User login
Low-Dose Oral Minoxidil: Expert Consensus Provide Guidance for Treating Hair Loss
. With large randomized, controlled trials lacking, the guidelines authors and other dermatologists said the paper provides practical pointers that should increase clinicians’ confidence in prescribing LDOM for hair loss.
Comfort and Confidence
Benjamin N. Ungar, MD, director of the Alopecia Center of Excellence at Mount Sinai Icahn School of Medicine, New York City, said he hopes that the guidelines will “make dermatologists in practice more comfortable with the use of low-dose oral minoxidil to treat different kinds of hair loss, and therefore, more patients will benefit.” He was not an author of the paper, which was published online in JAMA Dermatology on November 20, but was asked to comment.
Members of the multidisciplinary Low-Dose Oral Minoxidil Initiation steering committee recruited dermatologists with hair loss expertise from 12 countries. Using a modified four-round Delphi process that required at least 70% agreement, the group of 43 dermatologists crafted 76 consensus statements. “Notably,” said Co-senior author Jennifer Fu, MD, director of the Hair Disorders Clinic at the University of California, San Francisco, “27 items achieved at least 90% consensus after the first two rounds, indicating broad agreement in expert practice.”
Indications for LDOM
At least 90% of experts concurred regarding the appropriateness of LDOM use for androgenetic alopecia (AGA) and age-related thinning and in cases where topical minoxidil proves ineffective or problematic. Additional situations in which LDOM might provide direct benefit involve follicular miniaturization, such as alopecia areata, or hair cycle disruption, such as chemotherapy. The authors also recommended considering LDOM over topical minoxidil when the latter is more expensive and when patients desire enhanced hypertrichosis.
Contraindications and Precautions
Before prescribing LDOM, the authors wrote, clinicians may consult with primary care or cardiology when contraindications (cardiovascular issues, pregnancy/nursing, and potential drug interactions) or precautions (history of tachycardia or arrhythmia, hypotension, or impaired kidney function) exist. Patients with precautions may require blood pressure monitoring, as well as monitoring for adverse effects of treatment. The panel also suggested the latter for all patients at the time of LDOM initiation and dose escalation. The authors advised against routine baseline laboratory and EKG testing in cases without relevant precautions.
Dosing Considerations
Along with systemic adverse event risk and baseline hair loss severity, key dosing considerations include patient age, sex, and whether patients desire hypertrichosis. Consensus on daily doses for adolescent females and males begins at 0.625 mg and 1.25 mg, respectively, and ranges up to 2.5 mg for adolescent females vs 5 mg for adult females and adolescent and adult males.
Presently, said Ungar, many dermatologists — including some who prescribe LDOM — remain uncomfortable even with very low doses, perhaps because of an invalid perception of cardiovascular safety issues including potential hypotension and pericardial effusions. However, recently published data include a review published November 7 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, which showed no significant effect of LDOM on blood pressure. And in a September Journal of Drugs in Dermatology article the authors found no impact on pericardial effusions in a 100-patient cohort.
Some dermatologists worry about the impact hypertrichosis may have on patients, Ungar added. Although incidence estimates range from 15% to 30%, he said, more than half of his patients experience hypertrichosis. “However, most continue treatment because the beneficial effects outweigh the effect of hypertrichosis.”
Practical Roadmap
Adam Friedman, MD, who was not involved with the publication, applauds its inclusion of pragmatic clinical guidance, which he said consensus papers often lack. “This paper sets a great roadmap for working low-dose oral minoxidil into your clinical practice, Friedman, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, DC, said in an interview.
Rather than limiting LDOM use to AGA, he said, the paper is most helpful in showing the spectrum of disease states for which the expert panel prescribes LDOM. “We use it as adjunctive therapy for many other things, both scarring and nonscarring hair loss,” he added.
In appropriate clinical contexts, the authors wrote, clinicians may consider combining LDOM with spironolactone or beta-blockers. Friedman said that in his hands, combining LDOM with a 5-alpha reductase inhibitor (5ARI) is “absolutely outstanding.” Minoxidil increases blood flow to the scalp, he explained, while 5ARIs prevent production of dihydrotestosterone, which miniaturizes hair.
Fu said, “We hope these consensus outcomes will be helpful to dermatology colleagues as they consider using LDOM to treat hair loss in their adult and adolescent patient populations. We anticipate that these guidelines will be updated as additional evidence-based data emerges and are encouraged that we are already seeing new publications on this topic.”
Important areas for future research, she noted, include pediatric use of LDOM, the comparative efficacy of topical vs oral minoxidil, the safety of oral minoxidil for patients with a history of allergic contact dermatitis to topical minoxidil, and the use of other off-label forms of minoxidil, such as compounded oral minoxidil and sublingual minoxidil.
The study was funded by the University of California, San Francisco, Department of Dermatology Medical Student Summer Research Fellowship Program. Fu reported personal fees from Pfizer, Eli Lilly and Company, and Sun Pharma outside of the study. The full list of author disclosures can be found in the paper. Ungar and Friedman reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
. With large randomized, controlled trials lacking, the guidelines authors and other dermatologists said the paper provides practical pointers that should increase clinicians’ confidence in prescribing LDOM for hair loss.
Comfort and Confidence
Benjamin N. Ungar, MD, director of the Alopecia Center of Excellence at Mount Sinai Icahn School of Medicine, New York City, said he hopes that the guidelines will “make dermatologists in practice more comfortable with the use of low-dose oral minoxidil to treat different kinds of hair loss, and therefore, more patients will benefit.” He was not an author of the paper, which was published online in JAMA Dermatology on November 20, but was asked to comment.
Members of the multidisciplinary Low-Dose Oral Minoxidil Initiation steering committee recruited dermatologists with hair loss expertise from 12 countries. Using a modified four-round Delphi process that required at least 70% agreement, the group of 43 dermatologists crafted 76 consensus statements. “Notably,” said Co-senior author Jennifer Fu, MD, director of the Hair Disorders Clinic at the University of California, San Francisco, “27 items achieved at least 90% consensus after the first two rounds, indicating broad agreement in expert practice.”
Indications for LDOM
At least 90% of experts concurred regarding the appropriateness of LDOM use for androgenetic alopecia (AGA) and age-related thinning and in cases where topical minoxidil proves ineffective or problematic. Additional situations in which LDOM might provide direct benefit involve follicular miniaturization, such as alopecia areata, or hair cycle disruption, such as chemotherapy. The authors also recommended considering LDOM over topical minoxidil when the latter is more expensive and when patients desire enhanced hypertrichosis.
Contraindications and Precautions
Before prescribing LDOM, the authors wrote, clinicians may consult with primary care or cardiology when contraindications (cardiovascular issues, pregnancy/nursing, and potential drug interactions) or precautions (history of tachycardia or arrhythmia, hypotension, or impaired kidney function) exist. Patients with precautions may require blood pressure monitoring, as well as monitoring for adverse effects of treatment. The panel also suggested the latter for all patients at the time of LDOM initiation and dose escalation. The authors advised against routine baseline laboratory and EKG testing in cases without relevant precautions.
Dosing Considerations
Along with systemic adverse event risk and baseline hair loss severity, key dosing considerations include patient age, sex, and whether patients desire hypertrichosis. Consensus on daily doses for adolescent females and males begins at 0.625 mg and 1.25 mg, respectively, and ranges up to 2.5 mg for adolescent females vs 5 mg for adult females and adolescent and adult males.
Presently, said Ungar, many dermatologists — including some who prescribe LDOM — remain uncomfortable even with very low doses, perhaps because of an invalid perception of cardiovascular safety issues including potential hypotension and pericardial effusions. However, recently published data include a review published November 7 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, which showed no significant effect of LDOM on blood pressure. And in a September Journal of Drugs in Dermatology article the authors found no impact on pericardial effusions in a 100-patient cohort.
Some dermatologists worry about the impact hypertrichosis may have on patients, Ungar added. Although incidence estimates range from 15% to 30%, he said, more than half of his patients experience hypertrichosis. “However, most continue treatment because the beneficial effects outweigh the effect of hypertrichosis.”
Practical Roadmap
Adam Friedman, MD, who was not involved with the publication, applauds its inclusion of pragmatic clinical guidance, which he said consensus papers often lack. “This paper sets a great roadmap for working low-dose oral minoxidil into your clinical practice, Friedman, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, DC, said in an interview.
Rather than limiting LDOM use to AGA, he said, the paper is most helpful in showing the spectrum of disease states for which the expert panel prescribes LDOM. “We use it as adjunctive therapy for many other things, both scarring and nonscarring hair loss,” he added.
In appropriate clinical contexts, the authors wrote, clinicians may consider combining LDOM with spironolactone or beta-blockers. Friedman said that in his hands, combining LDOM with a 5-alpha reductase inhibitor (5ARI) is “absolutely outstanding.” Minoxidil increases blood flow to the scalp, he explained, while 5ARIs prevent production of dihydrotestosterone, which miniaturizes hair.
Fu said, “We hope these consensus outcomes will be helpful to dermatology colleagues as they consider using LDOM to treat hair loss in their adult and adolescent patient populations. We anticipate that these guidelines will be updated as additional evidence-based data emerges and are encouraged that we are already seeing new publications on this topic.”
Important areas for future research, she noted, include pediatric use of LDOM, the comparative efficacy of topical vs oral minoxidil, the safety of oral minoxidil for patients with a history of allergic contact dermatitis to topical minoxidil, and the use of other off-label forms of minoxidil, such as compounded oral minoxidil and sublingual minoxidil.
The study was funded by the University of California, San Francisco, Department of Dermatology Medical Student Summer Research Fellowship Program. Fu reported personal fees from Pfizer, Eli Lilly and Company, and Sun Pharma outside of the study. The full list of author disclosures can be found in the paper. Ungar and Friedman reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
. With large randomized, controlled trials lacking, the guidelines authors and other dermatologists said the paper provides practical pointers that should increase clinicians’ confidence in prescribing LDOM for hair loss.
Comfort and Confidence
Benjamin N. Ungar, MD, director of the Alopecia Center of Excellence at Mount Sinai Icahn School of Medicine, New York City, said he hopes that the guidelines will “make dermatologists in practice more comfortable with the use of low-dose oral minoxidil to treat different kinds of hair loss, and therefore, more patients will benefit.” He was not an author of the paper, which was published online in JAMA Dermatology on November 20, but was asked to comment.
Members of the multidisciplinary Low-Dose Oral Minoxidil Initiation steering committee recruited dermatologists with hair loss expertise from 12 countries. Using a modified four-round Delphi process that required at least 70% agreement, the group of 43 dermatologists crafted 76 consensus statements. “Notably,” said Co-senior author Jennifer Fu, MD, director of the Hair Disorders Clinic at the University of California, San Francisco, “27 items achieved at least 90% consensus after the first two rounds, indicating broad agreement in expert practice.”
Indications for LDOM
At least 90% of experts concurred regarding the appropriateness of LDOM use for androgenetic alopecia (AGA) and age-related thinning and in cases where topical minoxidil proves ineffective or problematic. Additional situations in which LDOM might provide direct benefit involve follicular miniaturization, such as alopecia areata, or hair cycle disruption, such as chemotherapy. The authors also recommended considering LDOM over topical minoxidil when the latter is more expensive and when patients desire enhanced hypertrichosis.
Contraindications and Precautions
Before prescribing LDOM, the authors wrote, clinicians may consult with primary care or cardiology when contraindications (cardiovascular issues, pregnancy/nursing, and potential drug interactions) or precautions (history of tachycardia or arrhythmia, hypotension, or impaired kidney function) exist. Patients with precautions may require blood pressure monitoring, as well as monitoring for adverse effects of treatment. The panel also suggested the latter for all patients at the time of LDOM initiation and dose escalation. The authors advised against routine baseline laboratory and EKG testing in cases without relevant precautions.
Dosing Considerations
Along with systemic adverse event risk and baseline hair loss severity, key dosing considerations include patient age, sex, and whether patients desire hypertrichosis. Consensus on daily doses for adolescent females and males begins at 0.625 mg and 1.25 mg, respectively, and ranges up to 2.5 mg for adolescent females vs 5 mg for adult females and adolescent and adult males.
Presently, said Ungar, many dermatologists — including some who prescribe LDOM — remain uncomfortable even with very low doses, perhaps because of an invalid perception of cardiovascular safety issues including potential hypotension and pericardial effusions. However, recently published data include a review published November 7 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, which showed no significant effect of LDOM on blood pressure. And in a September Journal of Drugs in Dermatology article the authors found no impact on pericardial effusions in a 100-patient cohort.
Some dermatologists worry about the impact hypertrichosis may have on patients, Ungar added. Although incidence estimates range from 15% to 30%, he said, more than half of his patients experience hypertrichosis. “However, most continue treatment because the beneficial effects outweigh the effect of hypertrichosis.”
Practical Roadmap
Adam Friedman, MD, who was not involved with the publication, applauds its inclusion of pragmatic clinical guidance, which he said consensus papers often lack. “This paper sets a great roadmap for working low-dose oral minoxidil into your clinical practice, Friedman, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, DC, said in an interview.
Rather than limiting LDOM use to AGA, he said, the paper is most helpful in showing the spectrum of disease states for which the expert panel prescribes LDOM. “We use it as adjunctive therapy for many other things, both scarring and nonscarring hair loss,” he added.
In appropriate clinical contexts, the authors wrote, clinicians may consider combining LDOM with spironolactone or beta-blockers. Friedman said that in his hands, combining LDOM with a 5-alpha reductase inhibitor (5ARI) is “absolutely outstanding.” Minoxidil increases blood flow to the scalp, he explained, while 5ARIs prevent production of dihydrotestosterone, which miniaturizes hair.
Fu said, “We hope these consensus outcomes will be helpful to dermatology colleagues as they consider using LDOM to treat hair loss in their adult and adolescent patient populations. We anticipate that these guidelines will be updated as additional evidence-based data emerges and are encouraged that we are already seeing new publications on this topic.”
Important areas for future research, she noted, include pediatric use of LDOM, the comparative efficacy of topical vs oral minoxidil, the safety of oral minoxidil for patients with a history of allergic contact dermatitis to topical minoxidil, and the use of other off-label forms of minoxidil, such as compounded oral minoxidil and sublingual minoxidil.
The study was funded by the University of California, San Francisco, Department of Dermatology Medical Student Summer Research Fellowship Program. Fu reported personal fees from Pfizer, Eli Lilly and Company, and Sun Pharma outside of the study. The full list of author disclosures can be found in the paper. Ungar and Friedman reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
NCCN Expands Cancer Genetic Risk Assessment Guidelines
Additional cancer types were included in the title and content for both guidelines. Prostate cancer was added to Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast, Ovarian, Pancreatic, and Prostate, and endometrial and gastric cancer were added to Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Colorectal, Endometrial, and Gastric.
For these cancers, the expanded guidelines include information on when genetic testing is recommended and what type of testing may be best. These guidelines also detail the hereditary conditions and genetic mutations associated with elevated cancer risk and include appropriate “next steps” for individuals who have them, which may involve increased screening or prevention surgeries.
“These updates include the spectrum of genes associated with genetic syndromes, the range of risk associated with each pathogenic variant, the improvements in screening and prevention strategies, the role of genetic data to inform cancer treatment, and the expansion of the role of genetic counseling as this field moves forward,” Mary B. Daly, MD, PhD, with Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, said in a news release. Daly chaired the panel that updated the breast, ovarian, pancreatic, and prostate cancer guidelines.
Oncologists should, for instance, ask patients about their family and personal history of cancer and known germline variants at time of initial diagnosis. With prostate cancer, if patients meet criteria for germline testing, multigene testing should include a host of variants, including BRCA1, BRCA2, ATM, PALB2, CHEK2, HOXB13, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2.
The updated guidelines on genetic risk assessment of colorectal, endometrial, and gastric cancer include new recommendations to consider for hereditary cancer screening in patients with newly diagnosed endometrial cancer, for evaluating and managing CDH1-associated gastric cancer risk, and for managing gastric cancer risk in patients with APC pathogenic variants.
For CDH1-associated gastric cancer, for instance, the guidelines recommend carriers be referred to institutions with expertise in managing risks for cancer associated with CDH1, “given the still limited understanding and rarity of this syndrome.”
“These expanded guidelines reflect the recommendations from leading experts on genetic testing based on the latest scientific research across the cancer spectrum, consolidated into two convenient resources,” said NCCN CEO Crystal S. Denlinger, MD, with Fox Chase Cancer Center, in a news release.
“This information is critical for guiding shared decision-making between health care providers and their patients, enhancing screening practices as appropriate, and potentially choosing options for prevention and targeted treatment choices. Genetic testing guidelines enable us to better care for people with cancer and their family members,” Denlinger added.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Additional cancer types were included in the title and content for both guidelines. Prostate cancer was added to Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast, Ovarian, Pancreatic, and Prostate, and endometrial and gastric cancer were added to Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Colorectal, Endometrial, and Gastric.
For these cancers, the expanded guidelines include information on when genetic testing is recommended and what type of testing may be best. These guidelines also detail the hereditary conditions and genetic mutations associated with elevated cancer risk and include appropriate “next steps” for individuals who have them, which may involve increased screening or prevention surgeries.
“These updates include the spectrum of genes associated with genetic syndromes, the range of risk associated with each pathogenic variant, the improvements in screening and prevention strategies, the role of genetic data to inform cancer treatment, and the expansion of the role of genetic counseling as this field moves forward,” Mary B. Daly, MD, PhD, with Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, said in a news release. Daly chaired the panel that updated the breast, ovarian, pancreatic, and prostate cancer guidelines.
Oncologists should, for instance, ask patients about their family and personal history of cancer and known germline variants at time of initial diagnosis. With prostate cancer, if patients meet criteria for germline testing, multigene testing should include a host of variants, including BRCA1, BRCA2, ATM, PALB2, CHEK2, HOXB13, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2.
The updated guidelines on genetic risk assessment of colorectal, endometrial, and gastric cancer include new recommendations to consider for hereditary cancer screening in patients with newly diagnosed endometrial cancer, for evaluating and managing CDH1-associated gastric cancer risk, and for managing gastric cancer risk in patients with APC pathogenic variants.
For CDH1-associated gastric cancer, for instance, the guidelines recommend carriers be referred to institutions with expertise in managing risks for cancer associated with CDH1, “given the still limited understanding and rarity of this syndrome.”
“These expanded guidelines reflect the recommendations from leading experts on genetic testing based on the latest scientific research across the cancer spectrum, consolidated into two convenient resources,” said NCCN CEO Crystal S. Denlinger, MD, with Fox Chase Cancer Center, in a news release.
“This information is critical for guiding shared decision-making between health care providers and their patients, enhancing screening practices as appropriate, and potentially choosing options for prevention and targeted treatment choices. Genetic testing guidelines enable us to better care for people with cancer and their family members,” Denlinger added.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Additional cancer types were included in the title and content for both guidelines. Prostate cancer was added to Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast, Ovarian, Pancreatic, and Prostate, and endometrial and gastric cancer were added to Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Colorectal, Endometrial, and Gastric.
For these cancers, the expanded guidelines include information on when genetic testing is recommended and what type of testing may be best. These guidelines also detail the hereditary conditions and genetic mutations associated with elevated cancer risk and include appropriate “next steps” for individuals who have them, which may involve increased screening or prevention surgeries.
“These updates include the spectrum of genes associated with genetic syndromes, the range of risk associated with each pathogenic variant, the improvements in screening and prevention strategies, the role of genetic data to inform cancer treatment, and the expansion of the role of genetic counseling as this field moves forward,” Mary B. Daly, MD, PhD, with Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, said in a news release. Daly chaired the panel that updated the breast, ovarian, pancreatic, and prostate cancer guidelines.
Oncologists should, for instance, ask patients about their family and personal history of cancer and known germline variants at time of initial diagnosis. With prostate cancer, if patients meet criteria for germline testing, multigene testing should include a host of variants, including BRCA1, BRCA2, ATM, PALB2, CHEK2, HOXB13, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2.
The updated guidelines on genetic risk assessment of colorectal, endometrial, and gastric cancer include new recommendations to consider for hereditary cancer screening in patients with newly diagnosed endometrial cancer, for evaluating and managing CDH1-associated gastric cancer risk, and for managing gastric cancer risk in patients with APC pathogenic variants.
For CDH1-associated gastric cancer, for instance, the guidelines recommend carriers be referred to institutions with expertise in managing risks for cancer associated with CDH1, “given the still limited understanding and rarity of this syndrome.”
“These expanded guidelines reflect the recommendations from leading experts on genetic testing based on the latest scientific research across the cancer spectrum, consolidated into two convenient resources,” said NCCN CEO Crystal S. Denlinger, MD, with Fox Chase Cancer Center, in a news release.
“This information is critical for guiding shared decision-making between health care providers and their patients, enhancing screening practices as appropriate, and potentially choosing options for prevention and targeted treatment choices. Genetic testing guidelines enable us to better care for people with cancer and their family members,” Denlinger added.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Prostate Cancer: Has Active Surveillance Solved the Problem of Overtreatment?
“Overtreatment of men with limited longevity for intermediate- and high-risk tumors has not only failed to improve but has actually worsened over the last 20 years,” Timothy Daskivich, MD, MSHPM, with Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said in an interview.
“Many doctors assume that the increase in uptake of active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancers has solved the problem of overtreatment, but this trend has not affected overtreatment of men with low likelihood of living long enough to benefit from treatment who have higher-risk tumors,” Daskivich said.
The study was published online on November 11 in JAMA Internal Medicine.
‘Concerning’ Real-World Data
For men with low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer expected to live fewer than 10 years, prostate cancer screening and aggressive treatment are not recommended.
Daskivich and colleagues analyzed data on 243,928 men (mean age, 66 years) in the Veterans Affairs (VA) Health System with clinically localized prostate cancer diagnosed between 2000 and 2019.
About 21% had LE < 10 years, and about 4% had LE < 5 years, according to the validated age-adjusted Prostate Cancer Comorbidity Index.
Overtreatment was defined as aggressive treatment (surgery or radiation) in those with LE < 10 years and low- to intermediate-risk disease and in those with LE < 5 years and high-risk disease, in line with current guidelines.
Among men with LE < 10 years, the proportion of men overtreated with surgery or radiotherapy for low-risk disease decreased 22% but increased 22% for intermediate-risk disease during the study period.
Among men with LE < 5 years, the proportion of men treated with definitive treatment for high-risk disease increased 29%.
“While lower-risk tumors are treated less aggressively across the board, including in men with limited longevity, it seems that we are more indiscriminately treating men with higher-risk disease without considering their expected longevity,” Daskivich said in an interview.
Is This Happening in the General US Population?
Daskivich noted that the sample included a large sample of men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer in the VA Health System.
“Rates of overtreatment are likely to be lower in the VA [Health System], so the problem may be worse in the community setting. The VA [Health System] has been exemplary in its uptake of active surveillance for low-risk cancers, leading the effort to reduce overtreatment of men with low-risk cancers. However, the problem of overtreatment of men with limited longevity persists in the VA [Health System], underscoring the pervasiveness of this problem,” he explained.
“We don’t have a perfect head-to-head comparison of overtreatment in the VA setting vs in the community. [However, one study shows] that this is not a VA-specific phenomenon and that there is an increase in overtreatment of men with limited longevity in a Medicare population as well,” Daskivich noted.
Is Overtreatment All Bad?
Overtreatment of prostate cancer, especially in cases where the cancer is unlikely to progress or cause symptoms, can lead to significant physical, psychological, and financial harms, Christopher Anderson, MD, urologist with Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York City, who wasn’t involved in the study, noted in an interview.
In the study by Daskivich and colleagues, over three quarters of the overtreatment was radiation therapy, which carries the risk for urinary, bowel, and sexual issues.
“Overscreening, which can lead to overtreatment, is a core issue,” Anderson said. It’s easy to order a “simple” prostate-specific antigen blood test, but in an older man with limited LE, that can lead to a host of further testing, he said.
Stopping the pipeline of overscreening that then feeds into the cascade of overtreatment is the first step in addressing the problem of prostate cancer overtreatment, Nancy Li Schoenborn, MD, MHS, with Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, and Louise C. Walter, MD, with University of California San Francisco, wrote in an editorial in JAMA Internal Medicine.
Considering LE during screening decision-making is “fundamental to reducing harms of prostate cancer overdiagnosis and overtreatment” because limited LE increases the likelihood of experiencing “harms all along the diagnostic and treatment cascade following screening,” the editorial writers said.
The time spent diagnosing, monitoring, and treating asymptomatic prostate cancer in men with limited LE distracts from monitoring and treating chronic symptomatic life-limiting illnesses, they noted.
Tough to Talk About?
Anderson noted that, in general, doctors are not great at estimating and counseling patients on LE. “It’s sometimes difficult to have that conversation,” he said.
Daskivich said physicians may fail to include average LE when advising patients on treatments because they believe that the patients do not want to discuss this topic. “Yet, in interviews with patients, we found that prostate cancer patients reported they wanted this information,” he continued, in an interview.
Solving the problem of overscreening and overtreatment will require a “multifaceted approach, including improving access to life expectancy data at the point of care for providers, educating providers on how to communicate this information, and improving data sources to predict longevity,” Daskivich said.
He said it’s equally important to note that some men with prostate cancer may choose treatment even if they have a limited longevity.
“Not all patients will choose conservative management, even if it is recommended by guidelines. However, they need to be given the opportunity to make a good decision for themselves with the best possible data,” Daskivich said.
This work was supported in part by a US Department of VA Merit Review. Daskivich reported receiving personal fees from the Medical Education Speakers Network, EDAP, and RAND; research support from Lantheus and Janssen; and a patent pending for a system for healthcare visit quality assessment outside the submitted work. Schoenborn, Walter, and Anderson had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
“Overtreatment of men with limited longevity for intermediate- and high-risk tumors has not only failed to improve but has actually worsened over the last 20 years,” Timothy Daskivich, MD, MSHPM, with Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said in an interview.
“Many doctors assume that the increase in uptake of active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancers has solved the problem of overtreatment, but this trend has not affected overtreatment of men with low likelihood of living long enough to benefit from treatment who have higher-risk tumors,” Daskivich said.
The study was published online on November 11 in JAMA Internal Medicine.
‘Concerning’ Real-World Data
For men with low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer expected to live fewer than 10 years, prostate cancer screening and aggressive treatment are not recommended.
Daskivich and colleagues analyzed data on 243,928 men (mean age, 66 years) in the Veterans Affairs (VA) Health System with clinically localized prostate cancer diagnosed between 2000 and 2019.
About 21% had LE < 10 years, and about 4% had LE < 5 years, according to the validated age-adjusted Prostate Cancer Comorbidity Index.
Overtreatment was defined as aggressive treatment (surgery or radiation) in those with LE < 10 years and low- to intermediate-risk disease and in those with LE < 5 years and high-risk disease, in line with current guidelines.
Among men with LE < 10 years, the proportion of men overtreated with surgery or radiotherapy for low-risk disease decreased 22% but increased 22% for intermediate-risk disease during the study period.
Among men with LE < 5 years, the proportion of men treated with definitive treatment for high-risk disease increased 29%.
“While lower-risk tumors are treated less aggressively across the board, including in men with limited longevity, it seems that we are more indiscriminately treating men with higher-risk disease without considering their expected longevity,” Daskivich said in an interview.
Is This Happening in the General US Population?
Daskivich noted that the sample included a large sample of men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer in the VA Health System.
“Rates of overtreatment are likely to be lower in the VA [Health System], so the problem may be worse in the community setting. The VA [Health System] has been exemplary in its uptake of active surveillance for low-risk cancers, leading the effort to reduce overtreatment of men with low-risk cancers. However, the problem of overtreatment of men with limited longevity persists in the VA [Health System], underscoring the pervasiveness of this problem,” he explained.
“We don’t have a perfect head-to-head comparison of overtreatment in the VA setting vs in the community. [However, one study shows] that this is not a VA-specific phenomenon and that there is an increase in overtreatment of men with limited longevity in a Medicare population as well,” Daskivich noted.
Is Overtreatment All Bad?
Overtreatment of prostate cancer, especially in cases where the cancer is unlikely to progress or cause symptoms, can lead to significant physical, psychological, and financial harms, Christopher Anderson, MD, urologist with Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York City, who wasn’t involved in the study, noted in an interview.
In the study by Daskivich and colleagues, over three quarters of the overtreatment was radiation therapy, which carries the risk for urinary, bowel, and sexual issues.
“Overscreening, which can lead to overtreatment, is a core issue,” Anderson said. It’s easy to order a “simple” prostate-specific antigen blood test, but in an older man with limited LE, that can lead to a host of further testing, he said.
Stopping the pipeline of overscreening that then feeds into the cascade of overtreatment is the first step in addressing the problem of prostate cancer overtreatment, Nancy Li Schoenborn, MD, MHS, with Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, and Louise C. Walter, MD, with University of California San Francisco, wrote in an editorial in JAMA Internal Medicine.
Considering LE during screening decision-making is “fundamental to reducing harms of prostate cancer overdiagnosis and overtreatment” because limited LE increases the likelihood of experiencing “harms all along the diagnostic and treatment cascade following screening,” the editorial writers said.
The time spent diagnosing, monitoring, and treating asymptomatic prostate cancer in men with limited LE distracts from monitoring and treating chronic symptomatic life-limiting illnesses, they noted.
Tough to Talk About?
Anderson noted that, in general, doctors are not great at estimating and counseling patients on LE. “It’s sometimes difficult to have that conversation,” he said.
Daskivich said physicians may fail to include average LE when advising patients on treatments because they believe that the patients do not want to discuss this topic. “Yet, in interviews with patients, we found that prostate cancer patients reported they wanted this information,” he continued, in an interview.
Solving the problem of overscreening and overtreatment will require a “multifaceted approach, including improving access to life expectancy data at the point of care for providers, educating providers on how to communicate this information, and improving data sources to predict longevity,” Daskivich said.
He said it’s equally important to note that some men with prostate cancer may choose treatment even if they have a limited longevity.
“Not all patients will choose conservative management, even if it is recommended by guidelines. However, they need to be given the opportunity to make a good decision for themselves with the best possible data,” Daskivich said.
This work was supported in part by a US Department of VA Merit Review. Daskivich reported receiving personal fees from the Medical Education Speakers Network, EDAP, and RAND; research support from Lantheus and Janssen; and a patent pending for a system for healthcare visit quality assessment outside the submitted work. Schoenborn, Walter, and Anderson had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
“Overtreatment of men with limited longevity for intermediate- and high-risk tumors has not only failed to improve but has actually worsened over the last 20 years,” Timothy Daskivich, MD, MSHPM, with Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said in an interview.
“Many doctors assume that the increase in uptake of active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancers has solved the problem of overtreatment, but this trend has not affected overtreatment of men with low likelihood of living long enough to benefit from treatment who have higher-risk tumors,” Daskivich said.
The study was published online on November 11 in JAMA Internal Medicine.
‘Concerning’ Real-World Data
For men with low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer expected to live fewer than 10 years, prostate cancer screening and aggressive treatment are not recommended.
Daskivich and colleagues analyzed data on 243,928 men (mean age, 66 years) in the Veterans Affairs (VA) Health System with clinically localized prostate cancer diagnosed between 2000 and 2019.
About 21% had LE < 10 years, and about 4% had LE < 5 years, according to the validated age-adjusted Prostate Cancer Comorbidity Index.
Overtreatment was defined as aggressive treatment (surgery or radiation) in those with LE < 10 years and low- to intermediate-risk disease and in those with LE < 5 years and high-risk disease, in line with current guidelines.
Among men with LE < 10 years, the proportion of men overtreated with surgery or radiotherapy for low-risk disease decreased 22% but increased 22% for intermediate-risk disease during the study period.
Among men with LE < 5 years, the proportion of men treated with definitive treatment for high-risk disease increased 29%.
“While lower-risk tumors are treated less aggressively across the board, including in men with limited longevity, it seems that we are more indiscriminately treating men with higher-risk disease without considering their expected longevity,” Daskivich said in an interview.
Is This Happening in the General US Population?
Daskivich noted that the sample included a large sample of men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer in the VA Health System.
“Rates of overtreatment are likely to be lower in the VA [Health System], so the problem may be worse in the community setting. The VA [Health System] has been exemplary in its uptake of active surveillance for low-risk cancers, leading the effort to reduce overtreatment of men with low-risk cancers. However, the problem of overtreatment of men with limited longevity persists in the VA [Health System], underscoring the pervasiveness of this problem,” he explained.
“We don’t have a perfect head-to-head comparison of overtreatment in the VA setting vs in the community. [However, one study shows] that this is not a VA-specific phenomenon and that there is an increase in overtreatment of men with limited longevity in a Medicare population as well,” Daskivich noted.
Is Overtreatment All Bad?
Overtreatment of prostate cancer, especially in cases where the cancer is unlikely to progress or cause symptoms, can lead to significant physical, psychological, and financial harms, Christopher Anderson, MD, urologist with Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York City, who wasn’t involved in the study, noted in an interview.
In the study by Daskivich and colleagues, over three quarters of the overtreatment was radiation therapy, which carries the risk for urinary, bowel, and sexual issues.
“Overscreening, which can lead to overtreatment, is a core issue,” Anderson said. It’s easy to order a “simple” prostate-specific antigen blood test, but in an older man with limited LE, that can lead to a host of further testing, he said.
Stopping the pipeline of overscreening that then feeds into the cascade of overtreatment is the first step in addressing the problem of prostate cancer overtreatment, Nancy Li Schoenborn, MD, MHS, with Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, and Louise C. Walter, MD, with University of California San Francisco, wrote in an editorial in JAMA Internal Medicine.
Considering LE during screening decision-making is “fundamental to reducing harms of prostate cancer overdiagnosis and overtreatment” because limited LE increases the likelihood of experiencing “harms all along the diagnostic and treatment cascade following screening,” the editorial writers said.
The time spent diagnosing, monitoring, and treating asymptomatic prostate cancer in men with limited LE distracts from monitoring and treating chronic symptomatic life-limiting illnesses, they noted.
Tough to Talk About?
Anderson noted that, in general, doctors are not great at estimating and counseling patients on LE. “It’s sometimes difficult to have that conversation,” he said.
Daskivich said physicians may fail to include average LE when advising patients on treatments because they believe that the patients do not want to discuss this topic. “Yet, in interviews with patients, we found that prostate cancer patients reported they wanted this information,” he continued, in an interview.
Solving the problem of overscreening and overtreatment will require a “multifaceted approach, including improving access to life expectancy data at the point of care for providers, educating providers on how to communicate this information, and improving data sources to predict longevity,” Daskivich said.
He said it’s equally important to note that some men with prostate cancer may choose treatment even if they have a limited longevity.
“Not all patients will choose conservative management, even if it is recommended by guidelines. However, they need to be given the opportunity to make a good decision for themselves with the best possible data,” Daskivich said.
This work was supported in part by a US Department of VA Merit Review. Daskivich reported receiving personal fees from the Medical Education Speakers Network, EDAP, and RAND; research support from Lantheus and Janssen; and a patent pending for a system for healthcare visit quality assessment outside the submitted work. Schoenborn, Walter, and Anderson had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Does Radiation Timing Affect QOL After Prostate Surgery?
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Delaying radiotherapy after prostatectomy can help avoid overtreatment and mitigate genitourinary and erectile toxic effects. However, few studies have compared long-term patient-reported health-related quality-of-life outcomes on the basis of the timing of postprostatectomy radiotherapy.
- Researchers evaluated 1203 men (median age, 60.5 years; 92% were White and 6.8% were Black) with localized prostate cancer who underwent radical prostatectomy from the PROST-QA (2003-2006) and RP2 Consortium (2010-2013). Among these patients, 1082 underwent surgery only, 57 received early radiotherapy (within 12 months of surgery), and 64 underwent late radiotherapy (12 months or more after surgery).
- Patients who received early radiotherapy were more likely to receive androgen deprivation therapy than those who underwent late radiotherapy (40.4% vs 12.5%; P < .001).
- Primary outcome was health-related quality of life measured using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite at baseline, 2, 6, and 12 months, and annually after that. Health-related quality-of-life measures included sexual function, urinary incontinence, urinary irritation and/or obstruction, and bowel or rectal function.
- The median follow-up duration was 85.6 months.
TAKEAWAY:
- Postprostatectomy radiotherapy was associated with a significantly greater decline in health-related quality of life across all domains, including sexual function and urinary incontinence.
- Patients who received early radiation initially experienced worse urinary incontinence and sexual health, compared with patients in the late group, but the early group also had higher-risk disease and were more likely to receive concurrent androgen deprivation therapy.
- In the long term, the early radiotherapy group experienced more pronounced recovery of sexual function, urinary irritation, and urinary incontinence than the late radiotherapy group.
- Ultimately, patients in the early radiotherapy group had similar, potentially better, long-term health-related quality-of-life domain scores than those in the late group over the long term. For instance, the likelihood of being pad free increased for patients treated early with radiation, while it decreased for those treated late. In patients who received early radiation, the rate of freedom from pad use increased from 39% before radiation to 67% at the sixth follow-up visit after radiation, while it decreased from 73% to 48% in those who received late radiation.
IN PRACTICE:
“Long-term patient-reported sexual, incontinence, and urinary irritative outcomes did not significantly differ between early vs late postprostatectomy [radiotherapy],” the authors said. In fact, “men receiving early [radiation] experienced greater recovery of these toxicity domains and achieved similar, and possibly better, domain scores as those receiving late [radiation] at long-term follow-up.” Overall, “these results may help guide treatment counseling and support consideration of early [radiotherapy] after prostatectomy for men at particularly high risk of recurrence and metastasis.”
SOURCE:
The study, led by Sagar A. Patel, MD, MSc, Emory University in Atlanta, was published online in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
The early and late postprostatectomy radiotherapy groups were relatively small and underpowered to detect statistically significant differences between groups. The study has a nonrandomized design, which may introduce unaccounted for imbalances among the different groups. The study did not directly compare health-related quality of life between patients receiving adjuvant vs salvage radiotherapy.
DISCLOSURES:
This study received funding from National Institutes of Health grants and the Paul Calabresi Career Development Award for Clinical Oncology. Several authors reported receiving personal fees, grants, and having other ties with various sources. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Delaying radiotherapy after prostatectomy can help avoid overtreatment and mitigate genitourinary and erectile toxic effects. However, few studies have compared long-term patient-reported health-related quality-of-life outcomes on the basis of the timing of postprostatectomy radiotherapy.
- Researchers evaluated 1203 men (median age, 60.5 years; 92% were White and 6.8% were Black) with localized prostate cancer who underwent radical prostatectomy from the PROST-QA (2003-2006) and RP2 Consortium (2010-2013). Among these patients, 1082 underwent surgery only, 57 received early radiotherapy (within 12 months of surgery), and 64 underwent late radiotherapy (12 months or more after surgery).
- Patients who received early radiotherapy were more likely to receive androgen deprivation therapy than those who underwent late radiotherapy (40.4% vs 12.5%; P < .001).
- Primary outcome was health-related quality of life measured using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite at baseline, 2, 6, and 12 months, and annually after that. Health-related quality-of-life measures included sexual function, urinary incontinence, urinary irritation and/or obstruction, and bowel or rectal function.
- The median follow-up duration was 85.6 months.
TAKEAWAY:
- Postprostatectomy radiotherapy was associated with a significantly greater decline in health-related quality of life across all domains, including sexual function and urinary incontinence.
- Patients who received early radiation initially experienced worse urinary incontinence and sexual health, compared with patients in the late group, but the early group also had higher-risk disease and were more likely to receive concurrent androgen deprivation therapy.
- In the long term, the early radiotherapy group experienced more pronounced recovery of sexual function, urinary irritation, and urinary incontinence than the late radiotherapy group.
- Ultimately, patients in the early radiotherapy group had similar, potentially better, long-term health-related quality-of-life domain scores than those in the late group over the long term. For instance, the likelihood of being pad free increased for patients treated early with radiation, while it decreased for those treated late. In patients who received early radiation, the rate of freedom from pad use increased from 39% before radiation to 67% at the sixth follow-up visit after radiation, while it decreased from 73% to 48% in those who received late radiation.
IN PRACTICE:
“Long-term patient-reported sexual, incontinence, and urinary irritative outcomes did not significantly differ between early vs late postprostatectomy [radiotherapy],” the authors said. In fact, “men receiving early [radiation] experienced greater recovery of these toxicity domains and achieved similar, and possibly better, domain scores as those receiving late [radiation] at long-term follow-up.” Overall, “these results may help guide treatment counseling and support consideration of early [radiotherapy] after prostatectomy for men at particularly high risk of recurrence and metastasis.”
SOURCE:
The study, led by Sagar A. Patel, MD, MSc, Emory University in Atlanta, was published online in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
The early and late postprostatectomy radiotherapy groups were relatively small and underpowered to detect statistically significant differences between groups. The study has a nonrandomized design, which may introduce unaccounted for imbalances among the different groups. The study did not directly compare health-related quality of life between patients receiving adjuvant vs salvage radiotherapy.
DISCLOSURES:
This study received funding from National Institutes of Health grants and the Paul Calabresi Career Development Award for Clinical Oncology. Several authors reported receiving personal fees, grants, and having other ties with various sources. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Delaying radiotherapy after prostatectomy can help avoid overtreatment and mitigate genitourinary and erectile toxic effects. However, few studies have compared long-term patient-reported health-related quality-of-life outcomes on the basis of the timing of postprostatectomy radiotherapy.
- Researchers evaluated 1203 men (median age, 60.5 years; 92% were White and 6.8% were Black) with localized prostate cancer who underwent radical prostatectomy from the PROST-QA (2003-2006) and RP2 Consortium (2010-2013). Among these patients, 1082 underwent surgery only, 57 received early radiotherapy (within 12 months of surgery), and 64 underwent late radiotherapy (12 months or more after surgery).
- Patients who received early radiotherapy were more likely to receive androgen deprivation therapy than those who underwent late radiotherapy (40.4% vs 12.5%; P < .001).
- Primary outcome was health-related quality of life measured using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite at baseline, 2, 6, and 12 months, and annually after that. Health-related quality-of-life measures included sexual function, urinary incontinence, urinary irritation and/or obstruction, and bowel or rectal function.
- The median follow-up duration was 85.6 months.
TAKEAWAY:
- Postprostatectomy radiotherapy was associated with a significantly greater decline in health-related quality of life across all domains, including sexual function and urinary incontinence.
- Patients who received early radiation initially experienced worse urinary incontinence and sexual health, compared with patients in the late group, but the early group also had higher-risk disease and were more likely to receive concurrent androgen deprivation therapy.
- In the long term, the early radiotherapy group experienced more pronounced recovery of sexual function, urinary irritation, and urinary incontinence than the late radiotherapy group.
- Ultimately, patients in the early radiotherapy group had similar, potentially better, long-term health-related quality-of-life domain scores than those in the late group over the long term. For instance, the likelihood of being pad free increased for patients treated early with radiation, while it decreased for those treated late. In patients who received early radiation, the rate of freedom from pad use increased from 39% before radiation to 67% at the sixth follow-up visit after radiation, while it decreased from 73% to 48% in those who received late radiation.
IN PRACTICE:
“Long-term patient-reported sexual, incontinence, and urinary irritative outcomes did not significantly differ between early vs late postprostatectomy [radiotherapy],” the authors said. In fact, “men receiving early [radiation] experienced greater recovery of these toxicity domains and achieved similar, and possibly better, domain scores as those receiving late [radiation] at long-term follow-up.” Overall, “these results may help guide treatment counseling and support consideration of early [radiotherapy] after prostatectomy for men at particularly high risk of recurrence and metastasis.”
SOURCE:
The study, led by Sagar A. Patel, MD, MSc, Emory University in Atlanta, was published online in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
The early and late postprostatectomy radiotherapy groups were relatively small and underpowered to detect statistically significant differences between groups. The study has a nonrandomized design, which may introduce unaccounted for imbalances among the different groups. The study did not directly compare health-related quality of life between patients receiving adjuvant vs salvage radiotherapy.
DISCLOSURES:
This study received funding from National Institutes of Health grants and the Paul Calabresi Career Development Award for Clinical Oncology. Several authors reported receiving personal fees, grants, and having other ties with various sources. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Prostate Cancer Treatment Associated With More Complications
TOPLINE:
Radiotherapy increases the risk for bladder cancer and radiation-specific complications, according to the new cohort study.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers conducted a cohort study to try to characterize long-term treatment-related adverse effects and complications in patients treated for prostate cancer, compared with a general population of older males.
- They used data from the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial and the Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial, linked with Medicare claims. A total of 29,196 participants were included in the study’s control group. Of 3946 patients diagnosed with prostate cancer, 655 were treated with prostatectomy, and 1056 were treated with radiotherapy.
- Participants were followed for a median of 10.2 years, with specific follow-up durations being 10.5 years and 8.5 years for the prostatectomy and radiotherapy groups, respectively.
- The study analyzed ten potential treatment-related complications using Medicare claims data, including urinary incontinence, erectile dysfunction, and secondary cancers.
- Multivariable Cox regression was used to adjust for age, race, and year of time-at-risk initiation, with stratification by study and intervention arm.
TAKEAWAY:
- At 12 years, there was a 7.23 increase in hazard risk for urinary or sexual complications for patients who had prostatectomy, compared with controls (P < .001).
- Radiotherapy-treated patients had a nearly three times greater hazard risk for bladder cancer and a 100-fold increased hazard risk for radiation-specific complications, such as radiation cystitis and radiation proctitis (P < .001).
- The incidence of any treatment-related complication per 1000 person-years was 124.26 for prostatectomy, 62.15 for radiotherapy, and 23.61 for untreated participants.
- The authors stated that these findings highlight the importance of patient counseling before prostate cancer screening and treatment.
IN PRACTICE:
“We found that, after accounting for baseline population rates, most patients with PCA undergoing treatment experience complications associated with worse quality of life and/or new health risks. The magnitude of these risks, compared with the relatively small benefit found by randomized clinical trials of PCA screening and treatment, should be explicitly reflected in national cancer screening and treatment guidelines and be integral to shared decision-making with patients before initiation of PSA screening, biopsy, or PCA treatment,” wrote the authors of the study.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Joseph M. Unger, PhD, SWOG Statistics and Data Management Center, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center in Seattle, Washington. It was published online on November 7, 2024, in JAMA Oncology.
LIMITATIONS:
The study did not account for multiple comparisons, which may affect the statistical significance of some findings. Claims data are subject to misclassification and may underreport complications that are not reported to a physician. The study did not differentiate among strategies of prostatectomy or radiotherapy, which may result in different patterns of complications. The cohort comprised men enrolled in large, randomized prevention trials, which may limit the generalizability of the incidence estimates. Confounding by unknown factors cannot be ruled out, affecting the attribution of risks to prostate cancer treatment alone.
DISCLOSURES:
Unger disclosed consulting fees from AstraZeneca and Loxo/Lilly outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported grants from the US National Cancer Institute during the conduct of the study. Another coauthor reported employment with Flatiron Health at the time of manuscript submission and review. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.
This article was created 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:
Radiotherapy increases the risk for bladder cancer and radiation-specific complications, according to the new cohort study.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers conducted a cohort study to try to characterize long-term treatment-related adverse effects and complications in patients treated for prostate cancer, compared with a general population of older males.
- They used data from the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial and the Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial, linked with Medicare claims. A total of 29,196 participants were included in the study’s control group. Of 3946 patients diagnosed with prostate cancer, 655 were treated with prostatectomy, and 1056 were treated with radiotherapy.
- Participants were followed for a median of 10.2 years, with specific follow-up durations being 10.5 years and 8.5 years for the prostatectomy and radiotherapy groups, respectively.
- The study analyzed ten potential treatment-related complications using Medicare claims data, including urinary incontinence, erectile dysfunction, and secondary cancers.
- Multivariable Cox regression was used to adjust for age, race, and year of time-at-risk initiation, with stratification by study and intervention arm.
TAKEAWAY:
- At 12 years, there was a 7.23 increase in hazard risk for urinary or sexual complications for patients who had prostatectomy, compared with controls (P < .001).
- Radiotherapy-treated patients had a nearly three times greater hazard risk for bladder cancer and a 100-fold increased hazard risk for radiation-specific complications, such as radiation cystitis and radiation proctitis (P < .001).
- The incidence of any treatment-related complication per 1000 person-years was 124.26 for prostatectomy, 62.15 for radiotherapy, and 23.61 for untreated participants.
- The authors stated that these findings highlight the importance of patient counseling before prostate cancer screening and treatment.
IN PRACTICE:
“We found that, after accounting for baseline population rates, most patients with PCA undergoing treatment experience complications associated with worse quality of life and/or new health risks. The magnitude of these risks, compared with the relatively small benefit found by randomized clinical trials of PCA screening and treatment, should be explicitly reflected in national cancer screening and treatment guidelines and be integral to shared decision-making with patients before initiation of PSA screening, biopsy, or PCA treatment,” wrote the authors of the study.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Joseph M. Unger, PhD, SWOG Statistics and Data Management Center, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center in Seattle, Washington. It was published online on November 7, 2024, in JAMA Oncology.
LIMITATIONS:
The study did not account for multiple comparisons, which may affect the statistical significance of some findings. Claims data are subject to misclassification and may underreport complications that are not reported to a physician. The study did not differentiate among strategies of prostatectomy or radiotherapy, which may result in different patterns of complications. The cohort comprised men enrolled in large, randomized prevention trials, which may limit the generalizability of the incidence estimates. Confounding by unknown factors cannot be ruled out, affecting the attribution of risks to prostate cancer treatment alone.
DISCLOSURES:
Unger disclosed consulting fees from AstraZeneca and Loxo/Lilly outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported grants from the US National Cancer Institute during the conduct of the study. Another coauthor reported employment with Flatiron Health at the time of manuscript submission and review. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.
This article was created 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:
Radiotherapy increases the risk for bladder cancer and radiation-specific complications, according to the new cohort study.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers conducted a cohort study to try to characterize long-term treatment-related adverse effects and complications in patients treated for prostate cancer, compared with a general population of older males.
- They used data from the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial and the Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial, linked with Medicare claims. A total of 29,196 participants were included in the study’s control group. Of 3946 patients diagnosed with prostate cancer, 655 were treated with prostatectomy, and 1056 were treated with radiotherapy.
- Participants were followed for a median of 10.2 years, with specific follow-up durations being 10.5 years and 8.5 years for the prostatectomy and radiotherapy groups, respectively.
- The study analyzed ten potential treatment-related complications using Medicare claims data, including urinary incontinence, erectile dysfunction, and secondary cancers.
- Multivariable Cox regression was used to adjust for age, race, and year of time-at-risk initiation, with stratification by study and intervention arm.
TAKEAWAY:
- At 12 years, there was a 7.23 increase in hazard risk for urinary or sexual complications for patients who had prostatectomy, compared with controls (P < .001).
- Radiotherapy-treated patients had a nearly three times greater hazard risk for bladder cancer and a 100-fold increased hazard risk for radiation-specific complications, such as radiation cystitis and radiation proctitis (P < .001).
- The incidence of any treatment-related complication per 1000 person-years was 124.26 for prostatectomy, 62.15 for radiotherapy, and 23.61 for untreated participants.
- The authors stated that these findings highlight the importance of patient counseling before prostate cancer screening and treatment.
IN PRACTICE:
“We found that, after accounting for baseline population rates, most patients with PCA undergoing treatment experience complications associated with worse quality of life and/or new health risks. The magnitude of these risks, compared with the relatively small benefit found by randomized clinical trials of PCA screening and treatment, should be explicitly reflected in national cancer screening and treatment guidelines and be integral to shared decision-making with patients before initiation of PSA screening, biopsy, or PCA treatment,” wrote the authors of the study.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Joseph M. Unger, PhD, SWOG Statistics and Data Management Center, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center in Seattle, Washington. It was published online on November 7, 2024, in JAMA Oncology.
LIMITATIONS:
The study did not account for multiple comparisons, which may affect the statistical significance of some findings. Claims data are subject to misclassification and may underreport complications that are not reported to a physician. The study did not differentiate among strategies of prostatectomy or radiotherapy, which may result in different patterns of complications. The cohort comprised men enrolled in large, randomized prevention trials, which may limit the generalizability of the incidence estimates. Confounding by unknown factors cannot be ruled out, affecting the attribution of risks to prostate cancer treatment alone.
DISCLOSURES:
Unger disclosed consulting fees from AstraZeneca and Loxo/Lilly outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported grants from the US National Cancer Institute during the conduct of the study. Another coauthor reported employment with Flatiron Health at the time of manuscript submission and review. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.
This article was created 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.
Gardasil 9 at 10 Years: Vaccine Protects Against Multiple Cancers
Vaccination against human papilloma virus (HPV), a group of more than 200 viruses infecting at least 50% of sexually active people over their lifetimes, has proved more than 90% effective for preventing several diseases caused by high-risk HPV types.
Gardasil 4: 2006
It started in 2006 with the approval of Human Papillomavirus Quadrivalent, types 6, 11, 16, and 18 (Gardasil 4). Merck’s vaccine began to lower rates of cervical cancer, a major global killer of women.
“It’s fair to say the vaccine has been an American and a global public health success story in reducing rates of cervical cancer,” Paula M. Cuccaro, PhD, assistant professor of health promotion and behavioral sciences at University of Texas School of Public Health, Houston, said in an interview.
How does a common virus trigger such a lethal gynecologic malignancy? “It knocks out two important cancer suppressor genes in cells,” explained Christina Annunziata,MD, PhD, a medical oncologist and senior vice president of extramural discovery science for the American Cancer Society. HPV oncoproteins are encoded by the E6 and E7 genes. As in other DNA tumor viruses, the E6 and E7 proteins functionally inactivate the tumor suppressor proteins p53 and pRB, respectively.
US Prevalence
Despite screening and vaccination, cervical cancer is still very much around. This year, 13,820 new cases of invasive cervical cancer will be diagnosed in the United States, and approximately 4360 women will die of it, according to the American Cancer Society. Even before the advent of Gardasil 4, incidence rates had already decreased by more than half from the mid-1970s to the mid-2000s, thanks largely to Pap smear screening programs for treatable premalignant lesions. “The US rate had dropped to about 20 per 100,000 women even before Gardasil 4,” said Annunziata. “After the introduction of the first vaccine, it decreased to 7 per 100,000, a decrease of about 30%, but it remains plateaued now at about the same level.”
Although the past decade has seen rates generally stabilize, there have been some changes in different age groups. In women ages 30-44, rates increased 1.7% each year from 2012 to 2019, while rates declined 11% each year for women ages 20-24— probably reflecting the impact of the first wave of prevention from Gardasil 4.
In one 2021 population-based study of US cancer registry data from 1999 to 2017, rates of both cervical squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma dropped. The largest declines occurred in females 15-20 years old, the age group most likely to be vaccinated against HPV but not typically screened, suggesting a vaccine-related effect.
Gardasil 9: 2014
With the 2014 approval of the vaccine’s second iteration, Gardasil 9, which replaced Gardasil 4 and targeted 9 HPV strains, immunization has taken broader aim. The strains covered by Gardasil 9 protect against oropharyngeal and other head and neck cancers — as well as penile, anal, vulvar, and vaginal malignancies and premalignancies, and genital warts in both sexes ages 9-45.
It may be years, however, before the impact of the newer polyvalent formulation is felt. “While the first vaccine has been successful against the prevalent strains of HPV linked to cervical cancer, it’s a little early to call it for the newer vaccine since oropharyngeal cancers tend to develop later in older men,” Cuccaro said. “But the types of HPV linked to mouth and throat cancers and covered by the newer vaccines are much less prevalent in those who are vaccinated. The strains not covered in the vaccine you see are equally present in the vaccinated and non-vaccinated.”
Angela L. Myers, MD, MPH, division director of infectious diseases and medical director of the Center for Wellbeing at Children’s Mercy in Kansas City, Missouri, added, “Unlike for cervical cancer, there are no screening programs for oropharyngeal lesions, so you have to wait to see rates until actual cancer develops.”
A 2023 review reported that HPV vaccination reduced levels of oropharyngeal HPV positivity in men, strengthening the case for pangender immunization.
And in a recent phase 3 doubled-blind trial, GARDASIL 9 reduced the incidence of anogenital persistent infection caused by nine types of HPV compared with a placebo.
Increasing Uptake
The current public health aim is to have 80% of young people in the targeted age group vaccinated with two doses. Today, uptake among those 9-26 years old stands at about 78% of girls and 75% of boys for the first dose, said Annunziata. “But it’s only about 61% for the two doses in the current series, and we want to improve that.”
Some parents may still harbor fears that immunizing teens and tweens — both the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Cancer Society recommend immunization at age 9 — will open the door to precocious sexual activity.
“But overall, uptake in tweens and young teens has increased because the messaging has changed,” said Myers, with the rationale now focusing on cancer prevention not sexual-infection prophylaxis. “This is similar to the hepatitis B vaccine, which used to be given to young adults and is now given to newborns to prevent cancer.”
Cuccaro added that a proactive presentation by healthcare professionals has a significant effect on vaccine uptake and increases the odds of vaccination ninefold. “Providers should take a presumptive approach and avoid just offering the vaccine as an option. It should be included with regular childhood vaccinations,” she said. “And the advantage of starting early at age 9 is that you can spread the doses out across other regular childhood vaccinations, whereas if you start at age 11, you need to add the HPV vaccine to three other vaccines that are given at that time.”
After age 15, three doses are necessary. “Providers should stress to parents that it’s most effective when given before young people become sexually active and exposed to HPV,” Cuccaro said. And Myers stressed that despite the vaccine’s effectiveness, routine screening for cervical premalignancies is still important.
Despite increasing coverage, vaccination rates have some distance to go before the public health target of at least 80% uptake of the series in the targeted age group, Cuccaro cautioned.
On the global stage, barriers to immunization remain, but the World Health Organization has endorsed a campaign to eradicate cervical cancer through HPV vaccination. It has predicted that the 21st century may be the last to experience HPV-associated cancers, currently responsible for more than 300,000 annual deaths worldwide.
A Brief History of HPV Vaccines
- 1951. Cervical cancer patient Henrietta Lacks’ rapidly dividing cervical cells are collected by George Otto Gey at Johns Hopkins Hospital. They create the first immortal cell line (HeLa) used to study cancers and vaccines worldwide.
- 1976. Harald zur Hausen suggests that genital wart-associated HPV, not herpes simplex, is the probable cause of cervical cancer.
- 1983. HPV is confirmed as a cause of cancer.
- 1991. The first HPV vaccine is developed.
- 2002. Proof of principle and protective efficacy for the monovalent HPV 16 are shown.
- 2006. Merck’s Gardasil 4 (HPV 4) is FDA approved in girls ages 9-26 for protection against strains 6, 11, 16, and 18 — the cause of more than 70% of cervical cancer cases.
- 2009. Approval of Gardasil 4 is expanded to boys ages 9-26 for the prevention of genital warts.
- 2009. The FDA approves GlaxoSmithKline’s Cervarix (HPV 16 and 18) for girls and young women. The vaccine was withdrawn from the US market in 2016 following the success of Gardasil 9 but is used abroad for HPV cancer prevention.
- 2014. The 9-valent recombinant vaccine Gardasil 9 is FDA approved for protection against several low-risk, wart-causing HPV strains as well as the high-risk cancer strains targeted by HPV 4.
- 2018. The FDA expands approval to include females and males 27-45 years old.
- 2020. The FDA extends approval of Gardasil 9 to include prevention not only of cervical cancer but also, vaginal, vulvar, anal, oropharyngeal, and other head and neck cancers.
Annunziata, Cuccaro, and Myers had no competing interests to declare.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Vaccination against human papilloma virus (HPV), a group of more than 200 viruses infecting at least 50% of sexually active people over their lifetimes, has proved more than 90% effective for preventing several diseases caused by high-risk HPV types.
Gardasil 4: 2006
It started in 2006 with the approval of Human Papillomavirus Quadrivalent, types 6, 11, 16, and 18 (Gardasil 4). Merck’s vaccine began to lower rates of cervical cancer, a major global killer of women.
“It’s fair to say the vaccine has been an American and a global public health success story in reducing rates of cervical cancer,” Paula M. Cuccaro, PhD, assistant professor of health promotion and behavioral sciences at University of Texas School of Public Health, Houston, said in an interview.
How does a common virus trigger such a lethal gynecologic malignancy? “It knocks out two important cancer suppressor genes in cells,” explained Christina Annunziata,MD, PhD, a medical oncologist and senior vice president of extramural discovery science for the American Cancer Society. HPV oncoproteins are encoded by the E6 and E7 genes. As in other DNA tumor viruses, the E6 and E7 proteins functionally inactivate the tumor suppressor proteins p53 and pRB, respectively.
US Prevalence
Despite screening and vaccination, cervical cancer is still very much around. This year, 13,820 new cases of invasive cervical cancer will be diagnosed in the United States, and approximately 4360 women will die of it, according to the American Cancer Society. Even before the advent of Gardasil 4, incidence rates had already decreased by more than half from the mid-1970s to the mid-2000s, thanks largely to Pap smear screening programs for treatable premalignant lesions. “The US rate had dropped to about 20 per 100,000 women even before Gardasil 4,” said Annunziata. “After the introduction of the first vaccine, it decreased to 7 per 100,000, a decrease of about 30%, but it remains plateaued now at about the same level.”
Although the past decade has seen rates generally stabilize, there have been some changes in different age groups. In women ages 30-44, rates increased 1.7% each year from 2012 to 2019, while rates declined 11% each year for women ages 20-24— probably reflecting the impact of the first wave of prevention from Gardasil 4.
In one 2021 population-based study of US cancer registry data from 1999 to 2017, rates of both cervical squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma dropped. The largest declines occurred in females 15-20 years old, the age group most likely to be vaccinated against HPV but not typically screened, suggesting a vaccine-related effect.
Gardasil 9: 2014
With the 2014 approval of the vaccine’s second iteration, Gardasil 9, which replaced Gardasil 4 and targeted 9 HPV strains, immunization has taken broader aim. The strains covered by Gardasil 9 protect against oropharyngeal and other head and neck cancers — as well as penile, anal, vulvar, and vaginal malignancies and premalignancies, and genital warts in both sexes ages 9-45.
It may be years, however, before the impact of the newer polyvalent formulation is felt. “While the first vaccine has been successful against the prevalent strains of HPV linked to cervical cancer, it’s a little early to call it for the newer vaccine since oropharyngeal cancers tend to develop later in older men,” Cuccaro said. “But the types of HPV linked to mouth and throat cancers and covered by the newer vaccines are much less prevalent in those who are vaccinated. The strains not covered in the vaccine you see are equally present in the vaccinated and non-vaccinated.”
Angela L. Myers, MD, MPH, division director of infectious diseases and medical director of the Center for Wellbeing at Children’s Mercy in Kansas City, Missouri, added, “Unlike for cervical cancer, there are no screening programs for oropharyngeal lesions, so you have to wait to see rates until actual cancer develops.”
A 2023 review reported that HPV vaccination reduced levels of oropharyngeal HPV positivity in men, strengthening the case for pangender immunization.
And in a recent phase 3 doubled-blind trial, GARDASIL 9 reduced the incidence of anogenital persistent infection caused by nine types of HPV compared with a placebo.
Increasing Uptake
The current public health aim is to have 80% of young people in the targeted age group vaccinated with two doses. Today, uptake among those 9-26 years old stands at about 78% of girls and 75% of boys for the first dose, said Annunziata. “But it’s only about 61% for the two doses in the current series, and we want to improve that.”
Some parents may still harbor fears that immunizing teens and tweens — both the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Cancer Society recommend immunization at age 9 — will open the door to precocious sexual activity.
“But overall, uptake in tweens and young teens has increased because the messaging has changed,” said Myers, with the rationale now focusing on cancer prevention not sexual-infection prophylaxis. “This is similar to the hepatitis B vaccine, which used to be given to young adults and is now given to newborns to prevent cancer.”
Cuccaro added that a proactive presentation by healthcare professionals has a significant effect on vaccine uptake and increases the odds of vaccination ninefold. “Providers should take a presumptive approach and avoid just offering the vaccine as an option. It should be included with regular childhood vaccinations,” she said. “And the advantage of starting early at age 9 is that you can spread the doses out across other regular childhood vaccinations, whereas if you start at age 11, you need to add the HPV vaccine to three other vaccines that are given at that time.”
After age 15, three doses are necessary. “Providers should stress to parents that it’s most effective when given before young people become sexually active and exposed to HPV,” Cuccaro said. And Myers stressed that despite the vaccine’s effectiveness, routine screening for cervical premalignancies is still important.
Despite increasing coverage, vaccination rates have some distance to go before the public health target of at least 80% uptake of the series in the targeted age group, Cuccaro cautioned.
On the global stage, barriers to immunization remain, but the World Health Organization has endorsed a campaign to eradicate cervical cancer through HPV vaccination. It has predicted that the 21st century may be the last to experience HPV-associated cancers, currently responsible for more than 300,000 annual deaths worldwide.
A Brief History of HPV Vaccines
- 1951. Cervical cancer patient Henrietta Lacks’ rapidly dividing cervical cells are collected by George Otto Gey at Johns Hopkins Hospital. They create the first immortal cell line (HeLa) used to study cancers and vaccines worldwide.
- 1976. Harald zur Hausen suggests that genital wart-associated HPV, not herpes simplex, is the probable cause of cervical cancer.
- 1983. HPV is confirmed as a cause of cancer.
- 1991. The first HPV vaccine is developed.
- 2002. Proof of principle and protective efficacy for the monovalent HPV 16 are shown.
- 2006. Merck’s Gardasil 4 (HPV 4) is FDA approved in girls ages 9-26 for protection against strains 6, 11, 16, and 18 — the cause of more than 70% of cervical cancer cases.
- 2009. Approval of Gardasil 4 is expanded to boys ages 9-26 for the prevention of genital warts.
- 2009. The FDA approves GlaxoSmithKline’s Cervarix (HPV 16 and 18) for girls and young women. The vaccine was withdrawn from the US market in 2016 following the success of Gardasil 9 but is used abroad for HPV cancer prevention.
- 2014. The 9-valent recombinant vaccine Gardasil 9 is FDA approved for protection against several low-risk, wart-causing HPV strains as well as the high-risk cancer strains targeted by HPV 4.
- 2018. The FDA expands approval to include females and males 27-45 years old.
- 2020. The FDA extends approval of Gardasil 9 to include prevention not only of cervical cancer but also, vaginal, vulvar, anal, oropharyngeal, and other head and neck cancers.
Annunziata, Cuccaro, and Myers had no competing interests to declare.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Vaccination against human papilloma virus (HPV), a group of more than 200 viruses infecting at least 50% of sexually active people over their lifetimes, has proved more than 90% effective for preventing several diseases caused by high-risk HPV types.
Gardasil 4: 2006
It started in 2006 with the approval of Human Papillomavirus Quadrivalent, types 6, 11, 16, and 18 (Gardasil 4). Merck’s vaccine began to lower rates of cervical cancer, a major global killer of women.
“It’s fair to say the vaccine has been an American and a global public health success story in reducing rates of cervical cancer,” Paula M. Cuccaro, PhD, assistant professor of health promotion and behavioral sciences at University of Texas School of Public Health, Houston, said in an interview.
How does a common virus trigger such a lethal gynecologic malignancy? “It knocks out two important cancer suppressor genes in cells,” explained Christina Annunziata,MD, PhD, a medical oncologist and senior vice president of extramural discovery science for the American Cancer Society. HPV oncoproteins are encoded by the E6 and E7 genes. As in other DNA tumor viruses, the E6 and E7 proteins functionally inactivate the tumor suppressor proteins p53 and pRB, respectively.
US Prevalence
Despite screening and vaccination, cervical cancer is still very much around. This year, 13,820 new cases of invasive cervical cancer will be diagnosed in the United States, and approximately 4360 women will die of it, according to the American Cancer Society. Even before the advent of Gardasil 4, incidence rates had already decreased by more than half from the mid-1970s to the mid-2000s, thanks largely to Pap smear screening programs for treatable premalignant lesions. “The US rate had dropped to about 20 per 100,000 women even before Gardasil 4,” said Annunziata. “After the introduction of the first vaccine, it decreased to 7 per 100,000, a decrease of about 30%, but it remains plateaued now at about the same level.”
Although the past decade has seen rates generally stabilize, there have been some changes in different age groups. In women ages 30-44, rates increased 1.7% each year from 2012 to 2019, while rates declined 11% each year for women ages 20-24— probably reflecting the impact of the first wave of prevention from Gardasil 4.
In one 2021 population-based study of US cancer registry data from 1999 to 2017, rates of both cervical squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma dropped. The largest declines occurred in females 15-20 years old, the age group most likely to be vaccinated against HPV but not typically screened, suggesting a vaccine-related effect.
Gardasil 9: 2014
With the 2014 approval of the vaccine’s second iteration, Gardasil 9, which replaced Gardasil 4 and targeted 9 HPV strains, immunization has taken broader aim. The strains covered by Gardasil 9 protect against oropharyngeal and other head and neck cancers — as well as penile, anal, vulvar, and vaginal malignancies and premalignancies, and genital warts in both sexes ages 9-45.
It may be years, however, before the impact of the newer polyvalent formulation is felt. “While the first vaccine has been successful against the prevalent strains of HPV linked to cervical cancer, it’s a little early to call it for the newer vaccine since oropharyngeal cancers tend to develop later in older men,” Cuccaro said. “But the types of HPV linked to mouth and throat cancers and covered by the newer vaccines are much less prevalent in those who are vaccinated. The strains not covered in the vaccine you see are equally present in the vaccinated and non-vaccinated.”
Angela L. Myers, MD, MPH, division director of infectious diseases and medical director of the Center for Wellbeing at Children’s Mercy in Kansas City, Missouri, added, “Unlike for cervical cancer, there are no screening programs for oropharyngeal lesions, so you have to wait to see rates until actual cancer develops.”
A 2023 review reported that HPV vaccination reduced levels of oropharyngeal HPV positivity in men, strengthening the case for pangender immunization.
And in a recent phase 3 doubled-blind trial, GARDASIL 9 reduced the incidence of anogenital persistent infection caused by nine types of HPV compared with a placebo.
Increasing Uptake
The current public health aim is to have 80% of young people in the targeted age group vaccinated with two doses. Today, uptake among those 9-26 years old stands at about 78% of girls and 75% of boys for the first dose, said Annunziata. “But it’s only about 61% for the two doses in the current series, and we want to improve that.”
Some parents may still harbor fears that immunizing teens and tweens — both the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Cancer Society recommend immunization at age 9 — will open the door to precocious sexual activity.
“But overall, uptake in tweens and young teens has increased because the messaging has changed,” said Myers, with the rationale now focusing on cancer prevention not sexual-infection prophylaxis. “This is similar to the hepatitis B vaccine, which used to be given to young adults and is now given to newborns to prevent cancer.”
Cuccaro added that a proactive presentation by healthcare professionals has a significant effect on vaccine uptake and increases the odds of vaccination ninefold. “Providers should take a presumptive approach and avoid just offering the vaccine as an option. It should be included with regular childhood vaccinations,” she said. “And the advantage of starting early at age 9 is that you can spread the doses out across other regular childhood vaccinations, whereas if you start at age 11, you need to add the HPV vaccine to three other vaccines that are given at that time.”
After age 15, three doses are necessary. “Providers should stress to parents that it’s most effective when given before young people become sexually active and exposed to HPV,” Cuccaro said. And Myers stressed that despite the vaccine’s effectiveness, routine screening for cervical premalignancies is still important.
Despite increasing coverage, vaccination rates have some distance to go before the public health target of at least 80% uptake of the series in the targeted age group, Cuccaro cautioned.
On the global stage, barriers to immunization remain, but the World Health Organization has endorsed a campaign to eradicate cervical cancer through HPV vaccination. It has predicted that the 21st century may be the last to experience HPV-associated cancers, currently responsible for more than 300,000 annual deaths worldwide.
A Brief History of HPV Vaccines
- 1951. Cervical cancer patient Henrietta Lacks’ rapidly dividing cervical cells are collected by George Otto Gey at Johns Hopkins Hospital. They create the first immortal cell line (HeLa) used to study cancers and vaccines worldwide.
- 1976. Harald zur Hausen suggests that genital wart-associated HPV, not herpes simplex, is the probable cause of cervical cancer.
- 1983. HPV is confirmed as a cause of cancer.
- 1991. The first HPV vaccine is developed.
- 2002. Proof of principle and protective efficacy for the monovalent HPV 16 are shown.
- 2006. Merck’s Gardasil 4 (HPV 4) is FDA approved in girls ages 9-26 for protection against strains 6, 11, 16, and 18 — the cause of more than 70% of cervical cancer cases.
- 2009. Approval of Gardasil 4 is expanded to boys ages 9-26 for the prevention of genital warts.
- 2009. The FDA approves GlaxoSmithKline’s Cervarix (HPV 16 and 18) for girls and young women. The vaccine was withdrawn from the US market in 2016 following the success of Gardasil 9 but is used abroad for HPV cancer prevention.
- 2014. The 9-valent recombinant vaccine Gardasil 9 is FDA approved for protection against several low-risk, wart-causing HPV strains as well as the high-risk cancer strains targeted by HPV 4.
- 2018. The FDA expands approval to include females and males 27-45 years old.
- 2020. The FDA extends approval of Gardasil 9 to include prevention not only of cervical cancer but also, vaginal, vulvar, anal, oropharyngeal, and other head and neck cancers.
Annunziata, Cuccaro, and Myers had no competing interests to declare.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Is Being ‘Manly’ a Threat to a Man’s Health?
When my normally adorable cat Biscuit bit my ankle in a playful stalking exercise gone wrong, I washed it with soap and some rubbing alcohol, slapped on a Band-Aid, and went about my day.
The next morning, when it was swollen, I told myself it was probably just a hematoma and went about my day.
The next day, when the swelling had increased and red lines started creeping up my leg, I called my doctor. Long story short, I ended up hospitalized for intravenous antibiotics.
This is all to say that, yes, I’m sort of an idiot, but also to introduce the idea that maybe I minimized my very obvious lymphangitis because I am a man.
This week, we have empirical evidence that men downplay their medical symptoms — and that manlier men downplay them even more.
I’m going to talk about a study that links manliness (or, scientifically speaking, “male gender expressivity”) to medical diagnoses that are based on hard evidence and medical diagnoses that are based on self-report. You see where this is going but I want to walk you through the methods here because they are fairly interesting.
This study used data from the US National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health. This study enrolled 20,000 adolescents who were in grades 7-12 in the 1994-1995 school year and has been following them ever since — about 30 years so far.
The authors wanted to link early gender roles to long-term outcomes, so they cut that 20,000 number down to the 4230 males in the group who had complete follow-up.
Now comes the first interesting question. How do you quantify the “male gender expressivity” of boys in 7th-12th grade? There was no survey item that asked them how masculine or manly they felt. What the authors did was look at the surveys that were administered and identify the questions on those surveys where boys and girls gave the most disparate answers. I have some examples here. 
Some of these questions make sense when it comes to gender expressivity: “How often do you cry?” for example, has a lot of validity for the social construct that is gender. But some questions where boys and girls gave very different answers — like “How often do you exercise?” — don’t quite fit that mold. Regardless, this structure allowed the researchers to take individual kids’ responses to these questions and combine them into what amounts to a manliness score — how much their answers aligned with the typical male answer.
The score was established in adolescence — which is interesting because I’m sure some of this stuff may change over time — but notable because adolescence is where many gender roles develop.
Now we can fast-forward 30 years and see how these manliness scores link to various outcomes. The authors were interested in fairly common diseases: diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia.
Let’s start simply. Are males with higher gender expressivity in adolescence more or less likely to have these diseases in the future?
Not really. Those above the average in male gender expressivity had similar rates of hypertension and hyperlipidemia as those below the median. They were actually a bit less likely to have diabetes.
But that’s not what’s really interesting here.
I told you that there was no difference in the rate of hypertension among those with high vs low male gender expressivity. But there was a significant difference in their answer to the question “Do you have hypertension?” The same was seen for hyperlipidemia. In other words, those with higher manliness scores are less likely to admit (or perhaps know) that they have a particular disease.
You can see the relationship across the manliness spectrum here in a series of adjusted models. The x-axis is the male gender expressivity score, and the y-axis is the percentage of people who report having the disease that we know they have based on the actual laboratory tests or vital sign measurements. As manliness increases, the self-report of a given disease decreases.
There are some important consequences of this systematic denial. Specifically, men with the diseases of interest who have higher male gender expressivity are less likely to get treatment. And, as we all know, the lack of treatment of something like hypertension puts people at risk for bad downstream outcomes.
Putting this all together, I’m not that surprised. Society trains boys from a young age to behave in certain ways: to hide emotions, to eschew vulnerability, to not complain when we are hurt. And those lessons can persist into later life. Whether the disease that strikes is hypertension or Pasteurella multocida from a slightly psychotic house cat, men are more likely to ignore it, to their detriment. 
So, gents, be brave. Get your blood tests and check your blood pressure. If there’s something wrong, admit it, and fix it. After all, fixing problems — that’s a manly thing, right?
Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
When my normally adorable cat Biscuit bit my ankle in a playful stalking exercise gone wrong, I washed it with soap and some rubbing alcohol, slapped on a Band-Aid, and went about my day.
The next morning, when it was swollen, I told myself it was probably just a hematoma and went about my day.
The next day, when the swelling had increased and red lines started creeping up my leg, I called my doctor. Long story short, I ended up hospitalized for intravenous antibiotics.
This is all to say that, yes, I’m sort of an idiot, but also to introduce the idea that maybe I minimized my very obvious lymphangitis because I am a man.
This week, we have empirical evidence that men downplay their medical symptoms — and that manlier men downplay them even more.
I’m going to talk about a study that links manliness (or, scientifically speaking, “male gender expressivity”) to medical diagnoses that are based on hard evidence and medical diagnoses that are based on self-report. You see where this is going but I want to walk you through the methods here because they are fairly interesting.
This study used data from the US National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health. This study enrolled 20,000 adolescents who were in grades 7-12 in the 1994-1995 school year and has been following them ever since — about 30 years so far.
The authors wanted to link early gender roles to long-term outcomes, so they cut that 20,000 number down to the 4230 males in the group who had complete follow-up.
Now comes the first interesting question. How do you quantify the “male gender expressivity” of boys in 7th-12th grade? There was no survey item that asked them how masculine or manly they felt. What the authors did was look at the surveys that were administered and identify the questions on those surveys where boys and girls gave the most disparate answers. I have some examples here.
Some of these questions make sense when it comes to gender expressivity: “How often do you cry?” for example, has a lot of validity for the social construct that is gender. But some questions where boys and girls gave very different answers — like “How often do you exercise?” — don’t quite fit that mold. Regardless, this structure allowed the researchers to take individual kids’ responses to these questions and combine them into what amounts to a manliness score — how much their answers aligned with the typical male answer.
The score was established in adolescence — which is interesting because I’m sure some of this stuff may change over time — but notable because adolescence is where many gender roles develop.
Now we can fast-forward 30 years and see how these manliness scores link to various outcomes. The authors were interested in fairly common diseases: diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia.
Let’s start simply. Are males with higher gender expressivity in adolescence more or less likely to have these diseases in the future?
Not really. Those above the average in male gender expressivity had similar rates of hypertension and hyperlipidemia as those below the median. They were actually a bit less likely to have diabetes.
But that’s not what’s really interesting here.
I told you that there was no difference in the rate of hypertension among those with high vs low male gender expressivity. But there was a significant difference in their answer to the question “Do you have hypertension?” The same was seen for hyperlipidemia. In other words, those with higher manliness scores are less likely to admit (or perhaps know) that they have a particular disease.
You can see the relationship across the manliness spectrum here in a series of adjusted models. The x-axis is the male gender expressivity score, and the y-axis is the percentage of people who report having the disease that we know they have based on the actual laboratory tests or vital sign measurements. As manliness increases, the self-report of a given disease decreases.
There are some important consequences of this systematic denial. Specifically, men with the diseases of interest who have higher male gender expressivity are less likely to get treatment. And, as we all know, the lack of treatment of something like hypertension puts people at risk for bad downstream outcomes.
Putting this all together, I’m not that surprised. Society trains boys from a young age to behave in certain ways: to hide emotions, to eschew vulnerability, to not complain when we are hurt. And those lessons can persist into later life. Whether the disease that strikes is hypertension or Pasteurella multocida from a slightly psychotic house cat, men are more likely to ignore it, to their detriment.
So, gents, be brave. Get your blood tests and check your blood pressure. If there’s something wrong, admit it, and fix it. After all, fixing problems — that’s a manly thing, right?
Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
When my normally adorable cat Biscuit bit my ankle in a playful stalking exercise gone wrong, I washed it with soap and some rubbing alcohol, slapped on a Band-Aid, and went about my day.
The next morning, when it was swollen, I told myself it was probably just a hematoma and went about my day.
The next day, when the swelling had increased and red lines started creeping up my leg, I called my doctor. Long story short, I ended up hospitalized for intravenous antibiotics.
This is all to say that, yes, I’m sort of an idiot, but also to introduce the idea that maybe I minimized my very obvious lymphangitis because I am a man.
This week, we have empirical evidence that men downplay their medical symptoms — and that manlier men downplay them even more.
I’m going to talk about a study that links manliness (or, scientifically speaking, “male gender expressivity”) to medical diagnoses that are based on hard evidence and medical diagnoses that are based on self-report. You see where this is going but I want to walk you through the methods here because they are fairly interesting.
This study used data from the US National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health. This study enrolled 20,000 adolescents who were in grades 7-12 in the 1994-1995 school year and has been following them ever since — about 30 years so far.
The authors wanted to link early gender roles to long-term outcomes, so they cut that 20,000 number down to the 4230 males in the group who had complete follow-up.
Now comes the first interesting question. How do you quantify the “male gender expressivity” of boys in 7th-12th grade? There was no survey item that asked them how masculine or manly they felt. What the authors did was look at the surveys that were administered and identify the questions on those surveys where boys and girls gave the most disparate answers. I have some examples here.
Some of these questions make sense when it comes to gender expressivity: “How often do you cry?” for example, has a lot of validity for the social construct that is gender. But some questions where boys and girls gave very different answers — like “How often do you exercise?” — don’t quite fit that mold. Regardless, this structure allowed the researchers to take individual kids’ responses to these questions and combine them into what amounts to a manliness score — how much their answers aligned with the typical male answer.
The score was established in adolescence — which is interesting because I’m sure some of this stuff may change over time — but notable because adolescence is where many gender roles develop.
Now we can fast-forward 30 years and see how these manliness scores link to various outcomes. The authors were interested in fairly common diseases: diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia.
Let’s start simply. Are males with higher gender expressivity in adolescence more or less likely to have these diseases in the future?
Not really. Those above the average in male gender expressivity had similar rates of hypertension and hyperlipidemia as those below the median. They were actually a bit less likely to have diabetes.
But that’s not what’s really interesting here.
I told you that there was no difference in the rate of hypertension among those with high vs low male gender expressivity. But there was a significant difference in their answer to the question “Do you have hypertension?” The same was seen for hyperlipidemia. In other words, those with higher manliness scores are less likely to admit (or perhaps know) that they have a particular disease.
You can see the relationship across the manliness spectrum here in a series of adjusted models. The x-axis is the male gender expressivity score, and the y-axis is the percentage of people who report having the disease that we know they have based on the actual laboratory tests or vital sign measurements. As manliness increases, the self-report of a given disease decreases.
There are some important consequences of this systematic denial. Specifically, men with the diseases of interest who have higher male gender expressivity are less likely to get treatment. And, as we all know, the lack of treatment of something like hypertension puts people at risk for bad downstream outcomes.
Putting this all together, I’m not that surprised. Society trains boys from a young age to behave in certain ways: to hide emotions, to eschew vulnerability, to not complain when we are hurt. And those lessons can persist into later life. Whether the disease that strikes is hypertension or Pasteurella multocida from a slightly psychotic house cat, men are more likely to ignore it, to their detriment.
So, gents, be brave. Get your blood tests and check your blood pressure. If there’s something wrong, admit it, and fix it. After all, fixing problems — that’s a manly thing, right?
Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The Genitals Are a Window Into Health: Sex as a Vital Sign
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Rachel S. Rubin, MD: I’m Dr. Rachel Rubin, a urologist and sexual medicine specialist in the Washington, DC, area. And I am so thrilled because my co-fellow, the brilliant and famous Dr. Ashley Winter, a board-certified urologist and a certified menopause practitioner, who sees patients in our practice from Los Angeles, is joining us today to talk about sex as a vital sign.
Ashley Winter, MD: To have the best sexual function, you need many different systems to work. You need your hormones to be in the right place. You need your blood vessels to dilate when you want them to. You need your nerves to connect to your genitalia to make them responsive. The way people say, “The eyes are the window into the soul” — well, the genitals are the window into the cardiovascular system, the peripheral nervous system, and the hormonal system. It’s so dynamic. Patients can understand how this reflects their health. We just need healthcare providers to hammer home how those things connect.
Rubin: If you’re a primary care doctor seeing a patient and you want to educate them on diabetes or high blood pressure, how can you “ ‘sell it with ‘sex”? How can you use sex to educate them about these important medical conditions?
Winter: I hate using it as a fear tactic, but sometimes you have to. Time and again, I’ve seen men with severe profound erectile dysfunction at a young age, with chronically uncontrolled diabetes.
Diabetes can impair the peripheral nerves, resulting in peripheral neuropathy. The same way that it can affect the fingers and toes, diabetes can affect the penis, even before those other areas. Diabetes can also lead to other conditions such as low testosterone, which also affects the function of the penis.
I’m being brutally honest when I tell patients that diabetes control is critical to having a wonderful sexspan — the duration of your life where you’re able to be sexually active and have great sex and do it in the way that you want.
Chronic conditions such as high cholesterol or hypertension can affect your ability to become erect or aroused whether you have a penis or a vulva, and even your ability to have an orgasm.
Rubin: None of my doctors has ever asked me about these issues. But we have to bring them up with patients because they›re not going to bring them up to us. I always say in the review of systems, we shouldn›t just ask, “Do you have any sexual problems?” (which nobody ever does) and move past the question about men, women or both. We should be asking, “Do you have any issues with libido? Do you want to talk about it? Any issues with erection, arousal, orgasm, or sexual pain?”
When you can talk about those things, you can treat the patient from a whole physiologic perspective. For example, how does their sciatica affect their sexual pain? How does their antidepressant cause a delayed orgasm? How does their low testosterone level affect their energy level, their libido, and their desire?
We see so much shame and guilt in sexual health, to the extent that patients feel broken. We can help them understand the anatomy and physiology and explain that they aren’t broken. Instead, it’s “You need this medicine for your crippling anxiety, and that’s why your orgasm is delayed, and so can we augment it or add or subtract something to help you with it.”
Winter: In a primary care setting, where we are considering the patient›s overall health, we strive for medication compliance, but a huge part of medication noncompliance is sexual side effects, whether it›s antidepressants, beta-blockers, birth control, or this new world of GLP-1 agonists.
Rubin: I would add breast cancer treatments. Many patients go off their anastrozole or their tamoxifen because of the sexual side effects.
Winter: This is where we get to the crux of this discussion about sex being a vital sign — something you need to check routinely. We need to become comfortable with it, because then we are unlocking the ability to treat every patient like a whole person, give them better outcomes, improve their compliance, and have a really powerful tool for education.
Rubin: We have a growing toolbox for all genders when it comes to sexual health. We have FDA- approved medications for low libido in women. We use testosterone in men in an evidence-based way to safely improve libido. We use medications to help with the genitourinary syndrome of menopause. Orgasm is a challenging one, but we have devices that can help with those reflexes. And working with people who specialize in sexual pain can be extremely helpful for patients.
Dr. Winter, having practiced in different settings, what would you tell the primary care doctors who don’t want to talk about libido or who minimize sexual complaints because they don’t know how to navigate them?
Winter: I do not envy the challenge of being a primary care provider in the healthcare world we are living in. I think it is the hardest job. The ultimate takeaway is to just normalize the conversation and be able to validate what is happening. Have a few basic tools, and then have referrals. It›s not that you have to have all the time in the world or you have to treat every condition, but you have to start the conversation, be comfortable with it, and then get patients hooked up with the right resources.
Rubin: Every doctor of every kind can connect with patients and try to understand what they care about. What are their goals? What do they want for their families, for their relationships, for their quality of life? And how can we work collaboratively as a team to help them with those things?
Sex is a huge part of people’s lives. If we don’t ask about it; if we don’t look into it; and if we don’t admit that our physiology, our medications, and our surgeries can affect sexual health and functioning, how can we improve people’s lives? We can do so much as a team when we consider sex as a true vital sign.
Dr. Rubin, Assistant Clinical Professor, Department of Urology, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, has disclosed ties with Maternal Medical, Absorption Pharmaceuticals, GlaxoSmithKline, and Endo.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Rachel S. Rubin, MD: I’m Dr. Rachel Rubin, a urologist and sexual medicine specialist in the Washington, DC, area. And I am so thrilled because my co-fellow, the brilliant and famous Dr. Ashley Winter, a board-certified urologist and a certified menopause practitioner, who sees patients in our practice from Los Angeles, is joining us today to talk about sex as a vital sign.
Ashley Winter, MD: To have the best sexual function, you need many different systems to work. You need your hormones to be in the right place. You need your blood vessels to dilate when you want them to. You need your nerves to connect to your genitalia to make them responsive. The way people say, “The eyes are the window into the soul” — well, the genitals are the window into the cardiovascular system, the peripheral nervous system, and the hormonal system. It’s so dynamic. Patients can understand how this reflects their health. We just need healthcare providers to hammer home how those things connect.
Rubin: If you’re a primary care doctor seeing a patient and you want to educate them on diabetes or high blood pressure, how can you “ ‘sell it with ‘sex”? How can you use sex to educate them about these important medical conditions?
Winter: I hate using it as a fear tactic, but sometimes you have to. Time and again, I’ve seen men with severe profound erectile dysfunction at a young age, with chronically uncontrolled diabetes.
Diabetes can impair the peripheral nerves, resulting in peripheral neuropathy. The same way that it can affect the fingers and toes, diabetes can affect the penis, even before those other areas. Diabetes can also lead to other conditions such as low testosterone, which also affects the function of the penis.
I’m being brutally honest when I tell patients that diabetes control is critical to having a wonderful sexspan — the duration of your life where you’re able to be sexually active and have great sex and do it in the way that you want.
Chronic conditions such as high cholesterol or hypertension can affect your ability to become erect or aroused whether you have a penis or a vulva, and even your ability to have an orgasm.
Rubin: None of my doctors has ever asked me about these issues. But we have to bring them up with patients because they›re not going to bring them up to us. I always say in the review of systems, we shouldn›t just ask, “Do you have any sexual problems?” (which nobody ever does) and move past the question about men, women or both. We should be asking, “Do you have any issues with libido? Do you want to talk about it? Any issues with erection, arousal, orgasm, or sexual pain?”
When you can talk about those things, you can treat the patient from a whole physiologic perspective. For example, how does their sciatica affect their sexual pain? How does their antidepressant cause a delayed orgasm? How does their low testosterone level affect their energy level, their libido, and their desire?
We see so much shame and guilt in sexual health, to the extent that patients feel broken. We can help them understand the anatomy and physiology and explain that they aren’t broken. Instead, it’s “You need this medicine for your crippling anxiety, and that’s why your orgasm is delayed, and so can we augment it or add or subtract something to help you with it.”
Winter: In a primary care setting, where we are considering the patient›s overall health, we strive for medication compliance, but a huge part of medication noncompliance is sexual side effects, whether it›s antidepressants, beta-blockers, birth control, or this new world of GLP-1 agonists.
Rubin: I would add breast cancer treatments. Many patients go off their anastrozole or their tamoxifen because of the sexual side effects.
Winter: This is where we get to the crux of this discussion about sex being a vital sign — something you need to check routinely. We need to become comfortable with it, because then we are unlocking the ability to treat every patient like a whole person, give them better outcomes, improve their compliance, and have a really powerful tool for education.
Rubin: We have a growing toolbox for all genders when it comes to sexual health. We have FDA- approved medications for low libido in women. We use testosterone in men in an evidence-based way to safely improve libido. We use medications to help with the genitourinary syndrome of menopause. Orgasm is a challenging one, but we have devices that can help with those reflexes. And working with people who specialize in sexual pain can be extremely helpful for patients.
Dr. Winter, having practiced in different settings, what would you tell the primary care doctors who don’t want to talk about libido or who minimize sexual complaints because they don’t know how to navigate them?
Winter: I do not envy the challenge of being a primary care provider in the healthcare world we are living in. I think it is the hardest job. The ultimate takeaway is to just normalize the conversation and be able to validate what is happening. Have a few basic tools, and then have referrals. It›s not that you have to have all the time in the world or you have to treat every condition, but you have to start the conversation, be comfortable with it, and then get patients hooked up with the right resources.
Rubin: Every doctor of every kind can connect with patients and try to understand what they care about. What are their goals? What do they want for their families, for their relationships, for their quality of life? And how can we work collaboratively as a team to help them with those things?
Sex is a huge part of people’s lives. If we don’t ask about it; if we don’t look into it; and if we don’t admit that our physiology, our medications, and our surgeries can affect sexual health and functioning, how can we improve people’s lives? We can do so much as a team when we consider sex as a true vital sign.
Dr. Rubin, Assistant Clinical Professor, Department of Urology, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, has disclosed ties with Maternal Medical, Absorption Pharmaceuticals, GlaxoSmithKline, and Endo.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Rachel S. Rubin, MD: I’m Dr. Rachel Rubin, a urologist and sexual medicine specialist in the Washington, DC, area. And I am so thrilled because my co-fellow, the brilliant and famous Dr. Ashley Winter, a board-certified urologist and a certified menopause practitioner, who sees patients in our practice from Los Angeles, is joining us today to talk about sex as a vital sign.
Ashley Winter, MD: To have the best sexual function, you need many different systems to work. You need your hormones to be in the right place. You need your blood vessels to dilate when you want them to. You need your nerves to connect to your genitalia to make them responsive. The way people say, “The eyes are the window into the soul” — well, the genitals are the window into the cardiovascular system, the peripheral nervous system, and the hormonal system. It’s so dynamic. Patients can understand how this reflects their health. We just need healthcare providers to hammer home how those things connect.
Rubin: If you’re a primary care doctor seeing a patient and you want to educate them on diabetes or high blood pressure, how can you “ ‘sell it with ‘sex”? How can you use sex to educate them about these important medical conditions?
Winter: I hate using it as a fear tactic, but sometimes you have to. Time and again, I’ve seen men with severe profound erectile dysfunction at a young age, with chronically uncontrolled diabetes.
Diabetes can impair the peripheral nerves, resulting in peripheral neuropathy. The same way that it can affect the fingers and toes, diabetes can affect the penis, even before those other areas. Diabetes can also lead to other conditions such as low testosterone, which also affects the function of the penis.
I’m being brutally honest when I tell patients that diabetes control is critical to having a wonderful sexspan — the duration of your life where you’re able to be sexually active and have great sex and do it in the way that you want.
Chronic conditions such as high cholesterol or hypertension can affect your ability to become erect or aroused whether you have a penis or a vulva, and even your ability to have an orgasm.
Rubin: None of my doctors has ever asked me about these issues. But we have to bring them up with patients because they›re not going to bring them up to us. I always say in the review of systems, we shouldn›t just ask, “Do you have any sexual problems?” (which nobody ever does) and move past the question about men, women or both. We should be asking, “Do you have any issues with libido? Do you want to talk about it? Any issues with erection, arousal, orgasm, or sexual pain?”
When you can talk about those things, you can treat the patient from a whole physiologic perspective. For example, how does their sciatica affect their sexual pain? How does their antidepressant cause a delayed orgasm? How does their low testosterone level affect their energy level, their libido, and their desire?
We see so much shame and guilt in sexual health, to the extent that patients feel broken. We can help them understand the anatomy and physiology and explain that they aren’t broken. Instead, it’s “You need this medicine for your crippling anxiety, and that’s why your orgasm is delayed, and so can we augment it or add or subtract something to help you with it.”
Winter: In a primary care setting, where we are considering the patient›s overall health, we strive for medication compliance, but a huge part of medication noncompliance is sexual side effects, whether it›s antidepressants, beta-blockers, birth control, or this new world of GLP-1 agonists.
Rubin: I would add breast cancer treatments. Many patients go off their anastrozole or their tamoxifen because of the sexual side effects.
Winter: This is where we get to the crux of this discussion about sex being a vital sign — something you need to check routinely. We need to become comfortable with it, because then we are unlocking the ability to treat every patient like a whole person, give them better outcomes, improve their compliance, and have a really powerful tool for education.
Rubin: We have a growing toolbox for all genders when it comes to sexual health. We have FDA- approved medications for low libido in women. We use testosterone in men in an evidence-based way to safely improve libido. We use medications to help with the genitourinary syndrome of menopause. Orgasm is a challenging one, but we have devices that can help with those reflexes. And working with people who specialize in sexual pain can be extremely helpful for patients.
Dr. Winter, having practiced in different settings, what would you tell the primary care doctors who don’t want to talk about libido or who minimize sexual complaints because they don’t know how to navigate them?
Winter: I do not envy the challenge of being a primary care provider in the healthcare world we are living in. I think it is the hardest job. The ultimate takeaway is to just normalize the conversation and be able to validate what is happening. Have a few basic tools, and then have referrals. It›s not that you have to have all the time in the world or you have to treat every condition, but you have to start the conversation, be comfortable with it, and then get patients hooked up with the right resources.
Rubin: Every doctor of every kind can connect with patients and try to understand what they care about. What are their goals? What do they want for their families, for their relationships, for their quality of life? And how can we work collaboratively as a team to help them with those things?
Sex is a huge part of people’s lives. If we don’t ask about it; if we don’t look into it; and if we don’t admit that our physiology, our medications, and our surgeries can affect sexual health and functioning, how can we improve people’s lives? We can do so much as a team when we consider sex as a true vital sign.
Dr. Rubin, Assistant Clinical Professor, Department of Urology, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, has disclosed ties with Maternal Medical, Absorption Pharmaceuticals, GlaxoSmithKline, and Endo.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Groups With Highest Unmet Need for PrEP Highlighted in Analysis
LOS ANGELES — Use of preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) to prevent HIV is increasing overall, but both the rate of increase for starting PrEP and the rate of unmet need differ widely by demographic group, according to new data from a large study.
An analysis by Li Tao, MD, MS, PhD, director of real-world evidence at Gilead Sciences, and colleagues looked at statistical trends from 2019 to 2023 and found that Black, Hispanic, and Medicaid-insured populations continue to lack equitable access to PrEP.
Among the findings were that most new PrEP users were men with HIV risk factors who are commercially insured and live in predominantly non-Hispanic White areas (53% in 2019 and 43% in 2023). For comparison, men living in predominantly Black or Hispanic neighborhoods, or who are insured by Medicaid, saw lower proportions of PrEP use (16% in 2019 and 17% in 2023) despite higher annual increases in PrEP use (11% per year) and higher unmet needs.
Half a Million Real-World Participants
Tao presented her team’s findings at the Infectious Disease Week (IDWeek) 2024 Annual Meeting. The study included “more than half a million real-world PrEP users over the past 5 years,” she said.
The group with the lowest growth in initiation of PrEP in the study period (an annual percentage increase of 2%) and the lowest unmet need included men with HIV risk factors, who were using commercial insurance and living in White-dominant neighborhoods.
HIV risk factors included diagnosis of any sexually transmitted disease, contact with and exposure to communicable diseases, high-risk sexual behavior, contact with a hypodermic needle, long-term prophylaxis, HIV prevention counseling, and HIV screening.
Other men with HIV risk factors (those who were commercially insured, living in Black/Hispanic neighborhoods, or those on Medicaid across all neighborhoods) had a moderate increase in PrEP initiation (an annual percentage increase of 11%-16%) and higher unmet needs.
Researchers gathered data on PrEP prescriptions and new HIV diagnoses (from 2019 to 2023) through the IQVIA pharmacy claims database. PrEP-to-need ratio (PNR) is the number of individuals using PrEP in a year divided by new HIV diagnoses in the previous year. It was calculated for subgroups defined by five PNR-associated factors: Sex, insurance, recorded HIV risk factors (identified by diagnosis or procedure codes), “Ending the HIV Epidemic” jurisdictions, and neighborhood race/ethnicity mix.
Disparities Persist
While PrEP use improved across all the groups studied in the 5 years, “disparities still persist and the need remains very significant,” Tao said. “It’s very crucial for guiding the future HIV prevention options.”
“Long-acting PrEP options may help to address some social determinants structural factors in HIV acquisition,” she added.
What Programs Are Helping?
Some guidelines and programs are helping increase uptake, Tao said.
The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines “reinforce more accessible PrEP programs to individuals like zero-cost sharing or same-day dispensing,” Tao said in a press briefing. “Those kinds of policies are really effective. We can see that after the implementation of the USPSTF guidelines, the copay sharing is really decreasing and is coinciding with the HIV rates declining.”
The Medicaid coverage expansion in 40 states “has been really effective” in PrEP uptake, she added.
Colleen Kelley, MD, MPH, with the Division of Infectious Diseases at the Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, in Atlanta, who was not part of the research, said there has been a slow but improving uptake of PrEP across the board in the United States, “but the issue is that the uptake has been inequitable.”
Large Study With Recent Data
“This is an extremely large study with very recent data,” Kelley said. “Additionally, they were able to couple (the uptake) with unmet need. People who are at higher risk of acquiring HIV or who live in high-risk areas for HIV should have greater access to PrEP. They have a greater need for PrEP. What we really need to do from an equity perspective is match the PrEP use with the PrEP need and we have not been successful in doing that.”
Kelley added that the finding that the group that had the highest unmet need for PrEP in the study also had no recorded HIV risk factors. “It’s an interesting time to start thinking about beyond risk factor coverage for PrEP,” she said.
Another issue, Kelley said, is that “people are using (PrEP) but they’re also stopping it. People will need to take PrEP many years for protection, but about half discontinue in the first 6-12 months.
“We need to look at how people will persist on PrEP over the long term. That’s the next frontier,” she said. “We hope the long-acting injectables will help overcome some of the PrEP fatigue. But some may just tire of taking medication repeatedly for an infection they don’t have,” she said.
The study was funded by Gilead Sciences. Tao is employed by and is a shareholder of Gilead Sciences. All relevant financial disclosures have been mitigated, according to the paper. Kelley has research grants to her institution from Gilead, Moderna, Novavax, ViiV, and Humanigen.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
LOS ANGELES — Use of preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) to prevent HIV is increasing overall, but both the rate of increase for starting PrEP and the rate of unmet need differ widely by demographic group, according to new data from a large study.
An analysis by Li Tao, MD, MS, PhD, director of real-world evidence at Gilead Sciences, and colleagues looked at statistical trends from 2019 to 2023 and found that Black, Hispanic, and Medicaid-insured populations continue to lack equitable access to PrEP.
Among the findings were that most new PrEP users were men with HIV risk factors who are commercially insured and live in predominantly non-Hispanic White areas (53% in 2019 and 43% in 2023). For comparison, men living in predominantly Black or Hispanic neighborhoods, or who are insured by Medicaid, saw lower proportions of PrEP use (16% in 2019 and 17% in 2023) despite higher annual increases in PrEP use (11% per year) and higher unmet needs.
Half a Million Real-World Participants
Tao presented her team’s findings at the Infectious Disease Week (IDWeek) 2024 Annual Meeting. The study included “more than half a million real-world PrEP users over the past 5 years,” she said.
The group with the lowest growth in initiation of PrEP in the study period (an annual percentage increase of 2%) and the lowest unmet need included men with HIV risk factors, who were using commercial insurance and living in White-dominant neighborhoods.
HIV risk factors included diagnosis of any sexually transmitted disease, contact with and exposure to communicable diseases, high-risk sexual behavior, contact with a hypodermic needle, long-term prophylaxis, HIV prevention counseling, and HIV screening.
Other men with HIV risk factors (those who were commercially insured, living in Black/Hispanic neighborhoods, or those on Medicaid across all neighborhoods) had a moderate increase in PrEP initiation (an annual percentage increase of 11%-16%) and higher unmet needs.
Researchers gathered data on PrEP prescriptions and new HIV diagnoses (from 2019 to 2023) through the IQVIA pharmacy claims database. PrEP-to-need ratio (PNR) is the number of individuals using PrEP in a year divided by new HIV diagnoses in the previous year. It was calculated for subgroups defined by five PNR-associated factors: Sex, insurance, recorded HIV risk factors (identified by diagnosis or procedure codes), “Ending the HIV Epidemic” jurisdictions, and neighborhood race/ethnicity mix.
Disparities Persist
While PrEP use improved across all the groups studied in the 5 years, “disparities still persist and the need remains very significant,” Tao said. “It’s very crucial for guiding the future HIV prevention options.”
“Long-acting PrEP options may help to address some social determinants structural factors in HIV acquisition,” she added.
What Programs Are Helping?
Some guidelines and programs are helping increase uptake, Tao said.
The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines “reinforce more accessible PrEP programs to individuals like zero-cost sharing or same-day dispensing,” Tao said in a press briefing. “Those kinds of policies are really effective. We can see that after the implementation of the USPSTF guidelines, the copay sharing is really decreasing and is coinciding with the HIV rates declining.”
The Medicaid coverage expansion in 40 states “has been really effective” in PrEP uptake, she added.
Colleen Kelley, MD, MPH, with the Division of Infectious Diseases at the Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, in Atlanta, who was not part of the research, said there has been a slow but improving uptake of PrEP across the board in the United States, “but the issue is that the uptake has been inequitable.”
Large Study With Recent Data
“This is an extremely large study with very recent data,” Kelley said. “Additionally, they were able to couple (the uptake) with unmet need. People who are at higher risk of acquiring HIV or who live in high-risk areas for HIV should have greater access to PrEP. They have a greater need for PrEP. What we really need to do from an equity perspective is match the PrEP use with the PrEP need and we have not been successful in doing that.”
Kelley added that the finding that the group that had the highest unmet need for PrEP in the study also had no recorded HIV risk factors. “It’s an interesting time to start thinking about beyond risk factor coverage for PrEP,” she said.
Another issue, Kelley said, is that “people are using (PrEP) but they’re also stopping it. People will need to take PrEP many years for protection, but about half discontinue in the first 6-12 months.
“We need to look at how people will persist on PrEP over the long term. That’s the next frontier,” she said. “We hope the long-acting injectables will help overcome some of the PrEP fatigue. But some may just tire of taking medication repeatedly for an infection they don’t have,” she said.
The study was funded by Gilead Sciences. Tao is employed by and is a shareholder of Gilead Sciences. All relevant financial disclosures have been mitigated, according to the paper. Kelley has research grants to her institution from Gilead, Moderna, Novavax, ViiV, and Humanigen.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
LOS ANGELES — Use of preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) to prevent HIV is increasing overall, but both the rate of increase for starting PrEP and the rate of unmet need differ widely by demographic group, according to new data from a large study.
An analysis by Li Tao, MD, MS, PhD, director of real-world evidence at Gilead Sciences, and colleagues looked at statistical trends from 2019 to 2023 and found that Black, Hispanic, and Medicaid-insured populations continue to lack equitable access to PrEP.
Among the findings were that most new PrEP users were men with HIV risk factors who are commercially insured and live in predominantly non-Hispanic White areas (53% in 2019 and 43% in 2023). For comparison, men living in predominantly Black or Hispanic neighborhoods, or who are insured by Medicaid, saw lower proportions of PrEP use (16% in 2019 and 17% in 2023) despite higher annual increases in PrEP use (11% per year) and higher unmet needs.
Half a Million Real-World Participants
Tao presented her team’s findings at the Infectious Disease Week (IDWeek) 2024 Annual Meeting. The study included “more than half a million real-world PrEP users over the past 5 years,” she said.
The group with the lowest growth in initiation of PrEP in the study period (an annual percentage increase of 2%) and the lowest unmet need included men with HIV risk factors, who were using commercial insurance and living in White-dominant neighborhoods.
HIV risk factors included diagnosis of any sexually transmitted disease, contact with and exposure to communicable diseases, high-risk sexual behavior, contact with a hypodermic needle, long-term prophylaxis, HIV prevention counseling, and HIV screening.
Other men with HIV risk factors (those who were commercially insured, living in Black/Hispanic neighborhoods, or those on Medicaid across all neighborhoods) had a moderate increase in PrEP initiation (an annual percentage increase of 11%-16%) and higher unmet needs.
Researchers gathered data on PrEP prescriptions and new HIV diagnoses (from 2019 to 2023) through the IQVIA pharmacy claims database. PrEP-to-need ratio (PNR) is the number of individuals using PrEP in a year divided by new HIV diagnoses in the previous year. It was calculated for subgroups defined by five PNR-associated factors: Sex, insurance, recorded HIV risk factors (identified by diagnosis or procedure codes), “Ending the HIV Epidemic” jurisdictions, and neighborhood race/ethnicity mix.
Disparities Persist
While PrEP use improved across all the groups studied in the 5 years, “disparities still persist and the need remains very significant,” Tao said. “It’s very crucial for guiding the future HIV prevention options.”
“Long-acting PrEP options may help to address some social determinants structural factors in HIV acquisition,” she added.
What Programs Are Helping?
Some guidelines and programs are helping increase uptake, Tao said.
The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines “reinforce more accessible PrEP programs to individuals like zero-cost sharing or same-day dispensing,” Tao said in a press briefing. “Those kinds of policies are really effective. We can see that after the implementation of the USPSTF guidelines, the copay sharing is really decreasing and is coinciding with the HIV rates declining.”
The Medicaid coverage expansion in 40 states “has been really effective” in PrEP uptake, she added.
Colleen Kelley, MD, MPH, with the Division of Infectious Diseases at the Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, in Atlanta, who was not part of the research, said there has been a slow but improving uptake of PrEP across the board in the United States, “but the issue is that the uptake has been inequitable.”
Large Study With Recent Data
“This is an extremely large study with very recent data,” Kelley said. “Additionally, they were able to couple (the uptake) with unmet need. People who are at higher risk of acquiring HIV or who live in high-risk areas for HIV should have greater access to PrEP. They have a greater need for PrEP. What we really need to do from an equity perspective is match the PrEP use with the PrEP need and we have not been successful in doing that.”
Kelley added that the finding that the group that had the highest unmet need for PrEP in the study also had no recorded HIV risk factors. “It’s an interesting time to start thinking about beyond risk factor coverage for PrEP,” she said.
Another issue, Kelley said, is that “people are using (PrEP) but they’re also stopping it. People will need to take PrEP many years for protection, but about half discontinue in the first 6-12 months.
“We need to look at how people will persist on PrEP over the long term. That’s the next frontier,” she said. “We hope the long-acting injectables will help overcome some of the PrEP fatigue. But some may just tire of taking medication repeatedly for an infection they don’t have,” she said.
The study was funded by Gilead Sciences. Tao is employed by and is a shareholder of Gilead Sciences. All relevant financial disclosures have been mitigated, according to the paper. Kelley has research grants to her institution from Gilead, Moderna, Novavax, ViiV, and Humanigen.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM IDWEEK 2024
SBRT or Prostatectomy for Localized Prostate Cancer: Is One Better?
TOPLINE:
according to a phase 3, open-label, randomized trial evaluating quality-of-life outcomes.
METHODOLOGY:
- Compared with prostatectomy, radiotherapy may offer better urinary and sexual outcomes but a higher risk for bowel toxicity in patients with localized prostate cancer. However, a comparison has not been performed in a randomized trial using more modern treatment options, such as SBRT.
- Researchers conducted the multicenter PACE-A trial to compare and evaluate quality-of-life outcomes among 123 patients (median age, 65.5 years) with low- to intermediate-risk localized prostate cancer who were randomly assigned to undergo either SBRT (n = 63) or radical prostatectomy (n = 60).
- Of the 123 patients, 97 (79%) had a Gleason score of 3+4 and 116 (94%) had National Comprehensive Cancer Network intermediate risk. The median follow-up was 60.7 months.
- The co–primary endpoints were urinary continence, measured by the number of absorbent urinary pads required per day, and bowel function, assessed using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite Short Form (EPIC-26).
- Secondary endpoints included erectile function (measured using the International Index of Erectile Function 5 questionnaire) , clinician-reported genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity, and International Prostate Symptom Score. Other patient-reported outcomes included EPIC-26 domain scores for urinary irritative/obstructive symptoms, and overall urinary, bowel, and sexual issues.
TAKEAWAY:
- At 2 years, only 6.5% (three of 46) of patients who ultimately received SBRT used one or more urinary pads daily compared with 50% (16 of 32) of patients who underwent prostatectomy (P < .001). Patients in the prostatectomy group reported worse EPIC-26 urinary incontinence domain scores (median, 77.3 vs 100; P = .003).
- Patients who underwent prostatectomy also had significantly worse sexual function scores (median, 18 vs 62.5 with SBRT; P < .001). Erectile dysfunction events of grade 2 or higher were significantly more common in patients who underwent prostatectomy (63% vs 18%).
- However, at 2 years, the bowel domain scores in the prostatectomy group were significantly higher than in the SBRT group (median, 100 vs 87.5), with a mean difference of 8.9.
- Overall, clinician-reported genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicities were low in both treatment groups.
IN PRACTICE:
“PACE-A provides level 1 evidence of better outcomes of urinary continence and sexual function with worse bowel bother for SBRT, compared with prostatectomy,” the authors wrote, adding that the trial “provides contemporary toxicity estimates to optimize treatment decisions and maximize individual quality of life.”
SOURCE:
The study, led by Nicholas van As, of The Royal Marsden Hospital and The Institute of Cancer Research in London, was published online in European Urology.
LIMITATIONS:
The small sample size and differential dropout from allocated treatment could have introduced bias. Data completeness was another limitation.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was supported by grants from the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust. Several authors reported having various ties with various sources.
This article was created 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:
according to a phase 3, open-label, randomized trial evaluating quality-of-life outcomes.
METHODOLOGY:
- Compared with prostatectomy, radiotherapy may offer better urinary and sexual outcomes but a higher risk for bowel toxicity in patients with localized prostate cancer. However, a comparison has not been performed in a randomized trial using more modern treatment options, such as SBRT.
- Researchers conducted the multicenter PACE-A trial to compare and evaluate quality-of-life outcomes among 123 patients (median age, 65.5 years) with low- to intermediate-risk localized prostate cancer who were randomly assigned to undergo either SBRT (n = 63) or radical prostatectomy (n = 60).
- Of the 123 patients, 97 (79%) had a Gleason score of 3+4 and 116 (94%) had National Comprehensive Cancer Network intermediate risk. The median follow-up was 60.7 months.
- The co–primary endpoints were urinary continence, measured by the number of absorbent urinary pads required per day, and bowel function, assessed using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite Short Form (EPIC-26).
- Secondary endpoints included erectile function (measured using the International Index of Erectile Function 5 questionnaire) , clinician-reported genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity, and International Prostate Symptom Score. Other patient-reported outcomes included EPIC-26 domain scores for urinary irritative/obstructive symptoms, and overall urinary, bowel, and sexual issues.
TAKEAWAY:
- At 2 years, only 6.5% (three of 46) of patients who ultimately received SBRT used one or more urinary pads daily compared with 50% (16 of 32) of patients who underwent prostatectomy (P < .001). Patients in the prostatectomy group reported worse EPIC-26 urinary incontinence domain scores (median, 77.3 vs 100; P = .003).
- Patients who underwent prostatectomy also had significantly worse sexual function scores (median, 18 vs 62.5 with SBRT; P < .001). Erectile dysfunction events of grade 2 or higher were significantly more common in patients who underwent prostatectomy (63% vs 18%).
- However, at 2 years, the bowel domain scores in the prostatectomy group were significantly higher than in the SBRT group (median, 100 vs 87.5), with a mean difference of 8.9.
- Overall, clinician-reported genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicities were low in both treatment groups.
IN PRACTICE:
“PACE-A provides level 1 evidence of better outcomes of urinary continence and sexual function with worse bowel bother for SBRT, compared with prostatectomy,” the authors wrote, adding that the trial “provides contemporary toxicity estimates to optimize treatment decisions and maximize individual quality of life.”
SOURCE:
The study, led by Nicholas van As, of The Royal Marsden Hospital and The Institute of Cancer Research in London, was published online in European Urology.
LIMITATIONS:
The small sample size and differential dropout from allocated treatment could have introduced bias. Data completeness was another limitation.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was supported by grants from the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust. Several authors reported having various ties with various sources.
This article was created 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:
according to a phase 3, open-label, randomized trial evaluating quality-of-life outcomes.
METHODOLOGY:
- Compared with prostatectomy, radiotherapy may offer better urinary and sexual outcomes but a higher risk for bowel toxicity in patients with localized prostate cancer. However, a comparison has not been performed in a randomized trial using more modern treatment options, such as SBRT.
- Researchers conducted the multicenter PACE-A trial to compare and evaluate quality-of-life outcomes among 123 patients (median age, 65.5 years) with low- to intermediate-risk localized prostate cancer who were randomly assigned to undergo either SBRT (n = 63) or radical prostatectomy (n = 60).
- Of the 123 patients, 97 (79%) had a Gleason score of 3+4 and 116 (94%) had National Comprehensive Cancer Network intermediate risk. The median follow-up was 60.7 months.
- The co–primary endpoints were urinary continence, measured by the number of absorbent urinary pads required per day, and bowel function, assessed using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite Short Form (EPIC-26).
- Secondary endpoints included erectile function (measured using the International Index of Erectile Function 5 questionnaire) , clinician-reported genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity, and International Prostate Symptom Score. Other patient-reported outcomes included EPIC-26 domain scores for urinary irritative/obstructive symptoms, and overall urinary, bowel, and sexual issues.
TAKEAWAY:
- At 2 years, only 6.5% (three of 46) of patients who ultimately received SBRT used one or more urinary pads daily compared with 50% (16 of 32) of patients who underwent prostatectomy (P < .001). Patients in the prostatectomy group reported worse EPIC-26 urinary incontinence domain scores (median, 77.3 vs 100; P = .003).
- Patients who underwent prostatectomy also had significantly worse sexual function scores (median, 18 vs 62.5 with SBRT; P < .001). Erectile dysfunction events of grade 2 or higher were significantly more common in patients who underwent prostatectomy (63% vs 18%).
- However, at 2 years, the bowel domain scores in the prostatectomy group were significantly higher than in the SBRT group (median, 100 vs 87.5), with a mean difference of 8.9.
- Overall, clinician-reported genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicities were low in both treatment groups.
IN PRACTICE:
“PACE-A provides level 1 evidence of better outcomes of urinary continence and sexual function with worse bowel bother for SBRT, compared with prostatectomy,” the authors wrote, adding that the trial “provides contemporary toxicity estimates to optimize treatment decisions and maximize individual quality of life.”
SOURCE:
The study, led by Nicholas van As, of The Royal Marsden Hospital and The Institute of Cancer Research in London, was published online in European Urology.
LIMITATIONS:
The small sample size and differential dropout from allocated treatment could have introduced bias. Data completeness was another limitation.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was supported by grants from the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust. Several authors reported having various ties with various sources.
This article was created 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.