Will Pass

SAN ANTONIO – For patients with early, low-risk breast cancer, accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) may be considered a standard alternative to whole breast irradiation, according to investigators.

Will Pass/MDedge News

This conclusion was based on 10-year follow-up results from the APBI IMRT Florence phase III trial, which showed that APBI was associated with significantly fewer adverse events and better cosmetic results than whole breast irradiation without increasing risks of tumor recurrence or mortality, reported lead author Irco Meattini, MD, of the University of Florence, Italy, and colleagues.

“As we well know, recent developments in radiation oncology ... show a move toward a deescalation strategy for early breast cancer, including accelerated and nonaccelerated partial breast irradiation,” Dr. Meattini said during a presentation at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium. “What we have learned from [previous] phase 3 trials [is that with adequate patient selection for] partial breast irradiation, safety profile and cosmetic outcome are strongly associated with technique – the approach, the dose, the number of fractions per day, and the total dose.”

The current phase 3 trial, which enrolled 520 patients with early breast cancer, aimed to determine long-term efficacy, safety, and cosmetic outcomes for partial versus whole breast irradiation. All patients enrolled were at least 40 years of age and had a maximum pathological tumor size of 25 mm. Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either whole breast irradiation (WBI) at a dose of 50 Gy in 25 fractions, followed by 10 Gy in five fractions delivered to the tumor bed; or APBI, which was delivered to the tumor bed at a dose of 30 Gy in five daily fractions.

The primary endpoint was ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR). Secondary endpoints were overall survival, breast cancer–specific survival, distant metastasis-free survival, locoregional recurrences, and contralateral breast cancer. Adverse events and cosmesis also were evaluated.

Five-year results, previously reported, revealed no significant difference in survival rates or IBTR between treatment techniques, and results of the present 10-year analysis maintained these findings. Between groups, no significant differences were observed in any of the primary or secondary endpoints, suggesting that major efficacy outcomes were unaffected by type of irradiation delivered.

While major efficacy endpoints were comparable between groups, safety profiles and cosmetic results differed significantly.

Adverse events of all levels of severity were significantly more common with WBI than APBI. Grade 2 or higher acute adverse events occurred in 37.7% of patients treated with WBI, compared with just 2.0% of patients treated with APBI (P = .0001). The rate of grade 2 or higher adverse events was also significantly higher in the WBI group than in the APBI group in the late setting, albeit with a narrower margin than in the acute setting (2.7% vs 0%; P = .015). Skin toxicity rates followed a similar pattern, favoring APBI both in the acute phase (66.5% vs. 21.1%; P = .0001) and the late phase (30.0% vs. 4.5%; P = .0001).

In further support of APBI, cosmetic results, as measured by the Harvard Breast Cosmesis Scale, were significantly better in the APBI group than in the WBI group. Both physicians and patients were significantly more likely to report good or excellent cosmetic results with APBI than WBI.

“APBI might be considered a standard alternative to WBI in low risk and very low risk early breast cancer patients,” Dr. Meattini concluded.

The investigators reported no disclosures.

SOURCE: Meattini et al. SABCS. 2019 Dec 12. Abstract GS4-06.

SAN ANTONIO – For patients with early, low-risk breast cancer, accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) may be considered a standard alternative to whole breast irradiation, according to investigators.

Will Pass/MDedge News

This conclusion was based on 10-year follow-up results from the APBI IMRT Florence phase III trial, which showed that APBI was associated with significantly fewer adverse events and better cosmetic results than whole breast irradiation without increasing risks of tumor recurrence or mortality, reported lead author Irco Meattini, MD, of the University of Florence, Italy, and colleagues.

“As we well know, recent developments in radiation oncology ... show a move toward a deescalation strategy for early breast cancer, including accelerated and nonaccelerated partial breast irradiation,” Dr. Meattini said during a presentation at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium. “What we have learned from [previous] phase 3 trials [is that with adequate patient selection for] partial breast irradiation, safety profile and cosmetic outcome are strongly associated with technique – the approach, the dose, the number of fractions per day, and the total dose.”

The current phase 3 trial, which enrolled 520 patients with early breast cancer, aimed to determine long-term efficacy, safety, and cosmetic outcomes for partial versus whole breast irradiation. All patients enrolled were at least 40 years of age and had a maximum pathological tumor size of 25 mm. Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either whole breast irradiation (WBI) at a dose of 50 Gy in 25 fractions, followed by 10 Gy in five fractions delivered to the tumor bed; or APBI, which was delivered to the tumor bed at a dose of 30 Gy in five daily fractions.

The primary endpoint was ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR). Secondary endpoints were overall survival, breast cancer–specific survival, distant metastasis-free survival, locoregional recurrences, and contralateral breast cancer. Adverse events and cosmesis also were evaluated.

Five-year results, previously reported, revealed no significant difference in survival rates or IBTR between treatment techniques, and results of the present 10-year analysis maintained these findings. Between groups, no significant differences were observed in any of the primary or secondary endpoints, suggesting that major efficacy outcomes were unaffected by type of irradiation delivered.

While major efficacy endpoints were comparable between groups, safety profiles and cosmetic results differed significantly.

Adverse events of all levels of severity were significantly more common with WBI than APBI. Grade 2 or higher acute adverse events occurred in 37.7% of patients treated with WBI, compared with just 2.0% of patients treated with APBI (P = .0001). The rate of grade 2 or higher adverse events was also significantly higher in the WBI group than in the APBI group in the late setting, albeit with a narrower margin than in the acute setting (2.7% vs 0%; P = .015). Skin toxicity rates followed a similar pattern, favoring APBI both in the acute phase (66.5% vs. 21.1%; P = .0001) and the late phase (30.0% vs. 4.5%; P = .0001).

In further support of APBI, cosmetic results, as measured by the Harvard Breast Cosmesis Scale, were significantly better in the APBI group than in the WBI group. Both physicians and patients were significantly more likely to report good or excellent cosmetic results with APBI than WBI.

“APBI might be considered a standard alternative to WBI in low risk and very low risk early breast cancer patients,” Dr. Meattini concluded.

The investigators reported no disclosures.

SOURCE: Meattini et al. SABCS. 2019 Dec 12. Abstract GS4-06.

SAN ANTONIO – For patients with early, low-risk breast cancer, accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) may be considered a standard alternative to whole breast irradiation, according to investigators.

Will Pass/MDedge News

This conclusion was based on 10-year follow-up results from the APBI IMRT Florence phase III trial, which showed that APBI was associated with significantly fewer adverse events and better cosmetic results than whole breast irradiation without increasing risks of tumor recurrence or mortality, reported lead author Irco Meattini, MD, of the University of Florence, Italy, and colleagues.

“As we well know, recent developments in radiation oncology ... show a move toward a deescalation strategy for early breast cancer, including accelerated and nonaccelerated partial breast irradiation,” Dr. Meattini said during a presentation at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium. “What we have learned from [previous] phase 3 trials [is that with adequate patient selection for] partial breast irradiation, safety profile and cosmetic outcome are strongly associated with technique – the approach, the dose, the number of fractions per day, and the total dose.”

The current phase 3 trial, which enrolled 520 patients with early breast cancer, aimed to determine long-term efficacy, safety, and cosmetic outcomes for partial versus whole breast irradiation. All patients enrolled were at least 40 years of age and had a maximum pathological tumor size of 25 mm. Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either whole breast irradiation (WBI) at a dose of 50 Gy in 25 fractions, followed by 10 Gy in five fractions delivered to the tumor bed; or APBI, which was delivered to the tumor bed at a dose of 30 Gy in five daily fractions.

The primary endpoint was ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR). Secondary endpoints were overall survival, breast cancer–specific survival, distant metastasis-free survival, locoregional recurrences, and contralateral breast cancer. Adverse events and cosmesis also were evaluated.

Five-year results, previously reported, revealed no significant difference in survival rates or IBTR between treatment techniques, and results of the present 10-year analysis maintained these findings. Between groups, no significant differences were observed in any of the primary or secondary endpoints, suggesting that major efficacy outcomes were unaffected by type of irradiation delivered.

While major efficacy endpoints were comparable between groups, safety profiles and cosmetic results differed significantly.

Adverse events of all levels of severity were significantly more common with WBI than APBI. Grade 2 or higher acute adverse events occurred in 37.7% of patients treated with WBI, compared with just 2.0% of patients treated with APBI (P = .0001). The rate of grade 2 or higher adverse events was also significantly higher in the WBI group than in the APBI group in the late setting, albeit with a narrower margin than in the acute setting (2.7% vs 0%; P = .015). Skin toxicity rates followed a similar pattern, favoring APBI both in the acute phase (66.5% vs. 21.1%; P = .0001) and the late phase (30.0% vs. 4.5%; P = .0001).

In further support of APBI, cosmetic results, as measured by the Harvard Breast Cosmesis Scale, were significantly better in the APBI group than in the WBI group. Both physicians and patients were significantly more likely to report good or excellent cosmetic results with APBI than WBI.

“APBI might be considered a standard alternative to WBI in low risk and very low risk early breast cancer patients,” Dr. Meattini concluded.

The investigators reported no disclosures.

SOURCE: Meattini et al. SABCS. 2019 Dec 12. Abstract GS4-06.

SAN ANTONIO – For patients with early-stage triple-negative breast cancer, adding capecitabine to systemic treatment may extend overall survival, according to a meta-analysis involving more than 15,000 patients.

Will Pass/MDedge News

Although a variety of trials have tested capecitabine therapy for early-stage breast cancer, this study is the first to evaluate individual patient data across trials, reported lead author Marion van Mackelenbergh, MD, of University Medical Center Schleswig-Holstein in Kiel, Germany, and colleagues.

According to Dr. Mackelenbergh, who presented findings at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, the two previous literature-based meta-analyses of capecitabine for patients with early-stage breast cancer reported conflicting results; the first study suggested that capecitabine had no benefit as a neoadjuvant therapy, whereas the second study concluded that capecitabine could improve disease-free survival (DFS).

To build upon these findings, the primary objective of the present meta-analysis was to determine how treatment with capecitabine impacts DFS, Dr. Mackelenbergh said. A variety of secondary objectives were also evaluated, including overall survival and a possible interaction between capecitabine-specific toxicities and treatment effects.

The analysis involved 15,457 patients from 12 randomized prospective clinical trials, of whom about half (n = 7,477) were treated in control arms. Slightly more than half (55.9%) of the patients had stage II tumors and about three-fourths (74.0%) presented with nodal involvement. About two-thirds of patients (66.0%) had estrogen receptor–positive disease, about half (56.9%) were progesterone receptor–positive, and 15.1% were human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–positive. Most of the patients (81.8%) were treated with chemotherapy in the adjuvant setting, whereas the remainder (18.2%) received neoadjuvant therapy.

Cox regression analysis involving all patients in the dataset showed that capecitabine was not associated with a significant improvement in DFS, nor was a significant improvement seen in trials that compared capecitabine against other treatment options. In contrast, adding capecitabine to systemic treatment supported a modest but significant improvement in DFS (hazard ratio, 0.888; P = .0005).

Across all patients, capecitabine was associated with an overall survival advantage, although this benefit was relatively small, with a hazard ratio of 0.892. The overall survival benefit became more pronounced when capecitabine was added to systemic treatment (HR, 0.837).

Of clinical importance, biological subtype analysis showed that only patients with triple-negative breast cancer were deriving survival benefit from capecitabine, particularly when capecitabine was added to systemic treatment. Among patients with triple-negative disease, a 17% overall survival benefit was associated with capecitabine (HR, 0.828). When capecitabine was added to systemic treatment, this survival advantage improved to 22% (HR, 0.778).

No relationship was found between capecitabine-specific toxicity (mucositis, hand-foot syndrome, diarrhea) and patient outcome.

“It can be concluded that the addition of capecitabine to other systemic treatment may be recommended for triple-negative breast cancer patients,” Dr. Mackelenbergh said.

Will Pass/MDedge News

Invited discussant Priyanka Sharma, MD, of the University of Kansas Medical Center in Kansas City agreed with this conclusion.

“Routine use of capecitabine as a component of neoadjuvant or adjuvant regimens in unselected patients cannot be endorsed,” Dr. Sharma said. “However, capecitabine should be considered in patients with triple-negative breast cancer, especially if response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy is utilized as a way to identify eligible patients so as to limit exposure and toxicity to those at the highest risk.”

In terms of the future, Dr. Sharma suggested that research is needed to determine the potential for adjuvant capecitabine among patients with triple-negative breast cancer who have received platinum-based chemotherapy and/or immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy as part of their neoadjuvant regimen. In addition, investigators should evaluate capecitabine efficacy in terms of residual disease and identify relevant predictive biomarkers, Dr. Sharma said.

The investigators reported relationships with Amgen, Lilly, Pfizer, and others.

SOURCE: van Mackelenbergh M et al. SABCS 2019, Abstract GS1-07.

SAN ANTONIO – For patients with early-stage triple-negative breast cancer, adding capecitabine to systemic treatment may extend overall survival, according to a meta-analysis involving more than 15,000 patients.

Will Pass/MDedge News

Although a variety of trials have tested capecitabine therapy for early-stage breast cancer, this study is the first to evaluate individual patient data across trials, reported lead author Marion van Mackelenbergh, MD, of University Medical Center Schleswig-Holstein in Kiel, Germany, and colleagues.

According to Dr. Mackelenbergh, who presented findings at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, the two previous literature-based meta-analyses of capecitabine for patients with early-stage breast cancer reported conflicting results; the first study suggested that capecitabine had no benefit as a neoadjuvant therapy, whereas the second study concluded that capecitabine could improve disease-free survival (DFS).

To build upon these findings, the primary objective of the present meta-analysis was to determine how treatment with capecitabine impacts DFS, Dr. Mackelenbergh said. A variety of secondary objectives were also evaluated, including overall survival and a possible interaction between capecitabine-specific toxicities and treatment effects.

The analysis involved 15,457 patients from 12 randomized prospective clinical trials, of whom about half (n = 7,477) were treated in control arms. Slightly more than half (55.9%) of the patients had stage II tumors and about three-fourths (74.0%) presented with nodal involvement. About two-thirds of patients (66.0%) had estrogen receptor–positive disease, about half (56.9%) were progesterone receptor–positive, and 15.1% were human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–positive. Most of the patients (81.8%) were treated with chemotherapy in the adjuvant setting, whereas the remainder (18.2%) received neoadjuvant therapy.

Cox regression analysis involving all patients in the dataset showed that capecitabine was not associated with a significant improvement in DFS, nor was a significant improvement seen in trials that compared capecitabine against other treatment options. In contrast, adding capecitabine to systemic treatment supported a modest but significant improvement in DFS (hazard ratio, 0.888; P = .0005).

Across all patients, capecitabine was associated with an overall survival advantage, although this benefit was relatively small, with a hazard ratio of 0.892. The overall survival benefit became more pronounced when capecitabine was added to systemic treatment (HR, 0.837).

Of clinical importance, biological subtype analysis showed that only patients with triple-negative breast cancer were deriving survival benefit from capecitabine, particularly when capecitabine was added to systemic treatment. Among patients with triple-negative disease, a 17% overall survival benefit was associated with capecitabine (HR, 0.828). When capecitabine was added to systemic treatment, this survival advantage improved to 22% (HR, 0.778).

No relationship was found between capecitabine-specific toxicity (mucositis, hand-foot syndrome, diarrhea) and patient outcome.

“It can be concluded that the addition of capecitabine to other systemic treatment may be recommended for triple-negative breast cancer patients,” Dr. Mackelenbergh said.

Will Pass/MDedge News

Invited discussant Priyanka Sharma, MD, of the University of Kansas Medical Center in Kansas City agreed with this conclusion.

“Routine use of capecitabine as a component of neoadjuvant or adjuvant regimens in unselected patients cannot be endorsed,” Dr. Sharma said. “However, capecitabine should be considered in patients with triple-negative breast cancer, especially if response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy is utilized as a way to identify eligible patients so as to limit exposure and toxicity to those at the highest risk.”

In terms of the future, Dr. Sharma suggested that research is needed to determine the potential for adjuvant capecitabine among patients with triple-negative breast cancer who have received platinum-based chemotherapy and/or immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy as part of their neoadjuvant regimen. In addition, investigators should evaluate capecitabine efficacy in terms of residual disease and identify relevant predictive biomarkers, Dr. Sharma said.

The investigators reported relationships with Amgen, Lilly, Pfizer, and others.

SOURCE: van Mackelenbergh M et al. SABCS 2019, Abstract GS1-07.

SAN ANTONIO – For patients with early-stage triple-negative breast cancer, adding capecitabine to systemic treatment may extend overall survival, according to a meta-analysis involving more than 15,000 patients.

Will Pass/MDedge News

Although a variety of trials have tested capecitabine therapy for early-stage breast cancer, this study is the first to evaluate individual patient data across trials, reported lead author Marion van Mackelenbergh, MD, of University Medical Center Schleswig-Holstein in Kiel, Germany, and colleagues.

According to Dr. Mackelenbergh, who presented findings at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, the two previous literature-based meta-analyses of capecitabine for patients with early-stage breast cancer reported conflicting results; the first study suggested that capecitabine had no benefit as a neoadjuvant therapy, whereas the second study concluded that capecitabine could improve disease-free survival (DFS).

To build upon these findings, the primary objective of the present meta-analysis was to determine how treatment with capecitabine impacts DFS, Dr. Mackelenbergh said. A variety of secondary objectives were also evaluated, including overall survival and a possible interaction between capecitabine-specific toxicities and treatment effects.

The analysis involved 15,457 patients from 12 randomized prospective clinical trials, of whom about half (n = 7,477) were treated in control arms. Slightly more than half (55.9%) of the patients had stage II tumors and about three-fourths (74.0%) presented with nodal involvement. About two-thirds of patients (66.0%) had estrogen receptor–positive disease, about half (56.9%) were progesterone receptor–positive, and 15.1% were human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–positive. Most of the patients (81.8%) were treated with chemotherapy in the adjuvant setting, whereas the remainder (18.2%) received neoadjuvant therapy.

Cox regression analysis involving all patients in the dataset showed that capecitabine was not associated with a significant improvement in DFS, nor was a significant improvement seen in trials that compared capecitabine against other treatment options. In contrast, adding capecitabine to systemic treatment supported a modest but significant improvement in DFS (hazard ratio, 0.888; P = .0005).

Across all patients, capecitabine was associated with an overall survival advantage, although this benefit was relatively small, with a hazard ratio of 0.892. The overall survival benefit became more pronounced when capecitabine was added to systemic treatment (HR, 0.837).

Of clinical importance, biological subtype analysis showed that only patients with triple-negative breast cancer were deriving survival benefit from capecitabine, particularly when capecitabine was added to systemic treatment. Among patients with triple-negative disease, a 17% overall survival benefit was associated with capecitabine (HR, 0.828). When capecitabine was added to systemic treatment, this survival advantage improved to 22% (HR, 0.778).

No relationship was found between capecitabine-specific toxicity (mucositis, hand-foot syndrome, diarrhea) and patient outcome.

“It can be concluded that the addition of capecitabine to other systemic treatment may be recommended for triple-negative breast cancer patients,” Dr. Mackelenbergh said.

Will Pass/MDedge News

Invited discussant Priyanka Sharma, MD, of the University of Kansas Medical Center in Kansas City agreed with this conclusion.

“Routine use of capecitabine as a component of neoadjuvant or adjuvant regimens in unselected patients cannot be endorsed,” Dr. Sharma said. “However, capecitabine should be considered in patients with triple-negative breast cancer, especially if response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy is utilized as a way to identify eligible patients so as to limit exposure and toxicity to those at the highest risk.”

In terms of the future, Dr. Sharma suggested that research is needed to determine the potential for adjuvant capecitabine among patients with triple-negative breast cancer who have received platinum-based chemotherapy and/or immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy as part of their neoadjuvant regimen. In addition, investigators should evaluate capecitabine efficacy in terms of residual disease and identify relevant predictive biomarkers, Dr. Sharma said.

The investigators reported relationships with Amgen, Lilly, Pfizer, and others.

SOURCE: van Mackelenbergh M et al. SABCS 2019, Abstract GS1-07.

SAN ANTONIO – For postoperative breast cancer patients with a high risk of recurrence, the oral fluoropyrimidine-based drug S-1 could boost benefits of standard adjuvant treatment, based on results from the Japanese phase 3 POTENT trial.

Adding S-1 to endocrine therapy increased 5-year invasive disease-free survival (iDFS) by approximately 5% among patients with hormone receptor (HR)–positive, HER2-negative breast cancer, reported lead author Masakazu Toi, MD, PhD, of Kyoto University Hospital in Japan, and colleagues.

S-1 is a combination drug based on a biochemical modification of fluorouracil, with components aimed at potentiating activity and reducing gastrointestinal toxicity, Dr. Toi said at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

Session moderator Carlos Arteaga, MD, of the University of Texas, Dallas, said that standard adjuvant treatment for breast cancer may evolve over the next few years, with S-1 representing one of several novel approaches currently under investigation.

“We’re all trying to optimize adjuvant endocrine therapy for patients that need it,” Dr. Arteaga said. “One approach is to add chemotherapy for those with a high-risk recurrence score. The other one is to … use CDK4/6 inhibitors in addition to endocrine therapy. … Clearly, endocrine therapy works in a majority of patients but in some it’s not sufficient, and we need to add a second intervention—that could be chemo in some cases, or it could be CDK4/6 inhibitors, if those trials pan out. This is another [strategy].”

The open-label POTENT trial was conducted at 139 centers in Japan, involving 1,932 patients with stage I-IIIB HR-positive, HER2-negative postoperative breast cancer who had intermediate to high risk of recurrence. Patients were enrolled within 1 year of surgery and 6 months of starting adjuvant therapy.

Patients were randomized at a 1:1 ratio to receive either standard endocrine therapy or endocrine therapy plus S-1, with S-1 given on a 2-weeks-on/1-week-off basis for 1 year. The primary endpoint was iDFS, defined as time from randomization to invasive disease recurrence, occurrence of second invasive cancer event, or death

After a median follow-up of 51.4 months, iDFS events were significantly more common in the control arm than the S-1 arm (15.9% vs. 10.6%; hazard ratio, 0.63; P = .0003). This translated to an estimated 5-year iDFS of 81.5% among patients who received endocrine therapy alone versus 86.9% among patients who also received S-1 (P less than .001).

While adding S-1 to endocrine therapy did increase the rate of adverse events, most instances were mild, leading the investigators to describe the novel regimen as “well tolerated and manageable.”

Among severe adverse events, grade 3-4 diarrhea and neutropenia were significantly more common in the S-1 arm than the control arm, with diarrhea occurring at a rate of 1.9% versus 0%, respectively, and neutropenia occurring at a rate of 7.5% versus 0.7%, respectively.

Based on these findings, Dr. Toi concluded that adding S-1 could be a viable option for improving outcomes in select patients.

“Our findings support the addition of S-1 to standard endocrine therapy in the postoperative adjuvant setting for patients with HR-positive/HER2-negative disease and an intermediate or higher risk of recurrence,” Dr. Toi said.

But according to invited discussant Priyanka Sharma, MD, of the University of Kansas, Kansas City, a place for S-1 in the clinic remains to be seen, partially because of potential differences in fluoropyrimidine drug metabolism based on ethnic background.

“The POTENT trial design does not allow us to discern in which setting and patient population addition of S-1 is most meaningful,” Dr. Sharma said. “This trial was done in Japan, so efficacy and toxicity in a non-Asian population is unclear.”

The study was funded by the Comprehensive Support Project for Oncology Research of the Public Health Research Foundation and Taiho Pharmaceutical. The investigators reported additional relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Genomic Health, and others.

SOURCE: Toi M et al. SABCS 2019, Abstract GS1-09.

SAN ANTONIO – For postoperative breast cancer patients with a high risk of recurrence, the oral fluoropyrimidine-based drug S-1 could boost benefits of standard adjuvant treatment, based on results from the Japanese phase 3 POTENT trial.

Adding S-1 to endocrine therapy increased 5-year invasive disease-free survival (iDFS) by approximately 5% among patients with hormone receptor (HR)–positive, HER2-negative breast cancer, reported lead author Masakazu Toi, MD, PhD, of Kyoto University Hospital in Japan, and colleagues.

S-1 is a combination drug based on a biochemical modification of fluorouracil, with components aimed at potentiating activity and reducing gastrointestinal toxicity, Dr. Toi said at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

Session moderator Carlos Arteaga, MD, of the University of Texas, Dallas, said that standard adjuvant treatment for breast cancer may evolve over the next few years, with S-1 representing one of several novel approaches currently under investigation.

“We’re all trying to optimize adjuvant endocrine therapy for patients that need it,” Dr. Arteaga said. “One approach is to add chemotherapy for those with a high-risk recurrence score. The other one is to … use CDK4/6 inhibitors in addition to endocrine therapy. … Clearly, endocrine therapy works in a majority of patients but in some it’s not sufficient, and we need to add a second intervention—that could be chemo in some cases, or it could be CDK4/6 inhibitors, if those trials pan out. This is another [strategy].”

The open-label POTENT trial was conducted at 139 centers in Japan, involving 1,932 patients with stage I-IIIB HR-positive, HER2-negative postoperative breast cancer who had intermediate to high risk of recurrence. Patients were enrolled within 1 year of surgery and 6 months of starting adjuvant therapy.

Patients were randomized at a 1:1 ratio to receive either standard endocrine therapy or endocrine therapy plus S-1, with S-1 given on a 2-weeks-on/1-week-off basis for 1 year. The primary endpoint was iDFS, defined as time from randomization to invasive disease recurrence, occurrence of second invasive cancer event, or death

After a median follow-up of 51.4 months, iDFS events were significantly more common in the control arm than the S-1 arm (15.9% vs. 10.6%; hazard ratio, 0.63; P = .0003). This translated to an estimated 5-year iDFS of 81.5% among patients who received endocrine therapy alone versus 86.9% among patients who also received S-1 (P less than .001).

While adding S-1 to endocrine therapy did increase the rate of adverse events, most instances were mild, leading the investigators to describe the novel regimen as “well tolerated and manageable.”

Among severe adverse events, grade 3-4 diarrhea and neutropenia were significantly more common in the S-1 arm than the control arm, with diarrhea occurring at a rate of 1.9% versus 0%, respectively, and neutropenia occurring at a rate of 7.5% versus 0.7%, respectively.

Based on these findings, Dr. Toi concluded that adding S-1 could be a viable option for improving outcomes in select patients.

“Our findings support the addition of S-1 to standard endocrine therapy in the postoperative adjuvant setting for patients with HR-positive/HER2-negative disease and an intermediate or higher risk of recurrence,” Dr. Toi said.

But according to invited discussant Priyanka Sharma, MD, of the University of Kansas, Kansas City, a place for S-1 in the clinic remains to be seen, partially because of potential differences in fluoropyrimidine drug metabolism based on ethnic background.

“The POTENT trial design does not allow us to discern in which setting and patient population addition of S-1 is most meaningful,” Dr. Sharma said. “This trial was done in Japan, so efficacy and toxicity in a non-Asian population is unclear.”

The study was funded by the Comprehensive Support Project for Oncology Research of the Public Health Research Foundation and Taiho Pharmaceutical. The investigators reported additional relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Genomic Health, and others.

SOURCE: Toi M et al. SABCS 2019, Abstract GS1-09.

SAN ANTONIO – For postoperative breast cancer patients with a high risk of recurrence, the oral fluoropyrimidine-based drug S-1 could boost benefits of standard adjuvant treatment, based on results from the Japanese phase 3 POTENT trial.

Adding S-1 to endocrine therapy increased 5-year invasive disease-free survival (iDFS) by approximately 5% among patients with hormone receptor (HR)–positive, HER2-negative breast cancer, reported lead author Masakazu Toi, MD, PhD, of Kyoto University Hospital in Japan, and colleagues.

S-1 is a combination drug based on a biochemical modification of fluorouracil, with components aimed at potentiating activity and reducing gastrointestinal toxicity, Dr. Toi said at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

Session moderator Carlos Arteaga, MD, of the University of Texas, Dallas, said that standard adjuvant treatment for breast cancer may evolve over the next few years, with S-1 representing one of several novel approaches currently under investigation.

“We’re all trying to optimize adjuvant endocrine therapy for patients that need it,” Dr. Arteaga said. “One approach is to add chemotherapy for those with a high-risk recurrence score. The other one is to … use CDK4/6 inhibitors in addition to endocrine therapy. … Clearly, endocrine therapy works in a majority of patients but in some it’s not sufficient, and we need to add a second intervention—that could be chemo in some cases, or it could be CDK4/6 inhibitors, if those trials pan out. This is another [strategy].”

The open-label POTENT trial was conducted at 139 centers in Japan, involving 1,932 patients with stage I-IIIB HR-positive, HER2-negative postoperative breast cancer who had intermediate to high risk of recurrence. Patients were enrolled within 1 year of surgery and 6 months of starting adjuvant therapy.

Patients were randomized at a 1:1 ratio to receive either standard endocrine therapy or endocrine therapy plus S-1, with S-1 given on a 2-weeks-on/1-week-off basis for 1 year. The primary endpoint was iDFS, defined as time from randomization to invasive disease recurrence, occurrence of second invasive cancer event, or death

After a median follow-up of 51.4 months, iDFS events were significantly more common in the control arm than the S-1 arm (15.9% vs. 10.6%; hazard ratio, 0.63; P = .0003). This translated to an estimated 5-year iDFS of 81.5% among patients who received endocrine therapy alone versus 86.9% among patients who also received S-1 (P less than .001).

While adding S-1 to endocrine therapy did increase the rate of adverse events, most instances were mild, leading the investigators to describe the novel regimen as “well tolerated and manageable.”

Among severe adverse events, grade 3-4 diarrhea and neutropenia were significantly more common in the S-1 arm than the control arm, with diarrhea occurring at a rate of 1.9% versus 0%, respectively, and neutropenia occurring at a rate of 7.5% versus 0.7%, respectively.

Based on these findings, Dr. Toi concluded that adding S-1 could be a viable option for improving outcomes in select patients.

“Our findings support the addition of S-1 to standard endocrine therapy in the postoperative adjuvant setting for patients with HR-positive/HER2-negative disease and an intermediate or higher risk of recurrence,” Dr. Toi said.

But according to invited discussant Priyanka Sharma, MD, of the University of Kansas, Kansas City, a place for S-1 in the clinic remains to be seen, partially because of potential differences in fluoropyrimidine drug metabolism based on ethnic background.

“The POTENT trial design does not allow us to discern in which setting and patient population addition of S-1 is most meaningful,” Dr. Sharma said. “This trial was done in Japan, so efficacy and toxicity in a non-Asian population is unclear.”

The study was funded by the Comprehensive Support Project for Oncology Research of the Public Health Research Foundation and Taiho Pharmaceutical. The investigators reported additional relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Genomic Health, and others.

SOURCE: Toi M et al. SABCS 2019, Abstract GS1-09.

Patient-reported outcomes support pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy for first-line treatment of metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), based on results from the KEYNOTE-407 trial.

At week 18, patients given pembrolizumab more often reported clinically meaningful health-related quality of life improvements than those in the placebo group, according to lead author Julien Mazieres, MD, PhD, of Paul Sabatier University in Toulouse, France, and colleagues.

Writing in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, the investigators explained that these findings build upon previously published results from KEYNOTE-407, which showed that adding pembrolizumab to chemotherapy in the first line could extend both progression-free and overall survival among patients with NSCLC. The benefits to quality of life associated with pembrolizumab align with similar findings from the KEYNOTE-024 and KEYNOTE-189 trials, they added.

The present analysis involved 559 patients with treatment-naive metastatic NSCLC. Patients were randomized to receive 4 cycles of placebo or pembrolizumab once every 3 weeks with carboplatin-based chemotherapy, followed by pembrolizumab or placebo for an additional 31 cycles. Health-related quality of life was assessed by two measures: the European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire–Core 30 (QLQ-C30) and QLQ–Lung Cancer Module 13 (QLQ-LC13).

Of the 559 patients enrolled, 554 completed at least one QLQ-C30 assessment and 553 completed at least one QLQ-LC13 assessment. These quality of life scores were compared temporally within treatment groups, from baseline to week 9 and week 18, and between groups. The investigators also analyzed median time to deterioration in chest pain, cough, and dyspnea.

Results showed that patients in the pembrolizumab group had statistically significant improvements in patient-reported outcomes over time and more frequently reported improvements than patients in the placebo group. Specifically, in the pembrolizumab group, least-squares mean score improved from baseline to week 9 (1.8) and week 18 (4.3); in comparison, least-squares mean score deteriorated in the placebo group from baseline to week 9 (–1.8) and week 18 (–0.57). Compared with placebo, treatment with pembrolizumab was associated with a least-squares mean change of 3.6 at week 9 (nominal P = .0337) and 4.9 at week 18 (nominal P = .0060). Stated differently, at week 18, compared with placebo, more patients in the pembrolizumab group reported clinically meaningful improvements in health-related quality of life (36.2% vs. 27.7%), and relatively fewer reported deterioration (22.8% vs. 31.3%). Median time to deterioration in symptoms was not reached in either treatment arm.

“These health-related quality of life findings, along with the improved efficacy (including overall survival benefit) of pembrolizumab plus carboplatin and paclitaxel/nab-paclitaxel, support its use as a first-line treatment of metastatic squamous NSCLC, regardless of programmed death–ligand 1 expression,” the investigators concluded.

The study was funded by Merck. The investigators reported additional relationships with Novartis, Genentech, Pfizer, and others.

SOURCE: Mazieres J et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Nov 21. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.01348.

Patient-reported outcomes support pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy for first-line treatment of metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), based on results from the KEYNOTE-407 trial.

At week 18, patients given pembrolizumab more often reported clinically meaningful health-related quality of life improvements than those in the placebo group, according to lead author Julien Mazieres, MD, PhD, of Paul Sabatier University in Toulouse, France, and colleagues.

Writing in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, the investigators explained that these findings build upon previously published results from KEYNOTE-407, which showed that adding pembrolizumab to chemotherapy in the first line could extend both progression-free and overall survival among patients with NSCLC. The benefits to quality of life associated with pembrolizumab align with similar findings from the KEYNOTE-024 and KEYNOTE-189 trials, they added.

The present analysis involved 559 patients with treatment-naive metastatic NSCLC. Patients were randomized to receive 4 cycles of placebo or pembrolizumab once every 3 weeks with carboplatin-based chemotherapy, followed by pembrolizumab or placebo for an additional 31 cycles. Health-related quality of life was assessed by two measures: the European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire–Core 30 (QLQ-C30) and QLQ–Lung Cancer Module 13 (QLQ-LC13).

Of the 559 patients enrolled, 554 completed at least one QLQ-C30 assessment and 553 completed at least one QLQ-LC13 assessment. These quality of life scores were compared temporally within treatment groups, from baseline to week 9 and week 18, and between groups. The investigators also analyzed median time to deterioration in chest pain, cough, and dyspnea.

Results showed that patients in the pembrolizumab group had statistically significant improvements in patient-reported outcomes over time and more frequently reported improvements than patients in the placebo group. Specifically, in the pembrolizumab group, least-squares mean score improved from baseline to week 9 (1.8) and week 18 (4.3); in comparison, least-squares mean score deteriorated in the placebo group from baseline to week 9 (–1.8) and week 18 (–0.57). Compared with placebo, treatment with pembrolizumab was associated with a least-squares mean change of 3.6 at week 9 (nominal P = .0337) and 4.9 at week 18 (nominal P = .0060). Stated differently, at week 18, compared with placebo, more patients in the pembrolizumab group reported clinically meaningful improvements in health-related quality of life (36.2% vs. 27.7%), and relatively fewer reported deterioration (22.8% vs. 31.3%). Median time to deterioration in symptoms was not reached in either treatment arm.

“These health-related quality of life findings, along with the improved efficacy (including overall survival benefit) of pembrolizumab plus carboplatin and paclitaxel/nab-paclitaxel, support its use as a first-line treatment of metastatic squamous NSCLC, regardless of programmed death–ligand 1 expression,” the investigators concluded.

The study was funded by Merck. The investigators reported additional relationships with Novartis, Genentech, Pfizer, and others.

SOURCE: Mazieres J et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Nov 21. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.01348.

Patient-reported outcomes support pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy for first-line treatment of metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), based on results from the KEYNOTE-407 trial.

At week 18, patients given pembrolizumab more often reported clinically meaningful health-related quality of life improvements than those in the placebo group, according to lead author Julien Mazieres, MD, PhD, of Paul Sabatier University in Toulouse, France, and colleagues.

Writing in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, the investigators explained that these findings build upon previously published results from KEYNOTE-407, which showed that adding pembrolizumab to chemotherapy in the first line could extend both progression-free and overall survival among patients with NSCLC. The benefits to quality of life associated with pembrolizumab align with similar findings from the KEYNOTE-024 and KEYNOTE-189 trials, they added.

The present analysis involved 559 patients with treatment-naive metastatic NSCLC. Patients were randomized to receive 4 cycles of placebo or pembrolizumab once every 3 weeks with carboplatin-based chemotherapy, followed by pembrolizumab or placebo for an additional 31 cycles. Health-related quality of life was assessed by two measures: the European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire–Core 30 (QLQ-C30) and QLQ–Lung Cancer Module 13 (QLQ-LC13).

Of the 559 patients enrolled, 554 completed at least one QLQ-C30 assessment and 553 completed at least one QLQ-LC13 assessment. These quality of life scores were compared temporally within treatment groups, from baseline to week 9 and week 18, and between groups. The investigators also analyzed median time to deterioration in chest pain, cough, and dyspnea.

Results showed that patients in the pembrolizumab group had statistically significant improvements in patient-reported outcomes over time and more frequently reported improvements than patients in the placebo group. Specifically, in the pembrolizumab group, least-squares mean score improved from baseline to week 9 (1.8) and week 18 (4.3); in comparison, least-squares mean score deteriorated in the placebo group from baseline to week 9 (–1.8) and week 18 (–0.57). Compared with placebo, treatment with pembrolizumab was associated with a least-squares mean change of 3.6 at week 9 (nominal P = .0337) and 4.9 at week 18 (nominal P = .0060). Stated differently, at week 18, compared with placebo, more patients in the pembrolizumab group reported clinically meaningful improvements in health-related quality of life (36.2% vs. 27.7%), and relatively fewer reported deterioration (22.8% vs. 31.3%). Median time to deterioration in symptoms was not reached in either treatment arm.

“These health-related quality of life findings, along with the improved efficacy (including overall survival benefit) of pembrolizumab plus carboplatin and paclitaxel/nab-paclitaxel, support its use as a first-line treatment of metastatic squamous NSCLC, regardless of programmed death–ligand 1 expression,” the investigators concluded.

The study was funded by Merck. The investigators reported additional relationships with Novartis, Genentech, Pfizer, and others.

SOURCE: Mazieres J et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Nov 21. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.01348.

For patients with relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), second generation Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor acalabrutinib may offer increased response rates and better tolerability compared with other single-agent targeted therapies, based on a recent analysis.

Wikimedia Commons/TexasPathologistMSW/CC-ASA 4.0 International

Improved safety could lead to long-term benefits resulting from extended treatment duration, according to lead author Claire Telford, PhD, of AstraZeneca in Gaithersburg, Md., and colleagues. AstraZeneca manufactures acalabrutinib (Calquence).

Currently, treatment for MCL is guided by a number of clinical considerations, the investigators explained in Clinical Therapeutics.

“The type of treatment recommended for relapsed/refractory MCL depends on multiple factors, namely time to the relapse, extent of disease, previous regimens, candidacy for allogeneic stem cell transplantation, and the patient’s overall health,” they wrote.

To determine how acalabrutinib stacks up with other options, the investigators drew data from the phase 2 ACE-LY-004 trial, which tested acalabrutinib in 124 patients with relapsed or refractory MCL. After matching, the investigators compared the ACE-LY-004 outcomes from 12 other trials, in which patients received different targeted therapies.

Results pointed to higher overall response and complete response rates for acalabrutinib, compared with other single-agent targeted therapy. Specifically, acalabrutinib had a higher overall response rate, compared with ibrutinib (9.3% higher), lenalidomide (38.1% higher), temsirolimus (40.7% higher), and bortezomib (50.6% higher). For each of these, complete responses also were higher.

There was no significant difference in overall response or complete response rates between acalabrutinib and rituximab combinations – bendamustine plus rituximab, ibrutinib plus rituximab, and lenalidomide plus rituximab.

The investigators also highlighted a number of safety advantages. Compared with ibrutinib, acalabrutinib was associated with significantly fewer instances of grade 3 or 4 atrial fibrillation. Risk of grade 3 or 4 thrombocytopenia was significantly lower with acalabrutinib than with ibrutinib, bortezomib, lenalidomide, and temsirolimus.

Still, in some instances, acalabrutinib was comparatively less tolerable. It was associated with a higher risk of grade 3 or 4 infections than bendamustine plus rituximab; and anemia was more common among patients receiving acalabrutinib than among those who had lenalidomide plus rituximab or ibrutinib plus rituximab.

“This comparison of targeted therapies used in the treatment of relapsed/refractory MCL has shown that acalabrutinib has the potential to provide higher response rates, with trends for longer [progression-free survival] and [overall survival], and an improved safety profile,” the investigators wrote.

The study was funded by AstraZeneca. Dr. Telford is an employee of AstraZeneca and other authors reported financial relationships with the company.

SOURCE: Telford C et al. Clin Ther. 2019 Nov 4. doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2019.09.012 .

For patients with relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), second generation Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor acalabrutinib may offer increased response rates and better tolerability compared with other single-agent targeted therapies, based on a recent analysis.

Wikimedia Commons/TexasPathologistMSW/CC-ASA 4.0 International

Improved safety could lead to long-term benefits resulting from extended treatment duration, according to lead author Claire Telford, PhD, of AstraZeneca in Gaithersburg, Md., and colleagues. AstraZeneca manufactures acalabrutinib (Calquence).

Currently, treatment for MCL is guided by a number of clinical considerations, the investigators explained in Clinical Therapeutics.

“The type of treatment recommended for relapsed/refractory MCL depends on multiple factors, namely time to the relapse, extent of disease, previous regimens, candidacy for allogeneic stem cell transplantation, and the patient’s overall health,” they wrote.

To determine how acalabrutinib stacks up with other options, the investigators drew data from the phase 2 ACE-LY-004 trial, which tested acalabrutinib in 124 patients with relapsed or refractory MCL. After matching, the investigators compared the ACE-LY-004 outcomes from 12 other trials, in which patients received different targeted therapies.

Results pointed to higher overall response and complete response rates for acalabrutinib, compared with other single-agent targeted therapy. Specifically, acalabrutinib had a higher overall response rate, compared with ibrutinib (9.3% higher), lenalidomide (38.1% higher), temsirolimus (40.7% higher), and bortezomib (50.6% higher). For each of these, complete responses also were higher.

There was no significant difference in overall response or complete response rates between acalabrutinib and rituximab combinations – bendamustine plus rituximab, ibrutinib plus rituximab, and lenalidomide plus rituximab.

The investigators also highlighted a number of safety advantages. Compared with ibrutinib, acalabrutinib was associated with significantly fewer instances of grade 3 or 4 atrial fibrillation. Risk of grade 3 or 4 thrombocytopenia was significantly lower with acalabrutinib than with ibrutinib, bortezomib, lenalidomide, and temsirolimus.

Still, in some instances, acalabrutinib was comparatively less tolerable. It was associated with a higher risk of grade 3 or 4 infections than bendamustine plus rituximab; and anemia was more common among patients receiving acalabrutinib than among those who had lenalidomide plus rituximab or ibrutinib plus rituximab.

“This comparison of targeted therapies used in the treatment of relapsed/refractory MCL has shown that acalabrutinib has the potential to provide higher response rates, with trends for longer [progression-free survival] and [overall survival], and an improved safety profile,” the investigators wrote.

The study was funded by AstraZeneca. Dr. Telford is an employee of AstraZeneca and other authors reported financial relationships with the company.

SOURCE: Telford C et al. Clin Ther. 2019 Nov 4. doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2019.09.012 .

For patients with relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), second generation Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor acalabrutinib may offer increased response rates and better tolerability compared with other single-agent targeted therapies, based on a recent analysis.

Wikimedia Commons/TexasPathologistMSW/CC-ASA 4.0 International

Improved safety could lead to long-term benefits resulting from extended treatment duration, according to lead author Claire Telford, PhD, of AstraZeneca in Gaithersburg, Md., and colleagues. AstraZeneca manufactures acalabrutinib (Calquence).

Currently, treatment for MCL is guided by a number of clinical considerations, the investigators explained in Clinical Therapeutics.

“The type of treatment recommended for relapsed/refractory MCL depends on multiple factors, namely time to the relapse, extent of disease, previous regimens, candidacy for allogeneic stem cell transplantation, and the patient’s overall health,” they wrote.

To determine how acalabrutinib stacks up with other options, the investigators drew data from the phase 2 ACE-LY-004 trial, which tested acalabrutinib in 124 patients with relapsed or refractory MCL. After matching, the investigators compared the ACE-LY-004 outcomes from 12 other trials, in which patients received different targeted therapies.

Results pointed to higher overall response and complete response rates for acalabrutinib, compared with other single-agent targeted therapy. Specifically, acalabrutinib had a higher overall response rate, compared with ibrutinib (9.3% higher), lenalidomide (38.1% higher), temsirolimus (40.7% higher), and bortezomib (50.6% higher). For each of these, complete responses also were higher.

There was no significant difference in overall response or complete response rates between acalabrutinib and rituximab combinations – bendamustine plus rituximab, ibrutinib plus rituximab, and lenalidomide plus rituximab.

The investigators also highlighted a number of safety advantages. Compared with ibrutinib, acalabrutinib was associated with significantly fewer instances of grade 3 or 4 atrial fibrillation. Risk of grade 3 or 4 thrombocytopenia was significantly lower with acalabrutinib than with ibrutinib, bortezomib, lenalidomide, and temsirolimus.

Still, in some instances, acalabrutinib was comparatively less tolerable. It was associated with a higher risk of grade 3 or 4 infections than bendamustine plus rituximab; and anemia was more common among patients receiving acalabrutinib than among those who had lenalidomide plus rituximab or ibrutinib plus rituximab.

“This comparison of targeted therapies used in the treatment of relapsed/refractory MCL has shown that acalabrutinib has the potential to provide higher response rates, with trends for longer [progression-free survival] and [overall survival], and an improved safety profile,” the investigators wrote.

The study was funded by AstraZeneca. Dr. Telford is an employee of AstraZeneca and other authors reported financial relationships with the company.

SOURCE: Telford C et al. Clin Ther. 2019 Nov 4. doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2019.09.012 .

Loss of pancreatic E-cadherin may interfere with normal growth and maintenance of the pancreas while contributing to multiple pathological processes, based on evidence from mouse models.

In the presence of an oncogene, E-cadherin may play a pivotal role in pancreatic tumor formation, according to lead author Yoshihiro Kaneta, of Yokohama (Japan) City University in Japan, and colleagues. These findings could lead to new treatment strategies for patients with pancreatic cancer who lack E-cadherin, they noted.

Previous studies have shown that E-cadherin is involved in tissue homeostasis, although exact mechanisms vary by organ, and have remained unclear in the pancreas, the investigators explained in Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

According to the investigators, E-cadherin expression is up-regulated in chemically induced acute pancreatitis, while in chronic pancreatitis, which is associated with an increased risk of pancreatic adenocarcinoma, E-cadherin expression is either low or absent. Other research has pointed to a link between dysregulated E-cadherin expression and cancer progression, with a loss of E-cadherin implicated in development of diffuse-type gastric cancer; however, evidence of a similar process in pancreatic cancer has not been reported, the investigators wrote.

To determine the role of E-cadherin in pancreatic function and tumor development, the investigators conducted experiments with knockout mice lacking pancreatic E-cadherin.

For the first 2 days after birth, knockout mice were similar both phenotypically and histologically to control mice. But over time, differences became apparent. Starting at day 3, control mice were comparatively larger than knockout mice, and by day 12, knockout mice began to die, with none surviving beyond day 28. Starting at day 6, histologic changes were observed in the pancreatic tissue of knockout mice, specifically, with aberrant epithelial tubules that resembled acinar-to-ductal metaplasia (ADM). Moreover, acinar cells were dilated and lacked surface expression of E-cadherin.

“These results suggested that E-cadherin was not required for pancreatic development at the embryonic stage but was required for growth and maintenance of the pancreas in the postnatal stage,” the investigators wrote.

Additional analyses revealed further differences between pancreatic tissue from knockout mice and control mice. A variety of aberrant processes were observed in knockout mice, including replacement of acini with alpha-smooth muscle actin–positive fibrotic cells, an increased number of ductal-like structures, a reduced number of amylase-positive cells, and an increased number of cytokeratin-19–positive and CD45-positive cells. Messenger RNA expression levels were also abnormal in pancreatic tissue of knockout mice, with shifts across a variety of cytokines and chemokines. These trends toward inflammation and fibrosis were described by the investigators as pancreatitis-like changes, although they observed no pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PanIN), which is a precursor of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

In the presence of an oncogene, however, loss of pancreatic E-cadherin did contribute to the development of pancreatic cancer. In the presence of a Kras mutation, knockout mice began to develop PanINs and ADMs as soon as day 4. By day 7, PanINs stained partially positive for E-cadherin, showed structural abnormalities, and exhibited decreased amylase and increased cytokeratin-19. Within a similar time frame, pancreatic tissue began to adhere to the intestine, resulting in ascites and death. No metastases to other organs were observed.

Further testing showed that pancreatic stroma contained tumor cells. While DNA double-strand breaks were scarce, the investigators pointed out that chemotherapy and radiotherapy are typically responsible for DNA damage. Based on previous research linking stem cell conversion with Kras-acquired resistance, the investigators tested markers of stem cells in pancreatic tissue of knockout mice, finding that CD44, KLF4, and KLF5 were increased.

“These observations suggested that loss of E-cadherin provided tumorigenic activity to pancreatic cells and contributed to PanIN formation,” the investigators wrote.

Additional experiments with cell lines supported the above results and added further insight. Of clinical relevance, the investigators suggested that targeting Hdac1 with histone deacetylase inhibitors may be a viable treatment strategy for patients lacking pancreatic E-cadherin.

The study was funded by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science KAKENHI grant JP17K09465 and the Yokohama City University Kamome project. The investigators declared no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Kaneta Y et al. Cell Mol Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Sep 14. doi: 10.1016/j.jcmgh.2019.09.001.

Loss of pancreatic E-cadherin may interfere with normal growth and maintenance of the pancreas while contributing to multiple pathological processes, based on evidence from mouse models.

In the presence of an oncogene, E-cadherin may play a pivotal role in pancreatic tumor formation, according to lead author Yoshihiro Kaneta, of Yokohama (Japan) City University in Japan, and colleagues. These findings could lead to new treatment strategies for patients with pancreatic cancer who lack E-cadherin, they noted.

Previous studies have shown that E-cadherin is involved in tissue homeostasis, although exact mechanisms vary by organ, and have remained unclear in the pancreas, the investigators explained in Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

According to the investigators, E-cadherin expression is up-regulated in chemically induced acute pancreatitis, while in chronic pancreatitis, which is associated with an increased risk of pancreatic adenocarcinoma, E-cadherin expression is either low or absent. Other research has pointed to a link between dysregulated E-cadherin expression and cancer progression, with a loss of E-cadherin implicated in development of diffuse-type gastric cancer; however, evidence of a similar process in pancreatic cancer has not been reported, the investigators wrote.

To determine the role of E-cadherin in pancreatic function and tumor development, the investigators conducted experiments with knockout mice lacking pancreatic E-cadherin.

For the first 2 days after birth, knockout mice were similar both phenotypically and histologically to control mice. But over time, differences became apparent. Starting at day 3, control mice were comparatively larger than knockout mice, and by day 12, knockout mice began to die, with none surviving beyond day 28. Starting at day 6, histologic changes were observed in the pancreatic tissue of knockout mice, specifically, with aberrant epithelial tubules that resembled acinar-to-ductal metaplasia (ADM). Moreover, acinar cells were dilated and lacked surface expression of E-cadherin.

“These results suggested that E-cadherin was not required for pancreatic development at the embryonic stage but was required for growth and maintenance of the pancreas in the postnatal stage,” the investigators wrote.

Additional analyses revealed further differences between pancreatic tissue from knockout mice and control mice. A variety of aberrant processes were observed in knockout mice, including replacement of acini with alpha-smooth muscle actin–positive fibrotic cells, an increased number of ductal-like structures, a reduced number of amylase-positive cells, and an increased number of cytokeratin-19–positive and CD45-positive cells. Messenger RNA expression levels were also abnormal in pancreatic tissue of knockout mice, with shifts across a variety of cytokines and chemokines. These trends toward inflammation and fibrosis were described by the investigators as pancreatitis-like changes, although they observed no pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PanIN), which is a precursor of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

In the presence of an oncogene, however, loss of pancreatic E-cadherin did contribute to the development of pancreatic cancer. In the presence of a Kras mutation, knockout mice began to develop PanINs and ADMs as soon as day 4. By day 7, PanINs stained partially positive for E-cadherin, showed structural abnormalities, and exhibited decreased amylase and increased cytokeratin-19. Within a similar time frame, pancreatic tissue began to adhere to the intestine, resulting in ascites and death. No metastases to other organs were observed.

Further testing showed that pancreatic stroma contained tumor cells. While DNA double-strand breaks were scarce, the investigators pointed out that chemotherapy and radiotherapy are typically responsible for DNA damage. Based on previous research linking stem cell conversion with Kras-acquired resistance, the investigators tested markers of stem cells in pancreatic tissue of knockout mice, finding that CD44, KLF4, and KLF5 were increased.

“These observations suggested that loss of E-cadherin provided tumorigenic activity to pancreatic cells and contributed to PanIN formation,” the investigators wrote.

Additional experiments with cell lines supported the above results and added further insight. Of clinical relevance, the investigators suggested that targeting Hdac1 with histone deacetylase inhibitors may be a viable treatment strategy for patients lacking pancreatic E-cadherin.

The study was funded by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science KAKENHI grant JP17K09465 and the Yokohama City University Kamome project. The investigators declared no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Kaneta Y et al. Cell Mol Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Sep 14. doi: 10.1016/j.jcmgh.2019.09.001.

Loss of pancreatic E-cadherin may interfere with normal growth and maintenance of the pancreas while contributing to multiple pathological processes, based on evidence from mouse models.

In the presence of an oncogene, E-cadherin may play a pivotal role in pancreatic tumor formation, according to lead author Yoshihiro Kaneta, of Yokohama (Japan) City University in Japan, and colleagues. These findings could lead to new treatment strategies for patients with pancreatic cancer who lack E-cadherin, they noted.

Previous studies have shown that E-cadherin is involved in tissue homeostasis, although exact mechanisms vary by organ, and have remained unclear in the pancreas, the investigators explained in Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

According to the investigators, E-cadherin expression is up-regulated in chemically induced acute pancreatitis, while in chronic pancreatitis, which is associated with an increased risk of pancreatic adenocarcinoma, E-cadherin expression is either low or absent. Other research has pointed to a link between dysregulated E-cadherin expression and cancer progression, with a loss of E-cadherin implicated in development of diffuse-type gastric cancer; however, evidence of a similar process in pancreatic cancer has not been reported, the investigators wrote.

To determine the role of E-cadherin in pancreatic function and tumor development, the investigators conducted experiments with knockout mice lacking pancreatic E-cadherin.

For the first 2 days after birth, knockout mice were similar both phenotypically and histologically to control mice. But over time, differences became apparent. Starting at day 3, control mice were comparatively larger than knockout mice, and by day 12, knockout mice began to die, with none surviving beyond day 28. Starting at day 6, histologic changes were observed in the pancreatic tissue of knockout mice, specifically, with aberrant epithelial tubules that resembled acinar-to-ductal metaplasia (ADM). Moreover, acinar cells were dilated and lacked surface expression of E-cadherin.

“These results suggested that E-cadherin was not required for pancreatic development at the embryonic stage but was required for growth and maintenance of the pancreas in the postnatal stage,” the investigators wrote.

Additional analyses revealed further differences between pancreatic tissue from knockout mice and control mice. A variety of aberrant processes were observed in knockout mice, including replacement of acini with alpha-smooth muscle actin–positive fibrotic cells, an increased number of ductal-like structures, a reduced number of amylase-positive cells, and an increased number of cytokeratin-19–positive and CD45-positive cells. Messenger RNA expression levels were also abnormal in pancreatic tissue of knockout mice, with shifts across a variety of cytokines and chemokines. These trends toward inflammation and fibrosis were described by the investigators as pancreatitis-like changes, although they observed no pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PanIN), which is a precursor of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

In the presence of an oncogene, however, loss of pancreatic E-cadherin did contribute to the development of pancreatic cancer. In the presence of a Kras mutation, knockout mice began to develop PanINs and ADMs as soon as day 4. By day 7, PanINs stained partially positive for E-cadherin, showed structural abnormalities, and exhibited decreased amylase and increased cytokeratin-19. Within a similar time frame, pancreatic tissue began to adhere to the intestine, resulting in ascites and death. No metastases to other organs were observed.

Further testing showed that pancreatic stroma contained tumor cells. While DNA double-strand breaks were scarce, the investigators pointed out that chemotherapy and radiotherapy are typically responsible for DNA damage. Based on previous research linking stem cell conversion with Kras-acquired resistance, the investigators tested markers of stem cells in pancreatic tissue of knockout mice, finding that CD44, KLF4, and KLF5 were increased.

“These observations suggested that loss of E-cadherin provided tumorigenic activity to pancreatic cells and contributed to PanIN formation,” the investigators wrote.

Additional experiments with cell lines supported the above results and added further insight. Of clinical relevance, the investigators suggested that targeting Hdac1 with histone deacetylase inhibitors may be a viable treatment strategy for patients lacking pancreatic E-cadherin.

The study was funded by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science KAKENHI grant JP17K09465 and the Yokohama City University Kamome project. The investigators declared no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Kaneta Y et al. Cell Mol Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Sep 14. doi: 10.1016/j.jcmgh.2019.09.001.

A single-use duodenoscope may reduce the risk of postendoscopic infections while maintaining a high level of user satisfaction, based on a recent multicenter case series study.

At six tertiary referral centers in the United States, seven expert endoscopists performed more than 70 procedures with disposable scopes, ultimately reporting a median satisfaction score of 9 out of 10, according to lead author Venkataraman Muthusamy, MD, of UCLA Health in Los Angeles, and colleagues.

Writing for Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, the investigators noted that duodenoscope-related infections represent a serious threat to public health, particularly when considered in the context of antibiotic resistance and the high number of endoscopic procedures performed annually.

“Solutions to the duodenoscope contamination problem remain elusive,” the investigators wrote. “Evidence-based interventions are important to guard against labor-intensive measures that are unfeasible, unaffordable, and potentially ineffective.”

According to the investigators, routine culture surveillance and field investigations following suspected duodenoscope-related infections may fail to detect culprit bacteria or shortcomings in equipment reprocessing; and even when performed correctly, standard reprocessing can be insufficient.

“Using current reprocessing techniques, improved compliance with reprocessing guidelines is not a definitive solution because reusable duodenoscope contamination may be present even after high-level disinfection or sterilization,” the investigators wrote, going on to cite Food and Drug Administration–reported contamination rates of 5.4% for high-concern organisms.

To determine if a single-use endoscope could overcome such risks, the investigators first conducted preclinical testing with animal laboratories and simulations, finding that a single-use duodenoscope was comparable with three reusable scope models. The present study, which included 73 patients with normal pancreaticobiliary anatomy, evaluated clinical feasibility, safety, and performance. The single-use duodenoscope was a first-generation device by Boston Scientific named EXALT Model D.

Of the 73 patients, 13 underwent roll-in maneuvers and 60 underwent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). The most common cause for ERCP was exchange or removal of biliary stent (55.0%), followed by evaluation of biliary defect or stricture (26.7%), then bile duct stone clearance (18.3%). The majority of ERCPs had an American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) procedural complexity grade of 2 (43.3%) or 3 (43.3%), while a minority were graded 1 (11.7%) or, most severe, 4 (1.7%).

Two ERCPs required crossover to a reusable duodenoscope for completion. In the first instance, crossover was needed because dilation of a biliary stricture was unsuccessful, with the endoscopist reporting difficulties maneuvering the disposable scope, possibly because of shaft stiffness. In the second case, crossover was elected because cannulation was unsuccessful with standard access techniques; however, cannulation also was not possible with the reusable scope, necessitating an alternative approach.

According to the investigators, safety signals were comparable with standard practice. No serious, scope-related adverse events were reported. Serious adverse events of any kind were relatively uncommon; three patients developed post-ERCP pancreatitis within 7 days of ERCP, one developed a postsphincterotomy bleed, and one had worsening of a preexisting infection that required hospitalization.

As described above, the endoscopists reported a median overall satisfaction score of 9 out of 10. Specifically, 17 out of 23 scored ERCP maneuvers (73.9%) received a median 5 out of 5 performance rating. Out of 1,289 total ratings, almost all (98.1%) received a performance rating of at least 3 out of 5. Low-scoring performance characteristics (receiving at least one “1” rating), included elevator function; aspects of positioning; visualization; image quality, brightness, or appearance; and ease and ability of passing ancillary devices through the channel of the single-use duodenoscope and into the papilla.

“The new device provides an alternative to reusable duodenoscopes that may harbor residual contamination despite appropriately implemented reprocessing,” the investigators concluded.

They also pointed out that switching to disposable scopes would not completely put an end to postendoscopic infections.

“The single-use duodenoscope is a timely and innovative option to improve exogenous infection control, and must be used with awareness of the continued risk of endogenous infection, with standard infection control precautions and continued diligence in the use of existing reusable devices,” they wrote.

The study was funded by Boston Scientific. The investigators reported additional relationships with Medtronic, Ethicon/Torax, CapsoVision, and others.

SOURCE: Muthusamy V et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Oct 11. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.10.052.

A single-use duodenoscope may reduce the risk of postendoscopic infections while maintaining a high level of user satisfaction, based on a recent multicenter case series study.

At six tertiary referral centers in the United States, seven expert endoscopists performed more than 70 procedures with disposable scopes, ultimately reporting a median satisfaction score of 9 out of 10, according to lead author Venkataraman Muthusamy, MD, of UCLA Health in Los Angeles, and colleagues.

Writing for Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, the investigators noted that duodenoscope-related infections represent a serious threat to public health, particularly when considered in the context of antibiotic resistance and the high number of endoscopic procedures performed annually.

“Solutions to the duodenoscope contamination problem remain elusive,” the investigators wrote. “Evidence-based interventions are important to guard against labor-intensive measures that are unfeasible, unaffordable, and potentially ineffective.”

According to the investigators, routine culture surveillance and field investigations following suspected duodenoscope-related infections may fail to detect culprit bacteria or shortcomings in equipment reprocessing; and even when performed correctly, standard reprocessing can be insufficient.

“Using current reprocessing techniques, improved compliance with reprocessing guidelines is not a definitive solution because reusable duodenoscope contamination may be present even after high-level disinfection or sterilization,” the investigators wrote, going on to cite Food and Drug Administration–reported contamination rates of 5.4% for high-concern organisms.

To determine if a single-use endoscope could overcome such risks, the investigators first conducted preclinical testing with animal laboratories and simulations, finding that a single-use duodenoscope was comparable with three reusable scope models. The present study, which included 73 patients with normal pancreaticobiliary anatomy, evaluated clinical feasibility, safety, and performance. The single-use duodenoscope was a first-generation device by Boston Scientific named EXALT Model D.

Of the 73 patients, 13 underwent roll-in maneuvers and 60 underwent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). The most common cause for ERCP was exchange or removal of biliary stent (55.0%), followed by evaluation of biliary defect or stricture (26.7%), then bile duct stone clearance (18.3%). The majority of ERCPs had an American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) procedural complexity grade of 2 (43.3%) or 3 (43.3%), while a minority were graded 1 (11.7%) or, most severe, 4 (1.7%).

Two ERCPs required crossover to a reusable duodenoscope for completion. In the first instance, crossover was needed because dilation of a biliary stricture was unsuccessful, with the endoscopist reporting difficulties maneuvering the disposable scope, possibly because of shaft stiffness. In the second case, crossover was elected because cannulation was unsuccessful with standard access techniques; however, cannulation also was not possible with the reusable scope, necessitating an alternative approach.

According to the investigators, safety signals were comparable with standard practice. No serious, scope-related adverse events were reported. Serious adverse events of any kind were relatively uncommon; three patients developed post-ERCP pancreatitis within 7 days of ERCP, one developed a postsphincterotomy bleed, and one had worsening of a preexisting infection that required hospitalization.

As described above, the endoscopists reported a median overall satisfaction score of 9 out of 10. Specifically, 17 out of 23 scored ERCP maneuvers (73.9%) received a median 5 out of 5 performance rating. Out of 1,289 total ratings, almost all (98.1%) received a performance rating of at least 3 out of 5. Low-scoring performance characteristics (receiving at least one “1” rating), included elevator function; aspects of positioning; visualization; image quality, brightness, or appearance; and ease and ability of passing ancillary devices through the channel of the single-use duodenoscope and into the papilla.

“The new device provides an alternative to reusable duodenoscopes that may harbor residual contamination despite appropriately implemented reprocessing,” the investigators concluded.

They also pointed out that switching to disposable scopes would not completely put an end to postendoscopic infections.

“The single-use duodenoscope is a timely and innovative option to improve exogenous infection control, and must be used with awareness of the continued risk of endogenous infection, with standard infection control precautions and continued diligence in the use of existing reusable devices,” they wrote.

The study was funded by Boston Scientific. The investigators reported additional relationships with Medtronic, Ethicon/Torax, CapsoVision, and others.

SOURCE: Muthusamy V et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Oct 11. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.10.052.

A single-use duodenoscope may reduce the risk of postendoscopic infections while maintaining a high level of user satisfaction, based on a recent multicenter case series study.

At six tertiary referral centers in the United States, seven expert endoscopists performed more than 70 procedures with disposable scopes, ultimately reporting a median satisfaction score of 9 out of 10, according to lead author Venkataraman Muthusamy, MD, of UCLA Health in Los Angeles, and colleagues.

Writing for Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, the investigators noted that duodenoscope-related infections represent a serious threat to public health, particularly when considered in the context of antibiotic resistance and the high number of endoscopic procedures performed annually.

“Solutions to the duodenoscope contamination problem remain elusive,” the investigators wrote. “Evidence-based interventions are important to guard against labor-intensive measures that are unfeasible, unaffordable, and potentially ineffective.”

According to the investigators, routine culture surveillance and field investigations following suspected duodenoscope-related infections may fail to detect culprit bacteria or shortcomings in equipment reprocessing; and even when performed correctly, standard reprocessing can be insufficient.

“Using current reprocessing techniques, improved compliance with reprocessing guidelines is not a definitive solution because reusable duodenoscope contamination may be present even after high-level disinfection or sterilization,” the investigators wrote, going on to cite Food and Drug Administration–reported contamination rates of 5.4% for high-concern organisms.

To determine if a single-use endoscope could overcome such risks, the investigators first conducted preclinical testing with animal laboratories and simulations, finding that a single-use duodenoscope was comparable with three reusable scope models. The present study, which included 73 patients with normal pancreaticobiliary anatomy, evaluated clinical feasibility, safety, and performance. The single-use duodenoscope was a first-generation device by Boston Scientific named EXALT Model D.

Of the 73 patients, 13 underwent roll-in maneuvers and 60 underwent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). The most common cause for ERCP was exchange or removal of biliary stent (55.0%), followed by evaluation of biliary defect or stricture (26.7%), then bile duct stone clearance (18.3%). The majority of ERCPs had an American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) procedural complexity grade of 2 (43.3%) or 3 (43.3%), while a minority were graded 1 (11.7%) or, most severe, 4 (1.7%).

Two ERCPs required crossover to a reusable duodenoscope for completion. In the first instance, crossover was needed because dilation of a biliary stricture was unsuccessful, with the endoscopist reporting difficulties maneuvering the disposable scope, possibly because of shaft stiffness. In the second case, crossover was elected because cannulation was unsuccessful with standard access techniques; however, cannulation also was not possible with the reusable scope, necessitating an alternative approach.

According to the investigators, safety signals were comparable with standard practice. No serious, scope-related adverse events were reported. Serious adverse events of any kind were relatively uncommon; three patients developed post-ERCP pancreatitis within 7 days of ERCP, one developed a postsphincterotomy bleed, and one had worsening of a preexisting infection that required hospitalization.

As described above, the endoscopists reported a median overall satisfaction score of 9 out of 10. Specifically, 17 out of 23 scored ERCP maneuvers (73.9%) received a median 5 out of 5 performance rating. Out of 1,289 total ratings, almost all (98.1%) received a performance rating of at least 3 out of 5. Low-scoring performance characteristics (receiving at least one “1” rating), included elevator function; aspects of positioning; visualization; image quality, brightness, or appearance; and ease and ability of passing ancillary devices through the channel of the single-use duodenoscope and into the papilla.

“The new device provides an alternative to reusable duodenoscopes that may harbor residual contamination despite appropriately implemented reprocessing,” the investigators concluded.

They also pointed out that switching to disposable scopes would not completely put an end to postendoscopic infections.

“The single-use duodenoscope is a timely and innovative option to improve exogenous infection control, and must be used with awareness of the continued risk of endogenous infection, with standard infection control precautions and continued diligence in the use of existing reusable devices,” they wrote.

The study was funded by Boston Scientific. The investigators reported additional relationships with Medtronic, Ethicon/Torax, CapsoVision, and others.

SOURCE: Muthusamy V et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Oct 11. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.10.052.

The American Gastroenterological Association recently issued a clinical practice update for the management of pancreatic necrosis, including 15 recommendations based on a comprehensive literature review and the experiences of leading experts.

Recommendations range from the general, such as the need for a multidisciplinary approach, to the specific, such as the superiority of metal over plastic stents for endoscopic transmural drainage.

The expert review, which was conducted by lead author Todd H. Baron, MD, of the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill and three other colleagues, was vetted by the AGA Institute Clinical Practice Updates Committee (CPUC) and the AGA Governing Board. In addition, the update underwent external peer review prior to publication in Gastroenterology.

In the update, the authors outlined the clinical landscape for pancreatic necrosis, including challenges posed by complex cases and a mortality rate as high as 30%.

“Successful management of these patients requires expert multidisciplinary care by gastroenterologists, surgeons, interventional radiologists, and specialists in critical care medicine, infectious disease, and nutrition,” the investigators wrote.

They went on to explain how management has evolved over the past 10 years.

“Whereby major surgical intervention and debridement was once the mainstay of therapy for patients with symptomatic necrotic collections, a minimally invasive approach focusing on percutaneous drainage and/or endoscopic drainage or debridement is now favored,” they wrote. They added that debridement is still generally agreed to be the best choice for cases of infected necrosis or patients with sterile necrosis “marked by abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, and nutritional failure or with associated complications including gastrointestinal luminal obstruction, biliary obstruction, recurrent acute pancreatitis, fistulas, or persistent systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS).”

Other elements of care, however, remain debated, the investigators noted, which has led to variations in multiple aspects of care, such as interventional timing, intravenous fluids, antibiotics, and nutrition. Within this framework, the present practice update is aimed at offering “concise best practice advice for the optimal management of patients with this highly morbid condition.”

Among these pieces of advice, the authors emphasized that routine prophylactic antibiotics and/or antifungals to prevent infected necrosis are unsupported by multiple clinical trials. When infection is suspected, the update recommends broad spectrum intravenous antibiotics, noting that, in most cases, it is unnecessary to perform CT-guided fine-needle aspiration for cultures and gram stain.

Regarding nutrition, the update recommends against “pancreatic rest”; instead, it calls for early oral intake and, if this is not possible, then initiation of total enteral nutrition. Although the authors deemed multiple routes of enteral feeding acceptable, they favored nasogastric or nasoduodenal tubes, when appropriate, because of ease of placement and maintenance. For prolonged total enteral nutrition or patients unable to tolerate nasoenteric feeding, the authors recommended endoscopic feeding tube placement with a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube for those who can tolerate gastric feeding or a percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy tube for those who cannot or have a high risk of aspiration.

As described above, the update recommends debridement for cases of infected pancreatic necrosis. Ideally, this should be performed at least 4 weeks after onset, and avoided altogether within the first 2 weeks, because of associated risks of morbidity and mortality; instead, during this acute phase, percutaneous drainage may be considered.

For walled-off pancreatic necrosis, the authors recommended transmural drainage via endoscopic therapy because this mitigates risk of pancreatocutaneous fistula. Percutaneous drainage may be considered in addition to, or in absence of, endoscopic drainage, depending on clinical status.

The remainder of the update covers decisions related to stents, other minimally invasive techniques, open operative debridement, and disconnected left pancreatic remnants, along with discussions of key supporting clinical trials.

The investigators disclosed relationships with Cook Endoscopy, Boston Scientific, Olympus, and others.

SOURCE: Baron TH et al. Gastroenterology. 2019 Aug 31. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2019.07.064.

Review the Gastroenterology clinical guidelines collection for AGA Institute statements detailing preferred approaches to specific medical problems or issues based on the most current available data at https://www.gastrojournal.org/content/agai. 

The American Gastroenterological Association recently issued a clinical practice update for the management of pancreatic necrosis, including 15 recommendations based on a comprehensive literature review and the experiences of leading experts.

Recommendations range from the general, such as the need for a multidisciplinary approach, to the specific, such as the superiority of metal over plastic stents for endoscopic transmural drainage.

The expert review, which was conducted by lead author Todd H. Baron, MD, of the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill and three other colleagues, was vetted by the AGA Institute Clinical Practice Updates Committee (CPUC) and the AGA Governing Board. In addition, the update underwent external peer review prior to publication in Gastroenterology.

In the update, the authors outlined the clinical landscape for pancreatic necrosis, including challenges posed by complex cases and a mortality rate as high as 30%.

“Successful management of these patients requires expert multidisciplinary care by gastroenterologists, surgeons, interventional radiologists, and specialists in critical care medicine, infectious disease, and nutrition,” the investigators wrote.

They went on to explain how management has evolved over the past 10 years.

“Whereby major surgical intervention and debridement was once the mainstay of therapy for patients with symptomatic necrotic collections, a minimally invasive approach focusing on percutaneous drainage and/or endoscopic drainage or debridement is now favored,” they wrote. They added that debridement is still generally agreed to be the best choice for cases of infected necrosis or patients with sterile necrosis “marked by abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, and nutritional failure or with associated complications including gastrointestinal luminal obstruction, biliary obstruction, recurrent acute pancreatitis, fistulas, or persistent systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS).”

Other elements of care, however, remain debated, the investigators noted, which has led to variations in multiple aspects of care, such as interventional timing, intravenous fluids, antibiotics, and nutrition. Within this framework, the present practice update is aimed at offering “concise best practice advice for the optimal management of patients with this highly morbid condition.”

Among these pieces of advice, the authors emphasized that routine prophylactic antibiotics and/or antifungals to prevent infected necrosis are unsupported by multiple clinical trials. When infection is suspected, the update recommends broad spectrum intravenous antibiotics, noting that, in most cases, it is unnecessary to perform CT-guided fine-needle aspiration for cultures and gram stain.

Regarding nutrition, the update recommends against “pancreatic rest”; instead, it calls for early oral intake and, if this is not possible, then initiation of total enteral nutrition. Although the authors deemed multiple routes of enteral feeding acceptable, they favored nasogastric or nasoduodenal tubes, when appropriate, because of ease of placement and maintenance. For prolonged total enteral nutrition or patients unable to tolerate nasoenteric feeding, the authors recommended endoscopic feeding tube placement with a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube for those who can tolerate gastric feeding or a percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy tube for those who cannot or have a high risk of aspiration.

As described above, the update recommends debridement for cases of infected pancreatic necrosis. Ideally, this should be performed at least 4 weeks after onset, and avoided altogether within the first 2 weeks, because of associated risks of morbidity and mortality; instead, during this acute phase, percutaneous drainage may be considered.

For walled-off pancreatic necrosis, the authors recommended transmural drainage via endoscopic therapy because this mitigates risk of pancreatocutaneous fistula. Percutaneous drainage may be considered in addition to, or in absence of, endoscopic drainage, depending on clinical status.

The remainder of the update covers decisions related to stents, other minimally invasive techniques, open operative debridement, and disconnected left pancreatic remnants, along with discussions of key supporting clinical trials.

The investigators disclosed relationships with Cook Endoscopy, Boston Scientific, Olympus, and others.

SOURCE: Baron TH et al. Gastroenterology. 2019 Aug 31. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2019.07.064.

Review the Gastroenterology clinical guidelines collection for AGA Institute statements detailing preferred approaches to specific medical problems or issues based on the most current available data at https://www.gastrojournal.org/content/agai. 

The American Gastroenterological Association recently issued a clinical practice update for the management of pancreatic necrosis, including 15 recommendations based on a comprehensive literature review and the experiences of leading experts.

Recommendations range from the general, such as the need for a multidisciplinary approach, to the specific, such as the superiority of metal over plastic stents for endoscopic transmural drainage.

The expert review, which was conducted by lead author Todd H. Baron, MD, of the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill and three other colleagues, was vetted by the AGA Institute Clinical Practice Updates Committee (CPUC) and the AGA Governing Board. In addition, the update underwent external peer review prior to publication in Gastroenterology.

In the update, the authors outlined the clinical landscape for pancreatic necrosis, including challenges posed by complex cases and a mortality rate as high as 30%.

“Successful management of these patients requires expert multidisciplinary care by gastroenterologists, surgeons, interventional radiologists, and specialists in critical care medicine, infectious disease, and nutrition,” the investigators wrote.

They went on to explain how management has evolved over the past 10 years.

“Whereby major surgical intervention and debridement was once the mainstay of therapy for patients with symptomatic necrotic collections, a minimally invasive approach focusing on percutaneous drainage and/or endoscopic drainage or debridement is now favored,” they wrote. They added that debridement is still generally agreed to be the best choice for cases of infected necrosis or patients with sterile necrosis “marked by abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, and nutritional failure or with associated complications including gastrointestinal luminal obstruction, biliary obstruction, recurrent acute pancreatitis, fistulas, or persistent systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS).”

Other elements of care, however, remain debated, the investigators noted, which has led to variations in multiple aspects of care, such as interventional timing, intravenous fluids, antibiotics, and nutrition. Within this framework, the present practice update is aimed at offering “concise best practice advice for the optimal management of patients with this highly morbid condition.”

Among these pieces of advice, the authors emphasized that routine prophylactic antibiotics and/or antifungals to prevent infected necrosis are unsupported by multiple clinical trials. When infection is suspected, the update recommends broad spectrum intravenous antibiotics, noting that, in most cases, it is unnecessary to perform CT-guided fine-needle aspiration for cultures and gram stain.

Regarding nutrition, the update recommends against “pancreatic rest”; instead, it calls for early oral intake and, if this is not possible, then initiation of total enteral nutrition. Although the authors deemed multiple routes of enteral feeding acceptable, they favored nasogastric or nasoduodenal tubes, when appropriate, because of ease of placement and maintenance. For prolonged total enteral nutrition or patients unable to tolerate nasoenteric feeding, the authors recommended endoscopic feeding tube placement with a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube for those who can tolerate gastric feeding or a percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy tube for those who cannot or have a high risk of aspiration.

As described above, the update recommends debridement for cases of infected pancreatic necrosis. Ideally, this should be performed at least 4 weeks after onset, and avoided altogether within the first 2 weeks, because of associated risks of morbidity and mortality; instead, during this acute phase, percutaneous drainage may be considered.

For walled-off pancreatic necrosis, the authors recommended transmural drainage via endoscopic therapy because this mitigates risk of pancreatocutaneous fistula. Percutaneous drainage may be considered in addition to, or in absence of, endoscopic drainage, depending on clinical status.

The remainder of the update covers decisions related to stents, other minimally invasive techniques, open operative debridement, and disconnected left pancreatic remnants, along with discussions of key supporting clinical trials.

The investigators disclosed relationships with Cook Endoscopy, Boston Scientific, Olympus, and others.

SOURCE: Baron TH et al. Gastroenterology. 2019 Aug 31. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2019.07.064.

Review the Gastroenterology clinical guidelines collection for AGA Institute statements detailing preferred approaches to specific medical problems or issues based on the most current available data at https://www.gastrojournal.org/content/agai. 

The Canadian Association of Gastroenterology (CAG) recently published a clinical practice guideline for the management of bile acid diarrhea (BAD).

Given a minimal evidence base, 16 out of the 17 guideline recommendations are conditional, according to lead author Daniel C. Sadowski, MD, of Royal Alexandra Hospital, Edmonton, Alta., and colleagues. Considering the shortage of high-quality evidence, the panel called for more randomized clinical trials to address current knowledge gaps.

“BAD is an understudied, often underappreciated condition, and questions remain regarding its diagnosis and treatment,” the panelists wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. “There have been guidelines on the management of chronic diarrhea from the American Gastroenterological Association, and the British Society of Gastroenterology, but diagnosis and management of BAD was not assessed extensively in these publications. The British Society of Gastroenterology updated guidelines on the investigation of chronic diarrhea in adults, published after the consensus meeting, addressed some issues related to BAD.”

For the current guideline, using available evidence and clinical experience, expert panelists from Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom aimed to “provide a reasonable and practical approach to care for specialists.” The guideline was further reviewed by the CAG Practice Affairs and Clinical Affairs Committees and the CAG Board of Directors.

The guideline first puts BAD in clinical context, noting a chronic diarrhea prevalence rate of approximately 5%. According to the guideline, approximately 1 out of 4 of these patients with chronic diarrhea may have BAD and prevalence of BAD is likely higher among those with other conditions, such as terminal ileal disease.

While BAD may be relatively common, it isn’t necessarily easy to diagnose, the panelists noted.

“The diagnosis of BAD continues to be a challenge, although this may be improved in the future with the general availability of screening serologic tests and other diagnostic tests,” the panelists wrote. “Although a treatment trial with bile acid sequestrants therapy (BAST) often is used, this approach has not been studied adequately, and likely is imprecise, and may lead to both undertreatment and overtreatment.”

Instead, the panelists recommended testing for BAD with 75-selenium homocholic acid taurine (SeHCAT) or 7-alpha-hydroxy-4-cholesten-3-one.

After addressing treatable causes of BAD, the guideline recommends initial therapy with cholestyramine or, if this is poorly tolerated, switching to BAST. However, the panelists advised against BAST for patients with resection or ileal Crohn’s disease, for whom other antidiarrheal agents are more suitable. When appropriate, BAST should be given at the lowest effective dose, with periodic trials of on-demand, intermittent administration, the panelists recommended. When BAST is ineffective, the guideline recommends that clinicians review concurrent medications as a possible cause of BAD or reinvestigate.

Concluding the guideline, the panelists emphasized the need for more high-quality research.

“The group recognized that specific, high-certainty evidence was lacking in many areas and recommended further studies that would improve the data available in future methodologic evaluations,” the panelists wrote.

While improving diagnostic accuracy of BAD should be a major goal of such research, progress is currently limited by an integral shortcoming of diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) studies, the panelists wrote.

“The main challenge in conducting DTA studies for BAD is the lack of a widely accepted or universally agreed-upon reference standard because the condition is defined and classified based on pathophysiologic mechanisms and its response to treatment (BAST),” the panelists wrote. “In addition, the index tests (SeHCAT, C4, FGF19, fecal bile acid assay) provide a continuous measure of metabolic function. Hence, DTA studies are not the most appropriate study design.”

“Therefore, one of the research priorities in BAD is for the scientific and clinical communities to agree on a reference standard that best represents BAD (e.g., response to BAST), with full understanding that the reference standard is and likely will be imperfect.”

The guideline was funded by unrestricted grants from Pendopharm and GE Healthcare Canada. The panelists disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, AbbVie, Merck, Pfizer, and others.

SOURCE: Sadowski DC et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Sep 14. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.08.062.

The Canadian Association of Gastroenterology (CAG) recently published a clinical practice guideline for the management of bile acid diarrhea (BAD).

Given a minimal evidence base, 16 out of the 17 guideline recommendations are conditional, according to lead author Daniel C. Sadowski, MD, of Royal Alexandra Hospital, Edmonton, Alta., and colleagues. Considering the shortage of high-quality evidence, the panel called for more randomized clinical trials to address current knowledge gaps.

“BAD is an understudied, often underappreciated condition, and questions remain regarding its diagnosis and treatment,” the panelists wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. “There have been guidelines on the management of chronic diarrhea from the American Gastroenterological Association, and the British Society of Gastroenterology, but diagnosis and management of BAD was not assessed extensively in these publications. The British Society of Gastroenterology updated guidelines on the investigation of chronic diarrhea in adults, published after the consensus meeting, addressed some issues related to BAD.”

For the current guideline, using available evidence and clinical experience, expert panelists from Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom aimed to “provide a reasonable and practical approach to care for specialists.” The guideline was further reviewed by the CAG Practice Affairs and Clinical Affairs Committees and the CAG Board of Directors.

The guideline first puts BAD in clinical context, noting a chronic diarrhea prevalence rate of approximately 5%. According to the guideline, approximately 1 out of 4 of these patients with chronic diarrhea may have BAD and prevalence of BAD is likely higher among those with other conditions, such as terminal ileal disease.

While BAD may be relatively common, it isn’t necessarily easy to diagnose, the panelists noted.

“The diagnosis of BAD continues to be a challenge, although this may be improved in the future with the general availability of screening serologic tests and other diagnostic tests,” the panelists wrote. “Although a treatment trial with bile acid sequestrants therapy (BAST) often is used, this approach has not been studied adequately, and likely is imprecise, and may lead to both undertreatment and overtreatment.”

Instead, the panelists recommended testing for BAD with 75-selenium homocholic acid taurine (SeHCAT) or 7-alpha-hydroxy-4-cholesten-3-one.

After addressing treatable causes of BAD, the guideline recommends initial therapy with cholestyramine or, if this is poorly tolerated, switching to BAST. However, the panelists advised against BAST for patients with resection or ileal Crohn’s disease, for whom other antidiarrheal agents are more suitable. When appropriate, BAST should be given at the lowest effective dose, with periodic trials of on-demand, intermittent administration, the panelists recommended. When BAST is ineffective, the guideline recommends that clinicians review concurrent medications as a possible cause of BAD or reinvestigate.

Concluding the guideline, the panelists emphasized the need for more high-quality research.

“The group recognized that specific, high-certainty evidence was lacking in many areas and recommended further studies that would improve the data available in future methodologic evaluations,” the panelists wrote.

While improving diagnostic accuracy of BAD should be a major goal of such research, progress is currently limited by an integral shortcoming of diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) studies, the panelists wrote.

“The main challenge in conducting DTA studies for BAD is the lack of a widely accepted or universally agreed-upon reference standard because the condition is defined and classified based on pathophysiologic mechanisms and its response to treatment (BAST),” the panelists wrote. “In addition, the index tests (SeHCAT, C4, FGF19, fecal bile acid assay) provide a continuous measure of metabolic function. Hence, DTA studies are not the most appropriate study design.”

“Therefore, one of the research priorities in BAD is for the scientific and clinical communities to agree on a reference standard that best represents BAD (e.g., response to BAST), with full understanding that the reference standard is and likely will be imperfect.”

The guideline was funded by unrestricted grants from Pendopharm and GE Healthcare Canada. The panelists disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, AbbVie, Merck, Pfizer, and others.

SOURCE: Sadowski DC et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Sep 14. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.08.062.

The Canadian Association of Gastroenterology (CAG) recently published a clinical practice guideline for the management of bile acid diarrhea (BAD).

Given a minimal evidence base, 16 out of the 17 guideline recommendations are conditional, according to lead author Daniel C. Sadowski, MD, of Royal Alexandra Hospital, Edmonton, Alta., and colleagues. Considering the shortage of high-quality evidence, the panel called for more randomized clinical trials to address current knowledge gaps.

“BAD is an understudied, often underappreciated condition, and questions remain regarding its diagnosis and treatment,” the panelists wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. “There have been guidelines on the management of chronic diarrhea from the American Gastroenterological Association, and the British Society of Gastroenterology, but diagnosis and management of BAD was not assessed extensively in these publications. The British Society of Gastroenterology updated guidelines on the investigation of chronic diarrhea in adults, published after the consensus meeting, addressed some issues related to BAD.”

For the current guideline, using available evidence and clinical experience, expert panelists from Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom aimed to “provide a reasonable and practical approach to care for specialists.” The guideline was further reviewed by the CAG Practice Affairs and Clinical Affairs Committees and the CAG Board of Directors.

The guideline first puts BAD in clinical context, noting a chronic diarrhea prevalence rate of approximately 5%. According to the guideline, approximately 1 out of 4 of these patients with chronic diarrhea may have BAD and prevalence of BAD is likely higher among those with other conditions, such as terminal ileal disease.

While BAD may be relatively common, it isn’t necessarily easy to diagnose, the panelists noted.

“The diagnosis of BAD continues to be a challenge, although this may be improved in the future with the general availability of screening serologic tests and other diagnostic tests,” the panelists wrote. “Although a treatment trial with bile acid sequestrants therapy (BAST) often is used, this approach has not been studied adequately, and likely is imprecise, and may lead to both undertreatment and overtreatment.”

Instead, the panelists recommended testing for BAD with 75-selenium homocholic acid taurine (SeHCAT) or 7-alpha-hydroxy-4-cholesten-3-one.

After addressing treatable causes of BAD, the guideline recommends initial therapy with cholestyramine or, if this is poorly tolerated, switching to BAST. However, the panelists advised against BAST for patients with resection or ileal Crohn’s disease, for whom other antidiarrheal agents are more suitable. When appropriate, BAST should be given at the lowest effective dose, with periodic trials of on-demand, intermittent administration, the panelists recommended. When BAST is ineffective, the guideline recommends that clinicians review concurrent medications as a possible cause of BAD or reinvestigate.

Concluding the guideline, the panelists emphasized the need for more high-quality research.

“The group recognized that specific, high-certainty evidence was lacking in many areas and recommended further studies that would improve the data available in future methodologic evaluations,” the panelists wrote.

While improving diagnostic accuracy of BAD should be a major goal of such research, progress is currently limited by an integral shortcoming of diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) studies, the panelists wrote.

“The main challenge in conducting DTA studies for BAD is the lack of a widely accepted or universally agreed-upon reference standard because the condition is defined and classified based on pathophysiologic mechanisms and its response to treatment (BAST),” the panelists wrote. “In addition, the index tests (SeHCAT, C4, FGF19, fecal bile acid assay) provide a continuous measure of metabolic function. Hence, DTA studies are not the most appropriate study design.”

“Therefore, one of the research priorities in BAD is for the scientific and clinical communities to agree on a reference standard that best represents BAD (e.g., response to BAST), with full understanding that the reference standard is and likely will be imperfect.”

The guideline was funded by unrestricted grants from Pendopharm and GE Healthcare Canada. The panelists disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, AbbVie, Merck, Pfizer, and others.

SOURCE: Sadowski DC et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Sep 14. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.08.062.

The Canadian Association of Gastroenterology (CAG) recently co-published a clinical practice guideline for the management of bile acid diarrhea (BAD) in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology and the Journal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology.

Given a minimal evidence base, 16 out of the 17 guideline recommendations are conditional, according to lead author Daniel C. Sadowski, MD, of Royal Alexandra Hospital, Edmonton, Alta., and colleagues. Considering the shortage of high-quality evidence, the panel called for more randomized clinical trials to address current knowledge gaps.

“BAD is an understudied, often underappreciated condition, and questions remain regarding its diagnosis and treatment,” the panelists wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. “There have been guidelines on the management of chronic diarrhea from the American Gastroenterological Association, and the British Society of Gastroenterology, but diagnosis and management of BAD was not assessed extensively in these publications. The British Society of Gastroenterology updated guidelines on the investigation of chronic diarrhea in adults, published after the consensus meeting, addressed some issues related to BAD.”

For the current guideline, using available evidence and clinical experience, expert panelists from Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom aimed to “provide a reasonable and practical approach to care for specialists.” The guideline was further reviewed by the CAG Practice Affairs and Clinical Affairs Committees and the CAG Board of Directors.

The guideline first puts BAD in clinical context, noting a chronic diarrhea prevalence rate of approximately 5%. According to the guideline, approximately 1 out of 4 of these patients with chronic diarrhea may have BAD and prevalence of BAD is likely higher among those with other conditions, such as terminal ileal disease.

While BAD may be relatively common, it isn’t necessarily easy to diagnose, the panelists noted.

“The diagnosis of BAD continues to be a challenge, although this may be improved in the future with the general availability of screening serologic tests and other diagnostic tests,” the panelists wrote. “Although a treatment trial with bile acid sequestrants therapy (BAST) often is used, this approach has not been studied adequately, and likely is imprecise, and may lead to both undertreatment and overtreatment.”

Instead, the panelists recommended testing for BAD with 75-selenium homocholic acid taurine (SeHCAT) or 7-alpha-hydroxy-4-cholesten-3-one.

After addressing treatable causes of BAD, the guideline recommends initial therapy with cholestyramine or, if this is poorly tolerated, switching to BAST. However, the panelists advised against BAST for patients with resection or ileal Crohn’s disease, for whom other antidiarrheal agents are more suitable. When appropriate, BAST should be given at the lowest effective dose, with periodic trials of on-demand, intermittent administration, the panelists recommended. When BAST is ineffective, the guideline recommends that clinicians review concurrent medications as a possible cause of BAD or reinvestigate.

Concluding the guideline, the panelists emphasized the need for more high-quality research.

“The group recognized that specific, high-certainty evidence was lacking in many areas and recommended further studies that would improve the data available in future methodologic evaluations,” the panelists wrote.

While improving diagnostic accuracy of BAD should be a major goal of such research, progress is currently limited by an integral shortcoming of diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) studies, the panelists wrote.

“The main challenge in conducting DTA studies for BAD is the lack of a widely accepted or universally agreed-upon reference standard because the condition is defined and classified based on pathophysiologic mechanisms and its response to treatment (BAST),” the panelists wrote. “In addition, the index tests (SeHCAT, C4, FGF19, fecal bile acid assay) provide a continuous measure of metabolic function. Hence, DTA studies are not the most appropriate study design.”

“Therefore, one of the research priorities in BAD is for the scientific and clinical communities to agree on a reference standard that best represents BAD (e.g., response to BAST), with full understanding that the reference standard is and likely will be imperfect.”

The guideline was funded by unrestricted grants from Pendopharm and GE Healthcare Canada. The panelists disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, AbbVie, Merck, Pfizer, and others.

Review the AGA clinical practice guideline on the laboratory evaluation of functional diarrhea and diarrhea-predominan irritable bowel syndrome in adults at https:/www.gastrojournal.org/article/S0016-5085(19)41083-4/fulltext.

SOURCE: Sadowski DC et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Sep 14. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.08.062.

The Canadian Association of Gastroenterology (CAG) recently co-published a clinical practice guideline for the management of bile acid diarrhea (BAD) in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology and the Journal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology.

Given a minimal evidence base, 16 out of the 17 guideline recommendations are conditional, according to lead author Daniel C. Sadowski, MD, of Royal Alexandra Hospital, Edmonton, Alta., and colleagues. Considering the shortage of high-quality evidence, the panel called for more randomized clinical trials to address current knowledge gaps.

“BAD is an understudied, often underappreciated condition, and questions remain regarding its diagnosis and treatment,” the panelists wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. “There have been guidelines on the management of chronic diarrhea from the American Gastroenterological Association, and the British Society of Gastroenterology, but diagnosis and management of BAD was not assessed extensively in these publications. The British Society of Gastroenterology updated guidelines on the investigation of chronic diarrhea in adults, published after the consensus meeting, addressed some issues related to BAD.”

For the current guideline, using available evidence and clinical experience, expert panelists from Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom aimed to “provide a reasonable and practical approach to care for specialists.” The guideline was further reviewed by the CAG Practice Affairs and Clinical Affairs Committees and the CAG Board of Directors.

The guideline first puts BAD in clinical context, noting a chronic diarrhea prevalence rate of approximately 5%. According to the guideline, approximately 1 out of 4 of these patients with chronic diarrhea may have BAD and prevalence of BAD is likely higher among those with other conditions, such as terminal ileal disease.

While BAD may be relatively common, it isn’t necessarily easy to diagnose, the panelists noted.

“The diagnosis of BAD continues to be a challenge, although this may be improved in the future with the general availability of screening serologic tests and other diagnostic tests,” the panelists wrote. “Although a treatment trial with bile acid sequestrants therapy (BAST) often is used, this approach has not been studied adequately, and likely is imprecise, and may lead to both undertreatment and overtreatment.”

Instead, the panelists recommended testing for BAD with 75-selenium homocholic acid taurine (SeHCAT) or 7-alpha-hydroxy-4-cholesten-3-one.

After addressing treatable causes of BAD, the guideline recommends initial therapy with cholestyramine or, if this is poorly tolerated, switching to BAST. However, the panelists advised against BAST for patients with resection or ileal Crohn’s disease, for whom other antidiarrheal agents are more suitable. When appropriate, BAST should be given at the lowest effective dose, with periodic trials of on-demand, intermittent administration, the panelists recommended. When BAST is ineffective, the guideline recommends that clinicians review concurrent medications as a possible cause of BAD or reinvestigate.

Concluding the guideline, the panelists emphasized the need for more high-quality research.

“The group recognized that specific, high-certainty evidence was lacking in many areas and recommended further studies that would improve the data available in future methodologic evaluations,” the panelists wrote.

While improving diagnostic accuracy of BAD should be a major goal of such research, progress is currently limited by an integral shortcoming of diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) studies, the panelists wrote.

“The main challenge in conducting DTA studies for BAD is the lack of a widely accepted or universally agreed-upon reference standard because the condition is defined and classified based on pathophysiologic mechanisms and its response to treatment (BAST),” the panelists wrote. “In addition, the index tests (SeHCAT, C4, FGF19, fecal bile acid assay) provide a continuous measure of metabolic function. Hence, DTA studies are not the most appropriate study design.”

“Therefore, one of the research priorities in BAD is for the scientific and clinical communities to agree on a reference standard that best represents BAD (e.g., response to BAST), with full understanding that the reference standard is and likely will be imperfect.”

The guideline was funded by unrestricted grants from Pendopharm and GE Healthcare Canada. The panelists disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, AbbVie, Merck, Pfizer, and others.

Review the AGA clinical practice guideline on the laboratory evaluation of functional diarrhea and diarrhea-predominan irritable bowel syndrome in adults at https:/www.gastrojournal.org/article/S0016-5085(19)41083-4/fulltext.

SOURCE: Sadowski DC et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Sep 14. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.08.062.

The Canadian Association of Gastroenterology (CAG) recently co-published a clinical practice guideline for the management of bile acid diarrhea (BAD) in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology and the Journal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology.

Given a minimal evidence base, 16 out of the 17 guideline recommendations are conditional, according to lead author Daniel C. Sadowski, MD, of Royal Alexandra Hospital, Edmonton, Alta., and colleagues. Considering the shortage of high-quality evidence, the panel called for more randomized clinical trials to address current knowledge gaps.

“BAD is an understudied, often underappreciated condition, and questions remain regarding its diagnosis and treatment,” the panelists wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. “There have been guidelines on the management of chronic diarrhea from the American Gastroenterological Association, and the British Society of Gastroenterology, but diagnosis and management of BAD was not assessed extensively in these publications. The British Society of Gastroenterology updated guidelines on the investigation of chronic diarrhea in adults, published after the consensus meeting, addressed some issues related to BAD.”

For the current guideline, using available evidence and clinical experience, expert panelists from Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom aimed to “provide a reasonable and practical approach to care for specialists.” The guideline was further reviewed by the CAG Practice Affairs and Clinical Affairs Committees and the CAG Board of Directors.

The guideline first puts BAD in clinical context, noting a chronic diarrhea prevalence rate of approximately 5%. According to the guideline, approximately 1 out of 4 of these patients with chronic diarrhea may have BAD and prevalence of BAD is likely higher among those with other conditions, such as terminal ileal disease.

While BAD may be relatively common, it isn’t necessarily easy to diagnose, the panelists noted.

“The diagnosis of BAD continues to be a challenge, although this may be improved in the future with the general availability of screening serologic tests and other diagnostic tests,” the panelists wrote. “Although a treatment trial with bile acid sequestrants therapy (BAST) often is used, this approach has not been studied adequately, and likely is imprecise, and may lead to both undertreatment and overtreatment.”

Instead, the panelists recommended testing for BAD with 75-selenium homocholic acid taurine (SeHCAT) or 7-alpha-hydroxy-4-cholesten-3-one.

After addressing treatable causes of BAD, the guideline recommends initial therapy with cholestyramine or, if this is poorly tolerated, switching to BAST. However, the panelists advised against BAST for patients with resection or ileal Crohn’s disease, for whom other antidiarrheal agents are more suitable. When appropriate, BAST should be given at the lowest effective dose, with periodic trials of on-demand, intermittent administration, the panelists recommended. When BAST is ineffective, the guideline recommends that clinicians review concurrent medications as a possible cause of BAD or reinvestigate.

Concluding the guideline, the panelists emphasized the need for more high-quality research.

“The group recognized that specific, high-certainty evidence was lacking in many areas and recommended further studies that would improve the data available in future methodologic evaluations,” the panelists wrote.

While improving diagnostic accuracy of BAD should be a major goal of such research, progress is currently limited by an integral shortcoming of diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) studies, the panelists wrote.

“The main challenge in conducting DTA studies for BAD is the lack of a widely accepted or universally agreed-upon reference standard because the condition is defined and classified based on pathophysiologic mechanisms and its response to treatment (BAST),” the panelists wrote. “In addition, the index tests (SeHCAT, C4, FGF19, fecal bile acid assay) provide a continuous measure of metabolic function. Hence, DTA studies are not the most appropriate study design.”

“Therefore, one of the research priorities in BAD is for the scientific and clinical communities to agree on a reference standard that best represents BAD (e.g., response to BAST), with full understanding that the reference standard is and likely will be imperfect.”

The guideline was funded by unrestricted grants from Pendopharm and GE Healthcare Canada. The panelists disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, AbbVie, Merck, Pfizer, and others.

Review the AGA clinical practice guideline on the laboratory evaluation of functional diarrhea and diarrhea-predominan irritable bowel syndrome in adults at https:/www.gastrojournal.org/article/S0016-5085(19)41083-4/fulltext.

SOURCE: Sadowski DC et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Sep 14. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.08.062.