Pulmonary sarcomatoid carcinoma (PSC) is a rare histological subtype that has an aggressive course with average survival of 11-13 months.¹ In clinical practice, the possible presentations of this rare cancer are not widely known, resulting in a misdiagnosis. That is what happened with our patient, who presented with necrotizing cavitary lung lesion and soft tissue necrotizing lymphadenitis. The clinical picture was reminiscent of tuberculosis or granulomatosis with polyangiitis and was further confounded by negative computed-tomography (CT)-guided biopsy and bronchoscopy findings, which added to the delay in diagnosis. With the currently available knowledge, the diagnosis of PSC depends largely on evaluation of the surgically resected specimen, which in most cases is avoided until there is a high suspicion of PSC. Biopsy is not useful due to extensive necrosis, as will be seen in our case. Consequently, most of the data in the literature is based on case series of autopsy specimen, and the clinical characteristics of PSC remain unclear. The rarity of PSC has prevented its characterization in literature. We report here a rare presentation of PSC with necrotizing lung lesion, to add to the paucity of the current data.

Case presentation and summary

A 58-year-old homeless man presented to the Upstate University Hospital, Syracuse, New York, with a 25-pound weight loss during the previous month and associated productive cough and hemoptysis for a week and a painful mass in the nape of his neck. He denied any fever, chest pain, sick contacts, or joint pain. He had a history of about 40 pack-years of smoking, and his brother had recently been diagnosed with lung cancer. A tender fluctuant mass was detected in the nape of his neck on examination (Figure 1).

The patient had presented 9 months earlier with persistent cough and hemoptysis, and at that visit was found to have a cavitary lesion in the right lung measuring 2 cm (0.8 in). He had undergone a computed-tomograpghy (CT)-guided biopsy of the lesion, which had shown acute and chronic inflammation with fibrosis, and he had negative bronchoscopy findings. The patient tested negative for tuberculosis during the first visit but he left the hospital against the medical advice of the physicians and he was lost to follow-up until his re-presentation.

On physical examination at his re-presentation, the patient seemed cachectic, with a blood pressure of 94/62 mm of Hg. The mass in the nape of his neck was about 3 cm (1.2 in) long, with erythema of the surrounding skin (Figure 1). Bronchial breath sounds were heard in the right upper lobe of the lung, likely due to the underlying cavitary lesion (Figure 2).

Given the patient’s advanced disease, he was started on palliative radiotherapy with radiosensitizing chemotherapy with carboplatin (target AUC 6) and paclitaxel (135 mg/m² over 24 hours). His symptoms of hemoptysis improved transiently after the first cycle, but he became hypotensive and drowsy during the second cycle of therapy, and the family decided to make the patient comfort care and withdraw all further treatment. He was discharged to hospice.

Discussion

PSC is a rare variant of non-small-cell carcinoma lung cancer, accounting for up to 0.4% of lung malignancy.¹ It was recently subtyped by the World Health Organization as a non-small cell lung carcinoma with certain amount of differentiation resembling sarcoma or containing elements of sarcoma.^2-4 It is not known why both elements co-exist in the tumor, but Franks and colleagues some theories have been postulated in the literature, including possible origin from a single, aberrant stem cell with progenies differentiating in two separate pathways.³

Sarcomatoid carcinoma consists of spectrum of tumors including pleomorphic carcinoma, spindle cell carcinoma, giant cell carcinoma, carcinosarcoma, and blastoma.^3,4 It usually shows male preponderance, and association with smoking.³ The diagnosis commonly occurs in the sixth decade of life, except for pulmonary blastoma, which is more common in the fourth decade and with equal gender distribution.⁴

The presenting symptoms can be variable and nonspecific, but predominantly include chest pain, cough, hemoptysis, and/or weight loss.⁵ Radiologically, pulmonary sarcomatoid cancer presenting as a necrotizing cavitary lesion in the lung is a rare finding, seldom reported in the past.^6,7 The presentation in our case, with necrotizing lymphadenitis, was reminiscent of an infectious or autoimmune etiology such as tuberculosis or granulomatosis with polyangiitis. The presence of extensive necrosis in the lesion and the characteristic heterogeneity of the tumor had resulted in inconclusive biopsy findings during the previous presentation. In clinical practice, there is over-reliance on biopsy findings to make the distinction between cancer and other mimicking conditions. This is especially true for rare tumors such as PSC, which often results in misdiagnosis and a delay in administering the proper treatment.

Transbronchial biopsy in cases such as the present case, carries little benefit because the diagnosis depends on the site from which the biopsy is taken and whether the biopsied tissue is representative of the entire mass. The diagnosis can be suspected based on the clinical and radiological findings but confirmation requires a surgical resection to delineate the accurate cytology and architecture.^5,6,8 Huang and colleagues showed a misdiagnosis rate of PSC of >70% preoperatively.⁴ Resective surgery is feasible only in patients with high index of suspicion for a malignancy, which in most cases requires previous confirmation with a biopsy. The rarity of this cancer, its unusual presentations, and the lack of specific testing preclude early diagnosis and timely treatment of this fatal condition.

Initial treatment options for localized or with limited spread disease is resective surgery. The role of chemo- or radiation therapy is not known, but they have not previously shown promising results,^6,8 except in some cases when they are used as postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy⁴ or in bulky, locally invasive tumors.¹ The recurrence rate after surgery is very high, resulting in a poor 5-year survival rate.^1,8 Experimental therapies, such as antibodies that target epidermal growth factor receptor mutations, have not shown much success either.⁸ In conclusion, the outlook for patients with PSC with the current available knowledge and treatment protocols, is dismal.

Most of the current knowledge and data in the literature is based on cases from autopsy or early-stage surgical resections rather than on patients with advanced cancer.⁵ Moreover, the role of surgical resection in PSC is questionable, given the high recurrence rate. Subsequently, the clinical and pathological manifestations have yet to be well characterized.⁴ There has been advance with the publication of more studies recently. Cytokeratin markers such as CAM 5.2 and AE1/AE3 are commonly useful to support the diagnosis when suspected.³ Other markers, including the carcinoembryonic antigen, CD15, and thyroid transcription factor-1 may be variably positive, based on the differentiation of the cancer. Other exciting prospects in the study of PSC include the suggestion of a modified vimentin histologic score for better characterization of the cancer and the discovery of high platelet-derived growth factor receptor beta immunohistochemistry expression in PSC as a potential target for future therapy.

Conclusion

Pulmonary sarcomatoid lung cancer can present with a predominant necrotizing picture that mimics diseases such as tuberculosis. In such case, transbronchial biopsy carries little benefit because the diagnosis depends on whether the biopsied tissue is representative of the entire mass, often confounded by the extensive necrosis. More data is needed to determine prognostic factors and appropriate therapeutic strategies.

Pulmonary sarcomatoid carcinoma (PSC) is a rare histological subtype that has an aggressive course with average survival of 11-13 months.¹ In clinical practice, the possible presentations of this rare cancer are not widely known, resulting in a misdiagnosis. That is what happened with our patient, who presented with necrotizing cavitary lung lesion and soft tissue necrotizing lymphadenitis. The clinical picture was reminiscent of tuberculosis or granulomatosis with polyangiitis and was further confounded by negative computed-tomography (CT)-guided biopsy and bronchoscopy findings, which added to the delay in diagnosis. With the currently available knowledge, the diagnosis of PSC depends largely on evaluation of the surgically resected specimen, which in most cases is avoided until there is a high suspicion of PSC. Biopsy is not useful due to extensive necrosis, as will be seen in our case. Consequently, most of the data in the literature is based on case series of autopsy specimen, and the clinical characteristics of PSC remain unclear. The rarity of PSC has prevented its characterization in literature. We report here a rare presentation of PSC with necrotizing lung lesion, to add to the paucity of the current data.

Case presentation and summary

A 58-year-old homeless man presented to the Upstate University Hospital, Syracuse, New York, with a 25-pound weight loss during the previous month and associated productive cough and hemoptysis for a week and a painful mass in the nape of his neck. He denied any fever, chest pain, sick contacts, or joint pain. He had a history of about 40 pack-years of smoking, and his brother had recently been diagnosed with lung cancer. A tender fluctuant mass was detected in the nape of his neck on examination (Figure 1).

The patient had presented 9 months earlier with persistent cough and hemoptysis, and at that visit was found to have a cavitary lesion in the right lung measuring 2 cm (0.8 in). He had undergone a computed-tomograpghy (CT)-guided biopsy of the lesion, which had shown acute and chronic inflammation with fibrosis, and he had negative bronchoscopy findings. The patient tested negative for tuberculosis during the first visit but he left the hospital against the medical advice of the physicians and he was lost to follow-up until his re-presentation.

On physical examination at his re-presentation, the patient seemed cachectic, with a blood pressure of 94/62 mm of Hg. The mass in the nape of his neck was about 3 cm (1.2 in) long, with erythema of the surrounding skin (Figure 1). Bronchial breath sounds were heard in the right upper lobe of the lung, likely due to the underlying cavitary lesion (Figure 2).

Given the patient’s advanced disease, he was started on palliative radiotherapy with radiosensitizing chemotherapy with carboplatin (target AUC 6) and paclitaxel (135 mg/m² over 24 hours). His symptoms of hemoptysis improved transiently after the first cycle, but he became hypotensive and drowsy during the second cycle of therapy, and the family decided to make the patient comfort care and withdraw all further treatment. He was discharged to hospice.

Discussion

PSC is a rare variant of non-small-cell carcinoma lung cancer, accounting for up to 0.4% of lung malignancy.¹ It was recently subtyped by the World Health Organization as a non-small cell lung carcinoma with certain amount of differentiation resembling sarcoma or containing elements of sarcoma.^2-4 It is not known why both elements co-exist in the tumor, but Franks and colleagues some theories have been postulated in the literature, including possible origin from a single, aberrant stem cell with progenies differentiating in two separate pathways.³

Sarcomatoid carcinoma consists of spectrum of tumors including pleomorphic carcinoma, spindle cell carcinoma, giant cell carcinoma, carcinosarcoma, and blastoma.^3,4 It usually shows male preponderance, and association with smoking.³ The diagnosis commonly occurs in the sixth decade of life, except for pulmonary blastoma, which is more common in the fourth decade and with equal gender distribution.⁴

The presenting symptoms can be variable and nonspecific, but predominantly include chest pain, cough, hemoptysis, and/or weight loss.⁵ Radiologically, pulmonary sarcomatoid cancer presenting as a necrotizing cavitary lesion in the lung is a rare finding, seldom reported in the past.^6,7 The presentation in our case, with necrotizing lymphadenitis, was reminiscent of an infectious or autoimmune etiology such as tuberculosis or granulomatosis with polyangiitis. The presence of extensive necrosis in the lesion and the characteristic heterogeneity of the tumor had resulted in inconclusive biopsy findings during the previous presentation. In clinical practice, there is over-reliance on biopsy findings to make the distinction between cancer and other mimicking conditions. This is especially true for rare tumors such as PSC, which often results in misdiagnosis and a delay in administering the proper treatment.

Transbronchial biopsy in cases such as the present case, carries little benefit because the diagnosis depends on the site from which the biopsy is taken and whether the biopsied tissue is representative of the entire mass. The diagnosis can be suspected based on the clinical and radiological findings but confirmation requires a surgical resection to delineate the accurate cytology and architecture.^5,6,8 Huang and colleagues showed a misdiagnosis rate of PSC of >70% preoperatively.⁴ Resective surgery is feasible only in patients with high index of suspicion for a malignancy, which in most cases requires previous confirmation with a biopsy. The rarity of this cancer, its unusual presentations, and the lack of specific testing preclude early diagnosis and timely treatment of this fatal condition.

Initial treatment options for localized or with limited spread disease is resective surgery. The role of chemo- or radiation therapy is not known, but they have not previously shown promising results,^6,8 except in some cases when they are used as postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy⁴ or in bulky, locally invasive tumors.¹ The recurrence rate after surgery is very high, resulting in a poor 5-year survival rate.^1,8 Experimental therapies, such as antibodies that target epidermal growth factor receptor mutations, have not shown much success either.⁸ In conclusion, the outlook for patients with PSC with the current available knowledge and treatment protocols, is dismal.

Most of the current knowledge and data in the literature is based on cases from autopsy or early-stage surgical resections rather than on patients with advanced cancer.⁵ Moreover, the role of surgical resection in PSC is questionable, given the high recurrence rate. Subsequently, the clinical and pathological manifestations have yet to be well characterized.⁴ There has been advance with the publication of more studies recently. Cytokeratin markers such as CAM 5.2 and AE1/AE3 are commonly useful to support the diagnosis when suspected.³ Other markers, including the carcinoembryonic antigen, CD15, and thyroid transcription factor-1 may be variably positive, based on the differentiation of the cancer. Other exciting prospects in the study of PSC include the suggestion of a modified vimentin histologic score for better characterization of the cancer and the discovery of high platelet-derived growth factor receptor beta immunohistochemistry expression in PSC as a potential target for future therapy.

Conclusion

Pulmonary sarcomatoid lung cancer can present with a predominant necrotizing picture that mimics diseases such as tuberculosis. In such case, transbronchial biopsy carries little benefit because the diagnosis depends on whether the biopsied tissue is representative of the entire mass, often confounded by the extensive necrosis. More data is needed to determine prognostic factors and appropriate therapeutic strategies.

Pulmonary sarcomatoid carcinoma (PSC) is a rare histological subtype that has an aggressive course with average survival of 11-13 months.¹ In clinical practice, the possible presentations of this rare cancer are not widely known, resulting in a misdiagnosis. That is what happened with our patient, who presented with necrotizing cavitary lung lesion and soft tissue necrotizing lymphadenitis. The clinical picture was reminiscent of tuberculosis or granulomatosis with polyangiitis and was further confounded by negative computed-tomography (CT)-guided biopsy and bronchoscopy findings, which added to the delay in diagnosis. With the currently available knowledge, the diagnosis of PSC depends largely on evaluation of the surgically resected specimen, which in most cases is avoided until there is a high suspicion of PSC. Biopsy is not useful due to extensive necrosis, as will be seen in our case. Consequently, most of the data in the literature is based on case series of autopsy specimen, and the clinical characteristics of PSC remain unclear. The rarity of PSC has prevented its characterization in literature. We report here a rare presentation of PSC with necrotizing lung lesion, to add to the paucity of the current data.

Case presentation and summary

A 58-year-old homeless man presented to the Upstate University Hospital, Syracuse, New York, with a 25-pound weight loss during the previous month and associated productive cough and hemoptysis for a week and a painful mass in the nape of his neck. He denied any fever, chest pain, sick contacts, or joint pain. He had a history of about 40 pack-years of smoking, and his brother had recently been diagnosed with lung cancer. A tender fluctuant mass was detected in the nape of his neck on examination (Figure 1).

The patient had presented 9 months earlier with persistent cough and hemoptysis, and at that visit was found to have a cavitary lesion in the right lung measuring 2 cm (0.8 in). He had undergone a computed-tomograpghy (CT)-guided biopsy of the lesion, which had shown acute and chronic inflammation with fibrosis, and he had negative bronchoscopy findings. The patient tested negative for tuberculosis during the first visit but he left the hospital against the medical advice of the physicians and he was lost to follow-up until his re-presentation.

On physical examination at his re-presentation, the patient seemed cachectic, with a blood pressure of 94/62 mm of Hg. The mass in the nape of his neck was about 3 cm (1.2 in) long, with erythema of the surrounding skin (Figure 1). Bronchial breath sounds were heard in the right upper lobe of the lung, likely due to the underlying cavitary lesion (Figure 2).

Given the patient’s advanced disease, he was started on palliative radiotherapy with radiosensitizing chemotherapy with carboplatin (target AUC 6) and paclitaxel (135 mg/m² over 24 hours). His symptoms of hemoptysis improved transiently after the first cycle, but he became hypotensive and drowsy during the second cycle of therapy, and the family decided to make the patient comfort care and withdraw all further treatment. He was discharged to hospice.

Discussion

PSC is a rare variant of non-small-cell carcinoma lung cancer, accounting for up to 0.4% of lung malignancy.¹ It was recently subtyped by the World Health Organization as a non-small cell lung carcinoma with certain amount of differentiation resembling sarcoma or containing elements of sarcoma.^2-4 It is not known why both elements co-exist in the tumor, but Franks and colleagues some theories have been postulated in the literature, including possible origin from a single, aberrant stem cell with progenies differentiating in two separate pathways.³

Sarcomatoid carcinoma consists of spectrum of tumors including pleomorphic carcinoma, spindle cell carcinoma, giant cell carcinoma, carcinosarcoma, and blastoma.^3,4 It usually shows male preponderance, and association with smoking.³ The diagnosis commonly occurs in the sixth decade of life, except for pulmonary blastoma, which is more common in the fourth decade and with equal gender distribution.⁴

The presenting symptoms can be variable and nonspecific, but predominantly include chest pain, cough, hemoptysis, and/or weight loss.⁵ Radiologically, pulmonary sarcomatoid cancer presenting as a necrotizing cavitary lesion in the lung is a rare finding, seldom reported in the past.^6,7 The presentation in our case, with necrotizing lymphadenitis, was reminiscent of an infectious or autoimmune etiology such as tuberculosis or granulomatosis with polyangiitis. The presence of extensive necrosis in the lesion and the characteristic heterogeneity of the tumor had resulted in inconclusive biopsy findings during the previous presentation. In clinical practice, there is over-reliance on biopsy findings to make the distinction between cancer and other mimicking conditions. This is especially true for rare tumors such as PSC, which often results in misdiagnosis and a delay in administering the proper treatment.

Transbronchial biopsy in cases such as the present case, carries little benefit because the diagnosis depends on the site from which the biopsy is taken and whether the biopsied tissue is representative of the entire mass. The diagnosis can be suspected based on the clinical and radiological findings but confirmation requires a surgical resection to delineate the accurate cytology and architecture.^5,6,8 Huang and colleagues showed a misdiagnosis rate of PSC of >70% preoperatively.⁴ Resective surgery is feasible only in patients with high index of suspicion for a malignancy, which in most cases requires previous confirmation with a biopsy. The rarity of this cancer, its unusual presentations, and the lack of specific testing preclude early diagnosis and timely treatment of this fatal condition.

Initial treatment options for localized or with limited spread disease is resective surgery. The role of chemo- or radiation therapy is not known, but they have not previously shown promising results,^6,8 except in some cases when they are used as postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy⁴ or in bulky, locally invasive tumors.¹ The recurrence rate after surgery is very high, resulting in a poor 5-year survival rate.^1,8 Experimental therapies, such as antibodies that target epidermal growth factor receptor mutations, have not shown much success either.⁸ In conclusion, the outlook for patients with PSC with the current available knowledge and treatment protocols, is dismal.

Most of the current knowledge and data in the literature is based on cases from autopsy or early-stage surgical resections rather than on patients with advanced cancer.⁵ Moreover, the role of surgical resection in PSC is questionable, given the high recurrence rate. Subsequently, the clinical and pathological manifestations have yet to be well characterized.⁴ There has been advance with the publication of more studies recently. Cytokeratin markers such as CAM 5.2 and AE1/AE3 are commonly useful to support the diagnosis when suspected.³ Other markers, including the carcinoembryonic antigen, CD15, and thyroid transcription factor-1 may be variably positive, based on the differentiation of the cancer. Other exciting prospects in the study of PSC include the suggestion of a modified vimentin histologic score for better characterization of the cancer and the discovery of high platelet-derived growth factor receptor beta immunohistochemistry expression in PSC as a potential target for future therapy.

Conclusion

Pulmonary sarcomatoid lung cancer can present with a predominant necrotizing picture that mimics diseases such as tuberculosis. In such case, transbronchial biopsy carries little benefit because the diagnosis depends on whether the biopsied tissue is representative of the entire mass, often confounded by the extensive necrosis. More data is needed to determine prognostic factors and appropriate therapeutic strategies.

Nivolumab is a full human immunoglobulin antibody to the programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) immune checkpoint receptor on T cells. This programmed cell death inhibitor is a targeted immunotherapy used to treat patients with melanoma, among other malignancies.¹ More recently, nivolumab has been used for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) after failure of previous chemotherapeutic agents. It was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the NSCLC indication in 2015.²

PD-1 inhibitors are efficacious in treating advanced malignancies, although their immune-mediated functions can lead to undesirable side effects. Patients treated with nivolumab have been reported to develop thyroid disease,^1,3,4 diabetes,³ hypophysitis,^1,3 hypopituitarism,³ and pneumonitis,^4,2 as well as other autoimmune conditions.³ Although nivolumab is often used to treat skin diseases such as melanoma, it can have many cutaneous side effects including pruritus,^1,3-6 rash,^1,3,4,6,7 vitiligo,^1,3,7,6 mouth sores,³ injection site reactions,^3,6 and alopecia.⁵ Herein, we describe a patient who was treated with nivolumab and developed an exacerbation of pre-existing psoriasis.

Case presentation and summary

A 57-year-old man with metastatic NSCLC and a history of plaque psoriasis presented to the dermatology clinic for evaluation of new lesions on his palms and soles. The patient had been previously treated with numerous therapies for NSCLC, including chemotherapy and radiation. Previous chemotherapeutic agents included the cisplatin plus etoposide combination, with doxetaxel and pemetrexed. The patient was not able to tolerate the chemotherapy and instead opted for hospice care. After several months, he chose to restart therapy, and was started on the programmed cell death (PD)-1 inhibitor, nivolumab, at a dose of 3 mg/kg for a total of 6 cycles. He received his first dose 5 weeks before his current presentation to the clinic, and his second dose 2 weeks before.

The patient reported a 20-year history of plaque psoriasis, characterized by psoriatic plaques on the elbows and shins and for which he was treated with topical therapies with good effect. Every few months, he would develop one or two small plaques of psoriasis on his palms and soles. The lesions were inconsequential to the patient, as he never experienced more than one or two small palmoplantar lesions at a time. One week after his second cycle of nivolumab, the patient developed an eruption of lesions on his palms and soles. He observed that the lesions seemed to be similar to his previous palmoplantar psoriatic plaques but with significantly greater skin involvement. The patient denied any new-onset joint pain.

The results of a physical examination revealed a cachectic man in no acute distress, with more than 30 erythematous circular to oval circumscribed plaques with yellow to whitish scales on the bilateral palms (Figure 1) and soles (Figure 2).

A clinical diagnosis of exacerbation of pre-existing psoriasis owing to nivolumab therapy was made. The patient was started on clobetasol 0.05% ointment twice daily under occlusion with plastic wrap to the affected areas, and he was continued on nivolumab for his NSCLC.

Discussion

Treatment with nivolumab can lead to a range of autoimmune side effects, and as shown in this case, psoriasis is one of the cutaneous findings that could be exacerbated by treatment with nivolumab. To date, two cases of exacerbation of psoriasis in patients treated with nivolumab for melanoma have been reported in the literature.^8,9 In the first case, the patient had well-controlled plaque psoriasis at baseline and he subsequently developed psoriatic plaques on the trunk and extremities after the second infusion of nivolumab for metastatic melanoma. A biopsy showed regular acanthosis with hyperkeratosis and parakeratosis in addition to dilated vessels in the papillary dermis.⁸ In the second case, the patient had a history of psoriasis vulgaris with no active lesions. Three weeks after his first course of nivolumab for metastatic oral mucosal melanoma, he developed new, well-circumscribed erythematous scaly plaques on the trunk and extremities that were clinically diagnosed as psoriasis.⁹ In a third case, a patient without a prior history of psoriasis experienced a psoriasiform eruption on the trunk and extremities after the fourth dose of nivolumab for oral mucosal melanoma.¹⁰ Thus, our case is the third reported case of exacerbation of preexisting psoriasis in a patient treated with nivolumab. Furthermore, our patient is the first reported case of a patient treated with nivolumab for NSCLC to develop this adverse event. Whereas the previously reported cases were characterized by widespread trunk and extremity involvement, our patient developed focal exacerbation of the palmoplantar areas.

Additional studies are needed to more clearly characterize the specific cutaneous toxicities of nivolumab and to determine if particular skin reactions may indicate a better response to the anticancer agent. Side effects such as psoriasis can often be managed with topical therapies and may not require withdrawal of the medication. We encourage the collaboration of dermatologists and oncologists to enhance the diagnosis and management of these cutaneous side effects in cancer patients.

Nivolumab is a full human immunoglobulin antibody to the programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) immune checkpoint receptor on T cells. This programmed cell death inhibitor is a targeted immunotherapy used to treat patients with melanoma, among other malignancies.¹ More recently, nivolumab has been used for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) after failure of previous chemotherapeutic agents. It was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the NSCLC indication in 2015.²

PD-1 inhibitors are efficacious in treating advanced malignancies, although their immune-mediated functions can lead to undesirable side effects. Patients treated with nivolumab have been reported to develop thyroid disease,^1,3,4 diabetes,³ hypophysitis,^1,3 hypopituitarism,³ and pneumonitis,^4,2 as well as other autoimmune conditions.³ Although nivolumab is often used to treat skin diseases such as melanoma, it can have many cutaneous side effects including pruritus,^1,3-6 rash,^1,3,4,6,7 vitiligo,^1,3,7,6 mouth sores,³ injection site reactions,^3,6 and alopecia.⁵ Herein, we describe a patient who was treated with nivolumab and developed an exacerbation of pre-existing psoriasis.

Case presentation and summary

A 57-year-old man with metastatic NSCLC and a history of plaque psoriasis presented to the dermatology clinic for evaluation of new lesions on his palms and soles. The patient had been previously treated with numerous therapies for NSCLC, including chemotherapy and radiation. Previous chemotherapeutic agents included the cisplatin plus etoposide combination, with doxetaxel and pemetrexed. The patient was not able to tolerate the chemotherapy and instead opted for hospice care. After several months, he chose to restart therapy, and was started on the programmed cell death (PD)-1 inhibitor, nivolumab, at a dose of 3 mg/kg for a total of 6 cycles. He received his first dose 5 weeks before his current presentation to the clinic, and his second dose 2 weeks before.

The patient reported a 20-year history of plaque psoriasis, characterized by psoriatic plaques on the elbows and shins and for which he was treated with topical therapies with good effect. Every few months, he would develop one or two small plaques of psoriasis on his palms and soles. The lesions were inconsequential to the patient, as he never experienced more than one or two small palmoplantar lesions at a time. One week after his second cycle of nivolumab, the patient developed an eruption of lesions on his palms and soles. He observed that the lesions seemed to be similar to his previous palmoplantar psoriatic plaques but with significantly greater skin involvement. The patient denied any new-onset joint pain.

The results of a physical examination revealed a cachectic man in no acute distress, with more than 30 erythematous circular to oval circumscribed plaques with yellow to whitish scales on the bilateral palms (Figure 1) and soles (Figure 2).

A clinical diagnosis of exacerbation of pre-existing psoriasis owing to nivolumab therapy was made. The patient was started on clobetasol 0.05% ointment twice daily under occlusion with plastic wrap to the affected areas, and he was continued on nivolumab for his NSCLC.

Discussion

Treatment with nivolumab can lead to a range of autoimmune side effects, and as shown in this case, psoriasis is one of the cutaneous findings that could be exacerbated by treatment with nivolumab. To date, two cases of exacerbation of psoriasis in patients treated with nivolumab for melanoma have been reported in the literature.^8,9 In the first case, the patient had well-controlled plaque psoriasis at baseline and he subsequently developed psoriatic plaques on the trunk and extremities after the second infusion of nivolumab for metastatic melanoma. A biopsy showed regular acanthosis with hyperkeratosis and parakeratosis in addition to dilated vessels in the papillary dermis.⁸ In the second case, the patient had a history of psoriasis vulgaris with no active lesions. Three weeks after his first course of nivolumab for metastatic oral mucosal melanoma, he developed new, well-circumscribed erythematous scaly plaques on the trunk and extremities that were clinically diagnosed as psoriasis.⁹ In a third case, a patient without a prior history of psoriasis experienced a psoriasiform eruption on the trunk and extremities after the fourth dose of nivolumab for oral mucosal melanoma.¹⁰ Thus, our case is the third reported case of exacerbation of preexisting psoriasis in a patient treated with nivolumab. Furthermore, our patient is the first reported case of a patient treated with nivolumab for NSCLC to develop this adverse event. Whereas the previously reported cases were characterized by widespread trunk and extremity involvement, our patient developed focal exacerbation of the palmoplantar areas.

Additional studies are needed to more clearly characterize the specific cutaneous toxicities of nivolumab and to determine if particular skin reactions may indicate a better response to the anticancer agent. Side effects such as psoriasis can often be managed with topical therapies and may not require withdrawal of the medication. We encourage the collaboration of dermatologists and oncologists to enhance the diagnosis and management of these cutaneous side effects in cancer patients.

Nivolumab is a full human immunoglobulin antibody to the programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) immune checkpoint receptor on T cells. This programmed cell death inhibitor is a targeted immunotherapy used to treat patients with melanoma, among other malignancies.¹ More recently, nivolumab has been used for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) after failure of previous chemotherapeutic agents. It was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the NSCLC indication in 2015.²

PD-1 inhibitors are efficacious in treating advanced malignancies, although their immune-mediated functions can lead to undesirable side effects. Patients treated with nivolumab have been reported to develop thyroid disease,^1,3,4 diabetes,³ hypophysitis,^1,3 hypopituitarism,³ and pneumonitis,^4,2 as well as other autoimmune conditions.³ Although nivolumab is often used to treat skin diseases such as melanoma, it can have many cutaneous side effects including pruritus,^1,3-6 rash,^1,3,4,6,7 vitiligo,^1,3,7,6 mouth sores,³ injection site reactions,^3,6 and alopecia.⁵ Herein, we describe a patient who was treated with nivolumab and developed an exacerbation of pre-existing psoriasis.

Case presentation and summary

A 57-year-old man with metastatic NSCLC and a history of plaque psoriasis presented to the dermatology clinic for evaluation of new lesions on his palms and soles. The patient had been previously treated with numerous therapies for NSCLC, including chemotherapy and radiation. Previous chemotherapeutic agents included the cisplatin plus etoposide combination, with doxetaxel and pemetrexed. The patient was not able to tolerate the chemotherapy and instead opted for hospice care. After several months, he chose to restart therapy, and was started on the programmed cell death (PD)-1 inhibitor, nivolumab, at a dose of 3 mg/kg for a total of 6 cycles. He received his first dose 5 weeks before his current presentation to the clinic, and his second dose 2 weeks before.

The patient reported a 20-year history of plaque psoriasis, characterized by psoriatic plaques on the elbows and shins and for which he was treated with topical therapies with good effect. Every few months, he would develop one or two small plaques of psoriasis on his palms and soles. The lesions were inconsequential to the patient, as he never experienced more than one or two small palmoplantar lesions at a time. One week after his second cycle of nivolumab, the patient developed an eruption of lesions on his palms and soles. He observed that the lesions seemed to be similar to his previous palmoplantar psoriatic plaques but with significantly greater skin involvement. The patient denied any new-onset joint pain.

The results of a physical examination revealed a cachectic man in no acute distress, with more than 30 erythematous circular to oval circumscribed plaques with yellow to whitish scales on the bilateral palms (Figure 1) and soles (Figure 2).

A clinical diagnosis of exacerbation of pre-existing psoriasis owing to nivolumab therapy was made. The patient was started on clobetasol 0.05% ointment twice daily under occlusion with plastic wrap to the affected areas, and he was continued on nivolumab for his NSCLC.

Discussion

Treatment with nivolumab can lead to a range of autoimmune side effects, and as shown in this case, psoriasis is one of the cutaneous findings that could be exacerbated by treatment with nivolumab. To date, two cases of exacerbation of psoriasis in patients treated with nivolumab for melanoma have been reported in the literature.^8,9 In the first case, the patient had well-controlled plaque psoriasis at baseline and he subsequently developed psoriatic plaques on the trunk and extremities after the second infusion of nivolumab for metastatic melanoma. A biopsy showed regular acanthosis with hyperkeratosis and parakeratosis in addition to dilated vessels in the papillary dermis.⁸ In the second case, the patient had a history of psoriasis vulgaris with no active lesions. Three weeks after his first course of nivolumab for metastatic oral mucosal melanoma, he developed new, well-circumscribed erythematous scaly plaques on the trunk and extremities that were clinically diagnosed as psoriasis.⁹ In a third case, a patient without a prior history of psoriasis experienced a psoriasiform eruption on the trunk and extremities after the fourth dose of nivolumab for oral mucosal melanoma.¹⁰ Thus, our case is the third reported case of exacerbation of preexisting psoriasis in a patient treated with nivolumab. Furthermore, our patient is the first reported case of a patient treated with nivolumab for NSCLC to develop this adverse event. Whereas the previously reported cases were characterized by widespread trunk and extremity involvement, our patient developed focal exacerbation of the palmoplantar areas.

Additional studies are needed to more clearly characterize the specific cutaneous toxicities of nivolumab and to determine if particular skin reactions may indicate a better response to the anticancer agent. Side effects such as psoriasis can often be managed with topical therapies and may not require withdrawal of the medication. We encourage the collaboration of dermatologists and oncologists to enhance the diagnosis and management of these cutaneous side effects in cancer patients.

Unintentional weight loss can present diagnostic challenges, according to researchers from University of Barcelona. So many factors are involved, and so many causes are possible, extensive and invasive investigation often is needed. And because cancer may be the underlying cause of weight loss in patients with few or no symptoms, a swift workup is crucial. Most studies of unintentional weight loss (UWL) have been limited by small sample sizes, short or variable follow-up, or focus on older patients, the researchers say. So they conducted the largest and longest prospective study thus far, following 2,677 patients for >  5 years.

The patients were referred to an outpatient diagnosis unit for evaluation of UWL as a dominant or isolated feature of disease and underwent a standard baseline evaluation with laboratory tests and chest X-ray. Those without identifiable causes 6 months after presentation were followed for 60 more months. Older patients also were given an oral cavity examination, a videofluoroscopy or swallowing study, and a depression and cognitive assessment.

At 6 months, 582 patients had unexplained UWL. Of those, 27 had malignancies: 11 patients had pancreatic cancer; nine had lymphoma. Nearly half of the cancers were digestive; of those, pancreatic cancer accounted for 19%, followed by lung (17%); lymphoma (11%); and kidney, ureteral, and bladder cancers (10%). Of 450 nonmalignant organic disorders, 45% were digestive.

Cancer patients had the highest mortality rate (69% vs 5%-6% in other groups). Decreasing weight was substantially more common in survivors with malignancies (66%) than in the rest of the patients studied, as well as in survivors with nonmalignant organic disorders (10%) than in unexplained UWL and psychosocial disorders. Patients with cancers were older, male, and active smokers, with a greater weight loss than patients in other groups. They also were more likely to have accompanying symptoms and abnormalities on physical examination, lab tests, and chest X-ray.

Cancer evading early diagnosis is a major concern, the researchers say. One of the main findings of the study was the long follow-up of patients with unexplained UWL: a mean of 47.5 months. Based on their findings, occult malignancies detected during a follow-up of up to 66 months after presentation “do not seem to be as rare as thought.” Moreover, autopsies of 13 patients showed malignancies in eight.

However, the fact that only 1 in 20 patients received a cancer diagnosis within that period—most notably within the first 28 months after referral for workup—is “fairly reassuring.” However, they recommend continuing to regularly evaluate patients with UWL for longer periods even if they had a normal evaluation and workup.

Unintentional weight loss can present diagnostic challenges, according to researchers from University of Barcelona. So many factors are involved, and so many causes are possible, extensive and invasive investigation often is needed. And because cancer may be the underlying cause of weight loss in patients with few or no symptoms, a swift workup is crucial. Most studies of unintentional weight loss (UWL) have been limited by small sample sizes, short or variable follow-up, or focus on older patients, the researchers say. So they conducted the largest and longest prospective study thus far, following 2,677 patients for >  5 years.

The patients were referred to an outpatient diagnosis unit for evaluation of UWL as a dominant or isolated feature of disease and underwent a standard baseline evaluation with laboratory tests and chest X-ray. Those without identifiable causes 6 months after presentation were followed for 60 more months. Older patients also were given an oral cavity examination, a videofluoroscopy or swallowing study, and a depression and cognitive assessment.

At 6 months, 582 patients had unexplained UWL. Of those, 27 had malignancies: 11 patients had pancreatic cancer; nine had lymphoma. Nearly half of the cancers were digestive; of those, pancreatic cancer accounted for 19%, followed by lung (17%); lymphoma (11%); and kidney, ureteral, and bladder cancers (10%). Of 450 nonmalignant organic disorders, 45% were digestive.

Cancer patients had the highest mortality rate (69% vs 5%-6% in other groups). Decreasing weight was substantially more common in survivors with malignancies (66%) than in the rest of the patients studied, as well as in survivors with nonmalignant organic disorders (10%) than in unexplained UWL and psychosocial disorders. Patients with cancers were older, male, and active smokers, with a greater weight loss than patients in other groups. They also were more likely to have accompanying symptoms and abnormalities on physical examination, lab tests, and chest X-ray.

Cancer evading early diagnosis is a major concern, the researchers say. One of the main findings of the study was the long follow-up of patients with unexplained UWL: a mean of 47.5 months. Based on their findings, occult malignancies detected during a follow-up of up to 66 months after presentation “do not seem to be as rare as thought.” Moreover, autopsies of 13 patients showed malignancies in eight.

However, the fact that only 1 in 20 patients received a cancer diagnosis within that period—most notably within the first 28 months after referral for workup—is “fairly reassuring.” However, they recommend continuing to regularly evaluate patients with UWL for longer periods even if they had a normal evaluation and workup.

Unintentional weight loss can present diagnostic challenges, according to researchers from University of Barcelona. So many factors are involved, and so many causes are possible, extensive and invasive investigation often is needed. And because cancer may be the underlying cause of weight loss in patients with few or no symptoms, a swift workup is crucial. Most studies of unintentional weight loss (UWL) have been limited by small sample sizes, short or variable follow-up, or focus on older patients, the researchers say. So they conducted the largest and longest prospective study thus far, following 2,677 patients for >  5 years.

The patients were referred to an outpatient diagnosis unit for evaluation of UWL as a dominant or isolated feature of disease and underwent a standard baseline evaluation with laboratory tests and chest X-ray. Those without identifiable causes 6 months after presentation were followed for 60 more months. Older patients also were given an oral cavity examination, a videofluoroscopy or swallowing study, and a depression and cognitive assessment.

At 6 months, 582 patients had unexplained UWL. Of those, 27 had malignancies: 11 patients had pancreatic cancer; nine had lymphoma. Nearly half of the cancers were digestive; of those, pancreatic cancer accounted for 19%, followed by lung (17%); lymphoma (11%); and kidney, ureteral, and bladder cancers (10%). Of 450 nonmalignant organic disorders, 45% were digestive.

Cancer patients had the highest mortality rate (69% vs 5%-6% in other groups). Decreasing weight was substantially more common in survivors with malignancies (66%) than in the rest of the patients studied, as well as in survivors with nonmalignant organic disorders (10%) than in unexplained UWL and psychosocial disorders. Patients with cancers were older, male, and active smokers, with a greater weight loss than patients in other groups. They also were more likely to have accompanying symptoms and abnormalities on physical examination, lab tests, and chest X-ray.

Cancer evading early diagnosis is a major concern, the researchers say. One of the main findings of the study was the long follow-up of patients with unexplained UWL: a mean of 47.5 months. Based on their findings, occult malignancies detected during a follow-up of up to 66 months after presentation “do not seem to be as rare as thought.” Moreover, autopsies of 13 patients showed malignancies in eight.

However, the fact that only 1 in 20 patients received a cancer diagnosis within that period—most notably within the first 28 months after referral for workup—is “fairly reassuring.” However, they recommend continuing to regularly evaluate patients with UWL for longer periods even if they had a normal evaluation and workup.

SAN DIEGO – Young women who received group prenatal visits under the CenteringPregnancy model were significantly more likely than were women receiving traditional prenatal care to elect long-acting reversible contraceptives postpartum, results from a small study show.

CenteringPregnancy (CP) – a group prenatal care model for women with due dates around the same time – has been touted as a way to decrease the incidence of preterm deliveries, but little is known about potential additional benefits for other birth-related outcomes, lead study author

[email protected]

SAN DIEGO – Young women who received group prenatal visits under the CenteringPregnancy model were significantly more likely than were women receiving traditional prenatal care to elect long-acting reversible contraceptives postpartum, results from a small study show.

CenteringPregnancy (CP) – a group prenatal care model for women with due dates around the same time – has been touted as a way to decrease the incidence of preterm deliveries, but little is known about potential additional benefits for other birth-related outcomes, lead study author

[email protected]

SAN DIEGO – Young women who received group prenatal visits under the CenteringPregnancy model were significantly more likely than were women receiving traditional prenatal care to elect long-acting reversible contraceptives postpartum, results from a small study show.

CenteringPregnancy (CP) – a group prenatal care model for women with due dates around the same time – has been touted as a way to decrease the incidence of preterm deliveries, but little is known about potential additional benefits for other birth-related outcomes, lead study author

[email protected]

To the Editor:

Granulomatous cheilitis (GC), also known as Miescher cheilitis, belongs to a larger class of diseases known as orofacial granulomatoses (OFGs), a set of diseases distinguished by their clinical and pathologic features of facial edema and granulomatous inflammation.^1-3 Granulomatous cheilitis, a monosymptomatic variant of a more extensive disease known as Melkersson-Rosenthal syndrome (MRS), presents with labial swelling mimicking angioedema. Timely diagnosis of GC and MRS reduces the number of unnecessary tests, health care costs, and unnecessary patient burden. We present a case of idiopathic persistent swelling of the upper lip that was originally misdiagnosed as angioedema.

A 13-year-old white adolescent boy was referred to the allergy-immunology clinic for an alternate opinion regarding a presumed diagnosis of angioedema. He presented with prominent persistent swelling of the upper lip of 1 year’s duration associated with fissuring and discomfort while eating, which led to weight loss of more than 4.5 kg. The patient denied any history of facial asymmetry, paralysis, dental infections, or gastrointestinal tract symptoms. Additionally, he was not on any medications. His parents reported variable symptomatic worsening associated with egg ingestion, but avoiding egg did not provide any symptomatic relief. The swelling was unresponsive to multiple and prolonged courses of antihistamines and oral glucocorticoids. The patient’s medical history revealed no similar episodes of unexplained swelling, and family history was negative for angioedema. On examination, the upper lip was tender with a firm rubbery consistency. No other areas of swelling were noted. Angular cheilosis and minor labial mucosal ulcerations also were observed (Figure).

The persistent nature of the lip swelling and findings of fissures were not consistent with angioedema. Furthermore, prior laboratory studies did not reveal evidence of hereditary or acquired angioedema, and a complete blood cell count with differential was within reference range. Although the clinical suspicion for egg allergy was low, a blood test for serum-specific IgE showed a mild reactivity to egg allergen. The patient was referred to an oral surgeon for biopsy, which revealed dermal foci of noncaseating granulomas consistent with the preliminary diagnosis of GC.

Intralesional triamcinolone injections were initiated with marked improvement. Shortly after the initial improvement, however, the symptoms recurred, which necessitated several additional intralesional triamcinolone injections, again with remarkable improvement. Approximately 1.5 years later, the patient presented with recurrence of the lip swelling and admitted to having episodic diarrhea and abdominal cramps. He was referred to a pediatric gastroenterologist and a colonoscopy with biopsy confirmed Crohn disease. He was started on azathioprine followed by infliximab. A few months after this treatment was initiated, both his lip swelling and gastrointestinal tract symptoms remarkably improved. He has been maintained on this regimen and in the most recent follow-up had no recurrence of GC. He is scheduled to have another colonoscopy.

Granulomatous cheilitis is a rare chronic inflammatory condition characterized clinically by persistent lip swelling and histologically by granulomatous inflammation in the absence of systemic granulomatous disorders.⁴ Granulomatous cheilitis falls under the umbrella of OFGs. When it is paired with facial paralysis and fissuring of the tongue, it is specifically referred to as MRS. The prevalence of GC has historically been difficult to ascertain. In a review, an estimated incidence of 0.08% in the general population was reported with no predilection for race, sex, or age.^4,5 Initially, the swelling of GC can be misdiagnosed as angioedema; therefore, it is imperative to include OFG and GC in the differential diagnosis of facial angioedema.³ Other possible diagnoses to consider include contact dermatitis, foreign-body reactions, infection, and reactions to medications such as angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.⁵ Chronic lymphedema and other granulomatous diseases also should be considered in the differential diagnosis. Isolated lymphedema of the head and neck, though rare, typically is seen following surgical or radiological interventions for cancer. Lymphatic fibrosis also can occur in the setting of chronic inflammatory skin conditions but is not typically the first presenting symptom, as was seen in our patient.⁶ Although granulomatous diseases such as sarcoidosis may be difficult to clinically and histologically differentiate from GC, isolated orofacial swelling in sarcoidosis is rare. If clinical suspicion for sarcoidosis does exist, however, a negative chest radiograph as well as serum calcium and angiotensin-converting enzyme levels within reference range may help differentiate GC from sarcoidosis. In our patient, the clinical suspicion for sarcoidosis was low given his clinical history, young age, and race.

The etiology of MRS and GC currently is unknown. Genetic factors, food allergies, infectious processes, and aberrant immunologic functions all have been proposed as possible mechanisms.^1-3,7,8 Genetic factors, such as HLA antigen subtypes, have been investigated but have not shown a definitive correlation.⁸ Numerous food allergens have been suggested as causative factors in OFG via a type of delayed hypersensitivity reaction,⁷ with cinnamon and benzoate reported as 2 of the most cited entities.^9,10 Currently, it is believed that both of these mechanisms may play an exacerbating role to an otherwise unknown disease process.^7,8 The infectious process most often associated with GC is Mycobacterium tuberculosis; however, similar to genetics and food allergens, causality has not been determined.^4,7 At the present time, the best evidence points to an immunologic basis of GC with the inciting event being a random influx of inflammatory cells.^7,11

There is a known association between GC and Crohn disease, especially when oral lesions are present.^1,9 Granulomatous cheilitis can be considered an extraintestinal manifestation of Crohn disease.Up to 20% of OFG patients eventually go on to develop Crohn disease, with some reports being even higher when OFG presents in childhood.^1,9 One study proposed that both GC and Crohn disease patients shared similar histopathologic and immunopathologic features including a helper T cell (T_H1)–predominant inflammatory reaction.¹¹

The treatment of GC is challenging, with most evidence coming from sporadic case reports. Given the relatively high rate of cinnamon and benzoate hypersensitivity seen in GC patients, it has been postulated that a diet lacking in them will improve the disease. At least one study has reported positive clinical outcomes from diets lacking in cinnamon and benzoate and in fact recommended it as a potential first-line treatment.¹⁰ The mainstay of treatment, however, is corticosteroids, but continued use is discouraged due to their large side-effect profile.¹² Currently, the most agreed upon treatment for patients with isolated GC is intralesional triamcinolone injections.¹² Despite the robust initial response often seen with triamcinolone injections, it is not uncommon for the benefit to be short-lived, requiring additional treatments.^1,5,12 Newer medical therapies that have shown promise largely are centered on anti–tumor necrosis factor α medications such as infliximab and adalimumab.^13,14 It is postulated that due to the potential overlapping pathophysiology between Crohn disease and GC, there may be utility in using the same treatments.¹³ In situations where medical therapy fails or in extremely disfiguring cases of GC and MRS, surgical cheiloplasty is performed to reduce lip size and improve cosmetic appearance.¹² In a small study, reduction cheiloplasty gave satisfactory functional and cosmetic outcomes in all 7 patients reviewed at a median follow-up of 6.5 years.¹⁵

This case emphasizes the importance of paying close attention to history and physical examination features in developing any differential diagnosis. In this patient, persistent orofacial swelling with associated mucosal ulcerations were sufficient to exclude drug-induced, idiopathic, hereditary, and acquired angioedema. The clinical history coupled with the biopsy results yielded a confident diagnosis of GC. Furthermore, similar presentations should raise concern for a subclinical inflammatory bowel disease such as Crohn disease.

To the Editor:

Granulomatous cheilitis (GC), also known as Miescher cheilitis, belongs to a larger class of diseases known as orofacial granulomatoses (OFGs), a set of diseases distinguished by their clinical and pathologic features of facial edema and granulomatous inflammation.^1-3 Granulomatous cheilitis, a monosymptomatic variant of a more extensive disease known as Melkersson-Rosenthal syndrome (MRS), presents with labial swelling mimicking angioedema. Timely diagnosis of GC and MRS reduces the number of unnecessary tests, health care costs, and unnecessary patient burden. We present a case of idiopathic persistent swelling of the upper lip that was originally misdiagnosed as angioedema.

A 13-year-old white adolescent boy was referred to the allergy-immunology clinic for an alternate opinion regarding a presumed diagnosis of angioedema. He presented with prominent persistent swelling of the upper lip of 1 year’s duration associated with fissuring and discomfort while eating, which led to weight loss of more than 4.5 kg. The patient denied any history of facial asymmetry, paralysis, dental infections, or gastrointestinal tract symptoms. Additionally, he was not on any medications. His parents reported variable symptomatic worsening associated with egg ingestion, but avoiding egg did not provide any symptomatic relief. The swelling was unresponsive to multiple and prolonged courses of antihistamines and oral glucocorticoids. The patient’s medical history revealed no similar episodes of unexplained swelling, and family history was negative for angioedema. On examination, the upper lip was tender with a firm rubbery consistency. No other areas of swelling were noted. Angular cheilosis and minor labial mucosal ulcerations also were observed (Figure).

The persistent nature of the lip swelling and findings of fissures were not consistent with angioedema. Furthermore, prior laboratory studies did not reveal evidence of hereditary or acquired angioedema, and a complete blood cell count with differential was within reference range. Although the clinical suspicion for egg allergy was low, a blood test for serum-specific IgE showed a mild reactivity to egg allergen. The patient was referred to an oral surgeon for biopsy, which revealed dermal foci of noncaseating granulomas consistent with the preliminary diagnosis of GC.

Intralesional triamcinolone injections were initiated with marked improvement. Shortly after the initial improvement, however, the symptoms recurred, which necessitated several additional intralesional triamcinolone injections, again with remarkable improvement. Approximately 1.5 years later, the patient presented with recurrence of the lip swelling and admitted to having episodic diarrhea and abdominal cramps. He was referred to a pediatric gastroenterologist and a colonoscopy with biopsy confirmed Crohn disease. He was started on azathioprine followed by infliximab. A few months after this treatment was initiated, both his lip swelling and gastrointestinal tract symptoms remarkably improved. He has been maintained on this regimen and in the most recent follow-up had no recurrence of GC. He is scheduled to have another colonoscopy.

Granulomatous cheilitis is a rare chronic inflammatory condition characterized clinically by persistent lip swelling and histologically by granulomatous inflammation in the absence of systemic granulomatous disorders.⁴ Granulomatous cheilitis falls under the umbrella of OFGs. When it is paired with facial paralysis and fissuring of the tongue, it is specifically referred to as MRS. The prevalence of GC has historically been difficult to ascertain. In a review, an estimated incidence of 0.08% in the general population was reported with no predilection for race, sex, or age.^4,5 Initially, the swelling of GC can be misdiagnosed as angioedema; therefore, it is imperative to include OFG and GC in the differential diagnosis of facial angioedema.³ Other possible diagnoses to consider include contact dermatitis, foreign-body reactions, infection, and reactions to medications such as angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.⁵ Chronic lymphedema and other granulomatous diseases also should be considered in the differential diagnosis. Isolated lymphedema of the head and neck, though rare, typically is seen following surgical or radiological interventions for cancer. Lymphatic fibrosis also can occur in the setting of chronic inflammatory skin conditions but is not typically the first presenting symptom, as was seen in our patient.⁶ Although granulomatous diseases such as sarcoidosis may be difficult to clinically and histologically differentiate from GC, isolated orofacial swelling in sarcoidosis is rare. If clinical suspicion for sarcoidosis does exist, however, a negative chest radiograph as well as serum calcium and angiotensin-converting enzyme levels within reference range may help differentiate GC from sarcoidosis. In our patient, the clinical suspicion for sarcoidosis was low given his clinical history, young age, and race.

The etiology of MRS and GC currently is unknown. Genetic factors, food allergies, infectious processes, and aberrant immunologic functions all have been proposed as possible mechanisms.^1-3,7,8 Genetic factors, such as HLA antigen subtypes, have been investigated but have not shown a definitive correlation.⁸ Numerous food allergens have been suggested as causative factors in OFG via a type of delayed hypersensitivity reaction,⁷ with cinnamon and benzoate reported as 2 of the most cited entities.^9,10 Currently, it is believed that both of these mechanisms may play an exacerbating role to an otherwise unknown disease process.^7,8 The infectious process most often associated with GC is Mycobacterium tuberculosis; however, similar to genetics and food allergens, causality has not been determined.^4,7 At the present time, the best evidence points to an immunologic basis of GC with the inciting event being a random influx of inflammatory cells.^7,11

There is a known association between GC and Crohn disease, especially when oral lesions are present.^1,9 Granulomatous cheilitis can be considered an extraintestinal manifestation of Crohn disease.Up to 20% of OFG patients eventually go on to develop Crohn disease, with some reports being even higher when OFG presents in childhood.^1,9 One study proposed that both GC and Crohn disease patients shared similar histopathologic and immunopathologic features including a helper T cell (T_H1)–predominant inflammatory reaction.¹¹

The treatment of GC is challenging, with most evidence coming from sporadic case reports. Given the relatively high rate of cinnamon and benzoate hypersensitivity seen in GC patients, it has been postulated that a diet lacking in them will improve the disease. At least one study has reported positive clinical outcomes from diets lacking in cinnamon and benzoate and in fact recommended it as a potential first-line treatment.¹⁰ The mainstay of treatment, however, is corticosteroids, but continued use is discouraged due to their large side-effect profile.¹² Currently, the most agreed upon treatment for patients with isolated GC is intralesional triamcinolone injections.¹² Despite the robust initial response often seen with triamcinolone injections, it is not uncommon for the benefit to be short-lived, requiring additional treatments.^1,5,12 Newer medical therapies that have shown promise largely are centered on anti–tumor necrosis factor α medications such as infliximab and adalimumab.^13,14 It is postulated that due to the potential overlapping pathophysiology between Crohn disease and GC, there may be utility in using the same treatments.¹³ In situations where medical therapy fails or in extremely disfiguring cases of GC and MRS, surgical cheiloplasty is performed to reduce lip size and improve cosmetic appearance.¹² In a small study, reduction cheiloplasty gave satisfactory functional and cosmetic outcomes in all 7 patients reviewed at a median follow-up of 6.5 years.¹⁵

This case emphasizes the importance of paying close attention to history and physical examination features in developing any differential diagnosis. In this patient, persistent orofacial swelling with associated mucosal ulcerations were sufficient to exclude drug-induced, idiopathic, hereditary, and acquired angioedema. The clinical history coupled with the biopsy results yielded a confident diagnosis of GC. Furthermore, similar presentations should raise concern for a subclinical inflammatory bowel disease such as Crohn disease.

To the Editor:

Granulomatous cheilitis (GC), also known as Miescher cheilitis, belongs to a larger class of diseases known as orofacial granulomatoses (OFGs), a set of diseases distinguished by their clinical and pathologic features of facial edema and granulomatous inflammation.^1-3 Granulomatous cheilitis, a monosymptomatic variant of a more extensive disease known as Melkersson-Rosenthal syndrome (MRS), presents with labial swelling mimicking angioedema. Timely diagnosis of GC and MRS reduces the number of unnecessary tests, health care costs, and unnecessary patient burden. We present a case of idiopathic persistent swelling of the upper lip that was originally misdiagnosed as angioedema.

A 13-year-old white adolescent boy was referred to the allergy-immunology clinic for an alternate opinion regarding a presumed diagnosis of angioedema. He presented with prominent persistent swelling of the upper lip of 1 year’s duration associated with fissuring and discomfort while eating, which led to weight loss of more than 4.5 kg. The patient denied any history of facial asymmetry, paralysis, dental infections, or gastrointestinal tract symptoms. Additionally, he was not on any medications. His parents reported variable symptomatic worsening associated with egg ingestion, but avoiding egg did not provide any symptomatic relief. The swelling was unresponsive to multiple and prolonged courses of antihistamines and oral glucocorticoids. The patient’s medical history revealed no similar episodes of unexplained swelling, and family history was negative for angioedema. On examination, the upper lip was tender with a firm rubbery consistency. No other areas of swelling were noted. Angular cheilosis and minor labial mucosal ulcerations also were observed (Figure).

The persistent nature of the lip swelling and findings of fissures were not consistent with angioedema. Furthermore, prior laboratory studies did not reveal evidence of hereditary or acquired angioedema, and a complete blood cell count with differential was within reference range. Although the clinical suspicion for egg allergy was low, a blood test for serum-specific IgE showed a mild reactivity to egg allergen. The patient was referred to an oral surgeon for biopsy, which revealed dermal foci of noncaseating granulomas consistent with the preliminary diagnosis of GC.

Intralesional triamcinolone injections were initiated with marked improvement. Shortly after the initial improvement, however, the symptoms recurred, which necessitated several additional intralesional triamcinolone injections, again with remarkable improvement. Approximately 1.5 years later, the patient presented with recurrence of the lip swelling and admitted to having episodic diarrhea and abdominal cramps. He was referred to a pediatric gastroenterologist and a colonoscopy with biopsy confirmed Crohn disease. He was started on azathioprine followed by infliximab. A few months after this treatment was initiated, both his lip swelling and gastrointestinal tract symptoms remarkably improved. He has been maintained on this regimen and in the most recent follow-up had no recurrence of GC. He is scheduled to have another colonoscopy.

Granulomatous cheilitis is a rare chronic inflammatory condition characterized clinically by persistent lip swelling and histologically by granulomatous inflammation in the absence of systemic granulomatous disorders.⁴ Granulomatous cheilitis falls under the umbrella of OFGs. When it is paired with facial paralysis and fissuring of the tongue, it is specifically referred to as MRS. The prevalence of GC has historically been difficult to ascertain. In a review, an estimated incidence of 0.08% in the general population was reported with no predilection for race, sex, or age.^4,5 Initially, the swelling of GC can be misdiagnosed as angioedema; therefore, it is imperative to include OFG and GC in the differential diagnosis of facial angioedema.³ Other possible diagnoses to consider include contact dermatitis, foreign-body reactions, infection, and reactions to medications such as angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.⁵ Chronic lymphedema and other granulomatous diseases also should be considered in the differential diagnosis. Isolated lymphedema of the head and neck, though rare, typically is seen following surgical or radiological interventions for cancer. Lymphatic fibrosis also can occur in the setting of chronic inflammatory skin conditions but is not typically the first presenting symptom, as was seen in our patient.⁶ Although granulomatous diseases such as sarcoidosis may be difficult to clinically and histologically differentiate from GC, isolated orofacial swelling in sarcoidosis is rare. If clinical suspicion for sarcoidosis does exist, however, a negative chest radiograph as well as serum calcium and angiotensin-converting enzyme levels within reference range may help differentiate GC from sarcoidosis. In our patient, the clinical suspicion for sarcoidosis was low given his clinical history, young age, and race.

The etiology of MRS and GC currently is unknown. Genetic factors, food allergies, infectious processes, and aberrant immunologic functions all have been proposed as possible mechanisms.^1-3,7,8 Genetic factors, such as HLA antigen subtypes, have been investigated but have not shown a definitive correlation.⁸ Numerous food allergens have been suggested as causative factors in OFG via a type of delayed hypersensitivity reaction,⁷ with cinnamon and benzoate reported as 2 of the most cited entities.^9,10 Currently, it is believed that both of these mechanisms may play an exacerbating role to an otherwise unknown disease process.^7,8 The infectious process most often associated with GC is Mycobacterium tuberculosis; however, similar to genetics and food allergens, causality has not been determined.^4,7 At the present time, the best evidence points to an immunologic basis of GC with the inciting event being a random influx of inflammatory cells.^7,11

There is a known association between GC and Crohn disease, especially when oral lesions are present.^1,9 Granulomatous cheilitis can be considered an extraintestinal manifestation of Crohn disease.Up to 20% of OFG patients eventually go on to develop Crohn disease, with some reports being even higher when OFG presents in childhood.^1,9 One study proposed that both GC and Crohn disease patients shared similar histopathologic and immunopathologic features including a helper T cell (T_H1)–predominant inflammatory reaction.¹¹

The treatment of GC is challenging, with most evidence coming from sporadic case reports. Given the relatively high rate of cinnamon and benzoate hypersensitivity seen in GC patients, it has been postulated that a diet lacking in them will improve the disease. At least one study has reported positive clinical outcomes from diets lacking in cinnamon and benzoate and in fact recommended it as a potential first-line treatment.¹⁰ The mainstay of treatment, however, is corticosteroids, but continued use is discouraged due to their large side-effect profile.¹² Currently, the most agreed upon treatment for patients with isolated GC is intralesional triamcinolone injections.¹² Despite the robust initial response often seen with triamcinolone injections, it is not uncommon for the benefit to be short-lived, requiring additional treatments.^1,5,12 Newer medical therapies that have shown promise largely are centered on anti–tumor necrosis factor α medications such as infliximab and adalimumab.^13,14 It is postulated that due to the potential overlapping pathophysiology between Crohn disease and GC, there may be utility in using the same treatments.¹³ In situations where medical therapy fails or in extremely disfiguring cases of GC and MRS, surgical cheiloplasty is performed to reduce lip size and improve cosmetic appearance.¹² In a small study, reduction cheiloplasty gave satisfactory functional and cosmetic outcomes in all 7 patients reviewed at a median follow-up of 6.5 years.¹⁵

This case emphasizes the importance of paying close attention to history and physical examination features in developing any differential diagnosis. In this patient, persistent orofacial swelling with associated mucosal ulcerations were sufficient to exclude drug-induced, idiopathic, hereditary, and acquired angioedema. The clinical history coupled with the biopsy results yielded a confident diagnosis of GC. Furthermore, similar presentations should raise concern for a subclinical inflammatory bowel disease such as Crohn disease.

We go to the altar together.

Last month, I wrote about onboarding and the important responsibility that everyone associated with a hospitalist program has to ensure that each new provider quickly comes to believe he or she made a terrific choice to join the group.

Upon reflection, it seems important to address the other side of this equation. I’m talking about the responsibilities that each candidate has when deciding whether to apply for a job, to interview, and to accept or reject a group’s offer.

Leslie Flores is a founding partner at Nelson Flores Hospital Medicine Consultants, a consulting practice that has specialized in helping clients enhance the effectiveness and value of hospital medicine programs.

Also on The Hospital Leader …

Don’t Compare HM Group Part B Costs Hospital to Hospital by Brad Flansbaum, DO, MPH, MHM

Overcoming a Continued Physician Shortage by Danielle Scheurer, MD, MSCR, SFHM

Is Patient-Centered Care Bad for Resident Education? by Vineet Arora, MD, MPP, MHM

We go to the altar together.

Last month, I wrote about onboarding and the important responsibility that everyone associated with a hospitalist program has to ensure that each new provider quickly comes to believe he or she made a terrific choice to join the group.

Upon reflection, it seems important to address the other side of this equation. I’m talking about the responsibilities that each candidate has when deciding whether to apply for a job, to interview, and to accept or reject a group’s offer.

Leslie Flores is a founding partner at Nelson Flores Hospital Medicine Consultants, a consulting practice that has specialized in helping clients enhance the effectiveness and value of hospital medicine programs.

Also on The Hospital Leader …

Don’t Compare HM Group Part B Costs Hospital to Hospital by Brad Flansbaum, DO, MPH, MHM

Overcoming a Continued Physician Shortage by Danielle Scheurer, MD, MSCR, SFHM

Is Patient-Centered Care Bad for Resident Education? by Vineet Arora, MD, MPP, MHM

We go to the altar together.

Last month, I wrote about onboarding and the important responsibility that everyone associated with a hospitalist program has to ensure that each new provider quickly comes to believe he or she made a terrific choice to join the group.

Upon reflection, it seems important to address the other side of this equation. I’m talking about the responsibilities that each candidate has when deciding whether to apply for a job, to interview, and to accept or reject a group’s offer.

Leslie Flores is a founding partner at Nelson Flores Hospital Medicine Consultants, a consulting practice that has specialized in helping clients enhance the effectiveness and value of hospital medicine programs.

Also on The Hospital Leader …

Don’t Compare HM Group Part B Costs Hospital to Hospital by Brad Flansbaum, DO, MPH, MHM

Overcoming a Continued Physician Shortage by Danielle Scheurer, MD, MSCR, SFHM

Is Patient-Centered Care Bad for Resident Education? by Vineet Arora, MD, MPP, MHM

Rucaparib was granted accelerated approval by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of patients with BRCA1/2 mutant advanced ovarian cancer in January this year, making it the second drug in its class for this indication. It is a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor that works by blocking the repair of damaged DNA in cancer cells and triggering cell death.

Study 10 included only patients with platinum-sensitive disease and eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, with a known deleterious BRCA mutation, evidence of measurable disease as defined by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (version 1.1), sufficient archival tumor tissue, histologically confirmed high-grade epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube or primary peritoneal cancer and relapsed disease confirmed by radiologic assessment. Meanwhile, ARIEL2 had similar eligibility criteria, except that patients with platinum-sensitive, resistant, and refractory disease were included.

Both studies excluded patients with active second malignancies, and for those with a history of prior cancer that had been curatively treated, no evidence of current disease was required and chemotherapy should have been completed more than 6 months or bone marrow transplant more than 2 years before the first dose of rucaparib. Patients who had previously been treated with a PARP inhibitor, with symptomatic and/or untreated central nervous system metastases, or who had been hospitalized for bowel obstruction within the previous 3 months, were also ineligible.

Across the 2 trials, the median age of trial participants was 59 years, 78% were white, and all had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 (fully active, able to carry on all pre-disease performance without restriction) or 1 (restricted in physically strenuous activity but ambulatory and able to carry out work of a light or sedentary nature). Both trials used a surrogate endpoint for approval, measuring the percentage of patients who experienced complete or partial tumor shrinkage, the overall response rate (ORR), while taking rucaparib.

In Study 10, the ORR was 60%, including a complete response (CR) rate of 10% and a partial response (PR) rate of 50%, over a median duration of response (DoR) of 7.9 months, while in ARIEL2, the ORR was 50%, including a CR of 8% and a PR of 42%, over a median DoR of 11.6 months. The pooled analysis demonstrated an ORR of 54%, CR of 9% and PR of 45%, over a median DoR of 9.2 months. In separate data reported in the prescribing information, the ORR as assessed by independent radiology review was 42%, with a median DoR of 6.7 months, while ORR according to investigator assessment was 66%. In all analyses, the response rate was similar for patients having BRCA1 versus BRCA2 gene mutations.

Safety analyses were performed in 377 patients across the 2 studies who received 600 mg rucaparib twice daily. The most common adverse events (AEs) of any grade included nausea, fatigue, vomiting, anemia, abdominal pain, dysgeusia, constipation, decreased appetite, diarrhea, thrombocytopenia, and dyspnea. The most common serious AEs (grade 3 or 4) were anemia (25%), fatigue/asthenia (11%), and increased alanine aminotransferase or aspartate aminotransferase levels (11%). Overall, 8% of patients discontinued treatment because of AEs.

The recommended dose according to the prescribing information is 600 mg, in the form of two 300-mg tablets taken orally twice daily with or without food. Physicians prescribing rucaparib should be aware of the potential for myelodysplastic syndrome or acute myeloid leukemia and for embryofetal toxicity. Complete blood count should be monitored at baseline and monthly thereafter and treatment should not be initiated until after patients have made a complete recovery from any hematologic toxicities caused by prior chemotherapy.

If hematologic toxicities occur while taking rucaparib, treatment should be interrupted and blood counts monitored until recovery and failure to recover to grade 1 or higher after 4 weeks should prompt referral to a hematologist for further investigation, while confirmed diagnosis of myelodysplastic syndromes or acute myeloid leukemia should lead to discontinuation of rucaparib. Pregnant women and those of reproductive potential should be advised of the potential risk to a fetus or the need for effective contraception during treatment and for 6 months after the last dose of rucaparib.

Rucaparib is indicated only for the treatment of patients with confirmed BRCA1/2 mutations, so the drug was approved in conjunction with a companion diagnostic. FoundationFocus CDxBRCA is the first next-generation sequencing-based test to receive FDA approval and detects the presence of deleterious BRCA gene mutations in tumor tissue samples. Rucaparib is marketed as Rubraca by Clovis Oncology Inc, and the companion diagnostic by Foundation Medicine Inc.

Rucaparib was granted accelerated approval by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of patients with BRCA1/2 mutant advanced ovarian cancer in January this year, making it the second drug in its class for this indication. It is a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor that works by blocking the repair of damaged DNA in cancer cells and triggering cell death.

Study 10 included only patients with platinum-sensitive disease and eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, with a known deleterious BRCA mutation, evidence of measurable disease as defined by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (version 1.1), sufficient archival tumor tissue, histologically confirmed high-grade epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube or primary peritoneal cancer and relapsed disease confirmed by radiologic assessment. Meanwhile, ARIEL2 had similar eligibility criteria, except that patients with platinum-sensitive, resistant, and refractory disease were included.

Both studies excluded patients with active second malignancies, and for those with a history of prior cancer that had been curatively treated, no evidence of current disease was required and chemotherapy should have been completed more than 6 months or bone marrow transplant more than 2 years before the first dose of rucaparib. Patients who had previously been treated with a PARP inhibitor, with symptomatic and/or untreated central nervous system metastases, or who had been hospitalized for bowel obstruction within the previous 3 months, were also ineligible.

Across the 2 trials, the median age of trial participants was 59 years, 78% were white, and all had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 (fully active, able to carry on all pre-disease performance without restriction) or 1 (restricted in physically strenuous activity but ambulatory and able to carry out work of a light or sedentary nature). Both trials used a surrogate endpoint for approval, measuring the percentage of patients who experienced complete or partial tumor shrinkage, the overall response rate (ORR), while taking rucaparib.

In Study 10, the ORR was 60%, including a complete response (CR) rate of 10% and a partial response (PR) rate of 50%, over a median duration of response (DoR) of 7.9 months, while in ARIEL2, the ORR was 50%, including a CR of 8% and a PR of 42%, over a median DoR of 11.6 months. The pooled analysis demonstrated an ORR of 54%, CR of 9% and PR of 45%, over a median DoR of 9.2 months. In separate data reported in the prescribing information, the ORR as assessed by independent radiology review was 42%, with a median DoR of 6.7 months, while ORR according to investigator assessment was 66%. In all analyses, the response rate was similar for patients having BRCA1 versus BRCA2 gene mutations.

Safety analyses were performed in 377 patients across the 2 studies who received 600 mg rucaparib twice daily. The most common adverse events (AEs) of any grade included nausea, fatigue, vomiting, anemia, abdominal pain, dysgeusia, constipation, decreased appetite, diarrhea, thrombocytopenia, and dyspnea. The most common serious AEs (grade 3 or 4) were anemia (25%), fatigue/asthenia (11%), and increased alanine aminotransferase or aspartate aminotransferase levels (11%). Overall, 8% of patients discontinued treatment because of AEs.

The recommended dose according to the prescribing information is 600 mg, in the form of two 300-mg tablets taken orally twice daily with or without food. Physicians prescribing rucaparib should be aware of the potential for myelodysplastic syndrome or acute myeloid leukemia and for embryofetal toxicity. Complete blood count should be monitored at baseline and monthly thereafter and treatment should not be initiated until after patients have made a complete recovery from any hematologic toxicities caused by prior chemotherapy.

If hematologic toxicities occur while taking rucaparib, treatment should be interrupted and blood counts monitored until recovery and failure to recover to grade 1 or higher after 4 weeks should prompt referral to a hematologist for further investigation, while confirmed diagnosis of myelodysplastic syndromes or acute myeloid leukemia should lead to discontinuation of rucaparib. Pregnant women and those of reproductive potential should be advised of the potential risk to a fetus or the need for effective contraception during treatment and for 6 months after the last dose of rucaparib.

Rucaparib is indicated only for the treatment of patients with confirmed BRCA1/2 mutations, so the drug was approved in conjunction with a companion diagnostic. FoundationFocus CDxBRCA is the first next-generation sequencing-based test to receive FDA approval and detects the presence of deleterious BRCA gene mutations in tumor tissue samples. Rucaparib is marketed as Rubraca by Clovis Oncology Inc, and the companion diagnostic by Foundation Medicine Inc.

Rucaparib was granted accelerated approval by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of patients with BRCA1/2 mutant advanced ovarian cancer in January this year, making it the second drug in its class for this indication. It is a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor that works by blocking the repair of damaged DNA in cancer cells and triggering cell death.

Study 10 included only patients with platinum-sensitive disease and eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, with a known deleterious BRCA mutation, evidence of measurable disease as defined by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (version 1.1), sufficient archival tumor tissue, histologically confirmed high-grade epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube or primary peritoneal cancer and relapsed disease confirmed by radiologic assessment. Meanwhile, ARIEL2 had similar eligibility criteria, except that patients with platinum-sensitive, resistant, and refractory disease were included.

Both studies excluded patients with active second malignancies, and for those with a history of prior cancer that had been curatively treated, no evidence of current disease was required and chemotherapy should have been completed more than 6 months or bone marrow transplant more than 2 years before the first dose of rucaparib. Patients who had previously been treated with a PARP inhibitor, with symptomatic and/or untreated central nervous system metastases, or who had been hospitalized for bowel obstruction within the previous 3 months, were also ineligible.

Across the 2 trials, the median age of trial participants was 59 years, 78% were white, and all had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 (fully active, able to carry on all pre-disease performance without restriction) or 1 (restricted in physically strenuous activity but ambulatory and able to carry out work of a light or sedentary nature). Both trials used a surrogate endpoint for approval, measuring the percentage of patients who experienced complete or partial tumor shrinkage, the overall response rate (ORR), while taking rucaparib.

In Study 10, the ORR was 60%, including a complete response (CR) rate of 10% and a partial response (PR) rate of 50%, over a median duration of response (DoR) of 7.9 months, while in ARIEL2, the ORR was 50%, including a CR of 8% and a PR of 42%, over a median DoR of 11.6 months. The pooled analysis demonstrated an ORR of 54%, CR of 9% and PR of 45%, over a median DoR of 9.2 months. In separate data reported in the prescribing information, the ORR as assessed by independent radiology review was 42%, with a median DoR of 6.7 months, while ORR according to investigator assessment was 66%. In all analyses, the response rate was similar for patients having BRCA1 versus BRCA2 gene mutations.

Safety analyses were performed in 377 patients across the 2 studies who received 600 mg rucaparib twice daily. The most common adverse events (AEs) of any grade included nausea, fatigue, vomiting, anemia, abdominal pain, dysgeusia, constipation, decreased appetite, diarrhea, thrombocytopenia, and dyspnea. The most common serious AEs (grade 3 or 4) were anemia (25%), fatigue/asthenia (11%), and increased alanine aminotransferase or aspartate aminotransferase levels (11%). Overall, 8% of patients discontinued treatment because of AEs.

The recommended dose according to the prescribing information is 600 mg, in the form of two 300-mg tablets taken orally twice daily with or without food. Physicians prescribing rucaparib should be aware of the potential for myelodysplastic syndrome or acute myeloid leukemia and for embryofetal toxicity. Complete blood count should be monitored at baseline and monthly thereafter and treatment should not be initiated until after patients have made a complete recovery from any hematologic toxicities caused by prior chemotherapy.

If hematologic toxicities occur while taking rucaparib, treatment should be interrupted and blood counts monitored until recovery and failure to recover to grade 1 or higher after 4 weeks should prompt referral to a hematologist for further investigation, while confirmed diagnosis of myelodysplastic syndromes or acute myeloid leukemia should lead to discontinuation of rucaparib. Pregnant women and those of reproductive potential should be advised of the potential risk to a fetus or the need for effective contraception during treatment and for 6 months after the last dose of rucaparib.

Rucaparib is indicated only for the treatment of patients with confirmed BRCA1/2 mutations, so the drug was approved in conjunction with a companion diagnostic. FoundationFocus CDxBRCA is the first next-generation sequencing-based test to receive FDA approval and detects the presence of deleterious BRCA gene mutations in tumor tissue samples. Rucaparib is marketed as Rubraca by Clovis Oncology Inc, and the companion diagnostic by Foundation Medicine Inc.

By early 2017, roughly 18% of all US citizens will reside in a state with a legal pathway to physician aid in dying via lethal prescription. When the End of Life Options Act (EOLOA) went into effect in in California in June 2016, it became the fourth state with laws allowing physician aid in dying (PAD). Oregon (1997), Washington (2009), and Vermont (2009) had preceded it, and Montana (2009) operates similarly as a result of a Supreme Court decision there. However, California’s law also legalized PAD in a state that is much larger and more socioeconomically diverse than the other four states – with its 39 million residents, California more than triples the number of Americans who live in PAD legal states. Together, these 5 states represent 16% of the entire US population (roughly 321 million according to the 2015 Census). Most recently, in December 2016, they were joined by Colorado, adding a state population of 5.5 million.

The state laws have much in common: to “qualify” for legal access to a lethal prescription, a patient must make an in-person verbal request to his/her attending physician. The patient must also: be an adult (aged 18 years or older); be a resident of that state; have a terminal illness the course of which is expected to lead to natural death within 6 months; be making a noncoerced, voluntary request; repeat the verbal request no sooner than 15 days after the first request, followed by a witnessed, formal written request; and have the capacity to self-administer the lethal prescription in a private setting.¹

In California, as in the other states, additional safeguards are built in: the terminal diagnosis and the patient’s capacity to make the request must be verified by a second, independent consultant physician. If either the attending or the consultant physician finds evidence of a “mental disorder,” they are obligated under the law to refer the patient to a psychiatrist or psychologist for an evaluation. The psychological expert is charged with verifying the patient’s mental capacity and ability to make a voluntary end-of-life choice, with determining whether a mental disorder is in fact present, and if it is, whether that mental disorder is impairing the patient’s judgment. A finding of impaired judgment due to mental disorder halts the legal process until the disorder is rectified by treatment, the passage of time, or other factors.

Many of the themes and concepts outlined in these laws are familiar to oncology clinicians simply because we take care of seriously ill and dying patients. Indeed, access to the Medicare Hospice Benefit requires certification – often by an oncologist – that a patient has a terminal diagnosis with a maximum 6-month expected survival. In addition, oncologists encounter many patients who wish to talk about quality of life while they weigh various treatment options, and it is normative for patients (though often anxiety producing for clinicians) to broach topics related to end of life, symptom management, and even aid in dying. Many patients fear poor quality of life, intractable symptom burden, dependency on others, and loss of control more than they fear their cancers. Their efforts to initiate this discussion often fit into a much larger and more durable set of personal values and ideals about suffering, dependency, futility, and personal autonomy.

Weighing the evidence

And yet there is vigorous objection to PAD laws from many corners. Some religious organizations and faith-based health care delivery systems oppose the laws and, in opting-out of the voluntary legal pathways for participation, prohibit their employed and affiliated physicians and other professionals from doing so as well.² Some physician organizations, and individual physicians, claim that involvement in aid in dying – such as by providing a legal lethal prescription – violates the Hippocratic oath and that (in effect) there is no circumstance under which it could be ethically permissible.

There are also bioethicists, including physician ethicists, who sincerely reach similar conclusions and warn of the “slippery slope” that might lead beyond aid in dying as currently legalized in the US to assisting in the deaths of those with disabilities, those with depression or other treatable psychiatric illness, and even to active euthanasia, including euthanasia of nonconsenting or incapable individuals.³ These objectors generally remain adamant and cite what we would all agree are excesses in certain European countries, despite the absence of evidence that the European measures could be approved in the United States under current laws and practices.

The largest amount of publicly available evidence to inform this discussion in the US comes from Oregon, which has nearly 20 years of experience with the law and its reporting requirements.⁴ Very broadly, the Oregon experience supports the view that PAD is pursued and completed by a very small percentage of the population: in 2015 (the most recent year for which data is available) 218 people possessed lethal prescriptions; 132 of them ingested the medications and died. Thus about 61% of those who received the prescription used it for its intended purpose, resulting in a Death with Dignity Act death rate of 0.39% (132 of 34,160 deaths in Oregon) in 2015. Since the law’s inception in 1997, 991 patients are known to have died from lethal ingestion of 1545 prescriptions written (a 64% “use” rate).

Equally important is the evidence from Oregon describing those who seek to use the law. In 2015, as in previous years, most patients were older than the general population (78% aged 65 years or older; median age at death, 73). Of those patients, 93% were white and well educated (43% had at least a college degree), compared with the population at large. In all, 72%-78% of patients had cancer; 6%-8% had ALS (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis); and end-stage heart disease seemed to be increasing, trending up from 2% to 6% in recent years.

In addition, 90% died at home, with 92% on hospice, and more than 99% had health insurance of some kind. These figures provide strong evidence that PAD is not being inappropriately used among historically vulnerable or disempowered ethnic/racial minorities, socioeconomically or educationally disadvantaged groups, or disabled individuals. On the contrary, “uptake” or use of PAD by the disadvantaged in Oregon seems, perhaps not surprisingly, to occur at rates significantly below their representation in the general population of the state.

Intractable symptom burden (or fear of it) was rated as a minor contributor to the decision to pursue PAD, ranking sixth out of the 7 options and endorsed by about a quarter of patients. The three most frequently cited end-of-life concerns were: decreasing ability to participate in activities that made life enjoyable (96%), loss of autonomy (92%), and loss of dignity (75%).

A broader range of choice

I have worked for nearly 30 years in California oncology clinical settings as a palliative care physician and psychiatrist. During that time I have been involved in the care of two patients who committed violent suicide (self-inflicted gunshot). Both events took place before the passage of the California EOLOA, both patients were educated, professional older white men who were fiercely independent and who saw their progressive cancers as rapidly worsening their quality of life and intolerably increasing their dependency on beloved others (although their judgments about this did not take into account how the others actually felt); neither had a primary psychiatric illness, and neither had intractable symptom burden. Both men had expressed interest in and were denied access to lethal prescription. Sadly, neither had the kind of long-term, trusting relationship with a physician that appears to have provided access to non-legally sanctioned PAD for decades before the first state laws allowing it – and therefore each apparently decided to exert his autonomy in the ultimate act of self-determination. In both cases, it seemed to me that violent suicide was a bad, last recourse – clearly, each man regarded continued living in his intolerable state as even worse – but also the worst possible outcome for their surviving families, for their traumatized clinicians, and for the bystanders who witnessed these deaths and the first responders who were called to the scenes. We cannot know that the availability of lethal prescription would have pre-empted these violent suicides, but I suspect it might have given each man a much broader range of choice about how to deal with circumstances he found entirely unacceptable, and which he simply could not and would not tolerate.

An informed, person-centered approach

It is in the context of these experiences that I have come to view “active non-participation” in legal PAD – that is, decisions by individual physicians and/or health systems not only to not provide, but also not refer patients to possibly willing providers and systems without regard for specific clinical contexts – as a toxic form of patient abandonment. I am also concerned that this rigid stance (like many rigid stances in the service of alleged moral absolutes) may lead to greater suffering and harm – such as the violent suicides I have described – than a more moderate, contextually informed, person-centered approach that does not outlaw certain clinical topics. Indeed, in my participating institution in California, it has become clear that a request for PAD leads (as a result of a carefully and comprehensively constructed “navigator” process) to a level of patient and family care that should be provided to every patient with terminal illness in this country. While that statement is a sad reflection on our society’s general commitment to caring for the dying, it seems that the extra attention required by the process leading to a PAD, and the revelations that emerge in that process, often lead to a withdrawal of the request for a lethal prescription, and/or allows the drug to go unused if provided.

Many leading bioethical treatises, including those emerging from faith-based academic and university settings, also support the view that PAD can be and is morally justified under a certain set of circumstances. Not surprisingly, those circumstances encompass most of what is written into the state laws permitting PAD. They include, according to Beauchamp and Childress:⁵

• A voluntary request by a competent patient
• An ongoing physician-patient relationship
• Mutual and informed decision-making by patient and physician
• A supportive yet critical and probing environment of decision making
• A considered rejection of alternatives
• Structured consultation with other parties in medicine
• A patient’s expression of a durable preference for death
• Unacceptable suffering by the patient
• Use of a means that is as painless and comfortable as possible

We tell many of our patients that cancer is now treated as a chronic illness. In the context of treating that chronic illness we have the profound opportunity – some would say the obligation – to come to know our patients as whole individuals who often have long-held health values, ideas about what a life worth living looks like, and very personal fears and hopes. We may well come to know them more intimately while serving as their cancer clinicians than any other health professionals do – and even as do any other individuals with whom they will ever interact.

The hours in the infusion chair afford many opportunities for us to understand (and, ideally, document) a patient’s advance care plans, health values, goals, views about end-of-life measures such as artificial ventilation and resuscitation. No one reasonably disputes the “rightness” of learning these things. The evidence shows us that under very rare circumstances, knowing and respecting our patients may include understanding their wishes about physician aid in dying, which requires us to build upon the profound trust that has been established by being able to hear and understand their requests. It seems to me that the end of life is the most inappropriate time for any of us to tell patients they must look elsewhere.

The opinions expressed here are those of the author alone, and do not reflect the view of other individuals, institutions, or professional organizations with which Dr Strouse is affiliated.

By early 2017, roughly 18% of all US citizens will reside in a state with a legal pathway to physician aid in dying via lethal prescription. When the End of Life Options Act (EOLOA) went into effect in in California in June 2016, it became the fourth state with laws allowing physician aid in dying (PAD). Oregon (1997), Washington (2009), and Vermont (2009) had preceded it, and Montana (2009) operates similarly as a result of a Supreme Court decision there. However, California’s law also legalized PAD in a state that is much larger and more socioeconomically diverse than the other four states – with its 39 million residents, California more than triples the number of Americans who live in PAD legal states. Together, these 5 states represent 16% of the entire US population (roughly 321 million according to the 2015 Census). Most recently, in December 2016, they were joined by Colorado, adding a state population of 5.5 million.

The state laws have much in common: to “qualify” for legal access to a lethal prescription, a patient must make an in-person verbal request to his/her attending physician. The patient must also: be an adult (aged 18 years or older); be a resident of that state; have a terminal illness the course of which is expected to lead to natural death within 6 months; be making a noncoerced, voluntary request; repeat the verbal request no sooner than 15 days after the first request, followed by a witnessed, formal written request; and have the capacity to self-administer the lethal prescription in a private setting.¹

In California, as in the other states, additional safeguards are built in: the terminal diagnosis and the patient’s capacity to make the request must be verified by a second, independent consultant physician. If either the attending or the consultant physician finds evidence of a “mental disorder,” they are obligated under the law to refer the patient to a psychiatrist or psychologist for an evaluation. The psychological expert is charged with verifying the patient’s mental capacity and ability to make a voluntary end-of-life choice, with determining whether a mental disorder is in fact present, and if it is, whether that mental disorder is impairing the patient’s judgment. A finding of impaired judgment due to mental disorder halts the legal process until the disorder is rectified by treatment, the passage of time, or other factors.

Many of the themes and concepts outlined in these laws are familiar to oncology clinicians simply because we take care of seriously ill and dying patients. Indeed, access to the Medicare Hospice Benefit requires certification – often by an oncologist – that a patient has a terminal diagnosis with a maximum 6-month expected survival. In addition, oncologists encounter many patients who wish to talk about quality of life while they weigh various treatment options, and it is normative for patients (though often anxiety producing for clinicians) to broach topics related to end of life, symptom management, and even aid in dying. Many patients fear poor quality of life, intractable symptom burden, dependency on others, and loss of control more than they fear their cancers. Their efforts to initiate this discussion often fit into a much larger and more durable set of personal values and ideals about suffering, dependency, futility, and personal autonomy.

Weighing the evidence

And yet there is vigorous objection to PAD laws from many corners. Some religious organizations and faith-based health care delivery systems oppose the laws and, in opting-out of the voluntary legal pathways for participation, prohibit their employed and affiliated physicians and other professionals from doing so as well.² Some physician organizations, and individual physicians, claim that involvement in aid in dying – such as by providing a legal lethal prescription – violates the Hippocratic oath and that (in effect) there is no circumstance under which it could be ethically permissible.

There are also bioethicists, including physician ethicists, who sincerely reach similar conclusions and warn of the “slippery slope” that might lead beyond aid in dying as currently legalized in the US to assisting in the deaths of those with disabilities, those with depression or other treatable psychiatric illness, and even to active euthanasia, including euthanasia of nonconsenting or incapable individuals.³ These objectors generally remain adamant and cite what we would all agree are excesses in certain European countries, despite the absence of evidence that the European measures could be approved in the United States under current laws and practices.

The largest amount of publicly available evidence to inform this discussion in the US comes from Oregon, which has nearly 20 years of experience with the law and its reporting requirements.⁴ Very broadly, the Oregon experience supports the view that PAD is pursued and completed by a very small percentage of the population: in 2015 (the most recent year for which data is available) 218 people possessed lethal prescriptions; 132 of them ingested the medications and died. Thus about 61% of those who received the prescription used it for its intended purpose, resulting in a Death with Dignity Act death rate of 0.39% (132 of 34,160 deaths in Oregon) in 2015. Since the law’s inception in 1997, 991 patients are known to have died from lethal ingestion of 1545 prescriptions written (a 64% “use” rate).

Equally important is the evidence from Oregon describing those who seek to use the law. In 2015, as in previous years, most patients were older than the general population (78% aged 65 years or older; median age at death, 73). Of those patients, 93% were white and well educated (43% had at least a college degree), compared with the population at large. In all, 72%-78% of patients had cancer; 6%-8% had ALS (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis); and end-stage heart disease seemed to be increasing, trending up from 2% to 6% in recent years.

In addition, 90% died at home, with 92% on hospice, and more than 99% had health insurance of some kind. These figures provide strong evidence that PAD is not being inappropriately used among historically vulnerable or disempowered ethnic/racial minorities, socioeconomically or educationally disadvantaged groups, or disabled individuals. On the contrary, “uptake” or use of PAD by the disadvantaged in Oregon seems, perhaps not surprisingly, to occur at rates significantly below their representation in the general population of the state.

Intractable symptom burden (or fear of it) was rated as a minor contributor to the decision to pursue PAD, ranking sixth out of the 7 options and endorsed by about a quarter of patients. The three most frequently cited end-of-life concerns were: decreasing ability to participate in activities that made life enjoyable (96%), loss of autonomy (92%), and loss of dignity (75%).

A broader range of choice

I have worked for nearly 30 years in California oncology clinical settings as a palliative care physician and psychiatrist. During that time I have been involved in the care of two patients who committed violent suicide (self-inflicted gunshot). Both events took place before the passage of the California EOLOA, both patients were educated, professional older white men who were fiercely independent and who saw their progressive cancers as rapidly worsening their quality of life and intolerably increasing their dependency on beloved others (although their judgments about this did not take into account how the others actually felt); neither had a primary psychiatric illness, and neither had intractable symptom burden. Both men had expressed interest in and were denied access to lethal prescription. Sadly, neither had the kind of long-term, trusting relationship with a physician that appears to have provided access to non-legally sanctioned PAD for decades before the first state laws allowing it – and therefore each apparently decided to exert his autonomy in the ultimate act of self-determination. In both cases, it seemed to me that violent suicide was a bad, last recourse – clearly, each man regarded continued living in his intolerable state as even worse – but also the worst possible outcome for their surviving families, for their traumatized clinicians, and for the bystanders who witnessed these deaths and the first responders who were called to the scenes. We cannot know that the availability of lethal prescription would have pre-empted these violent suicides, but I suspect it might have given each man a much broader range of choice about how to deal with circumstances he found entirely unacceptable, and which he simply could not and would not tolerate.

An informed, person-centered approach

It is in the context of these experiences that I have come to view “active non-participation” in legal PAD – that is, decisions by individual physicians and/or health systems not only to not provide, but also not refer patients to possibly willing providers and systems without regard for specific clinical contexts – as a toxic form of patient abandonment. I am also concerned that this rigid stance (like many rigid stances in the service of alleged moral absolutes) may lead to greater suffering and harm – such as the violent suicides I have described – than a more moderate, contextually informed, person-centered approach that does not outlaw certain clinical topics. Indeed, in my participating institution in California, it has become clear that a request for PAD leads (as a result of a carefully and comprehensively constructed “navigator” process) to a level of patient and family care that should be provided to every patient with terminal illness in this country. While that statement is a sad reflection on our society’s general commitment to caring for the dying, it seems that the extra attention required by the process leading to a PAD, and the revelations that emerge in that process, often lead to a withdrawal of the request for a lethal prescription, and/or allows the drug to go unused if provided.

Many leading bioethical treatises, including those emerging from faith-based academic and university settings, also support the view that PAD can be and is morally justified under a certain set of circumstances. Not surprisingly, those circumstances encompass most of what is written into the state laws permitting PAD. They include, according to Beauchamp and Childress:⁵

• A voluntary request by a competent patient
• An ongoing physician-patient relationship
• Mutual and informed decision-making by patient and physician
• A supportive yet critical and probing environment of decision making
• A considered rejection of alternatives
• Structured consultation with other parties in medicine
• A patient’s expression of a durable preference for death
• Unacceptable suffering by the patient
• Use of a means that is as painless and comfortable as possible

We tell many of our patients that cancer is now treated as a chronic illness. In the context of treating that chronic illness we have the profound opportunity – some would say the obligation – to come to know our patients as whole individuals who often have long-held health values, ideas about what a life worth living looks like, and very personal fears and hopes. We may well come to know them more intimately while serving as their cancer clinicians than any other health professionals do – and even as do any other individuals with whom they will ever interact.

The hours in the infusion chair afford many opportunities for us to understand (and, ideally, document) a patient’s advance care plans, health values, goals, views about end-of-life measures such as artificial ventilation and resuscitation. No one reasonably disputes the “rightness” of learning these things. The evidence shows us that under very rare circumstances, knowing and respecting our patients may include understanding their wishes about physician aid in dying, which requires us to build upon the profound trust that has been established by being able to hear and understand their requests. It seems to me that the end of life is the most inappropriate time for any of us to tell patients they must look elsewhere.

The opinions expressed here are those of the author alone, and do not reflect the view of other individuals, institutions, or professional organizations with which Dr Strouse is affiliated.

By early 2017, roughly 18% of all US citizens will reside in a state with a legal pathway to physician aid in dying via lethal prescription. When the End of Life Options Act (EOLOA) went into effect in in California in June 2016, it became the fourth state with laws allowing physician aid in dying (PAD). Oregon (1997), Washington (2009), and Vermont (2009) had preceded it, and Montana (2009) operates similarly as a result of a Supreme Court decision there. However, California’s law also legalized PAD in a state that is much larger and more socioeconomically diverse than the other four states – with its 39 million residents, California more than triples the number of Americans who live in PAD legal states. Together, these 5 states represent 16% of the entire US population (roughly 321 million according to the 2015 Census). Most recently, in December 2016, they were joined by Colorado, adding a state population of 5.5 million.

The state laws have much in common: to “qualify” for legal access to a lethal prescription, a patient must make an in-person verbal request to his/her attending physician. The patient must also: be an adult (aged 18 years or older); be a resident of that state; have a terminal illness the course of which is expected to lead to natural death within 6 months; be making a noncoerced, voluntary request; repeat the verbal request no sooner than 15 days after the first request, followed by a witnessed, formal written request; and have the capacity to self-administer the lethal prescription in a private setting.¹

In California, as in the other states, additional safeguards are built in: the terminal diagnosis and the patient’s capacity to make the request must be verified by a second, independent consultant physician. If either the attending or the consultant physician finds evidence of a “mental disorder,” they are obligated under the law to refer the patient to a psychiatrist or psychologist for an evaluation. The psychological expert is charged with verifying the patient’s mental capacity and ability to make a voluntary end-of-life choice, with determining whether a mental disorder is in fact present, and if it is, whether that mental disorder is impairing the patient’s judgment. A finding of impaired judgment due to mental disorder halts the legal process until the disorder is rectified by treatment, the passage of time, or other factors.

Many of the themes and concepts outlined in these laws are familiar to oncology clinicians simply because we take care of seriously ill and dying patients. Indeed, access to the Medicare Hospice Benefit requires certification – often by an oncologist – that a patient has a terminal diagnosis with a maximum 6-month expected survival. In addition, oncologists encounter many patients who wish to talk about quality of life while they weigh various treatment options, and it is normative for patients (though often anxiety producing for clinicians) to broach topics related to end of life, symptom management, and even aid in dying. Many patients fear poor quality of life, intractable symptom burden, dependency on others, and loss of control more than they fear their cancers. Their efforts to initiate this discussion often fit into a much larger and more durable set of personal values and ideals about suffering, dependency, futility, and personal autonomy.

Weighing the evidence

And yet there is vigorous objection to PAD laws from many corners. Some religious organizations and faith-based health care delivery systems oppose the laws and, in opting-out of the voluntary legal pathways for participation, prohibit their employed and affiliated physicians and other professionals from doing so as well.² Some physician organizations, and individual physicians, claim that involvement in aid in dying – such as by providing a legal lethal prescription – violates the Hippocratic oath and that (in effect) there is no circumstance under which it could be ethically permissible.

There are also bioethicists, including physician ethicists, who sincerely reach similar conclusions and warn of the “slippery slope” that might lead beyond aid in dying as currently legalized in the US to assisting in the deaths of those with disabilities, those with depression or other treatable psychiatric illness, and even to active euthanasia, including euthanasia of nonconsenting or incapable individuals.³ These objectors generally remain adamant and cite what we would all agree are excesses in certain European countries, despite the absence of evidence that the European measures could be approved in the United States under current laws and practices.

The largest amount of publicly available evidence to inform this discussion in the US comes from Oregon, which has nearly 20 years of experience with the law and its reporting requirements.⁴ Very broadly, the Oregon experience supports the view that PAD is pursued and completed by a very small percentage of the population: in 2015 (the most recent year for which data is available) 218 people possessed lethal prescriptions; 132 of them ingested the medications and died. Thus about 61% of those who received the prescription used it for its intended purpose, resulting in a Death with Dignity Act death rate of 0.39% (132 of 34,160 deaths in Oregon) in 2015. Since the law’s inception in 1997, 991 patients are known to have died from lethal ingestion of 1545 prescriptions written (a 64% “use” rate).

Equally important is the evidence from Oregon describing those who seek to use the law. In 2015, as in previous years, most patients were older than the general population (78% aged 65 years or older; median age at death, 73). Of those patients, 93% were white and well educated (43% had at least a college degree), compared with the population at large. In all, 72%-78% of patients had cancer; 6%-8% had ALS (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis); and end-stage heart disease seemed to be increasing, trending up from 2% to 6% in recent years.

In addition, 90% died at home, with 92% on hospice, and more than 99% had health insurance of some kind. These figures provide strong evidence that PAD is not being inappropriately used among historically vulnerable or disempowered ethnic/racial minorities, socioeconomically or educationally disadvantaged groups, or disabled individuals. On the contrary, “uptake” or use of PAD by the disadvantaged in Oregon seems, perhaps not surprisingly, to occur at rates significantly below their representation in the general population of the state.

Intractable symptom burden (or fear of it) was rated as a minor contributor to the decision to pursue PAD, ranking sixth out of the 7 options and endorsed by about a quarter of patients. The three most frequently cited end-of-life concerns were: decreasing ability to participate in activities that made life enjoyable (96%), loss of autonomy (92%), and loss of dignity (75%).

A broader range of choice

I have worked for nearly 30 years in California oncology clinical settings as a palliative care physician and psychiatrist. During that time I have been involved in the care of two patients who committed violent suicide (self-inflicted gunshot). Both events took place before the passage of the California EOLOA, both patients were educated, professional older white men who were fiercely independent and who saw their progressive cancers as rapidly worsening their quality of life and intolerably increasing their dependency on beloved others (although their judgments about this did not take into account how the others actually felt); neither had a primary psychiatric illness, and neither had intractable symptom burden. Both men had expressed interest in and were denied access to lethal prescription. Sadly, neither had the kind of long-term, trusting relationship with a physician that appears to have provided access to non-legally sanctioned PAD for decades before the first state laws allowing it – and therefore each apparently decided to exert his autonomy in the ultimate act of self-determination. In both cases, it seemed to me that violent suicide was a bad, last recourse – clearly, each man regarded continued living in his intolerable state as even worse – but also the worst possible outcome for their surviving families, for their traumatized clinicians, and for the bystanders who witnessed these deaths and the first responders who were called to the scenes. We cannot know that the availability of lethal prescription would have pre-empted these violent suicides, but I suspect it might have given each man a much broader range of choice about how to deal with circumstances he found entirely unacceptable, and which he simply could not and would not tolerate.

An informed, person-centered approach

It is in the context of these experiences that I have come to view “active non-participation” in legal PAD – that is, decisions by individual physicians and/or health systems not only to not provide, but also not refer patients to possibly willing providers and systems without regard for specific clinical contexts – as a toxic form of patient abandonment. I am also concerned that this rigid stance (like many rigid stances in the service of alleged moral absolutes) may lead to greater suffering and harm – such as the violent suicides I have described – than a more moderate, contextually informed, person-centered approach that does not outlaw certain clinical topics. Indeed, in my participating institution in California, it has become clear that a request for PAD leads (as a result of a carefully and comprehensively constructed “navigator” process) to a level of patient and family care that should be provided to every patient with terminal illness in this country. While that statement is a sad reflection on our society’s general commitment to caring for the dying, it seems that the extra attention required by the process leading to a PAD, and the revelations that emerge in that process, often lead to a withdrawal of the request for a lethal prescription, and/or allows the drug to go unused if provided.

Many leading bioethical treatises, including those emerging from faith-based academic and university settings, also support the view that PAD can be and is morally justified under a certain set of circumstances. Not surprisingly, those circumstances encompass most of what is written into the state laws permitting PAD. They include, according to Beauchamp and Childress:⁵

• A voluntary request by a competent patient
• An ongoing physician-patient relationship
• Mutual and informed decision-making by patient and physician
• A supportive yet critical and probing environment of decision making
• A considered rejection of alternatives
• Structured consultation with other parties in medicine
• A patient’s expression of a durable preference for death
• Unacceptable suffering by the patient
• Use of a means that is as painless and comfortable as possible

We tell many of our patients that cancer is now treated as a chronic illness. In the context of treating that chronic illness we have the profound opportunity – some would say the obligation – to come to know our patients as whole individuals who often have long-held health values, ideas about what a life worth living looks like, and very personal fears and hopes. We may well come to know them more intimately while serving as their cancer clinicians than any other health professionals do – and even as do any other individuals with whom they will ever interact.

The hours in the infusion chair afford many opportunities for us to understand (and, ideally, document) a patient’s advance care plans, health values, goals, views about end-of-life measures such as artificial ventilation and resuscitation. No one reasonably disputes the “rightness” of learning these things. The evidence shows us that under very rare circumstances, knowing and respecting our patients may include understanding their wishes about physician aid in dying, which requires us to build upon the profound trust that has been established by being able to hear and understand their requests. It seems to me that the end of life is the most inappropriate time for any of us to tell patients they must look elsewhere.

The opinions expressed here are those of the author alone, and do not reflect the view of other individuals, institutions, or professional organizations with which Dr Strouse is affiliated.

The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has been gathering information about storage conditions and inventory for personal protective equipment (PPE) in federal, state, municipal, county, and hospital system stockpiles. Maintaining the stockpiles for public health emergencies, such as infectious disease outbreaks, is a “significant cost and time investment,” NIOSH says. That investment includes restocking and leasing or purchasing environmentally controlled storage space.

NIOSH asked for comments on how facilities monitor respirator and gown deterioration, how they rotate PPE, and the degree to which environmental controls are implemented and maintained. Even when resources exist to store PPE per the manufacturer’s recommendations, NIOHS says, “the influence of long-term storage time alone or PPE performance has been questioned.”

The period for comment is closed. Survey responses will be used to inform a research study in which N95 respirators and high-protection–level surgical gowns are sampled from stockpiles nationwide and tested against established performance standards. The study will assess the potential to extend manufacturer-recommended shelf life and the effect of “common, albeit sometimes non-ideal, stockpile conditions” on the protections provided by respirators and surgical gowns.

The information collected will be added to the PPE database, available at https://wwwn.cdc.gov/ppeinfo.

The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has been gathering information about storage conditions and inventory for personal protective equipment (PPE) in federal, state, municipal, county, and hospital system stockpiles. Maintaining the stockpiles for public health emergencies, such as infectious disease outbreaks, is a “significant cost and time investment,” NIOSH says. That investment includes restocking and leasing or purchasing environmentally controlled storage space.

NIOSH asked for comments on how facilities monitor respirator and gown deterioration, how they rotate PPE, and the degree to which environmental controls are implemented and maintained. Even when resources exist to store PPE per the manufacturer’s recommendations, NIOHS says, “the influence of long-term storage time alone or PPE performance has been questioned.”

The period for comment is closed. Survey responses will be used to inform a research study in which N95 respirators and high-protection–level surgical gowns are sampled from stockpiles nationwide and tested against established performance standards. The study will assess the potential to extend manufacturer-recommended shelf life and the effect of “common, albeit sometimes non-ideal, stockpile conditions” on the protections provided by respirators and surgical gowns.

The information collected will be added to the PPE database, available at https://wwwn.cdc.gov/ppeinfo.

The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has been gathering information about storage conditions and inventory for personal protective equipment (PPE) in federal, state, municipal, county, and hospital system stockpiles. Maintaining the stockpiles for public health emergencies, such as infectious disease outbreaks, is a “significant cost and time investment,” NIOSH says. That investment includes restocking and leasing or purchasing environmentally controlled storage space.

NIOSH asked for comments on how facilities monitor respirator and gown deterioration, how they rotate PPE, and the degree to which environmental controls are implemented and maintained. Even when resources exist to store PPE per the manufacturer’s recommendations, NIOHS says, “the influence of long-term storage time alone or PPE performance has been questioned.”

The period for comment is closed. Survey responses will be used to inform a research study in which N95 respirators and high-protection–level surgical gowns are sampled from stockpiles nationwide and tested against established performance standards. The study will assess the potential to extend manufacturer-recommended shelf life and the effect of “common, albeit sometimes non-ideal, stockpile conditions” on the protections provided by respirators and surgical gowns.

The information collected will be added to the PPE database, available at https://wwwn.cdc.gov/ppeinfo.

Lab mouse

A nucleoside analog has shown potential for treating primary effusion lymphoma (PEL) and multiple myeloma (MM), according to researchers.

The compound, 6-ethylthioinosine (6-ETI), killed both PEL and MM cells in vitro.

6-ETI also reduced tumor burden and prolonged survival in mouse models of MM and PEL.

Ethel Cesarman, MD, PhD, of Weill Cornell Medicine in New York, New York, and her colleagues conducted this research and disclosed their results in the Journal of Clinical Investigation.

The researchers identified 6-ETI via high-throughput screening, and they initially tested the compound in PEL cell lines. 6-ETI induced necrosis, apoptosis, and autophagy in these cells.

In a xenograft model of PEL, mice treated with 6-ETI experienced “striking and immediate regression of the implanted xenograft within 3 days of treatment,” according to the researchers.

In addition, mice that received 6-ETI had significantly longer progression-free and overall survival than control mice (P<0.0001 for both), and the researchers said there were no obvious toxicities from the treatment.

Looking into the mechanism of 6-ETI, the researchers found that adenosine kinase (ADK) is required to phosphorylate and activate the compound, and PEL cells have high levels of ADK.

Because PEL cells closely resemble plasma cells, the researchers theorized that MM might produce high levels of ADK as well. Experiments in MM cells proved this theory correct.

So the researchers tested 6-ETI in MM cell lines and samples from MM patients. The compound induced apoptosis and autophagy, and it activated a DNA damage response in MM cells.

In a mouse model of MM, 6-ETI treatment significantly reduced tumor burden but did not result in weight loss. And treated mice had significantly longer overall survival than control mice (P<0.005).

Dr Cesarman and her colleagues are now trying to better understand how 6-ETI works and determine what other cancers expressing high levels of ADK might respond to the drug.

“This compound could provide a much-needed approach to treat people with some forms of plasma malignancies as well as other cancers that express ADK,” Dr Cesarman said. 

Lab mouse

A nucleoside analog has shown potential for treating primary effusion lymphoma (PEL) and multiple myeloma (MM), according to researchers.

The compound, 6-ethylthioinosine (6-ETI), killed both PEL and MM cells in vitro.

6-ETI also reduced tumor burden and prolonged survival in mouse models of MM and PEL.

Ethel Cesarman, MD, PhD, of Weill Cornell Medicine in New York, New York, and her colleagues conducted this research and disclosed their results in the Journal of Clinical Investigation.

The researchers identified 6-ETI via high-throughput screening, and they initially tested the compound in PEL cell lines. 6-ETI induced necrosis, apoptosis, and autophagy in these cells.

In a xenograft model of PEL, mice treated with 6-ETI experienced “striking and immediate regression of the implanted xenograft within 3 days of treatment,” according to the researchers.

In addition, mice that received 6-ETI had significantly longer progression-free and overall survival than control mice (P<0.0001 for both), and the researchers said there were no obvious toxicities from the treatment.

Looking into the mechanism of 6-ETI, the researchers found that adenosine kinase (ADK) is required to phosphorylate and activate the compound, and PEL cells have high levels of ADK.

Because PEL cells closely resemble plasma cells, the researchers theorized that MM might produce high levels of ADK as well. Experiments in MM cells proved this theory correct.

So the researchers tested 6-ETI in MM cell lines and samples from MM patients. The compound induced apoptosis and autophagy, and it activated a DNA damage response in MM cells.

In a mouse model of MM, 6-ETI treatment significantly reduced tumor burden but did not result in weight loss. And treated mice had significantly longer overall survival than control mice (P<0.005).

Dr Cesarman and her colleagues are now trying to better understand how 6-ETI works and determine what other cancers expressing high levels of ADK might respond to the drug.

“This compound could provide a much-needed approach to treat people with some forms of plasma malignancies as well as other cancers that express ADK,” Dr Cesarman said. 

Lab mouse

A nucleoside analog has shown potential for treating primary effusion lymphoma (PEL) and multiple myeloma (MM), according to researchers.

The compound, 6-ethylthioinosine (6-ETI), killed both PEL and MM cells in vitro.

6-ETI also reduced tumor burden and prolonged survival in mouse models of MM and PEL.

Ethel Cesarman, MD, PhD, of Weill Cornell Medicine in New York, New York, and her colleagues conducted this research and disclosed their results in the Journal of Clinical Investigation.

The researchers identified 6-ETI via high-throughput screening, and they initially tested the compound in PEL cell lines. 6-ETI induced necrosis, apoptosis, and autophagy in these cells.

In a xenograft model of PEL, mice treated with 6-ETI experienced “striking and immediate regression of the implanted xenograft within 3 days of treatment,” according to the researchers.

In addition, mice that received 6-ETI had significantly longer progression-free and overall survival than control mice (P<0.0001 for both), and the researchers said there were no obvious toxicities from the treatment.

Looking into the mechanism of 6-ETI, the researchers found that adenosine kinase (ADK) is required to phosphorylate and activate the compound, and PEL cells have high levels of ADK.

Because PEL cells closely resemble plasma cells, the researchers theorized that MM might produce high levels of ADK as well. Experiments in MM cells proved this theory correct.

So the researchers tested 6-ETI in MM cell lines and samples from MM patients. The compound induced apoptosis and autophagy, and it activated a DNA damage response in MM cells.

In a mouse model of MM, 6-ETI treatment significantly reduced tumor burden but did not result in weight loss. And treated mice had significantly longer overall survival than control mice (P<0.005).

Dr Cesarman and her colleagues are now trying to better understand how 6-ETI works and determine what other cancers expressing high levels of ADK might respond to the drug.

“This compound could provide a much-needed approach to treat people with some forms of plasma malignancies as well as other cancers that express ADK,” Dr Cesarman said.