Will Pass

Bowel ultrasound predicts the clinical course of Crohn’s disease for up to 1 year, according to results of a prospective trial involving 225 patients.

After additional confirmation in larger studies, ultrasound could serve as a noninvasive alternative to colonoscopy for monitoring and predicting disease course, reported lead author Mariangela Allocca, MD, PhD, of Humanitas University, Milan, and colleagues.

“Frequent colonoscopies are expensive, invasive, and not well tolerated by patients, thus noninvasive tools for assessment and monitoring are strongly needed,” the investigators wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. “Bowel ultrasound accurately detects inflammatory bowel disease activity, extent, and complications, particularly in Crohn’s disease. Considering its low cost, minimal invasiveness ... and easy repeatability, bowel ultrasound may be a simple, readily available tool for assessing and monitoring Crohn’s disease.”

To test this hypothesis, Dr. Allocca and colleagues enrolled 225 consecutive patients with ileal and/or colonic Crohn’s disease diagnosed for at least 6 months and managed at a tertiary hospital in Italy. All patients underwent both colonoscopy and bowel ultrasound with no more than 3 months between each procedure.

Colonoscopy results were characterized by the Simplified Endoscopic Score for Crohn’s disease (SES-CD), whereas ultrasound was scored using a several parameters, including bowel wall pattern, bowel thickness, bowel wall flow, presence of complications (abscess, fistula, stricture), and characteristics of mesenteric lymph nodes and tissue. Ultrasound scores were considered high if they exceeded a cut-off of 3.52, which was determined by a receiver operating characteristic curve analysis.

Participants were followed for 12 months after baseline ultrasound. The primary objective was to determine the relationship between baseline ultrasound findings and negative disease course, defined by steroid usage, need for surgery, need for hospitalization, and/or change in therapy. The secondary objective was to understand the relationship between ultrasound findings and endoscopy activity.

Multivariable analysis revealed that ultrasound scores greater than 3.52 predicted a negative clinical disease course for up to one year (odds ratio, 6.97; 95% confidence interval, 2.87-16.93; P < .001), as did the presence of at least one disease complication at baseline (OR, 3.90; 95% CI, 1.21-12.53; P = 0.21). A worse clinical course at one-year was also predicted by a baseline fecal calprotectin value of at least 250 mcg/g (OR, 5.43; 95% CI, 2.25-13.11; P < .001) and male sex (OR, 2.60; 95% CI, 1.12-6.02; P = .025).

Investigators then assessed individual disease outcomes at 12 months and baseline results. For example, high ultrasound score and calprotectin at baseline each predicted the need for treatment escalation. In comparison, disease behavior (inflammatory, stricturing, penetrating) and C reactive protein predicted need for corticosteroids. The only significant predictor of hospitalization a year later was CRP.

“[B]owel ultrasound is able to predict disease course in Crohn’s disease patients,” they wrote. “It may identify patients at high risk of a negative course to adopt effective strategies to prevent any disease progression. Our data need to be confirmed and validated in further large studies.”

The investigators disclosed relationships with Janssen, AbbVie, Mundipharma, and others.

Bowel ultrasound predicts the clinical course of Crohn’s disease for up to 1 year, according to results of a prospective trial involving 225 patients.

After additional confirmation in larger studies, ultrasound could serve as a noninvasive alternative to colonoscopy for monitoring and predicting disease course, reported lead author Mariangela Allocca, MD, PhD, of Humanitas University, Milan, and colleagues.

“Frequent colonoscopies are expensive, invasive, and not well tolerated by patients, thus noninvasive tools for assessment and monitoring are strongly needed,” the investigators wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. “Bowel ultrasound accurately detects inflammatory bowel disease activity, extent, and complications, particularly in Crohn’s disease. Considering its low cost, minimal invasiveness ... and easy repeatability, bowel ultrasound may be a simple, readily available tool for assessing and monitoring Crohn’s disease.”

To test this hypothesis, Dr. Allocca and colleagues enrolled 225 consecutive patients with ileal and/or colonic Crohn’s disease diagnosed for at least 6 months and managed at a tertiary hospital in Italy. All patients underwent both colonoscopy and bowel ultrasound with no more than 3 months between each procedure.

Colonoscopy results were characterized by the Simplified Endoscopic Score for Crohn’s disease (SES-CD), whereas ultrasound was scored using a several parameters, including bowel wall pattern, bowel thickness, bowel wall flow, presence of complications (abscess, fistula, stricture), and characteristics of mesenteric lymph nodes and tissue. Ultrasound scores were considered high if they exceeded a cut-off of 3.52, which was determined by a receiver operating characteristic curve analysis.

Participants were followed for 12 months after baseline ultrasound. The primary objective was to determine the relationship between baseline ultrasound findings and negative disease course, defined by steroid usage, need for surgery, need for hospitalization, and/or change in therapy. The secondary objective was to understand the relationship between ultrasound findings and endoscopy activity.

Multivariable analysis revealed that ultrasound scores greater than 3.52 predicted a negative clinical disease course for up to one year (odds ratio, 6.97; 95% confidence interval, 2.87-16.93; P < .001), as did the presence of at least one disease complication at baseline (OR, 3.90; 95% CI, 1.21-12.53; P = 0.21). A worse clinical course at one-year was also predicted by a baseline fecal calprotectin value of at least 250 mcg/g (OR, 5.43; 95% CI, 2.25-13.11; P < .001) and male sex (OR, 2.60; 95% CI, 1.12-6.02; P = .025).

Investigators then assessed individual disease outcomes at 12 months and baseline results. For example, high ultrasound score and calprotectin at baseline each predicted the need for treatment escalation. In comparison, disease behavior (inflammatory, stricturing, penetrating) and C reactive protein predicted need for corticosteroids. The only significant predictor of hospitalization a year later was CRP.

“[B]owel ultrasound is able to predict disease course in Crohn’s disease patients,” they wrote. “It may identify patients at high risk of a negative course to adopt effective strategies to prevent any disease progression. Our data need to be confirmed and validated in further large studies.”

The investigators disclosed relationships with Janssen, AbbVie, Mundipharma, and others.

Bowel ultrasound predicts the clinical course of Crohn’s disease for up to 1 year, according to results of a prospective trial involving 225 patients.

After additional confirmation in larger studies, ultrasound could serve as a noninvasive alternative to colonoscopy for monitoring and predicting disease course, reported lead author Mariangela Allocca, MD, PhD, of Humanitas University, Milan, and colleagues.

“Frequent colonoscopies are expensive, invasive, and not well tolerated by patients, thus noninvasive tools for assessment and monitoring are strongly needed,” the investigators wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. “Bowel ultrasound accurately detects inflammatory bowel disease activity, extent, and complications, particularly in Crohn’s disease. Considering its low cost, minimal invasiveness ... and easy repeatability, bowel ultrasound may be a simple, readily available tool for assessing and monitoring Crohn’s disease.”

To test this hypothesis, Dr. Allocca and colleagues enrolled 225 consecutive patients with ileal and/or colonic Crohn’s disease diagnosed for at least 6 months and managed at a tertiary hospital in Italy. All patients underwent both colonoscopy and bowel ultrasound with no more than 3 months between each procedure.

Colonoscopy results were characterized by the Simplified Endoscopic Score for Crohn’s disease (SES-CD), whereas ultrasound was scored using a several parameters, including bowel wall pattern, bowel thickness, bowel wall flow, presence of complications (abscess, fistula, stricture), and characteristics of mesenteric lymph nodes and tissue. Ultrasound scores were considered high if they exceeded a cut-off of 3.52, which was determined by a receiver operating characteristic curve analysis.

Participants were followed for 12 months after baseline ultrasound. The primary objective was to determine the relationship between baseline ultrasound findings and negative disease course, defined by steroid usage, need for surgery, need for hospitalization, and/or change in therapy. The secondary objective was to understand the relationship between ultrasound findings and endoscopy activity.

Multivariable analysis revealed that ultrasound scores greater than 3.52 predicted a negative clinical disease course for up to one year (odds ratio, 6.97; 95% confidence interval, 2.87-16.93; P < .001), as did the presence of at least one disease complication at baseline (OR, 3.90; 95% CI, 1.21-12.53; P = 0.21). A worse clinical course at one-year was also predicted by a baseline fecal calprotectin value of at least 250 mcg/g (OR, 5.43; 95% CI, 2.25-13.11; P < .001) and male sex (OR, 2.60; 95% CI, 1.12-6.02; P = .025).

Investigators then assessed individual disease outcomes at 12 months and baseline results. For example, high ultrasound score and calprotectin at baseline each predicted the need for treatment escalation. In comparison, disease behavior (inflammatory, stricturing, penetrating) and C reactive protein predicted need for corticosteroids. The only significant predictor of hospitalization a year later was CRP.

“[B]owel ultrasound is able to predict disease course in Crohn’s disease patients,” they wrote. “It may identify patients at high risk of a negative course to adopt effective strategies to prevent any disease progression. Our data need to be confirmed and validated in further large studies.”

The investigators disclosed relationships with Janssen, AbbVie, Mundipharma, and others.

Anti–calcitonin gene-related peptide (anti-CGRP) monoclonal antibodies are effective for patients with chronic migraine and medication overuse headache regardless of detoxification strategy, according to investigators.

Abruptly discontinuing overused analgesics with health care provider oversight – a frequently resource-intensive and challenging process – is no more effective for controlling medication overuse headache than simply advising patients to stop, reported lead author Umberto Pensato, MD, of the University of Bologna, Italy, and colleagues.

“[C]urrently, the abrupt discontinuation of the overused painkiller(s), accompanied by the start of a pharmacological preventive therapy, is the most recommended strategy [for medication overuse headache],” the investigators wrote in Cephalalgia. “While painkiller(s) withdrawal could be accomplished on an outpatient basis in most cases, an in-hospital setting may be required to achieve successful discontinuation in a subgroup of patients with medication overuse headache, further weighing on individual and hospital costs. Additionally hampering this approach, the abrupt discontinuation of the overused painkiller(s) invariably results in disabling withdrawal symptoms for up to 2 weeks, including a transitory worsening of headache, the so-called ‘rebound headache.’ ”
 

Inpatient or outpatient: Does it matter?

According to Dr. Pensato and colleagues, early evidence suggests that previous painkiller withdrawal does not impact the efficacy of anti-CGRPs for medication overuse headache, yet relevant data remain scarce. To address this knowledge gap, they conducted a prospective, real-world study exploring the relationship between detoxification and outcomes after starting anti-CGRP therapy.

Out of 401 patients enrolled based on initiation of erenumab or galcanezumab, 111 satisfied inclusion criteria, including diagnosis of chronic migraine and medication overuse headache, at least 28 days of analgesic usage and headache days per month in the preceding 3 months, and other factors. Of these 111 patients, 83 underwent in-hospital detox, while the remaining 28 patients, who declined detox based on personal reasons or COVID-19–related bed shortage, were advised to discontinue overused medication on an outpatient basis (without oversight).

The primary endpoint was medication overuse headache responder rate after 3 months, as defined by ICHD-3 diagnostic criteria. Secondary endpoints included 6-item headache impact test (HIT-6), monthly headache days (MHD), migraine disability assessment score (MIDAS), mean pain intensity (MPI), monthly pain medication intake (MPMI), baseline predictors of response/refractoriness, and safety.

Three months after starting anti-CGRP therapy, 59% of patients had resolution of medication overuse headache, including 57% in the inpatient detox group and 64% in the outpatient group, a difference that was not statistically significant (P = .4788). Approximately half of the patients (51%) had at least 50% reduction in monthly headache days; although the rate was numerically lower in the inpatient group compared with the outpatient group, the difference was again not significant (51% vs. 54%; P = .8393).

“Our results support the emerging evidence that anti-CGRP drugs may be effective in these patients irrespective of the detoxification program,” the investigators concluded. “Further studies are needed to definitively confirm these results, potentially leading to a paradigm shift in the management of medication overuse headache.”
 

Abrupt or gradual detox?

According to Alan M. Rapoport, MD, clinical professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, and editor-in-chief of Neurology Reviews, the study was hampered by two major design limitations.

“The biggest problem I see is that the two groups were treated very differently for their detoxification,” Dr. Rapoport said. “One group was detoxified abruptly in the hospital, so the authors were sure that the patients were off acute-care medication before they started their preventives. The other group was advised to stop their medication on an outpatient basis. The issue is that we have no follow-up as to whether the outpatients did or did not abruptly detoxify. A bigger issue was that the two groups were not randomized so there are many other variables that may have come into consideration.”

Still, Dr. Rapoport, a past president of the International Headache Society (IHS), noted that the findings strengthen a growing body of evidence supporting the efficacy of monoclonal antibodies for medication overuse headache regardless of detoxification strategy. He cited a 2020 study by Carlsen and colleagues conducted at the Danish Headache Center in Copenhagen, which reported similar medication overuse headache outcomes across three randomized cohorts whether they received preventive therapy with detoxification, preventive therapy without detoxification, or detoxification followed 2 months later by preventive therapy.

“What I have noticed since we have had monoclonal antibodies in our armamentarium is that these drugs work very well even when the patient has not fully detoxified,” Dr. Rapoport said. “What I do with my patients is not teach them how to detoxify now, but simply educate them to take fewer acute care medications as their headaches get better from the monoclonal antibodies; they should try to take fewer acute care medications for milder, shorter headaches, and just let them go away on their own. Previous research suggests that even when a patient is not educated at all about medication overuse headache and the reason for detoxification, monoclonal antibodies still work in the presence of medication overuse headache, and improve it.”

The investigators disclosed relationships with Allergan, Novartis, Teva, and others. Dr. Rapoport is on the speakers bureau for AbbVie.

Anti–calcitonin gene-related peptide (anti-CGRP) monoclonal antibodies are effective for patients with chronic migraine and medication overuse headache regardless of detoxification strategy, according to investigators.

Abruptly discontinuing overused analgesics with health care provider oversight – a frequently resource-intensive and challenging process – is no more effective for controlling medication overuse headache than simply advising patients to stop, reported lead author Umberto Pensato, MD, of the University of Bologna, Italy, and colleagues.

“[C]urrently, the abrupt discontinuation of the overused painkiller(s), accompanied by the start of a pharmacological preventive therapy, is the most recommended strategy [for medication overuse headache],” the investigators wrote in Cephalalgia. “While painkiller(s) withdrawal could be accomplished on an outpatient basis in most cases, an in-hospital setting may be required to achieve successful discontinuation in a subgroup of patients with medication overuse headache, further weighing on individual and hospital costs. Additionally hampering this approach, the abrupt discontinuation of the overused painkiller(s) invariably results in disabling withdrawal symptoms for up to 2 weeks, including a transitory worsening of headache, the so-called ‘rebound headache.’ ”
 

Inpatient or outpatient: Does it matter?

According to Dr. Pensato and colleagues, early evidence suggests that previous painkiller withdrawal does not impact the efficacy of anti-CGRPs for medication overuse headache, yet relevant data remain scarce. To address this knowledge gap, they conducted a prospective, real-world study exploring the relationship between detoxification and outcomes after starting anti-CGRP therapy.

Out of 401 patients enrolled based on initiation of erenumab or galcanezumab, 111 satisfied inclusion criteria, including diagnosis of chronic migraine and medication overuse headache, at least 28 days of analgesic usage and headache days per month in the preceding 3 months, and other factors. Of these 111 patients, 83 underwent in-hospital detox, while the remaining 28 patients, who declined detox based on personal reasons or COVID-19–related bed shortage, were advised to discontinue overused medication on an outpatient basis (without oversight).

The primary endpoint was medication overuse headache responder rate after 3 months, as defined by ICHD-3 diagnostic criteria. Secondary endpoints included 6-item headache impact test (HIT-6), monthly headache days (MHD), migraine disability assessment score (MIDAS), mean pain intensity (MPI), monthly pain medication intake (MPMI), baseline predictors of response/refractoriness, and safety.

Three months after starting anti-CGRP therapy, 59% of patients had resolution of medication overuse headache, including 57% in the inpatient detox group and 64% in the outpatient group, a difference that was not statistically significant (P = .4788). Approximately half of the patients (51%) had at least 50% reduction in monthly headache days; although the rate was numerically lower in the inpatient group compared with the outpatient group, the difference was again not significant (51% vs. 54%; P = .8393).

“Our results support the emerging evidence that anti-CGRP drugs may be effective in these patients irrespective of the detoxification program,” the investigators concluded. “Further studies are needed to definitively confirm these results, potentially leading to a paradigm shift in the management of medication overuse headache.”
 

Abrupt or gradual detox?

According to Alan M. Rapoport, MD, clinical professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, and editor-in-chief of Neurology Reviews, the study was hampered by two major design limitations.

“The biggest problem I see is that the two groups were treated very differently for their detoxification,” Dr. Rapoport said. “One group was detoxified abruptly in the hospital, so the authors were sure that the patients were off acute-care medication before they started their preventives. The other group was advised to stop their medication on an outpatient basis. The issue is that we have no follow-up as to whether the outpatients did or did not abruptly detoxify. A bigger issue was that the two groups were not randomized so there are many other variables that may have come into consideration.”

Still, Dr. Rapoport, a past president of the International Headache Society (IHS), noted that the findings strengthen a growing body of evidence supporting the efficacy of monoclonal antibodies for medication overuse headache regardless of detoxification strategy. He cited a 2020 study by Carlsen and colleagues conducted at the Danish Headache Center in Copenhagen, which reported similar medication overuse headache outcomes across three randomized cohorts whether they received preventive therapy with detoxification, preventive therapy without detoxification, or detoxification followed 2 months later by preventive therapy.

“What I have noticed since we have had monoclonal antibodies in our armamentarium is that these drugs work very well even when the patient has not fully detoxified,” Dr. Rapoport said. “What I do with my patients is not teach them how to detoxify now, but simply educate them to take fewer acute care medications as their headaches get better from the monoclonal antibodies; they should try to take fewer acute care medications for milder, shorter headaches, and just let them go away on their own. Previous research suggests that even when a patient is not educated at all about medication overuse headache and the reason for detoxification, monoclonal antibodies still work in the presence of medication overuse headache, and improve it.”

The investigators disclosed relationships with Allergan, Novartis, Teva, and others. Dr. Rapoport is on the speakers bureau for AbbVie.

Anti–calcitonin gene-related peptide (anti-CGRP) monoclonal antibodies are effective for patients with chronic migraine and medication overuse headache regardless of detoxification strategy, according to investigators.

Abruptly discontinuing overused analgesics with health care provider oversight – a frequently resource-intensive and challenging process – is no more effective for controlling medication overuse headache than simply advising patients to stop, reported lead author Umberto Pensato, MD, of the University of Bologna, Italy, and colleagues.

“[C]urrently, the abrupt discontinuation of the overused painkiller(s), accompanied by the start of a pharmacological preventive therapy, is the most recommended strategy [for medication overuse headache],” the investigators wrote in Cephalalgia. “While painkiller(s) withdrawal could be accomplished on an outpatient basis in most cases, an in-hospital setting may be required to achieve successful discontinuation in a subgroup of patients with medication overuse headache, further weighing on individual and hospital costs. Additionally hampering this approach, the abrupt discontinuation of the overused painkiller(s) invariably results in disabling withdrawal symptoms for up to 2 weeks, including a transitory worsening of headache, the so-called ‘rebound headache.’ ”
 

Inpatient or outpatient: Does it matter?

According to Dr. Pensato and colleagues, early evidence suggests that previous painkiller withdrawal does not impact the efficacy of anti-CGRPs for medication overuse headache, yet relevant data remain scarce. To address this knowledge gap, they conducted a prospective, real-world study exploring the relationship between detoxification and outcomes after starting anti-CGRP therapy.

Out of 401 patients enrolled based on initiation of erenumab or galcanezumab, 111 satisfied inclusion criteria, including diagnosis of chronic migraine and medication overuse headache, at least 28 days of analgesic usage and headache days per month in the preceding 3 months, and other factors. Of these 111 patients, 83 underwent in-hospital detox, while the remaining 28 patients, who declined detox based on personal reasons or COVID-19–related bed shortage, were advised to discontinue overused medication on an outpatient basis (without oversight).

The primary endpoint was medication overuse headache responder rate after 3 months, as defined by ICHD-3 diagnostic criteria. Secondary endpoints included 6-item headache impact test (HIT-6), monthly headache days (MHD), migraine disability assessment score (MIDAS), mean pain intensity (MPI), monthly pain medication intake (MPMI), baseline predictors of response/refractoriness, and safety.

Three months after starting anti-CGRP therapy, 59% of patients had resolution of medication overuse headache, including 57% in the inpatient detox group and 64% in the outpatient group, a difference that was not statistically significant (P = .4788). Approximately half of the patients (51%) had at least 50% reduction in monthly headache days; although the rate was numerically lower in the inpatient group compared with the outpatient group, the difference was again not significant (51% vs. 54%; P = .8393).

“Our results support the emerging evidence that anti-CGRP drugs may be effective in these patients irrespective of the detoxification program,” the investigators concluded. “Further studies are needed to definitively confirm these results, potentially leading to a paradigm shift in the management of medication overuse headache.”
 

Abrupt or gradual detox?

According to Alan M. Rapoport, MD, clinical professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, and editor-in-chief of Neurology Reviews, the study was hampered by two major design limitations.

“The biggest problem I see is that the two groups were treated very differently for their detoxification,” Dr. Rapoport said. “One group was detoxified abruptly in the hospital, so the authors were sure that the patients were off acute-care medication before they started their preventives. The other group was advised to stop their medication on an outpatient basis. The issue is that we have no follow-up as to whether the outpatients did or did not abruptly detoxify. A bigger issue was that the two groups were not randomized so there are many other variables that may have come into consideration.”

Still, Dr. Rapoport, a past president of the International Headache Society (IHS), noted that the findings strengthen a growing body of evidence supporting the efficacy of monoclonal antibodies for medication overuse headache regardless of detoxification strategy. He cited a 2020 study by Carlsen and colleagues conducted at the Danish Headache Center in Copenhagen, which reported similar medication overuse headache outcomes across three randomized cohorts whether they received preventive therapy with detoxification, preventive therapy without detoxification, or detoxification followed 2 months later by preventive therapy.

“What I have noticed since we have had monoclonal antibodies in our armamentarium is that these drugs work very well even when the patient has not fully detoxified,” Dr. Rapoport said. “What I do with my patients is not teach them how to detoxify now, but simply educate them to take fewer acute care medications as their headaches get better from the monoclonal antibodies; they should try to take fewer acute care medications for milder, shorter headaches, and just let them go away on their own. Previous research suggests that even when a patient is not educated at all about medication overuse headache and the reason for detoxification, monoclonal antibodies still work in the presence of medication overuse headache, and improve it.”

The investigators disclosed relationships with Allergan, Novartis, Teva, and others. Dr. Rapoport is on the speakers bureau for AbbVie.

The International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) has issued recommendations for treating depression in patients with epilepsy.

The new guidance highlights the high prevalence of depression among patients with epilepsy while offering the first systematic approach to treatment, reported lead author Marco Mula, MD, PhD, of Atkinson Morley Regional Neuroscience Centre at St George’s University Hospital, London, and colleagues.

“Despite evidence that depression represents a frequently encountered comorbidity [among patients with epilepsy], data on the treatment of depression in epilepsy [are] still limited and recommendations rely mostly on individual clinical experience and expertise,” the investigators wrote in Epilepsia.

Recommendations cover first-line treatment of unipolar depression in epilepsy without other psychiatric disorders.

For patients with mild depression, the guidance supports psychological intervention without pharmacologic therapy; however, if the patient wishes to use medication, has had a positive response to medication in the past, or nonpharmacologic treatments have previously failed or are unavailable, then SSRIs should be considered first-choice therapy. For moderate to severe depression, SSRIs are the first choice, according to Dr. Mula and colleagues.

“It has to be acknowledged that there is considerable debate in the psychiatric literature about the treatment of mild depression in adults,” the investigators noted. “A patient-level meta-analysis pointed out that the magnitude of benefit of antidepressant medications compared with placebo increases with severity of depression symptoms and it may be minimal or nonexistent, on average, in patients with mild or moderate symptoms.”

If a patient does not respond to first-line therapy, then venlafaxine should be considered, according to the guidance. When a patient does respond to therapy, treatment should be continued for at least 6 months, and when residual symptoms persist, treatment should be continued until resolution.

“In people with depression it is established that around two-thirds of patients do not achieve full remission with first-line treatment,” Dr. Mula and colleagues wrote. “In people with epilepsy, current data show that up to 50% of patients do not achieve full remission from depression. For this reason, augmentation strategies are often needed. They should be adopted by psychiatrists, neuropsychiatrists, or mental health professionals familiar with such therapeutic strategies.”

Beyond these key recommendations, the guidance covers a range of additional topics, including other pharmacologic options, medication discontinuation strategies, electroconvulsive therapy, light therapy, exercise training, vagus nerve stimulation, and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation.
 

Useful advice that counters common misconceptions

According to Jacqueline A. French, MD, a professor at NYU Langone Medical Center, Dr. Mula and colleagues are “top notch,” and their recommendations “hit every nail on the head.”

Dr. French, chief medical officer of The Epilepsy Foundation, emphasized the importance of the publication, which addresses two common misconceptions within the medical community: First, that standard antidepressants are insufficient to treat depression in patients with epilepsy, and second, that antidepressants may trigger seizures.

“The first purpose [of the publication] is to say, yes, these antidepressants do work,” Dr. French said, “and no, they don’t worsen seizures, and you can use them safely, and they are appropriate to use.”

Dr. French explained that managing depression remains a practice gap among epileptologists and neurologists because it is a diagnosis that doesn’t traditionally fall into their purview, yet many patients with epilepsy forgo visiting their primary care providers, who more frequently diagnose and manage depression. Dr. French agreed with the guidance that epilepsy specialists should fill this gap.

“We need to at least be able to take people through their first antidepressant, even though we were not trained to be psychiatrists,” Dr. French said. “That’s part of the best care of our patients.”

Imad Najm, MD, director of the Charles Shor Epilepsy Center, Cleveland Clinic, said the recommendations are a step forward in the field, as they are supported by clinical data, instead of just clinical experience and expertise.

Still, Dr. Najm noted that more work is needed to stratify risk of depression in epilepsy and evaluate a possible causal relationship between epilepsy therapies and depression.

He went on to emphasizes the scale of issue at hand, and the stakes involved.

“Depression, anxiety, and psychosis affect a large number of patients with epilepsy,” Dr. Najm said. “Clinical screening and recognition of these comorbidities leads to the institution of treatment options and significant improvement in quality of life. Mental health professionals should be an integral part of any comprehensive epilepsy center.”

The investigators disclosed relationships with Esai, UCB, Elsevier, and others. Dr. French is indirectly involved with multiple pharmaceutical companies developing epilepsy drugs through her role as director of The Epilepsy Study Consortium, a nonprofit organization. Dr. Najm reported no conflicts of interest.

The International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) has issued recommendations for treating depression in patients with epilepsy.

The new guidance highlights the high prevalence of depression among patients with epilepsy while offering the first systematic approach to treatment, reported lead author Marco Mula, MD, PhD, of Atkinson Morley Regional Neuroscience Centre at St George’s University Hospital, London, and colleagues.

“Despite evidence that depression represents a frequently encountered comorbidity [among patients with epilepsy], data on the treatment of depression in epilepsy [are] still limited and recommendations rely mostly on individual clinical experience and expertise,” the investigators wrote in Epilepsia.

Recommendations cover first-line treatment of unipolar depression in epilepsy without other psychiatric disorders.

For patients with mild depression, the guidance supports psychological intervention without pharmacologic therapy; however, if the patient wishes to use medication, has had a positive response to medication in the past, or nonpharmacologic treatments have previously failed or are unavailable, then SSRIs should be considered first-choice therapy. For moderate to severe depression, SSRIs are the first choice, according to Dr. Mula and colleagues.

“It has to be acknowledged that there is considerable debate in the psychiatric literature about the treatment of mild depression in adults,” the investigators noted. “A patient-level meta-analysis pointed out that the magnitude of benefit of antidepressant medications compared with placebo increases with severity of depression symptoms and it may be minimal or nonexistent, on average, in patients with mild or moderate symptoms.”

If a patient does not respond to first-line therapy, then venlafaxine should be considered, according to the guidance. When a patient does respond to therapy, treatment should be continued for at least 6 months, and when residual symptoms persist, treatment should be continued until resolution.

“In people with depression it is established that around two-thirds of patients do not achieve full remission with first-line treatment,” Dr. Mula and colleagues wrote. “In people with epilepsy, current data show that up to 50% of patients do not achieve full remission from depression. For this reason, augmentation strategies are often needed. They should be adopted by psychiatrists, neuropsychiatrists, or mental health professionals familiar with such therapeutic strategies.”

Beyond these key recommendations, the guidance covers a range of additional topics, including other pharmacologic options, medication discontinuation strategies, electroconvulsive therapy, light therapy, exercise training, vagus nerve stimulation, and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation.
 

Useful advice that counters common misconceptions

According to Jacqueline A. French, MD, a professor at NYU Langone Medical Center, Dr. Mula and colleagues are “top notch,” and their recommendations “hit every nail on the head.”

Dr. French, chief medical officer of The Epilepsy Foundation, emphasized the importance of the publication, which addresses two common misconceptions within the medical community: First, that standard antidepressants are insufficient to treat depression in patients with epilepsy, and second, that antidepressants may trigger seizures.

“The first purpose [of the publication] is to say, yes, these antidepressants do work,” Dr. French said, “and no, they don’t worsen seizures, and you can use them safely, and they are appropriate to use.”

Dr. French explained that managing depression remains a practice gap among epileptologists and neurologists because it is a diagnosis that doesn’t traditionally fall into their purview, yet many patients with epilepsy forgo visiting their primary care providers, who more frequently diagnose and manage depression. Dr. French agreed with the guidance that epilepsy specialists should fill this gap.

“We need to at least be able to take people through their first antidepressant, even though we were not trained to be psychiatrists,” Dr. French said. “That’s part of the best care of our patients.”

Imad Najm, MD, director of the Charles Shor Epilepsy Center, Cleveland Clinic, said the recommendations are a step forward in the field, as they are supported by clinical data, instead of just clinical experience and expertise.

Still, Dr. Najm noted that more work is needed to stratify risk of depression in epilepsy and evaluate a possible causal relationship between epilepsy therapies and depression.

He went on to emphasizes the scale of issue at hand, and the stakes involved.

“Depression, anxiety, and psychosis affect a large number of patients with epilepsy,” Dr. Najm said. “Clinical screening and recognition of these comorbidities leads to the institution of treatment options and significant improvement in quality of life. Mental health professionals should be an integral part of any comprehensive epilepsy center.”

The investigators disclosed relationships with Esai, UCB, Elsevier, and others. Dr. French is indirectly involved with multiple pharmaceutical companies developing epilepsy drugs through her role as director of The Epilepsy Study Consortium, a nonprofit organization. Dr. Najm reported no conflicts of interest.

The International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) has issued recommendations for treating depression in patients with epilepsy.

The new guidance highlights the high prevalence of depression among patients with epilepsy while offering the first systematic approach to treatment, reported lead author Marco Mula, MD, PhD, of Atkinson Morley Regional Neuroscience Centre at St George’s University Hospital, London, and colleagues.

“Despite evidence that depression represents a frequently encountered comorbidity [among patients with epilepsy], data on the treatment of depression in epilepsy [are] still limited and recommendations rely mostly on individual clinical experience and expertise,” the investigators wrote in Epilepsia.

Recommendations cover first-line treatment of unipolar depression in epilepsy without other psychiatric disorders.

For patients with mild depression, the guidance supports psychological intervention without pharmacologic therapy; however, if the patient wishes to use medication, has had a positive response to medication in the past, or nonpharmacologic treatments have previously failed or are unavailable, then SSRIs should be considered first-choice therapy. For moderate to severe depression, SSRIs are the first choice, according to Dr. Mula and colleagues.

“It has to be acknowledged that there is considerable debate in the psychiatric literature about the treatment of mild depression in adults,” the investigators noted. “A patient-level meta-analysis pointed out that the magnitude of benefit of antidepressant medications compared with placebo increases with severity of depression symptoms and it may be minimal or nonexistent, on average, in patients with mild or moderate symptoms.”

If a patient does not respond to first-line therapy, then venlafaxine should be considered, according to the guidance. When a patient does respond to therapy, treatment should be continued for at least 6 months, and when residual symptoms persist, treatment should be continued until resolution.

“In people with depression it is established that around two-thirds of patients do not achieve full remission with first-line treatment,” Dr. Mula and colleagues wrote. “In people with epilepsy, current data show that up to 50% of patients do not achieve full remission from depression. For this reason, augmentation strategies are often needed. They should be adopted by psychiatrists, neuropsychiatrists, or mental health professionals familiar with such therapeutic strategies.”

Beyond these key recommendations, the guidance covers a range of additional topics, including other pharmacologic options, medication discontinuation strategies, electroconvulsive therapy, light therapy, exercise training, vagus nerve stimulation, and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation.
 

Useful advice that counters common misconceptions

According to Jacqueline A. French, MD, a professor at NYU Langone Medical Center, Dr. Mula and colleagues are “top notch,” and their recommendations “hit every nail on the head.”

Dr. French, chief medical officer of The Epilepsy Foundation, emphasized the importance of the publication, which addresses two common misconceptions within the medical community: First, that standard antidepressants are insufficient to treat depression in patients with epilepsy, and second, that antidepressants may trigger seizures.

“The first purpose [of the publication] is to say, yes, these antidepressants do work,” Dr. French said, “and no, they don’t worsen seizures, and you can use them safely, and they are appropriate to use.”

Dr. French explained that managing depression remains a practice gap among epileptologists and neurologists because it is a diagnosis that doesn’t traditionally fall into their purview, yet many patients with epilepsy forgo visiting their primary care providers, who more frequently diagnose and manage depression. Dr. French agreed with the guidance that epilepsy specialists should fill this gap.

“We need to at least be able to take people through their first antidepressant, even though we were not trained to be psychiatrists,” Dr. French said. “That’s part of the best care of our patients.”

Imad Najm, MD, director of the Charles Shor Epilepsy Center, Cleveland Clinic, said the recommendations are a step forward in the field, as they are supported by clinical data, instead of just clinical experience and expertise.

Still, Dr. Najm noted that more work is needed to stratify risk of depression in epilepsy and evaluate a possible causal relationship between epilepsy therapies and depression.

He went on to emphasizes the scale of issue at hand, and the stakes involved.

“Depression, anxiety, and psychosis affect a large number of patients with epilepsy,” Dr. Najm said. “Clinical screening and recognition of these comorbidities leads to the institution of treatment options and significant improvement in quality of life. Mental health professionals should be an integral part of any comprehensive epilepsy center.”

The investigators disclosed relationships with Esai, UCB, Elsevier, and others. Dr. French is indirectly involved with multiple pharmaceutical companies developing epilepsy drugs through her role as director of The Epilepsy Study Consortium, a nonprofit organization. Dr. Najm reported no conflicts of interest.

More steps per day, particularly at a higher intensity, may reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes in older women, based on a prospective cohort study.

The link between daily stepping and diabetes was not significantly modified by body mass index (BMI) or other common diabetes risk factors, suggesting that the relationship is highly generalizable, lead author Alexis C. Garduno, MPH, a PhD student at the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues reported.

“Physical activity is a key modifiable behavior for diabetes prevention and management,” the investigators wrote in Diabetes Care. “Many prevention studies have demonstrated that regular physical activity, along with improved diet, reduces the risk of diabetes in adults. ... To the best of our knowledge, there are few studies examining the association between objectively measured steps per day and incident diabetes in a community-based setting.”

To this end, the investigators analyzed data from 4,838 older, community-living women in the Objective Physical Activity and Cardiovascular Health Study. Upon enrollment, women were without physician-diagnosed diabetes and had a mean age of 78.9 years. For 1 week, participants wore ActiGraph GT3X+ accelerometers to measure steps per day, as well as step intensity, graded as light or moderate to vigorous.

The relationship between daily activity and diabetes was analyzed using three multivariate models: The first included race/ethnicity and age; the second also included family history of diabetes, education, physical functioning, self-rated health, smoking status, and alcohol consumption; and the third added BMI, “a potential mediator in the causal pathway between steps per day and diabetes,” the investigators wrote.

Participants took an average of 3,729 steps per day, divided roughly evenly between light and moderate to vigorous intensity.

After a median follow-up of 5.7 years, 8.1% of women developed diabetes. The least-adjusted model showed a 14% reduction in diabetes risk per 2,000 steps (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.80-0.92; P = .007), whereas the second model, adjusting for more confounding variables, showed a 12% reduction in diabetes risk per 2,000 steps (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.78-1.00; P = .045).

The final model, which added BMI, showed a 10% reduction in risk, although it didn’t reach statistical significance (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.80-1.02; P = .11). Furthermore, accelerated failure time models suggested that BMI did not significantly impact the link between steps and diabetes (proportion mediated, 17.7%;95% CI, –55.0 to 142.0; P = .09). Further analyses also found no significant interactions between BMI or other possible confounders.

“The steps per day–diabetes association was not modified by age, race/ethnicity, BMI, physical functioning, or family history of diabetes, which supports the generalizability of these findings to community-living older women,” the investigators wrote.

Increased stepping intensity also appeared to lower risk of diabetes. After adjusting for confounding variables, light stepping was not linked to reduced risk (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.73-1.29; P = .83), whereas moderate to vigorous stepping reduced risk by 14% per 2,000 steps (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.74-1.00; P = .04).

“This study provides evidence supporting an association between steps per day and lower incident diabetes,” the investigators concluded. “While further work is needed to identify whether there is a minimum number of steps per day that results in a clinically significant reduction of diabetes and to evaluate the role that step intensity plays in diabetes etiology for older adults, findings from this study suggest that moderate-vigorous–intensity steps may be more important than lower-intensity steps with respect to incident diabetes. Steps per day–based interventions are needed to advance diabetes prevention science in older adults.”

The study was supported by the National Institute on Aging, the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, the Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program, and others. The investigators had no potential conflicts of interest.

More steps per day, particularly at a higher intensity, may reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes in older women, based on a prospective cohort study.

The link between daily stepping and diabetes was not significantly modified by body mass index (BMI) or other common diabetes risk factors, suggesting that the relationship is highly generalizable, lead author Alexis C. Garduno, MPH, a PhD student at the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues reported.

“Physical activity is a key modifiable behavior for diabetes prevention and management,” the investigators wrote in Diabetes Care. “Many prevention studies have demonstrated that regular physical activity, along with improved diet, reduces the risk of diabetes in adults. ... To the best of our knowledge, there are few studies examining the association between objectively measured steps per day and incident diabetes in a community-based setting.”

To this end, the investigators analyzed data from 4,838 older, community-living women in the Objective Physical Activity and Cardiovascular Health Study. Upon enrollment, women were without physician-diagnosed diabetes and had a mean age of 78.9 years. For 1 week, participants wore ActiGraph GT3X+ accelerometers to measure steps per day, as well as step intensity, graded as light or moderate to vigorous.

The relationship between daily activity and diabetes was analyzed using three multivariate models: The first included race/ethnicity and age; the second also included family history of diabetes, education, physical functioning, self-rated health, smoking status, and alcohol consumption; and the third added BMI, “a potential mediator in the causal pathway between steps per day and diabetes,” the investigators wrote.

Participants took an average of 3,729 steps per day, divided roughly evenly between light and moderate to vigorous intensity.

After a median follow-up of 5.7 years, 8.1% of women developed diabetes. The least-adjusted model showed a 14% reduction in diabetes risk per 2,000 steps (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.80-0.92; P = .007), whereas the second model, adjusting for more confounding variables, showed a 12% reduction in diabetes risk per 2,000 steps (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.78-1.00; P = .045).

The final model, which added BMI, showed a 10% reduction in risk, although it didn’t reach statistical significance (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.80-1.02; P = .11). Furthermore, accelerated failure time models suggested that BMI did not significantly impact the link between steps and diabetes (proportion mediated, 17.7%;95% CI, –55.0 to 142.0; P = .09). Further analyses also found no significant interactions between BMI or other possible confounders.

“The steps per day–diabetes association was not modified by age, race/ethnicity, BMI, physical functioning, or family history of diabetes, which supports the generalizability of these findings to community-living older women,” the investigators wrote.

Increased stepping intensity also appeared to lower risk of diabetes. After adjusting for confounding variables, light stepping was not linked to reduced risk (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.73-1.29; P = .83), whereas moderate to vigorous stepping reduced risk by 14% per 2,000 steps (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.74-1.00; P = .04).

“This study provides evidence supporting an association between steps per day and lower incident diabetes,” the investigators concluded. “While further work is needed to identify whether there is a minimum number of steps per day that results in a clinically significant reduction of diabetes and to evaluate the role that step intensity plays in diabetes etiology for older adults, findings from this study suggest that moderate-vigorous–intensity steps may be more important than lower-intensity steps with respect to incident diabetes. Steps per day–based interventions are needed to advance diabetes prevention science in older adults.”

The study was supported by the National Institute on Aging, the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, the Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program, and others. The investigators had no potential conflicts of interest.

More steps per day, particularly at a higher intensity, may reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes in older women, based on a prospective cohort study.

The link between daily stepping and diabetes was not significantly modified by body mass index (BMI) or other common diabetes risk factors, suggesting that the relationship is highly generalizable, lead author Alexis C. Garduno, MPH, a PhD student at the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues reported.

“Physical activity is a key modifiable behavior for diabetes prevention and management,” the investigators wrote in Diabetes Care. “Many prevention studies have demonstrated that regular physical activity, along with improved diet, reduces the risk of diabetes in adults. ... To the best of our knowledge, there are few studies examining the association between objectively measured steps per day and incident diabetes in a community-based setting.”

To this end, the investigators analyzed data from 4,838 older, community-living women in the Objective Physical Activity and Cardiovascular Health Study. Upon enrollment, women were without physician-diagnosed diabetes and had a mean age of 78.9 years. For 1 week, participants wore ActiGraph GT3X+ accelerometers to measure steps per day, as well as step intensity, graded as light or moderate to vigorous.

The relationship between daily activity and diabetes was analyzed using three multivariate models: The first included race/ethnicity and age; the second also included family history of diabetes, education, physical functioning, self-rated health, smoking status, and alcohol consumption; and the third added BMI, “a potential mediator in the causal pathway between steps per day and diabetes,” the investigators wrote.

Participants took an average of 3,729 steps per day, divided roughly evenly between light and moderate to vigorous intensity.

After a median follow-up of 5.7 years, 8.1% of women developed diabetes. The least-adjusted model showed a 14% reduction in diabetes risk per 2,000 steps (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.80-0.92; P = .007), whereas the second model, adjusting for more confounding variables, showed a 12% reduction in diabetes risk per 2,000 steps (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.78-1.00; P = .045).

The final model, which added BMI, showed a 10% reduction in risk, although it didn’t reach statistical significance (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.80-1.02; P = .11). Furthermore, accelerated failure time models suggested that BMI did not significantly impact the link between steps and diabetes (proportion mediated, 17.7%;95% CI, –55.0 to 142.0; P = .09). Further analyses also found no significant interactions between BMI or other possible confounders.

“The steps per day–diabetes association was not modified by age, race/ethnicity, BMI, physical functioning, or family history of diabetes, which supports the generalizability of these findings to community-living older women,” the investigators wrote.

Increased stepping intensity also appeared to lower risk of diabetes. After adjusting for confounding variables, light stepping was not linked to reduced risk (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.73-1.29; P = .83), whereas moderate to vigorous stepping reduced risk by 14% per 2,000 steps (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.74-1.00; P = .04).

“This study provides evidence supporting an association between steps per day and lower incident diabetes,” the investigators concluded. “While further work is needed to identify whether there is a minimum number of steps per day that results in a clinically significant reduction of diabetes and to evaluate the role that step intensity plays in diabetes etiology for older adults, findings from this study suggest that moderate-vigorous–intensity steps may be more important than lower-intensity steps with respect to incident diabetes. Steps per day–based interventions are needed to advance diabetes prevention science in older adults.”

The study was supported by the National Institute on Aging, the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, the Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program, and others. The investigators had no potential conflicts of interest.

Dairy intake may increase risk of Parkinson’s disease in men, according to investigators. Men of European ancestry with a genetic marker predicting dairy consumption had significantly greater risk of Parkinson’s disease than individuals without the marker, suggesting a causal relationship between dairy intake and Parkinson’s disease, lead author Cloé Domenighetti, MSc, a PhD student at UVSQ, Université Paris Sud, and colleagues reported.

“Previous studies highlighted dairy intake as a risk factor of Parkinson’s disease,” the investigators wrote in Movement Disorders. “A meta-analysis of prospective studies reported a 40% increased Parkinson’s disease risk in participants with the highest intake. It is unclear whether the association is causal or explained by confounding or reverse causation, given the long prodromal phase of Parkinson’s disease.”
 

A Mendelian randomization study

The investigators evaluated this link by comparing 9,823 cases of Parkinson’s disease with 8,376 controls, all individuals of European ancestry from the Courage-Parkinson’s disease consortium, comprising 23 studies. Data were analyzed by two-sample Mendelian randomization, a technique that uses genotype to predict behavior, thereby replacing conventional methods of capturing behavior, such as questionnaires. In this case, the investigators screened all participants for rs4988235, a single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) upstream of the lactase gene that is well documented to predict dairy intake among individuals of European ancestry.

“Mendelian randomization uses genetic variants associated with exposures as instrumental variables to estimate causal relationships between exposures and outcomes,” the investigators wrote. “Mendelian randomization analyses are less likely to be biased by confounding or reverse causation than observational studies if a set of assumptions are met.”

The approach uncovered a significant association between rs4988235 and Parkinson’s disease, with a 70% increase in disease risk per one serving of dairy per day (odds ratio, 1.70; 95% confidence interval, 1.12-2.60; P = .013). Further analysis revealed that this finding was driven by men, who had a 2.5-fold increased risk of Parkinson’s disease per one serving per day (OR, 2.50; 95% CI, 1.37-4.56; P = .003) versus women, among whom there was no significant association (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.56-1.92; P = .91). No significant associations were observed among individuals grouped by age or Parkinson’s disease duration.

“Our findings suggest that dairy intake increases Parkinson’s disease risk,” the investigators concluded. “Therefore, diets with limited milk intake (e.g., Mediterranean diet) may be beneficial with respect to Parkinson’s disease.”
 

Further evidence supporting a link between diet and Parkinson’s disease

According to Silke Appel-Cresswell, MD, Marg Meikle Professor for Parkinson’s Research at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, the findings align with previous prospective cohort studies demonstrating an increased risk of Parkinson’s disease with greater consumption of dairy.

“What the current study adds,” Dr. Appel-Cresswell said, “is a complementary approach to assess the association where the risk of reverse causation and of confounding are minimized. Like in some of the previous studies, the authors find sex differences with an increased risk for men but not women.”

Dr. Appel-Cresswell noted that an increasing body of evidence supports a link between diet and Parkinson’s disease, including a study of her own published last year, which showed later onset of Parkinson’s disease among individuals with a Mediterranean-style diet.

“We are accumulating evidence for a role of diet (or more broadly, the food exposome) for the risk to develop Parkinson’s disease,” Dr. Appel-Cresswell said, noting that “key pieces are still missing, including mechanisms underlying associations, clinical trials in individuals with established Parkinson’s disease and – eventually – preventive interventions. This research is urgently needed and analyses will need to take sex differences and a large range of potential other factors into account.”
 

A ‘modest’ contributing factor?

Vikas Kotagal, MD, associate professor of neurology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, offered a perspective on the study methodology, and suggested that a causal link between dairy intake and Parkinson’s disease, if present, is likely minimal.

“Limitations to the study include the fact that participants weren’t actually asked or tested for how much dairy they truly consumed,” Dr. Kotagal said*. “Their dairy intake was estimated based on their genetic background – there are certainly many assumptions baked into this analytic approach which may or may not be true. It is also worth noting the fact that this causal association was seen in men and not women, suggesting that even if dairy intake was truly causal, it is likely to be a modest contributing factor and not a significant cause of Parkinson’s disease in the broader population in general.”

Still, Dr. Kotagal agreed with Dr. Appel-Cresswell that underlying mechanisms need further investigation.

“The biggest takeaway here is to heighten the urgency for researchers and funders to explore whether factors that might cluster with dairy intake – including pesticide exposure in milk or even the make-up of bacterial populations in different peoples’ intestines – might deserve closer scrutiny as a missing link connecting dairy consumption to increased Parkinson’s disease risk,” Dr. Kotagal said.
 

Dietary advice

Considering all available evidence, Dr. Appel-Cresswell offered some dietary advice with benefits that may extend beyond prevention of Parkinson’s disease.

“From a clinical point of view, I suggest to limit dairy intake to a moderate amount,” she said. “Mediterranean diets so far have the best supporting evidence for a lower Parkinson’s disease risk, although data is lacking for benefits in established Parkinson’s disease. Given the low risk of the Mediterranean diet and the established benefits for a host of other medical conditions, this is generally a safe and delicious recommendation whether one is living with Parkinson’s or not.”

The study was supported by the European Union Joint Program for Neurodegenerative Disease Research, the National Centre of Excellence in Research on Parkinson’s Disease, the National Institutes of Health, and others. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Astellas Pharma, Sanofi, Pfizer, and others. Dr. Kotagal and Dr. Appel-Cresswell reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

*Correction, 2/10/22: An earlier version of this article misstated Dr. Kotagal's name in certain instances, including a photo caption.

Dairy intake may increase risk of Parkinson’s disease in men, according to investigators. Men of European ancestry with a genetic marker predicting dairy consumption had significantly greater risk of Parkinson’s disease than individuals without the marker, suggesting a causal relationship between dairy intake and Parkinson’s disease, lead author Cloé Domenighetti, MSc, a PhD student at UVSQ, Université Paris Sud, and colleagues reported.

“Previous studies highlighted dairy intake as a risk factor of Parkinson’s disease,” the investigators wrote in Movement Disorders. “A meta-analysis of prospective studies reported a 40% increased Parkinson’s disease risk in participants with the highest intake. It is unclear whether the association is causal or explained by confounding or reverse causation, given the long prodromal phase of Parkinson’s disease.”
 

A Mendelian randomization study

The investigators evaluated this link by comparing 9,823 cases of Parkinson’s disease with 8,376 controls, all individuals of European ancestry from the Courage-Parkinson’s disease consortium, comprising 23 studies. Data were analyzed by two-sample Mendelian randomization, a technique that uses genotype to predict behavior, thereby replacing conventional methods of capturing behavior, such as questionnaires. In this case, the investigators screened all participants for rs4988235, a single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) upstream of the lactase gene that is well documented to predict dairy intake among individuals of European ancestry.

“Mendelian randomization uses genetic variants associated with exposures as instrumental variables to estimate causal relationships between exposures and outcomes,” the investigators wrote. “Mendelian randomization analyses are less likely to be biased by confounding or reverse causation than observational studies if a set of assumptions are met.”

The approach uncovered a significant association between rs4988235 and Parkinson’s disease, with a 70% increase in disease risk per one serving of dairy per day (odds ratio, 1.70; 95% confidence interval, 1.12-2.60; P = .013). Further analysis revealed that this finding was driven by men, who had a 2.5-fold increased risk of Parkinson’s disease per one serving per day (OR, 2.50; 95% CI, 1.37-4.56; P = .003) versus women, among whom there was no significant association (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.56-1.92; P = .91). No significant associations were observed among individuals grouped by age or Parkinson’s disease duration.

“Our findings suggest that dairy intake increases Parkinson’s disease risk,” the investigators concluded. “Therefore, diets with limited milk intake (e.g., Mediterranean diet) may be beneficial with respect to Parkinson’s disease.”
 

Further evidence supporting a link between diet and Parkinson’s disease

According to Silke Appel-Cresswell, MD, Marg Meikle Professor for Parkinson’s Research at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, the findings align with previous prospective cohort studies demonstrating an increased risk of Parkinson’s disease with greater consumption of dairy.

“What the current study adds,” Dr. Appel-Cresswell said, “is a complementary approach to assess the association where the risk of reverse causation and of confounding are minimized. Like in some of the previous studies, the authors find sex differences with an increased risk for men but not women.”

Dr. Appel-Cresswell noted that an increasing body of evidence supports a link between diet and Parkinson’s disease, including a study of her own published last year, which showed later onset of Parkinson’s disease among individuals with a Mediterranean-style diet.

“We are accumulating evidence for a role of diet (or more broadly, the food exposome) for the risk to develop Parkinson’s disease,” Dr. Appel-Cresswell said, noting that “key pieces are still missing, including mechanisms underlying associations, clinical trials in individuals with established Parkinson’s disease and – eventually – preventive interventions. This research is urgently needed and analyses will need to take sex differences and a large range of potential other factors into account.”
 

A ‘modest’ contributing factor?

Vikas Kotagal, MD, associate professor of neurology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, offered a perspective on the study methodology, and suggested that a causal link between dairy intake and Parkinson’s disease, if present, is likely minimal.

“Limitations to the study include the fact that participants weren’t actually asked or tested for how much dairy they truly consumed,” Dr. Kotagal said*. “Their dairy intake was estimated based on their genetic background – there are certainly many assumptions baked into this analytic approach which may or may not be true. It is also worth noting the fact that this causal association was seen in men and not women, suggesting that even if dairy intake was truly causal, it is likely to be a modest contributing factor and not a significant cause of Parkinson’s disease in the broader population in general.”

Still, Dr. Kotagal agreed with Dr. Appel-Cresswell that underlying mechanisms need further investigation.

“The biggest takeaway here is to heighten the urgency for researchers and funders to explore whether factors that might cluster with dairy intake – including pesticide exposure in milk or even the make-up of bacterial populations in different peoples’ intestines – might deserve closer scrutiny as a missing link connecting dairy consumption to increased Parkinson’s disease risk,” Dr. Kotagal said.
 

Dietary advice

Considering all available evidence, Dr. Appel-Cresswell offered some dietary advice with benefits that may extend beyond prevention of Parkinson’s disease.

“From a clinical point of view, I suggest to limit dairy intake to a moderate amount,” she said. “Mediterranean diets so far have the best supporting evidence for a lower Parkinson’s disease risk, although data is lacking for benefits in established Parkinson’s disease. Given the low risk of the Mediterranean diet and the established benefits for a host of other medical conditions, this is generally a safe and delicious recommendation whether one is living with Parkinson’s or not.”

The study was supported by the European Union Joint Program for Neurodegenerative Disease Research, the National Centre of Excellence in Research on Parkinson’s Disease, the National Institutes of Health, and others. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Astellas Pharma, Sanofi, Pfizer, and others. Dr. Kotagal and Dr. Appel-Cresswell reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

*Correction, 2/10/22: An earlier version of this article misstated Dr. Kotagal's name in certain instances, including a photo caption.

Dairy intake may increase risk of Parkinson’s disease in men, according to investigators. Men of European ancestry with a genetic marker predicting dairy consumption had significantly greater risk of Parkinson’s disease than individuals without the marker, suggesting a causal relationship between dairy intake and Parkinson’s disease, lead author Cloé Domenighetti, MSc, a PhD student at UVSQ, Université Paris Sud, and colleagues reported.

“Previous studies highlighted dairy intake as a risk factor of Parkinson’s disease,” the investigators wrote in Movement Disorders. “A meta-analysis of prospective studies reported a 40% increased Parkinson’s disease risk in participants with the highest intake. It is unclear whether the association is causal or explained by confounding or reverse causation, given the long prodromal phase of Parkinson’s disease.”
 

A Mendelian randomization study

The investigators evaluated this link by comparing 9,823 cases of Parkinson’s disease with 8,376 controls, all individuals of European ancestry from the Courage-Parkinson’s disease consortium, comprising 23 studies. Data were analyzed by two-sample Mendelian randomization, a technique that uses genotype to predict behavior, thereby replacing conventional methods of capturing behavior, such as questionnaires. In this case, the investigators screened all participants for rs4988235, a single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) upstream of the lactase gene that is well documented to predict dairy intake among individuals of European ancestry.

“Mendelian randomization uses genetic variants associated with exposures as instrumental variables to estimate causal relationships between exposures and outcomes,” the investigators wrote. “Mendelian randomization analyses are less likely to be biased by confounding or reverse causation than observational studies if a set of assumptions are met.”

The approach uncovered a significant association between rs4988235 and Parkinson’s disease, with a 70% increase in disease risk per one serving of dairy per day (odds ratio, 1.70; 95% confidence interval, 1.12-2.60; P = .013). Further analysis revealed that this finding was driven by men, who had a 2.5-fold increased risk of Parkinson’s disease per one serving per day (OR, 2.50; 95% CI, 1.37-4.56; P = .003) versus women, among whom there was no significant association (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.56-1.92; P = .91). No significant associations were observed among individuals grouped by age or Parkinson’s disease duration.

“Our findings suggest that dairy intake increases Parkinson’s disease risk,” the investigators concluded. “Therefore, diets with limited milk intake (e.g., Mediterranean diet) may be beneficial with respect to Parkinson’s disease.”
 

Further evidence supporting a link between diet and Parkinson’s disease

According to Silke Appel-Cresswell, MD, Marg Meikle Professor for Parkinson’s Research at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, the findings align with previous prospective cohort studies demonstrating an increased risk of Parkinson’s disease with greater consumption of dairy.

“What the current study adds,” Dr. Appel-Cresswell said, “is a complementary approach to assess the association where the risk of reverse causation and of confounding are minimized. Like in some of the previous studies, the authors find sex differences with an increased risk for men but not women.”

Dr. Appel-Cresswell noted that an increasing body of evidence supports a link between diet and Parkinson’s disease, including a study of her own published last year, which showed later onset of Parkinson’s disease among individuals with a Mediterranean-style diet.

“We are accumulating evidence for a role of diet (or more broadly, the food exposome) for the risk to develop Parkinson’s disease,” Dr. Appel-Cresswell said, noting that “key pieces are still missing, including mechanisms underlying associations, clinical trials in individuals with established Parkinson’s disease and – eventually – preventive interventions. This research is urgently needed and analyses will need to take sex differences and a large range of potential other factors into account.”
 

A ‘modest’ contributing factor?

Vikas Kotagal, MD, associate professor of neurology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, offered a perspective on the study methodology, and suggested that a causal link between dairy intake and Parkinson’s disease, if present, is likely minimal.

“Limitations to the study include the fact that participants weren’t actually asked or tested for how much dairy they truly consumed,” Dr. Kotagal said*. “Their dairy intake was estimated based on their genetic background – there are certainly many assumptions baked into this analytic approach which may or may not be true. It is also worth noting the fact that this causal association was seen in men and not women, suggesting that even if dairy intake was truly causal, it is likely to be a modest contributing factor and not a significant cause of Parkinson’s disease in the broader population in general.”

Still, Dr. Kotagal agreed with Dr. Appel-Cresswell that underlying mechanisms need further investigation.

“The biggest takeaway here is to heighten the urgency for researchers and funders to explore whether factors that might cluster with dairy intake – including pesticide exposure in milk or even the make-up of bacterial populations in different peoples’ intestines – might deserve closer scrutiny as a missing link connecting dairy consumption to increased Parkinson’s disease risk,” Dr. Kotagal said.
 

Dietary advice

Considering all available evidence, Dr. Appel-Cresswell offered some dietary advice with benefits that may extend beyond prevention of Parkinson’s disease.

“From a clinical point of view, I suggest to limit dairy intake to a moderate amount,” she said. “Mediterranean diets so far have the best supporting evidence for a lower Parkinson’s disease risk, although data is lacking for benefits in established Parkinson’s disease. Given the low risk of the Mediterranean diet and the established benefits for a host of other medical conditions, this is generally a safe and delicious recommendation whether one is living with Parkinson’s or not.”

The study was supported by the European Union Joint Program for Neurodegenerative Disease Research, the National Centre of Excellence in Research on Parkinson’s Disease, the National Institutes of Health, and others. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Astellas Pharma, Sanofi, Pfizer, and others. Dr. Kotagal and Dr. Appel-Cresswell reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

*Correction, 2/10/22: An earlier version of this article misstated Dr. Kotagal's name in certain instances, including a photo caption.

GI, liver, and pancreatic diseases cost the U.S. health care system about $120B per year and account for approximately 250,000 annual deaths, according to a “conservative” estimate from a recent analysis.

These figures emphasize the need for more research funding in the area, along with additional clinical and public health initiatives, reported lead author Anne F. Peery, MD, of the University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, and colleagues.

“Reports detailing the burden of GI diseases are necessary for clinical research, decision making, and priority setting,” the investigators wrote in Gastroenterology. “Our aim was to describe health care use, expenditures, and research funding across GI, liver, and pancreatic diseases in the United States.”

Dr. Peery and colleagues analyzed data from 14 sources, including the National Institutes of Health; the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey; and others. GI-specific outcomes included mortality, readmissions, hospitalizations, office-based visits, and emergency department visits. The investigators also characterized trends in cancers, organ transplants, and GI endoscopy, as well as GI-specific health care costs and NIH research funding. Annual findings were presented for various periods.

Total GI health care spending was $119.6 billion in 2018, down from $135.9 billion in 2015. The top five most costly conditions were biliary tract diseases ($16.9 billion), esophageal disorders ($12.1 billion), abdominal pain ($9.5 billion), abdominal hernias ($9.0 billion), and diverticular disease ($9.0 billion). The investigators noted that medication costs were particularly high for two categories: inflammatory bowel diseases and esophageal disorders, which had prescription drug costs relative to total expenditures of 71% and 53%, respectively.

“This conservative estimate [of $119.6 billion] did not include most GI cancers and likely underestimated the costs associated with some GI conditions,” the investigators noted. “For example, the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey estimate associated with GI bleeding was $300 million. In comparison, the aggregate cost of GI bleeding was more realistically $3.7 billion, as estimated using inpatient data from the National Inpatient Sample.”

In 2016, the most common GI-related diagnosis in the U.S. was abdominal pain (15.7 million annual visits), followed by nausea and vomiting (5.0 million visits), gastroesophageal reflux disorder and reflux esophagitis (4.7 million visits), constipation (3.1 million visits), and abdominal wall/inguinal hernia (2.8 million visits).

The top three most common GI-related hospital admissions in 2018 were GI bleeding (1.3 million admissions), followed by cholelithiasis and cholecystitis (741,060 admissions), then pancreatitis (685,880 admissions). GI bleeding was also the leading cause of 30-day readmission in 2018 (84,533 readmissions).

“We found substantial numbers of GI conditions and symptoms listed in secondary positions on the discharge record,” the investigators wrote. “For example, liver disease accounted for 280,645 discharges with a primary diagnosis; however, there were 13-fold as many discharges (3.6 million in 2018) with liver disease as a secondary diagnosis. Including all diagnoses captures a burden of GI disease not previously reported.”

In 2018 and 2019, GI diseases and cancers caused 255,407 annual deaths. The most common noncancer deaths were caused by alcohol-associated liver disease (24,110 deaths), hepatic fibrosis/cirrhosis (20,184 deaths), and GI bleeding (9,548 deaths). Among GI-cancer related deaths, colorectal cancer (CRC) caused the most mortalities (52,163 deaths), followed by pancreatic cancer (44,914 deaths), and hepatic/biliary cancer (44,914 deaths). The investigators noted that CRC was disproportionately common among non-Hispanic Black individuals, whereas gastric cancer was relatively high among Hispanic individuals.

“GI cancers account for a large number of diagnoses and deaths annually, with persistent disparities in incidence and mortality rates by race/ethnicity,” the investigators wrote. “Racial, ethnic, and regional disparities in access to most GI endoscopy procedures exist, which suggests an unmet need for GI procedures across the United States.”

A total of 22.2 million endoscopies were performed in 2019, most commonly colonoscopy (13.8 million procedures), followed by upper endoscopy (7.5 million procedures), and flexible sigmoidoscopy (379,883 procedures).

In 2020, the NIH spent $3.1 billion, or approximately 7.5% of its budget, on GI disease research. Digestive diseases captured the bulk of this spending, with $2.3 billion. In the same year, the NIH spent 10.5% of its cancer research budget on GI cancers, with the greatest proportion ($325 million) awarded to CRC research.

“Carefully examining the data in this report can help generate areas for future investigation, prioritize research funding, identify areas of unmet need or disparities, and provide an important overview of the impact of digestive and liver conditions,” the investigators concluded. “We hope that others will use this report as motivation to take a deeper dive into individual diseases. There is much to learn from carefully studying existing data sources.”

The study was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.

GI, liver, and pancreatic diseases cost the U.S. health care system about $120B per year and account for approximately 250,000 annual deaths, according to a “conservative” estimate from a recent analysis.

These figures emphasize the need for more research funding in the area, along with additional clinical and public health initiatives, reported lead author Anne F. Peery, MD, of the University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, and colleagues.

“Reports detailing the burden of GI diseases are necessary for clinical research, decision making, and priority setting,” the investigators wrote in Gastroenterology. “Our aim was to describe health care use, expenditures, and research funding across GI, liver, and pancreatic diseases in the United States.”

Dr. Peery and colleagues analyzed data from 14 sources, including the National Institutes of Health; the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey; and others. GI-specific outcomes included mortality, readmissions, hospitalizations, office-based visits, and emergency department visits. The investigators also characterized trends in cancers, organ transplants, and GI endoscopy, as well as GI-specific health care costs and NIH research funding. Annual findings were presented for various periods.

Total GI health care spending was $119.6 billion in 2018, down from $135.9 billion in 2015. The top five most costly conditions were biliary tract diseases ($16.9 billion), esophageal disorders ($12.1 billion), abdominal pain ($9.5 billion), abdominal hernias ($9.0 billion), and diverticular disease ($9.0 billion). The investigators noted that medication costs were particularly high for two categories: inflammatory bowel diseases and esophageal disorders, which had prescription drug costs relative to total expenditures of 71% and 53%, respectively.

“This conservative estimate [of $119.6 billion] did not include most GI cancers and likely underestimated the costs associated with some GI conditions,” the investigators noted. “For example, the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey estimate associated with GI bleeding was $300 million. In comparison, the aggregate cost of GI bleeding was more realistically $3.7 billion, as estimated using inpatient data from the National Inpatient Sample.”

In 2016, the most common GI-related diagnosis in the U.S. was abdominal pain (15.7 million annual visits), followed by nausea and vomiting (5.0 million visits), gastroesophageal reflux disorder and reflux esophagitis (4.7 million visits), constipation (3.1 million visits), and abdominal wall/inguinal hernia (2.8 million visits).

The top three most common GI-related hospital admissions in 2018 were GI bleeding (1.3 million admissions), followed by cholelithiasis and cholecystitis (741,060 admissions), then pancreatitis (685,880 admissions). GI bleeding was also the leading cause of 30-day readmission in 2018 (84,533 readmissions).

“We found substantial numbers of GI conditions and symptoms listed in secondary positions on the discharge record,” the investigators wrote. “For example, liver disease accounted for 280,645 discharges with a primary diagnosis; however, there were 13-fold as many discharges (3.6 million in 2018) with liver disease as a secondary diagnosis. Including all diagnoses captures a burden of GI disease not previously reported.”

In 2018 and 2019, GI diseases and cancers caused 255,407 annual deaths. The most common noncancer deaths were caused by alcohol-associated liver disease (24,110 deaths), hepatic fibrosis/cirrhosis (20,184 deaths), and GI bleeding (9,548 deaths). Among GI-cancer related deaths, colorectal cancer (CRC) caused the most mortalities (52,163 deaths), followed by pancreatic cancer (44,914 deaths), and hepatic/biliary cancer (44,914 deaths). The investigators noted that CRC was disproportionately common among non-Hispanic Black individuals, whereas gastric cancer was relatively high among Hispanic individuals.

“GI cancers account for a large number of diagnoses and deaths annually, with persistent disparities in incidence and mortality rates by race/ethnicity,” the investigators wrote. “Racial, ethnic, and regional disparities in access to most GI endoscopy procedures exist, which suggests an unmet need for GI procedures across the United States.”

A total of 22.2 million endoscopies were performed in 2019, most commonly colonoscopy (13.8 million procedures), followed by upper endoscopy (7.5 million procedures), and flexible sigmoidoscopy (379,883 procedures).

In 2020, the NIH spent $3.1 billion, or approximately 7.5% of its budget, on GI disease research. Digestive diseases captured the bulk of this spending, with $2.3 billion. In the same year, the NIH spent 10.5% of its cancer research budget on GI cancers, with the greatest proportion ($325 million) awarded to CRC research.

“Carefully examining the data in this report can help generate areas for future investigation, prioritize research funding, identify areas of unmet need or disparities, and provide an important overview of the impact of digestive and liver conditions,” the investigators concluded. “We hope that others will use this report as motivation to take a deeper dive into individual diseases. There is much to learn from carefully studying existing data sources.”

The study was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.

GI, liver, and pancreatic diseases cost the U.S. health care system about $120B per year and account for approximately 250,000 annual deaths, according to a “conservative” estimate from a recent analysis.

These figures emphasize the need for more research funding in the area, along with additional clinical and public health initiatives, reported lead author Anne F. Peery, MD, of the University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, and colleagues.

“Reports detailing the burden of GI diseases are necessary for clinical research, decision making, and priority setting,” the investigators wrote in Gastroenterology. “Our aim was to describe health care use, expenditures, and research funding across GI, liver, and pancreatic diseases in the United States.”

Dr. Peery and colleagues analyzed data from 14 sources, including the National Institutes of Health; the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey; and others. GI-specific outcomes included mortality, readmissions, hospitalizations, office-based visits, and emergency department visits. The investigators also characterized trends in cancers, organ transplants, and GI endoscopy, as well as GI-specific health care costs and NIH research funding. Annual findings were presented for various periods.

Total GI health care spending was $119.6 billion in 2018, down from $135.9 billion in 2015. The top five most costly conditions were biliary tract diseases ($16.9 billion), esophageal disorders ($12.1 billion), abdominal pain ($9.5 billion), abdominal hernias ($9.0 billion), and diverticular disease ($9.0 billion). The investigators noted that medication costs were particularly high for two categories: inflammatory bowel diseases and esophageal disorders, which had prescription drug costs relative to total expenditures of 71% and 53%, respectively.

“This conservative estimate [of $119.6 billion] did not include most GI cancers and likely underestimated the costs associated with some GI conditions,” the investigators noted. “For example, the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey estimate associated with GI bleeding was $300 million. In comparison, the aggregate cost of GI bleeding was more realistically $3.7 billion, as estimated using inpatient data from the National Inpatient Sample.”

In 2016, the most common GI-related diagnosis in the U.S. was abdominal pain (15.7 million annual visits), followed by nausea and vomiting (5.0 million visits), gastroesophageal reflux disorder and reflux esophagitis (4.7 million visits), constipation (3.1 million visits), and abdominal wall/inguinal hernia (2.8 million visits).

The top three most common GI-related hospital admissions in 2018 were GI bleeding (1.3 million admissions), followed by cholelithiasis and cholecystitis (741,060 admissions), then pancreatitis (685,880 admissions). GI bleeding was also the leading cause of 30-day readmission in 2018 (84,533 readmissions).

“We found substantial numbers of GI conditions and symptoms listed in secondary positions on the discharge record,” the investigators wrote. “For example, liver disease accounted for 280,645 discharges with a primary diagnosis; however, there were 13-fold as many discharges (3.6 million in 2018) with liver disease as a secondary diagnosis. Including all diagnoses captures a burden of GI disease not previously reported.”

In 2018 and 2019, GI diseases and cancers caused 255,407 annual deaths. The most common noncancer deaths were caused by alcohol-associated liver disease (24,110 deaths), hepatic fibrosis/cirrhosis (20,184 deaths), and GI bleeding (9,548 deaths). Among GI-cancer related deaths, colorectal cancer (CRC) caused the most mortalities (52,163 deaths), followed by pancreatic cancer (44,914 deaths), and hepatic/biliary cancer (44,914 deaths). The investigators noted that CRC was disproportionately common among non-Hispanic Black individuals, whereas gastric cancer was relatively high among Hispanic individuals.

“GI cancers account for a large number of diagnoses and deaths annually, with persistent disparities in incidence and mortality rates by race/ethnicity,” the investigators wrote. “Racial, ethnic, and regional disparities in access to most GI endoscopy procedures exist, which suggests an unmet need for GI procedures across the United States.”

A total of 22.2 million endoscopies were performed in 2019, most commonly colonoscopy (13.8 million procedures), followed by upper endoscopy (7.5 million procedures), and flexible sigmoidoscopy (379,883 procedures).

In 2020, the NIH spent $3.1 billion, or approximately 7.5% of its budget, on GI disease research. Digestive diseases captured the bulk of this spending, with $2.3 billion. In the same year, the NIH spent 10.5% of its cancer research budget on GI cancers, with the greatest proportion ($325 million) awarded to CRC research.

“Carefully examining the data in this report can help generate areas for future investigation, prioritize research funding, identify areas of unmet need or disparities, and provide an important overview of the impact of digestive and liver conditions,” the investigators concluded. “We hope that others will use this report as motivation to take a deeper dive into individual diseases. There is much to learn from carefully studying existing data sources.”

The study was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.

The U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer (CRC) has lowered the recommended age to start CRC screening from 50 to 45 years of age for all average-risk individuals.

Although no studies have directly demonstrated the result of lowering the age of screening, lead author Swati G. Patel, MD, of University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Center, Aurora, and colleagues suggested that the increasing incidence of advanced CRC among younger individuals, coupled with the net benefit of screening, warrant a lower age threshold.

“Recent data ... show that CRC incidence rates in individuals ages 50 to 64 have increased by 1% annually between 2011 and 2016,” the authors wrote in Gastroenterology. “Similarly, CRC incidence and mortality rates in persons under age 50, termed early-age onset CRC (EAO-CRC), are also increasing.”

The task force of nine experts, representing the American Gastroenterological Association, the American College of Gastroenterology, and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, conducted a literature review and generated recommendations using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. In addition to recommending a lower age for initial screening, Dr. Patel and colleagues provided guidance for cessation of screening among older individuals.
 

Guidance for screening initiation

According to the authors, the present risk of CRC among younger individuals mirrors the historical risk for older individuals before screening was prevalent.

“The current CRC incidence rates in individuals ages 45 to 49 are similar to the incidence rates observed in 50-year-olds in 1992, before widespread CRC screening was performed,” they wrote.

Elevated rates among younger people have been disproportionately driven by rectal cancer, according to the authors. From 2006 to 2015, incidence of rectal cancer among Americans under 50 increased 1.7% per year, compared with 0.7% per year for colon cancer, based on data from the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries.

Associated mortality rates also increased, the authors noted. From 1999-2019, mortality from colon cancer among people 45-49 years increased from 6.4 to 6.6 deaths per 100,000 individuals, while deaths from rectal cancer increased from 1.3 to 1.7 per 100,000, according to the CDC. Concurrently, CRC-associated mortality rates among older individuals generally declined.

While these findings suggest a growing disease burden among the under-50-year age group, controlled data demonstrating the effects of earlier screening are lacking, Dr. Patel and colleagues noted. Still, they predicted that expanded screening would generate a net benefit.

“Although there are no CRC screening safety data for average-risk individuals [younger than] 50, there are ample data that colonoscopy for other indications (screening based on family history, symptom evaluation, etc.) is safer when comparing younger versus older individuals,” they wrote.

Supporting this claim, the authors cited three independently generated microsimulation models from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality that “showed a favorable balance of life-years gained compared with adverse events,” given 100% compliance.
 

Guidance for screening cessation

Like the situation with younger individuals, minimal data are available to determine the best time for screening cessation, according to the task force.

“There are no randomized or observational studies after 2017 that enrolled individuals over age 75 to inform the appropriate time to stop CRC screening,” the authors wrote. “In our search of 37 relevant articles, only one presented primary data for when to stop screening.”

This one available study showed that some individuals older than 74 do in fact gain benefit from screening,

“For example,” Dr. Patel and colleagues wrote, “women without a history of screening and no comorbidities benefitted from annual fecal immunochemical test (FIT) screening until age 90, whereas unscreened men with or without comorbidities benefited from annual FIT screening until age 88. Conversely, screening was not beneficial beyond age 66 in men or women with severe comorbidities.”

The task force therefore recommended personalized screening for individuals 76-85 years of age “based on the balance of benefits and harms and individual patient clinical factors and preferences.”

Screening for individuals 86 years and older, according to the task force, is unnecessary.

The authors disclosed relationships with Olympus America, Bayer Pharmaceuticals, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, and others.

This article was updated on Jan. 3, 2022.

The U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer (CRC) has lowered the recommended age to start CRC screening from 50 to 45 years of age for all average-risk individuals.

Although no studies have directly demonstrated the result of lowering the age of screening, lead author Swati G. Patel, MD, of University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Center, Aurora, and colleagues suggested that the increasing incidence of advanced CRC among younger individuals, coupled with the net benefit of screening, warrant a lower age threshold.

“Recent data ... show that CRC incidence rates in individuals ages 50 to 64 have increased by 1% annually between 2011 and 2016,” the authors wrote in Gastroenterology. “Similarly, CRC incidence and mortality rates in persons under age 50, termed early-age onset CRC (EAO-CRC), are also increasing.”

The task force of nine experts, representing the American Gastroenterological Association, the American College of Gastroenterology, and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, conducted a literature review and generated recommendations using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. In addition to recommending a lower age for initial screening, Dr. Patel and colleagues provided guidance for cessation of screening among older individuals.
 

Guidance for screening initiation

According to the authors, the present risk of CRC among younger individuals mirrors the historical risk for older individuals before screening was prevalent.

“The current CRC incidence rates in individuals ages 45 to 49 are similar to the incidence rates observed in 50-year-olds in 1992, before widespread CRC screening was performed,” they wrote.

Elevated rates among younger people have been disproportionately driven by rectal cancer, according to the authors. From 2006 to 2015, incidence of rectal cancer among Americans under 50 increased 1.7% per year, compared with 0.7% per year for colon cancer, based on data from the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries.

Associated mortality rates also increased, the authors noted. From 1999-2019, mortality from colon cancer among people 45-49 years increased from 6.4 to 6.6 deaths per 100,000 individuals, while deaths from rectal cancer increased from 1.3 to 1.7 per 100,000, according to the CDC. Concurrently, CRC-associated mortality rates among older individuals generally declined.

While these findings suggest a growing disease burden among the under-50-year age group, controlled data demonstrating the effects of earlier screening are lacking, Dr. Patel and colleagues noted. Still, they predicted that expanded screening would generate a net benefit.

“Although there are no CRC screening safety data for average-risk individuals [younger than] 50, there are ample data that colonoscopy for other indications (screening based on family history, symptom evaluation, etc.) is safer when comparing younger versus older individuals,” they wrote.

Supporting this claim, the authors cited three independently generated microsimulation models from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality that “showed a favorable balance of life-years gained compared with adverse events,” given 100% compliance.
 

Guidance for screening cessation

Like the situation with younger individuals, minimal data are available to determine the best time for screening cessation, according to the task force.

“There are no randomized or observational studies after 2017 that enrolled individuals over age 75 to inform the appropriate time to stop CRC screening,” the authors wrote. “In our search of 37 relevant articles, only one presented primary data for when to stop screening.”

This one available study showed that some individuals older than 74 do in fact gain benefit from screening,

“For example,” Dr. Patel and colleagues wrote, “women without a history of screening and no comorbidities benefitted from annual fecal immunochemical test (FIT) screening until age 90, whereas unscreened men with or without comorbidities benefited from annual FIT screening until age 88. Conversely, screening was not beneficial beyond age 66 in men or women with severe comorbidities.”

The task force therefore recommended personalized screening for individuals 76-85 years of age “based on the balance of benefits and harms and individual patient clinical factors and preferences.”

Screening for individuals 86 years and older, according to the task force, is unnecessary.

The authors disclosed relationships with Olympus America, Bayer Pharmaceuticals, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, and others.

This article was updated on Jan. 3, 2022.

The U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer (CRC) has lowered the recommended age to start CRC screening from 50 to 45 years of age for all average-risk individuals.

Although no studies have directly demonstrated the result of lowering the age of screening, lead author Swati G. Patel, MD, of University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Center, Aurora, and colleagues suggested that the increasing incidence of advanced CRC among younger individuals, coupled with the net benefit of screening, warrant a lower age threshold.

“Recent data ... show that CRC incidence rates in individuals ages 50 to 64 have increased by 1% annually between 2011 and 2016,” the authors wrote in Gastroenterology. “Similarly, CRC incidence and mortality rates in persons under age 50, termed early-age onset CRC (EAO-CRC), are also increasing.”

The task force of nine experts, representing the American Gastroenterological Association, the American College of Gastroenterology, and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, conducted a literature review and generated recommendations using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. In addition to recommending a lower age for initial screening, Dr. Patel and colleagues provided guidance for cessation of screening among older individuals.
 

Guidance for screening initiation

According to the authors, the present risk of CRC among younger individuals mirrors the historical risk for older individuals before screening was prevalent.

“The current CRC incidence rates in individuals ages 45 to 49 are similar to the incidence rates observed in 50-year-olds in 1992, before widespread CRC screening was performed,” they wrote.

Elevated rates among younger people have been disproportionately driven by rectal cancer, according to the authors. From 2006 to 2015, incidence of rectal cancer among Americans under 50 increased 1.7% per year, compared with 0.7% per year for colon cancer, based on data from the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries.

Associated mortality rates also increased, the authors noted. From 1999-2019, mortality from colon cancer among people 45-49 years increased from 6.4 to 6.6 deaths per 100,000 individuals, while deaths from rectal cancer increased from 1.3 to 1.7 per 100,000, according to the CDC. Concurrently, CRC-associated mortality rates among older individuals generally declined.

While these findings suggest a growing disease burden among the under-50-year age group, controlled data demonstrating the effects of earlier screening are lacking, Dr. Patel and colleagues noted. Still, they predicted that expanded screening would generate a net benefit.

“Although there are no CRC screening safety data for average-risk individuals [younger than] 50, there are ample data that colonoscopy for other indications (screening based on family history, symptom evaluation, etc.) is safer when comparing younger versus older individuals,” they wrote.

Supporting this claim, the authors cited three independently generated microsimulation models from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality that “showed a favorable balance of life-years gained compared with adverse events,” given 100% compliance.
 

Guidance for screening cessation

Like the situation with younger individuals, minimal data are available to determine the best time for screening cessation, according to the task force.

“There are no randomized or observational studies after 2017 that enrolled individuals over age 75 to inform the appropriate time to stop CRC screening,” the authors wrote. “In our search of 37 relevant articles, only one presented primary data for when to stop screening.”

This one available study showed that some individuals older than 74 do in fact gain benefit from screening,

“For example,” Dr. Patel and colleagues wrote, “women without a history of screening and no comorbidities benefitted from annual fecal immunochemical test (FIT) screening until age 90, whereas unscreened men with or without comorbidities benefited from annual FIT screening until age 88. Conversely, screening was not beneficial beyond age 66 in men or women with severe comorbidities.”

The task force therefore recommended personalized screening for individuals 76-85 years of age “based on the balance of benefits and harms and individual patient clinical factors and preferences.”

Screening for individuals 86 years and older, according to the task force, is unnecessary.

The authors disclosed relationships with Olympus America, Bayer Pharmaceuticals, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, and others.

This article was updated on Jan. 3, 2022.

In a field of poor outcomes, few standards of care, and small populations of patients scattered across the world, investigators studying rare genitourinary (GU) cancers are gaining ground through international collaboration and novel trial design.

Fundamental clinical questions in the area remain unanswered, including the value of conventional treatments, such as chemotherapy and surgery, vs. emerging immunotherapy combinations.

Managing patients with rare GU cancers presents a variety of challenges, as does conducting research in the field, according to Philippe E. Spiess, MD, MS, FACS, assistant chief of surgical services and senior member in the department of GU oncology at Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa.

“Unfortunately, there are limited resources for patients – from an education, from a patient advocacy, and ultimately also from a research standpoint,” Dr. Spiess said in an interview, noting difficulties in attaining funding and reaching meaningful endpoints.

The Global Society of Rare Genitourinary Tumors

Last year Dr. Spiess teamed up with Andrea Necchi, MD, of the department of medical oncology at Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, to found the Global Society of Rare Genitourinary Tumors (GSRGT), the first organization of its kind.

“We’ve formally established a society and gotten some of the world leaders [in the field] … to work with us in developing educational tools and patient advocacy efforts to really promote and improve the care of patients impacted with rare cancers,” Dr. Spiess said.

He went on to highlight the truly global makeup of GSRGT, which includes members from leading centers in North America, South America, Europe, and India, and described it as a “grass-roots” organization that he and Dr. Necchi privately funded without financial backing from pharmaceutical companies.

The first GSRGT summit took place in 2020; it focused on penile and testis cancers and was attended by more than 350 participants. The second summit, planned for March 2022, in a virtual format, will focus on rare kidney cancers and upper tract cancers.

“We’ll definitely be having a lot of important conversations about important unmet needs, and some of the important clinical trials that patients and clinicians should be aware of,” Dr. Spiess said.

Dr. Spiess is currently involved in the International Penile Advanced Cancer Trial(InPACT), which is aiming to enroll 200 patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the penis. The randomized study will compare outcomes across patients treated with standard surgery alone, neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus surgery, and neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy plus surgery.

“I think this is going to be a landmark study because it’s going to give really baseline high-quality data on the effectiveness of these therapies,” Dr. Spiess said.

Results are expected in 2024.

Basket trials open doors for patients in need

Other investigators are testing immunotherapy combinations in patients with rare GU tumors via nonrandomized basket trials, which widen inclusion criteria and improve local availability.

According to Bradley McGregor, MD, clinical director of the Lank Center for GU Oncology at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, early results from these trials are promising, both in terms of therapeutic efficacy and the approach itself.

“Patients [with rare GU tumors] would come to us saying, ‘Well, what can we do? What trial?’,” Dr. McGregor said. “But really, there was no trial to get them on.”Basket trials are therefore needed, he said, as they accelerate progress in the field and help meet patient needs.

“For some of these relatively rare diseases … there is no standard of care,” Dr. McGregor said. “And low incidence makes it challenging to conduct a dedicated clinical trial. Those patients are left with minimal therapeutic options. … We look to provide care for that unmet need.”Andrea B. Apolo, MD, described similar experiences as head of the bladder cancer section of the GU malignancies branch of the National Cancer Institute (NCI), Bethesda, Md.

“I’ve been at the NCI for the past 10 years and I’ve gotten a lot of referrals for rare tumors,” Dr. Apolo said. “[These patients] have tried all available standard of care options, and therefore are often looking for clinical trials and new drugs – any kind of therapy that may be effective for their disease.”This call for help, along with a growing scientific curiosity, motivated Dr. Apolo to design trials that would include patients who had nowhere else to go.

“I became very interested in … understanding more about the mechanism of tumorigenesis and understanding rare tumors, biologically, within the lab,” she said, “but also clinically, in terms of finding more effective therapies.”

Both Dr. McGregor and Dr. Apolo are currently conducting basket trials for patients with rare GU tumors. While Dr. McGregor is testing a combination of PD-1 inhibitor nivolumab and CTLA-4 inhibitor ipilimumab, Dr. Apolo is exploring the benefit of cabozantinib, a targeted therapy, given with either nivolumab or nivolumab plus ipilimumab.

When asked about these trials, Dr. Spiess said that “basket trials are important because they may give us an understanding of some potentially useful therapies or combinations;” however, he also pointed out their limitations, noting that they may inaccurately characterize the efficacy of given therapies over a broad array of disease entities even if they are of similar histology. As an example, he noted “very different” genomic profiles across squamous cell carcinomas of the pelvis depending on exact anatomical location, suggesting that these differences may affect responses to therapy, citing a recent study in European Urology that he conducted with Dr. Necchi.¹

“[Basket trials] are probably not going to be the be-all-end-all,” Dr. Spiess said. “It really requires a global initiative to do these types of studies, which the Global Society of Rare Genitourinary Tumors will allow.”

Exploring immunotherapy combinations

Despite the potential limitations, recent basket trials involving immunotherapy regimens have been associated with overall response rates, in some subgroups, that exceed 35%.^2,3

In comparison with previous trials, many of which had response rates in the single digits, or no responses at all, these results are, in Dr. McGregor’s words, “very thought provoking.”Most rare GU malignancies fall into one of four categories: bladder cancer variant histology (BCVH), adrenal tumors, penile squamous cell carcinoma (PSCC), and chemotherapy-refractory germ cell tumors (CRGCT). Among these, BCVH has the strongest evidence supporting clinical use of immunotherapy, based on U.S. approval for urothelial histology, according to Dr. McGregor.⁴Data supporting immunotherapy for the remaining disease subtypes are scarce. Although pembrolizumab is approved for patients with solid tumors that exhibit microsatellite instability (MSI), MSI is uncommon among patients with rare GU cancers; estimated incidence rates are less than 10%.⁴

“As such, clinical trials to address this unmet need are imperative,” Dr. McGregor wrote in a recent review article.⁴

According to Dr. McGregor, programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression in rare GU tumors may be relatively common in some disease subtypes, such as PSCC, which has a PD-L1 expression rate of up to 60%.⁴

But rare GU tumor trials involving a single checkpoint inhibitor have produced limited results, if any.

The largest trial for adrenocortical carcinoma (ACC), for example, which included 50 patients, showed that avelumab resulted in an objective response rate (ORR) of just 6%.⁵

Pembrolizumab was slightly more effective for ACC, based on a trial involving 39 patients, which returned an ORR of 23%, and another trial involving 15 patients that had a 15% ORR.^6,7

Two other trials, which tested single-agent pembrolizumab or durvalumab in patients with CRGCT, resulted in no responses at all, whereas a trial testing pembrolizumab alone for penile squamous cell carcinoma was terminated in 2020, citing poor accrual.^8,9 Still, the durvalumab trial for CRGCT, led by Dr. Necchi, did offer a glimpse at what might be possible with a combination of immunotherapies. Although no responses were observed among 11 patients who received durvalumab alone, an efficacy signal was observed in a second cohort of 11 patients who were given durvalumab in combination with the CTLA-4 inhibitor tremilimumab.⁹

Out of those 11 patients, 1 had a partial response, and another achieved stable disease.

In light of these findings, and more that have been published since then, the clinical trial landscape for rare GU tumors is shifting toward a combination immunotherapy approach, according to Dr. McGregor.⁴

Nivolumab and ipilimumab

Dr. McGregor is leading a phase II trial (NCT03333616) testing a combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab in patients with a variety of advanced rare GU malignancies, including bladder and upper tract carcinoma of variant histology (BUTCVH), adrenal tumors, CRGCT, PSCC, and prostate cancer of variant histology (PCVH).

“When trials are designed, these patients are often forgotten,” Dr. McGregor noted. “We said, let’s do a trial for all rare GU tumors and just sort of assess and look for a signal, and, hopefully, find a signal that we can then take to the next level.”

Along with appropriate disease phenotype, trial eligibility depended upon an ECOG performance status of 0-2 and no prior exposure to checkpoint inhibitors. Treatment-naive patients were allowed. All participants received nivolumab 3 mg/kg and ipilimumab 1 mg/kg IV every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by maintenance nivolumab at a dose of 480 mg every 4 weeks.

Most recent results, published in Cancer, included data from 55 patients, including 19 with BUTCVH, 18 with adrenal tumors, and 18 with other tumors.³ After a median follow-up of 9.9 months, 28 patients (51%) received all four doses of the regimen, 25 of whom received maintenance therapy with a median of four cycles.

Overall, nine patients (16%) responded to therapy, six of whom (67%) maintained their response for at least 9 months. Two responses were complete, and seven were partial. Median progression-free survival was 2.8 months.

Twenty-two patients (39%) had grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events, approximately one-quarter (23%) needed high-dose steroids, and a slightly greater proportion (27%) discontinued the regimen because of adverse events. Three patients exhibited grade 5 toxicity, and one patient death was treatment related. A closer look at the efficacy data suggested that one disease subgroup benefited much more than the others. The overall response rate among 19 patients with BUTCVH was 37%, compared with 6% in the other two cohorts.

“A response rate of 37% compares quite favorably to anything we’ve seen to date,” Dr. McGregor said. “It’s remarkable that [this response] was seen across histologies – we saw this in urachal, we saw this in adenocarcinoma – we really saw this across the board. This is very, very, very intriguing data.”

The phase II trial is ongoing at multiple centers across the country, including the Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center, Boston, the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, the Moores Cancer Center at University of California Health, San Diego, the Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, and the Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta.

“We accrued this trial in just under 18 months,” Dr. McGregor said. “I think this shows that with a well-designed trial, we can actually study these diseases and improve outcomes in these patients.” According to Dr. McGregor, the current findings deserve further investigation, potentially including expansion of the BUTCVH cohort. Recruitment is ongoing for a fourth cohort involving patients with tumors that exhibit neuroendocrine differentiation.

Cabozantinib and nivolumab with or without ipilimumab

Dr. Apolo is leading a similar basket trial (NCT02496208) that is testing cabozantinib plus nivolumab with or without ipilimumab.

“What we’re doing is using immunotherapy and a targeted therapy that work in standard urothelial carcinoma and renal cell carcinoma,” Dr. Apolo said. “But really, we don’t know the activity in these rare GU tumors. … There’s still so much we don’t understand about what the driving mutations are, and how we can best target them.”

Most recent data, published in Journal of Clinical Oncology, include 122 patients with metastatic GU tumors, including urothelial carcinoma, clear cell renal cell carcinoma, bladder adenocarcinoma, and other rare GU cancers.²

Among these patients, 54 were in the phase I dose-finding cohort (eight escalating doses) and 64 were in the dose-expansion cohorts.

After a median follow-up of 40.4 months, 64 patients received the dual combination, whereas 56 received the triplet regimen. The ORR for 108 evaluable patients was 38%, including 12 complete responses (11.1%) and 29 partial responses (26.9%). The largest disease cohort, for urothelial carcinoma, included 33 patients and was associated with an ORR of 42.4%, with a complete response rate of 21.2%. Objective response rate was highest for squamous bladder cancer (85.7%; n = 7), followed by clear cell renal carcinoma (62.5%; n = 16), renal medullary cancer (50%; n = 2), penile cancer (44.4%; n = 9), small cell bladder cancer (33.1%; n = 3), bladder adenocarcinoma (20%; n = 15), and prostate cancer (11.1%; n = 9). No responses were seen in six patients with germ cell tumors.

Adding ipilimumab appeared to have a minimal impact on toxicity. Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events (AEs) occurred in 84% of patients in the dual combination group, compared with 80% receiving the triplet regimen. Most common AEs were hypophosphatemia (16-25%), lipase elevation (20%), fatigue (18-20%), ALT elevation (5-14%), AST elevation (9-11%), diarrhea (9-11%), and thromboembolic event (4-11%). One patient taking the triplet regimen had grade 5 pneumonitis.

These positive phase I results have paved the way for the phase II ICONIC trial (NCT03866382), a national study available through the Alliance Cooperative Group. The trial is currently recruiting, with an estimated enrollment of 224 patients with rare GU tumors.

The ICONIC trial is just one of several studies that Dr. Apolo is conducting for patients with rare GU cancer. “I have several bladder cancer trials where I’m accepting rare GU tumors to enroll,” she said, noting that efficacy signals in these exploratory cohorts may be pursued with expansion studies like ICONIC.

This inclusive strategy is uncovering promising new treatments for some rare GU malignancies, but the rarest of the rare tumor types remain challenging to study, Dr. Apolo said, because very small sample sizes can preclude significant data. “Although we do have the referral base at the NCI, we still get a small number of a lot of rare tumors,” Dr. Apolo said. “What I end up having, a lot of time, are small subsets of rare tumors – I’ll have 4 of one kind, 10 of another.” This situation means that sometimes, time and resources must be focused where they are needed most.

“Sometimes I actually have to decide which are the more common rare tumors so I can study them in a larger cohort,” Dr. Apolo said. “It can have more clinical impact within the community of that rare tumor.” Dr. Apolo described the inherent conflict involved in this decision, but also, its ultimate necessity.

“It’s what you don’t want to do, but you end up doing,” she said. “Because you want to be inclusive and include the rare, rare tumor, but sometimes you just can’t get enough numbers to see if there’s actually a difference [in efficacy]. If it doesn’t work in one patient, does that mean it doesn’t work at all? You need more numbers to really test the efficacy of therapy.”

From clinical trials to clinical practice

To accrue the number of patients needed for practice-altering findings, both Dr. McGregor and Dr. Apolo emphasized the importance of institutional support and collaborative trial designs.

“The FDA is a great ally,” Dr. McGregor said. “They’re acutely aware of the challenges facing patients with rare malignancies – not just GU malignancies. They’re continuing to evaluate the best way to move these drugs forward for those patients. … They’re constantly working with investigators, with industry, looking at data and trying to determine at what threshold these will be practice-changing studies.”

Dr. McGregor suggested that larger trials could shift national guideline recommendations toward combination immunotherapies for patients with rare GU tumors, which would lead to inclusion in compendia, and from there, broader clinical usage.

“At end of the day, luckily, we’re not dealing with drugs that aren’t available,” Dr. McGregor said. “These are drugs that are readily available, approved by the FDA in other settings.”

Dr. Apolo also described strong support from the NCI.

“The NCI really encourages the conduction and enrollment of these rare GU tumor trials, because they understand that the NCI is a really good place to study these rare tumors,” she said. “We have unique resources that make it feasible to conduct some of these trials.”

Dr. Apolo also praised the Alliance Cooperative Group for helping expand patient access to rare GU tumor trials.

“[The Alliance Cooperative Group] makes trials available at community centers across the country,” Dr. Apolo said. “Patients don’t have to travel to the NCI, and they can get the same therapies.”

Still, Dr. Apolo recommended that, when possible, clinicians refer patients with newly diagnosed, rare GU tumors to centers that see a higher number of such cases.

“It’s hard to keep up with all the different treatments that are available right now for different cancers,” Dr. Apolo said. “And sometimes for the rare tumors, there may be great opportunities within a clinical trial that a cancer center may have available that may not be available locally in the community.”

For patients who would like to learn more about rare bladder cancers, Dr. Apolo recommended a visit to the Bladder Cancer Advocacy Network (BCAN) website (bcan.org).

“I’m a big fan of these patient-centered advocacy networks,” Dr. Apolo said. “I like BCAN a lot. It’s a patient-run organization for patients with bladder cancer. With them, I have done a couple of webinars for rare bladder tumors that Ive had some patients tell me are very helpful. They’re a terrific organization that really provides not only emotional support but also educational support for patients that have a diagnosis of bladder cancer and now, rare bladder tumors.” Dr. Spiess offered similar advice for clinicians managing patients with rare GU tumors. He emphasized the key role played by patient advocacy groups, and recommended referral to institutions specializing in specific GU tumor types. For example, he recommended that patients with penile cancer be treated at Moffitt (Tampa) or MD Anderson (Houston), as these centers have the greatest relevant experience. Dr. McGregor disclosed relationships with Bayer, Astellas, Nektar, and others. Dr. Apolo and Dr. Spiess disclosed no conflicts of interest.
 

References

1.Necchi A et al. Eur Urol. 2021 June;79:S929-30.

2.Apolo AB et al. J Clin Oncol. 2021;39(6_suppl):3.

3.McGregor BA et al. Cancer. 2021 Mar 15;127(6):840-9.

4.McGregor BA and Sonpavde GP. Eur Urol Focus. 2020;6(1):14-16.5.Le Tourneau C et al. J Immunother Cancer. 2018 Oct 22;6(1):111.6.Naing A et al. J Immunother Cancer. 2020;8(1).

7.Raj N et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38(1):71-80.

8.Adra N et al. Ann Oncol. 2018;29(1):209-14.

9.Necchi A et al. Eur Urol. 2019;75(1):201-3.

In a field of poor outcomes, few standards of care, and small populations of patients scattered across the world, investigators studying rare genitourinary (GU) cancers are gaining ground through international collaboration and novel trial design.

Fundamental clinical questions in the area remain unanswered, including the value of conventional treatments, such as chemotherapy and surgery, vs. emerging immunotherapy combinations.

Managing patients with rare GU cancers presents a variety of challenges, as does conducting research in the field, according to Philippe E. Spiess, MD, MS, FACS, assistant chief of surgical services and senior member in the department of GU oncology at Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa.

“Unfortunately, there are limited resources for patients – from an education, from a patient advocacy, and ultimately also from a research standpoint,” Dr. Spiess said in an interview, noting difficulties in attaining funding and reaching meaningful endpoints.

The Global Society of Rare Genitourinary Tumors

Last year Dr. Spiess teamed up with Andrea Necchi, MD, of the department of medical oncology at Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, to found the Global Society of Rare Genitourinary Tumors (GSRGT), the first organization of its kind.

“We’ve formally established a society and gotten some of the world leaders [in the field] … to work with us in developing educational tools and patient advocacy efforts to really promote and improve the care of patients impacted with rare cancers,” Dr. Spiess said.

He went on to highlight the truly global makeup of GSRGT, which includes members from leading centers in North America, South America, Europe, and India, and described it as a “grass-roots” organization that he and Dr. Necchi privately funded without financial backing from pharmaceutical companies.

The first GSRGT summit took place in 2020; it focused on penile and testis cancers and was attended by more than 350 participants. The second summit, planned for March 2022, in a virtual format, will focus on rare kidney cancers and upper tract cancers.

“We’ll definitely be having a lot of important conversations about important unmet needs, and some of the important clinical trials that patients and clinicians should be aware of,” Dr. Spiess said.

Dr. Spiess is currently involved in the International Penile Advanced Cancer Trial(InPACT), which is aiming to enroll 200 patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the penis. The randomized study will compare outcomes across patients treated with standard surgery alone, neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus surgery, and neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy plus surgery.

“I think this is going to be a landmark study because it’s going to give really baseline high-quality data on the effectiveness of these therapies,” Dr. Spiess said.

Results are expected in 2024.

Basket trials open doors for patients in need

Other investigators are testing immunotherapy combinations in patients with rare GU tumors via nonrandomized basket trials, which widen inclusion criteria and improve local availability.

According to Bradley McGregor, MD, clinical director of the Lank Center for GU Oncology at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, early results from these trials are promising, both in terms of therapeutic efficacy and the approach itself.

“Patients [with rare GU tumors] would come to us saying, ‘Well, what can we do? What trial?’,” Dr. McGregor said. “But really, there was no trial to get them on.”Basket trials are therefore needed, he said, as they accelerate progress in the field and help meet patient needs.

“For some of these relatively rare diseases … there is no standard of care,” Dr. McGregor said. “And low incidence makes it challenging to conduct a dedicated clinical trial. Those patients are left with minimal therapeutic options. … We look to provide care for that unmet need.”Andrea B. Apolo, MD, described similar experiences as head of the bladder cancer section of the GU malignancies branch of the National Cancer Institute (NCI), Bethesda, Md.

“I’ve been at the NCI for the past 10 years and I’ve gotten a lot of referrals for rare tumors,” Dr. Apolo said. “[These patients] have tried all available standard of care options, and therefore are often looking for clinical trials and new drugs – any kind of therapy that may be effective for their disease.”This call for help, along with a growing scientific curiosity, motivated Dr. Apolo to design trials that would include patients who had nowhere else to go.

“I became very interested in … understanding more about the mechanism of tumorigenesis and understanding rare tumors, biologically, within the lab,” she said, “but also clinically, in terms of finding more effective therapies.”

Both Dr. McGregor and Dr. Apolo are currently conducting basket trials for patients with rare GU tumors. While Dr. McGregor is testing a combination of PD-1 inhibitor nivolumab and CTLA-4 inhibitor ipilimumab, Dr. Apolo is exploring the benefit of cabozantinib, a targeted therapy, given with either nivolumab or nivolumab plus ipilimumab.

When asked about these trials, Dr. Spiess said that “basket trials are important because they may give us an understanding of some potentially useful therapies or combinations;” however, he also pointed out their limitations, noting that they may inaccurately characterize the efficacy of given therapies over a broad array of disease entities even if they are of similar histology. As an example, he noted “very different” genomic profiles across squamous cell carcinomas of the pelvis depending on exact anatomical location, suggesting that these differences may affect responses to therapy, citing a recent study in European Urology that he conducted with Dr. Necchi.¹

“[Basket trials] are probably not going to be the be-all-end-all,” Dr. Spiess said. “It really requires a global initiative to do these types of studies, which the Global Society of Rare Genitourinary Tumors will allow.”

Exploring immunotherapy combinations

Despite the potential limitations, recent basket trials involving immunotherapy regimens have been associated with overall response rates, in some subgroups, that exceed 35%.^2,3

In comparison with previous trials, many of which had response rates in the single digits, or no responses at all, these results are, in Dr. McGregor’s words, “very thought provoking.”Most rare GU malignancies fall into one of four categories: bladder cancer variant histology (BCVH), adrenal tumors, penile squamous cell carcinoma (PSCC), and chemotherapy-refractory germ cell tumors (CRGCT). Among these, BCVH has the strongest evidence supporting clinical use of immunotherapy, based on U.S. approval for urothelial histology, according to Dr. McGregor.⁴Data supporting immunotherapy for the remaining disease subtypes are scarce. Although pembrolizumab is approved for patients with solid tumors that exhibit microsatellite instability (MSI), MSI is uncommon among patients with rare GU cancers; estimated incidence rates are less than 10%.⁴

“As such, clinical trials to address this unmet need are imperative,” Dr. McGregor wrote in a recent review article.⁴

According to Dr. McGregor, programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression in rare GU tumors may be relatively common in some disease subtypes, such as PSCC, which has a PD-L1 expression rate of up to 60%.⁴

But rare GU tumor trials involving a single checkpoint inhibitor have produced limited results, if any.

The largest trial for adrenocortical carcinoma (ACC), for example, which included 50 patients, showed that avelumab resulted in an objective response rate (ORR) of just 6%.⁵

Pembrolizumab was slightly more effective for ACC, based on a trial involving 39 patients, which returned an ORR of 23%, and another trial involving 15 patients that had a 15% ORR.^6,7

Two other trials, which tested single-agent pembrolizumab or durvalumab in patients with CRGCT, resulted in no responses at all, whereas a trial testing pembrolizumab alone for penile squamous cell carcinoma was terminated in 2020, citing poor accrual.^8,9 Still, the durvalumab trial for CRGCT, led by Dr. Necchi, did offer a glimpse at what might be possible with a combination of immunotherapies. Although no responses were observed among 11 patients who received durvalumab alone, an efficacy signal was observed in a second cohort of 11 patients who were given durvalumab in combination with the CTLA-4 inhibitor tremilimumab.⁹

Out of those 11 patients, 1 had a partial response, and another achieved stable disease.

In light of these findings, and more that have been published since then, the clinical trial landscape for rare GU tumors is shifting toward a combination immunotherapy approach, according to Dr. McGregor.⁴

Nivolumab and ipilimumab

Dr. McGregor is leading a phase II trial (NCT03333616) testing a combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab in patients with a variety of advanced rare GU malignancies, including bladder and upper tract carcinoma of variant histology (BUTCVH), adrenal tumors, CRGCT, PSCC, and prostate cancer of variant histology (PCVH).

“When trials are designed, these patients are often forgotten,” Dr. McGregor noted. “We said, let’s do a trial for all rare GU tumors and just sort of assess and look for a signal, and, hopefully, find a signal that we can then take to the next level.”

Along with appropriate disease phenotype, trial eligibility depended upon an ECOG performance status of 0-2 and no prior exposure to checkpoint inhibitors. Treatment-naive patients were allowed. All participants received nivolumab 3 mg/kg and ipilimumab 1 mg/kg IV every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by maintenance nivolumab at a dose of 480 mg every 4 weeks.

Most recent results, published in Cancer, included data from 55 patients, including 19 with BUTCVH, 18 with adrenal tumors, and 18 with other tumors.³ After a median follow-up of 9.9 months, 28 patients (51%) received all four doses of the regimen, 25 of whom received maintenance therapy with a median of four cycles.

Overall, nine patients (16%) responded to therapy, six of whom (67%) maintained their response for at least 9 months. Two responses were complete, and seven were partial. Median progression-free survival was 2.8 months.

Twenty-two patients (39%) had grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events, approximately one-quarter (23%) needed high-dose steroids, and a slightly greater proportion (27%) discontinued the regimen because of adverse events. Three patients exhibited grade 5 toxicity, and one patient death was treatment related. A closer look at the efficacy data suggested that one disease subgroup benefited much more than the others. The overall response rate among 19 patients with BUTCVH was 37%, compared with 6% in the other two cohorts.

“A response rate of 37% compares quite favorably to anything we’ve seen to date,” Dr. McGregor said. “It’s remarkable that [this response] was seen across histologies – we saw this in urachal, we saw this in adenocarcinoma – we really saw this across the board. This is very, very, very intriguing data.”

The phase II trial is ongoing at multiple centers across the country, including the Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center, Boston, the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, the Moores Cancer Center at University of California Health, San Diego, the Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, and the Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta.

“We accrued this trial in just under 18 months,” Dr. McGregor said. “I think this shows that with a well-designed trial, we can actually study these diseases and improve outcomes in these patients.” According to Dr. McGregor, the current findings deserve further investigation, potentially including expansion of the BUTCVH cohort. Recruitment is ongoing for a fourth cohort involving patients with tumors that exhibit neuroendocrine differentiation.

Cabozantinib and nivolumab with or without ipilimumab

Dr. Apolo is leading a similar basket trial (NCT02496208) that is testing cabozantinib plus nivolumab with or without ipilimumab.

“What we’re doing is using immunotherapy and a targeted therapy that work in standard urothelial carcinoma and renal cell carcinoma,” Dr. Apolo said. “But really, we don’t know the activity in these rare GU tumors. … There’s still so much we don’t understand about what the driving mutations are, and how we can best target them.”

Most recent data, published in Journal of Clinical Oncology, include 122 patients with metastatic GU tumors, including urothelial carcinoma, clear cell renal cell carcinoma, bladder adenocarcinoma, and other rare GU cancers.²

Among these patients, 54 were in the phase I dose-finding cohort (eight escalating doses) and 64 were in the dose-expansion cohorts.

After a median follow-up of 40.4 months, 64 patients received the dual combination, whereas 56 received the triplet regimen. The ORR for 108 evaluable patients was 38%, including 12 complete responses (11.1%) and 29 partial responses (26.9%). The largest disease cohort, for urothelial carcinoma, included 33 patients and was associated with an ORR of 42.4%, with a complete response rate of 21.2%. Objective response rate was highest for squamous bladder cancer (85.7%; n = 7), followed by clear cell renal carcinoma (62.5%; n = 16), renal medullary cancer (50%; n = 2), penile cancer (44.4%; n = 9), small cell bladder cancer (33.1%; n = 3), bladder adenocarcinoma (20%; n = 15), and prostate cancer (11.1%; n = 9). No responses were seen in six patients with germ cell tumors.

Adding ipilimumab appeared to have a minimal impact on toxicity. Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events (AEs) occurred in 84% of patients in the dual combination group, compared with 80% receiving the triplet regimen. Most common AEs were hypophosphatemia (16-25%), lipase elevation (20%), fatigue (18-20%), ALT elevation (5-14%), AST elevation (9-11%), diarrhea (9-11%), and thromboembolic event (4-11%). One patient taking the triplet regimen had grade 5 pneumonitis.

These positive phase I results have paved the way for the phase II ICONIC trial (NCT03866382), a national study available through the Alliance Cooperative Group. The trial is currently recruiting, with an estimated enrollment of 224 patients with rare GU tumors.

The ICONIC trial is just one of several studies that Dr. Apolo is conducting for patients with rare GU cancer. “I have several bladder cancer trials where I’m accepting rare GU tumors to enroll,” she said, noting that efficacy signals in these exploratory cohorts may be pursued with expansion studies like ICONIC.

This inclusive strategy is uncovering promising new treatments for some rare GU malignancies, but the rarest of the rare tumor types remain challenging to study, Dr. Apolo said, because very small sample sizes can preclude significant data. “Although we do have the referral base at the NCI, we still get a small number of a lot of rare tumors,” Dr. Apolo said. “What I end up having, a lot of time, are small subsets of rare tumors – I’ll have 4 of one kind, 10 of another.” This situation means that sometimes, time and resources must be focused where they are needed most.

“Sometimes I actually have to decide which are the more common rare tumors so I can study them in a larger cohort,” Dr. Apolo said. “It can have more clinical impact within the community of that rare tumor.” Dr. Apolo described the inherent conflict involved in this decision, but also, its ultimate necessity.

“It’s what you don’t want to do, but you end up doing,” she said. “Because you want to be inclusive and include the rare, rare tumor, but sometimes you just can’t get enough numbers to see if there’s actually a difference [in efficacy]. If it doesn’t work in one patient, does that mean it doesn’t work at all? You need more numbers to really test the efficacy of therapy.”

From clinical trials to clinical practice

To accrue the number of patients needed for practice-altering findings, both Dr. McGregor and Dr. Apolo emphasized the importance of institutional support and collaborative trial designs.

“The FDA is a great ally,” Dr. McGregor said. “They’re acutely aware of the challenges facing patients with rare malignancies – not just GU malignancies. They’re continuing to evaluate the best way to move these drugs forward for those patients. … They’re constantly working with investigators, with industry, looking at data and trying to determine at what threshold these will be practice-changing studies.”

Dr. McGregor suggested that larger trials could shift national guideline recommendations toward combination immunotherapies for patients with rare GU tumors, which would lead to inclusion in compendia, and from there, broader clinical usage.

“At end of the day, luckily, we’re not dealing with drugs that aren’t available,” Dr. McGregor said. “These are drugs that are readily available, approved by the FDA in other settings.”

Dr. Apolo also described strong support from the NCI.

“The NCI really encourages the conduction and enrollment of these rare GU tumor trials, because they understand that the NCI is a really good place to study these rare tumors,” she said. “We have unique resources that make it feasible to conduct some of these trials.”

Dr. Apolo also praised the Alliance Cooperative Group for helping expand patient access to rare GU tumor trials.

“[The Alliance Cooperative Group] makes trials available at community centers across the country,” Dr. Apolo said. “Patients don’t have to travel to the NCI, and they can get the same therapies.”

Still, Dr. Apolo recommended that, when possible, clinicians refer patients with newly diagnosed, rare GU tumors to centers that see a higher number of such cases.

“It’s hard to keep up with all the different treatments that are available right now for different cancers,” Dr. Apolo said. “And sometimes for the rare tumors, there may be great opportunities within a clinical trial that a cancer center may have available that may not be available locally in the community.”

For patients who would like to learn more about rare bladder cancers, Dr. Apolo recommended a visit to the Bladder Cancer Advocacy Network (BCAN) website (bcan.org).

“I’m a big fan of these patient-centered advocacy networks,” Dr. Apolo said. “I like BCAN a lot. It’s a patient-run organization for patients with bladder cancer. With them, I have done a couple of webinars for rare bladder tumors that Ive had some patients tell me are very helpful. They’re a terrific organization that really provides not only emotional support but also educational support for patients that have a diagnosis of bladder cancer and now, rare bladder tumors.” Dr. Spiess offered similar advice for clinicians managing patients with rare GU tumors. He emphasized the key role played by patient advocacy groups, and recommended referral to institutions specializing in specific GU tumor types. For example, he recommended that patients with penile cancer be treated at Moffitt (Tampa) or MD Anderson (Houston), as these centers have the greatest relevant experience. Dr. McGregor disclosed relationships with Bayer, Astellas, Nektar, and others. Dr. Apolo and Dr. Spiess disclosed no conflicts of interest.
 

References

1.Necchi A et al. Eur Urol. 2021 June;79:S929-30.

2.Apolo AB et al. J Clin Oncol. 2021;39(6_suppl):3.

3.McGregor BA et al. Cancer. 2021 Mar 15;127(6):840-9.

4.McGregor BA and Sonpavde GP. Eur Urol Focus. 2020;6(1):14-16.5.Le Tourneau C et al. J Immunother Cancer. 2018 Oct 22;6(1):111.6.Naing A et al. J Immunother Cancer. 2020;8(1).

7.Raj N et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38(1):71-80.

8.Adra N et al. Ann Oncol. 2018;29(1):209-14.

9.Necchi A et al. Eur Urol. 2019;75(1):201-3.

In a field of poor outcomes, few standards of care, and small populations of patients scattered across the world, investigators studying rare genitourinary (GU) cancers are gaining ground through international collaboration and novel trial design.

Fundamental clinical questions in the area remain unanswered, including the value of conventional treatments, such as chemotherapy and surgery, vs. emerging immunotherapy combinations.

Managing patients with rare GU cancers presents a variety of challenges, as does conducting research in the field, according to Philippe E. Spiess, MD, MS, FACS, assistant chief of surgical services and senior member in the department of GU oncology at Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa.

“Unfortunately, there are limited resources for patients – from an education, from a patient advocacy, and ultimately also from a research standpoint,” Dr. Spiess said in an interview, noting difficulties in attaining funding and reaching meaningful endpoints.

The Global Society of Rare Genitourinary Tumors

Last year Dr. Spiess teamed up with Andrea Necchi, MD, of the department of medical oncology at Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, to found the Global Society of Rare Genitourinary Tumors (GSRGT), the first organization of its kind.

“We’ve formally established a society and gotten some of the world leaders [in the field] … to work with us in developing educational tools and patient advocacy efforts to really promote and improve the care of patients impacted with rare cancers,” Dr. Spiess said.

He went on to highlight the truly global makeup of GSRGT, which includes members from leading centers in North America, South America, Europe, and India, and described it as a “grass-roots” organization that he and Dr. Necchi privately funded without financial backing from pharmaceutical companies.

The first GSRGT summit took place in 2020; it focused on penile and testis cancers and was attended by more than 350 participants. The second summit, planned for March 2022, in a virtual format, will focus on rare kidney cancers and upper tract cancers.

“We’ll definitely be having a lot of important conversations about important unmet needs, and some of the important clinical trials that patients and clinicians should be aware of,” Dr. Spiess said.

Dr. Spiess is currently involved in the International Penile Advanced Cancer Trial(InPACT), which is aiming to enroll 200 patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the penis. The randomized study will compare outcomes across patients treated with standard surgery alone, neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus surgery, and neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy plus surgery.

“I think this is going to be a landmark study because it’s going to give really baseline high-quality data on the effectiveness of these therapies,” Dr. Spiess said.

Results are expected in 2024.

Basket trials open doors for patients in need

Other investigators are testing immunotherapy combinations in patients with rare GU tumors via nonrandomized basket trials, which widen inclusion criteria and improve local availability.

According to Bradley McGregor, MD, clinical director of the Lank Center for GU Oncology at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, early results from these trials are promising, both in terms of therapeutic efficacy and the approach itself.

“Patients [with rare GU tumors] would come to us saying, ‘Well, what can we do? What trial?’,” Dr. McGregor said. “But really, there was no trial to get them on.”Basket trials are therefore needed, he said, as they accelerate progress in the field and help meet patient needs.

“For some of these relatively rare diseases … there is no standard of care,” Dr. McGregor said. “And low incidence makes it challenging to conduct a dedicated clinical trial. Those patients are left with minimal therapeutic options. … We look to provide care for that unmet need.”Andrea B. Apolo, MD, described similar experiences as head of the bladder cancer section of the GU malignancies branch of the National Cancer Institute (NCI), Bethesda, Md.

“I’ve been at the NCI for the past 10 years and I’ve gotten a lot of referrals for rare tumors,” Dr. Apolo said. “[These patients] have tried all available standard of care options, and therefore are often looking for clinical trials and new drugs – any kind of therapy that may be effective for their disease.”This call for help, along with a growing scientific curiosity, motivated Dr. Apolo to design trials that would include patients who had nowhere else to go.

“I became very interested in … understanding more about the mechanism of tumorigenesis and understanding rare tumors, biologically, within the lab,” she said, “but also clinically, in terms of finding more effective therapies.”

Both Dr. McGregor and Dr. Apolo are currently conducting basket trials for patients with rare GU tumors. While Dr. McGregor is testing a combination of PD-1 inhibitor nivolumab and CTLA-4 inhibitor ipilimumab, Dr. Apolo is exploring the benefit of cabozantinib, a targeted therapy, given with either nivolumab or nivolumab plus ipilimumab.

When asked about these trials, Dr. Spiess said that “basket trials are important because they may give us an understanding of some potentially useful therapies or combinations;” however, he also pointed out their limitations, noting that they may inaccurately characterize the efficacy of given therapies over a broad array of disease entities even if they are of similar histology. As an example, he noted “very different” genomic profiles across squamous cell carcinomas of the pelvis depending on exact anatomical location, suggesting that these differences may affect responses to therapy, citing a recent study in European Urology that he conducted with Dr. Necchi.¹

“[Basket trials] are probably not going to be the be-all-end-all,” Dr. Spiess said. “It really requires a global initiative to do these types of studies, which the Global Society of Rare Genitourinary Tumors will allow.”

Exploring immunotherapy combinations

Despite the potential limitations, recent basket trials involving immunotherapy regimens have been associated with overall response rates, in some subgroups, that exceed 35%.^2,3

In comparison with previous trials, many of which had response rates in the single digits, or no responses at all, these results are, in Dr. McGregor’s words, “very thought provoking.”Most rare GU malignancies fall into one of four categories: bladder cancer variant histology (BCVH), adrenal tumors, penile squamous cell carcinoma (PSCC), and chemotherapy-refractory germ cell tumors (CRGCT). Among these, BCVH has the strongest evidence supporting clinical use of immunotherapy, based on U.S. approval for urothelial histology, according to Dr. McGregor.⁴Data supporting immunotherapy for the remaining disease subtypes are scarce. Although pembrolizumab is approved for patients with solid tumors that exhibit microsatellite instability (MSI), MSI is uncommon among patients with rare GU cancers; estimated incidence rates are less than 10%.⁴

“As such, clinical trials to address this unmet need are imperative,” Dr. McGregor wrote in a recent review article.⁴

According to Dr. McGregor, programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression in rare GU tumors may be relatively common in some disease subtypes, such as PSCC, which has a PD-L1 expression rate of up to 60%.⁴

But rare GU tumor trials involving a single checkpoint inhibitor have produced limited results, if any.

The largest trial for adrenocortical carcinoma (ACC), for example, which included 50 patients, showed that avelumab resulted in an objective response rate (ORR) of just 6%.⁵

Pembrolizumab was slightly more effective for ACC, based on a trial involving 39 patients, which returned an ORR of 23%, and another trial involving 15 patients that had a 15% ORR.^6,7

Two other trials, which tested single-agent pembrolizumab or durvalumab in patients with CRGCT, resulted in no responses at all, whereas a trial testing pembrolizumab alone for penile squamous cell carcinoma was terminated in 2020, citing poor accrual.^8,9 Still, the durvalumab trial for CRGCT, led by Dr. Necchi, did offer a glimpse at what might be possible with a combination of immunotherapies. Although no responses were observed among 11 patients who received durvalumab alone, an efficacy signal was observed in a second cohort of 11 patients who were given durvalumab in combination with the CTLA-4 inhibitor tremilimumab.⁹

Out of those 11 patients, 1 had a partial response, and another achieved stable disease.

In light of these findings, and more that have been published since then, the clinical trial landscape for rare GU tumors is shifting toward a combination immunotherapy approach, according to Dr. McGregor.⁴

Nivolumab and ipilimumab

Dr. McGregor is leading a phase II trial (NCT03333616) testing a combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab in patients with a variety of advanced rare GU malignancies, including bladder and upper tract carcinoma of variant histology (BUTCVH), adrenal tumors, CRGCT, PSCC, and prostate cancer of variant histology (PCVH).

“When trials are designed, these patients are often forgotten,” Dr. McGregor noted. “We said, let’s do a trial for all rare GU tumors and just sort of assess and look for a signal, and, hopefully, find a signal that we can then take to the next level.”

Along with appropriate disease phenotype, trial eligibility depended upon an ECOG performance status of 0-2 and no prior exposure to checkpoint inhibitors. Treatment-naive patients were allowed. All participants received nivolumab 3 mg/kg and ipilimumab 1 mg/kg IV every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by maintenance nivolumab at a dose of 480 mg every 4 weeks.

Most recent results, published in Cancer, included data from 55 patients, including 19 with BUTCVH, 18 with adrenal tumors, and 18 with other tumors.³ After a median follow-up of 9.9 months, 28 patients (51%) received all four doses of the regimen, 25 of whom received maintenance therapy with a median of four cycles.

Overall, nine patients (16%) responded to therapy, six of whom (67%) maintained their response for at least 9 months. Two responses were complete, and seven were partial. Median progression-free survival was 2.8 months.

Twenty-two patients (39%) had grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events, approximately one-quarter (23%) needed high-dose steroids, and a slightly greater proportion (27%) discontinued the regimen because of adverse events. Three patients exhibited grade 5 toxicity, and one patient death was treatment related. A closer look at the efficacy data suggested that one disease subgroup benefited much more than the others. The overall response rate among 19 patients with BUTCVH was 37%, compared with 6% in the other two cohorts.

“A response rate of 37% compares quite favorably to anything we’ve seen to date,” Dr. McGregor said. “It’s remarkable that [this response] was seen across histologies – we saw this in urachal, we saw this in adenocarcinoma – we really saw this across the board. This is very, very, very intriguing data.”

The phase II trial is ongoing at multiple centers across the country, including the Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center, Boston, the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, the Moores Cancer Center at University of California Health, San Diego, the Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, and the Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta.

“We accrued this trial in just under 18 months,” Dr. McGregor said. “I think this shows that with a well-designed trial, we can actually study these diseases and improve outcomes in these patients.” According to Dr. McGregor, the current findings deserve further investigation, potentially including expansion of the BUTCVH cohort. Recruitment is ongoing for a fourth cohort involving patients with tumors that exhibit neuroendocrine differentiation.

Cabozantinib and nivolumab with or without ipilimumab

Dr. Apolo is leading a similar basket trial (NCT02496208) that is testing cabozantinib plus nivolumab with or without ipilimumab.

“What we’re doing is using immunotherapy and a targeted therapy that work in standard urothelial carcinoma and renal cell carcinoma,” Dr. Apolo said. “But really, we don’t know the activity in these rare GU tumors. … There’s still so much we don’t understand about what the driving mutations are, and how we can best target them.”

Most recent data, published in Journal of Clinical Oncology, include 122 patients with metastatic GU tumors, including urothelial carcinoma, clear cell renal cell carcinoma, bladder adenocarcinoma, and other rare GU cancers.²

Among these patients, 54 were in the phase I dose-finding cohort (eight escalating doses) and 64 were in the dose-expansion cohorts.

After a median follow-up of 40.4 months, 64 patients received the dual combination, whereas 56 received the triplet regimen. The ORR for 108 evaluable patients was 38%, including 12 complete responses (11.1%) and 29 partial responses (26.9%). The largest disease cohort, for urothelial carcinoma, included 33 patients and was associated with an ORR of 42.4%, with a complete response rate of 21.2%. Objective response rate was highest for squamous bladder cancer (85.7%; n = 7), followed by clear cell renal carcinoma (62.5%; n = 16), renal medullary cancer (50%; n = 2), penile cancer (44.4%; n = 9), small cell bladder cancer (33.1%; n = 3), bladder adenocarcinoma (20%; n = 15), and prostate cancer (11.1%; n = 9). No responses were seen in six patients with germ cell tumors.

Adding ipilimumab appeared to have a minimal impact on toxicity. Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events (AEs) occurred in 84% of patients in the dual combination group, compared with 80% receiving the triplet regimen. Most common AEs were hypophosphatemia (16-25%), lipase elevation (20%), fatigue (18-20%), ALT elevation (5-14%), AST elevation (9-11%), diarrhea (9-11%), and thromboembolic event (4-11%). One patient taking the triplet regimen had grade 5 pneumonitis.

These positive phase I results have paved the way for the phase II ICONIC trial (NCT03866382), a national study available through the Alliance Cooperative Group. The trial is currently recruiting, with an estimated enrollment of 224 patients with rare GU tumors.

The ICONIC trial is just one of several studies that Dr. Apolo is conducting for patients with rare GU cancer. “I have several bladder cancer trials where I’m accepting rare GU tumors to enroll,” she said, noting that efficacy signals in these exploratory cohorts may be pursued with expansion studies like ICONIC.

This inclusive strategy is uncovering promising new treatments for some rare GU malignancies, but the rarest of the rare tumor types remain challenging to study, Dr. Apolo said, because very small sample sizes can preclude significant data. “Although we do have the referral base at the NCI, we still get a small number of a lot of rare tumors,” Dr. Apolo said. “What I end up having, a lot of time, are small subsets of rare tumors – I’ll have 4 of one kind, 10 of another.” This situation means that sometimes, time and resources must be focused where they are needed most.

“Sometimes I actually have to decide which are the more common rare tumors so I can study them in a larger cohort,” Dr. Apolo said. “It can have more clinical impact within the community of that rare tumor.” Dr. Apolo described the inherent conflict involved in this decision, but also, its ultimate necessity.

“It’s what you don’t want to do, but you end up doing,” she said. “Because you want to be inclusive and include the rare, rare tumor, but sometimes you just can’t get enough numbers to see if there’s actually a difference [in efficacy]. If it doesn’t work in one patient, does that mean it doesn’t work at all? You need more numbers to really test the efficacy of therapy.”

From clinical trials to clinical practice

To accrue the number of patients needed for practice-altering findings, both Dr. McGregor and Dr. Apolo emphasized the importance of institutional support and collaborative trial designs.

“The FDA is a great ally,” Dr. McGregor said. “They’re acutely aware of the challenges facing patients with rare malignancies – not just GU malignancies. They’re continuing to evaluate the best way to move these drugs forward for those patients. … They’re constantly working with investigators, with industry, looking at data and trying to determine at what threshold these will be practice-changing studies.”

Dr. McGregor suggested that larger trials could shift national guideline recommendations toward combination immunotherapies for patients with rare GU tumors, which would lead to inclusion in compendia, and from there, broader clinical usage.

“At end of the day, luckily, we’re not dealing with drugs that aren’t available,” Dr. McGregor said. “These are drugs that are readily available, approved by the FDA in other settings.”

Dr. Apolo also described strong support from the NCI.

“The NCI really encourages the conduction and enrollment of these rare GU tumor trials, because they understand that the NCI is a really good place to study these rare tumors,” she said. “We have unique resources that make it feasible to conduct some of these trials.”

Dr. Apolo also praised the Alliance Cooperative Group for helping expand patient access to rare GU tumor trials.

“[The Alliance Cooperative Group] makes trials available at community centers across the country,” Dr. Apolo said. “Patients don’t have to travel to the NCI, and they can get the same therapies.”

Still, Dr. Apolo recommended that, when possible, clinicians refer patients with newly diagnosed, rare GU tumors to centers that see a higher number of such cases.

“It’s hard to keep up with all the different treatments that are available right now for different cancers,” Dr. Apolo said. “And sometimes for the rare tumors, there may be great opportunities within a clinical trial that a cancer center may have available that may not be available locally in the community.”

For patients who would like to learn more about rare bladder cancers, Dr. Apolo recommended a visit to the Bladder Cancer Advocacy Network (BCAN) website (bcan.org).

“I’m a big fan of these patient-centered advocacy networks,” Dr. Apolo said. “I like BCAN a lot. It’s a patient-run organization for patients with bladder cancer. With them, I have done a couple of webinars for rare bladder tumors that Ive had some patients tell me are very helpful. They’re a terrific organization that really provides not only emotional support but also educational support for patients that have a diagnosis of bladder cancer and now, rare bladder tumors.” Dr. Spiess offered similar advice for clinicians managing patients with rare GU tumors. He emphasized the key role played by patient advocacy groups, and recommended referral to institutions specializing in specific GU tumor types. For example, he recommended that patients with penile cancer be treated at Moffitt (Tampa) or MD Anderson (Houston), as these centers have the greatest relevant experience. Dr. McGregor disclosed relationships with Bayer, Astellas, Nektar, and others. Dr. Apolo and Dr. Spiess disclosed no conflicts of interest.
 

References

1.Necchi A et al. Eur Urol. 2021 June;79:S929-30.

2.Apolo AB et al. J Clin Oncol. 2021;39(6_suppl):3.

3.McGregor BA et al. Cancer. 2021 Mar 15;127(6):840-9.

4.McGregor BA and Sonpavde GP. Eur Urol Focus. 2020;6(1):14-16.5.Le Tourneau C et al. J Immunother Cancer. 2018 Oct 22;6(1):111.6.Naing A et al. J Immunother Cancer. 2020;8(1).

7.Raj N et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38(1):71-80.

8.Adra N et al. Ann Oncol. 2018;29(1):209-14.

9.Necchi A et al. Eur Urol. 2019;75(1):201-3.

Apixaban appears to be safer and more effective than rivaroxaban for reducing risk of venous thromboembolism and bleeding, based on new research.

Recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) – a composite of pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis – was the primary effectiveness outcome in the retrospective analysis of new-user data from almost 40,000 patients, which was published in Annals of Internal Medicine. Safety was evaluated through a composite of intracranial and gastrointestinal bleeding.

After a median follow-up of 102 days in the apixaban group and 105 days in the rivaroxaban group, apixaban demonstrated superiority for both primary outcomes.

These real-world findings may guide selection of initial anticoagulant therapy, reported lead author Ghadeer K. Dawwas, PhD, MSc, MBA, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues.

“Randomized clinical trials comparing apixaban with rivaroxaban in patients with VTE are under way (for example, COBRRA (NCT03266783),” the investigators wrote. “Until the results from these trials become available (The estimated completion date for COBRRA is December 2023.), observational studies that use existing data can provide evidence on the effectiveness and safety of these alternatives to inform clinical practice.”

In the new research, apixaban was associated with a 23% lower rate of recurrent VTE (hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.69-0.87), including a 15% lower rate of deep vein thrombosis and a 41% lower rate of pulmonary embolism. Apixaban was associated with 40% fewer bleeding events (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.53-0.69]), including a 40% lower rate of GI bleeding and a 46% lower rate of intracranial bleeding.

The study involved 37,236 patients with VTE, all of whom were diagnosed in at least one inpatient encounter and initiated direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) therapy within 30 days, according to Optum’s deidentified Clinformatics Data Mart Database. Patients were evenly split into apixaban and rivaroxaban groups, with 18,618 individuals in each. Propensity score matching was used to minimize differences in baseline characteristics.

Apixaban was associated with an absolute reduction in recurrent VTE of 0.6% and 1.1% over 2 and 6 months, respectively, as well as reductions in bleeding of 1.1% and 1.5% over the same respective time periods.

The investigators noted that these findings were maintained in various sensitivity and subgroup analyses, including a model in which patients with VTE who had transient risk factors were compared with VTE patients exhibiting chronic risk factors.

“These findings suggest that apixaban has superior effectiveness and safety, compared with rivaroxaban and may provide guidance to clinicians and patients regarding selection of an anticoagulant for treatment of VTE,” Dr. Dawwas and colleagues concluded.

Study may have missed some nuance in possible outcomes, according to vascular surgeon

Thomas Wakefield, MD, a vascular surgeon and a professor of surgery at the University of Michigan Health Frankel Cardiovascular Center, Ann Arbor, generally agreed with the investigators’ conclusion, although he noted that DOAC selection may also be influenced by other considerations.

“The results of this study suggest that, when choosing an agent for an individual patient, apixaban does appear to have an advantage over rivaroxaban related to recurrent VTE and bleeding,” Dr. Wakefield said in an interview. “One must keep in mind that these are not the only factors that are considered when choosing an agent and these are not the only two DOACs available. For example, rivaroxaban is given once per day while apixaban is given twice per day, and rivaroxaban has been shown to be successful in the treatment of other thrombotic disorders.”

Dr. Wakefield also pointed out that the study may have missed some nuance in possible outcomes.

“The current study looked at severe outcomes that resulted in inpatient hospitalization, so the generalization to strictly outpatient treatment and less severe outcomes cannot be inferred,” he said.

Damon E. Houghton, MD, of the department of medicine and a consultant in the department of vascular medicine and hematology at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., called the study a “very nice analysis,” highlighting the large sample size.

“The results are not a reason to abandon rivaroxaban altogether, but do suggest that, when otherwise appropriate for a patient, apixaban should be the first choice,” Dr. Houghton said in a written comment. “Hopefully this analysis will encourage more payers to create financial incentives that facilitate the use of apixaban in more patients.”

Randomized trial needed, says hematologist

Colleen Edwards, MD, of the departments of medicine, hematology, and medical oncology, at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, had a more guarded view of the findings than Dr. Wakefield and Dr. Houghton.

“[The investigators] certainly seem to be doing a lot of statistical gymnastics in this paper,” Dr. Edwards said in an interview. “They used all kinds of surrogates in place of real data that you would get from a randomized trial.”

For example, Dr. Edwards noted the use of prescription refills as a surrogate for medication adherence, and emphasized that inpatient observational data may not reflect outpatient therapy.

“Inpatients are constantly missing their medicines all the time,” she said. “They’re holding it for procedures, they’re NPO, they’re off the floor, so they missed their medicine. So it’s just a very different patient population than the outpatient population, which is where venous thromboembolism is treated now, by and large.”

Although Dr. Edwards suggested that the findings might guide treatment selection “a little bit,” she noted that insurance constraints and costs play a greater role, and ultimately concluded that a randomized trial is needed to materially alter clinical decision-making.

“I think we really have to wait for randomized trial before we abandon our other choices,” she said.

The investigators disclosed relationships with Merck, Celgene, UCB, and others. Dr. Wakefield reported awaiting disclosures. Dr. Houghton and Dr. Edwards reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

Apixaban appears to be safer and more effective than rivaroxaban for reducing risk of venous thromboembolism and bleeding, based on new research.

Recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) – a composite of pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis – was the primary effectiveness outcome in the retrospective analysis of new-user data from almost 40,000 patients, which was published in Annals of Internal Medicine. Safety was evaluated through a composite of intracranial and gastrointestinal bleeding.

After a median follow-up of 102 days in the apixaban group and 105 days in the rivaroxaban group, apixaban demonstrated superiority for both primary outcomes.

These real-world findings may guide selection of initial anticoagulant therapy, reported lead author Ghadeer K. Dawwas, PhD, MSc, MBA, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues.

“Randomized clinical trials comparing apixaban with rivaroxaban in patients with VTE are under way (for example, COBRRA (NCT03266783),” the investigators wrote. “Until the results from these trials become available (The estimated completion date for COBRRA is December 2023.), observational studies that use existing data can provide evidence on the effectiveness and safety of these alternatives to inform clinical practice.”

In the new research, apixaban was associated with a 23% lower rate of recurrent VTE (hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.69-0.87), including a 15% lower rate of deep vein thrombosis and a 41% lower rate of pulmonary embolism. Apixaban was associated with 40% fewer bleeding events (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.53-0.69]), including a 40% lower rate of GI bleeding and a 46% lower rate of intracranial bleeding.

The study involved 37,236 patients with VTE, all of whom were diagnosed in at least one inpatient encounter and initiated direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) therapy within 30 days, according to Optum’s deidentified Clinformatics Data Mart Database. Patients were evenly split into apixaban and rivaroxaban groups, with 18,618 individuals in each. Propensity score matching was used to minimize differences in baseline characteristics.

Apixaban was associated with an absolute reduction in recurrent VTE of 0.6% and 1.1% over 2 and 6 months, respectively, as well as reductions in bleeding of 1.1% and 1.5% over the same respective time periods.

The investigators noted that these findings were maintained in various sensitivity and subgroup analyses, including a model in which patients with VTE who had transient risk factors were compared with VTE patients exhibiting chronic risk factors.

“These findings suggest that apixaban has superior effectiveness and safety, compared with rivaroxaban and may provide guidance to clinicians and patients regarding selection of an anticoagulant for treatment of VTE,” Dr. Dawwas and colleagues concluded.

Study may have missed some nuance in possible outcomes, according to vascular surgeon

Thomas Wakefield, MD, a vascular surgeon and a professor of surgery at the University of Michigan Health Frankel Cardiovascular Center, Ann Arbor, generally agreed with the investigators’ conclusion, although he noted that DOAC selection may also be influenced by other considerations.

“The results of this study suggest that, when choosing an agent for an individual patient, apixaban does appear to have an advantage over rivaroxaban related to recurrent VTE and bleeding,” Dr. Wakefield said in an interview. “One must keep in mind that these are not the only factors that are considered when choosing an agent and these are not the only two DOACs available. For example, rivaroxaban is given once per day while apixaban is given twice per day, and rivaroxaban has been shown to be successful in the treatment of other thrombotic disorders.”

Dr. Wakefield also pointed out that the study may have missed some nuance in possible outcomes.

“The current study looked at severe outcomes that resulted in inpatient hospitalization, so the generalization to strictly outpatient treatment and less severe outcomes cannot be inferred,” he said.

Damon E. Houghton, MD, of the department of medicine and a consultant in the department of vascular medicine and hematology at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., called the study a “very nice analysis,” highlighting the large sample size.

“The results are not a reason to abandon rivaroxaban altogether, but do suggest that, when otherwise appropriate for a patient, apixaban should be the first choice,” Dr. Houghton said in a written comment. “Hopefully this analysis will encourage more payers to create financial incentives that facilitate the use of apixaban in more patients.”

Randomized trial needed, says hematologist

Colleen Edwards, MD, of the departments of medicine, hematology, and medical oncology, at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, had a more guarded view of the findings than Dr. Wakefield and Dr. Houghton.

“[The investigators] certainly seem to be doing a lot of statistical gymnastics in this paper,” Dr. Edwards said in an interview. “They used all kinds of surrogates in place of real data that you would get from a randomized trial.”

For example, Dr. Edwards noted the use of prescription refills as a surrogate for medication adherence, and emphasized that inpatient observational data may not reflect outpatient therapy.

“Inpatients are constantly missing their medicines all the time,” she said. “They’re holding it for procedures, they’re NPO, they’re off the floor, so they missed their medicine. So it’s just a very different patient population than the outpatient population, which is where venous thromboembolism is treated now, by and large.”

Although Dr. Edwards suggested that the findings might guide treatment selection “a little bit,” she noted that insurance constraints and costs play a greater role, and ultimately concluded that a randomized trial is needed to materially alter clinical decision-making.

“I think we really have to wait for randomized trial before we abandon our other choices,” she said.

The investigators disclosed relationships with Merck, Celgene, UCB, and others. Dr. Wakefield reported awaiting disclosures. Dr. Houghton and Dr. Edwards reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

Apixaban appears to be safer and more effective than rivaroxaban for reducing risk of venous thromboembolism and bleeding, based on new research.

Recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) – a composite of pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis – was the primary effectiveness outcome in the retrospective analysis of new-user data from almost 40,000 patients, which was published in Annals of Internal Medicine. Safety was evaluated through a composite of intracranial and gastrointestinal bleeding.

After a median follow-up of 102 days in the apixaban group and 105 days in the rivaroxaban group, apixaban demonstrated superiority for both primary outcomes.

These real-world findings may guide selection of initial anticoagulant therapy, reported lead author Ghadeer K. Dawwas, PhD, MSc, MBA, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues.

“Randomized clinical trials comparing apixaban with rivaroxaban in patients with VTE are under way (for example, COBRRA (NCT03266783),” the investigators wrote. “Until the results from these trials become available (The estimated completion date for COBRRA is December 2023.), observational studies that use existing data can provide evidence on the effectiveness and safety of these alternatives to inform clinical practice.”

In the new research, apixaban was associated with a 23% lower rate of recurrent VTE (hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.69-0.87), including a 15% lower rate of deep vein thrombosis and a 41% lower rate of pulmonary embolism. Apixaban was associated with 40% fewer bleeding events (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.53-0.69]), including a 40% lower rate of GI bleeding and a 46% lower rate of intracranial bleeding.

The study involved 37,236 patients with VTE, all of whom were diagnosed in at least one inpatient encounter and initiated direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) therapy within 30 days, according to Optum’s deidentified Clinformatics Data Mart Database. Patients were evenly split into apixaban and rivaroxaban groups, with 18,618 individuals in each. Propensity score matching was used to minimize differences in baseline characteristics.

Apixaban was associated with an absolute reduction in recurrent VTE of 0.6% and 1.1% over 2 and 6 months, respectively, as well as reductions in bleeding of 1.1% and 1.5% over the same respective time periods.

The investigators noted that these findings were maintained in various sensitivity and subgroup analyses, including a model in which patients with VTE who had transient risk factors were compared with VTE patients exhibiting chronic risk factors.

“These findings suggest that apixaban has superior effectiveness and safety, compared with rivaroxaban and may provide guidance to clinicians and patients regarding selection of an anticoagulant for treatment of VTE,” Dr. Dawwas and colleagues concluded.

Study may have missed some nuance in possible outcomes, according to vascular surgeon

Thomas Wakefield, MD, a vascular surgeon and a professor of surgery at the University of Michigan Health Frankel Cardiovascular Center, Ann Arbor, generally agreed with the investigators’ conclusion, although he noted that DOAC selection may also be influenced by other considerations.

“The results of this study suggest that, when choosing an agent for an individual patient, apixaban does appear to have an advantage over rivaroxaban related to recurrent VTE and bleeding,” Dr. Wakefield said in an interview. “One must keep in mind that these are not the only factors that are considered when choosing an agent and these are not the only two DOACs available. For example, rivaroxaban is given once per day while apixaban is given twice per day, and rivaroxaban has been shown to be successful in the treatment of other thrombotic disorders.”

Dr. Wakefield also pointed out that the study may have missed some nuance in possible outcomes.

“The current study looked at severe outcomes that resulted in inpatient hospitalization, so the generalization to strictly outpatient treatment and less severe outcomes cannot be inferred,” he said.

Damon E. Houghton, MD, of the department of medicine and a consultant in the department of vascular medicine and hematology at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., called the study a “very nice analysis,” highlighting the large sample size.

“The results are not a reason to abandon rivaroxaban altogether, but do suggest that, when otherwise appropriate for a patient, apixaban should be the first choice,” Dr. Houghton said in a written comment. “Hopefully this analysis will encourage more payers to create financial incentives that facilitate the use of apixaban in more patients.”

Randomized trial needed, says hematologist

Colleen Edwards, MD, of the departments of medicine, hematology, and medical oncology, at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, had a more guarded view of the findings than Dr. Wakefield and Dr. Houghton.

“[The investigators] certainly seem to be doing a lot of statistical gymnastics in this paper,” Dr. Edwards said in an interview. “They used all kinds of surrogates in place of real data that you would get from a randomized trial.”

For example, Dr. Edwards noted the use of prescription refills as a surrogate for medication adherence, and emphasized that inpatient observational data may not reflect outpatient therapy.

“Inpatients are constantly missing their medicines all the time,” she said. “They’re holding it for procedures, they’re NPO, they’re off the floor, so they missed their medicine. So it’s just a very different patient population than the outpatient population, which is where venous thromboembolism is treated now, by and large.”

Although Dr. Edwards suggested that the findings might guide treatment selection “a little bit,” she noted that insurance constraints and costs play a greater role, and ultimately concluded that a randomized trial is needed to materially alter clinical decision-making.

“I think we really have to wait for randomized trial before we abandon our other choices,” she said.

The investigators disclosed relationships with Merck, Celgene, UCB, and others. Dr. Wakefield reported awaiting disclosures. Dr. Houghton and Dr. Edwards reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

The American Gastroenterological Association recently published a Clinical Practice Update Commentary outlining surveillance strategies following endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) of dysplasia and early gastrointestinal cancer considered pathologically curative.

The suggested practice advice, which was put together by Andrew Y. Wang, MD, of the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, and colleagues, offers timelines and modalities of surveillance based on neoplasia type and location, with accompanying summaries of relevant literature.

“Long-term U.S. data about ESD outcomes for early GI neoplasia are only beginning to emerge,” the authors wrote in Gastroenterology. “As such, the current clinical practice regarding endoscopic surveillance intervals and the need for other testing (such as radiographic imaging) after ESD considered curative by histopathology is extrapolated from data derived from Asia and other countries, from concepts learned from polypectomy and piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), and from guideline recommendations after local surgical resection.”

The authors went on to suggest that current recommendations for post-ESD surveillance, including international guidelines “are based more so on expert opinion than rigorous evidence.”

The present update was written to offer additional clarity in this area by providing “a reasonable framework for clinical care and launch points for future research to refine and standardize optimal post-ESD surveillance strategies.”

Foremost, Dr. Wang and colleagues suggested that post-ESD surveillance is necessary because of a lack of standardization concerning the definition of complete resection, along with variable standards of pathological assessment in Western countries, compared with Japan, where pathologists use 2-3 mm serial sectioning and special stains to detect lymphovascular invasion, “which is essential to accurate histopathologic diagnosis and determination of curative resection.”

According to the authors, surveillance endoscopy should be performed with a high-definition endoscope augmented with dye-based or electronic chromoendoscopy, and ideally with optimal magnification.

“Although no supporting data are available at this time, it is prudent and may be reasonable to obtain central and peripheral biopsies of the post-ESD scar,” the authors wrote, noting that relevant mucosa should be checked for metachronous lesions.
 

Esophageal dysplasia and esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

Following curative resection of low-grade or high-grade esophageal squamous dysplasia, the authors suggested follow-up esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) initially at intervals of 6-12 months, while advising against endoscopic ultrasonography and radiographic surveillance.

In contrast, Dr. Wang and colleagues suggested that superficial esophageal squamous cell carcinoma removed by ESD may benefit from a shorter interval of endoscopic surveillance, with a range of 3-6 months for first and second follow-up EGDs. Clinicians may also consider endoscopic ultrasonography with each EGD, plus an annual CT scan of the abdomen and chest, for 3-5 years.

“A limitation of ESD is that the at-risk esophagus is left in place, and there is a possibility of developing local recurrence or metachronous neoplasia,” the authors wrote. “Although local recurrence after ESD deemed pathologically curative of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma is infrequent, the development of metachronous lesions is not.”
 

Barrett’s dysplasia and esophageal adenocarcinoma

For all patients, curative removal of Barrett’s dysplasia or esophageal adenocarcinoma should be followed by endoscopy with mucosal ablative therapy at 2-3 months, with treatments every 2-3 months until complete eradication of intestinal metaplasia is achieved, according to Dr. Wang and colleagues.

After complete eradication, patients should be endoscopically screened from 3-12 months, depending on the degree of dysplasia or T-stage of adenocarcinoma, followed by screening procedures ranging from 6 months to 3 years, again depending on disease type.

“Endoscopic resection of visible Barrett’s neoplasia without treatment of Barrett’s esophagus has been associated with significant recurrence rates, so the objective of treatment should be endoscopic resection of visible or nodular dysplasia, followed by complete ablation of any remaining Barrett’s esophagus and associated (flat and/or invisible) dysplasia,” the authors wrote.
 

Gastric dysplasia and gastric adenocarcinoma

According to the update, after curative resection of gastric dysplasia, first follow-up endoscopy should be conducted at 6-12 months. Second follow-up should be conducted at 12 months for low-grade dysplasia versus 6-12 months for high-grade dysplasia, with annual exams thereafter.

For T1a early gastric cancer, the first two follow-up endoscopies should be performed at 6-month intervals, followed by annual exams. T1b Sm1 disease should be screened more aggressively, with 3-6 months intervals for first and second follow-up EGDs, plus CT scans of the abdomen and chest and/or endoscopic ultrasound every 6-12 months for 3-5 years.

“For lesions where a curative resection was achieved based on clinical criteria and histopathologic examination, surveillance is performed primarily to detect metachronous gastric cancers,” the authors wrote.
 

Colonic dysplasia and adenocarcinoma

According to the authors, adenomas with low-grade dysplasia or serrated sessile lesions without dysplasia removed by ESD should be rechecked by colonoscopy at 1 year and then 3 years, followed by adherence to U.S. Multi-Society Task Force recommendations.

For traditional serrated adenomas, serrated sessile lesions with dysplasia, adenomas with high-grade dysplasia, carcinoma in situ, intramucosal carcinoma, or dysplasia in the setting of inflammatory bowel disease, first follow-up colonoscopy should be conducted at 6-12 months, 1 year later, then 3 years after that, followed by reversion to USMSTF recommendations, although patients with IBD may benefit from annual colonoscopy.

Finally, patients with superficial T1 colonic adenocarcinoma should be screened more frequently, with colonoscopies at 3-6 months, 6 months, and 1 year, followed by adherence to USMSTF recommendations.

“The current Japanese guideline suggests that recurrence or metastasis after endoscopic resection of T1 (Sm) colonic carcinomas occurs mainly within 3-5 years,” the authors noted.
 

Rectal dysplasia and adenocarcinoma

Best practice advice suggestions for rectal dysplasia and adenocarcinoma are grouped similarly to the above advice for colonic lesions.

For lower-grade lesions, first follow-up with flexible sigmoidoscopy is suggested after 1 year, then 3 years, followed by reversion to USMSTF recommendations. Higher-grade dysplastic lesions should be checked after 6-12 months, 1 year, then 3 years, followed by adherence to USMSTF guidance, again excluding patients with IBD, who may benefit from annual exams.

Patients with superficial T1 rectal adenocarcinoma removed by ESD deemed pathologically curative should be checked with flexible sigmoidoscopy at 3-6 months, again at 3-6 months after first sigmoidoscopy, then every 6 months for a total of 5 years from the time of ESD, followed by adherence to USMSTF recommendations. At 1 year following ESD, patients should undergo colonoscopy, which can take the place of one of the follow-up flexible sigmoidoscopy exams; if an advanced adenoma is found, colonoscopy should be repeated after 1 year, versus 3 years if no advanced adenomas are found, followed by adherence to USMSTF recommendations. Patients with superficial T1 rectal adenocarcinoma should also undergo endoscopic ultrasound or pelvic MRI with contrast every 3-6 months for 2 years, followed by intervals of 6 months for a total of 5 years. Annual CT of the chest and abdomen may also be considered for a duration of 3-5 years.

Call for research

Dr. Wang and colleagues concluded their update with a call for research.

“We acknowledge that the level of evidence currently available to support much of our surveillance advice is generally low,” they wrote. “The intent of this clinical practice update was to propose surveillance strategies after potentially curative ESD for various GI neoplasms, which might also serve as reference points to stimulate research that will refine future clinical best practice advice.”

The article was supported by the AGA. The authors disclosed relationships with MicroTech, Olympus, Lumendi, U.S. Endoscopy, Boston Scientific, Steris and others.

This article was updated Dec. 15, 2021.

The American Gastroenterological Association recently published a Clinical Practice Update Commentary outlining surveillance strategies following endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) of dysplasia and early gastrointestinal cancer considered pathologically curative.

The suggested practice advice, which was put together by Andrew Y. Wang, MD, of the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, and colleagues, offers timelines and modalities of surveillance based on neoplasia type and location, with accompanying summaries of relevant literature.

“Long-term U.S. data about ESD outcomes for early GI neoplasia are only beginning to emerge,” the authors wrote in Gastroenterology. “As such, the current clinical practice regarding endoscopic surveillance intervals and the need for other testing (such as radiographic imaging) after ESD considered curative by histopathology is extrapolated from data derived from Asia and other countries, from concepts learned from polypectomy and piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), and from guideline recommendations after local surgical resection.”

The authors went on to suggest that current recommendations for post-ESD surveillance, including international guidelines “are based more so on expert opinion than rigorous evidence.”

The present update was written to offer additional clarity in this area by providing “a reasonable framework for clinical care and launch points for future research to refine and standardize optimal post-ESD surveillance strategies.”

Foremost, Dr. Wang and colleagues suggested that post-ESD surveillance is necessary because of a lack of standardization concerning the definition of complete resection, along with variable standards of pathological assessment in Western countries, compared with Japan, where pathologists use 2-3 mm serial sectioning and special stains to detect lymphovascular invasion, “which is essential to accurate histopathologic diagnosis and determination of curative resection.”

According to the authors, surveillance endoscopy should be performed with a high-definition endoscope augmented with dye-based or electronic chromoendoscopy, and ideally with optimal magnification.

“Although no supporting data are available at this time, it is prudent and may be reasonable to obtain central and peripheral biopsies of the post-ESD scar,” the authors wrote, noting that relevant mucosa should be checked for metachronous lesions.
 

Esophageal dysplasia and esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

Following curative resection of low-grade or high-grade esophageal squamous dysplasia, the authors suggested follow-up esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) initially at intervals of 6-12 months, while advising against endoscopic ultrasonography and radiographic surveillance.

In contrast, Dr. Wang and colleagues suggested that superficial esophageal squamous cell carcinoma removed by ESD may benefit from a shorter interval of endoscopic surveillance, with a range of 3-6 months for first and second follow-up EGDs. Clinicians may also consider endoscopic ultrasonography with each EGD, plus an annual CT scan of the abdomen and chest, for 3-5 years.

“A limitation of ESD is that the at-risk esophagus is left in place, and there is a possibility of developing local recurrence or metachronous neoplasia,” the authors wrote. “Although local recurrence after ESD deemed pathologically curative of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma is infrequent, the development of metachronous lesions is not.”
 

Barrett’s dysplasia and esophageal adenocarcinoma

For all patients, curative removal of Barrett’s dysplasia or esophageal adenocarcinoma should be followed by endoscopy with mucosal ablative therapy at 2-3 months, with treatments every 2-3 months until complete eradication of intestinal metaplasia is achieved, according to Dr. Wang and colleagues.

After complete eradication, patients should be endoscopically screened from 3-12 months, depending on the degree of dysplasia or T-stage of adenocarcinoma, followed by screening procedures ranging from 6 months to 3 years, again depending on disease type.

“Endoscopic resection of visible Barrett’s neoplasia without treatment of Barrett’s esophagus has been associated with significant recurrence rates, so the objective of treatment should be endoscopic resection of visible or nodular dysplasia, followed by complete ablation of any remaining Barrett’s esophagus and associated (flat and/or invisible) dysplasia,” the authors wrote.
 

Gastric dysplasia and gastric adenocarcinoma

According to the update, after curative resection of gastric dysplasia, first follow-up endoscopy should be conducted at 6-12 months. Second follow-up should be conducted at 12 months for low-grade dysplasia versus 6-12 months for high-grade dysplasia, with annual exams thereafter.

For T1a early gastric cancer, the first two follow-up endoscopies should be performed at 6-month intervals, followed by annual exams. T1b Sm1 disease should be screened more aggressively, with 3-6 months intervals for first and second follow-up EGDs, plus CT scans of the abdomen and chest and/or endoscopic ultrasound every 6-12 months for 3-5 years.

“For lesions where a curative resection was achieved based on clinical criteria and histopathologic examination, surveillance is performed primarily to detect metachronous gastric cancers,” the authors wrote.
 

Colonic dysplasia and adenocarcinoma

According to the authors, adenomas with low-grade dysplasia or serrated sessile lesions without dysplasia removed by ESD should be rechecked by colonoscopy at 1 year and then 3 years, followed by adherence to U.S. Multi-Society Task Force recommendations.

For traditional serrated adenomas, serrated sessile lesions with dysplasia, adenomas with high-grade dysplasia, carcinoma in situ, intramucosal carcinoma, or dysplasia in the setting of inflammatory bowel disease, first follow-up colonoscopy should be conducted at 6-12 months, 1 year later, then 3 years after that, followed by reversion to USMSTF recommendations, although patients with IBD may benefit from annual colonoscopy.

Finally, patients with superficial T1 colonic adenocarcinoma should be screened more frequently, with colonoscopies at 3-6 months, 6 months, and 1 year, followed by adherence to USMSTF recommendations.

“The current Japanese guideline suggests that recurrence or metastasis after endoscopic resection of T1 (Sm) colonic carcinomas occurs mainly within 3-5 years,” the authors noted.
 

Rectal dysplasia and adenocarcinoma

Best practice advice suggestions for rectal dysplasia and adenocarcinoma are grouped similarly to the above advice for colonic lesions.

For lower-grade lesions, first follow-up with flexible sigmoidoscopy is suggested after 1 year, then 3 years, followed by reversion to USMSTF recommendations. Higher-grade dysplastic lesions should be checked after 6-12 months, 1 year, then 3 years, followed by adherence to USMSTF guidance, again excluding patients with IBD, who may benefit from annual exams.

Patients with superficial T1 rectal adenocarcinoma removed by ESD deemed pathologically curative should be checked with flexible sigmoidoscopy at 3-6 months, again at 3-6 months after first sigmoidoscopy, then every 6 months for a total of 5 years from the time of ESD, followed by adherence to USMSTF recommendations. At 1 year following ESD, patients should undergo colonoscopy, which can take the place of one of the follow-up flexible sigmoidoscopy exams; if an advanced adenoma is found, colonoscopy should be repeated after 1 year, versus 3 years if no advanced adenomas are found, followed by adherence to USMSTF recommendations. Patients with superficial T1 rectal adenocarcinoma should also undergo endoscopic ultrasound or pelvic MRI with contrast every 3-6 months for 2 years, followed by intervals of 6 months for a total of 5 years. Annual CT of the chest and abdomen may also be considered for a duration of 3-5 years.

Call for research

Dr. Wang and colleagues concluded their update with a call for research.

“We acknowledge that the level of evidence currently available to support much of our surveillance advice is generally low,” they wrote. “The intent of this clinical practice update was to propose surveillance strategies after potentially curative ESD for various GI neoplasms, which might also serve as reference points to stimulate research that will refine future clinical best practice advice.”

The article was supported by the AGA. The authors disclosed relationships with MicroTech, Olympus, Lumendi, U.S. Endoscopy, Boston Scientific, Steris and others.

This article was updated Dec. 15, 2021.

The American Gastroenterological Association recently published a Clinical Practice Update Commentary outlining surveillance strategies following endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) of dysplasia and early gastrointestinal cancer considered pathologically curative.

The suggested practice advice, which was put together by Andrew Y. Wang, MD, of the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, and colleagues, offers timelines and modalities of surveillance based on neoplasia type and location, with accompanying summaries of relevant literature.

“Long-term U.S. data about ESD outcomes for early GI neoplasia are only beginning to emerge,” the authors wrote in Gastroenterology. “As such, the current clinical practice regarding endoscopic surveillance intervals and the need for other testing (such as radiographic imaging) after ESD considered curative by histopathology is extrapolated from data derived from Asia and other countries, from concepts learned from polypectomy and piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), and from guideline recommendations after local surgical resection.”

The authors went on to suggest that current recommendations for post-ESD surveillance, including international guidelines “are based more so on expert opinion than rigorous evidence.”

The present update was written to offer additional clarity in this area by providing “a reasonable framework for clinical care and launch points for future research to refine and standardize optimal post-ESD surveillance strategies.”

Foremost, Dr. Wang and colleagues suggested that post-ESD surveillance is necessary because of a lack of standardization concerning the definition of complete resection, along with variable standards of pathological assessment in Western countries, compared with Japan, where pathologists use 2-3 mm serial sectioning and special stains to detect lymphovascular invasion, “which is essential to accurate histopathologic diagnosis and determination of curative resection.”

According to the authors, surveillance endoscopy should be performed with a high-definition endoscope augmented with dye-based or electronic chromoendoscopy, and ideally with optimal magnification.

“Although no supporting data are available at this time, it is prudent and may be reasonable to obtain central and peripheral biopsies of the post-ESD scar,” the authors wrote, noting that relevant mucosa should be checked for metachronous lesions.
 

Esophageal dysplasia and esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

Following curative resection of low-grade or high-grade esophageal squamous dysplasia, the authors suggested follow-up esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) initially at intervals of 6-12 months, while advising against endoscopic ultrasonography and radiographic surveillance.

In contrast, Dr. Wang and colleagues suggested that superficial esophageal squamous cell carcinoma removed by ESD may benefit from a shorter interval of endoscopic surveillance, with a range of 3-6 months for first and second follow-up EGDs. Clinicians may also consider endoscopic ultrasonography with each EGD, plus an annual CT scan of the abdomen and chest, for 3-5 years.

“A limitation of ESD is that the at-risk esophagus is left in place, and there is a possibility of developing local recurrence or metachronous neoplasia,” the authors wrote. “Although local recurrence after ESD deemed pathologically curative of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma is infrequent, the development of metachronous lesions is not.”
 

Barrett’s dysplasia and esophageal adenocarcinoma

For all patients, curative removal of Barrett’s dysplasia or esophageal adenocarcinoma should be followed by endoscopy with mucosal ablative therapy at 2-3 months, with treatments every 2-3 months until complete eradication of intestinal metaplasia is achieved, according to Dr. Wang and colleagues.

After complete eradication, patients should be endoscopically screened from 3-12 months, depending on the degree of dysplasia or T-stage of adenocarcinoma, followed by screening procedures ranging from 6 months to 3 years, again depending on disease type.

“Endoscopic resection of visible Barrett’s neoplasia without treatment of Barrett’s esophagus has been associated with significant recurrence rates, so the objective of treatment should be endoscopic resection of visible or nodular dysplasia, followed by complete ablation of any remaining Barrett’s esophagus and associated (flat and/or invisible) dysplasia,” the authors wrote.
 

Gastric dysplasia and gastric adenocarcinoma

According to the update, after curative resection of gastric dysplasia, first follow-up endoscopy should be conducted at 6-12 months. Second follow-up should be conducted at 12 months for low-grade dysplasia versus 6-12 months for high-grade dysplasia, with annual exams thereafter.

For T1a early gastric cancer, the first two follow-up endoscopies should be performed at 6-month intervals, followed by annual exams. T1b Sm1 disease should be screened more aggressively, with 3-6 months intervals for first and second follow-up EGDs, plus CT scans of the abdomen and chest and/or endoscopic ultrasound every 6-12 months for 3-5 years.

“For lesions where a curative resection was achieved based on clinical criteria and histopathologic examination, surveillance is performed primarily to detect metachronous gastric cancers,” the authors wrote.
 

Colonic dysplasia and adenocarcinoma

According to the authors, adenomas with low-grade dysplasia or serrated sessile lesions without dysplasia removed by ESD should be rechecked by colonoscopy at 1 year and then 3 years, followed by adherence to U.S. Multi-Society Task Force recommendations.

For traditional serrated adenomas, serrated sessile lesions with dysplasia, adenomas with high-grade dysplasia, carcinoma in situ, intramucosal carcinoma, or dysplasia in the setting of inflammatory bowel disease, first follow-up colonoscopy should be conducted at 6-12 months, 1 year later, then 3 years after that, followed by reversion to USMSTF recommendations, although patients with IBD may benefit from annual colonoscopy.

Finally, patients with superficial T1 colonic adenocarcinoma should be screened more frequently, with colonoscopies at 3-6 months, 6 months, and 1 year, followed by adherence to USMSTF recommendations.

“The current Japanese guideline suggests that recurrence or metastasis after endoscopic resection of T1 (Sm) colonic carcinomas occurs mainly within 3-5 years,” the authors noted.
 

Rectal dysplasia and adenocarcinoma

Best practice advice suggestions for rectal dysplasia and adenocarcinoma are grouped similarly to the above advice for colonic lesions.

For lower-grade lesions, first follow-up with flexible sigmoidoscopy is suggested after 1 year, then 3 years, followed by reversion to USMSTF recommendations. Higher-grade dysplastic lesions should be checked after 6-12 months, 1 year, then 3 years, followed by adherence to USMSTF guidance, again excluding patients with IBD, who may benefit from annual exams.

Patients with superficial T1 rectal adenocarcinoma removed by ESD deemed pathologically curative should be checked with flexible sigmoidoscopy at 3-6 months, again at 3-6 months after first sigmoidoscopy, then every 6 months for a total of 5 years from the time of ESD, followed by adherence to USMSTF recommendations. At 1 year following ESD, patients should undergo colonoscopy, which can take the place of one of the follow-up flexible sigmoidoscopy exams; if an advanced adenoma is found, colonoscopy should be repeated after 1 year, versus 3 years if no advanced adenomas are found, followed by adherence to USMSTF recommendations. Patients with superficial T1 rectal adenocarcinoma should also undergo endoscopic ultrasound or pelvic MRI with contrast every 3-6 months for 2 years, followed by intervals of 6 months for a total of 5 years. Annual CT of the chest and abdomen may also be considered for a duration of 3-5 years.

Call for research

Dr. Wang and colleagues concluded their update with a call for research.

“We acknowledge that the level of evidence currently available to support much of our surveillance advice is generally low,” they wrote. “The intent of this clinical practice update was to propose surveillance strategies after potentially curative ESD for various GI neoplasms, which might also serve as reference points to stimulate research that will refine future clinical best practice advice.”

The article was supported by the AGA. The authors disclosed relationships with MicroTech, Olympus, Lumendi, U.S. Endoscopy, Boston Scientific, Steris and others.

This article was updated Dec. 15, 2021.