User login
Diet, exercise don’t improve breast cancer-related lymphedema
Neither weight-loss nor home-based exercise programs improved outcomes for women with breast cancer–related lymphedema, investigators found.
Among 351 overweight breast cancer survivors with breast cancer–related lymphedema (BCRL), there were no significant differences at 1 year of follow-up in the percentage difference between limb volumes from baseline, regardless of whether patients had been randomly assigned to a home-based exercise program, weight-loss program, combined interventions, or to a facility-based lymphedema care–only program, reported Kathryn H. Schmitz, PhD, MPH, from Penn State University, Hershey, and colleagues.
“Our findings are contradictory to our own clinical experience, as we have received reports from patients with BCRL who have noted improvements in their lymphedema symptoms after weight loss. Possible explanations for this mismatch of clinical experience and empirical evidence include alterations in aspects of lymphedema, such as tissue composition, that remain challenging to measure with high reliability and validity,” they wrote in JAMA Oncology.
The findings suggest that breast cancer survivors with lymphedema may benefit more from facility-based exercise than home-based lymphedema care, the investigators wrote.
In the randomized Women in Steady Exercise Research (WISER) Survivor trial, the investigators enrolled 351 overweight breast cancer survivors with lymphedema and randomly assigned them to a 52-week home-based exercise program consisting of strength and resistance training twice per week and 180 minutes per week of walking (87 patients), a weight-loss program consisting of 20 weeks of meal replacement and 1 year of lifestyle-modification counseling (87 patients), a combination of the two programs (87 patients), or a facility-based lymphedema care program only (90 patients, control group).
The primary endpoint was originally intended to be lymphedema clinical events such as incident flare-ups or cellulitis, but was changed to the percentage of interlimb difference (that is, between the affected and unaffected limb) because of a reduction in funding that led to a reduction in the sample size.
There were no significant between-group differences at either baseline or 12 months in either the percentage of interlimb differences or in absolute differences, the investigators found.
Women assigned to the diet and exercise intervention lost significantly more weight than controls (P less than .001), but saw significant improvements in fitness only in the maximum amount of weight they could lift (P = .01).
“Multiple national organizations currently advise overweight women to achieve and maintain a healthy weight to improve the outcomes of previously diagnosed BCRL. The empirical evidence base, including data from the present study, does not support the assertion that weight loss as an intervention improves the hallmark measure of BCRL severity, percentage of interlimb difference,” Dr. Schmitz and colleagues wrote.
They acknowledged that BCRL is a long-term condition and that the 1-year follow-up period may have been too short to observe lymphedema exacerbation or related clinical events; therefore, the results may not apply to women with severe lymphedema, such as those with interlimb differences of greater than 30%.
The study was supported by various National Institutes of Health grants. Compression garments were supplied by BSN Medical. Dr. Schmitz reported receiving grants from the National Cancer Institute and nonfinancial support from BSN Medical during the conduct of the study, personal fees from Klose Training outside the submitted work, and a licensed patent for a Strength After Breast Cancer course.
SOURCE: Schmitz KH et al. JAMA Oncol. 2019 Aug 15. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.2109..
Neither weight-loss nor home-based exercise programs improved outcomes for women with breast cancer–related lymphedema, investigators found.
Among 351 overweight breast cancer survivors with breast cancer–related lymphedema (BCRL), there were no significant differences at 1 year of follow-up in the percentage difference between limb volumes from baseline, regardless of whether patients had been randomly assigned to a home-based exercise program, weight-loss program, combined interventions, or to a facility-based lymphedema care–only program, reported Kathryn H. Schmitz, PhD, MPH, from Penn State University, Hershey, and colleagues.
“Our findings are contradictory to our own clinical experience, as we have received reports from patients with BCRL who have noted improvements in their lymphedema symptoms after weight loss. Possible explanations for this mismatch of clinical experience and empirical evidence include alterations in aspects of lymphedema, such as tissue composition, that remain challenging to measure with high reliability and validity,” they wrote in JAMA Oncology.
The findings suggest that breast cancer survivors with lymphedema may benefit more from facility-based exercise than home-based lymphedema care, the investigators wrote.
In the randomized Women in Steady Exercise Research (WISER) Survivor trial, the investigators enrolled 351 overweight breast cancer survivors with lymphedema and randomly assigned them to a 52-week home-based exercise program consisting of strength and resistance training twice per week and 180 minutes per week of walking (87 patients), a weight-loss program consisting of 20 weeks of meal replacement and 1 year of lifestyle-modification counseling (87 patients), a combination of the two programs (87 patients), or a facility-based lymphedema care program only (90 patients, control group).
The primary endpoint was originally intended to be lymphedema clinical events such as incident flare-ups or cellulitis, but was changed to the percentage of interlimb difference (that is, between the affected and unaffected limb) because of a reduction in funding that led to a reduction in the sample size.
There were no significant between-group differences at either baseline or 12 months in either the percentage of interlimb differences or in absolute differences, the investigators found.
Women assigned to the diet and exercise intervention lost significantly more weight than controls (P less than .001), but saw significant improvements in fitness only in the maximum amount of weight they could lift (P = .01).
“Multiple national organizations currently advise overweight women to achieve and maintain a healthy weight to improve the outcomes of previously diagnosed BCRL. The empirical evidence base, including data from the present study, does not support the assertion that weight loss as an intervention improves the hallmark measure of BCRL severity, percentage of interlimb difference,” Dr. Schmitz and colleagues wrote.
They acknowledged that BCRL is a long-term condition and that the 1-year follow-up period may have been too short to observe lymphedema exacerbation or related clinical events; therefore, the results may not apply to women with severe lymphedema, such as those with interlimb differences of greater than 30%.
The study was supported by various National Institutes of Health grants. Compression garments were supplied by BSN Medical. Dr. Schmitz reported receiving grants from the National Cancer Institute and nonfinancial support from BSN Medical during the conduct of the study, personal fees from Klose Training outside the submitted work, and a licensed patent for a Strength After Breast Cancer course.
SOURCE: Schmitz KH et al. JAMA Oncol. 2019 Aug 15. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.2109..
Neither weight-loss nor home-based exercise programs improved outcomes for women with breast cancer–related lymphedema, investigators found.
Among 351 overweight breast cancer survivors with breast cancer–related lymphedema (BCRL), there were no significant differences at 1 year of follow-up in the percentage difference between limb volumes from baseline, regardless of whether patients had been randomly assigned to a home-based exercise program, weight-loss program, combined interventions, or to a facility-based lymphedema care–only program, reported Kathryn H. Schmitz, PhD, MPH, from Penn State University, Hershey, and colleagues.
“Our findings are contradictory to our own clinical experience, as we have received reports from patients with BCRL who have noted improvements in their lymphedema symptoms after weight loss. Possible explanations for this mismatch of clinical experience and empirical evidence include alterations in aspects of lymphedema, such as tissue composition, that remain challenging to measure with high reliability and validity,” they wrote in JAMA Oncology.
The findings suggest that breast cancer survivors with lymphedema may benefit more from facility-based exercise than home-based lymphedema care, the investigators wrote.
In the randomized Women in Steady Exercise Research (WISER) Survivor trial, the investigators enrolled 351 overweight breast cancer survivors with lymphedema and randomly assigned them to a 52-week home-based exercise program consisting of strength and resistance training twice per week and 180 minutes per week of walking (87 patients), a weight-loss program consisting of 20 weeks of meal replacement and 1 year of lifestyle-modification counseling (87 patients), a combination of the two programs (87 patients), or a facility-based lymphedema care program only (90 patients, control group).
The primary endpoint was originally intended to be lymphedema clinical events such as incident flare-ups or cellulitis, but was changed to the percentage of interlimb difference (that is, between the affected and unaffected limb) because of a reduction in funding that led to a reduction in the sample size.
There were no significant between-group differences at either baseline or 12 months in either the percentage of interlimb differences or in absolute differences, the investigators found.
Women assigned to the diet and exercise intervention lost significantly more weight than controls (P less than .001), but saw significant improvements in fitness only in the maximum amount of weight they could lift (P = .01).
“Multiple national organizations currently advise overweight women to achieve and maintain a healthy weight to improve the outcomes of previously diagnosed BCRL. The empirical evidence base, including data from the present study, does not support the assertion that weight loss as an intervention improves the hallmark measure of BCRL severity, percentage of interlimb difference,” Dr. Schmitz and colleagues wrote.
They acknowledged that BCRL is a long-term condition and that the 1-year follow-up period may have been too short to observe lymphedema exacerbation or related clinical events; therefore, the results may not apply to women with severe lymphedema, such as those with interlimb differences of greater than 30%.
The study was supported by various National Institutes of Health grants. Compression garments were supplied by BSN Medical. Dr. Schmitz reported receiving grants from the National Cancer Institute and nonfinancial support from BSN Medical during the conduct of the study, personal fees from Klose Training outside the submitted work, and a licensed patent for a Strength After Breast Cancer course.
SOURCE: Schmitz KH et al. JAMA Oncol. 2019 Aug 15. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.2109..
FROM JAMA ONCOLOGY
Recurrence score may help predict chemotherapy benefit in grade 3 breast cancers
For patients with grade 3 breast cancer, recurrence score testing may have significant clinical value in determining which patients are likely to benefit from chemotherapy, according to investigators who recently reported results of a large, national cohort study.
Among patients with pN0/1 grade 3 invasive breast cancers, about one-third had a low recurrence score, which was associated with no early benefit from the addition of chemotherapy, wrote senior study author Jane E. Brock, MBBS, PhD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and coauthors.
Incorporating recurrence score testing into clinical decision making may help “tailor treatment recommendations” for patients with grade 3 invasive breast cancers, Dr. Brock and coauthors reported in JCO Precision Oncology.
“To our knowledge, these findings represent the largest analysis to date of the potential impact of recurrence score on the outcomes and management of grade 3 tumors, and suggest that the assumption that all pT1c/2 pN0/1, [estrogen receptor–positive] histopathologic grade 3 tumors are high risk and will consequently benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy may be unmerited,” the Dr. Brock and coauthors wrote in the report.
These findings “fill a gap” as the final results of the RxPONDER trial are awaited, according to investigators. Specifically, RxPONDER is designed to evaluate the potential benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy in pN0/1 patients with intermediate range recurrence scores.
Moreover, the findings complement the reported results of the TAILORx trial, which showed that chemotherapy does not provide a benefit in most low and intermediate recurrence score tumors, which suggests some patients may safely omit chemotherapy without affecting outcomes, the investigators added.
The present analysis included a total of 30,864 grade 3 breast cancers from the National Cancer Database, which represents more than 70% of new diagnoses in the United States, according to investigators.
Testing using the 21-gene Oncotype DX Breast Recurrence Score increased over time for pN0 cancers, from 53% in 2010 to 72% in 2015, investigators found; likewise, for pN1 cancers, testing increased from 16% to 36% over that time period. They also found that, overall, 30% of pN0 and 27.1% of pN1 cancers had a low recurrence score.
Adjuvant chemotherapy was not associated with any additional benefit in patients with low recurrence scores, according to the analysis.
For patients with intermediate recurrence scores, chemotherapy was linked to improved survival in univariable analyses, but following adjustment for clinical and pathologic characteristics, intermediate scores were not predictive of a significant overall survival benefit, investigators found.
By contrast, chemotherapy was associated with additional benefit in patients with high recurrence scores in both univariable and multivariable analyses.
For patients with pN0 grade 3 disease and high recurrence score, chemotherapy was linked to significantly improved overall survival, compared with that of patients who received no chemotherapy (hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-0.90; P = .01), while a similar survival benefit was reported among patients with pN1 disease and high recurrence scores (HR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.13-0.47; P less than .001).
These results suggest that recurrence score may aid in determining the anticipated benefit of chemotherapy in this heterogeneous cohort of patients, investigators wrote.
“Furthermore, our findings show significant variability in national patterns of recurrence testing and chemotherapy use for grade 3 disease, which suggests opportunities for more comprehensive national guidelines for recurrence score testing in high-grade tumors,” they concluded.
Dr. Brock reported no potential conflicts of interest. Coauthors provided disclosures related to AstraZeneca, Blade Therapeutics, Eisai, EMD Serono, Galena Biopharma, Genentech, Genomic Health, Novartis, Novartis Institutes for BioMedical Research, Peregrine, Puma Biotechnology, resTORbio, Roche, and others.
SOURCE: Brock JE et al. JCO Precis Oncol. 2019 Aug 14. doi: 10.1200/PO.19.00029.
For patients with grade 3 breast cancer, recurrence score testing may have significant clinical value in determining which patients are likely to benefit from chemotherapy, according to investigators who recently reported results of a large, national cohort study.
Among patients with pN0/1 grade 3 invasive breast cancers, about one-third had a low recurrence score, which was associated with no early benefit from the addition of chemotherapy, wrote senior study author Jane E. Brock, MBBS, PhD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and coauthors.
Incorporating recurrence score testing into clinical decision making may help “tailor treatment recommendations” for patients with grade 3 invasive breast cancers, Dr. Brock and coauthors reported in JCO Precision Oncology.
“To our knowledge, these findings represent the largest analysis to date of the potential impact of recurrence score on the outcomes and management of grade 3 tumors, and suggest that the assumption that all pT1c/2 pN0/1, [estrogen receptor–positive] histopathologic grade 3 tumors are high risk and will consequently benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy may be unmerited,” the Dr. Brock and coauthors wrote in the report.
These findings “fill a gap” as the final results of the RxPONDER trial are awaited, according to investigators. Specifically, RxPONDER is designed to evaluate the potential benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy in pN0/1 patients with intermediate range recurrence scores.
Moreover, the findings complement the reported results of the TAILORx trial, which showed that chemotherapy does not provide a benefit in most low and intermediate recurrence score tumors, which suggests some patients may safely omit chemotherapy without affecting outcomes, the investigators added.
The present analysis included a total of 30,864 grade 3 breast cancers from the National Cancer Database, which represents more than 70% of new diagnoses in the United States, according to investigators.
Testing using the 21-gene Oncotype DX Breast Recurrence Score increased over time for pN0 cancers, from 53% in 2010 to 72% in 2015, investigators found; likewise, for pN1 cancers, testing increased from 16% to 36% over that time period. They also found that, overall, 30% of pN0 and 27.1% of pN1 cancers had a low recurrence score.
Adjuvant chemotherapy was not associated with any additional benefit in patients with low recurrence scores, according to the analysis.
For patients with intermediate recurrence scores, chemotherapy was linked to improved survival in univariable analyses, but following adjustment for clinical and pathologic characteristics, intermediate scores were not predictive of a significant overall survival benefit, investigators found.
By contrast, chemotherapy was associated with additional benefit in patients with high recurrence scores in both univariable and multivariable analyses.
For patients with pN0 grade 3 disease and high recurrence score, chemotherapy was linked to significantly improved overall survival, compared with that of patients who received no chemotherapy (hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-0.90; P = .01), while a similar survival benefit was reported among patients with pN1 disease and high recurrence scores (HR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.13-0.47; P less than .001).
These results suggest that recurrence score may aid in determining the anticipated benefit of chemotherapy in this heterogeneous cohort of patients, investigators wrote.
“Furthermore, our findings show significant variability in national patterns of recurrence testing and chemotherapy use for grade 3 disease, which suggests opportunities for more comprehensive national guidelines for recurrence score testing in high-grade tumors,” they concluded.
Dr. Brock reported no potential conflicts of interest. Coauthors provided disclosures related to AstraZeneca, Blade Therapeutics, Eisai, EMD Serono, Galena Biopharma, Genentech, Genomic Health, Novartis, Novartis Institutes for BioMedical Research, Peregrine, Puma Biotechnology, resTORbio, Roche, and others.
SOURCE: Brock JE et al. JCO Precis Oncol. 2019 Aug 14. doi: 10.1200/PO.19.00029.
For patients with grade 3 breast cancer, recurrence score testing may have significant clinical value in determining which patients are likely to benefit from chemotherapy, according to investigators who recently reported results of a large, national cohort study.
Among patients with pN0/1 grade 3 invasive breast cancers, about one-third had a low recurrence score, which was associated with no early benefit from the addition of chemotherapy, wrote senior study author Jane E. Brock, MBBS, PhD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and coauthors.
Incorporating recurrence score testing into clinical decision making may help “tailor treatment recommendations” for patients with grade 3 invasive breast cancers, Dr. Brock and coauthors reported in JCO Precision Oncology.
“To our knowledge, these findings represent the largest analysis to date of the potential impact of recurrence score on the outcomes and management of grade 3 tumors, and suggest that the assumption that all pT1c/2 pN0/1, [estrogen receptor–positive] histopathologic grade 3 tumors are high risk and will consequently benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy may be unmerited,” the Dr. Brock and coauthors wrote in the report.
These findings “fill a gap” as the final results of the RxPONDER trial are awaited, according to investigators. Specifically, RxPONDER is designed to evaluate the potential benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy in pN0/1 patients with intermediate range recurrence scores.
Moreover, the findings complement the reported results of the TAILORx trial, which showed that chemotherapy does not provide a benefit in most low and intermediate recurrence score tumors, which suggests some patients may safely omit chemotherapy without affecting outcomes, the investigators added.
The present analysis included a total of 30,864 grade 3 breast cancers from the National Cancer Database, which represents more than 70% of new diagnoses in the United States, according to investigators.
Testing using the 21-gene Oncotype DX Breast Recurrence Score increased over time for pN0 cancers, from 53% in 2010 to 72% in 2015, investigators found; likewise, for pN1 cancers, testing increased from 16% to 36% over that time period. They also found that, overall, 30% of pN0 and 27.1% of pN1 cancers had a low recurrence score.
Adjuvant chemotherapy was not associated with any additional benefit in patients with low recurrence scores, according to the analysis.
For patients with intermediate recurrence scores, chemotherapy was linked to improved survival in univariable analyses, but following adjustment for clinical and pathologic characteristics, intermediate scores were not predictive of a significant overall survival benefit, investigators found.
By contrast, chemotherapy was associated with additional benefit in patients with high recurrence scores in both univariable and multivariable analyses.
For patients with pN0 grade 3 disease and high recurrence score, chemotherapy was linked to significantly improved overall survival, compared with that of patients who received no chemotherapy (hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-0.90; P = .01), while a similar survival benefit was reported among patients with pN1 disease and high recurrence scores (HR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.13-0.47; P less than .001).
These results suggest that recurrence score may aid in determining the anticipated benefit of chemotherapy in this heterogeneous cohort of patients, investigators wrote.
“Furthermore, our findings show significant variability in national patterns of recurrence testing and chemotherapy use for grade 3 disease, which suggests opportunities for more comprehensive national guidelines for recurrence score testing in high-grade tumors,” they concluded.
Dr. Brock reported no potential conflicts of interest. Coauthors provided disclosures related to AstraZeneca, Blade Therapeutics, Eisai, EMD Serono, Galena Biopharma, Genentech, Genomic Health, Novartis, Novartis Institutes for BioMedical Research, Peregrine, Puma Biotechnology, resTORbio, Roche, and others.
SOURCE: Brock JE et al. JCO Precis Oncol. 2019 Aug 14. doi: 10.1200/PO.19.00029.
FROM JCO PRECISION ONCOLOGY
Cardiovascular cost of smoking may last up to 25 years
Quitting smoking significantly reduces the risk of cardiovascular disease, but past smokers are still at elevated cardiovascular risk, compared with nonsmokers, for up to 25 years after smoking cessation, research in JAMA suggests.
A retrospective analysis of data from 8,770 individuals in the Framingham Heart Study compared the incidence of myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, or cardiovascular death in ever-smokers with that of never smokers.
Only 40% of the total cohort had never smoked. Of the 4,115 current smokers at baseline, 38.6% quit during the course of the study and did not relapse but 51.4% continued to smoke until they developed cardiovascular disease or dropped out of the study.
Current smokers had a significant 4.68-fold higher incidence of cardiovascular disease, compared with those who had never smoked, but those who stopped smoking showed a 39% decline in their risk of cardiovascular disease within 5 years of cessation.
However, individuals who were formerly heavy smokers – defined as at least 20 pack-years of smoking – retained a risk of cardiovascular disease 25% higher than that of never smokers until 10-15 years after quitting smoking. At 16 years, the 95% confidence interval for cardiovascular disease risk among former smokers versus that of never smokers finally and consistently included the null value of 1.
The study pooled two cohorts; the original cohort, who attended their fourth examination during 1954-1958 and an offspring cohort who attended their first examination during 1971-1975. The authors saw a difference between the two cohorts in the time course of cardiovascular disease risk in heavy smokers.
In the original cohort, former heavy smoking ceased to be significantly associated with increased cardiovascular disease risk within 5-10 years of cessation, but in the offspring cohort, it took 25 years after cessation for the incidence to decline to the same level of risk seen in never smokers.
“The upper estimate of this time course is a decade longer than that of the Nurses’ Health Study results for coronary heart disease and cardiovascular death and more than 20 years longer than in some prior reports for coronary heart disease and stroke,” wrote Meredith S. Duncan from the division of cardiovascular medicine at the Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., and coauthors. “Although the exact amount of time after quitting at which former smokers’ CVD risk ceases to differ significantly from that of never smokers is unknown (and may further depend on cumulative exposure), these findings support a longer time course of risk reduction than was previously thought, yielding implications for CVD risk stratification of former smokers.”
However, they did note that the study could not account for environmental tobacco smoke exposure and that the participants were mostly of white European ancestry, which limited the generalizability of the findings to other populations.
The Framingham Health Study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. One author declared a consultancy with a pharmaceutical company on a proposed clinical trial. No other conflicts of interest were declared.
SOURCE: Duncan M et al. JAMA 2019. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.10298.
Quitting smoking significantly reduces the risk of cardiovascular disease, but past smokers are still at elevated cardiovascular risk, compared with nonsmokers, for up to 25 years after smoking cessation, research in JAMA suggests.
A retrospective analysis of data from 8,770 individuals in the Framingham Heart Study compared the incidence of myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, or cardiovascular death in ever-smokers with that of never smokers.
Only 40% of the total cohort had never smoked. Of the 4,115 current smokers at baseline, 38.6% quit during the course of the study and did not relapse but 51.4% continued to smoke until they developed cardiovascular disease or dropped out of the study.
Current smokers had a significant 4.68-fold higher incidence of cardiovascular disease, compared with those who had never smoked, but those who stopped smoking showed a 39% decline in their risk of cardiovascular disease within 5 years of cessation.
However, individuals who were formerly heavy smokers – defined as at least 20 pack-years of smoking – retained a risk of cardiovascular disease 25% higher than that of never smokers until 10-15 years after quitting smoking. At 16 years, the 95% confidence interval for cardiovascular disease risk among former smokers versus that of never smokers finally and consistently included the null value of 1.
The study pooled two cohorts; the original cohort, who attended their fourth examination during 1954-1958 and an offspring cohort who attended their first examination during 1971-1975. The authors saw a difference between the two cohorts in the time course of cardiovascular disease risk in heavy smokers.
In the original cohort, former heavy smoking ceased to be significantly associated with increased cardiovascular disease risk within 5-10 years of cessation, but in the offspring cohort, it took 25 years after cessation for the incidence to decline to the same level of risk seen in never smokers.
“The upper estimate of this time course is a decade longer than that of the Nurses’ Health Study results for coronary heart disease and cardiovascular death and more than 20 years longer than in some prior reports for coronary heart disease and stroke,” wrote Meredith S. Duncan from the division of cardiovascular medicine at the Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., and coauthors. “Although the exact amount of time after quitting at which former smokers’ CVD risk ceases to differ significantly from that of never smokers is unknown (and may further depend on cumulative exposure), these findings support a longer time course of risk reduction than was previously thought, yielding implications for CVD risk stratification of former smokers.”
However, they did note that the study could not account for environmental tobacco smoke exposure and that the participants were mostly of white European ancestry, which limited the generalizability of the findings to other populations.
The Framingham Health Study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. One author declared a consultancy with a pharmaceutical company on a proposed clinical trial. No other conflicts of interest were declared.
SOURCE: Duncan M et al. JAMA 2019. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.10298.
Quitting smoking significantly reduces the risk of cardiovascular disease, but past smokers are still at elevated cardiovascular risk, compared with nonsmokers, for up to 25 years after smoking cessation, research in JAMA suggests.
A retrospective analysis of data from 8,770 individuals in the Framingham Heart Study compared the incidence of myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, or cardiovascular death in ever-smokers with that of never smokers.
Only 40% of the total cohort had never smoked. Of the 4,115 current smokers at baseline, 38.6% quit during the course of the study and did not relapse but 51.4% continued to smoke until they developed cardiovascular disease or dropped out of the study.
Current smokers had a significant 4.68-fold higher incidence of cardiovascular disease, compared with those who had never smoked, but those who stopped smoking showed a 39% decline in their risk of cardiovascular disease within 5 years of cessation.
However, individuals who were formerly heavy smokers – defined as at least 20 pack-years of smoking – retained a risk of cardiovascular disease 25% higher than that of never smokers until 10-15 years after quitting smoking. At 16 years, the 95% confidence interval for cardiovascular disease risk among former smokers versus that of never smokers finally and consistently included the null value of 1.
The study pooled two cohorts; the original cohort, who attended their fourth examination during 1954-1958 and an offspring cohort who attended their first examination during 1971-1975. The authors saw a difference between the two cohorts in the time course of cardiovascular disease risk in heavy smokers.
In the original cohort, former heavy smoking ceased to be significantly associated with increased cardiovascular disease risk within 5-10 years of cessation, but in the offspring cohort, it took 25 years after cessation for the incidence to decline to the same level of risk seen in never smokers.
“The upper estimate of this time course is a decade longer than that of the Nurses’ Health Study results for coronary heart disease and cardiovascular death and more than 20 years longer than in some prior reports for coronary heart disease and stroke,” wrote Meredith S. Duncan from the division of cardiovascular medicine at the Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., and coauthors. “Although the exact amount of time after quitting at which former smokers’ CVD risk ceases to differ significantly from that of never smokers is unknown (and may further depend on cumulative exposure), these findings support a longer time course of risk reduction than was previously thought, yielding implications for CVD risk stratification of former smokers.”
However, they did note that the study could not account for environmental tobacco smoke exposure and that the participants were mostly of white European ancestry, which limited the generalizability of the findings to other populations.
The Framingham Health Study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. One author declared a consultancy with a pharmaceutical company on a proposed clinical trial. No other conflicts of interest were declared.
SOURCE: Duncan M et al. JAMA 2019. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.10298.
FROM JAMA
Key clinical point:
Major finding: In the offspring cohort, heavy smokers showed elevated incidence of CVD for up to 25 years after quitting smoking.
Study details: A retrospective analysis of data from 8,770 individuals in the Framingham Heart Study.
Disclosures: The Framingham Health Study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. One author declared a consultancy with a pharmaceutical company on a proposed clinical trial. No other conflicts of interest were declared.
Source: Duncan M et al. JAMA. 2019. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.10298.
New biomarker model outmatches conventional risk factors for predicting mortality
A new model using 14 biomarkers may be more accurate at predicting longer-term mortality than a model comprising conventional risk factors, based on the largest metabolomics study to date.
The prognostic model was more accurate at predicting 5- and 10-year mortality across all ages, reported Joris Deelen, PhD, of Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center and colleagues.
“These results suggest that metabolic biomarker profiling could potentially be used to guide patient care, if further validated in relevant clinical settings,” the investigators wrote in Nature Communications.
“There is no consensus on the ultimate set of predictors of longer-term [5-10 years] mortality risk, since the predictive power of the currently used risk factors is limited, especially at higher ages,” the investigators wrote. “However, it is especially this age group and follow-up time window for which a robust tool would aid clinicians in assessing whether treatment is still sensible.”
The current study was a survival meta-analysis of 44,168 individuals from 12 cohorts aged between 18 and 109 years at baseline. First, the investigators looked for associations between 226 metabolic biomarkers and all-cause mortality in the 5,512 people who died during follow-up. This revealed associations between mortality and 136 biomarkers, which increased to 159 biomarkers after adjusting for recently reported all-cause mortality associations with albumin, very low-density lipoprotein (VLDL) particle size, citrate, and glycoprotein acetyls. Because of strong correlations between many of the biomarkers evaluated, the investigators pared the field down to 63 biomarkers, then used a forward-backward procedure to ultimately identify 14 biomarkers independently associated with mortality. Of the four recently described biomarkers, citrate was excluded from the final model because of its minimal contribution to mortality estimates.
The 14 biomarkers were total lipids in chylomicrons and extremely large VLDL cholesterol, total lipids in small HDL cholesterol, mean diameter for VLDL cholesterol particles, ratio of polyunsaturated fatty acids to total fatty acids, glucose, lactate, histidine, isoleucine, leucine, valine, phenylalanine, acetoacetate, albumin, and glycoprotein acetyls.
“The 14 identified biomarkers are involved in various processes, such as lipoprotein and fatty acid metabolism, glycolysis, fluid balance, and inflammation. Although the majority of these biomarkers have been associated with mortality before, this is the first study that shows their independent effect when combined into one model,” the researchers wrote.
Implementation of the new biomarker model led to a score that typically ranged from –2 to 3. A 1-point increase was associated with a 173% increased risk of death (hazard ratio, 2.73; P less than 1 x 10–132). Analysis of cause-specific mortality revealed that most biomarkers were predictive of multiple causes of death. Some biomarkers were more focused; glucose, for example, was more predictive of cardiovascular-related death than of death because of cancer or nonlocalized infections. Compared with a model incorporating conventional risk factors, the biomarker model more accurately predicted 5- and 10-year mortality, with respective C-statistics of 0.837 versus 0.772 and 0.830 versus 0.790. This superiority was even more pronounced when only individuals aged older than 60 years were included.
The study was funded by Biobanking and BioMolecular resources Research Initiative–Netherlands. The investigators reported additional relationships with Nightingale Health, Novo Nordisk, and Bayer.
SOURCE: Deelen J et al. Nature Comm. 2019 Aug 20. doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-11311-9.
A new model using 14 biomarkers may be more accurate at predicting longer-term mortality than a model comprising conventional risk factors, based on the largest metabolomics study to date.
The prognostic model was more accurate at predicting 5- and 10-year mortality across all ages, reported Joris Deelen, PhD, of Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center and colleagues.
“These results suggest that metabolic biomarker profiling could potentially be used to guide patient care, if further validated in relevant clinical settings,” the investigators wrote in Nature Communications.
“There is no consensus on the ultimate set of predictors of longer-term [5-10 years] mortality risk, since the predictive power of the currently used risk factors is limited, especially at higher ages,” the investigators wrote. “However, it is especially this age group and follow-up time window for which a robust tool would aid clinicians in assessing whether treatment is still sensible.”
The current study was a survival meta-analysis of 44,168 individuals from 12 cohorts aged between 18 and 109 years at baseline. First, the investigators looked for associations between 226 metabolic biomarkers and all-cause mortality in the 5,512 people who died during follow-up. This revealed associations between mortality and 136 biomarkers, which increased to 159 biomarkers after adjusting for recently reported all-cause mortality associations with albumin, very low-density lipoprotein (VLDL) particle size, citrate, and glycoprotein acetyls. Because of strong correlations between many of the biomarkers evaluated, the investigators pared the field down to 63 biomarkers, then used a forward-backward procedure to ultimately identify 14 biomarkers independently associated with mortality. Of the four recently described biomarkers, citrate was excluded from the final model because of its minimal contribution to mortality estimates.
The 14 biomarkers were total lipids in chylomicrons and extremely large VLDL cholesterol, total lipids in small HDL cholesterol, mean diameter for VLDL cholesterol particles, ratio of polyunsaturated fatty acids to total fatty acids, glucose, lactate, histidine, isoleucine, leucine, valine, phenylalanine, acetoacetate, albumin, and glycoprotein acetyls.
“The 14 identified biomarkers are involved in various processes, such as lipoprotein and fatty acid metabolism, glycolysis, fluid balance, and inflammation. Although the majority of these biomarkers have been associated with mortality before, this is the first study that shows their independent effect when combined into one model,” the researchers wrote.
Implementation of the new biomarker model led to a score that typically ranged from –2 to 3. A 1-point increase was associated with a 173% increased risk of death (hazard ratio, 2.73; P less than 1 x 10–132). Analysis of cause-specific mortality revealed that most biomarkers were predictive of multiple causes of death. Some biomarkers were more focused; glucose, for example, was more predictive of cardiovascular-related death than of death because of cancer or nonlocalized infections. Compared with a model incorporating conventional risk factors, the biomarker model more accurately predicted 5- and 10-year mortality, with respective C-statistics of 0.837 versus 0.772 and 0.830 versus 0.790. This superiority was even more pronounced when only individuals aged older than 60 years were included.
The study was funded by Biobanking and BioMolecular resources Research Initiative–Netherlands. The investigators reported additional relationships with Nightingale Health, Novo Nordisk, and Bayer.
SOURCE: Deelen J et al. Nature Comm. 2019 Aug 20. doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-11311-9.
A new model using 14 biomarkers may be more accurate at predicting longer-term mortality than a model comprising conventional risk factors, based on the largest metabolomics study to date.
The prognostic model was more accurate at predicting 5- and 10-year mortality across all ages, reported Joris Deelen, PhD, of Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center and colleagues.
“These results suggest that metabolic biomarker profiling could potentially be used to guide patient care, if further validated in relevant clinical settings,” the investigators wrote in Nature Communications.
“There is no consensus on the ultimate set of predictors of longer-term [5-10 years] mortality risk, since the predictive power of the currently used risk factors is limited, especially at higher ages,” the investigators wrote. “However, it is especially this age group and follow-up time window for which a robust tool would aid clinicians in assessing whether treatment is still sensible.”
The current study was a survival meta-analysis of 44,168 individuals from 12 cohorts aged between 18 and 109 years at baseline. First, the investigators looked for associations between 226 metabolic biomarkers and all-cause mortality in the 5,512 people who died during follow-up. This revealed associations between mortality and 136 biomarkers, which increased to 159 biomarkers after adjusting for recently reported all-cause mortality associations with albumin, very low-density lipoprotein (VLDL) particle size, citrate, and glycoprotein acetyls. Because of strong correlations between many of the biomarkers evaluated, the investigators pared the field down to 63 biomarkers, then used a forward-backward procedure to ultimately identify 14 biomarkers independently associated with mortality. Of the four recently described biomarkers, citrate was excluded from the final model because of its minimal contribution to mortality estimates.
The 14 biomarkers were total lipids in chylomicrons and extremely large VLDL cholesterol, total lipids in small HDL cholesterol, mean diameter for VLDL cholesterol particles, ratio of polyunsaturated fatty acids to total fatty acids, glucose, lactate, histidine, isoleucine, leucine, valine, phenylalanine, acetoacetate, albumin, and glycoprotein acetyls.
“The 14 identified biomarkers are involved in various processes, such as lipoprotein and fatty acid metabolism, glycolysis, fluid balance, and inflammation. Although the majority of these biomarkers have been associated with mortality before, this is the first study that shows their independent effect when combined into one model,” the researchers wrote.
Implementation of the new biomarker model led to a score that typically ranged from –2 to 3. A 1-point increase was associated with a 173% increased risk of death (hazard ratio, 2.73; P less than 1 x 10–132). Analysis of cause-specific mortality revealed that most biomarkers were predictive of multiple causes of death. Some biomarkers were more focused; glucose, for example, was more predictive of cardiovascular-related death than of death because of cancer or nonlocalized infections. Compared with a model incorporating conventional risk factors, the biomarker model more accurately predicted 5- and 10-year mortality, with respective C-statistics of 0.837 versus 0.772 and 0.830 versus 0.790. This superiority was even more pronounced when only individuals aged older than 60 years were included.
The study was funded by Biobanking and BioMolecular resources Research Initiative–Netherlands. The investigators reported additional relationships with Nightingale Health, Novo Nordisk, and Bayer.
SOURCE: Deelen J et al. Nature Comm. 2019 Aug 20. doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-11311-9.
FROM NATURE COMMUNICATIONS
Key clinical point: A new model using 14 biomarkers may be more accurate at predicting 5- and 10-year mortality than a model comprising conventional risk factors.
Major finding: The biomarker model better predicted 5-year mortality than the conventional model (C-statistic, 0.837 vs. 0.772).
Study details: A retrospective metabolomics study involving 44,168 individuals.
Disclosures: The study was funded by Biobanking and BioMolecular Resources Research Initiative–Netherlands. The investigators reported additional relationships with Nightingale Health, Novo Nordisk, and Bayer.
Source: Deelen J et al. Nature Comm. 2019 Aug 20. doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-11311-9.
USPSTF expands BRCA1/2 testing recommendations
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has updated its recommendations on assessment of breast cancer susceptibility gene (BRCA)-related cancer, substantially expanding the pool of individuals for whom risk assessment, testing, and counseling would be warranted.
In its 2013 recommendation, the USPSTF said referral for genetic counseling and evaluation for BRCA1/2 testing was warranted for women who had a family history linked to increased risk of potentially harmful BRCA1/2 mutations.
The updated recommendations, just published in JAMA, expand the screening-eligible population to include those with personal cancer history, and more specifically call out ancestry linked to BRCA1/2 mutations as a risk factor (JAMA. 2019;322[7]:652-65. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.10987).
“The USPSTF recommends that primary care clinicians assess women with a personal or family history of breast, ovarian, tubal, or peritoneal cancer or who have an ancestry associated with BRCA1/2 gene mutations with an appropriate brief familial risk assessment tool,” wrote Douglas K. Owens, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, and coauthors of the task force report.
Positive results on the risk assessment tool should prompt genetic counseling, and genetic testing if indicated after counseling, the USPSTF added in its statement.
By contrast, the task force recommends against routine assessment, counseling, and testing in women with no family history, personal history, or ancestry linked to possibly harmful BRCA1/2 gene mutations, consistent with their previous recommendation.
Mutations of BRCA1/2 genes occur in an estimated 1 in 300-500 women in the general population, and account for 15% of ovarian cancer and up to 10% of breast cancer cases, according to the USPSTF.
Breast cancer risk is increased up to 65% by 70 years in those women with clinically significant BRCA1/2 mutations, while risk of ovarian, fallopian tube, or peritoneal cancer are increased by up to 39%, according to studies cited by the USPSTF.
Important step forward
Including women with prior breast and ovarian cancer in the screening-eligible population is an “important step forward,” Susan Domcheck, MD, and Mark Robson, MD, said in a related editorial.
“While further expansion of the USPSTF recommendation should be considered, the importance is clear: Identification of individuals at risk of carrying a BRCA1/2 mutation can be lifesaving and should be a part of routine medical care,” Dr. Domcheck and Dr. Robson said in their editorial, which appears in JAMA.
While the updated recommendations explicitly call out ancestry as a risk factor, they stop short of endorsing testing for unaffected Ashkenazi Jewish women with no family history, the authors said.
“However, the statement may be interpreted as a step toward supporting unselected testing in this group,” they added.
Among unselected individuals of Ashkenazi Jewish descent, 1 in 40 have 1 of 3 specific BRCA1 or BRCA2 founder mutations, according to one study cited by Dr. Domcheck and Dr. Robson.
More research needed
Current research is still “limited or lacking” to address many key questions about the benefits and harms of risk assessment, genetic counseling, and genetic testing in women without BRCA1/2-related cancer, according to authors of a literature review used by the USPSTF.
Notably, the ability of risk assessment, testing, and counseling to reduce cancer incidence and mortality among such women has not been directly evaluated by studies to date, said the review authors, led by Heidi D. Nelson, MD, MPH, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.
“Without effectiveness trials of intensive screening, practice standards have preceded supporting evidence,” said Dr. Nelson and coauthors noted in a report on the review findings.
In observational studies, mastectomy and oophorectomy have been associated with substantial reductions in subsequent cancer incidence and mortality; however, they are invasive procedures with potential complications, the authors noted.
“To determine the appropriateness of risk assessment and genetic testing for BRCA1/2 mutations as a preventive service in primary care, more information is needed about mutation prevalence and the effect of testing in the general population,” they added.
Researchers studying BRCA1/2 assessment as preventive service in primary care have generally looked at highly selected patient populations in referral centers, and have reported relatively short-term outcomes, they said.
Research is additionally needed on access to genetic testing and follow-up, effectiveness of risk stratification and multigene panels, and the impact of direct-to-consumer genetic testing, among other key questions, the authors of the review added.
Treatment implications
While the USPSTF recommendations do not mention systemic therapy, finding a BRCA mutation in a cancer patient today has important implications for treatment, said Rachel L. Yung, MD, and Larissa A. Korde, MD, MPH
Specifically, poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors have proved effective in certain BRCA-related cancers, Dr. Yung and Dr. Korde said in an editorial on the updated recommendations appearing in JAMA Oncology.
The Food and Drug Administration has already approved several PARP inhibitors for treatment of BRCA-linked metastatic breast or ovarian cancers, and studies are underway for other tumor types, including prostate and pancreatic cancers that harbor a BRCA mutation.
“Increasing awareness of BRCA mutation as a target for treatment will likely lead to an increase in the identification of patients with cancer harboring germline BRCA mutations, which in turn will increase the need for cascade testing for relatives of affected probands,” wrote Dr. Yung and Dr. Korde.
Addressing disparities in care
The USPSTF recommendations for BRCA risk assessment do not address disparities in testing referral and variation in breast cancer phenotypes among women of African ancestry, owing to lack of evidence, according to Lisa Newman, MD, MPH, of the Interdisciplinary Breast Program at New York–Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York.
“Paradoxically, the data-driven basis for the USPSTF recommendation statement may magnify existing genetic testing disparities,” Dr. Newman wrote in an editorial that appears in JAMA Surgery.
Non-Hispanic black women in the United States have a twofold higher incidence of triple-negative breast cancer, which is a well documented risk factor for BRCA1 mutation carrier status, according to Dr. Newman.
Despite this, she added, genetic counseling and testing referrals remain “disproportionately low” among U.S. patients of African ancestry.
“It remains imperative for clinicians to exercise clinical judgment and to be mindful of patient subsets that do not necessarily fit into recommendations designed for the majority or general populations,” Dr. Newman concluded in her editorial.
The USPSTF is funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Members of the task force receive travel reimbursement and honoraria for participating in USPSTF meetings.
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has updated its recommendations on assessment of breast cancer susceptibility gene (BRCA)-related cancer, substantially expanding the pool of individuals for whom risk assessment, testing, and counseling would be warranted.
In its 2013 recommendation, the USPSTF said referral for genetic counseling and evaluation for BRCA1/2 testing was warranted for women who had a family history linked to increased risk of potentially harmful BRCA1/2 mutations.
The updated recommendations, just published in JAMA, expand the screening-eligible population to include those with personal cancer history, and more specifically call out ancestry linked to BRCA1/2 mutations as a risk factor (JAMA. 2019;322[7]:652-65. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.10987).
“The USPSTF recommends that primary care clinicians assess women with a personal or family history of breast, ovarian, tubal, or peritoneal cancer or who have an ancestry associated with BRCA1/2 gene mutations with an appropriate brief familial risk assessment tool,” wrote Douglas K. Owens, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, and coauthors of the task force report.
Positive results on the risk assessment tool should prompt genetic counseling, and genetic testing if indicated after counseling, the USPSTF added in its statement.
By contrast, the task force recommends against routine assessment, counseling, and testing in women with no family history, personal history, or ancestry linked to possibly harmful BRCA1/2 gene mutations, consistent with their previous recommendation.
Mutations of BRCA1/2 genes occur in an estimated 1 in 300-500 women in the general population, and account for 15% of ovarian cancer and up to 10% of breast cancer cases, according to the USPSTF.
Breast cancer risk is increased up to 65% by 70 years in those women with clinically significant BRCA1/2 mutations, while risk of ovarian, fallopian tube, or peritoneal cancer are increased by up to 39%, according to studies cited by the USPSTF.
Important step forward
Including women with prior breast and ovarian cancer in the screening-eligible population is an “important step forward,” Susan Domcheck, MD, and Mark Robson, MD, said in a related editorial.
“While further expansion of the USPSTF recommendation should be considered, the importance is clear: Identification of individuals at risk of carrying a BRCA1/2 mutation can be lifesaving and should be a part of routine medical care,” Dr. Domcheck and Dr. Robson said in their editorial, which appears in JAMA.
While the updated recommendations explicitly call out ancestry as a risk factor, they stop short of endorsing testing for unaffected Ashkenazi Jewish women with no family history, the authors said.
“However, the statement may be interpreted as a step toward supporting unselected testing in this group,” they added.
Among unselected individuals of Ashkenazi Jewish descent, 1 in 40 have 1 of 3 specific BRCA1 or BRCA2 founder mutations, according to one study cited by Dr. Domcheck and Dr. Robson.
More research needed
Current research is still “limited or lacking” to address many key questions about the benefits and harms of risk assessment, genetic counseling, and genetic testing in women without BRCA1/2-related cancer, according to authors of a literature review used by the USPSTF.
Notably, the ability of risk assessment, testing, and counseling to reduce cancer incidence and mortality among such women has not been directly evaluated by studies to date, said the review authors, led by Heidi D. Nelson, MD, MPH, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.
“Without effectiveness trials of intensive screening, practice standards have preceded supporting evidence,” said Dr. Nelson and coauthors noted in a report on the review findings.
In observational studies, mastectomy and oophorectomy have been associated with substantial reductions in subsequent cancer incidence and mortality; however, they are invasive procedures with potential complications, the authors noted.
“To determine the appropriateness of risk assessment and genetic testing for BRCA1/2 mutations as a preventive service in primary care, more information is needed about mutation prevalence and the effect of testing in the general population,” they added.
Researchers studying BRCA1/2 assessment as preventive service in primary care have generally looked at highly selected patient populations in referral centers, and have reported relatively short-term outcomes, they said.
Research is additionally needed on access to genetic testing and follow-up, effectiveness of risk stratification and multigene panels, and the impact of direct-to-consumer genetic testing, among other key questions, the authors of the review added.
Treatment implications
While the USPSTF recommendations do not mention systemic therapy, finding a BRCA mutation in a cancer patient today has important implications for treatment, said Rachel L. Yung, MD, and Larissa A. Korde, MD, MPH
Specifically, poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors have proved effective in certain BRCA-related cancers, Dr. Yung and Dr. Korde said in an editorial on the updated recommendations appearing in JAMA Oncology.
The Food and Drug Administration has already approved several PARP inhibitors for treatment of BRCA-linked metastatic breast or ovarian cancers, and studies are underway for other tumor types, including prostate and pancreatic cancers that harbor a BRCA mutation.
“Increasing awareness of BRCA mutation as a target for treatment will likely lead to an increase in the identification of patients with cancer harboring germline BRCA mutations, which in turn will increase the need for cascade testing for relatives of affected probands,” wrote Dr. Yung and Dr. Korde.
Addressing disparities in care
The USPSTF recommendations for BRCA risk assessment do not address disparities in testing referral and variation in breast cancer phenotypes among women of African ancestry, owing to lack of evidence, according to Lisa Newman, MD, MPH, of the Interdisciplinary Breast Program at New York–Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York.
“Paradoxically, the data-driven basis for the USPSTF recommendation statement may magnify existing genetic testing disparities,” Dr. Newman wrote in an editorial that appears in JAMA Surgery.
Non-Hispanic black women in the United States have a twofold higher incidence of triple-negative breast cancer, which is a well documented risk factor for BRCA1 mutation carrier status, according to Dr. Newman.
Despite this, she added, genetic counseling and testing referrals remain “disproportionately low” among U.S. patients of African ancestry.
“It remains imperative for clinicians to exercise clinical judgment and to be mindful of patient subsets that do not necessarily fit into recommendations designed for the majority or general populations,” Dr. Newman concluded in her editorial.
The USPSTF is funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Members of the task force receive travel reimbursement and honoraria for participating in USPSTF meetings.
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has updated its recommendations on assessment of breast cancer susceptibility gene (BRCA)-related cancer, substantially expanding the pool of individuals for whom risk assessment, testing, and counseling would be warranted.
In its 2013 recommendation, the USPSTF said referral for genetic counseling and evaluation for BRCA1/2 testing was warranted for women who had a family history linked to increased risk of potentially harmful BRCA1/2 mutations.
The updated recommendations, just published in JAMA, expand the screening-eligible population to include those with personal cancer history, and more specifically call out ancestry linked to BRCA1/2 mutations as a risk factor (JAMA. 2019;322[7]:652-65. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.10987).
“The USPSTF recommends that primary care clinicians assess women with a personal or family history of breast, ovarian, tubal, or peritoneal cancer or who have an ancestry associated with BRCA1/2 gene mutations with an appropriate brief familial risk assessment tool,” wrote Douglas K. Owens, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, and coauthors of the task force report.
Positive results on the risk assessment tool should prompt genetic counseling, and genetic testing if indicated after counseling, the USPSTF added in its statement.
By contrast, the task force recommends against routine assessment, counseling, and testing in women with no family history, personal history, or ancestry linked to possibly harmful BRCA1/2 gene mutations, consistent with their previous recommendation.
Mutations of BRCA1/2 genes occur in an estimated 1 in 300-500 women in the general population, and account for 15% of ovarian cancer and up to 10% of breast cancer cases, according to the USPSTF.
Breast cancer risk is increased up to 65% by 70 years in those women with clinically significant BRCA1/2 mutations, while risk of ovarian, fallopian tube, or peritoneal cancer are increased by up to 39%, according to studies cited by the USPSTF.
Important step forward
Including women with prior breast and ovarian cancer in the screening-eligible population is an “important step forward,” Susan Domcheck, MD, and Mark Robson, MD, said in a related editorial.
“While further expansion of the USPSTF recommendation should be considered, the importance is clear: Identification of individuals at risk of carrying a BRCA1/2 mutation can be lifesaving and should be a part of routine medical care,” Dr. Domcheck and Dr. Robson said in their editorial, which appears in JAMA.
While the updated recommendations explicitly call out ancestry as a risk factor, they stop short of endorsing testing for unaffected Ashkenazi Jewish women with no family history, the authors said.
“However, the statement may be interpreted as a step toward supporting unselected testing in this group,” they added.
Among unselected individuals of Ashkenazi Jewish descent, 1 in 40 have 1 of 3 specific BRCA1 or BRCA2 founder mutations, according to one study cited by Dr. Domcheck and Dr. Robson.
More research needed
Current research is still “limited or lacking” to address many key questions about the benefits and harms of risk assessment, genetic counseling, and genetic testing in women without BRCA1/2-related cancer, according to authors of a literature review used by the USPSTF.
Notably, the ability of risk assessment, testing, and counseling to reduce cancer incidence and mortality among such women has not been directly evaluated by studies to date, said the review authors, led by Heidi D. Nelson, MD, MPH, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.
“Without effectiveness trials of intensive screening, practice standards have preceded supporting evidence,” said Dr. Nelson and coauthors noted in a report on the review findings.
In observational studies, mastectomy and oophorectomy have been associated with substantial reductions in subsequent cancer incidence and mortality; however, they are invasive procedures with potential complications, the authors noted.
“To determine the appropriateness of risk assessment and genetic testing for BRCA1/2 mutations as a preventive service in primary care, more information is needed about mutation prevalence and the effect of testing in the general population,” they added.
Researchers studying BRCA1/2 assessment as preventive service in primary care have generally looked at highly selected patient populations in referral centers, and have reported relatively short-term outcomes, they said.
Research is additionally needed on access to genetic testing and follow-up, effectiveness of risk stratification and multigene panels, and the impact of direct-to-consumer genetic testing, among other key questions, the authors of the review added.
Treatment implications
While the USPSTF recommendations do not mention systemic therapy, finding a BRCA mutation in a cancer patient today has important implications for treatment, said Rachel L. Yung, MD, and Larissa A. Korde, MD, MPH
Specifically, poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors have proved effective in certain BRCA-related cancers, Dr. Yung and Dr. Korde said in an editorial on the updated recommendations appearing in JAMA Oncology.
The Food and Drug Administration has already approved several PARP inhibitors for treatment of BRCA-linked metastatic breast or ovarian cancers, and studies are underway for other tumor types, including prostate and pancreatic cancers that harbor a BRCA mutation.
“Increasing awareness of BRCA mutation as a target for treatment will likely lead to an increase in the identification of patients with cancer harboring germline BRCA mutations, which in turn will increase the need for cascade testing for relatives of affected probands,” wrote Dr. Yung and Dr. Korde.
Addressing disparities in care
The USPSTF recommendations for BRCA risk assessment do not address disparities in testing referral and variation in breast cancer phenotypes among women of African ancestry, owing to lack of evidence, according to Lisa Newman, MD, MPH, of the Interdisciplinary Breast Program at New York–Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York.
“Paradoxically, the data-driven basis for the USPSTF recommendation statement may magnify existing genetic testing disparities,” Dr. Newman wrote in an editorial that appears in JAMA Surgery.
Non-Hispanic black women in the United States have a twofold higher incidence of triple-negative breast cancer, which is a well documented risk factor for BRCA1 mutation carrier status, according to Dr. Newman.
Despite this, she added, genetic counseling and testing referrals remain “disproportionately low” among U.S. patients of African ancestry.
“It remains imperative for clinicians to exercise clinical judgment and to be mindful of patient subsets that do not necessarily fit into recommendations designed for the majority or general populations,” Dr. Newman concluded in her editorial.
The USPSTF is funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Members of the task force receive travel reimbursement and honoraria for participating in USPSTF meetings.
FROM JAMA
FDA approves Xenleta for community-acquired bacterial pneumonia treatment
The Food and Drug Administration has announced its approval of lefamulin (Xenleta) for the treatment of community-acquired bacterial pneumonia in adults.
Approval was based on results of two clinical trials assessing a total of 1,289 people with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia. In these trials, lefamulin was compared with moxifloxacin with and without linezolid. Patients who received lefamulin had similar rates of treatment success as those taking moxifloxacin alone or moxifloxacin plus linezolid.
The most common adverse reactions associated with lefamulin include diarrhea, nausea, reactions at the injection site, elevated liver enzymes, and vomiting. Patients with prolonged QT interval, patients with arrhythmias, patients receiving treatment with antiarrhythmic agents, and patients receiving other drugs that prolong the QT interval are contraindicated. In addition, because of evidence of fetal harm in animal studies, pregnant women should be advised of potential risks before receiving lefamulin.
“This new drug provides another option for the treatment of patients with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia, a serious disease. For managing this serious disease, it is important for physicians and patients to have treatment options,” Ed Cox, MD, MPH, director of the FDA’s Office of Antimicrobial Products, said in the press release.
The Food and Drug Administration has announced its approval of lefamulin (Xenleta) for the treatment of community-acquired bacterial pneumonia in adults.
Approval was based on results of two clinical trials assessing a total of 1,289 people with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia. In these trials, lefamulin was compared with moxifloxacin with and without linezolid. Patients who received lefamulin had similar rates of treatment success as those taking moxifloxacin alone or moxifloxacin plus linezolid.
The most common adverse reactions associated with lefamulin include diarrhea, nausea, reactions at the injection site, elevated liver enzymes, and vomiting. Patients with prolonged QT interval, patients with arrhythmias, patients receiving treatment with antiarrhythmic agents, and patients receiving other drugs that prolong the QT interval are contraindicated. In addition, because of evidence of fetal harm in animal studies, pregnant women should be advised of potential risks before receiving lefamulin.
“This new drug provides another option for the treatment of patients with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia, a serious disease. For managing this serious disease, it is important for physicians and patients to have treatment options,” Ed Cox, MD, MPH, director of the FDA’s Office of Antimicrobial Products, said in the press release.
The Food and Drug Administration has announced its approval of lefamulin (Xenleta) for the treatment of community-acquired bacterial pneumonia in adults.
Approval was based on results of two clinical trials assessing a total of 1,289 people with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia. In these trials, lefamulin was compared with moxifloxacin with and without linezolid. Patients who received lefamulin had similar rates of treatment success as those taking moxifloxacin alone or moxifloxacin plus linezolid.
The most common adverse reactions associated with lefamulin include diarrhea, nausea, reactions at the injection site, elevated liver enzymes, and vomiting. Patients with prolonged QT interval, patients with arrhythmias, patients receiving treatment with antiarrhythmic agents, and patients receiving other drugs that prolong the QT interval are contraindicated. In addition, because of evidence of fetal harm in animal studies, pregnant women should be advised of potential risks before receiving lefamulin.
“This new drug provides another option for the treatment of patients with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia, a serious disease. For managing this serious disease, it is important for physicians and patients to have treatment options,” Ed Cox, MD, MPH, director of the FDA’s Office of Antimicrobial Products, said in the press release.
The Naming Project: Renaming Schizophrenia
One in 100 people worldwide experience a condition called schizophrenia. There is widespread disagreement regarding what should be the appropriate name for this condition. Raquelle Mesholam-Gately, PhD, Matcheri Keshavan, MD, the Consumer Advisory Board, and associated members of the research team at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center are conducting a study about renaming schizophrenia.
They are requesting your opinion on this matter. If you choose to be in the study, you will complete this survey, which will take 5 to 10 minutes. The survey is anonymous, and no one will be able to link your answers back to you. Please do not include your name or other information that could be used to identify you in the survey responses. Participation in this study is voluntary.
Take the survey: https://forms.gle/fBVvrkGbVSU3H7Cz8
One in 100 people worldwide experience a condition called schizophrenia. There is widespread disagreement regarding what should be the appropriate name for this condition. Raquelle Mesholam-Gately, PhD, Matcheri Keshavan, MD, the Consumer Advisory Board, and associated members of the research team at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center are conducting a study about renaming schizophrenia.
They are requesting your opinion on this matter. If you choose to be in the study, you will complete this survey, which will take 5 to 10 minutes. The survey is anonymous, and no one will be able to link your answers back to you. Please do not include your name or other information that could be used to identify you in the survey responses. Participation in this study is voluntary.
Take the survey: https://forms.gle/fBVvrkGbVSU3H7Cz8
One in 100 people worldwide experience a condition called schizophrenia. There is widespread disagreement regarding what should be the appropriate name for this condition. Raquelle Mesholam-Gately, PhD, Matcheri Keshavan, MD, the Consumer Advisory Board, and associated members of the research team at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center are conducting a study about renaming schizophrenia.
They are requesting your opinion on this matter. If you choose to be in the study, you will complete this survey, which will take 5 to 10 minutes. The survey is anonymous, and no one will be able to link your answers back to you. Please do not include your name or other information that could be used to identify you in the survey responses. Participation in this study is voluntary.
Take the survey: https://forms.gle/fBVvrkGbVSU3H7Cz8
FCC backs designating 988 as suicide prevention hotline
A Federal Communications Commission report recommends that 988 be designated as a nationwide suicide and mental health crisis support hotline, because a three-digit number “could be more effective” than the current 10-digit number, according to an FCC release.
The report was prepared by the FCC’s Wireline Competition Bureau and Office of Economics and Analytics at the direction of the National Suicide Hotline Improvement Act of 2018. The current service, known as the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline, uses the 10-digit number of 800-273-8255 (TALK). The report noted that the hotline has proved effective: The service answered 2.2 million calls in 2018 and various assessments have shown significant reductions in hopelessness and suicidal ideation among callers.
However, based on data and conclusions from some of those assessments, the report determined “that the Lifeline could be more effective in preventing suicides and providing crisis intervention if it were accessible via a simple, easy-to-remember, 3-digit dialing code.” The report examined the feasibility of three-digit options, including N11 options such as 211 and 511, but based on an analysis by the North American Numbering Council, it found that “technical and operational concerns related to the 988 code could be more easily and quickly addressed and resolved than any re-education efforts related to repurposing a N11 code.”
Suicide and mental health crises have been on the rise, according to numbers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention cited by the FCC report. Among the 50 states, 49 saw increases during 1999-2016, and more than half saw increases greater than 20%. The report describes how some groups, such as veterans and LGBTQ youth, are at especially high risk:
A Federal Communications Commission report recommends that 988 be designated as a nationwide suicide and mental health crisis support hotline, because a three-digit number “could be more effective” than the current 10-digit number, according to an FCC release.
The report was prepared by the FCC’s Wireline Competition Bureau and Office of Economics and Analytics at the direction of the National Suicide Hotline Improvement Act of 2018. The current service, known as the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline, uses the 10-digit number of 800-273-8255 (TALK). The report noted that the hotline has proved effective: The service answered 2.2 million calls in 2018 and various assessments have shown significant reductions in hopelessness and suicidal ideation among callers.
However, based on data and conclusions from some of those assessments, the report determined “that the Lifeline could be more effective in preventing suicides and providing crisis intervention if it were accessible via a simple, easy-to-remember, 3-digit dialing code.” The report examined the feasibility of three-digit options, including N11 options such as 211 and 511, but based on an analysis by the North American Numbering Council, it found that “technical and operational concerns related to the 988 code could be more easily and quickly addressed and resolved than any re-education efforts related to repurposing a N11 code.”
Suicide and mental health crises have been on the rise, according to numbers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention cited by the FCC report. Among the 50 states, 49 saw increases during 1999-2016, and more than half saw increases greater than 20%. The report describes how some groups, such as veterans and LGBTQ youth, are at especially high risk:
A Federal Communications Commission report recommends that 988 be designated as a nationwide suicide and mental health crisis support hotline, because a three-digit number “could be more effective” than the current 10-digit number, according to an FCC release.
The report was prepared by the FCC’s Wireline Competition Bureau and Office of Economics and Analytics at the direction of the National Suicide Hotline Improvement Act of 2018. The current service, known as the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline, uses the 10-digit number of 800-273-8255 (TALK). The report noted that the hotline has proved effective: The service answered 2.2 million calls in 2018 and various assessments have shown significant reductions in hopelessness and suicidal ideation among callers.
However, based on data and conclusions from some of those assessments, the report determined “that the Lifeline could be more effective in preventing suicides and providing crisis intervention if it were accessible via a simple, easy-to-remember, 3-digit dialing code.” The report examined the feasibility of three-digit options, including N11 options such as 211 and 511, but based on an analysis by the North American Numbering Council, it found that “technical and operational concerns related to the 988 code could be more easily and quickly addressed and resolved than any re-education efforts related to repurposing a N11 code.”
Suicide and mental health crises have been on the rise, according to numbers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention cited by the FCC report. Among the 50 states, 49 saw increases during 1999-2016, and more than half saw increases greater than 20%. The report describes how some groups, such as veterans and LGBTQ youth, are at especially high risk:
Windshield and UV exposure
As the summer draws to a close and I have finished my 20th road trip with my three children who frequently complain of “being too hot” or that the “sun is in my eyes” while in the car, I would like to particularly for passengers. As thoughtful parents, we lather our kids with sunscreen before going to the pool or beach, but do we really remember to do this, or to provide sunglasses before embarking on a 5-hour car ride? Many people do not. We must raise awareness of the risk of UV light in cars, and take better care of both our children and ourselves.
Windshield glass is federally regulated to allow in a maximum amount of light for visibility, but has no requirements for sun protection. Many people do not understand the difference between UVA and UVB protection, let alone that UVB radiation is blocked by the window glass, but UVA radiation is not, and reaches the skin and eyes through glass. By law, windshields must be made of laminated glass, which includes two 2.1-mm layers of glass separated by a 0.8-mm piece of plastic. The glass is made to break easily upon impact and the plastic then stretches to absorb the impact. The thin layer of plastic also helps windshields absorb nearly all of the sun’s UVA and UVB rays. Sunroofs also contain UV-protective technology, which blocks UVA and UVB radiation while also keeping the car cool and protecting against direct sun exposure. However, rear windows do not offer the same protection.
Side and rear windows are made of a cheaper tempered glass that does not include a plastic layer, thereby offering no UVA protection. In a study by Butler et al. reviewing 900 head and neck cancers, 53% were found on the left side, and those who spent more hours driving each week had a higher chance of getting a left-side skin cancer (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2010 Dec;63[6]:1006-10). Many automakers have not helped this problem; while there is higher-SPF glass that can be used, it is more costly for automobile manufacturers – and ultimately for consumers. A cheaper and more practical alternative is a UV film that can be applied to the glass; these films both improve UV protection and cool the car. In addition to providing sun protection, it can be assumed that the subsequent reduction of temperature within a car decreases the usage of air conditioners, thus improving both fuel economy and the environment.
Aftermarket window tinting and UV films can also be applied by glass-tinting companies and auto dealers for $150-$200. Companies like Solar Gard, LLUMAr, and 3M offer window films that can block UV rays. While these are available, the legal allowable tint limit varies from state to state. Visible light transmission (VLT) is the measurement of the percent of visible light that gets through a car’s window. The lower the VLT, the darker the tint. Most states prohibit less than 50% VLT for the driver and front passenger window, and 35% for the rear passenger, side, and rear windows.
To mitigate this, I offer patients with severe photo-dermitides a letter of medical necessity to the DMV to allow a higher percentage of tinting and recommend that they get aftermarket UV-protective films or tints on their vehicles. Regardless of whether higher tints are an option for them, sun protection of the skin and eyes is recommended for all passengers. Sunscreen with broad-spectrum coverage is recommended regardless of how long a car ride might be, and it is recommended that individuals keep the sunroof closed while driving for added UV protection. The use of polarized sunglasses for adults and children is also recommended to avoid UV damage to the eyes. Sunscreens and glasses with protection against blue light are also recommended for passengers who stare at screens and tablets during long car rides.
Dr. Talakoub and Dr. Wesley are cocontributors to this column. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. This month’s column is by Dr. Talakoub. Write to them at [email protected]. They had no relevant disclosures.
As the summer draws to a close and I have finished my 20th road trip with my three children who frequently complain of “being too hot” or that the “sun is in my eyes” while in the car, I would like to particularly for passengers. As thoughtful parents, we lather our kids with sunscreen before going to the pool or beach, but do we really remember to do this, or to provide sunglasses before embarking on a 5-hour car ride? Many people do not. We must raise awareness of the risk of UV light in cars, and take better care of both our children and ourselves.
Windshield glass is federally regulated to allow in a maximum amount of light for visibility, but has no requirements for sun protection. Many people do not understand the difference between UVA and UVB protection, let alone that UVB radiation is blocked by the window glass, but UVA radiation is not, and reaches the skin and eyes through glass. By law, windshields must be made of laminated glass, which includes two 2.1-mm layers of glass separated by a 0.8-mm piece of plastic. The glass is made to break easily upon impact and the plastic then stretches to absorb the impact. The thin layer of plastic also helps windshields absorb nearly all of the sun’s UVA and UVB rays. Sunroofs also contain UV-protective technology, which blocks UVA and UVB radiation while also keeping the car cool and protecting against direct sun exposure. However, rear windows do not offer the same protection.
Side and rear windows are made of a cheaper tempered glass that does not include a plastic layer, thereby offering no UVA protection. In a study by Butler et al. reviewing 900 head and neck cancers, 53% were found on the left side, and those who spent more hours driving each week had a higher chance of getting a left-side skin cancer (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2010 Dec;63[6]:1006-10). Many automakers have not helped this problem; while there is higher-SPF glass that can be used, it is more costly for automobile manufacturers – and ultimately for consumers. A cheaper and more practical alternative is a UV film that can be applied to the glass; these films both improve UV protection and cool the car. In addition to providing sun protection, it can be assumed that the subsequent reduction of temperature within a car decreases the usage of air conditioners, thus improving both fuel economy and the environment.
Aftermarket window tinting and UV films can also be applied by glass-tinting companies and auto dealers for $150-$200. Companies like Solar Gard, LLUMAr, and 3M offer window films that can block UV rays. While these are available, the legal allowable tint limit varies from state to state. Visible light transmission (VLT) is the measurement of the percent of visible light that gets through a car’s window. The lower the VLT, the darker the tint. Most states prohibit less than 50% VLT for the driver and front passenger window, and 35% for the rear passenger, side, and rear windows.
To mitigate this, I offer patients with severe photo-dermitides a letter of medical necessity to the DMV to allow a higher percentage of tinting and recommend that they get aftermarket UV-protective films or tints on their vehicles. Regardless of whether higher tints are an option for them, sun protection of the skin and eyes is recommended for all passengers. Sunscreen with broad-spectrum coverage is recommended regardless of how long a car ride might be, and it is recommended that individuals keep the sunroof closed while driving for added UV protection. The use of polarized sunglasses for adults and children is also recommended to avoid UV damage to the eyes. Sunscreens and glasses with protection against blue light are also recommended for passengers who stare at screens and tablets during long car rides.
Dr. Talakoub and Dr. Wesley are cocontributors to this column. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. This month’s column is by Dr. Talakoub. Write to them at [email protected]. They had no relevant disclosures.
As the summer draws to a close and I have finished my 20th road trip with my three children who frequently complain of “being too hot” or that the “sun is in my eyes” while in the car, I would like to particularly for passengers. As thoughtful parents, we lather our kids with sunscreen before going to the pool or beach, but do we really remember to do this, or to provide sunglasses before embarking on a 5-hour car ride? Many people do not. We must raise awareness of the risk of UV light in cars, and take better care of both our children and ourselves.
Windshield glass is federally regulated to allow in a maximum amount of light for visibility, but has no requirements for sun protection. Many people do not understand the difference between UVA and UVB protection, let alone that UVB radiation is blocked by the window glass, but UVA radiation is not, and reaches the skin and eyes through glass. By law, windshields must be made of laminated glass, which includes two 2.1-mm layers of glass separated by a 0.8-mm piece of plastic. The glass is made to break easily upon impact and the plastic then stretches to absorb the impact. The thin layer of plastic also helps windshields absorb nearly all of the sun’s UVA and UVB rays. Sunroofs also contain UV-protective technology, which blocks UVA and UVB radiation while also keeping the car cool and protecting against direct sun exposure. However, rear windows do not offer the same protection.
Side and rear windows are made of a cheaper tempered glass that does not include a plastic layer, thereby offering no UVA protection. In a study by Butler et al. reviewing 900 head and neck cancers, 53% were found on the left side, and those who spent more hours driving each week had a higher chance of getting a left-side skin cancer (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2010 Dec;63[6]:1006-10). Many automakers have not helped this problem; while there is higher-SPF glass that can be used, it is more costly for automobile manufacturers – and ultimately for consumers. A cheaper and more practical alternative is a UV film that can be applied to the glass; these films both improve UV protection and cool the car. In addition to providing sun protection, it can be assumed that the subsequent reduction of temperature within a car decreases the usage of air conditioners, thus improving both fuel economy and the environment.
Aftermarket window tinting and UV films can also be applied by glass-tinting companies and auto dealers for $150-$200. Companies like Solar Gard, LLUMAr, and 3M offer window films that can block UV rays. While these are available, the legal allowable tint limit varies from state to state. Visible light transmission (VLT) is the measurement of the percent of visible light that gets through a car’s window. The lower the VLT, the darker the tint. Most states prohibit less than 50% VLT for the driver and front passenger window, and 35% for the rear passenger, side, and rear windows.
To mitigate this, I offer patients with severe photo-dermitides a letter of medical necessity to the DMV to allow a higher percentage of tinting and recommend that they get aftermarket UV-protective films or tints on their vehicles. Regardless of whether higher tints are an option for them, sun protection of the skin and eyes is recommended for all passengers. Sunscreen with broad-spectrum coverage is recommended regardless of how long a car ride might be, and it is recommended that individuals keep the sunroof closed while driving for added UV protection. The use of polarized sunglasses for adults and children is also recommended to avoid UV damage to the eyes. Sunscreens and glasses with protection against blue light are also recommended for passengers who stare at screens and tablets during long car rides.
Dr. Talakoub and Dr. Wesley are cocontributors to this column. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. This month’s column is by Dr. Talakoub. Write to them at [email protected]. They had no relevant disclosures.
Flying solo
Recently, a stiff-white-coat family medicine resident showed up eager for his first day in dermatology. Working with him reminded me how exciting the journey is from resident to attending. It also reminded me how slow residents are – we’re 10 minutes into a visit and not yet done injecting anesthesia. A simple biopsy and electrodesiccation of a basal cell carcinoma would take 3 minutes – easy, rote, like driving home and being surprised when you arrive. But this task is making my resident so fraught with fear he’s barely moving. He won’t be crawling for long; his journey from novice to confident physician will be quick. Like a student pilot learning to fly, in a few hundred hours he’ll be flying solo.
After a year, most residents are adept, exuding the temerity of an attending. But as any practicing physician knows, medicine can make cowards of us all without warning. An experienced pilot facing an unexpected gusty 25-knot crosswind landing can find himself or herself a trembling beginner just as an excellent clinician can be overwhelmed facing an unexpectedly sick patient.
Not long after my visiting resident, I was back to my own packed clinic. With one swoop of a dermablade, I intended to quickly extirpate a keratoacanthoma on the back of an elderly man’s hand. I hardly had to think about it. However, when I lifted the blade, dark blood pooled where a dorsal saphenous vein used to live. After much electrodesiccation (and sutures) this particular biopsy was safely landed. But it wasn’t without a bit of blood loss and inconvenience for the patient. What might I have done differently? Injected 5-fluorouracil instead? Done an incisional biopsy? Used a different blade? More importantly, what will I do next time?
To avoid adverse outcomes, it might seem like the best strategy is to avoid deteriorating conditions, whether flying or in clinic. That would be a mistake. The journey from apprehension to mastery must pass through discomfort. It is only by working through unease and successfully managing complications that expertise is forged. Our days are mostly routine and the longer the period without adversity, the greater the risk of complacency. Consider seeking difficulty once in awhile and learn how to work through it. No pilot wants to be in a situation he or she hasn’t practiced managing.
For some physicians and residents, an unexpected complication or adverse outcome can make them apprehensive and defensive. I’ve seen doctors choose not to treat complicated diseases or dire lesions because of a previous bad experience or adverse outcome. It is sometimes appropriate to transfer a patient to a different service, but as physicians, it’s also our job to take care of our patient. When it’s your plane, you’ll have to land it.
Much later (or so it seemed), my resident finally finished the electrodesiccation and curettage. He had a look of relief knowing he has landed safely. I hope he realizes that this is a trip that he must take over and over again. One is never done learning to fly.
Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected].
Recently, a stiff-white-coat family medicine resident showed up eager for his first day in dermatology. Working with him reminded me how exciting the journey is from resident to attending. It also reminded me how slow residents are – we’re 10 minutes into a visit and not yet done injecting anesthesia. A simple biopsy and electrodesiccation of a basal cell carcinoma would take 3 minutes – easy, rote, like driving home and being surprised when you arrive. But this task is making my resident so fraught with fear he’s barely moving. He won’t be crawling for long; his journey from novice to confident physician will be quick. Like a student pilot learning to fly, in a few hundred hours he’ll be flying solo.
After a year, most residents are adept, exuding the temerity of an attending. But as any practicing physician knows, medicine can make cowards of us all without warning. An experienced pilot facing an unexpected gusty 25-knot crosswind landing can find himself or herself a trembling beginner just as an excellent clinician can be overwhelmed facing an unexpectedly sick patient.
Not long after my visiting resident, I was back to my own packed clinic. With one swoop of a dermablade, I intended to quickly extirpate a keratoacanthoma on the back of an elderly man’s hand. I hardly had to think about it. However, when I lifted the blade, dark blood pooled where a dorsal saphenous vein used to live. After much electrodesiccation (and sutures) this particular biopsy was safely landed. But it wasn’t without a bit of blood loss and inconvenience for the patient. What might I have done differently? Injected 5-fluorouracil instead? Done an incisional biopsy? Used a different blade? More importantly, what will I do next time?
To avoid adverse outcomes, it might seem like the best strategy is to avoid deteriorating conditions, whether flying or in clinic. That would be a mistake. The journey from apprehension to mastery must pass through discomfort. It is only by working through unease and successfully managing complications that expertise is forged. Our days are mostly routine and the longer the period without adversity, the greater the risk of complacency. Consider seeking difficulty once in awhile and learn how to work through it. No pilot wants to be in a situation he or she hasn’t practiced managing.
For some physicians and residents, an unexpected complication or adverse outcome can make them apprehensive and defensive. I’ve seen doctors choose not to treat complicated diseases or dire lesions because of a previous bad experience or adverse outcome. It is sometimes appropriate to transfer a patient to a different service, but as physicians, it’s also our job to take care of our patient. When it’s your plane, you’ll have to land it.
Much later (or so it seemed), my resident finally finished the electrodesiccation and curettage. He had a look of relief knowing he has landed safely. I hope he realizes that this is a trip that he must take over and over again. One is never done learning to fly.
Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected].
Recently, a stiff-white-coat family medicine resident showed up eager for his first day in dermatology. Working with him reminded me how exciting the journey is from resident to attending. It also reminded me how slow residents are – we’re 10 minutes into a visit and not yet done injecting anesthesia. A simple biopsy and electrodesiccation of a basal cell carcinoma would take 3 minutes – easy, rote, like driving home and being surprised when you arrive. But this task is making my resident so fraught with fear he’s barely moving. He won’t be crawling for long; his journey from novice to confident physician will be quick. Like a student pilot learning to fly, in a few hundred hours he’ll be flying solo.
After a year, most residents are adept, exuding the temerity of an attending. But as any practicing physician knows, medicine can make cowards of us all without warning. An experienced pilot facing an unexpected gusty 25-knot crosswind landing can find himself or herself a trembling beginner just as an excellent clinician can be overwhelmed facing an unexpectedly sick patient.
Not long after my visiting resident, I was back to my own packed clinic. With one swoop of a dermablade, I intended to quickly extirpate a keratoacanthoma on the back of an elderly man’s hand. I hardly had to think about it. However, when I lifted the blade, dark blood pooled where a dorsal saphenous vein used to live. After much electrodesiccation (and sutures) this particular biopsy was safely landed. But it wasn’t without a bit of blood loss and inconvenience for the patient. What might I have done differently? Injected 5-fluorouracil instead? Done an incisional biopsy? Used a different blade? More importantly, what will I do next time?
To avoid adverse outcomes, it might seem like the best strategy is to avoid deteriorating conditions, whether flying or in clinic. That would be a mistake. The journey from apprehension to mastery must pass through discomfort. It is only by working through unease and successfully managing complications that expertise is forged. Our days are mostly routine and the longer the period without adversity, the greater the risk of complacency. Consider seeking difficulty once in awhile and learn how to work through it. No pilot wants to be in a situation he or she hasn’t practiced managing.
For some physicians and residents, an unexpected complication or adverse outcome can make them apprehensive and defensive. I’ve seen doctors choose not to treat complicated diseases or dire lesions because of a previous bad experience or adverse outcome. It is sometimes appropriate to transfer a patient to a different service, but as physicians, it’s also our job to take care of our patient. When it’s your plane, you’ll have to land it.
Much later (or so it seemed), my resident finally finished the electrodesiccation and curettage. He had a look of relief knowing he has landed safely. I hope he realizes that this is a trip that he must take over and over again. One is never done learning to fly.
Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected].