Federal Practitioner

Have you experienced malpractice?

No, I’m not asking whether you have experienced litigation. I’m asking whether you, as a physician, have actually experienced substandard care from a colleague. I have heard many such experiences over the years, and mistreatment doesn’t seem to be getting any less frequent.

It seems to me that physicians may be especially prone to receiving substandard care. If true, there could be several explanations. The first is that, unlike the Pope, who has a dedicated confessor trained to minister to his spiritual needs, no one formally trains physicians to treat physicians. As a result, most of us feel slightly uneasy at treating other physicians. We naturally wish to keep our colleagues well, but at the same time realize that our clinical skills are being very closely scrutinized. What if they are found to be wanting? This discomfiture can make a physician treating a physician overly compulsive, or worse, overtly dismissive.

Second, we physicians are famously poor patients. We pretend we don’t need the advice we give others, to monitor our health and promptly seek care when something feels amiss. And, for the period during which we delay a medical encounter, we often attempt to diagnose and treat ourselves.

Sometimes we are successful, which reinforces this approach. Other times, we fail at being our own caregiver and present to someone else either too late, or with avoidable complications. In the former instance, we congratulate ourselves and learn nothing from the experience. In the latter, we may heap shame upon ourselves for our folly, and we may learn; but it could be a lethal lesson. In the worst scenario, our colleague gives in to frustration (or angst), and heaps even more shame onto their late-presenting physician patient.

Third, when we do submit to being a patient, we often demand VIP treatment. This is probably in response to our anxiety that some of the worst things we have seen happen to patients might happen to us if we are not vigilant to ensure we receive a higher level of care. But of course, such hypervigilance can lead to excessive care and testing, with all the attendant hazards, or alternatively to dilution of care if our caregivers decide we are just too much trouble.

Fourth, as a fifth-generation physician myself, I am convinced that physicians and physician family members are either prone to unusual manifestations of common diseases or unusual diseases, or that rare disease entities and complications are actually more common than literature suggests, and they simply aren’t pursued or diagnosed in nonphysician families.

No matter how we may have arrived in a position to need medical care, how often is such care substandard? And how do we respond when we suspect, or know, this to be the case? Are physicians more, or less, likely to take legal action in the face of it?

I certainly don’t know any statistics. Physicians are in an excellent position to take such action, because judges and juries will likely believe that a doctor can recognize negligence when we fall victim to it. But we may also be reluctant to publicly admit the way (or ways) in which we may have contributed to substandard care or outcome.

Based on decades of working with physician clients who have been sued, and having been sued myself (thus witnessing and also experiencing the effects of litigation), I am probably more reluctant than normal patients or physicians to consider taking legal action. This, despite the fact that I am also a lawyer and (through organized medicine) know many colleagues in all specialties who might serve as expert witnesses.

I have experienced serial substandard care, which has left me highly conflicted about the efficacy of my chosen profession. As a resident, I had my first odd pain condition and consulted an “elder statesperson” from my institution, whom I assumed to be a “doctor’s doctor” because he was a superb teacher (wrong!)

He completely missed the diagnosis and further belittled (indeed, libeled) me in the medical record. (Some years later, I learned that, during that period, he was increasingly demented and tended to view all female patients as having “wandering uterus” equivalents.) Fortunately, I found a better diagnostician, or at least one more willing to lend credence to my complaints, who successfully removed the first of several “zebra” lesions I have experienced.

As a young faculty member, I had an odd presentation of a recurring gynecologic condition, which was treated surgically, successfully, except that my fertility was cut in half – a possibility about which I had not been informed when giving operative consent. Would I have sued this fellow faculty member for that? Never, because she invariably treated me with respect as a colleague.

Later in my career after leaving academia, the same condition recurred in a new location. My old-school gynecologist desired to do an extensive procedure, to which I demurred unless specific pathology was found intraoperatively. Affronted, he subjected me to laparoscopy, did nothing but look, and then left the hospital leaving me and the PACU nurse to try to decipher his instructions (which said, basically, “I didn’t find anything; don’t bother me again.”). Several years of pain later, a younger gynecologist performed the correct procedure to address my problem, which has never recurred. Would I have sued him? No, because I believe he had a disability.

At age 59, I developed a new mole. My beloved general practitioner, in the waning years of his practice, forgot to consult a colleague to remove it for several months. When I forced the issue, the mole was removed and turned out to be a rare pediatric condition considered a precursor to melanoma. The same general practitioner had told me I needn’t worry about my “mild hypercalcemia.”

Ten years later I diagnosed my own parathyroid adenoma, in the interim losing 10% of my bone density. Would I have sued him? No, for he always showed he cared. (Though maybe, if I had fractured my spine or hip.)

If you have been the victim of physician malpractice, how did you respond?

Do we serve our profession well by how we handle substandard care – upon ourselves (or our loved ones)?

Dr. Andrew is a former assistant professor in the department of emergency medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and founder and principal of MDMentor, Victoria, B.C.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Have you experienced malpractice?

No, I’m not asking whether you have experienced litigation. I’m asking whether you, as a physician, have actually experienced substandard care from a colleague. I have heard many such experiences over the years, and mistreatment doesn’t seem to be getting any less frequent.

It seems to me that physicians may be especially prone to receiving substandard care. If true, there could be several explanations. The first is that, unlike the Pope, who has a dedicated confessor trained to minister to his spiritual needs, no one formally trains physicians to treat physicians. As a result, most of us feel slightly uneasy at treating other physicians. We naturally wish to keep our colleagues well, but at the same time realize that our clinical skills are being very closely scrutinized. What if they are found to be wanting? This discomfiture can make a physician treating a physician overly compulsive, or worse, overtly dismissive.

Second, we physicians are famously poor patients. We pretend we don’t need the advice we give others, to monitor our health and promptly seek care when something feels amiss. And, for the period during which we delay a medical encounter, we often attempt to diagnose and treat ourselves.

Sometimes we are successful, which reinforces this approach. Other times, we fail at being our own caregiver and present to someone else either too late, or with avoidable complications. In the former instance, we congratulate ourselves and learn nothing from the experience. In the latter, we may heap shame upon ourselves for our folly, and we may learn; but it could be a lethal lesson. In the worst scenario, our colleague gives in to frustration (or angst), and heaps even more shame onto their late-presenting physician patient.

Third, when we do submit to being a patient, we often demand VIP treatment. This is probably in response to our anxiety that some of the worst things we have seen happen to patients might happen to us if we are not vigilant to ensure we receive a higher level of care. But of course, such hypervigilance can lead to excessive care and testing, with all the attendant hazards, or alternatively to dilution of care if our caregivers decide we are just too much trouble.

Fourth, as a fifth-generation physician myself, I am convinced that physicians and physician family members are either prone to unusual manifestations of common diseases or unusual diseases, or that rare disease entities and complications are actually more common than literature suggests, and they simply aren’t pursued or diagnosed in nonphysician families.

No matter how we may have arrived in a position to need medical care, how often is such care substandard? And how do we respond when we suspect, or know, this to be the case? Are physicians more, or less, likely to take legal action in the face of it?

I certainly don’t know any statistics. Physicians are in an excellent position to take such action, because judges and juries will likely believe that a doctor can recognize negligence when we fall victim to it. But we may also be reluctant to publicly admit the way (or ways) in which we may have contributed to substandard care or outcome.

Based on decades of working with physician clients who have been sued, and having been sued myself (thus witnessing and also experiencing the effects of litigation), I am probably more reluctant than normal patients or physicians to consider taking legal action. This, despite the fact that I am also a lawyer and (through organized medicine) know many colleagues in all specialties who might serve as expert witnesses.

I have experienced serial substandard care, which has left me highly conflicted about the efficacy of my chosen profession. As a resident, I had my first odd pain condition and consulted an “elder statesperson” from my institution, whom I assumed to be a “doctor’s doctor” because he was a superb teacher (wrong!)

He completely missed the diagnosis and further belittled (indeed, libeled) me in the medical record. (Some years later, I learned that, during that period, he was increasingly demented and tended to view all female patients as having “wandering uterus” equivalents.) Fortunately, I found a better diagnostician, or at least one more willing to lend credence to my complaints, who successfully removed the first of several “zebra” lesions I have experienced.

As a young faculty member, I had an odd presentation of a recurring gynecologic condition, which was treated surgically, successfully, except that my fertility was cut in half – a possibility about which I had not been informed when giving operative consent. Would I have sued this fellow faculty member for that? Never, because she invariably treated me with respect as a colleague.

Later in my career after leaving academia, the same condition recurred in a new location. My old-school gynecologist desired to do an extensive procedure, to which I demurred unless specific pathology was found intraoperatively. Affronted, he subjected me to laparoscopy, did nothing but look, and then left the hospital leaving me and the PACU nurse to try to decipher his instructions (which said, basically, “I didn’t find anything; don’t bother me again.”). Several years of pain later, a younger gynecologist performed the correct procedure to address my problem, which has never recurred. Would I have sued him? No, because I believe he had a disability.

At age 59, I developed a new mole. My beloved general practitioner, in the waning years of his practice, forgot to consult a colleague to remove it for several months. When I forced the issue, the mole was removed and turned out to be a rare pediatric condition considered a precursor to melanoma. The same general practitioner had told me I needn’t worry about my “mild hypercalcemia.”

Ten years later I diagnosed my own parathyroid adenoma, in the interim losing 10% of my bone density. Would I have sued him? No, for he always showed he cared. (Though maybe, if I had fractured my spine or hip.)

If you have been the victim of physician malpractice, how did you respond?

Do we serve our profession well by how we handle substandard care – upon ourselves (or our loved ones)?

Dr. Andrew is a former assistant professor in the department of emergency medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and founder and principal of MDMentor, Victoria, B.C.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Have you experienced malpractice?

No, I’m not asking whether you have experienced litigation. I’m asking whether you, as a physician, have actually experienced substandard care from a colleague. I have heard many such experiences over the years, and mistreatment doesn’t seem to be getting any less frequent.

It seems to me that physicians may be especially prone to receiving substandard care. If true, there could be several explanations. The first is that, unlike the Pope, who has a dedicated confessor trained to minister to his spiritual needs, no one formally trains physicians to treat physicians. As a result, most of us feel slightly uneasy at treating other physicians. We naturally wish to keep our colleagues well, but at the same time realize that our clinical skills are being very closely scrutinized. What if they are found to be wanting? This discomfiture can make a physician treating a physician overly compulsive, or worse, overtly dismissive.

Second, we physicians are famously poor patients. We pretend we don’t need the advice we give others, to monitor our health and promptly seek care when something feels amiss. And, for the period during which we delay a medical encounter, we often attempt to diagnose and treat ourselves.

Sometimes we are successful, which reinforces this approach. Other times, we fail at being our own caregiver and present to someone else either too late, or with avoidable complications. In the former instance, we congratulate ourselves and learn nothing from the experience. In the latter, we may heap shame upon ourselves for our folly, and we may learn; but it could be a lethal lesson. In the worst scenario, our colleague gives in to frustration (or angst), and heaps even more shame onto their late-presenting physician patient.

Third, when we do submit to being a patient, we often demand VIP treatment. This is probably in response to our anxiety that some of the worst things we have seen happen to patients might happen to us if we are not vigilant to ensure we receive a higher level of care. But of course, such hypervigilance can lead to excessive care and testing, with all the attendant hazards, or alternatively to dilution of care if our caregivers decide we are just too much trouble.

Fourth, as a fifth-generation physician myself, I am convinced that physicians and physician family members are either prone to unusual manifestations of common diseases or unusual diseases, or that rare disease entities and complications are actually more common than literature suggests, and they simply aren’t pursued or diagnosed in nonphysician families.

No matter how we may have arrived in a position to need medical care, how often is such care substandard? And how do we respond when we suspect, or know, this to be the case? Are physicians more, or less, likely to take legal action in the face of it?

I certainly don’t know any statistics. Physicians are in an excellent position to take such action, because judges and juries will likely believe that a doctor can recognize negligence when we fall victim to it. But we may also be reluctant to publicly admit the way (or ways) in which we may have contributed to substandard care or outcome.

Based on decades of working with physician clients who have been sued, and having been sued myself (thus witnessing and also experiencing the effects of litigation), I am probably more reluctant than normal patients or physicians to consider taking legal action. This, despite the fact that I am also a lawyer and (through organized medicine) know many colleagues in all specialties who might serve as expert witnesses.

I have experienced serial substandard care, which has left me highly conflicted about the efficacy of my chosen profession. As a resident, I had my first odd pain condition and consulted an “elder statesperson” from my institution, whom I assumed to be a “doctor’s doctor” because he was a superb teacher (wrong!)

He completely missed the diagnosis and further belittled (indeed, libeled) me in the medical record. (Some years later, I learned that, during that period, he was increasingly demented and tended to view all female patients as having “wandering uterus” equivalents.) Fortunately, I found a better diagnostician, or at least one more willing to lend credence to my complaints, who successfully removed the first of several “zebra” lesions I have experienced.

As a young faculty member, I had an odd presentation of a recurring gynecologic condition, which was treated surgically, successfully, except that my fertility was cut in half – a possibility about which I had not been informed when giving operative consent. Would I have sued this fellow faculty member for that? Never, because she invariably treated me with respect as a colleague.

Later in my career after leaving academia, the same condition recurred in a new location. My old-school gynecologist desired to do an extensive procedure, to which I demurred unless specific pathology was found intraoperatively. Affronted, he subjected me to laparoscopy, did nothing but look, and then left the hospital leaving me and the PACU nurse to try to decipher his instructions (which said, basically, “I didn’t find anything; don’t bother me again.”). Several years of pain later, a younger gynecologist performed the correct procedure to address my problem, which has never recurred. Would I have sued him? No, because I believe he had a disability.

At age 59, I developed a new mole. My beloved general practitioner, in the waning years of his practice, forgot to consult a colleague to remove it for several months. When I forced the issue, the mole was removed and turned out to be a rare pediatric condition considered a precursor to melanoma. The same general practitioner had told me I needn’t worry about my “mild hypercalcemia.”

Ten years later I diagnosed my own parathyroid adenoma, in the interim losing 10% of my bone density. Would I have sued him? No, for he always showed he cared. (Though maybe, if I had fractured my spine or hip.)

If you have been the victim of physician malpractice, how did you respond?

Do we serve our profession well by how we handle substandard care – upon ourselves (or our loved ones)?

Dr. Andrew is a former assistant professor in the department of emergency medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and founder and principal of MDMentor, Victoria, B.C.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

For the first time, neuroscientists have recorded the brain activity of a dying person, revealing a brain wave pattern similar to that seen when memories are recalled. Although only a single case study, researchers say the recording raises the possibility that as we die, our lives really do flash before our eyes.

“The same neurophysiological activity patterns that occur in our brains when we dream, remember, meditate, concentrate – these same patterns also appear just before we die,” study investigator Ajmal Zemmar, MD, PhD, assistant professor of neurosurgery at the University of Louisville (Ky.), said in an interview.

The research was published online Feb. 22, 2022, in the Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience.
 

Accidental finding

The recording of brain activity was captured inadvertently in 2016 when neuroscientists used continuous EEG to detect and treat seizures in an 87-year-old man who had developed epilepsy after a traumatic brain injury, While undergoing the EEG, the patient had a cardiac arrest and died.

In the 30 seconds before and after blood flow to the brain stopped, the EEG showed an increase in gamma oscillations. These are brain waves known to be involved in high cognitive functions, including conscious perception and memory flashbacks.

Researchers also noted changes in alpha, theta, delta, and beta wave activity just before and just after cardiac arrest, and that changes in one type modulated changes in others. That suggests a coordinated rhythm, which further suggests the activity is more than just the firing of neurons as they die.

“When you observe this and you observe the rhythmic oscillation, you are inclined to think this may be a coordinated activity pattern of the brain rather than a mere discharge when the brain dies,” Dr. Zemmar said.

Although they’ve had the data since 2016, Dr. Zemmar and colleagues held off on publishing in the hopes of finding similar recordings in other individuals. That their 5-year search yielded no results illustrates just how difficult a study like this is to conduct, Dr. Zemmar noted. “We’re trying to figure out how to do this in a predictable way, but obtaining datasets like this is going to be challenging,” he said.

Although Dr. Zemmar was unable to find recordings of activity in the dying brains of other humans, he did find a similar study conducted with rats in 2013. In that research, investigators reported a surge of brain activity in rats just prior to and immediately after experimental cardiac arrest. Changes in high- and low-frequency brain waves mirrored those documented in the current case study.
 

Bringing a picture together

Commenting on the new study, George Mashour, MD, PhD, professor and chair of anesthesiology and professor of neurosurgery and pharmacology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said the results are eerily similar to a 2013 study that he coauthored.

Although the current research is just a single case study, Dr. Mashour said when taken with his team’s findings in rats and other work, the new findings are “starting to put a picture together of what might be going on in the dying brain.”

“They were able to record throughout the process of cardiac arrest and death and what they found was strikingly similar to what we found in our highly controlled animal study,” said Dr. Mashour, who is also the founding director of the Center for Consciousness Science at the University of Michigan.

“There was a surge of higher-frequency activity and there was coherence across different parts of the brain,” he added. “That suggests that what we found in the rigorous controlled setting of a laboratory actually translates to humans who are undergoing the clinical process of dying.”

What remains unclear is whether this brain activity explains the near-death experiences described in the literature, which include “life recall” of memories, Dr. Mashour said. “This higher-frequency surge that’s happening around the time of death, is that correlated with experiencing something like this near-death experience? Or is it just a neural feature that can just as easily happen in an unconscious brain?”

The study was funded by the Heidi Demetriades Foundation, the ETH Zürich Foundation, and the Henan Provincial People’s Hospital Outstanding Talents Founding Grant Project. Dr. Zemmar and Dr. Mashour disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

For the first time, neuroscientists have recorded the brain activity of a dying person, revealing a brain wave pattern similar to that seen when memories are recalled. Although only a single case study, researchers say the recording raises the possibility that as we die, our lives really do flash before our eyes.

“The same neurophysiological activity patterns that occur in our brains when we dream, remember, meditate, concentrate – these same patterns also appear just before we die,” study investigator Ajmal Zemmar, MD, PhD, assistant professor of neurosurgery at the University of Louisville (Ky.), said in an interview.

The research was published online Feb. 22, 2022, in the Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience.
 

Accidental finding

The recording of brain activity was captured inadvertently in 2016 when neuroscientists used continuous EEG to detect and treat seizures in an 87-year-old man who had developed epilepsy after a traumatic brain injury, While undergoing the EEG, the patient had a cardiac arrest and died.

In the 30 seconds before and after blood flow to the brain stopped, the EEG showed an increase in gamma oscillations. These are brain waves known to be involved in high cognitive functions, including conscious perception and memory flashbacks.

Researchers also noted changes in alpha, theta, delta, and beta wave activity just before and just after cardiac arrest, and that changes in one type modulated changes in others. That suggests a coordinated rhythm, which further suggests the activity is more than just the firing of neurons as they die.

“When you observe this and you observe the rhythmic oscillation, you are inclined to think this may be a coordinated activity pattern of the brain rather than a mere discharge when the brain dies,” Dr. Zemmar said.

Although they’ve had the data since 2016, Dr. Zemmar and colleagues held off on publishing in the hopes of finding similar recordings in other individuals. That their 5-year search yielded no results illustrates just how difficult a study like this is to conduct, Dr. Zemmar noted. “We’re trying to figure out how to do this in a predictable way, but obtaining datasets like this is going to be challenging,” he said.

Although Dr. Zemmar was unable to find recordings of activity in the dying brains of other humans, he did find a similar study conducted with rats in 2013. In that research, investigators reported a surge of brain activity in rats just prior to and immediately after experimental cardiac arrest. Changes in high- and low-frequency brain waves mirrored those documented in the current case study.
 

Bringing a picture together

Commenting on the new study, George Mashour, MD, PhD, professor and chair of anesthesiology and professor of neurosurgery and pharmacology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said the results are eerily similar to a 2013 study that he coauthored.

Although the current research is just a single case study, Dr. Mashour said when taken with his team’s findings in rats and other work, the new findings are “starting to put a picture together of what might be going on in the dying brain.”

“They were able to record throughout the process of cardiac arrest and death and what they found was strikingly similar to what we found in our highly controlled animal study,” said Dr. Mashour, who is also the founding director of the Center for Consciousness Science at the University of Michigan.

“There was a surge of higher-frequency activity and there was coherence across different parts of the brain,” he added. “That suggests that what we found in the rigorous controlled setting of a laboratory actually translates to humans who are undergoing the clinical process of dying.”

What remains unclear is whether this brain activity explains the near-death experiences described in the literature, which include “life recall” of memories, Dr. Mashour said. “This higher-frequency surge that’s happening around the time of death, is that correlated with experiencing something like this near-death experience? Or is it just a neural feature that can just as easily happen in an unconscious brain?”

The study was funded by the Heidi Demetriades Foundation, the ETH Zürich Foundation, and the Henan Provincial People’s Hospital Outstanding Talents Founding Grant Project. Dr. Zemmar and Dr. Mashour disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

For the first time, neuroscientists have recorded the brain activity of a dying person, revealing a brain wave pattern similar to that seen when memories are recalled. Although only a single case study, researchers say the recording raises the possibility that as we die, our lives really do flash before our eyes.

“The same neurophysiological activity patterns that occur in our brains when we dream, remember, meditate, concentrate – these same patterns also appear just before we die,” study investigator Ajmal Zemmar, MD, PhD, assistant professor of neurosurgery at the University of Louisville (Ky.), said in an interview.

The research was published online Feb. 22, 2022, in the Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience.
 

Accidental finding

The recording of brain activity was captured inadvertently in 2016 when neuroscientists used continuous EEG to detect and treat seizures in an 87-year-old man who had developed epilepsy after a traumatic brain injury, While undergoing the EEG, the patient had a cardiac arrest and died.

In the 30 seconds before and after blood flow to the brain stopped, the EEG showed an increase in gamma oscillations. These are brain waves known to be involved in high cognitive functions, including conscious perception and memory flashbacks.

Researchers also noted changes in alpha, theta, delta, and beta wave activity just before and just after cardiac arrest, and that changes in one type modulated changes in others. That suggests a coordinated rhythm, which further suggests the activity is more than just the firing of neurons as they die.

“When you observe this and you observe the rhythmic oscillation, you are inclined to think this may be a coordinated activity pattern of the brain rather than a mere discharge when the brain dies,” Dr. Zemmar said.

Although they’ve had the data since 2016, Dr. Zemmar and colleagues held off on publishing in the hopes of finding similar recordings in other individuals. That their 5-year search yielded no results illustrates just how difficult a study like this is to conduct, Dr. Zemmar noted. “We’re trying to figure out how to do this in a predictable way, but obtaining datasets like this is going to be challenging,” he said.

Although Dr. Zemmar was unable to find recordings of activity in the dying brains of other humans, he did find a similar study conducted with rats in 2013. In that research, investigators reported a surge of brain activity in rats just prior to and immediately after experimental cardiac arrest. Changes in high- and low-frequency brain waves mirrored those documented in the current case study.
 

Bringing a picture together

Commenting on the new study, George Mashour, MD, PhD, professor and chair of anesthesiology and professor of neurosurgery and pharmacology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said the results are eerily similar to a 2013 study that he coauthored.

Although the current research is just a single case study, Dr. Mashour said when taken with his team’s findings in rats and other work, the new findings are “starting to put a picture together of what might be going on in the dying brain.”

“They were able to record throughout the process of cardiac arrest and death and what they found was strikingly similar to what we found in our highly controlled animal study,” said Dr. Mashour, who is also the founding director of the Center for Consciousness Science at the University of Michigan.

“There was a surge of higher-frequency activity and there was coherence across different parts of the brain,” he added. “That suggests that what we found in the rigorous controlled setting of a laboratory actually translates to humans who are undergoing the clinical process of dying.”

What remains unclear is whether this brain activity explains the near-death experiences described in the literature, which include “life recall” of memories, Dr. Mashour said. “This higher-frequency surge that’s happening around the time of death, is that correlated with experiencing something like this near-death experience? Or is it just a neural feature that can just as easily happen in an unconscious brain?”

The study was funded by the Heidi Demetriades Foundation, the ETH Zürich Foundation, and the Henan Provincial People’s Hospital Outstanding Talents Founding Grant Project. Dr. Zemmar and Dr. Mashour disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

Inpatient or outpatient: Does it matter?

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

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

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

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

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

Abrupt or gradual detox?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Inpatient or outpatient: Does it matter?

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

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

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

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

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

Abrupt or gradual detox?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Inpatient or outpatient: Does it matter?

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

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

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

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

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

Abrupt or gradual detox?

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

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

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

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

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved an expanded heart failure indication for the sodium-glucose transporter 2 inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance) that now includes HF with mid-range or preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), the agency announced on Feb. 24.

That means the SGLT2 inhibitor, once considered primarily an antidiabetic agent, is approved for use in patients with HF per se without regard to ventricular function. The drug received approval for HF with reduced LVEF in August 2021.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The expanded indication, specifically for reducing the risk of cardiovascular death and HF hospitalization in adults, was widely anticipated based on the landmark results from the EMPEROR-Preserved trial. The study saw a significant 21% relative reduction in that composite endpoint over about 2 years in patients with New York Heart Association class II-IV heart failure and an LVEF greater than 40% who received empagliflozin along with other standard care.

Interestingly, the drug’s expanded indication in HF resembles that approved for sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) in February 2021 based mostly on the PARAGON-HF trial, which entered patients with HF and an LVEF at least 45%. The trial was “negative” in that it saw no significant advantage to the drug for its primary clinical outcome but did suggest benefit for some secondary endpoints.

The FDA had used more cautionary language in its expanded indication for sacubitril/valsartan, “to reduce the risk of cardiovascular death and hospitalization for heart failure in adult patients with chronic heart failure. Benefits are most clearly evident in patients with left ventricular ejection fraction below normal.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved an expanded heart failure indication for the sodium-glucose transporter 2 inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance) that now includes HF with mid-range or preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), the agency announced on Feb. 24.

That means the SGLT2 inhibitor, once considered primarily an antidiabetic agent, is approved for use in patients with HF per se without regard to ventricular function. The drug received approval for HF with reduced LVEF in August 2021.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The expanded indication, specifically for reducing the risk of cardiovascular death and HF hospitalization in adults, was widely anticipated based on the landmark results from the EMPEROR-Preserved trial. The study saw a significant 21% relative reduction in that composite endpoint over about 2 years in patients with New York Heart Association class II-IV heart failure and an LVEF greater than 40% who received empagliflozin along with other standard care.

Interestingly, the drug’s expanded indication in HF resembles that approved for sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) in February 2021 based mostly on the PARAGON-HF trial, which entered patients with HF and an LVEF at least 45%. The trial was “negative” in that it saw no significant advantage to the drug for its primary clinical outcome but did suggest benefit for some secondary endpoints.

The FDA had used more cautionary language in its expanded indication for sacubitril/valsartan, “to reduce the risk of cardiovascular death and hospitalization for heart failure in adult patients with chronic heart failure. Benefits are most clearly evident in patients with left ventricular ejection fraction below normal.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved an expanded heart failure indication for the sodium-glucose transporter 2 inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance) that now includes HF with mid-range or preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), the agency announced on Feb. 24.

That means the SGLT2 inhibitor, once considered primarily an antidiabetic agent, is approved for use in patients with HF per se without regard to ventricular function. The drug received approval for HF with reduced LVEF in August 2021.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The expanded indication, specifically for reducing the risk of cardiovascular death and HF hospitalization in adults, was widely anticipated based on the landmark results from the EMPEROR-Preserved trial. The study saw a significant 21% relative reduction in that composite endpoint over about 2 years in patients with New York Heart Association class II-IV heart failure and an LVEF greater than 40% who received empagliflozin along with other standard care.

Interestingly, the drug’s expanded indication in HF resembles that approved for sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) in February 2021 based mostly on the PARAGON-HF trial, which entered patients with HF and an LVEF at least 45%. The trial was “negative” in that it saw no significant advantage to the drug for its primary clinical outcome but did suggest benefit for some secondary endpoints.

The FDA had used more cautionary language in its expanded indication for sacubitril/valsartan, “to reduce the risk of cardiovascular death and hospitalization for heart failure in adult patients with chronic heart failure. Benefits are most clearly evident in patients with left ventricular ejection fraction below normal.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The first condom specifically designed for use during anal sex has gained Food and Drug Administration approval.

Anal intercourse is considered to be much riskier than vaginal sex for the transmission of infections such as HIV and HPV, a risk factor for anal cancer, agency officials said in a statement Feb. 23 announcing the decision. And though the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has long encouraged the use of a condom during anal intercourse, the FDA had not until now deemed this practice safe.

The latex ONE Male Condom, from prophylactic maker Global Protection Corp. of Boston, has already been available for vaginal sex. The FDA action now allows the company to market the product for anal intercourse.

“This authorization helps us accomplish our priority to advance health equity through the development of safe and effective products that meet the needs of diverse populations,” Courtney Lias, PhD, the director of the FDA’s Office of GastroRenal, ObGyn, General Hospital, and Urology Devices, said in a statement.

The FDA said it relied on an Emory University clinical study of condom safety of more than 500 men. Those who took part in the study were evenly divided between men who have sex with men and men who have sex with women. The condom failure rate, meaning that a condom either broke or slipped, was less than 1% during anal sex. The failure rate was 3 times higher during vaginal intercourse.

The Emory researchers also found that roughly 70% of men who have sex with men would be more likely to use condoms marked as safe for anal sex, according to a survey of 10,000 people.

ONE Male Condoms sell for between $3.48 for a three-pack and $14.48 for a 24-pack, according to Milla Impola, Global Protection’s director of marketing and communications. The FDA said the condom should be used with a condom-compatible lubricant when used during anal sex.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

The first condom specifically designed for use during anal sex has gained Food and Drug Administration approval.

Anal intercourse is considered to be much riskier than vaginal sex for the transmission of infections such as HIV and HPV, a risk factor for anal cancer, agency officials said in a statement Feb. 23 announcing the decision. And though the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has long encouraged the use of a condom during anal intercourse, the FDA had not until now deemed this practice safe.

The latex ONE Male Condom, from prophylactic maker Global Protection Corp. of Boston, has already been available for vaginal sex. The FDA action now allows the company to market the product for anal intercourse.

“This authorization helps us accomplish our priority to advance health equity through the development of safe and effective products that meet the needs of diverse populations,” Courtney Lias, PhD, the director of the FDA’s Office of GastroRenal, ObGyn, General Hospital, and Urology Devices, said in a statement.

The FDA said it relied on an Emory University clinical study of condom safety of more than 500 men. Those who took part in the study were evenly divided between men who have sex with men and men who have sex with women. The condom failure rate, meaning that a condom either broke or slipped, was less than 1% during anal sex. The failure rate was 3 times higher during vaginal intercourse.

The Emory researchers also found that roughly 70% of men who have sex with men would be more likely to use condoms marked as safe for anal sex, according to a survey of 10,000 people.

ONE Male Condoms sell for between $3.48 for a three-pack and $14.48 for a 24-pack, according to Milla Impola, Global Protection’s director of marketing and communications. The FDA said the condom should be used with a condom-compatible lubricant when used during anal sex.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

The first condom specifically designed for use during anal sex has gained Food and Drug Administration approval.

Anal intercourse is considered to be much riskier than vaginal sex for the transmission of infections such as HIV and HPV, a risk factor for anal cancer, agency officials said in a statement Feb. 23 announcing the decision. And though the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has long encouraged the use of a condom during anal intercourse, the FDA had not until now deemed this practice safe.

The latex ONE Male Condom, from prophylactic maker Global Protection Corp. of Boston, has already been available for vaginal sex. The FDA action now allows the company to market the product for anal intercourse.

“This authorization helps us accomplish our priority to advance health equity through the development of safe and effective products that meet the needs of diverse populations,” Courtney Lias, PhD, the director of the FDA’s Office of GastroRenal, ObGyn, General Hospital, and Urology Devices, said in a statement.

The FDA said it relied on an Emory University clinical study of condom safety of more than 500 men. Those who took part in the study were evenly divided between men who have sex with men and men who have sex with women. The condom failure rate, meaning that a condom either broke or slipped, was less than 1% during anal sex. The failure rate was 3 times higher during vaginal intercourse.

The Emory researchers also found that roughly 70% of men who have sex with men would be more likely to use condoms marked as safe for anal sex, according to a survey of 10,000 people.

ONE Male Condoms sell for between $3.48 for a three-pack and $14.48 for a 24-pack, according to Milla Impola, Global Protection’s director of marketing and communications. The FDA said the condom should be used with a condom-compatible lubricant when used during anal sex.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Investigators presenting at the American Society of Clinical Oncology’s Genitourinary Cancers Symposium called for neoadjuvant chemotherapy to be a new standard of care for high-grade upper tract urothelial carcinoma.

They made the call after finding that 63% of patients (36/57) had a pathologic response to gemcitabine/cisplatin before extirpative surgery, with pathologic response defined as less than pT2NO disease on postoperative pathology. Nineteen percent (11/57) had complete responses, with no evidence of the main tumor (ypT0N0).

The approach has a “favorable pathologic response, is well tolerated ... and thus should be considered a new standard of care option,” said investigators led by Wesley Yip, MD, a urologic oncology fellow at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.

There was no comparator arm, but the results are in line with previous reports, including a 2014 investigation that found a 5-year disease specific survival (DSS) of 90.1% and 5-year overall survival (OS) of 80.2% among 31 upper tract urothelial carcinoma patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy, versus a 5-year DSS and OS of 57.6% among 81 historical controls.

Presentation moderator Stephen Boorjian, MD, chair of urology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., called the findings “valuable” but noted there’s level 1 evidence for an alternative approach, chemotherapy or nivolumab after surgery for patients with particularly worrisome postop pathology. It makes it tough to know if patients should be treated beforehand or afterwards.

“What do we do?” he asked.

Dr. Yip said it’s an open question at this point but that trials are underway to address the issue. In the meantime, “it’s definitely a multidisciplinary discussion to know what’s best for each patient,” he said. One of the factors that argues for the neoadjuvant approach is that substantially fewer patients are eligible for chemotherapy after nephroureterectomy because of diminished renal function. “Patients who might not be eligible ... are the ones we’d be targeting for” neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC), he said.

In the study, gemcitabine 1000 mg/m² and cisplatin 35 mg/m² were administered on days 1 and 8 of four 21-day cycles, followed by radical nephroureterectomy or ureterectomy.

Fifty-three of the subjects had high-grade disease by endoscopic biopsy, and the remaining four were enrolled based on imaging and selective cytology. There was no nodal disease on CT within 30 days of neoadjuvant chemotherapy initiation.

Two-year progression-free survival (PFS) was 91% among pathologic responders but only 52% among nonresponders. Every responder was alive at 2 years versus 80% of nonresponders.

Across the entire cohort, 5-year PFS was 61% and 5-year OS 79%; 89.5% of patients were alive at a median follow-up of 3.5 years.

Almost all of the patients completed at least three NAC cycles, and all of them went to surgery, which had a 90-day grade 3 or higher complication rate of 7%.

Sixty-three percent were men, and 95% were White. The median age was 66 years.

The work was funded by the National Institutes of Health and Memorial Sloan Kettering. Dr. Yip had no disclosures. Dr. Boorjian advises ArTara Therapeutics, FerGene, and Ferring.

Investigators presenting at the American Society of Clinical Oncology’s Genitourinary Cancers Symposium called for neoadjuvant chemotherapy to be a new standard of care for high-grade upper tract urothelial carcinoma.

They made the call after finding that 63% of patients (36/57) had a pathologic response to gemcitabine/cisplatin before extirpative surgery, with pathologic response defined as less than pT2NO disease on postoperative pathology. Nineteen percent (11/57) had complete responses, with no evidence of the main tumor (ypT0N0).

The approach has a “favorable pathologic response, is well tolerated ... and thus should be considered a new standard of care option,” said investigators led by Wesley Yip, MD, a urologic oncology fellow at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.

There was no comparator arm, but the results are in line with previous reports, including a 2014 investigation that found a 5-year disease specific survival (DSS) of 90.1% and 5-year overall survival (OS) of 80.2% among 31 upper tract urothelial carcinoma patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy, versus a 5-year DSS and OS of 57.6% among 81 historical controls.

Presentation moderator Stephen Boorjian, MD, chair of urology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., called the findings “valuable” but noted there’s level 1 evidence for an alternative approach, chemotherapy or nivolumab after surgery for patients with particularly worrisome postop pathology. It makes it tough to know if patients should be treated beforehand or afterwards.

“What do we do?” he asked.

Dr. Yip said it’s an open question at this point but that trials are underway to address the issue. In the meantime, “it’s definitely a multidisciplinary discussion to know what’s best for each patient,” he said. One of the factors that argues for the neoadjuvant approach is that substantially fewer patients are eligible for chemotherapy after nephroureterectomy because of diminished renal function. “Patients who might not be eligible ... are the ones we’d be targeting for” neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC), he said.

In the study, gemcitabine 1000 mg/m² and cisplatin 35 mg/m² were administered on days 1 and 8 of four 21-day cycles, followed by radical nephroureterectomy or ureterectomy.

Fifty-three of the subjects had high-grade disease by endoscopic biopsy, and the remaining four were enrolled based on imaging and selective cytology. There was no nodal disease on CT within 30 days of neoadjuvant chemotherapy initiation.

Two-year progression-free survival (PFS) was 91% among pathologic responders but only 52% among nonresponders. Every responder was alive at 2 years versus 80% of nonresponders.

Across the entire cohort, 5-year PFS was 61% and 5-year OS 79%; 89.5% of patients were alive at a median follow-up of 3.5 years.

Almost all of the patients completed at least three NAC cycles, and all of them went to surgery, which had a 90-day grade 3 or higher complication rate of 7%.

Sixty-three percent were men, and 95% were White. The median age was 66 years.

The work was funded by the National Institutes of Health and Memorial Sloan Kettering. Dr. Yip had no disclosures. Dr. Boorjian advises ArTara Therapeutics, FerGene, and Ferring.

Investigators presenting at the American Society of Clinical Oncology’s Genitourinary Cancers Symposium called for neoadjuvant chemotherapy to be a new standard of care for high-grade upper tract urothelial carcinoma.

They made the call after finding that 63% of patients (36/57) had a pathologic response to gemcitabine/cisplatin before extirpative surgery, with pathologic response defined as less than pT2NO disease on postoperative pathology. Nineteen percent (11/57) had complete responses, with no evidence of the main tumor (ypT0N0).

The approach has a “favorable pathologic response, is well tolerated ... and thus should be considered a new standard of care option,” said investigators led by Wesley Yip, MD, a urologic oncology fellow at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.

There was no comparator arm, but the results are in line with previous reports, including a 2014 investigation that found a 5-year disease specific survival (DSS) of 90.1% and 5-year overall survival (OS) of 80.2% among 31 upper tract urothelial carcinoma patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy, versus a 5-year DSS and OS of 57.6% among 81 historical controls.

Presentation moderator Stephen Boorjian, MD, chair of urology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., called the findings “valuable” but noted there’s level 1 evidence for an alternative approach, chemotherapy or nivolumab after surgery for patients with particularly worrisome postop pathology. It makes it tough to know if patients should be treated beforehand or afterwards.

“What do we do?” he asked.

Dr. Yip said it’s an open question at this point but that trials are underway to address the issue. In the meantime, “it’s definitely a multidisciplinary discussion to know what’s best for each patient,” he said. One of the factors that argues for the neoadjuvant approach is that substantially fewer patients are eligible for chemotherapy after nephroureterectomy because of diminished renal function. “Patients who might not be eligible ... are the ones we’d be targeting for” neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC), he said.

In the study, gemcitabine 1000 mg/m² and cisplatin 35 mg/m² were administered on days 1 and 8 of four 21-day cycles, followed by radical nephroureterectomy or ureterectomy.

Fifty-three of the subjects had high-grade disease by endoscopic biopsy, and the remaining four were enrolled based on imaging and selective cytology. There was no nodal disease on CT within 30 days of neoadjuvant chemotherapy initiation.

Two-year progression-free survival (PFS) was 91% among pathologic responders but only 52% among nonresponders. Every responder was alive at 2 years versus 80% of nonresponders.

Across the entire cohort, 5-year PFS was 61% and 5-year OS 79%; 89.5% of patients were alive at a median follow-up of 3.5 years.

Almost all of the patients completed at least three NAC cycles, and all of them went to surgery, which had a 90-day grade 3 or higher complication rate of 7%.

Sixty-three percent were men, and 95% were White. The median age was 66 years.

The work was funded by the National Institutes of Health and Memorial Sloan Kettering. Dr. Yip had no disclosures. Dr. Boorjian advises ArTara Therapeutics, FerGene, and Ferring.

Kaseb et al report the results of a Phase 2 study where 27 patients with resectable HCC were randomized to receive either nivolumab alone or the combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab for 6 weeks before surgery, and then for up to 2 years after resection. Estimated median progression-free survival (PFS) was 9.4 months with nivolumab and 19.53 months with nivolumab plus ipilimumab (hazard ratio [HR] 0.99, 95% CI 0.31–2.54); median time to progression was 9.4 months in the nivolumab group and 19.53 months in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.31–2.54). Three (23%) of 13 patients had an overall response with nivolumab monotherapy, versus none with nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Three (33%) of nine patients had a major pathological response (ie, ≥70% necrosis in the resected tumor area) with nivolumab monotherapy compared with three (27%) of 11 with nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Grade 3–4 adverse events were higher with nivolumab plus ipilimumab (six [43%] of 14 patients) than with nivolumab alone (three [23%] of 13). The authors concluded that immunotherapy is safe and feasible in patients with resectable hepatocellular carcinoma.

Marron et al. evaluated the clinical activity of cemiplimab (an anti-PD-1) in 21 patients with resectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Cemiplimab was administered twice every 3 weeks before and 8 times after surgery. Of the 20 patients with resected tumors, four (20%) had significant (>70%) tumor necrosis with 15% showing complete (100%) tumor necrosis. Three (15%) of 20 patients had a radiologic partial response, and all other patients maintained stable disease. Seven (33%) patients had grade 3 adverse events. No grade 4 or 5 events were observed. The investigators concluded that perioperative cemiplimab should be studied further in patients with resectable HCC.

Finally, Guan et al. compared outcomes of 498 patients with resected HCC who also had hepatitis B virus infection (defined as HBsAg-positivity for >90 days). Of those, 367 patients (73.69%) received at least 3 months of postoperative anti-viral treatment (AVT), while 131 (27.31%) did not (non-AVT group). Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed on 206 patients. AVT was associated with better recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) either before or after PSM.  After PSM, the 1-, 3-, and 5-year RFS rates were 85.3%, 65.7%, and 19.1% vs. 76.7%, 46.6%, and 5.8% in the AVT and non-AVT groups, respectively (P = .001). The corresponding 1-, 3-, and 5-year OS rates were 99.0%, 89.8%, and 64.0% vs. 96.1%, 70.5%, and 43.2% in the AVT and non-AVT groups (P < .001). Risk factors that were independently associated with a poor RFS included HBV DNA positivity (P = .002), preoperative alpha fetoprotein (AFP) level of ≥20 ng/mL (P < .001), poor differentiation (P = .022), multiple tumors (P = .037), and microvascular invasion (P < .001). The conclusion was that AVT improves outcomes in patients with HBV and resectable HCC.

Kaseb et al report the results of a Phase 2 study where 27 patients with resectable HCC were randomized to receive either nivolumab alone or the combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab for 6 weeks before surgery, and then for up to 2 years after resection. Estimated median progression-free survival (PFS) was 9.4 months with nivolumab and 19.53 months with nivolumab plus ipilimumab (hazard ratio [HR] 0.99, 95% CI 0.31–2.54); median time to progression was 9.4 months in the nivolumab group and 19.53 months in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.31–2.54). Three (23%) of 13 patients had an overall response with nivolumab monotherapy, versus none with nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Three (33%) of nine patients had a major pathological response (ie, ≥70% necrosis in the resected tumor area) with nivolumab monotherapy compared with three (27%) of 11 with nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Grade 3–4 adverse events were higher with nivolumab plus ipilimumab (six [43%] of 14 patients) than with nivolumab alone (three [23%] of 13). The authors concluded that immunotherapy is safe and feasible in patients with resectable hepatocellular carcinoma.

Marron et al. evaluated the clinical activity of cemiplimab (an anti-PD-1) in 21 patients with resectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Cemiplimab was administered twice every 3 weeks before and 8 times after surgery. Of the 20 patients with resected tumors, four (20%) had significant (>70%) tumor necrosis with 15% showing complete (100%) tumor necrosis. Three (15%) of 20 patients had a radiologic partial response, and all other patients maintained stable disease. Seven (33%) patients had grade 3 adverse events. No grade 4 or 5 events were observed. The investigators concluded that perioperative cemiplimab should be studied further in patients with resectable HCC.

Finally, Guan et al. compared outcomes of 498 patients with resected HCC who also had hepatitis B virus infection (defined as HBsAg-positivity for >90 days). Of those, 367 patients (73.69%) received at least 3 months of postoperative anti-viral treatment (AVT), while 131 (27.31%) did not (non-AVT group). Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed on 206 patients. AVT was associated with better recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) either before or after PSM.  After PSM, the 1-, 3-, and 5-year RFS rates were 85.3%, 65.7%, and 19.1% vs. 76.7%, 46.6%, and 5.8% in the AVT and non-AVT groups, respectively (P = .001). The corresponding 1-, 3-, and 5-year OS rates were 99.0%, 89.8%, and 64.0% vs. 96.1%, 70.5%, and 43.2% in the AVT and non-AVT groups (P < .001). Risk factors that were independently associated with a poor RFS included HBV DNA positivity (P = .002), preoperative alpha fetoprotein (AFP) level of ≥20 ng/mL (P < .001), poor differentiation (P = .022), multiple tumors (P = .037), and microvascular invasion (P < .001). The conclusion was that AVT improves outcomes in patients with HBV and resectable HCC.

Kaseb et al report the results of a Phase 2 study where 27 patients with resectable HCC were randomized to receive either nivolumab alone or the combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab for 6 weeks before surgery, and then for up to 2 years after resection. Estimated median progression-free survival (PFS) was 9.4 months with nivolumab and 19.53 months with nivolumab plus ipilimumab (hazard ratio [HR] 0.99, 95% CI 0.31–2.54); median time to progression was 9.4 months in the nivolumab group and 19.53 months in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.31–2.54). Three (23%) of 13 patients had an overall response with nivolumab monotherapy, versus none with nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Three (33%) of nine patients had a major pathological response (ie, ≥70% necrosis in the resected tumor area) with nivolumab monotherapy compared with three (27%) of 11 with nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Grade 3–4 adverse events were higher with nivolumab plus ipilimumab (six [43%] of 14 patients) than with nivolumab alone (three [23%] of 13). The authors concluded that immunotherapy is safe and feasible in patients with resectable hepatocellular carcinoma.

Marron et al. evaluated the clinical activity of cemiplimab (an anti-PD-1) in 21 patients with resectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Cemiplimab was administered twice every 3 weeks before and 8 times after surgery. Of the 20 patients with resected tumors, four (20%) had significant (>70%) tumor necrosis with 15% showing complete (100%) tumor necrosis. Three (15%) of 20 patients had a radiologic partial response, and all other patients maintained stable disease. Seven (33%) patients had grade 3 adverse events. No grade 4 or 5 events were observed. The investigators concluded that perioperative cemiplimab should be studied further in patients with resectable HCC.

Finally, Guan et al. compared outcomes of 498 patients with resected HCC who also had hepatitis B virus infection (defined as HBsAg-positivity for >90 days). Of those, 367 patients (73.69%) received at least 3 months of postoperative anti-viral treatment (AVT), while 131 (27.31%) did not (non-AVT group). Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed on 206 patients. AVT was associated with better recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) either before or after PSM.  After PSM, the 1-, 3-, and 5-year RFS rates were 85.3%, 65.7%, and 19.1% vs. 76.7%, 46.6%, and 5.8% in the AVT and non-AVT groups, respectively (P = .001). The corresponding 1-, 3-, and 5-year OS rates were 99.0%, 89.8%, and 64.0% vs. 96.1%, 70.5%, and 43.2% in the AVT and non-AVT groups (P < .001). Risk factors that were independently associated with a poor RFS included HBV DNA positivity (P = .002), preoperative alpha fetoprotein (AFP) level of ≥20 ng/mL (P < .001), poor differentiation (P = .022), multiple tumors (P = .037), and microvascular invasion (P < .001). The conclusion was that AVT improves outcomes in patients with HBV and resectable HCC.

Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) shows efficacy as a potential noninvasive option for the treatment of low-risk microcarcinomas in papillary thyroid cancer (PTC) when measures beyond active surveillance are warranted, results from a new review show.

“The results in the current study suggest that RFA could function as a useful alternative treatment strategy in which patients are treated minimally invasively with curative intentions,” reported the authors of the meta-analysis published online in JAMA Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery.

Commenting on the research, Joanna Klubo-Gwiezdzinska, MD, PhD, said the work offers useful evidence on the potential role for RFA in low-risk micro-PTC – with some notable caveats.

“I agree that RFA might be a good option for patients unwilling or unable to accept active surveillance and for patients who are at high surgical risk because of comorbid conditions,” she told this news organization.

However, “RFA for patients with an evidence of nodule growth requires more data to be analyzed and a longer follow-up period in lieu of the fact that 21% of nodules subjected to RFA did not disappear, based on the data the authors provide,” noted Dr. Klubo-Gwiezdzinska, who is acting chief of thyroid tumors and functional thyroid disorders at the National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, in Bethesda, Md.  
 

When active surveillance isn’t enough

Microcarcinoma PTC, defined as measuring 10 mm or less, is highly common, making up approximately half of papillary thyroid cancers diagnosed in some countries, and the outcomes of those cancers are excellent, with disease-specific survival of more than 99% after 10 years.

Guidelines in the United States and Europe typically recommend surgery (lobectomy) as a standard treatment for thyroid cancer, however, with many of the low-risk microcarcinomas remaining indolent and never progressing to the point of requiring treatment over a person’s lifetime, some also recommend considering active surveillance, or watchful waiting, for those lower-risk cancers.

In situations such as evidence of tumor growth during active surveillance, some countries, particularly Asian countries, also suggest considering thermal ablation techniques, including RFA, as an alternative to surgery, with key benefits including lower costs and potentially a lower risk of complications, compared with surgical lobectomy.

Otherwise, RFA is more typically reserved for benign nodules, recurrent PTC, or inoperable disease.
 

New meta-analysis

To investigate reported outcomes with RFA specifically in the treatment of microcarcinoma PTC, the authors, led by Sam P.J. van Dijk, BSc, of University Medical Center Rotterdam (the Netherlands), identified 15 studies published after 2016 involving 1,770 adult patients and 1,822 tumors who received RFA for the treatment of low-risk PTC microcarcinomas, defined as measuring 10 mm or less.

The studies were conducted in China and South Korea, where RFA is more commonly used in low-risk microcarcinoma PTC.

Patients were 77.9% women and a mean age of 45.4 years. The analysis excluded patients with pre-ablation lymph node or distant metastases, recurrence of disease, or extrathyroidal extension.

Of the 1,822 tumors treated with RFA, 49 required an additional RFA treatment and 1 tumor had two additional treatments.

With a mean follow-up of 33 months (range, 6-131 months), the primary outcome of the pooled rate of complete disappearance of microcarcinoma PTC on ultrasonography was 79%.

The overall rate of tumor progression was 1.5% (26 patients), and local residual microcarcinoma PTC occurred in 0.4% (7 tumors).

New microcarcinoma PTC occurred in 0.9% (15) of patients; 0.2% (4) developed lymph node metastases during follow-up, and no distant metastases were observed.

Minor complications occurred in 45 patients, and there were three major complications, including two voice changes that lasted more than 2 months and one cardiac arrhythmia.

“This study suggests that radiofrequency ablation is a safe and efficient method to treat selected low-risk papillary microcarcinoma of the thyroid,” the researchers said.
 

Questions surrounding the 20% of patients who still had residual nodules

While the analysis did not include direct comparisons between RFA and lobectomy, Dr. Klubo-Gwiezdzinska noted that, in general, “RFA appears to be associated with a lower complication rate compared with surgery, but also lower efficacy, with 21% of patients with residual nodules.”

The results raise the question of whether “all of the residual lesions are associated with persistent disease, and, if so, do they warrant further intervention?” she added.

To that point, the authors noted that only seven (0.4%) of the 21% of patients with persistent nodules showed residual microcarcinoma PTC cells after RFA, a fact that underscores that “the assessment of tumor response in patients with mPTC after RFA is complicated,” they wrote.

A key concern with assessing responses in RFA is that fine needle aspiration has been shown to have reduced diagnostic accuracy following treatment due to insufficient cellularity in the ablation area, the authors noted.

They add that core needle biopsy is believed to have higher accuracy.

While commenting that the analysis used the “best standards,” Dr. Klubo-Gwiezdzinska noted the caveat that it provides “low- to moderate-quality evidence as it included either case series or retrospective cohort studies, characterized by an inherent bias associated with these study designs.”

And as the authors also acknowledge, possible overlap in the included cohorts “could mean that sample sizes might be smaller than reported,” Dr. Klubo-Gwiezdzinska commented.

To further evaluate the pros and cons of RFA, the authors suggested that “future studies may focus on improving complete disappearance rates of the tumor volume, possibly with more advanced or longer RFA procedures.”
 

RFA an option for some patients

In the meantime, senior author Tessa M. van Ginhoven, MD, PhD, of the department of surgical oncology and gastrointestinal surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, suggests that, in addition to cases of local tumor growth, possible uses of RFA for micro-PTC could include situations of patient anxiety due to active surveillance.

“If active surveillance is appropriate for your population, but the patient is anxious and prefers lobectomy, one could envision RFA as a possible adjunct to active surveillance,” she told this news organization.

The authors and Dr. Klubo-Gwiezdzinska reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) shows efficacy as a potential noninvasive option for the treatment of low-risk microcarcinomas in papillary thyroid cancer (PTC) when measures beyond active surveillance are warranted, results from a new review show.

“The results in the current study suggest that RFA could function as a useful alternative treatment strategy in which patients are treated minimally invasively with curative intentions,” reported the authors of the meta-analysis published online in JAMA Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery.

Commenting on the research, Joanna Klubo-Gwiezdzinska, MD, PhD, said the work offers useful evidence on the potential role for RFA in low-risk micro-PTC – with some notable caveats.

“I agree that RFA might be a good option for patients unwilling or unable to accept active surveillance and for patients who are at high surgical risk because of comorbid conditions,” she told this news organization.

However, “RFA for patients with an evidence of nodule growth requires more data to be analyzed and a longer follow-up period in lieu of the fact that 21% of nodules subjected to RFA did not disappear, based on the data the authors provide,” noted Dr. Klubo-Gwiezdzinska, who is acting chief of thyroid tumors and functional thyroid disorders at the National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, in Bethesda, Md.  
 

When active surveillance isn’t enough

Microcarcinoma PTC, defined as measuring 10 mm or less, is highly common, making up approximately half of papillary thyroid cancers diagnosed in some countries, and the outcomes of those cancers are excellent, with disease-specific survival of more than 99% after 10 years.

Guidelines in the United States and Europe typically recommend surgery (lobectomy) as a standard treatment for thyroid cancer, however, with many of the low-risk microcarcinomas remaining indolent and never progressing to the point of requiring treatment over a person’s lifetime, some also recommend considering active surveillance, or watchful waiting, for those lower-risk cancers.

In situations such as evidence of tumor growth during active surveillance, some countries, particularly Asian countries, also suggest considering thermal ablation techniques, including RFA, as an alternative to surgery, with key benefits including lower costs and potentially a lower risk of complications, compared with surgical lobectomy.

Otherwise, RFA is more typically reserved for benign nodules, recurrent PTC, or inoperable disease.
 

New meta-analysis

To investigate reported outcomes with RFA specifically in the treatment of microcarcinoma PTC, the authors, led by Sam P.J. van Dijk, BSc, of University Medical Center Rotterdam (the Netherlands), identified 15 studies published after 2016 involving 1,770 adult patients and 1,822 tumors who received RFA for the treatment of low-risk PTC microcarcinomas, defined as measuring 10 mm or less.

The studies were conducted in China and South Korea, where RFA is more commonly used in low-risk microcarcinoma PTC.

Patients were 77.9% women and a mean age of 45.4 years. The analysis excluded patients with pre-ablation lymph node or distant metastases, recurrence of disease, or extrathyroidal extension.

Of the 1,822 tumors treated with RFA, 49 required an additional RFA treatment and 1 tumor had two additional treatments.

With a mean follow-up of 33 months (range, 6-131 months), the primary outcome of the pooled rate of complete disappearance of microcarcinoma PTC on ultrasonography was 79%.

The overall rate of tumor progression was 1.5% (26 patients), and local residual microcarcinoma PTC occurred in 0.4% (7 tumors).

New microcarcinoma PTC occurred in 0.9% (15) of patients; 0.2% (4) developed lymph node metastases during follow-up, and no distant metastases were observed.

Minor complications occurred in 45 patients, and there were three major complications, including two voice changes that lasted more than 2 months and one cardiac arrhythmia.

“This study suggests that radiofrequency ablation is a safe and efficient method to treat selected low-risk papillary microcarcinoma of the thyroid,” the researchers said.
 

Questions surrounding the 20% of patients who still had residual nodules

While the analysis did not include direct comparisons between RFA and lobectomy, Dr. Klubo-Gwiezdzinska noted that, in general, “RFA appears to be associated with a lower complication rate compared with surgery, but also lower efficacy, with 21% of patients with residual nodules.”

The results raise the question of whether “all of the residual lesions are associated with persistent disease, and, if so, do they warrant further intervention?” she added.

To that point, the authors noted that only seven (0.4%) of the 21% of patients with persistent nodules showed residual microcarcinoma PTC cells after RFA, a fact that underscores that “the assessment of tumor response in patients with mPTC after RFA is complicated,” they wrote.

A key concern with assessing responses in RFA is that fine needle aspiration has been shown to have reduced diagnostic accuracy following treatment due to insufficient cellularity in the ablation area, the authors noted.

They add that core needle biopsy is believed to have higher accuracy.

While commenting that the analysis used the “best standards,” Dr. Klubo-Gwiezdzinska noted the caveat that it provides “low- to moderate-quality evidence as it included either case series or retrospective cohort studies, characterized by an inherent bias associated with these study designs.”

And as the authors also acknowledge, possible overlap in the included cohorts “could mean that sample sizes might be smaller than reported,” Dr. Klubo-Gwiezdzinska commented.

To further evaluate the pros and cons of RFA, the authors suggested that “future studies may focus on improving complete disappearance rates of the tumor volume, possibly with more advanced or longer RFA procedures.”
 

RFA an option for some patients

In the meantime, senior author Tessa M. van Ginhoven, MD, PhD, of the department of surgical oncology and gastrointestinal surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, suggests that, in addition to cases of local tumor growth, possible uses of RFA for micro-PTC could include situations of patient anxiety due to active surveillance.

“If active surveillance is appropriate for your population, but the patient is anxious and prefers lobectomy, one could envision RFA as a possible adjunct to active surveillance,” she told this news organization.

The authors and Dr. Klubo-Gwiezdzinska reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) shows efficacy as a potential noninvasive option for the treatment of low-risk microcarcinomas in papillary thyroid cancer (PTC) when measures beyond active surveillance are warranted, results from a new review show.

“The results in the current study suggest that RFA could function as a useful alternative treatment strategy in which patients are treated minimally invasively with curative intentions,” reported the authors of the meta-analysis published online in JAMA Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery.

Commenting on the research, Joanna Klubo-Gwiezdzinska, MD, PhD, said the work offers useful evidence on the potential role for RFA in low-risk micro-PTC – with some notable caveats.

“I agree that RFA might be a good option for patients unwilling or unable to accept active surveillance and for patients who are at high surgical risk because of comorbid conditions,” she told this news organization.

However, “RFA for patients with an evidence of nodule growth requires more data to be analyzed and a longer follow-up period in lieu of the fact that 21% of nodules subjected to RFA did not disappear, based on the data the authors provide,” noted Dr. Klubo-Gwiezdzinska, who is acting chief of thyroid tumors and functional thyroid disorders at the National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, in Bethesda, Md.  
 

When active surveillance isn’t enough

Microcarcinoma PTC, defined as measuring 10 mm or less, is highly common, making up approximately half of papillary thyroid cancers diagnosed in some countries, and the outcomes of those cancers are excellent, with disease-specific survival of more than 99% after 10 years.

Guidelines in the United States and Europe typically recommend surgery (lobectomy) as a standard treatment for thyroid cancer, however, with many of the low-risk microcarcinomas remaining indolent and never progressing to the point of requiring treatment over a person’s lifetime, some also recommend considering active surveillance, or watchful waiting, for those lower-risk cancers.

In situations such as evidence of tumor growth during active surveillance, some countries, particularly Asian countries, also suggest considering thermal ablation techniques, including RFA, as an alternative to surgery, with key benefits including lower costs and potentially a lower risk of complications, compared with surgical lobectomy.

Otherwise, RFA is more typically reserved for benign nodules, recurrent PTC, or inoperable disease.
 

New meta-analysis

To investigate reported outcomes with RFA specifically in the treatment of microcarcinoma PTC, the authors, led by Sam P.J. van Dijk, BSc, of University Medical Center Rotterdam (the Netherlands), identified 15 studies published after 2016 involving 1,770 adult patients and 1,822 tumors who received RFA for the treatment of low-risk PTC microcarcinomas, defined as measuring 10 mm or less.

The studies were conducted in China and South Korea, where RFA is more commonly used in low-risk microcarcinoma PTC.

Patients were 77.9% women and a mean age of 45.4 years. The analysis excluded patients with pre-ablation lymph node or distant metastases, recurrence of disease, or extrathyroidal extension.

Of the 1,822 tumors treated with RFA, 49 required an additional RFA treatment and 1 tumor had two additional treatments.

With a mean follow-up of 33 months (range, 6-131 months), the primary outcome of the pooled rate of complete disappearance of microcarcinoma PTC on ultrasonography was 79%.

The overall rate of tumor progression was 1.5% (26 patients), and local residual microcarcinoma PTC occurred in 0.4% (7 tumors).

New microcarcinoma PTC occurred in 0.9% (15) of patients; 0.2% (4) developed lymph node metastases during follow-up, and no distant metastases were observed.

Minor complications occurred in 45 patients, and there were three major complications, including two voice changes that lasted more than 2 months and one cardiac arrhythmia.

“This study suggests that radiofrequency ablation is a safe and efficient method to treat selected low-risk papillary microcarcinoma of the thyroid,” the researchers said.
 

Questions surrounding the 20% of patients who still had residual nodules

While the analysis did not include direct comparisons between RFA and lobectomy, Dr. Klubo-Gwiezdzinska noted that, in general, “RFA appears to be associated with a lower complication rate compared with surgery, but also lower efficacy, with 21% of patients with residual nodules.”

The results raise the question of whether “all of the residual lesions are associated with persistent disease, and, if so, do they warrant further intervention?” she added.

To that point, the authors noted that only seven (0.4%) of the 21% of patients with persistent nodules showed residual microcarcinoma PTC cells after RFA, a fact that underscores that “the assessment of tumor response in patients with mPTC after RFA is complicated,” they wrote.

A key concern with assessing responses in RFA is that fine needle aspiration has been shown to have reduced diagnostic accuracy following treatment due to insufficient cellularity in the ablation area, the authors noted.

They add that core needle biopsy is believed to have higher accuracy.

While commenting that the analysis used the “best standards,” Dr. Klubo-Gwiezdzinska noted the caveat that it provides “low- to moderate-quality evidence as it included either case series or retrospective cohort studies, characterized by an inherent bias associated with these study designs.”

And as the authors also acknowledge, possible overlap in the included cohorts “could mean that sample sizes might be smaller than reported,” Dr. Klubo-Gwiezdzinska commented.

To further evaluate the pros and cons of RFA, the authors suggested that “future studies may focus on improving complete disappearance rates of the tumor volume, possibly with more advanced or longer RFA procedures.”
 

RFA an option for some patients

In the meantime, senior author Tessa M. van Ginhoven, MD, PhD, of the department of surgical oncology and gastrointestinal surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, suggests that, in addition to cases of local tumor growth, possible uses of RFA for micro-PTC could include situations of patient anxiety due to active surveillance.

“If active surveillance is appropriate for your population, but the patient is anxious and prefers lobectomy, one could envision RFA as a possible adjunct to active surveillance,” she told this news organization.

The authors and Dr. Klubo-Gwiezdzinska reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Breast cancer risk genes are generally associated with triple-negative and high-grade disease, but differ substantially in their associated pathology, a large case-control analysis shows.

The findings have potential implications for genetic testing, risk prediction, variant classification, and screening, the authors noted.

To assess links between pathogenic germline variants in nine major breast cancer (BC) susceptibility genes and pathological features of nonmetastasized breast tumors, investigators from the Breast Cancer Association Consortium compared 42,680 women with breast cancer and 42,387 population-matched controls from the BRIDGES large-scale sequencing study.

They looked specifically at features relevant to prognosis and distinct therapeutic options, including tumor subtype, morphology, size, stage, and lymph node involvement, and found substantial differences in tumor subtype distribution by gene.

“Pathogenic [protein-truncating variants and pathogenic missense variants] in these ... susceptibility genes were disproportionately associated with more aggressive breast caner, particularly among younger women,” they wrote, noting that carriers of rare genetic variants in the nine genes comprised more than 27% of women diagnosed at age 40 or younger with triple-negative disease (driven mainly by BRCA1) and about 16% of those diagnosed with hormone receptor (HR)–positive, HER2-negative high-grade disease.

All together, the nine genes were associated with 14.4% of tumors in women aged 40 years and younger, but less than 4% in women over age 60 years, and among younger women, the prevalence of variants combined was higher in those with triple-negative and HR-positive, HER2-negative disease versus other subtypes, they said.

The findings were published online on Jan. 27, 2022, in JAMA Oncology.

Study subjects were women aged 18-79 years who were sampled, independently of family history, from 38 international population- or hospital-based studies conducted between 1991 and 2016.

The genes assessed included ATM, BARD1, BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, PALB2, RAD51C, RAD51D, and TP53.

Substantial heterogeneity was observed in the distribution of intrinsic subtypes by gene. For example, RAD51C, RAD51D, and BARD1 variants were associated mainly with triple-negative disease (odds ratios, 6.19, 6.19, and 10.05 respectively), and CHEK2 variants were associated with all subtypes (with ORs ranging from 2.21-3.17) except for triple-negative disease, the authors found.

“For ATM variants, the association was strongest for [HR-positive, HER2-negative]high-grade subtype (OR, 4.99). BRCA1 was associated with increased risk of all subtypes, but the ORs varied widely, being highest for triple-negative disease (OR, 55.32),” they wrote.

BRCA2 and PALB2 variants were also associated with triple-negative disease, TP53 variants were most strongly associated with HR-positive, HER2-negative and HR-negative, HER2-positive subtypes, and tumors occurring in pathogenic variant carriers were of higher grade, they added, noting that for most genes and subtypes, a decline in ORs was observed with increasing age.

All genes except CHEK2 were more strongly associated with high-grade disease.

These and other findings from the study can “inform guidelines for eligibility for gene panel sequencing and breast cancer surveillance in the general population,” the authors explained, adding that tumor characteristics can also be used to determine whether variants of uncertain significance are likely to be pathogenic.

The data should therefore “improve the precision of variant classification algorithms and extend them to a larger set of genes,” they noted.

“This case-control study suggests that rare variants in BC susceptibility genes display marked heterogeneity with respect to tumor phenotype, but also similarities between genes that are consistent with known biological functions. This present study provides detailed quantification of subtype-specific breast cancer risks; these can potentially improve risk prediction models and breast cancer prevention strategies,” they concluded.

More specifically, women found to be carrying variants in these genes may be offered enhanced screening, including by MRI, risk-reducing surgery, chemoprevention, and genetic counseling, corresponding author Nasim Mavaddat, MBBS, PhD, explained in an interview.

“Understanding tumor pathology associated with the genes can inform breast cancer risk prediction models, and management and treatment of women harboring pathogenic variants,” she noted.

The findings “enhance our understanding of breast cancer biology and aid efforts to classify whether genetic variants of uncertain significance are also likely to be pathogenic,” added Dr. Mavaddat, a senior research associate at the University of Cambridge (England).

She also said the investigators are taking steps to include the results in “CanRisk,” a cancer risk prediction model used by genetic counselors and other clinicians, and are “exploring whether variants in these genes are associated with contralateral breast cancer risk and survival after a breast cancer.”

As most participants were European, analyses should be extended to women of other racial and ethnic groups, she added.

The BRIDGES panel sequencing was supported by the European Union Horizon 2020 research and innovation program BRIDGES and the Wellcome Trust. The Breast Cancer Association Consortium is also funded by the European Union Horizon 2020 research and innovation program, the PERSPECTIVE I&I project, which is funded by the Government of Canada, and the Confluence project, which is funded with intramural funds from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Mavaddat reported grants from the University of Cambridge, European Union Horizon 2020, Wellcome Trust, Genome Canada, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and National Cancer Institute during the conduct of the study.

Breast cancer risk genes are generally associated with triple-negative and high-grade disease, but differ substantially in their associated pathology, a large case-control analysis shows.

The findings have potential implications for genetic testing, risk prediction, variant classification, and screening, the authors noted.

To assess links between pathogenic germline variants in nine major breast cancer (BC) susceptibility genes and pathological features of nonmetastasized breast tumors, investigators from the Breast Cancer Association Consortium compared 42,680 women with breast cancer and 42,387 population-matched controls from the BRIDGES large-scale sequencing study.

They looked specifically at features relevant to prognosis and distinct therapeutic options, including tumor subtype, morphology, size, stage, and lymph node involvement, and found substantial differences in tumor subtype distribution by gene.

“Pathogenic [protein-truncating variants and pathogenic missense variants] in these ... susceptibility genes were disproportionately associated with more aggressive breast caner, particularly among younger women,” they wrote, noting that carriers of rare genetic variants in the nine genes comprised more than 27% of women diagnosed at age 40 or younger with triple-negative disease (driven mainly by BRCA1) and about 16% of those diagnosed with hormone receptor (HR)–positive, HER2-negative high-grade disease.

All together, the nine genes were associated with 14.4% of tumors in women aged 40 years and younger, but less than 4% in women over age 60 years, and among younger women, the prevalence of variants combined was higher in those with triple-negative and HR-positive, HER2-negative disease versus other subtypes, they said.

The findings were published online on Jan. 27, 2022, in JAMA Oncology.

Study subjects were women aged 18-79 years who were sampled, independently of family history, from 38 international population- or hospital-based studies conducted between 1991 and 2016.

The genes assessed included ATM, BARD1, BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, PALB2, RAD51C, RAD51D, and TP53.

Substantial heterogeneity was observed in the distribution of intrinsic subtypes by gene. For example, RAD51C, RAD51D, and BARD1 variants were associated mainly with triple-negative disease (odds ratios, 6.19, 6.19, and 10.05 respectively), and CHEK2 variants were associated with all subtypes (with ORs ranging from 2.21-3.17) except for triple-negative disease, the authors found.

“For ATM variants, the association was strongest for [HR-positive, HER2-negative]high-grade subtype (OR, 4.99). BRCA1 was associated with increased risk of all subtypes, but the ORs varied widely, being highest for triple-negative disease (OR, 55.32),” they wrote.

BRCA2 and PALB2 variants were also associated with triple-negative disease, TP53 variants were most strongly associated with HR-positive, HER2-negative and HR-negative, HER2-positive subtypes, and tumors occurring in pathogenic variant carriers were of higher grade, they added, noting that for most genes and subtypes, a decline in ORs was observed with increasing age.

All genes except CHEK2 were more strongly associated with high-grade disease.

These and other findings from the study can “inform guidelines for eligibility for gene panel sequencing and breast cancer surveillance in the general population,” the authors explained, adding that tumor characteristics can also be used to determine whether variants of uncertain significance are likely to be pathogenic.

The data should therefore “improve the precision of variant classification algorithms and extend them to a larger set of genes,” they noted.

“This case-control study suggests that rare variants in BC susceptibility genes display marked heterogeneity with respect to tumor phenotype, but also similarities between genes that are consistent with known biological functions. This present study provides detailed quantification of subtype-specific breast cancer risks; these can potentially improve risk prediction models and breast cancer prevention strategies,” they concluded.

More specifically, women found to be carrying variants in these genes may be offered enhanced screening, including by MRI, risk-reducing surgery, chemoprevention, and genetic counseling, corresponding author Nasim Mavaddat, MBBS, PhD, explained in an interview.

“Understanding tumor pathology associated with the genes can inform breast cancer risk prediction models, and management and treatment of women harboring pathogenic variants,” she noted.

The findings “enhance our understanding of breast cancer biology and aid efforts to classify whether genetic variants of uncertain significance are also likely to be pathogenic,” added Dr. Mavaddat, a senior research associate at the University of Cambridge (England).

She also said the investigators are taking steps to include the results in “CanRisk,” a cancer risk prediction model used by genetic counselors and other clinicians, and are “exploring whether variants in these genes are associated with contralateral breast cancer risk and survival after a breast cancer.”

As most participants were European, analyses should be extended to women of other racial and ethnic groups, she added.

The BRIDGES panel sequencing was supported by the European Union Horizon 2020 research and innovation program BRIDGES and the Wellcome Trust. The Breast Cancer Association Consortium is also funded by the European Union Horizon 2020 research and innovation program, the PERSPECTIVE I&I project, which is funded by the Government of Canada, and the Confluence project, which is funded with intramural funds from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Mavaddat reported grants from the University of Cambridge, European Union Horizon 2020, Wellcome Trust, Genome Canada, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and National Cancer Institute during the conduct of the study.

Breast cancer risk genes are generally associated with triple-negative and high-grade disease, but differ substantially in their associated pathology, a large case-control analysis shows.

The findings have potential implications for genetic testing, risk prediction, variant classification, and screening, the authors noted.

To assess links between pathogenic germline variants in nine major breast cancer (BC) susceptibility genes and pathological features of nonmetastasized breast tumors, investigators from the Breast Cancer Association Consortium compared 42,680 women with breast cancer and 42,387 population-matched controls from the BRIDGES large-scale sequencing study.

They looked specifically at features relevant to prognosis and distinct therapeutic options, including tumor subtype, morphology, size, stage, and lymph node involvement, and found substantial differences in tumor subtype distribution by gene.

“Pathogenic [protein-truncating variants and pathogenic missense variants] in these ... susceptibility genes were disproportionately associated with more aggressive breast caner, particularly among younger women,” they wrote, noting that carriers of rare genetic variants in the nine genes comprised more than 27% of women diagnosed at age 40 or younger with triple-negative disease (driven mainly by BRCA1) and about 16% of those diagnosed with hormone receptor (HR)–positive, HER2-negative high-grade disease.

All together, the nine genes were associated with 14.4% of tumors in women aged 40 years and younger, but less than 4% in women over age 60 years, and among younger women, the prevalence of variants combined was higher in those with triple-negative and HR-positive, HER2-negative disease versus other subtypes, they said.

The findings were published online on Jan. 27, 2022, in JAMA Oncology.

Study subjects were women aged 18-79 years who were sampled, independently of family history, from 38 international population- or hospital-based studies conducted between 1991 and 2016.

The genes assessed included ATM, BARD1, BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, PALB2, RAD51C, RAD51D, and TP53.

Substantial heterogeneity was observed in the distribution of intrinsic subtypes by gene. For example, RAD51C, RAD51D, and BARD1 variants were associated mainly with triple-negative disease (odds ratios, 6.19, 6.19, and 10.05 respectively), and CHEK2 variants were associated with all subtypes (with ORs ranging from 2.21-3.17) except for triple-negative disease, the authors found.

“For ATM variants, the association was strongest for [HR-positive, HER2-negative]high-grade subtype (OR, 4.99). BRCA1 was associated with increased risk of all subtypes, but the ORs varied widely, being highest for triple-negative disease (OR, 55.32),” they wrote.

BRCA2 and PALB2 variants were also associated with triple-negative disease, TP53 variants were most strongly associated with HR-positive, HER2-negative and HR-negative, HER2-positive subtypes, and tumors occurring in pathogenic variant carriers were of higher grade, they added, noting that for most genes and subtypes, a decline in ORs was observed with increasing age.

All genes except CHEK2 were more strongly associated with high-grade disease.

These and other findings from the study can “inform guidelines for eligibility for gene panel sequencing and breast cancer surveillance in the general population,” the authors explained, adding that tumor characteristics can also be used to determine whether variants of uncertain significance are likely to be pathogenic.

The data should therefore “improve the precision of variant classification algorithms and extend them to a larger set of genes,” they noted.

“This case-control study suggests that rare variants in BC susceptibility genes display marked heterogeneity with respect to tumor phenotype, but also similarities between genes that are consistent with known biological functions. This present study provides detailed quantification of subtype-specific breast cancer risks; these can potentially improve risk prediction models and breast cancer prevention strategies,” they concluded.

More specifically, women found to be carrying variants in these genes may be offered enhanced screening, including by MRI, risk-reducing surgery, chemoprevention, and genetic counseling, corresponding author Nasim Mavaddat, MBBS, PhD, explained in an interview.

“Understanding tumor pathology associated with the genes can inform breast cancer risk prediction models, and management and treatment of women harboring pathogenic variants,” she noted.

The findings “enhance our understanding of breast cancer biology and aid efforts to classify whether genetic variants of uncertain significance are also likely to be pathogenic,” added Dr. Mavaddat, a senior research associate at the University of Cambridge (England).

She also said the investigators are taking steps to include the results in “CanRisk,” a cancer risk prediction model used by genetic counselors and other clinicians, and are “exploring whether variants in these genes are associated with contralateral breast cancer risk and survival after a breast cancer.”

As most participants were European, analyses should be extended to women of other racial and ethnic groups, she added.

The BRIDGES panel sequencing was supported by the European Union Horizon 2020 research and innovation program BRIDGES and the Wellcome Trust. The Breast Cancer Association Consortium is also funded by the European Union Horizon 2020 research and innovation program, the PERSPECTIVE I&I project, which is funded by the Government of Canada, and the Confluence project, which is funded with intramural funds from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Mavaddat reported grants from the University of Cambridge, European Union Horizon 2020, Wellcome Trust, Genome Canada, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and National Cancer Institute during the conduct of the study.

If you worry that artificial intelligence (AI) will one day replace your own clinical acumen as a dermatologist, Vishal A. Patel, MD, advises you to think differently.

“AI is meant to be an enhancement strategy, a support tool to improve our diagnostic abilities,” Dr. Patel, a Mohs surgeon who is director of cutaneous oncology at the George Washington University Cancer Center, Washington, said during the ODAC Dermatology, Aesthetic & Surgical Conference. “Dermatologists should embrace AI and drive how it is utilized – be the captain of the plane (technology) and the passenger (patient). If we’re not in the forefront of the plane, we’re not to be able to dictate which way we are going with this.”

In 2019, a group of German researchers found that AI can improve accuracy and efficiency of specialists in classifying skin cancer based on dermoscopic images. “I really do believe this is going to be the future,” said Dr. Patel, who was not involved with the study. “Current research involves using supervised learning on known outcomes to determine inputs to predict them. In dermatology, think of identifying melanoma from clinical or dermoscopic images or predicting metastasis risk from digitized pathology slides.”

However, there are currently no universal guidelines on how large an AI dataset needs to be to yield accurate results. In the dermatology literature, most AI datasets range between 600 and 14,000 examples, Dr. Patel said, with a large study-specific variation in performance. “Misleading results can result from unanticipated training errors,” he said.

“The AI network may learn its intended task or an unrelated situational cue. For example, you can use great images to predict melanoma, but you may have an unintended poor outcome related to images that have, say, a ruler inside of them clustered within the melanoma diagnoses.” And unbeknown to the system’s developer, “the algorithm picks up that the ruler is predictive of an image being a melanoma and not the pigmented lesion itself.” In other words, the algorithm is only as good as the dataset being used, he said. “This is the key element, to ask what the dataset is that’s training the tool that you may one day use.”
 

Convolutional neural network

In 2017, a seminal study published in Nature showed that for classification of melanoma and epidermal lesions, a type of AI used in image processing known as a convolutional neural network (CNN) was on par with dermatologists and outperformed the average. For epidermal lesions, the network was one standard deviation higher above the average for dermatologists, while for melanocytic lesions, the network was just below one standard deviation above the average of the dermatologists. A CNN “clearly can perform well because it works on a different level than how our brains work,” Dr. Patel said.

In a separate study, a CNN trained to recognize melanoma in dermoscopic images was compared to 58 international dermatologists with varying levels of dermoscopy experience; 29% were “beginners,” with less than 2 years of experience; 19% were “skilled,” with 2-5 years of experience; and 52% were “experts,” with at least 5 years of experience. The analysis consisted of two experiments: In level I, dermatologists classified lesions based on dermoscopy only. In level II, dermatologists were provided dermoscopy, clinical images, and additional clinical information, while the CNN was trained on images only. The researchers found that most dermatologists were outperformed by the CNN. “Physicians of all different levels of training and experience may benefit from assistance by a CNN’s image classification,” they concluded.
 

Gene expression profiling

Another aspect of AI is gene expression profiling (GEP), which Dr. Patel defined as the evaluation of frequency and intensity of genetic activity at once to create a global picture of cellular function. “It’s AI that uses machine learning to evaluate genetic expression to assess lesion behavior,” he explained.

One GEP test on the market is the Pigmented Lesion Assay (PLA) from DermTech, a noninvasive test that looks at the expression of two genes to predict if a lesion is malignant or not. “Based on their validation set, they have shown some impressive numbers,” with sensitivities above 90%, and published registry data that have shown higher sensitivities “and even specificities above 90%,” he said.

“On the surface, it looks like this would be a useful test,” Dr. Patel said. A study published in 2021 looked at the evidence of applying real-world evidence with this test to see if results held up. Based on the authors’ analysis, he noted, “you would need a sensitivity and specificity of 95% to yield a positivity rate of 9.5% for the PLA test, which is what has been reported in real-world use. So, there’s a disconnect somewhere and we are not quite there yet.” That may be a result of the dataset itself not being as uniform between the validation and the training datasets, he continued. Also, the expression of certain genes is different “if you don’t have a clean input variable” of what the test is being used for, he added.

“If you’re not mirroring the dataset, you’re not going to get clean data,” he said. “So, if you’re using this on younger patients or for sun-damaged lesional skin or nonmelanocytic lesions around sun-damaged areas, there are variable expressions that may not be accurately captured by that algorithm. This might help explain the real-world variation that we’re seeing.”

Another GEP test in use is the 31-Gene Expression Profile Test for Melanoma, which evaluates gene expressions in melanoma tumors and what the behavior of that tumor may be. The test has been available for more than a decade “and there is a lot of speculation about its use,” Dr. Patel said. “A recent paper attempted to come up with an algorithm of how to use this, but there’s a lot of concern about the endpoints of what changes in management might result from this test. That is what we need to be thinking about. There’s a lot of back and forth about this.”

In 2020, authors of a consensus statement on prognostic GEP in cutaneous melanoma concluded that before GEP testing is routinely used, the clinical benefit in the management of patients with melanoma should be established through further clinical investigation. Dr. Patel recommended the accompanying editorial on GEP in melanoma, written by Hensin Tsao, MD, PhD, and Warren H. Chan, MS, in JAMA Dermatology.

In Dr. Patel’s opinion, T1a melanomas (0.8 mm, nonulcerated) do not need routine GEP, but the GEP test may be useful in cases that are in the “gray zone,” such as those with T1b or some borderline T2a melanomas (> 0.8 mm, < 1.2mm, nonulcerated, but with high mitosis, etc.); patients with unique coexisting conditions such as pregnancy, and patients who may not tolerate sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) or adjuvant therapy.

Echoing sentiments expressed in the JAMA Dermatology editorial, he advised dermatologists to “remember your training and know the data. GEP predicting survival is not the same as SLNB positive rate. GEP should not replace standard guidelines in T2a and higher melanomas. Nodal sampling remains part of all major guidelines and determines adjuvant therapy.”

He cited the characterization of GEP in the editorial as “a powerful technology” that heralds the age of personalized medicine, but it is not ready for ubiquitous use. Prospective studies and time will lead to highly accurate tools.”

Dr. Patel disclosed that he is chief medical officer for Lazarus AI.

If you worry that artificial intelligence (AI) will one day replace your own clinical acumen as a dermatologist, Vishal A. Patel, MD, advises you to think differently.

“AI is meant to be an enhancement strategy, a support tool to improve our diagnostic abilities,” Dr. Patel, a Mohs surgeon who is director of cutaneous oncology at the George Washington University Cancer Center, Washington, said during the ODAC Dermatology, Aesthetic & Surgical Conference. “Dermatologists should embrace AI and drive how it is utilized – be the captain of the plane (technology) and the passenger (patient). If we’re not in the forefront of the plane, we’re not to be able to dictate which way we are going with this.”

In 2019, a group of German researchers found that AI can improve accuracy and efficiency of specialists in classifying skin cancer based on dermoscopic images. “I really do believe this is going to be the future,” said Dr. Patel, who was not involved with the study. “Current research involves using supervised learning on known outcomes to determine inputs to predict them. In dermatology, think of identifying melanoma from clinical or dermoscopic images or predicting metastasis risk from digitized pathology slides.”

However, there are currently no universal guidelines on how large an AI dataset needs to be to yield accurate results. In the dermatology literature, most AI datasets range between 600 and 14,000 examples, Dr. Patel said, with a large study-specific variation in performance. “Misleading results can result from unanticipated training errors,” he said.

“The AI network may learn its intended task or an unrelated situational cue. For example, you can use great images to predict melanoma, but you may have an unintended poor outcome related to images that have, say, a ruler inside of them clustered within the melanoma diagnoses.” And unbeknown to the system’s developer, “the algorithm picks up that the ruler is predictive of an image being a melanoma and not the pigmented lesion itself.” In other words, the algorithm is only as good as the dataset being used, he said. “This is the key element, to ask what the dataset is that’s training the tool that you may one day use.”
 

Convolutional neural network

In 2017, a seminal study published in Nature showed that for classification of melanoma and epidermal lesions, a type of AI used in image processing known as a convolutional neural network (CNN) was on par with dermatologists and outperformed the average. For epidermal lesions, the network was one standard deviation higher above the average for dermatologists, while for melanocytic lesions, the network was just below one standard deviation above the average of the dermatologists. A CNN “clearly can perform well because it works on a different level than how our brains work,” Dr. Patel said.

In a separate study, a CNN trained to recognize melanoma in dermoscopic images was compared to 58 international dermatologists with varying levels of dermoscopy experience; 29% were “beginners,” with less than 2 years of experience; 19% were “skilled,” with 2-5 years of experience; and 52% were “experts,” with at least 5 years of experience. The analysis consisted of two experiments: In level I, dermatologists classified lesions based on dermoscopy only. In level II, dermatologists were provided dermoscopy, clinical images, and additional clinical information, while the CNN was trained on images only. The researchers found that most dermatologists were outperformed by the CNN. “Physicians of all different levels of training and experience may benefit from assistance by a CNN’s image classification,” they concluded.
 

Gene expression profiling

Another aspect of AI is gene expression profiling (GEP), which Dr. Patel defined as the evaluation of frequency and intensity of genetic activity at once to create a global picture of cellular function. “It’s AI that uses machine learning to evaluate genetic expression to assess lesion behavior,” he explained.

One GEP test on the market is the Pigmented Lesion Assay (PLA) from DermTech, a noninvasive test that looks at the expression of two genes to predict if a lesion is malignant or not. “Based on their validation set, they have shown some impressive numbers,” with sensitivities above 90%, and published registry data that have shown higher sensitivities “and even specificities above 90%,” he said.

“On the surface, it looks like this would be a useful test,” Dr. Patel said. A study published in 2021 looked at the evidence of applying real-world evidence with this test to see if results held up. Based on the authors’ analysis, he noted, “you would need a sensitivity and specificity of 95% to yield a positivity rate of 9.5% for the PLA test, which is what has been reported in real-world use. So, there’s a disconnect somewhere and we are not quite there yet.” That may be a result of the dataset itself not being as uniform between the validation and the training datasets, he continued. Also, the expression of certain genes is different “if you don’t have a clean input variable” of what the test is being used for, he added.

“If you’re not mirroring the dataset, you’re not going to get clean data,” he said. “So, if you’re using this on younger patients or for sun-damaged lesional skin or nonmelanocytic lesions around sun-damaged areas, there are variable expressions that may not be accurately captured by that algorithm. This might help explain the real-world variation that we’re seeing.”

Another GEP test in use is the 31-Gene Expression Profile Test for Melanoma, which evaluates gene expressions in melanoma tumors and what the behavior of that tumor may be. The test has been available for more than a decade “and there is a lot of speculation about its use,” Dr. Patel said. “A recent paper attempted to come up with an algorithm of how to use this, but there’s a lot of concern about the endpoints of what changes in management might result from this test. That is what we need to be thinking about. There’s a lot of back and forth about this.”

In 2020, authors of a consensus statement on prognostic GEP in cutaneous melanoma concluded that before GEP testing is routinely used, the clinical benefit in the management of patients with melanoma should be established through further clinical investigation. Dr. Patel recommended the accompanying editorial on GEP in melanoma, written by Hensin Tsao, MD, PhD, and Warren H. Chan, MS, in JAMA Dermatology.

In Dr. Patel’s opinion, T1a melanomas (0.8 mm, nonulcerated) do not need routine GEP, but the GEP test may be useful in cases that are in the “gray zone,” such as those with T1b or some borderline T2a melanomas (> 0.8 mm, < 1.2mm, nonulcerated, but with high mitosis, etc.); patients with unique coexisting conditions such as pregnancy, and patients who may not tolerate sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) or adjuvant therapy.

Echoing sentiments expressed in the JAMA Dermatology editorial, he advised dermatologists to “remember your training and know the data. GEP predicting survival is not the same as SLNB positive rate. GEP should not replace standard guidelines in T2a and higher melanomas. Nodal sampling remains part of all major guidelines and determines adjuvant therapy.”

He cited the characterization of GEP in the editorial as “a powerful technology” that heralds the age of personalized medicine, but it is not ready for ubiquitous use. Prospective studies and time will lead to highly accurate tools.”

Dr. Patel disclosed that he is chief medical officer for Lazarus AI.