Case-Based Review

CASE Unresponsive and suicidal

Mr. Z, age 25, an unemployed immigrant from Eastern Europe, is found unresponsive at a subway station. Workup in the emergency room reveals a positive urine toxicology for benzodiazepines and a blood alcohol level of 101.6 mg/dL. When Mr. Z regains consciousness the next day, he says that he is suicidal. He recently broke up with his girlfriend and feels worthless, hopeless, and depressed. As a suicide attempt, he took quetiapine and diazepam chased with vodka.

Mr. Z reports a history of suicide attempts. He says he has been suffering from depression most of his life and has been diagnosed with bipolar I disorder and borderline personality disorder. His medication regimen consists of quetiapine, 200 mg/d, and duloxetine, 20 mg/d.

Before immigrating to the United States 5 years ago, he attempted to overdose on his mother’s prescribed diazepam and was in a coma for 2 days. Recently, he stole a bicycle with the intent of provoking the police to kill him. When caught, he deliberately disobeyed the officer’s order and advanced toward the officer in an aggressive manner. However, the officer stopped Mr. Z using a stun gun. Mr. Z reports that he still feels angry that his suicide attempt failed. He is an Orthodox Christian and says he is “very religious.”

[polldaddy:9731423]

The authors’ observations

The means of suicide differ among individuals. Some attempt suicide by themselves; others through the involuntary participation of others, such as the police. This is known as SBC. Other terms include “suicide by means of victim-precipitated homicide,”¹ “hetero-suicide,”² “suicide by proxy,”³ “copicide,”⁴ and “law enforcement-forced-assisted suicide.”^5,6 SBC accounts for 10%⁷ to 36%⁶ of police shootings and can cause serious stress for the officers involved and creates a strain between the police and the community.⁸

SBC was first mentioned as “suicide by means of victim-precipitated homicide.” Wolfgang⁵ reported 588 cases of police officer-involved shooting in Philadelphia between January 1948 and December 31, 1952, and, concluded that 150 of these cases (26%) fit criteria for what the author termed “victim-precipitated homicide” because the victims involved were the direct precipitants of the situation leading to their death. Wolfgang stated:

Instead of a murderer performing the act of suicide by killing another person who represents the murder’s unconscious, and instead of a suicide representing the desire to kill turned on [the] self, the victim in these victim-precipitated homicide cases is considered to be a suicide prone [individual] who manifests his desire to destroy [him]self by engaging another person to perform the act.

The term “SBC” was coined in 1983 by Karl Harris, a Los Angeles County medical examiner.⁸ The social repercussions of this modality attracts media attention because of its negative social consequences.

Characteristics of SBC

SBC has characteristics similar to other means of suicide; it is more prevalent among men with psychiatric disorders, including major depression, bipolar disorders, schizophrenia, substance use disorders,⁹ poor stress response skills, recent stressors, and adverse life events,¹⁰ and history of suicide attempts.

Psychosocial characteristics include:

• mean age 31.8 years¹
• male sex (98%)
• white (52%)
• approximately 40% involve some form of relationship conflict.⁶

In psychological autopsy studies, an estimated 70.5% of those involved in a SBC incident had ≥1 stressful life events,¹ including terminal illness, loss of a job, a lawsuit, or domestic issues. However, the reason is unknown for the remaining 28% cases.² Thirty-five percent of those involved in SBC incidents were married, 13.5% divorced, and 46.7% single.¹ Seventy-seven percent had low socioeconomic status,¹¹ with 49.3% unemployed at the time of the SBC incident.¹

Pathological characteristics of SBC and other suicide means are similar. Among SBC cases, 39% had previously attempted suicide⁶; 56% have a psychiatric or chronic medical comorbidity. Alcohol and drug abuse were reported among 56% of individuals, and 66% had a criminal history.⁶ Additionally, comorbid psychiatric disorders, especially those of the impulsive and emotionally unstable types, such as borderline and antisocial personality disorder, have been found to play a major role in SBC incidents.¹²

Individual suicide vs SBC

Religious beliefs. The term “religios­ity” is used to define an individual’s idiosyncratic religious belief or personal religious philosophy reconciling the concept of death by suicide and the afterlife. Although there are no studies that specifically reference the relationship between SBC and religiosity, religious belief and affiliation appear to be strong motivating factors. SBC victims might have an idiosyncratic view of religion related death by suicide. Whether suicide is performed while under delusional belief about God, the devil, or being possessed by demons,¹³ or to avoid the moral prohibition of most religious faiths in regard to suicide,⁶ the degree of religiosity in SBC is an important area for future research.

Mr. Z stated that his strong religious faith as an Orthodox Christian motivated the attempted SBC. He tried to provoke the officer to kill him, because as a devout Orthodox Christian, it is against his religious beliefs to kill himself. He reasoned that, because his beliefs preclude him from performing the suicidal act on his own,^6,14 having an officer pull the trigger would relieve him from committing what he perceived as a sin.⁶

Lethal vs danger. Another difference is the level of urgency that individuals create around them when attempting SBC. Homant and Kennedy¹⁵ see this in terms of 2 ideas: lethal and danger. Lethal refers to the degree of harm posed toward the suicidal individual. Danger is the degree of harm posed by the suicidal individual toward others (ie, police officers, bystanders, hostages, family members, a spouse, etc.). SBC often is more dangerous and more lethal than other methods of suicide. SBC individuals might threaten the lives of others to provoke the police into using deadly force, such as aiming or brandishing a gun or weapon at police officers or bystanders, increasing the lethality and dangerousness of the situation. Individuals engaging in SBC might shoot or kill others to create a confrontation with the police in order to be killed in the process (Table¹⁶).

Instrumental vs expressive goals

Mohandie and Meloy⁶ identified 2 primary goals of those involved in SBC events: instrumental and expressive. Individuals in the instrumental category are:

• attempting to escape or avoid the consequences of criminal or shameful actions
• using the forced confrontation with police to reconcile a failed relationship
• hoping to avoid the exclusion clauses of life insurance policies
• rationalizing that while it may be morally wrong to commit suicide, being killed resolves the spiritual problem of suicide
• seeking what they believe to be a very effective and lethal means of accomplishing death.

An expressive goal is more personal and includes individuals who use the confrontation with the police to communicate:

• hopelessness, depression, and desperation
• a statement about their ultimate identification as victims
• their need to “save face” by dying or being forcibly overwhelmed rather than surrendering
• their intense power needs, rage, and revenge
• their need to draw attention to an important personal issue.

Mr. Z chose what he believed to be an efficiently lethal way of dying in accord with his religious faith, knowing that a confrontation with the police could have a fatal ending. This case represents an instrumental motivation to die by SBC that was religiously motivated.

[polldaddy:9731428]

The authors’ observations

SBC presents a specific and serious challenge for law enforcement personnel, and should be approached in a manner different than other crisis situations. Because many individuals engaging in SBC have a history of mental illness, officers with training in handling individuals with psychiatric disorders—known as Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) in many areas—should be deployed as first responders. CITs have been shown to:

• reduce arrest rates of individuals with psychiatric disorders
• increase referral rates to appropriate treatment
• decrease police injuries when responding to calls
• decrease the need for escalation with specialized tactical response teams, such as Special Weapons And Tactics.¹⁷

Identification of SBC behavior is crucial during police response. Indicators of a SBC include:

• refusal to comply with police order
• refusal to surrender
• lack of interest in getting out of a barricade or hostage situation alive.¹⁸

In approaching a SBC incident, responding officers should be non-confrontational and try to talk to the suicidal individual.⁸ If force is needed to resolve the crisis, non-lethal measures should be used first.⁸ Law enforcement and mental health professionals should suspect a SBC situation in individuals who have had prior police contact and are exhibiting behaviors outlined in the Table.¹⁶

Once suicidality is identified, it should be treated promptly. Patients who are at imminent risk to themselves or others should be hospitalized to maintain their safety. Similar to other suicide modalities, the primary risk factor for SBC is untreated or inadequately treated psychiatric illness. Therefore, the crux of managing SBC involves identifying and treating the underlying mental disorder.

Pharmacological treatment should be guided by the patient’s symptoms and psychiatric diagnosis. For suicidal behavior associated with bipolar depression and other affective disorders, lithium has evidence of reducing suicidality. Studies have shown a 5.5-fold reduction in suicide risk and a >13-fold reduction in completed suicides with lithium treatment.¹⁹ In patients with schizophrenia, clozapine has been shown to reduce suicide risk and is the only FDA-approved agent for this indication.¹⁹ Although antidepressants can effectively treat depression, there are no studies that show that 1 antidepressant is more effective than others in reducing suicidality. This might be because of the long latency period between treatment initiation and symptom relief. Ketamine, an N-methyl-d-aspartate glutamate receptor antagonist, has shown promising results because of its acute effect on depression.²⁰ Because of its rapid symptom relief, ECT remains the standard for treating suicidality related to treatment-resistant depression, psychosis, or mania.²¹

OUTCOME Medication adjustment

After Mr. Z is medically stable, he is voluntarily transferred to the inpatient psychiatric unit where he is stabilized on quetiapine, 200 mg/d, and duloxetine, 60 mg/d, and attends daily group activity, milieu, and individual therapy. Because of Mr. Z’s chronic affective instability and suicidality, we consider lithium for its anti-suicide effects, but decide against it because of lithium’s high lethality in an overdose and Mr. Z’s history of poor compliance and alcohol use.

Because of Mr. Z’s socioeconomic challenges, it is necessary to contact his extended family and social support system to be part of treatment and safety planning. After a week on the psychiatric unit, his mood symptoms stabilize and he is discharged to his family and friends in the area, with a short supply of quetiapine and duloxetine, and free follow-up care within 3 days of discharge. His mood is euthymic; his affect is broad range; his thought process is coherent and logical; he denies suicidal ideation; and can verbalize a logical and concrete safety plan. His support system assures us that Mr. Z will follow up with his appointments.

His DSM-5²² discharge diagnoses are borderline personality disorder, bipolar I disorder, and suicidal behavior disorder, current.

The authors’ observations

SBC increases friction and mistrust between the police and the public, traumatizes officers who are forced to use deadly measures, and results in the death of the suicidal individual. As mental health professionals, we need to be aware of this form of suicide in our screening assessment. Training police to differentiate violent offenders from psychiatric patients could reduce the number of SBCs.⁹ As shown by the CIT model, educating officers on behaviors indicating a mental illness could lead to more psychiatric admissions rather than incarceration¹⁷ or death. We advocate for continuous collaborative work and cross training between the police and mental health professionals and for more research on the link between religiosity and the motivation to die by SBC, because there appears to be a not-yet quantified but strong link between them.

CASE Unresponsive and suicidal

Mr. Z, age 25, an unemployed immigrant from Eastern Europe, is found unresponsive at a subway station. Workup in the emergency room reveals a positive urine toxicology for benzodiazepines and a blood alcohol level of 101.6 mg/dL. When Mr. Z regains consciousness the next day, he says that he is suicidal. He recently broke up with his girlfriend and feels worthless, hopeless, and depressed. As a suicide attempt, he took quetiapine and diazepam chased with vodka.

Mr. Z reports a history of suicide attempts. He says he has been suffering from depression most of his life and has been diagnosed with bipolar I disorder and borderline personality disorder. His medication regimen consists of quetiapine, 200 mg/d, and duloxetine, 20 mg/d.

Before immigrating to the United States 5 years ago, he attempted to overdose on his mother’s prescribed diazepam and was in a coma for 2 days. Recently, he stole a bicycle with the intent of provoking the police to kill him. When caught, he deliberately disobeyed the officer’s order and advanced toward the officer in an aggressive manner. However, the officer stopped Mr. Z using a stun gun. Mr. Z reports that he still feels angry that his suicide attempt failed. He is an Orthodox Christian and says he is “very religious.”

[polldaddy:9731423]

The authors’ observations

The means of suicide differ among individuals. Some attempt suicide by themselves; others through the involuntary participation of others, such as the police. This is known as SBC. Other terms include “suicide by means of victim-precipitated homicide,”¹ “hetero-suicide,”² “suicide by proxy,”³ “copicide,”⁴ and “law enforcement-forced-assisted suicide.”^5,6 SBC accounts for 10%⁷ to 36%⁶ of police shootings and can cause serious stress for the officers involved and creates a strain between the police and the community.⁸

SBC was first mentioned as “suicide by means of victim-precipitated homicide.” Wolfgang⁵ reported 588 cases of police officer-involved shooting in Philadelphia between January 1948 and December 31, 1952, and, concluded that 150 of these cases (26%) fit criteria for what the author termed “victim-precipitated homicide” because the victims involved were the direct precipitants of the situation leading to their death. Wolfgang stated:

Instead of a murderer performing the act of suicide by killing another person who represents the murder’s unconscious, and instead of a suicide representing the desire to kill turned on [the] self, the victim in these victim-precipitated homicide cases is considered to be a suicide prone [individual] who manifests his desire to destroy [him]self by engaging another person to perform the act.

The term “SBC” was coined in 1983 by Karl Harris, a Los Angeles County medical examiner.⁸ The social repercussions of this modality attracts media attention because of its negative social consequences.

Characteristics of SBC

SBC has characteristics similar to other means of suicide; it is more prevalent among men with psychiatric disorders, including major depression, bipolar disorders, schizophrenia, substance use disorders,⁹ poor stress response skills, recent stressors, and adverse life events,¹⁰ and history of suicide attempts.

Psychosocial characteristics include:

• mean age 31.8 years¹
• male sex (98%)
• white (52%)
• approximately 40% involve some form of relationship conflict.⁶

In psychological autopsy studies, an estimated 70.5% of those involved in a SBC incident had ≥1 stressful life events,¹ including terminal illness, loss of a job, a lawsuit, or domestic issues. However, the reason is unknown for the remaining 28% cases.² Thirty-five percent of those involved in SBC incidents were married, 13.5% divorced, and 46.7% single.¹ Seventy-seven percent had low socioeconomic status,¹¹ with 49.3% unemployed at the time of the SBC incident.¹

Pathological characteristics of SBC and other suicide means are similar. Among SBC cases, 39% had previously attempted suicide⁶; 56% have a psychiatric or chronic medical comorbidity. Alcohol and drug abuse were reported among 56% of individuals, and 66% had a criminal history.⁶ Additionally, comorbid psychiatric disorders, especially those of the impulsive and emotionally unstable types, such as borderline and antisocial personality disorder, have been found to play a major role in SBC incidents.¹²

Individual suicide vs SBC

Religious beliefs. The term “religios­ity” is used to define an individual’s idiosyncratic religious belief or personal religious philosophy reconciling the concept of death by suicide and the afterlife. Although there are no studies that specifically reference the relationship between SBC and religiosity, religious belief and affiliation appear to be strong motivating factors. SBC victims might have an idiosyncratic view of religion related death by suicide. Whether suicide is performed while under delusional belief about God, the devil, or being possessed by demons,¹³ or to avoid the moral prohibition of most religious faiths in regard to suicide,⁶ the degree of religiosity in SBC is an important area for future research.

Mr. Z stated that his strong religious faith as an Orthodox Christian motivated the attempted SBC. He tried to provoke the officer to kill him, because as a devout Orthodox Christian, it is against his religious beliefs to kill himself. He reasoned that, because his beliefs preclude him from performing the suicidal act on his own,^6,14 having an officer pull the trigger would relieve him from committing what he perceived as a sin.⁶

Lethal vs danger. Another difference is the level of urgency that individuals create around them when attempting SBC. Homant and Kennedy¹⁵ see this in terms of 2 ideas: lethal and danger. Lethal refers to the degree of harm posed toward the suicidal individual. Danger is the degree of harm posed by the suicidal individual toward others (ie, police officers, bystanders, hostages, family members, a spouse, etc.). SBC often is more dangerous and more lethal than other methods of suicide. SBC individuals might threaten the lives of others to provoke the police into using deadly force, such as aiming or brandishing a gun or weapon at police officers or bystanders, increasing the lethality and dangerousness of the situation. Individuals engaging in SBC might shoot or kill others to create a confrontation with the police in order to be killed in the process (Table¹⁶).

Instrumental vs expressive goals

Mohandie and Meloy⁶ identified 2 primary goals of those involved in SBC events: instrumental and expressive. Individuals in the instrumental category are:

• attempting to escape or avoid the consequences of criminal or shameful actions
• using the forced confrontation with police to reconcile a failed relationship
• hoping to avoid the exclusion clauses of life insurance policies
• rationalizing that while it may be morally wrong to commit suicide, being killed resolves the spiritual problem of suicide
• seeking what they believe to be a very effective and lethal means of accomplishing death.

An expressive goal is more personal and includes individuals who use the confrontation with the police to communicate:

• hopelessness, depression, and desperation
• a statement about their ultimate identification as victims
• their need to “save face” by dying or being forcibly overwhelmed rather than surrendering
• their intense power needs, rage, and revenge
• their need to draw attention to an important personal issue.

Mr. Z chose what he believed to be an efficiently lethal way of dying in accord with his religious faith, knowing that a confrontation with the police could have a fatal ending. This case represents an instrumental motivation to die by SBC that was religiously motivated.

[polldaddy:9731428]

The authors’ observations

SBC presents a specific and serious challenge for law enforcement personnel, and should be approached in a manner different than other crisis situations. Because many individuals engaging in SBC have a history of mental illness, officers with training in handling individuals with psychiatric disorders—known as Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) in many areas—should be deployed as first responders. CITs have been shown to:

• reduce arrest rates of individuals with psychiatric disorders
• increase referral rates to appropriate treatment
• decrease police injuries when responding to calls
• decrease the need for escalation with specialized tactical response teams, such as Special Weapons And Tactics.¹⁷

Identification of SBC behavior is crucial during police response. Indicators of a SBC include:

• refusal to comply with police order
• refusal to surrender
• lack of interest in getting out of a barricade or hostage situation alive.¹⁸

In approaching a SBC incident, responding officers should be non-confrontational and try to talk to the suicidal individual.⁸ If force is needed to resolve the crisis, non-lethal measures should be used first.⁸ Law enforcement and mental health professionals should suspect a SBC situation in individuals who have had prior police contact and are exhibiting behaviors outlined in the Table.¹⁶

Once suicidality is identified, it should be treated promptly. Patients who are at imminent risk to themselves or others should be hospitalized to maintain their safety. Similar to other suicide modalities, the primary risk factor for SBC is untreated or inadequately treated psychiatric illness. Therefore, the crux of managing SBC involves identifying and treating the underlying mental disorder.

Pharmacological treatment should be guided by the patient’s symptoms and psychiatric diagnosis. For suicidal behavior associated with bipolar depression and other affective disorders, lithium has evidence of reducing suicidality. Studies have shown a 5.5-fold reduction in suicide risk and a >13-fold reduction in completed suicides with lithium treatment.¹⁹ In patients with schizophrenia, clozapine has been shown to reduce suicide risk and is the only FDA-approved agent for this indication.¹⁹ Although antidepressants can effectively treat depression, there are no studies that show that 1 antidepressant is more effective than others in reducing suicidality. This might be because of the long latency period between treatment initiation and symptom relief. Ketamine, an N-methyl-d-aspartate glutamate receptor antagonist, has shown promising results because of its acute effect on depression.²⁰ Because of its rapid symptom relief, ECT remains the standard for treating suicidality related to treatment-resistant depression, psychosis, or mania.²¹

OUTCOME Medication adjustment

After Mr. Z is medically stable, he is voluntarily transferred to the inpatient psychiatric unit where he is stabilized on quetiapine, 200 mg/d, and duloxetine, 60 mg/d, and attends daily group activity, milieu, and individual therapy. Because of Mr. Z’s chronic affective instability and suicidality, we consider lithium for its anti-suicide effects, but decide against it because of lithium’s high lethality in an overdose and Mr. Z’s history of poor compliance and alcohol use.

Because of Mr. Z’s socioeconomic challenges, it is necessary to contact his extended family and social support system to be part of treatment and safety planning. After a week on the psychiatric unit, his mood symptoms stabilize and he is discharged to his family and friends in the area, with a short supply of quetiapine and duloxetine, and free follow-up care within 3 days of discharge. His mood is euthymic; his affect is broad range; his thought process is coherent and logical; he denies suicidal ideation; and can verbalize a logical and concrete safety plan. His support system assures us that Mr. Z will follow up with his appointments.

His DSM-5²² discharge diagnoses are borderline personality disorder, bipolar I disorder, and suicidal behavior disorder, current.

The authors’ observations

SBC increases friction and mistrust between the police and the public, traumatizes officers who are forced to use deadly measures, and results in the death of the suicidal individual. As mental health professionals, we need to be aware of this form of suicide in our screening assessment. Training police to differentiate violent offenders from psychiatric patients could reduce the number of SBCs.⁹ As shown by the CIT model, educating officers on behaviors indicating a mental illness could lead to more psychiatric admissions rather than incarceration¹⁷ or death. We advocate for continuous collaborative work and cross training between the police and mental health professionals and for more research on the link between religiosity and the motivation to die by SBC, because there appears to be a not-yet quantified but strong link between them.

CASE Unresponsive and suicidal

Mr. Z, age 25, an unemployed immigrant from Eastern Europe, is found unresponsive at a subway station. Workup in the emergency room reveals a positive urine toxicology for benzodiazepines and a blood alcohol level of 101.6 mg/dL. When Mr. Z regains consciousness the next day, he says that he is suicidal. He recently broke up with his girlfriend and feels worthless, hopeless, and depressed. As a suicide attempt, he took quetiapine and diazepam chased with vodka.

Mr. Z reports a history of suicide attempts. He says he has been suffering from depression most of his life and has been diagnosed with bipolar I disorder and borderline personality disorder. His medication regimen consists of quetiapine, 200 mg/d, and duloxetine, 20 mg/d.

Before immigrating to the United States 5 years ago, he attempted to overdose on his mother’s prescribed diazepam and was in a coma for 2 days. Recently, he stole a bicycle with the intent of provoking the police to kill him. When caught, he deliberately disobeyed the officer’s order and advanced toward the officer in an aggressive manner. However, the officer stopped Mr. Z using a stun gun. Mr. Z reports that he still feels angry that his suicide attempt failed. He is an Orthodox Christian and says he is “very religious.”

[polldaddy:9731423]

The authors’ observations

The means of suicide differ among individuals. Some attempt suicide by themselves; others through the involuntary participation of others, such as the police. This is known as SBC. Other terms include “suicide by means of victim-precipitated homicide,”¹ “hetero-suicide,”² “suicide by proxy,”³ “copicide,”⁴ and “law enforcement-forced-assisted suicide.”^5,6 SBC accounts for 10%⁷ to 36%⁶ of police shootings and can cause serious stress for the officers involved and creates a strain between the police and the community.⁸

SBC was first mentioned as “suicide by means of victim-precipitated homicide.” Wolfgang⁵ reported 588 cases of police officer-involved shooting in Philadelphia between January 1948 and December 31, 1952, and, concluded that 150 of these cases (26%) fit criteria for what the author termed “victim-precipitated homicide” because the victims involved were the direct precipitants of the situation leading to their death. Wolfgang stated:

Instead of a murderer performing the act of suicide by killing another person who represents the murder’s unconscious, and instead of a suicide representing the desire to kill turned on [the] self, the victim in these victim-precipitated homicide cases is considered to be a suicide prone [individual] who manifests his desire to destroy [him]self by engaging another person to perform the act.

The term “SBC” was coined in 1983 by Karl Harris, a Los Angeles County medical examiner.⁸ The social repercussions of this modality attracts media attention because of its negative social consequences.

Characteristics of SBC

SBC has characteristics similar to other means of suicide; it is more prevalent among men with psychiatric disorders, including major depression, bipolar disorders, schizophrenia, substance use disorders,⁹ poor stress response skills, recent stressors, and adverse life events,¹⁰ and history of suicide attempts.

Psychosocial characteristics include:

• mean age 31.8 years¹
• male sex (98%)
• white (52%)
• approximately 40% involve some form of relationship conflict.⁶

In psychological autopsy studies, an estimated 70.5% of those involved in a SBC incident had ≥1 stressful life events,¹ including terminal illness, loss of a job, a lawsuit, or domestic issues. However, the reason is unknown for the remaining 28% cases.² Thirty-five percent of those involved in SBC incidents were married, 13.5% divorced, and 46.7% single.¹ Seventy-seven percent had low socioeconomic status,¹¹ with 49.3% unemployed at the time of the SBC incident.¹

Pathological characteristics of SBC and other suicide means are similar. Among SBC cases, 39% had previously attempted suicide⁶; 56% have a psychiatric or chronic medical comorbidity. Alcohol and drug abuse were reported among 56% of individuals, and 66% had a criminal history.⁶ Additionally, comorbid psychiatric disorders, especially those of the impulsive and emotionally unstable types, such as borderline and antisocial personality disorder, have been found to play a major role in SBC incidents.¹²

Individual suicide vs SBC

Religious beliefs. The term “religios­ity” is used to define an individual’s idiosyncratic religious belief or personal religious philosophy reconciling the concept of death by suicide and the afterlife. Although there are no studies that specifically reference the relationship between SBC and religiosity, religious belief and affiliation appear to be strong motivating factors. SBC victims might have an idiosyncratic view of religion related death by suicide. Whether suicide is performed while under delusional belief about God, the devil, or being possessed by demons,¹³ or to avoid the moral prohibition of most religious faiths in regard to suicide,⁶ the degree of religiosity in SBC is an important area for future research.

Mr. Z stated that his strong religious faith as an Orthodox Christian motivated the attempted SBC. He tried to provoke the officer to kill him, because as a devout Orthodox Christian, it is against his religious beliefs to kill himself. He reasoned that, because his beliefs preclude him from performing the suicidal act on his own,^6,14 having an officer pull the trigger would relieve him from committing what he perceived as a sin.⁶

Lethal vs danger. Another difference is the level of urgency that individuals create around them when attempting SBC. Homant and Kennedy¹⁵ see this in terms of 2 ideas: lethal and danger. Lethal refers to the degree of harm posed toward the suicidal individual. Danger is the degree of harm posed by the suicidal individual toward others (ie, police officers, bystanders, hostages, family members, a spouse, etc.). SBC often is more dangerous and more lethal than other methods of suicide. SBC individuals might threaten the lives of others to provoke the police into using deadly force, such as aiming or brandishing a gun or weapon at police officers or bystanders, increasing the lethality and dangerousness of the situation. Individuals engaging in SBC might shoot or kill others to create a confrontation with the police in order to be killed in the process (Table¹⁶).

Instrumental vs expressive goals

Mohandie and Meloy⁶ identified 2 primary goals of those involved in SBC events: instrumental and expressive. Individuals in the instrumental category are:

• attempting to escape or avoid the consequences of criminal or shameful actions
• using the forced confrontation with police to reconcile a failed relationship
• hoping to avoid the exclusion clauses of life insurance policies
• rationalizing that while it may be morally wrong to commit suicide, being killed resolves the spiritual problem of suicide
• seeking what they believe to be a very effective and lethal means of accomplishing death.

An expressive goal is more personal and includes individuals who use the confrontation with the police to communicate:

• hopelessness, depression, and desperation
• a statement about their ultimate identification as victims
• their need to “save face” by dying or being forcibly overwhelmed rather than surrendering
• their intense power needs, rage, and revenge
• their need to draw attention to an important personal issue.

Mr. Z chose what he believed to be an efficiently lethal way of dying in accord with his religious faith, knowing that a confrontation with the police could have a fatal ending. This case represents an instrumental motivation to die by SBC that was religiously motivated.

[polldaddy:9731428]

The authors’ observations

SBC presents a specific and serious challenge for law enforcement personnel, and should be approached in a manner different than other crisis situations. Because many individuals engaging in SBC have a history of mental illness, officers with training in handling individuals with psychiatric disorders—known as Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) in many areas—should be deployed as first responders. CITs have been shown to:

• reduce arrest rates of individuals with psychiatric disorders
• increase referral rates to appropriate treatment
• decrease police injuries when responding to calls
• decrease the need for escalation with specialized tactical response teams, such as Special Weapons And Tactics.¹⁷

Identification of SBC behavior is crucial during police response. Indicators of a SBC include:

• refusal to comply with police order
• refusal to surrender
• lack of interest in getting out of a barricade or hostage situation alive.¹⁸

In approaching a SBC incident, responding officers should be non-confrontational and try to talk to the suicidal individual.⁸ If force is needed to resolve the crisis, non-lethal measures should be used first.⁸ Law enforcement and mental health professionals should suspect a SBC situation in individuals who have had prior police contact and are exhibiting behaviors outlined in the Table.¹⁶

Once suicidality is identified, it should be treated promptly. Patients who are at imminent risk to themselves or others should be hospitalized to maintain their safety. Similar to other suicide modalities, the primary risk factor for SBC is untreated or inadequately treated psychiatric illness. Therefore, the crux of managing SBC involves identifying and treating the underlying mental disorder.

Pharmacological treatment should be guided by the patient’s symptoms and psychiatric diagnosis. For suicidal behavior associated with bipolar depression and other affective disorders, lithium has evidence of reducing suicidality. Studies have shown a 5.5-fold reduction in suicide risk and a >13-fold reduction in completed suicides with lithium treatment.¹⁹ In patients with schizophrenia, clozapine has been shown to reduce suicide risk and is the only FDA-approved agent for this indication.¹⁹ Although antidepressants can effectively treat depression, there are no studies that show that 1 antidepressant is more effective than others in reducing suicidality. This might be because of the long latency period between treatment initiation and symptom relief. Ketamine, an N-methyl-d-aspartate glutamate receptor antagonist, has shown promising results because of its acute effect on depression.²⁰ Because of its rapid symptom relief, ECT remains the standard for treating suicidality related to treatment-resistant depression, psychosis, or mania.²¹

OUTCOME Medication adjustment

After Mr. Z is medically stable, he is voluntarily transferred to the inpatient psychiatric unit where he is stabilized on quetiapine, 200 mg/d, and duloxetine, 60 mg/d, and attends daily group activity, milieu, and individual therapy. Because of Mr. Z’s chronic affective instability and suicidality, we consider lithium for its anti-suicide effects, but decide against it because of lithium’s high lethality in an overdose and Mr. Z’s history of poor compliance and alcohol use.

Because of Mr. Z’s socioeconomic challenges, it is necessary to contact his extended family and social support system to be part of treatment and safety planning. After a week on the psychiatric unit, his mood symptoms stabilize and he is discharged to his family and friends in the area, with a short supply of quetiapine and duloxetine, and free follow-up care within 3 days of discharge. His mood is euthymic; his affect is broad range; his thought process is coherent and logical; he denies suicidal ideation; and can verbalize a logical and concrete safety plan. His support system assures us that Mr. Z will follow up with his appointments.

His DSM-5²² discharge diagnoses are borderline personality disorder, bipolar I disorder, and suicidal behavior disorder, current.

The authors’ observations

SBC increases friction and mistrust between the police and the public, traumatizes officers who are forced to use deadly measures, and results in the death of the suicidal individual. As mental health professionals, we need to be aware of this form of suicide in our screening assessment. Training police to differentiate violent offenders from psychiatric patients could reduce the number of SBCs.⁹ As shown by the CIT model, educating officers on behaviors indicating a mental illness could lead to more psychiatric admissions rather than incarceration¹⁷ or death. We advocate for continuous collaborative work and cross training between the police and mental health professionals and for more research on the link between religiosity and the motivation to die by SBC, because there appears to be a not-yet quantified but strong link between them.

INTRODUCTION

Venous thromboembolism (VTE), comprising deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), is a leading nonobstetric cause of maternal death in the United States and in developed countries.^1,2 During pregnancy, the risk for VTE increases four- to six-fold, and although the risk is present throughout pregnancy, the mother is at highest risk immediately postpartum.^3–5

VTE risk is increased due to physiologic and anatomic changes that occur in pregnancy. These changes include hypercoagulability, progesterone-induced venous stasis, decreased venous outflow, compression of the inferior vena cava and pelvic veins by the expanding uterus, and decreased mobility. The hypercoagulability of pregnancy is due to increased levels of coagulation factors I (fibrinogen), VII, VIII, and X, and von Willebrand factor; decreased free protein S, a natural anticoagulant; acquired resistance to activated protein C; and decreased fibrinolysis due to increased levels of plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 and -2.^6,7 These changes confer increased hemostasis to the mother for delivery but also place her at higher risk for thrombosis.

A review of the literature found that more than 70% of pregnancy-associated DVTs are located in the ileofemoral region, as compared with approximately 9% in non-pregnant patients.⁸ The proximal location is associated with a higher risk for post-thrombotic syndrome and embolization as compared with calf DVTs.⁹ Proximal postnatal thrombosis, smoking, and older age are independent predictors of the development of post-thrombotic syndrome.¹⁰

RISK FACTORS

Clinical risk factors that increase the risk for VTE during pregnancy include a prior history of estrogen-related or unprovoked VTE, being a carrier of severe inherited thrombophilia (homozygotes for factor V Leiden or factor II G20210A variants, double heterozygotes, or persons with antithrombin, protein C, or protein S deficiencies), and the presence of antiphospholipid (aPL) antibodies.¹¹ Women with systemic lupus erythematosus, diabetes, sickle cell disease, and heart disease also have a high risk for VTE during pregnancy.¹² Other risk factors predisposing to thrombosis include black ethnicity, smoking, operative procedures, conception after assisted reproductive techniques, high body mass index, antepartum immobilization, severe preeclampsia, advanced age and parity, and a family history of VTE.¹³ A prospective cohort study of 1,297,037 pregnancies and related puerperium identified the following risk factors for thrombosis: hospitalization, infection, hyperemesis, multiple pregnancies, preeclampsia, obesity, cesarean section, major postpartum hemorrhage, intrauterine growth restriction, and fetal death.¹⁴ Risk factors identified in an Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality study include: age 35 or older, black ethnicity, lupus, sickle cell disease, heart disease, postpartum infection, and transfusion.¹⁵ The combination of more than one risk factor increases the risk for VTE. All these factors have to be considered when deciding on prophylactic or therapeutic anticoagulation therapy in pregnancy. In addition, the risks of anticoagulation, including bruising, bleeding, and other side effects (eg, reduced bone mineral density with therapeutic-dose unfractionated heparin), allergic reactions, and rarely thrombocytopenia, must be considered.

EVALUATION AND DIAGNOSIS

CASE PRESENTATION I

A 31-year-old woman G1P0 at 10 weeks’ gestation with no personal or family history of thrombosis presents with acute onset of shortness of breath and left-sided chest pain that awoke her the morning of presentation. Her vital signs are significant for a heart rate of 106 beats/min, respiration rate of 22 breaths/min, blood pressure of 105/76 mm Hg, and pulse oximetry of 98% on room air. The patient denies previous exposure to oral contraceptives. She does not smoke. She reports that she had noticed left calf pain and swelling, which worsened with walking after a 4-hour drive 2 days prior.

• What is the approach to diagnosis of thromboembolism in pregnant patients?

DEEP VEIN THROMBOSIS

Although a clinical diagnosis of DVT in pregnancy is unreliable, a history and physical examination are necessary to exclude other diagnoses and to assess the likelihood of thrombosis. Unfortunately, studies of the accuracy of history and physical examination for detecting DVT and PE have not included pregnant patients. In most pregnant patients with clinically suspected DVT, the diagnosis is not confirmed. Other causes of leg pain and swelling are not uncommon during pregnancy and include cellulitis, ruptured Baker’s cyst, or muscular pain.

A cross-sectional study described the derivation of the LEFt clinical decision rule, which relies on 3 variables in pregnant women with suspected DVT: left leg presentation (L), ≥ 2 cm calf circumference difference (E for edema), and first trimester presentation (Ft). If none of these variables is present, the negative predictive value is 100%.¹⁶ A validation study suggested that a negative LEFt rule accurately identifies pregnant women in whom the risk for confirmed DVT appears to be very low. The rule should not be used as an individual test for excluding DVT during pregnancy, but could be applied in a diagnostic approach in association with D-dimer measurement and compression ultrasonography (CUS); however, it has not been prospectively validated for safety and efficacy.¹⁷ In a study of 149 consecutive pregnant women with suspected DVT, a whole-blood agglutination D-dimer had a sensitivity of 100% and specificity of 60%.¹⁸ A 2006 systematic review found only 4 diagnostic studies of VTE in pregnancy in the literature. One of these studies showed that a combination of a negative CUS and normal D-dimer can accurately exclude DVT.¹⁹

Serial CUS is necessary for pregnant women with a high clinical suspicion of DVT but a negative initial investigation. In a study of 221 pregnant women in whom DVT was clinically suspected, 16 women (7.2%) were diagnosed with DVT by initial CUS, and none were diagnosed with DVT onserial testing.²⁰ During follow-up (≥ 3 months), 6 of the 205 women with normal serial CUS results presented with symptoms of DVT, PE, or both, and 1 of them was diagnosed with DVT and PE. The sensitivity of serial CUS with Doppler imaging was 94.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 69.2% to 99.7%), and the negative predictive value was 99.5% (95% CI 96.9% to 100%).²⁰ All ultrasounds undertaken for investigation of pregnancy-associated DVT should include imaging of the iliac veins if there is a high index of suspicion and the CUS is negative for femoral DVT. Serial CUS with Doppler imaging of the iliac vein performed over a 7-day period excludes DVT in symptomatic pregnant women.²⁰ Repeat CUS may be done 2 to 4 days and 6 to 8 days after the initial scan.

Ileofemoral vein thrombosis accounts for approximately 90% of proximal thromboses in pregnancy, occurring most often in the left lower extremity.²⁰ The incidence of isolated iliac vein thrombosis in pregnancy is low, but when it does occur, delay in diagnosis can lead to significant morbidity. Therefore, for women with suspected isolated iliac vein thrombosis in whom CUS is negative or nondiagnostic, magnetic resonance direct thrombus imaging (MRDTI) should be performed.²¹ Patients with iliac vein thrombosis may present with unexplained inguinal, pelvic, or abdominal pain, which may be accompanied by back pain, and they usually present with swelling of the entire leg. MRDTI does not require gadolinium contrast and its accuracy appears to be similar to that of venography for iliac vein thrombi in the nonpregnant population.²¹ Exposure to gadolinium during pregnancy is associated with an increased risk for rheumatologic, inflammatory, or infiltrative skin conditions and stillbirth or neonatal death.²²

Ovarian vein thrombosis is a rare but serious diagnosis. It occurs mostly in the postpartum period, mainly after cesarean delivery, and usually affects the right ovarian vein. The diagnosis is confirmed by ultrasound, computed tomography (CT), or magnetic resonance imaging.²³

PULMONARY EMBOLISM

PE is more difficult to diagnose than DVT, particularly because clinical signs of PE are unreliable in the pregnant patient. The mortality rate of untreated PE is high, ranging from 18% to 38%, and approximately one-third of patients with untreated thromboembolic disease develop recurrent embolism.²⁴ Studies have reported a PE prevalence between 1.4% and 4.2% in pregnant women with suspected clinical diagnosis of PE.²⁵

The clinical presentation of PE and associated laboratory testing results may be subtler in pregnant than in nonpregnant patients. Arterial blood gases (ABG) may show hypoxemia or hypocapnia. The ABG in pregnancy has a sensitivity of 76.9%, specificity of 20.2%, and negative and positive predictive values of 80% and 11.5% for PE, respectively.²⁶ The alveolar-arterial oxygen gradient is a poor screening test for PE during pregnancy and postpartum. A retrospective chart review of 17 pregnant women with documented PE showed that 58% had normal alveolar-arterial gradients.²⁷ Therefore, in a pregnant woman with a history suspicious for PE, objective imaging studies should be performed even if the patient has normal ABG.

The 2011 guidelines from the American Thoracic Society (ATS) and the Society of Thoracic Radiology (STR) recommend against using D-dimer to diagnose PE in pregnancy.²⁸ In addition, lower extremity CUS should only be performed as the first diagnostic imaging procedure if the patient has signs or symptoms of DVT. Instead, the ATS/STR guidelines recommend a plain radiograph of the chest as the first imaging test. If the chest radiograph is normal, a ventilation/perfusion scan (V/Q) scan is preferred over CT pulmonary angiography (CTPA). Diagnostic accuracy of the V/Q scan may be superior to CTPA in pregnancy, and it is preferable because of the lower prevalence of indeterminate V/Q scan in pregnant women.²⁹ Moreover, there is lower radiation exposure to the maternal breast and lung tissue with a V/Q scan than with CTPA. CTPA confers lower fetal radiation doses than V/Q scans (0.03–0.66 mGy versus 0.32–0.74 mGy, respectively) but higher total body maternal radiation (4–16 mSv versus 1–2.5 mSv).³⁰ A quantitative approach to lung scan interpretation, based on the distribution histogram of V/Q ratios, may be helpful in categorizing patients with suspected PE.²⁸ A study of 121 suspected episodes of PE in 120 pregnant women showed that 104 women with normal or nondiagnostic scans did not develop subsequent episodes of VTE during a mean follow-up period of 20 months.³¹

If the baseline chest radiograph is abnormal in a pregnant woman with clinical suspicion of PE, a CTPA should be performed. As noted, fetal radiation doses for CTPA examinations in which the fetus is not directly imaged are minimal. If CTPA is recommended for the diagnosis of PE, the patient should be informed that radiation to the breast may increase her baseline risk for breast cancer. The ATS guidelines state that “given the lack of evidence documenting clear superiority of any one diagnostic test, the values and preferences of a patient and her physician likely will and should determine the final choice and sequence of tests performed.”²⁸

CASE I CONTINUED

Upon presentation to the emergency department, the circumference of the patient’s left leg is not significantly greater than that of her right leg, and her leg pain has resolved. Bilateral CUS is negative for proximal or distal DVT. Chest radiograph shows an opacification of her left lower lobe. CTPA shows bilateral segmental and subsegmental lower lobe pulmonary emboli.

• How does risk for VTE change throughout pregnancy?

Women are at increased risk for VTE throughout the entire pregnancy, starting from conception, but mainly during the postpartum period. A Danish historical controlled cohort study of 819,751 pregnant women (ages 15–49 years) over a 10-year period identified 727 women with VTE. The absolute risk for VTE per 10,000 pregnancy-years increased from 4.1 (95% CI 3.2 to 5.2) during weeks 1 to 11 to 59.0 (95% CI 46.1 to 76.4) in week 40 and decreased in the postpartum period from 60 (95% CI 47.2 to 76.4) during the first week after birth to 2.1 during weeks 9–12 after birth (95% CI 1.1 to 4.2).³² This study showed that the risk of VTE increases throughout pregnancy and reaches its maximum during the peripartum period and is not significantly increased after 6 weeks post-delivery. In a retrospective cross-over cohort study of 1,687,930 women in California who delivered their first newborn, an elevated risk of VTE persisted until at least 12 weeks after delivery. However, the absolute increase in risk after 6 weeks postpartum was low.³³

CASE 1 CONCLUSION

The patient is started on anticoagulation therapy and carefully monitored during the remainder of the pregnancy and postpartum period. Anticoagulation is discontinued 6 weeks after delivery.

TREATMENT

ANTICOAGULATION THERAPY

The treatment of VTE can be lifesaving. In a study comparing 35 patients with PE randomly assigned to treatment with anticoagulants versus no treatment, 5 of 19 patients in the untreated group died from PE and an additional 5 had nonfatal recurrences, as compared with none in the treated group.²⁴ Unfractionated heparin (UFH) and low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) are both safe and effective anticoagulants during pregnancy as neither crosses the placenta. In a review of 186 reports of fetal and infant outcomes following anticoagulant therapy during pregnancy in 1325 pregnancies, outcomes in UFH-treated patients were similar to those in the normal population after excluding pregnancies with comorbid conditions independently associated with adverse outcomes.³⁴ A 2005 systematic review of LMWH for prophylaxis and treatment of VTE during pregnancy included 64 studies of 277 pregnancies. There were no maternal deaths, live births resulted from 94.7% of the pregnancies, VTE or arterial thrombosis occurred in 0.86%, and significant bleeding occurred in 1.98%.³⁵

The standard UFH regimen is an initial bolus of 5000 units subcutaneously and 17,500 units every 12 hours, with dose adjustment made based on a mid-interval activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT).³⁶ Although still controversial, it has been suggested that the anti-Xa assay with a mid-dosing interval target of 0.3 to 0.7 U/mL is a more reliable measure of therapeutic UFH activity than the aPTT, as the aPTT response is suppressed due to a pregnancy-related increase in factor VIII. LMWH is dosed based on weight; regimens are enoxaparin 1 mg/kg subcutaneously twice daily or 1.5 mg/kg subcutaneously once daily, and dalteparin 100 units/kg every 12 hours or 150 units/kg daily.

A 2017 Cochrane review of the effect of LMWH compared with UFH for the treatment of VTE in the nonpregnant setting included 23 studies with 9587 patients. Thrombotic complications (odds ratio [OR] 0.70 [CI 0.57 to 0.85]) and major hemorrhage (OR 0.58 [CI 0.40 to 0.83]) were lower in patients receiving LMWH, with a trend toward lower mortality.³⁷ In addition, the incidence of bleeding complications in patients treated with subcutaneous LMWH versus intravenous heparin was compared in a 2012 systematic review of 27 randomized controlled trials with a total of 28,637 patients. In patients treated with LMWH, there was a nonstatistically significant lower incidence of major bleeding events (OR 0.79 [95% CI 0.60 to 1.04]) and a statistically significant reduction in bleeding risk (OR 0.68 [95% CI 0.47 to 1.00]) compared to patients treated with UFH.³⁸ Additionally, a trial comparing the use of standard UFH versus LMWH found a significantly lower incidence of thrombocytopenia in patients treated with LMWH.^39,40 Overall, LMWH is more effective at decreasing both thrombotic and bleeding complications, and the risk for osteoporosis is lower with LMWH. Based on these results, the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) recommends LMWH as the first-line treatment for VTE in pregnancy.⁴¹

In specific clinical situations, such as patients with renal dysfunction with creatinine clearance (CrCl) less than 30 mL/min, UFH is indicated. In a study of 103 pregnancies in 93 women given anti-coagulation during pregnancy, 89.3% received UFH. There were no maternal deaths, and fetal demise occurred in 8 pregnancies (7.8%) at a median of 14 weeks’ gestation. There were 2 episodes of PE (1.9%) and 2 major bleeding events requiring transfusion (1.9%).⁴² UFH costs much less than LMWH, and therefore UFH remains an important, inexpensive, and efficacious anticoagulant option for pregnant women who require anticoagulation and cannot afford LMWH.⁴³

Due to the physiologic changes associated with pregnancy, LMWH and UFH dosages may need to be adjusted. An observational study of 20 pregnant women with acute VTE found no recurrent VTE or major bleeding after treatment with dalteparin. Dalteparin doses approximately 10% to 20% higher than those recommended in nonpregnant women were required to reach therapeutic target anti-Xa activity.⁴⁴

Caution Regarding Oral Anticoagulants

Due to its teratogenicity, warfarin is not a first-line anticoagulation option. It is strictly contraindicated during the first trimester during organogenesis, and its use during pregnancy is restricted to women with mechanical heart valves. Warfarin crosses the placenta and has been associated with nasal hypoplasia, stippled epiphyses, and growth restriction, particularly between 6 to 9 weeks’ gestation. Every effort should be made to substitute UFH or LMWH for warfarin between 6 and 12 weeks of gestation. The bridging process should begin as early in the gestational age as possible due to the long half-life of warfarin.⁴⁵ When used later in gestation, warfarin has been associated with fetal hemorrhage and central nervous system abnormalities. Other complications from use during the second and third trimesters include microcephaly, blindness, deafness, and fetal growth restriction.^46,47 Its use also increases the risk for abortion and fetal death in utero.^48–50

The direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are not approved for use in pregnancy. Although there are limited anecdotal reports of DOAC use in pregnancy,⁵¹ there is preclinical evidence of placental transfer with the DOACs rivaroxaban and apixaban (direct Xa inhibitors) and the oral thrombin inhibitor dabigatran, thus increasing the risk to the fetus.^52–54 Edoxaban, another direct Xa inhibitor, should be used during pregnancy only if the potential benefit justifies the potential risk to the fetus. It should be discontinued in nursing mothers.⁵⁵

THROMBOLYSIS

Fetal as well as maternal survival is dependent on adequate maternal perfusion and oxygenation. The risk of death from PE is significant, with a cross-sectional study of 58 patients with acute, massive PE showing a 55% mortality rate.⁵⁶ Thus, pregnancy is not an absolute contraindication to mechanical or systemic (recombinant tissue plasminogen activator or streptokinase) thrombolysis in an unstable patient at high risk for death.^57–59 There are no major studies of this approach, although a small review of 13 cases using systemic thrombolysis showed no increased risk of maternal mortality.⁵⁸ Thrombolysis should be considered for appropriate indications in pregnant patients as it would be in nonpregnant patients. However, caution is required when drawing conclusions regarding maternal and fetal safety, given the lack of controlled clinical trials including pregnant women.

SURGICAL PULMONARY EMBOLECTOMY

Surgical pulmonary embolectomy is an important therapeutic and potentially life-saving option in women presenting with massive PE in the immediate postpartum period. Because of the risk of massive uterine bleeding immediately postpartum, thrombolytic therapy should not be used.⁶⁰

INFERIOR VENA CAVA FILTER

Placement of an inferior vena cava (IVC) filter is indicated in patients who have an acute VTE with absolute contraindications for anticoagulation. In addition, it can be considered in patients with extensive ileofemoral venous thrombosis within 2 weeks prior to expected delivery.⁶¹ In a systematic review of 44 studies of IVC filters placed in pregnant patients, the IVC filter complication rate was 8.87% and the failure-to-retrieve rate was 11.25%.⁶² The complication rate is similar to that found in the nonpregnant population. Thus, IVC filters may be used when appropriately indicated and should be removed as soon as clinically feasible.

RECURRENT THROMBOSIS AND THROMBOPHILIAS

CASE PRESENTATION 2

A 34-year-old pregnant woman G1P0 at 38 weeks’ gestation presents with a painful, swollen left calf that is associated with difficulty on walking; the circumference of the left calf is 2 cm greater than that of the right. She has no shortness of breath or chest pain. She has a prior history of distal right lower extremity DVT while on combined oral contraceptives. Her mother also has a history of DVT while bedbound during a prolonged hospitalization at an older age. CUS is negative, and the patient is discharged home. However, 24 hours later she returns to the hospital with worsening swelling and pain in her left leg. Magnetic resonance venography demonstrates a large left external iliac and common iliac DVT. She is admitted and is started on UFH, and a retrievable IVC filter is placed in anticipation of delivery.

• What is the risk for VTE recurrence during pregnancy?

A personal and family history of VTE should be obtained when evaluating pregnant patients. A retrospective study of 109 women with prior history of VTE showed recurrence rates per patient-year of 10.9% during pregnancy and 3.7% in the nonpregnant period; the relative risk of recurrent VTE during pregnancy was 3.5 (95% CI 1.6 to 7.8).⁶³ Two large European retrospective cohort studies of VTE in pregnancy showed that the recurrence rate of VTE in women with a history of thrombosis is around 6% during pregnancy, equally distributed among trimesters. The highest incidence of recurrence was in the postpartum period, ranging from 8.3% to 10%.⁶⁴ The recurrence risk during pregnancy in women with a history of a single episode of VTE was 2.4% antepartum (95% CI 0.2% to 6.9%).⁶⁵ These risks may be lower in women without thrombophilia or with a temporary risk factor associated with their previous thromboembolic event.⁶⁵ Recurrence risk is higher if the previous VTE was estrogen-related, either due to pregnancy or through hormonal contraception (10%), than if the previous VTE was non-estrogen-related (2.7%).^64,66

The timing of the case patient’s presentation is consistent with reports of increased risk of VTE during the peripartum period. Her prior history of estrogen-related DVT is concerning for a risk of recurrence, particularly during pregnancy. A retrospective cohort study of 1104 women with previous VTE, 88 of whom became pregnant without receiving thromboprophylaxis, showed that the overall rate of VTE recurrence was 5.8% (95% CI 3.0% to 10.6%) and 8.3% (95% CI 4.5% to 14.6%) during pregnancy and postpartum, respectively. The risk of VTE recurrence was absent if the first VTE was related to a transient risk factor other than pregnancy, postpartum period, or hormonal contraception.⁶⁷ However, the recurrence rate of VTE in women with prior unprovoked VTE and/or thrombophilia has been reported as 5.9% (95% CI 1.2% to 16.2%).⁶⁵ The presence of an underlying hypercoagulable state can increase the recurrence risk by 25% to 50%, depending on the disorder.⁶⁸ A retrospective cohort study of 270 pregnancies in 105 carriers of factor V Leiden, identified because of a symptomatic relative with the factor V Leiden mutation, found a VTE risk (mostly in the postpartum period) of 6.4% for heterozygous women, 16.7% for homozygous women, 20% for double heterozygous women, and 1.2% for noncarriers.⁶⁹

• Should the patient be screened for a thrombophilia disorder?

Half of all index thromboses in patients with thrombophilia occur in association with an additional risk factor. In women of child-bearing age, pregnancy, the postpartum period, and the use of combined hormonal contraception are all risk factors for VTE. A 2010 guideline from the British hematology community recommended testing for thrombophilia in women with prior VTE secondary to a minor provoking factor before or during pregnancy, but not testing women with unprovoked VTE (who would receive prophylaxis regardless) or those with VTE secondary to a major provoking factor (who would not require prophylaxis).⁷⁰ Indications to screen for aPL antibodies include: women with (1) 3 unexplained recurrent first-trimester pregnancy losses or 1 second or third trimester fetal loss of morphologically normal fetuses; (2) severe preeclampsia; (3) intrauterine growth restriction; or (4) premature labor (< 34 weeks’ gestation).^71,72

CASE 2 CONCLUSION

The patient is subsequently screened for inherited thrombophilia disorders and is found to be heterozygous for factor V Leiden.

CASE PRESENTATION 3

A 25-year-old woman is diagnosed with antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) during her second pregnancy when she experiences fetal loss during her second trimester. Pathologic examination of the placenta reveals infarcts. Laboratory evaluation reveals positive high-titer anticardiolipin and anti-beta-2 glycoprotein 1 antibodies (IgG isotype) and lupus anticoagulant on 2 separate occasions 12 weeks apart. In a subsequent pregnancy, she is started on prophylactic LMWH and daily low-dose aspirin (81 mg). At 36 weeks’ gestation, she presents with a blood pressure of 210/104 mm Hg and a platelet count of 94,000 cells/µL. She is diagnosed with preeclampsia and hemolysis, elevated liver enzymes, and low platelets (HELLP) syndrome and is induced for early delivery. About 2 weeks after vaginal delivery, she notices shortness of breath and chest pain. A CTPA demonstrates a right lower lobe lobar defect consistent with a PE. Her anticoagulation is increased to therapeutic dosage LMWH.

• To what extent does thrombophilia increase the risk for VTE in pregnancy?

Approximately 50% of pregnancy-related VTEs are associated with inherited thrombophilia. A systematic review of 79 studies, in which 9 studies (n = 2526 patients) assessed the risk of VTE associated with inherited thrombophilia in pregnancy, revealed that the odds ratio for individuals with thrombophilia to develop VTE ranged from 0.74 to 34.40.⁷³ Although women with thrombophilia have an increased relative risk of developing VTE in pregnancy, the absolute risk of VTE remains low (Table 1).^41,73,74

• How is APS managed in pregnant patients?

Women with history of recurrent early pregnancy loss (< 10 weeks’ gestation) related to the presence of aPL antibodies are managed with low-dose aspirin and prophylactic-dose UFH or LMWH. This treatment increases the rate of subsequent successful pregnancy outcomes and reduces the risk for thrombosis. A 2010 systematic review and meta-analysis of UFH plus low-dose aspirin compared with low-dose aspirin alone in patients with APS and recurrent pregnancy loss included 5 trials and 334 patients. Patients receiving dual therapy had higher rates of live births (74.3%; relative risk [RR] 1.30 [CI 1.04 to 1.63]) compared to the aspirin-only group (55.8%).⁷⁵ A 2009 randomized controlled trial compared low-dose aspirin to low-dose aspirin plus LMWH in women with recurrent pregnancy loss and either aPL antibodies, antinuclear antibody, or inherited thrombophilia. The study was stopped early after 4 years and found no difference in rates of live births between the groups (77.8% versus 79.1%).⁷⁶ However, a randomized case-control trial of women with aPL antibodies and recurrent miscarriage found a 72% live birth rate in 47 women randomly assigned to low-dose aspirin and LMWH.⁷⁷ A 2012 guideline from the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) recommends that women with aPL antibodies with a history of 3 or more pregnancy losses receive low-dose aspirin plus prophylactic-dose LMWH or UFH.⁷⁸ A 2014 systematic review and meta-analysis showed that the combination of low-dose aspirin and UFH resulted in a higher live-birth rate than aspirin alone in 803 women with APS (RR 1.54 [95% CI 1.25 to 1.89]).⁷⁹ Further large randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm optimal management of recurrent miscarriage and aPL antibodies.

The addition of prednisone to aspirin, heparin, or both has shown no benefits in pregnant women with aPL antibodies. Indeed, prolonged use of steroids may cause serious pregnancy complications, such as prematurity and hypertension.^80–83 Intravenous infusions of immunoglobulin (IVIG) have not been shown to be superior to heparin and aspirin. This finding was confirmed in a multicenter clinical trial that tested the effects of IVIG compared with LMWH plus low-dose aspirin for the treatment of women with aPL antibodies and recurrent miscarriage. The rate of live-birth was 72.5% in the group treated with heparin plus low-dose aspirin compared with 39.5% in the IVIG group.⁸⁴

Preeclampsia and HELLP syndrome complicated the case patient’s pregnancy even though she was being treated with prophylactic-dose LMWH and low-dose aspirin, the current standard of care for pregnant women with APS (UFH can be used as well). It is important to note that complications may still occur despite standard treatment. Indeed, PE is more common in the postpartum than in the antepartum period. Prompt diagnosis is paramount to initiate the appropriate treatment; in this case the dose of LMWH was increased from prophylactic to therapeutic dose. However, additional therapeutic modalities are necessary to improve outcomes. A randomized controlled trial comparing standard of care with or without hydroxychloroquine is under way to address this issue.

PROPHYLAXIS

CASE PRESENTATION 4

A 34-year-old woman G1P0 at 6 weeks’ gestation with a past medical history of a proximal lower extremity DVT while on oral contraception is treated with warfarin anticoagulation for 6 months. Her obstetrician consults the hematologist to advise regarding antithrombotic management during this pregnancy.

• What is the approach to prophylaxis in women at high risk for pregnancy-associated VTE?

All women at high risk for pregnancy-associated VTE should be counseled about the signs and symptoms of DVT or PE during preconception and pregnancy and have a plan developed should these symptoms arise. The ACCP guidelines on antithrombotic therapy outline recommendations ranging from clinical vigilance to prophylactic and intermediate-dose anticoagulation, depending on the risk for VTE recurrence, based on the personal and family history of VTE and type of thrombophilia (Table 2).⁷⁸ These recommendations range from grade 2B to 2C.

For women with a history of estrogen-related VTE, single unprovoked VTE, or recurrent unprovoked VTE not on chronic anticoagulation, antepartum and postpartum pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis with either prophylactic or intermediate-dose LMWH is recommended (grade 2C). In patients with prior history of provoked VTE (non-estrogen related), antepartum clinical vigilance and postpartum pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis is recommended (grade 2C, 2B).

In asymptomatic pregnant women who are homozygote carriers for factor V Leiden or prothrombin G20210A variants and have a positive family history of thrombosis, antepartum and postpartum pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis is recommended (grade 2B). In asymptomatic homozygote carriers of factor V Leiden or prothrombin G20210A variants with no family history of thrombosis and women with all other thrombophilias with a positive family history of thrombosis, postpartum pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis is indicated (grade 2B and 2C, respectively). For women with confirmed APS and clinical criteria of obstetric APS with recurrent pregnancy loss, antepartum thromboprophylaxis with LMWH and low-dose aspirin is recommended (grade 1B). For pregnant women with all other thrombophilias with no personal or family history of thrombosis, clinical vigilance is suggested (grade 2 C).⁷⁸

As an alternative to LMWH, vitamin K antagonists (VKA) such as warfarin can be used for postpartum thromboprophylaxis; in patients with protein C or S deficiency, due to the risk of warfarin-induced skin necrosis, a rapid-onset anticoagulant must be concomitantly administered. Warfarin and LMWH are safe anticoagulants during lactation, but there are no clinical data on the effects of the DOACs on infants during lactation. Data from animal studies indicate that DOACs are secreted into breast milk.⁸⁵

• What risks are associated with anticoagulant therapy in pregnancy?

VKAs cross the placenta and can cause teratogenicity, pregnancy loss, fetal bleeding, and neurodevelopmental deficits. Therefore, discontinuation of VKAs prior to the sixth week of gestation is necessary to avoid warfarin embryopathy. DOACs have been shown to readily cross the placenta but with unknown human reproductive risks. Fondaparinux, a synthetic pentasaccharide, crosses the placenta in small quantities. Though there are reports of the successful use of fondaparinux in pregnancy, there is limited reported experience of its use in the first trimester.⁸⁶

The risk for bleeding with anticoagulation is notably acceptable. In a case-control study of 88 pregnant women receiving therapeutic-dose anticoagulation, the risk of postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) after vaginal delivery was 30% in those who received LMWH anticoagulation versus 18% in those who did not (OR 1.9 [95% CI 1.1 to 3.5]).⁸⁷ However, the risk for severe PPH (≥ 500 mL) was similar (5.6% versus 5.0%; OR 1.1 [95% CI 0.4 to 3.6]). The risk for PPH after cesarean section was 12% in LMWH users versus 4% in LMWH non-users (OR 2.9 [95% CI 0.5 to 19.4]). The risk for PPH associated with delivery within 24 hours after the last dose of LMWH was 1.2 times higher (95% CI 0.4 to 3.6) compared to a longer interval. Therefore, therapeutic LMWH increases the risk for blood loss after vaginal delivery, but not the risk for severe PPH. The risk for PPH is influenced by the interval between the last dose of LMWH and delivery. Of note in this study, per the institution’s protocol, the anticoagulation was stopped with signs of labor or determination of need for delivery. The risk for blood loss may be mitigated in more planned delivery scenarios.⁸⁷

CASE 4 CONTINUED

The patient is placed on prophylactic-dose LMWH with good tolerance and delivers at 39 weeks' gestation via caesarian section due to nonprogression of labor. Postpartum she is restarted on prophylactic-dose anticoagulation with LMWH. Two weeks after discharge from the hospital, she presents with right calf pain and mild shortness of breath. On physical exam, her leg circumferences are equal. A D-dimer assay is 3375 ng/mL (normal 0–229). CUS of the right leg shows a complete occlusive DVT of the mid-distal superficial femoral and popliteal veins and partially occlusive acute DVT of the right posterior tibial and peroneal veins. CTPA reveals a right lower lobe PE. Because she had developed VTE despite prophylactic LMWH, her anticoagulation is changed to therapeutic dose. She is treated with anticoagulation with LMWH for a total of 3 months, after which a repeat CUS shows no residual thrombosis.

• What is the recommended dosing of heparin and LMWH during pregnancy?

A prospective study of 14 pregnant women receiving UFH prophylaxis found that a prophylactic dose of 5000 units twice a day was inadequate to achieve prophylactic heparin levels in any patient in the second or third trimester.⁸⁸ Similar to treatment dosage, there is no consensus evidence for prophylactic dosing, and dosage recommendations are based on expert opinion. In a retrospective study of 25 pregnant women on intermediate-dose UFH, the mean UFH dose required to achieve a target anti-factor Xa level of 0.1 to 0.3 units/mL was 236.9 units/kg/day.⁸⁹ However, the use of anti-factor Xa levels for monitoring is controversial as there is no data to support a difference in outcomes with its use in prophylactic or therapeutic dosing.

The timing of the previous VTE history is important when deciding on the anticoagulant dose in pregnancy. In pregnant women with a VTE that occurred within the previous 4 to 6 weeks, full-dose anticoagulation with LMWH should be considered; an intermediate dose (three-fourths of a therapeutic dose) may be used if the thrombotic episode occurred more than 6 weeks earlier but still within a year. Prophylactic dosing may be sufficient if the episode occurred more than a year earlier.⁹⁰ A clinical trial (High-Low) is under way to explore the optimal dose of LMWH in pregnant women with prior history of VTE who are not on chronic anticoagulation therapy.⁹¹

• How is anticoagulation therapy managed in the peripartum period?

Neuraxial anesthesia during active labor while on anticoagulation increases the risk for central nervous system bleeding. Therefore, if spontaneous labor occurs in women on therapeutic dose anticoagulation, neuraxial anesthesia cannot be used. However, in the event of elective induction of labor or caesarean section, neuroaxial anesthesia may be performed 12 hours after the administration of the last prophylactic dose of LMWH or 24 hours after the last therapeutic dose of LMWH. Intravenous UFH should be stopped for 6 hours before induction of labor with a confirmed normal aPTT before placement of neuraxial anesthesia. There is no contraindication for using neuraxial anesthesia during subcutaneous standard UFH at total doses of 10,000 units daily. The risk of spinal hematoma with larger daily subcutaneous doses is unclear; therefore, a documented normal aPTT must be obtained before placement of neuroaxial anesthesia.

Postpartum, reinitiation of prophylactic-dose LMWH should be delayed for at least 12 hours after the removal of an epidural catheter. Therapeutic-dose LMWH should be administered no earlier than 24 hours after neuraxial anesthesia, providing that proper hemostasis is achieved. In the absence of persistent bleeding, if no regional anesthesia was used, LMWH may be resumed 12 hours after delivery.⁹² Anticoagulation with either LMWH or warfarin is recommended for at least 6 to 12 weeks postpartum.³³

COUNSELING

Patients should be advised to manage controllable risk factors, including avoiding prolonged immobilization, avoiding excessive weight gain in pregnancy, and stopping smoking. Periods of immobilization tend to cause reduced blood flow (stasis), which predisposes to thrombosis. In a systematic review of records of all patients with confirmed PE after arrival at Charles de Gaulle airport in Paris during a 13-year period, women had a higher risk of PE after a long-distance flight than men, with an estimated incidence of 0.61 per million passengers versus 0.20, respectively; the incidence reached 7.24 and 2.35 cases, respectively, in passengers traveling more than 10,000 kilometers.^93,94

The risk of air travel-related thrombosis in pregnant women is estimated to be between 0.03% and 0.1%. Physicians must decide on an individual basis how to prevent travel-related thrombosis in their pregnant patients. In most passengers, prevention can be limited to encouraging exercise, avoidance of long sleeping periods, and not using a window seat. Women at high risk for VTE, such as women with a prior history of VTE who are not on anticoagulation or women with known asymptomatic thrombophilia or other risk factors for thrombosis such as obesity, may benefit from a short period (1–3 days) of LMWH starting 2 hours before a long-distance flight.⁹⁵

Activation of the coagulation system has been demonstrated in cigarette smokers.⁹⁶ Heavy smoking was found to be a significant risk factor for VTE in a cross-sectional analysis of 2404 men and women.⁹⁷ An increased risk for thrombosis during pregnancy is seen in cigarette smokers^15,98 and is enhanced with the concomitant use of illicit drugs.⁹⁹ Other obstetric complications associated with smoking and illicit drug use during pregnancy include preterm labor, spontaneous abortion, perinatal death, low birth weight, and abruption placenta. The efficacy of nicotine replacement therapy in pregnancy is uncertain.¹⁰⁰ Recommendations are to advise patients to stop smoking, obtain psychosocial counseling, and utilize adjunctive therapies, which have been shown to have some effect on abstinence rates.¹⁰¹

CONCLUSION

Women are at increased risk for VTE during pregnancy and the postpartum period. Awareness of risk factors and the signs and symptoms of VTE is paramount. Prompt diagnosis and treatment is mandatory to decrease complications of VTE. LMWH is the mainstay treatment of VTE in pregnancy, as it does not cross the placenta. Both LMWH and warfarin are safe during lactation. Close communication among the patient, obstetrician, hematologist, anesthesiologist, and neonatologist is crucial to optimize the care of these patients.

INTRODUCTION

Venous thromboembolism (VTE), comprising deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), is a leading nonobstetric cause of maternal death in the United States and in developed countries.^1,2 During pregnancy, the risk for VTE increases four- to six-fold, and although the risk is present throughout pregnancy, the mother is at highest risk immediately postpartum.^3–5

VTE risk is increased due to physiologic and anatomic changes that occur in pregnancy. These changes include hypercoagulability, progesterone-induced venous stasis, decreased venous outflow, compression of the inferior vena cava and pelvic veins by the expanding uterus, and decreased mobility. The hypercoagulability of pregnancy is due to increased levels of coagulation factors I (fibrinogen), VII, VIII, and X, and von Willebrand factor; decreased free protein S, a natural anticoagulant; acquired resistance to activated protein C; and decreased fibrinolysis due to increased levels of plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 and -2.^6,7 These changes confer increased hemostasis to the mother for delivery but also place her at higher risk for thrombosis.

A review of the literature found that more than 70% of pregnancy-associated DVTs are located in the ileofemoral region, as compared with approximately 9% in non-pregnant patients.⁸ The proximal location is associated with a higher risk for post-thrombotic syndrome and embolization as compared with calf DVTs.⁹ Proximal postnatal thrombosis, smoking, and older age are independent predictors of the development of post-thrombotic syndrome.¹⁰

RISK FACTORS

Clinical risk factors that increase the risk for VTE during pregnancy include a prior history of estrogen-related or unprovoked VTE, being a carrier of severe inherited thrombophilia (homozygotes for factor V Leiden or factor II G20210A variants, double heterozygotes, or persons with antithrombin, protein C, or protein S deficiencies), and the presence of antiphospholipid (aPL) antibodies.¹¹ Women with systemic lupus erythematosus, diabetes, sickle cell disease, and heart disease also have a high risk for VTE during pregnancy.¹² Other risk factors predisposing to thrombosis include black ethnicity, smoking, operative procedures, conception after assisted reproductive techniques, high body mass index, antepartum immobilization, severe preeclampsia, advanced age and parity, and a family history of VTE.¹³ A prospective cohort study of 1,297,037 pregnancies and related puerperium identified the following risk factors for thrombosis: hospitalization, infection, hyperemesis, multiple pregnancies, preeclampsia, obesity, cesarean section, major postpartum hemorrhage, intrauterine growth restriction, and fetal death.¹⁴ Risk factors identified in an Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality study include: age 35 or older, black ethnicity, lupus, sickle cell disease, heart disease, postpartum infection, and transfusion.¹⁵ The combination of more than one risk factor increases the risk for VTE. All these factors have to be considered when deciding on prophylactic or therapeutic anticoagulation therapy in pregnancy. In addition, the risks of anticoagulation, including bruising, bleeding, and other side effects (eg, reduced bone mineral density with therapeutic-dose unfractionated heparin), allergic reactions, and rarely thrombocytopenia, must be considered.

EVALUATION AND DIAGNOSIS

CASE PRESENTATION I

A 31-year-old woman G1P0 at 10 weeks’ gestation with no personal or family history of thrombosis presents with acute onset of shortness of breath and left-sided chest pain that awoke her the morning of presentation. Her vital signs are significant for a heart rate of 106 beats/min, respiration rate of 22 breaths/min, blood pressure of 105/76 mm Hg, and pulse oximetry of 98% on room air. The patient denies previous exposure to oral contraceptives. She does not smoke. She reports that she had noticed left calf pain and swelling, which worsened with walking after a 4-hour drive 2 days prior.

• What is the approach to diagnosis of thromboembolism in pregnant patients?

DEEP VEIN THROMBOSIS

Although a clinical diagnosis of DVT in pregnancy is unreliable, a history and physical examination are necessary to exclude other diagnoses and to assess the likelihood of thrombosis. Unfortunately, studies of the accuracy of history and physical examination for detecting DVT and PE have not included pregnant patients. In most pregnant patients with clinically suspected DVT, the diagnosis is not confirmed. Other causes of leg pain and swelling are not uncommon during pregnancy and include cellulitis, ruptured Baker’s cyst, or muscular pain.

A cross-sectional study described the derivation of the LEFt clinical decision rule, which relies on 3 variables in pregnant women with suspected DVT: left leg presentation (L), ≥ 2 cm calf circumference difference (E for edema), and first trimester presentation (Ft). If none of these variables is present, the negative predictive value is 100%.¹⁶ A validation study suggested that a negative LEFt rule accurately identifies pregnant women in whom the risk for confirmed DVT appears to be very low. The rule should not be used as an individual test for excluding DVT during pregnancy, but could be applied in a diagnostic approach in association with D-dimer measurement and compression ultrasonography (CUS); however, it has not been prospectively validated for safety and efficacy.¹⁷ In a study of 149 consecutive pregnant women with suspected DVT, a whole-blood agglutination D-dimer had a sensitivity of 100% and specificity of 60%.¹⁸ A 2006 systematic review found only 4 diagnostic studies of VTE in pregnancy in the literature. One of these studies showed that a combination of a negative CUS and normal D-dimer can accurately exclude DVT.¹⁹

Serial CUS is necessary for pregnant women with a high clinical suspicion of DVT but a negative initial investigation. In a study of 221 pregnant women in whom DVT was clinically suspected, 16 women (7.2%) were diagnosed with DVT by initial CUS, and none were diagnosed with DVT onserial testing.²⁰ During follow-up (≥ 3 months), 6 of the 205 women with normal serial CUS results presented with symptoms of DVT, PE, or both, and 1 of them was diagnosed with DVT and PE. The sensitivity of serial CUS with Doppler imaging was 94.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 69.2% to 99.7%), and the negative predictive value was 99.5% (95% CI 96.9% to 100%).²⁰ All ultrasounds undertaken for investigation of pregnancy-associated DVT should include imaging of the iliac veins if there is a high index of suspicion and the CUS is negative for femoral DVT. Serial CUS with Doppler imaging of the iliac vein performed over a 7-day period excludes DVT in symptomatic pregnant women.²⁰ Repeat CUS may be done 2 to 4 days and 6 to 8 days after the initial scan.

Ileofemoral vein thrombosis accounts for approximately 90% of proximal thromboses in pregnancy, occurring most often in the left lower extremity.²⁰ The incidence of isolated iliac vein thrombosis in pregnancy is low, but when it does occur, delay in diagnosis can lead to significant morbidity. Therefore, for women with suspected isolated iliac vein thrombosis in whom CUS is negative or nondiagnostic, magnetic resonance direct thrombus imaging (MRDTI) should be performed.²¹ Patients with iliac vein thrombosis may present with unexplained inguinal, pelvic, or abdominal pain, which may be accompanied by back pain, and they usually present with swelling of the entire leg. MRDTI does not require gadolinium contrast and its accuracy appears to be similar to that of venography for iliac vein thrombi in the nonpregnant population.²¹ Exposure to gadolinium during pregnancy is associated with an increased risk for rheumatologic, inflammatory, or infiltrative skin conditions and stillbirth or neonatal death.²²

Ovarian vein thrombosis is a rare but serious diagnosis. It occurs mostly in the postpartum period, mainly after cesarean delivery, and usually affects the right ovarian vein. The diagnosis is confirmed by ultrasound, computed tomography (CT), or magnetic resonance imaging.²³

PULMONARY EMBOLISM

PE is more difficult to diagnose than DVT, particularly because clinical signs of PE are unreliable in the pregnant patient. The mortality rate of untreated PE is high, ranging from 18% to 38%, and approximately one-third of patients with untreated thromboembolic disease develop recurrent embolism.²⁴ Studies have reported a PE prevalence between 1.4% and 4.2% in pregnant women with suspected clinical diagnosis of PE.²⁵

The clinical presentation of PE and associated laboratory testing results may be subtler in pregnant than in nonpregnant patients. Arterial blood gases (ABG) may show hypoxemia or hypocapnia. The ABG in pregnancy has a sensitivity of 76.9%, specificity of 20.2%, and negative and positive predictive values of 80% and 11.5% for PE, respectively.²⁶ The alveolar-arterial oxygen gradient is a poor screening test for PE during pregnancy and postpartum. A retrospective chart review of 17 pregnant women with documented PE showed that 58% had normal alveolar-arterial gradients.²⁷ Therefore, in a pregnant woman with a history suspicious for PE, objective imaging studies should be performed even if the patient has normal ABG.

The 2011 guidelines from the American Thoracic Society (ATS) and the Society of Thoracic Radiology (STR) recommend against using D-dimer to diagnose PE in pregnancy.²⁸ In addition, lower extremity CUS should only be performed as the first diagnostic imaging procedure if the patient has signs or symptoms of DVT. Instead, the ATS/STR guidelines recommend a plain radiograph of the chest as the first imaging test. If the chest radiograph is normal, a ventilation/perfusion scan (V/Q) scan is preferred over CT pulmonary angiography (CTPA). Diagnostic accuracy of the V/Q scan may be superior to CTPA in pregnancy, and it is preferable because of the lower prevalence of indeterminate V/Q scan in pregnant women.²⁹ Moreover, there is lower radiation exposure to the maternal breast and lung tissue with a V/Q scan than with CTPA. CTPA confers lower fetal radiation doses than V/Q scans (0.03–0.66 mGy versus 0.32–0.74 mGy, respectively) but higher total body maternal radiation (4–16 mSv versus 1–2.5 mSv).³⁰ A quantitative approach to lung scan interpretation, based on the distribution histogram of V/Q ratios, may be helpful in categorizing patients with suspected PE.²⁸ A study of 121 suspected episodes of PE in 120 pregnant women showed that 104 women with normal or nondiagnostic scans did not develop subsequent episodes of VTE during a mean follow-up period of 20 months.³¹

If the baseline chest radiograph is abnormal in a pregnant woman with clinical suspicion of PE, a CTPA should be performed. As noted, fetal radiation doses for CTPA examinations in which the fetus is not directly imaged are minimal. If CTPA is recommended for the diagnosis of PE, the patient should be informed that radiation to the breast may increase her baseline risk for breast cancer. The ATS guidelines state that “given the lack of evidence documenting clear superiority of any one diagnostic test, the values and preferences of a patient and her physician likely will and should determine the final choice and sequence of tests performed.”²⁸

CASE I CONTINUED

Upon presentation to the emergency department, the circumference of the patient’s left leg is not significantly greater than that of her right leg, and her leg pain has resolved. Bilateral CUS is negative for proximal or distal DVT. Chest radiograph shows an opacification of her left lower lobe. CTPA shows bilateral segmental and subsegmental lower lobe pulmonary emboli.

• How does risk for VTE change throughout pregnancy?

Women are at increased risk for VTE throughout the entire pregnancy, starting from conception, but mainly during the postpartum period. A Danish historical controlled cohort study of 819,751 pregnant women (ages 15–49 years) over a 10-year period identified 727 women with VTE. The absolute risk for VTE per 10,000 pregnancy-years increased from 4.1 (95% CI 3.2 to 5.2) during weeks 1 to 11 to 59.0 (95% CI 46.1 to 76.4) in week 40 and decreased in the postpartum period from 60 (95% CI 47.2 to 76.4) during the first week after birth to 2.1 during weeks 9–12 after birth (95% CI 1.1 to 4.2).³² This study showed that the risk of VTE increases throughout pregnancy and reaches its maximum during the peripartum period and is not significantly increased after 6 weeks post-delivery. In a retrospective cross-over cohort study of 1,687,930 women in California who delivered their first newborn, an elevated risk of VTE persisted until at least 12 weeks after delivery. However, the absolute increase in risk after 6 weeks postpartum was low.³³

CASE 1 CONCLUSION

The patient is started on anticoagulation therapy and carefully monitored during the remainder of the pregnancy and postpartum period. Anticoagulation is discontinued 6 weeks after delivery.

TREATMENT

ANTICOAGULATION THERAPY

The treatment of VTE can be lifesaving. In a study comparing 35 patients with PE randomly assigned to treatment with anticoagulants versus no treatment, 5 of 19 patients in the untreated group died from PE and an additional 5 had nonfatal recurrences, as compared with none in the treated group.²⁴ Unfractionated heparin (UFH) and low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) are both safe and effective anticoagulants during pregnancy as neither crosses the placenta. In a review of 186 reports of fetal and infant outcomes following anticoagulant therapy during pregnancy in 1325 pregnancies, outcomes in UFH-treated patients were similar to those in the normal population after excluding pregnancies with comorbid conditions independently associated with adverse outcomes.³⁴ A 2005 systematic review of LMWH for prophylaxis and treatment of VTE during pregnancy included 64 studies of 277 pregnancies. There were no maternal deaths, live births resulted from 94.7% of the pregnancies, VTE or arterial thrombosis occurred in 0.86%, and significant bleeding occurred in 1.98%.³⁵

The standard UFH regimen is an initial bolus of 5000 units subcutaneously and 17,500 units every 12 hours, with dose adjustment made based on a mid-interval activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT).³⁶ Although still controversial, it has been suggested that the anti-Xa assay with a mid-dosing interval target of 0.3 to 0.7 U/mL is a more reliable measure of therapeutic UFH activity than the aPTT, as the aPTT response is suppressed due to a pregnancy-related increase in factor VIII. LMWH is dosed based on weight; regimens are enoxaparin 1 mg/kg subcutaneously twice daily or 1.5 mg/kg subcutaneously once daily, and dalteparin 100 units/kg every 12 hours or 150 units/kg daily.

A 2017 Cochrane review of the effect of LMWH compared with UFH for the treatment of VTE in the nonpregnant setting included 23 studies with 9587 patients. Thrombotic complications (odds ratio [OR] 0.70 [CI 0.57 to 0.85]) and major hemorrhage (OR 0.58 [CI 0.40 to 0.83]) were lower in patients receiving LMWH, with a trend toward lower mortality.³⁷ In addition, the incidence of bleeding complications in patients treated with subcutaneous LMWH versus intravenous heparin was compared in a 2012 systematic review of 27 randomized controlled trials with a total of 28,637 patients. In patients treated with LMWH, there was a nonstatistically significant lower incidence of major bleeding events (OR 0.79 [95% CI 0.60 to 1.04]) and a statistically significant reduction in bleeding risk (OR 0.68 [95% CI 0.47 to 1.00]) compared to patients treated with UFH.³⁸ Additionally, a trial comparing the use of standard UFH versus LMWH found a significantly lower incidence of thrombocytopenia in patients treated with LMWH.^39,40 Overall, LMWH is more effective at decreasing both thrombotic and bleeding complications, and the risk for osteoporosis is lower with LMWH. Based on these results, the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) recommends LMWH as the first-line treatment for VTE in pregnancy.⁴¹

In specific clinical situations, such as patients with renal dysfunction with creatinine clearance (CrCl) less than 30 mL/min, UFH is indicated. In a study of 103 pregnancies in 93 women given anti-coagulation during pregnancy, 89.3% received UFH. There were no maternal deaths, and fetal demise occurred in 8 pregnancies (7.8%) at a median of 14 weeks’ gestation. There were 2 episodes of PE (1.9%) and 2 major bleeding events requiring transfusion (1.9%).⁴² UFH costs much less than LMWH, and therefore UFH remains an important, inexpensive, and efficacious anticoagulant option for pregnant women who require anticoagulation and cannot afford LMWH.⁴³

Due to the physiologic changes associated with pregnancy, LMWH and UFH dosages may need to be adjusted. An observational study of 20 pregnant women with acute VTE found no recurrent VTE or major bleeding after treatment with dalteparin. Dalteparin doses approximately 10% to 20% higher than those recommended in nonpregnant women were required to reach therapeutic target anti-Xa activity.⁴⁴

Caution Regarding Oral Anticoagulants

Due to its teratogenicity, warfarin is not a first-line anticoagulation option. It is strictly contraindicated during the first trimester during organogenesis, and its use during pregnancy is restricted to women with mechanical heart valves. Warfarin crosses the placenta and has been associated with nasal hypoplasia, stippled epiphyses, and growth restriction, particularly between 6 to 9 weeks’ gestation. Every effort should be made to substitute UFH or LMWH for warfarin between 6 and 12 weeks of gestation. The bridging process should begin as early in the gestational age as possible due to the long half-life of warfarin.⁴⁵ When used later in gestation, warfarin has been associated with fetal hemorrhage and central nervous system abnormalities. Other complications from use during the second and third trimesters include microcephaly, blindness, deafness, and fetal growth restriction.^46,47 Its use also increases the risk for abortion and fetal death in utero.^48–50

The direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are not approved for use in pregnancy. Although there are limited anecdotal reports of DOAC use in pregnancy,⁵¹ there is preclinical evidence of placental transfer with the DOACs rivaroxaban and apixaban (direct Xa inhibitors) and the oral thrombin inhibitor dabigatran, thus increasing the risk to the fetus.^52–54 Edoxaban, another direct Xa inhibitor, should be used during pregnancy only if the potential benefit justifies the potential risk to the fetus. It should be discontinued in nursing mothers.⁵⁵

THROMBOLYSIS

Fetal as well as maternal survival is dependent on adequate maternal perfusion and oxygenation. The risk of death from PE is significant, with a cross-sectional study of 58 patients with acute, massive PE showing a 55% mortality rate.⁵⁶ Thus, pregnancy is not an absolute contraindication to mechanical or systemic (recombinant tissue plasminogen activator or streptokinase) thrombolysis in an unstable patient at high risk for death.^57–59 There are no major studies of this approach, although a small review of 13 cases using systemic thrombolysis showed no increased risk of maternal mortality.⁵⁸ Thrombolysis should be considered for appropriate indications in pregnant patients as it would be in nonpregnant patients. However, caution is required when drawing conclusions regarding maternal and fetal safety, given the lack of controlled clinical trials including pregnant women.

SURGICAL PULMONARY EMBOLECTOMY

Surgical pulmonary embolectomy is an important therapeutic and potentially life-saving option in women presenting with massive PE in the immediate postpartum period. Because of the risk of massive uterine bleeding immediately postpartum, thrombolytic therapy should not be used.⁶⁰

INFERIOR VENA CAVA FILTER

Placement of an inferior vena cava (IVC) filter is indicated in patients who have an acute VTE with absolute contraindications for anticoagulation. In addition, it can be considered in patients with extensive ileofemoral venous thrombosis within 2 weeks prior to expected delivery.⁶¹ In a systematic review of 44 studies of IVC filters placed in pregnant patients, the IVC filter complication rate was 8.87% and the failure-to-retrieve rate was 11.25%.⁶² The complication rate is similar to that found in the nonpregnant population. Thus, IVC filters may be used when appropriately indicated and should be removed as soon as clinically feasible.

RECURRENT THROMBOSIS AND THROMBOPHILIAS

CASE PRESENTATION 2

A 34-year-old pregnant woman G1P0 at 38 weeks’ gestation presents with a painful, swollen left calf that is associated with difficulty on walking; the circumference of the left calf is 2 cm greater than that of the right. She has no shortness of breath or chest pain. She has a prior history of distal right lower extremity DVT while on combined oral contraceptives. Her mother also has a history of DVT while bedbound during a prolonged hospitalization at an older age. CUS is negative, and the patient is discharged home. However, 24 hours later she returns to the hospital with worsening swelling and pain in her left leg. Magnetic resonance venography demonstrates a large left external iliac and common iliac DVT. She is admitted and is started on UFH, and a retrievable IVC filter is placed in anticipation of delivery.

• What is the risk for VTE recurrence during pregnancy?

A personal and family history of VTE should be obtained when evaluating pregnant patients. A retrospective study of 109 women with prior history of VTE showed recurrence rates per patient-year of 10.9% during pregnancy and 3.7% in the nonpregnant period; the relative risk of recurrent VTE during pregnancy was 3.5 (95% CI 1.6 to 7.8).⁶³ Two large European retrospective cohort studies of VTE in pregnancy showed that the recurrence rate of VTE in women with a history of thrombosis is around 6% during pregnancy, equally distributed among trimesters. The highest incidence of recurrence was in the postpartum period, ranging from 8.3% to 10%.⁶⁴ The recurrence risk during pregnancy in women with a history of a single episode of VTE was 2.4% antepartum (95% CI 0.2% to 6.9%).⁶⁵ These risks may be lower in women without thrombophilia or with a temporary risk factor associated with their previous thromboembolic event.⁶⁵ Recurrence risk is higher if the previous VTE was estrogen-related, either due to pregnancy or through hormonal contraception (10%), than if the previous VTE was non-estrogen-related (2.7%).^64,66

The timing of the case patient’s presentation is consistent with reports of increased risk of VTE during the peripartum period. Her prior history of estrogen-related DVT is concerning for a risk of recurrence, particularly during pregnancy. A retrospective cohort study of 1104 women with previous VTE, 88 of whom became pregnant without receiving thromboprophylaxis, showed that the overall rate of VTE recurrence was 5.8% (95% CI 3.0% to 10.6%) and 8.3% (95% CI 4.5% to 14.6%) during pregnancy and postpartum, respectively. The risk of VTE recurrence was absent if the first VTE was related to a transient risk factor other than pregnancy, postpartum period, or hormonal contraception.⁶⁷ However, the recurrence rate of VTE in women with prior unprovoked VTE and/or thrombophilia has been reported as 5.9% (95% CI 1.2% to 16.2%).⁶⁵ The presence of an underlying hypercoagulable state can increase the recurrence risk by 25% to 50%, depending on the disorder.⁶⁸ A retrospective cohort study of 270 pregnancies in 105 carriers of factor V Leiden, identified because of a symptomatic relative with the factor V Leiden mutation, found a VTE risk (mostly in the postpartum period) of 6.4% for heterozygous women, 16.7% for homozygous women, 20% for double heterozygous women, and 1.2% for noncarriers.⁶⁹

• Should the patient be screened for a thrombophilia disorder?

Half of all index thromboses in patients with thrombophilia occur in association with an additional risk factor. In women of child-bearing age, pregnancy, the postpartum period, and the use of combined hormonal contraception are all risk factors for VTE. A 2010 guideline from the British hematology community recommended testing for thrombophilia in women with prior VTE secondary to a minor provoking factor before or during pregnancy, but not testing women with unprovoked VTE (who would receive prophylaxis regardless) or those with VTE secondary to a major provoking factor (who would not require prophylaxis).⁷⁰ Indications to screen for aPL antibodies include: women with (1) 3 unexplained recurrent first-trimester pregnancy losses or 1 second or third trimester fetal loss of morphologically normal fetuses; (2) severe preeclampsia; (3) intrauterine growth restriction; or (4) premature labor (< 34 weeks’ gestation).^71,72

CASE 2 CONCLUSION

The patient is subsequently screened for inherited thrombophilia disorders and is found to be heterozygous for factor V Leiden.

CASE PRESENTATION 3

A 25-year-old woman is diagnosed with antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) during her second pregnancy when she experiences fetal loss during her second trimester. Pathologic examination of the placenta reveals infarcts. Laboratory evaluation reveals positive high-titer anticardiolipin and anti-beta-2 glycoprotein 1 antibodies (IgG isotype) and lupus anticoagulant on 2 separate occasions 12 weeks apart. In a subsequent pregnancy, she is started on prophylactic LMWH and daily low-dose aspirin (81 mg). At 36 weeks’ gestation, she presents with a blood pressure of 210/104 mm Hg and a platelet count of 94,000 cells/µL. She is diagnosed with preeclampsia and hemolysis, elevated liver enzymes, and low platelets (HELLP) syndrome and is induced for early delivery. About 2 weeks after vaginal delivery, she notices shortness of breath and chest pain. A CTPA demonstrates a right lower lobe lobar defect consistent with a PE. Her anticoagulation is increased to therapeutic dosage LMWH.

• To what extent does thrombophilia increase the risk for VTE in pregnancy?

Approximately 50% of pregnancy-related VTEs are associated with inherited thrombophilia. A systematic review of 79 studies, in which 9 studies (n = 2526 patients) assessed the risk of VTE associated with inherited thrombophilia in pregnancy, revealed that the odds ratio for individuals with thrombophilia to develop VTE ranged from 0.74 to 34.40.⁷³ Although women with thrombophilia have an increased relative risk of developing VTE in pregnancy, the absolute risk of VTE remains low (Table 1).^41,73,74

• How is APS managed in pregnant patients?

Women with history of recurrent early pregnancy loss (< 10 weeks’ gestation) related to the presence of aPL antibodies are managed with low-dose aspirin and prophylactic-dose UFH or LMWH. This treatment increases the rate of subsequent successful pregnancy outcomes and reduces the risk for thrombosis. A 2010 systematic review and meta-analysis of UFH plus low-dose aspirin compared with low-dose aspirin alone in patients with APS and recurrent pregnancy loss included 5 trials and 334 patients. Patients receiving dual therapy had higher rates of live births (74.3%; relative risk [RR] 1.30 [CI 1.04 to 1.63]) compared to the aspirin-only group (55.8%).⁷⁵ A 2009 randomized controlled trial compared low-dose aspirin to low-dose aspirin plus LMWH in women with recurrent pregnancy loss and either aPL antibodies, antinuclear antibody, or inherited thrombophilia. The study was stopped early after 4 years and found no difference in rates of live births between the groups (77.8% versus 79.1%).⁷⁶ However, a randomized case-control trial of women with aPL antibodies and recurrent miscarriage found a 72% live birth rate in 47 women randomly assigned to low-dose aspirin and LMWH.⁷⁷ A 2012 guideline from the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) recommends that women with aPL antibodies with a history of 3 or more pregnancy losses receive low-dose aspirin plus prophylactic-dose LMWH or UFH.⁷⁸ A 2014 systematic review and meta-analysis showed that the combination of low-dose aspirin and UFH resulted in a higher live-birth rate than aspirin alone in 803 women with APS (RR 1.54 [95% CI 1.25 to 1.89]).⁷⁹ Further large randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm optimal management of recurrent miscarriage and aPL antibodies.

The addition of prednisone to aspirin, heparin, or both has shown no benefits in pregnant women with aPL antibodies. Indeed, prolonged use of steroids may cause serious pregnancy complications, such as prematurity and hypertension.^80–83 Intravenous infusions of immunoglobulin (IVIG) have not been shown to be superior to heparin and aspirin. This finding was confirmed in a multicenter clinical trial that tested the effects of IVIG compared with LMWH plus low-dose aspirin for the treatment of women with aPL antibodies and recurrent miscarriage. The rate of live-birth was 72.5% in the group treated with heparin plus low-dose aspirin compared with 39.5% in the IVIG group.⁸⁴

Preeclampsia and HELLP syndrome complicated the case patient’s pregnancy even though she was being treated with prophylactic-dose LMWH and low-dose aspirin, the current standard of care for pregnant women with APS (UFH can be used as well). It is important to note that complications may still occur despite standard treatment. Indeed, PE is more common in the postpartum than in the antepartum period. Prompt diagnosis is paramount to initiate the appropriate treatment; in this case the dose of LMWH was increased from prophylactic to therapeutic dose. However, additional therapeutic modalities are necessary to improve outcomes. A randomized controlled trial comparing standard of care with or without hydroxychloroquine is under way to address this issue.

PROPHYLAXIS

CASE PRESENTATION 4

A 34-year-old woman G1P0 at 6 weeks’ gestation with a past medical history of a proximal lower extremity DVT while on oral contraception is treated with warfarin anticoagulation for 6 months. Her obstetrician consults the hematologist to advise regarding antithrombotic management during this pregnancy.

• What is the approach to prophylaxis in women at high risk for pregnancy-associated VTE?

All women at high risk for pregnancy-associated VTE should be counseled about the signs and symptoms of DVT or PE during preconception and pregnancy and have a plan developed should these symptoms arise. The ACCP guidelines on antithrombotic therapy outline recommendations ranging from clinical vigilance to prophylactic and intermediate-dose anticoagulation, depending on the risk for VTE recurrence, based on the personal and family history of VTE and type of thrombophilia (Table 2).⁷⁸ These recommendations range from grade 2B to 2C.

For women with a history of estrogen-related VTE, single unprovoked VTE, or recurrent unprovoked VTE not on chronic anticoagulation, antepartum and postpartum pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis with either prophylactic or intermediate-dose LMWH is recommended (grade 2C). In patients with prior history of provoked VTE (non-estrogen related), antepartum clinical vigilance and postpartum pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis is recommended (grade 2C, 2B).

In asymptomatic pregnant women who are homozygote carriers for factor V Leiden or prothrombin G20210A variants and have a positive family history of thrombosis, antepartum and postpartum pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis is recommended (grade 2B). In asymptomatic homozygote carriers of factor V Leiden or prothrombin G20210A variants with no family history of thrombosis and women with all other thrombophilias with a positive family history of thrombosis, postpartum pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis is indicated (grade 2B and 2C, respectively). For women with confirmed APS and clinical criteria of obstetric APS with recurrent pregnancy loss, antepartum thromboprophylaxis with LMWH and low-dose aspirin is recommended (grade 1B). For pregnant women with all other thrombophilias with no personal or family history of thrombosis, clinical vigilance is suggested (grade 2 C).⁷⁸

As an alternative to LMWH, vitamin K antagonists (VKA) such as warfarin can be used for postpartum thromboprophylaxis; in patients with protein C or S deficiency, due to the risk of warfarin-induced skin necrosis, a rapid-onset anticoagulant must be concomitantly administered. Warfarin and LMWH are safe anticoagulants during lactation, but there are no clinical data on the effects of the DOACs on infants during lactation. Data from animal studies indicate that DOACs are secreted into breast milk.⁸⁵

• What risks are associated with anticoagulant therapy in pregnancy?

VKAs cross the placenta and can cause teratogenicity, pregnancy loss, fetal bleeding, and neurodevelopmental deficits. Therefore, discontinuation of VKAs prior to the sixth week of gestation is necessary to avoid warfarin embryopathy. DOACs have been shown to readily cross the placenta but with unknown human reproductive risks. Fondaparinux, a synthetic pentasaccharide, crosses the placenta in small quantities. Though there are reports of the successful use of fondaparinux in pregnancy, there is limited reported experience of its use in the first trimester.⁸⁶

The risk for bleeding with anticoagulation is notably acceptable. In a case-control study of 88 pregnant women receiving therapeutic-dose anticoagulation, the risk of postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) after vaginal delivery was 30% in those who received LMWH anticoagulation versus 18% in those who did not (OR 1.9 [95% CI 1.1 to 3.5]).⁸⁷ However, the risk for severe PPH (≥ 500 mL) was similar (5.6% versus 5.0%; OR 1.1 [95% CI 0.4 to 3.6]). The risk for PPH after cesarean section was 12% in LMWH users versus 4% in LMWH non-users (OR 2.9 [95% CI 0.5 to 19.4]). The risk for PPH associated with delivery within 24 hours after the last dose of LMWH was 1.2 times higher (95% CI 0.4 to 3.6) compared to a longer interval. Therefore, therapeutic LMWH increases the risk for blood loss after vaginal delivery, but not the risk for severe PPH. The risk for PPH is influenced by the interval between the last dose of LMWH and delivery. Of note in this study, per the institution’s protocol, the anticoagulation was stopped with signs of labor or determination of need for delivery. The risk for blood loss may be mitigated in more planned delivery scenarios.⁸⁷

CASE 4 CONTINUED

The patient is placed on prophylactic-dose LMWH with good tolerance and delivers at 39 weeks' gestation via caesarian section due to nonprogression of labor. Postpartum she is restarted on prophylactic-dose anticoagulation with LMWH. Two weeks after discharge from the hospital, she presents with right calf pain and mild shortness of breath. On physical exam, her leg circumferences are equal. A D-dimer assay is 3375 ng/mL (normal 0–229). CUS of the right leg shows a complete occlusive DVT of the mid-distal superficial femoral and popliteal veins and partially occlusive acute DVT of the right posterior tibial and peroneal veins. CTPA reveals a right lower lobe PE. Because she had developed VTE despite prophylactic LMWH, her anticoagulation is changed to therapeutic dose. She is treated with anticoagulation with LMWH for a total of 3 months, after which a repeat CUS shows no residual thrombosis.

• What is the recommended dosing of heparin and LMWH during pregnancy?

A prospective study of 14 pregnant women receiving UFH prophylaxis found that a prophylactic dose of 5000 units twice a day was inadequate to achieve prophylactic heparin levels in any patient in the second or third trimester.⁸⁸ Similar to treatment dosage, there is no consensus evidence for prophylactic dosing, and dosage recommendations are based on expert opinion. In a retrospective study of 25 pregnant women on intermediate-dose UFH, the mean UFH dose required to achieve a target anti-factor Xa level of 0.1 to 0.3 units/mL was 236.9 units/kg/day.⁸⁹ However, the use of anti-factor Xa levels for monitoring is controversial as there is no data to support a difference in outcomes with its use in prophylactic or therapeutic dosing.

The timing of the previous VTE history is important when deciding on the anticoagulant dose in pregnancy. In pregnant women with a VTE that occurred within the previous 4 to 6 weeks, full-dose anticoagulation with LMWH should be considered; an intermediate dose (three-fourths of a therapeutic dose) may be used if the thrombotic episode occurred more than 6 weeks earlier but still within a year. Prophylactic dosing may be sufficient if the episode occurred more than a year earlier.⁹⁰ A clinical trial (High-Low) is under way to explore the optimal dose of LMWH in pregnant women with prior history of VTE who are not on chronic anticoagulation therapy.⁹¹

• How is anticoagulation therapy managed in the peripartum period?

Neuraxial anesthesia during active labor while on anticoagulation increases the risk for central nervous system bleeding. Therefore, if spontaneous labor occurs in women on therapeutic dose anticoagulation, neuraxial anesthesia cannot be used. However, in the event of elective induction of labor or caesarean section, neuroaxial anesthesia may be performed 12 hours after the administration of the last prophylactic dose of LMWH or 24 hours after the last therapeutic dose of LMWH. Intravenous UFH should be stopped for 6 hours before induction of labor with a confirmed normal aPTT before placement of neuraxial anesthesia. There is no contraindication for using neuraxial anesthesia during subcutaneous standard UFH at total doses of 10,000 units daily. The risk of spinal hematoma with larger daily subcutaneous doses is unclear; therefore, a documented normal aPTT must be obtained before placement of neuroaxial anesthesia.

Postpartum, reinitiation of prophylactic-dose LMWH should be delayed for at least 12 hours after the removal of an epidural catheter. Therapeutic-dose LMWH should be administered no earlier than 24 hours after neuraxial anesthesia, providing that proper hemostasis is achieved. In the absence of persistent bleeding, if no regional anesthesia was used, LMWH may be resumed 12 hours after delivery.⁹² Anticoagulation with either LMWH or warfarin is recommended for at least 6 to 12 weeks postpartum.³³

COUNSELING

Patients should be advised to manage controllable risk factors, including avoiding prolonged immobilization, avoiding excessive weight gain in pregnancy, and stopping smoking. Periods of immobilization tend to cause reduced blood flow (stasis), which predisposes to thrombosis. In a systematic review of records of all patients with confirmed PE after arrival at Charles de Gaulle airport in Paris during a 13-year period, women had a higher risk of PE after a long-distance flight than men, with an estimated incidence of 0.61 per million passengers versus 0.20, respectively; the incidence reached 7.24 and 2.35 cases, respectively, in passengers traveling more than 10,000 kilometers.^93,94

The risk of air travel-related thrombosis in pregnant women is estimated to be between 0.03% and 0.1%. Physicians must decide on an individual basis how to prevent travel-related thrombosis in their pregnant patients. In most passengers, prevention can be limited to encouraging exercise, avoidance of long sleeping periods, and not using a window seat. Women at high risk for VTE, such as women with a prior history of VTE who are not on anticoagulation or women with known asymptomatic thrombophilia or other risk factors for thrombosis such as obesity, may benefit from a short period (1–3 days) of LMWH starting 2 hours before a long-distance flight.⁹⁵

Activation of the coagulation system has been demonstrated in cigarette smokers.⁹⁶ Heavy smoking was found to be a significant risk factor for VTE in a cross-sectional analysis of 2404 men and women.⁹⁷ An increased risk for thrombosis during pregnancy is seen in cigarette smokers^15,98 and is enhanced with the concomitant use of illicit drugs.⁹⁹ Other obstetric complications associated with smoking and illicit drug use during pregnancy include preterm labor, spontaneous abortion, perinatal death, low birth weight, and abruption placenta. The efficacy of nicotine replacement therapy in pregnancy is uncertain.¹⁰⁰ Recommendations are to advise patients to stop smoking, obtain psychosocial counseling, and utilize adjunctive therapies, which have been shown to have some effect on abstinence rates.¹⁰¹

CONCLUSION

Women are at increased risk for VTE during pregnancy and the postpartum period. Awareness of risk factors and the signs and symptoms of VTE is paramount. Prompt diagnosis and treatment is mandatory to decrease complications of VTE. LMWH is the mainstay treatment of VTE in pregnancy, as it does not cross the placenta. Both LMWH and warfarin are safe during lactation. Close communication among the patient, obstetrician, hematologist, anesthesiologist, and neonatologist is crucial to optimize the care of these patients.

INTRODUCTION

Venous thromboembolism (VTE), comprising deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), is a leading nonobstetric cause of maternal death in the United States and in developed countries.^1,2 During pregnancy, the risk for VTE increases four- to six-fold, and although the risk is present throughout pregnancy, the mother is at highest risk immediately postpartum.^3–5

VTE risk is increased due to physiologic and anatomic changes that occur in pregnancy. These changes include hypercoagulability, progesterone-induced venous stasis, decreased venous outflow, compression of the inferior vena cava and pelvic veins by the expanding uterus, and decreased mobility. The hypercoagulability of pregnancy is due to increased levels of coagulation factors I (fibrinogen), VII, VIII, and X, and von Willebrand factor; decreased free protein S, a natural anticoagulant; acquired resistance to activated protein C; and decreased fibrinolysis due to increased levels of plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 and -2.^6,7 These changes confer increased hemostasis to the mother for delivery but also place her at higher risk for thrombosis.

A review of the literature found that more than 70% of pregnancy-associated DVTs are located in the ileofemoral region, as compared with approximately 9% in non-pregnant patients.⁸ The proximal location is associated with a higher risk for post-thrombotic syndrome and embolization as compared with calf DVTs.⁹ Proximal postnatal thrombosis, smoking, and older age are independent predictors of the development of post-thrombotic syndrome.¹⁰

RISK FACTORS

Clinical risk factors that increase the risk for VTE during pregnancy include a prior history of estrogen-related or unprovoked VTE, being a carrier of severe inherited thrombophilia (homozygotes for factor V Leiden or factor II G20210A variants, double heterozygotes, or persons with antithrombin, protein C, or protein S deficiencies), and the presence of antiphospholipid (aPL) antibodies.¹¹ Women with systemic lupus erythematosus, diabetes, sickle cell disease, and heart disease also have a high risk for VTE during pregnancy.¹² Other risk factors predisposing to thrombosis include black ethnicity, smoking, operative procedures, conception after assisted reproductive techniques, high body mass index, antepartum immobilization, severe preeclampsia, advanced age and parity, and a family history of VTE.¹³ A prospective cohort study of 1,297,037 pregnancies and related puerperium identified the following risk factors for thrombosis: hospitalization, infection, hyperemesis, multiple pregnancies, preeclampsia, obesity, cesarean section, major postpartum hemorrhage, intrauterine growth restriction, and fetal death.¹⁴ Risk factors identified in an Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality study include: age 35 or older, black ethnicity, lupus, sickle cell disease, heart disease, postpartum infection, and transfusion.¹⁵ The combination of more than one risk factor increases the risk for VTE. All these factors have to be considered when deciding on prophylactic or therapeutic anticoagulation therapy in pregnancy. In addition, the risks of anticoagulation, including bruising, bleeding, and other side effects (eg, reduced bone mineral density with therapeutic-dose unfractionated heparin), allergic reactions, and rarely thrombocytopenia, must be considered.

EVALUATION AND DIAGNOSIS

CASE PRESENTATION I

A 31-year-old woman G1P0 at 10 weeks’ gestation with no personal or family history of thrombosis presents with acute onset of shortness of breath and left-sided chest pain that awoke her the morning of presentation. Her vital signs are significant for a heart rate of 106 beats/min, respiration rate of 22 breaths/min, blood pressure of 105/76 mm Hg, and pulse oximetry of 98% on room air. The patient denies previous exposure to oral contraceptives. She does not smoke. She reports that she had noticed left calf pain and swelling, which worsened with walking after a 4-hour drive 2 days prior.

• What is the approach to diagnosis of thromboembolism in pregnant patients?

DEEP VEIN THROMBOSIS

Although a clinical diagnosis of DVT in pregnancy is unreliable, a history and physical examination are necessary to exclude other diagnoses and to assess the likelihood of thrombosis. Unfortunately, studies of the accuracy of history and physical examination for detecting DVT and PE have not included pregnant patients. In most pregnant patients with clinically suspected DVT, the diagnosis is not confirmed. Other causes of leg pain and swelling are not uncommon during pregnancy and include cellulitis, ruptured Baker’s cyst, or muscular pain.

A cross-sectional study described the derivation of the LEFt clinical decision rule, which relies on 3 variables in pregnant women with suspected DVT: left leg presentation (L), ≥ 2 cm calf circumference difference (E for edema), and first trimester presentation (Ft). If none of these variables is present, the negative predictive value is 100%.¹⁶ A validation study suggested that a negative LEFt rule accurately identifies pregnant women in whom the risk for confirmed DVT appears to be very low. The rule should not be used as an individual test for excluding DVT during pregnancy, but could be applied in a diagnostic approach in association with D-dimer measurement and compression ultrasonography (CUS); however, it has not been prospectively validated for safety and efficacy.¹⁷ In a study of 149 consecutive pregnant women with suspected DVT, a whole-blood agglutination D-dimer had a sensitivity of 100% and specificity of 60%.¹⁸ A 2006 systematic review found only 4 diagnostic studies of VTE in pregnancy in the literature. One of these studies showed that a combination of a negative CUS and normal D-dimer can accurately exclude DVT.¹⁹

Serial CUS is necessary for pregnant women with a high clinical suspicion of DVT but a negative initial investigation. In a study of 221 pregnant women in whom DVT was clinically suspected, 16 women (7.2%) were diagnosed with DVT by initial CUS, and none were diagnosed with DVT onserial testing.²⁰ During follow-up (≥ 3 months), 6 of the 205 women with normal serial CUS results presented with symptoms of DVT, PE, or both, and 1 of them was diagnosed with DVT and PE. The sensitivity of serial CUS with Doppler imaging was 94.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 69.2% to 99.7%), and the negative predictive value was 99.5% (95% CI 96.9% to 100%).²⁰ All ultrasounds undertaken for investigation of pregnancy-associated DVT should include imaging of the iliac veins if there is a high index of suspicion and the CUS is negative for femoral DVT. Serial CUS with Doppler imaging of the iliac vein performed over a 7-day period excludes DVT in symptomatic pregnant women.²⁰ Repeat CUS may be done 2 to 4 days and 6 to 8 days after the initial scan.

Ileofemoral vein thrombosis accounts for approximately 90% of proximal thromboses in pregnancy, occurring most often in the left lower extremity.²⁰ The incidence of isolated iliac vein thrombosis in pregnancy is low, but when it does occur, delay in diagnosis can lead to significant morbidity. Therefore, for women with suspected isolated iliac vein thrombosis in whom CUS is negative or nondiagnostic, magnetic resonance direct thrombus imaging (MRDTI) should be performed.²¹ Patients with iliac vein thrombosis may present with unexplained inguinal, pelvic, or abdominal pain, which may be accompanied by back pain, and they usually present with swelling of the entire leg. MRDTI does not require gadolinium contrast and its accuracy appears to be similar to that of venography for iliac vein thrombi in the nonpregnant population.²¹ Exposure to gadolinium during pregnancy is associated with an increased risk for rheumatologic, inflammatory, or infiltrative skin conditions and stillbirth or neonatal death.²²

Ovarian vein thrombosis is a rare but serious diagnosis. It occurs mostly in the postpartum period, mainly after cesarean delivery, and usually affects the right ovarian vein. The diagnosis is confirmed by ultrasound, computed tomography (CT), or magnetic resonance imaging.²³

PULMONARY EMBOLISM

PE is more difficult to diagnose than DVT, particularly because clinical signs of PE are unreliable in the pregnant patient. The mortality rate of untreated PE is high, ranging from 18% to 38%, and approximately one-third of patients with untreated thromboembolic disease develop recurrent embolism.²⁴ Studies have reported a PE prevalence between 1.4% and 4.2% in pregnant women with suspected clinical diagnosis of PE.²⁵

The clinical presentation of PE and associated laboratory testing results may be subtler in pregnant than in nonpregnant patients. Arterial blood gases (ABG) may show hypoxemia or hypocapnia. The ABG in pregnancy has a sensitivity of 76.9%, specificity of 20.2%, and negative and positive predictive values of 80% and 11.5% for PE, respectively.²⁶ The alveolar-arterial oxygen gradient is a poor screening test for PE during pregnancy and postpartum. A retrospective chart review of 17 pregnant women with documented PE showed that 58% had normal alveolar-arterial gradients.²⁷ Therefore, in a pregnant woman with a history suspicious for PE, objective imaging studies should be performed even if the patient has normal ABG.

The 2011 guidelines from the American Thoracic Society (ATS) and the Society of Thoracic Radiology (STR) recommend against using D-dimer to diagnose PE in pregnancy.²⁸ In addition, lower extremity CUS should only be performed as the first diagnostic imaging procedure if the patient has signs or symptoms of DVT. Instead, the ATS/STR guidelines recommend a plain radiograph of the chest as the first imaging test. If the chest radiograph is normal, a ventilation/perfusion scan (V/Q) scan is preferred over CT pulmonary angiography (CTPA). Diagnostic accuracy of the V/Q scan may be superior to CTPA in pregnancy, and it is preferable because of the lower prevalence of indeterminate V/Q scan in pregnant women.²⁹ Moreover, there is lower radiation exposure to the maternal breast and lung tissue with a V/Q scan than with CTPA. CTPA confers lower fetal radiation doses than V/Q scans (0.03–0.66 mGy versus 0.32–0.74 mGy, respectively) but higher total body maternal radiation (4–16 mSv versus 1–2.5 mSv).³⁰ A quantitative approach to lung scan interpretation, based on the distribution histogram of V/Q ratios, may be helpful in categorizing patients with suspected PE.²⁸ A study of 121 suspected episodes of PE in 120 pregnant women showed that 104 women with normal or nondiagnostic scans did not develop subsequent episodes of VTE during a mean follow-up period of 20 months.³¹

If the baseline chest radiograph is abnormal in a pregnant woman with clinical suspicion of PE, a CTPA should be performed. As noted, fetal radiation doses for CTPA examinations in which the fetus is not directly imaged are minimal. If CTPA is recommended for the diagnosis of PE, the patient should be informed that radiation to the breast may increase her baseline risk for breast cancer. The ATS guidelines state that “given the lack of evidence documenting clear superiority of any one diagnostic test, the values and preferences of a patient and her physician likely will and should determine the final choice and sequence of tests performed.”²⁸

CASE I CONTINUED

Upon presentation to the emergency department, the circumference of the patient’s left leg is not significantly greater than that of her right leg, and her leg pain has resolved. Bilateral CUS is negative for proximal or distal DVT. Chest radiograph shows an opacification of her left lower lobe. CTPA shows bilateral segmental and subsegmental lower lobe pulmonary emboli.

• How does risk for VTE change throughout pregnancy?

Women are at increased risk for VTE throughout the entire pregnancy, starting from conception, but mainly during the postpartum period. A Danish historical controlled cohort study of 819,751 pregnant women (ages 15–49 years) over a 10-year period identified 727 women with VTE. The absolute risk for VTE per 10,000 pregnancy-years increased from 4.1 (95% CI 3.2 to 5.2) during weeks 1 to 11 to 59.0 (95% CI 46.1 to 76.4) in week 40 and decreased in the postpartum period from 60 (95% CI 47.2 to 76.4) during the first week after birth to 2.1 during weeks 9–12 after birth (95% CI 1.1 to 4.2).³² This study showed that the risk of VTE increases throughout pregnancy and reaches its maximum during the peripartum period and is not significantly increased after 6 weeks post-delivery. In a retrospective cross-over cohort study of 1,687,930 women in California who delivered their first newborn, an elevated risk of VTE persisted until at least 12 weeks after delivery. However, the absolute increase in risk after 6 weeks postpartum was low.³³

CASE 1 CONCLUSION

The patient is started on anticoagulation therapy and carefully monitored during the remainder of the pregnancy and postpartum period. Anticoagulation is discontinued 6 weeks after delivery.

TREATMENT

ANTICOAGULATION THERAPY

The treatment of VTE can be lifesaving. In a study comparing 35 patients with PE randomly assigned to treatment with anticoagulants versus no treatment, 5 of 19 patients in the untreated group died from PE and an additional 5 had nonfatal recurrences, as compared with none in the treated group.²⁴ Unfractionated heparin (UFH) and low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) are both safe and effective anticoagulants during pregnancy as neither crosses the placenta. In a review of 186 reports of fetal and infant outcomes following anticoagulant therapy during pregnancy in 1325 pregnancies, outcomes in UFH-treated patients were similar to those in the normal population after excluding pregnancies with comorbid conditions independently associated with adverse outcomes.³⁴ A 2005 systematic review of LMWH for prophylaxis and treatment of VTE during pregnancy included 64 studies of 277 pregnancies. There were no maternal deaths, live births resulted from 94.7% of the pregnancies, VTE or arterial thrombosis occurred in 0.86%, and significant bleeding occurred in 1.98%.³⁵

The standard UFH regimen is an initial bolus of 5000 units subcutaneously and 17,500 units every 12 hours, with dose adjustment made based on a mid-interval activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT).³⁶ Although still controversial, it has been suggested that the anti-Xa assay with a mid-dosing interval target of 0.3 to 0.7 U/mL is a more reliable measure of therapeutic UFH activity than the aPTT, as the aPTT response is suppressed due to a pregnancy-related increase in factor VIII. LMWH is dosed based on weight; regimens are enoxaparin 1 mg/kg subcutaneously twice daily or 1.5 mg/kg subcutaneously once daily, and dalteparin 100 units/kg every 12 hours or 150 units/kg daily.

A 2017 Cochrane review of the effect of LMWH compared with UFH for the treatment of VTE in the nonpregnant setting included 23 studies with 9587 patients. Thrombotic complications (odds ratio [OR] 0.70 [CI 0.57 to 0.85]) and major hemorrhage (OR 0.58 [CI 0.40 to 0.83]) were lower in patients receiving LMWH, with a trend toward lower mortality.³⁷ In addition, the incidence of bleeding complications in patients treated with subcutaneous LMWH versus intravenous heparin was compared in a 2012 systematic review of 27 randomized controlled trials with a total of 28,637 patients. In patients treated with LMWH, there was a nonstatistically significant lower incidence of major bleeding events (OR 0.79 [95% CI 0.60 to 1.04]) and a statistically significant reduction in bleeding risk (OR 0.68 [95% CI 0.47 to 1.00]) compared to patients treated with UFH.³⁸ Additionally, a trial comparing the use of standard UFH versus LMWH found a significantly lower incidence of thrombocytopenia in patients treated with LMWH.^39,40 Overall, LMWH is more effective at decreasing both thrombotic and bleeding complications, and the risk for osteoporosis is lower with LMWH. Based on these results, the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) recommends LMWH as the first-line treatment for VTE in pregnancy.⁴¹

In specific clinical situations, such as patients with renal dysfunction with creatinine clearance (CrCl) less than 30 mL/min, UFH is indicated. In a study of 103 pregnancies in 93 women given anti-coagulation during pregnancy, 89.3% received UFH. There were no maternal deaths, and fetal demise occurred in 8 pregnancies (7.8%) at a median of 14 weeks’ gestation. There were 2 episodes of PE (1.9%) and 2 major bleeding events requiring transfusion (1.9%).⁴² UFH costs much less than LMWH, and therefore UFH remains an important, inexpensive, and efficacious anticoagulant option for pregnant women who require anticoagulation and cannot afford LMWH.⁴³

Due to the physiologic changes associated with pregnancy, LMWH and UFH dosages may need to be adjusted. An observational study of 20 pregnant women with acute VTE found no recurrent VTE or major bleeding after treatment with dalteparin. Dalteparin doses approximately 10% to 20% higher than those recommended in nonpregnant women were required to reach therapeutic target anti-Xa activity.⁴⁴

Caution Regarding Oral Anticoagulants

Due to its teratogenicity, warfarin is not a first-line anticoagulation option. It is strictly contraindicated during the first trimester during organogenesis, and its use during pregnancy is restricted to women with mechanical heart valves. Warfarin crosses the placenta and has been associated with nasal hypoplasia, stippled epiphyses, and growth restriction, particularly between 6 to 9 weeks’ gestation. Every effort should be made to substitute UFH or LMWH for warfarin between 6 and 12 weeks of gestation. The bridging process should begin as early in the gestational age as possible due to the long half-life of warfarin.⁴⁵ When used later in gestation, warfarin has been associated with fetal hemorrhage and central nervous system abnormalities. Other complications from use during the second and third trimesters include microcephaly, blindness, deafness, and fetal growth restriction.^46,47 Its use also increases the risk for abortion and fetal death in utero.^48–50

The direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are not approved for use in pregnancy. Although there are limited anecdotal reports of DOAC use in pregnancy,⁵¹ there is preclinical evidence of placental transfer with the DOACs rivaroxaban and apixaban (direct Xa inhibitors) and the oral thrombin inhibitor dabigatran, thus increasing the risk to the fetus.^52–54 Edoxaban, another direct Xa inhibitor, should be used during pregnancy only if the potential benefit justifies the potential risk to the fetus. It should be discontinued in nursing mothers.⁵⁵

THROMBOLYSIS

Fetal as well as maternal survival is dependent on adequate maternal perfusion and oxygenation. The risk of death from PE is significant, with a cross-sectional study of 58 patients with acute, massive PE showing a 55% mortality rate.⁵⁶ Thus, pregnancy is not an absolute contraindication to mechanical or systemic (recombinant tissue plasminogen activator or streptokinase) thrombolysis in an unstable patient at high risk for death.^57–59 There are no major studies of this approach, although a small review of 13 cases using systemic thrombolysis showed no increased risk of maternal mortality.⁵⁸ Thrombolysis should be considered for appropriate indications in pregnant patients as it would be in nonpregnant patients. However, caution is required when drawing conclusions regarding maternal and fetal safety, given the lack of controlled clinical trials including pregnant women.

SURGICAL PULMONARY EMBOLECTOMY

Surgical pulmonary embolectomy is an important therapeutic and potentially life-saving option in women presenting with massive PE in the immediate postpartum period. Because of the risk of massive uterine bleeding immediately postpartum, thrombolytic therapy should not be used.⁶⁰

INFERIOR VENA CAVA FILTER

Placement of an inferior vena cava (IVC) filter is indicated in patients who have an acute VTE with absolute contraindications for anticoagulation. In addition, it can be considered in patients with extensive ileofemoral venous thrombosis within 2 weeks prior to expected delivery.⁶¹ In a systematic review of 44 studies of IVC filters placed in pregnant patients, the IVC filter complication rate was 8.87% and the failure-to-retrieve rate was 11.25%.⁶² The complication rate is similar to that found in the nonpregnant population. Thus, IVC filters may be used when appropriately indicated and should be removed as soon as clinically feasible.

RECURRENT THROMBOSIS AND THROMBOPHILIAS

CASE PRESENTATION 2

A 34-year-old pregnant woman G1P0 at 38 weeks’ gestation presents with a painful, swollen left calf that is associated with difficulty on walking; the circumference of the left calf is 2 cm greater than that of the right. She has no shortness of breath or chest pain. She has a prior history of distal right lower extremity DVT while on combined oral contraceptives. Her mother also has a history of DVT while bedbound during a prolonged hospitalization at an older age. CUS is negative, and the patient is discharged home. However, 24 hours later she returns to the hospital with worsening swelling and pain in her left leg. Magnetic resonance venography demonstrates a large left external iliac and common iliac DVT. She is admitted and is started on UFH, and a retrievable IVC filter is placed in anticipation of delivery.

• What is the risk for VTE recurrence during pregnancy?

A personal and family history of VTE should be obtained when evaluating pregnant patients. A retrospective study of 109 women with prior history of VTE showed recurrence rates per patient-year of 10.9% during pregnancy and 3.7% in the nonpregnant period; the relative risk of recurrent VTE during pregnancy was 3.5 (95% CI 1.6 to 7.8).⁶³ Two large European retrospective cohort studies of VTE in pregnancy showed that the recurrence rate of VTE in women with a history of thrombosis is around 6% during pregnancy, equally distributed among trimesters. The highest incidence of recurrence was in the postpartum period, ranging from 8.3% to 10%.⁶⁴ The recurrence risk during pregnancy in women with a history of a single episode of VTE was 2.4% antepartum (95% CI 0.2% to 6.9%).⁶⁵ These risks may be lower in women without thrombophilia or with a temporary risk factor associated with their previous thromboembolic event.⁶⁵ Recurrence risk is higher if the previous VTE was estrogen-related, either due to pregnancy or through hormonal contraception (10%), than if the previous VTE was non-estrogen-related (2.7%).^64,66

The timing of the case patient’s presentation is consistent with reports of increased risk of VTE during the peripartum period. Her prior history of estrogen-related DVT is concerning for a risk of recurrence, particularly during pregnancy. A retrospective cohort study of 1104 women with previous VTE, 88 of whom became pregnant without receiving thromboprophylaxis, showed that the overall rate of VTE recurrence was 5.8% (95% CI 3.0% to 10.6%) and 8.3% (95% CI 4.5% to 14.6%) during pregnancy and postpartum, respectively. The risk of VTE recurrence was absent if the first VTE was related to a transient risk factor other than pregnancy, postpartum period, or hormonal contraception.⁶⁷ However, the recurrence rate of VTE in women with prior unprovoked VTE and/or thrombophilia has been reported as 5.9% (95% CI 1.2% to 16.2%).⁶⁵ The presence of an underlying hypercoagulable state can increase the recurrence risk by 25% to 50%, depending on the disorder.⁶⁸ A retrospective cohort study of 270 pregnancies in 105 carriers of factor V Leiden, identified because of a symptomatic relative with the factor V Leiden mutation, found a VTE risk (mostly in the postpartum period) of 6.4% for heterozygous women, 16.7% for homozygous women, 20% for double heterozygous women, and 1.2% for noncarriers.⁶⁹

• Should the patient be screened for a thrombophilia disorder?

Half of all index thromboses in patients with thrombophilia occur in association with an additional risk factor. In women of child-bearing age, pregnancy, the postpartum period, and the use of combined hormonal contraception are all risk factors for VTE. A 2010 guideline from the British hematology community recommended testing for thrombophilia in women with prior VTE secondary to a minor provoking factor before or during pregnancy, but not testing women with unprovoked VTE (who would receive prophylaxis regardless) or those with VTE secondary to a major provoking factor (who would not require prophylaxis).⁷⁰ Indications to screen for aPL antibodies include: women with (1) 3 unexplained recurrent first-trimester pregnancy losses or 1 second or third trimester fetal loss of morphologically normal fetuses; (2) severe preeclampsia; (3) intrauterine growth restriction; or (4) premature labor (< 34 weeks’ gestation).^71,72

CASE 2 CONCLUSION

The patient is subsequently screened for inherited thrombophilia disorders and is found to be heterozygous for factor V Leiden.

CASE PRESENTATION 3

A 25-year-old woman is diagnosed with antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) during her second pregnancy when she experiences fetal loss during her second trimester. Pathologic examination of the placenta reveals infarcts. Laboratory evaluation reveals positive high-titer anticardiolipin and anti-beta-2 glycoprotein 1 antibodies (IgG isotype) and lupus anticoagulant on 2 separate occasions 12 weeks apart. In a subsequent pregnancy, she is started on prophylactic LMWH and daily low-dose aspirin (81 mg). At 36 weeks’ gestation, she presents with a blood pressure of 210/104 mm Hg and a platelet count of 94,000 cells/µL. She is diagnosed with preeclampsia and hemolysis, elevated liver enzymes, and low platelets (HELLP) syndrome and is induced for early delivery. About 2 weeks after vaginal delivery, she notices shortness of breath and chest pain. A CTPA demonstrates a right lower lobe lobar defect consistent with a PE. Her anticoagulation is increased to therapeutic dosage LMWH.

• To what extent does thrombophilia increase the risk for VTE in pregnancy?

Approximately 50% of pregnancy-related VTEs are associated with inherited thrombophilia. A systematic review of 79 studies, in which 9 studies (n = 2526 patients) assessed the risk of VTE associated with inherited thrombophilia in pregnancy, revealed that the odds ratio for individuals with thrombophilia to develop VTE ranged from 0.74 to 34.40.⁷³ Although women with thrombophilia have an increased relative risk of developing VTE in pregnancy, the absolute risk of VTE remains low (Table 1).^41,73,74

• How is APS managed in pregnant patients?

Women with history of recurrent early pregnancy loss (< 10 weeks’ gestation) related to the presence of aPL antibodies are managed with low-dose aspirin and prophylactic-dose UFH or LMWH. This treatment increases the rate of subsequent successful pregnancy outcomes and reduces the risk for thrombosis. A 2010 systematic review and meta-analysis of UFH plus low-dose aspirin compared with low-dose aspirin alone in patients with APS and recurrent pregnancy loss included 5 trials and 334 patients. Patients receiving dual therapy had higher rates of live births (74.3%; relative risk [RR] 1.30 [CI 1.04 to 1.63]) compared to the aspirin-only group (55.8%).⁷⁵ A 2009 randomized controlled trial compared low-dose aspirin to low-dose aspirin plus LMWH in women with recurrent pregnancy loss and either aPL antibodies, antinuclear antibody, or inherited thrombophilia. The study was stopped early after 4 years and found no difference in rates of live births between the groups (77.8% versus 79.1%).⁷⁶ However, a randomized case-control trial of women with aPL antibodies and recurrent miscarriage found a 72% live birth rate in 47 women randomly assigned to low-dose aspirin and LMWH.⁷⁷ A 2012 guideline from the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) recommends that women with aPL antibodies with a history of 3 or more pregnancy losses receive low-dose aspirin plus prophylactic-dose LMWH or UFH.⁷⁸ A 2014 systematic review and meta-analysis showed that the combination of low-dose aspirin and UFH resulted in a higher live-birth rate than aspirin alone in 803 women with APS (RR 1.54 [95% CI 1.25 to 1.89]).⁷⁹ Further large randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm optimal management of recurrent miscarriage and aPL antibodies.

The addition of prednisone to aspirin, heparin, or both has shown no benefits in pregnant women with aPL antibodies. Indeed, prolonged use of steroids may cause serious pregnancy complications, such as prematurity and hypertension.^80–83 Intravenous infusions of immunoglobulin (IVIG) have not been shown to be superior to heparin and aspirin. This finding was confirmed in a multicenter clinical trial that tested the effects of IVIG compared with LMWH plus low-dose aspirin for the treatment of women with aPL antibodies and recurrent miscarriage. The rate of live-birth was 72.5% in the group treated with heparin plus low-dose aspirin compared with 39.5% in the IVIG group.⁸⁴

Preeclampsia and HELLP syndrome complicated the case patient’s pregnancy even though she was being treated with prophylactic-dose LMWH and low-dose aspirin, the current standard of care for pregnant women with APS (UFH can be used as well). It is important to note that complications may still occur despite standard treatment. Indeed, PE is more common in the postpartum than in the antepartum period. Prompt diagnosis is paramount to initiate the appropriate treatment; in this case the dose of LMWH was increased from prophylactic to therapeutic dose. However, additional therapeutic modalities are necessary to improve outcomes. A randomized controlled trial comparing standard of care with or without hydroxychloroquine is under way to address this issue.

PROPHYLAXIS

CASE PRESENTATION 4

A 34-year-old woman G1P0 at 6 weeks’ gestation with a past medical history of a proximal lower extremity DVT while on oral contraception is treated with warfarin anticoagulation for 6 months. Her obstetrician consults the hematologist to advise regarding antithrombotic management during this pregnancy.

• What is the approach to prophylaxis in women at high risk for pregnancy-associated VTE?

All women at high risk for pregnancy-associated VTE should be counseled about the signs and symptoms of DVT or PE during preconception and pregnancy and have a plan developed should these symptoms arise. The ACCP guidelines on antithrombotic therapy outline recommendations ranging from clinical vigilance to prophylactic and intermediate-dose anticoagulation, depending on the risk for VTE recurrence, based on the personal and family history of VTE and type of thrombophilia (Table 2).⁷⁸ These recommendations range from grade 2B to 2C.

For women with a history of estrogen-related VTE, single unprovoked VTE, or recurrent unprovoked VTE not on chronic anticoagulation, antepartum and postpartum pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis with either prophylactic or intermediate-dose LMWH is recommended (grade 2C). In patients with prior history of provoked VTE (non-estrogen related), antepartum clinical vigilance and postpartum pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis is recommended (grade 2C, 2B).

In asymptomatic pregnant women who are homozygote carriers for factor V Leiden or prothrombin G20210A variants and have a positive family history of thrombosis, antepartum and postpartum pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis is recommended (grade 2B). In asymptomatic homozygote carriers of factor V Leiden or prothrombin G20210A variants with no family history of thrombosis and women with all other thrombophilias with a positive family history of thrombosis, postpartum pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis is indicated (grade 2B and 2C, respectively). For women with confirmed APS and clinical criteria of obstetric APS with recurrent pregnancy loss, antepartum thromboprophylaxis with LMWH and low-dose aspirin is recommended (grade 1B). For pregnant women with all other thrombophilias with no personal or family history of thrombosis, clinical vigilance is suggested (grade 2 C).⁷⁸

As an alternative to LMWH, vitamin K antagonists (VKA) such as warfarin can be used for postpartum thromboprophylaxis; in patients with protein C or S deficiency, due to the risk of warfarin-induced skin necrosis, a rapid-onset anticoagulant must be concomitantly administered. Warfarin and LMWH are safe anticoagulants during lactation, but there are no clinical data on the effects of the DOACs on infants during lactation. Data from animal studies indicate that DOACs are secreted into breast milk.⁸⁵

• What risks are associated with anticoagulant therapy in pregnancy?

VKAs cross the placenta and can cause teratogenicity, pregnancy loss, fetal bleeding, and neurodevelopmental deficits. Therefore, discontinuation of VKAs prior to the sixth week of gestation is necessary to avoid warfarin embryopathy. DOACs have been shown to readily cross the placenta but with unknown human reproductive risks. Fondaparinux, a synthetic pentasaccharide, crosses the placenta in small quantities. Though there are reports of the successful use of fondaparinux in pregnancy, there is limited reported experience of its use in the first trimester.⁸⁶

The risk for bleeding with anticoagulation is notably acceptable. In a case-control study of 88 pregnant women receiving therapeutic-dose anticoagulation, the risk of postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) after vaginal delivery was 30% in those who received LMWH anticoagulation versus 18% in those who did not (OR 1.9 [95% CI 1.1 to 3.5]).⁸⁷ However, the risk for severe PPH (≥ 500 mL) was similar (5.6% versus 5.0%; OR 1.1 [95% CI 0.4 to 3.6]). The risk for PPH after cesarean section was 12% in LMWH users versus 4% in LMWH non-users (OR 2.9 [95% CI 0.5 to 19.4]). The risk for PPH associated with delivery within 24 hours after the last dose of LMWH was 1.2 times higher (95% CI 0.4 to 3.6) compared to a longer interval. Therefore, therapeutic LMWH increases the risk for blood loss after vaginal delivery, but not the risk for severe PPH. The risk for PPH is influenced by the interval between the last dose of LMWH and delivery. Of note in this study, per the institution’s protocol, the anticoagulation was stopped with signs of labor or determination of need for delivery. The risk for blood loss may be mitigated in more planned delivery scenarios.⁸⁷

CASE 4 CONTINUED

The patient is placed on prophylactic-dose LMWH with good tolerance and delivers at 39 weeks' gestation via caesarian section due to nonprogression of labor. Postpartum she is restarted on prophylactic-dose anticoagulation with LMWH. Two weeks after discharge from the hospital, she presents with right calf pain and mild shortness of breath. On physical exam, her leg circumferences are equal. A D-dimer assay is 3375 ng/mL (normal 0–229). CUS of the right leg shows a complete occlusive DVT of the mid-distal superficial femoral and popliteal veins and partially occlusive acute DVT of the right posterior tibial and peroneal veins. CTPA reveals a right lower lobe PE. Because she had developed VTE despite prophylactic LMWH, her anticoagulation is changed to therapeutic dose. She is treated with anticoagulation with LMWH for a total of 3 months, after which a repeat CUS shows no residual thrombosis.

• What is the recommended dosing of heparin and LMWH during pregnancy?

A prospective study of 14 pregnant women receiving UFH prophylaxis found that a prophylactic dose of 5000 units twice a day was inadequate to achieve prophylactic heparin levels in any patient in the second or third trimester.⁸⁸ Similar to treatment dosage, there is no consensus evidence for prophylactic dosing, and dosage recommendations are based on expert opinion. In a retrospective study of 25 pregnant women on intermediate-dose UFH, the mean UFH dose required to achieve a target anti-factor Xa level of 0.1 to 0.3 units/mL was 236.9 units/kg/day.⁸⁹ However, the use of anti-factor Xa levels for monitoring is controversial as there is no data to support a difference in outcomes with its use in prophylactic or therapeutic dosing.

The timing of the previous VTE history is important when deciding on the anticoagulant dose in pregnancy. In pregnant women with a VTE that occurred within the previous 4 to 6 weeks, full-dose anticoagulation with LMWH should be considered; an intermediate dose (three-fourths of a therapeutic dose) may be used if the thrombotic episode occurred more than 6 weeks earlier but still within a year. Prophylactic dosing may be sufficient if the episode occurred more than a year earlier.⁹⁰ A clinical trial (High-Low) is under way to explore the optimal dose of LMWH in pregnant women with prior history of VTE who are not on chronic anticoagulation therapy.⁹¹

• How is anticoagulation therapy managed in the peripartum period?

Neuraxial anesthesia during active labor while on anticoagulation increases the risk for central nervous system bleeding. Therefore, if spontaneous labor occurs in women on therapeutic dose anticoagulation, neuraxial anesthesia cannot be used. However, in the event of elective induction of labor or caesarean section, neuroaxial anesthesia may be performed 12 hours after the administration of the last prophylactic dose of LMWH or 24 hours after the last therapeutic dose of LMWH. Intravenous UFH should be stopped for 6 hours before induction of labor with a confirmed normal aPTT before placement of neuraxial anesthesia. There is no contraindication for using neuraxial anesthesia during subcutaneous standard UFH at total doses of 10,000 units daily. The risk of spinal hematoma with larger daily subcutaneous doses is unclear; therefore, a documented normal aPTT must be obtained before placement of neuroaxial anesthesia.

Postpartum, reinitiation of prophylactic-dose LMWH should be delayed for at least 12 hours after the removal of an epidural catheter. Therapeutic-dose LMWH should be administered no earlier than 24 hours after neuraxial anesthesia, providing that proper hemostasis is achieved. In the absence of persistent bleeding, if no regional anesthesia was used, LMWH may be resumed 12 hours after delivery.⁹² Anticoagulation with either LMWH or warfarin is recommended for at least 6 to 12 weeks postpartum.³³

COUNSELING

Patients should be advised to manage controllable risk factors, including avoiding prolonged immobilization, avoiding excessive weight gain in pregnancy, and stopping smoking. Periods of immobilization tend to cause reduced blood flow (stasis), which predisposes to thrombosis. In a systematic review of records of all patients with confirmed PE after arrival at Charles de Gaulle airport in Paris during a 13-year period, women had a higher risk of PE after a long-distance flight than men, with an estimated incidence of 0.61 per million passengers versus 0.20, respectively; the incidence reached 7.24 and 2.35 cases, respectively, in passengers traveling more than 10,000 kilometers.^93,94

The risk of air travel-related thrombosis in pregnant women is estimated to be between 0.03% and 0.1%. Physicians must decide on an individual basis how to prevent travel-related thrombosis in their pregnant patients. In most passengers, prevention can be limited to encouraging exercise, avoidance of long sleeping periods, and not using a window seat. Women at high risk for VTE, such as women with a prior history of VTE who are not on anticoagulation or women with known asymptomatic thrombophilia or other risk factors for thrombosis such as obesity, may benefit from a short period (1–3 days) of LMWH starting 2 hours before a long-distance flight.⁹⁵

Activation of the coagulation system has been demonstrated in cigarette smokers.⁹⁶ Heavy smoking was found to be a significant risk factor for VTE in a cross-sectional analysis of 2404 men and women.⁹⁷ An increased risk for thrombosis during pregnancy is seen in cigarette smokers^15,98 and is enhanced with the concomitant use of illicit drugs.⁹⁹ Other obstetric complications associated with smoking and illicit drug use during pregnancy include preterm labor, spontaneous abortion, perinatal death, low birth weight, and abruption placenta. The efficacy of nicotine replacement therapy in pregnancy is uncertain.¹⁰⁰ Recommendations are to advise patients to stop smoking, obtain psychosocial counseling, and utilize adjunctive therapies, which have been shown to have some effect on abstinence rates.¹⁰¹

CONCLUSION

Women are at increased risk for VTE during pregnancy and the postpartum period. Awareness of risk factors and the signs and symptoms of VTE is paramount. Prompt diagnosis and treatment is mandatory to decrease complications of VTE. LMWH is the mainstay treatment of VTE in pregnancy, as it does not cross the placenta. Both LMWH and warfarin are safe during lactation. Close communication among the patient, obstetrician, hematologist, anesthesiologist, and neonatologist is crucial to optimize the care of these patients.

INTRODUCTION

Pancreatic cancer is one of the most rapidly rising causes of mortality in the United States. In 2016, the number of deaths from pancreatic cancer exceeded those from breast cancer, making it the third leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States.¹ It is projected that by 2020 pancreatic cancer will overtake colorectal malignancies to become the second most common cause of cancer death in this country.^1,2 The term pancreatic cancer encompasses both exocrine and endocrine tumors. However, since 80% of pancreatic cancers are classified as pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDA), when speaking about pancreatic cancer most clinicians and scientists are referring to PDA.

Even with advances in chemotherapy and radiotherapy over the past decade, the only curative option for PDA is surgical resection. Unfortunately, only 20% of patients are appropriate surgical candidates at the time of diagnosis.³ Considering the lack of screening options and the ambiguity of symptomatology, roughly 4 out 5 patients with PDA are diagnosed as having locally advanced or metastatic disease that is initially not amenable to surgery.

Locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma presents unique challenges in management and treatment. Treatment options include multi-agent chemotherapy, chemoradiation, or radiotherapy. Some patients can be successfully down-staged with these therapies and be deemed surgical candidates. Other challenges include selecting the appropriate sequence of therapies and stratifying therapies based on comorbidities. In this article, we review the epidemiology, biology, and diagnostic approach to PDA and focus on current treatment strategies for locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC).

EPIDEMIOLOGY

In 2012, GLOBOCAN estimated that PDA caused 331,000 deaths per year, accounting for 4% of all worldwide mortality.^4,5 Despite high incidence rates internationally, PDA is a disease of Western and industrialized nations. In the Unites States, PDA is a malignancy of middle to late adulthood, with a sharp upsurge in incidence after age 50 years.⁶ More than one third of new cases are diagnosed in patients older than 70 years, and more than half of patients diagnosed are older than 60 years of age.² The incidence of pancreatic cancer is fairly equal among men and women, with a slightly higher rate for the male sex. It has an incidence preference for African-Americans by 4.8 cases per 100,000 persons nationally.⁷

Risk factors for the development of exocrine pancreatic cancer include hereditary disposition, underlying medical conditions, and environmental factors. One of the most significant environmental risk factors for the development of PDA is smoking,⁸ which is associated with up to 25% of all cases.⁹ Smoking cessation leads to a rapid reduction in risk for pancreatic cancer, with the risk among former smokers approaching that for never smokers less than 10 years after quitting.⁹ Other environmental factors that contribute to the development of pancreatic cancer include increased body mass index, a high-salt and high-saturated fat diet, heavy alcohol intake, and increased utilization of nonsteroidal inflammatory drugs.^10–13

There is a strong association between new-onset diabetes and increased risk for developing PDA.^14,15 Data also suggest that diabetes may be a risk factor and/or a consequence of tissue destruction that arises during the development or progression of PDA.^16,17 Interestingly, ABO blood grouping is another underlying medical disposition that confers an altered risk profile. Studies have shown that patients with blood group O were less likely than those with type A, B, or AB to develop pancreatic cancer.¹⁸

Genetic predisposition syndromes can elevate an individual patient’s risk for developing PDA. Genetic syndromes and gene alterations that increase the risk for PDA include BRCA1/2, Peutz-Jeghers syndrome, and Lynch syndrome risk.^19–21 Up to 10% to 15% of PDA cases may be due to an inherited familial cancer.²² Having a first-degree relative with PDA increases the odds of developing PDA 1.76-fold compared to those without a family history.²³ The exact biologic and molecular mechanisms of familial pancreatic cancer are unclear. It is estimated that about 10% of patients with familial pancreatic cancer (FPC) carry BRCA2 mutations.²⁴ Individuals at risk for FPC should undergo genetic screening for the presence of the most frequently inherited pancreatic cancer susceptibility genetic defects: BRCA2, PALB2, and ATM germline mutations.²⁵ Carriers of BRCA2, who are also at increased risk for developing breast, ovarian, and prostate cancer, should be monitored closely. Of all hereditary conditions, hereditary pancreatitis confers the highest risk for developing PDA, with an approximate risk elevation of 40% to 50%.^26,27 Although several genetic predisposition syndromes have been identified, most cases of pancreatic adenocarcinoma are thought to be sporadic.

CANCER BIOLOGY AND PATHOLOGY

The pathologic predecessor of PDA is pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN). With further dysplastic changes that result from increasing genetic alterations, these precancerous lesions progress from low- to high-grade and finally to adenocarcinoma. More than 90% of all PINs across all grades have oncogenic KRAS mutations.²⁸ Additionally, inactivating mutations in the tumor suppressor genes SMAD4, p53, and CDKN2A are found with increasing frequency in higher grade PINs. The frequency and presence of mutations in both oncogenes and tumor suppressor genes in precursor neoplasias mirror the genetic mutations noted in advanced PDA.²⁹ Among all mutations, KRAS is the most common and most functionally important for pancreatic cancer cell survival. KRAS mutations not only have profound effects on downstream mediators of tumor growth and metastasis, but they are implicated in reprograming of cellular metabolism.^30,31

Pancreatic adenocarcinoma has a unique microenvironment that makes it a difficult target for current therapeutic modalities. First, it is one of the most stroma-rich malignancies. The dense stroma surrounding pancreatic tumor cells leads to increased tumor pressures and alterations in tumor vascular perfusion.³² It also serves as a barrier that prevents chemotherapeutic drugs from reaching the tumor cells. Thus, clinical trials are under way to investigate agents such has hyaluronidase, which may degrade components of the extracellular matrix that supports thestromal environment. Additionally, there is data to suggest that the microenvironment of PDA downregulates immune monitoring, leading to further tumor growth.^27,33 The molecular, cellular, and immunologic complexity of PDA may contribute to its resistance to traditional therapeutics.

EVALUATION AND DIAGNOSIS

CASE PRESENTATION

A 61-year-old man with a history of type 2 diabetes mellitus and chronic tobacco use presents to the emergency department (ED) with a 4-month history of progressively worsening abdominal discomfort and fatigue. He has also noticed darkening of his urine and slight yellow discoloration of his eyes. His weight measured 5 months ago in his primary care physician’s office was 91 kg (200 lb, BMI 29.5) and in the ED is 75 kg (165 lb, BMI 24.4). He has noticed bulky, malodorous, oily stools for about 2 months. Preliminary laboratory studies reveal elevated levels of total bilirubin (2.7 mg/dL) and alkaline phosphatase (204 IU/L). Transabdominal ultrasound (US) is obtained and reveals a 3-cm pancreatic mass with biliary tract dilation.

• Does this patient have pancreatic cancer?

CLINICAL SIGNS AND SYMPTOMS

Establishing the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer in a patient who presents with a high index of suspicion is critical. Patients with pancreatic cancer usually present after a period of nonspecific and vague symptoms, which typically are experienced as abdominal discomfort, weight loss, and weakness. It is estimated that approximately 25% of patients may complain of vague abdominal pain up to 6 months prior to diagnosis. Up to 15% of patients may seek medical attention more than 6 months prior to establishing a diagnosis of PDA.³⁴ The most common symptoms associated with pancreatic cancer in order of decreasing reported frequency are weight loss, anorexia, abdominal/epigastric pain, dark-colored urine, jaundice, nausea, back pain, and diarrhea with associated steatorrhea.³⁵ Upwards of 15% of patients present with painless jaundice, a term that is often associated with pancreatic cancer.³⁶ On exam these patients may have scleral icterus, sublingual jaundice, epigastric pain on palpation, weight loss, hepatomegaly, lymphadenopathy and a nontender, distended, palpable gallbladder (also known as Courvoisier sign).³⁴ Abdominal signs and symptoms arise from tumor growth into surrounding vessels, tissues, and ducts within the abdominal cavity. Compression of the common bile duct accounts for the development of jaundice. Tumor growth around the stomach and duodenum can lead to delayed gastric emptying and subsequently nausea and vomiting. Constriction of the pancreatic duct leads to pancreatic insufficiency, precipitation of weight loss, and steatorrhea. Pancreatic insufficiency can worsen abdominal pain, and lead to increased weight loss and flatulence.

Less common symptoms include pain, erythema, and edema involving the lower extremities, which may be reflective of migratory thrombophlebitis (commonly known as Trousseau syndrome). Thromboembolic disease, including pulmonary embolism, portal vein, and deep vein thromboses are frequently encountered complications of pancreatic cancer. The incidence of thromboembolic events in patients with PDA has been reported to be as high as 54%.³⁷ Of all signs encountered, weight loss is the most common and most profound. Patients with advanced PDA have severe degrees of cachexia. Some patients present with as much as a 5 kg/m² decrease in their BMI from pre-illness baseline BMI, and lose another 3 to 4 kg/m² through disease progression.³⁸ At the time of diagnosis, many patients have already undergone significant weight loss, which can have substantial implications on treatment planning and clinical outcomes.

• What other studies can be done to assist in making the diagnosis?

LABORATORY ABNORMALITIES AND TUMOR MARKERS

Elevations in alkaline phosphatase, γ-glutamyltransferase (GGT), serum aspartate aminotransferase (AST), serum alanine aminotransferase (ALT), and direct fractions of bilirubin are common in patients with PDA. Patients will usually have an obstructive pattern on their liver panel, with predominant elevations in direct bilirubin, alkaline phosphatase, and GGT, as compared with AST and ALT. Other baseline laboratory studies, including a complete blood count and basic metabolic panel, should be obtained because patients commonly have thrombocytosis, anemia, and electrolyte abnormalities due to the tumor itself and pancreatic insufficiency (Table 1).

Measurement of glycated hemoglobin (HBA1C) is an emerging and important diagnostic test in the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. Recently, data has emerged to suggest that new-onset diabetes is present in about 50% of patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer.³⁹ The temporal relationship of pancreatic cancer and diabetes is supported by evidence showing that patients who undergo resection commonly have resolution of their diabetes.¹⁷ This study suggested that hyperglycemia, elevated HBA1C, and symptoms of diabetes in patients older than 50 years may identify patients who have early pancreatic cancer. The entity of pancreatic cancer–associated diabetes needs to be better defined and the algorithmic approach to evaluation and diagnosis, utilizing signs, symptoms, and laboratory values associated with diabetes, needs to be clearly established.

The only serum marker for PDA is carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA 19-9), also known as sialylated Lewis antigen or cancer-associated antigen. It was first identified in pancreatic cancer patients in 1981.^40,41 The sensitivity and specificity of CA 19-9 ranges from 70% to approximately 90%.^42,43 Hereditary predispositions and comorbid disease cross-reactivity contribute to the diminished sensitivity and specificity of CA 19-9. In about 5% to 10% of the population, CA 19-9 is not expressed (Lewis antigen A and B negative). Additionally, since CA 19-9 is expressed in the cells that line the biliary tree, diseases that lead to pancreatic or liver inflammation may falsely elevate CA 19-9.⁴⁴ As a result, CA 19-9 is not an ideal screening test. However, data has shown that CA 19-9 may have prognostic value postoperatively and serve as a marker for therapeutic response.^45,46

• Is biopsy needed for this patient and if so, what is the most appropriate technique?

ENDOSCOPIC ULTRASOUND

Generally, diagnosis with tissue is not necessary for patients who clearly have resectable disease and will proceed directly to surgery for management. Nevertheless, it is still commonly obtained in this group of patients. However, in patients with LAPC or with features suggestive of LAPC, such as tumor approximation to critical vessels such as the superior mesenteric artery (SMA) or celiac axis, biopsy is necessary. These patients will receive neoadjuvant therapy, and biopsy is important in establishing a diagnosis. The ideal way to obtain a biopsy is through fine-needle aspiration (FNA) or biopsy (FNB) utilizing endoscopic ultrasound (EUS). Percutaneous and computed tomography (CT)–guided FNB can also be used to obtain a biopsy for diagnosis. In comparison to percutaneous and CT-guided FNB, EUS-FNA/FNB has low rates of complications, a decreased rate of peritoneal seeding, and is cost effective.^47,48

CASE CONTINUED

Abdominal CT obtained following abdominal ultrasound reveals a 3.5-cm mass in the head of the pancreas in close approximation to the SMA and celiac axis.

• Does the patient have borderline resectable or unresectable disease?

IMAGING

Abdominal ultrasound is a reasonable, inexpensive, and safe alternative to abdominal CT as it does not utilize ionizing radiation. It is particularly useful in patients who present with jaundice or have concern for biliary obstruction based on laboratory evaluation. It is particularly sensitive for detecting tumors greater than 3 cm in size.^49,50 In patients whose abdominal ultrasound is unrevealing and whose index of suspicion remains high for PDA, abdominal CT should be the next imaging modality.

Abdominal CT obtained utilizing a pancreatic protocol is ideal for detection and staging of pancreatic tumors. By implementing a triple-phase protocol with arterial, late arterial, and venous phases, tumors, which have a density different from that of the pancreatic parenchyma, are accentuated. Abdominal CT is also able to provide critical information about tumor resectability.⁵¹ By revealing the degree of tumor encasement around the aorta, level of destruction of the superior mesenteric vein, or degree of involvement of the SMA or celiac vessels, abdominal CT determines if a patient should be deemed resectable, borderline resectable, or unresectable (Table 2).^52,53 Resectability is based on thorough imaging evaluation, expert opinion of a multidisciplinary team, and guidelines proposed by American Hepatopancreaticobiliary Association, Society of Surgical Oncology, Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract, and the NCCN.⁵⁴

Other imaging modalities have a less clearly established role in the diagnostic approach to PDA. In patients who have contraindications to obtaining CT, magnetic resonance imaging can be utilized as a secondary imaging modality.⁵⁵ The role of positron emission tomography 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (PET-FDG) is not clearly defined among clinicians, nor reflected in consensus guidelines by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). In clinical practice, it is still often combined with CT to detect metastatic disease, particularly in high-risk patients such has those with LAPC. The role of PET-CT in staging and its impact on clinical outcomes has not been fully established.

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) can also assist in the diagnosis and management of PDA. In patients with obstructive jaundice, both MRCP and ERCP visualize obstructions and dilations within the biliary tree, with the latter having the ability to intervene. ERCP allows for the collection of tissue to aid in diagnosis, and has the ability to relieve biliary obstruction via stenting.⁵⁶

TREATMENT

CASE CONTINUED

After an abdominal CT is obtained, the patient is referred to an outpatient oncologist because of concern for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. After consultation, the patient is advised to obtain EUS with biopsy and to return immediately afterwards for further treatment planning. The pathology report following EUS confirms that the mass is a poorly differentiated PDA. The patient’s case is discussed at a multidisciplinary meeting with radiation, surgical, and medical oncology. The abdominal CT and PET-CT scan are thoroughly reviewed. After imaging review, the multidisciplinary team concludes that the tumor is in contact with the SMA at 120° and with the common hepatic artery without extension in the celiac axis and without evidence of metastasis.

• What is the appropriate management of borderline resectable pancreatic cancer?

BORDERLINE RESECTABLE CANCER

Patients who have nonmetastatic disease and are deemed resectable and without contraindications to surgery or high-risk features, as defined by NCCN guidelines, should proceed directly to surgery. A large body of evidence suggests that complete surgical resection with negative margins is a significant predictor of survival and currently provides the only option for cure.^57–59 Despite the curative intent of surgery, the rate of recurrence remains high in patients who undergo surgical resection. Even in patients with negative resection margins (R0 resection), the 5-year survival is 20% to 30%, with a median survival ranging from 12 to 25 months, suggesting the presence of regional and distant occult disease at the time of diagnosis.^60–62

Additionally, in half the patients who undergo surgical resection with resultant positive microscopic (R1 resection) or gross (R2 resection) margins, the median survival is no greater than 12 months. In this subset of patients, clinical outcomes are similar to outcomes in patients with locally advanced and metastatic pancreatic cancer, suggesting that upfront surgery and adjuvant therapy may not be the ideal therapeutic option. This raises 2 important points: first, resectability should be assessed carefully in all patients with LAPC, and second, for those patients who are deemed borderline resectable, neoadjuvant therapy should be considered.⁶³ Borderline resectability is defined as tumor abutment ≤ 180° of the celiac artery, and tumor abutment of the superior mesenteric vein /portal vein of > 180° or abutting ≤ 180° with irregularity of the vein with or without thrombosis with anatomical structures that still allows for safe and complete resection and vein reconstruction (Table 2).

Neoadjuvant Therapy

The goal of neoadjuvant therapy is to minimize the negative impact of upfront surgery in patients who have a high likelihood of having microscopic or grossly positive margins. Research has suggested that neoadjuvant therapy may improve resectability, decrease the rate of recurrence, and improve overall survival.^64–66

There is no clear consensus on the ideal management of patients with borderline resectable disease. However, expert guidelines are in agreement that upfront surgery in patients with LAPC is not appropriate, as most patients will not be able to achieve an R0 resection.⁶⁷ As staging and management of patients with LAPC is difficult, expertise of a multidisciplinary team can be helpful.⁶⁸

Several studies and the NCCN guidelines support the use of neoadjuvant therapy in patients deemed borderline resectable.^69,70 Treatment of borderline resectable disease is similar to unresectable LAPC and generally involves 2 chemotherapy treatment backbones: FOLFIRINOX (folinic acid [leucovorin], fluorouracil [5-FU], irinotecan, and oxaliplatin) or gemcitabine-based therapy.

Phase 1 to 2/3 clinical trials conducted by Conroy et al from 2005 to 2011, including the landmark ACCORD-11 trial, established the safety and role of FOLFIRINOX in metastatic pancreatic cancer and also demonstrated an improved overall survival with the use of this therapy in these patients.^71,72 These findings led to interest in FOLFIRINOX as a neoadjuvant therapy for patients with LAPC. Since then, multiple prospective and retrospective studies have shown that 54% to 100% of patients with borderline resectable LAPC who were treated with FOLFIRINOX were down-staged significantly enough to undergo resection. Of those patients, more than 90% had a R0 resection following surgery (Table 3).^73–79

Data over the past 7 years suggests that neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX improves overall survival and resectability in patients with borderline disease. However, treatment with FOLFIRINOX is not without limitations. FOLFIRINOX is associated with higher rates of febrile neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, diarrhea, and sensory neuropathy as compared with gemcitabine-based therapy.⁷² Other less commonly observed toxicities associated with FOLFIRINOX include mucositis, hand-foot syndrome, pulmonary toxicity, and alopecia. Dose-attenuated FOLFIRINOX-based regimens, including those that exclude the bolus fluorouracil dose and augment upfront filgrastim, have demonstrated improved safety and comparable efficacy as compared to standard FOLFIRINOX.⁸⁰

Gemcitabine has been the fundamental treatment backbone for PDA since the results of the phase 3 CONKO-001 trial were published.⁸¹ Gemcitabine is a pyrimidine antimetabolite and potent inhibitor of DNA polymerase and ribonucleotide reductase.⁸² In recent years, multiple combination therapies with gemcitabine have been investigated, including regimens with nab-paclitaxel, oxaliplatin, or docetaxel. Resection rates and negative margin outcomes have been shown to be comparable to patients who received FOLFIRINOX in the neoadjuvant setting with borderline locally advanced disease.^83–85 In addition to having a more tolerable side effect profile in comparison to fluorouracil-based regimens, gemcitabine is considered to be a potent radiosensitizer.⁸⁶ For this reason, studies have also investigated the role of radiotherapy in conjunction with gemcitabine, revealing negative margin resection rates above 80% in patients with borderline resectable disease.^87,88

Because very few studies directly comparing FOLFIRINOX with gemcitabine-based combination regimens have been completed, there is no clear consensus on the preferred treatment regimen, in both borderline and unresectable LAPC. Decisions to treat are influenced predominantly by comorbidities, adverse effect profiles, and performance status of patients, as FOLFIRINOX is the more toxic of the 2 treatment backbones. Therefore, FOLFIRINOX has mostly been utilized in patients with relatively good functional status (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group [ECOG] performance status 0 to 1).⁸⁹ In elderly patients and those with poor functional status, ECOG 2 to 4, gemcitabine as a single agent is a reasonable alternative in the neoadjuvant setting of borderline resectable disease.

The exact role of radiation therapy in addition to induction chemotherapy in borderline resectable pancreatic cancer has not been clearly established because of the lack of prospective studies in this area. Multiple large retrospective series have identified high rates of conversion to margin-negative resection with neoadjuvant chemoradiation alone.⁹⁰ Based on available data, it is reasonable for patients with borderline resectable disease to proceed with any of the following treatment options: chemotherapy, chemoradiation, or induction chemotherapy followed by chemoradiation (Figure). Chemotherapy and chemoradiation are generally more appropriate with patients with high CA 19-9 levels or those at an elevated risk of having positive margins or occult metastatic disease.⁹¹ Obtaining negative margin resections is the predominant goal of neoadjuvant radiotherapy.⁸⁹ Many studies have identified margin status to be one of the most significant prognostic factors in PDA.^57,59,92,93 Additionally, several studies have highlighted that radiotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting could improve negative margin resection rates, local control, and clinical outcomes in patients with borderline resectable locally advanced disease.^94–97 A common multimodal regimen utilized in the neoadjuvant setting combines capecitabine, an oral prodrug that is converted to fluorouracil, with radiation therapy. This combination has also been shown to improve resectability rates and long-term clinical outcomes in patients with borderline resectable disease.⁹⁸ Additionally, neoadjuvant radiation therapy can potentially downstage patients with unresectable disease at the time of diagnosis to become surgical candidates.⁹⁹ Despite the paucity of data, interval scans utilizing CT following neoadjuvant therapy should be obtained 2 to 4 months after completion of therapy to determine therapeutic response, evaluate for disease progression, and, most important, reassess surgical stage/resectability. It is clinically acceptable to proceed to resection with radiographically stable disease post-neoadjuvant therapy.

Many patients classified as borderline resectable are able to proceed with surgery following neoadjuvant therapy. Unfortunately, specific data on adjuvant therapy following neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy and surgical resection in borderline resectable patients is scarce. Clinical practice guidelines are extrapolated from studies where upfront resection in clearly resectable patients was followed by adjuvant therapy. Based on these data, approximately 6 months of perioperative chemotherapy with or without chemoradiotherapy is a reasonable consideration. Nevertheless, about 80% of patients at the time of diagnosis are deemed to be unresectable, and a smaller number do not proceed to surgery despite an initial classification as borderline resectable. Of the 80% of patients with advanced disease, about half are metastatic at presentation and the remaining 30% to 40% are defined as having unresectable LAPC.¹⁰⁰

CASE CONTINUED

The patient is deemed borderline resectable. He receives neoadjuvant therapy with gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel. Two months after therapy, interval imaging with abdominal CT does not show improvement in tumor size and there is now evidence that the tumor has invaded the celiac axis and is abutting more than 180° of the SMA. The patient presents to the oncologist to discuss further management. He has lost about 15 lb since his last evaluation, is capable of self-care, but is unable to carry on with any work activities.

• What is the appropriate management of unresectable nonmetastatic LAPC?

UNRESECTABLE LOCALLY ADVANCED CANCER

As in the case of borderline resectable disease, there are many treatment options for patients with unresectable LAPC. Timing, optimal chemotherapy regimen, and the addition of regularly and hypofractionated radiotherapy are issues currently under investigation. However, there are some general considerations and principles that are followed as reflected in the NCCN guidelines and recent studies. The primary therapeutic aims in patients with unresectable locally advanced disease are to increase survival and improve palliation.

The elderly comprise a large percentage of the patients diagnosed with unresectable locally advanced disease. Pharmacokinetics and toxicity profiles are altered in the elderly population.^101,102 Therefore, it is important to assess functional status and comorbidities as these are critical factors in determining treatment regimens, similar to patients with borderline resectable disease. Currently, the most common first-line therapies in advanced pancreatic cancer are gemcitabine alone, gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel, FOLFIRINOX, gemcitabine/capecitabine, and gemcitabine/oxaliplatin.¹⁰³ The overall treatment approach to unresectable locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma closely mirrors that of patients with borderline resectable disease and metastatic disease. Much of the data supporting treatment regimens in unresectable LAPC is extrapolated from clinical trials looking at advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer.

Consensus opinions domestically and from Europe recommend that patients with locally advanced unresectable disease undergo upfront chemotherapy (Figure).¹⁰⁴ This is based on the premise that initial chemotherapy may destroy occult metastatic cells and increase the efficacy of consolidative chemotherapy, particularly with radiation in the future. Upfront chemoradiotherapy has only been investigated in a small series of trials in which no clear survival benefit was observed and has the added consequence of treatment-related toxicity.¹⁰⁵ However, data is limited in this regard, with variations in treatment protocols and cohort compositions contributing to the inconclusive findings.

No head-to-head studies investigating FOLFIRINOX versus nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine in patients with locally advanced disease have been published, but clinical trials are under way. Other combination therapies have been looked at through small retrospective or prospective studies, but no robust, large-scale clinical trials have been completed. For this reason, NCCN guidelines recommend enrollment of patients with LAPC into active clinical trials.

• What is the role of radiation therapy in unresectable LAPC?

Despite the reported advantages of neoadjuvant radiation in patients with potentially resectable disease, there is significant debate regarding the timing and role of neoadjuvant radiation in patients with unresectable disease. Numerous comprehensive analyses and studiest indicate that chemoradiotherapy leads to significantly better overall survival compared to no therapy or radiation therapy alone in LAPC.^68,110,111 However, conflicting data support the use of upfront chemoradiotherapy in unresectable LAPC when compared to chemotherapy alone. Unfortunately, most prospective studies investigating the role of radiotherapy were performed following administration of single-agent gemcitabine, which is no longer considered standard of care for patients with LAPC. In spite of this, ECOG 4201 identified a statistically significant improvement in median overall survival following the addition of gemcitabine-based radiotherapy. Huguet et al in his review pointed out that upfront chemoradiotherapy was not superior to chemotherapy only and was associated with increased treatment toxicity.¹⁰⁵ Additionally, a recent phase 3 study looking at chemoradiotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in patients treated with gemcitabine found no difference in overall survival.¹¹² This can potentially be attributed to the fact that about 30% of patients with LAPC develop metastatic disease in the early phases of treatment due to poor control of local and systemically occult disease.¹¹³ Given the propensity for high rates of occult metastatic disease in LAPC, treatment paradigms and consensus guidelines recommend multi-agent systemic chemotherapy followed by chemoradiotherapy in select patients.

Based on current studies and until further clinical investigations are completed, consensus opinion indicates that the most appropriate approach in unresectable LAPC is to begin with induction chemotherapy (with either gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel, FOLFIRINOX, capecitabine, or other treatment combinations), followed by chemoradiation in the absence of disease progression when the first repeat imaging evaluation is completed (Figure). One important caveat regarding reimaging with CT in the neoadjuvant setting is that radiologic response may not correlate with pathologic response.¹¹⁴ PET-CT may have a role in predicting response to neoadjuvant therapy. Overall, induction chemotherapy followed by consolidative chemoradiation may confer numerous benefits: it removes the unnecessary burden and toxicity associated with radiotherapy in the nearly one third of patients who have pervasive disease progression during initial treatment; it allows testing and increases the chances of tolerating full-dose systemic chemotherapy; and it raises the likelihood of converting patients who do not progress to metastasis during the initial phase of treatment from unresectable to resectable status.^103,115 Despite the lack of strong conclusive data, the general agreement is that neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy converts about one third of borderline and unresectable LAPC to an R0 resection.^95,103 There are very specific rationales for the addition of radiotherapy in LAPC, and these functions need to be better defined through further clinical trials.

CASE CONTINUED

The patient is unable to tolerate his first round of second-line therapy with modified FOLFIRINOX. His overall treatment plan is transitioned to palliation. He continues to have pain, despite increasing doses of narcotics.

• What is the next step for patients in whom second-line therapy fails and who have intractable pain while on high-dose narcotics?

A subset of patients with unresectable LAPC may not be amenable to chemotherapy with or without radiation due to significant comorbidities or because they present with or progress to ECOG scores 3 or 4. The goal in these patients should be palliation. Pain is one of the most predominant and difficult to manage symptoms in progressive LAPC. Opioid-based medications are the primary treatment for pain in LAPC. However, patients sometimes become refractory to opioid medications. In this group of patients, it is reasonable to consider palliative radiation as an alternative method for pain control.¹¹⁶

An alternative to palliative radiation in the setting of progressive pain in PDA is celiac plexus block or neurolysis. By injecting an anesthetic or alcohol into the celiac plexus, neural signaling pathways involved in the propagation of pain are inhibited without leading to significant nerve destruction. Additionally, chemical splanchnicectomy allows for reduced opioid medication use and associated side effects.¹¹⁷

In general patients with LAPC have profound weight loss prior to and during treatment. This has significant implications prognostically and on treatment options. The underlying etiology is multifactorial, but one of the primary driving factors is pancreatic insufficiency. An estimated 65% of pancreatic cancer patients have fat malabsorption, and 50% have protein malabsorption, leading to steatorrhea and weight loss.¹¹⁸ Patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer should be given enzyme replacement with formulations that include lipase, amylase, and protease. A minimum dose of enzyme replacement should include 40,000 to 50,000 U of lipase during meals and 25,000 U during snack intake. If maldigestion, symptoms, or nutritional endpoints (BMI, albumin, prealbumin, cholesterol) do not improve, the pancreatic enzyme dose should be escalated and a proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) added. In patients with pancreatic insufficiency, PPIs have been shown to improve fat absorption.¹¹⁹ Enzyme replacement therapy has been shown to prevent weight loss in patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer.¹²⁰

As most patients with LAPC go on to develop progressive disease, palliative care becomes an integral aspect of the therapeutic paradigm. Palliation in LAPC has a significant role in determining quality of life and ensuring patient’s goals of care have been meet. Studies have suggested that pancreatic cancer is second only to lung cancer in terms of the number of emergency department visits in the later stages of disease.¹²⁰ Additionally, aggressive care in the setting of incurable diseases such as LAPC has been associated with poor quality of life.¹²¹ More recently it has been shown that involvement of palliative care in patients with advanced pancreatic is associated with less aggressive care near death.¹²² Therefore, the incorporation of palliative or supportive care teams in the treatment of patients with progressive LAPC can improve quality of life and alleviate suffering associated with increasing symptom burden.

CONCLUSION

LAPC is a difficult disease for both provider and patient. There is a paucity of robust clinical trials in the neoadjuvant setting for LAPC. Current research is complicated by varying consensus definitions of resectability and the varying treatment configurations across studies. The optimal type, timing, and sequence of treatment and whether to add radiation therapy in LAPC have not been clearly defined. However, based on the available studies and consensus guidelines, patients who are deemed to have LAPC should have neoadjuvant therapy. FOLFIRINOX or gemcitabine with nab-paclitaxel should be considered first-line treatments. Patients with LAPC who respond to chemotherapy or are ineligible for multi-drug chemotherapy may benefit from chemoradiotherapy. In patients with unresectable disease, chemoradiotherapy has been shown to enhance survival as compared to best supportive care or radiation alone. For borderline resectable disease, it is reasonable to treat patients with either chemoradiotherapy, chemotherapy alone, or chemotherapy followed by chemoradiotherapy.

Considering the invasive nature of LAPC and the controversy around neoadjuvant treatment protocols, enrollment of patients with LAPC into clinical trials is important and will help determine the optimal treatment regimen for future patients.

INTRODUCTION

Pancreatic cancer is one of the most rapidly rising causes of mortality in the United States. In 2016, the number of deaths from pancreatic cancer exceeded those from breast cancer, making it the third leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States.¹ It is projected that by 2020 pancreatic cancer will overtake colorectal malignancies to become the second most common cause of cancer death in this country.^1,2 The term pancreatic cancer encompasses both exocrine and endocrine tumors. However, since 80% of pancreatic cancers are classified as pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDA), when speaking about pancreatic cancer most clinicians and scientists are referring to PDA.

Even with advances in chemotherapy and radiotherapy over the past decade, the only curative option for PDA is surgical resection. Unfortunately, only 20% of patients are appropriate surgical candidates at the time of diagnosis.³ Considering the lack of screening options and the ambiguity of symptomatology, roughly 4 out 5 patients with PDA are diagnosed as having locally advanced or metastatic disease that is initially not amenable to surgery.

Locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma presents unique challenges in management and treatment. Treatment options include multi-agent chemotherapy, chemoradiation, or radiotherapy. Some patients can be successfully down-staged with these therapies and be deemed surgical candidates. Other challenges include selecting the appropriate sequence of therapies and stratifying therapies based on comorbidities. In this article, we review the epidemiology, biology, and diagnostic approach to PDA and focus on current treatment strategies for locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC).

EPIDEMIOLOGY

In 2012, GLOBOCAN estimated that PDA caused 331,000 deaths per year, accounting for 4% of all worldwide mortality.^4,5 Despite high incidence rates internationally, PDA is a disease of Western and industrialized nations. In the Unites States, PDA is a malignancy of middle to late adulthood, with a sharp upsurge in incidence after age 50 years.⁶ More than one third of new cases are diagnosed in patients older than 70 years, and more than half of patients diagnosed are older than 60 years of age.² The incidence of pancreatic cancer is fairly equal among men and women, with a slightly higher rate for the male sex. It has an incidence preference for African-Americans by 4.8 cases per 100,000 persons nationally.⁷

Risk factors for the development of exocrine pancreatic cancer include hereditary disposition, underlying medical conditions, and environmental factors. One of the most significant environmental risk factors for the development of PDA is smoking,⁸ which is associated with up to 25% of all cases.⁹ Smoking cessation leads to a rapid reduction in risk for pancreatic cancer, with the risk among former smokers approaching that for never smokers less than 10 years after quitting.⁹ Other environmental factors that contribute to the development of pancreatic cancer include increased body mass index, a high-salt and high-saturated fat diet, heavy alcohol intake, and increased utilization of nonsteroidal inflammatory drugs.^10–13

There is a strong association between new-onset diabetes and increased risk for developing PDA.^14,15 Data also suggest that diabetes may be a risk factor and/or a consequence of tissue destruction that arises during the development or progression of PDA.^16,17 Interestingly, ABO blood grouping is another underlying medical disposition that confers an altered risk profile. Studies have shown that patients with blood group O were less likely than those with type A, B, or AB to develop pancreatic cancer.¹⁸

Genetic predisposition syndromes can elevate an individual patient’s risk for developing PDA. Genetic syndromes and gene alterations that increase the risk for PDA include BRCA1/2, Peutz-Jeghers syndrome, and Lynch syndrome risk.^19–21 Up to 10% to 15% of PDA cases may be due to an inherited familial cancer.²² Having a first-degree relative with PDA increases the odds of developing PDA 1.76-fold compared to those without a family history.²³ The exact biologic and molecular mechanisms of familial pancreatic cancer are unclear. It is estimated that about 10% of patients with familial pancreatic cancer (FPC) carry BRCA2 mutations.²⁴ Individuals at risk for FPC should undergo genetic screening for the presence of the most frequently inherited pancreatic cancer susceptibility genetic defects: BRCA2, PALB2, and ATM germline mutations.²⁵ Carriers of BRCA2, who are also at increased risk for developing breast, ovarian, and prostate cancer, should be monitored closely. Of all hereditary conditions, hereditary pancreatitis confers the highest risk for developing PDA, with an approximate risk elevation of 40% to 50%.^26,27 Although several genetic predisposition syndromes have been identified, most cases of pancreatic adenocarcinoma are thought to be sporadic.

CANCER BIOLOGY AND PATHOLOGY

The pathologic predecessor of PDA is pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN). With further dysplastic changes that result from increasing genetic alterations, these precancerous lesions progress from low- to high-grade and finally to adenocarcinoma. More than 90% of all PINs across all grades have oncogenic KRAS mutations.²⁸ Additionally, inactivating mutations in the tumor suppressor genes SMAD4, p53, and CDKN2A are found with increasing frequency in higher grade PINs. The frequency and presence of mutations in both oncogenes and tumor suppressor genes in precursor neoplasias mirror the genetic mutations noted in advanced PDA.²⁹ Among all mutations, KRAS is the most common and most functionally important for pancreatic cancer cell survival. KRAS mutations not only have profound effects on downstream mediators of tumor growth and metastasis, but they are implicated in reprograming of cellular metabolism.^30,31

Pancreatic adenocarcinoma has a unique microenvironment that makes it a difficult target for current therapeutic modalities. First, it is one of the most stroma-rich malignancies. The dense stroma surrounding pancreatic tumor cells leads to increased tumor pressures and alterations in tumor vascular perfusion.³² It also serves as a barrier that prevents chemotherapeutic drugs from reaching the tumor cells. Thus, clinical trials are under way to investigate agents such has hyaluronidase, which may degrade components of the extracellular matrix that supports thestromal environment. Additionally, there is data to suggest that the microenvironment of PDA downregulates immune monitoring, leading to further tumor growth.^27,33 The molecular, cellular, and immunologic complexity of PDA may contribute to its resistance to traditional therapeutics.

EVALUATION AND DIAGNOSIS

CASE PRESENTATION

A 61-year-old man with a history of type 2 diabetes mellitus and chronic tobacco use presents to the emergency department (ED) with a 4-month history of progressively worsening abdominal discomfort and fatigue. He has also noticed darkening of his urine and slight yellow discoloration of his eyes. His weight measured 5 months ago in his primary care physician’s office was 91 kg (200 lb, BMI 29.5) and in the ED is 75 kg (165 lb, BMI 24.4). He has noticed bulky, malodorous, oily stools for about 2 months. Preliminary laboratory studies reveal elevated levels of total bilirubin (2.7 mg/dL) and alkaline phosphatase (204 IU/L). Transabdominal ultrasound (US) is obtained and reveals a 3-cm pancreatic mass with biliary tract dilation.

• Does this patient have pancreatic cancer?

CLINICAL SIGNS AND SYMPTOMS

Establishing the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer in a patient who presents with a high index of suspicion is critical. Patients with pancreatic cancer usually present after a period of nonspecific and vague symptoms, which typically are experienced as abdominal discomfort, weight loss, and weakness. It is estimated that approximately 25% of patients may complain of vague abdominal pain up to 6 months prior to diagnosis. Up to 15% of patients may seek medical attention more than 6 months prior to establishing a diagnosis of PDA.³⁴ The most common symptoms associated with pancreatic cancer in order of decreasing reported frequency are weight loss, anorexia, abdominal/epigastric pain, dark-colored urine, jaundice, nausea, back pain, and diarrhea with associated steatorrhea.³⁵ Upwards of 15% of patients present with painless jaundice, a term that is often associated with pancreatic cancer.³⁶ On exam these patients may have scleral icterus, sublingual jaundice, epigastric pain on palpation, weight loss, hepatomegaly, lymphadenopathy and a nontender, distended, palpable gallbladder (also known as Courvoisier sign).³⁴ Abdominal signs and symptoms arise from tumor growth into surrounding vessels, tissues, and ducts within the abdominal cavity. Compression of the common bile duct accounts for the development of jaundice. Tumor growth around the stomach and duodenum can lead to delayed gastric emptying and subsequently nausea and vomiting. Constriction of the pancreatic duct leads to pancreatic insufficiency, precipitation of weight loss, and steatorrhea. Pancreatic insufficiency can worsen abdominal pain, and lead to increased weight loss and flatulence.

Less common symptoms include pain, erythema, and edema involving the lower extremities, which may be reflective of migratory thrombophlebitis (commonly known as Trousseau syndrome). Thromboembolic disease, including pulmonary embolism, portal vein, and deep vein thromboses are frequently encountered complications of pancreatic cancer. The incidence of thromboembolic events in patients with PDA has been reported to be as high as 54%.³⁷ Of all signs encountered, weight loss is the most common and most profound. Patients with advanced PDA have severe degrees of cachexia. Some patients present with as much as a 5 kg/m² decrease in their BMI from pre-illness baseline BMI, and lose another 3 to 4 kg/m² through disease progression.³⁸ At the time of diagnosis, many patients have already undergone significant weight loss, which can have substantial implications on treatment planning and clinical outcomes.

• What other studies can be done to assist in making the diagnosis?

LABORATORY ABNORMALITIES AND TUMOR MARKERS

Elevations in alkaline phosphatase, γ-glutamyltransferase (GGT), serum aspartate aminotransferase (AST), serum alanine aminotransferase (ALT), and direct fractions of bilirubin are common in patients with PDA. Patients will usually have an obstructive pattern on their liver panel, with predominant elevations in direct bilirubin, alkaline phosphatase, and GGT, as compared with AST and ALT. Other baseline laboratory studies, including a complete blood count and basic metabolic panel, should be obtained because patients commonly have thrombocytosis, anemia, and electrolyte abnormalities due to the tumor itself and pancreatic insufficiency (Table 1).

Measurement of glycated hemoglobin (HBA1C) is an emerging and important diagnostic test in the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. Recently, data has emerged to suggest that new-onset diabetes is present in about 50% of patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer.³⁹ The temporal relationship of pancreatic cancer and diabetes is supported by evidence showing that patients who undergo resection commonly have resolution of their diabetes.¹⁷ This study suggested that hyperglycemia, elevated HBA1C, and symptoms of diabetes in patients older than 50 years may identify patients who have early pancreatic cancer. The entity of pancreatic cancer–associated diabetes needs to be better defined and the algorithmic approach to evaluation and diagnosis, utilizing signs, symptoms, and laboratory values associated with diabetes, needs to be clearly established.

The only serum marker for PDA is carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA 19-9), also known as sialylated Lewis antigen or cancer-associated antigen. It was first identified in pancreatic cancer patients in 1981.^40,41 The sensitivity and specificity of CA 19-9 ranges from 70% to approximately 90%.^42,43 Hereditary predispositions and comorbid disease cross-reactivity contribute to the diminished sensitivity and specificity of CA 19-9. In about 5% to 10% of the population, CA 19-9 is not expressed (Lewis antigen A and B negative). Additionally, since CA 19-9 is expressed in the cells that line the biliary tree, diseases that lead to pancreatic or liver inflammation may falsely elevate CA 19-9.⁴⁴ As a result, CA 19-9 is not an ideal screening test. However, data has shown that CA 19-9 may have prognostic value postoperatively and serve as a marker for therapeutic response.^45,46

• Is biopsy needed for this patient and if so, what is the most appropriate technique?

ENDOSCOPIC ULTRASOUND

Generally, diagnosis with tissue is not necessary for patients who clearly have resectable disease and will proceed directly to surgery for management. Nevertheless, it is still commonly obtained in this group of patients. However, in patients with LAPC or with features suggestive of LAPC, such as tumor approximation to critical vessels such as the superior mesenteric artery (SMA) or celiac axis, biopsy is necessary. These patients will receive neoadjuvant therapy, and biopsy is important in establishing a diagnosis. The ideal way to obtain a biopsy is through fine-needle aspiration (FNA) or biopsy (FNB) utilizing endoscopic ultrasound (EUS). Percutaneous and computed tomography (CT)–guided FNB can also be used to obtain a biopsy for diagnosis. In comparison to percutaneous and CT-guided FNB, EUS-FNA/FNB has low rates of complications, a decreased rate of peritoneal seeding, and is cost effective.^47,48

CASE CONTINUED

Abdominal CT obtained following abdominal ultrasound reveals a 3.5-cm mass in the head of the pancreas in close approximation to the SMA and celiac axis.

• Does the patient have borderline resectable or unresectable disease?

IMAGING

Abdominal ultrasound is a reasonable, inexpensive, and safe alternative to abdominal CT as it does not utilize ionizing radiation. It is particularly useful in patients who present with jaundice or have concern for biliary obstruction based on laboratory evaluation. It is particularly sensitive for detecting tumors greater than 3 cm in size.^49,50 In patients whose abdominal ultrasound is unrevealing and whose index of suspicion remains high for PDA, abdominal CT should be the next imaging modality.

Abdominal CT obtained utilizing a pancreatic protocol is ideal for detection and staging of pancreatic tumors. By implementing a triple-phase protocol with arterial, late arterial, and venous phases, tumors, which have a density different from that of the pancreatic parenchyma, are accentuated. Abdominal CT is also able to provide critical information about tumor resectability.⁵¹ By revealing the degree of tumor encasement around the aorta, level of destruction of the superior mesenteric vein, or degree of involvement of the SMA or celiac vessels, abdominal CT determines if a patient should be deemed resectable, borderline resectable, or unresectable (Table 2).^52,53 Resectability is based on thorough imaging evaluation, expert opinion of a multidisciplinary team, and guidelines proposed by American Hepatopancreaticobiliary Association, Society of Surgical Oncology, Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract, and the NCCN.⁵⁴

Other imaging modalities have a less clearly established role in the diagnostic approach to PDA. In patients who have contraindications to obtaining CT, magnetic resonance imaging can be utilized as a secondary imaging modality.⁵⁵ The role of positron emission tomography 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (PET-FDG) is not clearly defined among clinicians, nor reflected in consensus guidelines by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). In clinical practice, it is still often combined with CT to detect metastatic disease, particularly in high-risk patients such has those with LAPC. The role of PET-CT in staging and its impact on clinical outcomes has not been fully established.

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) can also assist in the diagnosis and management of PDA. In patients with obstructive jaundice, both MRCP and ERCP visualize obstructions and dilations within the biliary tree, with the latter having the ability to intervene. ERCP allows for the collection of tissue to aid in diagnosis, and has the ability to relieve biliary obstruction via stenting.⁵⁶

TREATMENT

CASE CONTINUED

After an abdominal CT is obtained, the patient is referred to an outpatient oncologist because of concern for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. After consultation, the patient is advised to obtain EUS with biopsy and to return immediately afterwards for further treatment planning. The pathology report following EUS confirms that the mass is a poorly differentiated PDA. The patient’s case is discussed at a multidisciplinary meeting with radiation, surgical, and medical oncology. The abdominal CT and PET-CT scan are thoroughly reviewed. After imaging review, the multidisciplinary team concludes that the tumor is in contact with the SMA at 120° and with the common hepatic artery without extension in the celiac axis and without evidence of metastasis.

• What is the appropriate management of borderline resectable pancreatic cancer?

BORDERLINE RESECTABLE CANCER

Patients who have nonmetastatic disease and are deemed resectable and without contraindications to surgery or high-risk features, as defined by NCCN guidelines, should proceed directly to surgery. A large body of evidence suggests that complete surgical resection with negative margins is a significant predictor of survival and currently provides the only option for cure.^57–59 Despite the curative intent of surgery, the rate of recurrence remains high in patients who undergo surgical resection. Even in patients with negative resection margins (R0 resection), the 5-year survival is 20% to 30%, with a median survival ranging from 12 to 25 months, suggesting the presence of regional and distant occult disease at the time of diagnosis.^60–62

Additionally, in half the patients who undergo surgical resection with resultant positive microscopic (R1 resection) or gross (R2 resection) margins, the median survival is no greater than 12 months. In this subset of patients, clinical outcomes are similar to outcomes in patients with locally advanced and metastatic pancreatic cancer, suggesting that upfront surgery and adjuvant therapy may not be the ideal therapeutic option. This raises 2 important points: first, resectability should be assessed carefully in all patients with LAPC, and second, for those patients who are deemed borderline resectable, neoadjuvant therapy should be considered.⁶³ Borderline resectability is defined as tumor abutment ≤ 180° of the celiac artery, and tumor abutment of the superior mesenteric vein /portal vein of > 180° or abutting ≤ 180° with irregularity of the vein with or without thrombosis with anatomical structures that still allows for safe and complete resection and vein reconstruction (Table 2).

Neoadjuvant Therapy

The goal of neoadjuvant therapy is to minimize the negative impact of upfront surgery in patients who have a high likelihood of having microscopic or grossly positive margins. Research has suggested that neoadjuvant therapy may improve resectability, decrease the rate of recurrence, and improve overall survival.^64–66

There is no clear consensus on the ideal management of patients with borderline resectable disease. However, expert guidelines are in agreement that upfront surgery in patients with LAPC is not appropriate, as most patients will not be able to achieve an R0 resection.⁶⁷ As staging and management of patients with LAPC is difficult, expertise of a multidisciplinary team can be helpful.⁶⁸

Several studies and the NCCN guidelines support the use of neoadjuvant therapy in patients deemed borderline resectable.^69,70 Treatment of borderline resectable disease is similar to unresectable LAPC and generally involves 2 chemotherapy treatment backbones: FOLFIRINOX (folinic acid [leucovorin], fluorouracil [5-FU], irinotecan, and oxaliplatin) or gemcitabine-based therapy.

Phase 1 to 2/3 clinical trials conducted by Conroy et al from 2005 to 2011, including the landmark ACCORD-11 trial, established the safety and role of FOLFIRINOX in metastatic pancreatic cancer and also demonstrated an improved overall survival with the use of this therapy in these patients.^71,72 These findings led to interest in FOLFIRINOX as a neoadjuvant therapy for patients with LAPC. Since then, multiple prospective and retrospective studies have shown that 54% to 100% of patients with borderline resectable LAPC who were treated with FOLFIRINOX were down-staged significantly enough to undergo resection. Of those patients, more than 90% had a R0 resection following surgery (Table 3).^73–79

Data over the past 7 years suggests that neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX improves overall survival and resectability in patients with borderline disease. However, treatment with FOLFIRINOX is not without limitations. FOLFIRINOX is associated with higher rates of febrile neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, diarrhea, and sensory neuropathy as compared with gemcitabine-based therapy.⁷² Other less commonly observed toxicities associated with FOLFIRINOX include mucositis, hand-foot syndrome, pulmonary toxicity, and alopecia. Dose-attenuated FOLFIRINOX-based regimens, including those that exclude the bolus fluorouracil dose and augment upfront filgrastim, have demonstrated improved safety and comparable efficacy as compared to standard FOLFIRINOX.⁸⁰

Gemcitabine has been the fundamental treatment backbone for PDA since the results of the phase 3 CONKO-001 trial were published.⁸¹ Gemcitabine is a pyrimidine antimetabolite and potent inhibitor of DNA polymerase and ribonucleotide reductase.⁸² In recent years, multiple combination therapies with gemcitabine have been investigated, including regimens with nab-paclitaxel, oxaliplatin, or docetaxel. Resection rates and negative margin outcomes have been shown to be comparable to patients who received FOLFIRINOX in the neoadjuvant setting with borderline locally advanced disease.^83–85 In addition to having a more tolerable side effect profile in comparison to fluorouracil-based regimens, gemcitabine is considered to be a potent radiosensitizer.⁸⁶ For this reason, studies have also investigated the role of radiotherapy in conjunction with gemcitabine, revealing negative margin resection rates above 80% in patients with borderline resectable disease.^87,88

Because very few studies directly comparing FOLFIRINOX with gemcitabine-based combination regimens have been completed, there is no clear consensus on the preferred treatment regimen, in both borderline and unresectable LAPC. Decisions to treat are influenced predominantly by comorbidities, adverse effect profiles, and performance status of patients, as FOLFIRINOX is the more toxic of the 2 treatment backbones. Therefore, FOLFIRINOX has mostly been utilized in patients with relatively good functional status (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group [ECOG] performance status 0 to 1).⁸⁹ In elderly patients and those with poor functional status, ECOG 2 to 4, gemcitabine as a single agent is a reasonable alternative in the neoadjuvant setting of borderline resectable disease.

The exact role of radiation therapy in addition to induction chemotherapy in borderline resectable pancreatic cancer has not been clearly established because of the lack of prospective studies in this area. Multiple large retrospective series have identified high rates of conversion to margin-negative resection with neoadjuvant chemoradiation alone.⁹⁰ Based on available data, it is reasonable for patients with borderline resectable disease to proceed with any of the following treatment options: chemotherapy, chemoradiation, or induction chemotherapy followed by chemoradiation (Figure). Chemotherapy and chemoradiation are generally more appropriate with patients with high CA 19-9 levels or those at an elevated risk of having positive margins or occult metastatic disease.⁹¹ Obtaining negative margin resections is the predominant goal of neoadjuvant radiotherapy.⁸⁹ Many studies have identified margin status to be one of the most significant prognostic factors in PDA.^57,59,92,93 Additionally, several studies have highlighted that radiotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting could improve negative margin resection rates, local control, and clinical outcomes in patients with borderline resectable locally advanced disease.^94–97 A common multimodal regimen utilized in the neoadjuvant setting combines capecitabine, an oral prodrug that is converted to fluorouracil, with radiation therapy. This combination has also been shown to improve resectability rates and long-term clinical outcomes in patients with borderline resectable disease.⁹⁸ Additionally, neoadjuvant radiation therapy can potentially downstage patients with unresectable disease at the time of diagnosis to become surgical candidates.⁹⁹ Despite the paucity of data, interval scans utilizing CT following neoadjuvant therapy should be obtained 2 to 4 months after completion of therapy to determine therapeutic response, evaluate for disease progression, and, most important, reassess surgical stage/resectability. It is clinically acceptable to proceed to resection with radiographically stable disease post-neoadjuvant therapy.

Many patients classified as borderline resectable are able to proceed with surgery following neoadjuvant therapy. Unfortunately, specific data on adjuvant therapy following neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy and surgical resection in borderline resectable patients is scarce. Clinical practice guidelines are extrapolated from studies where upfront resection in clearly resectable patients was followed by adjuvant therapy. Based on these data, approximately 6 months of perioperative chemotherapy with or without chemoradiotherapy is a reasonable consideration. Nevertheless, about 80% of patients at the time of diagnosis are deemed to be unresectable, and a smaller number do not proceed to surgery despite an initial classification as borderline resectable. Of the 80% of patients with advanced disease, about half are metastatic at presentation and the remaining 30% to 40% are defined as having unresectable LAPC.¹⁰⁰

CASE CONTINUED

The patient is deemed borderline resectable. He receives neoadjuvant therapy with gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel. Two months after therapy, interval imaging with abdominal CT does not show improvement in tumor size and there is now evidence that the tumor has invaded the celiac axis and is abutting more than 180° of the SMA. The patient presents to the oncologist to discuss further management. He has lost about 15 lb since his last evaluation, is capable of self-care, but is unable to carry on with any work activities.

• What is the appropriate management of unresectable nonmetastatic LAPC?

UNRESECTABLE LOCALLY ADVANCED CANCER

As in the case of borderline resectable disease, there are many treatment options for patients with unresectable LAPC. Timing, optimal chemotherapy regimen, and the addition of regularly and hypofractionated radiotherapy are issues currently under investigation. However, there are some general considerations and principles that are followed as reflected in the NCCN guidelines and recent studies. The primary therapeutic aims in patients with unresectable locally advanced disease are to increase survival and improve palliation.

The elderly comprise a large percentage of the patients diagnosed with unresectable locally advanced disease. Pharmacokinetics and toxicity profiles are altered in the elderly population.^101,102 Therefore, it is important to assess functional status and comorbidities as these are critical factors in determining treatment regimens, similar to patients with borderline resectable disease. Currently, the most common first-line therapies in advanced pancreatic cancer are gemcitabine alone, gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel, FOLFIRINOX, gemcitabine/capecitabine, and gemcitabine/oxaliplatin.¹⁰³ The overall treatment approach to unresectable locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma closely mirrors that of patients with borderline resectable disease and metastatic disease. Much of the data supporting treatment regimens in unresectable LAPC is extrapolated from clinical trials looking at advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer.

Consensus opinions domestically and from Europe recommend that patients with locally advanced unresectable disease undergo upfront chemotherapy (Figure).¹⁰⁴ This is based on the premise that initial chemotherapy may destroy occult metastatic cells and increase the efficacy of consolidative chemotherapy, particularly with radiation in the future. Upfront chemoradiotherapy has only been investigated in a small series of trials in which no clear survival benefit was observed and has the added consequence of treatment-related toxicity.¹⁰⁵ However, data is limited in this regard, with variations in treatment protocols and cohort compositions contributing to the inconclusive findings.

No head-to-head studies investigating FOLFIRINOX versus nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine in patients with locally advanced disease have been published, but clinical trials are under way. Other combination therapies have been looked at through small retrospective or prospective studies, but no robust, large-scale clinical trials have been completed. For this reason, NCCN guidelines recommend enrollment of patients with LAPC into active clinical trials.

• What is the role of radiation therapy in unresectable LAPC?

Despite the reported advantages of neoadjuvant radiation in patients with potentially resectable disease, there is significant debate regarding the timing and role of neoadjuvant radiation in patients with unresectable disease. Numerous comprehensive analyses and studiest indicate that chemoradiotherapy leads to significantly better overall survival compared to no therapy or radiation therapy alone in LAPC.^68,110,111 However, conflicting data support the use of upfront chemoradiotherapy in unresectable LAPC when compared to chemotherapy alone. Unfortunately, most prospective studies investigating the role of radiotherapy were performed following administration of single-agent gemcitabine, which is no longer considered standard of care for patients with LAPC. In spite of this, ECOG 4201 identified a statistically significant improvement in median overall survival following the addition of gemcitabine-based radiotherapy. Huguet et al in his review pointed out that upfront chemoradiotherapy was not superior to chemotherapy only and was associated with increased treatment toxicity.¹⁰⁵ Additionally, a recent phase 3 study looking at chemoradiotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in patients treated with gemcitabine found no difference in overall survival.¹¹² This can potentially be attributed to the fact that about 30% of patients with LAPC develop metastatic disease in the early phases of treatment due to poor control of local and systemically occult disease.¹¹³ Given the propensity for high rates of occult metastatic disease in LAPC, treatment paradigms and consensus guidelines recommend multi-agent systemic chemotherapy followed by chemoradiotherapy in select patients.

Based on current studies and until further clinical investigations are completed, consensus opinion indicates that the most appropriate approach in unresectable LAPC is to begin with induction chemotherapy (with either gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel, FOLFIRINOX, capecitabine, or other treatment combinations), followed by chemoradiation in the absence of disease progression when the first repeat imaging evaluation is completed (Figure). One important caveat regarding reimaging with CT in the neoadjuvant setting is that radiologic response may not correlate with pathologic response.¹¹⁴ PET-CT may have a role in predicting response to neoadjuvant therapy. Overall, induction chemotherapy followed by consolidative chemoradiation may confer numerous benefits: it removes the unnecessary burden and toxicity associated with radiotherapy in the nearly one third of patients who have pervasive disease progression during initial treatment; it allows testing and increases the chances of tolerating full-dose systemic chemotherapy; and it raises the likelihood of converting patients who do not progress to metastasis during the initial phase of treatment from unresectable to resectable status.^103,115 Despite the lack of strong conclusive data, the general agreement is that neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy converts about one third of borderline and unresectable LAPC to an R0 resection.^95,103 There are very specific rationales for the addition of radiotherapy in LAPC, and these functions need to be better defined through further clinical trials.

CASE CONTINUED

The patient is unable to tolerate his first round of second-line therapy with modified FOLFIRINOX. His overall treatment plan is transitioned to palliation. He continues to have pain, despite increasing doses of narcotics.

• What is the next step for patients in whom second-line therapy fails and who have intractable pain while on high-dose narcotics?

A subset of patients with unresectable LAPC may not be amenable to chemotherapy with or without radiation due to significant comorbidities or because they present with or progress to ECOG scores 3 or 4. The goal in these patients should be palliation. Pain is one of the most predominant and difficult to manage symptoms in progressive LAPC. Opioid-based medications are the primary treatment for pain in LAPC. However, patients sometimes become refractory to opioid medications. In this group of patients, it is reasonable to consider palliative radiation as an alternative method for pain control.¹¹⁶

An alternative to palliative radiation in the setting of progressive pain in PDA is celiac plexus block or neurolysis. By injecting an anesthetic or alcohol into the celiac plexus, neural signaling pathways involved in the propagation of pain are inhibited without leading to significant nerve destruction. Additionally, chemical splanchnicectomy allows for reduced opioid medication use and associated side effects.¹¹⁷

In general patients with LAPC have profound weight loss prior to and during treatment. This has significant implications prognostically and on treatment options. The underlying etiology is multifactorial, but one of the primary driving factors is pancreatic insufficiency. An estimated 65% of pancreatic cancer patients have fat malabsorption, and 50% have protein malabsorption, leading to steatorrhea and weight loss.¹¹⁸ Patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer should be given enzyme replacement with formulations that include lipase, amylase, and protease. A minimum dose of enzyme replacement should include 40,000 to 50,000 U of lipase during meals and 25,000 U during snack intake. If maldigestion, symptoms, or nutritional endpoints (BMI, albumin, prealbumin, cholesterol) do not improve, the pancreatic enzyme dose should be escalated and a proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) added. In patients with pancreatic insufficiency, PPIs have been shown to improve fat absorption.¹¹⁹ Enzyme replacement therapy has been shown to prevent weight loss in patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer.¹²⁰

As most patients with LAPC go on to develop progressive disease, palliative care becomes an integral aspect of the therapeutic paradigm. Palliation in LAPC has a significant role in determining quality of life and ensuring patient’s goals of care have been meet. Studies have suggested that pancreatic cancer is second only to lung cancer in terms of the number of emergency department visits in the later stages of disease.¹²⁰ Additionally, aggressive care in the setting of incurable diseases such as LAPC has been associated with poor quality of life.¹²¹ More recently it has been shown that involvement of palliative care in patients with advanced pancreatic is associated with less aggressive care near death.¹²² Therefore, the incorporation of palliative or supportive care teams in the treatment of patients with progressive LAPC can improve quality of life and alleviate suffering associated with increasing symptom burden.

CONCLUSION

LAPC is a difficult disease for both provider and patient. There is a paucity of robust clinical trials in the neoadjuvant setting for LAPC. Current research is complicated by varying consensus definitions of resectability and the varying treatment configurations across studies. The optimal type, timing, and sequence of treatment and whether to add radiation therapy in LAPC have not been clearly defined. However, based on the available studies and consensus guidelines, patients who are deemed to have LAPC should have neoadjuvant therapy. FOLFIRINOX or gemcitabine with nab-paclitaxel should be considered first-line treatments. Patients with LAPC who respond to chemotherapy or are ineligible for multi-drug chemotherapy may benefit from chemoradiotherapy. In patients with unresectable disease, chemoradiotherapy has been shown to enhance survival as compared to best supportive care or radiation alone. For borderline resectable disease, it is reasonable to treat patients with either chemoradiotherapy, chemotherapy alone, or chemotherapy followed by chemoradiotherapy.

Considering the invasive nature of LAPC and the controversy around neoadjuvant treatment protocols, enrollment of patients with LAPC into clinical trials is important and will help determine the optimal treatment regimen for future patients.

INTRODUCTION

Pancreatic cancer is one of the most rapidly rising causes of mortality in the United States. In 2016, the number of deaths from pancreatic cancer exceeded those from breast cancer, making it the third leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States.¹ It is projected that by 2020 pancreatic cancer will overtake colorectal malignancies to become the second most common cause of cancer death in this country.^1,2 The term pancreatic cancer encompasses both exocrine and endocrine tumors. However, since 80% of pancreatic cancers are classified as pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDA), when speaking about pancreatic cancer most clinicians and scientists are referring to PDA.

Even with advances in chemotherapy and radiotherapy over the past decade, the only curative option for PDA is surgical resection. Unfortunately, only 20% of patients are appropriate surgical candidates at the time of diagnosis.³ Considering the lack of screening options and the ambiguity of symptomatology, roughly 4 out 5 patients with PDA are diagnosed as having locally advanced or metastatic disease that is initially not amenable to surgery.

Locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma presents unique challenges in management and treatment. Treatment options include multi-agent chemotherapy, chemoradiation, or radiotherapy. Some patients can be successfully down-staged with these therapies and be deemed surgical candidates. Other challenges include selecting the appropriate sequence of therapies and stratifying therapies based on comorbidities. In this article, we review the epidemiology, biology, and diagnostic approach to PDA and focus on current treatment strategies for locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC).

EPIDEMIOLOGY

In 2012, GLOBOCAN estimated that PDA caused 331,000 deaths per year, accounting for 4% of all worldwide mortality.^4,5 Despite high incidence rates internationally, PDA is a disease of Western and industrialized nations. In the Unites States, PDA is a malignancy of middle to late adulthood, with a sharp upsurge in incidence after age 50 years.⁶ More than one third of new cases are diagnosed in patients older than 70 years, and more than half of patients diagnosed are older than 60 years of age.² The incidence of pancreatic cancer is fairly equal among men and women, with a slightly higher rate for the male sex. It has an incidence preference for African-Americans by 4.8 cases per 100,000 persons nationally.⁷

Risk factors for the development of exocrine pancreatic cancer include hereditary disposition, underlying medical conditions, and environmental factors. One of the most significant environmental risk factors for the development of PDA is smoking,⁸ which is associated with up to 25% of all cases.⁹ Smoking cessation leads to a rapid reduction in risk for pancreatic cancer, with the risk among former smokers approaching that for never smokers less than 10 years after quitting.⁹ Other environmental factors that contribute to the development of pancreatic cancer include increased body mass index, a high-salt and high-saturated fat diet, heavy alcohol intake, and increased utilization of nonsteroidal inflammatory drugs.^10–13

There is a strong association between new-onset diabetes and increased risk for developing PDA.^14,15 Data also suggest that diabetes may be a risk factor and/or a consequence of tissue destruction that arises during the development or progression of PDA.^16,17 Interestingly, ABO blood grouping is another underlying medical disposition that confers an altered risk profile. Studies have shown that patients with blood group O were less likely than those with type A, B, or AB to develop pancreatic cancer.¹⁸

Genetic predisposition syndromes can elevate an individual patient’s risk for developing PDA. Genetic syndromes and gene alterations that increase the risk for PDA include BRCA1/2, Peutz-Jeghers syndrome, and Lynch syndrome risk.^19–21 Up to 10% to 15% of PDA cases may be due to an inherited familial cancer.²² Having a first-degree relative with PDA increases the odds of developing PDA 1.76-fold compared to those without a family history.²³ The exact biologic and molecular mechanisms of familial pancreatic cancer are unclear. It is estimated that about 10% of patients with familial pancreatic cancer (FPC) carry BRCA2 mutations.²⁴ Individuals at risk for FPC should undergo genetic screening for the presence of the most frequently inherited pancreatic cancer susceptibility genetic defects: BRCA2, PALB2, and ATM germline mutations.²⁵ Carriers of BRCA2, who are also at increased risk for developing breast, ovarian, and prostate cancer, should be monitored closely. Of all hereditary conditions, hereditary pancreatitis confers the highest risk for developing PDA, with an approximate risk elevation of 40% to 50%.^26,27 Although several genetic predisposition syndromes have been identified, most cases of pancreatic adenocarcinoma are thought to be sporadic.

CANCER BIOLOGY AND PATHOLOGY

The pathologic predecessor of PDA is pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN). With further dysplastic changes that result from increasing genetic alterations, these precancerous lesions progress from low- to high-grade and finally to adenocarcinoma. More than 90% of all PINs across all grades have oncogenic KRAS mutations.²⁸ Additionally, inactivating mutations in the tumor suppressor genes SMAD4, p53, and CDKN2A are found with increasing frequency in higher grade PINs. The frequency and presence of mutations in both oncogenes and tumor suppressor genes in precursor neoplasias mirror the genetic mutations noted in advanced PDA.²⁹ Among all mutations, KRAS is the most common and most functionally important for pancreatic cancer cell survival. KRAS mutations not only have profound effects on downstream mediators of tumor growth and metastasis, but they are implicated in reprograming of cellular metabolism.^30,31

Pancreatic adenocarcinoma has a unique microenvironment that makes it a difficult target for current therapeutic modalities. First, it is one of the most stroma-rich malignancies. The dense stroma surrounding pancreatic tumor cells leads to increased tumor pressures and alterations in tumor vascular perfusion.³² It also serves as a barrier that prevents chemotherapeutic drugs from reaching the tumor cells. Thus, clinical trials are under way to investigate agents such has hyaluronidase, which may degrade components of the extracellular matrix that supports thestromal environment. Additionally, there is data to suggest that the microenvironment of PDA downregulates immune monitoring, leading to further tumor growth.^27,33 The molecular, cellular, and immunologic complexity of PDA may contribute to its resistance to traditional therapeutics.

EVALUATION AND DIAGNOSIS

CASE PRESENTATION

A 61-year-old man with a history of type 2 diabetes mellitus and chronic tobacco use presents to the emergency department (ED) with a 4-month history of progressively worsening abdominal discomfort and fatigue. He has also noticed darkening of his urine and slight yellow discoloration of his eyes. His weight measured 5 months ago in his primary care physician’s office was 91 kg (200 lb, BMI 29.5) and in the ED is 75 kg (165 lb, BMI 24.4). He has noticed bulky, malodorous, oily stools for about 2 months. Preliminary laboratory studies reveal elevated levels of total bilirubin (2.7 mg/dL) and alkaline phosphatase (204 IU/L). Transabdominal ultrasound (US) is obtained and reveals a 3-cm pancreatic mass with biliary tract dilation.

• Does this patient have pancreatic cancer?

CLINICAL SIGNS AND SYMPTOMS

Establishing the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer in a patient who presents with a high index of suspicion is critical. Patients with pancreatic cancer usually present after a period of nonspecific and vague symptoms, which typically are experienced as abdominal discomfort, weight loss, and weakness. It is estimated that approximately 25% of patients may complain of vague abdominal pain up to 6 months prior to diagnosis. Up to 15% of patients may seek medical attention more than 6 months prior to establishing a diagnosis of PDA.³⁴ The most common symptoms associated with pancreatic cancer in order of decreasing reported frequency are weight loss, anorexia, abdominal/epigastric pain, dark-colored urine, jaundice, nausea, back pain, and diarrhea with associated steatorrhea.³⁵ Upwards of 15% of patients present with painless jaundice, a term that is often associated with pancreatic cancer.³⁶ On exam these patients may have scleral icterus, sublingual jaundice, epigastric pain on palpation, weight loss, hepatomegaly, lymphadenopathy and a nontender, distended, palpable gallbladder (also known as Courvoisier sign).³⁴ Abdominal signs and symptoms arise from tumor growth into surrounding vessels, tissues, and ducts within the abdominal cavity. Compression of the common bile duct accounts for the development of jaundice. Tumor growth around the stomach and duodenum can lead to delayed gastric emptying and subsequently nausea and vomiting. Constriction of the pancreatic duct leads to pancreatic insufficiency, precipitation of weight loss, and steatorrhea. Pancreatic insufficiency can worsen abdominal pain, and lead to increased weight loss and flatulence.

Less common symptoms include pain, erythema, and edema involving the lower extremities, which may be reflective of migratory thrombophlebitis (commonly known as Trousseau syndrome). Thromboembolic disease, including pulmonary embolism, portal vein, and deep vein thromboses are frequently encountered complications of pancreatic cancer. The incidence of thromboembolic events in patients with PDA has been reported to be as high as 54%.³⁷ Of all signs encountered, weight loss is the most common and most profound. Patients with advanced PDA have severe degrees of cachexia. Some patients present with as much as a 5 kg/m² decrease in their BMI from pre-illness baseline BMI, and lose another 3 to 4 kg/m² through disease progression.³⁸ At the time of diagnosis, many patients have already undergone significant weight loss, which can have substantial implications on treatment planning and clinical outcomes.

• What other studies can be done to assist in making the diagnosis?

LABORATORY ABNORMALITIES AND TUMOR MARKERS

Elevations in alkaline phosphatase, γ-glutamyltransferase (GGT), serum aspartate aminotransferase (AST), serum alanine aminotransferase (ALT), and direct fractions of bilirubin are common in patients with PDA. Patients will usually have an obstructive pattern on their liver panel, with predominant elevations in direct bilirubin, alkaline phosphatase, and GGT, as compared with AST and ALT. Other baseline laboratory studies, including a complete blood count and basic metabolic panel, should be obtained because patients commonly have thrombocytosis, anemia, and electrolyte abnormalities due to the tumor itself and pancreatic insufficiency (Table 1).

Measurement of glycated hemoglobin (HBA1C) is an emerging and important diagnostic test in the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. Recently, data has emerged to suggest that new-onset diabetes is present in about 50% of patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer.³⁹ The temporal relationship of pancreatic cancer and diabetes is supported by evidence showing that patients who undergo resection commonly have resolution of their diabetes.¹⁷ This study suggested that hyperglycemia, elevated HBA1C, and symptoms of diabetes in patients older than 50 years may identify patients who have early pancreatic cancer. The entity of pancreatic cancer–associated diabetes needs to be better defined and the algorithmic approach to evaluation and diagnosis, utilizing signs, symptoms, and laboratory values associated with diabetes, needs to be clearly established.

The only serum marker for PDA is carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA 19-9), also known as sialylated Lewis antigen or cancer-associated antigen. It was first identified in pancreatic cancer patients in 1981.^40,41 The sensitivity and specificity of CA 19-9 ranges from 70% to approximately 90%.^42,43 Hereditary predispositions and comorbid disease cross-reactivity contribute to the diminished sensitivity and specificity of CA 19-9. In about 5% to 10% of the population, CA 19-9 is not expressed (Lewis antigen A and B negative). Additionally, since CA 19-9 is expressed in the cells that line the biliary tree, diseases that lead to pancreatic or liver inflammation may falsely elevate CA 19-9.⁴⁴ As a result, CA 19-9 is not an ideal screening test. However, data has shown that CA 19-9 may have prognostic value postoperatively and serve as a marker for therapeutic response.^45,46

• Is biopsy needed for this patient and if so, what is the most appropriate technique?

ENDOSCOPIC ULTRASOUND

Generally, diagnosis with tissue is not necessary for patients who clearly have resectable disease and will proceed directly to surgery for management. Nevertheless, it is still commonly obtained in this group of patients. However, in patients with LAPC or with features suggestive of LAPC, such as tumor approximation to critical vessels such as the superior mesenteric artery (SMA) or celiac axis, biopsy is necessary. These patients will receive neoadjuvant therapy, and biopsy is important in establishing a diagnosis. The ideal way to obtain a biopsy is through fine-needle aspiration (FNA) or biopsy (FNB) utilizing endoscopic ultrasound (EUS). Percutaneous and computed tomography (CT)–guided FNB can also be used to obtain a biopsy for diagnosis. In comparison to percutaneous and CT-guided FNB, EUS-FNA/FNB has low rates of complications, a decreased rate of peritoneal seeding, and is cost effective.^47,48

CASE CONTINUED

Abdominal CT obtained following abdominal ultrasound reveals a 3.5-cm mass in the head of the pancreas in close approximation to the SMA and celiac axis.

• Does the patient have borderline resectable or unresectable disease?

IMAGING

Abdominal ultrasound is a reasonable, inexpensive, and safe alternative to abdominal CT as it does not utilize ionizing radiation. It is particularly useful in patients who present with jaundice or have concern for biliary obstruction based on laboratory evaluation. It is particularly sensitive for detecting tumors greater than 3 cm in size.^49,50 In patients whose abdominal ultrasound is unrevealing and whose index of suspicion remains high for PDA, abdominal CT should be the next imaging modality.

Abdominal CT obtained utilizing a pancreatic protocol is ideal for detection and staging of pancreatic tumors. By implementing a triple-phase protocol with arterial, late arterial, and venous phases, tumors, which have a density different from that of the pancreatic parenchyma, are accentuated. Abdominal CT is also able to provide critical information about tumor resectability.⁵¹ By revealing the degree of tumor encasement around the aorta, level of destruction of the superior mesenteric vein, or degree of involvement of the SMA or celiac vessels, abdominal CT determines if a patient should be deemed resectable, borderline resectable, or unresectable (Table 2).^52,53 Resectability is based on thorough imaging evaluation, expert opinion of a multidisciplinary team, and guidelines proposed by American Hepatopancreaticobiliary Association, Society of Surgical Oncology, Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract, and the NCCN.⁵⁴

Other imaging modalities have a less clearly established role in the diagnostic approach to PDA. In patients who have contraindications to obtaining CT, magnetic resonance imaging can be utilized as a secondary imaging modality.⁵⁵ The role of positron emission tomography 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (PET-FDG) is not clearly defined among clinicians, nor reflected in consensus guidelines by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). In clinical practice, it is still often combined with CT to detect metastatic disease, particularly in high-risk patients such has those with LAPC. The role of PET-CT in staging and its impact on clinical outcomes has not been fully established.

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) can also assist in the diagnosis and management of PDA. In patients with obstructive jaundice, both MRCP and ERCP visualize obstructions and dilations within the biliary tree, with the latter having the ability to intervene. ERCP allows for the collection of tissue to aid in diagnosis, and has the ability to relieve biliary obstruction via stenting.⁵⁶

TREATMENT

CASE CONTINUED

After an abdominal CT is obtained, the patient is referred to an outpatient oncologist because of concern for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. After consultation, the patient is advised to obtain EUS with biopsy and to return immediately afterwards for further treatment planning. The pathology report following EUS confirms that the mass is a poorly differentiated PDA. The patient’s case is discussed at a multidisciplinary meeting with radiation, surgical, and medical oncology. The abdominal CT and PET-CT scan are thoroughly reviewed. After imaging review, the multidisciplinary team concludes that the tumor is in contact with the SMA at 120° and with the common hepatic artery without extension in the celiac axis and without evidence of metastasis.

• What is the appropriate management of borderline resectable pancreatic cancer?

BORDERLINE RESECTABLE CANCER

Patients who have nonmetastatic disease and are deemed resectable and without contraindications to surgery or high-risk features, as defined by NCCN guidelines, should proceed directly to surgery. A large body of evidence suggests that complete surgical resection with negative margins is a significant predictor of survival and currently provides the only option for cure.^57–59 Despite the curative intent of surgery, the rate of recurrence remains high in patients who undergo surgical resection. Even in patients with negative resection margins (R0 resection), the 5-year survival is 20% to 30%, with a median survival ranging from 12 to 25 months, suggesting the presence of regional and distant occult disease at the time of diagnosis.^60–62

Additionally, in half the patients who undergo surgical resection with resultant positive microscopic (R1 resection) or gross (R2 resection) margins, the median survival is no greater than 12 months. In this subset of patients, clinical outcomes are similar to outcomes in patients with locally advanced and metastatic pancreatic cancer, suggesting that upfront surgery and adjuvant therapy may not be the ideal therapeutic option. This raises 2 important points: first, resectability should be assessed carefully in all patients with LAPC, and second, for those patients who are deemed borderline resectable, neoadjuvant therapy should be considered.⁶³ Borderline resectability is defined as tumor abutment ≤ 180° of the celiac artery, and tumor abutment of the superior mesenteric vein /portal vein of > 180° or abutting ≤ 180° with irregularity of the vein with or without thrombosis with anatomical structures that still allows for safe and complete resection and vein reconstruction (Table 2).

Neoadjuvant Therapy

The goal of neoadjuvant therapy is to minimize the negative impact of upfront surgery in patients who have a high likelihood of having microscopic or grossly positive margins. Research has suggested that neoadjuvant therapy may improve resectability, decrease the rate of recurrence, and improve overall survival.^64–66

There is no clear consensus on the ideal management of patients with borderline resectable disease. However, expert guidelines are in agreement that upfront surgery in patients with LAPC is not appropriate, as most patients will not be able to achieve an R0 resection.⁶⁷ As staging and management of patients with LAPC is difficult, expertise of a multidisciplinary team can be helpful.⁶⁸

Several studies and the NCCN guidelines support the use of neoadjuvant therapy in patients deemed borderline resectable.^69,70 Treatment of borderline resectable disease is similar to unresectable LAPC and generally involves 2 chemotherapy treatment backbones: FOLFIRINOX (folinic acid [leucovorin], fluorouracil [5-FU], irinotecan, and oxaliplatin) or gemcitabine-based therapy.

Phase 1 to 2/3 clinical trials conducted by Conroy et al from 2005 to 2011, including the landmark ACCORD-11 trial, established the safety and role of FOLFIRINOX in metastatic pancreatic cancer and also demonstrated an improved overall survival with the use of this therapy in these patients.^71,72 These findings led to interest in FOLFIRINOX as a neoadjuvant therapy for patients with LAPC. Since then, multiple prospective and retrospective studies have shown that 54% to 100% of patients with borderline resectable LAPC who were treated with FOLFIRINOX were down-staged significantly enough to undergo resection. Of those patients, more than 90% had a R0 resection following surgery (Table 3).^73–79

Data over the past 7 years suggests that neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX improves overall survival and resectability in patients with borderline disease. However, treatment with FOLFIRINOX is not without limitations. FOLFIRINOX is associated with higher rates of febrile neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, diarrhea, and sensory neuropathy as compared with gemcitabine-based therapy.⁷² Other less commonly observed toxicities associated with FOLFIRINOX include mucositis, hand-foot syndrome, pulmonary toxicity, and alopecia. Dose-attenuated FOLFIRINOX-based regimens, including those that exclude the bolus fluorouracil dose and augment upfront filgrastim, have demonstrated improved safety and comparable efficacy as compared to standard FOLFIRINOX.⁸⁰

Gemcitabine has been the fundamental treatment backbone for PDA since the results of the phase 3 CONKO-001 trial were published.⁸¹ Gemcitabine is a pyrimidine antimetabolite and potent inhibitor of DNA polymerase and ribonucleotide reductase.⁸² In recent years, multiple combination therapies with gemcitabine have been investigated, including regimens with nab-paclitaxel, oxaliplatin, or docetaxel. Resection rates and negative margin outcomes have been shown to be comparable to patients who received FOLFIRINOX in the neoadjuvant setting with borderline locally advanced disease.^83–85 In addition to having a more tolerable side effect profile in comparison to fluorouracil-based regimens, gemcitabine is considered to be a potent radiosensitizer.⁸⁶ For this reason, studies have also investigated the role of radiotherapy in conjunction with gemcitabine, revealing negative margin resection rates above 80% in patients with borderline resectable disease.^87,88

Because very few studies directly comparing FOLFIRINOX with gemcitabine-based combination regimens have been completed, there is no clear consensus on the preferred treatment regimen, in both borderline and unresectable LAPC. Decisions to treat are influenced predominantly by comorbidities, adverse effect profiles, and performance status of patients, as FOLFIRINOX is the more toxic of the 2 treatment backbones. Therefore, FOLFIRINOX has mostly been utilized in patients with relatively good functional status (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group [ECOG] performance status 0 to 1).⁸⁹ In elderly patients and those with poor functional status, ECOG 2 to 4, gemcitabine as a single agent is a reasonable alternative in the neoadjuvant setting of borderline resectable disease.

The exact role of radiation therapy in addition to induction chemotherapy in borderline resectable pancreatic cancer has not been clearly established because of the lack of prospective studies in this area. Multiple large retrospective series have identified high rates of conversion to margin-negative resection with neoadjuvant chemoradiation alone.⁹⁰ Based on available data, it is reasonable for patients with borderline resectable disease to proceed with any of the following treatment options: chemotherapy, chemoradiation, or induction chemotherapy followed by chemoradiation (Figure). Chemotherapy and chemoradiation are generally more appropriate with patients with high CA 19-9 levels or those at an elevated risk of having positive margins or occult metastatic disease.⁹¹ Obtaining negative margin resections is the predominant goal of neoadjuvant radiotherapy.⁸⁹ Many studies have identified margin status to be one of the most significant prognostic factors in PDA.^57,59,92,93 Additionally, several studies have highlighted that radiotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting could improve negative margin resection rates, local control, and clinical outcomes in patients with borderline resectable locally advanced disease.^94–97 A common multimodal regimen utilized in the neoadjuvant setting combines capecitabine, an oral prodrug that is converted to fluorouracil, with radiation therapy. This combination has also been shown to improve resectability rates and long-term clinical outcomes in patients with borderline resectable disease.⁹⁸ Additionally, neoadjuvant radiation therapy can potentially downstage patients with unresectable disease at the time of diagnosis to become surgical candidates.⁹⁹ Despite the paucity of data, interval scans utilizing CT following neoadjuvant therapy should be obtained 2 to 4 months after completion of therapy to determine therapeutic response, evaluate for disease progression, and, most important, reassess surgical stage/resectability. It is clinically acceptable to proceed to resection with radiographically stable disease post-neoadjuvant therapy.

Many patients classified as borderline resectable are able to proceed with surgery following neoadjuvant therapy. Unfortunately, specific data on adjuvant therapy following neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy and surgical resection in borderline resectable patients is scarce. Clinical practice guidelines are extrapolated from studies where upfront resection in clearly resectable patients was followed by adjuvant therapy. Based on these data, approximately 6 months of perioperative chemotherapy with or without chemoradiotherapy is a reasonable consideration. Nevertheless, about 80% of patients at the time of diagnosis are deemed to be unresectable, and a smaller number do not proceed to surgery despite an initial classification as borderline resectable. Of the 80% of patients with advanced disease, about half are metastatic at presentation and the remaining 30% to 40% are defined as having unresectable LAPC.¹⁰⁰

CASE CONTINUED

The patient is deemed borderline resectable. He receives neoadjuvant therapy with gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel. Two months after therapy, interval imaging with abdominal CT does not show improvement in tumor size and there is now evidence that the tumor has invaded the celiac axis and is abutting more than 180° of the SMA. The patient presents to the oncologist to discuss further management. He has lost about 15 lb since his last evaluation, is capable of self-care, but is unable to carry on with any work activities.

• What is the appropriate management of unresectable nonmetastatic LAPC?

UNRESECTABLE LOCALLY ADVANCED CANCER

As in the case of borderline resectable disease, there are many treatment options for patients with unresectable LAPC. Timing, optimal chemotherapy regimen, and the addition of regularly and hypofractionated radiotherapy are issues currently under investigation. However, there are some general considerations and principles that are followed as reflected in the NCCN guidelines and recent studies. The primary therapeutic aims in patients with unresectable locally advanced disease are to increase survival and improve palliation.

The elderly comprise a large percentage of the patients diagnosed with unresectable locally advanced disease. Pharmacokinetics and toxicity profiles are altered in the elderly population.^101,102 Therefore, it is important to assess functional status and comorbidities as these are critical factors in determining treatment regimens, similar to patients with borderline resectable disease. Currently, the most common first-line therapies in advanced pancreatic cancer are gemcitabine alone, gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel, FOLFIRINOX, gemcitabine/capecitabine, and gemcitabine/oxaliplatin.¹⁰³ The overall treatment approach to unresectable locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma closely mirrors that of patients with borderline resectable disease and metastatic disease. Much of the data supporting treatment regimens in unresectable LAPC is extrapolated from clinical trials looking at advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer.

Consensus opinions domestically and from Europe recommend that patients with locally advanced unresectable disease undergo upfront chemotherapy (Figure).¹⁰⁴ This is based on the premise that initial chemotherapy may destroy occult metastatic cells and increase the efficacy of consolidative chemotherapy, particularly with radiation in the future. Upfront chemoradiotherapy has only been investigated in a small series of trials in which no clear survival benefit was observed and has the added consequence of treatment-related toxicity.¹⁰⁵ However, data is limited in this regard, with variations in treatment protocols and cohort compositions contributing to the inconclusive findings.

No head-to-head studies investigating FOLFIRINOX versus nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine in patients with locally advanced disease have been published, but clinical trials are under way. Other combination therapies have been looked at through small retrospective or prospective studies, but no robust, large-scale clinical trials have been completed. For this reason, NCCN guidelines recommend enrollment of patients with LAPC into active clinical trials.

• What is the role of radiation therapy in unresectable LAPC?

Despite the reported advantages of neoadjuvant radiation in patients with potentially resectable disease, there is significant debate regarding the timing and role of neoadjuvant radiation in patients with unresectable disease. Numerous comprehensive analyses and studiest indicate that chemoradiotherapy leads to significantly better overall survival compared to no therapy or radiation therapy alone in LAPC.^68,110,111 However, conflicting data support the use of upfront chemoradiotherapy in unresectable LAPC when compared to chemotherapy alone. Unfortunately, most prospective studies investigating the role of radiotherapy were performed following administration of single-agent gemcitabine, which is no longer considered standard of care for patients with LAPC. In spite of this, ECOG 4201 identified a statistically significant improvement in median overall survival following the addition of gemcitabine-based radiotherapy. Huguet et al in his review pointed out that upfront chemoradiotherapy was not superior to chemotherapy only and was associated with increased treatment toxicity.¹⁰⁵ Additionally, a recent phase 3 study looking at chemoradiotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in patients treated with gemcitabine found no difference in overall survival.¹¹² This can potentially be attributed to the fact that about 30% of patients with LAPC develop metastatic disease in the early phases of treatment due to poor control of local and systemically occult disease.¹¹³ Given the propensity for high rates of occult metastatic disease in LAPC, treatment paradigms and consensus guidelines recommend multi-agent systemic chemotherapy followed by chemoradiotherapy in select patients.

Based on current studies and until further clinical investigations are completed, consensus opinion indicates that the most appropriate approach in unresectable LAPC is to begin with induction chemotherapy (with either gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel, FOLFIRINOX, capecitabine, or other treatment combinations), followed by chemoradiation in the absence of disease progression when the first repeat imaging evaluation is completed (Figure). One important caveat regarding reimaging with CT in the neoadjuvant setting is that radiologic response may not correlate with pathologic response.¹¹⁴ PET-CT may have a role in predicting response to neoadjuvant therapy. Overall, induction chemotherapy followed by consolidative chemoradiation may confer numerous benefits: it removes the unnecessary burden and toxicity associated with radiotherapy in the nearly one third of patients who have pervasive disease progression during initial treatment; it allows testing and increases the chances of tolerating full-dose systemic chemotherapy; and it raises the likelihood of converting patients who do not progress to metastasis during the initial phase of treatment from unresectable to resectable status.^103,115 Despite the lack of strong conclusive data, the general agreement is that neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy converts about one third of borderline and unresectable LAPC to an R0 resection.^95,103 There are very specific rationales for the addition of radiotherapy in LAPC, and these functions need to be better defined through further clinical trials.

CASE CONTINUED

The patient is unable to tolerate his first round of second-line therapy with modified FOLFIRINOX. His overall treatment plan is transitioned to palliation. He continues to have pain, despite increasing doses of narcotics.

• What is the next step for patients in whom second-line therapy fails and who have intractable pain while on high-dose narcotics?

A subset of patients with unresectable LAPC may not be amenable to chemotherapy with or without radiation due to significant comorbidities or because they present with or progress to ECOG scores 3 or 4. The goal in these patients should be palliation. Pain is one of the most predominant and difficult to manage symptoms in progressive LAPC. Opioid-based medications are the primary treatment for pain in LAPC. However, patients sometimes become refractory to opioid medications. In this group of patients, it is reasonable to consider palliative radiation as an alternative method for pain control.¹¹⁶

An alternative to palliative radiation in the setting of progressive pain in PDA is celiac plexus block or neurolysis. By injecting an anesthetic or alcohol into the celiac plexus, neural signaling pathways involved in the propagation of pain are inhibited without leading to significant nerve destruction. Additionally, chemical splanchnicectomy allows for reduced opioid medication use and associated side effects.¹¹⁷

In general patients with LAPC have profound weight loss prior to and during treatment. This has significant implications prognostically and on treatment options. The underlying etiology is multifactorial, but one of the primary driving factors is pancreatic insufficiency. An estimated 65% of pancreatic cancer patients have fat malabsorption, and 50% have protein malabsorption, leading to steatorrhea and weight loss.¹¹⁸ Patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer should be given enzyme replacement with formulations that include lipase, amylase, and protease. A minimum dose of enzyme replacement should include 40,000 to 50,000 U of lipase during meals and 25,000 U during snack intake. If maldigestion, symptoms, or nutritional endpoints (BMI, albumin, prealbumin, cholesterol) do not improve, the pancreatic enzyme dose should be escalated and a proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) added. In patients with pancreatic insufficiency, PPIs have been shown to improve fat absorption.¹¹⁹ Enzyme replacement therapy has been shown to prevent weight loss in patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer.¹²⁰

As most patients with LAPC go on to develop progressive disease, palliative care becomes an integral aspect of the therapeutic paradigm. Palliation in LAPC has a significant role in determining quality of life and ensuring patient’s goals of care have been meet. Studies have suggested that pancreatic cancer is second only to lung cancer in terms of the number of emergency department visits in the later stages of disease.¹²⁰ Additionally, aggressive care in the setting of incurable diseases such as LAPC has been associated with poor quality of life.¹²¹ More recently it has been shown that involvement of palliative care in patients with advanced pancreatic is associated with less aggressive care near death.¹²² Therefore, the incorporation of palliative or supportive care teams in the treatment of patients with progressive LAPC can improve quality of life and alleviate suffering associated with increasing symptom burden.

CONCLUSION

LAPC is a difficult disease for both provider and patient. There is a paucity of robust clinical trials in the neoadjuvant setting for LAPC. Current research is complicated by varying consensus definitions of resectability and the varying treatment configurations across studies. The optimal type, timing, and sequence of treatment and whether to add radiation therapy in LAPC have not been clearly defined. However, based on the available studies and consensus guidelines, patients who are deemed to have LAPC should have neoadjuvant therapy. FOLFIRINOX or gemcitabine with nab-paclitaxel should be considered first-line treatments. Patients with LAPC who respond to chemotherapy or are ineligible for multi-drug chemotherapy may benefit from chemoradiotherapy. In patients with unresectable disease, chemoradiotherapy has been shown to enhance survival as compared to best supportive care or radiation alone. For borderline resectable disease, it is reasonable to treat patients with either chemoradiotherapy, chemotherapy alone, or chemotherapy followed by chemoradiotherapy.

Considering the invasive nature of LAPC and the controversy around neoadjuvant treatment protocols, enrollment of patients with LAPC into clinical trials is important and will help determine the optimal treatment regimen for future patients.

Metal allergy in patients with orthopedic implants can cause serious problems including dermatitis and implant failure.¹ As life expectancy increases, the general population ages, and more metallic orthopedic implants are placed,² allergy to these implants is expected to be a problem of greater significance. Uncertainty remains regarding best practice for patients with suspected metal implant allergy.¹ The major questions are: Who should be tested? When should they be tested? What are the optimal tests to diagnose metal allergy?^3-8

We report the case of a patient with vanadium allergy who developed a diffuse eczematous dermatitis and implant failure after receiving a vanadium-containing titanium alloy orthopedic implant in the left foot. This case is remarkable because hypersensitivity reactions to titanium-based hardware are rare, as they traditionally have not been thought to provoke allergic reactions.⁹

Case Report

A 62-year-old woman who was otherwise healthy presented with an eruption of more than 80 pruritic, nummular, eczematous plaques on the arms, legs, back, and buttocks of 3 weeks’ duration (Figure 1). She had a history of allergy to metal used in costume jewelry. Six weeks prior, the patient underwent implantation of a titanium alloy plate in the left foot for surgical repair of painful deforming osteoarthritis. A radiograph of the foot showed appropriate placement. According to the manufacturer, the plate was composed of the compound Ti6Al4V, which contained 90% titanium, 6% aluminum, and 4% vanadium. The lesions developed on the skin close to but not directly over the surgical site.

A punch biopsy of one of the lesions on the shoulder showed lymphoeosinophilic spongiosis consistent with a delayed hypersensitivity reaction (Figure 2). There was mild clinical improvement of the eruption with topical steroids. A course of prednisone for systemic effect resulted in clearing of the eruption, but it promptly recurred on cessation of the steroids. The patient was then patch tested using the North American 80 Comprehensive Series, with an additional 59 common textile, shampoo, fragrance, and several metal allergens, all of which were negative.

After the hardware was removed, it was analyzed to determine the elemental composition of the plate and screws, and the patient was then patch tested with the major metal components of the implant: aluminum chloride hexahydrate 2.0% pet, elemental titanium 10.0% pet, titanium dioxide 10.0% pet, titanium (III) nitride 5.0% pet, titanium (III) oxalate decahydrate 5.0% pet, elemental vanadium 5.0% pet, and vanadium (III) chloride 1.0% pet. She demonstrated a 1+ reaction (erythema and induration) to vanadium trichloride at 72 and 96 hours.

The plate and screws removed from the patient were sterilized and submitted for analysis. Electron microprobe analysis confirmed that the major elemental composition of the plate and screws essentially matched the manufacturer’s listing (Table 1). The trace elements were determined using laser ablative inductively coupled mass spectroscopy, which demonstrated that the screws were of different metal composition from the plate (Table 2). Electron microprobe analysis also was used to determine the microstructure of the plate and screws. The plate had 2 distinct phases consisting of a titanium-aluminum phase and a vanadium phase, whereas the screw was much more homogeneous. Basic electrochemical studies were performed in a salt solution replicating the tissue of the foot. These studies showed that galvanic corrosion could have occurred between the plate and screws due to the differences of composition.

Comment

Titanium is an attractive metal to use in orthopedic implants. It has a high strength-to-weight ratio, a low modulus of elasticity, and good resistance to corrosion. Titanium can be categorized as either commercially pure titanium (cp-Ti) or a titanium alloy. Colloquially, both cp-Ti and titanium alloys are often referred to simply as titanium, but the distinction is important when it comes to medical implants and devices. Commercially pure titanium is more than 99% pure titanium, but up to 1% of its volume can be comprised of impurities.¹⁰ In titanium alloys, the alloy elements are intentionally added to create a material with optimal properties. The 2 most common types of titanium that are used for orthopedic implants are cp-Ti and Ti6Al4V, a titanium alloy containing approximately 90% titanium, 6% aluminum, and 4% vanadium. Similar to cp-Ti, titanium alloys also can contain impurities such as aluminum, beryllium, cobalt, chromium, iron, nickel, and palladium, among many others. Although these impurities often are considered negligible from a metallurgy perspective, as they do not change the properties of the material, these trace elements may be present in large enough quantities to cause hypersensitivity reactions.¹¹

Several weeks after implantation of a titanium alloy metal plate in the left foot, a widespread eczematous eruption developed in our patient who had no prior skin disease. The eruption was steroid responsive but did not clear until the plate was removed. Detailed metallurgy analysis confirmed that vanadium was present and was not homogeneously distributed in the plate. The plate also was different in composition from the screws. Additional studies showed that galvanic corrosion between the plate and the chemically different screws might have contributed to the release of vanadium in the tissue.

Vanadium is known to be allergenic, especially in the presence of implant failure.^12,13 In our patient, patch testing with more than 100 allergens was negative, except for vanadium trichloride 1%. Our patient’s presentation strongly suggested that she developed a vanadium allergy manifesting as systemic allergic contact dermatitis. She demonstrated no history of skin disease, a widespread eczematous eruption after exposure, histology consistent with systemic contact allergy, a positive patch test to vanadium, and clearance of the eruption on removal of the antigen, which have been proposed as objective criteria that support a diagnosis of metal implant allergy.¹⁴ She refused our suggestion to reimplant a portion of the remaining plate under the skin without screws and monitor for recurrence of the eruption. She did not have a lesion overlying the surgical site, but she did develop lesions near the surgical scar. The literature indicates that cutaneous manifestations of allergy to metallic implants can be both localized and generalized.¹⁴

Although reports are rare, other researchers have found vanadium allergy in patients with metal orthopedic implants.^5,12,13,15 The scarcity of literature on vanadium allergy seems to suggest that it is a rare entity, but we believe that it may be more common. Vanadium allergy may be underdiagnosed because it is not a standard patch test allergen. Furthermore, many of those who do choose to test for it use what we believe to be ineffective formulas of vanadium when patch testing patients. Our patient demonstrated a positive patch test reaction only to vanadium trichloride and not to pure vanadium, which is consistent with the small number of other studies that investigated vanadium allergy.^5,12,13,15 We believe that vanadium trichloride is more water soluble than elemental vanadium,¹⁶ and thus more likely to identify true vanadium allergy than other test materials.

Although reports of vanadium allergy in patients with metal implants are rare in the medical literature, the material science literature clearly states that vanadium is toxic and that vanadium-containing implants are problematic.^17-20 It has been shown that although Ti6Al4V implants are considered highly resistant to corrosion, they will slowly and continuously corrode in a physiologic environment and release titanium, aluminum, and vanadium ions, both systemically and into the peri-implant space.¹¹ To address these problems with vanadium, vanadium-free titanium alloys such as Ti6Al7Nb have specifically been developed for medical use to address the problems caused by vanadium. Ti6Al7Nb contains 7% niobium rather than vanadium and appears to have some improved qualities in surgical implants.¹⁷

There is still a great deal of uncertainty around metal implant allergy. Allergy to metal implants can be difficult to diagnose for several reasons. Some metals are not conducive to patch testing because of their low bioavailability. Additionally, we lack validated and standardized patch test formulas for metals that can be diagnosed by patch testing. Furthermore, there is uncertainty about what to do after allergy to a metal implant is diagnosed; in some cases (eg, with more extensive procedures such as total joint replacements), removal or replacement of the implant may be associated with increased risk of further complications.^6,21

Conclusion

We suggest that manufacturers consider vanadium-free alloys such as Ti7Al6Nb, which contains niobium instead of vanadium, in their surgical implants,²² and if surgeons have a choice, they should consider using titanium implants with niobium rather than vanadium.¹⁰ We suggest that clinicians consider vanadium allergy in patients with Ti6Al4V surgical implants and signs of a hypersensitivity reaction, and include vanadium trichloride 1% when patch testing.

Acknowledgment

The authors would like to thank Nicholas R. Krasnow, PhD (Tucson, Arizona), for his invaluable help coordinating, performing, and interpreting the metal analyses.

Metal allergy in patients with orthopedic implants can cause serious problems including dermatitis and implant failure.¹ As life expectancy increases, the general population ages, and more metallic orthopedic implants are placed,² allergy to these implants is expected to be a problem of greater significance. Uncertainty remains regarding best practice for patients with suspected metal implant allergy.¹ The major questions are: Who should be tested? When should they be tested? What are the optimal tests to diagnose metal allergy?^3-8

We report the case of a patient with vanadium allergy who developed a diffuse eczematous dermatitis and implant failure after receiving a vanadium-containing titanium alloy orthopedic implant in the left foot. This case is remarkable because hypersensitivity reactions to titanium-based hardware are rare, as they traditionally have not been thought to provoke allergic reactions.⁹

Case Report

A 62-year-old woman who was otherwise healthy presented with an eruption of more than 80 pruritic, nummular, eczematous plaques on the arms, legs, back, and buttocks of 3 weeks’ duration (Figure 1). She had a history of allergy to metal used in costume jewelry. Six weeks prior, the patient underwent implantation of a titanium alloy plate in the left foot for surgical repair of painful deforming osteoarthritis. A radiograph of the foot showed appropriate placement. According to the manufacturer, the plate was composed of the compound Ti6Al4V, which contained 90% titanium, 6% aluminum, and 4% vanadium. The lesions developed on the skin close to but not directly over the surgical site.

A punch biopsy of one of the lesions on the shoulder showed lymphoeosinophilic spongiosis consistent with a delayed hypersensitivity reaction (Figure 2). There was mild clinical improvement of the eruption with topical steroids. A course of prednisone for systemic effect resulted in clearing of the eruption, but it promptly recurred on cessation of the steroids. The patient was then patch tested using the North American 80 Comprehensive Series, with an additional 59 common textile, shampoo, fragrance, and several metal allergens, all of which were negative.

After the hardware was removed, it was analyzed to determine the elemental composition of the plate and screws, and the patient was then patch tested with the major metal components of the implant: aluminum chloride hexahydrate 2.0% pet, elemental titanium 10.0% pet, titanium dioxide 10.0% pet, titanium (III) nitride 5.0% pet, titanium (III) oxalate decahydrate 5.0% pet, elemental vanadium 5.0% pet, and vanadium (III) chloride 1.0% pet. She demonstrated a 1+ reaction (erythema and induration) to vanadium trichloride at 72 and 96 hours.

The plate and screws removed from the patient were sterilized and submitted for analysis. Electron microprobe analysis confirmed that the major elemental composition of the plate and screws essentially matched the manufacturer’s listing (Table 1). The trace elements were determined using laser ablative inductively coupled mass spectroscopy, which demonstrated that the screws were of different metal composition from the plate (Table 2). Electron microprobe analysis also was used to determine the microstructure of the plate and screws. The plate had 2 distinct phases consisting of a titanium-aluminum phase and a vanadium phase, whereas the screw was much more homogeneous. Basic electrochemical studies were performed in a salt solution replicating the tissue of the foot. These studies showed that galvanic corrosion could have occurred between the plate and screws due to the differences of composition.

Comment

Titanium is an attractive metal to use in orthopedic implants. It has a high strength-to-weight ratio, a low modulus of elasticity, and good resistance to corrosion. Titanium can be categorized as either commercially pure titanium (cp-Ti) or a titanium alloy. Colloquially, both cp-Ti and titanium alloys are often referred to simply as titanium, but the distinction is important when it comes to medical implants and devices. Commercially pure titanium is more than 99% pure titanium, but up to 1% of its volume can be comprised of impurities.¹⁰ In titanium alloys, the alloy elements are intentionally added to create a material with optimal properties. The 2 most common types of titanium that are used for orthopedic implants are cp-Ti and Ti6Al4V, a titanium alloy containing approximately 90% titanium, 6% aluminum, and 4% vanadium. Similar to cp-Ti, titanium alloys also can contain impurities such as aluminum, beryllium, cobalt, chromium, iron, nickel, and palladium, among many others. Although these impurities often are considered negligible from a metallurgy perspective, as they do not change the properties of the material, these trace elements may be present in large enough quantities to cause hypersensitivity reactions.¹¹

Several weeks after implantation of a titanium alloy metal plate in the left foot, a widespread eczematous eruption developed in our patient who had no prior skin disease. The eruption was steroid responsive but did not clear until the plate was removed. Detailed metallurgy analysis confirmed that vanadium was present and was not homogeneously distributed in the plate. The plate also was different in composition from the screws. Additional studies showed that galvanic corrosion between the plate and the chemically different screws might have contributed to the release of vanadium in the tissue.

Vanadium is known to be allergenic, especially in the presence of implant failure.^12,13 In our patient, patch testing with more than 100 allergens was negative, except for vanadium trichloride 1%. Our patient’s presentation strongly suggested that she developed a vanadium allergy manifesting as systemic allergic contact dermatitis. She demonstrated no history of skin disease, a widespread eczematous eruption after exposure, histology consistent with systemic contact allergy, a positive patch test to vanadium, and clearance of the eruption on removal of the antigen, which have been proposed as objective criteria that support a diagnosis of metal implant allergy.¹⁴ She refused our suggestion to reimplant a portion of the remaining plate under the skin without screws and monitor for recurrence of the eruption. She did not have a lesion overlying the surgical site, but she did develop lesions near the surgical scar. The literature indicates that cutaneous manifestations of allergy to metallic implants can be both localized and generalized.¹⁴

Although reports are rare, other researchers have found vanadium allergy in patients with metal orthopedic implants.^5,12,13,15 The scarcity of literature on vanadium allergy seems to suggest that it is a rare entity, but we believe that it may be more common. Vanadium allergy may be underdiagnosed because it is not a standard patch test allergen. Furthermore, many of those who do choose to test for it use what we believe to be ineffective formulas of vanadium when patch testing patients. Our patient demonstrated a positive patch test reaction only to vanadium trichloride and not to pure vanadium, which is consistent with the small number of other studies that investigated vanadium allergy.^5,12,13,15 We believe that vanadium trichloride is more water soluble than elemental vanadium,¹⁶ and thus more likely to identify true vanadium allergy than other test materials.

Although reports of vanadium allergy in patients with metal implants are rare in the medical literature, the material science literature clearly states that vanadium is toxic and that vanadium-containing implants are problematic.^17-20 It has been shown that although Ti6Al4V implants are considered highly resistant to corrosion, they will slowly and continuously corrode in a physiologic environment and release titanium, aluminum, and vanadium ions, both systemically and into the peri-implant space.¹¹ To address these problems with vanadium, vanadium-free titanium alloys such as Ti6Al7Nb have specifically been developed for medical use to address the problems caused by vanadium. Ti6Al7Nb contains 7% niobium rather than vanadium and appears to have some improved qualities in surgical implants.¹⁷

There is still a great deal of uncertainty around metal implant allergy. Allergy to metal implants can be difficult to diagnose for several reasons. Some metals are not conducive to patch testing because of their low bioavailability. Additionally, we lack validated and standardized patch test formulas for metals that can be diagnosed by patch testing. Furthermore, there is uncertainty about what to do after allergy to a metal implant is diagnosed; in some cases (eg, with more extensive procedures such as total joint replacements), removal or replacement of the implant may be associated with increased risk of further complications.^6,21

Conclusion

We suggest that manufacturers consider vanadium-free alloys such as Ti7Al6Nb, which contains niobium instead of vanadium, in their surgical implants,²² and if surgeons have a choice, they should consider using titanium implants with niobium rather than vanadium.¹⁰ We suggest that clinicians consider vanadium allergy in patients with Ti6Al4V surgical implants and signs of a hypersensitivity reaction, and include vanadium trichloride 1% when patch testing.

Acknowledgment

The authors would like to thank Nicholas R. Krasnow, PhD (Tucson, Arizona), for his invaluable help coordinating, performing, and interpreting the metal analyses.

Metal allergy in patients with orthopedic implants can cause serious problems including dermatitis and implant failure.¹ As life expectancy increases, the general population ages, and more metallic orthopedic implants are placed,² allergy to these implants is expected to be a problem of greater significance. Uncertainty remains regarding best practice for patients with suspected metal implant allergy.¹ The major questions are: Who should be tested? When should they be tested? What are the optimal tests to diagnose metal allergy?^3-8

We report the case of a patient with vanadium allergy who developed a diffuse eczematous dermatitis and implant failure after receiving a vanadium-containing titanium alloy orthopedic implant in the left foot. This case is remarkable because hypersensitivity reactions to titanium-based hardware are rare, as they traditionally have not been thought to provoke allergic reactions.⁹

Case Report

A 62-year-old woman who was otherwise healthy presented with an eruption of more than 80 pruritic, nummular, eczematous plaques on the arms, legs, back, and buttocks of 3 weeks’ duration (Figure 1). She had a history of allergy to metal used in costume jewelry. Six weeks prior, the patient underwent implantation of a titanium alloy plate in the left foot for surgical repair of painful deforming osteoarthritis. A radiograph of the foot showed appropriate placement. According to the manufacturer, the plate was composed of the compound Ti6Al4V, which contained 90% titanium, 6% aluminum, and 4% vanadium. The lesions developed on the skin close to but not directly over the surgical site.

A punch biopsy of one of the lesions on the shoulder showed lymphoeosinophilic spongiosis consistent with a delayed hypersensitivity reaction (Figure 2). There was mild clinical improvement of the eruption with topical steroids. A course of prednisone for systemic effect resulted in clearing of the eruption, but it promptly recurred on cessation of the steroids. The patient was then patch tested using the North American 80 Comprehensive Series, with an additional 59 common textile, shampoo, fragrance, and several metal allergens, all of which were negative.

After the hardware was removed, it was analyzed to determine the elemental composition of the plate and screws, and the patient was then patch tested with the major metal components of the implant: aluminum chloride hexahydrate 2.0% pet, elemental titanium 10.0% pet, titanium dioxide 10.0% pet, titanium (III) nitride 5.0% pet, titanium (III) oxalate decahydrate 5.0% pet, elemental vanadium 5.0% pet, and vanadium (III) chloride 1.0% pet. She demonstrated a 1+ reaction (erythema and induration) to vanadium trichloride at 72 and 96 hours.

The plate and screws removed from the patient were sterilized and submitted for analysis. Electron microprobe analysis confirmed that the major elemental composition of the plate and screws essentially matched the manufacturer’s listing (Table 1). The trace elements were determined using laser ablative inductively coupled mass spectroscopy, which demonstrated that the screws were of different metal composition from the plate (Table 2). Electron microprobe analysis also was used to determine the microstructure of the plate and screws. The plate had 2 distinct phases consisting of a titanium-aluminum phase and a vanadium phase, whereas the screw was much more homogeneous. Basic electrochemical studies were performed in a salt solution replicating the tissue of the foot. These studies showed that galvanic corrosion could have occurred between the plate and screws due to the differences of composition.

Comment

Titanium is an attractive metal to use in orthopedic implants. It has a high strength-to-weight ratio, a low modulus of elasticity, and good resistance to corrosion. Titanium can be categorized as either commercially pure titanium (cp-Ti) or a titanium alloy. Colloquially, both cp-Ti and titanium alloys are often referred to simply as titanium, but the distinction is important when it comes to medical implants and devices. Commercially pure titanium is more than 99% pure titanium, but up to 1% of its volume can be comprised of impurities.¹⁰ In titanium alloys, the alloy elements are intentionally added to create a material with optimal properties. The 2 most common types of titanium that are used for orthopedic implants are cp-Ti and Ti6Al4V, a titanium alloy containing approximately 90% titanium, 6% aluminum, and 4% vanadium. Similar to cp-Ti, titanium alloys also can contain impurities such as aluminum, beryllium, cobalt, chromium, iron, nickel, and palladium, among many others. Although these impurities often are considered negligible from a metallurgy perspective, as they do not change the properties of the material, these trace elements may be present in large enough quantities to cause hypersensitivity reactions.¹¹

Several weeks after implantation of a titanium alloy metal plate in the left foot, a widespread eczematous eruption developed in our patient who had no prior skin disease. The eruption was steroid responsive but did not clear until the plate was removed. Detailed metallurgy analysis confirmed that vanadium was present and was not homogeneously distributed in the plate. The plate also was different in composition from the screws. Additional studies showed that galvanic corrosion between the plate and the chemically different screws might have contributed to the release of vanadium in the tissue.

Vanadium is known to be allergenic, especially in the presence of implant failure.^12,13 In our patient, patch testing with more than 100 allergens was negative, except for vanadium trichloride 1%. Our patient’s presentation strongly suggested that she developed a vanadium allergy manifesting as systemic allergic contact dermatitis. She demonstrated no history of skin disease, a widespread eczematous eruption after exposure, histology consistent with systemic contact allergy, a positive patch test to vanadium, and clearance of the eruption on removal of the antigen, which have been proposed as objective criteria that support a diagnosis of metal implant allergy.¹⁴ She refused our suggestion to reimplant a portion of the remaining plate under the skin without screws and monitor for recurrence of the eruption. She did not have a lesion overlying the surgical site, but she did develop lesions near the surgical scar. The literature indicates that cutaneous manifestations of allergy to metallic implants can be both localized and generalized.¹⁴

Although reports are rare, other researchers have found vanadium allergy in patients with metal orthopedic implants.^5,12,13,15 The scarcity of literature on vanadium allergy seems to suggest that it is a rare entity, but we believe that it may be more common. Vanadium allergy may be underdiagnosed because it is not a standard patch test allergen. Furthermore, many of those who do choose to test for it use what we believe to be ineffective formulas of vanadium when patch testing patients. Our patient demonstrated a positive patch test reaction only to vanadium trichloride and not to pure vanadium, which is consistent with the small number of other studies that investigated vanadium allergy.^5,12,13,15 We believe that vanadium trichloride is more water soluble than elemental vanadium,¹⁶ and thus more likely to identify true vanadium allergy than other test materials.

Although reports of vanadium allergy in patients with metal implants are rare in the medical literature, the material science literature clearly states that vanadium is toxic and that vanadium-containing implants are problematic.^17-20 It has been shown that although Ti6Al4V implants are considered highly resistant to corrosion, they will slowly and continuously corrode in a physiologic environment and release titanium, aluminum, and vanadium ions, both systemically and into the peri-implant space.¹¹ To address these problems with vanadium, vanadium-free titanium alloys such as Ti6Al7Nb have specifically been developed for medical use to address the problems caused by vanadium. Ti6Al7Nb contains 7% niobium rather than vanadium and appears to have some improved qualities in surgical implants.¹⁷

There is still a great deal of uncertainty around metal implant allergy. Allergy to metal implants can be difficult to diagnose for several reasons. Some metals are not conducive to patch testing because of their low bioavailability. Additionally, we lack validated and standardized patch test formulas for metals that can be diagnosed by patch testing. Furthermore, there is uncertainty about what to do after allergy to a metal implant is diagnosed; in some cases (eg, with more extensive procedures such as total joint replacements), removal or replacement of the implant may be associated with increased risk of further complications.^6,21

Conclusion

We suggest that manufacturers consider vanadium-free alloys such as Ti7Al6Nb, which contains niobium instead of vanadium, in their surgical implants,²² and if surgeons have a choice, they should consider using titanium implants with niobium rather than vanadium.¹⁰ We suggest that clinicians consider vanadium allergy in patients with Ti6Al4V surgical implants and signs of a hypersensitivity reaction, and include vanadium trichloride 1% when patch testing.

Acknowledgment

The authors would like to thank Nicholas R. Krasnow, PhD (Tucson, Arizona), for his invaluable help coordinating, performing, and interpreting the metal analyses.

CASE Suicidal while asleep

Mr. R, age 28, an Iraq and Afghanistan veteran with major depressive disorder and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), is awoken by his wife to check on their daughter approximately 30 minutes after he takes his nightly regimen of zolpidem, 10 mg, melatonin, 6 mg, and hydroxyzine, 20 mg. When Mr. R returns to the bedroom, he appears to be confused. Mr. R grabs an unloaded gun from under the mattress, puts it in his mouth, and pulls the trigger. Then Mr. R holds the gun to his head and pulls the trigger while saying that his wife and children will be better off without him. His wife takes the gun away, but he grabs another gun from his gun box and loads it. His wife convinces him to remove the ammunition; however, Mr. R gets the other unloaded gun and pulls the trigger on himself again. After his wife takes this gun away, he tries cutting himself with a pocket­knife, causing superficial cuts. Eventually, Mr. R goes back to bed. He does not remember these events in the morning.

What increased the likelihood of parasomnia in Mr. R?
a) high zolpidem dosage
b) concomitant use of other sedating agents
c) sleep deprivation
d) dehydration

[polldaddy:9712545]

The authors’ observations

Parasomnias are sleep-wake transition disorders classified by the sleep stage from which they arise, either NREM or rapid eye movement (REM). NREM parasomnias could result from incomplete awakening from NREM sleep, typically in Stage N3 (slow-wave) sleep.¹ DSM-5 describes NREM parasomnias as arousal disorders in which the disturbance is not attributable to the physiological effects of substance; substance/medication-induced sleep disorder, parasomnia type, is when the disturbance can be attributed to a substance.² The latter also can occur during REM sleep.

NREM parasomnias are characterized by abnormal behaviors during sleep with significant harm potential.³ Somnambulism or sleepwalking and sleep terrors are the 2 types of NREM parasomnias in DSM-5. Sleepwalking could involve complex behaviors, including:

• eating
• talking
• cooking
• shopping
• driving
• sexual activity.

Zolpidem, a benzodiazepine receptor agonist, is a preferred hypnotic agent for insomnia because of its low risk for abuse and daytime sedation.⁴ However, the drug has been associated with NREM parasomnias, namely somnambulism or sleepwalking, and its variants including sleep-driving, sleep-related eating disorder, and rarely sexsomnia (sleep-sex), with anterograde amnesia for the event.⁵ Suicidal behavior that occurs while the patient is asleep with next-day amnesia is another variant of somnambulism. There are several reports of suicidal behavior during sleep,^6,7 but to our knowledge, there are only 2 previous cases implicating zolpidem as the cause:

• Gibson et al⁸ described a 49-year-old man who sustained a self-inflicted gunshot wound to his head while asleep. He just had started taking zolpidem, and in the weeks before the incident he had several episodes of sleepwalking and sleep-eating. He had consumed alcohol the night of the self-inflicted gunshot wound, but had no other psychiatric history.
• Chopra et al⁴ described a 37-year-old man, with no prior episodes of sleepwalking or associated complex behaviors, who was taking zolpidem, 10 mg/d, for chronic insomnia. He shot a gun in the basement of his home, and then held the loaded gun to his neck while asleep. The authors attributed the event to zolpidem in combination with other predisposing factors, including dehydration after intense exercise and alcohol use. The authors categorized this type of event as “para-suicidal amnestic behavior,” although “sleep-related pseudo-suicidal behavior” might be a better term for this type of parasomnia because of its occurrence during sleep and non-deliberate nature.

In another case report, a 27-year-old man took additional zolpidem after he did not experience desired sedative effects from an initial 20 mg.⁹ Because the patient remembered the suicidal thoughts, the authors believed that the patient attempted suicide while under the influence of zolpidem. The authors did not believe the incident to be sleep-related suicidal behavior, because it was uncertain if he attempted suicide while asleep.

Mr. R does not remember the events his wife witnessed while he was asleep. To our knowledge, Mr. R’s case is the first sleep-related pseudo-suicidal behavior case resulting from zolpidem, 10 mg/d, without concurrent alcohol use in an adult male veteran with PTSD and no suicidal ideation while awake.

HISTORY Further details revealed

Mr. R says that in the days leading to the incident he was not sleep-deprived and was getting at least 6 hours of restful sleep every night. He had been taking zolpidem every night. He has no childhood or family history of NREM parasomnias. He says he did not engage in intense exercise that evening or have a fever the night of the incident and has abstained from alcohol for 2 years.

His wife says that after he took zolpidem, when he was woken up, “He was not there; his eyes were glazed and glossy, and it’s like he was in another world,” and his speech and behavior were bizarre. She also reports that his eyes were open when he engaged in this behavior that appeared suicidal.

Three months before the incident, Mr. R had reported nightmares with dream enactment behaviors, hypervigilance on awakening and during the daytime, irritability, and anxious and depressed mood with neurovegetative symptoms, and was referred to our clinic for medication management. He also reported no prior or current manic or psychotic symptoms, denied suicidal thoughts, and had no history of suicide attempts. Mr. R’s medication regimen included tramadol, 400 mg/d, for chronic knee pain; fluoxetine, 60 mg/d, for depression and PTSD; and propranolol ER, 60 mg/d, and propranolol, 10 mg/d as needed, for anxiety. He was started on prazosin, 2 mg/d, titrated to 4 mg/d, for medication management of nightmares.

Mr. R also was referred to the sleep laboratory for a polysomnogram (PSG) because of reported loud snoring and witnessed apneas, especially because sleep apnea can cause nightmares and dream enactment behaviors. The PSG was negative for sleep apnea or excessive periodic limb movements of sleep, but showed increased electromyographic (EMG) activity during REM sleep, which was consistent with his report of dream enactment behaviors. Two months later, he reported improvement in nightmares and depression, but not in dream enactment behaviors. Because of prominent anxiety and irritability, he was started on gabapentin, 300 mg, 3 times a day.

What factor increases the risk of NREM parasomnias with zolpidem compared with benzodiazepines?
a) greater preservation of Stage N3 sleep
b) lesser degree of muscle relaxation
c) both a and b
d) none of the above

[polldaddy:9712556]

The authors’ observations

Factors that increase the likelihood of parasomnias include:

• zolpidem >10 mg at bedtime
• concomitant use of other CNS depressants, including sedative hypnotic agents and alcohol
• female sex
• not falling asleep immediately after taking zolpidem
• personal or family history of parasomnias
• living alone
• poor pill management
• presence of sleep disruptors such as sleep apnea and periodic limb movements of sleep.^1,4,5,10

Higher dosages of zolpidem (>10 mg/d) have been identified as the predictive risk factor.⁵ In the Chopra et al⁴ case report on sleep-related suicidal behavior related to zolpidem, 10 mg at bedtime, concomitant dehydration and alcohol use were implicated as facilitating factors. Dehydration could increase serum levels of zolpidem resulting in greater CNS effects. Alcohol use was implicated in the Gibson et al⁸ case report as well, and the patient had multiple episodes of sleepwalking and sleep-related eating.However, Mr. R was not dehydrated or using alcohol.

An interesting feature of Mr. R’s case is that he was taking fluoxetine. Cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4 is involved in metabolizing zolpidem, and norfluoxetine, a metabolite of fluoxetine, inhibits CYP3A4. Although studies have not found pharmacokinetic interactions between fluoxetine and zolpidem, these studies did not investigate fluoxetine dosages >20 mg/d.¹¹ The inhibition of CYP enzymes by fluoxetine likely is dose-dependent,¹² and therefore concomitant administration of high-dosage fluoxetine (>20 mg/d) with zolpidem might result in higher serum levels of zolpidem.

Mr. R also was taking several sedating agents (gabapentin, hydroxyzine, melatonin, and tramadol). The concomitant use of these sedative-hypnotic agents could have increased his risk of parasomnia. A review of the literature did not reveal any reports of gabapentin, hydroxyzine, melatonin, or tramadol causing parasomnias. This observation, as well as the well-known role of zolpidem⁵ in etiopathogenesis of parasomnias, indicates that the pseudo-suicidal behavior Mr. R displayed while asleep likely was a direct result of zolpidem use in presence of other facilitating factors. Gabapentin, which is known to increase the depth of sleep, was added to his regimen 1 month before his parasomnia episode. Therefore, gabapentin could have triggered parasomnia with zolpidem therapy.^1,13

Conditions that provoke repeated cortical arousals (eg, periodic limb movement disorder [PLMD] and sleep apnea) or increase depth or pressure of sleep (intense exercise in the evening, fever, sleep deprivation) are thought to be associated with NREM parasomnias.^1-4 However, Mr. R underwent in-laboratory PSG and tested negative for major cortical arousal-inducing conditions, such as PLMD and sleep apnea.
 

Some other sleep disruptors likely were involved in Mr. R’s case. Auditory and tactile stimuli are known to cause cortical arousals, with additive effect seen when these 2 stimuli are combined.^3,14 Additionally, these exogenous stimuli are known to trigger sleep-related violent parasomnias.¹⁵ Mr. R displayed this behavior after his wife woke him up. The auditory stimulus of his wife’s voice and/or tactile stimulus involved in the act of waking Mr. R likely played a role in the suicidal and violent nature of his NREM parasomnia.

[polldaddy:9712581]

The authors’ observations

In general, the mechanisms by which zolpidem causes NREM parasomnias are not completely understood. The sedation-related amnestic properties of zolpidem might explain some of these behaviors. Patients could perform these behaviors after waking and have subsequent amnesia.⁴ There is greater preservation of Stage N3 sleep with zolpidem compared with benzodiazepines. Benzodiazepines also cause muscle relaxation while the motor system remains relatively more active during sleep with zolpidem because of its selectivity for α-1 subunit of gamma-aminobutyric acid A receptor. These factors might increase the likelihood of NREM parasomnias with zolpidem compared with benzodiazepines.⁴

Types of parasomnias

According to DSM-5, there are 2 categories of parasomnias based on the sleep stage from which a parasomnia emerges.² REM sleep behavior disorder (RBD) refers to complex motor and/or vocalizations during REM sleep, accompanied by increased EMG activity during REM sleep (Table).^2,3

The pseudo-suicidal behavior Mr. R displayed likely was NREM parasomnia because it occurred in the first third of the night with his eyes open and impaired recall after the event. Interestingly, Mr. R had RBD in addition to the NREM parasomnia likely caused by zolpidem. This is evident from Mr. R’s frequent dream enactment behaviors, such as kicking, thrashing, and punching during sleep, along with increased EMG activity during REM sleep as recorded on the PSG.¹⁰ The presence of RBD could be explained by selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (fluoxetine) use, and comorbidity with PTSD.^2,16

Management of parasomnias

Initial management of parasomnias involves decreasing the risk of parasomnia-related injury. Suggested safety measures include:

• sleeping away from windows
• sleeping in a sleeping bag
• sleeping on a lower floor
• locking windows and doors
• removing potentially dangerous objects from the bedroom
• putting gates across stairwells
• installing bells or alarms on door knobs.¹⁵

Removing access to firearms or other weapons such as knives is of utmost importance especially with patients who have easy access during wakefulness. If removing weapons is not feasible, consider disarming, securing, or locking them.¹⁵ These considerations are relevant to veterans with PTSD because of the high prevalence of symptoms, including depression, insomnia, and pain, which require sedating medications.¹⁷ A review of parasomnias among a large sample of psychiatric outpatients revealed that a variety of sedating medications, including antidepressants, can lead to NREM parasomnias.¹⁸ Therefore, exercise caution when prescribing sedating medications, especially in patients vulnerable to developing dangerous parasomnias, such as a veteran with PTSD and easy access to guns.¹⁹

TREATMENT Zolpidem stopped

Mr. R immediately stops taking zolpidem because he is aware of its association with abnormal behaviors during sleep, and his wife removes his access to firearms and knives at night. Because of his history of clinical benefit and no history of parasomnias with mirtazapine, Mr. R is started on mirtazapine for insomnia that previously was treated with zolpidem, and residual depression. Six months after discontinuing zolpidem, he does not experience NREM parasomnias, and there are no changes in his dream enactment behaviors.

Summing up

Zolpidem therapy could be associated with unusual variants of NREM parasomnia, sleepwalking type; sleep-related pseudo-suicidal behavior is one such variant. Several factors could play a role in increasing the likelihood of NREM parasomnia with zolpidem therapy. In Mr. R’s case, the pharmacokinetic drug interactions between fluoxetine and zolpidem, as well as concomitant use of several sedating agents could have played a role in increasing the likelihood of NREM parasomnia, with audio-tactile stimuli contributing to the violent and suicidal nature of the parasomnia. Exercise caution when using CYP enzyme inhibitors, such as fluoxetine and paroxetine, in combination with zolpidem. Knowledge of the potential interaction between zolpidem and fluoxetine is important because anti­depressants and hypnotics are commonly co-prescribed because insomnia often is comorbid with other psychiatric disorders.

In veterans with PTSD who do not have suicidal ideations while awake, life-threatening non-intentional behavior is a risk because of easy access to guns or other weapons. Sedative-hypnotic medications commonly are prescribed to patients with PTSD. Exercise caution when using hypnotic agents such as zolpidem, and consider sleep aids with a lower risk of parasomnias (based on the author’s experience, trazodone, mirtazapine, melatonin, and gabapentin) when possible. Non-pharmacologic treatments of insomnia, such as sleep hygiene education and, more importantly, cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia, are preferred. If a patient is already taking zolpidem, nightly dosage should not be >10 mg. Polypharmacy with other sedating medications should be avoided when possible and both exogenous (noise, pets) and endogenous sleep disruptors (sleep apnea, PLMD) should be addressed. Advise the patient to avoid alcohol and remove firearms and other potential weapons. Discontinue zolpidem if the patient develops sleep-related abnormal behavior because of its potential to take on violent forms.

CASE Suicidal while asleep

Mr. R, age 28, an Iraq and Afghanistan veteran with major depressive disorder and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), is awoken by his wife to check on their daughter approximately 30 minutes after he takes his nightly regimen of zolpidem, 10 mg, melatonin, 6 mg, and hydroxyzine, 20 mg. When Mr. R returns to the bedroom, he appears to be confused. Mr. R grabs an unloaded gun from under the mattress, puts it in his mouth, and pulls the trigger. Then Mr. R holds the gun to his head and pulls the trigger while saying that his wife and children will be better off without him. His wife takes the gun away, but he grabs another gun from his gun box and loads it. His wife convinces him to remove the ammunition; however, Mr. R gets the other unloaded gun and pulls the trigger on himself again. After his wife takes this gun away, he tries cutting himself with a pocket­knife, causing superficial cuts. Eventually, Mr. R goes back to bed. He does not remember these events in the morning.

What increased the likelihood of parasomnia in Mr. R?
a) high zolpidem dosage
b) concomitant use of other sedating agents
c) sleep deprivation
d) dehydration

[polldaddy:9712545]

The authors’ observations

Parasomnias are sleep-wake transition disorders classified by the sleep stage from which they arise, either NREM or rapid eye movement (REM). NREM parasomnias could result from incomplete awakening from NREM sleep, typically in Stage N3 (slow-wave) sleep.¹ DSM-5 describes NREM parasomnias as arousal disorders in which the disturbance is not attributable to the physiological effects of substance; substance/medication-induced sleep disorder, parasomnia type, is when the disturbance can be attributed to a substance.² The latter also can occur during REM sleep.

NREM parasomnias are characterized by abnormal behaviors during sleep with significant harm potential.³ Somnambulism or sleepwalking and sleep terrors are the 2 types of NREM parasomnias in DSM-5. Sleepwalking could involve complex behaviors, including:

• eating
• talking
• cooking
• shopping
• driving
• sexual activity.

Zolpidem, a benzodiazepine receptor agonist, is a preferred hypnotic agent for insomnia because of its low risk for abuse and daytime sedation.⁴ However, the drug has been associated with NREM parasomnias, namely somnambulism or sleepwalking, and its variants including sleep-driving, sleep-related eating disorder, and rarely sexsomnia (sleep-sex), with anterograde amnesia for the event.⁵ Suicidal behavior that occurs while the patient is asleep with next-day amnesia is another variant of somnambulism. There are several reports of suicidal behavior during sleep,^6,7 but to our knowledge, there are only 2 previous cases implicating zolpidem as the cause:

• Gibson et al⁸ described a 49-year-old man who sustained a self-inflicted gunshot wound to his head while asleep. He just had started taking zolpidem, and in the weeks before the incident he had several episodes of sleepwalking and sleep-eating. He had consumed alcohol the night of the self-inflicted gunshot wound, but had no other psychiatric history.
• Chopra et al⁴ described a 37-year-old man, with no prior episodes of sleepwalking or associated complex behaviors, who was taking zolpidem, 10 mg/d, for chronic insomnia. He shot a gun in the basement of his home, and then held the loaded gun to his neck while asleep. The authors attributed the event to zolpidem in combination with other predisposing factors, including dehydration after intense exercise and alcohol use. The authors categorized this type of event as “para-suicidal amnestic behavior,” although “sleep-related pseudo-suicidal behavior” might be a better term for this type of parasomnia because of its occurrence during sleep and non-deliberate nature.

In another case report, a 27-year-old man took additional zolpidem after he did not experience desired sedative effects from an initial 20 mg.⁹ Because the patient remembered the suicidal thoughts, the authors believed that the patient attempted suicide while under the influence of zolpidem. The authors did not believe the incident to be sleep-related suicidal behavior, because it was uncertain if he attempted suicide while asleep.

Mr. R does not remember the events his wife witnessed while he was asleep. To our knowledge, Mr. R’s case is the first sleep-related pseudo-suicidal behavior case resulting from zolpidem, 10 mg/d, without concurrent alcohol use in an adult male veteran with PTSD and no suicidal ideation while awake.

HISTORY Further details revealed

Mr. R says that in the days leading to the incident he was not sleep-deprived and was getting at least 6 hours of restful sleep every night. He had been taking zolpidem every night. He has no childhood or family history of NREM parasomnias. He says he did not engage in intense exercise that evening or have a fever the night of the incident and has abstained from alcohol for 2 years.

His wife says that after he took zolpidem, when he was woken up, “He was not there; his eyes were glazed and glossy, and it’s like he was in another world,” and his speech and behavior were bizarre. She also reports that his eyes were open when he engaged in this behavior that appeared suicidal.

Three months before the incident, Mr. R had reported nightmares with dream enactment behaviors, hypervigilance on awakening and during the daytime, irritability, and anxious and depressed mood with neurovegetative symptoms, and was referred to our clinic for medication management. He also reported no prior or current manic or psychotic symptoms, denied suicidal thoughts, and had no history of suicide attempts. Mr. R’s medication regimen included tramadol, 400 mg/d, for chronic knee pain; fluoxetine, 60 mg/d, for depression and PTSD; and propranolol ER, 60 mg/d, and propranolol, 10 mg/d as needed, for anxiety. He was started on prazosin, 2 mg/d, titrated to 4 mg/d, for medication management of nightmares.

Mr. R also was referred to the sleep laboratory for a polysomnogram (PSG) because of reported loud snoring and witnessed apneas, especially because sleep apnea can cause nightmares and dream enactment behaviors. The PSG was negative for sleep apnea or excessive periodic limb movements of sleep, but showed increased electromyographic (EMG) activity during REM sleep, which was consistent with his report of dream enactment behaviors. Two months later, he reported improvement in nightmares and depression, but not in dream enactment behaviors. Because of prominent anxiety and irritability, he was started on gabapentin, 300 mg, 3 times a day.

What factor increases the risk of NREM parasomnias with zolpidem compared with benzodiazepines?
a) greater preservation of Stage N3 sleep
b) lesser degree of muscle relaxation
c) both a and b
d) none of the above

[polldaddy:9712556]

The authors’ observations

Factors that increase the likelihood of parasomnias include:

• zolpidem >10 mg at bedtime
• concomitant use of other CNS depressants, including sedative hypnotic agents and alcohol
• female sex
• not falling asleep immediately after taking zolpidem
• personal or family history of parasomnias
• living alone
• poor pill management
• presence of sleep disruptors such as sleep apnea and periodic limb movements of sleep.^1,4,5,10

Higher dosages of zolpidem (>10 mg/d) have been identified as the predictive risk factor.⁵ In the Chopra et al⁴ case report on sleep-related suicidal behavior related to zolpidem, 10 mg at bedtime, concomitant dehydration and alcohol use were implicated as facilitating factors. Dehydration could increase serum levels of zolpidem resulting in greater CNS effects. Alcohol use was implicated in the Gibson et al⁸ case report as well, and the patient had multiple episodes of sleepwalking and sleep-related eating.However, Mr. R was not dehydrated or using alcohol.

An interesting feature of Mr. R’s case is that he was taking fluoxetine. Cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4 is involved in metabolizing zolpidem, and norfluoxetine, a metabolite of fluoxetine, inhibits CYP3A4. Although studies have not found pharmacokinetic interactions between fluoxetine and zolpidem, these studies did not investigate fluoxetine dosages >20 mg/d.¹¹ The inhibition of CYP enzymes by fluoxetine likely is dose-dependent,¹² and therefore concomitant administration of high-dosage fluoxetine (>20 mg/d) with zolpidem might result in higher serum levels of zolpidem.

Mr. R also was taking several sedating agents (gabapentin, hydroxyzine, melatonin, and tramadol). The concomitant use of these sedative-hypnotic agents could have increased his risk of parasomnia. A review of the literature did not reveal any reports of gabapentin, hydroxyzine, melatonin, or tramadol causing parasomnias. This observation, as well as the well-known role of zolpidem⁵ in etiopathogenesis of parasomnias, indicates that the pseudo-suicidal behavior Mr. R displayed while asleep likely was a direct result of zolpidem use in presence of other facilitating factors. Gabapentin, which is known to increase the depth of sleep, was added to his regimen 1 month before his parasomnia episode. Therefore, gabapentin could have triggered parasomnia with zolpidem therapy.^1,13

Conditions that provoke repeated cortical arousals (eg, periodic limb movement disorder [PLMD] and sleep apnea) or increase depth or pressure of sleep (intense exercise in the evening, fever, sleep deprivation) are thought to be associated with NREM parasomnias.^1-4 However, Mr. R underwent in-laboratory PSG and tested negative for major cortical arousal-inducing conditions, such as PLMD and sleep apnea.
 

Some other sleep disruptors likely were involved in Mr. R’s case. Auditory and tactile stimuli are known to cause cortical arousals, with additive effect seen when these 2 stimuli are combined.^3,14 Additionally, these exogenous stimuli are known to trigger sleep-related violent parasomnias.¹⁵ Mr. R displayed this behavior after his wife woke him up. The auditory stimulus of his wife’s voice and/or tactile stimulus involved in the act of waking Mr. R likely played a role in the suicidal and violent nature of his NREM parasomnia.

[polldaddy:9712581]

The authors’ observations

In general, the mechanisms by which zolpidem causes NREM parasomnias are not completely understood. The sedation-related amnestic properties of zolpidem might explain some of these behaviors. Patients could perform these behaviors after waking and have subsequent amnesia.⁴ There is greater preservation of Stage N3 sleep with zolpidem compared with benzodiazepines. Benzodiazepines also cause muscle relaxation while the motor system remains relatively more active during sleep with zolpidem because of its selectivity for α-1 subunit of gamma-aminobutyric acid A receptor. These factors might increase the likelihood of NREM parasomnias with zolpidem compared with benzodiazepines.⁴

Types of parasomnias

According to DSM-5, there are 2 categories of parasomnias based on the sleep stage from which a parasomnia emerges.² REM sleep behavior disorder (RBD) refers to complex motor and/or vocalizations during REM sleep, accompanied by increased EMG activity during REM sleep (Table).^2,3

The pseudo-suicidal behavior Mr. R displayed likely was NREM parasomnia because it occurred in the first third of the night with his eyes open and impaired recall after the event. Interestingly, Mr. R had RBD in addition to the NREM parasomnia likely caused by zolpidem. This is evident from Mr. R’s frequent dream enactment behaviors, such as kicking, thrashing, and punching during sleep, along with increased EMG activity during REM sleep as recorded on the PSG.¹⁰ The presence of RBD could be explained by selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (fluoxetine) use, and comorbidity with PTSD.^2,16

Management of parasomnias

Initial management of parasomnias involves decreasing the risk of parasomnia-related injury. Suggested safety measures include:

• sleeping away from windows
• sleeping in a sleeping bag
• sleeping on a lower floor
• locking windows and doors
• removing potentially dangerous objects from the bedroom
• putting gates across stairwells
• installing bells or alarms on door knobs.¹⁵

Removing access to firearms or other weapons such as knives is of utmost importance especially with patients who have easy access during wakefulness. If removing weapons is not feasible, consider disarming, securing, or locking them.¹⁵ These considerations are relevant to veterans with PTSD because of the high prevalence of symptoms, including depression, insomnia, and pain, which require sedating medications.¹⁷ A review of parasomnias among a large sample of psychiatric outpatients revealed that a variety of sedating medications, including antidepressants, can lead to NREM parasomnias.¹⁸ Therefore, exercise caution when prescribing sedating medications, especially in patients vulnerable to developing dangerous parasomnias, such as a veteran with PTSD and easy access to guns.¹⁹

TREATMENT Zolpidem stopped

Mr. R immediately stops taking zolpidem because he is aware of its association with abnormal behaviors during sleep, and his wife removes his access to firearms and knives at night. Because of his history of clinical benefit and no history of parasomnias with mirtazapine, Mr. R is started on mirtazapine for insomnia that previously was treated with zolpidem, and residual depression. Six months after discontinuing zolpidem, he does not experience NREM parasomnias, and there are no changes in his dream enactment behaviors.

Summing up

Zolpidem therapy could be associated with unusual variants of NREM parasomnia, sleepwalking type; sleep-related pseudo-suicidal behavior is one such variant. Several factors could play a role in increasing the likelihood of NREM parasomnia with zolpidem therapy. In Mr. R’s case, the pharmacokinetic drug interactions between fluoxetine and zolpidem, as well as concomitant use of several sedating agents could have played a role in increasing the likelihood of NREM parasomnia, with audio-tactile stimuli contributing to the violent and suicidal nature of the parasomnia. Exercise caution when using CYP enzyme inhibitors, such as fluoxetine and paroxetine, in combination with zolpidem. Knowledge of the potential interaction between zolpidem and fluoxetine is important because anti­depressants and hypnotics are commonly co-prescribed because insomnia often is comorbid with other psychiatric disorders.

In veterans with PTSD who do not have suicidal ideations while awake, life-threatening non-intentional behavior is a risk because of easy access to guns or other weapons. Sedative-hypnotic medications commonly are prescribed to patients with PTSD. Exercise caution when using hypnotic agents such as zolpidem, and consider sleep aids with a lower risk of parasomnias (based on the author’s experience, trazodone, mirtazapine, melatonin, and gabapentin) when possible. Non-pharmacologic treatments of insomnia, such as sleep hygiene education and, more importantly, cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia, are preferred. If a patient is already taking zolpidem, nightly dosage should not be >10 mg. Polypharmacy with other sedating medications should be avoided when possible and both exogenous (noise, pets) and endogenous sleep disruptors (sleep apnea, PLMD) should be addressed. Advise the patient to avoid alcohol and remove firearms and other potential weapons. Discontinue zolpidem if the patient develops sleep-related abnormal behavior because of its potential to take on violent forms.

CASE Suicidal while asleep

Mr. R, age 28, an Iraq and Afghanistan veteran with major depressive disorder and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), is awoken by his wife to check on their daughter approximately 30 minutes after he takes his nightly regimen of zolpidem, 10 mg, melatonin, 6 mg, and hydroxyzine, 20 mg. When Mr. R returns to the bedroom, he appears to be confused. Mr. R grabs an unloaded gun from under the mattress, puts it in his mouth, and pulls the trigger. Then Mr. R holds the gun to his head and pulls the trigger while saying that his wife and children will be better off without him. His wife takes the gun away, but he grabs another gun from his gun box and loads it. His wife convinces him to remove the ammunition; however, Mr. R gets the other unloaded gun and pulls the trigger on himself again. After his wife takes this gun away, he tries cutting himself with a pocket­knife, causing superficial cuts. Eventually, Mr. R goes back to bed. He does not remember these events in the morning.

What increased the likelihood of parasomnia in Mr. R?
a) high zolpidem dosage
b) concomitant use of other sedating agents
c) sleep deprivation
d) dehydration

[polldaddy:9712545]

The authors’ observations

Parasomnias are sleep-wake transition disorders classified by the sleep stage from which they arise, either NREM or rapid eye movement (REM). NREM parasomnias could result from incomplete awakening from NREM sleep, typically in Stage N3 (slow-wave) sleep.¹ DSM-5 describes NREM parasomnias as arousal disorders in which the disturbance is not attributable to the physiological effects of substance; substance/medication-induced sleep disorder, parasomnia type, is when the disturbance can be attributed to a substance.² The latter also can occur during REM sleep.

NREM parasomnias are characterized by abnormal behaviors during sleep with significant harm potential.³ Somnambulism or sleepwalking and sleep terrors are the 2 types of NREM parasomnias in DSM-5. Sleepwalking could involve complex behaviors, including:

• eating
• talking
• cooking
• shopping
• driving
• sexual activity.

Zolpidem, a benzodiazepine receptor agonist, is a preferred hypnotic agent for insomnia because of its low risk for abuse and daytime sedation.⁴ However, the drug has been associated with NREM parasomnias, namely somnambulism or sleepwalking, and its variants including sleep-driving, sleep-related eating disorder, and rarely sexsomnia (sleep-sex), with anterograde amnesia for the event.⁵ Suicidal behavior that occurs while the patient is asleep with next-day amnesia is another variant of somnambulism. There are several reports of suicidal behavior during sleep,^6,7 but to our knowledge, there are only 2 previous cases implicating zolpidem as the cause:

• Gibson et al⁸ described a 49-year-old man who sustained a self-inflicted gunshot wound to his head while asleep. He just had started taking zolpidem, and in the weeks before the incident he had several episodes of sleepwalking and sleep-eating. He had consumed alcohol the night of the self-inflicted gunshot wound, but had no other psychiatric history.
• Chopra et al⁴ described a 37-year-old man, with no prior episodes of sleepwalking or associated complex behaviors, who was taking zolpidem, 10 mg/d, for chronic insomnia. He shot a gun in the basement of his home, and then held the loaded gun to his neck while asleep. The authors attributed the event to zolpidem in combination with other predisposing factors, including dehydration after intense exercise and alcohol use. The authors categorized this type of event as “para-suicidal amnestic behavior,” although “sleep-related pseudo-suicidal behavior” might be a better term for this type of parasomnia because of its occurrence during sleep and non-deliberate nature.

In another case report, a 27-year-old man took additional zolpidem after he did not experience desired sedative effects from an initial 20 mg.⁹ Because the patient remembered the suicidal thoughts, the authors believed that the patient attempted suicide while under the influence of zolpidem. The authors did not believe the incident to be sleep-related suicidal behavior, because it was uncertain if he attempted suicide while asleep.

Mr. R does not remember the events his wife witnessed while he was asleep. To our knowledge, Mr. R’s case is the first sleep-related pseudo-suicidal behavior case resulting from zolpidem, 10 mg/d, without concurrent alcohol use in an adult male veteran with PTSD and no suicidal ideation while awake.

HISTORY Further details revealed

Mr. R says that in the days leading to the incident he was not sleep-deprived and was getting at least 6 hours of restful sleep every night. He had been taking zolpidem every night. He has no childhood or family history of NREM parasomnias. He says he did not engage in intense exercise that evening or have a fever the night of the incident and has abstained from alcohol for 2 years.

His wife says that after he took zolpidem, when he was woken up, “He was not there; his eyes were glazed and glossy, and it’s like he was in another world,” and his speech and behavior were bizarre. She also reports that his eyes were open when he engaged in this behavior that appeared suicidal.

Three months before the incident, Mr. R had reported nightmares with dream enactment behaviors, hypervigilance on awakening and during the daytime, irritability, and anxious and depressed mood with neurovegetative symptoms, and was referred to our clinic for medication management. He also reported no prior or current manic or psychotic symptoms, denied suicidal thoughts, and had no history of suicide attempts. Mr. R’s medication regimen included tramadol, 400 mg/d, for chronic knee pain; fluoxetine, 60 mg/d, for depression and PTSD; and propranolol ER, 60 mg/d, and propranolol, 10 mg/d as needed, for anxiety. He was started on prazosin, 2 mg/d, titrated to 4 mg/d, for medication management of nightmares.

Mr. R also was referred to the sleep laboratory for a polysomnogram (PSG) because of reported loud snoring and witnessed apneas, especially because sleep apnea can cause nightmares and dream enactment behaviors. The PSG was negative for sleep apnea or excessive periodic limb movements of sleep, but showed increased electromyographic (EMG) activity during REM sleep, which was consistent with his report of dream enactment behaviors. Two months later, he reported improvement in nightmares and depression, but not in dream enactment behaviors. Because of prominent anxiety and irritability, he was started on gabapentin, 300 mg, 3 times a day.

What factor increases the risk of NREM parasomnias with zolpidem compared with benzodiazepines?
a) greater preservation of Stage N3 sleep
b) lesser degree of muscle relaxation
c) both a and b
d) none of the above

[polldaddy:9712556]

The authors’ observations

Factors that increase the likelihood of parasomnias include:

• zolpidem >10 mg at bedtime
• concomitant use of other CNS depressants, including sedative hypnotic agents and alcohol
• female sex
• not falling asleep immediately after taking zolpidem
• personal or family history of parasomnias
• living alone
• poor pill management
• presence of sleep disruptors such as sleep apnea and periodic limb movements of sleep.^1,4,5,10

Higher dosages of zolpidem (>10 mg/d) have been identified as the predictive risk factor.⁵ In the Chopra et al⁴ case report on sleep-related suicidal behavior related to zolpidem, 10 mg at bedtime, concomitant dehydration and alcohol use were implicated as facilitating factors. Dehydration could increase serum levels of zolpidem resulting in greater CNS effects. Alcohol use was implicated in the Gibson et al⁸ case report as well, and the patient had multiple episodes of sleepwalking and sleep-related eating.However, Mr. R was not dehydrated or using alcohol.

An interesting feature of Mr. R’s case is that he was taking fluoxetine. Cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4 is involved in metabolizing zolpidem, and norfluoxetine, a metabolite of fluoxetine, inhibits CYP3A4. Although studies have not found pharmacokinetic interactions between fluoxetine and zolpidem, these studies did not investigate fluoxetine dosages >20 mg/d.¹¹ The inhibition of CYP enzymes by fluoxetine likely is dose-dependent,¹² and therefore concomitant administration of high-dosage fluoxetine (>20 mg/d) with zolpidem might result in higher serum levels of zolpidem.

Mr. R also was taking several sedating agents (gabapentin, hydroxyzine, melatonin, and tramadol). The concomitant use of these sedative-hypnotic agents could have increased his risk of parasomnia. A review of the literature did not reveal any reports of gabapentin, hydroxyzine, melatonin, or tramadol causing parasomnias. This observation, as well as the well-known role of zolpidem⁵ in etiopathogenesis of parasomnias, indicates that the pseudo-suicidal behavior Mr. R displayed while asleep likely was a direct result of zolpidem use in presence of other facilitating factors. Gabapentin, which is known to increase the depth of sleep, was added to his regimen 1 month before his parasomnia episode. Therefore, gabapentin could have triggered parasomnia with zolpidem therapy.^1,13

Conditions that provoke repeated cortical arousals (eg, periodic limb movement disorder [PLMD] and sleep apnea) or increase depth or pressure of sleep (intense exercise in the evening, fever, sleep deprivation) are thought to be associated with NREM parasomnias.^1-4 However, Mr. R underwent in-laboratory PSG and tested negative for major cortical arousal-inducing conditions, such as PLMD and sleep apnea.
 

Some other sleep disruptors likely were involved in Mr. R’s case. Auditory and tactile stimuli are known to cause cortical arousals, with additive effect seen when these 2 stimuli are combined.^3,14 Additionally, these exogenous stimuli are known to trigger sleep-related violent parasomnias.¹⁵ Mr. R displayed this behavior after his wife woke him up. The auditory stimulus of his wife’s voice and/or tactile stimulus involved in the act of waking Mr. R likely played a role in the suicidal and violent nature of his NREM parasomnia.

[polldaddy:9712581]

The authors’ observations

In general, the mechanisms by which zolpidem causes NREM parasomnias are not completely understood. The sedation-related amnestic properties of zolpidem might explain some of these behaviors. Patients could perform these behaviors after waking and have subsequent amnesia.⁴ There is greater preservation of Stage N3 sleep with zolpidem compared with benzodiazepines. Benzodiazepines also cause muscle relaxation while the motor system remains relatively more active during sleep with zolpidem because of its selectivity for α-1 subunit of gamma-aminobutyric acid A receptor. These factors might increase the likelihood of NREM parasomnias with zolpidem compared with benzodiazepines.⁴

Types of parasomnias

According to DSM-5, there are 2 categories of parasomnias based on the sleep stage from which a parasomnia emerges.² REM sleep behavior disorder (RBD) refers to complex motor and/or vocalizations during REM sleep, accompanied by increased EMG activity during REM sleep (Table).^2,3

The pseudo-suicidal behavior Mr. R displayed likely was NREM parasomnia because it occurred in the first third of the night with his eyes open and impaired recall after the event. Interestingly, Mr. R had RBD in addition to the NREM parasomnia likely caused by zolpidem. This is evident from Mr. R’s frequent dream enactment behaviors, such as kicking, thrashing, and punching during sleep, along with increased EMG activity during REM sleep as recorded on the PSG.¹⁰ The presence of RBD could be explained by selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (fluoxetine) use, and comorbidity with PTSD.^2,16

Management of parasomnias

Initial management of parasomnias involves decreasing the risk of parasomnia-related injury. Suggested safety measures include:

• sleeping away from windows
• sleeping in a sleeping bag
• sleeping on a lower floor
• locking windows and doors
• removing potentially dangerous objects from the bedroom
• putting gates across stairwells
• installing bells or alarms on door knobs.¹⁵

Removing access to firearms or other weapons such as knives is of utmost importance especially with patients who have easy access during wakefulness. If removing weapons is not feasible, consider disarming, securing, or locking them.¹⁵ These considerations are relevant to veterans with PTSD because of the high prevalence of symptoms, including depression, insomnia, and pain, which require sedating medications.¹⁷ A review of parasomnias among a large sample of psychiatric outpatients revealed that a variety of sedating medications, including antidepressants, can lead to NREM parasomnias.¹⁸ Therefore, exercise caution when prescribing sedating medications, especially in patients vulnerable to developing dangerous parasomnias, such as a veteran with PTSD and easy access to guns.¹⁹

TREATMENT Zolpidem stopped

Mr. R immediately stops taking zolpidem because he is aware of its association with abnormal behaviors during sleep, and his wife removes his access to firearms and knives at night. Because of his history of clinical benefit and no history of parasomnias with mirtazapine, Mr. R is started on mirtazapine for insomnia that previously was treated with zolpidem, and residual depression. Six months after discontinuing zolpidem, he does not experience NREM parasomnias, and there are no changes in his dream enactment behaviors.

Summing up

Zolpidem therapy could be associated with unusual variants of NREM parasomnia, sleepwalking type; sleep-related pseudo-suicidal behavior is one such variant. Several factors could play a role in increasing the likelihood of NREM parasomnia with zolpidem therapy. In Mr. R’s case, the pharmacokinetic drug interactions between fluoxetine and zolpidem, as well as concomitant use of several sedating agents could have played a role in increasing the likelihood of NREM parasomnia, with audio-tactile stimuli contributing to the violent and suicidal nature of the parasomnia. Exercise caution when using CYP enzyme inhibitors, such as fluoxetine and paroxetine, in combination with zolpidem. Knowledge of the potential interaction between zolpidem and fluoxetine is important because anti­depressants and hypnotics are commonly co-prescribed because insomnia often is comorbid with other psychiatric disorders.

In veterans with PTSD who do not have suicidal ideations while awake, life-threatening non-intentional behavior is a risk because of easy access to guns or other weapons. Sedative-hypnotic medications commonly are prescribed to patients with PTSD. Exercise caution when using hypnotic agents such as zolpidem, and consider sleep aids with a lower risk of parasomnias (based on the author’s experience, trazodone, mirtazapine, melatonin, and gabapentin) when possible. Non-pharmacologic treatments of insomnia, such as sleep hygiene education and, more importantly, cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia, are preferred. If a patient is already taking zolpidem, nightly dosage should not be >10 mg. Polypharmacy with other sedating medications should be avoided when possible and both exogenous (noise, pets) and endogenous sleep disruptors (sleep apnea, PLMD) should be addressed. Advise the patient to avoid alcohol and remove firearms and other potential weapons. Discontinue zolpidem if the patient develops sleep-related abnormal behavior because of its potential to take on violent forms.

CASE Withdrawn and confused

Mr. J, age 54, is brought to the emergency department from a correctional treatment facility where he is reported to be displaying new, unusual behavior. He has a history of schizoaffective disorder, which has been stable with haloperidol, 10 mg/d, for more than a year.

Although previously Mr. J openly discussed his long-standing delusions about the FBI coming to release him from prison, he no longer mentions this or any other delusional beliefs, and has become less communicative with staff and peers. Mr. J no longer accompanies the other patients to the cafeteria for meals and eats in his room alone and appears to be losing weight. He says, “I do not feel good,” but otherwise does not communicate spontaneously. Intermittently, he is irritable, without known triggers. The staff notices that Mr. J often lays on his bed, sometimes in a fetal position. Over time, he becomes confused and is seen attempting to open his room door with a toothbrush. His personal hygiene is poor, and he often urinates through his clothes, on the floor, and in his bed. Recently, Mr. J’s eczema has worsened. His gait has become unsteady, and he has orthostasis.

What could be causing these new symptoms?

a) worsening schizoaffective disorder
b) illicit drug use in the prison
c) atypical dementia
d) cardiac etiology

The author’s observations

The differential diagnosis for Mr. J appeared to be wide and without specific etiology. Because of the complex types of symptoms that Mr. J was experiencing, the emergency department managed his care and specialty clinic referrals were ordered.

It was reported that Mr. J started complaining of lightheadedness a few months ago, which worsened (unsteady gait, near falls). In the context of Mr. J’s history of lightheadedness and orthostasis, the cardiology clinic ordered a tilt table test, which was within normal limits:

• 70º head-up tilt: blood pressure, 91/67 to 102/62 mm Hg, and pulse, 70 to 79 beats per minute (bpm)
• with isoproterenol, 1 μg/minute: blood pressure, 90/66 to 110/70 mm Hg, and pulse, 77 to 124 bpm
• with isoproterenol, 2 μg/minute: blood pressure, 98/58 to 111/66 mm Hg, and pulse, 121 to 134 bpm.

The neurologist’s diagnostic impression was atypical dementia; however, Mr. J showed no memory deficits. Parkinsonism also was considered, but Mr. J had no unilateral tremor, masked facies, or micrographia. Mr. J showed some restriction in his movement, but he was not bradykinetic. The team suspected haloperidol could be causing his stiff movement.

Although it was possible that Mr. J’s schizoaffective disorder was worsening and led to the new symptoms, Mr. J appeared to be less delusional because he was no longer talking to the staff about his delusions. There seemed to be no outward evidence of progression of psychotic symptoms.

Mr. J had a history of substance abuse, including alcohol, cocaine, and Cannabis. Although prison inmates have been known to manufacture and drink “hooch,” the new symptoms Mr. J was experiencing were severe enough that his social interactions with other inmates diminished substantially. Because Mr. J had not been communicating with the other inmates and had no recent visitors, the team felt that it was unlikely that drugs were causing these symptoms. Also, a urine drug screen for cocaine, amphetamines, benzodiazepines, Cannabis, and opioids was negative.

HISTORY Substance use, violence

Mr. J was diagnosed with bipolar disorder at age 18. After later hospitalizations, his diagnosis was changed to schizoaffective disorder as a matter of diagnostic clarification. He has a long history of non-compliance with treatment, homelessness, and drug abuse.

Mr. J is serving a 20-year sentence for first-degree reckless homicide. A year after he was incarcerated, Mr. J was sent to a specialized mental health facility for inmates whose illness cannot be managed in a typical correctional setting. While at the treatment facility, Mr. J was non-compliant with medications and because of concerns about dangerousness and psychosis, the court found probable cause for involuntary commitment.

His medication regimen is trihexyphenidyl, 2 mg/d, for extrapyramidal symptoms; haloperidol, 10 mg/d, for psychosis; trazodone, 150 mg/d, for insomnia; vitamin D₃, 2,000 IU/d; vitamin E, 400 IU/d, for symptoms of tardive dyskinesia; IM ziprasidone, 20 mg, because he refused oral haliperidol; and hydrocortisone cream 1% for eczema.

EVALUATION Additional tests

Mr. J’s blood pressure is 124/72 mm Hg, and pulse, 104 bpm, laying down; blood pressure, 110/84 mm Hg, and pulse, 112 bpm, sitting; and blood pressure, 108/82 mm Hg, and pulse, 129 bpm, standing. With repeated readings: blood pressure, 128/84 mm Hg, and pulse, 98 bpm, laying down; blood pressure, 125/86 mm Hg, and pulse, 113 bpm, sitting; and blood pressure, 105/76 mm Hg, and pulse, 130 bpm, standing.

Laboratory tests, including complete blood count, chemistry panel, thyroid-stimulating hormone, are within normal limits. The team feels that the investigation for an etiology for Mr. J’s symptoms needs to be more exhaustive and additional tests are ordered, including vitamin levels (C, B₁, B₁₂, B₆), rapid plasma reagin for syphilis, and arbovirus testing (eastern equine encephalitis virus, western equine encephalitis, West Nile virus, La Crosse encephalitis, St. Louis encephalitis), which are negative.

What’s the next best step in managing Mr. J’s care?

a) adjust his medication

b) eliminate a mediation

c) order further testing

The author’s observations

To determine if Mr. J’s new-onset symptoms might be related to the progression of his psychiatric illness, the haloperidol dosage was increased to 20 mg/d; however, we saw no positive response to this change. His tardive dyskinesia symptoms (bruxism and other oral buccal movements) worsened. Haloperidol was reduced to 10 mg/d.

Trihexyphenidyl then was suspected to contribute to Mr. J’s confusion. Unfortunately, lowering the dosage of trihexyphenidyl to 1 mg/d, did not affect Mr. J’s current symptoms and exacerbated extrapyramidal symptoms.

The treatment team then questioned if porphyria—known as the “little imitator”—might be considered because of the variety of symptoms without an etiology, despite extensive testing. A 24-hour urine collection was ordered.

What is the correct method of collecting a urine sample for porphyrins?

a) collect a small sample and expose it to light before testing

b) collect a 24-hour sample with the sample kept in ambient temperature and light

c) collect a 24-hour sample with the sample kept on ice in a light-blocking container and frozen when sent to the laboratory

EVALUATION Diagnosis revealed

The 24-hour urine collection is obtained. However, it needed to be collected twice, because the first sample was not a full sample. Interestingly, the first sample, which is exposed to light and not kept on ice, turned dark in color. The second sample is obtained properly and sent to the laboratory. When the laboratory results are returned (Figure 1), Mr. J is diagnosed with hereditary coproporphyria (HCP).

The author’s observations

There are several types of porphyria, each associated with a different step in the chain of enzymes associated with synthesis of a heme molecule in the mitochondria. A defect in any single enzyme step will create a build up of porphyrins—a precursor to heme molecules—in erythrocytes or hepatic cells.

It is important to differentiate hepatic from erythropoietic porphyrias. The acute porphyrias (acute intermittent porphyria [AIP], HCP, and variegate porphyria generally are hepatic in origin with neuropsychiatric and neurovisceral symptoms. Cutaneous porphyrias originate in bone marrow and therefore are erythropoietic. However, there are exceptions such as porphyria cutanea tarda (PCT), which is hepatic in origin but the manifestations mainly are cutaneous¹ (Figure 2).²

• muscle spasms (commonly abdominal, but can be any muscle group)
• confusion
• disorientation
• autonomic instability
• lightheadness
• disorientation
• diarrhea
• light sensitivity
• dermatologic conditions
• weakness (particularly peripheral weakness)
• hypesthesia
• allodynia
• severe nausea and vomiting
• emotional lability
• psychosis as well as general malaise.

The attack could result in death.

Mr. J had many differing symptoms and was evaluated by several specialty providers. He had a chronic dermatologic condition; he was confused, disoriented, and complained of nausea, weakness, orthostasis, and loose stools. With the variety of possible symptoms that patients such as Mr. J could experience, one can see why it would lead to many different providers being involved in the diagnosis. It is not uncommon for psychiatrists to be the last providers to care for such patients who could have been evaluated by hematology, cardiology, gastroenterology, dermatology, and/or neurology.

Hereditary coproporphyria

The team considered hepatic porphyias because of new-onset symptoms of mood lability, confusion, orthostasis, unsteady gait, weakness, dermatologic conditions on hands not responsive to treatment, and general malaise. Mr. J was diagnosed with HCP, a type of porphyria caused by a defect in coproporphyrinogen oxidase that leads to an accumulation of coproporphyrinogen III. This precursor, as are many porphyrin precursors, is neurotoxic, leading to neurovisceral or neuropsychiatric effects. Although in Mr. J’s case the coproporphyrinogen III value from the 24-hour drug screen was only modestly elevated, it has been noted that levels of excreted prophyrins do not necessarily correlate with symptom severity.³

In the past, porphyria testing was performed using the Watson-Schwartz test, which used Ehrlich’s reagent to precipitate porphyrins in a urine sample,⁴ and was used as a “bedside” test. Interestingly, porphyrins—not the iron found in the heme molecule—are precipitated in this test and cause the reddish-purple coloration of the urine sample. When quantitative testing was developed, a 24-hour sample of urine—kept on ice and away from ambient light, later to be frozen when sent to the laboratory—became the standard tool for testing for porphyrins. Now DNA testing can be used to diagnose HCP.

OUTCOME Symptoms resolve

Mr. J is started on loxapine, 20 mg at bedtime, and his symptoms resolve within 2 weeks. He maintains some baseline delusional ideation consistent with his history of schizoaffective disorder, but he is more social, his personal hygiene improves, he attends groups, eats in the cafeteria with his peers, and is no longer confused.

The author’s observations

In the 1950s, chlorpromazine was used to treat AIP.⁵ Mr. J received loxapine, a mid-potency first-generation antipsychotic, although it has been this author’s observation that high-potency first-generation antipsychotics are not effective for treating porphyria.

CASE Withdrawn and confused

Mr. J, age 54, is brought to the emergency department from a correctional treatment facility where he is reported to be displaying new, unusual behavior. He has a history of schizoaffective disorder, which has been stable with haloperidol, 10 mg/d, for more than a year.

Although previously Mr. J openly discussed his long-standing delusions about the FBI coming to release him from prison, he no longer mentions this or any other delusional beliefs, and has become less communicative with staff and peers. Mr. J no longer accompanies the other patients to the cafeteria for meals and eats in his room alone and appears to be losing weight. He says, “I do not feel good,” but otherwise does not communicate spontaneously. Intermittently, he is irritable, without known triggers. The staff notices that Mr. J often lays on his bed, sometimes in a fetal position. Over time, he becomes confused and is seen attempting to open his room door with a toothbrush. His personal hygiene is poor, and he often urinates through his clothes, on the floor, and in his bed. Recently, Mr. J’s eczema has worsened. His gait has become unsteady, and he has orthostasis.

What could be causing these new symptoms?

a) worsening schizoaffective disorder
b) illicit drug use in the prison
c) atypical dementia
d) cardiac etiology

The author’s observations

The differential diagnosis for Mr. J appeared to be wide and without specific etiology. Because of the complex types of symptoms that Mr. J was experiencing, the emergency department managed his care and specialty clinic referrals were ordered.

It was reported that Mr. J started complaining of lightheadedness a few months ago, which worsened (unsteady gait, near falls). In the context of Mr. J’s history of lightheadedness and orthostasis, the cardiology clinic ordered a tilt table test, which was within normal limits:

• 70º head-up tilt: blood pressure, 91/67 to 102/62 mm Hg, and pulse, 70 to 79 beats per minute (bpm)
• with isoproterenol, 1 μg/minute: blood pressure, 90/66 to 110/70 mm Hg, and pulse, 77 to 124 bpm
• with isoproterenol, 2 μg/minute: blood pressure, 98/58 to 111/66 mm Hg, and pulse, 121 to 134 bpm.

The neurologist’s diagnostic impression was atypical dementia; however, Mr. J showed no memory deficits. Parkinsonism also was considered, but Mr. J had no unilateral tremor, masked facies, or micrographia. Mr. J showed some restriction in his movement, but he was not bradykinetic. The team suspected haloperidol could be causing his stiff movement.

Although it was possible that Mr. J’s schizoaffective disorder was worsening and led to the new symptoms, Mr. J appeared to be less delusional because he was no longer talking to the staff about his delusions. There seemed to be no outward evidence of progression of psychotic symptoms.

Mr. J had a history of substance abuse, including alcohol, cocaine, and Cannabis. Although prison inmates have been known to manufacture and drink “hooch,” the new symptoms Mr. J was experiencing were severe enough that his social interactions with other inmates diminished substantially. Because Mr. J had not been communicating with the other inmates and had no recent visitors, the team felt that it was unlikely that drugs were causing these symptoms. Also, a urine drug screen for cocaine, amphetamines, benzodiazepines, Cannabis, and opioids was negative.

HISTORY Substance use, violence

Mr. J was diagnosed with bipolar disorder at age 18. After later hospitalizations, his diagnosis was changed to schizoaffective disorder as a matter of diagnostic clarification. He has a long history of non-compliance with treatment, homelessness, and drug abuse.

Mr. J is serving a 20-year sentence for first-degree reckless homicide. A year after he was incarcerated, Mr. J was sent to a specialized mental health facility for inmates whose illness cannot be managed in a typical correctional setting. While at the treatment facility, Mr. J was non-compliant with medications and because of concerns about dangerousness and psychosis, the court found probable cause for involuntary commitment.

His medication regimen is trihexyphenidyl, 2 mg/d, for extrapyramidal symptoms; haloperidol, 10 mg/d, for psychosis; trazodone, 150 mg/d, for insomnia; vitamin D₃, 2,000 IU/d; vitamin E, 400 IU/d, for symptoms of tardive dyskinesia; IM ziprasidone, 20 mg, because he refused oral haliperidol; and hydrocortisone cream 1% for eczema.

EVALUATION Additional tests

Mr. J’s blood pressure is 124/72 mm Hg, and pulse, 104 bpm, laying down; blood pressure, 110/84 mm Hg, and pulse, 112 bpm, sitting; and blood pressure, 108/82 mm Hg, and pulse, 129 bpm, standing. With repeated readings: blood pressure, 128/84 mm Hg, and pulse, 98 bpm, laying down; blood pressure, 125/86 mm Hg, and pulse, 113 bpm, sitting; and blood pressure, 105/76 mm Hg, and pulse, 130 bpm, standing.

Laboratory tests, including complete blood count, chemistry panel, thyroid-stimulating hormone, are within normal limits. The team feels that the investigation for an etiology for Mr. J’s symptoms needs to be more exhaustive and additional tests are ordered, including vitamin levels (C, B₁, B₁₂, B₆), rapid plasma reagin for syphilis, and arbovirus testing (eastern equine encephalitis virus, western equine encephalitis, West Nile virus, La Crosse encephalitis, St. Louis encephalitis), which are negative.

What’s the next best step in managing Mr. J’s care?

a) adjust his medication

b) eliminate a mediation

c) order further testing

The author’s observations

To determine if Mr. J’s new-onset symptoms might be related to the progression of his psychiatric illness, the haloperidol dosage was increased to 20 mg/d; however, we saw no positive response to this change. His tardive dyskinesia symptoms (bruxism and other oral buccal movements) worsened. Haloperidol was reduced to 10 mg/d.

Trihexyphenidyl then was suspected to contribute to Mr. J’s confusion. Unfortunately, lowering the dosage of trihexyphenidyl to 1 mg/d, did not affect Mr. J’s current symptoms and exacerbated extrapyramidal symptoms.

The treatment team then questioned if porphyria—known as the “little imitator”—might be considered because of the variety of symptoms without an etiology, despite extensive testing. A 24-hour urine collection was ordered.

What is the correct method of collecting a urine sample for porphyrins?

a) collect a small sample and expose it to light before testing

b) collect a 24-hour sample with the sample kept in ambient temperature and light

c) collect a 24-hour sample with the sample kept on ice in a light-blocking container and frozen when sent to the laboratory

EVALUATION Diagnosis revealed

The 24-hour urine collection is obtained. However, it needed to be collected twice, because the first sample was not a full sample. Interestingly, the first sample, which is exposed to light and not kept on ice, turned dark in color. The second sample is obtained properly and sent to the laboratory. When the laboratory results are returned (Figure 1), Mr. J is diagnosed with hereditary coproporphyria (HCP).

The author’s observations

There are several types of porphyria, each associated with a different step in the chain of enzymes associated with synthesis of a heme molecule in the mitochondria. A defect in any single enzyme step will create a build up of porphyrins—a precursor to heme molecules—in erythrocytes or hepatic cells.

It is important to differentiate hepatic from erythropoietic porphyrias. The acute porphyrias (acute intermittent porphyria [AIP], HCP, and variegate porphyria generally are hepatic in origin with neuropsychiatric and neurovisceral symptoms. Cutaneous porphyrias originate in bone marrow and therefore are erythropoietic. However, there are exceptions such as porphyria cutanea tarda (PCT), which is hepatic in origin but the manifestations mainly are cutaneous¹ (Figure 2).²

• muscle spasms (commonly abdominal, but can be any muscle group)
• confusion
• disorientation
• autonomic instability
• lightheadness
• disorientation
• diarrhea
• light sensitivity
• dermatologic conditions
• weakness (particularly peripheral weakness)
• hypesthesia
• allodynia
• severe nausea and vomiting
• emotional lability
• psychosis as well as general malaise.

The attack could result in death.

Mr. J had many differing symptoms and was evaluated by several specialty providers. He had a chronic dermatologic condition; he was confused, disoriented, and complained of nausea, weakness, orthostasis, and loose stools. With the variety of possible symptoms that patients such as Mr. J could experience, one can see why it would lead to many different providers being involved in the diagnosis. It is not uncommon for psychiatrists to be the last providers to care for such patients who could have been evaluated by hematology, cardiology, gastroenterology, dermatology, and/or neurology.

Hereditary coproporphyria

The team considered hepatic porphyias because of new-onset symptoms of mood lability, confusion, orthostasis, unsteady gait, weakness, dermatologic conditions on hands not responsive to treatment, and general malaise. Mr. J was diagnosed with HCP, a type of porphyria caused by a defect in coproporphyrinogen oxidase that leads to an accumulation of coproporphyrinogen III. This precursor, as are many porphyrin precursors, is neurotoxic, leading to neurovisceral or neuropsychiatric effects. Although in Mr. J’s case the coproporphyrinogen III value from the 24-hour drug screen was only modestly elevated, it has been noted that levels of excreted prophyrins do not necessarily correlate with symptom severity.³

In the past, porphyria testing was performed using the Watson-Schwartz test, which used Ehrlich’s reagent to precipitate porphyrins in a urine sample,⁴ and was used as a “bedside” test. Interestingly, porphyrins—not the iron found in the heme molecule—are precipitated in this test and cause the reddish-purple coloration of the urine sample. When quantitative testing was developed, a 24-hour sample of urine—kept on ice and away from ambient light, later to be frozen when sent to the laboratory—became the standard tool for testing for porphyrins. Now DNA testing can be used to diagnose HCP.

OUTCOME Symptoms resolve

Mr. J is started on loxapine, 20 mg at bedtime, and his symptoms resolve within 2 weeks. He maintains some baseline delusional ideation consistent with his history of schizoaffective disorder, but he is more social, his personal hygiene improves, he attends groups, eats in the cafeteria with his peers, and is no longer confused.

The author’s observations

In the 1950s, chlorpromazine was used to treat AIP.⁵ Mr. J received loxapine, a mid-potency first-generation antipsychotic, although it has been this author’s observation that high-potency first-generation antipsychotics are not effective for treating porphyria.

CASE Withdrawn and confused

Mr. J, age 54, is brought to the emergency department from a correctional treatment facility where he is reported to be displaying new, unusual behavior. He has a history of schizoaffective disorder, which has been stable with haloperidol, 10 mg/d, for more than a year.

Although previously Mr. J openly discussed his long-standing delusions about the FBI coming to release him from prison, he no longer mentions this or any other delusional beliefs, and has become less communicative with staff and peers. Mr. J no longer accompanies the other patients to the cafeteria for meals and eats in his room alone and appears to be losing weight. He says, “I do not feel good,” but otherwise does not communicate spontaneously. Intermittently, he is irritable, without known triggers. The staff notices that Mr. J often lays on his bed, sometimes in a fetal position. Over time, he becomes confused and is seen attempting to open his room door with a toothbrush. His personal hygiene is poor, and he often urinates through his clothes, on the floor, and in his bed. Recently, Mr. J’s eczema has worsened. His gait has become unsteady, and he has orthostasis.

What could be causing these new symptoms?

a) worsening schizoaffective disorder
b) illicit drug use in the prison
c) atypical dementia
d) cardiac etiology

The author’s observations

The differential diagnosis for Mr. J appeared to be wide and without specific etiology. Because of the complex types of symptoms that Mr. J was experiencing, the emergency department managed his care and specialty clinic referrals were ordered.

It was reported that Mr. J started complaining of lightheadedness a few months ago, which worsened (unsteady gait, near falls). In the context of Mr. J’s history of lightheadedness and orthostasis, the cardiology clinic ordered a tilt table test, which was within normal limits:

• 70º head-up tilt: blood pressure, 91/67 to 102/62 mm Hg, and pulse, 70 to 79 beats per minute (bpm)
• with isoproterenol, 1 μg/minute: blood pressure, 90/66 to 110/70 mm Hg, and pulse, 77 to 124 bpm
• with isoproterenol, 2 μg/minute: blood pressure, 98/58 to 111/66 mm Hg, and pulse, 121 to 134 bpm.

The neurologist’s diagnostic impression was atypical dementia; however, Mr. J showed no memory deficits. Parkinsonism also was considered, but Mr. J had no unilateral tremor, masked facies, or micrographia. Mr. J showed some restriction in his movement, but he was not bradykinetic. The team suspected haloperidol could be causing his stiff movement.

Although it was possible that Mr. J’s schizoaffective disorder was worsening and led to the new symptoms, Mr. J appeared to be less delusional because he was no longer talking to the staff about his delusions. There seemed to be no outward evidence of progression of psychotic symptoms.

Mr. J had a history of substance abuse, including alcohol, cocaine, and Cannabis. Although prison inmates have been known to manufacture and drink “hooch,” the new symptoms Mr. J was experiencing were severe enough that his social interactions with other inmates diminished substantially. Because Mr. J had not been communicating with the other inmates and had no recent visitors, the team felt that it was unlikely that drugs were causing these symptoms. Also, a urine drug screen for cocaine, amphetamines, benzodiazepines, Cannabis, and opioids was negative.

HISTORY Substance use, violence

Mr. J was diagnosed with bipolar disorder at age 18. After later hospitalizations, his diagnosis was changed to schizoaffective disorder as a matter of diagnostic clarification. He has a long history of non-compliance with treatment, homelessness, and drug abuse.

Mr. J is serving a 20-year sentence for first-degree reckless homicide. A year after he was incarcerated, Mr. J was sent to a specialized mental health facility for inmates whose illness cannot be managed in a typical correctional setting. While at the treatment facility, Mr. J was non-compliant with medications and because of concerns about dangerousness and psychosis, the court found probable cause for involuntary commitment.

His medication regimen is trihexyphenidyl, 2 mg/d, for extrapyramidal symptoms; haloperidol, 10 mg/d, for psychosis; trazodone, 150 mg/d, for insomnia; vitamin D₃, 2,000 IU/d; vitamin E, 400 IU/d, for symptoms of tardive dyskinesia; IM ziprasidone, 20 mg, because he refused oral haliperidol; and hydrocortisone cream 1% for eczema.

EVALUATION Additional tests

Mr. J’s blood pressure is 124/72 mm Hg, and pulse, 104 bpm, laying down; blood pressure, 110/84 mm Hg, and pulse, 112 bpm, sitting; and blood pressure, 108/82 mm Hg, and pulse, 129 bpm, standing. With repeated readings: blood pressure, 128/84 mm Hg, and pulse, 98 bpm, laying down; blood pressure, 125/86 mm Hg, and pulse, 113 bpm, sitting; and blood pressure, 105/76 mm Hg, and pulse, 130 bpm, standing.

Laboratory tests, including complete blood count, chemistry panel, thyroid-stimulating hormone, are within normal limits. The team feels that the investigation for an etiology for Mr. J’s symptoms needs to be more exhaustive and additional tests are ordered, including vitamin levels (C, B₁, B₁₂, B₆), rapid plasma reagin for syphilis, and arbovirus testing (eastern equine encephalitis virus, western equine encephalitis, West Nile virus, La Crosse encephalitis, St. Louis encephalitis), which are negative.

What’s the next best step in managing Mr. J’s care?

a) adjust his medication

b) eliminate a mediation

c) order further testing

The author’s observations

To determine if Mr. J’s new-onset symptoms might be related to the progression of his psychiatric illness, the haloperidol dosage was increased to 20 mg/d; however, we saw no positive response to this change. His tardive dyskinesia symptoms (bruxism and other oral buccal movements) worsened. Haloperidol was reduced to 10 mg/d.

Trihexyphenidyl then was suspected to contribute to Mr. J’s confusion. Unfortunately, lowering the dosage of trihexyphenidyl to 1 mg/d, did not affect Mr. J’s current symptoms and exacerbated extrapyramidal symptoms.

The treatment team then questioned if porphyria—known as the “little imitator”—might be considered because of the variety of symptoms without an etiology, despite extensive testing. A 24-hour urine collection was ordered.

What is the correct method of collecting a urine sample for porphyrins?

a) collect a small sample and expose it to light before testing

b) collect a 24-hour sample with the sample kept in ambient temperature and light

c) collect a 24-hour sample with the sample kept on ice in a light-blocking container and frozen when sent to the laboratory

EVALUATION Diagnosis revealed

The 24-hour urine collection is obtained. However, it needed to be collected twice, because the first sample was not a full sample. Interestingly, the first sample, which is exposed to light and not kept on ice, turned dark in color. The second sample is obtained properly and sent to the laboratory. When the laboratory results are returned (Figure 1), Mr. J is diagnosed with hereditary coproporphyria (HCP).

The author’s observations

There are several types of porphyria, each associated with a different step in the chain of enzymes associated with synthesis of a heme molecule in the mitochondria. A defect in any single enzyme step will create a build up of porphyrins—a precursor to heme molecules—in erythrocytes or hepatic cells.

It is important to differentiate hepatic from erythropoietic porphyrias. The acute porphyrias (acute intermittent porphyria [AIP], HCP, and variegate porphyria generally are hepatic in origin with neuropsychiatric and neurovisceral symptoms. Cutaneous porphyrias originate in bone marrow and therefore are erythropoietic. However, there are exceptions such as porphyria cutanea tarda (PCT), which is hepatic in origin but the manifestations mainly are cutaneous¹ (Figure 2).²

• muscle spasms (commonly abdominal, but can be any muscle group)
• confusion
• disorientation
• autonomic instability
• lightheadness
• disorientation
• diarrhea
• light sensitivity
• dermatologic conditions
• weakness (particularly peripheral weakness)
• hypesthesia
• allodynia
• severe nausea and vomiting
• emotional lability
• psychosis as well as general malaise.

The attack could result in death.

Mr. J had many differing symptoms and was evaluated by several specialty providers. He had a chronic dermatologic condition; he was confused, disoriented, and complained of nausea, weakness, orthostasis, and loose stools. With the variety of possible symptoms that patients such as Mr. J could experience, one can see why it would lead to many different providers being involved in the diagnosis. It is not uncommon for psychiatrists to be the last providers to care for such patients who could have been evaluated by hematology, cardiology, gastroenterology, dermatology, and/or neurology.

Hereditary coproporphyria

The team considered hepatic porphyias because of new-onset symptoms of mood lability, confusion, orthostasis, unsteady gait, weakness, dermatologic conditions on hands not responsive to treatment, and general malaise. Mr. J was diagnosed with HCP, a type of porphyria caused by a defect in coproporphyrinogen oxidase that leads to an accumulation of coproporphyrinogen III. This precursor, as are many porphyrin precursors, is neurotoxic, leading to neurovisceral or neuropsychiatric effects. Although in Mr. J’s case the coproporphyrinogen III value from the 24-hour drug screen was only modestly elevated, it has been noted that levels of excreted prophyrins do not necessarily correlate with symptom severity.³

In the past, porphyria testing was performed using the Watson-Schwartz test, which used Ehrlich’s reagent to precipitate porphyrins in a urine sample,⁴ and was used as a “bedside” test. Interestingly, porphyrins—not the iron found in the heme molecule—are precipitated in this test and cause the reddish-purple coloration of the urine sample. When quantitative testing was developed, a 24-hour sample of urine—kept on ice and away from ambient light, later to be frozen when sent to the laboratory—became the standard tool for testing for porphyrins. Now DNA testing can be used to diagnose HCP.

OUTCOME Symptoms resolve

Mr. J is started on loxapine, 20 mg at bedtime, and his symptoms resolve within 2 weeks. He maintains some baseline delusional ideation consistent with his history of schizoaffective disorder, but he is more social, his personal hygiene improves, he attends groups, eats in the cafeteria with his peers, and is no longer confused.

The author’s observations

In the 1950s, chlorpromazine was used to treat AIP.⁵ Mr. J received loxapine, a mid-potency first-generation antipsychotic, although it has been this author’s observation that high-potency first-generation antipsychotics are not effective for treating porphyria.

INTRODUCTION

Gastric cancer is the fifth most common cancer worldwide and the third leading cause of cancer death in both females and males.¹ More than 70% of gastric cancer cases occur in the developing world, with approximately 50% occurring in East Asia.² Gastric cancer is less common in the United States, with an incidence of 12.3 cases in males and 6.0 cases in females per 100,000 per year and a disproportionately higher incidence in Asians.³ According to the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program, approximately 26,370 new cases of stomach cancer were diagnosed in the United States in 2016, and an estimated 10,730 people died of this disease.⁴ Since the 1970s, the 5-year relative survival rate for gastric cancer in the United States has improved from 15% in 1975 to 29% in 2009.⁵ In contrast, in Japan and Korea, where screening programs have been implemented, the 5-year survival rate approaches 70%.⁶

RISK FACTORS AND CLASSIFICATION

A variety of risk factors have been linked to gastric cancer. Diets high in salt, salt-preserved foods, and/or processed meats have been associated with an increased risk for developing gastric cancer.^7,8 Obesity and smoking have also been implicated in gastric cancer.^9,10 Several studies have demonstrated a strong association between Helicobacter pylori and the development of gastric cancer.^11–13 It is believed that H. pylori infection leads to chronic active gastritis, atrophic gastritis, and intestinal metaplasia. Interestingly, mass eradication of H. pylori has not been shown to reduce the risk for gastric cancer.¹⁴ Therefore, treatment of H. pylori should only be considered in patients with active peptic ulcer disease.¹⁵ Other risk factors include Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), prior gastric surgery, and radiation exposure.^16–18 Family history of gastric cancer, hereditary nonpolyposis colon cancer, Li-Fraumeni syndrome, and hereditary diffuse gastric cancer caused by mutations in the E-cadherin gene increase the risk.¹⁷

The anatomic distinction between gastric cancer and cancer of the gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) has been a topic of debate. The Siewert classification is the most widely used system and divides GEJ adenocarcinoma into 3 categories:²⁰ type I tumor: adenocarcinoma of distal esophagus, located 1 cm to 5 cm above the GEJ; type II tumor: true carcinoma of gastric cardia, located within 1 cm above and 2 cm below the GEJ; type III tumor: subcardial gastric carcinoma, located 2 cm to 5 cm below the GEJ, and infiltrates esophagus from below.

The American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) has updated the latest (7th) edition of TMN staging for stomach cancer to include tumors arising more than 5 cm distally of the GEJ or within 5 cm of the GEJ but without extension to the esophagus or GEJ.²¹

In the following sections, neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy in gastric cancer are discussed using a case presentation to illustrate important concepts.

DIAGNOSIS AND STAGING

CASE PRESENTATION

A 43-year old male with no significant past medical history presents with epigastric abdominal pain and heart burn for the past few weeks. He denies nausea, vomiting, melena, or hematochezia. His primary care physician (PCP) diagnoses him with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and initiates a trial of pantoprazole. Over the next 2 to 3 months, his symptoms do not improve and he has an associated 40-lb weight loss. Both social history and family history are noncontributory. Physical exam reveals epigastric tenderness without rebound or guarding. Laboratory evaluation reveals a hemoglobin of 12.6 g/dL with a mean corpuscular volume of 72 fL. A comprehensive chemistry profile is within normal limits. Given the constellation of presenting symptoms, especially the unintentional weight loss and the presence of microcytic anemia, his PCP suspects a malignant process and refers the patient to a gastroenterologist.

• What are the next appropriate steps for diagnosis?

The most common presenting symptoms of gastric cancer are weight loss and abdominal pain.²² Less commonly, patients exhibit nausea, anorexia, and dysphagia with proximal tumors. Melena is seen in only about 20% of patients. In Japan, where gastric cancer is more prevalent, mass screening programs allow for detection at an earlier stage, which partially accounts for the better survival rates seen in Asia as compared to the United States. Diagnostic work-up includes esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) to assess Siewert category and to obtain a tissue sample for diagnosis. Full staging requires a complete blood count (CBC) with differential; comprehensive chemistry profile; computed tomography (CT) of chest/abdomen/pelvis with oral and intravenous contrast; endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) if no M1 disease is identified; positron emission tomography (PET)-CT if there is no evidence of M1 disease and if clinically indicated; and laparoscopy with cytology for clinical stage T1b or higher.²³ Patients should be staged according to the TMN staging system (Table 1).

CASE CONTINUED

The patient undergoes EGD, which reveals a large ulcerated, partially circumferential mass measuring approximately 4 cm. The mass extends from the gastric body to the cardia. Biopsy of the mass reveals poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma as well as H. pylori–associated gastritis. He is given antibiotic therapy and undergoes complete work-up of his newly diagnosed gastric adenocarcinoma. CT of the chest/abdomen/pelvis demonstrates a large gastric mass with gastrohepatic and distal perigastric adenopathy, compatible with locally advance primary gastric cancer. There is no evidence of distant metastasis. PET scan shows a large hypermetabolic mass in the stomach body and increased FDG activity in 3 small nodes along the lesser gastric curvature and in 1 node in the gastrohepatic region. EUS reveals a malignant gastric tumor in the body of the stomach, which is staged as T3, and a few malignant-appearing lymph nodes in the perigastric region. Fine-needle aspiration of the perigastric lymph node is performed and the sample obtained is positive for malignant cells. Diagnostic laparoscopy with peritoneal washings is performed and cytology is negative for malignant cells. The patient is staged as clinical stage IIB (T3N1M0).

• How should this patient with newly diagnosed, locally advanced, resectable gastric cancer be managed?

SURGERY

Surgical resection for localized gastric cancer is the mainstay of treatment with curative intent. Only very early stage (Tis or T1a) tumors can be considered for endoscopic mucosal resection. Regarding surgical resection, distal gastric cancers are typically treated with subtotal gastrectomy because there is no survival difference between subtotal and total gastrectomy.^24,25 Moreover, subtotal gastrectomy is associated with better nutritional status and quality of life. For proximal tumors, total gastrectomy is preferred as subtotal gastrectomy has been associated with a higher incidence of reflux esophagitis and anastomotic stenosis.²⁶ In terms of surgical approach, multiple studies have shown that a laparoscopic approach has a lower complication rate and similar outcomes in terms of cancer recurrence and long-term survival when compared to open gastrectomy.^27–29 Thus, a laparoscopic approach is often used in academic centers with highly experienced surgeons.

The extent of lymph node dissection remains a topic of debate. A D1 dissection involves the removal of perigastric lymph nodes. A D2 dissection is a D1 dissection plus the removal of lymph nodes along the left gastric artery, common hepatic artery, celiac artery, splenic hilum, and splenic artery. D2 lymphadenectomy has become the standard of care in Eastern countries where gastric cancer is more prevalent, such as Japan and Korea.³⁰ In Western countries, including the United States, less extensive lymphadenectomies are performed. Both randomized clinical trials and meta-analyses have failed to demonstrate an overall survival advantage of D2 dissection over D1 dissection.^31,32 A Dutch trial by Bonenkamp et al involving 711 patients, one of the largest randomized trials of D1 and D2 lymphadenectomy, showed that D2 patients had a higher operative mortality rate than D1 patients (10% versus 4%, P = 0.004) and experienced more complications (43% versus 25%, P < 0.001).³³ In a 15-year follow-up of this study, patients who had a D2 resection had lower locoregional recurrence and gastric-cancer–related death rates compared to those who had a D1 resection; however, D2 resection was associated with a significantly higher operative mortality and complication rate compared to D1.³⁴ In addition, a 2015 Cochrane meta-analysis has demonstrated improved disease-specific survival (DSS) with D2 dissection (hazard ratio [HR] 0.81 [95% confidence interval {CI} 0.71 to 0.92]).³⁵ Currently, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) recommends a D1 or a modified D2 gastrectomy with at least 15 lymph nodes removed for examination, with D2 lymphadenectomies only to be performed at experienced centers.²³

SYSTEMIC CHEMOTHERAPY

Locally advanced gastric cancer (T3-T4 or node positive) requires systemic chemotherapy in addition to surgery, as this intervention improves the 5-year overall survival by 10% to 15%.³⁶ Systemic therapy should also be considered in patients with T2N0 disease with high-risk features: poorly differentiated or high-grade cancer; lymphovascular invasion; neural invasion; age younger than 50 years; and patients who did not undergo D2 dissection.²³ Currently, there is no global consensus on the best treatment approach. In the United States, where a less aggressive lymph-node dissection is performed, adjuvant chemoradiotherapy after surgery is more commonly seen. In Europe, perioperative (preoperative and postoperative) chemotherapy is the standard treatment. In Japan, adjuvant chemotherapy after D2 lymphadenectomy is the standard of care.³⁷ These regional preferences are largely due to randomized clinical trials that have shown benefit for each approach. The landmark trials are discussed in the following sections and are summarized in Table 2.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy has the benefit of “downstaging” locally advanced tumors to allow for curative resection. Phase 2 clinical trials have also demonstrated good pathologic response rates and high R0 resection rates following neoadjuvant chemotherapy.^38,39 However, phase 3 trials to support this treatment approach are lacking. In the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) 40954 trial, patients with stage III or IV gastric or GEJ cancer were randomly assigned to surgery with or without preoperative cisplatin, leucovorin, and infusional fluorouracil (5-FU).⁴⁰ The trial was stopped early due to poor accrual after 144 patients were randomized. The neoadjuvant chemotherapy arm had a higher R0 resection rate compared to the surgery alone arm (82% versus 67%, respectively, P = 0.036) but a higher postoperative complication rate (27% versus 16%, respectively, P = 0.09). More important, after a median follow-up of 4.4 years, a survival benefit could not be shown, with 2-year survival rates of 72.7% and 69.9% in the neoadjuvant and surgery-only arms, respectively (HR 0.84 [95% CI 0.52 to 1.35], P = 0.466). Due to the lack of large trials, a meta-analysis assessing the effectiveness of neoadjuvant chemotherapy combined with surgery versus surgery alone in advanced gastric and gastroesophageal cancer was performed.⁴¹ The analysis included 12 randomized controlled trials with a total of 1820 patients. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy was shown to slightly improve the survival rate (odds ratio [OR] 1.32 [95% CI 1.07 to 1.64], P = 0.01). It significantly improved the 3-year progression-free survival (PFS; OR 1.85 [95% CI 1.39 to 2.46], P < 0.0001), tumor down-staging rate (OR 1.71 [95% CI 1.26 to 2.33], P = 0.0006), and R0 resection rate (OR 1.38 [95% CI 1.08 to 1.78], P = 0.01). There were no differences between the 2 arms in terms of relapse rates, operative complications, perioperative mortality, and grade 3/4 adverse effects. While these results are encouraging, further randomized clinical trials are needed to clarify the role of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and its impact on overall survival.

Perioperative Chemotherapy

The results of the Medical Research Council Adjuvant Gastric Infusional Chemotherapy (MAGIC) trial published in 2006 established perioperative chemotherapy as standard of care in patients with resectable gastric and gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma.⁴² A total of 503 patients with potentially resectable gastric and lower esophageal adenocarcinoma were randomly assigned to perioperative chemotherapy plus surgery or surgery alone. Perioperative chemotherapy consisted of 3 preoperative and postoperative cycles of epirubicin, cisplatin, and infusional 5-FU (ECF). At a median follow-up of 4 years, the perioperative-chemotherapy group had a significantly better PFS (HR 0.66 [95% CI 0.53 to 0.81], P < 0.001) as well as overall survival (HR 0.75 [95% CI 0.60 to 0.93], P = 0.009). The 5-year overall survival rate was 36.3% in the perioperative chemotherapy group and 23% in the surgery group. Of note, there was a greater proportion of stage T1/T2 tumors (52% versus 37%, P = 0.002) and N0/N1 disease (84% versus 71%) in the perioperative-chemotherapy group compared to the surgery alone group. In addition, only 42% of patients in the perioperative chemotherapy group completed all 6 cycles of chemotherapy.

The administration of ECF is often difficult since the 5-FU component requires a central venous access device and an ambulatory infusion pump and the cisplatin component is associated with nephrotoxicity and ototoxicity. The REAL-2 trial was a randomized phase 3 clinical trial that assessed whether 5-FU could be replaced by capecitabine and cisplatin by oxaliplatin in the ECF regimen.⁴³ Between June 2000 and May 2005, a total of 1002 patients with locally advanced esophageal/GEJ/gastric cancer were enrolled. Patients were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 triplet therapies: epirubicin and cisplatin plus either 5-FU (ECF) or capecitabine (ECX) or epirubicin and oxaliplatin plus either 5-FU (EOF) or capecitabine (EOX). After a median follow-up of approximately 18 months, the overall survival in the capecitabine groups did not differ significantly from that in the 5-FU groups (HR 0.88 [95% CI 0.77 to 1.00], P = 0.06), nor did overall survival in the oxaliplatin groups differ significantly from that in the cisplatin groups (HR 0.91 [95% CI 0.79 to 1.04], P = 0.16). Interestingly, the 1-year survival rate was longer in the EOX group than in the ECF group (46.8% versus 37.7%, respectively; HR 0.80 [95% CI 0.66 to 0.97], P = 0.02). This translated into an overall survival of 11.2 months for the EOX group and 9.9 months for the ECF group. Therefore, EOX is preferred over ECF in clinical practice.

The French FNLCC/FFCD trial published in 2011 provided further support for perioperative chemotherapy.⁴⁴ A total of 224 patients with adenocarcinoma of the lower esophagus, GEJ, or stomach were randomly assigned to perioperative chemotherapy plus surgery or surgery alone. The perioperative-chemotherapy group received 2 to 3 cycles of preoperative chemotherapy and 3 to 4 cycles of postoperative chemotherapy, consisting of infusional 5-FU (800 mg/m² daily for days 1 to 5) and cisplatin (100 mg/m² on day 1). In patients receiving preoperative chemotherapy, 38% experienced at least grade 3 to 4 toxicity. Among the 109 patients who received at least 1 cycle of preoperative chemotherapy, only 54 patients (50%) received postoperative chemotherapy. Despite this, the perioperative-chemotherapy group had a statistically significant higher R0 resection rate (84% versus 74%, P = 0.04) compared to the surgery alone group. At a median follow-up of 5.7 years, the perioperative chemotherapy group had an improved overall survival (HR for death 0.69 [95% CI 0.50 to 0.95], P = 0.02) and disease-free survival (DFS; HR for recurrence or death 0.65 [95% CI 0.48 to 0.89], P = 0.003). This translated into 5-year overall survival rates of 38% versus 24% and 5-year DFS rates of 34% versus 19%. One caveat to this study is that the majority of patients (64%) had GEJ cancer and only 25% had gastric cancer. In the multivariate analysis, the 2 significant prognostic factors for overall survival were the administration of preoperative chemotherapy (P = 0.01) and tumor site at the GEJ (P < 0.01).

Adjuvant Chemoradiotherapy

The INT-0116 (Intergroup 0116) study published in 2001 established adjuvant chemoradiotherapy as the standard approach for resectable gastric cancer in the United States. In this study, a total of 556 patients with resected gastric or GEJ cancer were randomly assigned to surgery alone or surgery followed by adjuvant 5-FU/leucovorin bolus chemotherapy, sandwiched with 5-FU–based chemoradiation (45 Gy).⁴⁵ In the chemoradiotherapy group, 64% of patients completed treatment and grade 3 and 4 toxicity occurred in 41% and 32%, respectively. However, only 3 patients (1%) died from treatment-related toxicity. At a median follow-up of 5 years, the median overall survival was 36 months in the chemoradiation group and 27 months in the surgery group. Overall survival rate was 50% in the combined modality group and 41% in the surgery-alone group, with a HR of 1.35 (95% CI 1.09 to 1.66, P = 0.005). The 3-year DFS was 48% in the chemoradiotherapy group and 31% in the surgery-alone group, corresponding to a DFS of 30 months and 19 months, respectively. Even after a median follow-up of 10 years, these positive results were maintained, with a HR for survival of 1.32 (95% CI 1.10 to 1.60, P = 0.0046) and HR for DFS of 1.51 (95% CI 1.25 to 1.83, P < 0.001).⁴⁶ A criticism of the INT-0116 study is that 54% of patients had less than a D1 lymph node dissection, suggesting that adjuvant chemoradiation may have compensated for suboptimal surgery.

CALGB 80101, a United States Intergroup study, compared the INT-0116 protocol regimen (bolus 5-FU/leucovorin with 5-FU plus concurrent radiotherapy) to postoperative ECF sandwiched with 5-FU plus concurrent radiotherapy.⁴⁷ The study included patients with resected gastric or GEJ adenocarcinoma that extended beyond the muscularis propria or was node positive. The percentage of patients with gastric versus GEJ cancer was not reported. A total of 546 patients were randomized. Preliminary results were presented at the 2011 American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting. The ECF arm had lower rates of grade 3/4 toxicities, including neutropenia, diarrhea, and mucositis. However, there was no difference in overall survival (3-year overall survival of 52% versus 50% for ECF and 5-FU/leucovorin, respectively) or DFS (3-year DFS of 47% versus 46% for ECF and 5-FU/leucovorin, respectively). The trial was not adequately powered to assess noninferiority. The location of the primary tumor (GEJ versus proximal versus distal stomach) did not have any effect on treatment outcome.

The Adjuvant Chemoradiation Therapy in Stomach Cancer (ARTIST) trial was the first study to compare adjuvant chemoradiotherapy with adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with D2-resected gastric cancer.⁴⁸ A total of 458 patients were randomly assigned to 6 cycles of XP chemotherapy (capecitabine 2000 mg/m² per day on days 1–14 and cisplatin 60 mg/m² on day 1, every 3 weeks) or XP/radiotherapy/XP (2 cycles of XP followed by 45 Gy radiotherapy with concurrent daily capecitabine [825 mg/m² twice daily] and 2 cycles of XP). After a median follow-up of 84 months, there was no difference in DFS or overall survival between treatment arms (HR for progression 0.74 [95% CI 0.52 to 1.05], P = 0.09; HR for death 1.13 [95% CI 0.78 to 1.65], P = 0.53).⁴⁹ However, subgroup analysis showed that chemoradiotherapy significantly improved DFS in patients with node-positive disease (3-year DFS 76% versus 72%, P = 0.004).

Adjuvant Chemotherapy

Data supporting the use of adjuvant chemotherapy alone is largely derived from trials done in Asia, typically after a D2 lymph node dissection, and thus adjuvant chemotherapy has become the standard of care in that region. In the Japanese Adjuvant Chemotherapy Trial of S-1 for Gastric Cancer (ACTS-GC), a total of 1059 patients with stage II or III gastric cancer who had undergone surgery with a D2 lymphadenectomy were randomly assigned to 1 year of S-1 (an oral fluoropyrimidine) or surgery alone.⁵⁰ The 5-year overall survival rate was 72% in the S-1 group and 61% in the surgery-only group (HR 0.669 [95% CI 0.54 to 0.83]).⁵¹ The 5-year relapse-free survival was 65% in the S-1 group and 53% in the surgery-only group (HR 0.65 [95% CI 0.537 to 0.793]). Of note, both arms of the ACTS-GC trial had significantly higher 5-year overall survival rates compared to the INT-0116 and MAGIC trials: 43% versus 28% and 36% versus 23% for the treatment and control groups, respectively.^42,45 Consequently, it is unclear if the benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy can be translated to Western countries.

The Korean Capecitabine and Oxaliplatin Adjuvant Study in Stomach Cancer (CLASSIC) trial published in 2012 also established the role of adjuvant chemotherapy after D2 gastrectomy.⁵² A total of 1035 patients with stage II-IIIB gastric cancer who had curative D2 gastrectomy were randomly assigned to 8 cycles of adjuvant XELOX (capecitabine 1000 mg/m² twice daily on days 1–14 plus oxaliplatin 130 mg/m² on day 1, 21-day cycle) or surgery alone. Median follow-up was 34 months in both arms and 67% of patients in the chemotherapy arm completed all 8 cycles of planned chemotherapy. The 3-year DFS was 74% in the chemotherapy group and 59% in the surgery-only group (HR 0.56 [95% CI 0.44 to 0.72], P < 0.0001). There was a trend toward improvement in overall survival (83% versus 78%, HR 0.72 [95% CI 0.52 to 1.00]). After 5 years of follow-up, the improvement in overall survival became statistically significant (78% versus 69%, HR 0.66 [95% CI 0.51 to 0.85]).⁵³

The benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy was reinforced by a 2010 meta-analysis comparing adjuvant chemotherapy to surgery alone in patients with resected gastric cancer.⁵⁴ A total of 17 randomized controlled trials were included. Adjuvant fluorouracil-based chemotherapy was associated with a statistically significant improved overall survival (HR 0.82 [95% CI 0.76 to 0.90], P < 0.001) and DFS (HR 0.82 [95% CI 0.75 to 0.90], P < 0.001). Five-year overall survival increased from 49.6% to 55.3% with chemotherapy.

Since data exists for all 3 approaches (perioperative chemotherapy, adjuvant chemoradiotherapy, and adjuvant chemotherapy), various meta-analyses have been done to clarify which approach is the best. In a recent meta-analysis of 6 randomized controlled trials reported between 2010 and 2012, which involved 1171 patients with resected gastric cancer, adjuvant chemotherapy was compared to adjuvant chemoradiotherapy.⁵⁵ Five of the studies were from East Asia, while one was from a Western country. Adjuvant chemoradiation was associated with a lower local-regional recurrence rate (OR 0.46 [95% CI 0.32 to 0.67]) and better 5-year DFS rate (OR 1.56 [95% CI 1.09 to 2.24]). However, there was no statistical difference in 5-year overall survival rate (OR 1.32 [95% CI 0.92 to 1.88]). Similar results were reported by Zhou et al in 2016.⁵⁶ This meta-analysis included 4 randomized controlled trials reported between 2010 and 2015, with a total of 960 patients who had undergone a D2 resection for gastric cancer. Compared to adjuvant chemotherapy, adjuvant chemoradiotherapy significantly reduced the loco-regional recurrence rate (LRRR; relative risk [RR] 0.50 [95% CI 0.34 to 0.74], P = 0.0005) and improved DFS (HR 0.73 [95% CI 0.60 to 0.89], P = 0.002). Again, no difference in overall survival was seen (HR 0.91 [95% CI 0.74 to 1.11], P = 0.34).

Adjuvant chemotherapy and perioperative chemotherapy have also been compared. In a recent meta-analysis of 14 randomized controlled trials (8 Asian, 6 European) involving 2093 patients with resected gastric or GEJ cancer, perioperative chemotherapy was associated with improved overall survival when compared to adjuvant chemotherapy (HR 0.48 [95% CI 0.35 to 0.67], P < 0.001).⁵⁷ The benefit of perioperative chemotherapy over adjuvant chemotherapy has also been reported in a 2016 meta-analysis by Zhao et al.⁵⁸ A total of 1240 patients were included from 5 randomized controlled trials and 6 clinical controlled trials, all from Asian countries. The 5-year overall survival rate was significantly better in the perioperative chemotherapy group compared to the adjuvant chemotherapy group (RR 0.77 [95% CI 0.64 to 0.92], P < 0.01). Furthermore, the 2 groups showed no significant differences in the postoperative complication rates (RR 0.98 [95% CI 0.63 to 1.51], P = 0.91) or adverse effects of chemotherapy (P > 0.05 for all adverse effects).

While these meta-analyses may offer some insight on the best treatment approach, they should be interpreted with caution. Most studies included in these meta-analyses were from Asian countries, and their findings may not be applicable to Western countries. Furthermore, the heterogeneity of trials and inclusion of nonrandomized trials make it difficult to draw conclusions. There are several ongoing trials that will help to define the optimal treatment approach.

CASE CONTINUED

The patient is presented at tumor board and the consensus is to proceed with the perioperative chemotherapy approach. The patient undergoes echocardiography, which reveals a normal ejection fraction. He receives 3 cycles of neoadjuvant EOX (epirubicin, oxaliplatin, and capecitabine). After 3 cycles of neoadjuvant EOX, the patient has a repeat CT that shows marked interval reduction in the size of the primary gastric neoplasm and interval decrease in the size of the small perigastric lymph nodes. He subsequently undergoes a total gastrectomy with J-tube placement. Pathology shows ypT3N0 disease with 0 out of 47 lymph nodes involved and negative margins. He then receives 3 cycles of adjuvant EOX.

• What are the recommendations for surveillance?

According to the current NCCN guidelines, a history and physical exam should be performed every 3 to 6 months for 1 to 2 years, then every 6 to 12 months for 3 to 5 years, and then annually.²³ Labs, CT chest/abdomen, and EGD should be done as clinically indicated. Patients who have undergone surgical resection should be monitored for nutritional deficiencies (vitamin B12 and iron).

GASTROESOPHAGEAL JUNCTION TUMORS

Tumors arising in the GEJ or gastric cardia within 5 cm of the GEJ that extend into the GEJ or distal esophagus are staged and treated as esophageal cancers.²¹ The primary treatment for T1/T2N0 tumors is surgical resection. In patients with T3 or higher or node-positive adenocarcinoma of the GEJ, a combined modality approach is preferred, with preoperative chemoradiotherapy followed by surgical resection.⁵⁹ The CROSS trial demonstrated a significant survival benefit with preoperative chemoradiation using carboplatin/paclitaxel compared to surgery alone in patients with esophageal or GEJ cancer (49 months versus 24 months, HR 0.66, P = 0.003).⁶⁰

ONGOING TRIALS

As mentioned previously, several randomized clinical trials are in progress to clarify the optimal treatment approach. The MAGIC-B/MRC-ST03 is a randomized phase 2/3 trial looking at perioperative epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine (ECX) with or without bevacizumab in patients with resectable lower esophageal, GEJ, or gastric cancer.⁶¹ The TOPGEAR trial, a randomized phase 2/3 study being conducted in Canada and Europe, is comparing perioperative ECF chemotherapy with preoperative chemoradiation plus perioperative ECF chemotherapy.⁶² In Asia, the PRODIGY trial is a phase 3, open-label, randomized study comparing neoadjuvant docetaxel, oxaliplatin, and S-1 followed by surgery and adjuvant S-1 versus surgery plus adjuvant S-1 in patients with locally advanced gastric cancer (T2-T4 or node positive).⁶³ Primary endpoint is PFS and secondary endpoints are overall survival, R0 resection rate, and safety.

Trials comparing adjuvant chemotherapy to adjuvant chemoradiotherapy are also being conducted. In the Dutch CRITICS study, a randomized phase 3 trial, patients with stage Ib-Iva resectable gastric cancer were given 3 cycles of epirubicin, cisplatin/oxaliplatin, and capecitabine (ECC/EOC), followed by D2 resection and either 3 cycles of ECC/EOC or chemoradiation with weekly cisplatin and daily capecitabine.⁶⁴ Between January 2007 and April 2015, a total of 788 patients were enrolled. In a preliminary report presented at ASCO in 2016, the 5-year survival rate was similar between the 2 arms (41.3% for chemotherapy arm and 40.9% for chemoradiotherapy arm, P = 0.99). The Korean ARTIST II trial is comparing adjuvant S-1 and S-1/oxaliplatin with or without radiotherapy in patients with D2-resected gastric cancer.⁶⁵ Similarly, the NCT01711242 trial is comparing adjuvant XELOX alone versus XELOX with concurrent capecitabine/radiotherapy in patients with resected D2 gastric cancer.⁶⁶

The ToGA trial established a survival benefit of trastuzumab in combination with chemotherapy in HER2-positive metastatic gastric cancer.⁶⁷ Consequently, there are ongoing clinical trials to assess the role of trastuzumab in nonmetastatic gastric cancer. The TOXAG study is a phase 2 trial looking at the safety and tolerability of adjuvant oxaliplatin, capecitabine, and trastuzumab with radiation in patients with resected HER2-positive gastric or GEJ adenocarcinoma.⁶⁸ The NCT01130337 clinical trial is evaluating perioperative XELOX/trastuzumab in patients with resectable gastric or GEJ adeno-carcinoma.⁶⁹

Gastric cancer is the fifth most common cancer worldwide, with the greatest incidence in East Asia. Survival outcomes are better in Asian countries when compared to the United States. This difference in survival may be related to the presence of mass screening programs in Asia, which allows for detection at an earlier stage and the use of a more extensive surgical approach (ie, D2 resection). Risk factors for developing gastric cancer include: diets high in salt/salt-preserved foods or processed meats, obesity, smoking, H. pylori infection, EBV, prior gastric surgery, radiation exposure, and positive family history.

According to the latest edition of TMN staging, gastric cancer includes tumors arising more than 5 cm distally of the GEJ or within 5 cm of the GEJ but without extension to the esophagus or GEJ. Diagnostic work-up includes: EGD with biopsy; basic labs; CT chest/abdomen/pelvis with oral and intravenous contrast; EUS if no M1 disease is identified; PET-CT if there is no M1 disease and if clinically indicated; and diagnostic laparoscopy with cytology for clinical stage T1b or higher.

The mainstay of treatment is surgical resection. Laparoscopic approach is preferred over open gastrectomy due to lower complication rates and similar survival outcomes. Current NCCN guidelines recommend a D1 or a modified D2 lymph node dissection with at least 15 lymph nodes removed for examination. Systemic chemotherapy is required in locally advanced gastric cancer (T3-T4 or node positive) and should be considered in T2N0 disease with high-risk features. Currently, there is no global consensus on the optimal treatment approach. Data from various trials have shown benefit for each approach. Regional preferences are: perioperative chemotherapy in Europe; adjuvant chemoradiotherapy in the United States; and adjuvant chemotherapy in Asia. In an effort to better define the optimal treatment approach, several randomized clinical trials are being conducted. According to the current NCCN guidelines, the following treatment approaches are acceptable and are supported by data in the trial listed in parentheses:

• Perioperative chemotherapy

° 5-FU/cisplatin (French FNLCC/FCCD trial)⁴⁴ or

° ECF (MAGIC trial)⁴² or

° ECF modifications: EOX, EOF, ECX (REAL-2 trial)⁴³

• Adjuvant chemoradiotherapy

° 5-FU/leucovorin sandwiched with 5-FU-based chemoradiation (INT-0116 trial)⁴⁵

• Adjuvant chemotherapy (after D2 resection)

° Capecitabine/oxaliplatin (CLASSIC trial)⁵² or

° Capecitabine/cisplatin (ARTIST trial)^48,49

INTRODUCTION

Gastric cancer is the fifth most common cancer worldwide and the third leading cause of cancer death in both females and males.¹ More than 70% of gastric cancer cases occur in the developing world, with approximately 50% occurring in East Asia.² Gastric cancer is less common in the United States, with an incidence of 12.3 cases in males and 6.0 cases in females per 100,000 per year and a disproportionately higher incidence in Asians.³ According to the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program, approximately 26,370 new cases of stomach cancer were diagnosed in the United States in 2016, and an estimated 10,730 people died of this disease.⁴ Since the 1970s, the 5-year relative survival rate for gastric cancer in the United States has improved from 15% in 1975 to 29% in 2009.⁵ In contrast, in Japan and Korea, where screening programs have been implemented, the 5-year survival rate approaches 70%.⁶

RISK FACTORS AND CLASSIFICATION

A variety of risk factors have been linked to gastric cancer. Diets high in salt, salt-preserved foods, and/or processed meats have been associated with an increased risk for developing gastric cancer.^7,8 Obesity and smoking have also been implicated in gastric cancer.^9,10 Several studies have demonstrated a strong association between Helicobacter pylori and the development of gastric cancer.^11–13 It is believed that H. pylori infection leads to chronic active gastritis, atrophic gastritis, and intestinal metaplasia. Interestingly, mass eradication of H. pylori has not been shown to reduce the risk for gastric cancer.¹⁴ Therefore, treatment of H. pylori should only be considered in patients with active peptic ulcer disease.¹⁵ Other risk factors include Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), prior gastric surgery, and radiation exposure.^16–18 Family history of gastric cancer, hereditary nonpolyposis colon cancer, Li-Fraumeni syndrome, and hereditary diffuse gastric cancer caused by mutations in the E-cadherin gene increase the risk.¹⁷

The anatomic distinction between gastric cancer and cancer of the gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) has been a topic of debate. The Siewert classification is the most widely used system and divides GEJ adenocarcinoma into 3 categories:²⁰ type I tumor: adenocarcinoma of distal esophagus, located 1 cm to 5 cm above the GEJ; type II tumor: true carcinoma of gastric cardia, located within 1 cm above and 2 cm below the GEJ; type III tumor: subcardial gastric carcinoma, located 2 cm to 5 cm below the GEJ, and infiltrates esophagus from below.

The American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) has updated the latest (7th) edition of TMN staging for stomach cancer to include tumors arising more than 5 cm distally of the GEJ or within 5 cm of the GEJ but without extension to the esophagus or GEJ.²¹

In the following sections, neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy in gastric cancer are discussed using a case presentation to illustrate important concepts.

DIAGNOSIS AND STAGING

CASE PRESENTATION

A 43-year old male with no significant past medical history presents with epigastric abdominal pain and heart burn for the past few weeks. He denies nausea, vomiting, melena, or hematochezia. His primary care physician (PCP) diagnoses him with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and initiates a trial of pantoprazole. Over the next 2 to 3 months, his symptoms do not improve and he has an associated 40-lb weight loss. Both social history and family history are noncontributory. Physical exam reveals epigastric tenderness without rebound or guarding. Laboratory evaluation reveals a hemoglobin of 12.6 g/dL with a mean corpuscular volume of 72 fL. A comprehensive chemistry profile is within normal limits. Given the constellation of presenting symptoms, especially the unintentional weight loss and the presence of microcytic anemia, his PCP suspects a malignant process and refers the patient to a gastroenterologist.

• What are the next appropriate steps for diagnosis?

The most common presenting symptoms of gastric cancer are weight loss and abdominal pain.²² Less commonly, patients exhibit nausea, anorexia, and dysphagia with proximal tumors. Melena is seen in only about 20% of patients. In Japan, where gastric cancer is more prevalent, mass screening programs allow for detection at an earlier stage, which partially accounts for the better survival rates seen in Asia as compared to the United States. Diagnostic work-up includes esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) to assess Siewert category and to obtain a tissue sample for diagnosis. Full staging requires a complete blood count (CBC) with differential; comprehensive chemistry profile; computed tomography (CT) of chest/abdomen/pelvis with oral and intravenous contrast; endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) if no M1 disease is identified; positron emission tomography (PET)-CT if there is no evidence of M1 disease and if clinically indicated; and laparoscopy with cytology for clinical stage T1b or higher.²³ Patients should be staged according to the TMN staging system (Table 1).

CASE CONTINUED

The patient undergoes EGD, which reveals a large ulcerated, partially circumferential mass measuring approximately 4 cm. The mass extends from the gastric body to the cardia. Biopsy of the mass reveals poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma as well as H. pylori–associated gastritis. He is given antibiotic therapy and undergoes complete work-up of his newly diagnosed gastric adenocarcinoma. CT of the chest/abdomen/pelvis demonstrates a large gastric mass with gastrohepatic and distal perigastric adenopathy, compatible with locally advance primary gastric cancer. There is no evidence of distant metastasis. PET scan shows a large hypermetabolic mass in the stomach body and increased FDG activity in 3 small nodes along the lesser gastric curvature and in 1 node in the gastrohepatic region. EUS reveals a malignant gastric tumor in the body of the stomach, which is staged as T3, and a few malignant-appearing lymph nodes in the perigastric region. Fine-needle aspiration of the perigastric lymph node is performed and the sample obtained is positive for malignant cells. Diagnostic laparoscopy with peritoneal washings is performed and cytology is negative for malignant cells. The patient is staged as clinical stage IIB (T3N1M0).

• How should this patient with newly diagnosed, locally advanced, resectable gastric cancer be managed?

SURGERY

Surgical resection for localized gastric cancer is the mainstay of treatment with curative intent. Only very early stage (Tis or T1a) tumors can be considered for endoscopic mucosal resection. Regarding surgical resection, distal gastric cancers are typically treated with subtotal gastrectomy because there is no survival difference between subtotal and total gastrectomy.^24,25 Moreover, subtotal gastrectomy is associated with better nutritional status and quality of life. For proximal tumors, total gastrectomy is preferred as subtotal gastrectomy has been associated with a higher incidence of reflux esophagitis and anastomotic stenosis.²⁶ In terms of surgical approach, multiple studies have shown that a laparoscopic approach has a lower complication rate and similar outcomes in terms of cancer recurrence and long-term survival when compared to open gastrectomy.^27–29 Thus, a laparoscopic approach is often used in academic centers with highly experienced surgeons.

The extent of lymph node dissection remains a topic of debate. A D1 dissection involves the removal of perigastric lymph nodes. A D2 dissection is a D1 dissection plus the removal of lymph nodes along the left gastric artery, common hepatic artery, celiac artery, splenic hilum, and splenic artery. D2 lymphadenectomy has become the standard of care in Eastern countries where gastric cancer is more prevalent, such as Japan and Korea.³⁰ In Western countries, including the United States, less extensive lymphadenectomies are performed. Both randomized clinical trials and meta-analyses have failed to demonstrate an overall survival advantage of D2 dissection over D1 dissection.^31,32 A Dutch trial by Bonenkamp et al involving 711 patients, one of the largest randomized trials of D1 and D2 lymphadenectomy, showed that D2 patients had a higher operative mortality rate than D1 patients (10% versus 4%, P = 0.004) and experienced more complications (43% versus 25%, P < 0.001).³³ In a 15-year follow-up of this study, patients who had a D2 resection had lower locoregional recurrence and gastric-cancer–related death rates compared to those who had a D1 resection; however, D2 resection was associated with a significantly higher operative mortality and complication rate compared to D1.³⁴ In addition, a 2015 Cochrane meta-analysis has demonstrated improved disease-specific survival (DSS) with D2 dissection (hazard ratio [HR] 0.81 [95% confidence interval {CI} 0.71 to 0.92]).³⁵ Currently, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) recommends a D1 or a modified D2 gastrectomy with at least 15 lymph nodes removed for examination, with D2 lymphadenectomies only to be performed at experienced centers.²³

SYSTEMIC CHEMOTHERAPY

Locally advanced gastric cancer (T3-T4 or node positive) requires systemic chemotherapy in addition to surgery, as this intervention improves the 5-year overall survival by 10% to 15%.³⁶ Systemic therapy should also be considered in patients with T2N0 disease with high-risk features: poorly differentiated or high-grade cancer; lymphovascular invasion; neural invasion; age younger than 50 years; and patients who did not undergo D2 dissection.²³ Currently, there is no global consensus on the best treatment approach. In the United States, where a less aggressive lymph-node dissection is performed, adjuvant chemoradiotherapy after surgery is more commonly seen. In Europe, perioperative (preoperative and postoperative) chemotherapy is the standard treatment. In Japan, adjuvant chemotherapy after D2 lymphadenectomy is the standard of care.³⁷ These regional preferences are largely due to randomized clinical trials that have shown benefit for each approach. The landmark trials are discussed in the following sections and are summarized in Table 2.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy has the benefit of “downstaging” locally advanced tumors to allow for curative resection. Phase 2 clinical trials have also demonstrated good pathologic response rates and high R0 resection rates following neoadjuvant chemotherapy.^38,39 However, phase 3 trials to support this treatment approach are lacking. In the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) 40954 trial, patients with stage III or IV gastric or GEJ cancer were randomly assigned to surgery with or without preoperative cisplatin, leucovorin, and infusional fluorouracil (5-FU).⁴⁰ The trial was stopped early due to poor accrual after 144 patients were randomized. The neoadjuvant chemotherapy arm had a higher R0 resection rate compared to the surgery alone arm (82% versus 67%, respectively, P = 0.036) but a higher postoperative complication rate (27% versus 16%, respectively, P = 0.09). More important, after a median follow-up of 4.4 years, a survival benefit could not be shown, with 2-year survival rates of 72.7% and 69.9% in the neoadjuvant and surgery-only arms, respectively (HR 0.84 [95% CI 0.52 to 1.35], P = 0.466). Due to the lack of large trials, a meta-analysis assessing the effectiveness of neoadjuvant chemotherapy combined with surgery versus surgery alone in advanced gastric and gastroesophageal cancer was performed.⁴¹ The analysis included 12 randomized controlled trials with a total of 1820 patients. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy was shown to slightly improve the survival rate (odds ratio [OR] 1.32 [95% CI 1.07 to 1.64], P = 0.01). It significantly improved the 3-year progression-free survival (PFS; OR 1.85 [95% CI 1.39 to 2.46], P < 0.0001), tumor down-staging rate (OR 1.71 [95% CI 1.26 to 2.33], P = 0.0006), and R0 resection rate (OR 1.38 [95% CI 1.08 to 1.78], P = 0.01). There were no differences between the 2 arms in terms of relapse rates, operative complications, perioperative mortality, and grade 3/4 adverse effects. While these results are encouraging, further randomized clinical trials are needed to clarify the role of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and its impact on overall survival.

Perioperative Chemotherapy

The results of the Medical Research Council Adjuvant Gastric Infusional Chemotherapy (MAGIC) trial published in 2006 established perioperative chemotherapy as standard of care in patients with resectable gastric and gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma.⁴² A total of 503 patients with potentially resectable gastric and lower esophageal adenocarcinoma were randomly assigned to perioperative chemotherapy plus surgery or surgery alone. Perioperative chemotherapy consisted of 3 preoperative and postoperative cycles of epirubicin, cisplatin, and infusional 5-FU (ECF). At a median follow-up of 4 years, the perioperative-chemotherapy group had a significantly better PFS (HR 0.66 [95% CI 0.53 to 0.81], P < 0.001) as well as overall survival (HR 0.75 [95% CI 0.60 to 0.93], P = 0.009). The 5-year overall survival rate was 36.3% in the perioperative chemotherapy group and 23% in the surgery group. Of note, there was a greater proportion of stage T1/T2 tumors (52% versus 37%, P = 0.002) and N0/N1 disease (84% versus 71%) in the perioperative-chemotherapy group compared to the surgery alone group. In addition, only 42% of patients in the perioperative chemotherapy group completed all 6 cycles of chemotherapy.

The administration of ECF is often difficult since the 5-FU component requires a central venous access device and an ambulatory infusion pump and the cisplatin component is associated with nephrotoxicity and ototoxicity. The REAL-2 trial was a randomized phase 3 clinical trial that assessed whether 5-FU could be replaced by capecitabine and cisplatin by oxaliplatin in the ECF regimen.⁴³ Between June 2000 and May 2005, a total of 1002 patients with locally advanced esophageal/GEJ/gastric cancer were enrolled. Patients were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 triplet therapies: epirubicin and cisplatin plus either 5-FU (ECF) or capecitabine (ECX) or epirubicin and oxaliplatin plus either 5-FU (EOF) or capecitabine (EOX). After a median follow-up of approximately 18 months, the overall survival in the capecitabine groups did not differ significantly from that in the 5-FU groups (HR 0.88 [95% CI 0.77 to 1.00], P = 0.06), nor did overall survival in the oxaliplatin groups differ significantly from that in the cisplatin groups (HR 0.91 [95% CI 0.79 to 1.04], P = 0.16). Interestingly, the 1-year survival rate was longer in the EOX group than in the ECF group (46.8% versus 37.7%, respectively; HR 0.80 [95% CI 0.66 to 0.97], P = 0.02). This translated into an overall survival of 11.2 months for the EOX group and 9.9 months for the ECF group. Therefore, EOX is preferred over ECF in clinical practice.

The French FNLCC/FFCD trial published in 2011 provided further support for perioperative chemotherapy.⁴⁴ A total of 224 patients with adenocarcinoma of the lower esophagus, GEJ, or stomach were randomly assigned to perioperative chemotherapy plus surgery or surgery alone. The perioperative-chemotherapy group received 2 to 3 cycles of preoperative chemotherapy and 3 to 4 cycles of postoperative chemotherapy, consisting of infusional 5-FU (800 mg/m² daily for days 1 to 5) and cisplatin (100 mg/m² on day 1). In patients receiving preoperative chemotherapy, 38% experienced at least grade 3 to 4 toxicity. Among the 109 patients who received at least 1 cycle of preoperative chemotherapy, only 54 patients (50%) received postoperative chemotherapy. Despite this, the perioperative-chemotherapy group had a statistically significant higher R0 resection rate (84% versus 74%, P = 0.04) compared to the surgery alone group. At a median follow-up of 5.7 years, the perioperative chemotherapy group had an improved overall survival (HR for death 0.69 [95% CI 0.50 to 0.95], P = 0.02) and disease-free survival (DFS; HR for recurrence or death 0.65 [95% CI 0.48 to 0.89], P = 0.003). This translated into 5-year overall survival rates of 38% versus 24% and 5-year DFS rates of 34% versus 19%. One caveat to this study is that the majority of patients (64%) had GEJ cancer and only 25% had gastric cancer. In the multivariate analysis, the 2 significant prognostic factors for overall survival were the administration of preoperative chemotherapy (P = 0.01) and tumor site at the GEJ (P < 0.01).

Adjuvant Chemoradiotherapy

The INT-0116 (Intergroup 0116) study published in 2001 established adjuvant chemoradiotherapy as the standard approach for resectable gastric cancer in the United States. In this study, a total of 556 patients with resected gastric or GEJ cancer were randomly assigned to surgery alone or surgery followed by adjuvant 5-FU/leucovorin bolus chemotherapy, sandwiched with 5-FU–based chemoradiation (45 Gy).⁴⁵ In the chemoradiotherapy group, 64% of patients completed treatment and grade 3 and 4 toxicity occurred in 41% and 32%, respectively. However, only 3 patients (1%) died from treatment-related toxicity. At a median follow-up of 5 years, the median overall survival was 36 months in the chemoradiation group and 27 months in the surgery group. Overall survival rate was 50% in the combined modality group and 41% in the surgery-alone group, with a HR of 1.35 (95% CI 1.09 to 1.66, P = 0.005). The 3-year DFS was 48% in the chemoradiotherapy group and 31% in the surgery-alone group, corresponding to a DFS of 30 months and 19 months, respectively. Even after a median follow-up of 10 years, these positive results were maintained, with a HR for survival of 1.32 (95% CI 1.10 to 1.60, P = 0.0046) and HR for DFS of 1.51 (95% CI 1.25 to 1.83, P < 0.001).⁴⁶ A criticism of the INT-0116 study is that 54% of patients had less than a D1 lymph node dissection, suggesting that adjuvant chemoradiation may have compensated for suboptimal surgery.

CALGB 80101, a United States Intergroup study, compared the INT-0116 protocol regimen (bolus 5-FU/leucovorin with 5-FU plus concurrent radiotherapy) to postoperative ECF sandwiched with 5-FU plus concurrent radiotherapy.⁴⁷ The study included patients with resected gastric or GEJ adenocarcinoma that extended beyond the muscularis propria or was node positive. The percentage of patients with gastric versus GEJ cancer was not reported. A total of 546 patients were randomized. Preliminary results were presented at the 2011 American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting. The ECF arm had lower rates of grade 3/4 toxicities, including neutropenia, diarrhea, and mucositis. However, there was no difference in overall survival (3-year overall survival of 52% versus 50% for ECF and 5-FU/leucovorin, respectively) or DFS (3-year DFS of 47% versus 46% for ECF and 5-FU/leucovorin, respectively). The trial was not adequately powered to assess noninferiority. The location of the primary tumor (GEJ versus proximal versus distal stomach) did not have any effect on treatment outcome.

The Adjuvant Chemoradiation Therapy in Stomach Cancer (ARTIST) trial was the first study to compare adjuvant chemoradiotherapy with adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with D2-resected gastric cancer.⁴⁸ A total of 458 patients were randomly assigned to 6 cycles of XP chemotherapy (capecitabine 2000 mg/m² per day on days 1–14 and cisplatin 60 mg/m² on day 1, every 3 weeks) or XP/radiotherapy/XP (2 cycles of XP followed by 45 Gy radiotherapy with concurrent daily capecitabine [825 mg/m² twice daily] and 2 cycles of XP). After a median follow-up of 84 months, there was no difference in DFS or overall survival between treatment arms (HR for progression 0.74 [95% CI 0.52 to 1.05], P = 0.09; HR for death 1.13 [95% CI 0.78 to 1.65], P = 0.53).⁴⁹ However, subgroup analysis showed that chemoradiotherapy significantly improved DFS in patients with node-positive disease (3-year DFS 76% versus 72%, P = 0.004).

Adjuvant Chemotherapy

Data supporting the use of adjuvant chemotherapy alone is largely derived from trials done in Asia, typically after a D2 lymph node dissection, and thus adjuvant chemotherapy has become the standard of care in that region. In the Japanese Adjuvant Chemotherapy Trial of S-1 for Gastric Cancer (ACTS-GC), a total of 1059 patients with stage II or III gastric cancer who had undergone surgery with a D2 lymphadenectomy were randomly assigned to 1 year of S-1 (an oral fluoropyrimidine) or surgery alone.⁵⁰ The 5-year overall survival rate was 72% in the S-1 group and 61% in the surgery-only group (HR 0.669 [95% CI 0.54 to 0.83]).⁵¹ The 5-year relapse-free survival was 65% in the S-1 group and 53% in the surgery-only group (HR 0.65 [95% CI 0.537 to 0.793]). Of note, both arms of the ACTS-GC trial had significantly higher 5-year overall survival rates compared to the INT-0116 and MAGIC trials: 43% versus 28% and 36% versus 23% for the treatment and control groups, respectively.^42,45 Consequently, it is unclear if the benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy can be translated to Western countries.

The Korean Capecitabine and Oxaliplatin Adjuvant Study in Stomach Cancer (CLASSIC) trial published in 2012 also established the role of adjuvant chemotherapy after D2 gastrectomy.⁵² A total of 1035 patients with stage II-IIIB gastric cancer who had curative D2 gastrectomy were randomly assigned to 8 cycles of adjuvant XELOX (capecitabine 1000 mg/m² twice daily on days 1–14 plus oxaliplatin 130 mg/m² on day 1, 21-day cycle) or surgery alone. Median follow-up was 34 months in both arms and 67% of patients in the chemotherapy arm completed all 8 cycles of planned chemotherapy. The 3-year DFS was 74% in the chemotherapy group and 59% in the surgery-only group (HR 0.56 [95% CI 0.44 to 0.72], P < 0.0001). There was a trend toward improvement in overall survival (83% versus 78%, HR 0.72 [95% CI 0.52 to 1.00]). After 5 years of follow-up, the improvement in overall survival became statistically significant (78% versus 69%, HR 0.66 [95% CI 0.51 to 0.85]).⁵³

The benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy was reinforced by a 2010 meta-analysis comparing adjuvant chemotherapy to surgery alone in patients with resected gastric cancer.⁵⁴ A total of 17 randomized controlled trials were included. Adjuvant fluorouracil-based chemotherapy was associated with a statistically significant improved overall survival (HR 0.82 [95% CI 0.76 to 0.90], P < 0.001) and DFS (HR 0.82 [95% CI 0.75 to 0.90], P < 0.001). Five-year overall survival increased from 49.6% to 55.3% with chemotherapy.

Since data exists for all 3 approaches (perioperative chemotherapy, adjuvant chemoradiotherapy, and adjuvant chemotherapy), various meta-analyses have been done to clarify which approach is the best. In a recent meta-analysis of 6 randomized controlled trials reported between 2010 and 2012, which involved 1171 patients with resected gastric cancer, adjuvant chemotherapy was compared to adjuvant chemoradiotherapy.⁵⁵ Five of the studies were from East Asia, while one was from a Western country. Adjuvant chemoradiation was associated with a lower local-regional recurrence rate (OR 0.46 [95% CI 0.32 to 0.67]) and better 5-year DFS rate (OR 1.56 [95% CI 1.09 to 2.24]). However, there was no statistical difference in 5-year overall survival rate (OR 1.32 [95% CI 0.92 to 1.88]). Similar results were reported by Zhou et al in 2016.⁵⁶ This meta-analysis included 4 randomized controlled trials reported between 2010 and 2015, with a total of 960 patients who had undergone a D2 resection for gastric cancer. Compared to adjuvant chemotherapy, adjuvant chemoradiotherapy significantly reduced the loco-regional recurrence rate (LRRR; relative risk [RR] 0.50 [95% CI 0.34 to 0.74], P = 0.0005) and improved DFS (HR 0.73 [95% CI 0.60 to 0.89], P = 0.002). Again, no difference in overall survival was seen (HR 0.91 [95% CI 0.74 to 1.11], P = 0.34).

Adjuvant chemotherapy and perioperative chemotherapy have also been compared. In a recent meta-analysis of 14 randomized controlled trials (8 Asian, 6 European) involving 2093 patients with resected gastric or GEJ cancer, perioperative chemotherapy was associated with improved overall survival when compared to adjuvant chemotherapy (HR 0.48 [95% CI 0.35 to 0.67], P < 0.001).⁵⁷ The benefit of perioperative chemotherapy over adjuvant chemotherapy has also been reported in a 2016 meta-analysis by Zhao et al.⁵⁸ A total of 1240 patients were included from 5 randomized controlled trials and 6 clinical controlled trials, all from Asian countries. The 5-year overall survival rate was significantly better in the perioperative chemotherapy group compared to the adjuvant chemotherapy group (RR 0.77 [95% CI 0.64 to 0.92], P < 0.01). Furthermore, the 2 groups showed no significant differences in the postoperative complication rates (RR 0.98 [95% CI 0.63 to 1.51], P = 0.91) or adverse effects of chemotherapy (P > 0.05 for all adverse effects).

While these meta-analyses may offer some insight on the best treatment approach, they should be interpreted with caution. Most studies included in these meta-analyses were from Asian countries, and their findings may not be applicable to Western countries. Furthermore, the heterogeneity of trials and inclusion of nonrandomized trials make it difficult to draw conclusions. There are several ongoing trials that will help to define the optimal treatment approach.

CASE CONTINUED

The patient is presented at tumor board and the consensus is to proceed with the perioperative chemotherapy approach. The patient undergoes echocardiography, which reveals a normal ejection fraction. He receives 3 cycles of neoadjuvant EOX (epirubicin, oxaliplatin, and capecitabine). After 3 cycles of neoadjuvant EOX, the patient has a repeat CT that shows marked interval reduction in the size of the primary gastric neoplasm and interval decrease in the size of the small perigastric lymph nodes. He subsequently undergoes a total gastrectomy with J-tube placement. Pathology shows ypT3N0 disease with 0 out of 47 lymph nodes involved and negative margins. He then receives 3 cycles of adjuvant EOX.

• What are the recommendations for surveillance?

According to the current NCCN guidelines, a history and physical exam should be performed every 3 to 6 months for 1 to 2 years, then every 6 to 12 months for 3 to 5 years, and then annually.²³ Labs, CT chest/abdomen, and EGD should be done as clinically indicated. Patients who have undergone surgical resection should be monitored for nutritional deficiencies (vitamin B12 and iron).

GASTROESOPHAGEAL JUNCTION TUMORS

Tumors arising in the GEJ or gastric cardia within 5 cm of the GEJ that extend into the GEJ or distal esophagus are staged and treated as esophageal cancers.²¹ The primary treatment for T1/T2N0 tumors is surgical resection. In patients with T3 or higher or node-positive adenocarcinoma of the GEJ, a combined modality approach is preferred, with preoperative chemoradiotherapy followed by surgical resection.⁵⁹ The CROSS trial demonstrated a significant survival benefit with preoperative chemoradiation using carboplatin/paclitaxel compared to surgery alone in patients with esophageal or GEJ cancer (49 months versus 24 months, HR 0.66, P = 0.003).⁶⁰

ONGOING TRIALS

As mentioned previously, several randomized clinical trials are in progress to clarify the optimal treatment approach. The MAGIC-B/MRC-ST03 is a randomized phase 2/3 trial looking at perioperative epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine (ECX) with or without bevacizumab in patients with resectable lower esophageal, GEJ, or gastric cancer.⁶¹ The TOPGEAR trial, a randomized phase 2/3 study being conducted in Canada and Europe, is comparing perioperative ECF chemotherapy with preoperative chemoradiation plus perioperative ECF chemotherapy.⁶² In Asia, the PRODIGY trial is a phase 3, open-label, randomized study comparing neoadjuvant docetaxel, oxaliplatin, and S-1 followed by surgery and adjuvant S-1 versus surgery plus adjuvant S-1 in patients with locally advanced gastric cancer (T2-T4 or node positive).⁶³ Primary endpoint is PFS and secondary endpoints are overall survival, R0 resection rate, and safety.

Trials comparing adjuvant chemotherapy to adjuvant chemoradiotherapy are also being conducted. In the Dutch CRITICS study, a randomized phase 3 trial, patients with stage Ib-Iva resectable gastric cancer were given 3 cycles of epirubicin, cisplatin/oxaliplatin, and capecitabine (ECC/EOC), followed by D2 resection and either 3 cycles of ECC/EOC or chemoradiation with weekly cisplatin and daily capecitabine.⁶⁴ Between January 2007 and April 2015, a total of 788 patients were enrolled. In a preliminary report presented at ASCO in 2016, the 5-year survival rate was similar between the 2 arms (41.3% for chemotherapy arm and 40.9% for chemoradiotherapy arm, P = 0.99). The Korean ARTIST II trial is comparing adjuvant S-1 and S-1/oxaliplatin with or without radiotherapy in patients with D2-resected gastric cancer.⁶⁵ Similarly, the NCT01711242 trial is comparing adjuvant XELOX alone versus XELOX with concurrent capecitabine/radiotherapy in patients with resected D2 gastric cancer.⁶⁶

The ToGA trial established a survival benefit of trastuzumab in combination with chemotherapy in HER2-positive metastatic gastric cancer.⁶⁷ Consequently, there are ongoing clinical trials to assess the role of trastuzumab in nonmetastatic gastric cancer. The TOXAG study is a phase 2 trial looking at the safety and tolerability of adjuvant oxaliplatin, capecitabine, and trastuzumab with radiation in patients with resected HER2-positive gastric or GEJ adenocarcinoma.⁶⁸ The NCT01130337 clinical trial is evaluating perioperative XELOX/trastuzumab in patients with resectable gastric or GEJ adeno-carcinoma.⁶⁹

Gastric cancer is the fifth most common cancer worldwide, with the greatest incidence in East Asia. Survival outcomes are better in Asian countries when compared to the United States. This difference in survival may be related to the presence of mass screening programs in Asia, which allows for detection at an earlier stage and the use of a more extensive surgical approach (ie, D2 resection). Risk factors for developing gastric cancer include: diets high in salt/salt-preserved foods or processed meats, obesity, smoking, H. pylori infection, EBV, prior gastric surgery, radiation exposure, and positive family history.

According to the latest edition of TMN staging, gastric cancer includes tumors arising more than 5 cm distally of the GEJ or within 5 cm of the GEJ but without extension to the esophagus or GEJ. Diagnostic work-up includes: EGD with biopsy; basic labs; CT chest/abdomen/pelvis with oral and intravenous contrast; EUS if no M1 disease is identified; PET-CT if there is no M1 disease and if clinically indicated; and diagnostic laparoscopy with cytology for clinical stage T1b or higher.

The mainstay of treatment is surgical resection. Laparoscopic approach is preferred over open gastrectomy due to lower complication rates and similar survival outcomes. Current NCCN guidelines recommend a D1 or a modified D2 lymph node dissection with at least 15 lymph nodes removed for examination. Systemic chemotherapy is required in locally advanced gastric cancer (T3-T4 or node positive) and should be considered in T2N0 disease with high-risk features. Currently, there is no global consensus on the optimal treatment approach. Data from various trials have shown benefit for each approach. Regional preferences are: perioperative chemotherapy in Europe; adjuvant chemoradiotherapy in the United States; and adjuvant chemotherapy in Asia. In an effort to better define the optimal treatment approach, several randomized clinical trials are being conducted. According to the current NCCN guidelines, the following treatment approaches are acceptable and are supported by data in the trial listed in parentheses:

• Perioperative chemotherapy

° 5-FU/cisplatin (French FNLCC/FCCD trial)⁴⁴ or

° ECF (MAGIC trial)⁴² or

° ECF modifications: EOX, EOF, ECX (REAL-2 trial)⁴³

• Adjuvant chemoradiotherapy

° 5-FU/leucovorin sandwiched with 5-FU-based chemoradiation (INT-0116 trial)⁴⁵

• Adjuvant chemotherapy (after D2 resection)

° Capecitabine/oxaliplatin (CLASSIC trial)⁵² or

° Capecitabine/cisplatin (ARTIST trial)^48,49

INTRODUCTION

Gastric cancer is the fifth most common cancer worldwide and the third leading cause of cancer death in both females and males.¹ More than 70% of gastric cancer cases occur in the developing world, with approximately 50% occurring in East Asia.² Gastric cancer is less common in the United States, with an incidence of 12.3 cases in males and 6.0 cases in females per 100,000 per year and a disproportionately higher incidence in Asians.³ According to the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program, approximately 26,370 new cases of stomach cancer were diagnosed in the United States in 2016, and an estimated 10,730 people died of this disease.⁴ Since the 1970s, the 5-year relative survival rate for gastric cancer in the United States has improved from 15% in 1975 to 29% in 2009.⁵ In contrast, in Japan and Korea, where screening programs have been implemented, the 5-year survival rate approaches 70%.⁶

RISK FACTORS AND CLASSIFICATION

A variety of risk factors have been linked to gastric cancer. Diets high in salt, salt-preserved foods, and/or processed meats have been associated with an increased risk for developing gastric cancer.^7,8 Obesity and smoking have also been implicated in gastric cancer.^9,10 Several studies have demonstrated a strong association between Helicobacter pylori and the development of gastric cancer.^11–13 It is believed that H. pylori infection leads to chronic active gastritis, atrophic gastritis, and intestinal metaplasia. Interestingly, mass eradication of H. pylori has not been shown to reduce the risk for gastric cancer.¹⁴ Therefore, treatment of H. pylori should only be considered in patients with active peptic ulcer disease.¹⁵ Other risk factors include Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), prior gastric surgery, and radiation exposure.^16–18 Family history of gastric cancer, hereditary nonpolyposis colon cancer, Li-Fraumeni syndrome, and hereditary diffuse gastric cancer caused by mutations in the E-cadherin gene increase the risk.¹⁷

The anatomic distinction between gastric cancer and cancer of the gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) has been a topic of debate. The Siewert classification is the most widely used system and divides GEJ adenocarcinoma into 3 categories:²⁰ type I tumor: adenocarcinoma of distal esophagus, located 1 cm to 5 cm above the GEJ; type II tumor: true carcinoma of gastric cardia, located within 1 cm above and 2 cm below the GEJ; type III tumor: subcardial gastric carcinoma, located 2 cm to 5 cm below the GEJ, and infiltrates esophagus from below.

The American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) has updated the latest (7th) edition of TMN staging for stomach cancer to include tumors arising more than 5 cm distally of the GEJ or within 5 cm of the GEJ but without extension to the esophagus or GEJ.²¹

In the following sections, neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy in gastric cancer are discussed using a case presentation to illustrate important concepts.

DIAGNOSIS AND STAGING

CASE PRESENTATION

A 43-year old male with no significant past medical history presents with epigastric abdominal pain and heart burn for the past few weeks. He denies nausea, vomiting, melena, or hematochezia. His primary care physician (PCP) diagnoses him with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and initiates a trial of pantoprazole. Over the next 2 to 3 months, his symptoms do not improve and he has an associated 40-lb weight loss. Both social history and family history are noncontributory. Physical exam reveals epigastric tenderness without rebound or guarding. Laboratory evaluation reveals a hemoglobin of 12.6 g/dL with a mean corpuscular volume of 72 fL. A comprehensive chemistry profile is within normal limits. Given the constellation of presenting symptoms, especially the unintentional weight loss and the presence of microcytic anemia, his PCP suspects a malignant process and refers the patient to a gastroenterologist.

• What are the next appropriate steps for diagnosis?

The most common presenting symptoms of gastric cancer are weight loss and abdominal pain.²² Less commonly, patients exhibit nausea, anorexia, and dysphagia with proximal tumors. Melena is seen in only about 20% of patients. In Japan, where gastric cancer is more prevalent, mass screening programs allow for detection at an earlier stage, which partially accounts for the better survival rates seen in Asia as compared to the United States. Diagnostic work-up includes esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) to assess Siewert category and to obtain a tissue sample for diagnosis. Full staging requires a complete blood count (CBC) with differential; comprehensive chemistry profile; computed tomography (CT) of chest/abdomen/pelvis with oral and intravenous contrast; endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) if no M1 disease is identified; positron emission tomography (PET)-CT if there is no evidence of M1 disease and if clinically indicated; and laparoscopy with cytology for clinical stage T1b or higher.²³ Patients should be staged according to the TMN staging system (Table 1).

CASE CONTINUED

The patient undergoes EGD, which reveals a large ulcerated, partially circumferential mass measuring approximately 4 cm. The mass extends from the gastric body to the cardia. Biopsy of the mass reveals poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma as well as H. pylori–associated gastritis. He is given antibiotic therapy and undergoes complete work-up of his newly diagnosed gastric adenocarcinoma. CT of the chest/abdomen/pelvis demonstrates a large gastric mass with gastrohepatic and distal perigastric adenopathy, compatible with locally advance primary gastric cancer. There is no evidence of distant metastasis. PET scan shows a large hypermetabolic mass in the stomach body and increased FDG activity in 3 small nodes along the lesser gastric curvature and in 1 node in the gastrohepatic region. EUS reveals a malignant gastric tumor in the body of the stomach, which is staged as T3, and a few malignant-appearing lymph nodes in the perigastric region. Fine-needle aspiration of the perigastric lymph node is performed and the sample obtained is positive for malignant cells. Diagnostic laparoscopy with peritoneal washings is performed and cytology is negative for malignant cells. The patient is staged as clinical stage IIB (T3N1M0).

• How should this patient with newly diagnosed, locally advanced, resectable gastric cancer be managed?

SURGERY

Surgical resection for localized gastric cancer is the mainstay of treatment with curative intent. Only very early stage (Tis or T1a) tumors can be considered for endoscopic mucosal resection. Regarding surgical resection, distal gastric cancers are typically treated with subtotal gastrectomy because there is no survival difference between subtotal and total gastrectomy.^24,25 Moreover, subtotal gastrectomy is associated with better nutritional status and quality of life. For proximal tumors, total gastrectomy is preferred as subtotal gastrectomy has been associated with a higher incidence of reflux esophagitis and anastomotic stenosis.²⁶ In terms of surgical approach, multiple studies have shown that a laparoscopic approach has a lower complication rate and similar outcomes in terms of cancer recurrence and long-term survival when compared to open gastrectomy.^27–29 Thus, a laparoscopic approach is often used in academic centers with highly experienced surgeons.

The extent of lymph node dissection remains a topic of debate. A D1 dissection involves the removal of perigastric lymph nodes. A D2 dissection is a D1 dissection plus the removal of lymph nodes along the left gastric artery, common hepatic artery, celiac artery, splenic hilum, and splenic artery. D2 lymphadenectomy has become the standard of care in Eastern countries where gastric cancer is more prevalent, such as Japan and Korea.³⁰ In Western countries, including the United States, less extensive lymphadenectomies are performed. Both randomized clinical trials and meta-analyses have failed to demonstrate an overall survival advantage of D2 dissection over D1 dissection.^31,32 A Dutch trial by Bonenkamp et al involving 711 patients, one of the largest randomized trials of D1 and D2 lymphadenectomy, showed that D2 patients had a higher operative mortality rate than D1 patients (10% versus 4%, P = 0.004) and experienced more complications (43% versus 25%, P < 0.001).³³ In a 15-year follow-up of this study, patients who had a D2 resection had lower locoregional recurrence and gastric-cancer–related death rates compared to those who had a D1 resection; however, D2 resection was associated with a significantly higher operative mortality and complication rate compared to D1.³⁴ In addition, a 2015 Cochrane meta-analysis has demonstrated improved disease-specific survival (DSS) with D2 dissection (hazard ratio [HR] 0.81 [95% confidence interval {CI} 0.71 to 0.92]).³⁵ Currently, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) recommends a D1 or a modified D2 gastrectomy with at least 15 lymph nodes removed for examination, with D2 lymphadenectomies only to be performed at experienced centers.²³

SYSTEMIC CHEMOTHERAPY

Locally advanced gastric cancer (T3-T4 or node positive) requires systemic chemotherapy in addition to surgery, as this intervention improves the 5-year overall survival by 10% to 15%.³⁶ Systemic therapy should also be considered in patients with T2N0 disease with high-risk features: poorly differentiated or high-grade cancer; lymphovascular invasion; neural invasion; age younger than 50 years; and patients who did not undergo D2 dissection.²³ Currently, there is no global consensus on the best treatment approach. In the United States, where a less aggressive lymph-node dissection is performed, adjuvant chemoradiotherapy after surgery is more commonly seen. In Europe, perioperative (preoperative and postoperative) chemotherapy is the standard treatment. In Japan, adjuvant chemotherapy after D2 lymphadenectomy is the standard of care.³⁷ These regional preferences are largely due to randomized clinical trials that have shown benefit for each approach. The landmark trials are discussed in the following sections and are summarized in Table 2.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy has the benefit of “downstaging” locally advanced tumors to allow for curative resection. Phase 2 clinical trials have also demonstrated good pathologic response rates and high R0 resection rates following neoadjuvant chemotherapy.^38,39 However, phase 3 trials to support this treatment approach are lacking. In the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) 40954 trial, patients with stage III or IV gastric or GEJ cancer were randomly assigned to surgery with or without preoperative cisplatin, leucovorin, and infusional fluorouracil (5-FU).⁴⁰ The trial was stopped early due to poor accrual after 144 patients were randomized. The neoadjuvant chemotherapy arm had a higher R0 resection rate compared to the surgery alone arm (82% versus 67%, respectively, P = 0.036) but a higher postoperative complication rate (27% versus 16%, respectively, P = 0.09). More important, after a median follow-up of 4.4 years, a survival benefit could not be shown, with 2-year survival rates of 72.7% and 69.9% in the neoadjuvant and surgery-only arms, respectively (HR 0.84 [95% CI 0.52 to 1.35], P = 0.466). Due to the lack of large trials, a meta-analysis assessing the effectiveness of neoadjuvant chemotherapy combined with surgery versus surgery alone in advanced gastric and gastroesophageal cancer was performed.⁴¹ The analysis included 12 randomized controlled trials with a total of 1820 patients. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy was shown to slightly improve the survival rate (odds ratio [OR] 1.32 [95% CI 1.07 to 1.64], P = 0.01). It significantly improved the 3-year progression-free survival (PFS; OR 1.85 [95% CI 1.39 to 2.46], P < 0.0001), tumor down-staging rate (OR 1.71 [95% CI 1.26 to 2.33], P = 0.0006), and R0 resection rate (OR 1.38 [95% CI 1.08 to 1.78], P = 0.01). There were no differences between the 2 arms in terms of relapse rates, operative complications, perioperative mortality, and grade 3/4 adverse effects. While these results are encouraging, further randomized clinical trials are needed to clarify the role of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and its impact on overall survival.

Perioperative Chemotherapy

The results of the Medical Research Council Adjuvant Gastric Infusional Chemotherapy (MAGIC) trial published in 2006 established perioperative chemotherapy as standard of care in patients with resectable gastric and gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma.⁴² A total of 503 patients with potentially resectable gastric and lower esophageal adenocarcinoma were randomly assigned to perioperative chemotherapy plus surgery or surgery alone. Perioperative chemotherapy consisted of 3 preoperative and postoperative cycles of epirubicin, cisplatin, and infusional 5-FU (ECF). At a median follow-up of 4 years, the perioperative-chemotherapy group had a significantly better PFS (HR 0.66 [95% CI 0.53 to 0.81], P < 0.001) as well as overall survival (HR 0.75 [95% CI 0.60 to 0.93], P = 0.009). The 5-year overall survival rate was 36.3% in the perioperative chemotherapy group and 23% in the surgery group. Of note, there was a greater proportion of stage T1/T2 tumors (52% versus 37%, P = 0.002) and N0/N1 disease (84% versus 71%) in the perioperative-chemotherapy group compared to the surgery alone group. In addition, only 42% of patients in the perioperative chemotherapy group completed all 6 cycles of chemotherapy.

The administration of ECF is often difficult since the 5-FU component requires a central venous access device and an ambulatory infusion pump and the cisplatin component is associated with nephrotoxicity and ototoxicity. The REAL-2 trial was a randomized phase 3 clinical trial that assessed whether 5-FU could be replaced by capecitabine and cisplatin by oxaliplatin in the ECF regimen.⁴³ Between June 2000 and May 2005, a total of 1002 patients with locally advanced esophageal/GEJ/gastric cancer were enrolled. Patients were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 triplet therapies: epirubicin and cisplatin plus either 5-FU (ECF) or capecitabine (ECX) or epirubicin and oxaliplatin plus either 5-FU (EOF) or capecitabine (EOX). After a median follow-up of approximately 18 months, the overall survival in the capecitabine groups did not differ significantly from that in the 5-FU groups (HR 0.88 [95% CI 0.77 to 1.00], P = 0.06), nor did overall survival in the oxaliplatin groups differ significantly from that in the cisplatin groups (HR 0.91 [95% CI 0.79 to 1.04], P = 0.16). Interestingly, the 1-year survival rate was longer in the EOX group than in the ECF group (46.8% versus 37.7%, respectively; HR 0.80 [95% CI 0.66 to 0.97], P = 0.02). This translated into an overall survival of 11.2 months for the EOX group and 9.9 months for the ECF group. Therefore, EOX is preferred over ECF in clinical practice.

The French FNLCC/FFCD trial published in 2011 provided further support for perioperative chemotherapy.⁴⁴ A total of 224 patients with adenocarcinoma of the lower esophagus, GEJ, or stomach were randomly assigned to perioperative chemotherapy plus surgery or surgery alone. The perioperative-chemotherapy group received 2 to 3 cycles of preoperative chemotherapy and 3 to 4 cycles of postoperative chemotherapy, consisting of infusional 5-FU (800 mg/m² daily for days 1 to 5) and cisplatin (100 mg/m² on day 1). In patients receiving preoperative chemotherapy, 38% experienced at least grade 3 to 4 toxicity. Among the 109 patients who received at least 1 cycle of preoperative chemotherapy, only 54 patients (50%) received postoperative chemotherapy. Despite this, the perioperative-chemotherapy group had a statistically significant higher R0 resection rate (84% versus 74%, P = 0.04) compared to the surgery alone group. At a median follow-up of 5.7 years, the perioperative chemotherapy group had an improved overall survival (HR for death 0.69 [95% CI 0.50 to 0.95], P = 0.02) and disease-free survival (DFS; HR for recurrence or death 0.65 [95% CI 0.48 to 0.89], P = 0.003). This translated into 5-year overall survival rates of 38% versus 24% and 5-year DFS rates of 34% versus 19%. One caveat to this study is that the majority of patients (64%) had GEJ cancer and only 25% had gastric cancer. In the multivariate analysis, the 2 significant prognostic factors for overall survival were the administration of preoperative chemotherapy (P = 0.01) and tumor site at the GEJ (P < 0.01).

Adjuvant Chemoradiotherapy

The INT-0116 (Intergroup 0116) study published in 2001 established adjuvant chemoradiotherapy as the standard approach for resectable gastric cancer in the United States. In this study, a total of 556 patients with resected gastric or GEJ cancer were randomly assigned to surgery alone or surgery followed by adjuvant 5-FU/leucovorin bolus chemotherapy, sandwiched with 5-FU–based chemoradiation (45 Gy).⁴⁵ In the chemoradiotherapy group, 64% of patients completed treatment and grade 3 and 4 toxicity occurred in 41% and 32%, respectively. However, only 3 patients (1%) died from treatment-related toxicity. At a median follow-up of 5 years, the median overall survival was 36 months in the chemoradiation group and 27 months in the surgery group. Overall survival rate was 50% in the combined modality group and 41% in the surgery-alone group, with a HR of 1.35 (95% CI 1.09 to 1.66, P = 0.005). The 3-year DFS was 48% in the chemoradiotherapy group and 31% in the surgery-alone group, corresponding to a DFS of 30 months and 19 months, respectively. Even after a median follow-up of 10 years, these positive results were maintained, with a HR for survival of 1.32 (95% CI 1.10 to 1.60, P = 0.0046) and HR for DFS of 1.51 (95% CI 1.25 to 1.83, P < 0.001).⁴⁶ A criticism of the INT-0116 study is that 54% of patients had less than a D1 lymph node dissection, suggesting that adjuvant chemoradiation may have compensated for suboptimal surgery.

CALGB 80101, a United States Intergroup study, compared the INT-0116 protocol regimen (bolus 5-FU/leucovorin with 5-FU plus concurrent radiotherapy) to postoperative ECF sandwiched with 5-FU plus concurrent radiotherapy.⁴⁷ The study included patients with resected gastric or GEJ adenocarcinoma that extended beyond the muscularis propria or was node positive. The percentage of patients with gastric versus GEJ cancer was not reported. A total of 546 patients were randomized. Preliminary results were presented at the 2011 American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting. The ECF arm had lower rates of grade 3/4 toxicities, including neutropenia, diarrhea, and mucositis. However, there was no difference in overall survival (3-year overall survival of 52% versus 50% for ECF and 5-FU/leucovorin, respectively) or DFS (3-year DFS of 47% versus 46% for ECF and 5-FU/leucovorin, respectively). The trial was not adequately powered to assess noninferiority. The location of the primary tumor (GEJ versus proximal versus distal stomach) did not have any effect on treatment outcome.

The Adjuvant Chemoradiation Therapy in Stomach Cancer (ARTIST) trial was the first study to compare adjuvant chemoradiotherapy with adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with D2-resected gastric cancer.⁴⁸ A total of 458 patients were randomly assigned to 6 cycles of XP chemotherapy (capecitabine 2000 mg/m² per day on days 1–14 and cisplatin 60 mg/m² on day 1, every 3 weeks) or XP/radiotherapy/XP (2 cycles of XP followed by 45 Gy radiotherapy with concurrent daily capecitabine [825 mg/m² twice daily] and 2 cycles of XP). After a median follow-up of 84 months, there was no difference in DFS or overall survival between treatment arms (HR for progression 0.74 [95% CI 0.52 to 1.05], P = 0.09; HR for death 1.13 [95% CI 0.78 to 1.65], P = 0.53).⁴⁹ However, subgroup analysis showed that chemoradiotherapy significantly improved DFS in patients with node-positive disease (3-year DFS 76% versus 72%, P = 0.004).

Adjuvant Chemotherapy

Data supporting the use of adjuvant chemotherapy alone is largely derived from trials done in Asia, typically after a D2 lymph node dissection, and thus adjuvant chemotherapy has become the standard of care in that region. In the Japanese Adjuvant Chemotherapy Trial of S-1 for Gastric Cancer (ACTS-GC), a total of 1059 patients with stage II or III gastric cancer who had undergone surgery with a D2 lymphadenectomy were randomly assigned to 1 year of S-1 (an oral fluoropyrimidine) or surgery alone.⁵⁰ The 5-year overall survival rate was 72% in the S-1 group and 61% in the surgery-only group (HR 0.669 [95% CI 0.54 to 0.83]).⁵¹ The 5-year relapse-free survival was 65% in the S-1 group and 53% in the surgery-only group (HR 0.65 [95% CI 0.537 to 0.793]). Of note, both arms of the ACTS-GC trial had significantly higher 5-year overall survival rates compared to the INT-0116 and MAGIC trials: 43% versus 28% and 36% versus 23% for the treatment and control groups, respectively.^42,45 Consequently, it is unclear if the benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy can be translated to Western countries.

The Korean Capecitabine and Oxaliplatin Adjuvant Study in Stomach Cancer (CLASSIC) trial published in 2012 also established the role of adjuvant chemotherapy after D2 gastrectomy.⁵² A total of 1035 patients with stage II-IIIB gastric cancer who had curative D2 gastrectomy were randomly assigned to 8 cycles of adjuvant XELOX (capecitabine 1000 mg/m² twice daily on days 1–14 plus oxaliplatin 130 mg/m² on day 1, 21-day cycle) or surgery alone. Median follow-up was 34 months in both arms and 67% of patients in the chemotherapy arm completed all 8 cycles of planned chemotherapy. The 3-year DFS was 74% in the chemotherapy group and 59% in the surgery-only group (HR 0.56 [95% CI 0.44 to 0.72], P < 0.0001). There was a trend toward improvement in overall survival (83% versus 78%, HR 0.72 [95% CI 0.52 to 1.00]). After 5 years of follow-up, the improvement in overall survival became statistically significant (78% versus 69%, HR 0.66 [95% CI 0.51 to 0.85]).⁵³

The benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy was reinforced by a 2010 meta-analysis comparing adjuvant chemotherapy to surgery alone in patients with resected gastric cancer.⁵⁴ A total of 17 randomized controlled trials were included. Adjuvant fluorouracil-based chemotherapy was associated with a statistically significant improved overall survival (HR 0.82 [95% CI 0.76 to 0.90], P < 0.001) and DFS (HR 0.82 [95% CI 0.75 to 0.90], P < 0.001). Five-year overall survival increased from 49.6% to 55.3% with chemotherapy.

Since data exists for all 3 approaches (perioperative chemotherapy, adjuvant chemoradiotherapy, and adjuvant chemotherapy), various meta-analyses have been done to clarify which approach is the best. In a recent meta-analysis of 6 randomized controlled trials reported between 2010 and 2012, which involved 1171 patients with resected gastric cancer, adjuvant chemotherapy was compared to adjuvant chemoradiotherapy.⁵⁵ Five of the studies were from East Asia, while one was from a Western country. Adjuvant chemoradiation was associated with a lower local-regional recurrence rate (OR 0.46 [95% CI 0.32 to 0.67]) and better 5-year DFS rate (OR 1.56 [95% CI 1.09 to 2.24]). However, there was no statistical difference in 5-year overall survival rate (OR 1.32 [95% CI 0.92 to 1.88]). Similar results were reported by Zhou et al in 2016.⁵⁶ This meta-analysis included 4 randomized controlled trials reported between 2010 and 2015, with a total of 960 patients who had undergone a D2 resection for gastric cancer. Compared to adjuvant chemotherapy, adjuvant chemoradiotherapy significantly reduced the loco-regional recurrence rate (LRRR; relative risk [RR] 0.50 [95% CI 0.34 to 0.74], P = 0.0005) and improved DFS (HR 0.73 [95% CI 0.60 to 0.89], P = 0.002). Again, no difference in overall survival was seen (HR 0.91 [95% CI 0.74 to 1.11], P = 0.34).

Adjuvant chemotherapy and perioperative chemotherapy have also been compared. In a recent meta-analysis of 14 randomized controlled trials (8 Asian, 6 European) involving 2093 patients with resected gastric or GEJ cancer, perioperative chemotherapy was associated with improved overall survival when compared to adjuvant chemotherapy (HR 0.48 [95% CI 0.35 to 0.67], P < 0.001).⁵⁷ The benefit of perioperative chemotherapy over adjuvant chemotherapy has also been reported in a 2016 meta-analysis by Zhao et al.⁵⁸ A total of 1240 patients were included from 5 randomized controlled trials and 6 clinical controlled trials, all from Asian countries. The 5-year overall survival rate was significantly better in the perioperative chemotherapy group compared to the adjuvant chemotherapy group (RR 0.77 [95% CI 0.64 to 0.92], P < 0.01). Furthermore, the 2 groups showed no significant differences in the postoperative complication rates (RR 0.98 [95% CI 0.63 to 1.51], P = 0.91) or adverse effects of chemotherapy (P > 0.05 for all adverse effects).

While these meta-analyses may offer some insight on the best treatment approach, they should be interpreted with caution. Most studies included in these meta-analyses were from Asian countries, and their findings may not be applicable to Western countries. Furthermore, the heterogeneity of trials and inclusion of nonrandomized trials make it difficult to draw conclusions. There are several ongoing trials that will help to define the optimal treatment approach.

CASE CONTINUED

The patient is presented at tumor board and the consensus is to proceed with the perioperative chemotherapy approach. The patient undergoes echocardiography, which reveals a normal ejection fraction. He receives 3 cycles of neoadjuvant EOX (epirubicin, oxaliplatin, and capecitabine). After 3 cycles of neoadjuvant EOX, the patient has a repeat CT that shows marked interval reduction in the size of the primary gastric neoplasm and interval decrease in the size of the small perigastric lymph nodes. He subsequently undergoes a total gastrectomy with J-tube placement. Pathology shows ypT3N0 disease with 0 out of 47 lymph nodes involved and negative margins. He then receives 3 cycles of adjuvant EOX.

• What are the recommendations for surveillance?

According to the current NCCN guidelines, a history and physical exam should be performed every 3 to 6 months for 1 to 2 years, then every 6 to 12 months for 3 to 5 years, and then annually.²³ Labs, CT chest/abdomen, and EGD should be done as clinically indicated. Patients who have undergone surgical resection should be monitored for nutritional deficiencies (vitamin B12 and iron).

GASTROESOPHAGEAL JUNCTION TUMORS

Tumors arising in the GEJ or gastric cardia within 5 cm of the GEJ that extend into the GEJ or distal esophagus are staged and treated as esophageal cancers.²¹ The primary treatment for T1/T2N0 tumors is surgical resection. In patients with T3 or higher or node-positive adenocarcinoma of the GEJ, a combined modality approach is preferred, with preoperative chemoradiotherapy followed by surgical resection.⁵⁹ The CROSS trial demonstrated a significant survival benefit with preoperative chemoradiation using carboplatin/paclitaxel compared to surgery alone in patients with esophageal or GEJ cancer (49 months versus 24 months, HR 0.66, P = 0.003).⁶⁰

ONGOING TRIALS

As mentioned previously, several randomized clinical trials are in progress to clarify the optimal treatment approach. The MAGIC-B/MRC-ST03 is a randomized phase 2/3 trial looking at perioperative epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine (ECX) with or without bevacizumab in patients with resectable lower esophageal, GEJ, or gastric cancer.⁶¹ The TOPGEAR trial, a randomized phase 2/3 study being conducted in Canada and Europe, is comparing perioperative ECF chemotherapy with preoperative chemoradiation plus perioperative ECF chemotherapy.⁶² In Asia, the PRODIGY trial is a phase 3, open-label, randomized study comparing neoadjuvant docetaxel, oxaliplatin, and S-1 followed by surgery and adjuvant S-1 versus surgery plus adjuvant S-1 in patients with locally advanced gastric cancer (T2-T4 or node positive).⁶³ Primary endpoint is PFS and secondary endpoints are overall survival, R0 resection rate, and safety.

Trials comparing adjuvant chemotherapy to adjuvant chemoradiotherapy are also being conducted. In the Dutch CRITICS study, a randomized phase 3 trial, patients with stage Ib-Iva resectable gastric cancer were given 3 cycles of epirubicin, cisplatin/oxaliplatin, and capecitabine (ECC/EOC), followed by D2 resection and either 3 cycles of ECC/EOC or chemoradiation with weekly cisplatin and daily capecitabine.⁶⁴ Between January 2007 and April 2015, a total of 788 patients were enrolled. In a preliminary report presented at ASCO in 2016, the 5-year survival rate was similar between the 2 arms (41.3% for chemotherapy arm and 40.9% for chemoradiotherapy arm, P = 0.99). The Korean ARTIST II trial is comparing adjuvant S-1 and S-1/oxaliplatin with or without radiotherapy in patients with D2-resected gastric cancer.⁶⁵ Similarly, the NCT01711242 trial is comparing adjuvant XELOX alone versus XELOX with concurrent capecitabine/radiotherapy in patients with resected D2 gastric cancer.⁶⁶

The ToGA trial established a survival benefit of trastuzumab in combination with chemotherapy in HER2-positive metastatic gastric cancer.⁶⁷ Consequently, there are ongoing clinical trials to assess the role of trastuzumab in nonmetastatic gastric cancer. The TOXAG study is a phase 2 trial looking at the safety and tolerability of adjuvant oxaliplatin, capecitabine, and trastuzumab with radiation in patients with resected HER2-positive gastric or GEJ adenocarcinoma.⁶⁸ The NCT01130337 clinical trial is evaluating perioperative XELOX/trastuzumab in patients with resectable gastric or GEJ adeno-carcinoma.⁶⁹

Gastric cancer is the fifth most common cancer worldwide, with the greatest incidence in East Asia. Survival outcomes are better in Asian countries when compared to the United States. This difference in survival may be related to the presence of mass screening programs in Asia, which allows for detection at an earlier stage and the use of a more extensive surgical approach (ie, D2 resection). Risk factors for developing gastric cancer include: diets high in salt/salt-preserved foods or processed meats, obesity, smoking, H. pylori infection, EBV, prior gastric surgery, radiation exposure, and positive family history.

According to the latest edition of TMN staging, gastric cancer includes tumors arising more than 5 cm distally of the GEJ or within 5 cm of the GEJ but without extension to the esophagus or GEJ. Diagnostic work-up includes: EGD with biopsy; basic labs; CT chest/abdomen/pelvis with oral and intravenous contrast; EUS if no M1 disease is identified; PET-CT if there is no M1 disease and if clinically indicated; and diagnostic laparoscopy with cytology for clinical stage T1b or higher.

The mainstay of treatment is surgical resection. Laparoscopic approach is preferred over open gastrectomy due to lower complication rates and similar survival outcomes. Current NCCN guidelines recommend a D1 or a modified D2 lymph node dissection with at least 15 lymph nodes removed for examination. Systemic chemotherapy is required in locally advanced gastric cancer (T3-T4 or node positive) and should be considered in T2N0 disease with high-risk features. Currently, there is no global consensus on the optimal treatment approach. Data from various trials have shown benefit for each approach. Regional preferences are: perioperative chemotherapy in Europe; adjuvant chemoradiotherapy in the United States; and adjuvant chemotherapy in Asia. In an effort to better define the optimal treatment approach, several randomized clinical trials are being conducted. According to the current NCCN guidelines, the following treatment approaches are acceptable and are supported by data in the trial listed in parentheses:

• Perioperative chemotherapy

° 5-FU/cisplatin (French FNLCC/FCCD trial)⁴⁴ or

° ECF (MAGIC trial)⁴² or

° ECF modifications: EOX, EOF, ECX (REAL-2 trial)⁴³

• Adjuvant chemoradiotherapy

° 5-FU/leucovorin sandwiched with 5-FU-based chemoradiation (INT-0116 trial)⁴⁵

• Adjuvant chemotherapy (after D2 resection)

° Capecitabine/oxaliplatin (CLASSIC trial)⁵² or

° Capecitabine/cisplatin (ARTIST trial)^48,49

INTRODUCTION

Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is an uncommon, distinct clinical subtype of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) that comprises approximately 8% of all lymphoma diagnoses in the United States and Europe.^1,2 Considered incurable, MCL often presents in advanced stages, particularly with involvement of the lymph nodes, spleen, bone marrow, and gastrointestinal tract in the form of lymphomatous polyps. MCL disproportionately affects males, and incidence rises with age, with a median age at diagnosis of 68 years.² Historically, the prognosis of patients with MCL has been among the poorest among B-cell lymphoma patients, with a median overall survival (OS) of 3 to 5 years, and time to treatment failure (TTF) of 18 to 24 months, although this is improving in the modern era.³ Less frequently, patients with MCL display isolated bone marrow, peripheral blood, and splenic involvement. These cases tend to behave more indolently with longer survival.^4,5 Recent advances in therapy have dramatically impacted treatment alternatives and outcomes for MCL. As such, the therapeutic and prognostic landscape of MCL is evolving rapidly.

PATHOGENESIS

The histologic diagnosis of MCL by morphology alone is often challenging. Accurate diagnosis relies on immunohistochemical staining for the purposes of immunophenotyping.⁶ MCL typically expresses B-cell markers CD5 and CD20, and lacks both CD10 and CD23. The genetic hallmark of MCL is the t(11;14) (q13;q32) chromosomal translocation leading to upregulation of the cyclin D1 protein, a critical regulator of the G1 phase of the cell cycle. Specifically, the t(11;14) translocation, present in virtually all cases of MCL, juxtaposes the proto-oncogene CCND1 to the immunoglobulin heavy chain gene.⁷ Consequently, cyclin D1, normally not expressed in B lymphocytes, becomes constitutively overexpressed. This alteration is thought to facilitate the deregulation of the cell cycle at the G1-S phase transition.⁸

Gene expression profiling studies have underscored the importance of cell cycle deregulation in MCL, and high proliferation is associated with a worse prognosis.⁹ More than 50% of the genes associated with poor outcomes were derived from the “proliferation signature” that was more highly expressed in dividing cells. In the seminal Rosenwald study, a gene expression–based outcome model was constructed in which the proliferation signature average represents a linear variable that assigns a discrete probability of survival to an individual patient.⁹ The proliferative index, or proliferative signature, of MCL can be estimated by the percentage of Ki-67–positive cells present in the tumor through immunohistochemistry. This is often used as a marker of poor outcomes, and as a surrogate for the proliferative signature in MCL that can be incorporated into clinical practice (as opposed to gene expression profiling). Statistically significant differences in OS have emerged between groups of MCL patients with Ki-67–positive cells comprising less than 30% of their tumor sample (favorable) and those with Ki-67–positive cells comprising 30% or greater (unfavorable).¹⁰

Recent data has also identified the importance of the transcription factor SOX 11 (SRY-related HMG-box), which regulates multiple cellular transcriptional events, including cell proliferation and differentiation, apoptosis, and angiogenesis.¹¹ MCL expressing SOX 11 behaves more aggressively than MCL variants lacking SOX 11 expression, and tends to accumulate more genetic alterations.¹² Moreover, lack of SOX 11 expression characterizes a subset of MCL that does not carry the t(11;14) translocation.

DIAGNOSIS AND STAGING

CASE PRESENTATION

A 62-year-old man with a history of diabetes mellitus and hypertension presents with cervical lymphadenopathy, fatigue, and early satiety over the past several months. He is otherwise in good health. His Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status is 1. On physical examination, 3-cm lymphadenopathy in the bilateral cervical chain is noted. Bilateral axillary lymph nodes measure 2 to 4 cm. His spleen is enlarged and is palpable at approximately 5 cm below the costal margin. A complete blood count reveals a total white blood cell (WBC) count of 14,000 cells/μL, with 68% lymphocytes and a normal distribution of neutrophils. Hemoglobin is 11 g/dL, and platelet count is 112,000/μL. The lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) level is 322 U/L (upper limit of normal: 225 U/L).

• How is MCL diagnosed?

Diagnosis of MCL requires review by expert hematopathologists.¹³ Whenever possible, an excisional biopsy should be performed for the adequate characterization of lymph node architecture and evaluation by immunohistochemistry. Aside from the characteristic expression of CD5 and CD20 and absence of CD23, MCL should express cyclin D1, which reflects t(11;14). If cyclin D1 is inconclusive or unavailable, fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) for t(11;14) should be performed.⁸ Patients often have circulating malignant lymphocytes, or leukemic phase MCL. Flow cytometry of the peripheral blood can detect traditional surface markers, and FISH can also be performed on circulating abnormal lymphocytes.

RISK STRATIFICATION

At diagnosis, patients should undergo risk stratification in order to understand prognosis and possibly guide treatment. In MCL, the MCL international prognostic index (MIPI) is used. The MIPI is a prognostic tool developed exclusively for patients with MCL using data from 455 patients with advanced-stage MCL treated within 3 European clinical trials.¹⁶ The MIPI classified patients into risk groups based on age, ECOG performance status, LDH level, and WBC count. Patients were categorized into low-risk (44% of patients, median OS not reached), intermediate-risk (35%, median OS 51 months), and high-risk groups (21%, median OS 29 months). This is done through a logarithmic calculation, which can be accessed through online calculators (a prototype example can be found at www.qxmd.com/calculate-online/hematology/prognosis-mantle-cell-lymphoma-mipi). Cell proliferation using the Ki-67 index was evaluated in an exploratory analysis (the biologic [“B”] MIPI), and also demonstrated strong prognostic relevance.¹⁶ Currently, treatment of MCL patients is not stratified by MIPI outside of a clinical trial, but this useful tool assists in assessing patient prognosis and has been validated for use with both conventional chemoimmunotherapy and in the setting of autologous stem cell transplant (autoSCT).^16,17 At this point in time, the MIPI score is not used to stratify treatment, although some clinical trials are incorporating the use of the MIPI score at diagnosis. Nonetheless, given its prognostic importance, the MIPI should be performed for all MCL patients undergoing staging and evaluation for treatment to establish disease risk.

As noted, the proliferative signature, represented by the Ki-67 protein, is also highly prognostic in MCL. Ki-67 is expressed in the late G1, S, G2, and M phases of the cell cycle. The Ki-67 index is defined by the hematopathologist as the percentage of lymphoma cells staining positive for Ki-67 protein, based on the number of cells per high-power field. There is significant interobserver variability in this process, which can be minimized by assessing Ki-67 quantitatively using computer software. The prognostic significance of Ki-67 at diagnosis was established in large studies of MCL patient cohorts, with survival differing by up to 3 years.^18,19 Determann et al demonstrated the utility of the proliferative index in patients with MCL treated with standard chemoimmunotherapy.¹⁰ In this study, 249 patients with advanced-stage MCL treated within randomized trials conducted by the European MCL Network were analyzed. The Ki-67 index was found to be extremely prognostic of OS, independent of other clinical risk factors, including the MIPI score. As a continuous variable, Ki-67 indices of greater than 10% correlated with poor outcomes. The Ki-67 index has also been confirmed as prognostic in relapsed MCL.²⁰ It is important to note that, as a unique feature, the Ki-67 index has remained an independent prognostic factor, even when incorporated into the “B” MIPI.

TREATMENT

CASE CONTINUED

The patient undergoes an excisional biopsy of a cervical lymph node, which demonstrates an abnormal proliferation of small-medium–sized lymphocytes with slightly irregular nuclear contours. Immunohistochemistry shows that the abnormal lymphocytes are positive for CD20 and CD5, negative for CD10 and CD23, and diffusely positive for cyclin D1, consistent with a diagnosis of MCL. The proliferative index, as measured by the Ki-67 immunostain, is 40%. A bone marrow aspirate and biopsy are then obtained, which show a clonal population of B lymphocytes expressing the same immunophenotype as the lymph node (positive for CD20 and CD5, negative for CD10 and CD23, cyclin D1 positive). A CT scan of the neck, chest, abdomen, and pelvis with contrast is obtained, along with a PET scan. These studies identify extensive hypermetabolic lymphadenopathy in the bilateral cervical chains, supraclavicular areas, mediastinum, and hilum. Mesenteric lymph nodes are also enlarged and hypermetabolic, as are retroperitoneal lymph nodes. The spleen is noted to be enlarged with multiple hypermetabolic lesions. Based on the presence of extensive lymphadenopathy as well as bone marrow involvement, the patient is diagnosed with stage IV MCL. He undergoes risk-stratification with the MIPI. His MIPI score is 6.3, high risk.

FRONTLINE THERAPY

Role of Watchful Waiting

A small proportion of MCL patients have indolent disease that can be observed. This population is more likely to have leukemic-phase MCL with circulating lymphocytes, splenomegaly, and bone marrow involvement and absent or minimal lymphadenopathy.^4,5 A retrospective study of 97 patients established that deferment of initial therapy in MCL is acceptable in some patients.⁵ In this study, approximately one third of patients with MCL were observed for more than 3 months before initiating systemic therapy, and the median time to treatment for the observation group was 12 months. Most patients undergoing observation had a low-risk MIPI. Patients were not harmed by observation, as no OS differences were observed among groups. This study underscores that deferred treatment can be an acceptable alternative in selected MCL patients for a short period of time. In practice, the type of patient who would be appropriate for this approach is someone who is frail, elderly, and with multiple comorbidities. Additionally, expectant observation could be considered for patients with limited-stage or low-volume MCL, low Ki-67 index, and low-risk MIPI scores.

Approach to Therapy

Treatment of MCL is generally approached by evaluating patient age and fitness for treatment. While there is no accepted standard, for younger patients healthy enough to tolerate aggressive approaches, treatment often involves an intensive cytarabine-containing regimen, which is consolidated with an autoSCT. This approach results in the longest remission duration, with some series suggesting a plateau in survival after 5 years, with no relapses.²¹ Nonintensive conventional chemotherapy alone is often reserved for the frailer or older patient. Given that remission durations with chemotherapy alone in MCL are short, goals of treatment focus on maximizing benefit and remission duration and minimizing risk of toxicity.

Standard Chemotherapy: Elderly and/or Frail Patients

Conventional chemotherapy alone for the treatment of MCL results in a 70% to 85% overall response rate (ORR) and 7% to 30% complete response (CR) rate.²² Rituximab, a mouse humanized monoclonal IgG1 anti-CD20 antibody, is used as standard of care in combination with chemotherapy, since its addition has been found to increase response rates and extend both progression-free survival (PFS) and OS compared to chemotherapy alone.^23,24 However, chemoimmunotherapy approaches do not provide long-term control of MCL and are considered noncurative. Various regimens have been studied and include anthracycline-containing regimens such as R-CHOP (rituximab with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone),²² combination chemotherapy with antimetabolites such as R-hyper-CVAD (hyper-fractionated rituximab with cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, dexamethasone, alternating with methotrexate and cytarabine),²⁵ purine analogue–based regimens such as R-FC (rituximab with fludarabine and cyclophosphamide),²⁶ bortezomib-containing regimens,²⁷ and alkylator-based treatment with BR (bendamustine and rituximab) (Table 1).^28,29 Among these, the most commonly used are R-CHOP and BR.

Two large randomized studies compared R-CHOP for 6 cycles to BR for 6 cycles in patients with indolent NHL and MCL. Among MCL patients, BR resulted in superior PFS compared to R-CHOP (69 months versus 26 months) but no benefit in OS.^28,29 The ORR to R-CHOP was approximately 90%, with a PFS of 21 months in the Rummel et al study.²⁹ This study included more than 80 centers in Germany and enrolled 549 patients with MCL, follicular lymphoma, small lymphocytic lymphoma, marginal zone lymphoma, and Waldenström macroglobulinemia. Patients were randomized in a 1:1 fashion. Among these, 46 patients received BR and 48 received R-CHOP (18% for both, respectively). It should be noted that patients in the BR group had significantly less toxicity and experienced fewer side effects than did those in the R-CHOP group. Similarly, BR-treated patients had a lower frequency of hematologic side effects and infections of any grade. However, drug-associated skin reactions and allergies were more common with BR compared to R-CHOP. The study by Flinn and colleagues was an international randomized, noninferiority phase 3 study designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of BR compared with R-CHOP or R-CVP (rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone) for treatment-naive patients with MCL or other indolent NHL. The primary endpoint was CR. In this study, BR was found to be noninferior to R-CHOP and R-CVP based on CR rate (31% versus 25%, respectively; P = 0.0225). Response rates in general were high: 97% for BR and 91% for R-CHOP/R-CVP (P = 0.0102). Here, BR-treated patients experienced more nausea, emesis, and drug-induced hypersensitivity compared to the R-CHOP and R-CVP groups.

Bendamustine in combination with other agents has also been studied in the frontline setting. Visco and colleagues evaluated the combination of bendamustine with rituximab and cytarabine (R-BAC) in older patients with MCL (age 65 or older).⁶³ This phase 2, two-stage study enrolled 40 patients and had a dose-finding arm for cytarabine in combination with BR. It permitted relapsed/refractory patients, but 50% had newly diagnosed, previously untreated MCL. The regimen had an impressive ORR of 100%, with CR rates of 95% for previously untreated patients. PFS at 2 years was 95%. R-BAC was well tolerated, with the primary toxicity being reversible myelosuppression.

BR was combined with the proteasome inhibitor bortezomib and dexamethasone in a phase 2 study.⁶⁴ This Lymphoma Study Association (LYSA) study evaluated 76 patients with newly diagnosed MCL older than age 65 years. BR was administered in standard doses (bendamustine 90 mg/m² on days 1 and 2 and rituximab 375 mg/m² IV on day 1) and bortezomib was administered subcutaneously on days 1, 4, 8, and 11, with acyclovir for viral prophylaxis. Patients received 6 cycles. The ORR was 87% and the CR was 60%. Patients experienced toxicity, and not all bortezomib doses were administered due to neurotoxic or hematologic side effects.

A randomized phase 3 study compared R-CHOP to the VR-CAP regimen (R-CHOP regimen but bortezomib replaces vincristine on days 1, 4, 8, 11, at 1.3 mg/m²) in 487 newly diagnosed MCL patients.²⁷ Median PFS was superior in the VR-CAP group compared with R-CHOP (14.4 months versus 24.7 months, respectively). Additionally, rates of CR were superior in the VR-CAP group (53% compared to 42% with R-CHOP). However, there was more hematologic toxicity with VR-CAP. On the basis of these findings, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved bortezomib for the frontline treatment of MCL.

Other chemoimmunotherapy combinations containing bortezomib have been studied in frontline MCL treatment, with promising results. These include bortezomib in combination with R-CHOP or modified R-hyper-CVAD, as well as bortezomib in combination with CHOP-like treatments and purine analogues.^27,30–32 The ongoing ECOG 1411 study is currently evaluating bortezomib added to BR for induction therapy of newly diagnosed MCL in a 4-arm randomized trial. Patients receive BR with or without bortezomib during induction and are then randomly assigned to maintenance with either rituximab alone or rituximab with lenalidomide. Other novel combination agents are actively being studied in frontline MCL treatment, including lenalidomide and rituximab and BR with lenalidomide.

Intensification of Therapy and AutoSCT: Fitter and/or Younger Patients

Short response duration has created the need for post-remission therapy in MCL. One approach to improve remission duration in MCL is to intensify induction through the use of cytarabine-containing regimens and/or consolidation with high-dose chemotherapy, typically using BEAM (carmustine, etoposide, cytarabine, melphalan) and autoSCT (Table 2). The cytarabine-containing R-hyper-CVAD regimen, developed at the MD Anderson Cancer Center, resulted in a 97% ORR and an 87% CR rate, with TTF of nearly 5 years. However, nearly one third of patients were unable to complete treatment due to toxicity, and 5 patients developed secondary myelodysplastic syndrome or acute myeloid leukemia.³³ The feasibility of this R-hyper-CVAD regimen was tested in a multicenter cooperative group setting, but similar results were not seen; in this study, nearly 40% of patients were unable to complete the full scheduled course of treatment due to toxicity.³⁴

​Other ways to intensify therapy in MCL involve adding a second non-cross-resistant cytarabine-containing regimen to R-CHOP after remission, such as DHAP (dexamethasone, high-dose cytarabine, cisplatin), followed by consolidation with an autoSCT. A retrospective registry from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network sought to compare the efficacy of different treatment approaches in the frontline setting. They studied 167 patients with MCL and compared 4 groups: treatment with R-hyper-CVAD, either with or without autoSCT, and treatment with R-CHOP, either with or without autoSCT. This study found that in patients younger than 65, R-CHOP followed by autoSCT or R-hyper-CVAD without autoSCT resulted in similar PF and OS, but was superior to R-CHOP alone for newly diagnosed MCL patients.³⁵ These data support more intensive regimens in younger and fitter patients. Several other prospective and randomized studies have demonstrated clinical benefit for patients with MCL undergoing autoSCT in first remission. Of particular importance is the seminal phase 3 study of the European MCL Network, which established the role of autoSCT in this setting.⁶¹ In this prospective randomized trial involving 122 newly diagnosed MCL patients who responded to CHOP-like induction, patients in CR derived a greater benefit from autoSCT.

More recent studies have demonstrated similar benefits using cytarabine-based autoSCT. The Nordic MCL2 study evaluated 160 patients using R-CHOP, alternating with rituximab and high-dose cytarabine, followed by autoSCT. This study used “maxi-CHOP,” an augmented CHOP regimen (cyclophosphamide 1200 mg/m², doxorubicin 75 mg/m², but standard doses of vincristine [2 mg] and prednisone [100 mg days 1–5]), alternating with 4 infusions of cytarabine at 2 g/m² and standard doses of rituximab (375 mg/m²). Patients then received conditioning with BEAM and autoSCT. Patients were evaluated for the presence of minimal residual disease (MRD) and for the t(11;14) or clonal immunoglobulin heavy chain gene rearrangement with polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Patients with MRD were offered therapy with rituximab at 375 mg/m² weekly for 4 doses. This combination resulted in 10-year OS rates of 58%.³⁶ In a multicenter study involving 78 patients from the Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB), R-CHOP followed by high-dose cytarabine and BEAM-based autoSCT resulted in a 5-year OS of 64%.³⁷ A single-arm phase 2 study from the Netherlands also tested R-CHOP followed by high-dose cytarabine and BEAM-based autoSCT. Nonhematologic toxicities were 22% after high-dose cytarabine, and 55% after BEAM. The ORR was 70%, with a 64% CR rate and 66% OS at 4 years.³⁸ The French GELA group used 3 cycles of R-CHOP and 3 cycles of R-DHAP in a phase 2 study of young (under age 66) MCL patients. Following R-CHOP, the ORR was 93%, and following R-DHAP the ORR was 95%. Five-year OSA was 75%.³⁹ A large randomized phase 3 study by Hermine and colleagues of the EMCLN confirmed the benefit of this approach in 497 patients with newly diagnosed MCL. R-CHOP for 6 cycles followed by autoSCT was compared to R-CHOP for 3 cycles alternating with R-DHAP for 3 cycles and autoSCT with a cytarabine-based conditioning regimen. The addition of cytarabine significantly increased rates of CR, TTF, and OS, without increasing toxicity.⁴⁰

CASE CONTINUED

The patient is treated with R-CHOP chemotherapy for 3 cycles followed by R-DHAP. His course is complicated by mild tinnitus and acute kidney injury from cisplatin that promptly resolves. Three weeks following treatment, a restaging PET/CT scan shows resolution of all lymphadenopathy, with no hypermetabolic uptake, consistent with a complete remission. A repeat bone marrow biopsy shows no involvement with MCL. He subsequently undergoes an autoSCT, and restaging CT/PET 3 months following autoSCT shows continued remission. He is monitored every 3 to 6 months over the next several years.

He has a 4.5-year disease remission, after which he develops growing palpable lymphadenopathy on exam and progressive anemia and thrombocytopenia. A bone marrow biopsy is repeated, which shows recurrent MCL. Restaging diagnostic imaging with a CT scan reveals lymphadenopathy above and below the diaphragm. An axillary lymph node biopsy also demonstrates recurrent MCL. At this time the patient is otherwise in fairly good health, except for feeling fatigued. His ECOG performance status is 1. He begins therapy with bortezomib at a dose of 1.3 mg/m² intravenously on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 for 6 cycles. His treatment course is complicated by painful sensory peripheral neuropathy of the bilateral lower extremities. Restaging studies at the completion of therapy demonstrate that he has achieved a partial response, with a 50% reduction in the size of involved lymphadenopathy and some residual areas of hypermetabolic uptake. His peripheral cytopenias improve moderately.

TREATMENT OF RELAPSED MCL

Single-Agent and Combination Chemotherapy

Whenever possible, and since there is no standard, patients with relapsed MCL should be offered a clinical trial. Outside of a clinical study, many of the treatment regimens used at diagnosis can also be applied in the relapsed setting. In relapsed MCL, Rummel et al showed that BR for 4 cycles resulted in an ORR of 90%, with a CR of 60%. The median PFS was 24 months.⁴¹ Bortezomib, an inhibitor of the proteasome-ubiquitin pathway, leads to apoptosis and cell cycle arrest in MCL.⁴² Multiple studies have evaluated bortezomib both as a single agent and in combination for patients with relapsed MCL. In 2006, bortezomib became the first agent approved by the FDA in relapsed or refractory MCL, based on the phase 2 PINNACLE study. This prospective multicenter study involving 155 patients demonstrated an ORR of 33%, CR rate of 8%, and median treatment duration of 9 months. The median time to progression was 6 months.⁴³ Subsequently, bortezomib-containing combinations evolved. In a multicenter study of relapsed and refractory indolent NHL and MCL, Friedberg and colleagues evaluated bortezomib in combination with BR.⁴⁴ In the MCL cohort, the ORR was 71%. These promising results led to the study of this combination in the frontline setting. The ongoing ECOG 1411 study is using BR for the frontline treatment of MCL with or without bortezomib as induction. This study also includes rituximab maintenance, and randomizes patients to undergo maintenance with or without the immunomodulator lenalidomide. Bortezomib has been associated with herpes simplex and herpes zoster reactivation. Neuropathy has also been observed with bortezomib, which can be attenuated by administering it subcutaneously.

Lenalidomide is an immunomodulatory agent derived from thalidomide. It has significant activity and is a mainstay of treatment in multiple myeloma. Lenalidomide acts by enhancing cellular immunity, has antiproliferative effects, and inhibits T-cell function leading to growth inhibitory effects in the tumor microenvironment.⁴⁵ In MCL, lenalidomide has demonstrated clinical activity both as a single agent and in combination, as well as in preclinical studies establishing its pro-apoptotic effects.⁴⁶ The pivotal EMERGE study evaluated monotherapy with lenalidomide in heavily pretreated relapsed and refractory MCL. This multicenter international study of 134 patents reported an ORR of 28% with a 7.5% CR rate and median PFS of 4 months. All patients had relapsed or progressed following bortezomib. This led to the approval of lenalidomide by the FDA in 2013 for the treatment of patients with MCL whose disease relapsed or progressed following 2 prior therapies, one of which included bortezomib.⁴⁷ Lenalidomide has been associated with neutropenia, secondary cancers, and deep venous thrombosis.

In combination with other agents in the relapsed setting, lenalidomide shows broader activity. A phase 1/2 study by Wang and colleagues demonstrated an ORR of 57%; the median response duration was 19 months when lenalidomide was combined with rituximab for relapsed/refractory MCL.⁴⁸

Novel Therapies

More recently, novel treatment approaches have been tested in MCL based on an increased understanding of aberrant signaling pathways in this disease (Table 3). Constitutive activation of B-cell receptor signaling is critical for the survival and proliferation of lymphomas, and has led to the development of targeted agents inhibiting B-cell receptor–associated protein kinases. Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK) is one essential component of the B-cell receptor.⁴⁹ In particular, proteins upstream of the BTK pathway have been implicated in growth and proliferation of MCL, suggesting that inhibition of BTK may impede lymphomagenesis.⁵⁰ Ibrutinib is an oral inhibitor of BTK, and demonstrates activity in multiple lymphoma subtypes. In a phase 1 study of ibrutinib in relapsed and refractory hematologic malignancies, an ORR of 60% was observed in 50 evaluable patients, with 16% CR. Median PFS was 13 months. Among these, 7 of 9 patients with MCL responded, including 3 CRs.⁵¹ Given these promising results, a phase 2 multicenter study evaluating ibrutinib in relapsed and refractory MCL was completed.⁵² At a dose of 560 mg daily, the response rate was 68%, with CR of 21%. The most common observed treatment-related side effects included diarrhea, fatigue, and nausea. Neutropenia and thrombocytopenia were also observed. Of importance, 5% of patients had grade 3 or higher bleeding events, including subdural hematoma, gastrointestinal bleeding, and hematuria. The estimated OS rate was 58% at 18 months. On the basis of this study, the FDA approved ibrutinib for relapsed and refractory MCL in November 2013.

The PI3K pathway is another survival pathway that is dysfunctional in several hematologic disorders, including MCL. Overexpression of PI3K and its downstream targets contributes to MCL pathogenesis.⁵³ Idelalisib is an oral small molecule inhibitor of the delta isoform of PI3K that is dosed daily; it was approved by the FDA for the treatment of relapsed and refractory follicular lymphoma, small lymphocytic lymphoma, and chronic lymphocytic leukemia. It is being further evaluated in MCL. A dose-escalation phase 1 study in heavily pre-treated MCL patients established safety and tolerability.⁵⁴ Efficacy analysis showed an ORR of 40%, CR of 5%, and 1-year OS of 22%. Further phase 2 studies testing idelalisib as a single agent and in combination for MCL are ongoing. Side effects of idelalisib include elevated liver enzymes, pneumonitis, and diarrhea.

The BCL family of proteins is involved in both pro-and anti-apoptotic functions. BCL2 is an intracellular protein that blocks apoptosis. ABT-199 is an oral BCL2 inhibitor that in early clinical trials has shown very promising activity in MCL. In a phase 1 study of 31 relapsed and refractory NHL patients, all 8 MCL patients (100% ORR) responded to ABT-199 therapy.⁵⁵ Given these promising initial results, multiple studies evaluating ABT-199 are ongoing in MCL as part of first-line treatment as well as for relapsed disease. ABT-199 has been implicated in tumor lysis syndrome, and in early studies of chronic lymphocytic leukemia, fatal tumor lysis was observed.

The mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor temsirolimus has been evaluated in relapsed MCL. It is given weekly at 250 mg intravenously. Response rates to single-agent temsirolimus are approximately 20% to 35%, and are higher when combined with rituximab.^56,57 The phase 2 study evaluating temsirolimus as a single agent enrolled 35 heavily pre-treated patients. ORR was 38% with only 1 CR. The duration of response was 7 months. Temsirolimus is approved for relapsed MCL in Europe but not in the United States. Similar to the other targeted agents, temsirolimus is actively being studied in combination with other active agents in MCL. Adverse effects noted with temsirolimus include diarrhea, stomatitis, and rash. Thrombocytopenia requiring dose reductions is another frequently observed complication.

Radioimmunotherapy

Radioimmunotherapy (RIT) has been studied extensively in MCL. RIT consists of anti-CD 20 antibodies coupled to radioactive particles that deliver radiation to targeted cells, minimizing toxicity to surrounding tissues. RIT is not used as frequently in the modern era as it had been in the past. At this time, only yttrium-90-ibritumomab tiuxetan is available.

RIT has been evaluated in MCL both at the time of relapse⁵⁸ and more recently, as part of a conditioning regimen prior to autoSCT, with good tolerability.^65–67 Averse events noted with RIT include hematologic toxicity (can be prolonged), hypothyroidism, and in rare cases, myelodysplastic syndrome and acute leukemia. The bone marrow must have less than 25% involvement with disease prior to administration. Wang and colleagues evaluated yttrium-90-ibritumomab tiuxetan in 34 heavily pretreated patients with MCL.⁵⁸ They observed an ORR of 31%. The median event-free survival (EFS) was 6 months, but in patients achieving either CR or PR, EFS was 28 months. A 21-month OS was noted.

In the upfront setting, RIT has been added as a mechanism of intensification. A recent Nordic group study of RIT with autoSCT did not find benefit with the addition of RIT.⁵⁹ An ECOG study recently added yttrium-90-ibritumomab tiuxetan after CHOP chemotherapy in the upfront treatment of MCL, with good tolerability.⁵⁵ However, when added to R-hyper-CVAD, the combination had unexpected high rates of hematologic toxicity, including grade 3/4 cytopenias and an unacceptably high rate of secondary malignancies.⁶⁸

AutoSCT or Allogeneic Transplant

While many studies noted above have established the beneficial role of autoSCT in MCL in first remission, the role of allogeneic transplant (alloSCT) in MCL remains controversial. A recent large retrospective study conducted by the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) evaluated 519 patients with MCL who underwent both autoSCT and alloSCT.⁶⁰ Patients were grouped into an early cohort (transplant in first PR or CR, and 2 or fewer treatments) and late cohort (all other patients). The analysis had mature follow up. A multivariate analysis demonstrated that early autoSCT was associated with superior outcomes compared to autoSCT performed later. While it was not possible to demonstrate a survival benefit favoring autoSCT over reduced intensity (RIC) alloSCT, patients transplanted later in their disease course had shorter OS. For patients receiving autoSCT in CR 1 following only 1 prior line of therapy, OS at 5 years was 75% and PFS was 70%. Patients undergoing RIC followed by alloSCT had fewer relapses, but this was negated by higher nonrelapse mortality (25%), resulting in a PFS similar to autoSCT.

CASE CONCLUSION

After treatment with bortezomib the patient is well for 9 months. Subsequently, however, he develops increasing lymphadenopathy and progressive fatigue. He is then started on lenalidomide 25 mg orally daily for 21 out of 28 days. He experiences significant fatigue with lenalidomide and prolonged neutropenia requiring dose delays, despite dose modification to 10 mg orally daily. He requires discontinuation of lenalidomide. Given persistent disease, the patient then begins treatment with ibrutinib. Within a few days of starting ibrutinib therapy, he experiences a marked but transient leukocytosis. Two months later, the patient’s palpable lymphadenopathy has decreased, and his anemia and thrombocytopenia related to MCL are improving. He has tolerated treatment well. His course has been complicated only by a mild, pruritic maculopapular eruption on his chest, back, and arms, that was responsive to topical low-dose steroids. He remains on ibrutinib 1 year later.

CONCLUSION

Advances in our understanding of MCL treatment are revolutionizing the approach to this once deadly disease. Over the next several years, these gains will weave themselves into the current treatment paradigm and likely alter the treatment landscape for MCL as we know it.

INTRODUCTION

Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is an uncommon, distinct clinical subtype of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) that comprises approximately 8% of all lymphoma diagnoses in the United States and Europe.^1,2 Considered incurable, MCL often presents in advanced stages, particularly with involvement of the lymph nodes, spleen, bone marrow, and gastrointestinal tract in the form of lymphomatous polyps. MCL disproportionately affects males, and incidence rises with age, with a median age at diagnosis of 68 years.² Historically, the prognosis of patients with MCL has been among the poorest among B-cell lymphoma patients, with a median overall survival (OS) of 3 to 5 years, and time to treatment failure (TTF) of 18 to 24 months, although this is improving in the modern era.³ Less frequently, patients with MCL display isolated bone marrow, peripheral blood, and splenic involvement. These cases tend to behave more indolently with longer survival.^4,5 Recent advances in therapy have dramatically impacted treatment alternatives and outcomes for MCL. As such, the therapeutic and prognostic landscape of MCL is evolving rapidly.

PATHOGENESIS

The histologic diagnosis of MCL by morphology alone is often challenging. Accurate diagnosis relies on immunohistochemical staining for the purposes of immunophenotyping.⁶ MCL typically expresses B-cell markers CD5 and CD20, and lacks both CD10 and CD23. The genetic hallmark of MCL is the t(11;14) (q13;q32) chromosomal translocation leading to upregulation of the cyclin D1 protein, a critical regulator of the G1 phase of the cell cycle. Specifically, the t(11;14) translocation, present in virtually all cases of MCL, juxtaposes the proto-oncogene CCND1 to the immunoglobulin heavy chain gene.⁷ Consequently, cyclin D1, normally not expressed in B lymphocytes, becomes constitutively overexpressed. This alteration is thought to facilitate the deregulation of the cell cycle at the G1-S phase transition.⁸

Gene expression profiling studies have underscored the importance of cell cycle deregulation in MCL, and high proliferation is associated with a worse prognosis.⁹ More than 50% of the genes associated with poor outcomes were derived from the “proliferation signature” that was more highly expressed in dividing cells. In the seminal Rosenwald study, a gene expression–based outcome model was constructed in which the proliferation signature average represents a linear variable that assigns a discrete probability of survival to an individual patient.⁹ The proliferative index, or proliferative signature, of MCL can be estimated by the percentage of Ki-67–positive cells present in the tumor through immunohistochemistry. This is often used as a marker of poor outcomes, and as a surrogate for the proliferative signature in MCL that can be incorporated into clinical practice (as opposed to gene expression profiling). Statistically significant differences in OS have emerged between groups of MCL patients with Ki-67–positive cells comprising less than 30% of their tumor sample (favorable) and those with Ki-67–positive cells comprising 30% or greater (unfavorable).¹⁰

Recent data has also identified the importance of the transcription factor SOX 11 (SRY-related HMG-box), which regulates multiple cellular transcriptional events, including cell proliferation and differentiation, apoptosis, and angiogenesis.¹¹ MCL expressing SOX 11 behaves more aggressively than MCL variants lacking SOX 11 expression, and tends to accumulate more genetic alterations.¹² Moreover, lack of SOX 11 expression characterizes a subset of MCL that does not carry the t(11;14) translocation.

DIAGNOSIS AND STAGING

CASE PRESENTATION

A 62-year-old man with a history of diabetes mellitus and hypertension presents with cervical lymphadenopathy, fatigue, and early satiety over the past several months. He is otherwise in good health. His Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status is 1. On physical examination, 3-cm lymphadenopathy in the bilateral cervical chain is noted. Bilateral axillary lymph nodes measure 2 to 4 cm. His spleen is enlarged and is palpable at approximately 5 cm below the costal margin. A complete blood count reveals a total white blood cell (WBC) count of 14,000 cells/μL, with 68% lymphocytes and a normal distribution of neutrophils. Hemoglobin is 11 g/dL, and platelet count is 112,000/μL. The lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) level is 322 U/L (upper limit of normal: 225 U/L).

• How is MCL diagnosed?

Diagnosis of MCL requires review by expert hematopathologists.¹³ Whenever possible, an excisional biopsy should be performed for the adequate characterization of lymph node architecture and evaluation by immunohistochemistry. Aside from the characteristic expression of CD5 and CD20 and absence of CD23, MCL should express cyclin D1, which reflects t(11;14). If cyclin D1 is inconclusive or unavailable, fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) for t(11;14) should be performed.⁸ Patients often have circulating malignant lymphocytes, or leukemic phase MCL. Flow cytometry of the peripheral blood can detect traditional surface markers, and FISH can also be performed on circulating abnormal lymphocytes.

RISK STRATIFICATION

At diagnosis, patients should undergo risk stratification in order to understand prognosis and possibly guide treatment. In MCL, the MCL international prognostic index (MIPI) is used. The MIPI is a prognostic tool developed exclusively for patients with MCL using data from 455 patients with advanced-stage MCL treated within 3 European clinical trials.¹⁶ The MIPI classified patients into risk groups based on age, ECOG performance status, LDH level, and WBC count. Patients were categorized into low-risk (44% of patients, median OS not reached), intermediate-risk (35%, median OS 51 months), and high-risk groups (21%, median OS 29 months). This is done through a logarithmic calculation, which can be accessed through online calculators (a prototype example can be found at www.qxmd.com/calculate-online/hematology/prognosis-mantle-cell-lymphoma-mipi). Cell proliferation using the Ki-67 index was evaluated in an exploratory analysis (the biologic [“B”] MIPI), and also demonstrated strong prognostic relevance.¹⁶ Currently, treatment of MCL patients is not stratified by MIPI outside of a clinical trial, but this useful tool assists in assessing patient prognosis and has been validated for use with both conventional chemoimmunotherapy and in the setting of autologous stem cell transplant (autoSCT).^16,17 At this point in time, the MIPI score is not used to stratify treatment, although some clinical trials are incorporating the use of the MIPI score at diagnosis. Nonetheless, given its prognostic importance, the MIPI should be performed for all MCL patients undergoing staging and evaluation for treatment to establish disease risk.

As noted, the proliferative signature, represented by the Ki-67 protein, is also highly prognostic in MCL. Ki-67 is expressed in the late G1, S, G2, and M phases of the cell cycle. The Ki-67 index is defined by the hematopathologist as the percentage of lymphoma cells staining positive for Ki-67 protein, based on the number of cells per high-power field. There is significant interobserver variability in this process, which can be minimized by assessing Ki-67 quantitatively using computer software. The prognostic significance of Ki-67 at diagnosis was established in large studies of MCL patient cohorts, with survival differing by up to 3 years.^18,19 Determann et al demonstrated the utility of the proliferative index in patients with MCL treated with standard chemoimmunotherapy.¹⁰ In this study, 249 patients with advanced-stage MCL treated within randomized trials conducted by the European MCL Network were analyzed. The Ki-67 index was found to be extremely prognostic of OS, independent of other clinical risk factors, including the MIPI score. As a continuous variable, Ki-67 indices of greater than 10% correlated with poor outcomes. The Ki-67 index has also been confirmed as prognostic in relapsed MCL.²⁰ It is important to note that, as a unique feature, the Ki-67 index has remained an independent prognostic factor, even when incorporated into the “B” MIPI.

TREATMENT

CASE CONTINUED

The patient undergoes an excisional biopsy of a cervical lymph node, which demonstrates an abnormal proliferation of small-medium–sized lymphocytes with slightly irregular nuclear contours. Immunohistochemistry shows that the abnormal lymphocytes are positive for CD20 and CD5, negative for CD10 and CD23, and diffusely positive for cyclin D1, consistent with a diagnosis of MCL. The proliferative index, as measured by the Ki-67 immunostain, is 40%. A bone marrow aspirate and biopsy are then obtained, which show a clonal population of B lymphocytes expressing the same immunophenotype as the lymph node (positive for CD20 and CD5, negative for CD10 and CD23, cyclin D1 positive). A CT scan of the neck, chest, abdomen, and pelvis with contrast is obtained, along with a PET scan. These studies identify extensive hypermetabolic lymphadenopathy in the bilateral cervical chains, supraclavicular areas, mediastinum, and hilum. Mesenteric lymph nodes are also enlarged and hypermetabolic, as are retroperitoneal lymph nodes. The spleen is noted to be enlarged with multiple hypermetabolic lesions. Based on the presence of extensive lymphadenopathy as well as bone marrow involvement, the patient is diagnosed with stage IV MCL. He undergoes risk-stratification with the MIPI. His MIPI score is 6.3, high risk.

FRONTLINE THERAPY

Role of Watchful Waiting

A small proportion of MCL patients have indolent disease that can be observed. This population is more likely to have leukemic-phase MCL with circulating lymphocytes, splenomegaly, and bone marrow involvement and absent or minimal lymphadenopathy.^4,5 A retrospective study of 97 patients established that deferment of initial therapy in MCL is acceptable in some patients.⁵ In this study, approximately one third of patients with MCL were observed for more than 3 months before initiating systemic therapy, and the median time to treatment for the observation group was 12 months. Most patients undergoing observation had a low-risk MIPI. Patients were not harmed by observation, as no OS differences were observed among groups. This study underscores that deferred treatment can be an acceptable alternative in selected MCL patients for a short period of time. In practice, the type of patient who would be appropriate for this approach is someone who is frail, elderly, and with multiple comorbidities. Additionally, expectant observation could be considered for patients with limited-stage or low-volume MCL, low Ki-67 index, and low-risk MIPI scores.

Approach to Therapy

Treatment of MCL is generally approached by evaluating patient age and fitness for treatment. While there is no accepted standard, for younger patients healthy enough to tolerate aggressive approaches, treatment often involves an intensive cytarabine-containing regimen, which is consolidated with an autoSCT. This approach results in the longest remission duration, with some series suggesting a plateau in survival after 5 years, with no relapses.²¹ Nonintensive conventional chemotherapy alone is often reserved for the frailer or older patient. Given that remission durations with chemotherapy alone in MCL are short, goals of treatment focus on maximizing benefit and remission duration and minimizing risk of toxicity.

Standard Chemotherapy: Elderly and/or Frail Patients

Conventional chemotherapy alone for the treatment of MCL results in a 70% to 85% overall response rate (ORR) and 7% to 30% complete response (CR) rate.²² Rituximab, a mouse humanized monoclonal IgG1 anti-CD20 antibody, is used as standard of care in combination with chemotherapy, since its addition has been found to increase response rates and extend both progression-free survival (PFS) and OS compared to chemotherapy alone.^23,24 However, chemoimmunotherapy approaches do not provide long-term control of MCL and are considered noncurative. Various regimens have been studied and include anthracycline-containing regimens such as R-CHOP (rituximab with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone),²² combination chemotherapy with antimetabolites such as R-hyper-CVAD (hyper-fractionated rituximab with cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, dexamethasone, alternating with methotrexate and cytarabine),²⁵ purine analogue–based regimens such as R-FC (rituximab with fludarabine and cyclophosphamide),²⁶ bortezomib-containing regimens,²⁷ and alkylator-based treatment with BR (bendamustine and rituximab) (Table 1).^28,29 Among these, the most commonly used are R-CHOP and BR.

Two large randomized studies compared R-CHOP for 6 cycles to BR for 6 cycles in patients with indolent NHL and MCL. Among MCL patients, BR resulted in superior PFS compared to R-CHOP (69 months versus 26 months) but no benefit in OS.^28,29 The ORR to R-CHOP was approximately 90%, with a PFS of 21 months in the Rummel et al study.²⁹ This study included more than 80 centers in Germany and enrolled 549 patients with MCL, follicular lymphoma, small lymphocytic lymphoma, marginal zone lymphoma, and Waldenström macroglobulinemia. Patients were randomized in a 1:1 fashion. Among these, 46 patients received BR and 48 received R-CHOP (18% for both, respectively). It should be noted that patients in the BR group had significantly less toxicity and experienced fewer side effects than did those in the R-CHOP group. Similarly, BR-treated patients had a lower frequency of hematologic side effects and infections of any grade. However, drug-associated skin reactions and allergies were more common with BR compared to R-CHOP. The study by Flinn and colleagues was an international randomized, noninferiority phase 3 study designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of BR compared with R-CHOP or R-CVP (rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone) for treatment-naive patients with MCL or other indolent NHL. The primary endpoint was CR. In this study, BR was found to be noninferior to R-CHOP and R-CVP based on CR rate (31% versus 25%, respectively; P = 0.0225). Response rates in general were high: 97% for BR and 91% for R-CHOP/R-CVP (P = 0.0102). Here, BR-treated patients experienced more nausea, emesis, and drug-induced hypersensitivity compared to the R-CHOP and R-CVP groups.

Bendamustine in combination with other agents has also been studied in the frontline setting. Visco and colleagues evaluated the combination of bendamustine with rituximab and cytarabine (R-BAC) in older patients with MCL (age 65 or older).⁶³ This phase 2, two-stage study enrolled 40 patients and had a dose-finding arm for cytarabine in combination with BR. It permitted relapsed/refractory patients, but 50% had newly diagnosed, previously untreated MCL. The regimen had an impressive ORR of 100%, with CR rates of 95% for previously untreated patients. PFS at 2 years was 95%. R-BAC was well tolerated, with the primary toxicity being reversible myelosuppression.

BR was combined with the proteasome inhibitor bortezomib and dexamethasone in a phase 2 study.⁶⁴ This Lymphoma Study Association (LYSA) study evaluated 76 patients with newly diagnosed MCL older than age 65 years. BR was administered in standard doses (bendamustine 90 mg/m² on days 1 and 2 and rituximab 375 mg/m² IV on day 1) and bortezomib was administered subcutaneously on days 1, 4, 8, and 11, with acyclovir for viral prophylaxis. Patients received 6 cycles. The ORR was 87% and the CR was 60%. Patients experienced toxicity, and not all bortezomib doses were administered due to neurotoxic or hematologic side effects.

A randomized phase 3 study compared R-CHOP to the VR-CAP regimen (R-CHOP regimen but bortezomib replaces vincristine on days 1, 4, 8, 11, at 1.3 mg/m²) in 487 newly diagnosed MCL patients.²⁷ Median PFS was superior in the VR-CAP group compared with R-CHOP (14.4 months versus 24.7 months, respectively). Additionally, rates of CR were superior in the VR-CAP group (53% compared to 42% with R-CHOP). However, there was more hematologic toxicity with VR-CAP. On the basis of these findings, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved bortezomib for the frontline treatment of MCL.

Other chemoimmunotherapy combinations containing bortezomib have been studied in frontline MCL treatment, with promising results. These include bortezomib in combination with R-CHOP or modified R-hyper-CVAD, as well as bortezomib in combination with CHOP-like treatments and purine analogues.^27,30–32 The ongoing ECOG 1411 study is currently evaluating bortezomib added to BR for induction therapy of newly diagnosed MCL in a 4-arm randomized trial. Patients receive BR with or without bortezomib during induction and are then randomly assigned to maintenance with either rituximab alone or rituximab with lenalidomide. Other novel combination agents are actively being studied in frontline MCL treatment, including lenalidomide and rituximab and BR with lenalidomide.

Intensification of Therapy and AutoSCT: Fitter and/or Younger Patients

Short response duration has created the need for post-remission therapy in MCL. One approach to improve remission duration in MCL is to intensify induction through the use of cytarabine-containing regimens and/or consolidation with high-dose chemotherapy, typically using BEAM (carmustine, etoposide, cytarabine, melphalan) and autoSCT (Table 2). The cytarabine-containing R-hyper-CVAD regimen, developed at the MD Anderson Cancer Center, resulted in a 97% ORR and an 87% CR rate, with TTF of nearly 5 years. However, nearly one third of patients were unable to complete treatment due to toxicity, and 5 patients developed secondary myelodysplastic syndrome or acute myeloid leukemia.³³ The feasibility of this R-hyper-CVAD regimen was tested in a multicenter cooperative group setting, but similar results were not seen; in this study, nearly 40% of patients were unable to complete the full scheduled course of treatment due to toxicity.³⁴

​Other ways to intensify therapy in MCL involve adding a second non-cross-resistant cytarabine-containing regimen to R-CHOP after remission, such as DHAP (dexamethasone, high-dose cytarabine, cisplatin), followed by consolidation with an autoSCT. A retrospective registry from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network sought to compare the efficacy of different treatment approaches in the frontline setting. They studied 167 patients with MCL and compared 4 groups: treatment with R-hyper-CVAD, either with or without autoSCT, and treatment with R-CHOP, either with or without autoSCT. This study found that in patients younger than 65, R-CHOP followed by autoSCT or R-hyper-CVAD without autoSCT resulted in similar PF and OS, but was superior to R-CHOP alone for newly diagnosed MCL patients.³⁵ These data support more intensive regimens in younger and fitter patients. Several other prospective and randomized studies have demonstrated clinical benefit for patients with MCL undergoing autoSCT in first remission. Of particular importance is the seminal phase 3 study of the European MCL Network, which established the role of autoSCT in this setting.⁶¹ In this prospective randomized trial involving 122 newly diagnosed MCL patients who responded to CHOP-like induction, patients in CR derived a greater benefit from autoSCT.

More recent studies have demonstrated similar benefits using cytarabine-based autoSCT. The Nordic MCL2 study evaluated 160 patients using R-CHOP, alternating with rituximab and high-dose cytarabine, followed by autoSCT. This study used “maxi-CHOP,” an augmented CHOP regimen (cyclophosphamide 1200 mg/m², doxorubicin 75 mg/m², but standard doses of vincristine [2 mg] and prednisone [100 mg days 1–5]), alternating with 4 infusions of cytarabine at 2 g/m² and standard doses of rituximab (375 mg/m²). Patients then received conditioning with BEAM and autoSCT. Patients were evaluated for the presence of minimal residual disease (MRD) and for the t(11;14) or clonal immunoglobulin heavy chain gene rearrangement with polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Patients with MRD were offered therapy with rituximab at 375 mg/m² weekly for 4 doses. This combination resulted in 10-year OS rates of 58%.³⁶ In a multicenter study involving 78 patients from the Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB), R-CHOP followed by high-dose cytarabine and BEAM-based autoSCT resulted in a 5-year OS of 64%.³⁷ A single-arm phase 2 study from the Netherlands also tested R-CHOP followed by high-dose cytarabine and BEAM-based autoSCT. Nonhematologic toxicities were 22% after high-dose cytarabine, and 55% after BEAM. The ORR was 70%, with a 64% CR rate and 66% OS at 4 years.³⁸ The French GELA group used 3 cycles of R-CHOP and 3 cycles of R-DHAP in a phase 2 study of young (under age 66) MCL patients. Following R-CHOP, the ORR was 93%, and following R-DHAP the ORR was 95%. Five-year OSA was 75%.³⁹ A large randomized phase 3 study by Hermine and colleagues of the EMCLN confirmed the benefit of this approach in 497 patients with newly diagnosed MCL. R-CHOP for 6 cycles followed by autoSCT was compared to R-CHOP for 3 cycles alternating with R-DHAP for 3 cycles and autoSCT with a cytarabine-based conditioning regimen. The addition of cytarabine significantly increased rates of CR, TTF, and OS, without increasing toxicity.⁴⁰

CASE CONTINUED

The patient is treated with R-CHOP chemotherapy for 3 cycles followed by R-DHAP. His course is complicated by mild tinnitus and acute kidney injury from cisplatin that promptly resolves. Three weeks following treatment, a restaging PET/CT scan shows resolution of all lymphadenopathy, with no hypermetabolic uptake, consistent with a complete remission. A repeat bone marrow biopsy shows no involvement with MCL. He subsequently undergoes an autoSCT, and restaging CT/PET 3 months following autoSCT shows continued remission. He is monitored every 3 to 6 months over the next several years.

He has a 4.5-year disease remission, after which he develops growing palpable lymphadenopathy on exam and progressive anemia and thrombocytopenia. A bone marrow biopsy is repeated, which shows recurrent MCL. Restaging diagnostic imaging with a CT scan reveals lymphadenopathy above and below the diaphragm. An axillary lymph node biopsy also demonstrates recurrent MCL. At this time the patient is otherwise in fairly good health, except for feeling fatigued. His ECOG performance status is 1. He begins therapy with bortezomib at a dose of 1.3 mg/m² intravenously on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 for 6 cycles. His treatment course is complicated by painful sensory peripheral neuropathy of the bilateral lower extremities. Restaging studies at the completion of therapy demonstrate that he has achieved a partial response, with a 50% reduction in the size of involved lymphadenopathy and some residual areas of hypermetabolic uptake. His peripheral cytopenias improve moderately.

TREATMENT OF RELAPSED MCL

Single-Agent and Combination Chemotherapy

Whenever possible, and since there is no standard, patients with relapsed MCL should be offered a clinical trial. Outside of a clinical study, many of the treatment regimens used at diagnosis can also be applied in the relapsed setting. In relapsed MCL, Rummel et al showed that BR for 4 cycles resulted in an ORR of 90%, with a CR of 60%. The median PFS was 24 months.⁴¹ Bortezomib, an inhibitor of the proteasome-ubiquitin pathway, leads to apoptosis and cell cycle arrest in MCL.⁴² Multiple studies have evaluated bortezomib both as a single agent and in combination for patients with relapsed MCL. In 2006, bortezomib became the first agent approved by the FDA in relapsed or refractory MCL, based on the phase 2 PINNACLE study. This prospective multicenter study involving 155 patients demonstrated an ORR of 33%, CR rate of 8%, and median treatment duration of 9 months. The median time to progression was 6 months.⁴³ Subsequently, bortezomib-containing combinations evolved. In a multicenter study of relapsed and refractory indolent NHL and MCL, Friedberg and colleagues evaluated bortezomib in combination with BR.⁴⁴ In the MCL cohort, the ORR was 71%. These promising results led to the study of this combination in the frontline setting. The ongoing ECOG 1411 study is using BR for the frontline treatment of MCL with or without bortezomib as induction. This study also includes rituximab maintenance, and randomizes patients to undergo maintenance with or without the immunomodulator lenalidomide. Bortezomib has been associated with herpes simplex and herpes zoster reactivation. Neuropathy has also been observed with bortezomib, which can be attenuated by administering it subcutaneously.

Lenalidomide is an immunomodulatory agent derived from thalidomide. It has significant activity and is a mainstay of treatment in multiple myeloma. Lenalidomide acts by enhancing cellular immunity, has antiproliferative effects, and inhibits T-cell function leading to growth inhibitory effects in the tumor microenvironment.⁴⁵ In MCL, lenalidomide has demonstrated clinical activity both as a single agent and in combination, as well as in preclinical studies establishing its pro-apoptotic effects.⁴⁶ The pivotal EMERGE study evaluated monotherapy with lenalidomide in heavily pretreated relapsed and refractory MCL. This multicenter international study of 134 patents reported an ORR of 28% with a 7.5% CR rate and median PFS of 4 months. All patients had relapsed or progressed following bortezomib. This led to the approval of lenalidomide by the FDA in 2013 for the treatment of patients with MCL whose disease relapsed or progressed following 2 prior therapies, one of which included bortezomib.⁴⁷ Lenalidomide has been associated with neutropenia, secondary cancers, and deep venous thrombosis.

In combination with other agents in the relapsed setting, lenalidomide shows broader activity. A phase 1/2 study by Wang and colleagues demonstrated an ORR of 57%; the median response duration was 19 months when lenalidomide was combined with rituximab for relapsed/refractory MCL.⁴⁸

Novel Therapies

More recently, novel treatment approaches have been tested in MCL based on an increased understanding of aberrant signaling pathways in this disease (Table 3). Constitutive activation of B-cell receptor signaling is critical for the survival and proliferation of lymphomas, and has led to the development of targeted agents inhibiting B-cell receptor–associated protein kinases. Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK) is one essential component of the B-cell receptor.⁴⁹ In particular, proteins upstream of the BTK pathway have been implicated in growth and proliferation of MCL, suggesting that inhibition of BTK may impede lymphomagenesis.⁵⁰ Ibrutinib is an oral inhibitor of BTK, and demonstrates activity in multiple lymphoma subtypes. In a phase 1 study of ibrutinib in relapsed and refractory hematologic malignancies, an ORR of 60% was observed in 50 evaluable patients, with 16% CR. Median PFS was 13 months. Among these, 7 of 9 patients with MCL responded, including 3 CRs.⁵¹ Given these promising results, a phase 2 multicenter study evaluating ibrutinib in relapsed and refractory MCL was completed.⁵² At a dose of 560 mg daily, the response rate was 68%, with CR of 21%. The most common observed treatment-related side effects included diarrhea, fatigue, and nausea. Neutropenia and thrombocytopenia were also observed. Of importance, 5% of patients had grade 3 or higher bleeding events, including subdural hematoma, gastrointestinal bleeding, and hematuria. The estimated OS rate was 58% at 18 months. On the basis of this study, the FDA approved ibrutinib for relapsed and refractory MCL in November 2013.

The PI3K pathway is another survival pathway that is dysfunctional in several hematologic disorders, including MCL. Overexpression of PI3K and its downstream targets contributes to MCL pathogenesis.⁵³ Idelalisib is an oral small molecule inhibitor of the delta isoform of PI3K that is dosed daily; it was approved by the FDA for the treatment of relapsed and refractory follicular lymphoma, small lymphocytic lymphoma, and chronic lymphocytic leukemia. It is being further evaluated in MCL. A dose-escalation phase 1 study in heavily pre-treated MCL patients established safety and tolerability.⁵⁴ Efficacy analysis showed an ORR of 40%, CR of 5%, and 1-year OS of 22%. Further phase 2 studies testing idelalisib as a single agent and in combination for MCL are ongoing. Side effects of idelalisib include elevated liver enzymes, pneumonitis, and diarrhea.

The BCL family of proteins is involved in both pro-and anti-apoptotic functions. BCL2 is an intracellular protein that blocks apoptosis. ABT-199 is an oral BCL2 inhibitor that in early clinical trials has shown very promising activity in MCL. In a phase 1 study of 31 relapsed and refractory NHL patients, all 8 MCL patients (100% ORR) responded to ABT-199 therapy.⁵⁵ Given these promising initial results, multiple studies evaluating ABT-199 are ongoing in MCL as part of first-line treatment as well as for relapsed disease. ABT-199 has been implicated in tumor lysis syndrome, and in early studies of chronic lymphocytic leukemia, fatal tumor lysis was observed.

The mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor temsirolimus has been evaluated in relapsed MCL. It is given weekly at 250 mg intravenously. Response rates to single-agent temsirolimus are approximately 20% to 35%, and are higher when combined with rituximab.^56,57 The phase 2 study evaluating temsirolimus as a single agent enrolled 35 heavily pre-treated patients. ORR was 38% with only 1 CR. The duration of response was 7 months. Temsirolimus is approved for relapsed MCL in Europe but not in the United States. Similar to the other targeted agents, temsirolimus is actively being studied in combination with other active agents in MCL. Adverse effects noted with temsirolimus include diarrhea, stomatitis, and rash. Thrombocytopenia requiring dose reductions is another frequently observed complication.

Radioimmunotherapy

Radioimmunotherapy (RIT) has been studied extensively in MCL. RIT consists of anti-CD 20 antibodies coupled to radioactive particles that deliver radiation to targeted cells, minimizing toxicity to surrounding tissues. RIT is not used as frequently in the modern era as it had been in the past. At this time, only yttrium-90-ibritumomab tiuxetan is available.

RIT has been evaluated in MCL both at the time of relapse⁵⁸ and more recently, as part of a conditioning regimen prior to autoSCT, with good tolerability.^65–67 Averse events noted with RIT include hematologic toxicity (can be prolonged), hypothyroidism, and in rare cases, myelodysplastic syndrome and acute leukemia. The bone marrow must have less than 25% involvement with disease prior to administration. Wang and colleagues evaluated yttrium-90-ibritumomab tiuxetan in 34 heavily pretreated patients with MCL.⁵⁸ They observed an ORR of 31%. The median event-free survival (EFS) was 6 months, but in patients achieving either CR or PR, EFS was 28 months. A 21-month OS was noted.

In the upfront setting, RIT has been added as a mechanism of intensification. A recent Nordic group study of RIT with autoSCT did not find benefit with the addition of RIT.⁵⁹ An ECOG study recently added yttrium-90-ibritumomab tiuxetan after CHOP chemotherapy in the upfront treatment of MCL, with good tolerability.⁵⁵ However, when added to R-hyper-CVAD, the combination had unexpected high rates of hematologic toxicity, including grade 3/4 cytopenias and an unacceptably high rate of secondary malignancies.⁶⁸

AutoSCT or Allogeneic Transplant

While many studies noted above have established the beneficial role of autoSCT in MCL in first remission, the role of allogeneic transplant (alloSCT) in MCL remains controversial. A recent large retrospective study conducted by the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) evaluated 519 patients with MCL who underwent both autoSCT and alloSCT.⁶⁰ Patients were grouped into an early cohort (transplant in first PR or CR, and 2 or fewer treatments) and late cohort (all other patients). The analysis had mature follow up. A multivariate analysis demonstrated that early autoSCT was associated with superior outcomes compared to autoSCT performed later. While it was not possible to demonstrate a survival benefit favoring autoSCT over reduced intensity (RIC) alloSCT, patients transplanted later in their disease course had shorter OS. For patients receiving autoSCT in CR 1 following only 1 prior line of therapy, OS at 5 years was 75% and PFS was 70%. Patients undergoing RIC followed by alloSCT had fewer relapses, but this was negated by higher nonrelapse mortality (25%), resulting in a PFS similar to autoSCT.

CASE CONCLUSION

After treatment with bortezomib the patient is well for 9 months. Subsequently, however, he develops increasing lymphadenopathy and progressive fatigue. He is then started on lenalidomide 25 mg orally daily for 21 out of 28 days. He experiences significant fatigue with lenalidomide and prolonged neutropenia requiring dose delays, despite dose modification to 10 mg orally daily. He requires discontinuation of lenalidomide. Given persistent disease, the patient then begins treatment with ibrutinib. Within a few days of starting ibrutinib therapy, he experiences a marked but transient leukocytosis. Two months later, the patient’s palpable lymphadenopathy has decreased, and his anemia and thrombocytopenia related to MCL are improving. He has tolerated treatment well. His course has been complicated only by a mild, pruritic maculopapular eruption on his chest, back, and arms, that was responsive to topical low-dose steroids. He remains on ibrutinib 1 year later.

CONCLUSION

Advances in our understanding of MCL treatment are revolutionizing the approach to this once deadly disease. Over the next several years, these gains will weave themselves into the current treatment paradigm and likely alter the treatment landscape for MCL as we know it.

INTRODUCTION

Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is an uncommon, distinct clinical subtype of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) that comprises approximately 8% of all lymphoma diagnoses in the United States and Europe.^1,2 Considered incurable, MCL often presents in advanced stages, particularly with involvement of the lymph nodes, spleen, bone marrow, and gastrointestinal tract in the form of lymphomatous polyps. MCL disproportionately affects males, and incidence rises with age, with a median age at diagnosis of 68 years.² Historically, the prognosis of patients with MCL has been among the poorest among B-cell lymphoma patients, with a median overall survival (OS) of 3 to 5 years, and time to treatment failure (TTF) of 18 to 24 months, although this is improving in the modern era.³ Less frequently, patients with MCL display isolated bone marrow, peripheral blood, and splenic involvement. These cases tend to behave more indolently with longer survival.^4,5 Recent advances in therapy have dramatically impacted treatment alternatives and outcomes for MCL. As such, the therapeutic and prognostic landscape of MCL is evolving rapidly.

PATHOGENESIS

The histologic diagnosis of MCL by morphology alone is often challenging. Accurate diagnosis relies on immunohistochemical staining for the purposes of immunophenotyping.⁶ MCL typically expresses B-cell markers CD5 and CD20, and lacks both CD10 and CD23. The genetic hallmark of MCL is the t(11;14) (q13;q32) chromosomal translocation leading to upregulation of the cyclin D1 protein, a critical regulator of the G1 phase of the cell cycle. Specifically, the t(11;14) translocation, present in virtually all cases of MCL, juxtaposes the proto-oncogene CCND1 to the immunoglobulin heavy chain gene.⁷ Consequently, cyclin D1, normally not expressed in B lymphocytes, becomes constitutively overexpressed. This alteration is thought to facilitate the deregulation of the cell cycle at the G1-S phase transition.⁸

Gene expression profiling studies have underscored the importance of cell cycle deregulation in MCL, and high proliferation is associated with a worse prognosis.⁹ More than 50% of the genes associated with poor outcomes were derived from the “proliferation signature” that was more highly expressed in dividing cells. In the seminal Rosenwald study, a gene expression–based outcome model was constructed in which the proliferation signature average represents a linear variable that assigns a discrete probability of survival to an individual patient.⁹ The proliferative index, or proliferative signature, of MCL can be estimated by the percentage of Ki-67–positive cells present in the tumor through immunohistochemistry. This is often used as a marker of poor outcomes, and as a surrogate for the proliferative signature in MCL that can be incorporated into clinical practice (as opposed to gene expression profiling). Statistically significant differences in OS have emerged between groups of MCL patients with Ki-67–positive cells comprising less than 30% of their tumor sample (favorable) and those with Ki-67–positive cells comprising 30% or greater (unfavorable).¹⁰

Recent data has also identified the importance of the transcription factor SOX 11 (SRY-related HMG-box), which regulates multiple cellular transcriptional events, including cell proliferation and differentiation, apoptosis, and angiogenesis.¹¹ MCL expressing SOX 11 behaves more aggressively than MCL variants lacking SOX 11 expression, and tends to accumulate more genetic alterations.¹² Moreover, lack of SOX 11 expression characterizes a subset of MCL that does not carry the t(11;14) translocation.

DIAGNOSIS AND STAGING

CASE PRESENTATION

A 62-year-old man with a history of diabetes mellitus and hypertension presents with cervical lymphadenopathy, fatigue, and early satiety over the past several months. He is otherwise in good health. His Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status is 1. On physical examination, 3-cm lymphadenopathy in the bilateral cervical chain is noted. Bilateral axillary lymph nodes measure 2 to 4 cm. His spleen is enlarged and is palpable at approximately 5 cm below the costal margin. A complete blood count reveals a total white blood cell (WBC) count of 14,000 cells/μL, with 68% lymphocytes and a normal distribution of neutrophils. Hemoglobin is 11 g/dL, and platelet count is 112,000/μL. The lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) level is 322 U/L (upper limit of normal: 225 U/L).

• How is MCL diagnosed?

Diagnosis of MCL requires review by expert hematopathologists.¹³ Whenever possible, an excisional biopsy should be performed for the adequate characterization of lymph node architecture and evaluation by immunohistochemistry. Aside from the characteristic expression of CD5 and CD20 and absence of CD23, MCL should express cyclin D1, which reflects t(11;14). If cyclin D1 is inconclusive or unavailable, fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) for t(11;14) should be performed.⁸ Patients often have circulating malignant lymphocytes, or leukemic phase MCL. Flow cytometry of the peripheral blood can detect traditional surface markers, and FISH can also be performed on circulating abnormal lymphocytes.

RISK STRATIFICATION

At diagnosis, patients should undergo risk stratification in order to understand prognosis and possibly guide treatment. In MCL, the MCL international prognostic index (MIPI) is used. The MIPI is a prognostic tool developed exclusively for patients with MCL using data from 455 patients with advanced-stage MCL treated within 3 European clinical trials.¹⁶ The MIPI classified patients into risk groups based on age, ECOG performance status, LDH level, and WBC count. Patients were categorized into low-risk (44% of patients, median OS not reached), intermediate-risk (35%, median OS 51 months), and high-risk groups (21%, median OS 29 months). This is done through a logarithmic calculation, which can be accessed through online calculators (a prototype example can be found at www.qxmd.com/calculate-online/hematology/prognosis-mantle-cell-lymphoma-mipi). Cell proliferation using the Ki-67 index was evaluated in an exploratory analysis (the biologic [“B”] MIPI), and also demonstrated strong prognostic relevance.¹⁶ Currently, treatment of MCL patients is not stratified by MIPI outside of a clinical trial, but this useful tool assists in assessing patient prognosis and has been validated for use with both conventional chemoimmunotherapy and in the setting of autologous stem cell transplant (autoSCT).^16,17 At this point in time, the MIPI score is not used to stratify treatment, although some clinical trials are incorporating the use of the MIPI score at diagnosis. Nonetheless, given its prognostic importance, the MIPI should be performed for all MCL patients undergoing staging and evaluation for treatment to establish disease risk.

As noted, the proliferative signature, represented by the Ki-67 protein, is also highly prognostic in MCL. Ki-67 is expressed in the late G1, S, G2, and M phases of the cell cycle. The Ki-67 index is defined by the hematopathologist as the percentage of lymphoma cells staining positive for Ki-67 protein, based on the number of cells per high-power field. There is significant interobserver variability in this process, which can be minimized by assessing Ki-67 quantitatively using computer software. The prognostic significance of Ki-67 at diagnosis was established in large studies of MCL patient cohorts, with survival differing by up to 3 years.^18,19 Determann et al demonstrated the utility of the proliferative index in patients with MCL treated with standard chemoimmunotherapy.¹⁰ In this study, 249 patients with advanced-stage MCL treated within randomized trials conducted by the European MCL Network were analyzed. The Ki-67 index was found to be extremely prognostic of OS, independent of other clinical risk factors, including the MIPI score. As a continuous variable, Ki-67 indices of greater than 10% correlated with poor outcomes. The Ki-67 index has also been confirmed as prognostic in relapsed MCL.²⁰ It is important to note that, as a unique feature, the Ki-67 index has remained an independent prognostic factor, even when incorporated into the “B” MIPI.

TREATMENT

CASE CONTINUED

The patient undergoes an excisional biopsy of a cervical lymph node, which demonstrates an abnormal proliferation of small-medium–sized lymphocytes with slightly irregular nuclear contours. Immunohistochemistry shows that the abnormal lymphocytes are positive for CD20 and CD5, negative for CD10 and CD23, and diffusely positive for cyclin D1, consistent with a diagnosis of MCL. The proliferative index, as measured by the Ki-67 immunostain, is 40%. A bone marrow aspirate and biopsy are then obtained, which show a clonal population of B lymphocytes expressing the same immunophenotype as the lymph node (positive for CD20 and CD5, negative for CD10 and CD23, cyclin D1 positive). A CT scan of the neck, chest, abdomen, and pelvis with contrast is obtained, along with a PET scan. These studies identify extensive hypermetabolic lymphadenopathy in the bilateral cervical chains, supraclavicular areas, mediastinum, and hilum. Mesenteric lymph nodes are also enlarged and hypermetabolic, as are retroperitoneal lymph nodes. The spleen is noted to be enlarged with multiple hypermetabolic lesions. Based on the presence of extensive lymphadenopathy as well as bone marrow involvement, the patient is diagnosed with stage IV MCL. He undergoes risk-stratification with the MIPI. His MIPI score is 6.3, high risk.

FRONTLINE THERAPY

Role of Watchful Waiting

A small proportion of MCL patients have indolent disease that can be observed. This population is more likely to have leukemic-phase MCL with circulating lymphocytes, splenomegaly, and bone marrow involvement and absent or minimal lymphadenopathy.^4,5 A retrospective study of 97 patients established that deferment of initial therapy in MCL is acceptable in some patients.⁵ In this study, approximately one third of patients with MCL were observed for more than 3 months before initiating systemic therapy, and the median time to treatment for the observation group was 12 months. Most patients undergoing observation had a low-risk MIPI. Patients were not harmed by observation, as no OS differences were observed among groups. This study underscores that deferred treatment can be an acceptable alternative in selected MCL patients for a short period of time. In practice, the type of patient who would be appropriate for this approach is someone who is frail, elderly, and with multiple comorbidities. Additionally, expectant observation could be considered for patients with limited-stage or low-volume MCL, low Ki-67 index, and low-risk MIPI scores.

Approach to Therapy

Treatment of MCL is generally approached by evaluating patient age and fitness for treatment. While there is no accepted standard, for younger patients healthy enough to tolerate aggressive approaches, treatment often involves an intensive cytarabine-containing regimen, which is consolidated with an autoSCT. This approach results in the longest remission duration, with some series suggesting a plateau in survival after 5 years, with no relapses.²¹ Nonintensive conventional chemotherapy alone is often reserved for the frailer or older patient. Given that remission durations with chemotherapy alone in MCL are short, goals of treatment focus on maximizing benefit and remission duration and minimizing risk of toxicity.

Standard Chemotherapy: Elderly and/or Frail Patients

Conventional chemotherapy alone for the treatment of MCL results in a 70% to 85% overall response rate (ORR) and 7% to 30% complete response (CR) rate.²² Rituximab, a mouse humanized monoclonal IgG1 anti-CD20 antibody, is used as standard of care in combination with chemotherapy, since its addition has been found to increase response rates and extend both progression-free survival (PFS) and OS compared to chemotherapy alone.^23,24 However, chemoimmunotherapy approaches do not provide long-term control of MCL and are considered noncurative. Various regimens have been studied and include anthracycline-containing regimens such as R-CHOP (rituximab with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone),²² combination chemotherapy with antimetabolites such as R-hyper-CVAD (hyper-fractionated rituximab with cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, dexamethasone, alternating with methotrexate and cytarabine),²⁵ purine analogue–based regimens such as R-FC (rituximab with fludarabine and cyclophosphamide),²⁶ bortezomib-containing regimens,²⁷ and alkylator-based treatment with BR (bendamustine and rituximab) (Table 1).^28,29 Among these, the most commonly used are R-CHOP and BR.

Two large randomized studies compared R-CHOP for 6 cycles to BR for 6 cycles in patients with indolent NHL and MCL. Among MCL patients, BR resulted in superior PFS compared to R-CHOP (69 months versus 26 months) but no benefit in OS.^28,29 The ORR to R-CHOP was approximately 90%, with a PFS of 21 months in the Rummel et al study.²⁹ This study included more than 80 centers in Germany and enrolled 549 patients with MCL, follicular lymphoma, small lymphocytic lymphoma, marginal zone lymphoma, and Waldenström macroglobulinemia. Patients were randomized in a 1:1 fashion. Among these, 46 patients received BR and 48 received R-CHOP (18% for both, respectively). It should be noted that patients in the BR group had significantly less toxicity and experienced fewer side effects than did those in the R-CHOP group. Similarly, BR-treated patients had a lower frequency of hematologic side effects and infections of any grade. However, drug-associated skin reactions and allergies were more common with BR compared to R-CHOP. The study by Flinn and colleagues was an international randomized, noninferiority phase 3 study designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of BR compared with R-CHOP or R-CVP (rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone) for treatment-naive patients with MCL or other indolent NHL. The primary endpoint was CR. In this study, BR was found to be noninferior to R-CHOP and R-CVP based on CR rate (31% versus 25%, respectively; P = 0.0225). Response rates in general were high: 97% for BR and 91% for R-CHOP/R-CVP (P = 0.0102). Here, BR-treated patients experienced more nausea, emesis, and drug-induced hypersensitivity compared to the R-CHOP and R-CVP groups.

Bendamustine in combination with other agents has also been studied in the frontline setting. Visco and colleagues evaluated the combination of bendamustine with rituximab and cytarabine (R-BAC) in older patients with MCL (age 65 or older).⁶³ This phase 2, two-stage study enrolled 40 patients and had a dose-finding arm for cytarabine in combination with BR. It permitted relapsed/refractory patients, but 50% had newly diagnosed, previously untreated MCL. The regimen had an impressive ORR of 100%, with CR rates of 95% for previously untreated patients. PFS at 2 years was 95%. R-BAC was well tolerated, with the primary toxicity being reversible myelosuppression.

BR was combined with the proteasome inhibitor bortezomib and dexamethasone in a phase 2 study.⁶⁴ This Lymphoma Study Association (LYSA) study evaluated 76 patients with newly diagnosed MCL older than age 65 years. BR was administered in standard doses (bendamustine 90 mg/m² on days 1 and 2 and rituximab 375 mg/m² IV on day 1) and bortezomib was administered subcutaneously on days 1, 4, 8, and 11, with acyclovir for viral prophylaxis. Patients received 6 cycles. The ORR was 87% and the CR was 60%. Patients experienced toxicity, and not all bortezomib doses were administered due to neurotoxic or hematologic side effects.

A randomized phase 3 study compared R-CHOP to the VR-CAP regimen (R-CHOP regimen but bortezomib replaces vincristine on days 1, 4, 8, 11, at 1.3 mg/m²) in 487 newly diagnosed MCL patients.²⁷ Median PFS was superior in the VR-CAP group compared with R-CHOP (14.4 months versus 24.7 months, respectively). Additionally, rates of CR were superior in the VR-CAP group (53% compared to 42% with R-CHOP). However, there was more hematologic toxicity with VR-CAP. On the basis of these findings, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved bortezomib for the frontline treatment of MCL.

Other chemoimmunotherapy combinations containing bortezomib have been studied in frontline MCL treatment, with promising results. These include bortezomib in combination with R-CHOP or modified R-hyper-CVAD, as well as bortezomib in combination with CHOP-like treatments and purine analogues.^27,30–32 The ongoing ECOG 1411 study is currently evaluating bortezomib added to BR for induction therapy of newly diagnosed MCL in a 4-arm randomized trial. Patients receive BR with or without bortezomib during induction and are then randomly assigned to maintenance with either rituximab alone or rituximab with lenalidomide. Other novel combination agents are actively being studied in frontline MCL treatment, including lenalidomide and rituximab and BR with lenalidomide.

Intensification of Therapy and AutoSCT: Fitter and/or Younger Patients

Short response duration has created the need for post-remission therapy in MCL. One approach to improve remission duration in MCL is to intensify induction through the use of cytarabine-containing regimens and/or consolidation with high-dose chemotherapy, typically using BEAM (carmustine, etoposide, cytarabine, melphalan) and autoSCT (Table 2). The cytarabine-containing R-hyper-CVAD regimen, developed at the MD Anderson Cancer Center, resulted in a 97% ORR and an 87% CR rate, with TTF of nearly 5 years. However, nearly one third of patients were unable to complete treatment due to toxicity, and 5 patients developed secondary myelodysplastic syndrome or acute myeloid leukemia.³³ The feasibility of this R-hyper-CVAD regimen was tested in a multicenter cooperative group setting, but similar results were not seen; in this study, nearly 40% of patients were unable to complete the full scheduled course of treatment due to toxicity.³⁴