Ob.Gyn. News

Routine removal of healthy lymph nodes should not be a part of ovarian cancer treatment, according to results of the CARACO trial.

Retroperitoneal pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy (RPPL) in patients undergoing either primary or interval surgery during ovarian cancer treatment for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (AEOC) resulted in no benefit and significant harm, the new study found.

“[RPPL] brings only toxicity and it does not increase survival ... because we have a lot of improvement with other treatments than surgery,” lead author Jean-Marc Classe, MD, PhD, said during a press conference at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. “It’s a surgical de-escalation, because it is not useful.”

Enrollment for the multicenter, phase III CARACO trial stagnated after the LION trial (N Engl J Med . 2019 Feb 28;380[9]:822-832) showed no benefit to doing RPPL in patients undergoing primary surgery for AEOC. Ultimately, the CARACO trial did not enroll the prespecified sample size needed in order for the researchers to show that not doing RPPL was superior. 

Dr. Classe, a surgical oncologist at Nantes Université, in Nantes, France, explained that primary surgery is currently much less common than interval surgery for AEOC , thus it was important to design the CARACO trial to explore the risks and benefits of RPPL in a patient population that included more interval surgery.

CARACO enrolled 379 patients, with median age 64-65 years, and was closed prematurely due to stagnation of enrollment. Patients were randomized to no-RPPL (n = 193) or RPPL (n = 186), with about 75% in each arm receiving interval surgery (neoadjuvant chemotherapy, followed by cytoreductive surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy), and about 25% receiving primary surgery (initial cytoreductive surgery followed by adjuvant chemotherapy). There was a similar postsurgical rate of no residual disease (85.6% and 88.3% in the no-RPPL and RPPL groups, respectively), and lymph node metastases were diagnosed in 43% of the patients in the RPPL arm, with a median of 3 involved lymph nodes.

After a median follow-up of 9 years both the primary endpoint of progression-free survival (PFS), and secondary endpoint of overall survival (OS) showed no advantage to RPPL, with a median PFS of 14.8 months in the no-RPPL arm and 18.5 months in the RPPL arm (HR 0.96), and a median OS of 48.9 months and 58.0 months respectively (HR 0.92).

Surgery in the lymphadenectomy arm was 300 minutes versus 240 minutes.

“We observed statistically significant more morbidity in the lymphadenectomy arm with more transfusion (72 vs 57 patients), more re-intervention (15 vs 6 patients), more urinary injury (7 vs zero patients),” said Dr. Classe. Mortality was the same in both arms.

There were 314 events observed in the trial, which was 22 events fewer than the required sample size to show superiority. However, Dr. Classe said, a “worst-case scenario” calculation, assuming that all events would have favored lymphadenectomy, did not change the overall result.

The discussant for the trial, Shitanshu Uppal, MD, assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, agreed that the study investigators adequately addressed this concern with the “counterfactual scenario.” He added that “as utilization of neoadjuvant chemotherapy goes up these results are really helpful in consolidating the results of the prior LION study, that lymph node dissection has no role in interval debulking surgery as well.”

Commenting on the study during the press conference, Michael Lowe, MD, associate professor in the division of surgical oncology at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, said the CARACO study investigators’ efforts “underscore the difficulty of designing and accruing surgical clinical trials, especially clinical trials in which patients are offered less surgery.” He said the trial’s findings are consistent with other clinical trials in breast cancer and melanoma “that likewise showed similar outcomes for patients that did not undergo removal of clinically normal appearing lymph nodes.”

He pointed out that all of these studies highlight that the focus should turn to improving medical therapies.

Echoing this sentiment, Julie Gralow, MD, ASCO chief medical officer and executive vice-president, said, “it is very clear that lymph node dissection has significant morbidity ... and it’s very clear that we should not be doing more surgery than is needed ... In advanced ovarian cancer where the majority already have distant disease [focusing] on systemic therapy is probably what will have the most impact.”

Christina Annunziata, MD, PhD, senior vice president, Extramural Discovery Science, at the American Cancer Society, and an expert in ovarian cancer, said the analysis “leaves little doubt that there would be a statistically significant difference between the two arms. The numbers are small, but since this study results were consistent with the similar LION trial, I think that this study will tip the balance further towards omitting the lymphadenectomy in both primary and interval surgeries,” she said in an interview.

Dr. Annunziata added that surgeons are already omitting the dissection based on the LION study.

The study was funded by the French National Institute of Cancer. Dr. Classe disclosed consulting or advisory roles for GlaxoSmithKline, Myriad Genetics, and Roche.

None of the other experts interviewed for this piece declared having any relevant disclosures.

Routine removal of healthy lymph nodes should not be a part of ovarian cancer treatment, according to results of the CARACO trial.

Retroperitoneal pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy (RPPL) in patients undergoing either primary or interval surgery during ovarian cancer treatment for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (AEOC) resulted in no benefit and significant harm, the new study found.

“[RPPL] brings only toxicity and it does not increase survival ... because we have a lot of improvement with other treatments than surgery,” lead author Jean-Marc Classe, MD, PhD, said during a press conference at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. “It’s a surgical de-escalation, because it is not useful.”

Enrollment for the multicenter, phase III CARACO trial stagnated after the LION trial (N Engl J Med . 2019 Feb 28;380[9]:822-832) showed no benefit to doing RPPL in patients undergoing primary surgery for AEOC. Ultimately, the CARACO trial did not enroll the prespecified sample size needed in order for the researchers to show that not doing RPPL was superior. 

Dr. Classe, a surgical oncologist at Nantes Université, in Nantes, France, explained that primary surgery is currently much less common than interval surgery for AEOC , thus it was important to design the CARACO trial to explore the risks and benefits of RPPL in a patient population that included more interval surgery.

CARACO enrolled 379 patients, with median age 64-65 years, and was closed prematurely due to stagnation of enrollment. Patients were randomized to no-RPPL (n = 193) or RPPL (n = 186), with about 75% in each arm receiving interval surgery (neoadjuvant chemotherapy, followed by cytoreductive surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy), and about 25% receiving primary surgery (initial cytoreductive surgery followed by adjuvant chemotherapy). There was a similar postsurgical rate of no residual disease (85.6% and 88.3% in the no-RPPL and RPPL groups, respectively), and lymph node metastases were diagnosed in 43% of the patients in the RPPL arm, with a median of 3 involved lymph nodes.

After a median follow-up of 9 years both the primary endpoint of progression-free survival (PFS), and secondary endpoint of overall survival (OS) showed no advantage to RPPL, with a median PFS of 14.8 months in the no-RPPL arm and 18.5 months in the RPPL arm (HR 0.96), and a median OS of 48.9 months and 58.0 months respectively (HR 0.92).

Surgery in the lymphadenectomy arm was 300 minutes versus 240 minutes.

“We observed statistically significant more morbidity in the lymphadenectomy arm with more transfusion (72 vs 57 patients), more re-intervention (15 vs 6 patients), more urinary injury (7 vs zero patients),” said Dr. Classe. Mortality was the same in both arms.

There were 314 events observed in the trial, which was 22 events fewer than the required sample size to show superiority. However, Dr. Classe said, a “worst-case scenario” calculation, assuming that all events would have favored lymphadenectomy, did not change the overall result.

The discussant for the trial, Shitanshu Uppal, MD, assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, agreed that the study investigators adequately addressed this concern with the “counterfactual scenario.” He added that “as utilization of neoadjuvant chemotherapy goes up these results are really helpful in consolidating the results of the prior LION study, that lymph node dissection has no role in interval debulking surgery as well.”

Commenting on the study during the press conference, Michael Lowe, MD, associate professor in the division of surgical oncology at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, said the CARACO study investigators’ efforts “underscore the difficulty of designing and accruing surgical clinical trials, especially clinical trials in which patients are offered less surgery.” He said the trial’s findings are consistent with other clinical trials in breast cancer and melanoma “that likewise showed similar outcomes for patients that did not undergo removal of clinically normal appearing lymph nodes.”

He pointed out that all of these studies highlight that the focus should turn to improving medical therapies.

Echoing this sentiment, Julie Gralow, MD, ASCO chief medical officer and executive vice-president, said, “it is very clear that lymph node dissection has significant morbidity ... and it’s very clear that we should not be doing more surgery than is needed ... In advanced ovarian cancer where the majority already have distant disease [focusing] on systemic therapy is probably what will have the most impact.”

Christina Annunziata, MD, PhD, senior vice president, Extramural Discovery Science, at the American Cancer Society, and an expert in ovarian cancer, said the analysis “leaves little doubt that there would be a statistically significant difference between the two arms. The numbers are small, but since this study results were consistent with the similar LION trial, I think that this study will tip the balance further towards omitting the lymphadenectomy in both primary and interval surgeries,” she said in an interview.

Dr. Annunziata added that surgeons are already omitting the dissection based on the LION study.

The study was funded by the French National Institute of Cancer. Dr. Classe disclosed consulting or advisory roles for GlaxoSmithKline, Myriad Genetics, and Roche.

None of the other experts interviewed for this piece declared having any relevant disclosures.

Routine removal of healthy lymph nodes should not be a part of ovarian cancer treatment, according to results of the CARACO trial.

Retroperitoneal pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy (RPPL) in patients undergoing either primary or interval surgery during ovarian cancer treatment for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (AEOC) resulted in no benefit and significant harm, the new study found.

“[RPPL] brings only toxicity and it does not increase survival ... because we have a lot of improvement with other treatments than surgery,” lead author Jean-Marc Classe, MD, PhD, said during a press conference at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. “It’s a surgical de-escalation, because it is not useful.”

Enrollment for the multicenter, phase III CARACO trial stagnated after the LION trial (N Engl J Med . 2019 Feb 28;380[9]:822-832) showed no benefit to doing RPPL in patients undergoing primary surgery for AEOC. Ultimately, the CARACO trial did not enroll the prespecified sample size needed in order for the researchers to show that not doing RPPL was superior. 

Dr. Classe, a surgical oncologist at Nantes Université, in Nantes, France, explained that primary surgery is currently much less common than interval surgery for AEOC , thus it was important to design the CARACO trial to explore the risks and benefits of RPPL in a patient population that included more interval surgery.

CARACO enrolled 379 patients, with median age 64-65 years, and was closed prematurely due to stagnation of enrollment. Patients were randomized to no-RPPL (n = 193) or RPPL (n = 186), with about 75% in each arm receiving interval surgery (neoadjuvant chemotherapy, followed by cytoreductive surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy), and about 25% receiving primary surgery (initial cytoreductive surgery followed by adjuvant chemotherapy). There was a similar postsurgical rate of no residual disease (85.6% and 88.3% in the no-RPPL and RPPL groups, respectively), and lymph node metastases were diagnosed in 43% of the patients in the RPPL arm, with a median of 3 involved lymph nodes.

After a median follow-up of 9 years both the primary endpoint of progression-free survival (PFS), and secondary endpoint of overall survival (OS) showed no advantage to RPPL, with a median PFS of 14.8 months in the no-RPPL arm and 18.5 months in the RPPL arm (HR 0.96), and a median OS of 48.9 months and 58.0 months respectively (HR 0.92).

Surgery in the lymphadenectomy arm was 300 minutes versus 240 minutes.

“We observed statistically significant more morbidity in the lymphadenectomy arm with more transfusion (72 vs 57 patients), more re-intervention (15 vs 6 patients), more urinary injury (7 vs zero patients),” said Dr. Classe. Mortality was the same in both arms.

There were 314 events observed in the trial, which was 22 events fewer than the required sample size to show superiority. However, Dr. Classe said, a “worst-case scenario” calculation, assuming that all events would have favored lymphadenectomy, did not change the overall result.

The discussant for the trial, Shitanshu Uppal, MD, assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, agreed that the study investigators adequately addressed this concern with the “counterfactual scenario.” He added that “as utilization of neoadjuvant chemotherapy goes up these results are really helpful in consolidating the results of the prior LION study, that lymph node dissection has no role in interval debulking surgery as well.”

Commenting on the study during the press conference, Michael Lowe, MD, associate professor in the division of surgical oncology at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, said the CARACO study investigators’ efforts “underscore the difficulty of designing and accruing surgical clinical trials, especially clinical trials in which patients are offered less surgery.” He said the trial’s findings are consistent with other clinical trials in breast cancer and melanoma “that likewise showed similar outcomes for patients that did not undergo removal of clinically normal appearing lymph nodes.”

He pointed out that all of these studies highlight that the focus should turn to improving medical therapies.

Echoing this sentiment, Julie Gralow, MD, ASCO chief medical officer and executive vice-president, said, “it is very clear that lymph node dissection has significant morbidity ... and it’s very clear that we should not be doing more surgery than is needed ... In advanced ovarian cancer where the majority already have distant disease [focusing] on systemic therapy is probably what will have the most impact.”

Christina Annunziata, MD, PhD, senior vice president, Extramural Discovery Science, at the American Cancer Society, and an expert in ovarian cancer, said the analysis “leaves little doubt that there would be a statistically significant difference between the two arms. The numbers are small, but since this study results were consistent with the similar LION trial, I think that this study will tip the balance further towards omitting the lymphadenectomy in both primary and interval surgeries,” she said in an interview.

Dr. Annunziata added that surgeons are already omitting the dissection based on the LION study.

The study was funded by the French National Institute of Cancer. Dr. Classe disclosed consulting or advisory roles for GlaxoSmithKline, Myriad Genetics, and Roche.

None of the other experts interviewed for this piece declared having any relevant disclosures.

Maternal in utero exposure to antibiotics was associated with an increased risk for infantile seborrheic dermatitis (SD) regardless of the mother’s history of SD, but this association was not as strong for childhood-onset SD.

The findings come from a large analysis of data from the United Kingdom that was presented during a late-breaking abstract session at the annual meeting of the Society for Investigative Dermatology.

SD is a common skin disease “that shares similarities with atopic dermatitis or atopic eczema as both are prevalent inflammatory skin diseases that can present with a chronic relapsing, remitting course,” the study’s corresponding author Zelma C. Chiesa Fuxench, MD, MSCE, assistant professor of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in an interview. “Like atopic dermatitis, the pathophysiology of seborrheic dermatitis is thought to be complex and involves an interplay between genetics, immune dysregulation, and alterations in lipid composition and the skin microbiome, among others.”

“We observed that antibiotic exposure in utero was primarily associated with an increased risk of infantile SD regardless of the mother’s history of SD, but this association was not as strong for childhood-onset SD,” Dr. Chiesa Fuxench said. “This would suggest that in utero exposure to antibiotics, particularly penicillin, may have its greatest effect on the colonization of skin microbiota in the newborn period leading to the development of infantile SD. Aside from seeking to improve our understanding of the pathophysiology of SD, our findings also suggest that infantile SD and childhood-onset SD may be separate entities with different risk factors, a hypothesis that needs to be further studied.”

She acknowledged certain limitations of the analysis, including the potential for unrecorded diagnoses of SD or misclassified cases in the database. For example, AD and psoriasis “may appear clinically like SD,” she said, although they performed sensitivity analysis excluding patients with these diagnoses and found similar results. In addition, there is the possibility that not all antibiotic exposures were captured in this database, and data on antibiotic exposure may be missing, she added.

Dr. Chiesa Fuxench disclosed that she received research grants from Lilly, LEO Pharma, Regeneron, Sanofi, Tioga, Vanda, and Incyte for work related to AD and from Menlo Therapeutics and Galderma for work related to prurigo nodularis. She has served as a consultant for the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, National Eczema Association, AbbVie, Incyte Corporation, and Pfizer and received honoraria for CME work in AD sponsored by education grants from Regeneron/Sanofi and Pfizer and from Beiersdorf for work related to skin cancer and sun protection.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Maternal in utero exposure to antibiotics was associated with an increased risk for infantile seborrheic dermatitis (SD) regardless of the mother’s history of SD, but this association was not as strong for childhood-onset SD.

The findings come from a large analysis of data from the United Kingdom that was presented during a late-breaking abstract session at the annual meeting of the Society for Investigative Dermatology.

SD is a common skin disease “that shares similarities with atopic dermatitis or atopic eczema as both are prevalent inflammatory skin diseases that can present with a chronic relapsing, remitting course,” the study’s corresponding author Zelma C. Chiesa Fuxench, MD, MSCE, assistant professor of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in an interview. “Like atopic dermatitis, the pathophysiology of seborrheic dermatitis is thought to be complex and involves an interplay between genetics, immune dysregulation, and alterations in lipid composition and the skin microbiome, among others.”

“We observed that antibiotic exposure in utero was primarily associated with an increased risk of infantile SD regardless of the mother’s history of SD, but this association was not as strong for childhood-onset SD,” Dr. Chiesa Fuxench said. “This would suggest that in utero exposure to antibiotics, particularly penicillin, may have its greatest effect on the colonization of skin microbiota in the newborn period leading to the development of infantile SD. Aside from seeking to improve our understanding of the pathophysiology of SD, our findings also suggest that infantile SD and childhood-onset SD may be separate entities with different risk factors, a hypothesis that needs to be further studied.”

She acknowledged certain limitations of the analysis, including the potential for unrecorded diagnoses of SD or misclassified cases in the database. For example, AD and psoriasis “may appear clinically like SD,” she said, although they performed sensitivity analysis excluding patients with these diagnoses and found similar results. In addition, there is the possibility that not all antibiotic exposures were captured in this database, and data on antibiotic exposure may be missing, she added.

Dr. Chiesa Fuxench disclosed that she received research grants from Lilly, LEO Pharma, Regeneron, Sanofi, Tioga, Vanda, and Incyte for work related to AD and from Menlo Therapeutics and Galderma for work related to prurigo nodularis. She has served as a consultant for the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, National Eczema Association, AbbVie, Incyte Corporation, and Pfizer and received honoraria for CME work in AD sponsored by education grants from Regeneron/Sanofi and Pfizer and from Beiersdorf for work related to skin cancer and sun protection.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Maternal in utero exposure to antibiotics was associated with an increased risk for infantile seborrheic dermatitis (SD) regardless of the mother’s history of SD, but this association was not as strong for childhood-onset SD.

The findings come from a large analysis of data from the United Kingdom that was presented during a late-breaking abstract session at the annual meeting of the Society for Investigative Dermatology.

SD is a common skin disease “that shares similarities with atopic dermatitis or atopic eczema as both are prevalent inflammatory skin diseases that can present with a chronic relapsing, remitting course,” the study’s corresponding author Zelma C. Chiesa Fuxench, MD, MSCE, assistant professor of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in an interview. “Like atopic dermatitis, the pathophysiology of seborrheic dermatitis is thought to be complex and involves an interplay between genetics, immune dysregulation, and alterations in lipid composition and the skin microbiome, among others.”

“We observed that antibiotic exposure in utero was primarily associated with an increased risk of infantile SD regardless of the mother’s history of SD, but this association was not as strong for childhood-onset SD,” Dr. Chiesa Fuxench said. “This would suggest that in utero exposure to antibiotics, particularly penicillin, may have its greatest effect on the colonization of skin microbiota in the newborn period leading to the development of infantile SD. Aside from seeking to improve our understanding of the pathophysiology of SD, our findings also suggest that infantile SD and childhood-onset SD may be separate entities with different risk factors, a hypothesis that needs to be further studied.”

She acknowledged certain limitations of the analysis, including the potential for unrecorded diagnoses of SD or misclassified cases in the database. For example, AD and psoriasis “may appear clinically like SD,” she said, although they performed sensitivity analysis excluding patients with these diagnoses and found similar results. In addition, there is the possibility that not all antibiotic exposures were captured in this database, and data on antibiotic exposure may be missing, she added.

Dr. Chiesa Fuxench disclosed that she received research grants from Lilly, LEO Pharma, Regeneron, Sanofi, Tioga, Vanda, and Incyte for work related to AD and from Menlo Therapeutics and Galderma for work related to prurigo nodularis. She has served as a consultant for the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, National Eczema Association, AbbVie, Incyte Corporation, and Pfizer and received honoraria for CME work in AD sponsored by education grants from Regeneron/Sanofi and Pfizer and from Beiersdorf for work related to skin cancer and sun protection.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

BOSTON — An investigational male contraceptive gel suppresses sperm more rapidly than previous products in development, new data suggested.

The product, 8 mg segesterone acetate (Nestorone) combined with 74 mg testosterone (“NesT”) is a gel that a man applies daily to both shoulders. The progesterone blocks spermatogenesis, and the testosterone restores blood levels to maintain sexual function. It is under development by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) in collaboration with the Population Council, the Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute, and the University of Washington School of Medicine.

Currently, the only available male contraceptives are vasectomy, which isn’t easily reversible, and condoms, which have a high failure rate. Previous attempts to develop a “male pill” have been unsuccessful for a variety of reasons, but so far, this product appears effective and safe, Diana Blithe, PhD, chief of the Contraceptive Development Program at NICHD, said at a press briefing held on June 2, 2024, during the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

“It’s been a long time coming. … Men need and want more contraceptive options such as an effective reversible method,” she told this news organization.

New phase 2b data show that among 222 couples in which the man initially had normal (> 15 million/mL) sperm counts, the median time to suppression (< 1 million/mL) was less than 8 weeks with NesT compared with 9-15 weeks seen in previous trials of injected male hormonal contraceptives. Nearly all (86%) had achieved suppression by 15 weeks.

After two consecutive counts of < 1 million/mL, the couples entered the trial’s ongoing 2-year efficacy phase. There have been no major safety concerns thus far, but “we need more data,” Dr. Blithe noted.

Asked to comment, session moderator Frances Hayes, MBBCh, associate clinical chief of the Division of Reproductive Endocrinology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said, “certainly, I think it’s a big advance on what we have so far. … I think it’s showing great promise.”

Dr. Hayes did caution, though, that “with real-world use, daily application of a gel might be a bit more challenging than taking an injection…an injection is more consistent. With a gel, patients might forget or shower it off. But I don’t think 1 day of interruption would be a significant thing.”

Transference of the topical to a partner or a child is another potential concern, Dr. Hayes noted, although this is true of current testosterone gel products as well. During the briefing, Dr. Blithe said that this issue is why the product is recommended to be placed on the upper arms rather than the abdomen or another spot more likely to come into contact with another person. Also, in the trial, men were instructed to wear shirts during intercourse.

Regarding the rapidity of sperm suppression, Dr. Hayes said, “It’s surprising. It looks great as a reversible contraceptive. … Normally, you think of the life cycle of the sperm being about 72 days. So to see 50% suppression by 8 weeks, and then 85%-90% by 15 weeks, that’s very rapid. It may be that the progesterone that they’re using is very potent. Progestins can have some negative effects on lipids and mood. We didn’t really see the safety data in this presentation. So that will be interesting to see.”

During the briefing, Dr. Blithe said that the phase 2b trial is expected to finish by the end of this year, and in the meantime, the researchers are communicating with the US Food and Drug Administration about the design of a phase 3 trial because this is an unprecedented area. “They don’t have guidelines yet. They’ll need to develop them first.”

Dr. Blithe has been the NICHD principal investigator on cooperative research and development agreements with HRA Pharma and Daré Bioscience. Dr. Hayes had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

BOSTON — An investigational male contraceptive gel suppresses sperm more rapidly than previous products in development, new data suggested.

The product, 8 mg segesterone acetate (Nestorone) combined with 74 mg testosterone (“NesT”) is a gel that a man applies daily to both shoulders. The progesterone blocks spermatogenesis, and the testosterone restores blood levels to maintain sexual function. It is under development by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) in collaboration with the Population Council, the Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute, and the University of Washington School of Medicine.

Currently, the only available male contraceptives are vasectomy, which isn’t easily reversible, and condoms, which have a high failure rate. Previous attempts to develop a “male pill” have been unsuccessful for a variety of reasons, but so far, this product appears effective and safe, Diana Blithe, PhD, chief of the Contraceptive Development Program at NICHD, said at a press briefing held on June 2, 2024, during the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

“It’s been a long time coming. … Men need and want more contraceptive options such as an effective reversible method,” she told this news organization.

New phase 2b data show that among 222 couples in which the man initially had normal (> 15 million/mL) sperm counts, the median time to suppression (< 1 million/mL) was less than 8 weeks with NesT compared with 9-15 weeks seen in previous trials of injected male hormonal contraceptives. Nearly all (86%) had achieved suppression by 15 weeks.

After two consecutive counts of < 1 million/mL, the couples entered the trial’s ongoing 2-year efficacy phase. There have been no major safety concerns thus far, but “we need more data,” Dr. Blithe noted.

Asked to comment, session moderator Frances Hayes, MBBCh, associate clinical chief of the Division of Reproductive Endocrinology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said, “certainly, I think it’s a big advance on what we have so far. … I think it’s showing great promise.”

Dr. Hayes did caution, though, that “with real-world use, daily application of a gel might be a bit more challenging than taking an injection…an injection is more consistent. With a gel, patients might forget or shower it off. But I don’t think 1 day of interruption would be a significant thing.”

Transference of the topical to a partner or a child is another potential concern, Dr. Hayes noted, although this is true of current testosterone gel products as well. During the briefing, Dr. Blithe said that this issue is why the product is recommended to be placed on the upper arms rather than the abdomen or another spot more likely to come into contact with another person. Also, in the trial, men were instructed to wear shirts during intercourse.

Regarding the rapidity of sperm suppression, Dr. Hayes said, “It’s surprising. It looks great as a reversible contraceptive. … Normally, you think of the life cycle of the sperm being about 72 days. So to see 50% suppression by 8 weeks, and then 85%-90% by 15 weeks, that’s very rapid. It may be that the progesterone that they’re using is very potent. Progestins can have some negative effects on lipids and mood. We didn’t really see the safety data in this presentation. So that will be interesting to see.”

During the briefing, Dr. Blithe said that the phase 2b trial is expected to finish by the end of this year, and in the meantime, the researchers are communicating with the US Food and Drug Administration about the design of a phase 3 trial because this is an unprecedented area. “They don’t have guidelines yet. They’ll need to develop them first.”

Dr. Blithe has been the NICHD principal investigator on cooperative research and development agreements with HRA Pharma and Daré Bioscience. Dr. Hayes had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

BOSTON — An investigational male contraceptive gel suppresses sperm more rapidly than previous products in development, new data suggested.

The product, 8 mg segesterone acetate (Nestorone) combined with 74 mg testosterone (“NesT”) is a gel that a man applies daily to both shoulders. The progesterone blocks spermatogenesis, and the testosterone restores blood levels to maintain sexual function. It is under development by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) in collaboration with the Population Council, the Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute, and the University of Washington School of Medicine.

Currently, the only available male contraceptives are vasectomy, which isn’t easily reversible, and condoms, which have a high failure rate. Previous attempts to develop a “male pill” have been unsuccessful for a variety of reasons, but so far, this product appears effective and safe, Diana Blithe, PhD, chief of the Contraceptive Development Program at NICHD, said at a press briefing held on June 2, 2024, during the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

“It’s been a long time coming. … Men need and want more contraceptive options such as an effective reversible method,” she told this news organization.

New phase 2b data show that among 222 couples in which the man initially had normal (> 15 million/mL) sperm counts, the median time to suppression (< 1 million/mL) was less than 8 weeks with NesT compared with 9-15 weeks seen in previous trials of injected male hormonal contraceptives. Nearly all (86%) had achieved suppression by 15 weeks.

After two consecutive counts of < 1 million/mL, the couples entered the trial’s ongoing 2-year efficacy phase. There have been no major safety concerns thus far, but “we need more data,” Dr. Blithe noted.

Asked to comment, session moderator Frances Hayes, MBBCh, associate clinical chief of the Division of Reproductive Endocrinology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said, “certainly, I think it’s a big advance on what we have so far. … I think it’s showing great promise.”

Dr. Hayes did caution, though, that “with real-world use, daily application of a gel might be a bit more challenging than taking an injection…an injection is more consistent. With a gel, patients might forget or shower it off. But I don’t think 1 day of interruption would be a significant thing.”

Transference of the topical to a partner or a child is another potential concern, Dr. Hayes noted, although this is true of current testosterone gel products as well. During the briefing, Dr. Blithe said that this issue is why the product is recommended to be placed on the upper arms rather than the abdomen or another spot more likely to come into contact with another person. Also, in the trial, men were instructed to wear shirts during intercourse.

Regarding the rapidity of sperm suppression, Dr. Hayes said, “It’s surprising. It looks great as a reversible contraceptive. … Normally, you think of the life cycle of the sperm being about 72 days. So to see 50% suppression by 8 weeks, and then 85%-90% by 15 weeks, that’s very rapid. It may be that the progesterone that they’re using is very potent. Progestins can have some negative effects on lipids and mood. We didn’t really see the safety data in this presentation. So that will be interesting to see.”

During the briefing, Dr. Blithe said that the phase 2b trial is expected to finish by the end of this year, and in the meantime, the researchers are communicating with the US Food and Drug Administration about the design of a phase 3 trial because this is an unprecedented area. “They don’t have guidelines yet. They’ll need to develop them first.”

Dr. Blithe has been the NICHD principal investigator on cooperative research and development agreements with HRA Pharma and Daré Bioscience. Dr. Hayes had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

TOPLINE:

Investigators found that the use of oral contraceptives (OCs) may be associated with an increased risk for frontal fibrosing alopecia (FFA) in women with a common variant in the CYP1B1 gene.

METHODOLOGY:

• OC use has been considered a possible factor behind the increased incidence of FFA because it was first documented in 1994, and a recent genome-wide association study of FFA identified a signal for an association with a variant in CYP1B1.
• The same researchers conducted a gene-environment interaction study with a case-control design involving 489 White female patients (mean age, 65.8 years) with FFA and 34,254 controls, matched for age and genetic ancestry.
• Data were collected from July 2015 to September 2017 and analyzed from October 2022 to December 2023.
• The study aimed to investigate the modulatory effect of OC use on the CYP1B1 variant’s impact on FFA risk, using logistic regression models for analysis.

TAKEAWAY:

• The use of OCs was associated with a 1.9 times greater risk for FFA in individuals with the specific CYP1B1 genetic variant, but there was no association among those with no history of OC use.
• The study suggests a significant gene-environment interaction, indicating that OC use may influence FFA risk in genetically predisposed individuals.

IN PRACTICE:

“This gene-environment interaction analysis suggests that the protective effect of the CYPIB1 missense variant on FFA risk might be mediated by exposure” to OCs, the authors wrote. The study, they added, “underscores the importance of considering genetic predispositions and environmental factors, such as oral contraceptive use, in understanding and managing frontal fibrosing alopecia.”

SOURCE:

Tuntas Rayinda, MD, MSc, PhD, of St. John’s Institute of Dermatology, King’s College London, led the study, which was published online May 29, 2024, in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s reliance on self-reported OC use may have introduced recall and differences in ascertainment of OC use between patient and control groups and could have affected the study’s findings. The study also did not collect information on the type of OC used, which could have influenced the observed interaction.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the British Skin Foundation Young Investigator Award. One investigator reported being a subinvestigator on an alopecia areata study funded by Pfizer. No other disclosures were reported.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Investigators found that the use of oral contraceptives (OCs) may be associated with an increased risk for frontal fibrosing alopecia (FFA) in women with a common variant in the CYP1B1 gene.

METHODOLOGY:

• OC use has been considered a possible factor behind the increased incidence of FFA because it was first documented in 1994, and a recent genome-wide association study of FFA identified a signal for an association with a variant in CYP1B1.
• The same researchers conducted a gene-environment interaction study with a case-control design involving 489 White female patients (mean age, 65.8 years) with FFA and 34,254 controls, matched for age and genetic ancestry.
• Data were collected from July 2015 to September 2017 and analyzed from October 2022 to December 2023.
• The study aimed to investigate the modulatory effect of OC use on the CYP1B1 variant’s impact on FFA risk, using logistic regression models for analysis.

TAKEAWAY:

• The use of OCs was associated with a 1.9 times greater risk for FFA in individuals with the specific CYP1B1 genetic variant, but there was no association among those with no history of OC use.
• The study suggests a significant gene-environment interaction, indicating that OC use may influence FFA risk in genetically predisposed individuals.

IN PRACTICE:

“This gene-environment interaction analysis suggests that the protective effect of the CYPIB1 missense variant on FFA risk might be mediated by exposure” to OCs, the authors wrote. The study, they added, “underscores the importance of considering genetic predispositions and environmental factors, such as oral contraceptive use, in understanding and managing frontal fibrosing alopecia.”

SOURCE:

Tuntas Rayinda, MD, MSc, PhD, of St. John’s Institute of Dermatology, King’s College London, led the study, which was published online May 29, 2024, in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s reliance on self-reported OC use may have introduced recall and differences in ascertainment of OC use between patient and control groups and could have affected the study’s findings. The study also did not collect information on the type of OC used, which could have influenced the observed interaction.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the British Skin Foundation Young Investigator Award. One investigator reported being a subinvestigator on an alopecia areata study funded by Pfizer. No other disclosures were reported.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Investigators found that the use of oral contraceptives (OCs) may be associated with an increased risk for frontal fibrosing alopecia (FFA) in women with a common variant in the CYP1B1 gene.

METHODOLOGY:

• OC use has been considered a possible factor behind the increased incidence of FFA because it was first documented in 1994, and a recent genome-wide association study of FFA identified a signal for an association with a variant in CYP1B1.
• The same researchers conducted a gene-environment interaction study with a case-control design involving 489 White female patients (mean age, 65.8 years) with FFA and 34,254 controls, matched for age and genetic ancestry.
• Data were collected from July 2015 to September 2017 and analyzed from October 2022 to December 2023.
• The study aimed to investigate the modulatory effect of OC use on the CYP1B1 variant’s impact on FFA risk, using logistic regression models for analysis.

TAKEAWAY:

• The use of OCs was associated with a 1.9 times greater risk for FFA in individuals with the specific CYP1B1 genetic variant, but there was no association among those with no history of OC use.
• The study suggests a significant gene-environment interaction, indicating that OC use may influence FFA risk in genetically predisposed individuals.

IN PRACTICE:

“This gene-environment interaction analysis suggests that the protective effect of the CYPIB1 missense variant on FFA risk might be mediated by exposure” to OCs, the authors wrote. The study, they added, “underscores the importance of considering genetic predispositions and environmental factors, such as oral contraceptive use, in understanding and managing frontal fibrosing alopecia.”

SOURCE:

Tuntas Rayinda, MD, MSc, PhD, of St. John’s Institute of Dermatology, King’s College London, led the study, which was published online May 29, 2024, in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s reliance on self-reported OC use may have introduced recall and differences in ascertainment of OC use between patient and control groups and could have affected the study’s findings. The study also did not collect information on the type of OC used, which could have influenced the observed interaction.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the British Skin Foundation Young Investigator Award. One investigator reported being a subinvestigator on an alopecia areata study funded by Pfizer. No other disclosures were reported.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Exercise interventions are recommended to help prevent falls and fall-related morbidity in community-dwelling adults aged 65 years and older who are at increased risk of falls, according to a new recommendation statement from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) (JAMA. 2024 Jun 4. doi: 10.1001/jama.2024.8481).

Falls remain the leading cause of injury-related morbidity and mortality among older adults in the United States, with approximately 27% of community-dwelling individuals aged 65 years and older reporting at least one fall in the past year, wrote lead author Wanda K. Nicholson, MD, of George Washington University, Washington, and colleagues.

The task force concluded with moderate certainty that exercise interventions yielded a moderate benefit in fall reduction among older adults at risk (grade B recommendation).

The decision to offer multifactorial fall prevention interventions to older adults at risk for falls should be individualized based on assessment of potential risks and benefits of these interventions, including circumstances of prior falls, presence of comorbid medical conditions, and the patient’s values and preferences (grade C recommendation), the authors wrote.

The exercise intervention could include individual or group activity, although most of the studies in the systematic review involved group exercise, the authors noted.

The recommendation was based on data from a systematic evidence review published in JAMA (2024 Jun 4. doi: 10.1001/jama.2024.4166). The task force reviewed data from 83 randomized trials published between January 1, 2016, and May 8, 2023, deemed fair to good quality that examined six types of fall prevention interventions in a total of 48,839 individuals. Of these, 28 studies involved multifactorial interventions and 27 involved exercise interventions.

Overall, multifactorial interventions and exercise interventions were associated with a significant reduction in falls (incidence rate ratio 0.84 and 0.85, respectively).

Exercise interventions were significantly associated with reduced individual risk of one or more falls and injurious falls, but not with reduced individual risk of injurious falls. However, multifactorial interventions were not significantly associated with reductions in risk of one or more falls, injurious falls, fall-related fractures, individual risk of injurious falls, or individual risk of fall-related fractures.

Although teasing out the specific exercise components that are most effective for fall prevention is challenging, the most commonly studied components associated with reduced risk of falls included gait training, balance training, and functional training, followed by strength and resistance training, the task force noted.

Duration of exercise interventions in the reviewed studies ranged from 2 to 30 months and the most common frequency of sessions was 2 to 3 per week.

Based on these findings, the task force found that exercise had the most consistent benefits for reduced risk across several fall-related outcomes. Although individuals in the studies of multifactorial interventions were at increased risk for falls, the multistep process of interventions to address an individual’s multiple risk factors limited their effectiveness, in part because of logistical challenges and inconsistent adherence, the authors wrote.

The results of the review were limited by several factors, including the focus on studies with a primary or secondary aim of fall prevention, the fact that the recommendation does not apply to many subgroups of older adults, and the lack of data on health outcomes unrelated to falls that were associated with the interventions, the authors noted.

The new recommendation is consistent with and replaces the 2018 USPSTF recommendation on interventions for fall prevention in community-dwelling older adults, but without the recommendation against vitamin D supplementation as a fall prevention intervention. The new recommendation does not address vitamin D use; evidence will be examined in a separate recommendation, the task force wrote.
 

How to Get Older Adults Moving

“The biggest obstacle to exercise is patient inertia and choice to engage in other sedentary activities,” David B. Reuben, MD, and David A. Ganz, MD, both of the University of California, Los Angeles, wrote in an accompanying editorial (JAMA. 2024 Jun 4. doi: 10.1001/jama.2024.9063).

“Given the demonstrated benefits of exercise for cardiovascular disease, cognitive function, and favorable associations with all-cause, cardiovascular, and cancer mortality, specific fall prevention exercise recommendations need to be considered in the context of universal exercise recommendations, including aerobic and muscle strengthening exercise,” the authors wrote. However, maintaining regular exercise is a challenge for many older adults, and more research is needed on factors that drive exercise initiation and adherence in this population, they said.

Multifactorial fall assessments in particular take time, and more fall prevention programs are needed that include multifactorial assessments and interventions, the editorialists said. “Even if primary care clinicians faithfully implement the USPSTF recommendations, a significant reduction in falls and their resulting injuries is still far off,” in part, because of the need for more programs and policies, and the need to improve access to exercise programs and provide insurance coverage for them, they noted.

“Above all, older persons need to be active participants in exercise and reduction of risk factors for falls,” the editorialists concluded.

The research for the recommendation was funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). The authors had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Ganz disclosed serving as an author of the 2022 World Guidelines for Falls Prevention and Management for Older Adults.

Exercise interventions are recommended to help prevent falls and fall-related morbidity in community-dwelling adults aged 65 years and older who are at increased risk of falls, according to a new recommendation statement from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) (JAMA. 2024 Jun 4. doi: 10.1001/jama.2024.8481).

Falls remain the leading cause of injury-related morbidity and mortality among older adults in the United States, with approximately 27% of community-dwelling individuals aged 65 years and older reporting at least one fall in the past year, wrote lead author Wanda K. Nicholson, MD, of George Washington University, Washington, and colleagues.

The task force concluded with moderate certainty that exercise interventions yielded a moderate benefit in fall reduction among older adults at risk (grade B recommendation).

The decision to offer multifactorial fall prevention interventions to older adults at risk for falls should be individualized based on assessment of potential risks and benefits of these interventions, including circumstances of prior falls, presence of comorbid medical conditions, and the patient’s values and preferences (grade C recommendation), the authors wrote.

The exercise intervention could include individual or group activity, although most of the studies in the systematic review involved group exercise, the authors noted.

The recommendation was based on data from a systematic evidence review published in JAMA (2024 Jun 4. doi: 10.1001/jama.2024.4166). The task force reviewed data from 83 randomized trials published between January 1, 2016, and May 8, 2023, deemed fair to good quality that examined six types of fall prevention interventions in a total of 48,839 individuals. Of these, 28 studies involved multifactorial interventions and 27 involved exercise interventions.

Overall, multifactorial interventions and exercise interventions were associated with a significant reduction in falls (incidence rate ratio 0.84 and 0.85, respectively).

Exercise interventions were significantly associated with reduced individual risk of one or more falls and injurious falls, but not with reduced individual risk of injurious falls. However, multifactorial interventions were not significantly associated with reductions in risk of one or more falls, injurious falls, fall-related fractures, individual risk of injurious falls, or individual risk of fall-related fractures.

Although teasing out the specific exercise components that are most effective for fall prevention is challenging, the most commonly studied components associated with reduced risk of falls included gait training, balance training, and functional training, followed by strength and resistance training, the task force noted.

Duration of exercise interventions in the reviewed studies ranged from 2 to 30 months and the most common frequency of sessions was 2 to 3 per week.

Based on these findings, the task force found that exercise had the most consistent benefits for reduced risk across several fall-related outcomes. Although individuals in the studies of multifactorial interventions were at increased risk for falls, the multistep process of interventions to address an individual’s multiple risk factors limited their effectiveness, in part because of logistical challenges and inconsistent adherence, the authors wrote.

The results of the review were limited by several factors, including the focus on studies with a primary or secondary aim of fall prevention, the fact that the recommendation does not apply to many subgroups of older adults, and the lack of data on health outcomes unrelated to falls that were associated with the interventions, the authors noted.

The new recommendation is consistent with and replaces the 2018 USPSTF recommendation on interventions for fall prevention in community-dwelling older adults, but without the recommendation against vitamin D supplementation as a fall prevention intervention. The new recommendation does not address vitamin D use; evidence will be examined in a separate recommendation, the task force wrote.
 

How to Get Older Adults Moving

“The biggest obstacle to exercise is patient inertia and choice to engage in other sedentary activities,” David B. Reuben, MD, and David A. Ganz, MD, both of the University of California, Los Angeles, wrote in an accompanying editorial (JAMA. 2024 Jun 4. doi: 10.1001/jama.2024.9063).

“Given the demonstrated benefits of exercise for cardiovascular disease, cognitive function, and favorable associations with all-cause, cardiovascular, and cancer mortality, specific fall prevention exercise recommendations need to be considered in the context of universal exercise recommendations, including aerobic and muscle strengthening exercise,” the authors wrote. However, maintaining regular exercise is a challenge for many older adults, and more research is needed on factors that drive exercise initiation and adherence in this population, they said.

Multifactorial fall assessments in particular take time, and more fall prevention programs are needed that include multifactorial assessments and interventions, the editorialists said. “Even if primary care clinicians faithfully implement the USPSTF recommendations, a significant reduction in falls and their resulting injuries is still far off,” in part, because of the need for more programs and policies, and the need to improve access to exercise programs and provide insurance coverage for them, they noted.

“Above all, older persons need to be active participants in exercise and reduction of risk factors for falls,” the editorialists concluded.

The research for the recommendation was funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). The authors had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Ganz disclosed serving as an author of the 2022 World Guidelines for Falls Prevention and Management for Older Adults.

Exercise interventions are recommended to help prevent falls and fall-related morbidity in community-dwelling adults aged 65 years and older who are at increased risk of falls, according to a new recommendation statement from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) (JAMA. 2024 Jun 4. doi: 10.1001/jama.2024.8481).

Falls remain the leading cause of injury-related morbidity and mortality among older adults in the United States, with approximately 27% of community-dwelling individuals aged 65 years and older reporting at least one fall in the past year, wrote lead author Wanda K. Nicholson, MD, of George Washington University, Washington, and colleagues.

The task force concluded with moderate certainty that exercise interventions yielded a moderate benefit in fall reduction among older adults at risk (grade B recommendation).

The decision to offer multifactorial fall prevention interventions to older adults at risk for falls should be individualized based on assessment of potential risks and benefits of these interventions, including circumstances of prior falls, presence of comorbid medical conditions, and the patient’s values and preferences (grade C recommendation), the authors wrote.

The exercise intervention could include individual or group activity, although most of the studies in the systematic review involved group exercise, the authors noted.

The recommendation was based on data from a systematic evidence review published in JAMA (2024 Jun 4. doi: 10.1001/jama.2024.4166). The task force reviewed data from 83 randomized trials published between January 1, 2016, and May 8, 2023, deemed fair to good quality that examined six types of fall prevention interventions in a total of 48,839 individuals. Of these, 28 studies involved multifactorial interventions and 27 involved exercise interventions.

Overall, multifactorial interventions and exercise interventions were associated with a significant reduction in falls (incidence rate ratio 0.84 and 0.85, respectively).

Exercise interventions were significantly associated with reduced individual risk of one or more falls and injurious falls, but not with reduced individual risk of injurious falls. However, multifactorial interventions were not significantly associated with reductions in risk of one or more falls, injurious falls, fall-related fractures, individual risk of injurious falls, or individual risk of fall-related fractures.

Although teasing out the specific exercise components that are most effective for fall prevention is challenging, the most commonly studied components associated with reduced risk of falls included gait training, balance training, and functional training, followed by strength and resistance training, the task force noted.

Duration of exercise interventions in the reviewed studies ranged from 2 to 30 months and the most common frequency of sessions was 2 to 3 per week.

Based on these findings, the task force found that exercise had the most consistent benefits for reduced risk across several fall-related outcomes. Although individuals in the studies of multifactorial interventions were at increased risk for falls, the multistep process of interventions to address an individual’s multiple risk factors limited their effectiveness, in part because of logistical challenges and inconsistent adherence, the authors wrote.

The results of the review were limited by several factors, including the focus on studies with a primary or secondary aim of fall prevention, the fact that the recommendation does not apply to many subgroups of older adults, and the lack of data on health outcomes unrelated to falls that were associated with the interventions, the authors noted.

The new recommendation is consistent with and replaces the 2018 USPSTF recommendation on interventions for fall prevention in community-dwelling older adults, but without the recommendation against vitamin D supplementation as a fall prevention intervention. The new recommendation does not address vitamin D use; evidence will be examined in a separate recommendation, the task force wrote.
 

How to Get Older Adults Moving

“The biggest obstacle to exercise is patient inertia and choice to engage in other sedentary activities,” David B. Reuben, MD, and David A. Ganz, MD, both of the University of California, Los Angeles, wrote in an accompanying editorial (JAMA. 2024 Jun 4. doi: 10.1001/jama.2024.9063).

“Given the demonstrated benefits of exercise for cardiovascular disease, cognitive function, and favorable associations with all-cause, cardiovascular, and cancer mortality, specific fall prevention exercise recommendations need to be considered in the context of universal exercise recommendations, including aerobic and muscle strengthening exercise,” the authors wrote. However, maintaining regular exercise is a challenge for many older adults, and more research is needed on factors that drive exercise initiation and adherence in this population, they said.

Multifactorial fall assessments in particular take time, and more fall prevention programs are needed that include multifactorial assessments and interventions, the editorialists said. “Even if primary care clinicians faithfully implement the USPSTF recommendations, a significant reduction in falls and their resulting injuries is still far off,” in part, because of the need for more programs and policies, and the need to improve access to exercise programs and provide insurance coverage for them, they noted.

“Above all, older persons need to be active participants in exercise and reduction of risk factors for falls,” the editorialists concluded.

The research for the recommendation was funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). The authors had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Ganz disclosed serving as an author of the 2022 World Guidelines for Falls Prevention and Management for Older Adults.

TOPLINE:

Bariatric surgery may lower the risk for breast cancer in women with obesity, particularly in premenopausal women and in women with high insulin levels at baseline.

METHODOLOGY:

• Previous research suggests that bariatric surgery is associated with a lower risk for cancer in people with obesity, as well as female-specific cancers in women with obesity, especially those with higher baseline insulin levels. But there is a need for large prospective studies with more detailed patient information.
• The current secondary analysis included 2867 matched women (mean age, 48 years) from a prospective nonrandomized Swedish trial, which recruited men and women who had obesity between 1987 and 2001.
• Overall, 1420 women underwent bariatric surgery, and 1447 received usual care.
• Median baseline insulin levels were 15.8 μIU/L. In the surgery group, 68.3% of patients had vertical banded gastroplasty, 18.3% underwent gastric banding, and 13.4% underwent gastric bypass.
• The main outcome was breast cancer incidence, as identified from Swedish National Cancer Registry.

TAKEAWAY:

• Over a median follow-up of 23.9 years, 66 breast cancer events occurred in the surgery group and 88 in the usual care group (P = .02).
• Bariatric surgery was associated with a 33% lower risk for breast cancer (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.67), after excluding cases that occurred within the first 3 years (to account for any undiagnosed breast cancer at baseline) and adjusting for age, body mass index, alcohol, and smoking status.
• Looking at the menopausal status at baseline, bariatric surgery was associated with a reduced risk for breast cancer in premenopausal women (aHR, 0.64) but not postmenopausal women (aHR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.49-1.45; P = .54).
• Bariatric surgery was also associated with a lower risk for breast cancer in women with baseline insulin levels above the median (aHR, 0.55) than in those with baseline insulin levels below the median (aHR, 1.01).

IN PRACTICE:

“The surgical treatment benefit was predominantly seen in women with hyperinsulinemia, suggesting insulin may be used as a predictor of treatment effect,” the authors wrote. Authors of an accompanying editorial, however, cautioned that “it is not known if insulin levels or insulin resistance are true biomarkers of breast cancer risk in patients with obesity undergoing bariatric surgery” and urged further research into underlying biological mechanisms.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Felipe M. Kristensson, MD, from Institute of Medicine, Department of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, the Sahlgrenska Academy at University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden, was published online in JAMA Surgery. The accompanying editorial was led by Swati A. Kulkarni, MD, of the Comprehensive Cancer Center, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was not randomized. Breast cancer was not a predefined outcome of the main trial. Most patients underwent vertical banded gastroplasty, which is rarely used and could limit applicability of the results; however, vertical banded gastroplasty results in weight loss similar to that observed after sleeve gastrectomy. Follow-up values for insulin and insulin resistance were not available. The researchers noted significant differences in 12 out of 17 baseline characteristics between the two groups, including a larger proportion of postmenopausal women in the usual care group.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the Swedish state, Swedish Research Council, the Health & Medical Care Committee of the Region Västra Götaland, and the Adlerbert Research Foundation. The authors did not report any conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Bariatric surgery may lower the risk for breast cancer in women with obesity, particularly in premenopausal women and in women with high insulin levels at baseline.

METHODOLOGY:

• Previous research suggests that bariatric surgery is associated with a lower risk for cancer in people with obesity, as well as female-specific cancers in women with obesity, especially those with higher baseline insulin levels. But there is a need for large prospective studies with more detailed patient information.
• The current secondary analysis included 2867 matched women (mean age, 48 years) from a prospective nonrandomized Swedish trial, which recruited men and women who had obesity between 1987 and 2001.
• Overall, 1420 women underwent bariatric surgery, and 1447 received usual care.
• Median baseline insulin levels were 15.8 μIU/L. In the surgery group, 68.3% of patients had vertical banded gastroplasty, 18.3% underwent gastric banding, and 13.4% underwent gastric bypass.
• The main outcome was breast cancer incidence, as identified from Swedish National Cancer Registry.

TAKEAWAY:

• Over a median follow-up of 23.9 years, 66 breast cancer events occurred in the surgery group and 88 in the usual care group (P = .02).
• Bariatric surgery was associated with a 33% lower risk for breast cancer (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.67), after excluding cases that occurred within the first 3 years (to account for any undiagnosed breast cancer at baseline) and adjusting for age, body mass index, alcohol, and smoking status.
• Looking at the menopausal status at baseline, bariatric surgery was associated with a reduced risk for breast cancer in premenopausal women (aHR, 0.64) but not postmenopausal women (aHR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.49-1.45; P = .54).
• Bariatric surgery was also associated with a lower risk for breast cancer in women with baseline insulin levels above the median (aHR, 0.55) than in those with baseline insulin levels below the median (aHR, 1.01).

IN PRACTICE:

“The surgical treatment benefit was predominantly seen in women with hyperinsulinemia, suggesting insulin may be used as a predictor of treatment effect,” the authors wrote. Authors of an accompanying editorial, however, cautioned that “it is not known if insulin levels or insulin resistance are true biomarkers of breast cancer risk in patients with obesity undergoing bariatric surgery” and urged further research into underlying biological mechanisms.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Felipe M. Kristensson, MD, from Institute of Medicine, Department of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, the Sahlgrenska Academy at University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden, was published online in JAMA Surgery. The accompanying editorial was led by Swati A. Kulkarni, MD, of the Comprehensive Cancer Center, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was not randomized. Breast cancer was not a predefined outcome of the main trial. Most patients underwent vertical banded gastroplasty, which is rarely used and could limit applicability of the results; however, vertical banded gastroplasty results in weight loss similar to that observed after sleeve gastrectomy. Follow-up values for insulin and insulin resistance were not available. The researchers noted significant differences in 12 out of 17 baseline characteristics between the two groups, including a larger proportion of postmenopausal women in the usual care group.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the Swedish state, Swedish Research Council, the Health & Medical Care Committee of the Region Västra Götaland, and the Adlerbert Research Foundation. The authors did not report any conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Bariatric surgery may lower the risk for breast cancer in women with obesity, particularly in premenopausal women and in women with high insulin levels at baseline.

METHODOLOGY:

• Previous research suggests that bariatric surgery is associated with a lower risk for cancer in people with obesity, as well as female-specific cancers in women with obesity, especially those with higher baseline insulin levels. But there is a need for large prospective studies with more detailed patient information.
• The current secondary analysis included 2867 matched women (mean age, 48 years) from a prospective nonrandomized Swedish trial, which recruited men and women who had obesity between 1987 and 2001.
• Overall, 1420 women underwent bariatric surgery, and 1447 received usual care.
• Median baseline insulin levels were 15.8 μIU/L. In the surgery group, 68.3% of patients had vertical banded gastroplasty, 18.3% underwent gastric banding, and 13.4% underwent gastric bypass.
• The main outcome was breast cancer incidence, as identified from Swedish National Cancer Registry.

TAKEAWAY:

• Over a median follow-up of 23.9 years, 66 breast cancer events occurred in the surgery group and 88 in the usual care group (P = .02).
• Bariatric surgery was associated with a 33% lower risk for breast cancer (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.67), after excluding cases that occurred within the first 3 years (to account for any undiagnosed breast cancer at baseline) and adjusting for age, body mass index, alcohol, and smoking status.
• Looking at the menopausal status at baseline, bariatric surgery was associated with a reduced risk for breast cancer in premenopausal women (aHR, 0.64) but not postmenopausal women (aHR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.49-1.45; P = .54).
• Bariatric surgery was also associated with a lower risk for breast cancer in women with baseline insulin levels above the median (aHR, 0.55) than in those with baseline insulin levels below the median (aHR, 1.01).

IN PRACTICE:

“The surgical treatment benefit was predominantly seen in women with hyperinsulinemia, suggesting insulin may be used as a predictor of treatment effect,” the authors wrote. Authors of an accompanying editorial, however, cautioned that “it is not known if insulin levels or insulin resistance are true biomarkers of breast cancer risk in patients with obesity undergoing bariatric surgery” and urged further research into underlying biological mechanisms.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Felipe M. Kristensson, MD, from Institute of Medicine, Department of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, the Sahlgrenska Academy at University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden, was published online in JAMA Surgery. The accompanying editorial was led by Swati A. Kulkarni, MD, of the Comprehensive Cancer Center, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was not randomized. Breast cancer was not a predefined outcome of the main trial. Most patients underwent vertical banded gastroplasty, which is rarely used and could limit applicability of the results; however, vertical banded gastroplasty results in weight loss similar to that observed after sleeve gastrectomy. Follow-up values for insulin and insulin resistance were not available. The researchers noted significant differences in 12 out of 17 baseline characteristics between the two groups, including a larger proportion of postmenopausal women in the usual care group.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the Swedish state, Swedish Research Council, the Health & Medical Care Committee of the Region Västra Götaland, and the Adlerbert Research Foundation. The authors did not report any conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Fewer than half (42%) of obstetricians/gynecologists in the latest Medscape survey said they were satisfied with their average $352,000/year pay, putting them in the bottom 20% of specialties for pay satisfaction.

The $352,000 listed in the Medscape Ob/Gyn Compensation Report 2024 put the specialty in the middle of physicians overall. Orthopedists made the most at $558,000, followed by plastic surgeons at $536,000. Endocrinologists/diabetes specialists made the least at $256,000.
 

Ob.Gyn. Pay Rose 4%

Ob.gyns.’ pay overall was up 4% this year and the specialty was one of 10 in the survey that saw an increase.

There were contrasts in satisfaction among the specialties: Public health and preventive medicine physicians had the highest rate of satisfaction with pay (65% were satisfied) though they made new the least among physicians ($263,000). Those least satisfied with their pay were infectious disease physicians with only 34% saying they were satisfied.

There was also a contrast between what ob.gyns. thought about all physicians’ pay and what they thought of their own pay. While 68% said they thought physicians were underpaid, only 58% said that about their own specialty.

Elizabeth Woodcock, a healthcare consultant with Woodcock and Associates in Atlanta, Georgia, said this may be a mindset of self-deprecation, where pay is concerned.

“I think their response is a function of their lens — ‘I feel fortunate to have a job, to care for my patients, to be paid for this work,’ ” Ms. Woodcock said in the survey report.
 

Most Billings, Most Pay

“As a rule of thumb, the specialists who generate the most gross billings to commercial payers are more likely to receive the highest compensation,” said Jeff Decker, president of AMN Healthcare’s physician solutions division.

Louise P. King, MD, JD, associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Harvard Medical School in Boston, said lower reimbursement for procedures drives her reimbursement as a gynecological surgeon.

“Ob.gyns. — who are primarily surgical and have the highest malpractice risks and costs of almost the entire profession — earn far less than other surgeons,” she said.

The reasons for that are complex, she said, but she explained in a commentary in Obstetrics and Gynecology that “insurers reimburse procedures for women at a lower rate than similar procedures for men, although there is no medically justifiable reason for this disparity.”

She says that doubly affects female gynecological surgeons, who make up a disproportionately high number of surgeons in the field and serve mostly female patients.
 

Implications for Patient Care

Lower reimbursement also has implications for patient care, she says. Lower reimbursement for gynecological surgeries pushes many obstetrics and gynecological surgeons to perform fewer surgeries and more obstetric services, “resulting in a high prevalence of low-volume gynecologic surgeons, a metric that is closely tied to higher complication rates,” said Dr. King.

She added that as a gynecological surgeon, because of the lower reimbursement for services, “I have less access to [operating room] time and supports like midlevel clinicians.”

Fifty-three percent of ob.gyns. reported they have a chance for an incentive bonus and the average was $40,000; this is compared with the highest bonuses — $142,000, which were for dermatologists, followed by orthopedists at $102,000.

Ob.gyns. were also asked about whether they supplemented their income with additional work and 39% this year, about the same percentage as last year, said they did. The percentage is similar to the number of physicians who say they supplement their income. In most cases, for all physicians, the outside work is usually within the medical field.

Ms. Woodcock, Mr. Decker, and Dr. King report no relevant financial disclosures.

Fewer than half (42%) of obstetricians/gynecologists in the latest Medscape survey said they were satisfied with their average $352,000/year pay, putting them in the bottom 20% of specialties for pay satisfaction.

The $352,000 listed in the Medscape Ob/Gyn Compensation Report 2024 put the specialty in the middle of physicians overall. Orthopedists made the most at $558,000, followed by plastic surgeons at $536,000. Endocrinologists/diabetes specialists made the least at $256,000.
 

Ob.Gyn. Pay Rose 4%

Ob.gyns.’ pay overall was up 4% this year and the specialty was one of 10 in the survey that saw an increase.

There were contrasts in satisfaction among the specialties: Public health and preventive medicine physicians had the highest rate of satisfaction with pay (65% were satisfied) though they made new the least among physicians ($263,000). Those least satisfied with their pay were infectious disease physicians with only 34% saying they were satisfied.

There was also a contrast between what ob.gyns. thought about all physicians’ pay and what they thought of their own pay. While 68% said they thought physicians were underpaid, only 58% said that about their own specialty.

Elizabeth Woodcock, a healthcare consultant with Woodcock and Associates in Atlanta, Georgia, said this may be a mindset of self-deprecation, where pay is concerned.

“I think their response is a function of their lens — ‘I feel fortunate to have a job, to care for my patients, to be paid for this work,’ ” Ms. Woodcock said in the survey report.
 

Most Billings, Most Pay

“As a rule of thumb, the specialists who generate the most gross billings to commercial payers are more likely to receive the highest compensation,” said Jeff Decker, president of AMN Healthcare’s physician solutions division.

Louise P. King, MD, JD, associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Harvard Medical School in Boston, said lower reimbursement for procedures drives her reimbursement as a gynecological surgeon.

“Ob.gyns. — who are primarily surgical and have the highest malpractice risks and costs of almost the entire profession — earn far less than other surgeons,” she said.

The reasons for that are complex, she said, but she explained in a commentary in Obstetrics and Gynecology that “insurers reimburse procedures for women at a lower rate than similar procedures for men, although there is no medically justifiable reason for this disparity.”

She says that doubly affects female gynecological surgeons, who make up a disproportionately high number of surgeons in the field and serve mostly female patients.
 

Implications for Patient Care

Lower reimbursement also has implications for patient care, she says. Lower reimbursement for gynecological surgeries pushes many obstetrics and gynecological surgeons to perform fewer surgeries and more obstetric services, “resulting in a high prevalence of low-volume gynecologic surgeons, a metric that is closely tied to higher complication rates,” said Dr. King.

She added that as a gynecological surgeon, because of the lower reimbursement for services, “I have less access to [operating room] time and supports like midlevel clinicians.”

Fifty-three percent of ob.gyns. reported they have a chance for an incentive bonus and the average was $40,000; this is compared with the highest bonuses — $142,000, which were for dermatologists, followed by orthopedists at $102,000.

Ob.gyns. were also asked about whether they supplemented their income with additional work and 39% this year, about the same percentage as last year, said they did. The percentage is similar to the number of physicians who say they supplement their income. In most cases, for all physicians, the outside work is usually within the medical field.

Ms. Woodcock, Mr. Decker, and Dr. King report no relevant financial disclosures.

Fewer than half (42%) of obstetricians/gynecologists in the latest Medscape survey said they were satisfied with their average $352,000/year pay, putting them in the bottom 20% of specialties for pay satisfaction.

The $352,000 listed in the Medscape Ob/Gyn Compensation Report 2024 put the specialty in the middle of physicians overall. Orthopedists made the most at $558,000, followed by plastic surgeons at $536,000. Endocrinologists/diabetes specialists made the least at $256,000.
 

Ob.Gyn. Pay Rose 4%

Ob.gyns.’ pay overall was up 4% this year and the specialty was one of 10 in the survey that saw an increase.

There were contrasts in satisfaction among the specialties: Public health and preventive medicine physicians had the highest rate of satisfaction with pay (65% were satisfied) though they made new the least among physicians ($263,000). Those least satisfied with their pay were infectious disease physicians with only 34% saying they were satisfied.

There was also a contrast between what ob.gyns. thought about all physicians’ pay and what they thought of their own pay. While 68% said they thought physicians were underpaid, only 58% said that about their own specialty.

Elizabeth Woodcock, a healthcare consultant with Woodcock and Associates in Atlanta, Georgia, said this may be a mindset of self-deprecation, where pay is concerned.

“I think their response is a function of their lens — ‘I feel fortunate to have a job, to care for my patients, to be paid for this work,’ ” Ms. Woodcock said in the survey report.
 

Most Billings, Most Pay

“As a rule of thumb, the specialists who generate the most gross billings to commercial payers are more likely to receive the highest compensation,” said Jeff Decker, president of AMN Healthcare’s physician solutions division.

Louise P. King, MD, JD, associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Harvard Medical School in Boston, said lower reimbursement for procedures drives her reimbursement as a gynecological surgeon.

“Ob.gyns. — who are primarily surgical and have the highest malpractice risks and costs of almost the entire profession — earn far less than other surgeons,” she said.

The reasons for that are complex, she said, but she explained in a commentary in Obstetrics and Gynecology that “insurers reimburse procedures for women at a lower rate than similar procedures for men, although there is no medically justifiable reason for this disparity.”

She says that doubly affects female gynecological surgeons, who make up a disproportionately high number of surgeons in the field and serve mostly female patients.
 

Implications for Patient Care

Lower reimbursement also has implications for patient care, she says. Lower reimbursement for gynecological surgeries pushes many obstetrics and gynecological surgeons to perform fewer surgeries and more obstetric services, “resulting in a high prevalence of low-volume gynecologic surgeons, a metric that is closely tied to higher complication rates,” said Dr. King.

She added that as a gynecological surgeon, because of the lower reimbursement for services, “I have less access to [operating room] time and supports like midlevel clinicians.”

Fifty-three percent of ob.gyns. reported they have a chance for an incentive bonus and the average was $40,000; this is compared with the highest bonuses — $142,000, which were for dermatologists, followed by orthopedists at $102,000.

Ob.gyns. were also asked about whether they supplemented their income with additional work and 39% this year, about the same percentage as last year, said they did. The percentage is similar to the number of physicians who say they supplement their income. In most cases, for all physicians, the outside work is usually within the medical field.

Ms. Woodcock, Mr. Decker, and Dr. King report no relevant financial disclosures.

Florida has become the first state to allow doctors to perform cesarean sections outside of hospitals, siding with a private equity-owned physicians group that says the change will lower costs and give pregnant women the homier birthing atmosphere that many desire.

But the hospital industry and the nation’s leading obstetricians’ association say that even though some Florida hospitals have closed their maternity wards in recent years, performing C-sections in doctor-run clinics will increase the risks for women and babies when complications arise.

“A pregnant patient that is considered low-risk in one moment can suddenly need lifesaving care in the next,” Cole Greves, an Orlando perinatologist who chairs the Florida chapter of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said in an email to KFF Health News. The new birth clinics, “even with increased regulation, cannot guarantee the level of safety patients would receive within a hospital.”

This spring, a law was enacted allowing “advanced birth centers,” where physicians can deliver babies vaginally or by C-section to women deemed at low risk of complications. Women would be able to stay overnight at the clinics.

Women’s Care Enterprises, a private equity-owned physicians group with locations mostly in Florida along with California and Kentucky, lobbied the state legislature to make the change. BC Partners, a London-based investment firm, bought Women’s Care in 2020.

“We have patients who don’t want to deliver in a hospital, and that breaks our heart,” said Stephen Snow, who recently retired as an ob.gyn. with Women’s Care and testified before the Florida Legislature advocating for the change in 2018.

Brittany Miller, vice president of strategic initiatives with Women’s Care, said the group would not comment on the issue.

Health experts are leery.

“What this looks like is a poor substitute for quality obstetrical care effectively being billed as something that gives people more choices,” said Alice Abernathy, an assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine. “This feels like a bad band-aid on a chronic issue that will make outcomes worse rather than better,” Abernathy said.

Nearly one-third of U.S. births occur via C-section, the surgical delivery of a baby through an incision in the mother’s abdomen and uterus. Generally, doctors use the procedure when they believe it is safer than vaginal delivery for the parent, the baby, or both. Such medical decisions can take place months before birth, or in an emergency.

Florida state Sen. Gayle Harrell, the Republican who sponsored the birth center bill, said having a C-section outside of a hospital may seem like a radical change, but so was the opening of outpatient surgery centers in the late 1980s.

Harrell, who managed her husband’s ob.gyn. practice, said birth centers will have to meet the same high standards for staffing, infection control, and other aspects as those at outpatient surgery centers.

“Given where we are with the need, and maternity deserts across the state, this is something that will help us and help moms get the best care,” she said.

Seventeen hospitals in the state have closed their maternity units since 2019, with many citing low insurance reimbursement and high malpractice costs, according to the Florida Hospital Association.

Mary Mayhew, CEO of the Florida Hospital Association, said it is wrong to compare birth centers to ambulatory surgery centers because of the many risks associated with C-sections, such as hemorrhaging.

The Florida law requires advanced birth centers to have a transfer agreement with a hospital, but it does not dictate where the facilities can open nor their proximity to a hospital.

“We have serious concerns about the impact this model has on our collective efforts to improve maternal and infant health,” Mayhew said. “Our hospitals do not see this in the best interest of providing quality and safety in labor and delivery.”

Despite its opposition to the new birth centers, the Florida Hospital Association did not fight passage of the overall bill because it also included a major increase in the amount Medicaid pays hospitals for maternity care.

Mayhew said it is unlikely that the birth centers would help address care shortages. Hospitals are already struggling with a shortage of ob.gyns., she said, and it is unrealistic to expect advanced birth centers to open in rural areas with a large proportion of people on Medicaid, which pays the lowest reimbursement for labor and delivery care.

It is unclear whether insurers will cover the advanced birth centers, though most insurers and Medicaid cover care at midwife-run birth centers. The advanced birth centers will not accept emergency walk-ins and will treat only patients whose insurance contracts with the facilities, making them in-network.

Snow, the retired ob.gyn. with Women’s Care, said the group plans to open an advanced birth center in the Tampa or Orlando area.

The advanced birth center concept is an improvement on midwife care that enables deliveries outside of hospitals, he said, as the centers allow women to stay overnight and, if necessary, offer anesthesia and C-sections.

Snow acknowledged that, with a private equity firm invested in Women’s Care, the birth center idea is also about making money. But he said hospitals have the same profit incentive and, like midwives, likely oppose the idea of centers that can provide C-sections because they could cut into hospital revenue.

“We are trying to reduce the cost of medicine, and this would be more cost-effective and more pleasant for patients,” he said.

Kate Bauer, executive director of the American Association of Birth Centers, said patients could confuse advanced birth centers with the existing, free-standing birth centers for low-risk births that have been run by midwives for decades. There are currently 31 licensed birth centers in Florida and 411 free-standing birth centers in the United States, she said.

“This is a radical departure from the standard of care,” Bauer said. “It’s a bad idea,” she said, because it could increase risks to mom and baby.

No other state allows C-sections outside of hospitals. The only facility that offers similar care is a birth clinic in Wichita, Kansas, which is connected by a short walkway to a hospital, Wesley Medical Center.

The clinic provides “hotel-like” maternity suites where staffers deliver about 100 babies a month, compared with 500 per month in the hospital itself.

Morgan Tracy, a maternity nurse navigator at the center, said the concept works largely because the hospital and birthing suites can share staff and pharmacy access, plus patients can be quickly transferred to the main hospital if complications arise.

“The beauty is there are team members on both sides of the street,” Tracy said.
 

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

Florida has become the first state to allow doctors to perform cesarean sections outside of hospitals, siding with a private equity-owned physicians group that says the change will lower costs and give pregnant women the homier birthing atmosphere that many desire.

But the hospital industry and the nation’s leading obstetricians’ association say that even though some Florida hospitals have closed their maternity wards in recent years, performing C-sections in doctor-run clinics will increase the risks for women and babies when complications arise.

“A pregnant patient that is considered low-risk in one moment can suddenly need lifesaving care in the next,” Cole Greves, an Orlando perinatologist who chairs the Florida chapter of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said in an email to KFF Health News. The new birth clinics, “even with increased regulation, cannot guarantee the level of safety patients would receive within a hospital.”

This spring, a law was enacted allowing “advanced birth centers,” where physicians can deliver babies vaginally or by C-section to women deemed at low risk of complications. Women would be able to stay overnight at the clinics.

Women’s Care Enterprises, a private equity-owned physicians group with locations mostly in Florida along with California and Kentucky, lobbied the state legislature to make the change. BC Partners, a London-based investment firm, bought Women’s Care in 2020.

“We have patients who don’t want to deliver in a hospital, and that breaks our heart,” said Stephen Snow, who recently retired as an ob.gyn. with Women’s Care and testified before the Florida Legislature advocating for the change in 2018.

Brittany Miller, vice president of strategic initiatives with Women’s Care, said the group would not comment on the issue.

Health experts are leery.

“What this looks like is a poor substitute for quality obstetrical care effectively being billed as something that gives people more choices,” said Alice Abernathy, an assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine. “This feels like a bad band-aid on a chronic issue that will make outcomes worse rather than better,” Abernathy said.

Nearly one-third of U.S. births occur via C-section, the surgical delivery of a baby through an incision in the mother’s abdomen and uterus. Generally, doctors use the procedure when they believe it is safer than vaginal delivery for the parent, the baby, or both. Such medical decisions can take place months before birth, or in an emergency.

Florida state Sen. Gayle Harrell, the Republican who sponsored the birth center bill, said having a C-section outside of a hospital may seem like a radical change, but so was the opening of outpatient surgery centers in the late 1980s.

Harrell, who managed her husband’s ob.gyn. practice, said birth centers will have to meet the same high standards for staffing, infection control, and other aspects as those at outpatient surgery centers.

“Given where we are with the need, and maternity deserts across the state, this is something that will help us and help moms get the best care,” she said.

Seventeen hospitals in the state have closed their maternity units since 2019, with many citing low insurance reimbursement and high malpractice costs, according to the Florida Hospital Association.

Mary Mayhew, CEO of the Florida Hospital Association, said it is wrong to compare birth centers to ambulatory surgery centers because of the many risks associated with C-sections, such as hemorrhaging.

The Florida law requires advanced birth centers to have a transfer agreement with a hospital, but it does not dictate where the facilities can open nor their proximity to a hospital.

“We have serious concerns about the impact this model has on our collective efforts to improve maternal and infant health,” Mayhew said. “Our hospitals do not see this in the best interest of providing quality and safety in labor and delivery.”

Despite its opposition to the new birth centers, the Florida Hospital Association did not fight passage of the overall bill because it also included a major increase in the amount Medicaid pays hospitals for maternity care.

Mayhew said it is unlikely that the birth centers would help address care shortages. Hospitals are already struggling with a shortage of ob.gyns., she said, and it is unrealistic to expect advanced birth centers to open in rural areas with a large proportion of people on Medicaid, which pays the lowest reimbursement for labor and delivery care.

It is unclear whether insurers will cover the advanced birth centers, though most insurers and Medicaid cover care at midwife-run birth centers. The advanced birth centers will not accept emergency walk-ins and will treat only patients whose insurance contracts with the facilities, making them in-network.

Snow, the retired ob.gyn. with Women’s Care, said the group plans to open an advanced birth center in the Tampa or Orlando area.

The advanced birth center concept is an improvement on midwife care that enables deliveries outside of hospitals, he said, as the centers allow women to stay overnight and, if necessary, offer anesthesia and C-sections.

Snow acknowledged that, with a private equity firm invested in Women’s Care, the birth center idea is also about making money. But he said hospitals have the same profit incentive and, like midwives, likely oppose the idea of centers that can provide C-sections because they could cut into hospital revenue.

“We are trying to reduce the cost of medicine, and this would be more cost-effective and more pleasant for patients,” he said.

Kate Bauer, executive director of the American Association of Birth Centers, said patients could confuse advanced birth centers with the existing, free-standing birth centers for low-risk births that have been run by midwives for decades. There are currently 31 licensed birth centers in Florida and 411 free-standing birth centers in the United States, she said.

“This is a radical departure from the standard of care,” Bauer said. “It’s a bad idea,” she said, because it could increase risks to mom and baby.

No other state allows C-sections outside of hospitals. The only facility that offers similar care is a birth clinic in Wichita, Kansas, which is connected by a short walkway to a hospital, Wesley Medical Center.

The clinic provides “hotel-like” maternity suites where staffers deliver about 100 babies a month, compared with 500 per month in the hospital itself.

Morgan Tracy, a maternity nurse navigator at the center, said the concept works largely because the hospital and birthing suites can share staff and pharmacy access, plus patients can be quickly transferred to the main hospital if complications arise.

“The beauty is there are team members on both sides of the street,” Tracy said.
 

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

Florida has become the first state to allow doctors to perform cesarean sections outside of hospitals, siding with a private equity-owned physicians group that says the change will lower costs and give pregnant women the homier birthing atmosphere that many desire.

But the hospital industry and the nation’s leading obstetricians’ association say that even though some Florida hospitals have closed their maternity wards in recent years, performing C-sections in doctor-run clinics will increase the risks for women and babies when complications arise.

“A pregnant patient that is considered low-risk in one moment can suddenly need lifesaving care in the next,” Cole Greves, an Orlando perinatologist who chairs the Florida chapter of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said in an email to KFF Health News. The new birth clinics, “even with increased regulation, cannot guarantee the level of safety patients would receive within a hospital.”

This spring, a law was enacted allowing “advanced birth centers,” where physicians can deliver babies vaginally or by C-section to women deemed at low risk of complications. Women would be able to stay overnight at the clinics.

Women’s Care Enterprises, a private equity-owned physicians group with locations mostly in Florida along with California and Kentucky, lobbied the state legislature to make the change. BC Partners, a London-based investment firm, bought Women’s Care in 2020.

“We have patients who don’t want to deliver in a hospital, and that breaks our heart,” said Stephen Snow, who recently retired as an ob.gyn. with Women’s Care and testified before the Florida Legislature advocating for the change in 2018.

Brittany Miller, vice president of strategic initiatives with Women’s Care, said the group would not comment on the issue.

Health experts are leery.

“What this looks like is a poor substitute for quality obstetrical care effectively being billed as something that gives people more choices,” said Alice Abernathy, an assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine. “This feels like a bad band-aid on a chronic issue that will make outcomes worse rather than better,” Abernathy said.

Nearly one-third of U.S. births occur via C-section, the surgical delivery of a baby through an incision in the mother’s abdomen and uterus. Generally, doctors use the procedure when they believe it is safer than vaginal delivery for the parent, the baby, or both. Such medical decisions can take place months before birth, or in an emergency.

Florida state Sen. Gayle Harrell, the Republican who sponsored the birth center bill, said having a C-section outside of a hospital may seem like a radical change, but so was the opening of outpatient surgery centers in the late 1980s.

Harrell, who managed her husband’s ob.gyn. practice, said birth centers will have to meet the same high standards for staffing, infection control, and other aspects as those at outpatient surgery centers.

“Given where we are with the need, and maternity deserts across the state, this is something that will help us and help moms get the best care,” she said.

Seventeen hospitals in the state have closed their maternity units since 2019, with many citing low insurance reimbursement and high malpractice costs, according to the Florida Hospital Association.

Mary Mayhew, CEO of the Florida Hospital Association, said it is wrong to compare birth centers to ambulatory surgery centers because of the many risks associated with C-sections, such as hemorrhaging.

The Florida law requires advanced birth centers to have a transfer agreement with a hospital, but it does not dictate where the facilities can open nor their proximity to a hospital.

“We have serious concerns about the impact this model has on our collective efforts to improve maternal and infant health,” Mayhew said. “Our hospitals do not see this in the best interest of providing quality and safety in labor and delivery.”

Despite its opposition to the new birth centers, the Florida Hospital Association did not fight passage of the overall bill because it also included a major increase in the amount Medicaid pays hospitals for maternity care.

Mayhew said it is unlikely that the birth centers would help address care shortages. Hospitals are already struggling with a shortage of ob.gyns., she said, and it is unrealistic to expect advanced birth centers to open in rural areas with a large proportion of people on Medicaid, which pays the lowest reimbursement for labor and delivery care.

It is unclear whether insurers will cover the advanced birth centers, though most insurers and Medicaid cover care at midwife-run birth centers. The advanced birth centers will not accept emergency walk-ins and will treat only patients whose insurance contracts with the facilities, making them in-network.

Snow, the retired ob.gyn. with Women’s Care, said the group plans to open an advanced birth center in the Tampa or Orlando area.

The advanced birth center concept is an improvement on midwife care that enables deliveries outside of hospitals, he said, as the centers allow women to stay overnight and, if necessary, offer anesthesia and C-sections.

Snow acknowledged that, with a private equity firm invested in Women’s Care, the birth center idea is also about making money. But he said hospitals have the same profit incentive and, like midwives, likely oppose the idea of centers that can provide C-sections because they could cut into hospital revenue.

“We are trying to reduce the cost of medicine, and this would be more cost-effective and more pleasant for patients,” he said.

Kate Bauer, executive director of the American Association of Birth Centers, said patients could confuse advanced birth centers with the existing, free-standing birth centers for low-risk births that have been run by midwives for decades. There are currently 31 licensed birth centers in Florida and 411 free-standing birth centers in the United States, she said.

“This is a radical departure from the standard of care,” Bauer said. “It’s a bad idea,” she said, because it could increase risks to mom and baby.

No other state allows C-sections outside of hospitals. The only facility that offers similar care is a birth clinic in Wichita, Kansas, which is connected by a short walkway to a hospital, Wesley Medical Center.

The clinic provides “hotel-like” maternity suites where staffers deliver about 100 babies a month, compared with 500 per month in the hospital itself.

Morgan Tracy, a maternity nurse navigator at the center, said the concept works largely because the hospital and birthing suites can share staff and pharmacy access, plus patients can be quickly transferred to the main hospital if complications arise.

“The beauty is there are team members on both sides of the street,” Tracy said.
 

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

Over the past few years, several new, highly effective treatment strategies have improved survival outcomes in patients with early breast cancer.

“We’ve been very fortunate” to see these advances, Sara M. Tolaney, MD, MPH, chief, Division of Breast Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, told attendees at the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) Breast Cancer annual congress.

However, Dr. Tolaney noted, these new treatment approaches can come with big limitations — namely, potential overtreatment of some patients as well as short- and long-term toxicities, some of which can be life-threatening.

These caveats have prompted trials exploring strategies to de-escalate therapy, which essentially means providing the right amount of treatment to the right patient at the right time, said Dr. Tolaney. The goal is to “right-size” or “optimize therapy” to maintain strong outcomes while mitigating side effects.

De-escalation studies are “critical to preserving quality of life” and affect the cost-effectiveness of therapy, she explained.

But, she added, de-escalation trials are “not a very attractive strategy to pharmaceutical companies” and can be challenging for researchers to conduct. These trials may, for instance, lack adequate sample sizes and sufficient statistical power, which can interfere with achieving clinically meaningful findings that may affect practice.

That is why carefully designing de-escalation trials is crucial, Dr. Tolaney said.

In her talk at ESMO Breast, Dr. Tolaney highlighted several strategies for designing these trials.

One strategy is to shorten the duration of therapy, said Dr. Tolaney.

This approach was explored in the PHARE and PERSEPHONE trials, which looked at 6 vs 12 months of trastuzumab in nonmetastatic breast cancer. Other trials, such as GeparNuevo and KEYNOTE-522, explored whether adjuvant checkpoint inhibitor therapy was needed, or could be skipped, following neoadjuvant therapy. This approach requires establishing noninferiority, or similar efficacy, between the standard of care and the shorter duration of therapy.

A second strategy is to remove part of the chemotherapy regimen, typically the most toxic agent, Dr. Tolaney continued.

Conducting a prospective, randomized trial exploring this approach in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–positive (HER2+) early breast cancer, for example, would be difficult for a range of reasons, such as the need to enroll thousands of patients.

Dr. Tolaney and colleagues, however, designed a nonrandomized prospective study — the APT trial — with just over 400 patients to assess adjuvant paclitaxel plus trastuzumab in patients with node-negative HER2+ disease. The open-label, single-arm, phase 2 APT trial found that adjuvant paclitaxel and trastuzumab led to a 10-year recurrence-free interval of 96.3%, 10-year overall survival of 94.3%, and 10-year breast cancer–specific survival of 98.8%.

Outcomes with this adjuvant regimen were comparable to previous findings in historical controls who received doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, paclitaxel, and trastuzumab or docetaxel, carboplatin, and trastuzumab.

Dr. Tolaney concluded that given few events, “it’s unlikely we need to escalate therapy to do better for most patients,” and the APT regimen “can be considered a reasonable and appealing approach for the majority of patients” with node-negative HER2+ breast cancer.

“A single-arm design for a de-escalation study can be practice-changing but only if there are very few recurrences,” Dr. Tolaney said.

Substituting chemotherapy with a targeted, potentially less-toxic agent is a third de-escalation approach. The ATEMPT trial compared patients receiving trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) with those receiving paclitaxel plus trastuzumab followed by maintenance trastuzumab.

Investigators found that de-escalation with T-DM1 was associated with very few recurrences but similar rates of certain adverse events, including grade 2 or higher neurotoxicity, febrile neutropenia, and grade 4 or higher hematologic toxicity.

However, there are questions about how to define “less toxic,” Dr. Tolaney said. The trial found, for instance, that T-DM1 did have some advantages — patients reported better quality of life and experienced less alopecia and neurotoxicity, as well as a less severe impact on fertility.

Understanding the right endpoint to demonstrate less toxicity is critical, “as we start to think about how to replace standard chemotherapies with better targeted drugs,” she added.

The ATEMPT 2.0 trial, which is currently enrolling, will aim to answer some of these questions about defining and demonstrating less toxicity, she said.

Finally, some researchers are attempting to omit chemotherapy altogether with the help of biomarkers. The TAILORx trial, for instance, aimed to stratify patients with early-stage breast cancer by clinical risk factors combined with a 21-gene expression assay and found that adjuvant chemotherapy was not necessary in a large proportion of these women.

On the biomarker front, oncologists might be able to use ctDNA to guide decision-making and personalize therapy, Tolaney said. The presence of ctDNA is associated with an almost 100% likelihood of having a recurrence, whereas its absence suggests better outcomes, she explained.

Oncologists could use the presence or absence of ctDNA to guide next steps — assign patients to follow-up assessments when ctDNA is not present or to standard or experimental treatment when it is present. It may also be possible to leverage the presence of minimal residual disease to help direct treatment choices.

But ctDNA is currently not as perfect a predictor of outcome as it could be, she cautioned. “We need more sensitive assays [so] I’m not sure we’re quite ready to use lack of ctDNA to de-escalate treatment,” she said.

Dr. Tolaney declared relationships with Novartis, Pfizer, Merck, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, Eisai, Sanofi, Bristol Myers Squib, and other companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Over the past few years, several new, highly effective treatment strategies have improved survival outcomes in patients with early breast cancer.

“We’ve been very fortunate” to see these advances, Sara M. Tolaney, MD, MPH, chief, Division of Breast Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, told attendees at the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) Breast Cancer annual congress.

However, Dr. Tolaney noted, these new treatment approaches can come with big limitations — namely, potential overtreatment of some patients as well as short- and long-term toxicities, some of which can be life-threatening.

These caveats have prompted trials exploring strategies to de-escalate therapy, which essentially means providing the right amount of treatment to the right patient at the right time, said Dr. Tolaney. The goal is to “right-size” or “optimize therapy” to maintain strong outcomes while mitigating side effects.

De-escalation studies are “critical to preserving quality of life” and affect the cost-effectiveness of therapy, she explained.

But, she added, de-escalation trials are “not a very attractive strategy to pharmaceutical companies” and can be challenging for researchers to conduct. These trials may, for instance, lack adequate sample sizes and sufficient statistical power, which can interfere with achieving clinically meaningful findings that may affect practice.

That is why carefully designing de-escalation trials is crucial, Dr. Tolaney said.

In her talk at ESMO Breast, Dr. Tolaney highlighted several strategies for designing these trials.

One strategy is to shorten the duration of therapy, said Dr. Tolaney.

This approach was explored in the PHARE and PERSEPHONE trials, which looked at 6 vs 12 months of trastuzumab in nonmetastatic breast cancer. Other trials, such as GeparNuevo and KEYNOTE-522, explored whether adjuvant checkpoint inhibitor therapy was needed, or could be skipped, following neoadjuvant therapy. This approach requires establishing noninferiority, or similar efficacy, between the standard of care and the shorter duration of therapy.

A second strategy is to remove part of the chemotherapy regimen, typically the most toxic agent, Dr. Tolaney continued.

Conducting a prospective, randomized trial exploring this approach in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–positive (HER2+) early breast cancer, for example, would be difficult for a range of reasons, such as the need to enroll thousands of patients.

Dr. Tolaney and colleagues, however, designed a nonrandomized prospective study — the APT trial — with just over 400 patients to assess adjuvant paclitaxel plus trastuzumab in patients with node-negative HER2+ disease. The open-label, single-arm, phase 2 APT trial found that adjuvant paclitaxel and trastuzumab led to a 10-year recurrence-free interval of 96.3%, 10-year overall survival of 94.3%, and 10-year breast cancer–specific survival of 98.8%.

Outcomes with this adjuvant regimen were comparable to previous findings in historical controls who received doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, paclitaxel, and trastuzumab or docetaxel, carboplatin, and trastuzumab.

Dr. Tolaney concluded that given few events, “it’s unlikely we need to escalate therapy to do better for most patients,” and the APT regimen “can be considered a reasonable and appealing approach for the majority of patients” with node-negative HER2+ breast cancer.

“A single-arm design for a de-escalation study can be practice-changing but only if there are very few recurrences,” Dr. Tolaney said.

Substituting chemotherapy with a targeted, potentially less-toxic agent is a third de-escalation approach. The ATEMPT trial compared patients receiving trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) with those receiving paclitaxel plus trastuzumab followed by maintenance trastuzumab.

Investigators found that de-escalation with T-DM1 was associated with very few recurrences but similar rates of certain adverse events, including grade 2 or higher neurotoxicity, febrile neutropenia, and grade 4 or higher hematologic toxicity.

However, there are questions about how to define “less toxic,” Dr. Tolaney said. The trial found, for instance, that T-DM1 did have some advantages — patients reported better quality of life and experienced less alopecia and neurotoxicity, as well as a less severe impact on fertility.

Understanding the right endpoint to demonstrate less toxicity is critical, “as we start to think about how to replace standard chemotherapies with better targeted drugs,” she added.

The ATEMPT 2.0 trial, which is currently enrolling, will aim to answer some of these questions about defining and demonstrating less toxicity, she said.

Finally, some researchers are attempting to omit chemotherapy altogether with the help of biomarkers. The TAILORx trial, for instance, aimed to stratify patients with early-stage breast cancer by clinical risk factors combined with a 21-gene expression assay and found that adjuvant chemotherapy was not necessary in a large proportion of these women.

On the biomarker front, oncologists might be able to use ctDNA to guide decision-making and personalize therapy, Tolaney said. The presence of ctDNA is associated with an almost 100% likelihood of having a recurrence, whereas its absence suggests better outcomes, she explained.

Oncologists could use the presence or absence of ctDNA to guide next steps — assign patients to follow-up assessments when ctDNA is not present or to standard or experimental treatment when it is present. It may also be possible to leverage the presence of minimal residual disease to help direct treatment choices.

But ctDNA is currently not as perfect a predictor of outcome as it could be, she cautioned. “We need more sensitive assays [so] I’m not sure we’re quite ready to use lack of ctDNA to de-escalate treatment,” she said.

Dr. Tolaney declared relationships with Novartis, Pfizer, Merck, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, Eisai, Sanofi, Bristol Myers Squib, and other companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Over the past few years, several new, highly effective treatment strategies have improved survival outcomes in patients with early breast cancer.

“We’ve been very fortunate” to see these advances, Sara M. Tolaney, MD, MPH, chief, Division of Breast Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, told attendees at the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) Breast Cancer annual congress.

However, Dr. Tolaney noted, these new treatment approaches can come with big limitations — namely, potential overtreatment of some patients as well as short- and long-term toxicities, some of which can be life-threatening.

These caveats have prompted trials exploring strategies to de-escalate therapy, which essentially means providing the right amount of treatment to the right patient at the right time, said Dr. Tolaney. The goal is to “right-size” or “optimize therapy” to maintain strong outcomes while mitigating side effects.

De-escalation studies are “critical to preserving quality of life” and affect the cost-effectiveness of therapy, she explained.

But, she added, de-escalation trials are “not a very attractive strategy to pharmaceutical companies” and can be challenging for researchers to conduct. These trials may, for instance, lack adequate sample sizes and sufficient statistical power, which can interfere with achieving clinically meaningful findings that may affect practice.

That is why carefully designing de-escalation trials is crucial, Dr. Tolaney said.

In her talk at ESMO Breast, Dr. Tolaney highlighted several strategies for designing these trials.

One strategy is to shorten the duration of therapy, said Dr. Tolaney.

This approach was explored in the PHARE and PERSEPHONE trials, which looked at 6 vs 12 months of trastuzumab in nonmetastatic breast cancer. Other trials, such as GeparNuevo and KEYNOTE-522, explored whether adjuvant checkpoint inhibitor therapy was needed, or could be skipped, following neoadjuvant therapy. This approach requires establishing noninferiority, or similar efficacy, between the standard of care and the shorter duration of therapy.

A second strategy is to remove part of the chemotherapy regimen, typically the most toxic agent, Dr. Tolaney continued.

Conducting a prospective, randomized trial exploring this approach in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–positive (HER2+) early breast cancer, for example, would be difficult for a range of reasons, such as the need to enroll thousands of patients.

Dr. Tolaney and colleagues, however, designed a nonrandomized prospective study — the APT trial — with just over 400 patients to assess adjuvant paclitaxel plus trastuzumab in patients with node-negative HER2+ disease. The open-label, single-arm, phase 2 APT trial found that adjuvant paclitaxel and trastuzumab led to a 10-year recurrence-free interval of 96.3%, 10-year overall survival of 94.3%, and 10-year breast cancer–specific survival of 98.8%.

Outcomes with this adjuvant regimen were comparable to previous findings in historical controls who received doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, paclitaxel, and trastuzumab or docetaxel, carboplatin, and trastuzumab.

Dr. Tolaney concluded that given few events, “it’s unlikely we need to escalate therapy to do better for most patients,” and the APT regimen “can be considered a reasonable and appealing approach for the majority of patients” with node-negative HER2+ breast cancer.

“A single-arm design for a de-escalation study can be practice-changing but only if there are very few recurrences,” Dr. Tolaney said.

Substituting chemotherapy with a targeted, potentially less-toxic agent is a third de-escalation approach. The ATEMPT trial compared patients receiving trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) with those receiving paclitaxel plus trastuzumab followed by maintenance trastuzumab.

Investigators found that de-escalation with T-DM1 was associated with very few recurrences but similar rates of certain adverse events, including grade 2 or higher neurotoxicity, febrile neutropenia, and grade 4 or higher hematologic toxicity.

However, there are questions about how to define “less toxic,” Dr. Tolaney said. The trial found, for instance, that T-DM1 did have some advantages — patients reported better quality of life and experienced less alopecia and neurotoxicity, as well as a less severe impact on fertility.

Understanding the right endpoint to demonstrate less toxicity is critical, “as we start to think about how to replace standard chemotherapies with better targeted drugs,” she added.

The ATEMPT 2.0 trial, which is currently enrolling, will aim to answer some of these questions about defining and demonstrating less toxicity, she said.

Finally, some researchers are attempting to omit chemotherapy altogether with the help of biomarkers. The TAILORx trial, for instance, aimed to stratify patients with early-stage breast cancer by clinical risk factors combined with a 21-gene expression assay and found that adjuvant chemotherapy was not necessary in a large proportion of these women.

On the biomarker front, oncologists might be able to use ctDNA to guide decision-making and personalize therapy, Tolaney said. The presence of ctDNA is associated with an almost 100% likelihood of having a recurrence, whereas its absence suggests better outcomes, she explained.

Oncologists could use the presence or absence of ctDNA to guide next steps — assign patients to follow-up assessments when ctDNA is not present or to standard or experimental treatment when it is present. It may also be possible to leverage the presence of minimal residual disease to help direct treatment choices.

But ctDNA is currently not as perfect a predictor of outcome as it could be, she cautioned. “We need more sensitive assays [so] I’m not sure we’re quite ready to use lack of ctDNA to de-escalate treatment,” she said.

Dr. Tolaney declared relationships with Novartis, Pfizer, Merck, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, Eisai, Sanofi, Bristol Myers Squib, and other companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Antibody drug conjugates (ADCs) — a class of targeted medications that combine monoclonal antibodies with cytotoxic payloads — are rapidly changing the treatment landscape for patients with metastatic breast cancer.

These medications, which are designed to selectively deliver potent cytotoxic drugs to cancer cells expressing specific surface antigens such as human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) and trophoblast cell surface antigen 2 (TROP2), can be highly effective but can also come with significant toxicities.

The latest data on several ADCs — their clinical benefit and safety — were the focus of three presentations here at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Breast Cancer annual congress.

TROPION-Breast01

In her presentation, Komal Jhaveri, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, reported additional safety analyses from the phase 3 TROPION-Breast01 trial looking at datopotamab deruxtecan (Dato-DXd) in patients with metastatic hormone receptor–positive (HR+)/HER2− breast cancer resistant to endocrine therapy.

Dato-DXd is an investigational ADC composed of a monoclonal antibody targeting TROP2, a transmembrane glycoprotein overexpressed in cancer cells, linked to the topoisomerase 1 inhibitor deruxtecan as the toxic payload.

As previously reported by this news organization, median progression-free survival was 6.9 months with Dato-DXd compared with 4.9 months for investigator’s choice of chemotherapy (eribulin mesylate, vinorelbine, gemcitabine, or capecitabine), which translated into a 37% (hazard ratio [HR], 0.63; P < .0001) reduction in risk for disease progression.

In addition, the rate of grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events with Dato-DXd was less than half that with standard chemotherapy and led to fewer dose interruptions or reductions, indicating that Dato-DXd is better tolerated.

Dr. Jhaveri focused on three treatment-related adverse events of special interest: Stomatitis/oral mucositis, ocular surface events, and adjudicated drug-related interstitial lung disease.

The rate of any grade oral mucositis with Dato-DXd was 56%, she reported. Most were grade 1 (25%) or grade 2 (23%), with only 7% grade 3. About 13% of patients had a dose reduction for oral mucositis, and only one (0.3%) patient discontinued treatment.

The median time to onset was 22 days, and median time to resolution (for events recovered/resolved at data cutoff) was 36 days.

“The study did provide toxicity management guidelines for patients who experienced stomatitis,” Dr. Jhaveri told attendees. The guidelines highly recommended daily use of a steroid-containing mouthwash as prophylaxis or, if that wasn’t available, an inert, bland mouth rinse.

“Prophylactic cryotherapy — ice chips or ice water held in the mouth throughout the infusion — was also suggested,” she said.

The overall rate of ocular surface events with Dato-DXd was 40%, with most grade 1 (32%) or grade 2 (7%), with only 0.8% grade 3. Rates of dose reduction/interruption (3.3%) and discontinuation (0.3%) were low. Most ocular events were either dry eye (22%) or keratitis (14%).

The incidence of ocular events in the chemotherapy group was 12%, higher than typically seen. The study mandated regular ocular assessments, and Jhaveri noted that it was possible that this contributed to the high rate of low-grade ocular events found in both arms.

Median time to onset of ocular events was 65 days, and median time to resolution was 67 days.

Toxicity management guidelines were also incorporated for ocular events, suggesting daily use of artificial tears and avoidance of contact lenses, Dr. Jhaveri said.

In the Dato-DXd group, there were 12 adjudicated cases (3.3%) of drug-related interstitial lung disease; most were grade 1 (1.4%) and grade 2 (1.1%).

“There was one patient who had a grade 5 event, which was characterized by the investigator as grade 3 pneumonitis, with death attributed to disease progression,” Dr. Jhaveri said. This was subsequently adjudicated to be a grade 5 drug-related death.

The median time to onset of interstitial lung disease was 84.5 days, and median time to resolution was 28 days.

Among other treatment-related adverse events of clinical interest, any grade nausea was the most common event with Dato-DXd, reported by 51% of patients, with only 1.4% grade 3 or higher.

“Prophylactic antiemetic agents are highly recommended prior to infusion of Dato-DXd and on subsequent days as needed,” Dr. Jhaveri said.

Any grade diarrhea was reported in 7.5%, with no grade 3+ diarrhea. Alopecia was reported in 36.4%, of which grade 1 was 21% and grade 2 was 15%.

Summing up, the researcher said the new safety data suggest that Dato-DXd offers “better tolerability” than standard chemotherapy. Coupled with the efficacy data, this further supports “Dato-DXd as a potential new therapeutic option for patients with previously treated, inoperable, or metastatic HR+/HER2− breast cancer.”

DESTINY-Breast02

New data from the phase 3 DESTINY-Breast02 study confirm a long-term survival benefit, as well as a favorable benefit/risk profile of trastuzumab deruxtecan in patients with HER2+ metastatic breast cancer previously treated with trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1), reported Sung-Bae Kim, MD, PhD, with University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.

In the phase 3 randomized, multicenter, open-label clinical trial, study participants received either trastuzumab deruxtecan or physician’s choice of trastuzumab plus capecitabine or lapatinib or capecitabine. The primary results of the trial were published last year in The Lancet.

As previously reported by this news organization, after median follow-up of 21.5 months in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 18.6 months in the treatment of choice group, median progression-free survival was 17.8 months for trastuzumab deruxtecan vs 6.9 months for the physician’s choice group (HR, 0.36; P < .000001).

The latest data show that after a median follow-up of 30.2 months in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 20.5 months in the treatment of choice group, median progression-free survival was 16.7 months with trastuzumab deruxtecan vs 5.5 months with the treatment of choice — a 70% reduction in risk for progression (HR, 0.30), Dr. Kim said.

From time of randomization to progression to next line of therapy or death, median progression-free survival was 33.0 months with trastuzumab deruxtecan vs 15.0 with treatment of choice (HR, 0.42).

Median overall survival was 35.7 months with trastuzumab deruxtecan vs 25.0 months with the treatment of choice, with the risk for death reduced by 31% with trastuzumab deruxtecan (HR, 0.69).

The safety profile of trastuzumab deruxtecan continues to be “manageable, with no long-term toxicity observed with longer follow-up,” Dr. Kim told attendees. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were nausea (73%), fatigue (62%), and vomiting (38%).

There were a total of 46 (11.4%) adjudicated drug-related interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis cases with trastuzumab deruxtecan. Most were grade 1 or 2. This risk did not increase with longer treatment duration; most events occurred within 12 months of starting treatment, Dr. Kim noted.

With longer follow-up, results of DESTINY-Breast02 “reinforce the substantial benefit” of trastuzumab deruxtecan over the treatment of physician’s choice in patients with HER2+ metastatic breast cancer previously treated with T-DM1, he concluded.

Pooled Data from TROPiCS-02 and EVER-132-002

Hope S. Rugo, MD, of the University of California San Francisco, and colleagues reported a meta-analysis of data from the phase 3 TROPiCS-02 and EVER-132-002 trials of the TROP2-directed ADC sacituzumab govitecan vs the treatment of physician’s choice in HR+/HER2− metastatic breast cancer.

In the pooled analysis, median overall survival was significantly longer with sacituzumab govitecan than with the treatment of physician’s choice in the overall population (16.2 vs 12.7 months) and in patients who received prior CDK4/6 inhibitor treatment (15.4 vs 11.5 months). Progression-free survival also favored sacituzumab govitecan.

These results are consistent with trial-level results from TROPICS-02 and EVER-132-002, reinforcing the efficacy benefits of sacituzumab govitecan over the treatment of physician’s choice, the study team said.

Evolving Landscape of ADCs in Breast Cancer

Giuseppe Curigliano, MD, PhD, with the University of Milan, Italy, who served as discussant for the TROPION-Breast01 safety analysis, noted that the clinical landscape of ADCs has “evolved over time.”

He added that despite having a similar target and similar payload, the anti-TROP2 ADCs in development for HR+/HER2− metastatic breast cancer — Dato-DXd, sacituzumab govitecan, and sacituzumab tirumotecan — appear to have different spectrums of toxicity.

Looking ahead, he said it will be important to determine whether toxicity of these agents can be predicted with a pharmacogenomic analysis and whether toxicity is related to the payload or to the linker antibody complex.

“The science and chemistry of ADCs has shown significant promise in terms of clinical activity, but we also need to better understand safety,” Dr. Curigliano told attendees.

“We need to pay attention to signals in the early phase trials of ADCs and be willing to adjust accordingly to maximize therapeutic benefit and minimize toxicity. Team science will be important in the future developmental ADCs,” he added.

TROPION-Breast01 was sponsored by AstraZeneca. DESTINY-Breast-02 was sponsored by Daiichi Sankyo. TROPiCS-02 and EVER-132-002 were supported by Gilead Sciences. Several trial investigators have disclosed various relationships with these and other pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Antibody drug conjugates (ADCs) — a class of targeted medications that combine monoclonal antibodies with cytotoxic payloads — are rapidly changing the treatment landscape for patients with metastatic breast cancer.

These medications, which are designed to selectively deliver potent cytotoxic drugs to cancer cells expressing specific surface antigens such as human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) and trophoblast cell surface antigen 2 (TROP2), can be highly effective but can also come with significant toxicities.

The latest data on several ADCs — their clinical benefit and safety — were the focus of three presentations here at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Breast Cancer annual congress.

TROPION-Breast01

In her presentation, Komal Jhaveri, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, reported additional safety analyses from the phase 3 TROPION-Breast01 trial looking at datopotamab deruxtecan (Dato-DXd) in patients with metastatic hormone receptor–positive (HR+)/HER2− breast cancer resistant to endocrine therapy.

Dato-DXd is an investigational ADC composed of a monoclonal antibody targeting TROP2, a transmembrane glycoprotein overexpressed in cancer cells, linked to the topoisomerase 1 inhibitor deruxtecan as the toxic payload.

As previously reported by this news organization, median progression-free survival was 6.9 months with Dato-DXd compared with 4.9 months for investigator’s choice of chemotherapy (eribulin mesylate, vinorelbine, gemcitabine, or capecitabine), which translated into a 37% (hazard ratio [HR], 0.63; P < .0001) reduction in risk for disease progression.

In addition, the rate of grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events with Dato-DXd was less than half that with standard chemotherapy and led to fewer dose interruptions or reductions, indicating that Dato-DXd is better tolerated.

Dr. Jhaveri focused on three treatment-related adverse events of special interest: Stomatitis/oral mucositis, ocular surface events, and adjudicated drug-related interstitial lung disease.

The rate of any grade oral mucositis with Dato-DXd was 56%, she reported. Most were grade 1 (25%) or grade 2 (23%), with only 7% grade 3. About 13% of patients had a dose reduction for oral mucositis, and only one (0.3%) patient discontinued treatment.

The median time to onset was 22 days, and median time to resolution (for events recovered/resolved at data cutoff) was 36 days.

“The study did provide toxicity management guidelines for patients who experienced stomatitis,” Dr. Jhaveri told attendees. The guidelines highly recommended daily use of a steroid-containing mouthwash as prophylaxis or, if that wasn’t available, an inert, bland mouth rinse.

“Prophylactic cryotherapy — ice chips or ice water held in the mouth throughout the infusion — was also suggested,” she said.

The overall rate of ocular surface events with Dato-DXd was 40%, with most grade 1 (32%) or grade 2 (7%), with only 0.8% grade 3. Rates of dose reduction/interruption (3.3%) and discontinuation (0.3%) were low. Most ocular events were either dry eye (22%) or keratitis (14%).

The incidence of ocular events in the chemotherapy group was 12%, higher than typically seen. The study mandated regular ocular assessments, and Jhaveri noted that it was possible that this contributed to the high rate of low-grade ocular events found in both arms.

Median time to onset of ocular events was 65 days, and median time to resolution was 67 days.

Toxicity management guidelines were also incorporated for ocular events, suggesting daily use of artificial tears and avoidance of contact lenses, Dr. Jhaveri said.

In the Dato-DXd group, there were 12 adjudicated cases (3.3%) of drug-related interstitial lung disease; most were grade 1 (1.4%) and grade 2 (1.1%).

“There was one patient who had a grade 5 event, which was characterized by the investigator as grade 3 pneumonitis, with death attributed to disease progression,” Dr. Jhaveri said. This was subsequently adjudicated to be a grade 5 drug-related death.

The median time to onset of interstitial lung disease was 84.5 days, and median time to resolution was 28 days.

Among other treatment-related adverse events of clinical interest, any grade nausea was the most common event with Dato-DXd, reported by 51% of patients, with only 1.4% grade 3 or higher.

“Prophylactic antiemetic agents are highly recommended prior to infusion of Dato-DXd and on subsequent days as needed,” Dr. Jhaveri said.

Any grade diarrhea was reported in 7.5%, with no grade 3+ diarrhea. Alopecia was reported in 36.4%, of which grade 1 was 21% and grade 2 was 15%.

Summing up, the researcher said the new safety data suggest that Dato-DXd offers “better tolerability” than standard chemotherapy. Coupled with the efficacy data, this further supports “Dato-DXd as a potential new therapeutic option for patients with previously treated, inoperable, or metastatic HR+/HER2− breast cancer.”

DESTINY-Breast02

New data from the phase 3 DESTINY-Breast02 study confirm a long-term survival benefit, as well as a favorable benefit/risk profile of trastuzumab deruxtecan in patients with HER2+ metastatic breast cancer previously treated with trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1), reported Sung-Bae Kim, MD, PhD, with University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.

In the phase 3 randomized, multicenter, open-label clinical trial, study participants received either trastuzumab deruxtecan or physician’s choice of trastuzumab plus capecitabine or lapatinib or capecitabine. The primary results of the trial were published last year in The Lancet.

As previously reported by this news organization, after median follow-up of 21.5 months in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 18.6 months in the treatment of choice group, median progression-free survival was 17.8 months for trastuzumab deruxtecan vs 6.9 months for the physician’s choice group (HR, 0.36; P < .000001).

The latest data show that after a median follow-up of 30.2 months in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 20.5 months in the treatment of choice group, median progression-free survival was 16.7 months with trastuzumab deruxtecan vs 5.5 months with the treatment of choice — a 70% reduction in risk for progression (HR, 0.30), Dr. Kim said.

From time of randomization to progression to next line of therapy or death, median progression-free survival was 33.0 months with trastuzumab deruxtecan vs 15.0 with treatment of choice (HR, 0.42).

Median overall survival was 35.7 months with trastuzumab deruxtecan vs 25.0 months with the treatment of choice, with the risk for death reduced by 31% with trastuzumab deruxtecan (HR, 0.69).

The safety profile of trastuzumab deruxtecan continues to be “manageable, with no long-term toxicity observed with longer follow-up,” Dr. Kim told attendees. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were nausea (73%), fatigue (62%), and vomiting (38%).

There were a total of 46 (11.4%) adjudicated drug-related interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis cases with trastuzumab deruxtecan. Most were grade 1 or 2. This risk did not increase with longer treatment duration; most events occurred within 12 months of starting treatment, Dr. Kim noted.

With longer follow-up, results of DESTINY-Breast02 “reinforce the substantial benefit” of trastuzumab deruxtecan over the treatment of physician’s choice in patients with HER2+ metastatic breast cancer previously treated with T-DM1, he concluded.

Pooled Data from TROPiCS-02 and EVER-132-002

Hope S. Rugo, MD, of the University of California San Francisco, and colleagues reported a meta-analysis of data from the phase 3 TROPiCS-02 and EVER-132-002 trials of the TROP2-directed ADC sacituzumab govitecan vs the treatment of physician’s choice in HR+/HER2− metastatic breast cancer.

In the pooled analysis, median overall survival was significantly longer with sacituzumab govitecan than with the treatment of physician’s choice in the overall population (16.2 vs 12.7 months) and in patients who received prior CDK4/6 inhibitor treatment (15.4 vs 11.5 months). Progression-free survival also favored sacituzumab govitecan.

These results are consistent with trial-level results from TROPICS-02 and EVER-132-002, reinforcing the efficacy benefits of sacituzumab govitecan over the treatment of physician’s choice, the study team said.

Evolving Landscape of ADCs in Breast Cancer

Giuseppe Curigliano, MD, PhD, with the University of Milan, Italy, who served as discussant for the TROPION-Breast01 safety analysis, noted that the clinical landscape of ADCs has “evolved over time.”

He added that despite having a similar target and similar payload, the anti-TROP2 ADCs in development for HR+/HER2− metastatic breast cancer — Dato-DXd, sacituzumab govitecan, and sacituzumab tirumotecan — appear to have different spectrums of toxicity.

Looking ahead, he said it will be important to determine whether toxicity of these agents can be predicted with a pharmacogenomic analysis and whether toxicity is related to the payload or to the linker antibody complex.

“The science and chemistry of ADCs has shown significant promise in terms of clinical activity, but we also need to better understand safety,” Dr. Curigliano told attendees.

“We need to pay attention to signals in the early phase trials of ADCs and be willing to adjust accordingly to maximize therapeutic benefit and minimize toxicity. Team science will be important in the future developmental ADCs,” he added.

TROPION-Breast01 was sponsored by AstraZeneca. DESTINY-Breast-02 was sponsored by Daiichi Sankyo. TROPiCS-02 and EVER-132-002 were supported by Gilead Sciences. Several trial investigators have disclosed various relationships with these and other pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Antibody drug conjugates (ADCs) — a class of targeted medications that combine monoclonal antibodies with cytotoxic payloads — are rapidly changing the treatment landscape for patients with metastatic breast cancer.

These medications, which are designed to selectively deliver potent cytotoxic drugs to cancer cells expressing specific surface antigens such as human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) and trophoblast cell surface antigen 2 (TROP2), can be highly effective but can also come with significant toxicities.

The latest data on several ADCs — their clinical benefit and safety — were the focus of three presentations here at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Breast Cancer annual congress.

TROPION-Breast01

In her presentation, Komal Jhaveri, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, reported additional safety analyses from the phase 3 TROPION-Breast01 trial looking at datopotamab deruxtecan (Dato-DXd) in patients with metastatic hormone receptor–positive (HR+)/HER2− breast cancer resistant to endocrine therapy.

Dato-DXd is an investigational ADC composed of a monoclonal antibody targeting TROP2, a transmembrane glycoprotein overexpressed in cancer cells, linked to the topoisomerase 1 inhibitor deruxtecan as the toxic payload.

As previously reported by this news organization, median progression-free survival was 6.9 months with Dato-DXd compared with 4.9 months for investigator’s choice of chemotherapy (eribulin mesylate, vinorelbine, gemcitabine, or capecitabine), which translated into a 37% (hazard ratio [HR], 0.63; P < .0001) reduction in risk for disease progression.

In addition, the rate of grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events with Dato-DXd was less than half that with standard chemotherapy and led to fewer dose interruptions or reductions, indicating that Dato-DXd is better tolerated.

Dr. Jhaveri focused on three treatment-related adverse events of special interest: Stomatitis/oral mucositis, ocular surface events, and adjudicated drug-related interstitial lung disease.

The rate of any grade oral mucositis with Dato-DXd was 56%, she reported. Most were grade 1 (25%) or grade 2 (23%), with only 7% grade 3. About 13% of patients had a dose reduction for oral mucositis, and only one (0.3%) patient discontinued treatment.

The median time to onset was 22 days, and median time to resolution (for events recovered/resolved at data cutoff) was 36 days.

“The study did provide toxicity management guidelines for patients who experienced stomatitis,” Dr. Jhaveri told attendees. The guidelines highly recommended daily use of a steroid-containing mouthwash as prophylaxis or, if that wasn’t available, an inert, bland mouth rinse.

“Prophylactic cryotherapy — ice chips or ice water held in the mouth throughout the infusion — was also suggested,” she said.

The overall rate of ocular surface events with Dato-DXd was 40%, with most grade 1 (32%) or grade 2 (7%), with only 0.8% grade 3. Rates of dose reduction/interruption (3.3%) and discontinuation (0.3%) were low. Most ocular events were either dry eye (22%) or keratitis (14%).

The incidence of ocular events in the chemotherapy group was 12%, higher than typically seen. The study mandated regular ocular assessments, and Jhaveri noted that it was possible that this contributed to the high rate of low-grade ocular events found in both arms.

Median time to onset of ocular events was 65 days, and median time to resolution was 67 days.

Toxicity management guidelines were also incorporated for ocular events, suggesting daily use of artificial tears and avoidance of contact lenses, Dr. Jhaveri said.

In the Dato-DXd group, there were 12 adjudicated cases (3.3%) of drug-related interstitial lung disease; most were grade 1 (1.4%) and grade 2 (1.1%).

“There was one patient who had a grade 5 event, which was characterized by the investigator as grade 3 pneumonitis, with death attributed to disease progression,” Dr. Jhaveri said. This was subsequently adjudicated to be a grade 5 drug-related death.

The median time to onset of interstitial lung disease was 84.5 days, and median time to resolution was 28 days.

Among other treatment-related adverse events of clinical interest, any grade nausea was the most common event with Dato-DXd, reported by 51% of patients, with only 1.4% grade 3 or higher.

“Prophylactic antiemetic agents are highly recommended prior to infusion of Dato-DXd and on subsequent days as needed,” Dr. Jhaveri said.

Any grade diarrhea was reported in 7.5%, with no grade 3+ diarrhea. Alopecia was reported in 36.4%, of which grade 1 was 21% and grade 2 was 15%.

Summing up, the researcher said the new safety data suggest that Dato-DXd offers “better tolerability” than standard chemotherapy. Coupled with the efficacy data, this further supports “Dato-DXd as a potential new therapeutic option for patients with previously treated, inoperable, or metastatic HR+/HER2− breast cancer.”

DESTINY-Breast02

New data from the phase 3 DESTINY-Breast02 study confirm a long-term survival benefit, as well as a favorable benefit/risk profile of trastuzumab deruxtecan in patients with HER2+ metastatic breast cancer previously treated with trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1), reported Sung-Bae Kim, MD, PhD, with University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.

In the phase 3 randomized, multicenter, open-label clinical trial, study participants received either trastuzumab deruxtecan or physician’s choice of trastuzumab plus capecitabine or lapatinib or capecitabine. The primary results of the trial were published last year in The Lancet.

As previously reported by this news organization, after median follow-up of 21.5 months in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 18.6 months in the treatment of choice group, median progression-free survival was 17.8 months for trastuzumab deruxtecan vs 6.9 months for the physician’s choice group (HR, 0.36; P < .000001).

The latest data show that after a median follow-up of 30.2 months in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 20.5 months in the treatment of choice group, median progression-free survival was 16.7 months with trastuzumab deruxtecan vs 5.5 months with the treatment of choice — a 70% reduction in risk for progression (HR, 0.30), Dr. Kim said.

From time of randomization to progression to next line of therapy or death, median progression-free survival was 33.0 months with trastuzumab deruxtecan vs 15.0 with treatment of choice (HR, 0.42).

Median overall survival was 35.7 months with trastuzumab deruxtecan vs 25.0 months with the treatment of choice, with the risk for death reduced by 31% with trastuzumab deruxtecan (HR, 0.69).

The safety profile of trastuzumab deruxtecan continues to be “manageable, with no long-term toxicity observed with longer follow-up,” Dr. Kim told attendees. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were nausea (73%), fatigue (62%), and vomiting (38%).

There were a total of 46 (11.4%) adjudicated drug-related interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis cases with trastuzumab deruxtecan. Most were grade 1 or 2. This risk did not increase with longer treatment duration; most events occurred within 12 months of starting treatment, Dr. Kim noted.

With longer follow-up, results of DESTINY-Breast02 “reinforce the substantial benefit” of trastuzumab deruxtecan over the treatment of physician’s choice in patients with HER2+ metastatic breast cancer previously treated with T-DM1, he concluded.

Pooled Data from TROPiCS-02 and EVER-132-002

Hope S. Rugo, MD, of the University of California San Francisco, and colleagues reported a meta-analysis of data from the phase 3 TROPiCS-02 and EVER-132-002 trials of the TROP2-directed ADC sacituzumab govitecan vs the treatment of physician’s choice in HR+/HER2− metastatic breast cancer.

In the pooled analysis, median overall survival was significantly longer with sacituzumab govitecan than with the treatment of physician’s choice in the overall population (16.2 vs 12.7 months) and in patients who received prior CDK4/6 inhibitor treatment (15.4 vs 11.5 months). Progression-free survival also favored sacituzumab govitecan.

These results are consistent with trial-level results from TROPICS-02 and EVER-132-002, reinforcing the efficacy benefits of sacituzumab govitecan over the treatment of physician’s choice, the study team said.

Evolving Landscape of ADCs in Breast Cancer

Giuseppe Curigliano, MD, PhD, with the University of Milan, Italy, who served as discussant for the TROPION-Breast01 safety analysis, noted that the clinical landscape of ADCs has “evolved over time.”

He added that despite having a similar target and similar payload, the anti-TROP2 ADCs in development for HR+/HER2− metastatic breast cancer — Dato-DXd, sacituzumab govitecan, and sacituzumab tirumotecan — appear to have different spectrums of toxicity.

Looking ahead, he said it will be important to determine whether toxicity of these agents can be predicted with a pharmacogenomic analysis and whether toxicity is related to the payload or to the linker antibody complex.

“The science and chemistry of ADCs has shown significant promise in terms of clinical activity, but we also need to better understand safety,” Dr. Curigliano told attendees.

“We need to pay attention to signals in the early phase trials of ADCs and be willing to adjust accordingly to maximize therapeutic benefit and minimize toxicity. Team science will be important in the future developmental ADCs,” he added.

TROPION-Breast01 was sponsored by AstraZeneca. DESTINY-Breast-02 was sponsored by Daiichi Sankyo. TROPiCS-02 and EVER-132-002 were supported by Gilead Sciences. Several trial investigators have disclosed various relationships with these and other pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.