Individuals who are more active in the evening performed better on cognitive tests than did those who are typically more active in the morning hours, new research suggests. 

“Rather than just being personal preferences, these chronotypes could impact our cognitive function,” said study investigator, Raha West, MBChB, with Imperial College London, London, England, in a statement.

But the researchers also urged caution when interpreting the findings.

“It’s important to note that this doesn’t mean all morning people have worse cognitive performance. The findings reflect an overall trend where the majority might lean toward better cognition in the evening types,” Dr. West added. 

In addition, across the board, getting the recommended 7-9 hours of nightly sleep was best for cognitive function, and sleeping for less than 7 or more than 9 hours had detrimental effects on brain function regardless of whether an individual was a night owl or lark. 

The study was published online in BMJ Public Health. 
 

A UK Biobank Cohort Study 

The findings are based on a cross-sectional analysis of 26,820 adults aged 53-86 years from the UK Biobank database, who were categorized into two cohorts. 

Cohort 1 had 10,067 participants (56% women) who completed four cognitive tests measuring fluid intelligence/reasoning, pairs matching, reaction time, and prospective memory. Cohort 2 had 16,753 participants (56% women) who completed two cognitive assessments (pairs matching and reaction time).

Participants self-reported sleep duration, chronotype, and quality. Cognitive test scores were evaluated against sleep parameters and health and lifestyle factors including sex, age, vascular and cardiac conditions, diabetes,alcohol use, smoking habits, and body mass index.

The results revealed a positive association between normal sleep duration (7-9 hours) and cognitive scores in Cohort 1 (beta, 0.0567), while extended sleep duration negatively impacted scores across in Cohort 1 and 2 (beta, –0.188 and beta, –0.2619, respectively). 

An individual’s preference for evening or morning activity correlated strongly with their test scores. In particular, night owls consistently performed better on cognitive tests than early birds. 

“While understanding and working with your natural sleep tendencies is essential, it’s equally important to remember to get just enough sleep, not too long or too short,” Dr. West noted. “This is crucial for keeping your brain healthy and functioning at its best.”

Contrary to some previous findings, the study did not find a significant relationship between sleep, sleepiness/insomnia, and cognitive performance. This may be because specific aspects of insomnia, such as severity and chronicity, as well as comorbid conditions need to be considered, the investigators wrote. 

They added that age and diabetes consistently emerged as negative predictors of cognitive functioning across both cohorts, in line with previous research. 

Limitations of the study include the cross-sectional design, which limits causal inferences; the possibility of residual confounding; and reliance on self-reported sleep data.

Also, the study did not adjust for educational attainment, a factor potentially influential on cognitive performance and sleep patterns, because of incomplete data. The study also did not factor in depression and social isolation, which have been shown to increase the risk for cognitive decline.
 

No Real-World Implications

Several outside experts offered their perspective on the study in a statement from the UK nonprofit Science Media Centre. 

The study provides “interesting insights” into the difference in memory and thinking in people who identify themselves as a “morning” or “evening” person, Jacqui Hanley, PhD, with Alzheimer’s Research UK, said in the statement. 

However, without a detailed picture of what is going on in the brain, it’s not clear whether being a morning or evening person affects memory and thinking or whether a decline in cognition is causing changes to sleeping patterns, Dr. Hanley added. 

Roi Cohen Kadosh, PhD, CPsychol, professor of cognitive neuroscience, University of Surrey, Guildford, England, cautioned that there are “multiple potential reasons” for these associations. 

“Therefore, there are no implications in my view for the real world. I fear that the general public will not be able to understand that and will change their sleep pattern, while this study does not give any evidence that this will lead to any benefit,” Dr. Cohen Kadosh said. 

Jessica Chelekis, PhD, MBA, a sleep expert from Brunel University London, Uxbridge, England, said that the “main takeaway should be that the cultural belief that early risers are more productive than ‘night owls’ does not hold up to scientific scrutiny.” 

“While everyone should aim to get good-quality sleep each night, we should also try to be aware of what time of day we are at our (cognitive) best and work in ways that suit us. Night owls, in particular, should not be shamed into fitting a stereotype that favors an ‘early to bed, early to rise’ practice,” Dr. Chelekis said. 

Funding for the study was provided by the Korea Institute of Oriental Medicine in collaboration with Imperial College London. Dr. Hanley, Dr. Cohen Kadosh, and Dr. Chelekis have no relevant disclosures.

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

Individuals who are more active in the evening performed better on cognitive tests than did those who are typically more active in the morning hours, new research suggests. 

“Rather than just being personal preferences, these chronotypes could impact our cognitive function,” said study investigator, Raha West, MBChB, with Imperial College London, London, England, in a statement.

But the researchers also urged caution when interpreting the findings.

“It’s important to note that this doesn’t mean all morning people have worse cognitive performance. The findings reflect an overall trend where the majority might lean toward better cognition in the evening types,” Dr. West added. 

In addition, across the board, getting the recommended 7-9 hours of nightly sleep was best for cognitive function, and sleeping for less than 7 or more than 9 hours had detrimental effects on brain function regardless of whether an individual was a night owl or lark. 

The study was published online in BMJ Public Health. 
 

A UK Biobank Cohort Study 

The findings are based on a cross-sectional analysis of 26,820 adults aged 53-86 years from the UK Biobank database, who were categorized into two cohorts. 

Cohort 1 had 10,067 participants (56% women) who completed four cognitive tests measuring fluid intelligence/reasoning, pairs matching, reaction time, and prospective memory. Cohort 2 had 16,753 participants (56% women) who completed two cognitive assessments (pairs matching and reaction time).

Participants self-reported sleep duration, chronotype, and quality. Cognitive test scores were evaluated against sleep parameters and health and lifestyle factors including sex, age, vascular and cardiac conditions, diabetes,alcohol use, smoking habits, and body mass index.

The results revealed a positive association between normal sleep duration (7-9 hours) and cognitive scores in Cohort 1 (beta, 0.0567), while extended sleep duration negatively impacted scores across in Cohort 1 and 2 (beta, –0.188 and beta, –0.2619, respectively). 

An individual’s preference for evening or morning activity correlated strongly with their test scores. In particular, night owls consistently performed better on cognitive tests than early birds. 

“While understanding and working with your natural sleep tendencies is essential, it’s equally important to remember to get just enough sleep, not too long or too short,” Dr. West noted. “This is crucial for keeping your brain healthy and functioning at its best.”

Contrary to some previous findings, the study did not find a significant relationship between sleep, sleepiness/insomnia, and cognitive performance. This may be because specific aspects of insomnia, such as severity and chronicity, as well as comorbid conditions need to be considered, the investigators wrote. 

They added that age and diabetes consistently emerged as negative predictors of cognitive functioning across both cohorts, in line with previous research. 

Limitations of the study include the cross-sectional design, which limits causal inferences; the possibility of residual confounding; and reliance on self-reported sleep data.

Also, the study did not adjust for educational attainment, a factor potentially influential on cognitive performance and sleep patterns, because of incomplete data. The study also did not factor in depression and social isolation, which have been shown to increase the risk for cognitive decline.
 

No Real-World Implications

Several outside experts offered their perspective on the study in a statement from the UK nonprofit Science Media Centre. 

The study provides “interesting insights” into the difference in memory and thinking in people who identify themselves as a “morning” or “evening” person, Jacqui Hanley, PhD, with Alzheimer’s Research UK, said in the statement. 

However, without a detailed picture of what is going on in the brain, it’s not clear whether being a morning or evening person affects memory and thinking or whether a decline in cognition is causing changes to sleeping patterns, Dr. Hanley added. 

Roi Cohen Kadosh, PhD, CPsychol, professor of cognitive neuroscience, University of Surrey, Guildford, England, cautioned that there are “multiple potential reasons” for these associations. 

“Therefore, there are no implications in my view for the real world. I fear that the general public will not be able to understand that and will change their sleep pattern, while this study does not give any evidence that this will lead to any benefit,” Dr. Cohen Kadosh said. 

Jessica Chelekis, PhD, MBA, a sleep expert from Brunel University London, Uxbridge, England, said that the “main takeaway should be that the cultural belief that early risers are more productive than ‘night owls’ does not hold up to scientific scrutiny.” 

“While everyone should aim to get good-quality sleep each night, we should also try to be aware of what time of day we are at our (cognitive) best and work in ways that suit us. Night owls, in particular, should not be shamed into fitting a stereotype that favors an ‘early to bed, early to rise’ practice,” Dr. Chelekis said. 

Funding for the study was provided by the Korea Institute of Oriental Medicine in collaboration with Imperial College London. Dr. Hanley, Dr. Cohen Kadosh, and Dr. Chelekis have no relevant disclosures.

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

Individuals who are more active in the evening performed better on cognitive tests than did those who are typically more active in the morning hours, new research suggests. 

“Rather than just being personal preferences, these chronotypes could impact our cognitive function,” said study investigator, Raha West, MBChB, with Imperial College London, London, England, in a statement.

But the researchers also urged caution when interpreting the findings.

“It’s important to note that this doesn’t mean all morning people have worse cognitive performance. The findings reflect an overall trend where the majority might lean toward better cognition in the evening types,” Dr. West added. 

In addition, across the board, getting the recommended 7-9 hours of nightly sleep was best for cognitive function, and sleeping for less than 7 or more than 9 hours had detrimental effects on brain function regardless of whether an individual was a night owl or lark. 

The study was published online in BMJ Public Health. 
 

A UK Biobank Cohort Study 

The findings are based on a cross-sectional analysis of 26,820 adults aged 53-86 years from the UK Biobank database, who were categorized into two cohorts. 

Cohort 1 had 10,067 participants (56% women) who completed four cognitive tests measuring fluid intelligence/reasoning, pairs matching, reaction time, and prospective memory. Cohort 2 had 16,753 participants (56% women) who completed two cognitive assessments (pairs matching and reaction time).

Participants self-reported sleep duration, chronotype, and quality. Cognitive test scores were evaluated against sleep parameters and health and lifestyle factors including sex, age, vascular and cardiac conditions, diabetes,alcohol use, smoking habits, and body mass index.

The results revealed a positive association between normal sleep duration (7-9 hours) and cognitive scores in Cohort 1 (beta, 0.0567), while extended sleep duration negatively impacted scores across in Cohort 1 and 2 (beta, –0.188 and beta, –0.2619, respectively). 

An individual’s preference for evening or morning activity correlated strongly with their test scores. In particular, night owls consistently performed better on cognitive tests than early birds. 

“While understanding and working with your natural sleep tendencies is essential, it’s equally important to remember to get just enough sleep, not too long or too short,” Dr. West noted. “This is crucial for keeping your brain healthy and functioning at its best.”

Contrary to some previous findings, the study did not find a significant relationship between sleep, sleepiness/insomnia, and cognitive performance. This may be because specific aspects of insomnia, such as severity and chronicity, as well as comorbid conditions need to be considered, the investigators wrote. 

They added that age and diabetes consistently emerged as negative predictors of cognitive functioning across both cohorts, in line with previous research. 

Limitations of the study include the cross-sectional design, which limits causal inferences; the possibility of residual confounding; and reliance on self-reported sleep data.

Also, the study did not adjust for educational attainment, a factor potentially influential on cognitive performance and sleep patterns, because of incomplete data. The study also did not factor in depression and social isolation, which have been shown to increase the risk for cognitive decline.
 

No Real-World Implications

Several outside experts offered their perspective on the study in a statement from the UK nonprofit Science Media Centre. 

The study provides “interesting insights” into the difference in memory and thinking in people who identify themselves as a “morning” or “evening” person, Jacqui Hanley, PhD, with Alzheimer’s Research UK, said in the statement. 

However, without a detailed picture of what is going on in the brain, it’s not clear whether being a morning or evening person affects memory and thinking or whether a decline in cognition is causing changes to sleeping patterns, Dr. Hanley added. 

Roi Cohen Kadosh, PhD, CPsychol, professor of cognitive neuroscience, University of Surrey, Guildford, England, cautioned that there are “multiple potential reasons” for these associations. 

“Therefore, there are no implications in my view for the real world. I fear that the general public will not be able to understand that and will change their sleep pattern, while this study does not give any evidence that this will lead to any benefit,” Dr. Cohen Kadosh said. 

Jessica Chelekis, PhD, MBA, a sleep expert from Brunel University London, Uxbridge, England, said that the “main takeaway should be that the cultural belief that early risers are more productive than ‘night owls’ does not hold up to scientific scrutiny.” 

“While everyone should aim to get good-quality sleep each night, we should also try to be aware of what time of day we are at our (cognitive) best and work in ways that suit us. Night owls, in particular, should not be shamed into fitting a stereotype that favors an ‘early to bed, early to rise’ practice,” Dr. Chelekis said. 

Funding for the study was provided by the Korea Institute of Oriental Medicine in collaboration with Imperial College London. Dr. Hanley, Dr. Cohen Kadosh, and Dr. Chelekis have no relevant disclosures.

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

Healthcare professionals in the European Union are being cautioned about the risk for anaphylactic reactions in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) who are treated with glatiramer acetate. Such reactions could occur even years after the start of treatment, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) warned.
 

Glatiramer acetate is a disease-modifying therapy (DMT) for relapsing MS that is given by injection. 

The drug has been used for treating MS for more than 20 years, during which time, it has had a good safety profile. Common side effects are known to include vasodilation, arthralgia, anxiety, hypertonia, palpitations, and lipoatrophy. 

A meeting of the EMA’s Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC), held on July 8-11, considered evidence from an EU-wide review of all available data concerning anaphylactic reactions with glatiramer acetate. As a result, the committee concluded that the medicine is associated with a risk for anaphylactic reactions, which may occur shortly after administration or even months or years later.
 

Risk for Delays to Treatment

Cases involving the use of glatiramer acetate with a fatal outcome have been reported, PRAC noted.

The committee cautioned that because the initial symptoms could overlap with those of postinjection reaction, there was a risk for delay in identifying an anaphylactic reaction.

PRAC has sanctioned a direct healthcare professional communication (DHPC) to inform healthcare professionals about the risk. Patients and caregivers should be advised of the signs and symptoms of an anaphylactic reaction and the need to seek emergency care if this should occur, the committee added. In the event of such a reaction, treatment with glatiramer acetate must be discontinued, PRAC stated.

Once adopted, the DHPC for glatiramer acetate will be disseminated to healthcare professionals by the marketing authorization holders.

Anaphylactic reactions associated with the use of glatiramer acetate have been noted in medical literature for some years. A letter by members of the department of neurology at Albert Ludwig University Freiburg, Freiburg im Bresigau, Germany, published in the journal European Neurology in 2011, detailed six cases of anaphylactoid or anaphylactic reactions in patients while they were undergoing treatment with glatiramer acetate. 

The authors highlighted that in one of the cases, a grade 1 anaphylactic reaction occurred 3 months after treatment with the drug was initiated.

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

Healthcare professionals in the European Union are being cautioned about the risk for anaphylactic reactions in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) who are treated with glatiramer acetate. Such reactions could occur even years after the start of treatment, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) warned.
 

Glatiramer acetate is a disease-modifying therapy (DMT) for relapsing MS that is given by injection. 

The drug has been used for treating MS for more than 20 years, during which time, it has had a good safety profile. Common side effects are known to include vasodilation, arthralgia, anxiety, hypertonia, palpitations, and lipoatrophy. 

A meeting of the EMA’s Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC), held on July 8-11, considered evidence from an EU-wide review of all available data concerning anaphylactic reactions with glatiramer acetate. As a result, the committee concluded that the medicine is associated with a risk for anaphylactic reactions, which may occur shortly after administration or even months or years later.
 

Risk for Delays to Treatment

Cases involving the use of glatiramer acetate with a fatal outcome have been reported, PRAC noted.

The committee cautioned that because the initial symptoms could overlap with those of postinjection reaction, there was a risk for delay in identifying an anaphylactic reaction.

PRAC has sanctioned a direct healthcare professional communication (DHPC) to inform healthcare professionals about the risk. Patients and caregivers should be advised of the signs and symptoms of an anaphylactic reaction and the need to seek emergency care if this should occur, the committee added. In the event of such a reaction, treatment with glatiramer acetate must be discontinued, PRAC stated.

Once adopted, the DHPC for glatiramer acetate will be disseminated to healthcare professionals by the marketing authorization holders.

Anaphylactic reactions associated with the use of glatiramer acetate have been noted in medical literature for some years. A letter by members of the department of neurology at Albert Ludwig University Freiburg, Freiburg im Bresigau, Germany, published in the journal European Neurology in 2011, detailed six cases of anaphylactoid or anaphylactic reactions in patients while they were undergoing treatment with glatiramer acetate. 

The authors highlighted that in one of the cases, a grade 1 anaphylactic reaction occurred 3 months after treatment with the drug was initiated.

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

Healthcare professionals in the European Union are being cautioned about the risk for anaphylactic reactions in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) who are treated with glatiramer acetate. Such reactions could occur even years after the start of treatment, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) warned.
 

Glatiramer acetate is a disease-modifying therapy (DMT) for relapsing MS that is given by injection. 

The drug has been used for treating MS for more than 20 years, during which time, it has had a good safety profile. Common side effects are known to include vasodilation, arthralgia, anxiety, hypertonia, palpitations, and lipoatrophy. 

A meeting of the EMA’s Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC), held on July 8-11, considered evidence from an EU-wide review of all available data concerning anaphylactic reactions with glatiramer acetate. As a result, the committee concluded that the medicine is associated with a risk for anaphylactic reactions, which may occur shortly after administration or even months or years later.
 

Risk for Delays to Treatment

Cases involving the use of glatiramer acetate with a fatal outcome have been reported, PRAC noted.

The committee cautioned that because the initial symptoms could overlap with those of postinjection reaction, there was a risk for delay in identifying an anaphylactic reaction.

PRAC has sanctioned a direct healthcare professional communication (DHPC) to inform healthcare professionals about the risk. Patients and caregivers should be advised of the signs and symptoms of an anaphylactic reaction and the need to seek emergency care if this should occur, the committee added. In the event of such a reaction, treatment with glatiramer acetate must be discontinued, PRAC stated.

Once adopted, the DHPC for glatiramer acetate will be disseminated to healthcare professionals by the marketing authorization holders.

Anaphylactic reactions associated with the use of glatiramer acetate have been noted in medical literature for some years. A letter by members of the department of neurology at Albert Ludwig University Freiburg, Freiburg im Bresigau, Germany, published in the journal European Neurology in 2011, detailed six cases of anaphylactoid or anaphylactic reactions in patients while they were undergoing treatment with glatiramer acetate. 

The authors highlighted that in one of the cases, a grade 1 anaphylactic reaction occurred 3 months after treatment with the drug was initiated.

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

TOPLINE:

Achieving a pathologic complete response was associated with a twofold higher 5-year overall survival rate among patients with localized pancreatic adenocarcinoma who underwent preoperative chemo(radio)therapy and resection, a multicenter cohort study found. Several factors, including treatment type and tumor features, influenced the outcomes.

METHODOLOGY:

• Preoperative chemo(radio)therapy is increasingly used in patients with localized pancreatic adenocarcinoma and may improve the chance of a pathologic complete response. Achieving a pathologic complete response is associated with improved overall survival.
• However, the evidence on pathologic complete response is based on large national databases or small single-center series. Multicenter studies with in-depth data about complete response are lacking.
• In the current analysis, researchers investigated the incidence and factors associated with pathologic complete response after preoperative chemo(radio)therapy among 1758 patients (mean age, 64 years; 50% men) with localized pancreatic adenocarcinoma who underwent resection after two or more cycles of chemotherapy (with or without radiotherapy).
• Patients were treated at 19 centers in eight countries. The median follow-up was 19 months. Pathologic complete response was defined as the absence of vital tumor cells in the patient’s sampled pancreas specimen after resection.
• Factors associated with overall survival and pathologic complete response were investigated with Cox proportional hazards and logistic regression models, respectively.

TAKEAWAY:

• Researchers found that the rate of pathologic complete response was 4.8% in patients who received chemo(radio)therapy before pancreatic cancer resection.
• Having a pathologic complete response was associated with a 54% lower risk for death (hazard ratio, 0.46). At 5 years, the overall survival rate was 63% in patients with a pathologic complete response vs 30% in patients without one.
• More patients who received preoperative modified FOLFIRINOX achieved a pathologic complete response (58.8% vs 44.7%). Other factors associated with pathologic complete response included tumors located in the pancreatic head (odds ratio [OR], 2.51), tumors > 40 mm at diagnosis (OR, 2.58), partial or complete radiologic response (OR, 13.0), and normal(ized) serum carbohydrate antigen 19-9 after preoperative therapy (OR, 3.76).
• Preoperative radiotherapy (OR, 2.03) and preoperative stereotactic body radiotherapy (OR, 8.91) were also associated with a pathologic complete response; however, preoperative radiotherapy did not improve overall survival, and preoperative stereotactic body radiotherapy was independently associated with worse overall survival. These findings suggest that a pathologic complete response might not always reflect an optimal disease response.

IN PRACTICE:

Although pathologic complete response does not reflect cure, it is associated with better overall survival, the authors wrote. Factors associated with a pathologic complete response may inform treatment decisions.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Thomas F. Stoop, MD, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands, was published online on June 18 in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study had several limitations. The sample size and the limited number of events precluded comparative subanalyses, as well as a more detailed stratification for preoperative chemotherapy regimens. Information about patients’ race and the presence of BRCA germline mutations, both of which seem to be relevant to the chance of achieving a major pathologic response, was not collected or available.

DISCLOSURES:

No specific funding was noted. Several coauthors have industry relationships outside of the submitted work.

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

TOPLINE:

Achieving a pathologic complete response was associated with a twofold higher 5-year overall survival rate among patients with localized pancreatic adenocarcinoma who underwent preoperative chemo(radio)therapy and resection, a multicenter cohort study found. Several factors, including treatment type and tumor features, influenced the outcomes.

METHODOLOGY:

• Preoperative chemo(radio)therapy is increasingly used in patients with localized pancreatic adenocarcinoma and may improve the chance of a pathologic complete response. Achieving a pathologic complete response is associated with improved overall survival.
• However, the evidence on pathologic complete response is based on large national databases or small single-center series. Multicenter studies with in-depth data about complete response are lacking.
• In the current analysis, researchers investigated the incidence and factors associated with pathologic complete response after preoperative chemo(radio)therapy among 1758 patients (mean age, 64 years; 50% men) with localized pancreatic adenocarcinoma who underwent resection after two or more cycles of chemotherapy (with or without radiotherapy).
• Patients were treated at 19 centers in eight countries. The median follow-up was 19 months. Pathologic complete response was defined as the absence of vital tumor cells in the patient’s sampled pancreas specimen after resection.
• Factors associated with overall survival and pathologic complete response were investigated with Cox proportional hazards and logistic regression models, respectively.

TAKEAWAY:

• Researchers found that the rate of pathologic complete response was 4.8% in patients who received chemo(radio)therapy before pancreatic cancer resection.
• Having a pathologic complete response was associated with a 54% lower risk for death (hazard ratio, 0.46). At 5 years, the overall survival rate was 63% in patients with a pathologic complete response vs 30% in patients without one.
• More patients who received preoperative modified FOLFIRINOX achieved a pathologic complete response (58.8% vs 44.7%). Other factors associated with pathologic complete response included tumors located in the pancreatic head (odds ratio [OR], 2.51), tumors > 40 mm at diagnosis (OR, 2.58), partial or complete radiologic response (OR, 13.0), and normal(ized) serum carbohydrate antigen 19-9 after preoperative therapy (OR, 3.76).
• Preoperative radiotherapy (OR, 2.03) and preoperative stereotactic body radiotherapy (OR, 8.91) were also associated with a pathologic complete response; however, preoperative radiotherapy did not improve overall survival, and preoperative stereotactic body radiotherapy was independently associated with worse overall survival. These findings suggest that a pathologic complete response might not always reflect an optimal disease response.

IN PRACTICE:

Although pathologic complete response does not reflect cure, it is associated with better overall survival, the authors wrote. Factors associated with a pathologic complete response may inform treatment decisions.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Thomas F. Stoop, MD, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands, was published online on June 18 in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study had several limitations. The sample size and the limited number of events precluded comparative subanalyses, as well as a more detailed stratification for preoperative chemotherapy regimens. Information about patients’ race and the presence of BRCA germline mutations, both of which seem to be relevant to the chance of achieving a major pathologic response, was not collected or available.

DISCLOSURES:

No specific funding was noted. Several coauthors have industry relationships outside of the submitted work.

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

TOPLINE:

Achieving a pathologic complete response was associated with a twofold higher 5-year overall survival rate among patients with localized pancreatic adenocarcinoma who underwent preoperative chemo(radio)therapy and resection, a multicenter cohort study found. Several factors, including treatment type and tumor features, influenced the outcomes.

METHODOLOGY:

• Preoperative chemo(radio)therapy is increasingly used in patients with localized pancreatic adenocarcinoma and may improve the chance of a pathologic complete response. Achieving a pathologic complete response is associated with improved overall survival.
• However, the evidence on pathologic complete response is based on large national databases or small single-center series. Multicenter studies with in-depth data about complete response are lacking.
• In the current analysis, researchers investigated the incidence and factors associated with pathologic complete response after preoperative chemo(radio)therapy among 1758 patients (mean age, 64 years; 50% men) with localized pancreatic adenocarcinoma who underwent resection after two or more cycles of chemotherapy (with or without radiotherapy).
• Patients were treated at 19 centers in eight countries. The median follow-up was 19 months. Pathologic complete response was defined as the absence of vital tumor cells in the patient’s sampled pancreas specimen after resection.
• Factors associated with overall survival and pathologic complete response were investigated with Cox proportional hazards and logistic regression models, respectively.

TAKEAWAY:

• Researchers found that the rate of pathologic complete response was 4.8% in patients who received chemo(radio)therapy before pancreatic cancer resection.
• Having a pathologic complete response was associated with a 54% lower risk for death (hazard ratio, 0.46). At 5 years, the overall survival rate was 63% in patients with a pathologic complete response vs 30% in patients without one.
• More patients who received preoperative modified FOLFIRINOX achieved a pathologic complete response (58.8% vs 44.7%). Other factors associated with pathologic complete response included tumors located in the pancreatic head (odds ratio [OR], 2.51), tumors > 40 mm at diagnosis (OR, 2.58), partial or complete radiologic response (OR, 13.0), and normal(ized) serum carbohydrate antigen 19-9 after preoperative therapy (OR, 3.76).
• Preoperative radiotherapy (OR, 2.03) and preoperative stereotactic body radiotherapy (OR, 8.91) were also associated with a pathologic complete response; however, preoperative radiotherapy did not improve overall survival, and preoperative stereotactic body radiotherapy was independently associated with worse overall survival. These findings suggest that a pathologic complete response might not always reflect an optimal disease response.

IN PRACTICE:

Although pathologic complete response does not reflect cure, it is associated with better overall survival, the authors wrote. Factors associated with a pathologic complete response may inform treatment decisions.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Thomas F. Stoop, MD, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands, was published online on June 18 in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study had several limitations. The sample size and the limited number of events precluded comparative subanalyses, as well as a more detailed stratification for preoperative chemotherapy regimens. Information about patients’ race and the presence of BRCA germline mutations, both of which seem to be relevant to the chance of achieving a major pathologic response, was not collected or available.

DISCLOSURES:

No specific funding was noted. Several coauthors have industry relationships outside of the submitted work.

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

Introduction: Tremendous Progress on Cancer Extends to Cancer in Pregnancy

The biomedical research enterprise that took shape in the United States after World War II has had numerous positive effects, including significant progress made during the past 75-plus years in the diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of cancer.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s 1944 request of Dr. Vannevar Bush, director of the then Office of Scientific Research and Development, to organize a program that would advance and apply scientific knowledge for times of peace — just as it been advanced and applied in times of war — culminated in a historic report, Science – The Endless Frontier. Presented in 1945 to President Harry S. Truman, this report helped fuel decades of broad, bold, and coordinated government-sponsored biomedical research aimed at addressing disease and improving the health of the American people (National Science Foundation, 1945).

Discoveries made from research in basic and translational sciences deepened our knowledge of the cellular and molecular underpinnings of cancer, leading to advances in chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and other treatment approaches as well as continual refinements in their application. Similarly, our diagnostic armamentarium has significantly improved.

E. Albert Reece, MD, PhD, MBA, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist, is dean emeritus of the University of Maryland School of Medicine, former university executive vice president; currently the endowed professor and director of the Center for Advanced Research Training and Innovation (CARTI), and senior scientist in the Center for Birth Defects Research. Dr. Reece reported no relevant disclosures. He is the medical editor of this column. Contact him at [email protected].

Managing Cancer in Pregnancy

Cancer can cause fear and distress for any patient, but when cancer is diagnosed during pregnancy, an expectant mother fears not only for her own health but for the health of her unborn child. Fortunately, ob.gyn.s and multidisciplinary teams have good reason to reassure patients about the likelihood of good outcomes.

Cancer treatment in pregnancy has improved with advancements in imaging and chemotherapy, and while maternal and fetal outcomes of prenatal cancer treatment are not well reported, evidence acquired in recent years from case series and retrospective studies shows that most imaging studies and procedural diagnostic tests – and many treatments – can be performed safely in pregnancy.

Cancer Incidence, Use of Diagnostic Imaging

Data on the incidence of cancer in pregnancy comes from population-based cancer registries, and unfortunately, these data are not standardized and are often incomplete. Many studies include cancer diagnosed up to 1 year after pregnancy, and some include preinvasive disease. Estimates therefore vary considerably (see Table 1 for a sampling of estimates incidences.)

It has been reported, and often cited in the literature, that invasive malignancy complicates one in 1,000 pregnancies and that the incidence of cancer in pregnancy (invasive and noninvasive malignancies) has been rising over time.⁸ Increasing maternal age is believed to be playing a role in this rise; as women delay childbearing, they enter the age range in which some cancers become more common. Additionally, improvements in screening and diagnostics have led to earlier cancer detection. The incidence of ovarian neoplasms found during pregnancy has increased, for instance, with the routine use of diagnostic ultrasound in pregnancy.¹

Among the studies showing an increased incidence of pregnancy-associated cancer is a population-based study in Australia, which found that from 1994 to 2007 the crude incidence of pregnancy-associated cancer increased from 112.3 to 191.5 per 100,000 pregnancies (P < .001).⁹ A cohort study in the United States documented an increase in incidence from 75.0 per 100,000 pregnancies in 2002 to 138.5 per 100,000 pregnancies in 2012.¹⁰

Overall, the literature shows us that the skin, cervix, and breast are also common sites for malignancy during pregnancy.¹ According to a 2022 review, breast cancer during pregnancy is less often hormone receptor–positive and more frequently triple negative compared with age-matched controls.¹¹ The frequencies of other pregnancy-associated cancers appear overall to be similar to that of cancer occurring in all women across their reproductive years.¹

Too often, diagnosis is delayed because cancer symptoms can be masked by or can mimic normal physiological changes in pregnancy. For instance, breast cancer can be difficult to diagnose during pregnancy and lactation due to anatomic changes in the breast parenchyma. Several studies published in the 1990s showed that breast cancer presents at a more advanced stage in pregnant patients than in nonpregnant patients because of this delay.¹ Skin changes suggestive of melanoma can be attributed to hyperpigmentation of pregnancy, for instance. Several observational studies have suggested that thicker melanomas found in pregnancy may be because of delayed diagnosis.⁸

It is important that we thoroughly investigate signs and symptoms suggestive of a malignancy and not automatically attribute these symptoms to the pregnancy itself. Cervical biopsy of a mass or lesion suspicious for cervical cancer can be done safely during pregnancy and should not be delayed or deferred.

Fetal radiation exposure from radiologic examinations has long been a concern, but we know today that while the imaging modality should be chosen to minimize fetal radiation exposure, CT scans and even PET scans should be performed if these exams are deemed best for evaluation. Embryonic exposure to a dose of less than 50 mGy is rarely if at all associated with fetal malformations or miscarriage and a radiation dose of 100 mGy may be considered a floor for consideration of therapeutic termination of pregnancy.^1,8

CT exams are associated with a fetal dose far less than 50 mGy (see Table 2 for radiation doses).

Chemotherapy, Surgery, and Radiation in Pregnancy

The management of cancer during pregnancy requires a multidisciplinary team including medical, gynecologic, or radiation oncologists, and maternal-fetal medicine specialists (Figure 1). Prematurity and low birth weight are frequent complications for fetuses exposed to chemotherapy, although there is some uncertainty as to whether the treatment is causative. However, congenital anomalies no longer are a major concern, provided that drugs are appropriately selected and that fetal exposure occurs during the second or third trimester.

For instance, alkylating agents including cisplatin (an important drug in the management of gynecologic malignancies) have been associated with congenital anomalies in the first trimester but not in the second and third trimesters, and a variety of antimetabolites — excluding methotrexate and aminopterin — similarly have been shown to be relatively safe when used after the first trimester.¹

Small studies have shown no long-term effects of chemotherapy exposure on postnatal growth and long-term neurologic/neurocognitive function,¹ but this is an area that needs more research.

Also in need of investigation is the safety of newer agents in pregnancy. Data are limited on the use of new targeted treatments, monoclonal antibodies, and immunotherapies in pregnancy and their effects on the fetus, with current knowledge coming mainly from single case reports.¹³

Until more is learned — a challenge given that pregnant women are generally excluded from clinical trials — management teams are generally postponing use of these therapies until after delivery. Considering the pace of new developments revolutionizing cancer treatment, this topic will likely get more complex and confusing before we begin acquiring sufficient knowledge.

The timing of surgery for malignancy in pregnancy is similarly based on the balance of maternal and fetal risks, including the risk of maternal disease progression, the risk of preterm delivery, and the prevention of fetal metastases. In general, the safest time is the second trimester.

Maternal surgery in the third trimester may be associated with a risk of premature labor and altered uteroplacental perfusion. A 2005 systematic review of 12,452 women who underwent nonobstetric surgery during pregnancy provides some reassurance, however; compared with the general obstetric population, there was no increase in the rate of miscarriage or major birth defects.¹⁴

Radiotherapy used to be contraindicated in pregnancy but many experts today believe it can be safely utilized provided the uterus is out of field and is protected from scattered radiation. The head, neck, and breast, for instance, can be treated with newer radiotherapies, including stereotactic ablative radiation therapy.⁸ Patients with advanced cervical cancer often receive chemotherapy during pregnancy to slow metastatic growth followed by definitive treatment with postpartum radiation or surgery.

More research is needed, but available data on maternal outcomes are encouraging. For instance, there appear to be no significant differences in short- and long-term complications or survival between women who are pregnant and nonpregnant when treated for invasive cervical cancer.⁸ Similarly, while earlier studies of breast cancer diagnosed during pregnancy suggested a poor prognosis, data now show similar prognoses for pregnant and nonpregnant patients when controlled for stage.¹

Dr. Rao is a gynecologic oncologist and associate professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at the University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore. He reported no relevant disclosures.

References

1. Rao GG. Chapter 42. Clinical Obstetrics: The Fetus & Mother, 4th ed. Reece EA et al. (eds): 2021.

2. Bannister-Tyrrell M et al. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2014;55:116-122.

3. Oehler MK et al. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2003;43(6):414-420.

4. Ruiz R et al. Breast. 2017;35:136-141. doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2017.07.008.

5. Nolan S et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019;220(1):S480. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2018.11.752.

6. El-Messidi A et al. J Perinat Med. 2015;43(6):683-688. doi: 10.1515/jpm-2014-0133.

7. Pellino G et al. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017;29(7):743-753. doi: 10.1097/MEG.0000000000000863.

8. Eastwood-Wilshere N et al. Asia-Pac J Clin Oncol. 2019;15:296-308.

9. Lee YY et al. BJOG. 2012;119(13):1572-1582.

10. Cottreau CM et al. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2019 Feb;28(2):250-257.

11. Boere I et al. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2022;82:46-59.

12. Ray JG et al. JAMA 2016;316(9):952-961.

13. Schwab R et al. Cancers. (Basel) 2021;13(12):3048.

14. Cohen-Kerem et al. Am J Surg. 2005;190(3):467-473.

Introduction: Tremendous Progress on Cancer Extends to Cancer in Pregnancy

The biomedical research enterprise that took shape in the United States after World War II has had numerous positive effects, including significant progress made during the past 75-plus years in the diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of cancer.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s 1944 request of Dr. Vannevar Bush, director of the then Office of Scientific Research and Development, to organize a program that would advance and apply scientific knowledge for times of peace — just as it been advanced and applied in times of war — culminated in a historic report, Science – The Endless Frontier. Presented in 1945 to President Harry S. Truman, this report helped fuel decades of broad, bold, and coordinated government-sponsored biomedical research aimed at addressing disease and improving the health of the American people (National Science Foundation, 1945).

Discoveries made from research in basic and translational sciences deepened our knowledge of the cellular and molecular underpinnings of cancer, leading to advances in chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and other treatment approaches as well as continual refinements in their application. Similarly, our diagnostic armamentarium has significantly improved.

E. Albert Reece, MD, PhD, MBA, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist, is dean emeritus of the University of Maryland School of Medicine, former university executive vice president; currently the endowed professor and director of the Center for Advanced Research Training and Innovation (CARTI), and senior scientist in the Center for Birth Defects Research. Dr. Reece reported no relevant disclosures. He is the medical editor of this column. Contact him at [email protected].

Managing Cancer in Pregnancy

Cancer can cause fear and distress for any patient, but when cancer is diagnosed during pregnancy, an expectant mother fears not only for her own health but for the health of her unborn child. Fortunately, ob.gyn.s and multidisciplinary teams have good reason to reassure patients about the likelihood of good outcomes.

Cancer treatment in pregnancy has improved with advancements in imaging and chemotherapy, and while maternal and fetal outcomes of prenatal cancer treatment are not well reported, evidence acquired in recent years from case series and retrospective studies shows that most imaging studies and procedural diagnostic tests – and many treatments – can be performed safely in pregnancy.

Cancer Incidence, Use of Diagnostic Imaging

Data on the incidence of cancer in pregnancy comes from population-based cancer registries, and unfortunately, these data are not standardized and are often incomplete. Many studies include cancer diagnosed up to 1 year after pregnancy, and some include preinvasive disease. Estimates therefore vary considerably (see Table 1 for a sampling of estimates incidences.)

It has been reported, and often cited in the literature, that invasive malignancy complicates one in 1,000 pregnancies and that the incidence of cancer in pregnancy (invasive and noninvasive malignancies) has been rising over time.⁸ Increasing maternal age is believed to be playing a role in this rise; as women delay childbearing, they enter the age range in which some cancers become more common. Additionally, improvements in screening and diagnostics have led to earlier cancer detection. The incidence of ovarian neoplasms found during pregnancy has increased, for instance, with the routine use of diagnostic ultrasound in pregnancy.¹

Among the studies showing an increased incidence of pregnancy-associated cancer is a population-based study in Australia, which found that from 1994 to 2007 the crude incidence of pregnancy-associated cancer increased from 112.3 to 191.5 per 100,000 pregnancies (P < .001).⁹ A cohort study in the United States documented an increase in incidence from 75.0 per 100,000 pregnancies in 2002 to 138.5 per 100,000 pregnancies in 2012.¹⁰

Overall, the literature shows us that the skin, cervix, and breast are also common sites for malignancy during pregnancy.¹ According to a 2022 review, breast cancer during pregnancy is less often hormone receptor–positive and more frequently triple negative compared with age-matched controls.¹¹ The frequencies of other pregnancy-associated cancers appear overall to be similar to that of cancer occurring in all women across their reproductive years.¹

Too often, diagnosis is delayed because cancer symptoms can be masked by or can mimic normal physiological changes in pregnancy. For instance, breast cancer can be difficult to diagnose during pregnancy and lactation due to anatomic changes in the breast parenchyma. Several studies published in the 1990s showed that breast cancer presents at a more advanced stage in pregnant patients than in nonpregnant patients because of this delay.¹ Skin changes suggestive of melanoma can be attributed to hyperpigmentation of pregnancy, for instance. Several observational studies have suggested that thicker melanomas found in pregnancy may be because of delayed diagnosis.⁸

It is important that we thoroughly investigate signs and symptoms suggestive of a malignancy and not automatically attribute these symptoms to the pregnancy itself. Cervical biopsy of a mass or lesion suspicious for cervical cancer can be done safely during pregnancy and should not be delayed or deferred.

Fetal radiation exposure from radiologic examinations has long been a concern, but we know today that while the imaging modality should be chosen to minimize fetal radiation exposure, CT scans and even PET scans should be performed if these exams are deemed best for evaluation. Embryonic exposure to a dose of less than 50 mGy is rarely if at all associated with fetal malformations or miscarriage and a radiation dose of 100 mGy may be considered a floor for consideration of therapeutic termination of pregnancy.^1,8

CT exams are associated with a fetal dose far less than 50 mGy (see Table 2 for radiation doses).

Chemotherapy, Surgery, and Radiation in Pregnancy

The management of cancer during pregnancy requires a multidisciplinary team including medical, gynecologic, or radiation oncologists, and maternal-fetal medicine specialists (Figure 1). Prematurity and low birth weight are frequent complications for fetuses exposed to chemotherapy, although there is some uncertainty as to whether the treatment is causative. However, congenital anomalies no longer are a major concern, provided that drugs are appropriately selected and that fetal exposure occurs during the second or third trimester.

For instance, alkylating agents including cisplatin (an important drug in the management of gynecologic malignancies) have been associated with congenital anomalies in the first trimester but not in the second and third trimesters, and a variety of antimetabolites — excluding methotrexate and aminopterin — similarly have been shown to be relatively safe when used after the first trimester.¹

Small studies have shown no long-term effects of chemotherapy exposure on postnatal growth and long-term neurologic/neurocognitive function,¹ but this is an area that needs more research.

Also in need of investigation is the safety of newer agents in pregnancy. Data are limited on the use of new targeted treatments, monoclonal antibodies, and immunotherapies in pregnancy and their effects on the fetus, with current knowledge coming mainly from single case reports.¹³

Until more is learned — a challenge given that pregnant women are generally excluded from clinical trials — management teams are generally postponing use of these therapies until after delivery. Considering the pace of new developments revolutionizing cancer treatment, this topic will likely get more complex and confusing before we begin acquiring sufficient knowledge.

The timing of surgery for malignancy in pregnancy is similarly based on the balance of maternal and fetal risks, including the risk of maternal disease progression, the risk of preterm delivery, and the prevention of fetal metastases. In general, the safest time is the second trimester.

Maternal surgery in the third trimester may be associated with a risk of premature labor and altered uteroplacental perfusion. A 2005 systematic review of 12,452 women who underwent nonobstetric surgery during pregnancy provides some reassurance, however; compared with the general obstetric population, there was no increase in the rate of miscarriage or major birth defects.¹⁴

Radiotherapy used to be contraindicated in pregnancy but many experts today believe it can be safely utilized provided the uterus is out of field and is protected from scattered radiation. The head, neck, and breast, for instance, can be treated with newer radiotherapies, including stereotactic ablative radiation therapy.⁸ Patients with advanced cervical cancer often receive chemotherapy during pregnancy to slow metastatic growth followed by definitive treatment with postpartum radiation or surgery.

More research is needed, but available data on maternal outcomes are encouraging. For instance, there appear to be no significant differences in short- and long-term complications or survival between women who are pregnant and nonpregnant when treated for invasive cervical cancer.⁸ Similarly, while earlier studies of breast cancer diagnosed during pregnancy suggested a poor prognosis, data now show similar prognoses for pregnant and nonpregnant patients when controlled for stage.¹

Dr. Rao is a gynecologic oncologist and associate professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at the University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore. He reported no relevant disclosures.

References

1. Rao GG. Chapter 42. Clinical Obstetrics: The Fetus & Mother, 4th ed. Reece EA et al. (eds): 2021.

2. Bannister-Tyrrell M et al. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2014;55:116-122.

3. Oehler MK et al. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2003;43(6):414-420.

4. Ruiz R et al. Breast. 2017;35:136-141. doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2017.07.008.

5. Nolan S et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019;220(1):S480. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2018.11.752.

6. El-Messidi A et al. J Perinat Med. 2015;43(6):683-688. doi: 10.1515/jpm-2014-0133.

7. Pellino G et al. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017;29(7):743-753. doi: 10.1097/MEG.0000000000000863.

8. Eastwood-Wilshere N et al. Asia-Pac J Clin Oncol. 2019;15:296-308.

9. Lee YY et al. BJOG. 2012;119(13):1572-1582.

10. Cottreau CM et al. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2019 Feb;28(2):250-257.

11. Boere I et al. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2022;82:46-59.

12. Ray JG et al. JAMA 2016;316(9):952-961.

13. Schwab R et al. Cancers. (Basel) 2021;13(12):3048.

14. Cohen-Kerem et al. Am J Surg. 2005;190(3):467-473.

Introduction: Tremendous Progress on Cancer Extends to Cancer in Pregnancy

The biomedical research enterprise that took shape in the United States after World War II has had numerous positive effects, including significant progress made during the past 75-plus years in the diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of cancer.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s 1944 request of Dr. Vannevar Bush, director of the then Office of Scientific Research and Development, to organize a program that would advance and apply scientific knowledge for times of peace — just as it been advanced and applied in times of war — culminated in a historic report, Science – The Endless Frontier. Presented in 1945 to President Harry S. Truman, this report helped fuel decades of broad, bold, and coordinated government-sponsored biomedical research aimed at addressing disease and improving the health of the American people (National Science Foundation, 1945).

Discoveries made from research in basic and translational sciences deepened our knowledge of the cellular and molecular underpinnings of cancer, leading to advances in chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and other treatment approaches as well as continual refinements in their application. Similarly, our diagnostic armamentarium has significantly improved.

E. Albert Reece, MD, PhD, MBA, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist, is dean emeritus of the University of Maryland School of Medicine, former university executive vice president; currently the endowed professor and director of the Center for Advanced Research Training and Innovation (CARTI), and senior scientist in the Center for Birth Defects Research. Dr. Reece reported no relevant disclosures. He is the medical editor of this column. Contact him at [email protected].

Managing Cancer in Pregnancy

Cancer can cause fear and distress for any patient, but when cancer is diagnosed during pregnancy, an expectant mother fears not only for her own health but for the health of her unborn child. Fortunately, ob.gyn.s and multidisciplinary teams have good reason to reassure patients about the likelihood of good outcomes.

Cancer treatment in pregnancy has improved with advancements in imaging and chemotherapy, and while maternal and fetal outcomes of prenatal cancer treatment are not well reported, evidence acquired in recent years from case series and retrospective studies shows that most imaging studies and procedural diagnostic tests – and many treatments – can be performed safely in pregnancy.

Cancer Incidence, Use of Diagnostic Imaging

Data on the incidence of cancer in pregnancy comes from population-based cancer registries, and unfortunately, these data are not standardized and are often incomplete. Many studies include cancer diagnosed up to 1 year after pregnancy, and some include preinvasive disease. Estimates therefore vary considerably (see Table 1 for a sampling of estimates incidences.)

It has been reported, and often cited in the literature, that invasive malignancy complicates one in 1,000 pregnancies and that the incidence of cancer in pregnancy (invasive and noninvasive malignancies) has been rising over time.⁸ Increasing maternal age is believed to be playing a role in this rise; as women delay childbearing, they enter the age range in which some cancers become more common. Additionally, improvements in screening and diagnostics have led to earlier cancer detection. The incidence of ovarian neoplasms found during pregnancy has increased, for instance, with the routine use of diagnostic ultrasound in pregnancy.¹

Among the studies showing an increased incidence of pregnancy-associated cancer is a population-based study in Australia, which found that from 1994 to 2007 the crude incidence of pregnancy-associated cancer increased from 112.3 to 191.5 per 100,000 pregnancies (P < .001).⁹ A cohort study in the United States documented an increase in incidence from 75.0 per 100,000 pregnancies in 2002 to 138.5 per 100,000 pregnancies in 2012.¹⁰

Overall, the literature shows us that the skin, cervix, and breast are also common sites for malignancy during pregnancy.¹ According to a 2022 review, breast cancer during pregnancy is less often hormone receptor–positive and more frequently triple negative compared with age-matched controls.¹¹ The frequencies of other pregnancy-associated cancers appear overall to be similar to that of cancer occurring in all women across their reproductive years.¹

Too often, diagnosis is delayed because cancer symptoms can be masked by or can mimic normal physiological changes in pregnancy. For instance, breast cancer can be difficult to diagnose during pregnancy and lactation due to anatomic changes in the breast parenchyma. Several studies published in the 1990s showed that breast cancer presents at a more advanced stage in pregnant patients than in nonpregnant patients because of this delay.¹ Skin changes suggestive of melanoma can be attributed to hyperpigmentation of pregnancy, for instance. Several observational studies have suggested that thicker melanomas found in pregnancy may be because of delayed diagnosis.⁸

It is important that we thoroughly investigate signs and symptoms suggestive of a malignancy and not automatically attribute these symptoms to the pregnancy itself. Cervical biopsy of a mass or lesion suspicious for cervical cancer can be done safely during pregnancy and should not be delayed or deferred.

Fetal radiation exposure from radiologic examinations has long been a concern, but we know today that while the imaging modality should be chosen to minimize fetal radiation exposure, CT scans and even PET scans should be performed if these exams are deemed best for evaluation. Embryonic exposure to a dose of less than 50 mGy is rarely if at all associated with fetal malformations or miscarriage and a radiation dose of 100 mGy may be considered a floor for consideration of therapeutic termination of pregnancy.^1,8

CT exams are associated with a fetal dose far less than 50 mGy (see Table 2 for radiation doses).

Chemotherapy, Surgery, and Radiation in Pregnancy

The management of cancer during pregnancy requires a multidisciplinary team including medical, gynecologic, or radiation oncologists, and maternal-fetal medicine specialists (Figure 1). Prematurity and low birth weight are frequent complications for fetuses exposed to chemotherapy, although there is some uncertainty as to whether the treatment is causative. However, congenital anomalies no longer are a major concern, provided that drugs are appropriately selected and that fetal exposure occurs during the second or third trimester.

For instance, alkylating agents including cisplatin (an important drug in the management of gynecologic malignancies) have been associated with congenital anomalies in the first trimester but not in the second and third trimesters, and a variety of antimetabolites — excluding methotrexate and aminopterin — similarly have been shown to be relatively safe when used after the first trimester.¹

Small studies have shown no long-term effects of chemotherapy exposure on postnatal growth and long-term neurologic/neurocognitive function,¹ but this is an area that needs more research.

Also in need of investigation is the safety of newer agents in pregnancy. Data are limited on the use of new targeted treatments, monoclonal antibodies, and immunotherapies in pregnancy and their effects on the fetus, with current knowledge coming mainly from single case reports.¹³

Until more is learned — a challenge given that pregnant women are generally excluded from clinical trials — management teams are generally postponing use of these therapies until after delivery. Considering the pace of new developments revolutionizing cancer treatment, this topic will likely get more complex and confusing before we begin acquiring sufficient knowledge.

The timing of surgery for malignancy in pregnancy is similarly based on the balance of maternal and fetal risks, including the risk of maternal disease progression, the risk of preterm delivery, and the prevention of fetal metastases. In general, the safest time is the second trimester.

Maternal surgery in the third trimester may be associated with a risk of premature labor and altered uteroplacental perfusion. A 2005 systematic review of 12,452 women who underwent nonobstetric surgery during pregnancy provides some reassurance, however; compared with the general obstetric population, there was no increase in the rate of miscarriage or major birth defects.¹⁴

Radiotherapy used to be contraindicated in pregnancy but many experts today believe it can be safely utilized provided the uterus is out of field and is protected from scattered radiation. The head, neck, and breast, for instance, can be treated with newer radiotherapies, including stereotactic ablative radiation therapy.⁸ Patients with advanced cervical cancer often receive chemotherapy during pregnancy to slow metastatic growth followed by definitive treatment with postpartum radiation or surgery.

More research is needed, but available data on maternal outcomes are encouraging. For instance, there appear to be no significant differences in short- and long-term complications or survival between women who are pregnant and nonpregnant when treated for invasive cervical cancer.⁸ Similarly, while earlier studies of breast cancer diagnosed during pregnancy suggested a poor prognosis, data now show similar prognoses for pregnant and nonpregnant patients when controlled for stage.¹

Dr. Rao is a gynecologic oncologist and associate professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at the University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore. He reported no relevant disclosures.

References

1. Rao GG. Chapter 42. Clinical Obstetrics: The Fetus & Mother, 4th ed. Reece EA et al. (eds): 2021.

2. Bannister-Tyrrell M et al. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2014;55:116-122.

3. Oehler MK et al. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2003;43(6):414-420.

4. Ruiz R et al. Breast. 2017;35:136-141. doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2017.07.008.

5. Nolan S et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019;220(1):S480. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2018.11.752.

6. El-Messidi A et al. J Perinat Med. 2015;43(6):683-688. doi: 10.1515/jpm-2014-0133.

7. Pellino G et al. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017;29(7):743-753. doi: 10.1097/MEG.0000000000000863.

8. Eastwood-Wilshere N et al. Asia-Pac J Clin Oncol. 2019;15:296-308.

9. Lee YY et al. BJOG. 2012;119(13):1572-1582.

10. Cottreau CM et al. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2019 Feb;28(2):250-257.

11. Boere I et al. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2022;82:46-59.

12. Ray JG et al. JAMA 2016;316(9):952-961.

13. Schwab R et al. Cancers. (Basel) 2021;13(12):3048.

14. Cohen-Kerem et al. Am J Surg. 2005;190(3):467-473.

The effectiveness of massage therapy for a range of painful adult health conditions remains uncertain. Despite hundreds of randomized clinical trials and dozens of systematic reviews, few studies have offered conclusions based on more than low-certainty evidence, a systematic review in JAMA Network Open has shown (doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.22259).

Some moderate-certainty evidence, however, suggested massage therapy may alleviate pain related to such conditions as low-back problems, labor, and breast cancer surgery, concluded a group led by Selene Mak, PhD, MPH, program manager in the Evidence Synthesis Program at the Veterans Health Administration Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System in Los Angeles, California.

“More high-quality randomized clinical trials are needed to provide a stronger evidence base to assess the effect of massage therapy on pain,” Dr. Mak and colleagues wrote.

The review updates a previous Veterans Affairs evidence map covering reviews of massage therapy for pain published through 2018.

To categorize the evidence base for decision-making by policymakers and practitioners, the VA requested an updated evidence map of reviews to answer the question: “What is the certainty of evidence in systematic reviews of massage therapy for pain?”
 

The Analysis

The current review included studies published from 2018 to 2023 with formal ratings of evidence quality or certainty, excluding other nonpharmacologic techniques such as sports massage therapy, osteopathy, dry cupping, dry needling, and internal massage therapy, and self-administered techniques such as foam rolling.

Of 129 systematic reviews, only 41 formally rated evidence quality, and 17 were evidence-mapped for pain across 13 health states: cancer, back, neck and mechanical neck issues, fibromyalgia, labor, myofascial, palliative care need, plantar fasciitis, postoperative, post breast cancer surgery, and post cesarean/postpartum.

The investigators found no conclusions based on a high certainty of evidence, while seven based conclusions on moderate-certainty evidence. All remaining conclusions were rated as having low- or very-low-certainty evidence.

The priority, they added, should be studies comparing massage therapy with other recommended, accepted, and active therapies for pain and should have sufficiently long follow-up to allow any nonspecific outcomes to dissipate, At least 6 months’ follow-up has been suggested for studies of chronic pain.

While massage therapy is considered safe, in patients with central sensitizations more aggressive treatments may cause a flare of myofascial pain.

This study was funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development. The authors had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

The effectiveness of massage therapy for a range of painful adult health conditions remains uncertain. Despite hundreds of randomized clinical trials and dozens of systematic reviews, few studies have offered conclusions based on more than low-certainty evidence, a systematic review in JAMA Network Open has shown (doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.22259).

Some moderate-certainty evidence, however, suggested massage therapy may alleviate pain related to such conditions as low-back problems, labor, and breast cancer surgery, concluded a group led by Selene Mak, PhD, MPH, program manager in the Evidence Synthesis Program at the Veterans Health Administration Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System in Los Angeles, California.

“More high-quality randomized clinical trials are needed to provide a stronger evidence base to assess the effect of massage therapy on pain,” Dr. Mak and colleagues wrote.

The review updates a previous Veterans Affairs evidence map covering reviews of massage therapy for pain published through 2018.

To categorize the evidence base for decision-making by policymakers and practitioners, the VA requested an updated evidence map of reviews to answer the question: “What is the certainty of evidence in systematic reviews of massage therapy for pain?”
 

The Analysis

The current review included studies published from 2018 to 2023 with formal ratings of evidence quality or certainty, excluding other nonpharmacologic techniques such as sports massage therapy, osteopathy, dry cupping, dry needling, and internal massage therapy, and self-administered techniques such as foam rolling.

Of 129 systematic reviews, only 41 formally rated evidence quality, and 17 were evidence-mapped for pain across 13 health states: cancer, back, neck and mechanical neck issues, fibromyalgia, labor, myofascial, palliative care need, plantar fasciitis, postoperative, post breast cancer surgery, and post cesarean/postpartum.

The investigators found no conclusions based on a high certainty of evidence, while seven based conclusions on moderate-certainty evidence. All remaining conclusions were rated as having low- or very-low-certainty evidence.

The priority, they added, should be studies comparing massage therapy with other recommended, accepted, and active therapies for pain and should have sufficiently long follow-up to allow any nonspecific outcomes to dissipate, At least 6 months’ follow-up has been suggested for studies of chronic pain.

While massage therapy is considered safe, in patients with central sensitizations more aggressive treatments may cause a flare of myofascial pain.

This study was funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development. The authors had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

The effectiveness of massage therapy for a range of painful adult health conditions remains uncertain. Despite hundreds of randomized clinical trials and dozens of systematic reviews, few studies have offered conclusions based on more than low-certainty evidence, a systematic review in JAMA Network Open has shown (doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.22259).

Some moderate-certainty evidence, however, suggested massage therapy may alleviate pain related to such conditions as low-back problems, labor, and breast cancer surgery, concluded a group led by Selene Mak, PhD, MPH, program manager in the Evidence Synthesis Program at the Veterans Health Administration Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System in Los Angeles, California.

“More high-quality randomized clinical trials are needed to provide a stronger evidence base to assess the effect of massage therapy on pain,” Dr. Mak and colleagues wrote.

The review updates a previous Veterans Affairs evidence map covering reviews of massage therapy for pain published through 2018.

To categorize the evidence base for decision-making by policymakers and practitioners, the VA requested an updated evidence map of reviews to answer the question: “What is the certainty of evidence in systematic reviews of massage therapy for pain?”
 

The Analysis

The current review included studies published from 2018 to 2023 with formal ratings of evidence quality or certainty, excluding other nonpharmacologic techniques such as sports massage therapy, osteopathy, dry cupping, dry needling, and internal massage therapy, and self-administered techniques such as foam rolling.

Of 129 systematic reviews, only 41 formally rated evidence quality, and 17 were evidence-mapped for pain across 13 health states: cancer, back, neck and mechanical neck issues, fibromyalgia, labor, myofascial, palliative care need, plantar fasciitis, postoperative, post breast cancer surgery, and post cesarean/postpartum.

The investigators found no conclusions based on a high certainty of evidence, while seven based conclusions on moderate-certainty evidence. All remaining conclusions were rated as having low- or very-low-certainty evidence.

The priority, they added, should be studies comparing massage therapy with other recommended, accepted, and active therapies for pain and should have sufficiently long follow-up to allow any nonspecific outcomes to dissipate, At least 6 months’ follow-up has been suggested for studies of chronic pain.

While massage therapy is considered safe, in patients with central sensitizations more aggressive treatments may cause a flare of myofascial pain.

This study was funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development. The authors had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

A growing body of evidence has shown that people who regularly take aspirin have a lower risk for colorectal cancer (CRC) and are less likely to die if they do develop the disease.

A 2020 meta-analysis, for instance, found that 325 mg of daily aspirin — the typical dose in a single tablet — conferred a 35% reduced risk of developing CRC, and a highly cited The Lancet study from 2010 found that a low dose of daily aspirin reduced the incidence of colon cancer by 24% and colon cancer deaths by 35% over 20 years.

The evidence surrounding aspirin and CRC is so intriguing that more than 70,000 people are currently participating in more than two dozen clinical studies worldwide, putting aspirin through its paces as an intervention in CRC.

But what, exactly, is aspirin doing?

We know that aspirin inhibits cyclooxygenase (COX) enzymes — COX-1 and COX-2, specifically — and that the COX-2 pathway is implicated in the development and progression of CRC, explained Marco Scarpa, MD, PhD, staff surgeon at the University of Padova in Padova, Italy.

“However, the new thing we’ve found is that aspirin may have a direct role in enhancing immunosurveillance,” Dr. Scarpa said in an interview.

In April, Dr. Scarpa’s team published a paper in Cancer describing a mechanism that provides deeper insight into the aspirin-CRC connection.

Dr. Scarpa heads up the IMMUNOREACT study group, a collaboration of dozens of researchers across Italy running studies on immunosurveillance in rectal cancer. In the baseline study, IMMUNOREACT 1, the team created and analyzed a database of records from 238 patients who underwent surgery for CRC at the Azienda Ospedale Università di Padova, Padova, Italy, from 2015 to 2019.

Using the same database, the latest findings from IMMUNOREACT 7 focused on the fate of the 31 patients (13%) who used aspirin regularly.

The researchers found that regular aspirin use did not appear to affect colorectal tumor stage at diagnosis, but tumor grading was significantly lower overall, especially in patients with BRAF mutations. Regular aspirin users were also less likely to have nodal metastases and metastatic lymph nodes, and this effect was more pronounced in patients with proximal (right-sided) colon cancer vs distal (left-sided).

Most notably, IMMUNOREACT 7 revealed that aspirin has beneficial effects on the CRC immune microenvironment.

The team found that aspirin directly boosts the presence of antigens on gastrointestinal epithelial tumor cells, which can direct the body’s immune response to combat the cancer.

At a macro level, the aspirin users in the study were more likely to have high levels of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs). Dr. Scarpa’s team had previously shown that high levels of CD8+ and CD3+ TILs were predictive of successful neoadjuvant therapy in rectal cancer.

Cytotoxic CD8+ T cells are central to the anticancer immune response, and in the latest study, a high ratio of CD8+/CD3+ T cells was more common in aspirin users, suggesting a stronger presence of cancer-killing CD8+ cells. Expression of CD8 beta+, an activation marker of CD8+ cells, was also enhanced in aspirin users.

The most significant discovery, according to Dr. Scarpa, was that aspirin users were more likely to show high expression of CD80 on the surface of their rectal epithelial cells.

CD80 is a molecule that allows T cells to identify the tumor cell as foreign and kill it. Although cancer cells can downregulate their CD80 to avoid detection by T cells, the study suggests that aspirin appears to help foil this strategy by boosting the production of CD80 on the surface of the tumor cells.

The researchers confirmed the clinical findings by showing that aspirin increased CD80 gene expression in lab-cultivated CRC cells.

“We didn’t expect the activation through CD80,” said Dr. Scarpa. “This means that aspirin can act on this very first interaction between the epithelial cell and the CD8+ lymphocyte.”

Overall, these new data suggest that aspirin helps activate the immune system, which helps explain its potential chemopreventive effect in CRC.

However, one puzzling result was that aspirin boosted expression of PD-L1 genes in the CRC cells, said Joanna Davies, DPhil, an immunologist who heads up the San Diego Biomedical Research Institute, San Diego, California, and was not involved in the study.

PD-L1 serves as an “off” switch for patrolling T cells, which protects the tumor cell from being recognized.

“If aspirin is inducing PD-L1 on cancer cells, that is a potential problem,” said Dr. Davies. “An ideal therapy might be the combination of aspirin to enhance the CD8 T cells in the tumor and immune checkpoint blockade to block PD-L1.”

David Kerr, CBE, MD, DSc, agreed that high-dose aspirin plus immunotherapy might be “a wee bit more effective.” However, the combination would be blocked by the economics of drug development: “Will anybody ever do a trial of 10,000 patients to prove that? Not on your nelly,” said Dr. Kerr, professor of cancer medicine at the University of Oxford, Oxford, England.

Despite the small patient numbers in the study, Dr. Kerr felt encouraged by the IMMUNOREACT analysis. “It’s a plausible piece of science and some quite promising work on the tumor immune microenvironment and the effects of aspirin on it,” Dr. Kerr said in a recent commentary for this news organization.

Dr. Scarpa and Dr. Davies had no conflicts of interest to declare.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

A growing body of evidence has shown that people who regularly take aspirin have a lower risk for colorectal cancer (CRC) and are less likely to die if they do develop the disease.

A 2020 meta-analysis, for instance, found that 325 mg of daily aspirin — the typical dose in a single tablet — conferred a 35% reduced risk of developing CRC, and a highly cited The Lancet study from 2010 found that a low dose of daily aspirin reduced the incidence of colon cancer by 24% and colon cancer deaths by 35% over 20 years.

The evidence surrounding aspirin and CRC is so intriguing that more than 70,000 people are currently participating in more than two dozen clinical studies worldwide, putting aspirin through its paces as an intervention in CRC.

But what, exactly, is aspirin doing?

We know that aspirin inhibits cyclooxygenase (COX) enzymes — COX-1 and COX-2, specifically — and that the COX-2 pathway is implicated in the development and progression of CRC, explained Marco Scarpa, MD, PhD, staff surgeon at the University of Padova in Padova, Italy.

“However, the new thing we’ve found is that aspirin may have a direct role in enhancing immunosurveillance,” Dr. Scarpa said in an interview.

In April, Dr. Scarpa’s team published a paper in Cancer describing a mechanism that provides deeper insight into the aspirin-CRC connection.

Dr. Scarpa heads up the IMMUNOREACT study group, a collaboration of dozens of researchers across Italy running studies on immunosurveillance in rectal cancer. In the baseline study, IMMUNOREACT 1, the team created and analyzed a database of records from 238 patients who underwent surgery for CRC at the Azienda Ospedale Università di Padova, Padova, Italy, from 2015 to 2019.

Using the same database, the latest findings from IMMUNOREACT 7 focused on the fate of the 31 patients (13%) who used aspirin regularly.

The researchers found that regular aspirin use did not appear to affect colorectal tumor stage at diagnosis, but tumor grading was significantly lower overall, especially in patients with BRAF mutations. Regular aspirin users were also less likely to have nodal metastases and metastatic lymph nodes, and this effect was more pronounced in patients with proximal (right-sided) colon cancer vs distal (left-sided).

Most notably, IMMUNOREACT 7 revealed that aspirin has beneficial effects on the CRC immune microenvironment.

The team found that aspirin directly boosts the presence of antigens on gastrointestinal epithelial tumor cells, which can direct the body’s immune response to combat the cancer.

At a macro level, the aspirin users in the study were more likely to have high levels of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs). Dr. Scarpa’s team had previously shown that high levels of CD8+ and CD3+ TILs were predictive of successful neoadjuvant therapy in rectal cancer.

Cytotoxic CD8+ T cells are central to the anticancer immune response, and in the latest study, a high ratio of CD8+/CD3+ T cells was more common in aspirin users, suggesting a stronger presence of cancer-killing CD8+ cells. Expression of CD8 beta+, an activation marker of CD8+ cells, was also enhanced in aspirin users.

The most significant discovery, according to Dr. Scarpa, was that aspirin users were more likely to show high expression of CD80 on the surface of their rectal epithelial cells.

CD80 is a molecule that allows T cells to identify the tumor cell as foreign and kill it. Although cancer cells can downregulate their CD80 to avoid detection by T cells, the study suggests that aspirin appears to help foil this strategy by boosting the production of CD80 on the surface of the tumor cells.

The researchers confirmed the clinical findings by showing that aspirin increased CD80 gene expression in lab-cultivated CRC cells.

“We didn’t expect the activation through CD80,” said Dr. Scarpa. “This means that aspirin can act on this very first interaction between the epithelial cell and the CD8+ lymphocyte.”

Overall, these new data suggest that aspirin helps activate the immune system, which helps explain its potential chemopreventive effect in CRC.

However, one puzzling result was that aspirin boosted expression of PD-L1 genes in the CRC cells, said Joanna Davies, DPhil, an immunologist who heads up the San Diego Biomedical Research Institute, San Diego, California, and was not involved in the study.

PD-L1 serves as an “off” switch for patrolling T cells, which protects the tumor cell from being recognized.

“If aspirin is inducing PD-L1 on cancer cells, that is a potential problem,” said Dr. Davies. “An ideal therapy might be the combination of aspirin to enhance the CD8 T cells in the tumor and immune checkpoint blockade to block PD-L1.”

David Kerr, CBE, MD, DSc, agreed that high-dose aspirin plus immunotherapy might be “a wee bit more effective.” However, the combination would be blocked by the economics of drug development: “Will anybody ever do a trial of 10,000 patients to prove that? Not on your nelly,” said Dr. Kerr, professor of cancer medicine at the University of Oxford, Oxford, England.

Despite the small patient numbers in the study, Dr. Kerr felt encouraged by the IMMUNOREACT analysis. “It’s a plausible piece of science and some quite promising work on the tumor immune microenvironment and the effects of aspirin on it,” Dr. Kerr said in a recent commentary for this news organization.

Dr. Scarpa and Dr. Davies had no conflicts of interest to declare.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

A growing body of evidence has shown that people who regularly take aspirin have a lower risk for colorectal cancer (CRC) and are less likely to die if they do develop the disease.

A 2020 meta-analysis, for instance, found that 325 mg of daily aspirin — the typical dose in a single tablet — conferred a 35% reduced risk of developing CRC, and a highly cited The Lancet study from 2010 found that a low dose of daily aspirin reduced the incidence of colon cancer by 24% and colon cancer deaths by 35% over 20 years.

The evidence surrounding aspirin and CRC is so intriguing that more than 70,000 people are currently participating in more than two dozen clinical studies worldwide, putting aspirin through its paces as an intervention in CRC.

But what, exactly, is aspirin doing?

We know that aspirin inhibits cyclooxygenase (COX) enzymes — COX-1 and COX-2, specifically — and that the COX-2 pathway is implicated in the development and progression of CRC, explained Marco Scarpa, MD, PhD, staff surgeon at the University of Padova in Padova, Italy.

“However, the new thing we’ve found is that aspirin may have a direct role in enhancing immunosurveillance,” Dr. Scarpa said in an interview.

In April, Dr. Scarpa’s team published a paper in Cancer describing a mechanism that provides deeper insight into the aspirin-CRC connection.

Dr. Scarpa heads up the IMMUNOREACT study group, a collaboration of dozens of researchers across Italy running studies on immunosurveillance in rectal cancer. In the baseline study, IMMUNOREACT 1, the team created and analyzed a database of records from 238 patients who underwent surgery for CRC at the Azienda Ospedale Università di Padova, Padova, Italy, from 2015 to 2019.

Using the same database, the latest findings from IMMUNOREACT 7 focused on the fate of the 31 patients (13%) who used aspirin regularly.

The researchers found that regular aspirin use did not appear to affect colorectal tumor stage at diagnosis, but tumor grading was significantly lower overall, especially in patients with BRAF mutations. Regular aspirin users were also less likely to have nodal metastases and metastatic lymph nodes, and this effect was more pronounced in patients with proximal (right-sided) colon cancer vs distal (left-sided).

Most notably, IMMUNOREACT 7 revealed that aspirin has beneficial effects on the CRC immune microenvironment.

The team found that aspirin directly boosts the presence of antigens on gastrointestinal epithelial tumor cells, which can direct the body’s immune response to combat the cancer.

At a macro level, the aspirin users in the study were more likely to have high levels of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs). Dr. Scarpa’s team had previously shown that high levels of CD8+ and CD3+ TILs were predictive of successful neoadjuvant therapy in rectal cancer.

Cytotoxic CD8+ T cells are central to the anticancer immune response, and in the latest study, a high ratio of CD8+/CD3+ T cells was more common in aspirin users, suggesting a stronger presence of cancer-killing CD8+ cells. Expression of CD8 beta+, an activation marker of CD8+ cells, was also enhanced in aspirin users.

The most significant discovery, according to Dr. Scarpa, was that aspirin users were more likely to show high expression of CD80 on the surface of their rectal epithelial cells.

CD80 is a molecule that allows T cells to identify the tumor cell as foreign and kill it. Although cancer cells can downregulate their CD80 to avoid detection by T cells, the study suggests that aspirin appears to help foil this strategy by boosting the production of CD80 on the surface of the tumor cells.

The researchers confirmed the clinical findings by showing that aspirin increased CD80 gene expression in lab-cultivated CRC cells.

“We didn’t expect the activation through CD80,” said Dr. Scarpa. “This means that aspirin can act on this very first interaction between the epithelial cell and the CD8+ lymphocyte.”

Overall, these new data suggest that aspirin helps activate the immune system, which helps explain its potential chemopreventive effect in CRC.

However, one puzzling result was that aspirin boosted expression of PD-L1 genes in the CRC cells, said Joanna Davies, DPhil, an immunologist who heads up the San Diego Biomedical Research Institute, San Diego, California, and was not involved in the study.

PD-L1 serves as an “off” switch for patrolling T cells, which protects the tumor cell from being recognized.

“If aspirin is inducing PD-L1 on cancer cells, that is a potential problem,” said Dr. Davies. “An ideal therapy might be the combination of aspirin to enhance the CD8 T cells in the tumor and immune checkpoint blockade to block PD-L1.”

David Kerr, CBE, MD, DSc, agreed that high-dose aspirin plus immunotherapy might be “a wee bit more effective.” However, the combination would be blocked by the economics of drug development: “Will anybody ever do a trial of 10,000 patients to prove that? Not on your nelly,” said Dr. Kerr, professor of cancer medicine at the University of Oxford, Oxford, England.

Despite the small patient numbers in the study, Dr. Kerr felt encouraged by the IMMUNOREACT analysis. “It’s a plausible piece of science and some quite promising work on the tumor immune microenvironment and the effects of aspirin on it,” Dr. Kerr said in a recent commentary for this news organization.

Dr. Scarpa and Dr. Davies had no conflicts of interest to declare.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Margin-controlled surgery for squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) on the lower lip was first performed by Dr. Frederic Mohs on June 30, 1936. Since then, thousands of skin cancer surgeons have refined and adopted the technique. Due to the high cure rate and sparing of normal tissue, Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) has become the gold standard treatment for facial and special-site nonmelanoma skin cancer worldwide. Mohs micrographic surgery is performed on more than 876,000 tumors annually in the United States.¹ Among 3.5 million Americans diagnosed with nonmelanoma skin cancer in 2006, one-quarter were treated with MMS.² In Japan, basal cell carcinoma (BCC) is the most common skin malignancy, with an incidence of 3.34 cases per 100,000 individuals; SCC is the second most common, with an incidence of 2.5 cases per 100,000 individuals.³

The essential element that makes MMS unique is the careful microscopic examination of the entire margin of the removed specimen. Tissue processing is done with careful en face orientation to ensure that circumferential and deep margins are entirely visible. The surgeon interprets the slides and proceeds to remove the additional tumor as necessary. Because the same physician performs both the surgery and the pathologic assessment throughout the procedure, a precise correlation between the microscopic and surgical findings can be made. The surgeon can begin with smaller margins, removing minimal healthy tissue while removing all the cancer cells, which results in the smallest-possible skin defect and the best prognosis for the malignancy (Figure 1).

At the only facility in Japan offering MMS, the lead author (S.S.) has treated 52 lesions with MMS in 46 patients (2020-2022). Of these patients, 40 were White, 5 were Japanese, and 1 was of African descent. In this case series, we present 5 Japanese patients who had BCC treated with MMS.

Case Series

Patient 1—A 50-year-old Japanese woman presented to dermatology with a brown papule on the nasal tip of 1.25 year’s duration (Figure 2). A biopsy revealed infiltrative BCC (Figure 3), and the patient was referred to the dermatology department at a nearby university hospital. Because the BCC was an aggressive variant, wide local excision (WLE) with subsequent flap reconstruction was recommended as well as radiation therapy. The patient learned about MMS through an internet search and refused both options, seeking MMS treatment at our clinic. Although Japanese health insurance does not cover MMS, the patient had supplemental private insurance that did cover the cost. She provided consent to undergo the procedure. Physical examination revealed a 7.5×6-mm, brown-red macule with ill-defined borders on the tip of the nose. We used a 1.5-mm margin for the first stage of MMS (Figure 4A). The frozen section revealed that the tumor had been entirely excised in the first stage, leaving only a 10.5×9-mm skin defect that was reconstructed with a Dufourmentel flap (Figure 4B). No signs of recurrence were noted at 3.5-year follow-up, and the cosmetic outcome was favorable (Figure 4C). National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines recommend a margin greater than 4 mm for infiltrative BCCs⁴; therefore, our technique reduced the total defect by at least 4 mm in a cosmetically sensitive area. The patient also did not need radiation therapy, which reduced morbidity. She continues to be recurrence free at 3.5-year follow-up.

Patient 2—A 63-year-old Japanese man presented to dermatology with a brown macule on the right lower eyelid of 2 years’ duration. A biopsy of the lesion was positive for nodular BCC. After being advised to undergo WLE and extensive reconstruction with plastic surgery, the patient learned of MMS through an internet search and found our clinic. Physical examination revealed a 7×5-mm brown macule on the right lower eyelid. The patient had supplemental private insurance that covered the cost of MMS, and he provided consent for the procedure. A 1.5-mm margin was taken for the first stage, resulting in a 10×8-mm defect superficial to the orbicularis oculi muscle. The frozen section revealed residual tumor exposure in the dermis at the 9- to 10-o’clock position. A second-stage excision was performed to remove an additional 1.5 mm of skin at the 9- to 12-o’clock position with a thin layer of the orbicularis oculi muscle. The subsequent histologic examination revealed no residual BCC, and the final 13×9-mm skin defect was reconstructed with a rotation flap. There were no signs of recurrence at 2.5-year follow-up with an excellent cosmetic outcome.

Patient 3—A 73-year-old Japanese man presented to a local university dermatology clinic with a new papule on the nose. The dermatologist suggested WLE with 4-mm margins and reconstruction of the skin defect 2 weeks later by a plastic surgeon. The patient was not satisfied with the proposed surgical plan, which led him to learn about MMS on the internet; he subsequently found our clinic. Physical examination revealed a 4×3.5-mm brown papule on the tip of the nose. He understood the nature of MMS and chose to pay out-of-pocket because Japanese health insurance did not cover the procedure. We used a 2-mm margin for the first stage, which created a 7.5×7-mm skin defect. The frozen section pathology revealed no residual BCC at the cut surface. The skin defect was reconstructed with a Limberg rhombic flap. There were no signs of recurrence at 1.5-year follow-up with a favorable cosmetic outcome.

Patient 4—A 45-year-old man presented to a dermatology clinic with a papule on the right side of the nose of 1 year’s duration. A biopsy revealed the lesion was a nodular BCC. The dermatologist recommended WLE at a general hospital, but the patient refused after learning about MMS. He subsequently made an appointment with our clinic. Physical examination revealed a 7×4-mm white papule on the right side of the nose. The patient had private insurance that covered the cost of MMS. The first stage was performed with 1.5-mm margins and was clear of residual tumor. A Limberg rhombic flap from the adjacent cheek was used to repair the final 10×7-mm skin defect. There were no signs of recurrence at 1 year and 9 months’ follow-up with a favorable cosmetic outcome.

Patient 5—A 76-year-old Japanese woman presented to a university hospital near Tokyo with a black papule on the left cutaneous lip of 5 years’ duration. A biopsy revealed nodular BCC, and WLE with flap reconstruction was recommended. The patient’s son learned about MMS through internet research and referred her to our clinic. Physical examination revealed a 7×5-mm black papule on the left upper lip. The patient’s private insurance covered the cost of MMS, and she consented to the procedure. We used a 2-mm initial margin, and the immediate frozen section revealed no signs of BCC at the cut surface. The 11×9-mm skin defect was reconstructed with a Limberg rhombic flap. There were no signs of recurrence at 1.5-year follow-up with a favorable cosmetic outcome.

Comment

We presented 5 cases of MMS in Japanese patients with BCC. More than 7000 new cases of nonmelanoma skin cancer occur every year in Japan.³ Only 0.04% of these cases—the 5 cases presented here—were treated with MMS in Japan in 2020 and 2021, in contrast to 25% in the United States in 2006.²

MMS vs Other BCC Treatments—Mohs micrographic surgery offers 2 distinct advantages over conventional excision: an improved cure rate while achieving a smaller final defect size, generally leading to better cosmetic outcomes. Overall 5-year recurrence rates of BCC are 10% for conventional surgical excision vs 1% for MMS, while the recurrence rates for SCC are 8% and 3%, respectively.⁵ A study of well-demarcated BCCs smaller than 2 cm that were treated with MMS with 2-mm increments revealed that 95% of the cases were free of malignancy within a 4-mm margin of the normal-appearing skin surrounding the tumor.⁶ Several articles have reported a 95% cure rate or higher with conventional excision of localized BCC,⁷ but 4- to 5-mm excision margins are required, resulting in a greater skin defect and a lower cure rate compared to MMS.

Aggressive subtypes of BCC have a higher recurrence rate. Rowe et al⁸ reported the following 5-year recurrence rates: 5.6% for MMS, 17.4% for conventional surgical excision, 40.0% for curettage and electrodesiccation, and 9.8% for radiation therapy. Primary BCCs with high-risk histologic subtypes has a 10-year recurrence rate of 4.4% with MMS vs 12.2% with conventional excision.⁹ These findings reveal that MMS yields a better prognosis compared to traditional treatment methods for recurrent BCCs and BCCs of high-risk histologic subtypes.

The primary reason for the excellent cure rate seen in MMS is the ability to perform complete margin assessment. Peripheral and deep en face margin assessment (PDEMA) is crucial in achieving high cure rates with narrow margins. In WLE (Figure 1), vertical sectioning (also known as bread-loafing) does not achieve direct visualization of the entire surgical margin, as this technique only evaluates random sections and does not achieve PDEMA.¹⁰ The bread-loafing method is used almost exclusively in Japan and visualizes only 0.1% of the entire margin compared to 100% with MMS.¹¹ Beyond the superior cure rate, the MMS technique often yields smaller final defects compared to WLE. All 5 of our patients achieved complete tumor removal while sparing more normal tissue compared to conventional WLE, which takes at least a 4-mm margin in all directions.

Barriers to Adopting MMS in Japan—There are many barriers to the broader adoption of MMS in Japan. A guideline of the Japanese Dermatological Association says, MMS “is complicated, requires special training for acquisition, and requires time and labor for implementation of a series of processes, and it has not gained wide acceptance in Japan because of these disadvantages.”³ There currently are no MMS training programs in Japan. We refute this statement from the Japanese Dermatological Association because, in our experience, only 1 surgeon plus a single histotechnician familiar with MMS is sufficient for a facility to offer the procedure (the lead author of this study [S.S.] acts as both the surgeon and the histotechnician). Another misconception among some physicians in Japan is that cancer on ethnically Japanese skin is uniquely suited to excision without microscopic verification of tumor clearance because the borders of the tumors are easily identified, which was based on good cure rates for the excision of well-demarcated pigmented BCCs in a Japanese cohort. This study of a Japanese cohort investigated the specimens with the conventional bread-loafing technique but not with the PDEMA.¹²

Eighty percent (4/5) of our patients presented with nodular BCC, and only 1 required a second stage. In comparison, we also treated 16 White patients with nodular BCC with MMS during the same period, and 31% (5/16) required more than 1 stage, with 1 patient requiring 3 stages. This cohort, however, is too small to demonstrate a statistically significant difference (S.S., unpublished data, 2020-2022).

A study in Singapore reported the postsurgical complication rate and 5-year recurrence rate for 481 tumors (92% BCC and 7.5% SCC). The median follow-up duration after MMS was 36 months, and the recurrence rate was 0.6%. The postsurgical complications included 11 (2.3%) cases with superficial tip necrosis of surgical flaps/grafts, 2 (0.4%) with mild wound dehiscence, 1 (0.2%) with minor surgical site bleeding, and 1 (0.2%) with minor wound infection.¹³ This study supports the notion that MMS is equally effective for Asian patients.

Awareness of MMS in Japan is lacking, and most Japanese dermatologists do not know about the technique. All 5 patients in our case series asked their dermatologists about alternative treatment options and were not offered MMS. In each case, the patients learned of the technique through internet research.

The lack of insurance reimbursement for MMS in Japan is another barrier. Because the national health insurance does not reimburse for MMS, the procedure is relatively unavailable to most Japanese citizens who cannot pay out-of-pocket for the treatment and do not have supplemental insurance. Mohs micrographic surgery may seem expensive compared to WLE followed by repair; however, in the authors’ experience, in Japan, excision without MMS may require general sedation and multiple surgeries to reconstruct larger skin defects, leading to greater morbidity and risk for the patient.

Conclusion

Mohs micrographic surgery in Japan is in its infancy, and further studies showing recurrence rates and long-term prognosis are needed. Such data should help increase awareness of MMS among Japanese physicians as an excellent treatment option for their patients. Furthermore, as Japan becomes more heterogenous as a society and the US Military increases its presence in the region, the need for MMS is likely to increase.

Acknowledgments—We appreciate the proofreading support by Mark Bivens, MBA, MSc (Tokyo, Japan), as well as the technical support from Ben Tallon, MBChB, and Robyn Mason (both in Tauranga, New Zealand) to start MMS at our clinic.

Margin-controlled surgery for squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) on the lower lip was first performed by Dr. Frederic Mohs on June 30, 1936. Since then, thousands of skin cancer surgeons have refined and adopted the technique. Due to the high cure rate and sparing of normal tissue, Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) has become the gold standard treatment for facial and special-site nonmelanoma skin cancer worldwide. Mohs micrographic surgery is performed on more than 876,000 tumors annually in the United States.¹ Among 3.5 million Americans diagnosed with nonmelanoma skin cancer in 2006, one-quarter were treated with MMS.² In Japan, basal cell carcinoma (BCC) is the most common skin malignancy, with an incidence of 3.34 cases per 100,000 individuals; SCC is the second most common, with an incidence of 2.5 cases per 100,000 individuals.³

The essential element that makes MMS unique is the careful microscopic examination of the entire margin of the removed specimen. Tissue processing is done with careful en face orientation to ensure that circumferential and deep margins are entirely visible. The surgeon interprets the slides and proceeds to remove the additional tumor as necessary. Because the same physician performs both the surgery and the pathologic assessment throughout the procedure, a precise correlation between the microscopic and surgical findings can be made. The surgeon can begin with smaller margins, removing minimal healthy tissue while removing all the cancer cells, which results in the smallest-possible skin defect and the best prognosis for the malignancy (Figure 1).

At the only facility in Japan offering MMS, the lead author (S.S.) has treated 52 lesions with MMS in 46 patients (2020-2022). Of these patients, 40 were White, 5 were Japanese, and 1 was of African descent. In this case series, we present 5 Japanese patients who had BCC treated with MMS.

Case Series

Patient 1—A 50-year-old Japanese woman presented to dermatology with a brown papule on the nasal tip of 1.25 year’s duration (Figure 2). A biopsy revealed infiltrative BCC (Figure 3), and the patient was referred to the dermatology department at a nearby university hospital. Because the BCC was an aggressive variant, wide local excision (WLE) with subsequent flap reconstruction was recommended as well as radiation therapy. The patient learned about MMS through an internet search and refused both options, seeking MMS treatment at our clinic. Although Japanese health insurance does not cover MMS, the patient had supplemental private insurance that did cover the cost. She provided consent to undergo the procedure. Physical examination revealed a 7.5×6-mm, brown-red macule with ill-defined borders on the tip of the nose. We used a 1.5-mm margin for the first stage of MMS (Figure 4A). The frozen section revealed that the tumor had been entirely excised in the first stage, leaving only a 10.5×9-mm skin defect that was reconstructed with a Dufourmentel flap (Figure 4B). No signs of recurrence were noted at 3.5-year follow-up, and the cosmetic outcome was favorable (Figure 4C). National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines recommend a margin greater than 4 mm for infiltrative BCCs⁴; therefore, our technique reduced the total defect by at least 4 mm in a cosmetically sensitive area. The patient also did not need radiation therapy, which reduced morbidity. She continues to be recurrence free at 3.5-year follow-up.

Patient 2—A 63-year-old Japanese man presented to dermatology with a brown macule on the right lower eyelid of 2 years’ duration. A biopsy of the lesion was positive for nodular BCC. After being advised to undergo WLE and extensive reconstruction with plastic surgery, the patient learned of MMS through an internet search and found our clinic. Physical examination revealed a 7×5-mm brown macule on the right lower eyelid. The patient had supplemental private insurance that covered the cost of MMS, and he provided consent for the procedure. A 1.5-mm margin was taken for the first stage, resulting in a 10×8-mm defect superficial to the orbicularis oculi muscle. The frozen section revealed residual tumor exposure in the dermis at the 9- to 10-o’clock position. A second-stage excision was performed to remove an additional 1.5 mm of skin at the 9- to 12-o’clock position with a thin layer of the orbicularis oculi muscle. The subsequent histologic examination revealed no residual BCC, and the final 13×9-mm skin defect was reconstructed with a rotation flap. There were no signs of recurrence at 2.5-year follow-up with an excellent cosmetic outcome.

Patient 3—A 73-year-old Japanese man presented to a local university dermatology clinic with a new papule on the nose. The dermatologist suggested WLE with 4-mm margins and reconstruction of the skin defect 2 weeks later by a plastic surgeon. The patient was not satisfied with the proposed surgical plan, which led him to learn about MMS on the internet; he subsequently found our clinic. Physical examination revealed a 4×3.5-mm brown papule on the tip of the nose. He understood the nature of MMS and chose to pay out-of-pocket because Japanese health insurance did not cover the procedure. We used a 2-mm margin for the first stage, which created a 7.5×7-mm skin defect. The frozen section pathology revealed no residual BCC at the cut surface. The skin defect was reconstructed with a Limberg rhombic flap. There were no signs of recurrence at 1.5-year follow-up with a favorable cosmetic outcome.

Patient 4—A 45-year-old man presented to a dermatology clinic with a papule on the right side of the nose of 1 year’s duration. A biopsy revealed the lesion was a nodular BCC. The dermatologist recommended WLE at a general hospital, but the patient refused after learning about MMS. He subsequently made an appointment with our clinic. Physical examination revealed a 7×4-mm white papule on the right side of the nose. The patient had private insurance that covered the cost of MMS. The first stage was performed with 1.5-mm margins and was clear of residual tumor. A Limberg rhombic flap from the adjacent cheek was used to repair the final 10×7-mm skin defect. There were no signs of recurrence at 1 year and 9 months’ follow-up with a favorable cosmetic outcome.

Patient 5—A 76-year-old Japanese woman presented to a university hospital near Tokyo with a black papule on the left cutaneous lip of 5 years’ duration. A biopsy revealed nodular BCC, and WLE with flap reconstruction was recommended. The patient’s son learned about MMS through internet research and referred her to our clinic. Physical examination revealed a 7×5-mm black papule on the left upper lip. The patient’s private insurance covered the cost of MMS, and she consented to the procedure. We used a 2-mm initial margin, and the immediate frozen section revealed no signs of BCC at the cut surface. The 11×9-mm skin defect was reconstructed with a Limberg rhombic flap. There were no signs of recurrence at 1.5-year follow-up with a favorable cosmetic outcome.

Comment

We presented 5 cases of MMS in Japanese patients with BCC. More than 7000 new cases of nonmelanoma skin cancer occur every year in Japan.³ Only 0.04% of these cases—the 5 cases presented here—were treated with MMS in Japan in 2020 and 2021, in contrast to 25% in the United States in 2006.²

MMS vs Other BCC Treatments—Mohs micrographic surgery offers 2 distinct advantages over conventional excision: an improved cure rate while achieving a smaller final defect size, generally leading to better cosmetic outcomes. Overall 5-year recurrence rates of BCC are 10% for conventional surgical excision vs 1% for MMS, while the recurrence rates for SCC are 8% and 3%, respectively.⁵ A study of well-demarcated BCCs smaller than 2 cm that were treated with MMS with 2-mm increments revealed that 95% of the cases were free of malignancy within a 4-mm margin of the normal-appearing skin surrounding the tumor.⁶ Several articles have reported a 95% cure rate or higher with conventional excision of localized BCC,⁷ but 4- to 5-mm excision margins are required, resulting in a greater skin defect and a lower cure rate compared to MMS.

Aggressive subtypes of BCC have a higher recurrence rate. Rowe et al⁸ reported the following 5-year recurrence rates: 5.6% for MMS, 17.4% for conventional surgical excision, 40.0% for curettage and electrodesiccation, and 9.8% for radiation therapy. Primary BCCs with high-risk histologic subtypes has a 10-year recurrence rate of 4.4% with MMS vs 12.2% with conventional excision.⁹ These findings reveal that MMS yields a better prognosis compared to traditional treatment methods for recurrent BCCs and BCCs of high-risk histologic subtypes.

The primary reason for the excellent cure rate seen in MMS is the ability to perform complete margin assessment. Peripheral and deep en face margin assessment (PDEMA) is crucial in achieving high cure rates with narrow margins. In WLE (Figure 1), vertical sectioning (also known as bread-loafing) does not achieve direct visualization of the entire surgical margin, as this technique only evaluates random sections and does not achieve PDEMA.¹⁰ The bread-loafing method is used almost exclusively in Japan and visualizes only 0.1% of the entire margin compared to 100% with MMS.¹¹ Beyond the superior cure rate, the MMS technique often yields smaller final defects compared to WLE. All 5 of our patients achieved complete tumor removal while sparing more normal tissue compared to conventional WLE, which takes at least a 4-mm margin in all directions.

Barriers to Adopting MMS in Japan—There are many barriers to the broader adoption of MMS in Japan. A guideline of the Japanese Dermatological Association says, MMS “is complicated, requires special training for acquisition, and requires time and labor for implementation of a series of processes, and it has not gained wide acceptance in Japan because of these disadvantages.”³ There currently are no MMS training programs in Japan. We refute this statement from the Japanese Dermatological Association because, in our experience, only 1 surgeon plus a single histotechnician familiar with MMS is sufficient for a facility to offer the procedure (the lead author of this study [S.S.] acts as both the surgeon and the histotechnician). Another misconception among some physicians in Japan is that cancer on ethnically Japanese skin is uniquely suited to excision without microscopic verification of tumor clearance because the borders of the tumors are easily identified, which was based on good cure rates for the excision of well-demarcated pigmented BCCs in a Japanese cohort. This study of a Japanese cohort investigated the specimens with the conventional bread-loafing technique but not with the PDEMA.¹²

Eighty percent (4/5) of our patients presented with nodular BCC, and only 1 required a second stage. In comparison, we also treated 16 White patients with nodular BCC with MMS during the same period, and 31% (5/16) required more than 1 stage, with 1 patient requiring 3 stages. This cohort, however, is too small to demonstrate a statistically significant difference (S.S., unpublished data, 2020-2022).

A study in Singapore reported the postsurgical complication rate and 5-year recurrence rate for 481 tumors (92% BCC and 7.5% SCC). The median follow-up duration after MMS was 36 months, and the recurrence rate was 0.6%. The postsurgical complications included 11 (2.3%) cases with superficial tip necrosis of surgical flaps/grafts, 2 (0.4%) with mild wound dehiscence, 1 (0.2%) with minor surgical site bleeding, and 1 (0.2%) with minor wound infection.¹³ This study supports the notion that MMS is equally effective for Asian patients.

Awareness of MMS in Japan is lacking, and most Japanese dermatologists do not know about the technique. All 5 patients in our case series asked their dermatologists about alternative treatment options and were not offered MMS. In each case, the patients learned of the technique through internet research.

The lack of insurance reimbursement for MMS in Japan is another barrier. Because the national health insurance does not reimburse for MMS, the procedure is relatively unavailable to most Japanese citizens who cannot pay out-of-pocket for the treatment and do not have supplemental insurance. Mohs micrographic surgery may seem expensive compared to WLE followed by repair; however, in the authors’ experience, in Japan, excision without MMS may require general sedation and multiple surgeries to reconstruct larger skin defects, leading to greater morbidity and risk for the patient.

Conclusion

Mohs micrographic surgery in Japan is in its infancy, and further studies showing recurrence rates and long-term prognosis are needed. Such data should help increase awareness of MMS among Japanese physicians as an excellent treatment option for their patients. Furthermore, as Japan becomes more heterogenous as a society and the US Military increases its presence in the region, the need for MMS is likely to increase.

Acknowledgments—We appreciate the proofreading support by Mark Bivens, MBA, MSc (Tokyo, Japan), as well as the technical support from Ben Tallon, MBChB, and Robyn Mason (both in Tauranga, New Zealand) to start MMS at our clinic.

Margin-controlled surgery for squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) on the lower lip was first performed by Dr. Frederic Mohs on June 30, 1936. Since then, thousands of skin cancer surgeons have refined and adopted the technique. Due to the high cure rate and sparing of normal tissue, Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) has become the gold standard treatment for facial and special-site nonmelanoma skin cancer worldwide. Mohs micrographic surgery is performed on more than 876,000 tumors annually in the United States.¹ Among 3.5 million Americans diagnosed with nonmelanoma skin cancer in 2006, one-quarter were treated with MMS.² In Japan, basal cell carcinoma (BCC) is the most common skin malignancy, with an incidence of 3.34 cases per 100,000 individuals; SCC is the second most common, with an incidence of 2.5 cases per 100,000 individuals.³

The essential element that makes MMS unique is the careful microscopic examination of the entire margin of the removed specimen. Tissue processing is done with careful en face orientation to ensure that circumferential and deep margins are entirely visible. The surgeon interprets the slides and proceeds to remove the additional tumor as necessary. Because the same physician performs both the surgery and the pathologic assessment throughout the procedure, a precise correlation between the microscopic and surgical findings can be made. The surgeon can begin with smaller margins, removing minimal healthy tissue while removing all the cancer cells, which results in the smallest-possible skin defect and the best prognosis for the malignancy (Figure 1).

At the only facility in Japan offering MMS, the lead author (S.S.) has treated 52 lesions with MMS in 46 patients (2020-2022). Of these patients, 40 were White, 5 were Japanese, and 1 was of African descent. In this case series, we present 5 Japanese patients who had BCC treated with MMS.

Case Series

Patient 1—A 50-year-old Japanese woman presented to dermatology with a brown papule on the nasal tip of 1.25 year’s duration (Figure 2). A biopsy revealed infiltrative BCC (Figure 3), and the patient was referred to the dermatology department at a nearby university hospital. Because the BCC was an aggressive variant, wide local excision (WLE) with subsequent flap reconstruction was recommended as well as radiation therapy. The patient learned about MMS through an internet search and refused both options, seeking MMS treatment at our clinic. Although Japanese health insurance does not cover MMS, the patient had supplemental private insurance that did cover the cost. She provided consent to undergo the procedure. Physical examination revealed a 7.5×6-mm, brown-red macule with ill-defined borders on the tip of the nose. We used a 1.5-mm margin for the first stage of MMS (Figure 4A). The frozen section revealed that the tumor had been entirely excised in the first stage, leaving only a 10.5×9-mm skin defect that was reconstructed with a Dufourmentel flap (Figure 4B). No signs of recurrence were noted at 3.5-year follow-up, and the cosmetic outcome was favorable (Figure 4C). National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines recommend a margin greater than 4 mm for infiltrative BCCs⁴; therefore, our technique reduced the total defect by at least 4 mm in a cosmetically sensitive area. The patient also did not need radiation therapy, which reduced morbidity. She continues to be recurrence free at 3.5-year follow-up.

Patient 2—A 63-year-old Japanese man presented to dermatology with a brown macule on the right lower eyelid of 2 years’ duration. A biopsy of the lesion was positive for nodular BCC. After being advised to undergo WLE and extensive reconstruction with plastic surgery, the patient learned of MMS through an internet search and found our clinic. Physical examination revealed a 7×5-mm brown macule on the right lower eyelid. The patient had supplemental private insurance that covered the cost of MMS, and he provided consent for the procedure. A 1.5-mm margin was taken for the first stage, resulting in a 10×8-mm defect superficial to the orbicularis oculi muscle. The frozen section revealed residual tumor exposure in the dermis at the 9- to 10-o’clock position. A second-stage excision was performed to remove an additional 1.5 mm of skin at the 9- to 12-o’clock position with a thin layer of the orbicularis oculi muscle. The subsequent histologic examination revealed no residual BCC, and the final 13×9-mm skin defect was reconstructed with a rotation flap. There were no signs of recurrence at 2.5-year follow-up with an excellent cosmetic outcome.

Patient 3—A 73-year-old Japanese man presented to a local university dermatology clinic with a new papule on the nose. The dermatologist suggested WLE with 4-mm margins and reconstruction of the skin defect 2 weeks later by a plastic surgeon. The patient was not satisfied with the proposed surgical plan, which led him to learn about MMS on the internet; he subsequently found our clinic. Physical examination revealed a 4×3.5-mm brown papule on the tip of the nose. He understood the nature of MMS and chose to pay out-of-pocket because Japanese health insurance did not cover the procedure. We used a 2-mm margin for the first stage, which created a 7.5×7-mm skin defect. The frozen section pathology revealed no residual BCC at the cut surface. The skin defect was reconstructed with a Limberg rhombic flap. There were no signs of recurrence at 1.5-year follow-up with a favorable cosmetic outcome.

Patient 4—A 45-year-old man presented to a dermatology clinic with a papule on the right side of the nose of 1 year’s duration. A biopsy revealed the lesion was a nodular BCC. The dermatologist recommended WLE at a general hospital, but the patient refused after learning about MMS. He subsequently made an appointment with our clinic. Physical examination revealed a 7×4-mm white papule on the right side of the nose. The patient had private insurance that covered the cost of MMS. The first stage was performed with 1.5-mm margins and was clear of residual tumor. A Limberg rhombic flap from the adjacent cheek was used to repair the final 10×7-mm skin defect. There were no signs of recurrence at 1 year and 9 months’ follow-up with a favorable cosmetic outcome.

Patient 5—A 76-year-old Japanese woman presented to a university hospital near Tokyo with a black papule on the left cutaneous lip of 5 years’ duration. A biopsy revealed nodular BCC, and WLE with flap reconstruction was recommended. The patient’s son learned about MMS through internet research and referred her to our clinic. Physical examination revealed a 7×5-mm black papule on the left upper lip. The patient’s private insurance covered the cost of MMS, and she consented to the procedure. We used a 2-mm initial margin, and the immediate frozen section revealed no signs of BCC at the cut surface. The 11×9-mm skin defect was reconstructed with a Limberg rhombic flap. There were no signs of recurrence at 1.5-year follow-up with a favorable cosmetic outcome.

Comment

We presented 5 cases of MMS in Japanese patients with BCC. More than 7000 new cases of nonmelanoma skin cancer occur every year in Japan.³ Only 0.04% of these cases—the 5 cases presented here—were treated with MMS in Japan in 2020 and 2021, in contrast to 25% in the United States in 2006.²

MMS vs Other BCC Treatments—Mohs micrographic surgery offers 2 distinct advantages over conventional excision: an improved cure rate while achieving a smaller final defect size, generally leading to better cosmetic outcomes. Overall 5-year recurrence rates of BCC are 10% for conventional surgical excision vs 1% for MMS, while the recurrence rates for SCC are 8% and 3%, respectively.⁵ A study of well-demarcated BCCs smaller than 2 cm that were treated with MMS with 2-mm increments revealed that 95% of the cases were free of malignancy within a 4-mm margin of the normal-appearing skin surrounding the tumor.⁶ Several articles have reported a 95% cure rate or higher with conventional excision of localized BCC,⁷ but 4- to 5-mm excision margins are required, resulting in a greater skin defect and a lower cure rate compared to MMS.

Aggressive subtypes of BCC have a higher recurrence rate. Rowe et al⁸ reported the following 5-year recurrence rates: 5.6% for MMS, 17.4% for conventional surgical excision, 40.0% for curettage and electrodesiccation, and 9.8% for radiation therapy. Primary BCCs with high-risk histologic subtypes has a 10-year recurrence rate of 4.4% with MMS vs 12.2% with conventional excision.⁹ These findings reveal that MMS yields a better prognosis compared to traditional treatment methods for recurrent BCCs and BCCs of high-risk histologic subtypes.

The primary reason for the excellent cure rate seen in MMS is the ability to perform complete margin assessment. Peripheral and deep en face margin assessment (PDEMA) is crucial in achieving high cure rates with narrow margins. In WLE (Figure 1), vertical sectioning (also known as bread-loafing) does not achieve direct visualization of the entire surgical margin, as this technique only evaluates random sections and does not achieve PDEMA.¹⁰ The bread-loafing method is used almost exclusively in Japan and visualizes only 0.1% of the entire margin compared to 100% with MMS.¹¹ Beyond the superior cure rate, the MMS technique often yields smaller final defects compared to WLE. All 5 of our patients achieved complete tumor removal while sparing more normal tissue compared to conventional WLE, which takes at least a 4-mm margin in all directions.

Barriers to Adopting MMS in Japan—There are many barriers to the broader adoption of MMS in Japan. A guideline of the Japanese Dermatological Association says, MMS “is complicated, requires special training for acquisition, and requires time and labor for implementation of a series of processes, and it has not gained wide acceptance in Japan because of these disadvantages.”³ There currently are no MMS training programs in Japan. We refute this statement from the Japanese Dermatological Association because, in our experience, only 1 surgeon plus a single histotechnician familiar with MMS is sufficient for a facility to offer the procedure (the lead author of this study [S.S.] acts as both the surgeon and the histotechnician). Another misconception among some physicians in Japan is that cancer on ethnically Japanese skin is uniquely suited to excision without microscopic verification of tumor clearance because the borders of the tumors are easily identified, which was based on good cure rates for the excision of well-demarcated pigmented BCCs in a Japanese cohort. This study of a Japanese cohort investigated the specimens with the conventional bread-loafing technique but not with the PDEMA.¹²

Eighty percent (4/5) of our patients presented with nodular BCC, and only 1 required a second stage. In comparison, we also treated 16 White patients with nodular BCC with MMS during the same period, and 31% (5/16) required more than 1 stage, with 1 patient requiring 3 stages. This cohort, however, is too small to demonstrate a statistically significant difference (S.S., unpublished data, 2020-2022).

A study in Singapore reported the postsurgical complication rate and 5-year recurrence rate for 481 tumors (92% BCC and 7.5% SCC). The median follow-up duration after MMS was 36 months, and the recurrence rate was 0.6%. The postsurgical complications included 11 (2.3%) cases with superficial tip necrosis of surgical flaps/grafts, 2 (0.4%) with mild wound dehiscence, 1 (0.2%) with minor surgical site bleeding, and 1 (0.2%) with minor wound infection.¹³ This study supports the notion that MMS is equally effective for Asian patients.

Awareness of MMS in Japan is lacking, and most Japanese dermatologists do not know about the technique. All 5 patients in our case series asked their dermatologists about alternative treatment options and were not offered MMS. In each case, the patients learned of the technique through internet research.

The lack of insurance reimbursement for MMS in Japan is another barrier. Because the national health insurance does not reimburse for MMS, the procedure is relatively unavailable to most Japanese citizens who cannot pay out-of-pocket for the treatment and do not have supplemental insurance. Mohs micrographic surgery may seem expensive compared to WLE followed by repair; however, in the authors’ experience, in Japan, excision without MMS may require general sedation and multiple surgeries to reconstruct larger skin defects, leading to greater morbidity and risk for the patient.

Conclusion

Mohs micrographic surgery in Japan is in its infancy, and further studies showing recurrence rates and long-term prognosis are needed. Such data should help increase awareness of MMS among Japanese physicians as an excellent treatment option for their patients. Furthermore, as Japan becomes more heterogenous as a society and the US Military increases its presence in the region, the need for MMS is likely to increase.

Acknowledgments—We appreciate the proofreading support by Mark Bivens, MBA, MSc (Tokyo, Japan), as well as the technical support from Ben Tallon, MBChB, and Robyn Mason (both in Tauranga, New Zealand) to start MMS at our clinic.

A recent report by this news organization of a vitamin D clinical practice guideline released by the Endocrine Society in June triggered an outpouring of objections in the comments section from doctors and other readers.

A society press release listed the key new recommendations on the use of vitamin D supplementation and screening to reduce disease risks in individuals without established indications for such treatment or testing:

• For healthy adults younger than 75, no supplementation at doses above the recommended dietary intakes.
• Populations that may benefit from higher doses include: children and adolescents 18 and younger to prevent rickets and to reduce risk for respiratory infection, individuals 75 and older to possibly lower mortality risk, “pregnant people” to potentially reduce various risks, and people with prediabetes to potentially reduce risk of progression.
• No routine testing for 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels because outcome-specific benefits based on those levels have not been identified (including screening in people with dark complexion or obesity).
• Based on insufficient evidence, the panel could not determine specific blood-level thresholds for 25-hydroxyvitamin D for adequacy or for target levels for disease prevention.

This news organization covered the guideline release and simultaneous presentation at the Endocrine Society annual meeting. In response to the coverage, more than 200 doctors and other readers expressed concerns about the guideline, and some said outright that they would not follow it (readers quoted below are identified by the usernames they registered with on the website).

One reader who posted as Dr. Joseph Destefano went so far as to call the guideline “dangerous” and “almost ... evil.” Ironically, some readers attacked this news organization, thinking that the coverage implied an endorsement, rather than a news report.
 

Ignores Potential Benefits

Although the guideline is said to be for people who are “otherwise healthy” (other than the exceptions noted above), many readers were concerned that the recommendations ignore the potential benefits of supplementation for other health conditions relevant to patients and other populations.

“They address issues dealing only with endocrinology and bone health for the most part,” Dr. Emilio Gonzalez wrote. “However, vitamin D insufficiency and deficiency are not rare, and they impact the treatment of autoimmune disorders, chronic pain control, immunosuppression, cancer prevention, cardiovascular health, etc. There is plenty of literature in this regard.”

“They make these claims as if quality studies contradicting their guidelines have not been out there for years,” Dr. Brian Batcheldor said. “What about the huge demographic with diseases that impact intestinal absorption, eg, Crohn’s and celiac disease, cystic fibrosis, and ulcerative colitis? What about the one in nine that now have autoimmune diseases still awaiting diagnosis? What about night workers or anyone with more restricted access to sun exposure? How about those whose cultural or religious dress code limit skin exposure?”

The latter group was also mentioned in a post from Dr. Eve Finkelstein who said, “They don’t take into account women who are totally covered for religious reasons. They have no skin other than part of their face exposed. It does not make sense not to supplement them. Ignoring women’s health needs seems to be the norm.”

“I don’t think they considered the oral health effects of vitamin D deficiency,” pointed out commenter Corie Lewis. “Excess dental calculus (tartar) from excess calcium/phosphate in saliva significantly increases an individual’s periodontal disease risks (gum disease), and low saliva calcium/phosphate increases dental caries (cavities) risks, which generally indicates an imbalance of the oral microbiome. Vitamin D can help create balance and reduce those oral health risks.”

Noted Kimberley Morris-Windisch, “Having worked in rheumatology and pain for most of my career, I have seen too many people benefit from correcting deficiency of vitamin D. To ignore this is to miss opportunities to improve patient health.” Furthermore, “I find it unlikely that it would only improve mortality after age 75. That makes no sense.”

“Also,” she added, “what is the number [needed] to harm? In my 25 years, I have seen vitamin D toxicity once and an excessively high level without symptoms one other time.”

“WHY? Just WHY?” lamented Anne Kinchen. “Low levels in pregnant women have long-term effects on the developing fetus — higher and earlier rates of osteopenia in female children, weaker immune systems overall. There are just SO many reasons to test. These guidelines for no testing are absurd!”
 

No Screening, No Need for Decision-Making?

Several readers questioned the society’s rationale for not screening, as expressed by session moderator Clifford J. Rosen, MD, director of Clinical and Translational Research and senior scientist at Maine Medical Center Research Institute, Scarborough, Maine.

“When clinicians measure vitamin D, then they’re forced to make a decision what to do about it,” Dr. Rosen said. “That’s where questions about the levels come in. And that’s a big problem. So what the panel’s saying is, don’t screen. ... This really gets to the heart of the issue, because we have no data that there’s anything about screening that allows us to improve quality of life. ... Screening is probably not worthwhile in any age group.”

Among the reader comments in this regard:

“So misguided. Don’t look because we don’t know what do to with data. That’s the message this article exposes. The recommendation is do nothing. But, doing nothing IS an action — not a default.” (Lisa Tracy)

“So now, you will not screen for vitamin D because you do not know what to do next? See a naturopathic doctor — we know what to do next!” (Dr. Joyce Roberson)

“Gee, how do we treat it? ... What to do? Sounds incompetent at minimum. I suspect it’s vital, easy, and inexpensive ... so hide it.” (Holly Kohley)

“Just because we do not know is not a rationale for not testing. The opposite should be done.” (Dr. JJ Gold)
 

Caters to Industry?

Many commentators intimated that pharma and/or insurance company considerations played a role in the recommendations. Their comments included the following:

“I have been under the impression people do routine checkups to verify there are no hidden problems. If only some testing is done, the probability of not finding a problem is huge. ... Preventive healthcare should be looking for something to prevent instead of waiting until they can cure it. Of course, it might come back to ‘follow the money.’ It is much more profitable to diagnose and treat than it is to prevent.” (Grace Kyser)

“The current irrational ‘recommendation’ gives insurance companies an excuse to deny ALL tests of vitamin D — even if the proper code is supplied. The result is — people suffer. This recommendation does harm!” (Dr JJ Gold)

“Essentially, they are saying let’s not screen ‘healthy’ individuals and ignore it altogether. Better to wait till they’re old, pregnant, or already sick and diagnosed with a disease. This is the problem with the healthcare in this country.” (Brittney Lesher)

“Until allopathic medicine stops waiting for severe symptoms to develop before even screening for potential health problems, the most expensive healthcare (aka, sick care) system in the world will continue to be content to focus on medical emergencies and ignore prevention. ...” (Dean Raffelock)

“Don’t test? Are you kidding me? Especially when people are supplementing? That is akin to taking a blood pressure medication without measuring blood pressures! ... Don’t test? Don’t supplement? ... I have only one explanation for such nonsense: Pharma lives off sick people, not healthy ones.” (Georg Schlomka)

On a somewhat conciliatory and pointed note, Dr Francesca Luna-Rudin commented, “I would like to remind all of my fellow physicians that recommendations should be regarded as just that, a ‘recommendation.’ As doctors, we can use guidelines and recommendations in our practice, but if a new one is presented that does not make sense or would lead to harm based on our education and training, then we are not bound to follow it!”

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

A recent report by this news organization of a vitamin D clinical practice guideline released by the Endocrine Society in June triggered an outpouring of objections in the comments section from doctors and other readers.

A society press release listed the key new recommendations on the use of vitamin D supplementation and screening to reduce disease risks in individuals without established indications for such treatment or testing:

• For healthy adults younger than 75, no supplementation at doses above the recommended dietary intakes.
• Populations that may benefit from higher doses include: children and adolescents 18 and younger to prevent rickets and to reduce risk for respiratory infection, individuals 75 and older to possibly lower mortality risk, “pregnant people” to potentially reduce various risks, and people with prediabetes to potentially reduce risk of progression.
• No routine testing for 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels because outcome-specific benefits based on those levels have not been identified (including screening in people with dark complexion or obesity).
• Based on insufficient evidence, the panel could not determine specific blood-level thresholds for 25-hydroxyvitamin D for adequacy or for target levels for disease prevention.

This news organization covered the guideline release and simultaneous presentation at the Endocrine Society annual meeting. In response to the coverage, more than 200 doctors and other readers expressed concerns about the guideline, and some said outright that they would not follow it (readers quoted below are identified by the usernames they registered with on the website).

One reader who posted as Dr. Joseph Destefano went so far as to call the guideline “dangerous” and “almost ... evil.” Ironically, some readers attacked this news organization, thinking that the coverage implied an endorsement, rather than a news report.
 

Ignores Potential Benefits

Although the guideline is said to be for people who are “otherwise healthy” (other than the exceptions noted above), many readers were concerned that the recommendations ignore the potential benefits of supplementation for other health conditions relevant to patients and other populations.

“They address issues dealing only with endocrinology and bone health for the most part,” Dr. Emilio Gonzalez wrote. “However, vitamin D insufficiency and deficiency are not rare, and they impact the treatment of autoimmune disorders, chronic pain control, immunosuppression, cancer prevention, cardiovascular health, etc. There is plenty of literature in this regard.”

“They make these claims as if quality studies contradicting their guidelines have not been out there for years,” Dr. Brian Batcheldor said. “What about the huge demographic with diseases that impact intestinal absorption, eg, Crohn’s and celiac disease, cystic fibrosis, and ulcerative colitis? What about the one in nine that now have autoimmune diseases still awaiting diagnosis? What about night workers or anyone with more restricted access to sun exposure? How about those whose cultural or religious dress code limit skin exposure?”

The latter group was also mentioned in a post from Dr. Eve Finkelstein who said, “They don’t take into account women who are totally covered for religious reasons. They have no skin other than part of their face exposed. It does not make sense not to supplement them. Ignoring women’s health needs seems to be the norm.”

“I don’t think they considered the oral health effects of vitamin D deficiency,” pointed out commenter Corie Lewis. “Excess dental calculus (tartar) from excess calcium/phosphate in saliva significantly increases an individual’s periodontal disease risks (gum disease), and low saliva calcium/phosphate increases dental caries (cavities) risks, which generally indicates an imbalance of the oral microbiome. Vitamin D can help create balance and reduce those oral health risks.”

Noted Kimberley Morris-Windisch, “Having worked in rheumatology and pain for most of my career, I have seen too many people benefit from correcting deficiency of vitamin D. To ignore this is to miss opportunities to improve patient health.” Furthermore, “I find it unlikely that it would only improve mortality after age 75. That makes no sense.”

“Also,” she added, “what is the number [needed] to harm? In my 25 years, I have seen vitamin D toxicity once and an excessively high level without symptoms one other time.”

“WHY? Just WHY?” lamented Anne Kinchen. “Low levels in pregnant women have long-term effects on the developing fetus — higher and earlier rates of osteopenia in female children, weaker immune systems overall. There are just SO many reasons to test. These guidelines for no testing are absurd!”
 

No Screening, No Need for Decision-Making?

Several readers questioned the society’s rationale for not screening, as expressed by session moderator Clifford J. Rosen, MD, director of Clinical and Translational Research and senior scientist at Maine Medical Center Research Institute, Scarborough, Maine.

“When clinicians measure vitamin D, then they’re forced to make a decision what to do about it,” Dr. Rosen said. “That’s where questions about the levels come in. And that’s a big problem. So what the panel’s saying is, don’t screen. ... This really gets to the heart of the issue, because we have no data that there’s anything about screening that allows us to improve quality of life. ... Screening is probably not worthwhile in any age group.”

Among the reader comments in this regard:

“So misguided. Don’t look because we don’t know what do to with data. That’s the message this article exposes. The recommendation is do nothing. But, doing nothing IS an action — not a default.” (Lisa Tracy)

“So now, you will not screen for vitamin D because you do not know what to do next? See a naturopathic doctor — we know what to do next!” (Dr. Joyce Roberson)

“Gee, how do we treat it? ... What to do? Sounds incompetent at minimum. I suspect it’s vital, easy, and inexpensive ... so hide it.” (Holly Kohley)

“Just because we do not know is not a rationale for not testing. The opposite should be done.” (Dr. JJ Gold)
 

Caters to Industry?

Many commentators intimated that pharma and/or insurance company considerations played a role in the recommendations. Their comments included the following:

“I have been under the impression people do routine checkups to verify there are no hidden problems. If only some testing is done, the probability of not finding a problem is huge. ... Preventive healthcare should be looking for something to prevent instead of waiting until they can cure it. Of course, it might come back to ‘follow the money.’ It is much more profitable to diagnose and treat than it is to prevent.” (Grace Kyser)

“The current irrational ‘recommendation’ gives insurance companies an excuse to deny ALL tests of vitamin D — even if the proper code is supplied. The result is — people suffer. This recommendation does harm!” (Dr JJ Gold)

“Essentially, they are saying let’s not screen ‘healthy’ individuals and ignore it altogether. Better to wait till they’re old, pregnant, or already sick and diagnosed with a disease. This is the problem with the healthcare in this country.” (Brittney Lesher)

“Until allopathic medicine stops waiting for severe symptoms to develop before even screening for potential health problems, the most expensive healthcare (aka, sick care) system in the world will continue to be content to focus on medical emergencies and ignore prevention. ...” (Dean Raffelock)

“Don’t test? Are you kidding me? Especially when people are supplementing? That is akin to taking a blood pressure medication without measuring blood pressures! ... Don’t test? Don’t supplement? ... I have only one explanation for such nonsense: Pharma lives off sick people, not healthy ones.” (Georg Schlomka)

On a somewhat conciliatory and pointed note, Dr Francesca Luna-Rudin commented, “I would like to remind all of my fellow physicians that recommendations should be regarded as just that, a ‘recommendation.’ As doctors, we can use guidelines and recommendations in our practice, but if a new one is presented that does not make sense or would lead to harm based on our education and training, then we are not bound to follow it!”

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

A recent report by this news organization of a vitamin D clinical practice guideline released by the Endocrine Society in June triggered an outpouring of objections in the comments section from doctors and other readers.

A society press release listed the key new recommendations on the use of vitamin D supplementation and screening to reduce disease risks in individuals without established indications for such treatment or testing:

• For healthy adults younger than 75, no supplementation at doses above the recommended dietary intakes.
• Populations that may benefit from higher doses include: children and adolescents 18 and younger to prevent rickets and to reduce risk for respiratory infection, individuals 75 and older to possibly lower mortality risk, “pregnant people” to potentially reduce various risks, and people with prediabetes to potentially reduce risk of progression.
• No routine testing for 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels because outcome-specific benefits based on those levels have not been identified (including screening in people with dark complexion or obesity).
• Based on insufficient evidence, the panel could not determine specific blood-level thresholds for 25-hydroxyvitamin D for adequacy or for target levels for disease prevention.

This news organization covered the guideline release and simultaneous presentation at the Endocrine Society annual meeting. In response to the coverage, more than 200 doctors and other readers expressed concerns about the guideline, and some said outright that they would not follow it (readers quoted below are identified by the usernames they registered with on the website).

One reader who posted as Dr. Joseph Destefano went so far as to call the guideline “dangerous” and “almost ... evil.” Ironically, some readers attacked this news organization, thinking that the coverage implied an endorsement, rather than a news report.
 

Ignores Potential Benefits

Although the guideline is said to be for people who are “otherwise healthy” (other than the exceptions noted above), many readers were concerned that the recommendations ignore the potential benefits of supplementation for other health conditions relevant to patients and other populations.

“They address issues dealing only with endocrinology and bone health for the most part,” Dr. Emilio Gonzalez wrote. “However, vitamin D insufficiency and deficiency are not rare, and they impact the treatment of autoimmune disorders, chronic pain control, immunosuppression, cancer prevention, cardiovascular health, etc. There is plenty of literature in this regard.”

“They make these claims as if quality studies contradicting their guidelines have not been out there for years,” Dr. Brian Batcheldor said. “What about the huge demographic with diseases that impact intestinal absorption, eg, Crohn’s and celiac disease, cystic fibrosis, and ulcerative colitis? What about the one in nine that now have autoimmune diseases still awaiting diagnosis? What about night workers or anyone with more restricted access to sun exposure? How about those whose cultural or religious dress code limit skin exposure?”

The latter group was also mentioned in a post from Dr. Eve Finkelstein who said, “They don’t take into account women who are totally covered for religious reasons. They have no skin other than part of their face exposed. It does not make sense not to supplement them. Ignoring women’s health needs seems to be the norm.”

“I don’t think they considered the oral health effects of vitamin D deficiency,” pointed out commenter Corie Lewis. “Excess dental calculus (tartar) from excess calcium/phosphate in saliva significantly increases an individual’s periodontal disease risks (gum disease), and low saliva calcium/phosphate increases dental caries (cavities) risks, which generally indicates an imbalance of the oral microbiome. Vitamin D can help create balance and reduce those oral health risks.”

Noted Kimberley Morris-Windisch, “Having worked in rheumatology and pain for most of my career, I have seen too many people benefit from correcting deficiency of vitamin D. To ignore this is to miss opportunities to improve patient health.” Furthermore, “I find it unlikely that it would only improve mortality after age 75. That makes no sense.”

“Also,” she added, “what is the number [needed] to harm? In my 25 years, I have seen vitamin D toxicity once and an excessively high level without symptoms one other time.”

“WHY? Just WHY?” lamented Anne Kinchen. “Low levels in pregnant women have long-term effects on the developing fetus — higher and earlier rates of osteopenia in female children, weaker immune systems overall. There are just SO many reasons to test. These guidelines for no testing are absurd!”
 

No Screening, No Need for Decision-Making?

Several readers questioned the society’s rationale for not screening, as expressed by session moderator Clifford J. Rosen, MD, director of Clinical and Translational Research and senior scientist at Maine Medical Center Research Institute, Scarborough, Maine.

“When clinicians measure vitamin D, then they’re forced to make a decision what to do about it,” Dr. Rosen said. “That’s where questions about the levels come in. And that’s a big problem. So what the panel’s saying is, don’t screen. ... This really gets to the heart of the issue, because we have no data that there’s anything about screening that allows us to improve quality of life. ... Screening is probably not worthwhile in any age group.”

Among the reader comments in this regard:

“So misguided. Don’t look because we don’t know what do to with data. That’s the message this article exposes. The recommendation is do nothing. But, doing nothing IS an action — not a default.” (Lisa Tracy)

“So now, you will not screen for vitamin D because you do not know what to do next? See a naturopathic doctor — we know what to do next!” (Dr. Joyce Roberson)

“Gee, how do we treat it? ... What to do? Sounds incompetent at minimum. I suspect it’s vital, easy, and inexpensive ... so hide it.” (Holly Kohley)

“Just because we do not know is not a rationale for not testing. The opposite should be done.” (Dr. JJ Gold)
 

Caters to Industry?

Many commentators intimated that pharma and/or insurance company considerations played a role in the recommendations. Their comments included the following:

“I have been under the impression people do routine checkups to verify there are no hidden problems. If only some testing is done, the probability of not finding a problem is huge. ... Preventive healthcare should be looking for something to prevent instead of waiting until they can cure it. Of course, it might come back to ‘follow the money.’ It is much more profitable to diagnose and treat than it is to prevent.” (Grace Kyser)

“The current irrational ‘recommendation’ gives insurance companies an excuse to deny ALL tests of vitamin D — even if the proper code is supplied. The result is — people suffer. This recommendation does harm!” (Dr JJ Gold)

“Essentially, they are saying let’s not screen ‘healthy’ individuals and ignore it altogether. Better to wait till they’re old, pregnant, or already sick and diagnosed with a disease. This is the problem with the healthcare in this country.” (Brittney Lesher)

“Until allopathic medicine stops waiting for severe symptoms to develop before even screening for potential health problems, the most expensive healthcare (aka, sick care) system in the world will continue to be content to focus on medical emergencies and ignore prevention. ...” (Dean Raffelock)

“Don’t test? Are you kidding me? Especially when people are supplementing? That is akin to taking a blood pressure medication without measuring blood pressures! ... Don’t test? Don’t supplement? ... I have only one explanation for such nonsense: Pharma lives off sick people, not healthy ones.” (Georg Schlomka)

On a somewhat conciliatory and pointed note, Dr Francesca Luna-Rudin commented, “I would like to remind all of my fellow physicians that recommendations should be regarded as just that, a ‘recommendation.’ As doctors, we can use guidelines and recommendations in our practice, but if a new one is presented that does not make sense or would lead to harm based on our education and training, then we are not bound to follow it!”

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

Parkinson’s disease (PD) and dementia with Lewy bodies are currently defined by clinical features, which can be heterogeneous and do not capture the presymptomatic phase of neurodegeneration.

Recent advances have enabled the detection of misfolded and aggregated alpha-synuclein protein (synucleinopathy) — a key pathologic feature of these diseases — allowing for earlier and more accurate diagnosis. This has led two international research groups to propose a major shift from a clinical to a biological definition of the disease.

Both groups emphasized the detection of alpha-synuclein through recently developed seed amplification assays as a key diagnostic and staging tool, although they differ in their approaches and criteria.
 

NSD-ISS

A team led by Tanya Simuni, MD, with Northwestern University, Chicago, proposed a biological definition that combines PD and dementia with Lewy bodies under the term neuronal alpha-synuclein disease (NSD).

NSD is defined by the presence during life of pathologic neuronal alpha-synuclein (S, the first biological anchor) in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), regardless of the presence of any specific clinical syndrome. Individuals with pathologic neuronal alpha-synuclein aggregates are at a high risk for dopaminergic neuronal dysfunction (D, the second key biological anchor).

Dr. Simuni and colleagues also proposed the NSD integrated staging system (NSD-ISS) rooted in the S and D biological anchors coupled with the degree of functional impairment caused by clinical signs or symptoms.

Stages 0-1 occur without signs or symptoms and are defined by the presence of pathogenic variants in the SNCA gene (stage 0), S alone (stage 1A), or S and D (stage 1B).

The presence of clinical manifestations marks the transition to stage 2 and beyond, with stage 2 characterized by subtle signs or symptoms but without functional impairment. Stages 2B-6 require both S and D and stage-specific increases in functional impairment.

“An advantage of the NSD-ISS will be to reduce heterogeneity in clinical trials by requiring biological consistency within the study cohort rather than identifying study participants on the basis of clinical criteria for Parkinson’s disease and dementia with Lewy bodies,” Dr. Simuni and colleagues pointed out in a position paper describing the NSD-ISS published online earlier this year in The Lancet Neurology.

The NSD-ISS will “evolve to include the incorporation of data-driven definitions of stage-specific functional anchors and additional biomarkers as they emerge and are validated.”

For now, the NSD-ISS is intended for research use only and not in the clinic.
 

The SynNeurGe Research Diagnostic Criteria

Separately, a team led by Anthony Lang, MD, with the Krembil Brain Institute at Toronto Western Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, proposed the SynNeurGe biological classification of PD.

Described in a companion paper published online in The Lancet Neurology, their “S-N-G” classification emphasizes the important interactions between three biological factors that contribute to disease: The presence or absence of pathologic alpha-synuclein (S) in tissues or CSF, an evidence of underlying neurodegeneration (N) defined by neuroimaging procedures, and the documentation of pathogenic gene variants (G) that cause or strongly predispose to PD.

These three components link to a clinical component, defined either by a single high-specificity clinical feature or by multiple lower-specificity clinical features.

As with the NSD-ISS, the SynNeurGe model is intended for research purposes only and is not ready for immediate application in the clinic.

Both groups acknowledged the need for studies to test and validate the proposed classification systems.
 

Caveats, Cautionary Notes

Adopting a biological definition of PD would represent a shift as the field has prompted considerable discussion and healthy debate.

Commenting for this news organization, James Beck, PhD, chief scientific officer at the Parkinson’s Foundation, said the principle behind the proposed classifications is where “the field needs to go.”

“Right now, people with Parkinson’s take too long to get a confirmed diagnosis of their disease, and despite best efforts, clinicians can get it wrong, not diagnosing people or maybe misdiagnosing people,” Dr. Beck said. “Moving to a biological basis, where we have better certainty, is going to be really important.”

Beck noted that the NSD-ISS “goes all in on alpha-synuclein,” which does play a big role in PD, but added, “I don’t know if I want to declare a winner after the first heat. There are other biomarkers that are coming to fruition but still need validation, and alpha-synuclein may be just one of many to help determine whether someone has Parkinson’s disease or not.”

Un Kang, MD, director of translational research at the Fresco Institute for Parkinson’s & Movement Disorders at NYU Langone Health, New York City, told this news organization that alpha-synuclein has “very high diagnostic accuracy” but cautioned that the adoption of a biological definition for PD would not usurp a clinical diagnosis.

“We need both,” Dr. Kang said. “But knowing the underlying pathology is important for earlier diagnosis and testing of potential therapies to treat the molecular pathology. If a patient doesn’t have abnormal synuclein, you may be treating the wrong disease.”

The coauthors of recent JAMA Neurology perspective said the biological definitions are “exciting, but there is “wisdom” in tapping the brakes when attempting to establish a biological definition and classification system for PD.

“Although these two proposals represent significant steps forward, a sprint toward the finish line may not be wise,” wrote Njideka U. Okubadejo, MD, with University of Lagos, Nigeria; Joseph Jankovic, MD, with Baylor College of Medicine, Houston; and Michael S. Okun, MD, with University of Florida Health, Gainesville, Florida.

“A process that embraces inclusivity and weaves in evolving technological advancements will be important. Who benefits if implementation of a biologically based staging system for PD is hurried?” they continued.

The proposals rely heavily on alpha-synuclein assays, they noted, which currently require subjective interpretation and lack extensive validation. They also worry that the need for expensive and, in some regions, unattainable biological fluids (CSF) or imaging studies (dopamine transporter scan) may limit global access to both PD trials and future therapeutics.

They also worry about retiring the name Parkinson’s disease.

“Beyond the historical importance of the term Parkinson disease, any classification that proposes abandoning the two words in either clinical or research descriptions could have unintended global repercussions,” Dr. Okubadejo, Dr. Jankovic, and Dr. Okun cautioned.

Dr. Beck told this news organization he’s spoken to clinicians at meetings about this and “no one really likes the idea” of retiring the term Parkinson’s disease.

Frederick Ketchum, MD, and Nathaniel Chin, MD, with University of Wisconsin–Madison, worry about the “lived” experience of the asymptomatic patient after receiving a biological diagnosis.

“Biological diagnosis might enable effective prognostication and treatment in the future but will substantially change the experience of illness for patients now as new frameworks are slowly adopted and knowledge is gained,” they said in a correspondence in The Lancet Neurology.

“Understanding and addressing this lived experience remains a core task for health professionals and must be made central as we begin an era in which neurological diseases are redefined on a biological basis,” Dr. Ketchum and Dr. Chin advised.

A complete list of agencies that supported this work and author disclosures are available with the original articles. Dr. Beck and Dr. Kang had no relevant disclosures.

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

Parkinson’s disease (PD) and dementia with Lewy bodies are currently defined by clinical features, which can be heterogeneous and do not capture the presymptomatic phase of neurodegeneration.

Recent advances have enabled the detection of misfolded and aggregated alpha-synuclein protein (synucleinopathy) — a key pathologic feature of these diseases — allowing for earlier and more accurate diagnosis. This has led two international research groups to propose a major shift from a clinical to a biological definition of the disease.

Both groups emphasized the detection of alpha-synuclein through recently developed seed amplification assays as a key diagnostic and staging tool, although they differ in their approaches and criteria.
 

NSD-ISS

A team led by Tanya Simuni, MD, with Northwestern University, Chicago, proposed a biological definition that combines PD and dementia with Lewy bodies under the term neuronal alpha-synuclein disease (NSD).

NSD is defined by the presence during life of pathologic neuronal alpha-synuclein (S, the first biological anchor) in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), regardless of the presence of any specific clinical syndrome. Individuals with pathologic neuronal alpha-synuclein aggregates are at a high risk for dopaminergic neuronal dysfunction (D, the second key biological anchor).

Dr. Simuni and colleagues also proposed the NSD integrated staging system (NSD-ISS) rooted in the S and D biological anchors coupled with the degree of functional impairment caused by clinical signs or symptoms.

Stages 0-1 occur without signs or symptoms and are defined by the presence of pathogenic variants in the SNCA gene (stage 0), S alone (stage 1A), or S and D (stage 1B).

The presence of clinical manifestations marks the transition to stage 2 and beyond, with stage 2 characterized by subtle signs or symptoms but without functional impairment. Stages 2B-6 require both S and D and stage-specific increases in functional impairment.

“An advantage of the NSD-ISS will be to reduce heterogeneity in clinical trials by requiring biological consistency within the study cohort rather than identifying study participants on the basis of clinical criteria for Parkinson’s disease and dementia with Lewy bodies,” Dr. Simuni and colleagues pointed out in a position paper describing the NSD-ISS published online earlier this year in The Lancet Neurology.

The NSD-ISS will “evolve to include the incorporation of data-driven definitions of stage-specific functional anchors and additional biomarkers as they emerge and are validated.”

For now, the NSD-ISS is intended for research use only and not in the clinic.
 

The SynNeurGe Research Diagnostic Criteria

Separately, a team led by Anthony Lang, MD, with the Krembil Brain Institute at Toronto Western Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, proposed the SynNeurGe biological classification of PD.

Described in a companion paper published online in The Lancet Neurology, their “S-N-G” classification emphasizes the important interactions between three biological factors that contribute to disease: The presence or absence of pathologic alpha-synuclein (S) in tissues or CSF, an evidence of underlying neurodegeneration (N) defined by neuroimaging procedures, and the documentation of pathogenic gene variants (G) that cause or strongly predispose to PD.

These three components link to a clinical component, defined either by a single high-specificity clinical feature or by multiple lower-specificity clinical features.

As with the NSD-ISS, the SynNeurGe model is intended for research purposes only and is not ready for immediate application in the clinic.

Both groups acknowledged the need for studies to test and validate the proposed classification systems.
 

Caveats, Cautionary Notes

Adopting a biological definition of PD would represent a shift as the field has prompted considerable discussion and healthy debate.

Commenting for this news organization, James Beck, PhD, chief scientific officer at the Parkinson’s Foundation, said the principle behind the proposed classifications is where “the field needs to go.”

“Right now, people with Parkinson’s take too long to get a confirmed diagnosis of their disease, and despite best efforts, clinicians can get it wrong, not diagnosing people or maybe misdiagnosing people,” Dr. Beck said. “Moving to a biological basis, where we have better certainty, is going to be really important.”

Beck noted that the NSD-ISS “goes all in on alpha-synuclein,” which does play a big role in PD, but added, “I don’t know if I want to declare a winner after the first heat. There are other biomarkers that are coming to fruition but still need validation, and alpha-synuclein may be just one of many to help determine whether someone has Parkinson’s disease or not.”

Un Kang, MD, director of translational research at the Fresco Institute for Parkinson’s & Movement Disorders at NYU Langone Health, New York City, told this news organization that alpha-synuclein has “very high diagnostic accuracy” but cautioned that the adoption of a biological definition for PD would not usurp a clinical diagnosis.

“We need both,” Dr. Kang said. “But knowing the underlying pathology is important for earlier diagnosis and testing of potential therapies to treat the molecular pathology. If a patient doesn’t have abnormal synuclein, you may be treating the wrong disease.”

The coauthors of recent JAMA Neurology perspective said the biological definitions are “exciting, but there is “wisdom” in tapping the brakes when attempting to establish a biological definition and classification system for PD.

“Although these two proposals represent significant steps forward, a sprint toward the finish line may not be wise,” wrote Njideka U. Okubadejo, MD, with University of Lagos, Nigeria; Joseph Jankovic, MD, with Baylor College of Medicine, Houston; and Michael S. Okun, MD, with University of Florida Health, Gainesville, Florida.

“A process that embraces inclusivity and weaves in evolving technological advancements will be important. Who benefits if implementation of a biologically based staging system for PD is hurried?” they continued.

The proposals rely heavily on alpha-synuclein assays, they noted, which currently require subjective interpretation and lack extensive validation. They also worry that the need for expensive and, in some regions, unattainable biological fluids (CSF) or imaging studies (dopamine transporter scan) may limit global access to both PD trials and future therapeutics.

They also worry about retiring the name Parkinson’s disease.

“Beyond the historical importance of the term Parkinson disease, any classification that proposes abandoning the two words in either clinical or research descriptions could have unintended global repercussions,” Dr. Okubadejo, Dr. Jankovic, and Dr. Okun cautioned.

Dr. Beck told this news organization he’s spoken to clinicians at meetings about this and “no one really likes the idea” of retiring the term Parkinson’s disease.

Frederick Ketchum, MD, and Nathaniel Chin, MD, with University of Wisconsin–Madison, worry about the “lived” experience of the asymptomatic patient after receiving a biological diagnosis.

“Biological diagnosis might enable effective prognostication and treatment in the future but will substantially change the experience of illness for patients now as new frameworks are slowly adopted and knowledge is gained,” they said in a correspondence in The Lancet Neurology.

“Understanding and addressing this lived experience remains a core task for health professionals and must be made central as we begin an era in which neurological diseases are redefined on a biological basis,” Dr. Ketchum and Dr. Chin advised.

A complete list of agencies that supported this work and author disclosures are available with the original articles. Dr. Beck and Dr. Kang had no relevant disclosures.

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

Parkinson’s disease (PD) and dementia with Lewy bodies are currently defined by clinical features, which can be heterogeneous and do not capture the presymptomatic phase of neurodegeneration.

Recent advances have enabled the detection of misfolded and aggregated alpha-synuclein protein (synucleinopathy) — a key pathologic feature of these diseases — allowing for earlier and more accurate diagnosis. This has led two international research groups to propose a major shift from a clinical to a biological definition of the disease.

Both groups emphasized the detection of alpha-synuclein through recently developed seed amplification assays as a key diagnostic and staging tool, although they differ in their approaches and criteria.
 

NSD-ISS

A team led by Tanya Simuni, MD, with Northwestern University, Chicago, proposed a biological definition that combines PD and dementia with Lewy bodies under the term neuronal alpha-synuclein disease (NSD).

NSD is defined by the presence during life of pathologic neuronal alpha-synuclein (S, the first biological anchor) in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), regardless of the presence of any specific clinical syndrome. Individuals with pathologic neuronal alpha-synuclein aggregates are at a high risk for dopaminergic neuronal dysfunction (D, the second key biological anchor).

Dr. Simuni and colleagues also proposed the NSD integrated staging system (NSD-ISS) rooted in the S and D biological anchors coupled with the degree of functional impairment caused by clinical signs or symptoms.

Stages 0-1 occur without signs or symptoms and are defined by the presence of pathogenic variants in the SNCA gene (stage 0), S alone (stage 1A), or S and D (stage 1B).

The presence of clinical manifestations marks the transition to stage 2 and beyond, with stage 2 characterized by subtle signs or symptoms but without functional impairment. Stages 2B-6 require both S and D and stage-specific increases in functional impairment.

“An advantage of the NSD-ISS will be to reduce heterogeneity in clinical trials by requiring biological consistency within the study cohort rather than identifying study participants on the basis of clinical criteria for Parkinson’s disease and dementia with Lewy bodies,” Dr. Simuni and colleagues pointed out in a position paper describing the NSD-ISS published online earlier this year in The Lancet Neurology.

The NSD-ISS will “evolve to include the incorporation of data-driven definitions of stage-specific functional anchors and additional biomarkers as they emerge and are validated.”

For now, the NSD-ISS is intended for research use only and not in the clinic.
 

The SynNeurGe Research Diagnostic Criteria

Separately, a team led by Anthony Lang, MD, with the Krembil Brain Institute at Toronto Western Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, proposed the SynNeurGe biological classification of PD.

Described in a companion paper published online in The Lancet Neurology, their “S-N-G” classification emphasizes the important interactions between three biological factors that contribute to disease: The presence or absence of pathologic alpha-synuclein (S) in tissues or CSF, an evidence of underlying neurodegeneration (N) defined by neuroimaging procedures, and the documentation of pathogenic gene variants (G) that cause or strongly predispose to PD.

These three components link to a clinical component, defined either by a single high-specificity clinical feature or by multiple lower-specificity clinical features.

As with the NSD-ISS, the SynNeurGe model is intended for research purposes only and is not ready for immediate application in the clinic.

Both groups acknowledged the need for studies to test and validate the proposed classification systems.
 

Caveats, Cautionary Notes

Adopting a biological definition of PD would represent a shift as the field has prompted considerable discussion and healthy debate.

Commenting for this news organization, James Beck, PhD, chief scientific officer at the Parkinson’s Foundation, said the principle behind the proposed classifications is where “the field needs to go.”

“Right now, people with Parkinson’s take too long to get a confirmed diagnosis of their disease, and despite best efforts, clinicians can get it wrong, not diagnosing people or maybe misdiagnosing people,” Dr. Beck said. “Moving to a biological basis, where we have better certainty, is going to be really important.”

Beck noted that the NSD-ISS “goes all in on alpha-synuclein,” which does play a big role in PD, but added, “I don’t know if I want to declare a winner after the first heat. There are other biomarkers that are coming to fruition but still need validation, and alpha-synuclein may be just one of many to help determine whether someone has Parkinson’s disease or not.”

Un Kang, MD, director of translational research at the Fresco Institute for Parkinson’s & Movement Disorders at NYU Langone Health, New York City, told this news organization that alpha-synuclein has “very high diagnostic accuracy” but cautioned that the adoption of a biological definition for PD would not usurp a clinical diagnosis.

“We need both,” Dr. Kang said. “But knowing the underlying pathology is important for earlier diagnosis and testing of potential therapies to treat the molecular pathology. If a patient doesn’t have abnormal synuclein, you may be treating the wrong disease.”

The coauthors of recent JAMA Neurology perspective said the biological definitions are “exciting, but there is “wisdom” in tapping the brakes when attempting to establish a biological definition and classification system for PD.

“Although these two proposals represent significant steps forward, a sprint toward the finish line may not be wise,” wrote Njideka U. Okubadejo, MD, with University of Lagos, Nigeria; Joseph Jankovic, MD, with Baylor College of Medicine, Houston; and Michael S. Okun, MD, with University of Florida Health, Gainesville, Florida.

“A process that embraces inclusivity and weaves in evolving technological advancements will be important. Who benefits if implementation of a biologically based staging system for PD is hurried?” they continued.

The proposals rely heavily on alpha-synuclein assays, they noted, which currently require subjective interpretation and lack extensive validation. They also worry that the need for expensive and, in some regions, unattainable biological fluids (CSF) or imaging studies (dopamine transporter scan) may limit global access to both PD trials and future therapeutics.

They also worry about retiring the name Parkinson’s disease.

“Beyond the historical importance of the term Parkinson disease, any classification that proposes abandoning the two words in either clinical or research descriptions could have unintended global repercussions,” Dr. Okubadejo, Dr. Jankovic, and Dr. Okun cautioned.

Dr. Beck told this news organization he’s spoken to clinicians at meetings about this and “no one really likes the idea” of retiring the term Parkinson’s disease.

Frederick Ketchum, MD, and Nathaniel Chin, MD, with University of Wisconsin–Madison, worry about the “lived” experience of the asymptomatic patient after receiving a biological diagnosis.

“Biological diagnosis might enable effective prognostication and treatment in the future but will substantially change the experience of illness for patients now as new frameworks are slowly adopted and knowledge is gained,” they said in a correspondence in The Lancet Neurology.

“Understanding and addressing this lived experience remains a core task for health professionals and must be made central as we begin an era in which neurological diseases are redefined on a biological basis,” Dr. Ketchum and Dr. Chin advised.

A complete list of agencies that supported this work and author disclosures are available with the original articles. Dr. Beck and Dr. Kang had no relevant disclosures.

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

TOPLINE:

New-onset atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with a substantially higher risk for all-cause dementia in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODOLOGY:

• Studies suggest a potential link between AF and dementia in the broader population, but evidence is scarce in people with diabetes, who are at increased risk for both conditions.
• This longitudinal observational study assessed the association between new-onset AF and dementia in 22,989 patients with T2D (median age at enrollment, 61.0 years; 62.3% men; 86.3% White individuals).
• New-onset AF was identified through hospital admission records using the International Classification of Diseases – 9th Revision (ICD-9) and ICD-10 codes, and dementia cases were identified using an algorithm developed by the UK Biobank.
• Time-varying Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to determine the association between incident dementia and new-onset AF.

TAKEAWAY:

• Over a median follow-up duration of about 12 years, 844 patients developed all-cause dementia, 342 were diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease, and 246 had vascular dementia.
• Patients with incident AF had a higher risk of developing all-cause dementia (hazard ratio [HR], 2.15; 95% CI, 1.80-2.57), Alzheimer’s disease (HR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.06-1.96), and vascular dementia (HR, 3.11; 95% CI, 2.32-4.17) than those without incident AF.
• The results are independent of common dementia risk factors, such as sociodemographic characteristics and lifestyle factors.
• The mean time intervals from the onset of AF to all-cause dementia, Alzheimer’s disease and vascular dementia were 2.95, 2.81, and 3.37 years, respectively.

IN PRACTICE:

“AF is a significant risk factor for dementia in patients with type 2 diabetes, suggesting the importance of timely and effective treatment of AF, such as early rhythm control strategies and anticoagulant use, in preventing dementia among this demographic,” the authors wrote.
 

SOURCE:

The study, led by Ying Zhou, PhD, School of Public Health, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China, was published online in Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism.

LIMITATIONS:

The study could not explore the link between different AF subtypes and dementia owing to its small sample size. The effects of AF treatment on the risk for dementia in patients with type 2 diabetes were not considered because of lack of information. The mostly White study population limits the generalizability of the findings to other races and ethnicities.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the National Social Science Fund of China. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

New-onset atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with a substantially higher risk for all-cause dementia in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODOLOGY:

• Studies suggest a potential link between AF and dementia in the broader population, but evidence is scarce in people with diabetes, who are at increased risk for both conditions.
• This longitudinal observational study assessed the association between new-onset AF and dementia in 22,989 patients with T2D (median age at enrollment, 61.0 years; 62.3% men; 86.3% White individuals).
• New-onset AF was identified through hospital admission records using the International Classification of Diseases – 9th Revision (ICD-9) and ICD-10 codes, and dementia cases were identified using an algorithm developed by the UK Biobank.
• Time-varying Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to determine the association between incident dementia and new-onset AF.

TAKEAWAY:

• Over a median follow-up duration of about 12 years, 844 patients developed all-cause dementia, 342 were diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease, and 246 had vascular dementia.
• Patients with incident AF had a higher risk of developing all-cause dementia (hazard ratio [HR], 2.15; 95% CI, 1.80-2.57), Alzheimer’s disease (HR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.06-1.96), and vascular dementia (HR, 3.11; 95% CI, 2.32-4.17) than those without incident AF.
• The results are independent of common dementia risk factors, such as sociodemographic characteristics and lifestyle factors.
• The mean time intervals from the onset of AF to all-cause dementia, Alzheimer’s disease and vascular dementia were 2.95, 2.81, and 3.37 years, respectively.

IN PRACTICE:

“AF is a significant risk factor for dementia in patients with type 2 diabetes, suggesting the importance of timely and effective treatment of AF, such as early rhythm control strategies and anticoagulant use, in preventing dementia among this demographic,” the authors wrote.
 

SOURCE:

The study, led by Ying Zhou, PhD, School of Public Health, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China, was published online in Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism.

LIMITATIONS:

The study could not explore the link between different AF subtypes and dementia owing to its small sample size. The effects of AF treatment on the risk for dementia in patients with type 2 diabetes were not considered because of lack of information. The mostly White study population limits the generalizability of the findings to other races and ethnicities.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the National Social Science Fund of China. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

New-onset atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with a substantially higher risk for all-cause dementia in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODOLOGY:

• Studies suggest a potential link between AF and dementia in the broader population, but evidence is scarce in people with diabetes, who are at increased risk for both conditions.
• This longitudinal observational study assessed the association between new-onset AF and dementia in 22,989 patients with T2D (median age at enrollment, 61.0 years; 62.3% men; 86.3% White individuals).
• New-onset AF was identified through hospital admission records using the International Classification of Diseases – 9th Revision (ICD-9) and ICD-10 codes, and dementia cases were identified using an algorithm developed by the UK Biobank.
• Time-varying Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to determine the association between incident dementia and new-onset AF.

TAKEAWAY:

• Over a median follow-up duration of about 12 years, 844 patients developed all-cause dementia, 342 were diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease, and 246 had vascular dementia.
• Patients with incident AF had a higher risk of developing all-cause dementia (hazard ratio [HR], 2.15; 95% CI, 1.80-2.57), Alzheimer’s disease (HR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.06-1.96), and vascular dementia (HR, 3.11; 95% CI, 2.32-4.17) than those without incident AF.
• The results are independent of common dementia risk factors, such as sociodemographic characteristics and lifestyle factors.
• The mean time intervals from the onset of AF to all-cause dementia, Alzheimer’s disease and vascular dementia were 2.95, 2.81, and 3.37 years, respectively.

IN PRACTICE:

“AF is a significant risk factor for dementia in patients with type 2 diabetes, suggesting the importance of timely and effective treatment of AF, such as early rhythm control strategies and anticoagulant use, in preventing dementia among this demographic,” the authors wrote.
 

SOURCE:

The study, led by Ying Zhou, PhD, School of Public Health, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China, was published online in Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism.

LIMITATIONS:

The study could not explore the link between different AF subtypes and dementia owing to its small sample size. The effects of AF treatment on the risk for dementia in patients with type 2 diabetes were not considered because of lack of information. The mostly White study population limits the generalizability of the findings to other races and ethnicities.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the National Social Science Fund of China. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

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