Federal Practitioner

On June 14, 2017, just before noon, a doctor made an incision near a patient’s groin. Kari Kirk, a representative for the world’s largest medical device company, Medtronic, looked on and began texting her colleague a play-by-play.

“Fixing both legs from the ankles,” she wrote.

It was a fairly common procedure at the Robert J. Dole Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Wichita, Kansas, performed to treat blockages in the leg vessels.

Within reach were an array of Medtronic products: tubes with blades attached to shave hardened deposits off of artery walls; stents to widen blood vessels; balloons coated with therapeutic drugs.

Each time a doctor puts a foreign device in someone’s body, it carries a risk of complication, which can include clots or even require amputation. So medical experts, research and even Medtronic’s own device instructions urge doctors to use as few as are necessary.

But, as revealed in Kirk’s text messages, this doctor took an aggressive approach.

“Just used 12 [drug-coated balloons]!!” Kirk texted her colleague.

“Does that mean I owe u $$,” he responded.

“Thats what I’m thinking!!!” she said. “And now 14 balloons?!”

“but only one stent so far??”

“So far!”

As the texting continued, her colleague replied, “U are going to want to start going to the VA all the time.”

The messages, recently unsealed in an ongoing whistleblower lawsuit, give a window into the way money and medicine mingle in the booming business of peripheral artery disease, a condition that afflicts 6.5 million Americans over age 40 and is caused when fatty plaque builds up in arteries, blocking blood flow to the legs.

Representatives from companies are often present during vascular procedures to guide doctors on how to use their complex devices. This kind of access has the potential to influence treatment plans, as companies and their representatives profit when more of their product is used.

The suit, filed in 2017 by a sales representative for a competing medical device firm, alleges an illegal kickback scheme between Medtronic and hospital employees. According to the complaint and documents released in the suit, between 2011 and 2018, VA health care workers received steakhouse dinners, Apple electronics, and NASCAR tickets, and in turn, Medtronic secured a lucrative contract with the hospital. Meanwhile, the company’s representatives allegedly “groomed and trained” physicians at the facility, who then deployed the company’s devices even when it was not medically indicated.

Independently from the whistleblower suit, internal investigators at the Wichita facility have also examined the treatment patterns of its vascular patients in recent years and found numerous cases where medical devices were used excessively. While it’s not uncommon to deploy several devices, a medical expert on the investigation team found that the VA doctors sometimes used more than 15 at a time – one used 33 – deviating from the standard of care.

“It is unconscionable – there can be no valid medically acceptable basis to cram so many devices into a human being,” wrote attorneys representing the whistleblower in legal filings from January 2023. “This is not medical treatment. This is abuse.”

Dr. Kim Hodgson, former president of the Society for Vascular Surgery and an expert retained by the plaintiff, said the findings of the internal review of patient data raise “a high level of concern regarding necessity of treatment provided,” according to case documents.

Medtronic declined to respond to ProPublica’s questions, citing the ongoing litigation. “These allegations are false and Medtronic is defending against these claims in court,” said Boua Xiong, a spokesperson for the company. Medtronic representative Kirk declined to respond to ProPublica’s request for comment.

The hospital investigation found that amputations increased sixfold in the same time frame as the procedures in question, according to internal emails, but made no conclusion about whether those two things were connected. ProPublica reached out to the VA to ask whether any patients had been harmed.

The VA is “conducting an extensive review of patient care” at the Kansas hospital, “including the number of devices used on patients – to make sure that Veterans were not harmed by any procedures,” press secretary Terrence Hayes said in a statement. So far, the VA’s investigation has found no “quality of care issues,” he said, and the investigation will continue “until every Veteran’s case has been reviewed.” (Read the full statement here.) Neither the department nor the hospital has taken formal action against the medical providers, Hayes said.

The medical group that had a contract with the VA for vascular interventions, Wichita Radiological Group, did not respond to ProPublica’s requests for comment, nor did the doctors named in the suit: Dr. Shaun Gonda, Dr. Bret Winblad, and Dr. Kermit Rust. It is unclear from the case documents which doctors conducted which procedures. Eric Barth, an attorney for the medical group, denied the allegations in recent legal filings, calling the claims “baseless” and the lawsuit a “witch hunt.”

The lawsuit comes amid growing concern about one of these procedures – atherectomies – after researchers and doctors have uncovered patterns of excessive and inappropriate use. Recent research has found that this procedure, a common but costly treatment to shave or laser plaque from blood vessels, is not more effective than cheaper alternatives and may even be associated with a higher risk of complications including amputation. In recent years, several doctors and clinics have been investigated for allegedly taking advantage of Medicare’s reimbursement rates, and one study found that many doctors are resorting to atherectomies in the earliest stages of peripheral artery disease, against best practices that urge noninvasive treatment.

“Atherectomy is important in certain settings. But it’s being used in a way that is entirely inappropriate and it’s largely driven by the incentive structure,” said Dr. Caitlin Hicks, the lead author of the study and an associate professor of surgery at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.

Although different payment structures govern the care of veterans, the whistleblower lawsuit alleges that outside physicians, paid hourly by the Dole VA, were motivated to conduct longer and more complex procedures that would earn them higher payment.

Under different circumstances, the patient in the procedure room on that summer day could have been done after 2 hours.

But, 150 minutes in, those Medtronic representatives were still texting. At that point, more than 15 of their vascular devices had been used, including stents, balloons, and those for atherectomy.

“Long case!” Kirk’s colleague texted. “Is it looking ok??”

“It is,” she said. “Thought we were done a few times! Now he’s going back in to cut again!”

A little while later, she texted: “....17!”

He texted back [with laughing emoticons].

Hospital leaders had been scrutinizing the use of these procedures at the Dole VA for years.

In 2017, shortly after Rick Ament was hired to lead the facility, he noticed something was amiss. While the longtime hospital administrator was poring over the finances, he was alarmed to discover that the relatively small Dole VA had one of the most expensive cardiac programs in the country. As Ament dug deeper, he realized vascular interventions were the reason.

“It just did not make sense that the acuity level of our patients would generate such extreme cost variances from the norm,” he testified in December, in a deposition for the whistleblower case. “It was so significant, we needed to get to the bottom of it.”

Ament, a second generation Air Force veteran, quietly assembled a task force to investigate why the facility had purchased so many medical devices for these procedures. After they examined inventory records, calculating the total number of medical devices and the cost of devices per patient, they grew concerned.

“We were more expensive than, I believe it was, the top 10 hospitals in the VA combined,” he said. “My feeling was that we either had very, very bad providers or we had product walking out the door.”

Ament enlisted experts from other VA hospitals to help his team investigate, including an administrative officer who could understand finances and a respected interventional radiologist who could examine records. The task force gathered a list of patients from 2016 to 2018, according to internal emails, and analyzed their medical charts.

According to internal VA documents released through the whistleblower suit, the review found a number of clinical failings: Evidence-based medicine had not been followed in the majority of cases reviewed. Procedures were over-aggressive, treating lesions that should have been left alone. And there was a total disregard for established best practices for treating peripheral artery disease.

One of the experts on the investigative team explained to Ament that while it was not uncommon for doctors to use a couple of devices in one intervention, the total number of devices in many of the procedures at his facility went into the double digits, sometimes five times the expected amount.

In one encounter, a doctor deployed 33 devices in one procedure – 3 atherectomy devices, 9 stents, and 21 balloons.

This use of devices was exorbitant, Ament came to understand. “I want to say the term ‘egregious’ was used,” he testified. “It was kind of like validation, but I really wish I was wrong.”

“Did it make you concerned for patient care?” a lawyer asked during the deposition.

“It did,” Ament replied.

A member of his task force pulled data for veterans who had leg amputations due to vascular disease. Over 5 years, the number of veterans who had amputations increased, from about 6 in 2013 to 38 in 2018, according to internal emails released in the suit. The VA did not respond to ProPublica’s questions about the rise in amputations or whether it was due to complications from the procedures.

Even though Ament testified in December 2022 that he became aware of the excessive use of devices during his investigation that began about 5 years ago, neither he nor the VA have publicly acknowledged these findings outside of the lawsuit. It is unclear whether VA representatives informed the patients whose records were reviewed about their findings. ProPublica reached out to more than half a dozen veteran community groups in the Wichita area and none were aware of the investigation nor the allegations of overuse of vascular procedures at the facility.

The VA says that if its ongoing review finds instances of substandard care, it will reach out to affected patients and inform them about possible complications and benefits they may be entitled to. The press secretary said the review will take several months. Ament declined to respond to ProPublica’s questions, citing the ongoing case.

In 2018, Ament turned over his findings to the criminal division of the VA’s Office of Inspector General. He also shut down interventional radiology procedures at the facility’s catheter lab.

Federal agents separately opened an investigation into the same unit in the facility, looking into allegations of kickbacks.

More than 40 pages of expense reports from Medtronic, revealed in the whistleblower case, show sales representatives treating Dole health care workers to hundreds of meals over several years – lunches at Dempsey’s Biscuit Co.; business meals at the Scotch & Sirloin steakhouse; dinner at Chester’s Chophouse & Wine Bar, price per attendee: $122.39.

Federal agents obtained the receipts.

“Robert J. Dole VAMC employees may have received improper gratuities, in the forms of paid lunches, dinners, etc., from sales representatives from Medtronic,” Nathen Howard, a special agent in the VA OIG, wrote in an investigation memo from February 2019.

This kind of relationship could violate VA policy, which forbids federal employees from receiving any gifts, including meals, from people who do business or seek to do business with a federal institution. For health care workers, violating this policy could have serious implications for patients. Numerous studies have shown that even modest industry-sponsored gifts, including meals, may influence prescribing or treatment behavior of health care professionals.

The agents opened their investigation into kickbacks at the Wichita facility in response to the whistleblower lawsuit, which was filed by Thomas Schroeder in 2017. The VA OIG would not confirm or deny whether it was continuing to investigate kickbacks at the facility. The VA did not directly answer ProPublica’s questions about kickbacks at the Dole VA, but it said that every employee must complete an annual ethics training, which covers gift rules.

In recent years, Medtronic has settled a handful of other cases that have alleged kickbacks between company representatives and health care professionals.

In 2018, Medtronic’s subsidiary Covidien paid $13 million to settle claims with the U.S. Department of Justice that it paid kickbacks to health care institutions that used its mechanical blood clot devices. In 2019, the same subsidiary paid $17 million to resolve allegations that it provided in-kind marketing support to doctors using its vein products. And in 2020, Medtronic paid more than $8 million to settle claims that representatives had paid kickbacks to a neurosurgeon, including scores of lavish meals at a restaurant that the doctor owned, to induce him to purchase the company’s medication pumps.

Schroeder’s lawsuit is not the first time Medtronic’s vascular devices were named in an alleged kickback scheme. In early 2015, Medtronic acquired Covidien, and shortly after the merger, its subsidiary ev3 Inc. agreed to pay $1.25 million to resolve allegations that it had paid doctors who were “high volume users” of its atherectomy devices to act as evangelists for the company, and had provided physicians with company shares to participate in clinical trials for their tools.

The whistleblower in this earlier case, a former sales representative for the company, also alleged that the subsidiary was gaming Medicare’s payment system. Hospitals were often hesitant to conduct atherectomy procedures because of the low reimbursement rates. According to the suit, sales representatives encouraged doctors to admit patients for longer stays to reap greater reimbursements and make a profit, even though such stays were often not medically indicated.

“Medical device makers that try to boost their profits by causing patients to be admitted for unnecessary and expensive inpatient hospital stays will be held accountable,” special agent Thomas O’Donnell, from the Office of Inspector General at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, said in a press release for the settlement. “Both patients and taxpayers deserve to have medical decisions made based on what is medically appropriate.”

Medtronic spokesperson Xiong said that in each case, the company “cooperated fully with the DOJ to resolve its concerns and, where wrongdoing was found, took appropriate remedial action.”

Seton Hall Law School professor Jacob Elberg, a former assistant U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey who led its health care and government fraud unit, is concerned by the frequency of such settlements in the last 2 decades. “There are, at this point, real questions as to whether the sanctions imposed by DOJ are sufficient to deter wrongdoing and to lead to meaningful change, especially within the medical device industry.”

Although the Department of Justice has declined to intervene in the lawsuit involving the Dole VA at this time, the case is ongoing and further depositions with Medtronic sales representatives and a former VA employee are scheduled for this month.

VA employees and doctors named in the suit declined to comment or did not respond to ProPublica’s questions about the alleged kickbacks and whether sales representatives may have influenced veterans’ treatment plans. In interviews with federal investigators, according to released transcripts, several of the employees who were questioned denied receiving frequent meals from sales representatives, contradicting Medtronic’s expense reports.

Their statements also stand in contrast to Medtronic representative Kari Kirk’s final text messages during that procedure in June 2017, which ultimately lasted more than 3 hours.

“Now u done??” her colleague asked.

“Just finished,” she texted. “Running to get them lunch!”

This story was originally published on ProPublica. ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive their biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

On June 14, 2017, just before noon, a doctor made an incision near a patient’s groin. Kari Kirk, a representative for the world’s largest medical device company, Medtronic, looked on and began texting her colleague a play-by-play.

“Fixing both legs from the ankles,” she wrote.

It was a fairly common procedure at the Robert J. Dole Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Wichita, Kansas, performed to treat blockages in the leg vessels.

Within reach were an array of Medtronic products: tubes with blades attached to shave hardened deposits off of artery walls; stents to widen blood vessels; balloons coated with therapeutic drugs.

Each time a doctor puts a foreign device in someone’s body, it carries a risk of complication, which can include clots or even require amputation. So medical experts, research and even Medtronic’s own device instructions urge doctors to use as few as are necessary.

But, as revealed in Kirk’s text messages, this doctor took an aggressive approach.

“Just used 12 [drug-coated balloons]!!” Kirk texted her colleague.

“Does that mean I owe u $$,” he responded.

“Thats what I’m thinking!!!” she said. “And now 14 balloons?!”

“but only one stent so far??”

“So far!”

As the texting continued, her colleague replied, “U are going to want to start going to the VA all the time.”

The messages, recently unsealed in an ongoing whistleblower lawsuit, give a window into the way money and medicine mingle in the booming business of peripheral artery disease, a condition that afflicts 6.5 million Americans over age 40 and is caused when fatty plaque builds up in arteries, blocking blood flow to the legs.

Representatives from companies are often present during vascular procedures to guide doctors on how to use their complex devices. This kind of access has the potential to influence treatment plans, as companies and their representatives profit when more of their product is used.

The suit, filed in 2017 by a sales representative for a competing medical device firm, alleges an illegal kickback scheme between Medtronic and hospital employees. According to the complaint and documents released in the suit, between 2011 and 2018, VA health care workers received steakhouse dinners, Apple electronics, and NASCAR tickets, and in turn, Medtronic secured a lucrative contract with the hospital. Meanwhile, the company’s representatives allegedly “groomed and trained” physicians at the facility, who then deployed the company’s devices even when it was not medically indicated.

Independently from the whistleblower suit, internal investigators at the Wichita facility have also examined the treatment patterns of its vascular patients in recent years and found numerous cases where medical devices were used excessively. While it’s not uncommon to deploy several devices, a medical expert on the investigation team found that the VA doctors sometimes used more than 15 at a time – one used 33 – deviating from the standard of care.

“It is unconscionable – there can be no valid medically acceptable basis to cram so many devices into a human being,” wrote attorneys representing the whistleblower in legal filings from January 2023. “This is not medical treatment. This is abuse.”

Dr. Kim Hodgson, former president of the Society for Vascular Surgery and an expert retained by the plaintiff, said the findings of the internal review of patient data raise “a high level of concern regarding necessity of treatment provided,” according to case documents.

Medtronic declined to respond to ProPublica’s questions, citing the ongoing litigation. “These allegations are false and Medtronic is defending against these claims in court,” said Boua Xiong, a spokesperson for the company. Medtronic representative Kirk declined to respond to ProPublica’s request for comment.

The hospital investigation found that amputations increased sixfold in the same time frame as the procedures in question, according to internal emails, but made no conclusion about whether those two things were connected. ProPublica reached out to the VA to ask whether any patients had been harmed.

The VA is “conducting an extensive review of patient care” at the Kansas hospital, “including the number of devices used on patients – to make sure that Veterans were not harmed by any procedures,” press secretary Terrence Hayes said in a statement. So far, the VA’s investigation has found no “quality of care issues,” he said, and the investigation will continue “until every Veteran’s case has been reviewed.” (Read the full statement here.) Neither the department nor the hospital has taken formal action against the medical providers, Hayes said.

The medical group that had a contract with the VA for vascular interventions, Wichita Radiological Group, did not respond to ProPublica’s requests for comment, nor did the doctors named in the suit: Dr. Shaun Gonda, Dr. Bret Winblad, and Dr. Kermit Rust. It is unclear from the case documents which doctors conducted which procedures. Eric Barth, an attorney for the medical group, denied the allegations in recent legal filings, calling the claims “baseless” and the lawsuit a “witch hunt.”

The lawsuit comes amid growing concern about one of these procedures – atherectomies – after researchers and doctors have uncovered patterns of excessive and inappropriate use. Recent research has found that this procedure, a common but costly treatment to shave or laser plaque from blood vessels, is not more effective than cheaper alternatives and may even be associated with a higher risk of complications including amputation. In recent years, several doctors and clinics have been investigated for allegedly taking advantage of Medicare’s reimbursement rates, and one study found that many doctors are resorting to atherectomies in the earliest stages of peripheral artery disease, against best practices that urge noninvasive treatment.

“Atherectomy is important in certain settings. But it’s being used in a way that is entirely inappropriate and it’s largely driven by the incentive structure,” said Dr. Caitlin Hicks, the lead author of the study and an associate professor of surgery at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.

Although different payment structures govern the care of veterans, the whistleblower lawsuit alleges that outside physicians, paid hourly by the Dole VA, were motivated to conduct longer and more complex procedures that would earn them higher payment.

Under different circumstances, the patient in the procedure room on that summer day could have been done after 2 hours.

But, 150 minutes in, those Medtronic representatives were still texting. At that point, more than 15 of their vascular devices had been used, including stents, balloons, and those for atherectomy.

“Long case!” Kirk’s colleague texted. “Is it looking ok??”

“It is,” she said. “Thought we were done a few times! Now he’s going back in to cut again!”

A little while later, she texted: “....17!”

He texted back [with laughing emoticons].

Hospital leaders had been scrutinizing the use of these procedures at the Dole VA for years.

In 2017, shortly after Rick Ament was hired to lead the facility, he noticed something was amiss. While the longtime hospital administrator was poring over the finances, he was alarmed to discover that the relatively small Dole VA had one of the most expensive cardiac programs in the country. As Ament dug deeper, he realized vascular interventions were the reason.

“It just did not make sense that the acuity level of our patients would generate such extreme cost variances from the norm,” he testified in December, in a deposition for the whistleblower case. “It was so significant, we needed to get to the bottom of it.”

Ament, a second generation Air Force veteran, quietly assembled a task force to investigate why the facility had purchased so many medical devices for these procedures. After they examined inventory records, calculating the total number of medical devices and the cost of devices per patient, they grew concerned.

“We were more expensive than, I believe it was, the top 10 hospitals in the VA combined,” he said. “My feeling was that we either had very, very bad providers or we had product walking out the door.”

Ament enlisted experts from other VA hospitals to help his team investigate, including an administrative officer who could understand finances and a respected interventional radiologist who could examine records. The task force gathered a list of patients from 2016 to 2018, according to internal emails, and analyzed their medical charts.

According to internal VA documents released through the whistleblower suit, the review found a number of clinical failings: Evidence-based medicine had not been followed in the majority of cases reviewed. Procedures were over-aggressive, treating lesions that should have been left alone. And there was a total disregard for established best practices for treating peripheral artery disease.

One of the experts on the investigative team explained to Ament that while it was not uncommon for doctors to use a couple of devices in one intervention, the total number of devices in many of the procedures at his facility went into the double digits, sometimes five times the expected amount.

In one encounter, a doctor deployed 33 devices in one procedure – 3 atherectomy devices, 9 stents, and 21 balloons.

This use of devices was exorbitant, Ament came to understand. “I want to say the term ‘egregious’ was used,” he testified. “It was kind of like validation, but I really wish I was wrong.”

“Did it make you concerned for patient care?” a lawyer asked during the deposition.

“It did,” Ament replied.

A member of his task force pulled data for veterans who had leg amputations due to vascular disease. Over 5 years, the number of veterans who had amputations increased, from about 6 in 2013 to 38 in 2018, according to internal emails released in the suit. The VA did not respond to ProPublica’s questions about the rise in amputations or whether it was due to complications from the procedures.

Even though Ament testified in December 2022 that he became aware of the excessive use of devices during his investigation that began about 5 years ago, neither he nor the VA have publicly acknowledged these findings outside of the lawsuit. It is unclear whether VA representatives informed the patients whose records were reviewed about their findings. ProPublica reached out to more than half a dozen veteran community groups in the Wichita area and none were aware of the investigation nor the allegations of overuse of vascular procedures at the facility.

The VA says that if its ongoing review finds instances of substandard care, it will reach out to affected patients and inform them about possible complications and benefits they may be entitled to. The press secretary said the review will take several months. Ament declined to respond to ProPublica’s questions, citing the ongoing case.

In 2018, Ament turned over his findings to the criminal division of the VA’s Office of Inspector General. He also shut down interventional radiology procedures at the facility’s catheter lab.

Federal agents separately opened an investigation into the same unit in the facility, looking into allegations of kickbacks.

More than 40 pages of expense reports from Medtronic, revealed in the whistleblower case, show sales representatives treating Dole health care workers to hundreds of meals over several years – lunches at Dempsey’s Biscuit Co.; business meals at the Scotch & Sirloin steakhouse; dinner at Chester’s Chophouse & Wine Bar, price per attendee: $122.39.

Federal agents obtained the receipts.

“Robert J. Dole VAMC employees may have received improper gratuities, in the forms of paid lunches, dinners, etc., from sales representatives from Medtronic,” Nathen Howard, a special agent in the VA OIG, wrote in an investigation memo from February 2019.

This kind of relationship could violate VA policy, which forbids federal employees from receiving any gifts, including meals, from people who do business or seek to do business with a federal institution. For health care workers, violating this policy could have serious implications for patients. Numerous studies have shown that even modest industry-sponsored gifts, including meals, may influence prescribing or treatment behavior of health care professionals.

The agents opened their investigation into kickbacks at the Wichita facility in response to the whistleblower lawsuit, which was filed by Thomas Schroeder in 2017. The VA OIG would not confirm or deny whether it was continuing to investigate kickbacks at the facility. The VA did not directly answer ProPublica’s questions about kickbacks at the Dole VA, but it said that every employee must complete an annual ethics training, which covers gift rules.

In recent years, Medtronic has settled a handful of other cases that have alleged kickbacks between company representatives and health care professionals.

In 2018, Medtronic’s subsidiary Covidien paid $13 million to settle claims with the U.S. Department of Justice that it paid kickbacks to health care institutions that used its mechanical blood clot devices. In 2019, the same subsidiary paid $17 million to resolve allegations that it provided in-kind marketing support to doctors using its vein products. And in 2020, Medtronic paid more than $8 million to settle claims that representatives had paid kickbacks to a neurosurgeon, including scores of lavish meals at a restaurant that the doctor owned, to induce him to purchase the company’s medication pumps.

Schroeder’s lawsuit is not the first time Medtronic’s vascular devices were named in an alleged kickback scheme. In early 2015, Medtronic acquired Covidien, and shortly after the merger, its subsidiary ev3 Inc. agreed to pay $1.25 million to resolve allegations that it had paid doctors who were “high volume users” of its atherectomy devices to act as evangelists for the company, and had provided physicians with company shares to participate in clinical trials for their tools.

The whistleblower in this earlier case, a former sales representative for the company, also alleged that the subsidiary was gaming Medicare’s payment system. Hospitals were often hesitant to conduct atherectomy procedures because of the low reimbursement rates. According to the suit, sales representatives encouraged doctors to admit patients for longer stays to reap greater reimbursements and make a profit, even though such stays were often not medically indicated.

“Medical device makers that try to boost their profits by causing patients to be admitted for unnecessary and expensive inpatient hospital stays will be held accountable,” special agent Thomas O’Donnell, from the Office of Inspector General at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, said in a press release for the settlement. “Both patients and taxpayers deserve to have medical decisions made based on what is medically appropriate.”

Medtronic spokesperson Xiong said that in each case, the company “cooperated fully with the DOJ to resolve its concerns and, where wrongdoing was found, took appropriate remedial action.”

Seton Hall Law School professor Jacob Elberg, a former assistant U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey who led its health care and government fraud unit, is concerned by the frequency of such settlements in the last 2 decades. “There are, at this point, real questions as to whether the sanctions imposed by DOJ are sufficient to deter wrongdoing and to lead to meaningful change, especially within the medical device industry.”

Although the Department of Justice has declined to intervene in the lawsuit involving the Dole VA at this time, the case is ongoing and further depositions with Medtronic sales representatives and a former VA employee are scheduled for this month.

VA employees and doctors named in the suit declined to comment or did not respond to ProPublica’s questions about the alleged kickbacks and whether sales representatives may have influenced veterans’ treatment plans. In interviews with federal investigators, according to released transcripts, several of the employees who were questioned denied receiving frequent meals from sales representatives, contradicting Medtronic’s expense reports.

Their statements also stand in contrast to Medtronic representative Kari Kirk’s final text messages during that procedure in June 2017, which ultimately lasted more than 3 hours.

“Now u done??” her colleague asked.

“Just finished,” she texted. “Running to get them lunch!”

This story was originally published on ProPublica. ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive their biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

On June 14, 2017, just before noon, a doctor made an incision near a patient’s groin. Kari Kirk, a representative for the world’s largest medical device company, Medtronic, looked on and began texting her colleague a play-by-play.

“Fixing both legs from the ankles,” she wrote.

It was a fairly common procedure at the Robert J. Dole Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Wichita, Kansas, performed to treat blockages in the leg vessels.

Within reach were an array of Medtronic products: tubes with blades attached to shave hardened deposits off of artery walls; stents to widen blood vessels; balloons coated with therapeutic drugs.

Each time a doctor puts a foreign device in someone’s body, it carries a risk of complication, which can include clots or even require amputation. So medical experts, research and even Medtronic’s own device instructions urge doctors to use as few as are necessary.

But, as revealed in Kirk’s text messages, this doctor took an aggressive approach.

“Just used 12 [drug-coated balloons]!!” Kirk texted her colleague.

“Does that mean I owe u $$,” he responded.

“Thats what I’m thinking!!!” she said. “And now 14 balloons?!”

“but only one stent so far??”

“So far!”

As the texting continued, her colleague replied, “U are going to want to start going to the VA all the time.”

The messages, recently unsealed in an ongoing whistleblower lawsuit, give a window into the way money and medicine mingle in the booming business of peripheral artery disease, a condition that afflicts 6.5 million Americans over age 40 and is caused when fatty plaque builds up in arteries, blocking blood flow to the legs.

Representatives from companies are often present during vascular procedures to guide doctors on how to use their complex devices. This kind of access has the potential to influence treatment plans, as companies and their representatives profit when more of their product is used.

The suit, filed in 2017 by a sales representative for a competing medical device firm, alleges an illegal kickback scheme between Medtronic and hospital employees. According to the complaint and documents released in the suit, between 2011 and 2018, VA health care workers received steakhouse dinners, Apple electronics, and NASCAR tickets, and in turn, Medtronic secured a lucrative contract with the hospital. Meanwhile, the company’s representatives allegedly “groomed and trained” physicians at the facility, who then deployed the company’s devices even when it was not medically indicated.

Independently from the whistleblower suit, internal investigators at the Wichita facility have also examined the treatment patterns of its vascular patients in recent years and found numerous cases where medical devices were used excessively. While it’s not uncommon to deploy several devices, a medical expert on the investigation team found that the VA doctors sometimes used more than 15 at a time – one used 33 – deviating from the standard of care.

“It is unconscionable – there can be no valid medically acceptable basis to cram so many devices into a human being,” wrote attorneys representing the whistleblower in legal filings from January 2023. “This is not medical treatment. This is abuse.”

Dr. Kim Hodgson, former president of the Society for Vascular Surgery and an expert retained by the plaintiff, said the findings of the internal review of patient data raise “a high level of concern regarding necessity of treatment provided,” according to case documents.

Medtronic declined to respond to ProPublica’s questions, citing the ongoing litigation. “These allegations are false and Medtronic is defending against these claims in court,” said Boua Xiong, a spokesperson for the company. Medtronic representative Kirk declined to respond to ProPublica’s request for comment.

The hospital investigation found that amputations increased sixfold in the same time frame as the procedures in question, according to internal emails, but made no conclusion about whether those two things were connected. ProPublica reached out to the VA to ask whether any patients had been harmed.

The VA is “conducting an extensive review of patient care” at the Kansas hospital, “including the number of devices used on patients – to make sure that Veterans were not harmed by any procedures,” press secretary Terrence Hayes said in a statement. So far, the VA’s investigation has found no “quality of care issues,” he said, and the investigation will continue “until every Veteran’s case has been reviewed.” (Read the full statement here.) Neither the department nor the hospital has taken formal action against the medical providers, Hayes said.

The medical group that had a contract with the VA for vascular interventions, Wichita Radiological Group, did not respond to ProPublica’s requests for comment, nor did the doctors named in the suit: Dr. Shaun Gonda, Dr. Bret Winblad, and Dr. Kermit Rust. It is unclear from the case documents which doctors conducted which procedures. Eric Barth, an attorney for the medical group, denied the allegations in recent legal filings, calling the claims “baseless” and the lawsuit a “witch hunt.”

The lawsuit comes amid growing concern about one of these procedures – atherectomies – after researchers and doctors have uncovered patterns of excessive and inappropriate use. Recent research has found that this procedure, a common but costly treatment to shave or laser plaque from blood vessels, is not more effective than cheaper alternatives and may even be associated with a higher risk of complications including amputation. In recent years, several doctors and clinics have been investigated for allegedly taking advantage of Medicare’s reimbursement rates, and one study found that many doctors are resorting to atherectomies in the earliest stages of peripheral artery disease, against best practices that urge noninvasive treatment.

“Atherectomy is important in certain settings. But it’s being used in a way that is entirely inappropriate and it’s largely driven by the incentive structure,” said Dr. Caitlin Hicks, the lead author of the study and an associate professor of surgery at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.

Although different payment structures govern the care of veterans, the whistleblower lawsuit alleges that outside physicians, paid hourly by the Dole VA, were motivated to conduct longer and more complex procedures that would earn them higher payment.

Under different circumstances, the patient in the procedure room on that summer day could have been done after 2 hours.

But, 150 minutes in, those Medtronic representatives were still texting. At that point, more than 15 of their vascular devices had been used, including stents, balloons, and those for atherectomy.

“Long case!” Kirk’s colleague texted. “Is it looking ok??”

“It is,” she said. “Thought we were done a few times! Now he’s going back in to cut again!”

A little while later, she texted: “....17!”

He texted back [with laughing emoticons].

Hospital leaders had been scrutinizing the use of these procedures at the Dole VA for years.

In 2017, shortly after Rick Ament was hired to lead the facility, he noticed something was amiss. While the longtime hospital administrator was poring over the finances, he was alarmed to discover that the relatively small Dole VA had one of the most expensive cardiac programs in the country. As Ament dug deeper, he realized vascular interventions were the reason.

“It just did not make sense that the acuity level of our patients would generate such extreme cost variances from the norm,” he testified in December, in a deposition for the whistleblower case. “It was so significant, we needed to get to the bottom of it.”

Ament, a second generation Air Force veteran, quietly assembled a task force to investigate why the facility had purchased so many medical devices for these procedures. After they examined inventory records, calculating the total number of medical devices and the cost of devices per patient, they grew concerned.

“We were more expensive than, I believe it was, the top 10 hospitals in the VA combined,” he said. “My feeling was that we either had very, very bad providers or we had product walking out the door.”

Ament enlisted experts from other VA hospitals to help his team investigate, including an administrative officer who could understand finances and a respected interventional radiologist who could examine records. The task force gathered a list of patients from 2016 to 2018, according to internal emails, and analyzed their medical charts.

According to internal VA documents released through the whistleblower suit, the review found a number of clinical failings: Evidence-based medicine had not been followed in the majority of cases reviewed. Procedures were over-aggressive, treating lesions that should have been left alone. And there was a total disregard for established best practices for treating peripheral artery disease.

One of the experts on the investigative team explained to Ament that while it was not uncommon for doctors to use a couple of devices in one intervention, the total number of devices in many of the procedures at his facility went into the double digits, sometimes five times the expected amount.

In one encounter, a doctor deployed 33 devices in one procedure – 3 atherectomy devices, 9 stents, and 21 balloons.

This use of devices was exorbitant, Ament came to understand. “I want to say the term ‘egregious’ was used,” he testified. “It was kind of like validation, but I really wish I was wrong.”

“Did it make you concerned for patient care?” a lawyer asked during the deposition.

“It did,” Ament replied.

A member of his task force pulled data for veterans who had leg amputations due to vascular disease. Over 5 years, the number of veterans who had amputations increased, from about 6 in 2013 to 38 in 2018, according to internal emails released in the suit. The VA did not respond to ProPublica’s questions about the rise in amputations or whether it was due to complications from the procedures.

Even though Ament testified in December 2022 that he became aware of the excessive use of devices during his investigation that began about 5 years ago, neither he nor the VA have publicly acknowledged these findings outside of the lawsuit. It is unclear whether VA representatives informed the patients whose records were reviewed about their findings. ProPublica reached out to more than half a dozen veteran community groups in the Wichita area and none were aware of the investigation nor the allegations of overuse of vascular procedures at the facility.

The VA says that if its ongoing review finds instances of substandard care, it will reach out to affected patients and inform them about possible complications and benefits they may be entitled to. The press secretary said the review will take several months. Ament declined to respond to ProPublica’s questions, citing the ongoing case.

In 2018, Ament turned over his findings to the criminal division of the VA’s Office of Inspector General. He also shut down interventional radiology procedures at the facility’s catheter lab.

Federal agents separately opened an investigation into the same unit in the facility, looking into allegations of kickbacks.

More than 40 pages of expense reports from Medtronic, revealed in the whistleblower case, show sales representatives treating Dole health care workers to hundreds of meals over several years – lunches at Dempsey’s Biscuit Co.; business meals at the Scotch & Sirloin steakhouse; dinner at Chester’s Chophouse & Wine Bar, price per attendee: $122.39.

Federal agents obtained the receipts.

“Robert J. Dole VAMC employees may have received improper gratuities, in the forms of paid lunches, dinners, etc., from sales representatives from Medtronic,” Nathen Howard, a special agent in the VA OIG, wrote in an investigation memo from February 2019.

This kind of relationship could violate VA policy, which forbids federal employees from receiving any gifts, including meals, from people who do business or seek to do business with a federal institution. For health care workers, violating this policy could have serious implications for patients. Numerous studies have shown that even modest industry-sponsored gifts, including meals, may influence prescribing or treatment behavior of health care professionals.

The agents opened their investigation into kickbacks at the Wichita facility in response to the whistleblower lawsuit, which was filed by Thomas Schroeder in 2017. The VA OIG would not confirm or deny whether it was continuing to investigate kickbacks at the facility. The VA did not directly answer ProPublica’s questions about kickbacks at the Dole VA, but it said that every employee must complete an annual ethics training, which covers gift rules.

In recent years, Medtronic has settled a handful of other cases that have alleged kickbacks between company representatives and health care professionals.

In 2018, Medtronic’s subsidiary Covidien paid $13 million to settle claims with the U.S. Department of Justice that it paid kickbacks to health care institutions that used its mechanical blood clot devices. In 2019, the same subsidiary paid $17 million to resolve allegations that it provided in-kind marketing support to doctors using its vein products. And in 2020, Medtronic paid more than $8 million to settle claims that representatives had paid kickbacks to a neurosurgeon, including scores of lavish meals at a restaurant that the doctor owned, to induce him to purchase the company’s medication pumps.

Schroeder’s lawsuit is not the first time Medtronic’s vascular devices were named in an alleged kickback scheme. In early 2015, Medtronic acquired Covidien, and shortly after the merger, its subsidiary ev3 Inc. agreed to pay $1.25 million to resolve allegations that it had paid doctors who were “high volume users” of its atherectomy devices to act as evangelists for the company, and had provided physicians with company shares to participate in clinical trials for their tools.

The whistleblower in this earlier case, a former sales representative for the company, also alleged that the subsidiary was gaming Medicare’s payment system. Hospitals were often hesitant to conduct atherectomy procedures because of the low reimbursement rates. According to the suit, sales representatives encouraged doctors to admit patients for longer stays to reap greater reimbursements and make a profit, even though such stays were often not medically indicated.

“Medical device makers that try to boost their profits by causing patients to be admitted for unnecessary and expensive inpatient hospital stays will be held accountable,” special agent Thomas O’Donnell, from the Office of Inspector General at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, said in a press release for the settlement. “Both patients and taxpayers deserve to have medical decisions made based on what is medically appropriate.”

Medtronic spokesperson Xiong said that in each case, the company “cooperated fully with the DOJ to resolve its concerns and, where wrongdoing was found, took appropriate remedial action.”

Seton Hall Law School professor Jacob Elberg, a former assistant U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey who led its health care and government fraud unit, is concerned by the frequency of such settlements in the last 2 decades. “There are, at this point, real questions as to whether the sanctions imposed by DOJ are sufficient to deter wrongdoing and to lead to meaningful change, especially within the medical device industry.”

Although the Department of Justice has declined to intervene in the lawsuit involving the Dole VA at this time, the case is ongoing and further depositions with Medtronic sales representatives and a former VA employee are scheduled for this month.

VA employees and doctors named in the suit declined to comment or did not respond to ProPublica’s questions about the alleged kickbacks and whether sales representatives may have influenced veterans’ treatment plans. In interviews with federal investigators, according to released transcripts, several of the employees who were questioned denied receiving frequent meals from sales representatives, contradicting Medtronic’s expense reports.

Their statements also stand in contrast to Medtronic representative Kari Kirk’s final text messages during that procedure in June 2017, which ultimately lasted more than 3 hours.

“Now u done??” her colleague asked.

“Just finished,” she texted. “Running to get them lunch!”

This story was originally published on ProPublica. ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive their biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

A strategy for the treatment of tuberculosis involving just an 8-week treatment regimen – along with close posttreatment monitoring and treatment extension if needed – shows potential as an effective alternative to the standard 24-week regimen.

“We found that if we use the strategy of a bedaquiline-linezolid five-drug regimen for 8 weeks and then followed patients for 96 weeks, [the regimen] was noninferior, clinically, to the standard regimen in terms of the number of people alive, free of TB disease, and not on treatment,” said lead author Nicholas Paton, MD, of the National University of Singapore, in a press conference held during the Conference on Retroviruses & Opportunistic Infections.

“The total time on treatment was reduced by half – instead of 160 days, it was 85 days for the total duration.”

Commenting on the study, which was published concurrently in the New England Journal of Medicine, Richard E. Chaisson, MD, noted that, although more needs to be understood, the high number of responses is nevertheless encouraging.

“Clinicians will not feel comfortable with the short regimens at this point, but it is remarkable that so many patients did well with shorter treatments,” Dr. Chaisson, who is a professor of medicine, epidemiology, and international health and director of the Johns Hopkins University Center for Tuberculosis Research, Baltimore, said in an interview.

Importantly, the study should help push forward “future studies [that] will stratify patients according to their likelihood of responding to shorter treatments,” he said.

The current global standard for TB treatment, practiced for 4 decades, has been a 6-month rifampin-based regimen. Although the regimen performs well, curing more than 95% of cases in clinical trials, in real-world practice, the prolonged duration can be problematic, with issues of nonadherence and loss of patients to follow-up.

Previous research has shown that shorter regimens have potential, with some studies showing as many as 85% of patients cured with 3- and 4-month regimens, and some promising 2-month regimens showing efficacy specifically for those with smear-negative TB.

These efforts suggest that “the current 6-month regimen may lead to overtreatment in the majority of persons in order to prevent relapse in a minority of persons,” the authors asserted.
 

TRUNCATE-TB

To investigate a suitable shorter-term alternative, the authors conducted the phase 2-3, prospective, open-label TRUNCATE-TB trial, in which 674 patients with rifampin-susceptible pulmonary TB were enrolled at 18 sites in Asia and Africa.

The patients were randomly assigned to receive either the standard treatment regimen (rifampin and isoniazid for 24 weeks with pyrazinamide and ethambutol for the first 8 weeks; n = 181), or one of four novel five-drug regimens to be administered over 8 weeks, along with extended treatment for persistent clinical disease of up to 12 weeks, if needed, and a plan for retreatment in the case of relapse (n = 493).

Two of the regimens were dropped because of logistic criteria; the two remaining shorter-course groups included in the study involved either high-dose rifampin plus linezolid or bedaquiline plus linezolid, each combined with isoniazid, pyrazinamide, and ethambutol.

Of the patients, 62% were male, and four withdrew or were lost to follow-up by the end of the study at a final follow-up at week 96.

Among patients assigned to the 8-week regimens, 80% stopped at exactly 8 weeks, while 9% wound up having extended treatment to 10 weeks and 3% were extended to 12 weeks.

For the primary endpoint, a composite of death, ongoing treatment, or active disease at week 96, the rate was lowest in the standard 24-week therapy group, occurring in 7 of 181 patients (3.9%), compared with 21 of 184 patients (11.4%) in the rifampin plus linezolid group (adjusted difference, 7.4 percentage points, which did not meet noninferiority criterion), and 11 of 189 (5.8%) in the group in the bedaquiline plus linezolid group (adjusted difference, 0.8 percentage points, meeting noninferiority criterion).

The mean total duration of treatment through week 96 in the standard treatment group was 180 days versus 106 days in the rifampin–linezolid group, and 85 days in the bedaquiline-linezolid group.

The results were consistent across multiple subgroups defined according to baseline characteristics, including some that could be linked to severe disease and a high risk for relapse.

In terms of safety, there were no significant differences between the groups in terms of grade 3 or 4 adverse events.

Of note, only two patients (1.1%) in the bedaquiline plus linezolid group acquired a resistance, which Dr. Paton said was “encouraging,” because of concerns about resistance to that drug.
 

‘Unfavorable’ composite also evaluated

In an updated analysis of the study that Dr. Paton presented at the meeting, the authors looked at a revised “unfavorable” primary outcome – a composite including treatment failure, relapse, death, or nonattendance at week 96 without evidence of prior disease clearance.

The rate remained lowest in the standard 24-week therapy group (3.9%) versus 25% in the rifampin plus linezolid group, and 13.8% in the bedaquiline plus linezolid group.

Though the lower rate with the standard treatment was expected, Dr. Paton said the results nevertheless hold promise, at least for some patients, for successful treatment with the 8-week bedaquiline plus linezolid strategy.

“What the trial has told us is that even with that 13.8% relapse rate, we can manage patients within this strategy and people can do fine at the end, because with some simple clinical biomarkers, we can pick the people who may have a high chance of achieving a cure.”

Dr. Chaisson expressed concern over the higher unfavorable rates, but said the results help pave the way for refining a workable-shorter term strategy.

“TRUNCATE-TB did find that most patients could be successfully treated in 2 months with the novel regimen of bedaquiline plus linezolid, but the failure rate was still unacceptably high,” he said. 

“This regimen will not be widely adapted at this point, but additional analyses may identify subsets of patients who will do well with shorter regimens, and future studies will stratify patients according to their likelihood of responding to shorter treatments.”

The authors of an accompanying editorial further commented that the benefits of a shorter treatment strategy could very well outweigh possible shortcomings.

“Treatment algorithms such as that used in the TRUNCATE-TB trial are fundamental to tuberculosis control,” wrote Véronique Dartois, PhD, Center for Discovery and Innovation, Nutley, N.J., and Eric J. Rubin, MD, PhD, the editor-in-chief of NEJM. “Although implementing them could be a challenge, any added burden might be offset by reduced costs, better adherence, and increased patient satisfaction. Thus, for tuberculosis, a strategy might be more than just a regimen.”

The good news, as summed up by CROI vice-chair Landon Myer, MD, PhD, in the press conference, is that “we’re moving closer and closer to the holy grail of a short, efficacious regimen for TB treatment. We’re getting there slowly, but we’re getting there.”

The study received grant funding from the Singapore National Medical Research Council; a grant from the Department of Health and Social Care; the Foreign, Commonwealth, and Development Office; the Medical Research Council; and Wellcome Trust; as well as a grant from the UK Research and Innovation Medical Research Council. Dr. Dartois reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Chaisson had no disclosures to report.

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

A strategy for the treatment of tuberculosis involving just an 8-week treatment regimen – along with close posttreatment monitoring and treatment extension if needed – shows potential as an effective alternative to the standard 24-week regimen.

“We found that if we use the strategy of a bedaquiline-linezolid five-drug regimen for 8 weeks and then followed patients for 96 weeks, [the regimen] was noninferior, clinically, to the standard regimen in terms of the number of people alive, free of TB disease, and not on treatment,” said lead author Nicholas Paton, MD, of the National University of Singapore, in a press conference held during the Conference on Retroviruses & Opportunistic Infections.

“The total time on treatment was reduced by half – instead of 160 days, it was 85 days for the total duration.”

Commenting on the study, which was published concurrently in the New England Journal of Medicine, Richard E. Chaisson, MD, noted that, although more needs to be understood, the high number of responses is nevertheless encouraging.

“Clinicians will not feel comfortable with the short regimens at this point, but it is remarkable that so many patients did well with shorter treatments,” Dr. Chaisson, who is a professor of medicine, epidemiology, and international health and director of the Johns Hopkins University Center for Tuberculosis Research, Baltimore, said in an interview.

Importantly, the study should help push forward “future studies [that] will stratify patients according to their likelihood of responding to shorter treatments,” he said.

The current global standard for TB treatment, practiced for 4 decades, has been a 6-month rifampin-based regimen. Although the regimen performs well, curing more than 95% of cases in clinical trials, in real-world practice, the prolonged duration can be problematic, with issues of nonadherence and loss of patients to follow-up.

Previous research has shown that shorter regimens have potential, with some studies showing as many as 85% of patients cured with 3- and 4-month regimens, and some promising 2-month regimens showing efficacy specifically for those with smear-negative TB.

These efforts suggest that “the current 6-month regimen may lead to overtreatment in the majority of persons in order to prevent relapse in a minority of persons,” the authors asserted.
 

TRUNCATE-TB

To investigate a suitable shorter-term alternative, the authors conducted the phase 2-3, prospective, open-label TRUNCATE-TB trial, in which 674 patients with rifampin-susceptible pulmonary TB were enrolled at 18 sites in Asia and Africa.

The patients were randomly assigned to receive either the standard treatment regimen (rifampin and isoniazid for 24 weeks with pyrazinamide and ethambutol for the first 8 weeks; n = 181), or one of four novel five-drug regimens to be administered over 8 weeks, along with extended treatment for persistent clinical disease of up to 12 weeks, if needed, and a plan for retreatment in the case of relapse (n = 493).

Two of the regimens were dropped because of logistic criteria; the two remaining shorter-course groups included in the study involved either high-dose rifampin plus linezolid or bedaquiline plus linezolid, each combined with isoniazid, pyrazinamide, and ethambutol.

Of the patients, 62% were male, and four withdrew or were lost to follow-up by the end of the study at a final follow-up at week 96.

Among patients assigned to the 8-week regimens, 80% stopped at exactly 8 weeks, while 9% wound up having extended treatment to 10 weeks and 3% were extended to 12 weeks.

For the primary endpoint, a composite of death, ongoing treatment, or active disease at week 96, the rate was lowest in the standard 24-week therapy group, occurring in 7 of 181 patients (3.9%), compared with 21 of 184 patients (11.4%) in the rifampin plus linezolid group (adjusted difference, 7.4 percentage points, which did not meet noninferiority criterion), and 11 of 189 (5.8%) in the group in the bedaquiline plus linezolid group (adjusted difference, 0.8 percentage points, meeting noninferiority criterion).

The mean total duration of treatment through week 96 in the standard treatment group was 180 days versus 106 days in the rifampin–linezolid group, and 85 days in the bedaquiline-linezolid group.

The results were consistent across multiple subgroups defined according to baseline characteristics, including some that could be linked to severe disease and a high risk for relapse.

In terms of safety, there were no significant differences between the groups in terms of grade 3 or 4 adverse events.

Of note, only two patients (1.1%) in the bedaquiline plus linezolid group acquired a resistance, which Dr. Paton said was “encouraging,” because of concerns about resistance to that drug.
 

‘Unfavorable’ composite also evaluated

In an updated analysis of the study that Dr. Paton presented at the meeting, the authors looked at a revised “unfavorable” primary outcome – a composite including treatment failure, relapse, death, or nonattendance at week 96 without evidence of prior disease clearance.

The rate remained lowest in the standard 24-week therapy group (3.9%) versus 25% in the rifampin plus linezolid group, and 13.8% in the bedaquiline plus linezolid group.

Though the lower rate with the standard treatment was expected, Dr. Paton said the results nevertheless hold promise, at least for some patients, for successful treatment with the 8-week bedaquiline plus linezolid strategy.

“What the trial has told us is that even with that 13.8% relapse rate, we can manage patients within this strategy and people can do fine at the end, because with some simple clinical biomarkers, we can pick the people who may have a high chance of achieving a cure.”

Dr. Chaisson expressed concern over the higher unfavorable rates, but said the results help pave the way for refining a workable-shorter term strategy.

“TRUNCATE-TB did find that most patients could be successfully treated in 2 months with the novel regimen of bedaquiline plus linezolid, but the failure rate was still unacceptably high,” he said. 

“This regimen will not be widely adapted at this point, but additional analyses may identify subsets of patients who will do well with shorter regimens, and future studies will stratify patients according to their likelihood of responding to shorter treatments.”

The authors of an accompanying editorial further commented that the benefits of a shorter treatment strategy could very well outweigh possible shortcomings.

“Treatment algorithms such as that used in the TRUNCATE-TB trial are fundamental to tuberculosis control,” wrote Véronique Dartois, PhD, Center for Discovery and Innovation, Nutley, N.J., and Eric J. Rubin, MD, PhD, the editor-in-chief of NEJM. “Although implementing them could be a challenge, any added burden might be offset by reduced costs, better adherence, and increased patient satisfaction. Thus, for tuberculosis, a strategy might be more than just a regimen.”

The good news, as summed up by CROI vice-chair Landon Myer, MD, PhD, in the press conference, is that “we’re moving closer and closer to the holy grail of a short, efficacious regimen for TB treatment. We’re getting there slowly, but we’re getting there.”

The study received grant funding from the Singapore National Medical Research Council; a grant from the Department of Health and Social Care; the Foreign, Commonwealth, and Development Office; the Medical Research Council; and Wellcome Trust; as well as a grant from the UK Research and Innovation Medical Research Council. Dr. Dartois reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Chaisson had no disclosures to report.

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

A strategy for the treatment of tuberculosis involving just an 8-week treatment regimen – along with close posttreatment monitoring and treatment extension if needed – shows potential as an effective alternative to the standard 24-week regimen.

“We found that if we use the strategy of a bedaquiline-linezolid five-drug regimen for 8 weeks and then followed patients for 96 weeks, [the regimen] was noninferior, clinically, to the standard regimen in terms of the number of people alive, free of TB disease, and not on treatment,” said lead author Nicholas Paton, MD, of the National University of Singapore, in a press conference held during the Conference on Retroviruses & Opportunistic Infections.

“The total time on treatment was reduced by half – instead of 160 days, it was 85 days for the total duration.”

Commenting on the study, which was published concurrently in the New England Journal of Medicine, Richard E. Chaisson, MD, noted that, although more needs to be understood, the high number of responses is nevertheless encouraging.

“Clinicians will not feel comfortable with the short regimens at this point, but it is remarkable that so many patients did well with shorter treatments,” Dr. Chaisson, who is a professor of medicine, epidemiology, and international health and director of the Johns Hopkins University Center for Tuberculosis Research, Baltimore, said in an interview.

Importantly, the study should help push forward “future studies [that] will stratify patients according to their likelihood of responding to shorter treatments,” he said.

The current global standard for TB treatment, practiced for 4 decades, has been a 6-month rifampin-based regimen. Although the regimen performs well, curing more than 95% of cases in clinical trials, in real-world practice, the prolonged duration can be problematic, with issues of nonadherence and loss of patients to follow-up.

Previous research has shown that shorter regimens have potential, with some studies showing as many as 85% of patients cured with 3- and 4-month regimens, and some promising 2-month regimens showing efficacy specifically for those with smear-negative TB.

These efforts suggest that “the current 6-month regimen may lead to overtreatment in the majority of persons in order to prevent relapse in a minority of persons,” the authors asserted.
 

TRUNCATE-TB

To investigate a suitable shorter-term alternative, the authors conducted the phase 2-3, prospective, open-label TRUNCATE-TB trial, in which 674 patients with rifampin-susceptible pulmonary TB were enrolled at 18 sites in Asia and Africa.

The patients were randomly assigned to receive either the standard treatment regimen (rifampin and isoniazid for 24 weeks with pyrazinamide and ethambutol for the first 8 weeks; n = 181), or one of four novel five-drug regimens to be administered over 8 weeks, along with extended treatment for persistent clinical disease of up to 12 weeks, if needed, and a plan for retreatment in the case of relapse (n = 493).

Two of the regimens were dropped because of logistic criteria; the two remaining shorter-course groups included in the study involved either high-dose rifampin plus linezolid or bedaquiline plus linezolid, each combined with isoniazid, pyrazinamide, and ethambutol.

Of the patients, 62% were male, and four withdrew or were lost to follow-up by the end of the study at a final follow-up at week 96.

Among patients assigned to the 8-week regimens, 80% stopped at exactly 8 weeks, while 9% wound up having extended treatment to 10 weeks and 3% were extended to 12 weeks.

For the primary endpoint, a composite of death, ongoing treatment, or active disease at week 96, the rate was lowest in the standard 24-week therapy group, occurring in 7 of 181 patients (3.9%), compared with 21 of 184 patients (11.4%) in the rifampin plus linezolid group (adjusted difference, 7.4 percentage points, which did not meet noninferiority criterion), and 11 of 189 (5.8%) in the group in the bedaquiline plus linezolid group (adjusted difference, 0.8 percentage points, meeting noninferiority criterion).

The mean total duration of treatment through week 96 in the standard treatment group was 180 days versus 106 days in the rifampin–linezolid group, and 85 days in the bedaquiline-linezolid group.

The results were consistent across multiple subgroups defined according to baseline characteristics, including some that could be linked to severe disease and a high risk for relapse.

In terms of safety, there were no significant differences between the groups in terms of grade 3 or 4 adverse events.

Of note, only two patients (1.1%) in the bedaquiline plus linezolid group acquired a resistance, which Dr. Paton said was “encouraging,” because of concerns about resistance to that drug.
 

‘Unfavorable’ composite also evaluated

In an updated analysis of the study that Dr. Paton presented at the meeting, the authors looked at a revised “unfavorable” primary outcome – a composite including treatment failure, relapse, death, or nonattendance at week 96 without evidence of prior disease clearance.

The rate remained lowest in the standard 24-week therapy group (3.9%) versus 25% in the rifampin plus linezolid group, and 13.8% in the bedaquiline plus linezolid group.

Though the lower rate with the standard treatment was expected, Dr. Paton said the results nevertheless hold promise, at least for some patients, for successful treatment with the 8-week bedaquiline plus linezolid strategy.

“What the trial has told us is that even with that 13.8% relapse rate, we can manage patients within this strategy and people can do fine at the end, because with some simple clinical biomarkers, we can pick the people who may have a high chance of achieving a cure.”

Dr. Chaisson expressed concern over the higher unfavorable rates, but said the results help pave the way for refining a workable-shorter term strategy.

“TRUNCATE-TB did find that most patients could be successfully treated in 2 months with the novel regimen of bedaquiline plus linezolid, but the failure rate was still unacceptably high,” he said. 

“This regimen will not be widely adapted at this point, but additional analyses may identify subsets of patients who will do well with shorter regimens, and future studies will stratify patients according to their likelihood of responding to shorter treatments.”

The authors of an accompanying editorial further commented that the benefits of a shorter treatment strategy could very well outweigh possible shortcomings.

“Treatment algorithms such as that used in the TRUNCATE-TB trial are fundamental to tuberculosis control,” wrote Véronique Dartois, PhD, Center for Discovery and Innovation, Nutley, N.J., and Eric J. Rubin, MD, PhD, the editor-in-chief of NEJM. “Although implementing them could be a challenge, any added burden might be offset by reduced costs, better adherence, and increased patient satisfaction. Thus, for tuberculosis, a strategy might be more than just a regimen.”

The good news, as summed up by CROI vice-chair Landon Myer, MD, PhD, in the press conference, is that “we’re moving closer and closer to the holy grail of a short, efficacious regimen for TB treatment. We’re getting there slowly, but we’re getting there.”

The study received grant funding from the Singapore National Medical Research Council; a grant from the Department of Health and Social Care; the Foreign, Commonwealth, and Development Office; the Medical Research Council; and Wellcome Trust; as well as a grant from the UK Research and Innovation Medical Research Council. Dr. Dartois reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Chaisson had no disclosures to report.

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

IgG4 fights viruses and bacteria. However, sometimes it targets the body itself. “This then leads to inflammation, the healing of which the body is unable to keep under control,” explained Ulf Müller-Ladner, MD, PhD, chairperson of the German Society of Internal Medicine.

At the DGIM annual press conference, Dr. Müller-Ladner, who is also director of the department of rheumatology and clinical immunology at the Kerckhoff Clinic in Bad Nauheim, Germany, explained how IgG4 inflammation is triggered throughout the body and what therapeutic options are available.
 

Many manifestations

IgG4-associated inflammation can affect one or more organs or the surrounding connective tissue and cause fibrosis. As a result of fibrosis, the organ gradually loses function and is eventually transformed completely into scarred connective tissue.

“In the case of IgG4-associated inflammation, these fibroses have a histological structure, but extracting a sample is not possible from every affected organ,” said Dr. Müller-Ladner. Liver, bile ducts, blood vessels, skin, eyes, or even the central nervous system – practically every organ system can be affected by these inflammatory reactions.

IgG4-associated diseases have likely been around for some time, but it is only in the past 10 years that awareness has grown that, despite various manifestations, “they are all one and the same disease,” said Dr. Müller-Ladner.

IgG4-associated chronic, inflammatory, fibrosing diseases were only classified together as a single entity in the past few years. In terms of pathophysiology, B lymphocytes, IgG4-positive plasma cells, follicular T-helper cells, cytotoxic CD4-positive T cells, and macrophages work together and trigger an inflammatory reaction, which then encourages fibroblasts to overproduce connective tissue.
 

Beware inexplicable inflammation

It is estimated that 1 in 100,000 people suffer from the disease, but the number of incorrectly categorized patients may be significantly higher.

The diagnostic challenge lies in the fact that IgG4-associated inflammation occurs in almost every organ. It can cause different symptoms, depending on the organ affected.

Dr. Müller-Ladner provided the following take-home message: “Every inexplicable inflammation event and every organ dysfunction, especially if associated with an increase in connective tissue, could be an IgG4-associated disease. Keeping this in mind is the key to recovery.”

With most people, the inflammation persists for many years before any symptoms of the disease develop. Highly acute courses of progression are also possible.

Classic symptoms, such as fever, are not so characteristic of the latent inflammatory reaction, and according to classification criteria published by specialist rheumatology societies, they are an exclusion criterion. This is true with respect to the differential diagnosis for vasculitis, which also occurs throughout the body.
 

Histology is key

Blood levels of IgG4 and imaging are not always enough to confirm the diagnosis. In such cases, the histology is often a crucial factor in making a definitive diagnosis. Dominant organs in IgG4-associated diseases are the pancreas, the liver, the gallbladder, the intestines, the retroperitoneum, large blood vessels, the kidneys, the heart, the brain, saliva, tear ducts, as well all of the body’s connective tissue.

The kidneys play host to inflammation in the connective tissue and space-occupying masses in particular. “If the pancreas is affected, the signs can vary from diffuse swelling to the onset of diabetes mellitus. In contrast, if the aorta is affected, then the inflammation is characterized through a thickening of the vessel walls, aneurysms, and the corresponding circulation disorders,” said Dr. Müller-Ladner.

Because of the long period before the diagnosis is made, more than 50% of patients exhibit irreversible organ damage at the time of diagnosis, he added.
 

Glucocorticoids and immunosuppressants

Despite therapeutic intervention, the disease can have a fatal outcome, even if the patient is young, said Dr. Müller-Ladner. Glucocorticoids are the current therapy of choice. The dose is more than 0.5 mg of prednisolone equivalent per kg of body weight. “This usually leads to a rapid improvement in the inflammation. Subsequently, every organ is thoroughly diagnosed to assess the severity of the disease and to plan further treatment steps.”

In the long term, proven immunosuppressants, such as azathioprine, mycophenolate, leflunomide, and methotrexate, can be used, just as for many other chronic inflammatory diseases. Cyclophosphamide or cyclosporine is used more rarely, owing to their side effect profiles.

Because of the B-cell dominance, B-cell–depleting therapy with rituximab is currently a highly effective therapeutic option but one that must be applied for, because such use is off label. “If the body responds well to the medication, organ function often recovers,” said Dr. Müller-Ladner.

This article was translated from the Medscape German edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

IgG4 fights viruses and bacteria. However, sometimes it targets the body itself. “This then leads to inflammation, the healing of which the body is unable to keep under control,” explained Ulf Müller-Ladner, MD, PhD, chairperson of the German Society of Internal Medicine.

At the DGIM annual press conference, Dr. Müller-Ladner, who is also director of the department of rheumatology and clinical immunology at the Kerckhoff Clinic in Bad Nauheim, Germany, explained how IgG4 inflammation is triggered throughout the body and what therapeutic options are available.
 

Many manifestations

IgG4-associated inflammation can affect one or more organs or the surrounding connective tissue and cause fibrosis. As a result of fibrosis, the organ gradually loses function and is eventually transformed completely into scarred connective tissue.

“In the case of IgG4-associated inflammation, these fibroses have a histological structure, but extracting a sample is not possible from every affected organ,” said Dr. Müller-Ladner. Liver, bile ducts, blood vessels, skin, eyes, or even the central nervous system – practically every organ system can be affected by these inflammatory reactions.

IgG4-associated diseases have likely been around for some time, but it is only in the past 10 years that awareness has grown that, despite various manifestations, “they are all one and the same disease,” said Dr. Müller-Ladner.

IgG4-associated chronic, inflammatory, fibrosing diseases were only classified together as a single entity in the past few years. In terms of pathophysiology, B lymphocytes, IgG4-positive plasma cells, follicular T-helper cells, cytotoxic CD4-positive T cells, and macrophages work together and trigger an inflammatory reaction, which then encourages fibroblasts to overproduce connective tissue.
 

Beware inexplicable inflammation

It is estimated that 1 in 100,000 people suffer from the disease, but the number of incorrectly categorized patients may be significantly higher.

The diagnostic challenge lies in the fact that IgG4-associated inflammation occurs in almost every organ. It can cause different symptoms, depending on the organ affected.

Dr. Müller-Ladner provided the following take-home message: “Every inexplicable inflammation event and every organ dysfunction, especially if associated with an increase in connective tissue, could be an IgG4-associated disease. Keeping this in mind is the key to recovery.”

With most people, the inflammation persists for many years before any symptoms of the disease develop. Highly acute courses of progression are also possible.

Classic symptoms, such as fever, are not so characteristic of the latent inflammatory reaction, and according to classification criteria published by specialist rheumatology societies, they are an exclusion criterion. This is true with respect to the differential diagnosis for vasculitis, which also occurs throughout the body.
 

Histology is key

Blood levels of IgG4 and imaging are not always enough to confirm the diagnosis. In such cases, the histology is often a crucial factor in making a definitive diagnosis. Dominant organs in IgG4-associated diseases are the pancreas, the liver, the gallbladder, the intestines, the retroperitoneum, large blood vessels, the kidneys, the heart, the brain, saliva, tear ducts, as well all of the body’s connective tissue.

The kidneys play host to inflammation in the connective tissue and space-occupying masses in particular. “If the pancreas is affected, the signs can vary from diffuse swelling to the onset of diabetes mellitus. In contrast, if the aorta is affected, then the inflammation is characterized through a thickening of the vessel walls, aneurysms, and the corresponding circulation disorders,” said Dr. Müller-Ladner.

Because of the long period before the diagnosis is made, more than 50% of patients exhibit irreversible organ damage at the time of diagnosis, he added.
 

Glucocorticoids and immunosuppressants

Despite therapeutic intervention, the disease can have a fatal outcome, even if the patient is young, said Dr. Müller-Ladner. Glucocorticoids are the current therapy of choice. The dose is more than 0.5 mg of prednisolone equivalent per kg of body weight. “This usually leads to a rapid improvement in the inflammation. Subsequently, every organ is thoroughly diagnosed to assess the severity of the disease and to plan further treatment steps.”

In the long term, proven immunosuppressants, such as azathioprine, mycophenolate, leflunomide, and methotrexate, can be used, just as for many other chronic inflammatory diseases. Cyclophosphamide or cyclosporine is used more rarely, owing to their side effect profiles.

Because of the B-cell dominance, B-cell–depleting therapy with rituximab is currently a highly effective therapeutic option but one that must be applied for, because such use is off label. “If the body responds well to the medication, organ function often recovers,” said Dr. Müller-Ladner.

This article was translated from the Medscape German edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

IgG4 fights viruses and bacteria. However, sometimes it targets the body itself. “This then leads to inflammation, the healing of which the body is unable to keep under control,” explained Ulf Müller-Ladner, MD, PhD, chairperson of the German Society of Internal Medicine.

At the DGIM annual press conference, Dr. Müller-Ladner, who is also director of the department of rheumatology and clinical immunology at the Kerckhoff Clinic in Bad Nauheim, Germany, explained how IgG4 inflammation is triggered throughout the body and what therapeutic options are available.
 

Many manifestations

IgG4-associated inflammation can affect one or more organs or the surrounding connective tissue and cause fibrosis. As a result of fibrosis, the organ gradually loses function and is eventually transformed completely into scarred connective tissue.

“In the case of IgG4-associated inflammation, these fibroses have a histological structure, but extracting a sample is not possible from every affected organ,” said Dr. Müller-Ladner. Liver, bile ducts, blood vessels, skin, eyes, or even the central nervous system – practically every organ system can be affected by these inflammatory reactions.

IgG4-associated diseases have likely been around for some time, but it is only in the past 10 years that awareness has grown that, despite various manifestations, “they are all one and the same disease,” said Dr. Müller-Ladner.

IgG4-associated chronic, inflammatory, fibrosing diseases were only classified together as a single entity in the past few years. In terms of pathophysiology, B lymphocytes, IgG4-positive plasma cells, follicular T-helper cells, cytotoxic CD4-positive T cells, and macrophages work together and trigger an inflammatory reaction, which then encourages fibroblasts to overproduce connective tissue.
 

Beware inexplicable inflammation

It is estimated that 1 in 100,000 people suffer from the disease, but the number of incorrectly categorized patients may be significantly higher.

The diagnostic challenge lies in the fact that IgG4-associated inflammation occurs in almost every organ. It can cause different symptoms, depending on the organ affected.

Dr. Müller-Ladner provided the following take-home message: “Every inexplicable inflammation event and every organ dysfunction, especially if associated with an increase in connective tissue, could be an IgG4-associated disease. Keeping this in mind is the key to recovery.”

With most people, the inflammation persists for many years before any symptoms of the disease develop. Highly acute courses of progression are also possible.

Classic symptoms, such as fever, are not so characteristic of the latent inflammatory reaction, and according to classification criteria published by specialist rheumatology societies, they are an exclusion criterion. This is true with respect to the differential diagnosis for vasculitis, which also occurs throughout the body.
 

Histology is key

Blood levels of IgG4 and imaging are not always enough to confirm the diagnosis. In such cases, the histology is often a crucial factor in making a definitive diagnosis. Dominant organs in IgG4-associated diseases are the pancreas, the liver, the gallbladder, the intestines, the retroperitoneum, large blood vessels, the kidneys, the heart, the brain, saliva, tear ducts, as well all of the body’s connective tissue.

The kidneys play host to inflammation in the connective tissue and space-occupying masses in particular. “If the pancreas is affected, the signs can vary from diffuse swelling to the onset of diabetes mellitus. In contrast, if the aorta is affected, then the inflammation is characterized through a thickening of the vessel walls, aneurysms, and the corresponding circulation disorders,” said Dr. Müller-Ladner.

Because of the long period before the diagnosis is made, more than 50% of patients exhibit irreversible organ damage at the time of diagnosis, he added.
 

Glucocorticoids and immunosuppressants

Despite therapeutic intervention, the disease can have a fatal outcome, even if the patient is young, said Dr. Müller-Ladner. Glucocorticoids are the current therapy of choice. The dose is more than 0.5 mg of prednisolone equivalent per kg of body weight. “This usually leads to a rapid improvement in the inflammation. Subsequently, every organ is thoroughly diagnosed to assess the severity of the disease and to plan further treatment steps.”

In the long term, proven immunosuppressants, such as azathioprine, mycophenolate, leflunomide, and methotrexate, can be used, just as for many other chronic inflammatory diseases. Cyclophosphamide or cyclosporine is used more rarely, owing to their side effect profiles.

Because of the B-cell dominance, B-cell–depleting therapy with rituximab is currently a highly effective therapeutic option but one that must be applied for, because such use is off label. “If the body responds well to the medication, organ function often recovers,” said Dr. Müller-Ladner.

This article was translated from the Medscape German edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

The natural immunity provided by a COVID infection protects a person against severe illness on a par with two doses of mRNA vaccine, a new study says. 

People who’ve been infected with COVID reduced their chances of hospitalization and death by 88% over 10 months compared to somebody who hasn’t been infected, according to the study, published in The Lancet. 

The natural immunity provided by infection was “at least as high, if not higher” than the immunity provided by two doses of Moderna or Pfizer mRNA vaccines against the ancestral, Alpha, Delta, and Omicron BA.1 variants, the researchers reported. 

But protection against the BA.1 subvariant of Omicron was not as high – 36% at 10 months after infection, wrote the research team from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington.

They examined 65 studies from 19 countries through Sept. 31, 2022. They did not study data about infection from Omicron XBB and its sub-lineages. People who had immunity from both infection and vaccination, known as hybrid immunity, were not studied. 

The findings don’t mean people should skip the vaccines and get COVID on purpose, one of the researchers told NBC News. 

“The problem of saying ‘I’m gonna get infected to get immunity’ is you might be one of those people that end up in the hospital or die,” said Christopher Murray, MD, DPhil, director of the IHME. “Why would you take the risk when you can get immunity through vaccination quite safely?”

The findings could help people figure out the most effective time to get vaccinated or boosted and guide officials in setting policies on workplace vaccine mandates and rules for high-occupancy indoor settings, the researchers concluded.

This was the largest meta-analysis of immunity following infection to date, NBC News reports.

A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.

The natural immunity provided by a COVID infection protects a person against severe illness on a par with two doses of mRNA vaccine, a new study says. 

People who’ve been infected with COVID reduced their chances of hospitalization and death by 88% over 10 months compared to somebody who hasn’t been infected, according to the study, published in The Lancet. 

The natural immunity provided by infection was “at least as high, if not higher” than the immunity provided by two doses of Moderna or Pfizer mRNA vaccines against the ancestral, Alpha, Delta, and Omicron BA.1 variants, the researchers reported. 

But protection against the BA.1 subvariant of Omicron was not as high – 36% at 10 months after infection, wrote the research team from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington.

They examined 65 studies from 19 countries through Sept. 31, 2022. They did not study data about infection from Omicron XBB and its sub-lineages. People who had immunity from both infection and vaccination, known as hybrid immunity, were not studied. 

The findings don’t mean people should skip the vaccines and get COVID on purpose, one of the researchers told NBC News. 

“The problem of saying ‘I’m gonna get infected to get immunity’ is you might be one of those people that end up in the hospital or die,” said Christopher Murray, MD, DPhil, director of the IHME. “Why would you take the risk when you can get immunity through vaccination quite safely?”

The findings could help people figure out the most effective time to get vaccinated or boosted and guide officials in setting policies on workplace vaccine mandates and rules for high-occupancy indoor settings, the researchers concluded.

This was the largest meta-analysis of immunity following infection to date, NBC News reports.

A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.

The natural immunity provided by a COVID infection protects a person against severe illness on a par with two doses of mRNA vaccine, a new study says. 

People who’ve been infected with COVID reduced their chances of hospitalization and death by 88% over 10 months compared to somebody who hasn’t been infected, according to the study, published in The Lancet. 

The natural immunity provided by infection was “at least as high, if not higher” than the immunity provided by two doses of Moderna or Pfizer mRNA vaccines against the ancestral, Alpha, Delta, and Omicron BA.1 variants, the researchers reported. 

But protection against the BA.1 subvariant of Omicron was not as high – 36% at 10 months after infection, wrote the research team from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington.

They examined 65 studies from 19 countries through Sept. 31, 2022. They did not study data about infection from Omicron XBB and its sub-lineages. People who had immunity from both infection and vaccination, known as hybrid immunity, were not studied. 

The findings don’t mean people should skip the vaccines and get COVID on purpose, one of the researchers told NBC News. 

“The problem of saying ‘I’m gonna get infected to get immunity’ is you might be one of those people that end up in the hospital or die,” said Christopher Murray, MD, DPhil, director of the IHME. “Why would you take the risk when you can get immunity through vaccination quite safely?”

The findings could help people figure out the most effective time to get vaccinated or boosted and guide officials in setting policies on workplace vaccine mandates and rules for high-occupancy indoor settings, the researchers concluded.

This was the largest meta-analysis of immunity following infection to date, NBC News reports.

A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.

SAN DIEGO – Today’s molecular tests for managing melanoma patients are used to reclassify melanoma, identify patients at risk, as well as for diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment, but each one has its specific applications, benefits, and drawbacks, according to Gregory A. Hosler, MD, PhD.

At the annual Cutaneous Malignancy Update, Dr. Hosler, director of dermatopathology for ProPath, highlighted the following molecular tests currently used for the diagnosis of challenging melanocytic lesions:

Comparative genomic hybridization (CGH). This technique allows for the detection of chromosomal copy number changes throughout the tumor genome. “With CGH, test (tumor) DNA and normal DNA are differentially labeled and compared to a reference library. Gains and losses of portions of the tumor genome are determined by comparing the relative signals from these two groups,” said Dr. Hosler, clinical professor of pathology and dermatology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

“In the past, your library was a metaphase of spread of chromosomes, which introduced technical challenges and made performance of the assay labor intensive. Because of this, CGH is not routinely performed by clinical laboratories and is used more as an exploratory/research technique.”

Array CGH (also known as SNP array). Newer versions of CGH use short DNA sequences that are tiled onto a chip. “The interesting thing about these chips is that you can purchase them or design them on your own,” Dr. Hosler said. “The chips may cover the entire genome or cover specific areas of the genome at higher resolution.” One upside of array CGH, he continued, is that it allows one to detect essentially all gains or losses of chromosomal material in a single reaction. “It is not subject to the artifacts associated with cutting thin sections like with fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH); it can detect copy number neutral loss of heterozygosity, and it is more scalable,” Dr. Hosler said at the meeting, which was hosted by Scripps MD Anderson Cancer Center.

One downside of array CGH is that does not allow one to analyze specific cells, “so if you have a tumor that’s heterogeneous, the assay is agnostic to this and spits out a result based on all the material provided,” he said. “You can’t parse out different areas of the lesion. It also does not track balanced translocations.” In addition, he said, “there are also questions about reimbursement and these are lab-developed tests, so each lab’s assay is different. Finally, it requires specialized equipment and expertise for interpretation.”

FISH. First-generation melanoma FISH assays, which became available in 2009, used six probes and four colors and had a sensitivity of about 87% and specificity of about 95%, Dr. Hosler said, but there were problems with those assays, particularly related to Spitz nevi. Spitz nevi often duplicate their chromosomes, “so instead of being diploid they’re tetraploid,” he said.

“The second-generation melanoma FISH assays addressed this by adding centromeres to the assay, and targeted probes could be compared to the centromeres on the same chromosome to determine if these were true copy number gains, due to genetic instability, or gains or losses of entire arms or whole chromosomes. This modification and the addition of new targets really improved upon the sensitivity and specificity (94% and 98%, respectively),” he said, noting that this assay is widely used.

Upsides of melanoma FISH assays are that they are a “fairly routine methodology” in large clinical laboratories, he said, and that many labs are familiar with interpretation. “I would say the biggest advantage to FISH is its ability to analyze specific cells, which is useful with small or heterogeneous tumors,” Dr. Hosler said. “Also, there is a genetic reimbursement code for it, and it yields diagnostic and potentially prognostic information.” For example, certain copy number changes have shown to portend a worse prognosis if they’re present in a melanocytic tumor, including alterations in CDKN2A, CCND1, MYC, topoisomerase, and BAP1.

Downsides of melanoma FISH assays are that they are expensive, labor-intensive, and require experts to interpret the results. “The stacking and truncation of cell nuclei innate to paraffin-embedded FISH make interpretation difficult,” he said. “Also, all colors cannot be viewed simultaneously, and each lab’s assay potentially is different, requiring validation. These are not [Food and Drug Administration]-approved tests.”

Next generation sequencing (NGS). Also known as high-throughput sequencing, this technique allows for the generation of millions of sequencing reads that are aligned to a standard human genome, and likely represents the wave of the future. “With NGS you can increase breadth, so you can sequence the entire genome if you want, but you can also increase depth, meaning increasing the number of reads over a single target of the genome,” Dr. Hosler said. “That’s useful if you’re looking for a low frequency mutation.”

For example, NGS allows one to detect alterations of BRAF and KIT and other potentially actionable alterations. It can also be used to detect mutations in benign and malignant melanocytic lesions, including historically diagnostically challenging Spitz and desmoplastic subgroups. Several different NGS technologies exist, and there are different strategies behind each assay, including whole genome sequencing, whole exome sequencing, transcriptome sequencing, and targeted panels. “I’ve seen panels of 10 and I’ve seen panels of 1,500; there’s a wide range,” Dr. Hosler said. “The biggest challenge with NGS, currently, is that it’s difficult to interpret. Trying to figure out what’s important and what’s not important can be challenging. Often you need a team of people who are experts in bioinformatics to interpret these results.”

Slow turnaround time is another downside. “It can take a month to get results, and sometimes clinicians don’t want to wait that long, especially if they think a lesion is melanoma, so that’s an area of focus for NGS laboratories,” he said. “And there are questions on reimbursement. If you run NGS on every unusual melanocytic lesion, that’s not a good use of health care dollars. Who’s paying for it? I don’t have an answer for you. It’s all over the map right now. Each lab’s test and billing practice is different.”

Dr. Hosler reported having no relevant financial disclosures. ProPath is a nationwide pathology practice.

SAN DIEGO – Today’s molecular tests for managing melanoma patients are used to reclassify melanoma, identify patients at risk, as well as for diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment, but each one has its specific applications, benefits, and drawbacks, according to Gregory A. Hosler, MD, PhD.

At the annual Cutaneous Malignancy Update, Dr. Hosler, director of dermatopathology for ProPath, highlighted the following molecular tests currently used for the diagnosis of challenging melanocytic lesions:

Comparative genomic hybridization (CGH). This technique allows for the detection of chromosomal copy number changes throughout the tumor genome. “With CGH, test (tumor) DNA and normal DNA are differentially labeled and compared to a reference library. Gains and losses of portions of the tumor genome are determined by comparing the relative signals from these two groups,” said Dr. Hosler, clinical professor of pathology and dermatology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

“In the past, your library was a metaphase of spread of chromosomes, which introduced technical challenges and made performance of the assay labor intensive. Because of this, CGH is not routinely performed by clinical laboratories and is used more as an exploratory/research technique.”

Array CGH (also known as SNP array). Newer versions of CGH use short DNA sequences that are tiled onto a chip. “The interesting thing about these chips is that you can purchase them or design them on your own,” Dr. Hosler said. “The chips may cover the entire genome or cover specific areas of the genome at higher resolution.” One upside of array CGH, he continued, is that it allows one to detect essentially all gains or losses of chromosomal material in a single reaction. “It is not subject to the artifacts associated with cutting thin sections like with fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH); it can detect copy number neutral loss of heterozygosity, and it is more scalable,” Dr. Hosler said at the meeting, which was hosted by Scripps MD Anderson Cancer Center.

One downside of array CGH is that does not allow one to analyze specific cells, “so if you have a tumor that’s heterogeneous, the assay is agnostic to this and spits out a result based on all the material provided,” he said. “You can’t parse out different areas of the lesion. It also does not track balanced translocations.” In addition, he said, “there are also questions about reimbursement and these are lab-developed tests, so each lab’s assay is different. Finally, it requires specialized equipment and expertise for interpretation.”

FISH. First-generation melanoma FISH assays, which became available in 2009, used six probes and four colors and had a sensitivity of about 87% and specificity of about 95%, Dr. Hosler said, but there were problems with those assays, particularly related to Spitz nevi. Spitz nevi often duplicate their chromosomes, “so instead of being diploid they’re tetraploid,” he said.

“The second-generation melanoma FISH assays addressed this by adding centromeres to the assay, and targeted probes could be compared to the centromeres on the same chromosome to determine if these were true copy number gains, due to genetic instability, or gains or losses of entire arms or whole chromosomes. This modification and the addition of new targets really improved upon the sensitivity and specificity (94% and 98%, respectively),” he said, noting that this assay is widely used.

Upsides of melanoma FISH assays are that they are a “fairly routine methodology” in large clinical laboratories, he said, and that many labs are familiar with interpretation. “I would say the biggest advantage to FISH is its ability to analyze specific cells, which is useful with small or heterogeneous tumors,” Dr. Hosler said. “Also, there is a genetic reimbursement code for it, and it yields diagnostic and potentially prognostic information.” For example, certain copy number changes have shown to portend a worse prognosis if they’re present in a melanocytic tumor, including alterations in CDKN2A, CCND1, MYC, topoisomerase, and BAP1.

Downsides of melanoma FISH assays are that they are expensive, labor-intensive, and require experts to interpret the results. “The stacking and truncation of cell nuclei innate to paraffin-embedded FISH make interpretation difficult,” he said. “Also, all colors cannot be viewed simultaneously, and each lab’s assay potentially is different, requiring validation. These are not [Food and Drug Administration]-approved tests.”

Next generation sequencing (NGS). Also known as high-throughput sequencing, this technique allows for the generation of millions of sequencing reads that are aligned to a standard human genome, and likely represents the wave of the future. “With NGS you can increase breadth, so you can sequence the entire genome if you want, but you can also increase depth, meaning increasing the number of reads over a single target of the genome,” Dr. Hosler said. “That’s useful if you’re looking for a low frequency mutation.”

For example, NGS allows one to detect alterations of BRAF and KIT and other potentially actionable alterations. It can also be used to detect mutations in benign and malignant melanocytic lesions, including historically diagnostically challenging Spitz and desmoplastic subgroups. Several different NGS technologies exist, and there are different strategies behind each assay, including whole genome sequencing, whole exome sequencing, transcriptome sequencing, and targeted panels. “I’ve seen panels of 10 and I’ve seen panels of 1,500; there’s a wide range,” Dr. Hosler said. “The biggest challenge with NGS, currently, is that it’s difficult to interpret. Trying to figure out what’s important and what’s not important can be challenging. Often you need a team of people who are experts in bioinformatics to interpret these results.”

Slow turnaround time is another downside. “It can take a month to get results, and sometimes clinicians don’t want to wait that long, especially if they think a lesion is melanoma, so that’s an area of focus for NGS laboratories,” he said. “And there are questions on reimbursement. If you run NGS on every unusual melanocytic lesion, that’s not a good use of health care dollars. Who’s paying for it? I don’t have an answer for you. It’s all over the map right now. Each lab’s test and billing practice is different.”

Dr. Hosler reported having no relevant financial disclosures. ProPath is a nationwide pathology practice.

SAN DIEGO – Today’s molecular tests for managing melanoma patients are used to reclassify melanoma, identify patients at risk, as well as for diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment, but each one has its specific applications, benefits, and drawbacks, according to Gregory A. Hosler, MD, PhD.

At the annual Cutaneous Malignancy Update, Dr. Hosler, director of dermatopathology for ProPath, highlighted the following molecular tests currently used for the diagnosis of challenging melanocytic lesions:

Comparative genomic hybridization (CGH). This technique allows for the detection of chromosomal copy number changes throughout the tumor genome. “With CGH, test (tumor) DNA and normal DNA are differentially labeled and compared to a reference library. Gains and losses of portions of the tumor genome are determined by comparing the relative signals from these two groups,” said Dr. Hosler, clinical professor of pathology and dermatology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

“In the past, your library was a metaphase of spread of chromosomes, which introduced technical challenges and made performance of the assay labor intensive. Because of this, CGH is not routinely performed by clinical laboratories and is used more as an exploratory/research technique.”

Array CGH (also known as SNP array). Newer versions of CGH use short DNA sequences that are tiled onto a chip. “The interesting thing about these chips is that you can purchase them or design them on your own,” Dr. Hosler said. “The chips may cover the entire genome or cover specific areas of the genome at higher resolution.” One upside of array CGH, he continued, is that it allows one to detect essentially all gains or losses of chromosomal material in a single reaction. “It is not subject to the artifacts associated with cutting thin sections like with fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH); it can detect copy number neutral loss of heterozygosity, and it is more scalable,” Dr. Hosler said at the meeting, which was hosted by Scripps MD Anderson Cancer Center.

One downside of array CGH is that does not allow one to analyze specific cells, “so if you have a tumor that’s heterogeneous, the assay is agnostic to this and spits out a result based on all the material provided,” he said. “You can’t parse out different areas of the lesion. It also does not track balanced translocations.” In addition, he said, “there are also questions about reimbursement and these are lab-developed tests, so each lab’s assay is different. Finally, it requires specialized equipment and expertise for interpretation.”

FISH. First-generation melanoma FISH assays, which became available in 2009, used six probes and four colors and had a sensitivity of about 87% and specificity of about 95%, Dr. Hosler said, but there were problems with those assays, particularly related to Spitz nevi. Spitz nevi often duplicate their chromosomes, “so instead of being diploid they’re tetraploid,” he said.

“The second-generation melanoma FISH assays addressed this by adding centromeres to the assay, and targeted probes could be compared to the centromeres on the same chromosome to determine if these were true copy number gains, due to genetic instability, or gains or losses of entire arms or whole chromosomes. This modification and the addition of new targets really improved upon the sensitivity and specificity (94% and 98%, respectively),” he said, noting that this assay is widely used.

Upsides of melanoma FISH assays are that they are a “fairly routine methodology” in large clinical laboratories, he said, and that many labs are familiar with interpretation. “I would say the biggest advantage to FISH is its ability to analyze specific cells, which is useful with small or heterogeneous tumors,” Dr. Hosler said. “Also, there is a genetic reimbursement code for it, and it yields diagnostic and potentially prognostic information.” For example, certain copy number changes have shown to portend a worse prognosis if they’re present in a melanocytic tumor, including alterations in CDKN2A, CCND1, MYC, topoisomerase, and BAP1.

Downsides of melanoma FISH assays are that they are expensive, labor-intensive, and require experts to interpret the results. “The stacking and truncation of cell nuclei innate to paraffin-embedded FISH make interpretation difficult,” he said. “Also, all colors cannot be viewed simultaneously, and each lab’s assay potentially is different, requiring validation. These are not [Food and Drug Administration]-approved tests.”

Next generation sequencing (NGS). Also known as high-throughput sequencing, this technique allows for the generation of millions of sequencing reads that are aligned to a standard human genome, and likely represents the wave of the future. “With NGS you can increase breadth, so you can sequence the entire genome if you want, but you can also increase depth, meaning increasing the number of reads over a single target of the genome,” Dr. Hosler said. “That’s useful if you’re looking for a low frequency mutation.”

For example, NGS allows one to detect alterations of BRAF and KIT and other potentially actionable alterations. It can also be used to detect mutations in benign and malignant melanocytic lesions, including historically diagnostically challenging Spitz and desmoplastic subgroups. Several different NGS technologies exist, and there are different strategies behind each assay, including whole genome sequencing, whole exome sequencing, transcriptome sequencing, and targeted panels. “I’ve seen panels of 10 and I’ve seen panels of 1,500; there’s a wide range,” Dr. Hosler said. “The biggest challenge with NGS, currently, is that it’s difficult to interpret. Trying to figure out what’s important and what’s not important can be challenging. Often you need a team of people who are experts in bioinformatics to interpret these results.”

Slow turnaround time is another downside. “It can take a month to get results, and sometimes clinicians don’t want to wait that long, especially if they think a lesion is melanoma, so that’s an area of focus for NGS laboratories,” he said. “And there are questions on reimbursement. If you run NGS on every unusual melanocytic lesion, that’s not a good use of health care dollars. Who’s paying for it? I don’t have an answer for you. It’s all over the map right now. Each lab’s test and billing practice is different.”

Dr. Hosler reported having no relevant financial disclosures. ProPath is a nationwide pathology practice.

Meaningful progress has been made in reducing deaths due to breast cancer over the last half century, with a 43% decrease in mortality rate (breast cancer deaths per 100,000 population).¹ Screening mammography (SM) has contributed greatly to that success, accounting for 30% to 70% of the reduced mortality rate, with the remainder due to advancements in breast cancer treatment.² Despite these improvements, invasive breast cancer remains the highest incident cancer in the United States and in the world, is the second leading cause of cancer death in the United States, and results in more years of life lost than any other cancer (TABLE 1).^1,3

While the benefits and harms of SM are reasonably well understood, different guidelines groups have approached the relative value of the risks and benefits differently, which has led to challenges in implementation of shared decision making, particularly around the age to initiate routine screening.^4-6 In this article, we will focus on the data behind the controversy, current gaps in knowledge, challenges related to breast density and screening in diverse groups, and emerging technologies to address these gaps and provide a construct for appropriate counseling of the patient across the risk spectrum.

Breast cancer risk

Variables that affect risk

While female sex and older age are the 2 greatest risks for the development of breast cancer, many other factors can either increase or decrease breast cancer risk in a person’s lifetime. The importance of identifying risk factors is 3-fold:

1. to perform risk assessment to determine if individuals would benefit from average-risk versus high-risk breast cancer surveillance
2. to identify persons who might benefit from BRCA genetic counseling and screening, risk reduction medications or procedures, and
3. to allow patients to determine whether any modification in their lifestyle or reproductive choices would make sense to them to reduce their future breast cancer risk.

Most of these risk variables are largely inalterable (for example, family history of breast cancer, carriage of genetic pathogenic variants such as BRCA1 and BRCA2, age of menarche and menopause), but some are potentially modifiable, such as parity, age at first birth, lactation and duration, and dietary factors, among others. TABLE 2 lists common breast cancer risk factors.

Breast cancer risk assessment

Several validated tools have been developed to estimate a person’s breast cancer risk (TABLE 3). These tools combine known risk factors and, depending on the specific tool, can provide estimates of 5-year, 10-year, or lifetime risk of breast cancer. Patients at highest risk can benefit from earlier screening, supplemental screening with breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), or risk reduction (see the section, “High-risk screening”). Ideally, a risk assessment should be done by age 30 so that patients at high risk can be identified for earlier or more intensive screening and for possible genetic testing in those at risk for carriage of the BRCA or other breast cancer gene pathogenic variants.^5,7

Continue to: Breast cancer screening: Efficacy and harms...

Breast cancer screening: Efficacy and harms

The earliest studies of breast cancer screening with mammography were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared screened and unscreened patients aged 40 to 74. Nearly all the RCTs and numerous well-designed incidence-based and case-control studies have demonstrated that SM results in a clinically and statistically significant reduction in breast cancer mortality (TABLE 4).^4,6,8 Since the mid-1980s and continuing to the current day, SM programs are routinely recommended in the United States. In addition to the mortality benefit outlined in TABLE 4, SM also is associated with a need for less invasive treatments if breast cancer is diagnosed.^9,10

With several decades of experience, SM programs have demonstrated that multiple harms are associated with SM, including callbacks, false-positive mammograms that result in a benign biopsy, and overdiagnosis of breast cancer (TABLE 4). Overdiagnosis is a mammographic detection of a breast cancer that would not have harmed that woman in her lifetime. Overdiagnosis leads to overtreatment of breast cancers with its attendant side effects, the emotional harms of a breast cancer diagnosis, and the substantial financial cost of cancer treatment. Estimates of overdiagnosis range from 0% to 50%, with the most likely estimate of invasive breast cancer overdiagnosis from SM between 5% and 15%.^11-13 Some of these overdiagnosed cancers are due to very slow growing cancers or breast cancers that may even regress. However, the higher rates of overdiagnosis occur in older persons who are screened and in whom competing causes of mortality become more prevalent. It is estimated that overdiagnosis of invasive breast cancer in patients younger than age 60 is less than 1%, but it exceeds 14% in those older than age 80 (TABLE 4).¹⁴

A structured approach is needed to counsel patients about SM so that they understand both the substantial benefit (earlier-stage diagnosis, reduced need for treatment, reduced breast cancer and all-cause mortality) and the potential harms (callback, false-positive results, and overdiagnosis). Moreover, the relative balance of the benefits and harms are influenced throughout their lifetime by both aging and changes in their personal and family medical history.

Counseling should consider factors beyond just the performance of mammography (sensitivity and specificity), such as the patient’s current health and age (competing causes of mortality), likelihood of developing breast cancer based on risk assessment (more benefit in higher-risk persons), and the individual patient’s values on the importance of the benefits and harms. The differing emphases on mammography performance and the relative value of the benefits and harms have led experts to produce disparate national guideline recommendations (TABLE 5).

Should SM start at age 40, 45, or 50 in average-risk persons?

There is not clear consensus about the age at which to begin to recommend routine SM in patients at average risk. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN),⁷ American Cancer Society (ACS),⁴ and the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF)⁵ recommend that those at average risk start SM at age 40, 45, and 50, respectively (TABLE 5). While the guideline groups listed in TABLE 5 agree that there is level 1 evidence that SM reduces breast cancer mortality in the general population for persons starting at age 40, because the incidence of breast cancer is lower in younger persons (TABLE 6),⁴ the net population-based screening benefit is lower in this group, and the number needed to invite to screening to save a single life due to breast cancer varies.

For patients in their 40s, it is estimated that 1,904 individuals need to be invited to SM to save 1 life, whereas for patients in their 50s, it is 1,339.¹⁵ However, for patients in their 40s, the number needed to screen to save 1 life due to breast cancer decreases from 1 in 1,904 if invited to be screened to 1 in 588 if they are actually screened.¹⁶ Furthermore, if a patient is diagnosed with breast cancer at age 40–50, the likelihood of dying is reduced at least 22% and perhaps as high as 48% if her cancer was diagnosed on SM compared with an unscreened individual with a symptomatic presentation (for example, palpable mass).^4,15,17,18 Another benefit of SM in the fifth decade of life (40s) is the decreased need for more extensive treatment, including a higher risk of need for chemotherapy (odds ratio [OR], 2.81; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16–6.84); need for mastectomy (OR, 3.41; 95% CI, 1.36–8.52); and need for axillary lymph node dissection (OR, 5.76; 95% CI, 2.40–13.82) in unscreened (compared with screened) patients diagnosed with breast cancer.¹⁰

The harms associated with SM are not inconsequential and include callbacks (approximately 1 in 10), false-positive biopsy (approximately 1 in 100), and overdiagnosis (likely <1% of all breast cancers in persons younger than age 50). Because most patients in their 40s will not develop breast cancer (TABLE 6), the benefit of reduced breast cancer mortality will not be experienced by most in this decade of life, but they are still just as likely to experience a callback, false-positive biopsy, or the possibility of overdiagnosis. Interpretation of this balance on a population level is the crux of the various guideline groups’ development of differing recommendations as to when screening should start. Despite this seeming disagreement, all the guideline groups listed in TABLE 5 concur that persons at average risk for breast cancer should be offered SM if they desire starting at age 40 after a shared decision-making conversation that incorporates the patient’s view on the relative value of the benefits and risks.

Continue to: High-risk screening...

 

 

High-risk screening

Unlike in screening average-risk patients, there is less disagreement about screening in high-risk groups. TABLE 7 outlines the various categories and recommended strategies that qualify for screening at younger ages or more intensive screening. Adding breast MRI to SM in high-risk individuals results in both higher cancer detection rates and less interval breast cancers (cancers diagnosed between screening rounds) diagnosed compared with SM alone.^19,20 Interval breast cancer tends to be more aggressive and is used as a surrogate marker for more recognized factors, such as breast cancer mortality. In addition to less interval breast cancers, high-risk patients are more likely to be diagnosed with node-negative disease if screening breast MRI is added to SM.

Long-term mortality benefit studies using MRI have not been conducted due to the prolonged follow-up times needed. Expense, lower specificity compared with mammography (that is, more false-positive results), and need for the use of gadolinium limit more widespread use of breast MRI screening in average-risk persons.

Screening in patients with dense breasts

Half of patients undergoing SM in the United States have dense breasts (heterogeneously dense breasts, 40%; extremely dense breasts, 10%). Importantly, increasing breast density is associated with a lower cancer detection rate with SM and is an independent risk factor for developing breast cancer. While most states already require patients to be notified if they have dense breasts identified on SM, the US Food and Drug Administration will soon make breast density patient notification a national standard (see: https://delauro.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/delauro-secures-timeline-fda-rollout-breast-density-notification-rule).

Most of the risk assessment tools listed in TABLE 3 incorporate breast density into their calculation of breast cancer risk. If that calculation places a patient into one of the highest-risk groups (based on additional factors like strong family history of breast cancer, reproductive risk factors, BRCA carriage, and so on), more intensive surveillance should be recommended (TABLE 7).⁷ However, once these risk calculations are done, most persons with dense breasts will remain in an average-risk category.

Because of the frequency and risks associated with dense breasts, different and alternative strategies have been recommended for screening persons who are at average risk with dense breasts. Supplemental screening with MRI, ultrasonography, contrast-enhanced mammography, and molecular breast imaging are all being considered but have not been studied sufficiently to demonstrate mortality benefit or cost-effectiveness.

Of all the supplemental modalities used to screen patients with dense breasts, MRI has been the best studied. A large RCT in the Netherlands evaluated supplemental MRI screening in persons with extremely dense breasts after a negative mammogram.²¹ Compared with no supplemental screening, the MRI group had 17 additional cancers detected per 1,000 screened and a 50% reduction in interval breast cancers; in addition, MRI was associated with a positive predictive value of 26% for biopsies. At present, high cost and limited access to standard breast MRI has not allowed its routine use for persons with dense breasts in the United States, but this may change with more experience and more widespread introduction and experience with abbreviated (or rapid) breast MRI in the future (TABLE 8).

Equitable screening

Black persons who are diagnosed with breast cancer have a 40% higher risk of dying than White patients due to multiple factors, including systemic racial factors (implicit and unconscious bias), reduced access to care, and a lower likelihood of receiving standard of care once diagnosed.^22-24 In addition, Black patients have twice the likelihood of being diagnosed with triple-negative breast cancers, a biologically more aggressive tumor.^22-24 Among Black, Asian, and Hispanic persons diagnosed with breast cancer, one-third are diagnosed younger than age 50, which is higher than for non-Hispanic White persons. Prior to the age of 50, Black, Asian, and Hispanic patients also have a 72% more likelihood of being diagnosed with invasive breast cancer, have a 58% greater risk of advanced-stage disease, and have a 127% higher risk of dying from breast cancer compared with White patients.^25,26 Based on all of these factors, delaying SM until age 50 may adversely affect the Black, Asian, and Hispanic populations.

Persons in the LGBTQ+ community do not present for SM as frequently as the general population, often because they feel threatened or unwelcome.²⁷ Clinicians and breast imaging units should review their inclusivity policies and training to provide a welcoming and respectful environment to all persons in an effort to reduce these barriers. While data are limited and largely depend on expert opinion, current recommendations for screening in the transgender patient depend on sex assigned at birth, the type and duration of hormone use, and surgical history. In patients assigned female sex at birth, average-risk and high-risk screening recommendations are similar to those for the general population unless bilateral mastectomy has been performed.²⁸ In transfeminine patients who have used hormones for longer than 5 years, some groups recommend annual screening starting at age 40, although well-designed studies are lacking.²⁹

Continue to: We have done well, can we do better?...

 

 

We have done well, can we do better?

Screening mammography clearly has been an important and effective tool in the effort to reduce breast cancer mortality, but there are clear limitations. These include moderate sensitivity of mammography, particularly in patients with dense breasts, and a specificity that results in either callbacks (10%), breast biopsies for benign disease (1%), or the reality of overdiagnosis, which becomes increasingly important in older patients.

With the introduction of mammography in the mid-1980s, a one-size-fits-all approach has proved challenging more recently due to an increased recognition of the harms of screening. As a result of this evolving understanding, different recommendations for average-risk screening have emerged. With the advent of breast MRI, risk-based screening is an important but underutilized tool to identify highest-risk individuals, which is associated with improved cancer detection rates, reduced node-positive disease, and fewer diagnosed interval breast cancers. Assuring that nearly all of this highest-risk group is identified through routine breast cancer risk assessment remains a challenge for clinicians.

But what SM recommendations should be offered to persons who fall into an intermediate-risk group (15%–20%), very low-risk groups (<5%), or patients with dense breasts? These are challenges that could be met through novel and individualized approaches (for example, polygenic risk scoring, further research on newer modalities of screening [TABLE 8]), improved screening algorithms for persons with dense breasts, and enhanced clinician engagement to achieve universal breast cancer and BRCA risk assessment of patients by age 25 to 30.

In 2023, best practice and consensus guidelines for intermediate- and low-risk breast cancer groups remain unclear, and one of the many ongoing challenges is to further reduce the impact of breast cancer on the lives of persons affected and the recognized harms of SM.

In the meantime, there is consensus in average-risk patients to provide counseling about SM by age 40. My approach has been to counsel all average-risk patients on the risks and benefits of mammography using the acronym TIP-V:

• Use a Tool to calculate breast cancer risk (TABLE 3). If they are at high risk, provide recommendations for high-risk management (TABLE 7).⁷
• For average-risk patients, counsel that their Incidence of developing breast cancer in the next decade is approximately 1 in 70 (TABLE 6).⁴
• Provide data and guidance on the benefits of SM for patients in their 40s (mortality improvement, decreased treatment) and the likelihood of harm from breast cancer screening (10% callback, 1% benign biopsy, and <1% likelihood of overdiagnosis [TABLE 4]).^4,14,15
• Engage the patient to better understand their relative Values of the benefits and harms and make a shared decision on screening starting at age 40, 45, or 50.

Looking forward

In summary, SM remains an important tool in the effort to decrease the risk of mortality due to breast cancer. Given the limitations of SM, however, newer tools and methods—abbreviated MRI, contrast-enhanced mammography, molecular breast imaging, customized screening intervals depending on individual risk/polygenic risk score, and customized counseling and screening based on risk factors (TABLES 2 and 7)—will play an increased role in recommendations for breast cancer screening in the future. ●

Meaningful progress has been made in reducing deaths due to breast cancer over the last half century, with a 43% decrease in mortality rate (breast cancer deaths per 100,000 population).¹ Screening mammography (SM) has contributed greatly to that success, accounting for 30% to 70% of the reduced mortality rate, with the remainder due to advancements in breast cancer treatment.² Despite these improvements, invasive breast cancer remains the highest incident cancer in the United States and in the world, is the second leading cause of cancer death in the United States, and results in more years of life lost than any other cancer (TABLE 1).^1,3

While the benefits and harms of SM are reasonably well understood, different guidelines groups have approached the relative value of the risks and benefits differently, which has led to challenges in implementation of shared decision making, particularly around the age to initiate routine screening.^4-6 In this article, we will focus on the data behind the controversy, current gaps in knowledge, challenges related to breast density and screening in diverse groups, and emerging technologies to address these gaps and provide a construct for appropriate counseling of the patient across the risk spectrum.

Breast cancer risk

Variables that affect risk

While female sex and older age are the 2 greatest risks for the development of breast cancer, many other factors can either increase or decrease breast cancer risk in a person’s lifetime. The importance of identifying risk factors is 3-fold:

1. to perform risk assessment to determine if individuals would benefit from average-risk versus high-risk breast cancer surveillance
2. to identify persons who might benefit from BRCA genetic counseling and screening, risk reduction medications or procedures, and
3. to allow patients to determine whether any modification in their lifestyle or reproductive choices would make sense to them to reduce their future breast cancer risk.

Most of these risk variables are largely inalterable (for example, family history of breast cancer, carriage of genetic pathogenic variants such as BRCA1 and BRCA2, age of menarche and menopause), but some are potentially modifiable, such as parity, age at first birth, lactation and duration, and dietary factors, among others. TABLE 2 lists common breast cancer risk factors.

Breast cancer risk assessment

Several validated tools have been developed to estimate a person’s breast cancer risk (TABLE 3). These tools combine known risk factors and, depending on the specific tool, can provide estimates of 5-year, 10-year, or lifetime risk of breast cancer. Patients at highest risk can benefit from earlier screening, supplemental screening with breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), or risk reduction (see the section, “High-risk screening”). Ideally, a risk assessment should be done by age 30 so that patients at high risk can be identified for earlier or more intensive screening and for possible genetic testing in those at risk for carriage of the BRCA or other breast cancer gene pathogenic variants.^5,7

Continue to: Breast cancer screening: Efficacy and harms...

Breast cancer screening: Efficacy and harms

The earliest studies of breast cancer screening with mammography were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared screened and unscreened patients aged 40 to 74. Nearly all the RCTs and numerous well-designed incidence-based and case-control studies have demonstrated that SM results in a clinically and statistically significant reduction in breast cancer mortality (TABLE 4).^4,6,8 Since the mid-1980s and continuing to the current day, SM programs are routinely recommended in the United States. In addition to the mortality benefit outlined in TABLE 4, SM also is associated with a need for less invasive treatments if breast cancer is diagnosed.^9,10

With several decades of experience, SM programs have demonstrated that multiple harms are associated with SM, including callbacks, false-positive mammograms that result in a benign biopsy, and overdiagnosis of breast cancer (TABLE 4). Overdiagnosis is a mammographic detection of a breast cancer that would not have harmed that woman in her lifetime. Overdiagnosis leads to overtreatment of breast cancers with its attendant side effects, the emotional harms of a breast cancer diagnosis, and the substantial financial cost of cancer treatment. Estimates of overdiagnosis range from 0% to 50%, with the most likely estimate of invasive breast cancer overdiagnosis from SM between 5% and 15%.^11-13 Some of these overdiagnosed cancers are due to very slow growing cancers or breast cancers that may even regress. However, the higher rates of overdiagnosis occur in older persons who are screened and in whom competing causes of mortality become more prevalent. It is estimated that overdiagnosis of invasive breast cancer in patients younger than age 60 is less than 1%, but it exceeds 14% in those older than age 80 (TABLE 4).¹⁴

A structured approach is needed to counsel patients about SM so that they understand both the substantial benefit (earlier-stage diagnosis, reduced need for treatment, reduced breast cancer and all-cause mortality) and the potential harms (callback, false-positive results, and overdiagnosis). Moreover, the relative balance of the benefits and harms are influenced throughout their lifetime by both aging and changes in their personal and family medical history.

Counseling should consider factors beyond just the performance of mammography (sensitivity and specificity), such as the patient’s current health and age (competing causes of mortality), likelihood of developing breast cancer based on risk assessment (more benefit in higher-risk persons), and the individual patient’s values on the importance of the benefits and harms. The differing emphases on mammography performance and the relative value of the benefits and harms have led experts to produce disparate national guideline recommendations (TABLE 5).

Should SM start at age 40, 45, or 50 in average-risk persons?

There is not clear consensus about the age at which to begin to recommend routine SM in patients at average risk. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN),⁷ American Cancer Society (ACS),⁴ and the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF)⁵ recommend that those at average risk start SM at age 40, 45, and 50, respectively (TABLE 5). While the guideline groups listed in TABLE 5 agree that there is level 1 evidence that SM reduces breast cancer mortality in the general population for persons starting at age 40, because the incidence of breast cancer is lower in younger persons (TABLE 6),⁴ the net population-based screening benefit is lower in this group, and the number needed to invite to screening to save a single life due to breast cancer varies.

For patients in their 40s, it is estimated that 1,904 individuals need to be invited to SM to save 1 life, whereas for patients in their 50s, it is 1,339.¹⁵ However, for patients in their 40s, the number needed to screen to save 1 life due to breast cancer decreases from 1 in 1,904 if invited to be screened to 1 in 588 if they are actually screened.¹⁶ Furthermore, if a patient is diagnosed with breast cancer at age 40–50, the likelihood of dying is reduced at least 22% and perhaps as high as 48% if her cancer was diagnosed on SM compared with an unscreened individual with a symptomatic presentation (for example, palpable mass).^4,15,17,18 Another benefit of SM in the fifth decade of life (40s) is the decreased need for more extensive treatment, including a higher risk of need for chemotherapy (odds ratio [OR], 2.81; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16–6.84); need for mastectomy (OR, 3.41; 95% CI, 1.36–8.52); and need for axillary lymph node dissection (OR, 5.76; 95% CI, 2.40–13.82) in unscreened (compared with screened) patients diagnosed with breast cancer.¹⁰

The harms associated with SM are not inconsequential and include callbacks (approximately 1 in 10), false-positive biopsy (approximately 1 in 100), and overdiagnosis (likely <1% of all breast cancers in persons younger than age 50). Because most patients in their 40s will not develop breast cancer (TABLE 6), the benefit of reduced breast cancer mortality will not be experienced by most in this decade of life, but they are still just as likely to experience a callback, false-positive biopsy, or the possibility of overdiagnosis. Interpretation of this balance on a population level is the crux of the various guideline groups’ development of differing recommendations as to when screening should start. Despite this seeming disagreement, all the guideline groups listed in TABLE 5 concur that persons at average risk for breast cancer should be offered SM if they desire starting at age 40 after a shared decision-making conversation that incorporates the patient’s view on the relative value of the benefits and risks.

Continue to: High-risk screening...

 

 

High-risk screening

Unlike in screening average-risk patients, there is less disagreement about screening in high-risk groups. TABLE 7 outlines the various categories and recommended strategies that qualify for screening at younger ages or more intensive screening. Adding breast MRI to SM in high-risk individuals results in both higher cancer detection rates and less interval breast cancers (cancers diagnosed between screening rounds) diagnosed compared with SM alone.^19,20 Interval breast cancer tends to be more aggressive and is used as a surrogate marker for more recognized factors, such as breast cancer mortality. In addition to less interval breast cancers, high-risk patients are more likely to be diagnosed with node-negative disease if screening breast MRI is added to SM.

Long-term mortality benefit studies using MRI have not been conducted due to the prolonged follow-up times needed. Expense, lower specificity compared with mammography (that is, more false-positive results), and need for the use of gadolinium limit more widespread use of breast MRI screening in average-risk persons.

Screening in patients with dense breasts

Half of patients undergoing SM in the United States have dense breasts (heterogeneously dense breasts, 40%; extremely dense breasts, 10%). Importantly, increasing breast density is associated with a lower cancer detection rate with SM and is an independent risk factor for developing breast cancer. While most states already require patients to be notified if they have dense breasts identified on SM, the US Food and Drug Administration will soon make breast density patient notification a national standard (see: https://delauro.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/delauro-secures-timeline-fda-rollout-breast-density-notification-rule).

Most of the risk assessment tools listed in TABLE 3 incorporate breast density into their calculation of breast cancer risk. If that calculation places a patient into one of the highest-risk groups (based on additional factors like strong family history of breast cancer, reproductive risk factors, BRCA carriage, and so on), more intensive surveillance should be recommended (TABLE 7).⁷ However, once these risk calculations are done, most persons with dense breasts will remain in an average-risk category.

Because of the frequency and risks associated with dense breasts, different and alternative strategies have been recommended for screening persons who are at average risk with dense breasts. Supplemental screening with MRI, ultrasonography, contrast-enhanced mammography, and molecular breast imaging are all being considered but have not been studied sufficiently to demonstrate mortality benefit or cost-effectiveness.

Of all the supplemental modalities used to screen patients with dense breasts, MRI has been the best studied. A large RCT in the Netherlands evaluated supplemental MRI screening in persons with extremely dense breasts after a negative mammogram.²¹ Compared with no supplemental screening, the MRI group had 17 additional cancers detected per 1,000 screened and a 50% reduction in interval breast cancers; in addition, MRI was associated with a positive predictive value of 26% for biopsies. At present, high cost and limited access to standard breast MRI has not allowed its routine use for persons with dense breasts in the United States, but this may change with more experience and more widespread introduction and experience with abbreviated (or rapid) breast MRI in the future (TABLE 8).

Equitable screening

Black persons who are diagnosed with breast cancer have a 40% higher risk of dying than White patients due to multiple factors, including systemic racial factors (implicit and unconscious bias), reduced access to care, and a lower likelihood of receiving standard of care once diagnosed.^22-24 In addition, Black patients have twice the likelihood of being diagnosed with triple-negative breast cancers, a biologically more aggressive tumor.^22-24 Among Black, Asian, and Hispanic persons diagnosed with breast cancer, one-third are diagnosed younger than age 50, which is higher than for non-Hispanic White persons. Prior to the age of 50, Black, Asian, and Hispanic patients also have a 72% more likelihood of being diagnosed with invasive breast cancer, have a 58% greater risk of advanced-stage disease, and have a 127% higher risk of dying from breast cancer compared with White patients.^25,26 Based on all of these factors, delaying SM until age 50 may adversely affect the Black, Asian, and Hispanic populations.

Persons in the LGBTQ+ community do not present for SM as frequently as the general population, often because they feel threatened or unwelcome.²⁷ Clinicians and breast imaging units should review their inclusivity policies and training to provide a welcoming and respectful environment to all persons in an effort to reduce these barriers. While data are limited and largely depend on expert opinion, current recommendations for screening in the transgender patient depend on sex assigned at birth, the type and duration of hormone use, and surgical history. In patients assigned female sex at birth, average-risk and high-risk screening recommendations are similar to those for the general population unless bilateral mastectomy has been performed.²⁸ In transfeminine patients who have used hormones for longer than 5 years, some groups recommend annual screening starting at age 40, although well-designed studies are lacking.²⁹

Continue to: We have done well, can we do better?...

 

 

We have done well, can we do better?

Screening mammography clearly has been an important and effective tool in the effort to reduce breast cancer mortality, but there are clear limitations. These include moderate sensitivity of mammography, particularly in patients with dense breasts, and a specificity that results in either callbacks (10%), breast biopsies for benign disease (1%), or the reality of overdiagnosis, which becomes increasingly important in older patients.

With the introduction of mammography in the mid-1980s, a one-size-fits-all approach has proved challenging more recently due to an increased recognition of the harms of screening. As a result of this evolving understanding, different recommendations for average-risk screening have emerged. With the advent of breast MRI, risk-based screening is an important but underutilized tool to identify highest-risk individuals, which is associated with improved cancer detection rates, reduced node-positive disease, and fewer diagnosed interval breast cancers. Assuring that nearly all of this highest-risk group is identified through routine breast cancer risk assessment remains a challenge for clinicians.

But what SM recommendations should be offered to persons who fall into an intermediate-risk group (15%–20%), very low-risk groups (<5%), or patients with dense breasts? These are challenges that could be met through novel and individualized approaches (for example, polygenic risk scoring, further research on newer modalities of screening [TABLE 8]), improved screening algorithms for persons with dense breasts, and enhanced clinician engagement to achieve universal breast cancer and BRCA risk assessment of patients by age 25 to 30.

In 2023, best practice and consensus guidelines for intermediate- and low-risk breast cancer groups remain unclear, and one of the many ongoing challenges is to further reduce the impact of breast cancer on the lives of persons affected and the recognized harms of SM.

In the meantime, there is consensus in average-risk patients to provide counseling about SM by age 40. My approach has been to counsel all average-risk patients on the risks and benefits of mammography using the acronym TIP-V:

• Use a Tool to calculate breast cancer risk (TABLE 3). If they are at high risk, provide recommendations for high-risk management (TABLE 7).⁷
• For average-risk patients, counsel that their Incidence of developing breast cancer in the next decade is approximately 1 in 70 (TABLE 6).⁴
• Provide data and guidance on the benefits of SM for patients in their 40s (mortality improvement, decreased treatment) and the likelihood of harm from breast cancer screening (10% callback, 1% benign biopsy, and <1% likelihood of overdiagnosis [TABLE 4]).^4,14,15
• Engage the patient to better understand their relative Values of the benefits and harms and make a shared decision on screening starting at age 40, 45, or 50.

Looking forward

In summary, SM remains an important tool in the effort to decrease the risk of mortality due to breast cancer. Given the limitations of SM, however, newer tools and methods—abbreviated MRI, contrast-enhanced mammography, molecular breast imaging, customized screening intervals depending on individual risk/polygenic risk score, and customized counseling and screening based on risk factors (TABLES 2 and 7)—will play an increased role in recommendations for breast cancer screening in the future. ●

Meaningful progress has been made in reducing deaths due to breast cancer over the last half century, with a 43% decrease in mortality rate (breast cancer deaths per 100,000 population).¹ Screening mammography (SM) has contributed greatly to that success, accounting for 30% to 70% of the reduced mortality rate, with the remainder due to advancements in breast cancer treatment.² Despite these improvements, invasive breast cancer remains the highest incident cancer in the United States and in the world, is the second leading cause of cancer death in the United States, and results in more years of life lost than any other cancer (TABLE 1).^1,3

While the benefits and harms of SM are reasonably well understood, different guidelines groups have approached the relative value of the risks and benefits differently, which has led to challenges in implementation of shared decision making, particularly around the age to initiate routine screening.^4-6 In this article, we will focus on the data behind the controversy, current gaps in knowledge, challenges related to breast density and screening in diverse groups, and emerging technologies to address these gaps and provide a construct for appropriate counseling of the patient across the risk spectrum.

Breast cancer risk

Variables that affect risk

While female sex and older age are the 2 greatest risks for the development of breast cancer, many other factors can either increase or decrease breast cancer risk in a person’s lifetime. The importance of identifying risk factors is 3-fold:

1. to perform risk assessment to determine if individuals would benefit from average-risk versus high-risk breast cancer surveillance
2. to identify persons who might benefit from BRCA genetic counseling and screening, risk reduction medications or procedures, and
3. to allow patients to determine whether any modification in their lifestyle or reproductive choices would make sense to them to reduce their future breast cancer risk.

Most of these risk variables are largely inalterable (for example, family history of breast cancer, carriage of genetic pathogenic variants such as BRCA1 and BRCA2, age of menarche and menopause), but some are potentially modifiable, such as parity, age at first birth, lactation and duration, and dietary factors, among others. TABLE 2 lists common breast cancer risk factors.

Breast cancer risk assessment

Several validated tools have been developed to estimate a person’s breast cancer risk (TABLE 3). These tools combine known risk factors and, depending on the specific tool, can provide estimates of 5-year, 10-year, or lifetime risk of breast cancer. Patients at highest risk can benefit from earlier screening, supplemental screening with breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), or risk reduction (see the section, “High-risk screening”). Ideally, a risk assessment should be done by age 30 so that patients at high risk can be identified for earlier or more intensive screening and for possible genetic testing in those at risk for carriage of the BRCA or other breast cancer gene pathogenic variants.^5,7

Continue to: Breast cancer screening: Efficacy and harms...

Breast cancer screening: Efficacy and harms

The earliest studies of breast cancer screening with mammography were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared screened and unscreened patients aged 40 to 74. Nearly all the RCTs and numerous well-designed incidence-based and case-control studies have demonstrated that SM results in a clinically and statistically significant reduction in breast cancer mortality (TABLE 4).^4,6,8 Since the mid-1980s and continuing to the current day, SM programs are routinely recommended in the United States. In addition to the mortality benefit outlined in TABLE 4, SM also is associated with a need for less invasive treatments if breast cancer is diagnosed.^9,10

With several decades of experience, SM programs have demonstrated that multiple harms are associated with SM, including callbacks, false-positive mammograms that result in a benign biopsy, and overdiagnosis of breast cancer (TABLE 4). Overdiagnosis is a mammographic detection of a breast cancer that would not have harmed that woman in her lifetime. Overdiagnosis leads to overtreatment of breast cancers with its attendant side effects, the emotional harms of a breast cancer diagnosis, and the substantial financial cost of cancer treatment. Estimates of overdiagnosis range from 0% to 50%, with the most likely estimate of invasive breast cancer overdiagnosis from SM between 5% and 15%.^11-13 Some of these overdiagnosed cancers are due to very slow growing cancers or breast cancers that may even regress. However, the higher rates of overdiagnosis occur in older persons who are screened and in whom competing causes of mortality become more prevalent. It is estimated that overdiagnosis of invasive breast cancer in patients younger than age 60 is less than 1%, but it exceeds 14% in those older than age 80 (TABLE 4).¹⁴

A structured approach is needed to counsel patients about SM so that they understand both the substantial benefit (earlier-stage diagnosis, reduced need for treatment, reduced breast cancer and all-cause mortality) and the potential harms (callback, false-positive results, and overdiagnosis). Moreover, the relative balance of the benefits and harms are influenced throughout their lifetime by both aging and changes in their personal and family medical history.

Counseling should consider factors beyond just the performance of mammography (sensitivity and specificity), such as the patient’s current health and age (competing causes of mortality), likelihood of developing breast cancer based on risk assessment (more benefit in higher-risk persons), and the individual patient’s values on the importance of the benefits and harms. The differing emphases on mammography performance and the relative value of the benefits and harms have led experts to produce disparate national guideline recommendations (TABLE 5).

Should SM start at age 40, 45, or 50 in average-risk persons?

There is not clear consensus about the age at which to begin to recommend routine SM in patients at average risk. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN),⁷ American Cancer Society (ACS),⁴ and the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF)⁵ recommend that those at average risk start SM at age 40, 45, and 50, respectively (TABLE 5). While the guideline groups listed in TABLE 5 agree that there is level 1 evidence that SM reduces breast cancer mortality in the general population for persons starting at age 40, because the incidence of breast cancer is lower in younger persons (TABLE 6),⁴ the net population-based screening benefit is lower in this group, and the number needed to invite to screening to save a single life due to breast cancer varies.

For patients in their 40s, it is estimated that 1,904 individuals need to be invited to SM to save 1 life, whereas for patients in their 50s, it is 1,339.¹⁵ However, for patients in their 40s, the number needed to screen to save 1 life due to breast cancer decreases from 1 in 1,904 if invited to be screened to 1 in 588 if they are actually screened.¹⁶ Furthermore, if a patient is diagnosed with breast cancer at age 40–50, the likelihood of dying is reduced at least 22% and perhaps as high as 48% if her cancer was diagnosed on SM compared with an unscreened individual with a symptomatic presentation (for example, palpable mass).^4,15,17,18 Another benefit of SM in the fifth decade of life (40s) is the decreased need for more extensive treatment, including a higher risk of need for chemotherapy (odds ratio [OR], 2.81; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16–6.84); need for mastectomy (OR, 3.41; 95% CI, 1.36–8.52); and need for axillary lymph node dissection (OR, 5.76; 95% CI, 2.40–13.82) in unscreened (compared with screened) patients diagnosed with breast cancer.¹⁰

The harms associated with SM are not inconsequential and include callbacks (approximately 1 in 10), false-positive biopsy (approximately 1 in 100), and overdiagnosis (likely <1% of all breast cancers in persons younger than age 50). Because most patients in their 40s will not develop breast cancer (TABLE 6), the benefit of reduced breast cancer mortality will not be experienced by most in this decade of life, but they are still just as likely to experience a callback, false-positive biopsy, or the possibility of overdiagnosis. Interpretation of this balance on a population level is the crux of the various guideline groups’ development of differing recommendations as to when screening should start. Despite this seeming disagreement, all the guideline groups listed in TABLE 5 concur that persons at average risk for breast cancer should be offered SM if they desire starting at age 40 after a shared decision-making conversation that incorporates the patient’s view on the relative value of the benefits and risks.

Continue to: High-risk screening...

 

 

High-risk screening

Unlike in screening average-risk patients, there is less disagreement about screening in high-risk groups. TABLE 7 outlines the various categories and recommended strategies that qualify for screening at younger ages or more intensive screening. Adding breast MRI to SM in high-risk individuals results in both higher cancer detection rates and less interval breast cancers (cancers diagnosed between screening rounds) diagnosed compared with SM alone.^19,20 Interval breast cancer tends to be more aggressive and is used as a surrogate marker for more recognized factors, such as breast cancer mortality. In addition to less interval breast cancers, high-risk patients are more likely to be diagnosed with node-negative disease if screening breast MRI is added to SM.

Long-term mortality benefit studies using MRI have not been conducted due to the prolonged follow-up times needed. Expense, lower specificity compared with mammography (that is, more false-positive results), and need for the use of gadolinium limit more widespread use of breast MRI screening in average-risk persons.

Screening in patients with dense breasts

Half of patients undergoing SM in the United States have dense breasts (heterogeneously dense breasts, 40%; extremely dense breasts, 10%). Importantly, increasing breast density is associated with a lower cancer detection rate with SM and is an independent risk factor for developing breast cancer. While most states already require patients to be notified if they have dense breasts identified on SM, the US Food and Drug Administration will soon make breast density patient notification a national standard (see: https://delauro.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/delauro-secures-timeline-fda-rollout-breast-density-notification-rule).

Most of the risk assessment tools listed in TABLE 3 incorporate breast density into their calculation of breast cancer risk. If that calculation places a patient into one of the highest-risk groups (based on additional factors like strong family history of breast cancer, reproductive risk factors, BRCA carriage, and so on), more intensive surveillance should be recommended (TABLE 7).⁷ However, once these risk calculations are done, most persons with dense breasts will remain in an average-risk category.

Because of the frequency and risks associated with dense breasts, different and alternative strategies have been recommended for screening persons who are at average risk with dense breasts. Supplemental screening with MRI, ultrasonography, contrast-enhanced mammography, and molecular breast imaging are all being considered but have not been studied sufficiently to demonstrate mortality benefit or cost-effectiveness.

Of all the supplemental modalities used to screen patients with dense breasts, MRI has been the best studied. A large RCT in the Netherlands evaluated supplemental MRI screening in persons with extremely dense breasts after a negative mammogram.²¹ Compared with no supplemental screening, the MRI group had 17 additional cancers detected per 1,000 screened and a 50% reduction in interval breast cancers; in addition, MRI was associated with a positive predictive value of 26% for biopsies. At present, high cost and limited access to standard breast MRI has not allowed its routine use for persons with dense breasts in the United States, but this may change with more experience and more widespread introduction and experience with abbreviated (or rapid) breast MRI in the future (TABLE 8).

Equitable screening

Black persons who are diagnosed with breast cancer have a 40% higher risk of dying than White patients due to multiple factors, including systemic racial factors (implicit and unconscious bias), reduced access to care, and a lower likelihood of receiving standard of care once diagnosed.^22-24 In addition, Black patients have twice the likelihood of being diagnosed with triple-negative breast cancers, a biologically more aggressive tumor.^22-24 Among Black, Asian, and Hispanic persons diagnosed with breast cancer, one-third are diagnosed younger than age 50, which is higher than for non-Hispanic White persons. Prior to the age of 50, Black, Asian, and Hispanic patients also have a 72% more likelihood of being diagnosed with invasive breast cancer, have a 58% greater risk of advanced-stage disease, and have a 127% higher risk of dying from breast cancer compared with White patients.^25,26 Based on all of these factors, delaying SM until age 50 may adversely affect the Black, Asian, and Hispanic populations.

Persons in the LGBTQ+ community do not present for SM as frequently as the general population, often because they feel threatened or unwelcome.²⁷ Clinicians and breast imaging units should review their inclusivity policies and training to provide a welcoming and respectful environment to all persons in an effort to reduce these barriers. While data are limited and largely depend on expert opinion, current recommendations for screening in the transgender patient depend on sex assigned at birth, the type and duration of hormone use, and surgical history. In patients assigned female sex at birth, average-risk and high-risk screening recommendations are similar to those for the general population unless bilateral mastectomy has been performed.²⁸ In transfeminine patients who have used hormones for longer than 5 years, some groups recommend annual screening starting at age 40, although well-designed studies are lacking.²⁹

Continue to: We have done well, can we do better?...

 

 

We have done well, can we do better?

Screening mammography clearly has been an important and effective tool in the effort to reduce breast cancer mortality, but there are clear limitations. These include moderate sensitivity of mammography, particularly in patients with dense breasts, and a specificity that results in either callbacks (10%), breast biopsies for benign disease (1%), or the reality of overdiagnosis, which becomes increasingly important in older patients.

With the introduction of mammography in the mid-1980s, a one-size-fits-all approach has proved challenging more recently due to an increased recognition of the harms of screening. As a result of this evolving understanding, different recommendations for average-risk screening have emerged. With the advent of breast MRI, risk-based screening is an important but underutilized tool to identify highest-risk individuals, which is associated with improved cancer detection rates, reduced node-positive disease, and fewer diagnosed interval breast cancers. Assuring that nearly all of this highest-risk group is identified through routine breast cancer risk assessment remains a challenge for clinicians.

But what SM recommendations should be offered to persons who fall into an intermediate-risk group (15%–20%), very low-risk groups (<5%), or patients with dense breasts? These are challenges that could be met through novel and individualized approaches (for example, polygenic risk scoring, further research on newer modalities of screening [TABLE 8]), improved screening algorithms for persons with dense breasts, and enhanced clinician engagement to achieve universal breast cancer and BRCA risk assessment of patients by age 25 to 30.

In 2023, best practice and consensus guidelines for intermediate- and low-risk breast cancer groups remain unclear, and one of the many ongoing challenges is to further reduce the impact of breast cancer on the lives of persons affected and the recognized harms of SM.

In the meantime, there is consensus in average-risk patients to provide counseling about SM by age 40. My approach has been to counsel all average-risk patients on the risks and benefits of mammography using the acronym TIP-V:

• Use a Tool to calculate breast cancer risk (TABLE 3). If they are at high risk, provide recommendations for high-risk management (TABLE 7).⁷
• For average-risk patients, counsel that their Incidence of developing breast cancer in the next decade is approximately 1 in 70 (TABLE 6).⁴
• Provide data and guidance on the benefits of SM for patients in their 40s (mortality improvement, decreased treatment) and the likelihood of harm from breast cancer screening (10% callback, 1% benign biopsy, and <1% likelihood of overdiagnosis [TABLE 4]).^4,14,15
• Engage the patient to better understand their relative Values of the benefits and harms and make a shared decision on screening starting at age 40, 45, or 50.

Looking forward

In summary, SM remains an important tool in the effort to decrease the risk of mortality due to breast cancer. Given the limitations of SM, however, newer tools and methods—abbreviated MRI, contrast-enhanced mammography, molecular breast imaging, customized screening intervals depending on individual risk/polygenic risk score, and customized counseling and screening based on risk factors (TABLES 2 and 7)—will play an increased role in recommendations for breast cancer screening in the future. ●

SAN FRANCISCO – For patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) with a BRCA alteration whose disease had already progressed with an androgen receptor pathway inhibitor (ARPI), imaging-based progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly longer through treatment with rucaparib (Rubraca, Clovis) than with any other drug chosen by their physician.

The finding, which comes from the TRITON3 clinical trial, provides evidence of clinical benefit for an indication for rucaparib that was granted an accelerated approval in May 2020.

“Rucaparib reduced the risk of progression or death by half in patients with BRCA alterations,” said lead author Alan H. Bryce, MD, medical director of the Genomic Oncology Clinic at Mayo Clinic Arizona, in Phoenix.

For the subgroup of patients with BRCA alterations, the median PFS was 11.2 months with rucaparib vs. 6.4 months (hazard ratio, 0.50; P < .001) among those who received physician’s choice of therapy, which included docetaxel or a second-generation ARPI, such as abiraterone or enzalutamide.

In another subgroup of patients whose disease had ATM alterations, the median PFS was 8.1 months with rucaparib vs. 6.8 months with physician’s choice of drug. The difference was not statistically significant.

However, the difference was significant in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population (comprising both subgroups), for whom the median PFS was 10.2 months with rucaparib vs. 6.4 months with physician’s choice of drug (HR, 0.61; P < .001 by log-rank test).

Dr. Bryce pointed out that three-quarters of the patients in the physician’s-choice arm who had progressive disease crossed over to rucaparib upon progression and that overall survival (OS) results are immature. At 62 months, median OS did not significantly differ in the BRCA subgroup (24.3 vs. 20.8 months favoring rucaparib; P = .21) or in the ITT group (23.6 vs. 20.9 months; P = .67).

Importantly, rucaparib was well tolerated. In all treatment groups, the most frequent adverse events were asthenia and fatigue, Bryce said. “There were no cases of myelodysplastic syndrome or acute myeloid leukemia reported.”

These results from the TRITON3 trial were presented at the 2023 ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium and were published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Suggested benefit

Rucaparib is the first PARP inhibitor approved for use in patients with mCRPC that harbors deleterious BRCA mutations (germline and/or somatic) who have already been treated with androgen receptor–directed therapy and a taxane-based chemotherapy. This prostate cancer indication was granted an accelerated approval in May 2020 by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on the basis of response rates and effect on levels of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) from the TRITON2 clinical trial, the forerunner of the current study.

The TRITON2 study was a single-arm clinical trial that involved three cohorts: 62 patients with a BRCA mutation (germline and/or somatic) and measurable disease; 115 patients with a BRCA mutation (germline and/or somatic) and measurable or nonmeasurable disease; and 209 patients with homologous recombination deficiency–positive mCRPC.

In an analysis of 115 patients with a deleterious BRCA mutation (germline and/or somatic) and measurable or nonmeasurable disease, the confirmed PSA response rate was 55%. For the patients with measurable disease and a BRCA mutation, the objective response rate was 44%. The objective response rate was similar for those with a germline BRCA mutation.
 

Study details

The current phase 3 randomized TRITON3 clinical trial was conducted to confirm the earlier findings and to expand upon the data in mCRPC. The participants in this trial were patients with mCRPC who had specific gene alterations, including BRCA and ATM alterations, who had experienced disease progression after androgen receptor–directed therapy but who had not yet received chemotherapy.

A total of 270 men were assigned to receive rucaparib (600 mg twice daily); 135 patients received their physician’s choice of medication. Within the two study arms, 302 patients had a BRCA alteration, and 103 patients had an ATM alteration. The ITT population consisted of all the patients who had been randomly assigned to either of the two groups. A prespecified subgroup included patients with a BRCA alteration.

The primary outcome was the median duration of imaging-based PSF, as determined through independent review. Key secondary outcomes were overall survival and objective response rate.

The most common adverse events in the rucaparib group were fatigue, nausea, and anemia or decreased hemoglobin. In the control group, the most common adverse events were fatigue, diarrhea, and neuropathy. The most common events of grade 3 or higher were anemia or decreased hemoglobin, neutropenia or a decreased neutrophil count, and fatigue in the rucaparib group, and fatigue and neutropenia or a decreased neutrophil count among control patients.
 

No changes in standard of care

In a discussion of the study, Elena Castro, MD, PhD, of the Instituto de Investigación Biomédica de Málaga, Campanillas, Spain, emphasized that there is a clear benefit from the use of PARP inhibitors (such as rucaparib) for patients with BRCA alterations.

However, she highlighted the absence of convincing overall survival data and the absence of a clear benefit on PFS in the subgroup of patients with ATM alterations.

“These data raise several questions,” she noted, “such as, do patients with ATM alterations benefit at all? And should PARP inhibitors [such as rucaparib] precede or follow docetaxel therapy?”

Because of the high crossover rate, it may be possible to evaluate the directionality of docetaxel followed by PARP inhibitors and the other way around, she suggested.

Dr. Castro said that patients with BRCA alterations benefit from PARP inhibitors and are likely to derive more benefit from them than from taxanes.

“But those with ATM alterations are unlikely to benefit from rucaparib more than from taxanes,” she said.

In a comment, Hank Ng, MD, medical oncologist, NYU Langone Perlmutter Cancer Center, New York, said he is not convinced that the findings from TRITON 3 represent a new standard of care in BRCA 1/2 mutations or ATM.

“Currently, we know that, for patients with prostate cancer with BRCA1/2 or ATM, the standard of care is an androgen receptor pathway inhibitor (ARPI), such as abiraterone or enzalutamide, then docetaxel, and then a PARP inhibitor like rucaparib,” he said.

(Currently, rucaparib is indicated for use in patients with mCRPC with BRCA alterations after they have already received an ARPI and taxane-based chemotherapy.)

Dr. Ng also questioned the control arm of the TRITON 3 trial. All the participants in the trial had already experienced disease progression after treatment with a second-generation ARPI. But the physician’s choice of therapy allowed them to move on to another ARPI or to docetaxel.

Dr. NG commented that, “in almost all cases, after progression of one ARPI, switching to another ARPI does not provide much benefit – from what is visible from this abstract – and only 56% patients received docetaxel, and thus 44% received a not-beneficial treatment,” he said.

“I am not sure what the docetaxel subgroup showed, but potentially, if those numbers are convincing, we could move this [rucaparib] ahead of docetaxel,” he speculated.

However, he also pointed out that an overall survival benefit has not yet been shown; so far, the benefit that has been shown is with respect to imaging-based PFS.

Dr. Ng does agree that rucaparib is indicated in the second line after progression with one ARPI for patients who are not candidates for chemotherapy. “But this has not yet shown me that we should absolutely be offering rucaparib before docetaxel,” he said.

TRITON3 was supported by Clovis Oncology, manufacturer of rucaparib. Dr. Bryce has relationships with Bayer, Foundation Medicine, Janssen, Merck, Myovant Sciences, and Novartis and holds a patent for therapeutic targeting of cancer patients with NRG1 rearrangements. Dr. Castro has relationships with Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Clovis Oncology, Janssen-Cilag, Merck, MSD Oncology, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche.