Women's Health

Ultrapotent topical corticosteroids remain the core treatment for vulvar lichen sclerosus, although other therapies can be added, according to an expert speaking at the virtual conference on diseases of the vulva and vagina.

If needed, intralesional steroid injections or calcineurin inhibitors can be added to a topical corticosteroid regimen, Libby Edwards, MD, suggested at the meeting, hosted by the International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease. In addition, early reports indicate that newer interventions such as fractional CO₂ laser treatments may help patients with refractory disease.

Still, “there is no question, there is no argument: First-, second- and third-line treatment for lichen sclerosus is an ultrapotent or superpotent topical corticosteroid,” she said. Steroids include halobetasol, clobetasol, or betamethasone dipropionate in augmented vehicle ointment once or twice per day. Patients should continue this regimen until the skin texture is normal or the disease is controlled as well as possible, which usually takes several months, said Dr. Edwards, of Southeast Vulvar Clinic in Charlotte, N.C.

Patients then should continue treatment, but less frequently or with a lower potency steroid.

Although corticosteroids are not Food and Drug Administration–approved for the treatment of lichen sclerosus, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials support their use, Dr. Edwards said.

Getting patients to use topical corticosteroids as directed can be a challenge, however, and patient education is crucial.

After about 10 days, many patients start to feel better and stop the medication prematurely, which may lead to recurrence.

“That is such an important counseling point,” Aruna Venkatesan, MD, chief of dermatology and director of the genital dermatology clinic at Santa Clara Valley Medical Center in San Jose, Calif., said during a panel discussion. “Tell them, listen, I may not see you back for a couple months, and you may start feeling better sooner. But I want you to keep using this at this frequency so that when you come back we can make a good decision about whether you’re ready” for a lower potency regimen.

To encourage daily use, Hope K. Haefner, MD, asks patients whether they brush their teeth every night. “When they say yes, I tell them to put the steroid ointment by their toothpaste and use it after brushing,” Dr. Haefner, the Harold A. Furlong Professor of Women’s Health at Michigan Medicine in Ann Arbor, said during the discussion. “But don’t mix up the tubes.”

Once lichen sclerosus is controlled, options include decreasing the superpotent steroid to once, three times per week or changing to a midpotency steroid such as triamcinolone ointment every day, Dr. Edwards said.

Evidence suggests that controlling lichen sclerosus may prevent squamous cell carcinoma and scarring. In a study of more than 500 patients, about 70% complied with treatment instructions, whereas about 30% were considered partially compliant (JAMA Dermatol. 2015 Oct;151[10]:1061-7.). Patients who adhered to their therapy were less likely to have cancer or ongoing scarring during an average of 4.7 years of follow-up.
 

Beyond topical steroids

“Almost always, topical steroids are all you need,” said Dr. Edwards. “Before I go beyond that, I think of other issues that may be causing symptoms,” such as atrophic vagina, steroid dermatitis, or vulvodynia.

For patients with refractory lichen sclerosus, other treatments “can add more oomph to your topical steroid, but they are not better,” she said.

Intralesional corticosteroid injections are one option.

Another option is adding a calcineurin inhibitor such as tacrolimus or pimecrolimus, although these medications can burn with application and irritate. In addition, they carry warnings about rare cases of cancer associated with their use.

Dr. Edwards also uses methotrexate, which is supported by case reports and an open-label study. In a recently published study that included 21 patients with vulvar lichen sclerosus and 24 patients with extragenital lichen sclerosus, about half improved after receiving methotrexate (Dermatol Ther. 2020 Apr 29;e13473.).
 

What about lasers?

Fractional CO₂ laser treatments, which are pulsed to minimize damage from heat, have “a lot of providers very excited,” Dr. Edwards said. In one open-label study of 40 patients, most reported a decrease in symptoms. (J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2020 Apr;24[2]:225-8.)

“We’re awaiting blinded, controlled studies,” Dr. Edwards said. “We don’t have those available yet although they are in progress.”

Ten of Dr. Edwards’ patients who did not improve enough with medication have received laser treatments. One patient stopped laser therapy after one treatment. One did not improve. Two were completely cleared, and six had significant improvement.

If patients who improved stopped steroids against recommendations, lichen sclerosus recurred, Dr. Edwards said.

The ISSVD does not recommend laser for the routine treatment of lichen sclerosus because of a lack of adequate studies and long-term safety data and biologic implausibility, Dr. Edwards noted (J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2019 Apr;23[2]:151-60.) Laser treatments for lichen sclerosus should not be used outside of clinical trials or without special arrangements for clinical governance, consent, and audit, according to a consensus document from the society.

“I mostly agree with that,” Dr. Edwards said. “But I now think that this is a reasonable thing to use when other treatments have been exhausted.”

Dr. Edwards and Dr. Venkatesan had no conflicts of interest. Dr. Haefner is an author for UpToDate.

jremaly@mdedge.com

Ultrapotent topical corticosteroids remain the core treatment for vulvar lichen sclerosus, although other therapies can be added, according to an expert speaking at the virtual conference on diseases of the vulva and vagina.

If needed, intralesional steroid injections or calcineurin inhibitors can be added to a topical corticosteroid regimen, Libby Edwards, MD, suggested at the meeting, hosted by the International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease. In addition, early reports indicate that newer interventions such as fractional CO₂ laser treatments may help patients with refractory disease.

Still, “there is no question, there is no argument: First-, second- and third-line treatment for lichen sclerosus is an ultrapotent or superpotent topical corticosteroid,” she said. Steroids include halobetasol, clobetasol, or betamethasone dipropionate in augmented vehicle ointment once or twice per day. Patients should continue this regimen until the skin texture is normal or the disease is controlled as well as possible, which usually takes several months, said Dr. Edwards, of Southeast Vulvar Clinic in Charlotte, N.C.

Patients then should continue treatment, but less frequently or with a lower potency steroid.

Although corticosteroids are not Food and Drug Administration–approved for the treatment of lichen sclerosus, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials support their use, Dr. Edwards said.

Getting patients to use topical corticosteroids as directed can be a challenge, however, and patient education is crucial.

After about 10 days, many patients start to feel better and stop the medication prematurely, which may lead to recurrence.

“That is such an important counseling point,” Aruna Venkatesan, MD, chief of dermatology and director of the genital dermatology clinic at Santa Clara Valley Medical Center in San Jose, Calif., said during a panel discussion. “Tell them, listen, I may not see you back for a couple months, and you may start feeling better sooner. But I want you to keep using this at this frequency so that when you come back we can make a good decision about whether you’re ready” for a lower potency regimen.

To encourage daily use, Hope K. Haefner, MD, asks patients whether they brush their teeth every night. “When they say yes, I tell them to put the steroid ointment by their toothpaste and use it after brushing,” Dr. Haefner, the Harold A. Furlong Professor of Women’s Health at Michigan Medicine in Ann Arbor, said during the discussion. “But don’t mix up the tubes.”

Once lichen sclerosus is controlled, options include decreasing the superpotent steroid to once, three times per week or changing to a midpotency steroid such as triamcinolone ointment every day, Dr. Edwards said.

Evidence suggests that controlling lichen sclerosus may prevent squamous cell carcinoma and scarring. In a study of more than 500 patients, about 70% complied with treatment instructions, whereas about 30% were considered partially compliant (JAMA Dermatol. 2015 Oct;151[10]:1061-7.). Patients who adhered to their therapy were less likely to have cancer or ongoing scarring during an average of 4.7 years of follow-up.
 

Beyond topical steroids

“Almost always, topical steroids are all you need,” said Dr. Edwards. “Before I go beyond that, I think of other issues that may be causing symptoms,” such as atrophic vagina, steroid dermatitis, or vulvodynia.

For patients with refractory lichen sclerosus, other treatments “can add more oomph to your topical steroid, but they are not better,” she said.

Intralesional corticosteroid injections are one option.

Another option is adding a calcineurin inhibitor such as tacrolimus or pimecrolimus, although these medications can burn with application and irritate. In addition, they carry warnings about rare cases of cancer associated with their use.

Dr. Edwards also uses methotrexate, which is supported by case reports and an open-label study. In a recently published study that included 21 patients with vulvar lichen sclerosus and 24 patients with extragenital lichen sclerosus, about half improved after receiving methotrexate (Dermatol Ther. 2020 Apr 29;e13473.).
 

What about lasers?

Fractional CO₂ laser treatments, which are pulsed to minimize damage from heat, have “a lot of providers very excited,” Dr. Edwards said. In one open-label study of 40 patients, most reported a decrease in symptoms. (J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2020 Apr;24[2]:225-8.)

“We’re awaiting blinded, controlled studies,” Dr. Edwards said. “We don’t have those available yet although they are in progress.”

Ten of Dr. Edwards’ patients who did not improve enough with medication have received laser treatments. One patient stopped laser therapy after one treatment. One did not improve. Two were completely cleared, and six had significant improvement.

If patients who improved stopped steroids against recommendations, lichen sclerosus recurred, Dr. Edwards said.

The ISSVD does not recommend laser for the routine treatment of lichen sclerosus because of a lack of adequate studies and long-term safety data and biologic implausibility, Dr. Edwards noted (J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2019 Apr;23[2]:151-60.) Laser treatments for lichen sclerosus should not be used outside of clinical trials or without special arrangements for clinical governance, consent, and audit, according to a consensus document from the society.

“I mostly agree with that,” Dr. Edwards said. “But I now think that this is a reasonable thing to use when other treatments have been exhausted.”

Dr. Edwards and Dr. Venkatesan had no conflicts of interest. Dr. Haefner is an author for UpToDate.

jremaly@mdedge.com

Ultrapotent topical corticosteroids remain the core treatment for vulvar lichen sclerosus, although other therapies can be added, according to an expert speaking at the virtual conference on diseases of the vulva and vagina.

If needed, intralesional steroid injections or calcineurin inhibitors can be added to a topical corticosteroid regimen, Libby Edwards, MD, suggested at the meeting, hosted by the International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease. In addition, early reports indicate that newer interventions such as fractional CO₂ laser treatments may help patients with refractory disease.

Still, “there is no question, there is no argument: First-, second- and third-line treatment for lichen sclerosus is an ultrapotent or superpotent topical corticosteroid,” she said. Steroids include halobetasol, clobetasol, or betamethasone dipropionate in augmented vehicle ointment once or twice per day. Patients should continue this regimen until the skin texture is normal or the disease is controlled as well as possible, which usually takes several months, said Dr. Edwards, of Southeast Vulvar Clinic in Charlotte, N.C.

Patients then should continue treatment, but less frequently or with a lower potency steroid.

Although corticosteroids are not Food and Drug Administration–approved for the treatment of lichen sclerosus, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials support their use, Dr. Edwards said.

Getting patients to use topical corticosteroids as directed can be a challenge, however, and patient education is crucial.

After about 10 days, many patients start to feel better and stop the medication prematurely, which may lead to recurrence.

“That is such an important counseling point,” Aruna Venkatesan, MD, chief of dermatology and director of the genital dermatology clinic at Santa Clara Valley Medical Center in San Jose, Calif., said during a panel discussion. “Tell them, listen, I may not see you back for a couple months, and you may start feeling better sooner. But I want you to keep using this at this frequency so that when you come back we can make a good decision about whether you’re ready” for a lower potency regimen.

To encourage daily use, Hope K. Haefner, MD, asks patients whether they brush their teeth every night. “When they say yes, I tell them to put the steroid ointment by their toothpaste and use it after brushing,” Dr. Haefner, the Harold A. Furlong Professor of Women’s Health at Michigan Medicine in Ann Arbor, said during the discussion. “But don’t mix up the tubes.”

Once lichen sclerosus is controlled, options include decreasing the superpotent steroid to once, three times per week or changing to a midpotency steroid such as triamcinolone ointment every day, Dr. Edwards said.

Evidence suggests that controlling lichen sclerosus may prevent squamous cell carcinoma and scarring. In a study of more than 500 patients, about 70% complied with treatment instructions, whereas about 30% were considered partially compliant (JAMA Dermatol. 2015 Oct;151[10]:1061-7.). Patients who adhered to their therapy were less likely to have cancer or ongoing scarring during an average of 4.7 years of follow-up.
 

Beyond topical steroids

“Almost always, topical steroids are all you need,” said Dr. Edwards. “Before I go beyond that, I think of other issues that may be causing symptoms,” such as atrophic vagina, steroid dermatitis, or vulvodynia.

For patients with refractory lichen sclerosus, other treatments “can add more oomph to your topical steroid, but they are not better,” she said.

Intralesional corticosteroid injections are one option.

Another option is adding a calcineurin inhibitor such as tacrolimus or pimecrolimus, although these medications can burn with application and irritate. In addition, they carry warnings about rare cases of cancer associated with their use.

Dr. Edwards also uses methotrexate, which is supported by case reports and an open-label study. In a recently published study that included 21 patients with vulvar lichen sclerosus and 24 patients with extragenital lichen sclerosus, about half improved after receiving methotrexate (Dermatol Ther. 2020 Apr 29;e13473.).
 

What about lasers?

Fractional CO₂ laser treatments, which are pulsed to minimize damage from heat, have “a lot of providers very excited,” Dr. Edwards said. In one open-label study of 40 patients, most reported a decrease in symptoms. (J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2020 Apr;24[2]:225-8.)

“We’re awaiting blinded, controlled studies,” Dr. Edwards said. “We don’t have those available yet although they are in progress.”

Ten of Dr. Edwards’ patients who did not improve enough with medication have received laser treatments. One patient stopped laser therapy after one treatment. One did not improve. Two were completely cleared, and six had significant improvement.

If patients who improved stopped steroids against recommendations, lichen sclerosus recurred, Dr. Edwards said.

The ISSVD does not recommend laser for the routine treatment of lichen sclerosus because of a lack of adequate studies and long-term safety data and biologic implausibility, Dr. Edwards noted (J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2019 Apr;23[2]:151-60.) Laser treatments for lichen sclerosus should not be used outside of clinical trials or without special arrangements for clinical governance, consent, and audit, according to a consensus document from the society.

“I mostly agree with that,” Dr. Edwards said. “But I now think that this is a reasonable thing to use when other treatments have been exhausted.”

Dr. Edwards and Dr. Venkatesan had no conflicts of interest. Dr. Haefner is an author for UpToDate.

jremaly@mdedge.com

When medical care is based on consistent, good-quality evidence, most physicians adopt it. However, not all care is well supported by the literature and may, in fact, be overused without offering benefit to patients. Choosing Wisely, at www.choosingwisely.org, is a health care initiative that highlights screening and testing recommendations from specialty societies in an effort to encourage patients and clinicians to talk about how to make high-value, effective health care decisions and avoid overuse. (See “Test and Tx overutilization: A bigger problem than you might think"^1-3).

Enabling physician and patient dialogue. The initiative began in 2010 when the American Board of Internal Medicine convened a panel of experts to identify low-value tests and therapies. Their list took the form of a “Top Five Things” that may not be high value in patient care, and it used language tailored to patients and physicians so that they could converse meaningfully. Physicians could use the evidence to make a clinical decision, and patients could feel empowered to ask informed questions about recommendations they received. The initiative has now expanded to include ways that health care systems can reduce low-value interventions.

Scope of participation. Since the first Choosing Wisely recommendations were published in 2013, more than 80 professional associations have contributed lists of their own. Professional societies participate voluntarily. The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), Society of General Internal Medicine, and American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) have contributed lists relevant to primary care. All Choosing Wisely recommendations can be searched or sorted by specialty organization. Recommendations are reviewed and revised regularly. If the evidence becomes conflicted or contradictory, recommendations are withdrawn.

Making meaningful improvements by Choosing Wisely

Several studies have shown that health care systems can implement Choosing Wisely recommendations to reduce overuse of unnecessary tests. A 2015 study examined the effect of applying a Choosing Wisely recommendation to reduce the use of continuous pulse oximetry in pediatric inpatients with asthma, wheezing, or bronchiolitis. The recommendation, from the Society of Hospital Medicine–Pediatric Hospital Medicine, advises against continuous pulse oximetry in children with acute respiratory illnesses unless the child is using supplemental oxygen.⁴ This study, done at the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, found that within 3 months of initiating a protocol on all general pediatrics floors, the average time on pulse oximetry after meeting clinical goals decreased from 10.7 hours to 3.1 hours. In addition, the percentage of patients who had their continuous pulse oximetry stopped within 2 hours of clinical stability (a goal time) increased from 25% to 46%.⁵

Patients are important drivers of health care utilization. A 2003 study showed that physicians are more likely to order referrals, tests, and prescriptions when patients ask for them, and that nearly 1 in 4 patients did so.⁶ A 2002 study found that physicians granted all but 3% of patient’s requests for orders or tests, and that fulfilling requests correlated with patient satisfaction in the specialty office studied (cardiology) but not in the primary care (internal medicine) office.⁷

Choosing Wisely recommendations are not guidelines or mandates. They are intended to be evidencebased advice from a specialty society to its members and to patients about care that is often unnecessary.

From its inception, Choosing Wisely has considered patients as full partners in conversations about health care utilization. Choosing Wisely partners with Consumer Reports to create and disseminate plain-language summaries of recommendations. Community groups and physician organizations have also participated in implementation efforts. In 2018, Choosing Wisely secured a grant to expand outreach to diverse or underserved communities.

Choosing Wisely recommendations are not guidelines or mandates. They are intended to be evidence-based advice from a specialty society to its members and to patients about care that is often unnecessary. The goal is to create a conversation and not to eliminate these services from ever being offered or used.

Continue to: Improve your practice with these 10 primary care recommendations

Improve your practice with these 10 primary care recommendations

 1 Avoid imaging studies in early acute low back pain without red flags.

Both the AAFP and the American Society of Anesthesiologists recommend against routine X-rays, magnetic resonance imaging, and computed tomography (CT) scans in the first 6 weeks of acute low back pain (LBP).^8,9 The American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) recommends against routine lumbar spine imaging for emergency department (ED) patients.¹⁰ In all cases, imaging is indicated if the patient has any signs or symptoms of neurologic deficits or other indications, such as signs of spinal infection or fracture. However, as ACEP notes, diagnostic imaging does not typically help identify the cause of acute LBP, and when it does, it does not reduce the time to symptom improvement.¹⁰

2 Prescribe oral contraceptives on the basis of a medical history and a blood pressure measurement. No routine pelvic exam or other physical exam is necessary.

This AAFP recommendation¹¹ is based on clinical practice guidelines from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and other research.¹² The ACOG practice guideline supports provision of hormonal contraception without a pelvic exam, cervical cancer (Pap) testing, urine pregnancy testing, or testing for sexually transmitted infections. ACOG guidelines also support over-the-counter provision of hormonal contraceptives, including combined oral contraceptives.¹²

3 Stop recommending daily self-glucose monitoring for patients with diabetes who are not using insulin.

Both the AAFP and the Society for General Internal Medicine recommend against daily blood sugar checks for people who do not use insulin.^13,14 A Cochrane review of 9 trials (3300 patients) found that after 6 months, hemoglobin A1C was reduced by 0.3% in people who checked their sugar daily compared with those who did not, but this difference was not significant after a year.¹⁵ Hypoglycemic episodes were more common in the “checking” group, and there were no differences in quality of life. A qualitative study found that blood sugar results had little impact on patients’ motivation to change behavior.¹⁶

4 Don’t screen for herpes simplex virus (HSV) infection in asymptomatic adults, even those who are pregnant.

This AAFP recommendation¹⁷ comes from a US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) Grade D recommendation.18 Most people with positive HSV-2 serology have had an outbreak; even those who do not think they have had one will realize that they had the symptoms once they hear them described.18 With available tests, 1 in 2 positive results for HSV-2 among asymptomatic people will be a false-positive.¹⁸

A 2006 analysis of inpatient lab studies found that doctors ordered an average of 2.96 studies per patient per day, but only 29% of these tests contributed to management.

There is no known cure, intervention, or reduction in transmission for infected patients who do not have symptoms.¹⁸ Also, serologically detected HSV-2 does not reliably predict genital herpes; and HSV-1 has been found to cause an increasing percentage of genital infection cases.¹⁸

Continue to: 5 Don't screen for testicular cancer in asymptomatic individuals

5 Don’t screen for testicular cancer in asymptomatic individuals.

This AAFP recommendation¹⁹ also comes from a USPSTF Grade D recommendation.²⁰ A 2010 systematic review found no evidence to support screening of asymptomatic people with a physical exam or ultrasound. All available studies involved symptomatic patients.²⁰

 6 Stop recommending cough and cold medicines for children younger than 4 years.

The AAP recommends that clinicians discourage the use of any cough or cold medicine for children in this age-group.²¹ A 2008 study found that more than 7000 children annually presented to EDs for adverse events from cough and cold medicines.²² Previous studies found no benefit in reducing symptoms.²³ In children older than 12 months, a Cochrane review found that honey has a modest benefit for cough in single-night trials.²⁴

7 Avoid performing serum allergy panels.

The American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology discourages the use of serum panel testing when patients present with allergy symptoms.²⁵ A patient can have a strong positive immunoglobulin E (IgE) serum result to an allergen and have no clinical allergic symptoms or can have a weak positive serum result and a strong clinical reaction. Targeted skin or serum IgE testing—for example, testing for cashew allergy in a patient known to have had a reaction after eating one—is reasonable.²⁶

8 Avoid routine electroencephalography (EEG), head CT, and carotid ultrasound as initial work-up for simple syncope in adults.

These recommendations, from the American Epilepsy Society,²⁷ ACEP,²⁸ American College of Physicians,²⁹ and American Academy of Neurology (AAN),³⁰ emphasize the low yield of routine work-ups for patients with simple syncope. The AAN notes that 40% of people will experience syncope during adulthood and most will not have carotid disease, which generally manifests with stroke-like symptoms rather than syncope. One study found that approximately 1 in 8 patients referred to an epilepsy clinic had neurocardiogenic syncope rather than epilepsy.³¹

EEGs have high false-negative and false-positive rates, and history-taking is a better tool with which to make a diagnosis. CT scans performed in the ED were found to contribute to the diagnosis of simple syncope in fewer than 2% of cases of syncope, compared with orthostatic blood pressure (25% of cases).³²

Continue to: 9 Wait to refer children with umbilical hernias to pediatric surgery until they are 4 to 5 years of age

The AAP Section on Surgery offers evidence that the risk-benefit analysis strongly favors waiting on intervention.³³ About 1 in 4 children will have an umbilical hernia, and about 85% of cases will resolve by age 5. The strangulation rate with umbilical hernias is very low, and although the risk of infection with surgery is likewise low, the risk of recurrence following surgery before the age of 4 is as high as 2.4%.³⁴ The AAP Section on Surgery recommends against strapping or restraining the hernia, as well.

10 Avoid using appetite stimulants, such as megesterol, and high-calorie nutritional supplements to treat anorexia and cachexia in older adults.

Instead, the American Geriatrics Society recommends that physicians encourage caregivers to serve appealing food, provide support with eating, and remove barriers to appetite and nutrition.³⁵ A Cochrane review showed that high-calorie supplements, such as Boost or Ensure, are associated with very modest weight gain—about 2% of weight—but are not associated with an increased life expectancy or improved quality of life.³⁶

Both the AAFP and the American Society of Anesthesiologists recommend against routine x-rays, MRIs, and CT scans during the first 6 weeks of acute low back pain.

Prescription appetite stimulants are associated with adverse effects and yield inconsistent benefits in older adults. Megesterol, for example, was associated with headache, gastrointestinal adverse effects, insomnia, weakness, and fatigue. Mirtazapine is associated with sedation and fatigue.³⁷

CORRESPONDENCE
Kathleen Rowland, MD, MS, Rush Copley Family Medicine Residency, Rush Medical College, 600 South Paulina, Kidston House Room 605, Chicago IL 60612; kathleen_rowland@rush.edu.

When medical care is based on consistent, good-quality evidence, most physicians adopt it. However, not all care is well supported by the literature and may, in fact, be overused without offering benefit to patients. Choosing Wisely, at www.choosingwisely.org, is a health care initiative that highlights screening and testing recommendations from specialty societies in an effort to encourage patients and clinicians to talk about how to make high-value, effective health care decisions and avoid overuse. (See “Test and Tx overutilization: A bigger problem than you might think"^1-3).

Enabling physician and patient dialogue. The initiative began in 2010 when the American Board of Internal Medicine convened a panel of experts to identify low-value tests and therapies. Their list took the form of a “Top Five Things” that may not be high value in patient care, and it used language tailored to patients and physicians so that they could converse meaningfully. Physicians could use the evidence to make a clinical decision, and patients could feel empowered to ask informed questions about recommendations they received. The initiative has now expanded to include ways that health care systems can reduce low-value interventions.

Scope of participation. Since the first Choosing Wisely recommendations were published in 2013, more than 80 professional associations have contributed lists of their own. Professional societies participate voluntarily. The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), Society of General Internal Medicine, and American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) have contributed lists relevant to primary care. All Choosing Wisely recommendations can be searched or sorted by specialty organization. Recommendations are reviewed and revised regularly. If the evidence becomes conflicted or contradictory, recommendations are withdrawn.

Making meaningful improvements by Choosing Wisely

Several studies have shown that health care systems can implement Choosing Wisely recommendations to reduce overuse of unnecessary tests. A 2015 study examined the effect of applying a Choosing Wisely recommendation to reduce the use of continuous pulse oximetry in pediatric inpatients with asthma, wheezing, or bronchiolitis. The recommendation, from the Society of Hospital Medicine–Pediatric Hospital Medicine, advises against continuous pulse oximetry in children with acute respiratory illnesses unless the child is using supplemental oxygen.⁴ This study, done at the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, found that within 3 months of initiating a protocol on all general pediatrics floors, the average time on pulse oximetry after meeting clinical goals decreased from 10.7 hours to 3.1 hours. In addition, the percentage of patients who had their continuous pulse oximetry stopped within 2 hours of clinical stability (a goal time) increased from 25% to 46%.⁵

Patients are important drivers of health care utilization. A 2003 study showed that physicians are more likely to order referrals, tests, and prescriptions when patients ask for them, and that nearly 1 in 4 patients did so.⁶ A 2002 study found that physicians granted all but 3% of patient’s requests for orders or tests, and that fulfilling requests correlated with patient satisfaction in the specialty office studied (cardiology) but not in the primary care (internal medicine) office.⁷

Choosing Wisely recommendations are not guidelines or mandates. They are intended to be evidencebased advice from a specialty society to its members and to patients about care that is often unnecessary.

From its inception, Choosing Wisely has considered patients as full partners in conversations about health care utilization. Choosing Wisely partners with Consumer Reports to create and disseminate plain-language summaries of recommendations. Community groups and physician organizations have also participated in implementation efforts. In 2018, Choosing Wisely secured a grant to expand outreach to diverse or underserved communities.

Choosing Wisely recommendations are not guidelines or mandates. They are intended to be evidence-based advice from a specialty society to its members and to patients about care that is often unnecessary. The goal is to create a conversation and not to eliminate these services from ever being offered or used.

Continue to: Improve your practice with these 10 primary care recommendations

Improve your practice with these 10 primary care recommendations

 1 Avoid imaging studies in early acute low back pain without red flags.

Both the AAFP and the American Society of Anesthesiologists recommend against routine X-rays, magnetic resonance imaging, and computed tomography (CT) scans in the first 6 weeks of acute low back pain (LBP).^8,9 The American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) recommends against routine lumbar spine imaging for emergency department (ED) patients.¹⁰ In all cases, imaging is indicated if the patient has any signs or symptoms of neurologic deficits or other indications, such as signs of spinal infection or fracture. However, as ACEP notes, diagnostic imaging does not typically help identify the cause of acute LBP, and when it does, it does not reduce the time to symptom improvement.¹⁰

2 Prescribe oral contraceptives on the basis of a medical history and a blood pressure measurement. No routine pelvic exam or other physical exam is necessary.

This AAFP recommendation¹¹ is based on clinical practice guidelines from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and other research.¹² The ACOG practice guideline supports provision of hormonal contraception without a pelvic exam, cervical cancer (Pap) testing, urine pregnancy testing, or testing for sexually transmitted infections. ACOG guidelines also support over-the-counter provision of hormonal contraceptives, including combined oral contraceptives.¹²

3 Stop recommending daily self-glucose monitoring for patients with diabetes who are not using insulin.

Both the AAFP and the Society for General Internal Medicine recommend against daily blood sugar checks for people who do not use insulin.^13,14 A Cochrane review of 9 trials (3300 patients) found that after 6 months, hemoglobin A1C was reduced by 0.3% in people who checked their sugar daily compared with those who did not, but this difference was not significant after a year.¹⁵ Hypoglycemic episodes were more common in the “checking” group, and there were no differences in quality of life. A qualitative study found that blood sugar results had little impact on patients’ motivation to change behavior.¹⁶

4 Don’t screen for herpes simplex virus (HSV) infection in asymptomatic adults, even those who are pregnant.

This AAFP recommendation¹⁷ comes from a US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) Grade D recommendation.18 Most people with positive HSV-2 serology have had an outbreak; even those who do not think they have had one will realize that they had the symptoms once they hear them described.18 With available tests, 1 in 2 positive results for HSV-2 among asymptomatic people will be a false-positive.¹⁸

A 2006 analysis of inpatient lab studies found that doctors ordered an average of 2.96 studies per patient per day, but only 29% of these tests contributed to management.

There is no known cure, intervention, or reduction in transmission for infected patients who do not have symptoms.¹⁸ Also, serologically detected HSV-2 does not reliably predict genital herpes; and HSV-1 has been found to cause an increasing percentage of genital infection cases.¹⁸

Continue to: 5 Don't screen for testicular cancer in asymptomatic individuals

5 Don’t screen for testicular cancer in asymptomatic individuals.

This AAFP recommendation¹⁹ also comes from a USPSTF Grade D recommendation.²⁰ A 2010 systematic review found no evidence to support screening of asymptomatic people with a physical exam or ultrasound. All available studies involved symptomatic patients.²⁰

 6 Stop recommending cough and cold medicines for children younger than 4 years.

The AAP recommends that clinicians discourage the use of any cough or cold medicine for children in this age-group.²¹ A 2008 study found that more than 7000 children annually presented to EDs for adverse events from cough and cold medicines.²² Previous studies found no benefit in reducing symptoms.²³ In children older than 12 months, a Cochrane review found that honey has a modest benefit for cough in single-night trials.²⁴

7 Avoid performing serum allergy panels.

The American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology discourages the use of serum panel testing when patients present with allergy symptoms.²⁵ A patient can have a strong positive immunoglobulin E (IgE) serum result to an allergen and have no clinical allergic symptoms or can have a weak positive serum result and a strong clinical reaction. Targeted skin or serum IgE testing—for example, testing for cashew allergy in a patient known to have had a reaction after eating one—is reasonable.²⁶

8 Avoid routine electroencephalography (EEG), head CT, and carotid ultrasound as initial work-up for simple syncope in adults.

These recommendations, from the American Epilepsy Society,²⁷ ACEP,²⁸ American College of Physicians,²⁹ and American Academy of Neurology (AAN),³⁰ emphasize the low yield of routine work-ups for patients with simple syncope. The AAN notes that 40% of people will experience syncope during adulthood and most will not have carotid disease, which generally manifests with stroke-like symptoms rather than syncope. One study found that approximately 1 in 8 patients referred to an epilepsy clinic had neurocardiogenic syncope rather than epilepsy.³¹

EEGs have high false-negative and false-positive rates, and history-taking is a better tool with which to make a diagnosis. CT scans performed in the ED were found to contribute to the diagnosis of simple syncope in fewer than 2% of cases of syncope, compared with orthostatic blood pressure (25% of cases).³²

Continue to: 9 Wait to refer children with umbilical hernias to pediatric surgery until they are 4 to 5 years of age

The AAP Section on Surgery offers evidence that the risk-benefit analysis strongly favors waiting on intervention.³³ About 1 in 4 children will have an umbilical hernia, and about 85% of cases will resolve by age 5. The strangulation rate with umbilical hernias is very low, and although the risk of infection with surgery is likewise low, the risk of recurrence following surgery before the age of 4 is as high as 2.4%.³⁴ The AAP Section on Surgery recommends against strapping or restraining the hernia, as well.

10 Avoid using appetite stimulants, such as megesterol, and high-calorie nutritional supplements to treat anorexia and cachexia in older adults.

Instead, the American Geriatrics Society recommends that physicians encourage caregivers to serve appealing food, provide support with eating, and remove barriers to appetite and nutrition.³⁵ A Cochrane review showed that high-calorie supplements, such as Boost or Ensure, are associated with very modest weight gain—about 2% of weight—but are not associated with an increased life expectancy or improved quality of life.³⁶

Both the AAFP and the American Society of Anesthesiologists recommend against routine x-rays, MRIs, and CT scans during the first 6 weeks of acute low back pain.

Prescription appetite stimulants are associated with adverse effects and yield inconsistent benefits in older adults. Megesterol, for example, was associated with headache, gastrointestinal adverse effects, insomnia, weakness, and fatigue. Mirtazapine is associated with sedation and fatigue.³⁷

CORRESPONDENCE
Kathleen Rowland, MD, MS, Rush Copley Family Medicine Residency, Rush Medical College, 600 South Paulina, Kidston House Room 605, Chicago IL 60612; kathleen_rowland@rush.edu.

When medical care is based on consistent, good-quality evidence, most physicians adopt it. However, not all care is well supported by the literature and may, in fact, be overused without offering benefit to patients. Choosing Wisely, at www.choosingwisely.org, is a health care initiative that highlights screening and testing recommendations from specialty societies in an effort to encourage patients and clinicians to talk about how to make high-value, effective health care decisions and avoid overuse. (See “Test and Tx overutilization: A bigger problem than you might think"^1-3).

Enabling physician and patient dialogue. The initiative began in 2010 when the American Board of Internal Medicine convened a panel of experts to identify low-value tests and therapies. Their list took the form of a “Top Five Things” that may not be high value in patient care, and it used language tailored to patients and physicians so that they could converse meaningfully. Physicians could use the evidence to make a clinical decision, and patients could feel empowered to ask informed questions about recommendations they received. The initiative has now expanded to include ways that health care systems can reduce low-value interventions.

Scope of participation. Since the first Choosing Wisely recommendations were published in 2013, more than 80 professional associations have contributed lists of their own. Professional societies participate voluntarily. The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), Society of General Internal Medicine, and American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) have contributed lists relevant to primary care. All Choosing Wisely recommendations can be searched or sorted by specialty organization. Recommendations are reviewed and revised regularly. If the evidence becomes conflicted or contradictory, recommendations are withdrawn.

Making meaningful improvements by Choosing Wisely

Several studies have shown that health care systems can implement Choosing Wisely recommendations to reduce overuse of unnecessary tests. A 2015 study examined the effect of applying a Choosing Wisely recommendation to reduce the use of continuous pulse oximetry in pediatric inpatients with asthma, wheezing, or bronchiolitis. The recommendation, from the Society of Hospital Medicine–Pediatric Hospital Medicine, advises against continuous pulse oximetry in children with acute respiratory illnesses unless the child is using supplemental oxygen.⁴ This study, done at the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, found that within 3 months of initiating a protocol on all general pediatrics floors, the average time on pulse oximetry after meeting clinical goals decreased from 10.7 hours to 3.1 hours. In addition, the percentage of patients who had their continuous pulse oximetry stopped within 2 hours of clinical stability (a goal time) increased from 25% to 46%.⁵

Patients are important drivers of health care utilization. A 2003 study showed that physicians are more likely to order referrals, tests, and prescriptions when patients ask for them, and that nearly 1 in 4 patients did so.⁶ A 2002 study found that physicians granted all but 3% of patient’s requests for orders or tests, and that fulfilling requests correlated with patient satisfaction in the specialty office studied (cardiology) but not in the primary care (internal medicine) office.⁷

Choosing Wisely recommendations are not guidelines or mandates. They are intended to be evidencebased advice from a specialty society to its members and to patients about care that is often unnecessary.

From its inception, Choosing Wisely has considered patients as full partners in conversations about health care utilization. Choosing Wisely partners with Consumer Reports to create and disseminate plain-language summaries of recommendations. Community groups and physician organizations have also participated in implementation efforts. In 2018, Choosing Wisely secured a grant to expand outreach to diverse or underserved communities.

Choosing Wisely recommendations are not guidelines or mandates. They are intended to be evidence-based advice from a specialty society to its members and to patients about care that is often unnecessary. The goal is to create a conversation and not to eliminate these services from ever being offered or used.

Continue to: Improve your practice with these 10 primary care recommendations

Improve your practice with these 10 primary care recommendations

 1 Avoid imaging studies in early acute low back pain without red flags.

Both the AAFP and the American Society of Anesthesiologists recommend against routine X-rays, magnetic resonance imaging, and computed tomography (CT) scans in the first 6 weeks of acute low back pain (LBP).^8,9 The American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) recommends against routine lumbar spine imaging for emergency department (ED) patients.¹⁰ In all cases, imaging is indicated if the patient has any signs or symptoms of neurologic deficits or other indications, such as signs of spinal infection or fracture. However, as ACEP notes, diagnostic imaging does not typically help identify the cause of acute LBP, and when it does, it does not reduce the time to symptom improvement.¹⁰

2 Prescribe oral contraceptives on the basis of a medical history and a blood pressure measurement. No routine pelvic exam or other physical exam is necessary.

This AAFP recommendation¹¹ is based on clinical practice guidelines from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and other research.¹² The ACOG practice guideline supports provision of hormonal contraception without a pelvic exam, cervical cancer (Pap) testing, urine pregnancy testing, or testing for sexually transmitted infections. ACOG guidelines also support over-the-counter provision of hormonal contraceptives, including combined oral contraceptives.¹²

3 Stop recommending daily self-glucose monitoring for patients with diabetes who are not using insulin.

Both the AAFP and the Society for General Internal Medicine recommend against daily blood sugar checks for people who do not use insulin.^13,14 A Cochrane review of 9 trials (3300 patients) found that after 6 months, hemoglobin A1C was reduced by 0.3% in people who checked their sugar daily compared with those who did not, but this difference was not significant after a year.¹⁵ Hypoglycemic episodes were more common in the “checking” group, and there were no differences in quality of life. A qualitative study found that blood sugar results had little impact on patients’ motivation to change behavior.¹⁶

4 Don’t screen for herpes simplex virus (HSV) infection in asymptomatic adults, even those who are pregnant.

This AAFP recommendation¹⁷ comes from a US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) Grade D recommendation.18 Most people with positive HSV-2 serology have had an outbreak; even those who do not think they have had one will realize that they had the symptoms once they hear them described.18 With available tests, 1 in 2 positive results for HSV-2 among asymptomatic people will be a false-positive.¹⁸

A 2006 analysis of inpatient lab studies found that doctors ordered an average of 2.96 studies per patient per day, but only 29% of these tests contributed to management.

There is no known cure, intervention, or reduction in transmission for infected patients who do not have symptoms.¹⁸ Also, serologically detected HSV-2 does not reliably predict genital herpes; and HSV-1 has been found to cause an increasing percentage of genital infection cases.¹⁸

Continue to: 5 Don't screen for testicular cancer in asymptomatic individuals

5 Don’t screen for testicular cancer in asymptomatic individuals.

This AAFP recommendation¹⁹ also comes from a USPSTF Grade D recommendation.²⁰ A 2010 systematic review found no evidence to support screening of asymptomatic people with a physical exam or ultrasound. All available studies involved symptomatic patients.²⁰

 6 Stop recommending cough and cold medicines for children younger than 4 years.

The AAP recommends that clinicians discourage the use of any cough or cold medicine for children in this age-group.²¹ A 2008 study found that more than 7000 children annually presented to EDs for adverse events from cough and cold medicines.²² Previous studies found no benefit in reducing symptoms.²³ In children older than 12 months, a Cochrane review found that honey has a modest benefit for cough in single-night trials.²⁴

7 Avoid performing serum allergy panels.

The American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology discourages the use of serum panel testing when patients present with allergy symptoms.²⁵ A patient can have a strong positive immunoglobulin E (IgE) serum result to an allergen and have no clinical allergic symptoms or can have a weak positive serum result and a strong clinical reaction. Targeted skin or serum IgE testing—for example, testing for cashew allergy in a patient known to have had a reaction after eating one—is reasonable.²⁶

8 Avoid routine electroencephalography (EEG), head CT, and carotid ultrasound as initial work-up for simple syncope in adults.

These recommendations, from the American Epilepsy Society,²⁷ ACEP,²⁸ American College of Physicians,²⁹ and American Academy of Neurology (AAN),³⁰ emphasize the low yield of routine work-ups for patients with simple syncope. The AAN notes that 40% of people will experience syncope during adulthood and most will not have carotid disease, which generally manifests with stroke-like symptoms rather than syncope. One study found that approximately 1 in 8 patients referred to an epilepsy clinic had neurocardiogenic syncope rather than epilepsy.³¹

EEGs have high false-negative and false-positive rates, and history-taking is a better tool with which to make a diagnosis. CT scans performed in the ED were found to contribute to the diagnosis of simple syncope in fewer than 2% of cases of syncope, compared with orthostatic blood pressure (25% of cases).³²

Continue to: 9 Wait to refer children with umbilical hernias to pediatric surgery until they are 4 to 5 years of age

The AAP Section on Surgery offers evidence that the risk-benefit analysis strongly favors waiting on intervention.³³ About 1 in 4 children will have an umbilical hernia, and about 85% of cases will resolve by age 5. The strangulation rate with umbilical hernias is very low, and although the risk of infection with surgery is likewise low, the risk of recurrence following surgery before the age of 4 is as high as 2.4%.³⁴ The AAP Section on Surgery recommends against strapping or restraining the hernia, as well.

10 Avoid using appetite stimulants, such as megesterol, and high-calorie nutritional supplements to treat anorexia and cachexia in older adults.

Instead, the American Geriatrics Society recommends that physicians encourage caregivers to serve appealing food, provide support with eating, and remove barriers to appetite and nutrition.³⁵ A Cochrane review showed that high-calorie supplements, such as Boost or Ensure, are associated with very modest weight gain—about 2% of weight—but are not associated with an increased life expectancy or improved quality of life.³⁶

Both the AAFP and the American Society of Anesthesiologists recommend against routine x-rays, MRIs, and CT scans during the first 6 weeks of acute low back pain.

Prescription appetite stimulants are associated with adverse effects and yield inconsistent benefits in older adults. Megesterol, for example, was associated with headache, gastrointestinal adverse effects, insomnia, weakness, and fatigue. Mirtazapine is associated with sedation and fatigue.³⁷

CORRESPONDENCE
Kathleen Rowland, MD, MS, Rush Copley Family Medicine Residency, Rush Medical College, 600 South Paulina, Kidston House Room 605, Chicago IL 60612; kathleen_rowland@rush.edu.

Implementing an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program for cesarean delivery led to decreased opioid use, shorter length of stay, and decreased costs, according to recent research published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

©Cameron Whitman/Thinkstock

Luciana Mullman, MPH, of Saint Barnabas Medical Center in Livingston, N.J., and colleagues used a pre-post study design to evaluate the effectiveness of ERAS at a tertiary care institution after implementing the program for patients undergoing scheduled or emergent cesarean delivery between December 2018 and August 2019. The researchers compared the rates of opioid use, length of stay, and costs of care for patients undergoing cesarean section after ERAS was implemented with those outcomes for cesarean deliveries at the center prior to ERAS between January 2018 and December 2018.
 

The ERAS program

ERAS was described in the study as incorporating a preoperative strategy, intraoperative management and postoperative care for cesarean delivery. The preoperative strategy consisted of a patient guidebook and a personal meeting for patient education on what to expect for preoperative and postoperative experiences as well as instructions leading up to the surgery.

For intraoperative management, intravenous opioids were minimized and replaced with neuraxial opioids when appropriate. The patient’s body temperature was monitored and controlled during the intraoperative pathway, and fluid balance was maintained. To prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting, IV ondansetron at a dose of 4 mg was started at the beginning of the cesarean delivery. When the cesarean delivery was complete, an anesthesiologist administered transversus abdominis plane blocks with 0.3% ropivacaine 30 mL on each side before the patient moved to the recovery area.

Postoperatively, the patient’s catheter was removed in the recovery room, and then transferred to postpartum floors if appropriate based on patient status. Patients began resuming a clear liquid diet 1 hour after cesarean delivery and a regular diet 6 hours after delivery. At 6 hours after surgery, the patient was out of bed and moving; walks around the nursing unit were scheduled three times per day at minimum. For pain, patients were given a 1,000-mg acetaminophen tablet every 8 hours, a 600-mg ibuprofen tablet every 6 hours, and dextromethorphan 30 mg/mL every 8 hours, with oral oxycodone 5 mg administered after physician evaluation for breakthrough pain.

Overall, there were 3,679 cesarean deliveries in the study, which included 2,171 deliveries prior to ERAS implementation and 1,508 cesarean deliveries after implementation. Patients with a scheduled cesarean delivery prior to ERAS implementation received no consistent educational program for anticipating cesarean delivery. After implementation, those patients with scheduled cesarean delivery received the full preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative pathway, while emergent cesarean cases included the intraoperative management and postoperative care, but did not contain the preoperative component.
 

Improved outcomes after ERAS

The researchers found a significant decrease in the use of opioids after implementing ERAS at the center, with 24% of patients receiving opioids after ERAS, compared with 84% of patients prior to ERAS (odds ratio, 16.8; 95% confidence interval, 14.3-19.9; P < .001). These reductions in opioid use from the pre- and postimplementation periods were similar for patients with scheduled cesarean deliveries (85% vs. 27%; OR, 14.9; 95% CI, 12.2-18.3; P < .001) and emergent cesarean deliveries (83% vs. 19%; OR, 21.4; 95% CI, 16.1-28.7; P < .001).

There was also a significant reduction in total morphine milligram equivalents (MME) for patients who received opioids after ERAS (median, 15.0 MME), compared with before (median, 56.5 MME) implementing ERAS (mean relative change, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.28-0.35; P < .001). These results also were significant among both scheduled (median 59.9 vs. 15.0 MME; mean relative change, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.27-0.36; P < .001) and emergent (median 56.5 vs. 15.0 MME; mean relative change, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.89-1.01; P < .001) cesarean deliveries.

The overall length of stay after cesarean delivery significantly decreased after ERAS from an average of 3.2 days to 2.7 days (mean relative change, 0.82, 95% CI, 0.80-0.83; P < .001), and was significant in both scheduled (3.2 vs. 2.7 days; mean relative change, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.81-0.85; P < .001) and emergent (3.1 vs. 2.5 days; mean relative change, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.77-0.82; P < .001) groups. While the number of patients discharged within 2 days increased from 9% to 49% after ERAS implementation, there was no significant difference overall or in either group regarding 30-day readmission. The researchers also noted the median direct costs of cesarean delivery decreased by $349 per case after starting ERAS (mean relative change, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.91-0.95).
 

ERAS implementation lagging in obstetrics

In an interview, Iris Krishna, MD, MPH, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Emory University, Atlanta, said the ERAS approach has been used successfully in other surgical specialties but has “lagged” in obstetrics. “To date, there has been less attention in improving perioperative outcomes for women undergoing cesarean delivery, the most common abdominal surgery for women.”

Dr. Krishna said this study shows ERAS can be used in obstetrics to improve outcomes after cesarean section without increasing readmission rates. “Overall, this study demonstrates that ERAS can be successfully implemented for cesarean delivery as it has been for a variety of surgical specialties. ERAS for cesarean delivery can improve the quality of patient care while reducing health care costs.”

Women in the postpartum and postoperative period could benefit from ERAS as they recover from surgery and adjust to becoming a new mother, Dr. Krishna noted. “The goal of ERAS is to help patients return to physiological functioning as quickly as possible. Improving postoperative recovery can help with mother-infant bonding and breastfeeding.

“Implementation of a standardized approach for cesarean delivery has the potential to reduce health disparities and the disproportionately high rates of maternal morbidity and mortality in the United States,” she added. “ERAS for cesarean delivery also has the potential to address the opioid epidemic amongst reproductive-age women by improving postcesarean pain management and reducing opioid prescribing.”

Dr. Krishna also explained that an ERAS program would be feasible to implement in most centers. “It will require a shift of some elements of care from the inpatient to outpatient setting, but theoretically feasible as pregnant women frequently undergo many clinic visits during their pregnancy course.

“Education on ERAS for cesarean delivery can be implemented into prenatal care visits. ERAS implementation will also require a multidisciplinary team approach that includes obstetrics, anesthesia, nursing, pharmacy, pediatrics – all key stakeholders that will need to ‘buy in’ or be willing to support the protocol to ensure its success. As in this study, it would be helpful for hospitals to have an ERAS coordinator to champion and ensure compliance of protocol.”

Dr. Miller reported that he has received payments from the Coventus Professional Liability Insurance: Risk Management Committee and the New Jersey Board of Medical Examiners. The other authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Krishna reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Mullman L et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Oct. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000004023.

Implementing an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program for cesarean delivery led to decreased opioid use, shorter length of stay, and decreased costs, according to recent research published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

©Cameron Whitman/Thinkstock

Luciana Mullman, MPH, of Saint Barnabas Medical Center in Livingston, N.J., and colleagues used a pre-post study design to evaluate the effectiveness of ERAS at a tertiary care institution after implementing the program for patients undergoing scheduled or emergent cesarean delivery between December 2018 and August 2019. The researchers compared the rates of opioid use, length of stay, and costs of care for patients undergoing cesarean section after ERAS was implemented with those outcomes for cesarean deliveries at the center prior to ERAS between January 2018 and December 2018.
 

The ERAS program

ERAS was described in the study as incorporating a preoperative strategy, intraoperative management and postoperative care for cesarean delivery. The preoperative strategy consisted of a patient guidebook and a personal meeting for patient education on what to expect for preoperative and postoperative experiences as well as instructions leading up to the surgery.

For intraoperative management, intravenous opioids were minimized and replaced with neuraxial opioids when appropriate. The patient’s body temperature was monitored and controlled during the intraoperative pathway, and fluid balance was maintained. To prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting, IV ondansetron at a dose of 4 mg was started at the beginning of the cesarean delivery. When the cesarean delivery was complete, an anesthesiologist administered transversus abdominis plane blocks with 0.3% ropivacaine 30 mL on each side before the patient moved to the recovery area.

Postoperatively, the patient’s catheter was removed in the recovery room, and then transferred to postpartum floors if appropriate based on patient status. Patients began resuming a clear liquid diet 1 hour after cesarean delivery and a regular diet 6 hours after delivery. At 6 hours after surgery, the patient was out of bed and moving; walks around the nursing unit were scheduled three times per day at minimum. For pain, patients were given a 1,000-mg acetaminophen tablet every 8 hours, a 600-mg ibuprofen tablet every 6 hours, and dextromethorphan 30 mg/mL every 8 hours, with oral oxycodone 5 mg administered after physician evaluation for breakthrough pain.

Overall, there were 3,679 cesarean deliveries in the study, which included 2,171 deliveries prior to ERAS implementation and 1,508 cesarean deliveries after implementation. Patients with a scheduled cesarean delivery prior to ERAS implementation received no consistent educational program for anticipating cesarean delivery. After implementation, those patients with scheduled cesarean delivery received the full preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative pathway, while emergent cesarean cases included the intraoperative management and postoperative care, but did not contain the preoperative component.
 

Improved outcomes after ERAS

The researchers found a significant decrease in the use of opioids after implementing ERAS at the center, with 24% of patients receiving opioids after ERAS, compared with 84% of patients prior to ERAS (odds ratio, 16.8; 95% confidence interval, 14.3-19.9; P < .001). These reductions in opioid use from the pre- and postimplementation periods were similar for patients with scheduled cesarean deliveries (85% vs. 27%; OR, 14.9; 95% CI, 12.2-18.3; P < .001) and emergent cesarean deliveries (83% vs. 19%; OR, 21.4; 95% CI, 16.1-28.7; P < .001).

There was also a significant reduction in total morphine milligram equivalents (MME) for patients who received opioids after ERAS (median, 15.0 MME), compared with before (median, 56.5 MME) implementing ERAS (mean relative change, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.28-0.35; P < .001). These results also were significant among both scheduled (median 59.9 vs. 15.0 MME; mean relative change, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.27-0.36; P < .001) and emergent (median 56.5 vs. 15.0 MME; mean relative change, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.89-1.01; P < .001) cesarean deliveries.

The overall length of stay after cesarean delivery significantly decreased after ERAS from an average of 3.2 days to 2.7 days (mean relative change, 0.82, 95% CI, 0.80-0.83; P < .001), and was significant in both scheduled (3.2 vs. 2.7 days; mean relative change, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.81-0.85; P < .001) and emergent (3.1 vs. 2.5 days; mean relative change, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.77-0.82; P < .001) groups. While the number of patients discharged within 2 days increased from 9% to 49% after ERAS implementation, there was no significant difference overall or in either group regarding 30-day readmission. The researchers also noted the median direct costs of cesarean delivery decreased by $349 per case after starting ERAS (mean relative change, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.91-0.95).
 

ERAS implementation lagging in obstetrics

In an interview, Iris Krishna, MD, MPH, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Emory University, Atlanta, said the ERAS approach has been used successfully in other surgical specialties but has “lagged” in obstetrics. “To date, there has been less attention in improving perioperative outcomes for women undergoing cesarean delivery, the most common abdominal surgery for women.”

Dr. Krishna said this study shows ERAS can be used in obstetrics to improve outcomes after cesarean section without increasing readmission rates. “Overall, this study demonstrates that ERAS can be successfully implemented for cesarean delivery as it has been for a variety of surgical specialties. ERAS for cesarean delivery can improve the quality of patient care while reducing health care costs.”

Women in the postpartum and postoperative period could benefit from ERAS as they recover from surgery and adjust to becoming a new mother, Dr. Krishna noted. “The goal of ERAS is to help patients return to physiological functioning as quickly as possible. Improving postoperative recovery can help with mother-infant bonding and breastfeeding.

“Implementation of a standardized approach for cesarean delivery has the potential to reduce health disparities and the disproportionately high rates of maternal morbidity and mortality in the United States,” she added. “ERAS for cesarean delivery also has the potential to address the opioid epidemic amongst reproductive-age women by improving postcesarean pain management and reducing opioid prescribing.”

Dr. Krishna also explained that an ERAS program would be feasible to implement in most centers. “It will require a shift of some elements of care from the inpatient to outpatient setting, but theoretically feasible as pregnant women frequently undergo many clinic visits during their pregnancy course.

“Education on ERAS for cesarean delivery can be implemented into prenatal care visits. ERAS implementation will also require a multidisciplinary team approach that includes obstetrics, anesthesia, nursing, pharmacy, pediatrics – all key stakeholders that will need to ‘buy in’ or be willing to support the protocol to ensure its success. As in this study, it would be helpful for hospitals to have an ERAS coordinator to champion and ensure compliance of protocol.”

Dr. Miller reported that he has received payments from the Coventus Professional Liability Insurance: Risk Management Committee and the New Jersey Board of Medical Examiners. The other authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Krishna reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Mullman L et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Oct. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000004023.

Implementing an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program for cesarean delivery led to decreased opioid use, shorter length of stay, and decreased costs, according to recent research published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

©Cameron Whitman/Thinkstock

Luciana Mullman, MPH, of Saint Barnabas Medical Center in Livingston, N.J., and colleagues used a pre-post study design to evaluate the effectiveness of ERAS at a tertiary care institution after implementing the program for patients undergoing scheduled or emergent cesarean delivery between December 2018 and August 2019. The researchers compared the rates of opioid use, length of stay, and costs of care for patients undergoing cesarean section after ERAS was implemented with those outcomes for cesarean deliveries at the center prior to ERAS between January 2018 and December 2018.
 

The ERAS program

ERAS was described in the study as incorporating a preoperative strategy, intraoperative management and postoperative care for cesarean delivery. The preoperative strategy consisted of a patient guidebook and a personal meeting for patient education on what to expect for preoperative and postoperative experiences as well as instructions leading up to the surgery.

For intraoperative management, intravenous opioids were minimized and replaced with neuraxial opioids when appropriate. The patient’s body temperature was monitored and controlled during the intraoperative pathway, and fluid balance was maintained. To prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting, IV ondansetron at a dose of 4 mg was started at the beginning of the cesarean delivery. When the cesarean delivery was complete, an anesthesiologist administered transversus abdominis plane blocks with 0.3% ropivacaine 30 mL on each side before the patient moved to the recovery area.

Postoperatively, the patient’s catheter was removed in the recovery room, and then transferred to postpartum floors if appropriate based on patient status. Patients began resuming a clear liquid diet 1 hour after cesarean delivery and a regular diet 6 hours after delivery. At 6 hours after surgery, the patient was out of bed and moving; walks around the nursing unit were scheduled three times per day at minimum. For pain, patients were given a 1,000-mg acetaminophen tablet every 8 hours, a 600-mg ibuprofen tablet every 6 hours, and dextromethorphan 30 mg/mL every 8 hours, with oral oxycodone 5 mg administered after physician evaluation for breakthrough pain.

Overall, there were 3,679 cesarean deliveries in the study, which included 2,171 deliveries prior to ERAS implementation and 1,508 cesarean deliveries after implementation. Patients with a scheduled cesarean delivery prior to ERAS implementation received no consistent educational program for anticipating cesarean delivery. After implementation, those patients with scheduled cesarean delivery received the full preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative pathway, while emergent cesarean cases included the intraoperative management and postoperative care, but did not contain the preoperative component.
 

Improved outcomes after ERAS

The researchers found a significant decrease in the use of opioids after implementing ERAS at the center, with 24% of patients receiving opioids after ERAS, compared with 84% of patients prior to ERAS (odds ratio, 16.8; 95% confidence interval, 14.3-19.9; P < .001). These reductions in opioid use from the pre- and postimplementation periods were similar for patients with scheduled cesarean deliveries (85% vs. 27%; OR, 14.9; 95% CI, 12.2-18.3; P < .001) and emergent cesarean deliveries (83% vs. 19%; OR, 21.4; 95% CI, 16.1-28.7; P < .001).

There was also a significant reduction in total morphine milligram equivalents (MME) for patients who received opioids after ERAS (median, 15.0 MME), compared with before (median, 56.5 MME) implementing ERAS (mean relative change, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.28-0.35; P < .001). These results also were significant among both scheduled (median 59.9 vs. 15.0 MME; mean relative change, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.27-0.36; P < .001) and emergent (median 56.5 vs. 15.0 MME; mean relative change, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.89-1.01; P < .001) cesarean deliveries.

The overall length of stay after cesarean delivery significantly decreased after ERAS from an average of 3.2 days to 2.7 days (mean relative change, 0.82, 95% CI, 0.80-0.83; P < .001), and was significant in both scheduled (3.2 vs. 2.7 days; mean relative change, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.81-0.85; P < .001) and emergent (3.1 vs. 2.5 days; mean relative change, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.77-0.82; P < .001) groups. While the number of patients discharged within 2 days increased from 9% to 49% after ERAS implementation, there was no significant difference overall or in either group regarding 30-day readmission. The researchers also noted the median direct costs of cesarean delivery decreased by $349 per case after starting ERAS (mean relative change, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.91-0.95).
 

ERAS implementation lagging in obstetrics

In an interview, Iris Krishna, MD, MPH, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Emory University, Atlanta, said the ERAS approach has been used successfully in other surgical specialties but has “lagged” in obstetrics. “To date, there has been less attention in improving perioperative outcomes for women undergoing cesarean delivery, the most common abdominal surgery for women.”

Dr. Krishna said this study shows ERAS can be used in obstetrics to improve outcomes after cesarean section without increasing readmission rates. “Overall, this study demonstrates that ERAS can be successfully implemented for cesarean delivery as it has been for a variety of surgical specialties. ERAS for cesarean delivery can improve the quality of patient care while reducing health care costs.”

Women in the postpartum and postoperative period could benefit from ERAS as they recover from surgery and adjust to becoming a new mother, Dr. Krishna noted. “The goal of ERAS is to help patients return to physiological functioning as quickly as possible. Improving postoperative recovery can help with mother-infant bonding and breastfeeding.

“Implementation of a standardized approach for cesarean delivery has the potential to reduce health disparities and the disproportionately high rates of maternal morbidity and mortality in the United States,” she added. “ERAS for cesarean delivery also has the potential to address the opioid epidemic amongst reproductive-age women by improving postcesarean pain management and reducing opioid prescribing.”

Dr. Krishna also explained that an ERAS program would be feasible to implement in most centers. “It will require a shift of some elements of care from the inpatient to outpatient setting, but theoretically feasible as pregnant women frequently undergo many clinic visits during their pregnancy course.

“Education on ERAS for cesarean delivery can be implemented into prenatal care visits. ERAS implementation will also require a multidisciplinary team approach that includes obstetrics, anesthesia, nursing, pharmacy, pediatrics – all key stakeholders that will need to ‘buy in’ or be willing to support the protocol to ensure its success. As in this study, it would be helpful for hospitals to have an ERAS coordinator to champion and ensure compliance of protocol.”

Dr. Miller reported that he has received payments from the Coventus Professional Liability Insurance: Risk Management Committee and the New Jersey Board of Medical Examiners. The other authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Krishna reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Mullman L et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Oct. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000004023.

If your ObGyn practices are anything like ours, every time there is news coverage of a study regarding mammography or about efforts to pass a breast density inform law, your phone rings with patient calls. In fact, every density inform law enacted in the United States, except for in Illinois, directs patients to their referring provider—generally their ObGyn—to discuss the screening and risk implications of dense breast tissue.

The steady increased awareness of breast density means that we, as ObGyns and other primary care providers (PCPs), have additional responsibilities in managing the breast health of our patients. This includes guiding discussions with patients about what breast density means and whether supplemental screening beyond mammography might be beneficial.

As members of the Medical Advisory Board for DenseBreast-info.org (an online educational resource dedicated to providing breast density information to patients and health care professionals), we are aware of the growing body of evidence demonstrating improved detection of early breast cancer using supplemental screening in dense breasts. However, we know that there is confusion among clinicians about how and when to facilitate tailored screening for women with dense breasts or other breast cancer risk factors. Here we answer 6 questions focusing on how to navigate patient discussions around the topic and the best way to collaborate with radiologists to improve breast care for patients.

Play an active role

1. What role should ObGyns and PCPs play in women’s breast health?

Elizabeth Etkin-Kramer, MD: I am a firm believer that ObGyns and all women’s health providers should be able to assess their patients’ risk of breast cancer and explain the process for managing this risk with their patients. This explanation includes the clinical implications of breast density and when supplemental screening should be employed. It is also important for providers to know when to offer genetic testing and when a patient’s personal or family history indicates supplemental screening with breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

DaCarla M. Albright, MD: I absolutely agree that PCPs, ObGyns, and family practitioners should spend the time to be educated about breast density and supplemental screening options. While the exact role providers play in managing patients’ breast health may vary depending on the practice type or location, the need for knowledge and comfort when talking with patients to help them make informed decisions is critical. Breast health and screening, including the importance of breast density, happen to be a particular interest of mine. I have participated in educational webinars, invited lectures, and breast cancer awareness media events on this topic in the past.

Continue to: Join forces with imaging centers...

Join forces with imaging centers

2. How can ObGyns and radiologists collaborate most effectively to use screening results to personalize breast care for patients?

Dr. Etkin-Kramer: It is important to have a close relationship with the radiologists that read our patients’ mammograms. We need to be able to easily contact the radiologist and quickly get clarification on a patient’s report or discuss next steps. Imaging centers should consider running outreach programs to educate their referring providers on how to risk assess, with this assessment inclusive of breast density. Dinner lectures or grand round meetings are effective to facilitate communication between the radiology community and the ObGyn community. Finally, as we all know, supplemental screening is often subject to copays and deductibles per insurance coverage. If advocacy groups, who are working to eliminate these types of costs, cannot get insurers to waive these payments, we need a less expensive self-pay option.

Dr. Albright: I definitely have and encourage an open line of communication between my practice and breast radiology, as well as our breast surgeons and cancer center to set up consultations as needed. We also invite our radiologists as guests to monthly practice meetings or grand rounds within our department to further improve access and open communication, as this environment is one in which greater provider education on density and adjunctive screening can be achieved.

Know when to refer a high-risk patient

3. Most ObGyns routinely collect family history and perform formal risk assessment. What do you need to know about referring patients to a high-risk program?

Dr. Etkin-Kramer: It is important as ObGyns to be knowledgeable about breast and ovarian cancer risk assessment and genetic testing for cancer susceptibility genes. Our patients expect that of us. I am comfortable doing risk assessment in my office, but I sometimes refer to other specialists in the community if the patient needs additional counseling. For risk assessment, I look at family and personal history, breast density, and other factors that might lead me to believe the patient might carry a hereditary cancer susceptibility gene, including Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry.¹ When indicated, I check lifetime as well as short-term (5- to 10-year) risk, usually using Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) or Tyrer-Cuzick/International Breast Cancer Intervention Study (IBIS) models, as these include breast density.

I discuss risk-reducing medications. The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends these agents if my patient’s 5-year risk of breast cancer is 1.67% or greater, and I strongly recommend chemoprevention when the patient’s 5-year BCSC risk exceeds 3%, provided likely benefits exceed risks.^2,3 I discuss adding screening breast MRI if lifetime risk by Tyrer-Cuzick exceeds 20%. (Note that Gail and BCSC models are not recommended to be used to determine risk for purposes of supplemental screening with MRI as they do not consider paternal family history nor age of relatives at diagnosis.)

Dr. Albright: ObGyns should be able to ascertain a pertinent history and identify patients at risk for breast cancer based on their personal history, family history, and breast imaging/biopsy history, if relevant. We also need to improve our discussions of supplemental screening for patients who have heterogeneously dense or extremely dense breast tissue. I sense that some ObGyns may rely heavily on the radiologist to suggest supplemental screening, but patients actually look to Ob­Gyns as their providers to have this knowledge and give them direction.

Since I practice at a large academic medical center, I have the opportunity to refer patients to our Breast Cancer Genetics Program because I may be limited on time for counseling in the office and do not want to miss salient details. With all of the information I have ascertained about the patient, I am able to determine and encourage appropriate screening and assure insurance coverage for adjunctive breast MRI when appropriate.

Continue to: Consider how you order patients’ screening to reduce barriers and cost...

4. How would you suggest reducing barriers when referring patients for supplemental screening, such as MRI for high-risk women or ultrasound for those with dense breasts? Would you prefer it if such screening could be performed without additional script/referral? How does insurance coverage factor in?

Dr. Etkin-Kramer: I would love for a screening mammogram with possible ultrasound, on one script, to be the norm. One of the centers that I work with accepts a script written this way. Further, when a patient receives screening at a freestanding facility as opposed to a hospital, the fee for the supplemental screening may be lower because they do not add on a facility fee.

Dr. Albright: We have an order in our electronic health record that allows for screening mammography but adds on diagnostic mammography/bilateral ultrasonography, if indicated by imaging. I am mostly ordering that option now for all of my screening patients; rarely have I had issues with insurance accepting that script. As for when ordering an MRI, I always try to ensure that I have done the patient’s personal risk assessment and included that lifetime breast cancer risk on the order. If the risk is 20% or higher, I typically do not have any insurance coverage issues. If I am ordering MRI as supplemental screening, I typically order the “Fast MRI” protocol that our center offers. This order incurs a $299 out-of-pocket cost for the patient. Any patient with heterogeneously or extremely dense breasts on mammography should have this option, but it requires patient education, discussion with the provider, and an additional cost. I definitely think that insurers need to consider covering supplemental screening, since breast density is reportable in a majority of the US states and will soon be the national standard.

Pearls for guiding patients

5. How do you discuss breast density and the need for supplemental screening with your patients?

Dr. Etkin-Kramer: I strongly feel that my patients need to know when a screening test has limited ability to do its job. This is the case with dense breasts. Visuals help; when discussing breast density, I like the images supplied by DenseBreast-info.org (FIGURE). I explain the two implications of dense tissue:

• First, dense tissue makes it harder to visualize cancers in the breast—the denser the breasts, the less likely the radiologist can pick up a cancer, so mammographic sensitivity for extremely dense breasts can be as low as 25% to 50%.
• Second, high breast density adds to the risk of developing breast cancer. I explain that supplemental screening will pick up additional cancers in women with dense breasts. For example, breast ultrasound will pick up about 2-3/1000 additional breast cancers per year and MRI or molecular breast imaging (MBI) will pick up much more, perhaps 10/1000.

MRI is more invasive than an ultrasound and uses gadolinium, and MBI has more radiation. Supplemental screening is not endorsed by ACOG’s most recent Committee Opinion from 2017; ⁴ however, patients may choose to have it done. This is where shared-decision making is important.

I strongly recommend that all women’s health care providers complete the CME course on the DenseBreast-info.org website. “ Breast Density: Why It Matters ” is a certified educational program for referring physicians that helps health care professionals learn about breast density, its associated risks, and how best to guide patients regarding breast cancer screening.

Continue to: Dr. Albright...

Dr. Albright: When I discuss breast density, I make sure that patients understand that their mammogram determines the density of their breast tissue. I review that in the higher density categories (heterogeneously dense or extremely dense), there is a higher risk of missing cancer, and that these categories are also associated with a higher risk of breast cancer. I also discuss the potential need for supplemental screening, for which my institution primarily offers Fast MRI. However, we can offer breast ultrasonography instead as an option, especially for those concerned about gadolinium exposure. Our center offers either of these supplemental screenings at a cost of $299. I also review the lack of coverage for supplemental screening by some insurance carriers, as both providers and patients may need to advocate for insurer coverage of adjunct studies.

Educational resources

6. What reference materials, illustrations, or other tools do you use to educate your patients?

Dr. Etkin-Kramer: I frequently use handouts printed from the DenseBreast-info.org website, and there is now a brand new patient fact sheet that I have just started using. I also have an example of breast density categories from fatty replaced to extremely dense on my computer, and I am putting it on a new smart board.

Dr. Albright: The extensive resources available at DenseBreast-info.org can improve both patient and provider knowledge of these important issues, so I suggest patients visit that website, and I use many of the images and visuals to help explain breast density. I even use the materials from the website for educating my resident trainees on breast health and screening. ●

If your ObGyn practices are anything like ours, every time there is news coverage of a study regarding mammography or about efforts to pass a breast density inform law, your phone rings with patient calls. In fact, every density inform law enacted in the United States, except for in Illinois, directs patients to their referring provider—generally their ObGyn—to discuss the screening and risk implications of dense breast tissue.

The steady increased awareness of breast density means that we, as ObGyns and other primary care providers (PCPs), have additional responsibilities in managing the breast health of our patients. This includes guiding discussions with patients about what breast density means and whether supplemental screening beyond mammography might be beneficial.

As members of the Medical Advisory Board for DenseBreast-info.org (an online educational resource dedicated to providing breast density information to patients and health care professionals), we are aware of the growing body of evidence demonstrating improved detection of early breast cancer using supplemental screening in dense breasts. However, we know that there is confusion among clinicians about how and when to facilitate tailored screening for women with dense breasts or other breast cancer risk factors. Here we answer 6 questions focusing on how to navigate patient discussions around the topic and the best way to collaborate with radiologists to improve breast care for patients.

Play an active role

1. What role should ObGyns and PCPs play in women’s breast health?

Elizabeth Etkin-Kramer, MD: I am a firm believer that ObGyns and all women’s health providers should be able to assess their patients’ risk of breast cancer and explain the process for managing this risk with their patients. This explanation includes the clinical implications of breast density and when supplemental screening should be employed. It is also important for providers to know when to offer genetic testing and when a patient’s personal or family history indicates supplemental screening with breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

DaCarla M. Albright, MD: I absolutely agree that PCPs, ObGyns, and family practitioners should spend the time to be educated about breast density and supplemental screening options. While the exact role providers play in managing patients’ breast health may vary depending on the practice type or location, the need for knowledge and comfort when talking with patients to help them make informed decisions is critical. Breast health and screening, including the importance of breast density, happen to be a particular interest of mine. I have participated in educational webinars, invited lectures, and breast cancer awareness media events on this topic in the past.

Continue to: Join forces with imaging centers...

Join forces with imaging centers

2. How can ObGyns and radiologists collaborate most effectively to use screening results to personalize breast care for patients?

Dr. Etkin-Kramer: It is important to have a close relationship with the radiologists that read our patients’ mammograms. We need to be able to easily contact the radiologist and quickly get clarification on a patient’s report or discuss next steps. Imaging centers should consider running outreach programs to educate their referring providers on how to risk assess, with this assessment inclusive of breast density. Dinner lectures or grand round meetings are effective to facilitate communication between the radiology community and the ObGyn community. Finally, as we all know, supplemental screening is often subject to copays and deductibles per insurance coverage. If advocacy groups, who are working to eliminate these types of costs, cannot get insurers to waive these payments, we need a less expensive self-pay option.

Dr. Albright: I definitely have and encourage an open line of communication between my practice and breast radiology, as well as our breast surgeons and cancer center to set up consultations as needed. We also invite our radiologists as guests to monthly practice meetings or grand rounds within our department to further improve access and open communication, as this environment is one in which greater provider education on density and adjunctive screening can be achieved.

Know when to refer a high-risk patient

3. Most ObGyns routinely collect family history and perform formal risk assessment. What do you need to know about referring patients to a high-risk program?

Dr. Etkin-Kramer: It is important as ObGyns to be knowledgeable about breast and ovarian cancer risk assessment and genetic testing for cancer susceptibility genes. Our patients expect that of us. I am comfortable doing risk assessment in my office, but I sometimes refer to other specialists in the community if the patient needs additional counseling. For risk assessment, I look at family and personal history, breast density, and other factors that might lead me to believe the patient might carry a hereditary cancer susceptibility gene, including Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry.¹ When indicated, I check lifetime as well as short-term (5- to 10-year) risk, usually using Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) or Tyrer-Cuzick/International Breast Cancer Intervention Study (IBIS) models, as these include breast density.

I discuss risk-reducing medications. The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends these agents if my patient’s 5-year risk of breast cancer is 1.67% or greater, and I strongly recommend chemoprevention when the patient’s 5-year BCSC risk exceeds 3%, provided likely benefits exceed risks.^2,3 I discuss adding screening breast MRI if lifetime risk by Tyrer-Cuzick exceeds 20%. (Note that Gail and BCSC models are not recommended to be used to determine risk for purposes of supplemental screening with MRI as they do not consider paternal family history nor age of relatives at diagnosis.)

Dr. Albright: ObGyns should be able to ascertain a pertinent history and identify patients at risk for breast cancer based on their personal history, family history, and breast imaging/biopsy history, if relevant. We also need to improve our discussions of supplemental screening for patients who have heterogeneously dense or extremely dense breast tissue. I sense that some ObGyns may rely heavily on the radiologist to suggest supplemental screening, but patients actually look to Ob­Gyns as their providers to have this knowledge and give them direction.

Since I practice at a large academic medical center, I have the opportunity to refer patients to our Breast Cancer Genetics Program because I may be limited on time for counseling in the office and do not want to miss salient details. With all of the information I have ascertained about the patient, I am able to determine and encourage appropriate screening and assure insurance coverage for adjunctive breast MRI when appropriate.

Continue to: Consider how you order patients’ screening to reduce barriers and cost...

4. How would you suggest reducing barriers when referring patients for supplemental screening, such as MRI for high-risk women or ultrasound for those with dense breasts? Would you prefer it if such screening could be performed without additional script/referral? How does insurance coverage factor in?

Dr. Etkin-Kramer: I would love for a screening mammogram with possible ultrasound, on one script, to be the norm. One of the centers that I work with accepts a script written this way. Further, when a patient receives screening at a freestanding facility as opposed to a hospital, the fee for the supplemental screening may be lower because they do not add on a facility fee.

Dr. Albright: We have an order in our electronic health record that allows for screening mammography but adds on diagnostic mammography/bilateral ultrasonography, if indicated by imaging. I am mostly ordering that option now for all of my screening patients; rarely have I had issues with insurance accepting that script. As for when ordering an MRI, I always try to ensure that I have done the patient’s personal risk assessment and included that lifetime breast cancer risk on the order. If the risk is 20% or higher, I typically do not have any insurance coverage issues. If I am ordering MRI as supplemental screening, I typically order the “Fast MRI” protocol that our center offers. This order incurs a $299 out-of-pocket cost for the patient. Any patient with heterogeneously or extremely dense breasts on mammography should have this option, but it requires patient education, discussion with the provider, and an additional cost. I definitely think that insurers need to consider covering supplemental screening, since breast density is reportable in a majority of the US states and will soon be the national standard.

Pearls for guiding patients

5. How do you discuss breast density and the need for supplemental screening with your patients?

Dr. Etkin-Kramer: I strongly feel that my patients need to know when a screening test has limited ability to do its job. This is the case with dense breasts. Visuals help; when discussing breast density, I like the images supplied by DenseBreast-info.org (FIGURE). I explain the two implications of dense tissue:

• First, dense tissue makes it harder to visualize cancers in the breast—the denser the breasts, the less likely the radiologist can pick up a cancer, so mammographic sensitivity for extremely dense breasts can be as low as 25% to 50%.
• Second, high breast density adds to the risk of developing breast cancer. I explain that supplemental screening will pick up additional cancers in women with dense breasts. For example, breast ultrasound will pick up about 2-3/1000 additional breast cancers per year and MRI or molecular breast imaging (MBI) will pick up much more, perhaps 10/1000.

MRI is more invasive than an ultrasound and uses gadolinium, and MBI has more radiation. Supplemental screening is not endorsed by ACOG’s most recent Committee Opinion from 2017; ⁴ however, patients may choose to have it done. This is where shared-decision making is important.

I strongly recommend that all women’s health care providers complete the CME course on the DenseBreast-info.org website. “ Breast Density: Why It Matters ” is a certified educational program for referring physicians that helps health care professionals learn about breast density, its associated risks, and how best to guide patients regarding breast cancer screening.

Continue to: Dr. Albright...

Dr. Albright: When I discuss breast density, I make sure that patients understand that their mammogram determines the density of their breast tissue. I review that in the higher density categories (heterogeneously dense or extremely dense), there is a higher risk of missing cancer, and that these categories are also associated with a higher risk of breast cancer. I also discuss the potential need for supplemental screening, for which my institution primarily offers Fast MRI. However, we can offer breast ultrasonography instead as an option, especially for those concerned about gadolinium exposure. Our center offers either of these supplemental screenings at a cost of $299. I also review the lack of coverage for supplemental screening by some insurance carriers, as both providers and patients may need to advocate for insurer coverage of adjunct studies.

Educational resources

6. What reference materials, illustrations, or other tools do you use to educate your patients?

Dr. Etkin-Kramer: I frequently use handouts printed from the DenseBreast-info.org website, and there is now a brand new patient fact sheet that I have just started using. I also have an example of breast density categories from fatty replaced to extremely dense on my computer, and I am putting it on a new smart board.

Dr. Albright: The extensive resources available at DenseBreast-info.org can improve both patient and provider knowledge of these important issues, so I suggest patients visit that website, and I use many of the images and visuals to help explain breast density. I even use the materials from the website for educating my resident trainees on breast health and screening. ●

If your ObGyn practices are anything like ours, every time there is news coverage of a study regarding mammography or about efforts to pass a breast density inform law, your phone rings with patient calls. In fact, every density inform law enacted in the United States, except for in Illinois, directs patients to their referring provider—generally their ObGyn—to discuss the screening and risk implications of dense breast tissue.

The steady increased awareness of breast density means that we, as ObGyns and other primary care providers (PCPs), have additional responsibilities in managing the breast health of our patients. This includes guiding discussions with patients about what breast density means and whether supplemental screening beyond mammography might be beneficial.

As members of the Medical Advisory Board for DenseBreast-info.org (an online educational resource dedicated to providing breast density information to patients and health care professionals), we are aware of the growing body of evidence demonstrating improved detection of early breast cancer using supplemental screening in dense breasts. However, we know that there is confusion among clinicians about how and when to facilitate tailored screening for women with dense breasts or other breast cancer risk factors. Here we answer 6 questions focusing on how to navigate patient discussions around the topic and the best way to collaborate with radiologists to improve breast care for patients.

Play an active role

1. What role should ObGyns and PCPs play in women’s breast health?

Elizabeth Etkin-Kramer, MD: I am a firm believer that ObGyns and all women’s health providers should be able to assess their patients’ risk of breast cancer and explain the process for managing this risk with their patients. This explanation includes the clinical implications of breast density and when supplemental screening should be employed. It is also important for providers to know when to offer genetic testing and when a patient’s personal or family history indicates supplemental screening with breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

DaCarla M. Albright, MD: I absolutely agree that PCPs, ObGyns, and family practitioners should spend the time to be educated about breast density and supplemental screening options. While the exact role providers play in managing patients’ breast health may vary depending on the practice type or location, the need for knowledge and comfort when talking with patients to help them make informed decisions is critical. Breast health and screening, including the importance of breast density, happen to be a particular interest of mine. I have participated in educational webinars, invited lectures, and breast cancer awareness media events on this topic in the past.

Continue to: Join forces with imaging centers...

Join forces with imaging centers

2. How can ObGyns and radiologists collaborate most effectively to use screening results to personalize breast care for patients?

Dr. Etkin-Kramer: It is important to have a close relationship with the radiologists that read our patients’ mammograms. We need to be able to easily contact the radiologist and quickly get clarification on a patient’s report or discuss next steps. Imaging centers should consider running outreach programs to educate their referring providers on how to risk assess, with this assessment inclusive of breast density. Dinner lectures or grand round meetings are effective to facilitate communication between the radiology community and the ObGyn community. Finally, as we all know, supplemental screening is often subject to copays and deductibles per insurance coverage. If advocacy groups, who are working to eliminate these types of costs, cannot get insurers to waive these payments, we need a less expensive self-pay option.

Dr. Albright: I definitely have and encourage an open line of communication between my practice and breast radiology, as well as our breast surgeons and cancer center to set up consultations as needed. We also invite our radiologists as guests to monthly practice meetings or grand rounds within our department to further improve access and open communication, as this environment is one in which greater provider education on density and adjunctive screening can be achieved.

Know when to refer a high-risk patient

3. Most ObGyns routinely collect family history and perform formal risk assessment. What do you need to know about referring patients to a high-risk program?

Dr. Etkin-Kramer: It is important as ObGyns to be knowledgeable about breast and ovarian cancer risk assessment and genetic testing for cancer susceptibility genes. Our patients expect that of us. I am comfortable doing risk assessment in my office, but I sometimes refer to other specialists in the community if the patient needs additional counseling. For risk assessment, I look at family and personal history, breast density, and other factors that might lead me to believe the patient might carry a hereditary cancer susceptibility gene, including Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry.¹ When indicated, I check lifetime as well as short-term (5- to 10-year) risk, usually using Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) or Tyrer-Cuzick/International Breast Cancer Intervention Study (IBIS) models, as these include breast density.

I discuss risk-reducing medications. The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends these agents if my patient’s 5-year risk of breast cancer is 1.67% or greater, and I strongly recommend chemoprevention when the patient’s 5-year BCSC risk exceeds 3%, provided likely benefits exceed risks.^2,3 I discuss adding screening breast MRI if lifetime risk by Tyrer-Cuzick exceeds 20%. (Note that Gail and BCSC models are not recommended to be used to determine risk for purposes of supplemental screening with MRI as they do not consider paternal family history nor age of relatives at diagnosis.)

Dr. Albright: ObGyns should be able to ascertain a pertinent history and identify patients at risk for breast cancer based on their personal history, family history, and breast imaging/biopsy history, if relevant. We also need to improve our discussions of supplemental screening for patients who have heterogeneously dense or extremely dense breast tissue. I sense that some ObGyns may rely heavily on the radiologist to suggest supplemental screening, but patients actually look to Ob­Gyns as their providers to have this knowledge and give them direction.

Since I practice at a large academic medical center, I have the opportunity to refer patients to our Breast Cancer Genetics Program because I may be limited on time for counseling in the office and do not want to miss salient details. With all of the information I have ascertained about the patient, I am able to determine and encourage appropriate screening and assure insurance coverage for adjunctive breast MRI when appropriate.

Continue to: Consider how you order patients’ screening to reduce barriers and cost...

4. How would you suggest reducing barriers when referring patients for supplemental screening, such as MRI for high-risk women or ultrasound for those with dense breasts? Would you prefer it if such screening could be performed without additional script/referral? How does insurance coverage factor in?

Dr. Etkin-Kramer: I would love for a screening mammogram with possible ultrasound, on one script, to be the norm. One of the centers that I work with accepts a script written this way. Further, when a patient receives screening at a freestanding facility as opposed to a hospital, the fee for the supplemental screening may be lower because they do not add on a facility fee.

Dr. Albright: We have an order in our electronic health record that allows for screening mammography but adds on diagnostic mammography/bilateral ultrasonography, if indicated by imaging. I am mostly ordering that option now for all of my screening patients; rarely have I had issues with insurance accepting that script. As for when ordering an MRI, I always try to ensure that I have done the patient’s personal risk assessment and included that lifetime breast cancer risk on the order. If the risk is 20% or higher, I typically do not have any insurance coverage issues. If I am ordering MRI as supplemental screening, I typically order the “Fast MRI” protocol that our center offers. This order incurs a $299 out-of-pocket cost for the patient. Any patient with heterogeneously or extremely dense breasts on mammography should have this option, but it requires patient education, discussion with the provider, and an additional cost. I definitely think that insurers need to consider covering supplemental screening, since breast density is reportable in a majority of the US states and will soon be the national standard.

Pearls for guiding patients

5. How do you discuss breast density and the need for supplemental screening with your patients?

Dr. Etkin-Kramer: I strongly feel that my patients need to know when a screening test has limited ability to do its job. This is the case with dense breasts. Visuals help; when discussing breast density, I like the images supplied by DenseBreast-info.org (FIGURE). I explain the two implications of dense tissue:

• First, dense tissue makes it harder to visualize cancers in the breast—the denser the breasts, the less likely the radiologist can pick up a cancer, so mammographic sensitivity for extremely dense breasts can be as low as 25% to 50%.
• Second, high breast density adds to the risk of developing breast cancer. I explain that supplemental screening will pick up additional cancers in women with dense breasts. For example, breast ultrasound will pick up about 2-3/1000 additional breast cancers per year and MRI or molecular breast imaging (MBI) will pick up much more, perhaps 10/1000.

MRI is more invasive than an ultrasound and uses gadolinium, and MBI has more radiation. Supplemental screening is not endorsed by ACOG’s most recent Committee Opinion from 2017; ⁴ however, patients may choose to have it done. This is where shared-decision making is important.

I strongly recommend that all women’s health care providers complete the CME course on the DenseBreast-info.org website. “ Breast Density: Why It Matters ” is a certified educational program for referring physicians that helps health care professionals learn about breast density, its associated risks, and how best to guide patients regarding breast cancer screening.

Continue to: Dr. Albright...

Dr. Albright: When I discuss breast density, I make sure that patients understand that their mammogram determines the density of their breast tissue. I review that in the higher density categories (heterogeneously dense or extremely dense), there is a higher risk of missing cancer, and that these categories are also associated with a higher risk of breast cancer. I also discuss the potential need for supplemental screening, for which my institution primarily offers Fast MRI. However, we can offer breast ultrasonography instead as an option, especially for those concerned about gadolinium exposure. Our center offers either of these supplemental screenings at a cost of $299. I also review the lack of coverage for supplemental screening by some insurance carriers, as both providers and patients may need to advocate for insurer coverage of adjunct studies.

Educational resources

6. What reference materials, illustrations, or other tools do you use to educate your patients?

Dr. Etkin-Kramer: I frequently use handouts printed from the DenseBreast-info.org website, and there is now a brand new patient fact sheet that I have just started using. I also have an example of breast density categories from fatty replaced to extremely dense on my computer, and I am putting it on a new smart board.

Dr. Albright: The extensive resources available at DenseBreast-info.org can improve both patient and provider knowledge of these important issues, so I suggest patients visit that website, and I use many of the images and visuals to help explain breast density. I even use the materials from the website for educating my resident trainees on breast health and screening. ●

A new group of nonhormonal drugs currently in clinical trials shows strong promise for treating menopausal hot flashes as effectively as hormones, researchers told attendees at the virtual North American Menopause Society 2020 Annual Meeting.

“The KNDy [kisspeptin/neurokinin B/dynorphin] neuron manipulation is really exciting and holds great promise for rapid and highly effective amelioration of hot flashes, up to 80%, and improvement in other menopausal symptoms, though we’re still looking at the safety in phase 3 trials,” reported Susan D. Reed, MD, MPH, director of the Women’s Reproductive Health Research Program at the University of Washington, Seattle.

“If we continue to see good safety data, these are going to be the greatest things since sliced bread,” Dr. Reed said in an interview. “I don’t think we’ve seen anything like this in menopause therapeutics in a long time.”

While several nonhormonal drugs are already used to treat vasomotor symptoms in menopausal women with and without breast cancer, none are as effective as hormone treatments.

“For now, the SSRIs, SNRIs [serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors], and GABAergics are the best frontline nonhormonal options with a moderate effect, and clonidine and oxybutynin are effective, but we see more side effects with these,” Dr. Reed said. She noted the importance of considering patients’ mood, sleep, pain, sexual function, weight gain, overactive bladder, blood pressure, and individual quality of life (QOL) goals in tailoring those therapies.

But women still need more nonhormonal options that are at least as effective as hormonal options, Dr. Reed said. Some women are unable to take hormonal options because they are at risk for blood clots or breast cancer.

“Then there’s preference,” she said. “Sometimes people don’t like the way they feel when they take hormones, or they just don’t want hormones in their body. It’s absolutely critical to have these options available for women.”

Nanette F. Santoro, MD, a professor of ob.gyn. at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, who was not involved in the presentation, said in an interview that physicians may not always realize the extent to which vasomotor symptoms interfere with women’s daily lives.

“They have an eroding effect on QOL that is not appreciated sometimes,” she said. Though hot flashes eventually subside in most women, others may continue to experience them into their 70s, when hormonal therapies can begin causing more harm than benefit.

“It goes underappreciated that, for a proportion of women, hot flashes will never go away, and they’re just as bad [as] when they were in their 50s,” Dr. Santoro said. “They need to be treated, and the nonhormonal treatments do not work for everybody.”
 

Promising KNDy therapeutics

Autopsy studies of postmenopausal women revealed that a complex of neurons in the hypothalamus was “massively hypertrophied” and sits right next to the thermoregulatory center of the brain, Dr. Reed explained.

The complex produces three types of molecules: kisspeptin (a neuropeptide), neurokinin B (a neuropeptide), and dynorphin (a kappa opioid), collectively referred to as the KNDy. The KNDy neural complex is located in the same place as the majority of hormone receptors in the arcuate nucleus, a collection of nerve cells in the hypothalamus.

The current hypothesis is that the KNDy neurons, which communicate with each other, become hyperactivated and cause hot flashes by spilling over to and triggering the thermoregulatory center next door. NKB (kisspeptin and neurokinin B) agonists activate KNDy neurons and dynorphin agonists inactivate KNDy, so the expectation is that NKB antagonists or dynorphin agonists would stop hot flashes.

Indeed, research published in 2015 showed that women taking kappa agonists experienced fewer hot flashes than women in the placebo group. However, no peripherally restricted kappa agonists are currently in clinical trials, so their future as therapeutics is unclear.

Right now, three different NK antagonists are in the pipeline for reducing vasomotor symptoms: MLE 4901 (pavinetant) and ESN364 (fezolinetant) are both NK3R antagonists, and NT-814 is a dual NK1R/NK3R antagonist. All three of these drugs were originally developed to treat schizophrenia.

Phase 2 clinical trials of pavinetant were discontinued in November 2017 by Millendo Therapeutics because 3 of 28 women experienced abnormal liver function, which normalized within 90 days. However, the study had shown an 80% decrease in hot flashes in women taking pavinetant, compared with a 30% decrease in the placebo group.

Fezolinetant, currently in phase 3 trials with Astellas, showed a dose response effect on reproductive hormones in phase 1 studies and a short half-life (4-6 hours) in women. It also showed no concerning side effects.

“There was, in fact, a decrease in the endometrial thickness, a delayed or impeded ovulation and a prolonged cycle duration,” Reed said.

The subsequent phase 2a study showed a reduction of five hot flashes a day (93% decrease), compared with placebo (54% decrease, P <.001) “with an abrupt return to baseline hot flash frequency after cessation,” she said. Improvements also occurred in sleep quality, quality of life, disability, and interference of hot flashes in daily life.

The phase 2b study found no difference in effects between once-daily versus twice-daily doses. However, two severe adverse events occurred: a drug-induced liver injury in one woman and cholelithiasis in another, both on the 60-mg, once-daily dose. Additionally, five women on varying doses had transient increases (above 1000 U/L) in creatinine kinase, though apparently without dose response.

A 52-week, three-arm, phase 3 trial of fezolinetant is currently under way with a goal of enrolling 1,740 participants, and plans to be completed by December 2021. Participants will undergo regular adverse event screening first biweekly, then monthly, with vital signs, blood, and urine monitoring.

Meanwhile, NT-814 from KaNDy Therapeutics, has completed phase 2a and phase 2b trials with phase 3 slated to begin in 2021. Adverse events in phase 1 included sleepiness and headache, and it had a long half-life (about 26 hours) and rapid absorption (an hour).

The phase 2a trial found a reduction of five hot flashes a day, compared with placebo, with main side effects again being sleepiness and headache. No events of abnormal liver function occurred. Phase 2b results have not been published.

So far, existing research suggests that KNDy interventions will involve a single daily oral dose that begins taking effect within 3 days and is fully in effect within 1-2 weeks. The reduction in hot flashes, about five fewer a day, is more effective than any other currently used nonhormonal medications for vasomotor symptoms. SSRIs and SNRIs tend to result in 1.5-2 fewer hot flashes a day, and gabapentin results in about 3 fewer per day. It will take longer-term studies, however, and paying attention to liver concerns for the NK3R antagonists to move into clinic.

“We want to keep our eye on the [luteinizing hormone] because if it decreases too much, it could adversely affect sexual function, and this does appear to be a dose-response finding,” Dr. Reed said. It would also be ideal, she said, to target only the KNDy neurons with NK3 antagonists without effects on the NK3 receptors in the liver.
 

Other nonhormonal options

Oxybutynin is another a nonhormonal agent under investigation for vasomotor symptoms. It’s an anticholinergic that resulted in 80% fewer hot flashes, compared with 30% with placebo in a 2016 trial, but 52% of women complained of dry mouth. A more recent study similarly found high efficacy – a 60%-80% drop in hot flashes, compared with 30% with placebo – but also side effects of dry mouth, difficulty urinating, and abdominal pain.

Finally, Dr. Reed mentioned three other agents under investigation as possible nonhormonal therapeutics, though she has little information about them. They include MT-8554 by Mitsubishi Tanabe; FP-101 by Fervent Pharmaceuticals; and Q-122 by QUE Oncology with Emory University, Atlanta, and the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. 

None of the currently available nonhormonal options provide as high efficacy as hormones, but they do reduce symptoms:

Clonidine is an off-label option some physicians already use as a nonhormonal treatment for vasomotor symptoms, but again, the side effects are problematic: dry mouth, constipation, drowsiness, postural hypotension, and poor sleep.

Paroxetine, at 7.5-10 mg, is the only FDA-approved nonhormonal treatment for vasomotor symptoms, but she listed other off-label options found effective in evidence reviews: gabapentin (100-2,400 mg), venlafaxine (37.5-75 mg), citalopram (10 mg), desvenlafaxine (150 mg), and escitalopram (10 mg).

“I want you to take note of the lower doses in all of these products that are efficacious above those doses that might be used for mood,” Dr. Reed added.

Dr. Reed receives royalties from UpToDate and research funding from Bayer. Dr. Santoro owns stock in MenoGeniX and serves as a consultant or advisor to Ansh Labs, MenoGeniX, and Ogeda/Astellas.

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

A new group of nonhormonal drugs currently in clinical trials shows strong promise for treating menopausal hot flashes as effectively as hormones, researchers told attendees at the virtual North American Menopause Society 2020 Annual Meeting.

“The KNDy [kisspeptin/neurokinin B/dynorphin] neuron manipulation is really exciting and holds great promise for rapid and highly effective amelioration of hot flashes, up to 80%, and improvement in other menopausal symptoms, though we’re still looking at the safety in phase 3 trials,” reported Susan D. Reed, MD, MPH, director of the Women’s Reproductive Health Research Program at the University of Washington, Seattle.

“If we continue to see good safety data, these are going to be the greatest things since sliced bread,” Dr. Reed said in an interview. “I don’t think we’ve seen anything like this in menopause therapeutics in a long time.”

While several nonhormonal drugs are already used to treat vasomotor symptoms in menopausal women with and without breast cancer, none are as effective as hormone treatments.

“For now, the SSRIs, SNRIs [serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors], and GABAergics are the best frontline nonhormonal options with a moderate effect, and clonidine and oxybutynin are effective, but we see more side effects with these,” Dr. Reed said. She noted the importance of considering patients’ mood, sleep, pain, sexual function, weight gain, overactive bladder, blood pressure, and individual quality of life (QOL) goals in tailoring those therapies.

But women still need more nonhormonal options that are at least as effective as hormonal options, Dr. Reed said. Some women are unable to take hormonal options because they are at risk for blood clots or breast cancer.

“Then there’s preference,” she said. “Sometimes people don’t like the way they feel when they take hormones, or they just don’t want hormones in their body. It’s absolutely critical to have these options available for women.”

Nanette F. Santoro, MD, a professor of ob.gyn. at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, who was not involved in the presentation, said in an interview that physicians may not always realize the extent to which vasomotor symptoms interfere with women’s daily lives.

“They have an eroding effect on QOL that is not appreciated sometimes,” she said. Though hot flashes eventually subside in most women, others may continue to experience them into their 70s, when hormonal therapies can begin causing more harm than benefit.

“It goes underappreciated that, for a proportion of women, hot flashes will never go away, and they’re just as bad [as] when they were in their 50s,” Dr. Santoro said. “They need to be treated, and the nonhormonal treatments do not work for everybody.”
 

Promising KNDy therapeutics

Autopsy studies of postmenopausal women revealed that a complex of neurons in the hypothalamus was “massively hypertrophied” and sits right next to the thermoregulatory center of the brain, Dr. Reed explained.

The complex produces three types of molecules: kisspeptin (a neuropeptide), neurokinin B (a neuropeptide), and dynorphin (a kappa opioid), collectively referred to as the KNDy. The KNDy neural complex is located in the same place as the majority of hormone receptors in the arcuate nucleus, a collection of nerve cells in the hypothalamus.

The current hypothesis is that the KNDy neurons, which communicate with each other, become hyperactivated and cause hot flashes by spilling over to and triggering the thermoregulatory center next door. NKB (kisspeptin and neurokinin B) agonists activate KNDy neurons and dynorphin agonists inactivate KNDy, so the expectation is that NKB antagonists or dynorphin agonists would stop hot flashes.

Indeed, research published in 2015 showed that women taking kappa agonists experienced fewer hot flashes than women in the placebo group. However, no peripherally restricted kappa agonists are currently in clinical trials, so their future as therapeutics is unclear.

Right now, three different NK antagonists are in the pipeline for reducing vasomotor symptoms: MLE 4901 (pavinetant) and ESN364 (fezolinetant) are both NK3R antagonists, and NT-814 is a dual NK1R/NK3R antagonist. All three of these drugs were originally developed to treat schizophrenia.

Phase 2 clinical trials of pavinetant were discontinued in November 2017 by Millendo Therapeutics because 3 of 28 women experienced abnormal liver function, which normalized within 90 days. However, the study had shown an 80% decrease in hot flashes in women taking pavinetant, compared with a 30% decrease in the placebo group.

Fezolinetant, currently in phase 3 trials with Astellas, showed a dose response effect on reproductive hormones in phase 1 studies and a short half-life (4-6 hours) in women. It also showed no concerning side effects.

“There was, in fact, a decrease in the endometrial thickness, a delayed or impeded ovulation and a prolonged cycle duration,” Reed said.

The subsequent phase 2a study showed a reduction of five hot flashes a day (93% decrease), compared with placebo (54% decrease, P <.001) “with an abrupt return to baseline hot flash frequency after cessation,” she said. Improvements also occurred in sleep quality, quality of life, disability, and interference of hot flashes in daily life.

The phase 2b study found no difference in effects between once-daily versus twice-daily doses. However, two severe adverse events occurred: a drug-induced liver injury in one woman and cholelithiasis in another, both on the 60-mg, once-daily dose. Additionally, five women on varying doses had transient increases (above 1000 U/L) in creatinine kinase, though apparently without dose response.

A 52-week, three-arm, phase 3 trial of fezolinetant is currently under way with a goal of enrolling 1,740 participants, and plans to be completed by December 2021. Participants will undergo regular adverse event screening first biweekly, then monthly, with vital signs, blood, and urine monitoring.

Meanwhile, NT-814 from KaNDy Therapeutics, has completed phase 2a and phase 2b trials with phase 3 slated to begin in 2021. Adverse events in phase 1 included sleepiness and headache, and it had a long half-life (about 26 hours) and rapid absorption (an hour).

The phase 2a trial found a reduction of five hot flashes a day, compared with placebo, with main side effects again being sleepiness and headache. No events of abnormal liver function occurred. Phase 2b results have not been published.

So far, existing research suggests that KNDy interventions will involve a single daily oral dose that begins taking effect within 3 days and is fully in effect within 1-2 weeks. The reduction in hot flashes, about five fewer a day, is more effective than any other currently used nonhormonal medications for vasomotor symptoms. SSRIs and SNRIs tend to result in 1.5-2 fewer hot flashes a day, and gabapentin results in about 3 fewer per day. It will take longer-term studies, however, and paying attention to liver concerns for the NK3R antagonists to move into clinic.

“We want to keep our eye on the [luteinizing hormone] because if it decreases too much, it could adversely affect sexual function, and this does appear to be a dose-response finding,” Dr. Reed said. It would also be ideal, she said, to target only the KNDy neurons with NK3 antagonists without effects on the NK3 receptors in the liver.
 

Other nonhormonal options

Oxybutynin is another a nonhormonal agent under investigation for vasomotor symptoms. It’s an anticholinergic that resulted in 80% fewer hot flashes, compared with 30% with placebo in a 2016 trial, but 52% of women complained of dry mouth. A more recent study similarly found high efficacy – a 60%-80% drop in hot flashes, compared with 30% with placebo – but also side effects of dry mouth, difficulty urinating, and abdominal pain.

Finally, Dr. Reed mentioned three other agents under investigation as possible nonhormonal therapeutics, though she has little information about them. They include MT-8554 by Mitsubishi Tanabe; FP-101 by Fervent Pharmaceuticals; and Q-122 by QUE Oncology with Emory University, Atlanta, and the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. 

None of the currently available nonhormonal options provide as high efficacy as hormones, but they do reduce symptoms:

Clonidine is an off-label option some physicians already use as a nonhormonal treatment for vasomotor symptoms, but again, the side effects are problematic: dry mouth, constipation, drowsiness, postural hypotension, and poor sleep.

Paroxetine, at 7.5-10 mg, is the only FDA-approved nonhormonal treatment for vasomotor symptoms, but she listed other off-label options found effective in evidence reviews: gabapentin (100-2,400 mg), venlafaxine (37.5-75 mg), citalopram (10 mg), desvenlafaxine (150 mg), and escitalopram (10 mg).

“I want you to take note of the lower doses in all of these products that are efficacious above those doses that might be used for mood,” Dr. Reed added.

Dr. Reed receives royalties from UpToDate and research funding from Bayer. Dr. Santoro owns stock in MenoGeniX and serves as a consultant or advisor to Ansh Labs, MenoGeniX, and Ogeda/Astellas.

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

A new group of nonhormonal drugs currently in clinical trials shows strong promise for treating menopausal hot flashes as effectively as hormones, researchers told attendees at the virtual North American Menopause Society 2020 Annual Meeting.

“The KNDy [kisspeptin/neurokinin B/dynorphin] neuron manipulation is really exciting and holds great promise for rapid and highly effective amelioration of hot flashes, up to 80%, and improvement in other menopausal symptoms, though we’re still looking at the safety in phase 3 trials,” reported Susan D. Reed, MD, MPH, director of the Women’s Reproductive Health Research Program at the University of Washington, Seattle.

“If we continue to see good safety data, these are going to be the greatest things since sliced bread,” Dr. Reed said in an interview. “I don’t think we’ve seen anything like this in menopause therapeutics in a long time.”

While several nonhormonal drugs are already used to treat vasomotor symptoms in menopausal women with and without breast cancer, none are as effective as hormone treatments.

“For now, the SSRIs, SNRIs [serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors], and GABAergics are the best frontline nonhormonal options with a moderate effect, and clonidine and oxybutynin are effective, but we see more side effects with these,” Dr. Reed said. She noted the importance of considering patients’ mood, sleep, pain, sexual function, weight gain, overactive bladder, blood pressure, and individual quality of life (QOL) goals in tailoring those therapies.

But women still need more nonhormonal options that are at least as effective as hormonal options, Dr. Reed said. Some women are unable to take hormonal options because they are at risk for blood clots or breast cancer.

“Then there’s preference,” she said. “Sometimes people don’t like the way they feel when they take hormones, or they just don’t want hormones in their body. It’s absolutely critical to have these options available for women.”

Nanette F. Santoro, MD, a professor of ob.gyn. at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, who was not involved in the presentation, said in an interview that physicians may not always realize the extent to which vasomotor symptoms interfere with women’s daily lives.

“They have an eroding effect on QOL that is not appreciated sometimes,” she said. Though hot flashes eventually subside in most women, others may continue to experience them into their 70s, when hormonal therapies can begin causing more harm than benefit.

“It goes underappreciated that, for a proportion of women, hot flashes will never go away, and they’re just as bad [as] when they were in their 50s,” Dr. Santoro said. “They need to be treated, and the nonhormonal treatments do not work for everybody.”
 

Promising KNDy therapeutics

Autopsy studies of postmenopausal women revealed that a complex of neurons in the hypothalamus was “massively hypertrophied” and sits right next to the thermoregulatory center of the brain, Dr. Reed explained.

The complex produces three types of molecules: kisspeptin (a neuropeptide), neurokinin B (a neuropeptide), and dynorphin (a kappa opioid), collectively referred to as the KNDy. The KNDy neural complex is located in the same place as the majority of hormone receptors in the arcuate nucleus, a collection of nerve cells in the hypothalamus.

The current hypothesis is that the KNDy neurons, which communicate with each other, become hyperactivated and cause hot flashes by spilling over to and triggering the thermoregulatory center next door. NKB (kisspeptin and neurokinin B) agonists activate KNDy neurons and dynorphin agonists inactivate KNDy, so the expectation is that NKB antagonists or dynorphin agonists would stop hot flashes.

Indeed, research published in 2015 showed that women taking kappa agonists experienced fewer hot flashes than women in the placebo group. However, no peripherally restricted kappa agonists are currently in clinical trials, so their future as therapeutics is unclear.

Right now, three different NK antagonists are in the pipeline for reducing vasomotor symptoms: MLE 4901 (pavinetant) and ESN364 (fezolinetant) are both NK3R antagonists, and NT-814 is a dual NK1R/NK3R antagonist. All three of these drugs were originally developed to treat schizophrenia.

Phase 2 clinical trials of pavinetant were discontinued in November 2017 by Millendo Therapeutics because 3 of 28 women experienced abnormal liver function, which normalized within 90 days. However, the study had shown an 80% decrease in hot flashes in women taking pavinetant, compared with a 30% decrease in the placebo group.

Fezolinetant, currently in phase 3 trials with Astellas, showed a dose response effect on reproductive hormones in phase 1 studies and a short half-life (4-6 hours) in women. It also showed no concerning side effects.

“There was, in fact, a decrease in the endometrial thickness, a delayed or impeded ovulation and a prolonged cycle duration,” Reed said.

The subsequent phase 2a study showed a reduction of five hot flashes a day (93% decrease), compared with placebo (54% decrease, P <.001) “with an abrupt return to baseline hot flash frequency after cessation,” she said. Improvements also occurred in sleep quality, quality of life, disability, and interference of hot flashes in daily life.

The phase 2b study found no difference in effects between once-daily versus twice-daily doses. However, two severe adverse events occurred: a drug-induced liver injury in one woman and cholelithiasis in another, both on the 60-mg, once-daily dose. Additionally, five women on varying doses had transient increases (above 1000 U/L) in creatinine kinase, though apparently without dose response.

A 52-week, three-arm, phase 3 trial of fezolinetant is currently under way with a goal of enrolling 1,740 participants, and plans to be completed by December 2021. Participants will undergo regular adverse event screening first biweekly, then monthly, with vital signs, blood, and urine monitoring.

Meanwhile, NT-814 from KaNDy Therapeutics, has completed phase 2a and phase 2b trials with phase 3 slated to begin in 2021. Adverse events in phase 1 included sleepiness and headache, and it had a long half-life (about 26 hours) and rapid absorption (an hour).

The phase 2a trial found a reduction of five hot flashes a day, compared with placebo, with main side effects again being sleepiness and headache. No events of abnormal liver function occurred. Phase 2b results have not been published.

So far, existing research suggests that KNDy interventions will involve a single daily oral dose that begins taking effect within 3 days and is fully in effect within 1-2 weeks. The reduction in hot flashes, about five fewer a day, is more effective than any other currently used nonhormonal medications for vasomotor symptoms. SSRIs and SNRIs tend to result in 1.5-2 fewer hot flashes a day, and gabapentin results in about 3 fewer per day. It will take longer-term studies, however, and paying attention to liver concerns for the NK3R antagonists to move into clinic.

“We want to keep our eye on the [luteinizing hormone] because if it decreases too much, it could adversely affect sexual function, and this does appear to be a dose-response finding,” Dr. Reed said. It would also be ideal, she said, to target only the KNDy neurons with NK3 antagonists without effects on the NK3 receptors in the liver.
 

Other nonhormonal options

Oxybutynin is another a nonhormonal agent under investigation for vasomotor symptoms. It’s an anticholinergic that resulted in 80% fewer hot flashes, compared with 30% with placebo in a 2016 trial, but 52% of women complained of dry mouth. A more recent study similarly found high efficacy – a 60%-80% drop in hot flashes, compared with 30% with placebo – but also side effects of dry mouth, difficulty urinating, and abdominal pain.

Finally, Dr. Reed mentioned three other agents under investigation as possible nonhormonal therapeutics, though she has little information about them. They include MT-8554 by Mitsubishi Tanabe; FP-101 by Fervent Pharmaceuticals; and Q-122 by QUE Oncology with Emory University, Atlanta, and the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. 

None of the currently available nonhormonal options provide as high efficacy as hormones, but they do reduce symptoms:

Clonidine is an off-label option some physicians already use as a nonhormonal treatment for vasomotor symptoms, but again, the side effects are problematic: dry mouth, constipation, drowsiness, postural hypotension, and poor sleep.

Paroxetine, at 7.5-10 mg, is the only FDA-approved nonhormonal treatment for vasomotor symptoms, but she listed other off-label options found effective in evidence reviews: gabapentin (100-2,400 mg), venlafaxine (37.5-75 mg), citalopram (10 mg), desvenlafaxine (150 mg), and escitalopram (10 mg).

“I want you to take note of the lower doses in all of these products that are efficacious above those doses that might be used for mood,” Dr. Reed added.

Dr. Reed receives royalties from UpToDate and research funding from Bayer. Dr. Santoro owns stock in MenoGeniX and serves as a consultant or advisor to Ansh Labs, MenoGeniX, and Ogeda/Astellas.

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

Makena should be withdrawn from the market because a postmarketing study did not show clinical benefit, according to a statement released today from the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research at the Food and Drug Administration.

The drug, hydroxyprogesterone caproate injection, was approved in 2011 to reduce the risk of preterm birth in women who with previous spontaneous preterm birth. The FDA approved the medication under an accelerated pathway that required another trial to confirm clinical benefit.

The required postmarketing study “not only failed to demonstrate Makena’s benefit to the neonate, but also failed to substantiate any effect of Makena on the surrogate endpoint of gestational age at delivery that was the basis of the initial approval,” Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD, acting director of the CDER, wrote in a letter to AMAG Pharma USA, which markets Makena. The letter also was sent to other companies developing products that use the drug.

Beyond the lack of efficacy, risks associated with the drug include thromboembolic disorders, allergic reactions, decreased glucose tolerance, and fluid retention. “The risk of exposing treated pregnant women to these harms, in addition to false hopes, costs, and additional healthcare utilization outweighs Makena’s unproven benefit,” Dr. Cavazzoni said.

The letter notifies companies about the opportunity for a hearing on the proposed withdrawal of marketing approval. Makena and its generic equivalents will remain on the market until the manufacturers remove the drugs or the FDA commissioner mandates their removal, the CDER said.

The FDA commissioner ultimately will decide whether to withdraw approval of the drug. An FDA panel previously voted to withdraw the drug from the market in October 2019, and the drug has remained in limbo since.

Health care professionals should discuss “Makena’s benefits, risks, and uncertainties with their patients to decide whether to use Makena while a final decision is being made about the drug’s marketing status,” the CDER announcement said.

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

Makena should be withdrawn from the market because a postmarketing study did not show clinical benefit, according to a statement released today from the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research at the Food and Drug Administration.

The drug, hydroxyprogesterone caproate injection, was approved in 2011 to reduce the risk of preterm birth in women who with previous spontaneous preterm birth. The FDA approved the medication under an accelerated pathway that required another trial to confirm clinical benefit.

The required postmarketing study “not only failed to demonstrate Makena’s benefit to the neonate, but also failed to substantiate any effect of Makena on the surrogate endpoint of gestational age at delivery that was the basis of the initial approval,” Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD, acting director of the CDER, wrote in a letter to AMAG Pharma USA, which markets Makena. The letter also was sent to other companies developing products that use the drug.

Beyond the lack of efficacy, risks associated with the drug include thromboembolic disorders, allergic reactions, decreased glucose tolerance, and fluid retention. “The risk of exposing treated pregnant women to these harms, in addition to false hopes, costs, and additional healthcare utilization outweighs Makena’s unproven benefit,” Dr. Cavazzoni said.

The letter notifies companies about the opportunity for a hearing on the proposed withdrawal of marketing approval. Makena and its generic equivalents will remain on the market until the manufacturers remove the drugs or the FDA commissioner mandates their removal, the CDER said.

The FDA commissioner ultimately will decide whether to withdraw approval of the drug. An FDA panel previously voted to withdraw the drug from the market in October 2019, and the drug has remained in limbo since.

Health care professionals should discuss “Makena’s benefits, risks, and uncertainties with their patients to decide whether to use Makena while a final decision is being made about the drug’s marketing status,” the CDER announcement said.

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

Makena should be withdrawn from the market because a postmarketing study did not show clinical benefit, according to a statement released today from the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research at the Food and Drug Administration.

The drug, hydroxyprogesterone caproate injection, was approved in 2011 to reduce the risk of preterm birth in women who with previous spontaneous preterm birth. The FDA approved the medication under an accelerated pathway that required another trial to confirm clinical benefit.

The required postmarketing study “not only failed to demonstrate Makena’s benefit to the neonate, but also failed to substantiate any effect of Makena on the surrogate endpoint of gestational age at delivery that was the basis of the initial approval,” Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD, acting director of the CDER, wrote in a letter to AMAG Pharma USA, which markets Makena. The letter also was sent to other companies developing products that use the drug.

Beyond the lack of efficacy, risks associated with the drug include thromboembolic disorders, allergic reactions, decreased glucose tolerance, and fluid retention. “The risk of exposing treated pregnant women to these harms, in addition to false hopes, costs, and additional healthcare utilization outweighs Makena’s unproven benefit,” Dr. Cavazzoni said.

The letter notifies companies about the opportunity for a hearing on the proposed withdrawal of marketing approval. Makena and its generic equivalents will remain on the market until the manufacturers remove the drugs or the FDA commissioner mandates their removal, the CDER said.

The FDA commissioner ultimately will decide whether to withdraw approval of the drug. An FDA panel previously voted to withdraw the drug from the market in October 2019, and the drug has remained in limbo since.

Health care professionals should discuss “Makena’s benefits, risks, and uncertainties with their patients to decide whether to use Makena while a final decision is being made about the drug’s marketing status,” the CDER announcement said.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has updated its page on Essure information for patients and health care providers to add additional information on adverse events reported by its manufacturer.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

Essure was a permanent implantable birth control device approved by the FDA in 2002. FDA ordered Bayer in 2016 to conduct a postmarket surveillance study of Essure following reports of safety concerns, and expanded the study from 3 years to 5 years in 2018. Bayer voluntarily removed Essure from the market at the end of 2018, citing low sales after a “black box” warning was placed on the device. All devices were returned to the company by the end of 2019.

Bayer is required to report variances in Medical Device Reporting (MDR) requirements of Essure related to litigation to the FDA, which includes adverse events such death, serious injury, and “malfunction that would be likely to cause or contribute to a death or serious injury if the malfunction were to recur.” The reports are limited to events Bayer becomes aware of between November 2016 and November 2020. Bayer will continue to provide these reports until April 2021.

The FDA emphasized that the collected data are based on social media reports and already may be reported to the FDA, rather than being a collection of new events. “The limited information provided in the reports prevents the ability to draw any conclusions as to whether the device, or its removal, caused or contributed to any of the events in the reports,” Benjamin Fisher, PhD, director of the Reproductive, Gastro-Renal, Urological, General Hospital Device and Human Factors Office in the Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in an FDA In Brief statement on Aug. 11.

The FDA first uploaded an Essure MDR variance spreadsheet in August 2020, listing 1,453 events, consisting of 53 reports of deaths, 1,376 reports of serious injury, and 24 reports of device malfunction that occurred as of June 2020. In September 2020, FDA uploaded a second variance spreadsheet, which added another 1,934 events that occurred as of July.
 

Interim analysis of postmarketing surveillance study

An interim analysis of 1,128 patients from 67 centers in the Essure postmarket surveillance study, which compared women who received Essure with those who received laparoscopic tubal sterilization, revealed that 94.6% (265 of 280 patients) in the Essure group had a successful implantation of the device, compared with 99.6% of women who achieved bilateral tubal occlusion from laparoscopic tubal sterilization.

Regarding safety, 9.1% of women in the Essure group and 4.5% in the laparoscopic tubal sterilization group reported chronic lower abdominal and/or pelvic pain, and 16.3% in the Essure group and 10.2% in the laparoscopic tubal sterilization group reported new or worsening abnormal uterine bleeding. In the Essure group, 22.3% of women said they experienced hypersensitivity, an allergic reaction, and new “autoimmune-like reactions” compared with 12.5% of women in the laparoscopic tubal sterilization group.

The interim analysis also showed 19.7% of women in the Essure group and 3.0% in the laparoscopic tubal sterilization group underwent gynecologic surgical procedures, which were “driven primarily by Essure removal and endometrial ablation procedures in Essure patients.” Device removal occurred in 6.8% of women with the Essure device.
 

Consistent data on Essure

An FDA search of the Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database in January of 2020 revealed 47,856 medical device reports of Essure between November 2002 and December 2019. The most common adverse events observed during this period were:

• Pain or abdominal pain (32,901 cases).
• Heavy or irregular menses (14,573 cases). Headache (8,570 cases).
• Device fragment or foreign body in a patient (8,501 cases).
• Perforation (7,825 cases).
• Fatigue (7,083 cases).
• Gain or loss in weight (5,980 cases).
• Anxiety and/or depression (5,366 cases).
• Rash and/or hypersensitivity (5,077 cases)
• Hair loss (4,999 cases).

Problems with the device itself included reports of:

• Device incompatibility such as an allergy (7,515 cases).
• The device migrating (4,535 cases).
• The device breaking or fracturing (2,297 cases).
• The device dislodging or dislocating (1,797 cases).
• Improper operation including implant failure and pregnancy (1,058 cases).

In 2019, Essure received 15,083 medical device reports, an increase from 6,000 reports in 2018 and 11,854 reports in 2017.

To date, nearly 39,000 women in the United States have made claims to injuries related to the Essure device. In August, Bayer announced it would pay approximately $1.6 billion U.S. dollars to settle 90% of these cases in exchange for claimants to “dismiss their cases or not file.” Bayer also said in a press release that the settlement is not an admission of wrongdoing or liability on the part of the company.

In an interview, Catherine Cansino, MD, MPH, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of California, Davis, said the latest adverse event reports show “consistent info from [the] MAUDE database when comparing 2019 to previous years, highlighting most common problems related to pain and heavy or irregular bleeding.”

She emphasized ob.gyns with patients who have an Essure device should “consider Essure-related etiology that may necessitate device removal when evaluating patients with gynecological problems, especially with regard to abdominal/pelvic pain and heavy/irregular bleeding.”

Dr. Cansino reported no relevant financial disclosures. She is a member of the Ob.Gyn. News Editorial Advisory Board.

The Food and Drug Administration has updated its page on Essure information for patients and health care providers to add additional information on adverse events reported by its manufacturer.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

Essure was a permanent implantable birth control device approved by the FDA in 2002. FDA ordered Bayer in 2016 to conduct a postmarket surveillance study of Essure following reports of safety concerns, and expanded the study from 3 years to 5 years in 2018. Bayer voluntarily removed Essure from the market at the end of 2018, citing low sales after a “black box” warning was placed on the device. All devices were returned to the company by the end of 2019.

Bayer is required to report variances in Medical Device Reporting (MDR) requirements of Essure related to litigation to the FDA, which includes adverse events such death, serious injury, and “malfunction that would be likely to cause or contribute to a death or serious injury if the malfunction were to recur.” The reports are limited to events Bayer becomes aware of between November 2016 and November 2020. Bayer will continue to provide these reports until April 2021.

The FDA emphasized that the collected data are based on social media reports and already may be reported to the FDA, rather than being a collection of new events. “The limited information provided in the reports prevents the ability to draw any conclusions as to whether the device, or its removal, caused or contributed to any of the events in the reports,” Benjamin Fisher, PhD, director of the Reproductive, Gastro-Renal, Urological, General Hospital Device and Human Factors Office in the Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in an FDA In Brief statement on Aug. 11.

The FDA first uploaded an Essure MDR variance spreadsheet in August 2020, listing 1,453 events, consisting of 53 reports of deaths, 1,376 reports of serious injury, and 24 reports of device malfunction that occurred as of June 2020. In September 2020, FDA uploaded a second variance spreadsheet, which added another 1,934 events that occurred as of July.
 

Interim analysis of postmarketing surveillance study

An interim analysis of 1,128 patients from 67 centers in the Essure postmarket surveillance study, which compared women who received Essure with those who received laparoscopic tubal sterilization, revealed that 94.6% (265 of 280 patients) in the Essure group had a successful implantation of the device, compared with 99.6% of women who achieved bilateral tubal occlusion from laparoscopic tubal sterilization.

Regarding safety, 9.1% of women in the Essure group and 4.5% in the laparoscopic tubal sterilization group reported chronic lower abdominal and/or pelvic pain, and 16.3% in the Essure group and 10.2% in the laparoscopic tubal sterilization group reported new or worsening abnormal uterine bleeding. In the Essure group, 22.3% of women said they experienced hypersensitivity, an allergic reaction, and new “autoimmune-like reactions” compared with 12.5% of women in the laparoscopic tubal sterilization group.

The interim analysis also showed 19.7% of women in the Essure group and 3.0% in the laparoscopic tubal sterilization group underwent gynecologic surgical procedures, which were “driven primarily by Essure removal and endometrial ablation procedures in Essure patients.” Device removal occurred in 6.8% of women with the Essure device.
 

Consistent data on Essure

An FDA search of the Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database in January of 2020 revealed 47,856 medical device reports of Essure between November 2002 and December 2019. The most common adverse events observed during this period were:

• Pain or abdominal pain (32,901 cases).
• Heavy or irregular menses (14,573 cases). Headache (8,570 cases).
• Device fragment or foreign body in a patient (8,501 cases).
• Perforation (7,825 cases).
• Fatigue (7,083 cases).
• Gain or loss in weight (5,980 cases).
• Anxiety and/or depression (5,366 cases).
• Rash and/or hypersensitivity (5,077 cases)
• Hair loss (4,999 cases).

Problems with the device itself included reports of:

• Device incompatibility such as an allergy (7,515 cases).
• The device migrating (4,535 cases).
• The device breaking or fracturing (2,297 cases).
• The device dislodging or dislocating (1,797 cases).
• Improper operation including implant failure and pregnancy (1,058 cases).

In 2019, Essure received 15,083 medical device reports, an increase from 6,000 reports in 2018 and 11,854 reports in 2017.

To date, nearly 39,000 women in the United States have made claims to injuries related to the Essure device. In August, Bayer announced it would pay approximately $1.6 billion U.S. dollars to settle 90% of these cases in exchange for claimants to “dismiss their cases or not file.” Bayer also said in a press release that the settlement is not an admission of wrongdoing or liability on the part of the company.

In an interview, Catherine Cansino, MD, MPH, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of California, Davis, said the latest adverse event reports show “consistent info from [the] MAUDE database when comparing 2019 to previous years, highlighting most common problems related to pain and heavy or irregular bleeding.”

She emphasized ob.gyns with patients who have an Essure device should “consider Essure-related etiology that may necessitate device removal when evaluating patients with gynecological problems, especially with regard to abdominal/pelvic pain and heavy/irregular bleeding.”

Dr. Cansino reported no relevant financial disclosures. She is a member of the Ob.Gyn. News Editorial Advisory Board.

The Food and Drug Administration has updated its page on Essure information for patients and health care providers to add additional information on adverse events reported by its manufacturer.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

Essure was a permanent implantable birth control device approved by the FDA in 2002. FDA ordered Bayer in 2016 to conduct a postmarket surveillance study of Essure following reports of safety concerns, and expanded the study from 3 years to 5 years in 2018. Bayer voluntarily removed Essure from the market at the end of 2018, citing low sales after a “black box” warning was placed on the device. All devices were returned to the company by the end of 2019.

Bayer is required to report variances in Medical Device Reporting (MDR) requirements of Essure related to litigation to the FDA, which includes adverse events such death, serious injury, and “malfunction that would be likely to cause or contribute to a death or serious injury if the malfunction were to recur.” The reports are limited to events Bayer becomes aware of between November 2016 and November 2020. Bayer will continue to provide these reports until April 2021.

The FDA emphasized that the collected data are based on social media reports and already may be reported to the FDA, rather than being a collection of new events. “The limited information provided in the reports prevents the ability to draw any conclusions as to whether the device, or its removal, caused or contributed to any of the events in the reports,” Benjamin Fisher, PhD, director of the Reproductive, Gastro-Renal, Urological, General Hospital Device and Human Factors Office in the Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in an FDA In Brief statement on Aug. 11.

The FDA first uploaded an Essure MDR variance spreadsheet in August 2020, listing 1,453 events, consisting of 53 reports of deaths, 1,376 reports of serious injury, and 24 reports of device malfunction that occurred as of June 2020. In September 2020, FDA uploaded a second variance spreadsheet, which added another 1,934 events that occurred as of July.
 

Interim analysis of postmarketing surveillance study

An interim analysis of 1,128 patients from 67 centers in the Essure postmarket surveillance study, which compared women who received Essure with those who received laparoscopic tubal sterilization, revealed that 94.6% (265 of 280 patients) in the Essure group had a successful implantation of the device, compared with 99.6% of women who achieved bilateral tubal occlusion from laparoscopic tubal sterilization.

Regarding safety, 9.1% of women in the Essure group and 4.5% in the laparoscopic tubal sterilization group reported chronic lower abdominal and/or pelvic pain, and 16.3% in the Essure group and 10.2% in the laparoscopic tubal sterilization group reported new or worsening abnormal uterine bleeding. In the Essure group, 22.3% of women said they experienced hypersensitivity, an allergic reaction, and new “autoimmune-like reactions” compared with 12.5% of women in the laparoscopic tubal sterilization group.

The interim analysis also showed 19.7% of women in the Essure group and 3.0% in the laparoscopic tubal sterilization group underwent gynecologic surgical procedures, which were “driven primarily by Essure removal and endometrial ablation procedures in Essure patients.” Device removal occurred in 6.8% of women with the Essure device.
 

Consistent data on Essure

An FDA search of the Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database in January of 2020 revealed 47,856 medical device reports of Essure between November 2002 and December 2019. The most common adverse events observed during this period were:

• Pain or abdominal pain (32,901 cases).
• Heavy or irregular menses (14,573 cases). Headache (8,570 cases).
• Device fragment or foreign body in a patient (8,501 cases).
• Perforation (7,825 cases).
• Fatigue (7,083 cases).
• Gain or loss in weight (5,980 cases).
• Anxiety and/or depression (5,366 cases).
• Rash and/or hypersensitivity (5,077 cases)
• Hair loss (4,999 cases).

Problems with the device itself included reports of:

• Device incompatibility such as an allergy (7,515 cases).
• The device migrating (4,535 cases).
• The device breaking or fracturing (2,297 cases).
• The device dislodging or dislocating (1,797 cases).
• Improper operation including implant failure and pregnancy (1,058 cases).

In 2019, Essure received 15,083 medical device reports, an increase from 6,000 reports in 2018 and 11,854 reports in 2017.

To date, nearly 39,000 women in the United States have made claims to injuries related to the Essure device. In August, Bayer announced it would pay approximately $1.6 billion U.S. dollars to settle 90% of these cases in exchange for claimants to “dismiss their cases or not file.” Bayer also said in a press release that the settlement is not an admission of wrongdoing or liability on the part of the company.

In an interview, Catherine Cansino, MD, MPH, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of California, Davis, said the latest adverse event reports show “consistent info from [the] MAUDE database when comparing 2019 to previous years, highlighting most common problems related to pain and heavy or irregular bleeding.”

She emphasized ob.gyns with patients who have an Essure device should “consider Essure-related etiology that may necessitate device removal when evaluating patients with gynecological problems, especially with regard to abdominal/pelvic pain and heavy/irregular bleeding.”

Dr. Cansino reported no relevant financial disclosures. She is a member of the Ob.Gyn. News Editorial Advisory Board.

Quadrivalent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination was associated with a substantial reduction in the incidence of cervical cancer in a Swedish review of more than 1 million girls and women vaccinated from 2006 to 2017.

It’s been shown that the vaccine (Gardasil) helps prevent genital warts and high-grade cervical lesions, but until now, data on the ability of the vaccine to prevent cervical cancer, although widely assumed, had been lacking.

“Our results extend [the] knowledge base by showing that quadrivalent HPV vaccination is also associated with a substantially reduced risk of invasive cervical cancer, which is the ultimate intent of HPV vaccination programs,” said investigators led by Jiayao Lei, PhD, a researcher in the department of medical epidemiology and biostatistics at the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm.

The study was published online Oct. 1 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“This work provides evidence of actual cancer prevention,” commented Diane Harper, MD, an HPV expert and professor in the departments of family medicine and obstetrics & gynecology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. She was the principal investigator on the original Gardasil trial.

This study “shows that the quadrivalent HPV vaccine provides prevention from the sexually transmitted HPV infection that actually reduces the incidence of cervical cancer in young women up to 30 years of age,” she said when approached for comment.

However, she also added a note of caution. These new results show “that vaccinated women still develop cervical cancer, but at a slower rate. This makes the connection between early-age vaccination and continued adult life screening incredibly important,” Dr. Harper said in an interview

Cervical cancer was diagnosed in 19 of the 527,871 women (0.004%) who had received at least one dose of the vaccine versus 538 among the 1,145,112 women (0.05%) who had not.

The cumulative incidence was 47 cases per 100,000 vaccinated women and 94 cases per 100,000 unvaccinated women. The cervical cancer incidence rate ratio for the comparison of vaccinated versus unvaccinated women was 0.37 (95% confidence interval, 0.21-0.57).

The risk reduction was even greater among women who had been vaccinated before the age of 17, with a cumulative incidence of 4 versus 54 cases per 100,000 for women vaccinated after age 17. The incidence rate ratio was 0.12 (95% CI, 0.00-0.34) for women who had been vaccinated before age 17 versus 0.47 (95% CI, 0.27-0.75) among those vaccinated from age 17 to 30 years.

Overall, “the risk of cervical cancer among participants who had initiated vaccination before the age of 17 years was 88% lower than among those who had never been vaccinated,” the investigators noted.

These results “support the recommendation to administer quadrivalent HPV vaccine before exposure to HPV infection to achieve the most substantial benefit,” the investigators wrote.
 

Details of the Swedish review

For their review, Dr. Lei and colleagues used several Swedish demographic and health registries to connect vaccination status to incident cervical cancers, using the personal identification numbers Sweden issues to residents.

Participants were followed starting either on their 10th birthday or on Jan. 1, 2006, whichever came later. They were followed until, among other things, diagnosis of invasive cervical cancer; their 31st birthday; or until Dec. 31, 2017, whichever came first.

The quadrivalent HPV vaccine, approved in Sweden in 2006, was used almost exclusively during the study period. Participants were considered vaccinated if they had received only one shot, but the investigators set out to analyze a relationship between the incidence of invasive cervical cancer and the number of shots given.

Among other things, the team controlled for age at follow-up, calendar year, county of residence, maternal disease history, and parental characteristics, including education and household income.

The investigators commented that it’s possible that HPV-vaccinated women could have been generally healthier than unvaccinated women and so would have been at lower risk for cervical cancer.

“Confounding by lifestyle and health factors in the women (such as smoking status, sexual activity, oral contraceptive use, and obesity) cannot be excluded; these factors are known to be associated with a risk of cervical cancer,” the investigators wrote.

HPV is also associated with other types of cancer, including anal and oropharyngeal cancers. But these cancers develop over a longer period than cervical cancer.

Dr. Harper noted that the “probability of HPV 16 cancer by time since infection peaks at 40 years after infection for anal cancers and nearly 50 years after infection for oropharyngeal cancers. This means that registries, such as in Sweden, for the next 40 years will record the evidence to say whether HPV vaccination lasts long enough to prevent [these] other HPV 16–associated cancers occurring at a much later time in life.”

The work was funded by the Swedish Foundation for Strategic Research, the Swedish Cancer Society, and the Swedish Research Council and by the China Scholarship Council. Dr. Lei and two other investigators reported HPV vaccine research funding from Merck, the maker of Gardasil. Harper disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Quadrivalent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination was associated with a substantial reduction in the incidence of cervical cancer in a Swedish review of more than 1 million girls and women vaccinated from 2006 to 2017.

It’s been shown that the vaccine (Gardasil) helps prevent genital warts and high-grade cervical lesions, but until now, data on the ability of the vaccine to prevent cervical cancer, although widely assumed, had been lacking.

“Our results extend [the] knowledge base by showing that quadrivalent HPV vaccination is also associated with a substantially reduced risk of invasive cervical cancer, which is the ultimate intent of HPV vaccination programs,” said investigators led by Jiayao Lei, PhD, a researcher in the department of medical epidemiology and biostatistics at the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm.

The study was published online Oct. 1 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“This work provides evidence of actual cancer prevention,” commented Diane Harper, MD, an HPV expert and professor in the departments of family medicine and obstetrics & gynecology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. She was the principal investigator on the original Gardasil trial.

This study “shows that the quadrivalent HPV vaccine provides prevention from the sexually transmitted HPV infection that actually reduces the incidence of cervical cancer in young women up to 30 years of age,” she said when approached for comment.

However, she also added a note of caution. These new results show “that vaccinated women still develop cervical cancer, but at a slower rate. This makes the connection between early-age vaccination and continued adult life screening incredibly important,” Dr. Harper said in an interview

Cervical cancer was diagnosed in 19 of the 527,871 women (0.004%) who had received at least one dose of the vaccine versus 538 among the 1,145,112 women (0.05%) who had not.

The cumulative incidence was 47 cases per 100,000 vaccinated women and 94 cases per 100,000 unvaccinated women. The cervical cancer incidence rate ratio for the comparison of vaccinated versus unvaccinated women was 0.37 (95% confidence interval, 0.21-0.57).

The risk reduction was even greater among women who had been vaccinated before the age of 17, with a cumulative incidence of 4 versus 54 cases per 100,000 for women vaccinated after age 17. The incidence rate ratio was 0.12 (95% CI, 0.00-0.34) for women who had been vaccinated before age 17 versus 0.47 (95% CI, 0.27-0.75) among those vaccinated from age 17 to 30 years.

Overall, “the risk of cervical cancer among participants who had initiated vaccination before the age of 17 years was 88% lower than among those who had never been vaccinated,” the investigators noted.

These results “support the recommendation to administer quadrivalent HPV vaccine before exposure to HPV infection to achieve the most substantial benefit,” the investigators wrote.
 

Details of the Swedish review

For their review, Dr. Lei and colleagues used several Swedish demographic and health registries to connect vaccination status to incident cervical cancers, using the personal identification numbers Sweden issues to residents.

Participants were followed starting either on their 10th birthday or on Jan. 1, 2006, whichever came later. They were followed until, among other things, diagnosis of invasive cervical cancer; their 31st birthday; or until Dec. 31, 2017, whichever came first.

The quadrivalent HPV vaccine, approved in Sweden in 2006, was used almost exclusively during the study period. Participants were considered vaccinated if they had received only one shot, but the investigators set out to analyze a relationship between the incidence of invasive cervical cancer and the number of shots given.

Among other things, the team controlled for age at follow-up, calendar year, county of residence, maternal disease history, and parental characteristics, including education and household income.

The investigators commented that it’s possible that HPV-vaccinated women could have been generally healthier than unvaccinated women and so would have been at lower risk for cervical cancer.

“Confounding by lifestyle and health factors in the women (such as smoking status, sexual activity, oral contraceptive use, and obesity) cannot be excluded; these factors are known to be associated with a risk of cervical cancer,” the investigators wrote.

HPV is also associated with other types of cancer, including anal and oropharyngeal cancers. But these cancers develop over a longer period than cervical cancer.

Dr. Harper noted that the “probability of HPV 16 cancer by time since infection peaks at 40 years after infection for anal cancers and nearly 50 years after infection for oropharyngeal cancers. This means that registries, such as in Sweden, for the next 40 years will record the evidence to say whether HPV vaccination lasts long enough to prevent [these] other HPV 16–associated cancers occurring at a much later time in life.”

The work was funded by the Swedish Foundation for Strategic Research, the Swedish Cancer Society, and the Swedish Research Council and by the China Scholarship Council. Dr. Lei and two other investigators reported HPV vaccine research funding from Merck, the maker of Gardasil. Harper disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Quadrivalent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination was associated with a substantial reduction in the incidence of cervical cancer in a Swedish review of more than 1 million girls and women vaccinated from 2006 to 2017.

It’s been shown that the vaccine (Gardasil) helps prevent genital warts and high-grade cervical lesions, but until now, data on the ability of the vaccine to prevent cervical cancer, although widely assumed, had been lacking.

“Our results extend [the] knowledge base by showing that quadrivalent HPV vaccination is also associated with a substantially reduced risk of invasive cervical cancer, which is the ultimate intent of HPV vaccination programs,” said investigators led by Jiayao Lei, PhD, a researcher in the department of medical epidemiology and biostatistics at the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm.

The study was published online Oct. 1 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“This work provides evidence of actual cancer prevention,” commented Diane Harper, MD, an HPV expert and professor in the departments of family medicine and obstetrics & gynecology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. She was the principal investigator on the original Gardasil trial.

This study “shows that the quadrivalent HPV vaccine provides prevention from the sexually transmitted HPV infection that actually reduces the incidence of cervical cancer in young women up to 30 years of age,” she said when approached for comment.

However, she also added a note of caution. These new results show “that vaccinated women still develop cervical cancer, but at a slower rate. This makes the connection between early-age vaccination and continued adult life screening incredibly important,” Dr. Harper said in an interview

Cervical cancer was diagnosed in 19 of the 527,871 women (0.004%) who had received at least one dose of the vaccine versus 538 among the 1,145,112 women (0.05%) who had not.

The cumulative incidence was 47 cases per 100,000 vaccinated women and 94 cases per 100,000 unvaccinated women. The cervical cancer incidence rate ratio for the comparison of vaccinated versus unvaccinated women was 0.37 (95% confidence interval, 0.21-0.57).

The risk reduction was even greater among women who had been vaccinated before the age of 17, with a cumulative incidence of 4 versus 54 cases per 100,000 for women vaccinated after age 17. The incidence rate ratio was 0.12 (95% CI, 0.00-0.34) for women who had been vaccinated before age 17 versus 0.47 (95% CI, 0.27-0.75) among those vaccinated from age 17 to 30 years.

Overall, “the risk of cervical cancer among participants who had initiated vaccination before the age of 17 years was 88% lower than among those who had never been vaccinated,” the investigators noted.

These results “support the recommendation to administer quadrivalent HPV vaccine before exposure to HPV infection to achieve the most substantial benefit,” the investigators wrote.
 

Details of the Swedish review

For their review, Dr. Lei and colleagues used several Swedish demographic and health registries to connect vaccination status to incident cervical cancers, using the personal identification numbers Sweden issues to residents.

Participants were followed starting either on their 10th birthday or on Jan. 1, 2006, whichever came later. They were followed until, among other things, diagnosis of invasive cervical cancer; their 31st birthday; or until Dec. 31, 2017, whichever came first.

The quadrivalent HPV vaccine, approved in Sweden in 2006, was used almost exclusively during the study period. Participants were considered vaccinated if they had received only one shot, but the investigators set out to analyze a relationship between the incidence of invasive cervical cancer and the number of shots given.

Among other things, the team controlled for age at follow-up, calendar year, county of residence, maternal disease history, and parental characteristics, including education and household income.

The investigators commented that it’s possible that HPV-vaccinated women could have been generally healthier than unvaccinated women and so would have been at lower risk for cervical cancer.

“Confounding by lifestyle and health factors in the women (such as smoking status, sexual activity, oral contraceptive use, and obesity) cannot be excluded; these factors are known to be associated with a risk of cervical cancer,” the investigators wrote.

HPV is also associated with other types of cancer, including anal and oropharyngeal cancers. But these cancers develop over a longer period than cervical cancer.

Dr. Harper noted that the “probability of HPV 16 cancer by time since infection peaks at 40 years after infection for anal cancers and nearly 50 years after infection for oropharyngeal cancers. This means that registries, such as in Sweden, for the next 40 years will record the evidence to say whether HPV vaccination lasts long enough to prevent [these] other HPV 16–associated cancers occurring at a much later time in life.”

The work was funded by the Swedish Foundation for Strategic Research, the Swedish Cancer Society, and the Swedish Research Council and by the China Scholarship Council. Dr. Lei and two other investigators reported HPV vaccine research funding from Merck, the maker of Gardasil. Harper disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Breast cancer in women remains one of the most common types of cancer in the United States, affecting about one in eight women¹ over the course of their lifetime. Despite its pervasiveness, the 5-year survival rate for women with breast cancer remains high, estimated at around 90%² based on data from 2010-2016, in large part because of early detection and treatment through screening. However, many organizations disagree on when to start and how often to screen women at average risk.

Important to discussions about breast cancer screening is the trend that many women delay childbirth until their 30s and 40s. In 2018 the birth rate increased for women ages 35-44, and the mean age of first birth increased from the prior year across all racial and ethnic groups.³ Therefore, ob.gyns. may need to consider that their patients not only may have increased risk of developing breast cancer based on age alone – women aged 35-44 have four times greater risk of disease than women aged 20-34² – but that the pregnancy itself may further exacerbate risk in older women. A 2019 pooled analysis found that women who were older at first birth had a greater chance of developing breast cancer compared with women with no children.⁴

In addition, ob.gyns. should consider that their patients may have received a breast cancer diagnosis prior to initiation or completion of their family plans or that their patients are cancer survivors – in 2013-2017, breast cancer was the most common form of cancer in adolescents and young adults.⁵ Thus, practitioners should be prepared to discuss not only options for fertility preservation but the evidence regarding cancer recurrence after pregnancy.

We have invited Dr. Katherine Tkaczuk, professor of medicine at the University of Maryland School of Medicine* and director of the breast evaluation and treatment program at the Marlene and Stewart Greenebaum Comprehensive Cancer Center, to discuss the vital role of screening in the shared decision-making process of breast cancer prevention.
 

Dr. Reece, who specializes in maternal-fetal medicine, is executive vice president for medical affairs at the University of Maryland, Baltimore,* as well as the John Z. and Akiko K. Bowers Distinguished Professor and dean of the school of medicine. He is the medical editor of this column. He said he had no relevant financial disclosures. Contact him at obnews@mdedge.com.

Correction, 1/8/21: *An earlier version of this article misstated the university affiliations for Dr. Tkaczuk and Dr. Reece.

References

1. U.S. Breast Cancer Statistics. breastcancer.org.

2. “Cancer Stat Facts: Female Breast Cancer,” Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program. National Cancer Institute.

3. Martin JA et al. “Births: Final Data for 2018.” National Vital Statistics Reports. 2019 Nov 27;68(13):1-46.

4. Nichols HB et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019 Jan;170(1):22-30.

5. “Cancer Stat Facts: Cancer Among Adolescents and Young Adults (AYAs) (Ages 15-39),” Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program. National Cancer Institute.
 

Breast cancer in women remains one of the most common types of cancer in the United States, affecting about one in eight women¹ over the course of their lifetime. Despite its pervasiveness, the 5-year survival rate for women with breast cancer remains high, estimated at around 90%² based on data from 2010-2016, in large part because of early detection and treatment through screening. However, many organizations disagree on when to start and how often to screen women at average risk.

Important to discussions about breast cancer screening is the trend that many women delay childbirth until their 30s and 40s. In 2018 the birth rate increased for women ages 35-44, and the mean age of first birth increased from the prior year across all racial and ethnic groups.³ Therefore, ob.gyns. may need to consider that their patients not only may have increased risk of developing breast cancer based on age alone – women aged 35-44 have four times greater risk of disease than women aged 20-34² – but that the pregnancy itself may further exacerbate risk in older women. A 2019 pooled analysis found that women who were older at first birth had a greater chance of developing breast cancer compared with women with no children.⁴

In addition, ob.gyns. should consider that their patients may have received a breast cancer diagnosis prior to initiation or completion of their family plans or that their patients are cancer survivors – in 2013-2017, breast cancer was the most common form of cancer in adolescents and young adults.⁵ Thus, practitioners should be prepared to discuss not only options for fertility preservation but the evidence regarding cancer recurrence after pregnancy.

We have invited Dr. Katherine Tkaczuk, professor of medicine at the University of Maryland School of Medicine* and director of the breast evaluation and treatment program at the Marlene and Stewart Greenebaum Comprehensive Cancer Center, to discuss the vital role of screening in the shared decision-making process of breast cancer prevention.
 

Dr. Reece, who specializes in maternal-fetal medicine, is executive vice president for medical affairs at the University of Maryland, Baltimore,* as well as the John Z. and Akiko K. Bowers Distinguished Professor and dean of the school of medicine. He is the medical editor of this column. He said he had no relevant financial disclosures. Contact him at obnews@mdedge.com.

Correction, 1/8/21: *An earlier version of this article misstated the university affiliations for Dr. Tkaczuk and Dr. Reece.

References

1. U.S. Breast Cancer Statistics. breastcancer.org.

2. “Cancer Stat Facts: Female Breast Cancer,” Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program. National Cancer Institute.

3. Martin JA et al. “Births: Final Data for 2018.” National Vital Statistics Reports. 2019 Nov 27;68(13):1-46.

4. Nichols HB et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019 Jan;170(1):22-30.

5. “Cancer Stat Facts: Cancer Among Adolescents and Young Adults (AYAs) (Ages 15-39),” Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program. National Cancer Institute.
 

Breast cancer in women remains one of the most common types of cancer in the United States, affecting about one in eight women¹ over the course of their lifetime. Despite its pervasiveness, the 5-year survival rate for women with breast cancer remains high, estimated at around 90%² based on data from 2010-2016, in large part because of early detection and treatment through screening. However, many organizations disagree on when to start and how often to screen women at average risk.

Important to discussions about breast cancer screening is the trend that many women delay childbirth until their 30s and 40s. In 2018 the birth rate increased for women ages 35-44, and the mean age of first birth increased from the prior year across all racial and ethnic groups.³ Therefore, ob.gyns. may need to consider that their patients not only may have increased risk of developing breast cancer based on age alone – women aged 35-44 have four times greater risk of disease than women aged 20-34² – but that the pregnancy itself may further exacerbate risk in older women. A 2019 pooled analysis found that women who were older at first birth had a greater chance of developing breast cancer compared with women with no children.⁴

In addition, ob.gyns. should consider that their patients may have received a breast cancer diagnosis prior to initiation or completion of their family plans or that their patients are cancer survivors – in 2013-2017, breast cancer was the most common form of cancer in adolescents and young adults.⁵ Thus, practitioners should be prepared to discuss not only options for fertility preservation but the evidence regarding cancer recurrence after pregnancy.

We have invited Dr. Katherine Tkaczuk, professor of medicine at the University of Maryland School of Medicine* and director of the breast evaluation and treatment program at the Marlene and Stewart Greenebaum Comprehensive Cancer Center, to discuss the vital role of screening in the shared decision-making process of breast cancer prevention.
 

Dr. Reece, who specializes in maternal-fetal medicine, is executive vice president for medical affairs at the University of Maryland, Baltimore,* as well as the John Z. and Akiko K. Bowers Distinguished Professor and dean of the school of medicine. He is the medical editor of this column. He said he had no relevant financial disclosures. Contact him at obnews@mdedge.com.

Correction, 1/8/21: *An earlier version of this article misstated the university affiliations for Dr. Tkaczuk and Dr. Reece.

References

1. U.S. Breast Cancer Statistics. breastcancer.org.

2. “Cancer Stat Facts: Female Breast Cancer,” Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program. National Cancer Institute.

3. Martin JA et al. “Births: Final Data for 2018.” National Vital Statistics Reports. 2019 Nov 27;68(13):1-46.

4. Nichols HB et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019 Jan;170(1):22-30.

5. “Cancer Stat Facts: Cancer Among Adolescents and Young Adults (AYAs) (Ages 15-39),” Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program. National Cancer Institute.
 

Screening mammography has contributed to the lowering of mortality from breast cancer by facilitating earlier diagnosis and a lower stage at diagnosis. With more effective treatment options for women who are diagnosed with lower-stage breast cancer, the current 5-year survival rate has risen to 90% – significantly higher than the 5-year survival rate of 75% in 1975.¹

Courtesy Dr. Katherine Tkaczuk

Women who are at much higher risk for developing breast cancer – mainly because of family history, certain genetic mutations, or a history of radiation therapy to the chest – will benefit the most from earlier and more frequent screening mammography as well as enhanced screening with non-x-ray methods of breast imaging. It is important that ob.gyns. help to identify these women.

However, the majority of women who are screened with mammography are at “average risk,” with a lifetime risk for developing breast cancer of 12.9%, based on 2015-2017 data from the National Cancer Institute’s (NCI) Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (SEER).¹ The median age at diagnosis of breast cancer in the U.S. is 62 years,¹ and advancing age is the most important risk factor for these women.

A 20% relative risk reduction in breast cancer mortality with screening mammography has been demonstrated both in systematic reviews of randomized and observational studies² and in a meta-analysis of 11 randomized trials comparing screening and no screening.³ Even though the majority of randomized trials were done in the age of film mammography, experts believe that we still see at least a 20% reduction today.

Among average-risk women, those aged 50-74 with a life expectancy of at least 10 years will benefit the most from regular screening. According to the 2016 screening guideline of the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), relative risk reductions in breast cancer mortality from mammography screening, by age group, are 0.88 (confidence interval, 0.73-1.003) for ages 39-49; 0.86 (CI, 0.68-0.97) for ages 50-59; 0.67 (CI, 0.55-0.91) for ages 60-69; and 0.80 (CI, 0.51 to 1.28) for ages 70-74.²

For women aged 40-49 years, most of the guidelines in the United States recommend individualized screening every 1 or 2 years – screening that is guided by shared decision-making that takes into account each woman’s values regarding relative harms and benefits. This is because their risk of developing breast cancer is relatively low while the risk of false-positive results can be higher.

A few exceptions include guidelines by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and the American College of Radiology, which recommend annual screening mammography starting at age 40 years for all average-risk women. In our program, we adhere to these latter recommendations and advise annual digital 3-D mammograms starting at age 40 and continuing until age 74, or longer if the woman is otherwise healthy with a life expectancy greater than 10 years.
 

Screening and overdiagnosis

Overdiagnosis – the diagnosis of cancers that may not actually cause mortality or may not even have become apparent without screening – is a concern for all women undergoing routine screening for breast cancer. There is significant uncertainty about its frequency, however.

Research cited by the USPSTF suggests that as many as one in five women diagnosed with breast cancer over approximately 10 years will be overdiagnosed. Other modeling studies have estimated one in eight overdiagnoses, for women aged 50-75 years specifically. By the more conservative estimate, according to the USPSTF, one breast cancer death will be prevented for every 2-3 cases of unnecessary treatment.²

Ductal carcinoma in situ is confined to the mammary ductal-lobular system and lacks the classic characteristics of cancer. Technically, it should not metastasize. But we do not know with certainty which cases of DCIS will or will not progress to invasive cancer. Therefore these women often are offered surgical approaches mirroring invasive cancer treatments (lumpectomy with radiation or even mastectomy in some cases), while for some, such treatments may be unnecessary.
 

Screening younger women (40-49)

Shared decision-making is always important for breast cancer screening, but in our program we routinely recommend annual screening in average-risk women starting at age 40 for several reasons. For one, younger women may present with more aggressive types of breast cancer such as triple-negative breast cancer. These are much less common than hormone-receptor positive breast cancers – they represent 15%-20% of all breast cancers – but they are faster growing and may develop in the interim if women are screened less often (at 2-year intervals).

In addition, finding an invasive breast cancer early is almost always beneficial. Earlier diagnosis (lower stage at diagnosis) is associated with increased breast cancer-specific and overall survival, as well as less-aggressive treatment approaches.

As a medical oncologist who treats women with breast cancer, I see these benefits firsthand. With earlier diagnosis, we are more likely to offer less aggressive surgical approaches such as partial mastectomy (lumpectomy) and sentinel lymph node biopsy as opposed to total mastectomy with axillary lymph node dissection, the latter of which is more likely to be associated with lymphedema and which can lead to postmastectomy chest wall pain syndromes.

We also are able to use less aggressive radiation therapy approaches such as partial breast radiation, and less aggressive breast cancer–specific systemic treatments for women with a lower stage of breast cancer at diagnosis. In some cases, adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy may not be needed – and when it is necessary, shorter courses of chemotherapy or targeted chemotherapeutic regimens may be offered. This means lower systemic toxicities, both early and late, such as less cytopenias, risk of infections, mucositis, hair loss, cardiotoxicity, secondary malignancies/leukemia, and peripheral sensory neuropathy.

It is important to note that Black women in the United States have the highest death rate from breast cancer – 27.3 per 100,000 per year, versus 19.6 per 100,000 per year for White women¹ – and that younger Black women appear to have a higher risk of developing triple-negative breast cancer, a more aggressive type of breast cancer. The higher breast cancer mortality in Black women is likely multifactorial and may be attributed partly to disparities in health care and partly to tumor biology. The case for annual screening in this population thus seems especially strong.
 

Screening modalities

Digital 3-D mammography, or digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), is widely considered to be a more sensitive screening tool than conventional digital mammography alone. The NCCN recommends DBT for women with an average risk of developing breast cancer starting at age 40,^4,5 and the USPSTF, while offering no recommendation on DBT as a primary screening method (“insufficient evidence”), says that DBT appears to increase cancer detection rates.² So, I do routinely recommend it.

DBT may be especially beneficial for women with dense breast tissue (determined mammographically), who are most often premenopausal women – particularly non-Hispanic White women. Dense breast tissue itself can contribute to an increased risk of breast cancer – an approximately 20% higher relative risk in an average-risk woman with heterogeneously dense breast tissue, and an approximately 100% higher relative risk in a woman with extremely dense breasts⁶ – but unfortunately it affects the sensitivity and specificity of screening mammography.

I do not recommend routine supplemental screening with other methods (breast ultrasonography or MRI) for women at average risk of breast cancer who have dense breasts. MRI with gadolinium contrast is recommended as an adjunct to mammography for women who have a lifetime risk of developing breast cancer of more than 20%-25% (e.g., women with known BRCA1/2 mutations or radiation to breast tissue), and can be done annually at the same time as the screening mammogram is done. Some clinicians and patients prefer to alternate these two tests – one every 6 months.

Screening breast MRI is more sensitive but less specific than mammography; combining the two screening modalities leads to overall increased sensitivity and specificity in high-risk populations.
 

Risk assessment

Identifying higher-risk women who need to be sent to a genetic counselor is critically important. The USPSTF recommends that women who have family members with breast, ovarian, tubal or peritoneal cancer, or who have an ancestry associated with BRCA1/2 gene mutations, be assessed with a brief familial risk assessment tool such as the Pedigree Assessment Tool. This and other validated tools have been evaluated by the USPSTF and can be used to guide referrals to genetic counseling for more definitive risk assessment.⁷

These tools are different from general breast cancer risk assessment models, such as the NCI’s Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool,⁸ which are designed to calculate the 5-year and lifetime risk of developing invasive breast cancer for an average-risk woman but not to identify BRCA-related cancer risk. (The NCI’s tool is based on the Gail model, which has been widely used over the years.)

The general risk assessment models use a women’s personal medical and reproductive history as well as the history of breast cancer among her first-degree relatives to estimate her risk.
 

Dr. Tkaczuk reported that she has no disclosures.

References

1. “Cancer Stat Facts: Female Breast Cancer.” Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program. National Cancer Institute.

2. Siu AL et al. Ann Intern Med. 2016 Feb 16. doi: 10.7326/M15-2886.

3. Independent UK Panel on Breast Cancer Screening. Lancet. 2012 Nov 17;380(9855):1778-86.

4. NCCN guidelines for Detection, Prevention, & Risk Reduction: Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis. National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

5. NCCN guidelines for Detection, Prevention, & Risk Reduction: Breast Cancer Risk Reduction. National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

6. Ziv E et al. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2004;13(12):2090-5.

7. USPSTF. JAMA. 2019;322(7):652-65.

8. The Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool. National Cancer Institute.
 

Screening mammography has contributed to the lowering of mortality from breast cancer by facilitating earlier diagnosis and a lower stage at diagnosis. With more effective treatment options for women who are diagnosed with lower-stage breast cancer, the current 5-year survival rate has risen to 90% – significantly higher than the 5-year survival rate of 75% in 1975.¹

Courtesy Dr. Katherine Tkaczuk

Women who are at much higher risk for developing breast cancer – mainly because of family history, certain genetic mutations, or a history of radiation therapy to the chest – will benefit the most from earlier and more frequent screening mammography as well as enhanced screening with non-x-ray methods of breast imaging. It is important that ob.gyns. help to identify these women.

However, the majority of women who are screened with mammography are at “average risk,” with a lifetime risk for developing breast cancer of 12.9%, based on 2015-2017 data from the National Cancer Institute’s (NCI) Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (SEER).¹ The median age at diagnosis of breast cancer in the U.S. is 62 years,¹ and advancing age is the most important risk factor for these women.

A 20% relative risk reduction in breast cancer mortality with screening mammography has been demonstrated both in systematic reviews of randomized and observational studies² and in a meta-analysis of 11 randomized trials comparing screening and no screening.³ Even though the majority of randomized trials were done in the age of film mammography, experts believe that we still see at least a 20% reduction today.

Among average-risk women, those aged 50-74 with a life expectancy of at least 10 years will benefit the most from regular screening. According to the 2016 screening guideline of the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), relative risk reductions in breast cancer mortality from mammography screening, by age group, are 0.88 (confidence interval, 0.73-1.003) for ages 39-49; 0.86 (CI, 0.68-0.97) for ages 50-59; 0.67 (CI, 0.55-0.91) for ages 60-69; and 0.80 (CI, 0.51 to 1.28) for ages 70-74.²

For women aged 40-49 years, most of the guidelines in the United States recommend individualized screening every 1 or 2 years – screening that is guided by shared decision-making that takes into account each woman’s values regarding relative harms and benefits. This is because their risk of developing breast cancer is relatively low while the risk of false-positive results can be higher.

A few exceptions include guidelines by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and the American College of Radiology, which recommend annual screening mammography starting at age 40 years for all average-risk women. In our program, we adhere to these latter recommendations and advise annual digital 3-D mammograms starting at age 40 and continuing until age 74, or longer if the woman is otherwise healthy with a life expectancy greater than 10 years.
 

Screening and overdiagnosis

Overdiagnosis – the diagnosis of cancers that may not actually cause mortality or may not even have become apparent without screening – is a concern for all women undergoing routine screening for breast cancer. There is significant uncertainty about its frequency, however.

Research cited by the USPSTF suggests that as many as one in five women diagnosed with breast cancer over approximately 10 years will be overdiagnosed. Other modeling studies have estimated one in eight overdiagnoses, for women aged 50-75 years specifically. By the more conservative estimate, according to the USPSTF, one breast cancer death will be prevented for every 2-3 cases of unnecessary treatment.²

Ductal carcinoma in situ is confined to the mammary ductal-lobular system and lacks the classic characteristics of cancer. Technically, it should not metastasize. But we do not know with certainty which cases of DCIS will or will not progress to invasive cancer. Therefore these women often are offered surgical approaches mirroring invasive cancer treatments (lumpectomy with radiation or even mastectomy in some cases), while for some, such treatments may be unnecessary.
 

Screening younger women (40-49)

Shared decision-making is always important for breast cancer screening, but in our program we routinely recommend annual screening in average-risk women starting at age 40 for several reasons. For one, younger women may present with more aggressive types of breast cancer such as triple-negative breast cancer. These are much less common than hormone-receptor positive breast cancers – they represent 15%-20% of all breast cancers – but they are faster growing and may develop in the interim if women are screened less often (at 2-year intervals).

In addition, finding an invasive breast cancer early is almost always beneficial. Earlier diagnosis (lower stage at diagnosis) is associated with increased breast cancer-specific and overall survival, as well as less-aggressive treatment approaches.

As a medical oncologist who treats women with breast cancer, I see these benefits firsthand. With earlier diagnosis, we are more likely to offer less aggressive surgical approaches such as partial mastectomy (lumpectomy) and sentinel lymph node biopsy as opposed to total mastectomy with axillary lymph node dissection, the latter of which is more likely to be associated with lymphedema and which can lead to postmastectomy chest wall pain syndromes.

We also are able to use less aggressive radiation therapy approaches such as partial breast radiation, and less aggressive breast cancer–specific systemic treatments for women with a lower stage of breast cancer at diagnosis. In some cases, adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy may not be needed – and when it is necessary, shorter courses of chemotherapy or targeted chemotherapeutic regimens may be offered. This means lower systemic toxicities, both early and late, such as less cytopenias, risk of infections, mucositis, hair loss, cardiotoxicity, secondary malignancies/leukemia, and peripheral sensory neuropathy.

It is important to note that Black women in the United States have the highest death rate from breast cancer – 27.3 per 100,000 per year, versus 19.6 per 100,000 per year for White women¹ – and that younger Black women appear to have a higher risk of developing triple-negative breast cancer, a more aggressive type of breast cancer. The higher breast cancer mortality in Black women is likely multifactorial and may be attributed partly to disparities in health care and partly to tumor biology. The case for annual screening in this population thus seems especially strong.
 

Screening modalities

Digital 3-D mammography, or digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), is widely considered to be a more sensitive screening tool than conventional digital mammography alone. The NCCN recommends DBT for women with an average risk of developing breast cancer starting at age 40,^4,5 and the USPSTF, while offering no recommendation on DBT as a primary screening method (“insufficient evidence”), says that DBT appears to increase cancer detection rates.² So, I do routinely recommend it.

DBT may be especially beneficial for women with dense breast tissue (determined mammographically), who are most often premenopausal women – particularly non-Hispanic White women. Dense breast tissue itself can contribute to an increased risk of breast cancer – an approximately 20% higher relative risk in an average-risk woman with heterogeneously dense breast tissue, and an approximately 100% higher relative risk in a woman with extremely dense breasts⁶ – but unfortunately it affects the sensitivity and specificity of screening mammography.

I do not recommend routine supplemental screening with other methods (breast ultrasonography or MRI) for women at average risk of breast cancer who have dense breasts. MRI with gadolinium contrast is recommended as an adjunct to mammography for women who have a lifetime risk of developing breast cancer of more than 20%-25% (e.g., women with known BRCA1/2 mutations or radiation to breast tissue), and can be done annually at the same time as the screening mammogram is done. Some clinicians and patients prefer to alternate these two tests – one every 6 months.

Screening breast MRI is more sensitive but less specific than mammography; combining the two screening modalities leads to overall increased sensitivity and specificity in high-risk populations.
 

Risk assessment

Identifying higher-risk women who need to be sent to a genetic counselor is critically important. The USPSTF recommends that women who have family members with breast, ovarian, tubal or peritoneal cancer, or who have an ancestry associated with BRCA1/2 gene mutations, be assessed with a brief familial risk assessment tool such as the Pedigree Assessment Tool. This and other validated tools have been evaluated by the USPSTF and can be used to guide referrals to genetic counseling for more definitive risk assessment.⁷

These tools are different from general breast cancer risk assessment models, such as the NCI’s Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool,⁸ which are designed to calculate the 5-year and lifetime risk of developing invasive breast cancer for an average-risk woman but not to identify BRCA-related cancer risk. (The NCI’s tool is based on the Gail model, which has been widely used over the years.)

The general risk assessment models use a women’s personal medical and reproductive history as well as the history of breast cancer among her first-degree relatives to estimate her risk.
 

Dr. Tkaczuk reported that she has no disclosures.

References

1. “Cancer Stat Facts: Female Breast Cancer.” Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program. National Cancer Institute.

2. Siu AL et al. Ann Intern Med. 2016 Feb 16. doi: 10.7326/M15-2886.

3. Independent UK Panel on Breast Cancer Screening. Lancet. 2012 Nov 17;380(9855):1778-86.

4. NCCN guidelines for Detection, Prevention, & Risk Reduction: Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis. National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

5. NCCN guidelines for Detection, Prevention, & Risk Reduction: Breast Cancer Risk Reduction. National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

6. Ziv E et al. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2004;13(12):2090-5.

7. USPSTF. JAMA. 2019;322(7):652-65.

8. The Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool. National Cancer Institute.
 

Screening mammography has contributed to the lowering of mortality from breast cancer by facilitating earlier diagnosis and a lower stage at diagnosis. With more effective treatment options for women who are diagnosed with lower-stage breast cancer, the current 5-year survival rate has risen to 90% – significantly higher than the 5-year survival rate of 75% in 1975.¹

Courtesy Dr. Katherine Tkaczuk

Women who are at much higher risk for developing breast cancer – mainly because of family history, certain genetic mutations, or a history of radiation therapy to the chest – will benefit the most from earlier and more frequent screening mammography as well as enhanced screening with non-x-ray methods of breast imaging. It is important that ob.gyns. help to identify these women.

However, the majority of women who are screened with mammography are at “average risk,” with a lifetime risk for developing breast cancer of 12.9%, based on 2015-2017 data from the National Cancer Institute’s (NCI) Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (SEER).¹ The median age at diagnosis of breast cancer in the U.S. is 62 years,¹ and advancing age is the most important risk factor for these women.

A 20% relative risk reduction in breast cancer mortality with screening mammography has been demonstrated both in systematic reviews of randomized and observational studies² and in a meta-analysis of 11 randomized trials comparing screening and no screening.³ Even though the majority of randomized trials were done in the age of film mammography, experts believe that we still see at least a 20% reduction today.

Among average-risk women, those aged 50-74 with a life expectancy of at least 10 years will benefit the most from regular screening. According to the 2016 screening guideline of the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), relative risk reductions in breast cancer mortality from mammography screening, by age group, are 0.88 (confidence interval, 0.73-1.003) for ages 39-49; 0.86 (CI, 0.68-0.97) for ages 50-59; 0.67 (CI, 0.55-0.91) for ages 60-69; and 0.80 (CI, 0.51 to 1.28) for ages 70-74.²

For women aged 40-49 years, most of the guidelines in the United States recommend individualized screening every 1 or 2 years – screening that is guided by shared decision-making that takes into account each woman’s values regarding relative harms and benefits. This is because their risk of developing breast cancer is relatively low while the risk of false-positive results can be higher.

A few exceptions include guidelines by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and the American College of Radiology, which recommend annual screening mammography starting at age 40 years for all average-risk women. In our program, we adhere to these latter recommendations and advise annual digital 3-D mammograms starting at age 40 and continuing until age 74, or longer if the woman is otherwise healthy with a life expectancy greater than 10 years.
 

Screening and overdiagnosis

Overdiagnosis – the diagnosis of cancers that may not actually cause mortality or may not even have become apparent without screening – is a concern for all women undergoing routine screening for breast cancer. There is significant uncertainty about its frequency, however.

Research cited by the USPSTF suggests that as many as one in five women diagnosed with breast cancer over approximately 10 years will be overdiagnosed. Other modeling studies have estimated one in eight overdiagnoses, for women aged 50-75 years specifically. By the more conservative estimate, according to the USPSTF, one breast cancer death will be prevented for every 2-3 cases of unnecessary treatment.²

Ductal carcinoma in situ is confined to the mammary ductal-lobular system and lacks the classic characteristics of cancer. Technically, it should not metastasize. But we do not know with certainty which cases of DCIS will or will not progress to invasive cancer. Therefore these women often are offered surgical approaches mirroring invasive cancer treatments (lumpectomy with radiation or even mastectomy in some cases), while for some, such treatments may be unnecessary.
 

Screening younger women (40-49)

Shared decision-making is always important for breast cancer screening, but in our program we routinely recommend annual screening in average-risk women starting at age 40 for several reasons. For one, younger women may present with more aggressive types of breast cancer such as triple-negative breast cancer. These are much less common than hormone-receptor positive breast cancers – they represent 15%-20% of all breast cancers – but they are faster growing and may develop in the interim if women are screened less often (at 2-year intervals).

In addition, finding an invasive breast cancer early is almost always beneficial. Earlier diagnosis (lower stage at diagnosis) is associated with increased breast cancer-specific and overall survival, as well as less-aggressive treatment approaches.

As a medical oncologist who treats women with breast cancer, I see these benefits firsthand. With earlier diagnosis, we are more likely to offer less aggressive surgical approaches such as partial mastectomy (lumpectomy) and sentinel lymph node biopsy as opposed to total mastectomy with axillary lymph node dissection, the latter of which is more likely to be associated with lymphedema and which can lead to postmastectomy chest wall pain syndromes.

We also are able to use less aggressive radiation therapy approaches such as partial breast radiation, and less aggressive breast cancer–specific systemic treatments for women with a lower stage of breast cancer at diagnosis. In some cases, adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy may not be needed – and when it is necessary, shorter courses of chemotherapy or targeted chemotherapeutic regimens may be offered. This means lower systemic toxicities, both early and late, such as less cytopenias, risk of infections, mucositis, hair loss, cardiotoxicity, secondary malignancies/leukemia, and peripheral sensory neuropathy.

It is important to note that Black women in the United States have the highest death rate from breast cancer – 27.3 per 100,000 per year, versus 19.6 per 100,000 per year for White women¹ – and that younger Black women appear to have a higher risk of developing triple-negative breast cancer, a more aggressive type of breast cancer. The higher breast cancer mortality in Black women is likely multifactorial and may be attributed partly to disparities in health care and partly to tumor biology. The case for annual screening in this population thus seems especially strong.
 

Screening modalities

Digital 3-D mammography, or digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), is widely considered to be a more sensitive screening tool than conventional digital mammography alone. The NCCN recommends DBT for women with an average risk of developing breast cancer starting at age 40,^4,5 and the USPSTF, while offering no recommendation on DBT as a primary screening method (“insufficient evidence”), says that DBT appears to increase cancer detection rates.² So, I do routinely recommend it.

DBT may be especially beneficial for women with dense breast tissue (determined mammographically), who are most often premenopausal women – particularly non-Hispanic White women. Dense breast tissue itself can contribute to an increased risk of breast cancer – an approximately 20% higher relative risk in an average-risk woman with heterogeneously dense breast tissue, and an approximately 100% higher relative risk in a woman with extremely dense breasts⁶ – but unfortunately it affects the sensitivity and specificity of screening mammography.

I do not recommend routine supplemental screening with other methods (breast ultrasonography or MRI) for women at average risk of breast cancer who have dense breasts. MRI with gadolinium contrast is recommended as an adjunct to mammography for women who have a lifetime risk of developing breast cancer of more than 20%-25% (e.g., women with known BRCA1/2 mutations or radiation to breast tissue), and can be done annually at the same time as the screening mammogram is done. Some clinicians and patients prefer to alternate these two tests – one every 6 months.

Screening breast MRI is more sensitive but less specific than mammography; combining the two screening modalities leads to overall increased sensitivity and specificity in high-risk populations.
 

Risk assessment

Identifying higher-risk women who need to be sent to a genetic counselor is critically important. The USPSTF recommends that women who have family members with breast, ovarian, tubal or peritoneal cancer, or who have an ancestry associated with BRCA1/2 gene mutations, be assessed with a brief familial risk assessment tool such as the Pedigree Assessment Tool. This and other validated tools have been evaluated by the USPSTF and can be used to guide referrals to genetic counseling for more definitive risk assessment.⁷

These tools are different from general breast cancer risk assessment models, such as the NCI’s Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool,⁸ which are designed to calculate the 5-year and lifetime risk of developing invasive breast cancer for an average-risk woman but not to identify BRCA-related cancer risk. (The NCI’s tool is based on the Gail model, which has been widely used over the years.)

The general risk assessment models use a women’s personal medical and reproductive history as well as the history of breast cancer among her first-degree relatives to estimate her risk.
 

Dr. Tkaczuk reported that she has no disclosures.

References

1. “Cancer Stat Facts: Female Breast Cancer.” Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program. National Cancer Institute.

2. Siu AL et al. Ann Intern Med. 2016 Feb 16. doi: 10.7326/M15-2886.

3. Independent UK Panel on Breast Cancer Screening. Lancet. 2012 Nov 17;380(9855):1778-86.

4. NCCN guidelines for Detection, Prevention, & Risk Reduction: Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis. National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

5. NCCN guidelines for Detection, Prevention, & Risk Reduction: Breast Cancer Risk Reduction. National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

6. Ziv E et al. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2004;13(12):2090-5.

7. USPSTF. JAMA. 2019;322(7):652-65.

8. The Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool. National Cancer Institute.