Gynecology

Limited data are available to guide treatment of recurrent bacterial vaginosis, but behavioral changes and switching between approved medication regimens may help, according to a presenter at the virtual conference on diseases of the vulva and vagina, hosted by the International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease.

Investigational treatments – such as a live biotherapeutic product delivered vaginally or vaginal microbiome transplantation – could someday be additional options if they prove safe and effective. “The current research is emphasizing biofilm disruption and products that will reestablish normal acidic vaginal pH,” said Debra L. Birenbaum, MD, assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center in Lebanon, N.H.

As for home remedies, Dr. Birenbaum and another presenter at the conference, Cynthia Rasmussen, MD, urged caution during a panel discussion.

“I think the vagina knows its business, and the more you mess with it, the more you invite trouble,” said Dr. Rasmussen, director emerita of vulvovaginal services at Atrius Health in Burlington, Mass. For instance, tea tree oil, often cited as a home remedy, can be an allergen and very irritating.

“I want to know what women are using, but I try and dissuade them,” said Dr. Birenbaum. “I have to be careful what I say, because you’ll antagonize patients” if you come out strongly against home treatments. “I try to encourage them not to go by things they read on the Internet, because I think that’s where many people are finding their home remedies.”

When counseling patients, an analogy shared during the meeting – the vagina is a self-cleaning oven – may help get the point across. “I love the comment,” Dr. Birenbaum said. “I’ve never used that before. I’m going to start saying that.”
 

Possible causes and risk factors

Bacterial vaginosis, also known as vaginal dysbiosis, is the most common cause of discharge in women of reproductive age worldwide. Growth of a biofilm may cause the condition, which is characterized by a shift in vaginal flora from a Lactobacilli-dominant environment to one of other bacterial types.

Risk factors include douching, smoking, sex with an uncircumcised partner, and having multiple sexual partners. Bacterial vaginosis may be associated with various complications and infections, including increased risk of preterm delivery, postpartum endometritis, postabortal infection, Trichomonas, chlamydia, and HIV.

Unlike recurrent yeast, which is characterized by four or more episodes per year, recurrent bacterial vaginosis has no official criteria, Dr. Birenbaum said. However, recurrence of bacterial vaginosis “is extremely common,” she said. “Up to 30% of women with [bacterial vaginosis] may recur within 3 months, and up to 50% after 12 months.”
 

Lifestyle changes and treatments

Recommendations to use condoms, stop smoking, and not douche are important.

In addition, 11 treatment regimens for four drugs – metronidazole, clindamycin, tinidazole, or secnidazole – are available for the treatment of bacterial vaginosis. For recurrent cases, adjusting and switching between the drugs and modes of delivery may help. If a patient started with vaginal gel, they can try an oral medication, or vice versa.

“There’s very little data to guide the optimal therapy for this,” Dr. Birenbaum said. “All of this is worth a try to see if you can beat this before this becomes an ongoing issue.”

As an example of one possible regimen for recurrent bacterial vaginosis, Dr. Birenbaum suggested that a patient could complete a 2- to 4-week course of oral metronidazole instead of the usual 1-week course. The regimen could incorporate boric acid vaginal suppositories 600 mg nightly for 21 days, followed by metronidazole gel 0.75% (one applicator twice per week for 6 months).
 

New therapies may be on the horizon

In a randomized, double-blind, phase 2b trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine that included more than 220 participants, patients who received an investigational product containing Lactobacillus crispatus CTV-05 (Lactin-V) were less likely to have recurrent bacterial vaginosis at 12 weeks, compared with those who received placebo (30% vs. 45%).

A product in development known as TOL-463, a boric acid–based vaginal anti-infective enhanced with ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid, may be safe and effective, a phase 2 study published in Clinical Infectious Diseases suggests.

Investigators in the United Kingdom designed a trial to compare lactic acid gel and metronidazole, and the findings published in the Trials journal may clarify inconsistent results from prior studies.

Furthermore, preclinical research in Pathogens and Disease has identified cationic amphiphiles that might help fight the biofilm that is formed with Gardnerella vaginalis in patients with bacterial vaginosis, Dr. Birenbaum said.

Finally, an exploratory study in Israel published in Nature Medicine evaluated vaginal microbiome transplants in five patients, three of whom required repeat transplantation. Four patients had long-term remission, and one had a reduction in symptoms

Dr. Birenbaum is a reviewer for UpToDate. Dr. Rasmussen had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

Limited data are available to guide treatment of recurrent bacterial vaginosis, but behavioral changes and switching between approved medication regimens may help, according to a presenter at the virtual conference on diseases of the vulva and vagina, hosted by the International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease.

Investigational treatments – such as a live biotherapeutic product delivered vaginally or vaginal microbiome transplantation – could someday be additional options if they prove safe and effective. “The current research is emphasizing biofilm disruption and products that will reestablish normal acidic vaginal pH,” said Debra L. Birenbaum, MD, assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center in Lebanon, N.H.

As for home remedies, Dr. Birenbaum and another presenter at the conference, Cynthia Rasmussen, MD, urged caution during a panel discussion.

“I think the vagina knows its business, and the more you mess with it, the more you invite trouble,” said Dr. Rasmussen, director emerita of vulvovaginal services at Atrius Health in Burlington, Mass. For instance, tea tree oil, often cited as a home remedy, can be an allergen and very irritating.

“I want to know what women are using, but I try and dissuade them,” said Dr. Birenbaum. “I have to be careful what I say, because you’ll antagonize patients” if you come out strongly against home treatments. “I try to encourage them not to go by things they read on the Internet, because I think that’s where many people are finding their home remedies.”

When counseling patients, an analogy shared during the meeting – the vagina is a self-cleaning oven – may help get the point across. “I love the comment,” Dr. Birenbaum said. “I’ve never used that before. I’m going to start saying that.”
 

Possible causes and risk factors

Bacterial vaginosis, also known as vaginal dysbiosis, is the most common cause of discharge in women of reproductive age worldwide. Growth of a biofilm may cause the condition, which is characterized by a shift in vaginal flora from a Lactobacilli-dominant environment to one of other bacterial types.

Risk factors include douching, smoking, sex with an uncircumcised partner, and having multiple sexual partners. Bacterial vaginosis may be associated with various complications and infections, including increased risk of preterm delivery, postpartum endometritis, postabortal infection, Trichomonas, chlamydia, and HIV.

Unlike recurrent yeast, which is characterized by four or more episodes per year, recurrent bacterial vaginosis has no official criteria, Dr. Birenbaum said. However, recurrence of bacterial vaginosis “is extremely common,” she said. “Up to 30% of women with [bacterial vaginosis] may recur within 3 months, and up to 50% after 12 months.”
 

Lifestyle changes and treatments

Recommendations to use condoms, stop smoking, and not douche are important.

In addition, 11 treatment regimens for four drugs – metronidazole, clindamycin, tinidazole, or secnidazole – are available for the treatment of bacterial vaginosis. For recurrent cases, adjusting and switching between the drugs and modes of delivery may help. If a patient started with vaginal gel, they can try an oral medication, or vice versa.

“There’s very little data to guide the optimal therapy for this,” Dr. Birenbaum said. “All of this is worth a try to see if you can beat this before this becomes an ongoing issue.”

As an example of one possible regimen for recurrent bacterial vaginosis, Dr. Birenbaum suggested that a patient could complete a 2- to 4-week course of oral metronidazole instead of the usual 1-week course. The regimen could incorporate boric acid vaginal suppositories 600 mg nightly for 21 days, followed by metronidazole gel 0.75% (one applicator twice per week for 6 months).
 

New therapies may be on the horizon

In a randomized, double-blind, phase 2b trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine that included more than 220 participants, patients who received an investigational product containing Lactobacillus crispatus CTV-05 (Lactin-V) were less likely to have recurrent bacterial vaginosis at 12 weeks, compared with those who received placebo (30% vs. 45%).

A product in development known as TOL-463, a boric acid–based vaginal anti-infective enhanced with ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid, may be safe and effective, a phase 2 study published in Clinical Infectious Diseases suggests.

Investigators in the United Kingdom designed a trial to compare lactic acid gel and metronidazole, and the findings published in the Trials journal may clarify inconsistent results from prior studies.

Furthermore, preclinical research in Pathogens and Disease has identified cationic amphiphiles that might help fight the biofilm that is formed with Gardnerella vaginalis in patients with bacterial vaginosis, Dr. Birenbaum said.

Finally, an exploratory study in Israel published in Nature Medicine evaluated vaginal microbiome transplants in five patients, three of whom required repeat transplantation. Four patients had long-term remission, and one had a reduction in symptoms

Dr. Birenbaum is a reviewer for UpToDate. Dr. Rasmussen had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

Limited data are available to guide treatment of recurrent bacterial vaginosis, but behavioral changes and switching between approved medication regimens may help, according to a presenter at the virtual conference on diseases of the vulva and vagina, hosted by the International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease.

Investigational treatments – such as a live biotherapeutic product delivered vaginally or vaginal microbiome transplantation – could someday be additional options if they prove safe and effective. “The current research is emphasizing biofilm disruption and products that will reestablish normal acidic vaginal pH,” said Debra L. Birenbaum, MD, assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center in Lebanon, N.H.

As for home remedies, Dr. Birenbaum and another presenter at the conference, Cynthia Rasmussen, MD, urged caution during a panel discussion.

“I think the vagina knows its business, and the more you mess with it, the more you invite trouble,” said Dr. Rasmussen, director emerita of vulvovaginal services at Atrius Health in Burlington, Mass. For instance, tea tree oil, often cited as a home remedy, can be an allergen and very irritating.

“I want to know what women are using, but I try and dissuade them,” said Dr. Birenbaum. “I have to be careful what I say, because you’ll antagonize patients” if you come out strongly against home treatments. “I try to encourage them not to go by things they read on the Internet, because I think that’s where many people are finding their home remedies.”

When counseling patients, an analogy shared during the meeting – the vagina is a self-cleaning oven – may help get the point across. “I love the comment,” Dr. Birenbaum said. “I’ve never used that before. I’m going to start saying that.”
 

Possible causes and risk factors

Bacterial vaginosis, also known as vaginal dysbiosis, is the most common cause of discharge in women of reproductive age worldwide. Growth of a biofilm may cause the condition, which is characterized by a shift in vaginal flora from a Lactobacilli-dominant environment to one of other bacterial types.

Risk factors include douching, smoking, sex with an uncircumcised partner, and having multiple sexual partners. Bacterial vaginosis may be associated with various complications and infections, including increased risk of preterm delivery, postpartum endometritis, postabortal infection, Trichomonas, chlamydia, and HIV.

Unlike recurrent yeast, which is characterized by four or more episodes per year, recurrent bacterial vaginosis has no official criteria, Dr. Birenbaum said. However, recurrence of bacterial vaginosis “is extremely common,” she said. “Up to 30% of women with [bacterial vaginosis] may recur within 3 months, and up to 50% after 12 months.”
 

Lifestyle changes and treatments

Recommendations to use condoms, stop smoking, and not douche are important.

In addition, 11 treatment regimens for four drugs – metronidazole, clindamycin, tinidazole, or secnidazole – are available for the treatment of bacterial vaginosis. For recurrent cases, adjusting and switching between the drugs and modes of delivery may help. If a patient started with vaginal gel, they can try an oral medication, or vice versa.

“There’s very little data to guide the optimal therapy for this,” Dr. Birenbaum said. “All of this is worth a try to see if you can beat this before this becomes an ongoing issue.”

As an example of one possible regimen for recurrent bacterial vaginosis, Dr. Birenbaum suggested that a patient could complete a 2- to 4-week course of oral metronidazole instead of the usual 1-week course. The regimen could incorporate boric acid vaginal suppositories 600 mg nightly for 21 days, followed by metronidazole gel 0.75% (one applicator twice per week for 6 months).
 

New therapies may be on the horizon

In a randomized, double-blind, phase 2b trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine that included more than 220 participants, patients who received an investigational product containing Lactobacillus crispatus CTV-05 (Lactin-V) were less likely to have recurrent bacterial vaginosis at 12 weeks, compared with those who received placebo (30% vs. 45%).

A product in development known as TOL-463, a boric acid–based vaginal anti-infective enhanced with ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid, may be safe and effective, a phase 2 study published in Clinical Infectious Diseases suggests.

Investigators in the United Kingdom designed a trial to compare lactic acid gel and metronidazole, and the findings published in the Trials journal may clarify inconsistent results from prior studies.

Furthermore, preclinical research in Pathogens and Disease has identified cationic amphiphiles that might help fight the biofilm that is formed with Gardnerella vaginalis in patients with bacterial vaginosis, Dr. Birenbaum said.

Finally, an exploratory study in Israel published in Nature Medicine evaluated vaginal microbiome transplants in five patients, three of whom required repeat transplantation. Four patients had long-term remission, and one had a reduction in symptoms

Dr. Birenbaum is a reviewer for UpToDate. Dr. Rasmussen had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

A three-step approach may help relieve itch in patients with lichen simplex chronicus, “one of the itchiest conditions that we ever see on the vulva,” an expert advised at the virtual conference on diseases of the vulva and vagina, hosted by the International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease.

For some patients, such as those with excessive sweating or underlying psoriasis, seeing a dermatologist may be beneficial, physicians at the meeting suggested.

Treatment should aim to optimize epithelial barrier function, reduce inflammation, and stop scratching, Lynette Margesson, MD, said in a lecture at the biennial meeting, which is held by the International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease (ISSVD). “With this condition, please look always for more than one problem.”

Lichen simplex chronicus is a thick, hyperkeratotic, firm, itchy rash that can develop on top of any dermatitis. “It doesn’t show up out of nowhere,” said Dr. Margesson, an obstetrician and gynecologist at Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth in Hanover, N.H. “It is because of chronic rubbing and scratching on top of something else.”

It may develop on top of atopic dermatitis, psoriasis, or contact dermatitis, as well as infection, lichen sclerosus, lichen planus, or neoplasia.

Lichen simplex chronicus is characterized by years of relentless itching, and patients may wake up at night scratching. The skin looks and feels leathery, and the condition can be localized or around the entire vulva. Heat, humidity, stress, and irritants may exacerbate the condition.

Patients often try to wash the rash away with scrubbers and cleansers, which only makes it worse, Dr. Margesson said.

To get patients better, improve barrier function, such as by controlling infections, reducing sweating, avoiding irritants, and stopping excessive hygiene. Immediate therapy may include soaks, cool compresses, and ointments.

A superpotent steroid taper (e.g., clobetasol 0.05% ointment), a prednisone taper, or intramuscular triamcinolone may reduce inflammation. Dr. Margesson usually uses clobetasol, although this treatment or halobetasol can burn if patients have open skin. In such cases, she uses prednisone or intramuscular triamcinolone.

Sedating medications may help patients stop scratching, especially at night. Hydroxyzine, doxepin, or amitriptyline 2-3 hours before bedtime can help. Scratching can be a form of obsessive-compulsive disorder, and a small dose of citalopram may help during the day. Patients with significant psychological factors can be difficult to manage and tend to relapse easily, Dr. Margesson said.

If lichen simplex chronicus recurs, test for infections and allergies. “Maybe they need a mild corticosteroid all the time, like 2.5% hydrocortisone to alternate with your superpotent steroid so you can use it longer without thinning the skin,” she suggested.

Although Dr. Margesson does not often treat hyperhidrosis, addressing excessive sweating can make a big difference for patients, she said.

If a gynecologist identifies a patient who may benefit from treatment of hyperhidrosis but has limited experience with medications for this condition, it might make sense to work with a dermatologist, Aruna Venkatesan, MD, chief of dermatology and director of the genital dermatology clinic at Santa Clara Valley Medical Center in San Jose, Calif., suggested during a panel discussion. Most dermatologists treat hyperhidrosis regularly, she said.

Dermatologists also may help treat patients with psoriasis who need systemic medication, Dr. Margesson said.

“In terms of ... doing the lab monitoring and knowing what side effects to look out for, your colleagues who use these medicines more are going to be more comfortable with that,” Dr. Venkatesan said. They also may have more experience navigating insurance denials to obtain a therapy. “Don’t think you are passing the buck to someone else. Sometimes that is the right thing to do, to get that help from someone else.”

Dr. Margesson is an author for UpToDate. Dr. Venkatesan had no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

A three-step approach may help relieve itch in patients with lichen simplex chronicus, “one of the itchiest conditions that we ever see on the vulva,” an expert advised at the virtual conference on diseases of the vulva and vagina, hosted by the International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease.

For some patients, such as those with excessive sweating or underlying psoriasis, seeing a dermatologist may be beneficial, physicians at the meeting suggested.

Treatment should aim to optimize epithelial barrier function, reduce inflammation, and stop scratching, Lynette Margesson, MD, said in a lecture at the biennial meeting, which is held by the International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease (ISSVD). “With this condition, please look always for more than one problem.”

Lichen simplex chronicus is a thick, hyperkeratotic, firm, itchy rash that can develop on top of any dermatitis. “It doesn’t show up out of nowhere,” said Dr. Margesson, an obstetrician and gynecologist at Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth in Hanover, N.H. “It is because of chronic rubbing and scratching on top of something else.”

It may develop on top of atopic dermatitis, psoriasis, or contact dermatitis, as well as infection, lichen sclerosus, lichen planus, or neoplasia.

Lichen simplex chronicus is characterized by years of relentless itching, and patients may wake up at night scratching. The skin looks and feels leathery, and the condition can be localized or around the entire vulva. Heat, humidity, stress, and irritants may exacerbate the condition.

Patients often try to wash the rash away with scrubbers and cleansers, which only makes it worse, Dr. Margesson said.

To get patients better, improve barrier function, such as by controlling infections, reducing sweating, avoiding irritants, and stopping excessive hygiene. Immediate therapy may include soaks, cool compresses, and ointments.

A superpotent steroid taper (e.g., clobetasol 0.05% ointment), a prednisone taper, or intramuscular triamcinolone may reduce inflammation. Dr. Margesson usually uses clobetasol, although this treatment or halobetasol can burn if patients have open skin. In such cases, she uses prednisone or intramuscular triamcinolone.

Sedating medications may help patients stop scratching, especially at night. Hydroxyzine, doxepin, or amitriptyline 2-3 hours before bedtime can help. Scratching can be a form of obsessive-compulsive disorder, and a small dose of citalopram may help during the day. Patients with significant psychological factors can be difficult to manage and tend to relapse easily, Dr. Margesson said.

If lichen simplex chronicus recurs, test for infections and allergies. “Maybe they need a mild corticosteroid all the time, like 2.5% hydrocortisone to alternate with your superpotent steroid so you can use it longer without thinning the skin,” she suggested.

Although Dr. Margesson does not often treat hyperhidrosis, addressing excessive sweating can make a big difference for patients, she said.

If a gynecologist identifies a patient who may benefit from treatment of hyperhidrosis but has limited experience with medications for this condition, it might make sense to work with a dermatologist, Aruna Venkatesan, MD, chief of dermatology and director of the genital dermatology clinic at Santa Clara Valley Medical Center in San Jose, Calif., suggested during a panel discussion. Most dermatologists treat hyperhidrosis regularly, she said.

Dermatologists also may help treat patients with psoriasis who need systemic medication, Dr. Margesson said.

“In terms of ... doing the lab monitoring and knowing what side effects to look out for, your colleagues who use these medicines more are going to be more comfortable with that,” Dr. Venkatesan said. They also may have more experience navigating insurance denials to obtain a therapy. “Don’t think you are passing the buck to someone else. Sometimes that is the right thing to do, to get that help from someone else.”

Dr. Margesson is an author for UpToDate. Dr. Venkatesan had no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

A three-step approach may help relieve itch in patients with lichen simplex chronicus, “one of the itchiest conditions that we ever see on the vulva,” an expert advised at the virtual conference on diseases of the vulva and vagina, hosted by the International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease.

For some patients, such as those with excessive sweating or underlying psoriasis, seeing a dermatologist may be beneficial, physicians at the meeting suggested.

Treatment should aim to optimize epithelial barrier function, reduce inflammation, and stop scratching, Lynette Margesson, MD, said in a lecture at the biennial meeting, which is held by the International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease (ISSVD). “With this condition, please look always for more than one problem.”

Lichen simplex chronicus is a thick, hyperkeratotic, firm, itchy rash that can develop on top of any dermatitis. “It doesn’t show up out of nowhere,” said Dr. Margesson, an obstetrician and gynecologist at Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth in Hanover, N.H. “It is because of chronic rubbing and scratching on top of something else.”

It may develop on top of atopic dermatitis, psoriasis, or contact dermatitis, as well as infection, lichen sclerosus, lichen planus, or neoplasia.

Lichen simplex chronicus is characterized by years of relentless itching, and patients may wake up at night scratching. The skin looks and feels leathery, and the condition can be localized or around the entire vulva. Heat, humidity, stress, and irritants may exacerbate the condition.

Patients often try to wash the rash away with scrubbers and cleansers, which only makes it worse, Dr. Margesson said.

To get patients better, improve barrier function, such as by controlling infections, reducing sweating, avoiding irritants, and stopping excessive hygiene. Immediate therapy may include soaks, cool compresses, and ointments.

A superpotent steroid taper (e.g., clobetasol 0.05% ointment), a prednisone taper, or intramuscular triamcinolone may reduce inflammation. Dr. Margesson usually uses clobetasol, although this treatment or halobetasol can burn if patients have open skin. In such cases, she uses prednisone or intramuscular triamcinolone.

Sedating medications may help patients stop scratching, especially at night. Hydroxyzine, doxepin, or amitriptyline 2-3 hours before bedtime can help. Scratching can be a form of obsessive-compulsive disorder, and a small dose of citalopram may help during the day. Patients with significant psychological factors can be difficult to manage and tend to relapse easily, Dr. Margesson said.

If lichen simplex chronicus recurs, test for infections and allergies. “Maybe they need a mild corticosteroid all the time, like 2.5% hydrocortisone to alternate with your superpotent steroid so you can use it longer without thinning the skin,” she suggested.

Although Dr. Margesson does not often treat hyperhidrosis, addressing excessive sweating can make a big difference for patients, she said.

If a gynecologist identifies a patient who may benefit from treatment of hyperhidrosis but has limited experience with medications for this condition, it might make sense to work with a dermatologist, Aruna Venkatesan, MD, chief of dermatology and director of the genital dermatology clinic at Santa Clara Valley Medical Center in San Jose, Calif., suggested during a panel discussion. Most dermatologists treat hyperhidrosis regularly, she said.

Dermatologists also may help treat patients with psoriasis who need systemic medication, Dr. Margesson said.

“In terms of ... doing the lab monitoring and knowing what side effects to look out for, your colleagues who use these medicines more are going to be more comfortable with that,” Dr. Venkatesan said. They also may have more experience navigating insurance denials to obtain a therapy. “Don’t think you are passing the buck to someone else. Sometimes that is the right thing to do, to get that help from someone else.”

Dr. Margesson is an author for UpToDate. Dr. Venkatesan had no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

Earlier this year, I was honored to serve as the Scientific Program Chair for the 46th Annual Scientific Meeting of the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons (SGS). This year’s meeting was the first ever (and hopefully last) “virtual” scientific meeting, which consisted of a hybrid of prerecorded and live presentations. Although faculty and attendees were not able to be together physically, the essence of the lively SGS meetings came through loud and clear. We still had “discussants” comment on the oral presentations and ask questions of the presenters. These questions and answers were all done live—without a glitch! Many thanks to all who made this meeting possible.

In addition to the outstanding abstract and video presentations, there were 4 superb postgraduate courses:

• Mikio Nihira, MD, chaired “Enhanced recovery after surgery: Overcoming barriers to implementation.”
• Charles Hanes, MD, headed up “It’s all about the apex: The key to successful POP surgery.”
• Cara King, DO, MS, led “Total laparoscopic hysterectomy: Pushing the envelope.”
• Vincent Lucente, MD, chaired “Transvaginal reconstructive pelvic surgery using graft augmentation post-FDA.”

Many special thanks to Dr. Lucente who transformed his course into a wonderful article for this special section of OBG Management. These courses were well attended and quite interactive despite the virtual format.

One of our exceptional keynote speakers was Marc Beer (a serial entrepreneur and cofounder, chairman, and CEO of Renovia, Inc.), whose talk was entitled “A primer on medical device innovation—How to avoid common pitfalls while realizing your vision.” Mr. Beer has turned this topic into a unique article for this special section (see next month’s issue for Part 2).

Our TeLinde Lecture, entitled “Artificial intelligence in surgery,” was delivered by the dynamic Vicente Gracias, MD, professor of surgery at Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital, New Brunswick, New Jersey. We also held 2 live panel discussions that were very popular. The first, “Work-life balance and gynecologic surgery,” featured various perspectives from Drs. Kristie Green, Sally Huber, Catherine Matthews, and Charles Rardin. The second panel discussion, entitled “Understanding, managing, and benefiting from your e-presence,” by experts Heather Schueppert; Chief Marketing Officer at Unified Physician Management, Brad Bowman, MD; and Peter Lotze, MD. Both of these panel discussions are included in this special section as well.

I hope you enjoy the content of this special section of OBG Management highlighting the 2020 SGS meeting. Watch for part 2 in the next issue, and I hope to see you at our 47th Annual Scientific Meeting in Palm Springs, California, in March 2021.

Earlier this year, I was honored to serve as the Scientific Program Chair for the 46th Annual Scientific Meeting of the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons (SGS). This year’s meeting was the first ever (and hopefully last) “virtual” scientific meeting, which consisted of a hybrid of prerecorded and live presentations. Although faculty and attendees were not able to be together physically, the essence of the lively SGS meetings came through loud and clear. We still had “discussants” comment on the oral presentations and ask questions of the presenters. These questions and answers were all done live—without a glitch! Many thanks to all who made this meeting possible.

In addition to the outstanding abstract and video presentations, there were 4 superb postgraduate courses:

• Mikio Nihira, MD, chaired “Enhanced recovery after surgery: Overcoming barriers to implementation.”
• Charles Hanes, MD, headed up “It’s all about the apex: The key to successful POP surgery.”
• Cara King, DO, MS, led “Total laparoscopic hysterectomy: Pushing the envelope.”
• Vincent Lucente, MD, chaired “Transvaginal reconstructive pelvic surgery using graft augmentation post-FDA.”

Many special thanks to Dr. Lucente who transformed his course into a wonderful article for this special section of OBG Management. These courses were well attended and quite interactive despite the virtual format.

One of our exceptional keynote speakers was Marc Beer (a serial entrepreneur and cofounder, chairman, and CEO of Renovia, Inc.), whose talk was entitled “A primer on medical device innovation—How to avoid common pitfalls while realizing your vision.” Mr. Beer has turned this topic into a unique article for this special section (see next month’s issue for Part 2).

Our TeLinde Lecture, entitled “Artificial intelligence in surgery,” was delivered by the dynamic Vicente Gracias, MD, professor of surgery at Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital, New Brunswick, New Jersey. We also held 2 live panel discussions that were very popular. The first, “Work-life balance and gynecologic surgery,” featured various perspectives from Drs. Kristie Green, Sally Huber, Catherine Matthews, and Charles Rardin. The second panel discussion, entitled “Understanding, managing, and benefiting from your e-presence,” by experts Heather Schueppert; Chief Marketing Officer at Unified Physician Management, Brad Bowman, MD; and Peter Lotze, MD. Both of these panel discussions are included in this special section as well.

I hope you enjoy the content of this special section of OBG Management highlighting the 2020 SGS meeting. Watch for part 2 in the next issue, and I hope to see you at our 47th Annual Scientific Meeting in Palm Springs, California, in March 2021.

Earlier this year, I was honored to serve as the Scientific Program Chair for the 46th Annual Scientific Meeting of the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons (SGS). This year’s meeting was the first ever (and hopefully last) “virtual” scientific meeting, which consisted of a hybrid of prerecorded and live presentations. Although faculty and attendees were not able to be together physically, the essence of the lively SGS meetings came through loud and clear. We still had “discussants” comment on the oral presentations and ask questions of the presenters. These questions and answers were all done live—without a glitch! Many thanks to all who made this meeting possible.

In addition to the outstanding abstract and video presentations, there were 4 superb postgraduate courses:

• Mikio Nihira, MD, chaired “Enhanced recovery after surgery: Overcoming barriers to implementation.”
• Charles Hanes, MD, headed up “It’s all about the apex: The key to successful POP surgery.”
• Cara King, DO, MS, led “Total laparoscopic hysterectomy: Pushing the envelope.”
• Vincent Lucente, MD, chaired “Transvaginal reconstructive pelvic surgery using graft augmentation post-FDA.”

Many special thanks to Dr. Lucente who transformed his course into a wonderful article for this special section of OBG Management. These courses were well attended and quite interactive despite the virtual format.

One of our exceptional keynote speakers was Marc Beer (a serial entrepreneur and cofounder, chairman, and CEO of Renovia, Inc.), whose talk was entitled “A primer on medical device innovation—How to avoid common pitfalls while realizing your vision.” Mr. Beer has turned this topic into a unique article for this special section (see next month’s issue for Part 2).

Our TeLinde Lecture, entitled “Artificial intelligence in surgery,” was delivered by the dynamic Vicente Gracias, MD, professor of surgery at Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital, New Brunswick, New Jersey. We also held 2 live panel discussions that were very popular. The first, “Work-life balance and gynecologic surgery,” featured various perspectives from Drs. Kristie Green, Sally Huber, Catherine Matthews, and Charles Rardin. The second panel discussion, entitled “Understanding, managing, and benefiting from your e-presence,” by experts Heather Schueppert; Chief Marketing Officer at Unified Physician Management, Brad Bowman, MD; and Peter Lotze, MD. Both of these panel discussions are included in this special section as well.

I hope you enjoy the content of this special section of OBG Management highlighting the 2020 SGS meeting. Watch for part 2 in the next issue, and I hope to see you at our 47th Annual Scientific Meeting in Palm Springs, California, in March 2021.

Patient outcomes after gender-affirming vaginoplasty may improve as surgeons gain experience with the procedure, research suggests. For one surgeon, certain adverse events, including the need for revision surgery, were less likely after 50 cases.

“As surgical programs evolve, the important question becomes: At what case threshold are cases performed safely, efficiently, and with favorable outcomes?” said Cecile A. Ferrando, MD, MPH, program director of the female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery fellowship at Cleveland Clinic and director of the transgender surgery and medicine program in the Cleveland Clinic’s Center for LGBT Care.

The answer could guide training for future surgeons, Dr. Ferrando said at the virtual annual scientific meeting of the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons. Future studies should include patient-centered outcomes and data from multiple centers, other doctors said.

Transgender women who opt to surgically transition may undergo vaginoplasty. Although many reports describe surgical techniques, “there is a paucity of evidence-based data as well as few reports on outcomes,” Dr. Ferrando noted.

To describe perioperative adverse events related to vaginoplasty performed for gender affirmation and determine a minimum number of cases needed to reduce their likelihood, Dr. Ferrando performed a retrospective study of 76 patients. The patients underwent surgery between December 2015 and March 2019 and had 6-month postoperative outcomes available. Dr. Ferrando performed the procedures.

Dr. Ferrando evaluated outcomes after increments of 10 cases. After 50 cases, the median surgical time decreased to approximately 180 minutes, which an informal survey of surgeons suggested was efficient, and the rates of adverse events were similar to those in other studies. Dr. Ferrando compared outcomes from the first 50 cases with outcomes from the 26 cases that followed.

Overall, the patients had a mean age of 41 years. The first 50 patients were older on average (44 years vs. 35 years). About 83% underwent full-depth vaginoplasty. The incidence of intraoperative and immediate postoperative events was low and did not differ between the two groups. Rates of delayed postoperative events – those occurring 30 or more days after surgery – did significantly differ between the two groups, however.

After 50 cases, there was a lower incidence of urinary stream abnormalities (7.7% vs. 16.3%), introital stenosis (3.9% vs. 12%), and revision surgery (that is, elective, cosmetic, or functional revision within 6 months; 19.2% vs. 44%), compared with the first 50 cases.

The study did not include patient-centered outcomes and the results may have limited generalizability, Dr. Ferrando noted. “The incidence of serious adverse events related to vaginoplasty is low while minor events are common,” she said. “A 50-case minimum may be an adequate case number target for postgraduate trainees learning how to do this surgery.”

“I learned that the incidence of serious complications, like injuries during the surgery, or serious events immediately after surgery was quite low, which was reassuring,” Dr. Ferrando said in a later interview. “The cosmetic result and detail that is involved with the surgery – something that is very important to patients – that skill set takes time and experience to refine.”

Subsequent studies should include patient-centered outcomes, which may help surgeons understand potential “sources of consternation for patients,” such as persistent corporal tissue, poor aesthetics, vaginal stenosis, urinary meatus location, and clitoral hooding, Joseph J. Pariser, MD, commented in an interview. Dr. Pariser, a urologist who specializes in gender care at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, in 2019 reviewed safety outcomes from published case series.

“In my own practice, precise placement of the urethra, familiarity with landmarks during canal dissection, and rapidity of working through steps of the surgery have all dramatically improved as our experience at University of Minnesota performing primary vaginoplasty has grown,” Dr. Pariser said.

Optimal case thresholds may vary depending on a surgeon’s background, Rachel M. Whynott, MD, a reproductive endocrinology and infertility fellow at the University of Iowa in Iowa City, said in an interview. At the University of Kansas in Kansas City, a multidisciplinary team that includes a gynecologist, a reconstructive urologist, and a plastic surgeon performs the procedure.

Dr. Whynott and colleagues recently published a retrospective study that evaluated surgical aptitude over time in a male-to-female penoscrotal vaginoplasty program . Their analysis of 43 cases identified a learning curve that was reflected in overall time in the operating room and time to neoclitoral sensation.

Investigators are “trying to add to the growing body of literature about this procedure and how we can best go about improving outcomes for our patients and improving this surgery,” Dr. Whynott said. A study that includes data from multiple centers would be useful, she added.

Dr. Ferrando disclosed authorship royalties from UpToDate. Dr. Pariser and Dr. Whynott had no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Ferrando C. SGS 2020, Abstract 09.

Patient outcomes after gender-affirming vaginoplasty may improve as surgeons gain experience with the procedure, research suggests. For one surgeon, certain adverse events, including the need for revision surgery, were less likely after 50 cases.

“As surgical programs evolve, the important question becomes: At what case threshold are cases performed safely, efficiently, and with favorable outcomes?” said Cecile A. Ferrando, MD, MPH, program director of the female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery fellowship at Cleveland Clinic and director of the transgender surgery and medicine program in the Cleveland Clinic’s Center for LGBT Care.

The answer could guide training for future surgeons, Dr. Ferrando said at the virtual annual scientific meeting of the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons. Future studies should include patient-centered outcomes and data from multiple centers, other doctors said.

Transgender women who opt to surgically transition may undergo vaginoplasty. Although many reports describe surgical techniques, “there is a paucity of evidence-based data as well as few reports on outcomes,” Dr. Ferrando noted.

To describe perioperative adverse events related to vaginoplasty performed for gender affirmation and determine a minimum number of cases needed to reduce their likelihood, Dr. Ferrando performed a retrospective study of 76 patients. The patients underwent surgery between December 2015 and March 2019 and had 6-month postoperative outcomes available. Dr. Ferrando performed the procedures.

Dr. Ferrando evaluated outcomes after increments of 10 cases. After 50 cases, the median surgical time decreased to approximately 180 minutes, which an informal survey of surgeons suggested was efficient, and the rates of adverse events were similar to those in other studies. Dr. Ferrando compared outcomes from the first 50 cases with outcomes from the 26 cases that followed.

Overall, the patients had a mean age of 41 years. The first 50 patients were older on average (44 years vs. 35 years). About 83% underwent full-depth vaginoplasty. The incidence of intraoperative and immediate postoperative events was low and did not differ between the two groups. Rates of delayed postoperative events – those occurring 30 or more days after surgery – did significantly differ between the two groups, however.

After 50 cases, there was a lower incidence of urinary stream abnormalities (7.7% vs. 16.3%), introital stenosis (3.9% vs. 12%), and revision surgery (that is, elective, cosmetic, or functional revision within 6 months; 19.2% vs. 44%), compared with the first 50 cases.

The study did not include patient-centered outcomes and the results may have limited generalizability, Dr. Ferrando noted. “The incidence of serious adverse events related to vaginoplasty is low while minor events are common,” she said. “A 50-case minimum may be an adequate case number target for postgraduate trainees learning how to do this surgery.”

“I learned that the incidence of serious complications, like injuries during the surgery, or serious events immediately after surgery was quite low, which was reassuring,” Dr. Ferrando said in a later interview. “The cosmetic result and detail that is involved with the surgery – something that is very important to patients – that skill set takes time and experience to refine.”

Subsequent studies should include patient-centered outcomes, which may help surgeons understand potential “sources of consternation for patients,” such as persistent corporal tissue, poor aesthetics, vaginal stenosis, urinary meatus location, and clitoral hooding, Joseph J. Pariser, MD, commented in an interview. Dr. Pariser, a urologist who specializes in gender care at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, in 2019 reviewed safety outcomes from published case series.

“In my own practice, precise placement of the urethra, familiarity with landmarks during canal dissection, and rapidity of working through steps of the surgery have all dramatically improved as our experience at University of Minnesota performing primary vaginoplasty has grown,” Dr. Pariser said.

Optimal case thresholds may vary depending on a surgeon’s background, Rachel M. Whynott, MD, a reproductive endocrinology and infertility fellow at the University of Iowa in Iowa City, said in an interview. At the University of Kansas in Kansas City, a multidisciplinary team that includes a gynecologist, a reconstructive urologist, and a plastic surgeon performs the procedure.

Dr. Whynott and colleagues recently published a retrospective study that evaluated surgical aptitude over time in a male-to-female penoscrotal vaginoplasty program . Their analysis of 43 cases identified a learning curve that was reflected in overall time in the operating room and time to neoclitoral sensation.

Investigators are “trying to add to the growing body of literature about this procedure and how we can best go about improving outcomes for our patients and improving this surgery,” Dr. Whynott said. A study that includes data from multiple centers would be useful, she added.

Dr. Ferrando disclosed authorship royalties from UpToDate. Dr. Pariser and Dr. Whynott had no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Ferrando C. SGS 2020, Abstract 09.

Patient outcomes after gender-affirming vaginoplasty may improve as surgeons gain experience with the procedure, research suggests. For one surgeon, certain adverse events, including the need for revision surgery, were less likely after 50 cases.

“As surgical programs evolve, the important question becomes: At what case threshold are cases performed safely, efficiently, and with favorable outcomes?” said Cecile A. Ferrando, MD, MPH, program director of the female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery fellowship at Cleveland Clinic and director of the transgender surgery and medicine program in the Cleveland Clinic’s Center for LGBT Care.

The answer could guide training for future surgeons, Dr. Ferrando said at the virtual annual scientific meeting of the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons. Future studies should include patient-centered outcomes and data from multiple centers, other doctors said.

Transgender women who opt to surgically transition may undergo vaginoplasty. Although many reports describe surgical techniques, “there is a paucity of evidence-based data as well as few reports on outcomes,” Dr. Ferrando noted.

To describe perioperative adverse events related to vaginoplasty performed for gender affirmation and determine a minimum number of cases needed to reduce their likelihood, Dr. Ferrando performed a retrospective study of 76 patients. The patients underwent surgery between December 2015 and March 2019 and had 6-month postoperative outcomes available. Dr. Ferrando performed the procedures.

Dr. Ferrando evaluated outcomes after increments of 10 cases. After 50 cases, the median surgical time decreased to approximately 180 minutes, which an informal survey of surgeons suggested was efficient, and the rates of adverse events were similar to those in other studies. Dr. Ferrando compared outcomes from the first 50 cases with outcomes from the 26 cases that followed.

Overall, the patients had a mean age of 41 years. The first 50 patients were older on average (44 years vs. 35 years). About 83% underwent full-depth vaginoplasty. The incidence of intraoperative and immediate postoperative events was low and did not differ between the two groups. Rates of delayed postoperative events – those occurring 30 or more days after surgery – did significantly differ between the two groups, however.

After 50 cases, there was a lower incidence of urinary stream abnormalities (7.7% vs. 16.3%), introital stenosis (3.9% vs. 12%), and revision surgery (that is, elective, cosmetic, or functional revision within 6 months; 19.2% vs. 44%), compared with the first 50 cases.

The study did not include patient-centered outcomes and the results may have limited generalizability, Dr. Ferrando noted. “The incidence of serious adverse events related to vaginoplasty is low while minor events are common,” she said. “A 50-case minimum may be an adequate case number target for postgraduate trainees learning how to do this surgery.”

“I learned that the incidence of serious complications, like injuries during the surgery, or serious events immediately after surgery was quite low, which was reassuring,” Dr. Ferrando said in a later interview. “The cosmetic result and detail that is involved with the surgery – something that is very important to patients – that skill set takes time and experience to refine.”

Subsequent studies should include patient-centered outcomes, which may help surgeons understand potential “sources of consternation for patients,” such as persistent corporal tissue, poor aesthetics, vaginal stenosis, urinary meatus location, and clitoral hooding, Joseph J. Pariser, MD, commented in an interview. Dr. Pariser, a urologist who specializes in gender care at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, in 2019 reviewed safety outcomes from published case series.

“In my own practice, precise placement of the urethra, familiarity with landmarks during canal dissection, and rapidity of working through steps of the surgery have all dramatically improved as our experience at University of Minnesota performing primary vaginoplasty has grown,” Dr. Pariser said.

Optimal case thresholds may vary depending on a surgeon’s background, Rachel M. Whynott, MD, a reproductive endocrinology and infertility fellow at the University of Iowa in Iowa City, said in an interview. At the University of Kansas in Kansas City, a multidisciplinary team that includes a gynecologist, a reconstructive urologist, and a plastic surgeon performs the procedure.

Dr. Whynott and colleagues recently published a retrospective study that evaluated surgical aptitude over time in a male-to-female penoscrotal vaginoplasty program . Their analysis of 43 cases identified a learning curve that was reflected in overall time in the operating room and time to neoclitoral sensation.

Investigators are “trying to add to the growing body of literature about this procedure and how we can best go about improving outcomes for our patients and improving this surgery,” Dr. Whynott said. A study that includes data from multiple centers would be useful, she added.

Dr. Ferrando disclosed authorship royalties from UpToDate. Dr. Pariser and Dr. Whynott had no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Ferrando C. SGS 2020, Abstract 09.

To have a thriving business in today’s world, a functioning website is crucial to the overall business health. For a medical practice in general, and for its physicians specifically, it is one of the first steps for maintaining a practice. But to grow that practice, it is crucial to take the steps beyond just having a website. Growth requires website opti­mization for search engines, an expanding referral base, and the knowledge to use web tools and social media at your disposal to promote the practice and its physicians. In this roundtable, several marketing experts and web-savvy physicians discuss using available tools to best position and grow a practice.

Choosing a web upgrade

Patrick J. Culligan, MD: Peter, can you start us off by describing your relationship with Heather, and how your practice benefitted from her expertise?

Peter M. Lotze, MD: Sure. I am a urogynecologist in the competitive market of pelvic reconstructive surgery in Houston, Texas. Within that market, my main approach was to reach out to other physicians to refer patients to my practice. It generally would work, but took increasingly greater amounts of time to call these physicians up, write them letters, and maintain relationships. I felt that the large, national practice group that I am in did not have a significant web presence optimized to promote my practice, which makes it difficult for patients seeking your services to find you in their search for a doctor. It is helpful for patients to be able to understand from your website who you are, what you do, and what their experience may be like.

Glaring to me was that a web search specific for me or things that I do, would not produce our company’s results until page 2 or more on Google. This can be devastating for a practice because most people don’t go past the first page, and you can end up with fewer self-referrals, which should be a significant portion of new patients to your practice. I knew I needed guidance; I knew of Heather’s expertise given her exceptional past work building marketing strategies.

Digital go-tos for marketing

Heather Schueppert: Yes, I was pleased to work with Dr. Lotze, and at the time was a marketing consultant for practices such as his. But gone are the days of printed material—brochures, pamphlets, or even billboards—to effectively promote a business, or in this case, a practice. What still withstands the test of time, however, as the number 1 marketing referral source is word of mouth—from your trusted friend, family member, or coworker.

It is now proven that the number 2 most trusted form of advertising, the most persuasive and the most motivating, is online marketing.¹ It is the “digital word of mouth”—the review. Patients are actively online, and a strong digital presence is critical to provide that direct value to retain and grow your patient base.

Continue to: Foundations of private practice reach out...

Foundations of private practice reach out

There are 3 important areas that I consider the foundation of any private practice marketing strategy (TABLE). First is an updated website that is search engine optimized (SEO). You can’t just set it and forget it, it needs to be an updated website. The algorithms for search engines are changing constantly to try to make it as fair and relevant as possible for patients or consumers to find the businesses they are searching for online.

The second area is review management, and for a physician, or even a care center, to do this on your own is a daunting task. It is a critical component, however, to making sure that your reputation out there, that online word of mouth, is as high a star rating as possible.

The third component is local search, which is basically a form of SEO that helps businesses show up in relevant local searches. We are all familiar with the search, “find a restaurant near me,” anything that pushes those search engines to find something local.

Those are what I call the effective triad: that updated website, the review management, and the local search, and all of these are tied together. I think Dr. Lotze and his practice did these effectively well, and I believe that he achieved his goals for the longer term.

Review/reputation management

Dr. Culligan: Brad, is there something that doctors may not know about Healthgrades, and are there opportunities to take full advantage of this physician-rating site?

Brad Bowman, MD: I agree with everything that Dr. Lotze and Heather have said. Start with yourself—what is it that you want to be, the one thing you want to stand for? Get your own marketing, your website right, then, the point is, once you do all that and you are number 1 in SEO, you are still only going to get about 25% of the people looking for you by name to come to your website. The other 75% are going to look at all the other different sites that are out there to provide information to consumers. So the question becomes what do you do with all these other third-party sites? Healthgrades is the most comprehensive and has the highest traffic of the third-party “find a doctor” sites. In 2020, half of all Americans who go to a doctor will use Healthgrades at some point to help select and connect with that doctor.

Physicians have their focus on the quality of the care they provide. Patients, however, focus on the quality of the entire health care experience. Did I get better? How long did I have to wait? Was the office staff helpful? Scarily enough, we still spend more time shopping for a refrigerator or mattress than we do shopping for a doctor. We still tend to think that all doctors are the same. It is the reality of how we have been trained by our insurance companies and by the health care system. That is why getting your marketing right and getting what is it that you want to be known for out there is important, so that you can get the types of patients you want.

Listings management is very important. Make sure that you are findable everywhere. There are services that will do this: Doctor.com, Reputation.com, and many others. They can help you make sure you get all your basic materials right: addresses, phone numbers, your picture. Because 75% of people are going to end up on third-party websites, if your phone number is wrong there, you could lose that patient.

Then the second piece of working with third-party sites is reputation management. Physician reviews are not a bad thing, they are the new word of mouth, as Heather pointed out. Most (80%) of the reviews are going to be positive. The others will be negative, and that is okay. It is important that you get at least 1 or 2 reviews on all the different sites. We know from Healthgrades.com that going from zero reviews to 1 review will increase your call volume by 60%. If you have the choice between 2 physicians and one practice looks like people have been there before, you will go to that one.

You can learn from reviews as well, consumers provide valid feedback. Best practice is to respond to every positive and negative review. Thank them, indicate that you have listened to them, and address any concerns as necessary.

Continue to: Dr. Lotze...

Dr. Lotze: As an example, one of the paramount things that Heather introduced me to was the third party I use to run my website. That company sends a HIPAA-compliant review out to each patient we have seen that day and gives them the opportunity to rate our services and leave comments. If a patient brings up a concern, we can respond immediately, which is important. Patients appreciate feeling that they have been heard. Typically, communicating with a patient will turn the 3-star review into a 5-star as she follows up with the practice.

Ms. Schueppert: Timeliness is important. And just to mention, there certainly is a time commitment to this (and it is a marathon versus a sprint) and there is some financial investment to get it going, but it could truly be detrimental to a practice if you decide not to do anything at all.

Dr. Bowman: Agencies can really help with the time commitment.

Handling bad reviews

Dr. Culligan: What about that person who seems to have it out for you, perhaps giving you multiple bad reviews?

Dr. Bowman: I have seen this before. At Healthgrades, we recently analyzed 8.4 million patient reviews to see what people wrote about.² The first thing they will talk about is quality of care as they see it. Did I get better or not? You can’t “fix” every patient; there will be some that you cannot help. The next thing patients comment on is bedside manner. With negative reviews, you will see more comments about the office staff.²

A single negative review actually helps make the positive ones look more credible. But if you do believe someone is trolling you, we can flag it and will investigate to the best of our ability. (Different sites likely have different editorial policies.) For example, we look at the IP addresses of all reviews, and if multiple reviews are coming from the same location, we would only let one through, overwriting the previous review from that address.

Patients just want to be heard. We have seen people change their views, based on how their review is handled and responded to.

Dr. Lotze: Is there a response by the physician that you think tends to work better in terms of resolving the issue that can minimize a perceived caustic reaction to a patient’s criticism?

Dr. Bowman: First, just like with any stressful situation, take a deep breath and respond when you feel like you can be constructive. When you do respond, be gracious. Thank them for their feedback. Make sure you reference something about their concern: “I understand that you had to wait longer than you would have liked.” Acknowledge the problem they reference, and then just apologize: “I’m sorry we didn’t meet your expectations.” Then, if they waited too long for example, “We have a new system where no one should have to wait more than 30 minutes….” You can respond privately or publically. Generally, public responses are better as it shows other consumers that you are willing to listen and consider their point of view.

Continue to: The next phase at Healthgrades...

The next phase at Healthgrades

Dr. Culligan: Do you see changes to the way physician-rating sites are working now? Are we going to stay status quo over the next 10 years, or do you see frontiers in how your site is going to develop?

Dr. Bowman: For Healthgrades, we rely on quantitative and objective measures, not just the qualitative. We are investing heavily right now in trying to help consumers understand what are the relative volumes of different procedures or different patient types that each individual doctor sees. Orthopedics is an easy example—if you have a knee problem, you want to go to someone who specializes in knees. Our job is to help consumers easily identify, “This is a shoulder doctor, this is a knee doctor, and this is why that matters.”

In the meantime, as a physician, you can always go into our site and state your care philosophy, identifying what is the sort of patient that you like to treat. Transparency is good for everyone, and especially physicians. It helps the right patient show up for you, and it helps you do a better job providing referrals.

Social media: Avoid pitfalls, and use it to your benefit

Dr. Lotze: Branding was one of the things that I was confused about, and Heather really helped me out. As physicians, we put ourselves out there on our websites, which we try to make professional sources of information for patients. But patients often want to see what else they can find out about us, including Healthgrades and social media. I think the thing that is important to know with social media is that it is a place where people learn about you as a person. Your social media should be another avenue of promotion. Whether it is your personal or professional Facebook page, people are going to see those sites. You have an opportunity to promote yourself as a good physician and a good person with a wholesome practice that you want people to come to. If a physician is posting questionable things about themselves on any kind of social media, it could be perceived as inappropriate by the patient. That can impact how patients think of you as a person, and how they are going to grade you. If people lose sight of who you are due to a questionable social media posting, everything else (SEO, the website) can be for naught.

Dr. Culligan: What are the most important social media tools to invest your time in?

Ms. Schueppert: Before anybody jumps into social media, I firmly recommend that you make sure your local search and your Google 3-pack is set up—which is basically a method Google uses to display the top 3 results on its listings page. Then make sure you have a review management system in place. Make sure you have that updated website. Those are the foundational elements. Once you have that going, social media is the next added layer to that digital presence.

I usually recommend LinkedIn. It is huge because you are staying in contact with your colleagues, that business-to-business type of connection. It remains a way for physicians to set themselves up as experts in their level of specialty.

From there, it’s either Instagram or Facebook. If you are serving more of the younger generations, the millennials and younger, then Instagram is the way to go. If you are focusing on your 40+, 50+, they are going to be far more on Facebook.

Continue to: Dr. Lotze...

Dr. Lotze: For me, a Facebook page was a great place to start. The cost of those Google ads—the first things we see at the top of a Google search in their own separate box—is significant. If a practice has that kind of money to invest, great; it is an instant way to be first on the page during a search. But there are more cost-effective ways of doing that, especially as you are getting your name out. Facebook provides, at a smaller cost, promotion of whatever it is that you are seeking to promote. You can find people within a certain zip code, for instance, and use a Facebook ad campaign that can drive people to your Facebook page—which should have both routinely updated new posts and a link to your website. The posts should be interesting topics relevant to the patients you wish to treat (avoiding personal stories or controversial discussions). You can put a post together, or you can have a third-party service do this. People who follow your page will get reminders of you and your practice with each new post. As your page followers increase, your Facebook rank will improve, and your page will more likely be discovered by Facebook searches for your services. With an added link to your office practice website, those patients go straight to your site without getting lost in the noise of Google search results.

For Instagram, a short video or an interesting picture, along with a brief statement, are the essentials. You can add a single link. Marketing here is by direct messaging or having patients going to your website through a link. Instagram, like Facebook, offers analytics to help show you what your audience likes to read about, improving the quality of your posts and increasing number of followers.

YouTube is the number 2 search engine behind Google. A Google search for your field of medicine may be filled with pages of competitors. However, YouTube has a much lower volume of competing practices, making it easier for patients to find you. The only downside to YouTube is that it will list your video along with other competing videos, which can draw attention away from your practice.

If you want to promote your website or practice with video, using a company such as Vimeo is a better choice compared with YouTube, as YouTube gets credit for video views—which improves YouTube’s SEO and not your own website. Vimeo allows for your website to get credit each time the video is watched. Regardless of where you place your videos, make them short and to the point, with links to your website. Videos only need to be long enough to get your message across and stimulate interest in your practice.

If you can have a blog on your website, it also will help with SEO. What a search engine like Google wants to see is that a patient is on your web page and looking at something for at least 60 seconds. If so, the website is deemed to have information that is relevant, improving your SEO ranking.

Finally, Twitter also can be used for getting messaging out and for branding. The problem with it is that many people go to Twitter to follow a Hollywood celebrity, a sports star, or are looking for mass communication. There is less interest on Twitter for physician outreach.

Continue to: Measuring ROI...

Dr. Culligan: What’s the best way to track your return on investment?

Dr. Lotze: First for me was to find out what didn’t work in the office and fix that before really promoting my practice. It’s about the global experience for a patient, as Brad mentioned. As a marketing expert, Heather met with me to understand my goals. She then called my office as a patient to set up an appointment and went through that entire office experience. We identified issues needing improvement.

The next step was to develop a working relationship with my webmaster—someone who can help manage Internet image and SEO. Together, you will develop goals for what the SEO should promote specific to your practice. Once a good SEO program is in place, your website’s ranking will go up—although it can take a minimum of 6 months to see a significant increase. To help understand your website’s performance, your webmaster should provide you with reports on your site’s analytics.

As you go through this process, it is great to have a marketing expert to be the point person. You will work closely together for a while, but eventually you can back off over time. The time and expense you invest on the front end have huge rewards on the back end. Currently, I still spend a reasonable amount of money every month. I have a high self-referral base because of these efforts, however, which results in more patient surgeries and easily covers my expenses. It is money well invested. My website traffic increased by 268% over 2 years (FIGURE). I’ll propose that currently more than half of my patients are self-referrals due to online marketing.

Ms. Schueppert: The only thing I would add is training your front staff. They are checking people in, taking appointments, checking your patients out. Have them be mindful that there are campaigns going on, whether it is a social media push, or a new video that went on the website. They can ask, “How did you hear about us?” when a new patient calls.

Dr. Bowman: Unless you are a large university hospital, where the analytics get significantly more advanced in terms of measuring return on investment (ROI), I think you should just be looking at your schedule and looking at your monthly billings and seeing how they change over time. You can calculate how much a new patient is worth because you can figure out how many patients you have and how much you bill and what your profits are.

Dr. Culligan: For those of us who are hospital employees, you can try to convince the hospital that you can do a detailed ROI analysis, or you can just look at it like (say it’s $3,000 per month), how many surgeries does this project have to generate before the hospital makes that back? The answer is a fraction of 1 case.

Thank you to all of you for your expertise on this roundtable. 

To have a thriving business in today’s world, a functioning website is crucial to the overall business health. For a medical practice in general, and for its physicians specifically, it is one of the first steps for maintaining a practice. But to grow that practice, it is crucial to take the steps beyond just having a website. Growth requires website opti­mization for search engines, an expanding referral base, and the knowledge to use web tools and social media at your disposal to promote the practice and its physicians. In this roundtable, several marketing experts and web-savvy physicians discuss using available tools to best position and grow a practice.

Choosing a web upgrade

Patrick J. Culligan, MD: Peter, can you start us off by describing your relationship with Heather, and how your practice benefitted from her expertise?

Peter M. Lotze, MD: Sure. I am a urogynecologist in the competitive market of pelvic reconstructive surgery in Houston, Texas. Within that market, my main approach was to reach out to other physicians to refer patients to my practice. It generally would work, but took increasingly greater amounts of time to call these physicians up, write them letters, and maintain relationships. I felt that the large, national practice group that I am in did not have a significant web presence optimized to promote my practice, which makes it difficult for patients seeking your services to find you in their search for a doctor. It is helpful for patients to be able to understand from your website who you are, what you do, and what their experience may be like.

Glaring to me was that a web search specific for me or things that I do, would not produce our company’s results until page 2 or more on Google. This can be devastating for a practice because most people don’t go past the first page, and you can end up with fewer self-referrals, which should be a significant portion of new patients to your practice. I knew I needed guidance; I knew of Heather’s expertise given her exceptional past work building marketing strategies.

Digital go-tos for marketing

Heather Schueppert: Yes, I was pleased to work with Dr. Lotze, and at the time was a marketing consultant for practices such as his. But gone are the days of printed material—brochures, pamphlets, or even billboards—to effectively promote a business, or in this case, a practice. What still withstands the test of time, however, as the number 1 marketing referral source is word of mouth—from your trusted friend, family member, or coworker.

It is now proven that the number 2 most trusted form of advertising, the most persuasive and the most motivating, is online marketing.¹ It is the “digital word of mouth”—the review. Patients are actively online, and a strong digital presence is critical to provide that direct value to retain and grow your patient base.

Continue to: Foundations of private practice reach out...

Foundations of private practice reach out

There are 3 important areas that I consider the foundation of any private practice marketing strategy (TABLE). First is an updated website that is search engine optimized (SEO). You can’t just set it and forget it, it needs to be an updated website. The algorithms for search engines are changing constantly to try to make it as fair and relevant as possible for patients or consumers to find the businesses they are searching for online.

The second area is review management, and for a physician, or even a care center, to do this on your own is a daunting task. It is a critical component, however, to making sure that your reputation out there, that online word of mouth, is as high a star rating as possible.

The third component is local search, which is basically a form of SEO that helps businesses show up in relevant local searches. We are all familiar with the search, “find a restaurant near me,” anything that pushes those search engines to find something local.

Those are what I call the effective triad: that updated website, the review management, and the local search, and all of these are tied together. I think Dr. Lotze and his practice did these effectively well, and I believe that he achieved his goals for the longer term.

Review/reputation management

Dr. Culligan: Brad, is there something that doctors may not know about Healthgrades, and are there opportunities to take full advantage of this physician-rating site?

Brad Bowman, MD: I agree with everything that Dr. Lotze and Heather have said. Start with yourself—what is it that you want to be, the one thing you want to stand for? Get your own marketing, your website right, then, the point is, once you do all that and you are number 1 in SEO, you are still only going to get about 25% of the people looking for you by name to come to your website. The other 75% are going to look at all the other different sites that are out there to provide information to consumers. So the question becomes what do you do with all these other third-party sites? Healthgrades is the most comprehensive and has the highest traffic of the third-party “find a doctor” sites. In 2020, half of all Americans who go to a doctor will use Healthgrades at some point to help select and connect with that doctor.

Physicians have their focus on the quality of the care they provide. Patients, however, focus on the quality of the entire health care experience. Did I get better? How long did I have to wait? Was the office staff helpful? Scarily enough, we still spend more time shopping for a refrigerator or mattress than we do shopping for a doctor. We still tend to think that all doctors are the same. It is the reality of how we have been trained by our insurance companies and by the health care system. That is why getting your marketing right and getting what is it that you want to be known for out there is important, so that you can get the types of patients you want.

Listings management is very important. Make sure that you are findable everywhere. There are services that will do this: Doctor.com, Reputation.com, and many others. They can help you make sure you get all your basic materials right: addresses, phone numbers, your picture. Because 75% of people are going to end up on third-party websites, if your phone number is wrong there, you could lose that patient.

Then the second piece of working with third-party sites is reputation management. Physician reviews are not a bad thing, they are the new word of mouth, as Heather pointed out. Most (80%) of the reviews are going to be positive. The others will be negative, and that is okay. It is important that you get at least 1 or 2 reviews on all the different sites. We know from Healthgrades.com that going from zero reviews to 1 review will increase your call volume by 60%. If you have the choice between 2 physicians and one practice looks like people have been there before, you will go to that one.

You can learn from reviews as well, consumers provide valid feedback. Best practice is to respond to every positive and negative review. Thank them, indicate that you have listened to them, and address any concerns as necessary.

Continue to: Dr. Lotze...

Dr. Lotze: As an example, one of the paramount things that Heather introduced me to was the third party I use to run my website. That company sends a HIPAA-compliant review out to each patient we have seen that day and gives them the opportunity to rate our services and leave comments. If a patient brings up a concern, we can respond immediately, which is important. Patients appreciate feeling that they have been heard. Typically, communicating with a patient will turn the 3-star review into a 5-star as she follows up with the practice.

Ms. Schueppert: Timeliness is important. And just to mention, there certainly is a time commitment to this (and it is a marathon versus a sprint) and there is some financial investment to get it going, but it could truly be detrimental to a practice if you decide not to do anything at all.

Dr. Bowman: Agencies can really help with the time commitment.

Handling bad reviews

Dr. Culligan: What about that person who seems to have it out for you, perhaps giving you multiple bad reviews?

Dr. Bowman: I have seen this before. At Healthgrades, we recently analyzed 8.4 million patient reviews to see what people wrote about.² The first thing they will talk about is quality of care as they see it. Did I get better or not? You can’t “fix” every patient; there will be some that you cannot help. The next thing patients comment on is bedside manner. With negative reviews, you will see more comments about the office staff.²

A single negative review actually helps make the positive ones look more credible. But if you do believe someone is trolling you, we can flag it and will investigate to the best of our ability. (Different sites likely have different editorial policies.) For example, we look at the IP addresses of all reviews, and if multiple reviews are coming from the same location, we would only let one through, overwriting the previous review from that address.

Patients just want to be heard. We have seen people change their views, based on how their review is handled and responded to.

Dr. Lotze: Is there a response by the physician that you think tends to work better in terms of resolving the issue that can minimize a perceived caustic reaction to a patient’s criticism?

Dr. Bowman: First, just like with any stressful situation, take a deep breath and respond when you feel like you can be constructive. When you do respond, be gracious. Thank them for their feedback. Make sure you reference something about their concern: “I understand that you had to wait longer than you would have liked.” Acknowledge the problem they reference, and then just apologize: “I’m sorry we didn’t meet your expectations.” Then, if they waited too long for example, “We have a new system where no one should have to wait more than 30 minutes….” You can respond privately or publically. Generally, public responses are better as it shows other consumers that you are willing to listen and consider their point of view.

Continue to: The next phase at Healthgrades...

The next phase at Healthgrades

Dr. Culligan: Do you see changes to the way physician-rating sites are working now? Are we going to stay status quo over the next 10 years, or do you see frontiers in how your site is going to develop?

Dr. Bowman: For Healthgrades, we rely on quantitative and objective measures, not just the qualitative. We are investing heavily right now in trying to help consumers understand what are the relative volumes of different procedures or different patient types that each individual doctor sees. Orthopedics is an easy example—if you have a knee problem, you want to go to someone who specializes in knees. Our job is to help consumers easily identify, “This is a shoulder doctor, this is a knee doctor, and this is why that matters.”

In the meantime, as a physician, you can always go into our site and state your care philosophy, identifying what is the sort of patient that you like to treat. Transparency is good for everyone, and especially physicians. It helps the right patient show up for you, and it helps you do a better job providing referrals.

Social media: Avoid pitfalls, and use it to your benefit

Dr. Lotze: Branding was one of the things that I was confused about, and Heather really helped me out. As physicians, we put ourselves out there on our websites, which we try to make professional sources of information for patients. But patients often want to see what else they can find out about us, including Healthgrades and social media. I think the thing that is important to know with social media is that it is a place where people learn about you as a person. Your social media should be another avenue of promotion. Whether it is your personal or professional Facebook page, people are going to see those sites. You have an opportunity to promote yourself as a good physician and a good person with a wholesome practice that you want people to come to. If a physician is posting questionable things about themselves on any kind of social media, it could be perceived as inappropriate by the patient. That can impact how patients think of you as a person, and how they are going to grade you. If people lose sight of who you are due to a questionable social media posting, everything else (SEO, the website) can be for naught.

Dr. Culligan: What are the most important social media tools to invest your time in?

Ms. Schueppert: Before anybody jumps into social media, I firmly recommend that you make sure your local search and your Google 3-pack is set up—which is basically a method Google uses to display the top 3 results on its listings page. Then make sure you have a review management system in place. Make sure you have that updated website. Those are the foundational elements. Once you have that going, social media is the next added layer to that digital presence.

I usually recommend LinkedIn. It is huge because you are staying in contact with your colleagues, that business-to-business type of connection. It remains a way for physicians to set themselves up as experts in their level of specialty.

From there, it’s either Instagram or Facebook. If you are serving more of the younger generations, the millennials and younger, then Instagram is the way to go. If you are focusing on your 40+, 50+, they are going to be far more on Facebook.

Continue to: Dr. Lotze...

Dr. Lotze: For me, a Facebook page was a great place to start. The cost of those Google ads—the first things we see at the top of a Google search in their own separate box—is significant. If a practice has that kind of money to invest, great; it is an instant way to be first on the page during a search. But there are more cost-effective ways of doing that, especially as you are getting your name out. Facebook provides, at a smaller cost, promotion of whatever it is that you are seeking to promote. You can find people within a certain zip code, for instance, and use a Facebook ad campaign that can drive people to your Facebook page—which should have both routinely updated new posts and a link to your website. The posts should be interesting topics relevant to the patients you wish to treat (avoiding personal stories or controversial discussions). You can put a post together, or you can have a third-party service do this. People who follow your page will get reminders of you and your practice with each new post. As your page followers increase, your Facebook rank will improve, and your page will more likely be discovered by Facebook searches for your services. With an added link to your office practice website, those patients go straight to your site without getting lost in the noise of Google search results.

For Instagram, a short video or an interesting picture, along with a brief statement, are the essentials. You can add a single link. Marketing here is by direct messaging or having patients going to your website through a link. Instagram, like Facebook, offers analytics to help show you what your audience likes to read about, improving the quality of your posts and increasing number of followers.

YouTube is the number 2 search engine behind Google. A Google search for your field of medicine may be filled with pages of competitors. However, YouTube has a much lower volume of competing practices, making it easier for patients to find you. The only downside to YouTube is that it will list your video along with other competing videos, which can draw attention away from your practice.

If you want to promote your website or practice with video, using a company such as Vimeo is a better choice compared with YouTube, as YouTube gets credit for video views—which improves YouTube’s SEO and not your own website. Vimeo allows for your website to get credit each time the video is watched. Regardless of where you place your videos, make them short and to the point, with links to your website. Videos only need to be long enough to get your message across and stimulate interest in your practice.

If you can have a blog on your website, it also will help with SEO. What a search engine like Google wants to see is that a patient is on your web page and looking at something for at least 60 seconds. If so, the website is deemed to have information that is relevant, improving your SEO ranking.

Finally, Twitter also can be used for getting messaging out and for branding. The problem with it is that many people go to Twitter to follow a Hollywood celebrity, a sports star, or are looking for mass communication. There is less interest on Twitter for physician outreach.

Continue to: Measuring ROI...

Dr. Culligan: What’s the best way to track your return on investment?

Dr. Lotze: First for me was to find out what didn’t work in the office and fix that before really promoting my practice. It’s about the global experience for a patient, as Brad mentioned. As a marketing expert, Heather met with me to understand my goals. She then called my office as a patient to set up an appointment and went through that entire office experience. We identified issues needing improvement.

The next step was to develop a working relationship with my webmaster—someone who can help manage Internet image and SEO. Together, you will develop goals for what the SEO should promote specific to your practice. Once a good SEO program is in place, your website’s ranking will go up—although it can take a minimum of 6 months to see a significant increase. To help understand your website’s performance, your webmaster should provide you with reports on your site’s analytics.

As you go through this process, it is great to have a marketing expert to be the point person. You will work closely together for a while, but eventually you can back off over time. The time and expense you invest on the front end have huge rewards on the back end. Currently, I still spend a reasonable amount of money every month. I have a high self-referral base because of these efforts, however, which results in more patient surgeries and easily covers my expenses. It is money well invested. My website traffic increased by 268% over 2 years (FIGURE). I’ll propose that currently more than half of my patients are self-referrals due to online marketing.

Ms. Schueppert: The only thing I would add is training your front staff. They are checking people in, taking appointments, checking your patients out. Have them be mindful that there are campaigns going on, whether it is a social media push, or a new video that went on the website. They can ask, “How did you hear about us?” when a new patient calls.

Dr. Bowman: Unless you are a large university hospital, where the analytics get significantly more advanced in terms of measuring return on investment (ROI), I think you should just be looking at your schedule and looking at your monthly billings and seeing how they change over time. You can calculate how much a new patient is worth because you can figure out how many patients you have and how much you bill and what your profits are.

Dr. Culligan: For those of us who are hospital employees, you can try to convince the hospital that you can do a detailed ROI analysis, or you can just look at it like (say it’s $3,000 per month), how many surgeries does this project have to generate before the hospital makes that back? The answer is a fraction of 1 case.

Thank you to all of you for your expertise on this roundtable. 

To have a thriving business in today’s world, a functioning website is crucial to the overall business health. For a medical practice in general, and for its physicians specifically, it is one of the first steps for maintaining a practice. But to grow that practice, it is crucial to take the steps beyond just having a website. Growth requires website opti­mization for search engines, an expanding referral base, and the knowledge to use web tools and social media at your disposal to promote the practice and its physicians. In this roundtable, several marketing experts and web-savvy physicians discuss using available tools to best position and grow a practice.

Choosing a web upgrade

Patrick J. Culligan, MD: Peter, can you start us off by describing your relationship with Heather, and how your practice benefitted from her expertise?

Peter M. Lotze, MD: Sure. I am a urogynecologist in the competitive market of pelvic reconstructive surgery in Houston, Texas. Within that market, my main approach was to reach out to other physicians to refer patients to my practice. It generally would work, but took increasingly greater amounts of time to call these physicians up, write them letters, and maintain relationships. I felt that the large, national practice group that I am in did not have a significant web presence optimized to promote my practice, which makes it difficult for patients seeking your services to find you in their search for a doctor. It is helpful for patients to be able to understand from your website who you are, what you do, and what their experience may be like.

Glaring to me was that a web search specific for me or things that I do, would not produce our company’s results until page 2 or more on Google. This can be devastating for a practice because most people don’t go past the first page, and you can end up with fewer self-referrals, which should be a significant portion of new patients to your practice. I knew I needed guidance; I knew of Heather’s expertise given her exceptional past work building marketing strategies.

Digital go-tos for marketing

Heather Schueppert: Yes, I was pleased to work with Dr. Lotze, and at the time was a marketing consultant for practices such as his. But gone are the days of printed material—brochures, pamphlets, or even billboards—to effectively promote a business, or in this case, a practice. What still withstands the test of time, however, as the number 1 marketing referral source is word of mouth—from your trusted friend, family member, or coworker.

It is now proven that the number 2 most trusted form of advertising, the most persuasive and the most motivating, is online marketing.¹ It is the “digital word of mouth”—the review. Patients are actively online, and a strong digital presence is critical to provide that direct value to retain and grow your patient base.

Continue to: Foundations of private practice reach out...

Foundations of private practice reach out

There are 3 important areas that I consider the foundation of any private practice marketing strategy (TABLE). First is an updated website that is search engine optimized (SEO). You can’t just set it and forget it, it needs to be an updated website. The algorithms for search engines are changing constantly to try to make it as fair and relevant as possible for patients or consumers to find the businesses they are searching for online.

The second area is review management, and for a physician, or even a care center, to do this on your own is a daunting task. It is a critical component, however, to making sure that your reputation out there, that online word of mouth, is as high a star rating as possible.

The third component is local search, which is basically a form of SEO that helps businesses show up in relevant local searches. We are all familiar with the search, “find a restaurant near me,” anything that pushes those search engines to find something local.

Those are what I call the effective triad: that updated website, the review management, and the local search, and all of these are tied together. I think Dr. Lotze and his practice did these effectively well, and I believe that he achieved his goals for the longer term.

Review/reputation management

Dr. Culligan: Brad, is there something that doctors may not know about Healthgrades, and are there opportunities to take full advantage of this physician-rating site?

Brad Bowman, MD: I agree with everything that Dr. Lotze and Heather have said. Start with yourself—what is it that you want to be, the one thing you want to stand for? Get your own marketing, your website right, then, the point is, once you do all that and you are number 1 in SEO, you are still only going to get about 25% of the people looking for you by name to come to your website. The other 75% are going to look at all the other different sites that are out there to provide information to consumers. So the question becomes what do you do with all these other third-party sites? Healthgrades is the most comprehensive and has the highest traffic of the third-party “find a doctor” sites. In 2020, half of all Americans who go to a doctor will use Healthgrades at some point to help select and connect with that doctor.

Physicians have their focus on the quality of the care they provide. Patients, however, focus on the quality of the entire health care experience. Did I get better? How long did I have to wait? Was the office staff helpful? Scarily enough, we still spend more time shopping for a refrigerator or mattress than we do shopping for a doctor. We still tend to think that all doctors are the same. It is the reality of how we have been trained by our insurance companies and by the health care system. That is why getting your marketing right and getting what is it that you want to be known for out there is important, so that you can get the types of patients you want.

Listings management is very important. Make sure that you are findable everywhere. There are services that will do this: Doctor.com, Reputation.com, and many others. They can help you make sure you get all your basic materials right: addresses, phone numbers, your picture. Because 75% of people are going to end up on third-party websites, if your phone number is wrong there, you could lose that patient.

Then the second piece of working with third-party sites is reputation management. Physician reviews are not a bad thing, they are the new word of mouth, as Heather pointed out. Most (80%) of the reviews are going to be positive. The others will be negative, and that is okay. It is important that you get at least 1 or 2 reviews on all the different sites. We know from Healthgrades.com that going from zero reviews to 1 review will increase your call volume by 60%. If you have the choice between 2 physicians and one practice looks like people have been there before, you will go to that one.

You can learn from reviews as well, consumers provide valid feedback. Best practice is to respond to every positive and negative review. Thank them, indicate that you have listened to them, and address any concerns as necessary.

Continue to: Dr. Lotze...

Dr. Lotze: As an example, one of the paramount things that Heather introduced me to was the third party I use to run my website. That company sends a HIPAA-compliant review out to each patient we have seen that day and gives them the opportunity to rate our services and leave comments. If a patient brings up a concern, we can respond immediately, which is important. Patients appreciate feeling that they have been heard. Typically, communicating with a patient will turn the 3-star review into a 5-star as she follows up with the practice.

Ms. Schueppert: Timeliness is important. And just to mention, there certainly is a time commitment to this (and it is a marathon versus a sprint) and there is some financial investment to get it going, but it could truly be detrimental to a practice if you decide not to do anything at all.

Dr. Bowman: Agencies can really help with the time commitment.

Handling bad reviews

Dr. Culligan: What about that person who seems to have it out for you, perhaps giving you multiple bad reviews?

Dr. Bowman: I have seen this before. At Healthgrades, we recently analyzed 8.4 million patient reviews to see what people wrote about.² The first thing they will talk about is quality of care as they see it. Did I get better or not? You can’t “fix” every patient; there will be some that you cannot help. The next thing patients comment on is bedside manner. With negative reviews, you will see more comments about the office staff.²

A single negative review actually helps make the positive ones look more credible. But if you do believe someone is trolling you, we can flag it and will investigate to the best of our ability. (Different sites likely have different editorial policies.) For example, we look at the IP addresses of all reviews, and if multiple reviews are coming from the same location, we would only let one through, overwriting the previous review from that address.

Patients just want to be heard. We have seen people change their views, based on how their review is handled and responded to.

Dr. Lotze: Is there a response by the physician that you think tends to work better in terms of resolving the issue that can minimize a perceived caustic reaction to a patient’s criticism?

Dr. Bowman: First, just like with any stressful situation, take a deep breath and respond when you feel like you can be constructive. When you do respond, be gracious. Thank them for their feedback. Make sure you reference something about their concern: “I understand that you had to wait longer than you would have liked.” Acknowledge the problem they reference, and then just apologize: “I’m sorry we didn’t meet your expectations.” Then, if they waited too long for example, “We have a new system where no one should have to wait more than 30 minutes….” You can respond privately or publically. Generally, public responses are better as it shows other consumers that you are willing to listen and consider their point of view.

Continue to: The next phase at Healthgrades...

The next phase at Healthgrades

Dr. Culligan: Do you see changes to the way physician-rating sites are working now? Are we going to stay status quo over the next 10 years, or do you see frontiers in how your site is going to develop?

Dr. Bowman: For Healthgrades, we rely on quantitative and objective measures, not just the qualitative. We are investing heavily right now in trying to help consumers understand what are the relative volumes of different procedures or different patient types that each individual doctor sees. Orthopedics is an easy example—if you have a knee problem, you want to go to someone who specializes in knees. Our job is to help consumers easily identify, “This is a shoulder doctor, this is a knee doctor, and this is why that matters.”

In the meantime, as a physician, you can always go into our site and state your care philosophy, identifying what is the sort of patient that you like to treat. Transparency is good for everyone, and especially physicians. It helps the right patient show up for you, and it helps you do a better job providing referrals.

Social media: Avoid pitfalls, and use it to your benefit

Dr. Lotze: Branding was one of the things that I was confused about, and Heather really helped me out. As physicians, we put ourselves out there on our websites, which we try to make professional sources of information for patients. But patients often want to see what else they can find out about us, including Healthgrades and social media. I think the thing that is important to know with social media is that it is a place where people learn about you as a person. Your social media should be another avenue of promotion. Whether it is your personal or professional Facebook page, people are going to see those sites. You have an opportunity to promote yourself as a good physician and a good person with a wholesome practice that you want people to come to. If a physician is posting questionable things about themselves on any kind of social media, it could be perceived as inappropriate by the patient. That can impact how patients think of you as a person, and how they are going to grade you. If people lose sight of who you are due to a questionable social media posting, everything else (SEO, the website) can be for naught.

Dr. Culligan: What are the most important social media tools to invest your time in?

Ms. Schueppert: Before anybody jumps into social media, I firmly recommend that you make sure your local search and your Google 3-pack is set up—which is basically a method Google uses to display the top 3 results on its listings page. Then make sure you have a review management system in place. Make sure you have that updated website. Those are the foundational elements. Once you have that going, social media is the next added layer to that digital presence.

I usually recommend LinkedIn. It is huge because you are staying in contact with your colleagues, that business-to-business type of connection. It remains a way for physicians to set themselves up as experts in their level of specialty.

From there, it’s either Instagram or Facebook. If you are serving more of the younger generations, the millennials and younger, then Instagram is the way to go. If you are focusing on your 40+, 50+, they are going to be far more on Facebook.

Continue to: Dr. Lotze...

Dr. Lotze: For me, a Facebook page was a great place to start. The cost of those Google ads—the first things we see at the top of a Google search in their own separate box—is significant. If a practice has that kind of money to invest, great; it is an instant way to be first on the page during a search. But there are more cost-effective ways of doing that, especially as you are getting your name out. Facebook provides, at a smaller cost, promotion of whatever it is that you are seeking to promote. You can find people within a certain zip code, for instance, and use a Facebook ad campaign that can drive people to your Facebook page—which should have both routinely updated new posts and a link to your website. The posts should be interesting topics relevant to the patients you wish to treat (avoiding personal stories or controversial discussions). You can put a post together, or you can have a third-party service do this. People who follow your page will get reminders of you and your practice with each new post. As your page followers increase, your Facebook rank will improve, and your page will more likely be discovered by Facebook searches for your services. With an added link to your office practice website, those patients go straight to your site without getting lost in the noise of Google search results.

For Instagram, a short video or an interesting picture, along with a brief statement, are the essentials. You can add a single link. Marketing here is by direct messaging or having patients going to your website through a link. Instagram, like Facebook, offers analytics to help show you what your audience likes to read about, improving the quality of your posts and increasing number of followers.

YouTube is the number 2 search engine behind Google. A Google search for your field of medicine may be filled with pages of competitors. However, YouTube has a much lower volume of competing practices, making it easier for patients to find you. The only downside to YouTube is that it will list your video along with other competing videos, which can draw attention away from your practice.

If you want to promote your website or practice with video, using a company such as Vimeo is a better choice compared with YouTube, as YouTube gets credit for video views—which improves YouTube’s SEO and not your own website. Vimeo allows for your website to get credit each time the video is watched. Regardless of where you place your videos, make them short and to the point, with links to your website. Videos only need to be long enough to get your message across and stimulate interest in your practice.

If you can have a blog on your website, it also will help with SEO. What a search engine like Google wants to see is that a patient is on your web page and looking at something for at least 60 seconds. If so, the website is deemed to have information that is relevant, improving your SEO ranking.

Finally, Twitter also can be used for getting messaging out and for branding. The problem with it is that many people go to Twitter to follow a Hollywood celebrity, a sports star, or are looking for mass communication. There is less interest on Twitter for physician outreach.

Continue to: Measuring ROI...

Dr. Culligan: What’s the best way to track your return on investment?

Dr. Lotze: First for me was to find out what didn’t work in the office and fix that before really promoting my practice. It’s about the global experience for a patient, as Brad mentioned. As a marketing expert, Heather met with me to understand my goals. She then called my office as a patient to set up an appointment and went through that entire office experience. We identified issues needing improvement.

The next step was to develop a working relationship with my webmaster—someone who can help manage Internet image and SEO. Together, you will develop goals for what the SEO should promote specific to your practice. Once a good SEO program is in place, your website’s ranking will go up—although it can take a minimum of 6 months to see a significant increase. To help understand your website’s performance, your webmaster should provide you with reports on your site’s analytics.

As you go through this process, it is great to have a marketing expert to be the point person. You will work closely together for a while, but eventually you can back off over time. The time and expense you invest on the front end have huge rewards on the back end. Currently, I still spend a reasonable amount of money every month. I have a high self-referral base because of these efforts, however, which results in more patient surgeries and easily covers my expenses. It is money well invested. My website traffic increased by 268% over 2 years (FIGURE). I’ll propose that currently more than half of my patients are self-referrals due to online marketing.

Ms. Schueppert: The only thing I would add is training your front staff. They are checking people in, taking appointments, checking your patients out. Have them be mindful that there are campaigns going on, whether it is a social media push, or a new video that went on the website. They can ask, “How did you hear about us?” when a new patient calls.

Dr. Bowman: Unless you are a large university hospital, where the analytics get significantly more advanced in terms of measuring return on investment (ROI), I think you should just be looking at your schedule and looking at your monthly billings and seeing how they change over time. You can calculate how much a new patient is worth because you can figure out how many patients you have and how much you bill and what your profits are.

Dr. Culligan: For those of us who are hospital employees, you can try to convince the hospital that you can do a detailed ROI analysis, or you can just look at it like (say it’s $3,000 per month), how many surgeries does this project have to generate before the hospital makes that back? The answer is a fraction of 1 case.

Thank you to all of you for your expertise on this roundtable. 

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) finalized an increase in the relative value of evaluation and management (E/M) service codes effective January 1, 2021, which results in an overall decrease in the payment for procedural services in the Medicare program. (Due to the mandate for budget neutrality, an increase in relative value units [RVUs] for E/M resulted in a large decrease in the conversion factor—the number of dollars per RVU). This has increased payments for endocrinologists, rheumatologists, and family medicine clinicians and decreased payments for radiologists, pathologists, and surgeons.

In a major win for physicians, CMS proposes to simplify documentation requirements for billing and focus on the complexity of the medical decision making (MDM) or the total time needed to care for the patient on the date of the service as the foundation for determining the relative value of the service. Therefore, there is no more counting bullets—ie, we don’t have to perform a comprehensive physical exam or review of systems to achieve a high level code! Prior to this change, time was only available for coding purposes when counseling and coordination of care was the predominant service (>50%), and only face-to-face time with the patient was considered. Effective January 1, for office and other outpatient services, total time on the calendar date of the encounter will be used. This acknowledges the intensity and value of non–face-to-face work.

Acting through CMS, the federal government influences greatly the US health care system. CMS is an agency in the Department of Health and Human Services that administers the Medicare program and partners with state governments to administer the Health Insurance Exchanges, Medicaid, and the Children’s Health Insurance programs (CHIP).¹ In addition, CMS is responsible for enforcing quality care standards in long-term care facilities and clinical laboratories and the implementation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.¹

In January, CMS plans the following major changes to coding and documentation^2,3:

1. Selection of the level of E/M service will no longer require documentation of bullet points in the history, physical exam, and MDM. The simplified system allows physicians and qualified health care professionals to code either by total time (both face-to-face and non–face-to-face) on the date of the encounter or by level of MDM.
2. For established office patients, 5 levels of office-based evaluation and management services will be retained. CMS had initially proposed to reduce the number of office-based E/M codes from 5 to 3, combining code levels 2, 3, and 4 into 1 code.⁴ However, after receiving feedback from professional societies and the public, CMS abandoned the plan for radical simplification of coding levels.^2,3 Implementation of their proposal would have resulted in the same payment for treatment of a hang nail as for a complex gyn patient with multiple medical problems. Both patient advocacy groups and professional societies argued that incentives originally were misaligned.
3. For new office patients, since both 99201 and 99202 require straightforward MDM, the level 1 code (99201) has been eliminated, reducing the number of code levels from 5 to 4.
4. History and physical exam will no longer be used to determine code level for office E/M codes. These elements will be required only as medically appropriate. This means that documentation review will no longer focus on “bean counting” the elements in the history and physical exam.
5. Following a reassessment of the actual time required to provide E/M services in real-life practice, CMS plans to markedly increase the relative value of office visits for established patients and modestly increase the relative value of office visits for new patients. CMS operates under the principle of “neutral budgeting,” meaning that an increase of the relative value of E/M codes will result in a decrease in the payment for procedural codes. The actual RVUs for procedural services do not change; however, budget neutrality requires a decrease in the dollar conversion factor. The proposed changes will increase the payment for E/M services and decrease payments for procedural services.

Continue to: Refocusing practice on MDM complexity...

Refocusing practice on MDM complexity

The practice of medicine is a calling with great rewards. Prominent among those rewards are improving the health of women, children, and the community, developing deep and trusting relationships with patients, families, and clinical colleagues. The practice of medicine is also replete with a host of punishing administrative burdens, including prior authorizations, clunky electronic medical records, poorly designed quality metrics that are applied to clinicians, and billing compliance rules that emphasize the repetitive documentation of clinical information with minimal value.

Some of the most irritating aspects of medical practice are the CMS rules governing medical record documentation required for billing ambulatory office visits. Current coding compliance focuses on counting the number of systems reviewed in the review of systems; the documentation of past history, social history, and family history; the number of organs and organ elements examined during the physical examination; and the complexity of MDM.

In January 2021, CMS plans to adopt new Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code descriptors for the office and other outpatient E/M services that sunset most of the “bean-counting” metrics and emphasize the importance of the complexity of MDM in guiding selection of a correct code.² Beginning in January 2021, clinicians will have the option of selecting an E/M code level based on the total amount of time required to provide the office visit service or the complexity of MDM. When selecting a code level based on MDM the new guidance emphasizes the importance of reviewing notes from other clinicians, reviewing test results, ordering of tests, and discussing and coordinating the care of the patient with other treating physicians. These changes reflect a better understanding of what is most important in good medical practice, promoting better patient care. TABLES 1 and 2 provide the initial guidance from CMS concerning selection of E/M code level based on time and MDM, respectively.² The guidance for using MDM to select an E/M code level is likely to evolve following implementation, so stay tuned. When using MDM to select a code, 2 of the 3 general categories are required to select that level of service.

Increase in the valuation of office-based E/M services

The Medicare Physician Fee Schedule uses a resource-based relative value system to determine time and intensity of the work of clinical practice. This system recognizes 3 major factors that influence the resources required to provide a service:

• work of the clinician
• practice expense for technical components
• cost of professional liability insurance.

Many primary care professional associations have long contended that CMS has undervalued office-based E/M services relative to procedures, resulting in the devaluing of primary care practice. After the CPT code descriptors were updated by the CPT editorial panel, 52 specialty societies surveyed their members to provide inputs to CMS on the time and intensity of the office and other outpatient E/M codes as currently practiced. The American Medical Association’s Specialty Society Resource-Based Relative Value Scale Update Committee (RUC) reviewed the surveys and provided new inputs via open comment to CMS. CMS has responded to this feedback with a review of the intensity of clinical work required to provide an ambulatory visit service. In response to the review, CMS proposes to accept the recommendations of the RUC representing the house of medicine and increase the work and practice expense relative value assigned to new and established office visit codes. Overall, the combination of changes in relative values assigned for the work of the clinician and the expense of practice, increases the total value of office-based E/M codes for new patients by 7% to 14% and for established patients from 28% to 46% (see supplemental table in the sidebar at the end of this article).

Continue to: Decreased payments for procedural services...

Decreased payments for procedural services

Medicare is required to offset increased payment in one arena of health care delivery with decreased payment in other arenas of care, thereby achieving “budget-neutrality.” As detailed above, CMS plans to increase Medicare payments for office-based E/M services. Payment for services is calculated by multiplying the total RVUs for a particular service by a “conversion factor” (ie, number of dollars per RVU). To achieve budget-neutrality, CMS has proposed substantially reducing the conversion factor for 2021 (from $36.09 to $32.26), which will effectively decrease Medicare payments for procedural services since their RVUs have not changed. While the AMA RUC and many specialty societies continue to strongly advocate for the E/M work RVU increases to be included in the E/M components of 10- and 90-day global services, CMS has proposed to implement them only for “stand alone” E/M services.

Organizations are lobbying to delay or prevent the planned decrease in conversion factor, which results in substantial declines in payment for procedural services. (See "What do the Medicare billing changes mean for the Obstetrical Bundled services?" at the end of this article.) Due to the economic and clinical practice challenges caused by the corona­virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic it would be best if CMS did not reduce payments to physicians who are experts in procedural health care, thereby avoiding the risk of reduced access to these vital services.

If the current CMS changes in payment are implemented, endocrinologists, rheumatologists, and family physicians will have an increase in payment, and radiologists, pathologists, and surgeons will have a decrease in payment (TABLE 3).⁶ Obstetrics and gynecology is projected to have an 8% increase in Medicare payment. However, if an obstetrician-gynecologist derives most of their Medicare payments from surgical procedures, they are likely to have a decrease in payment from Medicare. Other payers will be incorporating the new coding structure for 2021; however, their payment structures and conversion factors are likely to vary. It is important to note that the RVUs for procedures have not changed. The budget neutrality adjustment resulted in a much lower conversion factor and therefore a decrease in payment for those specialties whose RVUs did not increase.

Bottom line

Working through the Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP programs, CMS can influence greatly the practice of medicine including medical record documentation practices and payment rates for every clinical service. CMS proposes to end the onerous “bean counting” approach to billing compliance and refocus on the complexity of MDM as the foundation for selecting a billing code level. This change is long overdue, valuing the effective management of complex patients in office practice. Hopefully, CMS will reverse the planned reduction in the payment for procedural services, preserving patient access to important health care services. ●

What do the Medicare billing changes mean for the Obstetrical Bundled services?

---

The CY 2020 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule Final Rule was published electronically in the Federal Register on November 1, 2019. This final rule aligns the evaluation and management (E/M) coding and payment with changes recommended by the Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) Editorial Panel and American Medical Association’s (AMA) Specialty Society Resource-Based Relative Value Scale Update Committee (RUC) for office/outpatient E/M visits. Unfortunately, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) did not agree with the RUC, AMA, and specialty societies that the E/M payment changes should be applicable across all global services that incorporate E/M visits—despite the fact that the values proposed by the RUC incorporated survey data from 52 specialties, representing most of medicine (including those specialties that predominantly perform procedures). Specifically, CMS expressed the view that the number of E/M visits within the 10- and 90-day global codes, as well as the maternity care bundle, were difficult to validate; therefore, the increased values would not be distributed to those procedural services.

Many professional societies expressed significant concerns about the resulting budget neutrality adjustments that would occur effective January 2021. The great news for ObGyns is that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) was able to respond directly to CMS’s concerns with data to support the number of prenatal visits within the Obstetrical Bundle. Tapping into a de-identified, cloud-based data set of prenatal records—representing more than 1,100 obstetric providers with close to 30,000 recently completed pregnancies—ACOG was able to document both a mean and median number of prenatal visits across a broad geographic, payer, and patient demographic that supported the 13 prenatal visits in the Obstetrical Bundle.

With ACOG’s advocacy and ability to provide data to CMS, the proposed physician fee schedule rule for 2021 has proposed to incorporate the E/M increased reimbursement into the prenatal care codes. Now we urge the CMS to finalize this proposal. Although Medicare pays for a tiny number of pregnancies annually, we hope that all payers, including Medicaid and managed care plans, will agree with this acknowledgement of the increased work of evaluation and management that obstetricians provide during prenatal care. Join ACOG in telling CMS to finalize their proposal to increase the values of the global obstetric codes: https://acog.quorum.us/campaign/28579/.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) finalized an increase in the relative value of evaluation and management (E/M) service codes effective January 1, 2021, which results in an overall decrease in the payment for procedural services in the Medicare program. (Due to the mandate for budget neutrality, an increase in relative value units [RVUs] for E/M resulted in a large decrease in the conversion factor—the number of dollars per RVU). This has increased payments for endocrinologists, rheumatologists, and family medicine clinicians and decreased payments for radiologists, pathologists, and surgeons.

In a major win for physicians, CMS proposes to simplify documentation requirements for billing and focus on the complexity of the medical decision making (MDM) or the total time needed to care for the patient on the date of the service as the foundation for determining the relative value of the service. Therefore, there is no more counting bullets—ie, we don’t have to perform a comprehensive physical exam or review of systems to achieve a high level code! Prior to this change, time was only available for coding purposes when counseling and coordination of care was the predominant service (>50%), and only face-to-face time with the patient was considered. Effective January 1, for office and other outpatient services, total time on the calendar date of the encounter will be used. This acknowledges the intensity and value of non–face-to-face work.

Acting through CMS, the federal government influences greatly the US health care system. CMS is an agency in the Department of Health and Human Services that administers the Medicare program and partners with state governments to administer the Health Insurance Exchanges, Medicaid, and the Children’s Health Insurance programs (CHIP).¹ In addition, CMS is responsible for enforcing quality care standards in long-term care facilities and clinical laboratories and the implementation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.¹

In January, CMS plans the following major changes to coding and documentation^2,3:

1. Selection of the level of E/M service will no longer require documentation of bullet points in the history, physical exam, and MDM. The simplified system allows physicians and qualified health care professionals to code either by total time (both face-to-face and non–face-to-face) on the date of the encounter or by level of MDM.
2. For established office patients, 5 levels of office-based evaluation and management services will be retained. CMS had initially proposed to reduce the number of office-based E/M codes from 5 to 3, combining code levels 2, 3, and 4 into 1 code.⁴ However, after receiving feedback from professional societies and the public, CMS abandoned the plan for radical simplification of coding levels.^2,3 Implementation of their proposal would have resulted in the same payment for treatment of a hang nail as for a complex gyn patient with multiple medical problems. Both patient advocacy groups and professional societies argued that incentives originally were misaligned.
3. For new office patients, since both 99201 and 99202 require straightforward MDM, the level 1 code (99201) has been eliminated, reducing the number of code levels from 5 to 4.
4. History and physical exam will no longer be used to determine code level for office E/M codes. These elements will be required only as medically appropriate. This means that documentation review will no longer focus on “bean counting” the elements in the history and physical exam.
5. Following a reassessment of the actual time required to provide E/M services in real-life practice, CMS plans to markedly increase the relative value of office visits for established patients and modestly increase the relative value of office visits for new patients. CMS operates under the principle of “neutral budgeting,” meaning that an increase of the relative value of E/M codes will result in a decrease in the payment for procedural codes. The actual RVUs for procedural services do not change; however, budget neutrality requires a decrease in the dollar conversion factor. The proposed changes will increase the payment for E/M services and decrease payments for procedural services.

Continue to: Refocusing practice on MDM complexity...

Refocusing practice on MDM complexity

The practice of medicine is a calling with great rewards. Prominent among those rewards are improving the health of women, children, and the community, developing deep and trusting relationships with patients, families, and clinical colleagues. The practice of medicine is also replete with a host of punishing administrative burdens, including prior authorizations, clunky electronic medical records, poorly designed quality metrics that are applied to clinicians, and billing compliance rules that emphasize the repetitive documentation of clinical information with minimal value.

Some of the most irritating aspects of medical practice are the CMS rules governing medical record documentation required for billing ambulatory office visits. Current coding compliance focuses on counting the number of systems reviewed in the review of systems; the documentation of past history, social history, and family history; the number of organs and organ elements examined during the physical examination; and the complexity of MDM.

In January 2021, CMS plans to adopt new Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code descriptors for the office and other outpatient E/M services that sunset most of the “bean-counting” metrics and emphasize the importance of the complexity of MDM in guiding selection of a correct code.² Beginning in January 2021, clinicians will have the option of selecting an E/M code level based on the total amount of time required to provide the office visit service or the complexity of MDM. When selecting a code level based on MDM the new guidance emphasizes the importance of reviewing notes from other clinicians, reviewing test results, ordering of tests, and discussing and coordinating the care of the patient with other treating physicians. These changes reflect a better understanding of what is most important in good medical practice, promoting better patient care. TABLES 1 and 2 provide the initial guidance from CMS concerning selection of E/M code level based on time and MDM, respectively.² The guidance for using MDM to select an E/M code level is likely to evolve following implementation, so stay tuned. When using MDM to select a code, 2 of the 3 general categories are required to select that level of service.

Increase in the valuation of office-based E/M services

The Medicare Physician Fee Schedule uses a resource-based relative value system to determine time and intensity of the work of clinical practice. This system recognizes 3 major factors that influence the resources required to provide a service:

• work of the clinician
• practice expense for technical components
• cost of professional liability insurance.

Many primary care professional associations have long contended that CMS has undervalued office-based E/M services relative to procedures, resulting in the devaluing of primary care practice. After the CPT code descriptors were updated by the CPT editorial panel, 52 specialty societies surveyed their members to provide inputs to CMS on the time and intensity of the office and other outpatient E/M codes as currently practiced. The American Medical Association’s Specialty Society Resource-Based Relative Value Scale Update Committee (RUC) reviewed the surveys and provided new inputs via open comment to CMS. CMS has responded to this feedback with a review of the intensity of clinical work required to provide an ambulatory visit service. In response to the review, CMS proposes to accept the recommendations of the RUC representing the house of medicine and increase the work and practice expense relative value assigned to new and established office visit codes. Overall, the combination of changes in relative values assigned for the work of the clinician and the expense of practice, increases the total value of office-based E/M codes for new patients by 7% to 14% and for established patients from 28% to 46% (see supplemental table in the sidebar at the end of this article).

Continue to: Decreased payments for procedural services...

Decreased payments for procedural services

Medicare is required to offset increased payment in one arena of health care delivery with decreased payment in other arenas of care, thereby achieving “budget-neutrality.” As detailed above, CMS plans to increase Medicare payments for office-based E/M services. Payment for services is calculated by multiplying the total RVUs for a particular service by a “conversion factor” (ie, number of dollars per RVU). To achieve budget-neutrality, CMS has proposed substantially reducing the conversion factor for 2021 (from $36.09 to $32.26), which will effectively decrease Medicare payments for procedural services since their RVUs have not changed. While the AMA RUC and many specialty societies continue to strongly advocate for the E/M work RVU increases to be included in the E/M components of 10- and 90-day global services, CMS has proposed to implement them only for “stand alone” E/M services.

Organizations are lobbying to delay or prevent the planned decrease in conversion factor, which results in substantial declines in payment for procedural services. (See "What do the Medicare billing changes mean for the Obstetrical Bundled services?" at the end of this article.) Due to the economic and clinical practice challenges caused by the corona­virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic it would be best if CMS did not reduce payments to physicians who are experts in procedural health care, thereby avoiding the risk of reduced access to these vital services.

If the current CMS changes in payment are implemented, endocrinologists, rheumatologists, and family physicians will have an increase in payment, and radiologists, pathologists, and surgeons will have a decrease in payment (TABLE 3).⁶ Obstetrics and gynecology is projected to have an 8% increase in Medicare payment. However, if an obstetrician-gynecologist derives most of their Medicare payments from surgical procedures, they are likely to have a decrease in payment from Medicare. Other payers will be incorporating the new coding structure for 2021; however, their payment structures and conversion factors are likely to vary. It is important to note that the RVUs for procedures have not changed. The budget neutrality adjustment resulted in a much lower conversion factor and therefore a decrease in payment for those specialties whose RVUs did not increase.

Bottom line

Working through the Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP programs, CMS can influence greatly the practice of medicine including medical record documentation practices and payment rates for every clinical service. CMS proposes to end the onerous “bean counting” approach to billing compliance and refocus on the complexity of MDM as the foundation for selecting a billing code level. This change is long overdue, valuing the effective management of complex patients in office practice. Hopefully, CMS will reverse the planned reduction in the payment for procedural services, preserving patient access to important health care services. ●

What do the Medicare billing changes mean for the Obstetrical Bundled services?

---

The CY 2020 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule Final Rule was published electronically in the Federal Register on November 1, 2019. This final rule aligns the evaluation and management (E/M) coding and payment with changes recommended by the Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) Editorial Panel and American Medical Association’s (AMA) Specialty Society Resource-Based Relative Value Scale Update Committee (RUC) for office/outpatient E/M visits. Unfortunately, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) did not agree with the RUC, AMA, and specialty societies that the E/M payment changes should be applicable across all global services that incorporate E/M visits—despite the fact that the values proposed by the RUC incorporated survey data from 52 specialties, representing most of medicine (including those specialties that predominantly perform procedures). Specifically, CMS expressed the view that the number of E/M visits within the 10- and 90-day global codes, as well as the maternity care bundle, were difficult to validate; therefore, the increased values would not be distributed to those procedural services.

Many professional societies expressed significant concerns about the resulting budget neutrality adjustments that would occur effective January 2021. The great news for ObGyns is that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) was able to respond directly to CMS’s concerns with data to support the number of prenatal visits within the Obstetrical Bundle. Tapping into a de-identified, cloud-based data set of prenatal records—representing more than 1,100 obstetric providers with close to 30,000 recently completed pregnancies—ACOG was able to document both a mean and median number of prenatal visits across a broad geographic, payer, and patient demographic that supported the 13 prenatal visits in the Obstetrical Bundle.

With ACOG’s advocacy and ability to provide data to CMS, the proposed physician fee schedule rule for 2021 has proposed to incorporate the E/M increased reimbursement into the prenatal care codes. Now we urge the CMS to finalize this proposal. Although Medicare pays for a tiny number of pregnancies annually, we hope that all payers, including Medicaid and managed care plans, will agree with this acknowledgement of the increased work of evaluation and management that obstetricians provide during prenatal care. Join ACOG in telling CMS to finalize their proposal to increase the values of the global obstetric codes: https://acog.quorum.us/campaign/28579/.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) finalized an increase in the relative value of evaluation and management (E/M) service codes effective January 1, 2021, which results in an overall decrease in the payment for procedural services in the Medicare program. (Due to the mandate for budget neutrality, an increase in relative value units [RVUs] for E/M resulted in a large decrease in the conversion factor—the number of dollars per RVU). This has increased payments for endocrinologists, rheumatologists, and family medicine clinicians and decreased payments for radiologists, pathologists, and surgeons.

In a major win for physicians, CMS proposes to simplify documentation requirements for billing and focus on the complexity of the medical decision making (MDM) or the total time needed to care for the patient on the date of the service as the foundation for determining the relative value of the service. Therefore, there is no more counting bullets—ie, we don’t have to perform a comprehensive physical exam or review of systems to achieve a high level code! Prior to this change, time was only available for coding purposes when counseling and coordination of care was the predominant service (>50%), and only face-to-face time with the patient was considered. Effective January 1, for office and other outpatient services, total time on the calendar date of the encounter will be used. This acknowledges the intensity and value of non–face-to-face work.

Acting through CMS, the federal government influences greatly the US health care system. CMS is an agency in the Department of Health and Human Services that administers the Medicare program and partners with state governments to administer the Health Insurance Exchanges, Medicaid, and the Children’s Health Insurance programs (CHIP).¹ In addition, CMS is responsible for enforcing quality care standards in long-term care facilities and clinical laboratories and the implementation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.¹

In January, CMS plans the following major changes to coding and documentation^2,3:

1. Selection of the level of E/M service will no longer require documentation of bullet points in the history, physical exam, and MDM. The simplified system allows physicians and qualified health care professionals to code either by total time (both face-to-face and non–face-to-face) on the date of the encounter or by level of MDM.
2. For established office patients, 5 levels of office-based evaluation and management services will be retained. CMS had initially proposed to reduce the number of office-based E/M codes from 5 to 3, combining code levels 2, 3, and 4 into 1 code.⁴ However, after receiving feedback from professional societies and the public, CMS abandoned the plan for radical simplification of coding levels.^2,3 Implementation of their proposal would have resulted in the same payment for treatment of a hang nail as for a complex gyn patient with multiple medical problems. Both patient advocacy groups and professional societies argued that incentives originally were misaligned.
3. For new office patients, since both 99201 and 99202 require straightforward MDM, the level 1 code (99201) has been eliminated, reducing the number of code levels from 5 to 4.
4. History and physical exam will no longer be used to determine code level for office E/M codes. These elements will be required only as medically appropriate. This means that documentation review will no longer focus on “bean counting” the elements in the history and physical exam.
5. Following a reassessment of the actual time required to provide E/M services in real-life practice, CMS plans to markedly increase the relative value of office visits for established patients and modestly increase the relative value of office visits for new patients. CMS operates under the principle of “neutral budgeting,” meaning that an increase of the relative value of E/M codes will result in a decrease in the payment for procedural codes. The actual RVUs for procedural services do not change; however, budget neutrality requires a decrease in the dollar conversion factor. The proposed changes will increase the payment for E/M services and decrease payments for procedural services.

Continue to: Refocusing practice on MDM complexity...

Refocusing practice on MDM complexity

The practice of medicine is a calling with great rewards. Prominent among those rewards are improving the health of women, children, and the community, developing deep and trusting relationships with patients, families, and clinical colleagues. The practice of medicine is also replete with a host of punishing administrative burdens, including prior authorizations, clunky electronic medical records, poorly designed quality metrics that are applied to clinicians, and billing compliance rules that emphasize the repetitive documentation of clinical information with minimal value.

Some of the most irritating aspects of medical practice are the CMS rules governing medical record documentation required for billing ambulatory office visits. Current coding compliance focuses on counting the number of systems reviewed in the review of systems; the documentation of past history, social history, and family history; the number of organs and organ elements examined during the physical examination; and the complexity of MDM.

In January 2021, CMS plans to adopt new Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code descriptors for the office and other outpatient E/M services that sunset most of the “bean-counting” metrics and emphasize the importance of the complexity of MDM in guiding selection of a correct code.² Beginning in January 2021, clinicians will have the option of selecting an E/M code level based on the total amount of time required to provide the office visit service or the complexity of MDM. When selecting a code level based on MDM the new guidance emphasizes the importance of reviewing notes from other clinicians, reviewing test results, ordering of tests, and discussing and coordinating the care of the patient with other treating physicians. These changes reflect a better understanding of what is most important in good medical practice, promoting better patient care. TABLES 1 and 2 provide the initial guidance from CMS concerning selection of E/M code level based on time and MDM, respectively.² The guidance for using MDM to select an E/M code level is likely to evolve following implementation, so stay tuned. When using MDM to select a code, 2 of the 3 general categories are required to select that level of service.

Increase in the valuation of office-based E/M services

The Medicare Physician Fee Schedule uses a resource-based relative value system to determine time and intensity of the work of clinical practice. This system recognizes 3 major factors that influence the resources required to provide a service:

• work of the clinician
• practice expense for technical components
• cost of professional liability insurance.

Many primary care professional associations have long contended that CMS has undervalued office-based E/M services relative to procedures, resulting in the devaluing of primary care practice. After the CPT code descriptors were updated by the CPT editorial panel, 52 specialty societies surveyed their members to provide inputs to CMS on the time and intensity of the office and other outpatient E/M codes as currently practiced. The American Medical Association’s Specialty Society Resource-Based Relative Value Scale Update Committee (RUC) reviewed the surveys and provided new inputs via open comment to CMS. CMS has responded to this feedback with a review of the intensity of clinical work required to provide an ambulatory visit service. In response to the review, CMS proposes to accept the recommendations of the RUC representing the house of medicine and increase the work and practice expense relative value assigned to new and established office visit codes. Overall, the combination of changes in relative values assigned for the work of the clinician and the expense of practice, increases the total value of office-based E/M codes for new patients by 7% to 14% and for established patients from 28% to 46% (see supplemental table in the sidebar at the end of this article).

Continue to: Decreased payments for procedural services...

Decreased payments for procedural services

Medicare is required to offset increased payment in one arena of health care delivery with decreased payment in other arenas of care, thereby achieving “budget-neutrality.” As detailed above, CMS plans to increase Medicare payments for office-based E/M services. Payment for services is calculated by multiplying the total RVUs for a particular service by a “conversion factor” (ie, number of dollars per RVU). To achieve budget-neutrality, CMS has proposed substantially reducing the conversion factor for 2021 (from $36.09 to $32.26), which will effectively decrease Medicare payments for procedural services since their RVUs have not changed. While the AMA RUC and many specialty societies continue to strongly advocate for the E/M work RVU increases to be included in the E/M components of 10- and 90-day global services, CMS has proposed to implement them only for “stand alone” E/M services.

Organizations are lobbying to delay or prevent the planned decrease in conversion factor, which results in substantial declines in payment for procedural services. (See "What do the Medicare billing changes mean for the Obstetrical Bundled services?" at the end of this article.) Due to the economic and clinical practice challenges caused by the corona­virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic it would be best if CMS did not reduce payments to physicians who are experts in procedural health care, thereby avoiding the risk of reduced access to these vital services.

If the current CMS changes in payment are implemented, endocrinologists, rheumatologists, and family physicians will have an increase in payment, and radiologists, pathologists, and surgeons will have a decrease in payment (TABLE 3).⁶ Obstetrics and gynecology is projected to have an 8% increase in Medicare payment. However, if an obstetrician-gynecologist derives most of their Medicare payments from surgical procedures, they are likely to have a decrease in payment from Medicare. Other payers will be incorporating the new coding structure for 2021; however, their payment structures and conversion factors are likely to vary. It is important to note that the RVUs for procedures have not changed. The budget neutrality adjustment resulted in a much lower conversion factor and therefore a decrease in payment for those specialties whose RVUs did not increase.

Bottom line

Working through the Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP programs, CMS can influence greatly the practice of medicine including medical record documentation practices and payment rates for every clinical service. CMS proposes to end the onerous “bean counting” approach to billing compliance and refocus on the complexity of MDM as the foundation for selecting a billing code level. This change is long overdue, valuing the effective management of complex patients in office practice. Hopefully, CMS will reverse the planned reduction in the payment for procedural services, preserving patient access to important health care services. ●

What do the Medicare billing changes mean for the Obstetrical Bundled services?

---

The CY 2020 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule Final Rule was published electronically in the Federal Register on November 1, 2019. This final rule aligns the evaluation and management (E/M) coding and payment with changes recommended by the Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) Editorial Panel and American Medical Association’s (AMA) Specialty Society Resource-Based Relative Value Scale Update Committee (RUC) for office/outpatient E/M visits. Unfortunately, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) did not agree with the RUC, AMA, and specialty societies that the E/M payment changes should be applicable across all global services that incorporate E/M visits—despite the fact that the values proposed by the RUC incorporated survey data from 52 specialties, representing most of medicine (including those specialties that predominantly perform procedures). Specifically, CMS expressed the view that the number of E/M visits within the 10- and 90-day global codes, as well as the maternity care bundle, were difficult to validate; therefore, the increased values would not be distributed to those procedural services.

Many professional societies expressed significant concerns about the resulting budget neutrality adjustments that would occur effective January 2021. The great news for ObGyns is that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) was able to respond directly to CMS’s concerns with data to support the number of prenatal visits within the Obstetrical Bundle. Tapping into a de-identified, cloud-based data set of prenatal records—representing more than 1,100 obstetric providers with close to 30,000 recently completed pregnancies—ACOG was able to document both a mean and median number of prenatal visits across a broad geographic, payer, and patient demographic that supported the 13 prenatal visits in the Obstetrical Bundle.

With ACOG’s advocacy and ability to provide data to CMS, the proposed physician fee schedule rule for 2021 has proposed to incorporate the E/M increased reimbursement into the prenatal care codes. Now we urge the CMS to finalize this proposal. Although Medicare pays for a tiny number of pregnancies annually, we hope that all payers, including Medicaid and managed care plans, will agree with this acknowledgement of the increased work of evaluation and management that obstetricians provide during prenatal care. Join ACOG in telling CMS to finalize their proposal to increase the values of the global obstetric codes: https://acog.quorum.us/campaign/28579/.

Mifepristone is a safe, effective, and well-tolerated medication for managing miscarriage and for medical abortion when combined with misoprostol.^1,2 Since the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved its use in 2000, more than 4 million women have used this medication.³ The combination of mifepristone with misoprostol was used for 39% of all US abortions in 2017.⁴ Approximately 10% of all clinically recognized pregnancies end in miscarriages, and many are safely managed with either misoprostol alone or with the combination of mifepristone and misoprostol.⁵
 

The issue

The prescription and distribution of mifepristone is highly regulated by the FDA via requirements outlined in the Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS) drug safety program. The FDA may determine a REMS is necessary for a specific drug to ensure the benefits of a drug outweigh the potential risks. A REMS may include an informative package insert for patients, follow-up communication to prescribers—including letters, safety protocols or recommended laboratory tests, or Elements to Assure Safe Use (ETASU). ETASU are types of REMS that are placed on medications that have significant potential for serious adverse effects, and without such restrictions FDA approval would be rescinded.

Are mifepristone requirements fairly applied?

The 3 ETASU restrictions on the distribution of mifepristone are in-person dispensation, prescriber certification, and patient signatures on special forms.⁶ The in-person dispensing requirement is applied to only 16 other medications (one of which is Mifeprex, the brand version of mifepristone), and Mifeprex/mifepristone are the only ones deemed safe for self-administration—meaning that patients receive the drug from a clinic but then may take it at a site of their choosing. The prescriber certification requirement places expectations on providers to account for distribution of doses and keep records of serial numbers (in effect, having clinicians act as both physician and pharmacist, as most medications are distributed and recorded in pharmacies). The patient form was recommended for elimination in 2016 due to its duplicative information and burden on patients—a recommendation that was then overruled by the FDA commissioner.⁷

These 3 requirements placed on mifepristone specifically target dosages for use related to abortions and miscarriages. Mifepristone is used to treat other medical conditions, with much higher doses, without the same restrictions—in fact, the FDA has allowed much higher doses of mifepristone to be mailed directly to a patient when prescribed for different disorders. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) has long opposed the burdensome REMS requirements on mifepristone for reproductive health indications.⁸

Arguments regarding the safety of mifepristone must be understood in the context of how the medication is taken, and the unique difference with other medications that must be administered by physicians or in health care facilities. Mifepristone is self-administered, and the desired effect—evacuation of uterine contents—typically occurs after a patient takes the accompanying medication misoprostol, which is some 24 to 72 hours later. This timeframe makes it highly unlikely that any patient would be in the presence of their provider at the time of medication effect, thus an in-person dispensing requirement has no medical bearing on the outcome of the health of the patient. 

REMS changes during the COVID-19 pandemic

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has necessarily changed the structure of REMS and ETASU requirements for many medications, with changes made in order to mitigate viral transmission through the limitation of unnecessary visits to clinics or hospitals. The FDA announced in March of 2020 that it would not enforce pre-prescription requirements, such as laboratory or magnetic resonance imaging results, for many medications (including those more toxic than mifepristone), and that it would lift the requirement for in-person dispensation of several medications.⁹ Also in March 2020 the Department of Health and Human Services Secretary (HHS) and the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) activated a “telemedicine exception” to allow physicians to use telemedicine to satisfy mandatory requirements for prescribing controlled substances, including opioids.¹⁰

Despite repeated pleas from organizations, individuals, and physician groups, the FDA continued to enforce the REMS/ETASU for mifepristone as the pandemic decimated communities. Importantly, the pandemic has not had an equal effect on all communities, and the disparities highlighted in outcomes as related to COVID-19 are also reflected in disparities to access to reproductive choices.¹¹ By enforcing REMS/ETASU for mifepristone during a global pandemic, the FDA has placed additional burden on women and people who menstruate. As offices and clinics have closed, and as many jobs have evaporated, additional barriers have emerged, such as lack of childcare, fewer transportation options, and decreased clinic appointments. 

As the pandemic continues to affect communities in the United States, ACOG has issued guidance recommending assessment for eligibility for medical abortion remotely, and has encouraged the use of telemedicine and other remote interactions for its members and patients to limit transmission of the virus. 

The lawsuit

On May 27, 2020, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) (on behalf of ACOG, the Council of University Chairs of Obstetrics and Gynecology, New York State Academy of Family Physicians, SisterSong, and Honor MacNaughton, MD) filed a civil action against the FDA and HHS challenging the requirement for in-person dispensing of mifepristone and associated ETASU requirements during the COVID-19 pandemic. The plaintiffs sought this injunction based on the claim that these restrictions during the pandemic infringe on the constitutional rights to patients’ privacy and liberty and to equal protection of the law as protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Additionally, the ACLU and other organizations said these unnecessary restrictions place patients, providers, and staff at unnecessary risk of viral exposure amidst a global pandemic.

The verdict

On July 13, 2020, a federal court granted the preliminary injunction to suspend FDA’s enforcement of the in-person requirements of mifepristone for abortion during the COVID-19 pandemic. The court denied the motion for suspension of in-person restrictions as applied to miscarriage management. The preliminary injunction applies nationwide without geographic limitation. It will remain in effect until the end of the litigation or for 30 days following the expiration of the public health emergency.

What the outcome means

This injunction is a step in the right direction for patients and providers to allow for autonomy and clinical practice guided by clinician expertise. However, this ruling remains narrow. Patients must be counseled about mifepristone via telemedicine and sign a Patient Agreement Form, which must be returned electronically or by mail.  Patients must receive a copy of the mifepristone medication guide, and dispensing of mifepristone must still be conducted by or under the supervision of a certified provider. The medication may not be dispensed by retail pharmacies, thus requiring providers to arrange for mailing of prescriptions to patients. Given state-based legal statutes regarding mailing of medications, this injunction may not lead to an immediate increase in access to care. In addition, patients seeking management for miscarriage must go to clinic to have mifepristone dispensed and thus risk exposure to viral transmission. 

What now?

The regulation of mifepristone—in spite of excellent safety and specifically for the narrow purpose of administration in the setting of abortion and miscarriage care—is by definition a discriminatory practice against patients and providers. As clinicians, we are duty-bound to speak out against injustices to our practices and our patients. At a local level, we can work to implement safe practices in the setting of this injunction and continue to work on a national level to ensure this injunction becomes permanent and with more broad scope to eliminate all of the REMS requirements for mifepristone.

ACTION ITEMS

• Act locally! Are you an abortion provider? Contact your local ACLU (find them here) or lawyer in your area for assistance navigating the legal landscape to prescribe after this injunction. 
• Act statewide! Press candidates in your state to stand up for science and data. Support legislative acts and bills that address combating discriminatory regulations.
• Act nationally! The President is responsible for appointing the Commissioner of the FDA and the Secretary of Health and Human Services (with Senate advice and consent). Who we elect matters. Seek out opportunities to become involved in increasing access to and awareness of voter registration and Election Day, and speak out against voter suppression. Make sure you are registered to vote here and check your area to review new recommendations amidst the pandemic.

Mifepristone is a safe, effective, and well-tolerated medication for managing miscarriage and for medical abortion when combined with misoprostol.^1,2 Since the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved its use in 2000, more than 4 million women have used this medication.³ The combination of mifepristone with misoprostol was used for 39% of all US abortions in 2017.⁴ Approximately 10% of all clinically recognized pregnancies end in miscarriages, and many are safely managed with either misoprostol alone or with the combination of mifepristone and misoprostol.⁵
 

The issue

The prescription and distribution of mifepristone is highly regulated by the FDA via requirements outlined in the Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS) drug safety program. The FDA may determine a REMS is necessary for a specific drug to ensure the benefits of a drug outweigh the potential risks. A REMS may include an informative package insert for patients, follow-up communication to prescribers—including letters, safety protocols or recommended laboratory tests, or Elements to Assure Safe Use (ETASU). ETASU are types of REMS that are placed on medications that have significant potential for serious adverse effects, and without such restrictions FDA approval would be rescinded.

Are mifepristone requirements fairly applied?

The 3 ETASU restrictions on the distribution of mifepristone are in-person dispensation, prescriber certification, and patient signatures on special forms.⁶ The in-person dispensing requirement is applied to only 16 other medications (one of which is Mifeprex, the brand version of mifepristone), and Mifeprex/mifepristone are the only ones deemed safe for self-administration—meaning that patients receive the drug from a clinic but then may take it at a site of their choosing. The prescriber certification requirement places expectations on providers to account for distribution of doses and keep records of serial numbers (in effect, having clinicians act as both physician and pharmacist, as most medications are distributed and recorded in pharmacies). The patient form was recommended for elimination in 2016 due to its duplicative information and burden on patients—a recommendation that was then overruled by the FDA commissioner.⁷

These 3 requirements placed on mifepristone specifically target dosages for use related to abortions and miscarriages. Mifepristone is used to treat other medical conditions, with much higher doses, without the same restrictions—in fact, the FDA has allowed much higher doses of mifepristone to be mailed directly to a patient when prescribed for different disorders. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) has long opposed the burdensome REMS requirements on mifepristone for reproductive health indications.⁸

Arguments regarding the safety of mifepristone must be understood in the context of how the medication is taken, and the unique difference with other medications that must be administered by physicians or in health care facilities. Mifepristone is self-administered, and the desired effect—evacuation of uterine contents—typically occurs after a patient takes the accompanying medication misoprostol, which is some 24 to 72 hours later. This timeframe makes it highly unlikely that any patient would be in the presence of their provider at the time of medication effect, thus an in-person dispensing requirement has no medical bearing on the outcome of the health of the patient. 

REMS changes during the COVID-19 pandemic

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has necessarily changed the structure of REMS and ETASU requirements for many medications, with changes made in order to mitigate viral transmission through the limitation of unnecessary visits to clinics or hospitals. The FDA announced in March of 2020 that it would not enforce pre-prescription requirements, such as laboratory or magnetic resonance imaging results, for many medications (including those more toxic than mifepristone), and that it would lift the requirement for in-person dispensation of several medications.⁹ Also in March 2020 the Department of Health and Human Services Secretary (HHS) and the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) activated a “telemedicine exception” to allow physicians to use telemedicine to satisfy mandatory requirements for prescribing controlled substances, including opioids.¹⁰

Despite repeated pleas from organizations, individuals, and physician groups, the FDA continued to enforce the REMS/ETASU for mifepristone as the pandemic decimated communities. Importantly, the pandemic has not had an equal effect on all communities, and the disparities highlighted in outcomes as related to COVID-19 are also reflected in disparities to access to reproductive choices.¹¹ By enforcing REMS/ETASU for mifepristone during a global pandemic, the FDA has placed additional burden on women and people who menstruate. As offices and clinics have closed, and as many jobs have evaporated, additional barriers have emerged, such as lack of childcare, fewer transportation options, and decreased clinic appointments. 

As the pandemic continues to affect communities in the United States, ACOG has issued guidance recommending assessment for eligibility for medical abortion remotely, and has encouraged the use of telemedicine and other remote interactions for its members and patients to limit transmission of the virus. 

The lawsuit

On May 27, 2020, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) (on behalf of ACOG, the Council of University Chairs of Obstetrics and Gynecology, New York State Academy of Family Physicians, SisterSong, and Honor MacNaughton, MD) filed a civil action against the FDA and HHS challenging the requirement for in-person dispensing of mifepristone and associated ETASU requirements during the COVID-19 pandemic. The plaintiffs sought this injunction based on the claim that these restrictions during the pandemic infringe on the constitutional rights to patients’ privacy and liberty and to equal protection of the law as protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Additionally, the ACLU and other organizations said these unnecessary restrictions place patients, providers, and staff at unnecessary risk of viral exposure amidst a global pandemic.

The verdict

On July 13, 2020, a federal court granted the preliminary injunction to suspend FDA’s enforcement of the in-person requirements of mifepristone for abortion during the COVID-19 pandemic. The court denied the motion for suspension of in-person restrictions as applied to miscarriage management. The preliminary injunction applies nationwide without geographic limitation. It will remain in effect until the end of the litigation or for 30 days following the expiration of the public health emergency.

What the outcome means

This injunction is a step in the right direction for patients and providers to allow for autonomy and clinical practice guided by clinician expertise. However, this ruling remains narrow. Patients must be counseled about mifepristone via telemedicine and sign a Patient Agreement Form, which must be returned electronically or by mail.  Patients must receive a copy of the mifepristone medication guide, and dispensing of mifepristone must still be conducted by or under the supervision of a certified provider. The medication may not be dispensed by retail pharmacies, thus requiring providers to arrange for mailing of prescriptions to patients. Given state-based legal statutes regarding mailing of medications, this injunction may not lead to an immediate increase in access to care. In addition, patients seeking management for miscarriage must go to clinic to have mifepristone dispensed and thus risk exposure to viral transmission. 

What now?

The regulation of mifepristone—in spite of excellent safety and specifically for the narrow purpose of administration in the setting of abortion and miscarriage care—is by definition a discriminatory practice against patients and providers. As clinicians, we are duty-bound to speak out against injustices to our practices and our patients. At a local level, we can work to implement safe practices in the setting of this injunction and continue to work on a national level to ensure this injunction becomes permanent and with more broad scope to eliminate all of the REMS requirements for mifepristone.

ACTION ITEMS

• Act locally! Are you an abortion provider? Contact your local ACLU (find them here) or lawyer in your area for assistance navigating the legal landscape to prescribe after this injunction. 
• Act statewide! Press candidates in your state to stand up for science and data. Support legislative acts and bills that address combating discriminatory regulations.
• Act nationally! The President is responsible for appointing the Commissioner of the FDA and the Secretary of Health and Human Services (with Senate advice and consent). Who we elect matters. Seek out opportunities to become involved in increasing access to and awareness of voter registration and Election Day, and speak out against voter suppression. Make sure you are registered to vote here and check your area to review new recommendations amidst the pandemic.

Mifepristone is a safe, effective, and well-tolerated medication for managing miscarriage and for medical abortion when combined with misoprostol.^1,2 Since the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved its use in 2000, more than 4 million women have used this medication.³ The combination of mifepristone with misoprostol was used for 39% of all US abortions in 2017.⁴ Approximately 10% of all clinically recognized pregnancies end in miscarriages, and many are safely managed with either misoprostol alone or with the combination of mifepristone and misoprostol.⁵
 

The issue

The prescription and distribution of mifepristone is highly regulated by the FDA via requirements outlined in the Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS) drug safety program. The FDA may determine a REMS is necessary for a specific drug to ensure the benefits of a drug outweigh the potential risks. A REMS may include an informative package insert for patients, follow-up communication to prescribers—including letters, safety protocols or recommended laboratory tests, or Elements to Assure Safe Use (ETASU). ETASU are types of REMS that are placed on medications that have significant potential for serious adverse effects, and without such restrictions FDA approval would be rescinded.

Are mifepristone requirements fairly applied?

The 3 ETASU restrictions on the distribution of mifepristone are in-person dispensation, prescriber certification, and patient signatures on special forms.⁶ The in-person dispensing requirement is applied to only 16 other medications (one of which is Mifeprex, the brand version of mifepristone), and Mifeprex/mifepristone are the only ones deemed safe for self-administration—meaning that patients receive the drug from a clinic but then may take it at a site of their choosing. The prescriber certification requirement places expectations on providers to account for distribution of doses and keep records of serial numbers (in effect, having clinicians act as both physician and pharmacist, as most medications are distributed and recorded in pharmacies). The patient form was recommended for elimination in 2016 due to its duplicative information and burden on patients—a recommendation that was then overruled by the FDA commissioner.⁷

These 3 requirements placed on mifepristone specifically target dosages for use related to abortions and miscarriages. Mifepristone is used to treat other medical conditions, with much higher doses, without the same restrictions—in fact, the FDA has allowed much higher doses of mifepristone to be mailed directly to a patient when prescribed for different disorders. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) has long opposed the burdensome REMS requirements on mifepristone for reproductive health indications.⁸

Arguments regarding the safety of mifepristone must be understood in the context of how the medication is taken, and the unique difference with other medications that must be administered by physicians or in health care facilities. Mifepristone is self-administered, and the desired effect—evacuation of uterine contents—typically occurs after a patient takes the accompanying medication misoprostol, which is some 24 to 72 hours later. This timeframe makes it highly unlikely that any patient would be in the presence of their provider at the time of medication effect, thus an in-person dispensing requirement has no medical bearing on the outcome of the health of the patient. 

REMS changes during the COVID-19 pandemic

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has necessarily changed the structure of REMS and ETASU requirements for many medications, with changes made in order to mitigate viral transmission through the limitation of unnecessary visits to clinics or hospitals. The FDA announced in March of 2020 that it would not enforce pre-prescription requirements, such as laboratory or magnetic resonance imaging results, for many medications (including those more toxic than mifepristone), and that it would lift the requirement for in-person dispensation of several medications.⁹ Also in March 2020 the Department of Health and Human Services Secretary (HHS) and the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) activated a “telemedicine exception” to allow physicians to use telemedicine to satisfy mandatory requirements for prescribing controlled substances, including opioids.¹⁰

Despite repeated pleas from organizations, individuals, and physician groups, the FDA continued to enforce the REMS/ETASU for mifepristone as the pandemic decimated communities. Importantly, the pandemic has not had an equal effect on all communities, and the disparities highlighted in outcomes as related to COVID-19 are also reflected in disparities to access to reproductive choices.¹¹ By enforcing REMS/ETASU for mifepristone during a global pandemic, the FDA has placed additional burden on women and people who menstruate. As offices and clinics have closed, and as many jobs have evaporated, additional barriers have emerged, such as lack of childcare, fewer transportation options, and decreased clinic appointments. 

As the pandemic continues to affect communities in the United States, ACOG has issued guidance recommending assessment for eligibility for medical abortion remotely, and has encouraged the use of telemedicine and other remote interactions for its members and patients to limit transmission of the virus. 

The lawsuit

On May 27, 2020, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) (on behalf of ACOG, the Council of University Chairs of Obstetrics and Gynecology, New York State Academy of Family Physicians, SisterSong, and Honor MacNaughton, MD) filed a civil action against the FDA and HHS challenging the requirement for in-person dispensing of mifepristone and associated ETASU requirements during the COVID-19 pandemic. The plaintiffs sought this injunction based on the claim that these restrictions during the pandemic infringe on the constitutional rights to patients’ privacy and liberty and to equal protection of the law as protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Additionally, the ACLU and other organizations said these unnecessary restrictions place patients, providers, and staff at unnecessary risk of viral exposure amidst a global pandemic.

The verdict

On July 13, 2020, a federal court granted the preliminary injunction to suspend FDA’s enforcement of the in-person requirements of mifepristone for abortion during the COVID-19 pandemic. The court denied the motion for suspension of in-person restrictions as applied to miscarriage management. The preliminary injunction applies nationwide without geographic limitation. It will remain in effect until the end of the litigation or for 30 days following the expiration of the public health emergency.

What the outcome means

This injunction is a step in the right direction for patients and providers to allow for autonomy and clinical practice guided by clinician expertise. However, this ruling remains narrow. Patients must be counseled about mifepristone via telemedicine and sign a Patient Agreement Form, which must be returned electronically or by mail.  Patients must receive a copy of the mifepristone medication guide, and dispensing of mifepristone must still be conducted by or under the supervision of a certified provider. The medication may not be dispensed by retail pharmacies, thus requiring providers to arrange for mailing of prescriptions to patients. Given state-based legal statutes regarding mailing of medications, this injunction may not lead to an immediate increase in access to care. In addition, patients seeking management for miscarriage must go to clinic to have mifepristone dispensed and thus risk exposure to viral transmission. 

What now?

The regulation of mifepristone—in spite of excellent safety and specifically for the narrow purpose of administration in the setting of abortion and miscarriage care—is by definition a discriminatory practice against patients and providers. As clinicians, we are duty-bound to speak out against injustices to our practices and our patients. At a local level, we can work to implement safe practices in the setting of this injunction and continue to work on a national level to ensure this injunction becomes permanent and with more broad scope to eliminate all of the REMS requirements for mifepristone.

ACTION ITEMS

• Act locally! Are you an abortion provider? Contact your local ACLU (find them here) or lawyer in your area for assistance navigating the legal landscape to prescribe after this injunction. 
• Act statewide! Press candidates in your state to stand up for science and data. Support legislative acts and bills that address combating discriminatory regulations.
• Act nationally! The President is responsible for appointing the Commissioner of the FDA and the Secretary of Health and Human Services (with Senate advice and consent). Who we elect matters. Seek out opportunities to become involved in increasing access to and awareness of voter registration and Election Day, and speak out against voter suppression. Make sure you are registered to vote here and check your area to review new recommendations amidst the pandemic.

The emergence of the coronavirus severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection (COVID-19) in December 2019, has resulted in a global pandemic that has challenged the medical community and will continue to represent a public health emergency for the next several months.¹ It has rapidly spread globally, infecting many individuals in an unprecedented rate of infection and worldwide reach. On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization designated COVID-19 as a pandemic. While the majority of infected individuals are asymptomatic or develop only mild symptoms, some have an unfortunate clinical course resulting in multi-organ failure and death.²

It is accepted that the virus mainly spreads during close contact and via respiratory droplets.³ The average time from infection to onset of symptoms ranges from 2 to 14 days, with an average of 5 days.⁴ Recommended measures to prevent the spread of the infection include social distancing (at least 6 feet from others), meticulous hand hygiene, and wearing a mask covering the mouth and nose when in public.⁵ Aiming to mitigate the risk of viral dissemination for patients and health care providers, and to preserve hospital resources, all nonessential medical interventions were initially suspended. Recently, the American College of Surgeons in a joint statement with 9 women’s health care societies have provided recommendations on how to resume clinical activities as we recover from the pandemic.⁶

As we reinitiate clinical activities, gynecologists have been alerted of the potential risk of viral dissemination during gynecologic minimally invasive surgical procedures due to the presence of the virus in blood, stool, and the potential risk of aerosolization of the virus, especially when using smoke-generating devices.^7,8 This risk is not limited to intubation and extubation of the airway during anesthesia; the risk also presents itself during other aerosol-generating procedures, such as laparoscopy or robotic surgery.^9,10

Hysteroscopy is considered the gold standard procedure for the diagnosis and management of intrauterine pathologies.¹¹ It is frequently performed in an office setting without the use of anesthesia.^11,12 It is usually well tolerated, with only a few patients reporting discomfort.¹² It allows for immediate treatment (using the “see and treat” approach) while avoiding not only the risk of anesthesia, as stated, but also the need for intubation—which has a high risk of droplet contamination in COVID-19–infected individuals.¹³

Is there risk of viral dissemination during hysteroscopic procedures?

The novel and rapidly changing nature of the COVID-19 pandemic present many challenges to the gynecologist. Significant concerns have been raised regarding potential risk of viral dissemination during laparoscopic surgery due to aerosolization of viral particles and the presence of the virus in blood and the gastrointestinal tract of infected patients.⁷ Diagnostic, and some simple, hysteroscopic procedures are commonly performed in an outpatient setting, with the patient awake. Complex hysteroscopic interventions, however, are generally performed in the operating room, typically with the use of general anesthesia. Hysteroscopy has the theoretical risks of viral dissemination when performed in COVID-19–positive patients. Two important questions must be addressed to better understand the potential risk of COVID-19 viral dissemination during hysteroscopic procedures.

Continue to: 1. Is the virus present in the vaginal fluid of women infected with COVID-19?...

1. Is the virus present in the vaginal fluid of women infected with COVID-19?

Recent studies have confirmed the presence of viral particles in urine, feces, blood, and tears in addition to the respiratory tract in patients infected with COVID-19.^3,14,15 The presence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in the female genital system is currently unknown. Previous studies, of other epidemic viral infections, have demonstrated the presence of the virus in the female genital tract in affected patients of Zika virus and Ebola.^16,17 However, 2 recent studies have failed to demonstrate the presence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in the vaginal fluid of pregnant¹⁴ and not pregnant¹⁸ women with severe COVID-19 infection.

2. Is there risk of viral dissemination during hysteroscopy if using electrosurgery?

There are significant concerns with possible risk of COVID-19 transmission to health care providers in direct contact with infected patients during minimally invasive gynecologic procedures due to direct contamination and aerosolization of the virus.^10,19 Current data on COVID-19 transmission during surgery are limited. However, it is important to recognize that viral aerosolization has been documented with other viral diseases, such as human papillomavirus and hepatitis B.²⁰ A recent report called for awareness in the surgical community about the potential risks of COVID-19 viral dissemination during laparoscopic surgery. Among other recommendations, international experts advised minimizing the use of electrosurgery to reduce the creation of surgical plume, decreasing the pneumoperitoneum pressure to minimum levels, and using suction devices in a closed system.²¹ Although these preventive measures apply to laparoscopic surgery, it is important to consider that hysteroscopy is performed in a unique environment.

During hysteroscopy the uterine cavity is distended with a liquid medium (normal saline or electrolyte-free solutions); this is opposed to gynecologic laparoscopy, in which the peritoneal cavity is distended with carbon dioxide.²² The smoke produced with the use of hysteroscopic electrosurgical instruments generates bubbles that are immediately cooled down to the temperature of the distention media and subsequently dissolve into it. Therefore, there are no bubbles generated during hysteroscopic surgery that are subsequently released into the air. This results in a low risk for viral dissemination during hysteroscopic procedures. Nevertheless, the necessary precautions to minimize the risk of COVID-19 transmission during hysteroscopic intervention are extremely important.

Recommendations for hysteroscopic procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic

We provide our overall recommendations for hysteroscopy, as well as those specific to the office and hospital setting.

Recommendations: General

Limit hysteroscopic procedures to COVID-19–negative patients and to those patients in whom delaying the procedure could result in adverse clinical outcomes.²³

Universally screen for potential COVID-19 infection. When possible, a phone interview to triage patients based on their symptoms and infection exposure status should take place before the patient arrives to the health care center. Patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection who require immediate evaluation should be directed to COVID-19–designated emergency areas.

Universally test for SARS-CoV-2 before procedures performed in the operating room (OR). Using nasopharyngeal swabs for the detection of viral RNA, employing molecular methods such as polymerase chain reaction (PCR), within 48 to 72 hours prior to all OR hysteroscopic procedures is strongly recommended. Adopting this testing strategy will aid to identify asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2‒infected patients, allowing to defer the procedure, if possible, among patients testing positive. If tests are limited, testing only patients scheduled for hysteroscopic procedures in which general or regional anesthesia will be required is acceptable.

Universal SARS-CoV-2 testing of patients undergoing in-office hysteroscopic diagnostic or minor operative procedures without the use of anesthesia is not required.

Limit the presence of a companion. It is understood that visitor policies may vary at the discretion of each institution’s guidelines. Children and individuals over the age of 60 years should not be granted access to the center. Companions will be subjected to the same screening criteria as patients.

Provide for social distancing and other precautionary measures. If more than one patient is scheduled to be at the facility at the same time, ensure that the facility provides adequate space to allow the appropriate social distancing recommendations between patients. Hand sanitizers and facemasks should be available for patients and companions.

Provide PPE for clinicians. All health care providers in close contact with the patient must wear personal protective equipment (PPE), which includes an apron and gown, a surgical mask, eye protection, and gloves. Health care providers should wear PPE deemed appropriate by their regulatory institutions following their local and national guidelines during clinical patient interactions.

Restrict surgical attendees to vital personnel. The participation of learners by physical presence in the office or operating room should be restricted.

Continue to: Recommendations: Office setting...

Preprocedural recommendations

• Advise patients to come to the office alone. If the patient requires a companion, a maximum of one adult companion under the age of 60 should be accepted.
• Limit the number of health care team members present in the procedure room.

Intraprocedural recommendations

• Choose the appropriate device(s) that will allow for an effective and fast procedure.
• Use the recommended PPE for all clinicians.
• Limit the movement of staff members in and out of the procedure room.

Postprocedure recommendations

• When more than one case is scheduled to be performed in the same procedure room, allow enough time in between cases to grant a thorough OR decontamination.
• Allow for patients to recover from the procedure in the same room as the procedure took place in order to avoid potential contamination of multiple rooms.
• Expedite patient discharge.
• Follow up after the procedure by phone or telemedicine.
• Use standard endoscope disinfection procedures, as they are effective and should not be modified.

Continue to: Recommendations: Operating room setting...

Preprocedural recommendations

• Perform adequate patient screening for potential COVID-19 infection. (Screening should be independent of symptoms and not be limited to those with clinical symptoms.)
• Limit the number of health care team members in the operating procedure room.
• To minimize unnecessary staff exposure, have surgeons and staff not needed for intubation remain outside the OR until intubation is completed and leave the OR before extubation.

Intraprocedure recommendations

• Limit personnel in the OR to a minimum.
• Staff should not enter or leave the room during the procedure.
• When possible, use conscious sedation or regional anesthesia to avoid the risk of viral dissemination at the time of intubation/extubation.
• Choose the device that will allow an effective and fast procedure.
• Favor non–smoke-generating devices, such as hysteroscopic scissors, graspers, and tissue retrieval systems.
• Connect active suction to the outflow, especially when using smoke-generating instruments, to facilitate the extraction of surgical smoke.

Postprocedure recommendations

• When more than one case is scheduled to be performed in the same room, allow enough time in between cases to grant a thorough OR decontamination.
• Expedite postprocedure recovery and patient discharge.
• After completion of the procedure, staff should remove scrubs and change into clean clothing.
• Use standard endoscope disinfection procedures, as they are effective and should not be modified.

Conclusions

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused a global health emergency. Our knowledge of this devastating virus is constantly evolving as we continue to fight this overwhelming disease. Theoretical risk of “viral” dissemination is considered extremely low, or negligible, during hysterosocopy. Hysteroscopic procedures in COVID-19–positive patients with life-threatening conditions or in patients in whom delaying the procedure could worsen outcomes should be performed taking appropriate measures. Patients who test negative for COVID-19 (confirmed by PCR) and require hysteroscopic procedures, should be treated using universal precautions. ●

The emergence of the coronavirus severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection (COVID-19) in December 2019, has resulted in a global pandemic that has challenged the medical community and will continue to represent a public health emergency for the next several months.¹ It has rapidly spread globally, infecting many individuals in an unprecedented rate of infection and worldwide reach. On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization designated COVID-19 as a pandemic. While the majority of infected individuals are asymptomatic or develop only mild symptoms, some have an unfortunate clinical course resulting in multi-organ failure and death.²

It is accepted that the virus mainly spreads during close contact and via respiratory droplets.³ The average time from infection to onset of symptoms ranges from 2 to 14 days, with an average of 5 days.⁴ Recommended measures to prevent the spread of the infection include social distancing (at least 6 feet from others), meticulous hand hygiene, and wearing a mask covering the mouth and nose when in public.⁵ Aiming to mitigate the risk of viral dissemination for patients and health care providers, and to preserve hospital resources, all nonessential medical interventions were initially suspended. Recently, the American College of Surgeons in a joint statement with 9 women’s health care societies have provided recommendations on how to resume clinical activities as we recover from the pandemic.⁶

As we reinitiate clinical activities, gynecologists have been alerted of the potential risk of viral dissemination during gynecologic minimally invasive surgical procedures due to the presence of the virus in blood, stool, and the potential risk of aerosolization of the virus, especially when using smoke-generating devices.^7,8 This risk is not limited to intubation and extubation of the airway during anesthesia; the risk also presents itself during other aerosol-generating procedures, such as laparoscopy or robotic surgery.^9,10

Hysteroscopy is considered the gold standard procedure for the diagnosis and management of intrauterine pathologies.¹¹ It is frequently performed in an office setting without the use of anesthesia.^11,12 It is usually well tolerated, with only a few patients reporting discomfort.¹² It allows for immediate treatment (using the “see and treat” approach) while avoiding not only the risk of anesthesia, as stated, but also the need for intubation—which has a high risk of droplet contamination in COVID-19–infected individuals.¹³

Is there risk of viral dissemination during hysteroscopic procedures?

The novel and rapidly changing nature of the COVID-19 pandemic present many challenges to the gynecologist. Significant concerns have been raised regarding potential risk of viral dissemination during laparoscopic surgery due to aerosolization of viral particles and the presence of the virus in blood and the gastrointestinal tract of infected patients.⁷ Diagnostic, and some simple, hysteroscopic procedures are commonly performed in an outpatient setting, with the patient awake. Complex hysteroscopic interventions, however, are generally performed in the operating room, typically with the use of general anesthesia. Hysteroscopy has the theoretical risks of viral dissemination when performed in COVID-19–positive patients. Two important questions must be addressed to better understand the potential risk of COVID-19 viral dissemination during hysteroscopic procedures.

Continue to: 1. Is the virus present in the vaginal fluid of women infected with COVID-19?...

1. Is the virus present in the vaginal fluid of women infected with COVID-19?

Recent studies have confirmed the presence of viral particles in urine, feces, blood, and tears in addition to the respiratory tract in patients infected with COVID-19.^3,14,15 The presence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in the female genital system is currently unknown. Previous studies, of other epidemic viral infections, have demonstrated the presence of the virus in the female genital tract in affected patients of Zika virus and Ebola.^16,17 However, 2 recent studies have failed to demonstrate the presence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in the vaginal fluid of pregnant¹⁴ and not pregnant¹⁸ women with severe COVID-19 infection.

2. Is there risk of viral dissemination during hysteroscopy if using electrosurgery?

There are significant concerns with possible risk of COVID-19 transmission to health care providers in direct contact with infected patients during minimally invasive gynecologic procedures due to direct contamination and aerosolization of the virus.^10,19 Current data on COVID-19 transmission during surgery are limited. However, it is important to recognize that viral aerosolization has been documented with other viral diseases, such as human papillomavirus and hepatitis B.²⁰ A recent report called for awareness in the surgical community about the potential risks of COVID-19 viral dissemination during laparoscopic surgery. Among other recommendations, international experts advised minimizing the use of electrosurgery to reduce the creation of surgical plume, decreasing the pneumoperitoneum pressure to minimum levels, and using suction devices in a closed system.²¹ Although these preventive measures apply to laparoscopic surgery, it is important to consider that hysteroscopy is performed in a unique environment.

During hysteroscopy the uterine cavity is distended with a liquid medium (normal saline or electrolyte-free solutions); this is opposed to gynecologic laparoscopy, in which the peritoneal cavity is distended with carbon dioxide.²² The smoke produced with the use of hysteroscopic electrosurgical instruments generates bubbles that are immediately cooled down to the temperature of the distention media and subsequently dissolve into it. Therefore, there are no bubbles generated during hysteroscopic surgery that are subsequently released into the air. This results in a low risk for viral dissemination during hysteroscopic procedures. Nevertheless, the necessary precautions to minimize the risk of COVID-19 transmission during hysteroscopic intervention are extremely important.

Recommendations for hysteroscopic procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic

We provide our overall recommendations for hysteroscopy, as well as those specific to the office and hospital setting.

Recommendations: General

Limit hysteroscopic procedures to COVID-19–negative patients and to those patients in whom delaying the procedure could result in adverse clinical outcomes.²³

Universally screen for potential COVID-19 infection. When possible, a phone interview to triage patients based on their symptoms and infection exposure status should take place before the patient arrives to the health care center. Patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection who require immediate evaluation should be directed to COVID-19–designated emergency areas.

Universally test for SARS-CoV-2 before procedures performed in the operating room (OR). Using nasopharyngeal swabs for the detection of viral RNA, employing molecular methods such as polymerase chain reaction (PCR), within 48 to 72 hours prior to all OR hysteroscopic procedures is strongly recommended. Adopting this testing strategy will aid to identify asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2‒infected patients, allowing to defer the procedure, if possible, among patients testing positive. If tests are limited, testing only patients scheduled for hysteroscopic procedures in which general or regional anesthesia will be required is acceptable.

Universal SARS-CoV-2 testing of patients undergoing in-office hysteroscopic diagnostic or minor operative procedures without the use of anesthesia is not required.

Limit the presence of a companion. It is understood that visitor policies may vary at the discretion of each institution’s guidelines. Children and individuals over the age of 60 years should not be granted access to the center. Companions will be subjected to the same screening criteria as patients.

Provide for social distancing and other precautionary measures. If more than one patient is scheduled to be at the facility at the same time, ensure that the facility provides adequate space to allow the appropriate social distancing recommendations between patients. Hand sanitizers and facemasks should be available for patients and companions.

Provide PPE for clinicians. All health care providers in close contact with the patient must wear personal protective equipment (PPE), which includes an apron and gown, a surgical mask, eye protection, and gloves. Health care providers should wear PPE deemed appropriate by their regulatory institutions following their local and national guidelines during clinical patient interactions.

Restrict surgical attendees to vital personnel. The participation of learners by physical presence in the office or operating room should be restricted.

Continue to: Recommendations: Office setting...

Preprocedural recommendations

• Advise patients to come to the office alone. If the patient requires a companion, a maximum of one adult companion under the age of 60 should be accepted.
• Limit the number of health care team members present in the procedure room.

Intraprocedural recommendations

• Choose the appropriate device(s) that will allow for an effective and fast procedure.
• Use the recommended PPE for all clinicians.
• Limit the movement of staff members in and out of the procedure room.

Postprocedure recommendations

• When more than one case is scheduled to be performed in the same procedure room, allow enough time in between cases to grant a thorough OR decontamination.
• Allow for patients to recover from the procedure in the same room as the procedure took place in order to avoid potential contamination of multiple rooms.
• Expedite patient discharge.
• Follow up after the procedure by phone or telemedicine.
• Use standard endoscope disinfection procedures, as they are effective and should not be modified.

Continue to: Recommendations: Operating room setting...

Preprocedural recommendations

• Perform adequate patient screening for potential COVID-19 infection. (Screening should be independent of symptoms and not be limited to those with clinical symptoms.)
• Limit the number of health care team members in the operating procedure room.
• To minimize unnecessary staff exposure, have surgeons and staff not needed for intubation remain outside the OR until intubation is completed and leave the OR before extubation.

Intraprocedure recommendations

• Limit personnel in the OR to a minimum.
• Staff should not enter or leave the room during the procedure.
• When possible, use conscious sedation or regional anesthesia to avoid the risk of viral dissemination at the time of intubation/extubation.
• Choose the device that will allow an effective and fast procedure.
• Favor non–smoke-generating devices, such as hysteroscopic scissors, graspers, and tissue retrieval systems.
• Connect active suction to the outflow, especially when using smoke-generating instruments, to facilitate the extraction of surgical smoke.

Postprocedure recommendations

• When more than one case is scheduled to be performed in the same room, allow enough time in between cases to grant a thorough OR decontamination.
• Expedite postprocedure recovery and patient discharge.
• After completion of the procedure, staff should remove scrubs and change into clean clothing.
• Use standard endoscope disinfection procedures, as they are effective and should not be modified.

Conclusions

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused a global health emergency. Our knowledge of this devastating virus is constantly evolving as we continue to fight this overwhelming disease. Theoretical risk of “viral” dissemination is considered extremely low, or negligible, during hysterosocopy. Hysteroscopic procedures in COVID-19–positive patients with life-threatening conditions or in patients in whom delaying the procedure could worsen outcomes should be performed taking appropriate measures. Patients who test negative for COVID-19 (confirmed by PCR) and require hysteroscopic procedures, should be treated using universal precautions. ●

The emergence of the coronavirus severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection (COVID-19) in December 2019, has resulted in a global pandemic that has challenged the medical community and will continue to represent a public health emergency for the next several months.¹ It has rapidly spread globally, infecting many individuals in an unprecedented rate of infection and worldwide reach. On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization designated COVID-19 as a pandemic. While the majority of infected individuals are asymptomatic or develop only mild symptoms, some have an unfortunate clinical course resulting in multi-organ failure and death.²

It is accepted that the virus mainly spreads during close contact and via respiratory droplets.³ The average time from infection to onset of symptoms ranges from 2 to 14 days, with an average of 5 days.⁴ Recommended measures to prevent the spread of the infection include social distancing (at least 6 feet from others), meticulous hand hygiene, and wearing a mask covering the mouth and nose when in public.⁵ Aiming to mitigate the risk of viral dissemination for patients and health care providers, and to preserve hospital resources, all nonessential medical interventions were initially suspended. Recently, the American College of Surgeons in a joint statement with 9 women’s health care societies have provided recommendations on how to resume clinical activities as we recover from the pandemic.⁶

As we reinitiate clinical activities, gynecologists have been alerted of the potential risk of viral dissemination during gynecologic minimally invasive surgical procedures due to the presence of the virus in blood, stool, and the potential risk of aerosolization of the virus, especially when using smoke-generating devices.^7,8 This risk is not limited to intubation and extubation of the airway during anesthesia; the risk also presents itself during other aerosol-generating procedures, such as laparoscopy or robotic surgery.^9,10

Hysteroscopy is considered the gold standard procedure for the diagnosis and management of intrauterine pathologies.¹¹ It is frequently performed in an office setting without the use of anesthesia.^11,12 It is usually well tolerated, with only a few patients reporting discomfort.¹² It allows for immediate treatment (using the “see and treat” approach) while avoiding not only the risk of anesthesia, as stated, but also the need for intubation—which has a high risk of droplet contamination in COVID-19–infected individuals.¹³

Is there risk of viral dissemination during hysteroscopic procedures?

The novel and rapidly changing nature of the COVID-19 pandemic present many challenges to the gynecologist. Significant concerns have been raised regarding potential risk of viral dissemination during laparoscopic surgery due to aerosolization of viral particles and the presence of the virus in blood and the gastrointestinal tract of infected patients.⁷ Diagnostic, and some simple, hysteroscopic procedures are commonly performed in an outpatient setting, with the patient awake. Complex hysteroscopic interventions, however, are generally performed in the operating room, typically with the use of general anesthesia. Hysteroscopy has the theoretical risks of viral dissemination when performed in COVID-19–positive patients. Two important questions must be addressed to better understand the potential risk of COVID-19 viral dissemination during hysteroscopic procedures.

Continue to: 1. Is the virus present in the vaginal fluid of women infected with COVID-19?...

1. Is the virus present in the vaginal fluid of women infected with COVID-19?

Recent studies have confirmed the presence of viral particles in urine, feces, blood, and tears in addition to the respiratory tract in patients infected with COVID-19.^3,14,15 The presence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in the female genital system is currently unknown. Previous studies, of other epidemic viral infections, have demonstrated the presence of the virus in the female genital tract in affected patients of Zika virus and Ebola.^16,17 However, 2 recent studies have failed to demonstrate the presence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in the vaginal fluid of pregnant¹⁴ and not pregnant¹⁸ women with severe COVID-19 infection.

2. Is there risk of viral dissemination during hysteroscopy if using electrosurgery?

There are significant concerns with possible risk of COVID-19 transmission to health care providers in direct contact with infected patients during minimally invasive gynecologic procedures due to direct contamination and aerosolization of the virus.^10,19 Current data on COVID-19 transmission during surgery are limited. However, it is important to recognize that viral aerosolization has been documented with other viral diseases, such as human papillomavirus and hepatitis B.²⁰ A recent report called for awareness in the surgical community about the potential risks of COVID-19 viral dissemination during laparoscopic surgery. Among other recommendations, international experts advised minimizing the use of electrosurgery to reduce the creation of surgical plume, decreasing the pneumoperitoneum pressure to minimum levels, and using suction devices in a closed system.²¹ Although these preventive measures apply to laparoscopic surgery, it is important to consider that hysteroscopy is performed in a unique environment.

During hysteroscopy the uterine cavity is distended with a liquid medium (normal saline or electrolyte-free solutions); this is opposed to gynecologic laparoscopy, in which the peritoneal cavity is distended with carbon dioxide.²² The smoke produced with the use of hysteroscopic electrosurgical instruments generates bubbles that are immediately cooled down to the temperature of the distention media and subsequently dissolve into it. Therefore, there are no bubbles generated during hysteroscopic surgery that are subsequently released into the air. This results in a low risk for viral dissemination during hysteroscopic procedures. Nevertheless, the necessary precautions to minimize the risk of COVID-19 transmission during hysteroscopic intervention are extremely important.

Recommendations for hysteroscopic procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic

We provide our overall recommendations for hysteroscopy, as well as those specific to the office and hospital setting.

Recommendations: General

Limit hysteroscopic procedures to COVID-19–negative patients and to those patients in whom delaying the procedure could result in adverse clinical outcomes.²³

Universally screen for potential COVID-19 infection. When possible, a phone interview to triage patients based on their symptoms and infection exposure status should take place before the patient arrives to the health care center. Patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection who require immediate evaluation should be directed to COVID-19–designated emergency areas.

Universally test for SARS-CoV-2 before procedures performed in the operating room (OR). Using nasopharyngeal swabs for the detection of viral RNA, employing molecular methods such as polymerase chain reaction (PCR), within 48 to 72 hours prior to all OR hysteroscopic procedures is strongly recommended. Adopting this testing strategy will aid to identify asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2‒infected patients, allowing to defer the procedure, if possible, among patients testing positive. If tests are limited, testing only patients scheduled for hysteroscopic procedures in which general or regional anesthesia will be required is acceptable.

Universal SARS-CoV-2 testing of patients undergoing in-office hysteroscopic diagnostic or minor operative procedures without the use of anesthesia is not required.

Limit the presence of a companion. It is understood that visitor policies may vary at the discretion of each institution’s guidelines. Children and individuals over the age of 60 years should not be granted access to the center. Companions will be subjected to the same screening criteria as patients.

Provide for social distancing and other precautionary measures. If more than one patient is scheduled to be at the facility at the same time, ensure that the facility provides adequate space to allow the appropriate social distancing recommendations between patients. Hand sanitizers and facemasks should be available for patients and companions.

Provide PPE for clinicians. All health care providers in close contact with the patient must wear personal protective equipment (PPE), which includes an apron and gown, a surgical mask, eye protection, and gloves. Health care providers should wear PPE deemed appropriate by their regulatory institutions following their local and national guidelines during clinical patient interactions.

Restrict surgical attendees to vital personnel. The participation of learners by physical presence in the office or operating room should be restricted.

Continue to: Recommendations: Office setting...

Preprocedural recommendations

• Advise patients to come to the office alone. If the patient requires a companion, a maximum of one adult companion under the age of 60 should be accepted.
• Limit the number of health care team members present in the procedure room.

Intraprocedural recommendations

• Choose the appropriate device(s) that will allow for an effective and fast procedure.
• Use the recommended PPE for all clinicians.
• Limit the movement of staff members in and out of the procedure room.

Postprocedure recommendations

• When more than one case is scheduled to be performed in the same procedure room, allow enough time in between cases to grant a thorough OR decontamination.
• Allow for patients to recover from the procedure in the same room as the procedure took place in order to avoid potential contamination of multiple rooms.
• Expedite patient discharge.
• Follow up after the procedure by phone or telemedicine.
• Use standard endoscope disinfection procedures, as they are effective and should not be modified.

Continue to: Recommendations: Operating room setting...

Preprocedural recommendations

• Perform adequate patient screening for potential COVID-19 infection. (Screening should be independent of symptoms and not be limited to those with clinical symptoms.)
• Limit the number of health care team members in the operating procedure room.
• To minimize unnecessary staff exposure, have surgeons and staff not needed for intubation remain outside the OR until intubation is completed and leave the OR before extubation.

Intraprocedure recommendations

• Limit personnel in the OR to a minimum.
• Staff should not enter or leave the room during the procedure.
• When possible, use conscious sedation or regional anesthesia to avoid the risk of viral dissemination at the time of intubation/extubation.
• Choose the device that will allow an effective and fast procedure.
• Favor non–smoke-generating devices, such as hysteroscopic scissors, graspers, and tissue retrieval systems.
• Connect active suction to the outflow, especially when using smoke-generating instruments, to facilitate the extraction of surgical smoke.

Postprocedure recommendations

• When more than one case is scheduled to be performed in the same room, allow enough time in between cases to grant a thorough OR decontamination.
• Expedite postprocedure recovery and patient discharge.
• After completion of the procedure, staff should remove scrubs and change into clean clothing.
• Use standard endoscope disinfection procedures, as they are effective and should not be modified.

Conclusions

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused a global health emergency. Our knowledge of this devastating virus is constantly evolving as we continue to fight this overwhelming disease. Theoretical risk of “viral” dissemination is considered extremely low, or negligible, during hysterosocopy. Hysteroscopic procedures in COVID-19–positive patients with life-threatening conditions or in patients in whom delaying the procedure could worsen outcomes should be performed taking appropriate measures. Patients who test negative for COVID-19 (confirmed by PCR) and require hysteroscopic procedures, should be treated using universal precautions. ●

When an ovarian mass is anticipated or known, following evaluation of a patient’s history and physician examination, imaging via transvaginal and often abdominal ultrasound is the very next step. This evaluation likely will include both gray-scale and color Doppler examination. The initial concern always must be to identify ovarian malignancy.

Despite morphological scoring systems as well as the use of Doppler ultrasonography, there remains a lack of agreement and acceptance. In a 2008 multicenter study, Timmerman and colleagues evaluated 1,066 patients with 1,233 persistent adnexal tumors via transvaginal grayscale and Doppler ultrasound; 73% were benign tumors, and 27% were malignant tumors. Information on 42 gray-scale ultrasound variables and 6 Doppler variables was collected and evaluated to determine which variables had the highest positive predictive value for a malignant tumor and for a benign mass (Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2008 Jun. doi: 10.1002/uog.5365).

Five simple rules were selected that best predict malignancy (M-rules), as follows:

• Irregular solid tumor.
• Ascites.
• At least four papillary projections.
• Irregular multilocular-solid tumor with a greatest diameter greater than or equal to 10 cm.
• Very high color content on Doppler exam.

The following five simple rules suggested that a mass is benign (B-rules):

• Unilocular cyst.
• Largest solid component less than 7 mm.
• Acoustic shadows.
• Smooth multilocular tumor less than 10 cm.
• No detectable blood flow with Doppler exam.

Unfortunately, despite a sensitivity of 93% and specificity of 90%, and a positive and negative predictive value of 80% and 97%, these 10 simple rules were applicable to only 76% of tumors.

To assist those of us who are not gynecologic oncologists and who are often faced with having to determine whether surgery is recommended, I have elicited the expertise of Jubilee Brown, MD, professor and associate director of gynecologic oncology at the Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, in Charlotte, N.C., and the current president of the AAGL, to lead us in a review of evaluating an ovarian mass.
 

Dr. Miller is professor of obstetrics & gynecology in the department of clinical sciences, Rosalind Franklin University, North Chicago, Ill., and director of minimally invasive gynecologic surgery at Advocate Lutheran General Hospital, Park Ridge, both in Illinois. Email him at [email protected].

When an ovarian mass is anticipated or known, following evaluation of a patient’s history and physician examination, imaging via transvaginal and often abdominal ultrasound is the very next step. This evaluation likely will include both gray-scale and color Doppler examination. The initial concern always must be to identify ovarian malignancy.

Despite morphological scoring systems as well as the use of Doppler ultrasonography, there remains a lack of agreement and acceptance. In a 2008 multicenter study, Timmerman and colleagues evaluated 1,066 patients with 1,233 persistent adnexal tumors via transvaginal grayscale and Doppler ultrasound; 73% were benign tumors, and 27% were malignant tumors. Information on 42 gray-scale ultrasound variables and 6 Doppler variables was collected and evaluated to determine which variables had the highest positive predictive value for a malignant tumor and for a benign mass (Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2008 Jun. doi: 10.1002/uog.5365).

Five simple rules were selected that best predict malignancy (M-rules), as follows:

• Irregular solid tumor.
• Ascites.
• At least four papillary projections.
• Irregular multilocular-solid tumor with a greatest diameter greater than or equal to 10 cm.
• Very high color content on Doppler exam.

The following five simple rules suggested that a mass is benign (B-rules):

• Unilocular cyst.
• Largest solid component less than 7 mm.
• Acoustic shadows.
• Smooth multilocular tumor less than 10 cm.
• No detectable blood flow with Doppler exam.

Unfortunately, despite a sensitivity of 93% and specificity of 90%, and a positive and negative predictive value of 80% and 97%, these 10 simple rules were applicable to only 76% of tumors.

To assist those of us who are not gynecologic oncologists and who are often faced with having to determine whether surgery is recommended, I have elicited the expertise of Jubilee Brown, MD, professor and associate director of gynecologic oncology at the Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, in Charlotte, N.C., and the current president of the AAGL, to lead us in a review of evaluating an ovarian mass.
 

Dr. Miller is professor of obstetrics & gynecology in the department of clinical sciences, Rosalind Franklin University, North Chicago, Ill., and director of minimally invasive gynecologic surgery at Advocate Lutheran General Hospital, Park Ridge, both in Illinois. Email him at [email protected].

When an ovarian mass is anticipated or known, following evaluation of a patient’s history and physician examination, imaging via transvaginal and often abdominal ultrasound is the very next step. This evaluation likely will include both gray-scale and color Doppler examination. The initial concern always must be to identify ovarian malignancy.

Despite morphological scoring systems as well as the use of Doppler ultrasonography, there remains a lack of agreement and acceptance. In a 2008 multicenter study, Timmerman and colleagues evaluated 1,066 patients with 1,233 persistent adnexal tumors via transvaginal grayscale and Doppler ultrasound; 73% were benign tumors, and 27% were malignant tumors. Information on 42 gray-scale ultrasound variables and 6 Doppler variables was collected and evaluated to determine which variables had the highest positive predictive value for a malignant tumor and for a benign mass (Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2008 Jun. doi: 10.1002/uog.5365).

Five simple rules were selected that best predict malignancy (M-rules), as follows:

• Irregular solid tumor.
• Ascites.
• At least four papillary projections.
• Irregular multilocular-solid tumor with a greatest diameter greater than or equal to 10 cm.
• Very high color content on Doppler exam.

The following five simple rules suggested that a mass is benign (B-rules):

• Unilocular cyst.
• Largest solid component less than 7 mm.
• Acoustic shadows.
• Smooth multilocular tumor less than 10 cm.
• No detectable blood flow with Doppler exam.

Unfortunately, despite a sensitivity of 93% and specificity of 90%, and a positive and negative predictive value of 80% and 97%, these 10 simple rules were applicable to only 76% of tumors.

To assist those of us who are not gynecologic oncologists and who are often faced with having to determine whether surgery is recommended, I have elicited the expertise of Jubilee Brown, MD, professor and associate director of gynecologic oncology at the Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, in Charlotte, N.C., and the current president of the AAGL, to lead us in a review of evaluating an ovarian mass.
 

Dr. Miller is professor of obstetrics & gynecology in the department of clinical sciences, Rosalind Franklin University, North Chicago, Ill., and director of minimally invasive gynecologic surgery at Advocate Lutheran General Hospital, Park Ridge, both in Illinois. Email him at [email protected].

Ovarian masses are common in women of all ages. It is important not to miss even one ovarian cancer, but we must also identify masses that will resolve on their own over time to avoid overtreatment. These concurrent goals of excluding malignancy while not overtreating patients are the basis for management of the pelvic mass. Additionally, fertility preservation is important when surgery is performed in a reproductive-aged woman.

An ovarian mass may be anything from a simple functional or physiologic cyst to an endometrioma to an epithelial carcinoma, a germ-cell tumor, or a stromal tumor (the latter three of which may metastasize). Across the general population, women have a 5%-10% lifetime risk of needing surgery for a suspected ovarian mass and a 1.4% (1 in 70) risk that this mass is cancerous. The majority of ovarian cysts or masses therefore are benign.

A thorough history – including family history – and physical examination with appropriate laboratory testing and directed imaging are important first steps for the ob.gyn. Fortunately, we have guidelines and criteria governing not only when observation or surgery is warranted but also when patients should be referred to a gynecologic oncologist. By following these guidelines,¹ we are able to achieve the best outcomes.
 

Transvaginal ultrasound

A 2007 groundbreaking study led by Barbara Goff, MD, demonstrated that there are warning signs for ovarian cancer – symptoms that are significantly associated with malignancy. Dr. Goff and her coinvestigators evaluated the charts of hundreds of patients, including about 150 with ovarian cancer, and found that pelvic/abdominal pressure or pain, bloating, increase in abdominal size, and difficulty eating or feeling full were significantly and independently associated with cancer if these symptoms were present for less than a year and occurred at least 12 times per month.²

A pelvic examination is an integral part of evaluating every patient who has such concerns. That said, pelvic exams have limited ability to identify adnexal masses, especially in women who are obese – and that’s where imaging becomes especially important.

Masses generally can be considered simple or complex based on their appearance. A simple cyst is fluid-filled with thin, smooth walls and the absence of solid components or septations; it is significantly more likely to resolve on its own and is less likely to imply malignancy than a complex cyst, especially in a premenopausal woman. A complex cyst is multiseptated and/or solid – possibly with papillary projections – and is more concerning, especially if there is increased, new vascularity. Making this distinction helps us determine the risk of malignancy.

Transvaginal ultrasound (TVUS) is the preferred method for imaging, and our threshold for obtaining a TVUS should be very low. Women who have symptoms or concerns that can’t be attributed to a particular condition, and women in whom a mass can be palpated (even if asymptomatic) should have a TVUS. The imaging modality is cost effective and well tolerated by patients, does not expose the patient to ionizing radiation, and should generally be considered first-line imaging.^3,4

Size is not predictive of malignancy, but it is important for determining whether surgery is warranted. In our experience, a mass of 8-10 cm or larger on TVUS is at risk of torsion and is unlikely to resolve on its own, even in a premenopausal woman. While large masses generally require surgery, patients of any age who have simple cysts smaller than 8-10 cm generally can be followed with serial exams and ultrasound; spontaneous regression is common.

Doppler ultrasonography is useful for evaluating blood flow in and around an ovarian mass and can be helpful for confirming suspected characteristics of a mass.

Recent studies from the radiology community have looked at the utility of the resistive index – a measure of the impedance and velocity of blood flow – as a predictor of ovarian malignancy. However, we caution against using Doppler to determine whether a mass is benign or malignant, or to determine the necessity of surgery. An abnormal ovary may have what is considered to be a normal resistive index, and the resistive index of a normal ovary may fall within the abnormal range. Doppler flow can be helpful, but it must be combined with other predictive features, like solid components with flow or papillary projections within a cyst, to define a decision about surgery.^4,5

Magnetic resonance imaging can be useful in differentiating a fibroid from an ovarian mass, and a CT scan can be helpful in looking for disseminated disease when ovarian cancer is suspected based on ultrasound imaging, physical and history, and serum markers. A CT is useful, for instance, in a patient whose ovary is distended with ascites or who has upper abdominal complaints and a complex cyst. CT, PET, and MRI are not recommended in the initial evaluation of an ovarian mass.

The utility of serum biomarkers

Cancer antigen 125 (CA-125) testing may be helpful – in combination with other findings – for decision-making regarding the likelihood of malignancy and the need to refer patients. CA-125 is like Doppler in that a normal CA-125 cannot eliminate the possibility of cancer, and an abnormal CA-125 does not in and of itself imply malignancy. It’s far from a perfect cancer screening test.

CA-125 is a protein associated with epithelial ovarian malignancies, the type of ovarian cancer most commonly seen in postmenopausal women with genetic predispositions. Its specificity and positive predictive value are much higher in postmenopausal women than in average-risk premenopausal women (those without a family history or a known mutation that predisposes them to ovarian cancer). Levels of the marker are elevated in association with many nonmalignant conditions in premenopausal women – endometriosis, fibroids, and various inflammatory conditions, for instance – so the marker’s utility in this population is limited.

For women who have a family history of ovarian cancer or a known breast cancer gene 1 (BRCA1) or BRCA2 mutation, there are some data that suggest that monitoring with CA-125 measurements and TVUS may be a good approach to following patients prior to the age at which risk-reducing surgery can best be performed.

In an adolescent girl or a woman of reproductive age, we think less about epithelial cancer and more about germ-cell and stromal tumors. When a solid mass is palpated or visualized on imaging, we therefore will utilize a different set of markers; alpha-fetoprotein, L-lactate dehydrogenase, and beta-HCG, for instance, have much higher specificity than CA-125 does for germ-cell tumors in this age group and may be helpful in the evaluation. Similarly, in cases of a very large mass resembling a mucinous tumor, a carcinoembryonic antigen may be helpful.

A number of proprietary profiling technologies have been developed to determine the risk of a diagnosed mass being malignant. For instance, the OVA1 assay looks at five serum markers and scores the results, and the Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA) combines the results of three serum markers with menopausal status into a numerical score. Both have Food and Drug Administration approval for use in women in whom surgery has been deemed necessary. These panels can be fairly predictive of risk and may be helpful – especially in rural areas – in determining which women should be referred to a gynecologic oncologist for surgery.

It is important to appreciate that an ovarian cyst or mass should never be biopsied or aspirated lest a malignant tumor confined to one ovary be potentially spread to the peritoneum.
 

Referral to a gynecologic oncologist

Postmenopausal women with a CA-125 greater than 35 U/mL should be referred, as should postmenopausal women with ascites, those with a nodular or fixed pelvic mass, and those with suspected abdominal or distant metastases (per a CT scan, for instance).

In premenopausal women, ascites, a nodular or fixed mass, and evidence of metastases also are reasons for referral to a gynecologic oncologist. CA-125, again, is much more likely to be elevated for reasons other than malignancy and therefore is not as strong a driver for referral as in postmenopausal women. Patients with markedly elevated levels, however, should probably be referred – particularly when other clinical factors also suggest the need for consultation. While there is no evidence-based threshold for CA-125 in premenopausal women, a CA-125 greater than 200 U/mL is a good cutoff for referral.

For any patient, family history of breast and/or ovarian cancer – especially in a first-degree relative – raises the risk of malignancy and should figure prominently into decision-making regarding referral. Criteria for referral are among the points discussed in the ACOG 2016 Practice Bulletin on Evaluation and Management of Adnexal Masses.¹

A note on BRCA mutations

As the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists says in its practice bulletin, the most important personal risk factor for ovarian cancer is a strong family history of breast or ovarian cancer. Women with such a family history can undergo genetic testing for BRCA mutations and have the opportunity to prevent ovarian cancers when mutations are detected. This simple blood test can save lives.

A modeling study we recently completed – not yet published – shows that it actually would be cost effective to do population screening with BRCA testing performed on every woman at age 30 years.

According to the National Cancer Institute website (last review: 2018), it is estimated that about 44% of women who inherit a BRCA1 mutation, and about 17% of those who inherit a BRAC2 mutation, will develop ovarian cancer by the age of 80 years. By identifying those mutations, women may undergo risk-reducing surgery at designated ages after childbearing is complete and bring their risk down to under 5%.

An international take on managing adnexal masses

• Pelvic ultrasound should include the transvaginal approach. Use Doppler imaging as indicated.
• Although simple ovarian cysts are not precursor lesions to a malignant ovarian cancer, perform a high-quality examination to make sure there are no solid/papillary structures before classifying a cyst as a simple cyst. The risk of progression to malignancy is extremely low, but some follow-up is prudent.
• The most accurate method of characterizing an ovarian mass currently is real-time pattern recognition sonography in the hands of an experienced imager.
• Pattern recognition sonography or a risk model such as the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) Simple Rules can be used to initially characterize an ovarian mass.
• When an ovarian lesion is classified as benign, the patient may be followed conservatively, or if indicated, surgery can be performed by a general gynecologist.
• Serial sonography can be beneficial, but there are limited prospective data to support an exact interval and duration.
• Fewer surgical interventions may result in an increase in sonographic surveillance.
• When an ovarian lesion is considered indeterminate on initial sonography, and after appropriate clinical evaluation, a “second-step” evaluation may include referral to an expert sonologist, serial sonography, application of established risk-prediction models, correlation with serum biomarkers, correlation with MRI, or referral to a gynecologic oncologist for further evaluation.

From the First International Consensus Report on Adnexal Masses: Management Recommendations

Source: Glanc P et al. J Ultrasound Med. 2017 May;36(5):849-63.

Dr. Brown reported that she had received an earlier grant from Aspira Labs, the company that developed the OVA1 assay. Dr. Miller reported that he has no relevant financial disclosures.

References

1. Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Nov. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000001768.

2. Cancer. 2007 Jan 15. doi: 10.1002/cncr.22371.

3. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Mar. doi: 10.1097/GRF.0000000000000083.

4. Ultrasound Q. 2013 Mar. doi: 10.1097/RUQ.0b013e3182814d9b.

5. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2008 Jun. doi: 10.1002/uog.5365.

Ovarian masses are common in women of all ages. It is important not to miss even one ovarian cancer, but we must also identify masses that will resolve on their own over time to avoid overtreatment. These concurrent goals of excluding malignancy while not overtreating patients are the basis for management of the pelvic mass. Additionally, fertility preservation is important when surgery is performed in a reproductive-aged woman.

An ovarian mass may be anything from a simple functional or physiologic cyst to an endometrioma to an epithelial carcinoma, a germ-cell tumor, or a stromal tumor (the latter three of which may metastasize). Across the general population, women have a 5%-10% lifetime risk of needing surgery for a suspected ovarian mass and a 1.4% (1 in 70) risk that this mass is cancerous. The majority of ovarian cysts or masses therefore are benign.

A thorough history – including family history – and physical examination with appropriate laboratory testing and directed imaging are important first steps for the ob.gyn. Fortunately, we have guidelines and criteria governing not only when observation or surgery is warranted but also when patients should be referred to a gynecologic oncologist. By following these guidelines,¹ we are able to achieve the best outcomes.
 

Transvaginal ultrasound

A 2007 groundbreaking study led by Barbara Goff, MD, demonstrated that there are warning signs for ovarian cancer – symptoms that are significantly associated with malignancy. Dr. Goff and her coinvestigators evaluated the charts of hundreds of patients, including about 150 with ovarian cancer, and found that pelvic/abdominal pressure or pain, bloating, increase in abdominal size, and difficulty eating or feeling full were significantly and independently associated with cancer if these symptoms were present for less than a year and occurred at least 12 times per month.²

A pelvic examination is an integral part of evaluating every patient who has such concerns. That said, pelvic exams have limited ability to identify adnexal masses, especially in women who are obese – and that’s where imaging becomes especially important.

Masses generally can be considered simple or complex based on their appearance. A simple cyst is fluid-filled with thin, smooth walls and the absence of solid components or septations; it is significantly more likely to resolve on its own and is less likely to imply malignancy than a complex cyst, especially in a premenopausal woman. A complex cyst is multiseptated and/or solid – possibly with papillary projections – and is more concerning, especially if there is increased, new vascularity. Making this distinction helps us determine the risk of malignancy.

Transvaginal ultrasound (TVUS) is the preferred method for imaging, and our threshold for obtaining a TVUS should be very low. Women who have symptoms or concerns that can’t be attributed to a particular condition, and women in whom a mass can be palpated (even if asymptomatic) should have a TVUS. The imaging modality is cost effective and well tolerated by patients, does not expose the patient to ionizing radiation, and should generally be considered first-line imaging.^3,4

Size is not predictive of malignancy, but it is important for determining whether surgery is warranted. In our experience, a mass of 8-10 cm or larger on TVUS is at risk of torsion and is unlikely to resolve on its own, even in a premenopausal woman. While large masses generally require surgery, patients of any age who have simple cysts smaller than 8-10 cm generally can be followed with serial exams and ultrasound; spontaneous regression is common.

Doppler ultrasonography is useful for evaluating blood flow in and around an ovarian mass and can be helpful for confirming suspected characteristics of a mass.

Recent studies from the radiology community have looked at the utility of the resistive index – a measure of the impedance and velocity of blood flow – as a predictor of ovarian malignancy. However, we caution against using Doppler to determine whether a mass is benign or malignant, or to determine the necessity of surgery. An abnormal ovary may have what is considered to be a normal resistive index, and the resistive index of a normal ovary may fall within the abnormal range. Doppler flow can be helpful, but it must be combined with other predictive features, like solid components with flow or papillary projections within a cyst, to define a decision about surgery.^4,5

Magnetic resonance imaging can be useful in differentiating a fibroid from an ovarian mass, and a CT scan can be helpful in looking for disseminated disease when ovarian cancer is suspected based on ultrasound imaging, physical and history, and serum markers. A CT is useful, for instance, in a patient whose ovary is distended with ascites or who has upper abdominal complaints and a complex cyst. CT, PET, and MRI are not recommended in the initial evaluation of an ovarian mass.

The utility of serum biomarkers

Cancer antigen 125 (CA-125) testing may be helpful – in combination with other findings – for decision-making regarding the likelihood of malignancy and the need to refer patients. CA-125 is like Doppler in that a normal CA-125 cannot eliminate the possibility of cancer, and an abnormal CA-125 does not in and of itself imply malignancy. It’s far from a perfect cancer screening test.

CA-125 is a protein associated with epithelial ovarian malignancies, the type of ovarian cancer most commonly seen in postmenopausal women with genetic predispositions. Its specificity and positive predictive value are much higher in postmenopausal women than in average-risk premenopausal women (those without a family history or a known mutation that predisposes them to ovarian cancer). Levels of the marker are elevated in association with many nonmalignant conditions in premenopausal women – endometriosis, fibroids, and various inflammatory conditions, for instance – so the marker’s utility in this population is limited.

For women who have a family history of ovarian cancer or a known breast cancer gene 1 (BRCA1) or BRCA2 mutation, there are some data that suggest that monitoring with CA-125 measurements and TVUS may be a good approach to following patients prior to the age at which risk-reducing surgery can best be performed.

In an adolescent girl or a woman of reproductive age, we think less about epithelial cancer and more about germ-cell and stromal tumors. When a solid mass is palpated or visualized on imaging, we therefore will utilize a different set of markers; alpha-fetoprotein, L-lactate dehydrogenase, and beta-HCG, for instance, have much higher specificity than CA-125 does for germ-cell tumors in this age group and may be helpful in the evaluation. Similarly, in cases of a very large mass resembling a mucinous tumor, a carcinoembryonic antigen may be helpful.

A number of proprietary profiling technologies have been developed to determine the risk of a diagnosed mass being malignant. For instance, the OVA1 assay looks at five serum markers and scores the results, and the Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA) combines the results of three serum markers with menopausal status into a numerical score. Both have Food and Drug Administration approval for use in women in whom surgery has been deemed necessary. These panels can be fairly predictive of risk and may be helpful – especially in rural areas – in determining which women should be referred to a gynecologic oncologist for surgery.

It is important to appreciate that an ovarian cyst or mass should never be biopsied or aspirated lest a malignant tumor confined to one ovary be potentially spread to the peritoneum.
 

Referral to a gynecologic oncologist

Postmenopausal women with a CA-125 greater than 35 U/mL should be referred, as should postmenopausal women with ascites, those with a nodular or fixed pelvic mass, and those with suspected abdominal or distant metastases (per a CT scan, for instance).

In premenopausal women, ascites, a nodular or fixed mass, and evidence of metastases also are reasons for referral to a gynecologic oncologist. CA-125, again, is much more likely to be elevated for reasons other than malignancy and therefore is not as strong a driver for referral as in postmenopausal women. Patients with markedly elevated levels, however, should probably be referred – particularly when other clinical factors also suggest the need for consultation. While there is no evidence-based threshold for CA-125 in premenopausal women, a CA-125 greater than 200 U/mL is a good cutoff for referral.

For any patient, family history of breast and/or ovarian cancer – especially in a first-degree relative – raises the risk of malignancy and should figure prominently into decision-making regarding referral. Criteria for referral are among the points discussed in the ACOG 2016 Practice Bulletin on Evaluation and Management of Adnexal Masses.¹

A note on BRCA mutations

As the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists says in its practice bulletin, the most important personal risk factor for ovarian cancer is a strong family history of breast or ovarian cancer. Women with such a family history can undergo genetic testing for BRCA mutations and have the opportunity to prevent ovarian cancers when mutations are detected. This simple blood test can save lives.

A modeling study we recently completed – not yet published – shows that it actually would be cost effective to do population screening with BRCA testing performed on every woman at age 30 years.

According to the National Cancer Institute website (last review: 2018), it is estimated that about 44% of women who inherit a BRCA1 mutation, and about 17% of those who inherit a BRAC2 mutation, will develop ovarian cancer by the age of 80 years. By identifying those mutations, women may undergo risk-reducing surgery at designated ages after childbearing is complete and bring their risk down to under 5%.

An international take on managing adnexal masses

• Pelvic ultrasound should include the transvaginal approach. Use Doppler imaging as indicated.
• Although simple ovarian cysts are not precursor lesions to a malignant ovarian cancer, perform a high-quality examination to make sure there are no solid/papillary structures before classifying a cyst as a simple cyst. The risk of progression to malignancy is extremely low, but some follow-up is prudent.
• The most accurate method of characterizing an ovarian mass currently is real-time pattern recognition sonography in the hands of an experienced imager.
• Pattern recognition sonography or a risk model such as the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) Simple Rules can be used to initially characterize an ovarian mass.
• When an ovarian lesion is classified as benign, the patient may be followed conservatively, or if indicated, surgery can be performed by a general gynecologist.
• Serial sonography can be beneficial, but there are limited prospective data to support an exact interval and duration.
• Fewer surgical interventions may result in an increase in sonographic surveillance.
• When an ovarian lesion is considered indeterminate on initial sonography, and after appropriate clinical evaluation, a “second-step” evaluation may include referral to an expert sonologist, serial sonography, application of established risk-prediction models, correlation with serum biomarkers, correlation with MRI, or referral to a gynecologic oncologist for further evaluation.

From the First International Consensus Report on Adnexal Masses: Management Recommendations

Source: Glanc P et al. J Ultrasound Med. 2017 May;36(5):849-63.

Dr. Brown reported that she had received an earlier grant from Aspira Labs, the company that developed the OVA1 assay. Dr. Miller reported that he has no relevant financial disclosures.

References

1. Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Nov. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000001768.

2. Cancer. 2007 Jan 15. doi: 10.1002/cncr.22371.

3. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Mar. doi: 10.1097/GRF.0000000000000083.

4. Ultrasound Q. 2013 Mar. doi: 10.1097/RUQ.0b013e3182814d9b.

5. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2008 Jun. doi: 10.1002/uog.5365.

Ovarian masses are common in women of all ages. It is important not to miss even one ovarian cancer, but we must also identify masses that will resolve on their own over time to avoid overtreatment. These concurrent goals of excluding malignancy while not overtreating patients are the basis for management of the pelvic mass. Additionally, fertility preservation is important when surgery is performed in a reproductive-aged woman.

An ovarian mass may be anything from a simple functional or physiologic cyst to an endometrioma to an epithelial carcinoma, a germ-cell tumor, or a stromal tumor (the latter three of which may metastasize). Across the general population, women have a 5%-10% lifetime risk of needing surgery for a suspected ovarian mass and a 1.4% (1 in 70) risk that this mass is cancerous. The majority of ovarian cysts or masses therefore are benign.

A thorough history – including family history – and physical examination with appropriate laboratory testing and directed imaging are important first steps for the ob.gyn. Fortunately, we have guidelines and criteria governing not only when observation or surgery is warranted but also when patients should be referred to a gynecologic oncologist. By following these guidelines,¹ we are able to achieve the best outcomes.
 

Transvaginal ultrasound

A 2007 groundbreaking study led by Barbara Goff, MD, demonstrated that there are warning signs for ovarian cancer – symptoms that are significantly associated with malignancy. Dr. Goff and her coinvestigators evaluated the charts of hundreds of patients, including about 150 with ovarian cancer, and found that pelvic/abdominal pressure or pain, bloating, increase in abdominal size, and difficulty eating or feeling full were significantly and independently associated with cancer if these symptoms were present for less than a year and occurred at least 12 times per month.²

A pelvic examination is an integral part of evaluating every patient who has such concerns. That said, pelvic exams have limited ability to identify adnexal masses, especially in women who are obese – and that’s where imaging becomes especially important.

Masses generally can be considered simple or complex based on their appearance. A simple cyst is fluid-filled with thin, smooth walls and the absence of solid components or septations; it is significantly more likely to resolve on its own and is less likely to imply malignancy than a complex cyst, especially in a premenopausal woman. A complex cyst is multiseptated and/or solid – possibly with papillary projections – and is more concerning, especially if there is increased, new vascularity. Making this distinction helps us determine the risk of malignancy.

Transvaginal ultrasound (TVUS) is the preferred method for imaging, and our threshold for obtaining a TVUS should be very low. Women who have symptoms or concerns that can’t be attributed to a particular condition, and women in whom a mass can be palpated (even if asymptomatic) should have a TVUS. The imaging modality is cost effective and well tolerated by patients, does not expose the patient to ionizing radiation, and should generally be considered first-line imaging.^3,4

Size is not predictive of malignancy, but it is important for determining whether surgery is warranted. In our experience, a mass of 8-10 cm or larger on TVUS is at risk of torsion and is unlikely to resolve on its own, even in a premenopausal woman. While large masses generally require surgery, patients of any age who have simple cysts smaller than 8-10 cm generally can be followed with serial exams and ultrasound; spontaneous regression is common.

Doppler ultrasonography is useful for evaluating blood flow in and around an ovarian mass and can be helpful for confirming suspected characteristics of a mass.

Recent studies from the radiology community have looked at the utility of the resistive index – a measure of the impedance and velocity of blood flow – as a predictor of ovarian malignancy. However, we caution against using Doppler to determine whether a mass is benign or malignant, or to determine the necessity of surgery. An abnormal ovary may have what is considered to be a normal resistive index, and the resistive index of a normal ovary may fall within the abnormal range. Doppler flow can be helpful, but it must be combined with other predictive features, like solid components with flow or papillary projections within a cyst, to define a decision about surgery.^4,5

Magnetic resonance imaging can be useful in differentiating a fibroid from an ovarian mass, and a CT scan can be helpful in looking for disseminated disease when ovarian cancer is suspected based on ultrasound imaging, physical and history, and serum markers. A CT is useful, for instance, in a patient whose ovary is distended with ascites or who has upper abdominal complaints and a complex cyst. CT, PET, and MRI are not recommended in the initial evaluation of an ovarian mass.

The utility of serum biomarkers

Cancer antigen 125 (CA-125) testing may be helpful – in combination with other findings – for decision-making regarding the likelihood of malignancy and the need to refer patients. CA-125 is like Doppler in that a normal CA-125 cannot eliminate the possibility of cancer, and an abnormal CA-125 does not in and of itself imply malignancy. It’s far from a perfect cancer screening test.

CA-125 is a protein associated with epithelial ovarian malignancies, the type of ovarian cancer most commonly seen in postmenopausal women with genetic predispositions. Its specificity and positive predictive value are much higher in postmenopausal women than in average-risk premenopausal women (those without a family history or a known mutation that predisposes them to ovarian cancer). Levels of the marker are elevated in association with many nonmalignant conditions in premenopausal women – endometriosis, fibroids, and various inflammatory conditions, for instance – so the marker’s utility in this population is limited.

For women who have a family history of ovarian cancer or a known breast cancer gene 1 (BRCA1) or BRCA2 mutation, there are some data that suggest that monitoring with CA-125 measurements and TVUS may be a good approach to following patients prior to the age at which risk-reducing surgery can best be performed.

In an adolescent girl or a woman of reproductive age, we think less about epithelial cancer and more about germ-cell and stromal tumors. When a solid mass is palpated or visualized on imaging, we therefore will utilize a different set of markers; alpha-fetoprotein, L-lactate dehydrogenase, and beta-HCG, for instance, have much higher specificity than CA-125 does for germ-cell tumors in this age group and may be helpful in the evaluation. Similarly, in cases of a very large mass resembling a mucinous tumor, a carcinoembryonic antigen may be helpful.

A number of proprietary profiling technologies have been developed to determine the risk of a diagnosed mass being malignant. For instance, the OVA1 assay looks at five serum markers and scores the results, and the Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA) combines the results of three serum markers with menopausal status into a numerical score. Both have Food and Drug Administration approval for use in women in whom surgery has been deemed necessary. These panels can be fairly predictive of risk and may be helpful – especially in rural areas – in determining which women should be referred to a gynecologic oncologist for surgery.

It is important to appreciate that an ovarian cyst or mass should never be biopsied or aspirated lest a malignant tumor confined to one ovary be potentially spread to the peritoneum.
 

Referral to a gynecologic oncologist

Postmenopausal women with a CA-125 greater than 35 U/mL should be referred, as should postmenopausal women with ascites, those with a nodular or fixed pelvic mass, and those with suspected abdominal or distant metastases (per a CT scan, for instance).

In premenopausal women, ascites, a nodular or fixed mass, and evidence of metastases also are reasons for referral to a gynecologic oncologist. CA-125, again, is much more likely to be elevated for reasons other than malignancy and therefore is not as strong a driver for referral as in postmenopausal women. Patients with markedly elevated levels, however, should probably be referred – particularly when other clinical factors also suggest the need for consultation. While there is no evidence-based threshold for CA-125 in premenopausal women, a CA-125 greater than 200 U/mL is a good cutoff for referral.

For any patient, family history of breast and/or ovarian cancer – especially in a first-degree relative – raises the risk of malignancy and should figure prominently into decision-making regarding referral. Criteria for referral are among the points discussed in the ACOG 2016 Practice Bulletin on Evaluation and Management of Adnexal Masses.¹

A note on BRCA mutations

As the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists says in its practice bulletin, the most important personal risk factor for ovarian cancer is a strong family history of breast or ovarian cancer. Women with such a family history can undergo genetic testing for BRCA mutations and have the opportunity to prevent ovarian cancers when mutations are detected. This simple blood test can save lives.

A modeling study we recently completed – not yet published – shows that it actually would be cost effective to do population screening with BRCA testing performed on every woman at age 30 years.

According to the National Cancer Institute website (last review: 2018), it is estimated that about 44% of women who inherit a BRCA1 mutation, and about 17% of those who inherit a BRAC2 mutation, will develop ovarian cancer by the age of 80 years. By identifying those mutations, women may undergo risk-reducing surgery at designated ages after childbearing is complete and bring their risk down to under 5%.

An international take on managing adnexal masses

• Pelvic ultrasound should include the transvaginal approach. Use Doppler imaging as indicated.
• Although simple ovarian cysts are not precursor lesions to a malignant ovarian cancer, perform a high-quality examination to make sure there are no solid/papillary structures before classifying a cyst as a simple cyst. The risk of progression to malignancy is extremely low, but some follow-up is prudent.
• The most accurate method of characterizing an ovarian mass currently is real-time pattern recognition sonography in the hands of an experienced imager.
• Pattern recognition sonography or a risk model such as the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) Simple Rules can be used to initially characterize an ovarian mass.
• When an ovarian lesion is classified as benign, the patient may be followed conservatively, or if indicated, surgery can be performed by a general gynecologist.
• Serial sonography can be beneficial, but there are limited prospective data to support an exact interval and duration.
• Fewer surgical interventions may result in an increase in sonographic surveillance.
• When an ovarian lesion is considered indeterminate on initial sonography, and after appropriate clinical evaluation, a “second-step” evaluation may include referral to an expert sonologist, serial sonography, application of established risk-prediction models, correlation with serum biomarkers, correlation with MRI, or referral to a gynecologic oncologist for further evaluation.

From the First International Consensus Report on Adnexal Masses: Management Recommendations

Source: Glanc P et al. J Ultrasound Med. 2017 May;36(5):849-63.

Dr. Brown reported that she had received an earlier grant from Aspira Labs, the company that developed the OVA1 assay. Dr. Miller reported that he has no relevant financial disclosures.

References

1. Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Nov. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000001768.

2. Cancer. 2007 Jan 15. doi: 10.1002/cncr.22371.

3. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Mar. doi: 10.1097/GRF.0000000000000083.

4. Ultrasound Q. 2013 Mar. doi: 10.1097/RUQ.0b013e3182814d9b.

5. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2008 Jun. doi: 10.1002/uog.5365.