MDedge ObGyn

Vulvodynia is a little-known condition that, according to some U.S. studies, affects 3%-14% of the female population. It is defined as chronic pain, present for at least 3 months, that generally involves the vulva or some of its specific areas such as the clitoris or vestibule and is not attributable to causes of an infectious, inflammatory, oncologic, or endocrine nature; skin trauma; or damage to nerve fibers.
 

“There are probably many more women who suffer from it who don’t talk about it out of shame, because they feel ‘wrong,’ ” said gynecologist Pina Belfiore, MD, chair of the Italian Interdisciplinary Society of Vulvology, at the annual conference of the Italian Society of Gender Medicine in Neurosciences. “It is a treatable condition, or at the very least, a patient’s quality of life can be significantly improved with a personalized therapeutic approach.”
 

The correct diagnosis

The first step for setting the patient on the right course toward recovery is to offer welcome and empathy, recognizing that the suffering, which can have psychological causes, is not imaginary. “We need to explain to patients that their condition has a name, that they are not alone in this situation, and, above all, that there is hope for solving the problem. They can get through it,” said Dr. Belfiore.

First, an accurate history of the pain is needed to correctly diagnose vulvodynia. How long has the pain been going on? Is it continuous or is it triggered by an environmental factor, for example by sexual intercourse or contact with underwear? Is it a burning or stinging sensation? Did it first occur after an infection or after a physical or psychological trauma? Does the patient suffer from other forms of chronic pain such as recurring headaches or fibromyalgia?

“It is then necessary to inspect the vulva to exclude other systematic conditions or injuries that may be responsible for the pain, as well as to locate hypersensitive areas and evaluate the intensity of the symptoms,” said Dr. Belfiore.” A swab test is performed for this purpose, which is carried out by applying light pressure on different points of the vulva with a cotton swab.”
 

CNS dysfunction

Vulvodynia is not a direct condition of the vulva. Instead, it involves the dysfunction of the central nervous system (CNS), which confuses signals coming from the peripheral area, interpreting signals of a different nature as painful stimuli.

“The origin of this dysfunction is an individual predisposition. In fact, often the women who suffer from it are also affected by other forms of chronic pain,” said Dr. Belfiore. “Triggers for vulvodynia can be bacterial infections, candidiasis, or traumatic events such as surgically assisted birth or psychological trauma.”

Because inflammatory mechanisms are not involved, anti-inflammatory drugs are not helpful in treating the problem. “Instead, it is necessary to reduce the sensitivity of the CNS. For this purpose, low-dose antidepressant or antiepileptic drugs are used,” said Dr. Belfiore. “Pelvic floor rehabilitation is another treatment that can be beneficial when combined with pharmacologic treatment. This should be conducted by a professional with specific experience in vulvodynia, because an excessive increase in the tone of the levator ani muscle can make the situation worse. Psychotherapy and the adoption of certain hygienic and behavioral measures can also help, such as using lubricant during sexual intercourse, wearing pure cotton underwear, and using gentle intimate body washes.”

“It is important that family doctors who see women with this problem refer them to an experienced specialist,” said Dr. Belfiore.

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

This article was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network.

Vulvodynia is a little-known condition that, according to some U.S. studies, affects 3%-14% of the female population. It is defined as chronic pain, present for at least 3 months, that generally involves the vulva or some of its specific areas such as the clitoris or vestibule and is not attributable to causes of an infectious, inflammatory, oncologic, or endocrine nature; skin trauma; or damage to nerve fibers.
 

“There are probably many more women who suffer from it who don’t talk about it out of shame, because they feel ‘wrong,’ ” said gynecologist Pina Belfiore, MD, chair of the Italian Interdisciplinary Society of Vulvology, at the annual conference of the Italian Society of Gender Medicine in Neurosciences. “It is a treatable condition, or at the very least, a patient’s quality of life can be significantly improved with a personalized therapeutic approach.”
 

The correct diagnosis

The first step for setting the patient on the right course toward recovery is to offer welcome and empathy, recognizing that the suffering, which can have psychological causes, is not imaginary. “We need to explain to patients that their condition has a name, that they are not alone in this situation, and, above all, that there is hope for solving the problem. They can get through it,” said Dr. Belfiore.

First, an accurate history of the pain is needed to correctly diagnose vulvodynia. How long has the pain been going on? Is it continuous or is it triggered by an environmental factor, for example by sexual intercourse or contact with underwear? Is it a burning or stinging sensation? Did it first occur after an infection or after a physical or psychological trauma? Does the patient suffer from other forms of chronic pain such as recurring headaches or fibromyalgia?

“It is then necessary to inspect the vulva to exclude other systematic conditions or injuries that may be responsible for the pain, as well as to locate hypersensitive areas and evaluate the intensity of the symptoms,” said Dr. Belfiore.” A swab test is performed for this purpose, which is carried out by applying light pressure on different points of the vulva with a cotton swab.”
 

CNS dysfunction

Vulvodynia is not a direct condition of the vulva. Instead, it involves the dysfunction of the central nervous system (CNS), which confuses signals coming from the peripheral area, interpreting signals of a different nature as painful stimuli.

“The origin of this dysfunction is an individual predisposition. In fact, often the women who suffer from it are also affected by other forms of chronic pain,” said Dr. Belfiore. “Triggers for vulvodynia can be bacterial infections, candidiasis, or traumatic events such as surgically assisted birth or psychological trauma.”

Because inflammatory mechanisms are not involved, anti-inflammatory drugs are not helpful in treating the problem. “Instead, it is necessary to reduce the sensitivity of the CNS. For this purpose, low-dose antidepressant or antiepileptic drugs are used,” said Dr. Belfiore. “Pelvic floor rehabilitation is another treatment that can be beneficial when combined with pharmacologic treatment. This should be conducted by a professional with specific experience in vulvodynia, because an excessive increase in the tone of the levator ani muscle can make the situation worse. Psychotherapy and the adoption of certain hygienic and behavioral measures can also help, such as using lubricant during sexual intercourse, wearing pure cotton underwear, and using gentle intimate body washes.”

“It is important that family doctors who see women with this problem refer them to an experienced specialist,” said Dr. Belfiore.

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

This article was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network.

Vulvodynia is a little-known condition that, according to some U.S. studies, affects 3%-14% of the female population. It is defined as chronic pain, present for at least 3 months, that generally involves the vulva or some of its specific areas such as the clitoris or vestibule and is not attributable to causes of an infectious, inflammatory, oncologic, or endocrine nature; skin trauma; or damage to nerve fibers.
 

“There are probably many more women who suffer from it who don’t talk about it out of shame, because they feel ‘wrong,’ ” said gynecologist Pina Belfiore, MD, chair of the Italian Interdisciplinary Society of Vulvology, at the annual conference of the Italian Society of Gender Medicine in Neurosciences. “It is a treatable condition, or at the very least, a patient’s quality of life can be significantly improved with a personalized therapeutic approach.”
 

The correct diagnosis

The first step for setting the patient on the right course toward recovery is to offer welcome and empathy, recognizing that the suffering, which can have psychological causes, is not imaginary. “We need to explain to patients that their condition has a name, that they are not alone in this situation, and, above all, that there is hope for solving the problem. They can get through it,” said Dr. Belfiore.

First, an accurate history of the pain is needed to correctly diagnose vulvodynia. How long has the pain been going on? Is it continuous or is it triggered by an environmental factor, for example by sexual intercourse or contact with underwear? Is it a burning or stinging sensation? Did it first occur after an infection or after a physical or psychological trauma? Does the patient suffer from other forms of chronic pain such as recurring headaches or fibromyalgia?

“It is then necessary to inspect the vulva to exclude other systematic conditions or injuries that may be responsible for the pain, as well as to locate hypersensitive areas and evaluate the intensity of the symptoms,” said Dr. Belfiore.” A swab test is performed for this purpose, which is carried out by applying light pressure on different points of the vulva with a cotton swab.”
 

CNS dysfunction

Vulvodynia is not a direct condition of the vulva. Instead, it involves the dysfunction of the central nervous system (CNS), which confuses signals coming from the peripheral area, interpreting signals of a different nature as painful stimuli.

“The origin of this dysfunction is an individual predisposition. In fact, often the women who suffer from it are also affected by other forms of chronic pain,” said Dr. Belfiore. “Triggers for vulvodynia can be bacterial infections, candidiasis, or traumatic events such as surgically assisted birth or psychological trauma.”

Because inflammatory mechanisms are not involved, anti-inflammatory drugs are not helpful in treating the problem. “Instead, it is necessary to reduce the sensitivity of the CNS. For this purpose, low-dose antidepressant or antiepileptic drugs are used,” said Dr. Belfiore. “Pelvic floor rehabilitation is another treatment that can be beneficial when combined with pharmacologic treatment. This should be conducted by a professional with specific experience in vulvodynia, because an excessive increase in the tone of the levator ani muscle can make the situation worse. Psychotherapy and the adoption of certain hygienic and behavioral measures can also help, such as using lubricant during sexual intercourse, wearing pure cotton underwear, and using gentle intimate body washes.”

“It is important that family doctors who see women with this problem refer them to an experienced specialist,” said Dr. Belfiore.

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

This article was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network.

A targeted genetic sequencing strategy effectively identified homologous recombination DNA repair deficiency in ovarian cancer patients, and may eventually help predict treatment response, a study suggests.

Previous research has identified homologous recombination DNA repair deficiency (HRD) as a biomarker for sensitivity to poly( ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) and platinum-based therapies in patients with ovarian and breast cancers, wrote Niklas Krumm, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues.

Currently, direct genetic testing is the most widely used method to identify mutations in HRD-associated genes, but not all genes underlying HDD have been identified, therefore current HRD assays that don’t rely on gene-specific information have been considered more diagnostically useful, the researchers noted. Two genetic tests are approved by the Food and Drug Administration, which are the FoundationFocus CDX BRCA and myChoice CDx, the researchers wrote. The Foundation Focus CDX BRCA was approved in 2016, and myChoice CDx was approved in 2019.

“However, transparent, well-defined methods and criteria for diagnosing HRD by genomic scarring that are practical for smaller, academic, or private laboratories have not yet been established or widely implemented,” they said.

In the paper published in JCO Precision Oncology, the researchers said they developed a molecular testing strategy involving the use of common, polymorphic single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs).

They used a panel of approximately 3,000 SNPs distributed across the genome to create a loss of heterozygosity (LOH) score that could identify HRD.

To determine the ability of LOH to diagnose HRD in ovarian cancers, the researchers examined 99 ovarian neoplasm–normal pairs using the LOH method, and compared results with patient mutational genotypes and HRD predictors. LOH scores of 11% or higher showed greater than 86% sensitivity for identifying tumors with HRD-causing mutations in an independent validation set, and a sensitivity of 90.9% across training and validation sets.

When LOH scores were compared to a validated genome-wide mutational signature assay (HRDetect) the sensitivity and specificity of an LOH score of 11% or higher were estimated at 96.7% and 50%, respectively, for determining HRD-positive tumors.

However, the researchers found poor concordance (statistically insignificant correlation) using their LOH capture design to diagnose HRD based on mutational signatures only from targeted regions. “We conclude that mutational signatures inferred from our diagnostic tumor panel are unable to accurately ascertain HRD status, likely because the absolute number of somatic variants that it is able to identify is insufficient,” they said.

LOH scores were not significantly correlated with treatment outcomes, which suggests that LOH score can be used to infer HRD status, rather than serving as a direct predictor of patient response to primary platinum therapy, the researchers said. The average LOH score was higher in patients whose cancers responded to platinum therapy than in those with no treatment response (17% vs. 15%) but this difference was not significant.


 

Study limitations

The research was limited by several factors, including the validation only for high-grade non–clear cell ovarian carcinomas, and LOH scores likely vary across cancer types, therefore more studies will be needed to optimize the strategy for different cancers, the researchers noted. Other potential limitations include the high level of tumor cellularity needed (30%), which will eliminate some specimens, they said.

Finally, the poor predictive value of LOH itself for treatment outcomes suggests a limitation of the HRD biomarker in this respect, the researchers concluded.
 

Potential advantages of using LOH method

However, the potential advantages of the LOH method include the minimal sequence reads and the ability to integrate the LOH into current targeted gene capture workflows, the researchers wrote, and the LOH score appears to be a reliable predictor of HRD positivity.

“Although we have found that the regions targeted by our assay are insufficient to identify HRD-associated mutational signatures, future refinements to this approach could integrate minimal additional sequencing targets designed to robustly identify such signatures in concert with LOH events,” they concluded.
 

Study shares the details of detection methodology

“Tumors with HRD are sensitive to certain cancer chemotherapeutic agents [PARP inhibitors],” said Dr. Krumm, in an interview. “Until recently, HR-deficient tumors were primarily identified via inactivating BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations, but now it is understood that an entire repair pathway can be affected and can result in HRD. Therefore, we sought to implement an NGS-based approach that could detect the ‘HRD phenotype’ in the DNA of tumors,” he said.

The approach developed by Dr. Krumm and colleagues and presented in the current study “is not the first in the field, as some commercial tests have similar approaches,” he said. However, the current study is important, “because it openly publishes the methodology and detailed results of our validation work in bringing HRD detection online in our clinical lab,” he said.

“One of the advantages of a genome-wide approach is that we can identify HR-deficient tumors, even when BRCA1 and BRCA2 do not have any detectable loss-of-function mutations,” said Dr. Krumm. “HRD detection is a relatively young test in the field of next-generation sequencing (NGS)–based cancer diagnostics. One of the challenges currently is the lack of large, standardized reference data sets or reference materials that can be used to compare tests and methodology in a clinical setting. We hope that by publishing our methods, more data sets can be generated and published,” he said.

Some specific challenges to using the test clinically today include the need for a paired tumor plus blood sample, and the need for a relatively high fraction of tumor content in the sample, Dr. Krumm noted.

“This test is currently being used in a clinical setting at the University of Washington, as it is a laboratory-developed test (LDT) and part of our clinically validated NGS platform,” said Dr. Krumm. “This test highlights how LDTs can advance clinical testing capabilities and improve the care of our patients and illustrates the UW Medicine position that LDTs are a necessary and important part of the clinical care. That said, we anticipate that additional validation studies, including long-term clinical effectiveness and outcome studies, will be required to bring HRD testing into a commercial platform that undergoes FDA review,” he explained.

The study was supported by the Brotman Baty Institute for Precision Medicine, the National Institutes of Health, and the Department of Defense, Ovarian Cancer Research Program Clinical Development Award. Dr. Krumm disclosed stock and ownership interests in Reference Genomics.

A targeted genetic sequencing strategy effectively identified homologous recombination DNA repair deficiency in ovarian cancer patients, and may eventually help predict treatment response, a study suggests.

Previous research has identified homologous recombination DNA repair deficiency (HRD) as a biomarker for sensitivity to poly( ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) and platinum-based therapies in patients with ovarian and breast cancers, wrote Niklas Krumm, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues.

Currently, direct genetic testing is the most widely used method to identify mutations in HRD-associated genes, but not all genes underlying HDD have been identified, therefore current HRD assays that don’t rely on gene-specific information have been considered more diagnostically useful, the researchers noted. Two genetic tests are approved by the Food and Drug Administration, which are the FoundationFocus CDX BRCA and myChoice CDx, the researchers wrote. The Foundation Focus CDX BRCA was approved in 2016, and myChoice CDx was approved in 2019.

“However, transparent, well-defined methods and criteria for diagnosing HRD by genomic scarring that are practical for smaller, academic, or private laboratories have not yet been established or widely implemented,” they said.

In the paper published in JCO Precision Oncology, the researchers said they developed a molecular testing strategy involving the use of common, polymorphic single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs).

They used a panel of approximately 3,000 SNPs distributed across the genome to create a loss of heterozygosity (LOH) score that could identify HRD.

To determine the ability of LOH to diagnose HRD in ovarian cancers, the researchers examined 99 ovarian neoplasm–normal pairs using the LOH method, and compared results with patient mutational genotypes and HRD predictors. LOH scores of 11% or higher showed greater than 86% sensitivity for identifying tumors with HRD-causing mutations in an independent validation set, and a sensitivity of 90.9% across training and validation sets.

When LOH scores were compared to a validated genome-wide mutational signature assay (HRDetect) the sensitivity and specificity of an LOH score of 11% or higher were estimated at 96.7% and 50%, respectively, for determining HRD-positive tumors.

However, the researchers found poor concordance (statistically insignificant correlation) using their LOH capture design to diagnose HRD based on mutational signatures only from targeted regions. “We conclude that mutational signatures inferred from our diagnostic tumor panel are unable to accurately ascertain HRD status, likely because the absolute number of somatic variants that it is able to identify is insufficient,” they said.

LOH scores were not significantly correlated with treatment outcomes, which suggests that LOH score can be used to infer HRD status, rather than serving as a direct predictor of patient response to primary platinum therapy, the researchers said. The average LOH score was higher in patients whose cancers responded to platinum therapy than in those with no treatment response (17% vs. 15%) but this difference was not significant.


 

Study limitations

The research was limited by several factors, including the validation only for high-grade non–clear cell ovarian carcinomas, and LOH scores likely vary across cancer types, therefore more studies will be needed to optimize the strategy for different cancers, the researchers noted. Other potential limitations include the high level of tumor cellularity needed (30%), which will eliminate some specimens, they said.

Finally, the poor predictive value of LOH itself for treatment outcomes suggests a limitation of the HRD biomarker in this respect, the researchers concluded.
 

Potential advantages of using LOH method

However, the potential advantages of the LOH method include the minimal sequence reads and the ability to integrate the LOH into current targeted gene capture workflows, the researchers wrote, and the LOH score appears to be a reliable predictor of HRD positivity.

“Although we have found that the regions targeted by our assay are insufficient to identify HRD-associated mutational signatures, future refinements to this approach could integrate minimal additional sequencing targets designed to robustly identify such signatures in concert with LOH events,” they concluded.
 

Study shares the details of detection methodology

“Tumors with HRD are sensitive to certain cancer chemotherapeutic agents [PARP inhibitors],” said Dr. Krumm, in an interview. “Until recently, HR-deficient tumors were primarily identified via inactivating BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations, but now it is understood that an entire repair pathway can be affected and can result in HRD. Therefore, we sought to implement an NGS-based approach that could detect the ‘HRD phenotype’ in the DNA of tumors,” he said.

The approach developed by Dr. Krumm and colleagues and presented in the current study “is not the first in the field, as some commercial tests have similar approaches,” he said. However, the current study is important, “because it openly publishes the methodology and detailed results of our validation work in bringing HRD detection online in our clinical lab,” he said.

“One of the advantages of a genome-wide approach is that we can identify HR-deficient tumors, even when BRCA1 and BRCA2 do not have any detectable loss-of-function mutations,” said Dr. Krumm. “HRD detection is a relatively young test in the field of next-generation sequencing (NGS)–based cancer diagnostics. One of the challenges currently is the lack of large, standardized reference data sets or reference materials that can be used to compare tests and methodology in a clinical setting. We hope that by publishing our methods, more data sets can be generated and published,” he said.

Some specific challenges to using the test clinically today include the need for a paired tumor plus blood sample, and the need for a relatively high fraction of tumor content in the sample, Dr. Krumm noted.

“This test is currently being used in a clinical setting at the University of Washington, as it is a laboratory-developed test (LDT) and part of our clinically validated NGS platform,” said Dr. Krumm. “This test highlights how LDTs can advance clinical testing capabilities and improve the care of our patients and illustrates the UW Medicine position that LDTs are a necessary and important part of the clinical care. That said, we anticipate that additional validation studies, including long-term clinical effectiveness and outcome studies, will be required to bring HRD testing into a commercial platform that undergoes FDA review,” he explained.

The study was supported by the Brotman Baty Institute for Precision Medicine, the National Institutes of Health, and the Department of Defense, Ovarian Cancer Research Program Clinical Development Award. Dr. Krumm disclosed stock and ownership interests in Reference Genomics.

A targeted genetic sequencing strategy effectively identified homologous recombination DNA repair deficiency in ovarian cancer patients, and may eventually help predict treatment response, a study suggests.

Previous research has identified homologous recombination DNA repair deficiency (HRD) as a biomarker for sensitivity to poly( ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) and platinum-based therapies in patients with ovarian and breast cancers, wrote Niklas Krumm, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues.

Currently, direct genetic testing is the most widely used method to identify mutations in HRD-associated genes, but not all genes underlying HDD have been identified, therefore current HRD assays that don’t rely on gene-specific information have been considered more diagnostically useful, the researchers noted. Two genetic tests are approved by the Food and Drug Administration, which are the FoundationFocus CDX BRCA and myChoice CDx, the researchers wrote. The Foundation Focus CDX BRCA was approved in 2016, and myChoice CDx was approved in 2019.

“However, transparent, well-defined methods and criteria for diagnosing HRD by genomic scarring that are practical for smaller, academic, or private laboratories have not yet been established or widely implemented,” they said.

In the paper published in JCO Precision Oncology, the researchers said they developed a molecular testing strategy involving the use of common, polymorphic single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs).

They used a panel of approximately 3,000 SNPs distributed across the genome to create a loss of heterozygosity (LOH) score that could identify HRD.

To determine the ability of LOH to diagnose HRD in ovarian cancers, the researchers examined 99 ovarian neoplasm–normal pairs using the LOH method, and compared results with patient mutational genotypes and HRD predictors. LOH scores of 11% or higher showed greater than 86% sensitivity for identifying tumors with HRD-causing mutations in an independent validation set, and a sensitivity of 90.9% across training and validation sets.

When LOH scores were compared to a validated genome-wide mutational signature assay (HRDetect) the sensitivity and specificity of an LOH score of 11% or higher were estimated at 96.7% and 50%, respectively, for determining HRD-positive tumors.

However, the researchers found poor concordance (statistically insignificant correlation) using their LOH capture design to diagnose HRD based on mutational signatures only from targeted regions. “We conclude that mutational signatures inferred from our diagnostic tumor panel are unable to accurately ascertain HRD status, likely because the absolute number of somatic variants that it is able to identify is insufficient,” they said.

LOH scores were not significantly correlated with treatment outcomes, which suggests that LOH score can be used to infer HRD status, rather than serving as a direct predictor of patient response to primary platinum therapy, the researchers said. The average LOH score was higher in patients whose cancers responded to platinum therapy than in those with no treatment response (17% vs. 15%) but this difference was not significant.


 

Study limitations

The research was limited by several factors, including the validation only for high-grade non–clear cell ovarian carcinomas, and LOH scores likely vary across cancer types, therefore more studies will be needed to optimize the strategy for different cancers, the researchers noted. Other potential limitations include the high level of tumor cellularity needed (30%), which will eliminate some specimens, they said.

Finally, the poor predictive value of LOH itself for treatment outcomes suggests a limitation of the HRD biomarker in this respect, the researchers concluded.
 

Potential advantages of using LOH method

However, the potential advantages of the LOH method include the minimal sequence reads and the ability to integrate the LOH into current targeted gene capture workflows, the researchers wrote, and the LOH score appears to be a reliable predictor of HRD positivity.

“Although we have found that the regions targeted by our assay are insufficient to identify HRD-associated mutational signatures, future refinements to this approach could integrate minimal additional sequencing targets designed to robustly identify such signatures in concert with LOH events,” they concluded.
 

Study shares the details of detection methodology

“Tumors with HRD are sensitive to certain cancer chemotherapeutic agents [PARP inhibitors],” said Dr. Krumm, in an interview. “Until recently, HR-deficient tumors were primarily identified via inactivating BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations, but now it is understood that an entire repair pathway can be affected and can result in HRD. Therefore, we sought to implement an NGS-based approach that could detect the ‘HRD phenotype’ in the DNA of tumors,” he said.

The approach developed by Dr. Krumm and colleagues and presented in the current study “is not the first in the field, as some commercial tests have similar approaches,” he said. However, the current study is important, “because it openly publishes the methodology and detailed results of our validation work in bringing HRD detection online in our clinical lab,” he said.

“One of the advantages of a genome-wide approach is that we can identify HR-deficient tumors, even when BRCA1 and BRCA2 do not have any detectable loss-of-function mutations,” said Dr. Krumm. “HRD detection is a relatively young test in the field of next-generation sequencing (NGS)–based cancer diagnostics. One of the challenges currently is the lack of large, standardized reference data sets or reference materials that can be used to compare tests and methodology in a clinical setting. We hope that by publishing our methods, more data sets can be generated and published,” he said.

Some specific challenges to using the test clinically today include the need for a paired tumor plus blood sample, and the need for a relatively high fraction of tumor content in the sample, Dr. Krumm noted.

“This test is currently being used in a clinical setting at the University of Washington, as it is a laboratory-developed test (LDT) and part of our clinically validated NGS platform,” said Dr. Krumm. “This test highlights how LDTs can advance clinical testing capabilities and improve the care of our patients and illustrates the UW Medicine position that LDTs are a necessary and important part of the clinical care. That said, we anticipate that additional validation studies, including long-term clinical effectiveness and outcome studies, will be required to bring HRD testing into a commercial platform that undergoes FDA review,” he explained.

The study was supported by the Brotman Baty Institute for Precision Medicine, the National Institutes of Health, and the Department of Defense, Ovarian Cancer Research Program Clinical Development Award. Dr. Krumm disclosed stock and ownership interests in Reference Genomics.

CHICAGO – In the phase 3 MIRASOL study, the antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) mirvetuximab soravtansine-gynx (MIRV, Elahere, ImmunoGen) produced an overall survival benefit in women with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer.

The conclusion of this study marks the first time that a novel therapy has demonstrated an overall survival (OS) improvement in any phase 3 trial in this population, according to lead investigator Kathleen Moore, MD.

“We believe these data are practice changing and position mirvetuximab [soravtansine] as the new standard of care for patients with folate receptor–alpha positive, platinum-resistant ovarian cancer,” said Dr. Moore during a presentation of the study at a special session of the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology devoted solely to the MIRASOL study.
 

New standard of care

Following Dr. Moore’s presentation, Roisin Eilish O’Cearbhaill, MD, served as a discussant, and she confirmed the trial’s importance.

“It has firmly established the role of mirvetuximab [soravtansine] in folate receptor–alpha high-expression, platinum-resistant ovarian cancer,” said Dr. O’Cearbhaill, who is Research director of the gynecologic medical oncology service and clinical director of the solid tumor, cellular therapy service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.

Mirvetuximab soravtansine received accelerated FDA approval in November based on the results of the single-arm SORAYA trial, which demonstrated a progression-free survival (PFS) benefit in platinum-resistant patients who had been previously treated with one to three treatment regimens, at least one of which having included bevacizumab.

The new study compared MIRV with physician choice chemotherapy and found both a PFS and OS benefit in the MIRV arm. The results garnered significant enthusiasm from the audience, and others reacted positively as well.

“The results that she presented are just astounding, with a significant improvement in both progression-free and overall survival. I think certainly the overall survival needs to be highlighted here, because this is a patient population that’s notoriously difficult to treat,” said Ana Valente, MD, a gynecologic oncologist at the Ochsner Health System in New Orleans. Dr. Valente, who did not attend the presentation but was asked to comment on the study, is also a member of the Society of Gynecological Oncologist communications committee.

Unlike SORAYA, MIRASOL was open to patients who had not received bevacizumab, and Dr. Moore and colleagues found similar survival benefits in patients who had not received bevacizumab as in those who had, said Dr. Moore, who is the associate director of clinical research at Stephenson Cancer Center and director of the Oklahoma TSET Phase 1 Program, both in Oklahoma City. This opens the possibility of using MIRV instead of bevacizumab combined with chemotherapy in platinum-resistant patients.

“I think this data really shows you can move right to mirvetuximab [soravtansine] and feel pretty solid about the decision in a biomarker selected [population],” Dr. Moore said, during an interview.
 

Not just for high expression levels

MIRASOL was restricted to patients with high levels of expression of folate receptor–alpha, which is MIRV’s target on the surface of tumor cells. High expression is defined as at least 75% of viable tumor cells exhibiting a minimum of 2+ level membrane staining intensity by immunohistochemistry. That represents about 35% of patients, according to Dr. Moore, but she said that the drug also shows promise in patients with medium levels of folate receptor–alpha expression.

“I think it’s just going to be now starting to get those label extension studies launched to branch it out. Then you account for 60% of your population which [have] medium to high [expression levels], and that’s really where you see benefit,” said Dr. Moore. Medium expression levels of folate receptor–alpha are defined as 50% to greater than 75% of tumor cells with 2+ level membrane staining intensity.

She also noted that the FORWARD II trial combining mirvetuximab soravtansine with bevacizumab in platinum-resistant ovarian cancer is showing good results.

“We have really beautiful data [from FORWARD II]. If I have a medium expresser, I’m using the doublet [of MIRV and bevacizumab], and it works,” said Dr. Moore, while also pointing out that this remains an off-label use.

It’s possible that the drug could be extended even to low expression levels, defined as 25% to less than 50% of tumor cells with 2+ level membrane staining intensity. “[We are] currently working on that strategy with already available data,” said Dr. Moore.

She speculated that the improved OS may be attributed to the reduced toxicity of MIRV, compared with chemotherapy agents, which leaves patients feeling better and more able to pursue other treatments, which in turn may increase survival odds.

Dr. O’Cearbhaill touted the benefits of ADCs and their ability to target powerful cytotoxic agents while limiting side effects, and she is looking forward to more new therapies on the horizon.

“There are four [ADCs] in late stages of development [for platinum-resistant ovarian cancer], so hopefully there will be other ones coming online as well,” Dr. O’Cearbhaill said in an interview. “Then we’ll have to figure out how to sequence them, which drug will be best in class. Will we be just giving one or will be giving ADC followed by ADC?”
 

Study methods and results

The study enrolled 453 patients and randomized them to treatment with MIRV or investigator’s choice of chemotherapy, which could be paclitaxel, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, or topotecan. The MIRV dose was 6 mg/kg adjusted ideal body weight every 3 weeks. The median age was 62 in the chemotherapy arm and 63 years in the MIRV arm. About 63% of the chemotherapy arm had prior bevacizumab exposure, as did 61% of the MIRV arm.

Median PFS was 5.62 months in the MIRV arm and 3.98 months in the chemotherapy arm (hazard ratio, 0.65; P less than .0001). The overall response rate was 42% in the MIRV arm and 16% in the chemotherapy arm (P < .0001).

The safety outcomes also favored MIRV: 42% experienced grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) versus 54% in the chemotherapy group. Severe adverse events were also lower in MIRV, 24% versus 33%. Just 9% of patients in the MIRV discontinued because of TEAEs, compared with 16% in the chemotherapy arm.

MIRV was associated with blurred vision (41%), keratopathy (32%), and dry eye (28%), but these issues were generally manageable through collaboration with optometrists or ophthalmologists.

Dr. Moore and Dr. O’Cearbhaill reported receiving honoraria, research funding, and travel expenses from numerous pharmaceutical companies. Dr. O’Cearbhaill has consulted for or advised Aptitude Health, Bayer, Carina Biotech, Fresenius Kabi, GlaxoSmithKline, GOG Foundation, Immunogen, R-Pharm, Regeneron, and Seagen.

CHICAGO – In the phase 3 MIRASOL study, the antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) mirvetuximab soravtansine-gynx (MIRV, Elahere, ImmunoGen) produced an overall survival benefit in women with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer.

The conclusion of this study marks the first time that a novel therapy has demonstrated an overall survival (OS) improvement in any phase 3 trial in this population, according to lead investigator Kathleen Moore, MD.

“We believe these data are practice changing and position mirvetuximab [soravtansine] as the new standard of care for patients with folate receptor–alpha positive, platinum-resistant ovarian cancer,” said Dr. Moore during a presentation of the study at a special session of the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology devoted solely to the MIRASOL study.
 

New standard of care

Following Dr. Moore’s presentation, Roisin Eilish O’Cearbhaill, MD, served as a discussant, and she confirmed the trial’s importance.

“It has firmly established the role of mirvetuximab [soravtansine] in folate receptor–alpha high-expression, platinum-resistant ovarian cancer,” said Dr. O’Cearbhaill, who is Research director of the gynecologic medical oncology service and clinical director of the solid tumor, cellular therapy service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.

Mirvetuximab soravtansine received accelerated FDA approval in November based on the results of the single-arm SORAYA trial, which demonstrated a progression-free survival (PFS) benefit in platinum-resistant patients who had been previously treated with one to three treatment regimens, at least one of which having included bevacizumab.

The new study compared MIRV with physician choice chemotherapy and found both a PFS and OS benefit in the MIRV arm. The results garnered significant enthusiasm from the audience, and others reacted positively as well.

“The results that she presented are just astounding, with a significant improvement in both progression-free and overall survival. I think certainly the overall survival needs to be highlighted here, because this is a patient population that’s notoriously difficult to treat,” said Ana Valente, MD, a gynecologic oncologist at the Ochsner Health System in New Orleans. Dr. Valente, who did not attend the presentation but was asked to comment on the study, is also a member of the Society of Gynecological Oncologist communications committee.

Unlike SORAYA, MIRASOL was open to patients who had not received bevacizumab, and Dr. Moore and colleagues found similar survival benefits in patients who had not received bevacizumab as in those who had, said Dr. Moore, who is the associate director of clinical research at Stephenson Cancer Center and director of the Oklahoma TSET Phase 1 Program, both in Oklahoma City. This opens the possibility of using MIRV instead of bevacizumab combined with chemotherapy in platinum-resistant patients.

“I think this data really shows you can move right to mirvetuximab [soravtansine] and feel pretty solid about the decision in a biomarker selected [population],” Dr. Moore said, during an interview.
 

Not just for high expression levels

MIRASOL was restricted to patients with high levels of expression of folate receptor–alpha, which is MIRV’s target on the surface of tumor cells. High expression is defined as at least 75% of viable tumor cells exhibiting a minimum of 2+ level membrane staining intensity by immunohistochemistry. That represents about 35% of patients, according to Dr. Moore, but she said that the drug also shows promise in patients with medium levels of folate receptor–alpha expression.

“I think it’s just going to be now starting to get those label extension studies launched to branch it out. Then you account for 60% of your population which [have] medium to high [expression levels], and that’s really where you see benefit,” said Dr. Moore. Medium expression levels of folate receptor–alpha are defined as 50% to greater than 75% of tumor cells with 2+ level membrane staining intensity.

She also noted that the FORWARD II trial combining mirvetuximab soravtansine with bevacizumab in platinum-resistant ovarian cancer is showing good results.

“We have really beautiful data [from FORWARD II]. If I have a medium expresser, I’m using the doublet [of MIRV and bevacizumab], and it works,” said Dr. Moore, while also pointing out that this remains an off-label use.

It’s possible that the drug could be extended even to low expression levels, defined as 25% to less than 50% of tumor cells with 2+ level membrane staining intensity. “[We are] currently working on that strategy with already available data,” said Dr. Moore.

She speculated that the improved OS may be attributed to the reduced toxicity of MIRV, compared with chemotherapy agents, which leaves patients feeling better and more able to pursue other treatments, which in turn may increase survival odds.

Dr. O’Cearbhaill touted the benefits of ADCs and their ability to target powerful cytotoxic agents while limiting side effects, and she is looking forward to more new therapies on the horizon.

“There are four [ADCs] in late stages of development [for platinum-resistant ovarian cancer], so hopefully there will be other ones coming online as well,” Dr. O’Cearbhaill said in an interview. “Then we’ll have to figure out how to sequence them, which drug will be best in class. Will we be just giving one or will be giving ADC followed by ADC?”
 

Study methods and results

The study enrolled 453 patients and randomized them to treatment with MIRV or investigator’s choice of chemotherapy, which could be paclitaxel, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, or topotecan. The MIRV dose was 6 mg/kg adjusted ideal body weight every 3 weeks. The median age was 62 in the chemotherapy arm and 63 years in the MIRV arm. About 63% of the chemotherapy arm had prior bevacizumab exposure, as did 61% of the MIRV arm.

Median PFS was 5.62 months in the MIRV arm and 3.98 months in the chemotherapy arm (hazard ratio, 0.65; P less than .0001). The overall response rate was 42% in the MIRV arm and 16% in the chemotherapy arm (P < .0001).

The safety outcomes also favored MIRV: 42% experienced grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) versus 54% in the chemotherapy group. Severe adverse events were also lower in MIRV, 24% versus 33%. Just 9% of patients in the MIRV discontinued because of TEAEs, compared with 16% in the chemotherapy arm.

MIRV was associated with blurred vision (41%), keratopathy (32%), and dry eye (28%), but these issues were generally manageable through collaboration with optometrists or ophthalmologists.

Dr. Moore and Dr. O’Cearbhaill reported receiving honoraria, research funding, and travel expenses from numerous pharmaceutical companies. Dr. O’Cearbhaill has consulted for or advised Aptitude Health, Bayer, Carina Biotech, Fresenius Kabi, GlaxoSmithKline, GOG Foundation, Immunogen, R-Pharm, Regeneron, and Seagen.

CHICAGO – In the phase 3 MIRASOL study, the antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) mirvetuximab soravtansine-gynx (MIRV, Elahere, ImmunoGen) produced an overall survival benefit in women with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer.

The conclusion of this study marks the first time that a novel therapy has demonstrated an overall survival (OS) improvement in any phase 3 trial in this population, according to lead investigator Kathleen Moore, MD.

“We believe these data are practice changing and position mirvetuximab [soravtansine] as the new standard of care for patients with folate receptor–alpha positive, platinum-resistant ovarian cancer,” said Dr. Moore during a presentation of the study at a special session of the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology devoted solely to the MIRASOL study.
 

New standard of care

Following Dr. Moore’s presentation, Roisin Eilish O’Cearbhaill, MD, served as a discussant, and she confirmed the trial’s importance.

“It has firmly established the role of mirvetuximab [soravtansine] in folate receptor–alpha high-expression, platinum-resistant ovarian cancer,” said Dr. O’Cearbhaill, who is Research director of the gynecologic medical oncology service and clinical director of the solid tumor, cellular therapy service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.

Mirvetuximab soravtansine received accelerated FDA approval in November based on the results of the single-arm SORAYA trial, which demonstrated a progression-free survival (PFS) benefit in platinum-resistant patients who had been previously treated with one to three treatment regimens, at least one of which having included bevacizumab.

The new study compared MIRV with physician choice chemotherapy and found both a PFS and OS benefit in the MIRV arm. The results garnered significant enthusiasm from the audience, and others reacted positively as well.

“The results that she presented are just astounding, with a significant improvement in both progression-free and overall survival. I think certainly the overall survival needs to be highlighted here, because this is a patient population that’s notoriously difficult to treat,” said Ana Valente, MD, a gynecologic oncologist at the Ochsner Health System in New Orleans. Dr. Valente, who did not attend the presentation but was asked to comment on the study, is also a member of the Society of Gynecological Oncologist communications committee.

Unlike SORAYA, MIRASOL was open to patients who had not received bevacizumab, and Dr. Moore and colleagues found similar survival benefits in patients who had not received bevacizumab as in those who had, said Dr. Moore, who is the associate director of clinical research at Stephenson Cancer Center and director of the Oklahoma TSET Phase 1 Program, both in Oklahoma City. This opens the possibility of using MIRV instead of bevacizumab combined with chemotherapy in platinum-resistant patients.

“I think this data really shows you can move right to mirvetuximab [soravtansine] and feel pretty solid about the decision in a biomarker selected [population],” Dr. Moore said, during an interview.
 

Not just for high expression levels

MIRASOL was restricted to patients with high levels of expression of folate receptor–alpha, which is MIRV’s target on the surface of tumor cells. High expression is defined as at least 75% of viable tumor cells exhibiting a minimum of 2+ level membrane staining intensity by immunohistochemistry. That represents about 35% of patients, according to Dr. Moore, but she said that the drug also shows promise in patients with medium levels of folate receptor–alpha expression.

“I think it’s just going to be now starting to get those label extension studies launched to branch it out. Then you account for 60% of your population which [have] medium to high [expression levels], and that’s really where you see benefit,” said Dr. Moore. Medium expression levels of folate receptor–alpha are defined as 50% to greater than 75% of tumor cells with 2+ level membrane staining intensity.

She also noted that the FORWARD II trial combining mirvetuximab soravtansine with bevacizumab in platinum-resistant ovarian cancer is showing good results.

“We have really beautiful data [from FORWARD II]. If I have a medium expresser, I’m using the doublet [of MIRV and bevacizumab], and it works,” said Dr. Moore, while also pointing out that this remains an off-label use.

It’s possible that the drug could be extended even to low expression levels, defined as 25% to less than 50% of tumor cells with 2+ level membrane staining intensity. “[We are] currently working on that strategy with already available data,” said Dr. Moore.

She speculated that the improved OS may be attributed to the reduced toxicity of MIRV, compared with chemotherapy agents, which leaves patients feeling better and more able to pursue other treatments, which in turn may increase survival odds.

Dr. O’Cearbhaill touted the benefits of ADCs and their ability to target powerful cytotoxic agents while limiting side effects, and she is looking forward to more new therapies on the horizon.

“There are four [ADCs] in late stages of development [for platinum-resistant ovarian cancer], so hopefully there will be other ones coming online as well,” Dr. O’Cearbhaill said in an interview. “Then we’ll have to figure out how to sequence them, which drug will be best in class. Will we be just giving one or will be giving ADC followed by ADC?”
 

Study methods and results

The study enrolled 453 patients and randomized them to treatment with MIRV or investigator’s choice of chemotherapy, which could be paclitaxel, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, or topotecan. The MIRV dose was 6 mg/kg adjusted ideal body weight every 3 weeks. The median age was 62 in the chemotherapy arm and 63 years in the MIRV arm. About 63% of the chemotherapy arm had prior bevacizumab exposure, as did 61% of the MIRV arm.

Median PFS was 5.62 months in the MIRV arm and 3.98 months in the chemotherapy arm (hazard ratio, 0.65; P less than .0001). The overall response rate was 42% in the MIRV arm and 16% in the chemotherapy arm (P < .0001).

The safety outcomes also favored MIRV: 42% experienced grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) versus 54% in the chemotherapy group. Severe adverse events were also lower in MIRV, 24% versus 33%. Just 9% of patients in the MIRV discontinued because of TEAEs, compared with 16% in the chemotherapy arm.

MIRV was associated with blurred vision (41%), keratopathy (32%), and dry eye (28%), but these issues were generally manageable through collaboration with optometrists or ophthalmologists.

Dr. Moore and Dr. O’Cearbhaill reported receiving honoraria, research funding, and travel expenses from numerous pharmaceutical companies. Dr. O’Cearbhaill has consulted for or advised Aptitude Health, Bayer, Carina Biotech, Fresenius Kabi, GlaxoSmithKline, GOG Foundation, Immunogen, R-Pharm, Regeneron, and Seagen.

BALTIMORE – Poor prenatal sleep may increase the risk of postpartum depression, and prenatal depression may reduce the likelihood of mothers coming to their prenatal appointments, according to research presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Together, the two studies suggest that commonly overlooked experiences in the prenatal period can have negative effects down the line if clinicians aren’t asking patients about them and addressing the issue.

”I think the national conversation around mental health in general will hopefully carry us forward to better supporting the patients who are coming in with preexisting conditions,” lead author Minnie Jang, a 4th-year medical student at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview.

Most of the attention on mood disorders of pregnancy focus on the postpartum period, but preexisting or new-onset depression during pregnancy deserves more attention, Ms. Jang told attendees. ACOG recommends that clinicians screen all patients at least once during the perinatal period, but that could be anywhere from early pregnancy to the postpartum period. Ms. Jang would like to see recommendations addressing both early pregnancy and the postpartum period.

“I think there’s this framing that postpartum depression is a distinct entity from other mental health conditions whereas it’s really part of a continuum,” Ms. Jang said in an interview.

She retrospectively analyzed the medical records of all pregnant women who completed the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) during their first or second trimesters between 2002 and 2021 at Johns Hopkins Hospital. Among the 718 women who were screened in early pregnancy, 44.6% were Black or African American, 39.7% were white, and 15.7% were of a different race. Nearly all (94%) were not Hispanic/Latino.

Most (59%) were partnered, employed (68%), and had private insurance (58%). Only 7% used tobacco while 11% used alcohol and 6% used illicit drugs.

Twelve percent of the patients scored positive for depression, with a score of at least 10 or an affirmative answer to question 10 regarding self-harm. These women tended to be younger (P = .034), with an median age of 28 at their first visit versus 31 for those who screened negative, and were more likely to be publicly insured (P = .013) and without a partner (P = .005).

Patients who screened positive were more likely to have a history of substance use or history of a previous psychiatric diagnosis (P < .0001 for both). In addition, more patients who screened positive (49%) than those who screened negative (26%) had fetal complications (P < .001).

”There are some interesting subgroups of patients who are screening positive for depressive symptoms early on in pregnancy,” Ms. Jang said. Some come into pregnancy with preexisting mental health conditions while others have situational depressive symptoms, such as the subgroup referred to social work who had diagnosed fetal complications, she said. “Then there’s a whole other group of patients who are developing new symptoms during pregnancy.”

Patients who screened positive tended to start prenatal care later, at a median 12.3 weeks gestational age, than patients who screened negative, at a median 10.7 weeks gestational age (P = .002), the analysis found.

The number of routine prenatal care visits did not significantly differ between those who screened positive and those who screened negative, but patients with positive depression screens were almost half as likely to complete glucose tolerance testing (odds ratio, 0.6) or group B streptococcus testing (OR, 0.56) after adjusting for insurance status, gravidity, and gestational age at the patient’s first visit.

The researchers also identified a significant positive association between higher EPDS scores and the number of labor and delivery triage visits (P = .006). There were no significant differences in the rates of Tdap vaccination or screening for sexually transmitted infections between the two groups.
 

Poor sleep linked to later depression

The other study was prospective, using data from the PATCH Prenatal Care and Maternal and Child Health Outcomes study, which initially “compared health outcomes and satisfaction with prenatal care between patients receiving Centering Pregnancy group prenatal care and patients receiving traditional prenatal care,” the authors explained. This secondary analysis looked at sleep problems and postpartum depression.

“We don’t routinely ask patients about sleep or screen patients for sleeping issues,” lead author Carolyn Sinow, MD, a 4th-year resident at Kaiser Permanente Santa Clara (Calif.) Medical Center, said in an interview. “I think that we need to take sleep complaints more seriously overall, especially in early pregnancy.” While sleep problems in the third trimester often have more to do with discomforts from pregnancy itself, better sleep “in the first and second trimester is something we can really target with good sleep hygiene,” she added.

The 336 pregnant participants were recruited from Health Connect as long as they had a singleton pregnancy, were receiving prenatal care from Kaiser Permanente Northern California, and completed baseline questionnaires about their sleep and depression and anxiety symptoms during their first trimester between August 2020 and April 2021. Those with clinical depression or a high-risk pregnancy were excluded. The participants then completed the questionnaires again between 4 and 8 weeks post partum.

After adjusting for baseline depression and potential confounders, patients with poor sleep quality, indicated by a score greater than 5 on the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), were 12% more likely to develop postpartum depression, indicated by a score on the Patient Health Questionnaire depression scale (PHQ-8) of 10 or greater (relative risk, 1.12; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.25).

The two aspects of sleep that specifically correlated with postpartum depression were sleep quality and sleep latency, or taking a long time to fall asleep. Those reporting poor sleep quality were twice as likely to develop postpartum depression (relative risk, 2.18; 95% CI, 1.22-3.91), and those who took a while to fall asleep were 52% more likely to develop postpartum depression (RR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.06-2.17).

Though the study also found prenatal sleep problems correlated with higher postpartum anxiety scores on the General Anxiety Disorder scale (GAD-7), the results were not statistically significant.

Kathleen Morrell, MD, MPH, an ob.gyn. in New York, was not involved in the study and said she was surprised it wasn’t something that had been studied much before because it makes sense.

“I always like it when studies confirm what we think should make sense, so it’s nice to see it,” Dr. Morrell said in an interview. “I think anytime you put something out, research it, and define it with numbers for doctors, that sometimes allows us to [realize], ‘Oh, that’s probably something we should be paying more attention to, especially if we have available treatments for it,’” she added.

“The clinical takeaway is that we really need to be screening for sleep pattern disruptions early in pregnancy, because even though it makes logical sense, it might not be something on our radar to think about,” Dr. Morrell said. “If people aren’t sleeping, well, their mental health is negatively affected.”

The most promising therapy for sleep issues currently is cognitive-behavioral therapy, which can accessed through various apps, Dr. Sinow said in an interview. “There are also safe interventions, such as melatonin and Unisom, that are totally safe in pregnancy that we can use to target sleep in early pregnancy.”

Dr. Morrell added that vitamin B6, often taken for nausea and vomiting during pregnancy, can also sometimes help people sleep and is safe during pregnancy.

“We know that postpartum depression does not necessarily only have a negative effect on the mother, but also has a negative effect on the infant and the family dynamic as well,” Dr. Morrell said. “So, we should be looking and screening for it so that we can offer people potential treatment because we know it can have long-term effects.”

Ms. Jang and Dr. Sinow did not have any disclosures. Dr. Morrell has done training for Nexplanon. Neither study noted external funding.

BALTIMORE – Poor prenatal sleep may increase the risk of postpartum depression, and prenatal depression may reduce the likelihood of mothers coming to their prenatal appointments, according to research presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Together, the two studies suggest that commonly overlooked experiences in the prenatal period can have negative effects down the line if clinicians aren’t asking patients about them and addressing the issue.

”I think the national conversation around mental health in general will hopefully carry us forward to better supporting the patients who are coming in with preexisting conditions,” lead author Minnie Jang, a 4th-year medical student at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview.

Most of the attention on mood disorders of pregnancy focus on the postpartum period, but preexisting or new-onset depression during pregnancy deserves more attention, Ms. Jang told attendees. ACOG recommends that clinicians screen all patients at least once during the perinatal period, but that could be anywhere from early pregnancy to the postpartum period. Ms. Jang would like to see recommendations addressing both early pregnancy and the postpartum period.

“I think there’s this framing that postpartum depression is a distinct entity from other mental health conditions whereas it’s really part of a continuum,” Ms. Jang said in an interview.

She retrospectively analyzed the medical records of all pregnant women who completed the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) during their first or second trimesters between 2002 and 2021 at Johns Hopkins Hospital. Among the 718 women who were screened in early pregnancy, 44.6% were Black or African American, 39.7% were white, and 15.7% were of a different race. Nearly all (94%) were not Hispanic/Latino.

Most (59%) were partnered, employed (68%), and had private insurance (58%). Only 7% used tobacco while 11% used alcohol and 6% used illicit drugs.

Twelve percent of the patients scored positive for depression, with a score of at least 10 or an affirmative answer to question 10 regarding self-harm. These women tended to be younger (P = .034), with an median age of 28 at their first visit versus 31 for those who screened negative, and were more likely to be publicly insured (P = .013) and without a partner (P = .005).

Patients who screened positive were more likely to have a history of substance use or history of a previous psychiatric diagnosis (P < .0001 for both). In addition, more patients who screened positive (49%) than those who screened negative (26%) had fetal complications (P < .001).

”There are some interesting subgroups of patients who are screening positive for depressive symptoms early on in pregnancy,” Ms. Jang said. Some come into pregnancy with preexisting mental health conditions while others have situational depressive symptoms, such as the subgroup referred to social work who had diagnosed fetal complications, she said. “Then there’s a whole other group of patients who are developing new symptoms during pregnancy.”

Patients who screened positive tended to start prenatal care later, at a median 12.3 weeks gestational age, than patients who screened negative, at a median 10.7 weeks gestational age (P = .002), the analysis found.

The number of routine prenatal care visits did not significantly differ between those who screened positive and those who screened negative, but patients with positive depression screens were almost half as likely to complete glucose tolerance testing (odds ratio, 0.6) or group B streptococcus testing (OR, 0.56) after adjusting for insurance status, gravidity, and gestational age at the patient’s first visit.

The researchers also identified a significant positive association between higher EPDS scores and the number of labor and delivery triage visits (P = .006). There were no significant differences in the rates of Tdap vaccination or screening for sexually transmitted infections between the two groups.
 

Poor sleep linked to later depression

The other study was prospective, using data from the PATCH Prenatal Care and Maternal and Child Health Outcomes study, which initially “compared health outcomes and satisfaction with prenatal care between patients receiving Centering Pregnancy group prenatal care and patients receiving traditional prenatal care,” the authors explained. This secondary analysis looked at sleep problems and postpartum depression.

“We don’t routinely ask patients about sleep or screen patients for sleeping issues,” lead author Carolyn Sinow, MD, a 4th-year resident at Kaiser Permanente Santa Clara (Calif.) Medical Center, said in an interview. “I think that we need to take sleep complaints more seriously overall, especially in early pregnancy.” While sleep problems in the third trimester often have more to do with discomforts from pregnancy itself, better sleep “in the first and second trimester is something we can really target with good sleep hygiene,” she added.

The 336 pregnant participants were recruited from Health Connect as long as they had a singleton pregnancy, were receiving prenatal care from Kaiser Permanente Northern California, and completed baseline questionnaires about their sleep and depression and anxiety symptoms during their first trimester between August 2020 and April 2021. Those with clinical depression or a high-risk pregnancy were excluded. The participants then completed the questionnaires again between 4 and 8 weeks post partum.

After adjusting for baseline depression and potential confounders, patients with poor sleep quality, indicated by a score greater than 5 on the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), were 12% more likely to develop postpartum depression, indicated by a score on the Patient Health Questionnaire depression scale (PHQ-8) of 10 or greater (relative risk, 1.12; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.25).

The two aspects of sleep that specifically correlated with postpartum depression were sleep quality and sleep latency, or taking a long time to fall asleep. Those reporting poor sleep quality were twice as likely to develop postpartum depression (relative risk, 2.18; 95% CI, 1.22-3.91), and those who took a while to fall asleep were 52% more likely to develop postpartum depression (RR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.06-2.17).

Though the study also found prenatal sleep problems correlated with higher postpartum anxiety scores on the General Anxiety Disorder scale (GAD-7), the results were not statistically significant.

Kathleen Morrell, MD, MPH, an ob.gyn. in New York, was not involved in the study and said she was surprised it wasn’t something that had been studied much before because it makes sense.

“I always like it when studies confirm what we think should make sense, so it’s nice to see it,” Dr. Morrell said in an interview. “I think anytime you put something out, research it, and define it with numbers for doctors, that sometimes allows us to [realize], ‘Oh, that’s probably something we should be paying more attention to, especially if we have available treatments for it,’” she added.

“The clinical takeaway is that we really need to be screening for sleep pattern disruptions early in pregnancy, because even though it makes logical sense, it might not be something on our radar to think about,” Dr. Morrell said. “If people aren’t sleeping, well, their mental health is negatively affected.”

The most promising therapy for sleep issues currently is cognitive-behavioral therapy, which can accessed through various apps, Dr. Sinow said in an interview. “There are also safe interventions, such as melatonin and Unisom, that are totally safe in pregnancy that we can use to target sleep in early pregnancy.”

Dr. Morrell added that vitamin B6, often taken for nausea and vomiting during pregnancy, can also sometimes help people sleep and is safe during pregnancy.

“We know that postpartum depression does not necessarily only have a negative effect on the mother, but also has a negative effect on the infant and the family dynamic as well,” Dr. Morrell said. “So, we should be looking and screening for it so that we can offer people potential treatment because we know it can have long-term effects.”

Ms. Jang and Dr. Sinow did not have any disclosures. Dr. Morrell has done training for Nexplanon. Neither study noted external funding.

BALTIMORE – Poor prenatal sleep may increase the risk of postpartum depression, and prenatal depression may reduce the likelihood of mothers coming to their prenatal appointments, according to research presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Together, the two studies suggest that commonly overlooked experiences in the prenatal period can have negative effects down the line if clinicians aren’t asking patients about them and addressing the issue.

”I think the national conversation around mental health in general will hopefully carry us forward to better supporting the patients who are coming in with preexisting conditions,” lead author Minnie Jang, a 4th-year medical student at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview.

Most of the attention on mood disorders of pregnancy focus on the postpartum period, but preexisting or new-onset depression during pregnancy deserves more attention, Ms. Jang told attendees. ACOG recommends that clinicians screen all patients at least once during the perinatal period, but that could be anywhere from early pregnancy to the postpartum period. Ms. Jang would like to see recommendations addressing both early pregnancy and the postpartum period.

“I think there’s this framing that postpartum depression is a distinct entity from other mental health conditions whereas it’s really part of a continuum,” Ms. Jang said in an interview.

She retrospectively analyzed the medical records of all pregnant women who completed the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) during their first or second trimesters between 2002 and 2021 at Johns Hopkins Hospital. Among the 718 women who were screened in early pregnancy, 44.6% were Black or African American, 39.7% were white, and 15.7% were of a different race. Nearly all (94%) were not Hispanic/Latino.

Most (59%) were partnered, employed (68%), and had private insurance (58%). Only 7% used tobacco while 11% used alcohol and 6% used illicit drugs.

Twelve percent of the patients scored positive for depression, with a score of at least 10 or an affirmative answer to question 10 regarding self-harm. These women tended to be younger (P = .034), with an median age of 28 at their first visit versus 31 for those who screened negative, and were more likely to be publicly insured (P = .013) and without a partner (P = .005).

Patients who screened positive were more likely to have a history of substance use or history of a previous psychiatric diagnosis (P < .0001 for both). In addition, more patients who screened positive (49%) than those who screened negative (26%) had fetal complications (P < .001).

”There are some interesting subgroups of patients who are screening positive for depressive symptoms early on in pregnancy,” Ms. Jang said. Some come into pregnancy with preexisting mental health conditions while others have situational depressive symptoms, such as the subgroup referred to social work who had diagnosed fetal complications, she said. “Then there’s a whole other group of patients who are developing new symptoms during pregnancy.”

Patients who screened positive tended to start prenatal care later, at a median 12.3 weeks gestational age, than patients who screened negative, at a median 10.7 weeks gestational age (P = .002), the analysis found.

The number of routine prenatal care visits did not significantly differ between those who screened positive and those who screened negative, but patients with positive depression screens were almost half as likely to complete glucose tolerance testing (odds ratio, 0.6) or group B streptococcus testing (OR, 0.56) after adjusting for insurance status, gravidity, and gestational age at the patient’s first visit.

The researchers also identified a significant positive association between higher EPDS scores and the number of labor and delivery triage visits (P = .006). There were no significant differences in the rates of Tdap vaccination or screening for sexually transmitted infections between the two groups.
 

Poor sleep linked to later depression

The other study was prospective, using data from the PATCH Prenatal Care and Maternal and Child Health Outcomes study, which initially “compared health outcomes and satisfaction with prenatal care between patients receiving Centering Pregnancy group prenatal care and patients receiving traditional prenatal care,” the authors explained. This secondary analysis looked at sleep problems and postpartum depression.

“We don’t routinely ask patients about sleep or screen patients for sleeping issues,” lead author Carolyn Sinow, MD, a 4th-year resident at Kaiser Permanente Santa Clara (Calif.) Medical Center, said in an interview. “I think that we need to take sleep complaints more seriously overall, especially in early pregnancy.” While sleep problems in the third trimester often have more to do with discomforts from pregnancy itself, better sleep “in the first and second trimester is something we can really target with good sleep hygiene,” she added.

The 336 pregnant participants were recruited from Health Connect as long as they had a singleton pregnancy, were receiving prenatal care from Kaiser Permanente Northern California, and completed baseline questionnaires about their sleep and depression and anxiety symptoms during their first trimester between August 2020 and April 2021. Those with clinical depression or a high-risk pregnancy were excluded. The participants then completed the questionnaires again between 4 and 8 weeks post partum.

After adjusting for baseline depression and potential confounders, patients with poor sleep quality, indicated by a score greater than 5 on the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), were 12% more likely to develop postpartum depression, indicated by a score on the Patient Health Questionnaire depression scale (PHQ-8) of 10 or greater (relative risk, 1.12; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.25).

The two aspects of sleep that specifically correlated with postpartum depression were sleep quality and sleep latency, or taking a long time to fall asleep. Those reporting poor sleep quality were twice as likely to develop postpartum depression (relative risk, 2.18; 95% CI, 1.22-3.91), and those who took a while to fall asleep were 52% more likely to develop postpartum depression (RR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.06-2.17).

Though the study also found prenatal sleep problems correlated with higher postpartum anxiety scores on the General Anxiety Disorder scale (GAD-7), the results were not statistically significant.

Kathleen Morrell, MD, MPH, an ob.gyn. in New York, was not involved in the study and said she was surprised it wasn’t something that had been studied much before because it makes sense.

“I always like it when studies confirm what we think should make sense, so it’s nice to see it,” Dr. Morrell said in an interview. “I think anytime you put something out, research it, and define it with numbers for doctors, that sometimes allows us to [realize], ‘Oh, that’s probably something we should be paying more attention to, especially if we have available treatments for it,’” she added.

“The clinical takeaway is that we really need to be screening for sleep pattern disruptions early in pregnancy, because even though it makes logical sense, it might not be something on our radar to think about,” Dr. Morrell said. “If people aren’t sleeping, well, their mental health is negatively affected.”

The most promising therapy for sleep issues currently is cognitive-behavioral therapy, which can accessed through various apps, Dr. Sinow said in an interview. “There are also safe interventions, such as melatonin and Unisom, that are totally safe in pregnancy that we can use to target sleep in early pregnancy.”

Dr. Morrell added that vitamin B6, often taken for nausea and vomiting during pregnancy, can also sometimes help people sleep and is safe during pregnancy.

“We know that postpartum depression does not necessarily only have a negative effect on the mother, but also has a negative effect on the infant and the family dynamic as well,” Dr. Morrell said. “So, we should be looking and screening for it so that we can offer people potential treatment because we know it can have long-term effects.”

Ms. Jang and Dr. Sinow did not have any disclosures. Dr. Morrell has done training for Nexplanon. Neither study noted external funding.

A new standard of care for patients with chemotherapy-naive persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer is first-line therapy with the combination of the immune checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab (Keytruda) with platinum-based chemotherapy and paclitaxel – with or without bevacizumab.

This is based on final overall survival results from the phase 3, randomized KEYNOTE-826 study, which showed that adding immunotherapy resulted in a 40% reduction in risk of death, compared with chemotherapy alone, for women with advanced cervical cancers expressing programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1).

“At this protocol-specified final analysis of KEYNOTE-826, the addition of immune therapy to chemotherapy with or without the antiangiogenic bevacizumab showed substantial and clinically meaningful improvement in survival,” said lead author Bradley J. Monk, MD, from HonorHealth Research Institute, Phoenix.

He was speaking at a media briefing held prior to the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, where the results were presented.

“The results of this study solidify the addition of pembrolizumab to chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab in people with persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer as the frontline standard of care for this disease. Survival significantly improved with this approach, regardless of PD-L1 expression, further supporting its use for all patients in this population,” commented ASCO expert Merry Jennifer Markham, MD, from the University of Florida, Gainesville.

At the briefing, Dr. Monk raised the possibility that adding immunotherapy to the standard of care could offer a chance for cure for some patients with advanced or recurrent cervical cancer.

“Is it possible to cure a widely metastatic cancer, a solid tumor? And I think it probably is,” he said. “There’s a tail to this [survival] curve, and I can’t believe that in my lifetime we as a group, as a team, have sort of figured out – and it’s not enough – that we can actually cure some patients, and if not maybe cure, have them at least live a long time, so it’s exciting.”

Briefing comoderater Julie R. Gralow, MD, chief medical officer and executive vice president of ASCO, agreed that the survival benefit “is exciting to see, and in my long career as a breast medical oncologist, I’m pretty sure we cure some metastatic breast cancer. We definitely had patients who lived out their normal life span and died of something else after decades.

“But the definition of cure, sadly, in these situations is that you die of something else without evidence of disease, so we certainly need to do better here and be better able to use the word ‘cure’ in the metastatic setting,” she added.
 

Promising start

Since 2014, the standard of care for treating patients with recurrent, persistent, or metastatic cervical cancer has been chemotherapy with a platinum compound, paclitaxel, and bevacizumab, based on the results of the GOG 240 study.

Immunotherapy with PD-1 inhibitors had previously shown efficacy as monotherapy in second- or later-line therapy for women with cervical cancer, but KEYNOTE 826 was the first study to show a benefit to promoting immunotherapy to the front ranks.

In the first interim analysis of the trial, reported at the 2021 annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology, after a median follow-up of 22 months, the combination of pembrolizumab and chemotherapy demonstrated significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), compared with chemotherapy plus placebo in a biomarker-selected population, which consisted of patients with a combined positive score (CPS) for PD-L1 of 1 or greater.

Pembrolizumab had no apparent efficacy in patients whose tumors did not have detectable PD-L1, however.
 

Latest results

Now the investigators are reporting the final analysis, conducted after a median follow-up of 39.1 months. The results are those for all comers (308 randomly assigned to receive pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy, and 309 assigned to receive chemotherapy plus placebo), as well as for the biomarker-selected population (consisting of all patients with PD-L1 CPS of 1 or greater) and for the subpopulation of patients with PD-L1 CPS of 10 or greater.

In the all-comers population, the median OS was 26.4 months for patients who received pembrolizumab, compared with 16.8 months for those who received placebo. The 24-month OS rates were 52.1% and 38.7%, respectively. The difference translated into a hazard ratio for death with pembrolizumab of 0.63 (P < .0001).

In the biomarker-selected population (273 assigned to pembrolizumab and 275 assigned to placebo), the respective median OS was 28.6 months versus 16.6 months, with 24-month OS rates of 53.5% versus 39.4%, which translates into an HR for death with pembrolizumab of 0.60 (P < .0001).

Not surprisingly, the best responses to the addition of the PD-1 inhibitor were seen among patients with a PD-L1 CPS of 10 or greater (158 assigned to pembrolizumab and 159 assigned to placebo). In this subgroup, the median OS was 29.6 months with the immune checkpoint inhibitor added to chemotherapy versus 17.4 months for chemotherapy plus placebo. The respective 24-month OS rates were 54.4% and 42.5%, and the HR for overall survival favoring pembrolizumab was 0.58 (P < .0001).

Median PFS 12-month PFS rates also favored pembrolizumab in both the total patient population and the biomarker-selected groups, with median PFS of approximately 10.4 months with pembrolizumab versus approximately 8.2 months with placebo.

The safety profile was manageable, with adverse events as expected from the safety profiles of the individual drugs in the combined regimen. No new safety signals have been seen since the interim analysis, Dr. Monk said.
 

Regimen details

Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles plus platinum-based chemotherapy, with bevacizumab added at the investigator’s discretion. Approximately two-thirds of patients in each study arm received bevacizumab.

The dual primary endpoints of PFS and OS were each tested sequentially in patients with a PD-L1 CPS of 1 or greater in both the intention-to-treat or “all-comers” population and in patients with a PD-L1 CPS of 10 or greater.

Patient characteristics were generally well balanced between the treatment groups, except that a slightly higher proportion of patients in the pembrolizumab had tumors of squamous cell histology, compared with the placebo group (76.3% vs. 68.3%).

KEYNOTE-826 was funded by Merck. Dr. Monk has received honoraria and has participated in consulting/advising and speaker’s bureau activity with Merck and other companies. Dr. Gralow has had a consulting or advisory role with Genentech and Roche. Dr. Markham has had a consulting/advisory role for GlaxoSmithKline and has received institutional research funding from Merck and other companies.

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

A new standard of care for patients with chemotherapy-naive persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer is first-line therapy with the combination of the immune checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab (Keytruda) with platinum-based chemotherapy and paclitaxel – with or without bevacizumab.

This is based on final overall survival results from the phase 3, randomized KEYNOTE-826 study, which showed that adding immunotherapy resulted in a 40% reduction in risk of death, compared with chemotherapy alone, for women with advanced cervical cancers expressing programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1).

“At this protocol-specified final analysis of KEYNOTE-826, the addition of immune therapy to chemotherapy with or without the antiangiogenic bevacizumab showed substantial and clinically meaningful improvement in survival,” said lead author Bradley J. Monk, MD, from HonorHealth Research Institute, Phoenix.

He was speaking at a media briefing held prior to the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, where the results were presented.

“The results of this study solidify the addition of pembrolizumab to chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab in people with persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer as the frontline standard of care for this disease. Survival significantly improved with this approach, regardless of PD-L1 expression, further supporting its use for all patients in this population,” commented ASCO expert Merry Jennifer Markham, MD, from the University of Florida, Gainesville.

At the briefing, Dr. Monk raised the possibility that adding immunotherapy to the standard of care could offer a chance for cure for some patients with advanced or recurrent cervical cancer.

“Is it possible to cure a widely metastatic cancer, a solid tumor? And I think it probably is,” he said. “There’s a tail to this [survival] curve, and I can’t believe that in my lifetime we as a group, as a team, have sort of figured out – and it’s not enough – that we can actually cure some patients, and if not maybe cure, have them at least live a long time, so it’s exciting.”

Briefing comoderater Julie R. Gralow, MD, chief medical officer and executive vice president of ASCO, agreed that the survival benefit “is exciting to see, and in my long career as a breast medical oncologist, I’m pretty sure we cure some metastatic breast cancer. We definitely had patients who lived out their normal life span and died of something else after decades.

“But the definition of cure, sadly, in these situations is that you die of something else without evidence of disease, so we certainly need to do better here and be better able to use the word ‘cure’ in the metastatic setting,” she added.
 

Promising start

Since 2014, the standard of care for treating patients with recurrent, persistent, or metastatic cervical cancer has been chemotherapy with a platinum compound, paclitaxel, and bevacizumab, based on the results of the GOG 240 study.

Immunotherapy with PD-1 inhibitors had previously shown efficacy as monotherapy in second- or later-line therapy for women with cervical cancer, but KEYNOTE 826 was the first study to show a benefit to promoting immunotherapy to the front ranks.

In the first interim analysis of the trial, reported at the 2021 annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology, after a median follow-up of 22 months, the combination of pembrolizumab and chemotherapy demonstrated significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), compared with chemotherapy plus placebo in a biomarker-selected population, which consisted of patients with a combined positive score (CPS) for PD-L1 of 1 or greater.

Pembrolizumab had no apparent efficacy in patients whose tumors did not have detectable PD-L1, however.
 

Latest results

Now the investigators are reporting the final analysis, conducted after a median follow-up of 39.1 months. The results are those for all comers (308 randomly assigned to receive pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy, and 309 assigned to receive chemotherapy plus placebo), as well as for the biomarker-selected population (consisting of all patients with PD-L1 CPS of 1 or greater) and for the subpopulation of patients with PD-L1 CPS of 10 or greater.

In the all-comers population, the median OS was 26.4 months for patients who received pembrolizumab, compared with 16.8 months for those who received placebo. The 24-month OS rates were 52.1% and 38.7%, respectively. The difference translated into a hazard ratio for death with pembrolizumab of 0.63 (P < .0001).

In the biomarker-selected population (273 assigned to pembrolizumab and 275 assigned to placebo), the respective median OS was 28.6 months versus 16.6 months, with 24-month OS rates of 53.5% versus 39.4%, which translates into an HR for death with pembrolizumab of 0.60 (P < .0001).

Not surprisingly, the best responses to the addition of the PD-1 inhibitor were seen among patients with a PD-L1 CPS of 10 or greater (158 assigned to pembrolizumab and 159 assigned to placebo). In this subgroup, the median OS was 29.6 months with the immune checkpoint inhibitor added to chemotherapy versus 17.4 months for chemotherapy plus placebo. The respective 24-month OS rates were 54.4% and 42.5%, and the HR for overall survival favoring pembrolizumab was 0.58 (P < .0001).

Median PFS 12-month PFS rates also favored pembrolizumab in both the total patient population and the biomarker-selected groups, with median PFS of approximately 10.4 months with pembrolizumab versus approximately 8.2 months with placebo.

The safety profile was manageable, with adverse events as expected from the safety profiles of the individual drugs in the combined regimen. No new safety signals have been seen since the interim analysis, Dr. Monk said.
 

Regimen details

Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles plus platinum-based chemotherapy, with bevacizumab added at the investigator’s discretion. Approximately two-thirds of patients in each study arm received bevacizumab.

The dual primary endpoints of PFS and OS were each tested sequentially in patients with a PD-L1 CPS of 1 or greater in both the intention-to-treat or “all-comers” population and in patients with a PD-L1 CPS of 10 or greater.

Patient characteristics were generally well balanced between the treatment groups, except that a slightly higher proportion of patients in the pembrolizumab had tumors of squamous cell histology, compared with the placebo group (76.3% vs. 68.3%).

KEYNOTE-826 was funded by Merck. Dr. Monk has received honoraria and has participated in consulting/advising and speaker’s bureau activity with Merck and other companies. Dr. Gralow has had a consulting or advisory role with Genentech and Roche. Dr. Markham has had a consulting/advisory role for GlaxoSmithKline and has received institutional research funding from Merck and other companies.

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

A new standard of care for patients with chemotherapy-naive persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer is first-line therapy with the combination of the immune checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab (Keytruda) with platinum-based chemotherapy and paclitaxel – with or without bevacizumab.

This is based on final overall survival results from the phase 3, randomized KEYNOTE-826 study, which showed that adding immunotherapy resulted in a 40% reduction in risk of death, compared with chemotherapy alone, for women with advanced cervical cancers expressing programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1).

“At this protocol-specified final analysis of KEYNOTE-826, the addition of immune therapy to chemotherapy with or without the antiangiogenic bevacizumab showed substantial and clinically meaningful improvement in survival,” said lead author Bradley J. Monk, MD, from HonorHealth Research Institute, Phoenix.

He was speaking at a media briefing held prior to the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, where the results were presented.

“The results of this study solidify the addition of pembrolizumab to chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab in people with persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer as the frontline standard of care for this disease. Survival significantly improved with this approach, regardless of PD-L1 expression, further supporting its use for all patients in this population,” commented ASCO expert Merry Jennifer Markham, MD, from the University of Florida, Gainesville.

At the briefing, Dr. Monk raised the possibility that adding immunotherapy to the standard of care could offer a chance for cure for some patients with advanced or recurrent cervical cancer.

“Is it possible to cure a widely metastatic cancer, a solid tumor? And I think it probably is,” he said. “There’s a tail to this [survival] curve, and I can’t believe that in my lifetime we as a group, as a team, have sort of figured out – and it’s not enough – that we can actually cure some patients, and if not maybe cure, have them at least live a long time, so it’s exciting.”

Briefing comoderater Julie R. Gralow, MD, chief medical officer and executive vice president of ASCO, agreed that the survival benefit “is exciting to see, and in my long career as a breast medical oncologist, I’m pretty sure we cure some metastatic breast cancer. We definitely had patients who lived out their normal life span and died of something else after decades.

“But the definition of cure, sadly, in these situations is that you die of something else without evidence of disease, so we certainly need to do better here and be better able to use the word ‘cure’ in the metastatic setting,” she added.
 

Promising start

Since 2014, the standard of care for treating patients with recurrent, persistent, or metastatic cervical cancer has been chemotherapy with a platinum compound, paclitaxel, and bevacizumab, based on the results of the GOG 240 study.

Immunotherapy with PD-1 inhibitors had previously shown efficacy as monotherapy in second- or later-line therapy for women with cervical cancer, but KEYNOTE 826 was the first study to show a benefit to promoting immunotherapy to the front ranks.

In the first interim analysis of the trial, reported at the 2021 annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology, after a median follow-up of 22 months, the combination of pembrolizumab and chemotherapy demonstrated significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), compared with chemotherapy plus placebo in a biomarker-selected population, which consisted of patients with a combined positive score (CPS) for PD-L1 of 1 or greater.

Pembrolizumab had no apparent efficacy in patients whose tumors did not have detectable PD-L1, however.
 

Latest results

Now the investigators are reporting the final analysis, conducted after a median follow-up of 39.1 months. The results are those for all comers (308 randomly assigned to receive pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy, and 309 assigned to receive chemotherapy plus placebo), as well as for the biomarker-selected population (consisting of all patients with PD-L1 CPS of 1 or greater) and for the subpopulation of patients with PD-L1 CPS of 10 or greater.

In the all-comers population, the median OS was 26.4 months for patients who received pembrolizumab, compared with 16.8 months for those who received placebo. The 24-month OS rates were 52.1% and 38.7%, respectively. The difference translated into a hazard ratio for death with pembrolizumab of 0.63 (P < .0001).

In the biomarker-selected population (273 assigned to pembrolizumab and 275 assigned to placebo), the respective median OS was 28.6 months versus 16.6 months, with 24-month OS rates of 53.5% versus 39.4%, which translates into an HR for death with pembrolizumab of 0.60 (P < .0001).

Not surprisingly, the best responses to the addition of the PD-1 inhibitor were seen among patients with a PD-L1 CPS of 10 or greater (158 assigned to pembrolizumab and 159 assigned to placebo). In this subgroup, the median OS was 29.6 months with the immune checkpoint inhibitor added to chemotherapy versus 17.4 months for chemotherapy plus placebo. The respective 24-month OS rates were 54.4% and 42.5%, and the HR for overall survival favoring pembrolizumab was 0.58 (P < .0001).

Median PFS 12-month PFS rates also favored pembrolizumab in both the total patient population and the biomarker-selected groups, with median PFS of approximately 10.4 months with pembrolizumab versus approximately 8.2 months with placebo.

The safety profile was manageable, with adverse events as expected from the safety profiles of the individual drugs in the combined regimen. No new safety signals have been seen since the interim analysis, Dr. Monk said.
 

Regimen details

Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles plus platinum-based chemotherapy, with bevacizumab added at the investigator’s discretion. Approximately two-thirds of patients in each study arm received bevacizumab.

The dual primary endpoints of PFS and OS were each tested sequentially in patients with a PD-L1 CPS of 1 or greater in both the intention-to-treat or “all-comers” population and in patients with a PD-L1 CPS of 10 or greater.

Patient characteristics were generally well balanced between the treatment groups, except that a slightly higher proportion of patients in the pembrolizumab had tumors of squamous cell histology, compared with the placebo group (76.3% vs. 68.3%).

KEYNOTE-826 was funded by Merck. Dr. Monk has received honoraria and has participated in consulting/advising and speaker’s bureau activity with Merck and other companies. Dr. Gralow has had a consulting or advisory role with Genentech and Roche. Dr. Markham has had a consulting/advisory role for GlaxoSmithKline and has received institutional research funding from Merck and other companies.

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

CHICAGO – New results in the treatment of advanced ovarian cancer have been welcomed by an expert not involved in the trial, even though the study showed only an improvement in progression-free survival (PFS), not yet overall survival.

The results come from the DUO-O trial, in which the poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor olaparib (Lynparza) and immunotherapy with the anti–PD-L1 antibody durvalumab (Imfinzi) were added on to standard of care with paclitaxel/carboplatin chemotherapy and bevacizumab (Avastin) in patients with newly diagnosed,non–BRCA-mutated advanced ovarian cancer.

A preplanned interim analysis revealed that the addition of durvalumab and olaparib was associated with a 37% improvement of PFS, compared with the standard of care of chemotherapy plus bevacizumab alone.

This improvement increased to 51% in patients who had tumors positive for homologous recombination deficiency (HRD), which indicates the inability to effectively repair double-stranded DNA breaks, a defect that is present in approximately 70% of ovarian cancers.

Coprincipal investigator Carol Aghajanian, MD, chief of the gynecologic medical oncology service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, described the benefit seen with the novel combination therapy as both “statistically significant and clinically meaningful.”

She was speaking at a press briefing held ahead of the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, where the results were presented.

Commenting for ASCO, Merry Jennifer Markham, MD, professor of medicine and chief of the division of hematology and oncology at University of Florida Health, Gainesville, said the results represents a “huge step forward.”

She added the rate of progress it represents may not be “quick enough for our patients with advanced ovarian cancer but every little integral improvement that we can find in studies that are important, like this one, really means so much to that individual patient in that exam room.”

Dr. Markham underlined that around 80% of women with epithelial ovarian cancer are diagnosed at an advanced stage. “They know what they are facing,” she said. “The vast majority” of them will have a recurrence “at some point.”

“So while progression-free survival may not necessarily mean their overall survival, there will be hope it does. And I’m very excited to see where this study heads in that direction.” Dr. Markham added that PFS is “very important to our patients,” and the study does represent progress. “We are chipping away at improving outcomes for advanced ovarian cancer.”

Moreover, “women are often disappointed when their tumor doesn’t have a BRCA mutation because they know that that may limit some of their treatment options,” and so the current study suggests that there are “options for all-comers” and “there is still hope.”
 

Access to treatment and testing

When asked whether there could be any access issues for patients clinically eligible for the novel combination, Dr. Aghajanian said that all of the drugs have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for indications that cover this usage.

They are also covered by medical insurance and, for those patients with financial toxicity, “there is access to co-pay assistance programs and the like.”

She said that patients can then “be counseled on their expected benefit,” based on their BRCA and HRD testing.

Dr. Markham, on the other hand, said she is “a little less optimistic” about access, explaining that she practices in the southern United States, and “our populations [and] insurance coverages are a bit different.”

She noted that, at her institution, a “fair number of patients are underinsured,” and they “ran into a lot of issues with people not being able to afford their copays,” which can be “prohibitive.”

“A large portion of my counseling has been and will continue to be around the benefit, but also the financial toxicity, that that individual patient may experience and the need for copay assistance programs or other support mechanisms,” Markham said.

Dr. Aghajanian added that “financial toxicity and the access issue comes even prior to the treatment, in getting those BRCA1/2 tests and the HRD testing done, so patients have the information they need to make informed decisions.”

“We do have disparities with genetic testing and genomic testing that need to be solved,” she said.
 

Study details

Previous studies, including SOLO1 and PAOLA-1, have shown that maintenance therapy with olaparib and bevacizumab improves outcomes in the first-line treatment of advanced ovarian cancer.

“However, there still remains unmet need, especially in some patient subgroups without a BRCA mutation,” Dr. Aghajanian said.

While the addition of immunotherapy to standard of care has yet to show a clinical benefit in this setting in phase 3 trials, the phase 2 MEDIOLA study indicated that the combination of durvalumab, bevacizumab, and olaparib was active in nongermline, BRCA-mutated, platinum-sensitive relapsed cancer.

The phase 3 DUO-O study therefore set out to determine whether this combination would be beneficial as a maintenance therapy in 1130 patients with newly diagnosed stage III or IV high-grade ovarian cancer without a tumor BRCA1/2 mutation.

Patients were required to have had no prior systemic therapy for ovarian cancer, and be naive to both PARP inhibition and immunotherapy. They also had to have completed up-front primary debulking surgery, or be scheduled to undergo the procedure.

After an initial cycle of paclitaxel/carboplatin chemotherapy, the patients were randomly assigned to one of three regimens:

• Standard of care treatment, comprising chemotherapy plus bevacizumab and durvalumab-placebo, followed by maintenance therapy with bevacizumab, durvalumab-placebo, and olaparib-placebo (arm 1)
• Chemotherapy plus bevacizumab and durvalumab, followed by maintenance therapy with bevacizumab, durvalumab, and olaparib-placebo (arm 2)
• Chemotherapy plus bevacizumab and durvalumab, followed by maintenance therapy with bevacizumab, durvalumab, and olaparib (arm 3)

In the maintenance phase, bevacizumab was to be given for a total of 15 months, while durvalumab and olaparib, or their equivalent placebos, were prescribed for 24 months. Treatment was continued until disease progression, study completion, or another discontinuation criteria was met.

Dr. Aghajanian presented results from a preplanned interim analysis, with a date cutoff of Dec. 5, 2022.

Among HRD-positive patients, those in arm 3 had a significantly longer PFS than those in arm 1, at a median of 37.3 months versus 23 months, or a hazard ratio of 0.49 (P < .0001).

In the intention-to-treat analysis, arm 3 was also associated with a significant improvement in median PFS over arm 1, at 24.2 months versus 19.3 months, or an HR of 0.63 (P < .0001), indicating that the trial met both of its primary endpoints.

While there was a numerical difference in median PFS between arm 2 and arm 1, at a median of 20.6 months versus 19.3 months, this was not significant. This means that relative contribution of adding durvalumab alone is not clear, Dr. Aghajanian commented, and said that this comparison “will be reassessed at the time of the final PFS analysis.”

She added that a “PFS effect was observed across all subgroups for the arm 3 versus arm 1 comparison,” including in the HRD-negative subgroup, at a median of 20.9 months versus 17.4 months, or an HR of 0.68.

The safety and tolerability of the regimens were generally consistent with what is known for the individual agents, she commented.

Serious adverse events were reported in 34%, 43%, and 39% of patients in arms 1, 2, and 3, respectively.

The most common grade 3 or higher adverse events were neutropenia (in 26% of arm 1 patients, 28% of those in arm 2, and 31% of those in arm 3) followed by anemia (in 8%, 8%, and 24%, respectively).

Dose modifications were required in 72% of arm 1 patients, 80% of those in arm 2, and 85% of arm 3 patients. Treatment discontinuation was recorded in 20%, 26%, and 35%, respectively.
 

Tackling underserved patient populations

Discussing the results, Christina Fotopoulou, MD, PhD, professor of gynecological cancer surgery in the department of surgery and cancer, Imperial College London, said that, while the regimen may seem new, the treatments involved are “veterans,” and that they are nevertheless tackling previously underserved patient populations.

Dr. Fotopoulou, who was not involved in the study, noted that the results were highly anticipated, and the study has delivered a “breakthrough in ovarian cancer.” She nevertheless questioned the choice of the control arm, and pointed out that the hazard ratio in favor of the combination therapy is “relatively modest” considering that it involves three drugs.

Dr. Fotopoulou highlighted, however, that one of the most important results was in the HRD-negative patients, which she characterized as the equivalent of the clinicians going to “the dark side of the moon.” She said that “for the first time, we have a positive study in this patient population,” although she underlined that the results are from an interim analysis.

The key question that remains, Dr. Fotopoulou asked, is “why? What is making the difference?” She noted that, unfortunately, the trial design does not allow the identification of the relative contribution of olaparib and durvalumab.

The study was sponsored by AstraZeneca, and conducted in collaboration with the European Network of Gynaecological Oncological Trial Groups, GOG Foundation, and Myriad Genetic Laboratories. Dr. Aghajanian declared relationships with AstraZeneca, Merck, Eisai, Repare Therapeutics, AbbVie, Clovis Oncology, and Genentech/Roche. Dr. Markham declared relationships with Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, Aduro Biotech, Lilly, Tesaro, Novartis, VBL Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, and Merck.

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

CHICAGO – New results in the treatment of advanced ovarian cancer have been welcomed by an expert not involved in the trial, even though the study showed only an improvement in progression-free survival (PFS), not yet overall survival.

The results come from the DUO-O trial, in which the poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor olaparib (Lynparza) and immunotherapy with the anti–PD-L1 antibody durvalumab (Imfinzi) were added on to standard of care with paclitaxel/carboplatin chemotherapy and bevacizumab (Avastin) in patients with newly diagnosed,non–BRCA-mutated advanced ovarian cancer.

A preplanned interim analysis revealed that the addition of durvalumab and olaparib was associated with a 37% improvement of PFS, compared with the standard of care of chemotherapy plus bevacizumab alone.

This improvement increased to 51% in patients who had tumors positive for homologous recombination deficiency (HRD), which indicates the inability to effectively repair double-stranded DNA breaks, a defect that is present in approximately 70% of ovarian cancers.

Coprincipal investigator Carol Aghajanian, MD, chief of the gynecologic medical oncology service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, described the benefit seen with the novel combination therapy as both “statistically significant and clinically meaningful.”

She was speaking at a press briefing held ahead of the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, where the results were presented.

Commenting for ASCO, Merry Jennifer Markham, MD, professor of medicine and chief of the division of hematology and oncology at University of Florida Health, Gainesville, said the results represents a “huge step forward.”

She added the rate of progress it represents may not be “quick enough for our patients with advanced ovarian cancer but every little integral improvement that we can find in studies that are important, like this one, really means so much to that individual patient in that exam room.”

Dr. Markham underlined that around 80% of women with epithelial ovarian cancer are diagnosed at an advanced stage. “They know what they are facing,” she said. “The vast majority” of them will have a recurrence “at some point.”

“So while progression-free survival may not necessarily mean their overall survival, there will be hope it does. And I’m very excited to see where this study heads in that direction.” Dr. Markham added that PFS is “very important to our patients,” and the study does represent progress. “We are chipping away at improving outcomes for advanced ovarian cancer.”

Moreover, “women are often disappointed when their tumor doesn’t have a BRCA mutation because they know that that may limit some of their treatment options,” and so the current study suggests that there are “options for all-comers” and “there is still hope.”
 

Access to treatment and testing

When asked whether there could be any access issues for patients clinically eligible for the novel combination, Dr. Aghajanian said that all of the drugs have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for indications that cover this usage.

They are also covered by medical insurance and, for those patients with financial toxicity, “there is access to co-pay assistance programs and the like.”

She said that patients can then “be counseled on their expected benefit,” based on their BRCA and HRD testing.

Dr. Markham, on the other hand, said she is “a little less optimistic” about access, explaining that she practices in the southern United States, and “our populations [and] insurance coverages are a bit different.”

She noted that, at her institution, a “fair number of patients are underinsured,” and they “ran into a lot of issues with people not being able to afford their copays,” which can be “prohibitive.”

“A large portion of my counseling has been and will continue to be around the benefit, but also the financial toxicity, that that individual patient may experience and the need for copay assistance programs or other support mechanisms,” Markham said.

Dr. Aghajanian added that “financial toxicity and the access issue comes even prior to the treatment, in getting those BRCA1/2 tests and the HRD testing done, so patients have the information they need to make informed decisions.”

“We do have disparities with genetic testing and genomic testing that need to be solved,” she said.
 

Study details

Previous studies, including SOLO1 and PAOLA-1, have shown that maintenance therapy with olaparib and bevacizumab improves outcomes in the first-line treatment of advanced ovarian cancer.

“However, there still remains unmet need, especially in some patient subgroups without a BRCA mutation,” Dr. Aghajanian said.

While the addition of immunotherapy to standard of care has yet to show a clinical benefit in this setting in phase 3 trials, the phase 2 MEDIOLA study indicated that the combination of durvalumab, bevacizumab, and olaparib was active in nongermline, BRCA-mutated, platinum-sensitive relapsed cancer.

The phase 3 DUO-O study therefore set out to determine whether this combination would be beneficial as a maintenance therapy in 1130 patients with newly diagnosed stage III or IV high-grade ovarian cancer without a tumor BRCA1/2 mutation.

Patients were required to have had no prior systemic therapy for ovarian cancer, and be naive to both PARP inhibition and immunotherapy. They also had to have completed up-front primary debulking surgery, or be scheduled to undergo the procedure.

After an initial cycle of paclitaxel/carboplatin chemotherapy, the patients were randomly assigned to one of three regimens:

• Standard of care treatment, comprising chemotherapy plus bevacizumab and durvalumab-placebo, followed by maintenance therapy with bevacizumab, durvalumab-placebo, and olaparib-placebo (arm 1)
• Chemotherapy plus bevacizumab and durvalumab, followed by maintenance therapy with bevacizumab, durvalumab, and olaparib-placebo (arm 2)
• Chemotherapy plus bevacizumab and durvalumab, followed by maintenance therapy with bevacizumab, durvalumab, and olaparib (arm 3)

In the maintenance phase, bevacizumab was to be given for a total of 15 months, while durvalumab and olaparib, or their equivalent placebos, were prescribed for 24 months. Treatment was continued until disease progression, study completion, or another discontinuation criteria was met.

Dr. Aghajanian presented results from a preplanned interim analysis, with a date cutoff of Dec. 5, 2022.

Among HRD-positive patients, those in arm 3 had a significantly longer PFS than those in arm 1, at a median of 37.3 months versus 23 months, or a hazard ratio of 0.49 (P < .0001).

In the intention-to-treat analysis, arm 3 was also associated with a significant improvement in median PFS over arm 1, at 24.2 months versus 19.3 months, or an HR of 0.63 (P < .0001), indicating that the trial met both of its primary endpoints.

While there was a numerical difference in median PFS between arm 2 and arm 1, at a median of 20.6 months versus 19.3 months, this was not significant. This means that relative contribution of adding durvalumab alone is not clear, Dr. Aghajanian commented, and said that this comparison “will be reassessed at the time of the final PFS analysis.”

She added that a “PFS effect was observed across all subgroups for the arm 3 versus arm 1 comparison,” including in the HRD-negative subgroup, at a median of 20.9 months versus 17.4 months, or an HR of 0.68.

The safety and tolerability of the regimens were generally consistent with what is known for the individual agents, she commented.

Serious adverse events were reported in 34%, 43%, and 39% of patients in arms 1, 2, and 3, respectively.

The most common grade 3 or higher adverse events were neutropenia (in 26% of arm 1 patients, 28% of those in arm 2, and 31% of those in arm 3) followed by anemia (in 8%, 8%, and 24%, respectively).

Dose modifications were required in 72% of arm 1 patients, 80% of those in arm 2, and 85% of arm 3 patients. Treatment discontinuation was recorded in 20%, 26%, and 35%, respectively.
 

Tackling underserved patient populations

Discussing the results, Christina Fotopoulou, MD, PhD, professor of gynecological cancer surgery in the department of surgery and cancer, Imperial College London, said that, while the regimen may seem new, the treatments involved are “veterans,” and that they are nevertheless tackling previously underserved patient populations.

Dr. Fotopoulou, who was not involved in the study, noted that the results were highly anticipated, and the study has delivered a “breakthrough in ovarian cancer.” She nevertheless questioned the choice of the control arm, and pointed out that the hazard ratio in favor of the combination therapy is “relatively modest” considering that it involves three drugs.

Dr. Fotopoulou highlighted, however, that one of the most important results was in the HRD-negative patients, which she characterized as the equivalent of the clinicians going to “the dark side of the moon.” She said that “for the first time, we have a positive study in this patient population,” although she underlined that the results are from an interim analysis.

The key question that remains, Dr. Fotopoulou asked, is “why? What is making the difference?” She noted that, unfortunately, the trial design does not allow the identification of the relative contribution of olaparib and durvalumab.

The study was sponsored by AstraZeneca, and conducted in collaboration with the European Network of Gynaecological Oncological Trial Groups, GOG Foundation, and Myriad Genetic Laboratories. Dr. Aghajanian declared relationships with AstraZeneca, Merck, Eisai, Repare Therapeutics, AbbVie, Clovis Oncology, and Genentech/Roche. Dr. Markham declared relationships with Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, Aduro Biotech, Lilly, Tesaro, Novartis, VBL Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, and Merck.

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

CHICAGO – New results in the treatment of advanced ovarian cancer have been welcomed by an expert not involved in the trial, even though the study showed only an improvement in progression-free survival (PFS), not yet overall survival.

The results come from the DUO-O trial, in which the poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor olaparib (Lynparza) and immunotherapy with the anti–PD-L1 antibody durvalumab (Imfinzi) were added on to standard of care with paclitaxel/carboplatin chemotherapy and bevacizumab (Avastin) in patients with newly diagnosed,non–BRCA-mutated advanced ovarian cancer.

A preplanned interim analysis revealed that the addition of durvalumab and olaparib was associated with a 37% improvement of PFS, compared with the standard of care of chemotherapy plus bevacizumab alone.

This improvement increased to 51% in patients who had tumors positive for homologous recombination deficiency (HRD), which indicates the inability to effectively repair double-stranded DNA breaks, a defect that is present in approximately 70% of ovarian cancers.

Coprincipal investigator Carol Aghajanian, MD, chief of the gynecologic medical oncology service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, described the benefit seen with the novel combination therapy as both “statistically significant and clinically meaningful.”

She was speaking at a press briefing held ahead of the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, where the results were presented.

Commenting for ASCO, Merry Jennifer Markham, MD, professor of medicine and chief of the division of hematology and oncology at University of Florida Health, Gainesville, said the results represents a “huge step forward.”

She added the rate of progress it represents may not be “quick enough for our patients with advanced ovarian cancer but every little integral improvement that we can find in studies that are important, like this one, really means so much to that individual patient in that exam room.”

Dr. Markham underlined that around 80% of women with epithelial ovarian cancer are diagnosed at an advanced stage. “They know what they are facing,” she said. “The vast majority” of them will have a recurrence “at some point.”

“So while progression-free survival may not necessarily mean their overall survival, there will be hope it does. And I’m very excited to see where this study heads in that direction.” Dr. Markham added that PFS is “very important to our patients,” and the study does represent progress. “We are chipping away at improving outcomes for advanced ovarian cancer.”

Moreover, “women are often disappointed when their tumor doesn’t have a BRCA mutation because they know that that may limit some of their treatment options,” and so the current study suggests that there are “options for all-comers” and “there is still hope.”
 

Access to treatment and testing

When asked whether there could be any access issues for patients clinically eligible for the novel combination, Dr. Aghajanian said that all of the drugs have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for indications that cover this usage.

They are also covered by medical insurance and, for those patients with financial toxicity, “there is access to co-pay assistance programs and the like.”

She said that patients can then “be counseled on their expected benefit,” based on their BRCA and HRD testing.

Dr. Markham, on the other hand, said she is “a little less optimistic” about access, explaining that she practices in the southern United States, and “our populations [and] insurance coverages are a bit different.”

She noted that, at her institution, a “fair number of patients are underinsured,” and they “ran into a lot of issues with people not being able to afford their copays,” which can be “prohibitive.”

“A large portion of my counseling has been and will continue to be around the benefit, but also the financial toxicity, that that individual patient may experience and the need for copay assistance programs or other support mechanisms,” Markham said.

Dr. Aghajanian added that “financial toxicity and the access issue comes even prior to the treatment, in getting those BRCA1/2 tests and the HRD testing done, so patients have the information they need to make informed decisions.”

“We do have disparities with genetic testing and genomic testing that need to be solved,” she said.
 

Study details

Previous studies, including SOLO1 and PAOLA-1, have shown that maintenance therapy with olaparib and bevacizumab improves outcomes in the first-line treatment of advanced ovarian cancer.

“However, there still remains unmet need, especially in some patient subgroups without a BRCA mutation,” Dr. Aghajanian said.

While the addition of immunotherapy to standard of care has yet to show a clinical benefit in this setting in phase 3 trials, the phase 2 MEDIOLA study indicated that the combination of durvalumab, bevacizumab, and olaparib was active in nongermline, BRCA-mutated, platinum-sensitive relapsed cancer.

The phase 3 DUO-O study therefore set out to determine whether this combination would be beneficial as a maintenance therapy in 1130 patients with newly diagnosed stage III or IV high-grade ovarian cancer without a tumor BRCA1/2 mutation.

Patients were required to have had no prior systemic therapy for ovarian cancer, and be naive to both PARP inhibition and immunotherapy. They also had to have completed up-front primary debulking surgery, or be scheduled to undergo the procedure.

After an initial cycle of paclitaxel/carboplatin chemotherapy, the patients were randomly assigned to one of three regimens:

• Standard of care treatment, comprising chemotherapy plus bevacizumab and durvalumab-placebo, followed by maintenance therapy with bevacizumab, durvalumab-placebo, and olaparib-placebo (arm 1)
• Chemotherapy plus bevacizumab and durvalumab, followed by maintenance therapy with bevacizumab, durvalumab, and olaparib-placebo (arm 2)
• Chemotherapy plus bevacizumab and durvalumab, followed by maintenance therapy with bevacizumab, durvalumab, and olaparib (arm 3)

In the maintenance phase, bevacizumab was to be given for a total of 15 months, while durvalumab and olaparib, or their equivalent placebos, were prescribed for 24 months. Treatment was continued until disease progression, study completion, or another discontinuation criteria was met.

Dr. Aghajanian presented results from a preplanned interim analysis, with a date cutoff of Dec. 5, 2022.

Among HRD-positive patients, those in arm 3 had a significantly longer PFS than those in arm 1, at a median of 37.3 months versus 23 months, or a hazard ratio of 0.49 (P < .0001).

In the intention-to-treat analysis, arm 3 was also associated with a significant improvement in median PFS over arm 1, at 24.2 months versus 19.3 months, or an HR of 0.63 (P < .0001), indicating that the trial met both of its primary endpoints.

While there was a numerical difference in median PFS between arm 2 and arm 1, at a median of 20.6 months versus 19.3 months, this was not significant. This means that relative contribution of adding durvalumab alone is not clear, Dr. Aghajanian commented, and said that this comparison “will be reassessed at the time of the final PFS analysis.”

She added that a “PFS effect was observed across all subgroups for the arm 3 versus arm 1 comparison,” including in the HRD-negative subgroup, at a median of 20.9 months versus 17.4 months, or an HR of 0.68.

The safety and tolerability of the regimens were generally consistent with what is known for the individual agents, she commented.

Serious adverse events were reported in 34%, 43%, and 39% of patients in arms 1, 2, and 3, respectively.

The most common grade 3 or higher adverse events were neutropenia (in 26% of arm 1 patients, 28% of those in arm 2, and 31% of those in arm 3) followed by anemia (in 8%, 8%, and 24%, respectively).

Dose modifications were required in 72% of arm 1 patients, 80% of those in arm 2, and 85% of arm 3 patients. Treatment discontinuation was recorded in 20%, 26%, and 35%, respectively.
 

Tackling underserved patient populations

Discussing the results, Christina Fotopoulou, MD, PhD, professor of gynecological cancer surgery in the department of surgery and cancer, Imperial College London, said that, while the regimen may seem new, the treatments involved are “veterans,” and that they are nevertheless tackling previously underserved patient populations.

Dr. Fotopoulou, who was not involved in the study, noted that the results were highly anticipated, and the study has delivered a “breakthrough in ovarian cancer.” She nevertheless questioned the choice of the control arm, and pointed out that the hazard ratio in favor of the combination therapy is “relatively modest” considering that it involves three drugs.

Dr. Fotopoulou highlighted, however, that one of the most important results was in the HRD-negative patients, which she characterized as the equivalent of the clinicians going to “the dark side of the moon.” She said that “for the first time, we have a positive study in this patient population,” although she underlined that the results are from an interim analysis.

The key question that remains, Dr. Fotopoulou asked, is “why? What is making the difference?” She noted that, unfortunately, the trial design does not allow the identification of the relative contribution of olaparib and durvalumab.

The study was sponsored by AstraZeneca, and conducted in collaboration with the European Network of Gynaecological Oncological Trial Groups, GOG Foundation, and Myriad Genetic Laboratories. Dr. Aghajanian declared relationships with AstraZeneca, Merck, Eisai, Repare Therapeutics, AbbVie, Clovis Oncology, and Genentech/Roche. Dr. Markham declared relationships with Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, Aduro Biotech, Lilly, Tesaro, Novartis, VBL Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, and Merck.

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

A telephone-based weight loss intervention resulted in clinically meaningful weight loss in patients with breast cancer who were overweight and obese.

The finding comes from a case-control study of 3,136 women who had been diagnosed with stage II or III breast cancer. The average body mass index of participants was 34.5 kg/m², and mean age was 53.4 years.

After 6 months, patients who received telephone coaching as well as health education lost 4.4 kg (9.7 lb), which was 4.8% of their baseline body weight.

In contrast, patients in the control group, who received only health education, gained 0.2 kg (0.3% of their baseline body weight) over the same period.

At the 1-year mark, the telephone weight loss intervention group had maintained the weight they lost at 6 months, whereas the control group gained even more weight and ended with a 0.9% weight gain.

“This equated to a 5.56% weight differential in the two arms demonstrating significant weight loss, which was also clinically significant given that a 3% weight loss is sufficient to improve diabetes and other chronic diseases,” commented lead author Jennifer Ligibel, MD, associate professor of medicine at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston. 

She spoke at a press briefing ahead of the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, where the study was presented.

“Our study provides compelling evidence that weight loss interventions can successfully reduce weight in a diverse population of patients with breast cancer,” she said in a statement. At the time of diagnosis, 57% of patients were postmenopausal, 80.3% were White, 12.8% were Black, and 7.3% were Hispanic. 

Patients in the intervention group received a health education program plus a 2-year telephone-based weight loss program that focused on lowering calorie intake and increasing physical activity.

Those in the control group only received the health education program that included nontailored diet and exercise materials, a quarterly newsletter, twice-yearly webinars, and a subscription to a health magazine of the participant’s choosing

“This study was delivered completely remotely and it was done so purposefully because we wanted to develop a program that could work for somebody who lived in a rural area in the middle of the country, as well as it could for somebody who lived close to a cancer center,” Dr. Ligibel commented.

“The next step will be to determine whether this weight loss translates into lower rates of cancer recurrence and mortality. If our trial is successful in improving cancer outcomes, it will have far-reaching implications, demonstrating that weight loss should be incorporated into the standard of care for survivors of breast cancer,” she added.

Commenting on the new findings, ASCO expert Elizabeth Anne Comen, MD, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, said: “This study demonstrates that consistent health coaching by telephone – a more accessible, cost-effective approach compared to in-person programs – can significantly help patients with breast cancer lose weight over 1 year and is effective across diverse groups of patients.

“We anxiously await longer-term follow-up to see whether this weight reduction will ultimately improve outcomes for these patients,” she added.

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

A telephone-based weight loss intervention resulted in clinically meaningful weight loss in patients with breast cancer who were overweight and obese.

The finding comes from a case-control study of 3,136 women who had been diagnosed with stage II or III breast cancer. The average body mass index of participants was 34.5 kg/m², and mean age was 53.4 years.

After 6 months, patients who received telephone coaching as well as health education lost 4.4 kg (9.7 lb), which was 4.8% of their baseline body weight.

In contrast, patients in the control group, who received only health education, gained 0.2 kg (0.3% of their baseline body weight) over the same period.

At the 1-year mark, the telephone weight loss intervention group had maintained the weight they lost at 6 months, whereas the control group gained even more weight and ended with a 0.9% weight gain.

“This equated to a 5.56% weight differential in the two arms demonstrating significant weight loss, which was also clinically significant given that a 3% weight loss is sufficient to improve diabetes and other chronic diseases,” commented lead author Jennifer Ligibel, MD, associate professor of medicine at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston. 

She spoke at a press briefing ahead of the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, where the study was presented.

“Our study provides compelling evidence that weight loss interventions can successfully reduce weight in a diverse population of patients with breast cancer,” she said in a statement. At the time of diagnosis, 57% of patients were postmenopausal, 80.3% were White, 12.8% were Black, and 7.3% were Hispanic. 

Patients in the intervention group received a health education program plus a 2-year telephone-based weight loss program that focused on lowering calorie intake and increasing physical activity.

Those in the control group only received the health education program that included nontailored diet and exercise materials, a quarterly newsletter, twice-yearly webinars, and a subscription to a health magazine of the participant’s choosing

“This study was delivered completely remotely and it was done so purposefully because we wanted to develop a program that could work for somebody who lived in a rural area in the middle of the country, as well as it could for somebody who lived close to a cancer center,” Dr. Ligibel commented.

“The next step will be to determine whether this weight loss translates into lower rates of cancer recurrence and mortality. If our trial is successful in improving cancer outcomes, it will have far-reaching implications, demonstrating that weight loss should be incorporated into the standard of care for survivors of breast cancer,” she added.

Commenting on the new findings, ASCO expert Elizabeth Anne Comen, MD, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, said: “This study demonstrates that consistent health coaching by telephone – a more accessible, cost-effective approach compared to in-person programs – can significantly help patients with breast cancer lose weight over 1 year and is effective across diverse groups of patients.

“We anxiously await longer-term follow-up to see whether this weight reduction will ultimately improve outcomes for these patients,” she added.

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

A telephone-based weight loss intervention resulted in clinically meaningful weight loss in patients with breast cancer who were overweight and obese.

The finding comes from a case-control study of 3,136 women who had been diagnosed with stage II or III breast cancer. The average body mass index of participants was 34.5 kg/m², and mean age was 53.4 years.

After 6 months, patients who received telephone coaching as well as health education lost 4.4 kg (9.7 lb), which was 4.8% of their baseline body weight.

In contrast, patients in the control group, who received only health education, gained 0.2 kg (0.3% of their baseline body weight) over the same period.

At the 1-year mark, the telephone weight loss intervention group had maintained the weight they lost at 6 months, whereas the control group gained even more weight and ended with a 0.9% weight gain.

“This equated to a 5.56% weight differential in the two arms demonstrating significant weight loss, which was also clinically significant given that a 3% weight loss is sufficient to improve diabetes and other chronic diseases,” commented lead author Jennifer Ligibel, MD, associate professor of medicine at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston. 

She spoke at a press briefing ahead of the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, where the study was presented.

“Our study provides compelling evidence that weight loss interventions can successfully reduce weight in a diverse population of patients with breast cancer,” she said in a statement. At the time of diagnosis, 57% of patients were postmenopausal, 80.3% were White, 12.8% were Black, and 7.3% were Hispanic. 

Patients in the intervention group received a health education program plus a 2-year telephone-based weight loss program that focused on lowering calorie intake and increasing physical activity.

Those in the control group only received the health education program that included nontailored diet and exercise materials, a quarterly newsletter, twice-yearly webinars, and a subscription to a health magazine of the participant’s choosing

“This study was delivered completely remotely and it was done so purposefully because we wanted to develop a program that could work for somebody who lived in a rural area in the middle of the country, as well as it could for somebody who lived close to a cancer center,” Dr. Ligibel commented.

“The next step will be to determine whether this weight loss translates into lower rates of cancer recurrence and mortality. If our trial is successful in improving cancer outcomes, it will have far-reaching implications, demonstrating that weight loss should be incorporated into the standard of care for survivors of breast cancer,” she added.

Commenting on the new findings, ASCO expert Elizabeth Anne Comen, MD, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, said: “This study demonstrates that consistent health coaching by telephone – a more accessible, cost-effective approach compared to in-person programs – can significantly help patients with breast cancer lose weight over 1 year and is effective across diverse groups of patients.

“We anxiously await longer-term follow-up to see whether this weight reduction will ultimately improve outcomes for these patients,” she added.

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

CHICAGO – A new meta-analysis of 25 studies dating back to 1948 provides more evidence linking ovarian suppression/ablation in premenopausal women to less recurrence and more survival in the long term after breast cancer.

Those who didn’t take tamoxifen – a standard treatment today – seemed to gain an especially large benefit.

The randomized studies, which included 14,999 subjects, suggest that ovarian suppression/ablation can provide a “substantial and persistent benefit for premenopausal women,” said study lead author and medical statistician Richard G. Gray, MA, MSc, of the University of Oxford (England), in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

The study authors sought to better understand the value of ovarian suppression/ablation, which may prevent estrogen from stimulating residual cancer after treatment. According to the study abstract, premenopausal women with estrogen receptor–positive tumors may be at special risk of cancer recurrence because of this phenomenon.

Recently published research has supported hormone therapy targeting the ovaries in this population.

“Ovarian suppression with an aromatase inhibitor should become the preferred initial hormone therapy recommendation for all premenopausal women with high-risk (i.e., grade 3, T2, and age less than 35 years) estrogen receptor–positive breast cancer,” declared a 2022 editorial in the Journal of Clinical Oncology that noted the positive findings of a 13-year follow-up analysis of 2 studies.
 

Study methods and results

For the meta-analysis released at ASCO, researchers examined 25 trials that randomized women with breast cancer who were premenopausal. In some cases, the women went through menopause during the trials, and in some other cases, ovarian suppression/ablation brought on early menopause.

Among women who had received no chemotherapy or remained premenopausal after chemotherapy (n = 7,213), cancer recurred within 15 years in 41% of the controls and 28.9% of the ovarian suppression/ablation group, (relative risk, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.63-0.78; P < .00001).

Among these same women, breast cancer mortality at 20 years was 34.7% in the controls and 23.8% in the ovarian suppression/ablation group (RR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.62-0.81; P < .00001).

The researchers also looked at the same group of women and divided it into those who didn’t take tamoxifen (2,362) and those who did take tamoxifen (4,851). The drug is now the preferred option “for treatment of breast cancer.”

Among those who did not take tamoxifen, the recurrence rate at 15 years was 56.5% among controls versus 39.0% among those in the ovarian suppression/ablation group (RR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.52-0.72; P < .00001). The gap shrunk in those who did take tamoxifen: recurrence occurred in 30.3% of the control group and 25.8% of the ovarian suppression/ablation group (RR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.70-0.93; P = .002).
 

Tamoxifen on its own seems to have powerful positive effect

The findings suggest that tamoxifen on its own has a powerful positive effect, leaving less extra benefit for ovarian suppression/ablation to provide, said Mr. Gray.

The meta-analysis didn’t examine cost or cost-effectiveness.

Kevin Kalinsky, MD, MS, an oncologist at Emory University Hospital, Atlanta, cochair of the session where the meta-analysis data was presented, said in an interview that the new research shows that “patients can really benefit from ovarian function suppression.” Even so, recent trials suggested that the strategy is uncommon, used by less than 20% of high-risk patients.

Dr. Kalinsky noted that suppressing the ovaries with medication or removing the ovaries entirely can cause early menopause and eliminate fertility.

“There can be definitely be side effects like hot flashes and tolerability issues,” he said, “along with an impact on quality of life.”

According to the U.K. organization Breast Cancer Now,“ovarian suppression achieved by hormone therapy or surgery is more likely to cause menopausal symptoms than a natural menopause.” In addition, “research has shown that younger women are more likely to stop taking hormone therapy early if they don’t get help with possible side effects.”

It’s important for patients and providers to have full discussions about possible strategies, Dr. Kalinsky said.

No information about study funding was provided. Dr. Kalinsky and Mr. Gray had no financial conflicts.

CHICAGO – A new meta-analysis of 25 studies dating back to 1948 provides more evidence linking ovarian suppression/ablation in premenopausal women to less recurrence and more survival in the long term after breast cancer.

Those who didn’t take tamoxifen – a standard treatment today – seemed to gain an especially large benefit.

The randomized studies, which included 14,999 subjects, suggest that ovarian suppression/ablation can provide a “substantial and persistent benefit for premenopausal women,” said study lead author and medical statistician Richard G. Gray, MA, MSc, of the University of Oxford (England), in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

The study authors sought to better understand the value of ovarian suppression/ablation, which may prevent estrogen from stimulating residual cancer after treatment. According to the study abstract, premenopausal women with estrogen receptor–positive tumors may be at special risk of cancer recurrence because of this phenomenon.

Recently published research has supported hormone therapy targeting the ovaries in this population.

“Ovarian suppression with an aromatase inhibitor should become the preferred initial hormone therapy recommendation for all premenopausal women with high-risk (i.e., grade 3, T2, and age less than 35 years) estrogen receptor–positive breast cancer,” declared a 2022 editorial in the Journal of Clinical Oncology that noted the positive findings of a 13-year follow-up analysis of 2 studies.
 

Study methods and results

For the meta-analysis released at ASCO, researchers examined 25 trials that randomized women with breast cancer who were premenopausal. In some cases, the women went through menopause during the trials, and in some other cases, ovarian suppression/ablation brought on early menopause.

Among women who had received no chemotherapy or remained premenopausal after chemotherapy (n = 7,213), cancer recurred within 15 years in 41% of the controls and 28.9% of the ovarian suppression/ablation group, (relative risk, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.63-0.78; P < .00001).

Among these same women, breast cancer mortality at 20 years was 34.7% in the controls and 23.8% in the ovarian suppression/ablation group (RR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.62-0.81; P < .00001).

The researchers also looked at the same group of women and divided it into those who didn’t take tamoxifen (2,362) and those who did take tamoxifen (4,851). The drug is now the preferred option “for treatment of breast cancer.”

Among those who did not take tamoxifen, the recurrence rate at 15 years was 56.5% among controls versus 39.0% among those in the ovarian suppression/ablation group (RR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.52-0.72; P < .00001). The gap shrunk in those who did take tamoxifen: recurrence occurred in 30.3% of the control group and 25.8% of the ovarian suppression/ablation group (RR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.70-0.93; P = .002).
 

Tamoxifen on its own seems to have powerful positive effect

The findings suggest that tamoxifen on its own has a powerful positive effect, leaving less extra benefit for ovarian suppression/ablation to provide, said Mr. Gray.

The meta-analysis didn’t examine cost or cost-effectiveness.

Kevin Kalinsky, MD, MS, an oncologist at Emory University Hospital, Atlanta, cochair of the session where the meta-analysis data was presented, said in an interview that the new research shows that “patients can really benefit from ovarian function suppression.” Even so, recent trials suggested that the strategy is uncommon, used by less than 20% of high-risk patients.

Dr. Kalinsky noted that suppressing the ovaries with medication or removing the ovaries entirely can cause early menopause and eliminate fertility.

“There can be definitely be side effects like hot flashes and tolerability issues,” he said, “along with an impact on quality of life.”

According to the U.K. organization Breast Cancer Now,“ovarian suppression achieved by hormone therapy or surgery is more likely to cause menopausal symptoms than a natural menopause.” In addition, “research has shown that younger women are more likely to stop taking hormone therapy early if they don’t get help with possible side effects.”

It’s important for patients and providers to have full discussions about possible strategies, Dr. Kalinsky said.

No information about study funding was provided. Dr. Kalinsky and Mr. Gray had no financial conflicts.

CHICAGO – A new meta-analysis of 25 studies dating back to 1948 provides more evidence linking ovarian suppression/ablation in premenopausal women to less recurrence and more survival in the long term after breast cancer.

Those who didn’t take tamoxifen – a standard treatment today – seemed to gain an especially large benefit.

The randomized studies, which included 14,999 subjects, suggest that ovarian suppression/ablation can provide a “substantial and persistent benefit for premenopausal women,” said study lead author and medical statistician Richard G. Gray, MA, MSc, of the University of Oxford (England), in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

The study authors sought to better understand the value of ovarian suppression/ablation, which may prevent estrogen from stimulating residual cancer after treatment. According to the study abstract, premenopausal women with estrogen receptor–positive tumors may be at special risk of cancer recurrence because of this phenomenon.

Recently published research has supported hormone therapy targeting the ovaries in this population.

“Ovarian suppression with an aromatase inhibitor should become the preferred initial hormone therapy recommendation for all premenopausal women with high-risk (i.e., grade 3, T2, and age less than 35 years) estrogen receptor–positive breast cancer,” declared a 2022 editorial in the Journal of Clinical Oncology that noted the positive findings of a 13-year follow-up analysis of 2 studies.
 

Study methods and results

For the meta-analysis released at ASCO, researchers examined 25 trials that randomized women with breast cancer who were premenopausal. In some cases, the women went through menopause during the trials, and in some other cases, ovarian suppression/ablation brought on early menopause.

Among women who had received no chemotherapy or remained premenopausal after chemotherapy (n = 7,213), cancer recurred within 15 years in 41% of the controls and 28.9% of the ovarian suppression/ablation group, (relative risk, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.63-0.78; P < .00001).

Among these same women, breast cancer mortality at 20 years was 34.7% in the controls and 23.8% in the ovarian suppression/ablation group (RR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.62-0.81; P < .00001).

The researchers also looked at the same group of women and divided it into those who didn’t take tamoxifen (2,362) and those who did take tamoxifen (4,851). The drug is now the preferred option “for treatment of breast cancer.”

Among those who did not take tamoxifen, the recurrence rate at 15 years was 56.5% among controls versus 39.0% among those in the ovarian suppression/ablation group (RR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.52-0.72; P < .00001). The gap shrunk in those who did take tamoxifen: recurrence occurred in 30.3% of the control group and 25.8% of the ovarian suppression/ablation group (RR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.70-0.93; P = .002).
 

Tamoxifen on its own seems to have powerful positive effect

The findings suggest that tamoxifen on its own has a powerful positive effect, leaving less extra benefit for ovarian suppression/ablation to provide, said Mr. Gray.

The meta-analysis didn’t examine cost or cost-effectiveness.

Kevin Kalinsky, MD, MS, an oncologist at Emory University Hospital, Atlanta, cochair of the session where the meta-analysis data was presented, said in an interview that the new research shows that “patients can really benefit from ovarian function suppression.” Even so, recent trials suggested that the strategy is uncommon, used by less than 20% of high-risk patients.

Dr. Kalinsky noted that suppressing the ovaries with medication or removing the ovaries entirely can cause early menopause and eliminate fertility.

“There can be definitely be side effects like hot flashes and tolerability issues,” he said, “along with an impact on quality of life.”

According to the U.K. organization Breast Cancer Now,“ovarian suppression achieved by hormone therapy or surgery is more likely to cause menopausal symptoms than a natural menopause.” In addition, “research has shown that younger women are more likely to stop taking hormone therapy early if they don’t get help with possible side effects.”

It’s important for patients and providers to have full discussions about possible strategies, Dr. Kalinsky said.

No information about study funding was provided. Dr. Kalinsky and Mr. Gray had no financial conflicts.

CHICAGO – When it comes to preventing pelvic recurrence in low-risk cervical cancer, simple hysterectomy is not inferior to radical hysterectomy, according to results from a phase 3, randomized, controlled trial.

“Following adequate and rigorous preoperative assessment, and that’s key – very careful [patient selection] – simple hysterectomies can now be considered the new standard of care for patients with low-risk early-stage cervical cancer,” said Marie Plante, MD, during a presentation of the study at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. A simple hysterectomy removes the uterus and cervix, while a radical hysterectomy also removes the parametrium and upper vagina.

Cervical cancer incidence has gone down over the past 2 decades as a result of improved screening, and patients tend to be lower in age and are more likely to have low-risk, early-stage disease, according to Dr. Plante. “Although radical surgery is highly effective for the treatment of low-risk disease, women are at risk of suffering survivorship issues related to long-term surgical side effects including compromised bladder, bowel, and sexual function,” said Dr. Plante, who is a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Laval University and head of clinical research at l’Hôtel-Dieu de Québec, both in Quebec City.

Retrospective studies found that infiltration of the parametrium is quite rare in low-risk cases, “suggesting that less radical surgery may be a safe option associated with decreased morbidity – what we call surgical de-escalation,” said Dr. Plante.

To test that idea more rigorously, the researchers designed the SHAPE trial, which randomized 700 women to a simple hysterectomy or radical hysterectomy. Patients were carefully selected to be low risk, having squamous cell, adenocarcinoma, or adenosquamous carcinoma, stage IA2 or IB2 tumors, fewer than 10 mm of stromal invasion on loop electrosurgical excision procedure or cone biopsy, less than 50% stromal invasion seen in MRI, and a maximum tumor dimension of 20 mm or less. Tumors were grade I-III or not assessable.

Over a median follow-up of 4.5 years, pelvic recurrence was 2.52% in the simple hysterectomy group and 2.17% in the radical hysterectomy group. The difference between the recurrence rate between the two groups was 0.35%, with an upper 95% confidence limit of 2.32%, below the threshold of 4% which had been predetermined as a benchmark for similar outcomes between the two groups. “Therefore, noninferiority of simple hysterectomy to radical hysterectomy could be concluded,” said Dr. Plante.

There were no statistically significant differences in intraoperative complications or mortality between the groups.
 

Surgery-related adverse events greater in radical hysterectomy group

There were some differences between the groups with respect to surgery-related adverse events. Within 4 weeks of surgery, there was a greater incidence of any adverse event in the radical hysterectomy group (50.6% vs. 42.6%; P = .04), as well as greater incidences of urinary incontinence (5.5% vs. 2.4%; P = .048) and urinary retention (11.0% vs. 0.6%; P < .0001). In the 4 weeks following surgery, there was a trend toward more surgery-related adverse events in the radical hysterectomy group (60.5% vs. 53.6%; P = .08) and higher incidences of urinary incontinence (11.0% vs. 4.7%; P = .003) and urinary retention (9.9% vs. 0.6%; P < .0001).

“Urinary incontinence and urinary retention are statistically worse in the radical hysterectomy group – both acutely, as well as [during] the following four weeks after surgery, suggesting that the problem persisted over time,” said Dr. Plante.

Dr. Plante also presented the study at a premeeting virtual press conference, during which Kathleen Moore, MD, provided comments on the study. She expressed enthusiasm about the results.

“Amongst those carefully selected tumors, radical hysterectomy can be converted to a simple hysterectomy, including minimally invasive. You still have to do nodes – that’s an important thing to remember – but you can do this without loss of oncologic control. And importantly, with reduction in surgical complications, postop morbidity, specifically neurologic morbidity. The moment this is presented [at the ASCO conference] this will be the new standard of care, and it represents a huge step forward in the care of women with early-stage cervical cancer,” said Dr. Moore, who is a professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City.

Also in the press conference, Dr. Plante emphasized the importance of a thorough understanding of the tumor, including size, imaging, and pathology. “The more conservative one wants to be, the more meticulous, the more careful one has to be to make sure that we’re truly dealing with low-risk patients.”

During the question-and-answer session following her presentation at the ASCO session, a moderator asked Dr. Plante if the presence of lymph vascular space invasion (LVSI) should prompt a radical hysterectomy.

Dr. Plante noted that about 13% of both radical and simple hysterectomy groups had LVSI present. “I think the key thing is careful selection, but I’m not sure that we should exclude LVSI [from consideration for simple hysterectomy] de facto,” she said.

Dr. Plante has consulted or advised Merck Serono and has received travel, accommodations, or other expenses from AstraZeneca. Dr. Moore has consulted, advised, and received research funding and travel expenses from numerous pharmaceutical companies.

CHICAGO – When it comes to preventing pelvic recurrence in low-risk cervical cancer, simple hysterectomy is not inferior to radical hysterectomy, according to results from a phase 3, randomized, controlled trial.

“Following adequate and rigorous preoperative assessment, and that’s key – very careful [patient selection] – simple hysterectomies can now be considered the new standard of care for patients with low-risk early-stage cervical cancer,” said Marie Plante, MD, during a presentation of the study at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. A simple hysterectomy removes the uterus and cervix, while a radical hysterectomy also removes the parametrium and upper vagina.

Cervical cancer incidence has gone down over the past 2 decades as a result of improved screening, and patients tend to be lower in age and are more likely to have low-risk, early-stage disease, according to Dr. Plante. “Although radical surgery is highly effective for the treatment of low-risk disease, women are at risk of suffering survivorship issues related to long-term surgical side effects including compromised bladder, bowel, and sexual function,” said Dr. Plante, who is a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Laval University and head of clinical research at l’Hôtel-Dieu de Québec, both in Quebec City.

Retrospective studies found that infiltration of the parametrium is quite rare in low-risk cases, “suggesting that less radical surgery may be a safe option associated with decreased morbidity – what we call surgical de-escalation,” said Dr. Plante.

To test that idea more rigorously, the researchers designed the SHAPE trial, which randomized 700 women to a simple hysterectomy or radical hysterectomy. Patients were carefully selected to be low risk, having squamous cell, adenocarcinoma, or adenosquamous carcinoma, stage IA2 or IB2 tumors, fewer than 10 mm of stromal invasion on loop electrosurgical excision procedure or cone biopsy, less than 50% stromal invasion seen in MRI, and a maximum tumor dimension of 20 mm or less. Tumors were grade I-III or not assessable.

Over a median follow-up of 4.5 years, pelvic recurrence was 2.52% in the simple hysterectomy group and 2.17% in the radical hysterectomy group. The difference between the recurrence rate between the two groups was 0.35%, with an upper 95% confidence limit of 2.32%, below the threshold of 4% which had been predetermined as a benchmark for similar outcomes between the two groups. “Therefore, noninferiority of simple hysterectomy to radical hysterectomy could be concluded,” said Dr. Plante.

There were no statistically significant differences in intraoperative complications or mortality between the groups.
 

Surgery-related adverse events greater in radical hysterectomy group

There were some differences between the groups with respect to surgery-related adverse events. Within 4 weeks of surgery, there was a greater incidence of any adverse event in the radical hysterectomy group (50.6% vs. 42.6%; P = .04), as well as greater incidences of urinary incontinence (5.5% vs. 2.4%; P = .048) and urinary retention (11.0% vs. 0.6%; P < .0001). In the 4 weeks following surgery, there was a trend toward more surgery-related adverse events in the radical hysterectomy group (60.5% vs. 53.6%; P = .08) and higher incidences of urinary incontinence (11.0% vs. 4.7%; P = .003) and urinary retention (9.9% vs. 0.6%; P < .0001).

“Urinary incontinence and urinary retention are statistically worse in the radical hysterectomy group – both acutely, as well as [during] the following four weeks after surgery, suggesting that the problem persisted over time,” said Dr. Plante.

Dr. Plante also presented the study at a premeeting virtual press conference, during which Kathleen Moore, MD, provided comments on the study. She expressed enthusiasm about the results.

“Amongst those carefully selected tumors, radical hysterectomy can be converted to a simple hysterectomy, including minimally invasive. You still have to do nodes – that’s an important thing to remember – but you can do this without loss of oncologic control. And importantly, with reduction in surgical complications, postop morbidity, specifically neurologic morbidity. The moment this is presented [at the ASCO conference] this will be the new standard of care, and it represents a huge step forward in the care of women with early-stage cervical cancer,” said Dr. Moore, who is a professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City.

Also in the press conference, Dr. Plante emphasized the importance of a thorough understanding of the tumor, including size, imaging, and pathology. “The more conservative one wants to be, the more meticulous, the more careful one has to be to make sure that we’re truly dealing with low-risk patients.”

During the question-and-answer session following her presentation at the ASCO session, a moderator asked Dr. Plante if the presence of lymph vascular space invasion (LVSI) should prompt a radical hysterectomy.

Dr. Plante noted that about 13% of both radical and simple hysterectomy groups had LVSI present. “I think the key thing is careful selection, but I’m not sure that we should exclude LVSI [from consideration for simple hysterectomy] de facto,” she said.

Dr. Plante has consulted or advised Merck Serono and has received travel, accommodations, or other expenses from AstraZeneca. Dr. Moore has consulted, advised, and received research funding and travel expenses from numerous pharmaceutical companies.

CHICAGO – When it comes to preventing pelvic recurrence in low-risk cervical cancer, simple hysterectomy is not inferior to radical hysterectomy, according to results from a phase 3, randomized, controlled trial.

“Following adequate and rigorous preoperative assessment, and that’s key – very careful [patient selection] – simple hysterectomies can now be considered the new standard of care for patients with low-risk early-stage cervical cancer,” said Marie Plante, MD, during a presentation of the study at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. A simple hysterectomy removes the uterus and cervix, while a radical hysterectomy also removes the parametrium and upper vagina.

Cervical cancer incidence has gone down over the past 2 decades as a result of improved screening, and patients tend to be lower in age and are more likely to have low-risk, early-stage disease, according to Dr. Plante. “Although radical surgery is highly effective for the treatment of low-risk disease, women are at risk of suffering survivorship issues related to long-term surgical side effects including compromised bladder, bowel, and sexual function,” said Dr. Plante, who is a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Laval University and head of clinical research at l’Hôtel-Dieu de Québec, both in Quebec City.

Retrospective studies found that infiltration of the parametrium is quite rare in low-risk cases, “suggesting that less radical surgery may be a safe option associated with decreased morbidity – what we call surgical de-escalation,” said Dr. Plante.

To test that idea more rigorously, the researchers designed the SHAPE trial, which randomized 700 women to a simple hysterectomy or radical hysterectomy. Patients were carefully selected to be low risk, having squamous cell, adenocarcinoma, or adenosquamous carcinoma, stage IA2 or IB2 tumors, fewer than 10 mm of stromal invasion on loop electrosurgical excision procedure or cone biopsy, less than 50% stromal invasion seen in MRI, and a maximum tumor dimension of 20 mm or less. Tumors were grade I-III or not assessable.

Over a median follow-up of 4.5 years, pelvic recurrence was 2.52% in the simple hysterectomy group and 2.17% in the radical hysterectomy group. The difference between the recurrence rate between the two groups was 0.35%, with an upper 95% confidence limit of 2.32%, below the threshold of 4% which had been predetermined as a benchmark for similar outcomes between the two groups. “Therefore, noninferiority of simple hysterectomy to radical hysterectomy could be concluded,” said Dr. Plante.

There were no statistically significant differences in intraoperative complications or mortality between the groups.
 

Surgery-related adverse events greater in radical hysterectomy group

There were some differences between the groups with respect to surgery-related adverse events. Within 4 weeks of surgery, there was a greater incidence of any adverse event in the radical hysterectomy group (50.6% vs. 42.6%; P = .04), as well as greater incidences of urinary incontinence (5.5% vs. 2.4%; P = .048) and urinary retention (11.0% vs. 0.6%; P < .0001). In the 4 weeks following surgery, there was a trend toward more surgery-related adverse events in the radical hysterectomy group (60.5% vs. 53.6%; P = .08) and higher incidences of urinary incontinence (11.0% vs. 4.7%; P = .003) and urinary retention (9.9% vs. 0.6%; P < .0001).

“Urinary incontinence and urinary retention are statistically worse in the radical hysterectomy group – both acutely, as well as [during] the following four weeks after surgery, suggesting that the problem persisted over time,” said Dr. Plante.

Dr. Plante also presented the study at a premeeting virtual press conference, during which Kathleen Moore, MD, provided comments on the study. She expressed enthusiasm about the results.

“Amongst those carefully selected tumors, radical hysterectomy can be converted to a simple hysterectomy, including minimally invasive. You still have to do nodes – that’s an important thing to remember – but you can do this without loss of oncologic control. And importantly, with reduction in surgical complications, postop morbidity, specifically neurologic morbidity. The moment this is presented [at the ASCO conference] this will be the new standard of care, and it represents a huge step forward in the care of women with early-stage cervical cancer,” said Dr. Moore, who is a professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City.

Also in the press conference, Dr. Plante emphasized the importance of a thorough understanding of the tumor, including size, imaging, and pathology. “The more conservative one wants to be, the more meticulous, the more careful one has to be to make sure that we’re truly dealing with low-risk patients.”

During the question-and-answer session following her presentation at the ASCO session, a moderator asked Dr. Plante if the presence of lymph vascular space invasion (LVSI) should prompt a radical hysterectomy.

Dr. Plante noted that about 13% of both radical and simple hysterectomy groups had LVSI present. “I think the key thing is careful selection, but I’m not sure that we should exclude LVSI [from consideration for simple hysterectomy] de facto,” she said.

Dr. Plante has consulted or advised Merck Serono and has received travel, accommodations, or other expenses from AstraZeneca. Dr. Moore has consulted, advised, and received research funding and travel expenses from numerous pharmaceutical companies.

While physicians are getting less of a Medicare pay cut than they thought this year (Congress voted to cut Medicare payments by 2%, which was less than the expected 8.5%), Medicare still pays physicians only 80% of what many third-party insurers pay.

Moreover, those reimbursements are often slow to arrive, and the paperwork is burdensome. In fact, about 65% of doctors won’t accept new Medicare patients, down from 71% just 5 years ago, according to the Medscape Physician Compensation Report 2023.

Worse, inflation makes continuous cuts feel even steeper and trickles down to physicians and their patients as more and more doctors become disenchanted and consider dropping Medicare.
 

Medicare at a glance

Medicare pays physicians about 80% of the “reasonable charge” for covered services. At the same time, private insurers pay nearly double Medicare rates for hospital services.

The Medicare fee schedule is released each year. Physicians who accept Medicare can choose to be a “participating provider” by agreeing to the fee schedule and to not charging more than this amount. “Nonparticipating” providers can charge up to 15% more. Physicians can also opt out of Medicare entirely.

The earliest that physicians receive their payment is 14 days after electronic filing to 28 days after paper filing, but it often can take months.

Physicians lose an estimated 7.3% of Medicare claims to billing problems. With private insurers, an estimated 4.8% is lost.

In 2000, there were 50 million Medicare enrollees; it is projected that by 2050, there will be 87 million enrollees.
 

Why are doctors disenchanted?

“When Medicare started, the concept of the program was good,” said Rahul Gupta, MD, a geriatrician in Westport, Conn., and chief of internal medicine at St. Vincent’s Medical Center, Bridgeport, Conn. “However, over the years, with new developments in medicine and the explosion of the Medicare-eligible population, the program hasn’t kept up with coverages.” In addition, Medicare’s behemoth power as a government-run agency has ramifications that trickle down irrespective of a patient’s insurance carrier.

“Medicare sets the tone on price and reimbursement, and everyone follows suit,” Dr. Gupta said. “It’s a race to the bottom.”

“The program is great for patients when people need hospitalizations, skilled nursing, and physical therapy,” Dr. Gupta said. “But it’s not great about keeping people healthier and maintaining function via preventive treatments.” Many private insurers must become more adept at that too.

For instance, Dr. Gupta laments the lack of coverage for hearing aids, something his patients could greatly benefit from. Thanks to the Build Back Better bill, coverage of hearing aids will begin in 2024. But, again, most private insurers don’t cover hearing aids either. Some Medicare Advantage plans do.

Medicare doesn’t cover eye health (except for eye exams for diabetes patients), which is an issue for Daniel Laroche, MD, a glaucoma specialist and clinical associate professor of ophthalmology at Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York.

“I get paid less for Medicare patients by about 20% because of ‘lesser-of’ payments,” said Dr. Laroche. For example, as per Medicare, after patients meet their Part B deductible, they pay 20% of the Medicare-approved amount for glaucoma testing. “It would be nice to get the full amount for Medicare patients.”

“In addition, getting approvals for testing takes time and exhaustive amounts of paperwork, says Adeeti Gupta, MD, a gynecologist and founder of Walk In GYN Care in New York.

“Medicare only covers gynecologist visits every 2 years after the age of 65,” she said. “Any additional testing requires authorization, and Medicare doesn’t cover hormone replacement at all, which really makes me crazy. They will cover Viagra for men, but they won’t cover HRT, which prolongs life, reduces dementia, and prevents bone loss.”

While these three doctors find Medicare lacking in its coverage of their specialty, and their reimbursements are too low, many physicians also find fault regarding Medicare billing, which can put their patients at risk.
 

The problem with Medicare billing

Because claims are processed by Medicare administrative contractors, it can take about a month for the approval or denial process and for doctors to receive reimbursement.

Prior authorizations, especially with Medicare Advantage plans, are also problematic. For example, one 2022 study found that 18% of payment denials were for services that met coverage and billing rules.

Worse, all of this jockeying for coverage takes time. The average health care provider spends 16.4 hours a week on paperwork and on securing prior authorizations to cover services, according to the American Medical Association.

“A good 40% of my time is exclusively Medicare red tape paperwork,” Rahul Gupta says. “There’s a reason I spend 2-3 hours a night catching up on that stuff.”

Not only does this lead to burnout, but it also means that most physicians must hire an administrator to help with the paperwork.

In comparison, industry averages put the denial rate for all Medicare and private insurance claims at 20%.

“Excessive authorization controls required by health insurers are persistently responsible for serious harm to physician practices and patients when necessary medical care is delayed, denied, or disrupted in an attempt to increase profits,” Dr. Laroche said.

“Our office spends nearly 2 days per week on prior authorizations, creating costly administrative burdens.”

For Adeeti Gupta, the frustrations with Medicare have continued to mount. “We’re just at a dead end,” she said. “Authorizations keep getting denied, and the back-end paperwork is only increasing for us.”
 

Will more doctors opt out of Medicare?

When doctors don’t accept Medicare, it hurts the patients using it, especially patients who have selected either a Medicare Advantage plan or who become eligible for Medicare at age 65 only to find that fewer doctors take the government-sponsored insurance than in the past.

As of 2020, only 1% of nonpediatric physicians had formally opted out, per the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Psychiatrists account for the largest share of opt-outs (7.2%).

“Unfortunately, most doctors outside of hospital-based practices will reach a point when they can’t deal with Medicare paperwork, so they’ll stop taking it,” Rahul Gupta says.

A coalition of 120 physicians’ groups, including the American Medical Association, disputes that Medicare is paying a fair reimbursement rate to physicians and calls for an overhaul in how they adjust physician pay.

“Nothing much changes no matter how much the AMA shouts,” Rahul Gupta said in an interview.
 

What can doctors do

Prescription prices are another example of the challenges posed by Medicare. When prescriptions are denied because of Medicare’s medigap (or donut hole) program, which puts a cap on medication coverage, which was $4,660 in 2023, Dr. Gupta says she turns to alternative ways to fill them.

“I’ve been telling patients to pay out of pocket and use GoodRx, or we get medications compounded,” she said. “That’s cheaper. For example, for HRT, GoodRx can bring down the cost 40% to 50%.”

The American Medical Association as well as 150 other medical advocacy groups continue to urge Congress to work with the physician community to address the systematic problems within Medicare, especially reimbursement.

Despite the daily challenges, Rahul Gupta says he remains committed to caring for his patients.

“I want to care for the elderly, especially because they already have very few physicians to take care of them, and fortunately, I have a good practice with other coverages,” he said. “I can’t give up.”

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

While physicians are getting less of a Medicare pay cut than they thought this year (Congress voted to cut Medicare payments by 2%, which was less than the expected 8.5%), Medicare still pays physicians only 80% of what many third-party insurers pay.

Moreover, those reimbursements are often slow to arrive, and the paperwork is burdensome. In fact, about 65% of doctors won’t accept new Medicare patients, down from 71% just 5 years ago, according to the Medscape Physician Compensation Report 2023.

Worse, inflation makes continuous cuts feel even steeper and trickles down to physicians and their patients as more and more doctors become disenchanted and consider dropping Medicare.
 

Medicare at a glance

Medicare pays physicians about 80% of the “reasonable charge” for covered services. At the same time, private insurers pay nearly double Medicare rates for hospital services.

The Medicare fee schedule is released each year. Physicians who accept Medicare can choose to be a “participating provider” by agreeing to the fee schedule and to not charging more than this amount. “Nonparticipating” providers can charge up to 15% more. Physicians can also opt out of Medicare entirely.

The earliest that physicians receive their payment is 14 days after electronic filing to 28 days after paper filing, but it often can take months.

Physicians lose an estimated 7.3% of Medicare claims to billing problems. With private insurers, an estimated 4.8% is lost.

In 2000, there were 50 million Medicare enrollees; it is projected that by 2050, there will be 87 million enrollees.
 

Why are doctors disenchanted?

“When Medicare started, the concept of the program was good,” said Rahul Gupta, MD, a geriatrician in Westport, Conn., and chief of internal medicine at St. Vincent’s Medical Center, Bridgeport, Conn. “However, over the years, with new developments in medicine and the explosion of the Medicare-eligible population, the program hasn’t kept up with coverages.” In addition, Medicare’s behemoth power as a government-run agency has ramifications that trickle down irrespective of a patient’s insurance carrier.

“Medicare sets the tone on price and reimbursement, and everyone follows suit,” Dr. Gupta said. “It’s a race to the bottom.”

“The program is great for patients when people need hospitalizations, skilled nursing, and physical therapy,” Dr. Gupta said. “But it’s not great about keeping people healthier and maintaining function via preventive treatments.” Many private insurers must become more adept at that too.

For instance, Dr. Gupta laments the lack of coverage for hearing aids, something his patients could greatly benefit from. Thanks to the Build Back Better bill, coverage of hearing aids will begin in 2024. But, again, most private insurers don’t cover hearing aids either. Some Medicare Advantage plans do.

Medicare doesn’t cover eye health (except for eye exams for diabetes patients), which is an issue for Daniel Laroche, MD, a glaucoma specialist and clinical associate professor of ophthalmology at Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York.

“I get paid less for Medicare patients by about 20% because of ‘lesser-of’ payments,” said Dr. Laroche. For example, as per Medicare, after patients meet their Part B deductible, they pay 20% of the Medicare-approved amount for glaucoma testing. “It would be nice to get the full amount for Medicare patients.”

“In addition, getting approvals for testing takes time and exhaustive amounts of paperwork, says Adeeti Gupta, MD, a gynecologist and founder of Walk In GYN Care in New York.

“Medicare only covers gynecologist visits every 2 years after the age of 65,” she said. “Any additional testing requires authorization, and Medicare doesn’t cover hormone replacement at all, which really makes me crazy. They will cover Viagra for men, but they won’t cover HRT, which prolongs life, reduces dementia, and prevents bone loss.”

While these three doctors find Medicare lacking in its coverage of their specialty, and their reimbursements are too low, many physicians also find fault regarding Medicare billing, which can put their patients at risk.
 

The problem with Medicare billing

Because claims are processed by Medicare administrative contractors, it can take about a month for the approval or denial process and for doctors to receive reimbursement.

Prior authorizations, especially with Medicare Advantage plans, are also problematic. For example, one 2022 study found that 18% of payment denials were for services that met coverage and billing rules.

Worse, all of this jockeying for coverage takes time. The average health care provider spends 16.4 hours a week on paperwork and on securing prior authorizations to cover services, according to the American Medical Association.

“A good 40% of my time is exclusively Medicare red tape paperwork,” Rahul Gupta says. “There’s a reason I spend 2-3 hours a night catching up on that stuff.”

Not only does this lead to burnout, but it also means that most physicians must hire an administrator to help with the paperwork.

In comparison, industry averages put the denial rate for all Medicare and private insurance claims at 20%.

“Excessive authorization controls required by health insurers are persistently responsible for serious harm to physician practices and patients when necessary medical care is delayed, denied, or disrupted in an attempt to increase profits,” Dr. Laroche said.

“Our office spends nearly 2 days per week on prior authorizations, creating costly administrative burdens.”

For Adeeti Gupta, the frustrations with Medicare have continued to mount. “We’re just at a dead end,” she said. “Authorizations keep getting denied, and the back-end paperwork is only increasing for us.”
 

Will more doctors opt out of Medicare?

When doctors don’t accept Medicare, it hurts the patients using it, especially patients who have selected either a Medicare Advantage plan or who become eligible for Medicare at age 65 only to find that fewer doctors take the government-sponsored insurance than in the past.

As of 2020, only 1% of nonpediatric physicians had formally opted out, per the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Psychiatrists account for the largest share of opt-outs (7.2%).

“Unfortunately, most doctors outside of hospital-based practices will reach a point when they can’t deal with Medicare paperwork, so they’ll stop taking it,” Rahul Gupta says.

A coalition of 120 physicians’ groups, including the American Medical Association, disputes that Medicare is paying a fair reimbursement rate to physicians and calls for an overhaul in how they adjust physician pay.

“Nothing much changes no matter how much the AMA shouts,” Rahul Gupta said in an interview.
 

What can doctors do

Prescription prices are another example of the challenges posed by Medicare. When prescriptions are denied because of Medicare’s medigap (or donut hole) program, which puts a cap on medication coverage, which was $4,660 in 2023, Dr. Gupta says she turns to alternative ways to fill them.

“I’ve been telling patients to pay out of pocket and use GoodRx, or we get medications compounded,” she said. “That’s cheaper. For example, for HRT, GoodRx can bring down the cost 40% to 50%.”

The American Medical Association as well as 150 other medical advocacy groups continue to urge Congress to work with the physician community to address the systematic problems within Medicare, especially reimbursement.

Despite the daily challenges, Rahul Gupta says he remains committed to caring for his patients.

“I want to care for the elderly, especially because they already have very few physicians to take care of them, and fortunately, I have a good practice with other coverages,” he said. “I can’t give up.”

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

While physicians are getting less of a Medicare pay cut than they thought this year (Congress voted to cut Medicare payments by 2%, which was less than the expected 8.5%), Medicare still pays physicians only 80% of what many third-party insurers pay.

Moreover, those reimbursements are often slow to arrive, and the paperwork is burdensome. In fact, about 65% of doctors won’t accept new Medicare patients, down from 71% just 5 years ago, according to the Medscape Physician Compensation Report 2023.

Worse, inflation makes continuous cuts feel even steeper and trickles down to physicians and their patients as more and more doctors become disenchanted and consider dropping Medicare.
 

Medicare at a glance

Medicare pays physicians about 80% of the “reasonable charge” for covered services. At the same time, private insurers pay nearly double Medicare rates for hospital services.

The Medicare fee schedule is released each year. Physicians who accept Medicare can choose to be a “participating provider” by agreeing to the fee schedule and to not charging more than this amount. “Nonparticipating” providers can charge up to 15% more. Physicians can also opt out of Medicare entirely.

The earliest that physicians receive their payment is 14 days after electronic filing to 28 days after paper filing, but it often can take months.

Physicians lose an estimated 7.3% of Medicare claims to billing problems. With private insurers, an estimated 4.8% is lost.

In 2000, there were 50 million Medicare enrollees; it is projected that by 2050, there will be 87 million enrollees.
 

Why are doctors disenchanted?

“When Medicare started, the concept of the program was good,” said Rahul Gupta, MD, a geriatrician in Westport, Conn., and chief of internal medicine at St. Vincent’s Medical Center, Bridgeport, Conn. “However, over the years, with new developments in medicine and the explosion of the Medicare-eligible population, the program hasn’t kept up with coverages.” In addition, Medicare’s behemoth power as a government-run agency has ramifications that trickle down irrespective of a patient’s insurance carrier.

“Medicare sets the tone on price and reimbursement, and everyone follows suit,” Dr. Gupta said. “It’s a race to the bottom.”

“The program is great for patients when people need hospitalizations, skilled nursing, and physical therapy,” Dr. Gupta said. “But it’s not great about keeping people healthier and maintaining function via preventive treatments.” Many private insurers must become more adept at that too.

For instance, Dr. Gupta laments the lack of coverage for hearing aids, something his patients could greatly benefit from. Thanks to the Build Back Better bill, coverage of hearing aids will begin in 2024. But, again, most private insurers don’t cover hearing aids either. Some Medicare Advantage plans do.

Medicare doesn’t cover eye health (except for eye exams for diabetes patients), which is an issue for Daniel Laroche, MD, a glaucoma specialist and clinical associate professor of ophthalmology at Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York.

“I get paid less for Medicare patients by about 20% because of ‘lesser-of’ payments,” said Dr. Laroche. For example, as per Medicare, after patients meet their Part B deductible, they pay 20% of the Medicare-approved amount for glaucoma testing. “It would be nice to get the full amount for Medicare patients.”

“In addition, getting approvals for testing takes time and exhaustive amounts of paperwork, says Adeeti Gupta, MD, a gynecologist and founder of Walk In GYN Care in New York.

“Medicare only covers gynecologist visits every 2 years after the age of 65,” she said. “Any additional testing requires authorization, and Medicare doesn’t cover hormone replacement at all, which really makes me crazy. They will cover Viagra for men, but they won’t cover HRT, which prolongs life, reduces dementia, and prevents bone loss.”

While these three doctors find Medicare lacking in its coverage of their specialty, and their reimbursements are too low, many physicians also find fault regarding Medicare billing, which can put their patients at risk.
 

The problem with Medicare billing

Because claims are processed by Medicare administrative contractors, it can take about a month for the approval or denial process and for doctors to receive reimbursement.

Prior authorizations, especially with Medicare Advantage plans, are also problematic. For example, one 2022 study found that 18% of payment denials were for services that met coverage and billing rules.

Worse, all of this jockeying for coverage takes time. The average health care provider spends 16.4 hours a week on paperwork and on securing prior authorizations to cover services, according to the American Medical Association.

“A good 40% of my time is exclusively Medicare red tape paperwork,” Rahul Gupta says. “There’s a reason I spend 2-3 hours a night catching up on that stuff.”

Not only does this lead to burnout, but it also means that most physicians must hire an administrator to help with the paperwork.

In comparison, industry averages put the denial rate for all Medicare and private insurance claims at 20%.

“Excessive authorization controls required by health insurers are persistently responsible for serious harm to physician practices and patients when necessary medical care is delayed, denied, or disrupted in an attempt to increase profits,” Dr. Laroche said.

“Our office spends nearly 2 days per week on prior authorizations, creating costly administrative burdens.”

For Adeeti Gupta, the frustrations with Medicare have continued to mount. “We’re just at a dead end,” she said. “Authorizations keep getting denied, and the back-end paperwork is only increasing for us.”
 

Will more doctors opt out of Medicare?

When doctors don’t accept Medicare, it hurts the patients using it, especially patients who have selected either a Medicare Advantage plan or who become eligible for Medicare at age 65 only to find that fewer doctors take the government-sponsored insurance than in the past.

As of 2020, only 1% of nonpediatric physicians had formally opted out, per the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Psychiatrists account for the largest share of opt-outs (7.2%).

“Unfortunately, most doctors outside of hospital-based practices will reach a point when they can’t deal with Medicare paperwork, so they’ll stop taking it,” Rahul Gupta says.

A coalition of 120 physicians’ groups, including the American Medical Association, disputes that Medicare is paying a fair reimbursement rate to physicians and calls for an overhaul in how they adjust physician pay.

“Nothing much changes no matter how much the AMA shouts,” Rahul Gupta said in an interview.
 

What can doctors do

Prescription prices are another example of the challenges posed by Medicare. When prescriptions are denied because of Medicare’s medigap (or donut hole) program, which puts a cap on medication coverage, which was $4,660 in 2023, Dr. Gupta says she turns to alternative ways to fill them.

“I’ve been telling patients to pay out of pocket and use GoodRx, or we get medications compounded,” she said. “That’s cheaper. For example, for HRT, GoodRx can bring down the cost 40% to 50%.”

The American Medical Association as well as 150 other medical advocacy groups continue to urge Congress to work with the physician community to address the systematic problems within Medicare, especially reimbursement.

Despite the daily challenges, Rahul Gupta says he remains committed to caring for his patients.

“I want to care for the elderly, especially because they already have very few physicians to take care of them, and fortunately, I have a good practice with other coverages,” he said. “I can’t give up.”

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