Rare Diseases

Case Report

A 19-year-old female marine with a 10-year history of hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) presented with hyperpigmented nodules in the inguinal folds and a recurrent cyst in the right groin area of 2 to 3 weeks’ duration. She denied axillary or inframammary involvement. She underwent several incision and drainage procedures 1 year prior to her enlistment in the US Marine Corps at 18 years of age. She previously had been treated by dermatology with doxycycline 100-mg tablets twice daily, benzoyl peroxide wash 5% applied to affected areas and rinsed daily, and clindamycin solution 1% with minimal improvement. She denied smoking or alcohol intake and said she typically wore a loose-fitting uniform to work. As a marine, she was expected to participate in daily physical training and exercises with her military unit, during which she wore a standardized physical training uniform, including nylon shorts and a cotton T-shirt. She requested light duty—military duty status with physical limitations or restrictions—to avoid physical training that would cause further friction and irritation to the inguinal region.

Physical examination demonstrated a woman with Fitzpatrick skin type III and normal body mass index. There were hyperpigmented nodules and scarring in the inguinal folds, most consistent with Hurley stage 2. A single, 0.5-cm, draining lesion was visualized. No hyperhidrosis was noted. The patient was placed on light duty for 7 days, with physical training only at her own pace and discretion. Moreover, she was restricted from field training, rifle range training, and other situations where she may excessively sweat or not be able to adequately maintain personal hygiene. She was encouraged to continue clindamycin solution 1% to the affected area twice daily and was prescribed chlorhexidine solution 4% to use when washing affected areas in the shower. The patient also was referred to the dermatology department at the Naval Hospital Camp Pendleton (Oceanside, California), where she was treated with laser hair removal in the inguinal region, thus avoiding waxing and further aggravation of HS flares. Due to the combination of topical therapies along with laser hair removal and duty restrictions, the patient had a dramatic decrease in development of severe nodular lesions.

Comment

Presentation
Historically, the incidence of HS is estimated at 0.5% to 4% of the general population with female predominance.¹ Predisposing factors include obesity, smoking, genetic predisposition to acne, apocrine duct obstruction, and secondary bacterial infection.² During acute flares, patients generally present with tender subcutaneous nodules that drain malodorous purulent material.^3,4 Acute flares are unpredictable, and patients deal with chronic, recurrent, draining wounds, leading to a poor quality of life with resulting physical, psychological, financial, social, and emotional distress.^3-5 The negative impact of HS on a patient’s quality of life has been reported to be greater than other dermatologic conditions.⁶ Lesions can be particularly painful and can cause disfiguration to the surface of the skin.⁷ Lesion severity is described using the Hurley staging system. Patient quality of life is directly correlated with disease severity and Hurley stage. In stage 1, abscesses develop, but no sinus tracts or cicatrization is present. In stage 2, recurrent abscesses will form tracts and cicatrization. In stage 3, the abscesses become diffuse or near diffuse, with multiple interconnected tracts and abscesses across the entire area of the body.^8,9

Severe or refractory HS within the physically active military population may require consideration of light or limited duty or even separation from service. Similarly, severe HS may pose challenges with other physically demanding occupations, such as the police force and firefighters.

Prevention Focus
Prevention of flares is key for patients with HS; secondary prevention aims to reduce impact of the disease or injury that has already occurred,^10,11 which includes prevention of the infundibulofolliculitis from becoming a deep folliculitis, nodule, or fistula, as well as Hurley stage progression. Prompt diagnosis with appropriate treatment can decrease the severity of lesions, pain, and scarring. Globally, HS patients continue to experience considerable diagnostic delays of 8 to 12 years after onset of initial symptoms.^11,12 Earlier accurate diagnosis and initiation of treatment from the primary care provider or general medical officer is imperative. Initial accurate management may help keep symptoms from progressing to more severe painful lesions. Similarly, patients should be educated on how to prevent HS flares. Patients should avoid known triggers, including smoking, obesity, sweating, mechanical irritation, stress, and poor hygiene.¹¹

Shaving for hair reduction creates ingrown hair shafts, which may lead to folliculitis in mechanically stressed areas in skin folds, thus initiating the inflammatory cascade of HS.^11,13 Therefore, shaving along with any other mechanical stress should be avoided in patients with HS. Laser hair removal has been shown to be quite helpful in both the prevention and treatment of HS. In one study, 22 patients with Hurley stage 2 to 3 disease were treated with an Nd:YAG laser once monthly. Results demonstrated a 65% decrease in disease severity after 3 monthly treatments.¹¹ Similarly, other lasers have been used with success in several small case series; an 800-nm diode laser, intense pulsed light therapy, and a ruby laser have each demonstrated efficacy.¹⁴ Given these results, hair removal should be recommended to patients with HS. Military servicemembers (SMs) with certain conditions, such as polycystic ovary syndrome, pseudofolliculitis barbae, and HS, are eligible for laser hair removal when available at local military treatment facilities. Primary care providers for military SMs must have a working understanding of the disease process of HS and awareness of what resources are available for treatment, which allows for more streamlined care and improved outcomes.

Treatment Options
Treatment options are diverse and depend on the severity of HS. Typically, treatment begins with medical therapy followed by escalation to surgical intervention. Medical therapies often include antibiotics, acne treatments, antiandrogen therapy, immunosuppressive agents, and biologic therapy.^15,16 If first-line medical interventions fail to control HS, surgical interventions should be considered. Surgical intervention in conjunction with medical therapy decreases the chance for recurrence.^3,15,16

Although HS is internationally recognized as an inflammatory disease and not an infectious process, topical antibiotics can help to prevent and improve formation of abscesses, nodules, and pustules.¹¹ Agents such as clindamycin and chlorhexidine wash have proven effective in preventing flares.^11,16 Other antibiotics used alone or in combination also are efficacious. Tetracyclines are recommended as monotherapy for mild stages of HS.^17-19 Doxycycline is the most commonly used tetracycline in HS patients and has been demonstrated to penetrate Staphylococcus aureus biofilm in high enough concentrations to maintain its antibacterial activity.²⁰ Moreover, doxycycline, as with other tetracyclines, has a multitude of anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory properties²¹ and can reduce the production of IL-1, IL-6, tumor necrosis factor α, and IL-8; downregulate chemotaxis; and promote lipo-oxygenase, matrix metalloproteinase, and nuclear factor κB (NF-κB) signaling inhibition.¹⁷

Clindamycin is the only known agent that has been studied for topical treatment and utilization in milder cases of HS.^17,22 Systemic combination of clindamycin and rifampicin is the most studied, with well-established efficacy in managing HS.^17,23,24 Clindamycin has bacteriostatic activity toward both aerobic and anaerobic gram-positive bacteria by binding irreversibly to the 50S ribosomal subunit, thereby inhibiting bacterial protein synthesis. Rifampicin binds to the beta subunit of DNA-dependent RNA polymerase, inhibiting bacterial DNA-dependent RNA synthesis. Rifampicin has broad-spectrum activity, mostly against gram-positive as well as some gram-negative bacteria. Moreover, rifampicin has anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory properties, including evidence that it inhibits excessive helper T cell (T_H17) responses by reducing inducible nitric oxide synthase transcription and NF-κB activity.^25,26

Metronidazole, moxifloxacin, and rifampicin as triple combination therapy has been shown to be effective in reducing HS activity in moderate to severe cases that were refractory to other treatments.²⁷ Research suggests that moxifloxacin has anti-inflammatory properties, mainly by reducing IL-1β, IL-8, and tumor necrosis factor α; stabilizing IXb protein; suppressing NF-κB signaling; and reducing IL-17A.^28,29

Ertapenem can be utilized as a single 6-week antibiotic course during surgical planning or rescue therapy.¹⁸ Moreover, ertapenem can be used to treat complicated skin and soft tissue infections and has been shown to substantially improve clinical aspects of severe HS.^17,27

Disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs are effective in the treatment of moderate to severe HS.^17-19 In 2 phase 3 trials (PIONEER I and II), adalimumab was used as monotherapy or in conjunction with antibiotics in patients with moderate to severe HS compared to placebo.³⁰ Results demonstrated a disease burden reduction of greater than 50%. Antibiotic dual therapy was not noted to significantly affect disease burden.³⁰ Of note, use of immunosuppressants in the military affects an SM’s availability for worldwide deployment and duty station assignment.

Antiandrogen therapies have demonstrated some reduction in HS flares. Although recommendations for use in HS is based on limited evidence, one randomized controlled trial compared ethinyl estradiol–norgestrel to ethinyl estradiol and cyproterone acetate. Both therapies resulted in similar efficacy, with 12 of 24 (50%) patients reporting HS symptoms improving or completely resolved.³¹ In another retrospective study of women treated with antiandrogen therapies, including ethinyl estriol, cyproterone acetate, and spironolactone, 16 of 29 (55%) patients reported improvement.³² In another study, daily doses of 100 to 150 mg of spironolactone resulted in improvement in 17 of 20 (85%) patients, including complete remission in 11 of 20 (55%) patients. Of the 3 patients with severe HS, none had complete clearing of disease burden.³³ Patients with polycystic ovary syndrome or HS flares that occur around menstruation are more likely to benefit from treatment with spironolactone.^18,32,34

Retinoids frequently have been utilized in the management of HS. In some retrospective studies and other prospective studies with 5 or more patients, isotretinoin monotherapy was utilized for a 4- to 10-month period.^18,35-38 In the Alikhan et al¹⁸ study, 85 of 207 patients demonstrated improvement of HS symptoms, with more remarkable improvements in milder cases. Isotretinoin for management of patients with HS who have concomitant nodulocystic acne would have two-fold benefits.¹⁸

Wound Care
Given the purulent nodular formation in HS, adequate wound care management is vital. There is an abundance of HS wound care management strategies utilized by clinicians and patients. When selecting the appropriate dressing, consideration for the type of HS wound, cost, ease of application, patient comfort, absorbency, and odor management is important.³ However, living arrangements for military SMs can create difficulties applying and maintaining HS dressings, especially if deployed or in a field setting. Active-duty SMs often find themselves in austere living conditions in the field, aboard ships, or in other scenarios where they may or may not have running water or showers. Maintaining adequate hygiene may be difficult, and additional education about how to keep wounds clean must be imparted. Ideal dressings for HS should be highly absorbent, comfortable when applied to the anatomic locations of the HS lesions, and easily self-applied. Ideally, dressings would have atraumatic adhesion and antimicrobial properties.³ Cost-effective dressing options that have good absorption capability include sanitary napkins, adult briefs, infant diapers, and gauze.³ These dressings help to wick moisture, thus protecting the wound from maceration, which is a common patient concern. Although gauze dressings are easier to obtain, they are not as absorbent. Abdominal pads can be utilized, but they are moderately absorbent, bulky, and more challenging to obtain over-the-counter. Hydrofiber and calcium alginate dressings with silver are not accessible to the common consumer and are more expensive than the aforementioned dressings, but they do have some antimicrobial activity. Silver-impregnated foam dressings are moldable to intertriginous areas, easy to self-apply, and have moderate-heavy absorption abilities.

Final Thoughts

Hidradenitis suppurativa poses cumbersome and uncomfortable symptoms for all patients and may pose additional hardships for military SMs or those with physically demanding occupations who work in austere environments. Severe HS can restrict a military SM from certain duty stations, positions, or deployments. Early identification of HS can help reduce HS flares, disfigurement, and placement on limited duty status, therefore rendering the SM more able to engage in his/her operational responsibilities. Hidradenitis suppurativa should be discussed with the patient, with the goal to prevent flares for SMs that will be in the field, placed in austere environments, or be deployed. Use of immunosuppressants in active-duty SMs may affect their deployability, duty assignment, and retention.

For a military SM with HS, all aspects of prevention and treatment need to be balanced with his/her ability to remain deployable and complete his/her daily duties. Military SMs are not guaranteed the ideal scenario for treatment and prevention of HS. Unsanitary environments and occlusive uniforms undoubtedly contribute to disease process and make treatment more challenging. If a military SM is in a field setting or deployed, frequent daily dressing changes should still be attempted.

Case Report

A 19-year-old female marine with a 10-year history of hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) presented with hyperpigmented nodules in the inguinal folds and a recurrent cyst in the right groin area of 2 to 3 weeks’ duration. She denied axillary or inframammary involvement. She underwent several incision and drainage procedures 1 year prior to her enlistment in the US Marine Corps at 18 years of age. She previously had been treated by dermatology with doxycycline 100-mg tablets twice daily, benzoyl peroxide wash 5% applied to affected areas and rinsed daily, and clindamycin solution 1% with minimal improvement. She denied smoking or alcohol intake and said she typically wore a loose-fitting uniform to work. As a marine, she was expected to participate in daily physical training and exercises with her military unit, during which she wore a standardized physical training uniform, including nylon shorts and a cotton T-shirt. She requested light duty—military duty status with physical limitations or restrictions—to avoid physical training that would cause further friction and irritation to the inguinal region.

Physical examination demonstrated a woman with Fitzpatrick skin type III and normal body mass index. There were hyperpigmented nodules and scarring in the inguinal folds, most consistent with Hurley stage 2. A single, 0.5-cm, draining lesion was visualized. No hyperhidrosis was noted. The patient was placed on light duty for 7 days, with physical training only at her own pace and discretion. Moreover, she was restricted from field training, rifle range training, and other situations where she may excessively sweat or not be able to adequately maintain personal hygiene. She was encouraged to continue clindamycin solution 1% to the affected area twice daily and was prescribed chlorhexidine solution 4% to use when washing affected areas in the shower. The patient also was referred to the dermatology department at the Naval Hospital Camp Pendleton (Oceanside, California), where she was treated with laser hair removal in the inguinal region, thus avoiding waxing and further aggravation of HS flares. Due to the combination of topical therapies along with laser hair removal and duty restrictions, the patient had a dramatic decrease in development of severe nodular lesions.

Comment

Presentation
Historically, the incidence of HS is estimated at 0.5% to 4% of the general population with female predominance.¹ Predisposing factors include obesity, smoking, genetic predisposition to acne, apocrine duct obstruction, and secondary bacterial infection.² During acute flares, patients generally present with tender subcutaneous nodules that drain malodorous purulent material.^3,4 Acute flares are unpredictable, and patients deal with chronic, recurrent, draining wounds, leading to a poor quality of life with resulting physical, psychological, financial, social, and emotional distress.^3-5 The negative impact of HS on a patient’s quality of life has been reported to be greater than other dermatologic conditions.⁶ Lesions can be particularly painful and can cause disfiguration to the surface of the skin.⁷ Lesion severity is described using the Hurley staging system. Patient quality of life is directly correlated with disease severity and Hurley stage. In stage 1, abscesses develop, but no sinus tracts or cicatrization is present. In stage 2, recurrent abscesses will form tracts and cicatrization. In stage 3, the abscesses become diffuse or near diffuse, with multiple interconnected tracts and abscesses across the entire area of the body.^8,9

Severe or refractory HS within the physically active military population may require consideration of light or limited duty or even separation from service. Similarly, severe HS may pose challenges with other physically demanding occupations, such as the police force and firefighters.

Prevention Focus
Prevention of flares is key for patients with HS; secondary prevention aims to reduce impact of the disease or injury that has already occurred,^10,11 which includes prevention of the infundibulofolliculitis from becoming a deep folliculitis, nodule, or fistula, as well as Hurley stage progression. Prompt diagnosis with appropriate treatment can decrease the severity of lesions, pain, and scarring. Globally, HS patients continue to experience considerable diagnostic delays of 8 to 12 years after onset of initial symptoms.^11,12 Earlier accurate diagnosis and initiation of treatment from the primary care provider or general medical officer is imperative. Initial accurate management may help keep symptoms from progressing to more severe painful lesions. Similarly, patients should be educated on how to prevent HS flares. Patients should avoid known triggers, including smoking, obesity, sweating, mechanical irritation, stress, and poor hygiene.¹¹

Shaving for hair reduction creates ingrown hair shafts, which may lead to folliculitis in mechanically stressed areas in skin folds, thus initiating the inflammatory cascade of HS.^11,13 Therefore, shaving along with any other mechanical stress should be avoided in patients with HS. Laser hair removal has been shown to be quite helpful in both the prevention and treatment of HS. In one study, 22 patients with Hurley stage 2 to 3 disease were treated with an Nd:YAG laser once monthly. Results demonstrated a 65% decrease in disease severity after 3 monthly treatments.¹¹ Similarly, other lasers have been used with success in several small case series; an 800-nm diode laser, intense pulsed light therapy, and a ruby laser have each demonstrated efficacy.¹⁴ Given these results, hair removal should be recommended to patients with HS. Military servicemembers (SMs) with certain conditions, such as polycystic ovary syndrome, pseudofolliculitis barbae, and HS, are eligible for laser hair removal when available at local military treatment facilities. Primary care providers for military SMs must have a working understanding of the disease process of HS and awareness of what resources are available for treatment, which allows for more streamlined care and improved outcomes.

Treatment Options
Treatment options are diverse and depend on the severity of HS. Typically, treatment begins with medical therapy followed by escalation to surgical intervention. Medical therapies often include antibiotics, acne treatments, antiandrogen therapy, immunosuppressive agents, and biologic therapy.^15,16 If first-line medical interventions fail to control HS, surgical interventions should be considered. Surgical intervention in conjunction with medical therapy decreases the chance for recurrence.^3,15,16

Although HS is internationally recognized as an inflammatory disease and not an infectious process, topical antibiotics can help to prevent and improve formation of abscesses, nodules, and pustules.¹¹ Agents such as clindamycin and chlorhexidine wash have proven effective in preventing flares.^11,16 Other antibiotics used alone or in combination also are efficacious. Tetracyclines are recommended as monotherapy for mild stages of HS.^17-19 Doxycycline is the most commonly used tetracycline in HS patients and has been demonstrated to penetrate Staphylococcus aureus biofilm in high enough concentrations to maintain its antibacterial activity.²⁰ Moreover, doxycycline, as with other tetracyclines, has a multitude of anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory properties²¹ and can reduce the production of IL-1, IL-6, tumor necrosis factor α, and IL-8; downregulate chemotaxis; and promote lipo-oxygenase, matrix metalloproteinase, and nuclear factor κB (NF-κB) signaling inhibition.¹⁷

Clindamycin is the only known agent that has been studied for topical treatment and utilization in milder cases of HS.^17,22 Systemic combination of clindamycin and rifampicin is the most studied, with well-established efficacy in managing HS.^17,23,24 Clindamycin has bacteriostatic activity toward both aerobic and anaerobic gram-positive bacteria by binding irreversibly to the 50S ribosomal subunit, thereby inhibiting bacterial protein synthesis. Rifampicin binds to the beta subunit of DNA-dependent RNA polymerase, inhibiting bacterial DNA-dependent RNA synthesis. Rifampicin has broad-spectrum activity, mostly against gram-positive as well as some gram-negative bacteria. Moreover, rifampicin has anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory properties, including evidence that it inhibits excessive helper T cell (T_H17) responses by reducing inducible nitric oxide synthase transcription and NF-κB activity.^25,26

Metronidazole, moxifloxacin, and rifampicin as triple combination therapy has been shown to be effective in reducing HS activity in moderate to severe cases that were refractory to other treatments.²⁷ Research suggests that moxifloxacin has anti-inflammatory properties, mainly by reducing IL-1β, IL-8, and tumor necrosis factor α; stabilizing IXb protein; suppressing NF-κB signaling; and reducing IL-17A.^28,29

Ertapenem can be utilized as a single 6-week antibiotic course during surgical planning or rescue therapy.¹⁸ Moreover, ertapenem can be used to treat complicated skin and soft tissue infections and has been shown to substantially improve clinical aspects of severe HS.^17,27

Disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs are effective in the treatment of moderate to severe HS.^17-19 In 2 phase 3 trials (PIONEER I and II), adalimumab was used as monotherapy or in conjunction with antibiotics in patients with moderate to severe HS compared to placebo.³⁰ Results demonstrated a disease burden reduction of greater than 50%. Antibiotic dual therapy was not noted to significantly affect disease burden.³⁰ Of note, use of immunosuppressants in the military affects an SM’s availability for worldwide deployment and duty station assignment.

Antiandrogen therapies have demonstrated some reduction in HS flares. Although recommendations for use in HS is based on limited evidence, one randomized controlled trial compared ethinyl estradiol–norgestrel to ethinyl estradiol and cyproterone acetate. Both therapies resulted in similar efficacy, with 12 of 24 (50%) patients reporting HS symptoms improving or completely resolved.³¹ In another retrospective study of women treated with antiandrogen therapies, including ethinyl estriol, cyproterone acetate, and spironolactone, 16 of 29 (55%) patients reported improvement.³² In another study, daily doses of 100 to 150 mg of spironolactone resulted in improvement in 17 of 20 (85%) patients, including complete remission in 11 of 20 (55%) patients. Of the 3 patients with severe HS, none had complete clearing of disease burden.³³ Patients with polycystic ovary syndrome or HS flares that occur around menstruation are more likely to benefit from treatment with spironolactone.^18,32,34

Retinoids frequently have been utilized in the management of HS. In some retrospective studies and other prospective studies with 5 or more patients, isotretinoin monotherapy was utilized for a 4- to 10-month period.^18,35-38 In the Alikhan et al¹⁸ study, 85 of 207 patients demonstrated improvement of HS symptoms, with more remarkable improvements in milder cases. Isotretinoin for management of patients with HS who have concomitant nodulocystic acne would have two-fold benefits.¹⁸

Wound Care
Given the purulent nodular formation in HS, adequate wound care management is vital. There is an abundance of HS wound care management strategies utilized by clinicians and patients. When selecting the appropriate dressing, consideration for the type of HS wound, cost, ease of application, patient comfort, absorbency, and odor management is important.³ However, living arrangements for military SMs can create difficulties applying and maintaining HS dressings, especially if deployed or in a field setting. Active-duty SMs often find themselves in austere living conditions in the field, aboard ships, or in other scenarios where they may or may not have running water or showers. Maintaining adequate hygiene may be difficult, and additional education about how to keep wounds clean must be imparted. Ideal dressings for HS should be highly absorbent, comfortable when applied to the anatomic locations of the HS lesions, and easily self-applied. Ideally, dressings would have atraumatic adhesion and antimicrobial properties.³ Cost-effective dressing options that have good absorption capability include sanitary napkins, adult briefs, infant diapers, and gauze.³ These dressings help to wick moisture, thus protecting the wound from maceration, which is a common patient concern. Although gauze dressings are easier to obtain, they are not as absorbent. Abdominal pads can be utilized, but they are moderately absorbent, bulky, and more challenging to obtain over-the-counter. Hydrofiber and calcium alginate dressings with silver are not accessible to the common consumer and are more expensive than the aforementioned dressings, but they do have some antimicrobial activity. Silver-impregnated foam dressings are moldable to intertriginous areas, easy to self-apply, and have moderate-heavy absorption abilities.

Final Thoughts

Hidradenitis suppurativa poses cumbersome and uncomfortable symptoms for all patients and may pose additional hardships for military SMs or those with physically demanding occupations who work in austere environments. Severe HS can restrict a military SM from certain duty stations, positions, or deployments. Early identification of HS can help reduce HS flares, disfigurement, and placement on limited duty status, therefore rendering the SM more able to engage in his/her operational responsibilities. Hidradenitis suppurativa should be discussed with the patient, with the goal to prevent flares for SMs that will be in the field, placed in austere environments, or be deployed. Use of immunosuppressants in active-duty SMs may affect their deployability, duty assignment, and retention.

For a military SM with HS, all aspects of prevention and treatment need to be balanced with his/her ability to remain deployable and complete his/her daily duties. Military SMs are not guaranteed the ideal scenario for treatment and prevention of HS. Unsanitary environments and occlusive uniforms undoubtedly contribute to disease process and make treatment more challenging. If a military SM is in a field setting or deployed, frequent daily dressing changes should still be attempted.

Case Report

A 19-year-old female marine with a 10-year history of hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) presented with hyperpigmented nodules in the inguinal folds and a recurrent cyst in the right groin area of 2 to 3 weeks’ duration. She denied axillary or inframammary involvement. She underwent several incision and drainage procedures 1 year prior to her enlistment in the US Marine Corps at 18 years of age. She previously had been treated by dermatology with doxycycline 100-mg tablets twice daily, benzoyl peroxide wash 5% applied to affected areas and rinsed daily, and clindamycin solution 1% with minimal improvement. She denied smoking or alcohol intake and said she typically wore a loose-fitting uniform to work. As a marine, she was expected to participate in daily physical training and exercises with her military unit, during which she wore a standardized physical training uniform, including nylon shorts and a cotton T-shirt. She requested light duty—military duty status with physical limitations or restrictions—to avoid physical training that would cause further friction and irritation to the inguinal region.

Physical examination demonstrated a woman with Fitzpatrick skin type III and normal body mass index. There were hyperpigmented nodules and scarring in the inguinal folds, most consistent with Hurley stage 2. A single, 0.5-cm, draining lesion was visualized. No hyperhidrosis was noted. The patient was placed on light duty for 7 days, with physical training only at her own pace and discretion. Moreover, she was restricted from field training, rifle range training, and other situations where she may excessively sweat or not be able to adequately maintain personal hygiene. She was encouraged to continue clindamycin solution 1% to the affected area twice daily and was prescribed chlorhexidine solution 4% to use when washing affected areas in the shower. The patient also was referred to the dermatology department at the Naval Hospital Camp Pendleton (Oceanside, California), where she was treated with laser hair removal in the inguinal region, thus avoiding waxing and further aggravation of HS flares. Due to the combination of topical therapies along with laser hair removal and duty restrictions, the patient had a dramatic decrease in development of severe nodular lesions.

Comment

Presentation
Historically, the incidence of HS is estimated at 0.5% to 4% of the general population with female predominance.¹ Predisposing factors include obesity, smoking, genetic predisposition to acne, apocrine duct obstruction, and secondary bacterial infection.² During acute flares, patients generally present with tender subcutaneous nodules that drain malodorous purulent material.^3,4 Acute flares are unpredictable, and patients deal with chronic, recurrent, draining wounds, leading to a poor quality of life with resulting physical, psychological, financial, social, and emotional distress.^3-5 The negative impact of HS on a patient’s quality of life has been reported to be greater than other dermatologic conditions.⁶ Lesions can be particularly painful and can cause disfiguration to the surface of the skin.⁷ Lesion severity is described using the Hurley staging system. Patient quality of life is directly correlated with disease severity and Hurley stage. In stage 1, abscesses develop, but no sinus tracts or cicatrization is present. In stage 2, recurrent abscesses will form tracts and cicatrization. In stage 3, the abscesses become diffuse or near diffuse, with multiple interconnected tracts and abscesses across the entire area of the body.^8,9

Severe or refractory HS within the physically active military population may require consideration of light or limited duty or even separation from service. Similarly, severe HS may pose challenges with other physically demanding occupations, such as the police force and firefighters.

Prevention Focus
Prevention of flares is key for patients with HS; secondary prevention aims to reduce impact of the disease or injury that has already occurred,^10,11 which includes prevention of the infundibulofolliculitis from becoming a deep folliculitis, nodule, or fistula, as well as Hurley stage progression. Prompt diagnosis with appropriate treatment can decrease the severity of lesions, pain, and scarring. Globally, HS patients continue to experience considerable diagnostic delays of 8 to 12 years after onset of initial symptoms.^11,12 Earlier accurate diagnosis and initiation of treatment from the primary care provider or general medical officer is imperative. Initial accurate management may help keep symptoms from progressing to more severe painful lesions. Similarly, patients should be educated on how to prevent HS flares. Patients should avoid known triggers, including smoking, obesity, sweating, mechanical irritation, stress, and poor hygiene.¹¹

Shaving for hair reduction creates ingrown hair shafts, which may lead to folliculitis in mechanically stressed areas in skin folds, thus initiating the inflammatory cascade of HS.^11,13 Therefore, shaving along with any other mechanical stress should be avoided in patients with HS. Laser hair removal has been shown to be quite helpful in both the prevention and treatment of HS. In one study, 22 patients with Hurley stage 2 to 3 disease were treated with an Nd:YAG laser once monthly. Results demonstrated a 65% decrease in disease severity after 3 monthly treatments.¹¹ Similarly, other lasers have been used with success in several small case series; an 800-nm diode laser, intense pulsed light therapy, and a ruby laser have each demonstrated efficacy.¹⁴ Given these results, hair removal should be recommended to patients with HS. Military servicemembers (SMs) with certain conditions, such as polycystic ovary syndrome, pseudofolliculitis barbae, and HS, are eligible for laser hair removal when available at local military treatment facilities. Primary care providers for military SMs must have a working understanding of the disease process of HS and awareness of what resources are available for treatment, which allows for more streamlined care and improved outcomes.

Treatment Options
Treatment options are diverse and depend on the severity of HS. Typically, treatment begins with medical therapy followed by escalation to surgical intervention. Medical therapies often include antibiotics, acne treatments, antiandrogen therapy, immunosuppressive agents, and biologic therapy.^15,16 If first-line medical interventions fail to control HS, surgical interventions should be considered. Surgical intervention in conjunction with medical therapy decreases the chance for recurrence.^3,15,16

Although HS is internationally recognized as an inflammatory disease and not an infectious process, topical antibiotics can help to prevent and improve formation of abscesses, nodules, and pustules.¹¹ Agents such as clindamycin and chlorhexidine wash have proven effective in preventing flares.^11,16 Other antibiotics used alone or in combination also are efficacious. Tetracyclines are recommended as monotherapy for mild stages of HS.^17-19 Doxycycline is the most commonly used tetracycline in HS patients and has been demonstrated to penetrate Staphylococcus aureus biofilm in high enough concentrations to maintain its antibacterial activity.²⁰ Moreover, doxycycline, as with other tetracyclines, has a multitude of anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory properties²¹ and can reduce the production of IL-1, IL-6, tumor necrosis factor α, and IL-8; downregulate chemotaxis; and promote lipo-oxygenase, matrix metalloproteinase, and nuclear factor κB (NF-κB) signaling inhibition.¹⁷

Clindamycin is the only known agent that has been studied for topical treatment and utilization in milder cases of HS.^17,22 Systemic combination of clindamycin and rifampicin is the most studied, with well-established efficacy in managing HS.^17,23,24 Clindamycin has bacteriostatic activity toward both aerobic and anaerobic gram-positive bacteria by binding irreversibly to the 50S ribosomal subunit, thereby inhibiting bacterial protein synthesis. Rifampicin binds to the beta subunit of DNA-dependent RNA polymerase, inhibiting bacterial DNA-dependent RNA synthesis. Rifampicin has broad-spectrum activity, mostly against gram-positive as well as some gram-negative bacteria. Moreover, rifampicin has anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory properties, including evidence that it inhibits excessive helper T cell (T_H17) responses by reducing inducible nitric oxide synthase transcription and NF-κB activity.^25,26

Metronidazole, moxifloxacin, and rifampicin as triple combination therapy has been shown to be effective in reducing HS activity in moderate to severe cases that were refractory to other treatments.²⁷ Research suggests that moxifloxacin has anti-inflammatory properties, mainly by reducing IL-1β, IL-8, and tumor necrosis factor α; stabilizing IXb protein; suppressing NF-κB signaling; and reducing IL-17A.^28,29

Ertapenem can be utilized as a single 6-week antibiotic course during surgical planning or rescue therapy.¹⁸ Moreover, ertapenem can be used to treat complicated skin and soft tissue infections and has been shown to substantially improve clinical aspects of severe HS.^17,27

Disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs are effective in the treatment of moderate to severe HS.^17-19 In 2 phase 3 trials (PIONEER I and II), adalimumab was used as monotherapy or in conjunction with antibiotics in patients with moderate to severe HS compared to placebo.³⁰ Results demonstrated a disease burden reduction of greater than 50%. Antibiotic dual therapy was not noted to significantly affect disease burden.³⁰ Of note, use of immunosuppressants in the military affects an SM’s availability for worldwide deployment and duty station assignment.

Antiandrogen therapies have demonstrated some reduction in HS flares. Although recommendations for use in HS is based on limited evidence, one randomized controlled trial compared ethinyl estradiol–norgestrel to ethinyl estradiol and cyproterone acetate. Both therapies resulted in similar efficacy, with 12 of 24 (50%) patients reporting HS symptoms improving or completely resolved.³¹ In another retrospective study of women treated with antiandrogen therapies, including ethinyl estriol, cyproterone acetate, and spironolactone, 16 of 29 (55%) patients reported improvement.³² In another study, daily doses of 100 to 150 mg of spironolactone resulted in improvement in 17 of 20 (85%) patients, including complete remission in 11 of 20 (55%) patients. Of the 3 patients with severe HS, none had complete clearing of disease burden.³³ Patients with polycystic ovary syndrome or HS flares that occur around menstruation are more likely to benefit from treatment with spironolactone.^18,32,34

Retinoids frequently have been utilized in the management of HS. In some retrospective studies and other prospective studies with 5 or more patients, isotretinoin monotherapy was utilized for a 4- to 10-month period.^18,35-38 In the Alikhan et al¹⁸ study, 85 of 207 patients demonstrated improvement of HS symptoms, with more remarkable improvements in milder cases. Isotretinoin for management of patients with HS who have concomitant nodulocystic acne would have two-fold benefits.¹⁸

Wound Care
Given the purulent nodular formation in HS, adequate wound care management is vital. There is an abundance of HS wound care management strategies utilized by clinicians and patients. When selecting the appropriate dressing, consideration for the type of HS wound, cost, ease of application, patient comfort, absorbency, and odor management is important.³ However, living arrangements for military SMs can create difficulties applying and maintaining HS dressings, especially if deployed or in a field setting. Active-duty SMs often find themselves in austere living conditions in the field, aboard ships, or in other scenarios where they may or may not have running water or showers. Maintaining adequate hygiene may be difficult, and additional education about how to keep wounds clean must be imparted. Ideal dressings for HS should be highly absorbent, comfortable when applied to the anatomic locations of the HS lesions, and easily self-applied. Ideally, dressings would have atraumatic adhesion and antimicrobial properties.³ Cost-effective dressing options that have good absorption capability include sanitary napkins, adult briefs, infant diapers, and gauze.³ These dressings help to wick moisture, thus protecting the wound from maceration, which is a common patient concern. Although gauze dressings are easier to obtain, they are not as absorbent. Abdominal pads can be utilized, but they are moderately absorbent, bulky, and more challenging to obtain over-the-counter. Hydrofiber and calcium alginate dressings with silver are not accessible to the common consumer and are more expensive than the aforementioned dressings, but they do have some antimicrobial activity. Silver-impregnated foam dressings are moldable to intertriginous areas, easy to self-apply, and have moderate-heavy absorption abilities.

Final Thoughts

Hidradenitis suppurativa poses cumbersome and uncomfortable symptoms for all patients and may pose additional hardships for military SMs or those with physically demanding occupations who work in austere environments. Severe HS can restrict a military SM from certain duty stations, positions, or deployments. Early identification of HS can help reduce HS flares, disfigurement, and placement on limited duty status, therefore rendering the SM more able to engage in his/her operational responsibilities. Hidradenitis suppurativa should be discussed with the patient, with the goal to prevent flares for SMs that will be in the field, placed in austere environments, or be deployed. Use of immunosuppressants in active-duty SMs may affect their deployability, duty assignment, and retention.

For a military SM with HS, all aspects of prevention and treatment need to be balanced with his/her ability to remain deployable and complete his/her daily duties. Military SMs are not guaranteed the ideal scenario for treatment and prevention of HS. Unsanitary environments and occlusive uniforms undoubtedly contribute to disease process and make treatment more challenging. If a military SM is in a field setting or deployed, frequent daily dressing changes should still be attempted.

Since joining the Food and Drug Administration in 1986, Janet Woodcock, MD, has built a reputation as a stalwart champion of patients and consumers, from helping to usher the approval of the first treatments for cystic fibrosis and multiple sclerosis during her tenure as director of the Office of Therapeutics Research and Review, to introducing the concept of risk management in the agency’s analysis of drug safety during her role as acting director of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER).

During an online event on Oct. 9, Dr. Woodcock, who became CDER’s director in 2008, will receive a lifetime achievement award from the National Organization for Rare Disorders*. In this interview, she reflects on the CDER’s accomplishments in the field of rare diseases, from which she draws inspiration, and what it’s like to be overseeing the therapeutics component of Operation Warp Speed amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

Q: In what practical ways can physicians become advocates for patients and their families who are navigating life with a rare disease?

Dr. Woodcock: I advise people to get involved in the association or advocacy group for their rare disease. It’s empowering. They can share stories and information with others who have been suffering from the disease. Also, they would get information about what trials might be available. As for physicians themselves, they have a bewildering variety of jobs they’re supposed to do, so it’s hard to be good in any one of them. People with rare disease often suffer terribly because they don’t get diagnosed for 10 years even though they have classic symptoms of a particular disorder. If physicians have never seen it or never heard of it, they may not know how to treat it. It’s a huge problem.



Q: Who inspires you most in your work today?

Dr. Woodcock: The dedication of the staff at the FDA is unbelievable. When you look at responses to the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey administered by the Office of Personnel Management, FDA workers consistently express a strong sense of mission and dedication. It’s out of the park, really. They have worked night and day during this pandemic. I’m inspired by everyone who works at the FDA and their incredible dedication to their work.

Q: In what ways do you cope with the pressure that comes with your line of work? Do you have a favorite hobby or that activity that helps keep you grounded?

Dr. Woodcock: I’m an avid gardener, so I have a garden with vegetables, fruits, and flowers, including a large orchid collection. I’m also a hiker and a physical fitness buff, so I feel like there isn’t enough time in the day for all of my hobbies. Formal hiking trails near me are very crowded now, so I’ve been hiking around my neighborhood, taking long walks and going up and down hills quickly. Last November, I went hiking in New Zealand with my daughter. We hiked the Milford Track, which is about 33 miles long. It goes from an inland lake, over a mountain pass, and to the Pacific Ocean. It was fun, with unbelievable scenery.



Q: What novel treatment developments in rare disorders are you most excited about in the next 5 years?

Dr. Woodcock: I think gene therapy will come into its own. I think that could be a game-changer for people with genetic mutations causing rare diseases, and even cancer. We’ll see. It takes the technology a long time to mature. There are also gene-directed therapies such as RNA inhibition. We’ve already approved a couple of products like that for rare diseases, including treatments for the cardiomyopathy and neuropathy associated with ATTR amyloidosis. As our knowledge of biology continues to grow, I think more of these diseases will be amenable to interventions.



Q: In May of 2020 you were asked to temporarily step aside from your post as director of CDER to work on Operation Warp Speed. Please describe what your role is in this effort to accelerate COVID-19 treatments.

Dr. Woodcock: I’m the lead on therapeutics. Operation Warp Speed is mainly focused on developing vaccines for COVID-19. In the meantime, people who don’t respond to vaccines are going to need therapeutics, such as the elderly, or those who refuse to take vaccines, or those who are immunosuppressed and can’t mount a response to a vaccine. If we can develop those therapeutics now, that would be good to get that populous vaccinated. The team identified what we thought were the five highest priority agents to work on, and we’re testing them. We have identified many more in a priority list. We have five master protocols running for different times in the disease, such as when you’re an outpatient, when you’re an inpatient, or when you’re in the ICU. The work is stressful, because we need these treatments as soon as possible, but we have a great team working on this. I feel like I’m making a contribution in this role, because I know people in industry and in the National Institutes of Health. I try to bring everyone together and get things done.

*Correction, 10/22/20: An earlier version of this article misstated the name of the National Organization for Rare Disorders.

[email protected]

Since joining the Food and Drug Administration in 1986, Janet Woodcock, MD, has built a reputation as a stalwart champion of patients and consumers, from helping to usher the approval of the first treatments for cystic fibrosis and multiple sclerosis during her tenure as director of the Office of Therapeutics Research and Review, to introducing the concept of risk management in the agency’s analysis of drug safety during her role as acting director of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER).

During an online event on Oct. 9, Dr. Woodcock, who became CDER’s director in 2008, will receive a lifetime achievement award from the National Organization for Rare Disorders*. In this interview, she reflects on the CDER’s accomplishments in the field of rare diseases, from which she draws inspiration, and what it’s like to be overseeing the therapeutics component of Operation Warp Speed amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

Q: In what practical ways can physicians become advocates for patients and their families who are navigating life with a rare disease?

Dr. Woodcock: I advise people to get involved in the association or advocacy group for their rare disease. It’s empowering. They can share stories and information with others who have been suffering from the disease. Also, they would get information about what trials might be available. As for physicians themselves, they have a bewildering variety of jobs they’re supposed to do, so it’s hard to be good in any one of them. People with rare disease often suffer terribly because they don’t get diagnosed for 10 years even though they have classic symptoms of a particular disorder. If physicians have never seen it or never heard of it, they may not know how to treat it. It’s a huge problem.



Q: Who inspires you most in your work today?

Dr. Woodcock: The dedication of the staff at the FDA is unbelievable. When you look at responses to the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey administered by the Office of Personnel Management, FDA workers consistently express a strong sense of mission and dedication. It’s out of the park, really. They have worked night and day during this pandemic. I’m inspired by everyone who works at the FDA and their incredible dedication to their work.

Q: In what ways do you cope with the pressure that comes with your line of work? Do you have a favorite hobby or that activity that helps keep you grounded?

Dr. Woodcock: I’m an avid gardener, so I have a garden with vegetables, fruits, and flowers, including a large orchid collection. I’m also a hiker and a physical fitness buff, so I feel like there isn’t enough time in the day for all of my hobbies. Formal hiking trails near me are very crowded now, so I’ve been hiking around my neighborhood, taking long walks and going up and down hills quickly. Last November, I went hiking in New Zealand with my daughter. We hiked the Milford Track, which is about 33 miles long. It goes from an inland lake, over a mountain pass, and to the Pacific Ocean. It was fun, with unbelievable scenery.



Q: What novel treatment developments in rare disorders are you most excited about in the next 5 years?

Dr. Woodcock: I think gene therapy will come into its own. I think that could be a game-changer for people with genetic mutations causing rare diseases, and even cancer. We’ll see. It takes the technology a long time to mature. There are also gene-directed therapies such as RNA inhibition. We’ve already approved a couple of products like that for rare diseases, including treatments for the cardiomyopathy and neuropathy associated with ATTR amyloidosis. As our knowledge of biology continues to grow, I think more of these diseases will be amenable to interventions.



Q: In May of 2020 you were asked to temporarily step aside from your post as director of CDER to work on Operation Warp Speed. Please describe what your role is in this effort to accelerate COVID-19 treatments.

Dr. Woodcock: I’m the lead on therapeutics. Operation Warp Speed is mainly focused on developing vaccines for COVID-19. In the meantime, people who don’t respond to vaccines are going to need therapeutics, such as the elderly, or those who refuse to take vaccines, or those who are immunosuppressed and can’t mount a response to a vaccine. If we can develop those therapeutics now, that would be good to get that populous vaccinated. The team identified what we thought were the five highest priority agents to work on, and we’re testing them. We have identified many more in a priority list. We have five master protocols running for different times in the disease, such as when you’re an outpatient, when you’re an inpatient, or when you’re in the ICU. The work is stressful, because we need these treatments as soon as possible, but we have a great team working on this. I feel like I’m making a contribution in this role, because I know people in industry and in the National Institutes of Health. I try to bring everyone together and get things done.

*Correction, 10/22/20: An earlier version of this article misstated the name of the National Organization for Rare Disorders.

[email protected]

Since joining the Food and Drug Administration in 1986, Janet Woodcock, MD, has built a reputation as a stalwart champion of patients and consumers, from helping to usher the approval of the first treatments for cystic fibrosis and multiple sclerosis during her tenure as director of the Office of Therapeutics Research and Review, to introducing the concept of risk management in the agency’s analysis of drug safety during her role as acting director of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER).

During an online event on Oct. 9, Dr. Woodcock, who became CDER’s director in 2008, will receive a lifetime achievement award from the National Organization for Rare Disorders*. In this interview, she reflects on the CDER’s accomplishments in the field of rare diseases, from which she draws inspiration, and what it’s like to be overseeing the therapeutics component of Operation Warp Speed amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

Q: In what practical ways can physicians become advocates for patients and their families who are navigating life with a rare disease?

Dr. Woodcock: I advise people to get involved in the association or advocacy group for their rare disease. It’s empowering. They can share stories and information with others who have been suffering from the disease. Also, they would get information about what trials might be available. As for physicians themselves, they have a bewildering variety of jobs they’re supposed to do, so it’s hard to be good in any one of them. People with rare disease often suffer terribly because they don’t get diagnosed for 10 years even though they have classic symptoms of a particular disorder. If physicians have never seen it or never heard of it, they may not know how to treat it. It’s a huge problem.



Q: Who inspires you most in your work today?

Dr. Woodcock: The dedication of the staff at the FDA is unbelievable. When you look at responses to the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey administered by the Office of Personnel Management, FDA workers consistently express a strong sense of mission and dedication. It’s out of the park, really. They have worked night and day during this pandemic. I’m inspired by everyone who works at the FDA and their incredible dedication to their work.

Q: In what ways do you cope with the pressure that comes with your line of work? Do you have a favorite hobby or that activity that helps keep you grounded?

Dr. Woodcock: I’m an avid gardener, so I have a garden with vegetables, fruits, and flowers, including a large orchid collection. I’m also a hiker and a physical fitness buff, so I feel like there isn’t enough time in the day for all of my hobbies. Formal hiking trails near me are very crowded now, so I’ve been hiking around my neighborhood, taking long walks and going up and down hills quickly. Last November, I went hiking in New Zealand with my daughter. We hiked the Milford Track, which is about 33 miles long. It goes from an inland lake, over a mountain pass, and to the Pacific Ocean. It was fun, with unbelievable scenery.



Q: What novel treatment developments in rare disorders are you most excited about in the next 5 years?

Dr. Woodcock: I think gene therapy will come into its own. I think that could be a game-changer for people with genetic mutations causing rare diseases, and even cancer. We’ll see. It takes the technology a long time to mature. There are also gene-directed therapies such as RNA inhibition. We’ve already approved a couple of products like that for rare diseases, including treatments for the cardiomyopathy and neuropathy associated with ATTR amyloidosis. As our knowledge of biology continues to grow, I think more of these diseases will be amenable to interventions.



Q: In May of 2020 you were asked to temporarily step aside from your post as director of CDER to work on Operation Warp Speed. Please describe what your role is in this effort to accelerate COVID-19 treatments.

Dr. Woodcock: I’m the lead on therapeutics. Operation Warp Speed is mainly focused on developing vaccines for COVID-19. In the meantime, people who don’t respond to vaccines are going to need therapeutics, such as the elderly, or those who refuse to take vaccines, or those who are immunosuppressed and can’t mount a response to a vaccine. If we can develop those therapeutics now, that would be good to get that populous vaccinated. The team identified what we thought were the five highest priority agents to work on, and we’re testing them. We have identified many more in a priority list. We have five master protocols running for different times in the disease, such as when you’re an outpatient, when you’re an inpatient, or when you’re in the ICU. The work is stressful, because we need these treatments as soon as possible, but we have a great team working on this. I feel like I’m making a contribution in this role, because I know people in industry and in the National Institutes of Health. I try to bring everyone together and get things done.

*Correction, 10/22/20: An earlier version of this article misstated the name of the National Organization for Rare Disorders.

[email protected]

Mortality in patients with COVID-19 and cancer is associated with general clinical and demographic factors, cancer-specific factors, cancer treatment variables, and laboratory parameters, according to two presentations at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.

Two analyses of data from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) were presented at the meeting.

The data suggest that older age, male sex, more comorbidities, poor performance status, progressive cancer or multiple cancers, hematologic malignancy, and recent cancer therapy are all associated with higher mortality among patients with cancer and COVID-19. Anti-CD20 therapy is associated with an especially high mortality rate, according to an investigator.

Among hospitalized patients, increased absolute neutrophil count as well as abnormal D-dimer, high-sensitivity troponin, and C-reactive protein are associated with a higher risk of mortality.

Prior analyses of CCC19 data pointed to several factors associated with higher COVID-19 death rates, according to Petros Grivas, MD, PhD, of University of Washington, Seattle, who presented some CCC19 data at the meeting. However, the prior analyses were limited by weak statistical power and low event rates, Dr. Grivas said.
 

Clinical and laboratory factors: Abstract LBA72

The aim of Dr. Grivas’s analysis was to validate a priori identified demographic and clinicopathologic factors associated with 30-day all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19 and cancer. Dr. Grivas and colleagues also explored the potential association between laboratory parameters and 30-day all-cause mortality.

The analysis included 3,899 patients with cancer and COVID-19 from 124 centers. Most centers are in the United States, but 4% are in Canada, and 2% are in Spain. About two-thirds of patients were 60 years of age or younger at baseline, half were men, 79% had solid tumors, and 21% had hematologic malignancies.

Cancer-specific factors associated with an increased risk of 30-day all-cause mortality were having progressive cancer (adjusted odds ratio, 2.9), receiving cancer therapy within 3 months (aOR, 1.2), having a hematologic versus solid tumor (aOR, 1.7), and having multiple malignancies (aOR, 1.5).

Clinical factors associated with an increased risk of 30-day all-cause mortality were Black versus White race (aOR, 1.5), older age (aOR, 1.7 per 10 years), three or more actively treated comorbidities (versus none; aOR, 2.1), and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or more (versus 0; aOR, 4.6).

In hospitalized patients, several laboratory variables were associated with an increased risk of 30-day all-cause mortality. Having an absolute neutrophil count above the upper limit of normal doubled the risk (aOR, 2.0), while abnormal D-dimer, high-sensitivity troponin, and C-reactive protein all more than doubled the risk of mortality (aORs of 2.5, 2.5, and 2.4, respectively).

Further risk modeling with multivariable analysis will be performed after longer follow-up, Dr. Grivas noted.
 

Treatment-related outcomes: Abstract LBA71

An additional analysis of CCC19 data encompassed 3,654 patients. In this analysis, researchers investigated the correlation between timing of cancer treatment and COVID-19–related complications and 30-day mortality.

Mortality was highest among cancer patients treated 1-3 months prior to COVID-19 diagnosis, with all-cause mortality at 28%, said Trisha M. Wise-Draper, MD, PhD, of University of Cincinnati, when presenting the data at the meeting.

Rates for other complications (hospitalization, oxygen required, ICU admission, and mechanical ventilation) were similar regardless of treatment timing.

The unadjusted 30-day mortality rate was highest for patients treated most recently with chemoimmunotherapy (30%), followed by chemotherapy (18%), chemoradiotherapy (18%), and targeted therapy (17%).

The mortality rate was “particularly high,” at 50%, in patients receiving anti-CD20 therapy 1-3 months prior to COVID-19 diagnosis – the time period for which significant B-cell depletion develops, Dr. Wise-Draper observed.

An analysis of disease status among 1,449 patients treated within 3 months of COVID-19 diagnosis showed mortality risk increasing from 6% among patients in remission or with newly emergent disease, to 22% in patients with any active cancer, to 34% in those with progressing disease, Dr. Wise-Draper said.

Discussant Benjamin Solomon, MD, PhD, of Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, made note of the high 30-day mortality rate seen in patients receiving anti-CD20 therapy as well as the elevated standardized mortality ratios with recent chemoimmunotherapy and targeted therapy.

“Although there are some limitations of this analysis, it provides the best data we have to date about the effects of treatment on early mortality in patients with COVID-19 and cancer. It points to a modest but heterogeneous effect of treatment on outcome, one which is likely to become clearer with larger cohorts and additional analysis,” Dr. Solomon said.

This research was funded by the American Cancer Society, Hope Foundation for Cancer Research, Jim and Carol O’Hare Fund, National Cancer Institute, National Human Genome Research Institute, Vanderbilt Institute for Clinical and Translational Research, and Fonds de Recherche du Quebec-Sante. Dr. Grivas disclosed relationships with many companies, but none are related to this work. Dr. Wise-Draper disclosed relationships with Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Tesaro, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Shattuck Labs, and Rakuten. Dr. Solomon disclosed relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche-Genentech.

SOURCES: Grivas P et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA72; Wise-Draper TM et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA71.

Mortality in patients with COVID-19 and cancer is associated with general clinical and demographic factors, cancer-specific factors, cancer treatment variables, and laboratory parameters, according to two presentations at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.

Two analyses of data from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) were presented at the meeting.

The data suggest that older age, male sex, more comorbidities, poor performance status, progressive cancer or multiple cancers, hematologic malignancy, and recent cancer therapy are all associated with higher mortality among patients with cancer and COVID-19. Anti-CD20 therapy is associated with an especially high mortality rate, according to an investigator.

Among hospitalized patients, increased absolute neutrophil count as well as abnormal D-dimer, high-sensitivity troponin, and C-reactive protein are associated with a higher risk of mortality.

Prior analyses of CCC19 data pointed to several factors associated with higher COVID-19 death rates, according to Petros Grivas, MD, PhD, of University of Washington, Seattle, who presented some CCC19 data at the meeting. However, the prior analyses were limited by weak statistical power and low event rates, Dr. Grivas said.
 

Clinical and laboratory factors: Abstract LBA72

The aim of Dr. Grivas’s analysis was to validate a priori identified demographic and clinicopathologic factors associated with 30-day all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19 and cancer. Dr. Grivas and colleagues also explored the potential association between laboratory parameters and 30-day all-cause mortality.

The analysis included 3,899 patients with cancer and COVID-19 from 124 centers. Most centers are in the United States, but 4% are in Canada, and 2% are in Spain. About two-thirds of patients were 60 years of age or younger at baseline, half were men, 79% had solid tumors, and 21% had hematologic malignancies.

Cancer-specific factors associated with an increased risk of 30-day all-cause mortality were having progressive cancer (adjusted odds ratio, 2.9), receiving cancer therapy within 3 months (aOR, 1.2), having a hematologic versus solid tumor (aOR, 1.7), and having multiple malignancies (aOR, 1.5).

Clinical factors associated with an increased risk of 30-day all-cause mortality were Black versus White race (aOR, 1.5), older age (aOR, 1.7 per 10 years), three or more actively treated comorbidities (versus none; aOR, 2.1), and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or more (versus 0; aOR, 4.6).

In hospitalized patients, several laboratory variables were associated with an increased risk of 30-day all-cause mortality. Having an absolute neutrophil count above the upper limit of normal doubled the risk (aOR, 2.0), while abnormal D-dimer, high-sensitivity troponin, and C-reactive protein all more than doubled the risk of mortality (aORs of 2.5, 2.5, and 2.4, respectively).

Further risk modeling with multivariable analysis will be performed after longer follow-up, Dr. Grivas noted.
 

Treatment-related outcomes: Abstract LBA71

An additional analysis of CCC19 data encompassed 3,654 patients. In this analysis, researchers investigated the correlation between timing of cancer treatment and COVID-19–related complications and 30-day mortality.

Mortality was highest among cancer patients treated 1-3 months prior to COVID-19 diagnosis, with all-cause mortality at 28%, said Trisha M. Wise-Draper, MD, PhD, of University of Cincinnati, when presenting the data at the meeting.

Rates for other complications (hospitalization, oxygen required, ICU admission, and mechanical ventilation) were similar regardless of treatment timing.

The unadjusted 30-day mortality rate was highest for patients treated most recently with chemoimmunotherapy (30%), followed by chemotherapy (18%), chemoradiotherapy (18%), and targeted therapy (17%).

The mortality rate was “particularly high,” at 50%, in patients receiving anti-CD20 therapy 1-3 months prior to COVID-19 diagnosis – the time period for which significant B-cell depletion develops, Dr. Wise-Draper observed.

An analysis of disease status among 1,449 patients treated within 3 months of COVID-19 diagnosis showed mortality risk increasing from 6% among patients in remission or with newly emergent disease, to 22% in patients with any active cancer, to 34% in those with progressing disease, Dr. Wise-Draper said.

Discussant Benjamin Solomon, MD, PhD, of Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, made note of the high 30-day mortality rate seen in patients receiving anti-CD20 therapy as well as the elevated standardized mortality ratios with recent chemoimmunotherapy and targeted therapy.

“Although there are some limitations of this analysis, it provides the best data we have to date about the effects of treatment on early mortality in patients with COVID-19 and cancer. It points to a modest but heterogeneous effect of treatment on outcome, one which is likely to become clearer with larger cohorts and additional analysis,” Dr. Solomon said.

This research was funded by the American Cancer Society, Hope Foundation for Cancer Research, Jim and Carol O’Hare Fund, National Cancer Institute, National Human Genome Research Institute, Vanderbilt Institute for Clinical and Translational Research, and Fonds de Recherche du Quebec-Sante. Dr. Grivas disclosed relationships with many companies, but none are related to this work. Dr. Wise-Draper disclosed relationships with Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Tesaro, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Shattuck Labs, and Rakuten. Dr. Solomon disclosed relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche-Genentech.

SOURCES: Grivas P et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA72; Wise-Draper TM et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA71.

Mortality in patients with COVID-19 and cancer is associated with general clinical and demographic factors, cancer-specific factors, cancer treatment variables, and laboratory parameters, according to two presentations at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.

Two analyses of data from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) were presented at the meeting.

The data suggest that older age, male sex, more comorbidities, poor performance status, progressive cancer or multiple cancers, hematologic malignancy, and recent cancer therapy are all associated with higher mortality among patients with cancer and COVID-19. Anti-CD20 therapy is associated with an especially high mortality rate, according to an investigator.

Among hospitalized patients, increased absolute neutrophil count as well as abnormal D-dimer, high-sensitivity troponin, and C-reactive protein are associated with a higher risk of mortality.

Prior analyses of CCC19 data pointed to several factors associated with higher COVID-19 death rates, according to Petros Grivas, MD, PhD, of University of Washington, Seattle, who presented some CCC19 data at the meeting. However, the prior analyses were limited by weak statistical power and low event rates, Dr. Grivas said.
 

Clinical and laboratory factors: Abstract LBA72

The aim of Dr. Grivas’s analysis was to validate a priori identified demographic and clinicopathologic factors associated with 30-day all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19 and cancer. Dr. Grivas and colleagues also explored the potential association between laboratory parameters and 30-day all-cause mortality.

The analysis included 3,899 patients with cancer and COVID-19 from 124 centers. Most centers are in the United States, but 4% are in Canada, and 2% are in Spain. About two-thirds of patients were 60 years of age or younger at baseline, half were men, 79% had solid tumors, and 21% had hematologic malignancies.

Cancer-specific factors associated with an increased risk of 30-day all-cause mortality were having progressive cancer (adjusted odds ratio, 2.9), receiving cancer therapy within 3 months (aOR, 1.2), having a hematologic versus solid tumor (aOR, 1.7), and having multiple malignancies (aOR, 1.5).

Clinical factors associated with an increased risk of 30-day all-cause mortality were Black versus White race (aOR, 1.5), older age (aOR, 1.7 per 10 years), three or more actively treated comorbidities (versus none; aOR, 2.1), and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or more (versus 0; aOR, 4.6).

In hospitalized patients, several laboratory variables were associated with an increased risk of 30-day all-cause mortality. Having an absolute neutrophil count above the upper limit of normal doubled the risk (aOR, 2.0), while abnormal D-dimer, high-sensitivity troponin, and C-reactive protein all more than doubled the risk of mortality (aORs of 2.5, 2.5, and 2.4, respectively).

Further risk modeling with multivariable analysis will be performed after longer follow-up, Dr. Grivas noted.
 

Treatment-related outcomes: Abstract LBA71

An additional analysis of CCC19 data encompassed 3,654 patients. In this analysis, researchers investigated the correlation between timing of cancer treatment and COVID-19–related complications and 30-day mortality.

Mortality was highest among cancer patients treated 1-3 months prior to COVID-19 diagnosis, with all-cause mortality at 28%, said Trisha M. Wise-Draper, MD, PhD, of University of Cincinnati, when presenting the data at the meeting.

Rates for other complications (hospitalization, oxygen required, ICU admission, and mechanical ventilation) were similar regardless of treatment timing.

The unadjusted 30-day mortality rate was highest for patients treated most recently with chemoimmunotherapy (30%), followed by chemotherapy (18%), chemoradiotherapy (18%), and targeted therapy (17%).

The mortality rate was “particularly high,” at 50%, in patients receiving anti-CD20 therapy 1-3 months prior to COVID-19 diagnosis – the time period for which significant B-cell depletion develops, Dr. Wise-Draper observed.

An analysis of disease status among 1,449 patients treated within 3 months of COVID-19 diagnosis showed mortality risk increasing from 6% among patients in remission or with newly emergent disease, to 22% in patients with any active cancer, to 34% in those with progressing disease, Dr. Wise-Draper said.

Discussant Benjamin Solomon, MD, PhD, of Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, made note of the high 30-day mortality rate seen in patients receiving anti-CD20 therapy as well as the elevated standardized mortality ratios with recent chemoimmunotherapy and targeted therapy.

“Although there are some limitations of this analysis, it provides the best data we have to date about the effects of treatment on early mortality in patients with COVID-19 and cancer. It points to a modest but heterogeneous effect of treatment on outcome, one which is likely to become clearer with larger cohorts and additional analysis,” Dr. Solomon said.

This research was funded by the American Cancer Society, Hope Foundation for Cancer Research, Jim and Carol O’Hare Fund, National Cancer Institute, National Human Genome Research Institute, Vanderbilt Institute for Clinical and Translational Research, and Fonds de Recherche du Quebec-Sante. Dr. Grivas disclosed relationships with many companies, but none are related to this work. Dr. Wise-Draper disclosed relationships with Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Tesaro, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Shattuck Labs, and Rakuten. Dr. Solomon disclosed relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche-Genentech.

SOURCES: Grivas P et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA72; Wise-Draper TM et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA71.

Patients aged 2 years and older now have intravenous golimumab (Simponi Aria) as an option to treat active polyarticular-course juvenile idiopathic arthritis (pJIA) or psoriatic arthritis (PsA) after the Food and Drug Administration approved the tumor necrosis factor inhibitor for these indications on Sept. 30, according to an announcement from its manufacturer, Janssen.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

Results from the open-label, single-arm, multicenter, phase 3, GO-VIVA clinical trial formed the basis for the agency’s approval of IV golimumab. GO-VIVA was conducted in 127 patients aged 2-17 years with JIA with arthritis in five or more joints (despite receiving treatment with methotrexate for at least 2 months) as part of a postmarketing requirement under the Pediatric Research Equity Act after the intravenous formulation of the biologic was approved for adults with rheumatoid arthritis in 2013. It demonstrated that pediatric patients had a level of pharmacokinetic exposure to golimumab that was similar to what was observed in two pivotal phase 3 trials in adults with moderately to severely active RA and active PsA, as well as efficacy that was generally consistent with responses seen in adult patients with RA, the manufacturer said.

Besides RA, intravenous golimumab was previously approved for adults with PsA and ankylosing spondylitis. As opposed to the IV dosing for adults with RA, PsA, and ankylosing spondylitis at 2 mg/kg infused over 30 minutes at weeks 0 and 4, and every 8 weeks thereafter, dosing for pediatric patients with pJIA and PsA is based on body surface area at 80 mg/m², also given as an IV infusion over 30 minutes at weeks 0 and 4, and every 8 weeks thereafter.

The adverse reactions observed in GO-VIVA were consistent with the established safety profile of intravenous golimumab in adult patients with RA and PsA, according to Janssen.

The full prescribing information for intravenous golimumab can be found on the FDA website.

[email protected]

Patients aged 2 years and older now have intravenous golimumab (Simponi Aria) as an option to treat active polyarticular-course juvenile idiopathic arthritis (pJIA) or psoriatic arthritis (PsA) after the Food and Drug Administration approved the tumor necrosis factor inhibitor for these indications on Sept. 30, according to an announcement from its manufacturer, Janssen.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

Results from the open-label, single-arm, multicenter, phase 3, GO-VIVA clinical trial formed the basis for the agency’s approval of IV golimumab. GO-VIVA was conducted in 127 patients aged 2-17 years with JIA with arthritis in five or more joints (despite receiving treatment with methotrexate for at least 2 months) as part of a postmarketing requirement under the Pediatric Research Equity Act after the intravenous formulation of the biologic was approved for adults with rheumatoid arthritis in 2013. It demonstrated that pediatric patients had a level of pharmacokinetic exposure to golimumab that was similar to what was observed in two pivotal phase 3 trials in adults with moderately to severely active RA and active PsA, as well as efficacy that was generally consistent with responses seen in adult patients with RA, the manufacturer said.

Besides RA, intravenous golimumab was previously approved for adults with PsA and ankylosing spondylitis. As opposed to the IV dosing for adults with RA, PsA, and ankylosing spondylitis at 2 mg/kg infused over 30 minutes at weeks 0 and 4, and every 8 weeks thereafter, dosing for pediatric patients with pJIA and PsA is based on body surface area at 80 mg/m², also given as an IV infusion over 30 minutes at weeks 0 and 4, and every 8 weeks thereafter.

The adverse reactions observed in GO-VIVA were consistent with the established safety profile of intravenous golimumab in adult patients with RA and PsA, according to Janssen.

The full prescribing information for intravenous golimumab can be found on the FDA website.

[email protected]

Patients aged 2 years and older now have intravenous golimumab (Simponi Aria) as an option to treat active polyarticular-course juvenile idiopathic arthritis (pJIA) or psoriatic arthritis (PsA) after the Food and Drug Administration approved the tumor necrosis factor inhibitor for these indications on Sept. 30, according to an announcement from its manufacturer, Janssen.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

Results from the open-label, single-arm, multicenter, phase 3, GO-VIVA clinical trial formed the basis for the agency’s approval of IV golimumab. GO-VIVA was conducted in 127 patients aged 2-17 years with JIA with arthritis in five or more joints (despite receiving treatment with methotrexate for at least 2 months) as part of a postmarketing requirement under the Pediatric Research Equity Act after the intravenous formulation of the biologic was approved for adults with rheumatoid arthritis in 2013. It demonstrated that pediatric patients had a level of pharmacokinetic exposure to golimumab that was similar to what was observed in two pivotal phase 3 trials in adults with moderately to severely active RA and active PsA, as well as efficacy that was generally consistent with responses seen in adult patients with RA, the manufacturer said.

Besides RA, intravenous golimumab was previously approved for adults with PsA and ankylosing spondylitis. As opposed to the IV dosing for adults with RA, PsA, and ankylosing spondylitis at 2 mg/kg infused over 30 minutes at weeks 0 and 4, and every 8 weeks thereafter, dosing for pediatric patients with pJIA and PsA is based on body surface area at 80 mg/m², also given as an IV infusion over 30 minutes at weeks 0 and 4, and every 8 weeks thereafter.

The adverse reactions observed in GO-VIVA were consistent with the established safety profile of intravenous golimumab in adult patients with RA and PsA, according to Janssen.

The full prescribing information for intravenous golimumab can be found on the FDA website.

[email protected]

Because of physiological changes with aging and differences in cancer biology, caring for older adults (OAs) with cancer requires careful assessment and planning.

Clark Dumontier, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and colleagues sought to define the meaning of the terms “undertreatment” and “overtreatment” for OAs with cancer in a scoping literature review published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Though OAs are typically defined as adults aged 65 years and older, in this review, the authors defined OAs as patients aged 60 years and older.

The authors theorized that a scoping review of papers about this patient population could provide clues about limitations in the oncology literature and guidance about patient management and future research. Despite comprising the majority of cancer patients, OAs are underrepresented in clinical trials.
 

About scoping reviews

Scoping reviews are used to identify existing evidence in a field, clarify concepts or definitions in the literature, survey how research on a topic is conducted, and identify knowledge gaps. In addition, scoping reviews summarize available evidence without answering a discrete research question.

Industry standards for scoping reviews have been established by the Johanna Briggs Institute and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for scoping reviews. According to these standards, scoping reviews should:

• Establish eligibility criteria with a rationale for each criterion clearly explained
• Search multiple databases in multiple languages
• Include “gray literature,” defined as studies that are unpublished or difficult to locate
• Have several independent reviewers screen titles and abstracts
• Ask multiple independent reviewers to review full text articles
• Present results with charts or diagrams that align with the review’s objective
• Graphically depict the decision process for including/excluding sources
• Identify implications for further research.

In their review, Dr. DuMontier and colleagues fulfilled many of the aforementioned criteria. The team searched three English-language databases for titles and abstracts that included the terms undertreatment and/or overtreatment, and were related to OAs with cancer, inclusive of all types of articles, cancer types, and treatments.

Definitions of undertreatment and overtreatment were extracted, and categories underlying these definitions were derived. Within a random subset of articles, two coauthors independently determined final categories of definitions and independently assigned those categories.
 

Findings and implications

To define OA, Dr. DuMontier and colleagues used a cutoff of 60 years or older. Articles mentioning undertreatment (n = 236), overtreatment (n = 71), or both (n = 51) met criteria for inclusion (n = 256), but only 14 articles (5.5%) explicitly provided formal definitions.

For most of the reviewed articles, the authors judged definitions from the surrounding context. In a random subset of 50 articles, there was a high level of agreement (87.1%; κ = 0.81) between two coauthors in independently assigning categories of definitions.

Undertreatment was applied to therapy that was less than recommended (148 articles; 62.7%) or less than recommended with worse outcomes (88 articles; 37.3%).

Overtreatment most commonly denoted intensive treatment of an OA in whom harms outweighed the benefits of treatment (38 articles; 53.5%) or intensive treatment of a cancer not expected to affect the OA during the patient’s remaining life (33 articles; 46.5%).

Overall, the authors found that undertreatment and overtreatment of OAs with cancer are imprecisely defined concepts. Formal geriatric assessment was recommended in just over half of articles, and only 26.2% recommended formal assessments of age-related vulnerabilities for management. The authors proposed definitions that accounted for both oncologic factors and geriatric domains.
 

Care of individual patients and clinical research

National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for OAs with cancer recommend initial consideration of overall life expectancy. If a patient is a candidate for cancer treatment on that basis, the next recommended assessment is that of the patient’s capacity to understand the relevant information, appreciate the underlying values and overall medical situation, reason through decisions, and communicate a choice that is consistent with the patient’s articulated goals.

In the pretreatment evaluation of OAs in whom there are no concerns about tolerance to antineoplastic therapy, NCCN guidelines suggest geriatric screening with standardized tools and, if abnormal, comprehensive geriatric screening. The guidelines recommend considering alternative treatment options if nonmodifiable abnormalities are identified.

Referral to a geriatric clinical specialist, use of the Cancer and Aging Research Group’s Chemo Toxicity Calculator, and calculation of Chemotherapy Risk Assessment Scale for High-Age Patients score are specifically suggested if high-risk procedures (such as chemotherapy, radiation, or complex surgery, which most oncologists would consider to be “another day in the office”) are contemplated.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guidelines for geriatric oncology are similarly detailed and endorse similar evaluations and management.

Employing disease-centric and geriatric domains

Dr. DuMontier and colleagues noted that, for OAs with comorbidity or psychosocial challenges, surrogate survival endpoints are unrelated to quality of life (QOL) outcomes. Nonetheless, QOL is valued by OAs at least as much as survival improvement.

Through no fault of their own, the authors’ conclusion that undertreatment and overtreatment are imperfectly defined concepts has a certain neutrality to it. However, the terms undertreatment and overtreatment are commonly used to signify that inappropriate treatment decisions were made. Therefore, the terms are inherently negative and pejorative.

As with most emotionally charged issues in oncology, it is ideal for professionals in our field to take charge when deficiencies exist. ASCO, NCCN, and the authors of this scoping review have provided a conceptual basis for doing so.

An integrated oncologist-geriatrician approach was shown to be effective in the randomized INTEGERATE trial, showing improved QOL, reduced hospital admissions, and reduced early treatment discontinuation from adverse events (ASCO 2020, Abstract 12011).

Therefore, those clinicians who have not formally, systematically, and routinely supplemented the traditional disease-centric endpoints with patient-centered criteria need to do so.

Similarly, a retrospective study published in JAMA Network Open demonstrated that geriatric and surgical comanagement of OAs with cancer was associated with significantly lower 90-day postoperative mortality and receipt of more supportive care services (physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech and swallow rehabilitation, and nutrition services), in comparison with management from the surgical service only.

These clinical and administrative changes will not only enhance patient management but also facilitate the clinical trials required to clarify optimal treatment intensity. As that occurs, we will be able to apply as much precision to the care of OAs with cancer as we do in other areas of cancer treatment.

Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Dumontier C et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Aug 1;38(22):2558-2569.

Because of physiological changes with aging and differences in cancer biology, caring for older adults (OAs) with cancer requires careful assessment and planning.

Clark Dumontier, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and colleagues sought to define the meaning of the terms “undertreatment” and “overtreatment” for OAs with cancer in a scoping literature review published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Though OAs are typically defined as adults aged 65 years and older, in this review, the authors defined OAs as patients aged 60 years and older.

The authors theorized that a scoping review of papers about this patient population could provide clues about limitations in the oncology literature and guidance about patient management and future research. Despite comprising the majority of cancer patients, OAs are underrepresented in clinical trials.
 

About scoping reviews

Scoping reviews are used to identify existing evidence in a field, clarify concepts or definitions in the literature, survey how research on a topic is conducted, and identify knowledge gaps. In addition, scoping reviews summarize available evidence without answering a discrete research question.

Industry standards for scoping reviews have been established by the Johanna Briggs Institute and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for scoping reviews. According to these standards, scoping reviews should:

• Establish eligibility criteria with a rationale for each criterion clearly explained
• Search multiple databases in multiple languages
• Include “gray literature,” defined as studies that are unpublished or difficult to locate
• Have several independent reviewers screen titles and abstracts
• Ask multiple independent reviewers to review full text articles
• Present results with charts or diagrams that align with the review’s objective
• Graphically depict the decision process for including/excluding sources
• Identify implications for further research.

In their review, Dr. DuMontier and colleagues fulfilled many of the aforementioned criteria. The team searched three English-language databases for titles and abstracts that included the terms undertreatment and/or overtreatment, and were related to OAs with cancer, inclusive of all types of articles, cancer types, and treatments.

Definitions of undertreatment and overtreatment were extracted, and categories underlying these definitions were derived. Within a random subset of articles, two coauthors independently determined final categories of definitions and independently assigned those categories.
 

Findings and implications

To define OA, Dr. DuMontier and colleagues used a cutoff of 60 years or older. Articles mentioning undertreatment (n = 236), overtreatment (n = 71), or both (n = 51) met criteria for inclusion (n = 256), but only 14 articles (5.5%) explicitly provided formal definitions.

For most of the reviewed articles, the authors judged definitions from the surrounding context. In a random subset of 50 articles, there was a high level of agreement (87.1%; κ = 0.81) between two coauthors in independently assigning categories of definitions.

Undertreatment was applied to therapy that was less than recommended (148 articles; 62.7%) or less than recommended with worse outcomes (88 articles; 37.3%).

Overtreatment most commonly denoted intensive treatment of an OA in whom harms outweighed the benefits of treatment (38 articles; 53.5%) or intensive treatment of a cancer not expected to affect the OA during the patient’s remaining life (33 articles; 46.5%).

Overall, the authors found that undertreatment and overtreatment of OAs with cancer are imprecisely defined concepts. Formal geriatric assessment was recommended in just over half of articles, and only 26.2% recommended formal assessments of age-related vulnerabilities for management. The authors proposed definitions that accounted for both oncologic factors and geriatric domains.
 

Care of individual patients and clinical research

National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for OAs with cancer recommend initial consideration of overall life expectancy. If a patient is a candidate for cancer treatment on that basis, the next recommended assessment is that of the patient’s capacity to understand the relevant information, appreciate the underlying values and overall medical situation, reason through decisions, and communicate a choice that is consistent with the patient’s articulated goals.

In the pretreatment evaluation of OAs in whom there are no concerns about tolerance to antineoplastic therapy, NCCN guidelines suggest geriatric screening with standardized tools and, if abnormal, comprehensive geriatric screening. The guidelines recommend considering alternative treatment options if nonmodifiable abnormalities are identified.

Referral to a geriatric clinical specialist, use of the Cancer and Aging Research Group’s Chemo Toxicity Calculator, and calculation of Chemotherapy Risk Assessment Scale for High-Age Patients score are specifically suggested if high-risk procedures (such as chemotherapy, radiation, or complex surgery, which most oncologists would consider to be “another day in the office”) are contemplated.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guidelines for geriatric oncology are similarly detailed and endorse similar evaluations and management.

Employing disease-centric and geriatric domains

Dr. DuMontier and colleagues noted that, for OAs with comorbidity or psychosocial challenges, surrogate survival endpoints are unrelated to quality of life (QOL) outcomes. Nonetheless, QOL is valued by OAs at least as much as survival improvement.

Through no fault of their own, the authors’ conclusion that undertreatment and overtreatment are imperfectly defined concepts has a certain neutrality to it. However, the terms undertreatment and overtreatment are commonly used to signify that inappropriate treatment decisions were made. Therefore, the terms are inherently negative and pejorative.

As with most emotionally charged issues in oncology, it is ideal for professionals in our field to take charge when deficiencies exist. ASCO, NCCN, and the authors of this scoping review have provided a conceptual basis for doing so.

An integrated oncologist-geriatrician approach was shown to be effective in the randomized INTEGERATE trial, showing improved QOL, reduced hospital admissions, and reduced early treatment discontinuation from adverse events (ASCO 2020, Abstract 12011).

Therefore, those clinicians who have not formally, systematically, and routinely supplemented the traditional disease-centric endpoints with patient-centered criteria need to do so.

Similarly, a retrospective study published in JAMA Network Open demonstrated that geriatric and surgical comanagement of OAs with cancer was associated with significantly lower 90-day postoperative mortality and receipt of more supportive care services (physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech and swallow rehabilitation, and nutrition services), in comparison with management from the surgical service only.

These clinical and administrative changes will not only enhance patient management but also facilitate the clinical trials required to clarify optimal treatment intensity. As that occurs, we will be able to apply as much precision to the care of OAs with cancer as we do in other areas of cancer treatment.

Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Dumontier C et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Aug 1;38(22):2558-2569.

Because of physiological changes with aging and differences in cancer biology, caring for older adults (OAs) with cancer requires careful assessment and planning.

Clark Dumontier, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and colleagues sought to define the meaning of the terms “undertreatment” and “overtreatment” for OAs with cancer in a scoping literature review published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Though OAs are typically defined as adults aged 65 years and older, in this review, the authors defined OAs as patients aged 60 years and older.

The authors theorized that a scoping review of papers about this patient population could provide clues about limitations in the oncology literature and guidance about patient management and future research. Despite comprising the majority of cancer patients, OAs are underrepresented in clinical trials.
 

About scoping reviews

Scoping reviews are used to identify existing evidence in a field, clarify concepts or definitions in the literature, survey how research on a topic is conducted, and identify knowledge gaps. In addition, scoping reviews summarize available evidence without answering a discrete research question.

Industry standards for scoping reviews have been established by the Johanna Briggs Institute and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for scoping reviews. According to these standards, scoping reviews should:

• Establish eligibility criteria with a rationale for each criterion clearly explained
• Search multiple databases in multiple languages
• Include “gray literature,” defined as studies that are unpublished or difficult to locate
• Have several independent reviewers screen titles and abstracts
• Ask multiple independent reviewers to review full text articles
• Present results with charts or diagrams that align with the review’s objective
• Graphically depict the decision process for including/excluding sources
• Identify implications for further research.

In their review, Dr. DuMontier and colleagues fulfilled many of the aforementioned criteria. The team searched three English-language databases for titles and abstracts that included the terms undertreatment and/or overtreatment, and were related to OAs with cancer, inclusive of all types of articles, cancer types, and treatments.

Definitions of undertreatment and overtreatment were extracted, and categories underlying these definitions were derived. Within a random subset of articles, two coauthors independently determined final categories of definitions and independently assigned those categories.
 

Findings and implications

To define OA, Dr. DuMontier and colleagues used a cutoff of 60 years or older. Articles mentioning undertreatment (n = 236), overtreatment (n = 71), or both (n = 51) met criteria for inclusion (n = 256), but only 14 articles (5.5%) explicitly provided formal definitions.

For most of the reviewed articles, the authors judged definitions from the surrounding context. In a random subset of 50 articles, there was a high level of agreement (87.1%; κ = 0.81) between two coauthors in independently assigning categories of definitions.

Undertreatment was applied to therapy that was less than recommended (148 articles; 62.7%) or less than recommended with worse outcomes (88 articles; 37.3%).

Overtreatment most commonly denoted intensive treatment of an OA in whom harms outweighed the benefits of treatment (38 articles; 53.5%) or intensive treatment of a cancer not expected to affect the OA during the patient’s remaining life (33 articles; 46.5%).

Overall, the authors found that undertreatment and overtreatment of OAs with cancer are imprecisely defined concepts. Formal geriatric assessment was recommended in just over half of articles, and only 26.2% recommended formal assessments of age-related vulnerabilities for management. The authors proposed definitions that accounted for both oncologic factors and geriatric domains.
 

Care of individual patients and clinical research

National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for OAs with cancer recommend initial consideration of overall life expectancy. If a patient is a candidate for cancer treatment on that basis, the next recommended assessment is that of the patient’s capacity to understand the relevant information, appreciate the underlying values and overall medical situation, reason through decisions, and communicate a choice that is consistent with the patient’s articulated goals.

In the pretreatment evaluation of OAs in whom there are no concerns about tolerance to antineoplastic therapy, NCCN guidelines suggest geriatric screening with standardized tools and, if abnormal, comprehensive geriatric screening. The guidelines recommend considering alternative treatment options if nonmodifiable abnormalities are identified.

Referral to a geriatric clinical specialist, use of the Cancer and Aging Research Group’s Chemo Toxicity Calculator, and calculation of Chemotherapy Risk Assessment Scale for High-Age Patients score are specifically suggested if high-risk procedures (such as chemotherapy, radiation, or complex surgery, which most oncologists would consider to be “another day in the office”) are contemplated.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guidelines for geriatric oncology are similarly detailed and endorse similar evaluations and management.

Employing disease-centric and geriatric domains

Dr. DuMontier and colleagues noted that, for OAs with comorbidity or psychosocial challenges, surrogate survival endpoints are unrelated to quality of life (QOL) outcomes. Nonetheless, QOL is valued by OAs at least as much as survival improvement.

Through no fault of their own, the authors’ conclusion that undertreatment and overtreatment are imperfectly defined concepts has a certain neutrality to it. However, the terms undertreatment and overtreatment are commonly used to signify that inappropriate treatment decisions were made. Therefore, the terms are inherently negative and pejorative.

As with most emotionally charged issues in oncology, it is ideal for professionals in our field to take charge when deficiencies exist. ASCO, NCCN, and the authors of this scoping review have provided a conceptual basis for doing so.

An integrated oncologist-geriatrician approach was shown to be effective in the randomized INTEGERATE trial, showing improved QOL, reduced hospital admissions, and reduced early treatment discontinuation from adverse events (ASCO 2020, Abstract 12011).

Therefore, those clinicians who have not formally, systematically, and routinely supplemented the traditional disease-centric endpoints with patient-centered criteria need to do so.

Similarly, a retrospective study published in JAMA Network Open demonstrated that geriatric and surgical comanagement of OAs with cancer was associated with significantly lower 90-day postoperative mortality and receipt of more supportive care services (physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech and swallow rehabilitation, and nutrition services), in comparison with management from the surgical service only.

These clinical and administrative changes will not only enhance patient management but also facilitate the clinical trials required to clarify optimal treatment intensity. As that occurs, we will be able to apply as much precision to the care of OAs with cancer as we do in other areas of cancer treatment.

Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Dumontier C et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Aug 1;38(22):2558-2569.

Good news about cancer – with new data showing falling mortality rates and improved survival rates – is tempered somewhat by a “grim reality,” says the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR).

“The burden of cancer is not shouldered equally by all segments of the U.S. population,” the AACR adds. “The adverse differences in cancer burden that exist among certain population groups are one of the most pressing public health challenges that we face in the United States.” 

AACR president Antoni Ribas, MD, PhD, gave some examples of these disparities at a September 16 Congressional briefing that focused on the inaugural AACR Cancer Disparities Progress Report 2020.

He noted that:

• Black men have more than double the rate of death from prostate cancer compared with men of other racial and ethnic groups.
• Hispanic children are 24% more likely to develop leukemia than non-Hispanic children.
• Non-Hispanic Black children and adolescents with cancer are more than 50% more likely to die from the cancer than non-Hispanic white children and adolescents with cancer.
• Women of low socioeconomic status with early stage ovarian cancer are 50% less likely to receive recommended care than are women of high socioeconomic status.
• In addition to racial and ethnic minority groups, other populations that bear a disproportionate burden when it comes to cancer include individuals lacking adequate health insurance coverage, immigrants, those with disabilities, residents in rural areas, and members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender communities.

“It is absolutely unacceptable that advances in cancer care and treatment are not benefiting everyone equally,” Ribas commented.
 

Making progress against cancer

Progress being made against cancer was highlighted in another publication, the annual AACR Cancer Progress Report 2020.

U.S. cancer deaths declined by 29% between 1991 and 2017, translating to nearly 3 million cancer deaths avoided, the report notes. In addition, 5-year survival rates for all cancers combined increased from 49% in the mid-1970s to 70% for patients diagnosed from 2010-2016.

Between August 2019 and July 31 of this year, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved 20 new anticancer drugs for various cancer types and 15 new indications for previously approved cancer drugs, marking the highest number of approvals in one 12-month period since AACR started producing these reports 10 years ago.

A continuing reduction in the cigarette smoking rate among US adults, which is now below 14%, is contributing greatly to declines in lung cancer rates, which have largely driven the improvements in cancer survival, the AACR noted.

This report also notes that progress has been made toward reducing cancer disparities. Overall disparities in cancer death rates among racial and ethnic groups are less pronounced now than they have been in the past two decades. For example, the overall cancer death rate for African American patients was 33% higher than for White patients in 1990 but just 14% higher in 2016.

However, both reports agree that more must be done to reduce cancer disparities even further. 

They highlight initiatives that are underway, including:

• The draft guidance issued by the FDA to promote diversification of clinical trial populations.
• The National Institutes of Health’s (NIH’s) Continuing Umbrella of Research Experiences (CURE) program supporting underrepresented students and scientists along their academic and research career pathway.
• The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Racial and Ethnic Approaches to Community Health (REACH) program, a grant-making program focused on encouraging preventive behaviors in underserved communities.
• The NIH’s All of Us program, which is gathering information from the genomes of 1 million healthy individuals with a focus on recruitment from historically underrepresented populations.

Ribas also announced that AACR has established a task force to focus on racial inequalities in cancer research.

Eliminating disparities would save money, argued John D. Carpten, PhD, from the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, who chaired the steering committee that developed the AACR Cancer Disparities Progress Report.

Carpten noted research showing that eliminating disparities for racial and ethnic minorities between 2003 and 2006 would have reduced health care costs by more than $1 trillion in the United States. This underscores the potentially far-reaching impact of efforts to eliminate disparities, he said.

“Without a doubt, socioeconomics and inequities in access to quality care represent major factors influencing cancer health disparities, and these disparities will persist until we address these issues” he said.

Both progress reports culminate in a call to action, largely focused on the need for “unwavering, bipartisan support from Congress, in the form of robust and sustained annual increases in funding for the NIH, NCI [National Cancer Institute], and FDA,” which is vital for accelerating the pace of progress.

The challenge is now compounded by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic: Both progress reports note that racial and ethnic minorities, including African Americans, are not only affected disproportionately by cancer, but also by COVID-19, further highlighting the “stark inequities in health care.”

Ribas further called for action from national leadership and the scientific community.

“During this unprecedented time in our nation’s history, there is also a need for our nation’s leaders to take on a much bigger role in confronting and combating the structural and systemic racism that contributes to health disparities,” he said. The “pervasive racism and social injustices” that have contributed to disparities in both COVID-19 and cancer underscore the need for “the scientific community to step up and partner with Congress to assess and address this issue within the research community.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Good news about cancer – with new data showing falling mortality rates and improved survival rates – is tempered somewhat by a “grim reality,” says the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR).

“The burden of cancer is not shouldered equally by all segments of the U.S. population,” the AACR adds. “The adverse differences in cancer burden that exist among certain population groups are one of the most pressing public health challenges that we face in the United States.” 

AACR president Antoni Ribas, MD, PhD, gave some examples of these disparities at a September 16 Congressional briefing that focused on the inaugural AACR Cancer Disparities Progress Report 2020.

He noted that:

• Black men have more than double the rate of death from prostate cancer compared with men of other racial and ethnic groups.
• Hispanic children are 24% more likely to develop leukemia than non-Hispanic children.
• Non-Hispanic Black children and adolescents with cancer are more than 50% more likely to die from the cancer than non-Hispanic white children and adolescents with cancer.
• Women of low socioeconomic status with early stage ovarian cancer are 50% less likely to receive recommended care than are women of high socioeconomic status.
• In addition to racial and ethnic minority groups, other populations that bear a disproportionate burden when it comes to cancer include individuals lacking adequate health insurance coverage, immigrants, those with disabilities, residents in rural areas, and members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender communities.

“It is absolutely unacceptable that advances in cancer care and treatment are not benefiting everyone equally,” Ribas commented.
 

Making progress against cancer

Progress being made against cancer was highlighted in another publication, the annual AACR Cancer Progress Report 2020.

U.S. cancer deaths declined by 29% between 1991 and 2017, translating to nearly 3 million cancer deaths avoided, the report notes. In addition, 5-year survival rates for all cancers combined increased from 49% in the mid-1970s to 70% for patients diagnosed from 2010-2016.

Between August 2019 and July 31 of this year, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved 20 new anticancer drugs for various cancer types and 15 new indications for previously approved cancer drugs, marking the highest number of approvals in one 12-month period since AACR started producing these reports 10 years ago.

A continuing reduction in the cigarette smoking rate among US adults, which is now below 14%, is contributing greatly to declines in lung cancer rates, which have largely driven the improvements in cancer survival, the AACR noted.

This report also notes that progress has been made toward reducing cancer disparities. Overall disparities in cancer death rates among racial and ethnic groups are less pronounced now than they have been in the past two decades. For example, the overall cancer death rate for African American patients was 33% higher than for White patients in 1990 but just 14% higher in 2016.

However, both reports agree that more must be done to reduce cancer disparities even further. 

They highlight initiatives that are underway, including:

• The draft guidance issued by the FDA to promote diversification of clinical trial populations.
• The National Institutes of Health’s (NIH’s) Continuing Umbrella of Research Experiences (CURE) program supporting underrepresented students and scientists along their academic and research career pathway.
• The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Racial and Ethnic Approaches to Community Health (REACH) program, a grant-making program focused on encouraging preventive behaviors in underserved communities.
• The NIH’s All of Us program, which is gathering information from the genomes of 1 million healthy individuals with a focus on recruitment from historically underrepresented populations.

Ribas also announced that AACR has established a task force to focus on racial inequalities in cancer research.

Eliminating disparities would save money, argued John D. Carpten, PhD, from the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, who chaired the steering committee that developed the AACR Cancer Disparities Progress Report.

Carpten noted research showing that eliminating disparities for racial and ethnic minorities between 2003 and 2006 would have reduced health care costs by more than $1 trillion in the United States. This underscores the potentially far-reaching impact of efforts to eliminate disparities, he said.

“Without a doubt, socioeconomics and inequities in access to quality care represent major factors influencing cancer health disparities, and these disparities will persist until we address these issues” he said.

Both progress reports culminate in a call to action, largely focused on the need for “unwavering, bipartisan support from Congress, in the form of robust and sustained annual increases in funding for the NIH, NCI [National Cancer Institute], and FDA,” which is vital for accelerating the pace of progress.

The challenge is now compounded by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic: Both progress reports note that racial and ethnic minorities, including African Americans, are not only affected disproportionately by cancer, but also by COVID-19, further highlighting the “stark inequities in health care.”

Ribas further called for action from national leadership and the scientific community.

“During this unprecedented time in our nation’s history, there is also a need for our nation’s leaders to take on a much bigger role in confronting and combating the structural and systemic racism that contributes to health disparities,” he said. The “pervasive racism and social injustices” that have contributed to disparities in both COVID-19 and cancer underscore the need for “the scientific community to step up and partner with Congress to assess and address this issue within the research community.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Good news about cancer – with new data showing falling mortality rates and improved survival rates – is tempered somewhat by a “grim reality,” says the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR).

“The burden of cancer is not shouldered equally by all segments of the U.S. population,” the AACR adds. “The adverse differences in cancer burden that exist among certain population groups are one of the most pressing public health challenges that we face in the United States.” 

AACR president Antoni Ribas, MD, PhD, gave some examples of these disparities at a September 16 Congressional briefing that focused on the inaugural AACR Cancer Disparities Progress Report 2020.

He noted that:

• Black men have more than double the rate of death from prostate cancer compared with men of other racial and ethnic groups.
• Hispanic children are 24% more likely to develop leukemia than non-Hispanic children.
• Non-Hispanic Black children and adolescents with cancer are more than 50% more likely to die from the cancer than non-Hispanic white children and adolescents with cancer.
• Women of low socioeconomic status with early stage ovarian cancer are 50% less likely to receive recommended care than are women of high socioeconomic status.
• In addition to racial and ethnic minority groups, other populations that bear a disproportionate burden when it comes to cancer include individuals lacking adequate health insurance coverage, immigrants, those with disabilities, residents in rural areas, and members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender communities.

“It is absolutely unacceptable that advances in cancer care and treatment are not benefiting everyone equally,” Ribas commented.
 

Making progress against cancer

Progress being made against cancer was highlighted in another publication, the annual AACR Cancer Progress Report 2020.

U.S. cancer deaths declined by 29% between 1991 and 2017, translating to nearly 3 million cancer deaths avoided, the report notes. In addition, 5-year survival rates for all cancers combined increased from 49% in the mid-1970s to 70% for patients diagnosed from 2010-2016.

Between August 2019 and July 31 of this year, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved 20 new anticancer drugs for various cancer types and 15 new indications for previously approved cancer drugs, marking the highest number of approvals in one 12-month period since AACR started producing these reports 10 years ago.

A continuing reduction in the cigarette smoking rate among US adults, which is now below 14%, is contributing greatly to declines in lung cancer rates, which have largely driven the improvements in cancer survival, the AACR noted.

This report also notes that progress has been made toward reducing cancer disparities. Overall disparities in cancer death rates among racial and ethnic groups are less pronounced now than they have been in the past two decades. For example, the overall cancer death rate for African American patients was 33% higher than for White patients in 1990 but just 14% higher in 2016.

However, both reports agree that more must be done to reduce cancer disparities even further. 

They highlight initiatives that are underway, including:

• The draft guidance issued by the FDA to promote diversification of clinical trial populations.
• The National Institutes of Health’s (NIH’s) Continuing Umbrella of Research Experiences (CURE) program supporting underrepresented students and scientists along their academic and research career pathway.
• The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Racial and Ethnic Approaches to Community Health (REACH) program, a grant-making program focused on encouraging preventive behaviors in underserved communities.
• The NIH’s All of Us program, which is gathering information from the genomes of 1 million healthy individuals with a focus on recruitment from historically underrepresented populations.

Ribas also announced that AACR has established a task force to focus on racial inequalities in cancer research.

Eliminating disparities would save money, argued John D. Carpten, PhD, from the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, who chaired the steering committee that developed the AACR Cancer Disparities Progress Report.

Carpten noted research showing that eliminating disparities for racial and ethnic minorities between 2003 and 2006 would have reduced health care costs by more than $1 trillion in the United States. This underscores the potentially far-reaching impact of efforts to eliminate disparities, he said.

“Without a doubt, socioeconomics and inequities in access to quality care represent major factors influencing cancer health disparities, and these disparities will persist until we address these issues” he said.

Both progress reports culminate in a call to action, largely focused on the need for “unwavering, bipartisan support from Congress, in the form of robust and sustained annual increases in funding for the NIH, NCI [National Cancer Institute], and FDA,” which is vital for accelerating the pace of progress.

The challenge is now compounded by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic: Both progress reports note that racial and ethnic minorities, including African Americans, are not only affected disproportionately by cancer, but also by COVID-19, further highlighting the “stark inequities in health care.”

Ribas further called for action from national leadership and the scientific community.

“During this unprecedented time in our nation’s history, there is also a need for our nation’s leaders to take on a much bigger role in confronting and combating the structural and systemic racism that contributes to health disparities,” he said. The “pervasive racism and social injustices” that have contributed to disparities in both COVID-19 and cancer underscore the need for “the scientific community to step up and partner with Congress to assess and address this issue within the research community.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved tablet and oral solution formulations of the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor tofactinib (Xeljanz) for the treatment of children and adolescents 2 years and older with active polyarticular-course juvenile idiopathic arthritis (pJIA).

The approval, announced Sept. 28 by tofacitinib’s manufacturer, Pfizer, marks the first JAK inhibitor to be approved for the condition in the United States and is the fourth indication to be approved for the drug after approvals in adult patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis following methotrexate failure, active psoriatic arthritis after disease-modifying antirheumatic drug failure, and moderate to severe ulcerative colitis after failure on a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor.

The agency based its approval on a phase 3, multinational, randomized, double-blind, controlled withdrawal study that had an 18-week, open-label, run-in phase involving 225 patients who twice daily took either a 5-mg tablet or, in patients under 40 kg, a weight-based lower dose in the form of a 1 mg/mL oral solution, according to the company press release. A total of 173 patients from this phase met JIA American College of Rheumatology 30 response criteria, defined as 30% or greater improvement in three of six JIA core set variables and worsening in no more than one of the core set variables; they were then randomized in part 2 of the study to continue the same dose of tofacitinib or receive placebo until 44 weeks. By the end of this period, 31% who received tofacitinib had a disease flare, compared with 55% on placebo (P = .0007). Disease flare was defined as a 30% or greater worsening in at least three of the six variables of the JIA core set, with no more than one of the remaining JIA core response variables improving by 30% or more after randomization.

The types of adverse drug reactions in patients with pJIA were consistent with those seen in adult rheumatoid arthritis patients, according to Pfizer. Serious adverse drug reactions have most commonly been serious infections that may lead to hospitalization or death, and most patients who developed these infections were taking concomitant immunosuppressants, such as methotrexate or corticosteroids. Common adverse drug reactions reported in 2% or more of patients during the first 3 months in controlled clinical trials in patients with rheumatoid arthritis taking tofacitinib at 5 mg twice daily were upper respiratory tract infection, nasopharyngitis, diarrhea, headache, and hypertension.

While the 5-mg tablet formulation is already available, Pfizer said it expects the oral solution to be available by the end of the first quarter in 2021.

Prescribing information can be found on the FDA website.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved tablet and oral solution formulations of the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor tofactinib (Xeljanz) for the treatment of children and adolescents 2 years and older with active polyarticular-course juvenile idiopathic arthritis (pJIA).

The approval, announced Sept. 28 by tofacitinib’s manufacturer, Pfizer, marks the first JAK inhibitor to be approved for the condition in the United States and is the fourth indication to be approved for the drug after approvals in adult patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis following methotrexate failure, active psoriatic arthritis after disease-modifying antirheumatic drug failure, and moderate to severe ulcerative colitis after failure on a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor.

The agency based its approval on a phase 3, multinational, randomized, double-blind, controlled withdrawal study that had an 18-week, open-label, run-in phase involving 225 patients who twice daily took either a 5-mg tablet or, in patients under 40 kg, a weight-based lower dose in the form of a 1 mg/mL oral solution, according to the company press release. A total of 173 patients from this phase met JIA American College of Rheumatology 30 response criteria, defined as 30% or greater improvement in three of six JIA core set variables and worsening in no more than one of the core set variables; they were then randomized in part 2 of the study to continue the same dose of tofacitinib or receive placebo until 44 weeks. By the end of this period, 31% who received tofacitinib had a disease flare, compared with 55% on placebo (P = .0007). Disease flare was defined as a 30% or greater worsening in at least three of the six variables of the JIA core set, with no more than one of the remaining JIA core response variables improving by 30% or more after randomization.

The types of adverse drug reactions in patients with pJIA were consistent with those seen in adult rheumatoid arthritis patients, according to Pfizer. Serious adverse drug reactions have most commonly been serious infections that may lead to hospitalization or death, and most patients who developed these infections were taking concomitant immunosuppressants, such as methotrexate or corticosteroids. Common adverse drug reactions reported in 2% or more of patients during the first 3 months in controlled clinical trials in patients with rheumatoid arthritis taking tofacitinib at 5 mg twice daily were upper respiratory tract infection, nasopharyngitis, diarrhea, headache, and hypertension.

While the 5-mg tablet formulation is already available, Pfizer said it expects the oral solution to be available by the end of the first quarter in 2021.

Prescribing information can be found on the FDA website.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved tablet and oral solution formulations of the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor tofactinib (Xeljanz) for the treatment of children and adolescents 2 years and older with active polyarticular-course juvenile idiopathic arthritis (pJIA).

The approval, announced Sept. 28 by tofacitinib’s manufacturer, Pfizer, marks the first JAK inhibitor to be approved for the condition in the United States and is the fourth indication to be approved for the drug after approvals in adult patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis following methotrexate failure, active psoriatic arthritis after disease-modifying antirheumatic drug failure, and moderate to severe ulcerative colitis after failure on a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor.

The agency based its approval on a phase 3, multinational, randomized, double-blind, controlled withdrawal study that had an 18-week, open-label, run-in phase involving 225 patients who twice daily took either a 5-mg tablet or, in patients under 40 kg, a weight-based lower dose in the form of a 1 mg/mL oral solution, according to the company press release. A total of 173 patients from this phase met JIA American College of Rheumatology 30 response criteria, defined as 30% or greater improvement in three of six JIA core set variables and worsening in no more than one of the core set variables; they were then randomized in part 2 of the study to continue the same dose of tofacitinib or receive placebo until 44 weeks. By the end of this period, 31% who received tofacitinib had a disease flare, compared with 55% on placebo (P = .0007). Disease flare was defined as a 30% or greater worsening in at least three of the six variables of the JIA core set, with no more than one of the remaining JIA core response variables improving by 30% or more after randomization.

The types of adverse drug reactions in patients with pJIA were consistent with those seen in adult rheumatoid arthritis patients, according to Pfizer. Serious adverse drug reactions have most commonly been serious infections that may lead to hospitalization or death, and most patients who developed these infections were taking concomitant immunosuppressants, such as methotrexate or corticosteroids. Common adverse drug reactions reported in 2% or more of patients during the first 3 months in controlled clinical trials in patients with rheumatoid arthritis taking tofacitinib at 5 mg twice daily were upper respiratory tract infection, nasopharyngitis, diarrhea, headache, and hypertension.

While the 5-mg tablet formulation is already available, Pfizer said it expects the oral solution to be available by the end of the first quarter in 2021.

Prescribing information can be found on the FDA website.

[email protected]

Although COVID-19 has had negative effects on cancer research, the pandemic has also led to democratization of clinical trials, according to a panelist who spoke at the AACR virtual meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer.

The pandemic has taught researchers how to decentralize trials, which should not only improve patient satisfaction but increase trial accrual by providing access to typically underserved populations, Patricia M. LoRusso, DO, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said at the meeting.

Dr. LoRusso was one of six panelists who participated in a forum about changes to cancer trials that were prompted by the pandemic. The forum was moderated by Keith T. Flaherty, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

Dr. Flaherty asked the panelists to explain adjustments their organizations have made in response to the pandemic, discuss accomplishments, and speculate on future challenges and priorities.
 

Trial, administrative, and patient-care modifications

COVID-19 put some cancer trials on hold. For others, the pandemic forced sponsors and study chairs to reduce trial complexity and identify nonessential aspects of the studies, according to panelist José Baselga, MD, PhD, of AstraZeneca.

Specifically, exploratory objectives were subjugated to patient safety and a focus on the primary endpoints of each trial.

Once the critical data were identified, study chairs were asked to determine whether data could be obtained through technologies that could substitute for face-to-face contact between patients and staff – for example, patient-reported outcome tools and at-home digital monitoring.

Modifications prompted by the pandemic include the following:

• On-site auditing was suspended.
• Oral investigational agents were shipped directly to patients.
• “Remote” informed consent (telephone or video consenting) was permitted.
• Local providers could perform study-related services, with oversight by the research site.
• Minor deviations from the written protocols were allowed, provided the deviations did not affect patient care or data integrity.

“Obviously, the pandemic has been horrible, but what it has allowed us to do, as investigators in the clinical research landscape, … is to change our focus somewhat and realize, first and foremost, the patient is at the center of this,” Dr. LoRusso said.
 

Operational accomplishments and benefits

The pandemic caused a 40% decline in accrual to studies supported by the National Cancer Institute’s (NCI) Clinical Trials Network (NCTN) from mid-March to early April, according to James H. Doroshow, MD, of NCI.

However, after modifications to administrative and regulatory procedures, accrual to NCTN trials recovered to approximately 80% of prepandemic levels, Dr. Doroshow said.

The pandemic prompted investigators to leverage tools and technology they had not previously used frequently or at all, the panelists pointed out.

Investigators discovered perforce that telehealth could be used for almost all trial-related assessments. In lieu of physical examination, patients could send pictures of rashes and use electronic devices to monitor blood sugar values and vital signs.

Digital radiographic studies were performed at sites that were most convenient for patients, downloaded, and reinterpreted at the study institution. Visiting nurses and neighborhood laboratories enabled less-frequent in-person visits for assessments.

These adjustments have been particularly important for geographically and/or socioeconomically disadvantaged patients, the panelists said.

Overall, there was agreement among the panelists that shared values and trust among regulatory authorities, sponsors, investigators, and clinicians were impressive in their urgency, sincerity, and patient centricity.

“This pandemic … has forced us to think differently and be nimble and creative to our approach to maintaining our overriding goals while at the same time bringing these innovative therapies forward for patients with cancer and other serious and life-threatening diseases as quickly as possible,” said panelist Kristen M. Hege, MD, of Bristol-Myers Squibb.

In fact, Dr. Hege noted, some cancer-related therapies (e.g., BTK inhibitors, JAK inhibitors, and immunomodulatory agents) were “repurposed” rapidly and tested against COVID-related complications.
 

Streamlining trial regulatory processes

In addition to changing ongoing trials, the pandemic has affected how new research projects are launched.

One new study that came together quickly in response to the pandemic is the NCI COVID-19 in Cancer Patients Study (NCCAPS). NCCAPS is a natural history study with biospecimens and an imaging library. It was approved in just 5 weeks and is active in 650 sites, with “gangbusters” accrual, Dr. Doroshow said.

The rapidness of NCCAPS’ design and implementation should prompt the revision of previously accepted timelines for trial activation and lead to streamlined future processes.

Another project that was launched quickly in response to the pandemic is the COVID-19 evidence accelerator, according to Paul G. Kluetz, MD, of the Food and Drug Administration.

The COVID-19 evidence accelerator integrates real-world evidence into a database to provide investigators and health systems with the ability to gather information, design rapid turnaround queries, and share results. The evidence accelerator can provide study chairs with information that may have relevance to the safety of participants in clinical trials.
 

Future directions and challenges

The panelists agreed that pandemic-related modifications in processes will not only accelerate trial approval and activation but should facilitate higher study accrual, increase the diversity of protocol participants, and decrease the costs associated with clinical trial conduct.

With that in mind, the NCI is planning randomized clinical trials in which “process A” is compared with “process B,” Dr. Doroshow said. The goal is to determine which modifications are most likely to make trials available to patients without compromising data integrity or patient safety.

“How much less data do you need to have an outcome that will be similar?” Dr. Doroshow asked. “How many fewer visits, how many fewer tests, how much can you save? Physicians, clinical trialists, all of us respond to data, and if you get the same outcome at a third of the cost, then everybody benefits.”

Nonetheless, we will need to be vigilant for unintended vulnerabilities from well-intended efforts, according to Dr. Kluetz. Study chairs, sponsors, and regulatory agencies will need to be attentive to whether there are important differences in scan quality or interpretation, missing data that influence trial outcomes, and so on.

Dr. Hege pointed out that differences among data sources may be less important when treatments generate large effects but may be vitally important when the relative differences among treatments are small.

On a practical level, decentralizing clinical research may negatively impact the finances of tertiary care centers, which could threaten the required infrastructure for clinical trials, a few panelists noted.

The relative balance of NCI-, industry-, and investigator-initiated trials may require adjustment so that research income is adequate to maintain the costs associated with cancer clinical trials.
 

Shared goals and democratization

The pandemic has required all stakeholders in clinical research to rely on relationships of trust and shared goals, said Caroline Robert, MD, PhD, of Institut Gustave Roussy in Villejuif, France.

Dr. Kluetz summarized those goals as improving trial efficiencies, decreasing patient burden, decentralizing trials, and maintaining trial integrity.

A decentralized clinical trials operational model could lead to better generalizability of study outcomes, normalization of life for patients on studies, and lower costs of trial conduct. As such, decentralization would promote democratization.

Coupled with ongoing efforts to reduce eligibility criteria in cancer trials, the pandemic has brought operational solutions that should be perpetuated and has reminded us of the interlocking and mutually supportive relationships on which clinical research success depends.

Dr. Doroshow and Dr. Kluetz disclosed no conflicts of interest. All other panelists disclosed financial relationships, including employment, with a range of companies.

Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Flaherty KT et al. AACR: COVID-19 and Cancer, Regulatory and Operational Implications of Cancer Clinical Trial Changes During COVID-19.

Although COVID-19 has had negative effects on cancer research, the pandemic has also led to democratization of clinical trials, according to a panelist who spoke at the AACR virtual meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer.

The pandemic has taught researchers how to decentralize trials, which should not only improve patient satisfaction but increase trial accrual by providing access to typically underserved populations, Patricia M. LoRusso, DO, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said at the meeting.

Dr. LoRusso was one of six panelists who participated in a forum about changes to cancer trials that were prompted by the pandemic. The forum was moderated by Keith T. Flaherty, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

Dr. Flaherty asked the panelists to explain adjustments their organizations have made in response to the pandemic, discuss accomplishments, and speculate on future challenges and priorities.
 

Trial, administrative, and patient-care modifications

COVID-19 put some cancer trials on hold. For others, the pandemic forced sponsors and study chairs to reduce trial complexity and identify nonessential aspects of the studies, according to panelist José Baselga, MD, PhD, of AstraZeneca.

Specifically, exploratory objectives were subjugated to patient safety and a focus on the primary endpoints of each trial.

Once the critical data were identified, study chairs were asked to determine whether data could be obtained through technologies that could substitute for face-to-face contact between patients and staff – for example, patient-reported outcome tools and at-home digital monitoring.

Modifications prompted by the pandemic include the following:

• On-site auditing was suspended.
• Oral investigational agents were shipped directly to patients.
• “Remote” informed consent (telephone or video consenting) was permitted.
• Local providers could perform study-related services, with oversight by the research site.
• Minor deviations from the written protocols were allowed, provided the deviations did not affect patient care or data integrity.

“Obviously, the pandemic has been horrible, but what it has allowed us to do, as investigators in the clinical research landscape, … is to change our focus somewhat and realize, first and foremost, the patient is at the center of this,” Dr. LoRusso said.
 

Operational accomplishments and benefits

The pandemic caused a 40% decline in accrual to studies supported by the National Cancer Institute’s (NCI) Clinical Trials Network (NCTN) from mid-March to early April, according to James H. Doroshow, MD, of NCI.

However, after modifications to administrative and regulatory procedures, accrual to NCTN trials recovered to approximately 80% of prepandemic levels, Dr. Doroshow said.

The pandemic prompted investigators to leverage tools and technology they had not previously used frequently or at all, the panelists pointed out.

Investigators discovered perforce that telehealth could be used for almost all trial-related assessments. In lieu of physical examination, patients could send pictures of rashes and use electronic devices to monitor blood sugar values and vital signs.

Digital radiographic studies were performed at sites that were most convenient for patients, downloaded, and reinterpreted at the study institution. Visiting nurses and neighborhood laboratories enabled less-frequent in-person visits for assessments.

These adjustments have been particularly important for geographically and/or socioeconomically disadvantaged patients, the panelists said.

Overall, there was agreement among the panelists that shared values and trust among regulatory authorities, sponsors, investigators, and clinicians were impressive in their urgency, sincerity, and patient centricity.

“This pandemic … has forced us to think differently and be nimble and creative to our approach to maintaining our overriding goals while at the same time bringing these innovative therapies forward for patients with cancer and other serious and life-threatening diseases as quickly as possible,” said panelist Kristen M. Hege, MD, of Bristol-Myers Squibb.

In fact, Dr. Hege noted, some cancer-related therapies (e.g., BTK inhibitors, JAK inhibitors, and immunomodulatory agents) were “repurposed” rapidly and tested against COVID-related complications.
 

Streamlining trial regulatory processes

In addition to changing ongoing trials, the pandemic has affected how new research projects are launched.

One new study that came together quickly in response to the pandemic is the NCI COVID-19 in Cancer Patients Study (NCCAPS). NCCAPS is a natural history study with biospecimens and an imaging library. It was approved in just 5 weeks and is active in 650 sites, with “gangbusters” accrual, Dr. Doroshow said.

The rapidness of NCCAPS’ design and implementation should prompt the revision of previously accepted timelines for trial activation and lead to streamlined future processes.

Another project that was launched quickly in response to the pandemic is the COVID-19 evidence accelerator, according to Paul G. Kluetz, MD, of the Food and Drug Administration.

The COVID-19 evidence accelerator integrates real-world evidence into a database to provide investigators and health systems with the ability to gather information, design rapid turnaround queries, and share results. The evidence accelerator can provide study chairs with information that may have relevance to the safety of participants in clinical trials.
 

Future directions and challenges

The panelists agreed that pandemic-related modifications in processes will not only accelerate trial approval and activation but should facilitate higher study accrual, increase the diversity of protocol participants, and decrease the costs associated with clinical trial conduct.

With that in mind, the NCI is planning randomized clinical trials in which “process A” is compared with “process B,” Dr. Doroshow said. The goal is to determine which modifications are most likely to make trials available to patients without compromising data integrity or patient safety.

“How much less data do you need to have an outcome that will be similar?” Dr. Doroshow asked. “How many fewer visits, how many fewer tests, how much can you save? Physicians, clinical trialists, all of us respond to data, and if you get the same outcome at a third of the cost, then everybody benefits.”

Nonetheless, we will need to be vigilant for unintended vulnerabilities from well-intended efforts, according to Dr. Kluetz. Study chairs, sponsors, and regulatory agencies will need to be attentive to whether there are important differences in scan quality or interpretation, missing data that influence trial outcomes, and so on.

Dr. Hege pointed out that differences among data sources may be less important when treatments generate large effects but may be vitally important when the relative differences among treatments are small.

On a practical level, decentralizing clinical research may negatively impact the finances of tertiary care centers, which could threaten the required infrastructure for clinical trials, a few panelists noted.

The relative balance of NCI-, industry-, and investigator-initiated trials may require adjustment so that research income is adequate to maintain the costs associated with cancer clinical trials.
 

Shared goals and democratization

The pandemic has required all stakeholders in clinical research to rely on relationships of trust and shared goals, said Caroline Robert, MD, PhD, of Institut Gustave Roussy in Villejuif, France.

Dr. Kluetz summarized those goals as improving trial efficiencies, decreasing patient burden, decentralizing trials, and maintaining trial integrity.

A decentralized clinical trials operational model could lead to better generalizability of study outcomes, normalization of life for patients on studies, and lower costs of trial conduct. As such, decentralization would promote democratization.

Coupled with ongoing efforts to reduce eligibility criteria in cancer trials, the pandemic has brought operational solutions that should be perpetuated and has reminded us of the interlocking and mutually supportive relationships on which clinical research success depends.

Dr. Doroshow and Dr. Kluetz disclosed no conflicts of interest. All other panelists disclosed financial relationships, including employment, with a range of companies.

Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Flaherty KT et al. AACR: COVID-19 and Cancer, Regulatory and Operational Implications of Cancer Clinical Trial Changes During COVID-19.

Although COVID-19 has had negative effects on cancer research, the pandemic has also led to democratization of clinical trials, according to a panelist who spoke at the AACR virtual meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer.

The pandemic has taught researchers how to decentralize trials, which should not only improve patient satisfaction but increase trial accrual by providing access to typically underserved populations, Patricia M. LoRusso, DO, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said at the meeting.

Dr. LoRusso was one of six panelists who participated in a forum about changes to cancer trials that were prompted by the pandemic. The forum was moderated by Keith T. Flaherty, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

Dr. Flaherty asked the panelists to explain adjustments their organizations have made in response to the pandemic, discuss accomplishments, and speculate on future challenges and priorities.
 

Trial, administrative, and patient-care modifications

COVID-19 put some cancer trials on hold. For others, the pandemic forced sponsors and study chairs to reduce trial complexity and identify nonessential aspects of the studies, according to panelist José Baselga, MD, PhD, of AstraZeneca.

Specifically, exploratory objectives were subjugated to patient safety and a focus on the primary endpoints of each trial.

Once the critical data were identified, study chairs were asked to determine whether data could be obtained through technologies that could substitute for face-to-face contact between patients and staff – for example, patient-reported outcome tools and at-home digital monitoring.

Modifications prompted by the pandemic include the following:

• On-site auditing was suspended.
• Oral investigational agents were shipped directly to patients.
• “Remote” informed consent (telephone or video consenting) was permitted.
• Local providers could perform study-related services, with oversight by the research site.
• Minor deviations from the written protocols were allowed, provided the deviations did not affect patient care or data integrity.

“Obviously, the pandemic has been horrible, but what it has allowed us to do, as investigators in the clinical research landscape, … is to change our focus somewhat and realize, first and foremost, the patient is at the center of this,” Dr. LoRusso said.
 

Operational accomplishments and benefits

The pandemic caused a 40% decline in accrual to studies supported by the National Cancer Institute’s (NCI) Clinical Trials Network (NCTN) from mid-March to early April, according to James H. Doroshow, MD, of NCI.

However, after modifications to administrative and regulatory procedures, accrual to NCTN trials recovered to approximately 80% of prepandemic levels, Dr. Doroshow said.

The pandemic prompted investigators to leverage tools and technology they had not previously used frequently or at all, the panelists pointed out.

Investigators discovered perforce that telehealth could be used for almost all trial-related assessments. In lieu of physical examination, patients could send pictures of rashes and use electronic devices to monitor blood sugar values and vital signs.

Digital radiographic studies were performed at sites that were most convenient for patients, downloaded, and reinterpreted at the study institution. Visiting nurses and neighborhood laboratories enabled less-frequent in-person visits for assessments.

These adjustments have been particularly important for geographically and/or socioeconomically disadvantaged patients, the panelists said.

Overall, there was agreement among the panelists that shared values and trust among regulatory authorities, sponsors, investigators, and clinicians were impressive in their urgency, sincerity, and patient centricity.

“This pandemic … has forced us to think differently and be nimble and creative to our approach to maintaining our overriding goals while at the same time bringing these innovative therapies forward for patients with cancer and other serious and life-threatening diseases as quickly as possible,” said panelist Kristen M. Hege, MD, of Bristol-Myers Squibb.

In fact, Dr. Hege noted, some cancer-related therapies (e.g., BTK inhibitors, JAK inhibitors, and immunomodulatory agents) were “repurposed” rapidly and tested against COVID-related complications.
 

Streamlining trial regulatory processes

In addition to changing ongoing trials, the pandemic has affected how new research projects are launched.

One new study that came together quickly in response to the pandemic is the NCI COVID-19 in Cancer Patients Study (NCCAPS). NCCAPS is a natural history study with biospecimens and an imaging library. It was approved in just 5 weeks and is active in 650 sites, with “gangbusters” accrual, Dr. Doroshow said.

The rapidness of NCCAPS’ design and implementation should prompt the revision of previously accepted timelines for trial activation and lead to streamlined future processes.

Another project that was launched quickly in response to the pandemic is the COVID-19 evidence accelerator, according to Paul G. Kluetz, MD, of the Food and Drug Administration.

The COVID-19 evidence accelerator integrates real-world evidence into a database to provide investigators and health systems with the ability to gather information, design rapid turnaround queries, and share results. The evidence accelerator can provide study chairs with information that may have relevance to the safety of participants in clinical trials.
 

Future directions and challenges

The panelists agreed that pandemic-related modifications in processes will not only accelerate trial approval and activation but should facilitate higher study accrual, increase the diversity of protocol participants, and decrease the costs associated with clinical trial conduct.

With that in mind, the NCI is planning randomized clinical trials in which “process A” is compared with “process B,” Dr. Doroshow said. The goal is to determine which modifications are most likely to make trials available to patients without compromising data integrity or patient safety.

“How much less data do you need to have an outcome that will be similar?” Dr. Doroshow asked. “How many fewer visits, how many fewer tests, how much can you save? Physicians, clinical trialists, all of us respond to data, and if you get the same outcome at a third of the cost, then everybody benefits.”

Nonetheless, we will need to be vigilant for unintended vulnerabilities from well-intended efforts, according to Dr. Kluetz. Study chairs, sponsors, and regulatory agencies will need to be attentive to whether there are important differences in scan quality or interpretation, missing data that influence trial outcomes, and so on.

Dr. Hege pointed out that differences among data sources may be less important when treatments generate large effects but may be vitally important when the relative differences among treatments are small.

On a practical level, decentralizing clinical research may negatively impact the finances of tertiary care centers, which could threaten the required infrastructure for clinical trials, a few panelists noted.

The relative balance of NCI-, industry-, and investigator-initiated trials may require adjustment so that research income is adequate to maintain the costs associated with cancer clinical trials.
 

Shared goals and democratization

The pandemic has required all stakeholders in clinical research to rely on relationships of trust and shared goals, said Caroline Robert, MD, PhD, of Institut Gustave Roussy in Villejuif, France.

Dr. Kluetz summarized those goals as improving trial efficiencies, decreasing patient burden, decentralizing trials, and maintaining trial integrity.

A decentralized clinical trials operational model could lead to better generalizability of study outcomes, normalization of life for patients on studies, and lower costs of trial conduct. As such, decentralization would promote democratization.

Coupled with ongoing efforts to reduce eligibility criteria in cancer trials, the pandemic has brought operational solutions that should be perpetuated and has reminded us of the interlocking and mutually supportive relationships on which clinical research success depends.

Dr. Doroshow and Dr. Kluetz disclosed no conflicts of interest. All other panelists disclosed financial relationships, including employment, with a range of companies.

Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Flaherty KT et al. AACR: COVID-19 and Cancer, Regulatory and Operational Implications of Cancer Clinical Trial Changes During COVID-19.

To the Editor:

Severe dystrophic calcinosis cutis is a debilitating disease with no universally accepted therapeutic options. This case demonstrates the benefit of intravenous (IV) sodium thiosulfate in alleviating the calcified lesions as well as the associated pain and disability. This application of IV sodium thiosulfate with a favorable outcome is new and should be considered for the treatment of generalized dystrophic calcinosis cutis, especially when topical, procedural, or surgical options are not feasible.

A 54-year-old woman with a history of well-controlled dermatomyositis and systemic lupus erythematosus presented with diffuse, hard, calcified lesions on the legs, arms, clavicular region, and neck that had slowly progressed over at least a 10-year period (Figure 1). The lesions were consistent with dystrophic calcinosis cutis. The patient was started on 12.5 g of IV sodium thiosulfate 3 times weekly infused over 30 minutes. Drastic diminution of the cutaneous calcification was observed at 3-month follow-up (Figure 2). She reported decreased pain and burning as well as increased overall functionality and improved sleep. The patient completed 8 months of therapy, but the treatment was stopped secondary to suspicion of a lupuslike flare, and the lesions recurred with more widespread involvement, including the trunk, tendons, bony prominences, and supraclavicular soft tissue. The patient reported burning pain and pruritus that resulted in impairment of daily activities such as getting dressed. Sodium thiosulfate was restarted once weekly, which again resulted in reduction of the dystrophic calcinosis cutis.

Intravenous sodium thiosulfate has been widely used for the treatment of calciphylaxis secondary to end-stage renal failure and tumoral calcinosis.² It also has been reported to be effective in iatrogenic calcinosis cutis secondary to extravasation of calcium-containing solutions in a patient with T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia.³ However, reports of its use in treating dystrophic calcinosis cutis are limited. Intravenous sodium thiosulfate—10 g 3 times weekly for 2 weeks, followed by 15 g twice weekly for the next 3 months—was used with abatacept for treatment of dystrophic calcinosis cutis in a patient with juvenile dermatomyositis.⁴ Other formulations of sodium thiosulfate have been reported to result in clearance of calcified lesions, including a topical application compounded in zinc oxide⁵ and intradermal injection at the base of a nodule.⁶ We used 12.5 g over 30 minutes 3 times weekly; however, the dose can be increased to 25 g over 60 minutes if 3 to 4 treatments are tolerated, with nausea being the only notable side effect. Its mechanism of action in treating dystrophic calcinosis cutis is unclear, but it likely is due to its ability to chelate and dissolve calcium deposits. Topical and intradermal therapy is impractical for widespread, dystrophic calcinosis cutis as in our patient.

Our case highlights the successful use of IV sodium thiosulfate as a stand-alone treatment modality for generalized dystrophic calcinosis cutis in an adult patient. Both our patient and a child in a previously reported case who received the same treatment⁴ had dermatomyositis, but we suspect IV sodium thiosulfate also may be effective for dystrophic calcinosis cutis associated with other diseases. Sodium thiosulfate should be considered as a treatment for patients who experience tremendous pain and disability. It is safe, inexpensive, and easy to administer and is especially helpful in patients for whom topical, intradermal, or procedural therapy is not possible.

To the Editor:

Severe dystrophic calcinosis cutis is a debilitating disease with no universally accepted therapeutic options. This case demonstrates the benefit of intravenous (IV) sodium thiosulfate in alleviating the calcified lesions as well as the associated pain and disability. This application of IV sodium thiosulfate with a favorable outcome is new and should be considered for the treatment of generalized dystrophic calcinosis cutis, especially when topical, procedural, or surgical options are not feasible.

A 54-year-old woman with a history of well-controlled dermatomyositis and systemic lupus erythematosus presented with diffuse, hard, calcified lesions on the legs, arms, clavicular region, and neck that had slowly progressed over at least a 10-year period (Figure 1). The lesions were consistent with dystrophic calcinosis cutis. The patient was started on 12.5 g of IV sodium thiosulfate 3 times weekly infused over 30 minutes. Drastic diminution of the cutaneous calcification was observed at 3-month follow-up (Figure 2). She reported decreased pain and burning as well as increased overall functionality and improved sleep. The patient completed 8 months of therapy, but the treatment was stopped secondary to suspicion of a lupuslike flare, and the lesions recurred with more widespread involvement, including the trunk, tendons, bony prominences, and supraclavicular soft tissue. The patient reported burning pain and pruritus that resulted in impairment of daily activities such as getting dressed. Sodium thiosulfate was restarted once weekly, which again resulted in reduction of the dystrophic calcinosis cutis.

Intravenous sodium thiosulfate has been widely used for the treatment of calciphylaxis secondary to end-stage renal failure and tumoral calcinosis.² It also has been reported to be effective in iatrogenic calcinosis cutis secondary to extravasation of calcium-containing solutions in a patient with T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia.³ However, reports of its use in treating dystrophic calcinosis cutis are limited. Intravenous sodium thiosulfate—10 g 3 times weekly for 2 weeks, followed by 15 g twice weekly for the next 3 months—was used with abatacept for treatment of dystrophic calcinosis cutis in a patient with juvenile dermatomyositis.⁴ Other formulations of sodium thiosulfate have been reported to result in clearance of calcified lesions, including a topical application compounded in zinc oxide⁵ and intradermal injection at the base of a nodule.⁶ We used 12.5 g over 30 minutes 3 times weekly; however, the dose can be increased to 25 g over 60 minutes if 3 to 4 treatments are tolerated, with nausea being the only notable side effect. Its mechanism of action in treating dystrophic calcinosis cutis is unclear, but it likely is due to its ability to chelate and dissolve calcium deposits. Topical and intradermal therapy is impractical for widespread, dystrophic calcinosis cutis as in our patient.

Our case highlights the successful use of IV sodium thiosulfate as a stand-alone treatment modality for generalized dystrophic calcinosis cutis in an adult patient. Both our patient and a child in a previously reported case who received the same treatment⁴ had dermatomyositis, but we suspect IV sodium thiosulfate also may be effective for dystrophic calcinosis cutis associated with other diseases. Sodium thiosulfate should be considered as a treatment for patients who experience tremendous pain and disability. It is safe, inexpensive, and easy to administer and is especially helpful in patients for whom topical, intradermal, or procedural therapy is not possible.

To the Editor:

Severe dystrophic calcinosis cutis is a debilitating disease with no universally accepted therapeutic options. This case demonstrates the benefit of intravenous (IV) sodium thiosulfate in alleviating the calcified lesions as well as the associated pain and disability. This application of IV sodium thiosulfate with a favorable outcome is new and should be considered for the treatment of generalized dystrophic calcinosis cutis, especially when topical, procedural, or surgical options are not feasible.

A 54-year-old woman with a history of well-controlled dermatomyositis and systemic lupus erythematosus presented with diffuse, hard, calcified lesions on the legs, arms, clavicular region, and neck that had slowly progressed over at least a 10-year period (Figure 1). The lesions were consistent with dystrophic calcinosis cutis. The patient was started on 12.5 g of IV sodium thiosulfate 3 times weekly infused over 30 minutes. Drastic diminution of the cutaneous calcification was observed at 3-month follow-up (Figure 2). She reported decreased pain and burning as well as increased overall functionality and improved sleep. The patient completed 8 months of therapy, but the treatment was stopped secondary to suspicion of a lupuslike flare, and the lesions recurred with more widespread involvement, including the trunk, tendons, bony prominences, and supraclavicular soft tissue. The patient reported burning pain and pruritus that resulted in impairment of daily activities such as getting dressed. Sodium thiosulfate was restarted once weekly, which again resulted in reduction of the dystrophic calcinosis cutis.

Intravenous sodium thiosulfate has been widely used for the treatment of calciphylaxis secondary to end-stage renal failure and tumoral calcinosis.² It also has been reported to be effective in iatrogenic calcinosis cutis secondary to extravasation of calcium-containing solutions in a patient with T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia.³ However, reports of its use in treating dystrophic calcinosis cutis are limited. Intravenous sodium thiosulfate—10 g 3 times weekly for 2 weeks, followed by 15 g twice weekly for the next 3 months—was used with abatacept for treatment of dystrophic calcinosis cutis in a patient with juvenile dermatomyositis.⁴ Other formulations of sodium thiosulfate have been reported to result in clearance of calcified lesions, including a topical application compounded in zinc oxide⁵ and intradermal injection at the base of a nodule.⁶ We used 12.5 g over 30 minutes 3 times weekly; however, the dose can be increased to 25 g over 60 minutes if 3 to 4 treatments are tolerated, with nausea being the only notable side effect. Its mechanism of action in treating dystrophic calcinosis cutis is unclear, but it likely is due to its ability to chelate and dissolve calcium deposits. Topical and intradermal therapy is impractical for widespread, dystrophic calcinosis cutis as in our patient.

Our case highlights the successful use of IV sodium thiosulfate as a stand-alone treatment modality for generalized dystrophic calcinosis cutis in an adult patient. Both our patient and a child in a previously reported case who received the same treatment⁴ had dermatomyositis, but we suspect IV sodium thiosulfate also may be effective for dystrophic calcinosis cutis associated with other diseases. Sodium thiosulfate should be considered as a treatment for patients who experience tremendous pain and disability. It is safe, inexpensive, and easy to administer and is especially helpful in patients for whom topical, intradermal, or procedural therapy is not possible.

Pyoderma gangrenosum (PG) is a rare, chronic, ulcerative, neutrophilic dermatosis of unclear etiology. Large, multicentered, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are challenging due to the rarity of PG and the lack of a diagnostic confirmatory test; therefore, evidence-based guidelines for diagnosis and treatment are not well established. Current management of PG primarily is guided by case series, small clinical trials, and expert opinion.^1-4 We conducted a survey of expert medical dermatologists to highlight best practices in diagnostic and therapeutic approaches to PG.

Methods

The Society of Dermatology Hospitalists (SDH) Scientific Task Force gathered expert opinions from members of the SDH and Rheumatologic Dermatology Society (RDS) regarding PG workup and treatment through an online survey of 15 items (eTable 1). Subscribers of the SDH and RDS LISTSERVs were invited via email to participate in the survey from January 2016 to February 2016. Anonymous survey responses were collected and collated using SurveyMonkey. The survey results identified expert recommendations for evaluation, diagnosis, and treatment of PG and are reported as the sum of the percentage of respondents who answered always (almost 100% of the time) or often (more than half the time) following a particular course of action. A subanalysis was performed defining 2 groups of respondents based on the number of cases of PG treated per year (≥10 vs <10). Survey responses between each group were compared using χ² analysis with statistical significance set at P=.05.

Results

Fifty-one respondents completed the survey out of 140 surveyed (36% response rate). All respondents were dermatologists, and 96% (49/51) were affiliated with an academic institution. Among the respondents, the number of PG cases managed per year ranged from 2 to 35.

Respondents consistently ordered skin biopsies (92% [47/51]) and tissue cultures (90% [46/51]), as well as certain ancillary tests, including complete blood cell count (96% [49/51]), complete metabolic panel (86% [44/51]), serum protein electrophoresis (76% [39/51]), and hepatitis panel (71% [36/51]). Other frequently ordered studies were rheumatoid factor (69% [35/51]), antinuclear antibodies (67% [34/51]), and antineutrophilic antibodies (65% [33/51]). Respondents frequently ordered erythrocyte sedimentation rate (59% [30/51]), C-reactive protein (55% [28/51]), cryoglobulins (53% [27/51]), urine protein electrophoresis (53% [27/51]), hypercoagulability workup (49% [25/51]), and serum immunofixation test (49% [25/51]). Human immunodeficiency virus testing (43% [22/51]), chest radiograph (41% [21/51]), colonoscopy (41% [21/51]) and referral to other specialties for workup—gastroenterology (38% [19/51]), hematology/oncology (14% [7/51]), and rheumatology (10% [5/51])—were less frequently ordered (eTable 2).

Comment

Skin biopsies and tissue cultures were strongly recommended (>90% survey respondents) for the initial evaluation of lesions suspected to be PG to evaluate for typical histopathologic changes that appear early in the disease, to rule out PG mimickers such as infectious or vascular causes, and to prevent the detrimental effects of inappropriate treatment and delayed diagnosis.⁵

Suspected PG warrants a reasonable search for related conditions because more than 50% of PG cases are associated with comorbidities such as rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, and hematologic disease/malignancy.^6,7 A complete blood cell count and comprehensive metabolic panel were recommended by most respondents, aiding in the preliminary screening for hematologic and infectious causes as well as detecting liver and kidney dysfunction associated with systemic conditions. Additionally, exclusion of infection or malignancy may be particularly important if the patient will undergo systemic immunosuppression. In challenging PG cases when initial findings are inconclusive and the clinical presentation does not direct workup (eg, colonoscopy to evaluate gastrointestinal tract symptoms), serum protein electrophoresis, hepatitis panel, rheumatoid factor, antinuclear antibodies, and antineutrophilic antibody tests also were frequently ordered by respondents to further evaluate for underlying or associated conditions.

This consensus regarding skin biopsies and certain ancillary tests is consistent with the proposed diagnostic criteria for classic ulcerative PG in which the absence or exclusion of other relevant causes of cutaneous ulcers is required based on the criteria.⁸ The importance of ensuring an accurate diagnosis is paramount, as a 10% misdiagnosis rate has been documented in the literature.⁵

Importantly, a stepwise diagnostic workup for PG is proposed based on survey results, which may limit unnecessary testing and the associated costs to the health care system (Figure 1). Selection of additional testing is guided by initial test results and features of the patient’s clinical presentation, including age, review of systems, and associated comorbidities. Available data suggest that underlying inflammatory bowel disease is more frequent in PG patients who are younger than 65 years, whereas those who are 65 years and older are more likely to have inflammatory arthritis, cancer, or an underlying hematologic disorder.⁹

Respondents strongly recommended petrolatum-impregnated gauze and other nonadhesive dressings, including alginate and hydrocolloid dressings, as part of PG wound care. Topical antimicrobials and compression stockings also were recommended by respondents. These practices aim to promote moist environments for healing, avoid maceration, prevent superinfection, optimize wound healing, and minimize damage from adhesive injury.¹² Wound debridement and grafting generally were not recommended. However, pathergy is not a universal phenomenon in PG, and wounds that are no longer in the inflammatory phase may benefit from gentle debridement of necrotic tissue and/or grafting in select cases.¹⁰

Conclusion

An approach to modifying PG management based on clinical presentation and the practice of combination therapy with multiple systemic agents in refractory PG cases was not addressed in our survey. The low response rate is a limitation; however, the opinions of 51 medical dermatologist experts who regularly manage PG (in contrast to papers based on individualized clinical experience) can provide important clinical guidance until more scientific evidence is established.
 

Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the SDH and RDS membership for their participation in this survey. We especially acknowledge the other members of the SDH Scientific Task Force for their feedback: Misha Rosenbach, MD (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania); Robert G. Micheletti, MD (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania); Karolyn Wanat, MD (Milwaukee, Wisconsin); Amy Chen, MD (Cromwell, Connecticut); and A. Rambi Cardones, MD (Durham, North Carolina).

Pyoderma gangrenosum (PG) is a rare, chronic, ulcerative, neutrophilic dermatosis of unclear etiology. Large, multicentered, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are challenging due to the rarity of PG and the lack of a diagnostic confirmatory test; therefore, evidence-based guidelines for diagnosis and treatment are not well established. Current management of PG primarily is guided by case series, small clinical trials, and expert opinion.^1-4 We conducted a survey of expert medical dermatologists to highlight best practices in diagnostic and therapeutic approaches to PG.

Methods

The Society of Dermatology Hospitalists (SDH) Scientific Task Force gathered expert opinions from members of the SDH and Rheumatologic Dermatology Society (RDS) regarding PG workup and treatment through an online survey of 15 items (eTable 1). Subscribers of the SDH and RDS LISTSERVs were invited via email to participate in the survey from January 2016 to February 2016. Anonymous survey responses were collected and collated using SurveyMonkey. The survey results identified expert recommendations for evaluation, diagnosis, and treatment of PG and are reported as the sum of the percentage of respondents who answered always (almost 100% of the time) or often (more than half the time) following a particular course of action. A subanalysis was performed defining 2 groups of respondents based on the number of cases of PG treated per year (≥10 vs <10). Survey responses between each group were compared using χ² analysis with statistical significance set at P=.05.

Results

Fifty-one respondents completed the survey out of 140 surveyed (36% response rate). All respondents were dermatologists, and 96% (49/51) were affiliated with an academic institution. Among the respondents, the number of PG cases managed per year ranged from 2 to 35.

Respondents consistently ordered skin biopsies (92% [47/51]) and tissue cultures (90% [46/51]), as well as certain ancillary tests, including complete blood cell count (96% [49/51]), complete metabolic panel (86% [44/51]), serum protein electrophoresis (76% [39/51]), and hepatitis panel (71% [36/51]). Other frequently ordered studies were rheumatoid factor (69% [35/51]), antinuclear antibodies (67% [34/51]), and antineutrophilic antibodies (65% [33/51]). Respondents frequently ordered erythrocyte sedimentation rate (59% [30/51]), C-reactive protein (55% [28/51]), cryoglobulins (53% [27/51]), urine protein electrophoresis (53% [27/51]), hypercoagulability workup (49% [25/51]), and serum immunofixation test (49% [25/51]). Human immunodeficiency virus testing (43% [22/51]), chest radiograph (41% [21/51]), colonoscopy (41% [21/51]) and referral to other specialties for workup—gastroenterology (38% [19/51]), hematology/oncology (14% [7/51]), and rheumatology (10% [5/51])—were less frequently ordered (eTable 2).

Comment

Skin biopsies and tissue cultures were strongly recommended (>90% survey respondents) for the initial evaluation of lesions suspected to be PG to evaluate for typical histopathologic changes that appear early in the disease, to rule out PG mimickers such as infectious or vascular causes, and to prevent the detrimental effects of inappropriate treatment and delayed diagnosis.⁵

Suspected PG warrants a reasonable search for related conditions because more than 50% of PG cases are associated with comorbidities such as rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, and hematologic disease/malignancy.^6,7 A complete blood cell count and comprehensive metabolic panel were recommended by most respondents, aiding in the preliminary screening for hematologic and infectious causes as well as detecting liver and kidney dysfunction associated with systemic conditions. Additionally, exclusion of infection or malignancy may be particularly important if the patient will undergo systemic immunosuppression. In challenging PG cases when initial findings are inconclusive and the clinical presentation does not direct workup (eg, colonoscopy to evaluate gastrointestinal tract symptoms), serum protein electrophoresis, hepatitis panel, rheumatoid factor, antinuclear antibodies, and antineutrophilic antibody tests also were frequently ordered by respondents to further evaluate for underlying or associated conditions.

This consensus regarding skin biopsies and certain ancillary tests is consistent with the proposed diagnostic criteria for classic ulcerative PG in which the absence or exclusion of other relevant causes of cutaneous ulcers is required based on the criteria.⁸ The importance of ensuring an accurate diagnosis is paramount, as a 10% misdiagnosis rate has been documented in the literature.⁵

Importantly, a stepwise diagnostic workup for PG is proposed based on survey results, which may limit unnecessary testing and the associated costs to the health care system (Figure 1). Selection of additional testing is guided by initial test results and features of the patient’s clinical presentation, including age, review of systems, and associated comorbidities. Available data suggest that underlying inflammatory bowel disease is more frequent in PG patients who are younger than 65 years, whereas those who are 65 years and older are more likely to have inflammatory arthritis, cancer, or an underlying hematologic disorder.⁹

Respondents strongly recommended petrolatum-impregnated gauze and other nonadhesive dressings, including alginate and hydrocolloid dressings, as part of PG wound care. Topical antimicrobials and compression stockings also were recommended by respondents. These practices aim to promote moist environments for healing, avoid maceration, prevent superinfection, optimize wound healing, and minimize damage from adhesive injury.¹² Wound debridement and grafting generally were not recommended. However, pathergy is not a universal phenomenon in PG, and wounds that are no longer in the inflammatory phase may benefit from gentle debridement of necrotic tissue and/or grafting in select cases.¹⁰

Conclusion

An approach to modifying PG management based on clinical presentation and the practice of combination therapy with multiple systemic agents in refractory PG cases was not addressed in our survey. The low response rate is a limitation; however, the opinions of 51 medical dermatologist experts who regularly manage PG (in contrast to papers based on individualized clinical experience) can provide important clinical guidance until more scientific evidence is established.
 

Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the SDH and RDS membership for their participation in this survey. We especially acknowledge the other members of the SDH Scientific Task Force for their feedback: Misha Rosenbach, MD (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania); Robert G. Micheletti, MD (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania); Karolyn Wanat, MD (Milwaukee, Wisconsin); Amy Chen, MD (Cromwell, Connecticut); and A. Rambi Cardones, MD (Durham, North Carolina).

Pyoderma gangrenosum (PG) is a rare, chronic, ulcerative, neutrophilic dermatosis of unclear etiology. Large, multicentered, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are challenging due to the rarity of PG and the lack of a diagnostic confirmatory test; therefore, evidence-based guidelines for diagnosis and treatment are not well established. Current management of PG primarily is guided by case series, small clinical trials, and expert opinion.^1-4 We conducted a survey of expert medical dermatologists to highlight best practices in diagnostic and therapeutic approaches to PG.

Methods

The Society of Dermatology Hospitalists (SDH) Scientific Task Force gathered expert opinions from members of the SDH and Rheumatologic Dermatology Society (RDS) regarding PG workup and treatment through an online survey of 15 items (eTable 1). Subscribers of the SDH and RDS LISTSERVs were invited via email to participate in the survey from January 2016 to February 2016. Anonymous survey responses were collected and collated using SurveyMonkey. The survey results identified expert recommendations for evaluation, diagnosis, and treatment of PG and are reported as the sum of the percentage of respondents who answered always (almost 100% of the time) or often (more than half the time) following a particular course of action. A subanalysis was performed defining 2 groups of respondents based on the number of cases of PG treated per year (≥10 vs <10). Survey responses between each group were compared using χ² analysis with statistical significance set at P=.05.

Results

Fifty-one respondents completed the survey out of 140 surveyed (36% response rate). All respondents were dermatologists, and 96% (49/51) were affiliated with an academic institution. Among the respondents, the number of PG cases managed per year ranged from 2 to 35.

Respondents consistently ordered skin biopsies (92% [47/51]) and tissue cultures (90% [46/51]), as well as certain ancillary tests, including complete blood cell count (96% [49/51]), complete metabolic panel (86% [44/51]), serum protein electrophoresis (76% [39/51]), and hepatitis panel (71% [36/51]). Other frequently ordered studies were rheumatoid factor (69% [35/51]), antinuclear antibodies (67% [34/51]), and antineutrophilic antibodies (65% [33/51]). Respondents frequently ordered erythrocyte sedimentation rate (59% [30/51]), C-reactive protein (55% [28/51]), cryoglobulins (53% [27/51]), urine protein electrophoresis (53% [27/51]), hypercoagulability workup (49% [25/51]), and serum immunofixation test (49% [25/51]). Human immunodeficiency virus testing (43% [22/51]), chest radiograph (41% [21/51]), colonoscopy (41% [21/51]) and referral to other specialties for workup—gastroenterology (38% [19/51]), hematology/oncology (14% [7/51]), and rheumatology (10% [5/51])—were less frequently ordered (eTable 2).

Comment

Skin biopsies and tissue cultures were strongly recommended (>90% survey respondents) for the initial evaluation of lesions suspected to be PG to evaluate for typical histopathologic changes that appear early in the disease, to rule out PG mimickers such as infectious or vascular causes, and to prevent the detrimental effects of inappropriate treatment and delayed diagnosis.⁵

Suspected PG warrants a reasonable search for related conditions because more than 50% of PG cases are associated with comorbidities such as rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, and hematologic disease/malignancy.^6,7 A complete blood cell count and comprehensive metabolic panel were recommended by most respondents, aiding in the preliminary screening for hematologic and infectious causes as well as detecting liver and kidney dysfunction associated with systemic conditions. Additionally, exclusion of infection or malignancy may be particularly important if the patient will undergo systemic immunosuppression. In challenging PG cases when initial findings are inconclusive and the clinical presentation does not direct workup (eg, colonoscopy to evaluate gastrointestinal tract symptoms), serum protein electrophoresis, hepatitis panel, rheumatoid factor, antinuclear antibodies, and antineutrophilic antibody tests also were frequently ordered by respondents to further evaluate for underlying or associated conditions.

This consensus regarding skin biopsies and certain ancillary tests is consistent with the proposed diagnostic criteria for classic ulcerative PG in which the absence or exclusion of other relevant causes of cutaneous ulcers is required based on the criteria.⁸ The importance of ensuring an accurate diagnosis is paramount, as a 10% misdiagnosis rate has been documented in the literature.⁵

Importantly, a stepwise diagnostic workup for PG is proposed based on survey results, which may limit unnecessary testing and the associated costs to the health care system (Figure 1). Selection of additional testing is guided by initial test results and features of the patient’s clinical presentation, including age, review of systems, and associated comorbidities. Available data suggest that underlying inflammatory bowel disease is more frequent in PG patients who are younger than 65 years, whereas those who are 65 years and older are more likely to have inflammatory arthritis, cancer, or an underlying hematologic disorder.⁹

Respondents strongly recommended petrolatum-impregnated gauze and other nonadhesive dressings, including alginate and hydrocolloid dressings, as part of PG wound care. Topical antimicrobials and compression stockings also were recommended by respondents. These practices aim to promote moist environments for healing, avoid maceration, prevent superinfection, optimize wound healing, and minimize damage from adhesive injury.¹² Wound debridement and grafting generally were not recommended. However, pathergy is not a universal phenomenon in PG, and wounds that are no longer in the inflammatory phase may benefit from gentle debridement of necrotic tissue and/or grafting in select cases.¹⁰

Conclusion

An approach to modifying PG management based on clinical presentation and the practice of combination therapy with multiple systemic agents in refractory PG cases was not addressed in our survey. The low response rate is a limitation; however, the opinions of 51 medical dermatologist experts who regularly manage PG (in contrast to papers based on individualized clinical experience) can provide important clinical guidance until more scientific evidence is established.
 

Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the SDH and RDS membership for their participation in this survey. We especially acknowledge the other members of the SDH Scientific Task Force for their feedback: Misha Rosenbach, MD (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania); Robert G. Micheletti, MD (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania); Karolyn Wanat, MD (Milwaukee, Wisconsin); Amy Chen, MD (Cromwell, Connecticut); and A. Rambi Cardones, MD (Durham, North Carolina).