Patients with cancer receiving chemotherapeutics may develop diarrhea, which can be highly distressing. In a recent journal article, oncologist Marcus Hentrich, MD, and gastroenterologist Volker Penndorf, MD, PhD, both of Rotkreuzklinikum in Munich, Germany, explained how affected patients should be treated.

As Dr. Hentrich and Dr. Penndorf explained, classical cytostatic drugs can induce diarrhea through direct damage to the intestinal mucosa. The pathomechanisms of monoclonal antibodies and oral targeted substances are not yet fully understood. According to the authors, the risk for toxic mucosal damage (toxic enteritis) increases with the severity and duration of neutropenia. Up to two thirds of patients with neutropenia develop diarrhea, and an infectious cause is rarely identified.

The cytostatic drug irinotecan, which can lead to an acute cholinergic syndrome within 24 hours, is a special case. This syndrome is characterized by watery diarrhea, abdominal cramps, vomiting, sweating, and bradycardia. Additionally, the development of late-onset diarrhea, occurring approximately 3 days after administration, is frequent.

According to the authors, risk factors for toxic enteritis with diarrhea include advanced age, poor performance and nutritional status, simultaneous radiotherapy of the abdomen and pelvis, and preexisting intestinal conditions.

Medication prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced diarrhea has not been established. An exception is atropine for prophylaxis and treatment of irinotecan-induced cholinergic syndrome.

Indications for diagnostic procedures are outlined in the current German guideline for supportive therapy in patients with cancer.

For diarrhea accompanied by fever, blood cultures are mandatory. A complete blood count provides information on various aspects (leukocytosis as an inflammatory reaction, neutropenia as a marker for infection risk, hemoglobin as a marker for possible hemoconcentration or existing bleeding, and thrombocytopenia as a marker for bleeding tendency). Disproportionate thrombocytopenia may warrant assessment of fragmented cells and enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli diagnostics.

To assess electrolyte and fluid loss, electrolytes, albumin, and total protein should be measured. The C-reactive protein value may help identify inflammatory conditions. It may also be elevated, however, because of tumor-related factors. Measuring urea and creatinine allows for estimating whether there is already a prerenal impairment of kidney function. Liver function parameters are mandatory for critically ill patients. In patients with hypotension or tachycardia, blood gas analysis and lactate determination are advisable. Among imaging techniques, ultrasound may be helpful. Indications for conventional abdominal x-ray are rare. In the presence of clinical signs of peritoneal irritation (such as guarding and rebound tenderness), a CT scan should be considered to detect further complications (perforation, ileus, enterocolitis, etc.) promptly.

Endoscopic examinations are recommended only in cases of persistent, worsening symptoms, according to the guideline. Colonoscopy is contraindicated in suspected neutropenic enterocolitis (NEC) because of the risk for perforation.

According to Dr. Hentrich and Dr. Penndorf, diarrhea therapy is carried out in stages and depends on the severity and response to each therapy. The Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events distinguishes the following severity grades:

• Grade 1: < four stools per day above baseline
• Grade 2: Four to six stools per day above baseline
• Grade 3: ≥ seven stools per day above baseline; fecal incontinence, hospitalization indicated; limited activities of daily living
• Grade 4: Life-threatening consequences, urgent intervention indicated

Therapy for Grades 1-2

The standard therapeutic after excluding infectious causes is loperamide (initially 4 mg orally, followed by 2 mg every 2-4 hours). A daily dose should not exceed 16 mg.

For irinotecan-associated diarrhea, adjunctive administration of budesonide (3 mg orally three times per day) with loperamide was shown to be effective in a small, randomized study (off-label). Another randomized study demonstrated the efficacy of combining loperamide with racecadotril (100 mg orally three times per day for 48 hours).
 

Therapy for Grade 3 Diarrhea

In severe diarrhea persisting despite loperamide therapy for 24-48 hours, octreotide (100-150 μg subcutaneously three times per day) may be administered (maximum three times 500 μg). Although octreotide is often used successfully for chemotherapy-induced diarrhea, it is not approved for this indication (off-label use).

According to the authors, other therapy options for loperamide-refractory diarrhea include codeine, tincture of opium, budesonide, and racecadotril. Psyllium husk or diphenoxylate plus atropine may also be attempted. In patients with prolonged neutropenia, overdosing of motility inhibitors should be avoided because of the risk for ileus.

The use of probiotics for chemotherapy-induced diarrhea cannot be generally recommended because of insufficient evidence, and cases of probiotic-associated bacteremia and fungemia have been described.

A particularly serious complication of intensive chemotherapy associated with diarrhea is NEC. It is characterized by fever, abdominal pain, and diarrhea during severe neutropenia (neutrophil count < 500/μL), the authors explained. NEC occurs predominantly, but not exclusively, after intensive chemotherapy for hematologic malignancies, especially acute leukemias.

More common than NEC and often preceding it is the so-called chemotherapy-associated bowel syndrome. It is characterized by fever ≥ 37.8 °C and abdominal pain or absence of stool for at least 72 hours.

Therapy consists of conservative symptomatic measures such as diet, adequate hydration with electrolyte balance, and analgesia. Due to the high risk for bacteremia, antibiotic therapy is indicated after blood cultures are obtained (piperacillin-tazobactam or a carbapenem). According to the authors, NEC improves in most patients with neutrophil regeneration. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor therapy appears reasonable in this context, although conclusive studies are lacking. Surgical intervention with removal of necrotic bowel segments may be considered in exceptional cases.

This story was translated from Univadis Germany, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with cancer receiving chemotherapeutics may develop diarrhea, which can be highly distressing. In a recent journal article, oncologist Marcus Hentrich, MD, and gastroenterologist Volker Penndorf, MD, PhD, both of Rotkreuzklinikum in Munich, Germany, explained how affected patients should be treated.

As Dr. Hentrich and Dr. Penndorf explained, classical cytostatic drugs can induce diarrhea through direct damage to the intestinal mucosa. The pathomechanisms of monoclonal antibodies and oral targeted substances are not yet fully understood. According to the authors, the risk for toxic mucosal damage (toxic enteritis) increases with the severity and duration of neutropenia. Up to two thirds of patients with neutropenia develop diarrhea, and an infectious cause is rarely identified.

The cytostatic drug irinotecan, which can lead to an acute cholinergic syndrome within 24 hours, is a special case. This syndrome is characterized by watery diarrhea, abdominal cramps, vomiting, sweating, and bradycardia. Additionally, the development of late-onset diarrhea, occurring approximately 3 days after administration, is frequent.

According to the authors, risk factors for toxic enteritis with diarrhea include advanced age, poor performance and nutritional status, simultaneous radiotherapy of the abdomen and pelvis, and preexisting intestinal conditions.

Medication prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced diarrhea has not been established. An exception is atropine for prophylaxis and treatment of irinotecan-induced cholinergic syndrome.

Indications for diagnostic procedures are outlined in the current German guideline for supportive therapy in patients with cancer.

For diarrhea accompanied by fever, blood cultures are mandatory. A complete blood count provides information on various aspects (leukocytosis as an inflammatory reaction, neutropenia as a marker for infection risk, hemoglobin as a marker for possible hemoconcentration or existing bleeding, and thrombocytopenia as a marker for bleeding tendency). Disproportionate thrombocytopenia may warrant assessment of fragmented cells and enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli diagnostics.

To assess electrolyte and fluid loss, electrolytes, albumin, and total protein should be measured. The C-reactive protein value may help identify inflammatory conditions. It may also be elevated, however, because of tumor-related factors. Measuring urea and creatinine allows for estimating whether there is already a prerenal impairment of kidney function. Liver function parameters are mandatory for critically ill patients. In patients with hypotension or tachycardia, blood gas analysis and lactate determination are advisable. Among imaging techniques, ultrasound may be helpful. Indications for conventional abdominal x-ray are rare. In the presence of clinical signs of peritoneal irritation (such as guarding and rebound tenderness), a CT scan should be considered to detect further complications (perforation, ileus, enterocolitis, etc.) promptly.

Endoscopic examinations are recommended only in cases of persistent, worsening symptoms, according to the guideline. Colonoscopy is contraindicated in suspected neutropenic enterocolitis (NEC) because of the risk for perforation.

According to Dr. Hentrich and Dr. Penndorf, diarrhea therapy is carried out in stages and depends on the severity and response to each therapy. The Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events distinguishes the following severity grades:

• Grade 1: < four stools per day above baseline
• Grade 2: Four to six stools per day above baseline
• Grade 3: ≥ seven stools per day above baseline; fecal incontinence, hospitalization indicated; limited activities of daily living
• Grade 4: Life-threatening consequences, urgent intervention indicated

Therapy for Grades 1-2

The standard therapeutic after excluding infectious causes is loperamide (initially 4 mg orally, followed by 2 mg every 2-4 hours). A daily dose should not exceed 16 mg.

For irinotecan-associated diarrhea, adjunctive administration of budesonide (3 mg orally three times per day) with loperamide was shown to be effective in a small, randomized study (off-label). Another randomized study demonstrated the efficacy of combining loperamide with racecadotril (100 mg orally three times per day for 48 hours).
 

Therapy for Grade 3 Diarrhea

In severe diarrhea persisting despite loperamide therapy for 24-48 hours, octreotide (100-150 μg subcutaneously three times per day) may be administered (maximum three times 500 μg). Although octreotide is often used successfully for chemotherapy-induced diarrhea, it is not approved for this indication (off-label use).

According to the authors, other therapy options for loperamide-refractory diarrhea include codeine, tincture of opium, budesonide, and racecadotril. Psyllium husk or diphenoxylate plus atropine may also be attempted. In patients with prolonged neutropenia, overdosing of motility inhibitors should be avoided because of the risk for ileus.

The use of probiotics for chemotherapy-induced diarrhea cannot be generally recommended because of insufficient evidence, and cases of probiotic-associated bacteremia and fungemia have been described.

A particularly serious complication of intensive chemotherapy associated with diarrhea is NEC. It is characterized by fever, abdominal pain, and diarrhea during severe neutropenia (neutrophil count < 500/μL), the authors explained. NEC occurs predominantly, but not exclusively, after intensive chemotherapy for hematologic malignancies, especially acute leukemias.

More common than NEC and often preceding it is the so-called chemotherapy-associated bowel syndrome. It is characterized by fever ≥ 37.8 °C and abdominal pain or absence of stool for at least 72 hours.

Therapy consists of conservative symptomatic measures such as diet, adequate hydration with electrolyte balance, and analgesia. Due to the high risk for bacteremia, antibiotic therapy is indicated after blood cultures are obtained (piperacillin-tazobactam or a carbapenem). According to the authors, NEC improves in most patients with neutrophil regeneration. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor therapy appears reasonable in this context, although conclusive studies are lacking. Surgical intervention with removal of necrotic bowel segments may be considered in exceptional cases.

This story was translated from Univadis Germany, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with cancer receiving chemotherapeutics may develop diarrhea, which can be highly distressing. In a recent journal article, oncologist Marcus Hentrich, MD, and gastroenterologist Volker Penndorf, MD, PhD, both of Rotkreuzklinikum in Munich, Germany, explained how affected patients should be treated.

As Dr. Hentrich and Dr. Penndorf explained, classical cytostatic drugs can induce diarrhea through direct damage to the intestinal mucosa. The pathomechanisms of monoclonal antibodies and oral targeted substances are not yet fully understood. According to the authors, the risk for toxic mucosal damage (toxic enteritis) increases with the severity and duration of neutropenia. Up to two thirds of patients with neutropenia develop diarrhea, and an infectious cause is rarely identified.

The cytostatic drug irinotecan, which can lead to an acute cholinergic syndrome within 24 hours, is a special case. This syndrome is characterized by watery diarrhea, abdominal cramps, vomiting, sweating, and bradycardia. Additionally, the development of late-onset diarrhea, occurring approximately 3 days after administration, is frequent.

According to the authors, risk factors for toxic enteritis with diarrhea include advanced age, poor performance and nutritional status, simultaneous radiotherapy of the abdomen and pelvis, and preexisting intestinal conditions.

Medication prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced diarrhea has not been established. An exception is atropine for prophylaxis and treatment of irinotecan-induced cholinergic syndrome.

Indications for diagnostic procedures are outlined in the current German guideline for supportive therapy in patients with cancer.

For diarrhea accompanied by fever, blood cultures are mandatory. A complete blood count provides information on various aspects (leukocytosis as an inflammatory reaction, neutropenia as a marker for infection risk, hemoglobin as a marker for possible hemoconcentration or existing bleeding, and thrombocytopenia as a marker for bleeding tendency). Disproportionate thrombocytopenia may warrant assessment of fragmented cells and enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli diagnostics.

To assess electrolyte and fluid loss, electrolytes, albumin, and total protein should be measured. The C-reactive protein value may help identify inflammatory conditions. It may also be elevated, however, because of tumor-related factors. Measuring urea and creatinine allows for estimating whether there is already a prerenal impairment of kidney function. Liver function parameters are mandatory for critically ill patients. In patients with hypotension or tachycardia, blood gas analysis and lactate determination are advisable. Among imaging techniques, ultrasound may be helpful. Indications for conventional abdominal x-ray are rare. In the presence of clinical signs of peritoneal irritation (such as guarding and rebound tenderness), a CT scan should be considered to detect further complications (perforation, ileus, enterocolitis, etc.) promptly.

Endoscopic examinations are recommended only in cases of persistent, worsening symptoms, according to the guideline. Colonoscopy is contraindicated in suspected neutropenic enterocolitis (NEC) because of the risk for perforation.

According to Dr. Hentrich and Dr. Penndorf, diarrhea therapy is carried out in stages and depends on the severity and response to each therapy. The Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events distinguishes the following severity grades:

• Grade 1: < four stools per day above baseline
• Grade 2: Four to six stools per day above baseline
• Grade 3: ≥ seven stools per day above baseline; fecal incontinence, hospitalization indicated; limited activities of daily living
• Grade 4: Life-threatening consequences, urgent intervention indicated

Therapy for Grades 1-2

The standard therapeutic after excluding infectious causes is loperamide (initially 4 mg orally, followed by 2 mg every 2-4 hours). A daily dose should not exceed 16 mg.

For irinotecan-associated diarrhea, adjunctive administration of budesonide (3 mg orally three times per day) with loperamide was shown to be effective in a small, randomized study (off-label). Another randomized study demonstrated the efficacy of combining loperamide with racecadotril (100 mg orally three times per day for 48 hours).
 

Therapy for Grade 3 Diarrhea

In severe diarrhea persisting despite loperamide therapy for 24-48 hours, octreotide (100-150 μg subcutaneously three times per day) may be administered (maximum three times 500 μg). Although octreotide is often used successfully for chemotherapy-induced diarrhea, it is not approved for this indication (off-label use).

According to the authors, other therapy options for loperamide-refractory diarrhea include codeine, tincture of opium, budesonide, and racecadotril. Psyllium husk or diphenoxylate plus atropine may also be attempted. In patients with prolonged neutropenia, overdosing of motility inhibitors should be avoided because of the risk for ileus.

The use of probiotics for chemotherapy-induced diarrhea cannot be generally recommended because of insufficient evidence, and cases of probiotic-associated bacteremia and fungemia have been described.

A particularly serious complication of intensive chemotherapy associated with diarrhea is NEC. It is characterized by fever, abdominal pain, and diarrhea during severe neutropenia (neutrophil count < 500/μL), the authors explained. NEC occurs predominantly, but not exclusively, after intensive chemotherapy for hematologic malignancies, especially acute leukemias.

More common than NEC and often preceding it is the so-called chemotherapy-associated bowel syndrome. It is characterized by fever ≥ 37.8 °C and abdominal pain or absence of stool for at least 72 hours.

Therapy consists of conservative symptomatic measures such as diet, adequate hydration with electrolyte balance, and analgesia. Due to the high risk for bacteremia, antibiotic therapy is indicated after blood cultures are obtained (piperacillin-tazobactam or a carbapenem). According to the authors, NEC improves in most patients with neutrophil regeneration. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor therapy appears reasonable in this context, although conclusive studies are lacking. Surgical intervention with removal of necrotic bowel segments may be considered in exceptional cases.

This story was translated from Univadis Germany, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A clinical trial of preterm infants with inguinal hernia found that performing repair after discharge from the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) resulted in fewer adverse events than procedures prior to discharge.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study compared the safety of repair before discharge from the NICU with repair after discharge and post-55 weeks gestational plus chronological age (postmenstrual age).
• The study randomized 338 infants from 39 US hospitals to early or late repair; of the 320 infants who had the surgery, 86% were male, 30% were Black, and 59% were White.
• The primary outcome was the occurrence of at least one serious adverse event over the 10-month observation period, including apnea requiring respiratory intervention, intubation for more than 2 days, bradycardia requiring pharmacological intervention, or death.
• Secondary outcomes included a total number of days in the hospital, including the initial NICU stay after randomization, postoperative hospitalization, and any inpatient days due to hospital readmission over the course of the following 10-month period.

TAKEAWAY:

• Infants who underwent late repair had a lower probability of having at least one serious adverse event: 28% had at least one adverse event in the early group vs 18% in the late group.
• Infants in the late repair group had shorter stays in the NICU after randomization, as well as fewer hospital days following surgery.
• Late repair provided the greatest benefit to infants with a gestational age younger than 28 weeks and those who had bronchopulmonary dysplasia.
• Hernias resolved spontaneously in 4% of infants in the early repair group and 11% in the late group, which the authors said supports delaying hernia repair.

IN PRACTICE:

“The decision to treat the inguinal hernia with an early or late repair strategy likely does not influence the overall duration of the neonatal intensive care unit stay but may hasten the discharge by several days if later repair is chosen, which is likely important to parents and neonatologists.”

SOURCE:

The study was published online in JAMA. It was funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Martin L. Blakely, MD, MS, from the Department of Surgery at the University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, Texas, is the corresponding author.

LIMITATIONS:

This study had a modest sample size, an issue compounded by some subjects withdrawing from the trial. The randomization rate was lower than expected. The trial was also discontinued early due to meeting a prespecified stopping rule for effectiveness.

DISCLOSURES:

Study authors report grant support from the US Department of Defense, personal fees, author royalties, and institutional contracts with various companies including Medicem, Fresenius Kabi, Baxter, and Mead Johnson.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A clinical trial of preterm infants with inguinal hernia found that performing repair after discharge from the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) resulted in fewer adverse events than procedures prior to discharge.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study compared the safety of repair before discharge from the NICU with repair after discharge and post-55 weeks gestational plus chronological age (postmenstrual age).
• The study randomized 338 infants from 39 US hospitals to early or late repair; of the 320 infants who had the surgery, 86% were male, 30% were Black, and 59% were White.
• The primary outcome was the occurrence of at least one serious adverse event over the 10-month observation period, including apnea requiring respiratory intervention, intubation for more than 2 days, bradycardia requiring pharmacological intervention, or death.
• Secondary outcomes included a total number of days in the hospital, including the initial NICU stay after randomization, postoperative hospitalization, and any inpatient days due to hospital readmission over the course of the following 10-month period.

TAKEAWAY:

• Infants who underwent late repair had a lower probability of having at least one serious adverse event: 28% had at least one adverse event in the early group vs 18% in the late group.
• Infants in the late repair group had shorter stays in the NICU after randomization, as well as fewer hospital days following surgery.
• Late repair provided the greatest benefit to infants with a gestational age younger than 28 weeks and those who had bronchopulmonary dysplasia.
• Hernias resolved spontaneously in 4% of infants in the early repair group and 11% in the late group, which the authors said supports delaying hernia repair.

IN PRACTICE:

“The decision to treat the inguinal hernia with an early or late repair strategy likely does not influence the overall duration of the neonatal intensive care unit stay but may hasten the discharge by several days if later repair is chosen, which is likely important to parents and neonatologists.”

SOURCE:

The study was published online in JAMA. It was funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Martin L. Blakely, MD, MS, from the Department of Surgery at the University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, Texas, is the corresponding author.

LIMITATIONS:

This study had a modest sample size, an issue compounded by some subjects withdrawing from the trial. The randomization rate was lower than expected. The trial was also discontinued early due to meeting a prespecified stopping rule for effectiveness.

DISCLOSURES:

Study authors report grant support from the US Department of Defense, personal fees, author royalties, and institutional contracts with various companies including Medicem, Fresenius Kabi, Baxter, and Mead Johnson.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A clinical trial of preterm infants with inguinal hernia found that performing repair after discharge from the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) resulted in fewer adverse events than procedures prior to discharge.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study compared the safety of repair before discharge from the NICU with repair after discharge and post-55 weeks gestational plus chronological age (postmenstrual age).
• The study randomized 338 infants from 39 US hospitals to early or late repair; of the 320 infants who had the surgery, 86% were male, 30% were Black, and 59% were White.
• The primary outcome was the occurrence of at least one serious adverse event over the 10-month observation period, including apnea requiring respiratory intervention, intubation for more than 2 days, bradycardia requiring pharmacological intervention, or death.
• Secondary outcomes included a total number of days in the hospital, including the initial NICU stay after randomization, postoperative hospitalization, and any inpatient days due to hospital readmission over the course of the following 10-month period.

TAKEAWAY:

• Infants who underwent late repair had a lower probability of having at least one serious adverse event: 28% had at least one adverse event in the early group vs 18% in the late group.
• Infants in the late repair group had shorter stays in the NICU after randomization, as well as fewer hospital days following surgery.
• Late repair provided the greatest benefit to infants with a gestational age younger than 28 weeks and those who had bronchopulmonary dysplasia.
• Hernias resolved spontaneously in 4% of infants in the early repair group and 11% in the late group, which the authors said supports delaying hernia repair.

IN PRACTICE:

“The decision to treat the inguinal hernia with an early or late repair strategy likely does not influence the overall duration of the neonatal intensive care unit stay but may hasten the discharge by several days if later repair is chosen, which is likely important to parents and neonatologists.”

SOURCE:

The study was published online in JAMA. It was funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Martin L. Blakely, MD, MS, from the Department of Surgery at the University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, Texas, is the corresponding author.

LIMITATIONS:

This study had a modest sample size, an issue compounded by some subjects withdrawing from the trial. The randomization rate was lower than expected. The trial was also discontinued early due to meeting a prespecified stopping rule for effectiveness.

DISCLOSURES:

Study authors report grant support from the US Department of Defense, personal fees, author royalties, and institutional contracts with various companies including Medicem, Fresenius Kabi, Baxter, and Mead Johnson.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A 27-year-old woman presents requesting antibiotics for a sinus headache. She reports she has had 3-4 episodes a year with pain in her maxillary area and congestion. She has not had fevers with these episodes. She had the onset of this headache 6 hours ago. She has had resolution of the pain within 24 hours in the past with the use of antibiotics and decongestants. What would be the best treatment for her?

A. Amoxicillin

B. Amoxicillin/clavulanate

C. Amoxicillin + fluticasone nasal spray

D. Sumatriptan

The best treatment would be sumatriptan. This is very likely a variant of migraine headache and migraine-directed therapy is the best option. In regard to sinus headache, the International Headache Society (IHS) classification states that chronic sinusitis is not a cause of headache and facial pain unless it relapses into an acute sinusitis.¹

The recurrent nature of the headaches in this patient suggests a primary headache disorder with migraine being the most likely. In a study of 2991 patients with self-diagnosed or physician-diagnosed “sinus headaches,” 88% of the patients met IHS criteria for migraine.² In this study, most of the patients had symptoms suggesting sinus problems, with the most common symptoms being sinus pressure (84%), sinus pain (82%), and nasal congestion (63%). The likely cause for these symptoms in migraine patients is vasodilation of the nasal mucosa that can be part of the migraine event.

Foroughipour and colleagues found similar results.³ In their study, 58 patients with “sinus headache” were evaluated, with the final diagnosis of migraine in 40 patients (69%), tension-type headache in 16 patients (27%), and chronic sinusitis with recurrent acute episodes in 2 patients (3%). Recurrent antibiotic therapy had been given to 73% of the tension-type headache patients and 66% of the migraine patients.

Obermann et al. looked at how common trigeminal autonomic symptoms were in patients with migraine in a population-based study.⁴ They found of 841 patients who had migraine, 226 reported accompanying unilateral trigeminal autonomic symptoms (26.9%).

Al-Hashel et al. reported on how patients with frequent migraine are misdiagnosed and how long it takes when they present with sinus symptoms. A total of 130 migraine patients were recruited for the study; of these, 81.5% were misdiagnosed with sinusitis. The mean time delay of migraine diagnosis was almost 8 years.⁵

In a study by Dr. Elina Kari and Dr. John M. DelGaudio, patients who had a history of “sinus headaches” were treated as though all these headaches were migraines. Fifty-four patients were enrolled, and 38 patients completed the study. All patients had nasal endoscopy and sinus CT scans that were negative. They were then given migraine-directed treatment to use for their headaches. Of the 38 patient who completed the study, 31 patients (82%) had a significant reduction in headache pain with triptan use, and 35 patients (92%) had a significant response to migraine-directed therapy.⁶ An expert panel consisting of otolaryngologists, neurologists, allergists, and primary care physicians concluded that the majority of sinus headaches can actually be classified as migraines.⁷

These references aren’t new. This information has been known in the medical literature for more than 2 decades, but I believe that the majority of medical professionals are not aware of it. In my own practice I have found great success treating patients with sinus headache histories with migraine-directed therapy (mostly triptans) when they have return of their headaches.


Pearl: When your patients say they have another sinus headache, think migraine.
 

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at imnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. Jones NS. Expert Rev Neurother. 2009;9:439-44.

2. Schreiber CP et al. Arch Intern Med. 2004;164:1769-72.

3. Foroughipour M et al. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2011;268:1593-6.

4. Obermann M et al. Cephalalgia. 2007 Jun;27(6):504-9.

5. Al-Hashel JY et al. J Headache Pain. 2013 Dec 12;14(1):97.

6. Kari E and DelGaudi JM. Laryngoscope. 2008;118:2235-9.

7. Levine HL et al. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2006 Mar;134(3):516-23.

A 27-year-old woman presents requesting antibiotics for a sinus headache. She reports she has had 3-4 episodes a year with pain in her maxillary area and congestion. She has not had fevers with these episodes. She had the onset of this headache 6 hours ago. She has had resolution of the pain within 24 hours in the past with the use of antibiotics and decongestants. What would be the best treatment for her?

A. Amoxicillin

B. Amoxicillin/clavulanate

C. Amoxicillin + fluticasone nasal spray

D. Sumatriptan

The best treatment would be sumatriptan. This is very likely a variant of migraine headache and migraine-directed therapy is the best option. In regard to sinus headache, the International Headache Society (IHS) classification states that chronic sinusitis is not a cause of headache and facial pain unless it relapses into an acute sinusitis.¹

The recurrent nature of the headaches in this patient suggests a primary headache disorder with migraine being the most likely. In a study of 2991 patients with self-diagnosed or physician-diagnosed “sinus headaches,” 88% of the patients met IHS criteria for migraine.² In this study, most of the patients had symptoms suggesting sinus problems, with the most common symptoms being sinus pressure (84%), sinus pain (82%), and nasal congestion (63%). The likely cause for these symptoms in migraine patients is vasodilation of the nasal mucosa that can be part of the migraine event.

Foroughipour and colleagues found similar results.³ In their study, 58 patients with “sinus headache” were evaluated, with the final diagnosis of migraine in 40 patients (69%), tension-type headache in 16 patients (27%), and chronic sinusitis with recurrent acute episodes in 2 patients (3%). Recurrent antibiotic therapy had been given to 73% of the tension-type headache patients and 66% of the migraine patients.

Obermann et al. looked at how common trigeminal autonomic symptoms were in patients with migraine in a population-based study.⁴ They found of 841 patients who had migraine, 226 reported accompanying unilateral trigeminal autonomic symptoms (26.9%).

Al-Hashel et al. reported on how patients with frequent migraine are misdiagnosed and how long it takes when they present with sinus symptoms. A total of 130 migraine patients were recruited for the study; of these, 81.5% were misdiagnosed with sinusitis. The mean time delay of migraine diagnosis was almost 8 years.⁵

In a study by Dr. Elina Kari and Dr. John M. DelGaudio, patients who had a history of “sinus headaches” were treated as though all these headaches were migraines. Fifty-four patients were enrolled, and 38 patients completed the study. All patients had nasal endoscopy and sinus CT scans that were negative. They were then given migraine-directed treatment to use for their headaches. Of the 38 patient who completed the study, 31 patients (82%) had a significant reduction in headache pain with triptan use, and 35 patients (92%) had a significant response to migraine-directed therapy.⁶ An expert panel consisting of otolaryngologists, neurologists, allergists, and primary care physicians concluded that the majority of sinus headaches can actually be classified as migraines.⁷

These references aren’t new. This information has been known in the medical literature for more than 2 decades, but I believe that the majority of medical professionals are not aware of it. In my own practice I have found great success treating patients with sinus headache histories with migraine-directed therapy (mostly triptans) when they have return of their headaches.


Pearl: When your patients say they have another sinus headache, think migraine.
 

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at imnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. Jones NS. Expert Rev Neurother. 2009;9:439-44.

2. Schreiber CP et al. Arch Intern Med. 2004;164:1769-72.

3. Foroughipour M et al. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2011;268:1593-6.

4. Obermann M et al. Cephalalgia. 2007 Jun;27(6):504-9.

5. Al-Hashel JY et al. J Headache Pain. 2013 Dec 12;14(1):97.

6. Kari E and DelGaudi JM. Laryngoscope. 2008;118:2235-9.

7. Levine HL et al. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2006 Mar;134(3):516-23.

A 27-year-old woman presents requesting antibiotics for a sinus headache. She reports she has had 3-4 episodes a year with pain in her maxillary area and congestion. She has not had fevers with these episodes. She had the onset of this headache 6 hours ago. She has had resolution of the pain within 24 hours in the past with the use of antibiotics and decongestants. What would be the best treatment for her?

A. Amoxicillin

B. Amoxicillin/clavulanate

C. Amoxicillin + fluticasone nasal spray

D. Sumatriptan

The best treatment would be sumatriptan. This is very likely a variant of migraine headache and migraine-directed therapy is the best option. In regard to sinus headache, the International Headache Society (IHS) classification states that chronic sinusitis is not a cause of headache and facial pain unless it relapses into an acute sinusitis.¹

The recurrent nature of the headaches in this patient suggests a primary headache disorder with migraine being the most likely. In a study of 2991 patients with self-diagnosed or physician-diagnosed “sinus headaches,” 88% of the patients met IHS criteria for migraine.² In this study, most of the patients had symptoms suggesting sinus problems, with the most common symptoms being sinus pressure (84%), sinus pain (82%), and nasal congestion (63%). The likely cause for these symptoms in migraine patients is vasodilation of the nasal mucosa that can be part of the migraine event.

Foroughipour and colleagues found similar results.³ In their study, 58 patients with “sinus headache” were evaluated, with the final diagnosis of migraine in 40 patients (69%), tension-type headache in 16 patients (27%), and chronic sinusitis with recurrent acute episodes in 2 patients (3%). Recurrent antibiotic therapy had been given to 73% of the tension-type headache patients and 66% of the migraine patients.

Obermann et al. looked at how common trigeminal autonomic symptoms were in patients with migraine in a population-based study.⁴ They found of 841 patients who had migraine, 226 reported accompanying unilateral trigeminal autonomic symptoms (26.9%).

Al-Hashel et al. reported on how patients with frequent migraine are misdiagnosed and how long it takes when they present with sinus symptoms. A total of 130 migraine patients were recruited for the study; of these, 81.5% were misdiagnosed with sinusitis. The mean time delay of migraine diagnosis was almost 8 years.⁵

In a study by Dr. Elina Kari and Dr. John M. DelGaudio, patients who had a history of “sinus headaches” were treated as though all these headaches were migraines. Fifty-four patients were enrolled, and 38 patients completed the study. All patients had nasal endoscopy and sinus CT scans that were negative. They were then given migraine-directed treatment to use for their headaches. Of the 38 patient who completed the study, 31 patients (82%) had a significant reduction in headache pain with triptan use, and 35 patients (92%) had a significant response to migraine-directed therapy.⁶ An expert panel consisting of otolaryngologists, neurologists, allergists, and primary care physicians concluded that the majority of sinus headaches can actually be classified as migraines.⁷

These references aren’t new. This information has been known in the medical literature for more than 2 decades, but I believe that the majority of medical professionals are not aware of it. In my own practice I have found great success treating patients with sinus headache histories with migraine-directed therapy (mostly triptans) when they have return of their headaches.


Pearl: When your patients say they have another sinus headache, think migraine.
 

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at imnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. Jones NS. Expert Rev Neurother. 2009;9:439-44.

2. Schreiber CP et al. Arch Intern Med. 2004;164:1769-72.

3. Foroughipour M et al. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2011;268:1593-6.

4. Obermann M et al. Cephalalgia. 2007 Jun;27(6):504-9.

5. Al-Hashel JY et al. J Headache Pain. 2013 Dec 12;14(1):97.

6. Kari E and DelGaudi JM. Laryngoscope. 2008;118:2235-9.

7. Levine HL et al. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2006 Mar;134(3):516-23.

An article in the March 20 JAMA Network Open looked into the use of AI for responding to patient emails. Basically, they found that this led to a reduction in physician burden, but didn’t save any time.

1. Not sure that’s worth the trouble.

2. Unless the AI is simply responding with something like “message received, thank you” I don’t think this is a good idea.

Yeah, we’re all stretched for time, I understand that. From the starting gun each morning we’re racing between patients, phone calls, incoming test results, staff questions, drug reps, sample closets, dictations, and a million other things.

But AI needs to be a lot better before I let it handle patient questions and concerns.

Someday, yeah, maybe it can do this, like 2-1B, the surgical droid that replaced Luke’s hand in “The Empire Strikes Back.” But we’re not even close to that. Just because a log-in screen says “Jumping to Hyperspace” doesn’t mean you’re on the Millennium Falcon.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Arizona.

An article in the March 20 JAMA Network Open looked into the use of AI for responding to patient emails. Basically, they found that this led to a reduction in physician burden, but didn’t save any time.

1. Not sure that’s worth the trouble.

2. Unless the AI is simply responding with something like “message received, thank you” I don’t think this is a good idea.

Yeah, we’re all stretched for time, I understand that. From the starting gun each morning we’re racing between patients, phone calls, incoming test results, staff questions, drug reps, sample closets, dictations, and a million other things.

But AI needs to be a lot better before I let it handle patient questions and concerns.

Someday, yeah, maybe it can do this, like 2-1B, the surgical droid that replaced Luke’s hand in “The Empire Strikes Back.” But we’re not even close to that. Just because a log-in screen says “Jumping to Hyperspace” doesn’t mean you’re on the Millennium Falcon.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Arizona.

An article in the March 20 JAMA Network Open looked into the use of AI for responding to patient emails. Basically, they found that this led to a reduction in physician burden, but didn’t save any time.

1. Not sure that’s worth the trouble.

2. Unless the AI is simply responding with something like “message received, thank you” I don’t think this is a good idea.

Yeah, we’re all stretched for time, I understand that. From the starting gun each morning we’re racing between patients, phone calls, incoming test results, staff questions, drug reps, sample closets, dictations, and a million other things.

But AI needs to be a lot better before I let it handle patient questions and concerns.

Someday, yeah, maybe it can do this, like 2-1B, the surgical droid that replaced Luke’s hand in “The Empire Strikes Back.” But we’re not even close to that. Just because a log-in screen says “Jumping to Hyperspace” doesn’t mean you’re on the Millennium Falcon.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Arizona.

Blood-based screening for colorectal cancer (CRC), also known as a “liquid biopsy,” may be better than nothing among patients who skip established screening tests, but it can’t replace colonoscopy as the gold standard, according to two new modeling studies and an expert consensus commentary.

Although some patients find blood-based tests more convenient, the higher numbers of false positives and false negatives could lead to more CRC cases and deaths.

“Based on their current characteristics, blood tests should not be recommended to replace established colorectal cancer screening tests, since blood tests are neither as effective nor cost-effective and would worsen outcomes,” David Lieberman, MD, AGAF, chair of the American Gastroenterological Association’s CRC Workshop Panel, and lead author of the expert commentary, said in a statement.

AGA Institute

The blood tests detect circulating nucleotides, such as cell-free DNA or metabolic products associated with CRC and its precursors. Current tests are in development by Guardant Health and Freenome.

The two modeling studies, published in Gastroenterology on March 26, analyzed the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of blood-based CRC screening that meets Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) coverage criteria, as well as the comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of CRC screening with blood-based biomarkers versus fecal tests or colonoscopy.

Also published on March 26 in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, the expert commentary included key conclusions from the AGA CRC Workshop, which analyzed the two modeling studies.
 

Comparing CRC Screening Methods

In the first modeling study, an international team of researchers ran three microsimulation models for CRC to estimate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of triennial blood-based screening for ages 45-75, compared with no screening, annual fecal immunochemical testing (FIT), triennial stool DNA testing combined with a FIT assay, and colonoscopy screening every 10 years. The researchers used CMS coverage criteria for blood tests, with a sensitivity of at least 74% for detection of CRC and specificity of at least 90%.

Without screening, the models predicted between 77 and 88 CRC cases and between 32 and 36 deaths per 1,000 individuals, costing between $5.3 million to $5.8 million. Compared with no screening, blood-based screening was considered cost-effective, with an additional cost of $25,600 to $43,700 per quality-adjusted life-year gained (QALYG).

However, compared with the FIT, stool, and colonoscopy options, blood-based screening was not cost-effective, with both a decrease in QALYG and an increase in costs. FIT was more effective and less costly, with 5-24 QALYG and nearly $3.5 million cheaper than blood-based screening, even when blood-based uptake was 20 percentage points higher than FIT uptake.

In the second modeling study, US researchers compared triennial blood-based screening with established alternatives at the CMS thresholds of 74% sensitivity and 90% specificity.

Overall, a blood-based test at the CMS minimum reduced CRC incidence by 40% and CRC mortality by 52% versus no screening. However, a blood-based test was significantly less effective than triennial stool DNA testing, annual FIT, and colonoscopy every 10 years, which reduced CRC incidence by 68%-79% and CRC mortality by 73%-81%.

Assuming a blood-based test would cost the same as a multi-target stool test, the blood-based test would cost $28,500 per QALYG versus no screening. At the same time, FIT, colonoscopy, and stool DNA testing were less costly and more effective. In general, the blood-based test would match FIT’s clinical outcomes if it achieved 1.4- to 1.8-fold the participation rate for FIT.

Even still, the sensitivity for advanced precancerous lesion (APL) was a key determinant. A paradigm-changing blood-based test would need to have higher than 90% sensitivity for CRC and 80% for APL, 90% specificity, and cost less than $120 to $140, the study authors wrote.

“High APL sensitivity, which can result in CRC prevention, should be a top priority for screening test developers,” the authors wrote. “APL detection should not be penalized by a definition of test specificity that focuses on CRC only.”
 

Additional Considerations

The AGA CRC Workshop Panel met in September 2023 to review the two modeling studies and other data on blood-based tests for CRC. Overall, the group concluded that a triennial blood test that meets minimal CMS criteria would likely result in better outcomes than no screening and provide a simple process to encourage more people to participate in screening.

However, patients who may have declined colonoscopy should understand the need for a colonoscopy if blood-based tests show abnormal results, the commentary authors wrote.

In addition, because blood-based tests for CRC appear to be less effective and more costly than current screening options, they shouldn’t be recommended to replace established screening methods. Although these blood-based tests may improve screening rates and outcomes in unscreened people, substituting blood tests for other effective tests would increase costs and worsen patient outcomes.

Beyond that, they wrote, the industry should consider other potential benchmarks for an effective blood test, such as a sensitivity for stage I-III CRC of greater than 90% and sensitivity for advanced adenomas of 40%-50% or higher.

University of California San Diego

“Unless we have the expectation of high sensitivity and specificity, blood-based colorectal cancer tests could lead to false positive and false negative results, which are both bad for patient outcomes,” John M. Carethers, MD, AGAF, vice chancellor for health sciences at UC San Diego, AGA past president, and a member of the AGA CRC Workshop panel, said in a statement.

Several authors reported consultant roles and funding support from numerous companies, including Guardant Health and Freenome.

Blood-based screening for colorectal cancer (CRC), also known as a “liquid biopsy,” may be better than nothing among patients who skip established screening tests, but it can’t replace colonoscopy as the gold standard, according to two new modeling studies and an expert consensus commentary.

Although some patients find blood-based tests more convenient, the higher numbers of false positives and false negatives could lead to more CRC cases and deaths.

“Based on their current characteristics, blood tests should not be recommended to replace established colorectal cancer screening tests, since blood tests are neither as effective nor cost-effective and would worsen outcomes,” David Lieberman, MD, AGAF, chair of the American Gastroenterological Association’s CRC Workshop Panel, and lead author of the expert commentary, said in a statement.

AGA Institute

The blood tests detect circulating nucleotides, such as cell-free DNA or metabolic products associated with CRC and its precursors. Current tests are in development by Guardant Health and Freenome.

The two modeling studies, published in Gastroenterology on March 26, analyzed the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of blood-based CRC screening that meets Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) coverage criteria, as well as the comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of CRC screening with blood-based biomarkers versus fecal tests or colonoscopy.

Also published on March 26 in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, the expert commentary included key conclusions from the AGA CRC Workshop, which analyzed the two modeling studies.
 

Comparing CRC Screening Methods

In the first modeling study, an international team of researchers ran three microsimulation models for CRC to estimate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of triennial blood-based screening for ages 45-75, compared with no screening, annual fecal immunochemical testing (FIT), triennial stool DNA testing combined with a FIT assay, and colonoscopy screening every 10 years. The researchers used CMS coverage criteria for blood tests, with a sensitivity of at least 74% for detection of CRC and specificity of at least 90%.

Without screening, the models predicted between 77 and 88 CRC cases and between 32 and 36 deaths per 1,000 individuals, costing between $5.3 million to $5.8 million. Compared with no screening, blood-based screening was considered cost-effective, with an additional cost of $25,600 to $43,700 per quality-adjusted life-year gained (QALYG).

However, compared with the FIT, stool, and colonoscopy options, blood-based screening was not cost-effective, with both a decrease in QALYG and an increase in costs. FIT was more effective and less costly, with 5-24 QALYG and nearly $3.5 million cheaper than blood-based screening, even when blood-based uptake was 20 percentage points higher than FIT uptake.

In the second modeling study, US researchers compared triennial blood-based screening with established alternatives at the CMS thresholds of 74% sensitivity and 90% specificity.

Overall, a blood-based test at the CMS minimum reduced CRC incidence by 40% and CRC mortality by 52% versus no screening. However, a blood-based test was significantly less effective than triennial stool DNA testing, annual FIT, and colonoscopy every 10 years, which reduced CRC incidence by 68%-79% and CRC mortality by 73%-81%.

Assuming a blood-based test would cost the same as a multi-target stool test, the blood-based test would cost $28,500 per QALYG versus no screening. At the same time, FIT, colonoscopy, and stool DNA testing were less costly and more effective. In general, the blood-based test would match FIT’s clinical outcomes if it achieved 1.4- to 1.8-fold the participation rate for FIT.

Even still, the sensitivity for advanced precancerous lesion (APL) was a key determinant. A paradigm-changing blood-based test would need to have higher than 90% sensitivity for CRC and 80% for APL, 90% specificity, and cost less than $120 to $140, the study authors wrote.

“High APL sensitivity, which can result in CRC prevention, should be a top priority for screening test developers,” the authors wrote. “APL detection should not be penalized by a definition of test specificity that focuses on CRC only.”
 

Additional Considerations

The AGA CRC Workshop Panel met in September 2023 to review the two modeling studies and other data on blood-based tests for CRC. Overall, the group concluded that a triennial blood test that meets minimal CMS criteria would likely result in better outcomes than no screening and provide a simple process to encourage more people to participate in screening.

However, patients who may have declined colonoscopy should understand the need for a colonoscopy if blood-based tests show abnormal results, the commentary authors wrote.

In addition, because blood-based tests for CRC appear to be less effective and more costly than current screening options, they shouldn’t be recommended to replace established screening methods. Although these blood-based tests may improve screening rates and outcomes in unscreened people, substituting blood tests for other effective tests would increase costs and worsen patient outcomes.

Beyond that, they wrote, the industry should consider other potential benchmarks for an effective blood test, such as a sensitivity for stage I-III CRC of greater than 90% and sensitivity for advanced adenomas of 40%-50% or higher.

University of California San Diego

“Unless we have the expectation of high sensitivity and specificity, blood-based colorectal cancer tests could lead to false positive and false negative results, which are both bad for patient outcomes,” John M. Carethers, MD, AGAF, vice chancellor for health sciences at UC San Diego, AGA past president, and a member of the AGA CRC Workshop panel, said in a statement.

Several authors reported consultant roles and funding support from numerous companies, including Guardant Health and Freenome.

Blood-based screening for colorectal cancer (CRC), also known as a “liquid biopsy,” may be better than nothing among patients who skip established screening tests, but it can’t replace colonoscopy as the gold standard, according to two new modeling studies and an expert consensus commentary.

Although some patients find blood-based tests more convenient, the higher numbers of false positives and false negatives could lead to more CRC cases and deaths.

“Based on their current characteristics, blood tests should not be recommended to replace established colorectal cancer screening tests, since blood tests are neither as effective nor cost-effective and would worsen outcomes,” David Lieberman, MD, AGAF, chair of the American Gastroenterological Association’s CRC Workshop Panel, and lead author of the expert commentary, said in a statement.

AGA Institute

The blood tests detect circulating nucleotides, such as cell-free DNA or metabolic products associated with CRC and its precursors. Current tests are in development by Guardant Health and Freenome.

The two modeling studies, published in Gastroenterology on March 26, analyzed the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of blood-based CRC screening that meets Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) coverage criteria, as well as the comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of CRC screening with blood-based biomarkers versus fecal tests or colonoscopy.

Also published on March 26 in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, the expert commentary included key conclusions from the AGA CRC Workshop, which analyzed the two modeling studies.
 

Comparing CRC Screening Methods

In the first modeling study, an international team of researchers ran three microsimulation models for CRC to estimate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of triennial blood-based screening for ages 45-75, compared with no screening, annual fecal immunochemical testing (FIT), triennial stool DNA testing combined with a FIT assay, and colonoscopy screening every 10 years. The researchers used CMS coverage criteria for blood tests, with a sensitivity of at least 74% for detection of CRC and specificity of at least 90%.

Without screening, the models predicted between 77 and 88 CRC cases and between 32 and 36 deaths per 1,000 individuals, costing between $5.3 million to $5.8 million. Compared with no screening, blood-based screening was considered cost-effective, with an additional cost of $25,600 to $43,700 per quality-adjusted life-year gained (QALYG).

However, compared with the FIT, stool, and colonoscopy options, blood-based screening was not cost-effective, with both a decrease in QALYG and an increase in costs. FIT was more effective and less costly, with 5-24 QALYG and nearly $3.5 million cheaper than blood-based screening, even when blood-based uptake was 20 percentage points higher than FIT uptake.

In the second modeling study, US researchers compared triennial blood-based screening with established alternatives at the CMS thresholds of 74% sensitivity and 90% specificity.

Overall, a blood-based test at the CMS minimum reduced CRC incidence by 40% and CRC mortality by 52% versus no screening. However, a blood-based test was significantly less effective than triennial stool DNA testing, annual FIT, and colonoscopy every 10 years, which reduced CRC incidence by 68%-79% and CRC mortality by 73%-81%.

Assuming a blood-based test would cost the same as a multi-target stool test, the blood-based test would cost $28,500 per QALYG versus no screening. At the same time, FIT, colonoscopy, and stool DNA testing were less costly and more effective. In general, the blood-based test would match FIT’s clinical outcomes if it achieved 1.4- to 1.8-fold the participation rate for FIT.

Even still, the sensitivity for advanced precancerous lesion (APL) was a key determinant. A paradigm-changing blood-based test would need to have higher than 90% sensitivity for CRC and 80% for APL, 90% specificity, and cost less than $120 to $140, the study authors wrote.

“High APL sensitivity, which can result in CRC prevention, should be a top priority for screening test developers,” the authors wrote. “APL detection should not be penalized by a definition of test specificity that focuses on CRC only.”
 

Additional Considerations

The AGA CRC Workshop Panel met in September 2023 to review the two modeling studies and other data on blood-based tests for CRC. Overall, the group concluded that a triennial blood test that meets minimal CMS criteria would likely result in better outcomes than no screening and provide a simple process to encourage more people to participate in screening.

However, patients who may have declined colonoscopy should understand the need for a colonoscopy if blood-based tests show abnormal results, the commentary authors wrote.

In addition, because blood-based tests for CRC appear to be less effective and more costly than current screening options, they shouldn’t be recommended to replace established screening methods. Although these blood-based tests may improve screening rates and outcomes in unscreened people, substituting blood tests for other effective tests would increase costs and worsen patient outcomes.

Beyond that, they wrote, the industry should consider other potential benchmarks for an effective blood test, such as a sensitivity for stage I-III CRC of greater than 90% and sensitivity for advanced adenomas of 40%-50% or higher.

University of California San Diego

“Unless we have the expectation of high sensitivity and specificity, blood-based colorectal cancer tests could lead to false positive and false negative results, which are both bad for patient outcomes,” John M. Carethers, MD, AGAF, vice chancellor for health sciences at UC San Diego, AGA past president, and a member of the AGA CRC Workshop panel, said in a statement.

Several authors reported consultant roles and funding support from numerous companies, including Guardant Health and Freenome.

The Diagnosis: Blastic Plasmacytoid Dendritic Cell Neoplasm

Cutaneous plasmacytoma initially was suspected because of the patient’s history of monoclonal gammopathy as well as angiosarcoma due to the purpuric vascular appearance of the lesions. However, histopathology revealed a pleomorphic cellular dermal infiltrate characterized by atypical cells with mediumlarge nuclei, fine chromatin, and small nucleoli; the cells also had little cytoplasm (Figure). The infiltrate did not involve the epidermis but extended into the subcutaneous tissue. Immunohistochemistry revealed that the cells were positive for CD45, CD43, CD4, CD7, CD56, CD123, CD33, T-cell leukemia/lymphoma protein 1, and CD68. The cells were negative for CD2, CD3, CD5, CD8, T-cell intracellular antigen 1, CD13, CD15, CD19, CD20, CD21, CD23, cyclin D1, Bcl-2, Bcl-6, CD10, PAX5, MUM1, lysozyme, myeloperoxidase, perforin, granzyme B, CD57, CD34, CD117, terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase, activin receptorlike kinase 1 βF1, Epstein-Barr virus– encoded small RNA, CD30, CD163, and pancytokeratin. Thus, the clinical and histopathologic findings led to a diagnosis of blastic plasmacytoid dendritic cell neoplasm (BPDCN), a rare and aggressive hematologic malignancy.

Blastic plasmacytoid dendritic cell neoplasm affects males older than 60 years.¹ It is characterized by the clonal proliferation of precursor plasmacytoid dendritic cells—otherwise known as professional type I interferonproducing cells or plasmacytoid monocytes—of myeloid origin. Plasmacytoid dendritic cells have been renamed on several occasions, reflecting uncertainties of their histogenesis. The diagnosis of BPDCN requires a biopsy showing the morphology of plasmacytoid dendritic blast cells and immunophenotypic criteria established by either immunohistochemistry or flow cytometry.^2,3 Tumor cells morphologically show an immature blastic appearance, and the diagnosis rests upon the demonstration of CD4 and CD56, together with markers more restricted to plasmacytoid dendritic cells (eg, BDCA-2, CD123, T-cell leukemia/lymphoma protein 1, CD2AP, BCL11A) and negativity for lymphoid and myeloid lineage–associated antigens.^1,4

Blastic plasmacytoid dendritic cell neoplasms account for less than 1% of all hematopoietic neoplasms. Cutaneous lesions occur in 64% of patients with the disease and often are the reason patients seek medical care.⁵ Clinical findings include numerous erythematous and violaceous papules, nodules, and plaques that resemble purpura or vasculitis. Cutaneous lesions can vary in size from a few millimeters to 10 cm and vary in color. Moreover, patients often present with bruiselike patches, disseminated lesions, or mucosal lesions.¹ Extracutaneous involvement includes lymphadenopathy, splenomegaly, and cytopenia caused by bone marrow infiltration, which may be present at diagnosis or during disease progression. Bone marrow involvement often is present with thrombocytopenia, anemia, and neutropenia. One-third of patients with BPDCN have central nervous system involvement and no disease relapse.⁶ Other affected sites include the liver, lungs, tonsils, soft tissues, and eyes. Patients with BPDCN may present with a history of myeloid neoplasms, such as acute/chronic myeloid leukemia, chronic myelomonocytic leukemia, or myelodysplastic syndrome.⁴ Our case highlights the importance of skin biopsy for making the correct diagnosis, as BPDCN manifests with cutaneous lesions that are nonspecific for neoplastic or nonneoplastic etiologies.

Given the aggressive nature of BPDCN, along with its potential for acute leukemic transformation, treatment has been challenging due to both poor response rates and lack of consensus and treatment strategies. Historically, patients who have received high-dose acute leukemia–based chemotherapy followed by an allogeneic stem cell transplant during the first remission appeared to have the best outcomes.⁷ Conventional treatments have included surgical excision with radiation and various leukemia-based chemotherapy regimens, with hyper- CVAD (fractionated cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, dexamethasone-methotrexate, and cytarabine) being the most commonly used regimen.^7,8 Venetoclax, a B-cell lymphoma 2 protein inhibitor, has shown promise when used in combination with hyper-CVAD. For older patients who may not tolerate aggressive chemotherapy, hypomethylating agents are preferred for their tolerability. Although tagraxofusp, a CD123-directed cytotoxin, has been utilized, Sapienza et al⁹ demonstrated an association with capillary leak syndrome.

Leukemia cutis is characterized by infiltration of the skin by malignant leukocytes, often associated with a prior diagnosis of systemic leukemia or myelodysplasia. Extramedullary accumulation of leukemic cells typically is referred to as myeloid sarcoma, while leukemia cutis serves as a general term for specific skin involvement.¹⁰ In rare instances, cutaneous lesions may manifest as the initial sign of systemic disease.

Cutaneous T-cell lymphomas comprise a diverse group of non-Hodgkin lymphomas that manifest as malignant monoclonal T-lymphocyte infiltration in the skin. Mycosis fungoides, Sézary syndrome, and primary cutaneous peripheral T-cell lymphomas are among the key subtypes. Histologically, differentiating these conditions from benign inflammatory disorders can be challenging due to subtle features such as haloed lymphocytes, epidermotropism, and Pautrier microabscesses seen in mycosis fungoides.¹¹

Multiple myeloma involves monoclonal plasma cell proliferation, primarily affecting bone and bone marrow. Extramedullary plasmacytomas can occur outside these sites through hematogenous spread or adjacent infiltration, while metastatic plasmacytomas result from metastasis. Cutaneous plasmacytomas may arise from hematogenous dissemination or infiltration from neighboring structures.¹²

Extranodal natural killer/T-cell lymphoma, nasal type, manifests as aggressive mid-facial necrotizing lesions with extranodal involvement, notably in the nasal/paranasal area. These lesions can cause local destruction of cartilage, bone, and soft tissues and may progress through stages or arise de novo. Diagnostic challenges arise from the historical variety of terms used to describe extranodal natural killer/T-cell lymphoma, including midline lethal granuloma and lymphomatoid granulomatosis.¹³

The Diagnosis: Blastic Plasmacytoid Dendritic Cell Neoplasm

Cutaneous plasmacytoma initially was suspected because of the patient’s history of monoclonal gammopathy as well as angiosarcoma due to the purpuric vascular appearance of the lesions. However, histopathology revealed a pleomorphic cellular dermal infiltrate characterized by atypical cells with mediumlarge nuclei, fine chromatin, and small nucleoli; the cells also had little cytoplasm (Figure). The infiltrate did not involve the epidermis but extended into the subcutaneous tissue. Immunohistochemistry revealed that the cells were positive for CD45, CD43, CD4, CD7, CD56, CD123, CD33, T-cell leukemia/lymphoma protein 1, and CD68. The cells were negative for CD2, CD3, CD5, CD8, T-cell intracellular antigen 1, CD13, CD15, CD19, CD20, CD21, CD23, cyclin D1, Bcl-2, Bcl-6, CD10, PAX5, MUM1, lysozyme, myeloperoxidase, perforin, granzyme B, CD57, CD34, CD117, terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase, activin receptorlike kinase 1 βF1, Epstein-Barr virus– encoded small RNA, CD30, CD163, and pancytokeratin. Thus, the clinical and histopathologic findings led to a diagnosis of blastic plasmacytoid dendritic cell neoplasm (BPDCN), a rare and aggressive hematologic malignancy.

Blastic plasmacytoid dendritic cell neoplasm affects males older than 60 years.¹ It is characterized by the clonal proliferation of precursor plasmacytoid dendritic cells—otherwise known as professional type I interferonproducing cells or plasmacytoid monocytes—of myeloid origin. Plasmacytoid dendritic cells have been renamed on several occasions, reflecting uncertainties of their histogenesis. The diagnosis of BPDCN requires a biopsy showing the morphology of plasmacytoid dendritic blast cells and immunophenotypic criteria established by either immunohistochemistry or flow cytometry.^2,3 Tumor cells morphologically show an immature blastic appearance, and the diagnosis rests upon the demonstration of CD4 and CD56, together with markers more restricted to plasmacytoid dendritic cells (eg, BDCA-2, CD123, T-cell leukemia/lymphoma protein 1, CD2AP, BCL11A) and negativity for lymphoid and myeloid lineage–associated antigens.^1,4

Blastic plasmacytoid dendritic cell neoplasms account for less than 1% of all hematopoietic neoplasms. Cutaneous lesions occur in 64% of patients with the disease and often are the reason patients seek medical care.⁵ Clinical findings include numerous erythematous and violaceous papules, nodules, and plaques that resemble purpura or vasculitis. Cutaneous lesions can vary in size from a few millimeters to 10 cm and vary in color. Moreover, patients often present with bruiselike patches, disseminated lesions, or mucosal lesions.¹ Extracutaneous involvement includes lymphadenopathy, splenomegaly, and cytopenia caused by bone marrow infiltration, which may be present at diagnosis or during disease progression. Bone marrow involvement often is present with thrombocytopenia, anemia, and neutropenia. One-third of patients with BPDCN have central nervous system involvement and no disease relapse.⁶ Other affected sites include the liver, lungs, tonsils, soft tissues, and eyes. Patients with BPDCN may present with a history of myeloid neoplasms, such as acute/chronic myeloid leukemia, chronic myelomonocytic leukemia, or myelodysplastic syndrome.⁴ Our case highlights the importance of skin biopsy for making the correct diagnosis, as BPDCN manifests with cutaneous lesions that are nonspecific for neoplastic or nonneoplastic etiologies.

Given the aggressive nature of BPDCN, along with its potential for acute leukemic transformation, treatment has been challenging due to both poor response rates and lack of consensus and treatment strategies. Historically, patients who have received high-dose acute leukemia–based chemotherapy followed by an allogeneic stem cell transplant during the first remission appeared to have the best outcomes.⁷ Conventional treatments have included surgical excision with radiation and various leukemia-based chemotherapy regimens, with hyper- CVAD (fractionated cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, dexamethasone-methotrexate, and cytarabine) being the most commonly used regimen.^7,8 Venetoclax, a B-cell lymphoma 2 protein inhibitor, has shown promise when used in combination with hyper-CVAD. For older patients who may not tolerate aggressive chemotherapy, hypomethylating agents are preferred for their tolerability. Although tagraxofusp, a CD123-directed cytotoxin, has been utilized, Sapienza et al⁹ demonstrated an association with capillary leak syndrome.

Leukemia cutis is characterized by infiltration of the skin by malignant leukocytes, often associated with a prior diagnosis of systemic leukemia or myelodysplasia. Extramedullary accumulation of leukemic cells typically is referred to as myeloid sarcoma, while leukemia cutis serves as a general term for specific skin involvement.¹⁰ In rare instances, cutaneous lesions may manifest as the initial sign of systemic disease.

Cutaneous T-cell lymphomas comprise a diverse group of non-Hodgkin lymphomas that manifest as malignant monoclonal T-lymphocyte infiltration in the skin. Mycosis fungoides, Sézary syndrome, and primary cutaneous peripheral T-cell lymphomas are among the key subtypes. Histologically, differentiating these conditions from benign inflammatory disorders can be challenging due to subtle features such as haloed lymphocytes, epidermotropism, and Pautrier microabscesses seen in mycosis fungoides.¹¹

Multiple myeloma involves monoclonal plasma cell proliferation, primarily affecting bone and bone marrow. Extramedullary plasmacytomas can occur outside these sites through hematogenous spread or adjacent infiltration, while metastatic plasmacytomas result from metastasis. Cutaneous plasmacytomas may arise from hematogenous dissemination or infiltration from neighboring structures.¹²

Extranodal natural killer/T-cell lymphoma, nasal type, manifests as aggressive mid-facial necrotizing lesions with extranodal involvement, notably in the nasal/paranasal area. These lesions can cause local destruction of cartilage, bone, and soft tissues and may progress through stages or arise de novo. Diagnostic challenges arise from the historical variety of terms used to describe extranodal natural killer/T-cell lymphoma, including midline lethal granuloma and lymphomatoid granulomatosis.¹³

The Diagnosis: Blastic Plasmacytoid Dendritic Cell Neoplasm

Cutaneous plasmacytoma initially was suspected because of the patient’s history of monoclonal gammopathy as well as angiosarcoma due to the purpuric vascular appearance of the lesions. However, histopathology revealed a pleomorphic cellular dermal infiltrate characterized by atypical cells with mediumlarge nuclei, fine chromatin, and small nucleoli; the cells also had little cytoplasm (Figure). The infiltrate did not involve the epidermis but extended into the subcutaneous tissue. Immunohistochemistry revealed that the cells were positive for CD45, CD43, CD4, CD7, CD56, CD123, CD33, T-cell leukemia/lymphoma protein 1, and CD68. The cells were negative for CD2, CD3, CD5, CD8, T-cell intracellular antigen 1, CD13, CD15, CD19, CD20, CD21, CD23, cyclin D1, Bcl-2, Bcl-6, CD10, PAX5, MUM1, lysozyme, myeloperoxidase, perforin, granzyme B, CD57, CD34, CD117, terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase, activin receptorlike kinase 1 βF1, Epstein-Barr virus– encoded small RNA, CD30, CD163, and pancytokeratin. Thus, the clinical and histopathologic findings led to a diagnosis of blastic plasmacytoid dendritic cell neoplasm (BPDCN), a rare and aggressive hematologic malignancy.

Blastic plasmacytoid dendritic cell neoplasm affects males older than 60 years.¹ It is characterized by the clonal proliferation of precursor plasmacytoid dendritic cells—otherwise known as professional type I interferonproducing cells or plasmacytoid monocytes—of myeloid origin. Plasmacytoid dendritic cells have been renamed on several occasions, reflecting uncertainties of their histogenesis. The diagnosis of BPDCN requires a biopsy showing the morphology of plasmacytoid dendritic blast cells and immunophenotypic criteria established by either immunohistochemistry or flow cytometry.^2,3 Tumor cells morphologically show an immature blastic appearance, and the diagnosis rests upon the demonstration of CD4 and CD56, together with markers more restricted to plasmacytoid dendritic cells (eg, BDCA-2, CD123, T-cell leukemia/lymphoma protein 1, CD2AP, BCL11A) and negativity for lymphoid and myeloid lineage–associated antigens.^1,4

Blastic plasmacytoid dendritic cell neoplasms account for less than 1% of all hematopoietic neoplasms. Cutaneous lesions occur in 64% of patients with the disease and often are the reason patients seek medical care.⁵ Clinical findings include numerous erythematous and violaceous papules, nodules, and plaques that resemble purpura or vasculitis. Cutaneous lesions can vary in size from a few millimeters to 10 cm and vary in color. Moreover, patients often present with bruiselike patches, disseminated lesions, or mucosal lesions.¹ Extracutaneous involvement includes lymphadenopathy, splenomegaly, and cytopenia caused by bone marrow infiltration, which may be present at diagnosis or during disease progression. Bone marrow involvement often is present with thrombocytopenia, anemia, and neutropenia. One-third of patients with BPDCN have central nervous system involvement and no disease relapse.⁶ Other affected sites include the liver, lungs, tonsils, soft tissues, and eyes. Patients with BPDCN may present with a history of myeloid neoplasms, such as acute/chronic myeloid leukemia, chronic myelomonocytic leukemia, or myelodysplastic syndrome.⁴ Our case highlights the importance of skin biopsy for making the correct diagnosis, as BPDCN manifests with cutaneous lesions that are nonspecific for neoplastic or nonneoplastic etiologies.

Given the aggressive nature of BPDCN, along with its potential for acute leukemic transformation, treatment has been challenging due to both poor response rates and lack of consensus and treatment strategies. Historically, patients who have received high-dose acute leukemia–based chemotherapy followed by an allogeneic stem cell transplant during the first remission appeared to have the best outcomes.⁷ Conventional treatments have included surgical excision with radiation and various leukemia-based chemotherapy regimens, with hyper- CVAD (fractionated cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, dexamethasone-methotrexate, and cytarabine) being the most commonly used regimen.^7,8 Venetoclax, a B-cell lymphoma 2 protein inhibitor, has shown promise when used in combination with hyper-CVAD. For older patients who may not tolerate aggressive chemotherapy, hypomethylating agents are preferred for their tolerability. Although tagraxofusp, a CD123-directed cytotoxin, has been utilized, Sapienza et al⁹ demonstrated an association with capillary leak syndrome.

Leukemia cutis is characterized by infiltration of the skin by malignant leukocytes, often associated with a prior diagnosis of systemic leukemia or myelodysplasia. Extramedullary accumulation of leukemic cells typically is referred to as myeloid sarcoma, while leukemia cutis serves as a general term for specific skin involvement.¹⁰ In rare instances, cutaneous lesions may manifest as the initial sign of systemic disease.

Cutaneous T-cell lymphomas comprise a diverse group of non-Hodgkin lymphomas that manifest as malignant monoclonal T-lymphocyte infiltration in the skin. Mycosis fungoides, Sézary syndrome, and primary cutaneous peripheral T-cell lymphomas are among the key subtypes. Histologically, differentiating these conditions from benign inflammatory disorders can be challenging due to subtle features such as haloed lymphocytes, epidermotropism, and Pautrier microabscesses seen in mycosis fungoides.¹¹

Multiple myeloma involves monoclonal plasma cell proliferation, primarily affecting bone and bone marrow. Extramedullary plasmacytomas can occur outside these sites through hematogenous spread or adjacent infiltration, while metastatic plasmacytomas result from metastasis. Cutaneous plasmacytomas may arise from hematogenous dissemination or infiltration from neighboring structures.¹²

Extranodal natural killer/T-cell lymphoma, nasal type, manifests as aggressive mid-facial necrotizing lesions with extranodal involvement, notably in the nasal/paranasal area. These lesions can cause local destruction of cartilage, bone, and soft tissues and may progress through stages or arise de novo. Diagnostic challenges arise from the historical variety of terms used to describe extranodal natural killer/T-cell lymphoma, including midline lethal granuloma and lymphomatoid granulomatosis.¹³

TOPLINE:

Higher urinary magnesium loss, as indicated by an elevated magnesium depletion score (MDS), may be an independent risk factor for metabolic syndrome in US adults.

METHODOLOGY:

• Increasing evidence suggests that chronic hypomagnesemia may play a role in the pathogenesis of metabolic disorders, including overweight and obesity, insulin resistance, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia.
• Researchers examined the relationship between magnesium status and metabolic syndrome in 15,565 US adults (mean age, 47 years; half women) participating in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2003-2018), of whom 5438 had metabolic syndrome (mean age, 55 years).
• Magnesium deficiency was predicted by MDS, a four-factor score that aggregates diuretic use (one point), proton pump inhibitor (one point), kidney function (estimated glomerular filtration rate; one or two points), and heavy  (one point).
• MDS was categorized into six levels (by scores 0-5), with a higher MDS indicating a more severe magnesium deficiency.
• Metabolic syndrome was defined according to the National Cholesterol Education Program’s Adult Treatment Panel III report.

TAKEAWAY:

• The proportion of patients with MDS ≥ 2 was higher in the group with vs without metabolic syndrome (P < .05).
• Even after adjusting for potential confounding factors, each 1-unit increase in the MDS increased the odds of metabolic syndrome by about 30% (adjusted odds ratio, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.17-1.45).
• A dose-response relationship was observed between MDS and metabolic syndrome, with MDS level 1 being associated with 1.28-fold higher odds of metabolic syndrome (95% CI, 1.06-1.55) than MDS level 0; further escalation in the odds was noted for MDS levels 2, 3, and 4.
• The association between metabolic syndrome and MDS remained consistent across all population subgroups defined by age, gender, race (except Mexican American), body mass index, drinking status, or smoking status.

IN PRACTICE:

“It is possible to prevent and reduce MetS [metabolic syndrome] by supplementing with magnesium supplements or encouraging higher magnesium intake diet because the diet is a factor that can be changed,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Xiaohao Wang, Department of Geriatrics, the First Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Southern University of Science and Technology (Shenzhen People’s Hospital), Shenzhen, China. It was published online in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

LIMITATIONS:

The study found no significant link between MDS level 5 and metabolic syndrome, likely due to the small sample size at this level. The study could not draw any causal relationship between metabolic syndrome and MDS owing to its cross-sectional nature. It also could not determine whether MDS was a better marker of magnesium deficiency than serum magnesium levels. MDS is a categorical, not continuous, variable.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China and the Natural Science Foundation of Shenzhen City, China. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Higher urinary magnesium loss, as indicated by an elevated magnesium depletion score (MDS), may be an independent risk factor for metabolic syndrome in US adults.

METHODOLOGY:

• Increasing evidence suggests that chronic hypomagnesemia may play a role in the pathogenesis of metabolic disorders, including overweight and obesity, insulin resistance, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia.
• Researchers examined the relationship between magnesium status and metabolic syndrome in 15,565 US adults (mean age, 47 years; half women) participating in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2003-2018), of whom 5438 had metabolic syndrome (mean age, 55 years).
• Magnesium deficiency was predicted by MDS, a four-factor score that aggregates diuretic use (one point), proton pump inhibitor (one point), kidney function (estimated glomerular filtration rate; one or two points), and heavy  (one point).
• MDS was categorized into six levels (by scores 0-5), with a higher MDS indicating a more severe magnesium deficiency.
• Metabolic syndrome was defined according to the National Cholesterol Education Program’s Adult Treatment Panel III report.

TAKEAWAY:

• The proportion of patients with MDS ≥ 2 was higher in the group with vs without metabolic syndrome (P < .05).
• Even after adjusting for potential confounding factors, each 1-unit increase in the MDS increased the odds of metabolic syndrome by about 30% (adjusted odds ratio, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.17-1.45).
• A dose-response relationship was observed between MDS and metabolic syndrome, with MDS level 1 being associated with 1.28-fold higher odds of metabolic syndrome (95% CI, 1.06-1.55) than MDS level 0; further escalation in the odds was noted for MDS levels 2, 3, and 4.
• The association between metabolic syndrome and MDS remained consistent across all population subgroups defined by age, gender, race (except Mexican American), body mass index, drinking status, or smoking status.

IN PRACTICE:

“It is possible to prevent and reduce MetS [metabolic syndrome] by supplementing with magnesium supplements or encouraging higher magnesium intake diet because the diet is a factor that can be changed,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Xiaohao Wang, Department of Geriatrics, the First Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Southern University of Science and Technology (Shenzhen People’s Hospital), Shenzhen, China. It was published online in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

LIMITATIONS:

The study found no significant link between MDS level 5 and metabolic syndrome, likely due to the small sample size at this level. The study could not draw any causal relationship between metabolic syndrome and MDS owing to its cross-sectional nature. It also could not determine whether MDS was a better marker of magnesium deficiency than serum magnesium levels. MDS is a categorical, not continuous, variable.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China and the Natural Science Foundation of Shenzhen City, China. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Higher urinary magnesium loss, as indicated by an elevated magnesium depletion score (MDS), may be an independent risk factor for metabolic syndrome in US adults.

METHODOLOGY:

• Increasing evidence suggests that chronic hypomagnesemia may play a role in the pathogenesis of metabolic disorders, including overweight and obesity, insulin resistance, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia.
• Researchers examined the relationship between magnesium status and metabolic syndrome in 15,565 US adults (mean age, 47 years; half women) participating in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2003-2018), of whom 5438 had metabolic syndrome (mean age, 55 years).
• Magnesium deficiency was predicted by MDS, a four-factor score that aggregates diuretic use (one point), proton pump inhibitor (one point), kidney function (estimated glomerular filtration rate; one or two points), and heavy  (one point).
• MDS was categorized into six levels (by scores 0-5), with a higher MDS indicating a more severe magnesium deficiency.
• Metabolic syndrome was defined according to the National Cholesterol Education Program’s Adult Treatment Panel III report.

TAKEAWAY:

• The proportion of patients with MDS ≥ 2 was higher in the group with vs without metabolic syndrome (P < .05).
• Even after adjusting for potential confounding factors, each 1-unit increase in the MDS increased the odds of metabolic syndrome by about 30% (adjusted odds ratio, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.17-1.45).
• A dose-response relationship was observed between MDS and metabolic syndrome, with MDS level 1 being associated with 1.28-fold higher odds of metabolic syndrome (95% CI, 1.06-1.55) than MDS level 0; further escalation in the odds was noted for MDS levels 2, 3, and 4.
• The association between metabolic syndrome and MDS remained consistent across all population subgroups defined by age, gender, race (except Mexican American), body mass index, drinking status, or smoking status.

IN PRACTICE:

“It is possible to prevent and reduce MetS [metabolic syndrome] by supplementing with magnesium supplements or encouraging higher magnesium intake diet because the diet is a factor that can be changed,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Xiaohao Wang, Department of Geriatrics, the First Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Southern University of Science and Technology (Shenzhen People’s Hospital), Shenzhen, China. It was published online in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

LIMITATIONS:

The study found no significant link between MDS level 5 and metabolic syndrome, likely due to the small sample size at this level. The study could not draw any causal relationship between metabolic syndrome and MDS owing to its cross-sectional nature. It also could not determine whether MDS was a better marker of magnesium deficiency than serum magnesium levels. MDS is a categorical, not continuous, variable.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China and the Natural Science Foundation of Shenzhen City, China. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Amid rising concern about the potential long-term costs of using glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonists to treat obesity, some insurers are making access to bariatric surgery easier.

While the relationship may not be entirely causal, data do suggest that at least for now, these new agents for treating obesity including semaglutide (Wegovy) and tirzepatide (Zepbound) are not cost-effective, whereas the surgery is.

According to GoodRx, Wegovy (semaglutide) has a list price of about $1350 for a 28-day supply. And the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (ASMBS) said that the average cost of bariatric surgery ranges between $17,000 and $26,000. But ASMBS added that third-party payers will recover those costs within 2-4 years due to reduction or elimination of obesity-related conditions and associated treatment costs, with an approximate 29% healthcare cost reduction at 5 years.

Recently, for example, Geisinger Health of Pennsylvania and Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Massachusetts expanded body mass index (BMI) eligibility for bariatric surgery procedures, while Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan dropped prior authorization requirements for several services, including bariatric surgery.

While most major health insurers cover Wegovy for obesity treatment, they typically require prior authorization and/or trials of other therapies first. Recently, some employers have denied coverage for the medications for treating obesity. Medicare does not cover these drugs. Coverage varies across state Medicaid plans.

“For years, insurers…have played games with the surgery, making people jump through hoops, hoping that they would just give up and go away. And now that health plans are getting concerned about [the cost of] drugs for obesity, and they’re getting so much attention, they’re thinking oh, maybe we shouldn’t be playing these games anymore,” obesity policy expert Ted Kyle, RPh, founder of ConscienHealth, told this news organization.

However, Christopher Doubet Still, DO, director of Nutrition and Weight Management at Geisinger Medical Center, Danville, Pennsylvania, told this news organization that Geisinger Health Plan’s change in May 2023 to lower the BMI surgery eligibility cutoff from 35 kg/m2 to 30 kg/m2 for people with comorbidities was not related to the cost of GLP-1 drugs.

“To date, bariatric surgery remains the most effective, enduring treatment of obesity, and most importantly, its comorbid medical problems. So that was really the reasoning. The weight loss is secondary to the profound medical benefits of bariatric surgery. I think that was the impetus of that change, not having really anything to do at the time with GLP-1s,” Dr. Still said.

The Geisinger Health Plan does not currently cover antiobesity medications, although Geisinger Health Plan Family, a state Medicaid plan, does because Pennsylvania is now one of a handful of states that cover the medications through Medicaid.
 

The Equation Keeps Changing

Health economist James Chambers, PhD, of Tufts University, Boston, Massachusetts, told this news organizations, “when you think about the value of a treatment, you don’t look at it in isolation. You’re looking at the difference in cost and benefits. So now that you have these expensive drugs, it’s not that surgeries become less expensive, but it does make you interpret the cost differently. When diet and exercise and counseling were the only real options, surgeries seemed like a much more expensive intervention. But with the advent of the GLP-1s, then, maybe plans consider the costs of surgery a little bit differently.”

And that equation is likely to change further, Dr. Still noted.

“I just think we’re dealing with a short-term financial problem because there’s basically only two main medications so the prices are high, but as more medications come on the market, the prices will come down,” he said.

Cristy Ms. Gallagher, MPAff, research project director of the STOP Obesity Alliance at the Milken Institute School of Public Health at George Washington University, Washington, DC, agreed.

“We have a lot of data on obesity treatment coverage from before 2023. But then this [GLP-1] explosion happened in 2023…The health payers are out there trying to figure out coverage, and they’re trying to figure out what this is going to look like for them,” Ms. Gallagher said.

However, she pointed out, “there is no treatment that fits everyone. The GLP-1s won’t work for every person because of the different stages of obesity, the side effects, and then because of the coverage. I think that you will not see a decrease in bariatric surgery in the near term, by any means.”

Ms. Gallagher also noted that although the data now suggest people will have to keep taking the drugs for life, there may be other future approaches.

“Once a person hits their goal weight, maybe then they could be transferred to a different pill form that might be cheaper, something that’s sort of more of a maintenance drug. I think that is a huge unknown right now,” she said.

And Mr. Kyle said that while bariatric surgery does provide the most durable benefit, “weight regain after surgery is a fact of life. People are still healthier 5 years later, but they do have some weight regain. And in those cases, you might want to follow-up with medicines…It’s not necessarily an either/or proposition any more than surgical treatment of cancer, surgical oncology is an either/or with medical oncology.”
 

A New View of Obesity

According to Mr. Kyle, all this attention on the new medications “is prompting people to rethink or think differently about obesity and consider it more carefully as a chronic medical condition and not a condition of appearance and behavior. And that’s all good, whether you’re thinking about it from the standpoint of bariatric surgery or from the standpoint of medical treatment of obesity because then people start considering options more rationally.”

This shifting view of obesity has meant that bariatric surgeons and medical obesity specialists are starting to work more collaboratively, he said.

“There is a trend that I detect toward more integrated approaches to obesity,” Mr. Kyle said.

He added, “We now have more tools. And we’re in the messy middle of figuring out how, as a practical matter, to use them.”

And as far as insurance coverage, “people are going to make mistakes. They are making mistakes. But I have been the eternal optimist, and I have faith that people are also figuring it out. It would be hard to do worse.”

For now, any initiatives to increase bariatric surgery rates in the GLP-1 era haven’t yet had an impact, American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery President Marina S. Kurian, MD, told this news organization in a statement.

“While we have heard of some insurers possibly changing their requirements for bariatric surgery, we have not seen a significant rise in procedures related to changes in insurance coverage for either antiobesity medications or metabolic and bariatric surgery,” Dr. Kurian said.

Mr. Kyle had accepted speaking or professional fees from Novo Nordisk, Behringer Ingelheim, Nutrisystem, Roman Health, and Emerald Lake Safety. Dr. Still was on the speaker’s bureau and did clinical trials for Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Chambers and Gallagher had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Amid rising concern about the potential long-term costs of using glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonists to treat obesity, some insurers are making access to bariatric surgery easier.

While the relationship may not be entirely causal, data do suggest that at least for now, these new agents for treating obesity including semaglutide (Wegovy) and tirzepatide (Zepbound) are not cost-effective, whereas the surgery is.

According to GoodRx, Wegovy (semaglutide) has a list price of about $1350 for a 28-day supply. And the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (ASMBS) said that the average cost of bariatric surgery ranges between $17,000 and $26,000. But ASMBS added that third-party payers will recover those costs within 2-4 years due to reduction or elimination of obesity-related conditions and associated treatment costs, with an approximate 29% healthcare cost reduction at 5 years.

Recently, for example, Geisinger Health of Pennsylvania and Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Massachusetts expanded body mass index (BMI) eligibility for bariatric surgery procedures, while Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan dropped prior authorization requirements for several services, including bariatric surgery.

While most major health insurers cover Wegovy for obesity treatment, they typically require prior authorization and/or trials of other therapies first. Recently, some employers have denied coverage for the medications for treating obesity. Medicare does not cover these drugs. Coverage varies across state Medicaid plans.

“For years, insurers…have played games with the surgery, making people jump through hoops, hoping that they would just give up and go away. And now that health plans are getting concerned about [the cost of] drugs for obesity, and they’re getting so much attention, they’re thinking oh, maybe we shouldn’t be playing these games anymore,” obesity policy expert Ted Kyle, RPh, founder of ConscienHealth, told this news organization.

However, Christopher Doubet Still, DO, director of Nutrition and Weight Management at Geisinger Medical Center, Danville, Pennsylvania, told this news organization that Geisinger Health Plan’s change in May 2023 to lower the BMI surgery eligibility cutoff from 35 kg/m2 to 30 kg/m2 for people with comorbidities was not related to the cost of GLP-1 drugs.

“To date, bariatric surgery remains the most effective, enduring treatment of obesity, and most importantly, its comorbid medical problems. So that was really the reasoning. The weight loss is secondary to the profound medical benefits of bariatric surgery. I think that was the impetus of that change, not having really anything to do at the time with GLP-1s,” Dr. Still said.

The Geisinger Health Plan does not currently cover antiobesity medications, although Geisinger Health Plan Family, a state Medicaid plan, does because Pennsylvania is now one of a handful of states that cover the medications through Medicaid.
 

The Equation Keeps Changing

Health economist James Chambers, PhD, of Tufts University, Boston, Massachusetts, told this news organizations, “when you think about the value of a treatment, you don’t look at it in isolation. You’re looking at the difference in cost and benefits. So now that you have these expensive drugs, it’s not that surgeries become less expensive, but it does make you interpret the cost differently. When diet and exercise and counseling were the only real options, surgeries seemed like a much more expensive intervention. But with the advent of the GLP-1s, then, maybe plans consider the costs of surgery a little bit differently.”

And that equation is likely to change further, Dr. Still noted.

“I just think we’re dealing with a short-term financial problem because there’s basically only two main medications so the prices are high, but as more medications come on the market, the prices will come down,” he said.

Cristy Ms. Gallagher, MPAff, research project director of the STOP Obesity Alliance at the Milken Institute School of Public Health at George Washington University, Washington, DC, agreed.

“We have a lot of data on obesity treatment coverage from before 2023. But then this [GLP-1] explosion happened in 2023…The health payers are out there trying to figure out coverage, and they’re trying to figure out what this is going to look like for them,” Ms. Gallagher said.

However, she pointed out, “there is no treatment that fits everyone. The GLP-1s won’t work for every person because of the different stages of obesity, the side effects, and then because of the coverage. I think that you will not see a decrease in bariatric surgery in the near term, by any means.”

Ms. Gallagher also noted that although the data now suggest people will have to keep taking the drugs for life, there may be other future approaches.

“Once a person hits their goal weight, maybe then they could be transferred to a different pill form that might be cheaper, something that’s sort of more of a maintenance drug. I think that is a huge unknown right now,” she said.

And Mr. Kyle said that while bariatric surgery does provide the most durable benefit, “weight regain after surgery is a fact of life. People are still healthier 5 years later, but they do have some weight regain. And in those cases, you might want to follow-up with medicines…It’s not necessarily an either/or proposition any more than surgical treatment of cancer, surgical oncology is an either/or with medical oncology.”
 

A New View of Obesity

According to Mr. Kyle, all this attention on the new medications “is prompting people to rethink or think differently about obesity and consider it more carefully as a chronic medical condition and not a condition of appearance and behavior. And that’s all good, whether you’re thinking about it from the standpoint of bariatric surgery or from the standpoint of medical treatment of obesity because then people start considering options more rationally.”

This shifting view of obesity has meant that bariatric surgeons and medical obesity specialists are starting to work more collaboratively, he said.

“There is a trend that I detect toward more integrated approaches to obesity,” Mr. Kyle said.

He added, “We now have more tools. And we’re in the messy middle of figuring out how, as a practical matter, to use them.”

And as far as insurance coverage, “people are going to make mistakes. They are making mistakes. But I have been the eternal optimist, and I have faith that people are also figuring it out. It would be hard to do worse.”

For now, any initiatives to increase bariatric surgery rates in the GLP-1 era haven’t yet had an impact, American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery President Marina S. Kurian, MD, told this news organization in a statement.

“While we have heard of some insurers possibly changing their requirements for bariatric surgery, we have not seen a significant rise in procedures related to changes in insurance coverage for either antiobesity medications or metabolic and bariatric surgery,” Dr. Kurian said.

Mr. Kyle had accepted speaking or professional fees from Novo Nordisk, Behringer Ingelheim, Nutrisystem, Roman Health, and Emerald Lake Safety. Dr. Still was on the speaker’s bureau and did clinical trials for Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Chambers and Gallagher had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Amid rising concern about the potential long-term costs of using glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonists to treat obesity, some insurers are making access to bariatric surgery easier.

While the relationship may not be entirely causal, data do suggest that at least for now, these new agents for treating obesity including semaglutide (Wegovy) and tirzepatide (Zepbound) are not cost-effective, whereas the surgery is.

According to GoodRx, Wegovy (semaglutide) has a list price of about $1350 for a 28-day supply. And the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (ASMBS) said that the average cost of bariatric surgery ranges between $17,000 and $26,000. But ASMBS added that third-party payers will recover those costs within 2-4 years due to reduction or elimination of obesity-related conditions and associated treatment costs, with an approximate 29% healthcare cost reduction at 5 years.

Recently, for example, Geisinger Health of Pennsylvania and Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Massachusetts expanded body mass index (BMI) eligibility for bariatric surgery procedures, while Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan dropped prior authorization requirements for several services, including bariatric surgery.

While most major health insurers cover Wegovy for obesity treatment, they typically require prior authorization and/or trials of other therapies first. Recently, some employers have denied coverage for the medications for treating obesity. Medicare does not cover these drugs. Coverage varies across state Medicaid plans.

“For years, insurers…have played games with the surgery, making people jump through hoops, hoping that they would just give up and go away. And now that health plans are getting concerned about [the cost of] drugs for obesity, and they’re getting so much attention, they’re thinking oh, maybe we shouldn’t be playing these games anymore,” obesity policy expert Ted Kyle, RPh, founder of ConscienHealth, told this news organization.

However, Christopher Doubet Still, DO, director of Nutrition and Weight Management at Geisinger Medical Center, Danville, Pennsylvania, told this news organization that Geisinger Health Plan’s change in May 2023 to lower the BMI surgery eligibility cutoff from 35 kg/m2 to 30 kg/m2 for people with comorbidities was not related to the cost of GLP-1 drugs.

“To date, bariatric surgery remains the most effective, enduring treatment of obesity, and most importantly, its comorbid medical problems. So that was really the reasoning. The weight loss is secondary to the profound medical benefits of bariatric surgery. I think that was the impetus of that change, not having really anything to do at the time with GLP-1s,” Dr. Still said.

The Geisinger Health Plan does not currently cover antiobesity medications, although Geisinger Health Plan Family, a state Medicaid plan, does because Pennsylvania is now one of a handful of states that cover the medications through Medicaid.
 

The Equation Keeps Changing

Health economist James Chambers, PhD, of Tufts University, Boston, Massachusetts, told this news organizations, “when you think about the value of a treatment, you don’t look at it in isolation. You’re looking at the difference in cost and benefits. So now that you have these expensive drugs, it’s not that surgeries become less expensive, but it does make you interpret the cost differently. When diet and exercise and counseling were the only real options, surgeries seemed like a much more expensive intervention. But with the advent of the GLP-1s, then, maybe plans consider the costs of surgery a little bit differently.”

And that equation is likely to change further, Dr. Still noted.

“I just think we’re dealing with a short-term financial problem because there’s basically only two main medications so the prices are high, but as more medications come on the market, the prices will come down,” he said.

Cristy Ms. Gallagher, MPAff, research project director of the STOP Obesity Alliance at the Milken Institute School of Public Health at George Washington University, Washington, DC, agreed.

“We have a lot of data on obesity treatment coverage from before 2023. But then this [GLP-1] explosion happened in 2023…The health payers are out there trying to figure out coverage, and they’re trying to figure out what this is going to look like for them,” Ms. Gallagher said.

However, she pointed out, “there is no treatment that fits everyone. The GLP-1s won’t work for every person because of the different stages of obesity, the side effects, and then because of the coverage. I think that you will not see a decrease in bariatric surgery in the near term, by any means.”

Ms. Gallagher also noted that although the data now suggest people will have to keep taking the drugs for life, there may be other future approaches.

“Once a person hits their goal weight, maybe then they could be transferred to a different pill form that might be cheaper, something that’s sort of more of a maintenance drug. I think that is a huge unknown right now,” she said.

And Mr. Kyle said that while bariatric surgery does provide the most durable benefit, “weight regain after surgery is a fact of life. People are still healthier 5 years later, but they do have some weight regain. And in those cases, you might want to follow-up with medicines…It’s not necessarily an either/or proposition any more than surgical treatment of cancer, surgical oncology is an either/or with medical oncology.”
 

A New View of Obesity

According to Mr. Kyle, all this attention on the new medications “is prompting people to rethink or think differently about obesity and consider it more carefully as a chronic medical condition and not a condition of appearance and behavior. And that’s all good, whether you’re thinking about it from the standpoint of bariatric surgery or from the standpoint of medical treatment of obesity because then people start considering options more rationally.”

This shifting view of obesity has meant that bariatric surgeons and medical obesity specialists are starting to work more collaboratively, he said.

“There is a trend that I detect toward more integrated approaches to obesity,” Mr. Kyle said.

He added, “We now have more tools. And we’re in the messy middle of figuring out how, as a practical matter, to use them.”

And as far as insurance coverage, “people are going to make mistakes. They are making mistakes. But I have been the eternal optimist, and I have faith that people are also figuring it out. It would be hard to do worse.”

For now, any initiatives to increase bariatric surgery rates in the GLP-1 era haven’t yet had an impact, American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery President Marina S. Kurian, MD, told this news organization in a statement.

“While we have heard of some insurers possibly changing their requirements for bariatric surgery, we have not seen a significant rise in procedures related to changes in insurance coverage for either antiobesity medications or metabolic and bariatric surgery,” Dr. Kurian said.

Mr. Kyle had accepted speaking or professional fees from Novo Nordisk, Behringer Ingelheim, Nutrisystem, Roman Health, and Emerald Lake Safety. Dr. Still was on the speaker’s bureau and did clinical trials for Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Chambers and Gallagher had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

One in seven women will die within 2 months of being diagnosed with ovarian cancer, a new report from the United Kingdom states. But if diagnosed at the earliest stage, 9 in 10 women will survive. Two thirds of women are now diagnosed late, when the cancer is harder to treat.

Diagnosis is difficult for many reasons, among them that women sometimes think symptoms are a natural part of menopause and don’t acknowledge or report them. Clinicians may mistake abdominal symptoms for those of a bowel condition or bladder problem. Almost half of GPs (46%) in the UK mistakenly believe that ovarian cancer symptoms present in only the later stages of the disease.

Cervical Screening Does Not Detect Ovarian Cancer

Additionally, there are misconceptions regarding cervical cancer screening — one study found that “40% of women in the general public mistakenly believe that cervical screening detects ovarian cancer.” But there is no current screening program for ovarian cancer in the UK or United States.

During a pelvic exam, the physician feels the ovaries and uterus for size, shape, and consistency and that can be useful in finding some cancers early, but most early ovarian tumors are difficult or impossible to feel, the American Cancer Society notes.

Recognizing the Red Flags

Victoria Barber, MBBS, a general practitioner in Northamptonshire and a Primary Care Advisory Board member with the Target Ovarian Cancer program in the UK published a paper in the British Journal of Nursing (2024 Mar 7. doi: 10.12968/bjon.2024.33.5.S16) on the program’s efforts to urge clinicians to recognize ovarian cancer red flags and to “never diagnose new-onset irritable bowel syndrome or overactive bladder in women over 50 without ruling out ovarian cancer.”

She says nurses should be involved to help with earlier diagnosis of ovarian cancer as they are often involved in evaluating urine samples. Nurse practitioners, she notes, are typically included in consultations for abdominal symptoms and potential urinary tract infections.

“If the woman is recurrently presenting with urinary symptoms, sterile midstream urine samples should raise alarm,” she says. “The woman may have diabetes, an overactive bladder, or interstitial cystitis; however, urgency and frequency are some of the symptoms of ovarian cancer, and they need investigation.”

Persistent Systems Over Age 50

The paper lists ovarian cancer symptoms from the UK’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and notes that among red flags are having any of the following persistently/frequently (particularly more than 12 times per month and especially if the woman is 50 years or older):

• Early satiety and/or loss of appetite
• Abdominal bloating
• Pelvic or abdominal pain
• Urinary urgency/frequency

Other symptoms could include:

• Changes in bowel habits (e.g., diarrhea or constipation)
• Extreme fatigue
• Unexplained weight loss

Diagnosis Challenges Similar in US

Ernst Lengyel, MD, PhD, UChicago Medicine’s Chairman of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology in Chicago, Illinois, who was not involved with the paper, said the situation in the United States is similar to that described in the UK.

“The diagnosis is delayed because the symptoms are unspecific. The problem is that ovarian cancer is so rare, and primary care physicians or nurse practitioners have to consider over 100 differential diagnoses,” he says.

In the US, he says, it is likely easier to get in and see a physician because of the private insurance options and because there are more gynecologic oncologists in large urban areas. Getting imaging approved — such as ultrasound and computed tomography scans — is also easier in the US.

Still, “there is no effective way to diagnose ovarian cancer early,” he says. “No single test or combination of symptoms can be used as a screening test.”

The CA-125 blood test measures proteins that can be linked with ovarian cancer, but is not a screening test, he notes.

“Large UK and US studies have not been able to show a survival benefit with ultrasound, serial CA-125, or a combination thereof,” Dr. Lengyel said.

Weight Gain May Also be a Sign

A broad range of clinicians should be aware of the symptoms the author mentions, he says, especially primary care physicians, nurse practitioners, and obstetrician/gynecologists.

“Too often, symptoms that women report are ignored and treated as unspecific or psychosomatic,” Dr. Lengyel says. “It is easy to disregard recurrent complaints and move on instead of being vigilant and working them up. Ironically, women with ovarian cancer can initially gain weight, which is counterintuitive as most doctors believe that patients with cancer lose weight. However, if they develop abdominal fluid, a patient often gains weight.”

Dr. Barber and Dr. Lengyel report no relevant financial relationships.

One in seven women will die within 2 months of being diagnosed with ovarian cancer, a new report from the United Kingdom states. But if diagnosed at the earliest stage, 9 in 10 women will survive. Two thirds of women are now diagnosed late, when the cancer is harder to treat.

Diagnosis is difficult for many reasons, among them that women sometimes think symptoms are a natural part of menopause and don’t acknowledge or report them. Clinicians may mistake abdominal symptoms for those of a bowel condition or bladder problem. Almost half of GPs (46%) in the UK mistakenly believe that ovarian cancer symptoms present in only the later stages of the disease.

Cervical Screening Does Not Detect Ovarian Cancer

Additionally, there are misconceptions regarding cervical cancer screening — one study found that “40% of women in the general public mistakenly believe that cervical screening detects ovarian cancer.” But there is no current screening program for ovarian cancer in the UK or United States.

During a pelvic exam, the physician feels the ovaries and uterus for size, shape, and consistency and that can be useful in finding some cancers early, but most early ovarian tumors are difficult or impossible to feel, the American Cancer Society notes.

Recognizing the Red Flags

Victoria Barber, MBBS, a general practitioner in Northamptonshire and a Primary Care Advisory Board member with the Target Ovarian Cancer program in the UK published a paper in the British Journal of Nursing (2024 Mar 7. doi: 10.12968/bjon.2024.33.5.S16) on the program’s efforts to urge clinicians to recognize ovarian cancer red flags and to “never diagnose new-onset irritable bowel syndrome or overactive bladder in women over 50 without ruling out ovarian cancer.”

She says nurses should be involved to help with earlier diagnosis of ovarian cancer as they are often involved in evaluating urine samples. Nurse practitioners, she notes, are typically included in consultations for abdominal symptoms and potential urinary tract infections.

“If the woman is recurrently presenting with urinary symptoms, sterile midstream urine samples should raise alarm,” she says. “The woman may have diabetes, an overactive bladder, or interstitial cystitis; however, urgency and frequency are some of the symptoms of ovarian cancer, and they need investigation.”

Persistent Systems Over Age 50

The paper lists ovarian cancer symptoms from the UK’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and notes that among red flags are having any of the following persistently/frequently (particularly more than 12 times per month and especially if the woman is 50 years or older):

• Early satiety and/or loss of appetite
• Abdominal bloating
• Pelvic or abdominal pain
• Urinary urgency/frequency

Other symptoms could include:

• Changes in bowel habits (e.g., diarrhea or constipation)
• Extreme fatigue
• Unexplained weight loss

Diagnosis Challenges Similar in US

Ernst Lengyel, MD, PhD, UChicago Medicine’s Chairman of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology in Chicago, Illinois, who was not involved with the paper, said the situation in the United States is similar to that described in the UK.

“The diagnosis is delayed because the symptoms are unspecific. The problem is that ovarian cancer is so rare, and primary care physicians or nurse practitioners have to consider over 100 differential diagnoses,” he says.

In the US, he says, it is likely easier to get in and see a physician because of the private insurance options and because there are more gynecologic oncologists in large urban areas. Getting imaging approved — such as ultrasound and computed tomography scans — is also easier in the US.

Still, “there is no effective way to diagnose ovarian cancer early,” he says. “No single test or combination of symptoms can be used as a screening test.”

The CA-125 blood test measures proteins that can be linked with ovarian cancer, but is not a screening test, he notes.

“Large UK and US studies have not been able to show a survival benefit with ultrasound, serial CA-125, or a combination thereof,” Dr. Lengyel said.

Weight Gain May Also be a Sign

A broad range of clinicians should be aware of the symptoms the author mentions, he says, especially primary care physicians, nurse practitioners, and obstetrician/gynecologists.

“Too often, symptoms that women report are ignored and treated as unspecific or psychosomatic,” Dr. Lengyel says. “It is easy to disregard recurrent complaints and move on instead of being vigilant and working them up. Ironically, women with ovarian cancer can initially gain weight, which is counterintuitive as most doctors believe that patients with cancer lose weight. However, if they develop abdominal fluid, a patient often gains weight.”

Dr. Barber and Dr. Lengyel report no relevant financial relationships.

One in seven women will die within 2 months of being diagnosed with ovarian cancer, a new report from the United Kingdom states. But if diagnosed at the earliest stage, 9 in 10 women will survive. Two thirds of women are now diagnosed late, when the cancer is harder to treat.

Diagnosis is difficult for many reasons, among them that women sometimes think symptoms are a natural part of menopause and don’t acknowledge or report them. Clinicians may mistake abdominal symptoms for those of a bowel condition or bladder problem. Almost half of GPs (46%) in the UK mistakenly believe that ovarian cancer symptoms present in only the later stages of the disease.

Cervical Screening Does Not Detect Ovarian Cancer

Additionally, there are misconceptions regarding cervical cancer screening — one study found that “40% of women in the general public mistakenly believe that cervical screening detects ovarian cancer.” But there is no current screening program for ovarian cancer in the UK or United States.

During a pelvic exam, the physician feels the ovaries and uterus for size, shape, and consistency and that can be useful in finding some cancers early, but most early ovarian tumors are difficult or impossible to feel, the American Cancer Society notes.

Recognizing the Red Flags

Victoria Barber, MBBS, a general practitioner in Northamptonshire and a Primary Care Advisory Board member with the Target Ovarian Cancer program in the UK published a paper in the British Journal of Nursing (2024 Mar 7. doi: 10.12968/bjon.2024.33.5.S16) on the program’s efforts to urge clinicians to recognize ovarian cancer red flags and to “never diagnose new-onset irritable bowel syndrome or overactive bladder in women over 50 without ruling out ovarian cancer.”

She says nurses should be involved to help with earlier diagnosis of ovarian cancer as they are often involved in evaluating urine samples. Nurse practitioners, she notes, are typically included in consultations for abdominal symptoms and potential urinary tract infections.

“If the woman is recurrently presenting with urinary symptoms, sterile midstream urine samples should raise alarm,” she says. “The woman may have diabetes, an overactive bladder, or interstitial cystitis; however, urgency and frequency are some of the symptoms of ovarian cancer, and they need investigation.”

Persistent Systems Over Age 50

The paper lists ovarian cancer symptoms from the UK’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and notes that among red flags are having any of the following persistently/frequently (particularly more than 12 times per month and especially if the woman is 50 years or older):

• Early satiety and/or loss of appetite
• Abdominal bloating
• Pelvic or abdominal pain
• Urinary urgency/frequency

Other symptoms could include:

• Changes in bowel habits (e.g., diarrhea or constipation)
• Extreme fatigue
• Unexplained weight loss

Diagnosis Challenges Similar in US

Ernst Lengyel, MD, PhD, UChicago Medicine’s Chairman of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology in Chicago, Illinois, who was not involved with the paper, said the situation in the United States is similar to that described in the UK.

“The diagnosis is delayed because the symptoms are unspecific. The problem is that ovarian cancer is so rare, and primary care physicians or nurse practitioners have to consider over 100 differential diagnoses,” he says.

In the US, he says, it is likely easier to get in and see a physician because of the private insurance options and because there are more gynecologic oncologists in large urban areas. Getting imaging approved — such as ultrasound and computed tomography scans — is also easier in the US.

Still, “there is no effective way to diagnose ovarian cancer early,” he says. “No single test or combination of symptoms can be used as a screening test.”

The CA-125 blood test measures proteins that can be linked with ovarian cancer, but is not a screening test, he notes.

“Large UK and US studies have not been able to show a survival benefit with ultrasound, serial CA-125, or a combination thereof,” Dr. Lengyel said.

Weight Gain May Also be a Sign

A broad range of clinicians should be aware of the symptoms the author mentions, he says, especially primary care physicians, nurse practitioners, and obstetrician/gynecologists.

“Too often, symptoms that women report are ignored and treated as unspecific or psychosomatic,” Dr. Lengyel says. “It is easy to disregard recurrent complaints and move on instead of being vigilant and working them up. Ironically, women with ovarian cancer can initially gain weight, which is counterintuitive as most doctors believe that patients with cancer lose weight. However, if they develop abdominal fluid, a patient often gains weight.”

Dr. Barber and Dr. Lengyel report no relevant financial relationships.

Savolitinib, a selective oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor, showed good activity against locally advanced or metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) bearing MET exon 14 mutations as both first-line therapy for treatment-naive patients and in second-line of therapy for previously treated patients

“The phase 3b study results further confirm savolitinib as a valuable targeted therapy option for naive and previously-treated non–small cell lung cancer with MET 14 exon mutations,” Yongchang Zhang, MD, said while presenting the final results of the trial at the European Lung Cancer Congress 2024.

For 87 previously untreated patients the objective response rate (ORR) as assessed by independent review, the primary endpoint, was 62.1%. For 79 patients receiving savolitinib in the second line, the ORR was 39.2%, reported Dr. Zhang, MD, of the Hunan Cancer Hospital in Changsha, China.

Preliminary results of this trial were reported at the World Conference on Lung Cancer in 2023.

Selective Inhibitor

Savolitinib (AZD6094, also called volitinib) is reported to be a highly selective oral inhibitor of the MET receptor tyrosine kinase (TKI). It is approved in China for the treatment of patients with NSCLC harboring MET exon 14 mutations that has progressed on prior systemic therapy, or patients who are unable to tolerate platinum-based chemotherapy.

In the phase 3b study, patients with MET ex14-positive tumors who were negative for EGFR, ALK or ROS1 alterations and were naive to a MET inhibitor were enrolled. Those who weighed 50 kg or greater received 600 mg savolitinib orally once daily for each 21-day cycle, while patients who weighed less than 50 kg received a 400-mg daily dose. Therapy continued until disease progression, death, or unacceptable toxicity.

Tumors were evaluated by investigators every 6 weeks for the first year, than every 12 weeks thereafter.

As noted before, ORR by independent review was 62.1% for treatment-naive patients and 39.2% for previously treated patients. The respective ORRs by investigator assessment were 59.8% and 43%. All responses in each arm were partial responses.

Median progression-free survival (PFS) after a median follow-up of 18 months for treatment-naive patients and 11 months for treatment-experienced patients was 13.7 months and 11 months, respectively.

Overall survival after a median follow-up of 20.8 months for treatment-naive patients and 12.5 months for previously treated patients was not reached in treatment-naive patients and not mature in treatment-experienced patients.

Grade 3 or greater treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 74.1% of patients, including 3 events (1.8%) leading to death. Dose modifications were required for 74.7% of patients.

Grade 3 or greater adverse events included peripheral edema, liver enzyme elevations, abnormal liver function, decreased platelet and white blood cell counts, and vomiting.
 

Which TKI is Best?

Invited discussant Antonio Passaro, MD, PhD, from the European Institute of Oncology in Milan, noted that eligibility for treatment with savolitinib or other MET exon 14-targeting TKIs is limited to about 3% of patients with NSCLC of adenocarcinoma histology.

He said that savolitinib appears to be similar in performance to two other TKIs for NSCLC with MET exon-14 skipping mutations that are currently on the market in the United States, Europe, and Japan: capmatinib (Tabrecta) and tepotinib (Tepmetko).

“Globally, all the results show a numerically better performance when we use a selective TKI in first-line treatment over the second-line treatment, in particular for overall response rate,” he said.

Dr. Passaro noted that savolitinib differs from the other two MET TKIs in that PFS with savolitinib is similar for treatment-naive and previously treated patients.

He added, however, that “today it’s very difficult” to determine which is the “perfect” agent for a specific disease presentation, particularly since MET exon 14 skipping mutations can also be found in patients with squamous cell carcinomas and those with a history of smoking.

To get a better sense of which drug to use in a specific situation, it would be helpful to analyze trial results in the context of tumor histology, smoking history, programmed death protein 1-ligand 1 status, and co-mutations, he said.

The study was sponsored by Hutchmed. Dr. Zhang reported having no conflicts of interest. Dr. Passaro reported a consulting, advisory, or speakers bureau role for multiple companies, not including Hutchmed.

Savolitinib, a selective oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor, showed good activity against locally advanced or metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) bearing MET exon 14 mutations as both first-line therapy for treatment-naive patients and in second-line of therapy for previously treated patients

“The phase 3b study results further confirm savolitinib as a valuable targeted therapy option for naive and previously-treated non–small cell lung cancer with MET 14 exon mutations,” Yongchang Zhang, MD, said while presenting the final results of the trial at the European Lung Cancer Congress 2024.

For 87 previously untreated patients the objective response rate (ORR) as assessed by independent review, the primary endpoint, was 62.1%. For 79 patients receiving savolitinib in the second line, the ORR was 39.2%, reported Dr. Zhang, MD, of the Hunan Cancer Hospital in Changsha, China.

Preliminary results of this trial were reported at the World Conference on Lung Cancer in 2023.

Selective Inhibitor

Savolitinib (AZD6094, also called volitinib) is reported to be a highly selective oral inhibitor of the MET receptor tyrosine kinase (TKI). It is approved in China for the treatment of patients with NSCLC harboring MET exon 14 mutations that has progressed on prior systemic therapy, or patients who are unable to tolerate platinum-based chemotherapy.

In the phase 3b study, patients with MET ex14-positive tumors who were negative for EGFR, ALK or ROS1 alterations and were naive to a MET inhibitor were enrolled. Those who weighed 50 kg or greater received 600 mg savolitinib orally once daily for each 21-day cycle, while patients who weighed less than 50 kg received a 400-mg daily dose. Therapy continued until disease progression, death, or unacceptable toxicity.

Tumors were evaluated by investigators every 6 weeks for the first year, than every 12 weeks thereafter.

As noted before, ORR by independent review was 62.1% for treatment-naive patients and 39.2% for previously treated patients. The respective ORRs by investigator assessment were 59.8% and 43%. All responses in each arm were partial responses.

Median progression-free survival (PFS) after a median follow-up of 18 months for treatment-naive patients and 11 months for treatment-experienced patients was 13.7 months and 11 months, respectively.

Overall survival after a median follow-up of 20.8 months for treatment-naive patients and 12.5 months for previously treated patients was not reached in treatment-naive patients and not mature in treatment-experienced patients.

Grade 3 or greater treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 74.1% of patients, including 3 events (1.8%) leading to death. Dose modifications were required for 74.7% of patients.

Grade 3 or greater adverse events included peripheral edema, liver enzyme elevations, abnormal liver function, decreased platelet and white blood cell counts, and vomiting.
 

Which TKI is Best?

Invited discussant Antonio Passaro, MD, PhD, from the European Institute of Oncology in Milan, noted that eligibility for treatment with savolitinib or other MET exon 14-targeting TKIs is limited to about 3% of patients with NSCLC of adenocarcinoma histology.

He said that savolitinib appears to be similar in performance to two other TKIs for NSCLC with MET exon-14 skipping mutations that are currently on the market in the United States, Europe, and Japan: capmatinib (Tabrecta) and tepotinib (Tepmetko).

“Globally, all the results show a numerically better performance when we use a selective TKI in first-line treatment over the second-line treatment, in particular for overall response rate,” he said.

Dr. Passaro noted that savolitinib differs from the other two MET TKIs in that PFS with savolitinib is similar for treatment-naive and previously treated patients.

He added, however, that “today it’s very difficult” to determine which is the “perfect” agent for a specific disease presentation, particularly since MET exon 14 skipping mutations can also be found in patients with squamous cell carcinomas and those with a history of smoking.

To get a better sense of which drug to use in a specific situation, it would be helpful to analyze trial results in the context of tumor histology, smoking history, programmed death protein 1-ligand 1 status, and co-mutations, he said.

The study was sponsored by Hutchmed. Dr. Zhang reported having no conflicts of interest. Dr. Passaro reported a consulting, advisory, or speakers bureau role for multiple companies, not including Hutchmed.

Savolitinib, a selective oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor, showed good activity against locally advanced or metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) bearing MET exon 14 mutations as both first-line therapy for treatment-naive patients and in second-line of therapy for previously treated patients

“The phase 3b study results further confirm savolitinib as a valuable targeted therapy option for naive and previously-treated non–small cell lung cancer with MET 14 exon mutations,” Yongchang Zhang, MD, said while presenting the final results of the trial at the European Lung Cancer Congress 2024.

For 87 previously untreated patients the objective response rate (ORR) as assessed by independent review, the primary endpoint, was 62.1%. For 79 patients receiving savolitinib in the second line, the ORR was 39.2%, reported Dr. Zhang, MD, of the Hunan Cancer Hospital in Changsha, China.

Preliminary results of this trial were reported at the World Conference on Lung Cancer in 2023.

Selective Inhibitor

Savolitinib (AZD6094, also called volitinib) is reported to be a highly selective oral inhibitor of the MET receptor tyrosine kinase (TKI). It is approved in China for the treatment of patients with NSCLC harboring MET exon 14 mutations that has progressed on prior systemic therapy, or patients who are unable to tolerate platinum-based chemotherapy.

In the phase 3b study, patients with MET ex14-positive tumors who were negative for EGFR, ALK or ROS1 alterations and were naive to a MET inhibitor were enrolled. Those who weighed 50 kg or greater received 600 mg savolitinib orally once daily for each 21-day cycle, while patients who weighed less than 50 kg received a 400-mg daily dose. Therapy continued until disease progression, death, or unacceptable toxicity.

Tumors were evaluated by investigators every 6 weeks for the first year, than every 12 weeks thereafter.

As noted before, ORR by independent review was 62.1% for treatment-naive patients and 39.2% for previously treated patients. The respective ORRs by investigator assessment were 59.8% and 43%. All responses in each arm were partial responses.

Median progression-free survival (PFS) after a median follow-up of 18 months for treatment-naive patients and 11 months for treatment-experienced patients was 13.7 months and 11 months, respectively.

Overall survival after a median follow-up of 20.8 months for treatment-naive patients and 12.5 months for previously treated patients was not reached in treatment-naive patients and not mature in treatment-experienced patients.

Grade 3 or greater treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 74.1% of patients, including 3 events (1.8%) leading to death. Dose modifications were required for 74.7% of patients.

Grade 3 or greater adverse events included peripheral edema, liver enzyme elevations, abnormal liver function, decreased platelet and white blood cell counts, and vomiting.
 

Which TKI is Best?

Invited discussant Antonio Passaro, MD, PhD, from the European Institute of Oncology in Milan, noted that eligibility for treatment with savolitinib or other MET exon 14-targeting TKIs is limited to about 3% of patients with NSCLC of adenocarcinoma histology.

He said that savolitinib appears to be similar in performance to two other TKIs for NSCLC with MET exon-14 skipping mutations that are currently on the market in the United States, Europe, and Japan: capmatinib (Tabrecta) and tepotinib (Tepmetko).

“Globally, all the results show a numerically better performance when we use a selective TKI in first-line treatment over the second-line treatment, in particular for overall response rate,” he said.

Dr. Passaro noted that savolitinib differs from the other two MET TKIs in that PFS with savolitinib is similar for treatment-naive and previously treated patients.

He added, however, that “today it’s very difficult” to determine which is the “perfect” agent for a specific disease presentation, particularly since MET exon 14 skipping mutations can also be found in patients with squamous cell carcinomas and those with a history of smoking.

To get a better sense of which drug to use in a specific situation, it would be helpful to analyze trial results in the context of tumor histology, smoking history, programmed death protein 1-ligand 1 status, and co-mutations, he said.

The study was sponsored by Hutchmed. Dr. Zhang reported having no conflicts of interest. Dr. Passaro reported a consulting, advisory, or speakers bureau role for multiple companies, not including Hutchmed.