Jim Kling

Among high-risk early breast cancer patients, delivery of a radiation boost to the tumor bed during whole breast irradiation was just as safe and effective as delivering the boost sequentially after whole breast irradiation ended. The findings from the phase 3 clinical trial are a boon to patient convenience.

“These findings are indeed practice changing. This was a well-designed trial that looked at shortening treatment from six to three weeks. They showed equivalent local control and importantly, a good cosmetic outcome over time,” said Kathleen Horst, MD, who served as a discussant during a presentation given by Frank Vicini, MD, FASTRO, GenesisCare, during the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology.

“This is substantially more convenient. It’s cost effective both for the health care system and individual patients. Importantly, our patients come in for treatment every day and they’re taking time from work which means they have to arrange for childcare and transportation. So, this makes a big difference for these patients,” said Dr. Horst, who is a professor of radiation oncology at Stanford (Calif.) Medicine and director of well-being in the radiation department at Stanford Medicine.

“One of the things that was surprising is that I think all of us were thinking this might be a more toxic regimen, but as Dr. Vicini showed, it was equally effective over time with minimal toxicity and cosmesis was stable over time, which is important. Importantly, it included patient-reported outcomes, not just the physician-reported outcomes. Broadly, I think these findings are applicable for many patients, including all patients who are receiving whole breast radiotherapy with an added boost. I think over time this is going to improve the quality of life of our patients. It represents an innovative change that everyone is going to be excited to embrace,” Dr. Horst said.

Previous randomized controlled trials showed that an additional radiation dose to the tumor bed following lumpectomy and whole breast irradiation reduces the relative risk of local recurrence by about 35%. However, this increases treatment time for patients who have already endured an extensive regimen. For whole breast irradiation, hypofractionated radiation in 15-16 fractions over 3 weeks has comparable recurrence rates as a 5-week regimen, but the relevant trials did not examine the effect hypofractionation may have on a radiation boost to the tumor bed of high-risk patients. Because of this lack of evidence, current practice calls for the boost to remain sequential in five to eight fractions after completion of whole breast irradiation, which adds 1 week to a 1.5 week–long treatment.

The study included 2,262 patients who were randomized to receive a sequential boost or a concomitant boost. After a median follow-up of 7.4 years, there were 54 ipsilateral breast recurrence (IBR) events. The estimated 7-year risk of IBR was 2.2% in the sequential boost and 2.6% in the concurrent risk group (hazard ratio, 1.32; noninferiority test P = .039). Approximately 60% of patients received adjuvant chemotherapy.

Grade 3 or higher adverse events were similar with a frequency of 3.3% in the sequential group and 3.5% in the concurrent group (P = .79). The researchers used the Global Cosmetic Score (GCS) to assess outcomes from the perspective of both physicians and patients. 86% of physicians rated the outcome as excellent/good in the sequential group versus 82% in the concurrent group (P = .33).

“For high-risk early-stage breast cancer patients undergoing breast conservation, a concurrent boost with hypofractionated whole breast irradiation – compared to a sequential boost – results in noninferior local recurrence rates with no significant difference in toxicity, noninferior patient rated cosmesis, and no significant difference in physician rated cosmesis. The entire treatment was delivered in three weeks, even for high-risk patients. Just as critical, the use of target volume based radiation planning for [three-dimensional conformal or IMRT whole breast irradiation assessed by dose volume analysis is feasible, and resulted in very low toxicity in the treatment arms, regardless of the fractionation schedule, or the boost delivery,” Dr. Vincini said.

No conflicts of interest were disclosed for Dr. Horst or Dr. Vicini.

Among high-risk early breast cancer patients, delivery of a radiation boost to the tumor bed during whole breast irradiation was just as safe and effective as delivering the boost sequentially after whole breast irradiation ended. The findings from the phase 3 clinical trial are a boon to patient convenience.

“These findings are indeed practice changing. This was a well-designed trial that looked at shortening treatment from six to three weeks. They showed equivalent local control and importantly, a good cosmetic outcome over time,” said Kathleen Horst, MD, who served as a discussant during a presentation given by Frank Vicini, MD, FASTRO, GenesisCare, during the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology.

“This is substantially more convenient. It’s cost effective both for the health care system and individual patients. Importantly, our patients come in for treatment every day and they’re taking time from work which means they have to arrange for childcare and transportation. So, this makes a big difference for these patients,” said Dr. Horst, who is a professor of radiation oncology at Stanford (Calif.) Medicine and director of well-being in the radiation department at Stanford Medicine.

“One of the things that was surprising is that I think all of us were thinking this might be a more toxic regimen, but as Dr. Vicini showed, it was equally effective over time with minimal toxicity and cosmesis was stable over time, which is important. Importantly, it included patient-reported outcomes, not just the physician-reported outcomes. Broadly, I think these findings are applicable for many patients, including all patients who are receiving whole breast radiotherapy with an added boost. I think over time this is going to improve the quality of life of our patients. It represents an innovative change that everyone is going to be excited to embrace,” Dr. Horst said.

Previous randomized controlled trials showed that an additional radiation dose to the tumor bed following lumpectomy and whole breast irradiation reduces the relative risk of local recurrence by about 35%. However, this increases treatment time for patients who have already endured an extensive regimen. For whole breast irradiation, hypofractionated radiation in 15-16 fractions over 3 weeks has comparable recurrence rates as a 5-week regimen, but the relevant trials did not examine the effect hypofractionation may have on a radiation boost to the tumor bed of high-risk patients. Because of this lack of evidence, current practice calls for the boost to remain sequential in five to eight fractions after completion of whole breast irradiation, which adds 1 week to a 1.5 week–long treatment.

The study included 2,262 patients who were randomized to receive a sequential boost or a concomitant boost. After a median follow-up of 7.4 years, there were 54 ipsilateral breast recurrence (IBR) events. The estimated 7-year risk of IBR was 2.2% in the sequential boost and 2.6% in the concurrent risk group (hazard ratio, 1.32; noninferiority test P = .039). Approximately 60% of patients received adjuvant chemotherapy.

Grade 3 or higher adverse events were similar with a frequency of 3.3% in the sequential group and 3.5% in the concurrent group (P = .79). The researchers used the Global Cosmetic Score (GCS) to assess outcomes from the perspective of both physicians and patients. 86% of physicians rated the outcome as excellent/good in the sequential group versus 82% in the concurrent group (P = .33).

“For high-risk early-stage breast cancer patients undergoing breast conservation, a concurrent boost with hypofractionated whole breast irradiation – compared to a sequential boost – results in noninferior local recurrence rates with no significant difference in toxicity, noninferior patient rated cosmesis, and no significant difference in physician rated cosmesis. The entire treatment was delivered in three weeks, even for high-risk patients. Just as critical, the use of target volume based radiation planning for [three-dimensional conformal or IMRT whole breast irradiation assessed by dose volume analysis is feasible, and resulted in very low toxicity in the treatment arms, regardless of the fractionation schedule, or the boost delivery,” Dr. Vincini said.

No conflicts of interest were disclosed for Dr. Horst or Dr. Vicini.

Among high-risk early breast cancer patients, delivery of a radiation boost to the tumor bed during whole breast irradiation was just as safe and effective as delivering the boost sequentially after whole breast irradiation ended. The findings from the phase 3 clinical trial are a boon to patient convenience.

“These findings are indeed practice changing. This was a well-designed trial that looked at shortening treatment from six to three weeks. They showed equivalent local control and importantly, a good cosmetic outcome over time,” said Kathleen Horst, MD, who served as a discussant during a presentation given by Frank Vicini, MD, FASTRO, GenesisCare, during the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology.

“This is substantially more convenient. It’s cost effective both for the health care system and individual patients. Importantly, our patients come in for treatment every day and they’re taking time from work which means they have to arrange for childcare and transportation. So, this makes a big difference for these patients,” said Dr. Horst, who is a professor of radiation oncology at Stanford (Calif.) Medicine and director of well-being in the radiation department at Stanford Medicine.

“One of the things that was surprising is that I think all of us were thinking this might be a more toxic regimen, but as Dr. Vicini showed, it was equally effective over time with minimal toxicity and cosmesis was stable over time, which is important. Importantly, it included patient-reported outcomes, not just the physician-reported outcomes. Broadly, I think these findings are applicable for many patients, including all patients who are receiving whole breast radiotherapy with an added boost. I think over time this is going to improve the quality of life of our patients. It represents an innovative change that everyone is going to be excited to embrace,” Dr. Horst said.

Previous randomized controlled trials showed that an additional radiation dose to the tumor bed following lumpectomy and whole breast irradiation reduces the relative risk of local recurrence by about 35%. However, this increases treatment time for patients who have already endured an extensive regimen. For whole breast irradiation, hypofractionated radiation in 15-16 fractions over 3 weeks has comparable recurrence rates as a 5-week regimen, but the relevant trials did not examine the effect hypofractionation may have on a radiation boost to the tumor bed of high-risk patients. Because of this lack of evidence, current practice calls for the boost to remain sequential in five to eight fractions after completion of whole breast irradiation, which adds 1 week to a 1.5 week–long treatment.

The study included 2,262 patients who were randomized to receive a sequential boost or a concomitant boost. After a median follow-up of 7.4 years, there were 54 ipsilateral breast recurrence (IBR) events. The estimated 7-year risk of IBR was 2.2% in the sequential boost and 2.6% in the concurrent risk group (hazard ratio, 1.32; noninferiority test P = .039). Approximately 60% of patients received adjuvant chemotherapy.

Grade 3 or higher adverse events were similar with a frequency of 3.3% in the sequential group and 3.5% in the concurrent group (P = .79). The researchers used the Global Cosmetic Score (GCS) to assess outcomes from the perspective of both physicians and patients. 86% of physicians rated the outcome as excellent/good in the sequential group versus 82% in the concurrent group (P = .33).

“For high-risk early-stage breast cancer patients undergoing breast conservation, a concurrent boost with hypofractionated whole breast irradiation – compared to a sequential boost – results in noninferior local recurrence rates with no significant difference in toxicity, noninferior patient rated cosmesis, and no significant difference in physician rated cosmesis. The entire treatment was delivered in three weeks, even for high-risk patients. Just as critical, the use of target volume based radiation planning for [three-dimensional conformal or IMRT whole breast irradiation assessed by dose volume analysis is feasible, and resulted in very low toxicity in the treatment arms, regardless of the fractionation schedule, or the boost delivery,” Dr. Vincini said.

No conflicts of interest were disclosed for Dr. Horst or Dr. Vicini.

Neurofilament light chain (NfL) is a well-known and useful biomarker for multiple sclerosis (MS) disease activity, but its association with disease progression is not well understood. A new analysis of MS patients in California’s EPIC cohort suggests that NfL spikes occur about 1 year before clinical sign of MS disease worsening.

“We see evidence for accelerated neuroaxonal damage in the year preceding the first diagnosis of the progression events, [but] only if they were associated with evidence of focal inflammatory activity – that can be either clinical or imaging evidence,” said Ahmed Abdelhak, MD, during a presentation of the study at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS).

“By the time we diagnose the EDSS progression, it’s already too late. Every damage or any accelerated neuroaxonal damage that has happened in association with this event already took place around a year ago. I think [this has] huge implications for the designing of clinical trials,” said Dr. Abdelhak, who is a postdoctoral researcher at the University of California, San Francisco.

In the study, researchers analyzed data from 609 MS cases, with a total of 3,906 office visits. The median age was 42 years, and 69.6% were female. Median disease duration was 6 years.

They examined the association between NfL scores and confirmed disease worsening, as recorded by an increase in EDSS score. There was an increase in NfL age-adjusted z score about 12 months in advance among patients with a progression association with a relapse in the past year, compared with individuals who did not experience disease progression. There was also a more modest increase among individuals who had disease progression without a recent relapse, but this was not statistically significant.

“Our findings suggest that the association between NfL levels and EDSS worsening is most prominent in the setting of relapse-associated events,” said Dr. Abdelhak.
 

Clinical implications and audience skepticism

During the Q&A following the talk, session moderator Charlotte Teunissen, PhD, professor of neurochemistry at Amsterdam University Medical Center, asked about the clinical implication of the finding. “It seems that you concluded that axonal damage has been done before the progression starts. Is that your conclusion? So it means that there is no option to interfere anymore, consequently.”

Dr. Abdelhak responded: “I think that’s a very important interpretation of the data, which I’m sure is a relatively new way of thinking about it. That means, indeed, that when we see these patients, measuring NfL wouldn’t deliver any additional value because they don’t differ between the groups at the time of EDSS worsening. And there is probably nothing more we can do about this event. But it’s still very important to know that any therapeutic intervention has also the need to prevent future disability progression, future neuroaxonal damage, but regarding what has happened already, I’m a little bit skeptical if we will be able to change anything.”

Dr. Teunissen expressed skepticism that there was no further neurodegeneration following the spike in NfL, and pointed out an important caveat, which was the study’s reliance on NfL. “You base your conclusions on what you observe for NfL, and it’s a far-fetched conclusion that there is no further axonal damage ongoing. Maybe NfL is just one marker, and it’s not the best biomarker to measure progression,” she said.

Dr. Abdelhak conceded that it will be necessary to confirm the findings with other biomarkers of neurological injury. Even different subunits of the NfL protein have been shown to have different dynamics in other neurological conditions. “So the data we have give definitely an incomplete picture because we [know] nothing about the other biomarkers of neuroaxonal injury, including the other subunits of NfL,” he said.

Later in the Q&A, Alasdair Coles, MD, professor of neurology at University of Cambridge (England), spoke from the audience. He suggested that the findings could be seen as dispiriting for clinicians. “Would the panel agree that actually for a clinician this is all rather disappointing, because none of these markers are telling us anything that we don’t otherwise know by examining the patient and doing scans?”

“I can attempt to tackle that provocative question,” replied Elias Sotirchos, MD, who also presented on an association between NfL and brain atrophy research during the session. He pointed out that all clinical tests are imperfect, and suggested that NfL isn’t something to be used in isolation. It could be useful when patients are experiencing new symptoms, or worsening symptoms, and in combination with MRI results. “My interpretation of NfL is that it does have incremental value, telling us which patients have lesions that are more destructive, potentially, given all of these consistent associations with brain atrophy and disability progression over time,” said Dr. Sotirchos, who is an assistant professor of neurology at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore.

Dr. Abdelhak and Dr. Teunissen have no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Sotirchos has financial relationships with Alexion, Viela Bio, Horizon Therapeutics, Genentech, and Ad Scientiam.

Neurofilament light chain (NfL) is a well-known and useful biomarker for multiple sclerosis (MS) disease activity, but its association with disease progression is not well understood. A new analysis of MS patients in California’s EPIC cohort suggests that NfL spikes occur about 1 year before clinical sign of MS disease worsening.

“We see evidence for accelerated neuroaxonal damage in the year preceding the first diagnosis of the progression events, [but] only if they were associated with evidence of focal inflammatory activity – that can be either clinical or imaging evidence,” said Ahmed Abdelhak, MD, during a presentation of the study at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS).

“By the time we diagnose the EDSS progression, it’s already too late. Every damage or any accelerated neuroaxonal damage that has happened in association with this event already took place around a year ago. I think [this has] huge implications for the designing of clinical trials,” said Dr. Abdelhak, who is a postdoctoral researcher at the University of California, San Francisco.

In the study, researchers analyzed data from 609 MS cases, with a total of 3,906 office visits. The median age was 42 years, and 69.6% were female. Median disease duration was 6 years.

They examined the association between NfL scores and confirmed disease worsening, as recorded by an increase in EDSS score. There was an increase in NfL age-adjusted z score about 12 months in advance among patients with a progression association with a relapse in the past year, compared with individuals who did not experience disease progression. There was also a more modest increase among individuals who had disease progression without a recent relapse, but this was not statistically significant.

“Our findings suggest that the association between NfL levels and EDSS worsening is most prominent in the setting of relapse-associated events,” said Dr. Abdelhak.
 

Clinical implications and audience skepticism

During the Q&A following the talk, session moderator Charlotte Teunissen, PhD, professor of neurochemistry at Amsterdam University Medical Center, asked about the clinical implication of the finding. “It seems that you concluded that axonal damage has been done before the progression starts. Is that your conclusion? So it means that there is no option to interfere anymore, consequently.”

Dr. Abdelhak responded: “I think that’s a very important interpretation of the data, which I’m sure is a relatively new way of thinking about it. That means, indeed, that when we see these patients, measuring NfL wouldn’t deliver any additional value because they don’t differ between the groups at the time of EDSS worsening. And there is probably nothing more we can do about this event. But it’s still very important to know that any therapeutic intervention has also the need to prevent future disability progression, future neuroaxonal damage, but regarding what has happened already, I’m a little bit skeptical if we will be able to change anything.”

Dr. Teunissen expressed skepticism that there was no further neurodegeneration following the spike in NfL, and pointed out an important caveat, which was the study’s reliance on NfL. “You base your conclusions on what you observe for NfL, and it’s a far-fetched conclusion that there is no further axonal damage ongoing. Maybe NfL is just one marker, and it’s not the best biomarker to measure progression,” she said.

Dr. Abdelhak conceded that it will be necessary to confirm the findings with other biomarkers of neurological injury. Even different subunits of the NfL protein have been shown to have different dynamics in other neurological conditions. “So the data we have give definitely an incomplete picture because we [know] nothing about the other biomarkers of neuroaxonal injury, including the other subunits of NfL,” he said.

Later in the Q&A, Alasdair Coles, MD, professor of neurology at University of Cambridge (England), spoke from the audience. He suggested that the findings could be seen as dispiriting for clinicians. “Would the panel agree that actually for a clinician this is all rather disappointing, because none of these markers are telling us anything that we don’t otherwise know by examining the patient and doing scans?”

“I can attempt to tackle that provocative question,” replied Elias Sotirchos, MD, who also presented on an association between NfL and brain atrophy research during the session. He pointed out that all clinical tests are imperfect, and suggested that NfL isn’t something to be used in isolation. It could be useful when patients are experiencing new symptoms, or worsening symptoms, and in combination with MRI results. “My interpretation of NfL is that it does have incremental value, telling us which patients have lesions that are more destructive, potentially, given all of these consistent associations with brain atrophy and disability progression over time,” said Dr. Sotirchos, who is an assistant professor of neurology at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore.

Dr. Abdelhak and Dr. Teunissen have no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Sotirchos has financial relationships with Alexion, Viela Bio, Horizon Therapeutics, Genentech, and Ad Scientiam.

Neurofilament light chain (NfL) is a well-known and useful biomarker for multiple sclerosis (MS) disease activity, but its association with disease progression is not well understood. A new analysis of MS patients in California’s EPIC cohort suggests that NfL spikes occur about 1 year before clinical sign of MS disease worsening.

“We see evidence for accelerated neuroaxonal damage in the year preceding the first diagnosis of the progression events, [but] only if they were associated with evidence of focal inflammatory activity – that can be either clinical or imaging evidence,” said Ahmed Abdelhak, MD, during a presentation of the study at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS).

“By the time we diagnose the EDSS progression, it’s already too late. Every damage or any accelerated neuroaxonal damage that has happened in association with this event already took place around a year ago. I think [this has] huge implications for the designing of clinical trials,” said Dr. Abdelhak, who is a postdoctoral researcher at the University of California, San Francisco.

In the study, researchers analyzed data from 609 MS cases, with a total of 3,906 office visits. The median age was 42 years, and 69.6% were female. Median disease duration was 6 years.

They examined the association between NfL scores and confirmed disease worsening, as recorded by an increase in EDSS score. There was an increase in NfL age-adjusted z score about 12 months in advance among patients with a progression association with a relapse in the past year, compared with individuals who did not experience disease progression. There was also a more modest increase among individuals who had disease progression without a recent relapse, but this was not statistically significant.

“Our findings suggest that the association between NfL levels and EDSS worsening is most prominent in the setting of relapse-associated events,” said Dr. Abdelhak.
 

Clinical implications and audience skepticism

During the Q&A following the talk, session moderator Charlotte Teunissen, PhD, professor of neurochemistry at Amsterdam University Medical Center, asked about the clinical implication of the finding. “It seems that you concluded that axonal damage has been done before the progression starts. Is that your conclusion? So it means that there is no option to interfere anymore, consequently.”

Dr. Abdelhak responded: “I think that’s a very important interpretation of the data, which I’m sure is a relatively new way of thinking about it. That means, indeed, that when we see these patients, measuring NfL wouldn’t deliver any additional value because they don’t differ between the groups at the time of EDSS worsening. And there is probably nothing more we can do about this event. But it’s still very important to know that any therapeutic intervention has also the need to prevent future disability progression, future neuroaxonal damage, but regarding what has happened already, I’m a little bit skeptical if we will be able to change anything.”

Dr. Teunissen expressed skepticism that there was no further neurodegeneration following the spike in NfL, and pointed out an important caveat, which was the study’s reliance on NfL. “You base your conclusions on what you observe for NfL, and it’s a far-fetched conclusion that there is no further axonal damage ongoing. Maybe NfL is just one marker, and it’s not the best biomarker to measure progression,” she said.

Dr. Abdelhak conceded that it will be necessary to confirm the findings with other biomarkers of neurological injury. Even different subunits of the NfL protein have been shown to have different dynamics in other neurological conditions. “So the data we have give definitely an incomplete picture because we [know] nothing about the other biomarkers of neuroaxonal injury, including the other subunits of NfL,” he said.

Later in the Q&A, Alasdair Coles, MD, professor of neurology at University of Cambridge (England), spoke from the audience. He suggested that the findings could be seen as dispiriting for clinicians. “Would the panel agree that actually for a clinician this is all rather disappointing, because none of these markers are telling us anything that we don’t otherwise know by examining the patient and doing scans?”

“I can attempt to tackle that provocative question,” replied Elias Sotirchos, MD, who also presented on an association between NfL and brain atrophy research during the session. He pointed out that all clinical tests are imperfect, and suggested that NfL isn’t something to be used in isolation. It could be useful when patients are experiencing new symptoms, or worsening symptoms, and in combination with MRI results. “My interpretation of NfL is that it does have incremental value, telling us which patients have lesions that are more destructive, potentially, given all of these consistent associations with brain atrophy and disability progression over time,” said Dr. Sotirchos, who is an assistant professor of neurology at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore.

Dr. Abdelhak and Dr. Teunissen have no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Sotirchos has financial relationships with Alexion, Viela Bio, Horizon Therapeutics, Genentech, and Ad Scientiam.

Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) has garnered attention in recent years as a potential noninvasive biomarker that could help determine prognosis and treatment responses in solid tumors. They could also provide a more complete picture of tumor genetics than the limited samples often available from a biopsy.

ctDNA studies have been conducted in a range of solid tumors, but esophageal cancer has received less attention than other cancers. It is currently diagnosed by endoscopy, but this method is not suitable for population-wide surveillance because of its cost and invasiveness.

Esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) is the predominant histologic type of esophageal cancer in China, and it is difficult to diagnose using normal radiological techniques because of the hollow nature of the esophagus.

In a virtual poster session at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology, Xin Wang, MD, discussed the results of a small study looking at ctDNA and ESCC. “We aimed to investigate if ctDNA could detect disease progression before radiological imaging and try identifying patients with inferior prognosis based on ctDNA positivity and dynamics,” said Dr. Wang, who is a researcher at the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing.

85% of enrolled patients were male, and the median age at diagnosis was 64 years. The gross tumor volume was larger in patients with ctDNA-positive tumors at baseline 40.1 cm³ versus 28.7 cm³ (P = .001) and 14% underwent esophagectomy following radiotherapy, compared with 58% of the ctDNA-negative group (P = .008). Other baseline factors were similar between the two groups.

The researchers used a 474-gene panel to analyze plasma samples. 106 of the genes are known to be associated with radiosensitivity. Prior to radiotherapy (T0), 28 of 40 patients (70%) had a positive ctDNA sample. At week 4 of radiotherapy (T1), 42% of 36 patients were ctDNA positive. One to 3 months after radiotherapy/chemoradiotherapy (T2), among 27 patients, 30% were ctDNA positive. 27 patients ultimately underwent esophagectomy, while 9 did not have surgery. Three to 6 months after radiotherapy/chemoradiotherapy (T3), among 23 patients, 22% were ctDNA positive. Of 14 patients alive after 1 year, 43% were ctDNA positive.

Over a median follow-up of 20.6 months, 17 patients were diagnosed with progression through radiological imaging. Of these, 13 patients (77%) were ctDNA positive before or after progression (Cohen’s kappa, 0.512; P < .01). The mean lead time was 5.5 months (95% confidence interval, 1.5-9.4 months).

The researchers also observed links between ctDNA and survival. “We observed a strong association between inferior progression-free survival [PFS] and ctDNA positivity at T1, T2, and T3 time points. Similar associations were detected in OS [overall survival] as well,” Dr. Wang said.

In a multivariate analysis, ctDNA positivity at T1 was associated worse PFS (hazard ratio, 3.35; 95% CI, 1.10-10.22), and there was a trend toward worse overall survival (HR, 2.48; 95% CI, 0.83-7.37). There were no statistically significant associations between ctDNA positivity and PFS or OS at T2.

Twenty-one patients experienced a decrease in ctDNA concentration between T0 and T1. Of these, eight patients achieved a clearance of ctDNA by T1, and they had a trend toward better PFS than patients who did not achieve clearance (HR, 0.31; P = .06).

“The relatively poor locoregional recurrence-free survival remains related to ctDNA positivity at T1. Interestingly, for ctDNA-negative patients who received surgery, none of them were diagnosed with radiological progression. To summarize, ctDNA is a promising biomarker for detecting disease progression. Positive ctDNA status indicates for PFS and OS, but patients achieving ctDNA clearance after radiation are likely to have a better PFS. There is also a potential association between ctDNA positivity at the fourth week during radiation therapy and higher risk of local recurrence, but further studies with a larger sample size are required,” Dr. Wang said.

Ann Raldow, MD, who served as a discussant following the poster presentation, pointed out that ctDNA has been found to be a useful prognostic and predictive tool in colon cancer. The new work suggests “that detectable ctDNA may help guide recommendations for postchemoradiation treatment. Of course, the ctDNA and esophageal cancer space is still in its infancy, and I would really encourage future studies to incorporate ctDNA as part of what they’re studying so that we can get more information about both the prognostic and predictive value of ctDNA in esophageal cancer,” said Dr. Raldow, who is an assistant professor of radiation oncology, University of California, Los Angeles.

Dr. Wang has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Raldow had received research funding from Intelligent Automation, Clarity, and Viewray.

Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) has garnered attention in recent years as a potential noninvasive biomarker that could help determine prognosis and treatment responses in solid tumors. They could also provide a more complete picture of tumor genetics than the limited samples often available from a biopsy.

ctDNA studies have been conducted in a range of solid tumors, but esophageal cancer has received less attention than other cancers. It is currently diagnosed by endoscopy, but this method is not suitable for population-wide surveillance because of its cost and invasiveness.

Esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) is the predominant histologic type of esophageal cancer in China, and it is difficult to diagnose using normal radiological techniques because of the hollow nature of the esophagus.

In a virtual poster session at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology, Xin Wang, MD, discussed the results of a small study looking at ctDNA and ESCC. “We aimed to investigate if ctDNA could detect disease progression before radiological imaging and try identifying patients with inferior prognosis based on ctDNA positivity and dynamics,” said Dr. Wang, who is a researcher at the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing.

85% of enrolled patients were male, and the median age at diagnosis was 64 years. The gross tumor volume was larger in patients with ctDNA-positive tumors at baseline 40.1 cm³ versus 28.7 cm³ (P = .001) and 14% underwent esophagectomy following radiotherapy, compared with 58% of the ctDNA-negative group (P = .008). Other baseline factors were similar between the two groups.

The researchers used a 474-gene panel to analyze plasma samples. 106 of the genes are known to be associated with radiosensitivity. Prior to radiotherapy (T0), 28 of 40 patients (70%) had a positive ctDNA sample. At week 4 of radiotherapy (T1), 42% of 36 patients were ctDNA positive. One to 3 months after radiotherapy/chemoradiotherapy (T2), among 27 patients, 30% were ctDNA positive. 27 patients ultimately underwent esophagectomy, while 9 did not have surgery. Three to 6 months after radiotherapy/chemoradiotherapy (T3), among 23 patients, 22% were ctDNA positive. Of 14 patients alive after 1 year, 43% were ctDNA positive.

Over a median follow-up of 20.6 months, 17 patients were diagnosed with progression through radiological imaging. Of these, 13 patients (77%) were ctDNA positive before or after progression (Cohen’s kappa, 0.512; P < .01). The mean lead time was 5.5 months (95% confidence interval, 1.5-9.4 months).

The researchers also observed links between ctDNA and survival. “We observed a strong association between inferior progression-free survival [PFS] and ctDNA positivity at T1, T2, and T3 time points. Similar associations were detected in OS [overall survival] as well,” Dr. Wang said.

In a multivariate analysis, ctDNA positivity at T1 was associated worse PFS (hazard ratio, 3.35; 95% CI, 1.10-10.22), and there was a trend toward worse overall survival (HR, 2.48; 95% CI, 0.83-7.37). There were no statistically significant associations between ctDNA positivity and PFS or OS at T2.

Twenty-one patients experienced a decrease in ctDNA concentration between T0 and T1. Of these, eight patients achieved a clearance of ctDNA by T1, and they had a trend toward better PFS than patients who did not achieve clearance (HR, 0.31; P = .06).

“The relatively poor locoregional recurrence-free survival remains related to ctDNA positivity at T1. Interestingly, for ctDNA-negative patients who received surgery, none of them were diagnosed with radiological progression. To summarize, ctDNA is a promising biomarker for detecting disease progression. Positive ctDNA status indicates for PFS and OS, but patients achieving ctDNA clearance after radiation are likely to have a better PFS. There is also a potential association between ctDNA positivity at the fourth week during radiation therapy and higher risk of local recurrence, but further studies with a larger sample size are required,” Dr. Wang said.

Ann Raldow, MD, who served as a discussant following the poster presentation, pointed out that ctDNA has been found to be a useful prognostic and predictive tool in colon cancer. The new work suggests “that detectable ctDNA may help guide recommendations for postchemoradiation treatment. Of course, the ctDNA and esophageal cancer space is still in its infancy, and I would really encourage future studies to incorporate ctDNA as part of what they’re studying so that we can get more information about both the prognostic and predictive value of ctDNA in esophageal cancer,” said Dr. Raldow, who is an assistant professor of radiation oncology, University of California, Los Angeles.

Dr. Wang has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Raldow had received research funding from Intelligent Automation, Clarity, and Viewray.

Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) has garnered attention in recent years as a potential noninvasive biomarker that could help determine prognosis and treatment responses in solid tumors. They could also provide a more complete picture of tumor genetics than the limited samples often available from a biopsy.

ctDNA studies have been conducted in a range of solid tumors, but esophageal cancer has received less attention than other cancers. It is currently diagnosed by endoscopy, but this method is not suitable for population-wide surveillance because of its cost and invasiveness.

Esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) is the predominant histologic type of esophageal cancer in China, and it is difficult to diagnose using normal radiological techniques because of the hollow nature of the esophagus.

In a virtual poster session at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology, Xin Wang, MD, discussed the results of a small study looking at ctDNA and ESCC. “We aimed to investigate if ctDNA could detect disease progression before radiological imaging and try identifying patients with inferior prognosis based on ctDNA positivity and dynamics,” said Dr. Wang, who is a researcher at the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing.

85% of enrolled patients were male, and the median age at diagnosis was 64 years. The gross tumor volume was larger in patients with ctDNA-positive tumors at baseline 40.1 cm³ versus 28.7 cm³ (P = .001) and 14% underwent esophagectomy following radiotherapy, compared with 58% of the ctDNA-negative group (P = .008). Other baseline factors were similar between the two groups.

The researchers used a 474-gene panel to analyze plasma samples. 106 of the genes are known to be associated with radiosensitivity. Prior to radiotherapy (T0), 28 of 40 patients (70%) had a positive ctDNA sample. At week 4 of radiotherapy (T1), 42% of 36 patients were ctDNA positive. One to 3 months after radiotherapy/chemoradiotherapy (T2), among 27 patients, 30% were ctDNA positive. 27 patients ultimately underwent esophagectomy, while 9 did not have surgery. Three to 6 months after radiotherapy/chemoradiotherapy (T3), among 23 patients, 22% were ctDNA positive. Of 14 patients alive after 1 year, 43% were ctDNA positive.

Over a median follow-up of 20.6 months, 17 patients were diagnosed with progression through radiological imaging. Of these, 13 patients (77%) were ctDNA positive before or after progression (Cohen’s kappa, 0.512; P < .01). The mean lead time was 5.5 months (95% confidence interval, 1.5-9.4 months).

The researchers also observed links between ctDNA and survival. “We observed a strong association between inferior progression-free survival [PFS] and ctDNA positivity at T1, T2, and T3 time points. Similar associations were detected in OS [overall survival] as well,” Dr. Wang said.

In a multivariate analysis, ctDNA positivity at T1 was associated worse PFS (hazard ratio, 3.35; 95% CI, 1.10-10.22), and there was a trend toward worse overall survival (HR, 2.48; 95% CI, 0.83-7.37). There were no statistically significant associations between ctDNA positivity and PFS or OS at T2.

Twenty-one patients experienced a decrease in ctDNA concentration between T0 and T1. Of these, eight patients achieved a clearance of ctDNA by T1, and they had a trend toward better PFS than patients who did not achieve clearance (HR, 0.31; P = .06).

“The relatively poor locoregional recurrence-free survival remains related to ctDNA positivity at T1. Interestingly, for ctDNA-negative patients who received surgery, none of them were diagnosed with radiological progression. To summarize, ctDNA is a promising biomarker for detecting disease progression. Positive ctDNA status indicates for PFS and OS, but patients achieving ctDNA clearance after radiation are likely to have a better PFS. There is also a potential association between ctDNA positivity at the fourth week during radiation therapy and higher risk of local recurrence, but further studies with a larger sample size are required,” Dr. Wang said.

Ann Raldow, MD, who served as a discussant following the poster presentation, pointed out that ctDNA has been found to be a useful prognostic and predictive tool in colon cancer. The new work suggests “that detectable ctDNA may help guide recommendations for postchemoradiation treatment. Of course, the ctDNA and esophageal cancer space is still in its infancy, and I would really encourage future studies to incorporate ctDNA as part of what they’re studying so that we can get more information about both the prognostic and predictive value of ctDNA in esophageal cancer,” said Dr. Raldow, who is an assistant professor of radiation oncology, University of California, Los Angeles.

Dr. Wang has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Raldow had received research funding from Intelligent Automation, Clarity, and Viewray.

Among patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and especially those with macrovascular invasion, stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) appears to grant a survival benefit when added to systemic therapy. That was the finding from a phase 3 clinical trial presented at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology.

For unresectable HCC or cases that cannot be treated with thermal ablation or regional therapy, the current standard of care is systemic therapy. When the study was conducted, the recommended therapy was the sorafenib, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor. But with the publication of the IMbrave 150 study in 2021, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab is now increasingly preferred by some oncologists.

In 2008, the SHARP study found that sorafenib improved median survival, but it provided less benefit for patients with macrovascular invasion. Various studies have addressed the question of whether radiation could improve survival among this patient population, but results have not been encouraging. Direct comparisons between sorafenib and radiotherapy in the SARAH and SIRveNIB studies showed no significant differences in outcomes.

To determine the efficacy of combined SBRT and sorafenib, researchers randomized 177 patients with locally advanced HCC to receive 400 mg sorafenib every 12 hours or SBRT of 27.5-50 Gy in five fractions, followed by 200 mg sorafenib every 12 hours for 4 weeks, then 400 mg sorafenib every 12 hours thereafter. The median age was 66 years, 85% of patients were male, 74% had macrovascular invasion. The study included patients with locally advanced tumors up to a 20-cm sum of diameters or up to a 20-cm conglomerate tumor, as well as those with metastases of 3 cm size or smaller.

After a median follow-up of 13.2 months, median overall survival was 15.8 months in the combination group, versus 12.3 months in sorafenib group (hazard ratio, 0.77; 1-sided P = .055). After a multivariable analysis, the combined treatment was associated with better overall survival (HR, 0.72; P = .042).

“This overall survival is greater than expected and impressive even in the era now of immunotherapy trials,” said Laura Dawson, MD, who presented the results of the study during a press conference at the meeting. Dr. Dawson is a professor of radiation oncology at University of Toronto and a radiation oncologist at Princess Margaret Hospital in Toronto.

Median progression-free survival was 9.2 months in the combined group versus 5.5 months in the sorafenib-only group (HR, 0.55; P = .0001). At 24 months, 17% of the combination group had 7% of the sorafenib group remained had not progressed. The median time to progression was 18.5 months in the combination group and 9.5 months in the sorafenib group (HR, 0.69; P = .034). The frequency of adverse events was similar in both groups. The study admitted patients with any level of vascular invasion, which contrasted with many earlier trials that excluded those with involvement of the main portal vein.

“I think this is really one of the most important studies that’s come out in many years in terms of practice changing outcomes. We’ve seen that with patients who have very high-risk HCC, especially patients who have portal vein or macrovascular vascular invasion, there’s been a significant improvement in overall survival for these patients, and this is a very difficult patient population. Adding SBRT in this group improved both the progression free survival and overall survival, so I think we’re really at a point where we can call this a standard of care for patients,” Karyn A. Goodman, MD, professor and vice chair of clinical research and radiation oncology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said at the press conference.

A limitation of the study is that it closed early to accrual because of a change in the standard of care.

Dr. Goodman has served on advisory boards for Novartis, Philips Healthcare, and Genentech, and has consulted for RenovoRx and Syntactx. Dr. Dawson has received research grants from Merck and received patent/license fees or copyright compensation from RaySearch.

Among patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and especially those with macrovascular invasion, stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) appears to grant a survival benefit when added to systemic therapy. That was the finding from a phase 3 clinical trial presented at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology.

For unresectable HCC or cases that cannot be treated with thermal ablation or regional therapy, the current standard of care is systemic therapy. When the study was conducted, the recommended therapy was the sorafenib, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor. But with the publication of the IMbrave 150 study in 2021, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab is now increasingly preferred by some oncologists.

In 2008, the SHARP study found that sorafenib improved median survival, but it provided less benefit for patients with macrovascular invasion. Various studies have addressed the question of whether radiation could improve survival among this patient population, but results have not been encouraging. Direct comparisons between sorafenib and radiotherapy in the SARAH and SIRveNIB studies showed no significant differences in outcomes.

To determine the efficacy of combined SBRT and sorafenib, researchers randomized 177 patients with locally advanced HCC to receive 400 mg sorafenib every 12 hours or SBRT of 27.5-50 Gy in five fractions, followed by 200 mg sorafenib every 12 hours for 4 weeks, then 400 mg sorafenib every 12 hours thereafter. The median age was 66 years, 85% of patients were male, 74% had macrovascular invasion. The study included patients with locally advanced tumors up to a 20-cm sum of diameters or up to a 20-cm conglomerate tumor, as well as those with metastases of 3 cm size or smaller.

After a median follow-up of 13.2 months, median overall survival was 15.8 months in the combination group, versus 12.3 months in sorafenib group (hazard ratio, 0.77; 1-sided P = .055). After a multivariable analysis, the combined treatment was associated with better overall survival (HR, 0.72; P = .042).

“This overall survival is greater than expected and impressive even in the era now of immunotherapy trials,” said Laura Dawson, MD, who presented the results of the study during a press conference at the meeting. Dr. Dawson is a professor of radiation oncology at University of Toronto and a radiation oncologist at Princess Margaret Hospital in Toronto.

Median progression-free survival was 9.2 months in the combined group versus 5.5 months in the sorafenib-only group (HR, 0.55; P = .0001). At 24 months, 17% of the combination group had 7% of the sorafenib group remained had not progressed. The median time to progression was 18.5 months in the combination group and 9.5 months in the sorafenib group (HR, 0.69; P = .034). The frequency of adverse events was similar in both groups. The study admitted patients with any level of vascular invasion, which contrasted with many earlier trials that excluded those with involvement of the main portal vein.

“I think this is really one of the most important studies that’s come out in many years in terms of practice changing outcomes. We’ve seen that with patients who have very high-risk HCC, especially patients who have portal vein or macrovascular vascular invasion, there’s been a significant improvement in overall survival for these patients, and this is a very difficult patient population. Adding SBRT in this group improved both the progression free survival and overall survival, so I think we’re really at a point where we can call this a standard of care for patients,” Karyn A. Goodman, MD, professor and vice chair of clinical research and radiation oncology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said at the press conference.

A limitation of the study is that it closed early to accrual because of a change in the standard of care.

Dr. Goodman has served on advisory boards for Novartis, Philips Healthcare, and Genentech, and has consulted for RenovoRx and Syntactx. Dr. Dawson has received research grants from Merck and received patent/license fees or copyright compensation from RaySearch.

Among patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and especially those with macrovascular invasion, stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) appears to grant a survival benefit when added to systemic therapy. That was the finding from a phase 3 clinical trial presented at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology.

For unresectable HCC or cases that cannot be treated with thermal ablation or regional therapy, the current standard of care is systemic therapy. When the study was conducted, the recommended therapy was the sorafenib, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor. But with the publication of the IMbrave 150 study in 2021, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab is now increasingly preferred by some oncologists.

In 2008, the SHARP study found that sorafenib improved median survival, but it provided less benefit for patients with macrovascular invasion. Various studies have addressed the question of whether radiation could improve survival among this patient population, but results have not been encouraging. Direct comparisons between sorafenib and radiotherapy in the SARAH and SIRveNIB studies showed no significant differences in outcomes.

To determine the efficacy of combined SBRT and sorafenib, researchers randomized 177 patients with locally advanced HCC to receive 400 mg sorafenib every 12 hours or SBRT of 27.5-50 Gy in five fractions, followed by 200 mg sorafenib every 12 hours for 4 weeks, then 400 mg sorafenib every 12 hours thereafter. The median age was 66 years, 85% of patients were male, 74% had macrovascular invasion. The study included patients with locally advanced tumors up to a 20-cm sum of diameters or up to a 20-cm conglomerate tumor, as well as those with metastases of 3 cm size or smaller.

After a median follow-up of 13.2 months, median overall survival was 15.8 months in the combination group, versus 12.3 months in sorafenib group (hazard ratio, 0.77; 1-sided P = .055). After a multivariable analysis, the combined treatment was associated with better overall survival (HR, 0.72; P = .042).

“This overall survival is greater than expected and impressive even in the era now of immunotherapy trials,” said Laura Dawson, MD, who presented the results of the study during a press conference at the meeting. Dr. Dawson is a professor of radiation oncology at University of Toronto and a radiation oncologist at Princess Margaret Hospital in Toronto.

Median progression-free survival was 9.2 months in the combined group versus 5.5 months in the sorafenib-only group (HR, 0.55; P = .0001). At 24 months, 17% of the combination group had 7% of the sorafenib group remained had not progressed. The median time to progression was 18.5 months in the combination group and 9.5 months in the sorafenib group (HR, 0.69; P = .034). The frequency of adverse events was similar in both groups. The study admitted patients with any level of vascular invasion, which contrasted with many earlier trials that excluded those with involvement of the main portal vein.

“I think this is really one of the most important studies that’s come out in many years in terms of practice changing outcomes. We’ve seen that with patients who have very high-risk HCC, especially patients who have portal vein or macrovascular vascular invasion, there’s been a significant improvement in overall survival for these patients, and this is a very difficult patient population. Adding SBRT in this group improved both the progression free survival and overall survival, so I think we’re really at a point where we can call this a standard of care for patients,” Karyn A. Goodman, MD, professor and vice chair of clinical research and radiation oncology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said at the press conference.

A limitation of the study is that it closed early to accrual because of a change in the standard of care.

Dr. Goodman has served on advisory boards for Novartis, Philips Healthcare, and Genentech, and has consulted for RenovoRx and Syntactx. Dr. Dawson has received research grants from Merck and received patent/license fees or copyright compensation from RaySearch.

The McDonald criteria for diagnosing multiple sclerosis (MS) has been around since 2001, with revisions in 2005, 2010, and 2017. They focus on lesions disseminated in space (DIS) and disseminated in time (DIT). As with any diagnostic, new science and methods inform changes. Although optic nerve lesions (ONL) have been considered in past revisions, they have yet to be adopted as a key diagnostic measure of MS.

At the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS), several speakers made the case for the addition of ONL to the next McDonald revision. Arguments ranged from the inherent injustice that patients with a diagnosis of optic lesions should have to meet three symptoms of MS to get a diagnosis, while other patients require only two, to the possibility that early presentation with ocular symptoms could be an indicator of a more severe prognosis.

Still, many conditions can mimic the symptoms of ONL, so it is critical to be sure of the diagnosis before considering it a symptom of MS. For example, central serious maculopathy in young to middle-aged patients is often painless and could lead to an inadvertent MS diagnosis if it were added to the criteria. However, treatment with steroids can make it worse, according to Laura Balcer, MD, who spoke at the session. Dr. Balcer is a neuro-ophthalmologist at NYU Langone Health.
 

Adding ONL to McDonald

In the first talk of the session, Frederik Barkhof, MD, PhD, discussed some of the history of the McDonald criteria and laid a groundwork for why it should be updated. He began by pointing out that the latest criteria require either symptomatic or asymptomatic MRI lesions to determine DIS or DIT.

Dr. Barkhof has led the Magnetic Imaging in Multiple Sclerosis (MAGNIMS) group, which had some doubts about the 2017 revision to the McDonald criteria. “We discussed this and said, ‘Well, that is interesting. So you can have a brainstem lesion, which can be the symptomatic lesion and then you need one further region, so you have two regions, and then you have MS. But now if you have an optic nerve presentation, and you can find the optic nerve, it doesn’t count, and then you need two more regions. So there’s a bit of an imbalance. Why would you need three regions if you have an optic nerve, and only two if you have a spinal cord or a brainstem presentation?” recalled Dr. Barkhof, professor of radiology and neuroscience at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.

Identifying optic nerve lesions requires a good MRI that should use fat-saturation techniques.

Dr. Barkhof pointed out that the ONLs are a common presentation among MS patients. “We’re now preparing for the next revisions of the McDonnell criteria, and I’m confident and hopeful that we’ll make it this time,” said Dr. Barkhof.
 

Confirm the MS diagnosis

In the second talk, Angela Vidal-Jordana, MD, PhD, discussed ways to implement ONLs in the clinic. She emphasized the importance of ruling out other causes. “Even when a patient comes to us with a diagnosis of optic neuritis, we should question that. Different studies have shown that the optic neuritis overdiagnosis rate at referral might be as high as 60% of the cases,” said Dr. Vidal-Jordana, a neurologist at Centre d’Esclerosi Multiple de Catalunya in Barcelona. Studies show that about half of those are due to misinterpretation of the clinical history and examination, she said.

“So when presenting new visual symptoms, we should ask whether this is suggestive of an inflammatory etiology or not, and whether they are typical for MS or not. If both answers to these questions are yes, then we should apply the diagnostic criteria,” said Dr. Vidal-Jordana.

She presented results from a longitudinal, prospective study conducted within the MAGNIMS network supporting the inclusion of ONL into DIS criteria for MS. It included use of optic nerve MRI, OCT, and VEP [visual evoked potential]. “All of the modified DIS criteria, that is including one of the tests at each time, or a combination of them, led to a higher sensitivity of the diagnostic criteria (when optic nerve involvement was included), albeit with a small decrease in specificity which mainly was due to the fact that we only had 3 years of follow-up. The same held true when analyzing the secondary outcome of new T2 lesions or second relapse during the follow up,” said Dr. Vidal-Jordana.

“As a summary, I would say for sure we will need first of all an MRI, and we need to know if we can evaluate the optic nerve by MRI or not. If not, and we still do not have a diagnosis of a MS, maybe we can order VEP or OCT and then the test selection should be based on the time elapsed since first CIS [clinically isolated syndrome]. If it’s less than 3 months, I would go for a VEP. If it’s more than 3 months, then I probably want to go for OCT,” said Dr. Vidal-Jordana.
 

An aid to earlier diagnosis

In the last talk, Dr. Balcer discussed non-MRI methods for assessing ONLs. She noted that in about 25% of MS patients, ONLs are the first clinical demyelinating event. “Adding the optic nerve to the MS diagnostic criteria will allow us to diagnose our patients even earlier, (it) may help their vision, and could also help us to reduce the overall burden of MS disability over a lifetime. Importantly, entry into MS diagnosis can be delayed among patients for whom optic neuritis or even asymptomatic optic nerve lesions are noted at presentation, and there has been an enormous amount of data that have emerged over the past 5 years demonstrating the importance of the optic nerve in the MS diagnosis with implications for early therapy,” said Dr. Balcer.

She discussed optical coherence tomography (OCT), which is a key technique for diagnosing optic neuropathy. It measures the thickness of the retinal nerve fiber and ganglion cell layers, which have been associated with vision impairment and can reveal asymptomatic involvement of optic nerves in MS.
 

Beware of misdiagnosis

In the Q&A period following the talks, much of the discussion turned to reliability of ONL diagnoses.

“Misdiagnosis is a huge problem. That’s my experience: People who are referred to me with optic neuritis often don’t have optic neuritis,” said comoderator Wallace Brownlee, MBChB, PhD, a consultant neurologist at Cleveland Clinic London. Misha Pless, MD, spoke up from the audience to second that. “I’m delighted that the optic nerve will finally get a place at the table. I’ve been practicing neuro-ophthalmology and I have also [been] an MS doctor for about 25 years. What I see here in this fantastic discussion is that a lot of neurologists are going to be – I hate to use the word ‘misled’ – into relying on technology like OCT, VEP, and MRI to make the diagnosis. I will submit to this panel that that will lead to a number of MS misdiagnoses because I have been doing this for 25 years and the number of patients that I’ve received with rule-out optic neuritis that had macular disease, optical changes, or corneal abrasions are too numerous to count. If you’re going to add optic neuritis in the list of criteria [for MS], you definitely have to have a little asterisk in my opinion and say, ‘with prior blessing from an ophthalmologist to rule out ocular disease,’ because I don’t know any neurologist that knows how to look in the back of the eye, and I don’t know any neurologist that has an OCT in their office,” said Dr. Pless, professor of ophthalmology and a neurologist at Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla.

The panelists generally agreed with his point, although the hot mic picked up when one panelist whispered to another, ‘I have one,’ referring to an office OCT. “Using OCT in that regard, but also collaborating with your neuro-ophthalmologist and ophthalmologist is critical,” said Dr. Balcer.

Dr. Barkhof has financial relationships with Biogen, Merck, Roche, EISAI, Prothena, IXICO, Jansen, Combinostics, Novartis, GE, Queen Square, and Analytics. Dr. Vidal-Jordana has financial relationships with Roche, Novartis, Merck, and Sanofi. Dr. Balcer has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Brownlee has financial relationships with Biogen, Celgene, Merck, Mylan, Novartis, Roche, and Sanofi.

The McDonald criteria for diagnosing multiple sclerosis (MS) has been around since 2001, with revisions in 2005, 2010, and 2017. They focus on lesions disseminated in space (DIS) and disseminated in time (DIT). As with any diagnostic, new science and methods inform changes. Although optic nerve lesions (ONL) have been considered in past revisions, they have yet to be adopted as a key diagnostic measure of MS.

At the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS), several speakers made the case for the addition of ONL to the next McDonald revision. Arguments ranged from the inherent injustice that patients with a diagnosis of optic lesions should have to meet three symptoms of MS to get a diagnosis, while other patients require only two, to the possibility that early presentation with ocular symptoms could be an indicator of a more severe prognosis.

Still, many conditions can mimic the symptoms of ONL, so it is critical to be sure of the diagnosis before considering it a symptom of MS. For example, central serious maculopathy in young to middle-aged patients is often painless and could lead to an inadvertent MS diagnosis if it were added to the criteria. However, treatment with steroids can make it worse, according to Laura Balcer, MD, who spoke at the session. Dr. Balcer is a neuro-ophthalmologist at NYU Langone Health.
 

Adding ONL to McDonald

In the first talk of the session, Frederik Barkhof, MD, PhD, discussed some of the history of the McDonald criteria and laid a groundwork for why it should be updated. He began by pointing out that the latest criteria require either symptomatic or asymptomatic MRI lesions to determine DIS or DIT.

Dr. Barkhof has led the Magnetic Imaging in Multiple Sclerosis (MAGNIMS) group, which had some doubts about the 2017 revision to the McDonald criteria. “We discussed this and said, ‘Well, that is interesting. So you can have a brainstem lesion, which can be the symptomatic lesion and then you need one further region, so you have two regions, and then you have MS. But now if you have an optic nerve presentation, and you can find the optic nerve, it doesn’t count, and then you need two more regions. So there’s a bit of an imbalance. Why would you need three regions if you have an optic nerve, and only two if you have a spinal cord or a brainstem presentation?” recalled Dr. Barkhof, professor of radiology and neuroscience at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.

Identifying optic nerve lesions requires a good MRI that should use fat-saturation techniques.

Dr. Barkhof pointed out that the ONLs are a common presentation among MS patients. “We’re now preparing for the next revisions of the McDonnell criteria, and I’m confident and hopeful that we’ll make it this time,” said Dr. Barkhof.
 

Confirm the MS diagnosis

In the second talk, Angela Vidal-Jordana, MD, PhD, discussed ways to implement ONLs in the clinic. She emphasized the importance of ruling out other causes. “Even when a patient comes to us with a diagnosis of optic neuritis, we should question that. Different studies have shown that the optic neuritis overdiagnosis rate at referral might be as high as 60% of the cases,” said Dr. Vidal-Jordana, a neurologist at Centre d’Esclerosi Multiple de Catalunya in Barcelona. Studies show that about half of those are due to misinterpretation of the clinical history and examination, she said.

“So when presenting new visual symptoms, we should ask whether this is suggestive of an inflammatory etiology or not, and whether they are typical for MS or not. If both answers to these questions are yes, then we should apply the diagnostic criteria,” said Dr. Vidal-Jordana.

She presented results from a longitudinal, prospective study conducted within the MAGNIMS network supporting the inclusion of ONL into DIS criteria for MS. It included use of optic nerve MRI, OCT, and VEP [visual evoked potential]. “All of the modified DIS criteria, that is including one of the tests at each time, or a combination of them, led to a higher sensitivity of the diagnostic criteria (when optic nerve involvement was included), albeit with a small decrease in specificity which mainly was due to the fact that we only had 3 years of follow-up. The same held true when analyzing the secondary outcome of new T2 lesions or second relapse during the follow up,” said Dr. Vidal-Jordana.

“As a summary, I would say for sure we will need first of all an MRI, and we need to know if we can evaluate the optic nerve by MRI or not. If not, and we still do not have a diagnosis of a MS, maybe we can order VEP or OCT and then the test selection should be based on the time elapsed since first CIS [clinically isolated syndrome]. If it’s less than 3 months, I would go for a VEP. If it’s more than 3 months, then I probably want to go for OCT,” said Dr. Vidal-Jordana.
 

An aid to earlier diagnosis

In the last talk, Dr. Balcer discussed non-MRI methods for assessing ONLs. She noted that in about 25% of MS patients, ONLs are the first clinical demyelinating event. “Adding the optic nerve to the MS diagnostic criteria will allow us to diagnose our patients even earlier, (it) may help their vision, and could also help us to reduce the overall burden of MS disability over a lifetime. Importantly, entry into MS diagnosis can be delayed among patients for whom optic neuritis or even asymptomatic optic nerve lesions are noted at presentation, and there has been an enormous amount of data that have emerged over the past 5 years demonstrating the importance of the optic nerve in the MS diagnosis with implications for early therapy,” said Dr. Balcer.

She discussed optical coherence tomography (OCT), which is a key technique for diagnosing optic neuropathy. It measures the thickness of the retinal nerve fiber and ganglion cell layers, which have been associated with vision impairment and can reveal asymptomatic involvement of optic nerves in MS.
 

Beware of misdiagnosis

In the Q&A period following the talks, much of the discussion turned to reliability of ONL diagnoses.

“Misdiagnosis is a huge problem. That’s my experience: People who are referred to me with optic neuritis often don’t have optic neuritis,” said comoderator Wallace Brownlee, MBChB, PhD, a consultant neurologist at Cleveland Clinic London. Misha Pless, MD, spoke up from the audience to second that. “I’m delighted that the optic nerve will finally get a place at the table. I’ve been practicing neuro-ophthalmology and I have also [been] an MS doctor for about 25 years. What I see here in this fantastic discussion is that a lot of neurologists are going to be – I hate to use the word ‘misled’ – into relying on technology like OCT, VEP, and MRI to make the diagnosis. I will submit to this panel that that will lead to a number of MS misdiagnoses because I have been doing this for 25 years and the number of patients that I’ve received with rule-out optic neuritis that had macular disease, optical changes, or corneal abrasions are too numerous to count. If you’re going to add optic neuritis in the list of criteria [for MS], you definitely have to have a little asterisk in my opinion and say, ‘with prior blessing from an ophthalmologist to rule out ocular disease,’ because I don’t know any neurologist that knows how to look in the back of the eye, and I don’t know any neurologist that has an OCT in their office,” said Dr. Pless, professor of ophthalmology and a neurologist at Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla.

The panelists generally agreed with his point, although the hot mic picked up when one panelist whispered to another, ‘I have one,’ referring to an office OCT. “Using OCT in that regard, but also collaborating with your neuro-ophthalmologist and ophthalmologist is critical,” said Dr. Balcer.

Dr. Barkhof has financial relationships with Biogen, Merck, Roche, EISAI, Prothena, IXICO, Jansen, Combinostics, Novartis, GE, Queen Square, and Analytics. Dr. Vidal-Jordana has financial relationships with Roche, Novartis, Merck, and Sanofi. Dr. Balcer has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Brownlee has financial relationships with Biogen, Celgene, Merck, Mylan, Novartis, Roche, and Sanofi.

The McDonald criteria for diagnosing multiple sclerosis (MS) has been around since 2001, with revisions in 2005, 2010, and 2017. They focus on lesions disseminated in space (DIS) and disseminated in time (DIT). As with any diagnostic, new science and methods inform changes. Although optic nerve lesions (ONL) have been considered in past revisions, they have yet to be adopted as a key diagnostic measure of MS.

At the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS), several speakers made the case for the addition of ONL to the next McDonald revision. Arguments ranged from the inherent injustice that patients with a diagnosis of optic lesions should have to meet three symptoms of MS to get a diagnosis, while other patients require only two, to the possibility that early presentation with ocular symptoms could be an indicator of a more severe prognosis.

Still, many conditions can mimic the symptoms of ONL, so it is critical to be sure of the diagnosis before considering it a symptom of MS. For example, central serious maculopathy in young to middle-aged patients is often painless and could lead to an inadvertent MS diagnosis if it were added to the criteria. However, treatment with steroids can make it worse, according to Laura Balcer, MD, who spoke at the session. Dr. Balcer is a neuro-ophthalmologist at NYU Langone Health.
 

Adding ONL to McDonald

In the first talk of the session, Frederik Barkhof, MD, PhD, discussed some of the history of the McDonald criteria and laid a groundwork for why it should be updated. He began by pointing out that the latest criteria require either symptomatic or asymptomatic MRI lesions to determine DIS or DIT.

Dr. Barkhof has led the Magnetic Imaging in Multiple Sclerosis (MAGNIMS) group, which had some doubts about the 2017 revision to the McDonald criteria. “We discussed this and said, ‘Well, that is interesting. So you can have a brainstem lesion, which can be the symptomatic lesion and then you need one further region, so you have two regions, and then you have MS. But now if you have an optic nerve presentation, and you can find the optic nerve, it doesn’t count, and then you need two more regions. So there’s a bit of an imbalance. Why would you need three regions if you have an optic nerve, and only two if you have a spinal cord or a brainstem presentation?” recalled Dr. Barkhof, professor of radiology and neuroscience at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.

Identifying optic nerve lesions requires a good MRI that should use fat-saturation techniques.

Dr. Barkhof pointed out that the ONLs are a common presentation among MS patients. “We’re now preparing for the next revisions of the McDonnell criteria, and I’m confident and hopeful that we’ll make it this time,” said Dr. Barkhof.
 

Confirm the MS diagnosis

In the second talk, Angela Vidal-Jordana, MD, PhD, discussed ways to implement ONLs in the clinic. She emphasized the importance of ruling out other causes. “Even when a patient comes to us with a diagnosis of optic neuritis, we should question that. Different studies have shown that the optic neuritis overdiagnosis rate at referral might be as high as 60% of the cases,” said Dr. Vidal-Jordana, a neurologist at Centre d’Esclerosi Multiple de Catalunya in Barcelona. Studies show that about half of those are due to misinterpretation of the clinical history and examination, she said.

“So when presenting new visual symptoms, we should ask whether this is suggestive of an inflammatory etiology or not, and whether they are typical for MS or not. If both answers to these questions are yes, then we should apply the diagnostic criteria,” said Dr. Vidal-Jordana.

She presented results from a longitudinal, prospective study conducted within the MAGNIMS network supporting the inclusion of ONL into DIS criteria for MS. It included use of optic nerve MRI, OCT, and VEP [visual evoked potential]. “All of the modified DIS criteria, that is including one of the tests at each time, or a combination of them, led to a higher sensitivity of the diagnostic criteria (when optic nerve involvement was included), albeit with a small decrease in specificity which mainly was due to the fact that we only had 3 years of follow-up. The same held true when analyzing the secondary outcome of new T2 lesions or second relapse during the follow up,” said Dr. Vidal-Jordana.

“As a summary, I would say for sure we will need first of all an MRI, and we need to know if we can evaluate the optic nerve by MRI or not. If not, and we still do not have a diagnosis of a MS, maybe we can order VEP or OCT and then the test selection should be based on the time elapsed since first CIS [clinically isolated syndrome]. If it’s less than 3 months, I would go for a VEP. If it’s more than 3 months, then I probably want to go for OCT,” said Dr. Vidal-Jordana.
 

An aid to earlier diagnosis

In the last talk, Dr. Balcer discussed non-MRI methods for assessing ONLs. She noted that in about 25% of MS patients, ONLs are the first clinical demyelinating event. “Adding the optic nerve to the MS diagnostic criteria will allow us to diagnose our patients even earlier, (it) may help their vision, and could also help us to reduce the overall burden of MS disability over a lifetime. Importantly, entry into MS diagnosis can be delayed among patients for whom optic neuritis or even asymptomatic optic nerve lesions are noted at presentation, and there has been an enormous amount of data that have emerged over the past 5 years demonstrating the importance of the optic nerve in the MS diagnosis with implications for early therapy,” said Dr. Balcer.

She discussed optical coherence tomography (OCT), which is a key technique for diagnosing optic neuropathy. It measures the thickness of the retinal nerve fiber and ganglion cell layers, which have been associated with vision impairment and can reveal asymptomatic involvement of optic nerves in MS.
 

Beware of misdiagnosis

In the Q&A period following the talks, much of the discussion turned to reliability of ONL diagnoses.

“Misdiagnosis is a huge problem. That’s my experience: People who are referred to me with optic neuritis often don’t have optic neuritis,” said comoderator Wallace Brownlee, MBChB, PhD, a consultant neurologist at Cleveland Clinic London. Misha Pless, MD, spoke up from the audience to second that. “I’m delighted that the optic nerve will finally get a place at the table. I’ve been practicing neuro-ophthalmology and I have also [been] an MS doctor for about 25 years. What I see here in this fantastic discussion is that a lot of neurologists are going to be – I hate to use the word ‘misled’ – into relying on technology like OCT, VEP, and MRI to make the diagnosis. I will submit to this panel that that will lead to a number of MS misdiagnoses because I have been doing this for 25 years and the number of patients that I’ve received with rule-out optic neuritis that had macular disease, optical changes, or corneal abrasions are too numerous to count. If you’re going to add optic neuritis in the list of criteria [for MS], you definitely have to have a little asterisk in my opinion and say, ‘with prior blessing from an ophthalmologist to rule out ocular disease,’ because I don’t know any neurologist that knows how to look in the back of the eye, and I don’t know any neurologist that has an OCT in their office,” said Dr. Pless, professor of ophthalmology and a neurologist at Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla.

The panelists generally agreed with his point, although the hot mic picked up when one panelist whispered to another, ‘I have one,’ referring to an office OCT. “Using OCT in that regard, but also collaborating with your neuro-ophthalmologist and ophthalmologist is critical,” said Dr. Balcer.

Dr. Barkhof has financial relationships with Biogen, Merck, Roche, EISAI, Prothena, IXICO, Jansen, Combinostics, Novartis, GE, Queen Square, and Analytics. Dr. Vidal-Jordana has financial relationships with Roche, Novartis, Merck, and Sanofi. Dr. Balcer has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Brownlee has financial relationships with Biogen, Celgene, Merck, Mylan, Novartis, Roche, and Sanofi.

High-efficacy therapies for multiple sclerosis (MS) have improved disease outcomes for many patients, but physicians are uncertain when to use them. Despite better long-term disease outcomes, there are concerns over long-term safety, and some physicians and patients remain wary of these medications.

High-efficacy therapies were the subject of a session at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS). Key topics included patient selection, timing of escalation to high-efficacy therapies, and initial use of high-efficacy therapies. The session produced a compelling message, according to moderator Patricia Coyle, MD. “I think [the speakers provided] accumulating data that this is a smart thing to do: Use high-efficacy therapies early to get the maximum bang for the buck,” Dr. Coyle said in an interview. She is professor of neurology and director of the MS Comprehensive Care Center at Stony Brook (N.Y.) University.
 

Consider baseline characteristics

In the first talk, Xavier Montalban, MD, PhD, noted that a statement from the ECTRIMS/EAN (European Academy of Neurology) guideline update in 2021 said that a high-efficacy disease-modifying therapy (DMT) should be considered early in the disease course. A key question is whether any baseline characteristics can be used to select patients, and studies have shown worse prognosis with older age, male sex, low levels of vitamin D, and smoking status, among various other factors.

He presented subgroup analyses from trials of fingolimod and ozanimod, which showed that the drugs did not work as well in patients with poor prognostic factors such as an Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score of 4 or above and age over 40 years. Lower doses also tend to have less efficacy in males. “If you have [a patient with] bad baseline prognostic factors, you need high-efficacy medication at the right dose, because a lower dose will not work well. It is the same phenomenon for age,” Dr. Montalban said in his talk. On the other hand, he showed the results of a study of ofatumumab and ocrelizumab, both of which showed high efficacy even in patients with poor prognostic factors.

Among patients with secondary progressive MS, clinical or MRI evidence of inflammatory activity is the only poor prognostic factor that appears to be a good predictor of treatment response.

Dr. Montalban also addressed the timing of intervention with DMTs. A study from his group prospectively followed 1,015 patients treated with DMTs. “Interestingly, what we observed is that patients who were treated with DMTs just after the first attack did better than those who were treated after the second attack, and you have to take into consideration that we treat those patients after the first attack, those who had the worst prognostic factors, so treatment was very effective in that sense,” said Dr. Montalban, director of the Multiple Sclerosis Centre of Catalonia at Vall d’Hebron University Hospital in Barcelona.
 

Switching DMTs

In the second presentation, Dalia Rotstein, MD, discussed how to incorporate prognostic factors when switching a patient to high-efficacy therapies as a result of new disease activity while on another therapy.

Patients with favorable prognostic factors at baseline may be started out on immunomodulatory therapy. “Essentially, we want to match the intensity of the therapy to the intensity of the disease of the patient in front of us,” Dr. Rotstein said in her talk. Nevertheless, the course of MS is unpredictable, and the first year or two of immunomodulatory therapy can give physicians clues about the longer-term course of the disease. “We need to observe closely for disease activity in the first year, but even up to 2 years on therapy to determine a need for early escalation,” said Dr. Rotstein, assistant professor of medicine at University of Toronto.

For switching to high-efficacy therapies, any relapse, disability progression, or an EDSS change of 1 point or more could be a consideration. MRI indicators are more controversial, but one to three new T2 lesions also could prompt a switch.

Serum neural filament light chain (sNFL) is a useful biomarker for monitoring disease activity as it correlates well with new disease activity within the next year. It can be monitored every 3-4 months and adjusted for clinical factors and monitored for changing levels. A concerning finding can be followed up with an MRI or in-person visit.

When switching to a high-efficacy therapy, it’s important to administer any vaccines well in advance to ensure a good immune response.

When it comes to a washout period, physicians need to consider both the risk of immunosuppression and breakthrough disease activity. “But in general, we’ve observed that we can minimize the duration of the washout when stopping initial immunomodulator therapy to reduce the risk of breakthrough disease activity. We need to pay particular attention to the risk of rebound activity with longer washouts after stopping sphingosine-1 phosphate (S1P) receptor modulators because the rebound activity can be devastating,” said Dr. Rotstein.

A study of timing of relapses after fingolimod washout, carried out by Dr. Rotstein’s group, found a stark signal. “We observed that when the washout after fingolimod discontinuation was 30 days or more, there is a very high risk of early relapse,” she said.
 

The case for induction therapy

In the third talk, Gavin Giovannoni, MBBCh, PhD, discussed “flipping the pyramid” – that is, starting patients off immediately with high-efficacy therapies rather than waiting until they progress on other therapies. He likened such a decision to a gambler, because MS patients on less-effective therapy can suffer irreversible, long-term physical consequences, as well as social consequences such as unemployment due to cognitive effects.

“We always tend to put up a graph about the risks and benefits of a specific treatment, and we forget about the risks of untreated or undertreated MS. Keep that in mind when making decisions about high-efficacy therapies,” said Dr. Giovannoni, professor of neurology at Queen Mary University of London.

About 80% of patients on tier 1, or low-efficacy therapies, will have breakthrough activity on MRI within 4 years. Moving up a tier gets to about a 60% rate of breakthrough activity. High-efficacy therapies attain an efficacy of about 80% at 6 months. “If you have MS, you’ve got to realize that if you had to roll the dice, which tier would you want to be in? By putting all of them [on high-efficacy therapies], you’re going to get the majority responding and a few of them will break through,” said Dr. Giovannoni.

He presented some real-world evidence to back up the argument: A study comparing outcomes in Sweden and Denmark, which have similar demographics. In Denmark, 7.6% of patients with MS received high-efficacy therapies initially, while in Sweden the proportion was 34.5%. Patients with MS treated in Sweden had a 29% lower probability of progressing to disability (P = .004) and there were 22% fewer discontinuations of DMTs (P < .001). Since that study, the proportion of patients receiving high-efficacy therapies to begin with is closer to 70%. “This is compelling evidence that you want to be on a [high-efficacy therapy] early. If I had MS, I would want to live in Sweden,” said Dr. Giovannoni.

Historical treatments focused on reducing relapses, and more recently on eliminating evidence of inflammatory disease. He said that physicians are prioritizing brain volume loss to improve long-term outcomes in MS, and some are studying long-term disability. “We know that brain volume loss in MS is a prognostic sign both at baseline and at follow-up. It predicts poor outcome, poor cognition and employment, poor quality of life, et cetera,” said Dr. Giovannoni.

He cited data from studies of alemtuzumab that showed a significant reduction in brain volume loss. “The rate is about 0.2% per annum, which is kind of getting into the normal range for age-matched controls. Those people who were started off on interferons in the study lost a lot of brain volume in those first 2 years, and that’s irreversible,” said Dr. Giovannoni.

He pointed out that studies of hematopoietic stem cell therapy showed similar brain-volume outcomes. “So flipping the pyramid with the two most highly effective therapies almost normalizes brain volume loss in people with MS,” said Dr. Giovannoni.

There is also evidence in other autoimmune diseases that early use of high-efficacy therapies improves outcomes. More aggressive therapy in rheumatoid arthritis has reduced joint replacements by 90%.

“I think you really, really need to give your patients the opportunity of flipping the pyramid. You shouldn’t decide that for them,” said Dr. Giovannoni.

Dr. Coyle has consulted for nearly all pharmaceutical companies developing drugs in the MS space. Dr. Montalban has financial relationships with Biogen Idec, Merck Serono, Genentech, Genzyme, Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis, Teva, Roche, Celgene, Actelion, Mylan, BMS, and Sandoz. Dr. Rotstein has financial ties with Roche Canada, Alexion, Biogen, EMD Serono, Novartis, Roche, and Sanofi Aventis. Dr. Giovannoni has financial ties with AbbVie, Aslan, Atara Bio, Biogen, BMS-Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, GW Pharma, Janssen/J&J, Japanese Tobacco, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, LifNano, Merck & Co., Merck KGaA/EMD Serono, Moderna, Novartis, Sanofi, Roche/Genentech, and Teva.

High-efficacy therapies for multiple sclerosis (MS) have improved disease outcomes for many patients, but physicians are uncertain when to use them. Despite better long-term disease outcomes, there are concerns over long-term safety, and some physicians and patients remain wary of these medications.

High-efficacy therapies were the subject of a session at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS). Key topics included patient selection, timing of escalation to high-efficacy therapies, and initial use of high-efficacy therapies. The session produced a compelling message, according to moderator Patricia Coyle, MD. “I think [the speakers provided] accumulating data that this is a smart thing to do: Use high-efficacy therapies early to get the maximum bang for the buck,” Dr. Coyle said in an interview. She is professor of neurology and director of the MS Comprehensive Care Center at Stony Brook (N.Y.) University.
 

Consider baseline characteristics

In the first talk, Xavier Montalban, MD, PhD, noted that a statement from the ECTRIMS/EAN (European Academy of Neurology) guideline update in 2021 said that a high-efficacy disease-modifying therapy (DMT) should be considered early in the disease course. A key question is whether any baseline characteristics can be used to select patients, and studies have shown worse prognosis with older age, male sex, low levels of vitamin D, and smoking status, among various other factors.

He presented subgroup analyses from trials of fingolimod and ozanimod, which showed that the drugs did not work as well in patients with poor prognostic factors such as an Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score of 4 or above and age over 40 years. Lower doses also tend to have less efficacy in males. “If you have [a patient with] bad baseline prognostic factors, you need high-efficacy medication at the right dose, because a lower dose will not work well. It is the same phenomenon for age,” Dr. Montalban said in his talk. On the other hand, he showed the results of a study of ofatumumab and ocrelizumab, both of which showed high efficacy even in patients with poor prognostic factors.

Among patients with secondary progressive MS, clinical or MRI evidence of inflammatory activity is the only poor prognostic factor that appears to be a good predictor of treatment response.

Dr. Montalban also addressed the timing of intervention with DMTs. A study from his group prospectively followed 1,015 patients treated with DMTs. “Interestingly, what we observed is that patients who were treated with DMTs just after the first attack did better than those who were treated after the second attack, and you have to take into consideration that we treat those patients after the first attack, those who had the worst prognostic factors, so treatment was very effective in that sense,” said Dr. Montalban, director of the Multiple Sclerosis Centre of Catalonia at Vall d’Hebron University Hospital in Barcelona.
 

Switching DMTs

In the second presentation, Dalia Rotstein, MD, discussed how to incorporate prognostic factors when switching a patient to high-efficacy therapies as a result of new disease activity while on another therapy.

Patients with favorable prognostic factors at baseline may be started out on immunomodulatory therapy. “Essentially, we want to match the intensity of the therapy to the intensity of the disease of the patient in front of us,” Dr. Rotstein said in her talk. Nevertheless, the course of MS is unpredictable, and the first year or two of immunomodulatory therapy can give physicians clues about the longer-term course of the disease. “We need to observe closely for disease activity in the first year, but even up to 2 years on therapy to determine a need for early escalation,” said Dr. Rotstein, assistant professor of medicine at University of Toronto.

For switching to high-efficacy therapies, any relapse, disability progression, or an EDSS change of 1 point or more could be a consideration. MRI indicators are more controversial, but one to three new T2 lesions also could prompt a switch.

Serum neural filament light chain (sNFL) is a useful biomarker for monitoring disease activity as it correlates well with new disease activity within the next year. It can be monitored every 3-4 months and adjusted for clinical factors and monitored for changing levels. A concerning finding can be followed up with an MRI or in-person visit.

When switching to a high-efficacy therapy, it’s important to administer any vaccines well in advance to ensure a good immune response.

When it comes to a washout period, physicians need to consider both the risk of immunosuppression and breakthrough disease activity. “But in general, we’ve observed that we can minimize the duration of the washout when stopping initial immunomodulator therapy to reduce the risk of breakthrough disease activity. We need to pay particular attention to the risk of rebound activity with longer washouts after stopping sphingosine-1 phosphate (S1P) receptor modulators because the rebound activity can be devastating,” said Dr. Rotstein.

A study of timing of relapses after fingolimod washout, carried out by Dr. Rotstein’s group, found a stark signal. “We observed that when the washout after fingolimod discontinuation was 30 days or more, there is a very high risk of early relapse,” she said.
 

The case for induction therapy

In the third talk, Gavin Giovannoni, MBBCh, PhD, discussed “flipping the pyramid” – that is, starting patients off immediately with high-efficacy therapies rather than waiting until they progress on other therapies. He likened such a decision to a gambler, because MS patients on less-effective therapy can suffer irreversible, long-term physical consequences, as well as social consequences such as unemployment due to cognitive effects.

“We always tend to put up a graph about the risks and benefits of a specific treatment, and we forget about the risks of untreated or undertreated MS. Keep that in mind when making decisions about high-efficacy therapies,” said Dr. Giovannoni, professor of neurology at Queen Mary University of London.

About 80% of patients on tier 1, or low-efficacy therapies, will have breakthrough activity on MRI within 4 years. Moving up a tier gets to about a 60% rate of breakthrough activity. High-efficacy therapies attain an efficacy of about 80% at 6 months. “If you have MS, you’ve got to realize that if you had to roll the dice, which tier would you want to be in? By putting all of them [on high-efficacy therapies], you’re going to get the majority responding and a few of them will break through,” said Dr. Giovannoni.

He presented some real-world evidence to back up the argument: A study comparing outcomes in Sweden and Denmark, which have similar demographics. In Denmark, 7.6% of patients with MS received high-efficacy therapies initially, while in Sweden the proportion was 34.5%. Patients with MS treated in Sweden had a 29% lower probability of progressing to disability (P = .004) and there were 22% fewer discontinuations of DMTs (P < .001). Since that study, the proportion of patients receiving high-efficacy therapies to begin with is closer to 70%. “This is compelling evidence that you want to be on a [high-efficacy therapy] early. If I had MS, I would want to live in Sweden,” said Dr. Giovannoni.

Historical treatments focused on reducing relapses, and more recently on eliminating evidence of inflammatory disease. He said that physicians are prioritizing brain volume loss to improve long-term outcomes in MS, and some are studying long-term disability. “We know that brain volume loss in MS is a prognostic sign both at baseline and at follow-up. It predicts poor outcome, poor cognition and employment, poor quality of life, et cetera,” said Dr. Giovannoni.

He cited data from studies of alemtuzumab that showed a significant reduction in brain volume loss. “The rate is about 0.2% per annum, which is kind of getting into the normal range for age-matched controls. Those people who were started off on interferons in the study lost a lot of brain volume in those first 2 years, and that’s irreversible,” said Dr. Giovannoni.

He pointed out that studies of hematopoietic stem cell therapy showed similar brain-volume outcomes. “So flipping the pyramid with the two most highly effective therapies almost normalizes brain volume loss in people with MS,” said Dr. Giovannoni.

There is also evidence in other autoimmune diseases that early use of high-efficacy therapies improves outcomes. More aggressive therapy in rheumatoid arthritis has reduced joint replacements by 90%.

“I think you really, really need to give your patients the opportunity of flipping the pyramid. You shouldn’t decide that for them,” said Dr. Giovannoni.

Dr. Coyle has consulted for nearly all pharmaceutical companies developing drugs in the MS space. Dr. Montalban has financial relationships with Biogen Idec, Merck Serono, Genentech, Genzyme, Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis, Teva, Roche, Celgene, Actelion, Mylan, BMS, and Sandoz. Dr. Rotstein has financial ties with Roche Canada, Alexion, Biogen, EMD Serono, Novartis, Roche, and Sanofi Aventis. Dr. Giovannoni has financial ties with AbbVie, Aslan, Atara Bio, Biogen, BMS-Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, GW Pharma, Janssen/J&J, Japanese Tobacco, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, LifNano, Merck & Co., Merck KGaA/EMD Serono, Moderna, Novartis, Sanofi, Roche/Genentech, and Teva.

High-efficacy therapies for multiple sclerosis (MS) have improved disease outcomes for many patients, but physicians are uncertain when to use them. Despite better long-term disease outcomes, there are concerns over long-term safety, and some physicians and patients remain wary of these medications.

High-efficacy therapies were the subject of a session at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS). Key topics included patient selection, timing of escalation to high-efficacy therapies, and initial use of high-efficacy therapies. The session produced a compelling message, according to moderator Patricia Coyle, MD. “I think [the speakers provided] accumulating data that this is a smart thing to do: Use high-efficacy therapies early to get the maximum bang for the buck,” Dr. Coyle said in an interview. She is professor of neurology and director of the MS Comprehensive Care Center at Stony Brook (N.Y.) University.
 

Consider baseline characteristics

In the first talk, Xavier Montalban, MD, PhD, noted that a statement from the ECTRIMS/EAN (European Academy of Neurology) guideline update in 2021 said that a high-efficacy disease-modifying therapy (DMT) should be considered early in the disease course. A key question is whether any baseline characteristics can be used to select patients, and studies have shown worse prognosis with older age, male sex, low levels of vitamin D, and smoking status, among various other factors.

He presented subgroup analyses from trials of fingolimod and ozanimod, which showed that the drugs did not work as well in patients with poor prognostic factors such as an Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score of 4 or above and age over 40 years. Lower doses also tend to have less efficacy in males. “If you have [a patient with] bad baseline prognostic factors, you need high-efficacy medication at the right dose, because a lower dose will not work well. It is the same phenomenon for age,” Dr. Montalban said in his talk. On the other hand, he showed the results of a study of ofatumumab and ocrelizumab, both of which showed high efficacy even in patients with poor prognostic factors.

Among patients with secondary progressive MS, clinical or MRI evidence of inflammatory activity is the only poor prognostic factor that appears to be a good predictor of treatment response.

Dr. Montalban also addressed the timing of intervention with DMTs. A study from his group prospectively followed 1,015 patients treated with DMTs. “Interestingly, what we observed is that patients who were treated with DMTs just after the first attack did better than those who were treated after the second attack, and you have to take into consideration that we treat those patients after the first attack, those who had the worst prognostic factors, so treatment was very effective in that sense,” said Dr. Montalban, director of the Multiple Sclerosis Centre of Catalonia at Vall d’Hebron University Hospital in Barcelona.
 

Switching DMTs

In the second presentation, Dalia Rotstein, MD, discussed how to incorporate prognostic factors when switching a patient to high-efficacy therapies as a result of new disease activity while on another therapy.

Patients with favorable prognostic factors at baseline may be started out on immunomodulatory therapy. “Essentially, we want to match the intensity of the therapy to the intensity of the disease of the patient in front of us,” Dr. Rotstein said in her talk. Nevertheless, the course of MS is unpredictable, and the first year or two of immunomodulatory therapy can give physicians clues about the longer-term course of the disease. “We need to observe closely for disease activity in the first year, but even up to 2 years on therapy to determine a need for early escalation,” said Dr. Rotstein, assistant professor of medicine at University of Toronto.

For switching to high-efficacy therapies, any relapse, disability progression, or an EDSS change of 1 point or more could be a consideration. MRI indicators are more controversial, but one to three new T2 lesions also could prompt a switch.

Serum neural filament light chain (sNFL) is a useful biomarker for monitoring disease activity as it correlates well with new disease activity within the next year. It can be monitored every 3-4 months and adjusted for clinical factors and monitored for changing levels. A concerning finding can be followed up with an MRI or in-person visit.

When switching to a high-efficacy therapy, it’s important to administer any vaccines well in advance to ensure a good immune response.

When it comes to a washout period, physicians need to consider both the risk of immunosuppression and breakthrough disease activity. “But in general, we’ve observed that we can minimize the duration of the washout when stopping initial immunomodulator therapy to reduce the risk of breakthrough disease activity. We need to pay particular attention to the risk of rebound activity with longer washouts after stopping sphingosine-1 phosphate (S1P) receptor modulators because the rebound activity can be devastating,” said Dr. Rotstein.

A study of timing of relapses after fingolimod washout, carried out by Dr. Rotstein’s group, found a stark signal. “We observed that when the washout after fingolimod discontinuation was 30 days or more, there is a very high risk of early relapse,” she said.
 

The case for induction therapy

In the third talk, Gavin Giovannoni, MBBCh, PhD, discussed “flipping the pyramid” – that is, starting patients off immediately with high-efficacy therapies rather than waiting until they progress on other therapies. He likened such a decision to a gambler, because MS patients on less-effective therapy can suffer irreversible, long-term physical consequences, as well as social consequences such as unemployment due to cognitive effects.

“We always tend to put up a graph about the risks and benefits of a specific treatment, and we forget about the risks of untreated or undertreated MS. Keep that in mind when making decisions about high-efficacy therapies,” said Dr. Giovannoni, professor of neurology at Queen Mary University of London.

About 80% of patients on tier 1, or low-efficacy therapies, will have breakthrough activity on MRI within 4 years. Moving up a tier gets to about a 60% rate of breakthrough activity. High-efficacy therapies attain an efficacy of about 80% at 6 months. “If you have MS, you’ve got to realize that if you had to roll the dice, which tier would you want to be in? By putting all of them [on high-efficacy therapies], you’re going to get the majority responding and a few of them will break through,” said Dr. Giovannoni.

He presented some real-world evidence to back up the argument: A study comparing outcomes in Sweden and Denmark, which have similar demographics. In Denmark, 7.6% of patients with MS received high-efficacy therapies initially, while in Sweden the proportion was 34.5%. Patients with MS treated in Sweden had a 29% lower probability of progressing to disability (P = .004) and there were 22% fewer discontinuations of DMTs (P < .001). Since that study, the proportion of patients receiving high-efficacy therapies to begin with is closer to 70%. “This is compelling evidence that you want to be on a [high-efficacy therapy] early. If I had MS, I would want to live in Sweden,” said Dr. Giovannoni.

Historical treatments focused on reducing relapses, and more recently on eliminating evidence of inflammatory disease. He said that physicians are prioritizing brain volume loss to improve long-term outcomes in MS, and some are studying long-term disability. “We know that brain volume loss in MS is a prognostic sign both at baseline and at follow-up. It predicts poor outcome, poor cognition and employment, poor quality of life, et cetera,” said Dr. Giovannoni.

He cited data from studies of alemtuzumab that showed a significant reduction in brain volume loss. “The rate is about 0.2% per annum, which is kind of getting into the normal range for age-matched controls. Those people who were started off on interferons in the study lost a lot of brain volume in those first 2 years, and that’s irreversible,” said Dr. Giovannoni.

He pointed out that studies of hematopoietic stem cell therapy showed similar brain-volume outcomes. “So flipping the pyramid with the two most highly effective therapies almost normalizes brain volume loss in people with MS,” said Dr. Giovannoni.

There is also evidence in other autoimmune diseases that early use of high-efficacy therapies improves outcomes. More aggressive therapy in rheumatoid arthritis has reduced joint replacements by 90%.

“I think you really, really need to give your patients the opportunity of flipping the pyramid. You shouldn’t decide that for them,” said Dr. Giovannoni.

Dr. Coyle has consulted for nearly all pharmaceutical companies developing drugs in the MS space. Dr. Montalban has financial relationships with Biogen Idec, Merck Serono, Genentech, Genzyme, Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis, Teva, Roche, Celgene, Actelion, Mylan, BMS, and Sandoz. Dr. Rotstein has financial ties with Roche Canada, Alexion, Biogen, EMD Serono, Novartis, Roche, and Sanofi Aventis. Dr. Giovannoni has financial ties with AbbVie, Aslan, Atara Bio, Biogen, BMS-Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, GW Pharma, Janssen/J&J, Japanese Tobacco, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, LifNano, Merck & Co., Merck KGaA/EMD Serono, Moderna, Novartis, Sanofi, Roche/Genentech, and Teva.

CINCINNATI – Sickle cell disease is well known for its associated anemia, but patients experience a range of other complications as well. These include vision and kidney problems, delayed growth, susceptibility to infection, and pain.

Another issue, not always as well recognized, is a considerably heightened risk for childhood stroke. “Children with sickle cell disease have 100 times the risk of stroke as other children without sickle cell disease, and there’s also an elevated risk of five times the general population in adults with sickle cell disease,” said Lori Jordan, MD, PhD, in an interview.

At the 2022 annual meeting of the Child Neurology Society, Dr. Jordan spoke about stroke as a complication of sickle cell disease, and the role that neurologists can play in preventing primary or secondary strokes. “At least in children, studies have shown that if we screen and identify patients who are at highest risk of stroke, there are primary prevention therapies – usually implemented by hematologists, but that neurologists often are involved with – both monitoring for cognitive effects of silent cerebral infarct and also with treating patients who unfortunately still have an acute stroke,” said Dr. Jordan, who is an associate professor of pediatrics, neurology, and radiology at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn. She also is director of the pediatric stroke program at Vanderbilt.
 

Time is of the essence

“In general, stroke in children is rare, but it’s more common in sickle cell disease, so it’s really important for providers to know that stroke risk is higher in those patients, particularly in those children, and then identify it and treat it earlier. Time is of the essence, and if we can give them the same therapeutics that we give the general stroke population, then time really becomes a factor, so it’s important that people know that it’s an issue for this population,” said Eboni Lance, MD, PhD, who coordinated the session where Dr. Jordan spoke.

Sickle cell disease is caused by a double mutation in the gene encoding the hemoglobin gene, producing the altered sickle hemoglobin (hemoglobin S). The change causes the hemoglobin proteins to tend to stick to one another, which can lead red blood cells to adopt a sickle-like shape. The sickle-shaped blood cells in turn have a tendency to aggregate and can block blood flow or lead to endothelial injury. Symptoms of stroke in children can include hemiparesis, aphasia, and seizure, but they can also be silent.

If no preventive is employed, one in nine with sickle cell disease will experience a stroke by the age of 19. Cerebrovascular symptoms are the most frequent debilitating complication of the condition. Nearly 40% of patients with sickle cell disease will have a silent cerebral infarct by age 18, as will 50% by age 30. Silent strokes have been associated with worse educational attainment and a greater need for educational special services.

Factors contributing to stroke in children with sickle cell disease include anemia and a low blood oxygen count, reduced oxygen affinity of hemoglobin variant, and cerebral vasculopathy. An estimated 10%-15% of young adults with sickle cell disease have severe intracranial stenosis.
 

Primary and secondary stroke prevention strategies

The dire consequences of stroke in this patient population underline the importance of primary stroke prevention, which requires the use of transcranial Doppler (TCD) ultrasound. It has been validated as a tool to screen for initial stroke risk in children with no history of stroke. High velocity measured on TCD indicates a narrowed blood vessel or elevated blood that is compensating for anemia. It adds up to a “struggling brain,” said Dr. Jordan, during her talk. If the TCD ultrasound velocity is greater than 200 cm/sec (or 170 cm/sec, depending on nonimaging versus imaging TCD), the TWiTCH trial showed that seven monthly transfusions is the number needed to treat to prevent one stroke. After 1 year, patients can be switched from transfusions to hydroxyurea if the patient has no significant intracranial stenosis. Hydroxyurea boosts both fetal and total hemoglobin, and also counters inflammation.

Following an acute stroke or transient ischemic attack, patients should receive a transfusion within 2 hours of presenting in the health care setting. American Society of Hematology guidelines recommend exchange transfusion rather than a simple transfusion. A simple transfusion can be initiated if an exchange transfusion is not available within 2 hours and hemoglobin values are less than 8.5 g/dL, to be followed by performance of exchange transfusion when available.

For chronic secondary stroke prevention, transfusions should be performed approximately monthly with the goal of maintaining hemoglobin above 9 g/dL at all times, as well as suppressing hemoglobin S levels to 30% or less of total hemoglobin.

Sudden, severe headache is a potential harbinger of complications like aneurysm, which occurs 10-fold more often among patients with sickle cell disease than the general population. It could also indicate increased intracranial pressure or cerebral venous sinus thrombosis.

Treatment of acute headache in sickle cell disease should avoid use of triptans, since vasoconstriction can counter the increased cerebral blood flow that compensates for anemia. Gabapentin and amitriptyline are good treatment choices.

New-onset seizures are a potential sign of stroke or posterior reversible leukoencephalopathy (PRES) in patients with sickle cell disease. Urgent MRI should be considered for all new-onset seizures. If blood pressure is high, PRES may be present. Seizures may also be an indicator of a previous brain injury.

Dr. Jordan has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Lance has served on an advisory board for Novartis.
 

CINCINNATI – Sickle cell disease is well known for its associated anemia, but patients experience a range of other complications as well. These include vision and kidney problems, delayed growth, susceptibility to infection, and pain.

Another issue, not always as well recognized, is a considerably heightened risk for childhood stroke. “Children with sickle cell disease have 100 times the risk of stroke as other children without sickle cell disease, and there’s also an elevated risk of five times the general population in adults with sickle cell disease,” said Lori Jordan, MD, PhD, in an interview.

At the 2022 annual meeting of the Child Neurology Society, Dr. Jordan spoke about stroke as a complication of sickle cell disease, and the role that neurologists can play in preventing primary or secondary strokes. “At least in children, studies have shown that if we screen and identify patients who are at highest risk of stroke, there are primary prevention therapies – usually implemented by hematologists, but that neurologists often are involved with – both monitoring for cognitive effects of silent cerebral infarct and also with treating patients who unfortunately still have an acute stroke,” said Dr. Jordan, who is an associate professor of pediatrics, neurology, and radiology at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn. She also is director of the pediatric stroke program at Vanderbilt.
 

Time is of the essence

“In general, stroke in children is rare, but it’s more common in sickle cell disease, so it’s really important for providers to know that stroke risk is higher in those patients, particularly in those children, and then identify it and treat it earlier. Time is of the essence, and if we can give them the same therapeutics that we give the general stroke population, then time really becomes a factor, so it’s important that people know that it’s an issue for this population,” said Eboni Lance, MD, PhD, who coordinated the session where Dr. Jordan spoke.

Sickle cell disease is caused by a double mutation in the gene encoding the hemoglobin gene, producing the altered sickle hemoglobin (hemoglobin S). The change causes the hemoglobin proteins to tend to stick to one another, which can lead red blood cells to adopt a sickle-like shape. The sickle-shaped blood cells in turn have a tendency to aggregate and can block blood flow or lead to endothelial injury. Symptoms of stroke in children can include hemiparesis, aphasia, and seizure, but they can also be silent.

If no preventive is employed, one in nine with sickle cell disease will experience a stroke by the age of 19. Cerebrovascular symptoms are the most frequent debilitating complication of the condition. Nearly 40% of patients with sickle cell disease will have a silent cerebral infarct by age 18, as will 50% by age 30. Silent strokes have been associated with worse educational attainment and a greater need for educational special services.

Factors contributing to stroke in children with sickle cell disease include anemia and a low blood oxygen count, reduced oxygen affinity of hemoglobin variant, and cerebral vasculopathy. An estimated 10%-15% of young adults with sickle cell disease have severe intracranial stenosis.
 

Primary and secondary stroke prevention strategies

The dire consequences of stroke in this patient population underline the importance of primary stroke prevention, which requires the use of transcranial Doppler (TCD) ultrasound. It has been validated as a tool to screen for initial stroke risk in children with no history of stroke. High velocity measured on TCD indicates a narrowed blood vessel or elevated blood that is compensating for anemia. It adds up to a “struggling brain,” said Dr. Jordan, during her talk. If the TCD ultrasound velocity is greater than 200 cm/sec (or 170 cm/sec, depending on nonimaging versus imaging TCD), the TWiTCH trial showed that seven monthly transfusions is the number needed to treat to prevent one stroke. After 1 year, patients can be switched from transfusions to hydroxyurea if the patient has no significant intracranial stenosis. Hydroxyurea boosts both fetal and total hemoglobin, and also counters inflammation.

Following an acute stroke or transient ischemic attack, patients should receive a transfusion within 2 hours of presenting in the health care setting. American Society of Hematology guidelines recommend exchange transfusion rather than a simple transfusion. A simple transfusion can be initiated if an exchange transfusion is not available within 2 hours and hemoglobin values are less than 8.5 g/dL, to be followed by performance of exchange transfusion when available.

For chronic secondary stroke prevention, transfusions should be performed approximately monthly with the goal of maintaining hemoglobin above 9 g/dL at all times, as well as suppressing hemoglobin S levels to 30% or less of total hemoglobin.

Sudden, severe headache is a potential harbinger of complications like aneurysm, which occurs 10-fold more often among patients with sickle cell disease than the general population. It could also indicate increased intracranial pressure or cerebral venous sinus thrombosis.

Treatment of acute headache in sickle cell disease should avoid use of triptans, since vasoconstriction can counter the increased cerebral blood flow that compensates for anemia. Gabapentin and amitriptyline are good treatment choices.

New-onset seizures are a potential sign of stroke or posterior reversible leukoencephalopathy (PRES) in patients with sickle cell disease. Urgent MRI should be considered for all new-onset seizures. If blood pressure is high, PRES may be present. Seizures may also be an indicator of a previous brain injury.

Dr. Jordan has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Lance has served on an advisory board for Novartis.
 

CINCINNATI – Sickle cell disease is well known for its associated anemia, but patients experience a range of other complications as well. These include vision and kidney problems, delayed growth, susceptibility to infection, and pain.

Another issue, not always as well recognized, is a considerably heightened risk for childhood stroke. “Children with sickle cell disease have 100 times the risk of stroke as other children without sickle cell disease, and there’s also an elevated risk of five times the general population in adults with sickle cell disease,” said Lori Jordan, MD, PhD, in an interview.

At the 2022 annual meeting of the Child Neurology Society, Dr. Jordan spoke about stroke as a complication of sickle cell disease, and the role that neurologists can play in preventing primary or secondary strokes. “At least in children, studies have shown that if we screen and identify patients who are at highest risk of stroke, there are primary prevention therapies – usually implemented by hematologists, but that neurologists often are involved with – both monitoring for cognitive effects of silent cerebral infarct and also with treating patients who unfortunately still have an acute stroke,” said Dr. Jordan, who is an associate professor of pediatrics, neurology, and radiology at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn. She also is director of the pediatric stroke program at Vanderbilt.
 

Time is of the essence

“In general, stroke in children is rare, but it’s more common in sickle cell disease, so it’s really important for providers to know that stroke risk is higher in those patients, particularly in those children, and then identify it and treat it earlier. Time is of the essence, and if we can give them the same therapeutics that we give the general stroke population, then time really becomes a factor, so it’s important that people know that it’s an issue for this population,” said Eboni Lance, MD, PhD, who coordinated the session where Dr. Jordan spoke.

Sickle cell disease is caused by a double mutation in the gene encoding the hemoglobin gene, producing the altered sickle hemoglobin (hemoglobin S). The change causes the hemoglobin proteins to tend to stick to one another, which can lead red blood cells to adopt a sickle-like shape. The sickle-shaped blood cells in turn have a tendency to aggregate and can block blood flow or lead to endothelial injury. Symptoms of stroke in children can include hemiparesis, aphasia, and seizure, but they can also be silent.

If no preventive is employed, one in nine with sickle cell disease will experience a stroke by the age of 19. Cerebrovascular symptoms are the most frequent debilitating complication of the condition. Nearly 40% of patients with sickle cell disease will have a silent cerebral infarct by age 18, as will 50% by age 30. Silent strokes have been associated with worse educational attainment and a greater need for educational special services.

Factors contributing to stroke in children with sickle cell disease include anemia and a low blood oxygen count, reduced oxygen affinity of hemoglobin variant, and cerebral vasculopathy. An estimated 10%-15% of young adults with sickle cell disease have severe intracranial stenosis.
 

Primary and secondary stroke prevention strategies

The dire consequences of stroke in this patient population underline the importance of primary stroke prevention, which requires the use of transcranial Doppler (TCD) ultrasound. It has been validated as a tool to screen for initial stroke risk in children with no history of stroke. High velocity measured on TCD indicates a narrowed blood vessel or elevated blood that is compensating for anemia. It adds up to a “struggling brain,” said Dr. Jordan, during her talk. If the TCD ultrasound velocity is greater than 200 cm/sec (or 170 cm/sec, depending on nonimaging versus imaging TCD), the TWiTCH trial showed that seven monthly transfusions is the number needed to treat to prevent one stroke. After 1 year, patients can be switched from transfusions to hydroxyurea if the patient has no significant intracranial stenosis. Hydroxyurea boosts both fetal and total hemoglobin, and also counters inflammation.

Following an acute stroke or transient ischemic attack, patients should receive a transfusion within 2 hours of presenting in the health care setting. American Society of Hematology guidelines recommend exchange transfusion rather than a simple transfusion. A simple transfusion can be initiated if an exchange transfusion is not available within 2 hours and hemoglobin values are less than 8.5 g/dL, to be followed by performance of exchange transfusion when available.

For chronic secondary stroke prevention, transfusions should be performed approximately monthly with the goal of maintaining hemoglobin above 9 g/dL at all times, as well as suppressing hemoglobin S levels to 30% or less of total hemoglobin.

Sudden, severe headache is a potential harbinger of complications like aneurysm, which occurs 10-fold more often among patients with sickle cell disease than the general population. It could also indicate increased intracranial pressure or cerebral venous sinus thrombosis.

Treatment of acute headache in sickle cell disease should avoid use of triptans, since vasoconstriction can counter the increased cerebral blood flow that compensates for anemia. Gabapentin and amitriptyline are good treatment choices.

New-onset seizures are a potential sign of stroke or posterior reversible leukoencephalopathy (PRES) in patients with sickle cell disease. Urgent MRI should be considered for all new-onset seizures. If blood pressure is high, PRES may be present. Seizures may also be an indicator of a previous brain injury.

Dr. Jordan has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Lance has served on an advisory board for Novartis.
 

The effects of the Russian invasion of Ukraine have been devastating, with the loss of tens of thousands of civilian lives and about one-third of the population having been displaced. The war has put a great strain on health care in the country.

“The Russian army is targeting civilian infrastructure, trying to plunge Ukrainians into cold and darkness. (It) is also deliberately targeting hospitals and clinics in Ukraine,” said Nataliya Kovalchuk, PhD, during a session on Ukraine health care at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology held this week in San Antonio. She is a clinical associate professor of radiation oncology at Stanford (Calif.) University.

Analysis of previous wars have shown an increase in cancer incidence and mortality, and the same should be expected in the future in Ukraine, according to Ruslan Zelinskyi, MS, who is president of the Ukrainian Association of Medical Physicists and practices at Spizhenko Clinic in Ukraine. “We must prepare for it now, and we do it. During the full-scale war in Ukraine, three new linear accelerators were installed and put into clinical use,” he said during his talk.

He also gave a personal perspective of the terrible conditions and choices facing Ukrainian health care workers. “I have often heard that science is outside of politics. Perhaps in peacetime, but when fragments of missiles pass through the wall” – here, Mr. Zelinskyi paused to swing the camera around to show bomb damage on the walls of the room where he was conducting his virtual talk – “it is impossible to be outside of politics when 900 medical facilities were destroyed or damaged.” Health care workers have been killed, and patients have lost months or years because they could not receive medical care.

That reality is forcing Ukrainians to make choices most health care workers would struggle to imagine. “For many years, I put on medical clothes and fight against cancer. But (for) me comes the moment when I will change my medical clothes to military (clothes), like many, many other Ukrainians of various professions, because we must preserve the freedom of Ukraine and the security of Europe to do science in a peaceful world,” Mr. Zelinskyi said.

Following Mr. Zelinskyi’s talk, Asya Agulnik, MD, MPH, director of the St. Jude’s Global Critical Care Program and a pediatric intensivist at St. Jude’s Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, described St. Jude’s efforts with pediatric cancer patients. St. Jude’s Global Critical Care Program created a Eurasian Regional Program in 2018 to serve Central Asia and Eastern Europe, which now includes 48 institutions and more than 250 clinicians and members that help care for children with cancer.

In the aftermath of the invasion, the Eurasian Regional Program launched the Safer Ukraine network to ensure continued care for children with cancer and blood disorders. Initially, the patient’s family or physician identifies a child has having a medical need that cannot be met locally and requiring evacuation. The nongovernmental organization Tabletochki, which has worked with children with cancer in Ukraine since 2011, then arranges transport of the child and his or her medical records to the Ukrainian Specialized Children’s Center in Lviv, Ukraine, for evaluation and stabilization. From there, patients along with their mother and sometimes siblings are transferred to Poland. Transportation methods include ambulance, helicopter, bus, and medical trains that have a full intensive care unit aboard.

In Poland, hospitals estimated they could take on another 200 patients without compromising care for their existing patients, but evacuations reached that number within the first few weeks of the war. It was clear patients would have to be transferred to other countries. To do that, Safer Ukraine set up the Unicorn Marian Wilemski Clinic, which is a converted hotel operated as a partnership between many foundations and governments. It sends unstable patients to nearby emergency rooms, and stable patients stay at the clinic until they can be evaluated and matched with an international care provider from a registry of more than 200 hospitals in 29 countries that have agreed to take patients. A 24/7 Zoom call began on the first day of the war, initially staffed by St. Jude volunteers and now by a contractor. It serves as a command center.

Over the first 12 weeks of the war, the program evacuated over 1,000 children, and over 200 medical records per week were being translated at peak activity. Nearly 300 patients went to Poland, and the rest to 18 countries in Europe and North America.

The success of the initiative stems in part from the fact that it leveraged preexisting collaborations that focused on childhood cancer, according to Dr. Agulnik. “Many stakeholders that came together had previously worked together, but then quickly came together around this unified initiative with the goal of helping these patients,” she said during her talk.

Roman Kowalchuk, MD, who is a radiation oncology resident at Mayo Clinic, spoke about telemedicine efforts to assist physicians and patients in Ukraine.

“I’ve been especially interested in trying to help through telemedicine. We have so much expertise, so many things that we can offer, even if we can’t be there physically, through some of these avenues that really, especially through COVID, have been further developed in terms of virtual support, virtual expertise, and consultations. That presents the opportunity to be able to share some of that knowledge, some of that expertise, to help clinical care in Ukraine given the current circumstance,” said Dr. Kowalchuk during his presentation.

Efforts have used technology like the telemedicine platform Viveo, based in Estonia. One app, called HealUA, takes descriptions from physicians needing advice, and volunteers can scroll through inquiries and provide input. This is especially useful since most physicians in Ukraine are generalists, according to Dr. Kowalchuk, and so may need assistance with diagnosis and management of rare conditions.

Other telehealth approaches include TeleHelp Ukraine. There are WhatsApp groups with hundreds of volunteers who translate Ukrainian medical records to other languages to help non-Ukrainian physicians understand a patient’s history. Expertise is also needed in engineering, emergency medicine, surgery, various fields of oncology, and other specialties. Dr. Kowalchuk noted that Good Samaritan laws generally shield volunteers in these types of programs from legal liability.

International hospital networks taking part in these efforts include St. Jude, European Cancer Organization, American Cancer Society, American Society for Clinical Oncology, and ASTRO.

None of the presenters have relevant financial disclosures.

The effects of the Russian invasion of Ukraine have been devastating, with the loss of tens of thousands of civilian lives and about one-third of the population having been displaced. The war has put a great strain on health care in the country.

“The Russian army is targeting civilian infrastructure, trying to plunge Ukrainians into cold and darkness. (It) is also deliberately targeting hospitals and clinics in Ukraine,” said Nataliya Kovalchuk, PhD, during a session on Ukraine health care at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology held this week in San Antonio. She is a clinical associate professor of radiation oncology at Stanford (Calif.) University.

Analysis of previous wars have shown an increase in cancer incidence and mortality, and the same should be expected in the future in Ukraine, according to Ruslan Zelinskyi, MS, who is president of the Ukrainian Association of Medical Physicists and practices at Spizhenko Clinic in Ukraine. “We must prepare for it now, and we do it. During the full-scale war in Ukraine, three new linear accelerators were installed and put into clinical use,” he said during his talk.

He also gave a personal perspective of the terrible conditions and choices facing Ukrainian health care workers. “I have often heard that science is outside of politics. Perhaps in peacetime, but when fragments of missiles pass through the wall” – here, Mr. Zelinskyi paused to swing the camera around to show bomb damage on the walls of the room where he was conducting his virtual talk – “it is impossible to be outside of politics when 900 medical facilities were destroyed or damaged.” Health care workers have been killed, and patients have lost months or years because they could not receive medical care.

That reality is forcing Ukrainians to make choices most health care workers would struggle to imagine. “For many years, I put on medical clothes and fight against cancer. But (for) me comes the moment when I will change my medical clothes to military (clothes), like many, many other Ukrainians of various professions, because we must preserve the freedom of Ukraine and the security of Europe to do science in a peaceful world,” Mr. Zelinskyi said.

Following Mr. Zelinskyi’s talk, Asya Agulnik, MD, MPH, director of the St. Jude’s Global Critical Care Program and a pediatric intensivist at St. Jude’s Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, described St. Jude’s efforts with pediatric cancer patients. St. Jude’s Global Critical Care Program created a Eurasian Regional Program in 2018 to serve Central Asia and Eastern Europe, which now includes 48 institutions and more than 250 clinicians and members that help care for children with cancer.

In the aftermath of the invasion, the Eurasian Regional Program launched the Safer Ukraine network to ensure continued care for children with cancer and blood disorders. Initially, the patient’s family or physician identifies a child has having a medical need that cannot be met locally and requiring evacuation. The nongovernmental organization Tabletochki, which has worked with children with cancer in Ukraine since 2011, then arranges transport of the child and his or her medical records to the Ukrainian Specialized Children’s Center in Lviv, Ukraine, for evaluation and stabilization. From there, patients along with their mother and sometimes siblings are transferred to Poland. Transportation methods include ambulance, helicopter, bus, and medical trains that have a full intensive care unit aboard.

In Poland, hospitals estimated they could take on another 200 patients without compromising care for their existing patients, but evacuations reached that number within the first few weeks of the war. It was clear patients would have to be transferred to other countries. To do that, Safer Ukraine set up the Unicorn Marian Wilemski Clinic, which is a converted hotel operated as a partnership between many foundations and governments. It sends unstable patients to nearby emergency rooms, and stable patients stay at the clinic until they can be evaluated and matched with an international care provider from a registry of more than 200 hospitals in 29 countries that have agreed to take patients. A 24/7 Zoom call began on the first day of the war, initially staffed by St. Jude volunteers and now by a contractor. It serves as a command center.

Over the first 12 weeks of the war, the program evacuated over 1,000 children, and over 200 medical records per week were being translated at peak activity. Nearly 300 patients went to Poland, and the rest to 18 countries in Europe and North America.

The success of the initiative stems in part from the fact that it leveraged preexisting collaborations that focused on childhood cancer, according to Dr. Agulnik. “Many stakeholders that came together had previously worked together, but then quickly came together around this unified initiative with the goal of helping these patients,” she said during her talk.

Roman Kowalchuk, MD, who is a radiation oncology resident at Mayo Clinic, spoke about telemedicine efforts to assist physicians and patients in Ukraine.

“I’ve been especially interested in trying to help through telemedicine. We have so much expertise, so many things that we can offer, even if we can’t be there physically, through some of these avenues that really, especially through COVID, have been further developed in terms of virtual support, virtual expertise, and consultations. That presents the opportunity to be able to share some of that knowledge, some of that expertise, to help clinical care in Ukraine given the current circumstance,” said Dr. Kowalchuk during his presentation.

Efforts have used technology like the telemedicine platform Viveo, based in Estonia. One app, called HealUA, takes descriptions from physicians needing advice, and volunteers can scroll through inquiries and provide input. This is especially useful since most physicians in Ukraine are generalists, according to Dr. Kowalchuk, and so may need assistance with diagnosis and management of rare conditions.

Other telehealth approaches include TeleHelp Ukraine. There are WhatsApp groups with hundreds of volunteers who translate Ukrainian medical records to other languages to help non-Ukrainian physicians understand a patient’s history. Expertise is also needed in engineering, emergency medicine, surgery, various fields of oncology, and other specialties. Dr. Kowalchuk noted that Good Samaritan laws generally shield volunteers in these types of programs from legal liability.

International hospital networks taking part in these efforts include St. Jude, European Cancer Organization, American Cancer Society, American Society for Clinical Oncology, and ASTRO.

None of the presenters have relevant financial disclosures.

The effects of the Russian invasion of Ukraine have been devastating, with the loss of tens of thousands of civilian lives and about one-third of the population having been displaced. The war has put a great strain on health care in the country.

“The Russian army is targeting civilian infrastructure, trying to plunge Ukrainians into cold and darkness. (It) is also deliberately targeting hospitals and clinics in Ukraine,” said Nataliya Kovalchuk, PhD, during a session on Ukraine health care at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology held this week in San Antonio. She is a clinical associate professor of radiation oncology at Stanford (Calif.) University.

Analysis of previous wars have shown an increase in cancer incidence and mortality, and the same should be expected in the future in Ukraine, according to Ruslan Zelinskyi, MS, who is president of the Ukrainian Association of Medical Physicists and practices at Spizhenko Clinic in Ukraine. “We must prepare for it now, and we do it. During the full-scale war in Ukraine, three new linear accelerators were installed and put into clinical use,” he said during his talk.

He also gave a personal perspective of the terrible conditions and choices facing Ukrainian health care workers. “I have often heard that science is outside of politics. Perhaps in peacetime, but when fragments of missiles pass through the wall” – here, Mr. Zelinskyi paused to swing the camera around to show bomb damage on the walls of the room where he was conducting his virtual talk – “it is impossible to be outside of politics when 900 medical facilities were destroyed or damaged.” Health care workers have been killed, and patients have lost months or years because they could not receive medical care.

That reality is forcing Ukrainians to make choices most health care workers would struggle to imagine. “For many years, I put on medical clothes and fight against cancer. But (for) me comes the moment when I will change my medical clothes to military (clothes), like many, many other Ukrainians of various professions, because we must preserve the freedom of Ukraine and the security of Europe to do science in a peaceful world,” Mr. Zelinskyi said.

Following Mr. Zelinskyi’s talk, Asya Agulnik, MD, MPH, director of the St. Jude’s Global Critical Care Program and a pediatric intensivist at St. Jude’s Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, described St. Jude’s efforts with pediatric cancer patients. St. Jude’s Global Critical Care Program created a Eurasian Regional Program in 2018 to serve Central Asia and Eastern Europe, which now includes 48 institutions and more than 250 clinicians and members that help care for children with cancer.

In the aftermath of the invasion, the Eurasian Regional Program launched the Safer Ukraine network to ensure continued care for children with cancer and blood disorders. Initially, the patient’s family or physician identifies a child has having a medical need that cannot be met locally and requiring evacuation. The nongovernmental organization Tabletochki, which has worked with children with cancer in Ukraine since 2011, then arranges transport of the child and his or her medical records to the Ukrainian Specialized Children’s Center in Lviv, Ukraine, for evaluation and stabilization. From there, patients along with their mother and sometimes siblings are transferred to Poland. Transportation methods include ambulance, helicopter, bus, and medical trains that have a full intensive care unit aboard.

In Poland, hospitals estimated they could take on another 200 patients without compromising care for their existing patients, but evacuations reached that number within the first few weeks of the war. It was clear patients would have to be transferred to other countries. To do that, Safer Ukraine set up the Unicorn Marian Wilemski Clinic, which is a converted hotel operated as a partnership between many foundations and governments. It sends unstable patients to nearby emergency rooms, and stable patients stay at the clinic until they can be evaluated and matched with an international care provider from a registry of more than 200 hospitals in 29 countries that have agreed to take patients. A 24/7 Zoom call began on the first day of the war, initially staffed by St. Jude volunteers and now by a contractor. It serves as a command center.

Over the first 12 weeks of the war, the program evacuated over 1,000 children, and over 200 medical records per week were being translated at peak activity. Nearly 300 patients went to Poland, and the rest to 18 countries in Europe and North America.

The success of the initiative stems in part from the fact that it leveraged preexisting collaborations that focused on childhood cancer, according to Dr. Agulnik. “Many stakeholders that came together had previously worked together, but then quickly came together around this unified initiative with the goal of helping these patients,” she said during her talk.

Roman Kowalchuk, MD, who is a radiation oncology resident at Mayo Clinic, spoke about telemedicine efforts to assist physicians and patients in Ukraine.

“I’ve been especially interested in trying to help through telemedicine. We have so much expertise, so many things that we can offer, even if we can’t be there physically, through some of these avenues that really, especially through COVID, have been further developed in terms of virtual support, virtual expertise, and consultations. That presents the opportunity to be able to share some of that knowledge, some of that expertise, to help clinical care in Ukraine given the current circumstance,” said Dr. Kowalchuk during his presentation.

Efforts have used technology like the telemedicine platform Viveo, based in Estonia. One app, called HealUA, takes descriptions from physicians needing advice, and volunteers can scroll through inquiries and provide input. This is especially useful since most physicians in Ukraine are generalists, according to Dr. Kowalchuk, and so may need assistance with diagnosis and management of rare conditions.

Other telehealth approaches include TeleHelp Ukraine. There are WhatsApp groups with hundreds of volunteers who translate Ukrainian medical records to other languages to help non-Ukrainian physicians understand a patient’s history. Expertise is also needed in engineering, emergency medicine, surgery, various fields of oncology, and other specialties. Dr. Kowalchuk noted that Good Samaritan laws generally shield volunteers in these types of programs from legal liability.

International hospital networks taking part in these efforts include St. Jude, European Cancer Organization, American Cancer Society, American Society for Clinical Oncology, and ASTRO.

None of the presenters have relevant financial disclosures.

New efficacy and safety data from the monarchE study show that chemotherapy administered before treatment with abemaciclib and estrogen therapy, led to a clinically meaningful improvement in invasive disease-free survival and distant relapse-free survival for women with HR-positive, ERBB2-negative, node-positive, early breast cancer at high risk of recurrence.

The study was published earlier this year in JAMA Oncology.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy is often provided to such patients in hopes of achieving breast-conserving surgery. Although pathologic complete response rates can be higher than 50% after chemotherapy treatment in triple-negative and ERBB2-positive breast cancer, most patients with HR-positive and ERBB2-negative breast cancer have residual tumor at surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, which is associated with an increased risk of recurrence.

Adjuvant estrogen therapy can reduce the risk of recurrence in this population, but a significant hazard remains.

“To our knowledge, abemaciclib is the first agent added to standard adjuvant estrogen therapy that has been shown to reduce the risk of recurrence in patients with HR-positive, ERBB2-negative early breast cancer with residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy,” wrote the authors, who were led by Miguel Martin, MD, PhD, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañon, Spain.

In 2021, Food and Drug Administration approved abemaciclib (Verzenio, Lilly) with endocrine therapy for the treatment of HR-positive/ERBB2-negative, node-positive, high-risk early breast cancer. Their decision was based on data from the monarchE study.

The study is at odds with the previously published Penelope-B study, which found no benefit from treatment with the CDK4/6 inhibitor palbociclib (Ibrance, Pfizer) after 42.8 months of follow-up. The authors suggest that the disparate outcomes may be due to pharmacological differences between the two drugs as well as different dosing schedules: In monarchE, patients received abemaciclib on a continuous basis, while patients in Penelope-B received palbociclib for 21 days, followed by 7 days off. The treatment duration was 2 years in monarchE and 1 year in Penelope-B. Abemaciclib can be dosed continuously because it is a stronger inhibitor of CDK4 versus CDK6 compared to abemaciclib, and in vitro studies suggest that continuous dosing could be a key factor in creating profound inhibition of DNA synthesis.

The monarchE study included 5,637 patients who were randomized to receive standard of care estrogen therapy for 5 years with or without abemaciclib (150 mg, twice per day) for 2 years; 36.5% received abemaciclib. The mean age was 49.9 years; 70.8% were White, 22.8% Asian, and 2.7% Black.

The abemaciclib group had a clinically and statistically significant benefit in invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) (hazard ratio, 0.61; nominal P < .001) and distant relapse-free survival (DRFS) (HR, 0.61; nominal P < .001). At 2 years, DRFS was 89.5% in the abemaciclib group and 82.8% in the estrogen therapy–only group. IDFS was 87.2% and 80.6%, respectively. Patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy had a similar safety profile to the estrogen therapy–only group, although there was a higher incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events. The most common were diarrhea, infections, neutropenia, and fatigue. The most frequent grade treatment-emergent adverse events (of at least 3) were neutropenia and leucopenia.

The researchers noted that patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy had a worse prognosis than the intent-to-treat arm, as evidenced by a higher risk of 2-year recurrence (19% versus 11%). Exploratory subgroup analyses revealed that treatment with abemaciclib and estrogen therapy conferred IDFS and DRFS benefits regardless of the pathological tumor size and number of positive axillary lymph nodes.

The study was limited by the fact that it was open label, and the subgroup analyses were not powered to find statistically significant associations.

Dr. Martin has received grants from Eli Lilly, which funded monarchE.

New efficacy and safety data from the monarchE study show that chemotherapy administered before treatment with abemaciclib and estrogen therapy, led to a clinically meaningful improvement in invasive disease-free survival and distant relapse-free survival for women with HR-positive, ERBB2-negative, node-positive, early breast cancer at high risk of recurrence.

The study was published earlier this year in JAMA Oncology.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy is often provided to such patients in hopes of achieving breast-conserving surgery. Although pathologic complete response rates can be higher than 50% after chemotherapy treatment in triple-negative and ERBB2-positive breast cancer, most patients with HR-positive and ERBB2-negative breast cancer have residual tumor at surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, which is associated with an increased risk of recurrence.

Adjuvant estrogen therapy can reduce the risk of recurrence in this population, but a significant hazard remains.

“To our knowledge, abemaciclib is the first agent added to standard adjuvant estrogen therapy that has been shown to reduce the risk of recurrence in patients with HR-positive, ERBB2-negative early breast cancer with residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy,” wrote the authors, who were led by Miguel Martin, MD, PhD, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañon, Spain.

In 2021, Food and Drug Administration approved abemaciclib (Verzenio, Lilly) with endocrine therapy for the treatment of HR-positive/ERBB2-negative, node-positive, high-risk early breast cancer. Their decision was based on data from the monarchE study.

The study is at odds with the previously published Penelope-B study, which found no benefit from treatment with the CDK4/6 inhibitor palbociclib (Ibrance, Pfizer) after 42.8 months of follow-up. The authors suggest that the disparate outcomes may be due to pharmacological differences between the two drugs as well as different dosing schedules: In monarchE, patients received abemaciclib on a continuous basis, while patients in Penelope-B received palbociclib for 21 days, followed by 7 days off. The treatment duration was 2 years in monarchE and 1 year in Penelope-B. Abemaciclib can be dosed continuously because it is a stronger inhibitor of CDK4 versus CDK6 compared to abemaciclib, and in vitro studies suggest that continuous dosing could be a key factor in creating profound inhibition of DNA synthesis.

The monarchE study included 5,637 patients who were randomized to receive standard of care estrogen therapy for 5 years with or without abemaciclib (150 mg, twice per day) for 2 years; 36.5% received abemaciclib. The mean age was 49.9 years; 70.8% were White, 22.8% Asian, and 2.7% Black.

The abemaciclib group had a clinically and statistically significant benefit in invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) (hazard ratio, 0.61; nominal P < .001) and distant relapse-free survival (DRFS) (HR, 0.61; nominal P < .001). At 2 years, DRFS was 89.5% in the abemaciclib group and 82.8% in the estrogen therapy–only group. IDFS was 87.2% and 80.6%, respectively. Patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy had a similar safety profile to the estrogen therapy–only group, although there was a higher incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events. The most common were diarrhea, infections, neutropenia, and fatigue. The most frequent grade treatment-emergent adverse events (of at least 3) were neutropenia and leucopenia.

The researchers noted that patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy had a worse prognosis than the intent-to-treat arm, as evidenced by a higher risk of 2-year recurrence (19% versus 11%). Exploratory subgroup analyses revealed that treatment with abemaciclib and estrogen therapy conferred IDFS and DRFS benefits regardless of the pathological tumor size and number of positive axillary lymph nodes.

The study was limited by the fact that it was open label, and the subgroup analyses were not powered to find statistically significant associations.

Dr. Martin has received grants from Eli Lilly, which funded monarchE.

New efficacy and safety data from the monarchE study show that chemotherapy administered before treatment with abemaciclib and estrogen therapy, led to a clinically meaningful improvement in invasive disease-free survival and distant relapse-free survival for women with HR-positive, ERBB2-negative, node-positive, early breast cancer at high risk of recurrence.

The study was published earlier this year in JAMA Oncology.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy is often provided to such patients in hopes of achieving breast-conserving surgery. Although pathologic complete response rates can be higher than 50% after chemotherapy treatment in triple-negative and ERBB2-positive breast cancer, most patients with HR-positive and ERBB2-negative breast cancer have residual tumor at surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, which is associated with an increased risk of recurrence.

Adjuvant estrogen therapy can reduce the risk of recurrence in this population, but a significant hazard remains.

“To our knowledge, abemaciclib is the first agent added to standard adjuvant estrogen therapy that has been shown to reduce the risk of recurrence in patients with HR-positive, ERBB2-negative early breast cancer with residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy,” wrote the authors, who were led by Miguel Martin, MD, PhD, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañon, Spain.

In 2021, Food and Drug Administration approved abemaciclib (Verzenio, Lilly) with endocrine therapy for the treatment of HR-positive/ERBB2-negative, node-positive, high-risk early breast cancer. Their decision was based on data from the monarchE study.

The study is at odds with the previously published Penelope-B study, which found no benefit from treatment with the CDK4/6 inhibitor palbociclib (Ibrance, Pfizer) after 42.8 months of follow-up. The authors suggest that the disparate outcomes may be due to pharmacological differences between the two drugs as well as different dosing schedules: In monarchE, patients received abemaciclib on a continuous basis, while patients in Penelope-B received palbociclib for 21 days, followed by 7 days off. The treatment duration was 2 years in monarchE and 1 year in Penelope-B. Abemaciclib can be dosed continuously because it is a stronger inhibitor of CDK4 versus CDK6 compared to abemaciclib, and in vitro studies suggest that continuous dosing could be a key factor in creating profound inhibition of DNA synthesis.

The monarchE study included 5,637 patients who were randomized to receive standard of care estrogen therapy for 5 years with or without abemaciclib (150 mg, twice per day) for 2 years; 36.5% received abemaciclib. The mean age was 49.9 years; 70.8% were White, 22.8% Asian, and 2.7% Black.

The abemaciclib group had a clinically and statistically significant benefit in invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) (hazard ratio, 0.61; nominal P < .001) and distant relapse-free survival (DRFS) (HR, 0.61; nominal P < .001). At 2 years, DRFS was 89.5% in the abemaciclib group and 82.8% in the estrogen therapy–only group. IDFS was 87.2% and 80.6%, respectively. Patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy had a similar safety profile to the estrogen therapy–only group, although there was a higher incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events. The most common were diarrhea, infections, neutropenia, and fatigue. The most frequent grade treatment-emergent adverse events (of at least 3) were neutropenia and leucopenia.

The researchers noted that patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy had a worse prognosis than the intent-to-treat arm, as evidenced by a higher risk of 2-year recurrence (19% versus 11%). Exploratory subgroup analyses revealed that treatment with abemaciclib and estrogen therapy conferred IDFS and DRFS benefits regardless of the pathological tumor size and number of positive axillary lymph nodes.

The study was limited by the fact that it was open label, and the subgroup analyses were not powered to find statistically significant associations.

Dr. Martin has received grants from Eli Lilly, which funded monarchE.

CINCINNATI – Neurology and psychiatry have an inherent kinship, as one often deals with the brain and the other always focuses on the mind. The two fields can be intertwined, since neurological conditions are often associated with psychiatric comorbidities amid complex relationships: For example, a young patient with a neurological disorder may experience anxiety due to life changes, his or her diagnosis, or altered biological pathways from the condition or medications used to treat it.

As a result, psychiatric comorbidities are often seen among pediatric patients with neurological conditions, and pediatric neurologists can play an important role in diagnosis and management of such disorders, according to Devin McNulty, PhD, who spoke on the topic at the 2022 annual meeting of the Child Neurology Society.
 

The ‘second pandemic’

Mental health conditions represent about 16% of the global burden of disease among people aged 10-19, and the COVID-19 pandemic has drastically worsened the problem, as shutdowns, school loss, and economic struggles have added to the burden. “I think we’ve really seen mental health as sort of the second pandemic. We’ve seen this in Chicago in our emergency room, and in outpatient clinics wait-lists are really high. I think adolescents are specifically at risk,” said Dr. McNulty during her talk. She is an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Northwestern University and a child psychiatrist at Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago.

Common diagnoses include major depressive order, social anxiety disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, somatic symptom disorder, and functional neurological symptom disorder. The last can appear as neurological symptoms that are not consistent with neurological medical conditions, such as attacks or seizures, abnormal movements, sensory loss or gain, weakness or paralysis, or speech and swallowing issues. It is the second most commonly diagnosed disorder in neurology clinics and accounts for 10% of neurology hospitalizations, and it leads to high rates of health care utilization and functional impairment.

Overall, children with neurological conditions are at about a 5-fold increased risk for depression and anxiety disorders, with a range of contributing risk factors. These include biological factors like medication use, neurological dysfunction, and genetic vulnerability. Psychological factors include stressors, the child’s reaction to the diagnosis and illness, and the level of his or her coping skills. Psychiatric comorbidities may also be triggered by social factors such as familial stress, peer rejection and social isolation, and barriers to treatment for the neurological condition. As just one example, overprotective parenting behavior, while adaptive in moderation, can create a sort of feedback loop that can lead to separation anxiety.
 

A unique opportunity

“There’s an overlap,” Dr. McNulty said, “because the origin is often multifactorial.” A young patient has a medical condition, which can be chronic or disabling, and the age of onset and diagnosis comes during a critical developmental period. “Then we have issues such as the impact of treatments, whether that’s medication side effects or medical visits. And then disease-related environmental changes, such as family factors, social changes, and impact on school,” said Dr. McNulty.

Child neurologists are in a unique position to identify and ensure treatment of these psychiatric comorbidities, according to Dr. McNulty. “Child neurologists will see psychiatric symptoms in their patient population, and pediatric providers have a unique capacity and ability to treat these patients, especially when you’re seeing patients on a frequent basis. You get to know these patients and their families really well,” she said.

She specifically pointed to three areas: psychosocial screening, differential diagnosis, and treatment and management.

There are broad-based screening measures that can be useful, such as the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire and the Pediatric Symptom Checklist. Disorder-specific screening tools include the PHQ-9 (depression), GAD7 (anxiety), Vanderbilt (ADHD), and PROMIS measures for anxiety and depression. “The idea behind the screening measure is that all patients would fill this out and then if a patient screens positive, they would benefit from a more thorough evaluation and history,” said Dr. McNulty.

However, she noted that screening shouldn’t necessarily be a one-off effort. Research has shown that sequential screening is the most powerful strategy. “Then you can get a baseline of a patient’s emotional and behavioral functioning, and it’s actually the changes in some of these screening measures that might give them most clinical information,” said Dr. McNulty.

In fact, on October 11, 2022, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force announced a recommendation that all children starting at age 8 should be screened for anxiety disorders. It is already recommended to screen children aged 12 and over for depressive disorders, although these documents are aimed primarily at pediatricians or primary care clinics. The American Academy of Neurology has also recommended routine screening of psychiatric and behavioral disorders among children with epilepsy.
 

A unique perspective

Once a disorder is identified, neurologists can bring a unique perspective to treatment. The neurologist can use his or her knowledge of the disease state to assess whether symptoms are due to poor adjustment to the neurological condition, a primary psychiatric disorder, or the biological underpinnings of the illness or prescribed medications. “I think their neurologist can sort of help tease that apart, [using] their knowledge of neurologic disorders and pathways and medications in a way that psychologists might not be able to do on their own,” said Dr. McNulty.

She also emphasized that there are effective treatments for psychiatric disorders, including cognitive behavioral therapy and various pharmacotherapy options. Other approaches for treating comorbid neurological and psychiatric disorders may include building adaptive coping skills, psychoeducation, and incorporating changes to the family or school environment.

During the Q&A period, one person commented that there should be more psychiatric training for neurology residents. “We do work with the same brain, so I completely agree with that,” said Dr. McNulty.

She was also asked how to identify psychiatric symptoms in nonverbal patients. “One thing that I pay close attention to when I ask parents about (their child) is changes in their physical (attributes). Oftentimes in anxiety in folks who are not severely impaired, if we’re feeling anxious we might be breathing a little faster, or we might get a little sweaty. So looking for physical manifestations is one thing. And then sometimes I’ll tell the parents, if we’re not quite sure, I’ll say ‘I’m not sure, but this is very common given the disorder that you have. Can we check?’ I’m always very clear that I may not be nailing it, but then when we go after it with targeted treatment and we see it getting better, we can say ‘Aha!’ ”

Dr. McNulty has no relevant financial disclosures.
 

CINCINNATI – Neurology and psychiatry have an inherent kinship, as one often deals with the brain and the other always focuses on the mind. The two fields can be intertwined, since neurological conditions are often associated with psychiatric comorbidities amid complex relationships: For example, a young patient with a neurological disorder may experience anxiety due to life changes, his or her diagnosis, or altered biological pathways from the condition or medications used to treat it.

As a result, psychiatric comorbidities are often seen among pediatric patients with neurological conditions, and pediatric neurologists can play an important role in diagnosis and management of such disorders, according to Devin McNulty, PhD, who spoke on the topic at the 2022 annual meeting of the Child Neurology Society.
 

The ‘second pandemic’

Mental health conditions represent about 16% of the global burden of disease among people aged 10-19, and the COVID-19 pandemic has drastically worsened the problem, as shutdowns, school loss, and economic struggles have added to the burden. “I think we’ve really seen mental health as sort of the second pandemic. We’ve seen this in Chicago in our emergency room, and in outpatient clinics wait-lists are really high. I think adolescents are specifically at risk,” said Dr. McNulty during her talk. She is an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Northwestern University and a child psychiatrist at Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago.

Common diagnoses include major depressive order, social anxiety disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, somatic symptom disorder, and functional neurological symptom disorder. The last can appear as neurological symptoms that are not consistent with neurological medical conditions, such as attacks or seizures, abnormal movements, sensory loss or gain, weakness or paralysis, or speech and swallowing issues. It is the second most commonly diagnosed disorder in neurology clinics and accounts for 10% of neurology hospitalizations, and it leads to high rates of health care utilization and functional impairment.

Overall, children with neurological conditions are at about a 5-fold increased risk for depression and anxiety disorders, with a range of contributing risk factors. These include biological factors like medication use, neurological dysfunction, and genetic vulnerability. Psychological factors include stressors, the child’s reaction to the diagnosis and illness, and the level of his or her coping skills. Psychiatric comorbidities may also be triggered by social factors such as familial stress, peer rejection and social isolation, and barriers to treatment for the neurological condition. As just one example, overprotective parenting behavior, while adaptive in moderation, can create a sort of feedback loop that can lead to separation anxiety.
 

A unique opportunity

“There’s an overlap,” Dr. McNulty said, “because the origin is often multifactorial.” A young patient has a medical condition, which can be chronic or disabling, and the age of onset and diagnosis comes during a critical developmental period. “Then we have issues such as the impact of treatments, whether that’s medication side effects or medical visits. And then disease-related environmental changes, such as family factors, social changes, and impact on school,” said Dr. McNulty.

Child neurologists are in a unique position to identify and ensure treatment of these psychiatric comorbidities, according to Dr. McNulty. “Child neurologists will see psychiatric symptoms in their patient population, and pediatric providers have a unique capacity and ability to treat these patients, especially when you’re seeing patients on a frequent basis. You get to know these patients and their families really well,” she said.

She specifically pointed to three areas: psychosocial screening, differential diagnosis, and treatment and management.

There are broad-based screening measures that can be useful, such as the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire and the Pediatric Symptom Checklist. Disorder-specific screening tools include the PHQ-9 (depression), GAD7 (anxiety), Vanderbilt (ADHD), and PROMIS measures for anxiety and depression. “The idea behind the screening measure is that all patients would fill this out and then if a patient screens positive, they would benefit from a more thorough evaluation and history,” said Dr. McNulty.

However, she noted that screening shouldn’t necessarily be a one-off effort. Research has shown that sequential screening is the most powerful strategy. “Then you can get a baseline of a patient’s emotional and behavioral functioning, and it’s actually the changes in some of these screening measures that might give them most clinical information,” said Dr. McNulty.

In fact, on October 11, 2022, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force announced a recommendation that all children starting at age 8 should be screened for anxiety disorders. It is already recommended to screen children aged 12 and over for depressive disorders, although these documents are aimed primarily at pediatricians or primary care clinics. The American Academy of Neurology has also recommended routine screening of psychiatric and behavioral disorders among children with epilepsy.
 

A unique perspective

Once a disorder is identified, neurologists can bring a unique perspective to treatment. The neurologist can use his or her knowledge of the disease state to assess whether symptoms are due to poor adjustment to the neurological condition, a primary psychiatric disorder, or the biological underpinnings of the illness or prescribed medications. “I think their neurologist can sort of help tease that apart, [using] their knowledge of neurologic disorders and pathways and medications in a way that psychologists might not be able to do on their own,” said Dr. McNulty.

She also emphasized that there are effective treatments for psychiatric disorders, including cognitive behavioral therapy and various pharmacotherapy options. Other approaches for treating comorbid neurological and psychiatric disorders may include building adaptive coping skills, psychoeducation, and incorporating changes to the family or school environment.

During the Q&A period, one person commented that there should be more psychiatric training for neurology residents. “We do work with the same brain, so I completely agree with that,” said Dr. McNulty.

She was also asked how to identify psychiatric symptoms in nonverbal patients. “One thing that I pay close attention to when I ask parents about (their child) is changes in their physical (attributes). Oftentimes in anxiety in folks who are not severely impaired, if we’re feeling anxious we might be breathing a little faster, or we might get a little sweaty. So looking for physical manifestations is one thing. And then sometimes I’ll tell the parents, if we’re not quite sure, I’ll say ‘I’m not sure, but this is very common given the disorder that you have. Can we check?’ I’m always very clear that I may not be nailing it, but then when we go after it with targeted treatment and we see it getting better, we can say ‘Aha!’ ”

Dr. McNulty has no relevant financial disclosures.
 

CINCINNATI – Neurology and psychiatry have an inherent kinship, as one often deals with the brain and the other always focuses on the mind. The two fields can be intertwined, since neurological conditions are often associated with psychiatric comorbidities amid complex relationships: For example, a young patient with a neurological disorder may experience anxiety due to life changes, his or her diagnosis, or altered biological pathways from the condition or medications used to treat it.

As a result, psychiatric comorbidities are often seen among pediatric patients with neurological conditions, and pediatric neurologists can play an important role in diagnosis and management of such disorders, according to Devin McNulty, PhD, who spoke on the topic at the 2022 annual meeting of the Child Neurology Society.
 

The ‘second pandemic’

Mental health conditions represent about 16% of the global burden of disease among people aged 10-19, and the COVID-19 pandemic has drastically worsened the problem, as shutdowns, school loss, and economic struggles have added to the burden. “I think we’ve really seen mental health as sort of the second pandemic. We’ve seen this in Chicago in our emergency room, and in outpatient clinics wait-lists are really high. I think adolescents are specifically at risk,” said Dr. McNulty during her talk. She is an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Northwestern University and a child psychiatrist at Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago.

Common diagnoses include major depressive order, social anxiety disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, somatic symptom disorder, and functional neurological symptom disorder. The last can appear as neurological symptoms that are not consistent with neurological medical conditions, such as attacks or seizures, abnormal movements, sensory loss or gain, weakness or paralysis, or speech and swallowing issues. It is the second most commonly diagnosed disorder in neurology clinics and accounts for 10% of neurology hospitalizations, and it leads to high rates of health care utilization and functional impairment.

Overall, children with neurological conditions are at about a 5-fold increased risk for depression and anxiety disorders, with a range of contributing risk factors. These include biological factors like medication use, neurological dysfunction, and genetic vulnerability. Psychological factors include stressors, the child’s reaction to the diagnosis and illness, and the level of his or her coping skills. Psychiatric comorbidities may also be triggered by social factors such as familial stress, peer rejection and social isolation, and barriers to treatment for the neurological condition. As just one example, overprotective parenting behavior, while adaptive in moderation, can create a sort of feedback loop that can lead to separation anxiety.
 

A unique opportunity

“There’s an overlap,” Dr. McNulty said, “because the origin is often multifactorial.” A young patient has a medical condition, which can be chronic or disabling, and the age of onset and diagnosis comes during a critical developmental period. “Then we have issues such as the impact of treatments, whether that’s medication side effects or medical visits. And then disease-related environmental changes, such as family factors, social changes, and impact on school,” said Dr. McNulty.

Child neurologists are in a unique position to identify and ensure treatment of these psychiatric comorbidities, according to Dr. McNulty. “Child neurologists will see psychiatric symptoms in their patient population, and pediatric providers have a unique capacity and ability to treat these patients, especially when you’re seeing patients on a frequent basis. You get to know these patients and their families really well,” she said.

She specifically pointed to three areas: psychosocial screening, differential diagnosis, and treatment and management.

There are broad-based screening measures that can be useful, such as the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire and the Pediatric Symptom Checklist. Disorder-specific screening tools include the PHQ-9 (depression), GAD7 (anxiety), Vanderbilt (ADHD), and PROMIS measures for anxiety and depression. “The idea behind the screening measure is that all patients would fill this out and then if a patient screens positive, they would benefit from a more thorough evaluation and history,” said Dr. McNulty.

However, she noted that screening shouldn’t necessarily be a one-off effort. Research has shown that sequential screening is the most powerful strategy. “Then you can get a baseline of a patient’s emotional and behavioral functioning, and it’s actually the changes in some of these screening measures that might give them most clinical information,” said Dr. McNulty.

In fact, on October 11, 2022, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force announced a recommendation that all children starting at age 8 should be screened for anxiety disorders. It is already recommended to screen children aged 12 and over for depressive disorders, although these documents are aimed primarily at pediatricians or primary care clinics. The American Academy of Neurology has also recommended routine screening of psychiatric and behavioral disorders among children with epilepsy.
 

A unique perspective

Once a disorder is identified, neurologists can bring a unique perspective to treatment. The neurologist can use his or her knowledge of the disease state to assess whether symptoms are due to poor adjustment to the neurological condition, a primary psychiatric disorder, or the biological underpinnings of the illness or prescribed medications. “I think their neurologist can sort of help tease that apart, [using] their knowledge of neurologic disorders and pathways and medications in a way that psychologists might not be able to do on their own,” said Dr. McNulty.

She also emphasized that there are effective treatments for psychiatric disorders, including cognitive behavioral therapy and various pharmacotherapy options. Other approaches for treating comorbid neurological and psychiatric disorders may include building adaptive coping skills, psychoeducation, and incorporating changes to the family or school environment.

During the Q&A period, one person commented that there should be more psychiatric training for neurology residents. “We do work with the same brain, so I completely agree with that,” said Dr. McNulty.

She was also asked how to identify psychiatric symptoms in nonverbal patients. “One thing that I pay close attention to when I ask parents about (their child) is changes in their physical (attributes). Oftentimes in anxiety in folks who are not severely impaired, if we’re feeling anxious we might be breathing a little faster, or we might get a little sweaty. So looking for physical manifestations is one thing. And then sometimes I’ll tell the parents, if we’re not quite sure, I’ll say ‘I’m not sure, but this is very common given the disorder that you have. Can we check?’ I’m always very clear that I may not be nailing it, but then when we go after it with targeted treatment and we see it getting better, we can say ‘Aha!’ ”

Dr. McNulty has no relevant financial disclosures.