TAMPA – Boosting screening for sexually transmitted infections in primary care settings could help alleviate some of the barriers to optimal testing and treatment, a new quality improvement initiative suggests.

Many primary care doctors are challenged for time and send people to other health care settings, such as a local health department or a clinic that specializes in STI diagnosis and treatment, said Wendy Kays, DNP, APRN, AGNP-BC, AAHIVS, a nurse practitioner and researcher at Care Resource, Miami.

However, for multiple reasons, many patients do not follow up and are not screened or treated, Dr. Kays said at the Association of Nurses in AIDS Care annual meeting. Some people can afford the copay to see a primary care provider, for example, but do not have the resources to pay for a second clinical visit or laboratory testing.

In other instances, transportation can be a problem. “People, especially in the neighborhood where we are located, depend a lot on buses to go to their primary care,” Dr. Kays told this news organization. But “follow-up is very important. It can promote early treatment and prevent the spread of disease.”

Primary care is critical as a gateway into health care that could help address low rates of STI screening, she said. There is also evidence that STIs are on the rise because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

If more primary care doctors tested and treated STIs using standardized Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines, patients would not have to make a trip to another location, Dr. Kays said.

“The primary health setting … is actually the perfect place to get your screening,” said Jimmie Leckliter, MSN-Ed, RN, PHN, in an interview. He was not affiliated with the presentation. “I’m a former ER nurse, and a lot of people are using the ER as primary care, and it’s not really set up to do that screening.”

Mr. Leckliter suggested that primary care doctors incorporate some questions about sexual health during a regular head-to-toe checkup and ask questions in a very clinical, nonjudgmental way.

He also acknowledged that for some physicians it can be uncomfortable to raise the issues. “Unfortunately, I think in our society, talking to people about sex is taboo, and people become uncomfortable. We need to be able to learn to put our biases aside and treat our patients. That’s what our job is, added Mr. Leckliter, an adjunct faculty member at the College of the Desert’s School of Nursing and Allied Health Programs, Palm Springs, Calif.

Clinicians should be aware of the stigma associated with sending a person to an STD clinic for further workup, Mr. Leckliter advised. “You have to look at the stigma in the community in which you’re located. It makes a big difference,” he said. “Is it mainly a Latino or African American community?”
 

Compliance was a challenge

Dr. Kays and colleague performed a quality improvement project focused on implementing the CDC’s STI treatment guidelines at Care Resource. One goal was to educate a multidisciplinary team on the importance of screening in the primary care setting. The clientele at Care Resource consists primarily of underprivileged minorities, including the Latino, Black, gay, and transgender communities.

Six health care providers participated – two medical doctors and four advanced-practice providers. They evaluated patient charts from the electronic health record system 4 weeks before the intervention and 4 weeks after.

The education had a positive impact, the researchers reported, even though three providers were compliant with the CDC-recommended screening protocol and three others were not.

The quality improvement initiative had some limitations, Dr. Kays noted. “The hope is that the [quality improvement] process will continue moving forward, and early diagnosis and treatment of STIs will be standardized in this primary care practice.”

An evidence-based tool to screen for STIs in primary care is “crucial,” she added. Using a standardized, evidence-based protocol in primary care “can create positive change in patients’ outcomes.”

The study was independently supported. Dr. Kays and Mr. Leckliter report no relevant financial relationships.

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

TAMPA – Boosting screening for sexually transmitted infections in primary care settings could help alleviate some of the barriers to optimal testing and treatment, a new quality improvement initiative suggests.

Many primary care doctors are challenged for time and send people to other health care settings, such as a local health department or a clinic that specializes in STI diagnosis and treatment, said Wendy Kays, DNP, APRN, AGNP-BC, AAHIVS, a nurse practitioner and researcher at Care Resource, Miami.

However, for multiple reasons, many patients do not follow up and are not screened or treated, Dr. Kays said at the Association of Nurses in AIDS Care annual meeting. Some people can afford the copay to see a primary care provider, for example, but do not have the resources to pay for a second clinical visit or laboratory testing.

In other instances, transportation can be a problem. “People, especially in the neighborhood where we are located, depend a lot on buses to go to their primary care,” Dr. Kays told this news organization. But “follow-up is very important. It can promote early treatment and prevent the spread of disease.”

Primary care is critical as a gateway into health care that could help address low rates of STI screening, she said. There is also evidence that STIs are on the rise because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

If more primary care doctors tested and treated STIs using standardized Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines, patients would not have to make a trip to another location, Dr. Kays said.

“The primary health setting … is actually the perfect place to get your screening,” said Jimmie Leckliter, MSN-Ed, RN, PHN, in an interview. He was not affiliated with the presentation. “I’m a former ER nurse, and a lot of people are using the ER as primary care, and it’s not really set up to do that screening.”

Mr. Leckliter suggested that primary care doctors incorporate some questions about sexual health during a regular head-to-toe checkup and ask questions in a very clinical, nonjudgmental way.

He also acknowledged that for some physicians it can be uncomfortable to raise the issues. “Unfortunately, I think in our society, talking to people about sex is taboo, and people become uncomfortable. We need to be able to learn to put our biases aside and treat our patients. That’s what our job is, added Mr. Leckliter, an adjunct faculty member at the College of the Desert’s School of Nursing and Allied Health Programs, Palm Springs, Calif.

Clinicians should be aware of the stigma associated with sending a person to an STD clinic for further workup, Mr. Leckliter advised. “You have to look at the stigma in the community in which you’re located. It makes a big difference,” he said. “Is it mainly a Latino or African American community?”
 

Compliance was a challenge

Dr. Kays and colleague performed a quality improvement project focused on implementing the CDC’s STI treatment guidelines at Care Resource. One goal was to educate a multidisciplinary team on the importance of screening in the primary care setting. The clientele at Care Resource consists primarily of underprivileged minorities, including the Latino, Black, gay, and transgender communities.

Six health care providers participated – two medical doctors and four advanced-practice providers. They evaluated patient charts from the electronic health record system 4 weeks before the intervention and 4 weeks after.

The education had a positive impact, the researchers reported, even though three providers were compliant with the CDC-recommended screening protocol and three others were not.

The quality improvement initiative had some limitations, Dr. Kays noted. “The hope is that the [quality improvement] process will continue moving forward, and early diagnosis and treatment of STIs will be standardized in this primary care practice.”

An evidence-based tool to screen for STIs in primary care is “crucial,” she added. Using a standardized, evidence-based protocol in primary care “can create positive change in patients’ outcomes.”

The study was independently supported. Dr. Kays and Mr. Leckliter report no relevant financial relationships.

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

TAMPA – Boosting screening for sexually transmitted infections in primary care settings could help alleviate some of the barriers to optimal testing and treatment, a new quality improvement initiative suggests.

Many primary care doctors are challenged for time and send people to other health care settings, such as a local health department or a clinic that specializes in STI diagnosis and treatment, said Wendy Kays, DNP, APRN, AGNP-BC, AAHIVS, a nurse practitioner and researcher at Care Resource, Miami.

However, for multiple reasons, many patients do not follow up and are not screened or treated, Dr. Kays said at the Association of Nurses in AIDS Care annual meeting. Some people can afford the copay to see a primary care provider, for example, but do not have the resources to pay for a second clinical visit or laboratory testing.

In other instances, transportation can be a problem. “People, especially in the neighborhood where we are located, depend a lot on buses to go to their primary care,” Dr. Kays told this news organization. But “follow-up is very important. It can promote early treatment and prevent the spread of disease.”

Primary care is critical as a gateway into health care that could help address low rates of STI screening, she said. There is also evidence that STIs are on the rise because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

If more primary care doctors tested and treated STIs using standardized Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines, patients would not have to make a trip to another location, Dr. Kays said.

“The primary health setting … is actually the perfect place to get your screening,” said Jimmie Leckliter, MSN-Ed, RN, PHN, in an interview. He was not affiliated with the presentation. “I’m a former ER nurse, and a lot of people are using the ER as primary care, and it’s not really set up to do that screening.”

Mr. Leckliter suggested that primary care doctors incorporate some questions about sexual health during a regular head-to-toe checkup and ask questions in a very clinical, nonjudgmental way.

He also acknowledged that for some physicians it can be uncomfortable to raise the issues. “Unfortunately, I think in our society, talking to people about sex is taboo, and people become uncomfortable. We need to be able to learn to put our biases aside and treat our patients. That’s what our job is, added Mr. Leckliter, an adjunct faculty member at the College of the Desert’s School of Nursing and Allied Health Programs, Palm Springs, Calif.

Clinicians should be aware of the stigma associated with sending a person to an STD clinic for further workup, Mr. Leckliter advised. “You have to look at the stigma in the community in which you’re located. It makes a big difference,” he said. “Is it mainly a Latino or African American community?”
 

Compliance was a challenge

Dr. Kays and colleague performed a quality improvement project focused on implementing the CDC’s STI treatment guidelines at Care Resource. One goal was to educate a multidisciplinary team on the importance of screening in the primary care setting. The clientele at Care Resource consists primarily of underprivileged minorities, including the Latino, Black, gay, and transgender communities.

Six health care providers participated – two medical doctors and four advanced-practice providers. They evaluated patient charts from the electronic health record system 4 weeks before the intervention and 4 weeks after.

The education had a positive impact, the researchers reported, even though three providers were compliant with the CDC-recommended screening protocol and three others were not.

The quality improvement initiative had some limitations, Dr. Kays noted. “The hope is that the [quality improvement] process will continue moving forward, and early diagnosis and treatment of STIs will be standardized in this primary care practice.”

An evidence-based tool to screen for STIs in primary care is “crucial,” she added. Using a standardized, evidence-based protocol in primary care “can create positive change in patients’ outcomes.”

The study was independently supported. Dr. Kays and Mr. Leckliter report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Stable slate gray to blue lesions that are asymptomatic raise the possibility of a blue nevus, also known as dermal dendritic melanocytic proliferations. In this case, dermoscopy confirmed a uniform dark color with no signs suggestive of melanoma or pigmented basal cell carcinoma (BCC).

Blue nevi are the result of a benign localized proliferation of dermal dendritic melanocytes. The blue color is due to the increased pigment deep in the dermis that reflects the blue shorter wavelength light while absorbing longer wavelengths.¹ In this author’s experience, these “blue” lesions usually appear to be more gray (as was the case with this individual). Dermoscopy shows a steel blue homogenous pigmentation.²

It is helpful to use dermoscopy to screen for an atypical pigment network, regression of pigmentation, or abnormal pigmentation; these are signs of atypical nevi and melanoma. It is also important to look for arborizing blood vessels and leaf-like structures that can be seen in pigmented BCCs. Both melanoma and pigmented BCCs can appear as circumscribed dark lesions.

Reassuring factors for blue nevi are lesions that are stable in size and color over time, asymptomatic, and have not bled nor shown signs of erosion. If the diagnosis is in doubt, excise the lesion in its entirety for definitive pathology. Since the melanocytes are typically deeper in blue nevi than in most other nevi, a deep shave technique may not remove the lesion in its entirety. A deeper than usual shave (or, if feasible, a full-thickness excision) may return better results with quicker healing.

This patient was advised of the benign nature of a blue nevus. He was counseled to watch for any changes in the lesion and to return for reevaluation if symptoms or changes occurred.

‌

Image and text courtesy of Daniel Stulberg, MD, FAAFP, Professor and Chair, Department of Family and Community Medicine, Western Michigan University Homer Stryker, MD School of Medicine, Kalamazoo.

Stable slate gray to blue lesions that are asymptomatic raise the possibility of a blue nevus, also known as dermal dendritic melanocytic proliferations. In this case, dermoscopy confirmed a uniform dark color with no signs suggestive of melanoma or pigmented basal cell carcinoma (BCC).

Blue nevi are the result of a benign localized proliferation of dermal dendritic melanocytes. The blue color is due to the increased pigment deep in the dermis that reflects the blue shorter wavelength light while absorbing longer wavelengths.¹ In this author’s experience, these “blue” lesions usually appear to be more gray (as was the case with this individual). Dermoscopy shows a steel blue homogenous pigmentation.²

It is helpful to use dermoscopy to screen for an atypical pigment network, regression of pigmentation, or abnormal pigmentation; these are signs of atypical nevi and melanoma. It is also important to look for arborizing blood vessels and leaf-like structures that can be seen in pigmented BCCs. Both melanoma and pigmented BCCs can appear as circumscribed dark lesions.

Reassuring factors for blue nevi are lesions that are stable in size and color over time, asymptomatic, and have not bled nor shown signs of erosion. If the diagnosis is in doubt, excise the lesion in its entirety for definitive pathology. Since the melanocytes are typically deeper in blue nevi than in most other nevi, a deep shave technique may not remove the lesion in its entirety. A deeper than usual shave (or, if feasible, a full-thickness excision) may return better results with quicker healing.

This patient was advised of the benign nature of a blue nevus. He was counseled to watch for any changes in the lesion and to return for reevaluation if symptoms or changes occurred.

‌

Image and text courtesy of Daniel Stulberg, MD, FAAFP, Professor and Chair, Department of Family and Community Medicine, Western Michigan University Homer Stryker, MD School of Medicine, Kalamazoo.

Stable slate gray to blue lesions that are asymptomatic raise the possibility of a blue nevus, also known as dermal dendritic melanocytic proliferations. In this case, dermoscopy confirmed a uniform dark color with no signs suggestive of melanoma or pigmented basal cell carcinoma (BCC).

Blue nevi are the result of a benign localized proliferation of dermal dendritic melanocytes. The blue color is due to the increased pigment deep in the dermis that reflects the blue shorter wavelength light while absorbing longer wavelengths.¹ In this author’s experience, these “blue” lesions usually appear to be more gray (as was the case with this individual). Dermoscopy shows a steel blue homogenous pigmentation.²

It is helpful to use dermoscopy to screen for an atypical pigment network, regression of pigmentation, or abnormal pigmentation; these are signs of atypical nevi and melanoma. It is also important to look for arborizing blood vessels and leaf-like structures that can be seen in pigmented BCCs. Both melanoma and pigmented BCCs can appear as circumscribed dark lesions.

Reassuring factors for blue nevi are lesions that are stable in size and color over time, asymptomatic, and have not bled nor shown signs of erosion. If the diagnosis is in doubt, excise the lesion in its entirety for definitive pathology. Since the melanocytes are typically deeper in blue nevi than in most other nevi, a deep shave technique may not remove the lesion in its entirety. A deeper than usual shave (or, if feasible, a full-thickness excision) may return better results with quicker healing.

This patient was advised of the benign nature of a blue nevus. He was counseled to watch for any changes in the lesion and to return for reevaluation if symptoms or changes occurred.

‌

Image and text courtesy of Daniel Stulberg, MD, FAAFP, Professor and Chair, Department of Family and Community Medicine, Western Michigan University Homer Stryker, MD School of Medicine, Kalamazoo.

Hatanaka and colleagues investigated whether the etiology of the underlying liver disease affected the efficacy of atezolizumab and bevacizumab (A/B). They reported the results of a retrospective cohort study of 323 patients with Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage B or C hepatocellular carcinoma and Child-Pugh class A cirrhosis who started A/B between September 2020 and December 2021. Patients with viral infection were defined as those who were either serum anti–hepatitis C antibody (anti-HCV Ab)- or hepatitis B surface antigen (HBs-Ag)-positive, while patients with nonviral infection was defined as those who were both serum anti-HCV Ab- and HBs-Ag-negative. After propensity matching, no significant difference in response rate ([RR] 20.6% vs 24.6% in viral and nonviral patients), disease control rate (68.3% vs 69.0%), progression-free survival ([PFS] 7.0 months vs 6.2 months), or 12-month overall survival ([OS] 65.5% vs 71.7%) was seen. The authors concluded that the underlying etiology of liver disease in patients with HCC does not affect the response to treatment with A/B.

Scheiner and colleagues evaluated the efficacy of immunotherapy in patients with HCC who had already received immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in a previous line of therapy. The authors reported the results of an international, retrospective multicenter study of 58 patients with HCC who received at least two lines of ICI-based therapies. The first ICI was discontinued due to disease progression in 90%. Nonetheless, the RR to the second ICI was 26% (compared with 22% for the first ICI), with a time-to-progression (TTP) of 5.4 months (95% CI, 3.0-7.7) for the first ICI and 5.2 months (95% CI, 3.3-7.0) for the second ICI. Grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events were observed in 16% and 17% of patients with the first and second ICI, respectively. Therefore, the authors believe that ICI rechallenge is safe and results in a treatment benefit for a similar proportion of HCC patients, as is seen with the first ICI treatment. They suggest that ICI-based regimens should be studied in prospective trials of patients who progressed on first-line immunotherapy.

Finally, Kim and colleagues reported outcomes of patients who developed anti-drug antibodies (ADA) against atezolizumab while on A/B. In this prospective cohort study, 174 patients with advanced HCC who were treated with first-line A/B were tested for serum ADA levels prior to treatment and at 3 weeks (cycle 2 day 1 [C2D1]). Clinically, patients with progressive disease exhibited higher ADA levels (median 65.2 [0-520.4] ng/mL) at C2D1 than responders (0-117.5 ng/mL). Patients with high ADA levels at C2D1 had a reduced response rate (29%-34% vs 7-11%) and worse PFS and OS. The investigators found that very high ADA levels (≥ 1000 ng/mL) at 3 weeks were consistently associated with poor clinical outcomes due to reduced systemic exposure to atezolizumab and impaired proliferation and activation of peripheral CD8-positive T cells. They suggested future validation and standardization of ADA assays to optimize treatment with atezolizumab in patients with uHCC.

Hatanaka and colleagues investigated whether the etiology of the underlying liver disease affected the efficacy of atezolizumab and bevacizumab (A/B). They reported the results of a retrospective cohort study of 323 patients with Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage B or C hepatocellular carcinoma and Child-Pugh class A cirrhosis who started A/B between September 2020 and December 2021. Patients with viral infection were defined as those who were either serum anti–hepatitis C antibody (anti-HCV Ab)- or hepatitis B surface antigen (HBs-Ag)-positive, while patients with nonviral infection was defined as those who were both serum anti-HCV Ab- and HBs-Ag-negative. After propensity matching, no significant difference in response rate ([RR] 20.6% vs 24.6% in viral and nonviral patients), disease control rate (68.3% vs 69.0%), progression-free survival ([PFS] 7.0 months vs 6.2 months), or 12-month overall survival ([OS] 65.5% vs 71.7%) was seen. The authors concluded that the underlying etiology of liver disease in patients with HCC does not affect the response to treatment with A/B.

Scheiner and colleagues evaluated the efficacy of immunotherapy in patients with HCC who had already received immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in a previous line of therapy. The authors reported the results of an international, retrospective multicenter study of 58 patients with HCC who received at least two lines of ICI-based therapies. The first ICI was discontinued due to disease progression in 90%. Nonetheless, the RR to the second ICI was 26% (compared with 22% for the first ICI), with a time-to-progression (TTP) of 5.4 months (95% CI, 3.0-7.7) for the first ICI and 5.2 months (95% CI, 3.3-7.0) for the second ICI. Grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events were observed in 16% and 17% of patients with the first and second ICI, respectively. Therefore, the authors believe that ICI rechallenge is safe and results in a treatment benefit for a similar proportion of HCC patients, as is seen with the first ICI treatment. They suggest that ICI-based regimens should be studied in prospective trials of patients who progressed on first-line immunotherapy.

Finally, Kim and colleagues reported outcomes of patients who developed anti-drug antibodies (ADA) against atezolizumab while on A/B. In this prospective cohort study, 174 patients with advanced HCC who were treated with first-line A/B were tested for serum ADA levels prior to treatment and at 3 weeks (cycle 2 day 1 [C2D1]). Clinically, patients with progressive disease exhibited higher ADA levels (median 65.2 [0-520.4] ng/mL) at C2D1 than responders (0-117.5 ng/mL). Patients with high ADA levels at C2D1 had a reduced response rate (29%-34% vs 7-11%) and worse PFS and OS. The investigators found that very high ADA levels (≥ 1000 ng/mL) at 3 weeks were consistently associated with poor clinical outcomes due to reduced systemic exposure to atezolizumab and impaired proliferation and activation of peripheral CD8-positive T cells. They suggested future validation and standardization of ADA assays to optimize treatment with atezolizumab in patients with uHCC.

Hatanaka and colleagues investigated whether the etiology of the underlying liver disease affected the efficacy of atezolizumab and bevacizumab (A/B). They reported the results of a retrospective cohort study of 323 patients with Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage B or C hepatocellular carcinoma and Child-Pugh class A cirrhosis who started A/B between September 2020 and December 2021. Patients with viral infection were defined as those who were either serum anti–hepatitis C antibody (anti-HCV Ab)- or hepatitis B surface antigen (HBs-Ag)-positive, while patients with nonviral infection was defined as those who were both serum anti-HCV Ab- and HBs-Ag-negative. After propensity matching, no significant difference in response rate ([RR] 20.6% vs 24.6% in viral and nonviral patients), disease control rate (68.3% vs 69.0%), progression-free survival ([PFS] 7.0 months vs 6.2 months), or 12-month overall survival ([OS] 65.5% vs 71.7%) was seen. The authors concluded that the underlying etiology of liver disease in patients with HCC does not affect the response to treatment with A/B.

Scheiner and colleagues evaluated the efficacy of immunotherapy in patients with HCC who had already received immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in a previous line of therapy. The authors reported the results of an international, retrospective multicenter study of 58 patients with HCC who received at least two lines of ICI-based therapies. The first ICI was discontinued due to disease progression in 90%. Nonetheless, the RR to the second ICI was 26% (compared with 22% for the first ICI), with a time-to-progression (TTP) of 5.4 months (95% CI, 3.0-7.7) for the first ICI and 5.2 months (95% CI, 3.3-7.0) for the second ICI. Grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events were observed in 16% and 17% of patients with the first and second ICI, respectively. Therefore, the authors believe that ICI rechallenge is safe and results in a treatment benefit for a similar proportion of HCC patients, as is seen with the first ICI treatment. They suggest that ICI-based regimens should be studied in prospective trials of patients who progressed on first-line immunotherapy.

Finally, Kim and colleagues reported outcomes of patients who developed anti-drug antibodies (ADA) against atezolizumab while on A/B. In this prospective cohort study, 174 patients with advanced HCC who were treated with first-line A/B were tested for serum ADA levels prior to treatment and at 3 weeks (cycle 2 day 1 [C2D1]). Clinically, patients with progressive disease exhibited higher ADA levels (median 65.2 [0-520.4] ng/mL) at C2D1 than responders (0-117.5 ng/mL). Patients with high ADA levels at C2D1 had a reduced response rate (29%-34% vs 7-11%) and worse PFS and OS. The investigators found that very high ADA levels (≥ 1000 ng/mL) at 3 weeks were consistently associated with poor clinical outcomes due to reduced systemic exposure to atezolizumab and impaired proliferation and activation of peripheral CD8-positive T cells. They suggested future validation and standardization of ADA assays to optimize treatment with atezolizumab in patients with uHCC.

Hatanaka and colleagues investigated whether the etiology of the underlying liver disease affected the efficacy of atezolizumab and bevacizumab (A/B). They reported the results of a retrospective cohort study of 323 patients with Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage B or C hepatocellular carcinoma and Child-Pugh class A cirrhosis who started A/B between September 2020 and December 2021. Patients with viral infection were defined as those who were either serum anti–hepatitis C antibody (anti-HCV Ab)- or hepatitis B surface antigen (HBs-Ag)-positive, while patients with nonviral infection was defined as those who were both serum anti-HCV Ab- and HBs-Ag-negative. After propensity matching, no significant difference in response rate ([RR] 20.6% vs 24.6% in viral and nonviral patients), disease control rate (68.3% vs 69.0%), progression-free survival ([PFS] 7.0 months vs 6.2 months), or 12-month overall survival ([OS] 65.5% vs 71.7%) was seen. The authors concluded that the underlying etiology of liver disease in patients with HCC does not affect the response to treatment with A/B.

Scheiner and colleagues evaluated the efficacy of immunotherapy in patients with HCC who had already received immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in a previous line of therapy. The authors reported the results of an international, retrospective multicenter study of 58 patients with HCC who received at least two lines of ICI-based therapies. The first ICI was discontinued due to disease progression in 90%. Nonetheless, the RR to the second ICI was 26% (compared with 22% for the first ICI), with a time-to-progression (TTP) of 5.4 months (95% CI, 3.0-7.7) for the first ICI and 5.2 months (95% CI, 3.3-7.0) for the second ICI. Grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events were observed in 16% and 17% of patients with the first and second ICI, respectively. Therefore, the authors believe that ICI rechallenge is safe and results in a treatment benefit for a similar proportion of HCC patients, as is seen with the first ICI treatment. They suggest that ICI-based regimens should be studied in prospective trials of patients who progressed on first-line immunotherapy.

Finally, Kim and colleagues reported outcomes of patients who developed anti-drug antibodies (ADA) against atezolizumab while on A/B. In this prospective cohort study, 174 patients with advanced HCC who were treated with first-line A/B were tested for serum ADA levels prior to treatment and at 3 weeks (cycle 2 day 1 [C2D1]). Clinically, patients with progressive disease exhibited higher ADA levels (median 65.2 [0-520.4] ng/mL) at C2D1 than responders (0-117.5 ng/mL). Patients with high ADA levels at C2D1 had a reduced response rate (29%-34% vs 7-11%) and worse PFS and OS. The investigators found that very high ADA levels (≥ 1000 ng/mL) at 3 weeks were consistently associated with poor clinical outcomes due to reduced systemic exposure to atezolizumab and impaired proliferation and activation of peripheral CD8-positive T cells. They suggested future validation and standardization of ADA assays to optimize treatment with atezolizumab in patients with uHCC.

Hatanaka and colleagues investigated whether the etiology of the underlying liver disease affected the efficacy of atezolizumab and bevacizumab (A/B). They reported the results of a retrospective cohort study of 323 patients with Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage B or C hepatocellular carcinoma and Child-Pugh class A cirrhosis who started A/B between September 2020 and December 2021. Patients with viral infection were defined as those who were either serum anti–hepatitis C antibody (anti-HCV Ab)- or hepatitis B surface antigen (HBs-Ag)-positive, while patients with nonviral infection was defined as those who were both serum anti-HCV Ab- and HBs-Ag-negative. After propensity matching, no significant difference in response rate ([RR] 20.6% vs 24.6% in viral and nonviral patients), disease control rate (68.3% vs 69.0%), progression-free survival ([PFS] 7.0 months vs 6.2 months), or 12-month overall survival ([OS] 65.5% vs 71.7%) was seen. The authors concluded that the underlying etiology of liver disease in patients with HCC does not affect the response to treatment with A/B.

Scheiner and colleagues evaluated the efficacy of immunotherapy in patients with HCC who had already received immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in a previous line of therapy. The authors reported the results of an international, retrospective multicenter study of 58 patients with HCC who received at least two lines of ICI-based therapies. The first ICI was discontinued due to disease progression in 90%. Nonetheless, the RR to the second ICI was 26% (compared with 22% for the first ICI), with a time-to-progression (TTP) of 5.4 months (95% CI, 3.0-7.7) for the first ICI and 5.2 months (95% CI, 3.3-7.0) for the second ICI. Grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events were observed in 16% and 17% of patients with the first and second ICI, respectively. Therefore, the authors believe that ICI rechallenge is safe and results in a treatment benefit for a similar proportion of HCC patients, as is seen with the first ICI treatment. They suggest that ICI-based regimens should be studied in prospective trials of patients who progressed on first-line immunotherapy.

Finally, Kim and colleagues reported outcomes of patients who developed anti-drug antibodies (ADA) against atezolizumab while on A/B. In this prospective cohort study, 174 patients with advanced HCC who were treated with first-line A/B were tested for serum ADA levels prior to treatment and at 3 weeks (cycle 2 day 1 [C2D1]). Clinically, patients with progressive disease exhibited higher ADA levels (median 65.2 [0-520.4] ng/mL) at C2D1 than responders (0-117.5 ng/mL). Patients with high ADA levels at C2D1 had a reduced response rate (29%-34% vs 7-11%) and worse PFS and OS. The investigators found that very high ADA levels (≥ 1000 ng/mL) at 3 weeks were consistently associated with poor clinical outcomes due to reduced systemic exposure to atezolizumab and impaired proliferation and activation of peripheral CD8-positive T cells. They suggested future validation and standardization of ADA assays to optimize treatment with atezolizumab in patients with uHCC.

Hatanaka and colleagues investigated whether the etiology of the underlying liver disease affected the efficacy of atezolizumab and bevacizumab (A/B). They reported the results of a retrospective cohort study of 323 patients with Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage B or C hepatocellular carcinoma and Child-Pugh class A cirrhosis who started A/B between September 2020 and December 2021. Patients with viral infection were defined as those who were either serum anti–hepatitis C antibody (anti-HCV Ab)- or hepatitis B surface antigen (HBs-Ag)-positive, while patients with nonviral infection was defined as those who were both serum anti-HCV Ab- and HBs-Ag-negative. After propensity matching, no significant difference in response rate ([RR] 20.6% vs 24.6% in viral and nonviral patients), disease control rate (68.3% vs 69.0%), progression-free survival ([PFS] 7.0 months vs 6.2 months), or 12-month overall survival ([OS] 65.5% vs 71.7%) was seen. The authors concluded that the underlying etiology of liver disease in patients with HCC does not affect the response to treatment with A/B.

Scheiner and colleagues evaluated the efficacy of immunotherapy in patients with HCC who had already received immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in a previous line of therapy. The authors reported the results of an international, retrospective multicenter study of 58 patients with HCC who received at least two lines of ICI-based therapies. The first ICI was discontinued due to disease progression in 90%. Nonetheless, the RR to the second ICI was 26% (compared with 22% for the first ICI), with a time-to-progression (TTP) of 5.4 months (95% CI, 3.0-7.7) for the first ICI and 5.2 months (95% CI, 3.3-7.0) for the second ICI. Grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events were observed in 16% and 17% of patients with the first and second ICI, respectively. Therefore, the authors believe that ICI rechallenge is safe and results in a treatment benefit for a similar proportion of HCC patients, as is seen with the first ICI treatment. They suggest that ICI-based regimens should be studied in prospective trials of patients who progressed on first-line immunotherapy.

Finally, Kim and colleagues reported outcomes of patients who developed anti-drug antibodies (ADA) against atezolizumab while on A/B. In this prospective cohort study, 174 patients with advanced HCC who were treated with first-line A/B were tested for serum ADA levels prior to treatment and at 3 weeks (cycle 2 day 1 [C2D1]). Clinically, patients with progressive disease exhibited higher ADA levels (median 65.2 [0-520.4] ng/mL) at C2D1 than responders (0-117.5 ng/mL). Patients with high ADA levels at C2D1 had a reduced response rate (29%-34% vs 7-11%) and worse PFS and OS. The investigators found that very high ADA levels (≥ 1000 ng/mL) at 3 weeks were consistently associated with poor clinical outcomes due to reduced systemic exposure to atezolizumab and impaired proliferation and activation of peripheral CD8-positive T cells. They suggested future validation and standardization of ADA assays to optimize treatment with atezolizumab in patients with uHCC.

Taxanes are an integral component of various treatment regimens for all stages of breast cancer. As survival outcomes have improved, it has become increasingly important to focus on the long-term quality-of-life impact of treatment. Neurotoxicity is a well-recognized potential side effect of taxane chemotherapy. In a prospective cohort study including 1234 patients diagnosed with breast cancer and receiving taxanes, the risk for patient-reported chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) were lower in the paclitaxel (HR 0.59; P = .008) and docetaxel (HR 0.65; P = .02) groups vs the nab-paclitaxel group. There was less sensory discomfort reported with paclitaxel (HR 0.44; P < .001) and docetaxel (HR 0.52; P < .001) vs nab-paclitaxel; however, reported motor and autonomic symptoms were not significantly lower than in the nab-paclitaxel group (Mo et al). An area of research interest is the identification of biomarkers that may predict a higher likelihood of CIPN development, to aid in early detection and intervention.³

Management strategies for breast cancer diagnosed in older women should take into consideration age and competing medical comorbidities, and hormone receptor–positive histology is the most common subtype in this population. Some older women may be too frail or unfit for surgery, and furthermore, some may prefer to avoid surgery, even if it is considered a safe approach. A retrospective study including 91 older (≥ 70 years) patients with estrogen receptor–positive (ER+) breast cancer who underwent definitive endocrine therapy demonstrated a twofold higher mortality risk than the risk of needing invasive local treatment (surgery or radiation). The 5-year cumulative risks of undergoing invasive local treatment and having uncontrolled disease were 28% and 16%, respectively, whereas the 5-year cumulative overall survival was 42% (Gooijer et al). Although the majority of older women with ER+ early breast cancer will obtain a survival benefit with surgery plus endocrine therapy compared with primary endocrine therapy, there is a selected group with limited life expectancy owing to age, functional status, or medical comorbidities for whom it is appropriate to offer primary endocrine therapy, because breast cancer–specific survival may not be negatively affected.⁴

Additional References

1. Schmid P, Cortes J, Dent R, et al; for the KEYNOTE-522 Investigators. Event-free survival with pembrolizumab in early triple-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2022;386:556-567. Doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2112651
2. Harbeck N, Rastogi P, Martin M, et al; on behalf of the monarchE Committee Members. Adjuvant abemaciclib combined with endocrine therapy for high-risk early breast cancer: updated efficacy and Ki-67 analysis from the monarchE study. Ann Oncol. 2021;32:1571-1581. Doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2021.09.015
3. Rodwin RL, Siddiq NZ, Ehrlich BE, Lustberg MB. Biomarkers of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy: current status and future directions. Front Pain Res (Lausanne). 2022;3:864910. Doi: 10.3389/fpain.2022.864910
4. Wyld L, Reed MW, Morgan J, et al. Bridging the age gap in breast cancer. Impacts of omission of breast cancer surgery in older women with oestrogen receptor positive early breast cancer. A risk stratified analysis of survival outcomes and quality of life. Eur J Cancer. 2021;142:48-62. Doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2020.10.015

Taxanes are an integral component of various treatment regimens for all stages of breast cancer. As survival outcomes have improved, it has become increasingly important to focus on the long-term quality-of-life impact of treatment. Neurotoxicity is a well-recognized potential side effect of taxane chemotherapy. In a prospective cohort study including 1234 patients diagnosed with breast cancer and receiving taxanes, the risk for patient-reported chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) were lower in the paclitaxel (HR 0.59; P = .008) and docetaxel (HR 0.65; P = .02) groups vs the nab-paclitaxel group. There was less sensory discomfort reported with paclitaxel (HR 0.44; P < .001) and docetaxel (HR 0.52; P < .001) vs nab-paclitaxel; however, reported motor and autonomic symptoms were not significantly lower than in the nab-paclitaxel group (Mo et al). An area of research interest is the identification of biomarkers that may predict a higher likelihood of CIPN development, to aid in early detection and intervention.³

Management strategies for breast cancer diagnosed in older women should take into consideration age and competing medical comorbidities, and hormone receptor–positive histology is the most common subtype in this population. Some older women may be too frail or unfit for surgery, and furthermore, some may prefer to avoid surgery, even if it is considered a safe approach. A retrospective study including 91 older (≥ 70 years) patients with estrogen receptor–positive (ER+) breast cancer who underwent definitive endocrine therapy demonstrated a twofold higher mortality risk than the risk of needing invasive local treatment (surgery or radiation). The 5-year cumulative risks of undergoing invasive local treatment and having uncontrolled disease were 28% and 16%, respectively, whereas the 5-year cumulative overall survival was 42% (Gooijer et al). Although the majority of older women with ER+ early breast cancer will obtain a survival benefit with surgery plus endocrine therapy compared with primary endocrine therapy, there is a selected group with limited life expectancy owing to age, functional status, or medical comorbidities for whom it is appropriate to offer primary endocrine therapy, because breast cancer–specific survival may not be negatively affected.⁴

Additional References

1. Schmid P, Cortes J, Dent R, et al; for the KEYNOTE-522 Investigators. Event-free survival with pembrolizumab in early triple-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2022;386:556-567. Doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2112651
2. Harbeck N, Rastogi P, Martin M, et al; on behalf of the monarchE Committee Members. Adjuvant abemaciclib combined with endocrine therapy for high-risk early breast cancer: updated efficacy and Ki-67 analysis from the monarchE study. Ann Oncol. 2021;32:1571-1581. Doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2021.09.015
3. Rodwin RL, Siddiq NZ, Ehrlich BE, Lustberg MB. Biomarkers of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy: current status and future directions. Front Pain Res (Lausanne). 2022;3:864910. Doi: 10.3389/fpain.2022.864910
4. Wyld L, Reed MW, Morgan J, et al. Bridging the age gap in breast cancer. Impacts of omission of breast cancer surgery in older women with oestrogen receptor positive early breast cancer. A risk stratified analysis of survival outcomes and quality of life. Eur J Cancer. 2021;142:48-62. Doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2020.10.015

Taxanes are an integral component of various treatment regimens for all stages of breast cancer. As survival outcomes have improved, it has become increasingly important to focus on the long-term quality-of-life impact of treatment. Neurotoxicity is a well-recognized potential side effect of taxane chemotherapy. In a prospective cohort study including 1234 patients diagnosed with breast cancer and receiving taxanes, the risk for patient-reported chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) were lower in the paclitaxel (HR 0.59; P = .008) and docetaxel (HR 0.65; P = .02) groups vs the nab-paclitaxel group. There was less sensory discomfort reported with paclitaxel (HR 0.44; P < .001) and docetaxel (HR 0.52; P < .001) vs nab-paclitaxel; however, reported motor and autonomic symptoms were not significantly lower than in the nab-paclitaxel group (Mo et al). An area of research interest is the identification of biomarkers that may predict a higher likelihood of CIPN development, to aid in early detection and intervention.³

Management strategies for breast cancer diagnosed in older women should take into consideration age and competing medical comorbidities, and hormone receptor–positive histology is the most common subtype in this population. Some older women may be too frail or unfit for surgery, and furthermore, some may prefer to avoid surgery, even if it is considered a safe approach. A retrospective study including 91 older (≥ 70 years) patients with estrogen receptor–positive (ER+) breast cancer who underwent definitive endocrine therapy demonstrated a twofold higher mortality risk than the risk of needing invasive local treatment (surgery or radiation). The 5-year cumulative risks of undergoing invasive local treatment and having uncontrolled disease were 28% and 16%, respectively, whereas the 5-year cumulative overall survival was 42% (Gooijer et al). Although the majority of older women with ER+ early breast cancer will obtain a survival benefit with surgery plus endocrine therapy compared with primary endocrine therapy, there is a selected group with limited life expectancy owing to age, functional status, or medical comorbidities for whom it is appropriate to offer primary endocrine therapy, because breast cancer–specific survival may not be negatively affected.⁴

Additional References

1. Schmid P, Cortes J, Dent R, et al; for the KEYNOTE-522 Investigators. Event-free survival with pembrolizumab in early triple-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2022;386:556-567. Doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2112651
2. Harbeck N, Rastogi P, Martin M, et al; on behalf of the monarchE Committee Members. Adjuvant abemaciclib combined with endocrine therapy for high-risk early breast cancer: updated efficacy and Ki-67 analysis from the monarchE study. Ann Oncol. 2021;32:1571-1581. Doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2021.09.015
3. Rodwin RL, Siddiq NZ, Ehrlich BE, Lustberg MB. Biomarkers of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy: current status and future directions. Front Pain Res (Lausanne). 2022;3:864910. Doi: 10.3389/fpain.2022.864910
4. Wyld L, Reed MW, Morgan J, et al. Bridging the age gap in breast cancer. Impacts of omission of breast cancer surgery in older women with oestrogen receptor positive early breast cancer. A risk stratified analysis of survival outcomes and quality of life. Eur J Cancer. 2021;142:48-62. Doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2020.10.015

CHICAGO – Taking NSAIDs for knee osteoarthritis may worsen inflammation and pain over time, suggest new data revealed at the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America.

Johanna Luitjens, MD, a postdoctoral scholar in the department of radiology and biomedical Imaging at the University of California, San Francisco, told this news organization that NSAIDs are frequently used to treat OA pain because inflammation is one of the main drivers of OA, but whether they actually help outcomes has been unclear. Her study suggests that they don’t help – and may actually worsen – outcomes.

Denise Fulton/MDedge News

In particular, this study looked at the impact of NSAIDs on synovitis – the inflammation of the membrane lining the knee joint – by using MRI-based structural biomarkers.

OA, the most common form of arthritis, affects more than 32 million adults in the United States and more than 500 million people worldwide.
 

No approved therapy to reduce OA progression

Little is known of the long-term effects of NSAIDs on OA progression. Currently, there’s no approved therapy to cure OA or to reduce its advance.

Dr. Luitjens noted, however, that the synovial membrane mediates development and progression of OA and may be a good therapeutic target.

Researchers studied participants from the Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI) cohort with moderate to severe OA who used NSAIDs regularly for at least 1 year between baseline and 4-year follow-up. All participants had high-quality 3T MRI of the knee at baseline and after 4 years. Images were scored for biomarkers of inflammation, including cartilage thickness and composition.

Dr. Luitjens and associates studied 721 participants who matched the inclusion criteria (129 with and 592 participants without regular NSAID use). The available data did not further specify amounts of NSAIDs used.

At baseline, significantly higher signal intensity in the infrapatellar fat pad (IFP) was seen in patients who used NSAID, compared with controls (adjusted difference in score, 0.26; 95% confidence interval, –0.5 to –0.129; P = .039).

In addition, at the end of the study period, there was a significantly greater increase in signal intensity of IFP (adjusted difference in score, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.2-0.72; P < .001) and higher increase in effusion synovitis (adjusted difference in score, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.06-0.47;  P = .01) in NSAID users, compared with controls.

IFP size and synovial proliferation score did not different significantly between groups at the start of the study and showed no significant change over time.

The results showed no long-term benefit of NSAID use. Joint inflammation and cartilage quality were worse at baseline in the participants taking NSAIDs, compared with the control group, and worsened at 4-year follow-up.

Design limits strength

Amanda E. Nelson, MD, associate professor of medicine, division of rheumatology, allergy, and immunology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, cautioned against assuming causality, pointing out that the OAI is an observational cohort study. (Dr. Nelson was not involved in the OAI or Dr. Luitjens’ analysis.)

“[The OAI is] large and well known, but it wasn’t designed to compare these groups, and this was a small subset,” she said in an interview. Without randomization, it’s hard to judge the results.

“It may be that people on NSAIDs for the duration of the study had more pain and had more disease to begin with, or had more symptoms or had failed other treatments,” she said, adding that the effect sizes were small.

Measures such as the IFP are ranked 0-3, so “the clinical difference of a 0.26 difference on a 0-3 scale is a bit uncertain,” she said.

Dr. Luitjens said that the researchers tried to adjust for potential confounders but agreed that randomized controlled trials are needed to better advise physicians and patients on the benefits or harms of using NSAIDs for OA.

Weighing the risks in older adults

Una Makris, MD, associate professor of internal medicine in the division of rheumatic diseases at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, noted that NSAIDs are “not always the safest option.”

“We are still in desperate need of disease-modifying drugs in OA with rigorous randomized trials to show efficacy for outcomes that are most meaningful to patients,” Dr. Makris, who was not involved in the study, told this news organization.

“OA is most common in older adults, those often with multiple comorbidities, so we must always weigh the risks – including known adverse effects which can be amplified in older adults – and benefits with the goal of improved function and less pain,” Dr. Makris said.

NSAID use also should be considered in the context of body mass index, cardiovascular risk, prior trauma or injury, other medication use, and behavioral factors, including physical activity, she said.

Dr. Luitjens, Dr. Nelson, and Dr. Makris reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

CHICAGO – Taking NSAIDs for knee osteoarthritis may worsen inflammation and pain over time, suggest new data revealed at the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America.

Johanna Luitjens, MD, a postdoctoral scholar in the department of radiology and biomedical Imaging at the University of California, San Francisco, told this news organization that NSAIDs are frequently used to treat OA pain because inflammation is one of the main drivers of OA, but whether they actually help outcomes has been unclear. Her study suggests that they don’t help – and may actually worsen – outcomes.

Denise Fulton/MDedge News

In particular, this study looked at the impact of NSAIDs on synovitis – the inflammation of the membrane lining the knee joint – by using MRI-based structural biomarkers.

OA, the most common form of arthritis, affects more than 32 million adults in the United States and more than 500 million people worldwide.
 

No approved therapy to reduce OA progression

Little is known of the long-term effects of NSAIDs on OA progression. Currently, there’s no approved therapy to cure OA or to reduce its advance.

Dr. Luitjens noted, however, that the synovial membrane mediates development and progression of OA and may be a good therapeutic target.

Researchers studied participants from the Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI) cohort with moderate to severe OA who used NSAIDs regularly for at least 1 year between baseline and 4-year follow-up. All participants had high-quality 3T MRI of the knee at baseline and after 4 years. Images were scored for biomarkers of inflammation, including cartilage thickness and composition.

Dr. Luitjens and associates studied 721 participants who matched the inclusion criteria (129 with and 592 participants without regular NSAID use). The available data did not further specify amounts of NSAIDs used.

At baseline, significantly higher signal intensity in the infrapatellar fat pad (IFP) was seen in patients who used NSAID, compared with controls (adjusted difference in score, 0.26; 95% confidence interval, –0.5 to –0.129; P = .039).

In addition, at the end of the study period, there was a significantly greater increase in signal intensity of IFP (adjusted difference in score, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.2-0.72; P < .001) and higher increase in effusion synovitis (adjusted difference in score, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.06-0.47;  P = .01) in NSAID users, compared with controls.

IFP size and synovial proliferation score did not different significantly between groups at the start of the study and showed no significant change over time.

The results showed no long-term benefit of NSAID use. Joint inflammation and cartilage quality were worse at baseline in the participants taking NSAIDs, compared with the control group, and worsened at 4-year follow-up.

Design limits strength

Amanda E. Nelson, MD, associate professor of medicine, division of rheumatology, allergy, and immunology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, cautioned against assuming causality, pointing out that the OAI is an observational cohort study. (Dr. Nelson was not involved in the OAI or Dr. Luitjens’ analysis.)

“[The OAI is] large and well known, but it wasn’t designed to compare these groups, and this was a small subset,” she said in an interview. Without randomization, it’s hard to judge the results.

“It may be that people on NSAIDs for the duration of the study had more pain and had more disease to begin with, or had more symptoms or had failed other treatments,” she said, adding that the effect sizes were small.

Measures such as the IFP are ranked 0-3, so “the clinical difference of a 0.26 difference on a 0-3 scale is a bit uncertain,” she said.

Dr. Luitjens said that the researchers tried to adjust for potential confounders but agreed that randomized controlled trials are needed to better advise physicians and patients on the benefits or harms of using NSAIDs for OA.

Weighing the risks in older adults

Una Makris, MD, associate professor of internal medicine in the division of rheumatic diseases at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, noted that NSAIDs are “not always the safest option.”

“We are still in desperate need of disease-modifying drugs in OA with rigorous randomized trials to show efficacy for outcomes that are most meaningful to patients,” Dr. Makris, who was not involved in the study, told this news organization.

“OA is most common in older adults, those often with multiple comorbidities, so we must always weigh the risks – including known adverse effects which can be amplified in older adults – and benefits with the goal of improved function and less pain,” Dr. Makris said.

NSAID use also should be considered in the context of body mass index, cardiovascular risk, prior trauma or injury, other medication use, and behavioral factors, including physical activity, she said.

Dr. Luitjens, Dr. Nelson, and Dr. Makris reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

CHICAGO – Taking NSAIDs for knee osteoarthritis may worsen inflammation and pain over time, suggest new data revealed at the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America.

Johanna Luitjens, MD, a postdoctoral scholar in the department of radiology and biomedical Imaging at the University of California, San Francisco, told this news organization that NSAIDs are frequently used to treat OA pain because inflammation is one of the main drivers of OA, but whether they actually help outcomes has been unclear. Her study suggests that they don’t help – and may actually worsen – outcomes.

Denise Fulton/MDedge News

In particular, this study looked at the impact of NSAIDs on synovitis – the inflammation of the membrane lining the knee joint – by using MRI-based structural biomarkers.

OA, the most common form of arthritis, affects more than 32 million adults in the United States and more than 500 million people worldwide.
 

No approved therapy to reduce OA progression

Little is known of the long-term effects of NSAIDs on OA progression. Currently, there’s no approved therapy to cure OA or to reduce its advance.

Dr. Luitjens noted, however, that the synovial membrane mediates development and progression of OA and may be a good therapeutic target.

Researchers studied participants from the Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI) cohort with moderate to severe OA who used NSAIDs regularly for at least 1 year between baseline and 4-year follow-up. All participants had high-quality 3T MRI of the knee at baseline and after 4 years. Images were scored for biomarkers of inflammation, including cartilage thickness and composition.

Dr. Luitjens and associates studied 721 participants who matched the inclusion criteria (129 with and 592 participants without regular NSAID use). The available data did not further specify amounts of NSAIDs used.

At baseline, significantly higher signal intensity in the infrapatellar fat pad (IFP) was seen in patients who used NSAID, compared with controls (adjusted difference in score, 0.26; 95% confidence interval, –0.5 to –0.129; P = .039).

In addition, at the end of the study period, there was a significantly greater increase in signal intensity of IFP (adjusted difference in score, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.2-0.72; P < .001) and higher increase in effusion synovitis (adjusted difference in score, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.06-0.47;  P = .01) in NSAID users, compared with controls.

IFP size and synovial proliferation score did not different significantly between groups at the start of the study and showed no significant change over time.

The results showed no long-term benefit of NSAID use. Joint inflammation and cartilage quality were worse at baseline in the participants taking NSAIDs, compared with the control group, and worsened at 4-year follow-up.

Design limits strength

Amanda E. Nelson, MD, associate professor of medicine, division of rheumatology, allergy, and immunology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, cautioned against assuming causality, pointing out that the OAI is an observational cohort study. (Dr. Nelson was not involved in the OAI or Dr. Luitjens’ analysis.)

“[The OAI is] large and well known, but it wasn’t designed to compare these groups, and this was a small subset,” she said in an interview. Without randomization, it’s hard to judge the results.

“It may be that people on NSAIDs for the duration of the study had more pain and had more disease to begin with, or had more symptoms or had failed other treatments,” she said, adding that the effect sizes were small.

Measures such as the IFP are ranked 0-3, so “the clinical difference of a 0.26 difference on a 0-3 scale is a bit uncertain,” she said.

Dr. Luitjens said that the researchers tried to adjust for potential confounders but agreed that randomized controlled trials are needed to better advise physicians and patients on the benefits or harms of using NSAIDs for OA.

Weighing the risks in older adults

Una Makris, MD, associate professor of internal medicine in the division of rheumatic diseases at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, noted that NSAIDs are “not always the safest option.”

“We are still in desperate need of disease-modifying drugs in OA with rigorous randomized trials to show efficacy for outcomes that are most meaningful to patients,” Dr. Makris, who was not involved in the study, told this news organization.

“OA is most common in older adults, those often with multiple comorbidities, so we must always weigh the risks – including known adverse effects which can be amplified in older adults – and benefits with the goal of improved function and less pain,” Dr. Makris said.

NSAID use also should be considered in the context of body mass index, cardiovascular risk, prior trauma or injury, other medication use, and behavioral factors, including physical activity, she said.

Dr. Luitjens, Dr. Nelson, and Dr. Makris reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

DENVER – As best practices for screening and surveillance of high-risk cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC) continue to evolve, mounting evidence supports the use of radiologic imaging.

In a study published in 2020, Emily Ruiz, MD, MPH, and colleagues identified 87 CSCC tumors in 83 patients who underwent baseline or surveillance imaging primary at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital Mohs Surgery Clinic and the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute High-Risk Skin Cancer Clinic, both in Boston, from Jan. 1, 2017, to June 1, 2019. Of the 87 primary CSCCs, 48 (58%) underwent surveillance imaging. The researchers found that imaging detected additional disease in 26 patients, or 30% of cases, “whether that be nodal metastasis, local invasion beyond what was clinically accepted, or in-transit disease,” Dr. Ruiz, academic director of the Mohs and Dermatologic Surgery Center at Brigham and Women’s, said during the annual meeting of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery. “But if you look at the 16 nodal metastases in this cohort, all were picked up on imaging and not on clinical exam.”

Since publication of these results, Dr. Ruiz routinely considers baseline radiologic imaging in T2b and T3 tumors; borderline T2a tumors (which she said they are now calling “T2a high,” for those who have one risk factor plus another intermediate risk factor),” and T2a tumors in patients who are profoundly immunosuppressed.

“My preference is to always do [the imaging] before treatment unless I’m up-staging them during surgery,” said Dr. Ruiz, who also directs the High-Risk Skin Cancer Clinic at Dana Farber. “We have picked up nodal metastases before surgery, which enables us to create a good therapeutic plan for our patients before we start operating. Then we image them every 6 months or so for about 2 years. Sometimes we will extend that out to 3 years.”

Some clinicians use sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) as a diagnostic test, but there are mixed results about its prognostic significance. A retrospective observational study of 720 patients with CSCC found that SLNB provided no benefit regarding further metastasis or tumor-specific survival, compared with those who received routine observation and follow-up, “but head and neck surgeons in the U.S. are putting together some prospective data from multiple centers,” Dr. Ruiz said. “I think in the coming years, you will have more multicenter data to inform us as to whether to do SLNB or not.”

Surgery may be the mainstay of treatment for resectable SCC, but the emerging role of neoadjuvant therapeutics is changing the way oncologists treat these tumors. For example, in a phase 2 trial recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine, 79 patients with stage II-IV CSCC received up to four doses of immunotherapy with the programmed death receptor–1 (PD-1) blocker cemiplimab administered every 3 weeks. The primary endpoint was a pathologic complete response, defined as the absence of viable tumor cells in the surgical specimen at a central laboratory. The researchers observed that 68% of patients had an objective response.

“These were patients with localized tumors that were either very aggressive or had nodal metastases,” said Dr, Ruiz, who was the site primary investigator at Dana Farber and a coauthor of the NEJM study. “This has altered the way we approach treating our larger tumors that could be resectable but have a lot of disease either locally or in the nodal basin. We think that we can shrink down the tumor and make it easier to resect, but also there is the possibility or improving outcomes.”

At Brigham and Women’s and the Dana Farber, she and her colleagues consider immunotherapy for multiple recurrent tumors that have been previously irradiated; cases of large tumor burden locally or in the nodal basin; tumors that have a complex surgical plan; cases where there is a low likelihood of achieving clear surgical margins; and cases of in-transit disease.

“We use two to four doses of immunotherapy prior to surgery and assess the tumor response after two doses both clinically and radiologically,” she said. “If the tumor continues to grow, we would do surgery sooner.”

The side-effect profile of immunotherapy is another consideration. “Some patients are not appropriate for a neoadjuvant immunotherapy approach, such as transplant patients,” she said.

According to the latest National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, surgery with or without adjuvant radiation is the current standard of care for treating CSCC. These guidelines were developed without much data to support the use of radiation, but a 20-year retrospective cohort study at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and the Cleveland Clinic Foundation found that adjuvant radiation following margin resection in high T-stage CSCC cut the risk of local and locoregional recurrence in half.

“This is something that radiation oncologists have told us for years, but there was no data to support it, so it was nice to see that borne out in clinical data,” said Dr. Ruiz, the study’s lead author. The 10% risk of local recurrence observed in the study “may not be high enough for some of our older patients, so we wanted to see if we could identify a group of high tumors that had higher risk of local recurrence,” she said. They found that patients who had a greater than 20% risk of poor outcome were those with recurrent tumors, those with tumors 6 cm or greater in size, and those with all four BWH risk factors (tumor diameter ≥ 2 cm, poorly differentiated histology, perineural invasion ≥ 0.1 mm, or tumor invasion beyond fat excluding bone invasion).

“Those risks were also cut in half if you added radiation,” she said. “So, the way I now approach counseling patients is, I try to estimate their baseline risk as best I can based on the tumor itself. I tell them that if they want to do adjuvant radiation it would cut the risk in half. Some patients are too frail and want to pass on it, while others are very interested.”

Of patients who did not receive radiation but had a disease recurrence, just under half of tumors were salvageable, about 25% died of their disease, and 23% had persistent disease. “I think this does support using radiation earlier on for the appropriate patient,” Dr. Ruiz said. “I consider the baseline risks [and] balance that with the patient’s comorbidities.”

Limited data exists on adjuvant immunotherapy for CSCC, but two ongoing randomized prospective clinical trials underway are studying the PD-1 inhibitors cemiplimab and pembrolizumab versus placebo. “We don’t have data yet, but prior to randomization, patients undergo surgery with macroscopic gross resection of all disease,” Dr. Ruiz said. “All tumors receive ART [adjuvant radiation therapy] prior to randomization”

Dr. Ruiz disclosed that she is a consultant for Sanofi, Regeneron, Genentech, and Jaunce Therapeutics. She is also a member of the advisory board for Checkpoint Therapeutics and is an investigator for Merck, Sanofi, and Regeneron.

DENVER – As best practices for screening and surveillance of high-risk cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC) continue to evolve, mounting evidence supports the use of radiologic imaging.

In a study published in 2020, Emily Ruiz, MD, MPH, and colleagues identified 87 CSCC tumors in 83 patients who underwent baseline or surveillance imaging primary at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital Mohs Surgery Clinic and the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute High-Risk Skin Cancer Clinic, both in Boston, from Jan. 1, 2017, to June 1, 2019. Of the 87 primary CSCCs, 48 (58%) underwent surveillance imaging. The researchers found that imaging detected additional disease in 26 patients, or 30% of cases, “whether that be nodal metastasis, local invasion beyond what was clinically accepted, or in-transit disease,” Dr. Ruiz, academic director of the Mohs and Dermatologic Surgery Center at Brigham and Women’s, said during the annual meeting of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery. “But if you look at the 16 nodal metastases in this cohort, all were picked up on imaging and not on clinical exam.”

Since publication of these results, Dr. Ruiz routinely considers baseline radiologic imaging in T2b and T3 tumors; borderline T2a tumors (which she said they are now calling “T2a high,” for those who have one risk factor plus another intermediate risk factor),” and T2a tumors in patients who are profoundly immunosuppressed.

“My preference is to always do [the imaging] before treatment unless I’m up-staging them during surgery,” said Dr. Ruiz, who also directs the High-Risk Skin Cancer Clinic at Dana Farber. “We have picked up nodal metastases before surgery, which enables us to create a good therapeutic plan for our patients before we start operating. Then we image them every 6 months or so for about 2 years. Sometimes we will extend that out to 3 years.”

Some clinicians use sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) as a diagnostic test, but there are mixed results about its prognostic significance. A retrospective observational study of 720 patients with CSCC found that SLNB provided no benefit regarding further metastasis or tumor-specific survival, compared with those who received routine observation and follow-up, “but head and neck surgeons in the U.S. are putting together some prospective data from multiple centers,” Dr. Ruiz said. “I think in the coming years, you will have more multicenter data to inform us as to whether to do SLNB or not.”

Surgery may be the mainstay of treatment for resectable SCC, but the emerging role of neoadjuvant therapeutics is changing the way oncologists treat these tumors. For example, in a phase 2 trial recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine, 79 patients with stage II-IV CSCC received up to four doses of immunotherapy with the programmed death receptor–1 (PD-1) blocker cemiplimab administered every 3 weeks. The primary endpoint was a pathologic complete response, defined as the absence of viable tumor cells in the surgical specimen at a central laboratory. The researchers observed that 68% of patients had an objective response.

“These were patients with localized tumors that were either very aggressive or had nodal metastases,” said Dr, Ruiz, who was the site primary investigator at Dana Farber and a coauthor of the NEJM study. “This has altered the way we approach treating our larger tumors that could be resectable but have a lot of disease either locally or in the nodal basin. We think that we can shrink down the tumor and make it easier to resect, but also there is the possibility or improving outcomes.”

At Brigham and Women’s and the Dana Farber, she and her colleagues consider immunotherapy for multiple recurrent tumors that have been previously irradiated; cases of large tumor burden locally or in the nodal basin; tumors that have a complex surgical plan; cases where there is a low likelihood of achieving clear surgical margins; and cases of in-transit disease.

“We use two to four doses of immunotherapy prior to surgery and assess the tumor response after two doses both clinically and radiologically,” she said. “If the tumor continues to grow, we would do surgery sooner.”

The side-effect profile of immunotherapy is another consideration. “Some patients are not appropriate for a neoadjuvant immunotherapy approach, such as transplant patients,” she said.

According to the latest National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, surgery with or without adjuvant radiation is the current standard of care for treating CSCC. These guidelines were developed without much data to support the use of radiation, but a 20-year retrospective cohort study at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and the Cleveland Clinic Foundation found that adjuvant radiation following margin resection in high T-stage CSCC cut the risk of local and locoregional recurrence in half.

“This is something that radiation oncologists have told us for years, but there was no data to support it, so it was nice to see that borne out in clinical data,” said Dr. Ruiz, the study’s lead author. The 10% risk of local recurrence observed in the study “may not be high enough for some of our older patients, so we wanted to see if we could identify a group of high tumors that had higher risk of local recurrence,” she said. They found that patients who had a greater than 20% risk of poor outcome were those with recurrent tumors, those with tumors 6 cm or greater in size, and those with all four BWH risk factors (tumor diameter ≥ 2 cm, poorly differentiated histology, perineural invasion ≥ 0.1 mm, or tumor invasion beyond fat excluding bone invasion).

“Those risks were also cut in half if you added radiation,” she said. “So, the way I now approach counseling patients is, I try to estimate their baseline risk as best I can based on the tumor itself. I tell them that if they want to do adjuvant radiation it would cut the risk in half. Some patients are too frail and want to pass on it, while others are very interested.”

Of patients who did not receive radiation but had a disease recurrence, just under half of tumors were salvageable, about 25% died of their disease, and 23% had persistent disease. “I think this does support using radiation earlier on for the appropriate patient,” Dr. Ruiz said. “I consider the baseline risks [and] balance that with the patient’s comorbidities.”

Limited data exists on adjuvant immunotherapy for CSCC, but two ongoing randomized prospective clinical trials underway are studying the PD-1 inhibitors cemiplimab and pembrolizumab versus placebo. “We don’t have data yet, but prior to randomization, patients undergo surgery with macroscopic gross resection of all disease,” Dr. Ruiz said. “All tumors receive ART [adjuvant radiation therapy] prior to randomization”

Dr. Ruiz disclosed that she is a consultant for Sanofi, Regeneron, Genentech, and Jaunce Therapeutics. She is also a member of the advisory board for Checkpoint Therapeutics and is an investigator for Merck, Sanofi, and Regeneron.

DENVER – As best practices for screening and surveillance of high-risk cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC) continue to evolve, mounting evidence supports the use of radiologic imaging.

In a study published in 2020, Emily Ruiz, MD, MPH, and colleagues identified 87 CSCC tumors in 83 patients who underwent baseline or surveillance imaging primary at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital Mohs Surgery Clinic and the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute High-Risk Skin Cancer Clinic, both in Boston, from Jan. 1, 2017, to June 1, 2019. Of the 87 primary CSCCs, 48 (58%) underwent surveillance imaging. The researchers found that imaging detected additional disease in 26 patients, or 30% of cases, “whether that be nodal metastasis, local invasion beyond what was clinically accepted, or in-transit disease,” Dr. Ruiz, academic director of the Mohs and Dermatologic Surgery Center at Brigham and Women’s, said during the annual meeting of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery. “But if you look at the 16 nodal metastases in this cohort, all were picked up on imaging and not on clinical exam.”

Since publication of these results, Dr. Ruiz routinely considers baseline radiologic imaging in T2b and T3 tumors; borderline T2a tumors (which she said they are now calling “T2a high,” for those who have one risk factor plus another intermediate risk factor),” and T2a tumors in patients who are profoundly immunosuppressed.

“My preference is to always do [the imaging] before treatment unless I’m up-staging them during surgery,” said Dr. Ruiz, who also directs the High-Risk Skin Cancer Clinic at Dana Farber. “We have picked up nodal metastases before surgery, which enables us to create a good therapeutic plan for our patients before we start operating. Then we image them every 6 months or so for about 2 years. Sometimes we will extend that out to 3 years.”

Some clinicians use sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) as a diagnostic test, but there are mixed results about its prognostic significance. A retrospective observational study of 720 patients with CSCC found that SLNB provided no benefit regarding further metastasis or tumor-specific survival, compared with those who received routine observation and follow-up, “but head and neck surgeons in the U.S. are putting together some prospective data from multiple centers,” Dr. Ruiz said. “I think in the coming years, you will have more multicenter data to inform us as to whether to do SLNB or not.”

Surgery may be the mainstay of treatment for resectable SCC, but the emerging role of neoadjuvant therapeutics is changing the way oncologists treat these tumors. For example, in a phase 2 trial recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine, 79 patients with stage II-IV CSCC received up to four doses of immunotherapy with the programmed death receptor–1 (PD-1) blocker cemiplimab administered every 3 weeks. The primary endpoint was a pathologic complete response, defined as the absence of viable tumor cells in the surgical specimen at a central laboratory. The researchers observed that 68% of patients had an objective response.

“These were patients with localized tumors that were either very aggressive or had nodal metastases,” said Dr, Ruiz, who was the site primary investigator at Dana Farber and a coauthor of the NEJM study. “This has altered the way we approach treating our larger tumors that could be resectable but have a lot of disease either locally or in the nodal basin. We think that we can shrink down the tumor and make it easier to resect, but also there is the possibility or improving outcomes.”

At Brigham and Women’s and the Dana Farber, she and her colleagues consider immunotherapy for multiple recurrent tumors that have been previously irradiated; cases of large tumor burden locally or in the nodal basin; tumors that have a complex surgical plan; cases where there is a low likelihood of achieving clear surgical margins; and cases of in-transit disease.

“We use two to four doses of immunotherapy prior to surgery and assess the tumor response after two doses both clinically and radiologically,” she said. “If the tumor continues to grow, we would do surgery sooner.”

The side-effect profile of immunotherapy is another consideration. “Some patients are not appropriate for a neoadjuvant immunotherapy approach, such as transplant patients,” she said.

According to the latest National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, surgery with or without adjuvant radiation is the current standard of care for treating CSCC. These guidelines were developed without much data to support the use of radiation, but a 20-year retrospective cohort study at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and the Cleveland Clinic Foundation found that adjuvant radiation following margin resection in high T-stage CSCC cut the risk of local and locoregional recurrence in half.

“This is something that radiation oncologists have told us for years, but there was no data to support it, so it was nice to see that borne out in clinical data,” said Dr. Ruiz, the study’s lead author. The 10% risk of local recurrence observed in the study “may not be high enough for some of our older patients, so we wanted to see if we could identify a group of high tumors that had higher risk of local recurrence,” she said. They found that patients who had a greater than 20% risk of poor outcome were those with recurrent tumors, those with tumors 6 cm or greater in size, and those with all four BWH risk factors (tumor diameter ≥ 2 cm, poorly differentiated histology, perineural invasion ≥ 0.1 mm, or tumor invasion beyond fat excluding bone invasion).

“Those risks were also cut in half if you added radiation,” she said. “So, the way I now approach counseling patients is, I try to estimate their baseline risk as best I can based on the tumor itself. I tell them that if they want to do adjuvant radiation it would cut the risk in half. Some patients are too frail and want to pass on it, while others are very interested.”

Of patients who did not receive radiation but had a disease recurrence, just under half of tumors were salvageable, about 25% died of their disease, and 23% had persistent disease. “I think this does support using radiation earlier on for the appropriate patient,” Dr. Ruiz said. “I consider the baseline risks [and] balance that with the patient’s comorbidities.”

Limited data exists on adjuvant immunotherapy for CSCC, but two ongoing randomized prospective clinical trials underway are studying the PD-1 inhibitors cemiplimab and pembrolizumab versus placebo. “We don’t have data yet, but prior to randomization, patients undergo surgery with macroscopic gross resection of all disease,” Dr. Ruiz said. “All tumors receive ART [adjuvant radiation therapy] prior to randomization”

Dr. Ruiz disclosed that she is a consultant for Sanofi, Regeneron, Genentech, and Jaunce Therapeutics. She is also a member of the advisory board for Checkpoint Therapeutics and is an investigator for Merck, Sanofi, and Regeneron.

The safety of vaginal breech delivery has been controversial since the Term Breech Trial in 2000 suggested increased neonatal mortality and short-term morbidity associated with vaginal breech delivery. The stance against breech delivery has softened since that time. Fruscalzo and colleagues provide yet more evidence supporting the safety of vaginal breech deliveries with their single-center, retrospective study, which included 804 singleton pregnant women who underwent vaginal breech vs emergency cesarean section vs elective cesarean section in Coesfeld, Germany. They found no significant differences between the vaginal breech–delivery group vs the other two groups in regard to umbilical artery pH < 7, low Apgar scores, or neonatal intensive care unit admissions. The only significant difference noted was umbilical artery pH < 7.1. This suggests that in experienced hands (each of the candidates was referred to a senior obstetrician for consultation), vaginal breech delivery can be safe, including for nulliparous women (67% were nulliparous), showing that even the short-term morbidity associated with vaginal breech delivery approaches that of planned cesarean section.

Two other articles raise caution regarding SD and increased risk for fetal death and PPH. Linde and colleagues used data from The Medical Birth Registry of Norway and Statistics Norway to examine recurrence risk for PPH associated with various causes. PPH associated with SD led the way: The recurrence risk adjusted odds ratio (aOR) was 6.8 for SD vs 5.9 for retained products of conception, 4.0 for uterine atony, 3.9 for obstetric trauma, and 2.2 for PPH of undefined cause. This study suggests that the risks for SD recurrence should be focused not just on SD, but also on PPH. Another concern regarding shoulder dystocia is raised by Davidesko and colleagues in their analysis of risk factors for intrapartum fetal death. Using a generalized estimation equation model to help identify independent risk factors for intrapartum fetal death, they examined 344,536 deliveries from 1991 to 2016 at Soroka University Medical Center in Israel and noted that SD again led the way: aOR was 23.8 for SD vs 19.0 for uterine rupture, 11.9 for preterm birth, 6.2 for placental abruption, and 3.6 for fetal malpresentation. This high risk for intrapartum fetal death associated with SD suggests a need for even more robust SD drills to help deal with this dreaded and often unpredictable obstetric emergency.

The safety of vaginal breech delivery has been controversial since the Term Breech Trial in 2000 suggested increased neonatal mortality and short-term morbidity associated with vaginal breech delivery. The stance against breech delivery has softened since that time. Fruscalzo and colleagues provide yet more evidence supporting the safety of vaginal breech deliveries with their single-center, retrospective study, which included 804 singleton pregnant women who underwent vaginal breech vs emergency cesarean section vs elective cesarean section in Coesfeld, Germany. They found no significant differences between the vaginal breech–delivery group vs the other two groups in regard to umbilical artery pH < 7, low Apgar scores, or neonatal intensive care unit admissions. The only significant difference noted was umbilical artery pH < 7.1. This suggests that in experienced hands (each of the candidates was referred to a senior obstetrician for consultation), vaginal breech delivery can be safe, including for nulliparous women (67% were nulliparous), showing that even the short-term morbidity associated with vaginal breech delivery approaches that of planned cesarean section.

Two other articles raise caution regarding SD and increased risk for fetal death and PPH. Linde and colleagues used data from The Medical Birth Registry of Norway and Statistics Norway to examine recurrence risk for PPH associated with various causes. PPH associated with SD led the way: The recurrence risk adjusted odds ratio (aOR) was 6.8 for SD vs 5.9 for retained products of conception, 4.0 for uterine atony, 3.9 for obstetric trauma, and 2.2 for PPH of undefined cause. This study suggests that the risks for SD recurrence should be focused not just on SD, but also on PPH. Another concern regarding shoulder dystocia is raised by Davidesko and colleagues in their analysis of risk factors for intrapartum fetal death. Using a generalized estimation equation model to help identify independent risk factors for intrapartum fetal death, they examined 344,536 deliveries from 1991 to 2016 at Soroka University Medical Center in Israel and noted that SD again led the way: aOR was 23.8 for SD vs 19.0 for uterine rupture, 11.9 for preterm birth, 6.2 for placental abruption, and 3.6 for fetal malpresentation. This high risk for intrapartum fetal death associated with SD suggests a need for even more robust SD drills to help deal with this dreaded and often unpredictable obstetric emergency.

The safety of vaginal breech delivery has been controversial since the Term Breech Trial in 2000 suggested increased neonatal mortality and short-term morbidity associated with vaginal breech delivery. The stance against breech delivery has softened since that time. Fruscalzo and colleagues provide yet more evidence supporting the safety of vaginal breech deliveries with their single-center, retrospective study, which included 804 singleton pregnant women who underwent vaginal breech vs emergency cesarean section vs elective cesarean section in Coesfeld, Germany. They found no significant differences between the vaginal breech–delivery group vs the other two groups in regard to umbilical artery pH < 7, low Apgar scores, or neonatal intensive care unit admissions. The only significant difference noted was umbilical artery pH < 7.1. This suggests that in experienced hands (each of the candidates was referred to a senior obstetrician for consultation), vaginal breech delivery can be safe, including for nulliparous women (67% were nulliparous), showing that even the short-term morbidity associated with vaginal breech delivery approaches that of planned cesarean section.

Two other articles raise caution regarding SD and increased risk for fetal death and PPH. Linde and colleagues used data from The Medical Birth Registry of Norway and Statistics Norway to examine recurrence risk for PPH associated with various causes. PPH associated with SD led the way: The recurrence risk adjusted odds ratio (aOR) was 6.8 for SD vs 5.9 for retained products of conception, 4.0 for uterine atony, 3.9 for obstetric trauma, and 2.2 for PPH of undefined cause. This study suggests that the risks for SD recurrence should be focused not just on SD, but also on PPH. Another concern regarding shoulder dystocia is raised by Davidesko and colleagues in their analysis of risk factors for intrapartum fetal death. Using a generalized estimation equation model to help identify independent risk factors for intrapartum fetal death, they examined 344,536 deliveries from 1991 to 2016 at Soroka University Medical Center in Israel and noted that SD again led the way: aOR was 23.8 for SD vs 19.0 for uterine rupture, 11.9 for preterm birth, 6.2 for placental abruption, and 3.6 for fetal malpresentation. This high risk for intrapartum fetal death associated with SD suggests a need for even more robust SD drills to help deal with this dreaded and often unpredictable obstetric emergency.

Nano-pulse stimulation has emerged as a promising treatment option for sebaceous hyperplasia, warts, and other dermal lesions without the use of heat.

During a virtual course on laser and aesthetic skin therapy, Yakir Levin, MD, PhD, likened nano-pulse stimulation to microneedling or radiofrequency microneedling “in that you have an array of microneedles that go into the skin,” he said. “However, it is actually completely different.”

The CellFX System uses nano-pulse stimulation to deliver ultrashort electrical energy pulses into the skin of target lesions via a console-based handheld applicator. In September 2022, the Food and Drug Administration cleared the CellFX system for treatment of sebaceous hyperplasia in patients with Fitzpatrick skin types I-II. This followed a general clearance of the device in 2021 for dermatologic procedures requiring ablation and resurfacing of the skin.

Pulses from the device deliver a “constant electrical potential gradient across cell membranes and organelle membranes, causing them to break down,” explained Dr. Levin, a dermatologist and physician scientist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, where he practices cosmetic dermatology and conducts research on birthmarks in children. This creates pores in those membranes “and leads to a controlled form of cell death,” he said. “As a result, this treatment is limited to cells, so you can do it in the dermis without damaging the collagen network. It spares tissue that’s outside of the field, and it’s nonthermal.”

Images from electron microscopy have demonstrated swelling of the mitochondria and breakdown of nuclei within 2 hours of treatment in a rat study. “Within 1 day of treatment you have death of the cells and the beginning of involution of the lesion,” he said during the meeting, which was sponsored by Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, and the Wellman Center for Photomedicine. “This presents us with the opportunity to treat dermal lesions without causing damage to the epidermis or to the acellular portion of the dermis.”

In published studies, nano-pulse stimulation has been shown to be effective for treating sebaceous hyperplasia and warts. According to Dr. Levin, clinicians typically treat sebaceous hyperplasia with an radiofrequency microneedle or electrodesiccation, “where we shave off the top but do not try to hit the bottom because we don’t want to cause scarring of the dermis,” he said. “Using the nano-pulse stimulation technology, however, you end up with involution of the sebaceous lesion without damaging the surrounding dermis.”

In a prospective, randomized study, 72 individuals with sebaceous gland hyperplasia received nano-pulse stimulation to 222 lesions and they returned for three to four follow-up evaluations with photographs. At the final study visit, investigators rated 99.6% of the sebaceous gland lesions as clear or mostly clear, while 79% of the study participants said they were “satisfied” or “mostly satisfied” with the outcome.

At posttreatment day 60, 55% of the lesions were judged to have no hyperpigmentation and 31% exhibited mild posttreatment hyperpigmentation.

In a more recent study, researchers used the CellFX System to treat 195 cutaneous warts up to 10 mm wide in 62 individuals enrolled at one of five sites. They found that 75% of common warts, 73% of flat warts, and 44% of plantar warts were completely clear 60 days following the last nano-pulse stimulation treatment and did not recur within the 120-day observation period.

The most common reactions at the treatment sites were erythema (51%) and eschar formation (23%) on day 30.

According to Dr. Levin, promising future applications of nano-pulse stimulation include treatment of syringomas, dermatofibromas, and basal cell carcinomas.

Dr. Levin reported financial interest in Accure Acne, Avava Medical, and Soltego. The CellFX system was developed and is marketed by Pulse Biosciences.

Nano-pulse stimulation has emerged as a promising treatment option for sebaceous hyperplasia, warts, and other dermal lesions without the use of heat.

During a virtual course on laser and aesthetic skin therapy, Yakir Levin, MD, PhD, likened nano-pulse stimulation to microneedling or radiofrequency microneedling “in that you have an array of microneedles that go into the skin,” he said. “However, it is actually completely different.”

The CellFX System uses nano-pulse stimulation to deliver ultrashort electrical energy pulses into the skin of target lesions via a console-based handheld applicator. In September 2022, the Food and Drug Administration cleared the CellFX system for treatment of sebaceous hyperplasia in patients with Fitzpatrick skin types I-II. This followed a general clearance of the device in 2021 for dermatologic procedures requiring ablation and resurfacing of the skin.

Pulses from the device deliver a “constant electrical potential gradient across cell membranes and organelle membranes, causing them to break down,” explained Dr. Levin, a dermatologist and physician scientist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, where he practices cosmetic dermatology and conducts research on birthmarks in children. This creates pores in those membranes “and leads to a controlled form of cell death,” he said. “As a result, this treatment is limited to cells, so you can do it in the dermis without damaging the collagen network. It spares tissue that’s outside of the field, and it’s nonthermal.”

Images from electron microscopy have demonstrated swelling of the mitochondria and breakdown of nuclei within 2 hours of treatment in a rat study. “Within 1 day of treatment you have death of the cells and the beginning of involution of the lesion,” he said during the meeting, which was sponsored by Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, and the Wellman Center for Photomedicine. “This presents us with the opportunity to treat dermal lesions without causing damage to the epidermis or to the acellular portion of the dermis.”

In published studies, nano-pulse stimulation has been shown to be effective for treating sebaceous hyperplasia and warts. According to Dr. Levin, clinicians typically treat sebaceous hyperplasia with an radiofrequency microneedle or electrodesiccation, “where we shave off the top but do not try to hit the bottom because we don’t want to cause scarring of the dermis,” he said. “Using the nano-pulse stimulation technology, however, you end up with involution of the sebaceous lesion without damaging the surrounding dermis.”

In a prospective, randomized study, 72 individuals with sebaceous gland hyperplasia received nano-pulse stimulation to 222 lesions and they returned for three to four follow-up evaluations with photographs. At the final study visit, investigators rated 99.6% of the sebaceous gland lesions as clear or mostly clear, while 79% of the study participants said they were “satisfied” or “mostly satisfied” with the outcome.

At posttreatment day 60, 55% of the lesions were judged to have no hyperpigmentation and 31% exhibited mild posttreatment hyperpigmentation.

In a more recent study, researchers used the CellFX System to treat 195 cutaneous warts up to 10 mm wide in 62 individuals enrolled at one of five sites. They found that 75% of common warts, 73% of flat warts, and 44% of plantar warts were completely clear 60 days following the last nano-pulse stimulation treatment and did not recur within the 120-day observation period.

The most common reactions at the treatment sites were erythema (51%) and eschar formation (23%) on day 30.

According to Dr. Levin, promising future applications of nano-pulse stimulation include treatment of syringomas, dermatofibromas, and basal cell carcinomas.

Dr. Levin reported financial interest in Accure Acne, Avava Medical, and Soltego. The CellFX system was developed and is marketed by Pulse Biosciences.

Nano-pulse stimulation has emerged as a promising treatment option for sebaceous hyperplasia, warts, and other dermal lesions without the use of heat.

During a virtual course on laser and aesthetic skin therapy, Yakir Levin, MD, PhD, likened nano-pulse stimulation to microneedling or radiofrequency microneedling “in that you have an array of microneedles that go into the skin,” he said. “However, it is actually completely different.”

The CellFX System uses nano-pulse stimulation to deliver ultrashort electrical energy pulses into the skin of target lesions via a console-based handheld applicator. In September 2022, the Food and Drug Administration cleared the CellFX system for treatment of sebaceous hyperplasia in patients with Fitzpatrick skin types I-II. This followed a general clearance of the device in 2021 for dermatologic procedures requiring ablation and resurfacing of the skin.

Pulses from the device deliver a “constant electrical potential gradient across cell membranes and organelle membranes, causing them to break down,” explained Dr. Levin, a dermatologist and physician scientist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, where he practices cosmetic dermatology and conducts research on birthmarks in children. This creates pores in those membranes “and leads to a controlled form of cell death,” he said. “As a result, this treatment is limited to cells, so you can do it in the dermis without damaging the collagen network. It spares tissue that’s outside of the field, and it’s nonthermal.”

Images from electron microscopy have demonstrated swelling of the mitochondria and breakdown of nuclei within 2 hours of treatment in a rat study. “Within 1 day of treatment you have death of the cells and the beginning of involution of the lesion,” he said during the meeting, which was sponsored by Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, and the Wellman Center for Photomedicine. “This presents us with the opportunity to treat dermal lesions without causing damage to the epidermis or to the acellular portion of the dermis.”

In published studies, nano-pulse stimulation has been shown to be effective for treating sebaceous hyperplasia and warts. According to Dr. Levin, clinicians typically treat sebaceous hyperplasia with an radiofrequency microneedle or electrodesiccation, “where we shave off the top but do not try to hit the bottom because we don’t want to cause scarring of the dermis,” he said. “Using the nano-pulse stimulation technology, however, you end up with involution of the sebaceous lesion without damaging the surrounding dermis.”

In a prospective, randomized study, 72 individuals with sebaceous gland hyperplasia received nano-pulse stimulation to 222 lesions and they returned for three to four follow-up evaluations with photographs. At the final study visit, investigators rated 99.6% of the sebaceous gland lesions as clear or mostly clear, while 79% of the study participants said they were “satisfied” or “mostly satisfied” with the outcome.

At posttreatment day 60, 55% of the lesions were judged to have no hyperpigmentation and 31% exhibited mild posttreatment hyperpigmentation.

In a more recent study, researchers used the CellFX System to treat 195 cutaneous warts up to 10 mm wide in 62 individuals enrolled at one of five sites. They found that 75% of common warts, 73% of flat warts, and 44% of plantar warts were completely clear 60 days following the last nano-pulse stimulation treatment and did not recur within the 120-day observation period.

The most common reactions at the treatment sites were erythema (51%) and eschar formation (23%) on day 30.

According to Dr. Levin, promising future applications of nano-pulse stimulation include treatment of syringomas, dermatofibromas, and basal cell carcinomas.

Dr. Levin reported financial interest in Accure Acne, Avava Medical, and Soltego. The CellFX system was developed and is marketed by Pulse Biosciences.

You can get all the exercise you need in just 8 minutes a day if you work out a bit harder, according to a new study in the European Heart Journal.

Just 54 minutes of vigorous exercise per week provides the most bang for your buck, researchers found, lowering the risk of early death from any cause by 36%, and your chances of getting heart disease by 35%.

Scientists examined data from fitness trackers worn by more than 71,000 people studied in the United Kingdom, then analyzed their health over the next several years.

While more time spent exercising unsurprisingly led to better health, the protective effects of exercise start to plateau after a certain point, according to the study.

A tough, short workout improves blood pressure, shrinks artery-clogging plaques, and boosts your overall fitness.

Vigorous exercise helps your body adapt better than moderate exercise does, leading to more notable benefits, says study author Matthew Ahmadi, PhD, a postdoctoral research fellow at the University of Sydney.

“Collectively, these will lower a person’s risk of cardiovascular disease. Exercise can also lower body inflammation, which will in turn lower the risk for certain cancers,” he says.

The CDC recommends at least 150 minutes of “moderate intensity” exercise each week, such as walking at a brisk pace. Or you could spend 75 minutes each week doing vigorous exercise, like running, it says. The CDC also recommends muscle strengthening activities, like lifting weights, at least 2 days per week.

But only 54% of Americans actually manage to get their 150 minutes of aerobic activity in each week, according to the most recent data from the National Center for Health Statistics. Even fewer – just 24% – also squeeze in the two recommended strength workouts.

So 8 minutes a day instead of 30 minutes could persuade busy people to get the exercise they need.

“Lack of time is one of the main reasons people have reported for not engaging in exercise,” says Dr. Ahmadi.

Vigorous exercise doesn’t mean you have to run, bike, or lift weights. Scientists consider a physical activity “vigorous” if it’s greater than 6 times your resting metabolic rate, or MET. That includes all kinds of strenuous movement, including dancing in a nightclub or carrying groceries upstairs.

“All of these activities are equally beneficial,” says Dr. Ahmadi.

He recommends aiming for 2-minute bouts of a heart-pumping activity, spread throughout the day for the most benefit in the least amount of time. If you wear a smartwatch or other device that tracks your heart rate, you’ll be above the threshold if your heart is pumping at 77% or more of your max heart rate (which most fitness trackers help you calculate).

No smartwatch? “The easiest way a person can infer if they are doing vigorous activity is if they are breathing hard enough that it’s difficult to have a conversation or speak in a full sentence while doing the activity,” Dr. Ahmadi says. In other words, if you’re huffing and puffing, then you’re in the zone.

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

You can get all the exercise you need in just 8 minutes a day if you work out a bit harder, according to a new study in the European Heart Journal.

Just 54 minutes of vigorous exercise per week provides the most bang for your buck, researchers found, lowering the risk of early death from any cause by 36%, and your chances of getting heart disease by 35%.

Scientists examined data from fitness trackers worn by more than 71,000 people studied in the United Kingdom, then analyzed their health over the next several years.

While more time spent exercising unsurprisingly led to better health, the protective effects of exercise start to plateau after a certain point, according to the study.

A tough, short workout improves blood pressure, shrinks artery-clogging plaques, and boosts your overall fitness.

Vigorous exercise helps your body adapt better than moderate exercise does, leading to more notable benefits, says study author Matthew Ahmadi, PhD, a postdoctoral research fellow at the University of Sydney.

“Collectively, these will lower a person’s risk of cardiovascular disease. Exercise can also lower body inflammation, which will in turn lower the risk for certain cancers,” he says.

The CDC recommends at least 150 minutes of “moderate intensity” exercise each week, such as walking at a brisk pace. Or you could spend 75 minutes each week doing vigorous exercise, like running, it says. The CDC also recommends muscle strengthening activities, like lifting weights, at least 2 days per week.

But only 54% of Americans actually manage to get their 150 minutes of aerobic activity in each week, according to the most recent data from the National Center for Health Statistics. Even fewer – just 24% – also squeeze in the two recommended strength workouts.

So 8 minutes a day instead of 30 minutes could persuade busy people to get the exercise they need.

“Lack of time is one of the main reasons people have reported for not engaging in exercise,” says Dr. Ahmadi.

Vigorous exercise doesn’t mean you have to run, bike, or lift weights. Scientists consider a physical activity “vigorous” if it’s greater than 6 times your resting metabolic rate, or MET. That includes all kinds of strenuous movement, including dancing in a nightclub or carrying groceries upstairs.

“All of these activities are equally beneficial,” says Dr. Ahmadi.

He recommends aiming for 2-minute bouts of a heart-pumping activity, spread throughout the day for the most benefit in the least amount of time. If you wear a smartwatch or other device that tracks your heart rate, you’ll be above the threshold if your heart is pumping at 77% or more of your max heart rate (which most fitness trackers help you calculate).

No smartwatch? “The easiest way a person can infer if they are doing vigorous activity is if they are breathing hard enough that it’s difficult to have a conversation or speak in a full sentence while doing the activity,” Dr. Ahmadi says. In other words, if you’re huffing and puffing, then you’re in the zone.

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

You can get all the exercise you need in just 8 minutes a day if you work out a bit harder, according to a new study in the European Heart Journal.

Just 54 minutes of vigorous exercise per week provides the most bang for your buck, researchers found, lowering the risk of early death from any cause by 36%, and your chances of getting heart disease by 35%.

Scientists examined data from fitness trackers worn by more than 71,000 people studied in the United Kingdom, then analyzed their health over the next several years.

While more time spent exercising unsurprisingly led to better health, the protective effects of exercise start to plateau after a certain point, according to the study.

A tough, short workout improves blood pressure, shrinks artery-clogging plaques, and boosts your overall fitness.

Vigorous exercise helps your body adapt better than moderate exercise does, leading to more notable benefits, says study author Matthew Ahmadi, PhD, a postdoctoral research fellow at the University of Sydney.

“Collectively, these will lower a person’s risk of cardiovascular disease. Exercise can also lower body inflammation, which will in turn lower the risk for certain cancers,” he says.

The CDC recommends at least 150 minutes of “moderate intensity” exercise each week, such as walking at a brisk pace. Or you could spend 75 minutes each week doing vigorous exercise, like running, it says. The CDC also recommends muscle strengthening activities, like lifting weights, at least 2 days per week.

But only 54% of Americans actually manage to get their 150 minutes of aerobic activity in each week, according to the most recent data from the National Center for Health Statistics. Even fewer – just 24% – also squeeze in the two recommended strength workouts.

So 8 minutes a day instead of 30 minutes could persuade busy people to get the exercise they need.

“Lack of time is one of the main reasons people have reported for not engaging in exercise,” says Dr. Ahmadi.

Vigorous exercise doesn’t mean you have to run, bike, or lift weights. Scientists consider a physical activity “vigorous” if it’s greater than 6 times your resting metabolic rate, or MET. That includes all kinds of strenuous movement, including dancing in a nightclub or carrying groceries upstairs.

“All of these activities are equally beneficial,” says Dr. Ahmadi.

He recommends aiming for 2-minute bouts of a heart-pumping activity, spread throughout the day for the most benefit in the least amount of time. If you wear a smartwatch or other device that tracks your heart rate, you’ll be above the threshold if your heart is pumping at 77% or more of your max heart rate (which most fitness trackers help you calculate).

No smartwatch? “The easiest way a person can infer if they are doing vigorous activity is if they are breathing hard enough that it’s difficult to have a conversation or speak in a full sentence while doing the activity,” Dr. Ahmadi says. In other words, if you’re huffing and puffing, then you’re in the zone.

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