AVAHO

Infertile men may be twice as likely to develop invasive breast cancer as those without fertility issues, according to new research funded by the charity Breast Cancer Now and published in Breast Cancer Research. The study is one of the largest ever into male breast cancer, enabling the team to show a highly statistically significant association.  

A link with infertility had been suspected, since parity markedly reduces the risk of female breast cancer; there are known genetic links in both sexes, and a high risk of both breast cancer and infertility among men with Klinefelter syndrome, suggesting some sex hormone-related involvement. However, the rarity of breast cancer in men – with an annual incidence of about 370 cases and 80 deaths per year in the United Kingdom – meant that past studies were necessarily small and yielded mixed results.

“Compared with previous studies, our study of male breast cancer is large,” said study coauthor Michael Jones, PhD, of the division of genetics and epidemiology at the Institute of Cancer Research (ICR) in London. “It was carried out nationwide across England and Wales and was set in motion more than 15 years ago. Because of how rare male breast cancer is, it took us over 12 years to identify and interview the nearly 2,000 men with breast cancer who were part of this study.”

The latest research is part of the wider Breast Cancer Now Male Breast Cancer Study, launched by the charity in 2007. For the new study, the ICR team interviewed 1,998 males living in England and Wales who had been diagnosed with breast cancer between 2005 and 2017. All were aged under 80 but most 60 or older at diagnosis; 92% of their tumors were invasive, and almost all were estrogen receptor positive (98.5% of those with known status).

Their responses were compared with those of a control group of 1,597 men without breast cancer, matched by age at diagnosis and geographic region, recruited from male non-blood relatives of cases and from husbands of women participating in the Generations cohort study of breast cancer etiology.
 

Raised risk with history of male infertility

Overall, 112 cases (5.6%) and 80 controls (5.0%) reported that they had had infertility problems for which they or their partner had consulted a doctor or infertility clinic. This represented a raised odds ratio of 1.29 (95% confidence interval, 0.94-1.77), which was statistically not significant. However, when analyzed by outcome of the infertility consultation, there was a significant and more than doubled risk of breast cancer among men who were diagnosed as the source of the couple’s infertility (OR = 2.03 [1.18-3.49]), whereas this was not the case among men whose partner was the source (OR = 0.86 [0.51-1.45]) or for whom no source was identified (OR = 1.26 [0.71-2.24]).

In addition, proportionately fewer cases (1,615, or 80.8%) compared with controls (1,423, or 89.1%) had fathered any children, also giving a statistically significantly raised risk of breast cancer for men with no biological children (OR = 1.50 [1.21-1.86], P < .001), “congruent with infertility as a risk factor,” the authors said. The risk was statistically significant for invasive tumors but not for the much smaller number of in situ tumors.

Analysis by number of children showed a decreasing risk with increasing numbers of children, with a highly significant (P < .001) inverse trend where zero was included as a value, but a borderline significant trend (P = .04) if it was not. The team noted that number of children beyond one is difficult to interpret as an indicator of male fertility, since it may more reflect social and cultural factors than fertility per se.

Baseline demographic factors were adjusted for in the risk analyses, and results were not materially changed by sensitivity analyses adjusting additionally for alcohol consumption, smoking, liver disease, and family history of breast cancer. The association also largely remained after exclusion of patients with other preexisting potential confounders including severe obesity and testicular abnormalities, and was consistent irrespective of HER-2 status (there were too few ER-negative tumors to analyze results by ER status).
 

Potential underlying factors

“The causes of breast cancer in men are largely unknown, partly because it is rare and partly because previous studies have been small,” Dr. Jones said. “The evidence presented in our study suggests that the association of infertility and breast cancer should be confirmed with further research, and future investigations are needed into the potential underlying factors, such as hormone imbalances.”

Commenting on the study, Fiona Osgun, senior health information manager at Cancer Research UK, told this news organization: “Overall, there isn’t strong evidence that infertility is a risk factor for male breast cancer. This study helps to shed light onto a cancer type that is sadly still not very well understood, but much more research is needed to say that infertility is a risk factor for male breast cancer.”

She added that although male breast cancer is a rare condition, it’s still important for men to be aware of what looks and feels normal for them, and to be encouraged to seek medical advice if something is not quite right.

A spokesperson for Breast Cancer UK told this news organization: “[We] believe it’s important to understand what leads to breast cancer in men as well as women and that high quality, long-term studies such as this will help with this understanding.

The findings are consistent with an earlier study that found that U.S. men who have never fathered children are at higher risk of breast cancer. This new long-term U.K. study provides strong evidence, which supports this finding.  

“As the authors note, the biological reasons are unclear, but may be associated with altered hormone levels. The ratio of circulating levels of estrogen and androgens (e.g. testosterone) is crucial in healthy functioning of breast tissue. Disruption to this, for example as a result of damage to testes, may affect both fertility and breast cancer risk.

“It is also possible that external factors, such as exposure to certain endocrine (hormone) disrupting chemicals (EDCs), which affect sex hormones, may also affect both fertility and breast cancer risk.

“More studies into breast cancer in men are needed to help us understand better all the risk factors associated with this disease including both hormonal factors and chemical exposures.”

Simon Vincent, PhD, director of research, support, and influencing at Breast Cancer Now, said: “Research has discovered different treatments directed at some features of breast cancer in women; however, breast cancer is not as well understood for men. This is why Breast Cancer Now funds the Male Breast Cancer Study, which looks at what might cause the disease in men. Discovering a link between infertility and male breast cancer is a step towards us understanding male breast cancer and how we could find more ways to diagnose and treat men – and possibly women – with this devastating disease.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

Infertile men may be twice as likely to develop invasive breast cancer as those without fertility issues, according to new research funded by the charity Breast Cancer Now and published in Breast Cancer Research. The study is one of the largest ever into male breast cancer, enabling the team to show a highly statistically significant association.  

A link with infertility had been suspected, since parity markedly reduces the risk of female breast cancer; there are known genetic links in both sexes, and a high risk of both breast cancer and infertility among men with Klinefelter syndrome, suggesting some sex hormone-related involvement. However, the rarity of breast cancer in men – with an annual incidence of about 370 cases and 80 deaths per year in the United Kingdom – meant that past studies were necessarily small and yielded mixed results.

“Compared with previous studies, our study of male breast cancer is large,” said study coauthor Michael Jones, PhD, of the division of genetics and epidemiology at the Institute of Cancer Research (ICR) in London. “It was carried out nationwide across England and Wales and was set in motion more than 15 years ago. Because of how rare male breast cancer is, it took us over 12 years to identify and interview the nearly 2,000 men with breast cancer who were part of this study.”

The latest research is part of the wider Breast Cancer Now Male Breast Cancer Study, launched by the charity in 2007. For the new study, the ICR team interviewed 1,998 males living in England and Wales who had been diagnosed with breast cancer between 2005 and 2017. All were aged under 80 but most 60 or older at diagnosis; 92% of their tumors were invasive, and almost all were estrogen receptor positive (98.5% of those with known status).

Their responses were compared with those of a control group of 1,597 men without breast cancer, matched by age at diagnosis and geographic region, recruited from male non-blood relatives of cases and from husbands of women participating in the Generations cohort study of breast cancer etiology.
 

Raised risk with history of male infertility

Overall, 112 cases (5.6%) and 80 controls (5.0%) reported that they had had infertility problems for which they or their partner had consulted a doctor or infertility clinic. This represented a raised odds ratio of 1.29 (95% confidence interval, 0.94-1.77), which was statistically not significant. However, when analyzed by outcome of the infertility consultation, there was a significant and more than doubled risk of breast cancer among men who were diagnosed as the source of the couple’s infertility (OR = 2.03 [1.18-3.49]), whereas this was not the case among men whose partner was the source (OR = 0.86 [0.51-1.45]) or for whom no source was identified (OR = 1.26 [0.71-2.24]).

In addition, proportionately fewer cases (1,615, or 80.8%) compared with controls (1,423, or 89.1%) had fathered any children, also giving a statistically significantly raised risk of breast cancer for men with no biological children (OR = 1.50 [1.21-1.86], P < .001), “congruent with infertility as a risk factor,” the authors said. The risk was statistically significant for invasive tumors but not for the much smaller number of in situ tumors.

Analysis by number of children showed a decreasing risk with increasing numbers of children, with a highly significant (P < .001) inverse trend where zero was included as a value, but a borderline significant trend (P = .04) if it was not. The team noted that number of children beyond one is difficult to interpret as an indicator of male fertility, since it may more reflect social and cultural factors than fertility per se.

Baseline demographic factors were adjusted for in the risk analyses, and results were not materially changed by sensitivity analyses adjusting additionally for alcohol consumption, smoking, liver disease, and family history of breast cancer. The association also largely remained after exclusion of patients with other preexisting potential confounders including severe obesity and testicular abnormalities, and was consistent irrespective of HER-2 status (there were too few ER-negative tumors to analyze results by ER status).
 

Potential underlying factors

“The causes of breast cancer in men are largely unknown, partly because it is rare and partly because previous studies have been small,” Dr. Jones said. “The evidence presented in our study suggests that the association of infertility and breast cancer should be confirmed with further research, and future investigations are needed into the potential underlying factors, such as hormone imbalances.”

Commenting on the study, Fiona Osgun, senior health information manager at Cancer Research UK, told this news organization: “Overall, there isn’t strong evidence that infertility is a risk factor for male breast cancer. This study helps to shed light onto a cancer type that is sadly still not very well understood, but much more research is needed to say that infertility is a risk factor for male breast cancer.”

She added that although male breast cancer is a rare condition, it’s still important for men to be aware of what looks and feels normal for them, and to be encouraged to seek medical advice if something is not quite right.

A spokesperson for Breast Cancer UK told this news organization: “[We] believe it’s important to understand what leads to breast cancer in men as well as women and that high quality, long-term studies such as this will help with this understanding.

The findings are consistent with an earlier study that found that U.S. men who have never fathered children are at higher risk of breast cancer. This new long-term U.K. study provides strong evidence, which supports this finding.  

“As the authors note, the biological reasons are unclear, but may be associated with altered hormone levels. The ratio of circulating levels of estrogen and androgens (e.g. testosterone) is crucial in healthy functioning of breast tissue. Disruption to this, for example as a result of damage to testes, may affect both fertility and breast cancer risk.

“It is also possible that external factors, such as exposure to certain endocrine (hormone) disrupting chemicals (EDCs), which affect sex hormones, may also affect both fertility and breast cancer risk.

“More studies into breast cancer in men are needed to help us understand better all the risk factors associated with this disease including both hormonal factors and chemical exposures.”

Simon Vincent, PhD, director of research, support, and influencing at Breast Cancer Now, said: “Research has discovered different treatments directed at some features of breast cancer in women; however, breast cancer is not as well understood for men. This is why Breast Cancer Now funds the Male Breast Cancer Study, which looks at what might cause the disease in men. Discovering a link between infertility and male breast cancer is a step towards us understanding male breast cancer and how we could find more ways to diagnose and treat men – and possibly women – with this devastating disease.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

Infertile men may be twice as likely to develop invasive breast cancer as those without fertility issues, according to new research funded by the charity Breast Cancer Now and published in Breast Cancer Research. The study is one of the largest ever into male breast cancer, enabling the team to show a highly statistically significant association.  

A link with infertility had been suspected, since parity markedly reduces the risk of female breast cancer; there are known genetic links in both sexes, and a high risk of both breast cancer and infertility among men with Klinefelter syndrome, suggesting some sex hormone-related involvement. However, the rarity of breast cancer in men – with an annual incidence of about 370 cases and 80 deaths per year in the United Kingdom – meant that past studies were necessarily small and yielded mixed results.

“Compared with previous studies, our study of male breast cancer is large,” said study coauthor Michael Jones, PhD, of the division of genetics and epidemiology at the Institute of Cancer Research (ICR) in London. “It was carried out nationwide across England and Wales and was set in motion more than 15 years ago. Because of how rare male breast cancer is, it took us over 12 years to identify and interview the nearly 2,000 men with breast cancer who were part of this study.”

The latest research is part of the wider Breast Cancer Now Male Breast Cancer Study, launched by the charity in 2007. For the new study, the ICR team interviewed 1,998 males living in England and Wales who had been diagnosed with breast cancer between 2005 and 2017. All were aged under 80 but most 60 or older at diagnosis; 92% of their tumors were invasive, and almost all were estrogen receptor positive (98.5% of those with known status).

Their responses were compared with those of a control group of 1,597 men without breast cancer, matched by age at diagnosis and geographic region, recruited from male non-blood relatives of cases and from husbands of women participating in the Generations cohort study of breast cancer etiology.
 

Raised risk with history of male infertility

Overall, 112 cases (5.6%) and 80 controls (5.0%) reported that they had had infertility problems for which they or their partner had consulted a doctor or infertility clinic. This represented a raised odds ratio of 1.29 (95% confidence interval, 0.94-1.77), which was statistically not significant. However, when analyzed by outcome of the infertility consultation, there was a significant and more than doubled risk of breast cancer among men who were diagnosed as the source of the couple’s infertility (OR = 2.03 [1.18-3.49]), whereas this was not the case among men whose partner was the source (OR = 0.86 [0.51-1.45]) or for whom no source was identified (OR = 1.26 [0.71-2.24]).

In addition, proportionately fewer cases (1,615, or 80.8%) compared with controls (1,423, or 89.1%) had fathered any children, also giving a statistically significantly raised risk of breast cancer for men with no biological children (OR = 1.50 [1.21-1.86], P < .001), “congruent with infertility as a risk factor,” the authors said. The risk was statistically significant for invasive tumors but not for the much smaller number of in situ tumors.

Analysis by number of children showed a decreasing risk with increasing numbers of children, with a highly significant (P < .001) inverse trend where zero was included as a value, but a borderline significant trend (P = .04) if it was not. The team noted that number of children beyond one is difficult to interpret as an indicator of male fertility, since it may more reflect social and cultural factors than fertility per se.

Baseline demographic factors were adjusted for in the risk analyses, and results were not materially changed by sensitivity analyses adjusting additionally for alcohol consumption, smoking, liver disease, and family history of breast cancer. The association also largely remained after exclusion of patients with other preexisting potential confounders including severe obesity and testicular abnormalities, and was consistent irrespective of HER-2 status (there were too few ER-negative tumors to analyze results by ER status).
 

Potential underlying factors

“The causes of breast cancer in men are largely unknown, partly because it is rare and partly because previous studies have been small,” Dr. Jones said. “The evidence presented in our study suggests that the association of infertility and breast cancer should be confirmed with further research, and future investigations are needed into the potential underlying factors, such as hormone imbalances.”

Commenting on the study, Fiona Osgun, senior health information manager at Cancer Research UK, told this news organization: “Overall, there isn’t strong evidence that infertility is a risk factor for male breast cancer. This study helps to shed light onto a cancer type that is sadly still not very well understood, but much more research is needed to say that infertility is a risk factor for male breast cancer.”

She added that although male breast cancer is a rare condition, it’s still important for men to be aware of what looks and feels normal for them, and to be encouraged to seek medical advice if something is not quite right.

A spokesperson for Breast Cancer UK told this news organization: “[We] believe it’s important to understand what leads to breast cancer in men as well as women and that high quality, long-term studies such as this will help with this understanding.

The findings are consistent with an earlier study that found that U.S. men who have never fathered children are at higher risk of breast cancer. This new long-term U.K. study provides strong evidence, which supports this finding.  

“As the authors note, the biological reasons are unclear, but may be associated with altered hormone levels. The ratio of circulating levels of estrogen and androgens (e.g. testosterone) is crucial in healthy functioning of breast tissue. Disruption to this, for example as a result of damage to testes, may affect both fertility and breast cancer risk.

“It is also possible that external factors, such as exposure to certain endocrine (hormone) disrupting chemicals (EDCs), which affect sex hormones, may also affect both fertility and breast cancer risk.

“More studies into breast cancer in men are needed to help us understand better all the risk factors associated with this disease including both hormonal factors and chemical exposures.”

Simon Vincent, PhD, director of research, support, and influencing at Breast Cancer Now, said: “Research has discovered different treatments directed at some features of breast cancer in women; however, breast cancer is not as well understood for men. This is why Breast Cancer Now funds the Male Breast Cancer Study, which looks at what might cause the disease in men. Discovering a link between infertility and male breast cancer is a step towards us understanding male breast cancer and how we could find more ways to diagnose and treat men – and possibly women – with this devastating disease.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

More than 70% of cancer patients do not know that they are at greater risk of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) than the general population. It is up to their physician to discuss this with them.

This link is explained by the authors of an article in Cancer Treatment and Research Communications that reports results of a survey carried out by the European Cancer Patient Coalition (ECPC). “The aim of this pan-European patient survey was to assess patient awareness and knowledge about cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT), including risk factors, signs and symptoms, and interventions, to better prevent and treat CAT,” write the authors. “The idea was to create a sort of starting point for subsequent communication and information strategies and for comparing the results of any action taken in this area,” they add.

A roundtable discussion that included oncology healthcare professionals, policymakers, and patient advocates was convened to discuss and review the evidence regarding their ongoing concerns of excessive CAT-associated morbidity and mortality, as well as patients’ desire for greater CAT awareness.

“These discussions demonstrated that very little change had occurred over the years and that greater knowledge about CAT was still needed across the spectrum of healthcare practitioners and patients, particularly regarding primary and secondary prevention of thrombosis,” the authors write.

It was from this starting point that the idea for the pan-European survey was born. The ECPC, widely viewed as the “unified voice of cancer patients across Europe,” led the survey. This survey spanned six countries (France, Germany, Greece, Italy, United Kingdom, and Spain) and involved 1,365 patients and caregivers. The ECPC survey result was originally released at World Thrombosis Day in late 2018.

In an interview, Anna Falanga, MD, the main author of the article and professor of hematology at the University of Milan-Bicocca, Italy, reviewed the results and explained how to improve knowledge of CAT among patients with cancer.

“Data support that up to 20% of patients with cancer will experience venous thromboembolism (VTE), which is approximately 4–5 times higher than the general population,” said Dr. Falanga, who is also chief of the department of immunohematology and transfusion medicine and the Thrombosis and Hemostasis Center at the Hospital Papa Giovanni XXIII, in Bergamo, Italy.

“We have known about the link between thrombosis and cancer since the 19th century, but it has taken until midway through the last century for our level of understanding and awareness of the problem to reach its current level. Initially, this was limited to fundamental research, with large advances in our understanding of the mechanisms of the link between the two; it has only been more recently that we have had clinical studies that have piqued the interest of healthcare professionals, who were previously uninterested in the topic,” she said.
 

Poor understanding

One piece of data stands out from the European survey: Nearly three quarters of respondents (72%) said that before taking part in the survey, they were not aware that people with cancer have a higher-than-normal risk of developing thrombosis. “We asked participants to rate their overall understanding of CAT on a scale of 1 (low) to 10 (high), with the average (mean) score obtained being 4.1. Only 21% of patients gave a rating of 7 or above (high understanding). The average rating was very similar in the different countries surveyed,” write the authors. They note that the survey also assessed how much participants had learned about the topic from their physicians.

Approximately 35% of patients were made aware of CAT either immediately before or at the time of their cancer diagnosis. Of particular concern, one quarter (26%) of respondents (the largest proportion) noted that they first became aware of CAT when they suffered a blood clot. The average rating was very similar in the different countries surveyed. “Let us not forget that cancer and cancer treatments themselves cause a number of side effects, some of which can be very serious, so in some ways, a clot might be seen as a minor problem. Yet, in reality, it isn’t. It is a significant cause of death and disease in cancer patients,” said Dr. Falanga.

When discussing prevention, most respondents (87%) said they were aware that taking a walk could reduce their risk. Slightly fewer were aware that stopping smoking could reduce their risk (75%), and even fewer were aware that keeping hydrated (63%) and stretching their legs (55%) could reduce their risk.

Symptoms of CAT appeared to be relatively well known; 73% of survey participants indicated that they were aware that swelling in the foot, ankle, or leg could be a sign of DVT, and 71% indicated that shortness of breath could be a sign of pulmonary embolism (PE). “Other symptoms, however, were less well known, with just over half (57%) of participants being aware that pain, cramping, and tenderness could be a sign of DVT. About one third (33%) knew that irregular heartbeat could be a sign of PE. These results varied between countries,” according to the authors.

The survey highlighted that just over a third of respondents said that they were currently using anticoagulants, although almost all (96%) knew that anticoagulants could be used to effectively treat thrombosis. Only 41% of those using anticoagulants said they had been told about any possible side effects.
 

The Italian situation

The report containing the full results of the European survey goes even further, since, in addition to its overall results, it also gives information about individual countries.

The data from Italy, which are based on 246 persons, show that only 27% of patients and caregivers were aware of the increased risk of thrombosis after a cancer diagnosis. This figure is in line with the overall results of the survey, although the average score of the 10-point scale was lower for the Italy cohort (3.3/10 vs 4.1/10).

The results are more variable in terms of knowledge of risk factors. Most respondents (89%) said that they were aware of the risks related to inactivity. Just over half (52%), however, said that they were aware of the risks related to radiotherapy. Nevertheless, 75% of participants knew about the risks relating to cancer surgery and chemotherapy. “To all intents and purposes, all types of cancer drug can significantly affect the risk of developing a clot. And this is also the case for more modern types of treatment, such as immunotherapy,” said Dr. Falanga.

Most respondents reported that they got information about cancer-associated thrombosis verbally, usually from their hospital doctor (11%). Some respondents (6%) said that they found out about it from their own research, usually online. Almost 1 in 4 patients (24%) in Italy said that they first became aware of CAT when they suffered a blood clot. Answers to questions about knowledge of symptoms show that 58% of Italian patients and caregivers know that swelling of the lower limbs can be a symptom of DVT, and the same percentage knows that shortness of breath might indicate PE.

In terms of preventive action, the picture in Italy is somewhat variable: 74% of participants were aware of the importance of walking, but far fewer knew about the need to stop smoking (57%) and stretch the legs (35%). Of the 41% of Italians who were also taking an anticoagulant drug, 53% said that they knew about the possible side effects of such medication.
 

Which way forward?

“The high rate of CAT suggests that, despite the clinical evidence and clear guideline recommendations for patients with cancer, CAT prevention and recognition remain low among healthcare professionals,” the authors write.

The results of the ECPC survey further confirm those of previous studies, highlighting patients’ lack of knowledge about CAT and the need for more in-depth discussions between physician and patient.

So, what can be done? As highlighted by previous studies, “patients’ experiences are an education in themselves, particularly for the oncology care team,” the authors write. “Once the patient has a thrombosis, the opportunity for thrombosis prevention, which should be the most crucial focus of the care clinics (surgical, oncology, and palliative care), is gone,” they add.

“Oncology professionals, as well as other members of the patient’s care team (eg, internists, surgeons, nurses), need to perform better, at every stage of the patient’s cancer pathway, to ensure patients are aware of CAT and their individual risk to develop a blood clot,” said Dr. Falanga. She explained that in this group, it is the general practitioner who is the first contact. “These professionals are on the front line of the battle; they are among the first healthcare workers given the chance to suspect a clot and should, therefore, be fully aware of the increased risk in oncology patients,” she reiterated.

Experts agree on the fact that a multidisciplinary approach is of utmost importance in this context: the different roles in the team must be clear. “It is also fundamental to establish who does what in terms of educating and informing the patient,” said Dr. Falanga.

The researchers also put forward an example of a successful initiative: the Venous Thromboembolism Prevention in the Ambulatory Cancer Clinic (VTE-PACC) program. The initiative was developed by experts from the University of Vermont and was described in a recent article in JCO Oncology Practice.

Numerous resources are available online to help physicians talk to their patients and explain the risks linked to CAT along the continuum of cancer care. Among them is a resource titled, “Cancer Associated Thrombosis (CAT): Be Clot Conscious,” which can be found on the ECPC’s website.

“We have a collective responsibility using the ECPC patient survey as a baseline to inform patients with cancer on how to identify signs and symptoms of CAT to enable faster diagnosis and treatment,” the authors conclude.

This article was translated from Univadis Italy.

More than 70% of cancer patients do not know that they are at greater risk of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) than the general population. It is up to their physician to discuss this with them.

This link is explained by the authors of an article in Cancer Treatment and Research Communications that reports results of a survey carried out by the European Cancer Patient Coalition (ECPC). “The aim of this pan-European patient survey was to assess patient awareness and knowledge about cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT), including risk factors, signs and symptoms, and interventions, to better prevent and treat CAT,” write the authors. “The idea was to create a sort of starting point for subsequent communication and information strategies and for comparing the results of any action taken in this area,” they add.

A roundtable discussion that included oncology healthcare professionals, policymakers, and patient advocates was convened to discuss and review the evidence regarding their ongoing concerns of excessive CAT-associated morbidity and mortality, as well as patients’ desire for greater CAT awareness.

“These discussions demonstrated that very little change had occurred over the years and that greater knowledge about CAT was still needed across the spectrum of healthcare practitioners and patients, particularly regarding primary and secondary prevention of thrombosis,” the authors write.

It was from this starting point that the idea for the pan-European survey was born. The ECPC, widely viewed as the “unified voice of cancer patients across Europe,” led the survey. This survey spanned six countries (France, Germany, Greece, Italy, United Kingdom, and Spain) and involved 1,365 patients and caregivers. The ECPC survey result was originally released at World Thrombosis Day in late 2018.

In an interview, Anna Falanga, MD, the main author of the article and professor of hematology at the University of Milan-Bicocca, Italy, reviewed the results and explained how to improve knowledge of CAT among patients with cancer.

“Data support that up to 20% of patients with cancer will experience venous thromboembolism (VTE), which is approximately 4–5 times higher than the general population,” said Dr. Falanga, who is also chief of the department of immunohematology and transfusion medicine and the Thrombosis and Hemostasis Center at the Hospital Papa Giovanni XXIII, in Bergamo, Italy.

“We have known about the link between thrombosis and cancer since the 19th century, but it has taken until midway through the last century for our level of understanding and awareness of the problem to reach its current level. Initially, this was limited to fundamental research, with large advances in our understanding of the mechanisms of the link between the two; it has only been more recently that we have had clinical studies that have piqued the interest of healthcare professionals, who were previously uninterested in the topic,” she said.
 

Poor understanding

One piece of data stands out from the European survey: Nearly three quarters of respondents (72%) said that before taking part in the survey, they were not aware that people with cancer have a higher-than-normal risk of developing thrombosis. “We asked participants to rate their overall understanding of CAT on a scale of 1 (low) to 10 (high), with the average (mean) score obtained being 4.1. Only 21% of patients gave a rating of 7 or above (high understanding). The average rating was very similar in the different countries surveyed,” write the authors. They note that the survey also assessed how much participants had learned about the topic from their physicians.

Approximately 35% of patients were made aware of CAT either immediately before or at the time of their cancer diagnosis. Of particular concern, one quarter (26%) of respondents (the largest proportion) noted that they first became aware of CAT when they suffered a blood clot. The average rating was very similar in the different countries surveyed. “Let us not forget that cancer and cancer treatments themselves cause a number of side effects, some of which can be very serious, so in some ways, a clot might be seen as a minor problem. Yet, in reality, it isn’t. It is a significant cause of death and disease in cancer patients,” said Dr. Falanga.

When discussing prevention, most respondents (87%) said they were aware that taking a walk could reduce their risk. Slightly fewer were aware that stopping smoking could reduce their risk (75%), and even fewer were aware that keeping hydrated (63%) and stretching their legs (55%) could reduce their risk.

Symptoms of CAT appeared to be relatively well known; 73% of survey participants indicated that they were aware that swelling in the foot, ankle, or leg could be a sign of DVT, and 71% indicated that shortness of breath could be a sign of pulmonary embolism (PE). “Other symptoms, however, were less well known, with just over half (57%) of participants being aware that pain, cramping, and tenderness could be a sign of DVT. About one third (33%) knew that irregular heartbeat could be a sign of PE. These results varied between countries,” according to the authors.

The survey highlighted that just over a third of respondents said that they were currently using anticoagulants, although almost all (96%) knew that anticoagulants could be used to effectively treat thrombosis. Only 41% of those using anticoagulants said they had been told about any possible side effects.
 

The Italian situation

The report containing the full results of the European survey goes even further, since, in addition to its overall results, it also gives information about individual countries.

The data from Italy, which are based on 246 persons, show that only 27% of patients and caregivers were aware of the increased risk of thrombosis after a cancer diagnosis. This figure is in line with the overall results of the survey, although the average score of the 10-point scale was lower for the Italy cohort (3.3/10 vs 4.1/10).

The results are more variable in terms of knowledge of risk factors. Most respondents (89%) said that they were aware of the risks related to inactivity. Just over half (52%), however, said that they were aware of the risks related to radiotherapy. Nevertheless, 75% of participants knew about the risks relating to cancer surgery and chemotherapy. “To all intents and purposes, all types of cancer drug can significantly affect the risk of developing a clot. And this is also the case for more modern types of treatment, such as immunotherapy,” said Dr. Falanga.

Most respondents reported that they got information about cancer-associated thrombosis verbally, usually from their hospital doctor (11%). Some respondents (6%) said that they found out about it from their own research, usually online. Almost 1 in 4 patients (24%) in Italy said that they first became aware of CAT when they suffered a blood clot. Answers to questions about knowledge of symptoms show that 58% of Italian patients and caregivers know that swelling of the lower limbs can be a symptom of DVT, and the same percentage knows that shortness of breath might indicate PE.

In terms of preventive action, the picture in Italy is somewhat variable: 74% of participants were aware of the importance of walking, but far fewer knew about the need to stop smoking (57%) and stretch the legs (35%). Of the 41% of Italians who were also taking an anticoagulant drug, 53% said that they knew about the possible side effects of such medication.
 

Which way forward?

“The high rate of CAT suggests that, despite the clinical evidence and clear guideline recommendations for patients with cancer, CAT prevention and recognition remain low among healthcare professionals,” the authors write.

The results of the ECPC survey further confirm those of previous studies, highlighting patients’ lack of knowledge about CAT and the need for more in-depth discussions between physician and patient.

So, what can be done? As highlighted by previous studies, “patients’ experiences are an education in themselves, particularly for the oncology care team,” the authors write. “Once the patient has a thrombosis, the opportunity for thrombosis prevention, which should be the most crucial focus of the care clinics (surgical, oncology, and palliative care), is gone,” they add.

“Oncology professionals, as well as other members of the patient’s care team (eg, internists, surgeons, nurses), need to perform better, at every stage of the patient’s cancer pathway, to ensure patients are aware of CAT and their individual risk to develop a blood clot,” said Dr. Falanga. She explained that in this group, it is the general practitioner who is the first contact. “These professionals are on the front line of the battle; they are among the first healthcare workers given the chance to suspect a clot and should, therefore, be fully aware of the increased risk in oncology patients,” she reiterated.

Experts agree on the fact that a multidisciplinary approach is of utmost importance in this context: the different roles in the team must be clear. “It is also fundamental to establish who does what in terms of educating and informing the patient,” said Dr. Falanga.

The researchers also put forward an example of a successful initiative: the Venous Thromboembolism Prevention in the Ambulatory Cancer Clinic (VTE-PACC) program. The initiative was developed by experts from the University of Vermont and was described in a recent article in JCO Oncology Practice.

Numerous resources are available online to help physicians talk to their patients and explain the risks linked to CAT along the continuum of cancer care. Among them is a resource titled, “Cancer Associated Thrombosis (CAT): Be Clot Conscious,” which can be found on the ECPC’s website.

“We have a collective responsibility using the ECPC patient survey as a baseline to inform patients with cancer on how to identify signs and symptoms of CAT to enable faster diagnosis and treatment,” the authors conclude.

This article was translated from Univadis Italy.

More than 70% of cancer patients do not know that they are at greater risk of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) than the general population. It is up to their physician to discuss this with them.

This link is explained by the authors of an article in Cancer Treatment and Research Communications that reports results of a survey carried out by the European Cancer Patient Coalition (ECPC). “The aim of this pan-European patient survey was to assess patient awareness and knowledge about cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT), including risk factors, signs and symptoms, and interventions, to better prevent and treat CAT,” write the authors. “The idea was to create a sort of starting point for subsequent communication and information strategies and for comparing the results of any action taken in this area,” they add.

A roundtable discussion that included oncology healthcare professionals, policymakers, and patient advocates was convened to discuss and review the evidence regarding their ongoing concerns of excessive CAT-associated morbidity and mortality, as well as patients’ desire for greater CAT awareness.

“These discussions demonstrated that very little change had occurred over the years and that greater knowledge about CAT was still needed across the spectrum of healthcare practitioners and patients, particularly regarding primary and secondary prevention of thrombosis,” the authors write.

It was from this starting point that the idea for the pan-European survey was born. The ECPC, widely viewed as the “unified voice of cancer patients across Europe,” led the survey. This survey spanned six countries (France, Germany, Greece, Italy, United Kingdom, and Spain) and involved 1,365 patients and caregivers. The ECPC survey result was originally released at World Thrombosis Day in late 2018.

In an interview, Anna Falanga, MD, the main author of the article and professor of hematology at the University of Milan-Bicocca, Italy, reviewed the results and explained how to improve knowledge of CAT among patients with cancer.

“Data support that up to 20% of patients with cancer will experience venous thromboembolism (VTE), which is approximately 4–5 times higher than the general population,” said Dr. Falanga, who is also chief of the department of immunohematology and transfusion medicine and the Thrombosis and Hemostasis Center at the Hospital Papa Giovanni XXIII, in Bergamo, Italy.

“We have known about the link between thrombosis and cancer since the 19th century, but it has taken until midway through the last century for our level of understanding and awareness of the problem to reach its current level. Initially, this was limited to fundamental research, with large advances in our understanding of the mechanisms of the link between the two; it has only been more recently that we have had clinical studies that have piqued the interest of healthcare professionals, who were previously uninterested in the topic,” she said.
 

Poor understanding

One piece of data stands out from the European survey: Nearly three quarters of respondents (72%) said that before taking part in the survey, they were not aware that people with cancer have a higher-than-normal risk of developing thrombosis. “We asked participants to rate their overall understanding of CAT on a scale of 1 (low) to 10 (high), with the average (mean) score obtained being 4.1. Only 21% of patients gave a rating of 7 or above (high understanding). The average rating was very similar in the different countries surveyed,” write the authors. They note that the survey also assessed how much participants had learned about the topic from their physicians.

Approximately 35% of patients were made aware of CAT either immediately before or at the time of their cancer diagnosis. Of particular concern, one quarter (26%) of respondents (the largest proportion) noted that they first became aware of CAT when they suffered a blood clot. The average rating was very similar in the different countries surveyed. “Let us not forget that cancer and cancer treatments themselves cause a number of side effects, some of which can be very serious, so in some ways, a clot might be seen as a minor problem. Yet, in reality, it isn’t. It is a significant cause of death and disease in cancer patients,” said Dr. Falanga.

When discussing prevention, most respondents (87%) said they were aware that taking a walk could reduce their risk. Slightly fewer were aware that stopping smoking could reduce their risk (75%), and even fewer were aware that keeping hydrated (63%) and stretching their legs (55%) could reduce their risk.

Symptoms of CAT appeared to be relatively well known; 73% of survey participants indicated that they were aware that swelling in the foot, ankle, or leg could be a sign of DVT, and 71% indicated that shortness of breath could be a sign of pulmonary embolism (PE). “Other symptoms, however, were less well known, with just over half (57%) of participants being aware that pain, cramping, and tenderness could be a sign of DVT. About one third (33%) knew that irregular heartbeat could be a sign of PE. These results varied between countries,” according to the authors.

The survey highlighted that just over a third of respondents said that they were currently using anticoagulants, although almost all (96%) knew that anticoagulants could be used to effectively treat thrombosis. Only 41% of those using anticoagulants said they had been told about any possible side effects.
 

The Italian situation

The report containing the full results of the European survey goes even further, since, in addition to its overall results, it also gives information about individual countries.

The data from Italy, which are based on 246 persons, show that only 27% of patients and caregivers were aware of the increased risk of thrombosis after a cancer diagnosis. This figure is in line with the overall results of the survey, although the average score of the 10-point scale was lower for the Italy cohort (3.3/10 vs 4.1/10).

The results are more variable in terms of knowledge of risk factors. Most respondents (89%) said that they were aware of the risks related to inactivity. Just over half (52%), however, said that they were aware of the risks related to radiotherapy. Nevertheless, 75% of participants knew about the risks relating to cancer surgery and chemotherapy. “To all intents and purposes, all types of cancer drug can significantly affect the risk of developing a clot. And this is also the case for more modern types of treatment, such as immunotherapy,” said Dr. Falanga.

Most respondents reported that they got information about cancer-associated thrombosis verbally, usually from their hospital doctor (11%). Some respondents (6%) said that they found out about it from their own research, usually online. Almost 1 in 4 patients (24%) in Italy said that they first became aware of CAT when they suffered a blood clot. Answers to questions about knowledge of symptoms show that 58% of Italian patients and caregivers know that swelling of the lower limbs can be a symptom of DVT, and the same percentage knows that shortness of breath might indicate PE.

In terms of preventive action, the picture in Italy is somewhat variable: 74% of participants were aware of the importance of walking, but far fewer knew about the need to stop smoking (57%) and stretch the legs (35%). Of the 41% of Italians who were also taking an anticoagulant drug, 53% said that they knew about the possible side effects of such medication.
 

Which way forward?

“The high rate of CAT suggests that, despite the clinical evidence and clear guideline recommendations for patients with cancer, CAT prevention and recognition remain low among healthcare professionals,” the authors write.

The results of the ECPC survey further confirm those of previous studies, highlighting patients’ lack of knowledge about CAT and the need for more in-depth discussions between physician and patient.

So, what can be done? As highlighted by previous studies, “patients’ experiences are an education in themselves, particularly for the oncology care team,” the authors write. “Once the patient has a thrombosis, the opportunity for thrombosis prevention, which should be the most crucial focus of the care clinics (surgical, oncology, and palliative care), is gone,” they add.

“Oncology professionals, as well as other members of the patient’s care team (eg, internists, surgeons, nurses), need to perform better, at every stage of the patient’s cancer pathway, to ensure patients are aware of CAT and their individual risk to develop a blood clot,” said Dr. Falanga. She explained that in this group, it is the general practitioner who is the first contact. “These professionals are on the front line of the battle; they are among the first healthcare workers given the chance to suspect a clot and should, therefore, be fully aware of the increased risk in oncology patients,” she reiterated.

Experts agree on the fact that a multidisciplinary approach is of utmost importance in this context: the different roles in the team must be clear. “It is also fundamental to establish who does what in terms of educating and informing the patient,” said Dr. Falanga.

The researchers also put forward an example of a successful initiative: the Venous Thromboembolism Prevention in the Ambulatory Cancer Clinic (VTE-PACC) program. The initiative was developed by experts from the University of Vermont and was described in a recent article in JCO Oncology Practice.

Numerous resources are available online to help physicians talk to their patients and explain the risks linked to CAT along the continuum of cancer care. Among them is a resource titled, “Cancer Associated Thrombosis (CAT): Be Clot Conscious,” which can be found on the ECPC’s website.

“We have a collective responsibility using the ECPC patient survey as a baseline to inform patients with cancer on how to identify signs and symptoms of CAT to enable faster diagnosis and treatment,” the authors conclude.

This article was translated from Univadis Italy.

An injection of bupivacaine following Mohs micrographic surgery procedures that have notable postsurgical pain significantly reduces pain scores and, importantly, use of postsurgical narcotics, a randomized trial shows.

“Single-dose, in-office bupivacaine administration immediately following reconstructions known to be high risk for pain reduces postoperative narcotic use and acute pain during the time period when our patients have the highest levels of pain,” said first author Vanessa B. Voss, MD, of the University of Missouri–Columbia, who presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery.

Dr. Vanessa Voss

“It was well tolerated, there were no adverse effects, and we recommend the consideration of using this in Mohs micrographic surgery reconstructions that are at the highest risk for pain,” she said.

Recent research has shown that Mohs micrographic surgeons have the highest rates of opioid prescribing of all dermatologists, with about 11% of patients undergoing a Mohs procedure prescribed the drugs for postoperative use, Dr. Voss explained.

Yet, with the ongoing opioid epidemic and even short courses of postoperative opioids placing patients at risk for addiction, the pressure is on to find alternative, nonaddictive strategies for the treatment of acute postoperative pain.

Bupivacaine is commonly used intraoperatively with other types of surgeries to reduce postoperative pain, with a favorable duration of action lasting up to 7 hours, compared with just 2-3 hours with lidocaine. And while its use in Mohs surgery is typically also intraoperative, along with lidocaine, the unique postoperative treatment approach in Mohs surgery has not been well studied, Dr. Voss noted.

To investigate, Dr. Voss and colleagues conducted the prospective, multicenter randomized trial, enrolling 174 patients undergoing Mohs micrographic surgery for skin cancer.

Patients were receiving complex flap reconstructions that have been specifically designated in an American Academy of Dermatology position statement to be high risk for pain following Mohs surgeries, and hence, more likely to involve prescriptions for opioids. These include reconstruction flaps of the scalp, ear, nose or lip, a wedge repair of the ear or lip, or a Mustarde cheek rotation flap.

The mean age of the patients was about 69 years, and about 65% were male. The two groups had no significant differences in demographics, tumor types, or repairs. They were randomized to receive either local injections of bupivacaine 0.5% (with no epinephrine) or placebo with sterile saline injection immediately following the procedure, with the total amount of injection standardized and dependent upon the flap surface area, ranging from 2.5 to 5 cm³.

For postoperative pain, all patients were prescribed acetaminophen 1,000 mg alternating with ibuprofen 400 mg, and tramadol, with instructions to only use tramadol as needed for breakthrough pain.

The reported use of narcotic analgesics by participants was significantly higher among those receiving placebo versus bupivacaine in the first 24 hours following surgery (odds ratio, 2.18; P = .03), as well as in the second 24 hours (OR, 2.18; P = .08) and at 48 hours combined (OR, 2.58; P < .01).

Those in the bupivacaine group also reported lower average pain scores, on a scale of 0-10, during the first 8-hour interval (mean difference, 1.6; P < .001). Importantly, overall, reports of pain medication use and the percentage of patients reporting pain under control were similar between groups, despite lower opioid use in the bupivacaine group.

“The percentage of patients reporting their pain to be under control was similar at all time intervals in both groups, so this means the bupivacaine group had their pain well-controlled despite fewer narcotics, with significant reductions in opioid use,” Dr. Voss noted.

Bupivacaine, though generally regarded as safe, has a reputation for being the most cardiotoxic of the local anesthetic agents; however, there were no such side effects reported in the study. Dr. Voss said the likely explanation is the use of low doses.

“In our study, we had no cardiotoxic effects when using up to 5 cc of 0.5%, which equates to 25 mg per patient,” she explained. This is considered a “very low dose,” since the maximum in the Food and Drug Administration pamphlet for local infiltration is 175 mg per patient every 3 hours, “yet is sufficient for reducing pain/narcotic use.”

She added that “surgeons must be careful to avoid accidental intravascular injection, which could increase risks of systemic toxicity, but this is very rare in the reconstruction settings described.”

Overall, the study suggests a potentially beneficial and unique nonopioid approach that is currently lacking for Mohs procedures associated with a high level of pain. “These findings offer a very effective intervention to reduce postoperative opioid use in this subset of patients,” Dr. Voss told this news organization. “There is not any other intervention that I am aware of to address this, although further study into other long-acting anesthetics may demonstrate similar effects.”

Dr. Justin J. Leitenberger

Commenting on the study, Justin J. Leitenberger, MD, session moderator, said that these “data could be impactful for reducing pain as well as the need for opioid medication after dermatologic surgery, both of which would be significant for our patients and public health outcomes.”

Among the challenges in treating pain following Mohs surgeries is that “every patient has a different pain threshold and expectation after surgery,” said Dr. Leitenberger, assistant professor of medicine and dermatology and codirector of dermatologic surgery, Mohs micrographic surgery, and laser and cosmetic surgery at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.

“Patients undergoing larger repairs in tense areas of skin can experience increased pain and require prescription pain medication,” he said. “Bupivacaine, in this study, shows promise to provide longer lasting pain control from the surgical appointment and easier bridging to nonopioid pain control.”

Regarding the potential cardiotoxicities associated with the drug, Dr. Leitenberger agreed that the risks are low, and added that many surgeons have, in fact, switched to full use of bupivacaine, as opposed to combination with lidocaine, apparently without problems. “This is a small dose locally to the area after a procedure and I agree that the risks are minuscule,” he said.

“Of note, during national lidocaine shortages over the past few years, many practices transitioned to exclusive use of bupivacaine for the entire Mohs procedure, and [anecdotally], this transition did not result in toxicities that were reported,” Dr. Leitenberger said.

GW Medical Faculty Associates

Commenting further, Vishal Patel, MD, assistant professor of dermatology and hematology/oncology at George Washington University and director of cutaneous oncology at the GW Cancer Center, both in Washington, also agreed that the benefits appear important. “The benefit from using bupivacaine is encouraging on multiple levels,” he said in an interview.

“Given all that we know about opioids and their negative side effect profile as well as their limited help in cutaneous surgery pain control, the use of long-acting anesthetics is an innovative and reasonable approach to provide pain control in the immediate postoperative window when patients tend to have the most pain,” said Dr. Patel, who is also director of dermatologic surgery at George Washington University.

“After this window, acetaminophen and ibuprofen, which have been shown when used in tandem in an alternating schedule to be superior to opioids, provides an effective pain regimen,” he said. “For larger and more pain-sensitive patients, this appears to be a promising combination.”

Dr. Voss, Dr. Leitenberger, and Dr. Patel have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

An injection of bupivacaine following Mohs micrographic surgery procedures that have notable postsurgical pain significantly reduces pain scores and, importantly, use of postsurgical narcotics, a randomized trial shows.

“Single-dose, in-office bupivacaine administration immediately following reconstructions known to be high risk for pain reduces postoperative narcotic use and acute pain during the time period when our patients have the highest levels of pain,” said first author Vanessa B. Voss, MD, of the University of Missouri–Columbia, who presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery.

Dr. Vanessa Voss

“It was well tolerated, there were no adverse effects, and we recommend the consideration of using this in Mohs micrographic surgery reconstructions that are at the highest risk for pain,” she said.

Recent research has shown that Mohs micrographic surgeons have the highest rates of opioid prescribing of all dermatologists, with about 11% of patients undergoing a Mohs procedure prescribed the drugs for postoperative use, Dr. Voss explained.

Yet, with the ongoing opioid epidemic and even short courses of postoperative opioids placing patients at risk for addiction, the pressure is on to find alternative, nonaddictive strategies for the treatment of acute postoperative pain.

Bupivacaine is commonly used intraoperatively with other types of surgeries to reduce postoperative pain, with a favorable duration of action lasting up to 7 hours, compared with just 2-3 hours with lidocaine. And while its use in Mohs surgery is typically also intraoperative, along with lidocaine, the unique postoperative treatment approach in Mohs surgery has not been well studied, Dr. Voss noted.

To investigate, Dr. Voss and colleagues conducted the prospective, multicenter randomized trial, enrolling 174 patients undergoing Mohs micrographic surgery for skin cancer.

Patients were receiving complex flap reconstructions that have been specifically designated in an American Academy of Dermatology position statement to be high risk for pain following Mohs surgeries, and hence, more likely to involve prescriptions for opioids. These include reconstruction flaps of the scalp, ear, nose or lip, a wedge repair of the ear or lip, or a Mustarde cheek rotation flap.

The mean age of the patients was about 69 years, and about 65% were male. The two groups had no significant differences in demographics, tumor types, or repairs. They were randomized to receive either local injections of bupivacaine 0.5% (with no epinephrine) or placebo with sterile saline injection immediately following the procedure, with the total amount of injection standardized and dependent upon the flap surface area, ranging from 2.5 to 5 cm³.

For postoperative pain, all patients were prescribed acetaminophen 1,000 mg alternating with ibuprofen 400 mg, and tramadol, with instructions to only use tramadol as needed for breakthrough pain.

The reported use of narcotic analgesics by participants was significantly higher among those receiving placebo versus bupivacaine in the first 24 hours following surgery (odds ratio, 2.18; P = .03), as well as in the second 24 hours (OR, 2.18; P = .08) and at 48 hours combined (OR, 2.58; P < .01).

Those in the bupivacaine group also reported lower average pain scores, on a scale of 0-10, during the first 8-hour interval (mean difference, 1.6; P < .001). Importantly, overall, reports of pain medication use and the percentage of patients reporting pain under control were similar between groups, despite lower opioid use in the bupivacaine group.

“The percentage of patients reporting their pain to be under control was similar at all time intervals in both groups, so this means the bupivacaine group had their pain well-controlled despite fewer narcotics, with significant reductions in opioid use,” Dr. Voss noted.

Bupivacaine, though generally regarded as safe, has a reputation for being the most cardiotoxic of the local anesthetic agents; however, there were no such side effects reported in the study. Dr. Voss said the likely explanation is the use of low doses.

“In our study, we had no cardiotoxic effects when using up to 5 cc of 0.5%, which equates to 25 mg per patient,” she explained. This is considered a “very low dose,” since the maximum in the Food and Drug Administration pamphlet for local infiltration is 175 mg per patient every 3 hours, “yet is sufficient for reducing pain/narcotic use.”

She added that “surgeons must be careful to avoid accidental intravascular injection, which could increase risks of systemic toxicity, but this is very rare in the reconstruction settings described.”

Overall, the study suggests a potentially beneficial and unique nonopioid approach that is currently lacking for Mohs procedures associated with a high level of pain. “These findings offer a very effective intervention to reduce postoperative opioid use in this subset of patients,” Dr. Voss told this news organization. “There is not any other intervention that I am aware of to address this, although further study into other long-acting anesthetics may demonstrate similar effects.”

Dr. Justin J. Leitenberger

Commenting on the study, Justin J. Leitenberger, MD, session moderator, said that these “data could be impactful for reducing pain as well as the need for opioid medication after dermatologic surgery, both of which would be significant for our patients and public health outcomes.”

Among the challenges in treating pain following Mohs surgeries is that “every patient has a different pain threshold and expectation after surgery,” said Dr. Leitenberger, assistant professor of medicine and dermatology and codirector of dermatologic surgery, Mohs micrographic surgery, and laser and cosmetic surgery at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.

“Patients undergoing larger repairs in tense areas of skin can experience increased pain and require prescription pain medication,” he said. “Bupivacaine, in this study, shows promise to provide longer lasting pain control from the surgical appointment and easier bridging to nonopioid pain control.”

Regarding the potential cardiotoxicities associated with the drug, Dr. Leitenberger agreed that the risks are low, and added that many surgeons have, in fact, switched to full use of bupivacaine, as opposed to combination with lidocaine, apparently without problems. “This is a small dose locally to the area after a procedure and I agree that the risks are minuscule,” he said.

“Of note, during national lidocaine shortages over the past few years, many practices transitioned to exclusive use of bupivacaine for the entire Mohs procedure, and [anecdotally], this transition did not result in toxicities that were reported,” Dr. Leitenberger said.

GW Medical Faculty Associates

Commenting further, Vishal Patel, MD, assistant professor of dermatology and hematology/oncology at George Washington University and director of cutaneous oncology at the GW Cancer Center, both in Washington, also agreed that the benefits appear important. “The benefit from using bupivacaine is encouraging on multiple levels,” he said in an interview.

“Given all that we know about opioids and their negative side effect profile as well as their limited help in cutaneous surgery pain control, the use of long-acting anesthetics is an innovative and reasonable approach to provide pain control in the immediate postoperative window when patients tend to have the most pain,” said Dr. Patel, who is also director of dermatologic surgery at George Washington University.

“After this window, acetaminophen and ibuprofen, which have been shown when used in tandem in an alternating schedule to be superior to opioids, provides an effective pain regimen,” he said. “For larger and more pain-sensitive patients, this appears to be a promising combination.”

Dr. Voss, Dr. Leitenberger, and Dr. Patel have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

An injection of bupivacaine following Mohs micrographic surgery procedures that have notable postsurgical pain significantly reduces pain scores and, importantly, use of postsurgical narcotics, a randomized trial shows.

“Single-dose, in-office bupivacaine administration immediately following reconstructions known to be high risk for pain reduces postoperative narcotic use and acute pain during the time period when our patients have the highest levels of pain,” said first author Vanessa B. Voss, MD, of the University of Missouri–Columbia, who presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery.

Dr. Vanessa Voss

“It was well tolerated, there were no adverse effects, and we recommend the consideration of using this in Mohs micrographic surgery reconstructions that are at the highest risk for pain,” she said.

Recent research has shown that Mohs micrographic surgeons have the highest rates of opioid prescribing of all dermatologists, with about 11% of patients undergoing a Mohs procedure prescribed the drugs for postoperative use, Dr. Voss explained.

Yet, with the ongoing opioid epidemic and even short courses of postoperative opioids placing patients at risk for addiction, the pressure is on to find alternative, nonaddictive strategies for the treatment of acute postoperative pain.

Bupivacaine is commonly used intraoperatively with other types of surgeries to reduce postoperative pain, with a favorable duration of action lasting up to 7 hours, compared with just 2-3 hours with lidocaine. And while its use in Mohs surgery is typically also intraoperative, along with lidocaine, the unique postoperative treatment approach in Mohs surgery has not been well studied, Dr. Voss noted.

To investigate, Dr. Voss and colleagues conducted the prospective, multicenter randomized trial, enrolling 174 patients undergoing Mohs micrographic surgery for skin cancer.

Patients were receiving complex flap reconstructions that have been specifically designated in an American Academy of Dermatology position statement to be high risk for pain following Mohs surgeries, and hence, more likely to involve prescriptions for opioids. These include reconstruction flaps of the scalp, ear, nose or lip, a wedge repair of the ear or lip, or a Mustarde cheek rotation flap.

The mean age of the patients was about 69 years, and about 65% were male. The two groups had no significant differences in demographics, tumor types, or repairs. They were randomized to receive either local injections of bupivacaine 0.5% (with no epinephrine) or placebo with sterile saline injection immediately following the procedure, with the total amount of injection standardized and dependent upon the flap surface area, ranging from 2.5 to 5 cm³.

For postoperative pain, all patients were prescribed acetaminophen 1,000 mg alternating with ibuprofen 400 mg, and tramadol, with instructions to only use tramadol as needed for breakthrough pain.

The reported use of narcotic analgesics by participants was significantly higher among those receiving placebo versus bupivacaine in the first 24 hours following surgery (odds ratio, 2.18; P = .03), as well as in the second 24 hours (OR, 2.18; P = .08) and at 48 hours combined (OR, 2.58; P < .01).

Those in the bupivacaine group also reported lower average pain scores, on a scale of 0-10, during the first 8-hour interval (mean difference, 1.6; P < .001). Importantly, overall, reports of pain medication use and the percentage of patients reporting pain under control were similar between groups, despite lower opioid use in the bupivacaine group.

“The percentage of patients reporting their pain to be under control was similar at all time intervals in both groups, so this means the bupivacaine group had their pain well-controlled despite fewer narcotics, with significant reductions in opioid use,” Dr. Voss noted.

Bupivacaine, though generally regarded as safe, has a reputation for being the most cardiotoxic of the local anesthetic agents; however, there were no such side effects reported in the study. Dr. Voss said the likely explanation is the use of low doses.

“In our study, we had no cardiotoxic effects when using up to 5 cc of 0.5%, which equates to 25 mg per patient,” she explained. This is considered a “very low dose,” since the maximum in the Food and Drug Administration pamphlet for local infiltration is 175 mg per patient every 3 hours, “yet is sufficient for reducing pain/narcotic use.”

She added that “surgeons must be careful to avoid accidental intravascular injection, which could increase risks of systemic toxicity, but this is very rare in the reconstruction settings described.”

Overall, the study suggests a potentially beneficial and unique nonopioid approach that is currently lacking for Mohs procedures associated with a high level of pain. “These findings offer a very effective intervention to reduce postoperative opioid use in this subset of patients,” Dr. Voss told this news organization. “There is not any other intervention that I am aware of to address this, although further study into other long-acting anesthetics may demonstrate similar effects.”

Dr. Justin J. Leitenberger

Commenting on the study, Justin J. Leitenberger, MD, session moderator, said that these “data could be impactful for reducing pain as well as the need for opioid medication after dermatologic surgery, both of which would be significant for our patients and public health outcomes.”

Among the challenges in treating pain following Mohs surgeries is that “every patient has a different pain threshold and expectation after surgery,” said Dr. Leitenberger, assistant professor of medicine and dermatology and codirector of dermatologic surgery, Mohs micrographic surgery, and laser and cosmetic surgery at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.

“Patients undergoing larger repairs in tense areas of skin can experience increased pain and require prescription pain medication,” he said. “Bupivacaine, in this study, shows promise to provide longer lasting pain control from the surgical appointment and easier bridging to nonopioid pain control.”

Regarding the potential cardiotoxicities associated with the drug, Dr. Leitenberger agreed that the risks are low, and added that many surgeons have, in fact, switched to full use of bupivacaine, as opposed to combination with lidocaine, apparently without problems. “This is a small dose locally to the area after a procedure and I agree that the risks are minuscule,” he said.

“Of note, during national lidocaine shortages over the past few years, many practices transitioned to exclusive use of bupivacaine for the entire Mohs procedure, and [anecdotally], this transition did not result in toxicities that were reported,” Dr. Leitenberger said.

GW Medical Faculty Associates

Commenting further, Vishal Patel, MD, assistant professor of dermatology and hematology/oncology at George Washington University and director of cutaneous oncology at the GW Cancer Center, both in Washington, also agreed that the benefits appear important. “The benefit from using bupivacaine is encouraging on multiple levels,” he said in an interview.

“Given all that we know about opioids and their negative side effect profile as well as their limited help in cutaneous surgery pain control, the use of long-acting anesthetics is an innovative and reasonable approach to provide pain control in the immediate postoperative window when patients tend to have the most pain,” said Dr. Patel, who is also director of dermatologic surgery at George Washington University.

“After this window, acetaminophen and ibuprofen, which have been shown when used in tandem in an alternating schedule to be superior to opioids, provides an effective pain regimen,” he said. “For larger and more pain-sensitive patients, this appears to be a promising combination.”

Dr. Voss, Dr. Leitenberger, and Dr. Patel have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Among patients with stage II or stage III rectal adenocarcinoma, organ preservation is achievable in up to half of patients who undergo total neoadjuvant chemotherapy (TNT), according to the results from a new randomized phase 2 trial.

The study included 324 patients from 18 centers who were randomized into one of two groups: induction chemotherapy followed by chemoradiotherapy (INCT-CRT) or chemoradiotherapy followed by consolidation chemotherapy (CRT-CNCT). Patients in both groups then underwent either total mesorectal excision (TME) or a watch-and-wait strategy, depending on tumor response.

“What the study shows is that the order of the chemo and the radiation dose doesn’t affect survival, but it seems to affect the probability of preserving the rectum. That data is consistent with other studies that have compared head-to-head chemotherapy followed by radiation versus radiation followed by chemotherapy. In addition, the survival rate for this study is no different from other prospective studies that included patients with similar-stage tumors selected by MRI. So the data suggest that you can probably avoid surgery in half of the patients with locally advanced rectal cancer and still achieve similar survival compared to patients treated with more conventional neoadjuvant treatments and mandatory surgery,” said lead author Julio Garcia-Aguilar, MD, PhD, in an interview.

“It is a significant shift in the treatment paradigm, that can potentially benefit half of the 50,000 rectal cancer patients diagnosed every year in the United States,” said Dr. Garcia-Aguilar, chief of colorectal surgery at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.

The study was published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Neoadjuvant CRT, TME, and adjuvant chemotherapy is an effective treatment strategy for locally advanced rectal adenocarcinoma, but the regimen can cause bowel, urinary, and sexual dysfunction. The majority of adverse effects from the therapy can be traced to surgery. In addition, some patients with distal rectal cancer often require a permanent colostomy.

TNT is a newer approach that delivers chemotherapy plus radiotherapy before surgery. It is designed to improve treatment compliance and eradicate micrometastases in advance of surgery.

After a median follow-up of 3 years, disease-free survival (76% in both groups) was similar to historical controls (75%). Both groups had similar rates of local recurrence-free survival (94% each) and distant metastasis–free survival (84% for INCT-CRT and 82% for CRT-CNCT).

Following TNT, 26% of patients were recommended for TME, including 28% in the INCT-CRT group and 24% in the CRT-CNCT group, and the rest offered watchful-waiting. Forty percent of those in the INCT-CRT group and 27% in the CRT-CNCT group who went on to watchful waiting had tumor regrowth. Of these combined 75 patients, 67 underwent successful salvage surgery.

In the intention-to-treat analysis, 53% of patients had a preserved rectum at 3 years (95% confidence interval, 45%-62%) in the CRT-CNCT group versus 41% in the INCT-CRT group (95% CI, 33%-50%; P = .01).

The new results reinforce other results and should contribute to shifting clinical practice, according to Dr. Garcia-Aguilar. “I think what we have learned is that rectal cancers respond to chemotherapy and radiation at a higher rate that we thought previously, but that the response takes time. That’s something that we use currently in an adaptive way to modify the treatment as we observe the tumor response,” he said.

The slow regrowth means that patients can be closely monitored without undue risk, but such an approach demands buy-in from the patient. “The patient needs to be compliant with a close surveillance protocol, because otherwise it can be a disaster. I think that’s really part of the message,” Dr. Garcia-Aguilar said.

Dr. Garcia-Aguilar has an ownership interest in Intuitive Surgical and has advised or consulted for Medtronic, Intuitive Surgical, and Johnson & Johnson.

Among patients with stage II or stage III rectal adenocarcinoma, organ preservation is achievable in up to half of patients who undergo total neoadjuvant chemotherapy (TNT), according to the results from a new randomized phase 2 trial.

The study included 324 patients from 18 centers who were randomized into one of two groups: induction chemotherapy followed by chemoradiotherapy (INCT-CRT) or chemoradiotherapy followed by consolidation chemotherapy (CRT-CNCT). Patients in both groups then underwent either total mesorectal excision (TME) or a watch-and-wait strategy, depending on tumor response.

“What the study shows is that the order of the chemo and the radiation dose doesn’t affect survival, but it seems to affect the probability of preserving the rectum. That data is consistent with other studies that have compared head-to-head chemotherapy followed by radiation versus radiation followed by chemotherapy. In addition, the survival rate for this study is no different from other prospective studies that included patients with similar-stage tumors selected by MRI. So the data suggest that you can probably avoid surgery in half of the patients with locally advanced rectal cancer and still achieve similar survival compared to patients treated with more conventional neoadjuvant treatments and mandatory surgery,” said lead author Julio Garcia-Aguilar, MD, PhD, in an interview.

“It is a significant shift in the treatment paradigm, that can potentially benefit half of the 50,000 rectal cancer patients diagnosed every year in the United States,” said Dr. Garcia-Aguilar, chief of colorectal surgery at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.

The study was published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Neoadjuvant CRT, TME, and adjuvant chemotherapy is an effective treatment strategy for locally advanced rectal adenocarcinoma, but the regimen can cause bowel, urinary, and sexual dysfunction. The majority of adverse effects from the therapy can be traced to surgery. In addition, some patients with distal rectal cancer often require a permanent colostomy.

TNT is a newer approach that delivers chemotherapy plus radiotherapy before surgery. It is designed to improve treatment compliance and eradicate micrometastases in advance of surgery.

After a median follow-up of 3 years, disease-free survival (76% in both groups) was similar to historical controls (75%). Both groups had similar rates of local recurrence-free survival (94% each) and distant metastasis–free survival (84% for INCT-CRT and 82% for CRT-CNCT).

Following TNT, 26% of patients were recommended for TME, including 28% in the INCT-CRT group and 24% in the CRT-CNCT group, and the rest offered watchful-waiting. Forty percent of those in the INCT-CRT group and 27% in the CRT-CNCT group who went on to watchful waiting had tumor regrowth. Of these combined 75 patients, 67 underwent successful salvage surgery.

In the intention-to-treat analysis, 53% of patients had a preserved rectum at 3 years (95% confidence interval, 45%-62%) in the CRT-CNCT group versus 41% in the INCT-CRT group (95% CI, 33%-50%; P = .01).

The new results reinforce other results and should contribute to shifting clinical practice, according to Dr. Garcia-Aguilar. “I think what we have learned is that rectal cancers respond to chemotherapy and radiation at a higher rate that we thought previously, but that the response takes time. That’s something that we use currently in an adaptive way to modify the treatment as we observe the tumor response,” he said.

The slow regrowth means that patients can be closely monitored without undue risk, but such an approach demands buy-in from the patient. “The patient needs to be compliant with a close surveillance protocol, because otherwise it can be a disaster. I think that’s really part of the message,” Dr. Garcia-Aguilar said.

Dr. Garcia-Aguilar has an ownership interest in Intuitive Surgical and has advised or consulted for Medtronic, Intuitive Surgical, and Johnson & Johnson.

Among patients with stage II or stage III rectal adenocarcinoma, organ preservation is achievable in up to half of patients who undergo total neoadjuvant chemotherapy (TNT), according to the results from a new randomized phase 2 trial.

The study included 324 patients from 18 centers who were randomized into one of two groups: induction chemotherapy followed by chemoradiotherapy (INCT-CRT) or chemoradiotherapy followed by consolidation chemotherapy (CRT-CNCT). Patients in both groups then underwent either total mesorectal excision (TME) or a watch-and-wait strategy, depending on tumor response.

“What the study shows is that the order of the chemo and the radiation dose doesn’t affect survival, but it seems to affect the probability of preserving the rectum. That data is consistent with other studies that have compared head-to-head chemotherapy followed by radiation versus radiation followed by chemotherapy. In addition, the survival rate for this study is no different from other prospective studies that included patients with similar-stage tumors selected by MRI. So the data suggest that you can probably avoid surgery in half of the patients with locally advanced rectal cancer and still achieve similar survival compared to patients treated with more conventional neoadjuvant treatments and mandatory surgery,” said lead author Julio Garcia-Aguilar, MD, PhD, in an interview.

“It is a significant shift in the treatment paradigm, that can potentially benefit half of the 50,000 rectal cancer patients diagnosed every year in the United States,” said Dr. Garcia-Aguilar, chief of colorectal surgery at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.

The study was published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Neoadjuvant CRT, TME, and adjuvant chemotherapy is an effective treatment strategy for locally advanced rectal adenocarcinoma, but the regimen can cause bowel, urinary, and sexual dysfunction. The majority of adverse effects from the therapy can be traced to surgery. In addition, some patients with distal rectal cancer often require a permanent colostomy.

TNT is a newer approach that delivers chemotherapy plus radiotherapy before surgery. It is designed to improve treatment compliance and eradicate micrometastases in advance of surgery.

After a median follow-up of 3 years, disease-free survival (76% in both groups) was similar to historical controls (75%). Both groups had similar rates of local recurrence-free survival (94% each) and distant metastasis–free survival (84% for INCT-CRT and 82% for CRT-CNCT).

Following TNT, 26% of patients were recommended for TME, including 28% in the INCT-CRT group and 24% in the CRT-CNCT group, and the rest offered watchful-waiting. Forty percent of those in the INCT-CRT group and 27% in the CRT-CNCT group who went on to watchful waiting had tumor regrowth. Of these combined 75 patients, 67 underwent successful salvage surgery.

In the intention-to-treat analysis, 53% of patients had a preserved rectum at 3 years (95% confidence interval, 45%-62%) in the CRT-CNCT group versus 41% in the INCT-CRT group (95% CI, 33%-50%; P = .01).

The new results reinforce other results and should contribute to shifting clinical practice, according to Dr. Garcia-Aguilar. “I think what we have learned is that rectal cancers respond to chemotherapy and radiation at a higher rate that we thought previously, but that the response takes time. That’s something that we use currently in an adaptive way to modify the treatment as we observe the tumor response,” he said.

The slow regrowth means that patients can be closely monitored without undue risk, but such an approach demands buy-in from the patient. “The patient needs to be compliant with a close surveillance protocol, because otherwise it can be a disaster. I think that’s really part of the message,” Dr. Garcia-Aguilar said.

Dr. Garcia-Aguilar has an ownership interest in Intuitive Surgical and has advised or consulted for Medtronic, Intuitive Surgical, and Johnson & Johnson.

Long-term treatment with clozapine is associated with a small but significant risk of hematological malignancies in individuals with schizophrenia, new research shows.

Investigators found long-term clozapine use of more than 5 years was linked to a 2.7-fold increased risk of hematological malignancies in a dose-dependent manner, compared with other antipsychotics.

Karolinska Institute

An unresolved issue

Clozapine is more effective than other antipsychotics for managing symptoms and suicidal behavior in schizophrenia, with the lowest mortality, compared with other antipsychotics, but its use is restricted in many countries, the researchers note.  

Reports of nine deaths associated with clozapine use – eight due to agranulocytosis and one due to leukemia – in southwestern Finland in 1975 resulted in worldwide withdrawal of the drug. In 1990, clozapine was relaunched with stipulations for strict blood count control. The cumulative incidence of clozapine-induced agranulocytosis or severe neutropenia is estimated at about 0.9%.

Several small studies from Australia, Denmark, and the United States, and a large pharmacovigilance study, suggest that clozapine treatment might be associated with an increased risk of hematological malignancies.

“Previous studies have suggested a possible risk of hematological malignancies associated with clozapine, but due to methodological issues, the question had remained unsettled,” said Dr. Tiihonen. 

Finland has among the highest rates of clozapine use in the world, where 20% of schizophrenia cases are treated with the drug. In most other countries, clozapine use is less than half of that, in Finland largely because of agranulocytosis concerns.

To examine the risk of hematological malignancies associated with long-term use of clozapine and other antipsychotics, the investigators conducted a large prospective case-control and cohort study that used data from Finnish national registers and included all patients with schizophrenia.

“Unlike previous studies, we employed prospectively gathered data from a nationwide cohort [including all patients with schizophrenia], had a long follow-up time, and studied the dose-response of the risk of hematological malignancies,” Dr. Tiihonen noted.

The nested case-control study was constructed by individually matching cases of lymphoid and hematopoietic tissue malignancy and pairing them with up to 10 matched controls with schizophrenia but without cancer.

Inclusion criteria were restricted to malignancies diagnosed on a histological basis. Individuals outside the ages of 18-85 years were excluded, as were those with a previous malignancy. Analyses were done using conditional logistic regression adjusted for comorbid conditions.
 

Patient education, vigilant monitoring

The case-control analysis was based on 516 patients with a first-time diagnosis of lymphoid and hematopoietic tissue malignancy from 2000-2017 and diagnosed after first diagnosis of schizophrenia.

Of these, 102 patients were excluded because of a diagnosis with no histological basis, five were excluded because of age, and 34 for a previous malignancy, resulting in 375 patients with malignancies matched with 10 controls for a total of 3,743 study participants.

Of the 375 patients with hematological malignancies (305 had lymphoma, 42 leukemia, 22 myeloma, six unspecified) in 2000-2017, 208 (55%) were men and 167 (45%) were women. Ethnicity data were not available.

Compared with non-use of clozapine, clozapine use was associated with increased odds of hematological malignancies in a dose-response manner (adjusted odds ratio, 3.35; 95% confidence interval, 2.22-5.05] for ≥ 5,000 defined daily dose cumulative exposure (P < .0001).

Exposure to other antipsychotic medications was not associated with increased odds of hematological malignancies. A complementary analysis showed that the clozapine-related risk increase was specific to hematological malignancies only.

Over 17 years follow-up of the base cohort, 37 deaths occurred due to hematological malignancy among patients exposed to clozapine in 26 patients with ongoing use at the time they were diagnosed with malignancy and in 11 patients who did not use clozapine at the exact time of their cancer diagnosis. Only three deaths occurred due to agranulocytosis, the investigators report.

The use of a nationwide registry for the study makes it “unlikely” that there were any undiagnosed/unreported malignancies, the researchers note. This, plus the “robust dose-response finding, and additional analysis showing no substantial difference in odds of other cancers between users of clozapine versus other antipsychotics suggest the association is causal, and not attributable to surveillance bias,” they write.

These findings, the investigators note, suggest patients taking clozapine and their caregivers need to be educated about the signs of hematological malignancies. Furthermore, they call for mental health providers to be “vigilant” in monitoring for potential signs and symptoms of hematological malignancy in patients taking the drug.
 

A ‘vital’ medication

Commenting on the findings, Stephen Marder, MD, professor of psychiatry and biobehavioral sciences and vice chair of the department of psychiatry at UCLA, noted the link between clozapine and agranulocytosis.

UCLA

“Clozapine has been previously associated with agranulocytosis. Over the years that seemed to be the main concern of clinicians. The monitoring system for agranulocytosis has been a burden on the system and for patients, but not really a significant cause for concern with the safety of the drug,” said Dr. Marder, who is also director of the VISN 22 Mental Illness Research, Education and Clinical Center for the Department of Veterans Affairs and director of the section on psychosis at the UCLA Neuropsychiatric Institute.

In fact, he noted recent research, including studies from this group that used large databases from Finland, which showed that clozapine was actually associated with a lower mortality risk than other antipsychotics.

The fact that the study showed prolonged use of clozapine at high doses was associated with a “very small” risk of hematological abnormalities does not undermine its standing as “the most effective antipsychotic [that is] associated with a lower risk of death,” said Dr. Marder.

“On the other hand,” he added, “it does suggest that clinicians should tell patients about it and, when they review the blood monitoring, they look at things beyond the neutrophil count” that may suggest malignancy.

“Clozapine has a vital role as the most effective antipsychotic drug and the only drug that has an indication for treatment-resistant schizophrenia and schizophrenia associated with suicidality,” said Dr. Marder.

The study was funded by the Finnish Ministry of Social Affairs and Health through the developmental fund for Niuvanniemi Hospital and by the Academy of Finland. Dr. Tiihonen and Dr. Marder have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Long-term treatment with clozapine is associated with a small but significant risk of hematological malignancies in individuals with schizophrenia, new research shows.

Investigators found long-term clozapine use of more than 5 years was linked to a 2.7-fold increased risk of hematological malignancies in a dose-dependent manner, compared with other antipsychotics.

Karolinska Institute

An unresolved issue

Clozapine is more effective than other antipsychotics for managing symptoms and suicidal behavior in schizophrenia, with the lowest mortality, compared with other antipsychotics, but its use is restricted in many countries, the researchers note.  

Reports of nine deaths associated with clozapine use – eight due to agranulocytosis and one due to leukemia – in southwestern Finland in 1975 resulted in worldwide withdrawal of the drug. In 1990, clozapine was relaunched with stipulations for strict blood count control. The cumulative incidence of clozapine-induced agranulocytosis or severe neutropenia is estimated at about 0.9%.

Several small studies from Australia, Denmark, and the United States, and a large pharmacovigilance study, suggest that clozapine treatment might be associated with an increased risk of hematological malignancies.

“Previous studies have suggested a possible risk of hematological malignancies associated with clozapine, but due to methodological issues, the question had remained unsettled,” said Dr. Tiihonen. 

Finland has among the highest rates of clozapine use in the world, where 20% of schizophrenia cases are treated with the drug. In most other countries, clozapine use is less than half of that, in Finland largely because of agranulocytosis concerns.

To examine the risk of hematological malignancies associated with long-term use of clozapine and other antipsychotics, the investigators conducted a large prospective case-control and cohort study that used data from Finnish national registers and included all patients with schizophrenia.

“Unlike previous studies, we employed prospectively gathered data from a nationwide cohort [including all patients with schizophrenia], had a long follow-up time, and studied the dose-response of the risk of hematological malignancies,” Dr. Tiihonen noted.

The nested case-control study was constructed by individually matching cases of lymphoid and hematopoietic tissue malignancy and pairing them with up to 10 matched controls with schizophrenia but without cancer.

Inclusion criteria were restricted to malignancies diagnosed on a histological basis. Individuals outside the ages of 18-85 years were excluded, as were those with a previous malignancy. Analyses were done using conditional logistic regression adjusted for comorbid conditions.
 

Patient education, vigilant monitoring

The case-control analysis was based on 516 patients with a first-time diagnosis of lymphoid and hematopoietic tissue malignancy from 2000-2017 and diagnosed after first diagnosis of schizophrenia.

Of these, 102 patients were excluded because of a diagnosis with no histological basis, five were excluded because of age, and 34 for a previous malignancy, resulting in 375 patients with malignancies matched with 10 controls for a total of 3,743 study participants.

Of the 375 patients with hematological malignancies (305 had lymphoma, 42 leukemia, 22 myeloma, six unspecified) in 2000-2017, 208 (55%) were men and 167 (45%) were women. Ethnicity data were not available.

Compared with non-use of clozapine, clozapine use was associated with increased odds of hematological malignancies in a dose-response manner (adjusted odds ratio, 3.35; 95% confidence interval, 2.22-5.05] for ≥ 5,000 defined daily dose cumulative exposure (P < .0001).

Exposure to other antipsychotic medications was not associated with increased odds of hematological malignancies. A complementary analysis showed that the clozapine-related risk increase was specific to hematological malignancies only.

Over 17 years follow-up of the base cohort, 37 deaths occurred due to hematological malignancy among patients exposed to clozapine in 26 patients with ongoing use at the time they were diagnosed with malignancy and in 11 patients who did not use clozapine at the exact time of their cancer diagnosis. Only three deaths occurred due to agranulocytosis, the investigators report.

The use of a nationwide registry for the study makes it “unlikely” that there were any undiagnosed/unreported malignancies, the researchers note. This, plus the “robust dose-response finding, and additional analysis showing no substantial difference in odds of other cancers between users of clozapine versus other antipsychotics suggest the association is causal, and not attributable to surveillance bias,” they write.

These findings, the investigators note, suggest patients taking clozapine and their caregivers need to be educated about the signs of hematological malignancies. Furthermore, they call for mental health providers to be “vigilant” in monitoring for potential signs and symptoms of hematological malignancy in patients taking the drug.
 

A ‘vital’ medication

Commenting on the findings, Stephen Marder, MD, professor of psychiatry and biobehavioral sciences and vice chair of the department of psychiatry at UCLA, noted the link between clozapine and agranulocytosis.

UCLA

“Clozapine has been previously associated with agranulocytosis. Over the years that seemed to be the main concern of clinicians. The monitoring system for agranulocytosis has been a burden on the system and for patients, but not really a significant cause for concern with the safety of the drug,” said Dr. Marder, who is also director of the VISN 22 Mental Illness Research, Education and Clinical Center for the Department of Veterans Affairs and director of the section on psychosis at the UCLA Neuropsychiatric Institute.

In fact, he noted recent research, including studies from this group that used large databases from Finland, which showed that clozapine was actually associated with a lower mortality risk than other antipsychotics.

The fact that the study showed prolonged use of clozapine at high doses was associated with a “very small” risk of hematological abnormalities does not undermine its standing as “the most effective antipsychotic [that is] associated with a lower risk of death,” said Dr. Marder.

“On the other hand,” he added, “it does suggest that clinicians should tell patients about it and, when they review the blood monitoring, they look at things beyond the neutrophil count” that may suggest malignancy.

“Clozapine has a vital role as the most effective antipsychotic drug and the only drug that has an indication for treatment-resistant schizophrenia and schizophrenia associated with suicidality,” said Dr. Marder.

The study was funded by the Finnish Ministry of Social Affairs and Health through the developmental fund for Niuvanniemi Hospital and by the Academy of Finland. Dr. Tiihonen and Dr. Marder have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Long-term treatment with clozapine is associated with a small but significant risk of hematological malignancies in individuals with schizophrenia, new research shows.

Investigators found long-term clozapine use of more than 5 years was linked to a 2.7-fold increased risk of hematological malignancies in a dose-dependent manner, compared with other antipsychotics.

Karolinska Institute

An unresolved issue

Clozapine is more effective than other antipsychotics for managing symptoms and suicidal behavior in schizophrenia, with the lowest mortality, compared with other antipsychotics, but its use is restricted in many countries, the researchers note.  

Reports of nine deaths associated with clozapine use – eight due to agranulocytosis and one due to leukemia – in southwestern Finland in 1975 resulted in worldwide withdrawal of the drug. In 1990, clozapine was relaunched with stipulations for strict blood count control. The cumulative incidence of clozapine-induced agranulocytosis or severe neutropenia is estimated at about 0.9%.

Several small studies from Australia, Denmark, and the United States, and a large pharmacovigilance study, suggest that clozapine treatment might be associated with an increased risk of hematological malignancies.

“Previous studies have suggested a possible risk of hematological malignancies associated with clozapine, but due to methodological issues, the question had remained unsettled,” said Dr. Tiihonen. 

Finland has among the highest rates of clozapine use in the world, where 20% of schizophrenia cases are treated with the drug. In most other countries, clozapine use is less than half of that, in Finland largely because of agranulocytosis concerns.

To examine the risk of hematological malignancies associated with long-term use of clozapine and other antipsychotics, the investigators conducted a large prospective case-control and cohort study that used data from Finnish national registers and included all patients with schizophrenia.

“Unlike previous studies, we employed prospectively gathered data from a nationwide cohort [including all patients with schizophrenia], had a long follow-up time, and studied the dose-response of the risk of hematological malignancies,” Dr. Tiihonen noted.

The nested case-control study was constructed by individually matching cases of lymphoid and hematopoietic tissue malignancy and pairing them with up to 10 matched controls with schizophrenia but without cancer.

Inclusion criteria were restricted to malignancies diagnosed on a histological basis. Individuals outside the ages of 18-85 years were excluded, as were those with a previous malignancy. Analyses were done using conditional logistic regression adjusted for comorbid conditions.
 

Patient education, vigilant monitoring

The case-control analysis was based on 516 patients with a first-time diagnosis of lymphoid and hematopoietic tissue malignancy from 2000-2017 and diagnosed after first diagnosis of schizophrenia.

Of these, 102 patients were excluded because of a diagnosis with no histological basis, five were excluded because of age, and 34 for a previous malignancy, resulting in 375 patients with malignancies matched with 10 controls for a total of 3,743 study participants.

Of the 375 patients with hematological malignancies (305 had lymphoma, 42 leukemia, 22 myeloma, six unspecified) in 2000-2017, 208 (55%) were men and 167 (45%) were women. Ethnicity data were not available.

Compared with non-use of clozapine, clozapine use was associated with increased odds of hematological malignancies in a dose-response manner (adjusted odds ratio, 3.35; 95% confidence interval, 2.22-5.05] for ≥ 5,000 defined daily dose cumulative exposure (P < .0001).

Exposure to other antipsychotic medications was not associated with increased odds of hematological malignancies. A complementary analysis showed that the clozapine-related risk increase was specific to hematological malignancies only.

Over 17 years follow-up of the base cohort, 37 deaths occurred due to hematological malignancy among patients exposed to clozapine in 26 patients with ongoing use at the time they were diagnosed with malignancy and in 11 patients who did not use clozapine at the exact time of their cancer diagnosis. Only three deaths occurred due to agranulocytosis, the investigators report.

The use of a nationwide registry for the study makes it “unlikely” that there were any undiagnosed/unreported malignancies, the researchers note. This, plus the “robust dose-response finding, and additional analysis showing no substantial difference in odds of other cancers between users of clozapine versus other antipsychotics suggest the association is causal, and not attributable to surveillance bias,” they write.

These findings, the investigators note, suggest patients taking clozapine and their caregivers need to be educated about the signs of hematological malignancies. Furthermore, they call for mental health providers to be “vigilant” in monitoring for potential signs and symptoms of hematological malignancy in patients taking the drug.
 

A ‘vital’ medication

Commenting on the findings, Stephen Marder, MD, professor of psychiatry and biobehavioral sciences and vice chair of the department of psychiatry at UCLA, noted the link between clozapine and agranulocytosis.

UCLA

“Clozapine has been previously associated with agranulocytosis. Over the years that seemed to be the main concern of clinicians. The monitoring system for agranulocytosis has been a burden on the system and for patients, but not really a significant cause for concern with the safety of the drug,” said Dr. Marder, who is also director of the VISN 22 Mental Illness Research, Education and Clinical Center for the Department of Veterans Affairs and director of the section on psychosis at the UCLA Neuropsychiatric Institute.

In fact, he noted recent research, including studies from this group that used large databases from Finland, which showed that clozapine was actually associated with a lower mortality risk than other antipsychotics.

The fact that the study showed prolonged use of clozapine at high doses was associated with a “very small” risk of hematological abnormalities does not undermine its standing as “the most effective antipsychotic [that is] associated with a lower risk of death,” said Dr. Marder.

“On the other hand,” he added, “it does suggest that clinicians should tell patients about it and, when they review the blood monitoring, they look at things beyond the neutrophil count” that may suggest malignancy.

“Clozapine has a vital role as the most effective antipsychotic drug and the only drug that has an indication for treatment-resistant schizophrenia and schizophrenia associated with suicidality,” said Dr. Marder.

The study was funded by the Finnish Ministry of Social Affairs and Health through the developmental fund for Niuvanniemi Hospital and by the Academy of Finland. Dr. Tiihonen and Dr. Marder have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

New results from a phase 3 clinical trial may shut the door on the addition of progressive death–1 or PD–ligand 1 inhibitors to the combination of BRAF and MEK inhibitors for the treatment of BRAF V600–mutated melanoma.

The approach seemed promising, given the efficacy of PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors in metastatic melanoma, and the relatively short response times to BRAF and MEK inhibitors could potentially be supplemented by longer response times associated with PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors. The two categories also have different mechanisms of action and nonoverlapping toxicities, which led to an expectation that the combination would be well tolerated.

But the new study joins two previous randomized, controlled trials that also failed to show much clinical benefit. IMspire150 assigned BRAF V600–mutated melanoma patients to vemurafenib and cobimetinib plus the anti–PD-L1 antibody atezolizumab or placebo. The treatment arm had a small benefit in progression-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.78), which led to Food and Drug Administration approval of the combination, though there was no significant difference when the two cohorts were assessed by an independent review committee. The KEYNOTE-022 trial examined dabrafenib plus trametinib with or without the anti–PD-1 antibody pembrolizumab, and found no difference in investigator-assessed progression free survival.

The new study was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. In an accompanying editorial, Margaret K. Callahan, MD, PhD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, and Paul B. Chapman, MD, of Weill Cornell Medicine, both in New York, speculated that the toxicity of the triplet combination might explain the latest failure, since patients in the triplet arm had more treatment interruptions and dose reductions than the doublet arm (32% received full-dose dabrafenib vs. 54% in the doublet arm), which may have undermined efficacy.

Citing the fact that there are now three randomized, controlled trials with discouraging results, “we believe that there are sufficient data now to be confident that the addition of anti–PD-1 or anti–PD-L1 antibodies to combination RAFi [RAF inhibitors] plus MEKi [MEK inhibitors] is not associated with a significant clinical benefit and should not be studied further in melanoma.

Moreover, “there is some evidence of harm,” the editorial authors wrote. “As the additional toxicity of triplet combination limited the delivery of combination RAFi plus MEKi therapy in COMBI-I. Focus should turn instead to optimizing doses and schedules of combination RAFi plus MEKi and checkpoint inhibitors, developing treatment strategies to overcome resistance to these therapies, and determining how best to sequence combination RAFi plus MEKi therapy and checkpoint inhibitors. Regarding the latter point, there are several sequential therapy trials currently underway in previously untreated patients with BRAF V600–mutated melanoma.”

In the study, patients were randomized to receive dabrafenib and trametinib plus the anti–PD receptor–1 antibody spartalizumab or placebo. After a median follow-up of 27.2 months, mean progression-free survival was 16.2 months in the spartalizumab arm and 12.0 months in the placebo arm (HR, 0.82; P = .042). The spartalizumab group had a 69% objective response rate versus 64% in the placebo group. 55% of the spartalizumab group experienced grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events, compared with 33% in the placebo group.

“These results do not support broad use of first-line immunotherapy plus targeted therapy combination, but they provide additional data toward understanding the optimal application of these therapeutic classes in patients with BRAF V600–mutant metastatic melanoma,” the authors of the study wrote.

The study was funded by F Hoffmann–La Roche and Genentech. Dr. Callahan has been employed at Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, and Kleo Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Callahan has consulted for or advised AstraZeneca, Moderna Therapeutics, Merck, and Immunocore. Dr. Chapman has stock or ownership interest in Rgenix; has consulted for or advised Merck, Pfizer, and Black Diamond Therapeutics; and has received research funding from Genentech.

New results from a phase 3 clinical trial may shut the door on the addition of progressive death–1 or PD–ligand 1 inhibitors to the combination of BRAF and MEK inhibitors for the treatment of BRAF V600–mutated melanoma.

The approach seemed promising, given the efficacy of PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors in metastatic melanoma, and the relatively short response times to BRAF and MEK inhibitors could potentially be supplemented by longer response times associated with PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors. The two categories also have different mechanisms of action and nonoverlapping toxicities, which led to an expectation that the combination would be well tolerated.

But the new study joins two previous randomized, controlled trials that also failed to show much clinical benefit. IMspire150 assigned BRAF V600–mutated melanoma patients to vemurafenib and cobimetinib plus the anti–PD-L1 antibody atezolizumab or placebo. The treatment arm had a small benefit in progression-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.78), which led to Food and Drug Administration approval of the combination, though there was no significant difference when the two cohorts were assessed by an independent review committee. The KEYNOTE-022 trial examined dabrafenib plus trametinib with or without the anti–PD-1 antibody pembrolizumab, and found no difference in investigator-assessed progression free survival.

The new study was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. In an accompanying editorial, Margaret K. Callahan, MD, PhD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, and Paul B. Chapman, MD, of Weill Cornell Medicine, both in New York, speculated that the toxicity of the triplet combination might explain the latest failure, since patients in the triplet arm had more treatment interruptions and dose reductions than the doublet arm (32% received full-dose dabrafenib vs. 54% in the doublet arm), which may have undermined efficacy.

Citing the fact that there are now three randomized, controlled trials with discouraging results, “we believe that there are sufficient data now to be confident that the addition of anti–PD-1 or anti–PD-L1 antibodies to combination RAFi [RAF inhibitors] plus MEKi [MEK inhibitors] is not associated with a significant clinical benefit and should not be studied further in melanoma.

Moreover, “there is some evidence of harm,” the editorial authors wrote. “As the additional toxicity of triplet combination limited the delivery of combination RAFi plus MEKi therapy in COMBI-I. Focus should turn instead to optimizing doses and schedules of combination RAFi plus MEKi and checkpoint inhibitors, developing treatment strategies to overcome resistance to these therapies, and determining how best to sequence combination RAFi plus MEKi therapy and checkpoint inhibitors. Regarding the latter point, there are several sequential therapy trials currently underway in previously untreated patients with BRAF V600–mutated melanoma.”

In the study, patients were randomized to receive dabrafenib and trametinib plus the anti–PD receptor–1 antibody spartalizumab or placebo. After a median follow-up of 27.2 months, mean progression-free survival was 16.2 months in the spartalizumab arm and 12.0 months in the placebo arm (HR, 0.82; P = .042). The spartalizumab group had a 69% objective response rate versus 64% in the placebo group. 55% of the spartalizumab group experienced grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events, compared with 33% in the placebo group.

“These results do not support broad use of first-line immunotherapy plus targeted therapy combination, but they provide additional data toward understanding the optimal application of these therapeutic classes in patients with BRAF V600–mutant metastatic melanoma,” the authors of the study wrote.

The study was funded by F Hoffmann–La Roche and Genentech. Dr. Callahan has been employed at Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, and Kleo Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Callahan has consulted for or advised AstraZeneca, Moderna Therapeutics, Merck, and Immunocore. Dr. Chapman has stock or ownership interest in Rgenix; has consulted for or advised Merck, Pfizer, and Black Diamond Therapeutics; and has received research funding from Genentech.

New results from a phase 3 clinical trial may shut the door on the addition of progressive death–1 or PD–ligand 1 inhibitors to the combination of BRAF and MEK inhibitors for the treatment of BRAF V600–mutated melanoma.

The approach seemed promising, given the efficacy of PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors in metastatic melanoma, and the relatively short response times to BRAF and MEK inhibitors could potentially be supplemented by longer response times associated with PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors. The two categories also have different mechanisms of action and nonoverlapping toxicities, which led to an expectation that the combination would be well tolerated.

But the new study joins two previous randomized, controlled trials that also failed to show much clinical benefit. IMspire150 assigned BRAF V600–mutated melanoma patients to vemurafenib and cobimetinib plus the anti–PD-L1 antibody atezolizumab or placebo. The treatment arm had a small benefit in progression-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.78), which led to Food and Drug Administration approval of the combination, though there was no significant difference when the two cohorts were assessed by an independent review committee. The KEYNOTE-022 trial examined dabrafenib plus trametinib with or without the anti–PD-1 antibody pembrolizumab, and found no difference in investigator-assessed progression free survival.

The new study was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. In an accompanying editorial, Margaret K. Callahan, MD, PhD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, and Paul B. Chapman, MD, of Weill Cornell Medicine, both in New York, speculated that the toxicity of the triplet combination might explain the latest failure, since patients in the triplet arm had more treatment interruptions and dose reductions than the doublet arm (32% received full-dose dabrafenib vs. 54% in the doublet arm), which may have undermined efficacy.

Citing the fact that there are now three randomized, controlled trials with discouraging results, “we believe that there are sufficient data now to be confident that the addition of anti–PD-1 or anti–PD-L1 antibodies to combination RAFi [RAF inhibitors] plus MEKi [MEK inhibitors] is not associated with a significant clinical benefit and should not be studied further in melanoma.

Moreover, “there is some evidence of harm,” the editorial authors wrote. “As the additional toxicity of triplet combination limited the delivery of combination RAFi plus MEKi therapy in COMBI-I. Focus should turn instead to optimizing doses and schedules of combination RAFi plus MEKi and checkpoint inhibitors, developing treatment strategies to overcome resistance to these therapies, and determining how best to sequence combination RAFi plus MEKi therapy and checkpoint inhibitors. Regarding the latter point, there are several sequential therapy trials currently underway in previously untreated patients with BRAF V600–mutated melanoma.”

In the study, patients were randomized to receive dabrafenib and trametinib plus the anti–PD receptor–1 antibody spartalizumab or placebo. After a median follow-up of 27.2 months, mean progression-free survival was 16.2 months in the spartalizumab arm and 12.0 months in the placebo arm (HR, 0.82; P = .042). The spartalizumab group had a 69% objective response rate versus 64% in the placebo group. 55% of the spartalizumab group experienced grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events, compared with 33% in the placebo group.

“These results do not support broad use of first-line immunotherapy plus targeted therapy combination, but they provide additional data toward understanding the optimal application of these therapeutic classes in patients with BRAF V600–mutant metastatic melanoma,” the authors of the study wrote.

The study was funded by F Hoffmann–La Roche and Genentech. Dr. Callahan has been employed at Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, and Kleo Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Callahan has consulted for or advised AstraZeneca, Moderna Therapeutics, Merck, and Immunocore. Dr. Chapman has stock or ownership interest in Rgenix; has consulted for or advised Merck, Pfizer, and Black Diamond Therapeutics; and has received research funding from Genentech.

The ability to find and target specific biomarkers in the DNA of advanced cancers is rapidly changing options and outcomes for patients with locally advanced and metastatic solid tumors. This strategy is the basis for precision oncology, defined here as using predictive biomarkers from tumor and/or germline sequencing to guide therapies. This article focuses specifically on the use of DNA sequencing to find those biomarkers and provides guidance about which test is optimal in a specific situation, as well as interpretation of the results. We emphasize the identification of biomarkers that provide adult patients with advanced solid tumors access to therapies that would not be an option had sequencing not been performed and that have the potential for significant clinical benefit. The best approach is to have an expert team with experience in precision oncology to assist in the interpretation of results.

Which test?

Deciding what test of the array of assays available to use and which tissue to test can be overwhelming, and uncertainty may prevent oncology practitioners from ordering germline or somatic sequencing. For the purposes of this article, we will focus on DNA sequencing for inherited/germline alterations (including mutations, copy number changes, or fusions), which may inform treatment, or alterations that arise in the process of carcinogenesis and tumor evolution (somatic alterations in tumor DNA). This focus is not meant to exclude any specific test but to focus on DNA-based tests in patients with locally advanced or metastatic malignancy.

Germline Testing

Germline testing is the sequencing of inherited DNA in noncancerous cells to find alterations that may play a role in the development of cancers and are actionable in some cases. Germline alterations can inform therapeutic decisions, predict future cancer risk, and provide information that can help family members to better manage their risks of malignancy. Detailed discussions of the importance of germline testing to inform cancer surveillance, risk-reducing interventions, and the testing of relatives to determine who carries inherited alterations (cascade testing) is extremely important with several advantages and is covered in a number of excellent reviews elsewhere.^1-3 Testing of germline DNA in patients with a metastatic malignancy can provide treatment options otherwise not available for patients, particularly for BRCA1/2 and Lynch syndrome–related cancers. Recent studies have shown that 10 to 15% of patients with advanced malignancies of many types have a pathogenic germline alteration.^4,5

Germline DNA is usually acquired from peripheral blood, a buccal swab, or saliva collection and is therefore readily available. This is advantageous because it does not require a biopsy to identify relevant alterations. Germline testing is also less susceptible to the rare situations in which artifacts occur in formalin-fixed tissues and obscure relevant alterations.

The cost of germline testing varies, but most commercial vendor assays for germline testing are significantly less expensive than the cost of somatic testing. The disadvantages include the inability of germline testing to find any alterations that arise solely in tumor tissue and the smaller gene panels included in germline testing as compared to somatic testing panels. Other considerations relate to the inherited nature of pathogenic germline variants and its implications for family members that may affect the patient’s psychosocial health and potentially change the family dynamics.

Deciding who is appropriate for germline testing and when to perform the testing should be individualized to the patient’s wishes and disease status. Treatment planning may be less complicated if testing has been performed and germline status is known. In some cases urgent germline testing is indicated to inform pending procedures and/or surgical decisions for risk reduction, including more extensive tissue resection, such as the removal of additional organs or contralateral tissue. A minor point regarding germline testing is that the DNA of patients with hematologic malignancies may be difficult to sequence because of sample contamination by the circulating malignancy. For this reason, most laboratories will not accept peripheral blood or saliva samples for germline testing in patients with active hematologic malignancies; they often require DNA from another source such as fibroblasts from a skin biopsy or cells from a muscle biopsy. Germline testing is recommended for all patients with metastatic prostate cancer, as well as any patient with any stage of pancreatic cancer or ovarian cancer and patients with breast cancer diagnosed at age ≤ 45 years. More detailed criteria for who is appropriate for germline testing outside of these groups can be found in the appropriate National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines.^6-8 In patients with some malignancies such as prostate and pancreatic cancer, approximately half of patients who have a BRCA-related cancer developed that malignancy because of a germline BRCA alteration.^9-11 Testing germline DNA is therefore an easy way to quickly find almost half of all targetable alterations with a treatment approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and at low cost, with the added benefit of providing critical information for families who may be unaware that members carry a relevant pathogenic germline alteration. In those families, cascade testing can provide surveillance and intervention strategies that can be lifesaving.

A related and particularly relevant question is when should a result found on a somatic testing panel prompt follow-up germline testing? Some institutions have algorithms in place to automate referral for germline testing based on specific genetic criteria.¹² Excellent reviews are available that outline the following considerations in more detail.¹³ Typically, somatic testing results that would trigger follow-up germline testing would be truncating or deleterious or likely deleterious mutations per germline datasets in high-risk genes associated with highly penetrant autosomal dominant conditions (BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, MLH1, MSH2, and MSH6), selected moderate-risk genes (BRIP1, RAD51C, and RAD51D), and specific variants with a high probability of being germline because they are common germline founder mutations. Although the actionability and significance of specific genes remains a matter of some discussion, generally finding a somatic pathogenic sequencing result included in the 59-gene list of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) guidelines would be an indication for germline testing. Another indication for germline testing would be finding genes with germline mutations for which the NCCN has specific management guidelines, or the presence of alterations consistent with known founder mutations.¹⁴ When a patient’s tumor has microsatellite instability or is hypermutated (defined as > 10 mutations per megabase), a search for germline alterations is warranted given that about 15% of these patients with these tumors carry a Lynch syndrome gene.¹⁵ Genes that are commonly found as somatic alterations alone (eg, TP53 or APC) are generally not an indication for germline testing unless family history is compelling.

Although some clinicians use the variant allele fraction in the somatic sequencing report to decide whether to conduct germline testing, this approach is suboptimal, as allele fraction may be confounded by assay conditions and a high allele fraction may be found in pure tumors with loss of heterozygosity (LOH) of the other allele. There is also evidence that for a variety of reasons, somatic sequencing panels do not always detect germline alterations in somatic tissues.¹⁶ Reasons for this may include discordance between the genes being tested in the germline vs the somatic panel, technical differences such as interference of formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) artifact with detecting the germline variant, lack of expertise in germline variant interpretation among laboratories doing tumor-only sequencing, and, in rare cases, large deletions in tumor tissue masking a germline point mutation.

Variant Interpretation of Germline Testing

A general understanding of the terminology used for germline variant interpretation allows for the ordering health care practitioner (HCP) to provide the best quality care and an appreciation for the limitations of current molecular testing. Not all variants are associated with disease; the clinical significance of a genetic variant falls on a spectrum. The criteria for determining pathogenicity differ between molecular laboratories, but most are influenced by the standards and guidelines set forth by the ACMG.¹⁴ The clinical molecular laboratory determines variant classification, and a detailed discussion is beyond the scope of this primer. In brief, variant classification is based on evidence of varying strength in different categories including population data, computational and predictive data, functional data, segregation data, de novo data, allelic data, and information from various databases. The ACMG has proposed a 5-tiered classification system, by which most molecular laboratories adhere to in their genetic test reports (Table 1).¹⁴

Pathogenic and likely pathogenic variants are clinically actionable, whereas variants of uncertain significance (VUS) require additional data and/or functional studies before making clinical decisions. Depending on the clinical context and existing supporting evidence, it may be prudent to continue monitoring for worsening or new signs of disease in patients with one or more VUS while additional efforts are underway to understand the variant’s significance.

Somatic Testing

Testing of somatic (tumor) tissue is critical and is the approach most commonly taken in medical oncology (Table 2). Somatic testing may be performed on primary tumor, metastatic biopsy, or circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA, also referred to as cell-free DNA [cfDNA]), with each having its own advantages and disadvantages. Primary tumor tissue is appropriate for testing when the alteration is generally truncal, that is, present at the time that the tumor developed and would be expected to be carried through the evolution of the tumor because of a critical role in carcinogenesis and maintenance of the malignant phenotype. Examples include BRCA1/2, and many tyrosine kinase mutations. Somatic testing at diagnosis is part of standard of care for many malignancies, including adenocarcinoma of the lung, colon cancer, melanoma, and others.^17-19 Testing for specific genes or comprehensive genomic profiling will depend on the tumor histology, stage, and payer coverage.

The advantages of primary tumor are that it is usually in hand as a diagnostic biopsy, acquisition is standard of care, and several targetable alterations are truncal, defined as driver mutations present at the time of tumor development. Also, the potential that the tumor arose in the background of a predisposing germline alteration can be suggested by sequencing primary tumor as discussed above. Moreover, sequencing the primary tumor can be done at any time unless the biopsy sample is considered too old or degraded (per specific platform requirements). The information gained can be used to anticipate additional treatment options that are relevant when patients experience disease progression. Disadvantages include the problem that primary specimens may be old or have limited tumor content, both of which increase the likelihood that sequencing will not be technically successful.

Alterations that are targetable and arise as a result of either treatment pressure or clonal evolution are considered evolutionary. If evolutionary alterations are the main focus for sequencing, then metastasis biopsy or ctDNA are better choices. The advantages of a metastasis biopsy are that tissue is contemporary, tumor content may be higher than in primary tumor, and both truncal and evolutionary alterations can be detected.

For specific tumors, continued analysis of evolving genomic alterations can play a critical role in management. In non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), somatic testing is conducted again at progression on repeat biopsies to evaluate for emerging resistance mutations. In epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)–mutated lung cancer, the resistance mutation, exon 20 p.T790M (point mutation), can present in patients after treatment with first- or second-generation EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI). Even in patients who are treated with the third-generation EGFR TKI osimertinib that can treat T790M-mutated lung cancer, multiple possible evolutionary mutations can occur at progression, including other EGFR mutations, MET/HER2 amplification, and BRAF V600E, to name a few.²⁰ Resistance mechanisms develop due to treatment selection pressure and the molecular heterogeneity seen in lung cancer.

Disadvantages for metastatic biopsy include the inability to safely access a metastatic site, the time considerations for preauthorization and arrangement of biopsy, and a lower-than-average likelihood of successful sequencing from sites such as bone.^21,22 In addition, there is some concern that a single metastatic site may not capture all relevant alterations for multiple reasons, including tumor heterogeneity.

Selecting the Tissue

Deciding on the tissue to analyze is a critical part of the decision process (Table 3). If the primary tumor tissue is old the likelihood of productive sequencing is lower, although age alone is not the only consideration and the methods of fixation may be just as relevant.

For prostate cancer in particular, the ability to successfully sequence primary tumor tissue decreases as the amount of tumor decreases in low-volume biopsies such as prostate needle biopsies. Generally, if tumor content is < 10% of the biopsy specimen, then sequencing is less likely to be productive.²⁵ Also, if the alteration of interest is not known to be truncal, then a relevant target might be missed by sequencing tissue that does not reflect current biology. Metastasis biopsy may be the most appropriate tissue, particularly if this specimen has already been acquired. As above, a metastasis biopsy may have a higher tumor content, and it should reflect relevant biology if it is recent. However, bone biopsies have a relatively low yield for successful sequencing, so a soft tissue lesion (eg, liver or lymph node metastasis) is generally preferred.

The inability to safely access tissue is often a consideration. Proximity to vital structures such as large blood vessels or the potential for significant morbidity in the event of a complication (liver or lung biopsies, particularly in patients on anticoagulation medications) may make the risk/benefit ratio too high. The inability to conduct somatic testing has been reported to often be due to inadequate tissue sampling.²⁶ ctDNA is an attractive alternative but should typically be drawn when a tumor is progressing with a reasonable tumor burden that is more likely to be shedding DNA. Performing ctDNA analysis in patients without obvious radiographic metastasis or in patients whose tumor is under good control is unlikely to produce interpretable results.

Interpreting the Results

The intent of sequencing tumor tissue is to identify alterations that are biologically important and may provide a point of therapeutic leverage. However, deciding which alterations are relevant is not always straightforward. For example, any normal individual genome contains around 10,000 missense variants, hundreds of insertion/deletion variants, and dozens of protein-truncating variants. Distinguishing these alterations, which are part of the individual, from those that are tumor-specific and have functional significance can be difficult in the absence of paired sequencing of both normal and tissue samples.

Specific Alterations

Although most commercial vendors provide important information in sequencing reports to assist oncology HCPs in deciding which alterations are relevant, the reports are not always clear. In many cases the report will specifically indicate whether the alteration has been reported previously as pathogenic or benign. However, some platforms will report alterations that are not known to be drivers of tumor biology. It is critical to be aware that if variants are not reported as pathogenic, they should not be assumed to be pathogenic simply because they are included in the report. Alterations more likely to be drivers of relevant biology are those that change gene and protein structure and include frameshift (fs*), nonsense (denoted by sequence ending in “X” or “*”), or specific fusions or insertions/deletions (indel) that occur in important domains of the gene.

For some genes, only specific alterations are targetable and not all alterations have the same effect on protein function. Although overexpression of certain genes and proteins are actionable (eg, HER2), amplification of a gene does not necessarily indicate that it is targetable. In NSCLC, specific alterations convey sensitivity to targeted therapies. For example, in EGFR-mutated NSCLC, the sensitizing mutations to EGFR TKIs are exon19 deletions and exon 21 L858R point mutations (the most common mutations), as well as less common mutations found in exon 18-21. Exon 20 mutations, however, are not responsive to EGFR TKIs with a few exceptions.²⁷ Patients who have tumors that do not harbor a sensitizing EGFR mutation should not be treated with an EGFR TKI. In a variety of solid tumors, gene fusions of the NTRK 1/2/3, act as oncogenic drivers. The chromosomal fusion events involving the carboxy-terminal kinase domain of TRK and upstream amino-terminal partners lead to overexpression of the chimeric proteins tropomyosin receptor kinase (TRK) A/B/C, resulting in constitutively active, ligand-independent downstream signaling. In patients with NTRK 1/2/3 gene fusions, larotrectinib and entrectinib, small molecule inhibitors to TRK, have shown antitumor activity.^28,29 No alterations beyond these fusions are known to be targetable.

Allele Fraction

Knowing the fraction (or proportion) of the alteration of interest in the sequenced tissue relative to the estimated tumor content can assist in decision making. Not all platforms will provide this information, which is referred to as mutation allele fraction (MAF) or variant allele fraction (VAF), but sometimes will provide it on request. Platforms will usually provide an estimate of the percent tumor in the tissue being sampled if it is from a biopsy. If the MAF is around 50% in the sequenced tissue (including ctDNA), then there is a reasonable chance that it is a germline variant. However, there are nuances as germline alterations in some genes, such as BRCA1/2, can be accompanied by loss of the other allele of the gene (LOH). In that case, if most of the circulating DNA is from tumor, then the MAF can be > 50%.

If there are 2 alterations of the same gene with MAF percentages that are each half of the total percent tumor, there is a high likelihood of biallelic alteration. These sorts of paired alterations or one mutation with apparent LOH or copy loss would again indicate a high likelihood that the alteration is in fact pathogenic and a relevant driver. Not all pathogenic alterations have to be biallelic to be driver mutations but in BRCA1/2, or mismatch repair deficiency genes, the presence of biallelic alterations increases the likelihood of their being pathogenic.

Tumors that are hypermutated—containing sometimes hundreds of mutations per megabyte of DNA—can be particularly complicated to interpret, because the likelihood increases that many of the alterations are a function of the hypermutation and not a driver mutation. This is particularly important when there are concurrent mutations in mismatch repair genes and genes, such as BRCA1/2. If the tumor is microsatellite instability high or hypermutated, concurrent BRCA1/2 alterations are often passengers as the tumors rarely have coexisting “signatures” suggesting that they have a true deficiency in homologous recombination.³⁰ Large genes such as BRCA1/2 have microsatellite tracts that are prone to frameshift mutations as a result of microsatellite instability, and such mutations in this context are typically subclonal and not drivers. In hypermutated tumors, the likelihood is significantly decreased that any of the mutations other than mismatch repair deficiency or polymerase genes are targetable drivers.

Confounders

In some situations, interpretation can be particularly challenging. For example, several alterations for which there are FDA on-label indications (such as ATM or BRCA2) can be detected in ctDNA that may not be due to the tumor but to CHIP. CHIP represents hematopoietic clones that are dysplastic as a result of exposure to DNA-damaging agents (eg, platinum chemotherapy) or as a result of aging and arise when mutations in hematopoietic stem cells provide a competitive advantage.³¹ The most common CHIP clones that can be detected are DNMT3A, ASXL1, or TET2; because these alterations are not targetable, their importance lies primarily in whether patients have evidence of hematologic abnormality, which might represent an evolving hematopoietic disorder. Because CHIP alterations can overlap with somatic alterations for which FDA-approved drugs exist, such as ATM or CHEK2 (olaparib for prostate cancer) and BRCA2 (poly-ADP-ribose polymerase inhibitors in a range of indications) there is concern that CHIP might result in patient harm from inappropriate treatment of CHIP rather than the tumor, with no likelihood that the treatment would affect the tumor, causing treatment delays.³² General considerations for deciding whether an alteration represents CHIP include excluding alteration in which the VAF is < 1% and when the VAF in the alteration of interest is < 20% of the estimated tumor fraction in the sample. Exceptions to this are found in patients with true myelodysplasia or chronic lymphocytic leukemia, in whom the VAF can be well over 50% because of circulating tumor burden. The only way to be certain that an alteration detected on ctDNA reflects tumor rather than CHIP is to utilize an assay with matched tumor-normal sequencing.

Resources for Assistance

For oncology HCPs, perhaps the best resource to help in selecting and interpreting the appropriate testing is through a dedicated molecular oncology tumor board and subject matter experts who contribute to those tumor boards. In the US Department of Veterans Affairs, the national precision oncology program and its affiliated clinical services, such as the option to order a national consultation and molecular tumor board education, are easily accessible to all HCPs (www.cancer.va.gov). Many commercial vendors provide support to assist with questions of interpretation and to inform clinical decision-making. Other resources that can assist with deciding whether an alteration is pathogenic include extensive curated databases such as ClinVar (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/clinvar) and the Human Genetic Mutation Database (www.hgmd.cf.ac.uk/ac/index.php) for germline alterations or COSMIC (cancer.sanger.ac.uk/cosmic) for somatic alterations. OncoKB (www.oncokb.org) is a resource for assistance in defining levels of evidence for the use of agents to target specific alterations and to assist in assigning pathogenicity to specific alterations. Additional educational resources for training in genomics and genetics are also included in the Appendix.

The rapid growth in technology and ability to enhance understanding of relevant tumor biology continues to improve the therapeutic landscape for men and women dealing with malignancy and our ability to find targetable genetic alterations with the potential for meaningful clinical benefit.

Acknowledgments

Dedicated to Neil Spector.

The ability to find and target specific biomarkers in the DNA of advanced cancers is rapidly changing options and outcomes for patients with locally advanced and metastatic solid tumors. This strategy is the basis for precision oncology, defined here as using predictive biomarkers from tumor and/or germline sequencing to guide therapies. This article focuses specifically on the use of DNA sequencing to find those biomarkers and provides guidance about which test is optimal in a specific situation, as well as interpretation of the results. We emphasize the identification of biomarkers that provide adult patients with advanced solid tumors access to therapies that would not be an option had sequencing not been performed and that have the potential for significant clinical benefit. The best approach is to have an expert team with experience in precision oncology to assist in the interpretation of results.

Which test?

Deciding what test of the array of assays available to use and which tissue to test can be overwhelming, and uncertainty may prevent oncology practitioners from ordering germline or somatic sequencing. For the purposes of this article, we will focus on DNA sequencing for inherited/germline alterations (including mutations, copy number changes, or fusions), which may inform treatment, or alterations that arise in the process of carcinogenesis and tumor evolution (somatic alterations in tumor DNA). This focus is not meant to exclude any specific test but to focus on DNA-based tests in patients with locally advanced or metastatic malignancy.

Germline Testing

Germline testing is the sequencing of inherited DNA in noncancerous cells to find alterations that may play a role in the development of cancers and are actionable in some cases. Germline alterations can inform therapeutic decisions, predict future cancer risk, and provide information that can help family members to better manage their risks of malignancy. Detailed discussions of the importance of germline testing to inform cancer surveillance, risk-reducing interventions, and the testing of relatives to determine who carries inherited alterations (cascade testing) is extremely important with several advantages and is covered in a number of excellent reviews elsewhere.^1-3 Testing of germline DNA in patients with a metastatic malignancy can provide treatment options otherwise not available for patients, particularly for BRCA1/2 and Lynch syndrome–related cancers. Recent studies have shown that 10 to 15% of patients with advanced malignancies of many types have a pathogenic germline alteration.^4,5

Germline DNA is usually acquired from peripheral blood, a buccal swab, or saliva collection and is therefore readily available. This is advantageous because it does not require a biopsy to identify relevant alterations. Germline testing is also less susceptible to the rare situations in which artifacts occur in formalin-fixed tissues and obscure relevant alterations.

The cost of germline testing varies, but most commercial vendor assays for germline testing are significantly less expensive than the cost of somatic testing. The disadvantages include the inability of germline testing to find any alterations that arise solely in tumor tissue and the smaller gene panels included in germline testing as compared to somatic testing panels. Other considerations relate to the inherited nature of pathogenic germline variants and its implications for family members that may affect the patient’s psychosocial health and potentially change the family dynamics.

Deciding who is appropriate for germline testing and when to perform the testing should be individualized to the patient’s wishes and disease status. Treatment planning may be less complicated if testing has been performed and germline status is known. In some cases urgent germline testing is indicated to inform pending procedures and/or surgical decisions for risk reduction, including more extensive tissue resection, such as the removal of additional organs or contralateral tissue. A minor point regarding germline testing is that the DNA of patients with hematologic malignancies may be difficult to sequence because of sample contamination by the circulating malignancy. For this reason, most laboratories will not accept peripheral blood or saliva samples for germline testing in patients with active hematologic malignancies; they often require DNA from another source such as fibroblasts from a skin biopsy or cells from a muscle biopsy. Germline testing is recommended for all patients with metastatic prostate cancer, as well as any patient with any stage of pancreatic cancer or ovarian cancer and patients with breast cancer diagnosed at age ≤ 45 years. More detailed criteria for who is appropriate for germline testing outside of these groups can be found in the appropriate National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines.^6-8 In patients with some malignancies such as prostate and pancreatic cancer, approximately half of patients who have a BRCA-related cancer developed that malignancy because of a germline BRCA alteration.^9-11 Testing germline DNA is therefore an easy way to quickly find almost half of all targetable alterations with a treatment approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and at low cost, with the added benefit of providing critical information for families who may be unaware that members carry a relevant pathogenic germline alteration. In those families, cascade testing can provide surveillance and intervention strategies that can be lifesaving.

A related and particularly relevant question is when should a result found on a somatic testing panel prompt follow-up germline testing? Some institutions have algorithms in place to automate referral for germline testing based on specific genetic criteria.¹² Excellent reviews are available that outline the following considerations in more detail.¹³ Typically, somatic testing results that would trigger follow-up germline testing would be truncating or deleterious or likely deleterious mutations per germline datasets in high-risk genes associated with highly penetrant autosomal dominant conditions (BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, MLH1, MSH2, and MSH6), selected moderate-risk genes (BRIP1, RAD51C, and RAD51D), and specific variants with a high probability of being germline because they are common germline founder mutations. Although the actionability and significance of specific genes remains a matter of some discussion, generally finding a somatic pathogenic sequencing result included in the 59-gene list of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) guidelines would be an indication for germline testing. Another indication for germline testing would be finding genes with germline mutations for which the NCCN has specific management guidelines, or the presence of alterations consistent with known founder mutations.¹⁴ When a patient’s tumor has microsatellite instability or is hypermutated (defined as > 10 mutations per megabase), a search for germline alterations is warranted given that about 15% of these patients with these tumors carry a Lynch syndrome gene.¹⁵ Genes that are commonly found as somatic alterations alone (eg, TP53 or APC) are generally not an indication for germline testing unless family history is compelling.

Although some clinicians use the variant allele fraction in the somatic sequencing report to decide whether to conduct germline testing, this approach is suboptimal, as allele fraction may be confounded by assay conditions and a high allele fraction may be found in pure tumors with loss of heterozygosity (LOH) of the other allele. There is also evidence that for a variety of reasons, somatic sequencing panels do not always detect germline alterations in somatic tissues.¹⁶ Reasons for this may include discordance between the genes being tested in the germline vs the somatic panel, technical differences such as interference of formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) artifact with detecting the germline variant, lack of expertise in germline variant interpretation among laboratories doing tumor-only sequencing, and, in rare cases, large deletions in tumor tissue masking a germline point mutation.

Variant Interpretation of Germline Testing

A general understanding of the terminology used for germline variant interpretation allows for the ordering health care practitioner (HCP) to provide the best quality care and an appreciation for the limitations of current molecular testing. Not all variants are associated with disease; the clinical significance of a genetic variant falls on a spectrum. The criteria for determining pathogenicity differ between molecular laboratories, but most are influenced by the standards and guidelines set forth by the ACMG.¹⁴ The clinical molecular laboratory determines variant classification, and a detailed discussion is beyond the scope of this primer. In brief, variant classification is based on evidence of varying strength in different categories including population data, computational and predictive data, functional data, segregation data, de novo data, allelic data, and information from various databases. The ACMG has proposed a 5-tiered classification system, by which most molecular laboratories adhere to in their genetic test reports (Table 1).¹⁴

Pathogenic and likely pathogenic variants are clinically actionable, whereas variants of uncertain significance (VUS) require additional data and/or functional studies before making clinical decisions. Depending on the clinical context and existing supporting evidence, it may be prudent to continue monitoring for worsening or new signs of disease in patients with one or more VUS while additional efforts are underway to understand the variant’s significance.

Somatic Testing

Testing of somatic (tumor) tissue is critical and is the approach most commonly taken in medical oncology (Table 2). Somatic testing may be performed on primary tumor, metastatic biopsy, or circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA, also referred to as cell-free DNA [cfDNA]), with each having its own advantages and disadvantages. Primary tumor tissue is appropriate for testing when the alteration is generally truncal, that is, present at the time that the tumor developed and would be expected to be carried through the evolution of the tumor because of a critical role in carcinogenesis and maintenance of the malignant phenotype. Examples include BRCA1/2, and many tyrosine kinase mutations. Somatic testing at diagnosis is part of standard of care for many malignancies, including adenocarcinoma of the lung, colon cancer, melanoma, and others.^17-19 Testing for specific genes or comprehensive genomic profiling will depend on the tumor histology, stage, and payer coverage.

The advantages of primary tumor are that it is usually in hand as a diagnostic biopsy, acquisition is standard of care, and several targetable alterations are truncal, defined as driver mutations present at the time of tumor development. Also, the potential that the tumor arose in the background of a predisposing germline alteration can be suggested by sequencing primary tumor as discussed above. Moreover, sequencing the primary tumor can be done at any time unless the biopsy sample is considered too old or degraded (per specific platform requirements). The information gained can be used to anticipate additional treatment options that are relevant when patients experience disease progression. Disadvantages include the problem that primary specimens may be old or have limited tumor content, both of which increase the likelihood that sequencing will not be technically successful.

Alterations that are targetable and arise as a result of either treatment pressure or clonal evolution are considered evolutionary. If evolutionary alterations are the main focus for sequencing, then metastasis biopsy or ctDNA are better choices. The advantages of a metastasis biopsy are that tissue is contemporary, tumor content may be higher than in primary tumor, and both truncal and evolutionary alterations can be detected.

For specific tumors, continued analysis of evolving genomic alterations can play a critical role in management. In non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), somatic testing is conducted again at progression on repeat biopsies to evaluate for emerging resistance mutations. In epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)–mutated lung cancer, the resistance mutation, exon 20 p.T790M (point mutation), can present in patients after treatment with first- or second-generation EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI). Even in patients who are treated with the third-generation EGFR TKI osimertinib that can treat T790M-mutated lung cancer, multiple possible evolutionary mutations can occur at progression, including other EGFR mutations, MET/HER2 amplification, and BRAF V600E, to name a few.²⁰ Resistance mechanisms develop due to treatment selection pressure and the molecular heterogeneity seen in lung cancer.

Disadvantages for metastatic biopsy include the inability to safely access a metastatic site, the time considerations for preauthorization and arrangement of biopsy, and a lower-than-average likelihood of successful sequencing from sites such as bone.^21,22 In addition, there is some concern that a single metastatic site may not capture all relevant alterations for multiple reasons, including tumor heterogeneity.

Selecting the Tissue

Deciding on the tissue to analyze is a critical part of the decision process (Table 3). If the primary tumor tissue is old the likelihood of productive sequencing is lower, although age alone is not the only consideration and the methods of fixation may be just as relevant.

For prostate cancer in particular, the ability to successfully sequence primary tumor tissue decreases as the amount of tumor decreases in low-volume biopsies such as prostate needle biopsies. Generally, if tumor content is < 10% of the biopsy specimen, then sequencing is less likely to be productive.²⁵ Also, if the alteration of interest is not known to be truncal, then a relevant target might be missed by sequencing tissue that does not reflect current biology. Metastasis biopsy may be the most appropriate tissue, particularly if this specimen has already been acquired. As above, a metastasis biopsy may have a higher tumor content, and it should reflect relevant biology if it is recent. However, bone biopsies have a relatively low yield for successful sequencing, so a soft tissue lesion (eg, liver or lymph node metastasis) is generally preferred.

The inability to safely access tissue is often a consideration. Proximity to vital structures such as large blood vessels or the potential for significant morbidity in the event of a complication (liver or lung biopsies, particularly in patients on anticoagulation medications) may make the risk/benefit ratio too high. The inability to conduct somatic testing has been reported to often be due to inadequate tissue sampling.²⁶ ctDNA is an attractive alternative but should typically be drawn when a tumor is progressing with a reasonable tumor burden that is more likely to be shedding DNA. Performing ctDNA analysis in patients without obvious radiographic metastasis or in patients whose tumor is under good control is unlikely to produce interpretable results.

Interpreting the Results

The intent of sequencing tumor tissue is to identify alterations that are biologically important and may provide a point of therapeutic leverage. However, deciding which alterations are relevant is not always straightforward. For example, any normal individual genome contains around 10,000 missense variants, hundreds of insertion/deletion variants, and dozens of protein-truncating variants. Distinguishing these alterations, which are part of the individual, from those that are tumor-specific and have functional significance can be difficult in the absence of paired sequencing of both normal and tissue samples.

Specific Alterations

Although most commercial vendors provide important information in sequencing reports to assist oncology HCPs in deciding which alterations are relevant, the reports are not always clear. In many cases the report will specifically indicate whether the alteration has been reported previously as pathogenic or benign. However, some platforms will report alterations that are not known to be drivers of tumor biology. It is critical to be aware that if variants are not reported as pathogenic, they should not be assumed to be pathogenic simply because they are included in the report. Alterations more likely to be drivers of relevant biology are those that change gene and protein structure and include frameshift (fs*), nonsense (denoted by sequence ending in “X” or “*”), or specific fusions or insertions/deletions (indel) that occur in important domains of the gene.

For some genes, only specific alterations are targetable and not all alterations have the same effect on protein function. Although overexpression of certain genes and proteins are actionable (eg, HER2), amplification of a gene does not necessarily indicate that it is targetable. In NSCLC, specific alterations convey sensitivity to targeted therapies. For example, in EGFR-mutated NSCLC, the sensitizing mutations to EGFR TKIs are exon19 deletions and exon 21 L858R point mutations (the most common mutations), as well as less common mutations found in exon 18-21. Exon 20 mutations, however, are not responsive to EGFR TKIs with a few exceptions.²⁷ Patients who have tumors that do not harbor a sensitizing EGFR mutation should not be treated with an EGFR TKI. In a variety of solid tumors, gene fusions of the NTRK 1/2/3, act as oncogenic drivers. The chromosomal fusion events involving the carboxy-terminal kinase domain of TRK and upstream amino-terminal partners lead to overexpression of the chimeric proteins tropomyosin receptor kinase (TRK) A/B/C, resulting in constitutively active, ligand-independent downstream signaling. In patients with NTRK 1/2/3 gene fusions, larotrectinib and entrectinib, small molecule inhibitors to TRK, have shown antitumor activity.^28,29 No alterations beyond these fusions are known to be targetable.

Allele Fraction

Knowing the fraction (or proportion) of the alteration of interest in the sequenced tissue relative to the estimated tumor content can assist in decision making. Not all platforms will provide this information, which is referred to as mutation allele fraction (MAF) or variant allele fraction (VAF), but sometimes will provide it on request. Platforms will usually provide an estimate of the percent tumor in the tissue being sampled if it is from a biopsy. If the MAF is around 50% in the sequenced tissue (including ctDNA), then there is a reasonable chance that it is a germline variant. However, there are nuances as germline alterations in some genes, such as BRCA1/2, can be accompanied by loss of the other allele of the gene (LOH). In that case, if most of the circulating DNA is from tumor, then the MAF can be > 50%.

If there are 2 alterations of the same gene with MAF percentages that are each half of the total percent tumor, there is a high likelihood of biallelic alteration. These sorts of paired alterations or one mutation with apparent LOH or copy loss would again indicate a high likelihood that the alteration is in fact pathogenic and a relevant driver. Not all pathogenic alterations have to be biallelic to be driver mutations but in BRCA1/2, or mismatch repair deficiency genes, the presence of biallelic alterations increases the likelihood of their being pathogenic.

Tumors that are hypermutated—containing sometimes hundreds of mutations per megabyte of DNA—can be particularly complicated to interpret, because the likelihood increases that many of the alterations are a function of the hypermutation and not a driver mutation. This is particularly important when there are concurrent mutations in mismatch repair genes and genes, such as BRCA1/2. If the tumor is microsatellite instability high or hypermutated, concurrent BRCA1/2 alterations are often passengers as the tumors rarely have coexisting “signatures” suggesting that they have a true deficiency in homologous recombination.³⁰ Large genes such as BRCA1/2 have microsatellite tracts that are prone to frameshift mutations as a result of microsatellite instability, and such mutations in this context are typically subclonal and not drivers. In hypermutated tumors, the likelihood is significantly decreased that any of the mutations other than mismatch repair deficiency or polymerase genes are targetable drivers.

Confounders

In some situations, interpretation can be particularly challenging. For example, several alterations for which there are FDA on-label indications (such as ATM or BRCA2) can be detected in ctDNA that may not be due to the tumor but to CHIP. CHIP represents hematopoietic clones that are dysplastic as a result of exposure to DNA-damaging agents (eg, platinum chemotherapy) or as a result of aging and arise when mutations in hematopoietic stem cells provide a competitive advantage.³¹ The most common CHIP clones that can be detected are DNMT3A, ASXL1, or TET2; because these alterations are not targetable, their importance lies primarily in whether patients have evidence of hematologic abnormality, which might represent an evolving hematopoietic disorder. Because CHIP alterations can overlap with somatic alterations for which FDA-approved drugs exist, such as ATM or CHEK2 (olaparib for prostate cancer) and BRCA2 (poly-ADP-ribose polymerase inhibitors in a range of indications) there is concern that CHIP might result in patient harm from inappropriate treatment of CHIP rather than the tumor, with no likelihood that the treatment would affect the tumor, causing treatment delays.³² General considerations for deciding whether an alteration represents CHIP include excluding alteration in which the VAF is < 1% and when the VAF in the alteration of interest is < 20% of the estimated tumor fraction in the sample. Exceptions to this are found in patients with true myelodysplasia or chronic lymphocytic leukemia, in whom the VAF can be well over 50% because of circulating tumor burden. The only way to be certain that an alteration detected on ctDNA reflects tumor rather than CHIP is to utilize an assay with matched tumor-normal sequencing.

Resources for Assistance

For oncology HCPs, perhaps the best resource to help in selecting and interpreting the appropriate testing is through a dedicated molecular oncology tumor board and subject matter experts who contribute to those tumor boards. In the US Department of Veterans Affairs, the national precision oncology program and its affiliated clinical services, such as the option to order a national consultation and molecular tumor board education, are easily accessible to all HCPs (www.cancer.va.gov). Many commercial vendors provide support to assist with questions of interpretation and to inform clinical decision-making. Other resources that can assist with deciding whether an alteration is pathogenic include extensive curated databases such as ClinVar (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/clinvar) and the Human Genetic Mutation Database (www.hgmd.cf.ac.uk/ac/index.php) for germline alterations or COSMIC (cancer.sanger.ac.uk/cosmic) for somatic alterations. OncoKB (www.oncokb.org) is a resource for assistance in defining levels of evidence for the use of agents to target specific alterations and to assist in assigning pathogenicity to specific alterations. Additional educational resources for training in genomics and genetics are also included in the Appendix.

The rapid growth in technology and ability to enhance understanding of relevant tumor biology continues to improve the therapeutic landscape for men and women dealing with malignancy and our ability to find targetable genetic alterations with the potential for meaningful clinical benefit.

Acknowledgments

Dedicated to Neil Spector.

The ability to find and target specific biomarkers in the DNA of advanced cancers is rapidly changing options and outcomes for patients with locally advanced and metastatic solid tumors. This strategy is the basis for precision oncology, defined here as using predictive biomarkers from tumor and/or germline sequencing to guide therapies. This article focuses specifically on the use of DNA sequencing to find those biomarkers and provides guidance about which test is optimal in a specific situation, as well as interpretation of the results. We emphasize the identification of biomarkers that provide adult patients with advanced solid tumors access to therapies that would not be an option had sequencing not been performed and that have the potential for significant clinical benefit. The best approach is to have an expert team with experience in precision oncology to assist in the interpretation of results.

Which test?

Deciding what test of the array of assays available to use and which tissue to test can be overwhelming, and uncertainty may prevent oncology practitioners from ordering germline or somatic sequencing. For the purposes of this article, we will focus on DNA sequencing for inherited/germline alterations (including mutations, copy number changes, or fusions), which may inform treatment, or alterations that arise in the process of carcinogenesis and tumor evolution (somatic alterations in tumor DNA). This focus is not meant to exclude any specific test but to focus on DNA-based tests in patients with locally advanced or metastatic malignancy.

Germline Testing

Germline testing is the sequencing of inherited DNA in noncancerous cells to find alterations that may play a role in the development of cancers and are actionable in some cases. Germline alterations can inform therapeutic decisions, predict future cancer risk, and provide information that can help family members to better manage their risks of malignancy. Detailed discussions of the importance of germline testing to inform cancer surveillance, risk-reducing interventions, and the testing of relatives to determine who carries inherited alterations (cascade testing) is extremely important with several advantages and is covered in a number of excellent reviews elsewhere.^1-3 Testing of germline DNA in patients with a metastatic malignancy can provide treatment options otherwise not available for patients, particularly for BRCA1/2 and Lynch syndrome–related cancers. Recent studies have shown that 10 to 15% of patients with advanced malignancies of many types have a pathogenic germline alteration.^4,5

Germline DNA is usually acquired from peripheral blood, a buccal swab, or saliva collection and is therefore readily available. This is advantageous because it does not require a biopsy to identify relevant alterations. Germline testing is also less susceptible to the rare situations in which artifacts occur in formalin-fixed tissues and obscure relevant alterations.

The cost of germline testing varies, but most commercial vendor assays for germline testing are significantly less expensive than the cost of somatic testing. The disadvantages include the inability of germline testing to find any alterations that arise solely in tumor tissue and the smaller gene panels included in germline testing as compared to somatic testing panels. Other considerations relate to the inherited nature of pathogenic germline variants and its implications for family members that may affect the patient’s psychosocial health and potentially change the family dynamics.

Deciding who is appropriate for germline testing and when to perform the testing should be individualized to the patient’s wishes and disease status. Treatment planning may be less complicated if testing has been performed and germline status is known. In some cases urgent germline testing is indicated to inform pending procedures and/or surgical decisions for risk reduction, including more extensive tissue resection, such as the removal of additional organs or contralateral tissue. A minor point regarding germline testing is that the DNA of patients with hematologic malignancies may be difficult to sequence because of sample contamination by the circulating malignancy. For this reason, most laboratories will not accept peripheral blood or saliva samples for germline testing in patients with active hematologic malignancies; they often require DNA from another source such as fibroblasts from a skin biopsy or cells from a muscle biopsy. Germline testing is recommended for all patients with metastatic prostate cancer, as well as any patient with any stage of pancreatic cancer or ovarian cancer and patients with breast cancer diagnosed at age ≤ 45 years. More detailed criteria for who is appropriate for germline testing outside of these groups can be found in the appropriate National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines.^6-8 In patients with some malignancies such as prostate and pancreatic cancer, approximately half of patients who have a BRCA-related cancer developed that malignancy because of a germline BRCA alteration.^9-11 Testing germline DNA is therefore an easy way to quickly find almost half of all targetable alterations with a treatment approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and at low cost, with the added benefit of providing critical information for families who may be unaware that members carry a relevant pathogenic germline alteration. In those families, cascade testing can provide surveillance and intervention strategies that can be lifesaving.

A related and particularly relevant question is when should a result found on a somatic testing panel prompt follow-up germline testing? Some institutions have algorithms in place to automate referral for germline testing based on specific genetic criteria.¹² Excellent reviews are available that outline the following considerations in more detail.¹³ Typically, somatic testing results that would trigger follow-up germline testing would be truncating or deleterious or likely deleterious mutations per germline datasets in high-risk genes associated with highly penetrant autosomal dominant conditions (BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, MLH1, MSH2, and MSH6), selected moderate-risk genes (BRIP1, RAD51C, and RAD51D), and specific variants with a high probability of being germline because they are common germline founder mutations. Although the actionability and significance of specific genes remains a matter of some discussion, generally finding a somatic pathogenic sequencing result included in the 59-gene list of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) guidelines would be an indication for germline testing. Another indication for germline testing would be finding genes with germline mutations for which the NCCN has specific management guidelines, or the presence of alterations consistent with known founder mutations.¹⁴ When a patient’s tumor has microsatellite instability or is hypermutated (defined as > 10 mutations per megabase), a search for germline alterations is warranted given that about 15% of these patients with these tumors carry a Lynch syndrome gene.¹⁵ Genes that are commonly found as somatic alterations alone (eg, TP53 or APC) are generally not an indication for germline testing unless family history is compelling.

Although some clinicians use the variant allele fraction in the somatic sequencing report to decide whether to conduct germline testing, this approach is suboptimal, as allele fraction may be confounded by assay conditions and a high allele fraction may be found in pure tumors with loss of heterozygosity (LOH) of the other allele. There is also evidence that for a variety of reasons, somatic sequencing panels do not always detect germline alterations in somatic tissues.¹⁶ Reasons for this may include discordance between the genes being tested in the germline vs the somatic panel, technical differences such as interference of formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) artifact with detecting the germline variant, lack of expertise in germline variant interpretation among laboratories doing tumor-only sequencing, and, in rare cases, large deletions in tumor tissue masking a germline point mutation.

Variant Interpretation of Germline Testing

A general understanding of the terminology used for germline variant interpretation allows for the ordering health care practitioner (HCP) to provide the best quality care and an appreciation for the limitations of current molecular testing. Not all variants are associated with disease; the clinical significance of a genetic variant falls on a spectrum. The criteria for determining pathogenicity differ between molecular laboratories, but most are influenced by the standards and guidelines set forth by the ACMG.¹⁴ The clinical molecular laboratory determines variant classification, and a detailed discussion is beyond the scope of this primer. In brief, variant classification is based on evidence of varying strength in different categories including population data, computational and predictive data, functional data, segregation data, de novo data, allelic data, and information from various databases. The ACMG has proposed a 5-tiered classification system, by which most molecular laboratories adhere to in their genetic test reports (Table 1).¹⁴

Pathogenic and likely pathogenic variants are clinically actionable, whereas variants of uncertain significance (VUS) require additional data and/or functional studies before making clinical decisions. Depending on the clinical context and existing supporting evidence, it may be prudent to continue monitoring for worsening or new signs of disease in patients with one or more VUS while additional efforts are underway to understand the variant’s significance.

Somatic Testing

Testing of somatic (tumor) tissue is critical and is the approach most commonly taken in medical oncology (Table 2). Somatic testing may be performed on primary tumor, metastatic biopsy, or circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA, also referred to as cell-free DNA [cfDNA]), with each having its own advantages and disadvantages. Primary tumor tissue is appropriate for testing when the alteration is generally truncal, that is, present at the time that the tumor developed and would be expected to be carried through the evolution of the tumor because of a critical role in carcinogenesis and maintenance of the malignant phenotype. Examples include BRCA1/2, and many tyrosine kinase mutations. Somatic testing at diagnosis is part of standard of care for many malignancies, including adenocarcinoma of the lung, colon cancer, melanoma, and others.^17-19 Testing for specific genes or comprehensive genomic profiling will depend on the tumor histology, stage, and payer coverage.

The advantages of primary tumor are that it is usually in hand as a diagnostic biopsy, acquisition is standard of care, and several targetable alterations are truncal, defined as driver mutations present at the time of tumor development. Also, the potential that the tumor arose in the background of a predisposing germline alteration can be suggested by sequencing primary tumor as discussed above. Moreover, sequencing the primary tumor can be done at any time unless the biopsy sample is considered too old or degraded (per specific platform requirements). The information gained can be used to anticipate additional treatment options that are relevant when patients experience disease progression. Disadvantages include the problem that primary specimens may be old or have limited tumor content, both of which increase the likelihood that sequencing will not be technically successful.

Alterations that are targetable and arise as a result of either treatment pressure or clonal evolution are considered evolutionary. If evolutionary alterations are the main focus for sequencing, then metastasis biopsy or ctDNA are better choices. The advantages of a metastasis biopsy are that tissue is contemporary, tumor content may be higher than in primary tumor, and both truncal and evolutionary alterations can be detected.

For specific tumors, continued analysis of evolving genomic alterations can play a critical role in management. In non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), somatic testing is conducted again at progression on repeat biopsies to evaluate for emerging resistance mutations. In epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)–mutated lung cancer, the resistance mutation, exon 20 p.T790M (point mutation), can present in patients after treatment with first- or second-generation EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI). Even in patients who are treated with the third-generation EGFR TKI osimertinib that can treat T790M-mutated lung cancer, multiple possible evolutionary mutations can occur at progression, including other EGFR mutations, MET/HER2 amplification, and BRAF V600E, to name a few.²⁰ Resistance mechanisms develop due to treatment selection pressure and the molecular heterogeneity seen in lung cancer.

Disadvantages for metastatic biopsy include the inability to safely access a metastatic site, the time considerations for preauthorization and arrangement of biopsy, and a lower-than-average likelihood of successful sequencing from sites such as bone.^21,22 In addition, there is some concern that a single metastatic site may not capture all relevant alterations for multiple reasons, including tumor heterogeneity.

Selecting the Tissue

Deciding on the tissue to analyze is a critical part of the decision process (Table 3). If the primary tumor tissue is old the likelihood of productive sequencing is lower, although age alone is not the only consideration and the methods of fixation may be just as relevant.

For prostate cancer in particular, the ability to successfully sequence primary tumor tissue decreases as the amount of tumor decreases in low-volume biopsies such as prostate needle biopsies. Generally, if tumor content is < 10% of the biopsy specimen, then sequencing is less likely to be productive.²⁵ Also, if the alteration of interest is not known to be truncal, then a relevant target might be missed by sequencing tissue that does not reflect current biology. Metastasis biopsy may be the most appropriate tissue, particularly if this specimen has already been acquired. As above, a metastasis biopsy may have a higher tumor content, and it should reflect relevant biology if it is recent. However, bone biopsies have a relatively low yield for successful sequencing, so a soft tissue lesion (eg, liver or lymph node metastasis) is generally preferred.

The inability to safely access tissue is often a consideration. Proximity to vital structures such as large blood vessels or the potential for significant morbidity in the event of a complication (liver or lung biopsies, particularly in patients on anticoagulation medications) may make the risk/benefit ratio too high. The inability to conduct somatic testing has been reported to often be due to inadequate tissue sampling.²⁶ ctDNA is an attractive alternative but should typically be drawn when a tumor is progressing with a reasonable tumor burden that is more likely to be shedding DNA. Performing ctDNA analysis in patients without obvious radiographic metastasis or in patients whose tumor is under good control is unlikely to produce interpretable results.

Interpreting the Results

The intent of sequencing tumor tissue is to identify alterations that are biologically important and may provide a point of therapeutic leverage. However, deciding which alterations are relevant is not always straightforward. For example, any normal individual genome contains around 10,000 missense variants, hundreds of insertion/deletion variants, and dozens of protein-truncating variants. Distinguishing these alterations, which are part of the individual, from those that are tumor-specific and have functional significance can be difficult in the absence of paired sequencing of both normal and tissue samples.

Specific Alterations

Although most commercial vendors provide important information in sequencing reports to assist oncology HCPs in deciding which alterations are relevant, the reports are not always clear. In many cases the report will specifically indicate whether the alteration has been reported previously as pathogenic or benign. However, some platforms will report alterations that are not known to be drivers of tumor biology. It is critical to be aware that if variants are not reported as pathogenic, they should not be assumed to be pathogenic simply because they are included in the report. Alterations more likely to be drivers of relevant biology are those that change gene and protein structure and include frameshift (fs*), nonsense (denoted by sequence ending in “X” or “*”), or specific fusions or insertions/deletions (indel) that occur in important domains of the gene.

For some genes, only specific alterations are targetable and not all alterations have the same effect on protein function. Although overexpression of certain genes and proteins are actionable (eg, HER2), amplification of a gene does not necessarily indicate that it is targetable. In NSCLC, specific alterations convey sensitivity to targeted therapies. For example, in EGFR-mutated NSCLC, the sensitizing mutations to EGFR TKIs are exon19 deletions and exon 21 L858R point mutations (the most common mutations), as well as less common mutations found in exon 18-21. Exon 20 mutations, however, are not responsive to EGFR TKIs with a few exceptions.²⁷ Patients who have tumors that do not harbor a sensitizing EGFR mutation should not be treated with an EGFR TKI. In a variety of solid tumors, gene fusions of the NTRK 1/2/3, act as oncogenic drivers. The chromosomal fusion events involving the carboxy-terminal kinase domain of TRK and upstream amino-terminal partners lead to overexpression of the chimeric proteins tropomyosin receptor kinase (TRK) A/B/C, resulting in constitutively active, ligand-independent downstream signaling. In patients with NTRK 1/2/3 gene fusions, larotrectinib and entrectinib, small molecule inhibitors to TRK, have shown antitumor activity.^28,29 No alterations beyond these fusions are known to be targetable.

Allele Fraction

Knowing the fraction (or proportion) of the alteration of interest in the sequenced tissue relative to the estimated tumor content can assist in decision making. Not all platforms will provide this information, which is referred to as mutation allele fraction (MAF) or variant allele fraction (VAF), but sometimes will provide it on request. Platforms will usually provide an estimate of the percent tumor in the tissue being sampled if it is from a biopsy. If the MAF is around 50% in the sequenced tissue (including ctDNA), then there is a reasonable chance that it is a germline variant. However, there are nuances as germline alterations in some genes, such as BRCA1/2, can be accompanied by loss of the other allele of the gene (LOH). In that case, if most of the circulating DNA is from tumor, then the MAF can be > 50%.

If there are 2 alterations of the same gene with MAF percentages that are each half of the total percent tumor, there is a high likelihood of biallelic alteration. These sorts of paired alterations or one mutation with apparent LOH or copy loss would again indicate a high likelihood that the alteration is in fact pathogenic and a relevant driver. Not all pathogenic alterations have to be biallelic to be driver mutations but in BRCA1/2, or mismatch repair deficiency genes, the presence of biallelic alterations increases the likelihood of their being pathogenic.

Tumors that are hypermutated—containing sometimes hundreds of mutations per megabyte of DNA—can be particularly complicated to interpret, because the likelihood increases that many of the alterations are a function of the hypermutation and not a driver mutation. This is particularly important when there are concurrent mutations in mismatch repair genes and genes, such as BRCA1/2. If the tumor is microsatellite instability high or hypermutated, concurrent BRCA1/2 alterations are often passengers as the tumors rarely have coexisting “signatures” suggesting that they have a true deficiency in homologous recombination.³⁰ Large genes such as BRCA1/2 have microsatellite tracts that are prone to frameshift mutations as a result of microsatellite instability, and such mutations in this context are typically subclonal and not drivers. In hypermutated tumors, the likelihood is significantly decreased that any of the mutations other than mismatch repair deficiency or polymerase genes are targetable drivers.

Confounders

In some situations, interpretation can be particularly challenging. For example, several alterations for which there are FDA on-label indications (such as ATM or BRCA2) can be detected in ctDNA that may not be due to the tumor but to CHIP. CHIP represents hematopoietic clones that are dysplastic as a result of exposure to DNA-damaging agents (eg, platinum chemotherapy) or as a result of aging and arise when mutations in hematopoietic stem cells provide a competitive advantage.³¹ The most common CHIP clones that can be detected are DNMT3A, ASXL1, or TET2; because these alterations are not targetable, their importance lies primarily in whether patients have evidence of hematologic abnormality, which might represent an evolving hematopoietic disorder. Because CHIP alterations can overlap with somatic alterations for which FDA-approved drugs exist, such as ATM or CHEK2 (olaparib for prostate cancer) and BRCA2 (poly-ADP-ribose polymerase inhibitors in a range of indications) there is concern that CHIP might result in patient harm from inappropriate treatment of CHIP rather than the tumor, with no likelihood that the treatment would affect the tumor, causing treatment delays.³² General considerations for deciding whether an alteration represents CHIP include excluding alteration in which the VAF is < 1% and when the VAF in the alteration of interest is < 20% of the estimated tumor fraction in the sample. Exceptions to this are found in patients with true myelodysplasia or chronic lymphocytic leukemia, in whom the VAF can be well over 50% because of circulating tumor burden. The only way to be certain that an alteration detected on ctDNA reflects tumor rather than CHIP is to utilize an assay with matched tumor-normal sequencing.

Resources for Assistance

For oncology HCPs, perhaps the best resource to help in selecting and interpreting the appropriate testing is through a dedicated molecular oncology tumor board and subject matter experts who contribute to those tumor boards. In the US Department of Veterans Affairs, the national precision oncology program and its affiliated clinical services, such as the option to order a national consultation and molecular tumor board education, are easily accessible to all HCPs (www.cancer.va.gov). Many commercial vendors provide support to assist with questions of interpretation and to inform clinical decision-making. Other resources that can assist with deciding whether an alteration is pathogenic include extensive curated databases such as ClinVar (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/clinvar) and the Human Genetic Mutation Database (www.hgmd.cf.ac.uk/ac/index.php) for germline alterations or COSMIC (cancer.sanger.ac.uk/cosmic) for somatic alterations. OncoKB (www.oncokb.org) is a resource for assistance in defining levels of evidence for the use of agents to target specific alterations and to assist in assigning pathogenicity to specific alterations. Additional educational resources for training in genomics and genetics are also included in the Appendix.

The rapid growth in technology and ability to enhance understanding of relevant tumor biology continues to improve the therapeutic landscape for men and women dealing with malignancy and our ability to find targetable genetic alterations with the potential for meaningful clinical benefit.

Acknowledgments

Dedicated to Neil Spector.

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in the United States.¹ The 2011 National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) demonstrated that low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening provided a 20% relative reduction in lung cancer–specific mortality.² Based on these findings, the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) published lung cancer screening guidelines in 2013 recommending an annual LDCT of the thorax in patients aged 55 to 80 years with a 30 pack-year smoking history and who currently smoke or quit within the past 15 years. 

In 2021, the USPSTF updated its recommendations by reducing the qualifications for annual screening to a 20 pack-year smoking history.³ The updated guidelines recognized the increased risk of lung cancer for Black individuals.^4,5 Evidence suggests the 2013 screening criteria was too conservative for this population.^6,7

Similarly, US Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) patients are a population at higher risk for lung cancer due to a male predominance, presence of comorbidities, exposure to carcinogenic agents, and possibly a higher prevalence of tobacco smoking.⁸ This study sought to examine the applicability of the USPSTF guidelines in a VA health care system with a predominantly Black population.

Methods

A retrospective chart review of adult patients who were diagnosed and treated with early-stage small cell or non–small cell lung cancer (stage I or II) was performed within the Southeast Louisiana Veterans Health Care System (SLVHCS) in New Orleans. The review used data from the VA Cancer Registry from January 1, 2005, through December 31, 2017. Patients were grouped by whether they met 2013 USPSTF screening criteria at time of diagnosis vs those that did not. Data collected included type and stage of lung cancer at time of diagnosis, context of diagnosis (incidental, screening, symptomatic), diagnostic method, smoking history, and presence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Patients without a clear smoking history documented in the health record were excluded.

Statistical analyses were performed with GraphPad Prism 8.0. Student t test and Fischer exact test were performed for most of the statistical analyses, with differences between groups noted to be statistically significant at a P < .05.

Results

A total of 182 patient charts were reviewed and 13 patients were excluded for missing information related to the USPSTF screening criteria. Of the 169 patients included, 122 (72%) met USPSTF screening criteria while 47 (28%) patients did not. The reasons for not meeting screening criteria were 14 patients were too young at and 9 patients were too old at time of diagnosis, 7 had a < 20 pack-year smoking history, 7 patients had quit > 15 years previously, and 12 patients met multiple exclusion criteria. The study population was 96% male and there was an overall predominance of Black patients (58%) within the sample (Table).

There was a significantly higher proportion of Black patients in the group that did not meet screening criteria compared with the group that met screening criteria (68% vs 54%, P = .04). Cancer type and stage at diagnosis were similar in both patient populations. There was a statistically significant difference in COPD diagnosis between the groups, with a larger proportion of COPD patients in the met screening criteria group (74% vs 45%, P < .001). The mean smoking history was 61.4 pack-years in the met criteria group and 43.3 pack-years in the did not meet criteria group.  

Five additional patients in the group that did not meet the 2013 USPSTF screening criteria would have met criteria if the 2021 USPSTF guidelines were applied. All 5 were Black patients. Using the 2021 guidelines, Black patients would have made up 56% of the patients who met screening criteria and 54% of the patients who did not meet screening criteria at time of diagnosis.

Discussion

This study sought to determine the hypothetical effectiveness of national lung cancer screening guidelines in detecting early-stage lung cancer for a high-risk population. Patients diagnosed with early-stage lung cancer were selected as these patients have improved outcomes with treatment, and thus would theoretically benefit from early detection through screening. As expected, the study population had a majority of Black veterans (58%), with a higher proportion of Black patients in the did not meet screening criteria group compared with the met screening criteria group (68% vs 54%, P = .04). This difference highlights the concern that Black individuals were being underscreened with the 2013 USPSTF guidelines.⁷ This is not all surprising as the NLST, from which the initial screening guidelines were based, included a majority White population with only 4.4% of their population being Black.² The USPSTF also cites the NELSON trial as evidence to support annual lung cancer screening, a trial that was performed in the Netherlands with a very different population compared with that of southeast Louisiana.⁹

Given concern that the old criteria were underscreening certain populations, the updated 2021 USPSTF guidelines sought to expand the screening population. In this study, the implementation of these new guidelines resulted in more Black patients meeting screening criteria.

Racial and ethnic disparities in health care in the US are no secret, as Black individuals consistently have increased disease and death rates, higher rates of unemployment, and decreased access to preventive medical care compared to White individuals.¹⁰ Despite the updated USPSTF guidelines, additional modifications to the screening criteria could improve the ability to identify high-risk patients. A modified model using data from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Screening Trial (PLCO) incorporating COPD history, race and ethnicity, and personal history of cancer increased the sensitivity for high-risk Black ever-smokers.¹¹ Additional models and analyses also support the utility of incorporating race and ethnicity in lung cancer screening criteria.^7,12 Using race and ethnicity to guide screening criteria for cancer is not unheard of; in 2017, the US Multi-Society Task Force recommended that Black individuals start colon cancer screening at age 45 years rather than the typical age of 50 years, before updating the guidelines again in 2021 to recommend that all adults start at age 45 years.^13,14

Limitations

This study had the inherent weakness of being a retrospective study at a single institution. Additionally, the 7th edition of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer was published in 2010, during the 2005 to 2017 time frame from which our data was collected, leading to possible inconsistencies in staging between patients before and after 2010.¹⁵ However, these changes in staging are unlikely to significantly impact the results for in this study, since the vast majority of the patients diagnosed with lung cancer stage I or II before 2010 would still be in the those 2 stages in the 2010 edition. Finally, specific to our patient population, it was often difficult to ascertain an accurate smoking history for each patient, especially in the early years of the data set, likely due to the disruption of care caused by Hurricane Katrina.

Conclusions

In this retrospective study performed at the SLVHCS in New Orleans, a significantly higher proportion of Black patients compared with White patients with early-stage lung cancer did not meet the 2013 USPSTF lung cancer screening guidelines at time of diagnosis, highlighting the concern that this population was being underscreened. These findings demonstrate the challenges and failures of applying national guidelines to a unique, high-risk population. An individualized, risk-based screening model incorporating race and ethnicity could be more effective at diagnosing early-stage lung cancer and requires more investigation. Centralized lung cancer screening programs within the VA system could also be beneficial for early detection and treatment, as well as provide insight into the increased risk within the veteran population.

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in the United States.¹ The 2011 National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) demonstrated that low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening provided a 20% relative reduction in lung cancer–specific mortality.² Based on these findings, the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) published lung cancer screening guidelines in 2013 recommending an annual LDCT of the thorax in patients aged 55 to 80 years with a 30 pack-year smoking history and who currently smoke or quit within the past 15 years. 

In 2021, the USPSTF updated its recommendations by reducing the qualifications for annual screening to a 20 pack-year smoking history.³ The updated guidelines recognized the increased risk of lung cancer for Black individuals.^4,5 Evidence suggests the 2013 screening criteria was too conservative for this population.^6,7

Similarly, US Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) patients are a population at higher risk for lung cancer due to a male predominance, presence of comorbidities, exposure to carcinogenic agents, and possibly a higher prevalence of tobacco smoking.⁸ This study sought to examine the applicability of the USPSTF guidelines in a VA health care system with a predominantly Black population.

Methods

A retrospective chart review of adult patients who were diagnosed and treated with early-stage small cell or non–small cell lung cancer (stage I or II) was performed within the Southeast Louisiana Veterans Health Care System (SLVHCS) in New Orleans. The review used data from the VA Cancer Registry from January 1, 2005, through December 31, 2017. Patients were grouped by whether they met 2013 USPSTF screening criteria at time of diagnosis vs those that did not. Data collected included type and stage of lung cancer at time of diagnosis, context of diagnosis (incidental, screening, symptomatic), diagnostic method, smoking history, and presence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Patients without a clear smoking history documented in the health record were excluded.

Statistical analyses were performed with GraphPad Prism 8.0. Student t test and Fischer exact test were performed for most of the statistical analyses, with differences between groups noted to be statistically significant at a P < .05.

Results

A total of 182 patient charts were reviewed and 13 patients were excluded for missing information related to the USPSTF screening criteria. Of the 169 patients included, 122 (72%) met USPSTF screening criteria while 47 (28%) patients did not. The reasons for not meeting screening criteria were 14 patients were too young at and 9 patients were too old at time of diagnosis, 7 had a < 20 pack-year smoking history, 7 patients had quit > 15 years previously, and 12 patients met multiple exclusion criteria. The study population was 96% male and there was an overall predominance of Black patients (58%) within the sample (Table).

There was a significantly higher proportion of Black patients in the group that did not meet screening criteria compared with the group that met screening criteria (68% vs 54%, P = .04). Cancer type and stage at diagnosis were similar in both patient populations. There was a statistically significant difference in COPD diagnosis between the groups, with a larger proportion of COPD patients in the met screening criteria group (74% vs 45%, P < .001). The mean smoking history was 61.4 pack-years in the met criteria group and 43.3 pack-years in the did not meet criteria group.  

Five additional patients in the group that did not meet the 2013 USPSTF screening criteria would have met criteria if the 2021 USPSTF guidelines were applied. All 5 were Black patients. Using the 2021 guidelines, Black patients would have made up 56% of the patients who met screening criteria and 54% of the patients who did not meet screening criteria at time of diagnosis.

Discussion

This study sought to determine the hypothetical effectiveness of national lung cancer screening guidelines in detecting early-stage lung cancer for a high-risk population. Patients diagnosed with early-stage lung cancer were selected as these patients have improved outcomes with treatment, and thus would theoretically benefit from early detection through screening. As expected, the study population had a majority of Black veterans (58%), with a higher proportion of Black patients in the did not meet screening criteria group compared with the met screening criteria group (68% vs 54%, P = .04). This difference highlights the concern that Black individuals were being underscreened with the 2013 USPSTF guidelines.⁷ This is not all surprising as the NLST, from which the initial screening guidelines were based, included a majority White population with only 4.4% of their population being Black.² The USPSTF also cites the NELSON trial as evidence to support annual lung cancer screening, a trial that was performed in the Netherlands with a very different population compared with that of southeast Louisiana.⁹

Given concern that the old criteria were underscreening certain populations, the updated 2021 USPSTF guidelines sought to expand the screening population. In this study, the implementation of these new guidelines resulted in more Black patients meeting screening criteria.

Racial and ethnic disparities in health care in the US are no secret, as Black individuals consistently have increased disease and death rates, higher rates of unemployment, and decreased access to preventive medical care compared to White individuals.¹⁰ Despite the updated USPSTF guidelines, additional modifications to the screening criteria could improve the ability to identify high-risk patients. A modified model using data from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Screening Trial (PLCO) incorporating COPD history, race and ethnicity, and personal history of cancer increased the sensitivity for high-risk Black ever-smokers.¹¹ Additional models and analyses also support the utility of incorporating race and ethnicity in lung cancer screening criteria.^7,12 Using race and ethnicity to guide screening criteria for cancer is not unheard of; in 2017, the US Multi-Society Task Force recommended that Black individuals start colon cancer screening at age 45 years rather than the typical age of 50 years, before updating the guidelines again in 2021 to recommend that all adults start at age 45 years.^13,14

Limitations

This study had the inherent weakness of being a retrospective study at a single institution. Additionally, the 7th edition of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer was published in 2010, during the 2005 to 2017 time frame from which our data was collected, leading to possible inconsistencies in staging between patients before and after 2010.¹⁵ However, these changes in staging are unlikely to significantly impact the results for in this study, since the vast majority of the patients diagnosed with lung cancer stage I or II before 2010 would still be in the those 2 stages in the 2010 edition. Finally, specific to our patient population, it was often difficult to ascertain an accurate smoking history for each patient, especially in the early years of the data set, likely due to the disruption of care caused by Hurricane Katrina.

Conclusions

In this retrospective study performed at the SLVHCS in New Orleans, a significantly higher proportion of Black patients compared with White patients with early-stage lung cancer did not meet the 2013 USPSTF lung cancer screening guidelines at time of diagnosis, highlighting the concern that this population was being underscreened. These findings demonstrate the challenges and failures of applying national guidelines to a unique, high-risk population. An individualized, risk-based screening model incorporating race and ethnicity could be more effective at diagnosing early-stage lung cancer and requires more investigation. Centralized lung cancer screening programs within the VA system could also be beneficial for early detection and treatment, as well as provide insight into the increased risk within the veteran population.

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in the United States.¹ The 2011 National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) demonstrated that low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening provided a 20% relative reduction in lung cancer–specific mortality.² Based on these findings, the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) published lung cancer screening guidelines in 2013 recommending an annual LDCT of the thorax in patients aged 55 to 80 years with a 30 pack-year smoking history and who currently smoke or quit within the past 15 years. 

In 2021, the USPSTF updated its recommendations by reducing the qualifications for annual screening to a 20 pack-year smoking history.³ The updated guidelines recognized the increased risk of lung cancer for Black individuals.^4,5 Evidence suggests the 2013 screening criteria was too conservative for this population.^6,7

Similarly, US Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) patients are a population at higher risk for lung cancer due to a male predominance, presence of comorbidities, exposure to carcinogenic agents, and possibly a higher prevalence of tobacco smoking.⁸ This study sought to examine the applicability of the USPSTF guidelines in a VA health care system with a predominantly Black population.

Methods

A retrospective chart review of adult patients who were diagnosed and treated with early-stage small cell or non–small cell lung cancer (stage I or II) was performed within the Southeast Louisiana Veterans Health Care System (SLVHCS) in New Orleans. The review used data from the VA Cancer Registry from January 1, 2005, through December 31, 2017. Patients were grouped by whether they met 2013 USPSTF screening criteria at time of diagnosis vs those that did not. Data collected included type and stage of lung cancer at time of diagnosis, context of diagnosis (incidental, screening, symptomatic), diagnostic method, smoking history, and presence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Patients without a clear smoking history documented in the health record were excluded.

Statistical analyses were performed with GraphPad Prism 8.0. Student t test and Fischer exact test were performed for most of the statistical analyses, with differences between groups noted to be statistically significant at a P < .05.

Results

A total of 182 patient charts were reviewed and 13 patients were excluded for missing information related to the USPSTF screening criteria. Of the 169 patients included, 122 (72%) met USPSTF screening criteria while 47 (28%) patients did not. The reasons for not meeting screening criteria were 14 patients were too young at and 9 patients were too old at time of diagnosis, 7 had a < 20 pack-year smoking history, 7 patients had quit > 15 years previously, and 12 patients met multiple exclusion criteria. The study population was 96% male and there was an overall predominance of Black patients (58%) within the sample (Table).

There was a significantly higher proportion of Black patients in the group that did not meet screening criteria compared with the group that met screening criteria (68% vs 54%, P = .04). Cancer type and stage at diagnosis were similar in both patient populations. There was a statistically significant difference in COPD diagnosis between the groups, with a larger proportion of COPD patients in the met screening criteria group (74% vs 45%, P < .001). The mean smoking history was 61.4 pack-years in the met criteria group and 43.3 pack-years in the did not meet criteria group.  

Five additional patients in the group that did not meet the 2013 USPSTF screening criteria would have met criteria if the 2021 USPSTF guidelines were applied. All 5 were Black patients. Using the 2021 guidelines, Black patients would have made up 56% of the patients who met screening criteria and 54% of the patients who did not meet screening criteria at time of diagnosis.

Discussion

This study sought to determine the hypothetical effectiveness of national lung cancer screening guidelines in detecting early-stage lung cancer for a high-risk population. Patients diagnosed with early-stage lung cancer were selected as these patients have improved outcomes with treatment, and thus would theoretically benefit from early detection through screening. As expected, the study population had a majority of Black veterans (58%), with a higher proportion of Black patients in the did not meet screening criteria group compared with the met screening criteria group (68% vs 54%, P = .04). This difference highlights the concern that Black individuals were being underscreened with the 2013 USPSTF guidelines.⁷ This is not all surprising as the NLST, from which the initial screening guidelines were based, included a majority White population with only 4.4% of their population being Black.² The USPSTF also cites the NELSON trial as evidence to support annual lung cancer screening, a trial that was performed in the Netherlands with a very different population compared with that of southeast Louisiana.⁹

Given concern that the old criteria were underscreening certain populations, the updated 2021 USPSTF guidelines sought to expand the screening population. In this study, the implementation of these new guidelines resulted in more Black patients meeting screening criteria.

Racial and ethnic disparities in health care in the US are no secret, as Black individuals consistently have increased disease and death rates, higher rates of unemployment, and decreased access to preventive medical care compared to White individuals.¹⁰ Despite the updated USPSTF guidelines, additional modifications to the screening criteria could improve the ability to identify high-risk patients. A modified model using data from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Screening Trial (PLCO) incorporating COPD history, race and ethnicity, and personal history of cancer increased the sensitivity for high-risk Black ever-smokers.¹¹ Additional models and analyses also support the utility of incorporating race and ethnicity in lung cancer screening criteria.^7,12 Using race and ethnicity to guide screening criteria for cancer is not unheard of; in 2017, the US Multi-Society Task Force recommended that Black individuals start colon cancer screening at age 45 years rather than the typical age of 50 years, before updating the guidelines again in 2021 to recommend that all adults start at age 45 years.^13,14

Limitations

This study had the inherent weakness of being a retrospective study at a single institution. Additionally, the 7th edition of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer was published in 2010, during the 2005 to 2017 time frame from which our data was collected, leading to possible inconsistencies in staging between patients before and after 2010.¹⁵ However, these changes in staging are unlikely to significantly impact the results for in this study, since the vast majority of the patients diagnosed with lung cancer stage I or II before 2010 would still be in the those 2 stages in the 2010 edition. Finally, specific to our patient population, it was often difficult to ascertain an accurate smoking history for each patient, especially in the early years of the data set, likely due to the disruption of care caused by Hurricane Katrina.

Conclusions

In this retrospective study performed at the SLVHCS in New Orleans, a significantly higher proportion of Black patients compared with White patients with early-stage lung cancer did not meet the 2013 USPSTF lung cancer screening guidelines at time of diagnosis, highlighting the concern that this population was being underscreened. These findings demonstrate the challenges and failures of applying national guidelines to a unique, high-risk population. An individualized, risk-based screening model incorporating race and ethnicity could be more effective at diagnosing early-stage lung cancer and requires more investigation. Centralized lung cancer screening programs within the VA system could also be beneficial for early detection and treatment, as well as provide insight into the increased risk within the veteran population.

Penile cancer is rare with a worldwide incidence of 0.8 cases per 100,000 men.¹ The most common type is squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) followed by soft tissue sarcoma (STS) and Kaposi sarcoma.² Leiomyosarcoma (LMS) is the second most common STS subtype at this location.³ Approximately 50 cases of penile LMS have been reported in the English literature, most as isolated case reports while Fetsch and colleagues reported 14 cases from a single institute.⁴ We present a case of penile LMS with a review of 31 cases. We also describe presentation, treatment options, and recurrence pattern of this rare malignancy.

Case Presentation

A patient aged 70 years presented to the urology clinic with 1-year history of a slowly enlarging penile mass associated with phimosis. He reported no pain, dysuria, or hesitancy. On examination a 2 × 2-cm smooth, mobile, nonulcerating mass was seen on the tip of his left glans without inguinal lymphadenopathy. He underwent circumcision and excision biopsy that revealed an encapsulated tan-white mass measuring 3 × 2.2 × 1.5 cm under the surface of the foreskin. Histology showed a spindle cell tumor with areas of increased cellularity, prominent atypia, and pleomorphism, focal necrosis, and scattered mitoses, including atypical forms. The tumor stained positive for smooth muscle actin and desmin. Ki-67 staining showed foci with a very high proliferation index (Figure). Resection margins were negative. Final Fédération Nationale des Centres de Lutte Contre Le Cancer score was grade 2 (differentiation, 1; mitotic, 3; necrosis, 1). Computed tomography of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis did not show evidence of metastasis. The tumor was classified as superficial, stage IIA (pT1cN0cM0). Local excision with negative margins was deemed adequate treatment.

Discussion

Penile LMS is rare and arises from smooth muscles, which in the penis can be from dartos fascia, erector pili in the skin covering the shaft, or from tunica media of the superficial vessels and cavernosa.⁵ It commonly presents as a nodule or ulcer that might be accompanied by paraphimosis, phimosis, erectile dysfunction, and lower urinary tract symptoms depending on the extent of local tissue involvement. In our review of 31 cases, the age at presentation ranged from 38 to 85 years, with 1 case report of LMS in a 6-year-old. The highest incidence was in the 6th decade. Tumor behavior can be indolent or aggressive. Most patients in our review had asymptomatic, slow-growing lesions for 6 to 24 months before presentation—including our patient—while others had an aggressive tumor with symptoms for a few weeks followed by rapid metastatic spread.^6,7

Histology and Staging

Diagnosis requires biopsy followed by histologic examination and immunohistochemistry of the lesion. Typically, LMS shows fascicles of spindle cells with varying degrees of nuclear atypia, pleomorphisms, and necrotic regions. Mitotic rate is variable and usually > 5 per high power field. Cells stain positive for smooth muscle actin, desmin, and h-caldesmon.⁸ TNM (tumor, nodes, metastasis) stage is determined by the American Joint Committee on Cancer guidelines for STS.

Pratt and colleagues were the first to categorize penile LMS as superficial or deep.⁹ The former includes all lesions superficial to tunica albuginea while the latter run deep to this layer. Anatomical distinction is an important factor in tumor behavior, treatment selection, and prognosis. In our review, we found 14 cases of superficial and 17 cases of deep LMS.

Treatment

There are no established guidelines on optimum treatment of penile LMS. However, we can extrapolate principles from current guidelines on penile cancer, cutaneous leiomyosarcoma, and limb sarcomas. At present, the first-line treatment for superficial penile LMS is wide local excision to achieve negative margins. Circumcision alone might be sufficient for tumors of the distal prepuce, as in our case.¹⁰ Radical resection generally is not required for these early-stage tumors. In our review, no patient in this category developed recurrence or metastasis regardless of initial surgery type (Table 1).^6,11,12

For deep lesions, partial—if functional penile stump and negative margins can be achieved—or total penectomy is required.¹⁰ In our review, more conservative approaches to deep tumors were associated with local recurrences.^7,13,14 Lymphatic spread is rare for LMS. Additionally, involvement of local lymph nodes usually coincides with distant spread. Inguinal lymph node dissection is not indicated if initial negative surgical margins are achieved.

For STS at other sites in the body, radiation therapy is recommended postoperatively for high-grade lesions, which can be extrapolated to penile LMS as well. The benefit of preoperative radiation therapy is less certain. In limb sarcomas, radiation is associated with better local control for large-sized tumors and is used for patients with initial unresectable tumors.¹⁵ Similar recommendation could be extended to penile LMS with local spread to inguinal lymph nodes, scrotum, or abdominal wall. In our review, postoperative radiation therapy was used in 3 patients with deep tumors.^16-18 Of these, short-term relapse occurred in 1 patient.

Metastatic Disease

LMS tends to metastasize hematogenously and lymphatic spread is uncommon. In our review, 7 patients developed metastasis. These patients had deep tumors at presentation with tumor size > 3 cm. Five of 7 patients had involvement of corpora cavernosa at presentation. The lung was the most common site of metastasis, followed by local extension to lower abdominal wall and scrotum. Of the 7 patients, 3 were treated with initial limited excision or partial penectomy and then experienced local recurrence or distant metastasis.^7,13,14,23 This supports the use of radical surgery in large, deep tumors. In an additional 4 cases, metastasis occurred despite initial treatment with total penectomy and use of adjuvant chemoradiation therapy.

In most cases penile LMS is a de novo tumor, however, on occasion it could be accompanied by another epithelial malignancy. Similarly, penile LMS might be a site of recurrence for a primary LMS at another site, as seen in 3 of the reviewed cases. In the first, a patient presented with a nodule on the glans suspicious for SCC, second with synchronous SCC and LMS, and a third case where a patient presented with penile LMS 9 years after being treated for similar tumor in the epididymis.^17,24,25

Prognosis

Penile LMS prognosis is difficult to ascertain because reported cases are rare. In our review, the longest documented disease-free survival was 3.5 years for a patient with superficial LMS treated with local excision.²⁶ In cases of distant metastasis, average survival was 4.6 months, while the longest survival since initial presentation and last documented local recurrence was 16 years.¹⁴ Five-year survival has not been reported.

Conclusions

LMS of the penis is a rare and potentially aggressive malignancy. It can be classified as superficial or deep based on tumor relation to the tunica albuginea. Deep tumors, those > 3 cm, high-grade lesions, and tumors with involvement of corpora cavernosa, tend to spread locally, metastasize to distant areas, and require more radical surgery with or without postoperative radiation therapy. In comparison, superficial lesions can be treated with local excision only. Both superficial and deep tumors require close follow-up.

Penile cancer is rare with a worldwide incidence of 0.8 cases per 100,000 men.¹ The most common type is squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) followed by soft tissue sarcoma (STS) and Kaposi sarcoma.² Leiomyosarcoma (LMS) is the second most common STS subtype at this location.³ Approximately 50 cases of penile LMS have been reported in the English literature, most as isolated case reports while Fetsch and colleagues reported 14 cases from a single institute.⁴ We present a case of penile LMS with a review of 31 cases. We also describe presentation, treatment options, and recurrence pattern of this rare malignancy.

Case Presentation

A patient aged 70 years presented to the urology clinic with 1-year history of a slowly enlarging penile mass associated with phimosis. He reported no pain, dysuria, or hesitancy. On examination a 2 × 2-cm smooth, mobile, nonulcerating mass was seen on the tip of his left glans without inguinal lymphadenopathy. He underwent circumcision and excision biopsy that revealed an encapsulated tan-white mass measuring 3 × 2.2 × 1.5 cm under the surface of the foreskin. Histology showed a spindle cell tumor with areas of increased cellularity, prominent atypia, and pleomorphism, focal necrosis, and scattered mitoses, including atypical forms. The tumor stained positive for smooth muscle actin and desmin. Ki-67 staining showed foci with a very high proliferation index (Figure). Resection margins were negative. Final Fédération Nationale des Centres de Lutte Contre Le Cancer score was grade 2 (differentiation, 1; mitotic, 3; necrosis, 1). Computed tomography of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis did not show evidence of metastasis. The tumor was classified as superficial, stage IIA (pT1cN0cM0). Local excision with negative margins was deemed adequate treatment.

Discussion

Penile LMS is rare and arises from smooth muscles, which in the penis can be from dartos fascia, erector pili in the skin covering the shaft, or from tunica media of the superficial vessels and cavernosa.⁵ It commonly presents as a nodule or ulcer that might be accompanied by paraphimosis, phimosis, erectile dysfunction, and lower urinary tract symptoms depending on the extent of local tissue involvement. In our review of 31 cases, the age at presentation ranged from 38 to 85 years, with 1 case report of LMS in a 6-year-old. The highest incidence was in the 6th decade. Tumor behavior can be indolent or aggressive. Most patients in our review had asymptomatic, slow-growing lesions for 6 to 24 months before presentation—including our patient—while others had an aggressive tumor with symptoms for a few weeks followed by rapid metastatic spread.^6,7

Histology and Staging

Diagnosis requires biopsy followed by histologic examination and immunohistochemistry of the lesion. Typically, LMS shows fascicles of spindle cells with varying degrees of nuclear atypia, pleomorphisms, and necrotic regions. Mitotic rate is variable and usually > 5 per high power field. Cells stain positive for smooth muscle actin, desmin, and h-caldesmon.⁸ TNM (tumor, nodes, metastasis) stage is determined by the American Joint Committee on Cancer guidelines for STS.

Pratt and colleagues were the first to categorize penile LMS as superficial or deep.⁹ The former includes all lesions superficial to tunica albuginea while the latter run deep to this layer. Anatomical distinction is an important factor in tumor behavior, treatment selection, and prognosis. In our review, we found 14 cases of superficial and 17 cases of deep LMS.

Treatment

There are no established guidelines on optimum treatment of penile LMS. However, we can extrapolate principles from current guidelines on penile cancer, cutaneous leiomyosarcoma, and limb sarcomas. At present, the first-line treatment for superficial penile LMS is wide local excision to achieve negative margins. Circumcision alone might be sufficient for tumors of the distal prepuce, as in our case.¹⁰ Radical resection generally is not required for these early-stage tumors. In our review, no patient in this category developed recurrence or metastasis regardless of initial surgery type (Table 1).^6,11,12

For deep lesions, partial—if functional penile stump and negative margins can be achieved—or total penectomy is required.¹⁰ In our review, more conservative approaches to deep tumors were associated with local recurrences.^7,13,14 Lymphatic spread is rare for LMS. Additionally, involvement of local lymph nodes usually coincides with distant spread. Inguinal lymph node dissection is not indicated if initial negative surgical margins are achieved.

For STS at other sites in the body, radiation therapy is recommended postoperatively for high-grade lesions, which can be extrapolated to penile LMS as well. The benefit of preoperative radiation therapy is less certain. In limb sarcomas, radiation is associated with better local control for large-sized tumors and is used for patients with initial unresectable tumors.¹⁵ Similar recommendation could be extended to penile LMS with local spread to inguinal lymph nodes, scrotum, or abdominal wall. In our review, postoperative radiation therapy was used in 3 patients with deep tumors.^16-18 Of these, short-term relapse occurred in 1 patient.

Metastatic Disease

LMS tends to metastasize hematogenously and lymphatic spread is uncommon. In our review, 7 patients developed metastasis. These patients had deep tumors at presentation with tumor size > 3 cm. Five of 7 patients had involvement of corpora cavernosa at presentation. The lung was the most common site of metastasis, followed by local extension to lower abdominal wall and scrotum. Of the 7 patients, 3 were treated with initial limited excision or partial penectomy and then experienced local recurrence or distant metastasis.^7,13,14,23 This supports the use of radical surgery in large, deep tumors. In an additional 4 cases, metastasis occurred despite initial treatment with total penectomy and use of adjuvant chemoradiation therapy.

In most cases penile LMS is a de novo tumor, however, on occasion it could be accompanied by another epithelial malignancy. Similarly, penile LMS might be a site of recurrence for a primary LMS at another site, as seen in 3 of the reviewed cases. In the first, a patient presented with a nodule on the glans suspicious for SCC, second with synchronous SCC and LMS, and a third case where a patient presented with penile LMS 9 years after being treated for similar tumor in the epididymis.^17,24,25

Prognosis

Penile LMS prognosis is difficult to ascertain because reported cases are rare. In our review, the longest documented disease-free survival was 3.5 years for a patient with superficial LMS treated with local excision.²⁶ In cases of distant metastasis, average survival was 4.6 months, while the longest survival since initial presentation and last documented local recurrence was 16 years.¹⁴ Five-year survival has not been reported.

Conclusions

LMS of the penis is a rare and potentially aggressive malignancy. It can be classified as superficial or deep based on tumor relation to the tunica albuginea. Deep tumors, those > 3 cm, high-grade lesions, and tumors with involvement of corpora cavernosa, tend to spread locally, metastasize to distant areas, and require more radical surgery with or without postoperative radiation therapy. In comparison, superficial lesions can be treated with local excision only. Both superficial and deep tumors require close follow-up.

Penile cancer is rare with a worldwide incidence of 0.8 cases per 100,000 men.¹ The most common type is squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) followed by soft tissue sarcoma (STS) and Kaposi sarcoma.² Leiomyosarcoma (LMS) is the second most common STS subtype at this location.³ Approximately 50 cases of penile LMS have been reported in the English literature, most as isolated case reports while Fetsch and colleagues reported 14 cases from a single institute.⁴ We present a case of penile LMS with a review of 31 cases. We also describe presentation, treatment options, and recurrence pattern of this rare malignancy.

Case Presentation

A patient aged 70 years presented to the urology clinic with 1-year history of a slowly enlarging penile mass associated with phimosis. He reported no pain, dysuria, or hesitancy. On examination a 2 × 2-cm smooth, mobile, nonulcerating mass was seen on the tip of his left glans without inguinal lymphadenopathy. He underwent circumcision and excision biopsy that revealed an encapsulated tan-white mass measuring 3 × 2.2 × 1.5 cm under the surface of the foreskin. Histology showed a spindle cell tumor with areas of increased cellularity, prominent atypia, and pleomorphism, focal necrosis, and scattered mitoses, including atypical forms. The tumor stained positive for smooth muscle actin and desmin. Ki-67 staining showed foci with a very high proliferation index (Figure). Resection margins were negative. Final Fédération Nationale des Centres de Lutte Contre Le Cancer score was grade 2 (differentiation, 1; mitotic, 3; necrosis, 1). Computed tomography of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis did not show evidence of metastasis. The tumor was classified as superficial, stage IIA (pT1cN0cM0). Local excision with negative margins was deemed adequate treatment.

Discussion

Penile LMS is rare and arises from smooth muscles, which in the penis can be from dartos fascia, erector pili in the skin covering the shaft, or from tunica media of the superficial vessels and cavernosa.⁵ It commonly presents as a nodule or ulcer that might be accompanied by paraphimosis, phimosis, erectile dysfunction, and lower urinary tract symptoms depending on the extent of local tissue involvement. In our review of 31 cases, the age at presentation ranged from 38 to 85 years, with 1 case report of LMS in a 6-year-old. The highest incidence was in the 6th decade. Tumor behavior can be indolent or aggressive. Most patients in our review had asymptomatic, slow-growing lesions for 6 to 24 months before presentation—including our patient—while others had an aggressive tumor with symptoms for a few weeks followed by rapid metastatic spread.^6,7

Histology and Staging

Diagnosis requires biopsy followed by histologic examination and immunohistochemistry of the lesion. Typically, LMS shows fascicles of spindle cells with varying degrees of nuclear atypia, pleomorphisms, and necrotic regions. Mitotic rate is variable and usually > 5 per high power field. Cells stain positive for smooth muscle actin, desmin, and h-caldesmon.⁸ TNM (tumor, nodes, metastasis) stage is determined by the American Joint Committee on Cancer guidelines for STS.

Pratt and colleagues were the first to categorize penile LMS as superficial or deep.⁹ The former includes all lesions superficial to tunica albuginea while the latter run deep to this layer. Anatomical distinction is an important factor in tumor behavior, treatment selection, and prognosis. In our review, we found 14 cases of superficial and 17 cases of deep LMS.

Treatment

There are no established guidelines on optimum treatment of penile LMS. However, we can extrapolate principles from current guidelines on penile cancer, cutaneous leiomyosarcoma, and limb sarcomas. At present, the first-line treatment for superficial penile LMS is wide local excision to achieve negative margins. Circumcision alone might be sufficient for tumors of the distal prepuce, as in our case.¹⁰ Radical resection generally is not required for these early-stage tumors. In our review, no patient in this category developed recurrence or metastasis regardless of initial surgery type (Table 1).^6,11,12

For deep lesions, partial—if functional penile stump and negative margins can be achieved—or total penectomy is required.¹⁰ In our review, more conservative approaches to deep tumors were associated with local recurrences.^7,13,14 Lymphatic spread is rare for LMS. Additionally, involvement of local lymph nodes usually coincides with distant spread. Inguinal lymph node dissection is not indicated if initial negative surgical margins are achieved.

For STS at other sites in the body, radiation therapy is recommended postoperatively for high-grade lesions, which can be extrapolated to penile LMS as well. The benefit of preoperative radiation therapy is less certain. In limb sarcomas, radiation is associated with better local control for large-sized tumors and is used for patients with initial unresectable tumors.¹⁵ Similar recommendation could be extended to penile LMS with local spread to inguinal lymph nodes, scrotum, or abdominal wall. In our review, postoperative radiation therapy was used in 3 patients with deep tumors.^16-18 Of these, short-term relapse occurred in 1 patient.

Metastatic Disease

LMS tends to metastasize hematogenously and lymphatic spread is uncommon. In our review, 7 patients developed metastasis. These patients had deep tumors at presentation with tumor size > 3 cm. Five of 7 patients had involvement of corpora cavernosa at presentation. The lung was the most common site of metastasis, followed by local extension to lower abdominal wall and scrotum. Of the 7 patients, 3 were treated with initial limited excision or partial penectomy and then experienced local recurrence or distant metastasis.^7,13,14,23 This supports the use of radical surgery in large, deep tumors. In an additional 4 cases, metastasis occurred despite initial treatment with total penectomy and use of adjuvant chemoradiation therapy.

In most cases penile LMS is a de novo tumor, however, on occasion it could be accompanied by another epithelial malignancy. Similarly, penile LMS might be a site of recurrence for a primary LMS at another site, as seen in 3 of the reviewed cases. In the first, a patient presented with a nodule on the glans suspicious for SCC, second with synchronous SCC and LMS, and a third case where a patient presented with penile LMS 9 years after being treated for similar tumor in the epididymis.^17,24,25

Prognosis

Penile LMS prognosis is difficult to ascertain because reported cases are rare. In our review, the longest documented disease-free survival was 3.5 years for a patient with superficial LMS treated with local excision.²⁶ In cases of distant metastasis, average survival was 4.6 months, while the longest survival since initial presentation and last documented local recurrence was 16 years.¹⁴ Five-year survival has not been reported.

Conclusions

LMS of the penis is a rare and potentially aggressive malignancy. It can be classified as superficial or deep based on tumor relation to the tunica albuginea. Deep tumors, those > 3 cm, high-grade lesions, and tumors with involvement of corpora cavernosa, tend to spread locally, metastasize to distant areas, and require more radical surgery with or without postoperative radiation therapy. In comparison, superficial lesions can be treated with local excision only. Both superficial and deep tumors require close follow-up.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains a major global health problem and is the third leading cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide.¹ Management of HCC is complex; as it largely occurs in the background of chronic liver disease, its management must simultaneously address challenges related to the patient’s tumor burden, as well as their underlying liver dysfunction and performance status. HCC is universally fatal without treatment, with a 5-year survival < 10%.² However, if detected early HCC is potentially curable, with treatments such as hepatic resection, ablation, and/or liver transplantation, which are associated with 5-year survival rates as high as 70%.² HCC-specific palliative treatments, including intra-arterial therapies (eg, trans-arterial chemoembolization, radioembolization) and systemic chemotherapy, have also been shown to prolong survival in patients with advanced HCC. Therefore, a key driver of patient survival is receipt of HCC-specific therapy.

There is rising incidence and mortality related to HCC in the US veteran population, largely attributed to acquisition of chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection decades prior.³ There is also a high prevalence of psychosocial barriers in this population, such as low socioeconomic status, homelessness, alcohol and substance use disorders, and psychiatric disorders which can negatively influence receipt of medical treatment, including cancer care.^4,5 Given the complexity of managing HCC, as well as the plethora of potential treatment options available, it is widely accepted that a multidisciplinary team approach, such as the multidisciplinary tumor board (MDTB) provides optimal care to patients with HCC.^2,6 The aim of the present study was to identify in a population of veterans diagnosed with HCC the prevalence of psychosocial barriers to care and assess their impact and the role of an MDTB on receipt of HCC-specific care.

Methods

In June 2007, a joint institutional MDTB was established for patients with primary liver tumors receiving care at the William S. Middleton Memorial Veterans’ Hospital (WSMMVH) in Madison, Wisconsin. As we have described elsewhere, individual cases with their corresponding imaging studies were reviewed at a weekly conference attended by transplant hepatologists, medical oncologists, hepatobiliary and transplant surgeons, pathologists, diagnostic and interventional radiologists, and nurse coordinators.⁶ Potential therapies offered included surgical resection, liver transplantation (LT), thermal ablation, intra-arterial therapies (chemo and/or radioembolization), systemic chemotherapy, stereotactic radiation, and best supportive care. Decisions regarding the appropriate treatment modality were made based on patient factors, review of their cross-sectional imaging studies and/or histopathology, and context of their underlying liver dysfunction. The tumor board discussion was summarized in meeting minutes as well as tumor board encounters recorded in each patient’s health record. Although patients with benign tumors were presented at the MDTB, only patients with a diagnosis of HCC were included in this study.

A database analysis was conducted of all veteran patients with HCC managed through the WSMMVH MDTB, since its inception up to December 31, 2016, with follow-up until December 31, 2018. Data for analysis included demographics, laboratory parameters at time of diagnosis and treatment, imaging findings, histopathology and/or surgical pathology, treatment rendered, and follow-up information. The primary outcome measured in this study included receipt of any therapy and secondarily, patient survival.

Discrete variables were analyzed with χ² statistics or Fisher exact test and continuous variables with the student t test. Multivariable analyses were carried out with logistic regression. Variables with a P < .05 were considered statistically significant. Analyses were carried out using IBM SPSS v24.0.

As a quality-improvement initiative for the care and management of veterans with HCC, this study was determined to be exempt from review by the WSMMVH and University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health Institutional Review Board.

Results

From January 1, 2007, through December 31, 2016, 149 patients with HCC were managed through the MDTB. Baseline demographic data, Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) score and Child-Turcotte-Pugh class, and baseline HCC characteristics of the cohort are shown in Tables 1 and 2.

There was a high prevalence of psychosocial barriers in our study cohort, including alcohol or substance use disorder, mental illness diagnosis, and low socioeconomic status (Table 3). The mean distance traveled to WSMMVH for HCC-specific care was 206 km. Fifty patients in the cohort utilized travel assistance and 33 patients accessed lodging assistance.

HCC Treatments

There was a high rate of receipt of treatment in our study cohort with 127 (85%) patients receiving at least one HCC-specific therapy. Care was individualized and coordinated through our institutional MDTB, with both curative and palliative treatment modalities utilized (Table 4).

Curative treatment, which includes LT, ablation, or resection, was offered to 78 (52%) patients who were within T2 stage. Of these 78 patients who were potential candidates for LT as a curative treatment for HCC, 31 were not deemed suitable transplant candidates. Psychosocial barriers precluded consideration for LT in 7 of the 31 patients due to active substance use, homelessness in 1 patient, and severe mental illness in 3 patients. Medical comorbidities, advanced patient age, and patient preference accounted for the remainder.

In a univariate analysis of the cohort of 149 patients, factors that decreased the likelihood of receipt of curative HCC therapy included T2 stage or higher at diagnosis and a diagnosis of depression, whereas provision for lodging was associated with increased likelihood of receiving HCC-specific care (Table 5). Other factors that influenced receipt of any treatment included patient’s MELD score, total bilirubin, and serum α-fetoprotein, a surrogate marker for tumor stage. In the multivariable analysis, predictors of receiving curative therapy included absence of substance use, within T2 stage of tumor, and Child-Turcotte-Pugh class A cirrhosis. The presence of psychosocial barriers apart from substance use did not predict a lower chance of receiving curative HCC therapy (including homelessness, distance traveled to center, mental health disorder, and low income).

Discussion

Increases in prevalence and mortality related to cirrhosis and HCC have been reported among the US veteran population.³ This is in large part attributable to the burden of chronic HCV infection in this population. As mirrored in the US population in general, we may be at a turning point regarding the gradual increase in prevalence in HCC.⁷ The prevalence of cirrhosis and viral-related HCC related to HCV infection will decline with availability of effective antiviral therapy. Alcoholic liver disease remains a main etiological factor for development of cirrhosis and HCC. Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease is becoming a more prevalent cause for development of cirrhosis, indication for liver transplantation, and development of HCC, and indeed may lead to HCC even in the absence of cirrhosis.⁸

HCC remains a challenging clinical problem.² As the vast majority of cases arise in the context of cirrhosis, management of HCC not only must address the cancer stage at diagnosis, but also the patient’s underlying liver dysfunction and performance status. Receipt of HCC-specific therapy is a key driver of patient outcome, with curative therapies available for those diagnosed with early-stage disease. We and others have shown that a multidisciplinary approach to coordinate, individualize, and optimize care for these complex patients can improve the rate of treatment utilization, reduce treatment delays, and improve patient survival.^6,9,10

Patient psychosocial barriers, such as low socioeconomic status, homelessness, alcohol and substance use, and psychiatric disorders, are more prevalent among the veteran population and have the potential to negatively influence successful health care delivery. One retrospective study of 100 veterans at a US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical center treated for HCC from 2009 to 2014 showed a majority of the patients lived on a meager income, a high prevalence of homelessness, substance use history in 96% of their cohort, and psychiatric illness in 65% of patients.¹¹ Other studies have documented similar findings in the veteran population, with alcohol, substance use, as well as other uncontrolled comorbidities as barriers to providing care, such as antiviral therapy for chronic HCV infection.¹²

Herein, we present a cohort of veterans with HCC managed through our MDTB from 2007 to 2016, for whom chronic HCV infection and/or alcoholic liver disease were the main causes of cirrhosis. Our cohort had a high burden of alcohol and substance use disorders while other psychiatric illnesses were also common. Our cohort includes patients who were poor, and even some veterans who lacked a stable home. This profile of poverty and social deprivation among veterans is matched in national data.^13-15 Using a tumor board model of nurse navigation and multidisciplinary care, we were able to provide travel and lodging assistance to 50 (34%) and 33 (22%) patients, respectively, in order to facilitate their care.

Conclusions

Our study demonstrates a high burden of psychosocial challenges in veterans with HCC. These accounted for a significant barrier to receive HCC-specific care. Despite the presence of these patient barriers, high rates of HCC-specific treatment are attainable through individualization and coordination of patient care in the context of a MDTB model with nurse navigation. Provision of targeted social support to ameliorate these modifiable factors improves patient outcomes.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains a major global health problem and is the third leading cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide.¹ Management of HCC is complex; as it largely occurs in the background of chronic liver disease, its management must simultaneously address challenges related to the patient’s tumor burden, as well as their underlying liver dysfunction and performance status. HCC is universally fatal without treatment, with a 5-year survival < 10%.² However, if detected early HCC is potentially curable, with treatments such as hepatic resection, ablation, and/or liver transplantation, which are associated with 5-year survival rates as high as 70%.² HCC-specific palliative treatments, including intra-arterial therapies (eg, trans-arterial chemoembolization, radioembolization) and systemic chemotherapy, have also been shown to prolong survival in patients with advanced HCC. Therefore, a key driver of patient survival is receipt of HCC-specific therapy.

There is rising incidence and mortality related to HCC in the US veteran population, largely attributed to acquisition of chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection decades prior.³ There is also a high prevalence of psychosocial barriers in this population, such as low socioeconomic status, homelessness, alcohol and substance use disorders, and psychiatric disorders which can negatively influence receipt of medical treatment, including cancer care.^4,5 Given the complexity of managing HCC, as well as the plethora of potential treatment options available, it is widely accepted that a multidisciplinary team approach, such as the multidisciplinary tumor board (MDTB) provides optimal care to patients with HCC.^2,6 The aim of the present study was to identify in a population of veterans diagnosed with HCC the prevalence of psychosocial barriers to care and assess their impact and the role of an MDTB on receipt of HCC-specific care.

Methods

In June 2007, a joint institutional MDTB was established for patients with primary liver tumors receiving care at the William S. Middleton Memorial Veterans’ Hospital (WSMMVH) in Madison, Wisconsin. As we have described elsewhere, individual cases with their corresponding imaging studies were reviewed at a weekly conference attended by transplant hepatologists, medical oncologists, hepatobiliary and transplant surgeons, pathologists, diagnostic and interventional radiologists, and nurse coordinators.⁶ Potential therapies offered included surgical resection, liver transplantation (LT), thermal ablation, intra-arterial therapies (chemo and/or radioembolization), systemic chemotherapy, stereotactic radiation, and best supportive care. Decisions regarding the appropriate treatment modality were made based on patient factors, review of their cross-sectional imaging studies and/or histopathology, and context of their underlying liver dysfunction. The tumor board discussion was summarized in meeting minutes as well as tumor board encounters recorded in each patient’s health record. Although patients with benign tumors were presented at the MDTB, only patients with a diagnosis of HCC were included in this study.

A database analysis was conducted of all veteran patients with HCC managed through the WSMMVH MDTB, since its inception up to December 31, 2016, with follow-up until December 31, 2018. Data for analysis included demographics, laboratory parameters at time of diagnosis and treatment, imaging findings, histopathology and/or surgical pathology, treatment rendered, and follow-up information. The primary outcome measured in this study included receipt of any therapy and secondarily, patient survival.

Discrete variables were analyzed with χ² statistics or Fisher exact test and continuous variables with the student t test. Multivariable analyses were carried out with logistic regression. Variables with a P < .05 were considered statistically significant. Analyses were carried out using IBM SPSS v24.0.

As a quality-improvement initiative for the care and management of veterans with HCC, this study was determined to be exempt from review by the WSMMVH and University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health Institutional Review Board.

Results

From January 1, 2007, through December 31, 2016, 149 patients with HCC were managed through the MDTB. Baseline demographic data, Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) score and Child-Turcotte-Pugh class, and baseline HCC characteristics of the cohort are shown in Tables 1 and 2.

There was a high prevalence of psychosocial barriers in our study cohort, including alcohol or substance use disorder, mental illness diagnosis, and low socioeconomic status (Table 3). The mean distance traveled to WSMMVH for HCC-specific care was 206 km. Fifty patients in the cohort utilized travel assistance and 33 patients accessed lodging assistance.

HCC Treatments

There was a high rate of receipt of treatment in our study cohort with 127 (85%) patients receiving at least one HCC-specific therapy. Care was individualized and coordinated through our institutional MDTB, with both curative and palliative treatment modalities utilized (Table 4).

Curative treatment, which includes LT, ablation, or resection, was offered to 78 (52%) patients who were within T2 stage. Of these 78 patients who were potential candidates for LT as a curative treatment for HCC, 31 were not deemed suitable transplant candidates. Psychosocial barriers precluded consideration for LT in 7 of the 31 patients due to active substance use, homelessness in 1 patient, and severe mental illness in 3 patients. Medical comorbidities, advanced patient age, and patient preference accounted for the remainder.

In a univariate analysis of the cohort of 149 patients, factors that decreased the likelihood of receipt of curative HCC therapy included T2 stage or higher at diagnosis and a diagnosis of depression, whereas provision for lodging was associated with increased likelihood of receiving HCC-specific care (Table 5). Other factors that influenced receipt of any treatment included patient’s MELD score, total bilirubin, and serum α-fetoprotein, a surrogate marker for tumor stage. In the multivariable analysis, predictors of receiving curative therapy included absence of substance use, within T2 stage of tumor, and Child-Turcotte-Pugh class A cirrhosis. The presence of psychosocial barriers apart from substance use did not predict a lower chance of receiving curative HCC therapy (including homelessness, distance traveled to center, mental health disorder, and low income).

Discussion

Increases in prevalence and mortality related to cirrhosis and HCC have been reported among the US veteran population.³ This is in large part attributable to the burden of chronic HCV infection in this population. As mirrored in the US population in general, we may be at a turning point regarding the gradual increase in prevalence in HCC.⁷ The prevalence of cirrhosis and viral-related HCC related to HCV infection will decline with availability of effective antiviral therapy. Alcoholic liver disease remains a main etiological factor for development of cirrhosis and HCC. Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease is becoming a more prevalent cause for development of cirrhosis, indication for liver transplantation, and development of HCC, and indeed may lead to HCC even in the absence of cirrhosis.⁸

HCC remains a challenging clinical problem.² As the vast majority of cases arise in the context of cirrhosis, management of HCC not only must address the cancer stage at diagnosis, but also the patient’s underlying liver dysfunction and performance status. Receipt of HCC-specific therapy is a key driver of patient outcome, with curative therapies available for those diagnosed with early-stage disease. We and others have shown that a multidisciplinary approach to coordinate, individualize, and optimize care for these complex patients can improve the rate of treatment utilization, reduce treatment delays, and improve patient survival.^6,9,10

Patient psychosocial barriers, such as low socioeconomic status, homelessness, alcohol and substance use, and psychiatric disorders, are more prevalent among the veteran population and have the potential to negatively influence successful health care delivery. One retrospective study of 100 veterans at a US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical center treated for HCC from 2009 to 2014 showed a majority of the patients lived on a meager income, a high prevalence of homelessness, substance use history in 96% of their cohort, and psychiatric illness in 65% of patients.¹¹ Other studies have documented similar findings in the veteran population, with alcohol, substance use, as well as other uncontrolled comorbidities as barriers to providing care, such as antiviral therapy for chronic HCV infection.¹²

Herein, we present a cohort of veterans with HCC managed through our MDTB from 2007 to 2016, for whom chronic HCV infection and/or alcoholic liver disease were the main causes of cirrhosis. Our cohort had a high burden of alcohol and substance use disorders while other psychiatric illnesses were also common. Our cohort includes patients who were poor, and even some veterans who lacked a stable home. This profile of poverty and social deprivation among veterans is matched in national data.^13-15 Using a tumor board model of nurse navigation and multidisciplinary care, we were able to provide travel and lodging assistance to 50 (34%) and 33 (22%) patients, respectively, in order to facilitate their care.

Conclusions

Our study demonstrates a high burden of psychosocial challenges in veterans with HCC. These accounted for a significant barrier to receive HCC-specific care. Despite the presence of these patient barriers, high rates of HCC-specific treatment are attainable through individualization and coordination of patient care in the context of a MDTB model with nurse navigation. Provision of targeted social support to ameliorate these modifiable factors improves patient outcomes.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains a major global health problem and is the third leading cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide.¹ Management of HCC is complex; as it largely occurs in the background of chronic liver disease, its management must simultaneously address challenges related to the patient’s tumor burden, as well as their underlying liver dysfunction and performance status. HCC is universally fatal without treatment, with a 5-year survival < 10%.² However, if detected early HCC is potentially curable, with treatments such as hepatic resection, ablation, and/or liver transplantation, which are associated with 5-year survival rates as high as 70%.² HCC-specific palliative treatments, including intra-arterial therapies (eg, trans-arterial chemoembolization, radioembolization) and systemic chemotherapy, have also been shown to prolong survival in patients with advanced HCC. Therefore, a key driver of patient survival is receipt of HCC-specific therapy.

There is rising incidence and mortality related to HCC in the US veteran population, largely attributed to acquisition of chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection decades prior.³ There is also a high prevalence of psychosocial barriers in this population, such as low socioeconomic status, homelessness, alcohol and substance use disorders, and psychiatric disorders which can negatively influence receipt of medical treatment, including cancer care.^4,5 Given the complexity of managing HCC, as well as the plethora of potential treatment options available, it is widely accepted that a multidisciplinary team approach, such as the multidisciplinary tumor board (MDTB) provides optimal care to patients with HCC.^2,6 The aim of the present study was to identify in a population of veterans diagnosed with HCC the prevalence of psychosocial barriers to care and assess their impact and the role of an MDTB on receipt of HCC-specific care.

Methods

In June 2007, a joint institutional MDTB was established for patients with primary liver tumors receiving care at the William S. Middleton Memorial Veterans’ Hospital (WSMMVH) in Madison, Wisconsin. As we have described elsewhere, individual cases with their corresponding imaging studies were reviewed at a weekly conference attended by transplant hepatologists, medical oncologists, hepatobiliary and transplant surgeons, pathologists, diagnostic and interventional radiologists, and nurse coordinators.⁶ Potential therapies offered included surgical resection, liver transplantation (LT), thermal ablation, intra-arterial therapies (chemo and/or radioembolization), systemic chemotherapy, stereotactic radiation, and best supportive care. Decisions regarding the appropriate treatment modality were made based on patient factors, review of their cross-sectional imaging studies and/or histopathology, and context of their underlying liver dysfunction. The tumor board discussion was summarized in meeting minutes as well as tumor board encounters recorded in each patient’s health record. Although patients with benign tumors were presented at the MDTB, only patients with a diagnosis of HCC were included in this study.

A database analysis was conducted of all veteran patients with HCC managed through the WSMMVH MDTB, since its inception up to December 31, 2016, with follow-up until December 31, 2018. Data for analysis included demographics, laboratory parameters at time of diagnosis and treatment, imaging findings, histopathology and/or surgical pathology, treatment rendered, and follow-up information. The primary outcome measured in this study included receipt of any therapy and secondarily, patient survival.

Discrete variables were analyzed with χ² statistics or Fisher exact test and continuous variables with the student t test. Multivariable analyses were carried out with logistic regression. Variables with a P < .05 were considered statistically significant. Analyses were carried out using IBM SPSS v24.0.

As a quality-improvement initiative for the care and management of veterans with HCC, this study was determined to be exempt from review by the WSMMVH and University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health Institutional Review Board.

Results

From January 1, 2007, through December 31, 2016, 149 patients with HCC were managed through the MDTB. Baseline demographic data, Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) score and Child-Turcotte-Pugh class, and baseline HCC characteristics of the cohort are shown in Tables 1 and 2.

There was a high prevalence of psychosocial barriers in our study cohort, including alcohol or substance use disorder, mental illness diagnosis, and low socioeconomic status (Table 3). The mean distance traveled to WSMMVH for HCC-specific care was 206 km. Fifty patients in the cohort utilized travel assistance and 33 patients accessed lodging assistance.

HCC Treatments

There was a high rate of receipt of treatment in our study cohort with 127 (85%) patients receiving at least one HCC-specific therapy. Care was individualized and coordinated through our institutional MDTB, with both curative and palliative treatment modalities utilized (Table 4).

Curative treatment, which includes LT, ablation, or resection, was offered to 78 (52%) patients who were within T2 stage. Of these 78 patients who were potential candidates for LT as a curative treatment for HCC, 31 were not deemed suitable transplant candidates. Psychosocial barriers precluded consideration for LT in 7 of the 31 patients due to active substance use, homelessness in 1 patient, and severe mental illness in 3 patients. Medical comorbidities, advanced patient age, and patient preference accounted for the remainder.

In a univariate analysis of the cohort of 149 patients, factors that decreased the likelihood of receipt of curative HCC therapy included T2 stage or higher at diagnosis and a diagnosis of depression, whereas provision for lodging was associated with increased likelihood of receiving HCC-specific care (Table 5). Other factors that influenced receipt of any treatment included patient’s MELD score, total bilirubin, and serum α-fetoprotein, a surrogate marker for tumor stage. In the multivariable analysis, predictors of receiving curative therapy included absence of substance use, within T2 stage of tumor, and Child-Turcotte-Pugh class A cirrhosis. The presence of psychosocial barriers apart from substance use did not predict a lower chance of receiving curative HCC therapy (including homelessness, distance traveled to center, mental health disorder, and low income).

Discussion

Increases in prevalence and mortality related to cirrhosis and HCC have been reported among the US veteran population.³ This is in large part attributable to the burden of chronic HCV infection in this population. As mirrored in the US population in general, we may be at a turning point regarding the gradual increase in prevalence in HCC.⁷ The prevalence of cirrhosis and viral-related HCC related to HCV infection will decline with availability of effective antiviral therapy. Alcoholic liver disease remains a main etiological factor for development of cirrhosis and HCC. Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease is becoming a more prevalent cause for development of cirrhosis, indication for liver transplantation, and development of HCC, and indeed may lead to HCC even in the absence of cirrhosis.⁸

HCC remains a challenging clinical problem.² As the vast majority of cases arise in the context of cirrhosis, management of HCC not only must address the cancer stage at diagnosis, but also the patient’s underlying liver dysfunction and performance status. Receipt of HCC-specific therapy is a key driver of patient outcome, with curative therapies available for those diagnosed with early-stage disease. We and others have shown that a multidisciplinary approach to coordinate, individualize, and optimize care for these complex patients can improve the rate of treatment utilization, reduce treatment delays, and improve patient survival.^6,9,10

Patient psychosocial barriers, such as low socioeconomic status, homelessness, alcohol and substance use, and psychiatric disorders, are more prevalent among the veteran population and have the potential to negatively influence successful health care delivery. One retrospective study of 100 veterans at a US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical center treated for HCC from 2009 to 2014 showed a majority of the patients lived on a meager income, a high prevalence of homelessness, substance use history in 96% of their cohort, and psychiatric illness in 65% of patients.¹¹ Other studies have documented similar findings in the veteran population, with alcohol, substance use, as well as other uncontrolled comorbidities as barriers to providing care, such as antiviral therapy for chronic HCV infection.¹²

Herein, we present a cohort of veterans with HCC managed through our MDTB from 2007 to 2016, for whom chronic HCV infection and/or alcoholic liver disease were the main causes of cirrhosis. Our cohort had a high burden of alcohol and substance use disorders while other psychiatric illnesses were also common. Our cohort includes patients who were poor, and even some veterans who lacked a stable home. This profile of poverty and social deprivation among veterans is matched in national data.^13-15 Using a tumor board model of nurse navigation and multidisciplinary care, we were able to provide travel and lodging assistance to 50 (34%) and 33 (22%) patients, respectively, in order to facilitate their care.

Conclusions

Our study demonstrates a high burden of psychosocial challenges in veterans with HCC. These accounted for a significant barrier to receive HCC-specific care. Despite the presence of these patient barriers, high rates of HCC-specific treatment are attainable through individualization and coordination of patient care in the context of a MDTB model with nurse navigation. Provision of targeted social support to ameliorate these modifiable factors improves patient outcomes.