Feature

Only about 3% to 5% of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer have tumors that are positive for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), and until recently there was no treatment approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for this subset of patients.

That all changed, in January of 2023. At that time, the FDA granted accelerated approval to tucatinib (Tukysa) in combination with trastuzumab for RAS wild-type HER2-positive unresectable or metastatic colorectal cancer that has progressed following fluoropyrimidine-, oxaliplatin-, and irinotecan-based chemotherapy.

The combination was the first FDA-approved treatment for this patient population.

The only other FDA-approved therapy for metastatic HER2-positive CRC is the antibody-drug conjugate trastuzumab deruxtecan (Enhertu). That drug received accelerated approval from the FDA for metastatic HER2-positive CRC for which no other suitable therapeutic option exists, on April 5, 2024. This FDA action represented an expansion of the drug’s earlier approvals for treating several cancer types, including certain patients with unresectable or metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer and adults with locally advanced or metastatic HER2-positive gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma who had received a prior trastuzumab-based regimen.

More than a year after tucatinib-trastuzumab’s approval, the dual HER2 blockade is bringing substantial clinical benefits to a population with few therapeutic options.
 

Drug Combo’s Use With Capecitabine in Breast Cancer

Tucatinib is a potent oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) that has been shown to be highly selective for HER2. Prior to approval of the colorectal cancer indication, tucatinib had received FDA approval (in April 2020) in combination with trastuzumab and capecitabine for the treatment of patients with advanced unresectable or metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer, including patients with brain metastases, who had received one or more prior anti-HER2-based regimens in the metastatic setting.

In these patients the combination was associated with significant improvements in both progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival compared with trastuzumab and capecitabine.

Approval for the colorectal cancer indication was based on results of the phase 2 MOUNTAINEER trial, which were published in The Lancet Oncology.
 

Real-World Setting

Clinical experience with the combination in a real-world setting is still limited due to the relatively uncommon RAS wild-type HER2-positive CRC subtype, so most of what’s known about the efficacy and safety of tucatinib plus trastuzumab comes from clinical trials. But oncologists interviewed for this article emphasized that the tucatinib-trastuzumab combination nonetheless represents a major breakthrough.

“The population of RAS wild-type HER2-positive is small in colorectal cancer, but the benefit of this treatment is really remarkable. With this combination therapy there was a 38% response rate, and there was a very respectable duration of response. So the population is small, but the benefit of the treatment is by no means small,” said Afsaneh Barzi, MD, PhD, a medical oncologist specializing in gastrointestinal cancers at City of Hope in Duarte, California.

Another medical oncologist interviewed for this piece, who treats patients with HER2-positive metastatic CRC, said that the performance of tucatinib in the real-world setting is in keeping with the efficacy seen in clinical trials.

“There is a group of patients who have a very good response to HER2 [targeted] therapy. Often these are patients who have higher degrees of HER2 amplification, and they do not have concomitant other mutations that activate the pathway, such as RAS mutations,” said Kanwal PS Raghav, MD, MBBS, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.
 

Why It Works

In an interview, MOUNTAINEER coinvestigator Tanios S. Bekaii-Saab, MD, from the Mayo Clinic Comprehensive Cancer Center in Phoenix, Arizona, explained why dual HER2 blockade with tucatinib and trastuzumab is an important breakthrough for this population.

“HER2 as a target was already well established in breast cancer and in gastric cancer. In colon cancer we had signals [of anti-HER2 efficacy] but these signals were primarily with dual targeted therapy,” he said.

“What’s unique about tucatinib versus neratinib [Nerlynx], lapatinib [Tykerb] and some of the others is that this is a highly selective tyrosine kinase inhibitor, meaning it is potent just against HER2 and has limited activity against other receptors, classically EGFR, which also goes by the name of HER1,” said MOUNTAINEER trial chair John H. Strickler, MD, of Duke Cancer Center in Durham, North Carolina.

“The reason why that’s valuable is that when you inhibit other receptors like HER1 or EGFR, you can cause significant skin rash and other symptoms that can limit tolerability, which limits your ability to give the full dose. With tucatinib you can more completely inhibit HER2 with fewer side effects,” Dr. Strickler said in an interview.

Dr. Raghav noted that the primary adverse events of therapy with tucatinib have been diarrhea and fatigue, and other common side effects include abdominal pain, fever, nausea, rash, and infusion reactions.
 

Barriers to Treatment

Dr. Barzi pointed out that in the day-to-day practice setting there are two potential barriers to treatment with tucatinib and trastuzumab for patients with HER2-positive colorectal cancer, hurdles that they would not encounter if they were enrolled in clinical trials.

The first barrier is the requirement for HER2 testing, either through immunohistochemistry or fluorescence in situ hybridization.

“The adoption of HER2 testing in colorectal cancer lags behind other molecular testing, such as testing for KRAS or BRAF, so the provider needs to be aware that HER2 positivity is a possibility,” she said.

The second and more difficult-to-surmount barrier is imposed by the healthcare system. Although the combination is included in National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines and, therefore, should not be subject to restrictions or denials by insurers, “the challenge is that this is an oral and IV drug combination,” Dr. Barzi said.

While patients in real-world settings receive intravenous drugs such as trastuzumab in treatment centers, the oral drug component, tucatinib, is dispensed by pharmacies, and patients are often required to shell out high copays for such agents.

Dr. Barzi cited as an example the case of one of her patients who was receiving an oral agent — not tucatinib — for treatment of a different type of colorectal cancer.

“He has very good insurance, and after insurance his out-of-pocket cost on a monthly basis to obtain the drug is $275,” she said.
 

What’s Next

In colorectal cancer the combination of tucatinib and trastuzumab is approved only in the metastatic setting, but it is also being explored as a first-line therapy in combination with the mFOLFOX6 regimen (5-Fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin) in the MOUNTAINEER-03 trial, which is currently recruiting.

MOUNTAINEER was sponsored by Seagen and Merck. Dr. Strickler reported support from Seagen for the Lancet Oncology manuscript; institutional grants, consulting fees, and travel support from Seagen, and similar relationships with other companies. Dr. Bekaii-Saab reported institutional research and consulting fees from various companies, including Merck, personal consulting fees from various companies, and independent monitoring board/scientific advisory board activities. Dr. Raghav disclosed honoraria and an advisory/consulting role for Seagen and others. Dr. Barzi reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

Only about 3% to 5% of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer have tumors that are positive for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), and until recently there was no treatment approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for this subset of patients.

That all changed, in January of 2023. At that time, the FDA granted accelerated approval to tucatinib (Tukysa) in combination with trastuzumab for RAS wild-type HER2-positive unresectable or metastatic colorectal cancer that has progressed following fluoropyrimidine-, oxaliplatin-, and irinotecan-based chemotherapy.

The combination was the first FDA-approved treatment for this patient population.

The only other FDA-approved therapy for metastatic HER2-positive CRC is the antibody-drug conjugate trastuzumab deruxtecan (Enhertu). That drug received accelerated approval from the FDA for metastatic HER2-positive CRC for which no other suitable therapeutic option exists, on April 5, 2024. This FDA action represented an expansion of the drug’s earlier approvals for treating several cancer types, including certain patients with unresectable or metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer and adults with locally advanced or metastatic HER2-positive gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma who had received a prior trastuzumab-based regimen.

More than a year after tucatinib-trastuzumab’s approval, the dual HER2 blockade is bringing substantial clinical benefits to a population with few therapeutic options.
 

Drug Combo’s Use With Capecitabine in Breast Cancer

Tucatinib is a potent oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) that has been shown to be highly selective for HER2. Prior to approval of the colorectal cancer indication, tucatinib had received FDA approval (in April 2020) in combination with trastuzumab and capecitabine for the treatment of patients with advanced unresectable or metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer, including patients with brain metastases, who had received one or more prior anti-HER2-based regimens in the metastatic setting.

In these patients the combination was associated with significant improvements in both progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival compared with trastuzumab and capecitabine.

Approval for the colorectal cancer indication was based on results of the phase 2 MOUNTAINEER trial, which were published in The Lancet Oncology.
 

Real-World Setting

Clinical experience with the combination in a real-world setting is still limited due to the relatively uncommon RAS wild-type HER2-positive CRC subtype, so most of what’s known about the efficacy and safety of tucatinib plus trastuzumab comes from clinical trials. But oncologists interviewed for this article emphasized that the tucatinib-trastuzumab combination nonetheless represents a major breakthrough.

“The population of RAS wild-type HER2-positive is small in colorectal cancer, but the benefit of this treatment is really remarkable. With this combination therapy there was a 38% response rate, and there was a very respectable duration of response. So the population is small, but the benefit of the treatment is by no means small,” said Afsaneh Barzi, MD, PhD, a medical oncologist specializing in gastrointestinal cancers at City of Hope in Duarte, California.

Another medical oncologist interviewed for this piece, who treats patients with HER2-positive metastatic CRC, said that the performance of tucatinib in the real-world setting is in keeping with the efficacy seen in clinical trials.

“There is a group of patients who have a very good response to HER2 [targeted] therapy. Often these are patients who have higher degrees of HER2 amplification, and they do not have concomitant other mutations that activate the pathway, such as RAS mutations,” said Kanwal PS Raghav, MD, MBBS, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.
 

Why It Works

In an interview, MOUNTAINEER coinvestigator Tanios S. Bekaii-Saab, MD, from the Mayo Clinic Comprehensive Cancer Center in Phoenix, Arizona, explained why dual HER2 blockade with tucatinib and trastuzumab is an important breakthrough for this population.

“HER2 as a target was already well established in breast cancer and in gastric cancer. In colon cancer we had signals [of anti-HER2 efficacy] but these signals were primarily with dual targeted therapy,” he said.

“What’s unique about tucatinib versus neratinib [Nerlynx], lapatinib [Tykerb] and some of the others is that this is a highly selective tyrosine kinase inhibitor, meaning it is potent just against HER2 and has limited activity against other receptors, classically EGFR, which also goes by the name of HER1,” said MOUNTAINEER trial chair John H. Strickler, MD, of Duke Cancer Center in Durham, North Carolina.

“The reason why that’s valuable is that when you inhibit other receptors like HER1 or EGFR, you can cause significant skin rash and other symptoms that can limit tolerability, which limits your ability to give the full dose. With tucatinib you can more completely inhibit HER2 with fewer side effects,” Dr. Strickler said in an interview.

Dr. Raghav noted that the primary adverse events of therapy with tucatinib have been diarrhea and fatigue, and other common side effects include abdominal pain, fever, nausea, rash, and infusion reactions.
 

Barriers to Treatment

Dr. Barzi pointed out that in the day-to-day practice setting there are two potential barriers to treatment with tucatinib and trastuzumab for patients with HER2-positive colorectal cancer, hurdles that they would not encounter if they were enrolled in clinical trials.

The first barrier is the requirement for HER2 testing, either through immunohistochemistry or fluorescence in situ hybridization.

“The adoption of HER2 testing in colorectal cancer lags behind other molecular testing, such as testing for KRAS or BRAF, so the provider needs to be aware that HER2 positivity is a possibility,” she said.

The second and more difficult-to-surmount barrier is imposed by the healthcare system. Although the combination is included in National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines and, therefore, should not be subject to restrictions or denials by insurers, “the challenge is that this is an oral and IV drug combination,” Dr. Barzi said.

While patients in real-world settings receive intravenous drugs such as trastuzumab in treatment centers, the oral drug component, tucatinib, is dispensed by pharmacies, and patients are often required to shell out high copays for such agents.

Dr. Barzi cited as an example the case of one of her patients who was receiving an oral agent — not tucatinib — for treatment of a different type of colorectal cancer.

“He has very good insurance, and after insurance his out-of-pocket cost on a monthly basis to obtain the drug is $275,” she said.
 

What’s Next

In colorectal cancer the combination of tucatinib and trastuzumab is approved only in the metastatic setting, but it is also being explored as a first-line therapy in combination with the mFOLFOX6 regimen (5-Fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin) in the MOUNTAINEER-03 trial, which is currently recruiting.

MOUNTAINEER was sponsored by Seagen and Merck. Dr. Strickler reported support from Seagen for the Lancet Oncology manuscript; institutional grants, consulting fees, and travel support from Seagen, and similar relationships with other companies. Dr. Bekaii-Saab reported institutional research and consulting fees from various companies, including Merck, personal consulting fees from various companies, and independent monitoring board/scientific advisory board activities. Dr. Raghav disclosed honoraria and an advisory/consulting role for Seagen and others. Dr. Barzi reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

Only about 3% to 5% of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer have tumors that are positive for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), and until recently there was no treatment approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for this subset of patients.

That all changed, in January of 2023. At that time, the FDA granted accelerated approval to tucatinib (Tukysa) in combination with trastuzumab for RAS wild-type HER2-positive unresectable or metastatic colorectal cancer that has progressed following fluoropyrimidine-, oxaliplatin-, and irinotecan-based chemotherapy.

The combination was the first FDA-approved treatment for this patient population.

The only other FDA-approved therapy for metastatic HER2-positive CRC is the antibody-drug conjugate trastuzumab deruxtecan (Enhertu). That drug received accelerated approval from the FDA for metastatic HER2-positive CRC for which no other suitable therapeutic option exists, on April 5, 2024. This FDA action represented an expansion of the drug’s earlier approvals for treating several cancer types, including certain patients with unresectable or metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer and adults with locally advanced or metastatic HER2-positive gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma who had received a prior trastuzumab-based regimen.

More than a year after tucatinib-trastuzumab’s approval, the dual HER2 blockade is bringing substantial clinical benefits to a population with few therapeutic options.
 

Drug Combo’s Use With Capecitabine in Breast Cancer

Tucatinib is a potent oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) that has been shown to be highly selective for HER2. Prior to approval of the colorectal cancer indication, tucatinib had received FDA approval (in April 2020) in combination with trastuzumab and capecitabine for the treatment of patients with advanced unresectable or metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer, including patients with brain metastases, who had received one or more prior anti-HER2-based regimens in the metastatic setting.

In these patients the combination was associated with significant improvements in both progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival compared with trastuzumab and capecitabine.

Approval for the colorectal cancer indication was based on results of the phase 2 MOUNTAINEER trial, which were published in The Lancet Oncology.
 

Real-World Setting

Clinical experience with the combination in a real-world setting is still limited due to the relatively uncommon RAS wild-type HER2-positive CRC subtype, so most of what’s known about the efficacy and safety of tucatinib plus trastuzumab comes from clinical trials. But oncologists interviewed for this article emphasized that the tucatinib-trastuzumab combination nonetheless represents a major breakthrough.

“The population of RAS wild-type HER2-positive is small in colorectal cancer, but the benefit of this treatment is really remarkable. With this combination therapy there was a 38% response rate, and there was a very respectable duration of response. So the population is small, but the benefit of the treatment is by no means small,” said Afsaneh Barzi, MD, PhD, a medical oncologist specializing in gastrointestinal cancers at City of Hope in Duarte, California.

Another medical oncologist interviewed for this piece, who treats patients with HER2-positive metastatic CRC, said that the performance of tucatinib in the real-world setting is in keeping with the efficacy seen in clinical trials.

“There is a group of patients who have a very good response to HER2 [targeted] therapy. Often these are patients who have higher degrees of HER2 amplification, and they do not have concomitant other mutations that activate the pathway, such as RAS mutations,” said Kanwal PS Raghav, MD, MBBS, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.
 

Why It Works

In an interview, MOUNTAINEER coinvestigator Tanios S. Bekaii-Saab, MD, from the Mayo Clinic Comprehensive Cancer Center in Phoenix, Arizona, explained why dual HER2 blockade with tucatinib and trastuzumab is an important breakthrough for this population.

“HER2 as a target was already well established in breast cancer and in gastric cancer. In colon cancer we had signals [of anti-HER2 efficacy] but these signals were primarily with dual targeted therapy,” he said.

“What’s unique about tucatinib versus neratinib [Nerlynx], lapatinib [Tykerb] and some of the others is that this is a highly selective tyrosine kinase inhibitor, meaning it is potent just against HER2 and has limited activity against other receptors, classically EGFR, which also goes by the name of HER1,” said MOUNTAINEER trial chair John H. Strickler, MD, of Duke Cancer Center in Durham, North Carolina.

“The reason why that’s valuable is that when you inhibit other receptors like HER1 or EGFR, you can cause significant skin rash and other symptoms that can limit tolerability, which limits your ability to give the full dose. With tucatinib you can more completely inhibit HER2 with fewer side effects,” Dr. Strickler said in an interview.

Dr. Raghav noted that the primary adverse events of therapy with tucatinib have been diarrhea and fatigue, and other common side effects include abdominal pain, fever, nausea, rash, and infusion reactions.
 

Barriers to Treatment

Dr. Barzi pointed out that in the day-to-day practice setting there are two potential barriers to treatment with tucatinib and trastuzumab for patients with HER2-positive colorectal cancer, hurdles that they would not encounter if they were enrolled in clinical trials.

The first barrier is the requirement for HER2 testing, either through immunohistochemistry or fluorescence in situ hybridization.

“The adoption of HER2 testing in colorectal cancer lags behind other molecular testing, such as testing for KRAS or BRAF, so the provider needs to be aware that HER2 positivity is a possibility,” she said.

The second and more difficult-to-surmount barrier is imposed by the healthcare system. Although the combination is included in National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines and, therefore, should not be subject to restrictions or denials by insurers, “the challenge is that this is an oral and IV drug combination,” Dr. Barzi said.

While patients in real-world settings receive intravenous drugs such as trastuzumab in treatment centers, the oral drug component, tucatinib, is dispensed by pharmacies, and patients are often required to shell out high copays for such agents.

Dr. Barzi cited as an example the case of one of her patients who was receiving an oral agent — not tucatinib — for treatment of a different type of colorectal cancer.

“He has very good insurance, and after insurance his out-of-pocket cost on a monthly basis to obtain the drug is $275,” she said.
 

What’s Next

In colorectal cancer the combination of tucatinib and trastuzumab is approved only in the metastatic setting, but it is also being explored as a first-line therapy in combination with the mFOLFOX6 regimen (5-Fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin) in the MOUNTAINEER-03 trial, which is currently recruiting.

MOUNTAINEER was sponsored by Seagen and Merck. Dr. Strickler reported support from Seagen for the Lancet Oncology manuscript; institutional grants, consulting fees, and travel support from Seagen, and similar relationships with other companies. Dr. Bekaii-Saab reported institutional research and consulting fees from various companies, including Merck, personal consulting fees from various companies, and independent monitoring board/scientific advisory board activities. Dr. Raghav disclosed honoraria and an advisory/consulting role for Seagen and others. Dr. Barzi reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

A relatively high percentage of men in their 70s and 80s, as well those determined to have a limited life expectancy, report receiving prostate cancer screening, despite recommendations against screening for men in those age groups.

In its most recent guidance, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) revised a previous 2012 recommendation against routine screening for prostate cancer to instead endorse individual decision-making for men aged 55 to 69 years (grade C).

In the update guidance, which was published in 2018, the task force still recommended against PSA-based screening for prostate cancer in men 70 years and older (grade D) due to a range of potential risks and harms. Guidelines from the American Urological Association and American Cancer Society have echoed that recommendation, in general agreement that men over the age of 70 or with limited life expectancy show little benefit from the screening.

To take a closer look at how commonly men are being screened for prostate cancer, based not only on their age but their estimated life expectancy, Kevin H. Kensler, ScD, of Weill Cornell Medicine, and colleagues conducted a cross-sectional study using data from the 2020 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS).

“Our findings indicate that many males aged 70 years and older or those with a high risk of death within 10 years undergo prostate cancer screening despite the recommendation against screening in these populations by current guidelines,” the authors wrote in their paper, published in JAMA Network Open. The results underscore that “enhancements to the shared decision-making process are needed to ensure that older males who undergo screening are those who may potentially benefit,” they noted.

For the study, the authors identified 57,397 men aged 60 and older without a history of prostate cancer who reported undergoing a screening PSA test in the prior 2 years.

Using a risk factor system, mortality risk was estimated based on the scales ranging from 5.5 or less to 10.0 or greater, corresponding to the estimated 10-year mortality of less than 30% to 71% or more, respectively.

Of the men, 19.2% were aged 70 to 74 years, 13.0% were aged 75 to 79 years, and 12.3% were aged 80 years or older. The rest were 69 years or younger.

While the estimated 2-year prostate cancer screening rates were 36.3% among those aged 60 to 64 years and 42.8% for those 65 to 69 years, the rates were even higher, at 47.1%, among those aged 70 to 74 years, and similar, at 42.7%, in the 75 to 79 years of age range. Among those aged 80 years and older, 30.4% had been screened.

While the screening frequency was 43.4% among males with the greatest estimated life expectancy, a fair percentage of men, 30.4%, with the lowest life expectancy, indicative of a 71% or greater risk of death within 10 years, received prostate cancer screening.

In fact, among those with lowest life expectancy, the screening rates were greater than 20% in all age groups.
 

Screening in Older Age: Benefit in Reducing Mortality Low

Autopsy research indicates that, in fact, as many as 50% of men do have prostate cancer at age 80; however, many of those tumors are low-risk and unlikely to affect the health of the men.

If detected early, as is the intention of screening, prostate cancer can take years to advance and the likelihood of receiving any mortality benefit from continued screening in older age is low.

Furthermore, screening in older age can have implications, including a higher risk of complications following a false positive prostate biopsy that may not have been necessary in the first place, the authors explained.

“Given the long natural history of prostate cancer and lead time associated with PSA-based screening, these males [aged 70 and older or with a high risk of death within 10 years] have a low likelihood of receiving any mortality benefit from continued screening,” the authors reported.

“Yet they face the potential harms of overdiagnosis, such as complications after prostate biopsy for a false-positive screening and psychological stress associated with a cancer diagnosis.”
 

Guideline Confusion, Habit, Among Reasons for Continued Screening

Among key reasons for the continued screening of men well into old age is the fluctuating history of the guidelines, Dr. Kensler said in an interview.

“There has been considerable variation in prostate cancer screening guidelines over time and across organizations that make screening recommendations, and this has inevitably led to some confusion among clinicians,” he explained.

However, the evidence of a lack of benefit over the age of 70 is strong enough that not performing PSA-based screening among men ages 70 or older is a Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) measure for quality of care, he noted.

Nevertheless, “I think the trends we found in our analysis reflect that it is difficult for patients and providers to stop providing screening once they have already started it,” Dr. Kensler said.

Another motivator may be an inclination by clinicians to err on the side of caution, he added.

“For clinicians, although they may be aware of the guidelines, they may perhaps fear that they will not have offered screening to one of the older individuals who would have benefited from it even though they recognize that most would not,” Dr. Kensler noted.

Too often, however, such screenings “can lead to a cascade of other events that end up harming the patient without extending their lifespan,” he said.
 

Difficult Discussions

Complicating matters is the task of informing patients that due to their life expectancy, screening is considered to not likely be worthwhile — which may not be an easy discussion.

“For patients, hearing that they are at a stage of life where they may not benefit from screening is an unpleasant message to receive,” Dr. Kensler said.

“Having an in-depth conversation on this topic is also difficult given the many other health topics that clinicians and patients must cover during a visit.”

Ultimately, “these and other factors lead to inertia, where it is easier to stick to the status quo of continuing screening.”

The challenges underscore the need for improvements to the shared decision-making process to make sure that older men who do undergo prostrate screening will benefit, Dr. Kensler argued.

“If the guidelines are going to recommend shared decision-making, we need to provide tools to help patients and clinicians navigate these potentially difficult conversations.
 

Life Expectancy Uncertainties

Commenting on the research in an interview, Kyle Richards, MD, associate professor with the Department of Urology at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, in Madison, noted that, “while most urology experts agree that we should not screen for prostate cancer in men with less than 5-10 years life expectancy, the challenge is deciding which patients have a more limited life expectancy.” 

Tools and calculators are available to try to calculate life expectancy, “but they can be cumbersome and difficult to incorporate into clinical practice,” he added.

Indeed, the difficulty in accurately estimating life expectancy is also a limitation of the study, he noted.

“The challenge with a study like this is it is very difficult to accurately estimate life expectancy,” he said. “It is easy to pick a cut point (i.e. age 70) but it is very difficult to calculate one’s life expectancy from survey data alone.” 

Another limitation is that “screening PSA testing implies that the patient is not having any symptoms, and we do not know from this study if any of these men were getting PSA checks due to some urinary symptoms or other issues,” Dr. Richards added.

“So, while the study does raise some concern about screening PSA in older men, the data source makes it quite difficult to home in on this question.”

When it can be estimated, life expectancy can indeed provide a more useful guide in assessing the options if a patient is found to have prostate cancer, Dr. Richards noted.

“If a patient has a 5- to 10-year life expectancy, and they are diagnosed with a clinically significant prostate cancer, they absolutely may still benefit from treatment,” he said.

“If they have a clinically significant prostate cancer that is unrecognized, it could metastasize and cause symptoms or lead to death, as roughly 30,000 men die from prostate cancer each year in the USA.”

However, “if a patient has a limited life expectancy of less than 5 to 10 years, don’t screen for prostate cancer,” he advised. Proper guidance should furthermore be made loud and clear in guideline recommendations.

“I do think the USPSTF and AUA need to be the primary voices educating primary care and patients regarding prostate cancer screening,” Dr. Richards said.

“We need to be smart about whom to screen, when to screen, and how often to screen. And this message needs to be heard by the primary care providers that perform the screening.”

The study was supported by the Sandra and Edward Meyer Cancer Center and a grant from the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health.

Dr. Kensler and Dr. Richards had no disclosures to report.

A relatively high percentage of men in their 70s and 80s, as well those determined to have a limited life expectancy, report receiving prostate cancer screening, despite recommendations against screening for men in those age groups.

In its most recent guidance, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) revised a previous 2012 recommendation against routine screening for prostate cancer to instead endorse individual decision-making for men aged 55 to 69 years (grade C).

In the update guidance, which was published in 2018, the task force still recommended against PSA-based screening for prostate cancer in men 70 years and older (grade D) due to a range of potential risks and harms. Guidelines from the American Urological Association and American Cancer Society have echoed that recommendation, in general agreement that men over the age of 70 or with limited life expectancy show little benefit from the screening.

To take a closer look at how commonly men are being screened for prostate cancer, based not only on their age but their estimated life expectancy, Kevin H. Kensler, ScD, of Weill Cornell Medicine, and colleagues conducted a cross-sectional study using data from the 2020 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS).

“Our findings indicate that many males aged 70 years and older or those with a high risk of death within 10 years undergo prostate cancer screening despite the recommendation against screening in these populations by current guidelines,” the authors wrote in their paper, published in JAMA Network Open. The results underscore that “enhancements to the shared decision-making process are needed to ensure that older males who undergo screening are those who may potentially benefit,” they noted.

For the study, the authors identified 57,397 men aged 60 and older without a history of prostate cancer who reported undergoing a screening PSA test in the prior 2 years.

Using a risk factor system, mortality risk was estimated based on the scales ranging from 5.5 or less to 10.0 or greater, corresponding to the estimated 10-year mortality of less than 30% to 71% or more, respectively.

Of the men, 19.2% were aged 70 to 74 years, 13.0% were aged 75 to 79 years, and 12.3% were aged 80 years or older. The rest were 69 years or younger.

While the estimated 2-year prostate cancer screening rates were 36.3% among those aged 60 to 64 years and 42.8% for those 65 to 69 years, the rates were even higher, at 47.1%, among those aged 70 to 74 years, and similar, at 42.7%, in the 75 to 79 years of age range. Among those aged 80 years and older, 30.4% had been screened.

While the screening frequency was 43.4% among males with the greatest estimated life expectancy, a fair percentage of men, 30.4%, with the lowest life expectancy, indicative of a 71% or greater risk of death within 10 years, received prostate cancer screening.

In fact, among those with lowest life expectancy, the screening rates were greater than 20% in all age groups.
 

Screening in Older Age: Benefit in Reducing Mortality Low

Autopsy research indicates that, in fact, as many as 50% of men do have prostate cancer at age 80; however, many of those tumors are low-risk and unlikely to affect the health of the men.

If detected early, as is the intention of screening, prostate cancer can take years to advance and the likelihood of receiving any mortality benefit from continued screening in older age is low.

Furthermore, screening in older age can have implications, including a higher risk of complications following a false positive prostate biopsy that may not have been necessary in the first place, the authors explained.

“Given the long natural history of prostate cancer and lead time associated with PSA-based screening, these males [aged 70 and older or with a high risk of death within 10 years] have a low likelihood of receiving any mortality benefit from continued screening,” the authors reported.

“Yet they face the potential harms of overdiagnosis, such as complications after prostate biopsy for a false-positive screening and psychological stress associated with a cancer diagnosis.”
 

Guideline Confusion, Habit, Among Reasons for Continued Screening

Among key reasons for the continued screening of men well into old age is the fluctuating history of the guidelines, Dr. Kensler said in an interview.

“There has been considerable variation in prostate cancer screening guidelines over time and across organizations that make screening recommendations, and this has inevitably led to some confusion among clinicians,” he explained.

However, the evidence of a lack of benefit over the age of 70 is strong enough that not performing PSA-based screening among men ages 70 or older is a Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) measure for quality of care, he noted.

Nevertheless, “I think the trends we found in our analysis reflect that it is difficult for patients and providers to stop providing screening once they have already started it,” Dr. Kensler said.

Another motivator may be an inclination by clinicians to err on the side of caution, he added.

“For clinicians, although they may be aware of the guidelines, they may perhaps fear that they will not have offered screening to one of the older individuals who would have benefited from it even though they recognize that most would not,” Dr. Kensler noted.

Too often, however, such screenings “can lead to a cascade of other events that end up harming the patient without extending their lifespan,” he said.
 

Difficult Discussions

Complicating matters is the task of informing patients that due to their life expectancy, screening is considered to not likely be worthwhile — which may not be an easy discussion.

“For patients, hearing that they are at a stage of life where they may not benefit from screening is an unpleasant message to receive,” Dr. Kensler said.

“Having an in-depth conversation on this topic is also difficult given the many other health topics that clinicians and patients must cover during a visit.”

Ultimately, “these and other factors lead to inertia, where it is easier to stick to the status quo of continuing screening.”

The challenges underscore the need for improvements to the shared decision-making process to make sure that older men who do undergo prostrate screening will benefit, Dr. Kensler argued.

“If the guidelines are going to recommend shared decision-making, we need to provide tools to help patients and clinicians navigate these potentially difficult conversations.
 

Life Expectancy Uncertainties

Commenting on the research in an interview, Kyle Richards, MD, associate professor with the Department of Urology at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, in Madison, noted that, “while most urology experts agree that we should not screen for prostate cancer in men with less than 5-10 years life expectancy, the challenge is deciding which patients have a more limited life expectancy.” 

Tools and calculators are available to try to calculate life expectancy, “but they can be cumbersome and difficult to incorporate into clinical practice,” he added.

Indeed, the difficulty in accurately estimating life expectancy is also a limitation of the study, he noted.

“The challenge with a study like this is it is very difficult to accurately estimate life expectancy,” he said. “It is easy to pick a cut point (i.e. age 70) but it is very difficult to calculate one’s life expectancy from survey data alone.” 

Another limitation is that “screening PSA testing implies that the patient is not having any symptoms, and we do not know from this study if any of these men were getting PSA checks due to some urinary symptoms or other issues,” Dr. Richards added.

“So, while the study does raise some concern about screening PSA in older men, the data source makes it quite difficult to home in on this question.”

When it can be estimated, life expectancy can indeed provide a more useful guide in assessing the options if a patient is found to have prostate cancer, Dr. Richards noted.

“If a patient has a 5- to 10-year life expectancy, and they are diagnosed with a clinically significant prostate cancer, they absolutely may still benefit from treatment,” he said.

“If they have a clinically significant prostate cancer that is unrecognized, it could metastasize and cause symptoms or lead to death, as roughly 30,000 men die from prostate cancer each year in the USA.”

However, “if a patient has a limited life expectancy of less than 5 to 10 years, don’t screen for prostate cancer,” he advised. Proper guidance should furthermore be made loud and clear in guideline recommendations.

“I do think the USPSTF and AUA need to be the primary voices educating primary care and patients regarding prostate cancer screening,” Dr. Richards said.

“We need to be smart about whom to screen, when to screen, and how often to screen. And this message needs to be heard by the primary care providers that perform the screening.”

The study was supported by the Sandra and Edward Meyer Cancer Center and a grant from the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health.

Dr. Kensler and Dr. Richards had no disclosures to report.

A relatively high percentage of men in their 70s and 80s, as well those determined to have a limited life expectancy, report receiving prostate cancer screening, despite recommendations against screening for men in those age groups.

In its most recent guidance, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) revised a previous 2012 recommendation against routine screening for prostate cancer to instead endorse individual decision-making for men aged 55 to 69 years (grade C).

In the update guidance, which was published in 2018, the task force still recommended against PSA-based screening for prostate cancer in men 70 years and older (grade D) due to a range of potential risks and harms. Guidelines from the American Urological Association and American Cancer Society have echoed that recommendation, in general agreement that men over the age of 70 or with limited life expectancy show little benefit from the screening.

To take a closer look at how commonly men are being screened for prostate cancer, based not only on their age but their estimated life expectancy, Kevin H. Kensler, ScD, of Weill Cornell Medicine, and colleagues conducted a cross-sectional study using data from the 2020 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS).

“Our findings indicate that many males aged 70 years and older or those with a high risk of death within 10 years undergo prostate cancer screening despite the recommendation against screening in these populations by current guidelines,” the authors wrote in their paper, published in JAMA Network Open. The results underscore that “enhancements to the shared decision-making process are needed to ensure that older males who undergo screening are those who may potentially benefit,” they noted.

For the study, the authors identified 57,397 men aged 60 and older without a history of prostate cancer who reported undergoing a screening PSA test in the prior 2 years.

Using a risk factor system, mortality risk was estimated based on the scales ranging from 5.5 or less to 10.0 or greater, corresponding to the estimated 10-year mortality of less than 30% to 71% or more, respectively.

Of the men, 19.2% were aged 70 to 74 years, 13.0% were aged 75 to 79 years, and 12.3% were aged 80 years or older. The rest were 69 years or younger.

While the estimated 2-year prostate cancer screening rates were 36.3% among those aged 60 to 64 years and 42.8% for those 65 to 69 years, the rates were even higher, at 47.1%, among those aged 70 to 74 years, and similar, at 42.7%, in the 75 to 79 years of age range. Among those aged 80 years and older, 30.4% had been screened.

While the screening frequency was 43.4% among males with the greatest estimated life expectancy, a fair percentage of men, 30.4%, with the lowest life expectancy, indicative of a 71% or greater risk of death within 10 years, received prostate cancer screening.

In fact, among those with lowest life expectancy, the screening rates were greater than 20% in all age groups.
 

Screening in Older Age: Benefit in Reducing Mortality Low

Autopsy research indicates that, in fact, as many as 50% of men do have prostate cancer at age 80; however, many of those tumors are low-risk and unlikely to affect the health of the men.

If detected early, as is the intention of screening, prostate cancer can take years to advance and the likelihood of receiving any mortality benefit from continued screening in older age is low.

Furthermore, screening in older age can have implications, including a higher risk of complications following a false positive prostate biopsy that may not have been necessary in the first place, the authors explained.

“Given the long natural history of prostate cancer and lead time associated with PSA-based screening, these males [aged 70 and older or with a high risk of death within 10 years] have a low likelihood of receiving any mortality benefit from continued screening,” the authors reported.

“Yet they face the potential harms of overdiagnosis, such as complications after prostate biopsy for a false-positive screening and psychological stress associated with a cancer diagnosis.”
 

Guideline Confusion, Habit, Among Reasons for Continued Screening

Among key reasons for the continued screening of men well into old age is the fluctuating history of the guidelines, Dr. Kensler said in an interview.

“There has been considerable variation in prostate cancer screening guidelines over time and across organizations that make screening recommendations, and this has inevitably led to some confusion among clinicians,” he explained.

However, the evidence of a lack of benefit over the age of 70 is strong enough that not performing PSA-based screening among men ages 70 or older is a Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) measure for quality of care, he noted.

Nevertheless, “I think the trends we found in our analysis reflect that it is difficult for patients and providers to stop providing screening once they have already started it,” Dr. Kensler said.

Another motivator may be an inclination by clinicians to err on the side of caution, he added.

“For clinicians, although they may be aware of the guidelines, they may perhaps fear that they will not have offered screening to one of the older individuals who would have benefited from it even though they recognize that most would not,” Dr. Kensler noted.

Too often, however, such screenings “can lead to a cascade of other events that end up harming the patient without extending their lifespan,” he said.
 

Difficult Discussions

Complicating matters is the task of informing patients that due to their life expectancy, screening is considered to not likely be worthwhile — which may not be an easy discussion.

“For patients, hearing that they are at a stage of life where they may not benefit from screening is an unpleasant message to receive,” Dr. Kensler said.

“Having an in-depth conversation on this topic is also difficult given the many other health topics that clinicians and patients must cover during a visit.”

Ultimately, “these and other factors lead to inertia, where it is easier to stick to the status quo of continuing screening.”

The challenges underscore the need for improvements to the shared decision-making process to make sure that older men who do undergo prostrate screening will benefit, Dr. Kensler argued.

“If the guidelines are going to recommend shared decision-making, we need to provide tools to help patients and clinicians navigate these potentially difficult conversations.
 

Life Expectancy Uncertainties

Commenting on the research in an interview, Kyle Richards, MD, associate professor with the Department of Urology at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, in Madison, noted that, “while most urology experts agree that we should not screen for prostate cancer in men with less than 5-10 years life expectancy, the challenge is deciding which patients have a more limited life expectancy.” 

Tools and calculators are available to try to calculate life expectancy, “but they can be cumbersome and difficult to incorporate into clinical practice,” he added.

Indeed, the difficulty in accurately estimating life expectancy is also a limitation of the study, he noted.

“The challenge with a study like this is it is very difficult to accurately estimate life expectancy,” he said. “It is easy to pick a cut point (i.e. age 70) but it is very difficult to calculate one’s life expectancy from survey data alone.” 

Another limitation is that “screening PSA testing implies that the patient is not having any symptoms, and we do not know from this study if any of these men were getting PSA checks due to some urinary symptoms or other issues,” Dr. Richards added.

“So, while the study does raise some concern about screening PSA in older men, the data source makes it quite difficult to home in on this question.”

When it can be estimated, life expectancy can indeed provide a more useful guide in assessing the options if a patient is found to have prostate cancer, Dr. Richards noted.

“If a patient has a 5- to 10-year life expectancy, and they are diagnosed with a clinically significant prostate cancer, they absolutely may still benefit from treatment,” he said.

“If they have a clinically significant prostate cancer that is unrecognized, it could metastasize and cause symptoms or lead to death, as roughly 30,000 men die from prostate cancer each year in the USA.”

However, “if a patient has a limited life expectancy of less than 5 to 10 years, don’t screen for prostate cancer,” he advised. Proper guidance should furthermore be made loud and clear in guideline recommendations.

“I do think the USPSTF and AUA need to be the primary voices educating primary care and patients regarding prostate cancer screening,” Dr. Richards said.

“We need to be smart about whom to screen, when to screen, and how often to screen. And this message needs to be heard by the primary care providers that perform the screening.”

The study was supported by the Sandra and Edward Meyer Cancer Center and a grant from the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health.

Dr. Kensler and Dr. Richards had no disclosures to report.

Charles Powell, MD, said he sometimes has a hard time persuading patients to start on low-dose vaginal estrogen, which can help prevent urinary tract infections and ease other symptoms of menopause.

Many women fear taking these vaginal products because of what Dr. Powell considers excessively strong warnings about the risk for cancer and cardiovascular disease linked to daily estrogen pills that were issued in the early 2000s.

He is advocating for the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to remove the boxed warning on low-dose estrogen. His efforts are separate from his roles as an associate professor of urology at the Indiana University School of Medicine, and as a member of the American Urological Association (AUA), Dr. Powell said.

In his quest to find out how to change labeling, Dr. Powell has gained a quick education about drug regulation. He has enlisted Representative Jim Baird (R-IN) and Senator Mike Braun (R-IN) to contact the FDA on his behalf, while congressional staff guided him through the hurdles of getting the warning label changed. For instance, a manufacturer of low-dose estrogen may need to become involved.

“You don’t learn this in med school,” Dr. Powell said in an interview.

With this work, Dr. Powell is wading into a long-standing argument between the FDA and some clinicians and researchers about the potential harms of low-dose estrogen.

He is doing so at a time of increased interest in understanding genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM), a term coined a decade ago by the International Society for the Study of Women’s Sexual Health and the North American Menopause Society to cover “a constellation of conditions” related to urogenital atrophy.

Symptoms of GSM include vaginal dryness and burning and recurrent urinary tract infections.

The federal government in 2022 began a project budgeted with nearly $1 million to review evidence on treatments, including vaginal and low-dose estrogen. The aim is to eventually help the AUA develop clinical guidelines for addressing GSM.

In addition, a bipartisan Senate bill introduced in May calls for authorizing $125 million over 5 years for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to fund research on menopause. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), the lead sponsor of the bill, is a longtime advocate for women’s health and serves as chairwoman for the Senate Appropriations Committee, which largely sets the NIH budget.

“The bottom line is, for too long, menopause has been overlooked, underinvested in and left behind,” Sen. Murray said during a May 2 press conference. “It is well past time to stop treating menopause like some kind of secret and start treating it like the major mainstream public health issue it is.”

Evidence Demands

Increased federal funding for menopause research could help efforts to change the warning label on low-dose estrogen, according to JoAnn Manson, MD, chief of preventive medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

Dr. Manson was a leader of the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI), a major federally funded research project launched in 1991 to investigate if hormone therapy and diet could protect older women from chronic diseases related to aging.

Before the WHI, clinicians prescribed hormones to prevent cardiovascular disease, based on evidence from earlier research.

But in 2002, a WHI trial that compared estrogen-progestin tablets with placebo was halted early because of disturbing findings, including an association with higher risk for breast cancer and cardiovascular disease.

Compared with placebo, for every 10,000 women taking estrogen plus progestin annually, incidences of cardiovascular disease, stroke, pulmonary embolism, and invasive breast cancer were seven to eight times higher.

In January 2003, the FDA announced it would put a boxed warning about cardiovascular risk and cancer risk on estrogen products, reflecting the WHI finding.

The agency at the time said clinicians should work with patients to assess risks and benefits of these products to manage the effects of menopause.

But more news on the potential harms of estrogen followed in 2004: A WHI study comparing estrogen-only pills with placebo produced signals of a small increased risk for stroke, although it also indicated no excess risk for breast cancer for at least 6.8 years of use.

Dr. Manson and the North American Menopause Society in 2016 filed a petition with the FDA to remove the boxed warning that appears on the front of low-dose estrogen products. The group wanted the information on risks moved to the usual warning section of the label.

Two years later, the FDA rejected the petition, citing the absence of “well-controlled studies,” to prove low-dose topical estrogen poses less risk to women than the high-dose pills studied in the WHI.

The FDA told this news organization that it stands by the decisions in its rejection of the petition.

Persuading the FDA to revise the labels on low-dose estrogen products likely will require evidence from randomized, large-scale studies, Dr. Manson said. The agency has not been satisfied to date with findings from other kinds of studies, including observational research.

“Once that evidence is available that the benefit-risk profile is different for different formulations and the evidence is compelling and definitive, that warning should change,” Dr. Manson told this news organization.

But the warning continues to have a chilling effect on patient willingness to use low-dose vaginal estrogen, even with the FDA’s continued endorsement of estrogen for menopause symptoms, clinicians told this news organization.

Risa Kagan, MD, a gynecologist at Sutter Health in Berkeley, California, said in many cases her patients’ partners also need to be reassured. Dr. Kagan said she still sees women who have had to discontinue sexual intercourse because of pain. In some cases, the patients will bring the medicine home only to find that the warnings frighten their spouses.

“The spouse says, ‘Oh my God, I don’t want you to get dementia, to get breast cancer, it’s not worth it, so let’s keep doing outercourse’,” meaning sexual relations without penetration, Dr. Kagan said.

Difficult Messaging

From the initial unveiling of disappointing WHI results, clinicians and researchers have stressed that women could continue using estrogen products for managing symptoms of menopause, even while advising strongly against their continued use with the intention of preventing heart disease.

Newly published findings from follow-ups of WHI participants may give clinicians and patients even more confidence for the use of estrogen products in early menopause.

According to the study, which Dr. Manson coauthored, younger women have a low risk for cardiovascular disease and other associated conditions when taking hormone therapy. Risks attributed to these drugs were less than one additional adverse event per 1000 women annually. This population may also derive significant quality-of-life benefits for symptom relief.

Dr. Manson told this news organization that estrogen in lower doses and delivered through the skin as a patch or gel may further reduce risks.

“The WHI findings should never be used as a reason to deny hormone therapy to women in early menopause with bothersome menopausal symptoms,” Dr. Manson said. “Many women are good candidates for treatment and, in shared decision-making with their clinicians, should be able to receive appropriate and personalized healthcare for their needs.”

But the current FDA warning label makes it difficult to help women understand the risk and benefits of low-dose estrogen, according to Stephanie Faubion, MD, MBA, medical director at the North American Menopause Society and director of Mayo Clinic’s Center for Women’s Health in Jacksonville, Florida.

Clinicians now must set aside time to explain the warnings to women when they prescribe low-dose estrogen, Dr. Faubion said.

“The package insert is going to look scary: I prepare women for that because otherwise they often won’t even fill it or use it.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Charles Powell, MD, said he sometimes has a hard time persuading patients to start on low-dose vaginal estrogen, which can help prevent urinary tract infections and ease other symptoms of menopause.

Many women fear taking these vaginal products because of what Dr. Powell considers excessively strong warnings about the risk for cancer and cardiovascular disease linked to daily estrogen pills that were issued in the early 2000s.

He is advocating for the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to remove the boxed warning on low-dose estrogen. His efforts are separate from his roles as an associate professor of urology at the Indiana University School of Medicine, and as a member of the American Urological Association (AUA), Dr. Powell said.

In his quest to find out how to change labeling, Dr. Powell has gained a quick education about drug regulation. He has enlisted Representative Jim Baird (R-IN) and Senator Mike Braun (R-IN) to contact the FDA on his behalf, while congressional staff guided him through the hurdles of getting the warning label changed. For instance, a manufacturer of low-dose estrogen may need to become involved.

“You don’t learn this in med school,” Dr. Powell said in an interview.

With this work, Dr. Powell is wading into a long-standing argument between the FDA and some clinicians and researchers about the potential harms of low-dose estrogen.

He is doing so at a time of increased interest in understanding genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM), a term coined a decade ago by the International Society for the Study of Women’s Sexual Health and the North American Menopause Society to cover “a constellation of conditions” related to urogenital atrophy.

Symptoms of GSM include vaginal dryness and burning and recurrent urinary tract infections.

The federal government in 2022 began a project budgeted with nearly $1 million to review evidence on treatments, including vaginal and low-dose estrogen. The aim is to eventually help the AUA develop clinical guidelines for addressing GSM.

In addition, a bipartisan Senate bill introduced in May calls for authorizing $125 million over 5 years for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to fund research on menopause. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), the lead sponsor of the bill, is a longtime advocate for women’s health and serves as chairwoman for the Senate Appropriations Committee, which largely sets the NIH budget.

“The bottom line is, for too long, menopause has been overlooked, underinvested in and left behind,” Sen. Murray said during a May 2 press conference. “It is well past time to stop treating menopause like some kind of secret and start treating it like the major mainstream public health issue it is.”

Evidence Demands

Increased federal funding for menopause research could help efforts to change the warning label on low-dose estrogen, according to JoAnn Manson, MD, chief of preventive medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

Dr. Manson was a leader of the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI), a major federally funded research project launched in 1991 to investigate if hormone therapy and diet could protect older women from chronic diseases related to aging.

Before the WHI, clinicians prescribed hormones to prevent cardiovascular disease, based on evidence from earlier research.

But in 2002, a WHI trial that compared estrogen-progestin tablets with placebo was halted early because of disturbing findings, including an association with higher risk for breast cancer and cardiovascular disease.

Compared with placebo, for every 10,000 women taking estrogen plus progestin annually, incidences of cardiovascular disease, stroke, pulmonary embolism, and invasive breast cancer were seven to eight times higher.

In January 2003, the FDA announced it would put a boxed warning about cardiovascular risk and cancer risk on estrogen products, reflecting the WHI finding.

The agency at the time said clinicians should work with patients to assess risks and benefits of these products to manage the effects of menopause.

But more news on the potential harms of estrogen followed in 2004: A WHI study comparing estrogen-only pills with placebo produced signals of a small increased risk for stroke, although it also indicated no excess risk for breast cancer for at least 6.8 years of use.

Dr. Manson and the North American Menopause Society in 2016 filed a petition with the FDA to remove the boxed warning that appears on the front of low-dose estrogen products. The group wanted the information on risks moved to the usual warning section of the label.

Two years later, the FDA rejected the petition, citing the absence of “well-controlled studies,” to prove low-dose topical estrogen poses less risk to women than the high-dose pills studied in the WHI.

The FDA told this news organization that it stands by the decisions in its rejection of the petition.

Persuading the FDA to revise the labels on low-dose estrogen products likely will require evidence from randomized, large-scale studies, Dr. Manson said. The agency has not been satisfied to date with findings from other kinds of studies, including observational research.

“Once that evidence is available that the benefit-risk profile is different for different formulations and the evidence is compelling and definitive, that warning should change,” Dr. Manson told this news organization.

But the warning continues to have a chilling effect on patient willingness to use low-dose vaginal estrogen, even with the FDA’s continued endorsement of estrogen for menopause symptoms, clinicians told this news organization.

Risa Kagan, MD, a gynecologist at Sutter Health in Berkeley, California, said in many cases her patients’ partners also need to be reassured. Dr. Kagan said she still sees women who have had to discontinue sexual intercourse because of pain. In some cases, the patients will bring the medicine home only to find that the warnings frighten their spouses.

“The spouse says, ‘Oh my God, I don’t want you to get dementia, to get breast cancer, it’s not worth it, so let’s keep doing outercourse’,” meaning sexual relations without penetration, Dr. Kagan said.

Difficult Messaging

From the initial unveiling of disappointing WHI results, clinicians and researchers have stressed that women could continue using estrogen products for managing symptoms of menopause, even while advising strongly against their continued use with the intention of preventing heart disease.

Newly published findings from follow-ups of WHI participants may give clinicians and patients even more confidence for the use of estrogen products in early menopause.

According to the study, which Dr. Manson coauthored, younger women have a low risk for cardiovascular disease and other associated conditions when taking hormone therapy. Risks attributed to these drugs were less than one additional adverse event per 1000 women annually. This population may also derive significant quality-of-life benefits for symptom relief.

Dr. Manson told this news organization that estrogen in lower doses and delivered through the skin as a patch or gel may further reduce risks.

“The WHI findings should never be used as a reason to deny hormone therapy to women in early menopause with bothersome menopausal symptoms,” Dr. Manson said. “Many women are good candidates for treatment and, in shared decision-making with their clinicians, should be able to receive appropriate and personalized healthcare for their needs.”

But the current FDA warning label makes it difficult to help women understand the risk and benefits of low-dose estrogen, according to Stephanie Faubion, MD, MBA, medical director at the North American Menopause Society and director of Mayo Clinic’s Center for Women’s Health in Jacksonville, Florida.

Clinicians now must set aside time to explain the warnings to women when they prescribe low-dose estrogen, Dr. Faubion said.

“The package insert is going to look scary: I prepare women for that because otherwise they often won’t even fill it or use it.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Charles Powell, MD, said he sometimes has a hard time persuading patients to start on low-dose vaginal estrogen, which can help prevent urinary tract infections and ease other symptoms of menopause.

Many women fear taking these vaginal products because of what Dr. Powell considers excessively strong warnings about the risk for cancer and cardiovascular disease linked to daily estrogen pills that were issued in the early 2000s.

He is advocating for the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to remove the boxed warning on low-dose estrogen. His efforts are separate from his roles as an associate professor of urology at the Indiana University School of Medicine, and as a member of the American Urological Association (AUA), Dr. Powell said.

In his quest to find out how to change labeling, Dr. Powell has gained a quick education about drug regulation. He has enlisted Representative Jim Baird (R-IN) and Senator Mike Braun (R-IN) to contact the FDA on his behalf, while congressional staff guided him through the hurdles of getting the warning label changed. For instance, a manufacturer of low-dose estrogen may need to become involved.

“You don’t learn this in med school,” Dr. Powell said in an interview.

With this work, Dr. Powell is wading into a long-standing argument between the FDA and some clinicians and researchers about the potential harms of low-dose estrogen.

He is doing so at a time of increased interest in understanding genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM), a term coined a decade ago by the International Society for the Study of Women’s Sexual Health and the North American Menopause Society to cover “a constellation of conditions” related to urogenital atrophy.

Symptoms of GSM include vaginal dryness and burning and recurrent urinary tract infections.

The federal government in 2022 began a project budgeted with nearly $1 million to review evidence on treatments, including vaginal and low-dose estrogen. The aim is to eventually help the AUA develop clinical guidelines for addressing GSM.

In addition, a bipartisan Senate bill introduced in May calls for authorizing $125 million over 5 years for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to fund research on menopause. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), the lead sponsor of the bill, is a longtime advocate for women’s health and serves as chairwoman for the Senate Appropriations Committee, which largely sets the NIH budget.

“The bottom line is, for too long, menopause has been overlooked, underinvested in and left behind,” Sen. Murray said during a May 2 press conference. “It is well past time to stop treating menopause like some kind of secret and start treating it like the major mainstream public health issue it is.”

Evidence Demands

Increased federal funding for menopause research could help efforts to change the warning label on low-dose estrogen, according to JoAnn Manson, MD, chief of preventive medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

Dr. Manson was a leader of the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI), a major federally funded research project launched in 1991 to investigate if hormone therapy and diet could protect older women from chronic diseases related to aging.

Before the WHI, clinicians prescribed hormones to prevent cardiovascular disease, based on evidence from earlier research.

But in 2002, a WHI trial that compared estrogen-progestin tablets with placebo was halted early because of disturbing findings, including an association with higher risk for breast cancer and cardiovascular disease.

Compared with placebo, for every 10,000 women taking estrogen plus progestin annually, incidences of cardiovascular disease, stroke, pulmonary embolism, and invasive breast cancer were seven to eight times higher.

In January 2003, the FDA announced it would put a boxed warning about cardiovascular risk and cancer risk on estrogen products, reflecting the WHI finding.

The agency at the time said clinicians should work with patients to assess risks and benefits of these products to manage the effects of menopause.

But more news on the potential harms of estrogen followed in 2004: A WHI study comparing estrogen-only pills with placebo produced signals of a small increased risk for stroke, although it also indicated no excess risk for breast cancer for at least 6.8 years of use.

Dr. Manson and the North American Menopause Society in 2016 filed a petition with the FDA to remove the boxed warning that appears on the front of low-dose estrogen products. The group wanted the information on risks moved to the usual warning section of the label.

Two years later, the FDA rejected the petition, citing the absence of “well-controlled studies,” to prove low-dose topical estrogen poses less risk to women than the high-dose pills studied in the WHI.

The FDA told this news organization that it stands by the decisions in its rejection of the petition.

Persuading the FDA to revise the labels on low-dose estrogen products likely will require evidence from randomized, large-scale studies, Dr. Manson said. The agency has not been satisfied to date with findings from other kinds of studies, including observational research.

“Once that evidence is available that the benefit-risk profile is different for different formulations and the evidence is compelling and definitive, that warning should change,” Dr. Manson told this news organization.

But the warning continues to have a chilling effect on patient willingness to use low-dose vaginal estrogen, even with the FDA’s continued endorsement of estrogen for menopause symptoms, clinicians told this news organization.

Risa Kagan, MD, a gynecologist at Sutter Health in Berkeley, California, said in many cases her patients’ partners also need to be reassured. Dr. Kagan said she still sees women who have had to discontinue sexual intercourse because of pain. In some cases, the patients will bring the medicine home only to find that the warnings frighten their spouses.

“The spouse says, ‘Oh my God, I don’t want you to get dementia, to get breast cancer, it’s not worth it, so let’s keep doing outercourse’,” meaning sexual relations without penetration, Dr. Kagan said.

Difficult Messaging

From the initial unveiling of disappointing WHI results, clinicians and researchers have stressed that women could continue using estrogen products for managing symptoms of menopause, even while advising strongly against their continued use with the intention of preventing heart disease.

Newly published findings from follow-ups of WHI participants may give clinicians and patients even more confidence for the use of estrogen products in early menopause.

According to the study, which Dr. Manson coauthored, younger women have a low risk for cardiovascular disease and other associated conditions when taking hormone therapy. Risks attributed to these drugs were less than one additional adverse event per 1000 women annually. This population may also derive significant quality-of-life benefits for symptom relief.

Dr. Manson told this news organization that estrogen in lower doses and delivered through the skin as a patch or gel may further reduce risks.

“The WHI findings should never be used as a reason to deny hormone therapy to women in early menopause with bothersome menopausal symptoms,” Dr. Manson said. “Many women are good candidates for treatment and, in shared decision-making with their clinicians, should be able to receive appropriate and personalized healthcare for their needs.”

But the current FDA warning label makes it difficult to help women understand the risk and benefits of low-dose estrogen, according to Stephanie Faubion, MD, MBA, medical director at the North American Menopause Society and director of Mayo Clinic’s Center for Women’s Health in Jacksonville, Florida.

Clinicians now must set aside time to explain the warnings to women when they prescribe low-dose estrogen, Dr. Faubion said.

“The package insert is going to look scary: I prepare women for that because otherwise they often won’t even fill it or use it.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Darker skin tones were underrepresented in images on patient-facing online educational material about skin cancer, an analysis of photos from six different federal and organization websites showed.

“Given the known disparities patients with darker skin tones face in terms of increased skin cancer morbidity and mortality, this lack of representation further disadvantages those patients by not providing them with an adequate representation of how skin cancers manifest on their skin tones,” the study’s first author, Alana Sadur, who recently completed her third year at the George Washington School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, said in an interview. “By not having images to refer to, patients are less likely to self-identify and seek treatment for concerning skin lesions.”

For the study, which was published in Journal of Drugs in Dermatology, Ms. Sadur and coauthors evaluated the inclusivity and representation of skin tones in photos of skin cancer on the following patient-facing websites: CDC.gov, NIH.gov, skincancer.org, americancancerfund.org, mayoclinic.org, and cancer.org. The researchers counted each individual person or image showing skin as a separate representation, and three independent reviewers used the 5-color Pantone swatch as described in a dermatology atlas to categorize representations as “lighter-toned skin” (Pantones A-B or lighter) or “darker-toned skin” (Pantones C-E or darker). 

Of the 372 total representations identified on the websites, only 49 (13.2%) showed darker skin tones. Of these, 44.9% depicted Pantone C, 34.7% depicted Pantone D, and 20.4% depicted Pantone E. The researchers also found that only 11% of nonmelanoma skin cancers (NMSC) and 5.8% of melanoma skin cancers (MSC) were shown on darker skin tones, while no cartoon portrayals of NMSC or MSC included darker skin tones.

In findings related to nondisease representations on the websites, darker skin tones were depicted in just 22.7% of stock photos and 26.1% of website front pages.

The study’s senior author, Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, emphasized the need for trusted sources like national organizations and federally funded agencies to be purposeful with their selection of images to “ensure all visitors to the site are represented,” he told this news organization.

“This is very important when dealing with skin cancer as a lack of representation could easily be misinterpreted as epidemiological data, meaning this gap could suggest certain individuals do not get skin cancer because photos in those skin tones are not present,” he added. “This doesn’t even begin to touch upon the diversity of individuals in the stock photos or lack thereof, which can perpetuate the lack of diversity in our specialty. We need to do better.”

The authors reported having no relevant disclosures.

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

Darker skin tones were underrepresented in images on patient-facing online educational material about skin cancer, an analysis of photos from six different federal and organization websites showed.

“Given the known disparities patients with darker skin tones face in terms of increased skin cancer morbidity and mortality, this lack of representation further disadvantages those patients by not providing them with an adequate representation of how skin cancers manifest on their skin tones,” the study’s first author, Alana Sadur, who recently completed her third year at the George Washington School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, said in an interview. “By not having images to refer to, patients are less likely to self-identify and seek treatment for concerning skin lesions.”

For the study, which was published in Journal of Drugs in Dermatology, Ms. Sadur and coauthors evaluated the inclusivity and representation of skin tones in photos of skin cancer on the following patient-facing websites: CDC.gov, NIH.gov, skincancer.org, americancancerfund.org, mayoclinic.org, and cancer.org. The researchers counted each individual person or image showing skin as a separate representation, and three independent reviewers used the 5-color Pantone swatch as described in a dermatology atlas to categorize representations as “lighter-toned skin” (Pantones A-B or lighter) or “darker-toned skin” (Pantones C-E or darker). 

Of the 372 total representations identified on the websites, only 49 (13.2%) showed darker skin tones. Of these, 44.9% depicted Pantone C, 34.7% depicted Pantone D, and 20.4% depicted Pantone E. The researchers also found that only 11% of nonmelanoma skin cancers (NMSC) and 5.8% of melanoma skin cancers (MSC) were shown on darker skin tones, while no cartoon portrayals of NMSC or MSC included darker skin tones.

In findings related to nondisease representations on the websites, darker skin tones were depicted in just 22.7% of stock photos and 26.1% of website front pages.

The study’s senior author, Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, emphasized the need for trusted sources like national organizations and federally funded agencies to be purposeful with their selection of images to “ensure all visitors to the site are represented,” he told this news organization.

“This is very important when dealing with skin cancer as a lack of representation could easily be misinterpreted as epidemiological data, meaning this gap could suggest certain individuals do not get skin cancer because photos in those skin tones are not present,” he added. “This doesn’t even begin to touch upon the diversity of individuals in the stock photos or lack thereof, which can perpetuate the lack of diversity in our specialty. We need to do better.”

The authors reported having no relevant disclosures.

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

Darker skin tones were underrepresented in images on patient-facing online educational material about skin cancer, an analysis of photos from six different federal and organization websites showed.

“Given the known disparities patients with darker skin tones face in terms of increased skin cancer morbidity and mortality, this lack of representation further disadvantages those patients by not providing them with an adequate representation of how skin cancers manifest on their skin tones,” the study’s first author, Alana Sadur, who recently completed her third year at the George Washington School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, said in an interview. “By not having images to refer to, patients are less likely to self-identify and seek treatment for concerning skin lesions.”

For the study, which was published in Journal of Drugs in Dermatology, Ms. Sadur and coauthors evaluated the inclusivity and representation of skin tones in photos of skin cancer on the following patient-facing websites: CDC.gov, NIH.gov, skincancer.org, americancancerfund.org, mayoclinic.org, and cancer.org. The researchers counted each individual person or image showing skin as a separate representation, and three independent reviewers used the 5-color Pantone swatch as described in a dermatology atlas to categorize representations as “lighter-toned skin” (Pantones A-B or lighter) or “darker-toned skin” (Pantones C-E or darker). 

Of the 372 total representations identified on the websites, only 49 (13.2%) showed darker skin tones. Of these, 44.9% depicted Pantone C, 34.7% depicted Pantone D, and 20.4% depicted Pantone E. The researchers also found that only 11% of nonmelanoma skin cancers (NMSC) and 5.8% of melanoma skin cancers (MSC) were shown on darker skin tones, while no cartoon portrayals of NMSC or MSC included darker skin tones.

In findings related to nondisease representations on the websites, darker skin tones were depicted in just 22.7% of stock photos and 26.1% of website front pages.

The study’s senior author, Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, emphasized the need for trusted sources like national organizations and federally funded agencies to be purposeful with their selection of images to “ensure all visitors to the site are represented,” he told this news organization.

“This is very important when dealing with skin cancer as a lack of representation could easily be misinterpreted as epidemiological data, meaning this gap could suggest certain individuals do not get skin cancer because photos in those skin tones are not present,” he added. “This doesn’t even begin to touch upon the diversity of individuals in the stock photos or lack thereof, which can perpetuate the lack of diversity in our specialty. We need to do better.”

The authors reported having no relevant disclosures.

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

BERLIN — To date, mRNA vaccines have had their largest global presence in combating the COVID-19 pandemic. Intensive research is underway on many other potential applications for this vaccine technology, which suggests a promising future. Martina Prelog, MD, a pediatric and adolescent medicine specialist at the University Hospital of Würzburg in Germany, reported on the principles, research status, and perspectives for these vaccines at the 25th Travel and Health Forum of the Center for Travel Medicine in Berlin.

To understand the future, the immunologist first examined the past. “The induction of cellular and humoral immune responses by externally injected mRNA was discovered in the 1990s,” she said.
 

Instability Challenge

Significant hurdles in mRNA vaccinations included the instability of mRNA and the immune system’s ability to identify foreign mRNA as a threat and destroy mRNA fragments. “The breakthrough toward vaccination came through Dr. Katalin Karikó, who, along with Dr. Drew Weissman, both of the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, discovered in 2005 that modifications of mRNA (replacing the nucleoside uridine with pseudouridine) enable better stability of mRNA, reduced immunogenicity, and higher translational capacity at the ribosomes,” said Dr. Prelog.

With this discovery, the two researchers paved the way for the development of mRNA vaccines against COVID-19 and other diseases. They were awarded the Nobel Prize in medicine for their discovery last year.
 

Improved Scalability

“Since 2009, mRNA vaccines have been studied as a treatment option for cancer,” said Dr. Prelog. “Since 2012, they have been studied for the influenza virus and respiratory syncytial virus [RSV].” Consequently, several mRNA vaccines are currently in development or in approval studies. “The mRNA technology offers the advantage of quickly and flexibly responding to new variants of pathogens and the ability to scale up production when there is high demand for a particular vaccine.”

Different forms and designations of mRNA vaccines are used, depending on the application and desired effect, said Dr. Prelog.

In nucleoside-modified mRNA vaccines, modifications in the mRNA sequence enable the mRNA to remain in the body longer and to induce protein synthesis more effectively.

Lipid nanoparticle (LNP)–encapsulated mRNA vaccines protect the coding mRNA sequences against degradation by the body’s enzymes and facilitate the uptake of mRNA into cells, where it then triggers the production of the desired protein. In addition, LNPs are involved in cell stimulation and support the self-adjuvant effect of mRNA vaccines, thus eliminating the need for adjuvants.

Self-amplifying mRNA vaccines include a special mRNA that replicates itself in the cell and contains a sequence for RNA replicase, in addition to the coding sequence for the protein. This composition enables increased production of the target protein without the need for a high amount of external mRNA administration. Such vaccines could trigger a longer and stronger immune response because the immune system has more time to interact with the protein.
 

Cancer Immunotherapy

Dr. Prelog also discussed personalized vaccines for cancer immunotherapy. Personalized mRNA vaccines are tailored to the patient’s genetic characteristics and antigens. They could be used in cancer immunotherapy to activate the immune system selectively against tumor cells.

Multivalent mRNA vaccines contain mRNA that codes for multiple antigens rather than just one protein to generate an immune response. These vaccines could be particularly useful in fighting pathogens with variable or changing surface structures or in eliciting protection against multiple pathogens simultaneously.

The technology of mRNA-encoded antibodies involves introducing mRNA into the cell, which creates light and heavy chains of antibodies. This step leads to the formation of antibodies targeted against toxins (eg, diphtheria and tetanus), animal venoms, infectious agents, or tumor cells.
 

Genetic Engineering

Dr. Prelog also reviewed genetic engineering techniques. In regenerative therapy or protein replacement therapy, skin fibroblasts or other cells are transfected with mRNA to enable conversion into induced pluripotent stem cells. This approach avoids the risk for DNA integration into the genome and associated mutation risks.

Another approach is making post-transcriptional modifications through RNA interference. For example, RNA structures can be used to inhibit the translation of disease-causing proteins. This technique is currently being tested against HIV and tumors such as melanoma.

In addition, mRNA technologies can be combined with CRISPR/Cas9 technology (“gene scissors”) to influence the creation of gene products even more precisely. The advantage of this technique is that mRNA is only transiently expressed, thus preventing unwanted side effects. Furthermore, mRNA is translated directly in the cytoplasm, leading to a faster initiation of gene editing.

Of the numerous ongoing clinical mRNA vaccine studies, around 70% focus on infections, about 12% on cancer, and the rest on autoimmune diseases and neurodegenerative disorders, said Dr. Prelog.
 

Research in Infections

Research in the fields of infectious diseases and oncology is the most advanced: mRNA vaccines against influenza and RSV are already in advanced clinical trials, Dr. Prelog told this news organization.

“Conventional influenza vaccines contain immunogenic surface molecules against hemagglutinin and neuraminidase in various combinations of influenza strains A and B and are produced in egg or cell cultures,” she said. “This is a time-consuming manufacturing process that takes months and, particularly with the egg-based process, bears the risk of changing the vaccine strain.”

“Additionally, influenza viruses undergo antigenic shift and drift through recombination, thus requiring annual adjustments to the vaccines. Thus, these influenza vaccines often lose accuracy in targeting circulating seasonal influenza strains.”

Several mRNA vaccines being tested contain not only coding sequences against hemagglutinin and neuraminidase but also for structural proteins of influenza viruses. “These are more conserved and mutate less easily, meaning they could serve as the basis for universal pandemic influenza vaccines,” said Dr. Prelog.

An advantage of mRNA vaccines, she added, is the strong cellular immune response that they elicit. This response is intended to provide additional protection alongside specific antibodies. An mRNA vaccine with coding sequences for the pre-fusion protein of RSV is in phase 3 trials for approval for vaccination in patients aged 60 years and older. It shows high effectiveness even in older patients and those with comorbidities.
 

Elaborate Purification Process

Bacterial origin plasmid DNA is used to produce mRNA vaccines. The mRNA vaccines for COVID-19 raised concerns that production-related DNA residues could pose a safety risk and cause autoimmune diseases.

These vaccines “typically undergo a very elaborate purification process,” said Dr. Prelog. “This involves enzymatic digestion with DNase to fragment and deplete plasmid DNA, followed by purification using chromatography columns, so that no safety-relevant DNA fragments should remain afterward.”

Thus, the Paul-Ehrlich-Institut also pointed out the very small, fragmented plasmid DNA residues of bacterial origin in mRNA COVID-19 vaccines pose no risk, unlike residual DNA from animal cell culture might pose in other vaccines.
 

Prevention and Therapy

In addition to the numerous advantages of mRNA vaccines (such as rapid adaptability to new or mutated pathogens, scalability, rapid production capability, self-adjuvant effect, strong induction of cellular immune responses, and safety), there are also challenges in RNA technology as a preventive and therapeutic measure, according to Dr. Prelog.

“Stability and storability, as well as the costs of new vaccine developments, play a role, as do the long-term effects regarding the persistence of antibody and cellular responses,” she said. The COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, for example, showed a well-maintained cellular immune response despite a tendency toward a rapid decline in humoral immune response.

“The experience with COVID-19 mRNA vaccines and the new vaccine developments based on mRNA technology give hope for an efficient and safe preventive and therapeutic use, particularly in the fields of infectious diseases and oncology,” Dr. Prelog concluded.

This story was translated from the Medscape German edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BERLIN — To date, mRNA vaccines have had their largest global presence in combating the COVID-19 pandemic. Intensive research is underway on many other potential applications for this vaccine technology, which suggests a promising future. Martina Prelog, MD, a pediatric and adolescent medicine specialist at the University Hospital of Würzburg in Germany, reported on the principles, research status, and perspectives for these vaccines at the 25th Travel and Health Forum of the Center for Travel Medicine in Berlin.

To understand the future, the immunologist first examined the past. “The induction of cellular and humoral immune responses by externally injected mRNA was discovered in the 1990s,” she said.
 

Instability Challenge

Significant hurdles in mRNA vaccinations included the instability of mRNA and the immune system’s ability to identify foreign mRNA as a threat and destroy mRNA fragments. “The breakthrough toward vaccination came through Dr. Katalin Karikó, who, along with Dr. Drew Weissman, both of the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, discovered in 2005 that modifications of mRNA (replacing the nucleoside uridine with pseudouridine) enable better stability of mRNA, reduced immunogenicity, and higher translational capacity at the ribosomes,” said Dr. Prelog.

With this discovery, the two researchers paved the way for the development of mRNA vaccines against COVID-19 and other diseases. They were awarded the Nobel Prize in medicine for their discovery last year.
 

Improved Scalability

“Since 2009, mRNA vaccines have been studied as a treatment option for cancer,” said Dr. Prelog. “Since 2012, they have been studied for the influenza virus and respiratory syncytial virus [RSV].” Consequently, several mRNA vaccines are currently in development or in approval studies. “The mRNA technology offers the advantage of quickly and flexibly responding to new variants of pathogens and the ability to scale up production when there is high demand for a particular vaccine.”

Different forms and designations of mRNA vaccines are used, depending on the application and desired effect, said Dr. Prelog.

In nucleoside-modified mRNA vaccines, modifications in the mRNA sequence enable the mRNA to remain in the body longer and to induce protein synthesis more effectively.

Lipid nanoparticle (LNP)–encapsulated mRNA vaccines protect the coding mRNA sequences against degradation by the body’s enzymes and facilitate the uptake of mRNA into cells, where it then triggers the production of the desired protein. In addition, LNPs are involved in cell stimulation and support the self-adjuvant effect of mRNA vaccines, thus eliminating the need for adjuvants.

Self-amplifying mRNA vaccines include a special mRNA that replicates itself in the cell and contains a sequence for RNA replicase, in addition to the coding sequence for the protein. This composition enables increased production of the target protein without the need for a high amount of external mRNA administration. Such vaccines could trigger a longer and stronger immune response because the immune system has more time to interact with the protein.
 

Cancer Immunotherapy

Dr. Prelog also discussed personalized vaccines for cancer immunotherapy. Personalized mRNA vaccines are tailored to the patient’s genetic characteristics and antigens. They could be used in cancer immunotherapy to activate the immune system selectively against tumor cells.

Multivalent mRNA vaccines contain mRNA that codes for multiple antigens rather than just one protein to generate an immune response. These vaccines could be particularly useful in fighting pathogens with variable or changing surface structures or in eliciting protection against multiple pathogens simultaneously.

The technology of mRNA-encoded antibodies involves introducing mRNA into the cell, which creates light and heavy chains of antibodies. This step leads to the formation of antibodies targeted against toxins (eg, diphtheria and tetanus), animal venoms, infectious agents, or tumor cells.
 

Genetic Engineering

Dr. Prelog also reviewed genetic engineering techniques. In regenerative therapy or protein replacement therapy, skin fibroblasts or other cells are transfected with mRNA to enable conversion into induced pluripotent stem cells. This approach avoids the risk for DNA integration into the genome and associated mutation risks.

Another approach is making post-transcriptional modifications through RNA interference. For example, RNA structures can be used to inhibit the translation of disease-causing proteins. This technique is currently being tested against HIV and tumors such as melanoma.

In addition, mRNA technologies can be combined with CRISPR/Cas9 technology (“gene scissors”) to influence the creation of gene products even more precisely. The advantage of this technique is that mRNA is only transiently expressed, thus preventing unwanted side effects. Furthermore, mRNA is translated directly in the cytoplasm, leading to a faster initiation of gene editing.

Of the numerous ongoing clinical mRNA vaccine studies, around 70% focus on infections, about 12% on cancer, and the rest on autoimmune diseases and neurodegenerative disorders, said Dr. Prelog.
 

Research in Infections

Research in the fields of infectious diseases and oncology is the most advanced: mRNA vaccines against influenza and RSV are already in advanced clinical trials, Dr. Prelog told this news organization.

“Conventional influenza vaccines contain immunogenic surface molecules against hemagglutinin and neuraminidase in various combinations of influenza strains A and B and are produced in egg or cell cultures,” she said. “This is a time-consuming manufacturing process that takes months and, particularly with the egg-based process, bears the risk of changing the vaccine strain.”

“Additionally, influenza viruses undergo antigenic shift and drift through recombination, thus requiring annual adjustments to the vaccines. Thus, these influenza vaccines often lose accuracy in targeting circulating seasonal influenza strains.”

Several mRNA vaccines being tested contain not only coding sequences against hemagglutinin and neuraminidase but also for structural proteins of influenza viruses. “These are more conserved and mutate less easily, meaning they could serve as the basis for universal pandemic influenza vaccines,” said Dr. Prelog.

An advantage of mRNA vaccines, she added, is the strong cellular immune response that they elicit. This response is intended to provide additional protection alongside specific antibodies. An mRNA vaccine with coding sequences for the pre-fusion protein of RSV is in phase 3 trials for approval for vaccination in patients aged 60 years and older. It shows high effectiveness even in older patients and those with comorbidities.
 

Elaborate Purification Process

Bacterial origin plasmid DNA is used to produce mRNA vaccines. The mRNA vaccines for COVID-19 raised concerns that production-related DNA residues could pose a safety risk and cause autoimmune diseases.

These vaccines “typically undergo a very elaborate purification process,” said Dr. Prelog. “This involves enzymatic digestion with DNase to fragment and deplete plasmid DNA, followed by purification using chromatography columns, so that no safety-relevant DNA fragments should remain afterward.”

Thus, the Paul-Ehrlich-Institut also pointed out the very small, fragmented plasmid DNA residues of bacterial origin in mRNA COVID-19 vaccines pose no risk, unlike residual DNA from animal cell culture might pose in other vaccines.
 

Prevention and Therapy

In addition to the numerous advantages of mRNA vaccines (such as rapid adaptability to new or mutated pathogens, scalability, rapid production capability, self-adjuvant effect, strong induction of cellular immune responses, and safety), there are also challenges in RNA technology as a preventive and therapeutic measure, according to Dr. Prelog.

“Stability and storability, as well as the costs of new vaccine developments, play a role, as do the long-term effects regarding the persistence of antibody and cellular responses,” she said. The COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, for example, showed a well-maintained cellular immune response despite a tendency toward a rapid decline in humoral immune response.

“The experience with COVID-19 mRNA vaccines and the new vaccine developments based on mRNA technology give hope for an efficient and safe preventive and therapeutic use, particularly in the fields of infectious diseases and oncology,” Dr. Prelog concluded.

This story was translated from the Medscape German edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BERLIN — To date, mRNA vaccines have had their largest global presence in combating the COVID-19 pandemic. Intensive research is underway on many other potential applications for this vaccine technology, which suggests a promising future. Martina Prelog, MD, a pediatric and adolescent medicine specialist at the University Hospital of Würzburg in Germany, reported on the principles, research status, and perspectives for these vaccines at the 25th Travel and Health Forum of the Center for Travel Medicine in Berlin.

To understand the future, the immunologist first examined the past. “The induction of cellular and humoral immune responses by externally injected mRNA was discovered in the 1990s,” she said.
 

Instability Challenge

Significant hurdles in mRNA vaccinations included the instability of mRNA and the immune system’s ability to identify foreign mRNA as a threat and destroy mRNA fragments. “The breakthrough toward vaccination came through Dr. Katalin Karikó, who, along with Dr. Drew Weissman, both of the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, discovered in 2005 that modifications of mRNA (replacing the nucleoside uridine with pseudouridine) enable better stability of mRNA, reduced immunogenicity, and higher translational capacity at the ribosomes,” said Dr. Prelog.

With this discovery, the two researchers paved the way for the development of mRNA vaccines against COVID-19 and other diseases. They were awarded the Nobel Prize in medicine for their discovery last year.
 

Improved Scalability

“Since 2009, mRNA vaccines have been studied as a treatment option for cancer,” said Dr. Prelog. “Since 2012, they have been studied for the influenza virus and respiratory syncytial virus [RSV].” Consequently, several mRNA vaccines are currently in development or in approval studies. “The mRNA technology offers the advantage of quickly and flexibly responding to new variants of pathogens and the ability to scale up production when there is high demand for a particular vaccine.”

Different forms and designations of mRNA vaccines are used, depending on the application and desired effect, said Dr. Prelog.

In nucleoside-modified mRNA vaccines, modifications in the mRNA sequence enable the mRNA to remain in the body longer and to induce protein synthesis more effectively.

Lipid nanoparticle (LNP)–encapsulated mRNA vaccines protect the coding mRNA sequences against degradation by the body’s enzymes and facilitate the uptake of mRNA into cells, where it then triggers the production of the desired protein. In addition, LNPs are involved in cell stimulation and support the self-adjuvant effect of mRNA vaccines, thus eliminating the need for adjuvants.

Self-amplifying mRNA vaccines include a special mRNA that replicates itself in the cell and contains a sequence for RNA replicase, in addition to the coding sequence for the protein. This composition enables increased production of the target protein without the need for a high amount of external mRNA administration. Such vaccines could trigger a longer and stronger immune response because the immune system has more time to interact with the protein.
 

Cancer Immunotherapy

Dr. Prelog also discussed personalized vaccines for cancer immunotherapy. Personalized mRNA vaccines are tailored to the patient’s genetic characteristics and antigens. They could be used in cancer immunotherapy to activate the immune system selectively against tumor cells.

Multivalent mRNA vaccines contain mRNA that codes for multiple antigens rather than just one protein to generate an immune response. These vaccines could be particularly useful in fighting pathogens with variable or changing surface structures or in eliciting protection against multiple pathogens simultaneously.

The technology of mRNA-encoded antibodies involves introducing mRNA into the cell, which creates light and heavy chains of antibodies. This step leads to the formation of antibodies targeted against toxins (eg, diphtheria and tetanus), animal venoms, infectious agents, or tumor cells.
 

Genetic Engineering

Dr. Prelog also reviewed genetic engineering techniques. In regenerative therapy or protein replacement therapy, skin fibroblasts or other cells are transfected with mRNA to enable conversion into induced pluripotent stem cells. This approach avoids the risk for DNA integration into the genome and associated mutation risks.

Another approach is making post-transcriptional modifications through RNA interference. For example, RNA structures can be used to inhibit the translation of disease-causing proteins. This technique is currently being tested against HIV and tumors such as melanoma.

In addition, mRNA technologies can be combined with CRISPR/Cas9 technology (“gene scissors”) to influence the creation of gene products even more precisely. The advantage of this technique is that mRNA is only transiently expressed, thus preventing unwanted side effects. Furthermore, mRNA is translated directly in the cytoplasm, leading to a faster initiation of gene editing.

Of the numerous ongoing clinical mRNA vaccine studies, around 70% focus on infections, about 12% on cancer, and the rest on autoimmune diseases and neurodegenerative disorders, said Dr. Prelog.
 

Research in Infections

Research in the fields of infectious diseases and oncology is the most advanced: mRNA vaccines against influenza and RSV are already in advanced clinical trials, Dr. Prelog told this news organization.

“Conventional influenza vaccines contain immunogenic surface molecules against hemagglutinin and neuraminidase in various combinations of influenza strains A and B and are produced in egg or cell cultures,” she said. “This is a time-consuming manufacturing process that takes months and, particularly with the egg-based process, bears the risk of changing the vaccine strain.”

“Additionally, influenza viruses undergo antigenic shift and drift through recombination, thus requiring annual adjustments to the vaccines. Thus, these influenza vaccines often lose accuracy in targeting circulating seasonal influenza strains.”

Several mRNA vaccines being tested contain not only coding sequences against hemagglutinin and neuraminidase but also for structural proteins of influenza viruses. “These are more conserved and mutate less easily, meaning they could serve as the basis for universal pandemic influenza vaccines,” said Dr. Prelog.

An advantage of mRNA vaccines, she added, is the strong cellular immune response that they elicit. This response is intended to provide additional protection alongside specific antibodies. An mRNA vaccine with coding sequences for the pre-fusion protein of RSV is in phase 3 trials for approval for vaccination in patients aged 60 years and older. It shows high effectiveness even in older patients and those with comorbidities.
 

Elaborate Purification Process

Bacterial origin plasmid DNA is used to produce mRNA vaccines. The mRNA vaccines for COVID-19 raised concerns that production-related DNA residues could pose a safety risk and cause autoimmune diseases.

These vaccines “typically undergo a very elaborate purification process,” said Dr. Prelog. “This involves enzymatic digestion with DNase to fragment and deplete plasmid DNA, followed by purification using chromatography columns, so that no safety-relevant DNA fragments should remain afterward.”

Thus, the Paul-Ehrlich-Institut also pointed out the very small, fragmented plasmid DNA residues of bacterial origin in mRNA COVID-19 vaccines pose no risk, unlike residual DNA from animal cell culture might pose in other vaccines.
 

Prevention and Therapy

In addition to the numerous advantages of mRNA vaccines (such as rapid adaptability to new or mutated pathogens, scalability, rapid production capability, self-adjuvant effect, strong induction of cellular immune responses, and safety), there are also challenges in RNA technology as a preventive and therapeutic measure, according to Dr. Prelog.

“Stability and storability, as well as the costs of new vaccine developments, play a role, as do the long-term effects regarding the persistence of antibody and cellular responses,” she said. The COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, for example, showed a well-maintained cellular immune response despite a tendency toward a rapid decline in humoral immune response.

“The experience with COVID-19 mRNA vaccines and the new vaccine developments based on mRNA technology give hope for an efficient and safe preventive and therapeutic use, particularly in the fields of infectious diseases and oncology,” Dr. Prelog concluded.

This story was translated from the Medscape German edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Cisplatin is a preferred treatment for a wide range of cancers, including breast, head and neck, lung, ovary, and more. However, its side effects — particularly nephrotoxicity — can be severe. Kidney injury on cisplatin is associated with higher mortality and can jeopardize a patient’s eligibility for other therapies.

Now, in a large study using data from six US cancer centers, researchers have developed a risk algorithm to predict acute kidney injury (AKI) after cisplatin administration.

A risk prediction calculator based on the algorithm is available online for patients and providers to determine an individual patient›s risk for kidney injury from cisplatin using readily available clinical data.

Other risk scores and risk prediction models have been developed to help clinicians assess in advance whether a patient might develop AKI after receiving cisplatin, so that more careful monitoring, dose adjustments, or an alternative treatment, if available, might be considered.

However, previous models were limited by factors such as small sample sizes, lack of external validation, older data, and liberal definitions of AKI, said Shruti Gupta, MD, MPH, director of onco-nephrology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH) and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and David E. Leaf, MD, MMSc, director of clinical and translational research in AKI, Division of Renal Medicine, BWH, Boston.

Dr. Gupta and Dr. Leaf believe their risk score for predicting severe AKI after intravenous (IV) cisplatin, published online in The BMJ, is “more accurate and generalizable than prior models for several reasons,” they told this news organization in a joint email.

“First, we externally validated our findings across cancer centers other than the one where it was developed,” they said. “Second, we focused on moderate to severe kidney injury, the most clinically relevant form of kidney damage, whereas prior models examined more mild forms of kidney injury. Third, we collected data on nearly 25,000 patients receiving their first dose of IV cisplatin, which is larger than all previous studies combined.”
 

‘Herculean Effort’

“We conceived of this study back in 2018, contacted collaborators at each participating cancer center, and had numerous meetings to try to gather granular data on patients treated with their first dose of intravenous (IV) cisplatin,” Dr. Gupta and Dr. Leaf explained. They also incorporated patient feedback from focus groups and surveys.

“This was truly a Herculean effort that involved physicians, programmers, research coordinators, and patients,” they said.

The multicenter study included 24,717 patients — 11,766 in the derivation cohort and 12,951 in the validation cohort. Overall, the median age was about 60 years, about 58% were men, and about 78% were White.

The primary outcome was cisplatin-induced AKI (CP-AKI), defined as a twofold or greater increase in serum creatinine or kidney replacement therapy within 14 days of a first dose of IV cisplatin.

The researchers found that the incidence of CP-AKI was 5.2% in the derivation cohort and 3.3% in the validation cohort. Their simple risk score consisting of nine covariates — age, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, hemoglobin level, white blood cell count, platelet count, serum albumin level, serum magnesium level, and cisplatin dose — predicted a higher risk for CP-AKI in both cohorts.

Notably, adding serum creatinine to the model did not change the area under the curve, and therefore, serum creatinine, though also an independent risk factor for CP-AKI, was not included in the score.

Patients in the highest risk category had 24-fold higher odds of CP-AKI in the derivation cohort and close to 18-fold higher odds in the validation cohort than those in the lowest risk category.

The primary model had a C statistic of 0.75 (95% CI, 0.73-0.76) and showed better discrimination for CP-AKI than previously published models, for which the C statistics ranged from 0.60 to 0.68. The first author of a paper on an earlier model, Shveta Motwani, MD, MMSc, of BWH and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, is also a coauthor of the new study.

Greater severity of CP-AKI was associated with shorter 90-day survival (adjusted hazard ratio, 4.63; 95% CI, 3.56-6.02) for stage III CP-AKI vs no CP-AKI.
 

‘Definitive Work’

Joel M. Topf, MD, a nephrologist with expertise in chronic kidney disease in Detroit, who wasn’t involved in the development of the risk score, called the study “a definitive work on an important concept in oncology and nephrology.”

“While this is not the first attempt to devise a risk score, it is by far the biggest,” he told this news organization. Furthermore, the authors “used a diverse population, recruiting patients with a variety of cancers (previous attempts had often used a homogenous diagnosis, putting into question how generalizable the results were) from six different cancer centers.”

In addition, he said, “The authors did not restrict patients with chronic kidney disease or other significant comorbidities and used the geographic diversity to produce a cohort that has an age, gender, racial, and ethnic distribution, which is more representative of the US than previous, single-center attempts to risk score patients.”

An earlier model used the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) consensus definition of AKI of an increase in serum creatinine of 0.3 mg/dL, he noted. “While a sensitive definition of AKI, it captures mild, hemodynamic increases in creatinine of questionable significance,” he said.

By contrast, the new score uses KDIGO stage II and above to define AKI. “This is a better choice, as we do not want to dissuade patients and doctors from choosing chemotherapy due to a fear of insignificant kidney damage,” he said.

All that said, Dr. Topf noted that neither the current score nor the earlier model included serum creatinine. “This is curious to me and may represent the small number of patients with representative elevated creatinine in the derivation cohort (only 1.3% with an estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] < 45).”

“Since the cohort is made up of people who received cis-platinum, the low prevalence of eGFRs < 45 may be due to physicians steering away from cis-platinum in this group,” he suggested. “It would be unfortunate if this risk score gave an unintentional ‘green light’ to these patients, exposing them to predictable harm.”
 

‘Certainly Useful’

Anushree Shirali, MD, an associate professor in the Section of Nephrology and consulting physician, Yale Onco-Nephrology, Yale School of Medicine, in New Haven, Connecticut, said that having a prediction score for which patients are more likely to develop AKI after a single dose of cisplatin would be helpful for oncologists, as well as nephrologists.

As a nephrologist, Dr. Shirali mostly sees patients who already have AKI, she told this news organization. But there are circumstances in which the tool could still be helpful.

“Let’s say someone has abnormal kidney function at baseline — ie, creatinine is higher than the normal range — and they were on dialysis 5 years ago for something else, and now, they have cancer and may be given cisplatin. They worry about their chances of getting AKI and needing dialysis again,” she said. “That’s just one scenario in which I might be asked to answer that question and the tool would certainly be useful.”

Other scenarios could include someone who has just one kidney because they donated a kidney for transplant years ago, and now, they have a malignancy and wonder what their actual risk is of getting kidney issues on cisplatin.

Oncologists could use the tool to determine whether a patient should be treated with cisplatin, or if they’re at high risk, whether an alternative that’s not nephrotoxic might be used. By contrast, “if somebody’s low risk and an oncologist thinks cisplatin is the best agent they have, then they might want to go ahead and use it,” Dr. Shirali said.

Future research could take into consideration that CP-AKI is dose dependent, she suggested, because a prediction score that included the number of cisplatin doses could be even more helpful to determine risk. And, even though the derivation and validation cohorts for the new tool are representative of the US population, additional research should also include more racial/ethnic diversity, she said.

Dr. Gupta and Dr. Leaf hope their tool “will be utilized immediately by patients and providers to help predict an individual’s risk of cisplatin-associated kidney damage. It is easy to use, available for free online, and incorporates readily available clinical variables.”

If a patient is at high risk, the clinical team can consider preventive measures such as administering more IV fluids before receiving cisplatin or monitoring kidney function more closely afterward, they suggested.

Dr. Gupta reported research support from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. She also reported research funding from BTG International, GE HealthCare, and AstraZeneca outside the submitted work. She is a member of GlaxoSmithKline’s Global Anemia Council, a consultant for Secretome and Proletariat Therapeutics, and founder and president emeritus of the American Society of Onconephrology (unpaid). Dr. Leaf is supported by NIH grants, reported research support from BioPorto, BTG International, and Metro International Biotech, and has served as a consultant. Dr. Topf reported an ownership stake in a few DaVita-run dialysis clinics. He also runs a vascular access center and has participated in advisory boards with Cara Therapeutics, Vifor, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Renibus Therapeutics, Travere Therapeutics, and GlaxoSmithKline. He is president of NephJC, a nonprofit educational organization with no industry support. Dr. Shirali declared no competing interests.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Cisplatin is a preferred treatment for a wide range of cancers, including breast, head and neck, lung, ovary, and more. However, its side effects — particularly nephrotoxicity — can be severe. Kidney injury on cisplatin is associated with higher mortality and can jeopardize a patient’s eligibility for other therapies.

Now, in a large study using data from six US cancer centers, researchers have developed a risk algorithm to predict acute kidney injury (AKI) after cisplatin administration.

A risk prediction calculator based on the algorithm is available online for patients and providers to determine an individual patient›s risk for kidney injury from cisplatin using readily available clinical data.

Other risk scores and risk prediction models have been developed to help clinicians assess in advance whether a patient might develop AKI after receiving cisplatin, so that more careful monitoring, dose adjustments, or an alternative treatment, if available, might be considered.

However, previous models were limited by factors such as small sample sizes, lack of external validation, older data, and liberal definitions of AKI, said Shruti Gupta, MD, MPH, director of onco-nephrology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH) and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and David E. Leaf, MD, MMSc, director of clinical and translational research in AKI, Division of Renal Medicine, BWH, Boston.

Dr. Gupta and Dr. Leaf believe their risk score for predicting severe AKI after intravenous (IV) cisplatin, published online in The BMJ, is “more accurate and generalizable than prior models for several reasons,” they told this news organization in a joint email.

“First, we externally validated our findings across cancer centers other than the one where it was developed,” they said. “Second, we focused on moderate to severe kidney injury, the most clinically relevant form of kidney damage, whereas prior models examined more mild forms of kidney injury. Third, we collected data on nearly 25,000 patients receiving their first dose of IV cisplatin, which is larger than all previous studies combined.”
 

‘Herculean Effort’

“We conceived of this study back in 2018, contacted collaborators at each participating cancer center, and had numerous meetings to try to gather granular data on patients treated with their first dose of intravenous (IV) cisplatin,” Dr. Gupta and Dr. Leaf explained. They also incorporated patient feedback from focus groups and surveys.

“This was truly a Herculean effort that involved physicians, programmers, research coordinators, and patients,” they said.

The multicenter study included 24,717 patients — 11,766 in the derivation cohort and 12,951 in the validation cohort. Overall, the median age was about 60 years, about 58% were men, and about 78% were White.

The primary outcome was cisplatin-induced AKI (CP-AKI), defined as a twofold or greater increase in serum creatinine or kidney replacement therapy within 14 days of a first dose of IV cisplatin.

The researchers found that the incidence of CP-AKI was 5.2% in the derivation cohort and 3.3% in the validation cohort. Their simple risk score consisting of nine covariates — age, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, hemoglobin level, white blood cell count, platelet count, serum albumin level, serum magnesium level, and cisplatin dose — predicted a higher risk for CP-AKI in both cohorts.

Notably, adding serum creatinine to the model did not change the area under the curve, and therefore, serum creatinine, though also an independent risk factor for CP-AKI, was not included in the score.

Patients in the highest risk category had 24-fold higher odds of CP-AKI in the derivation cohort and close to 18-fold higher odds in the validation cohort than those in the lowest risk category.

The primary model had a C statistic of 0.75 (95% CI, 0.73-0.76) and showed better discrimination for CP-AKI than previously published models, for which the C statistics ranged from 0.60 to 0.68. The first author of a paper on an earlier model, Shveta Motwani, MD, MMSc, of BWH and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, is also a coauthor of the new study.

Greater severity of CP-AKI was associated with shorter 90-day survival (adjusted hazard ratio, 4.63; 95% CI, 3.56-6.02) for stage III CP-AKI vs no CP-AKI.
 

‘Definitive Work’

Joel M. Topf, MD, a nephrologist with expertise in chronic kidney disease in Detroit, who wasn’t involved in the development of the risk score, called the study “a definitive work on an important concept in oncology and nephrology.”

“While this is not the first attempt to devise a risk score, it is by far the biggest,” he told this news organization. Furthermore, the authors “used a diverse population, recruiting patients with a variety of cancers (previous attempts had often used a homogenous diagnosis, putting into question how generalizable the results were) from six different cancer centers.”

In addition, he said, “The authors did not restrict patients with chronic kidney disease or other significant comorbidities and used the geographic diversity to produce a cohort that has an age, gender, racial, and ethnic distribution, which is more representative of the US than previous, single-center attempts to risk score patients.”

An earlier model used the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) consensus definition of AKI of an increase in serum creatinine of 0.3 mg/dL, he noted. “While a sensitive definition of AKI, it captures mild, hemodynamic increases in creatinine of questionable significance,” he said.

By contrast, the new score uses KDIGO stage II and above to define AKI. “This is a better choice, as we do not want to dissuade patients and doctors from choosing chemotherapy due to a fear of insignificant kidney damage,” he said.

All that said, Dr. Topf noted that neither the current score nor the earlier model included serum creatinine. “This is curious to me and may represent the small number of patients with representative elevated creatinine in the derivation cohort (only 1.3% with an estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] < 45).”

“Since the cohort is made up of people who received cis-platinum, the low prevalence of eGFRs < 45 may be due to physicians steering away from cis-platinum in this group,” he suggested. “It would be unfortunate if this risk score gave an unintentional ‘green light’ to these patients, exposing them to predictable harm.”
 

‘Certainly Useful’

Anushree Shirali, MD, an associate professor in the Section of Nephrology and consulting physician, Yale Onco-Nephrology, Yale School of Medicine, in New Haven, Connecticut, said that having a prediction score for which patients are more likely to develop AKI after a single dose of cisplatin would be helpful for oncologists, as well as nephrologists.

As a nephrologist, Dr. Shirali mostly sees patients who already have AKI, she told this news organization. But there are circumstances in which the tool could still be helpful.

“Let’s say someone has abnormal kidney function at baseline — ie, creatinine is higher than the normal range — and they were on dialysis 5 years ago for something else, and now, they have cancer and may be given cisplatin. They worry about their chances of getting AKI and needing dialysis again,” she said. “That’s just one scenario in which I might be asked to answer that question and the tool would certainly be useful.”

Other scenarios could include someone who has just one kidney because they donated a kidney for transplant years ago, and now, they have a malignancy and wonder what their actual risk is of getting kidney issues on cisplatin.

Oncologists could use the tool to determine whether a patient should be treated with cisplatin, or if they’re at high risk, whether an alternative that’s not nephrotoxic might be used. By contrast, “if somebody’s low risk and an oncologist thinks cisplatin is the best agent they have, then they might want to go ahead and use it,” Dr. Shirali said.

Future research could take into consideration that CP-AKI is dose dependent, she suggested, because a prediction score that included the number of cisplatin doses could be even more helpful to determine risk. And, even though the derivation and validation cohorts for the new tool are representative of the US population, additional research should also include more racial/ethnic diversity, she said.

Dr. Gupta and Dr. Leaf hope their tool “will be utilized immediately by patients and providers to help predict an individual’s risk of cisplatin-associated kidney damage. It is easy to use, available for free online, and incorporates readily available clinical variables.”

If a patient is at high risk, the clinical team can consider preventive measures such as administering more IV fluids before receiving cisplatin or monitoring kidney function more closely afterward, they suggested.

Dr. Gupta reported research support from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. She also reported research funding from BTG International, GE HealthCare, and AstraZeneca outside the submitted work. She is a member of GlaxoSmithKline’s Global Anemia Council, a consultant for Secretome and Proletariat Therapeutics, and founder and president emeritus of the American Society of Onconephrology (unpaid). Dr. Leaf is supported by NIH grants, reported research support from BioPorto, BTG International, and Metro International Biotech, and has served as a consultant. Dr. Topf reported an ownership stake in a few DaVita-run dialysis clinics. He also runs a vascular access center and has participated in advisory boards with Cara Therapeutics, Vifor, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Renibus Therapeutics, Travere Therapeutics, and GlaxoSmithKline. He is president of NephJC, a nonprofit educational organization with no industry support. Dr. Shirali declared no competing interests.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Cisplatin is a preferred treatment for a wide range of cancers, including breast, head and neck, lung, ovary, and more. However, its side effects — particularly nephrotoxicity — can be severe. Kidney injury on cisplatin is associated with higher mortality and can jeopardize a patient’s eligibility for other therapies.

Now, in a large study using data from six US cancer centers, researchers have developed a risk algorithm to predict acute kidney injury (AKI) after cisplatin administration.

A risk prediction calculator based on the algorithm is available online for patients and providers to determine an individual patient›s risk for kidney injury from cisplatin using readily available clinical data.

Other risk scores and risk prediction models have been developed to help clinicians assess in advance whether a patient might develop AKI after receiving cisplatin, so that more careful monitoring, dose adjustments, or an alternative treatment, if available, might be considered.

However, previous models were limited by factors such as small sample sizes, lack of external validation, older data, and liberal definitions of AKI, said Shruti Gupta, MD, MPH, director of onco-nephrology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH) and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and David E. Leaf, MD, MMSc, director of clinical and translational research in AKI, Division of Renal Medicine, BWH, Boston.

Dr. Gupta and Dr. Leaf believe their risk score for predicting severe AKI after intravenous (IV) cisplatin, published online in The BMJ, is “more accurate and generalizable than prior models for several reasons,” they told this news organization in a joint email.

“First, we externally validated our findings across cancer centers other than the one where it was developed,” they said. “Second, we focused on moderate to severe kidney injury, the most clinically relevant form of kidney damage, whereas prior models examined more mild forms of kidney injury. Third, we collected data on nearly 25,000 patients receiving their first dose of IV cisplatin, which is larger than all previous studies combined.”
 

‘Herculean Effort’

“We conceived of this study back in 2018, contacted collaborators at each participating cancer center, and had numerous meetings to try to gather granular data on patients treated with their first dose of intravenous (IV) cisplatin,” Dr. Gupta and Dr. Leaf explained. They also incorporated patient feedback from focus groups and surveys.

“This was truly a Herculean effort that involved physicians, programmers, research coordinators, and patients,” they said.

The multicenter study included 24,717 patients — 11,766 in the derivation cohort and 12,951 in the validation cohort. Overall, the median age was about 60 years, about 58% were men, and about 78% were White.

The primary outcome was cisplatin-induced AKI (CP-AKI), defined as a twofold or greater increase in serum creatinine or kidney replacement therapy within 14 days of a first dose of IV cisplatin.

The researchers found that the incidence of CP-AKI was 5.2% in the derivation cohort and 3.3% in the validation cohort. Their simple risk score consisting of nine covariates — age, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, hemoglobin level, white blood cell count, platelet count, serum albumin level, serum magnesium level, and cisplatin dose — predicted a higher risk for CP-AKI in both cohorts.

Notably, adding serum creatinine to the model did not change the area under the curve, and therefore, serum creatinine, though also an independent risk factor for CP-AKI, was not included in the score.

Patients in the highest risk category had 24-fold higher odds of CP-AKI in the derivation cohort and close to 18-fold higher odds in the validation cohort than those in the lowest risk category.

The primary model had a C statistic of 0.75 (95% CI, 0.73-0.76) and showed better discrimination for CP-AKI than previously published models, for which the C statistics ranged from 0.60 to 0.68. The first author of a paper on an earlier model, Shveta Motwani, MD, MMSc, of BWH and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, is also a coauthor of the new study.

Greater severity of CP-AKI was associated with shorter 90-day survival (adjusted hazard ratio, 4.63; 95% CI, 3.56-6.02) for stage III CP-AKI vs no CP-AKI.
 

‘Definitive Work’

Joel M. Topf, MD, a nephrologist with expertise in chronic kidney disease in Detroit, who wasn’t involved in the development of the risk score, called the study “a definitive work on an important concept in oncology and nephrology.”

“While this is not the first attempt to devise a risk score, it is by far the biggest,” he told this news organization. Furthermore, the authors “used a diverse population, recruiting patients with a variety of cancers (previous attempts had often used a homogenous diagnosis, putting into question how generalizable the results were) from six different cancer centers.”

In addition, he said, “The authors did not restrict patients with chronic kidney disease or other significant comorbidities and used the geographic diversity to produce a cohort that has an age, gender, racial, and ethnic distribution, which is more representative of the US than previous, single-center attempts to risk score patients.”

An earlier model used the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) consensus definition of AKI of an increase in serum creatinine of 0.3 mg/dL, he noted. “While a sensitive definition of AKI, it captures mild, hemodynamic increases in creatinine of questionable significance,” he said.

By contrast, the new score uses KDIGO stage II and above to define AKI. “This is a better choice, as we do not want to dissuade patients and doctors from choosing chemotherapy due to a fear of insignificant kidney damage,” he said.

All that said, Dr. Topf noted that neither the current score nor the earlier model included serum creatinine. “This is curious to me and may represent the small number of patients with representative elevated creatinine in the derivation cohort (only 1.3% with an estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] < 45).”

“Since the cohort is made up of people who received cis-platinum, the low prevalence of eGFRs < 45 may be due to physicians steering away from cis-platinum in this group,” he suggested. “It would be unfortunate if this risk score gave an unintentional ‘green light’ to these patients, exposing them to predictable harm.”
 

‘Certainly Useful’

Anushree Shirali, MD, an associate professor in the Section of Nephrology and consulting physician, Yale Onco-Nephrology, Yale School of Medicine, in New Haven, Connecticut, said that having a prediction score for which patients are more likely to develop AKI after a single dose of cisplatin would be helpful for oncologists, as well as nephrologists.

As a nephrologist, Dr. Shirali mostly sees patients who already have AKI, she told this news organization. But there are circumstances in which the tool could still be helpful.

“Let’s say someone has abnormal kidney function at baseline — ie, creatinine is higher than the normal range — and they were on dialysis 5 years ago for something else, and now, they have cancer and may be given cisplatin. They worry about their chances of getting AKI and needing dialysis again,” she said. “That’s just one scenario in which I might be asked to answer that question and the tool would certainly be useful.”

Other scenarios could include someone who has just one kidney because they donated a kidney for transplant years ago, and now, they have a malignancy and wonder what their actual risk is of getting kidney issues on cisplatin.

Oncologists could use the tool to determine whether a patient should be treated with cisplatin, or if they’re at high risk, whether an alternative that’s not nephrotoxic might be used. By contrast, “if somebody’s low risk and an oncologist thinks cisplatin is the best agent they have, then they might want to go ahead and use it,” Dr. Shirali said.

Future research could take into consideration that CP-AKI is dose dependent, she suggested, because a prediction score that included the number of cisplatin doses could be even more helpful to determine risk. And, even though the derivation and validation cohorts for the new tool are representative of the US population, additional research should also include more racial/ethnic diversity, she said.

Dr. Gupta and Dr. Leaf hope their tool “will be utilized immediately by patients and providers to help predict an individual’s risk of cisplatin-associated kidney damage. It is easy to use, available for free online, and incorporates readily available clinical variables.”

If a patient is at high risk, the clinical team can consider preventive measures such as administering more IV fluids before receiving cisplatin or monitoring kidney function more closely afterward, they suggested.

Dr. Gupta reported research support from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. She also reported research funding from BTG International, GE HealthCare, and AstraZeneca outside the submitted work. She is a member of GlaxoSmithKline’s Global Anemia Council, a consultant for Secretome and Proletariat Therapeutics, and founder and president emeritus of the American Society of Onconephrology (unpaid). Dr. Leaf is supported by NIH grants, reported research support from BioPorto, BTG International, and Metro International Biotech, and has served as a consultant. Dr. Topf reported an ownership stake in a few DaVita-run dialysis clinics. He also runs a vascular access center and has participated in advisory boards with Cara Therapeutics, Vifor, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Renibus Therapeutics, Travere Therapeutics, and GlaxoSmithKline. He is president of NephJC, a nonprofit educational organization with no industry support. Dr. Shirali declared no competing interests.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The expression of the protein Nectin-4 can predict how patients with metastatic urothelial cancer (m)UC will respond to the anti-Nectin-4 antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) enfortumab vedotin (EV), a new study finds.

Identifying biomarkers to predict how patients will respond to targeted therapies is crucial to improve treatments for patients with cancer, authors Niklas Klümper, MD, with the Department of Urology and Pediatric Urology at University Hospital Bonn, in Germany, and colleagues, wrote in the Journal of Clinical Oncology (doi: 10.1200/JCO.23.01983).

The researchers used a Nectin-4-specific fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) assay in an (m)UC cohort of 108 patients to test Nectin-4’s ability to predict responses, analyzing slides with a fluorescence microscope. The copy number variations (CNVs) were correlated with membranous Nectin-4 protein expression, responses to EV treatment, and outcomes.

They also evaluated the prognostic value of Nectin-4 CNVs with biopsies of 103 (m)UC patients not treated with EV. Additionally, they searched The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) data sets (10,712 patients across 32 cancer types) for Nectin-4 CNVs.
 

Why Was This Study Done?

Urothelial carcinoma accounts for 90% of bladder cancer cases globally. Though EV was approved to treat (m)UC in 2019, lasting benefit has been achieved only in a small subset of patients.

EV is given to all without selecting patients based on biomarkers that may predict how well they will respond to EV. In this study, researchers investigated whether response to EV was better when people had amplification — defined as increased numbers of copies — of Nectin-4.
 

How Common Is It for Patients With (m)UC to Have Nectin-4 Amplifications?

Nectin-4 amplifications happen frequently in (m)UC; they occurred in about 26% of the (m)UC patients the researchers studied, according to the new paper.

The amplifications are frequent in other cancer types as well, and this study suggests that this biomarker is a promising candidate for developing Nectin-4–targeted antibody-drug conjugates for other cancers.

“Nectin-4 amplifications can be found in 5%-10% of breast cancer and non–small cell lung cancer, both tumor types with a high impact on all-cancer mortality, which are currently being evaluated for EV response,” the authors wrote.

Currently, (m)UC is the only cancer for which EV is approved as standard-of-care, the researchers explain, in their paper.
 

What Were the Differences Between the EV and Non-EV Groups?

Almost all (27 of the 28) patients in the cohort (96%) who had Nectin-4 amplifications had objective responses to EV compared with 24 of 74 (32%) in the group without amplifications (P less than .001). Among the 96% with a response, 82% had partial response and 14% had a complete response.

The amplifications for those treated with EV were linked with longer progression-free survival (90% 12-month PFS vs 41% for those with nonamplified tumors) and longer overall survival (OS).

For those patients treated with EV who had the amplifications, OS was not reached. This was because the researchers could not calculate the OS at 12 months for this group due to more than half of the patients still being alive at that time. That finding contrasts with a median OS of 8.8 months in those patients treated with EV who did not have the amplifications.

EV-treated patients who had Nectin-4 amplifications had a 92% lower risk of death compared with EV-treated patients without the amplifications, according to an analysis that adjusted for factors including age and sex.

“Importantly, in the non–EV-treated patients with (m)UC, Nectin-4 amplifications have no impact on OS [overall survival], suggesting that Nectin-4 amplifications are neither indicating aggressive nor favorable tumor biology, strengthening its potential value as a pure predictive biomarker,” the researchers wrote.
 

What Are the Implications of These Findings?

“[O]ur study suggests that Nectin-4 amplification is a simple, valuable, and easy-to-implement predictive biomarker for EV in patients with (m)UC. The frequent occurrence of Nectin-4 amplifications in other cancer types suggests that this biomarker is a promising candidate with broader applicability for clinical development of Nectin-4-targeted ADCs in a tumor-agnostic context.”

Choosing the best therapy sequence for (m)UC is crucial, the authors write. Considering Nectin-4 amplifications could inform EV drug development — even at earlier stages of the disease — by defining which patient subgroup has the highest chance for long-term benefit.

The authors acknowledge that the primary limitation of the study is that it is retrospective, using archived primary and metastatic tumor specimens with varying ranges between the time of tumor sampling and start of EV treatment.

“Therefore, our data are hypothesis-generating and prospective confirmation in larger, biomarker-driven trials is mandatory,” the authors wrote.

They note that EV plus pembrolizumab [Keytruda] (EV/P) was recently approved as the new standard of care in first-line treatment for (m)UC, so the predictive value of Nectin-4 amplification in this new treatment setting warrants further research.

Dr. Klümper reports stock and other ownership interests in Bicycle Therapeutics, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo/UCB Japan, and Immatics; and honoraria for Astellas Pharma and MSD Oncology; and consulting or advisory roles with Astellas Pharma, MSD Oncology, and Eisai. He reports travel reimbursements from Ipsen, Photocure, and MSD Oncology. Other author disclosures are available with the full text of the paper.

The expression of the protein Nectin-4 can predict how patients with metastatic urothelial cancer (m)UC will respond to the anti-Nectin-4 antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) enfortumab vedotin (EV), a new study finds.

Identifying biomarkers to predict how patients will respond to targeted therapies is crucial to improve treatments for patients with cancer, authors Niklas Klümper, MD, with the Department of Urology and Pediatric Urology at University Hospital Bonn, in Germany, and colleagues, wrote in the Journal of Clinical Oncology (doi: 10.1200/JCO.23.01983).

The researchers used a Nectin-4-specific fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) assay in an (m)UC cohort of 108 patients to test Nectin-4’s ability to predict responses, analyzing slides with a fluorescence microscope. The copy number variations (CNVs) were correlated with membranous Nectin-4 protein expression, responses to EV treatment, and outcomes.

They also evaluated the prognostic value of Nectin-4 CNVs with biopsies of 103 (m)UC patients not treated with EV. Additionally, they searched The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) data sets (10,712 patients across 32 cancer types) for Nectin-4 CNVs.
 

Why Was This Study Done?

Urothelial carcinoma accounts for 90% of bladder cancer cases globally. Though EV was approved to treat (m)UC in 2019, lasting benefit has been achieved only in a small subset of patients.

EV is given to all without selecting patients based on biomarkers that may predict how well they will respond to EV. In this study, researchers investigated whether response to EV was better when people had amplification — defined as increased numbers of copies — of Nectin-4.
 

How Common Is It for Patients With (m)UC to Have Nectin-4 Amplifications?

Nectin-4 amplifications happen frequently in (m)UC; they occurred in about 26% of the (m)UC patients the researchers studied, according to the new paper.

The amplifications are frequent in other cancer types as well, and this study suggests that this biomarker is a promising candidate for developing Nectin-4–targeted antibody-drug conjugates for other cancers.

“Nectin-4 amplifications can be found in 5%-10% of breast cancer and non–small cell lung cancer, both tumor types with a high impact on all-cancer mortality, which are currently being evaluated for EV response,” the authors wrote.

Currently, (m)UC is the only cancer for which EV is approved as standard-of-care, the researchers explain, in their paper.
 

What Were the Differences Between the EV and Non-EV Groups?

Almost all (27 of the 28) patients in the cohort (96%) who had Nectin-4 amplifications had objective responses to EV compared with 24 of 74 (32%) in the group without amplifications (P less than .001). Among the 96% with a response, 82% had partial response and 14% had a complete response.

The amplifications for those treated with EV were linked with longer progression-free survival (90% 12-month PFS vs 41% for those with nonamplified tumors) and longer overall survival (OS).

For those patients treated with EV who had the amplifications, OS was not reached. This was because the researchers could not calculate the OS at 12 months for this group due to more than half of the patients still being alive at that time. That finding contrasts with a median OS of 8.8 months in those patients treated with EV who did not have the amplifications.

EV-treated patients who had Nectin-4 amplifications had a 92% lower risk of death compared with EV-treated patients without the amplifications, according to an analysis that adjusted for factors including age and sex.

“Importantly, in the non–EV-treated patients with (m)UC, Nectin-4 amplifications have no impact on OS [overall survival], suggesting that Nectin-4 amplifications are neither indicating aggressive nor favorable tumor biology, strengthening its potential value as a pure predictive biomarker,” the researchers wrote.
 

What Are the Implications of These Findings?

“[O]ur study suggests that Nectin-4 amplification is a simple, valuable, and easy-to-implement predictive biomarker for EV in patients with (m)UC. The frequent occurrence of Nectin-4 amplifications in other cancer types suggests that this biomarker is a promising candidate with broader applicability for clinical development of Nectin-4-targeted ADCs in a tumor-agnostic context.”

Choosing the best therapy sequence for (m)UC is crucial, the authors write. Considering Nectin-4 amplifications could inform EV drug development — even at earlier stages of the disease — by defining which patient subgroup has the highest chance for long-term benefit.

The authors acknowledge that the primary limitation of the study is that it is retrospective, using archived primary and metastatic tumor specimens with varying ranges between the time of tumor sampling and start of EV treatment.

“Therefore, our data are hypothesis-generating and prospective confirmation in larger, biomarker-driven trials is mandatory,” the authors wrote.

They note that EV plus pembrolizumab [Keytruda] (EV/P) was recently approved as the new standard of care in first-line treatment for (m)UC, so the predictive value of Nectin-4 amplification in this new treatment setting warrants further research.

Dr. Klümper reports stock and other ownership interests in Bicycle Therapeutics, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo/UCB Japan, and Immatics; and honoraria for Astellas Pharma and MSD Oncology; and consulting or advisory roles with Astellas Pharma, MSD Oncology, and Eisai. He reports travel reimbursements from Ipsen, Photocure, and MSD Oncology. Other author disclosures are available with the full text of the paper.

The expression of the protein Nectin-4 can predict how patients with metastatic urothelial cancer (m)UC will respond to the anti-Nectin-4 antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) enfortumab vedotin (EV), a new study finds.

Identifying biomarkers to predict how patients will respond to targeted therapies is crucial to improve treatments for patients with cancer, authors Niklas Klümper, MD, with the Department of Urology and Pediatric Urology at University Hospital Bonn, in Germany, and colleagues, wrote in the Journal of Clinical Oncology (doi: 10.1200/JCO.23.01983).

The researchers used a Nectin-4-specific fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) assay in an (m)UC cohort of 108 patients to test Nectin-4’s ability to predict responses, analyzing slides with a fluorescence microscope. The copy number variations (CNVs) were correlated with membranous Nectin-4 protein expression, responses to EV treatment, and outcomes.

They also evaluated the prognostic value of Nectin-4 CNVs with biopsies of 103 (m)UC patients not treated with EV. Additionally, they searched The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) data sets (10,712 patients across 32 cancer types) for Nectin-4 CNVs.
 

Why Was This Study Done?

Urothelial carcinoma accounts for 90% of bladder cancer cases globally. Though EV was approved to treat (m)UC in 2019, lasting benefit has been achieved only in a small subset of patients.

EV is given to all without selecting patients based on biomarkers that may predict how well they will respond to EV. In this study, researchers investigated whether response to EV was better when people had amplification — defined as increased numbers of copies — of Nectin-4.
 

How Common Is It for Patients With (m)UC to Have Nectin-4 Amplifications?

Nectin-4 amplifications happen frequently in (m)UC; they occurred in about 26% of the (m)UC patients the researchers studied, according to the new paper.

The amplifications are frequent in other cancer types as well, and this study suggests that this biomarker is a promising candidate for developing Nectin-4–targeted antibody-drug conjugates for other cancers.

“Nectin-4 amplifications can be found in 5%-10% of breast cancer and non–small cell lung cancer, both tumor types with a high impact on all-cancer mortality, which are currently being evaluated for EV response,” the authors wrote.

Currently, (m)UC is the only cancer for which EV is approved as standard-of-care, the researchers explain, in their paper.
 

What Were the Differences Between the EV and Non-EV Groups?

Almost all (27 of the 28) patients in the cohort (96%) who had Nectin-4 amplifications had objective responses to EV compared with 24 of 74 (32%) in the group without amplifications (P less than .001). Among the 96% with a response, 82% had partial response and 14% had a complete response.

The amplifications for those treated with EV were linked with longer progression-free survival (90% 12-month PFS vs 41% for those with nonamplified tumors) and longer overall survival (OS).

For those patients treated with EV who had the amplifications, OS was not reached. This was because the researchers could not calculate the OS at 12 months for this group due to more than half of the patients still being alive at that time. That finding contrasts with a median OS of 8.8 months in those patients treated with EV who did not have the amplifications.

EV-treated patients who had Nectin-4 amplifications had a 92% lower risk of death compared with EV-treated patients without the amplifications, according to an analysis that adjusted for factors including age and sex.

“Importantly, in the non–EV-treated patients with (m)UC, Nectin-4 amplifications have no impact on OS [overall survival], suggesting that Nectin-4 amplifications are neither indicating aggressive nor favorable tumor biology, strengthening its potential value as a pure predictive biomarker,” the researchers wrote.
 

What Are the Implications of These Findings?

“[O]ur study suggests that Nectin-4 amplification is a simple, valuable, and easy-to-implement predictive biomarker for EV in patients with (m)UC. The frequent occurrence of Nectin-4 amplifications in other cancer types suggests that this biomarker is a promising candidate with broader applicability for clinical development of Nectin-4-targeted ADCs in a tumor-agnostic context.”

Choosing the best therapy sequence for (m)UC is crucial, the authors write. Considering Nectin-4 amplifications could inform EV drug development — even at earlier stages of the disease — by defining which patient subgroup has the highest chance for long-term benefit.

The authors acknowledge that the primary limitation of the study is that it is retrospective, using archived primary and metastatic tumor specimens with varying ranges between the time of tumor sampling and start of EV treatment.

“Therefore, our data are hypothesis-generating and prospective confirmation in larger, biomarker-driven trials is mandatory,” the authors wrote.

They note that EV plus pembrolizumab [Keytruda] (EV/P) was recently approved as the new standard of care in first-line treatment for (m)UC, so the predictive value of Nectin-4 amplification in this new treatment setting warrants further research.

Dr. Klümper reports stock and other ownership interests in Bicycle Therapeutics, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo/UCB Japan, and Immatics; and honoraria for Astellas Pharma and MSD Oncology; and consulting or advisory roles with Astellas Pharma, MSD Oncology, and Eisai. He reports travel reimbursements from Ipsen, Photocure, and MSD Oncology. Other author disclosures are available with the full text of the paper.

A plastic surgeon broke federal law when he restricted patients from posting negative reviews by requiring them to sign nondisclosure agreements before they received care, a district judge has ruled.

Seattle-based surgeon Javad Sajan, MD, ran afoul of the Consumer Review Fairness Act (CRFA) by requiring more than 10,000 patients to sign the agreements, according to a recent decision by US District Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. The law protects consumers’ rights to post truthful reviews about businesses. 

Judge Martinez wrote that the terms of Dr. Sajan’s nondisclosure agreements “clearly include language prohibiting or restricting patients from posting negative reviews,” in violation of CRFA. Penalties for the offense will be determined at a September trial. 

This news organization contacted Dr. Sajan’s office and his attorney for comment but did not get a response. 

The decision is the latest development in an ongoing legal dispute between Dr. Sajan and the State of Washington over whether the surgeon’s efforts to limit negative online reviews were illegal. 

Beginning in 2017, Dr. Sajan and his practice, Allure Esthetic, introduced agreements that “forced” patients to contact the business directly if they had concerns rather than post a negative review, according to a 2022 lawsuit against Dr. Sajan filed by Washington Attorney General Robert Ferguson. 

“Online reviews are often the first stop when consumers are determining who to trust,” Mr. Ferguson said in a statement. “That’s especially critical when those services deal with a patient’s health and safety. We will take action against those who illegally stop Washingtonians from sharing reviews with the public.”

If patients posted negative reviews, the clinic, in some cases, threatened litigation, according to the complaint. In other cases, patients were allegedly offered money and free services in exchange for taking the reviews down. Patients who accepted cash or services were required to sign a second agreement forbidding them from posting future negative reviews and imposing a $250,000 penalty for failure to comply, according to court documents. 

In court documents, Dr. Sajan’s attorneys argued the agreements did not violate CRFA because patients had the opportunity to modify the language or decline signing them, which hundreds did. The CRFA requires Mr. Ferguson to prove that consumers lacked a meaningful opportunity to negotiate the terms, attorneys for Dr. Sajan argued in court records. 

But Judge Martinez wrote that the patients who declined to sign the agreements or changed the terms represented only a “tiny fraction” of the affected patients.

The agreement language restricts patients from speaking out by forcing dissatisfied patients to work with Allure until a resolution is reached, Judge Martinez noted in his decision. “At the very least, this would delay patients from posting such reviews and force patients to interact in some way with Allure, and it certainly appears to prohibit posting reviews until Allure agrees to some kind of favorable resolution.”
 

Surgeon Posted Fake Positive Reviews to Counteract Bad Reviews, AG Says

Employee accounts in court documents describe a physician fixated on reviews who went to great lengths to ensure positive reviews about his work outweighed the negative. 

Former employees said they were instructed to track down patients who left negative reviews and either “threaten” them to take the posts down or offer them “money” or other things, according to Mr. Ferguson’s lawsuit. If patients could not be identified, the practice would file a defamation lawsuit against the anonymous person who posted the review and use litigation to subpoena the website for the reviewer’s IP address in order to identify them, according to court documents. 

Employees testified they had regular meetings to review current negative reviews and discuss what steps they were taking to get them removed. At team meetings, in-house counsel would regularly present an Excel spreadsheet with updates on progress in getting patients to remove negative reviews, according to court documents. 

In addition to restricting negative reviews, Mr. Ferguson accuses Dr. Sajan of posting fake positive reviews and “buying” thousands of fake followers on social media. 

At Dr. Sajan’s direction, employees created Gmail accounts using stock photos for their profile pictures and used the accounts to post fake reviews of Allure Esthetic and Dr. Sajan, according to the complaint. The practice also used members of an online forum called BlackHatWorld.com to create fake email accounts and to post fake reviews, the attorney general alleges. Many of the fake positive reviews, including the fake Google reviews, still appear on online review sites today, the attorney general contends. 

Dr. Sajan and his practice also allegedly manipulated social media to appear more popular. Mr. Ferguson claims that Dr. Sajan instructed his former web designer to purchase 60,000 followers through a vendor on BlackHatWorld.com. Most of Dr. Sajan’s current Instagram followers are not real, according to Mr. Ferguson. 

The practice also used a social media bot tool to buy thousands of fake likes on Instagram, YouTube, and other social media, according to court documents. 

In addition, Dr. Sajan and his practice are accused of significantly altering “before and after” photos of patients and using fake email accounts to allow the clinic to take skincare rebates intended for patients.

All of these practices violated HIPAA, the state Consumer Protection Act (CPA) and the federal CRFA, according to Mr. Ferguson. 
 

Surgeon Claims Competitor Behind Allegations 

Attorneys for Dr. Sajan argue a competitor is behind the accusations and that other regulatory entities determined the practice did nothing wrong. 

The competitor, a Seattle-based plastic surgeon, filed numerous complaints about Dr. Sajan to the Washington Medical Commission (WMC), according to court documents. The medical commission reviewed the third agreement and closed its investigation, finding that if the allegations were true, “no violation of law occurred,” court records show. 

“Defendants relied upon this closing code from the WMC that the (non-disclosure) forms were lawful,” Dr. Sajan’s attorneys wrote in court documents.

The US Department of Health & Human Services Office for Civil Rights (OCR) also reviewed and audited Dr. Sajan’s use of the agreements, his attorneys noted. In a notice from OCR included in court exhibits, the agency wrote that all matters at issue have now been resolved through the practice’s voluntary compliance actions and that it was closing its investigation. 

Attorneys for Dr. Sajan accuse Mr. Ferguson and state investigators of withholding the full extent of the competitor’s involvement in their investigation and failing to identify the competitor in written discovery or any of its initial disclosures. Dr. Sajan and his team discovered that the competitor was a source of key information through public records requests, according to court documents. 

The remaining claims against Dr. Sajan will be addressed at trial, set for September 9, 2024. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A plastic surgeon broke federal law when he restricted patients from posting negative reviews by requiring them to sign nondisclosure agreements before they received care, a district judge has ruled.

Seattle-based surgeon Javad Sajan, MD, ran afoul of the Consumer Review Fairness Act (CRFA) by requiring more than 10,000 patients to sign the agreements, according to a recent decision by US District Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. The law protects consumers’ rights to post truthful reviews about businesses. 

Judge Martinez wrote that the terms of Dr. Sajan’s nondisclosure agreements “clearly include language prohibiting or restricting patients from posting negative reviews,” in violation of CRFA. Penalties for the offense will be determined at a September trial. 

This news organization contacted Dr. Sajan’s office and his attorney for comment but did not get a response. 

The decision is the latest development in an ongoing legal dispute between Dr. Sajan and the State of Washington over whether the surgeon’s efforts to limit negative online reviews were illegal. 

Beginning in 2017, Dr. Sajan and his practice, Allure Esthetic, introduced agreements that “forced” patients to contact the business directly if they had concerns rather than post a negative review, according to a 2022 lawsuit against Dr. Sajan filed by Washington Attorney General Robert Ferguson. 

“Online reviews are often the first stop when consumers are determining who to trust,” Mr. Ferguson said in a statement. “That’s especially critical when those services deal with a patient’s health and safety. We will take action against those who illegally stop Washingtonians from sharing reviews with the public.”

If patients posted negative reviews, the clinic, in some cases, threatened litigation, according to the complaint. In other cases, patients were allegedly offered money and free services in exchange for taking the reviews down. Patients who accepted cash or services were required to sign a second agreement forbidding them from posting future negative reviews and imposing a $250,000 penalty for failure to comply, according to court documents. 

In court documents, Dr. Sajan’s attorneys argued the agreements did not violate CRFA because patients had the opportunity to modify the language or decline signing them, which hundreds did. The CRFA requires Mr. Ferguson to prove that consumers lacked a meaningful opportunity to negotiate the terms, attorneys for Dr. Sajan argued in court records. 

But Judge Martinez wrote that the patients who declined to sign the agreements or changed the terms represented only a “tiny fraction” of the affected patients.

The agreement language restricts patients from speaking out by forcing dissatisfied patients to work with Allure until a resolution is reached, Judge Martinez noted in his decision. “At the very least, this would delay patients from posting such reviews and force patients to interact in some way with Allure, and it certainly appears to prohibit posting reviews until Allure agrees to some kind of favorable resolution.”
 

Surgeon Posted Fake Positive Reviews to Counteract Bad Reviews, AG Says

Employee accounts in court documents describe a physician fixated on reviews who went to great lengths to ensure positive reviews about his work outweighed the negative. 

Former employees said they were instructed to track down patients who left negative reviews and either “threaten” them to take the posts down or offer them “money” or other things, according to Mr. Ferguson’s lawsuit. If patients could not be identified, the practice would file a defamation lawsuit against the anonymous person who posted the review and use litigation to subpoena the website for the reviewer’s IP address in order to identify them, according to court documents. 

Employees testified they had regular meetings to review current negative reviews and discuss what steps they were taking to get them removed. At team meetings, in-house counsel would regularly present an Excel spreadsheet with updates on progress in getting patients to remove negative reviews, according to court documents. 

In addition to restricting negative reviews, Mr. Ferguson accuses Dr. Sajan of posting fake positive reviews and “buying” thousands of fake followers on social media. 

At Dr. Sajan’s direction, employees created Gmail accounts using stock photos for their profile pictures and used the accounts to post fake reviews of Allure Esthetic and Dr. Sajan, according to the complaint. The practice also used members of an online forum called BlackHatWorld.com to create fake email accounts and to post fake reviews, the attorney general alleges. Many of the fake positive reviews, including the fake Google reviews, still appear on online review sites today, the attorney general contends. 

Dr. Sajan and his practice also allegedly manipulated social media to appear more popular. Mr. Ferguson claims that Dr. Sajan instructed his former web designer to purchase 60,000 followers through a vendor on BlackHatWorld.com. Most of Dr. Sajan’s current Instagram followers are not real, according to Mr. Ferguson. 

The practice also used a social media bot tool to buy thousands of fake likes on Instagram, YouTube, and other social media, according to court documents. 

In addition, Dr. Sajan and his practice are accused of significantly altering “before and after” photos of patients and using fake email accounts to allow the clinic to take skincare rebates intended for patients.

All of these practices violated HIPAA, the state Consumer Protection Act (CPA) and the federal CRFA, according to Mr. Ferguson. 
 

Surgeon Claims Competitor Behind Allegations 

Attorneys for Dr. Sajan argue a competitor is behind the accusations and that other regulatory entities determined the practice did nothing wrong. 

The competitor, a Seattle-based plastic surgeon, filed numerous complaints about Dr. Sajan to the Washington Medical Commission (WMC), according to court documents. The medical commission reviewed the third agreement and closed its investigation, finding that if the allegations were true, “no violation of law occurred,” court records show. 

“Defendants relied upon this closing code from the WMC that the (non-disclosure) forms were lawful,” Dr. Sajan’s attorneys wrote in court documents.

The US Department of Health & Human Services Office for Civil Rights (OCR) also reviewed and audited Dr. Sajan’s use of the agreements, his attorneys noted. In a notice from OCR included in court exhibits, the agency wrote that all matters at issue have now been resolved through the practice’s voluntary compliance actions and that it was closing its investigation. 

Attorneys for Dr. Sajan accuse Mr. Ferguson and state investigators of withholding the full extent of the competitor’s involvement in their investigation and failing to identify the competitor in written discovery or any of its initial disclosures. Dr. Sajan and his team discovered that the competitor was a source of key information through public records requests, according to court documents. 

The remaining claims against Dr. Sajan will be addressed at trial, set for September 9, 2024. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A plastic surgeon broke federal law when he restricted patients from posting negative reviews by requiring them to sign nondisclosure agreements before they received care, a district judge has ruled.

Seattle-based surgeon Javad Sajan, MD, ran afoul of the Consumer Review Fairness Act (CRFA) by requiring more than 10,000 patients to sign the agreements, according to a recent decision by US District Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. The law protects consumers’ rights to post truthful reviews about businesses. 

Judge Martinez wrote that the terms of Dr. Sajan’s nondisclosure agreements “clearly include language prohibiting or restricting patients from posting negative reviews,” in violation of CRFA. Penalties for the offense will be determined at a September trial. 

This news organization contacted Dr. Sajan’s office and his attorney for comment but did not get a response. 

The decision is the latest development in an ongoing legal dispute between Dr. Sajan and the State of Washington over whether the surgeon’s efforts to limit negative online reviews were illegal. 

Beginning in 2017, Dr. Sajan and his practice, Allure Esthetic, introduced agreements that “forced” patients to contact the business directly if they had concerns rather than post a negative review, according to a 2022 lawsuit against Dr. Sajan filed by Washington Attorney General Robert Ferguson. 

“Online reviews are often the first stop when consumers are determining who to trust,” Mr. Ferguson said in a statement. “That’s especially critical when those services deal with a patient’s health and safety. We will take action against those who illegally stop Washingtonians from sharing reviews with the public.”

If patients posted negative reviews, the clinic, in some cases, threatened litigation, according to the complaint. In other cases, patients were allegedly offered money and free services in exchange for taking the reviews down. Patients who accepted cash or services were required to sign a second agreement forbidding them from posting future negative reviews and imposing a $250,000 penalty for failure to comply, according to court documents. 

In court documents, Dr. Sajan’s attorneys argued the agreements did not violate CRFA because patients had the opportunity to modify the language or decline signing them, which hundreds did. The CRFA requires Mr. Ferguson to prove that consumers lacked a meaningful opportunity to negotiate the terms, attorneys for Dr. Sajan argued in court records. 

But Judge Martinez wrote that the patients who declined to sign the agreements or changed the terms represented only a “tiny fraction” of the affected patients.

The agreement language restricts patients from speaking out by forcing dissatisfied patients to work with Allure until a resolution is reached, Judge Martinez noted in his decision. “At the very least, this would delay patients from posting such reviews and force patients to interact in some way with Allure, and it certainly appears to prohibit posting reviews until Allure agrees to some kind of favorable resolution.”
 

Surgeon Posted Fake Positive Reviews to Counteract Bad Reviews, AG Says

Employee accounts in court documents describe a physician fixated on reviews who went to great lengths to ensure positive reviews about his work outweighed the negative. 

Former employees said they were instructed to track down patients who left negative reviews and either “threaten” them to take the posts down or offer them “money” or other things, according to Mr. Ferguson’s lawsuit. If patients could not be identified, the practice would file a defamation lawsuit against the anonymous person who posted the review and use litigation to subpoena the website for the reviewer’s IP address in order to identify them, according to court documents. 

Employees testified they had regular meetings to review current negative reviews and discuss what steps they were taking to get them removed. At team meetings, in-house counsel would regularly present an Excel spreadsheet with updates on progress in getting patients to remove negative reviews, according to court documents. 

In addition to restricting negative reviews, Mr. Ferguson accuses Dr. Sajan of posting fake positive reviews and “buying” thousands of fake followers on social media. 

At Dr. Sajan’s direction, employees created Gmail accounts using stock photos for their profile pictures and used the accounts to post fake reviews of Allure Esthetic and Dr. Sajan, according to the complaint. The practice also used members of an online forum called BlackHatWorld.com to create fake email accounts and to post fake reviews, the attorney general alleges. Many of the fake positive reviews, including the fake Google reviews, still appear on online review sites today, the attorney general contends. 

Dr. Sajan and his practice also allegedly manipulated social media to appear more popular. Mr. Ferguson claims that Dr. Sajan instructed his former web designer to purchase 60,000 followers through a vendor on BlackHatWorld.com. Most of Dr. Sajan’s current Instagram followers are not real, according to Mr. Ferguson. 

The practice also used a social media bot tool to buy thousands of fake likes on Instagram, YouTube, and other social media, according to court documents. 

In addition, Dr. Sajan and his practice are accused of significantly altering “before and after” photos of patients and using fake email accounts to allow the clinic to take skincare rebates intended for patients.

All of these practices violated HIPAA, the state Consumer Protection Act (CPA) and the federal CRFA, according to Mr. Ferguson. 
 

Surgeon Claims Competitor Behind Allegations 

Attorneys for Dr. Sajan argue a competitor is behind the accusations and that other regulatory entities determined the practice did nothing wrong. 

The competitor, a Seattle-based plastic surgeon, filed numerous complaints about Dr. Sajan to the Washington Medical Commission (WMC), according to court documents. The medical commission reviewed the third agreement and closed its investigation, finding that if the allegations were true, “no violation of law occurred,” court records show. 

“Defendants relied upon this closing code from the WMC that the (non-disclosure) forms were lawful,” Dr. Sajan’s attorneys wrote in court documents.

The US Department of Health & Human Services Office for Civil Rights (OCR) also reviewed and audited Dr. Sajan’s use of the agreements, his attorneys noted. In a notice from OCR included in court exhibits, the agency wrote that all matters at issue have now been resolved through the practice’s voluntary compliance actions and that it was closing its investigation. 

Attorneys for Dr. Sajan accuse Mr. Ferguson and state investigators of withholding the full extent of the competitor’s involvement in their investigation and failing to identify the competitor in written discovery or any of its initial disclosures. Dr. Sajan and his team discovered that the competitor was a source of key information through public records requests, according to court documents. 

The remaining claims against Dr. Sajan will be addressed at trial, set for September 9, 2024. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Sherrie Palm, a patient advocate in Mukwonago, Wisconsin, learned in her 30s that she needed to educate herself about her own health. So when she discovered a walnut-sized lump coming out of her vagina in her mid-50s, she was stunned when her primary care provider (PCP) told her it was pelvic organ prolapse (POP), where one or more organs descend into the vaginal cavity.

“I was shocked,” Ms. Palm said. After searching online and discovering how prevalent POP was, her shock turned to anger. “I was blown away that it could be this common and I’d never heard of it,” she said. “I knew within 2 weeks that I had to do something to change the status quo.”

Ms. Palm eventually founded the nonprofit Association for Pelvic Organ Prolapse Support, or APOPS, complete with a forum where women can learn about POP and support one another. She said awareness has improved substantially since her diagnosis in 2007, but “we have a long way to go” because POP and vaginal health in general are so stigmatized.

Her website notes that about half of women with incontinence do not seek help, largely because of stigma. “The status quo is that PCPs do not POP screen,” she said. ObGyns may screen but often “because the patient has asked to be screened, they say it’s not that bad, come back and see me in a year, and do your Kegels,” Ms. Palm said.

Doctors who diagnose POP agree that the issue is often off PCPs’ radar.

“Primary care doctors are really in a time crunch, so this is one of the things that may not get addressed,” Jill Rabin, MD, vice chair of education and development in obstetrics and gynecology at Northwell Health in New York, said. Dr. Rabin is also head of urogynecology at Long Island Jewish Medical Center.

Ann Nwabuebo, PT, DPT, owner and founder of Body Connect Physical Therapy in Bethesda, Maryland, said social media has been shifting the attitude that pelvic health is a taboo subject. “It’s empowering people to seek care if they’re not finding physicians who are helping.”

But social media is also a double-edged sword, said Jenny LaCross, PT, DPT, PhD, a physical therapist at MOVE PT in Monroe, Michigan, and a postdoctoral research fellow with Michigan Medicine’s Pelvic Floor Research Group. “Pelvic health in general is talked about a lot more, but there’s also a lot more misinformation,” she said.

Part of that misinformation is the idea that pelvic prolapse is solely about weakness in the pelvic floor when it can also result from a widening of natural openings within the pelvis, Dr. LaCross said. She pointed to the two definitions of pelvic organ prolapse by the International Urogynecologic Consultation and the International Continence Society, both of which have been updated in recent years.

“This is why this is challenging for primary care providers,” Dr. LaCross said. “Even urogynecologists who are the specialists that treat prolapse and incontinence have changed how they assess it and the terminology and criteria that they use.”

What hasn’t changed is the substantial negative impact POP can have on quality of life. “This is the second most common reason that women enter nursing homes,” primarily because of urinary incontinence, Dr. Rabin said. “It’s very debilitating, but a lot of it is preventable and a lot is treatable.”

Dr. Rabin estimated that three out of every five women older than 60 and one or two out of every five women younger than 60 experience POP. Prevalence studies vary widely, from nearly a quarter of women to more than half, and racial and ethnic disparities in diagnosis further complicate the statistics.

PCPs therefore have an important role to play in screening for POP. The evidence shows that “patients want their providers to bring this up,” Dr. LaCross said. “They want to talk about it, but they want the provider to ask the questions first.”
 

Causes, Risk Factors, and Symptoms

Many causes contribute to POP, with gravity, aging, childbirth, and menopause at the top of the list.

“As people get older, their pelvic muscles and connective tissue get weaker, and the nerves don’t function as well,” Dr. Rabin said. Meanwhile, the body is losing estrogen, which affects how well the muscles contract and how easily the connective tissue can tear, she said.

With menopause, when baseline estrogen is lower, the tissue integrity is not as supportive as it should be and women are going to be at an increased risk of prolapse, Dr. Nwabuebo said.

POP has a range of risk factors:

• Increasing age, as muscle mass decreases and connective tissue hardens.
• Menopause.
• Vaginal delivery with complications, such as long second-stage labor, instrument-assisted delivery, multiple vaginal lacerations, and improperly repaired episiotomy.
• Multiple vaginal deliveries.
• Birthing large babies.
• Family history of pelvic organ prolapse (genetics can play a role in POP risk).
• Previous pelvic/abdominal surgery, including cesarean delivery and hysterectomy.
• Smoking (largely because of associated coughing).
• Chronic lung conditions that cause a lot of coughing.
• Chronic constipation or irritable bowel syndrome.
• Some types of high-impact activity, such as jogging or marathon running.
• Early menopause, for younger women.
• Repetitive heavy lifting in daily activities, such as occupational lifting (though not necessarily weight lifting as an exercise).
• Higher body mass index.
• Connective tissue disorders, such as joint hypermobility syndrome or Ehlers-Danlos syndrome.

Roger Dmochowski, MD, professor of urology and surgery at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, groups POP symptoms into two groups: anatomic and functional ones. A common anatomic symptom is bulging. “They’ll describe sitting on a ball, feeling like their bladder or something’s falling out, feeling a pressure or a heaviness,” Dr. Dmochowski said.

Functional symptoms can include vaginal dryness, vaginal irritation, painful intercourse, contact of the vaginal tissues with underclothes, and associated urinary symptoms, such as stress incontinence, urge incontinence, and incomplete emptying of the bladder. Dr. Dmochowski noted that women who report urinary incontinence may be at risk for being prescribed a medication without the necessary referral to a specialist for a full gynecologic evaluation.

Two other groups of functional symptoms include bowel-related disorders – primarily fecal incontinence and ongoing constipation – and pelvic pain or discomfort.

There can also be asymptomatic cases. “A lot of women have what we call silent prolapse,” Dr. Dmochowski said. That is, “they have some degree of loss of support to the bladder, vagina, or uterus, but they’re not symptomatic.” These women may be particularly good candidates for pelvic health physical therapy.
 

Screening and Diagnosis

Because many postmenopausal women stop seeing their ob.gyn, it’s often up to their primary care physician to determine whether their patients are experiencing POP symptoms.

“Women sometimes don’t bring this up with their doctor because they think there’s not enough time, or they’ll be laughed at, or their friends told them this is normal,” Dr. Rabin said. But primary care providers are really in a unique position to be able to ask the key symptom questions.

Dr. Rabin recommends a couple of questions to cover all the bases: “Do you leak urine when you cough or sneeze or on the way to the bathroom? Do you notice a bulge coming out of the vagina, or are you bothered by pelvic pressure?”

Dr. Dmochowski offered a single question that can open the conversation to more questions: “Are you bothered by any urinary or bowel or vaginal issues that we should talk about?” He also suggests asking how bothersome the symptoms are, which can help in directing treatment or prevention options. A physical exam can reveal signs of POP as well.

Diagnosis involves a detailed history, a comprehensive physical exam, and assessment with the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) tool. A urogynecologist can diagnose the type of POP – such as cystocele, rectocele, enterocele, uterine prolapse, or vaginal vault prolapse – and its grade (0-4).
 

Treatment: Physical Therapy, Pessary, and Surgery

No medications can treat prolapse, though some can treat downstream effects, such as hormonal vaginal creams for vaginal dryness and irritation, and medications for urinary incontinence. However, two mistakes PCPs can make are sending someone straight to surgery or prescribing them medication for symptoms without referring them for a diagnostic evaluation, Dr. Rabin said. “You have to have a diagnosis first to know what type of prolapse is there,” she said.

Because there can be long waiting lists for a urogynecologist or urologist, PCPs should also refer their patients to a pelvic health physical therapist (PT) who can help patients begin addressing the symptoms while they await a specialist who can diagnose them.

Though PT is often thought of as preventive, it’s also a conservative first-line intervention for prolapse, Dr. Nwabuebo said. Strong evidence shows pelvic floor muscle training from pelvic health PT can reduce symptoms of prolapse and reduce the severity by one grade in those with a grade 1 or 2 prolapse. Stage 3 is trickier, where PT may or may not be able to shift the symptom presentation, Dr. Nwabeubo said, and stage 4 is usually a surgical candidate.

“If you have a grade 4 prolapse, or the tissues are really visible outside the body, physical therapy and pelvic floor muscle training is not going to elevate that tissue back up into your body, but it can sometimes help with symptoms,” Dr. LaCross said.

The PT conducts a thorough pelvic muscle assessment, discusses lifestyle, and may teach breathing and bracing strategies for lifting, for example.

“A lot of what we’re talking about with pelvic floor therapy is lifestyle modifications,” Dr. Nwabuebo said. “If I have a patient with a history of chronic constipation, it doesn’t matter how much we do pelvic floor exercises; if we don’t manage the constipation issues by addressing their nutrition, then straining when using the bathroom will keep putting pressure on the pelvic floor.”

PTs can also recommend appropriate vaginal weights and dilators to help with pelvic floor strengthening and teach patients how to use them properly.

Even if women ultimately opt for surgery, PT prior to surgery can be beneficial. Dr. Rabin cited three reasons she recommends first-line PT: It may elevate the bladder enough to reduce stress incontinence and thicken the pelvic muscles, it can improve the effectiveness of a pessary or surgery if the woman chooses one of those options, and it can quiet bladder contractions, potentially obviating the need for pharmacologic treatment for overactive bladder.

The next nonsurgical option is a pessary, a device that fits into the vagina to provide support to the tissues displaced by prolapse. There’s a wide range of pessary types: some are short-term, worn only daily, or disposable, while others can be worn longer. Some women can self-insert and remove the pessary, and others may need a clinician to do so. Dr. Dmochowski recommends patients try a pessary to see if it benefits them. About a third of women will find them comfortable enough to wear regularly, but others will feel more sensitive to the pessary’s presence, he said.

One of the newest, most innovative pessary options for women is Gynethotics, which received Food and Drug Administration (FDA) clearance in March, as the first 3D-printed, customizable pessary capable of nearly 10 million configurations based on a person’s body.

Nearly all stage 4 prolapses and most of stage 3 prolapses can be addressed only through transvaginal or transabdominal surgery.

“We tell patients, if you can get 10 years out of your operation, you’re lucky,” Dr. Dmochowski said. A major reason for the short-lived durability is the poor quality of the tissue that needs to be pulled together. Serious complications resulting from use of polypropylene mesh during prolapse surgery led the FDA to halt sales of the devices and recommend discontinuing their use. However, one type of vaginal mesh is still considered safe to use in sacral colpopexy surgery.

Three things can shorten the durability of the surgery, Dr. Dmochowski said: heavy lifting, particularly anything over 30 pounds; chronic coughing, such as in those with chronic lung conditions; and chronic constipation.

Ms. Palm tried a pessary for her grade 3 prolapse with cystocele, rectocele, and enterocele but didn’t feel she had the time to use it regularly, so she opted for surgery. After a week on the couch recovering, she took it easy for another 12 weeks. Since then, she’s dedicated much of her time to educating and supporting women with POP and combating stigma associated with it. The APOPS website that she started has become a valuable resource for PCPs to send patients to, and the forum includes more 27,000 women from around the world.

“We encourage women to share what they’re experiencing. Tell your family, tell your friends, tell the people you work with about it,” Ms. Palm said. But many still feel uncomfortable speaking up, making PCPs’ role even more important.

*This story was updated on May 14, 2024.

Sherrie Palm, a patient advocate in Mukwonago, Wisconsin, learned in her 30s that she needed to educate herself about her own health. So when she discovered a walnut-sized lump coming out of her vagina in her mid-50s, she was stunned when her primary care provider (PCP) told her it was pelvic organ prolapse (POP), where one or more organs descend into the vaginal cavity.

“I was shocked,” Ms. Palm said. After searching online and discovering how prevalent POP was, her shock turned to anger. “I was blown away that it could be this common and I’d never heard of it,” she said. “I knew within 2 weeks that I had to do something to change the status quo.”

Ms. Palm eventually founded the nonprofit Association for Pelvic Organ Prolapse Support, or APOPS, complete with a forum where women can learn about POP and support one another. She said awareness has improved substantially since her diagnosis in 2007, but “we have a long way to go” because POP and vaginal health in general are so stigmatized.

Her website notes that about half of women with incontinence do not seek help, largely because of stigma. “The status quo is that PCPs do not POP screen,” she said. ObGyns may screen but often “because the patient has asked to be screened, they say it’s not that bad, come back and see me in a year, and do your Kegels,” Ms. Palm said.

Doctors who diagnose POP agree that the issue is often off PCPs’ radar.

“Primary care doctors are really in a time crunch, so this is one of the things that may not get addressed,” Jill Rabin, MD, vice chair of education and development in obstetrics and gynecology at Northwell Health in New York, said. Dr. Rabin is also head of urogynecology at Long Island Jewish Medical Center.

Ann Nwabuebo, PT, DPT, owner and founder of Body Connect Physical Therapy in Bethesda, Maryland, said social media has been shifting the attitude that pelvic health is a taboo subject. “It’s empowering people to seek care if they’re not finding physicians who are helping.”

But social media is also a double-edged sword, said Jenny LaCross, PT, DPT, PhD, a physical therapist at MOVE PT in Monroe, Michigan, and a postdoctoral research fellow with Michigan Medicine’s Pelvic Floor Research Group. “Pelvic health in general is talked about a lot more, but there’s also a lot more misinformation,” she said.

Part of that misinformation is the idea that pelvic prolapse is solely about weakness in the pelvic floor when it can also result from a widening of natural openings within the pelvis, Dr. LaCross said. She pointed to the two definitions of pelvic organ prolapse by the International Urogynecologic Consultation and the International Continence Society, both of which have been updated in recent years.

“This is why this is challenging for primary care providers,” Dr. LaCross said. “Even urogynecologists who are the specialists that treat prolapse and incontinence have changed how they assess it and the terminology and criteria that they use.”

What hasn’t changed is the substantial negative impact POP can have on quality of life. “This is the second most common reason that women enter nursing homes,” primarily because of urinary incontinence, Dr. Rabin said. “It’s very debilitating, but a lot of it is preventable and a lot is treatable.”

Dr. Rabin estimated that three out of every five women older than 60 and one or two out of every five women younger than 60 experience POP. Prevalence studies vary widely, from nearly a quarter of women to more than half, and racial and ethnic disparities in diagnosis further complicate the statistics.

PCPs therefore have an important role to play in screening for POP. The evidence shows that “patients want their providers to bring this up,” Dr. LaCross said. “They want to talk about it, but they want the provider to ask the questions first.”
 

Causes, Risk Factors, and Symptoms

Many causes contribute to POP, with gravity, aging, childbirth, and menopause at the top of the list.

“As people get older, their pelvic muscles and connective tissue get weaker, and the nerves don’t function as well,” Dr. Rabin said. Meanwhile, the body is losing estrogen, which affects how well the muscles contract and how easily the connective tissue can tear, she said.

With menopause, when baseline estrogen is lower, the tissue integrity is not as supportive as it should be and women are going to be at an increased risk of prolapse, Dr. Nwabuebo said.

POP has a range of risk factors:

• Increasing age, as muscle mass decreases and connective tissue hardens.
• Menopause.
• Vaginal delivery with complications, such as long second-stage labor, instrument-assisted delivery, multiple vaginal lacerations, and improperly repaired episiotomy.
• Multiple vaginal deliveries.
• Birthing large babies.
• Family history of pelvic organ prolapse (genetics can play a role in POP risk).
• Previous pelvic/abdominal surgery, including cesarean delivery and hysterectomy.
• Smoking (largely because of associated coughing).
• Chronic lung conditions that cause a lot of coughing.
• Chronic constipation or irritable bowel syndrome.
• Some types of high-impact activity, such as jogging or marathon running.
• Early menopause, for younger women.
• Repetitive heavy lifting in daily activities, such as occupational lifting (though not necessarily weight lifting as an exercise).
• Higher body mass index.
• Connective tissue disorders, such as joint hypermobility syndrome or Ehlers-Danlos syndrome.

Roger Dmochowski, MD, professor of urology and surgery at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, groups POP symptoms into two groups: anatomic and functional ones. A common anatomic symptom is bulging. “They’ll describe sitting on a ball, feeling like their bladder or something’s falling out, feeling a pressure or a heaviness,” Dr. Dmochowski said.

Functional symptoms can include vaginal dryness, vaginal irritation, painful intercourse, contact of the vaginal tissues with underclothes, and associated urinary symptoms, such as stress incontinence, urge incontinence, and incomplete emptying of the bladder. Dr. Dmochowski noted that women who report urinary incontinence may be at risk for being prescribed a medication without the necessary referral to a specialist for a full gynecologic evaluation.

Two other groups of functional symptoms include bowel-related disorders – primarily fecal incontinence and ongoing constipation – and pelvic pain or discomfort.

There can also be asymptomatic cases. “A lot of women have what we call silent prolapse,” Dr. Dmochowski said. That is, “they have some degree of loss of support to the bladder, vagina, or uterus, but they’re not symptomatic.” These women may be particularly good candidates for pelvic health physical therapy.
 

Screening and Diagnosis

Because many postmenopausal women stop seeing their ob.gyn, it’s often up to their primary care physician to determine whether their patients are experiencing POP symptoms.

“Women sometimes don’t bring this up with their doctor because they think there’s not enough time, or they’ll be laughed at, or their friends told them this is normal,” Dr. Rabin said. But primary care providers are really in a unique position to be able to ask the key symptom questions.

Dr. Rabin recommends a couple of questions to cover all the bases: “Do you leak urine when you cough or sneeze or on the way to the bathroom? Do you notice a bulge coming out of the vagina, or are you bothered by pelvic pressure?”

Dr. Dmochowski offered a single question that can open the conversation to more questions: “Are you bothered by any urinary or bowel or vaginal issues that we should talk about?” He also suggests asking how bothersome the symptoms are, which can help in directing treatment or prevention options. A physical exam can reveal signs of POP as well.

Diagnosis involves a detailed history, a comprehensive physical exam, and assessment with the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) tool. A urogynecologist can diagnose the type of POP – such as cystocele, rectocele, enterocele, uterine prolapse, or vaginal vault prolapse – and its grade (0-4).
 

Treatment: Physical Therapy, Pessary, and Surgery

No medications can treat prolapse, though some can treat downstream effects, such as hormonal vaginal creams for vaginal dryness and irritation, and medications for urinary incontinence. However, two mistakes PCPs can make are sending someone straight to surgery or prescribing them medication for symptoms without referring them for a diagnostic evaluation, Dr. Rabin said. “You have to have a diagnosis first to know what type of prolapse is there,” she said.

Because there can be long waiting lists for a urogynecologist or urologist, PCPs should also refer their patients to a pelvic health physical therapist (PT) who can help patients begin addressing the symptoms while they await a specialist who can diagnose them.

Though PT is often thought of as preventive, it’s also a conservative first-line intervention for prolapse, Dr. Nwabuebo said. Strong evidence shows pelvic floor muscle training from pelvic health PT can reduce symptoms of prolapse and reduce the severity by one grade in those with a grade 1 or 2 prolapse. Stage 3 is trickier, where PT may or may not be able to shift the symptom presentation, Dr. Nwabeubo said, and stage 4 is usually a surgical candidate.

“If you have a grade 4 prolapse, or the tissues are really visible outside the body, physical therapy and pelvic floor muscle training is not going to elevate that tissue back up into your body, but it can sometimes help with symptoms,” Dr. LaCross said.

The PT conducts a thorough pelvic muscle assessment, discusses lifestyle, and may teach breathing and bracing strategies for lifting, for example.

“A lot of what we’re talking about with pelvic floor therapy is lifestyle modifications,” Dr. Nwabuebo said. “If I have a patient with a history of chronic constipation, it doesn’t matter how much we do pelvic floor exercises; if we don’t manage the constipation issues by addressing their nutrition, then straining when using the bathroom will keep putting pressure on the pelvic floor.”

PTs can also recommend appropriate vaginal weights and dilators to help with pelvic floor strengthening and teach patients how to use them properly.

Even if women ultimately opt for surgery, PT prior to surgery can be beneficial. Dr. Rabin cited three reasons she recommends first-line PT: It may elevate the bladder enough to reduce stress incontinence and thicken the pelvic muscles, it can improve the effectiveness of a pessary or surgery if the woman chooses one of those options, and it can quiet bladder contractions, potentially obviating the need for pharmacologic treatment for overactive bladder.

The next nonsurgical option is a pessary, a device that fits into the vagina to provide support to the tissues displaced by prolapse. There’s a wide range of pessary types: some are short-term, worn only daily, or disposable, while others can be worn longer. Some women can self-insert and remove the pessary, and others may need a clinician to do so. Dr. Dmochowski recommends patients try a pessary to see if it benefits them. About a third of women will find them comfortable enough to wear regularly, but others will feel more sensitive to the pessary’s presence, he said.

One of the newest, most innovative pessary options for women is Gynethotics, which received Food and Drug Administration (FDA) clearance in March, as the first 3D-printed, customizable pessary capable of nearly 10 million configurations based on a person’s body.

Nearly all stage 4 prolapses and most of stage 3 prolapses can be addressed only through transvaginal or transabdominal surgery.

“We tell patients, if you can get 10 years out of your operation, you’re lucky,” Dr. Dmochowski said. A major reason for the short-lived durability is the poor quality of the tissue that needs to be pulled together. Serious complications resulting from use of polypropylene mesh during prolapse surgery led the FDA to halt sales of the devices and recommend discontinuing their use. However, one type of vaginal mesh is still considered safe to use in sacral colpopexy surgery.

Three things can shorten the durability of the surgery, Dr. Dmochowski said: heavy lifting, particularly anything over 30 pounds; chronic coughing, such as in those with chronic lung conditions; and chronic constipation.

Ms. Palm tried a pessary for her grade 3 prolapse with cystocele, rectocele, and enterocele but didn’t feel she had the time to use it regularly, so she opted for surgery. After a week on the couch recovering, she took it easy for another 12 weeks. Since then, she’s dedicated much of her time to educating and supporting women with POP and combating stigma associated with it. The APOPS website that she started has become a valuable resource for PCPs to send patients to, and the forum includes more 27,000 women from around the world.

“We encourage women to share what they’re experiencing. Tell your family, tell your friends, tell the people you work with about it,” Ms. Palm said. But many still feel uncomfortable speaking up, making PCPs’ role even more important.

*This story was updated on May 14, 2024.

Sherrie Palm, a patient advocate in Mukwonago, Wisconsin, learned in her 30s that she needed to educate herself about her own health. So when she discovered a walnut-sized lump coming out of her vagina in her mid-50s, she was stunned when her primary care provider (PCP) told her it was pelvic organ prolapse (POP), where one or more organs descend into the vaginal cavity.

“I was shocked,” Ms. Palm said. After searching online and discovering how prevalent POP was, her shock turned to anger. “I was blown away that it could be this common and I’d never heard of it,” she said. “I knew within 2 weeks that I had to do something to change the status quo.”

Ms. Palm eventually founded the nonprofit Association for Pelvic Organ Prolapse Support, or APOPS, complete with a forum where women can learn about POP and support one another. She said awareness has improved substantially since her diagnosis in 2007, but “we have a long way to go” because POP and vaginal health in general are so stigmatized.

Her website notes that about half of women with incontinence do not seek help, largely because of stigma. “The status quo is that PCPs do not POP screen,” she said. ObGyns may screen but often “because the patient has asked to be screened, they say it’s not that bad, come back and see me in a year, and do your Kegels,” Ms. Palm said.

Doctors who diagnose POP agree that the issue is often off PCPs’ radar.

“Primary care doctors are really in a time crunch, so this is one of the things that may not get addressed,” Jill Rabin, MD, vice chair of education and development in obstetrics and gynecology at Northwell Health in New York, said. Dr. Rabin is also head of urogynecology at Long Island Jewish Medical Center.

Ann Nwabuebo, PT, DPT, owner and founder of Body Connect Physical Therapy in Bethesda, Maryland, said social media has been shifting the attitude that pelvic health is a taboo subject. “It’s empowering people to seek care if they’re not finding physicians who are helping.”

But social media is also a double-edged sword, said Jenny LaCross, PT, DPT, PhD, a physical therapist at MOVE PT in Monroe, Michigan, and a postdoctoral research fellow with Michigan Medicine’s Pelvic Floor Research Group. “Pelvic health in general is talked about a lot more, but there’s also a lot more misinformation,” she said.

Part of that misinformation is the idea that pelvic prolapse is solely about weakness in the pelvic floor when it can also result from a widening of natural openings within the pelvis, Dr. LaCross said. She pointed to the two definitions of pelvic organ prolapse by the International Urogynecologic Consultation and the International Continence Society, both of which have been updated in recent years.

“This is why this is challenging for primary care providers,” Dr. LaCross said. “Even urogynecologists who are the specialists that treat prolapse and incontinence have changed how they assess it and the terminology and criteria that they use.”

What hasn’t changed is the substantial negative impact POP can have on quality of life. “This is the second most common reason that women enter nursing homes,” primarily because of urinary incontinence, Dr. Rabin said. “It’s very debilitating, but a lot of it is preventable and a lot is treatable.”

Dr. Rabin estimated that three out of every five women older than 60 and one or two out of every five women younger than 60 experience POP. Prevalence studies vary widely, from nearly a quarter of women to more than half, and racial and ethnic disparities in diagnosis further complicate the statistics.

PCPs therefore have an important role to play in screening for POP. The evidence shows that “patients want their providers to bring this up,” Dr. LaCross said. “They want to talk about it, but they want the provider to ask the questions first.”
 

Causes, Risk Factors, and Symptoms

Many causes contribute to POP, with gravity, aging, childbirth, and menopause at the top of the list.

“As people get older, their pelvic muscles and connective tissue get weaker, and the nerves don’t function as well,” Dr. Rabin said. Meanwhile, the body is losing estrogen, which affects how well the muscles contract and how easily the connective tissue can tear, she said.

With menopause, when baseline estrogen is lower, the tissue integrity is not as supportive as it should be and women are going to be at an increased risk of prolapse, Dr. Nwabuebo said.

POP has a range of risk factors:

• Increasing age, as muscle mass decreases and connective tissue hardens.
• Menopause.
• Vaginal delivery with complications, such as long second-stage labor, instrument-assisted delivery, multiple vaginal lacerations, and improperly repaired episiotomy.
• Multiple vaginal deliveries.
• Birthing large babies.
• Family history of pelvic organ prolapse (genetics can play a role in POP risk).
• Previous pelvic/abdominal surgery, including cesarean delivery and hysterectomy.
• Smoking (largely because of associated coughing).
• Chronic lung conditions that cause a lot of coughing.
• Chronic constipation or irritable bowel syndrome.
• Some types of high-impact activity, such as jogging or marathon running.
• Early menopause, for younger women.
• Repetitive heavy lifting in daily activities, such as occupational lifting (though not necessarily weight lifting as an exercise).
• Higher body mass index.
• Connective tissue disorders, such as joint hypermobility syndrome or Ehlers-Danlos syndrome.

Roger Dmochowski, MD, professor of urology and surgery at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, groups POP symptoms into two groups: anatomic and functional ones. A common anatomic symptom is bulging. “They’ll describe sitting on a ball, feeling like their bladder or something’s falling out, feeling a pressure or a heaviness,” Dr. Dmochowski said.

Functional symptoms can include vaginal dryness, vaginal irritation, painful intercourse, contact of the vaginal tissues with underclothes, and associated urinary symptoms, such as stress incontinence, urge incontinence, and incomplete emptying of the bladder. Dr. Dmochowski noted that women who report urinary incontinence may be at risk for being prescribed a medication without the necessary referral to a specialist for a full gynecologic evaluation.

Two other groups of functional symptoms include bowel-related disorders – primarily fecal incontinence and ongoing constipation – and pelvic pain or discomfort.

There can also be asymptomatic cases. “A lot of women have what we call silent prolapse,” Dr. Dmochowski said. That is, “they have some degree of loss of support to the bladder, vagina, or uterus, but they’re not symptomatic.” These women may be particularly good candidates for pelvic health physical therapy.
 

Screening and Diagnosis

Because many postmenopausal women stop seeing their ob.gyn, it’s often up to their primary care physician to determine whether their patients are experiencing POP symptoms.

“Women sometimes don’t bring this up with their doctor because they think there’s not enough time, or they’ll be laughed at, or their friends told them this is normal,” Dr. Rabin said. But primary care providers are really in a unique position to be able to ask the key symptom questions.

Dr. Rabin recommends a couple of questions to cover all the bases: “Do you leak urine when you cough or sneeze or on the way to the bathroom? Do you notice a bulge coming out of the vagina, or are you bothered by pelvic pressure?”

Dr. Dmochowski offered a single question that can open the conversation to more questions: “Are you bothered by any urinary or bowel or vaginal issues that we should talk about?” He also suggests asking how bothersome the symptoms are, which can help in directing treatment or prevention options. A physical exam can reveal signs of POP as well.

Diagnosis involves a detailed history, a comprehensive physical exam, and assessment with the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) tool. A urogynecologist can diagnose the type of POP – such as cystocele, rectocele, enterocele, uterine prolapse, or vaginal vault prolapse – and its grade (0-4).
 

Treatment: Physical Therapy, Pessary, and Surgery

No medications can treat prolapse, though some can treat downstream effects, such as hormonal vaginal creams for vaginal dryness and irritation, and medications for urinary incontinence. However, two mistakes PCPs can make are sending someone straight to surgery or prescribing them medication for symptoms without referring them for a diagnostic evaluation, Dr. Rabin said. “You have to have a diagnosis first to know what type of prolapse is there,” she said.

Because there can be long waiting lists for a urogynecologist or urologist, PCPs should also refer their patients to a pelvic health physical therapist (PT) who can help patients begin addressing the symptoms while they await a specialist who can diagnose them.

Though PT is often thought of as preventive, it’s also a conservative first-line intervention for prolapse, Dr. Nwabuebo said. Strong evidence shows pelvic floor muscle training from pelvic health PT can reduce symptoms of prolapse and reduce the severity by one grade in those with a grade 1 or 2 prolapse. Stage 3 is trickier, where PT may or may not be able to shift the symptom presentation, Dr. Nwabeubo said, and stage 4 is usually a surgical candidate.

“If you have a grade 4 prolapse, or the tissues are really visible outside the body, physical therapy and pelvic floor muscle training is not going to elevate that tissue back up into your body, but it can sometimes help with symptoms,” Dr. LaCross said.

The PT conducts a thorough pelvic muscle assessment, discusses lifestyle, and may teach breathing and bracing strategies for lifting, for example.

“A lot of what we’re talking about with pelvic floor therapy is lifestyle modifications,” Dr. Nwabuebo said. “If I have a patient with a history of chronic constipation, it doesn’t matter how much we do pelvic floor exercises; if we don’t manage the constipation issues by addressing their nutrition, then straining when using the bathroom will keep putting pressure on the pelvic floor.”

PTs can also recommend appropriate vaginal weights and dilators to help with pelvic floor strengthening and teach patients how to use them properly.

Even if women ultimately opt for surgery, PT prior to surgery can be beneficial. Dr. Rabin cited three reasons she recommends first-line PT: It may elevate the bladder enough to reduce stress incontinence and thicken the pelvic muscles, it can improve the effectiveness of a pessary or surgery if the woman chooses one of those options, and it can quiet bladder contractions, potentially obviating the need for pharmacologic treatment for overactive bladder.

The next nonsurgical option is a pessary, a device that fits into the vagina to provide support to the tissues displaced by prolapse. There’s a wide range of pessary types: some are short-term, worn only daily, or disposable, while others can be worn longer. Some women can self-insert and remove the pessary, and others may need a clinician to do so. Dr. Dmochowski recommends patients try a pessary to see if it benefits them. About a third of women will find them comfortable enough to wear regularly, but others will feel more sensitive to the pessary’s presence, he said.

One of the newest, most innovative pessary options for women is Gynethotics, which received Food and Drug Administration (FDA) clearance in March, as the first 3D-printed, customizable pessary capable of nearly 10 million configurations based on a person’s body.

Nearly all stage 4 prolapses and most of stage 3 prolapses can be addressed only through transvaginal or transabdominal surgery.

“We tell patients, if you can get 10 years out of your operation, you’re lucky,” Dr. Dmochowski said. A major reason for the short-lived durability is the poor quality of the tissue that needs to be pulled together. Serious complications resulting from use of polypropylene mesh during prolapse surgery led the FDA to halt sales of the devices and recommend discontinuing their use. However, one type of vaginal mesh is still considered safe to use in sacral colpopexy surgery.

Three things can shorten the durability of the surgery, Dr. Dmochowski said: heavy lifting, particularly anything over 30 pounds; chronic coughing, such as in those with chronic lung conditions; and chronic constipation.

Ms. Palm tried a pessary for her grade 3 prolapse with cystocele, rectocele, and enterocele but didn’t feel she had the time to use it regularly, so she opted for surgery. After a week on the couch recovering, she took it easy for another 12 weeks. Since then, she’s dedicated much of her time to educating and supporting women with POP and combating stigma associated with it. The APOPS website that she started has become a valuable resource for PCPs to send patients to, and the forum includes more 27,000 women from around the world.

“We encourage women to share what they’re experiencing. Tell your family, tell your friends, tell the people you work with about it,” Ms. Palm said. But many still feel uncomfortable speaking up, making PCPs’ role even more important.

*This story was updated on May 14, 2024.

As three federal agencies investigate how private equity ownership and consolidation of healthcare organizations affects patient care and costs, physicians are giving them an earful.

“Before I retired, I could already see the damage private equity was doing to hospitals and medical practices. Well-regarded physician groups were being bought and the respected doctors and staff forced out to squeeze out profit for the buyers. Hospital-based physicians were being hit especially hard,” wrote Rhonda Wright, MD, of Brookhaven, Georgia. 

“Now, the rot is setting in for emergency rooms. One in four ERs is now (under-)staffed by private equity firms. This is leading to longer wait times, deterioration in patient care, and higher bills,” Dr. Wright continued. “Private equity takeover of medicine must be stopped. All such deals should be strictly regulated and should be heavily scrutinized, if not barred altogether. Our health depends upon it!”

The federal government is accepting public comments like Dr. Wright’s through June 5 and has even set up a website (healthycompetition.gov) to make it easier to file complaints against health organizations possibly violating antitrust laws.

The US Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and the Department of Health and Human Services want to hear from physicians and the public about how private equity firms’ investments in healthcare entities, such as hospitals, nursing homes, or specialty service providers, affect patients and healthcare workers. The investigation will also evaluate how market pricing, competition, and referral patterns change when practices and hospitals are acquired by health systems or insurers.

Maintaining competition in the provider and payer markets benefits healthcare workers through higher pay, while patients can access quality care at lower prices, the joint request for information said. However, consolidation and mergers — potentially driven by private equity’s entry into the market — can diminish these benefits.

Investigating private equity and consolidation in medicine is part of the Biden Administration’s focus on lowering medical and prescription drug costs and strengthening competition in healthcare. The FTC’s vote last week to ban noncompete agreements, which business groups have vowed to challenge in court, falls under the same initiative.

Alexandra Nicole Thran, MD, FACEP, president of the Vermont Chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians, said that the private equity business model is problematic because it ties physicians’ wages to patient satisfaction and the number of patients they see per hour. 

A Connecticut primary care physician expressed similar sentiments. “Physicians are being forced into a system where corporations provide financial incentives and punitive policies to direct healthcare decisions towards a profitable aim,” said Eric Schwaber, MD. 

While a majority of comments criticized the role of private equity and consolidation, some reflected a more positive view. 

“Private equity helps make healthcare more efficient and effective. It brings needed operational and managerial expertise to allow for better patient care,” said Reenie Abraham, MD, an associate professor in the Department of Internal Medicine at University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas. The University of Texas is facing a lawsuit involving the liability status of its physicians who work for a private equity-backed hospital partly owned by the university.

Several public comments point to the increasing market influence UnitedHealth Group (UHG) and other payers have obtained through recent acquisitions. Retired emergency room physician Scott Davis, MD, said that the “astronomical” rate of burnout among providers has been exacerbated by “the economic takeover of the healthcare system by…United Healthcare [and] private equity groups who put profits over anything else.”  

The healthcare conglomerate employs approximately 10% of active US physicians, including many through its subsidiary, Optum Health, which provides primary, urgent, and surgical care. UHG has also invested heavily in acquiring physician practices to advance its value-based care model.

“If a publicly traded private insurance or private equity company is interested in their short-term quarterly profits or stock price, there is little interest in the…effective management of chronic disease, other than that which fulfills a ‘value-based’ metric,” wrote Kenneth Dolkart, MD, FACP, clinical assistant professor at the Dartmouth Geisel School of Medicine in Hanover, New Hampshire. 

Sarah Ealy, a revenue cycle professional, commented that payers like UHG have outsized bargaining power when negotiating rates with providers. “In many states, United Healthcare and its subsidiaries pay a lower reimbursement rate than state Medicaid plans — these rates are nearly 50% of the breakeven per-visit rate that practices need to keep the lights on.”

Another comment ties the recent cyberattack on UHG-owned Change Healthcare to private equity ownership and “healthcare behemoths buying up practices and data.”

“The ramrodding of consolidation and private oversight with little to no barriers to foreign intrusions…is a testament to how ill prepared [the] US market is to private equity healthcare takeovers,” said SW Dermatology Practice LLC. 

The agencies request comments from all health market participants, including physicians, nurses, employers, administrators, and patients.

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

As three federal agencies investigate how private equity ownership and consolidation of healthcare organizations affects patient care and costs, physicians are giving them an earful.

“Before I retired, I could already see the damage private equity was doing to hospitals and medical practices. Well-regarded physician groups were being bought and the respected doctors and staff forced out to squeeze out profit for the buyers. Hospital-based physicians were being hit especially hard,” wrote Rhonda Wright, MD, of Brookhaven, Georgia. 

“Now, the rot is setting in for emergency rooms. One in four ERs is now (under-)staffed by private equity firms. This is leading to longer wait times, deterioration in patient care, and higher bills,” Dr. Wright continued. “Private equity takeover of medicine must be stopped. All such deals should be strictly regulated and should be heavily scrutinized, if not barred altogether. Our health depends upon it!”

The federal government is accepting public comments like Dr. Wright’s through June 5 and has even set up a website (healthycompetition.gov) to make it easier to file complaints against health organizations possibly violating antitrust laws.

The US Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and the Department of Health and Human Services want to hear from physicians and the public about how private equity firms’ investments in healthcare entities, such as hospitals, nursing homes, or specialty service providers, affect patients and healthcare workers. The investigation will also evaluate how market pricing, competition, and referral patterns change when practices and hospitals are acquired by health systems or insurers.

Maintaining competition in the provider and payer markets benefits healthcare workers through higher pay, while patients can access quality care at lower prices, the joint request for information said. However, consolidation and mergers — potentially driven by private equity’s entry into the market — can diminish these benefits.

Investigating private equity and consolidation in medicine is part of the Biden Administration’s focus on lowering medical and prescription drug costs and strengthening competition in healthcare. The FTC’s vote last week to ban noncompete agreements, which business groups have vowed to challenge in court, falls under the same initiative.

Alexandra Nicole Thran, MD, FACEP, president of the Vermont Chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians, said that the private equity business model is problematic because it ties physicians’ wages to patient satisfaction and the number of patients they see per hour. 

A Connecticut primary care physician expressed similar sentiments. “Physicians are being forced into a system where corporations provide financial incentives and punitive policies to direct healthcare decisions towards a profitable aim,” said Eric Schwaber, MD. 

While a majority of comments criticized the role of private equity and consolidation, some reflected a more positive view. 

“Private equity helps make healthcare more efficient and effective. It brings needed operational and managerial expertise to allow for better patient care,” said Reenie Abraham, MD, an associate professor in the Department of Internal Medicine at University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas. The University of Texas is facing a lawsuit involving the liability status of its physicians who work for a private equity-backed hospital partly owned by the university.

Several public comments point to the increasing market influence UnitedHealth Group (UHG) and other payers have obtained through recent acquisitions. Retired emergency room physician Scott Davis, MD, said that the “astronomical” rate of burnout among providers has been exacerbated by “the economic takeover of the healthcare system by…United Healthcare [and] private equity groups who put profits over anything else.”  

The healthcare conglomerate employs approximately 10% of active US physicians, including many through its subsidiary, Optum Health, which provides primary, urgent, and surgical care. UHG has also invested heavily in acquiring physician practices to advance its value-based care model.

“If a publicly traded private insurance or private equity company is interested in their short-term quarterly profits or stock price, there is little interest in the…effective management of chronic disease, other than that which fulfills a ‘value-based’ metric,” wrote Kenneth Dolkart, MD, FACP, clinical assistant professor at the Dartmouth Geisel School of Medicine in Hanover, New Hampshire. 

Sarah Ealy, a revenue cycle professional, commented that payers like UHG have outsized bargaining power when negotiating rates with providers. “In many states, United Healthcare and its subsidiaries pay a lower reimbursement rate than state Medicaid plans — these rates are nearly 50% of the breakeven per-visit rate that practices need to keep the lights on.”

Another comment ties the recent cyberattack on UHG-owned Change Healthcare to private equity ownership and “healthcare behemoths buying up practices and data.”

“The ramrodding of consolidation and private oversight with little to no barriers to foreign intrusions…is a testament to how ill prepared [the] US market is to private equity healthcare takeovers,” said SW Dermatology Practice LLC. 

The agencies request comments from all health market participants, including physicians, nurses, employers, administrators, and patients.

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

As three federal agencies investigate how private equity ownership and consolidation of healthcare organizations affects patient care and costs, physicians are giving them an earful.

“Before I retired, I could already see the damage private equity was doing to hospitals and medical practices. Well-regarded physician groups were being bought and the respected doctors and staff forced out to squeeze out profit for the buyers. Hospital-based physicians were being hit especially hard,” wrote Rhonda Wright, MD, of Brookhaven, Georgia. 

“Now, the rot is setting in for emergency rooms. One in four ERs is now (under-)staffed by private equity firms. This is leading to longer wait times, deterioration in patient care, and higher bills,” Dr. Wright continued. “Private equity takeover of medicine must be stopped. All such deals should be strictly regulated and should be heavily scrutinized, if not barred altogether. Our health depends upon it!”

The federal government is accepting public comments like Dr. Wright’s through June 5 and has even set up a website (healthycompetition.gov) to make it easier to file complaints against health organizations possibly violating antitrust laws.

The US Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and the Department of Health and Human Services want to hear from physicians and the public about how private equity firms’ investments in healthcare entities, such as hospitals, nursing homes, or specialty service providers, affect patients and healthcare workers. The investigation will also evaluate how market pricing, competition, and referral patterns change when practices and hospitals are acquired by health systems or insurers.

Maintaining competition in the provider and payer markets benefits healthcare workers through higher pay, while patients can access quality care at lower prices, the joint request for information said. However, consolidation and mergers — potentially driven by private equity’s entry into the market — can diminish these benefits.

Investigating private equity and consolidation in medicine is part of the Biden Administration’s focus on lowering medical and prescription drug costs and strengthening competition in healthcare. The FTC’s vote last week to ban noncompete agreements, which business groups have vowed to challenge in court, falls under the same initiative.

Alexandra Nicole Thran, MD, FACEP, president of the Vermont Chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians, said that the private equity business model is problematic because it ties physicians’ wages to patient satisfaction and the number of patients they see per hour. 

A Connecticut primary care physician expressed similar sentiments. “Physicians are being forced into a system where corporations provide financial incentives and punitive policies to direct healthcare decisions towards a profitable aim,” said Eric Schwaber, MD. 

While a majority of comments criticized the role of private equity and consolidation, some reflected a more positive view. 

“Private equity helps make healthcare more efficient and effective. It brings needed operational and managerial expertise to allow for better patient care,” said Reenie Abraham, MD, an associate professor in the Department of Internal Medicine at University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas. The University of Texas is facing a lawsuit involving the liability status of its physicians who work for a private equity-backed hospital partly owned by the university.

Several public comments point to the increasing market influence UnitedHealth Group (UHG) and other payers have obtained through recent acquisitions. Retired emergency room physician Scott Davis, MD, said that the “astronomical” rate of burnout among providers has been exacerbated by “the economic takeover of the healthcare system by…United Healthcare [and] private equity groups who put profits over anything else.”  

The healthcare conglomerate employs approximately 10% of active US physicians, including many through its subsidiary, Optum Health, which provides primary, urgent, and surgical care. UHG has also invested heavily in acquiring physician practices to advance its value-based care model.

“If a publicly traded private insurance or private equity company is interested in their short-term quarterly profits or stock price, there is little interest in the…effective management of chronic disease, other than that which fulfills a ‘value-based’ metric,” wrote Kenneth Dolkart, MD, FACP, clinical assistant professor at the Dartmouth Geisel School of Medicine in Hanover, New Hampshire. 

Sarah Ealy, a revenue cycle professional, commented that payers like UHG have outsized bargaining power when negotiating rates with providers. “In many states, United Healthcare and its subsidiaries pay a lower reimbursement rate than state Medicaid plans — these rates are nearly 50% of the breakeven per-visit rate that practices need to keep the lights on.”

Another comment ties the recent cyberattack on UHG-owned Change Healthcare to private equity ownership and “healthcare behemoths buying up practices and data.”

“The ramrodding of consolidation and private oversight with little to no barriers to foreign intrusions…is a testament to how ill prepared [the] US market is to private equity healthcare takeovers,” said SW Dermatology Practice LLC. 

The agencies request comments from all health market participants, including physicians, nurses, employers, administrators, and patients.

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