Vickie Venne, MS. What is the Genomic Medicine Service (GMS) at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)?

Renee Rider, JD, MS, LCGC. GMS is a telehealth service. We are part of central office and field stationed at the George E. Wahlen VA Medical Center (VAMC) in Salt Lake City, Utah. We provide care to about 90 VAMCs and their associated clinics. Veterans are referred to us by entering an interfacility consult in the VA Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS). We review the consult to determine whether the patient needs to be seen, whether we can answer with an e-consult, or whether we need more information. For the patients who need an appointment, the telehealth department at the veteran’s VA facility will contact the patient to arrange a visit with us. At the time of the appointment, the facility has a staff member available to seat the patient and connect them to us using video equipment.

We provide genetic care for all specialties, including cancer, women’s health, cardiology and neurology. In today’s discussion, we are focusing on cancer care.

Vickie Venne. What do patients do at facilities that don’t get care through GMS?

Renee Rider. There are a handful of facilities that provide their own genetic care in-house. For example, VA Boston Healthcare System in Massachusetts and the Michael E. DeBakey VAMC in Houston, Texas each have their own programs. For veterans who are not at a VA facility that has an agreement with GMS and do not have a different genetics program, their providers need to make referrals to community care.

Vickie Venne. How do patients get referred and what happens at their facility when the patients return to the specialty and primary care providers (PCP)? Ishta, who do you refer to GMS and how do you define them initially?

Ishta Thakar, MD, FACP. Referrals can come at a couple of points during a veteran’s journey at the VA. The VA covers obstetrics care for women veterans. Whenever a PCP or a women’s health provider is doing the initial history and physical on a new patient, if the female veteran has an extensive family history of breast, ovarian, colon, or endometrial cancer, then we take more history and we send a consult to GMS. The second instance would be if she tells us that she has had a personal history of breast, ovarian, or endometrial cancer and she has never had genetic testing. The third instance would be whenever we have a female veteran who is diagnosed with breast, ovarian, endometrial, or colon cancer. We would definitely talk to her about genetic counseling and send a referral to GMS. We would ask for a GMS consult for a patient with advanced maternal age, with exposure to some kind of teratogens, with an abnormal ultrasound, a family history of chromosomal disorders, or if she’s seeing an obstetrician who wants her to be tested. And finally, if a patient has a constellation of multiple cancers in the family and we don’t know what’s going on, we would also refer the patient to GMS.

Vickie Venne. That would be why GMS fields over 150 referrals every week. It is a large list. We also see veterans with personal or family histories of neurologic or cardiologic concerns as well.

Renee, as somebody who fields many of these referrals from unaffected individuals, what is the family history process?

Renee Rider. We don’t expect the referring provider to be a genetic expert. When a provider is seeing a constellation of several different cancers and he or she doesn’t know if there’s anything going on genetically or even if it’s possible, absolutely they should put in a referral to GMS. We have a triage counselor who reviews every consult that comes into our service within 24 hours.

Many cancers are due to exposures that are not concerning for a genetic etiology. We can let you know that it is not concerning, and the PCP can counsel the patient that it is very unlikely to be genetic in nature. We still give feedback even if it’s not someone who is appropriate for genetic counseling and testing. It is important to reach out to GMS even if you don’t know whether a cancer is genetic in nature.

It also is important to take your time when gathering family histories. We get a lot of patients who say, “There’s a lot of cancer in my family. I have no idea who had cancer, but I know a lot of people had cancer.” That’s not the day to put in a referral to GMS. At that point, providers should tell the patient to get as much information as they can about the family history and then reassess. It’s important for us to have accurate information. We’ve had several times where we receive a referral because the veteran says that their sister had ovarian cancer. And then when our staff calls, they later find out it was cervical cancer. That’s not a good use of the veteran’s time, and it’s not a good use of VA resources.

The other important thing about family histories is keeping the questions open-ended. Often a PCP or specialist will ask about a certain type of cancer: “Does anyone in your family have breast cancer, ovarian cancer?” Or if the veteran
is getting a colonoscopy, they ask, “Does anybody have colon cancer?” Where really, we need to be a little bit more open-ended. We prefer questions like, “Has anyone in your family
had cancer?” because that’s the question that prompts a response of, “Yes, 3 people in my family have had thyroid cancer.” That’s very important for us to know, too.

If you do get a positive response, probe a little bit more: what kind of cancer did someone have, how old were they when they had their cancer? And how are they related? Is this an aunt on your mom’s side or on your dad’s side? Those are the types of information that we need to figure out if that person needs a referral.

Vickie Venne. It’s a different story when people already have a cancer diagnosis. Which hematology or oncology patients are good referrals and why?

Lisa Arfons, MD. When patients come in with newly diagnosed cancer, breast for example, it is an emotional diagnosis and psychologicallydistressing. Oftentimes, they want to know why this happened to them. The issues surrounding
genetic testing also becomes very emotional. They want to know whether their children are at risk as well.

Genetic discussions take a long time. I rarely do that on the first visit. I always record for myself in my clinic note if something strikes me regarding the patient’s diagnosis. I quickly run through the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines to remind myself of what I need to go over with the patient at our next meeting. Most patients don’t need to be referred to GMS, and most patients don’t need to be tested once they’re seen.

I often save the referral discussion for after I have established a rapport with a patient, we have a treatment plan, or they already have had their first surgery. Therefore, we are not making decisions about their first surgery based on the genetic medicine results.

If I’m considering a referral, I do a deeper dive with the patient. Is the patient older or younger than 45 years? I pull up NCCN guidelines and we go through the entire checklist.

We have male breast cancer patients at the VA—probably more than the community—so we refer those patients. At the Louis Stokes Cleveland VAMC in Ohio, we have had some in-depth discussions about referring male breast cancer patients for genetic testing and whether it was beneficial to older patients with male breast cancer. Ultimately, we decided that it was important for our male veterans to be tested because it empowered them to have better understanding of their medical conditions that may not just have effect on them but on their offspring, and that that can be a source of psychological and emotional support.

I don’t refer most people to GMS once I go through the checklist. I appreciate the action for an e-consult within the CPRS telemedicine consult itself, as Renee noted. If it is not necessary, GMS makes it an e-consult. I try to communicate that I don’t know whether it is necessary or not so that GMS understands where I’m coming from.

Vickie Venne. In the US Department of Defense (DoD) the process is quite different. Mauricio, can you explain the clinical referral process, who is referred, and how that works from a laboratory perspective?

Maj De Castro, MD, FACMG, USAF. The VA has led the way in demonstrating how to best provide for the medical genetic needs of a large, decentralized population distributed all over the country. Over the last 5 to 10 years, the DoD has made strides in recognizing the role genetics plays in the practice of everyday medicine and redoubling efforts to meet the needs of servicemembers.

The way that it traditionally has worked in the DoD is that military treatment facilities (MTFs) that have dedicated geneticists and genetic counselors: Kessler Medical Center in Mississippi, Walter Reed National Military Medical
Center in Maryland, Tripler Army Medical Center in Hawaii, Madigan Army Medical Center in Washington, Brooke Army Medical Center in Texas, Naval Medical Center San Diego in California, and Naval Medical Center Portsmouth in Virginia. A patient seeking genetic evaluation, counseling, or testing in those larger facilities would be referred to the genetics service by their primary care manager. Wait times vary, but it would usually be weeks, maybe months. However, the great majority of MTFs do not have dedicated genetics support. Most of the time, those patients would have to be referred to the local civilian community—there was no process for them to be seen in in the military healthcare system—with wait times that exceed 6 to 8 months in some cases. This is due to just not a military but a national shortage of genetics professionals (counselors and physicians).

Last year we started the telegenetics initiative, which is small compared to the VA—it is comprised of 2 geneticists and 1 genetic counselor—but with the full intent of growing it over time. Its purpose is to extend the resources we
had to other MTFs. Genetics professionals stationed state-side can provide care to remote facilities with limited access to local genetics support such as Cannon Air Force Base (AFB) or overseas facilities such as Spangdahlem AFB in Germany.

We recognize there are military-specific needs for the DoD regarding the genetic counseling process that have to take into account readiness, genetic discrimination, continued ability to serve and fitness for duty. For this important reason, we are seeking to expand our telegenetics initiative. The goal is to be able to provide 100% of all genetic counseling in-house, so to speak.

Currently, providers at the 4 pilot sites (Cannon AFB, Fort Bragg, Spangdahlem AFB, and Guantanamo Bay) send us referrals. We triage them and assign the patient to see a geneticist or a counselor depending on the indication.

On the laboratory side, it has been a very interesting experience. Because we provide comprehensive germline cancer testing at very little cost to the provider at any MTF, we have had high numbers of test requests over the years.
In addition to saving the DoD millions of dollars in testing, we have learned some interesting lessons in the process. For instance, we have worked closely with several different groups to better understand how to educate providers on the genetic counseling and testing process. This has allowed us to craft a thorough and inclusive consent form that addresses the needs of the DoD. We have also learned valuable lessons about population-based screening vs evidence-based testing, and lessons surrounding narrow-based testing (BRCA1 and BRCA2 only testing) vs ordering a more comprehensive panel that includes other genes supported by strong evidence (such as PALB2, CHEK2, or TP53).

For example, we have found that in a significant proportion of individuals with and without family history, there are clinically relevant variants in genes other than BRCA1 or BRCA2. And so, we have made part of our consent process,
a statement on secondary findings. If the patient consents, we will report pathogenic variants in other genes known to be associated with cancer (with strong evidence) even if the provider ordered a narrow panel such as BRCA1 and BRCA2 testing only. In about 1% to 4% of patients that would otherwise not meet NCCN guidelines, we’ve reported variants that were clinically actionable and changed the medical management of that patient.

We feel strongly that this is a conversation that we need to have in our field, and we realize it’s a complex issue, maybe we need to expand who gets testing. Guideline based testing is missing some patients out there that could benefit from it.

Vickie Venne. There certainly are many sides to the conversation of population-based vs evidence-based genetic testing. Genetic testing policies are changing rapidly. There are teams exploring comprehensive gene sequencing for
newborns and how that potential 1-time test can provide information will be reinterpreted as a person goes from cradle to grave. However, unlike the current DoD process, in the VA there are patients who we don’t see.

Renee Rider. I want to talk about money. When we order a genetic test, that test is paid for by the pathology department at the patient’s VAMC. Most of the pathology departments we work with are clear that they only can provide
genetic testing that is considered medically necessary. Thus, we review each test to make sure it meets established guidelines for testing. We don’t do population genetic screening as there isn’t evidence or guidelines to support offering it. We are strict about who does and does not get genetic testing, partly because we have a responsibility to pathology departments and to the taxpayers.

GMS focuses on conditions that are inherited, that is to say, we deal with germline genetics. Therefore, we discontinue referrals for somatic requests, such as when an OncotypeDX test is requested. It is my understanding that pharmacogenetic referrals may be sent to the new PHASeR initiative, which is a joint collaboration between the VA and Sanford Health and is headed by Deepak Voora, MD.

We generally don’t see patients who still are having diagnostic procedures done. For example, if a veteran has a suspicious breast mass, we recommend that the provider workup the mass before referring to GMS. Regardless of a genetic test result, a suspicious mass needs to be worked up. And, knowing if the mass is cancerous could change how we would proceed with the genetic workup. For example, if the mass were not cancerous, we may recommend that an affected relative have the first genetic evaluation. Furthermore, knowing if the patient has cancer changes how we interpret negative test results.

Another group of patients we don’t see are those who already had genetic testing done by the referring provider. It’s a VA directive that if you order a test, you’re the person who is responsible for giving the results. We agree with
this directive. If you don’t feel comfortable giving back test results, don’t order the test. Often, when a provider sends a patient to us after the test was done, we discover that the patient didn’t have appropriate pretest counseling. A test result, such as a variant of uncertain significance (VUS), should never be a surprise to either the provider or the patient.

Ishta Thakar. For newly diagnosed cancers, the first call is to the patient to inform them that they have cancer. We usually bring up genetic counseling or testing, if applicable, when they are ready to accept the diagnosis and have a conversation about it. All our consults are via telehealth, so none of our patients physically come to GMS in Salt Lake City. All the consults are done virtually.

For newly diagnosed patients, we would send a consult in within a couple of weeks. For patients who had a family history, the referral would not be urgent: They can be seen within about 3 months. The turnaround times for GMS are so much better than what we have available in the community where it’s often at least 6 months, as previously noted.

Vickie Venne. Thank you. We continue to work on that. One of the interesting things that we’ve done, which is the brainchild of Renee, is shared medical appointments.

Renee Rider. We have now created 4 group appointments for people who have concerns surrounding cancer. One group is for people who don’t have cancer but have family members who have cancer who may be the best testing candidate. For example, that might be a 30-year old who tells you that her mother had breast cancer at age 45 years. Her mother is still living, but she’s never had genetic testing. We would put her in a group where we discuss the importance of talking to the family members and encouraging them to go get that first genetic evaluation in the family.

Our second group is for people who don’t have cancer themselves, but have a family history of cancer and those affected relatives have passed away. The family needs a genetic evaluation, and the veteran is the best living testing candidate.

That group is geared towards education about the test and informed consent.

The third group is for people with cancer who qualify for genetic testing. We provide all of the information that they need to make an informed decision on having (or not having) genetic testing.

The final group is for people who have family histories of known genetic mutations in cancer genes. Again, we provide them with all of the information that they need to make an informed decision regarding genetic testing.

With the shared medical appointments, we have been able to greatly increase the number of patients that we can see. Our first 3 groups all meet once a week and can have 10 or 12 veterans. Our last group meets every other week and has a maximum of 6 veterans. Wait times for our groups are generally ≤ 2 weeks. All veterans can choose to have an individual appointment if they prefer. We regularly get unsolicited feedback from veterans that they learn a lot during our groups and appreciate it.

Our group appointments have lowered the wait time for the people in the groups. And, they’ve lowered the wait time for the people who are seen individually. They’ve allowed us to address the backlog of patients waiting to see us in a more timely manner. Our wait time for individual appointment had been approaching 6 months, and it is now about 1.5 months.

We also think that being in a group normalizes the experience. Most people don’t know anyone who has had genetic testing. Now, they are in a group with others going through the same experience. In one of my groups, a male veteran talked about his breast cancer being really rare. Another male in the group volunteer that he had breast cancer, too. They both seemed to appreciate not feeling alone.

Vickie Venne. I want to move to our final piece. What do the referring providers tell the patients about a genetics referral and what should they expect?

Lisa Arfons. First and foremost, I tell the patient that it is a discussion with a genetic counselor. I make it clear that they understand that it is a discussion. They then can agree or not agree to accept genetic testing if it’s recommended.

I talk in general terms about why I think it can be important for them to have the discussion, but that we don’t have great data for decisionmaking. We understand that there are more options for preventive measures but then it ultimately will be a discussion between the PCP, the patient, and their family members about how they proceed about the preventive measures. I want them to start thinking about how the genetic test results, regardless of if they are positive, negative, or a variant that is not yet understood, can impact their offspring.

Probably I am biased, as my mom had breast cancer and she underwent genetic testing. So, I have a bit of an offspring focus as well. I already mentioned that you must discuss about whether or not it’s worth screening or doing any preventive measures on contralateral breast, or screening for things like prostate cancer at age 75 years. And so I focus more on the family members.

I try to stay in my lane. I am extremely uncomfortable when I hear about someone in our facility sending off a blood test and then asking someone else to interpret the results and discuss it with the patient. Just because it’s a blood test and it’s easy to order doesn’t mean that it is easy to know what to do with it, and it needs to be respected as such.

Ishta Thakar. Our PCPs let the patients know that GMS will contact the patient to schedule a video appointment and that if they want to bring any family members along with them, they’re welcome to. We also explain that certain cancers are genetically based and that if they have a genetic mutation, it can be passed on to their offspring. I also explain that if they have certain mutations, then we would be more vigilant in screening them for other kinds of cancers. That’s the reason that we refer that they get counseled. After counseling if they’re ready for the testing, then the counselor orders the test and does the posttest discussion with the patient.

Vickie Venne. In the VA, people are invited to attend a genetic counseling session but can certainly decline. Does the the DoD have a different approach?

Maj De Castro. I would say that the great majority of active duty patients have limited knowledge of what to expect out of a genetics appointment. One of the main things we do is educate them on their rights and protections and the potential risks associated with performing genetic testing, in particular when it comes to their continued ability to serve. Genetic testing for clinical purposes is not mandatory in the DoD, patients can certainly decline testing. Because genetic testing has the potential to alter someone’s career, it is critical we have a very thorough and comprehensive pre- and posttest counseling sessions that includes everything from career implications to the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) and genetic discrimination in the military, in addition to the standard of care medical information.

Scenarios in which a servicemember is negatively impacted by pursuing a genetic diagnosis are very rare. More than 90% of the time, genetic counseling and/or testing has no adverse career effect. When they do, it is out of concern for the safety and wellbeing of a servicemember. For instance, if we diagnosis a patient with a genetic form of some arrhythmogenic disorder, part of the treatment plan can be to limit that person’s level of exertion, because it could potentially lead to death. We don’t want to put someone in a situation that may trigger that.

Vickie Venne. We also have a certain number of veterans who ask us about their service disability pay and the impact of genetic testing on it. One example is veterans with prostate cancer who were exposed to Agent Orange, which has been associated with increased risk for developing prostate cancer. I have had men who have been referred for genetic evaluation ask, “Well, if I have an identifiable mutation, how will that impact my service disability?” So we discuss the carcinogenic process that may include an inherited component as well as the environmental risk factors. I think that’s a unique issue for a population we’re honored to be able to serve.

Renee Rider. When we are talking about how the population of veterans is unique, I think it is also important to acknowledge mental health. I’ve had several patients tell me that they have posttraumatic stress disorder or anxiety and the idea of getting an indeterminant test result, such as VUS, would really weigh on them.

In the community, a lot of providers order the biggest panel they can, but for these patients who are worried about getting those indeterminant test results, I’ve been able to work with them to limit the size of the panel. I order a small panel that only has genes that have implications for that veteran’s clinical management. For example, in a patient with ductal breast cancer, I remove the genes that cause lobular breast cancer. This takes a bit of knowledge and critical thinking that our VA genetic counselors have because they have experience with veterans and their needs.

As our time draws to a close, I have one final thought. This has been a heartwarming conversation today. It is really nice to hear that GMS services are appreciated. We in GMS want to partner with our referring providers. Help us help you! When you enter a referral, please let us know how we can help you. The more we understand why you are sending your veteran to GMS, the more we can help meet your needs. If there are any questions or problems, feel free to send us an email or pick up the phone and call us.

Vickie Venne, MS. What is the Genomic Medicine Service (GMS) at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)?

Renee Rider, JD, MS, LCGC. GMS is a telehealth service. We are part of central office and field stationed at the George E. Wahlen VA Medical Center (VAMC) in Salt Lake City, Utah. We provide care to about 90 VAMCs and their associated clinics. Veterans are referred to us by entering an interfacility consult in the VA Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS). We review the consult to determine whether the patient needs to be seen, whether we can answer with an e-consult, or whether we need more information. For the patients who need an appointment, the telehealth department at the veteran’s VA facility will contact the patient to arrange a visit with us. At the time of the appointment, the facility has a staff member available to seat the patient and connect them to us using video equipment.

We provide genetic care for all specialties, including cancer, women’s health, cardiology and neurology. In today’s discussion, we are focusing on cancer care.

Vickie Venne. What do patients do at facilities that don’t get care through GMS?

Renee Rider. There are a handful of facilities that provide their own genetic care in-house. For example, VA Boston Healthcare System in Massachusetts and the Michael E. DeBakey VAMC in Houston, Texas each have their own programs. For veterans who are not at a VA facility that has an agreement with GMS and do not have a different genetics program, their providers need to make referrals to community care.

Vickie Venne. How do patients get referred and what happens at their facility when the patients return to the specialty and primary care providers (PCP)? Ishta, who do you refer to GMS and how do you define them initially?

Ishta Thakar, MD, FACP. Referrals can come at a couple of points during a veteran’s journey at the VA. The VA covers obstetrics care for women veterans. Whenever a PCP or a women’s health provider is doing the initial history and physical on a new patient, if the female veteran has an extensive family history of breast, ovarian, colon, or endometrial cancer, then we take more history and we send a consult to GMS. The second instance would be if she tells us that she has had a personal history of breast, ovarian, or endometrial cancer and she has never had genetic testing. The third instance would be whenever we have a female veteran who is diagnosed with breast, ovarian, endometrial, or colon cancer. We would definitely talk to her about genetic counseling and send a referral to GMS. We would ask for a GMS consult for a patient with advanced maternal age, with exposure to some kind of teratogens, with an abnormal ultrasound, a family history of chromosomal disorders, or if she’s seeing an obstetrician who wants her to be tested. And finally, if a patient has a constellation of multiple cancers in the family and we don’t know what’s going on, we would also refer the patient to GMS.

Vickie Venne. That would be why GMS fields over 150 referrals every week. It is a large list. We also see veterans with personal or family histories of neurologic or cardiologic concerns as well.

Renee, as somebody who fields many of these referrals from unaffected individuals, what is the family history process?

Renee Rider. We don’t expect the referring provider to be a genetic expert. When a provider is seeing a constellation of several different cancers and he or she doesn’t know if there’s anything going on genetically or even if it’s possible, absolutely they should put in a referral to GMS. We have a triage counselor who reviews every consult that comes into our service within 24 hours.

Many cancers are due to exposures that are not concerning for a genetic etiology. We can let you know that it is not concerning, and the PCP can counsel the patient that it is very unlikely to be genetic in nature. We still give feedback even if it’s not someone who is appropriate for genetic counseling and testing. It is important to reach out to GMS even if you don’t know whether a cancer is genetic in nature.

It also is important to take your time when gathering family histories. We get a lot of patients who say, “There’s a lot of cancer in my family. I have no idea who had cancer, but I know a lot of people had cancer.” That’s not the day to put in a referral to GMS. At that point, providers should tell the patient to get as much information as they can about the family history and then reassess. It’s important for us to have accurate information. We’ve had several times where we receive a referral because the veteran says that their sister had ovarian cancer. And then when our staff calls, they later find out it was cervical cancer. That’s not a good use of the veteran’s time, and it’s not a good use of VA resources.

The other important thing about family histories is keeping the questions open-ended. Often a PCP or specialist will ask about a certain type of cancer: “Does anyone in your family have breast cancer, ovarian cancer?” Or if the veteran
is getting a colonoscopy, they ask, “Does anybody have colon cancer?” Where really, we need to be a little bit more open-ended. We prefer questions like, “Has anyone in your family
had cancer?” because that’s the question that prompts a response of, “Yes, 3 people in my family have had thyroid cancer.” That’s very important for us to know, too.

If you do get a positive response, probe a little bit more: what kind of cancer did someone have, how old were they when they had their cancer? And how are they related? Is this an aunt on your mom’s side or on your dad’s side? Those are the types of information that we need to figure out if that person needs a referral.

Vickie Venne. It’s a different story when people already have a cancer diagnosis. Which hematology or oncology patients are good referrals and why?

Lisa Arfons, MD. When patients come in with newly diagnosed cancer, breast for example, it is an emotional diagnosis and psychologicallydistressing. Oftentimes, they want to know why this happened to them. The issues surrounding
genetic testing also becomes very emotional. They want to know whether their children are at risk as well.

Genetic discussions take a long time. I rarely do that on the first visit. I always record for myself in my clinic note if something strikes me regarding the patient’s diagnosis. I quickly run through the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines to remind myself of what I need to go over with the patient at our next meeting. Most patients don’t need to be referred to GMS, and most patients don’t need to be tested once they’re seen.

I often save the referral discussion for after I have established a rapport with a patient, we have a treatment plan, or they already have had their first surgery. Therefore, we are not making decisions about their first surgery based on the genetic medicine results.

If I’m considering a referral, I do a deeper dive with the patient. Is the patient older or younger than 45 years? I pull up NCCN guidelines and we go through the entire checklist.

We have male breast cancer patients at the VA—probably more than the community—so we refer those patients. At the Louis Stokes Cleveland VAMC in Ohio, we have had some in-depth discussions about referring male breast cancer patients for genetic testing and whether it was beneficial to older patients with male breast cancer. Ultimately, we decided that it was important for our male veterans to be tested because it empowered them to have better understanding of their medical conditions that may not just have effect on them but on their offspring, and that that can be a source of psychological and emotional support.

I don’t refer most people to GMS once I go through the checklist. I appreciate the action for an e-consult within the CPRS telemedicine consult itself, as Renee noted. If it is not necessary, GMS makes it an e-consult. I try to communicate that I don’t know whether it is necessary or not so that GMS understands where I’m coming from.

Vickie Venne. In the US Department of Defense (DoD) the process is quite different. Mauricio, can you explain the clinical referral process, who is referred, and how that works from a laboratory perspective?

Maj De Castro, MD, FACMG, USAF. The VA has led the way in demonstrating how to best provide for the medical genetic needs of a large, decentralized population distributed all over the country. Over the last 5 to 10 years, the DoD has made strides in recognizing the role genetics plays in the practice of everyday medicine and redoubling efforts to meet the needs of servicemembers.

The way that it traditionally has worked in the DoD is that military treatment facilities (MTFs) that have dedicated geneticists and genetic counselors: Kessler Medical Center in Mississippi, Walter Reed National Military Medical
Center in Maryland, Tripler Army Medical Center in Hawaii, Madigan Army Medical Center in Washington, Brooke Army Medical Center in Texas, Naval Medical Center San Diego in California, and Naval Medical Center Portsmouth in Virginia. A patient seeking genetic evaluation, counseling, or testing in those larger facilities would be referred to the genetics service by their primary care manager. Wait times vary, but it would usually be weeks, maybe months. However, the great majority of MTFs do not have dedicated genetics support. Most of the time, those patients would have to be referred to the local civilian community—there was no process for them to be seen in in the military healthcare system—with wait times that exceed 6 to 8 months in some cases. This is due to just not a military but a national shortage of genetics professionals (counselors and physicians).

Last year we started the telegenetics initiative, which is small compared to the VA—it is comprised of 2 geneticists and 1 genetic counselor—but with the full intent of growing it over time. Its purpose is to extend the resources we
had to other MTFs. Genetics professionals stationed state-side can provide care to remote facilities with limited access to local genetics support such as Cannon Air Force Base (AFB) or overseas facilities such as Spangdahlem AFB in Germany.

We recognize there are military-specific needs for the DoD regarding the genetic counseling process that have to take into account readiness, genetic discrimination, continued ability to serve and fitness for duty. For this important reason, we are seeking to expand our telegenetics initiative. The goal is to be able to provide 100% of all genetic counseling in-house, so to speak.

Currently, providers at the 4 pilot sites (Cannon AFB, Fort Bragg, Spangdahlem AFB, and Guantanamo Bay) send us referrals. We triage them and assign the patient to see a geneticist or a counselor depending on the indication.

On the laboratory side, it has been a very interesting experience. Because we provide comprehensive germline cancer testing at very little cost to the provider at any MTF, we have had high numbers of test requests over the years.
In addition to saving the DoD millions of dollars in testing, we have learned some interesting lessons in the process. For instance, we have worked closely with several different groups to better understand how to educate providers on the genetic counseling and testing process. This has allowed us to craft a thorough and inclusive consent form that addresses the needs of the DoD. We have also learned valuable lessons about population-based screening vs evidence-based testing, and lessons surrounding narrow-based testing (BRCA1 and BRCA2 only testing) vs ordering a more comprehensive panel that includes other genes supported by strong evidence (such as PALB2, CHEK2, or TP53).

For example, we have found that in a significant proportion of individuals with and without family history, there are clinically relevant variants in genes other than BRCA1 or BRCA2. And so, we have made part of our consent process,
a statement on secondary findings. If the patient consents, we will report pathogenic variants in other genes known to be associated with cancer (with strong evidence) even if the provider ordered a narrow panel such as BRCA1 and BRCA2 testing only. In about 1% to 4% of patients that would otherwise not meet NCCN guidelines, we’ve reported variants that were clinically actionable and changed the medical management of that patient.

We feel strongly that this is a conversation that we need to have in our field, and we realize it’s a complex issue, maybe we need to expand who gets testing. Guideline based testing is missing some patients out there that could benefit from it.

Vickie Venne. There certainly are many sides to the conversation of population-based vs evidence-based genetic testing. Genetic testing policies are changing rapidly. There are teams exploring comprehensive gene sequencing for
newborns and how that potential 1-time test can provide information will be reinterpreted as a person goes from cradle to grave. However, unlike the current DoD process, in the VA there are patients who we don’t see.

Renee Rider. I want to talk about money. When we order a genetic test, that test is paid for by the pathology department at the patient’s VAMC. Most of the pathology departments we work with are clear that they only can provide
genetic testing that is considered medically necessary. Thus, we review each test to make sure it meets established guidelines for testing. We don’t do population genetic screening as there isn’t evidence or guidelines to support offering it. We are strict about who does and does not get genetic testing, partly because we have a responsibility to pathology departments and to the taxpayers.

GMS focuses on conditions that are inherited, that is to say, we deal with germline genetics. Therefore, we discontinue referrals for somatic requests, such as when an OncotypeDX test is requested. It is my understanding that pharmacogenetic referrals may be sent to the new PHASeR initiative, which is a joint collaboration between the VA and Sanford Health and is headed by Deepak Voora, MD.

We generally don’t see patients who still are having diagnostic procedures done. For example, if a veteran has a suspicious breast mass, we recommend that the provider workup the mass before referring to GMS. Regardless of a genetic test result, a suspicious mass needs to be worked up. And, knowing if the mass is cancerous could change how we would proceed with the genetic workup. For example, if the mass were not cancerous, we may recommend that an affected relative have the first genetic evaluation. Furthermore, knowing if the patient has cancer changes how we interpret negative test results.

Another group of patients we don’t see are those who already had genetic testing done by the referring provider. It’s a VA directive that if you order a test, you’re the person who is responsible for giving the results. We agree with
this directive. If you don’t feel comfortable giving back test results, don’t order the test. Often, when a provider sends a patient to us after the test was done, we discover that the patient didn’t have appropriate pretest counseling. A test result, such as a variant of uncertain significance (VUS), should never be a surprise to either the provider or the patient.

Ishta Thakar. For newly diagnosed cancers, the first call is to the patient to inform them that they have cancer. We usually bring up genetic counseling or testing, if applicable, when they are ready to accept the diagnosis and have a conversation about it. All our consults are via telehealth, so none of our patients physically come to GMS in Salt Lake City. All the consults are done virtually.

For newly diagnosed patients, we would send a consult in within a couple of weeks. For patients who had a family history, the referral would not be urgent: They can be seen within about 3 months. The turnaround times for GMS are so much better than what we have available in the community where it’s often at least 6 months, as previously noted.

Vickie Venne. Thank you. We continue to work on that. One of the interesting things that we’ve done, which is the brainchild of Renee, is shared medical appointments.

Renee Rider. We have now created 4 group appointments for people who have concerns surrounding cancer. One group is for people who don’t have cancer but have family members who have cancer who may be the best testing candidate. For example, that might be a 30-year old who tells you that her mother had breast cancer at age 45 years. Her mother is still living, but she’s never had genetic testing. We would put her in a group where we discuss the importance of talking to the family members and encouraging them to go get that first genetic evaluation in the family.

Our second group is for people who don’t have cancer themselves, but have a family history of cancer and those affected relatives have passed away. The family needs a genetic evaluation, and the veteran is the best living testing candidate.

That group is geared towards education about the test and informed consent.

The third group is for people with cancer who qualify for genetic testing. We provide all of the information that they need to make an informed decision on having (or not having) genetic testing.

The final group is for people who have family histories of known genetic mutations in cancer genes. Again, we provide them with all of the information that they need to make an informed decision regarding genetic testing.

With the shared medical appointments, we have been able to greatly increase the number of patients that we can see. Our first 3 groups all meet once a week and can have 10 or 12 veterans. Our last group meets every other week and has a maximum of 6 veterans. Wait times for our groups are generally ≤ 2 weeks. All veterans can choose to have an individual appointment if they prefer. We regularly get unsolicited feedback from veterans that they learn a lot during our groups and appreciate it.

Our group appointments have lowered the wait time for the people in the groups. And, they’ve lowered the wait time for the people who are seen individually. They’ve allowed us to address the backlog of patients waiting to see us in a more timely manner. Our wait time for individual appointment had been approaching 6 months, and it is now about 1.5 months.

We also think that being in a group normalizes the experience. Most people don’t know anyone who has had genetic testing. Now, they are in a group with others going through the same experience. In one of my groups, a male veteran talked about his breast cancer being really rare. Another male in the group volunteer that he had breast cancer, too. They both seemed to appreciate not feeling alone.

Vickie Venne. I want to move to our final piece. What do the referring providers tell the patients about a genetics referral and what should they expect?

Lisa Arfons. First and foremost, I tell the patient that it is a discussion with a genetic counselor. I make it clear that they understand that it is a discussion. They then can agree or not agree to accept genetic testing if it’s recommended.

I talk in general terms about why I think it can be important for them to have the discussion, but that we don’t have great data for decisionmaking. We understand that there are more options for preventive measures but then it ultimately will be a discussion between the PCP, the patient, and their family members about how they proceed about the preventive measures. I want them to start thinking about how the genetic test results, regardless of if they are positive, negative, or a variant that is not yet understood, can impact their offspring.

Probably I am biased, as my mom had breast cancer and she underwent genetic testing. So, I have a bit of an offspring focus as well. I already mentioned that you must discuss about whether or not it’s worth screening or doing any preventive measures on contralateral breast, or screening for things like prostate cancer at age 75 years. And so I focus more on the family members.

I try to stay in my lane. I am extremely uncomfortable when I hear about someone in our facility sending off a blood test and then asking someone else to interpret the results and discuss it with the patient. Just because it’s a blood test and it’s easy to order doesn’t mean that it is easy to know what to do with it, and it needs to be respected as such.

Ishta Thakar. Our PCPs let the patients know that GMS will contact the patient to schedule a video appointment and that if they want to bring any family members along with them, they’re welcome to. We also explain that certain cancers are genetically based and that if they have a genetic mutation, it can be passed on to their offspring. I also explain that if they have certain mutations, then we would be more vigilant in screening them for other kinds of cancers. That’s the reason that we refer that they get counseled. After counseling if they’re ready for the testing, then the counselor orders the test and does the posttest discussion with the patient.

Vickie Venne. In the VA, people are invited to attend a genetic counseling session but can certainly decline. Does the the DoD have a different approach?

Maj De Castro. I would say that the great majority of active duty patients have limited knowledge of what to expect out of a genetics appointment. One of the main things we do is educate them on their rights and protections and the potential risks associated with performing genetic testing, in particular when it comes to their continued ability to serve. Genetic testing for clinical purposes is not mandatory in the DoD, patients can certainly decline testing. Because genetic testing has the potential to alter someone’s career, it is critical we have a very thorough and comprehensive pre- and posttest counseling sessions that includes everything from career implications to the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) and genetic discrimination in the military, in addition to the standard of care medical information.

Scenarios in which a servicemember is negatively impacted by pursuing a genetic diagnosis are very rare. More than 90% of the time, genetic counseling and/or testing has no adverse career effect. When they do, it is out of concern for the safety and wellbeing of a servicemember. For instance, if we diagnosis a patient with a genetic form of some arrhythmogenic disorder, part of the treatment plan can be to limit that person’s level of exertion, because it could potentially lead to death. We don’t want to put someone in a situation that may trigger that.

Vickie Venne. We also have a certain number of veterans who ask us about their service disability pay and the impact of genetic testing on it. One example is veterans with prostate cancer who were exposed to Agent Orange, which has been associated with increased risk for developing prostate cancer. I have had men who have been referred for genetic evaluation ask, “Well, if I have an identifiable mutation, how will that impact my service disability?” So we discuss the carcinogenic process that may include an inherited component as well as the environmental risk factors. I think that’s a unique issue for a population we’re honored to be able to serve.

Renee Rider. When we are talking about how the population of veterans is unique, I think it is also important to acknowledge mental health. I’ve had several patients tell me that they have posttraumatic stress disorder or anxiety and the idea of getting an indeterminant test result, such as VUS, would really weigh on them.

In the community, a lot of providers order the biggest panel they can, but for these patients who are worried about getting those indeterminant test results, I’ve been able to work with them to limit the size of the panel. I order a small panel that only has genes that have implications for that veteran’s clinical management. For example, in a patient with ductal breast cancer, I remove the genes that cause lobular breast cancer. This takes a bit of knowledge and critical thinking that our VA genetic counselors have because they have experience with veterans and their needs.

As our time draws to a close, I have one final thought. This has been a heartwarming conversation today. It is really nice to hear that GMS services are appreciated. We in GMS want to partner with our referring providers. Help us help you! When you enter a referral, please let us know how we can help you. The more we understand why you are sending your veteran to GMS, the more we can help meet your needs. If there are any questions or problems, feel free to send us an email or pick up the phone and call us.

Vickie Venne, MS. What is the Genomic Medicine Service (GMS) at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)?

Renee Rider, JD, MS, LCGC. GMS is a telehealth service. We are part of central office and field stationed at the George E. Wahlen VA Medical Center (VAMC) in Salt Lake City, Utah. We provide care to about 90 VAMCs and their associated clinics. Veterans are referred to us by entering an interfacility consult in the VA Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS). We review the consult to determine whether the patient needs to be seen, whether we can answer with an e-consult, or whether we need more information. For the patients who need an appointment, the telehealth department at the veteran’s VA facility will contact the patient to arrange a visit with us. At the time of the appointment, the facility has a staff member available to seat the patient and connect them to us using video equipment.

We provide genetic care for all specialties, including cancer, women’s health, cardiology and neurology. In today’s discussion, we are focusing on cancer care.

Vickie Venne. What do patients do at facilities that don’t get care through GMS?

Renee Rider. There are a handful of facilities that provide their own genetic care in-house. For example, VA Boston Healthcare System in Massachusetts and the Michael E. DeBakey VAMC in Houston, Texas each have their own programs. For veterans who are not at a VA facility that has an agreement with GMS and do not have a different genetics program, their providers need to make referrals to community care.

Vickie Venne. How do patients get referred and what happens at their facility when the patients return to the specialty and primary care providers (PCP)? Ishta, who do you refer to GMS and how do you define them initially?

Ishta Thakar, MD, FACP. Referrals can come at a couple of points during a veteran’s journey at the VA. The VA covers obstetrics care for women veterans. Whenever a PCP or a women’s health provider is doing the initial history and physical on a new patient, if the female veteran has an extensive family history of breast, ovarian, colon, or endometrial cancer, then we take more history and we send a consult to GMS. The second instance would be if she tells us that she has had a personal history of breast, ovarian, or endometrial cancer and she has never had genetic testing. The third instance would be whenever we have a female veteran who is diagnosed with breast, ovarian, endometrial, or colon cancer. We would definitely talk to her about genetic counseling and send a referral to GMS. We would ask for a GMS consult for a patient with advanced maternal age, with exposure to some kind of teratogens, with an abnormal ultrasound, a family history of chromosomal disorders, or if she’s seeing an obstetrician who wants her to be tested. And finally, if a patient has a constellation of multiple cancers in the family and we don’t know what’s going on, we would also refer the patient to GMS.

Vickie Venne. That would be why GMS fields over 150 referrals every week. It is a large list. We also see veterans with personal or family histories of neurologic or cardiologic concerns as well.

Renee, as somebody who fields many of these referrals from unaffected individuals, what is the family history process?

Renee Rider. We don’t expect the referring provider to be a genetic expert. When a provider is seeing a constellation of several different cancers and he or she doesn’t know if there’s anything going on genetically or even if it’s possible, absolutely they should put in a referral to GMS. We have a triage counselor who reviews every consult that comes into our service within 24 hours.

Many cancers are due to exposures that are not concerning for a genetic etiology. We can let you know that it is not concerning, and the PCP can counsel the patient that it is very unlikely to be genetic in nature. We still give feedback even if it’s not someone who is appropriate for genetic counseling and testing. It is important to reach out to GMS even if you don’t know whether a cancer is genetic in nature.

It also is important to take your time when gathering family histories. We get a lot of patients who say, “There’s a lot of cancer in my family. I have no idea who had cancer, but I know a lot of people had cancer.” That’s not the day to put in a referral to GMS. At that point, providers should tell the patient to get as much information as they can about the family history and then reassess. It’s important for us to have accurate information. We’ve had several times where we receive a referral because the veteran says that their sister had ovarian cancer. And then when our staff calls, they later find out it was cervical cancer. That’s not a good use of the veteran’s time, and it’s not a good use of VA resources.

The other important thing about family histories is keeping the questions open-ended. Often a PCP or specialist will ask about a certain type of cancer: “Does anyone in your family have breast cancer, ovarian cancer?” Or if the veteran
is getting a colonoscopy, they ask, “Does anybody have colon cancer?” Where really, we need to be a little bit more open-ended. We prefer questions like, “Has anyone in your family
had cancer?” because that’s the question that prompts a response of, “Yes, 3 people in my family have had thyroid cancer.” That’s very important for us to know, too.

If you do get a positive response, probe a little bit more: what kind of cancer did someone have, how old were they when they had their cancer? And how are they related? Is this an aunt on your mom’s side or on your dad’s side? Those are the types of information that we need to figure out if that person needs a referral.

Vickie Venne. It’s a different story when people already have a cancer diagnosis. Which hematology or oncology patients are good referrals and why?

Lisa Arfons, MD. When patients come in with newly diagnosed cancer, breast for example, it is an emotional diagnosis and psychologicallydistressing. Oftentimes, they want to know why this happened to them. The issues surrounding
genetic testing also becomes very emotional. They want to know whether their children are at risk as well.

Genetic discussions take a long time. I rarely do that on the first visit. I always record for myself in my clinic note if something strikes me regarding the patient’s diagnosis. I quickly run through the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines to remind myself of what I need to go over with the patient at our next meeting. Most patients don’t need to be referred to GMS, and most patients don’t need to be tested once they’re seen.

I often save the referral discussion for after I have established a rapport with a patient, we have a treatment plan, or they already have had their first surgery. Therefore, we are not making decisions about their first surgery based on the genetic medicine results.

If I’m considering a referral, I do a deeper dive with the patient. Is the patient older or younger than 45 years? I pull up NCCN guidelines and we go through the entire checklist.

We have male breast cancer patients at the VA—probably more than the community—so we refer those patients. At the Louis Stokes Cleveland VAMC in Ohio, we have had some in-depth discussions about referring male breast cancer patients for genetic testing and whether it was beneficial to older patients with male breast cancer. Ultimately, we decided that it was important for our male veterans to be tested because it empowered them to have better understanding of their medical conditions that may not just have effect on them but on their offspring, and that that can be a source of psychological and emotional support.

I don’t refer most people to GMS once I go through the checklist. I appreciate the action for an e-consult within the CPRS telemedicine consult itself, as Renee noted. If it is not necessary, GMS makes it an e-consult. I try to communicate that I don’t know whether it is necessary or not so that GMS understands where I’m coming from.

Vickie Venne. In the US Department of Defense (DoD) the process is quite different. Mauricio, can you explain the clinical referral process, who is referred, and how that works from a laboratory perspective?

Maj De Castro, MD, FACMG, USAF. The VA has led the way in demonstrating how to best provide for the medical genetic needs of a large, decentralized population distributed all over the country. Over the last 5 to 10 years, the DoD has made strides in recognizing the role genetics plays in the practice of everyday medicine and redoubling efforts to meet the needs of servicemembers.

The way that it traditionally has worked in the DoD is that military treatment facilities (MTFs) that have dedicated geneticists and genetic counselors: Kessler Medical Center in Mississippi, Walter Reed National Military Medical
Center in Maryland, Tripler Army Medical Center in Hawaii, Madigan Army Medical Center in Washington, Brooke Army Medical Center in Texas, Naval Medical Center San Diego in California, and Naval Medical Center Portsmouth in Virginia. A patient seeking genetic evaluation, counseling, or testing in those larger facilities would be referred to the genetics service by their primary care manager. Wait times vary, but it would usually be weeks, maybe months. However, the great majority of MTFs do not have dedicated genetics support. Most of the time, those patients would have to be referred to the local civilian community—there was no process for them to be seen in in the military healthcare system—with wait times that exceed 6 to 8 months in some cases. This is due to just not a military but a national shortage of genetics professionals (counselors and physicians).

Last year we started the telegenetics initiative, which is small compared to the VA—it is comprised of 2 geneticists and 1 genetic counselor—but with the full intent of growing it over time. Its purpose is to extend the resources we
had to other MTFs. Genetics professionals stationed state-side can provide care to remote facilities with limited access to local genetics support such as Cannon Air Force Base (AFB) or overseas facilities such as Spangdahlem AFB in Germany.

We recognize there are military-specific needs for the DoD regarding the genetic counseling process that have to take into account readiness, genetic discrimination, continued ability to serve and fitness for duty. For this important reason, we are seeking to expand our telegenetics initiative. The goal is to be able to provide 100% of all genetic counseling in-house, so to speak.

Currently, providers at the 4 pilot sites (Cannon AFB, Fort Bragg, Spangdahlem AFB, and Guantanamo Bay) send us referrals. We triage them and assign the patient to see a geneticist or a counselor depending on the indication.

On the laboratory side, it has been a very interesting experience. Because we provide comprehensive germline cancer testing at very little cost to the provider at any MTF, we have had high numbers of test requests over the years.
In addition to saving the DoD millions of dollars in testing, we have learned some interesting lessons in the process. For instance, we have worked closely with several different groups to better understand how to educate providers on the genetic counseling and testing process. This has allowed us to craft a thorough and inclusive consent form that addresses the needs of the DoD. We have also learned valuable lessons about population-based screening vs evidence-based testing, and lessons surrounding narrow-based testing (BRCA1 and BRCA2 only testing) vs ordering a more comprehensive panel that includes other genes supported by strong evidence (such as PALB2, CHEK2, or TP53).

For example, we have found that in a significant proportion of individuals with and without family history, there are clinically relevant variants in genes other than BRCA1 or BRCA2. And so, we have made part of our consent process,
a statement on secondary findings. If the patient consents, we will report pathogenic variants in other genes known to be associated with cancer (with strong evidence) even if the provider ordered a narrow panel such as BRCA1 and BRCA2 testing only. In about 1% to 4% of patients that would otherwise not meet NCCN guidelines, we’ve reported variants that were clinically actionable and changed the medical management of that patient.

We feel strongly that this is a conversation that we need to have in our field, and we realize it’s a complex issue, maybe we need to expand who gets testing. Guideline based testing is missing some patients out there that could benefit from it.

Vickie Venne. There certainly are many sides to the conversation of population-based vs evidence-based genetic testing. Genetic testing policies are changing rapidly. There are teams exploring comprehensive gene sequencing for
newborns and how that potential 1-time test can provide information will be reinterpreted as a person goes from cradle to grave. However, unlike the current DoD process, in the VA there are patients who we don’t see.

Renee Rider. I want to talk about money. When we order a genetic test, that test is paid for by the pathology department at the patient’s VAMC. Most of the pathology departments we work with are clear that they only can provide
genetic testing that is considered medically necessary. Thus, we review each test to make sure it meets established guidelines for testing. We don’t do population genetic screening as there isn’t evidence or guidelines to support offering it. We are strict about who does and does not get genetic testing, partly because we have a responsibility to pathology departments and to the taxpayers.

GMS focuses on conditions that are inherited, that is to say, we deal with germline genetics. Therefore, we discontinue referrals for somatic requests, such as when an OncotypeDX test is requested. It is my understanding that pharmacogenetic referrals may be sent to the new PHASeR initiative, which is a joint collaboration between the VA and Sanford Health and is headed by Deepak Voora, MD.

We generally don’t see patients who still are having diagnostic procedures done. For example, if a veteran has a suspicious breast mass, we recommend that the provider workup the mass before referring to GMS. Regardless of a genetic test result, a suspicious mass needs to be worked up. And, knowing if the mass is cancerous could change how we would proceed with the genetic workup. For example, if the mass were not cancerous, we may recommend that an affected relative have the first genetic evaluation. Furthermore, knowing if the patient has cancer changes how we interpret negative test results.

Another group of patients we don’t see are those who already had genetic testing done by the referring provider. It’s a VA directive that if you order a test, you’re the person who is responsible for giving the results. We agree with
this directive. If you don’t feel comfortable giving back test results, don’t order the test. Often, when a provider sends a patient to us after the test was done, we discover that the patient didn’t have appropriate pretest counseling. A test result, such as a variant of uncertain significance (VUS), should never be a surprise to either the provider or the patient.

Ishta Thakar. For newly diagnosed cancers, the first call is to the patient to inform them that they have cancer. We usually bring up genetic counseling or testing, if applicable, when they are ready to accept the diagnosis and have a conversation about it. All our consults are via telehealth, so none of our patients physically come to GMS in Salt Lake City. All the consults are done virtually.

For newly diagnosed patients, we would send a consult in within a couple of weeks. For patients who had a family history, the referral would not be urgent: They can be seen within about 3 months. The turnaround times for GMS are so much better than what we have available in the community where it’s often at least 6 months, as previously noted.

Vickie Venne. Thank you. We continue to work on that. One of the interesting things that we’ve done, which is the brainchild of Renee, is shared medical appointments.

Renee Rider. We have now created 4 group appointments for people who have concerns surrounding cancer. One group is for people who don’t have cancer but have family members who have cancer who may be the best testing candidate. For example, that might be a 30-year old who tells you that her mother had breast cancer at age 45 years. Her mother is still living, but she’s never had genetic testing. We would put her in a group where we discuss the importance of talking to the family members and encouraging them to go get that first genetic evaluation in the family.

Our second group is for people who don’t have cancer themselves, but have a family history of cancer and those affected relatives have passed away. The family needs a genetic evaluation, and the veteran is the best living testing candidate.

That group is geared towards education about the test and informed consent.

The third group is for people with cancer who qualify for genetic testing. We provide all of the information that they need to make an informed decision on having (or not having) genetic testing.

The final group is for people who have family histories of known genetic mutations in cancer genes. Again, we provide them with all of the information that they need to make an informed decision regarding genetic testing.

With the shared medical appointments, we have been able to greatly increase the number of patients that we can see. Our first 3 groups all meet once a week and can have 10 or 12 veterans. Our last group meets every other week and has a maximum of 6 veterans. Wait times for our groups are generally ≤ 2 weeks. All veterans can choose to have an individual appointment if they prefer. We regularly get unsolicited feedback from veterans that they learn a lot during our groups and appreciate it.

Our group appointments have lowered the wait time for the people in the groups. And, they’ve lowered the wait time for the people who are seen individually. They’ve allowed us to address the backlog of patients waiting to see us in a more timely manner. Our wait time for individual appointment had been approaching 6 months, and it is now about 1.5 months.

We also think that being in a group normalizes the experience. Most people don’t know anyone who has had genetic testing. Now, they are in a group with others going through the same experience. In one of my groups, a male veteran talked about his breast cancer being really rare. Another male in the group volunteer that he had breast cancer, too. They both seemed to appreciate not feeling alone.

Vickie Venne. I want to move to our final piece. What do the referring providers tell the patients about a genetics referral and what should they expect?

Lisa Arfons. First and foremost, I tell the patient that it is a discussion with a genetic counselor. I make it clear that they understand that it is a discussion. They then can agree or not agree to accept genetic testing if it’s recommended.

I talk in general terms about why I think it can be important for them to have the discussion, but that we don’t have great data for decisionmaking. We understand that there are more options for preventive measures but then it ultimately will be a discussion between the PCP, the patient, and their family members about how they proceed about the preventive measures. I want them to start thinking about how the genetic test results, regardless of if they are positive, negative, or a variant that is not yet understood, can impact their offspring.

Probably I am biased, as my mom had breast cancer and she underwent genetic testing. So, I have a bit of an offspring focus as well. I already mentioned that you must discuss about whether or not it’s worth screening or doing any preventive measures on contralateral breast, or screening for things like prostate cancer at age 75 years. And so I focus more on the family members.

I try to stay in my lane. I am extremely uncomfortable when I hear about someone in our facility sending off a blood test and then asking someone else to interpret the results and discuss it with the patient. Just because it’s a blood test and it’s easy to order doesn’t mean that it is easy to know what to do with it, and it needs to be respected as such.

Ishta Thakar. Our PCPs let the patients know that GMS will contact the patient to schedule a video appointment and that if they want to bring any family members along with them, they’re welcome to. We also explain that certain cancers are genetically based and that if they have a genetic mutation, it can be passed on to their offspring. I also explain that if they have certain mutations, then we would be more vigilant in screening them for other kinds of cancers. That’s the reason that we refer that they get counseled. After counseling if they’re ready for the testing, then the counselor orders the test and does the posttest discussion with the patient.

Vickie Venne. In the VA, people are invited to attend a genetic counseling session but can certainly decline. Does the the DoD have a different approach?

Maj De Castro. I would say that the great majority of active duty patients have limited knowledge of what to expect out of a genetics appointment. One of the main things we do is educate them on their rights and protections and the potential risks associated with performing genetic testing, in particular when it comes to their continued ability to serve. Genetic testing for clinical purposes is not mandatory in the DoD, patients can certainly decline testing. Because genetic testing has the potential to alter someone’s career, it is critical we have a very thorough and comprehensive pre- and posttest counseling sessions that includes everything from career implications to the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) and genetic discrimination in the military, in addition to the standard of care medical information.

Scenarios in which a servicemember is negatively impacted by pursuing a genetic diagnosis are very rare. More than 90% of the time, genetic counseling and/or testing has no adverse career effect. When they do, it is out of concern for the safety and wellbeing of a servicemember. For instance, if we diagnosis a patient with a genetic form of some arrhythmogenic disorder, part of the treatment plan can be to limit that person’s level of exertion, because it could potentially lead to death. We don’t want to put someone in a situation that may trigger that.

Vickie Venne. We also have a certain number of veterans who ask us about their service disability pay and the impact of genetic testing on it. One example is veterans with prostate cancer who were exposed to Agent Orange, which has been associated with increased risk for developing prostate cancer. I have had men who have been referred for genetic evaluation ask, “Well, if I have an identifiable mutation, how will that impact my service disability?” So we discuss the carcinogenic process that may include an inherited component as well as the environmental risk factors. I think that’s a unique issue for a population we’re honored to be able to serve.

Renee Rider. When we are talking about how the population of veterans is unique, I think it is also important to acknowledge mental health. I’ve had several patients tell me that they have posttraumatic stress disorder or anxiety and the idea of getting an indeterminant test result, such as VUS, would really weigh on them.

In the community, a lot of providers order the biggest panel they can, but for these patients who are worried about getting those indeterminant test results, I’ve been able to work with them to limit the size of the panel. I order a small panel that only has genes that have implications for that veteran’s clinical management. For example, in a patient with ductal breast cancer, I remove the genes that cause lobular breast cancer. This takes a bit of knowledge and critical thinking that our VA genetic counselors have because they have experience with veterans and their needs.

As our time draws to a close, I have one final thought. This has been a heartwarming conversation today. It is really nice to hear that GMS services are appreciated. We in GMS want to partner with our referring providers. Help us help you! When you enter a referral, please let us know how we can help you. The more we understand why you are sending your veteran to GMS, the more we can help meet your needs. If there are any questions or problems, feel free to send us an email or pick up the phone and call us.

Thyroid nodules are identified incidentally in 4% to 10% of the general population in the US.^1,2 Clinicians and patients often are concerned about potential malignancy when thyroid nodules are identified because 5% to 15% of nodules will be cancerous.¹ The most common form of cancer is papillary carcinoma followed by follicular carcinoma.² Initially, serum thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) levels and thyroid ultrasound are used to evaluate a thyroid nodule because both tests can reveal vital information about malignancy potential.³ Ultrasound characteristics, such as macrocalcifications, hypoechogenicity, absence of halo, increased vascularity, and irregular nodular margins, increase suspicion for malignancy and warrant further investigation.³

Ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) is the modality of choice for evaluation of thyroid nodules with sensitivity and specificity > 90%.^2,4 Most patients receive a definitive diagnosis with this test; however, about 25% of cases are indeterminate based on the Bethesda System and require surgical investigation.³

Currently, it is well accepted clinical practice to refer all nodules > 4 cm for surgical intervention regardless of malignancy risk factors or the mass effect of the nodule.^3-6 The preference for surgery—rather than FNA—is because of the notable false negative rate with FNA in larger nodules; studies have described false negative rates for FNA close to 10%.^7,8 In contrast, Megwalu recently reported a FNA false negative rate of 0%.⁹

The risk of malignancy associated with nodule size has been researched for many years, but studies have produced conflicting results. In this retrospective cohort study, the authors compared malignancy rates between patients with nodules ≥ 3 cm and those with nodules < 3 cm.

Methods

The authors performed a retrospective chart review of the medical records of 329 patients presenting for thyroid nodule evaluation found on physical exam or incidentally identified with imaging at the Dayton Veteran Affairs Medical Center from January 2000 to May 2016. Data collection included sex, age, race, personal history of neck radiation treatment, family history of thyroid cancer, personal history of thyroid cancer, hot nodules/Graves disease, abnormal neck lymph nodes, and serum TSH levels. The authors looked for an association between TSH level and cancer. Hot thyroid nodules are known to have low risk of malignancy.

All patients aged 18 to 99 years with a thyroid nodule evaluated with FNA were included in the study. Patients were divided into 2 groups, those with nodules ≥ 3 cm and those with nodules < 3 cm. For nodules requiring subsequent biopsies, only the initial nodule biopsy was included in our study. The 3-cm cutoff was selected based on previous studies.^1,5,10 Patients who did not undergo a FNA study were excluded. Indications for surgery were positive FNA results, suspicious imaging, size of nodule, or patient preference.

Means and standard deviations are reported for continuous variables and counts and percentages for categorical variables. We used the Mann-Whitney test for comparisons involving continuous variables with 2 groups and the Kruskal-Wallis test for 4 groups. The chi-square test—corrected for continuity if necessary—was used to compare 2 categorical variables. We used multiple logistic regression to adjust for demographic and clinical variables other than nodule size that were related to malignancy. Inferences were made at the 0.05 level of significance.

Results

A total of 329 patients with thyroid nodules were identified: 236 were < 3 cm and 93 were ≥ 3 cm. The 2 groups differed on race, with more white patients in the < 3-cm nodule group (78% vs 67%, P = .036) (Table 1). 

Prevalence of cancer based on FNA in nodules < 3 cm was 6.4% (95% CI, 3.6%–10.3%) and nodules ≥ 3 cm was 8.6% (95% CI, 3.8%–16.2%; P = .23) (Table 2). 

When divided into 4 subgroups, cancer using FNA was found in 35.1% of nodules < 2 cm, 21.1% of nodules 2 cm to < 3 cm, 42.1% of nodules 3 cm to 4 cm, and 18.2% of nodules > 4 cm (P = .32) (Table 3). 

Surgical pathology results showed 17 cases of papillary carcinoma in nodules < 3 cm, whereas there were 9 cases of papillary carcinoma and 1 case of follicular carcinoma in nodules > 3 cm. When correlated with the cytology results, 10 cases were reported as benign, 11 were malignant, and 6 samples were non-diagnostic.

There were 30 nondiagnostic FNA samples: 7 patients had surgery, 19 were monitored with serial imaging, 2 were lost to follow-up, and 2 expired for other reasons. Of the 19 patients who were monitored with serial imaging, the nodules were stable and did not require repeat sampling.

Discussion

The authors found no relationship between thyroid nodule size and malignancy over a 16-year period in a veteran population, either with FNA or surgical pathology. The lack of relationship persists when adjusted for the only nonthyroid variable on which the 2 groups differed (race).

The finding of no relationship between larger thyroid nodule size and cancer is consistent with other studies. In a 10-year chart review of 695 patients at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Burch and colleagues found a malignancy rate of 18.6% but no association between thyroid nodule size and malignancy.¹¹ They concluded that nodules ≥ 4 cm did not increase malignancy risk. In a 3-year retrospective study of 326 patients, Mangister and colleagues reported that the malignancy rate was higher in nodules < 3 cm (48.4%) compared with nodules ≥ 3 cm (33.3%).¹⁰ This study concluded that the malignancy potential of thyroid nodules peaked at 2 cm and decreased at > 3 cm. Kamran and colleagues reported a nonlinear relationship between nodule size and malignancy with a threshold of 2 cm, beyond which there was no increased risk of malignancy.¹

Conversely, in a prospective study Kuru and colleagues followed 571 patients who had undergone thyroidectomy and found that nodules ≥ 4 cm were associated with increased malignancy risk compared with nodules < 4 cm. However, with a cutoff of 3 cm there was no relationship.⁵ Discrepancies among studies might be because of variability in patient demographics and the prevalence of thyroid cancer in a specific institution. Although the majority of thyroid nodules are seen in females, the current study’s population was predominantly male and entirely veteran. Consequently, interpretation of these studies highlight the need to individualize clinical decision-making for each patient.

Limitations

This study has several limitations. It was conducted at a single institution with a group of veterans, which limits the ability to generalize its results to the general population. Second, data omissions are likely in retrospective chart reviews, and ensuring accuracy of data collection could be challenging. Third, all thyroid nodules found to be benign with cytology did not undergo surgical intervention to confirm the diagnosis; therefore, only 93 of 329 nodules were evaluated with the definitive diagnostic test. Therefore, selection bias was introduced into the nodule size comparisons when surgical intervention was used to measure the outcome. However, because false negative rates for FNA is low, likely few malignant nodules were missed. In addition, all patients with thyroid nodules are not referred for surgery because of potential complications.

Conclusion

This study strongly suggests there is no increased or decreased cancer risk for thyroid nodules ≥ 3 cm compared with those < 3 cm. Current clinical practice is to refer patients with larger nodules for surgical evaluation. In a large systemic review, Shin and colleagues reported higher pretest probability of malignancy in larger nodules and recommended consideration of surgical intervention for nodules > 3 cm because of false negatives and concerns for diagnostic inaccuracy with FNA.⁸ Although data were mixed, Shin and colleagues reported higher incidence of false negative FNA results in larger nodules.⁸ Given the authors’ findings and earlier conflicting results, the decision for surgical intervention cannot be made solely on nodule size and requires consideration of additional factors including FNA results, nodule characteristics, patient risk factors, and patient preference.

Thyroid nodules are identified incidentally in 4% to 10% of the general population in the US.^1,2 Clinicians and patients often are concerned about potential malignancy when thyroid nodules are identified because 5% to 15% of nodules will be cancerous.¹ The most common form of cancer is papillary carcinoma followed by follicular carcinoma.² Initially, serum thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) levels and thyroid ultrasound are used to evaluate a thyroid nodule because both tests can reveal vital information about malignancy potential.³ Ultrasound characteristics, such as macrocalcifications, hypoechogenicity, absence of halo, increased vascularity, and irregular nodular margins, increase suspicion for malignancy and warrant further investigation.³

Ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) is the modality of choice for evaluation of thyroid nodules with sensitivity and specificity > 90%.^2,4 Most patients receive a definitive diagnosis with this test; however, about 25% of cases are indeterminate based on the Bethesda System and require surgical investigation.³

Currently, it is well accepted clinical practice to refer all nodules > 4 cm for surgical intervention regardless of malignancy risk factors or the mass effect of the nodule.^3-6 The preference for surgery—rather than FNA—is because of the notable false negative rate with FNA in larger nodules; studies have described false negative rates for FNA close to 10%.^7,8 In contrast, Megwalu recently reported a FNA false negative rate of 0%.⁹

The risk of malignancy associated with nodule size has been researched for many years, but studies have produced conflicting results. In this retrospective cohort study, the authors compared malignancy rates between patients with nodules ≥ 3 cm and those with nodules < 3 cm.

Methods

The authors performed a retrospective chart review of the medical records of 329 patients presenting for thyroid nodule evaluation found on physical exam or incidentally identified with imaging at the Dayton Veteran Affairs Medical Center from January 2000 to May 2016. Data collection included sex, age, race, personal history of neck radiation treatment, family history of thyroid cancer, personal history of thyroid cancer, hot nodules/Graves disease, abnormal neck lymph nodes, and serum TSH levels. The authors looked for an association between TSH level and cancer. Hot thyroid nodules are known to have low risk of malignancy.

All patients aged 18 to 99 years with a thyroid nodule evaluated with FNA were included in the study. Patients were divided into 2 groups, those with nodules ≥ 3 cm and those with nodules < 3 cm. For nodules requiring subsequent biopsies, only the initial nodule biopsy was included in our study. The 3-cm cutoff was selected based on previous studies.^1,5,10 Patients who did not undergo a FNA study were excluded. Indications for surgery were positive FNA results, suspicious imaging, size of nodule, or patient preference.

Means and standard deviations are reported for continuous variables and counts and percentages for categorical variables. We used the Mann-Whitney test for comparisons involving continuous variables with 2 groups and the Kruskal-Wallis test for 4 groups. The chi-square test—corrected for continuity if necessary—was used to compare 2 categorical variables. We used multiple logistic regression to adjust for demographic and clinical variables other than nodule size that were related to malignancy. Inferences were made at the 0.05 level of significance.

Results

A total of 329 patients with thyroid nodules were identified: 236 were < 3 cm and 93 were ≥ 3 cm. The 2 groups differed on race, with more white patients in the < 3-cm nodule group (78% vs 67%, P = .036) (Table 1). 

Prevalence of cancer based on FNA in nodules < 3 cm was 6.4% (95% CI, 3.6%–10.3%) and nodules ≥ 3 cm was 8.6% (95% CI, 3.8%–16.2%; P = .23) (Table 2). 

When divided into 4 subgroups, cancer using FNA was found in 35.1% of nodules < 2 cm, 21.1% of nodules 2 cm to < 3 cm, 42.1% of nodules 3 cm to 4 cm, and 18.2% of nodules > 4 cm (P = .32) (Table 3). 

Surgical pathology results showed 17 cases of papillary carcinoma in nodules < 3 cm, whereas there were 9 cases of papillary carcinoma and 1 case of follicular carcinoma in nodules > 3 cm. When correlated with the cytology results, 10 cases were reported as benign, 11 were malignant, and 6 samples were non-diagnostic.

There were 30 nondiagnostic FNA samples: 7 patients had surgery, 19 were monitored with serial imaging, 2 were lost to follow-up, and 2 expired for other reasons. Of the 19 patients who were monitored with serial imaging, the nodules were stable and did not require repeat sampling.

Discussion

The authors found no relationship between thyroid nodule size and malignancy over a 16-year period in a veteran population, either with FNA or surgical pathology. The lack of relationship persists when adjusted for the only nonthyroid variable on which the 2 groups differed (race).

The finding of no relationship between larger thyroid nodule size and cancer is consistent with other studies. In a 10-year chart review of 695 patients at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Burch and colleagues found a malignancy rate of 18.6% but no association between thyroid nodule size and malignancy.¹¹ They concluded that nodules ≥ 4 cm did not increase malignancy risk. In a 3-year retrospective study of 326 patients, Mangister and colleagues reported that the malignancy rate was higher in nodules < 3 cm (48.4%) compared with nodules ≥ 3 cm (33.3%).¹⁰ This study concluded that the malignancy potential of thyroid nodules peaked at 2 cm and decreased at > 3 cm. Kamran and colleagues reported a nonlinear relationship between nodule size and malignancy with a threshold of 2 cm, beyond which there was no increased risk of malignancy.¹

Conversely, in a prospective study Kuru and colleagues followed 571 patients who had undergone thyroidectomy and found that nodules ≥ 4 cm were associated with increased malignancy risk compared with nodules < 4 cm. However, with a cutoff of 3 cm there was no relationship.⁵ Discrepancies among studies might be because of variability in patient demographics and the prevalence of thyroid cancer in a specific institution. Although the majority of thyroid nodules are seen in females, the current study’s population was predominantly male and entirely veteran. Consequently, interpretation of these studies highlight the need to individualize clinical decision-making for each patient.

Limitations

This study has several limitations. It was conducted at a single institution with a group of veterans, which limits the ability to generalize its results to the general population. Second, data omissions are likely in retrospective chart reviews, and ensuring accuracy of data collection could be challenging. Third, all thyroid nodules found to be benign with cytology did not undergo surgical intervention to confirm the diagnosis; therefore, only 93 of 329 nodules were evaluated with the definitive diagnostic test. Therefore, selection bias was introduced into the nodule size comparisons when surgical intervention was used to measure the outcome. However, because false negative rates for FNA is low, likely few malignant nodules were missed. In addition, all patients with thyroid nodules are not referred for surgery because of potential complications.

Conclusion

This study strongly suggests there is no increased or decreased cancer risk for thyroid nodules ≥ 3 cm compared with those < 3 cm. Current clinical practice is to refer patients with larger nodules for surgical evaluation. In a large systemic review, Shin and colleagues reported higher pretest probability of malignancy in larger nodules and recommended consideration of surgical intervention for nodules > 3 cm because of false negatives and concerns for diagnostic inaccuracy with FNA.⁸ Although data were mixed, Shin and colleagues reported higher incidence of false negative FNA results in larger nodules.⁸ Given the authors’ findings and earlier conflicting results, the decision for surgical intervention cannot be made solely on nodule size and requires consideration of additional factors including FNA results, nodule characteristics, patient risk factors, and patient preference.

Thyroid nodules are identified incidentally in 4% to 10% of the general population in the US.^1,2 Clinicians and patients often are concerned about potential malignancy when thyroid nodules are identified because 5% to 15% of nodules will be cancerous.¹ The most common form of cancer is papillary carcinoma followed by follicular carcinoma.² Initially, serum thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) levels and thyroid ultrasound are used to evaluate a thyroid nodule because both tests can reveal vital information about malignancy potential.³ Ultrasound characteristics, such as macrocalcifications, hypoechogenicity, absence of halo, increased vascularity, and irregular nodular margins, increase suspicion for malignancy and warrant further investigation.³

Ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) is the modality of choice for evaluation of thyroid nodules with sensitivity and specificity > 90%.^2,4 Most patients receive a definitive diagnosis with this test; however, about 25% of cases are indeterminate based on the Bethesda System and require surgical investigation.³

Currently, it is well accepted clinical practice to refer all nodules > 4 cm for surgical intervention regardless of malignancy risk factors or the mass effect of the nodule.^3-6 The preference for surgery—rather than FNA—is because of the notable false negative rate with FNA in larger nodules; studies have described false negative rates for FNA close to 10%.^7,8 In contrast, Megwalu recently reported a FNA false negative rate of 0%.⁹

The risk of malignancy associated with nodule size has been researched for many years, but studies have produced conflicting results. In this retrospective cohort study, the authors compared malignancy rates between patients with nodules ≥ 3 cm and those with nodules < 3 cm.

Methods

The authors performed a retrospective chart review of the medical records of 329 patients presenting for thyroid nodule evaluation found on physical exam or incidentally identified with imaging at the Dayton Veteran Affairs Medical Center from January 2000 to May 2016. Data collection included sex, age, race, personal history of neck radiation treatment, family history of thyroid cancer, personal history of thyroid cancer, hot nodules/Graves disease, abnormal neck lymph nodes, and serum TSH levels. The authors looked for an association between TSH level and cancer. Hot thyroid nodules are known to have low risk of malignancy.

All patients aged 18 to 99 years with a thyroid nodule evaluated with FNA were included in the study. Patients were divided into 2 groups, those with nodules ≥ 3 cm and those with nodules < 3 cm. For nodules requiring subsequent biopsies, only the initial nodule biopsy was included in our study. The 3-cm cutoff was selected based on previous studies.^1,5,10 Patients who did not undergo a FNA study were excluded. Indications for surgery were positive FNA results, suspicious imaging, size of nodule, or patient preference.

Means and standard deviations are reported for continuous variables and counts and percentages for categorical variables. We used the Mann-Whitney test for comparisons involving continuous variables with 2 groups and the Kruskal-Wallis test for 4 groups. The chi-square test—corrected for continuity if necessary—was used to compare 2 categorical variables. We used multiple logistic regression to adjust for demographic and clinical variables other than nodule size that were related to malignancy. Inferences were made at the 0.05 level of significance.

Results

A total of 329 patients with thyroid nodules were identified: 236 were < 3 cm and 93 were ≥ 3 cm. The 2 groups differed on race, with more white patients in the < 3-cm nodule group (78% vs 67%, P = .036) (Table 1). 

Prevalence of cancer based on FNA in nodules < 3 cm was 6.4% (95% CI, 3.6%–10.3%) and nodules ≥ 3 cm was 8.6% (95% CI, 3.8%–16.2%; P = .23) (Table 2). 

When divided into 4 subgroups, cancer using FNA was found in 35.1% of nodules < 2 cm, 21.1% of nodules 2 cm to < 3 cm, 42.1% of nodules 3 cm to 4 cm, and 18.2% of nodules > 4 cm (P = .32) (Table 3). 

Surgical pathology results showed 17 cases of papillary carcinoma in nodules < 3 cm, whereas there were 9 cases of papillary carcinoma and 1 case of follicular carcinoma in nodules > 3 cm. When correlated with the cytology results, 10 cases were reported as benign, 11 were malignant, and 6 samples were non-diagnostic.

There were 30 nondiagnostic FNA samples: 7 patients had surgery, 19 were monitored with serial imaging, 2 were lost to follow-up, and 2 expired for other reasons. Of the 19 patients who were monitored with serial imaging, the nodules were stable and did not require repeat sampling.

Discussion

The authors found no relationship between thyroid nodule size and malignancy over a 16-year period in a veteran population, either with FNA or surgical pathology. The lack of relationship persists when adjusted for the only nonthyroid variable on which the 2 groups differed (race).

The finding of no relationship between larger thyroid nodule size and cancer is consistent with other studies. In a 10-year chart review of 695 patients at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Burch and colleagues found a malignancy rate of 18.6% but no association between thyroid nodule size and malignancy.¹¹ They concluded that nodules ≥ 4 cm did not increase malignancy risk. In a 3-year retrospective study of 326 patients, Mangister and colleagues reported that the malignancy rate was higher in nodules < 3 cm (48.4%) compared with nodules ≥ 3 cm (33.3%).¹⁰ This study concluded that the malignancy potential of thyroid nodules peaked at 2 cm and decreased at > 3 cm. Kamran and colleagues reported a nonlinear relationship between nodule size and malignancy with a threshold of 2 cm, beyond which there was no increased risk of malignancy.¹

Conversely, in a prospective study Kuru and colleagues followed 571 patients who had undergone thyroidectomy and found that nodules ≥ 4 cm were associated with increased malignancy risk compared with nodules < 4 cm. However, with a cutoff of 3 cm there was no relationship.⁵ Discrepancies among studies might be because of variability in patient demographics and the prevalence of thyroid cancer in a specific institution. Although the majority of thyroid nodules are seen in females, the current study’s population was predominantly male and entirely veteran. Consequently, interpretation of these studies highlight the need to individualize clinical decision-making for each patient.

Limitations

This study has several limitations. It was conducted at a single institution with a group of veterans, which limits the ability to generalize its results to the general population. Second, data omissions are likely in retrospective chart reviews, and ensuring accuracy of data collection could be challenging. Third, all thyroid nodules found to be benign with cytology did not undergo surgical intervention to confirm the diagnosis; therefore, only 93 of 329 nodules were evaluated with the definitive diagnostic test. Therefore, selection bias was introduced into the nodule size comparisons when surgical intervention was used to measure the outcome. However, because false negative rates for FNA is low, likely few malignant nodules were missed. In addition, all patients with thyroid nodules are not referred for surgery because of potential complications.

Conclusion

This study strongly suggests there is no increased or decreased cancer risk for thyroid nodules ≥ 3 cm compared with those < 3 cm. Current clinical practice is to refer patients with larger nodules for surgical evaluation. In a large systemic review, Shin and colleagues reported higher pretest probability of malignancy in larger nodules and recommended consideration of surgical intervention for nodules > 3 cm because of false negatives and concerns for diagnostic inaccuracy with FNA.⁸ Although data were mixed, Shin and colleagues reported higher incidence of false negative FNA results in larger nodules.⁸ Given the authors’ findings and earlier conflicting results, the decision for surgical intervention cannot be made solely on nodule size and requires consideration of additional factors including FNA results, nodule characteristics, patient risk factors, and patient preference.

The physician thought that this was most likely toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN). He was in a small hospital without a burn unit, so he drew baseline labs and blood cultures, and started to give intravenous fluids to treat the dehydration.

TEN is on the most severe side of a spectrum of disorders that includes erythema multiforme and Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS). Erythema multiforme is diagnosed when < 10% of the body surface area is involved, SJS/TEN when between 10% and 30% is involved, and TEN when >30% is involved. Drugs that are most commonly known to cause SJS and TEN include sulfonamide antibiotics, allopurinol, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents, amine antiepileptic drugs (phenytoin and carbamazepine), and lamotrigine. In this case, the amoxicillin was the likely culprit.

The physician waited until the patient was hemodynamically stable before transferring her to the closest city hospital where a dermatologist could manage her care. The dermatologist agreed with the diagnosis of TEN and continued supportive care. While the hospital did not have intravenous immunoglobulin or cyclosporine on hand, the health care team was able to provide the necessary supportive care. The patient survived, and she was warned to never take any type of penicillin again.

‌

Photos and text for Photo Rounds Friday courtesy of Richard P. Usatine, MD. This case was adapted from: Milana C, Smith M. Erythema multiforme, Stevens-Johnson syndrome, and toxic epidermal necrolysis. In: Usatine R, Smith M, Mayeaux EJ, et al, eds. Color Atlas and Synopsis of Family Medicine. 3rd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 2019:1161-1168.

To learn more about the 3rd edition of the Color Atlas and Synopsis of Family Medicine, see: https://www.amazon.com/Color-Atlas-Synopsis-Family-Medicine/dp/1259862046/

You can get the Color Atlas of Family Medicine app by clicking on this link: usatinemedia.com

The physician thought that this was most likely toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN). He was in a small hospital without a burn unit, so he drew baseline labs and blood cultures, and started to give intravenous fluids to treat the dehydration.

TEN is on the most severe side of a spectrum of disorders that includes erythema multiforme and Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS). Erythema multiforme is diagnosed when < 10% of the body surface area is involved, SJS/TEN when between 10% and 30% is involved, and TEN when >30% is involved. Drugs that are most commonly known to cause SJS and TEN include sulfonamide antibiotics, allopurinol, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents, amine antiepileptic drugs (phenytoin and carbamazepine), and lamotrigine. In this case, the amoxicillin was the likely culprit.

The physician waited until the patient was hemodynamically stable before transferring her to the closest city hospital where a dermatologist could manage her care. The dermatologist agreed with the diagnosis of TEN and continued supportive care. While the hospital did not have intravenous immunoglobulin or cyclosporine on hand, the health care team was able to provide the necessary supportive care. The patient survived, and she was warned to never take any type of penicillin again.

‌

Photos and text for Photo Rounds Friday courtesy of Richard P. Usatine, MD. This case was adapted from: Milana C, Smith M. Erythema multiforme, Stevens-Johnson syndrome, and toxic epidermal necrolysis. In: Usatine R, Smith M, Mayeaux EJ, et al, eds. Color Atlas and Synopsis of Family Medicine. 3rd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 2019:1161-1168.

To learn more about the 3rd edition of the Color Atlas and Synopsis of Family Medicine, see: https://www.amazon.com/Color-Atlas-Synopsis-Family-Medicine/dp/1259862046/

You can get the Color Atlas of Family Medicine app by clicking on this link: usatinemedia.com

The physician thought that this was most likely toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN). He was in a small hospital without a burn unit, so he drew baseline labs and blood cultures, and started to give intravenous fluids to treat the dehydration.

TEN is on the most severe side of a spectrum of disorders that includes erythema multiforme and Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS). Erythema multiforme is diagnosed when < 10% of the body surface area is involved, SJS/TEN when between 10% and 30% is involved, and TEN when >30% is involved. Drugs that are most commonly known to cause SJS and TEN include sulfonamide antibiotics, allopurinol, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents, amine antiepileptic drugs (phenytoin and carbamazepine), and lamotrigine. In this case, the amoxicillin was the likely culprit.

The physician waited until the patient was hemodynamically stable before transferring her to the closest city hospital where a dermatologist could manage her care. The dermatologist agreed with the diagnosis of TEN and continued supportive care. While the hospital did not have intravenous immunoglobulin or cyclosporine on hand, the health care team was able to provide the necessary supportive care. The patient survived, and she was warned to never take any type of penicillin again.

‌

Photos and text for Photo Rounds Friday courtesy of Richard P. Usatine, MD. This case was adapted from: Milana C, Smith M. Erythema multiforme, Stevens-Johnson syndrome, and toxic epidermal necrolysis. In: Usatine R, Smith M, Mayeaux EJ, et al, eds. Color Atlas and Synopsis of Family Medicine. 3rd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 2019:1161-1168.

To learn more about the 3rd edition of the Color Atlas and Synopsis of Family Medicine, see: https://www.amazon.com/Color-Atlas-Synopsis-Family-Medicine/dp/1259862046/

You can get the Color Atlas of Family Medicine app by clicking on this link: usatinemedia.com

The Food and Drug Administration’s Antimicrobial Drugs Advisory Committee backed the fixed dose combination of emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide (TAF; Descovy, Gilead) for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) against HIV for men and transgender women who have sex with men.

In a discussion after a 16-2 vote, committee members cited analysis by the study’s sponsor and the FDA showing efficacy and a generally good safety profile in the DISCOVER trial, the single new clinical trial conducted to support TAF’s use for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP).

However, this trial included no cisgender women; the sponsor asked for approval based primarily on extrapolation from the DISCOVER results and previous results with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) in cisgender women. Both formulations of tenofovir are prodrugs and converted to tenofovir diphosphate intracellularly in peripheral blood mononuclear cells, though many aspects of their pharmacokinetics differ.

The committee voted 10-8 against the proposition that these data supported an indication of TAF for PrEP in cisgender women, in a narrowly worded question from the FDA.

Many members who voted on either side of the question had strongly worded reservations about the lack of data for cisgender women. Said committee chair Lindsey R. Baden, MD, director of the infectious disease service at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, who voted against the indication for cisgender women, “We’ve failed women. To be at this point and not have the data to guide decision-making is a shame on all of us.”

Ighovwerha Ofotokun, MD, who voted yes, concurred: “I agree it is a terrible failure that the agency, as well as the sponsor, would come to this committee with a lack of data on women.” But for Dr. Ofotokun, a professor of infectious diseases at Emory University, Atlanta, not including cisgender women in the approval was a distasteful proposition. “Creating a two-tier prevention and treatment hierarchy would not be helpful. We should remind ourselves that there are more women living with HIV in the world than there are men, and the risk of new HIV infection is higher among women than among men, if you look at this globally,” he said.

“I find it disrespectful and an issue of research equity. Women deserve the same quality of data about the safety and efficacy of the drugs they are exposed to that men get and that is not the situation we find ourselves in at the moment,” said Dawn K. Smith, MD, MPH, a lead scientist at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Atlanta, who voted against approval for cisgender women.

Michael Green, MD, MPH, professor of pediatrics, surgery and clinical and translational science at the University of Pittsburgh, echoed the frustration of many committee members when he said, “I voted yes, almost abstained, then almost voted no.” He, along with all who voted yes, emphasized the importance of mandatory postmarketing studies in cisgender women to ensure efficacy data are obtained.

Transgender women made up only about 1% of the DISCOVER population, a fact that also gave many committee members pause.

If TAF is approved, labeling and package materials should be clear that the data support only noninferiority, not superiority, compared with TDF, said several advisory committee members who voted for approval for men and transgender women who have sex with men. “My expectation of this approval is that it should be marketed responsibly from the perspective of not creating these disparities and having Truvada be a drug for poor people and Descovy be a drug for rich people,” said Demetre Dasklalakis, MD, assistant commissioner of the Bureau of HIV/AIDS Prevention and Control at the city of New York’s Department of Health and Hygiene, and of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, N.Y. Truvada is slated to be offered as a generic drug in 2020, according to a Securities and Exchange Commission filing by Gilead Sciences.

The CDC reported earlier in 2019 that rates of new HIV infections have plateaued in recent years. Uptake of PrEP has been particularly low among at-risk members of minority populations, in rural areas, and in the South, according to a CDC report.

The DISCOVER trial is a 96-week ongoing trial to test TAF’s noninferiority to a fixed-drug combination of emcitrabine and tenofovir dimethyl fumarate (TDF; Truvada, Gilead) for PrEP. Both drugs are already approved to treat HIV infection, and TDF is approved for PrEP. Non-inferiority was preestablished at a rate ratio of HIV incidence of 1.62 (TAF:TDF) between the two study arms.

DISCOVER has enrolled 5,387 men and transgender women who have sex with men and are deemed at high risk for HIV, and found an incidence rate ratio of 0.47, with the upper bound of the confidence interval at 1.15. Since this figure was less than the prespecified noninferiority margin, both Gilead presenters and the FDA agreed, TAF’s noninferiority for efficacy was established.

Characteristics were similar between patients in the TAF arm (N = 2,694) and the TDF arm (N = 2,693). About 60% of patients in each arm reported having receptive anal sex with at least two partners in the previous 12 weeks, and recent rectal gonorrhea, syphilis, and chlamydia rates were 9-13% at baseline. Two thirds of participants reported recreational drug use, and about one in four reported binge drinking.

Sexual behavior and sexually transmitted infection rates continued generally unchanged from baseline during the study period.

The median age was 34 years, and most participants (84%) were white. Black participants made up 9% of the study population, and about 25% were of Hispanic or Latin ethnic origin.

Known decreases in bone mineral density occur with TDF; these were not seen with TAF, and bone mineral density increased while on TAF for the DISCOVER population aged 19-25 years.

Renal biomarkers of concern with TDF included two proteins linked with proximal tubule dysfunction, as well as estimated glomerular filtration rate. According to the sponsor’s analysis, eGFR fell by 2.3 mL/min for the TAF group, compared with a 1.8 mL/min rise while on TDF (P less than .001). Changes of similar statistical significance were seen for proximal tubular proteinuria. Also, improvements were seen in renal measures for the subset of patients enrolled who were on TDF PrEP at baseline but switched to TAF, in a prespecified subgroup analysis.

However, patients who were on TDF had a significant decrease in total cholesterol and both low- and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol compared with those on TAF, who had minimal changes or slight increases in lipids (P less than .001 for all). Triglycerides rose for those on TAF and remained unchanged for those on TDF (P = .002).

The PrEP indication sought by Gilead includes adults and adolescents, defined as those who weigh more than 35 kg. A nonvoting question put before the committee asked whether the totality of tenofovir data supported an indication of TAF for cisgender men who have insertive vaginal sex; though this extrapolation didn’t give the committee as much pause as the request for approval in cisgender women, they cited similar concerns and noted that cervicovaginal mucosa are different in many ways from rectal mucosa.

The study included no cisgender women, for a host of reasons cited by the sponsor and the FDA. These included high nonadherence rates among this population, relatively lower HIV infection rates among cisgender women in the United States, and mixed efficacy results in previous tenofovir clinical trials; the latter point made establishing a noninferiority margin problematic, according to the FDA.

For Dr. Baden, “The optics of approval for population A but not for population B are problematic.” Speaking to both the sponsor and the FDA, he said, “Everyone agrees there needs to be actual data. Please do the study as quickly as possible.” What’s needed is the collective will to make it happen, he added: “I don’t accept that it’s too big, too hard, too difficult.”

The FDA usually follows the recommendations of its advisory committees.

[email protected]

This article was updated 8/8/19.

The Food and Drug Administration’s Antimicrobial Drugs Advisory Committee backed the fixed dose combination of emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide (TAF; Descovy, Gilead) for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) against HIV for men and transgender women who have sex with men.

In a discussion after a 16-2 vote, committee members cited analysis by the study’s sponsor and the FDA showing efficacy and a generally good safety profile in the DISCOVER trial, the single new clinical trial conducted to support TAF’s use for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP).

However, this trial included no cisgender women; the sponsor asked for approval based primarily on extrapolation from the DISCOVER results and previous results with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) in cisgender women. Both formulations of tenofovir are prodrugs and converted to tenofovir diphosphate intracellularly in peripheral blood mononuclear cells, though many aspects of their pharmacokinetics differ.

The committee voted 10-8 against the proposition that these data supported an indication of TAF for PrEP in cisgender women, in a narrowly worded question from the FDA.

Many members who voted on either side of the question had strongly worded reservations about the lack of data for cisgender women. Said committee chair Lindsey R. Baden, MD, director of the infectious disease service at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, who voted against the indication for cisgender women, “We’ve failed women. To be at this point and not have the data to guide decision-making is a shame on all of us.”

Ighovwerha Ofotokun, MD, who voted yes, concurred: “I agree it is a terrible failure that the agency, as well as the sponsor, would come to this committee with a lack of data on women.” But for Dr. Ofotokun, a professor of infectious diseases at Emory University, Atlanta, not including cisgender women in the approval was a distasteful proposition. “Creating a two-tier prevention and treatment hierarchy would not be helpful. We should remind ourselves that there are more women living with HIV in the world than there are men, and the risk of new HIV infection is higher among women than among men, if you look at this globally,” he said.

“I find it disrespectful and an issue of research equity. Women deserve the same quality of data about the safety and efficacy of the drugs they are exposed to that men get and that is not the situation we find ourselves in at the moment,” said Dawn K. Smith, MD, MPH, a lead scientist at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Atlanta, who voted against approval for cisgender women.

Michael Green, MD, MPH, professor of pediatrics, surgery and clinical and translational science at the University of Pittsburgh, echoed the frustration of many committee members when he said, “I voted yes, almost abstained, then almost voted no.” He, along with all who voted yes, emphasized the importance of mandatory postmarketing studies in cisgender women to ensure efficacy data are obtained.

Transgender women made up only about 1% of the DISCOVER population, a fact that also gave many committee members pause.

If TAF is approved, labeling and package materials should be clear that the data support only noninferiority, not superiority, compared with TDF, said several advisory committee members who voted for approval for men and transgender women who have sex with men. “My expectation of this approval is that it should be marketed responsibly from the perspective of not creating these disparities and having Truvada be a drug for poor people and Descovy be a drug for rich people,” said Demetre Dasklalakis, MD, assistant commissioner of the Bureau of HIV/AIDS Prevention and Control at the city of New York’s Department of Health and Hygiene, and of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, N.Y. Truvada is slated to be offered as a generic drug in 2020, according to a Securities and Exchange Commission filing by Gilead Sciences.

The CDC reported earlier in 2019 that rates of new HIV infections have plateaued in recent years. Uptake of PrEP has been particularly low among at-risk members of minority populations, in rural areas, and in the South, according to a CDC report.

The DISCOVER trial is a 96-week ongoing trial to test TAF’s noninferiority to a fixed-drug combination of emcitrabine and tenofovir dimethyl fumarate (TDF; Truvada, Gilead) for PrEP. Both drugs are already approved to treat HIV infection, and TDF is approved for PrEP. Non-inferiority was preestablished at a rate ratio of HIV incidence of 1.62 (TAF:TDF) between the two study arms.

DISCOVER has enrolled 5,387 men and transgender women who have sex with men and are deemed at high risk for HIV, and found an incidence rate ratio of 0.47, with the upper bound of the confidence interval at 1.15. Since this figure was less than the prespecified noninferiority margin, both Gilead presenters and the FDA agreed, TAF’s noninferiority for efficacy was established.

Characteristics were similar between patients in the TAF arm (N = 2,694) and the TDF arm (N = 2,693). About 60% of patients in each arm reported having receptive anal sex with at least two partners in the previous 12 weeks, and recent rectal gonorrhea, syphilis, and chlamydia rates were 9-13% at baseline. Two thirds of participants reported recreational drug use, and about one in four reported binge drinking.

Sexual behavior and sexually transmitted infection rates continued generally unchanged from baseline during the study period.

The median age was 34 years, and most participants (84%) were white. Black participants made up 9% of the study population, and about 25% were of Hispanic or Latin ethnic origin.

Known decreases in bone mineral density occur with TDF; these were not seen with TAF, and bone mineral density increased while on TAF for the DISCOVER population aged 19-25 years.

Renal biomarkers of concern with TDF included two proteins linked with proximal tubule dysfunction, as well as estimated glomerular filtration rate. According to the sponsor’s analysis, eGFR fell by 2.3 mL/min for the TAF group, compared with a 1.8 mL/min rise while on TDF (P less than .001). Changes of similar statistical significance were seen for proximal tubular proteinuria. Also, improvements were seen in renal measures for the subset of patients enrolled who were on TDF PrEP at baseline but switched to TAF, in a prespecified subgroup analysis.

However, patients who were on TDF had a significant decrease in total cholesterol and both low- and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol compared with those on TAF, who had minimal changes or slight increases in lipids (P less than .001 for all). Triglycerides rose for those on TAF and remained unchanged for those on TDF (P = .002).

The PrEP indication sought by Gilead includes adults and adolescents, defined as those who weigh more than 35 kg. A nonvoting question put before the committee asked whether the totality of tenofovir data supported an indication of TAF for cisgender men who have insertive vaginal sex; though this extrapolation didn’t give the committee as much pause as the request for approval in cisgender women, they cited similar concerns and noted that cervicovaginal mucosa are different in many ways from rectal mucosa.

The study included no cisgender women, for a host of reasons cited by the sponsor and the FDA. These included high nonadherence rates among this population, relatively lower HIV infection rates among cisgender women in the United States, and mixed efficacy results in previous tenofovir clinical trials; the latter point made establishing a noninferiority margin problematic, according to the FDA.

For Dr. Baden, “The optics of approval for population A but not for population B are problematic.” Speaking to both the sponsor and the FDA, he said, “Everyone agrees there needs to be actual data. Please do the study as quickly as possible.” What’s needed is the collective will to make it happen, he added: “I don’t accept that it’s too big, too hard, too difficult.”

The FDA usually follows the recommendations of its advisory committees.

[email protected]

This article was updated 8/8/19.

The Food and Drug Administration’s Antimicrobial Drugs Advisory Committee backed the fixed dose combination of emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide (TAF; Descovy, Gilead) for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) against HIV for men and transgender women who have sex with men.

In a discussion after a 16-2 vote, committee members cited analysis by the study’s sponsor and the FDA showing efficacy and a generally good safety profile in the DISCOVER trial, the single new clinical trial conducted to support TAF’s use for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP).

However, this trial included no cisgender women; the sponsor asked for approval based primarily on extrapolation from the DISCOVER results and previous results with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) in cisgender women. Both formulations of tenofovir are prodrugs and converted to tenofovir diphosphate intracellularly in peripheral blood mononuclear cells, though many aspects of their pharmacokinetics differ.

The committee voted 10-8 against the proposition that these data supported an indication of TAF for PrEP in cisgender women, in a narrowly worded question from the FDA.

Many members who voted on either side of the question had strongly worded reservations about the lack of data for cisgender women. Said committee chair Lindsey R. Baden, MD, director of the infectious disease service at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, who voted against the indication for cisgender women, “We’ve failed women. To be at this point and not have the data to guide decision-making is a shame on all of us.”

Ighovwerha Ofotokun, MD, who voted yes, concurred: “I agree it is a terrible failure that the agency, as well as the sponsor, would come to this committee with a lack of data on women.” But for Dr. Ofotokun, a professor of infectious diseases at Emory University, Atlanta, not including cisgender women in the approval was a distasteful proposition. “Creating a two-tier prevention and treatment hierarchy would not be helpful. We should remind ourselves that there are more women living with HIV in the world than there are men, and the risk of new HIV infection is higher among women than among men, if you look at this globally,” he said.

“I find it disrespectful and an issue of research equity. Women deserve the same quality of data about the safety and efficacy of the drugs they are exposed to that men get and that is not the situation we find ourselves in at the moment,” said Dawn K. Smith, MD, MPH, a lead scientist at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Atlanta, who voted against approval for cisgender women.

Michael Green, MD, MPH, professor of pediatrics, surgery and clinical and translational science at the University of Pittsburgh, echoed the frustration of many committee members when he said, “I voted yes, almost abstained, then almost voted no.” He, along with all who voted yes, emphasized the importance of mandatory postmarketing studies in cisgender women to ensure efficacy data are obtained.

Transgender women made up only about 1% of the DISCOVER population, a fact that also gave many committee members pause.

If TAF is approved, labeling and package materials should be clear that the data support only noninferiority, not superiority, compared with TDF, said several advisory committee members who voted for approval for men and transgender women who have sex with men. “My expectation of this approval is that it should be marketed responsibly from the perspective of not creating these disparities and having Truvada be a drug for poor people and Descovy be a drug for rich people,” said Demetre Dasklalakis, MD, assistant commissioner of the Bureau of HIV/AIDS Prevention and Control at the city of New York’s Department of Health and Hygiene, and of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, N.Y. Truvada is slated to be offered as a generic drug in 2020, according to a Securities and Exchange Commission filing by Gilead Sciences.

The CDC reported earlier in 2019 that rates of new HIV infections have plateaued in recent years. Uptake of PrEP has been particularly low among at-risk members of minority populations, in rural areas, and in the South, according to a CDC report.

The DISCOVER trial is a 96-week ongoing trial to test TAF’s noninferiority to a fixed-drug combination of emcitrabine and tenofovir dimethyl fumarate (TDF; Truvada, Gilead) for PrEP. Both drugs are already approved to treat HIV infection, and TDF is approved for PrEP. Non-inferiority was preestablished at a rate ratio of HIV incidence of 1.62 (TAF:TDF) between the two study arms.

DISCOVER has enrolled 5,387 men and transgender women who have sex with men and are deemed at high risk for HIV, and found an incidence rate ratio of 0.47, with the upper bound of the confidence interval at 1.15. Since this figure was less than the prespecified noninferiority margin, both Gilead presenters and the FDA agreed, TAF’s noninferiority for efficacy was established.

Characteristics were similar between patients in the TAF arm (N = 2,694) and the TDF arm (N = 2,693). About 60% of patients in each arm reported having receptive anal sex with at least two partners in the previous 12 weeks, and recent rectal gonorrhea, syphilis, and chlamydia rates were 9-13% at baseline. Two thirds of participants reported recreational drug use, and about one in four reported binge drinking.

Sexual behavior and sexually transmitted infection rates continued generally unchanged from baseline during the study period.

The median age was 34 years, and most participants (84%) were white. Black participants made up 9% of the study population, and about 25% were of Hispanic or Latin ethnic origin.

Known decreases in bone mineral density occur with TDF; these were not seen with TAF, and bone mineral density increased while on TAF for the DISCOVER population aged 19-25 years.

Renal biomarkers of concern with TDF included two proteins linked with proximal tubule dysfunction, as well as estimated glomerular filtration rate. According to the sponsor’s analysis, eGFR fell by 2.3 mL/min for the TAF group, compared with a 1.8 mL/min rise while on TDF (P less than .001). Changes of similar statistical significance were seen for proximal tubular proteinuria. Also, improvements were seen in renal measures for the subset of patients enrolled who were on TDF PrEP at baseline but switched to TAF, in a prespecified subgroup analysis.

However, patients who were on TDF had a significant decrease in total cholesterol and both low- and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol compared with those on TAF, who had minimal changes or slight increases in lipids (P less than .001 for all). Triglycerides rose for those on TAF and remained unchanged for those on TDF (P = .002).

The PrEP indication sought by Gilead includes adults and adolescents, defined as those who weigh more than 35 kg. A nonvoting question put before the committee asked whether the totality of tenofovir data supported an indication of TAF for cisgender men who have insertive vaginal sex; though this extrapolation didn’t give the committee as much pause as the request for approval in cisgender women, they cited similar concerns and noted that cervicovaginal mucosa are different in many ways from rectal mucosa.

The study included no cisgender women, for a host of reasons cited by the sponsor and the FDA. These included high nonadherence rates among this population, relatively lower HIV infection rates among cisgender women in the United States, and mixed efficacy results in previous tenofovir clinical trials; the latter point made establishing a noninferiority margin problematic, according to the FDA.

For Dr. Baden, “The optics of approval for population A but not for population B are problematic.” Speaking to both the sponsor and the FDA, he said, “Everyone agrees there needs to be actual data. Please do the study as quickly as possible.” What’s needed is the collective will to make it happen, he added: “I don’t accept that it’s too big, too hard, too difficult.”

The FDA usually follows the recommendations of its advisory committees.

[email protected]

This article was updated 8/8/19.

Development of an effective respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccine is feasible using a new technology that can contribute to development of other vaccines as well, according to results of a proof-of-concept study in Science.

Micah Young/istockphoto.com

The new method of protein engineering preserves the RSV antigen protein’s prefusion structure, including the epitope, thereby inducing antibodies that better “match,” and neutralize, the actual pathogen.

“Protein-based RSV vaccines have had a particularly complicated history, especially those in which the primary immunogen has been the fusion (F) glycoprotein, which exists in two major conformational states: prefusion (pre-F) and postfusion (post-F),” lead author Michelle Crank, MD, of the Vaccine Research Center at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases in Bethesda, Md., and her colleagues explained in the paper.

Since the failure of the whole-inactivated RSV vaccine in the 1960s, researchers have focused on F subunit vaccine candidates, but these contain only post-F or “structurally undefined” F protein.

“Although the products are immunogenic, a substantial proportion of antibodies elicited are non- or poorly neutralizing, and field trials have shown no or minimal efficacy,” the authors wrote.

But now researchers have an “atomic-level understanding of F conformational states, antigenic sites, and the specificity of the human B cell repertoire and serum antibody response to infection.” Having developed a way to engineer proteins to retain the F protein’s prefusion conformation, the researchers developed the DS-Cav1 vaccine with an F protein from RSV subtype A.

In their phase 1, randomized, open-label clinical trial, the researchers tested the safety, tolerability and immunogenicity of DS-Cav1. The trial involved 90 healthy adults, aged 18-50, who had no abnormal findings in clinical lab tests, their medical history, or a physical exam.

The participants received two intramuscular doses, 12 weeks apart, of either 50 mcg, 150 mcg or 500 mcg of the vaccine. In each of these dosage groups, half the participants received a vaccine with 0.5 mcg of alum as an adjuvant, and half received a vaccine without any adjuvants. Each of the six randomized dosage-adjuvant groups had 15 participants.

The investigators report on safety and immunogenicity through 28 days after the first vaccine dose among the first 40 participants enrolled, each randomly assigned into four groups of 10 for the 50 mcg and 150 mcg doses with and without the adjuvant. Their primary immunogenicity endpoint was neutralizing activity from the vaccine.

Neutralizing activity with RSV A was seven times higher with 50 mcg and 12-15 times higher with 150 mcg at week 4 than at baseline (P less than .001).

“These increases in neutralizing activity were higher than those previously reported for F protein subunit vaccines and exceeded the threefold increase in neutralization reported after experimental human challenge with RSV,” the authors noted. Neutralization levels remained 5-10 times higher than baseline at week 12 (P less than .001).

Even with RSV B, neutralizing activity from DS-Cav1 was 4-6 times greater with 50 mcg and 9 times greater with 150 mcg, both with and without alum (P less than .001).

“The boost in neutralizing activity to subtype B after a single immunization with a subtype A–based F vaccine reflected the high conservation of F between subtypes and suggested that multiple prior infections by both RSV A and B subtypes establishes a broad preexisting B-cell repertoire,” the authors wrote.

The adjuvant had no clinically significant effect on immunogenicity, and no serious adverse events occurred in the groups.

The findings reveal that DS-Cav1 induces antibodies far more functionally effective than seen in previous RSV vaccines while opening the door to using similar techniques with other vaccines, the authors wrote. “We are now entering an era of vaccinology in which new technologies provide avenues to define the structural basis of antigenicity and to rapidly isolate and characterize human monoclonal antibodies,” the researchers wrote, marking “a step toward a future of precision vaccines.”

The research was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Several of the study authors are inventors on patents for stabilizing the RSV F protein.

SOURCE: Crank MC et al. Science. 2019; 365(6452):505-9.

Development of an effective respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccine is feasible using a new technology that can contribute to development of other vaccines as well, according to results of a proof-of-concept study in Science.

Micah Young/istockphoto.com

The new method of protein engineering preserves the RSV antigen protein’s prefusion structure, including the epitope, thereby inducing antibodies that better “match,” and neutralize, the actual pathogen.

“Protein-based RSV vaccines have had a particularly complicated history, especially those in which the primary immunogen has been the fusion (F) glycoprotein, which exists in two major conformational states: prefusion (pre-F) and postfusion (post-F),” lead author Michelle Crank, MD, of the Vaccine Research Center at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases in Bethesda, Md., and her colleagues explained in the paper.

Since the failure of the whole-inactivated RSV vaccine in the 1960s, researchers have focused on F subunit vaccine candidates, but these contain only post-F or “structurally undefined” F protein.

“Although the products are immunogenic, a substantial proportion of antibodies elicited are non- or poorly neutralizing, and field trials have shown no or minimal efficacy,” the authors wrote.

But now researchers have an “atomic-level understanding of F conformational states, antigenic sites, and the specificity of the human B cell repertoire and serum antibody response to infection.” Having developed a way to engineer proteins to retain the F protein’s prefusion conformation, the researchers developed the DS-Cav1 vaccine with an F protein from RSV subtype A.

In their phase 1, randomized, open-label clinical trial, the researchers tested the safety, tolerability and immunogenicity of DS-Cav1. The trial involved 90 healthy adults, aged 18-50, who had no abnormal findings in clinical lab tests, their medical history, or a physical exam.

The participants received two intramuscular doses, 12 weeks apart, of either 50 mcg, 150 mcg or 500 mcg of the vaccine. In each of these dosage groups, half the participants received a vaccine with 0.5 mcg of alum as an adjuvant, and half received a vaccine without any adjuvants. Each of the six randomized dosage-adjuvant groups had 15 participants.

The investigators report on safety and immunogenicity through 28 days after the first vaccine dose among the first 40 participants enrolled, each randomly assigned into four groups of 10 for the 50 mcg and 150 mcg doses with and without the adjuvant. Their primary immunogenicity endpoint was neutralizing activity from the vaccine.

Neutralizing activity with RSV A was seven times higher with 50 mcg and 12-15 times higher with 150 mcg at week 4 than at baseline (P less than .001).

“These increases in neutralizing activity were higher than those previously reported for F protein subunit vaccines and exceeded the threefold increase in neutralization reported after experimental human challenge with RSV,” the authors noted. Neutralization levels remained 5-10 times higher than baseline at week 12 (P less than .001).

Even with RSV B, neutralizing activity from DS-Cav1 was 4-6 times greater with 50 mcg and 9 times greater with 150 mcg, both with and without alum (P less than .001).

“The boost in neutralizing activity to subtype B after a single immunization with a subtype A–based F vaccine reflected the high conservation of F between subtypes and suggested that multiple prior infections by both RSV A and B subtypes establishes a broad preexisting B-cell repertoire,” the authors wrote.

The adjuvant had no clinically significant effect on immunogenicity, and no serious adverse events occurred in the groups.

The findings reveal that DS-Cav1 induces antibodies far more functionally effective than seen in previous RSV vaccines while opening the door to using similar techniques with other vaccines, the authors wrote. “We are now entering an era of vaccinology in which new technologies provide avenues to define the structural basis of antigenicity and to rapidly isolate and characterize human monoclonal antibodies,” the researchers wrote, marking “a step toward a future of precision vaccines.”

The research was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Several of the study authors are inventors on patents for stabilizing the RSV F protein.

SOURCE: Crank MC et al. Science. 2019; 365(6452):505-9.

Development of an effective respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccine is feasible using a new technology that can contribute to development of other vaccines as well, according to results of a proof-of-concept study in Science.

Micah Young/istockphoto.com

The new method of protein engineering preserves the RSV antigen protein’s prefusion structure, including the epitope, thereby inducing antibodies that better “match,” and neutralize, the actual pathogen.

“Protein-based RSV vaccines have had a particularly complicated history, especially those in which the primary immunogen has been the fusion (F) glycoprotein, which exists in two major conformational states: prefusion (pre-F) and postfusion (post-F),” lead author Michelle Crank, MD, of the Vaccine Research Center at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases in Bethesda, Md., and her colleagues explained in the paper.

Since the failure of the whole-inactivated RSV vaccine in the 1960s, researchers have focused on F subunit vaccine candidates, but these contain only post-F or “structurally undefined” F protein.

“Although the products are immunogenic, a substantial proportion of antibodies elicited are non- or poorly neutralizing, and field trials have shown no or minimal efficacy,” the authors wrote.

But now researchers have an “atomic-level understanding of F conformational states, antigenic sites, and the specificity of the human B cell repertoire and serum antibody response to infection.” Having developed a way to engineer proteins to retain the F protein’s prefusion conformation, the researchers developed the DS-Cav1 vaccine with an F protein from RSV subtype A.

In their phase 1, randomized, open-label clinical trial, the researchers tested the safety, tolerability and immunogenicity of DS-Cav1. The trial involved 90 healthy adults, aged 18-50, who had no abnormal findings in clinical lab tests, their medical history, or a physical exam.

The participants received two intramuscular doses, 12 weeks apart, of either 50 mcg, 150 mcg or 500 mcg of the vaccine. In each of these dosage groups, half the participants received a vaccine with 0.5 mcg of alum as an adjuvant, and half received a vaccine without any adjuvants. Each of the six randomized dosage-adjuvant groups had 15 participants.

The investigators report on safety and immunogenicity through 28 days after the first vaccine dose among the first 40 participants enrolled, each randomly assigned into four groups of 10 for the 50 mcg and 150 mcg doses with and without the adjuvant. Their primary immunogenicity endpoint was neutralizing activity from the vaccine.

Neutralizing activity with RSV A was seven times higher with 50 mcg and 12-15 times higher with 150 mcg at week 4 than at baseline (P less than .001).

“These increases in neutralizing activity were higher than those previously reported for F protein subunit vaccines and exceeded the threefold increase in neutralization reported after experimental human challenge with RSV,” the authors noted. Neutralization levels remained 5-10 times higher than baseline at week 12 (P less than .001).

Even with RSV B, neutralizing activity from DS-Cav1 was 4-6 times greater with 50 mcg and 9 times greater with 150 mcg, both with and without alum (P less than .001).

“The boost in neutralizing activity to subtype B after a single immunization with a subtype A–based F vaccine reflected the high conservation of F between subtypes and suggested that multiple prior infections by both RSV A and B subtypes establishes a broad preexisting B-cell repertoire,” the authors wrote.

The adjuvant had no clinically significant effect on immunogenicity, and no serious adverse events occurred in the groups.

The findings reveal that DS-Cav1 induces antibodies far more functionally effective than seen in previous RSV vaccines while opening the door to using similar techniques with other vaccines, the authors wrote. “We are now entering an era of vaccinology in which new technologies provide avenues to define the structural basis of antigenicity and to rapidly isolate and characterize human monoclonal antibodies,” the researchers wrote, marking “a step toward a future of precision vaccines.”

The research was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Several of the study authors are inventors on patents for stabilizing the RSV F protein.

SOURCE: Crank MC et al. Science. 2019; 365(6452):505-9.

Inflammation and immunosuppression could persist for some patients up to a year after a hospitalization for sepsis, and these patients were more likely to experience worsened long-term outcomes, readmission after discharge, and mortality, according to a study published in JAMA Network Open.

141820

“Individuals with persistent biomarkers of inflammation and immunosuppression had a higher risk of readmission and death due to cardiovascular disease and cancer compared with those with normal circulating biomarkers,” Sachin Yende, MD, of the VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System and the University of Pittsburgh and colleagues wrote in their study. “Our findings suggest that long-term immunomodulation strategies should be explored in patients hospitalized with sepsis.”

Dr. Yende and colleagues performed a multicenter, prospective cohort study of 483 patients who were hospitalized for sepsis at 12 different sites between January 2012 and May 2017. They measured inflammation using interleukin-6, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP), and soluble programmed death-ligand 1 (sPD-L1); hemostasis using plasminogen activator inhibitor 1 and D-dimer; and endothelial dysfunction using intercellular adhesion molecule 1, vascular cell adhesion molecule 1, and E-selectin. The patients included were mean age 60.5 years, 54.9% were male, the mean Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score was 4.2, and a total of 376 patients (77.8%) had one or more chronic diseases.

Overall, there were 485 readmissions in 205 patients (42.5%). The mortality rate was 43 patients (8.9%) at 3 months, 56 patients (11.6%) at 6 months, and 85 patients (17.6%) at 12 months. At 3 months, 23 patients (25.8%) had elevated hs-CRP levels, which increased to 26 patients (30.2%) at 6 months and 40 patients (44.9%) at 12 months. sPD-L1 levels were elevated in 45 patients (46.4%) at 3 months, but the number of patients with elevated sPD-L1 did not appear to significantly increase at 6 months (40 patients; 44.9%) or 12 months (44 patients; 49.4%).

From these results, researchers developed a phenotype of hyperinflammation and immunosuppression that consisted of 326 of 477 (68.3%) patients with high hs-CRP and elevated sPD-L1 levels. Patients with this phenotype of hyperinflammation and immunosuppression had more than eight times the risk of 1-year mortality (odds ratio, 8.26; 95% confidence interval, 3.45-21.69; P less than .001) and more than five times the risk of readmission or mortality at 6 months related to cardiovascular disease (hazard ratio, 5.07; 95% CI, 1.18-21.84; P = .02) or cancer (hazard ratio, 5.15; 95% CI, 1.25-21.18; P = .02), compared with patients who had normal hs-CRP and sPD-L1 levels. This hyperinflammation and immunosuppression phenotype also was associated with greater risk of 6-month all-cause readmission or mortality (HR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.10-2.13; P = .01), compared with patients who had the normal phenotype.

“The persistence of hyperinflammation in a large number of sepsis survivors and the increased risk of cardiovascular events among these patients may explain the association between infection and cardiovascular disease in a prior study,” the authors said. “Although prior trials tested immunomodulation strategies during only the early phase of hospitalization for sepsis, immunomodulation may be needed after hospital discharge,” and suggest points of future study for patients who survive sepsis and develop long-term sequelae.

This study was funded by grants from National Institutes of Health and resources from the VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System. The authors reported personal and institutional relationships in the form of personal fees, grants, and patents for Alung Technologies, Atox Bio, Bayer AG, Beckman Coulter, BristolMyers Squibb, Ferring, NIH, Roche, Selepressin, and the University of Pittsburgh.

SOURCE: Yende S et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2019 Aug 7. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.8686.

Inflammation and immunosuppression could persist for some patients up to a year after a hospitalization for sepsis, and these patients were more likely to experience worsened long-term outcomes, readmission after discharge, and mortality, according to a study published in JAMA Network Open.

141820

“Individuals with persistent biomarkers of inflammation and immunosuppression had a higher risk of readmission and death due to cardiovascular disease and cancer compared with those with normal circulating biomarkers,” Sachin Yende, MD, of the VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System and the University of Pittsburgh and colleagues wrote in their study. “Our findings suggest that long-term immunomodulation strategies should be explored in patients hospitalized with sepsis.”

Dr. Yende and colleagues performed a multicenter, prospective cohort study of 483 patients who were hospitalized for sepsis at 12 different sites between January 2012 and May 2017. They measured inflammation using interleukin-6, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP), and soluble programmed death-ligand 1 (sPD-L1); hemostasis using plasminogen activator inhibitor 1 and D-dimer; and endothelial dysfunction using intercellular adhesion molecule 1, vascular cell adhesion molecule 1, and E-selectin. The patients included were mean age 60.5 years, 54.9% were male, the mean Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score was 4.2, and a total of 376 patients (77.8%) had one or more chronic diseases.

Overall, there were 485 readmissions in 205 patients (42.5%). The mortality rate was 43 patients (8.9%) at 3 months, 56 patients (11.6%) at 6 months, and 85 patients (17.6%) at 12 months. At 3 months, 23 patients (25.8%) had elevated hs-CRP levels, which increased to 26 patients (30.2%) at 6 months and 40 patients (44.9%) at 12 months. sPD-L1 levels were elevated in 45 patients (46.4%) at 3 months, but the number of patients with elevated sPD-L1 did not appear to significantly increase at 6 months (40 patients; 44.9%) or 12 months (44 patients; 49.4%).

From these results, researchers developed a phenotype of hyperinflammation and immunosuppression that consisted of 326 of 477 (68.3%) patients with high hs-CRP and elevated sPD-L1 levels. Patients with this phenotype of hyperinflammation and immunosuppression had more than eight times the risk of 1-year mortality (odds ratio, 8.26; 95% confidence interval, 3.45-21.69; P less than .001) and more than five times the risk of readmission or mortality at 6 months related to cardiovascular disease (hazard ratio, 5.07; 95% CI, 1.18-21.84; P = .02) or cancer (hazard ratio, 5.15; 95% CI, 1.25-21.18; P = .02), compared with patients who had normal hs-CRP and sPD-L1 levels. This hyperinflammation and immunosuppression phenotype also was associated with greater risk of 6-month all-cause readmission or mortality (HR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.10-2.13; P = .01), compared with patients who had the normal phenotype.

“The persistence of hyperinflammation in a large number of sepsis survivors and the increased risk of cardiovascular events among these patients may explain the association between infection and cardiovascular disease in a prior study,” the authors said. “Although prior trials tested immunomodulation strategies during only the early phase of hospitalization for sepsis, immunomodulation may be needed after hospital discharge,” and suggest points of future study for patients who survive sepsis and develop long-term sequelae.

This study was funded by grants from National Institutes of Health and resources from the VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System. The authors reported personal and institutional relationships in the form of personal fees, grants, and patents for Alung Technologies, Atox Bio, Bayer AG, Beckman Coulter, BristolMyers Squibb, Ferring, NIH, Roche, Selepressin, and the University of Pittsburgh.

SOURCE: Yende S et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2019 Aug 7. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.8686.

Inflammation and immunosuppression could persist for some patients up to a year after a hospitalization for sepsis, and these patients were more likely to experience worsened long-term outcomes, readmission after discharge, and mortality, according to a study published in JAMA Network Open.

141820

“Individuals with persistent biomarkers of inflammation and immunosuppression had a higher risk of readmission and death due to cardiovascular disease and cancer compared with those with normal circulating biomarkers,” Sachin Yende, MD, of the VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System and the University of Pittsburgh and colleagues wrote in their study. “Our findings suggest that long-term immunomodulation strategies should be explored in patients hospitalized with sepsis.”

Dr. Yende and colleagues performed a multicenter, prospective cohort study of 483 patients who were hospitalized for sepsis at 12 different sites between January 2012 and May 2017. They measured inflammation using interleukin-6, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP), and soluble programmed death-ligand 1 (sPD-L1); hemostasis using plasminogen activator inhibitor 1 and D-dimer; and endothelial dysfunction using intercellular adhesion molecule 1, vascular cell adhesion molecule 1, and E-selectin. The patients included were mean age 60.5 years, 54.9% were male, the mean Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score was 4.2, and a total of 376 patients (77.8%) had one or more chronic diseases.

Overall, there were 485 readmissions in 205 patients (42.5%). The mortality rate was 43 patients (8.9%) at 3 months, 56 patients (11.6%) at 6 months, and 85 patients (17.6%) at 12 months. At 3 months, 23 patients (25.8%) had elevated hs-CRP levels, which increased to 26 patients (30.2%) at 6 months and 40 patients (44.9%) at 12 months. sPD-L1 levels were elevated in 45 patients (46.4%) at 3 months, but the number of patients with elevated sPD-L1 did not appear to significantly increase at 6 months (40 patients; 44.9%) or 12 months (44 patients; 49.4%).

From these results, researchers developed a phenotype of hyperinflammation and immunosuppression that consisted of 326 of 477 (68.3%) patients with high hs-CRP and elevated sPD-L1 levels. Patients with this phenotype of hyperinflammation and immunosuppression had more than eight times the risk of 1-year mortality (odds ratio, 8.26; 95% confidence interval, 3.45-21.69; P less than .001) and more than five times the risk of readmission or mortality at 6 months related to cardiovascular disease (hazard ratio, 5.07; 95% CI, 1.18-21.84; P = .02) or cancer (hazard ratio, 5.15; 95% CI, 1.25-21.18; P = .02), compared with patients who had normal hs-CRP and sPD-L1 levels. This hyperinflammation and immunosuppression phenotype also was associated with greater risk of 6-month all-cause readmission or mortality (HR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.10-2.13; P = .01), compared with patients who had the normal phenotype.

“The persistence of hyperinflammation in a large number of sepsis survivors and the increased risk of cardiovascular events among these patients may explain the association between infection and cardiovascular disease in a prior study,” the authors said. “Although prior trials tested immunomodulation strategies during only the early phase of hospitalization for sepsis, immunomodulation may be needed after hospital discharge,” and suggest points of future study for patients who survive sepsis and develop long-term sequelae.

This study was funded by grants from National Institutes of Health and resources from the VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System. The authors reported personal and institutional relationships in the form of personal fees, grants, and patents for Alung Technologies, Atox Bio, Bayer AG, Beckman Coulter, BristolMyers Squibb, Ferring, NIH, Roche, Selepressin, and the University of Pittsburgh.

SOURCE: Yende S et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2019 Aug 7. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.8686.

Don’t put THAT THERE!

As a doctor, you’ve probably thought, “I can’t believe I have to tell them this” more than once. Warnings that you think are common sense – please don’t try that home remedy, please don’t put that there, please don’t eat that anymore.

thomasmales/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Well, here’s a new one for all doctors with female patients out there: Please don’t put a ground-up wasp’s nest into your vagina.

An intrepid ob.gyn. with a large Internet following found that someone has been selling oak galls online as vaginal medicine. Oak galls are little bumps that grow on a tree after the gall wasp lays its larvae. Fun insect-plant behavior! Very bad to put inside your body in any way!

One would think you don’t need to warn patients that tree/wasp paste is not the correct medicine to use on an episiotomy cut, as the Etsy seller suggested.

But with Gwyneth Paltrow out there trying to convince people that purposeful bee stings, healing stickers, and goat milk cleanses are all valid health tips, sometimes the obvious things just need to be spelled out.
 

Eye of the seagull

Rising up/Back on the beach/Did my time, made my sandwich
Went to the kitchen/Now I’m back on the street
Just a man and his will to surviiiiiiiiiive
It’s the eye of the seagull/It’s the thrill of the fight
Research shows you have to stare them down
When a seagull eyes your sandwich/Don’t let it have a bite
Don’t give in to the eye of the seagull.

Kativ/E+

That’s just a little ditty for you to sing this summer while enjoying your time on the sand, surrounded by those greedy flying sandwich thieves. Research out of the University of Exeter, England, suggests that staring down approaching seagulls can actually slow them down or even completely deter them from attempting to steal your snacks.

Perhaps the seagulls don’t like being watched while they commit their crimes? Maybe they can’t stand the shame of it all.

Whatever the reason, if you’re assaulted by a flock of seagulls this summer (the birds, not the band), try engaging in a staring contest to keep your food safe.
 

A gut microbe with a rye smile

Rye is not exactly a huge deal here in the good old U.S. of A., but rye bread happens to be the national food of Finland. So when the Finns say something about rye, it pays to listen.

Raija Törrönen

Investigators at the University of Eastern Finland used metabolomics – which, we discovered the hard way, is the “analysis of metabolites in a biological specimen” and not the Finnish word for a “financial system based on rye bread” – to examine the effects of rye sourdough on the gut microbes of mice and an in vitro gastrointestinal model that mimicked the function of the human gut.

Many compounds found in rye sourdough, such as branched-chain amino acids and amino acid–containing small peptides known to have an impact on insulin metabolism, are processed by gut bacteria before getting absorbed into the body.

The gut microbes of mice fed rye sourdough also produce derivatives of trimethylglycine known as betaine, and at least one of these derivatives reduces the need for oxygen in heart muscle cells, which may protect the heart from ischemia or possibly even enhance its performance, the investigators said.

“The major role played by gut microbes in human health has become more and more evident over the past decades, and this is why gut microbes should be taken very good care of. It’s a good idea to avoid unnecessary antibiotics and feed gut microbes with optimal food, such as rye,” researcher Ville M. Koistinen said in a written statement.

The bottom line? A rye-filled gut microbe is a happy gut microbe. And this comes from Finland, the nation that gave the world “pantsdrunk,” so it must be true. On behalf of the Finns, you’re welcome, world.
 

This is your brain on smartphones

Hey. Hey, you. Do you want some scientists to install a small device in your brain that uses light and drugs to control your neurons and can be controlled externally by a smartphone? No?

z_wei/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Sounds like a terrible idea only fit for a cheesy science fiction dystopia, you say? Too bad, because a group of researchers from South Korea and the University of Colorado already have invented such a device.

To be fair, their study, published in Nature Biomedical Engineering, is relatively free of nefariousness. The device is meant to be used to search for brain diseases such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s, as well as disorders such as depression, addiction, and pain.

The researchers say that their device is superior to current diagnostic technology available – which uses a similar drug/light combo but is bulkier, stationary, and causes long-term brain damage – because it can be used long term and outside the lab and – we’re sorry – but we’re straying back into dystopia here.

Okay, let’s try again. To test their device, the researchers conducted an animal study and found that, by manipulating the behavior of one animal using the drug/light combo from behind their smartphones, they could influence the behavior of the entire group.

Did we say that the study was relatively free of nefariousness? Sorry about that. At this point, we wouldn’t be surprised if the whole thing was bankrolled by a couple of genetically engineered lab mice from Acme Labs bent on world domination.
 

Don’t put THAT THERE!

As a doctor, you’ve probably thought, “I can’t believe I have to tell them this” more than once. Warnings that you think are common sense – please don’t try that home remedy, please don’t put that there, please don’t eat that anymore.

thomasmales/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Well, here’s a new one for all doctors with female patients out there: Please don’t put a ground-up wasp’s nest into your vagina.

An intrepid ob.gyn. with a large Internet following found that someone has been selling oak galls online as vaginal medicine. Oak galls are little bumps that grow on a tree after the gall wasp lays its larvae. Fun insect-plant behavior! Very bad to put inside your body in any way!

One would think you don’t need to warn patients that tree/wasp paste is not the correct medicine to use on an episiotomy cut, as the Etsy seller suggested.

But with Gwyneth Paltrow out there trying to convince people that purposeful bee stings, healing stickers, and goat milk cleanses are all valid health tips, sometimes the obvious things just need to be spelled out.
 

Eye of the seagull

Rising up/Back on the beach/Did my time, made my sandwich
Went to the kitchen/Now I’m back on the street
Just a man and his will to surviiiiiiiiiive
It’s the eye of the seagull/It’s the thrill of the fight
Research shows you have to stare them down
When a seagull eyes your sandwich/Don’t let it have a bite
Don’t give in to the eye of the seagull.

Kativ/E+

That’s just a little ditty for you to sing this summer while enjoying your time on the sand, surrounded by those greedy flying sandwich thieves. Research out of the University of Exeter, England, suggests that staring down approaching seagulls can actually slow them down or even completely deter them from attempting to steal your snacks.

Perhaps the seagulls don’t like being watched while they commit their crimes? Maybe they can’t stand the shame of it all.

Whatever the reason, if you’re assaulted by a flock of seagulls this summer (the birds, not the band), try engaging in a staring contest to keep your food safe.
 

A gut microbe with a rye smile

Rye is not exactly a huge deal here in the good old U.S. of A., but rye bread happens to be the national food of Finland. So when the Finns say something about rye, it pays to listen.

Raija Törrönen

Investigators at the University of Eastern Finland used metabolomics – which, we discovered the hard way, is the “analysis of metabolites in a biological specimen” and not the Finnish word for a “financial system based on rye bread” – to examine the effects of rye sourdough on the gut microbes of mice and an in vitro gastrointestinal model that mimicked the function of the human gut.

Many compounds found in rye sourdough, such as branched-chain amino acids and amino acid–containing small peptides known to have an impact on insulin metabolism, are processed by gut bacteria before getting absorbed into the body.

The gut microbes of mice fed rye sourdough also produce derivatives of trimethylglycine known as betaine, and at least one of these derivatives reduces the need for oxygen in heart muscle cells, which may protect the heart from ischemia or possibly even enhance its performance, the investigators said.

“The major role played by gut microbes in human health has become more and more evident over the past decades, and this is why gut microbes should be taken very good care of. It’s a good idea to avoid unnecessary antibiotics and feed gut microbes with optimal food, such as rye,” researcher Ville M. Koistinen said in a written statement.

The bottom line? A rye-filled gut microbe is a happy gut microbe. And this comes from Finland, the nation that gave the world “pantsdrunk,” so it must be true. On behalf of the Finns, you’re welcome, world.
 

This is your brain on smartphones

Hey. Hey, you. Do you want some scientists to install a small device in your brain that uses light and drugs to control your neurons and can be controlled externally by a smartphone? No?

z_wei/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Sounds like a terrible idea only fit for a cheesy science fiction dystopia, you say? Too bad, because a group of researchers from South Korea and the University of Colorado already have invented such a device.

To be fair, their study, published in Nature Biomedical Engineering, is relatively free of nefariousness. The device is meant to be used to search for brain diseases such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s, as well as disorders such as depression, addiction, and pain.

The researchers say that their device is superior to current diagnostic technology available – which uses a similar drug/light combo but is bulkier, stationary, and causes long-term brain damage – because it can be used long term and outside the lab and – we’re sorry – but we’re straying back into dystopia here.

Okay, let’s try again. To test their device, the researchers conducted an animal study and found that, by manipulating the behavior of one animal using the drug/light combo from behind their smartphones, they could influence the behavior of the entire group.

Did we say that the study was relatively free of nefariousness? Sorry about that. At this point, we wouldn’t be surprised if the whole thing was bankrolled by a couple of genetically engineered lab mice from Acme Labs bent on world domination.
 

Don’t put THAT THERE!

As a doctor, you’ve probably thought, “I can’t believe I have to tell them this” more than once. Warnings that you think are common sense – please don’t try that home remedy, please don’t put that there, please don’t eat that anymore.

thomasmales/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Well, here’s a new one for all doctors with female patients out there: Please don’t put a ground-up wasp’s nest into your vagina.

An intrepid ob.gyn. with a large Internet following found that someone has been selling oak galls online as vaginal medicine. Oak galls are little bumps that grow on a tree after the gall wasp lays its larvae. Fun insect-plant behavior! Very bad to put inside your body in any way!

One would think you don’t need to warn patients that tree/wasp paste is not the correct medicine to use on an episiotomy cut, as the Etsy seller suggested.

But with Gwyneth Paltrow out there trying to convince people that purposeful bee stings, healing stickers, and goat milk cleanses are all valid health tips, sometimes the obvious things just need to be spelled out.
 

Eye of the seagull

Rising up/Back on the beach/Did my time, made my sandwich
Went to the kitchen/Now I’m back on the street
Just a man and his will to surviiiiiiiiiive
It’s the eye of the seagull/It’s the thrill of the fight
Research shows you have to stare them down
When a seagull eyes your sandwich/Don’t let it have a bite
Don’t give in to the eye of the seagull.

Kativ/E+

That’s just a little ditty for you to sing this summer while enjoying your time on the sand, surrounded by those greedy flying sandwich thieves. Research out of the University of Exeter, England, suggests that staring down approaching seagulls can actually slow them down or even completely deter them from attempting to steal your snacks.

Perhaps the seagulls don’t like being watched while they commit their crimes? Maybe they can’t stand the shame of it all.

Whatever the reason, if you’re assaulted by a flock of seagulls this summer (the birds, not the band), try engaging in a staring contest to keep your food safe.
 

A gut microbe with a rye smile

Rye is not exactly a huge deal here in the good old U.S. of A., but rye bread happens to be the national food of Finland. So when the Finns say something about rye, it pays to listen.

Raija Törrönen

Investigators at the University of Eastern Finland used metabolomics – which, we discovered the hard way, is the “analysis of metabolites in a biological specimen” and not the Finnish word for a “financial system based on rye bread” – to examine the effects of rye sourdough on the gut microbes of mice and an in vitro gastrointestinal model that mimicked the function of the human gut.

Many compounds found in rye sourdough, such as branched-chain amino acids and amino acid–containing small peptides known to have an impact on insulin metabolism, are processed by gut bacteria before getting absorbed into the body.

The gut microbes of mice fed rye sourdough also produce derivatives of trimethylglycine known as betaine, and at least one of these derivatives reduces the need for oxygen in heart muscle cells, which may protect the heart from ischemia or possibly even enhance its performance, the investigators said.

“The major role played by gut microbes in human health has become more and more evident over the past decades, and this is why gut microbes should be taken very good care of. It’s a good idea to avoid unnecessary antibiotics and feed gut microbes with optimal food, such as rye,” researcher Ville M. Koistinen said in a written statement.

The bottom line? A rye-filled gut microbe is a happy gut microbe. And this comes from Finland, the nation that gave the world “pantsdrunk,” so it must be true. On behalf of the Finns, you’re welcome, world.
 

This is your brain on smartphones

Hey. Hey, you. Do you want some scientists to install a small device in your brain that uses light and drugs to control your neurons and can be controlled externally by a smartphone? No?

z_wei/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Sounds like a terrible idea only fit for a cheesy science fiction dystopia, you say? Too bad, because a group of researchers from South Korea and the University of Colorado already have invented such a device.

To be fair, their study, published in Nature Biomedical Engineering, is relatively free of nefariousness. The device is meant to be used to search for brain diseases such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s, as well as disorders such as depression, addiction, and pain.

The researchers say that their device is superior to current diagnostic technology available – which uses a similar drug/light combo but is bulkier, stationary, and causes long-term brain damage – because it can be used long term and outside the lab and – we’re sorry – but we’re straying back into dystopia here.

Okay, let’s try again. To test their device, the researchers conducted an animal study and found that, by manipulating the behavior of one animal using the drug/light combo from behind their smartphones, they could influence the behavior of the entire group.

Did we say that the study was relatively free of nefariousness? Sorry about that. At this point, we wouldn’t be surprised if the whole thing was bankrolled by a couple of genetically engineered lab mice from Acme Labs bent on world domination.
 

Cancer and cancer-related treatment can cause a myriad of adverse effects.^1,2 Early identification and management of these symptoms is paramount to the success of cancer treatment completion; however, clinic and telephonic strategies for addressing symptoms often result in delays in care.¹ New strategies for patient engagement in the management of cancer and treatment-related symptoms are needed.

The use of online self-management tools can result in improvement in symptoms, reduce cancer symptom distress, improve quality-of-life, and improve medication adherence.^3-9 A meta-analysis concluded that online interventions showed promise, but optimizing interventions would require additional research.¹⁰ Another meta-analysis found that online self-management was effective in managing several symptoms.¹¹ An e-health method of collecting patient self-reported symptoms has been found to be acceptable to patients and feasible for use.^12-14 We postulated that a mobile text messaging strategy may be an effective modality for augmenting symptom management for cancer patients in real time.

In the US Departmant of Veterans Affairs (VA), “Annie,” a self-care tool utilizing a text-messaging system has been implemented. Annie was developed modeling “Flo,” a messaging system in the United Kingdom that has been used for case management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, heart failure, stress incontinence, asthma, as a medication reminder tool, and to provide support for weight loss or post-operatively.^15-17 Using Annie in the US, veterans have the ability to receive and track health information. Use of the Annie program has demonstrated improved continuous positive airway pressure monitor utilization in veterans with traumatic brain injury.¹⁸ Other uses within the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) include assisting patients with anger management, liver disease, anxiety, asthma, diabetes, HIV, hypertension, weight loss, and smoking cessation.

Methods

The Hematology/Oncology division of the Minneapolis VA Healthcare System (MVAHCS) is a tertiary care facility that administers about 260 new chemotherapy regimens annually. The MVAHCS interdisciplinary hematology/oncology group initiated a quality improvement project to determine the feasibility, acceptability, and experience of tailoring the Annie tool for self-management of cancer symptoms. The group consisted of 2 physicians, 3 advanced practice registered nurses, 1 physician assistant, 2 registered nurses, and 2 Annie program team members.

We first created a symptom management pilot protocol as a result of multidisciplinary team discussions. Examples of discussion points for consideration included, but were not limited to, timing of texts, amount of information to ask for and provide, what potential symptoms to consider, and which patient population to pilot first.

Results

Through screening new patient consults or those referred for chemotherapy education, 15 male veterans enrolled in the symptom monitoring program over an 8 month period. There were additional patients who were not offered the program or chose not to participate; often due to not having texting capabilities on their phone or not liking the texting feature. The majority of those who participated in the program (n = 14) were enrolled at the start of Cycle 1; the other patient was enrolled at the start of Cycle 2. Patients were enrolled an average of 89 days (range 8-204). Average response rate was 84.2% (range 30-100%).

Although symptoms were not reviewed in real time, we reviewed responses to determine the utilization of the instructions given for the program. No veteran had 0 symptoms reported. There were numerous occurrences of a score of 1 or 2. Many of these patients had baseline symptoms due to their underlying cancer. A score of 3 or 4 on the system prompted the patient to call the clinic or go to the ED. Seven patients (some with multiple occurrences) were prompted to call; only 4 of these made the follow-up call to the clinic. All were offered a same day visit, but each declined. Only 1 patient reported a symptom on a day not prompted for that symptom. Symptoms that were reported are listed in order of frequency: fatigue, appetite loss, numbness, pain, mouth sore, and breathing difficulty. There were no visits to the ED.

Program Evaluation

An evaluation was conducted 30 to 60 days after program enrollment. We elicited feedback to determine who was reading and responding to the text message: the patient, a family member, or a caregiver; whether they found the prompts helpful and took action; how they felt about the number of texts; if they felt the program was helpful; and any other feedback that would improve the program. In general, the patients (8) answered the texts independently. In 4 cases, the spouse answered the texts, and 3 patients answered the texts together with their spouses. Most patients (11) found the amount of texting to be “just right.” However, 3 found it to be too many texts and 1 didn’t find the amount of texting to be enough.

Three veterans did not have enough symptoms to feel the program was of benefit to them, but they did feel it would have been helpful if they had been more symptomatic. One veteran recalled taking loperamide as needed, as a result of prompting. No veterans felt as though the texting feature was difficult to use; and overall, were very positive about the program. Several appreciated receiving messages that validated when they were doing well, and they felt empowered by self-management. One of the spouses was a registered nurse and found the information too basic to be of use.

Discussion

Initial evaluation of the program via survey found no technology challenges. Patients have been very positive about the program including ease of use, appreciation of messages that validated when they were doing well, empowerment of self-management, and some utilization of the texting advice for symptom management. Educational hyperlinks for constipation, fatigue, diarrhea, and nausea/vomiting were added after this evaluation, and patients felt that these additions provided a higher level of education.

Staff time for this intervention was minimal. A nurse navigator offered the texting program to the patient during chemotherapy education, along with some instructions, which generally took about 5 minutes. One of the Annie program staff enrolled the patient. From that point forward, this was a self-management tool, beyond checking to ensure that the patient was successful in starting the program and evaluating use for the purposes of this quality improvement project. This self-management tool did not replace any other mechanism that a patient would normally have in our department for seeking help for symptoms. The MVAHSC typical process for symptom management is to have patients call a 24/7 nurse line. If the triage nurse feels the symptoms are related to the patient’s cancer or cancer treatment, they are referred to the physician assistant who is assigned to take those calls and has the option to see the patient the same day. Patients could continue to call the nurse line or speak with providers at the next appointment at their discretion.

Conclusion

Although Annie has the option of using either text messaging or a mobile application, this project only utilized text messaging. The study by Basch and colleagues was the closest randomized trial we could identify to compare to our quality improvement intervention.⁵ The 2 main, distinct differences were that Basch and colleagues utilized online monitoring; and nurses were utilized to screen and intervene on responses, as appropriate.

The ability of our program to text patients without the use of an application or tablet, may enable more patients to participate due to ease of use. There would be no increased in expected workload for clinical staff, and may lead to decreased call burden. Since our program is automated, while still providing patients with the option to call and speak with a staff member as needed, this is a cost-effective, first-line option for symptom management for those experiencing cancer-related symptoms. We believe this text messaging tool can have system wide use and benefit throughout the VHA.

Cancer and cancer-related treatment can cause a myriad of adverse effects.^1,2 Early identification and management of these symptoms is paramount to the success of cancer treatment completion; however, clinic and telephonic strategies for addressing symptoms often result in delays in care.¹ New strategies for patient engagement in the management of cancer and treatment-related symptoms are needed.

The use of online self-management tools can result in improvement in symptoms, reduce cancer symptom distress, improve quality-of-life, and improve medication adherence.^3-9 A meta-analysis concluded that online interventions showed promise, but optimizing interventions would require additional research.¹⁰ Another meta-analysis found that online self-management was effective in managing several symptoms.¹¹ An e-health method of collecting patient self-reported symptoms has been found to be acceptable to patients and feasible for use.^12-14 We postulated that a mobile text messaging strategy may be an effective modality for augmenting symptom management for cancer patients in real time.

In the US Departmant of Veterans Affairs (VA), “Annie,” a self-care tool utilizing a text-messaging system has been implemented. Annie was developed modeling “Flo,” a messaging system in the United Kingdom that has been used for case management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, heart failure, stress incontinence, asthma, as a medication reminder tool, and to provide support for weight loss or post-operatively.^15-17 Using Annie in the US, veterans have the ability to receive and track health information. Use of the Annie program has demonstrated improved continuous positive airway pressure monitor utilization in veterans with traumatic brain injury.¹⁸ Other uses within the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) include assisting patients with anger management, liver disease, anxiety, asthma, diabetes, HIV, hypertension, weight loss, and smoking cessation.

Methods

The Hematology/Oncology division of the Minneapolis VA Healthcare System (MVAHCS) is a tertiary care facility that administers about 260 new chemotherapy regimens annually. The MVAHCS interdisciplinary hematology/oncology group initiated a quality improvement project to determine the feasibility, acceptability, and experience of tailoring the Annie tool for self-management of cancer symptoms. The group consisted of 2 physicians, 3 advanced practice registered nurses, 1 physician assistant, 2 registered nurses, and 2 Annie program team members.

We first created a symptom management pilot protocol as a result of multidisciplinary team discussions. Examples of discussion points for consideration included, but were not limited to, timing of texts, amount of information to ask for and provide, what potential symptoms to consider, and which patient population to pilot first.

Results

Through screening new patient consults or those referred for chemotherapy education, 15 male veterans enrolled in the symptom monitoring program over an 8 month period. There were additional patients who were not offered the program or chose not to participate; often due to not having texting capabilities on their phone or not liking the texting feature. The majority of those who participated in the program (n = 14) were enrolled at the start of Cycle 1; the other patient was enrolled at the start of Cycle 2. Patients were enrolled an average of 89 days (range 8-204). Average response rate was 84.2% (range 30-100%).

Although symptoms were not reviewed in real time, we reviewed responses to determine the utilization of the instructions given for the program. No veteran had 0 symptoms reported. There were numerous occurrences of a score of 1 or 2. Many of these patients had baseline symptoms due to their underlying cancer. A score of 3 or 4 on the system prompted the patient to call the clinic or go to the ED. Seven patients (some with multiple occurrences) were prompted to call; only 4 of these made the follow-up call to the clinic. All were offered a same day visit, but each declined. Only 1 patient reported a symptom on a day not prompted for that symptom. Symptoms that were reported are listed in order of frequency: fatigue, appetite loss, numbness, pain, mouth sore, and breathing difficulty. There were no visits to the ED.

Program Evaluation

An evaluation was conducted 30 to 60 days after program enrollment. We elicited feedback to determine who was reading and responding to the text message: the patient, a family member, or a caregiver; whether they found the prompts helpful and took action; how they felt about the number of texts; if they felt the program was helpful; and any other feedback that would improve the program. In general, the patients (8) answered the texts independently. In 4 cases, the spouse answered the texts, and 3 patients answered the texts together with their spouses. Most patients (11) found the amount of texting to be “just right.” However, 3 found it to be too many texts and 1 didn’t find the amount of texting to be enough.

Three veterans did not have enough symptoms to feel the program was of benefit to them, but they did feel it would have been helpful if they had been more symptomatic. One veteran recalled taking loperamide as needed, as a result of prompting. No veterans felt as though the texting feature was difficult to use; and overall, were very positive about the program. Several appreciated receiving messages that validated when they were doing well, and they felt empowered by self-management. One of the spouses was a registered nurse and found the information too basic to be of use.

Discussion

Initial evaluation of the program via survey found no technology challenges. Patients have been very positive about the program including ease of use, appreciation of messages that validated when they were doing well, empowerment of self-management, and some utilization of the texting advice for symptom management. Educational hyperlinks for constipation, fatigue, diarrhea, and nausea/vomiting were added after this evaluation, and patients felt that these additions provided a higher level of education.

Staff time for this intervention was minimal. A nurse navigator offered the texting program to the patient during chemotherapy education, along with some instructions, which generally took about 5 minutes. One of the Annie program staff enrolled the patient. From that point forward, this was a self-management tool, beyond checking to ensure that the patient was successful in starting the program and evaluating use for the purposes of this quality improvement project. This self-management tool did not replace any other mechanism that a patient would normally have in our department for seeking help for symptoms. The MVAHSC typical process for symptom management is to have patients call a 24/7 nurse line. If the triage nurse feels the symptoms are related to the patient’s cancer or cancer treatment, they are referred to the physician assistant who is assigned to take those calls and has the option to see the patient the same day. Patients could continue to call the nurse line or speak with providers at the next appointment at their discretion.

Conclusion

Although Annie has the option of using either text messaging or a mobile application, this project only utilized text messaging. The study by Basch and colleagues was the closest randomized trial we could identify to compare to our quality improvement intervention.⁵ The 2 main, distinct differences were that Basch and colleagues utilized online monitoring; and nurses were utilized to screen and intervene on responses, as appropriate.

The ability of our program to text patients without the use of an application or tablet, may enable more patients to participate due to ease of use. There would be no increased in expected workload for clinical staff, and may lead to decreased call burden. Since our program is automated, while still providing patients with the option to call and speak with a staff member as needed, this is a cost-effective, first-line option for symptom management for those experiencing cancer-related symptoms. We believe this text messaging tool can have system wide use and benefit throughout the VHA.

Cancer and cancer-related treatment can cause a myriad of adverse effects.^1,2 Early identification and management of these symptoms is paramount to the success of cancer treatment completion; however, clinic and telephonic strategies for addressing symptoms often result in delays in care.¹ New strategies for patient engagement in the management of cancer and treatment-related symptoms are needed.

The use of online self-management tools can result in improvement in symptoms, reduce cancer symptom distress, improve quality-of-life, and improve medication adherence.^3-9 A meta-analysis concluded that online interventions showed promise, but optimizing interventions would require additional research.¹⁰ Another meta-analysis found that online self-management was effective in managing several symptoms.¹¹ An e-health method of collecting patient self-reported symptoms has been found to be acceptable to patients and feasible for use.^12-14 We postulated that a mobile text messaging strategy may be an effective modality for augmenting symptom management for cancer patients in real time.

In the US Departmant of Veterans Affairs (VA), “Annie,” a self-care tool utilizing a text-messaging system has been implemented. Annie was developed modeling “Flo,” a messaging system in the United Kingdom that has been used for case management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, heart failure, stress incontinence, asthma, as a medication reminder tool, and to provide support for weight loss or post-operatively.^15-17 Using Annie in the US, veterans have the ability to receive and track health information. Use of the Annie program has demonstrated improved continuous positive airway pressure monitor utilization in veterans with traumatic brain injury.¹⁸ Other uses within the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) include assisting patients with anger management, liver disease, anxiety, asthma, diabetes, HIV, hypertension, weight loss, and smoking cessation.

Methods

The Hematology/Oncology division of the Minneapolis VA Healthcare System (MVAHCS) is a tertiary care facility that administers about 260 new chemotherapy regimens annually. The MVAHCS interdisciplinary hematology/oncology group initiated a quality improvement project to determine the feasibility, acceptability, and experience of tailoring the Annie tool for self-management of cancer symptoms. The group consisted of 2 physicians, 3 advanced practice registered nurses, 1 physician assistant, 2 registered nurses, and 2 Annie program team members.

We first created a symptom management pilot protocol as a result of multidisciplinary team discussions. Examples of discussion points for consideration included, but were not limited to, timing of texts, amount of information to ask for and provide, what potential symptoms to consider, and which patient population to pilot first.

Results

Through screening new patient consults or those referred for chemotherapy education, 15 male veterans enrolled in the symptom monitoring program over an 8 month period. There were additional patients who were not offered the program or chose not to participate; often due to not having texting capabilities on their phone or not liking the texting feature. The majority of those who participated in the program (n = 14) were enrolled at the start of Cycle 1; the other patient was enrolled at the start of Cycle 2. Patients were enrolled an average of 89 days (range 8-204). Average response rate was 84.2% (range 30-100%).

Although symptoms were not reviewed in real time, we reviewed responses to determine the utilization of the instructions given for the program. No veteran had 0 symptoms reported. There were numerous occurrences of a score of 1 or 2. Many of these patients had baseline symptoms due to their underlying cancer. A score of 3 or 4 on the system prompted the patient to call the clinic or go to the ED. Seven patients (some with multiple occurrences) were prompted to call; only 4 of these made the follow-up call to the clinic. All were offered a same day visit, but each declined. Only 1 patient reported a symptom on a day not prompted for that symptom. Symptoms that were reported are listed in order of frequency: fatigue, appetite loss, numbness, pain, mouth sore, and breathing difficulty. There were no visits to the ED.

Program Evaluation

An evaluation was conducted 30 to 60 days after program enrollment. We elicited feedback to determine who was reading and responding to the text message: the patient, a family member, or a caregiver; whether they found the prompts helpful and took action; how they felt about the number of texts; if they felt the program was helpful; and any other feedback that would improve the program. In general, the patients (8) answered the texts independently. In 4 cases, the spouse answered the texts, and 3 patients answered the texts together with their spouses. Most patients (11) found the amount of texting to be “just right.” However, 3 found it to be too many texts and 1 didn’t find the amount of texting to be enough.

Three veterans did not have enough symptoms to feel the program was of benefit to them, but they did feel it would have been helpful if they had been more symptomatic. One veteran recalled taking loperamide as needed, as a result of prompting. No veterans felt as though the texting feature was difficult to use; and overall, were very positive about the program. Several appreciated receiving messages that validated when they were doing well, and they felt empowered by self-management. One of the spouses was a registered nurse and found the information too basic to be of use.

Discussion

Initial evaluation of the program via survey found no technology challenges. Patients have been very positive about the program including ease of use, appreciation of messages that validated when they were doing well, empowerment of self-management, and some utilization of the texting advice for symptom management. Educational hyperlinks for constipation, fatigue, diarrhea, and nausea/vomiting were added after this evaluation, and patients felt that these additions provided a higher level of education.

Staff time for this intervention was minimal. A nurse navigator offered the texting program to the patient during chemotherapy education, along with some instructions, which generally took about 5 minutes. One of the Annie program staff enrolled the patient. From that point forward, this was a self-management tool, beyond checking to ensure that the patient was successful in starting the program and evaluating use for the purposes of this quality improvement project. This self-management tool did not replace any other mechanism that a patient would normally have in our department for seeking help for symptoms. The MVAHSC typical process for symptom management is to have patients call a 24/7 nurse line. If the triage nurse feels the symptoms are related to the patient’s cancer or cancer treatment, they are referred to the physician assistant who is assigned to take those calls and has the option to see the patient the same day. Patients could continue to call the nurse line or speak with providers at the next appointment at their discretion.

Conclusion

Although Annie has the option of using either text messaging or a mobile application, this project only utilized text messaging. The study by Basch and colleagues was the closest randomized trial we could identify to compare to our quality improvement intervention.⁵ The 2 main, distinct differences were that Basch and colleagues utilized online monitoring; and nurses were utilized to screen and intervene on responses, as appropriate.

The ability of our program to text patients without the use of an application or tablet, may enable more patients to participate due to ease of use. There would be no increased in expected workload for clinical staff, and may lead to decreased call burden. Since our program is automated, while still providing patients with the option to call and speak with a staff member as needed, this is a cost-effective, first-line option for symptom management for those experiencing cancer-related symptoms. We believe this text messaging tool can have system wide use and benefit throughout the VHA.

Central nervous system (CNS) lymphoma can be classified into 2 categories: primary CNS lymphoma (PCNSL), which includes disease limited to brain, eyes, spinal cord; and leptomeninges without coexisting or previous systemic lymphoma. Secondary CNS lymphoma (SCNSL) is essentially metastatic disease from a systemic primary site.¹ The focus of this case presentation is PCNSL, with an emphasis on imaging characteristics and differential diagnosis.

The median age at diagnosis for PCNSL is 65 years, and the overall incidence has been decreasing since the mid-1990s, likely related to the increased use of highly-active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) in patients with AIDS.^2,3 Although overall incidence has decreased, incidence in the elderly population has increased.⁴ Historically, PCNSL has been considered an AIDS-defining illness.⁵ These patients, among other immunocompromised patients, such as those on chronic immunosuppressive therapy, are at a higher risk for developing the malignancy.⁶

Clinical presentation varies because of the location of CNS involvement and may present with headache, mood or personality disturbances, or focal neurologic deficits. Seizures are less likely due to the tendency of PCNSL to spare gray matter. Initial workup generally includes a head computed tomography (CT) scan, as well as a contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance image (MRI), which may help direct clinicians to the appropriate diagnosis. However, there is significant overlap between the imaging characteristics of PCNSL and numerous other disease processes, including glioblastoma and demyelination. The imaging characteristics of PCNSL are considerably different depending on the patient’s immune status.⁷

This case illustrates a rare presentation of PCNSL in an immunocompetent patient whose MRI characteristics were seemingly more consistent with those seen in patients with immunodeficiency. The main differential diagnoses and key imaging characteristics, which may help obtain accurate diagnosis, will be discussed.

Case Presentation

A 72-year-old male veteran presented with a 2-month history of subjective weakness in his upper and lower extremities progressing to multiple falls at home. He had no significant medical history other than a thymectomy at age 15 for an enlarged thymus, which per patient report, was benign. An initial laboratory test that included vitamin B₁₂, folate, thyroid-stimulating hormone, complete blood cell count, and comprehensive metabolic panel, were unremarkable, with a white blood cell count of 8.5 K/uL. The initial neurologic evaluation did not show any focal neurologic deficits; however, during the initial hospital stay, the patient developed increasing lower extremity weakness on examination. A noncontrast CT head scan showed extensive nonspecific hypodensities within the periventricular white matter (Figure 1). A contrast-enhanced MRI showed enhancing lesions involving the corpus callosum, left cerebral peduncle, and right temporal lobe (Figures 2, 3, and 4). These lesions also exhibited significant restricted diffusion and a mild amount of surrounding vasogenic edema. The working diagnosis after the MRI included primary CNS lymphoma, multifocal glioblastoma, and tumefactive demyelinating disease. The patient was started on IV steroids and transferred for neurosurgical evaluation and biopsy at an outside hospital. The frontal lesion was biopsied, and the initial frozen section was consistent with lymphoma; a bone marrow biopsy was negative. The workup for immunodeficiency was unremarkable. Pathology revealed high-grade B-cell lymphoma, and the patient began a chemotherapy regimen.

Discussion

The workup of altered mental status, focal neurologic deficits, headaches, or other neurologic conditions often begins with a noncontrast CT scan. On CT, PCNSL generally appears isodense to hyperdense to gray matter, but appearance is variable. The often hyperdense appearance is attributable to the hypercellular nature of lymphoma. Many times, as in this case, CT may show only vague hypodensities, some of which may be associated with surrounding edema. This presentation is nonspecific and may be seen with advancing age due to changes of chronic microvascular ischemia as well as demyelination, other malignancies, and several other disease processes, both benign and malignant. After the initial CT scan, further workup requires evaluation with MRI. PCNSL exhibits restricted diffusion and variable signal intensity on T2-weighted imaging.

PCNSL is frequently centrally located within the periventricular white matter, often within the frontal lobe but can involve other lobes, the basal ganglia, brainstem, cerebellum, or less likely, the spinal canal.⁷ Contrary to primary CNS disease, secondary lymphoma within the CNS has been described classically as affecting a leptomeningeal (pia and arachnoid mater) distribution two-thirds of the time, with parenchymal involvement occurring in the other one-third of patients. A recent study by Malikova and colleagues found parenchymal involvement may be much more common than previously thought.¹ Leptomeningeal spread of disease often involves the cranial nerves, subependymal regions, spinal cord, or spinal nerve roots. Dural involvement in primary or secondary lymphoma is rare.

PCNSL nearly always shows enhancement. Linear enhancement along perivascular spaces is highly characteristic of PCNSL. The typical appearance of PCNSL associated with immunodeficiency varies from that seen in an otherwise immunocompetent patient. Patients with immunodeficiency usually have multifocal involvement, central necrosis leading to a ring enhancement appearance, and have more propensity for spontaneous hemorrhage.⁷ Immunocompetent patients are less likely to present with multifocal disease and rarely show ring enhancement. Also, spontaneous hemorrhage is rare in immunocompetent patients. In our case, extensive multifocal involvement was present, whereas typically immunocompetent patients will present with a solitary homogeneously enhancing parenchymal mass.

The primary differential for PCNSL includes malignant glioma, tumefactive multiple sclerosis, metastatic disease, and in an immunocompromised patient, toxoplasmosis. The degree of associated vasogenic edema and mass effect is generally lower in PCNSL than that of malignant gliomas and metastasis. Also, PCNSL tends to spare the cerebral cortex.⁸

Classically, PCNSL, malignant gliomas, and demyelinating disease have been considered the main differential for lesions that cross midline and involve both cerebral hemispheres. Lymphoma generally exhibits more restricted diffusion than malignant gliomas and metastasis, attributable to the highly cellular nature of lymphoma.⁷ Tumefactive multiple sclerosis is associated with relatively minimal mass effect for lesion size and exhibits less restricted diffusion values when compared to high grade gliomas and PCNSL. One fairly specific finding for tumefactive demyelinating lesions is incomplete rim enhancement.⁹ Unfortunately, an MRI is not reliable in differentiating these entities, and biopsy is required for definitive diagnosis. Many advancing imaging modalities may help provide the correct diagnosis of PCNSL, including diffusion-weighted and apparent diffusion coefficient imaging, diffusion tensor imaging, MR spectroscopy and PET imaging.⁷

Conclusion

With the increasing use of HAART, the paradigm of PCNSL is shifting toward one predominantly affecting immunocompetent patients. PCNSL should be considered in any patient with multiple enhancing CNS lesions, regardless of immune status. Several key imaging characteristics may help differentiate PCNSL and other disease processes; however, at this time, biopsy is recommended for definitive diagnosis.

Central nervous system (CNS) lymphoma can be classified into 2 categories: primary CNS lymphoma (PCNSL), which includes disease limited to brain, eyes, spinal cord; and leptomeninges without coexisting or previous systemic lymphoma. Secondary CNS lymphoma (SCNSL) is essentially metastatic disease from a systemic primary site.¹ The focus of this case presentation is PCNSL, with an emphasis on imaging characteristics and differential diagnosis.

The median age at diagnosis for PCNSL is 65 years, and the overall incidence has been decreasing since the mid-1990s, likely related to the increased use of highly-active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) in patients with AIDS.^2,3 Although overall incidence has decreased, incidence in the elderly population has increased.⁴ Historically, PCNSL has been considered an AIDS-defining illness.⁵ These patients, among other immunocompromised patients, such as those on chronic immunosuppressive therapy, are at a higher risk for developing the malignancy.⁶

Clinical presentation varies because of the location of CNS involvement and may present with headache, mood or personality disturbances, or focal neurologic deficits. Seizures are less likely due to the tendency of PCNSL to spare gray matter. Initial workup generally includes a head computed tomography (CT) scan, as well as a contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance image (MRI), which may help direct clinicians to the appropriate diagnosis. However, there is significant overlap between the imaging characteristics of PCNSL and numerous other disease processes, including glioblastoma and demyelination. The imaging characteristics of PCNSL are considerably different depending on the patient’s immune status.⁷

This case illustrates a rare presentation of PCNSL in an immunocompetent patient whose MRI characteristics were seemingly more consistent with those seen in patients with immunodeficiency. The main differential diagnoses and key imaging characteristics, which may help obtain accurate diagnosis, will be discussed.

Case Presentation

A 72-year-old male veteran presented with a 2-month history of subjective weakness in his upper and lower extremities progressing to multiple falls at home. He had no significant medical history other than a thymectomy at age 15 for an enlarged thymus, which per patient report, was benign. An initial laboratory test that included vitamin B₁₂, folate, thyroid-stimulating hormone, complete blood cell count, and comprehensive metabolic panel, were unremarkable, with a white blood cell count of 8.5 K/uL. The initial neurologic evaluation did not show any focal neurologic deficits; however, during the initial hospital stay, the patient developed increasing lower extremity weakness on examination. A noncontrast CT head scan showed extensive nonspecific hypodensities within the periventricular white matter (Figure 1). A contrast-enhanced MRI showed enhancing lesions involving the corpus callosum, left cerebral peduncle, and right temporal lobe (Figures 2, 3, and 4). These lesions also exhibited significant restricted diffusion and a mild amount of surrounding vasogenic edema. The working diagnosis after the MRI included primary CNS lymphoma, multifocal glioblastoma, and tumefactive demyelinating disease. The patient was started on IV steroids and transferred for neurosurgical evaluation and biopsy at an outside hospital. The frontal lesion was biopsied, and the initial frozen section was consistent with lymphoma; a bone marrow biopsy was negative. The workup for immunodeficiency was unremarkable. Pathology revealed high-grade B-cell lymphoma, and the patient began a chemotherapy regimen.

Discussion

The workup of altered mental status, focal neurologic deficits, headaches, or other neurologic conditions often begins with a noncontrast CT scan. On CT, PCNSL generally appears isodense to hyperdense to gray matter, but appearance is variable. The often hyperdense appearance is attributable to the hypercellular nature of lymphoma. Many times, as in this case, CT may show only vague hypodensities, some of which may be associated with surrounding edema. This presentation is nonspecific and may be seen with advancing age due to changes of chronic microvascular ischemia as well as demyelination, other malignancies, and several other disease processes, both benign and malignant. After the initial CT scan, further workup requires evaluation with MRI. PCNSL exhibits restricted diffusion and variable signal intensity on T2-weighted imaging.

PCNSL is frequently centrally located within the periventricular white matter, often within the frontal lobe but can involve other lobes, the basal ganglia, brainstem, cerebellum, or less likely, the spinal canal.⁷ Contrary to primary CNS disease, secondary lymphoma within the CNS has been described classically as affecting a leptomeningeal (pia and arachnoid mater) distribution two-thirds of the time, with parenchymal involvement occurring in the other one-third of patients. A recent study by Malikova and colleagues found parenchymal involvement may be much more common than previously thought.¹ Leptomeningeal spread of disease often involves the cranial nerves, subependymal regions, spinal cord, or spinal nerve roots. Dural involvement in primary or secondary lymphoma is rare.

PCNSL nearly always shows enhancement. Linear enhancement along perivascular spaces is highly characteristic of PCNSL. The typical appearance of PCNSL associated with immunodeficiency varies from that seen in an otherwise immunocompetent patient. Patients with immunodeficiency usually have multifocal involvement, central necrosis leading to a ring enhancement appearance, and have more propensity for spontaneous hemorrhage.⁷ Immunocompetent patients are less likely to present with multifocal disease and rarely show ring enhancement. Also, spontaneous hemorrhage is rare in immunocompetent patients. In our case, extensive multifocal involvement was present, whereas typically immunocompetent patients will present with a solitary homogeneously enhancing parenchymal mass.

The primary differential for PCNSL includes malignant glioma, tumefactive multiple sclerosis, metastatic disease, and in an immunocompromised patient, toxoplasmosis. The degree of associated vasogenic edema and mass effect is generally lower in PCNSL than that of malignant gliomas and metastasis. Also, PCNSL tends to spare the cerebral cortex.⁸

Classically, PCNSL, malignant gliomas, and demyelinating disease have been considered the main differential for lesions that cross midline and involve both cerebral hemispheres. Lymphoma generally exhibits more restricted diffusion than malignant gliomas and metastasis, attributable to the highly cellular nature of lymphoma.⁷ Tumefactive multiple sclerosis is associated with relatively minimal mass effect for lesion size and exhibits less restricted diffusion values when compared to high grade gliomas and PCNSL. One fairly specific finding for tumefactive demyelinating lesions is incomplete rim enhancement.⁹ Unfortunately, an MRI is not reliable in differentiating these entities, and biopsy is required for definitive diagnosis. Many advancing imaging modalities may help provide the correct diagnosis of PCNSL, including diffusion-weighted and apparent diffusion coefficient imaging, diffusion tensor imaging, MR spectroscopy and PET imaging.⁷

Conclusion

With the increasing use of HAART, the paradigm of PCNSL is shifting toward one predominantly affecting immunocompetent patients. PCNSL should be considered in any patient with multiple enhancing CNS lesions, regardless of immune status. Several key imaging characteristics may help differentiate PCNSL and other disease processes; however, at this time, biopsy is recommended for definitive diagnosis.

Central nervous system (CNS) lymphoma can be classified into 2 categories: primary CNS lymphoma (PCNSL), which includes disease limited to brain, eyes, spinal cord; and leptomeninges without coexisting or previous systemic lymphoma. Secondary CNS lymphoma (SCNSL) is essentially metastatic disease from a systemic primary site.¹ The focus of this case presentation is PCNSL, with an emphasis on imaging characteristics and differential diagnosis.

The median age at diagnosis for PCNSL is 65 years, and the overall incidence has been decreasing since the mid-1990s, likely related to the increased use of highly-active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) in patients with AIDS.^2,3 Although overall incidence has decreased, incidence in the elderly population has increased.⁴ Historically, PCNSL has been considered an AIDS-defining illness.⁵ These patients, among other immunocompromised patients, such as those on chronic immunosuppressive therapy, are at a higher risk for developing the malignancy.⁶

Clinical presentation varies because of the location of CNS involvement and may present with headache, mood or personality disturbances, or focal neurologic deficits. Seizures are less likely due to the tendency of PCNSL to spare gray matter. Initial workup generally includes a head computed tomography (CT) scan, as well as a contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance image (MRI), which may help direct clinicians to the appropriate diagnosis. However, there is significant overlap between the imaging characteristics of PCNSL and numerous other disease processes, including glioblastoma and demyelination. The imaging characteristics of PCNSL are considerably different depending on the patient’s immune status.⁷

This case illustrates a rare presentation of PCNSL in an immunocompetent patient whose MRI characteristics were seemingly more consistent with those seen in patients with immunodeficiency. The main differential diagnoses and key imaging characteristics, which may help obtain accurate diagnosis, will be discussed.

Case Presentation

A 72-year-old male veteran presented with a 2-month history of subjective weakness in his upper and lower extremities progressing to multiple falls at home. He had no significant medical history other than a thymectomy at age 15 for an enlarged thymus, which per patient report, was benign. An initial laboratory test that included vitamin B₁₂, folate, thyroid-stimulating hormone, complete blood cell count, and comprehensive metabolic panel, were unremarkable, with a white blood cell count of 8.5 K/uL. The initial neurologic evaluation did not show any focal neurologic deficits; however, during the initial hospital stay, the patient developed increasing lower extremity weakness on examination. A noncontrast CT head scan showed extensive nonspecific hypodensities within the periventricular white matter (Figure 1). A contrast-enhanced MRI showed enhancing lesions involving the corpus callosum, left cerebral peduncle, and right temporal lobe (Figures 2, 3, and 4). These lesions also exhibited significant restricted diffusion and a mild amount of surrounding vasogenic edema. The working diagnosis after the MRI included primary CNS lymphoma, multifocal glioblastoma, and tumefactive demyelinating disease. The patient was started on IV steroids and transferred for neurosurgical evaluation and biopsy at an outside hospital. The frontal lesion was biopsied, and the initial frozen section was consistent with lymphoma; a bone marrow biopsy was negative. The workup for immunodeficiency was unremarkable. Pathology revealed high-grade B-cell lymphoma, and the patient began a chemotherapy regimen.

Discussion

The workup of altered mental status, focal neurologic deficits, headaches, or other neurologic conditions often begins with a noncontrast CT scan. On CT, PCNSL generally appears isodense to hyperdense to gray matter, but appearance is variable. The often hyperdense appearance is attributable to the hypercellular nature of lymphoma. Many times, as in this case, CT may show only vague hypodensities, some of which may be associated with surrounding edema. This presentation is nonspecific and may be seen with advancing age due to changes of chronic microvascular ischemia as well as demyelination, other malignancies, and several other disease processes, both benign and malignant. After the initial CT scan, further workup requires evaluation with MRI. PCNSL exhibits restricted diffusion and variable signal intensity on T2-weighted imaging.

PCNSL is frequently centrally located within the periventricular white matter, often within the frontal lobe but can involve other lobes, the basal ganglia, brainstem, cerebellum, or less likely, the spinal canal.⁷ Contrary to primary CNS disease, secondary lymphoma within the CNS has been described classically as affecting a leptomeningeal (pia and arachnoid mater) distribution two-thirds of the time, with parenchymal involvement occurring in the other one-third of patients. A recent study by Malikova and colleagues found parenchymal involvement may be much more common than previously thought.¹ Leptomeningeal spread of disease often involves the cranial nerves, subependymal regions, spinal cord, or spinal nerve roots. Dural involvement in primary or secondary lymphoma is rare.

PCNSL nearly always shows enhancement. Linear enhancement along perivascular spaces is highly characteristic of PCNSL. The typical appearance of PCNSL associated with immunodeficiency varies from that seen in an otherwise immunocompetent patient. Patients with immunodeficiency usually have multifocal involvement, central necrosis leading to a ring enhancement appearance, and have more propensity for spontaneous hemorrhage.⁷ Immunocompetent patients are less likely to present with multifocal disease and rarely show ring enhancement. Also, spontaneous hemorrhage is rare in immunocompetent patients. In our case, extensive multifocal involvement was present, whereas typically immunocompetent patients will present with a solitary homogeneously enhancing parenchymal mass.

The primary differential for PCNSL includes malignant glioma, tumefactive multiple sclerosis, metastatic disease, and in an immunocompromised patient, toxoplasmosis. The degree of associated vasogenic edema and mass effect is generally lower in PCNSL than that of malignant gliomas and metastasis. Also, PCNSL tends to spare the cerebral cortex.⁸

Classically, PCNSL, malignant gliomas, and demyelinating disease have been considered the main differential for lesions that cross midline and involve both cerebral hemispheres. Lymphoma generally exhibits more restricted diffusion than malignant gliomas and metastasis, attributable to the highly cellular nature of lymphoma.⁷ Tumefactive multiple sclerosis is associated with relatively minimal mass effect for lesion size and exhibits less restricted diffusion values when compared to high grade gliomas and PCNSL. One fairly specific finding for tumefactive demyelinating lesions is incomplete rim enhancement.⁹ Unfortunately, an MRI is not reliable in differentiating these entities, and biopsy is required for definitive diagnosis. Many advancing imaging modalities may help provide the correct diagnosis of PCNSL, including diffusion-weighted and apparent diffusion coefficient imaging, diffusion tensor imaging, MR spectroscopy and PET imaging.⁷

Conclusion

With the increasing use of HAART, the paradigm of PCNSL is shifting toward one predominantly affecting immunocompetent patients. PCNSL should be considered in any patient with multiple enhancing CNS lesions, regardless of immune status. Several key imaging characteristics may help differentiate PCNSL and other disease processes; however, at this time, biopsy is recommended for definitive diagnosis.