initiative in which nurses were urged to sit with patients during each shift. Nurse communication scores and overall patient experience scores went up.
The VA now has a Commit to Sit initiative, which urges clinicians to put away computers, smart phones, and pagers. “The patient feels that we’ve listened more intently to their concerns and care more about them as a patient,” Dr. Valdez-Boyle said. “We have an improved understanding of their health as a result of this. It allows the site employee to continue to be efficient while still delivering compassionate care and fosters trusted relationships in an empathetic and respectful manner.”
For more about the initiative, visit the VA PX SharePoint.
The VA, she said, also has a Take a Moment initiative that emphasizes eye contact, face-to-face interaction without electronics for at least the first 5 minutes of each visit, and seated conversations.
Dr. Valdez-Boyle also urged colleagues to pay attention to how often they interrupt. She pointed to a 2019 study that reported that patients had a median of 11 seconds—yes, seconds—to explain their problem in two-thirds of clinician encounters. “I think some of it is because we think we know what they're going to say.”
In the age of COVID-19, she suggested turning to fist or elbow bumps instead of handshakes. And she said, let patients wear street clothes when appropriate so they’re more comfortable.
In the big picture, she said, good communication and a commitment to shared decision making “really create a shared responsibility. They give your patients ownership over their disease and the ability to make the decisions with their team.
Dr. Valdez-Boyle reported no disclosures.
SAN DIEGO—Don’t stand when you talk at bedside. Ditch the white gowns, turn away from your computers and pagers, and stop yourself from interrupting all the time.
These tips—and more—can help clinicians provide better and more effective care, said a colorectal surgeon who spoke about communication skills at the annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO).
Research has suggested that nearly half of Americans don’t think their health care practitioners (HCPs) are compassionate, “and that’s really sad,” said Lorene Valdez-Boyle, MD, MS, surgery chief at the New Mexico VA Health Care Service.
To combat this perception, she said, HCPs can adopt multiple strategies as they work with veterans and their families. The goal, she said, is “to try to get them to trust you and want to be part of their treatment. This is how we're going to have better outcomes.”
Some strategies are simple. Dr. Valdez-Boyle, for example, doesn’t wear a white gown when she sees patients. “Obviously, they’re really gross,” she said. “But also, I want them to be comfortable with me. I sit down at their level, and we have a conversation. We talk about our dogs and we bond, because that’s going to help them trust me and want to work with me. I do that with families too. We joke, and we laugh.”
Sitting bedside instead of standing is important, she said, and a 2016 study backs up this idea. “It’s difficult when you’re running around or you want to get to the next one, and the patient just keeps talking,” she said. But research showed that “when the clinician sat, the patient felt like they listened more carefully, and they explained things in a better way that was much easier for them to understand. They definitely had an improved perception of their [clinician’s] communication skills.”
She highlighted another 2016 study that examined a Commit to Sit initiative in which nurses were urged to sit with patients during each shift. Nurse communication scores and overall patient experience scores went up.
The VA now has a Commit to Sit initiative, which urges clinicians to put away computers, smart phones, and pagers. “The patient feels that we’ve listened more intently to their concerns and care more about them as a patient,” Dr. Valdez-Boyle said. “We have an improved understanding of their health as a result of this. It allows the site employee to continue to be efficient while still delivering compassionate care and fosters trusted relationships in an empathetic and respectful manner.”
For more about the initiative, visit the VA PX SharePoint.
The VA, she said, also has a Take a Moment initiative that emphasizes eye contact, face-to-face interaction without electronics for at least the first 5 minutes of each visit, and seated conversations.
Dr. Valdez-Boyle also urged colleagues to pay attention to how often they interrupt. She pointed to a 2019 study that reported that patients had a median of 11 seconds—yes, seconds—to explain their problem in two-thirds of clinician encounters. “I think some of it is because we think we know what they're going to say.”
In the age of COVID-19, she suggested turning to fist or elbow bumps instead of handshakes. And she said, let patients wear street clothes when appropriate so they’re more comfortable.
In the big picture, she said, good communication and a commitment to shared decision making “really create a shared responsibility. They give your patients ownership over their disease and the ability to make the decisions with their team.
Dr. Valdez-Boyle reported no disclosures.
SAN DIEGO—Don’t stand when you talk at bedside. Ditch the white gowns, turn away from your computers and pagers, and stop yourself from interrupting all the time.
These tips—and more—can help clinicians provide better and more effective care, said a colorectal surgeon who spoke about communication skills at the annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO).
Research has suggested that nearly half of Americans don’t think their health care practitioners (HCPs) are compassionate, “and that’s really sad,” said Lorene Valdez-Boyle, MD, MS, surgery chief at the New Mexico VA Health Care Service.
To combat this perception, she said, HCPs can adopt multiple strategies as they work with veterans and their families. The goal, she said, is “to try to get them to trust you and want to be part of their treatment. This is how we're going to have better outcomes.”
Some strategies are simple. Dr. Valdez-Boyle, for example, doesn’t wear a white gown when she sees patients. “Obviously, they’re really gross,” she said. “But also, I want them to be comfortable with me. I sit down at their level, and we have a conversation. We talk about our dogs and we bond, because that’s going to help them trust me and want to work with me. I do that with families too. We joke, and we laugh.”
Sitting bedside instead of standing is important, she said, and a 2016 study backs up this idea. “It’s difficult when you’re running around or you want to get to the next one, and the patient just keeps talking,” she said. But research showed that “when the clinician sat, the patient felt like they listened more carefully, and they explained things in a better way that was much easier for them to understand. They definitely had an improved perception of their [clinician’s] communication skills.”
She highlighted another 2016 study that examined a Commit to Sit initiative in which nurses were urged to sit with patients during each shift. Nurse communication scores and overall patient experience scores went up.
The VA now has a Commit to Sit initiative, which urges clinicians to put away computers, smart phones, and pagers. “The patient feels that we’ve listened more intently to their concerns and care more about them as a patient,” Dr. Valdez-Boyle said. “We have an improved understanding of their health as a result of this. It allows the site employee to continue to be efficient while still delivering compassionate care and fosters trusted relationships in an empathetic and respectful manner.”
For more about the initiative, visit the VA PX SharePoint.
The VA, she said, also has a Take a Moment initiative that emphasizes eye contact, face-to-face interaction without electronics for at least the first 5 minutes of each visit, and seated conversations.
Dr. Valdez-Boyle also urged colleagues to pay attention to how often they interrupt. She pointed to a 2019 study that reported that patients had a median of 11 seconds—yes, seconds—to explain their problem in two-thirds of clinician encounters. “I think some of it is because we think we know what they're going to say.”
In the age of COVID-19, she suggested turning to fist or elbow bumps instead of handshakes. And she said, let patients wear street clothes when appropriate so they’re more comfortable.
In the big picture, she said, good communication and a commitment to shared decision making “really create a shared responsibility. They give your patients ownership over their disease and the ability to make the decisions with their team.
Dr. Valdez-Boyle reported no disclosures.
Gloom lifting as MCL treatments evolve
Traditionally, MCL has had a notoriously poor prognosis and is still impossible to cure. But survival rates are rising thanks to better treatments, the review authors wrote, and even relapsed/refractory patients have a growing number of options that can potentially give them extra years of life.
“Prognosis has certainly changed in past 10 years. We have been able to have an excellent control of disease, and patients are living longer, even past the 8- or 10-year mark,” Moffit Cancer Center/Memorial Healthcare System hematologist-oncologist Jose Sandoval‐Sus, MD, said in an interview. He is corresponding author of the review, which appeared in the October issue of Current Oncology Reports.
MCL – which affects cells in the mantle zone of lymph nodes – is rare. It usually strikes older men, often presents at an advanced stage, and accounts for 6%-8% of non-Hodgkin lymphomas in the United States.
Prognoses are improving. The review highlights a study released earlier this year that found that median 5-year overall survival has increased from 68.8% (2002-2009) to 81.6% (2010-2015).
Now, the review notes, there are several first-line chemotherapy options that combine agents with rituximab such as rituximab/bendamustine, which “has generally been established as an effective treatment for MCL at first relapse in patients who are bendamustine naive when compared to other chemotherapy agents.”
Other treatments include rituximab, bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone; rituximab, bendamustine and cytarabine; and rituximab, gemcitabine, and oxaliplatin.
“I think of rituximab as a medication of maintenance, either after autologous stem cell transplant or even in patients who have not been through transplant,” Dr. Sandoval‐Sus said. “As maintenance, it really has improved outcomes for these patients.”
But the first step before treatment, he said, is to explore prognostic factors such as alterations on the TP53 gene that “really dictate a lot in terms of the prognosis of patients.” As the review notes, these alterations – either bi-allelic del17p or TP53 mutations – “are associated with poor outcomes after frontline and salvage regimens, including targeted agents such as Burton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors (BTKis).”
These patients, who make up about 20% of those with MCL, also are most unlikely to benefit from autologous stem cell transplantation, Dr. Sandoval‐Sus said.
What about refracted/relapsed (R/R) cases? BTKis have been a major advance for these patients, he said. However, choosing the best drug can be a challenge. As the review notes, “all approved BTKis for R/R MCL seem to have similar clinical outcomes based on identical mechanism of action, and there are no prospective trials comparing these agents in a head-to-head fashion.”
The authors added that “we wonder if AEs [adverse events] could be decreased by using combinations based on new generation BTKi, but it is still a question that needs to be resolved in the clinical trial arena.”
Stem cell transplants may be an option, the review said, but “in practice the clinical benefit ... is limited to single-center series or small multi-institutional registries with few prospective studies.”
Then there’s CAR-T cell therapy, the game-changer. A type called brexucabtagene autoleucel (Brexu-cel) is now approved in MCL, the review authors wrote, and real-world data “serve as a platform to expand CAR-T therapy to more R/R MCL patients that do not fit the strict inclusion criteria of the studies (e.g., controlled comorbidities and worse performance status)... We strongly recommend early referral of these patients to accredited institutions with ample cellular therapy experience, including high-risk MCL patients (e.g., blastoid/pleomorphic morphology, biallelic del17p, TP53 mutations) so an appropriate bridging strategy and a CAR-T cell roadmap is planned with the patient and caretakers.”
Some researchers are exploring combination treatment with both BTKis and CAR T-cell therapy, “which may be considered for patients with R/R MCL who are naive to both CAR T-cell and BTKi therapy, because combination therapy may increase treatment efficacy,” wrote the authors of another review that appeared in the October issue of Current Oncology Reports. “Based on limited data in patients with CLL, BTKi therapy may be initiated as bridging therapy and continued during lymphodepletion prior to CAR T-cell infusion”
What’s next? Multiple treatments are in the research stage, Dr. Sandoval‐Sus said. “There are a lot of things in development that are really incredible.”
Reversible BTKis, for example, appear to be effective at controlling disease and are well-tolerated, he said. “And we are awaiting the results of clinical trials of targeted therapies.”
For now, he said, the best advice for hematologists is to gain a full understanding of a patient’s MCL, in order to provide the most appropriate treatment. Community oncologists should get at least one second opinion from an academic center or other clinic that treats these kinds of lymphomas, he said, and molecular tests are crucial. A discussion about stem cell transplantation after remission is a good idea, he said, and so is an exploration of clinical trials “from the get-go.”
“In patients who relapse and have high-risk features, they should be started on a BTKi inhibitor for the most part,” he said, “although we need to weigh risks and benefits between the side effects of different BTKi inhibitors. And they should be referred earlier to a CAR T cell therapy center, so they can discuss the benefits and see if they’re an appropriate patient. I think patients are being referred a little bit too late in the second- or third-line setting.”
What about CAR T therapy as a first-line therapy? It’s not FDA-approved, Dr. Sandoval‐Sus said, and “definitely not a standard of care.” But clinical trials are exploring the idea, he said. As for messages to patients, Dr. Sandoval-Sus said he would tell them that MCL is not yet curable, “but the future is very bright.”
Dr. Sandoval-Sus declared advisory board relationships with Seagen, Incyte, Janssen, ADC Therapeutics, TG therapeutics, and Genmab. The other review authors had no disclosures.
Traditionally, MCL has had a notoriously poor prognosis and is still impossible to cure. But survival rates are rising thanks to better treatments, the review authors wrote, and even relapsed/refractory patients have a growing number of options that can potentially give them extra years of life.
“Prognosis has certainly changed in past 10 years. We have been able to have an excellent control of disease, and patients are living longer, even past the 8- or 10-year mark,” Moffit Cancer Center/Memorial Healthcare System hematologist-oncologist Jose Sandoval‐Sus, MD, said in an interview. He is corresponding author of the review, which appeared in the October issue of Current Oncology Reports.
MCL – which affects cells in the mantle zone of lymph nodes – is rare. It usually strikes older men, often presents at an advanced stage, and accounts for 6%-8% of non-Hodgkin lymphomas in the United States.
Prognoses are improving. The review highlights a study released earlier this year that found that median 5-year overall survival has increased from 68.8% (2002-2009) to 81.6% (2010-2015).
Now, the review notes, there are several first-line chemotherapy options that combine agents with rituximab such as rituximab/bendamustine, which “has generally been established as an effective treatment for MCL at first relapse in patients who are bendamustine naive when compared to other chemotherapy agents.”
Other treatments include rituximab, bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone; rituximab, bendamustine and cytarabine; and rituximab, gemcitabine, and oxaliplatin.
“I think of rituximab as a medication of maintenance, either after autologous stem cell transplant or even in patients who have not been through transplant,” Dr. Sandoval‐Sus said. “As maintenance, it really has improved outcomes for these patients.”
But the first step before treatment, he said, is to explore prognostic factors such as alterations on the TP53 gene that “really dictate a lot in terms of the prognosis of patients.” As the review notes, these alterations – either bi-allelic del17p or TP53 mutations – “are associated with poor outcomes after frontline and salvage regimens, including targeted agents such as Burton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors (BTKis).”
These patients, who make up about 20% of those with MCL, also are most unlikely to benefit from autologous stem cell transplantation, Dr. Sandoval‐Sus said.
What about refracted/relapsed (R/R) cases? BTKis have been a major advance for these patients, he said. However, choosing the best drug can be a challenge. As the review notes, “all approved BTKis for R/R MCL seem to have similar clinical outcomes based on identical mechanism of action, and there are no prospective trials comparing these agents in a head-to-head fashion.”
The authors added that “we wonder if AEs [adverse events] could be decreased by using combinations based on new generation BTKi, but it is still a question that needs to be resolved in the clinical trial arena.”
Stem cell transplants may be an option, the review said, but “in practice the clinical benefit ... is limited to single-center series or small multi-institutional registries with few prospective studies.”
Then there’s CAR-T cell therapy, the game-changer. A type called brexucabtagene autoleucel (Brexu-cel) is now approved in MCL, the review authors wrote, and real-world data “serve as a platform to expand CAR-T therapy to more R/R MCL patients that do not fit the strict inclusion criteria of the studies (e.g., controlled comorbidities and worse performance status)... We strongly recommend early referral of these patients to accredited institutions with ample cellular therapy experience, including high-risk MCL patients (e.g., blastoid/pleomorphic morphology, biallelic del17p, TP53 mutations) so an appropriate bridging strategy and a CAR-T cell roadmap is planned with the patient and caretakers.”
Some researchers are exploring combination treatment with both BTKis and CAR T-cell therapy, “which may be considered for patients with R/R MCL who are naive to both CAR T-cell and BTKi therapy, because combination therapy may increase treatment efficacy,” wrote the authors of another review that appeared in the October issue of Current Oncology Reports. “Based on limited data in patients with CLL, BTKi therapy may be initiated as bridging therapy and continued during lymphodepletion prior to CAR T-cell infusion”
What’s next? Multiple treatments are in the research stage, Dr. Sandoval‐Sus said. “There are a lot of things in development that are really incredible.”
Reversible BTKis, for example, appear to be effective at controlling disease and are well-tolerated, he said. “And we are awaiting the results of clinical trials of targeted therapies.”
For now, he said, the best advice for hematologists is to gain a full understanding of a patient’s MCL, in order to provide the most appropriate treatment. Community oncologists should get at least one second opinion from an academic center or other clinic that treats these kinds of lymphomas, he said, and molecular tests are crucial. A discussion about stem cell transplantation after remission is a good idea, he said, and so is an exploration of clinical trials “from the get-go.”
“In patients who relapse and have high-risk features, they should be started on a BTKi inhibitor for the most part,” he said, “although we need to weigh risks and benefits between the side effects of different BTKi inhibitors. And they should be referred earlier to a CAR T cell therapy center, so they can discuss the benefits and see if they’re an appropriate patient. I think patients are being referred a little bit too late in the second- or third-line setting.”
What about CAR T therapy as a first-line therapy? It’s not FDA-approved, Dr. Sandoval‐Sus said, and “definitely not a standard of care.” But clinical trials are exploring the idea, he said. As for messages to patients, Dr. Sandoval-Sus said he would tell them that MCL is not yet curable, “but the future is very bright.”
Dr. Sandoval-Sus declared advisory board relationships with Seagen, Incyte, Janssen, ADC Therapeutics, TG therapeutics, and Genmab. The other review authors had no disclosures.
Traditionally, MCL has had a notoriously poor prognosis and is still impossible to cure. But survival rates are rising thanks to better treatments, the review authors wrote, and even relapsed/refractory patients have a growing number of options that can potentially give them extra years of life.
“Prognosis has certainly changed in past 10 years. We have been able to have an excellent control of disease, and patients are living longer, even past the 8- or 10-year mark,” Moffit Cancer Center/Memorial Healthcare System hematologist-oncologist Jose Sandoval‐Sus, MD, said in an interview. He is corresponding author of the review, which appeared in the October issue of Current Oncology Reports.
MCL – which affects cells in the mantle zone of lymph nodes – is rare. It usually strikes older men, often presents at an advanced stage, and accounts for 6%-8% of non-Hodgkin lymphomas in the United States.
Prognoses are improving. The review highlights a study released earlier this year that found that median 5-year overall survival has increased from 68.8% (2002-2009) to 81.6% (2010-2015).
Now, the review notes, there are several first-line chemotherapy options that combine agents with rituximab such as rituximab/bendamustine, which “has generally been established as an effective treatment for MCL at first relapse in patients who are bendamustine naive when compared to other chemotherapy agents.”
Other treatments include rituximab, bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone; rituximab, bendamustine and cytarabine; and rituximab, gemcitabine, and oxaliplatin.
“I think of rituximab as a medication of maintenance, either after autologous stem cell transplant or even in patients who have not been through transplant,” Dr. Sandoval‐Sus said. “As maintenance, it really has improved outcomes for these patients.”
But the first step before treatment, he said, is to explore prognostic factors such as alterations on the TP53 gene that “really dictate a lot in terms of the prognosis of patients.” As the review notes, these alterations – either bi-allelic del17p or TP53 mutations – “are associated with poor outcomes after frontline and salvage regimens, including targeted agents such as Burton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors (BTKis).”
These patients, who make up about 20% of those with MCL, also are most unlikely to benefit from autologous stem cell transplantation, Dr. Sandoval‐Sus said.
What about refracted/relapsed (R/R) cases? BTKis have been a major advance for these patients, he said. However, choosing the best drug can be a challenge. As the review notes, “all approved BTKis for R/R MCL seem to have similar clinical outcomes based on identical mechanism of action, and there are no prospective trials comparing these agents in a head-to-head fashion.”
The authors added that “we wonder if AEs [adverse events] could be decreased by using combinations based on new generation BTKi, but it is still a question that needs to be resolved in the clinical trial arena.”
Stem cell transplants may be an option, the review said, but “in practice the clinical benefit ... is limited to single-center series or small multi-institutional registries with few prospective studies.”
Then there’s CAR-T cell therapy, the game-changer. A type called brexucabtagene autoleucel (Brexu-cel) is now approved in MCL, the review authors wrote, and real-world data “serve as a platform to expand CAR-T therapy to more R/R MCL patients that do not fit the strict inclusion criteria of the studies (e.g., controlled comorbidities and worse performance status)... We strongly recommend early referral of these patients to accredited institutions with ample cellular therapy experience, including high-risk MCL patients (e.g., blastoid/pleomorphic morphology, biallelic del17p, TP53 mutations) so an appropriate bridging strategy and a CAR-T cell roadmap is planned with the patient and caretakers.”
Some researchers are exploring combination treatment with both BTKis and CAR T-cell therapy, “which may be considered for patients with R/R MCL who are naive to both CAR T-cell and BTKi therapy, because combination therapy may increase treatment efficacy,” wrote the authors of another review that appeared in the October issue of Current Oncology Reports. “Based on limited data in patients with CLL, BTKi therapy may be initiated as bridging therapy and continued during lymphodepletion prior to CAR T-cell infusion”
What’s next? Multiple treatments are in the research stage, Dr. Sandoval‐Sus said. “There are a lot of things in development that are really incredible.”
Reversible BTKis, for example, appear to be effective at controlling disease and are well-tolerated, he said. “And we are awaiting the results of clinical trials of targeted therapies.”
For now, he said, the best advice for hematologists is to gain a full understanding of a patient’s MCL, in order to provide the most appropriate treatment. Community oncologists should get at least one second opinion from an academic center or other clinic that treats these kinds of lymphomas, he said, and molecular tests are crucial. A discussion about stem cell transplantation after remission is a good idea, he said, and so is an exploration of clinical trials “from the get-go.”
“In patients who relapse and have high-risk features, they should be started on a BTKi inhibitor for the most part,” he said, “although we need to weigh risks and benefits between the side effects of different BTKi inhibitors. And they should be referred earlier to a CAR T cell therapy center, so they can discuss the benefits and see if they’re an appropriate patient. I think patients are being referred a little bit too late in the second- or third-line setting.”
What about CAR T therapy as a first-line therapy? It’s not FDA-approved, Dr. Sandoval‐Sus said, and “definitely not a standard of care.” But clinical trials are exploring the idea, he said. As for messages to patients, Dr. Sandoval-Sus said he would tell them that MCL is not yet curable, “but the future is very bright.”
Dr. Sandoval-Sus declared advisory board relationships with Seagen, Incyte, Janssen, ADC Therapeutics, TG therapeutics, and Genmab. The other review authors had no disclosures.