Sharon Worcester

CHICAGO – Pembrolizumab with and without chemotherapy proved superior for overall survival compared with the EXTREME regimen when used first line in certain subgroups of patients with recurrent/metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (R/M HNSCC), according to “practice-changing” final results from the randomized phase 3 KEYNOTE-048 study.

Sharon Worcester/MDedge News

Compared with 300 patients randomized to receive the EXTREME regimen (a certuximab loading dose followed by carboplatin or cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil), 281 who received pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy (P+C) had superior overall survival (OS) with comparable safety–including both those with programmed death-Ligand 1 (PD-L1) combined positive score (CPS) of 20 or greater (median 14.7 vs 11.0 months; hazard ratio, 0.60) and with CPS of 1 or greater (median, 13.6 vs. 10.4 months; HR, 0.65), Danny Rischin, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

The differences were highly statistically significant, said Dr. Rischin, a professor and director of the Division of Cancer Medicine and head of the Department of Medical Oncology at Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia.

“And this benefit in overall survival in CPS greater than or equal to 20 and greater than or equal to 1 appeared to be present across all the subgroups that we looked at,” he added.

The response rates did not differ between P+C and EXTREME groups, but the median duration of response was significantly greater with P+C vs. EXTREME in both the CPS of 20 or greater and 1 or greater (7.1 vs. 4.2 months and 6.7 vs. 4.3 months, respectively).

Additionally, the final results of the study showed an OS benefit with P+C vs. EXTREME in the total population (13.0 vs. 10.7 months; HR, 0.72), Dr. Rischin said.

The difference between the groups with respect to progression-free survival (PFS), however, was not statistically significant and did not reach the superiority threshold, he noted.

In the 301 patients who received pembrolizumab alone, OS was superior in the CPS 20 or greater and 1 or greater populations (median, 14.8 vs. 10.7 months; HR, 0.58 and 12.4 vs. 10.3 months; HR, 0.74, respectively), compared with EXTREME, but was noninferior in the total population (median 11.5 vs. 10.7 months; HR, 0.83), and safety was favorable .

Again, PFS did not differ between the groups (median, 2.3 vs. 5.2 months; HR, 1.34), and while the overall response rates did not differ significantly, the median duration of response was substantially longer with pembrolizumab at 22.6 vs. 4.5 months with EXTREME, he said.

Study participants had locally incurable R/M HNSCC and no prior systemic therapy in the R/M setting. Those in he P+C arm received pembrolizumab at 200 mg plus 6 cycles of cisplatin at 100 mg/m2 or carboplatin AUC 5, and 5-fluorouracil at a dose of 1000 mg/m2/day for 4 days every 3 weeks; those in the pembrolizumab alone arm received 200 mg every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles, and those in the EXTREME arm received certuximab at a 400 mg/m2 loading dose followed by 250 mg/m2 weekly with carboplatin AUC 5 or cisplatin at 100 mg/m2, and 5-FU at 1000 mg/m2/day for 4 days for 6 cycles.

“The data from KEYNOTE-048 support pembrolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy and pembrolizumab monotherapy as new standard of care monotherapies for recurrent/metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma,” he concluded.

Sharon Worcester/MDedge News

Discussant Vanita Noronha, MD, a professor in the Department of Medical Oncology at Tata Memorial Hospital in Mumbai, India, said that while the findings are practice changing, they also raise a number of questions, such as which patients should get pembrolizumab and which should get P+C, why there is a differential effect of pembrolizumab based on PD-L1 by CPS–and what about those with CPS of 0 or 1-20, and why the response rates and PFS rates were not improved in the pembrolizumab groups.

Other important questions include whether there are predictive biomarkers for response, and whether sequential therapy would be of benefit, she added.

While these and other questions remain to be addressed, the KEYNOTE-048 findings have implications for practice going forward; based on the current data, her approach to treating patients with R/M HNSCC not amenable to radical therapy is to treat with pembrolizumab alone in those with disease-free interval of 6 months or less, she said.

For those with disease-free interval greater than 6 months and good performance status who have controlled comorbidities, are platinum eligible, and for whom the treatment is reimbursable/affordable, treatment depends on symptom severity; she would treat those with mild/moderate symptoms and CPS of 20 or greater with pembrolizumab alone, those with CPS of 1 or greater with P+C or pembrolizumab alone, and those with CPS of 0 or unknown CPS with EXTREME or a similar regimen or with P+C, and she would treat those with severe symptoms with P+C.

“If the patient were a bit borderline, had multiple comorbidities, could not receive platinum, or had financial constraints, I would treat the patient with singe-agent intravenous chemotherapy or with oral metronomic chemotherapy, single-agent targeted therapy or with best supportive care,” she said.

Dr. Rischin has received research funding from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech/Roche, GSK, Merck, and Regeneron. Dr. Noronha has received research funding (to her institution) from Amgen,and Sanofi Aventis.

SOURCE: D Rischin et al., ASCO 2019: Abstract 6000.

CHICAGO – Pembrolizumab with and without chemotherapy proved superior for overall survival compared with the EXTREME regimen when used first line in certain subgroups of patients with recurrent/metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (R/M HNSCC), according to “practice-changing” final results from the randomized phase 3 KEYNOTE-048 study.

Sharon Worcester/MDedge News

Compared with 300 patients randomized to receive the EXTREME regimen (a certuximab loading dose followed by carboplatin or cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil), 281 who received pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy (P+C) had superior overall survival (OS) with comparable safety–including both those with programmed death-Ligand 1 (PD-L1) combined positive score (CPS) of 20 or greater (median 14.7 vs 11.0 months; hazard ratio, 0.60) and with CPS of 1 or greater (median, 13.6 vs. 10.4 months; HR, 0.65), Danny Rischin, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

The differences were highly statistically significant, said Dr. Rischin, a professor and director of the Division of Cancer Medicine and head of the Department of Medical Oncology at Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia.

“And this benefit in overall survival in CPS greater than or equal to 20 and greater than or equal to 1 appeared to be present across all the subgroups that we looked at,” he added.

The response rates did not differ between P+C and EXTREME groups, but the median duration of response was significantly greater with P+C vs. EXTREME in both the CPS of 20 or greater and 1 or greater (7.1 vs. 4.2 months and 6.7 vs. 4.3 months, respectively).

Additionally, the final results of the study showed an OS benefit with P+C vs. EXTREME in the total population (13.0 vs. 10.7 months; HR, 0.72), Dr. Rischin said.

The difference between the groups with respect to progression-free survival (PFS), however, was not statistically significant and did not reach the superiority threshold, he noted.

In the 301 patients who received pembrolizumab alone, OS was superior in the CPS 20 or greater and 1 or greater populations (median, 14.8 vs. 10.7 months; HR, 0.58 and 12.4 vs. 10.3 months; HR, 0.74, respectively), compared with EXTREME, but was noninferior in the total population (median 11.5 vs. 10.7 months; HR, 0.83), and safety was favorable .

Again, PFS did not differ between the groups (median, 2.3 vs. 5.2 months; HR, 1.34), and while the overall response rates did not differ significantly, the median duration of response was substantially longer with pembrolizumab at 22.6 vs. 4.5 months with EXTREME, he said.

Study participants had locally incurable R/M HNSCC and no prior systemic therapy in the R/M setting. Those in he P+C arm received pembrolizumab at 200 mg plus 6 cycles of cisplatin at 100 mg/m2 or carboplatin AUC 5, and 5-fluorouracil at a dose of 1000 mg/m2/day for 4 days every 3 weeks; those in the pembrolizumab alone arm received 200 mg every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles, and those in the EXTREME arm received certuximab at a 400 mg/m2 loading dose followed by 250 mg/m2 weekly with carboplatin AUC 5 or cisplatin at 100 mg/m2, and 5-FU at 1000 mg/m2/day for 4 days for 6 cycles.

“The data from KEYNOTE-048 support pembrolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy and pembrolizumab monotherapy as new standard of care monotherapies for recurrent/metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma,” he concluded.

Sharon Worcester/MDedge News

Discussant Vanita Noronha, MD, a professor in the Department of Medical Oncology at Tata Memorial Hospital in Mumbai, India, said that while the findings are practice changing, they also raise a number of questions, such as which patients should get pembrolizumab and which should get P+C, why there is a differential effect of pembrolizumab based on PD-L1 by CPS–and what about those with CPS of 0 or 1-20, and why the response rates and PFS rates were not improved in the pembrolizumab groups.

Other important questions include whether there are predictive biomarkers for response, and whether sequential therapy would be of benefit, she added.

While these and other questions remain to be addressed, the KEYNOTE-048 findings have implications for practice going forward; based on the current data, her approach to treating patients with R/M HNSCC not amenable to radical therapy is to treat with pembrolizumab alone in those with disease-free interval of 6 months or less, she said.

For those with disease-free interval greater than 6 months and good performance status who have controlled comorbidities, are platinum eligible, and for whom the treatment is reimbursable/affordable, treatment depends on symptom severity; she would treat those with mild/moderate symptoms and CPS of 20 or greater with pembrolizumab alone, those with CPS of 1 or greater with P+C or pembrolizumab alone, and those with CPS of 0 or unknown CPS with EXTREME or a similar regimen or with P+C, and she would treat those with severe symptoms with P+C.

“If the patient were a bit borderline, had multiple comorbidities, could not receive platinum, or had financial constraints, I would treat the patient with singe-agent intravenous chemotherapy or with oral metronomic chemotherapy, single-agent targeted therapy or with best supportive care,” she said.

Dr. Rischin has received research funding from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech/Roche, GSK, Merck, and Regeneron. Dr. Noronha has received research funding (to her institution) from Amgen,and Sanofi Aventis.

SOURCE: D Rischin et al., ASCO 2019: Abstract 6000.

CHICAGO – Pembrolizumab with and without chemotherapy proved superior for overall survival compared with the EXTREME regimen when used first line in certain subgroups of patients with recurrent/metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (R/M HNSCC), according to “practice-changing” final results from the randomized phase 3 KEYNOTE-048 study.

Sharon Worcester/MDedge News

Compared with 300 patients randomized to receive the EXTREME regimen (a certuximab loading dose followed by carboplatin or cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil), 281 who received pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy (P+C) had superior overall survival (OS) with comparable safety–including both those with programmed death-Ligand 1 (PD-L1) combined positive score (CPS) of 20 or greater (median 14.7 vs 11.0 months; hazard ratio, 0.60) and with CPS of 1 or greater (median, 13.6 vs. 10.4 months; HR, 0.65), Danny Rischin, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

The differences were highly statistically significant, said Dr. Rischin, a professor and director of the Division of Cancer Medicine and head of the Department of Medical Oncology at Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia.

“And this benefit in overall survival in CPS greater than or equal to 20 and greater than or equal to 1 appeared to be present across all the subgroups that we looked at,” he added.

The response rates did not differ between P+C and EXTREME groups, but the median duration of response was significantly greater with P+C vs. EXTREME in both the CPS of 20 or greater and 1 or greater (7.1 vs. 4.2 months and 6.7 vs. 4.3 months, respectively).

Additionally, the final results of the study showed an OS benefit with P+C vs. EXTREME in the total population (13.0 vs. 10.7 months; HR, 0.72), Dr. Rischin said.

The difference between the groups with respect to progression-free survival (PFS), however, was not statistically significant and did not reach the superiority threshold, he noted.

In the 301 patients who received pembrolizumab alone, OS was superior in the CPS 20 or greater and 1 or greater populations (median, 14.8 vs. 10.7 months; HR, 0.58 and 12.4 vs. 10.3 months; HR, 0.74, respectively), compared with EXTREME, but was noninferior in the total population (median 11.5 vs. 10.7 months; HR, 0.83), and safety was favorable .

Again, PFS did not differ between the groups (median, 2.3 vs. 5.2 months; HR, 1.34), and while the overall response rates did not differ significantly, the median duration of response was substantially longer with pembrolizumab at 22.6 vs. 4.5 months with EXTREME, he said.

Study participants had locally incurable R/M HNSCC and no prior systemic therapy in the R/M setting. Those in he P+C arm received pembrolizumab at 200 mg plus 6 cycles of cisplatin at 100 mg/m2 or carboplatin AUC 5, and 5-fluorouracil at a dose of 1000 mg/m2/day for 4 days every 3 weeks; those in the pembrolizumab alone arm received 200 mg every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles, and those in the EXTREME arm received certuximab at a 400 mg/m2 loading dose followed by 250 mg/m2 weekly with carboplatin AUC 5 or cisplatin at 100 mg/m2, and 5-FU at 1000 mg/m2/day for 4 days for 6 cycles.

“The data from KEYNOTE-048 support pembrolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy and pembrolizumab monotherapy as new standard of care monotherapies for recurrent/metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma,” he concluded.

Sharon Worcester/MDedge News

Discussant Vanita Noronha, MD, a professor in the Department of Medical Oncology at Tata Memorial Hospital in Mumbai, India, said that while the findings are practice changing, they also raise a number of questions, such as which patients should get pembrolizumab and which should get P+C, why there is a differential effect of pembrolizumab based on PD-L1 by CPS–and what about those with CPS of 0 or 1-20, and why the response rates and PFS rates were not improved in the pembrolizumab groups.

Other important questions include whether there are predictive biomarkers for response, and whether sequential therapy would be of benefit, she added.

While these and other questions remain to be addressed, the KEYNOTE-048 findings have implications for practice going forward; based on the current data, her approach to treating patients with R/M HNSCC not amenable to radical therapy is to treat with pembrolizumab alone in those with disease-free interval of 6 months or less, she said.

For those with disease-free interval greater than 6 months and good performance status who have controlled comorbidities, are platinum eligible, and for whom the treatment is reimbursable/affordable, treatment depends on symptom severity; she would treat those with mild/moderate symptoms and CPS of 20 or greater with pembrolizumab alone, those with CPS of 1 or greater with P+C or pembrolizumab alone, and those with CPS of 0 or unknown CPS with EXTREME or a similar regimen or with P+C, and she would treat those with severe symptoms with P+C.

“If the patient were a bit borderline, had multiple comorbidities, could not receive platinum, or had financial constraints, I would treat the patient with singe-agent intravenous chemotherapy or with oral metronomic chemotherapy, single-agent targeted therapy or with best supportive care,” she said.

Dr. Rischin has received research funding from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech/Roche, GSK, Merck, and Regeneron. Dr. Noronha has received research funding (to her institution) from Amgen,and Sanofi Aventis.

SOURCE: D Rischin et al., ASCO 2019: Abstract 6000.

All pregnant women should be screened for preterm preeclampsia (PE) in the first trimester using a combined test with maternal risk factors and biomarkers as a one-step procedure, according to new recommendations from The International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO).

FIGO “encourages all countries and its member associations to adopt and promote strategies to ensure [universal screening],” Liona C. Poon, MD, of Prince of Wales Hospital, the Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, and colleagues wrote in a guide published in the International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics.

“The best combined test is one that includes maternal risk factors, measurements of mean arterial pressure (MAP), serum placental growth factor (PLGF), and uterine artery pulsatility index (UTPI),” the authors said, noting that the baseline screening test plus a combination of maternal risk factors with MAP is an alternative when PLGF and/or UTPI can’t be measured.

The FIGO recommendations are the culmination of an initiative on PE, which involved a group of international experts convened to discuss and evaluate current knowledge on PE and to “develop a document to frame the issues and suggest key actions to address the health burden posed by PE.” Among the group’s objectives are raising awareness of the links between PE and poor outcomes, and demanding a “clearly defined global health agenda” to address the issue because preeclampsia affects 2%-5% of all pregnant women and is a leading cause of maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality.

The recommendations represent a consensus document that provides guidance for the first trimester screening and prevention of preterm PE.

“Based on high‐quality evidence, the document outlines current global standards for the first‐trimester screening and prevention of preterm PE, which is in line with FIGO good clinical practice advice on first trimester screening and prevention of preeclampsia in singleton pregnancy,” the authors said, explaining that “[it] provides both the best and the most pragmatic recommendations according to the level of acceptability, feasibility, and ease of implementation that have the potential to produce the most significant impact in different resource settings” (Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2019;145[Suppl. 1]:1-33).


Specific suggestions are made based on region and resources, and research priorities are outlined to “bridge the current knowledge and evidence gap.”

In addition to universal first trimester screening for PE, the guide stresses a need for improved public health focus, and contingent screening approaches in areas with limited resources (including routine screening for preterm PE by maternal factors and MAP in most cases, with PLGF and UTPI measurement reserved for higher-risk women). It also recommends that women at high risk should receive prophylactic measures such as aspirin therapy beginning at 11–14⁺⁶ weeks of gestation at a dose of about 150 mg to be taken every night until 36 weeks of gestation, when delivery occurs, or when PE is diagnosed.

Mary E. D’Alton, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist who is chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology and the Willard C. Rappleye Professor of Obstetrics & Gynecology at Columbia University, New York, was asked to comment on Dr. Sibai’s concerns about the guidelines. “I would simply say that ACOG and SMFM are the organizations in the United States [that] provide educational guidelines about practice in the United States.” Dr. D’Alton assisted Dr. Poon and her associates on the guidelines as an expert on preeclampsia.

Dr. Poon, given a chance to comment on the concern that the FIGO guidelines diverged from those of ACOG and SMFM, responded in an interview, “FIGO, being the global voice for women’s health, likes to ensure that our recommendations are resource appropriate. The objective of these guidelines is to provide a best practice approach, and also offers other pragmatic options for lower resource settings to ensure that preeclampsia testing can be implemented globally. We urge the broader membership of FIGO to adapt these guidelines to their local contexts.”*

She also emphasized that “PerkinElmer’s sponsorship was an unrestricted grant. The company had no involvement in writing the guideline.”*


This work was funded by an unrestricted grant from PerkinElmer, which markets an assay used for first trimester preeclampsia screening. Dr. Poon and her associates reported having no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

*This article was updated 5/31/2019.

All pregnant women should be screened for preterm preeclampsia (PE) in the first trimester using a combined test with maternal risk factors and biomarkers as a one-step procedure, according to new recommendations from The International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO).

FIGO “encourages all countries and its member associations to adopt and promote strategies to ensure [universal screening],” Liona C. Poon, MD, of Prince of Wales Hospital, the Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, and colleagues wrote in a guide published in the International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics.

“The best combined test is one that includes maternal risk factors, measurements of mean arterial pressure (MAP), serum placental growth factor (PLGF), and uterine artery pulsatility index (UTPI),” the authors said, noting that the baseline screening test plus a combination of maternal risk factors with MAP is an alternative when PLGF and/or UTPI can’t be measured.

The FIGO recommendations are the culmination of an initiative on PE, which involved a group of international experts convened to discuss and evaluate current knowledge on PE and to “develop a document to frame the issues and suggest key actions to address the health burden posed by PE.” Among the group’s objectives are raising awareness of the links between PE and poor outcomes, and demanding a “clearly defined global health agenda” to address the issue because preeclampsia affects 2%-5% of all pregnant women and is a leading cause of maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality.

The recommendations represent a consensus document that provides guidance for the first trimester screening and prevention of preterm PE.

“Based on high‐quality evidence, the document outlines current global standards for the first‐trimester screening and prevention of preterm PE, which is in line with FIGO good clinical practice advice on first trimester screening and prevention of preeclampsia in singleton pregnancy,” the authors said, explaining that “[it] provides both the best and the most pragmatic recommendations according to the level of acceptability, feasibility, and ease of implementation that have the potential to produce the most significant impact in different resource settings” (Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2019;145[Suppl. 1]:1-33).


Specific suggestions are made based on region and resources, and research priorities are outlined to “bridge the current knowledge and evidence gap.”

In addition to universal first trimester screening for PE, the guide stresses a need for improved public health focus, and contingent screening approaches in areas with limited resources (including routine screening for preterm PE by maternal factors and MAP in most cases, with PLGF and UTPI measurement reserved for higher-risk women). It also recommends that women at high risk should receive prophylactic measures such as aspirin therapy beginning at 11–14⁺⁶ weeks of gestation at a dose of about 150 mg to be taken every night until 36 weeks of gestation, when delivery occurs, or when PE is diagnosed.

Mary E. D’Alton, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist who is chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology and the Willard C. Rappleye Professor of Obstetrics & Gynecology at Columbia University, New York, was asked to comment on Dr. Sibai’s concerns about the guidelines. “I would simply say that ACOG and SMFM are the organizations in the United States [that] provide educational guidelines about practice in the United States.” Dr. D’Alton assisted Dr. Poon and her associates on the guidelines as an expert on preeclampsia.

Dr. Poon, given a chance to comment on the concern that the FIGO guidelines diverged from those of ACOG and SMFM, responded in an interview, “FIGO, being the global voice for women’s health, likes to ensure that our recommendations are resource appropriate. The objective of these guidelines is to provide a best practice approach, and also offers other pragmatic options for lower resource settings to ensure that preeclampsia testing can be implemented globally. We urge the broader membership of FIGO to adapt these guidelines to their local contexts.”*

She also emphasized that “PerkinElmer’s sponsorship was an unrestricted grant. The company had no involvement in writing the guideline.”*


This work was funded by an unrestricted grant from PerkinElmer, which markets an assay used for first trimester preeclampsia screening. Dr. Poon and her associates reported having no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

*This article was updated 5/31/2019.

All pregnant women should be screened for preterm preeclampsia (PE) in the first trimester using a combined test with maternal risk factors and biomarkers as a one-step procedure, according to new recommendations from The International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO).

FIGO “encourages all countries and its member associations to adopt and promote strategies to ensure [universal screening],” Liona C. Poon, MD, of Prince of Wales Hospital, the Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, and colleagues wrote in a guide published in the International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics.

“The best combined test is one that includes maternal risk factors, measurements of mean arterial pressure (MAP), serum placental growth factor (PLGF), and uterine artery pulsatility index (UTPI),” the authors said, noting that the baseline screening test plus a combination of maternal risk factors with MAP is an alternative when PLGF and/or UTPI can’t be measured.

The FIGO recommendations are the culmination of an initiative on PE, which involved a group of international experts convened to discuss and evaluate current knowledge on PE and to “develop a document to frame the issues and suggest key actions to address the health burden posed by PE.” Among the group’s objectives are raising awareness of the links between PE and poor outcomes, and demanding a “clearly defined global health agenda” to address the issue because preeclampsia affects 2%-5% of all pregnant women and is a leading cause of maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality.

The recommendations represent a consensus document that provides guidance for the first trimester screening and prevention of preterm PE.

“Based on high‐quality evidence, the document outlines current global standards for the first‐trimester screening and prevention of preterm PE, which is in line with FIGO good clinical practice advice on first trimester screening and prevention of preeclampsia in singleton pregnancy,” the authors said, explaining that “[it] provides both the best and the most pragmatic recommendations according to the level of acceptability, feasibility, and ease of implementation that have the potential to produce the most significant impact in different resource settings” (Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2019;145[Suppl. 1]:1-33).


Specific suggestions are made based on region and resources, and research priorities are outlined to “bridge the current knowledge and evidence gap.”

In addition to universal first trimester screening for PE, the guide stresses a need for improved public health focus, and contingent screening approaches in areas with limited resources (including routine screening for preterm PE by maternal factors and MAP in most cases, with PLGF and UTPI measurement reserved for higher-risk women). It also recommends that women at high risk should receive prophylactic measures such as aspirin therapy beginning at 11–14⁺⁶ weeks of gestation at a dose of about 150 mg to be taken every night until 36 weeks of gestation, when delivery occurs, or when PE is diagnosed.

Mary E. D’Alton, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist who is chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology and the Willard C. Rappleye Professor of Obstetrics & Gynecology at Columbia University, New York, was asked to comment on Dr. Sibai’s concerns about the guidelines. “I would simply say that ACOG and SMFM are the organizations in the United States [that] provide educational guidelines about practice in the United States.” Dr. D’Alton assisted Dr. Poon and her associates on the guidelines as an expert on preeclampsia.

Dr. Poon, given a chance to comment on the concern that the FIGO guidelines diverged from those of ACOG and SMFM, responded in an interview, “FIGO, being the global voice for women’s health, likes to ensure that our recommendations are resource appropriate. The objective of these guidelines is to provide a best practice approach, and also offers other pragmatic options for lower resource settings to ensure that preeclampsia testing can be implemented globally. We urge the broader membership of FIGO to adapt these guidelines to their local contexts.”*

She also emphasized that “PerkinElmer’s sponsorship was an unrestricted grant. The company had no involvement in writing the guideline.”*


This work was funded by an unrestricted grant from PerkinElmer, which markets an assay used for first trimester preeclampsia screening. Dr. Poon and her associates reported having no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

*This article was updated 5/31/2019.

NASHVILLE, TENN. – A novel rapid urine test strongly correlates with preeclampsia, according to findings from a study of urine samples from a prospective cohort of women referred to a labor and delivery triage center to rule out the condition.

The study involved the evaluation of 349 frozen urine samples from the cohort, which included 89 preeclampsia cases (26%) as diagnosed by expert adjudication based on 2013 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists guidelines. Visual scoring by a blinded user at 3 minutes after application of urine to the test device for 329 available samples showed 84% test sensitivity, 77% test specificity, and 93% negative predictive value, compared with the adjudicated diagnoses, Wendy L. Davis reported during an e-poster session at ACOG’s annual clinical and scientific meeting.

Of the women in the study cohort, 52% were multiparous, 91% were overweight or obese, 38% were early preterm, 31% were late preterm, and 31% were at term. Cases were described by at least one referring physician as “particularly challenging and ambiguous,” said Ms. Davis, founder and CEO of GestVision in Groton, Conn., and colleagues.

The findings, which suggest that this rapid test holds promise as an aid in the diagnosis of preeclampsia, are important as preeclampsia-associated morbidity and mortality most often occur because of a delay or misdiagnosis, they explained, also noting that diagnostic criteria for preeclampsia are “inadequate even in best care situations.”

The test – an in vitro diagnostic device known as the GestAssured Test Kit – is being developed by GestVision based on data showing that aberrant protein misfolding and aggregation is a pathogenic feature of preeclampsia. That data initially led to development of the Congo Red Dot test as a laboratory batch test, followed by development and validation of a point-of-care version of the test to allow for better integration in clinical work flow.

The GestAssured Test Kit currently in development for commercial use is based on that technology, and the current data suggest that it has slightly higher sensitivity, slightly lower specificity, and slightly higher negative predictive value than the Congo Red Dot test.

“The GestAssured test was developed specifically for preeclampsia and has a high negative predictive value, suggesting that this device, in conjunction with ACOG task force guidelines for hypertension in pregnancy, can assist in ruling out disease in patients suspected of preeclampsia,” the investigators wrote.

“[It is] particularly useful in a triage setting where you have a complex collection of patients coming in,” Ms. Davis said during the poster presentation. “And it warrants ongoing U.S. multicenter clinical studies.”

This study was funded by GestVision and Saving Lives at Birth. Ms. Davis is an employee and shareholder of GestVision and is named as an inventor or coinventor on patents licensed for commercialization to the company.

NASHVILLE, TENN. – A novel rapid urine test strongly correlates with preeclampsia, according to findings from a study of urine samples from a prospective cohort of women referred to a labor and delivery triage center to rule out the condition.

The study involved the evaluation of 349 frozen urine samples from the cohort, which included 89 preeclampsia cases (26%) as diagnosed by expert adjudication based on 2013 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists guidelines. Visual scoring by a blinded user at 3 minutes after application of urine to the test device for 329 available samples showed 84% test sensitivity, 77% test specificity, and 93% negative predictive value, compared with the adjudicated diagnoses, Wendy L. Davis reported during an e-poster session at ACOG’s annual clinical and scientific meeting.

Of the women in the study cohort, 52% were multiparous, 91% were overweight or obese, 38% were early preterm, 31% were late preterm, and 31% were at term. Cases were described by at least one referring physician as “particularly challenging and ambiguous,” said Ms. Davis, founder and CEO of GestVision in Groton, Conn., and colleagues.

The findings, which suggest that this rapid test holds promise as an aid in the diagnosis of preeclampsia, are important as preeclampsia-associated morbidity and mortality most often occur because of a delay or misdiagnosis, they explained, also noting that diagnostic criteria for preeclampsia are “inadequate even in best care situations.”

The test – an in vitro diagnostic device known as the GestAssured Test Kit – is being developed by GestVision based on data showing that aberrant protein misfolding and aggregation is a pathogenic feature of preeclampsia. That data initially led to development of the Congo Red Dot test as a laboratory batch test, followed by development and validation of a point-of-care version of the test to allow for better integration in clinical work flow.

The GestAssured Test Kit currently in development for commercial use is based on that technology, and the current data suggest that it has slightly higher sensitivity, slightly lower specificity, and slightly higher negative predictive value than the Congo Red Dot test.

“The GestAssured test was developed specifically for preeclampsia and has a high negative predictive value, suggesting that this device, in conjunction with ACOG task force guidelines for hypertension in pregnancy, can assist in ruling out disease in patients suspected of preeclampsia,” the investigators wrote.

“[It is] particularly useful in a triage setting where you have a complex collection of patients coming in,” Ms. Davis said during the poster presentation. “And it warrants ongoing U.S. multicenter clinical studies.”

This study was funded by GestVision and Saving Lives at Birth. Ms. Davis is an employee and shareholder of GestVision and is named as an inventor or coinventor on patents licensed for commercialization to the company.

NASHVILLE, TENN. – A novel rapid urine test strongly correlates with preeclampsia, according to findings from a study of urine samples from a prospective cohort of women referred to a labor and delivery triage center to rule out the condition.

The study involved the evaluation of 349 frozen urine samples from the cohort, which included 89 preeclampsia cases (26%) as diagnosed by expert adjudication based on 2013 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists guidelines. Visual scoring by a blinded user at 3 minutes after application of urine to the test device for 329 available samples showed 84% test sensitivity, 77% test specificity, and 93% negative predictive value, compared with the adjudicated diagnoses, Wendy L. Davis reported during an e-poster session at ACOG’s annual clinical and scientific meeting.

Of the women in the study cohort, 52% were multiparous, 91% were overweight or obese, 38% were early preterm, 31% were late preterm, and 31% were at term. Cases were described by at least one referring physician as “particularly challenging and ambiguous,” said Ms. Davis, founder and CEO of GestVision in Groton, Conn., and colleagues.

The findings, which suggest that this rapid test holds promise as an aid in the diagnosis of preeclampsia, are important as preeclampsia-associated morbidity and mortality most often occur because of a delay or misdiagnosis, they explained, also noting that diagnostic criteria for preeclampsia are “inadequate even in best care situations.”

The test – an in vitro diagnostic device known as the GestAssured Test Kit – is being developed by GestVision based on data showing that aberrant protein misfolding and aggregation is a pathogenic feature of preeclampsia. That data initially led to development of the Congo Red Dot test as a laboratory batch test, followed by development and validation of a point-of-care version of the test to allow for better integration in clinical work flow.

The GestAssured Test Kit currently in development for commercial use is based on that technology, and the current data suggest that it has slightly higher sensitivity, slightly lower specificity, and slightly higher negative predictive value than the Congo Red Dot test.

“The GestAssured test was developed specifically for preeclampsia and has a high negative predictive value, suggesting that this device, in conjunction with ACOG task force guidelines for hypertension in pregnancy, can assist in ruling out disease in patients suspected of preeclampsia,” the investigators wrote.

“[It is] particularly useful in a triage setting where you have a complex collection of patients coming in,” Ms. Davis said during the poster presentation. “And it warrants ongoing U.S. multicenter clinical studies.”

This study was funded by GestVision and Saving Lives at Birth. Ms. Davis is an employee and shareholder of GestVision and is named as an inventor or coinventor on patents licensed for commercialization to the company.

NASHVILLE, TENN. – A targeted next-generation sequencing panel rapidly identifies both germline and somatic Lynch syndrome pathogenic mutations in women with – or at risk for – endometrial cancer, according to findings in a prospective patient cohort.

Sharon Worcester/MDedge News

The findings, which also suggest that the incidence of Lynch syndrome among endometrial cancer patients is higher than previously recognized, have “immediate and major implications for the individual patient with endometrial cancer ... and implications for related family members,” Maria Mercedes M. Padron, MD, reported during an e-poster session at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Of 71 patients included in the study, 67 were undergoing endometrial cancer treatment and 7 (3 among those undergoing endometrial cancer treatment and 4 who did not have endometrial cancer) were known to have Lynch syndrome.

Of the 67 undergoing treatment, 22 (33%) were identified by the direct sequencing panel as having Lynch syndrome mutations, and of those, 7 (10%) had mutations classified as high confidence inactivating mutations in either MLH1, MSH6, PMS2, or MSH2 genes, said Dr. Padron, a research scholar at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. The remaining 15 patients had rare mutations and met previously defined phenotypic criteria for Lynch syndrome pathogenicity, she reported.

The sequencing panel–based results were compared with commercially available gene tests, including immunohistochemistry (IHC) and microsatellite instability testing (MSI); 10 patients were identified by IHC to have loss of nuclear mismatch repair (MMR) protein expression, and 8 of those were Lynch syndrome mutation positive. In addition, two patients were MSI-high, and both of those were Lynch syndrome mutation positive.

Thus, two Lynch syndrome patients were missed by direct sequencing, noted Dr. Padron.

However, an additional 10 patients who were not identified as having Lynch syndrome by IHC and MSI testing were potentially identified as such using the sequencing panel, Dr. Padron said, noting that “the pathogenicity of these additional variants needs to be defined.”

Lynch syndrome is a hereditary cancer syndrome caused by germline mutations in DNA MMR genes; it is the third most common malignancy in women and it confers an increased risk of several types of cancer, including colorectal, ovarian, gastric, and endometrial cancer, among others.

“It is estimated that 3% to 5% of endometrial cancers will arise from Lynch syndrome,” Dr. Padron explained during the poster session.

Because the presence of Lynch syndrome directly affects immediate clinical management and future risk-reducing and surveillance strategies for patients and at-risk family members, screening is recommended in all women with endometrial cancer, she added, noting, however, that “the optimum screening method has yet to be established.”

The sequencing panel evaluated in this study – Swift’s Accel-Amplicon Plus Lynch Syndrome Panel – requires only low input amounts of DNA, and in an earlier test using 10 control samples, it exhibited greater than 90% on-target and coverage uniformity. The work flow allowed for data analysis within 2 days, Dr. Padron noted.

The panel then was tested in the current cohort of patients who were referred to a gynecology oncology clinic for either treatment of endometrial cancer or for evaluation of risk for endometrial cancer.

Germline/tumor DNA was isolated and 10 ng DNA was used for targeted exon-level hotspot coverage of MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2.

The findings suggest that the prevalence of Lynch syndrome may be six to seven times greater than previously estimated, Dr. Padron said during the poster presentation.

“If confirmed, this would have huge implications for our patients and health care system,” she said, adding that the ability to perform and analyze the sequencing within 48 hours of sample collection using a very low DNA input also was of note.

Taken together, “the findings of this study support future larger studies that can be performed concurrently with current standard of care technologies,” she and her colleagues concluded, noting that such studies would better determine more robust estimates of the prevalence of Lynch syndrome in women with endometrial cancer, help define improved standard-of-care guidelines, and provide future guidance for possible universal/targeted screening programs – all with the goal of improving the clinical care of women.

Dr. Padron reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

NASHVILLE, TENN. – A targeted next-generation sequencing panel rapidly identifies both germline and somatic Lynch syndrome pathogenic mutations in women with – or at risk for – endometrial cancer, according to findings in a prospective patient cohort.

Sharon Worcester/MDedge News

The findings, which also suggest that the incidence of Lynch syndrome among endometrial cancer patients is higher than previously recognized, have “immediate and major implications for the individual patient with endometrial cancer ... and implications for related family members,” Maria Mercedes M. Padron, MD, reported during an e-poster session at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Of 71 patients included in the study, 67 were undergoing endometrial cancer treatment and 7 (3 among those undergoing endometrial cancer treatment and 4 who did not have endometrial cancer) were known to have Lynch syndrome.

Of the 67 undergoing treatment, 22 (33%) were identified by the direct sequencing panel as having Lynch syndrome mutations, and of those, 7 (10%) had mutations classified as high confidence inactivating mutations in either MLH1, MSH6, PMS2, or MSH2 genes, said Dr. Padron, a research scholar at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. The remaining 15 patients had rare mutations and met previously defined phenotypic criteria for Lynch syndrome pathogenicity, she reported.

The sequencing panel–based results were compared with commercially available gene tests, including immunohistochemistry (IHC) and microsatellite instability testing (MSI); 10 patients were identified by IHC to have loss of nuclear mismatch repair (MMR) protein expression, and 8 of those were Lynch syndrome mutation positive. In addition, two patients were MSI-high, and both of those were Lynch syndrome mutation positive.

Thus, two Lynch syndrome patients were missed by direct sequencing, noted Dr. Padron.

However, an additional 10 patients who were not identified as having Lynch syndrome by IHC and MSI testing were potentially identified as such using the sequencing panel, Dr. Padron said, noting that “the pathogenicity of these additional variants needs to be defined.”

Lynch syndrome is a hereditary cancer syndrome caused by germline mutations in DNA MMR genes; it is the third most common malignancy in women and it confers an increased risk of several types of cancer, including colorectal, ovarian, gastric, and endometrial cancer, among others.

“It is estimated that 3% to 5% of endometrial cancers will arise from Lynch syndrome,” Dr. Padron explained during the poster session.

Because the presence of Lynch syndrome directly affects immediate clinical management and future risk-reducing and surveillance strategies for patients and at-risk family members, screening is recommended in all women with endometrial cancer, she added, noting, however, that “the optimum screening method has yet to be established.”

The sequencing panel evaluated in this study – Swift’s Accel-Amplicon Plus Lynch Syndrome Panel – requires only low input amounts of DNA, and in an earlier test using 10 control samples, it exhibited greater than 90% on-target and coverage uniformity. The work flow allowed for data analysis within 2 days, Dr. Padron noted.

The panel then was tested in the current cohort of patients who were referred to a gynecology oncology clinic for either treatment of endometrial cancer or for evaluation of risk for endometrial cancer.

Germline/tumor DNA was isolated and 10 ng DNA was used for targeted exon-level hotspot coverage of MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2.

The findings suggest that the prevalence of Lynch syndrome may be six to seven times greater than previously estimated, Dr. Padron said during the poster presentation.

“If confirmed, this would have huge implications for our patients and health care system,” she said, adding that the ability to perform and analyze the sequencing within 48 hours of sample collection using a very low DNA input also was of note.

Taken together, “the findings of this study support future larger studies that can be performed concurrently with current standard of care technologies,” she and her colleagues concluded, noting that such studies would better determine more robust estimates of the prevalence of Lynch syndrome in women with endometrial cancer, help define improved standard-of-care guidelines, and provide future guidance for possible universal/targeted screening programs – all with the goal of improving the clinical care of women.

Dr. Padron reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

NASHVILLE, TENN. – A targeted next-generation sequencing panel rapidly identifies both germline and somatic Lynch syndrome pathogenic mutations in women with – or at risk for – endometrial cancer, according to findings in a prospective patient cohort.

Sharon Worcester/MDedge News

The findings, which also suggest that the incidence of Lynch syndrome among endometrial cancer patients is higher than previously recognized, have “immediate and major implications for the individual patient with endometrial cancer ... and implications for related family members,” Maria Mercedes M. Padron, MD, reported during an e-poster session at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Of 71 patients included in the study, 67 were undergoing endometrial cancer treatment and 7 (3 among those undergoing endometrial cancer treatment and 4 who did not have endometrial cancer) were known to have Lynch syndrome.

Of the 67 undergoing treatment, 22 (33%) were identified by the direct sequencing panel as having Lynch syndrome mutations, and of those, 7 (10%) had mutations classified as high confidence inactivating mutations in either MLH1, MSH6, PMS2, or MSH2 genes, said Dr. Padron, a research scholar at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. The remaining 15 patients had rare mutations and met previously defined phenotypic criteria for Lynch syndrome pathogenicity, she reported.

The sequencing panel–based results were compared with commercially available gene tests, including immunohistochemistry (IHC) and microsatellite instability testing (MSI); 10 patients were identified by IHC to have loss of nuclear mismatch repair (MMR) protein expression, and 8 of those were Lynch syndrome mutation positive. In addition, two patients were MSI-high, and both of those were Lynch syndrome mutation positive.

Thus, two Lynch syndrome patients were missed by direct sequencing, noted Dr. Padron.

However, an additional 10 patients who were not identified as having Lynch syndrome by IHC and MSI testing were potentially identified as such using the sequencing panel, Dr. Padron said, noting that “the pathogenicity of these additional variants needs to be defined.”

Lynch syndrome is a hereditary cancer syndrome caused by germline mutations in DNA MMR genes; it is the third most common malignancy in women and it confers an increased risk of several types of cancer, including colorectal, ovarian, gastric, and endometrial cancer, among others.

“It is estimated that 3% to 5% of endometrial cancers will arise from Lynch syndrome,” Dr. Padron explained during the poster session.

Because the presence of Lynch syndrome directly affects immediate clinical management and future risk-reducing and surveillance strategies for patients and at-risk family members, screening is recommended in all women with endometrial cancer, she added, noting, however, that “the optimum screening method has yet to be established.”

The sequencing panel evaluated in this study – Swift’s Accel-Amplicon Plus Lynch Syndrome Panel – requires only low input amounts of DNA, and in an earlier test using 10 control samples, it exhibited greater than 90% on-target and coverage uniformity. The work flow allowed for data analysis within 2 days, Dr. Padron noted.

The panel then was tested in the current cohort of patients who were referred to a gynecology oncology clinic for either treatment of endometrial cancer or for evaluation of risk for endometrial cancer.

Germline/tumor DNA was isolated and 10 ng DNA was used for targeted exon-level hotspot coverage of MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2.

The findings suggest that the prevalence of Lynch syndrome may be six to seven times greater than previously estimated, Dr. Padron said during the poster presentation.

“If confirmed, this would have huge implications for our patients and health care system,” she said, adding that the ability to perform and analyze the sequencing within 48 hours of sample collection using a very low DNA input also was of note.

Taken together, “the findings of this study support future larger studies that can be performed concurrently with current standard of care technologies,” she and her colleagues concluded, noting that such studies would better determine more robust estimates of the prevalence of Lynch syndrome in women with endometrial cancer, help define improved standard-of-care guidelines, and provide future guidance for possible universal/targeted screening programs – all with the goal of improving the clinical care of women.

Dr. Padron reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

NASHVILLE, TENN. – Biopsy isn’t usually the first step in evaluating the endometrium of a reproductive-age woman who presents with abnormal uterine bleeding, but that’s not always the case, according to James M. Shwayder, MD.

Vidyard Video

“If we have young women come in, generally speaking, we don’t think much about doing biopsies, but there are those patients who really require a biopsy very early on: If they are obese and if they have long histories of oligomenorrhea ... they are at significantly greater risk for either endometrial hyperplasia or cancer, so in those patients I recommend biopsy very early on,” Dr. Shwayder said in this video interview about his presentation entitled “Modern Evaluation of the Endometrium: When to Use Ultrasound, When to Biopsy,” as presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Conversely, in some cases when biopsy is typically considered the first-line step in evaluation, ultrasound may actually be better, he argued.

“[ACOG] recommends that women over 45 ... should have a biopsy done as their first-line evaluation. I kind of take issue with that a little bit,” said Dr. Shwayder, a professor at the University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, and president and chief executive officer of Shwayder Consulting in Venice, Fla.

Data suggest that a “blind biopsy” could miss up to 18% of cases involving either a submucous myoma or a polyp and that one-third to one-fourth of patients have a structural defect such as a polyp or fibroid that can’t be diagnosed with a biopsy, he explained, noting that sonohysterography is best for preoperative evaluation in such case.

Ultrasound also has utility for evaluating other abnormalities, and it can be a very simple way to evaluate the patient and decide whether they need further evaluation or further treatment, he said.

Dr. Shwayder also discussed evidence for making a choice between biopsy and ultrasound for initial evaluation in postmenopausal women and for assessing women with asymptomatic thickened endometrium.

Dr. Shwayder is a consultant for GE Ultrasound.

[email protected]

NASHVILLE, TENN. – Biopsy isn’t usually the first step in evaluating the endometrium of a reproductive-age woman who presents with abnormal uterine bleeding, but that’s not always the case, according to James M. Shwayder, MD.

Vidyard Video

“If we have young women come in, generally speaking, we don’t think much about doing biopsies, but there are those patients who really require a biopsy very early on: If they are obese and if they have long histories of oligomenorrhea ... they are at significantly greater risk for either endometrial hyperplasia or cancer, so in those patients I recommend biopsy very early on,” Dr. Shwayder said in this video interview about his presentation entitled “Modern Evaluation of the Endometrium: When to Use Ultrasound, When to Biopsy,” as presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Conversely, in some cases when biopsy is typically considered the first-line step in evaluation, ultrasound may actually be better, he argued.

“[ACOG] recommends that women over 45 ... should have a biopsy done as their first-line evaluation. I kind of take issue with that a little bit,” said Dr. Shwayder, a professor at the University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, and president and chief executive officer of Shwayder Consulting in Venice, Fla.

Data suggest that a “blind biopsy” could miss up to 18% of cases involving either a submucous myoma or a polyp and that one-third to one-fourth of patients have a structural defect such as a polyp or fibroid that can’t be diagnosed with a biopsy, he explained, noting that sonohysterography is best for preoperative evaluation in such case.

Ultrasound also has utility for evaluating other abnormalities, and it can be a very simple way to evaluate the patient and decide whether they need further evaluation or further treatment, he said.

Dr. Shwayder also discussed evidence for making a choice between biopsy and ultrasound for initial evaluation in postmenopausal women and for assessing women with asymptomatic thickened endometrium.

Dr. Shwayder is a consultant for GE Ultrasound.

[email protected]

NASHVILLE, TENN. – Biopsy isn’t usually the first step in evaluating the endometrium of a reproductive-age woman who presents with abnormal uterine bleeding, but that’s not always the case, according to James M. Shwayder, MD.

Vidyard Video

“If we have young women come in, generally speaking, we don’t think much about doing biopsies, but there are those patients who really require a biopsy very early on: If they are obese and if they have long histories of oligomenorrhea ... they are at significantly greater risk for either endometrial hyperplasia or cancer, so in those patients I recommend biopsy very early on,” Dr. Shwayder said in this video interview about his presentation entitled “Modern Evaluation of the Endometrium: When to Use Ultrasound, When to Biopsy,” as presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Conversely, in some cases when biopsy is typically considered the first-line step in evaluation, ultrasound may actually be better, he argued.

“[ACOG] recommends that women over 45 ... should have a biopsy done as their first-line evaluation. I kind of take issue with that a little bit,” said Dr. Shwayder, a professor at the University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, and president and chief executive officer of Shwayder Consulting in Venice, Fla.

Data suggest that a “blind biopsy” could miss up to 18% of cases involving either a submucous myoma or a polyp and that one-third to one-fourth of patients have a structural defect such as a polyp or fibroid that can’t be diagnosed with a biopsy, he explained, noting that sonohysterography is best for preoperative evaluation in such case.

Ultrasound also has utility for evaluating other abnormalities, and it can be a very simple way to evaluate the patient and decide whether they need further evaluation or further treatment, he said.

Dr. Shwayder also discussed evidence for making a choice between biopsy and ultrasound for initial evaluation in postmenopausal women and for assessing women with asymptomatic thickened endometrium.

Dr. Shwayder is a consultant for GE Ultrasound.

[email protected]

NASHVILLE, TENN. – Immediate postpartum insertion of an intrauterine device (IUD) is highly cost effective despite an expulsion rate of 10%-30%, according to Eve Espey, MD.

“I think [the rate] is going to settle out at around 15%-20%, but good cost-effectiveness studies show that, even if it were that high, it is still highly cost effective,” she said during an update on contraceptives at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Immediate postpartum long-acting reversible contraception (LARC), including an IUD or implant, may reduce rapid-repeat pregnancy, she added, noting, however, that while Medicaid is covering it in many states, “it turns out that payment models are very cumbersome; they actually don’t work very well.”

At the University of New Mexico (UNM) in Albuquerque, where Dr .Espey is a professor and chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology and director of the family planning fellowship, immediate postpartum LARC is offered to women with Medicaid coverage, and payment is received in about 97% of cases.

It took about 4 years of persistent effort to make that happen, she said, adding that the UNM Hospital still is the only one in the state offering the service, although efforts are underway to help other hospitals “troubleshoot the issues.”

Another challenge is the lack of private insurance coverage for immediate postpartum LARC, she said.

“I was super enthusiastic about this a few years ago, and I remain super enthusiastic about it, but I think it’s going to take another 5 years or so [for better coverage], and honestly I think what we really need is an inpatient LARC CPT code to make this happen.”

In this video interview, Dr. Espey discusses the “agony and ecstasy” of immediate postpartum LARC, summarizing the main points regarding its benefits and challenges as presented during an “EdTalk” she gave at the meeting.

Dr. Espey reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

NASHVILLE, TENN. – Immediate postpartum insertion of an intrauterine device (IUD) is highly cost effective despite an expulsion rate of 10%-30%, according to Eve Espey, MD.

“I think [the rate] is going to settle out at around 15%-20%, but good cost-effectiveness studies show that, even if it were that high, it is still highly cost effective,” she said during an update on contraceptives at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Immediate postpartum long-acting reversible contraception (LARC), including an IUD or implant, may reduce rapid-repeat pregnancy, she added, noting, however, that while Medicaid is covering it in many states, “it turns out that payment models are very cumbersome; they actually don’t work very well.”

At the University of New Mexico (UNM) in Albuquerque, where Dr .Espey is a professor and chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology and director of the family planning fellowship, immediate postpartum LARC is offered to women with Medicaid coverage, and payment is received in about 97% of cases.

It took about 4 years of persistent effort to make that happen, she said, adding that the UNM Hospital still is the only one in the state offering the service, although efforts are underway to help other hospitals “troubleshoot the issues.”

Another challenge is the lack of private insurance coverage for immediate postpartum LARC, she said.

“I was super enthusiastic about this a few years ago, and I remain super enthusiastic about it, but I think it’s going to take another 5 years or so [for better coverage], and honestly I think what we really need is an inpatient LARC CPT code to make this happen.”

In this video interview, Dr. Espey discusses the “agony and ecstasy” of immediate postpartum LARC, summarizing the main points regarding its benefits and challenges as presented during an “EdTalk” she gave at the meeting.

Dr. Espey reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

NASHVILLE, TENN. – Immediate postpartum insertion of an intrauterine device (IUD) is highly cost effective despite an expulsion rate of 10%-30%, according to Eve Espey, MD.

“I think [the rate] is going to settle out at around 15%-20%, but good cost-effectiveness studies show that, even if it were that high, it is still highly cost effective,” she said during an update on contraceptives at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Immediate postpartum long-acting reversible contraception (LARC), including an IUD or implant, may reduce rapid-repeat pregnancy, she added, noting, however, that while Medicaid is covering it in many states, “it turns out that payment models are very cumbersome; they actually don’t work very well.”

At the University of New Mexico (UNM) in Albuquerque, where Dr .Espey is a professor and chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology and director of the family planning fellowship, immediate postpartum LARC is offered to women with Medicaid coverage, and payment is received in about 97% of cases.

It took about 4 years of persistent effort to make that happen, she said, adding that the UNM Hospital still is the only one in the state offering the service, although efforts are underway to help other hospitals “troubleshoot the issues.”

Another challenge is the lack of private insurance coverage for immediate postpartum LARC, she said.

“I was super enthusiastic about this a few years ago, and I remain super enthusiastic about it, but I think it’s going to take another 5 years or so [for better coverage], and honestly I think what we really need is an inpatient LARC CPT code to make this happen.”

In this video interview, Dr. Espey discusses the “agony and ecstasy” of immediate postpartum LARC, summarizing the main points regarding its benefits and challenges as presented during an “EdTalk” she gave at the meeting.

Dr. Espey reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

ATLANTA – Adding intratumoral talimogene laherparepvec (TVEC) to neoadjuvant chemotherapy appears to improve response rates in patients with nonmetastatic triple-negative breast cancer, according to findings from a phase 1 trial.

The pathologic complete response rate (pCR) in nine patients aged 18-70 years with stage T2-T3NO-2 disease who were enrolled in the single-center trial was 55%, whereas the expected rate with neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone was 30%, Hatem Soliman, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

“Even in the patients with residual disease, they had almost complete obliteration of their tumors, as well,” said Dr. Soliman of Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Fla., adding that preliminary analyses of T cell subtypes indicated that CD45RO+ cells, which are associated with activated memory effector phenotype cells, were found in higher percentages in tumor specimens from patients who had pCR vs. those who did not.

“This could be an emerging marker that could be associated with pCR from TVEC,” he said, stressing, however, that “this is preliminary data [that] needs to be borne out in subsequent studies.”

Of the nine participants, six had stage II disease and three had stage III disease, and tumor size was greater than 5 cm in 2 patients, and 2-5 cm in 7 patients. Three received 10⁶ plaque-forming units (PFUs) x 5 injections (dose level 1), and 6 received 10⁶ PFUs for the first injection then 10⁸ PFUs for 4 additional injections. Patients also received neoadjuvant paclitaxel followed by doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide chemotherapy.

They then went on to surgery and were evaluated for pCR.

No dose-limiting toxicities occurred, therefore the maximum-tolerated dose was dose level 2, Dr. Soliman noted.

The most common toxicities due to TVEC were fevers, chills, and injection site reactions, and “these are considered expected side effects of TVEC administration and were manageable,” he said.

Two serious adverse events occurred in the trial: a pulmonary embolism and a postoperative case of severe bradycardia thought to be a vasovagal episode; there were no deaths or any sequelae from these adverse events and they completely resolved.

One latent genital wild type herpes simplex 1 virus (HSV1) reactivation event occurred and was treated with a topical agent.


Early-stage triple-negative breast cancer is associated with a higher risk of early relapse, but attaining a pCR after neoadjuvant chemotherapy is associated with improved prognosis, Dr. Soliman said.

“Historically, standard regimens used for triple-negative breast cancer include an anthracycline and a taxane, and the rates of pCR in those patients hover around 30%,” he said. “Others have looked at the relationship of increased tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs] in triple-negative breast cancers and other breast cancers, and found that those tumors that did have a higher de novo TIL infiltrate, either at the beginning of treatment or acquired during treatment, seemed to have a higher rate of pCR and also seemed to have improved prognosis.”

This suggested that these TIL infiltrates may be both a predictive and prognostic biologic marker for the biology of the disease, he noted.

Further, promising prior research on the role of oncolytic viruses as a potential treatment modality for cancer led to interest in their use during neoadjuvant chemotherapy “with the idea that we could potentially improve pathologic complete response rates both through direct tumor cell lysis of treated tumors, but also through recruitment of a robust antitumor immune response caused by the viruses’ mechanism of action,” he said, adding that “this could be beneficial, particularly in those immunologically ‘cold’ tumors.”

This led to the incorporation of TVEC, a genetically engineered oncolytic HSV1 currently approved for the treatment of melanoma, in this neoadjuvant trial. TVEC preferentially lyses tumor cells over normal tissue to release tumor associated antigens, produces granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor to activate dendritic cells, and stimulates T cells to provoke an adaptive immune response, he explained.

“[This] then can not only potentially attack tumor cells at the primary site, but then may potentially spread around the body to improve host surveillance and try to eradicate micrometastatic disease, as well,” he said.

The current findings show that adding TVEC to neoadjuvant chemotherapy is feasible at the full Food and Drug Administration–approved dose and has manageable toxicity, he concluded, noting that “a phase 2 single-arm trial of this regimen is ongoing, and we are actively accruing patients to further evaluate the efficacy signal and formally test the hypothesis along with immune correlates.”

Dr. Soliman reported relationships with Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Celgene, AstraZeneca, PUMA, Novartis, Eisai, and Amgen.

SOURCE: Soliman H et al. AACR 2019, Abstract CT040.

ATLANTA – Adding intratumoral talimogene laherparepvec (TVEC) to neoadjuvant chemotherapy appears to improve response rates in patients with nonmetastatic triple-negative breast cancer, according to findings from a phase 1 trial.

The pathologic complete response rate (pCR) in nine patients aged 18-70 years with stage T2-T3NO-2 disease who were enrolled in the single-center trial was 55%, whereas the expected rate with neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone was 30%, Hatem Soliman, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

“Even in the patients with residual disease, they had almost complete obliteration of their tumors, as well,” said Dr. Soliman of Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Fla., adding that preliminary analyses of T cell subtypes indicated that CD45RO+ cells, which are associated with activated memory effector phenotype cells, were found in higher percentages in tumor specimens from patients who had pCR vs. those who did not.

“This could be an emerging marker that could be associated with pCR from TVEC,” he said, stressing, however, that “this is preliminary data [that] needs to be borne out in subsequent studies.”

Of the nine participants, six had stage II disease and three had stage III disease, and tumor size was greater than 5 cm in 2 patients, and 2-5 cm in 7 patients. Three received 10⁶ plaque-forming units (PFUs) x 5 injections (dose level 1), and 6 received 10⁶ PFUs for the first injection then 10⁸ PFUs for 4 additional injections. Patients also received neoadjuvant paclitaxel followed by doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide chemotherapy.

They then went on to surgery and were evaluated for pCR.

No dose-limiting toxicities occurred, therefore the maximum-tolerated dose was dose level 2, Dr. Soliman noted.

The most common toxicities due to TVEC were fevers, chills, and injection site reactions, and “these are considered expected side effects of TVEC administration and were manageable,” he said.

Two serious adverse events occurred in the trial: a pulmonary embolism and a postoperative case of severe bradycardia thought to be a vasovagal episode; there were no deaths or any sequelae from these adverse events and they completely resolved.

One latent genital wild type herpes simplex 1 virus (HSV1) reactivation event occurred and was treated with a topical agent.


Early-stage triple-negative breast cancer is associated with a higher risk of early relapse, but attaining a pCR after neoadjuvant chemotherapy is associated with improved prognosis, Dr. Soliman said.

“Historically, standard regimens used for triple-negative breast cancer include an anthracycline and a taxane, and the rates of pCR in those patients hover around 30%,” he said. “Others have looked at the relationship of increased tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs] in triple-negative breast cancers and other breast cancers, and found that those tumors that did have a higher de novo TIL infiltrate, either at the beginning of treatment or acquired during treatment, seemed to have a higher rate of pCR and also seemed to have improved prognosis.”

This suggested that these TIL infiltrates may be both a predictive and prognostic biologic marker for the biology of the disease, he noted.

Further, promising prior research on the role of oncolytic viruses as a potential treatment modality for cancer led to interest in their use during neoadjuvant chemotherapy “with the idea that we could potentially improve pathologic complete response rates both through direct tumor cell lysis of treated tumors, but also through recruitment of a robust antitumor immune response caused by the viruses’ mechanism of action,” he said, adding that “this could be beneficial, particularly in those immunologically ‘cold’ tumors.”

This led to the incorporation of TVEC, a genetically engineered oncolytic HSV1 currently approved for the treatment of melanoma, in this neoadjuvant trial. TVEC preferentially lyses tumor cells over normal tissue to release tumor associated antigens, produces granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor to activate dendritic cells, and stimulates T cells to provoke an adaptive immune response, he explained.

“[This] then can not only potentially attack tumor cells at the primary site, but then may potentially spread around the body to improve host surveillance and try to eradicate micrometastatic disease, as well,” he said.

The current findings show that adding TVEC to neoadjuvant chemotherapy is feasible at the full Food and Drug Administration–approved dose and has manageable toxicity, he concluded, noting that “a phase 2 single-arm trial of this regimen is ongoing, and we are actively accruing patients to further evaluate the efficacy signal and formally test the hypothesis along with immune correlates.”

Dr. Soliman reported relationships with Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Celgene, AstraZeneca, PUMA, Novartis, Eisai, and Amgen.

SOURCE: Soliman H et al. AACR 2019, Abstract CT040.

ATLANTA – Adding intratumoral talimogene laherparepvec (TVEC) to neoadjuvant chemotherapy appears to improve response rates in patients with nonmetastatic triple-negative breast cancer, according to findings from a phase 1 trial.

The pathologic complete response rate (pCR) in nine patients aged 18-70 years with stage T2-T3NO-2 disease who were enrolled in the single-center trial was 55%, whereas the expected rate with neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone was 30%, Hatem Soliman, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

“Even in the patients with residual disease, they had almost complete obliteration of their tumors, as well,” said Dr. Soliman of Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Fla., adding that preliminary analyses of T cell subtypes indicated that CD45RO+ cells, which are associated with activated memory effector phenotype cells, were found in higher percentages in tumor specimens from patients who had pCR vs. those who did not.

“This could be an emerging marker that could be associated with pCR from TVEC,” he said, stressing, however, that “this is preliminary data [that] needs to be borne out in subsequent studies.”

Of the nine participants, six had stage II disease and three had stage III disease, and tumor size was greater than 5 cm in 2 patients, and 2-5 cm in 7 patients. Three received 10⁶ plaque-forming units (PFUs) x 5 injections (dose level 1), and 6 received 10⁶ PFUs for the first injection then 10⁸ PFUs for 4 additional injections. Patients also received neoadjuvant paclitaxel followed by doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide chemotherapy.

They then went on to surgery and were evaluated for pCR.

No dose-limiting toxicities occurred, therefore the maximum-tolerated dose was dose level 2, Dr. Soliman noted.

The most common toxicities due to TVEC were fevers, chills, and injection site reactions, and “these are considered expected side effects of TVEC administration and were manageable,” he said.

Two serious adverse events occurred in the trial: a pulmonary embolism and a postoperative case of severe bradycardia thought to be a vasovagal episode; there were no deaths or any sequelae from these adverse events and they completely resolved.

One latent genital wild type herpes simplex 1 virus (HSV1) reactivation event occurred and was treated with a topical agent.


Early-stage triple-negative breast cancer is associated with a higher risk of early relapse, but attaining a pCR after neoadjuvant chemotherapy is associated with improved prognosis, Dr. Soliman said.

“Historically, standard regimens used for triple-negative breast cancer include an anthracycline and a taxane, and the rates of pCR in those patients hover around 30%,” he said. “Others have looked at the relationship of increased tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs] in triple-negative breast cancers and other breast cancers, and found that those tumors that did have a higher de novo TIL infiltrate, either at the beginning of treatment or acquired during treatment, seemed to have a higher rate of pCR and also seemed to have improved prognosis.”

This suggested that these TIL infiltrates may be both a predictive and prognostic biologic marker for the biology of the disease, he noted.

Further, promising prior research on the role of oncolytic viruses as a potential treatment modality for cancer led to interest in their use during neoadjuvant chemotherapy “with the idea that we could potentially improve pathologic complete response rates both through direct tumor cell lysis of treated tumors, but also through recruitment of a robust antitumor immune response caused by the viruses’ mechanism of action,” he said, adding that “this could be beneficial, particularly in those immunologically ‘cold’ tumors.”

This led to the incorporation of TVEC, a genetically engineered oncolytic HSV1 currently approved for the treatment of melanoma, in this neoadjuvant trial. TVEC preferentially lyses tumor cells over normal tissue to release tumor associated antigens, produces granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor to activate dendritic cells, and stimulates T cells to provoke an adaptive immune response, he explained.

“[This] then can not only potentially attack tumor cells at the primary site, but then may potentially spread around the body to improve host surveillance and try to eradicate micrometastatic disease, as well,” he said.

The current findings show that adding TVEC to neoadjuvant chemotherapy is feasible at the full Food and Drug Administration–approved dose and has manageable toxicity, he concluded, noting that “a phase 2 single-arm trial of this regimen is ongoing, and we are actively accruing patients to further evaluate the efficacy signal and formally test the hypothesis along with immune correlates.”

Dr. Soliman reported relationships with Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Celgene, AstraZeneca, PUMA, Novartis, Eisai, and Amgen.

SOURCE: Soliman H et al. AACR 2019, Abstract CT040.

Twin versus singleton pregnancies confer a 300% increased risk of severe acute maternal complications, and 21% of that risk is mediated by cesarean delivery, according to findings from the prospective EPIMOMS study.

micheldenijs/iStock/Getty Images Plus

The population-based incidence of severe acute maternal morbidity occurring between 22 weeks’ of gestation and 42 days post partum in the 2012-2013 French multicenter study was 6.2% among 3,202 twin pregnancies and 1.3% among 179,107 singleton pregnancies, Hugo Madar, MD, MPH, of Bordeaux University Hospital, France, and colleagues reported on behalf of the EPIMOMS (Epidémiologie de la Morbidité Maternelle Sévère) study group.

For the current analysis – a population-based, cohort-nested, case-control analysis of study data – the investigators compared 2,500 case patients (8% had twin pregnancies) and 3,650 controls (2% had twin pregnancies) who did not experience severe acute maternal morbidity during that time period (odds ratio, 4.7). After accounting for confounding factors, the increased risk among women with twin versus singleton pregnancies persisted (OR, 4.2) during both the antepartum (OR, 4.1) and intrapartum/postpartum (OR, 4.2) periods.

The majority of events (77%) occurred during the latter periods, and the two most common underlying causal conditions were severe obstetric hemorrhage (66%) and severe hypertensive complications (20%); however, the increased risk in twin pregnancies was apparent, regardless of the underlying cause.

The cesarean delivery rates for twin versus singleton pregnancies were 72% and 34%, respectively, in the case group, and 58% and 18%, respectively, in the control group. A path analysis taking potential indication bias into account showed that 21% of the total risk of intrapartum or postpartum severe acute maternal morbidity risk associated with twin pregnancy was mediated by cesarean delivery, Dr. Madar and associates noted, explaining that, “in other words, if twin pregnancies had the same probability of cesarean delivery as singleton pregnancies, the association found between twin pregnancy and intrapartum or postpartum severe acute maternal morbidity would be reduced by one-fifth.”

This provides further support for limiting the use of cesarean for twin deliveries to cases with clear medical indications, as increasing the rate of vaginal deliveries may decrease the rate of severe acute maternal morbidity, they concluded.

EPIMOMS was supported by the National Research Agency and the Ile de France Regional Health Agency. Dr. Madar received a training grant from the Aquitaine Regional Health Agency. The authors reported having no other relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Madar H et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2019;133:1141-50.

Twin versus singleton pregnancies confer a 300% increased risk of severe acute maternal complications, and 21% of that risk is mediated by cesarean delivery, according to findings from the prospective EPIMOMS study.

micheldenijs/iStock/Getty Images Plus

The population-based incidence of severe acute maternal morbidity occurring between 22 weeks’ of gestation and 42 days post partum in the 2012-2013 French multicenter study was 6.2% among 3,202 twin pregnancies and 1.3% among 179,107 singleton pregnancies, Hugo Madar, MD, MPH, of Bordeaux University Hospital, France, and colleagues reported on behalf of the EPIMOMS (Epidémiologie de la Morbidité Maternelle Sévère) study group.

For the current analysis – a population-based, cohort-nested, case-control analysis of study data – the investigators compared 2,500 case patients (8% had twin pregnancies) and 3,650 controls (2% had twin pregnancies) who did not experience severe acute maternal morbidity during that time period (odds ratio, 4.7). After accounting for confounding factors, the increased risk among women with twin versus singleton pregnancies persisted (OR, 4.2) during both the antepartum (OR, 4.1) and intrapartum/postpartum (OR, 4.2) periods.

The majority of events (77%) occurred during the latter periods, and the two most common underlying causal conditions were severe obstetric hemorrhage (66%) and severe hypertensive complications (20%); however, the increased risk in twin pregnancies was apparent, regardless of the underlying cause.

The cesarean delivery rates for twin versus singleton pregnancies were 72% and 34%, respectively, in the case group, and 58% and 18%, respectively, in the control group. A path analysis taking potential indication bias into account showed that 21% of the total risk of intrapartum or postpartum severe acute maternal morbidity risk associated with twin pregnancy was mediated by cesarean delivery, Dr. Madar and associates noted, explaining that, “in other words, if twin pregnancies had the same probability of cesarean delivery as singleton pregnancies, the association found between twin pregnancy and intrapartum or postpartum severe acute maternal morbidity would be reduced by one-fifth.”

This provides further support for limiting the use of cesarean for twin deliveries to cases with clear medical indications, as increasing the rate of vaginal deliveries may decrease the rate of severe acute maternal morbidity, they concluded.

EPIMOMS was supported by the National Research Agency and the Ile de France Regional Health Agency. Dr. Madar received a training grant from the Aquitaine Regional Health Agency. The authors reported having no other relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Madar H et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2019;133:1141-50.

Twin versus singleton pregnancies confer a 300% increased risk of severe acute maternal complications, and 21% of that risk is mediated by cesarean delivery, according to findings from the prospective EPIMOMS study.

micheldenijs/iStock/Getty Images Plus

The population-based incidence of severe acute maternal morbidity occurring between 22 weeks’ of gestation and 42 days post partum in the 2012-2013 French multicenter study was 6.2% among 3,202 twin pregnancies and 1.3% among 179,107 singleton pregnancies, Hugo Madar, MD, MPH, of Bordeaux University Hospital, France, and colleagues reported on behalf of the EPIMOMS (Epidémiologie de la Morbidité Maternelle Sévère) study group.

For the current analysis – a population-based, cohort-nested, case-control analysis of study data – the investigators compared 2,500 case patients (8% had twin pregnancies) and 3,650 controls (2% had twin pregnancies) who did not experience severe acute maternal morbidity during that time period (odds ratio, 4.7). After accounting for confounding factors, the increased risk among women with twin versus singleton pregnancies persisted (OR, 4.2) during both the antepartum (OR, 4.1) and intrapartum/postpartum (OR, 4.2) periods.

The majority of events (77%) occurred during the latter periods, and the two most common underlying causal conditions were severe obstetric hemorrhage (66%) and severe hypertensive complications (20%); however, the increased risk in twin pregnancies was apparent, regardless of the underlying cause.

The cesarean delivery rates for twin versus singleton pregnancies were 72% and 34%, respectively, in the case group, and 58% and 18%, respectively, in the control group. A path analysis taking potential indication bias into account showed that 21% of the total risk of intrapartum or postpartum severe acute maternal morbidity risk associated with twin pregnancy was mediated by cesarean delivery, Dr. Madar and associates noted, explaining that, “in other words, if twin pregnancies had the same probability of cesarean delivery as singleton pregnancies, the association found between twin pregnancy and intrapartum or postpartum severe acute maternal morbidity would be reduced by one-fifth.”

This provides further support for limiting the use of cesarean for twin deliveries to cases with clear medical indications, as increasing the rate of vaginal deliveries may decrease the rate of severe acute maternal morbidity, they concluded.

EPIMOMS was supported by the National Research Agency and the Ile de France Regional Health Agency. Dr. Madar received a training grant from the Aquitaine Regional Health Agency. The authors reported having no other relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Madar H et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2019;133:1141-50.

NASHVILLE, TENN. – The unintended pregnancy rate is declining after years of hovering at close to 50%.

While the rates among women of color remain high – currently at 58 and 79 per 1,000 women aged 15-44 years for Hispanic and black women, respectively – they have declined from 79 and 92 per 1,000 Hispanic and black women in that age group in 2008, and the overall rate is now at about 45%, Eve Espey, MD, said at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

“Considering the scope and number of women affected by unplanned pregnancy, this is actually a huge public health achievement,” said Dr. Espey, professor and chair of the department of obstetrics & gynecology at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

The declines in unintended pregnancies are largely attributable to “better and more consistent use of contraceptives, and, interestingly, increased abstinence,” she noted, adding that “another enormous determinant of this decrease in unintended pregnancy is the use of long-acting reversible contraception [LARC].” About 2% of women used contraceptives in 2002, and now, based on the latest cycle of data from 2015-2017, 16% of women use contraceptives.

In this video interview, Dr. Espey discusses the main points of her talk entitled “Contraceptives: What you need to know in 2019,” including:

• The importance of “following reproductive justice–based principles and counseling” when it comes to prescribing contraceptives.
• The latest data showing that certain LARC methods remain safe and effective beyond their approved duration of use.
• Trends with respect to tubal ligation and salpingectomy.
• The value of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s U.S. Medical Eligibility Criteria (MEC) for evidence-based guidance on selecting contraceptives based on patients’ individual needs.

“[MEC] is something every ob.gyn. should consider using,” she said, noting that access is available through a free app. “As our patients are more complex and have more comorbidities, it’s particularly helpful for matching up patients and their conditions with recommendations for specific contraceptive methods.”

Dr. Espey reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

NASHVILLE, TENN. – The unintended pregnancy rate is declining after years of hovering at close to 50%.

While the rates among women of color remain high – currently at 58 and 79 per 1,000 women aged 15-44 years for Hispanic and black women, respectively – they have declined from 79 and 92 per 1,000 Hispanic and black women in that age group in 2008, and the overall rate is now at about 45%, Eve Espey, MD, said at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

“Considering the scope and number of women affected by unplanned pregnancy, this is actually a huge public health achievement,” said Dr. Espey, professor and chair of the department of obstetrics & gynecology at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

The declines in unintended pregnancies are largely attributable to “better and more consistent use of contraceptives, and, interestingly, increased abstinence,” she noted, adding that “another enormous determinant of this decrease in unintended pregnancy is the use of long-acting reversible contraception [LARC].” About 2% of women used contraceptives in 2002, and now, based on the latest cycle of data from 2015-2017, 16% of women use contraceptives.

In this video interview, Dr. Espey discusses the main points of her talk entitled “Contraceptives: What you need to know in 2019,” including:

• The importance of “following reproductive justice–based principles and counseling” when it comes to prescribing contraceptives.
• The latest data showing that certain LARC methods remain safe and effective beyond their approved duration of use.
• Trends with respect to tubal ligation and salpingectomy.
• The value of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s U.S. Medical Eligibility Criteria (MEC) for evidence-based guidance on selecting contraceptives based on patients’ individual needs.

“[MEC] is something every ob.gyn. should consider using,” she said, noting that access is available through a free app. “As our patients are more complex and have more comorbidities, it’s particularly helpful for matching up patients and their conditions with recommendations for specific contraceptive methods.”

Dr. Espey reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

NASHVILLE, TENN. – The unintended pregnancy rate is declining after years of hovering at close to 50%.

While the rates among women of color remain high – currently at 58 and 79 per 1,000 women aged 15-44 years for Hispanic and black women, respectively – they have declined from 79 and 92 per 1,000 Hispanic and black women in that age group in 2008, and the overall rate is now at about 45%, Eve Espey, MD, said at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

“Considering the scope and number of women affected by unplanned pregnancy, this is actually a huge public health achievement,” said Dr. Espey, professor and chair of the department of obstetrics & gynecology at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

The declines in unintended pregnancies are largely attributable to “better and more consistent use of contraceptives, and, interestingly, increased abstinence,” she noted, adding that “another enormous determinant of this decrease in unintended pregnancy is the use of long-acting reversible contraception [LARC].” About 2% of women used contraceptives in 2002, and now, based on the latest cycle of data from 2015-2017, 16% of women use contraceptives.

In this video interview, Dr. Espey discusses the main points of her talk entitled “Contraceptives: What you need to know in 2019,” including:

• The importance of “following reproductive justice–based principles and counseling” when it comes to prescribing contraceptives.
• The latest data showing that certain LARC methods remain safe and effective beyond their approved duration of use.
• Trends with respect to tubal ligation and salpingectomy.
• The value of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s U.S. Medical Eligibility Criteria (MEC) for evidence-based guidance on selecting contraceptives based on patients’ individual needs.

“[MEC] is something every ob.gyn. should consider using,” she said, noting that access is available through a free app. “As our patients are more complex and have more comorbidities, it’s particularly helpful for matching up patients and their conditions with recommendations for specific contraceptive methods.”

Dr. Espey reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

NASHVILLE, TENN. – By 2020, millennials will comprise more than a third of individuals in the workplace, and that has important implications for employment, communication, and education, according to Patrice M. Weiss, MD.

Each generation brings a unique set of experiences and expectations. Millennials – or members of “Generation Y,” who comprised 18% of the workforce in 2018 and 0% in 2008 – tend to prefer flexible work hours and communication via technology, she said during a session on navigating generational differences in the workplace during the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

They, along with members of “Generation X” (generally those born between 1962 and 1981) and “Generation Z” (generally those born from 1987 on), tend to be technology savvy, whereas the “Silent Generation” (generally those born between 1925 and 1942) and older members of the “Baby Boomer Generation” (generally those born between 1943 and 1961), may prefer printed communication and phone calls, said Dr. Weiss, chief medical officer at the Carilion Clinic in Roanoke, Va.

“It’s not good, it’s not bad – it’s just the way things are changing,” she said, adding that it’s important to look at the strengths that each generation brings to the workplace.

Importantly, the generational differences also affect patient expectations and therefore should guide physician-patient interactions, she said.

In this video interview, she further discusses how generational differences should be considered in medical practice, and how clinicians can adapt to the changing expectations and different needs of patients from different generations.

“Gen Ys want to communicate with us through technology. They don’t want to pick up the phone and schedule an appointment, they want to be able to go online ... through an app and self-schedule an appointment,” she said. “And they want health care when they want it.

“We as health care providers and health care organizations, we need to meet the needs of each generation ... so what we need to do is really identify what are the needs of all the generations as patients.”

During her presentation, Dr. Weiss further noted that these generational differences present a major challenge with respect to teaching, learning, and communicating.

“Rather than becoming frustrated ... let’s hope that we can ... reach across generations, identify what their strengths are, capitalize on those, and then, as health care providers, be more user and consumer friendly to the generations, particularly the millennials [so] that they have access to us and to information.”

Dr. Weiss said she had no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

NASHVILLE, TENN. – By 2020, millennials will comprise more than a third of individuals in the workplace, and that has important implications for employment, communication, and education, according to Patrice M. Weiss, MD.

Each generation brings a unique set of experiences and expectations. Millennials – or members of “Generation Y,” who comprised 18% of the workforce in 2018 and 0% in 2008 – tend to prefer flexible work hours and communication via technology, she said during a session on navigating generational differences in the workplace during the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

They, along with members of “Generation X” (generally those born between 1962 and 1981) and “Generation Z” (generally those born from 1987 on), tend to be technology savvy, whereas the “Silent Generation” (generally those born between 1925 and 1942) and older members of the “Baby Boomer Generation” (generally those born between 1943 and 1961), may prefer printed communication and phone calls, said Dr. Weiss, chief medical officer at the Carilion Clinic in Roanoke, Va.

“It’s not good, it’s not bad – it’s just the way things are changing,” she said, adding that it’s important to look at the strengths that each generation brings to the workplace.

Importantly, the generational differences also affect patient expectations and therefore should guide physician-patient interactions, she said.

In this video interview, she further discusses how generational differences should be considered in medical practice, and how clinicians can adapt to the changing expectations and different needs of patients from different generations.

“Gen Ys want to communicate with us through technology. They don’t want to pick up the phone and schedule an appointment, they want to be able to go online ... through an app and self-schedule an appointment,” she said. “And they want health care when they want it.

“We as health care providers and health care organizations, we need to meet the needs of each generation ... so what we need to do is really identify what are the needs of all the generations as patients.”

During her presentation, Dr. Weiss further noted that these generational differences present a major challenge with respect to teaching, learning, and communicating.

“Rather than becoming frustrated ... let’s hope that we can ... reach across generations, identify what their strengths are, capitalize on those, and then, as health care providers, be more user and consumer friendly to the generations, particularly the millennials [so] that they have access to us and to information.”

Dr. Weiss said she had no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

NASHVILLE, TENN. – By 2020, millennials will comprise more than a third of individuals in the workplace, and that has important implications for employment, communication, and education, according to Patrice M. Weiss, MD.

Each generation brings a unique set of experiences and expectations. Millennials – or members of “Generation Y,” who comprised 18% of the workforce in 2018 and 0% in 2008 – tend to prefer flexible work hours and communication via technology, she said during a session on navigating generational differences in the workplace during the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

They, along with members of “Generation X” (generally those born between 1962 and 1981) and “Generation Z” (generally those born from 1987 on), tend to be technology savvy, whereas the “Silent Generation” (generally those born between 1925 and 1942) and older members of the “Baby Boomer Generation” (generally those born between 1943 and 1961), may prefer printed communication and phone calls, said Dr. Weiss, chief medical officer at the Carilion Clinic in Roanoke, Va.

“It’s not good, it’s not bad – it’s just the way things are changing,” she said, adding that it’s important to look at the strengths that each generation brings to the workplace.

Importantly, the generational differences also affect patient expectations and therefore should guide physician-patient interactions, she said.

In this video interview, she further discusses how generational differences should be considered in medical practice, and how clinicians can adapt to the changing expectations and different needs of patients from different generations.

“Gen Ys want to communicate with us through technology. They don’t want to pick up the phone and schedule an appointment, they want to be able to go online ... through an app and self-schedule an appointment,” she said. “And they want health care when they want it.

“We as health care providers and health care organizations, we need to meet the needs of each generation ... so what we need to do is really identify what are the needs of all the generations as patients.”

During her presentation, Dr. Weiss further noted that these generational differences present a major challenge with respect to teaching, learning, and communicating.

“Rather than becoming frustrated ... let’s hope that we can ... reach across generations, identify what their strengths are, capitalize on those, and then, as health care providers, be more user and consumer friendly to the generations, particularly the millennials [so] that they have access to us and to information.”

Dr. Weiss said she had no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]