The Dexcom G7 continuous glucose monitor (CGM) is as accurate or better than other currently marketed CGM devices for measuring glucose in those with diabetes, new data from a pivotal study suggest.  

Currently under review by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the G7 is expected to be an improvement over the Dexcom G6 version in several ways.

The on-body size will be 60% smaller, “roughly the size of three stacked quarters,” according to the authors, and will incorporate the sensor with a single-use transmitter, as opposed to the current separate 3-month transmitter used with the G6 sensor. This will eliminate the need for using a transmitter across multiple sensor sessions (as is the case for G6).

The warm-up period after insertion is reduced from 2 hours to 27 minutes, and users are given an extra 12-hour “grace period” after the 10-day wear period to change the device before it stops displaying glucose data. Up to 24 hours of missed data can also be recaptured.

“The enhanced features of G7 may increase clinical adoption, encourage sustained use, and reduce the burden of diabetes management,” write Satish K. Garg, MD, of the University of Colorado, Aurora, and colleagues, in their article, published online Feb. 14 in Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics.  

Several features of the G6 remain unchanged, including factory calibration, but also the capacity for optional user calibrations, use of Bluetooth to transmit data up to 20 feet (approximately 6 meters), and data displays on either a dedicated receiver or a variety of iOS and Android smart devices.

It will also allow for user-customized settings and alerts, as well as the option for real-time remote “share” monitoring with caregivers or providers. The G7 will also not be susceptible to interference by acetaminophen (paracetamol) or ascorbic acid.

And, like the G6, the G7 was submitted for approval to the FDA as an “integrated CGM,” meaning that it will be interoperable with other compatible devices, including insulin pumps, glucose meters, or other electronic devices used for diabetes management.

Accuracy shown on abdomen, arm

The prospective, multicenter, single-arm study reported by Dr. Garg and colleagues was conducted at 12 U.S. sites between February and June 2021.

In-clinic visits were conducted on days 1 or 2, 4 or 7, and one additional day for comparisons with a reference glucose measure (YSI 2300 Stat Plus glucose analyzer). Participants wore blinded G7 sensors concurrently on the upper arm and abdomen while continuing to use their own personal glucose monitoring method (CGM or fingerstick) at home.

A total of 316 insulin-using adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes contributed data from 308 arm- and 311 abdomen-placed blinded devices, which generated 77,774 matched pairs of data within the blood glucose reportable range of 40-400 mg/dL.  

The overall mean absolute relative difference (MARD) of each CGM-YSI pair (a standard metric for CGM analysis) was 8.2%, with 9.1% for the abdomen and 8.2% for the arm.

Accuracy remained high in both arm- and abdomen-placed sensors across the 10-day wear period through the 12-hour grace period and across glucose ranges. There were no significant differences between G7 accuracy by diabetes type, insulin regimen, or body mass index.

The highest agreement rates and lowest MARDs occurred when CGM readings were increasing or decreasing by no more than 1 mg/dL per minute. However, even at the highest rates of glucose concentration change, MARD values below 10% were found for arm-placed sensors and below 10.5% for abdomen-placed sensors, Dr. Garg and colleagues report.

When the hypoglycemia threshold alert was set to 55 mg/dL, true alert rates for detection of hypoglycemia below 70 mg/dL by sensors worn on the arm and abdomen were 91.3% and 85.2%, respectively. With hyperglycemia threshold alerts set to 300 mg/dL, the true alert rates for detection of hyperglycemia greater than 250 mg/dL by sensors worn on the arm and abdomen were 99.9% and 99.8% respectively.

The overall mean time lag for the sensors was 3.5 minutes, 3.6 minutes for the arm, and 3.4 minutes for the abdomen. There were no serious adverse events during the study.

The study excluded children and adolescents; data from these populations will be reported separately, the authors note.
 

Accuracy at least as good as prior Dexcom versions, competitors

The MARD values of 8.2% on the arm and 9.1% on the abdomen were similar to or better than accuracy measurements of other commercially available CGM systems, note Dr. Garg and colleagues, although they acknowledge that few head-to-head studies at different anatomic locations have been conducted.

A study of an older Dexcom version (G4 Platinum) found MARD estimates of 12.0% on the arm and 12.3% on the abdomen, the authors note.  

The newly FDA-approved implantable Eversense E3 (Senseonics) CGM, worn on the upper arm, has a MARD of 9.1%, while the arm-placed Abbott FreeStyle Libre 2, approved in the U.S. in June 2020, has an overall MARD of 9.3%.

Lag-time differences between the reference and G7 were also similar to or better than time delays in prior-generation Dexcom CGMs, Dr. Garg and colleagues say.

Participants also completed a survey. “The redesigned applicator allows for sensor deployment with one hand, and most participants found G7 easier to insert than their prior CGM system,” the researchers say.

Finally, “unlike G6, G7 allows for temporary silencing of all audible alerts, including Urgent Low. Taken together, these attributes are anticipated to provide for a better end-user experience with G7 and help reduce diabetes burden,” they conclude.

The study was supported by a grant from Dexcom. Dr. Garg has reported receiving consultant fees from Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, Zealand, LifeScan, Roche, and Lilly, as well as research grants through the University of Colorado from Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Medtronic, Dexcom, T1D Exchange, Helmsley Trust, NIDDK, and JDRF.

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

The Dexcom G7 continuous glucose monitor (CGM) is as accurate or better than other currently marketed CGM devices for measuring glucose in those with diabetes, new data from a pivotal study suggest.  

Currently under review by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the G7 is expected to be an improvement over the Dexcom G6 version in several ways.

The on-body size will be 60% smaller, “roughly the size of three stacked quarters,” according to the authors, and will incorporate the sensor with a single-use transmitter, as opposed to the current separate 3-month transmitter used with the G6 sensor. This will eliminate the need for using a transmitter across multiple sensor sessions (as is the case for G6).

The warm-up period after insertion is reduced from 2 hours to 27 minutes, and users are given an extra 12-hour “grace period” after the 10-day wear period to change the device before it stops displaying glucose data. Up to 24 hours of missed data can also be recaptured.

“The enhanced features of G7 may increase clinical adoption, encourage sustained use, and reduce the burden of diabetes management,” write Satish K. Garg, MD, of the University of Colorado, Aurora, and colleagues, in their article, published online Feb. 14 in Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics.  

Several features of the G6 remain unchanged, including factory calibration, but also the capacity for optional user calibrations, use of Bluetooth to transmit data up to 20 feet (approximately 6 meters), and data displays on either a dedicated receiver or a variety of iOS and Android smart devices.

It will also allow for user-customized settings and alerts, as well as the option for real-time remote “share” monitoring with caregivers or providers. The G7 will also not be susceptible to interference by acetaminophen (paracetamol) or ascorbic acid.

And, like the G6, the G7 was submitted for approval to the FDA as an “integrated CGM,” meaning that it will be interoperable with other compatible devices, including insulin pumps, glucose meters, or other electronic devices used for diabetes management.

Accuracy shown on abdomen, arm

The prospective, multicenter, single-arm study reported by Dr. Garg and colleagues was conducted at 12 U.S. sites between February and June 2021.

In-clinic visits were conducted on days 1 or 2, 4 or 7, and one additional day for comparisons with a reference glucose measure (YSI 2300 Stat Plus glucose analyzer). Participants wore blinded G7 sensors concurrently on the upper arm and abdomen while continuing to use their own personal glucose monitoring method (CGM or fingerstick) at home.

A total of 316 insulin-using adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes contributed data from 308 arm- and 311 abdomen-placed blinded devices, which generated 77,774 matched pairs of data within the blood glucose reportable range of 40-400 mg/dL.  

The overall mean absolute relative difference (MARD) of each CGM-YSI pair (a standard metric for CGM analysis) was 8.2%, with 9.1% for the abdomen and 8.2% for the arm.

Accuracy remained high in both arm- and abdomen-placed sensors across the 10-day wear period through the 12-hour grace period and across glucose ranges. There were no significant differences between G7 accuracy by diabetes type, insulin regimen, or body mass index.

The highest agreement rates and lowest MARDs occurred when CGM readings were increasing or decreasing by no more than 1 mg/dL per minute. However, even at the highest rates of glucose concentration change, MARD values below 10% were found for arm-placed sensors and below 10.5% for abdomen-placed sensors, Dr. Garg and colleagues report.

When the hypoglycemia threshold alert was set to 55 mg/dL, true alert rates for detection of hypoglycemia below 70 mg/dL by sensors worn on the arm and abdomen were 91.3% and 85.2%, respectively. With hyperglycemia threshold alerts set to 300 mg/dL, the true alert rates for detection of hyperglycemia greater than 250 mg/dL by sensors worn on the arm and abdomen were 99.9% and 99.8% respectively.

The overall mean time lag for the sensors was 3.5 minutes, 3.6 minutes for the arm, and 3.4 minutes for the abdomen. There were no serious adverse events during the study.

The study excluded children and adolescents; data from these populations will be reported separately, the authors note.
 

Accuracy at least as good as prior Dexcom versions, competitors

The MARD values of 8.2% on the arm and 9.1% on the abdomen were similar to or better than accuracy measurements of other commercially available CGM systems, note Dr. Garg and colleagues, although they acknowledge that few head-to-head studies at different anatomic locations have been conducted.

A study of an older Dexcom version (G4 Platinum) found MARD estimates of 12.0% on the arm and 12.3% on the abdomen, the authors note.  

The newly FDA-approved implantable Eversense E3 (Senseonics) CGM, worn on the upper arm, has a MARD of 9.1%, while the arm-placed Abbott FreeStyle Libre 2, approved in the U.S. in June 2020, has an overall MARD of 9.3%.

Lag-time differences between the reference and G7 were also similar to or better than time delays in prior-generation Dexcom CGMs, Dr. Garg and colleagues say.

Participants also completed a survey. “The redesigned applicator allows for sensor deployment with one hand, and most participants found G7 easier to insert than their prior CGM system,” the researchers say.

Finally, “unlike G6, G7 allows for temporary silencing of all audible alerts, including Urgent Low. Taken together, these attributes are anticipated to provide for a better end-user experience with G7 and help reduce diabetes burden,” they conclude.

The study was supported by a grant from Dexcom. Dr. Garg has reported receiving consultant fees from Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, Zealand, LifeScan, Roche, and Lilly, as well as research grants through the University of Colorado from Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Medtronic, Dexcom, T1D Exchange, Helmsley Trust, NIDDK, and JDRF.

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

The Dexcom G7 continuous glucose monitor (CGM) is as accurate or better than other currently marketed CGM devices for measuring glucose in those with diabetes, new data from a pivotal study suggest.  

Currently under review by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the G7 is expected to be an improvement over the Dexcom G6 version in several ways.

The on-body size will be 60% smaller, “roughly the size of three stacked quarters,” according to the authors, and will incorporate the sensor with a single-use transmitter, as opposed to the current separate 3-month transmitter used with the G6 sensor. This will eliminate the need for using a transmitter across multiple sensor sessions (as is the case for G6).

The warm-up period after insertion is reduced from 2 hours to 27 minutes, and users are given an extra 12-hour “grace period” after the 10-day wear period to change the device before it stops displaying glucose data. Up to 24 hours of missed data can also be recaptured.

“The enhanced features of G7 may increase clinical adoption, encourage sustained use, and reduce the burden of diabetes management,” write Satish K. Garg, MD, of the University of Colorado, Aurora, and colleagues, in their article, published online Feb. 14 in Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics.  

Several features of the G6 remain unchanged, including factory calibration, but also the capacity for optional user calibrations, use of Bluetooth to transmit data up to 20 feet (approximately 6 meters), and data displays on either a dedicated receiver or a variety of iOS and Android smart devices.

It will also allow for user-customized settings and alerts, as well as the option for real-time remote “share” monitoring with caregivers or providers. The G7 will also not be susceptible to interference by acetaminophen (paracetamol) or ascorbic acid.

And, like the G6, the G7 was submitted for approval to the FDA as an “integrated CGM,” meaning that it will be interoperable with other compatible devices, including insulin pumps, glucose meters, or other electronic devices used for diabetes management.

Accuracy shown on abdomen, arm

The prospective, multicenter, single-arm study reported by Dr. Garg and colleagues was conducted at 12 U.S. sites between February and June 2021.

In-clinic visits were conducted on days 1 or 2, 4 or 7, and one additional day for comparisons with a reference glucose measure (YSI 2300 Stat Plus glucose analyzer). Participants wore blinded G7 sensors concurrently on the upper arm and abdomen while continuing to use their own personal glucose monitoring method (CGM or fingerstick) at home.

A total of 316 insulin-using adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes contributed data from 308 arm- and 311 abdomen-placed blinded devices, which generated 77,774 matched pairs of data within the blood glucose reportable range of 40-400 mg/dL.  

The overall mean absolute relative difference (MARD) of each CGM-YSI pair (a standard metric for CGM analysis) was 8.2%, with 9.1% for the abdomen and 8.2% for the arm.

Accuracy remained high in both arm- and abdomen-placed sensors across the 10-day wear period through the 12-hour grace period and across glucose ranges. There were no significant differences between G7 accuracy by diabetes type, insulin regimen, or body mass index.

The highest agreement rates and lowest MARDs occurred when CGM readings were increasing or decreasing by no more than 1 mg/dL per minute. However, even at the highest rates of glucose concentration change, MARD values below 10% were found for arm-placed sensors and below 10.5% for abdomen-placed sensors, Dr. Garg and colleagues report.

When the hypoglycemia threshold alert was set to 55 mg/dL, true alert rates for detection of hypoglycemia below 70 mg/dL by sensors worn on the arm and abdomen were 91.3% and 85.2%, respectively. With hyperglycemia threshold alerts set to 300 mg/dL, the true alert rates for detection of hyperglycemia greater than 250 mg/dL by sensors worn on the arm and abdomen were 99.9% and 99.8% respectively.

The overall mean time lag for the sensors was 3.5 minutes, 3.6 minutes for the arm, and 3.4 minutes for the abdomen. There were no serious adverse events during the study.

The study excluded children and adolescents; data from these populations will be reported separately, the authors note.
 

Accuracy at least as good as prior Dexcom versions, competitors

The MARD values of 8.2% on the arm and 9.1% on the abdomen were similar to or better than accuracy measurements of other commercially available CGM systems, note Dr. Garg and colleagues, although they acknowledge that few head-to-head studies at different anatomic locations have been conducted.

A study of an older Dexcom version (G4 Platinum) found MARD estimates of 12.0% on the arm and 12.3% on the abdomen, the authors note.  

The newly FDA-approved implantable Eversense E3 (Senseonics) CGM, worn on the upper arm, has a MARD of 9.1%, while the arm-placed Abbott FreeStyle Libre 2, approved in the U.S. in June 2020, has an overall MARD of 9.3%.

Lag-time differences between the reference and G7 were also similar to or better than time delays in prior-generation Dexcom CGMs, Dr. Garg and colleagues say.

Participants also completed a survey. “The redesigned applicator allows for sensor deployment with one hand, and most participants found G7 easier to insert than their prior CGM system,” the researchers say.

Finally, “unlike G6, G7 allows for temporary silencing of all audible alerts, including Urgent Low. Taken together, these attributes are anticipated to provide for a better end-user experience with G7 and help reduce diabetes burden,” they conclude.

The study was supported by a grant from Dexcom. Dr. Garg has reported receiving consultant fees from Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, Zealand, LifeScan, Roche, and Lilly, as well as research grants through the University of Colorado from Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Medtronic, Dexcom, T1D Exchange, Helmsley Trust, NIDDK, and JDRF.

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

When counseling patients with warts, Adam Friedman, MD, admits that he feels like a character from “Game of Thrones” since many treatment options are “medieval and painful,” from duct tape occlusion to the stings of liquid nitrogen and salicylic acid.

“We can combine destructive, immunologic, and cytotoxic approaches,” Dr. Friedman, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, said at the ODAC Dermatology, Aesthetic & Surgical Conference. “It’s not one or the other, we want to be aggressive. Combining therapies in the office and at home will accelerate clearance of warts; monotherapy just doesn’t cut it.”

At the initial clinic visit, he advises asking patients how long the warts have been present, because sometimes they will go away within a year or two without treatment. “If someone says, ‘I’ve had these for years,’ you know you’re in for the long haul and you have to be aggressive with their therapy,” Dr. Friedman said. “Sometimes you’ll pick up plantar warts on a full-body skin exam and the patient may say, ‘I really don’t care. Please don’t touch them,’ so it’s important to understand how they are impacting quality of life.”

Patients should also be asked what treatments they have used previously, and it is important to set some realistic expectations and dispel some myths, Dr. Friedman said. “One of the most important things is that you must get these patients back. This is not often a one and done approach; you need to keep hitting them [with therapy], because if you let one infected keratinocyte survive, it’s going to come back and it’s still going to be contagious – more likely for that patient than for anyone else.”

The application of liquid nitrogen is a popular, inexpensive destructive treatment option, with spray canisters that cost about $600. “You have to consider the temperature of the liquid nitrogen spray because melanocytes die at negative 5 degrees Celsius, so you have to be mindful in patients with darker skin tones that you may leave with permanent dyschromia, meaning hypopigmentation or depigmentation when you do this,” he said. Because it is painful, “we’re limited when it comes to treating children with warts who are younger than 9 or 10. I don’t think the Q-tip method or dipping a hemostat in cryogen and touching the tip really works. You’ve got to create a nice ice ball that thaws and kills the infected keratinocytes.”

Dr. Friedman favors a 10-second freeze of the wart, usually for two to three cycles depending on its anatomic location, and he may give patients imiquimod or 5-FU to use at home for 5 nights of the week. A recently published study found that the use of ultrasound gel increases the efficacy of cryotherapy in the treatment of warts.

Another destructive treatment approach is cantharidin 0.7% applied topically in the office. It is believed to activate neutral serine proteases that cause degeneration of the desmosomal plaque, leading to detachment of tonofilaments from desmosomes. Repeat in-office applications within 14-21 days may be necessary for this treatment, which is not approved by the Food and Drug Administration. “It is painless on application unless there’s a break in the skin,” Dr. Friedman said.

For warts on thicker areas such as palms and soles, he often employs combination therapy with cantharidin 1%, salicylic acid 30%, and podophyllotoxin 5%. “This can hurt a little bit, but some patients require only one treatment for cure,” he said. “Efficacy depends on the size of the wart.”

VP-102, a proprietary, drug-device combination product containing cantharidin, 0.7% “is coming down the pike,” Dr. Friedman said. “From the data we have, it seems that pairing with a curette or a #15 blade first gets better penetration, which makes sense. Patients come back every 3-4 weeks for treatment. It is a big investment, but it is worth it. I tell patients it’s not worth starting if you’re not going to see it through. I tell them, ‘we’re going to see a lot of each other until this is clear.’ ”

As for immunomodulatory approaches, imiquimod 5% cream is approved for treating genital and perianal warts. In Dr. Friedman’s clinical experience, it has limited efficacy on keratinized skin unless the surface has been disrupted, “so don’t even waste your time unless you are using some approach to enhance skin penetration,” he advised. “Insurance coverage can be a challenge,” he added.

He recommends application with salicylic acid alternating with imiquimod 5% cream every night at bedtime – under occlusion for thicker skinned areas.

For patients who favor use of natural products, off-label ingenol mebutate is an option. A case series of its use in 17 patients with anogenital warts found that 16 experienced clearance of all warts treated with either 0.05% or 0.015% ingenol mebutate gel. Local irritation occurred within 24-48 hours and lasted 2-5 days.

A natural alternative treatment is Candida albicans skin test antigen (Candin), especially for cases of multiple lesions on the hands and feet, because a field effect can be achieved, Dr. Friedman said. “The idea here is simple. At most, you’re talking about injecting a sentinel wart with 0.3 mL Candin 2-10 times every 3 weeks. The wart may be in a field of warts. That will induce an immune reaction that brings in the cavalry. I find that it works very well but it is painful, so when you’re injecting the feet, get the foot positioned well, because that patient may inadvertently kick you in the face [upon injection].”

Authors of a recent systematic review and meta-analysis highlighted the efficacy for systemic retinoids in the treatment of warts, particularly recalcitrant or recurrent types (Dermatol Ther 2021 34[2]:e14793). “Tazarotene is going to be your best bet if you can get it,” Dr. Friedman said. “If you have to go lower like OTC adapalene or tretinoin, be my guest, but tazarotene works best by slowing down that rapid turnover that the virus is imparting on the basal keratinocyte layer. It can enhance penetration of drug but also thin the warts out.”

Dr. Friedman characterized human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccines, such as Gardasil 9, as “one of the greatest innovations” in the treatment of warts. While indicated as a preventive strategy, “it also works as treatment. I’ve had patients with recalcitrant genital warts who will clear after taking the vaccine. It is something to think about as an adjuvant to everything we do, because it can function as a treatment.”

Another immunologic treatment option is the oral H2-receptor antagonist cimetidine taken 30 mg/kg per day for 3-5 months. “There is mixed evidence of efficacy with this,” Dr. Friedman said. “I tend to use it in cases of innumerable flat warts.”

As for cytotoxic options for treating warts, bleomycin works at 250-1,000 U/mL injected per lesion, with lidocaine. “This is painful to patients both on application and post treatment,” he said. “But it works really well when used properly.”

In one study of 46 patients who received intralesional bleomycin, 74% patients had complete resolution of all warts with an average of 1.7 treatments. About 70% of patients experienced pain that lasted less than 2 days after treatment. In a separate study of patients treated with bleomycin for warts, researchers in India diluted bleomycin with lidocaine to help mitigate some of that pain.

An additional cytotoxic option, 5-FU in formulations of 5% cream/solution or 1% cream, can effectively treat warts. Dr. Friedman typically suggests application to the affected area twice daily for 3-5 weeks. “The cost can be high especially for off-label use,” he said. He noted that Skin Medicinals makes a compounded wart solution composed of 5% 5-FU and salicylic acid 30% solution. A 50 mL container sells for about $50.

Dr. Friedman had no relevant disclosures related to his presentation.

When counseling patients with warts, Adam Friedman, MD, admits that he feels like a character from “Game of Thrones” since many treatment options are “medieval and painful,” from duct tape occlusion to the stings of liquid nitrogen and salicylic acid.

“We can combine destructive, immunologic, and cytotoxic approaches,” Dr. Friedman, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, said at the ODAC Dermatology, Aesthetic & Surgical Conference. “It’s not one or the other, we want to be aggressive. Combining therapies in the office and at home will accelerate clearance of warts; monotherapy just doesn’t cut it.”

At the initial clinic visit, he advises asking patients how long the warts have been present, because sometimes they will go away within a year or two without treatment. “If someone says, ‘I’ve had these for years,’ you know you’re in for the long haul and you have to be aggressive with their therapy,” Dr. Friedman said. “Sometimes you’ll pick up plantar warts on a full-body skin exam and the patient may say, ‘I really don’t care. Please don’t touch them,’ so it’s important to understand how they are impacting quality of life.”

Patients should also be asked what treatments they have used previously, and it is important to set some realistic expectations and dispel some myths, Dr. Friedman said. “One of the most important things is that you must get these patients back. This is not often a one and done approach; you need to keep hitting them [with therapy], because if you let one infected keratinocyte survive, it’s going to come back and it’s still going to be contagious – more likely for that patient than for anyone else.”

The application of liquid nitrogen is a popular, inexpensive destructive treatment option, with spray canisters that cost about $600. “You have to consider the temperature of the liquid nitrogen spray because melanocytes die at negative 5 degrees Celsius, so you have to be mindful in patients with darker skin tones that you may leave with permanent dyschromia, meaning hypopigmentation or depigmentation when you do this,” he said. Because it is painful, “we’re limited when it comes to treating children with warts who are younger than 9 or 10. I don’t think the Q-tip method or dipping a hemostat in cryogen and touching the tip really works. You’ve got to create a nice ice ball that thaws and kills the infected keratinocytes.”

Dr. Friedman favors a 10-second freeze of the wart, usually for two to three cycles depending on its anatomic location, and he may give patients imiquimod or 5-FU to use at home for 5 nights of the week. A recently published study found that the use of ultrasound gel increases the efficacy of cryotherapy in the treatment of warts.

Another destructive treatment approach is cantharidin 0.7% applied topically in the office. It is believed to activate neutral serine proteases that cause degeneration of the desmosomal plaque, leading to detachment of tonofilaments from desmosomes. Repeat in-office applications within 14-21 days may be necessary for this treatment, which is not approved by the Food and Drug Administration. “It is painless on application unless there’s a break in the skin,” Dr. Friedman said.

For warts on thicker areas such as palms and soles, he often employs combination therapy with cantharidin 1%, salicylic acid 30%, and podophyllotoxin 5%. “This can hurt a little bit, but some patients require only one treatment for cure,” he said. “Efficacy depends on the size of the wart.”

VP-102, a proprietary, drug-device combination product containing cantharidin, 0.7% “is coming down the pike,” Dr. Friedman said. “From the data we have, it seems that pairing with a curette or a #15 blade first gets better penetration, which makes sense. Patients come back every 3-4 weeks for treatment. It is a big investment, but it is worth it. I tell patients it’s not worth starting if you’re not going to see it through. I tell them, ‘we’re going to see a lot of each other until this is clear.’ ”

As for immunomodulatory approaches, imiquimod 5% cream is approved for treating genital and perianal warts. In Dr. Friedman’s clinical experience, it has limited efficacy on keratinized skin unless the surface has been disrupted, “so don’t even waste your time unless you are using some approach to enhance skin penetration,” he advised. “Insurance coverage can be a challenge,” he added.

He recommends application with salicylic acid alternating with imiquimod 5% cream every night at bedtime – under occlusion for thicker skinned areas.

For patients who favor use of natural products, off-label ingenol mebutate is an option. A case series of its use in 17 patients with anogenital warts found that 16 experienced clearance of all warts treated with either 0.05% or 0.015% ingenol mebutate gel. Local irritation occurred within 24-48 hours and lasted 2-5 days.

A natural alternative treatment is Candida albicans skin test antigen (Candin), especially for cases of multiple lesions on the hands and feet, because a field effect can be achieved, Dr. Friedman said. “The idea here is simple. At most, you’re talking about injecting a sentinel wart with 0.3 mL Candin 2-10 times every 3 weeks. The wart may be in a field of warts. That will induce an immune reaction that brings in the cavalry. I find that it works very well but it is painful, so when you’re injecting the feet, get the foot positioned well, because that patient may inadvertently kick you in the face [upon injection].”

Authors of a recent systematic review and meta-analysis highlighted the efficacy for systemic retinoids in the treatment of warts, particularly recalcitrant or recurrent types (Dermatol Ther 2021 34[2]:e14793). “Tazarotene is going to be your best bet if you can get it,” Dr. Friedman said. “If you have to go lower like OTC adapalene or tretinoin, be my guest, but tazarotene works best by slowing down that rapid turnover that the virus is imparting on the basal keratinocyte layer. It can enhance penetration of drug but also thin the warts out.”

Dr. Friedman characterized human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccines, such as Gardasil 9, as “one of the greatest innovations” in the treatment of warts. While indicated as a preventive strategy, “it also works as treatment. I’ve had patients with recalcitrant genital warts who will clear after taking the vaccine. It is something to think about as an adjuvant to everything we do, because it can function as a treatment.”

Another immunologic treatment option is the oral H2-receptor antagonist cimetidine taken 30 mg/kg per day for 3-5 months. “There is mixed evidence of efficacy with this,” Dr. Friedman said. “I tend to use it in cases of innumerable flat warts.”

As for cytotoxic options for treating warts, bleomycin works at 250-1,000 U/mL injected per lesion, with lidocaine. “This is painful to patients both on application and post treatment,” he said. “But it works really well when used properly.”

In one study of 46 patients who received intralesional bleomycin, 74% patients had complete resolution of all warts with an average of 1.7 treatments. About 70% of patients experienced pain that lasted less than 2 days after treatment. In a separate study of patients treated with bleomycin for warts, researchers in India diluted bleomycin with lidocaine to help mitigate some of that pain.

An additional cytotoxic option, 5-FU in formulations of 5% cream/solution or 1% cream, can effectively treat warts. Dr. Friedman typically suggests application to the affected area twice daily for 3-5 weeks. “The cost can be high especially for off-label use,” he said. He noted that Skin Medicinals makes a compounded wart solution composed of 5% 5-FU and salicylic acid 30% solution. A 50 mL container sells for about $50.

Dr. Friedman had no relevant disclosures related to his presentation.

When counseling patients with warts, Adam Friedman, MD, admits that he feels like a character from “Game of Thrones” since many treatment options are “medieval and painful,” from duct tape occlusion to the stings of liquid nitrogen and salicylic acid.

“We can combine destructive, immunologic, and cytotoxic approaches,” Dr. Friedman, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, said at the ODAC Dermatology, Aesthetic & Surgical Conference. “It’s not one or the other, we want to be aggressive. Combining therapies in the office and at home will accelerate clearance of warts; monotherapy just doesn’t cut it.”

At the initial clinic visit, he advises asking patients how long the warts have been present, because sometimes they will go away within a year or two without treatment. “If someone says, ‘I’ve had these for years,’ you know you’re in for the long haul and you have to be aggressive with their therapy,” Dr. Friedman said. “Sometimes you’ll pick up plantar warts on a full-body skin exam and the patient may say, ‘I really don’t care. Please don’t touch them,’ so it’s important to understand how they are impacting quality of life.”

Patients should also be asked what treatments they have used previously, and it is important to set some realistic expectations and dispel some myths, Dr. Friedman said. “One of the most important things is that you must get these patients back. This is not often a one and done approach; you need to keep hitting them [with therapy], because if you let one infected keratinocyte survive, it’s going to come back and it’s still going to be contagious – more likely for that patient than for anyone else.”

The application of liquid nitrogen is a popular, inexpensive destructive treatment option, with spray canisters that cost about $600. “You have to consider the temperature of the liquid nitrogen spray because melanocytes die at negative 5 degrees Celsius, so you have to be mindful in patients with darker skin tones that you may leave with permanent dyschromia, meaning hypopigmentation or depigmentation when you do this,” he said. Because it is painful, “we’re limited when it comes to treating children with warts who are younger than 9 or 10. I don’t think the Q-tip method or dipping a hemostat in cryogen and touching the tip really works. You’ve got to create a nice ice ball that thaws and kills the infected keratinocytes.”

Dr. Friedman favors a 10-second freeze of the wart, usually for two to three cycles depending on its anatomic location, and he may give patients imiquimod or 5-FU to use at home for 5 nights of the week. A recently published study found that the use of ultrasound gel increases the efficacy of cryotherapy in the treatment of warts.

Another destructive treatment approach is cantharidin 0.7% applied topically in the office. It is believed to activate neutral serine proteases that cause degeneration of the desmosomal plaque, leading to detachment of tonofilaments from desmosomes. Repeat in-office applications within 14-21 days may be necessary for this treatment, which is not approved by the Food and Drug Administration. “It is painless on application unless there’s a break in the skin,” Dr. Friedman said.

For warts on thicker areas such as palms and soles, he often employs combination therapy with cantharidin 1%, salicylic acid 30%, and podophyllotoxin 5%. “This can hurt a little bit, but some patients require only one treatment for cure,” he said. “Efficacy depends on the size of the wart.”

VP-102, a proprietary, drug-device combination product containing cantharidin, 0.7% “is coming down the pike,” Dr. Friedman said. “From the data we have, it seems that pairing with a curette or a #15 blade first gets better penetration, which makes sense. Patients come back every 3-4 weeks for treatment. It is a big investment, but it is worth it. I tell patients it’s not worth starting if you’re not going to see it through. I tell them, ‘we’re going to see a lot of each other until this is clear.’ ”

As for immunomodulatory approaches, imiquimod 5% cream is approved for treating genital and perianal warts. In Dr. Friedman’s clinical experience, it has limited efficacy on keratinized skin unless the surface has been disrupted, “so don’t even waste your time unless you are using some approach to enhance skin penetration,” he advised. “Insurance coverage can be a challenge,” he added.

He recommends application with salicylic acid alternating with imiquimod 5% cream every night at bedtime – under occlusion for thicker skinned areas.

For patients who favor use of natural products, off-label ingenol mebutate is an option. A case series of its use in 17 patients with anogenital warts found that 16 experienced clearance of all warts treated with either 0.05% or 0.015% ingenol mebutate gel. Local irritation occurred within 24-48 hours and lasted 2-5 days.

A natural alternative treatment is Candida albicans skin test antigen (Candin), especially for cases of multiple lesions on the hands and feet, because a field effect can be achieved, Dr. Friedman said. “The idea here is simple. At most, you’re talking about injecting a sentinel wart with 0.3 mL Candin 2-10 times every 3 weeks. The wart may be in a field of warts. That will induce an immune reaction that brings in the cavalry. I find that it works very well but it is painful, so when you’re injecting the feet, get the foot positioned well, because that patient may inadvertently kick you in the face [upon injection].”

Authors of a recent systematic review and meta-analysis highlighted the efficacy for systemic retinoids in the treatment of warts, particularly recalcitrant or recurrent types (Dermatol Ther 2021 34[2]:e14793). “Tazarotene is going to be your best bet if you can get it,” Dr. Friedman said. “If you have to go lower like OTC adapalene or tretinoin, be my guest, but tazarotene works best by slowing down that rapid turnover that the virus is imparting on the basal keratinocyte layer. It can enhance penetration of drug but also thin the warts out.”

Dr. Friedman characterized human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccines, such as Gardasil 9, as “one of the greatest innovations” in the treatment of warts. While indicated as a preventive strategy, “it also works as treatment. I’ve had patients with recalcitrant genital warts who will clear after taking the vaccine. It is something to think about as an adjuvant to everything we do, because it can function as a treatment.”

Another immunologic treatment option is the oral H2-receptor antagonist cimetidine taken 30 mg/kg per day for 3-5 months. “There is mixed evidence of efficacy with this,” Dr. Friedman said. “I tend to use it in cases of innumerable flat warts.”

As for cytotoxic options for treating warts, bleomycin works at 250-1,000 U/mL injected per lesion, with lidocaine. “This is painful to patients both on application and post treatment,” he said. “But it works really well when used properly.”

In one study of 46 patients who received intralesional bleomycin, 74% patients had complete resolution of all warts with an average of 1.7 treatments. About 70% of patients experienced pain that lasted less than 2 days after treatment. In a separate study of patients treated with bleomycin for warts, researchers in India diluted bleomycin with lidocaine to help mitigate some of that pain.

An additional cytotoxic option, 5-FU in formulations of 5% cream/solution or 1% cream, can effectively treat warts. Dr. Friedman typically suggests application to the affected area twice daily for 3-5 weeks. “The cost can be high especially for off-label use,” he said. He noted that Skin Medicinals makes a compounded wart solution composed of 5% 5-FU and salicylic acid 30% solution. A 50 mL container sells for about $50.

Dr. Friedman had no relevant disclosures related to his presentation.

The perception of an inadequate milk supply can contribute to a new mother’s decision to cease breastfeeding prematurely, but identifying at-risk women is difficult. Now a new study suggests that, for some women, this impression, known as perceived inadequacy of milk supply (PIMS) appears to have a basis in genetics.

Steven D. Hicks, MD, PhD, associate professor of pediatrics at Penn State University, Hershey, and colleagues found that variations in the MFGE8 gene was associated with perceived breast milk supply.

“Genotyping one lactogenic gene aided identification of mothers at risk for PIMS. If validated in a larger cohort, such an approach could be used to identify mothers who may benefit from increased lactation support.” Dr. Hicks’ group wrote in Breastfeeding Medicine.

A simple 24-hour polymerase chain reaction test around the time of delivery could identify vulnerable mothers, who could receive targeted lactation support including galactagogue supplementation and early scheduling of “nurse and pump” routines.

“Also, if a woman is found to have PIMS, she would definitely want to avoid going on oral contraceptives after delivery as these can affect milk supply,” Dr. Hicks said in an interview. “That would be like a double hit in a woman already at risk.“

In other measures, she would meet once a week with a lactation consultant for the first 6 months to make sure good breastfeeding practices as to frequency and duration of placing the baby on the breast are being maintained, Dr. Hicks continued. “She needs to make sure her supply isn’t going backwards because once it starts to dry up, it’s really hard to turn the ship around.”

Dietary interventions to promote lactation may also help.
 

The study

In the context of a larger study on breast milk factors protecting children from developing allergies, the prospective observational analysis collected data on 221 breastfeeding mothers aged 19-42 years (mean age, 29 years) for 12 months.

All mothers had initially planned to nurse their babies for at least 6 months but some stopped well short of their goal.

“At least a third told us they gave up because they felt their milk supply had run out,” Dr. Hicks said in an interview.

Using salivas swabs, the investigators assessed 18 genes secreted from mammary tissue and previously linked in cows to secretory function for single-nucleotide polymorphisms in 88 age-, race-, and parity-matched women. Of these, 45 had PIMS and 43 had perceived adequate milk supply (PAMS).

Among differences between the two groups:

• PIMS mothers breastfed exclusively for a shorter period than PAMS mothers: 7 ± 12 weeks versus 22 ± 19 weeks(P = .001)
• At 1 month after delivery, their reported milk production was lower: 17.6 ± 13.3 oz/day versus 27.0 ± 12.2 oz/day (P = .0001). This shortfall persisted at 4 months: 16.0 ± 14.1 oz/day versus 27.3 ± 14.9 oz/day (P < .0010.
• Between birth and 1 month, infants of PIMS mothers also showed a smaller average increase in weight-for-length z score between birth and 1 month: 0.74 ± 1.4 versus 1.4 ± 1.5 (P = .038).

Furthermore, maternal genotype for the rs2271714 variant within MFGE8 was associated with PIMS status (P = .009; adjusted P = .09; likelihood ratio, 9.33), and duration of exclusive breastfeeding (P = .009; adjusted P = .09; chi square, 9.39).

Adding the MFGE8 genotype to a model including maternal age, parity, previous breastfeeding duration, body mass index, education, and depression status significantly increased predictive accuracy for PIMS status, the authors noted.

“This is a very exciting observation made by Dr. Hicks and his team, and the first study to identify a genetic variant associated with perceived insufficient milk supply,” said Shannon L. Kelleher, PhD, professor of biological and nutritional sciences at University of Massachusetts, Lowell.

“It provides compelling evidence that insufficient milk supply is very common and supports the urgent need to identify the risk factors and develop interventions to improve breastfeeding success,” added Dr. Kelleher, who was not involved in the study.

“If genetic variants such as the one identified in MFGE8 are confirmed to be common in mothers with insufficient milk supply, the development of lactation-focused genetic tests to identify women at risk for low milk supply would revolutionize our ability to support breastfeeding mothers and help them achieve their breastfeeding goals.”

Although 83% of new mothers initiate breastfeeding, only 57% are still breastfeeding at 6 months and only 35% breastfeed until 12 months, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Breastfeeding Report Card.

This study was funded by grants to Dr. Hicks from the Gerber Foundation and the Center for Research on Women and Newborns Foundation. The authors disclosed no competing interests. Dr. Kelleher reported no conflicts of interest relevant to her comments.

The perception of an inadequate milk supply can contribute to a new mother’s decision to cease breastfeeding prematurely, but identifying at-risk women is difficult. Now a new study suggests that, for some women, this impression, known as perceived inadequacy of milk supply (PIMS) appears to have a basis in genetics.

Steven D. Hicks, MD, PhD, associate professor of pediatrics at Penn State University, Hershey, and colleagues found that variations in the MFGE8 gene was associated with perceived breast milk supply.

“Genotyping one lactogenic gene aided identification of mothers at risk for PIMS. If validated in a larger cohort, such an approach could be used to identify mothers who may benefit from increased lactation support.” Dr. Hicks’ group wrote in Breastfeeding Medicine.

A simple 24-hour polymerase chain reaction test around the time of delivery could identify vulnerable mothers, who could receive targeted lactation support including galactagogue supplementation and early scheduling of “nurse and pump” routines.

“Also, if a woman is found to have PIMS, she would definitely want to avoid going on oral contraceptives after delivery as these can affect milk supply,” Dr. Hicks said in an interview. “That would be like a double hit in a woman already at risk.“

In other measures, she would meet once a week with a lactation consultant for the first 6 months to make sure good breastfeeding practices as to frequency and duration of placing the baby on the breast are being maintained, Dr. Hicks continued. “She needs to make sure her supply isn’t going backwards because once it starts to dry up, it’s really hard to turn the ship around.”

Dietary interventions to promote lactation may also help.
 

The study

In the context of a larger study on breast milk factors protecting children from developing allergies, the prospective observational analysis collected data on 221 breastfeeding mothers aged 19-42 years (mean age, 29 years) for 12 months.

All mothers had initially planned to nurse their babies for at least 6 months but some stopped well short of their goal.

“At least a third told us they gave up because they felt their milk supply had run out,” Dr. Hicks said in an interview.

Using salivas swabs, the investigators assessed 18 genes secreted from mammary tissue and previously linked in cows to secretory function for single-nucleotide polymorphisms in 88 age-, race-, and parity-matched women. Of these, 45 had PIMS and 43 had perceived adequate milk supply (PAMS).

Among differences between the two groups:

• PIMS mothers breastfed exclusively for a shorter period than PAMS mothers: 7 ± 12 weeks versus 22 ± 19 weeks(P = .001)
• At 1 month after delivery, their reported milk production was lower: 17.6 ± 13.3 oz/day versus 27.0 ± 12.2 oz/day (P = .0001). This shortfall persisted at 4 months: 16.0 ± 14.1 oz/day versus 27.3 ± 14.9 oz/day (P < .0010.
• Between birth and 1 month, infants of PIMS mothers also showed a smaller average increase in weight-for-length z score between birth and 1 month: 0.74 ± 1.4 versus 1.4 ± 1.5 (P = .038).

Furthermore, maternal genotype for the rs2271714 variant within MFGE8 was associated with PIMS status (P = .009; adjusted P = .09; likelihood ratio, 9.33), and duration of exclusive breastfeeding (P = .009; adjusted P = .09; chi square, 9.39).

Adding the MFGE8 genotype to a model including maternal age, parity, previous breastfeeding duration, body mass index, education, and depression status significantly increased predictive accuracy for PIMS status, the authors noted.

“This is a very exciting observation made by Dr. Hicks and his team, and the first study to identify a genetic variant associated with perceived insufficient milk supply,” said Shannon L. Kelleher, PhD, professor of biological and nutritional sciences at University of Massachusetts, Lowell.

“It provides compelling evidence that insufficient milk supply is very common and supports the urgent need to identify the risk factors and develop interventions to improve breastfeeding success,” added Dr. Kelleher, who was not involved in the study.

“If genetic variants such as the one identified in MFGE8 are confirmed to be common in mothers with insufficient milk supply, the development of lactation-focused genetic tests to identify women at risk for low milk supply would revolutionize our ability to support breastfeeding mothers and help them achieve their breastfeeding goals.”

Although 83% of new mothers initiate breastfeeding, only 57% are still breastfeeding at 6 months and only 35% breastfeed until 12 months, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Breastfeeding Report Card.

This study was funded by grants to Dr. Hicks from the Gerber Foundation and the Center for Research on Women and Newborns Foundation. The authors disclosed no competing interests. Dr. Kelleher reported no conflicts of interest relevant to her comments.

The perception of an inadequate milk supply can contribute to a new mother’s decision to cease breastfeeding prematurely, but identifying at-risk women is difficult. Now a new study suggests that, for some women, this impression, known as perceived inadequacy of milk supply (PIMS) appears to have a basis in genetics.

Steven D. Hicks, MD, PhD, associate professor of pediatrics at Penn State University, Hershey, and colleagues found that variations in the MFGE8 gene was associated with perceived breast milk supply.

“Genotyping one lactogenic gene aided identification of mothers at risk for PIMS. If validated in a larger cohort, such an approach could be used to identify mothers who may benefit from increased lactation support.” Dr. Hicks’ group wrote in Breastfeeding Medicine.

A simple 24-hour polymerase chain reaction test around the time of delivery could identify vulnerable mothers, who could receive targeted lactation support including galactagogue supplementation and early scheduling of “nurse and pump” routines.

“Also, if a woman is found to have PIMS, she would definitely want to avoid going on oral contraceptives after delivery as these can affect milk supply,” Dr. Hicks said in an interview. “That would be like a double hit in a woman already at risk.“

In other measures, she would meet once a week with a lactation consultant for the first 6 months to make sure good breastfeeding practices as to frequency and duration of placing the baby on the breast are being maintained, Dr. Hicks continued. “She needs to make sure her supply isn’t going backwards because once it starts to dry up, it’s really hard to turn the ship around.”

Dietary interventions to promote lactation may also help.
 

The study

In the context of a larger study on breast milk factors protecting children from developing allergies, the prospective observational analysis collected data on 221 breastfeeding mothers aged 19-42 years (mean age, 29 years) for 12 months.

All mothers had initially planned to nurse their babies for at least 6 months but some stopped well short of their goal.

“At least a third told us they gave up because they felt their milk supply had run out,” Dr. Hicks said in an interview.

Using salivas swabs, the investigators assessed 18 genes secreted from mammary tissue and previously linked in cows to secretory function for single-nucleotide polymorphisms in 88 age-, race-, and parity-matched women. Of these, 45 had PIMS and 43 had perceived adequate milk supply (PAMS).

Among differences between the two groups:

• PIMS mothers breastfed exclusively for a shorter period than PAMS mothers: 7 ± 12 weeks versus 22 ± 19 weeks(P = .001)
• At 1 month after delivery, their reported milk production was lower: 17.6 ± 13.3 oz/day versus 27.0 ± 12.2 oz/day (P = .0001). This shortfall persisted at 4 months: 16.0 ± 14.1 oz/day versus 27.3 ± 14.9 oz/day (P < .0010.
• Between birth and 1 month, infants of PIMS mothers also showed a smaller average increase in weight-for-length z score between birth and 1 month: 0.74 ± 1.4 versus 1.4 ± 1.5 (P = .038).

Furthermore, maternal genotype for the rs2271714 variant within MFGE8 was associated with PIMS status (P = .009; adjusted P = .09; likelihood ratio, 9.33), and duration of exclusive breastfeeding (P = .009; adjusted P = .09; chi square, 9.39).

Adding the MFGE8 genotype to a model including maternal age, parity, previous breastfeeding duration, body mass index, education, and depression status significantly increased predictive accuracy for PIMS status, the authors noted.

“This is a very exciting observation made by Dr. Hicks and his team, and the first study to identify a genetic variant associated with perceived insufficient milk supply,” said Shannon L. Kelleher, PhD, professor of biological and nutritional sciences at University of Massachusetts, Lowell.

“It provides compelling evidence that insufficient milk supply is very common and supports the urgent need to identify the risk factors and develop interventions to improve breastfeeding success,” added Dr. Kelleher, who was not involved in the study.

“If genetic variants such as the one identified in MFGE8 are confirmed to be common in mothers with insufficient milk supply, the development of lactation-focused genetic tests to identify women at risk for low milk supply would revolutionize our ability to support breastfeeding mothers and help them achieve their breastfeeding goals.”

Although 83% of new mothers initiate breastfeeding, only 57% are still breastfeeding at 6 months and only 35% breastfeed until 12 months, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Breastfeeding Report Card.

This study was funded by grants to Dr. Hicks from the Gerber Foundation and the Center for Research on Women and Newborns Foundation. The authors disclosed no competing interests. Dr. Kelleher reported no conflicts of interest relevant to her comments.

Kaseb et al report the results of a Phase 2 study where 27 patients with resectable HCC were randomized to receive either nivolumab alone or the combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab for 6 weeks before surgery, and then for up to 2 years after resection. Estimated median progression-free survival (PFS) was 9.4 months with nivolumab and 19.53 months with nivolumab plus ipilimumab (hazard ratio [HR] 0.99, 95% CI 0.31–2.54); median time to progression was 9.4 months in the nivolumab group and 19.53 months in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.31–2.54). Three (23%) of 13 patients had an overall response with nivolumab monotherapy, versus none with nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Three (33%) of nine patients had a major pathological response (ie, ≥70% necrosis in the resected tumor area) with nivolumab monotherapy compared with three (27%) of 11 with nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Grade 3–4 adverse events were higher with nivolumab plus ipilimumab (six [43%] of 14 patients) than with nivolumab alone (three [23%] of 13). The authors concluded that immunotherapy is safe and feasible in patients with resectable hepatocellular carcinoma.

Marron et al. evaluated the clinical activity of cemiplimab (an anti-PD-1) in 21 patients with resectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Cemiplimab was administered twice every 3 weeks before and 8 times after surgery. Of the 20 patients with resected tumors, four (20%) had significant (>70%) tumor necrosis with 15% showing complete (100%) tumor necrosis. Three (15%) of 20 patients had a radiologic partial response, and all other patients maintained stable disease. Seven (33%) patients had grade 3 adverse events. No grade 4 or 5 events were observed. The investigators concluded that perioperative cemiplimab should be studied further in patients with resectable HCC.

Finally, Guan et al. compared outcomes of 498 patients with resected HCC who also had hepatitis B virus infection (defined as HBsAg-positivity for >90 days). Of those, 367 patients (73.69%) received at least 3 months of postoperative anti-viral treatment (AVT), while 131 (27.31%) did not (non-AVT group). Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed on 206 patients. AVT was associated with better recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) either before or after PSM.  After PSM, the 1-, 3-, and 5-year RFS rates were 85.3%, 65.7%, and 19.1% vs. 76.7%, 46.6%, and 5.8% in the AVT and non-AVT groups, respectively (P = .001). The corresponding 1-, 3-, and 5-year OS rates were 99.0%, 89.8%, and 64.0% vs. 96.1%, 70.5%, and 43.2% in the AVT and non-AVT groups (P < .001). Risk factors that were independently associated with a poor RFS included HBV DNA positivity (P = .002), preoperative alpha fetoprotein (AFP) level of ≥20 ng/mL (P < .001), poor differentiation (P = .022), multiple tumors (P = .037), and microvascular invasion (P < .001). The conclusion was that AVT improves outcomes in patients with HBV and resectable HCC.

Kaseb et al report the results of a Phase 2 study where 27 patients with resectable HCC were randomized to receive either nivolumab alone or the combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab for 6 weeks before surgery, and then for up to 2 years after resection. Estimated median progression-free survival (PFS) was 9.4 months with nivolumab and 19.53 months with nivolumab plus ipilimumab (hazard ratio [HR] 0.99, 95% CI 0.31–2.54); median time to progression was 9.4 months in the nivolumab group and 19.53 months in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.31–2.54). Three (23%) of 13 patients had an overall response with nivolumab monotherapy, versus none with nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Three (33%) of nine patients had a major pathological response (ie, ≥70% necrosis in the resected tumor area) with nivolumab monotherapy compared with three (27%) of 11 with nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Grade 3–4 adverse events were higher with nivolumab plus ipilimumab (six [43%] of 14 patients) than with nivolumab alone (three [23%] of 13). The authors concluded that immunotherapy is safe and feasible in patients with resectable hepatocellular carcinoma.

Marron et al. evaluated the clinical activity of cemiplimab (an anti-PD-1) in 21 patients with resectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Cemiplimab was administered twice every 3 weeks before and 8 times after surgery. Of the 20 patients with resected tumors, four (20%) had significant (>70%) tumor necrosis with 15% showing complete (100%) tumor necrosis. Three (15%) of 20 patients had a radiologic partial response, and all other patients maintained stable disease. Seven (33%) patients had grade 3 adverse events. No grade 4 or 5 events were observed. The investigators concluded that perioperative cemiplimab should be studied further in patients with resectable HCC.

Finally, Guan et al. compared outcomes of 498 patients with resected HCC who also had hepatitis B virus infection (defined as HBsAg-positivity for >90 days). Of those, 367 patients (73.69%) received at least 3 months of postoperative anti-viral treatment (AVT), while 131 (27.31%) did not (non-AVT group). Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed on 206 patients. AVT was associated with better recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) either before or after PSM.  After PSM, the 1-, 3-, and 5-year RFS rates were 85.3%, 65.7%, and 19.1% vs. 76.7%, 46.6%, and 5.8% in the AVT and non-AVT groups, respectively (P = .001). The corresponding 1-, 3-, and 5-year OS rates were 99.0%, 89.8%, and 64.0% vs. 96.1%, 70.5%, and 43.2% in the AVT and non-AVT groups (P < .001). Risk factors that were independently associated with a poor RFS included HBV DNA positivity (P = .002), preoperative alpha fetoprotein (AFP) level of ≥20 ng/mL (P < .001), poor differentiation (P = .022), multiple tumors (P = .037), and microvascular invasion (P < .001). The conclusion was that AVT improves outcomes in patients with HBV and resectable HCC.

Kaseb et al report the results of a Phase 2 study where 27 patients with resectable HCC were randomized to receive either nivolumab alone or the combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab for 6 weeks before surgery, and then for up to 2 years after resection. Estimated median progression-free survival (PFS) was 9.4 months with nivolumab and 19.53 months with nivolumab plus ipilimumab (hazard ratio [HR] 0.99, 95% CI 0.31–2.54); median time to progression was 9.4 months in the nivolumab group and 19.53 months in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.31–2.54). Three (23%) of 13 patients had an overall response with nivolumab monotherapy, versus none with nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Three (33%) of nine patients had a major pathological response (ie, ≥70% necrosis in the resected tumor area) with nivolumab monotherapy compared with three (27%) of 11 with nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Grade 3–4 adverse events were higher with nivolumab plus ipilimumab (six [43%] of 14 patients) than with nivolumab alone (three [23%] of 13). The authors concluded that immunotherapy is safe and feasible in patients with resectable hepatocellular carcinoma.

Marron et al. evaluated the clinical activity of cemiplimab (an anti-PD-1) in 21 patients with resectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Cemiplimab was administered twice every 3 weeks before and 8 times after surgery. Of the 20 patients with resected tumors, four (20%) had significant (>70%) tumor necrosis with 15% showing complete (100%) tumor necrosis. Three (15%) of 20 patients had a radiologic partial response, and all other patients maintained stable disease. Seven (33%) patients had grade 3 adverse events. No grade 4 or 5 events were observed. The investigators concluded that perioperative cemiplimab should be studied further in patients with resectable HCC.

Finally, Guan et al. compared outcomes of 498 patients with resected HCC who also had hepatitis B virus infection (defined as HBsAg-positivity for >90 days). Of those, 367 patients (73.69%) received at least 3 months of postoperative anti-viral treatment (AVT), while 131 (27.31%) did not (non-AVT group). Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed on 206 patients. AVT was associated with better recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) either before or after PSM.  After PSM, the 1-, 3-, and 5-year RFS rates were 85.3%, 65.7%, and 19.1% vs. 76.7%, 46.6%, and 5.8% in the AVT and non-AVT groups, respectively (P = .001). The corresponding 1-, 3-, and 5-year OS rates were 99.0%, 89.8%, and 64.0% vs. 96.1%, 70.5%, and 43.2% in the AVT and non-AVT groups (P < .001). Risk factors that were independently associated with a poor RFS included HBV DNA positivity (P = .002), preoperative alpha fetoprotein (AFP) level of ≥20 ng/mL (P < .001), poor differentiation (P = .022), multiple tumors (P = .037), and microvascular invasion (P < .001). The conclusion was that AVT improves outcomes in patients with HBV and resectable HCC.

Investigators presenting at the American Society of Clinical Oncology’s Genitourinary Cancers Symposium called for neoadjuvant chemotherapy to be a new standard of care for high-grade upper tract urothelial carcinoma.

They made the call after finding that 63% of patients (36/57) had a pathologic response to gemcitabine/cisplatin before extirpative surgery, with pathologic response defined as less than pT2NO disease on postoperative pathology. Nineteen percent (11/57) had complete responses, with no evidence of the main tumor (ypT0N0).

The approach has a “favorable pathologic response, is well tolerated ... and thus should be considered a new standard of care option,” said investigators led by Wesley Yip, MD, a urologic oncology fellow at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.

There was no comparator arm, but the results are in line with previous reports, including a 2014 investigation that found a 5-year disease specific survival (DSS) of 90.1% and 5-year overall survival (OS) of 80.2% among 31 upper tract urothelial carcinoma patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy, versus a 5-year DSS and OS of 57.6% among 81 historical controls.

Presentation moderator Stephen Boorjian, MD, chair of urology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., called the findings “valuable” but noted there’s level 1 evidence for an alternative approach, chemotherapy or nivolumab after surgery for patients with particularly worrisome postop pathology. It makes it tough to know if patients should be treated beforehand or afterwards.

“What do we do?” he asked.

Dr. Yip said it’s an open question at this point but that trials are underway to address the issue. In the meantime, “it’s definitely a multidisciplinary discussion to know what’s best for each patient,” he said. One of the factors that argues for the neoadjuvant approach is that substantially fewer patients are eligible for chemotherapy after nephroureterectomy because of diminished renal function. “Patients who might not be eligible ... are the ones we’d be targeting for” neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC), he said.

In the study, gemcitabine 1000 mg/m² and cisplatin 35 mg/m² were administered on days 1 and 8 of four 21-day cycles, followed by radical nephroureterectomy or ureterectomy.

Fifty-three of the subjects had high-grade disease by endoscopic biopsy, and the remaining four were enrolled based on imaging and selective cytology. There was no nodal disease on CT within 30 days of neoadjuvant chemotherapy initiation.

Two-year progression-free survival (PFS) was 91% among pathologic responders but only 52% among nonresponders. Every responder was alive at 2 years versus 80% of nonresponders.

Across the entire cohort, 5-year PFS was 61% and 5-year OS 79%; 89.5% of patients were alive at a median follow-up of 3.5 years.

Almost all of the patients completed at least three NAC cycles, and all of them went to surgery, which had a 90-day grade 3 or higher complication rate of 7%.

Sixty-three percent were men, and 95% were White. The median age was 66 years.

The work was funded by the National Institutes of Health and Memorial Sloan Kettering. Dr. Yip had no disclosures. Dr. Boorjian advises ArTara Therapeutics, FerGene, and Ferring.

Investigators presenting at the American Society of Clinical Oncology’s Genitourinary Cancers Symposium called for neoadjuvant chemotherapy to be a new standard of care for high-grade upper tract urothelial carcinoma.

They made the call after finding that 63% of patients (36/57) had a pathologic response to gemcitabine/cisplatin before extirpative surgery, with pathologic response defined as less than pT2NO disease on postoperative pathology. Nineteen percent (11/57) had complete responses, with no evidence of the main tumor (ypT0N0).

The approach has a “favorable pathologic response, is well tolerated ... and thus should be considered a new standard of care option,” said investigators led by Wesley Yip, MD, a urologic oncology fellow at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.

There was no comparator arm, but the results are in line with previous reports, including a 2014 investigation that found a 5-year disease specific survival (DSS) of 90.1% and 5-year overall survival (OS) of 80.2% among 31 upper tract urothelial carcinoma patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy, versus a 5-year DSS and OS of 57.6% among 81 historical controls.

Presentation moderator Stephen Boorjian, MD, chair of urology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., called the findings “valuable” but noted there’s level 1 evidence for an alternative approach, chemotherapy or nivolumab after surgery for patients with particularly worrisome postop pathology. It makes it tough to know if patients should be treated beforehand or afterwards.

“What do we do?” he asked.

Dr. Yip said it’s an open question at this point but that trials are underway to address the issue. In the meantime, “it’s definitely a multidisciplinary discussion to know what’s best for each patient,” he said. One of the factors that argues for the neoadjuvant approach is that substantially fewer patients are eligible for chemotherapy after nephroureterectomy because of diminished renal function. “Patients who might not be eligible ... are the ones we’d be targeting for” neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC), he said.

In the study, gemcitabine 1000 mg/m² and cisplatin 35 mg/m² were administered on days 1 and 8 of four 21-day cycles, followed by radical nephroureterectomy or ureterectomy.

Fifty-three of the subjects had high-grade disease by endoscopic biopsy, and the remaining four were enrolled based on imaging and selective cytology. There was no nodal disease on CT within 30 days of neoadjuvant chemotherapy initiation.

Two-year progression-free survival (PFS) was 91% among pathologic responders but only 52% among nonresponders. Every responder was alive at 2 years versus 80% of nonresponders.

Across the entire cohort, 5-year PFS was 61% and 5-year OS 79%; 89.5% of patients were alive at a median follow-up of 3.5 years.

Almost all of the patients completed at least three NAC cycles, and all of them went to surgery, which had a 90-day grade 3 or higher complication rate of 7%.

Sixty-three percent were men, and 95% were White. The median age was 66 years.

The work was funded by the National Institutes of Health and Memorial Sloan Kettering. Dr. Yip had no disclosures. Dr. Boorjian advises ArTara Therapeutics, FerGene, and Ferring.

Investigators presenting at the American Society of Clinical Oncology’s Genitourinary Cancers Symposium called for neoadjuvant chemotherapy to be a new standard of care for high-grade upper tract urothelial carcinoma.

They made the call after finding that 63% of patients (36/57) had a pathologic response to gemcitabine/cisplatin before extirpative surgery, with pathologic response defined as less than pT2NO disease on postoperative pathology. Nineteen percent (11/57) had complete responses, with no evidence of the main tumor (ypT0N0).

The approach has a “favorable pathologic response, is well tolerated ... and thus should be considered a new standard of care option,” said investigators led by Wesley Yip, MD, a urologic oncology fellow at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.

There was no comparator arm, but the results are in line with previous reports, including a 2014 investigation that found a 5-year disease specific survival (DSS) of 90.1% and 5-year overall survival (OS) of 80.2% among 31 upper tract urothelial carcinoma patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy, versus a 5-year DSS and OS of 57.6% among 81 historical controls.

Presentation moderator Stephen Boorjian, MD, chair of urology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., called the findings “valuable” but noted there’s level 1 evidence for an alternative approach, chemotherapy or nivolumab after surgery for patients with particularly worrisome postop pathology. It makes it tough to know if patients should be treated beforehand or afterwards.

“What do we do?” he asked.

Dr. Yip said it’s an open question at this point but that trials are underway to address the issue. In the meantime, “it’s definitely a multidisciplinary discussion to know what’s best for each patient,” he said. One of the factors that argues for the neoadjuvant approach is that substantially fewer patients are eligible for chemotherapy after nephroureterectomy because of diminished renal function. “Patients who might not be eligible ... are the ones we’d be targeting for” neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC), he said.

In the study, gemcitabine 1000 mg/m² and cisplatin 35 mg/m² were administered on days 1 and 8 of four 21-day cycles, followed by radical nephroureterectomy or ureterectomy.

Fifty-three of the subjects had high-grade disease by endoscopic biopsy, and the remaining four were enrolled based on imaging and selective cytology. There was no nodal disease on CT within 30 days of neoadjuvant chemotherapy initiation.

Two-year progression-free survival (PFS) was 91% among pathologic responders but only 52% among nonresponders. Every responder was alive at 2 years versus 80% of nonresponders.

Across the entire cohort, 5-year PFS was 61% and 5-year OS 79%; 89.5% of patients were alive at a median follow-up of 3.5 years.

Almost all of the patients completed at least three NAC cycles, and all of them went to surgery, which had a 90-day grade 3 or higher complication rate of 7%.

Sixty-three percent were men, and 95% were White. The median age was 66 years.

The work was funded by the National Institutes of Health and Memorial Sloan Kettering. Dr. Yip had no disclosures. Dr. Boorjian advises ArTara Therapeutics, FerGene, and Ferring.

LAS VEGAS – When evaluating adolescents for suspected substance use disorders, don’t forget to assess for medical conditions such as sexually transmitted diseases and hepatitis C, Timothy E. Wilens, MD, advised during an annual psychopharmacology update held by the Nevada Psychiatric Association.

“We see high rates of STDs, and we have about 10% of our kids who use opioids who already have hepatitis C,” said Dr. Wilens, who is chief of the division of child & adolescent psychiatry at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. “These are kids who may be 16, 17, or 18.”

While the CRAFTT Screening Test has been widely used to screen for substance-related risks and problems in adolescents, another more recent option is the Screening to Brief Intervention (S2BI). Both tools collect information about both alcohol and drug use, are supported by strong research, are available for free, and are easy to use, Dr. Wilens said.

After you generate a differential diagnosis for psychiatric/medical symptoms, clinicians should order urine, saliva, or hair toxicology screens. “We don’t recommend that toxicology screens be done by parents; we do the toxicology screens,” he said. “Be careful about certain things like limitations of detection in the case of high-potency benzodiazepines and duration of detection in the case of marijuana use. The other thing is some of our screens can be used qualitatively or quantitatively. Why is that helpful? If you’re following someone who’s on marijuana and they’re cutting back, you can see if use [really] goes down over time.”

In Dr. Wilen’s clinical experience, efforts to stabilize adolescents with substance use disorders are most effective when patients join support groups comprised of other people from similar sociodemographic backgrounds. “There are different self-help philosophies, but when you’re referring, I always tell people: ‘Have the kid look in a mirror.’ So, if you have an LGBTQ patient from the inner city, that person should not be going to an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting of middle-aged persons in the suburbs. That’s not going to work for them. You want them to be with very similar sociodemographic groups if possible.”

Support groups for parents are also helpful. “There are two levels here: Peer groups of parents that help each other with support and find referrals, and there are parent coaching groups, where you have patients work with professionals,” said Dr. Wilens, who is also codirector of the MGH Center for Addiction Medicine. He advises parents to avoid “tough love” as the first step in efforts to help their child. “Tough love is, you throw the kid out of the house because they won’t stop using,” he said. “Where do you think the kid lives if they’re not at home? Where do you think they’re going to go? Maybe to the home of a friend or a family member for 1 or 2 nights but otherwise they’re living on the streets. How do you think they’re going to make a living if they’re living on the streets? They either sell drugs, or they get involved in prostitution. I have worked with more kids who are furious at their parents because they threw them out of the house. I understand where the patients are coming from, but maybe have a graduated exit instead, where the kid has to sleep outside in a camper for 2 nights, or in an isolated room in the house, or to grandma’s house, which smells like mothballs. Have a graduated approach.”

Psychotherapy is the mainstay of treatment and begins with motivational interviewing. To foster a collaborative connection, Dr. Wilens advises clinicians to discuss issues that are problematic instead of focusing on the substance use right off the bat. “Rather than go right to saying, ‘let’s talk about you smoking too much marijuana,’ instead say, ‘what is it you think may be causing the fights with your parents?’ Or, maybe their peer group isn’t accepting them like they used to.”

In his experience, adolescents respond well to goal setting. For example, for patients who say they’re smoking marijuana every day, Dr. Wilens may ask if they can cut back use to three days per week. “I’ll say: ‘I’m going to write this down in the chart,’ ” he said. “They start to work on it. If they come back and they didn’t reach that goal I say: ‘If you can’t cut back it’s okay; I just need to know it.’ ” He also recommends “sobriety sampling” which asks the patient to make a minimal commitment to stop using, for say, 30 days. “Don’t forget to monitor substance use during follow-up meetings.”

According to Dr. Wilens, child psychiatrists can help prevent substance abuse by encouraging discussion within families by the time kids are in fifth grade and encouraging parents to monitor children’s activities, friends, and personal space. “Privacy is a relative term,” he said. “It’s good you’re in their space. Make their beds; go into their bedroom.” He also advises parents to not smoke marijuana behind their kids’ backs. “I love it when parents tell me: ‘They don’t know I smoke marijuana.’ My counter to that is ‘not only do they know, they’re smoking your marijuana.’ ”

He concluded his remarks by encouraging child psychiatrists to advocate for sensible public laws related to marijuana and other substances. “Zero tolerance laws don’t work, because 85% of kids experiment [with drugs],” said Dr. Wilens, who is also professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “It works great until it’s your kid or a neighbor’s kid who’s a good kid but gets thrown out of school.”

Dr. Wilens reported that he has received grant support from the National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration. He has also served as a consultant to Vallon and has a licensing/collaborative agreement with Ironshore and 3D Therapy.

LAS VEGAS – When evaluating adolescents for suspected substance use disorders, don’t forget to assess for medical conditions such as sexually transmitted diseases and hepatitis C, Timothy E. Wilens, MD, advised during an annual psychopharmacology update held by the Nevada Psychiatric Association.

“We see high rates of STDs, and we have about 10% of our kids who use opioids who already have hepatitis C,” said Dr. Wilens, who is chief of the division of child & adolescent psychiatry at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. “These are kids who may be 16, 17, or 18.”

While the CRAFTT Screening Test has been widely used to screen for substance-related risks and problems in adolescents, another more recent option is the Screening to Brief Intervention (S2BI). Both tools collect information about both alcohol and drug use, are supported by strong research, are available for free, and are easy to use, Dr. Wilens said.

After you generate a differential diagnosis for psychiatric/medical symptoms, clinicians should order urine, saliva, or hair toxicology screens. “We don’t recommend that toxicology screens be done by parents; we do the toxicology screens,” he said. “Be careful about certain things like limitations of detection in the case of high-potency benzodiazepines and duration of detection in the case of marijuana use. The other thing is some of our screens can be used qualitatively or quantitatively. Why is that helpful? If you’re following someone who’s on marijuana and they’re cutting back, you can see if use [really] goes down over time.”

In Dr. Wilen’s clinical experience, efforts to stabilize adolescents with substance use disorders are most effective when patients join support groups comprised of other people from similar sociodemographic backgrounds. “There are different self-help philosophies, but when you’re referring, I always tell people: ‘Have the kid look in a mirror.’ So, if you have an LGBTQ patient from the inner city, that person should not be going to an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting of middle-aged persons in the suburbs. That’s not going to work for them. You want them to be with very similar sociodemographic groups if possible.”

Support groups for parents are also helpful. “There are two levels here: Peer groups of parents that help each other with support and find referrals, and there are parent coaching groups, where you have patients work with professionals,” said Dr. Wilens, who is also codirector of the MGH Center for Addiction Medicine. He advises parents to avoid “tough love” as the first step in efforts to help their child. “Tough love is, you throw the kid out of the house because they won’t stop using,” he said. “Where do you think the kid lives if they’re not at home? Where do you think they’re going to go? Maybe to the home of a friend or a family member for 1 or 2 nights but otherwise they’re living on the streets. How do you think they’re going to make a living if they’re living on the streets? They either sell drugs, or they get involved in prostitution. I have worked with more kids who are furious at their parents because they threw them out of the house. I understand where the patients are coming from, but maybe have a graduated exit instead, where the kid has to sleep outside in a camper for 2 nights, or in an isolated room in the house, or to grandma’s house, which smells like mothballs. Have a graduated approach.”

Psychotherapy is the mainstay of treatment and begins with motivational interviewing. To foster a collaborative connection, Dr. Wilens advises clinicians to discuss issues that are problematic instead of focusing on the substance use right off the bat. “Rather than go right to saying, ‘let’s talk about you smoking too much marijuana,’ instead say, ‘what is it you think may be causing the fights with your parents?’ Or, maybe their peer group isn’t accepting them like they used to.”

In his experience, adolescents respond well to goal setting. For example, for patients who say they’re smoking marijuana every day, Dr. Wilens may ask if they can cut back use to three days per week. “I’ll say: ‘I’m going to write this down in the chart,’ ” he said. “They start to work on it. If they come back and they didn’t reach that goal I say: ‘If you can’t cut back it’s okay; I just need to know it.’ ” He also recommends “sobriety sampling” which asks the patient to make a minimal commitment to stop using, for say, 30 days. “Don’t forget to monitor substance use during follow-up meetings.”

According to Dr. Wilens, child psychiatrists can help prevent substance abuse by encouraging discussion within families by the time kids are in fifth grade and encouraging parents to monitor children’s activities, friends, and personal space. “Privacy is a relative term,” he said. “It’s good you’re in their space. Make their beds; go into their bedroom.” He also advises parents to not smoke marijuana behind their kids’ backs. “I love it when parents tell me: ‘They don’t know I smoke marijuana.’ My counter to that is ‘not only do they know, they’re smoking your marijuana.’ ”

He concluded his remarks by encouraging child psychiatrists to advocate for sensible public laws related to marijuana and other substances. “Zero tolerance laws don’t work, because 85% of kids experiment [with drugs],” said Dr. Wilens, who is also professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “It works great until it’s your kid or a neighbor’s kid who’s a good kid but gets thrown out of school.”

Dr. Wilens reported that he has received grant support from the National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration. He has also served as a consultant to Vallon and has a licensing/collaborative agreement with Ironshore and 3D Therapy.

LAS VEGAS – When evaluating adolescents for suspected substance use disorders, don’t forget to assess for medical conditions such as sexually transmitted diseases and hepatitis C, Timothy E. Wilens, MD, advised during an annual psychopharmacology update held by the Nevada Psychiatric Association.

“We see high rates of STDs, and we have about 10% of our kids who use opioids who already have hepatitis C,” said Dr. Wilens, who is chief of the division of child & adolescent psychiatry at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. “These are kids who may be 16, 17, or 18.”

While the CRAFTT Screening Test has been widely used to screen for substance-related risks and problems in adolescents, another more recent option is the Screening to Brief Intervention (S2BI). Both tools collect information about both alcohol and drug use, are supported by strong research, are available for free, and are easy to use, Dr. Wilens said.

After you generate a differential diagnosis for psychiatric/medical symptoms, clinicians should order urine, saliva, or hair toxicology screens. “We don’t recommend that toxicology screens be done by parents; we do the toxicology screens,” he said. “Be careful about certain things like limitations of detection in the case of high-potency benzodiazepines and duration of detection in the case of marijuana use. The other thing is some of our screens can be used qualitatively or quantitatively. Why is that helpful? If you’re following someone who’s on marijuana and they’re cutting back, you can see if use [really] goes down over time.”

In Dr. Wilen’s clinical experience, efforts to stabilize adolescents with substance use disorders are most effective when patients join support groups comprised of other people from similar sociodemographic backgrounds. “There are different self-help philosophies, but when you’re referring, I always tell people: ‘Have the kid look in a mirror.’ So, if you have an LGBTQ patient from the inner city, that person should not be going to an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting of middle-aged persons in the suburbs. That’s not going to work for them. You want them to be with very similar sociodemographic groups if possible.”

Support groups for parents are also helpful. “There are two levels here: Peer groups of parents that help each other with support and find referrals, and there are parent coaching groups, where you have patients work with professionals,” said Dr. Wilens, who is also codirector of the MGH Center for Addiction Medicine. He advises parents to avoid “tough love” as the first step in efforts to help their child. “Tough love is, you throw the kid out of the house because they won’t stop using,” he said. “Where do you think the kid lives if they’re not at home? Where do you think they’re going to go? Maybe to the home of a friend or a family member for 1 or 2 nights but otherwise they’re living on the streets. How do you think they’re going to make a living if they’re living on the streets? They either sell drugs, or they get involved in prostitution. I have worked with more kids who are furious at their parents because they threw them out of the house. I understand where the patients are coming from, but maybe have a graduated exit instead, where the kid has to sleep outside in a camper for 2 nights, or in an isolated room in the house, or to grandma’s house, which smells like mothballs. Have a graduated approach.”

Psychotherapy is the mainstay of treatment and begins with motivational interviewing. To foster a collaborative connection, Dr. Wilens advises clinicians to discuss issues that are problematic instead of focusing on the substance use right off the bat. “Rather than go right to saying, ‘let’s talk about you smoking too much marijuana,’ instead say, ‘what is it you think may be causing the fights with your parents?’ Or, maybe their peer group isn’t accepting them like they used to.”

In his experience, adolescents respond well to goal setting. For example, for patients who say they’re smoking marijuana every day, Dr. Wilens may ask if they can cut back use to three days per week. “I’ll say: ‘I’m going to write this down in the chart,’ ” he said. “They start to work on it. If they come back and they didn’t reach that goal I say: ‘If you can’t cut back it’s okay; I just need to know it.’ ” He also recommends “sobriety sampling” which asks the patient to make a minimal commitment to stop using, for say, 30 days. “Don’t forget to monitor substance use during follow-up meetings.”

According to Dr. Wilens, child psychiatrists can help prevent substance abuse by encouraging discussion within families by the time kids are in fifth grade and encouraging parents to monitor children’s activities, friends, and personal space. “Privacy is a relative term,” he said. “It’s good you’re in their space. Make their beds; go into their bedroom.” He also advises parents to not smoke marijuana behind their kids’ backs. “I love it when parents tell me: ‘They don’t know I smoke marijuana.’ My counter to that is ‘not only do they know, they’re smoking your marijuana.’ ”

He concluded his remarks by encouraging child psychiatrists to advocate for sensible public laws related to marijuana and other substances. “Zero tolerance laws don’t work, because 85% of kids experiment [with drugs],” said Dr. Wilens, who is also professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “It works great until it’s your kid or a neighbor’s kid who’s a good kid but gets thrown out of school.”

Dr. Wilens reported that he has received grant support from the National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration. He has also served as a consultant to Vallon and has a licensing/collaborative agreement with Ironshore and 3D Therapy.

Kaseb et al report the results of a Phase 2 study where 27 patients with resectable HCC were randomized to receive either nivolumab alone or the combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab for 6 weeks before surgery, and then for up to 2 years after resection. Estimated median progression-free survival (PFS) was 9.4 months with nivolumab and 19.53 months with nivolumab plus ipilimumab (hazard ratio [HR] 0.99, 95% CI 0.31–2.54); median time to progression was 9.4 months in the nivolumab group and 19.53 months in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.31–2.54). Three (23%) of 13 patients had an overall response with nivolumab monotherapy, versus none with nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Three (33%) of nine patients had a major pathological response (ie, ≥70% necrosis in the resected tumor area) with nivolumab monotherapy compared with three (27%) of 11 with nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Grade 3–4 adverse events were higher with nivolumab plus ipilimumab (six [43%] of 14 patients) than with nivolumab alone (three [23%] of 13). The authors concluded that immunotherapy is safe and feasible in patients with resectable hepatocellular carcinoma.

Marron et al. evaluated the clinical activity of cemiplimab (an anti-PD-1) in 21 patients with resectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Cemiplimab was administered twice every 3 weeks before and 8 times after surgery. Of the 20 patients with resected tumors, four (20%) had significant (>70%) tumor necrosis with 15% showing complete (100%) tumor necrosis. Three (15%) of 20 patients had a radiologic partial response, and all other patients maintained stable disease. Seven (33%) patients had grade 3 adverse events. No grade 4 or 5 events were observed. The investigators concluded that perioperative cemiplimab should be studied further in patients with resectable HCC.

Finally, Guan et al. compared outcomes of 498 patients with resected HCC who also had hepatitis B virus infection (defined as HBsAg-positivity for >90 days). Of those, 367 patients (73.69%) received at least 3 months of postoperative anti-viral treatment (AVT), while 131 (27.31%) did not (non-AVT group). Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed on 206 patients. AVT was associated with better recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) either before or after PSM.  After PSM, the 1-, 3-, and 5-year RFS rates were 85.3%, 65.7%, and 19.1% vs. 76.7%, 46.6%, and 5.8% in the AVT and non-AVT groups, respectively (P = .001). The corresponding 1-, 3-, and 5-year OS rates were 99.0%, 89.8%, and 64.0% vs. 96.1%, 70.5%, and 43.2% in the AVT and non-AVT groups (P < .001). Risk factors that were independently associated with a poor RFS included HBV DNA positivity (P = .002), preoperative alpha fetoprotein (AFP) level of ≥20 ng/mL (P < .001), poor differentiation (P = .022), multiple tumors (P = .037), and microvascular invasion (P < .001). The conclusion was that AVT improves outcomes in patients with HBV and resectable HCC.

Kaseb et al report the results of a Phase 2 study where 27 patients with resectable HCC were randomized to receive either nivolumab alone or the combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab for 6 weeks before surgery, and then for up to 2 years after resection. Estimated median progression-free survival (PFS) was 9.4 months with nivolumab and 19.53 months with nivolumab plus ipilimumab (hazard ratio [HR] 0.99, 95% CI 0.31–2.54); median time to progression was 9.4 months in the nivolumab group and 19.53 months in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.31–2.54). Three (23%) of 13 patients had an overall response with nivolumab monotherapy, versus none with nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Three (33%) of nine patients had a major pathological response (ie, ≥70% necrosis in the resected tumor area) with nivolumab monotherapy compared with three (27%) of 11 with nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Grade 3–4 adverse events were higher with nivolumab plus ipilimumab (six [43%] of 14 patients) than with nivolumab alone (three [23%] of 13). The authors concluded that immunotherapy is safe and feasible in patients with resectable hepatocellular carcinoma.

Marron et al. evaluated the clinical activity of cemiplimab (an anti-PD-1) in 21 patients with resectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Cemiplimab was administered twice every 3 weeks before and 8 times after surgery. Of the 20 patients with resected tumors, four (20%) had significant (>70%) tumor necrosis with 15% showing complete (100%) tumor necrosis. Three (15%) of 20 patients had a radiologic partial response, and all other patients maintained stable disease. Seven (33%) patients had grade 3 adverse events. No grade 4 or 5 events were observed. The investigators concluded that perioperative cemiplimab should be studied further in patients with resectable HCC.

Finally, Guan et al. compared outcomes of 498 patients with resected HCC who also had hepatitis B virus infection (defined as HBsAg-positivity for >90 days). Of those, 367 patients (73.69%) received at least 3 months of postoperative anti-viral treatment (AVT), while 131 (27.31%) did not (non-AVT group). Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed on 206 patients. AVT was associated with better recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) either before or after PSM.  After PSM, the 1-, 3-, and 5-year RFS rates were 85.3%, 65.7%, and 19.1% vs. 76.7%, 46.6%, and 5.8% in the AVT and non-AVT groups, respectively (P = .001). The corresponding 1-, 3-, and 5-year OS rates were 99.0%, 89.8%, and 64.0% vs. 96.1%, 70.5%, and 43.2% in the AVT and non-AVT groups (P < .001). Risk factors that were independently associated with a poor RFS included HBV DNA positivity (P = .002), preoperative alpha fetoprotein (AFP) level of ≥20 ng/mL (P < .001), poor differentiation (P = .022), multiple tumors (P = .037), and microvascular invasion (P < .001). The conclusion was that AVT improves outcomes in patients with HBV and resectable HCC.

Kaseb et al report the results of a Phase 2 study where 27 patients with resectable HCC were randomized to receive either nivolumab alone or the combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab for 6 weeks before surgery, and then for up to 2 years after resection. Estimated median progression-free survival (PFS) was 9.4 months with nivolumab and 19.53 months with nivolumab plus ipilimumab (hazard ratio [HR] 0.99, 95% CI 0.31–2.54); median time to progression was 9.4 months in the nivolumab group and 19.53 months in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.31–2.54). Three (23%) of 13 patients had an overall response with nivolumab monotherapy, versus none with nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Three (33%) of nine patients had a major pathological response (ie, ≥70% necrosis in the resected tumor area) with nivolumab monotherapy compared with three (27%) of 11 with nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Grade 3–4 adverse events were higher with nivolumab plus ipilimumab (six [43%] of 14 patients) than with nivolumab alone (three [23%] of 13). The authors concluded that immunotherapy is safe and feasible in patients with resectable hepatocellular carcinoma.

Marron et al. evaluated the clinical activity of cemiplimab (an anti-PD-1) in 21 patients with resectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Cemiplimab was administered twice every 3 weeks before and 8 times after surgery. Of the 20 patients with resected tumors, four (20%) had significant (>70%) tumor necrosis with 15% showing complete (100%) tumor necrosis. Three (15%) of 20 patients had a radiologic partial response, and all other patients maintained stable disease. Seven (33%) patients had grade 3 adverse events. No grade 4 or 5 events were observed. The investigators concluded that perioperative cemiplimab should be studied further in patients with resectable HCC.

Finally, Guan et al. compared outcomes of 498 patients with resected HCC who also had hepatitis B virus infection (defined as HBsAg-positivity for >90 days). Of those, 367 patients (73.69%) received at least 3 months of postoperative anti-viral treatment (AVT), while 131 (27.31%) did not (non-AVT group). Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed on 206 patients. AVT was associated with better recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) either before or after PSM.  After PSM, the 1-, 3-, and 5-year RFS rates were 85.3%, 65.7%, and 19.1% vs. 76.7%, 46.6%, and 5.8% in the AVT and non-AVT groups, respectively (P = .001). The corresponding 1-, 3-, and 5-year OS rates were 99.0%, 89.8%, and 64.0% vs. 96.1%, 70.5%, and 43.2% in the AVT and non-AVT groups (P < .001). Risk factors that were independently associated with a poor RFS included HBV DNA positivity (P = .002), preoperative alpha fetoprotein (AFP) level of ≥20 ng/mL (P < .001), poor differentiation (P = .022), multiple tumors (P = .037), and microvascular invasion (P < .001). The conclusion was that AVT improves outcomes in patients with HBV and resectable HCC.

Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) shows efficacy as a potential noninvasive option for the treatment of low-risk microcarcinomas in papillary thyroid cancer (PTC) when measures beyond active surveillance are warranted, results from a new review show.

“The results in the current study suggest that RFA could function as a useful alternative treatment strategy in which patients are treated minimally invasively with curative intentions,” reported the authors of the meta-analysis published online in JAMA Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery.

Commenting on the research, Joanna Klubo-Gwiezdzinska, MD, PhD, said the work offers useful evidence on the potential role for RFA in low-risk micro-PTC – with some notable caveats.

“I agree that RFA might be a good option for patients unwilling or unable to accept active surveillance and for patients who are at high surgical risk because of comorbid conditions,” she told this news organization.

However, “RFA for patients with an evidence of nodule growth requires more data to be analyzed and a longer follow-up period in lieu of the fact that 21% of nodules subjected to RFA did not disappear, based on the data the authors provide,” noted Dr. Klubo-Gwiezdzinska, who is acting chief of thyroid tumors and functional thyroid disorders at the National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, in Bethesda, Md.  
 

When active surveillance isn’t enough

Microcarcinoma PTC, defined as measuring 10 mm or less, is highly common, making up approximately half of papillary thyroid cancers diagnosed in some countries, and the outcomes of those cancers are excellent, with disease-specific survival of more than 99% after 10 years.

Guidelines in the United States and Europe typically recommend surgery (lobectomy) as a standard treatment for thyroid cancer, however, with many of the low-risk microcarcinomas remaining indolent and never progressing to the point of requiring treatment over a person’s lifetime, some also recommend considering active surveillance, or watchful waiting, for those lower-risk cancers.

In situations such as evidence of tumor growth during active surveillance, some countries, particularly Asian countries, also suggest considering thermal ablation techniques, including RFA, as an alternative to surgery, with key benefits including lower costs and potentially a lower risk of complications, compared with surgical lobectomy.

Otherwise, RFA is more typically reserved for benign nodules, recurrent PTC, or inoperable disease.
 

New meta-analysis

To investigate reported outcomes with RFA specifically in the treatment of microcarcinoma PTC, the authors, led by Sam P.J. van Dijk, BSc, of University Medical Center Rotterdam (the Netherlands), identified 15 studies published after 2016 involving 1,770 adult patients and 1,822 tumors who received RFA for the treatment of low-risk PTC microcarcinomas, defined as measuring 10 mm or less.

The studies were conducted in China and South Korea, where RFA is more commonly used in low-risk microcarcinoma PTC.

Patients were 77.9% women and a mean age of 45.4 years. The analysis excluded patients with pre-ablation lymph node or distant metastases, recurrence of disease, or extrathyroidal extension.

Of the 1,822 tumors treated with RFA, 49 required an additional RFA treatment and 1 tumor had two additional treatments.

With a mean follow-up of 33 months (range, 6-131 months), the primary outcome of the pooled rate of complete disappearance of microcarcinoma PTC on ultrasonography was 79%.

The overall rate of tumor progression was 1.5% (26 patients), and local residual microcarcinoma PTC occurred in 0.4% (7 tumors).

New microcarcinoma PTC occurred in 0.9% (15) of patients; 0.2% (4) developed lymph node metastases during follow-up, and no distant metastases were observed.

Minor complications occurred in 45 patients, and there were three major complications, including two voice changes that lasted more than 2 months and one cardiac arrhythmia.

“This study suggests that radiofrequency ablation is a safe and efficient method to treat selected low-risk papillary microcarcinoma of the thyroid,” the researchers said.
 

Questions surrounding the 20% of patients who still had residual nodules

While the analysis did not include direct comparisons between RFA and lobectomy, Dr. Klubo-Gwiezdzinska noted that, in general, “RFA appears to be associated with a lower complication rate compared with surgery, but also lower efficacy, with 21% of patients with residual nodules.”

The results raise the question of whether “all of the residual lesions are associated with persistent disease, and, if so, do they warrant further intervention?” she added.

To that point, the authors noted that only seven (0.4%) of the 21% of patients with persistent nodules showed residual microcarcinoma PTC cells after RFA, a fact that underscores that “the assessment of tumor response in patients with mPTC after RFA is complicated,” they wrote.

A key concern with assessing responses in RFA is that fine needle aspiration has been shown to have reduced diagnostic accuracy following treatment due to insufficient cellularity in the ablation area, the authors noted.

They add that core needle biopsy is believed to have higher accuracy.

While commenting that the analysis used the “best standards,” Dr. Klubo-Gwiezdzinska noted the caveat that it provides “low- to moderate-quality evidence as it included either case series or retrospective cohort studies, characterized by an inherent bias associated with these study designs.”

And as the authors also acknowledge, possible overlap in the included cohorts “could mean that sample sizes might be smaller than reported,” Dr. Klubo-Gwiezdzinska commented.

To further evaluate the pros and cons of RFA, the authors suggested that “future studies may focus on improving complete disappearance rates of the tumor volume, possibly with more advanced or longer RFA procedures.”
 

RFA an option for some patients

In the meantime, senior author Tessa M. van Ginhoven, MD, PhD, of the department of surgical oncology and gastrointestinal surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, suggests that, in addition to cases of local tumor growth, possible uses of RFA for micro-PTC could include situations of patient anxiety due to active surveillance.

“If active surveillance is appropriate for your population, but the patient is anxious and prefers lobectomy, one could envision RFA as a possible adjunct to active surveillance,” she told this news organization.

The authors and Dr. Klubo-Gwiezdzinska reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) shows efficacy as a potential noninvasive option for the treatment of low-risk microcarcinomas in papillary thyroid cancer (PTC) when measures beyond active surveillance are warranted, results from a new review show.

“The results in the current study suggest that RFA could function as a useful alternative treatment strategy in which patients are treated minimally invasively with curative intentions,” reported the authors of the meta-analysis published online in JAMA Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery.

Commenting on the research, Joanna Klubo-Gwiezdzinska, MD, PhD, said the work offers useful evidence on the potential role for RFA in low-risk micro-PTC – with some notable caveats.

“I agree that RFA might be a good option for patients unwilling or unable to accept active surveillance and for patients who are at high surgical risk because of comorbid conditions,” she told this news organization.

However, “RFA for patients with an evidence of nodule growth requires more data to be analyzed and a longer follow-up period in lieu of the fact that 21% of nodules subjected to RFA did not disappear, based on the data the authors provide,” noted Dr. Klubo-Gwiezdzinska, who is acting chief of thyroid tumors and functional thyroid disorders at the National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, in Bethesda, Md.  
 

When active surveillance isn’t enough

Microcarcinoma PTC, defined as measuring 10 mm or less, is highly common, making up approximately half of papillary thyroid cancers diagnosed in some countries, and the outcomes of those cancers are excellent, with disease-specific survival of more than 99% after 10 years.

Guidelines in the United States and Europe typically recommend surgery (lobectomy) as a standard treatment for thyroid cancer, however, with many of the low-risk microcarcinomas remaining indolent and never progressing to the point of requiring treatment over a person’s lifetime, some also recommend considering active surveillance, or watchful waiting, for those lower-risk cancers.

In situations such as evidence of tumor growth during active surveillance, some countries, particularly Asian countries, also suggest considering thermal ablation techniques, including RFA, as an alternative to surgery, with key benefits including lower costs and potentially a lower risk of complications, compared with surgical lobectomy.

Otherwise, RFA is more typically reserved for benign nodules, recurrent PTC, or inoperable disease.
 

New meta-analysis

To investigate reported outcomes with RFA specifically in the treatment of microcarcinoma PTC, the authors, led by Sam P.J. van Dijk, BSc, of University Medical Center Rotterdam (the Netherlands), identified 15 studies published after 2016 involving 1,770 adult patients and 1,822 tumors who received RFA for the treatment of low-risk PTC microcarcinomas, defined as measuring 10 mm or less.

The studies were conducted in China and South Korea, where RFA is more commonly used in low-risk microcarcinoma PTC.

Patients were 77.9% women and a mean age of 45.4 years. The analysis excluded patients with pre-ablation lymph node or distant metastases, recurrence of disease, or extrathyroidal extension.

Of the 1,822 tumors treated with RFA, 49 required an additional RFA treatment and 1 tumor had two additional treatments.

With a mean follow-up of 33 months (range, 6-131 months), the primary outcome of the pooled rate of complete disappearance of microcarcinoma PTC on ultrasonography was 79%.

The overall rate of tumor progression was 1.5% (26 patients), and local residual microcarcinoma PTC occurred in 0.4% (7 tumors).

New microcarcinoma PTC occurred in 0.9% (15) of patients; 0.2% (4) developed lymph node metastases during follow-up, and no distant metastases were observed.

Minor complications occurred in 45 patients, and there were three major complications, including two voice changes that lasted more than 2 months and one cardiac arrhythmia.

“This study suggests that radiofrequency ablation is a safe and efficient method to treat selected low-risk papillary microcarcinoma of the thyroid,” the researchers said.
 

Questions surrounding the 20% of patients who still had residual nodules

While the analysis did not include direct comparisons between RFA and lobectomy, Dr. Klubo-Gwiezdzinska noted that, in general, “RFA appears to be associated with a lower complication rate compared with surgery, but also lower efficacy, with 21% of patients with residual nodules.”

The results raise the question of whether “all of the residual lesions are associated with persistent disease, and, if so, do they warrant further intervention?” she added.

To that point, the authors noted that only seven (0.4%) of the 21% of patients with persistent nodules showed residual microcarcinoma PTC cells after RFA, a fact that underscores that “the assessment of tumor response in patients with mPTC after RFA is complicated,” they wrote.

A key concern with assessing responses in RFA is that fine needle aspiration has been shown to have reduced diagnostic accuracy following treatment due to insufficient cellularity in the ablation area, the authors noted.

They add that core needle biopsy is believed to have higher accuracy.

While commenting that the analysis used the “best standards,” Dr. Klubo-Gwiezdzinska noted the caveat that it provides “low- to moderate-quality evidence as it included either case series or retrospective cohort studies, characterized by an inherent bias associated with these study designs.”

And as the authors also acknowledge, possible overlap in the included cohorts “could mean that sample sizes might be smaller than reported,” Dr. Klubo-Gwiezdzinska commented.

To further evaluate the pros and cons of RFA, the authors suggested that “future studies may focus on improving complete disappearance rates of the tumor volume, possibly with more advanced or longer RFA procedures.”
 

RFA an option for some patients

In the meantime, senior author Tessa M. van Ginhoven, MD, PhD, of the department of surgical oncology and gastrointestinal surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, suggests that, in addition to cases of local tumor growth, possible uses of RFA for micro-PTC could include situations of patient anxiety due to active surveillance.

“If active surveillance is appropriate for your population, but the patient is anxious and prefers lobectomy, one could envision RFA as a possible adjunct to active surveillance,” she told this news organization.

The authors and Dr. Klubo-Gwiezdzinska reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) shows efficacy as a potential noninvasive option for the treatment of low-risk microcarcinomas in papillary thyroid cancer (PTC) when measures beyond active surveillance are warranted, results from a new review show.

“The results in the current study suggest that RFA could function as a useful alternative treatment strategy in which patients are treated minimally invasively with curative intentions,” reported the authors of the meta-analysis published online in JAMA Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery.

Commenting on the research, Joanna Klubo-Gwiezdzinska, MD, PhD, said the work offers useful evidence on the potential role for RFA in low-risk micro-PTC – with some notable caveats.

“I agree that RFA might be a good option for patients unwilling or unable to accept active surveillance and for patients who are at high surgical risk because of comorbid conditions,” she told this news organization.

However, “RFA for patients with an evidence of nodule growth requires more data to be analyzed and a longer follow-up period in lieu of the fact that 21% of nodules subjected to RFA did not disappear, based on the data the authors provide,” noted Dr. Klubo-Gwiezdzinska, who is acting chief of thyroid tumors and functional thyroid disorders at the National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, in Bethesda, Md.  
 

When active surveillance isn’t enough

Microcarcinoma PTC, defined as measuring 10 mm or less, is highly common, making up approximately half of papillary thyroid cancers diagnosed in some countries, and the outcomes of those cancers are excellent, with disease-specific survival of more than 99% after 10 years.

Guidelines in the United States and Europe typically recommend surgery (lobectomy) as a standard treatment for thyroid cancer, however, with many of the low-risk microcarcinomas remaining indolent and never progressing to the point of requiring treatment over a person’s lifetime, some also recommend considering active surveillance, or watchful waiting, for those lower-risk cancers.

In situations such as evidence of tumor growth during active surveillance, some countries, particularly Asian countries, also suggest considering thermal ablation techniques, including RFA, as an alternative to surgery, with key benefits including lower costs and potentially a lower risk of complications, compared with surgical lobectomy.

Otherwise, RFA is more typically reserved for benign nodules, recurrent PTC, or inoperable disease.
 

New meta-analysis

To investigate reported outcomes with RFA specifically in the treatment of microcarcinoma PTC, the authors, led by Sam P.J. van Dijk, BSc, of University Medical Center Rotterdam (the Netherlands), identified 15 studies published after 2016 involving 1,770 adult patients and 1,822 tumors who received RFA for the treatment of low-risk PTC microcarcinomas, defined as measuring 10 mm or less.

The studies were conducted in China and South Korea, where RFA is more commonly used in low-risk microcarcinoma PTC.

Patients were 77.9% women and a mean age of 45.4 years. The analysis excluded patients with pre-ablation lymph node or distant metastases, recurrence of disease, or extrathyroidal extension.

Of the 1,822 tumors treated with RFA, 49 required an additional RFA treatment and 1 tumor had two additional treatments.

With a mean follow-up of 33 months (range, 6-131 months), the primary outcome of the pooled rate of complete disappearance of microcarcinoma PTC on ultrasonography was 79%.

The overall rate of tumor progression was 1.5% (26 patients), and local residual microcarcinoma PTC occurred in 0.4% (7 tumors).

New microcarcinoma PTC occurred in 0.9% (15) of patients; 0.2% (4) developed lymph node metastases during follow-up, and no distant metastases were observed.

Minor complications occurred in 45 patients, and there were three major complications, including two voice changes that lasted more than 2 months and one cardiac arrhythmia.

“This study suggests that radiofrequency ablation is a safe and efficient method to treat selected low-risk papillary microcarcinoma of the thyroid,” the researchers said.
 

Questions surrounding the 20% of patients who still had residual nodules

While the analysis did not include direct comparisons between RFA and lobectomy, Dr. Klubo-Gwiezdzinska noted that, in general, “RFA appears to be associated with a lower complication rate compared with surgery, but also lower efficacy, with 21% of patients with residual nodules.”

The results raise the question of whether “all of the residual lesions are associated with persistent disease, and, if so, do they warrant further intervention?” she added.

To that point, the authors noted that only seven (0.4%) of the 21% of patients with persistent nodules showed residual microcarcinoma PTC cells after RFA, a fact that underscores that “the assessment of tumor response in patients with mPTC after RFA is complicated,” they wrote.

A key concern with assessing responses in RFA is that fine needle aspiration has been shown to have reduced diagnostic accuracy following treatment due to insufficient cellularity in the ablation area, the authors noted.

They add that core needle biopsy is believed to have higher accuracy.

While commenting that the analysis used the “best standards,” Dr. Klubo-Gwiezdzinska noted the caveat that it provides “low- to moderate-quality evidence as it included either case series or retrospective cohort studies, characterized by an inherent bias associated with these study designs.”

And as the authors also acknowledge, possible overlap in the included cohorts “could mean that sample sizes might be smaller than reported,” Dr. Klubo-Gwiezdzinska commented.

To further evaluate the pros and cons of RFA, the authors suggested that “future studies may focus on improving complete disappearance rates of the tumor volume, possibly with more advanced or longer RFA procedures.”
 

RFA an option for some patients

In the meantime, senior author Tessa M. van Ginhoven, MD, PhD, of the department of surgical oncology and gastrointestinal surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, suggests that, in addition to cases of local tumor growth, possible uses of RFA for micro-PTC could include situations of patient anxiety due to active surveillance.

“If active surveillance is appropriate for your population, but the patient is anxious and prefers lobectomy, one could envision RFA as a possible adjunct to active surveillance,” she told this news organization.

The authors and Dr. Klubo-Gwiezdzinska reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Breast cancer risk genes are generally associated with triple-negative and high-grade disease, but differ substantially in their associated pathology, a large case-control analysis shows.

The findings have potential implications for genetic testing, risk prediction, variant classification, and screening, the authors noted.

To assess links between pathogenic germline variants in nine major breast cancer (BC) susceptibility genes and pathological features of nonmetastasized breast tumors, investigators from the Breast Cancer Association Consortium compared 42,680 women with breast cancer and 42,387 population-matched controls from the BRIDGES large-scale sequencing study.

They looked specifically at features relevant to prognosis and distinct therapeutic options, including tumor subtype, morphology, size, stage, and lymph node involvement, and found substantial differences in tumor subtype distribution by gene.

“Pathogenic [protein-truncating variants and pathogenic missense variants] in these ... susceptibility genes were disproportionately associated with more aggressive breast caner, particularly among younger women,” they wrote, noting that carriers of rare genetic variants in the nine genes comprised more than 27% of women diagnosed at age 40 or younger with triple-negative disease (driven mainly by BRCA1) and about 16% of those diagnosed with hormone receptor (HR)–positive, HER2-negative high-grade disease.

All together, the nine genes were associated with 14.4% of tumors in women aged 40 years and younger, but less than 4% in women over age 60 years, and among younger women, the prevalence of variants combined was higher in those with triple-negative and HR-positive, HER2-negative disease versus other subtypes, they said.

The findings were published online on Jan. 27, 2022, in JAMA Oncology.

Study subjects were women aged 18-79 years who were sampled, independently of family history, from 38 international population- or hospital-based studies conducted between 1991 and 2016.

The genes assessed included ATM, BARD1, BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, PALB2, RAD51C, RAD51D, and TP53.

Substantial heterogeneity was observed in the distribution of intrinsic subtypes by gene. For example, RAD51C, RAD51D, and BARD1 variants were associated mainly with triple-negative disease (odds ratios, 6.19, 6.19, and 10.05 respectively), and CHEK2 variants were associated with all subtypes (with ORs ranging from 2.21-3.17) except for triple-negative disease, the authors found.

“For ATM variants, the association was strongest for [HR-positive, HER2-negative]high-grade subtype (OR, 4.99). BRCA1 was associated with increased risk of all subtypes, but the ORs varied widely, being highest for triple-negative disease (OR, 55.32),” they wrote.

BRCA2 and PALB2 variants were also associated with triple-negative disease, TP53 variants were most strongly associated with HR-positive, HER2-negative and HR-negative, HER2-positive subtypes, and tumors occurring in pathogenic variant carriers were of higher grade, they added, noting that for most genes and subtypes, a decline in ORs was observed with increasing age.

All genes except CHEK2 were more strongly associated with high-grade disease.

These and other findings from the study can “inform guidelines for eligibility for gene panel sequencing and breast cancer surveillance in the general population,” the authors explained, adding that tumor characteristics can also be used to determine whether variants of uncertain significance are likely to be pathogenic.

The data should therefore “improve the precision of variant classification algorithms and extend them to a larger set of genes,” they noted.

“This case-control study suggests that rare variants in BC susceptibility genes display marked heterogeneity with respect to tumor phenotype, but also similarities between genes that are consistent with known biological functions. This present study provides detailed quantification of subtype-specific breast cancer risks; these can potentially improve risk prediction models and breast cancer prevention strategies,” they concluded.

More specifically, women found to be carrying variants in these genes may be offered enhanced screening, including by MRI, risk-reducing surgery, chemoprevention, and genetic counseling, corresponding author Nasim Mavaddat, MBBS, PhD, explained in an interview.

“Understanding tumor pathology associated with the genes can inform breast cancer risk prediction models, and management and treatment of women harboring pathogenic variants,” she noted.

The findings “enhance our understanding of breast cancer biology and aid efforts to classify whether genetic variants of uncertain significance are also likely to be pathogenic,” added Dr. Mavaddat, a senior research associate at the University of Cambridge (England).

She also said the investigators are taking steps to include the results in “CanRisk,” a cancer risk prediction model used by genetic counselors and other clinicians, and are “exploring whether variants in these genes are associated with contralateral breast cancer risk and survival after a breast cancer.”

As most participants were European, analyses should be extended to women of other racial and ethnic groups, she added.

The BRIDGES panel sequencing was supported by the European Union Horizon 2020 research and innovation program BRIDGES and the Wellcome Trust. The Breast Cancer Association Consortium is also funded by the European Union Horizon 2020 research and innovation program, the PERSPECTIVE I&I project, which is funded by the Government of Canada, and the Confluence project, which is funded with intramural funds from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Mavaddat reported grants from the University of Cambridge, European Union Horizon 2020, Wellcome Trust, Genome Canada, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and National Cancer Institute during the conduct of the study.

Breast cancer risk genes are generally associated with triple-negative and high-grade disease, but differ substantially in their associated pathology, a large case-control analysis shows.

The findings have potential implications for genetic testing, risk prediction, variant classification, and screening, the authors noted.

To assess links between pathogenic germline variants in nine major breast cancer (BC) susceptibility genes and pathological features of nonmetastasized breast tumors, investigators from the Breast Cancer Association Consortium compared 42,680 women with breast cancer and 42,387 population-matched controls from the BRIDGES large-scale sequencing study.

They looked specifically at features relevant to prognosis and distinct therapeutic options, including tumor subtype, morphology, size, stage, and lymph node involvement, and found substantial differences in tumor subtype distribution by gene.

“Pathogenic [protein-truncating variants and pathogenic missense variants] in these ... susceptibility genes were disproportionately associated with more aggressive breast caner, particularly among younger women,” they wrote, noting that carriers of rare genetic variants in the nine genes comprised more than 27% of women diagnosed at age 40 or younger with triple-negative disease (driven mainly by BRCA1) and about 16% of those diagnosed with hormone receptor (HR)–positive, HER2-negative high-grade disease.

All together, the nine genes were associated with 14.4% of tumors in women aged 40 years and younger, but less than 4% in women over age 60 years, and among younger women, the prevalence of variants combined was higher in those with triple-negative and HR-positive, HER2-negative disease versus other subtypes, they said.

The findings were published online on Jan. 27, 2022, in JAMA Oncology.

Study subjects were women aged 18-79 years who were sampled, independently of family history, from 38 international population- or hospital-based studies conducted between 1991 and 2016.

The genes assessed included ATM, BARD1, BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, PALB2, RAD51C, RAD51D, and TP53.

Substantial heterogeneity was observed in the distribution of intrinsic subtypes by gene. For example, RAD51C, RAD51D, and BARD1 variants were associated mainly with triple-negative disease (odds ratios, 6.19, 6.19, and 10.05 respectively), and CHEK2 variants were associated with all subtypes (with ORs ranging from 2.21-3.17) except for triple-negative disease, the authors found.

“For ATM variants, the association was strongest for [HR-positive, HER2-negative]high-grade subtype (OR, 4.99). BRCA1 was associated with increased risk of all subtypes, but the ORs varied widely, being highest for triple-negative disease (OR, 55.32),” they wrote.

BRCA2 and PALB2 variants were also associated with triple-negative disease, TP53 variants were most strongly associated with HR-positive, HER2-negative and HR-negative, HER2-positive subtypes, and tumors occurring in pathogenic variant carriers were of higher grade, they added, noting that for most genes and subtypes, a decline in ORs was observed with increasing age.

All genes except CHEK2 were more strongly associated with high-grade disease.

These and other findings from the study can “inform guidelines for eligibility for gene panel sequencing and breast cancer surveillance in the general population,” the authors explained, adding that tumor characteristics can also be used to determine whether variants of uncertain significance are likely to be pathogenic.

The data should therefore “improve the precision of variant classification algorithms and extend them to a larger set of genes,” they noted.

“This case-control study suggests that rare variants in BC susceptibility genes display marked heterogeneity with respect to tumor phenotype, but also similarities between genes that are consistent with known biological functions. This present study provides detailed quantification of subtype-specific breast cancer risks; these can potentially improve risk prediction models and breast cancer prevention strategies,” they concluded.

More specifically, women found to be carrying variants in these genes may be offered enhanced screening, including by MRI, risk-reducing surgery, chemoprevention, and genetic counseling, corresponding author Nasim Mavaddat, MBBS, PhD, explained in an interview.

“Understanding tumor pathology associated with the genes can inform breast cancer risk prediction models, and management and treatment of women harboring pathogenic variants,” she noted.

The findings “enhance our understanding of breast cancer biology and aid efforts to classify whether genetic variants of uncertain significance are also likely to be pathogenic,” added Dr. Mavaddat, a senior research associate at the University of Cambridge (England).

She also said the investigators are taking steps to include the results in “CanRisk,” a cancer risk prediction model used by genetic counselors and other clinicians, and are “exploring whether variants in these genes are associated with contralateral breast cancer risk and survival after a breast cancer.”

As most participants were European, analyses should be extended to women of other racial and ethnic groups, she added.

The BRIDGES panel sequencing was supported by the European Union Horizon 2020 research and innovation program BRIDGES and the Wellcome Trust. The Breast Cancer Association Consortium is also funded by the European Union Horizon 2020 research and innovation program, the PERSPECTIVE I&I project, which is funded by the Government of Canada, and the Confluence project, which is funded with intramural funds from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Mavaddat reported grants from the University of Cambridge, European Union Horizon 2020, Wellcome Trust, Genome Canada, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and National Cancer Institute during the conduct of the study.

Breast cancer risk genes are generally associated with triple-negative and high-grade disease, but differ substantially in their associated pathology, a large case-control analysis shows.

The findings have potential implications for genetic testing, risk prediction, variant classification, and screening, the authors noted.

To assess links between pathogenic germline variants in nine major breast cancer (BC) susceptibility genes and pathological features of nonmetastasized breast tumors, investigators from the Breast Cancer Association Consortium compared 42,680 women with breast cancer and 42,387 population-matched controls from the BRIDGES large-scale sequencing study.

They looked specifically at features relevant to prognosis and distinct therapeutic options, including tumor subtype, morphology, size, stage, and lymph node involvement, and found substantial differences in tumor subtype distribution by gene.

“Pathogenic [protein-truncating variants and pathogenic missense variants] in these ... susceptibility genes were disproportionately associated with more aggressive breast caner, particularly among younger women,” they wrote, noting that carriers of rare genetic variants in the nine genes comprised more than 27% of women diagnosed at age 40 or younger with triple-negative disease (driven mainly by BRCA1) and about 16% of those diagnosed with hormone receptor (HR)–positive, HER2-negative high-grade disease.

All together, the nine genes were associated with 14.4% of tumors in women aged 40 years and younger, but less than 4% in women over age 60 years, and among younger women, the prevalence of variants combined was higher in those with triple-negative and HR-positive, HER2-negative disease versus other subtypes, they said.

The findings were published online on Jan. 27, 2022, in JAMA Oncology.

Study subjects were women aged 18-79 years who were sampled, independently of family history, from 38 international population- or hospital-based studies conducted between 1991 and 2016.

The genes assessed included ATM, BARD1, BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, PALB2, RAD51C, RAD51D, and TP53.

Substantial heterogeneity was observed in the distribution of intrinsic subtypes by gene. For example, RAD51C, RAD51D, and BARD1 variants were associated mainly with triple-negative disease (odds ratios, 6.19, 6.19, and 10.05 respectively), and CHEK2 variants were associated with all subtypes (with ORs ranging from 2.21-3.17) except for triple-negative disease, the authors found.

“For ATM variants, the association was strongest for [HR-positive, HER2-negative]high-grade subtype (OR, 4.99). BRCA1 was associated with increased risk of all subtypes, but the ORs varied widely, being highest for triple-negative disease (OR, 55.32),” they wrote.

BRCA2 and PALB2 variants were also associated with triple-negative disease, TP53 variants were most strongly associated with HR-positive, HER2-negative and HR-negative, HER2-positive subtypes, and tumors occurring in pathogenic variant carriers were of higher grade, they added, noting that for most genes and subtypes, a decline in ORs was observed with increasing age.

All genes except CHEK2 were more strongly associated with high-grade disease.

These and other findings from the study can “inform guidelines for eligibility for gene panel sequencing and breast cancer surveillance in the general population,” the authors explained, adding that tumor characteristics can also be used to determine whether variants of uncertain significance are likely to be pathogenic.

The data should therefore “improve the precision of variant classification algorithms and extend them to a larger set of genes,” they noted.

“This case-control study suggests that rare variants in BC susceptibility genes display marked heterogeneity with respect to tumor phenotype, but also similarities between genes that are consistent with known biological functions. This present study provides detailed quantification of subtype-specific breast cancer risks; these can potentially improve risk prediction models and breast cancer prevention strategies,” they concluded.

More specifically, women found to be carrying variants in these genes may be offered enhanced screening, including by MRI, risk-reducing surgery, chemoprevention, and genetic counseling, corresponding author Nasim Mavaddat, MBBS, PhD, explained in an interview.

“Understanding tumor pathology associated with the genes can inform breast cancer risk prediction models, and management and treatment of women harboring pathogenic variants,” she noted.

The findings “enhance our understanding of breast cancer biology and aid efforts to classify whether genetic variants of uncertain significance are also likely to be pathogenic,” added Dr. Mavaddat, a senior research associate at the University of Cambridge (England).

She also said the investigators are taking steps to include the results in “CanRisk,” a cancer risk prediction model used by genetic counselors and other clinicians, and are “exploring whether variants in these genes are associated with contralateral breast cancer risk and survival after a breast cancer.”

As most participants were European, analyses should be extended to women of other racial and ethnic groups, she added.

The BRIDGES panel sequencing was supported by the European Union Horizon 2020 research and innovation program BRIDGES and the Wellcome Trust. The Breast Cancer Association Consortium is also funded by the European Union Horizon 2020 research and innovation program, the PERSPECTIVE I&I project, which is funded by the Government of Canada, and the Confluence project, which is funded with intramural funds from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Mavaddat reported grants from the University of Cambridge, European Union Horizon 2020, Wellcome Trust, Genome Canada, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and National Cancer Institute during the conduct of the study.

If you worry that artificial intelligence (AI) will one day replace your own clinical acumen as a dermatologist, Vishal A. Patel, MD, advises you to think differently.

“AI is meant to be an enhancement strategy, a support tool to improve our diagnostic abilities,” Dr. Patel, a Mohs surgeon who is director of cutaneous oncology at the George Washington University Cancer Center, Washington, said during the ODAC Dermatology, Aesthetic & Surgical Conference. “Dermatologists should embrace AI and drive how it is utilized – be the captain of the plane (technology) and the passenger (patient). If we’re not in the forefront of the plane, we’re not to be able to dictate which way we are going with this.”

In 2019, a group of German researchers found that AI can improve accuracy and efficiency of specialists in classifying skin cancer based on dermoscopic images. “I really do believe this is going to be the future,” said Dr. Patel, who was not involved with the study. “Current research involves using supervised learning on known outcomes to determine inputs to predict them. In dermatology, think of identifying melanoma from clinical or dermoscopic images or predicting metastasis risk from digitized pathology slides.”

However, there are currently no universal guidelines on how large an AI dataset needs to be to yield accurate results. In the dermatology literature, most AI datasets range between 600 and 14,000 examples, Dr. Patel said, with a large study-specific variation in performance. “Misleading results can result from unanticipated training errors,” he said.

“The AI network may learn its intended task or an unrelated situational cue. For example, you can use great images to predict melanoma, but you may have an unintended poor outcome related to images that have, say, a ruler inside of them clustered within the melanoma diagnoses.” And unbeknown to the system’s developer, “the algorithm picks up that the ruler is predictive of an image being a melanoma and not the pigmented lesion itself.” In other words, the algorithm is only as good as the dataset being used, he said. “This is the key element, to ask what the dataset is that’s training the tool that you may one day use.”
 

Convolutional neural network

In 2017, a seminal study published in Nature showed that for classification of melanoma and epidermal lesions, a type of AI used in image processing known as a convolutional neural network (CNN) was on par with dermatologists and outperformed the average. For epidermal lesions, the network was one standard deviation higher above the average for dermatologists, while for melanocytic lesions, the network was just below one standard deviation above the average of the dermatologists. A CNN “clearly can perform well because it works on a different level than how our brains work,” Dr. Patel said.

In a separate study, a CNN trained to recognize melanoma in dermoscopic images was compared to 58 international dermatologists with varying levels of dermoscopy experience; 29% were “beginners,” with less than 2 years of experience; 19% were “skilled,” with 2-5 years of experience; and 52% were “experts,” with at least 5 years of experience. The analysis consisted of two experiments: In level I, dermatologists classified lesions based on dermoscopy only. In level II, dermatologists were provided dermoscopy, clinical images, and additional clinical information, while the CNN was trained on images only. The researchers found that most dermatologists were outperformed by the CNN. “Physicians of all different levels of training and experience may benefit from assistance by a CNN’s image classification,” they concluded.
 

Gene expression profiling

Another aspect of AI is gene expression profiling (GEP), which Dr. Patel defined as the evaluation of frequency and intensity of genetic activity at once to create a global picture of cellular function. “It’s AI that uses machine learning to evaluate genetic expression to assess lesion behavior,” he explained.

One GEP test on the market is the Pigmented Lesion Assay (PLA) from DermTech, a noninvasive test that looks at the expression of two genes to predict if a lesion is malignant or not. “Based on their validation set, they have shown some impressive numbers,” with sensitivities above 90%, and published registry data that have shown higher sensitivities “and even specificities above 90%,” he said.

“On the surface, it looks like this would be a useful test,” Dr. Patel said. A study published in 2021 looked at the evidence of applying real-world evidence with this test to see if results held up. Based on the authors’ analysis, he noted, “you would need a sensitivity and specificity of 95% to yield a positivity rate of 9.5% for the PLA test, which is what has been reported in real-world use. So, there’s a disconnect somewhere and we are not quite there yet.” That may be a result of the dataset itself not being as uniform between the validation and the training datasets, he continued. Also, the expression of certain genes is different “if you don’t have a clean input variable” of what the test is being used for, he added.

“If you’re not mirroring the dataset, you’re not going to get clean data,” he said. “So, if you’re using this on younger patients or for sun-damaged lesional skin or nonmelanocytic lesions around sun-damaged areas, there are variable expressions that may not be accurately captured by that algorithm. This might help explain the real-world variation that we’re seeing.”

Another GEP test in use is the 31-Gene Expression Profile Test for Melanoma, which evaluates gene expressions in melanoma tumors and what the behavior of that tumor may be. The test has been available for more than a decade “and there is a lot of speculation about its use,” Dr. Patel said. “A recent paper attempted to come up with an algorithm of how to use this, but there’s a lot of concern about the endpoints of what changes in management might result from this test. That is what we need to be thinking about. There’s a lot of back and forth about this.”

In 2020, authors of a consensus statement on prognostic GEP in cutaneous melanoma concluded that before GEP testing is routinely used, the clinical benefit in the management of patients with melanoma should be established through further clinical investigation. Dr. Patel recommended the accompanying editorial on GEP in melanoma, written by Hensin Tsao, MD, PhD, and Warren H. Chan, MS, in JAMA Dermatology.

In Dr. Patel’s opinion, T1a melanomas (0.8 mm, nonulcerated) do not need routine GEP, but the GEP test may be useful in cases that are in the “gray zone,” such as those with T1b or some borderline T2a melanomas (> 0.8 mm, < 1.2mm, nonulcerated, but with high mitosis, etc.); patients with unique coexisting conditions such as pregnancy, and patients who may not tolerate sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) or adjuvant therapy.

Echoing sentiments expressed in the JAMA Dermatology editorial, he advised dermatologists to “remember your training and know the data. GEP predicting survival is not the same as SLNB positive rate. GEP should not replace standard guidelines in T2a and higher melanomas. Nodal sampling remains part of all major guidelines and determines adjuvant therapy.”

He cited the characterization of GEP in the editorial as “a powerful technology” that heralds the age of personalized medicine, but it is not ready for ubiquitous use. Prospective studies and time will lead to highly accurate tools.”

Dr. Patel disclosed that he is chief medical officer for Lazarus AI.

If you worry that artificial intelligence (AI) will one day replace your own clinical acumen as a dermatologist, Vishal A. Patel, MD, advises you to think differently.

“AI is meant to be an enhancement strategy, a support tool to improve our diagnostic abilities,” Dr. Patel, a Mohs surgeon who is director of cutaneous oncology at the George Washington University Cancer Center, Washington, said during the ODAC Dermatology, Aesthetic & Surgical Conference. “Dermatologists should embrace AI and drive how it is utilized – be the captain of the plane (technology) and the passenger (patient). If we’re not in the forefront of the plane, we’re not to be able to dictate which way we are going with this.”

In 2019, a group of German researchers found that AI can improve accuracy and efficiency of specialists in classifying skin cancer based on dermoscopic images. “I really do believe this is going to be the future,” said Dr. Patel, who was not involved with the study. “Current research involves using supervised learning on known outcomes to determine inputs to predict them. In dermatology, think of identifying melanoma from clinical or dermoscopic images or predicting metastasis risk from digitized pathology slides.”

However, there are currently no universal guidelines on how large an AI dataset needs to be to yield accurate results. In the dermatology literature, most AI datasets range between 600 and 14,000 examples, Dr. Patel said, with a large study-specific variation in performance. “Misleading results can result from unanticipated training errors,” he said.

“The AI network may learn its intended task or an unrelated situational cue. For example, you can use great images to predict melanoma, but you may have an unintended poor outcome related to images that have, say, a ruler inside of them clustered within the melanoma diagnoses.” And unbeknown to the system’s developer, “the algorithm picks up that the ruler is predictive of an image being a melanoma and not the pigmented lesion itself.” In other words, the algorithm is only as good as the dataset being used, he said. “This is the key element, to ask what the dataset is that’s training the tool that you may one day use.”
 

Convolutional neural network

In 2017, a seminal study published in Nature showed that for classification of melanoma and epidermal lesions, a type of AI used in image processing known as a convolutional neural network (CNN) was on par with dermatologists and outperformed the average. For epidermal lesions, the network was one standard deviation higher above the average for dermatologists, while for melanocytic lesions, the network was just below one standard deviation above the average of the dermatologists. A CNN “clearly can perform well because it works on a different level than how our brains work,” Dr. Patel said.

In a separate study, a CNN trained to recognize melanoma in dermoscopic images was compared to 58 international dermatologists with varying levels of dermoscopy experience; 29% were “beginners,” with less than 2 years of experience; 19% were “skilled,” with 2-5 years of experience; and 52% were “experts,” with at least 5 years of experience. The analysis consisted of two experiments: In level I, dermatologists classified lesions based on dermoscopy only. In level II, dermatologists were provided dermoscopy, clinical images, and additional clinical information, while the CNN was trained on images only. The researchers found that most dermatologists were outperformed by the CNN. “Physicians of all different levels of training and experience may benefit from assistance by a CNN’s image classification,” they concluded.
 

Gene expression profiling

Another aspect of AI is gene expression profiling (GEP), which Dr. Patel defined as the evaluation of frequency and intensity of genetic activity at once to create a global picture of cellular function. “It’s AI that uses machine learning to evaluate genetic expression to assess lesion behavior,” he explained.

One GEP test on the market is the Pigmented Lesion Assay (PLA) from DermTech, a noninvasive test that looks at the expression of two genes to predict if a lesion is malignant or not. “Based on their validation set, they have shown some impressive numbers,” with sensitivities above 90%, and published registry data that have shown higher sensitivities “and even specificities above 90%,” he said.

“On the surface, it looks like this would be a useful test,” Dr. Patel said. A study published in 2021 looked at the evidence of applying real-world evidence with this test to see if results held up. Based on the authors’ analysis, he noted, “you would need a sensitivity and specificity of 95% to yield a positivity rate of 9.5% for the PLA test, which is what has been reported in real-world use. So, there’s a disconnect somewhere and we are not quite there yet.” That may be a result of the dataset itself not being as uniform between the validation and the training datasets, he continued. Also, the expression of certain genes is different “if you don’t have a clean input variable” of what the test is being used for, he added.

“If you’re not mirroring the dataset, you’re not going to get clean data,” he said. “So, if you’re using this on younger patients or for sun-damaged lesional skin or nonmelanocytic lesions around sun-damaged areas, there are variable expressions that may not be accurately captured by that algorithm. This might help explain the real-world variation that we’re seeing.”

Another GEP test in use is the 31-Gene Expression Profile Test for Melanoma, which evaluates gene expressions in melanoma tumors and what the behavior of that tumor may be. The test has been available for more than a decade “and there is a lot of speculation about its use,” Dr. Patel said. “A recent paper attempted to come up with an algorithm of how to use this, but there’s a lot of concern about the endpoints of what changes in management might result from this test. That is what we need to be thinking about. There’s a lot of back and forth about this.”

In 2020, authors of a consensus statement on prognostic GEP in cutaneous melanoma concluded that before GEP testing is routinely used, the clinical benefit in the management of patients with melanoma should be established through further clinical investigation. Dr. Patel recommended the accompanying editorial on GEP in melanoma, written by Hensin Tsao, MD, PhD, and Warren H. Chan, MS, in JAMA Dermatology.

In Dr. Patel’s opinion, T1a melanomas (0.8 mm, nonulcerated) do not need routine GEP, but the GEP test may be useful in cases that are in the “gray zone,” such as those with T1b or some borderline T2a melanomas (> 0.8 mm, < 1.2mm, nonulcerated, but with high mitosis, etc.); patients with unique coexisting conditions such as pregnancy, and patients who may not tolerate sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) or adjuvant therapy.

Echoing sentiments expressed in the JAMA Dermatology editorial, he advised dermatologists to “remember your training and know the data. GEP predicting survival is not the same as SLNB positive rate. GEP should not replace standard guidelines in T2a and higher melanomas. Nodal sampling remains part of all major guidelines and determines adjuvant therapy.”

He cited the characterization of GEP in the editorial as “a powerful technology” that heralds the age of personalized medicine, but it is not ready for ubiquitous use. Prospective studies and time will lead to highly accurate tools.”

Dr. Patel disclosed that he is chief medical officer for Lazarus AI.

If you worry that artificial intelligence (AI) will one day replace your own clinical acumen as a dermatologist, Vishal A. Patel, MD, advises you to think differently.

“AI is meant to be an enhancement strategy, a support tool to improve our diagnostic abilities,” Dr. Patel, a Mohs surgeon who is director of cutaneous oncology at the George Washington University Cancer Center, Washington, said during the ODAC Dermatology, Aesthetic & Surgical Conference. “Dermatologists should embrace AI and drive how it is utilized – be the captain of the plane (technology) and the passenger (patient). If we’re not in the forefront of the plane, we’re not to be able to dictate which way we are going with this.”

In 2019, a group of German researchers found that AI can improve accuracy and efficiency of specialists in classifying skin cancer based on dermoscopic images. “I really do believe this is going to be the future,” said Dr. Patel, who was not involved with the study. “Current research involves using supervised learning on known outcomes to determine inputs to predict them. In dermatology, think of identifying melanoma from clinical or dermoscopic images or predicting metastasis risk from digitized pathology slides.”

However, there are currently no universal guidelines on how large an AI dataset needs to be to yield accurate results. In the dermatology literature, most AI datasets range between 600 and 14,000 examples, Dr. Patel said, with a large study-specific variation in performance. “Misleading results can result from unanticipated training errors,” he said.

“The AI network may learn its intended task or an unrelated situational cue. For example, you can use great images to predict melanoma, but you may have an unintended poor outcome related to images that have, say, a ruler inside of them clustered within the melanoma diagnoses.” And unbeknown to the system’s developer, “the algorithm picks up that the ruler is predictive of an image being a melanoma and not the pigmented lesion itself.” In other words, the algorithm is only as good as the dataset being used, he said. “This is the key element, to ask what the dataset is that’s training the tool that you may one day use.”
 

Convolutional neural network

In 2017, a seminal study published in Nature showed that for classification of melanoma and epidermal lesions, a type of AI used in image processing known as a convolutional neural network (CNN) was on par with dermatologists and outperformed the average. For epidermal lesions, the network was one standard deviation higher above the average for dermatologists, while for melanocytic lesions, the network was just below one standard deviation above the average of the dermatologists. A CNN “clearly can perform well because it works on a different level than how our brains work,” Dr. Patel said.

In a separate study, a CNN trained to recognize melanoma in dermoscopic images was compared to 58 international dermatologists with varying levels of dermoscopy experience; 29% were “beginners,” with less than 2 years of experience; 19% were “skilled,” with 2-5 years of experience; and 52% were “experts,” with at least 5 years of experience. The analysis consisted of two experiments: In level I, dermatologists classified lesions based on dermoscopy only. In level II, dermatologists were provided dermoscopy, clinical images, and additional clinical information, while the CNN was trained on images only. The researchers found that most dermatologists were outperformed by the CNN. “Physicians of all different levels of training and experience may benefit from assistance by a CNN’s image classification,” they concluded.
 

Gene expression profiling

Another aspect of AI is gene expression profiling (GEP), which Dr. Patel defined as the evaluation of frequency and intensity of genetic activity at once to create a global picture of cellular function. “It’s AI that uses machine learning to evaluate genetic expression to assess lesion behavior,” he explained.

One GEP test on the market is the Pigmented Lesion Assay (PLA) from DermTech, a noninvasive test that looks at the expression of two genes to predict if a lesion is malignant or not. “Based on their validation set, they have shown some impressive numbers,” with sensitivities above 90%, and published registry data that have shown higher sensitivities “and even specificities above 90%,” he said.

“On the surface, it looks like this would be a useful test,” Dr. Patel said. A study published in 2021 looked at the evidence of applying real-world evidence with this test to see if results held up. Based on the authors’ analysis, he noted, “you would need a sensitivity and specificity of 95% to yield a positivity rate of 9.5% for the PLA test, which is what has been reported in real-world use. So, there’s a disconnect somewhere and we are not quite there yet.” That may be a result of the dataset itself not being as uniform between the validation and the training datasets, he continued. Also, the expression of certain genes is different “if you don’t have a clean input variable” of what the test is being used for, he added.

“If you’re not mirroring the dataset, you’re not going to get clean data,” he said. “So, if you’re using this on younger patients or for sun-damaged lesional skin or nonmelanocytic lesions around sun-damaged areas, there are variable expressions that may not be accurately captured by that algorithm. This might help explain the real-world variation that we’re seeing.”

Another GEP test in use is the 31-Gene Expression Profile Test for Melanoma, which evaluates gene expressions in melanoma tumors and what the behavior of that tumor may be. The test has been available for more than a decade “and there is a lot of speculation about its use,” Dr. Patel said. “A recent paper attempted to come up with an algorithm of how to use this, but there’s a lot of concern about the endpoints of what changes in management might result from this test. That is what we need to be thinking about. There’s a lot of back and forth about this.”

In 2020, authors of a consensus statement on prognostic GEP in cutaneous melanoma concluded that before GEP testing is routinely used, the clinical benefit in the management of patients with melanoma should be established through further clinical investigation. Dr. Patel recommended the accompanying editorial on GEP in melanoma, written by Hensin Tsao, MD, PhD, and Warren H. Chan, MS, in JAMA Dermatology.

In Dr. Patel’s opinion, T1a melanomas (0.8 mm, nonulcerated) do not need routine GEP, but the GEP test may be useful in cases that are in the “gray zone,” such as those with T1b or some borderline T2a melanomas (> 0.8 mm, < 1.2mm, nonulcerated, but with high mitosis, etc.); patients with unique coexisting conditions such as pregnancy, and patients who may not tolerate sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) or adjuvant therapy.

Echoing sentiments expressed in the JAMA Dermatology editorial, he advised dermatologists to “remember your training and know the data. GEP predicting survival is not the same as SLNB positive rate. GEP should not replace standard guidelines in T2a and higher melanomas. Nodal sampling remains part of all major guidelines and determines adjuvant therapy.”

He cited the characterization of GEP in the editorial as “a powerful technology” that heralds the age of personalized medicine, but it is not ready for ubiquitous use. Prospective studies and time will lead to highly accurate tools.”

Dr. Patel disclosed that he is chief medical officer for Lazarus AI.