Theme
medstat_icymi_bcell
icymibcell
Main menu
ICYMI B-Cell Lymphoma Featured Menu
Unpublish
Altmetric
Click for Credit Button Label
Click For Credit
DSM Affiliated
Display in offset block
Enable Disqus
Display Author and Disclosure Link
Publication Type
News
Slot System
Featured Buckets
Disable Sticky Ads
Disable Ad Block Mitigation
Featured Buckets Admin
Show Ads on this Publication's Homepage
Consolidated Pub
Show Article Page Numbers on TOC
Use larger logo size
Off
publication_blueconic_enabled
Off
Show More Destinations Menu
Disable Adhesion on Publication
Off
Restore Menu Label on Mobile Navigation
Disable Facebook Pixel from Publication
Exclude this publication from publication selection on articles and quiz
Challenge Center
Disable Inline Native ads
Activity Salesforce Deliverable ID
343187.19
Activity ID
95012
Product Name
Clinical Briefings ICYMI
Product ID
112

Accuracy of Endoscopic Ultrasound in Staging of Early Rectal Cancer (FULL)

Article Type
Changed
Thu, 12/15/2022 - 14:42
Display Headline
Accuracy of Endoscopic Ultrasound in Staging of Early Rectal Cancer

Endoscopic ultrasound can be highly accurate for the staging of neoplasms in early rectal cancer.

Colorectal cancer is the second most common cause of cancer death in the US, with one-third of all colorectal cancers occurring within the rectum. Each year, an estimated 40000 Americans are diagnosed with rectal cancer (RC).1,2 The prognosis and treatment of RC depends on both T and N stage at the time of diagnosis.3-5 According to the most recent National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines from May 2019, patients with T1 to T2N0 tumors should undergo transanal or transabdominal surgery upfront, whereas patients with T3 to T4N0 or any TN1 to 2 should start with neoadjuvant therapy for better locoregional control, followed by surgery.6 Therefore, the appropriate management of RC requires adequate staging.

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and computed tomography (CT) are the imaging techniques currently used to stage RC. In a meta-analysis of 90 articles published between 1985 and 2002 that compared the 3 radiologic modalities, Bipat and colleagues found that MRI and EUS had a similar sensitivity of 94%, whereas the specificity of EUS (86%) was significantly higher than that of MRI (69%) for muscularis propria invasion.7 CT was performed only in a limited number of trials because CT was considered inadequate to assess early T stage. For perirectal tissue invasion, the sensitivity of EUS was statistically higher than that of CT and MRI imaging: 90% compared with 79% and 82%, respectively. The specificity estimates for EUS, CT, and MRI were comparable: 75%, 78%, and 76%, respectively. The respective sensitivity and specificity of the 3 imaging modalities to evaluate lymph nodes were also comparable: EUS, 67% and 78%; CT, 55% and 74%; and MRI, 66% and 76%.

The role of EUS in the diagnosis and treatment of RC has long been validated.1,2-5 A meta-analysis of 42 studies involving 5039 patients found EUS to be highly accurate for differentiating various T stages.8 However, EUS cannot assess iliac and mesenteric lymph nodes or posterior tumor extension beyond endopelvic fascia in advanced RC. Notable heterogeneity was found among the studies in the meta-analyses with regard to the type of equipment used for staging, as well as the criteria used to assess the depth of penetration and nodal status. The recent introduction of phased-array coils and the development of T2-weighted fast spin sequences have improved the resolution of MRI. The MERCURY trial showed that extension of tumor to within 1 mm of the circumferential margin on high-resolution MRI correctly predicted margin involvement at the time of surgery in 92% of the patients.9 In the retrospective study by Balyasnikova and colleagues, MRI was found to correctly identify partial submucosal invasion and suitability for local excision in 89% of the cases.10

Therefore, both EUS and MRI are useful, more so than CT, in assessment of the depth of tumor invasion, nodal staging, and predicting the circumferential resection margin. The use of EUS, however, does not preclude the use of MRI, or vice versa. Rather, the 2 modalities can complement each other in staging and proper patient selection for treatment.11

Despite data supporting the value of EUS in staging RC, its use is limited by a high degree of operator dependence and a substantial learning curve,12-17 which may explain the low EUS accuracy observed in some reports.7,13,15 Given the presence of recognized alternatives such as MRI, we decided to reevaluate EUS accuracy for the staging of RC outside high-volume specialized centers and prospective clinical trials.

 

 

Methods

A retrospective chart review was performed that included all consecutive patients undergoing rectal ultrasound from January 2011 to August 2015 at the US Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC) in Memphis, Tennessee. Sixty-five patients with short-stocked or sessile lesions < 15 cm from anal margin staged T2N0M0 or lower by endorectal ultrasound (ERUS) were included. The patients with neoplasms staged in excess of T2 or N0 were excluded from the study because treatment protocol dictates immediate neoadjuvant treatment, the administration of which would affect subsequent histopathology.

For the 37 patients included in the final analysis, ERUS results were compared with surgical pathology to ascertain accuracy. The resections were performed endoscopically or surgically with a goal of obtaining clear margins. The choice of procedure depended on size, shape, location, and depth of invasion. All patients underwent clinical and endoscopic surveillance with flexible sigmoidoscopy/EUS every 3 to 6 months for the first 2 years. We used 2 different gold standards for surveillance depending on the type of procedure performed to remove the lesion. A pathology report was the gold standard used for patients who underwent surgery. In patients who underwent endoscopic resection, we used the lack of recurrent disease, determined by normal endoscopic and endoscopic ultrasound examination, to signify complete endoscopic resection and therefore adequate staging as an early neoplasm.

Results

From January 2011 to August 2015, 65 rectal ultrasounds were performed. All EUS procedures were performed by 1 physician (C Ruben Tombazzi). All patients had previous endoscopic evaluation and tissue diagnoses. Twenty-eight patients were excluded: 18 had T3 or N1 disease, 2 had T2N0 but refused surgery, 2 had anal cancer, 3 patients with suspected cancer had benign nonneoplastic disease (2 radiation proctitis, 1 normal rectal wall), and 3 underwent EUS for benign tumors (1 ganglioneuroma and 2 lipomas).

Thirty-seven patients were included in the study, 3 of whom were staged as T2N0 and 34 as T1N0 or lower by EUS. All patients were men ranging in age from 43 to 73 years (mean, 59 years). All 37 patients underwent endoscopic or surgical resection of their early rectal neoplasm. The final pathologic evaluation of the specimens demonstrated 14 carcinoid tumors, 11 adenocarcinomas, 6 tubular adenomas with high-grade dysplasia, and 6 benign adenomas. The preoperative EUS staging was confirmed for all patients, with 100% sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy. None of the patients who underwent endoscopic or surgical transanal resection had recurrence, determined by normal endoscopic and endoscopic ultrasound appearance, during a mean of 32.6 months surveillance.

Discussion

EUS has long been a recognized method for T and N staging of RC.1,3-5,7,8 Our data confirm that, in experienced hands, EUS is highly accurate in the staging of early rectal cancers.

The impact of EUS on the management of RC was demonstrated in a Mayo Clinic prospective blinded study.1 In that cohort of 80 consecutive patients who had previously had a CT for staging, EUS altered patient management in about 30% of cases. The most common change precipatated by EUS was the indication for additional neoadjuvant treatment.

However, the results have not been as encouraging when ERUS is performed outside of strict research protocol. A multicenter, prospective, country-wide quality assurance study from > 300 German hospitals was designed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of EUS in RC.13 Of 29206 patients, 7096 underwent surgery, without neoadjuvant treatment, and were included in the final analysis. The correspondence of tumor invasion with histopathology was 64.7%, with understaging of 18% and overstaging of 17.3%.13 These numbers were better in hospitals with greater experience performing ERUS: 73% accuracy in the centers with a case load of > 30 cases per year compared with 63.2% accuracy for the centers with < 10 cases a year. Marusch and colleagues had previously demonstrated an EUS accuracy of 63.3% in a study of 1463 patients with RC in Germany.14 Another study based out of the UK had similar findings. Ashraf and colleagues performed a database analyses from 20 UK centers and identified 165 patients with RC who underwent ERUS and endoscopic microsurgery.15 Compared with histopathology, EUS had 57.1% sensitivity, 73% specificity, and 42.9% accuracy for T1 cancers; EUS accuracy was 50% for T2 and 58% for T3 tumors. The authors concluded that the general accuracy of EUS in determining stage was around 50%, the statistical equivalent of flipping a coin.

The low accuracy of EUS observed by German and British multicenter studies13-15 was attributed to the difference that may exist in clinical trials at specialized centers compared with wider use of EUS in a community setting. As seen by our data, the Memphis VAMC is not a high-volume center for the treatment of RC. However, all our EUS procedures were performed and interpreted by a single operator (C. Ruben Tombazzi) with 18 years of EUS experience. We cannot conclude that no patient was overstaged, as patients receiving a stage of T3N0 or T > N0 received neoadjuvant treatment and were not included. However, we can conclude that no patient was understaged. All patients deemed to be T1 to T2N0 included in our study received accurate staging. Our results are consistent with the high accuracy of EUS reported from other centers with experience in diagnosis and treatment of RC.1,3-5,17,18

Although EUS is accurate in differentiating T1 from T2 tumors, it cannot reliably differentiate T1 from T0 lesions. In one study, 57.6% of adenomas and 30.7% of carcinomas in situ were staged as T1 on EUS, while almost half of T1 cancers were interpreted as T0.17 This drawback is a well-known limitation of EUS; although, the misinterpretation does not affect treatment, as both T0 and T1 lesions can be treated successfully by local excision alone, which was the algorithm used for our patients. The choice of the specific procedure for local excision was left to the clinicians and included transanal endoscopic or surgical resections. At a mean follow-up of 32.6 months, none of the 37 patients who underwent endoscopic or surgical transanal resection had evidence of recurrent disease.

A limitation of EUS, or any other imaging modality, is differentiating tumor invasion from peritumoral inflammation. The inflammation can render images of tumor borders ill-defined and irregular, which hinders precise staging. However, the accurate identification of tumors with deep involvement of the submucosa (T1sm3) is of importance, because these tumors are more advanced than the superficial and intermediate T1 lesions (T1sm1 and T1sm2, respectively).

Patients with RC whose lesions are considered T1sm3 are at higher risk of harboring lymph node metastases.18 Nascimbeni and colleagues had shown that the invasion into the lower third of the submucosa (sm3) was an independent risk factor for lower cancer-free survival among patients with T1 RC.19We did not measure the distance of the tumor to muscular layer in our study, but we relied on EUS to predict the circumferential tumor margins and guide the surgical resection. Of the 11 patients with T1 rectal adenocarcinomas and the 6 patients with tubular adenoma with high-grade dysplasia, all treated by local excision, none developed a local or distant recurrence during follow-up.

Unlike rectal adenocarcinomas, the prognosis for carcinoid tumors correlates not only with the depth of invasion but also with the size of the tumor. The other adverse prognostic features include poor differentiation, high mitosis index, and lymphovascular invasion.20

EUS had been shown to be highly accurate in determining the precise carcinoid tumor size, depth of invasion, and lymph node metastases.20,21 In a study of 66 resected rectal carcinoid tumors by Ishii and colleagues, 57 lesions had a diameter of ≤ 10 mm and 9 lesions had a diameter of > 10 mm.21 All of the 57 carcinoid tumors with a diameter of ≤ 10 mm were confined to the submucosa. In contrast, 5 of the 9 lesions > 10 mm invaded the muscularis propria, 6 had a lymphovascular invasion, 4 were lymph node metastases, and 1 was a liver metastasis.

In our series, 4 of the 14 carcinoid tumors were > 10 mm but none were > 20 mm. None of the carcinoids with a diameter ≤ 10 mm invaded the muscularis propria. Of the 4 carcinoids > 10 mm, 1 was T2N0 and 3 were T1N0. All carcinoid tumors in our series were low grade and with low proliferation indexes, and all were treated successfully by local excision.

Conclusion

We believe our study shows that EUS can be highly accurate in staging rectal lesions, specifically lesions that are T1-T2N0, be they adenocarcinoma or carcinoid. Although we could not assess overstaging for lesions that were staged > T2 or > N0, we were able to determine no understaging for all of our patients. In experienced hands, EUS remains a highly accurate staging tool for early rectal carcinoma.

References

1. Harewood GC, Wiersema MJ, Nelson H, et al. A prospective, blinded assessment of the impact of preoperative staging on the management of rectal cancer. Gastroenterology. 2002;123(1):24-32.

2. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2015. CA Cancer J Clin. 2015;65(1):5-29.

3. Ahuja NK, Sauer BG, Wang AY, et al. Performance of endoscopic ultrasound in staging rectal adenocarcinoma appropriate for primary surgical resection. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015;13:339-44.

4. Doornebosch PG, Bronkhorst PJ, Hop WC, Bode WA, Sing AK, de Graaf EJ. The role of endorectal ultrasound in therapeutic decision-making for local vs. transabdominal resection of rectal tumors. Dis Colon Rectum. 2008;51(1):38-42.

5. Santoro GA, Gizzi G, Pellegrini L, Battistella G, Di Falco G. The value of high-resolution three-dimensional endorectal ultrasonography in the management of submucosal invasive rectal tumors. Dis Colon Rectum. 2009;52(11):1837-1843.

6. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: rectal cancer, version 2.2019. https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/rectal.pdf. Published May 15, 2019. Accessed July 19, 2019.

7. Bipat S, Glas AS, Slors FJ, Zwinderman AH, Bossuyt PM, Stoker J. Rectal cancer: local staging and assessment of lymph node involvement with endoluminal US, CT, and MR imaging—a meta-analysis. Radiology. 2004;232(3):773-783.

8. Puli SR, Bechtold ML, Reddy JB, Choudhary A, Antillon MR, Brugge WR. How good is endoscopic ultrasound in differentiating various T stages of rectal cancer? Meta-analysis and systematic review. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16(2):254-265.

9. MERCURY Study Group. Diagnostic accuracy of preoperative magnetic resonance imaging in predicting curative resection of rectal cancer: prospective observational study. BMJ. 2006;333(7572):779.

10. Balyasnikova S, Read J, Wotherspoon A, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of high-resolution MRI as a method to predict potentially safe endoscopic and surgical planes in patient with early rectal cancer. BMJ Open Gastroenterol. 2017;4(1):e000151.

11. Frasson M, Garcia-Granero E, Roda D, et al. Preoperative chemoradiation may not always be needed for patients with T3 and T2N+ rectal cancer. Cancer. 2011;117(14):3118-3125.

12. Rafaelsen SR, Sørensen T, Jakobsen A, Bisgaard C, Lindebjerg J. Transrectal ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging in the staging of rectal cancer. Effect of experience. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2008;43(4):440-446.

13. Marusch F, Ptok H, Sahm M, et al. Endorectal ultrasound in rectal carcinoma – do the literature results really correspond to the realities of routine clinical care? Endoscopy. 2011;43(5):425-431.

14. Marusch F, Koch A, Schmidt U, et al. Routine use of transrectal ultrasound in rectal carcinoma: results of a prospective multicenter study. Endoscopy. 2002;34(5):385-390.

15. Ashraf S, Hompes R, Slater A, et al; Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery (TEM) Collaboration. A critical appraisal of endorectal ultrasound and transanal endoscopic microsurgery and decision-making in early rectal cancer. Colorectal Dis. 2012;14(7):821-826.

16. Harewood GC. Assessment of clinical impact of endoscopic ultrasound on rectal cancer. Am J Gastroenterol. 2004;99(4):623-627.

17. Zorcolo L, Fantola G, Cabras F, Marongiu L, D’Alia G, Casula G. Preoperative staging of patients with rectal tumors suitable for transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM): comparison of endorectal ultrasound and histopathologic findings. Surg Endosc. 2009;23(6):1384-1389.

18. Akasu T, Kondo H, Moriya Y, et al. Endoscopic ultrasonography and treatment of early stage rectal cancer. World J Surg. 2000;24(9):1061-1068.

19. Nascimbeni R, Nivatvongs S, Larson DR, Burgart LJ. Long-term survival after local excision for T1 carcinoma of the rectum. Dis Colon Rectum. 2004;47(11):1773-1779.

20. Park CH, Cheon JH, Kim JO, et al. Criteria for decision making after endoscopic resection of well-differentiated rectal carcinoids with regard to potential lymphatic spread. Endoscopy. 2011;43(9):790-795.

21. Ishii N, Horiki N, Itoh T, et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection and preoperative assessment with endoscopic ultrasonography for the treatment of rectal carcinoid tumors. Surg Endosc. 2010;24(6):1413-1419.

Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Claudio Roberto Tombazzi is an Internal Medicine Resident in the Department of Medicine at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee. Parker Loy is a Medical Student, Victor Bondar is an Assistant Professor, Bradford Waters is a Professor, and Claudio Ruben Tombazzi is an Associate Professor, all at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center in Memphis, Tennessee. Jose Ruiz is a Resident of Internal Medicine at The University of Puerto Rico in San Juan.
Correspondence: Claudio Ruben Tombazzi ([email protected])

Author disclosures
The authors report no actual or potential conflicts of interest with regard to this article.

Disclaimer
The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Federal Practitioner, Frontline Medical Communications Inc., the US Government, or any of its agencies.

Issue
Federal Practitioner - 36(5)s
Publications
Topics
Page Number
S26-S29
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Claudio Roberto Tombazzi is an Internal Medicine Resident in the Department of Medicine at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee. Parker Loy is a Medical Student, Victor Bondar is an Assistant Professor, Bradford Waters is a Professor, and Claudio Ruben Tombazzi is an Associate Professor, all at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center in Memphis, Tennessee. Jose Ruiz is a Resident of Internal Medicine at The University of Puerto Rico in San Juan.
Correspondence: Claudio Ruben Tombazzi ([email protected])

Author disclosures
The authors report no actual or potential conflicts of interest with regard to this article.

Disclaimer
The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Federal Practitioner, Frontline Medical Communications Inc., the US Government, or any of its agencies.

Author and Disclosure Information

Claudio Roberto Tombazzi is an Internal Medicine Resident in the Department of Medicine at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee. Parker Loy is a Medical Student, Victor Bondar is an Assistant Professor, Bradford Waters is a Professor, and Claudio Ruben Tombazzi is an Associate Professor, all at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center in Memphis, Tennessee. Jose Ruiz is a Resident of Internal Medicine at The University of Puerto Rico in San Juan.
Correspondence: Claudio Ruben Tombazzi ([email protected])

Author disclosures
The authors report no actual or potential conflicts of interest with regard to this article.

Disclaimer
The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Federal Practitioner, Frontline Medical Communications Inc., the US Government, or any of its agencies.

Article PDF
Article PDF
Related Articles

Endoscopic ultrasound can be highly accurate for the staging of neoplasms in early rectal cancer.

Endoscopic ultrasound can be highly accurate for the staging of neoplasms in early rectal cancer.

Colorectal cancer is the second most common cause of cancer death in the US, with one-third of all colorectal cancers occurring within the rectum. Each year, an estimated 40000 Americans are diagnosed with rectal cancer (RC).1,2 The prognosis and treatment of RC depends on both T and N stage at the time of diagnosis.3-5 According to the most recent National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines from May 2019, patients with T1 to T2N0 tumors should undergo transanal or transabdominal surgery upfront, whereas patients with T3 to T4N0 or any TN1 to 2 should start with neoadjuvant therapy for better locoregional control, followed by surgery.6 Therefore, the appropriate management of RC requires adequate staging.

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and computed tomography (CT) are the imaging techniques currently used to stage RC. In a meta-analysis of 90 articles published between 1985 and 2002 that compared the 3 radiologic modalities, Bipat and colleagues found that MRI and EUS had a similar sensitivity of 94%, whereas the specificity of EUS (86%) was significantly higher than that of MRI (69%) for muscularis propria invasion.7 CT was performed only in a limited number of trials because CT was considered inadequate to assess early T stage. For perirectal tissue invasion, the sensitivity of EUS was statistically higher than that of CT and MRI imaging: 90% compared with 79% and 82%, respectively. The specificity estimates for EUS, CT, and MRI were comparable: 75%, 78%, and 76%, respectively. The respective sensitivity and specificity of the 3 imaging modalities to evaluate lymph nodes were also comparable: EUS, 67% and 78%; CT, 55% and 74%; and MRI, 66% and 76%.

The role of EUS in the diagnosis and treatment of RC has long been validated.1,2-5 A meta-analysis of 42 studies involving 5039 patients found EUS to be highly accurate for differentiating various T stages.8 However, EUS cannot assess iliac and mesenteric lymph nodes or posterior tumor extension beyond endopelvic fascia in advanced RC. Notable heterogeneity was found among the studies in the meta-analyses with regard to the type of equipment used for staging, as well as the criteria used to assess the depth of penetration and nodal status. The recent introduction of phased-array coils and the development of T2-weighted fast spin sequences have improved the resolution of MRI. The MERCURY trial showed that extension of tumor to within 1 mm of the circumferential margin on high-resolution MRI correctly predicted margin involvement at the time of surgery in 92% of the patients.9 In the retrospective study by Balyasnikova and colleagues, MRI was found to correctly identify partial submucosal invasion and suitability for local excision in 89% of the cases.10

Therefore, both EUS and MRI are useful, more so than CT, in assessment of the depth of tumor invasion, nodal staging, and predicting the circumferential resection margin. The use of EUS, however, does not preclude the use of MRI, or vice versa. Rather, the 2 modalities can complement each other in staging and proper patient selection for treatment.11

Despite data supporting the value of EUS in staging RC, its use is limited by a high degree of operator dependence and a substantial learning curve,12-17 which may explain the low EUS accuracy observed in some reports.7,13,15 Given the presence of recognized alternatives such as MRI, we decided to reevaluate EUS accuracy for the staging of RC outside high-volume specialized centers and prospective clinical trials.

 

 

Methods

A retrospective chart review was performed that included all consecutive patients undergoing rectal ultrasound from January 2011 to August 2015 at the US Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC) in Memphis, Tennessee. Sixty-five patients with short-stocked or sessile lesions < 15 cm from anal margin staged T2N0M0 or lower by endorectal ultrasound (ERUS) were included. The patients with neoplasms staged in excess of T2 or N0 were excluded from the study because treatment protocol dictates immediate neoadjuvant treatment, the administration of which would affect subsequent histopathology.

For the 37 patients included in the final analysis, ERUS results were compared with surgical pathology to ascertain accuracy. The resections were performed endoscopically or surgically with a goal of obtaining clear margins. The choice of procedure depended on size, shape, location, and depth of invasion. All patients underwent clinical and endoscopic surveillance with flexible sigmoidoscopy/EUS every 3 to 6 months for the first 2 years. We used 2 different gold standards for surveillance depending on the type of procedure performed to remove the lesion. A pathology report was the gold standard used for patients who underwent surgery. In patients who underwent endoscopic resection, we used the lack of recurrent disease, determined by normal endoscopic and endoscopic ultrasound examination, to signify complete endoscopic resection and therefore adequate staging as an early neoplasm.

Results

From January 2011 to August 2015, 65 rectal ultrasounds were performed. All EUS procedures were performed by 1 physician (C Ruben Tombazzi). All patients had previous endoscopic evaluation and tissue diagnoses. Twenty-eight patients were excluded: 18 had T3 or N1 disease, 2 had T2N0 but refused surgery, 2 had anal cancer, 3 patients with suspected cancer had benign nonneoplastic disease (2 radiation proctitis, 1 normal rectal wall), and 3 underwent EUS for benign tumors (1 ganglioneuroma and 2 lipomas).

Thirty-seven patients were included in the study, 3 of whom were staged as T2N0 and 34 as T1N0 or lower by EUS. All patients were men ranging in age from 43 to 73 years (mean, 59 years). All 37 patients underwent endoscopic or surgical resection of their early rectal neoplasm. The final pathologic evaluation of the specimens demonstrated 14 carcinoid tumors, 11 adenocarcinomas, 6 tubular adenomas with high-grade dysplasia, and 6 benign adenomas. The preoperative EUS staging was confirmed for all patients, with 100% sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy. None of the patients who underwent endoscopic or surgical transanal resection had recurrence, determined by normal endoscopic and endoscopic ultrasound appearance, during a mean of 32.6 months surveillance.

Discussion

EUS has long been a recognized method for T and N staging of RC.1,3-5,7,8 Our data confirm that, in experienced hands, EUS is highly accurate in the staging of early rectal cancers.

The impact of EUS on the management of RC was demonstrated in a Mayo Clinic prospective blinded study.1 In that cohort of 80 consecutive patients who had previously had a CT for staging, EUS altered patient management in about 30% of cases. The most common change precipatated by EUS was the indication for additional neoadjuvant treatment.

However, the results have not been as encouraging when ERUS is performed outside of strict research protocol. A multicenter, prospective, country-wide quality assurance study from > 300 German hospitals was designed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of EUS in RC.13 Of 29206 patients, 7096 underwent surgery, without neoadjuvant treatment, and were included in the final analysis. The correspondence of tumor invasion with histopathology was 64.7%, with understaging of 18% and overstaging of 17.3%.13 These numbers were better in hospitals with greater experience performing ERUS: 73% accuracy in the centers with a case load of > 30 cases per year compared with 63.2% accuracy for the centers with < 10 cases a year. Marusch and colleagues had previously demonstrated an EUS accuracy of 63.3% in a study of 1463 patients with RC in Germany.14 Another study based out of the UK had similar findings. Ashraf and colleagues performed a database analyses from 20 UK centers and identified 165 patients with RC who underwent ERUS and endoscopic microsurgery.15 Compared with histopathology, EUS had 57.1% sensitivity, 73% specificity, and 42.9% accuracy for T1 cancers; EUS accuracy was 50% for T2 and 58% for T3 tumors. The authors concluded that the general accuracy of EUS in determining stage was around 50%, the statistical equivalent of flipping a coin.

The low accuracy of EUS observed by German and British multicenter studies13-15 was attributed to the difference that may exist in clinical trials at specialized centers compared with wider use of EUS in a community setting. As seen by our data, the Memphis VAMC is not a high-volume center for the treatment of RC. However, all our EUS procedures were performed and interpreted by a single operator (C. Ruben Tombazzi) with 18 years of EUS experience. We cannot conclude that no patient was overstaged, as patients receiving a stage of T3N0 or T > N0 received neoadjuvant treatment and were not included. However, we can conclude that no patient was understaged. All patients deemed to be T1 to T2N0 included in our study received accurate staging. Our results are consistent with the high accuracy of EUS reported from other centers with experience in diagnosis and treatment of RC.1,3-5,17,18

Although EUS is accurate in differentiating T1 from T2 tumors, it cannot reliably differentiate T1 from T0 lesions. In one study, 57.6% of adenomas and 30.7% of carcinomas in situ were staged as T1 on EUS, while almost half of T1 cancers were interpreted as T0.17 This drawback is a well-known limitation of EUS; although, the misinterpretation does not affect treatment, as both T0 and T1 lesions can be treated successfully by local excision alone, which was the algorithm used for our patients. The choice of the specific procedure for local excision was left to the clinicians and included transanal endoscopic or surgical resections. At a mean follow-up of 32.6 months, none of the 37 patients who underwent endoscopic or surgical transanal resection had evidence of recurrent disease.

A limitation of EUS, or any other imaging modality, is differentiating tumor invasion from peritumoral inflammation. The inflammation can render images of tumor borders ill-defined and irregular, which hinders precise staging. However, the accurate identification of tumors with deep involvement of the submucosa (T1sm3) is of importance, because these tumors are more advanced than the superficial and intermediate T1 lesions (T1sm1 and T1sm2, respectively).

Patients with RC whose lesions are considered T1sm3 are at higher risk of harboring lymph node metastases.18 Nascimbeni and colleagues had shown that the invasion into the lower third of the submucosa (sm3) was an independent risk factor for lower cancer-free survival among patients with T1 RC.19We did not measure the distance of the tumor to muscular layer in our study, but we relied on EUS to predict the circumferential tumor margins and guide the surgical resection. Of the 11 patients with T1 rectal adenocarcinomas and the 6 patients with tubular adenoma with high-grade dysplasia, all treated by local excision, none developed a local or distant recurrence during follow-up.

Unlike rectal adenocarcinomas, the prognosis for carcinoid tumors correlates not only with the depth of invasion but also with the size of the tumor. The other adverse prognostic features include poor differentiation, high mitosis index, and lymphovascular invasion.20

EUS had been shown to be highly accurate in determining the precise carcinoid tumor size, depth of invasion, and lymph node metastases.20,21 In a study of 66 resected rectal carcinoid tumors by Ishii and colleagues, 57 lesions had a diameter of ≤ 10 mm and 9 lesions had a diameter of > 10 mm.21 All of the 57 carcinoid tumors with a diameter of ≤ 10 mm were confined to the submucosa. In contrast, 5 of the 9 lesions > 10 mm invaded the muscularis propria, 6 had a lymphovascular invasion, 4 were lymph node metastases, and 1 was a liver metastasis.

In our series, 4 of the 14 carcinoid tumors were > 10 mm but none were > 20 mm. None of the carcinoids with a diameter ≤ 10 mm invaded the muscularis propria. Of the 4 carcinoids > 10 mm, 1 was T2N0 and 3 were T1N0. All carcinoid tumors in our series were low grade and with low proliferation indexes, and all were treated successfully by local excision.

Conclusion

We believe our study shows that EUS can be highly accurate in staging rectal lesions, specifically lesions that are T1-T2N0, be they adenocarcinoma or carcinoid. Although we could not assess overstaging for lesions that were staged > T2 or > N0, we were able to determine no understaging for all of our patients. In experienced hands, EUS remains a highly accurate staging tool for early rectal carcinoma.

Colorectal cancer is the second most common cause of cancer death in the US, with one-third of all colorectal cancers occurring within the rectum. Each year, an estimated 40000 Americans are diagnosed with rectal cancer (RC).1,2 The prognosis and treatment of RC depends on both T and N stage at the time of diagnosis.3-5 According to the most recent National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines from May 2019, patients with T1 to T2N0 tumors should undergo transanal or transabdominal surgery upfront, whereas patients with T3 to T4N0 or any TN1 to 2 should start with neoadjuvant therapy for better locoregional control, followed by surgery.6 Therefore, the appropriate management of RC requires adequate staging.

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and computed tomography (CT) are the imaging techniques currently used to stage RC. In a meta-analysis of 90 articles published between 1985 and 2002 that compared the 3 radiologic modalities, Bipat and colleagues found that MRI and EUS had a similar sensitivity of 94%, whereas the specificity of EUS (86%) was significantly higher than that of MRI (69%) for muscularis propria invasion.7 CT was performed only in a limited number of trials because CT was considered inadequate to assess early T stage. For perirectal tissue invasion, the sensitivity of EUS was statistically higher than that of CT and MRI imaging: 90% compared with 79% and 82%, respectively. The specificity estimates for EUS, CT, and MRI were comparable: 75%, 78%, and 76%, respectively. The respective sensitivity and specificity of the 3 imaging modalities to evaluate lymph nodes were also comparable: EUS, 67% and 78%; CT, 55% and 74%; and MRI, 66% and 76%.

The role of EUS in the diagnosis and treatment of RC has long been validated.1,2-5 A meta-analysis of 42 studies involving 5039 patients found EUS to be highly accurate for differentiating various T stages.8 However, EUS cannot assess iliac and mesenteric lymph nodes or posterior tumor extension beyond endopelvic fascia in advanced RC. Notable heterogeneity was found among the studies in the meta-analyses with regard to the type of equipment used for staging, as well as the criteria used to assess the depth of penetration and nodal status. The recent introduction of phased-array coils and the development of T2-weighted fast spin sequences have improved the resolution of MRI. The MERCURY trial showed that extension of tumor to within 1 mm of the circumferential margin on high-resolution MRI correctly predicted margin involvement at the time of surgery in 92% of the patients.9 In the retrospective study by Balyasnikova and colleagues, MRI was found to correctly identify partial submucosal invasion and suitability for local excision in 89% of the cases.10

Therefore, both EUS and MRI are useful, more so than CT, in assessment of the depth of tumor invasion, nodal staging, and predicting the circumferential resection margin. The use of EUS, however, does not preclude the use of MRI, or vice versa. Rather, the 2 modalities can complement each other in staging and proper patient selection for treatment.11

Despite data supporting the value of EUS in staging RC, its use is limited by a high degree of operator dependence and a substantial learning curve,12-17 which may explain the low EUS accuracy observed in some reports.7,13,15 Given the presence of recognized alternatives such as MRI, we decided to reevaluate EUS accuracy for the staging of RC outside high-volume specialized centers and prospective clinical trials.

 

 

Methods

A retrospective chart review was performed that included all consecutive patients undergoing rectal ultrasound from January 2011 to August 2015 at the US Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC) in Memphis, Tennessee. Sixty-five patients with short-stocked or sessile lesions < 15 cm from anal margin staged T2N0M0 or lower by endorectal ultrasound (ERUS) were included. The patients with neoplasms staged in excess of T2 or N0 were excluded from the study because treatment protocol dictates immediate neoadjuvant treatment, the administration of which would affect subsequent histopathology.

For the 37 patients included in the final analysis, ERUS results were compared with surgical pathology to ascertain accuracy. The resections were performed endoscopically or surgically with a goal of obtaining clear margins. The choice of procedure depended on size, shape, location, and depth of invasion. All patients underwent clinical and endoscopic surveillance with flexible sigmoidoscopy/EUS every 3 to 6 months for the first 2 years. We used 2 different gold standards for surveillance depending on the type of procedure performed to remove the lesion. A pathology report was the gold standard used for patients who underwent surgery. In patients who underwent endoscopic resection, we used the lack of recurrent disease, determined by normal endoscopic and endoscopic ultrasound examination, to signify complete endoscopic resection and therefore adequate staging as an early neoplasm.

Results

From January 2011 to August 2015, 65 rectal ultrasounds were performed. All EUS procedures were performed by 1 physician (C Ruben Tombazzi). All patients had previous endoscopic evaluation and tissue diagnoses. Twenty-eight patients were excluded: 18 had T3 or N1 disease, 2 had T2N0 but refused surgery, 2 had anal cancer, 3 patients with suspected cancer had benign nonneoplastic disease (2 radiation proctitis, 1 normal rectal wall), and 3 underwent EUS for benign tumors (1 ganglioneuroma and 2 lipomas).

Thirty-seven patients were included in the study, 3 of whom were staged as T2N0 and 34 as T1N0 or lower by EUS. All patients were men ranging in age from 43 to 73 years (mean, 59 years). All 37 patients underwent endoscopic or surgical resection of their early rectal neoplasm. The final pathologic evaluation of the specimens demonstrated 14 carcinoid tumors, 11 adenocarcinomas, 6 tubular adenomas with high-grade dysplasia, and 6 benign adenomas. The preoperative EUS staging was confirmed for all patients, with 100% sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy. None of the patients who underwent endoscopic or surgical transanal resection had recurrence, determined by normal endoscopic and endoscopic ultrasound appearance, during a mean of 32.6 months surveillance.

Discussion

EUS has long been a recognized method for T and N staging of RC.1,3-5,7,8 Our data confirm that, in experienced hands, EUS is highly accurate in the staging of early rectal cancers.

The impact of EUS on the management of RC was demonstrated in a Mayo Clinic prospective blinded study.1 In that cohort of 80 consecutive patients who had previously had a CT for staging, EUS altered patient management in about 30% of cases. The most common change precipatated by EUS was the indication for additional neoadjuvant treatment.

However, the results have not been as encouraging when ERUS is performed outside of strict research protocol. A multicenter, prospective, country-wide quality assurance study from > 300 German hospitals was designed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of EUS in RC.13 Of 29206 patients, 7096 underwent surgery, without neoadjuvant treatment, and were included in the final analysis. The correspondence of tumor invasion with histopathology was 64.7%, with understaging of 18% and overstaging of 17.3%.13 These numbers were better in hospitals with greater experience performing ERUS: 73% accuracy in the centers with a case load of > 30 cases per year compared with 63.2% accuracy for the centers with < 10 cases a year. Marusch and colleagues had previously demonstrated an EUS accuracy of 63.3% in a study of 1463 patients with RC in Germany.14 Another study based out of the UK had similar findings. Ashraf and colleagues performed a database analyses from 20 UK centers and identified 165 patients with RC who underwent ERUS and endoscopic microsurgery.15 Compared with histopathology, EUS had 57.1% sensitivity, 73% specificity, and 42.9% accuracy for T1 cancers; EUS accuracy was 50% for T2 and 58% for T3 tumors. The authors concluded that the general accuracy of EUS in determining stage was around 50%, the statistical equivalent of flipping a coin.

The low accuracy of EUS observed by German and British multicenter studies13-15 was attributed to the difference that may exist in clinical trials at specialized centers compared with wider use of EUS in a community setting. As seen by our data, the Memphis VAMC is not a high-volume center for the treatment of RC. However, all our EUS procedures were performed and interpreted by a single operator (C. Ruben Tombazzi) with 18 years of EUS experience. We cannot conclude that no patient was overstaged, as patients receiving a stage of T3N0 or T > N0 received neoadjuvant treatment and were not included. However, we can conclude that no patient was understaged. All patients deemed to be T1 to T2N0 included in our study received accurate staging. Our results are consistent with the high accuracy of EUS reported from other centers with experience in diagnosis and treatment of RC.1,3-5,17,18

Although EUS is accurate in differentiating T1 from T2 tumors, it cannot reliably differentiate T1 from T0 lesions. In one study, 57.6% of adenomas and 30.7% of carcinomas in situ were staged as T1 on EUS, while almost half of T1 cancers were interpreted as T0.17 This drawback is a well-known limitation of EUS; although, the misinterpretation does not affect treatment, as both T0 and T1 lesions can be treated successfully by local excision alone, which was the algorithm used for our patients. The choice of the specific procedure for local excision was left to the clinicians and included transanal endoscopic or surgical resections. At a mean follow-up of 32.6 months, none of the 37 patients who underwent endoscopic or surgical transanal resection had evidence of recurrent disease.

A limitation of EUS, or any other imaging modality, is differentiating tumor invasion from peritumoral inflammation. The inflammation can render images of tumor borders ill-defined and irregular, which hinders precise staging. However, the accurate identification of tumors with deep involvement of the submucosa (T1sm3) is of importance, because these tumors are more advanced than the superficial and intermediate T1 lesions (T1sm1 and T1sm2, respectively).

Patients with RC whose lesions are considered T1sm3 are at higher risk of harboring lymph node metastases.18 Nascimbeni and colleagues had shown that the invasion into the lower third of the submucosa (sm3) was an independent risk factor for lower cancer-free survival among patients with T1 RC.19We did not measure the distance of the tumor to muscular layer in our study, but we relied on EUS to predict the circumferential tumor margins and guide the surgical resection. Of the 11 patients with T1 rectal adenocarcinomas and the 6 patients with tubular adenoma with high-grade dysplasia, all treated by local excision, none developed a local or distant recurrence during follow-up.

Unlike rectal adenocarcinomas, the prognosis for carcinoid tumors correlates not only with the depth of invasion but also with the size of the tumor. The other adverse prognostic features include poor differentiation, high mitosis index, and lymphovascular invasion.20

EUS had been shown to be highly accurate in determining the precise carcinoid tumor size, depth of invasion, and lymph node metastases.20,21 In a study of 66 resected rectal carcinoid tumors by Ishii and colleagues, 57 lesions had a diameter of ≤ 10 mm and 9 lesions had a diameter of > 10 mm.21 All of the 57 carcinoid tumors with a diameter of ≤ 10 mm were confined to the submucosa. In contrast, 5 of the 9 lesions > 10 mm invaded the muscularis propria, 6 had a lymphovascular invasion, 4 were lymph node metastases, and 1 was a liver metastasis.

In our series, 4 of the 14 carcinoid tumors were > 10 mm but none were > 20 mm. None of the carcinoids with a diameter ≤ 10 mm invaded the muscularis propria. Of the 4 carcinoids > 10 mm, 1 was T2N0 and 3 were T1N0. All carcinoid tumors in our series were low grade and with low proliferation indexes, and all were treated successfully by local excision.

Conclusion

We believe our study shows that EUS can be highly accurate in staging rectal lesions, specifically lesions that are T1-T2N0, be they adenocarcinoma or carcinoid. Although we could not assess overstaging for lesions that were staged > T2 or > N0, we were able to determine no understaging for all of our patients. In experienced hands, EUS remains a highly accurate staging tool for early rectal carcinoma.

References

1. Harewood GC, Wiersema MJ, Nelson H, et al. A prospective, blinded assessment of the impact of preoperative staging on the management of rectal cancer. Gastroenterology. 2002;123(1):24-32.

2. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2015. CA Cancer J Clin. 2015;65(1):5-29.

3. Ahuja NK, Sauer BG, Wang AY, et al. Performance of endoscopic ultrasound in staging rectal adenocarcinoma appropriate for primary surgical resection. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015;13:339-44.

4. Doornebosch PG, Bronkhorst PJ, Hop WC, Bode WA, Sing AK, de Graaf EJ. The role of endorectal ultrasound in therapeutic decision-making for local vs. transabdominal resection of rectal tumors. Dis Colon Rectum. 2008;51(1):38-42.

5. Santoro GA, Gizzi G, Pellegrini L, Battistella G, Di Falco G. The value of high-resolution three-dimensional endorectal ultrasonography in the management of submucosal invasive rectal tumors. Dis Colon Rectum. 2009;52(11):1837-1843.

6. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: rectal cancer, version 2.2019. https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/rectal.pdf. Published May 15, 2019. Accessed July 19, 2019.

7. Bipat S, Glas AS, Slors FJ, Zwinderman AH, Bossuyt PM, Stoker J. Rectal cancer: local staging and assessment of lymph node involvement with endoluminal US, CT, and MR imaging—a meta-analysis. Radiology. 2004;232(3):773-783.

8. Puli SR, Bechtold ML, Reddy JB, Choudhary A, Antillon MR, Brugge WR. How good is endoscopic ultrasound in differentiating various T stages of rectal cancer? Meta-analysis and systematic review. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16(2):254-265.

9. MERCURY Study Group. Diagnostic accuracy of preoperative magnetic resonance imaging in predicting curative resection of rectal cancer: prospective observational study. BMJ. 2006;333(7572):779.

10. Balyasnikova S, Read J, Wotherspoon A, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of high-resolution MRI as a method to predict potentially safe endoscopic and surgical planes in patient with early rectal cancer. BMJ Open Gastroenterol. 2017;4(1):e000151.

11. Frasson M, Garcia-Granero E, Roda D, et al. Preoperative chemoradiation may not always be needed for patients with T3 and T2N+ rectal cancer. Cancer. 2011;117(14):3118-3125.

12. Rafaelsen SR, Sørensen T, Jakobsen A, Bisgaard C, Lindebjerg J. Transrectal ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging in the staging of rectal cancer. Effect of experience. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2008;43(4):440-446.

13. Marusch F, Ptok H, Sahm M, et al. Endorectal ultrasound in rectal carcinoma – do the literature results really correspond to the realities of routine clinical care? Endoscopy. 2011;43(5):425-431.

14. Marusch F, Koch A, Schmidt U, et al. Routine use of transrectal ultrasound in rectal carcinoma: results of a prospective multicenter study. Endoscopy. 2002;34(5):385-390.

15. Ashraf S, Hompes R, Slater A, et al; Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery (TEM) Collaboration. A critical appraisal of endorectal ultrasound and transanal endoscopic microsurgery and decision-making in early rectal cancer. Colorectal Dis. 2012;14(7):821-826.

16. Harewood GC. Assessment of clinical impact of endoscopic ultrasound on rectal cancer. Am J Gastroenterol. 2004;99(4):623-627.

17. Zorcolo L, Fantola G, Cabras F, Marongiu L, D’Alia G, Casula G. Preoperative staging of patients with rectal tumors suitable for transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM): comparison of endorectal ultrasound and histopathologic findings. Surg Endosc. 2009;23(6):1384-1389.

18. Akasu T, Kondo H, Moriya Y, et al. Endoscopic ultrasonography and treatment of early stage rectal cancer. World J Surg. 2000;24(9):1061-1068.

19. Nascimbeni R, Nivatvongs S, Larson DR, Burgart LJ. Long-term survival after local excision for T1 carcinoma of the rectum. Dis Colon Rectum. 2004;47(11):1773-1779.

20. Park CH, Cheon JH, Kim JO, et al. Criteria for decision making after endoscopic resection of well-differentiated rectal carcinoids with regard to potential lymphatic spread. Endoscopy. 2011;43(9):790-795.

21. Ishii N, Horiki N, Itoh T, et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection and preoperative assessment with endoscopic ultrasonography for the treatment of rectal carcinoid tumors. Surg Endosc. 2010;24(6):1413-1419.

References

1. Harewood GC, Wiersema MJ, Nelson H, et al. A prospective, blinded assessment of the impact of preoperative staging on the management of rectal cancer. Gastroenterology. 2002;123(1):24-32.

2. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2015. CA Cancer J Clin. 2015;65(1):5-29.

3. Ahuja NK, Sauer BG, Wang AY, et al. Performance of endoscopic ultrasound in staging rectal adenocarcinoma appropriate for primary surgical resection. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015;13:339-44.

4. Doornebosch PG, Bronkhorst PJ, Hop WC, Bode WA, Sing AK, de Graaf EJ. The role of endorectal ultrasound in therapeutic decision-making for local vs. transabdominal resection of rectal tumors. Dis Colon Rectum. 2008;51(1):38-42.

5. Santoro GA, Gizzi G, Pellegrini L, Battistella G, Di Falco G. The value of high-resolution three-dimensional endorectal ultrasonography in the management of submucosal invasive rectal tumors. Dis Colon Rectum. 2009;52(11):1837-1843.

6. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: rectal cancer, version 2.2019. https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/rectal.pdf. Published May 15, 2019. Accessed July 19, 2019.

7. Bipat S, Glas AS, Slors FJ, Zwinderman AH, Bossuyt PM, Stoker J. Rectal cancer: local staging and assessment of lymph node involvement with endoluminal US, CT, and MR imaging—a meta-analysis. Radiology. 2004;232(3):773-783.

8. Puli SR, Bechtold ML, Reddy JB, Choudhary A, Antillon MR, Brugge WR. How good is endoscopic ultrasound in differentiating various T stages of rectal cancer? Meta-analysis and systematic review. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16(2):254-265.

9. MERCURY Study Group. Diagnostic accuracy of preoperative magnetic resonance imaging in predicting curative resection of rectal cancer: prospective observational study. BMJ. 2006;333(7572):779.

10. Balyasnikova S, Read J, Wotherspoon A, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of high-resolution MRI as a method to predict potentially safe endoscopic and surgical planes in patient with early rectal cancer. BMJ Open Gastroenterol. 2017;4(1):e000151.

11. Frasson M, Garcia-Granero E, Roda D, et al. Preoperative chemoradiation may not always be needed for patients with T3 and T2N+ rectal cancer. Cancer. 2011;117(14):3118-3125.

12. Rafaelsen SR, Sørensen T, Jakobsen A, Bisgaard C, Lindebjerg J. Transrectal ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging in the staging of rectal cancer. Effect of experience. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2008;43(4):440-446.

13. Marusch F, Ptok H, Sahm M, et al. Endorectal ultrasound in rectal carcinoma – do the literature results really correspond to the realities of routine clinical care? Endoscopy. 2011;43(5):425-431.

14. Marusch F, Koch A, Schmidt U, et al. Routine use of transrectal ultrasound in rectal carcinoma: results of a prospective multicenter study. Endoscopy. 2002;34(5):385-390.

15. Ashraf S, Hompes R, Slater A, et al; Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery (TEM) Collaboration. A critical appraisal of endorectal ultrasound and transanal endoscopic microsurgery and decision-making in early rectal cancer. Colorectal Dis. 2012;14(7):821-826.

16. Harewood GC. Assessment of clinical impact of endoscopic ultrasound on rectal cancer. Am J Gastroenterol. 2004;99(4):623-627.

17. Zorcolo L, Fantola G, Cabras F, Marongiu L, D’Alia G, Casula G. Preoperative staging of patients with rectal tumors suitable for transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM): comparison of endorectal ultrasound and histopathologic findings. Surg Endosc. 2009;23(6):1384-1389.

18. Akasu T, Kondo H, Moriya Y, et al. Endoscopic ultrasonography and treatment of early stage rectal cancer. World J Surg. 2000;24(9):1061-1068.

19. Nascimbeni R, Nivatvongs S, Larson DR, Burgart LJ. Long-term survival after local excision for T1 carcinoma of the rectum. Dis Colon Rectum. 2004;47(11):1773-1779.

20. Park CH, Cheon JH, Kim JO, et al. Criteria for decision making after endoscopic resection of well-differentiated rectal carcinoids with regard to potential lymphatic spread. Endoscopy. 2011;43(9):790-795.

21. Ishii N, Horiki N, Itoh T, et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection and preoperative assessment with endoscopic ultrasonography for the treatment of rectal carcinoid tumors. Surg Endosc. 2010;24(6):1413-1419.

Issue
Federal Practitioner - 36(5)s
Issue
Federal Practitioner - 36(5)s
Page Number
S26-S29
Page Number
S26-S29
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Accuracy of Endoscopic Ultrasound in Staging of Early Rectal Cancer
Display Headline
Accuracy of Endoscopic Ultrasound in Staging of Early Rectal Cancer
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Article PDF Media

Low-dose radiation therapy looks effective in hard-to-treat MCL

Article Type
Changed
Fri, 12/16/2022 - 12:36

 

Low-dose radiation therapy – with or without concurrent chemotherapy – appears promising as a treatment for patients with relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) or at least a bridge to subsequent therapy, according to findings published in Blood Advances.

Wikimedia Commons/TexasPathologistMSW/CC-ASA 4.0 International
Mantle cell lymphoma

Matthew S. Ning, MD, of the department of radiation oncology at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, and colleagues, said this is the first study to evaluate low-dose radiation therapy (LDRT) with chemotherapy as a treatment modality outside of palliative care for relapsed, multiple refractory MCL patients.

“Our findings indicate that LDRT imparts excellent [local control], minimal toxicity, and favorable outcomes in this setting,” the researchers said.

The study included 19 patients with a total of 98 sites of relapsed, refractory MCL who were treated from 2014 to 2018. The median follow-up was 51.3 months from initial diagnosis and 15.4 months from initial treatment with low-dose radiation therapy, given at a dose of 4 Gy.

These were hard-to-treat patients who had received multiple prior therapies since diagnosis, including carfilzomib, ibrutinib, bortezomib, anthracycline, and rituximab. In total, 8 of the patients had previously undergone autologous stem cell transplant and 11 were refractory to ibrutinib by the time of initial radiation therapy.

Median age of the patients was 69 years; 15 patients had classical histology and 4 had blastoid variant. Among the 98 tumor sites treated, the median tumor size was 2.8 cm.

In all, 14 patients received initial LDRT that was concurrent with chemotherapy. The remaining 5 patients had stopped chemotherapy prior to starting LDRT.

LDRT was given in 1-2 daily fractions via 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy or electron beam.

Of the 98 tumor sites treated, complete response was achieved for 79 sites (81%) and the median time to complete response was 2.7 months after the start of LDRT. The researchers removed one patient who was an outlier with 27 tumor sites treated, and that dropped the complete response rate down to 76%. The overall response rate, which include an additional five sites with partial response, was 86%.

The researchers found links between complete response and soft tissue site versus non–soft tissue site (hazard ratio, 1.80; 1.12-2.90, P = .02). However, there were no associations between response and chemo-refractory status, ibrutinib-refractory status, prior chemotherapy courts, receipt of concurrent chemotherapy, tumor size, number of fractions, lesions treated per course, or blastoid variant.

The overall survival at 1 year after LDRT initiation was 90% and the 1-year progression-free survival was 55%. All five patients who died were refractory to ibrutinib.

The researchers reported finding no radiation therapy–related toxicities, even when patients received concurrent chemotherapy.

The use of LDRT has the potential to bridge refractory patients to subsequent therapies or to provide treatment breaks as patients recover from toxicities, the researchers said. However, they called for additional studies to confirm that this approach improves progression-free survival over chemotherapy alone.

The study was supported in part by a grant from the National Cancer Institute. The researchers reported having no competing financial interests.

SOURCE: Ning MS et al. Blood Adv. 2019. Jul 9;3(13):2035-9.

Publications
Topics
Sections

 

Low-dose radiation therapy – with or without concurrent chemotherapy – appears promising as a treatment for patients with relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) or at least a bridge to subsequent therapy, according to findings published in Blood Advances.

Wikimedia Commons/TexasPathologistMSW/CC-ASA 4.0 International
Mantle cell lymphoma

Matthew S. Ning, MD, of the department of radiation oncology at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, and colleagues, said this is the first study to evaluate low-dose radiation therapy (LDRT) with chemotherapy as a treatment modality outside of palliative care for relapsed, multiple refractory MCL patients.

“Our findings indicate that LDRT imparts excellent [local control], minimal toxicity, and favorable outcomes in this setting,” the researchers said.

The study included 19 patients with a total of 98 sites of relapsed, refractory MCL who were treated from 2014 to 2018. The median follow-up was 51.3 months from initial diagnosis and 15.4 months from initial treatment with low-dose radiation therapy, given at a dose of 4 Gy.

These were hard-to-treat patients who had received multiple prior therapies since diagnosis, including carfilzomib, ibrutinib, bortezomib, anthracycline, and rituximab. In total, 8 of the patients had previously undergone autologous stem cell transplant and 11 were refractory to ibrutinib by the time of initial radiation therapy.

Median age of the patients was 69 years; 15 patients had classical histology and 4 had blastoid variant. Among the 98 tumor sites treated, the median tumor size was 2.8 cm.

In all, 14 patients received initial LDRT that was concurrent with chemotherapy. The remaining 5 patients had stopped chemotherapy prior to starting LDRT.

LDRT was given in 1-2 daily fractions via 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy or electron beam.

Of the 98 tumor sites treated, complete response was achieved for 79 sites (81%) and the median time to complete response was 2.7 months after the start of LDRT. The researchers removed one patient who was an outlier with 27 tumor sites treated, and that dropped the complete response rate down to 76%. The overall response rate, which include an additional five sites with partial response, was 86%.

The researchers found links between complete response and soft tissue site versus non–soft tissue site (hazard ratio, 1.80; 1.12-2.90, P = .02). However, there were no associations between response and chemo-refractory status, ibrutinib-refractory status, prior chemotherapy courts, receipt of concurrent chemotherapy, tumor size, number of fractions, lesions treated per course, or blastoid variant.

The overall survival at 1 year after LDRT initiation was 90% and the 1-year progression-free survival was 55%. All five patients who died were refractory to ibrutinib.

The researchers reported finding no radiation therapy–related toxicities, even when patients received concurrent chemotherapy.

The use of LDRT has the potential to bridge refractory patients to subsequent therapies or to provide treatment breaks as patients recover from toxicities, the researchers said. However, they called for additional studies to confirm that this approach improves progression-free survival over chemotherapy alone.

The study was supported in part by a grant from the National Cancer Institute. The researchers reported having no competing financial interests.

SOURCE: Ning MS et al. Blood Adv. 2019. Jul 9;3(13):2035-9.

 

Low-dose radiation therapy – with or without concurrent chemotherapy – appears promising as a treatment for patients with relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) or at least a bridge to subsequent therapy, according to findings published in Blood Advances.

Wikimedia Commons/TexasPathologistMSW/CC-ASA 4.0 International
Mantle cell lymphoma

Matthew S. Ning, MD, of the department of radiation oncology at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, and colleagues, said this is the first study to evaluate low-dose radiation therapy (LDRT) with chemotherapy as a treatment modality outside of palliative care for relapsed, multiple refractory MCL patients.

“Our findings indicate that LDRT imparts excellent [local control], minimal toxicity, and favorable outcomes in this setting,” the researchers said.

The study included 19 patients with a total of 98 sites of relapsed, refractory MCL who were treated from 2014 to 2018. The median follow-up was 51.3 months from initial diagnosis and 15.4 months from initial treatment with low-dose radiation therapy, given at a dose of 4 Gy.

These were hard-to-treat patients who had received multiple prior therapies since diagnosis, including carfilzomib, ibrutinib, bortezomib, anthracycline, and rituximab. In total, 8 of the patients had previously undergone autologous stem cell transplant and 11 were refractory to ibrutinib by the time of initial radiation therapy.

Median age of the patients was 69 years; 15 patients had classical histology and 4 had blastoid variant. Among the 98 tumor sites treated, the median tumor size was 2.8 cm.

In all, 14 patients received initial LDRT that was concurrent with chemotherapy. The remaining 5 patients had stopped chemotherapy prior to starting LDRT.

LDRT was given in 1-2 daily fractions via 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy or electron beam.

Of the 98 tumor sites treated, complete response was achieved for 79 sites (81%) and the median time to complete response was 2.7 months after the start of LDRT. The researchers removed one patient who was an outlier with 27 tumor sites treated, and that dropped the complete response rate down to 76%. The overall response rate, which include an additional five sites with partial response, was 86%.

The researchers found links between complete response and soft tissue site versus non–soft tissue site (hazard ratio, 1.80; 1.12-2.90, P = .02). However, there were no associations between response and chemo-refractory status, ibrutinib-refractory status, prior chemotherapy courts, receipt of concurrent chemotherapy, tumor size, number of fractions, lesions treated per course, or blastoid variant.

The overall survival at 1 year after LDRT initiation was 90% and the 1-year progression-free survival was 55%. All five patients who died were refractory to ibrutinib.

The researchers reported finding no radiation therapy–related toxicities, even when patients received concurrent chemotherapy.

The use of LDRT has the potential to bridge refractory patients to subsequent therapies or to provide treatment breaks as patients recover from toxicities, the researchers said. However, they called for additional studies to confirm that this approach improves progression-free survival over chemotherapy alone.

The study was supported in part by a grant from the National Cancer Institute. The researchers reported having no competing financial interests.

SOURCE: Ning MS et al. Blood Adv. 2019. Jul 9;3(13):2035-9.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Article Source

FROM BLOOD ADVANCES

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Vitals

 

Key clinical point: Low-dose radiation administered to multiple sites was highly effective in patients with relapsed, refractory mantle cell lymphoma, with or without concurrent chemotherapy.

Major finding: The overall survival was 90% at 1 year following the initiation of low-dose radiation therapy (4 Gy).

Study details: A study of 19 patients with relapsed, refractory mantle cell lymphoma who received low-dose radiation at doses of 4 Gy at 98 sites of disease.

Disclosures: The study was supported in part by a grant from the National Cancer Institute. The researchers reported having no competing financial interests.

Source: Ning MS et al. Blood Adv. 2019. Jul 9;3(13):2035-9.

Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.

Vaccination is not associated with increased risk of MS

Study provides strong evidence for worried patients
Article Type
Changed
Thu, 12/15/2022 - 15:46

 

Vaccination is not a risk factor for multiple sclerosis (MS), according to an analysis published July 30 in Neurology. Although the results suggest that vaccination is associated with a lower likelihood of incident MS within the following 5 years, “these data alone do not allow for any conclusion regarding a possible protective effect of vaccinations regarding the development of MS,” wrote Alexander Hapfelmeier, PhD, of the Technical University of Munich and colleagues.
 

Technical University of Munich
Dr. Alexander Hapfelmeier (left) and Dr. Bernhard Hemmer

In recent years, researchers have proposed and investigated various potential environmental risk factors for the development of MS. Vaccination is one proposed environmental risk factor, but case reports and small studies have yielded conflicting results about its association with incident MS.

To examine this question more closely, Dr. Hapfelmeier and colleagues performed a systematic retrospective analysis of ambulatory claims data held by the Bavarian Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians. They reviewed the data to identify patients with new-onset MS and at least two ICD-10 diagnoses of the disorder. They next identified two control cohorts of participants diagnosed with other autoimmune diseases: Crohn’s disease and psoriasis. Finally, they randomly selected a third control cohort of patients without any of these diagnoses and matched them by age, sex, and district to patients with MS in a 5:1 ratio. Eligible participants were younger than 70 years.

Dr. Hapfelmeier and colleagues reviewed the incidence and frequency of vaccinations (such as those targeting tick-borne encephalitis, human papillomavirus, and influenza virus) in all cohorts. They created unconditional logistic regression models to assess the association between vaccination and MS. They also created separate models to contrast the MS cohort with each of the control cohorts.

The researchers included 12,262 patients with MS, 19,296 patients with Crohn’s disease, 112,292 patients with psoriasis, and 79,185 participants without these autoimmune diseases in their analysis. They found 456 participants with Crohn’s disease and psoriasis, 216 participants with MS and psoriasis, 48 participants with Crohn’s disease and MS, and 2 participants with Crohn’s disease, psoriasis, and MS. Dr. Hapfelmeier and colleagues allocated these participants to each of the respective cohorts and did not analyze them differently because of the comparatively small sample sizes.

The investigators analyzed the occurrence of vaccination in all participants during the 5 years before first diagnosis. Among patients who received vaccination, the odds ratio of MS was 0.870 in participants without autoimmune disease, 0.919 in participants with Crohn’s disease, and 0.973 in participants with psoriasis. Decreased risk of MS was most notable for vaccinations against influenza and tick-borne encephalitis. The results were consistent regardless of time frame, control cohort, and definition of MS.

The subjective definition of the MS cohort was a limitation of the study, but the authors addressed it by also using several strict definitions of that cohort. Another limitation is that the source data may reflect entry errors and incorrect coding.

A grant from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research Competence Network MS supported the study. The authors had no conflicts that were relevant to the topic of the study.

SOURCE: Hapfelmeier A et al. Neurology. 2019 Jul 30. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000008012.

Body

 

The analysis by Hapfelmeier et al. provides important evidence that vaccinations are not associated with multiple sclerosis (MS), said E. Ann Yeh, MD, a neurologist at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, and Jennifer Graves, MD, PhD, a neurologist at the University of California, San Diego, in an accompanying editorial. On the contrary, the evidence supports a potential protective effect of vaccines on the risk of developing MS, they said.

“The reasons for this [finding] cannot be gleaned from this study and may range from biological to sociocultural/demographic reasons,” the authors added. “Infection, rather than vaccination, may be an MS trigger, or individuals obtaining vaccinations may be practicing other healthy behaviors protective for MS. These possibilities should be the subject of future studies.”

Until future studies are completed and their results published, the findings of Hapfelmeier et al. offer “strong evidence to share with worried patients and families when faced with the question of whether a vaccine in the recent or relatively distant past triggered the individual’s MS,” said Dr. Yeh and Dr. Graves.

The authors had various relationships with industry, including serving on advisory boards for and receiving funding from pharmaceutical companies.

Issue
Neurology Reviews- 27(9)
Publications
Topics
Sections
Body

 

The analysis by Hapfelmeier et al. provides important evidence that vaccinations are not associated with multiple sclerosis (MS), said E. Ann Yeh, MD, a neurologist at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, and Jennifer Graves, MD, PhD, a neurologist at the University of California, San Diego, in an accompanying editorial. On the contrary, the evidence supports a potential protective effect of vaccines on the risk of developing MS, they said.

“The reasons for this [finding] cannot be gleaned from this study and may range from biological to sociocultural/demographic reasons,” the authors added. “Infection, rather than vaccination, may be an MS trigger, or individuals obtaining vaccinations may be practicing other healthy behaviors protective for MS. These possibilities should be the subject of future studies.”

Until future studies are completed and their results published, the findings of Hapfelmeier et al. offer “strong evidence to share with worried patients and families when faced with the question of whether a vaccine in the recent or relatively distant past triggered the individual’s MS,” said Dr. Yeh and Dr. Graves.

The authors had various relationships with industry, including serving on advisory boards for and receiving funding from pharmaceutical companies.

Body

 

The analysis by Hapfelmeier et al. provides important evidence that vaccinations are not associated with multiple sclerosis (MS), said E. Ann Yeh, MD, a neurologist at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, and Jennifer Graves, MD, PhD, a neurologist at the University of California, San Diego, in an accompanying editorial. On the contrary, the evidence supports a potential protective effect of vaccines on the risk of developing MS, they said.

“The reasons for this [finding] cannot be gleaned from this study and may range from biological to sociocultural/demographic reasons,” the authors added. “Infection, rather than vaccination, may be an MS trigger, or individuals obtaining vaccinations may be practicing other healthy behaviors protective for MS. These possibilities should be the subject of future studies.”

Until future studies are completed and their results published, the findings of Hapfelmeier et al. offer “strong evidence to share with worried patients and families when faced with the question of whether a vaccine in the recent or relatively distant past triggered the individual’s MS,” said Dr. Yeh and Dr. Graves.

The authors had various relationships with industry, including serving on advisory boards for and receiving funding from pharmaceutical companies.

Title
Study provides strong evidence for worried patients
Study provides strong evidence for worried patients

 

Vaccination is not a risk factor for multiple sclerosis (MS), according to an analysis published July 30 in Neurology. Although the results suggest that vaccination is associated with a lower likelihood of incident MS within the following 5 years, “these data alone do not allow for any conclusion regarding a possible protective effect of vaccinations regarding the development of MS,” wrote Alexander Hapfelmeier, PhD, of the Technical University of Munich and colleagues.
 

Technical University of Munich
Dr. Alexander Hapfelmeier (left) and Dr. Bernhard Hemmer

In recent years, researchers have proposed and investigated various potential environmental risk factors for the development of MS. Vaccination is one proposed environmental risk factor, but case reports and small studies have yielded conflicting results about its association with incident MS.

To examine this question more closely, Dr. Hapfelmeier and colleagues performed a systematic retrospective analysis of ambulatory claims data held by the Bavarian Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians. They reviewed the data to identify patients with new-onset MS and at least two ICD-10 diagnoses of the disorder. They next identified two control cohorts of participants diagnosed with other autoimmune diseases: Crohn’s disease and psoriasis. Finally, they randomly selected a third control cohort of patients without any of these diagnoses and matched them by age, sex, and district to patients with MS in a 5:1 ratio. Eligible participants were younger than 70 years.

Dr. Hapfelmeier and colleagues reviewed the incidence and frequency of vaccinations (such as those targeting tick-borne encephalitis, human papillomavirus, and influenza virus) in all cohorts. They created unconditional logistic regression models to assess the association between vaccination and MS. They also created separate models to contrast the MS cohort with each of the control cohorts.

The researchers included 12,262 patients with MS, 19,296 patients with Crohn’s disease, 112,292 patients with psoriasis, and 79,185 participants without these autoimmune diseases in their analysis. They found 456 participants with Crohn’s disease and psoriasis, 216 participants with MS and psoriasis, 48 participants with Crohn’s disease and MS, and 2 participants with Crohn’s disease, psoriasis, and MS. Dr. Hapfelmeier and colleagues allocated these participants to each of the respective cohorts and did not analyze them differently because of the comparatively small sample sizes.

The investigators analyzed the occurrence of vaccination in all participants during the 5 years before first diagnosis. Among patients who received vaccination, the odds ratio of MS was 0.870 in participants without autoimmune disease, 0.919 in participants with Crohn’s disease, and 0.973 in participants with psoriasis. Decreased risk of MS was most notable for vaccinations against influenza and tick-borne encephalitis. The results were consistent regardless of time frame, control cohort, and definition of MS.

The subjective definition of the MS cohort was a limitation of the study, but the authors addressed it by also using several strict definitions of that cohort. Another limitation is that the source data may reflect entry errors and incorrect coding.

A grant from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research Competence Network MS supported the study. The authors had no conflicts that were relevant to the topic of the study.

SOURCE: Hapfelmeier A et al. Neurology. 2019 Jul 30. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000008012.

 

Vaccination is not a risk factor for multiple sclerosis (MS), according to an analysis published July 30 in Neurology. Although the results suggest that vaccination is associated with a lower likelihood of incident MS within the following 5 years, “these data alone do not allow for any conclusion regarding a possible protective effect of vaccinations regarding the development of MS,” wrote Alexander Hapfelmeier, PhD, of the Technical University of Munich and colleagues.
 

Technical University of Munich
Dr. Alexander Hapfelmeier (left) and Dr. Bernhard Hemmer

In recent years, researchers have proposed and investigated various potential environmental risk factors for the development of MS. Vaccination is one proposed environmental risk factor, but case reports and small studies have yielded conflicting results about its association with incident MS.

To examine this question more closely, Dr. Hapfelmeier and colleagues performed a systematic retrospective analysis of ambulatory claims data held by the Bavarian Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians. They reviewed the data to identify patients with new-onset MS and at least two ICD-10 diagnoses of the disorder. They next identified two control cohorts of participants diagnosed with other autoimmune diseases: Crohn’s disease and psoriasis. Finally, they randomly selected a third control cohort of patients without any of these diagnoses and matched them by age, sex, and district to patients with MS in a 5:1 ratio. Eligible participants were younger than 70 years.

Dr. Hapfelmeier and colleagues reviewed the incidence and frequency of vaccinations (such as those targeting tick-borne encephalitis, human papillomavirus, and influenza virus) in all cohorts. They created unconditional logistic regression models to assess the association between vaccination and MS. They also created separate models to contrast the MS cohort with each of the control cohorts.

The researchers included 12,262 patients with MS, 19,296 patients with Crohn’s disease, 112,292 patients with psoriasis, and 79,185 participants without these autoimmune diseases in their analysis. They found 456 participants with Crohn’s disease and psoriasis, 216 participants with MS and psoriasis, 48 participants with Crohn’s disease and MS, and 2 participants with Crohn’s disease, psoriasis, and MS. Dr. Hapfelmeier and colleagues allocated these participants to each of the respective cohorts and did not analyze them differently because of the comparatively small sample sizes.

The investigators analyzed the occurrence of vaccination in all participants during the 5 years before first diagnosis. Among patients who received vaccination, the odds ratio of MS was 0.870 in participants without autoimmune disease, 0.919 in participants with Crohn’s disease, and 0.973 in participants with psoriasis. Decreased risk of MS was most notable for vaccinations against influenza and tick-borne encephalitis. The results were consistent regardless of time frame, control cohort, and definition of MS.

The subjective definition of the MS cohort was a limitation of the study, but the authors addressed it by also using several strict definitions of that cohort. Another limitation is that the source data may reflect entry errors and incorrect coding.

A grant from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research Competence Network MS supported the study. The authors had no conflicts that were relevant to the topic of the study.

SOURCE: Hapfelmeier A et al. Neurology. 2019 Jul 30. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000008012.

Issue
Neurology Reviews- 27(9)
Issue
Neurology Reviews- 27(9)
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Article Source

FROM NEUROLOGY

Citation Override
Publish date: August 6, 2019
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.

VHA Practice Guideline Recommendations for Diffuse Gliomas (FULL)

Article Type
Changed
Thu, 12/15/2022 - 14:42
Display Headline
VHA Practice Guideline Recommendations for Diffuse Gliomas
Although histology still plays a critical role in diagnosing diffuse gliomas, additional ancillary testing is an essential tool for VA pathology laboratories.

Over the past few decades, our understanding of the molecular underpinning of primary neoplasms of the central nervous system (CNS) has progressed substantially. Thanks in large part to this expansion in our knowledge base, the World Health Organization (WHO) has recently updated its classification of tumors of the CNS.1 One of the key elements of this update was the inclusion of molecular diagnostic criteria for the classification of infiltrating gliomas. While the previous classification system was based upon histologic subtypes of the tumor (astrocytoma, oligodendroglioma, and oligoastrocytoma), the revised classification system incorporates molecular testing to establish the genetic characteristics of the tumor to reach a final integrated diagnosis.

In this article, we present 3 cases to highlight some of these recent changes in the WHO diagnostic categories of primary CNS tumors and to illustrate the role of specific molecular tests in reaching a final integrated diagnosis. We then propose a clinical practice guideline for the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) that recommends use of molecular testing for veterans as part of the diagnostic workup of primary CNS neoplasms.

Purpose

In 2013 the VHA National Director of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine Services (P&LMS) chartered a national molecular genetics pathology workgroup (MGPW) that was charged with 4 specific tasks: (1) Provide recommendations about the effective use of molecular genetic testing for veterans; (2) Promote increased quality and availability of molecular testing within the VHA; (3) Encourage internal referral testing; and (4) Create an organizational structure and policies for molecular genetic testing and laboratory developed tests. The workgroup is currently composed of 4 subcommittees: genetic medicine, hematopathology, pharmacogenomics, and molecular oncology. The molecular oncology subcommittee is focused upon molecular genetic testing for solid tumors.

This article is intended to be the first of several publications from the molecular oncology subcommittee of the MGPW that address some of the aforementioned tasks. Similar to the recent publication from the hematopathology subcommittee of the MGPW, this article focuses on CNS neoplasms.2

Scope of Problem

The incidence of tumors of the CNS in the US population varies among age groups. It is the most common solid tumor in children aged < 14 years and represents a significant cause of mortality across all age groups.3 Of CNS tumors, diffuse gliomas comprise about 20% of the tumors and more than 70% of the primary malignant CNS tumors.3 Analysis of the VA Central Cancer Registry data from 2010 to 2014 identified 1,186 veterans (about 237 veterans per year) who were diagnosed with diffuse gliomas. (Lynch, Kulich, Colman, unpublished data, February 2018). While the majority (nearly 80%) of these cases were glioblastomas (GBMs), unfortunately a majority of these cases did not undergo molecular testing (Lynch, Kulich, Colman, unpublished data, February 2018).

Although this low rate of testing may be in part reflective of the period from which these data were gleaned (ie, prior to the WHO release of their updated the classification of tumors of the CNS), it is important to raise VA practitioners’ awareness of these recent changes to ensure that veterans receive the proper diagnosis and treatment for their disease. Thus, while the number of veterans diagnosed with diffuse gliomas within the VHA is relatively small in comparison to other malignancies, such as prostatic adenocarcinomas and lung carcinomas, the majority of diffuse gliomas do not seem to be receiving the molecular testing that would be necessary for (1) appropriate classification under the recently revised WHO recommendations; and (2) making important treatment decisions.

 

 

Case Presentations

Case 1. A veteran of the Gulf War presented with a 3-month history of possible narcoleptic events associated with a motor vehicle accident. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) revealed a large left frontal mass lesion with minimal surrounding edema without appreciable contrast enhancement (Figures 1A, 1B, and 1C). 

The patient subsequently underwent a stereotactic biopsy that revealed slightly hypercellular brain tissue composed of cells with round to ovoid hyperchromatic nuclei, which infiltrated the overlying cortex (Figure 1D).

Neither mitotic figures nor endothelial proliferation were identified. Immunohistochemical stains revealed a lack of R132H mutant IDH1 protein expression, a loss of nuclear staining for ATRX protein within a substantial number of cells, and a clonal pattern of p53 protein overexpression (Figures 1E, 1F, and 1G). The lesion demonstrated diffuse glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) immunoreactivity and a low proliferation index (as determined by Ki-67 staining; estimated at less than 5%) (Figures 1H and 1I).

Based upon these results, an initial morphologic diagnosis of diffuse glioma was issued, and tissue was subjected to a variety of nucleic acid-based tests. While fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) studies were negative for 1p/19q codeletion, pyrosequencing analysis revealed the presence of a c.394C>T (R132C) mutation of the IDH1 gene (Figure 1J). The University of Pittsburgh Medical Center’s GlioSeq targeted next-generation sequence (NGS) analysis confirmed the presence of the c.394C > T mutation in IDH1 gene.4 Based upon this additional information, a final integrated morphologic and molecular diagnosis of diffuse astrocytoma, IDH-mutant was rendered.

Case 2. A Vietnam War veteran presented with a 6-week history of new onset falls with associated left lower extremity weakness. A MRI revealed a right frontoparietal mass lesion with surrounding edema without appreciable contrast enhancement (Figures 2A, 2B, and 2C). 

The patient subsequently underwent a diagnostic craniotomy that revealed a variably cellular neoplasm composed of cells with round to ovoid nuclei, which infiltrated the overlying cortex and contained rare psammoma bodies. The neoplasm contained multiple nodular foci of hypercellularity, focally brisk mitotic activity, and focal endothelial proliferation, although areas of necrosis were not identified.

Immunohistochemical stains revealed R132H mutant IDH1 protein expression, retention of nuclear staining for ATRX protein, the lack of a clonal pattern of p53 protein overexpression, diffuse GFAP immunoreactivity, and a proliferation index (as determined by Ki-67 staining) focally approaching 20% (Figures 2E, 2F, 2G, 2H and 2I).

Based upon these results, an initial morphologic diagnosis of diffuse (high grade) glioma was issued, and tissue was subjected to a variety of nucleic acid-based tests. The FISH studies were positive for 1p/19q codeletion, and pyrosequencing analysis confirmed the immunohistochemical findings of a c.395G>A (R132H) mutation of the IDH1 gene (Figure 2J). GlioSeq targeted NGS analysis confirmed the presence of the c.395G>A mutation in the IDH1 gene, a mutation in the telomerase reverse transcriptase (TERT) promoter, and possible decreased copy number of the CIC (chromosome 1p) and FUBP1 (chromosome 19q) genes.

A final integrated morphologic and molecular diagnosis of anaplastic oligodendroglioma, IDH-mutant and 1p/19q-codeleted was rendered based on the additional information. With this final diagnosis, methylation analysis of the MGMT gene promoter, which was performed for prognostic and predictive purposes, was identified in this case.5,6

Case 3. A veteran of the Vietnam War presented with a new onset seizure. A MRI revealed a focally contrast-enhancing mass with surrounding edema within the left frontal lobe (Figures 3A, 3B, and 3C). 

The patient subsequently underwent a diagnostic craniotomy that revealed a poorly demarked mucoid lesion. Intraoperative cytology revealed a noncohesive, process poor neoplasm predominantly composed of cells with small-to-medium round to slightly irregular nuclei in the background of thin vessels. Rare mitotic figures as well as scattered cells with fibrillary processes and larger hyperchromatic nuclei with irregular nuclear membranes were identified.

Hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) stained sections following formalin fixation and paraffin embedding demonstrated similar findings (Figure 3D), and while mitotic figures were readily identified, areas of necrosis were not identified and endothelial proliferation was not a prominent feature. Immunohistochemical stains revealed no evidence of R132H mutant IDH1 protein expression, retention of nuclear staining for ATRX protein, a clonal pattern of p53 protein overexpression, patchy GFAP immunoreactivity, and a proliferation index (as determined by Ki-67 staining) focally approaching 50% (Figures 3E, 3F, 3G, 3H, and 3I).

Based upon these results, an initial morphologic diagnosis of diffuse (high grade) glioma was issued, and the tissue was subjected to a variety of nucleic acid-based tests. The FISH studies were negative for EGFR gene amplification and 1p/19q codeletion, although a gain of the long arm of chromosome 1 was detected. Pyrosequencing analysis for mutations in codon 132 of the IDH1 gene revealed no mutations (Figure 3J). GlioSeq targeted NGS analysis identified mutations within the NF1, TP53, and PIK3CA genes without evidence of mutations in the IDH1, IDH2, ATRX, H3F3A, or EGFR genes or the TERT promoter. Based upon this additional information, a final integrated morphologic and molecular diagnosis of GBM, IDH wild-type was issued. The MGMT gene promoter was negative for methylation, a finding that has prognostic and predictive impact with regard to treatment with temazolamide.7-9

 

 

New Diffuse Glioma Classification

Since the issuance of the previous edition of the WHO classification of CNS tumors in 2007, several sentinel discoveries have been made that have advanced our understanding of the underlying biology of primary CNS neoplasms. Since a detailed review of these findings is beyond the scope and purpose of this manuscript and salient reviews on the topic can be found elsewhere, we will focus on the molecular findings that have been incorporated into the recently revised WHO classification.10 The importance of providing such information for proper patient management is illustrated by the recent acknowledgement by the American Academy of Neurology that molecular testing of brain tumors is a specific area in which there is a need for quality improvement.11 Therefore, it is critical that these underlying molecular abnormalities are identified to allow for proper classification and treatment of diffuse gliomas in the veteran population.

As noted previously, based on VA cancer registry data, diffuse gliomas are the most commonly encountered primary CNS cancers in the veteran population. Several of the aforementioned seminal discoveries have been incorporated into the updated classification of diffuse gliomas. While the recently updated WHO classification allows for the assignment of “not otherwise specified (NOS)” diagnostic designation, this category must be limited to cases where there is insufficient data to allow for a more precise classification due to sample limitations and not simply due to a failure of VA pathology laboratories to pursue the appropriate diagnostic testing.

Figure 4 presents the recommended diagnostic workflow for the workup of diffuse gliomas. As illustrated in the above cases, a variety of different methodologies, including immunohistochemical, FISH, loss of heterozygosity analysis, traditional and NGS may be applied when elucidating the status of molecular events at critical diagnostic branch points. 

Each of these methods has their individual strengths and weaknesses. In addition, tests like assessment of mutations within selected histone genes probably are applied best to cases where such entities commonly occur (ie, midline tumors) and not in every case. Similarly, although in the cases presented above several different redundant methodologies were employed to answer questions critical in the proper classification of diffuse gliomas (eg, immunohistochemical, pyrosequencing, and NGS analysis of IDH1 mutational status), these were presented for illustrative purposes only. Once a given test identifies the genetic changes that allow for proper classification of diffuse gliomas, additional confirmatory testing is not mandatory. Although not recommended, due to the rarity of non-R132H IDH1 and IDH2 mutations in GBM occurring in the elderly, immunohistochemistry for R132H mutant IDH1 may be considered sufficient for initial determination of IDH mutational status in this patient population (eg, appropriate histology for the diagnosis of GBM in an elderly patient). However, caution must be exercised in cases where other entities lower grade lesions, such as pilocytic astrocytoma, pleomorphic astrocytoma, and ganglioglioma, enter the histologic differential diagnosis. In such scenarios, additional sequencing of IDH1 and IDH2 genes, as well as sequencing of other potentially diagnostically relevant alterations (eg, BRAF) may be reasonable. This decision may be aided by a web-based application for calculating the probability of an IDH1/2 mutation in a patient’s diffuse glioma (www.kcr.uky.edu/webapps/IDH/app.html).12 Finally, once the diagnosis of a high-grade diffuse glioma has been reached, assessment of the methylation status of the MGMT promoter should be performed, particularly in elderly patients with GBM, to provide important predictive and prognostic information.6,13,14

 

 

Diagnostic Uses of Molecular Testing

While the case studies in this article demonstrate the use of ancillary testing and provide a suggested strategy for properly subclassifying diffuse gliomas, inherent in this strategy is the assumption that, based upon the initial clinical and pathologic information available, one can accurately categorize the lesion as a diffuse glioma. In reality, such a distinction is not always a straightforward endeavor. It is well recognized that a proportion of low-grade, typically radiologically circumscribed, CNS neoplasms, such as pilocytic astrocytomas and glioneuronal tumors, may infiltrate the surrounding brain parenchyma. In addition, many of these low-grade CNS neoplasms also may have growth patterns that are shared with diffuse gliomas, a diagnostic challenge that often can be further hampered by the inherent limitations involved in obtaining adequate samples for diagnosis from the CNS.

Although there are limitations and caveats, molecular diagnostic testing may be invaluable in properly classifying CNS tumors in such situations. The finding of mutations in the IDH1 or IDH2 genes has been shown to be very valuable in distinguishing low-grade diffuse glioma from both nonneoplastic and low-grade circumscribed neuroepithelial neoplasms that may exhibit growth patterns that can mimic those of diffuse gliomas.15-17 Conversely, finding abnormalities in the BRAF gene in a brain neoplasm that has a low-grade morphology suggests that the lesion may represent one of these low-grade lesions such as a pleomorphic xanthoastrocytoma, pilocytic astrocytoma, or mixed neuronal-glial tumor as opposed to a diffuse glioma.18,19

Depending upon the environment in which one practices, small biopsy specimens may be prevalent, and unfortunately, it is not uncommon to obtain a biopsy that exhibits a histologic growth pattern that is discordant from what one would predict based on the clinical context and imaging findings. Molecular testing may be useful in resolving discordances in such situations. If a biopsy of a ring-enhancing lesion demonstrates a diffuse glioma that doesn’t meet WHO grade IV criteria, applying methodologies that look for genetic features commonly encountered in high-grade astrocytomas may identify genetic abnormalities that suggest a more aggressive lesion than is indicated by the histologic findings. The presence of genetic abnormalities such as homozygous deletion of the CDKN2A gene, TERT promoter mutation, loss of heterozygosity of chromosome 10q and/or phosphatase and tensin homolog (PTEN) mutations, EGFR gene amplification or the presence of the EGFR variant III are a few findings that would suggest the aforementioned sample may represent an undersampling of a higher grade diffuse astrocytoma, which would be important information to convey to the treating clinicians.20-26

Testing In the VA

The goals of the MPWG include promoting increased quality and availability of genetic testing within the VHA as well as encouraging internal referral testing. An informal survey of the chiefs of VA Pathology and Laboratory Medicine Services was conducted in November of 2017 in an attempt to identify internal VA pathology laboratories currently conducting testing that may be of use in the workup of diffuse gliomas (Table 1). 

It is the hope of this subcommittee that, in light of the recent revision of the WHO classification of tumors of the nervous system, this testing will be more widespread and readily available within VA laboratories to allow for a cost-effective yet comprehensive molecular assessment of diffuse gliomas.

 

 

The VA currently offers NGS panels for patients with advanced-stage malignancies under the auspices of the Precision Oncology Program, whose reports provide both (1) mutational analyses for genes such as TP53, ATRX, NF1, BRAF, PTEN, TERT IDH1, and IDH2 that may be useful in the proper classifying of high-grade diffuse gliomas; and (2) information regarding clinical trials for which the veteran may be eligible for based on their glioma’s mutational profile. Interested VA providers should visit tinyurl.com/precisiononcology/ for more information about this program. Finally, although internal testing within VA laboratories is recommended to allow for the development of more cost-effective testing, testing may be performed through many nationally contracted reference laboratories.

Conclusion

In light of the recent progress made in our understanding of the molecular events of gliomagenesis, the way we diagnose diffuse gliomas within the CNS has undergone a major paradigm shift. While histology still plays a critical role in the process, we believe that additional ancillary testing is a requirement for all diffuse gliomas diagnosed within VA pathology laboratories. In the context of recently encountered cases, we have provided a recommended workflow highlighting the testing that can be performed to allow for the proper diagnosis of our veterans with diffuse gliomas (Figure 4).

Unless limited by the amount of tissue available for such tests, ancillary testing must be performed on all diffuse gliomas diagnosed within the VA system to ensure proper diagnosis and treatment of our veterans with diffuse gliomas. 

See Table 2 for recommended applications for various tests. Finally, while we have attempted to identify laboratories within the VA system that perform some of these critical tests with the hope of encouraging collaborative, cost-effective testing of diffuse gliomas within the VA system, there are currently apparent gaps in our ability to provide the comprehensive ancillary testing required for diffuse gliomas exclusively within the VA laboratory environment.

 

 

Acknowledgments
The authors thank Dr. Craig M. Horbinski (Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University) and Dr. Geoffrey H. Murdoch (University of Pittsburgh) for their constructive criticism of the manuscript. We also thank the following individuals for past service as members of the molecular oncology subcommittee of the MGPW: Dr. George Ansstas (Washington University School of Medicine), Dr. Osssama Hemadeh (Bay Pines VA Health Care System), Dr. James Herman (VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System), and Dr. Ryan Phan (formerly of the VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System) as well as the members of the Veterans Administration pathology and laboratory medicine service molecular genetics pathology workgroup.

Author disclosures
The authors report no actual or potential conflicts of interest with regard to this article.

Disclaimer
The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Federal Practitioner, Frontline Medical Communications Inc., the US Government, or any of its agencies.

Dr. Kulich is the Acting Chief of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine Service at VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System and member of the Division of Neuropathology at University of Pittsburgh Department of Pathology, Dr. Duvvuri is an Otolaryngologist at VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, and Dr. Passero is the Section Chief of Hematology\Oncology at VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System in Pennsylvania. Dr. Becker is an Oncologist at VA-New York Harbor Healthcare System. Dr. Dacic is a Pathologist at University of Pittsburgh Department of Pathology in Pennsylvania. Dr. Ehsan is Chief of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine Services at the South Texas Veterans Healthcare System in San Antonio. Dr. Gutkin is the former Chief of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine Service at VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System. Dr. Hou is a Pathologist at St. Louis VA Medical Center in Missouri. Dr. Icardi is the VA National Director of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine Services. Dr. Lyle is a Pathologist at Bay Pine Health Care System in Florida. Dr. Lynch is an Investigator at VA Salt Lake Health Care System Informatics and Computing Infrastructure. Dr. Montgomery is an Oncologist at VA Puget Sound Health Care System, in Seattle, Washington. Dr. Przygodzki is the Director of Genomic Medicine Implementation and Associate Director of Genomic Medicine for the VA. Dr. Colman is a Neuro-Oncologist at George E. Wahlen VA Medical Center and the Director of Medical Neuro-Oncology at the Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, Utah.

Correspondence: Dr. Kulich ([email protected])

 

References

1. Louis DN, Perry A, Reifenberger G, et al. The 2016 World Health Organization Classification of Tumors of the Central Nervous System: a summary. Acta Neuropathol. 2016;131(6):803-820.

2. Wang-Rodriguez J, Yunes A, Phan R, et al. The challenges of precision medicine and new advances in molecular diagnostic testing in hematolymphoid malignancies: impact on the VHA. Fed Pract. 2017;34(suppl 5):S38-S49.

3. Ostrom QT, Gittleman H, Liao P, et al. CBTRUS statistical report: primary brain and other central nervous system tumors diagnosed in the United States in 2010-2014. Neuro Oncol. 2017;19(suppl 5):v1-v88.

4. Nikiforova MN, Wald AI, Melan MA, et al. Targeted next-generation sequencing panel (GlioSeq) provides comprehensive genetic profiling of central nervous system tumors. Neuro Oncol. 2016;18(3)379-387.

5. Cairncross JG, Ueki K, Zlatescu MC, et al. Specific genetic predictors of chemotherapeutic response and survival in patients with anaplastic oligodendrogliomas. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998;90(19):1473-1479.

6. van den Bent MJ, Erdem-Eraslan L, Idbaih A, et al. MGMT-STP27 methylation status as predictive marker for response to PCV in anaplastic oligodendrogliomas and oligoastrocytomas. A report from EORTC study 26951. Clin Cancer Res. 2013;19(19):5513-5522.

7. Stupp R, Hegi ME, Mason WP, et al; European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Brain Tumour and Radiation Oncology Groups; National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group. Effects of radiotherapy with concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide versus radiotherapy alone on survival in glioblastoma in a randomised phase III study: 5-year analysis of the EORTC-NCIC trial. Lancet Oncol. 2009;10(5):459-466.

8. Malmstrom A, Gronberg BH, Marosi C, et al. Temozolomide versus standard 6-week radiotherapy versus hypofractionated radiotherapy in patients older than 60 years with glioblastoma: the Nordic randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2012;13(9):916-926.

9. van den Bent MJ, Kros JM. Predictive and prognostic markers in neuro-oncology. J Neuropathol Exp Neurol. 2007;66(12):1074-1081.

10. Chen R, Smith-Cohn M, Cohen AL, Colman H. Glioma subclassifications and their clinical significance. Neurotherapeutics. 2017;14(2):284-297.

11. Jordan JT, Sanders AE, Armstrong T, et al. Quality improvement in neurology: neuro-oncology quality measurement set. Neurology. 2018;90(14):652-658.

12. Chen L, Voronovich Z, Clark K, et al. Predicting the likelihood of an isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 or 2 mutation in diagnoses of infiltrative glioma. Neuro Oncol. 2014;16(11):1478-1483.

13. Hegi ME, Diserens AC, Gorlia T, et al. MGMT gene silencing and benefit from temozolomide in glioblastoma. N Engl J Med. 2005;352(10):997-1003.

14. Wick W, Platten M, Meisner C, et al; NOA-08 Study Group of Neuro-oncology Working Group (NOA) of German Cancer Society. Temozolomide chemotherapy alone versus radiotherapy alone for malignant astrocytoma in the elderly: the NOA-08 randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2012;13(7):707-715.

15. Horbinski C, Kofler J, Kelly LM, Murdoch GH, Nikiforova MN. Diagnostic use of IDH1/2 mutation analysis in routine clinical testing of formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded glioma tissues. J Neuropathol Exp Neurol. 2009;68(12):1319-1325.

16. Camelo-Piragua S, Jansen M, Ganguly A, Kim JC, Louis DN, Nutt CL. Mutant IDH1-specific immunohistochemistry distinguishes diffuse astrocytoma from astrocytosis. Acta Neuropathol. 2010;119(4):509-511.

17. Horbinski C, Kofler J, Yeaney G, et al. Isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 analysis differentiates gangliogliomas from infiltrative gliomas. Brain Pathol. 2011;21(5):564-574.

18. Berghoff AS, Preusser M. BRAF alterations in brain tumours: molecular pathology and therapeutic opportunities. Curr Opin Neurol. 2014;27(6):689-696.

19. Korshunov A, Meyer J, Capper D, et al. Combined molecular analysis of BRAF and IDH1 distinguishes pilocytic astrocytoma from diffuse astrocytoma. Acta Neuropathol. 2009;118(3):401-405.

20. Fuller CE, Schmidt RE, Roth KA, et al. Clinical utility of fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) in morphologically ambiguous gliomas with hybrid oligodendroglial/astrocytic features. J Neuropathol Exp Neurol. 2003;62(11):1118-1128.

21. Horbinski C. Practical molecular diagnostics in neuropathology: making a tough job a little easier. Semin Diagn Pathol. 2010;27(2):105-113.

22. Fuller GN, Bigner SH. Amplified cellular oncogenes in neoplasms of the human central nervous system. Mutat Res. 1992;276(3):299-306.

23. Brennan CW, Verhaak RG, McKenna A, et al; TCGA Research Network. The somatic genomic landscape of glioblastoma. Cell. 2013;155(2):462-477.

24. Aldape K, Zadeh G, Mansouri S, Reifenberger G, von Deimling A. Glioblastoma: pathology, molecular mechanisms and markers. Acta Neuropathol. 2015;129(6):829-848.

25. Killela PJ, Reitman ZJ, Jiao Y, et al. TERT promoter mutations occur frequently in gliomas and a subset of tumors derived from cells with low rates of self-renewal. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013;110(15):6021-6026.

26. Nikiforova MN, Hamilton RL. Molecular diagnostics of gliomas. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2011;135(5):558-568.

Issue
Federal Practitioner - 35(5)s
Publications
Topics
Page Number
S28-S35
Sections
Although histology still plays a critical role in diagnosing diffuse gliomas, additional ancillary testing is an essential tool for VA pathology laboratories.
Although histology still plays a critical role in diagnosing diffuse gliomas, additional ancillary testing is an essential tool for VA pathology laboratories.

Over the past few decades, our understanding of the molecular underpinning of primary neoplasms of the central nervous system (CNS) has progressed substantially. Thanks in large part to this expansion in our knowledge base, the World Health Organization (WHO) has recently updated its classification of tumors of the CNS.1 One of the key elements of this update was the inclusion of molecular diagnostic criteria for the classification of infiltrating gliomas. While the previous classification system was based upon histologic subtypes of the tumor (astrocytoma, oligodendroglioma, and oligoastrocytoma), the revised classification system incorporates molecular testing to establish the genetic characteristics of the tumor to reach a final integrated diagnosis.

In this article, we present 3 cases to highlight some of these recent changes in the WHO diagnostic categories of primary CNS tumors and to illustrate the role of specific molecular tests in reaching a final integrated diagnosis. We then propose a clinical practice guideline for the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) that recommends use of molecular testing for veterans as part of the diagnostic workup of primary CNS neoplasms.

Purpose

In 2013 the VHA National Director of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine Services (P&LMS) chartered a national molecular genetics pathology workgroup (MGPW) that was charged with 4 specific tasks: (1) Provide recommendations about the effective use of molecular genetic testing for veterans; (2) Promote increased quality and availability of molecular testing within the VHA; (3) Encourage internal referral testing; and (4) Create an organizational structure and policies for molecular genetic testing and laboratory developed tests. The workgroup is currently composed of 4 subcommittees: genetic medicine, hematopathology, pharmacogenomics, and molecular oncology. The molecular oncology subcommittee is focused upon molecular genetic testing for solid tumors.

This article is intended to be the first of several publications from the molecular oncology subcommittee of the MGPW that address some of the aforementioned tasks. Similar to the recent publication from the hematopathology subcommittee of the MGPW, this article focuses on CNS neoplasms.2

Scope of Problem

The incidence of tumors of the CNS in the US population varies among age groups. It is the most common solid tumor in children aged < 14 years and represents a significant cause of mortality across all age groups.3 Of CNS tumors, diffuse gliomas comprise about 20% of the tumors and more than 70% of the primary malignant CNS tumors.3 Analysis of the VA Central Cancer Registry data from 2010 to 2014 identified 1,186 veterans (about 237 veterans per year) who were diagnosed with diffuse gliomas. (Lynch, Kulich, Colman, unpublished data, February 2018). While the majority (nearly 80%) of these cases were glioblastomas (GBMs), unfortunately a majority of these cases did not undergo molecular testing (Lynch, Kulich, Colman, unpublished data, February 2018).

Although this low rate of testing may be in part reflective of the period from which these data were gleaned (ie, prior to the WHO release of their updated the classification of tumors of the CNS), it is important to raise VA practitioners’ awareness of these recent changes to ensure that veterans receive the proper diagnosis and treatment for their disease. Thus, while the number of veterans diagnosed with diffuse gliomas within the VHA is relatively small in comparison to other malignancies, such as prostatic adenocarcinomas and lung carcinomas, the majority of diffuse gliomas do not seem to be receiving the molecular testing that would be necessary for (1) appropriate classification under the recently revised WHO recommendations; and (2) making important treatment decisions.

 

 

Case Presentations

Case 1. A veteran of the Gulf War presented with a 3-month history of possible narcoleptic events associated with a motor vehicle accident. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) revealed a large left frontal mass lesion with minimal surrounding edema without appreciable contrast enhancement (Figures 1A, 1B, and 1C). 

The patient subsequently underwent a stereotactic biopsy that revealed slightly hypercellular brain tissue composed of cells with round to ovoid hyperchromatic nuclei, which infiltrated the overlying cortex (Figure 1D).

Neither mitotic figures nor endothelial proliferation were identified. Immunohistochemical stains revealed a lack of R132H mutant IDH1 protein expression, a loss of nuclear staining for ATRX protein within a substantial number of cells, and a clonal pattern of p53 protein overexpression (Figures 1E, 1F, and 1G). The lesion demonstrated diffuse glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) immunoreactivity and a low proliferation index (as determined by Ki-67 staining; estimated at less than 5%) (Figures 1H and 1I).

Based upon these results, an initial morphologic diagnosis of diffuse glioma was issued, and tissue was subjected to a variety of nucleic acid-based tests. While fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) studies were negative for 1p/19q codeletion, pyrosequencing analysis revealed the presence of a c.394C>T (R132C) mutation of the IDH1 gene (Figure 1J). The University of Pittsburgh Medical Center’s GlioSeq targeted next-generation sequence (NGS) analysis confirmed the presence of the c.394C > T mutation in IDH1 gene.4 Based upon this additional information, a final integrated morphologic and molecular diagnosis of diffuse astrocytoma, IDH-mutant was rendered.

Case 2. A Vietnam War veteran presented with a 6-week history of new onset falls with associated left lower extremity weakness. A MRI revealed a right frontoparietal mass lesion with surrounding edema without appreciable contrast enhancement (Figures 2A, 2B, and 2C). 

The patient subsequently underwent a diagnostic craniotomy that revealed a variably cellular neoplasm composed of cells with round to ovoid nuclei, which infiltrated the overlying cortex and contained rare psammoma bodies. The neoplasm contained multiple nodular foci of hypercellularity, focally brisk mitotic activity, and focal endothelial proliferation, although areas of necrosis were not identified.

Immunohistochemical stains revealed R132H mutant IDH1 protein expression, retention of nuclear staining for ATRX protein, the lack of a clonal pattern of p53 protein overexpression, diffuse GFAP immunoreactivity, and a proliferation index (as determined by Ki-67 staining) focally approaching 20% (Figures 2E, 2F, 2G, 2H and 2I).

Based upon these results, an initial morphologic diagnosis of diffuse (high grade) glioma was issued, and tissue was subjected to a variety of nucleic acid-based tests. The FISH studies were positive for 1p/19q codeletion, and pyrosequencing analysis confirmed the immunohistochemical findings of a c.395G>A (R132H) mutation of the IDH1 gene (Figure 2J). GlioSeq targeted NGS analysis confirmed the presence of the c.395G>A mutation in the IDH1 gene, a mutation in the telomerase reverse transcriptase (TERT) promoter, and possible decreased copy number of the CIC (chromosome 1p) and FUBP1 (chromosome 19q) genes.

A final integrated morphologic and molecular diagnosis of anaplastic oligodendroglioma, IDH-mutant and 1p/19q-codeleted was rendered based on the additional information. With this final diagnosis, methylation analysis of the MGMT gene promoter, which was performed for prognostic and predictive purposes, was identified in this case.5,6

Case 3. A veteran of the Vietnam War presented with a new onset seizure. A MRI revealed a focally contrast-enhancing mass with surrounding edema within the left frontal lobe (Figures 3A, 3B, and 3C). 

The patient subsequently underwent a diagnostic craniotomy that revealed a poorly demarked mucoid lesion. Intraoperative cytology revealed a noncohesive, process poor neoplasm predominantly composed of cells with small-to-medium round to slightly irregular nuclei in the background of thin vessels. Rare mitotic figures as well as scattered cells with fibrillary processes and larger hyperchromatic nuclei with irregular nuclear membranes were identified.

Hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) stained sections following formalin fixation and paraffin embedding demonstrated similar findings (Figure 3D), and while mitotic figures were readily identified, areas of necrosis were not identified and endothelial proliferation was not a prominent feature. Immunohistochemical stains revealed no evidence of R132H mutant IDH1 protein expression, retention of nuclear staining for ATRX protein, a clonal pattern of p53 protein overexpression, patchy GFAP immunoreactivity, and a proliferation index (as determined by Ki-67 staining) focally approaching 50% (Figures 3E, 3F, 3G, 3H, and 3I).

Based upon these results, an initial morphologic diagnosis of diffuse (high grade) glioma was issued, and the tissue was subjected to a variety of nucleic acid-based tests. The FISH studies were negative for EGFR gene amplification and 1p/19q codeletion, although a gain of the long arm of chromosome 1 was detected. Pyrosequencing analysis for mutations in codon 132 of the IDH1 gene revealed no mutations (Figure 3J). GlioSeq targeted NGS analysis identified mutations within the NF1, TP53, and PIK3CA genes without evidence of mutations in the IDH1, IDH2, ATRX, H3F3A, or EGFR genes or the TERT promoter. Based upon this additional information, a final integrated morphologic and molecular diagnosis of GBM, IDH wild-type was issued. The MGMT gene promoter was negative for methylation, a finding that has prognostic and predictive impact with regard to treatment with temazolamide.7-9

 

 

New Diffuse Glioma Classification

Since the issuance of the previous edition of the WHO classification of CNS tumors in 2007, several sentinel discoveries have been made that have advanced our understanding of the underlying biology of primary CNS neoplasms. Since a detailed review of these findings is beyond the scope and purpose of this manuscript and salient reviews on the topic can be found elsewhere, we will focus on the molecular findings that have been incorporated into the recently revised WHO classification.10 The importance of providing such information for proper patient management is illustrated by the recent acknowledgement by the American Academy of Neurology that molecular testing of brain tumors is a specific area in which there is a need for quality improvement.11 Therefore, it is critical that these underlying molecular abnormalities are identified to allow for proper classification and treatment of diffuse gliomas in the veteran population.

As noted previously, based on VA cancer registry data, diffuse gliomas are the most commonly encountered primary CNS cancers in the veteran population. Several of the aforementioned seminal discoveries have been incorporated into the updated classification of diffuse gliomas. While the recently updated WHO classification allows for the assignment of “not otherwise specified (NOS)” diagnostic designation, this category must be limited to cases where there is insufficient data to allow for a more precise classification due to sample limitations and not simply due to a failure of VA pathology laboratories to pursue the appropriate diagnostic testing.

Figure 4 presents the recommended diagnostic workflow for the workup of diffuse gliomas. As illustrated in the above cases, a variety of different methodologies, including immunohistochemical, FISH, loss of heterozygosity analysis, traditional and NGS may be applied when elucidating the status of molecular events at critical diagnostic branch points. 

Each of these methods has their individual strengths and weaknesses. In addition, tests like assessment of mutations within selected histone genes probably are applied best to cases where such entities commonly occur (ie, midline tumors) and not in every case. Similarly, although in the cases presented above several different redundant methodologies were employed to answer questions critical in the proper classification of diffuse gliomas (eg, immunohistochemical, pyrosequencing, and NGS analysis of IDH1 mutational status), these were presented for illustrative purposes only. Once a given test identifies the genetic changes that allow for proper classification of diffuse gliomas, additional confirmatory testing is not mandatory. Although not recommended, due to the rarity of non-R132H IDH1 and IDH2 mutations in GBM occurring in the elderly, immunohistochemistry for R132H mutant IDH1 may be considered sufficient for initial determination of IDH mutational status in this patient population (eg, appropriate histology for the diagnosis of GBM in an elderly patient). However, caution must be exercised in cases where other entities lower grade lesions, such as pilocytic astrocytoma, pleomorphic astrocytoma, and ganglioglioma, enter the histologic differential diagnosis. In such scenarios, additional sequencing of IDH1 and IDH2 genes, as well as sequencing of other potentially diagnostically relevant alterations (eg, BRAF) may be reasonable. This decision may be aided by a web-based application for calculating the probability of an IDH1/2 mutation in a patient’s diffuse glioma (www.kcr.uky.edu/webapps/IDH/app.html).12 Finally, once the diagnosis of a high-grade diffuse glioma has been reached, assessment of the methylation status of the MGMT promoter should be performed, particularly in elderly patients with GBM, to provide important predictive and prognostic information.6,13,14

 

 

Diagnostic Uses of Molecular Testing

While the case studies in this article demonstrate the use of ancillary testing and provide a suggested strategy for properly subclassifying diffuse gliomas, inherent in this strategy is the assumption that, based upon the initial clinical and pathologic information available, one can accurately categorize the lesion as a diffuse glioma. In reality, such a distinction is not always a straightforward endeavor. It is well recognized that a proportion of low-grade, typically radiologically circumscribed, CNS neoplasms, such as pilocytic astrocytomas and glioneuronal tumors, may infiltrate the surrounding brain parenchyma. In addition, many of these low-grade CNS neoplasms also may have growth patterns that are shared with diffuse gliomas, a diagnostic challenge that often can be further hampered by the inherent limitations involved in obtaining adequate samples for diagnosis from the CNS.

Although there are limitations and caveats, molecular diagnostic testing may be invaluable in properly classifying CNS tumors in such situations. The finding of mutations in the IDH1 or IDH2 genes has been shown to be very valuable in distinguishing low-grade diffuse glioma from both nonneoplastic and low-grade circumscribed neuroepithelial neoplasms that may exhibit growth patterns that can mimic those of diffuse gliomas.15-17 Conversely, finding abnormalities in the BRAF gene in a brain neoplasm that has a low-grade morphology suggests that the lesion may represent one of these low-grade lesions such as a pleomorphic xanthoastrocytoma, pilocytic astrocytoma, or mixed neuronal-glial tumor as opposed to a diffuse glioma.18,19

Depending upon the environment in which one practices, small biopsy specimens may be prevalent, and unfortunately, it is not uncommon to obtain a biopsy that exhibits a histologic growth pattern that is discordant from what one would predict based on the clinical context and imaging findings. Molecular testing may be useful in resolving discordances in such situations. If a biopsy of a ring-enhancing lesion demonstrates a diffuse glioma that doesn’t meet WHO grade IV criteria, applying methodologies that look for genetic features commonly encountered in high-grade astrocytomas may identify genetic abnormalities that suggest a more aggressive lesion than is indicated by the histologic findings. The presence of genetic abnormalities such as homozygous deletion of the CDKN2A gene, TERT promoter mutation, loss of heterozygosity of chromosome 10q and/or phosphatase and tensin homolog (PTEN) mutations, EGFR gene amplification or the presence of the EGFR variant III are a few findings that would suggest the aforementioned sample may represent an undersampling of a higher grade diffuse astrocytoma, which would be important information to convey to the treating clinicians.20-26

Testing In the VA

The goals of the MPWG include promoting increased quality and availability of genetic testing within the VHA as well as encouraging internal referral testing. An informal survey of the chiefs of VA Pathology and Laboratory Medicine Services was conducted in November of 2017 in an attempt to identify internal VA pathology laboratories currently conducting testing that may be of use in the workup of diffuse gliomas (Table 1). 

It is the hope of this subcommittee that, in light of the recent revision of the WHO classification of tumors of the nervous system, this testing will be more widespread and readily available within VA laboratories to allow for a cost-effective yet comprehensive molecular assessment of diffuse gliomas.

 

 

The VA currently offers NGS panels for patients with advanced-stage malignancies under the auspices of the Precision Oncology Program, whose reports provide both (1) mutational analyses for genes such as TP53, ATRX, NF1, BRAF, PTEN, TERT IDH1, and IDH2 that may be useful in the proper classifying of high-grade diffuse gliomas; and (2) information regarding clinical trials for which the veteran may be eligible for based on their glioma’s mutational profile. Interested VA providers should visit tinyurl.com/precisiononcology/ for more information about this program. Finally, although internal testing within VA laboratories is recommended to allow for the development of more cost-effective testing, testing may be performed through many nationally contracted reference laboratories.

Conclusion

In light of the recent progress made in our understanding of the molecular events of gliomagenesis, the way we diagnose diffuse gliomas within the CNS has undergone a major paradigm shift. While histology still plays a critical role in the process, we believe that additional ancillary testing is a requirement for all diffuse gliomas diagnosed within VA pathology laboratories. In the context of recently encountered cases, we have provided a recommended workflow highlighting the testing that can be performed to allow for the proper diagnosis of our veterans with diffuse gliomas (Figure 4).

Unless limited by the amount of tissue available for such tests, ancillary testing must be performed on all diffuse gliomas diagnosed within the VA system to ensure proper diagnosis and treatment of our veterans with diffuse gliomas. 

See Table 2 for recommended applications for various tests. Finally, while we have attempted to identify laboratories within the VA system that perform some of these critical tests with the hope of encouraging collaborative, cost-effective testing of diffuse gliomas within the VA system, there are currently apparent gaps in our ability to provide the comprehensive ancillary testing required for diffuse gliomas exclusively within the VA laboratory environment.

 

 

Acknowledgments
The authors thank Dr. Craig M. Horbinski (Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University) and Dr. Geoffrey H. Murdoch (University of Pittsburgh) for their constructive criticism of the manuscript. We also thank the following individuals for past service as members of the molecular oncology subcommittee of the MGPW: Dr. George Ansstas (Washington University School of Medicine), Dr. Osssama Hemadeh (Bay Pines VA Health Care System), Dr. James Herman (VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System), and Dr. Ryan Phan (formerly of the VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System) as well as the members of the Veterans Administration pathology and laboratory medicine service molecular genetics pathology workgroup.

Author disclosures
The authors report no actual or potential conflicts of interest with regard to this article.

Disclaimer
The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Federal Practitioner, Frontline Medical Communications Inc., the US Government, or any of its agencies.

Dr. Kulich is the Acting Chief of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine Service at VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System and member of the Division of Neuropathology at University of Pittsburgh Department of Pathology, Dr. Duvvuri is an Otolaryngologist at VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, and Dr. Passero is the Section Chief of Hematology\Oncology at VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System in Pennsylvania. Dr. Becker is an Oncologist at VA-New York Harbor Healthcare System. Dr. Dacic is a Pathologist at University of Pittsburgh Department of Pathology in Pennsylvania. Dr. Ehsan is Chief of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine Services at the South Texas Veterans Healthcare System in San Antonio. Dr. Gutkin is the former Chief of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine Service at VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System. Dr. Hou is a Pathologist at St. Louis VA Medical Center in Missouri. Dr. Icardi is the VA National Director of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine Services. Dr. Lyle is a Pathologist at Bay Pine Health Care System in Florida. Dr. Lynch is an Investigator at VA Salt Lake Health Care System Informatics and Computing Infrastructure. Dr. Montgomery is an Oncologist at VA Puget Sound Health Care System, in Seattle, Washington. Dr. Przygodzki is the Director of Genomic Medicine Implementation and Associate Director of Genomic Medicine for the VA. Dr. Colman is a Neuro-Oncologist at George E. Wahlen VA Medical Center and the Director of Medical Neuro-Oncology at the Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, Utah.

Correspondence: Dr. Kulich ([email protected])

 

Over the past few decades, our understanding of the molecular underpinning of primary neoplasms of the central nervous system (CNS) has progressed substantially. Thanks in large part to this expansion in our knowledge base, the World Health Organization (WHO) has recently updated its classification of tumors of the CNS.1 One of the key elements of this update was the inclusion of molecular diagnostic criteria for the classification of infiltrating gliomas. While the previous classification system was based upon histologic subtypes of the tumor (astrocytoma, oligodendroglioma, and oligoastrocytoma), the revised classification system incorporates molecular testing to establish the genetic characteristics of the tumor to reach a final integrated diagnosis.

In this article, we present 3 cases to highlight some of these recent changes in the WHO diagnostic categories of primary CNS tumors and to illustrate the role of specific molecular tests in reaching a final integrated diagnosis. We then propose a clinical practice guideline for the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) that recommends use of molecular testing for veterans as part of the diagnostic workup of primary CNS neoplasms.

Purpose

In 2013 the VHA National Director of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine Services (P&LMS) chartered a national molecular genetics pathology workgroup (MGPW) that was charged with 4 specific tasks: (1) Provide recommendations about the effective use of molecular genetic testing for veterans; (2) Promote increased quality and availability of molecular testing within the VHA; (3) Encourage internal referral testing; and (4) Create an organizational structure and policies for molecular genetic testing and laboratory developed tests. The workgroup is currently composed of 4 subcommittees: genetic medicine, hematopathology, pharmacogenomics, and molecular oncology. The molecular oncology subcommittee is focused upon molecular genetic testing for solid tumors.

This article is intended to be the first of several publications from the molecular oncology subcommittee of the MGPW that address some of the aforementioned tasks. Similar to the recent publication from the hematopathology subcommittee of the MGPW, this article focuses on CNS neoplasms.2

Scope of Problem

The incidence of tumors of the CNS in the US population varies among age groups. It is the most common solid tumor in children aged < 14 years and represents a significant cause of mortality across all age groups.3 Of CNS tumors, diffuse gliomas comprise about 20% of the tumors and more than 70% of the primary malignant CNS tumors.3 Analysis of the VA Central Cancer Registry data from 2010 to 2014 identified 1,186 veterans (about 237 veterans per year) who were diagnosed with diffuse gliomas. (Lynch, Kulich, Colman, unpublished data, February 2018). While the majority (nearly 80%) of these cases were glioblastomas (GBMs), unfortunately a majority of these cases did not undergo molecular testing (Lynch, Kulich, Colman, unpublished data, February 2018).

Although this low rate of testing may be in part reflective of the period from which these data were gleaned (ie, prior to the WHO release of their updated the classification of tumors of the CNS), it is important to raise VA practitioners’ awareness of these recent changes to ensure that veterans receive the proper diagnosis and treatment for their disease. Thus, while the number of veterans diagnosed with diffuse gliomas within the VHA is relatively small in comparison to other malignancies, such as prostatic adenocarcinomas and lung carcinomas, the majority of diffuse gliomas do not seem to be receiving the molecular testing that would be necessary for (1) appropriate classification under the recently revised WHO recommendations; and (2) making important treatment decisions.

 

 

Case Presentations

Case 1. A veteran of the Gulf War presented with a 3-month history of possible narcoleptic events associated with a motor vehicle accident. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) revealed a large left frontal mass lesion with minimal surrounding edema without appreciable contrast enhancement (Figures 1A, 1B, and 1C). 

The patient subsequently underwent a stereotactic biopsy that revealed slightly hypercellular brain tissue composed of cells with round to ovoid hyperchromatic nuclei, which infiltrated the overlying cortex (Figure 1D).

Neither mitotic figures nor endothelial proliferation were identified. Immunohistochemical stains revealed a lack of R132H mutant IDH1 protein expression, a loss of nuclear staining for ATRX protein within a substantial number of cells, and a clonal pattern of p53 protein overexpression (Figures 1E, 1F, and 1G). The lesion demonstrated diffuse glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) immunoreactivity and a low proliferation index (as determined by Ki-67 staining; estimated at less than 5%) (Figures 1H and 1I).

Based upon these results, an initial morphologic diagnosis of diffuse glioma was issued, and tissue was subjected to a variety of nucleic acid-based tests. While fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) studies were negative for 1p/19q codeletion, pyrosequencing analysis revealed the presence of a c.394C>T (R132C) mutation of the IDH1 gene (Figure 1J). The University of Pittsburgh Medical Center’s GlioSeq targeted next-generation sequence (NGS) analysis confirmed the presence of the c.394C > T mutation in IDH1 gene.4 Based upon this additional information, a final integrated morphologic and molecular diagnosis of diffuse astrocytoma, IDH-mutant was rendered.

Case 2. A Vietnam War veteran presented with a 6-week history of new onset falls with associated left lower extremity weakness. A MRI revealed a right frontoparietal mass lesion with surrounding edema without appreciable contrast enhancement (Figures 2A, 2B, and 2C). 

The patient subsequently underwent a diagnostic craniotomy that revealed a variably cellular neoplasm composed of cells with round to ovoid nuclei, which infiltrated the overlying cortex and contained rare psammoma bodies. The neoplasm contained multiple nodular foci of hypercellularity, focally brisk mitotic activity, and focal endothelial proliferation, although areas of necrosis were not identified.

Immunohistochemical stains revealed R132H mutant IDH1 protein expression, retention of nuclear staining for ATRX protein, the lack of a clonal pattern of p53 protein overexpression, diffuse GFAP immunoreactivity, and a proliferation index (as determined by Ki-67 staining) focally approaching 20% (Figures 2E, 2F, 2G, 2H and 2I).

Based upon these results, an initial morphologic diagnosis of diffuse (high grade) glioma was issued, and tissue was subjected to a variety of nucleic acid-based tests. The FISH studies were positive for 1p/19q codeletion, and pyrosequencing analysis confirmed the immunohistochemical findings of a c.395G>A (R132H) mutation of the IDH1 gene (Figure 2J). GlioSeq targeted NGS analysis confirmed the presence of the c.395G>A mutation in the IDH1 gene, a mutation in the telomerase reverse transcriptase (TERT) promoter, and possible decreased copy number of the CIC (chromosome 1p) and FUBP1 (chromosome 19q) genes.

A final integrated morphologic and molecular diagnosis of anaplastic oligodendroglioma, IDH-mutant and 1p/19q-codeleted was rendered based on the additional information. With this final diagnosis, methylation analysis of the MGMT gene promoter, which was performed for prognostic and predictive purposes, was identified in this case.5,6

Case 3. A veteran of the Vietnam War presented with a new onset seizure. A MRI revealed a focally contrast-enhancing mass with surrounding edema within the left frontal lobe (Figures 3A, 3B, and 3C). 

The patient subsequently underwent a diagnostic craniotomy that revealed a poorly demarked mucoid lesion. Intraoperative cytology revealed a noncohesive, process poor neoplasm predominantly composed of cells with small-to-medium round to slightly irregular nuclei in the background of thin vessels. Rare mitotic figures as well as scattered cells with fibrillary processes and larger hyperchromatic nuclei with irregular nuclear membranes were identified.

Hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) stained sections following formalin fixation and paraffin embedding demonstrated similar findings (Figure 3D), and while mitotic figures were readily identified, areas of necrosis were not identified and endothelial proliferation was not a prominent feature. Immunohistochemical stains revealed no evidence of R132H mutant IDH1 protein expression, retention of nuclear staining for ATRX protein, a clonal pattern of p53 protein overexpression, patchy GFAP immunoreactivity, and a proliferation index (as determined by Ki-67 staining) focally approaching 50% (Figures 3E, 3F, 3G, 3H, and 3I).

Based upon these results, an initial morphologic diagnosis of diffuse (high grade) glioma was issued, and the tissue was subjected to a variety of nucleic acid-based tests. The FISH studies were negative for EGFR gene amplification and 1p/19q codeletion, although a gain of the long arm of chromosome 1 was detected. Pyrosequencing analysis for mutations in codon 132 of the IDH1 gene revealed no mutations (Figure 3J). GlioSeq targeted NGS analysis identified mutations within the NF1, TP53, and PIK3CA genes without evidence of mutations in the IDH1, IDH2, ATRX, H3F3A, or EGFR genes or the TERT promoter. Based upon this additional information, a final integrated morphologic and molecular diagnosis of GBM, IDH wild-type was issued. The MGMT gene promoter was negative for methylation, a finding that has prognostic and predictive impact with regard to treatment with temazolamide.7-9

 

 

New Diffuse Glioma Classification

Since the issuance of the previous edition of the WHO classification of CNS tumors in 2007, several sentinel discoveries have been made that have advanced our understanding of the underlying biology of primary CNS neoplasms. Since a detailed review of these findings is beyond the scope and purpose of this manuscript and salient reviews on the topic can be found elsewhere, we will focus on the molecular findings that have been incorporated into the recently revised WHO classification.10 The importance of providing such information for proper patient management is illustrated by the recent acknowledgement by the American Academy of Neurology that molecular testing of brain tumors is a specific area in which there is a need for quality improvement.11 Therefore, it is critical that these underlying molecular abnormalities are identified to allow for proper classification and treatment of diffuse gliomas in the veteran population.

As noted previously, based on VA cancer registry data, diffuse gliomas are the most commonly encountered primary CNS cancers in the veteran population. Several of the aforementioned seminal discoveries have been incorporated into the updated classification of diffuse gliomas. While the recently updated WHO classification allows for the assignment of “not otherwise specified (NOS)” diagnostic designation, this category must be limited to cases where there is insufficient data to allow for a more precise classification due to sample limitations and not simply due to a failure of VA pathology laboratories to pursue the appropriate diagnostic testing.

Figure 4 presents the recommended diagnostic workflow for the workup of diffuse gliomas. As illustrated in the above cases, a variety of different methodologies, including immunohistochemical, FISH, loss of heterozygosity analysis, traditional and NGS may be applied when elucidating the status of molecular events at critical diagnostic branch points. 

Each of these methods has their individual strengths and weaknesses. In addition, tests like assessment of mutations within selected histone genes probably are applied best to cases where such entities commonly occur (ie, midline tumors) and not in every case. Similarly, although in the cases presented above several different redundant methodologies were employed to answer questions critical in the proper classification of diffuse gliomas (eg, immunohistochemical, pyrosequencing, and NGS analysis of IDH1 mutational status), these were presented for illustrative purposes only. Once a given test identifies the genetic changes that allow for proper classification of diffuse gliomas, additional confirmatory testing is not mandatory. Although not recommended, due to the rarity of non-R132H IDH1 and IDH2 mutations in GBM occurring in the elderly, immunohistochemistry for R132H mutant IDH1 may be considered sufficient for initial determination of IDH mutational status in this patient population (eg, appropriate histology for the diagnosis of GBM in an elderly patient). However, caution must be exercised in cases where other entities lower grade lesions, such as pilocytic astrocytoma, pleomorphic astrocytoma, and ganglioglioma, enter the histologic differential diagnosis. In such scenarios, additional sequencing of IDH1 and IDH2 genes, as well as sequencing of other potentially diagnostically relevant alterations (eg, BRAF) may be reasonable. This decision may be aided by a web-based application for calculating the probability of an IDH1/2 mutation in a patient’s diffuse glioma (www.kcr.uky.edu/webapps/IDH/app.html).12 Finally, once the diagnosis of a high-grade diffuse glioma has been reached, assessment of the methylation status of the MGMT promoter should be performed, particularly in elderly patients with GBM, to provide important predictive and prognostic information.6,13,14

 

 

Diagnostic Uses of Molecular Testing

While the case studies in this article demonstrate the use of ancillary testing and provide a suggested strategy for properly subclassifying diffuse gliomas, inherent in this strategy is the assumption that, based upon the initial clinical and pathologic information available, one can accurately categorize the lesion as a diffuse glioma. In reality, such a distinction is not always a straightforward endeavor. It is well recognized that a proportion of low-grade, typically radiologically circumscribed, CNS neoplasms, such as pilocytic astrocytomas and glioneuronal tumors, may infiltrate the surrounding brain parenchyma. In addition, many of these low-grade CNS neoplasms also may have growth patterns that are shared with diffuse gliomas, a diagnostic challenge that often can be further hampered by the inherent limitations involved in obtaining adequate samples for diagnosis from the CNS.

Although there are limitations and caveats, molecular diagnostic testing may be invaluable in properly classifying CNS tumors in such situations. The finding of mutations in the IDH1 or IDH2 genes has been shown to be very valuable in distinguishing low-grade diffuse glioma from both nonneoplastic and low-grade circumscribed neuroepithelial neoplasms that may exhibit growth patterns that can mimic those of diffuse gliomas.15-17 Conversely, finding abnormalities in the BRAF gene in a brain neoplasm that has a low-grade morphology suggests that the lesion may represent one of these low-grade lesions such as a pleomorphic xanthoastrocytoma, pilocytic astrocytoma, or mixed neuronal-glial tumor as opposed to a diffuse glioma.18,19

Depending upon the environment in which one practices, small biopsy specimens may be prevalent, and unfortunately, it is not uncommon to obtain a biopsy that exhibits a histologic growth pattern that is discordant from what one would predict based on the clinical context and imaging findings. Molecular testing may be useful in resolving discordances in such situations. If a biopsy of a ring-enhancing lesion demonstrates a diffuse glioma that doesn’t meet WHO grade IV criteria, applying methodologies that look for genetic features commonly encountered in high-grade astrocytomas may identify genetic abnormalities that suggest a more aggressive lesion than is indicated by the histologic findings. The presence of genetic abnormalities such as homozygous deletion of the CDKN2A gene, TERT promoter mutation, loss of heterozygosity of chromosome 10q and/or phosphatase and tensin homolog (PTEN) mutations, EGFR gene amplification or the presence of the EGFR variant III are a few findings that would suggest the aforementioned sample may represent an undersampling of a higher grade diffuse astrocytoma, which would be important information to convey to the treating clinicians.20-26

Testing In the VA

The goals of the MPWG include promoting increased quality and availability of genetic testing within the VHA as well as encouraging internal referral testing. An informal survey of the chiefs of VA Pathology and Laboratory Medicine Services was conducted in November of 2017 in an attempt to identify internal VA pathology laboratories currently conducting testing that may be of use in the workup of diffuse gliomas (Table 1). 

It is the hope of this subcommittee that, in light of the recent revision of the WHO classification of tumors of the nervous system, this testing will be more widespread and readily available within VA laboratories to allow for a cost-effective yet comprehensive molecular assessment of diffuse gliomas.

 

 

The VA currently offers NGS panels for patients with advanced-stage malignancies under the auspices of the Precision Oncology Program, whose reports provide both (1) mutational analyses for genes such as TP53, ATRX, NF1, BRAF, PTEN, TERT IDH1, and IDH2 that may be useful in the proper classifying of high-grade diffuse gliomas; and (2) information regarding clinical trials for which the veteran may be eligible for based on their glioma’s mutational profile. Interested VA providers should visit tinyurl.com/precisiononcology/ for more information about this program. Finally, although internal testing within VA laboratories is recommended to allow for the development of more cost-effective testing, testing may be performed through many nationally contracted reference laboratories.

Conclusion

In light of the recent progress made in our understanding of the molecular events of gliomagenesis, the way we diagnose diffuse gliomas within the CNS has undergone a major paradigm shift. While histology still plays a critical role in the process, we believe that additional ancillary testing is a requirement for all diffuse gliomas diagnosed within VA pathology laboratories. In the context of recently encountered cases, we have provided a recommended workflow highlighting the testing that can be performed to allow for the proper diagnosis of our veterans with diffuse gliomas (Figure 4).

Unless limited by the amount of tissue available for such tests, ancillary testing must be performed on all diffuse gliomas diagnosed within the VA system to ensure proper diagnosis and treatment of our veterans with diffuse gliomas. 

See Table 2 for recommended applications for various tests. Finally, while we have attempted to identify laboratories within the VA system that perform some of these critical tests with the hope of encouraging collaborative, cost-effective testing of diffuse gliomas within the VA system, there are currently apparent gaps in our ability to provide the comprehensive ancillary testing required for diffuse gliomas exclusively within the VA laboratory environment.

 

 

Acknowledgments
The authors thank Dr. Craig M. Horbinski (Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University) and Dr. Geoffrey H. Murdoch (University of Pittsburgh) for their constructive criticism of the manuscript. We also thank the following individuals for past service as members of the molecular oncology subcommittee of the MGPW: Dr. George Ansstas (Washington University School of Medicine), Dr. Osssama Hemadeh (Bay Pines VA Health Care System), Dr. James Herman (VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System), and Dr. Ryan Phan (formerly of the VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System) as well as the members of the Veterans Administration pathology and laboratory medicine service molecular genetics pathology workgroup.

Author disclosures
The authors report no actual or potential conflicts of interest with regard to this article.

Disclaimer
The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Federal Practitioner, Frontline Medical Communications Inc., the US Government, or any of its agencies.

Dr. Kulich is the Acting Chief of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine Service at VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System and member of the Division of Neuropathology at University of Pittsburgh Department of Pathology, Dr. Duvvuri is an Otolaryngologist at VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, and Dr. Passero is the Section Chief of Hematology\Oncology at VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System in Pennsylvania. Dr. Becker is an Oncologist at VA-New York Harbor Healthcare System. Dr. Dacic is a Pathologist at University of Pittsburgh Department of Pathology in Pennsylvania. Dr. Ehsan is Chief of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine Services at the South Texas Veterans Healthcare System in San Antonio. Dr. Gutkin is the former Chief of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine Service at VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System. Dr. Hou is a Pathologist at St. Louis VA Medical Center in Missouri. Dr. Icardi is the VA National Director of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine Services. Dr. Lyle is a Pathologist at Bay Pine Health Care System in Florida. Dr. Lynch is an Investigator at VA Salt Lake Health Care System Informatics and Computing Infrastructure. Dr. Montgomery is an Oncologist at VA Puget Sound Health Care System, in Seattle, Washington. Dr. Przygodzki is the Director of Genomic Medicine Implementation and Associate Director of Genomic Medicine for the VA. Dr. Colman is a Neuro-Oncologist at George E. Wahlen VA Medical Center and the Director of Medical Neuro-Oncology at the Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, Utah.

Correspondence: Dr. Kulich ([email protected])

 

References

1. Louis DN, Perry A, Reifenberger G, et al. The 2016 World Health Organization Classification of Tumors of the Central Nervous System: a summary. Acta Neuropathol. 2016;131(6):803-820.

2. Wang-Rodriguez J, Yunes A, Phan R, et al. The challenges of precision medicine and new advances in molecular diagnostic testing in hematolymphoid malignancies: impact on the VHA. Fed Pract. 2017;34(suppl 5):S38-S49.

3. Ostrom QT, Gittleman H, Liao P, et al. CBTRUS statistical report: primary brain and other central nervous system tumors diagnosed in the United States in 2010-2014. Neuro Oncol. 2017;19(suppl 5):v1-v88.

4. Nikiforova MN, Wald AI, Melan MA, et al. Targeted next-generation sequencing panel (GlioSeq) provides comprehensive genetic profiling of central nervous system tumors. Neuro Oncol. 2016;18(3)379-387.

5. Cairncross JG, Ueki K, Zlatescu MC, et al. Specific genetic predictors of chemotherapeutic response and survival in patients with anaplastic oligodendrogliomas. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998;90(19):1473-1479.

6. van den Bent MJ, Erdem-Eraslan L, Idbaih A, et al. MGMT-STP27 methylation status as predictive marker for response to PCV in anaplastic oligodendrogliomas and oligoastrocytomas. A report from EORTC study 26951. Clin Cancer Res. 2013;19(19):5513-5522.

7. Stupp R, Hegi ME, Mason WP, et al; European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Brain Tumour and Radiation Oncology Groups; National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group. Effects of radiotherapy with concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide versus radiotherapy alone on survival in glioblastoma in a randomised phase III study: 5-year analysis of the EORTC-NCIC trial. Lancet Oncol. 2009;10(5):459-466.

8. Malmstrom A, Gronberg BH, Marosi C, et al. Temozolomide versus standard 6-week radiotherapy versus hypofractionated radiotherapy in patients older than 60 years with glioblastoma: the Nordic randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2012;13(9):916-926.

9. van den Bent MJ, Kros JM. Predictive and prognostic markers in neuro-oncology. J Neuropathol Exp Neurol. 2007;66(12):1074-1081.

10. Chen R, Smith-Cohn M, Cohen AL, Colman H. Glioma subclassifications and their clinical significance. Neurotherapeutics. 2017;14(2):284-297.

11. Jordan JT, Sanders AE, Armstrong T, et al. Quality improvement in neurology: neuro-oncology quality measurement set. Neurology. 2018;90(14):652-658.

12. Chen L, Voronovich Z, Clark K, et al. Predicting the likelihood of an isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 or 2 mutation in diagnoses of infiltrative glioma. Neuro Oncol. 2014;16(11):1478-1483.

13. Hegi ME, Diserens AC, Gorlia T, et al. MGMT gene silencing and benefit from temozolomide in glioblastoma. N Engl J Med. 2005;352(10):997-1003.

14. Wick W, Platten M, Meisner C, et al; NOA-08 Study Group of Neuro-oncology Working Group (NOA) of German Cancer Society. Temozolomide chemotherapy alone versus radiotherapy alone for malignant astrocytoma in the elderly: the NOA-08 randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2012;13(7):707-715.

15. Horbinski C, Kofler J, Kelly LM, Murdoch GH, Nikiforova MN. Diagnostic use of IDH1/2 mutation analysis in routine clinical testing of formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded glioma tissues. J Neuropathol Exp Neurol. 2009;68(12):1319-1325.

16. Camelo-Piragua S, Jansen M, Ganguly A, Kim JC, Louis DN, Nutt CL. Mutant IDH1-specific immunohistochemistry distinguishes diffuse astrocytoma from astrocytosis. Acta Neuropathol. 2010;119(4):509-511.

17. Horbinski C, Kofler J, Yeaney G, et al. Isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 analysis differentiates gangliogliomas from infiltrative gliomas. Brain Pathol. 2011;21(5):564-574.

18. Berghoff AS, Preusser M. BRAF alterations in brain tumours: molecular pathology and therapeutic opportunities. Curr Opin Neurol. 2014;27(6):689-696.

19. Korshunov A, Meyer J, Capper D, et al. Combined molecular analysis of BRAF and IDH1 distinguishes pilocytic astrocytoma from diffuse astrocytoma. Acta Neuropathol. 2009;118(3):401-405.

20. Fuller CE, Schmidt RE, Roth KA, et al. Clinical utility of fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) in morphologically ambiguous gliomas with hybrid oligodendroglial/astrocytic features. J Neuropathol Exp Neurol. 2003;62(11):1118-1128.

21. Horbinski C. Practical molecular diagnostics in neuropathology: making a tough job a little easier. Semin Diagn Pathol. 2010;27(2):105-113.

22. Fuller GN, Bigner SH. Amplified cellular oncogenes in neoplasms of the human central nervous system. Mutat Res. 1992;276(3):299-306.

23. Brennan CW, Verhaak RG, McKenna A, et al; TCGA Research Network. The somatic genomic landscape of glioblastoma. Cell. 2013;155(2):462-477.

24. Aldape K, Zadeh G, Mansouri S, Reifenberger G, von Deimling A. Glioblastoma: pathology, molecular mechanisms and markers. Acta Neuropathol. 2015;129(6):829-848.

25. Killela PJ, Reitman ZJ, Jiao Y, et al. TERT promoter mutations occur frequently in gliomas and a subset of tumors derived from cells with low rates of self-renewal. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013;110(15):6021-6026.

26. Nikiforova MN, Hamilton RL. Molecular diagnostics of gliomas. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2011;135(5):558-568.

References

1. Louis DN, Perry A, Reifenberger G, et al. The 2016 World Health Organization Classification of Tumors of the Central Nervous System: a summary. Acta Neuropathol. 2016;131(6):803-820.

2. Wang-Rodriguez J, Yunes A, Phan R, et al. The challenges of precision medicine and new advances in molecular diagnostic testing in hematolymphoid malignancies: impact on the VHA. Fed Pract. 2017;34(suppl 5):S38-S49.

3. Ostrom QT, Gittleman H, Liao P, et al. CBTRUS statistical report: primary brain and other central nervous system tumors diagnosed in the United States in 2010-2014. Neuro Oncol. 2017;19(suppl 5):v1-v88.

4. Nikiforova MN, Wald AI, Melan MA, et al. Targeted next-generation sequencing panel (GlioSeq) provides comprehensive genetic profiling of central nervous system tumors. Neuro Oncol. 2016;18(3)379-387.

5. Cairncross JG, Ueki K, Zlatescu MC, et al. Specific genetic predictors of chemotherapeutic response and survival in patients with anaplastic oligodendrogliomas. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998;90(19):1473-1479.

6. van den Bent MJ, Erdem-Eraslan L, Idbaih A, et al. MGMT-STP27 methylation status as predictive marker for response to PCV in anaplastic oligodendrogliomas and oligoastrocytomas. A report from EORTC study 26951. Clin Cancer Res. 2013;19(19):5513-5522.

7. Stupp R, Hegi ME, Mason WP, et al; European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Brain Tumour and Radiation Oncology Groups; National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group. Effects of radiotherapy with concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide versus radiotherapy alone on survival in glioblastoma in a randomised phase III study: 5-year analysis of the EORTC-NCIC trial. Lancet Oncol. 2009;10(5):459-466.

8. Malmstrom A, Gronberg BH, Marosi C, et al. Temozolomide versus standard 6-week radiotherapy versus hypofractionated radiotherapy in patients older than 60 years with glioblastoma: the Nordic randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2012;13(9):916-926.

9. van den Bent MJ, Kros JM. Predictive and prognostic markers in neuro-oncology. J Neuropathol Exp Neurol. 2007;66(12):1074-1081.

10. Chen R, Smith-Cohn M, Cohen AL, Colman H. Glioma subclassifications and their clinical significance. Neurotherapeutics. 2017;14(2):284-297.

11. Jordan JT, Sanders AE, Armstrong T, et al. Quality improvement in neurology: neuro-oncology quality measurement set. Neurology. 2018;90(14):652-658.

12. Chen L, Voronovich Z, Clark K, et al. Predicting the likelihood of an isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 or 2 mutation in diagnoses of infiltrative glioma. Neuro Oncol. 2014;16(11):1478-1483.

13. Hegi ME, Diserens AC, Gorlia T, et al. MGMT gene silencing and benefit from temozolomide in glioblastoma. N Engl J Med. 2005;352(10):997-1003.

14. Wick W, Platten M, Meisner C, et al; NOA-08 Study Group of Neuro-oncology Working Group (NOA) of German Cancer Society. Temozolomide chemotherapy alone versus radiotherapy alone for malignant astrocytoma in the elderly: the NOA-08 randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2012;13(7):707-715.

15. Horbinski C, Kofler J, Kelly LM, Murdoch GH, Nikiforova MN. Diagnostic use of IDH1/2 mutation analysis in routine clinical testing of formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded glioma tissues. J Neuropathol Exp Neurol. 2009;68(12):1319-1325.

16. Camelo-Piragua S, Jansen M, Ganguly A, Kim JC, Louis DN, Nutt CL. Mutant IDH1-specific immunohistochemistry distinguishes diffuse astrocytoma from astrocytosis. Acta Neuropathol. 2010;119(4):509-511.

17. Horbinski C, Kofler J, Yeaney G, et al. Isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 analysis differentiates gangliogliomas from infiltrative gliomas. Brain Pathol. 2011;21(5):564-574.

18. Berghoff AS, Preusser M. BRAF alterations in brain tumours: molecular pathology and therapeutic opportunities. Curr Opin Neurol. 2014;27(6):689-696.

19. Korshunov A, Meyer J, Capper D, et al. Combined molecular analysis of BRAF and IDH1 distinguishes pilocytic astrocytoma from diffuse astrocytoma. Acta Neuropathol. 2009;118(3):401-405.

20. Fuller CE, Schmidt RE, Roth KA, et al. Clinical utility of fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) in morphologically ambiguous gliomas with hybrid oligodendroglial/astrocytic features. J Neuropathol Exp Neurol. 2003;62(11):1118-1128.

21. Horbinski C. Practical molecular diagnostics in neuropathology: making a tough job a little easier. Semin Diagn Pathol. 2010;27(2):105-113.

22. Fuller GN, Bigner SH. Amplified cellular oncogenes in neoplasms of the human central nervous system. Mutat Res. 1992;276(3):299-306.

23. Brennan CW, Verhaak RG, McKenna A, et al; TCGA Research Network. The somatic genomic landscape of glioblastoma. Cell. 2013;155(2):462-477.

24. Aldape K, Zadeh G, Mansouri S, Reifenberger G, von Deimling A. Glioblastoma: pathology, molecular mechanisms and markers. Acta Neuropathol. 2015;129(6):829-848.

25. Killela PJ, Reitman ZJ, Jiao Y, et al. TERT promoter mutations occur frequently in gliomas and a subset of tumors derived from cells with low rates of self-renewal. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013;110(15):6021-6026.

26. Nikiforova MN, Hamilton RL. Molecular diagnostics of gliomas. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2011;135(5):558-568.

Issue
Federal Practitioner - 35(5)s
Issue
Federal Practitioner - 35(5)s
Page Number
S28-S35
Page Number
S28-S35
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
VHA Practice Guideline Recommendations for Diffuse Gliomas
Display Headline
VHA Practice Guideline Recommendations for Diffuse Gliomas
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica

ICYMI: Ibrutinib/rituximab combo improves CLL survival

Article Type
Changed
Fri, 12/16/2022 - 11:33

Patients with previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) aged 70 years or younger who received ibrutinib/rituximab therapy experienced significantly greater progression-free survival, compared with those who received standard chemotherapy with fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (89.4% vs. 72.9% at 3 years; hazard ratio, 0.35; 95% confidence interval, 0.22-0.56; P less than .001), according to results from a randomized, phase 3 trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine (2019;381:432-43).

Ed Uthman/Flickr

We first reported on the results of this trial when they were presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. Find our coverage at the link below.

Publications
Topics
Sections

Patients with previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) aged 70 years or younger who received ibrutinib/rituximab therapy experienced significantly greater progression-free survival, compared with those who received standard chemotherapy with fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (89.4% vs. 72.9% at 3 years; hazard ratio, 0.35; 95% confidence interval, 0.22-0.56; P less than .001), according to results from a randomized, phase 3 trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine (2019;381:432-43).

Ed Uthman/Flickr

We first reported on the results of this trial when they were presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. Find our coverage at the link below.

Patients with previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) aged 70 years or younger who received ibrutinib/rituximab therapy experienced significantly greater progression-free survival, compared with those who received standard chemotherapy with fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (89.4% vs. 72.9% at 3 years; hazard ratio, 0.35; 95% confidence interval, 0.22-0.56; P less than .001), according to results from a randomized, phase 3 trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine (2019;381:432-43).

Ed Uthman/Flickr

We first reported on the results of this trial when they were presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. Find our coverage at the link below.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Article Source

FROM THE NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.

Hemoglobin levels are associated with long-term dementia risk

Article Type
Changed
Thu, 12/15/2022 - 15:46

Adults with low levels of hemoglobin and adults with high levels of hemoglobin have an increased risk of developing dementia over 12 years of follow-up, compared with adults with midrange levels, according to a population-based study in the Netherlands.

This U-shaped association “may relate to differences in white matter integrity and cerebral perfusion,” the researchers wrote in Neurology.

Ton Everaers, Erasmus Medical Center
Dr. M. Arfan Ikram

“With around 10% of people over age 65 having anemia in the Americas and Europe and up to 45% in African and southeast Asian countries, these results could have important implications for the burden of dementia,” said study author M. Arfan Ikram, MD, PhD, in a news release. Dr. Ikram is a professor of epidemiology at Erasmus Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

Prior studies have found that low hemoglobin levels are associated with adverse health outcomes, such as coronary heart disease, stroke, and mortality, but data about the relationship between hemoglobin levels and dementia risk have been limited.

A population-based cohort study

To examine the long-term association of hemoglobin levels and anemia with risk of dementia, Dr. Ikram and coauthors analyzed data from the Rotterdam Study, an ongoing population-based cohort study in the Netherlands that started in 1990. Their analysis included data from 12,305 participants without dementia who had serum hemoglobin measured at baseline (mean age, 64.6 years; 57.7% women).

During a mean follow-up of 12.1 years, 1,520 participants developed dementia, 1,194 of whom had Alzheimer’s disease.

“Both low and high hemoglobin levels were associated with increased dementia risk,” the authors wrote. Compared with participants in the middle quintile of hemoglobin levels (8.57-8.99 mmol/L), participants in the lowest quintile (less than 8.11 mmol/L) had a hazard ratio of dementia of 1.29, and participants in the highest quintile (greater than 9.40 mmol/L) had an HR of 1.20.

About 6% of the participants had anemia – that is, a hemoglobin level of less than 8.1 mmol/L for men and less than 7.5 mmol/L for women. Anemia was associated with a 34% increased risk of dementia and a 41% increased risk of Alzheimer’s disease.

Of the 745 people with anemia, 128 developed dementia, compared with 1,392 of the 11,560 people who did not have anemia (17% vs. 12%).

A U-shaped association

The researchers also examined hemoglobin in relation to vascular brain disease, structural connectivity, and global cerebral perfusion among 5,267 participants without dementia who had brain MRI. White matter hyperintensity volume and hemoglobin had a U-shaped association, similar to that for dementia and hemoglobin. In addition, hemoglobin inversely correlated to cerebral perfusion.

The results remained consistent after adjustment for factors such as smoking, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and alcohol use.

A limitation of the study is that the participants lived in the Netherlands and were primarily of European descent, so the results may not apply to other populations, the authors wrote.

Dr. Ikram noted that the study does not prove that low or high hemoglobin levels cause dementia. “More research is needed to determine whether hemoglobin levels play a direct role in this increased risk or whether these associations can be explained by underlying issues or other vascular or metabolic changes.”

The study was supported by the Netherlands Cardiovascular Research Initiative; Erasmus Medical Centre; Erasmus University Rotterdam; Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research; Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development; Research Institute for Diseases in the Elderly; Netherlands Genomic Initiative; Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture, and Science; Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare, and Sports; European Commission; Municipality of Rotterdam; Netherlands Consortium for Healthy Aging; and Dutch Heart Foundation. The authors reported no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Ikram MA et al. Neurology. 2019 Jul 31. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000008003.

Issue
Neurology Reviews- 27(10)
Publications
Topics
Sections

Adults with low levels of hemoglobin and adults with high levels of hemoglobin have an increased risk of developing dementia over 12 years of follow-up, compared with adults with midrange levels, according to a population-based study in the Netherlands.

This U-shaped association “may relate to differences in white matter integrity and cerebral perfusion,” the researchers wrote in Neurology.

Ton Everaers, Erasmus Medical Center
Dr. M. Arfan Ikram

“With around 10% of people over age 65 having anemia in the Americas and Europe and up to 45% in African and southeast Asian countries, these results could have important implications for the burden of dementia,” said study author M. Arfan Ikram, MD, PhD, in a news release. Dr. Ikram is a professor of epidemiology at Erasmus Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

Prior studies have found that low hemoglobin levels are associated with adverse health outcomes, such as coronary heart disease, stroke, and mortality, but data about the relationship between hemoglobin levels and dementia risk have been limited.

A population-based cohort study

To examine the long-term association of hemoglobin levels and anemia with risk of dementia, Dr. Ikram and coauthors analyzed data from the Rotterdam Study, an ongoing population-based cohort study in the Netherlands that started in 1990. Their analysis included data from 12,305 participants without dementia who had serum hemoglobin measured at baseline (mean age, 64.6 years; 57.7% women).

During a mean follow-up of 12.1 years, 1,520 participants developed dementia, 1,194 of whom had Alzheimer’s disease.

“Both low and high hemoglobin levels were associated with increased dementia risk,” the authors wrote. Compared with participants in the middle quintile of hemoglobin levels (8.57-8.99 mmol/L), participants in the lowest quintile (less than 8.11 mmol/L) had a hazard ratio of dementia of 1.29, and participants in the highest quintile (greater than 9.40 mmol/L) had an HR of 1.20.

About 6% of the participants had anemia – that is, a hemoglobin level of less than 8.1 mmol/L for men and less than 7.5 mmol/L for women. Anemia was associated with a 34% increased risk of dementia and a 41% increased risk of Alzheimer’s disease.

Of the 745 people with anemia, 128 developed dementia, compared with 1,392 of the 11,560 people who did not have anemia (17% vs. 12%).

A U-shaped association

The researchers also examined hemoglobin in relation to vascular brain disease, structural connectivity, and global cerebral perfusion among 5,267 participants without dementia who had brain MRI. White matter hyperintensity volume and hemoglobin had a U-shaped association, similar to that for dementia and hemoglobin. In addition, hemoglobin inversely correlated to cerebral perfusion.

The results remained consistent after adjustment for factors such as smoking, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and alcohol use.

A limitation of the study is that the participants lived in the Netherlands and were primarily of European descent, so the results may not apply to other populations, the authors wrote.

Dr. Ikram noted that the study does not prove that low or high hemoglobin levels cause dementia. “More research is needed to determine whether hemoglobin levels play a direct role in this increased risk or whether these associations can be explained by underlying issues or other vascular or metabolic changes.”

The study was supported by the Netherlands Cardiovascular Research Initiative; Erasmus Medical Centre; Erasmus University Rotterdam; Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research; Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development; Research Institute for Diseases in the Elderly; Netherlands Genomic Initiative; Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture, and Science; Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare, and Sports; European Commission; Municipality of Rotterdam; Netherlands Consortium for Healthy Aging; and Dutch Heart Foundation. The authors reported no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Ikram MA et al. Neurology. 2019 Jul 31. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000008003.

Adults with low levels of hemoglobin and adults with high levels of hemoglobin have an increased risk of developing dementia over 12 years of follow-up, compared with adults with midrange levels, according to a population-based study in the Netherlands.

This U-shaped association “may relate to differences in white matter integrity and cerebral perfusion,” the researchers wrote in Neurology.

Ton Everaers, Erasmus Medical Center
Dr. M. Arfan Ikram

“With around 10% of people over age 65 having anemia in the Americas and Europe and up to 45% in African and southeast Asian countries, these results could have important implications for the burden of dementia,” said study author M. Arfan Ikram, MD, PhD, in a news release. Dr. Ikram is a professor of epidemiology at Erasmus Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

Prior studies have found that low hemoglobin levels are associated with adverse health outcomes, such as coronary heart disease, stroke, and mortality, but data about the relationship between hemoglobin levels and dementia risk have been limited.

A population-based cohort study

To examine the long-term association of hemoglobin levels and anemia with risk of dementia, Dr. Ikram and coauthors analyzed data from the Rotterdam Study, an ongoing population-based cohort study in the Netherlands that started in 1990. Their analysis included data from 12,305 participants without dementia who had serum hemoglobin measured at baseline (mean age, 64.6 years; 57.7% women).

During a mean follow-up of 12.1 years, 1,520 participants developed dementia, 1,194 of whom had Alzheimer’s disease.

“Both low and high hemoglobin levels were associated with increased dementia risk,” the authors wrote. Compared with participants in the middle quintile of hemoglobin levels (8.57-8.99 mmol/L), participants in the lowest quintile (less than 8.11 mmol/L) had a hazard ratio of dementia of 1.29, and participants in the highest quintile (greater than 9.40 mmol/L) had an HR of 1.20.

About 6% of the participants had anemia – that is, a hemoglobin level of less than 8.1 mmol/L for men and less than 7.5 mmol/L for women. Anemia was associated with a 34% increased risk of dementia and a 41% increased risk of Alzheimer’s disease.

Of the 745 people with anemia, 128 developed dementia, compared with 1,392 of the 11,560 people who did not have anemia (17% vs. 12%).

A U-shaped association

The researchers also examined hemoglobin in relation to vascular brain disease, structural connectivity, and global cerebral perfusion among 5,267 participants without dementia who had brain MRI. White matter hyperintensity volume and hemoglobin had a U-shaped association, similar to that for dementia and hemoglobin. In addition, hemoglobin inversely correlated to cerebral perfusion.

The results remained consistent after adjustment for factors such as smoking, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and alcohol use.

A limitation of the study is that the participants lived in the Netherlands and were primarily of European descent, so the results may not apply to other populations, the authors wrote.

Dr. Ikram noted that the study does not prove that low or high hemoglobin levels cause dementia. “More research is needed to determine whether hemoglobin levels play a direct role in this increased risk or whether these associations can be explained by underlying issues or other vascular or metabolic changes.”

The study was supported by the Netherlands Cardiovascular Research Initiative; Erasmus Medical Centre; Erasmus University Rotterdam; Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research; Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development; Research Institute for Diseases in the Elderly; Netherlands Genomic Initiative; Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture, and Science; Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare, and Sports; European Commission; Municipality of Rotterdam; Netherlands Consortium for Healthy Aging; and Dutch Heart Foundation. The authors reported no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Ikram MA et al. Neurology. 2019 Jul 31. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000008003.

Issue
Neurology Reviews- 27(10)
Issue
Neurology Reviews- 27(10)
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Click for Credit Status
Active
Sections
Article Source

FROM NEUROLOGY

Citation Override
Publish date: July 31, 2019
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
CME ID
205609
Vitals

 

Key clinical point: Adults with low levels of hemoglobin and adults with high levels of hemoglobin may have an increased risk of dementia.

Major finding: Compared with participants in the middle quintile of hemoglobin levels (8.57-8.99 mmol/L), participants in the lowest quintile (less than 8.11 mmol/L) had a hazard ratio of dementia of 1.29, and participants in the highest quintile (greater than 9.40 mmol/L) had an HR of 1.20.

Study details: An analysis of data from 12,305 participants in the Rotterdam Study, a population-based cohort study in the Netherlands, who were followed up for an average of 12 years.

Disclosures: The study was supported by the Netherlands Cardiovascular Research Initiative; Erasmus Medical Centre; Erasmus University Rotterdam; Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research; Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development; Research Institute for Diseases in the Elderly; Netherlands Genomic Initiative; Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture, and Science; Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare, and Sports; European Commission; Municipality of Rotterdam; Netherlands Consortium for Healthy Aging; and Dutch Heart Foundation. The authors reported no relevant disclosures.

Source: Ikram MA et al. Neurology. 2019 Jul 31. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000008003.
 

Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.

Improving Comorbidities With Psoriasis Treatment

Article Type
Changed
Thu, 12/15/2022 - 14:42
Display Headline
Improving Comorbidities With Psoriasis Treatment

Psoriasis is a common immune-mediated inflammatory skin disorder that affects up to 3.2% of adults in the United States.1  It is a TH1, TH17, and TH22 inflammatory disease resulting in increased levels of cytokines in the skin, including IFN-γ, tumor necrosis factor (TNF), IL-17, and IL-22. Dendritic antigen-presenting cells also are increased in the skin of patients with psoriasis resulting in increased levels of IL-23.2  Although skin disease often is its most prominent and sometimes its only documented manifestation, an understanding of psoriasis as a chronic multisystem inflammatory disorder is essential to optimize outcomes.1,3  Multiple comorbidities that may affect treatment selection often are associated with psoriasis, including psoriatic arthritis, cardiovascular disease, depression, obesity, metabolic syndrome, cardiovascular disease (CVD), cerebrovascular disease, and peripheral vascular disease. 

As with other immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, it has been hypothesized that psoriasis may influence comorbidities through shared genetic risks, environmental factors, and pathogenic factors or inflammatory pathways.2-4 For example, emerging evidence suggests that comorbidities such as metabolic syndrome may be related to the chronic inflammation that accompanies psoriasis, a finding that has important clinical implications.

The interplay and dependence or interdependence of psoriasis and its comorbidities is complex, and it is an area deserving of vigorous research.1 At present, observational and epidemiological data such as the present case suggest that effective treatment of psoriasis could lead to benefits “beyond the skin” and potentially even prevent future disease-associated comorbidity.1-3

Metabolic Comorbidities and Psoriasis Treatment

Although the prevalence of CVD and CVD risk factors is increased in patients with psoriasis, studies suggest that the suppression of systemic inflammation that accompanies adequate psoriasis treatment, particularly in patients with moderate to severe disease, may decrease the risk for cardiovascular comorbidities.5 For example, a number of studies have found treatment of psoriasis with methotrexate may decrease the risk for cardiovascular events, including ischemic heart disease, stroke, and cardiovascular death.6-10 Low-dose methotrexate has been shown to be particularly advantageous for decreasing CVD in patients with psoriasis.5,8 

Tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors, which are frequently used for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, also may notably decrease cardiovascular risk.5 One study showed a significant decrease in the risk for myocardial infarction in patients with psoriasis who were treated with TNF-α inhibitors (hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.32-0.79)11; other studies have confirmed this benefit.12-17 Moreover, the reduction in cardiovascular events may be greater with TNF-α inhibitors than with methotrexate when the former is used for psoriasis treatment, with longer duration of TNF-α inhibition leading to greater risk reduction.18,19 

In patients with severe psoriasis, treatment with TNF-α inhibitors has been associated with improvements in subclinical CVD (abnormalities in echocardiogram), improved coronary microvascular function (determined by transthoracic Doppler echocardiography), and reduced progression in coronary artery disease (assessed by coronary computed tomography).20-22 Improvement in endothelial function (brachial artery reactivity) and carotid arterial stiffness also has been reported following 6 months of treatment with adalimumab for moderate to severe psoriasis.21 

Data concerning potential cardiovascular risk reduction with treatment of psoriasis utilizing newer agents are continuing to emerge. To date, no increase in the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events has been shown in patients with psoriasis treated with anti–IL-17 agents, such as secukinumab; however, additional long-term studies are needed.18,23-25 

Apremilast, an oral phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor, is another addition to the psoriasis armamentarium.26 No increase in the risk for major cardiac events has been shown in randomized controlled trials of patients with psoriasis receiving apremilast for up to 156 weeks.27,28 As with secukinumab, additional long-term, large-scale studies are needed to determine the effects of apremilast on cardiovascular risk in patients with psoriasis.

Other Comorbidities

Effective treatment of psoriasis also appears to benefit various other comorbidities. Numerous studies have shown an increased incidence of depression in patients with psoriasis vs controls and a concurrent improvement in psychiatric symptoms with psoriasis disease control.1 For instance, a multicenter, randomized, open-label study of 352 patients with psoriasis showed treatment with etanercept, a TNF inhibitor, significantly improved scores for concomitant depression and anxiety (P<.05).29 Similarly, a double-blind, randomized clinical trial of patients with psoriasis found significant improvement in depression at 12 weeks in patients treated with adalimumab vs placebo (P<.001).30 Likewise, a multicenter phase 3 trial of more than 600 psoriatic patients showed improved Beck depression inventory and Hamilton depression rating scale scores at 12 weeks in patients with psoriasis treated with etanercept compared to placebo.31 

A much larger analysis of 7490 patients with psoriasis compared the rates of depression among patients receiving biologic therapy, phototherapy, and conventional systemic therapy. The greatest impact on depression symptoms was seen with biologic therapy (incidence rate, 3.01/100 patient-years), followed by conventional systemic therapy (5.70/100 patient-years), and phototherapy (5.85/100 patient-years).32

Uveitis, or inflammation of the middle layer of the eye (the uvea), frequently is seen in patients with psoriasis. In a cohort study of 60,000 patients with mild psoriasis and more than 7000 patients with severe psoriasis, the incidence of uveitis in patients was significantly increased in both patients with severe disease and those with mild disease (P<.001 for both).33 In a case series of 8 patients with concomitant psoriasis and uveitis, 4 patients were treated with infliximab and 4 with adalimumab; 7 patients treated achieved remission of their uveitis.34 

Role of the TNF-α Blockade in Sickle Cell Disease

Presently, no reported human studies have shown TNF-α blockade as a possible treatment of sickle cell disease.35 However, increased levels of TNF-α have been shown to contribute to the onset of sickle cell crises and to the severity of sickle cell disease due to their integral role in the development of vascular wall dysfunction and ischemia.35,36 Studies have shown that TNF-α is released in homozygous sickle cell anemia (HbSS) disease and impedes blood flow during sickle cell crisis, resulting in worsening ischemia and painful infarction.35,36 Moreover, cytokine analysis has shown significantly (P<.05) elevated levels of TNF-α during sickle cell crises and at baseline in patients with HbSS vs healthy controls, suggesting a possible role of TNF-α in the pathogenesis of sickle cell crisis.36 

The case patient reported a 50% reduction in pain level and the use of pain medications that overlapped with the initiation of adalimumab for treatment of her psoriasis. Moreover, although radiographs showed possible psoriatic changes of the distal metatarsal row, she described sickle cell pain and pain crises that were uncharacteristic of psoriatic arthralgia.35 Although these findings are observational in nature and limited to one patient, they do suggest an interesting hypothesis. If a common inflammatory mediator is the culprit, it is possible that TNF-α inhibitors could be the preferred treatment option for patients with psoriasis and comorbid HbSS or HbSC disease. Further studies are needed to analyze the role of TNF-α inhibition in sickle cell disease.

Bottom Line

Psoriasis may influence comorbidities through shared genetic risks, environmental factors, or inflammatory pathways. Improvement in metabolic and other comorbidities have been shown with the effective treatment of psoriasis. The case described here showed improvement in sickle cell crises and pain with treatment of psoriasis with adalimumab. Tumor necrosis factor inhibitors may be an optimal choice for patients with both psoriasis and sickle cell disease. 

References
  1. Elmets CA, Leonardi CL, Davis DMR, et al. Joint AAD-NPF guidelines of care for the management and treatment of psoriasis with awareness and attention to comorbidities. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019;80:1073-1113.
  2. Davidovici BB, Sattar N, Prinz J, et al. Psoriasis and systemic inflammatory diseases: potential mechanistic links between skin disease and co-morbid conditions. J Invest Dermatol. 2010;130:1785-1796.
  3. Oliveira Mde F, Rocha Bde O, Duarte GV. Psoriasis: classical and emerging comorbidities. An Bras Dermatol. 2015;90:9-20.
  4. Shah K, Mellars L, Changolkar A, Feldman SR. Real-world burden of comorbidities in US patients with psoriasis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2017;77:287-292.
  5. Hu SC, Lan CE. Psoriasis and cardiovascular comorbidities: focusing on severe vascular events, cardiovascular risk factors and implications for treatment [published online October 21, 2017]. Int J Mol Sci. doi:10.3390/ijms18102211.
  6. Hugh J, Van Voorhees AS, Nijhawan RI, et al. From the Medical Board of The National Psoriasis Foundation: the risk of cardiovascular disease in individuals with psoriasis and the potential impact of current therapies. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2014;70:168-177.
  7. Churton S, Brown L, Shin TM, et al. Does treatment of psoriasis reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease? Drugs. 2014;74:169-182.
  8. Prodanovich S, Ma F, Taylor J, et al. Methotrexate reduces incidence of vascular diseases in veterans with psoriasis or rheumatoid arthritis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2005;52:262-226.
  9. Gulliver WP, Young HM, Bachelez H, et al. Psoriasis patients treated with biologics and methotrexate have a reduced rate of myocardial infarction: a collaborative analysis using international cohorts. J Cutan Med Surg. 2016;20:550-554.
  10. Ahlehoff O, Skov L, Gislason G, et al. Cardiovascular disease event rates in patients with severe psoriasis treated with systemic anti-inflammatory drugs: a Danish real-world cohort study. J Intern Med. 2013;273:197-204.
  11. Wu JJ, Poon KY, Channual JC, et al. Association between tumor necrosis factor inhibitor therapy and myocardial infarction risk in patients with psoriasis. Arch Dermatol. 2012;148:1244-1250.
  12. Wu JJ, Poon KY. Association of ethnicity, tumor necrosis factor inhibitor therapy, and myocardial infarction risk in patients with psoriasis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2013;69:167-168.
  13. Wu JJ, Poon KY, Bebchuk JD. Association between the type and length of tumor necrosis factor inhibitor therapy and myocardial infarction risk in patients with psoriasis. J Drugs Dermatol. 2013;12:899-903.
  14. Wu JJ, Poon KY, Bebchuk JD. Tumor necrosis factor inhibitor therapy and myocardial infarction risk in patients with psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, or both. J Drugs Dermatol. 2014;13:932-934.
  15. Famenini S, Sako EY, Wu JJ. Effect of treating psoriasis on cardiovascular co-morbidities: focus on TNF inhibitors. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2014;15:45-50.
  16. Nguyen T, Wu JJ. Relationship between tumor necrosis factor-alpha inhibitors and cardiovascular disease in psoriasis: a review. Perm J. 2014;18:49-54.
  17. Shaaban D, Al-Mutairi N. The effect of tumour necrosis factor inhibitor therapy on the incidence of myocardial infarction in patients with psoriasis: a retrospective study [published online November 17, 2017]. J Dermatol Treat. doi:10.1080/09546634.2016.1254145. 
  18. Wu D, Hou SY, Zhao S, et al. Efficacy and safety of interleukin-17 antagonists in patients with plaque psoriasis: A meta-analysis from phase 3 randomized controlled trials. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2017;31:992-100.
  19. Yang ZS, Lin NN, Li L, et al. The effect of TNF inhibitors on cardiovascular events in psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis: an updated meta-analysis. Clin Rev Allergy Immunol. 2016;51:240-247.
  20. Heredi E, Vegh J, Pogacsas L, et al. Subclinical cardiovascular disease and it’s improvement after long-term TNF-alpha inhibitor therapy in severe psoriatic patients. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2016;30:1531-1536.
  21. Pina T, Corrales A, Lopez-Mejias R, et al. Anti-tumor necrosis factor-alpha therapy improves endothelial function and arterial stiffness in patients with moderate to severe psoriasis: a 6-month prospective study. J Dermatol. 2016;43:1267-1272.
  22. Piaserico S, Osto E, Famoso G, et al. Treatment with tumor necrosis factor inhibitors restores coronary microvascular function in young patients with severe psoriasis. Atherosclerosis. 2016;251:25-30.
  23. Van de Kerkhof PC, Griffiths CE, Reich K, et al. Secukinumab long-term safety experience: a pooled analysis of 10 phase II and III clinical studies in patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2016;75:83-98.
  24. Wu JJ, Guerin A, Sundaram M, et al. Cardiovascular event risk assessment in psoriasis patients treated with tumor necrosis factor-alpha inhibitors versus methotrexate. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2017;76:81-90.
  25. Torres T, Raposo I, Selores M. IL-17 blockade in psoriasis: friend or foe in cardiovascular risk? Am J Clin Dermatol. 2016;17:107-112.
  26. Deeks ED. Apremilast: a review in psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis. Drugs. 2015;75:1393-1403.
  27. Crowley J, Thaci D, Joly P, et al. Long-term safety and tolerability of apremilast in patients with psoriasis: pooled safety analysis for >/= 156 weeks from 2 phase 3, randomized, controlled trials (ESTEEM 1 and 2). J Am Acad Dermatol. 2017;77:310-317.
  28. Kavanaugh A, Mease PJ, Gomez-Reino JJ, et al. Treatment of psoriatic arthritis in a phase 3 randomised, placebo-controlled trial with apremilast, an oral phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor. Ann Rheum Dis. 2014;73:1020-1026.
  29. Daudén E, Griffiths CE, Ortonne JP, et al. Improvements in patient-reported outcomes in moderate-to-severe psoriasis patients receiving continuous or paused etanercept treatment over 54 weeks: the CRYSTEL study. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2009;23:1374-1382.
  30. Menter A, Augustin M, Signorovitch J, et al. The effect of adalimumab on reducing depression symptoms in patients with moderate to severe psoriasis: a randomized clinical trial. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2010;62:812-818.
  31. Tyring S, Gottlieb A, Papp K, et al. Etanercept and clinical outcomes, fatigue, and depression in psoriasis: double-blind placebo-controlled randomised phase III trial. Lancet. 2006;367:29-35.
  32. Strober B, Gooderham M, de Jong EMGJ, et al. Depressive symptoms, depression, and the effect of biologic therapy among patients in Psoriasis Longitudinal Assessment and Registry (PSOLAR). J Am Acad Dermatol. 2018;78:70-80.
  33. Egeberg A, Khalid U, Gislason GH, et al. Association of psoriatic disease with uveitis: a Danish nationwide cohort study. JAMA Dermatol. 2015;151:1200-1205.
  34. Huynh N, Cervantes-Castaneda RA, Bhat P, et al. Biologic response modifier therapy for psoriatic ocular inflammatory disease. Ocul Immunol Inflamm. 2008;16:89-93.
  35. Pulusani S, McMurray SL, Jensen K, et al. Psoriasis treatment in patients with sickle cell disease Cutis. 2019;103:93-94.
  36. Nnodim J, Meludu SC, Dioka CE, et al. Cytokine expression in homozygous sickle cell anaemia. JKIMSU. 2015;4:34-37.
Publications
Topics
Sections

Psoriasis is a common immune-mediated inflammatory skin disorder that affects up to 3.2% of adults in the United States.1  It is a TH1, TH17, and TH22 inflammatory disease resulting in increased levels of cytokines in the skin, including IFN-γ, tumor necrosis factor (TNF), IL-17, and IL-22. Dendritic antigen-presenting cells also are increased in the skin of patients with psoriasis resulting in increased levels of IL-23.2  Although skin disease often is its most prominent and sometimes its only documented manifestation, an understanding of psoriasis as a chronic multisystem inflammatory disorder is essential to optimize outcomes.1,3  Multiple comorbidities that may affect treatment selection often are associated with psoriasis, including psoriatic arthritis, cardiovascular disease, depression, obesity, metabolic syndrome, cardiovascular disease (CVD), cerebrovascular disease, and peripheral vascular disease. 

As with other immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, it has been hypothesized that psoriasis may influence comorbidities through shared genetic risks, environmental factors, and pathogenic factors or inflammatory pathways.2-4 For example, emerging evidence suggests that comorbidities such as metabolic syndrome may be related to the chronic inflammation that accompanies psoriasis, a finding that has important clinical implications.

The interplay and dependence or interdependence of psoriasis and its comorbidities is complex, and it is an area deserving of vigorous research.1 At present, observational and epidemiological data such as the present case suggest that effective treatment of psoriasis could lead to benefits “beyond the skin” and potentially even prevent future disease-associated comorbidity.1-3

Metabolic Comorbidities and Psoriasis Treatment

Although the prevalence of CVD and CVD risk factors is increased in patients with psoriasis, studies suggest that the suppression of systemic inflammation that accompanies adequate psoriasis treatment, particularly in patients with moderate to severe disease, may decrease the risk for cardiovascular comorbidities.5 For example, a number of studies have found treatment of psoriasis with methotrexate may decrease the risk for cardiovascular events, including ischemic heart disease, stroke, and cardiovascular death.6-10 Low-dose methotrexate has been shown to be particularly advantageous for decreasing CVD in patients with psoriasis.5,8 

Tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors, which are frequently used for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, also may notably decrease cardiovascular risk.5 One study showed a significant decrease in the risk for myocardial infarction in patients with psoriasis who were treated with TNF-α inhibitors (hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.32-0.79)11; other studies have confirmed this benefit.12-17 Moreover, the reduction in cardiovascular events may be greater with TNF-α inhibitors than with methotrexate when the former is used for psoriasis treatment, with longer duration of TNF-α inhibition leading to greater risk reduction.18,19 

In patients with severe psoriasis, treatment with TNF-α inhibitors has been associated with improvements in subclinical CVD (abnormalities in echocardiogram), improved coronary microvascular function (determined by transthoracic Doppler echocardiography), and reduced progression in coronary artery disease (assessed by coronary computed tomography).20-22 Improvement in endothelial function (brachial artery reactivity) and carotid arterial stiffness also has been reported following 6 months of treatment with adalimumab for moderate to severe psoriasis.21 

Data concerning potential cardiovascular risk reduction with treatment of psoriasis utilizing newer agents are continuing to emerge. To date, no increase in the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events has been shown in patients with psoriasis treated with anti–IL-17 agents, such as secukinumab; however, additional long-term studies are needed.18,23-25 

Apremilast, an oral phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor, is another addition to the psoriasis armamentarium.26 No increase in the risk for major cardiac events has been shown in randomized controlled trials of patients with psoriasis receiving apremilast for up to 156 weeks.27,28 As with secukinumab, additional long-term, large-scale studies are needed to determine the effects of apremilast on cardiovascular risk in patients with psoriasis.

Other Comorbidities

Effective treatment of psoriasis also appears to benefit various other comorbidities. Numerous studies have shown an increased incidence of depression in patients with psoriasis vs controls and a concurrent improvement in psychiatric symptoms with psoriasis disease control.1 For instance, a multicenter, randomized, open-label study of 352 patients with psoriasis showed treatment with etanercept, a TNF inhibitor, significantly improved scores for concomitant depression and anxiety (P<.05).29 Similarly, a double-blind, randomized clinical trial of patients with psoriasis found significant improvement in depression at 12 weeks in patients treated with adalimumab vs placebo (P<.001).30 Likewise, a multicenter phase 3 trial of more than 600 psoriatic patients showed improved Beck depression inventory and Hamilton depression rating scale scores at 12 weeks in patients with psoriasis treated with etanercept compared to placebo.31 

A much larger analysis of 7490 patients with psoriasis compared the rates of depression among patients receiving biologic therapy, phototherapy, and conventional systemic therapy. The greatest impact on depression symptoms was seen with biologic therapy (incidence rate, 3.01/100 patient-years), followed by conventional systemic therapy (5.70/100 patient-years), and phototherapy (5.85/100 patient-years).32

Uveitis, or inflammation of the middle layer of the eye (the uvea), frequently is seen in patients with psoriasis. In a cohort study of 60,000 patients with mild psoriasis and more than 7000 patients with severe psoriasis, the incidence of uveitis in patients was significantly increased in both patients with severe disease and those with mild disease (P<.001 for both).33 In a case series of 8 patients with concomitant psoriasis and uveitis, 4 patients were treated with infliximab and 4 with adalimumab; 7 patients treated achieved remission of their uveitis.34 

Role of the TNF-α Blockade in Sickle Cell Disease

Presently, no reported human studies have shown TNF-α blockade as a possible treatment of sickle cell disease.35 However, increased levels of TNF-α have been shown to contribute to the onset of sickle cell crises and to the severity of sickle cell disease due to their integral role in the development of vascular wall dysfunction and ischemia.35,36 Studies have shown that TNF-α is released in homozygous sickle cell anemia (HbSS) disease and impedes blood flow during sickle cell crisis, resulting in worsening ischemia and painful infarction.35,36 Moreover, cytokine analysis has shown significantly (P<.05) elevated levels of TNF-α during sickle cell crises and at baseline in patients with HbSS vs healthy controls, suggesting a possible role of TNF-α in the pathogenesis of sickle cell crisis.36 

The case patient reported a 50% reduction in pain level and the use of pain medications that overlapped with the initiation of adalimumab for treatment of her psoriasis. Moreover, although radiographs showed possible psoriatic changes of the distal metatarsal row, she described sickle cell pain and pain crises that were uncharacteristic of psoriatic arthralgia.35 Although these findings are observational in nature and limited to one patient, they do suggest an interesting hypothesis. If a common inflammatory mediator is the culprit, it is possible that TNF-α inhibitors could be the preferred treatment option for patients with psoriasis and comorbid HbSS or HbSC disease. Further studies are needed to analyze the role of TNF-α inhibition in sickle cell disease.

Bottom Line

Psoriasis may influence comorbidities through shared genetic risks, environmental factors, or inflammatory pathways. Improvement in metabolic and other comorbidities have been shown with the effective treatment of psoriasis. The case described here showed improvement in sickle cell crises and pain with treatment of psoriasis with adalimumab. Tumor necrosis factor inhibitors may be an optimal choice for patients with both psoriasis and sickle cell disease. 

Psoriasis is a common immune-mediated inflammatory skin disorder that affects up to 3.2% of adults in the United States.1  It is a TH1, TH17, and TH22 inflammatory disease resulting in increased levels of cytokines in the skin, including IFN-γ, tumor necrosis factor (TNF), IL-17, and IL-22. Dendritic antigen-presenting cells also are increased in the skin of patients with psoriasis resulting in increased levels of IL-23.2  Although skin disease often is its most prominent and sometimes its only documented manifestation, an understanding of psoriasis as a chronic multisystem inflammatory disorder is essential to optimize outcomes.1,3  Multiple comorbidities that may affect treatment selection often are associated with psoriasis, including psoriatic arthritis, cardiovascular disease, depression, obesity, metabolic syndrome, cardiovascular disease (CVD), cerebrovascular disease, and peripheral vascular disease. 

As with other immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, it has been hypothesized that psoriasis may influence comorbidities through shared genetic risks, environmental factors, and pathogenic factors or inflammatory pathways.2-4 For example, emerging evidence suggests that comorbidities such as metabolic syndrome may be related to the chronic inflammation that accompanies psoriasis, a finding that has important clinical implications.

The interplay and dependence or interdependence of psoriasis and its comorbidities is complex, and it is an area deserving of vigorous research.1 At present, observational and epidemiological data such as the present case suggest that effective treatment of psoriasis could lead to benefits “beyond the skin” and potentially even prevent future disease-associated comorbidity.1-3

Metabolic Comorbidities and Psoriasis Treatment

Although the prevalence of CVD and CVD risk factors is increased in patients with psoriasis, studies suggest that the suppression of systemic inflammation that accompanies adequate psoriasis treatment, particularly in patients with moderate to severe disease, may decrease the risk for cardiovascular comorbidities.5 For example, a number of studies have found treatment of psoriasis with methotrexate may decrease the risk for cardiovascular events, including ischemic heart disease, stroke, and cardiovascular death.6-10 Low-dose methotrexate has been shown to be particularly advantageous for decreasing CVD in patients with psoriasis.5,8 

Tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors, which are frequently used for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, also may notably decrease cardiovascular risk.5 One study showed a significant decrease in the risk for myocardial infarction in patients with psoriasis who were treated with TNF-α inhibitors (hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.32-0.79)11; other studies have confirmed this benefit.12-17 Moreover, the reduction in cardiovascular events may be greater with TNF-α inhibitors than with methotrexate when the former is used for psoriasis treatment, with longer duration of TNF-α inhibition leading to greater risk reduction.18,19 

In patients with severe psoriasis, treatment with TNF-α inhibitors has been associated with improvements in subclinical CVD (abnormalities in echocardiogram), improved coronary microvascular function (determined by transthoracic Doppler echocardiography), and reduced progression in coronary artery disease (assessed by coronary computed tomography).20-22 Improvement in endothelial function (brachial artery reactivity) and carotid arterial stiffness also has been reported following 6 months of treatment with adalimumab for moderate to severe psoriasis.21 

Data concerning potential cardiovascular risk reduction with treatment of psoriasis utilizing newer agents are continuing to emerge. To date, no increase in the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events has been shown in patients with psoriasis treated with anti–IL-17 agents, such as secukinumab; however, additional long-term studies are needed.18,23-25 

Apremilast, an oral phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor, is another addition to the psoriasis armamentarium.26 No increase in the risk for major cardiac events has been shown in randomized controlled trials of patients with psoriasis receiving apremilast for up to 156 weeks.27,28 As with secukinumab, additional long-term, large-scale studies are needed to determine the effects of apremilast on cardiovascular risk in patients with psoriasis.

Other Comorbidities

Effective treatment of psoriasis also appears to benefit various other comorbidities. Numerous studies have shown an increased incidence of depression in patients with psoriasis vs controls and a concurrent improvement in psychiatric symptoms with psoriasis disease control.1 For instance, a multicenter, randomized, open-label study of 352 patients with psoriasis showed treatment with etanercept, a TNF inhibitor, significantly improved scores for concomitant depression and anxiety (P<.05).29 Similarly, a double-blind, randomized clinical trial of patients with psoriasis found significant improvement in depression at 12 weeks in patients treated with adalimumab vs placebo (P<.001).30 Likewise, a multicenter phase 3 trial of more than 600 psoriatic patients showed improved Beck depression inventory and Hamilton depression rating scale scores at 12 weeks in patients with psoriasis treated with etanercept compared to placebo.31 

A much larger analysis of 7490 patients with psoriasis compared the rates of depression among patients receiving biologic therapy, phototherapy, and conventional systemic therapy. The greatest impact on depression symptoms was seen with biologic therapy (incidence rate, 3.01/100 patient-years), followed by conventional systemic therapy (5.70/100 patient-years), and phototherapy (5.85/100 patient-years).32

Uveitis, or inflammation of the middle layer of the eye (the uvea), frequently is seen in patients with psoriasis. In a cohort study of 60,000 patients with mild psoriasis and more than 7000 patients with severe psoriasis, the incidence of uveitis in patients was significantly increased in both patients with severe disease and those with mild disease (P<.001 for both).33 In a case series of 8 patients with concomitant psoriasis and uveitis, 4 patients were treated with infliximab and 4 with adalimumab; 7 patients treated achieved remission of their uveitis.34 

Role of the TNF-α Blockade in Sickle Cell Disease

Presently, no reported human studies have shown TNF-α blockade as a possible treatment of sickle cell disease.35 However, increased levels of TNF-α have been shown to contribute to the onset of sickle cell crises and to the severity of sickle cell disease due to their integral role in the development of vascular wall dysfunction and ischemia.35,36 Studies have shown that TNF-α is released in homozygous sickle cell anemia (HbSS) disease and impedes blood flow during sickle cell crisis, resulting in worsening ischemia and painful infarction.35,36 Moreover, cytokine analysis has shown significantly (P<.05) elevated levels of TNF-α during sickle cell crises and at baseline in patients with HbSS vs healthy controls, suggesting a possible role of TNF-α in the pathogenesis of sickle cell crisis.36 

The case patient reported a 50% reduction in pain level and the use of pain medications that overlapped with the initiation of adalimumab for treatment of her psoriasis. Moreover, although radiographs showed possible psoriatic changes of the distal metatarsal row, she described sickle cell pain and pain crises that were uncharacteristic of psoriatic arthralgia.35 Although these findings are observational in nature and limited to one patient, they do suggest an interesting hypothesis. If a common inflammatory mediator is the culprit, it is possible that TNF-α inhibitors could be the preferred treatment option for patients with psoriasis and comorbid HbSS or HbSC disease. Further studies are needed to analyze the role of TNF-α inhibition in sickle cell disease.

Bottom Line

Psoriasis may influence comorbidities through shared genetic risks, environmental factors, or inflammatory pathways. Improvement in metabolic and other comorbidities have been shown with the effective treatment of psoriasis. The case described here showed improvement in sickle cell crises and pain with treatment of psoriasis with adalimumab. Tumor necrosis factor inhibitors may be an optimal choice for patients with both psoriasis and sickle cell disease. 

References
  1. Elmets CA, Leonardi CL, Davis DMR, et al. Joint AAD-NPF guidelines of care for the management and treatment of psoriasis with awareness and attention to comorbidities. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019;80:1073-1113.
  2. Davidovici BB, Sattar N, Prinz J, et al. Psoriasis and systemic inflammatory diseases: potential mechanistic links between skin disease and co-morbid conditions. J Invest Dermatol. 2010;130:1785-1796.
  3. Oliveira Mde F, Rocha Bde O, Duarte GV. Psoriasis: classical and emerging comorbidities. An Bras Dermatol. 2015;90:9-20.
  4. Shah K, Mellars L, Changolkar A, Feldman SR. Real-world burden of comorbidities in US patients with psoriasis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2017;77:287-292.
  5. Hu SC, Lan CE. Psoriasis and cardiovascular comorbidities: focusing on severe vascular events, cardiovascular risk factors and implications for treatment [published online October 21, 2017]. Int J Mol Sci. doi:10.3390/ijms18102211.
  6. Hugh J, Van Voorhees AS, Nijhawan RI, et al. From the Medical Board of The National Psoriasis Foundation: the risk of cardiovascular disease in individuals with psoriasis and the potential impact of current therapies. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2014;70:168-177.
  7. Churton S, Brown L, Shin TM, et al. Does treatment of psoriasis reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease? Drugs. 2014;74:169-182.
  8. Prodanovich S, Ma F, Taylor J, et al. Methotrexate reduces incidence of vascular diseases in veterans with psoriasis or rheumatoid arthritis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2005;52:262-226.
  9. Gulliver WP, Young HM, Bachelez H, et al. Psoriasis patients treated with biologics and methotrexate have a reduced rate of myocardial infarction: a collaborative analysis using international cohorts. J Cutan Med Surg. 2016;20:550-554.
  10. Ahlehoff O, Skov L, Gislason G, et al. Cardiovascular disease event rates in patients with severe psoriasis treated with systemic anti-inflammatory drugs: a Danish real-world cohort study. J Intern Med. 2013;273:197-204.
  11. Wu JJ, Poon KY, Channual JC, et al. Association between tumor necrosis factor inhibitor therapy and myocardial infarction risk in patients with psoriasis. Arch Dermatol. 2012;148:1244-1250.
  12. Wu JJ, Poon KY. Association of ethnicity, tumor necrosis factor inhibitor therapy, and myocardial infarction risk in patients with psoriasis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2013;69:167-168.
  13. Wu JJ, Poon KY, Bebchuk JD. Association between the type and length of tumor necrosis factor inhibitor therapy and myocardial infarction risk in patients with psoriasis. J Drugs Dermatol. 2013;12:899-903.
  14. Wu JJ, Poon KY, Bebchuk JD. Tumor necrosis factor inhibitor therapy and myocardial infarction risk in patients with psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, or both. J Drugs Dermatol. 2014;13:932-934.
  15. Famenini S, Sako EY, Wu JJ. Effect of treating psoriasis on cardiovascular co-morbidities: focus on TNF inhibitors. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2014;15:45-50.
  16. Nguyen T, Wu JJ. Relationship between tumor necrosis factor-alpha inhibitors and cardiovascular disease in psoriasis: a review. Perm J. 2014;18:49-54.
  17. Shaaban D, Al-Mutairi N. The effect of tumour necrosis factor inhibitor therapy on the incidence of myocardial infarction in patients with psoriasis: a retrospective study [published online November 17, 2017]. J Dermatol Treat. doi:10.1080/09546634.2016.1254145. 
  18. Wu D, Hou SY, Zhao S, et al. Efficacy and safety of interleukin-17 antagonists in patients with plaque psoriasis: A meta-analysis from phase 3 randomized controlled trials. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2017;31:992-100.
  19. Yang ZS, Lin NN, Li L, et al. The effect of TNF inhibitors on cardiovascular events in psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis: an updated meta-analysis. Clin Rev Allergy Immunol. 2016;51:240-247.
  20. Heredi E, Vegh J, Pogacsas L, et al. Subclinical cardiovascular disease and it’s improvement after long-term TNF-alpha inhibitor therapy in severe psoriatic patients. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2016;30:1531-1536.
  21. Pina T, Corrales A, Lopez-Mejias R, et al. Anti-tumor necrosis factor-alpha therapy improves endothelial function and arterial stiffness in patients with moderate to severe psoriasis: a 6-month prospective study. J Dermatol. 2016;43:1267-1272.
  22. Piaserico S, Osto E, Famoso G, et al. Treatment with tumor necrosis factor inhibitors restores coronary microvascular function in young patients with severe psoriasis. Atherosclerosis. 2016;251:25-30.
  23. Van de Kerkhof PC, Griffiths CE, Reich K, et al. Secukinumab long-term safety experience: a pooled analysis of 10 phase II and III clinical studies in patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2016;75:83-98.
  24. Wu JJ, Guerin A, Sundaram M, et al. Cardiovascular event risk assessment in psoriasis patients treated with tumor necrosis factor-alpha inhibitors versus methotrexate. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2017;76:81-90.
  25. Torres T, Raposo I, Selores M. IL-17 blockade in psoriasis: friend or foe in cardiovascular risk? Am J Clin Dermatol. 2016;17:107-112.
  26. Deeks ED. Apremilast: a review in psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis. Drugs. 2015;75:1393-1403.
  27. Crowley J, Thaci D, Joly P, et al. Long-term safety and tolerability of apremilast in patients with psoriasis: pooled safety analysis for >/= 156 weeks from 2 phase 3, randomized, controlled trials (ESTEEM 1 and 2). J Am Acad Dermatol. 2017;77:310-317.
  28. Kavanaugh A, Mease PJ, Gomez-Reino JJ, et al. Treatment of psoriatic arthritis in a phase 3 randomised, placebo-controlled trial with apremilast, an oral phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor. Ann Rheum Dis. 2014;73:1020-1026.
  29. Daudén E, Griffiths CE, Ortonne JP, et al. Improvements in patient-reported outcomes in moderate-to-severe psoriasis patients receiving continuous or paused etanercept treatment over 54 weeks: the CRYSTEL study. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2009;23:1374-1382.
  30. Menter A, Augustin M, Signorovitch J, et al. The effect of adalimumab on reducing depression symptoms in patients with moderate to severe psoriasis: a randomized clinical trial. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2010;62:812-818.
  31. Tyring S, Gottlieb A, Papp K, et al. Etanercept and clinical outcomes, fatigue, and depression in psoriasis: double-blind placebo-controlled randomised phase III trial. Lancet. 2006;367:29-35.
  32. Strober B, Gooderham M, de Jong EMGJ, et al. Depressive symptoms, depression, and the effect of biologic therapy among patients in Psoriasis Longitudinal Assessment and Registry (PSOLAR). J Am Acad Dermatol. 2018;78:70-80.
  33. Egeberg A, Khalid U, Gislason GH, et al. Association of psoriatic disease with uveitis: a Danish nationwide cohort study. JAMA Dermatol. 2015;151:1200-1205.
  34. Huynh N, Cervantes-Castaneda RA, Bhat P, et al. Biologic response modifier therapy for psoriatic ocular inflammatory disease. Ocul Immunol Inflamm. 2008;16:89-93.
  35. Pulusani S, McMurray SL, Jensen K, et al. Psoriasis treatment in patients with sickle cell disease Cutis. 2019;103:93-94.
  36. Nnodim J, Meludu SC, Dioka CE, et al. Cytokine expression in homozygous sickle cell anaemia. JKIMSU. 2015;4:34-37.
References
  1. Elmets CA, Leonardi CL, Davis DMR, et al. Joint AAD-NPF guidelines of care for the management and treatment of psoriasis with awareness and attention to comorbidities. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019;80:1073-1113.
  2. Davidovici BB, Sattar N, Prinz J, et al. Psoriasis and systemic inflammatory diseases: potential mechanistic links between skin disease and co-morbid conditions. J Invest Dermatol. 2010;130:1785-1796.
  3. Oliveira Mde F, Rocha Bde O, Duarte GV. Psoriasis: classical and emerging comorbidities. An Bras Dermatol. 2015;90:9-20.
  4. Shah K, Mellars L, Changolkar A, Feldman SR. Real-world burden of comorbidities in US patients with psoriasis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2017;77:287-292.
  5. Hu SC, Lan CE. Psoriasis and cardiovascular comorbidities: focusing on severe vascular events, cardiovascular risk factors and implications for treatment [published online October 21, 2017]. Int J Mol Sci. doi:10.3390/ijms18102211.
  6. Hugh J, Van Voorhees AS, Nijhawan RI, et al. From the Medical Board of The National Psoriasis Foundation: the risk of cardiovascular disease in individuals with psoriasis and the potential impact of current therapies. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2014;70:168-177.
  7. Churton S, Brown L, Shin TM, et al. Does treatment of psoriasis reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease? Drugs. 2014;74:169-182.
  8. Prodanovich S, Ma F, Taylor J, et al. Methotrexate reduces incidence of vascular diseases in veterans with psoriasis or rheumatoid arthritis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2005;52:262-226.
  9. Gulliver WP, Young HM, Bachelez H, et al. Psoriasis patients treated with biologics and methotrexate have a reduced rate of myocardial infarction: a collaborative analysis using international cohorts. J Cutan Med Surg. 2016;20:550-554.
  10. Ahlehoff O, Skov L, Gislason G, et al. Cardiovascular disease event rates in patients with severe psoriasis treated with systemic anti-inflammatory drugs: a Danish real-world cohort study. J Intern Med. 2013;273:197-204.
  11. Wu JJ, Poon KY, Channual JC, et al. Association between tumor necrosis factor inhibitor therapy and myocardial infarction risk in patients with psoriasis. Arch Dermatol. 2012;148:1244-1250.
  12. Wu JJ, Poon KY. Association of ethnicity, tumor necrosis factor inhibitor therapy, and myocardial infarction risk in patients with psoriasis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2013;69:167-168.
  13. Wu JJ, Poon KY, Bebchuk JD. Association between the type and length of tumor necrosis factor inhibitor therapy and myocardial infarction risk in patients with psoriasis. J Drugs Dermatol. 2013;12:899-903.
  14. Wu JJ, Poon KY, Bebchuk JD. Tumor necrosis factor inhibitor therapy and myocardial infarction risk in patients with psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, or both. J Drugs Dermatol. 2014;13:932-934.
  15. Famenini S, Sako EY, Wu JJ. Effect of treating psoriasis on cardiovascular co-morbidities: focus on TNF inhibitors. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2014;15:45-50.
  16. Nguyen T, Wu JJ. Relationship between tumor necrosis factor-alpha inhibitors and cardiovascular disease in psoriasis: a review. Perm J. 2014;18:49-54.
  17. Shaaban D, Al-Mutairi N. The effect of tumour necrosis factor inhibitor therapy on the incidence of myocardial infarction in patients with psoriasis: a retrospective study [published online November 17, 2017]. J Dermatol Treat. doi:10.1080/09546634.2016.1254145. 
  18. Wu D, Hou SY, Zhao S, et al. Efficacy and safety of interleukin-17 antagonists in patients with plaque psoriasis: A meta-analysis from phase 3 randomized controlled trials. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2017;31:992-100.
  19. Yang ZS, Lin NN, Li L, et al. The effect of TNF inhibitors on cardiovascular events in psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis: an updated meta-analysis. Clin Rev Allergy Immunol. 2016;51:240-247.
  20. Heredi E, Vegh J, Pogacsas L, et al. Subclinical cardiovascular disease and it’s improvement after long-term TNF-alpha inhibitor therapy in severe psoriatic patients. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2016;30:1531-1536.
  21. Pina T, Corrales A, Lopez-Mejias R, et al. Anti-tumor necrosis factor-alpha therapy improves endothelial function and arterial stiffness in patients with moderate to severe psoriasis: a 6-month prospective study. J Dermatol. 2016;43:1267-1272.
  22. Piaserico S, Osto E, Famoso G, et al. Treatment with tumor necrosis factor inhibitors restores coronary microvascular function in young patients with severe psoriasis. Atherosclerosis. 2016;251:25-30.
  23. Van de Kerkhof PC, Griffiths CE, Reich K, et al. Secukinumab long-term safety experience: a pooled analysis of 10 phase II and III clinical studies in patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2016;75:83-98.
  24. Wu JJ, Guerin A, Sundaram M, et al. Cardiovascular event risk assessment in psoriasis patients treated with tumor necrosis factor-alpha inhibitors versus methotrexate. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2017;76:81-90.
  25. Torres T, Raposo I, Selores M. IL-17 blockade in psoriasis: friend or foe in cardiovascular risk? Am J Clin Dermatol. 2016;17:107-112.
  26. Deeks ED. Apremilast: a review in psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis. Drugs. 2015;75:1393-1403.
  27. Crowley J, Thaci D, Joly P, et al. Long-term safety and tolerability of apremilast in patients with psoriasis: pooled safety analysis for >/= 156 weeks from 2 phase 3, randomized, controlled trials (ESTEEM 1 and 2). J Am Acad Dermatol. 2017;77:310-317.
  28. Kavanaugh A, Mease PJ, Gomez-Reino JJ, et al. Treatment of psoriatic arthritis in a phase 3 randomised, placebo-controlled trial with apremilast, an oral phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor. Ann Rheum Dis. 2014;73:1020-1026.
  29. Daudén E, Griffiths CE, Ortonne JP, et al. Improvements in patient-reported outcomes in moderate-to-severe psoriasis patients receiving continuous or paused etanercept treatment over 54 weeks: the CRYSTEL study. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2009;23:1374-1382.
  30. Menter A, Augustin M, Signorovitch J, et al. The effect of adalimumab on reducing depression symptoms in patients with moderate to severe psoriasis: a randomized clinical trial. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2010;62:812-818.
  31. Tyring S, Gottlieb A, Papp K, et al. Etanercept and clinical outcomes, fatigue, and depression in psoriasis: double-blind placebo-controlled randomised phase III trial. Lancet. 2006;367:29-35.
  32. Strober B, Gooderham M, de Jong EMGJ, et al. Depressive symptoms, depression, and the effect of biologic therapy among patients in Psoriasis Longitudinal Assessment and Registry (PSOLAR). J Am Acad Dermatol. 2018;78:70-80.
  33. Egeberg A, Khalid U, Gislason GH, et al. Association of psoriatic disease with uveitis: a Danish nationwide cohort study. JAMA Dermatol. 2015;151:1200-1205.
  34. Huynh N, Cervantes-Castaneda RA, Bhat P, et al. Biologic response modifier therapy for psoriatic ocular inflammatory disease. Ocul Immunol Inflamm. 2008;16:89-93.
  35. Pulusani S, McMurray SL, Jensen K, et al. Psoriasis treatment in patients with sickle cell disease Cutis. 2019;103:93-94.
  36. Nnodim J, Meludu SC, Dioka CE, et al. Cytokine expression in homozygous sickle cell anaemia. JKIMSU. 2015;4:34-37.
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Improving Comorbidities With Psoriasis Treatment
Display Headline
Improving Comorbidities With Psoriasis Treatment
Sections
Questionnaire Body

A 31-year-old woman presented with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis (70% body surface area). The patient’s medical history was positive for sickle cell disease, specifically hemoglobin SC disease (HbSC). She reported chronic dull arthralgia in the ankles that was worse at night. She was being treated by hematology with ibuprofen and ketorolac. Radiographs of the feet and ankles showed erosive changes of the distal tarsal row and metatarsal bases. At the current presentation, her HbSC pain was 8/10 on a visual analog scale. She described her sickle cell pain crises as sharp 10/10 pain in the back, elbows, and ankles, associated with mild edema lasting 1 to 2 days. Radiographs of the spine, hands, and ankles were unremarkable.

Adalimumab was chosen as a systemic therapy for psoriasis based on its potential for improvement in HbSC symptoms as well as psoriasis.

Within 17 weeks of starting adalimumab, the psoriasis body surface area decreased from 70% to 40%, and she reported a decrease in her HbSC pain from 8/10 to 4/10 at 8-week follow-up and to 0/10 at 17-week follow-up. She also reported decreased use of pain medication with rare sickle cell pain crises following initiation of adalimumab.

 

This case was adapted from Pulusani S, McMurray SL, Jensen K, et al. Psoriasis treatment in patients with sickle cell disease. Cutis. 2019;103:93-94.
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Gate On Date
Mon, 07/29/2019 - 09:30
Un-Gate On Date
Mon, 07/29/2019 - 09:30
Use ProPublica
CFC Schedule Remove Status
Mon, 07/29/2019 - 09:30
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.

Impact of Psoriasis Treatment on Comorbidities

Article Type
Changed
Thu, 12/15/2022 - 14:42
References

1. Elmets CA, Leonardi CL, Davis DMR, et al. Joint AAD-NPF guidelines of care for the management and treatment of psoriasis with awareness and attention to comorbidities. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019;80:1073-1113.

2. Davidovici BB, Sattar N, Prinz J, et al. Psoriasis and systemic inflammatory diseases: potential mechanistic links between skin disease and co-morbid conditions. J Invest Dermatol. 2010;130:1785-1796.

3. Oliveira Mde F, Rocha Bde O, Duarte GV. Psoriasis: classical and emerging comorbidities. An Bras Dermatol. 2015;90:9-20.

4. Shah K, Mellars L, Changolkar A, Feldman SR. Real-world burden of comorbidities in US patients with psoriasis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2017;77:287-292.

5. Hu SC, Lan CE. Psoriasis and cardiovascular comorbidities: focusing on severe vascular events, cardiovascular risk factors and implications for treatment [published online October 21, 2017]. Int J Mol Sci. doi:10.3390/ijms18102211.

6. Hugh J, Van Voorhees AS, Nijhawan RI, et al. From the Medical Board of The National Psoriasis Foundation: the risk of cardiovascular disease in individuals with psoriasis and the potential impact of current therapies. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2014;70:168-177.

7. Churton S, Brown L, Shin TM, et al. Does treatment of psoriasis reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease? Drugs. 2014;74:169-182.

8. Prodanovich S, Ma F, Taylor J, et al. Methotrexate reduces incidence of vascular diseases in veterans with psoriasis or rheumatoid arthritis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2005;52:262-226.

9. Gulliver WP, Young HM, Bachelez H, et al. Psoriasis patients treated with biologics and methotrexate have a reduced rate of myocardial infarction: a collaborative analysis using international cohorts. J Cutan Med Surg. 2016;20:550-554.

10. Ahlehoff O, Skov L, Gislason G, et al. Cardiovascular disease event rates in patients with severe psoriasis treated with systemic anti-inflammatory drugs: a Danish real-world cohort study. J Intern Med. 2013;273:197-204.

11. Wu JJ, Poon KY, Channual JC, et al. Association between tumor necrosis factor inhibitor therapy and myocardial infarction risk in patients with psoriasis. Arch Dermatol. 2012;148:1244-1250.

12. Wu JJ, Poon KY. Association of ethnicity, tumor necrosis factor inhibitor therapy, and myocardial infarction risk in patients with psoriasis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2013;69:167-168.

13. Wu JJ, Poon KY, Bebchuk JD. Association between the type and length of tumor necrosis factor inhibitor therapy and myocardial infarction risk in patients with psoriasis. J Drugs Dermatol. 2013;12:899-903.

14. Wu JJ, Poon KY, Bebchuk JD. Tumor necrosis factor inhibitor therapy and myocardial infarction risk in patients with psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, or both. J Drugs Dermatol. 2014;13:932-934.

15. Famenini S, Sako EY, Wu JJ. Effect of treating psoriasis on cardiovascular co-morbidities: focus on TNF inhibitors. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2014;15:45-50.

16. Nguyen T, Wu JJ. Relationship between tumor necrosis factor-alpha inhibitors and cardiovascular disease in psoriasis: a review. Perm J. 2014;18:49-54.

17. Shaaban D, Al-Mutairi N. The effect of tumour necrosis factor inhibitor therapy on the incidence of myocardial infarction in patients with psoriasis: a retrospective study [published online November 17, 2017]. J Dermatol Treat. doi:10.1080/09546634.2016.1254145. 

18. Wu D, Hou SY, Zhao S, et al. Efficacy and safety of interleukin-17 antagonists in patients with plaque psoriasis: A meta-analysis from phase 3 randomized controlled trials. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2017;31:992-100.

19. Yang ZS, Lin NN, Li L, et al. The effect of TNF inhibitors on cardiovascular events in psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis: an updated meta-analysis. Clin Rev Allergy Immunol. 2016;51:240-247.

20. Heredi E, Vegh J, Pogacsas L, et al. Subclinical cardiovascular disease and it’s improvement after long-term TNF-alpha inhibitor therapy in severe psoriatic patients. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2016;30:1531-1536.

21. Pina T, Corrales A, Lopez-Mejias R, et al. Anti-tumor necrosis factor-alpha therapy improves endothelial function and arterial stiffness in patients with moderate to severe psoriasis: a 6-month prospective study. J Dermatol. 2016;43:1267-1272.

22. Piaserico S, Osto E, Famoso G, et al. Treatment with tumor necrosis factor inhibitors restores coronary microvascular function in young patients with severe psoriasis. Atherosclerosis. 2016;251:25-30.

23. Van de Kerkhof PC, Griffiths CE, Reich K, et al. Secukinumab long-term safety experience: a pooled analysis of 10 phase II and III clinical studies in patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2016;75:83-98.

24. Wu JJ, Guerin A, Sundaram M, et al. Cardiovascular event risk assessment in psoriasis patients treated with tumor necrosis factor-alpha inhibitors versus methotrexate. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2017;76:81-90.

25. Torres T, Raposo I, Selores M. IL-17 blockade in psoriasis: friend or foe in cardiovascular risk? Am J Clin Dermatol. 2016;17:107-112.

26. Deeks ED. Apremilast: a review in psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis. Drugs. 2015;75:1393-1403.

27. Crowley J, Thaci D, Joly P, et al. Long-term safety and tolerability of apremilast in patients with psoriasis: pooled safety analysis for >/= 156 weeks from 2 phase 3, randomized, controlled trials (ESTEEM 1 and 2). J Am Acad Dermatol. 2017;77:310-317.

28. Kavanaugh A, Mease PJ, Gomez-Reino JJ, et al. Treatment of psoriatic arthritis in a phase 3 randomised, placebo-controlled trial with apremilast, an oral phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor. Ann Rheum Dis. 2014;73:1020-1026.

29. Daudén E, Griffiths CE, Ortonne JP, et al. Improvements in patient-reported outcomes in moderate-to-severe psoriasis patients receiving continuous or paused etanercept treatment over 54 weeks: the CRYSTEL study. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2009;23:1374-1382.

30. Menter A, Augustin M, Signorovitch J, et al. The effect of adalimumab on reducing depression symptoms in patients with moderate to severe psoriasis: a randomized clinical trial. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2010;62:812-818.

31. Tyring S, Gottlieb A, Papp K, et al. Etanercept and clinical outcomes, fatigue, and depression in psoriasis: double-blind placebo-controlled randomised phase III trial. Lancet. 2006;367:29-35.

32. Strober B, Gooderham M, de Jong EMGJ, et al. Depressive symptoms, depression, and the effect of biologic therapy among patients in Psoriasis Longitudinal Assessment and Registry (PSOLAR). J Am Acad Dermatol. 2018;78:70-80.

33. Egeberg A, Khalid U, Gislason GH, et al. Association of psoriatic disease with uveitis: a Danish nationwide cohort study. JAMA Dermatol. 2015;151:1200-1205.

34. Huynh N, Cervantes-Castaneda RA, Bhat P, et al. Biologic response modifier therapy for psoriatic ocular inflammatory disease. Ocul Immunol Inflamm. 2008;16:89-93.

35. Pulusani S, McMurray SL, Jensen K, et al. Psoriasis treatment in patients with sickle cell disease Cutis. 2019;103:93-94.

36. Nnodim J, Meludu SC, Dioka CE, et al. Cytokine expression in homozygous sickle cell anaemia. JKIMSU. 2015;4:34-37.

Publications
Topics
Sections
References

1. Elmets CA, Leonardi CL, Davis DMR, et al. Joint AAD-NPF guidelines of care for the management and treatment of psoriasis with awareness and attention to comorbidities. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019;80:1073-1113.

2. Davidovici BB, Sattar N, Prinz J, et al. Psoriasis and systemic inflammatory diseases: potential mechanistic links between skin disease and co-morbid conditions. J Invest Dermatol. 2010;130:1785-1796.

3. Oliveira Mde F, Rocha Bde O, Duarte GV. Psoriasis: classical and emerging comorbidities. An Bras Dermatol. 2015;90:9-20.

4. Shah K, Mellars L, Changolkar A, Feldman SR. Real-world burden of comorbidities in US patients with psoriasis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2017;77:287-292.

5. Hu SC, Lan CE. Psoriasis and cardiovascular comorbidities: focusing on severe vascular events, cardiovascular risk factors and implications for treatment [published online October 21, 2017]. Int J Mol Sci. doi:10.3390/ijms18102211.

6. Hugh J, Van Voorhees AS, Nijhawan RI, et al. From the Medical Board of The National Psoriasis Foundation: the risk of cardiovascular disease in individuals with psoriasis and the potential impact of current therapies. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2014;70:168-177.

7. Churton S, Brown L, Shin TM, et al. Does treatment of psoriasis reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease? Drugs. 2014;74:169-182.

8. Prodanovich S, Ma F, Taylor J, et al. Methotrexate reduces incidence of vascular diseases in veterans with psoriasis or rheumatoid arthritis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2005;52:262-226.

9. Gulliver WP, Young HM, Bachelez H, et al. Psoriasis patients treated with biologics and methotrexate have a reduced rate of myocardial infarction: a collaborative analysis using international cohorts. J Cutan Med Surg. 2016;20:550-554.

10. Ahlehoff O, Skov L, Gislason G, et al. Cardiovascular disease event rates in patients with severe psoriasis treated with systemic anti-inflammatory drugs: a Danish real-world cohort study. J Intern Med. 2013;273:197-204.

11. Wu JJ, Poon KY, Channual JC, et al. Association between tumor necrosis factor inhibitor therapy and myocardial infarction risk in patients with psoriasis. Arch Dermatol. 2012;148:1244-1250.

12. Wu JJ, Poon KY. Association of ethnicity, tumor necrosis factor inhibitor therapy, and myocardial infarction risk in patients with psoriasis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2013;69:167-168.

13. Wu JJ, Poon KY, Bebchuk JD. Association between the type and length of tumor necrosis factor inhibitor therapy and myocardial infarction risk in patients with psoriasis. J Drugs Dermatol. 2013;12:899-903.

14. Wu JJ, Poon KY, Bebchuk JD. Tumor necrosis factor inhibitor therapy and myocardial infarction risk in patients with psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, or both. J Drugs Dermatol. 2014;13:932-934.

15. Famenini S, Sako EY, Wu JJ. Effect of treating psoriasis on cardiovascular co-morbidities: focus on TNF inhibitors. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2014;15:45-50.

16. Nguyen T, Wu JJ. Relationship between tumor necrosis factor-alpha inhibitors and cardiovascular disease in psoriasis: a review. Perm J. 2014;18:49-54.

17. Shaaban D, Al-Mutairi N. The effect of tumour necrosis factor inhibitor therapy on the incidence of myocardial infarction in patients with psoriasis: a retrospective study [published online November 17, 2017]. J Dermatol Treat. doi:10.1080/09546634.2016.1254145. 

18. Wu D, Hou SY, Zhao S, et al. Efficacy and safety of interleukin-17 antagonists in patients with plaque psoriasis: A meta-analysis from phase 3 randomized controlled trials. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2017;31:992-100.

19. Yang ZS, Lin NN, Li L, et al. The effect of TNF inhibitors on cardiovascular events in psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis: an updated meta-analysis. Clin Rev Allergy Immunol. 2016;51:240-247.

20. Heredi E, Vegh J, Pogacsas L, et al. Subclinical cardiovascular disease and it’s improvement after long-term TNF-alpha inhibitor therapy in severe psoriatic patients. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2016;30:1531-1536.

21. Pina T, Corrales A, Lopez-Mejias R, et al. Anti-tumor necrosis factor-alpha therapy improves endothelial function and arterial stiffness in patients with moderate to severe psoriasis: a 6-month prospective study. J Dermatol. 2016;43:1267-1272.

22. Piaserico S, Osto E, Famoso G, et al. Treatment with tumor necrosis factor inhibitors restores coronary microvascular function in young patients with severe psoriasis. Atherosclerosis. 2016;251:25-30.

23. Van de Kerkhof PC, Griffiths CE, Reich K, et al. Secukinumab long-term safety experience: a pooled analysis of 10 phase II and III clinical studies in patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2016;75:83-98.

24. Wu JJ, Guerin A, Sundaram M, et al. Cardiovascular event risk assessment in psoriasis patients treated with tumor necrosis factor-alpha inhibitors versus methotrexate. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2017;76:81-90.

25. Torres T, Raposo I, Selores M. IL-17 blockade in psoriasis: friend or foe in cardiovascular risk? Am J Clin Dermatol. 2016;17:107-112.

26. Deeks ED. Apremilast: a review in psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis. Drugs. 2015;75:1393-1403.

27. Crowley J, Thaci D, Joly P, et al. Long-term safety and tolerability of apremilast in patients with psoriasis: pooled safety analysis for >/= 156 weeks from 2 phase 3, randomized, controlled trials (ESTEEM 1 and 2). J Am Acad Dermatol. 2017;77:310-317.

28. Kavanaugh A, Mease PJ, Gomez-Reino JJ, et al. Treatment of psoriatic arthritis in a phase 3 randomised, placebo-controlled trial with apremilast, an oral phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor. Ann Rheum Dis. 2014;73:1020-1026.

29. Daudén E, Griffiths CE, Ortonne JP, et al. Improvements in patient-reported outcomes in moderate-to-severe psoriasis patients receiving continuous or paused etanercept treatment over 54 weeks: the CRYSTEL study. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2009;23:1374-1382.

30. Menter A, Augustin M, Signorovitch J, et al. The effect of adalimumab on reducing depression symptoms in patients with moderate to severe psoriasis: a randomized clinical trial. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2010;62:812-818.

31. Tyring S, Gottlieb A, Papp K, et al. Etanercept and clinical outcomes, fatigue, and depression in psoriasis: double-blind placebo-controlled randomised phase III trial. Lancet. 2006;367:29-35.

32. Strober B, Gooderham M, de Jong EMGJ, et al. Depressive symptoms, depression, and the effect of biologic therapy among patients in Psoriasis Longitudinal Assessment and Registry (PSOLAR). J Am Acad Dermatol. 2018;78:70-80.

33. Egeberg A, Khalid U, Gislason GH, et al. Association of psoriatic disease with uveitis: a Danish nationwide cohort study. JAMA Dermatol. 2015;151:1200-1205.

34. Huynh N, Cervantes-Castaneda RA, Bhat P, et al. Biologic response modifier therapy for psoriatic ocular inflammatory disease. Ocul Immunol Inflamm. 2008;16:89-93.

35. Pulusani S, McMurray SL, Jensen K, et al. Psoriasis treatment in patients with sickle cell disease Cutis. 2019;103:93-94.

36. Nnodim J, Meludu SC, Dioka CE, et al. Cytokine expression in homozygous sickle cell anaemia. JKIMSU. 2015;4:34-37.

References

1. Elmets CA, Leonardi CL, Davis DMR, et al. Joint AAD-NPF guidelines of care for the management and treatment of psoriasis with awareness and attention to comorbidities. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019;80:1073-1113.

2. Davidovici BB, Sattar N, Prinz J, et al. Psoriasis and systemic inflammatory diseases: potential mechanistic links between skin disease and co-morbid conditions. J Invest Dermatol. 2010;130:1785-1796.

3. Oliveira Mde F, Rocha Bde O, Duarte GV. Psoriasis: classical and emerging comorbidities. An Bras Dermatol. 2015;90:9-20.

4. Shah K, Mellars L, Changolkar A, Feldman SR. Real-world burden of comorbidities in US patients with psoriasis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2017;77:287-292.

5. Hu SC, Lan CE. Psoriasis and cardiovascular comorbidities: focusing on severe vascular events, cardiovascular risk factors and implications for treatment [published online October 21, 2017]. Int J Mol Sci. doi:10.3390/ijms18102211.

6. Hugh J, Van Voorhees AS, Nijhawan RI, et al. From the Medical Board of The National Psoriasis Foundation: the risk of cardiovascular disease in individuals with psoriasis and the potential impact of current therapies. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2014;70:168-177.

7. Churton S, Brown L, Shin TM, et al. Does treatment of psoriasis reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease? Drugs. 2014;74:169-182.

8. Prodanovich S, Ma F, Taylor J, et al. Methotrexate reduces incidence of vascular diseases in veterans with psoriasis or rheumatoid arthritis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2005;52:262-226.

9. Gulliver WP, Young HM, Bachelez H, et al. Psoriasis patients treated with biologics and methotrexate have a reduced rate of myocardial infarction: a collaborative analysis using international cohorts. J Cutan Med Surg. 2016;20:550-554.

10. Ahlehoff O, Skov L, Gislason G, et al. Cardiovascular disease event rates in patients with severe psoriasis treated with systemic anti-inflammatory drugs: a Danish real-world cohort study. J Intern Med. 2013;273:197-204.

11. Wu JJ, Poon KY, Channual JC, et al. Association between tumor necrosis factor inhibitor therapy and myocardial infarction risk in patients with psoriasis. Arch Dermatol. 2012;148:1244-1250.

12. Wu JJ, Poon KY. Association of ethnicity, tumor necrosis factor inhibitor therapy, and myocardial infarction risk in patients with psoriasis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2013;69:167-168.

13. Wu JJ, Poon KY, Bebchuk JD. Association between the type and length of tumor necrosis factor inhibitor therapy and myocardial infarction risk in patients with psoriasis. J Drugs Dermatol. 2013;12:899-903.

14. Wu JJ, Poon KY, Bebchuk JD. Tumor necrosis factor inhibitor therapy and myocardial infarction risk in patients with psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, or both. J Drugs Dermatol. 2014;13:932-934.

15. Famenini S, Sako EY, Wu JJ. Effect of treating psoriasis on cardiovascular co-morbidities: focus on TNF inhibitors. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2014;15:45-50.

16. Nguyen T, Wu JJ. Relationship between tumor necrosis factor-alpha inhibitors and cardiovascular disease in psoriasis: a review. Perm J. 2014;18:49-54.

17. Shaaban D, Al-Mutairi N. The effect of tumour necrosis factor inhibitor therapy on the incidence of myocardial infarction in patients with psoriasis: a retrospective study [published online November 17, 2017]. J Dermatol Treat. doi:10.1080/09546634.2016.1254145. 

18. Wu D, Hou SY, Zhao S, et al. Efficacy and safety of interleukin-17 antagonists in patients with plaque psoriasis: A meta-analysis from phase 3 randomized controlled trials. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2017;31:992-100.

19. Yang ZS, Lin NN, Li L, et al. The effect of TNF inhibitors on cardiovascular events in psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis: an updated meta-analysis. Clin Rev Allergy Immunol. 2016;51:240-247.

20. Heredi E, Vegh J, Pogacsas L, et al. Subclinical cardiovascular disease and it’s improvement after long-term TNF-alpha inhibitor therapy in severe psoriatic patients. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2016;30:1531-1536.

21. Pina T, Corrales A, Lopez-Mejias R, et al. Anti-tumor necrosis factor-alpha therapy improves endothelial function and arterial stiffness in patients with moderate to severe psoriasis: a 6-month prospective study. J Dermatol. 2016;43:1267-1272.

22. Piaserico S, Osto E, Famoso G, et al. Treatment with tumor necrosis factor inhibitors restores coronary microvascular function in young patients with severe psoriasis. Atherosclerosis. 2016;251:25-30.

23. Van de Kerkhof PC, Griffiths CE, Reich K, et al. Secukinumab long-term safety experience: a pooled analysis of 10 phase II and III clinical studies in patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2016;75:83-98.

24. Wu JJ, Guerin A, Sundaram M, et al. Cardiovascular event risk assessment in psoriasis patients treated with tumor necrosis factor-alpha inhibitors versus methotrexate. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2017;76:81-90.

25. Torres T, Raposo I, Selores M. IL-17 blockade in psoriasis: friend or foe in cardiovascular risk? Am J Clin Dermatol. 2016;17:107-112.

26. Deeks ED. Apremilast: a review in psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis. Drugs. 2015;75:1393-1403.

27. Crowley J, Thaci D, Joly P, et al. Long-term safety and tolerability of apremilast in patients with psoriasis: pooled safety analysis for >/= 156 weeks from 2 phase 3, randomized, controlled trials (ESTEEM 1 and 2). J Am Acad Dermatol. 2017;77:310-317.

28. Kavanaugh A, Mease PJ, Gomez-Reino JJ, et al. Treatment of psoriatic arthritis in a phase 3 randomised, placebo-controlled trial with apremilast, an oral phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor. Ann Rheum Dis. 2014;73:1020-1026.

29. Daudén E, Griffiths CE, Ortonne JP, et al. Improvements in patient-reported outcomes in moderate-to-severe psoriasis patients receiving continuous or paused etanercept treatment over 54 weeks: the CRYSTEL study. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2009;23:1374-1382.

30. Menter A, Augustin M, Signorovitch J, et al. The effect of adalimumab on reducing depression symptoms in patients with moderate to severe psoriasis: a randomized clinical trial. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2010;62:812-818.

31. Tyring S, Gottlieb A, Papp K, et al. Etanercept and clinical outcomes, fatigue, and depression in psoriasis: double-blind placebo-controlled randomised phase III trial. Lancet. 2006;367:29-35.

32. Strober B, Gooderham M, de Jong EMGJ, et al. Depressive symptoms, depression, and the effect of biologic therapy among patients in Psoriasis Longitudinal Assessment and Registry (PSOLAR). J Am Acad Dermatol. 2018;78:70-80.

33. Egeberg A, Khalid U, Gislason GH, et al. Association of psoriatic disease with uveitis: a Danish nationwide cohort study. JAMA Dermatol. 2015;151:1200-1205.

34. Huynh N, Cervantes-Castaneda RA, Bhat P, et al. Biologic response modifier therapy for psoriatic ocular inflammatory disease. Ocul Immunol Inflamm. 2008;16:89-93.

35. Pulusani S, McMurray SL, Jensen K, et al. Psoriasis treatment in patients with sickle cell disease Cutis. 2019;103:93-94.

36. Nnodim J, Meludu SC, Dioka CE, et al. Cytokine expression in homozygous sickle cell anaemia. JKIMSU. 2015;4:34-37.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Gate On Date
Thu, 07/25/2019 - 12:00
Un-Gate On Date
Thu, 07/25/2019 - 12:00
Use ProPublica
CFC Schedule Remove Status
Thu, 07/25/2019 - 12:00
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.

BTK mutations linked to CLL progression on ibrutinib

Article Type
Changed
Fri, 12/16/2022 - 11:33

 

Mutations in Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK) are associated with progression of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) in patients taking ibrutinib, according to a new study.

Courtesy Wikimedia Commons/Nephron/Creative Commons BY-SA-3.0

Researchers analyzed a “real-life” cohort of CLL patients taking ibrutinib for about 3 years and found that patients with BTK mutations were significantly more likely to progress (P = .0005).

“Our findings support that mutational analysis should be considered in patients receiving ibrutinib who have residual clonal lymphocytosis, and that clinical trials are needed to evaluate whether patients with a BTK mutation may benefit from an early switch to another treatment,” wrote Anne Quinquenel, MD, PhD, of Hôpital Robert Debré, Université Reims (France) Champagne-Ardenne, and colleagues. Their report is in Blood.

The researchers studied 57 CLL patients who were still on ibrutinib after at least 3 years and provided fresh blood samples. The median time between the start of ibrutinib and sample collection was 3.5 years.

All 57 patients had minimal residual disease at baseline. Of the 55 patients with response data available, 48 had a partial response, and 7 had a partial response with lymphocytosis.

Mutational profiling was possible in 30 patients who had a CLL clone greater than or equal to 0.5 x 109/L.

BTK mutations were present in 17 of the 30 patients (57%). There were 20 BTK mutations in total, all were at C481, and 14 were at C481S.

The researchers also identified 15 patients with TP53 mutations and 4 patients with phospholipase Cg2 (PLCG2) mutations. All 4 patients with PLCG2 mutations also had a BTK mutation and a TP53 mutation.



However, there were no significant associations between BTK mutations and other mutations. BTK mutations were not associated with the number of previous therapies a patient received or the need for ibrutinib dose interruptions or reductions.

The researchers assessed CLL progression at median of 8.5 months from sample collection and found the presence of a BTK mutation was significantly associated with progression (P = .0005).

Of the 17 patients with a BTK mutation, 14 progressed with one case of Richter’s syndrome. Three patients who progressed were still on ibrutinib, nine patients received venetoclax, and two patients died without further treatment.

Of the 13 patients without BTK mutations, just two patients progressed. One patient died without further treatment, and the other received venetoclax.

The event-free survival was significantly shorter in patients with a BTK mutation than in those without (P = .0380), but there was no significant difference in overall survival.

This research was supported by Sunesis Pharmaceuticals and the Force Hemato (fonds de recherche clinique en hématologie) foundation. The researchers reported relationships with Janssen, Gilead, Roche, and AbbVie.

SOURCE: Quinquenel A et al. Blood. 2019 Jun 26. doi: 10.1182/blood.2019000854.

Publications
Topics
Sections

 

Mutations in Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK) are associated with progression of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) in patients taking ibrutinib, according to a new study.

Courtesy Wikimedia Commons/Nephron/Creative Commons BY-SA-3.0

Researchers analyzed a “real-life” cohort of CLL patients taking ibrutinib for about 3 years and found that patients with BTK mutations were significantly more likely to progress (P = .0005).

“Our findings support that mutational analysis should be considered in patients receiving ibrutinib who have residual clonal lymphocytosis, and that clinical trials are needed to evaluate whether patients with a BTK mutation may benefit from an early switch to another treatment,” wrote Anne Quinquenel, MD, PhD, of Hôpital Robert Debré, Université Reims (France) Champagne-Ardenne, and colleagues. Their report is in Blood.

The researchers studied 57 CLL patients who were still on ibrutinib after at least 3 years and provided fresh blood samples. The median time between the start of ibrutinib and sample collection was 3.5 years.

All 57 patients had minimal residual disease at baseline. Of the 55 patients with response data available, 48 had a partial response, and 7 had a partial response with lymphocytosis.

Mutational profiling was possible in 30 patients who had a CLL clone greater than or equal to 0.5 x 109/L.

BTK mutations were present in 17 of the 30 patients (57%). There were 20 BTK mutations in total, all were at C481, and 14 were at C481S.

The researchers also identified 15 patients with TP53 mutations and 4 patients with phospholipase Cg2 (PLCG2) mutations. All 4 patients with PLCG2 mutations also had a BTK mutation and a TP53 mutation.



However, there were no significant associations between BTK mutations and other mutations. BTK mutations were not associated with the number of previous therapies a patient received or the need for ibrutinib dose interruptions or reductions.

The researchers assessed CLL progression at median of 8.5 months from sample collection and found the presence of a BTK mutation was significantly associated with progression (P = .0005).

Of the 17 patients with a BTK mutation, 14 progressed with one case of Richter’s syndrome. Three patients who progressed were still on ibrutinib, nine patients received venetoclax, and two patients died without further treatment.

Of the 13 patients without BTK mutations, just two patients progressed. One patient died without further treatment, and the other received venetoclax.

The event-free survival was significantly shorter in patients with a BTK mutation than in those without (P = .0380), but there was no significant difference in overall survival.

This research was supported by Sunesis Pharmaceuticals and the Force Hemato (fonds de recherche clinique en hématologie) foundation. The researchers reported relationships with Janssen, Gilead, Roche, and AbbVie.

SOURCE: Quinquenel A et al. Blood. 2019 Jun 26. doi: 10.1182/blood.2019000854.

 

Mutations in Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK) are associated with progression of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) in patients taking ibrutinib, according to a new study.

Courtesy Wikimedia Commons/Nephron/Creative Commons BY-SA-3.0

Researchers analyzed a “real-life” cohort of CLL patients taking ibrutinib for about 3 years and found that patients with BTK mutations were significantly more likely to progress (P = .0005).

“Our findings support that mutational analysis should be considered in patients receiving ibrutinib who have residual clonal lymphocytosis, and that clinical trials are needed to evaluate whether patients with a BTK mutation may benefit from an early switch to another treatment,” wrote Anne Quinquenel, MD, PhD, of Hôpital Robert Debré, Université Reims (France) Champagne-Ardenne, and colleagues. Their report is in Blood.

The researchers studied 57 CLL patients who were still on ibrutinib after at least 3 years and provided fresh blood samples. The median time between the start of ibrutinib and sample collection was 3.5 years.

All 57 patients had minimal residual disease at baseline. Of the 55 patients with response data available, 48 had a partial response, and 7 had a partial response with lymphocytosis.

Mutational profiling was possible in 30 patients who had a CLL clone greater than or equal to 0.5 x 109/L.

BTK mutations were present in 17 of the 30 patients (57%). There were 20 BTK mutations in total, all were at C481, and 14 were at C481S.

The researchers also identified 15 patients with TP53 mutations and 4 patients with phospholipase Cg2 (PLCG2) mutations. All 4 patients with PLCG2 mutations also had a BTK mutation and a TP53 mutation.



However, there were no significant associations between BTK mutations and other mutations. BTK mutations were not associated with the number of previous therapies a patient received or the need for ibrutinib dose interruptions or reductions.

The researchers assessed CLL progression at median of 8.5 months from sample collection and found the presence of a BTK mutation was significantly associated with progression (P = .0005).

Of the 17 patients with a BTK mutation, 14 progressed with one case of Richter’s syndrome. Three patients who progressed were still on ibrutinib, nine patients received venetoclax, and two patients died without further treatment.

Of the 13 patients without BTK mutations, just two patients progressed. One patient died without further treatment, and the other received venetoclax.

The event-free survival was significantly shorter in patients with a BTK mutation than in those without (P = .0380), but there was no significant difference in overall survival.

This research was supported by Sunesis Pharmaceuticals and the Force Hemato (fonds de recherche clinique en hématologie) foundation. The researchers reported relationships with Janssen, Gilead, Roche, and AbbVie.

SOURCE: Quinquenel A et al. Blood. 2019 Jun 26. doi: 10.1182/blood.2019000854.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Article Source

FROM BLOOD

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.

FDA approves rituximab biosimilar for cancer, autoimmune disorders

Article Type
Changed
Fri, 12/16/2022 - 12:17

 

The Food and Drug Administration has approved rituximab-pvvr (Ruxience) for adults with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), and granulomatosis with polyangiitis and microscopic polyangiitis. It is the first biosimilar approved to treat these two rare autoimmune conditions.

Specifically, the biosimilar product is approved as single-agent therapy for relapsed or refractory, low grade or follicular, CD20-positive B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma; in combination with chemotherapy for other types of previously untreated CD20-positive B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma; and as a single agent for nonprogressing, low-grade, CD20-positive B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma after first-line chemotherapy treatment. It is also approved for both previously untreated and previously treated CD20-positive CLL in combination with chemotherapy. And it is approved for granulomatosis with polyangiitis and microscopic polyangiitis in combination with glucocorticoids.



The approval is based on demonstration that rituximab-pvvr had no clinically meaningful differences in safety or efficacy when compared with the reference drug, rituximab (Rituxan), according to a release from the biosimilar’s developer. As with rituximab, rituximab-pvvr’s label comes with an FDA boxed warning. In the biosimilar’s case, it warns against fatal infusion-related reactions, severe mucocutaneous reactions, hepatitis B virus reactivation, and progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy. Other adverse reactions include fever, headache, neutropenia, and lymphopenia.

Publications
Topics
Sections

 

The Food and Drug Administration has approved rituximab-pvvr (Ruxience) for adults with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), and granulomatosis with polyangiitis and microscopic polyangiitis. It is the first biosimilar approved to treat these two rare autoimmune conditions.

Specifically, the biosimilar product is approved as single-agent therapy for relapsed or refractory, low grade or follicular, CD20-positive B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma; in combination with chemotherapy for other types of previously untreated CD20-positive B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma; and as a single agent for nonprogressing, low-grade, CD20-positive B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma after first-line chemotherapy treatment. It is also approved for both previously untreated and previously treated CD20-positive CLL in combination with chemotherapy. And it is approved for granulomatosis with polyangiitis and microscopic polyangiitis in combination with glucocorticoids.



The approval is based on demonstration that rituximab-pvvr had no clinically meaningful differences in safety or efficacy when compared with the reference drug, rituximab (Rituxan), according to a release from the biosimilar’s developer. As with rituximab, rituximab-pvvr’s label comes with an FDA boxed warning. In the biosimilar’s case, it warns against fatal infusion-related reactions, severe mucocutaneous reactions, hepatitis B virus reactivation, and progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy. Other adverse reactions include fever, headache, neutropenia, and lymphopenia.

 

The Food and Drug Administration has approved rituximab-pvvr (Ruxience) for adults with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), and granulomatosis with polyangiitis and microscopic polyangiitis. It is the first biosimilar approved to treat these two rare autoimmune conditions.

Specifically, the biosimilar product is approved as single-agent therapy for relapsed or refractory, low grade or follicular, CD20-positive B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma; in combination with chemotherapy for other types of previously untreated CD20-positive B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma; and as a single agent for nonprogressing, low-grade, CD20-positive B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma after first-line chemotherapy treatment. It is also approved for both previously untreated and previously treated CD20-positive CLL in combination with chemotherapy. And it is approved for granulomatosis with polyangiitis and microscopic polyangiitis in combination with glucocorticoids.



The approval is based on demonstration that rituximab-pvvr had no clinically meaningful differences in safety or efficacy when compared with the reference drug, rituximab (Rituxan), according to a release from the biosimilar’s developer. As with rituximab, rituximab-pvvr’s label comes with an FDA boxed warning. In the biosimilar’s case, it warns against fatal infusion-related reactions, severe mucocutaneous reactions, hepatitis B virus reactivation, and progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy. Other adverse reactions include fever, headache, neutropenia, and lymphopenia.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.