Mixed Topics

Sunday night. Las Vegas. Jason Aldean had just started playing.

My wife and I were at the 2017 Route 91 Harvest Festival with three other couples; two of them were our close friends. We were sitting in the VIP section, a tented area right next to the stage. We started hearing what I was convinced were fireworks.

I’ve been in the Army for 20 some years. I’ve been deployed and shot at multiple times. But these shots were far away. And you don’t expect people to be shooting at you at a concert.

I was on the edge of the VIP area, so I could see around the corner of the tent. I looked up at the Mandalay Bay and saw the muzzle flash in the hotel window. That’s when I knew.

I screamed: “Somebody’s shooting at us! Everybody get down!”

It took a while for people to realize what was going on. When the first couple volleys sprayed into the crowd, nobody understood. But once enough people had been hit and dropped, everyone knew, and it was just mass exodus.

People screamed and ran everywhere. Some of them tried to jump over the front barrier so they could get underneath the stage. Others were trying to pick up loved ones who’d been shot.

The next 15 minutes are a little foggy. I was helping my wife and the people around us to get down. Funny things come back to you afterward. One of my friends was carrying a 16-ounce beer in his hand. Somebody’s shooting at him and he’s walking around with his beer like he’s afraid to put it down. It was so surreal.

We got everybody underneath the tent, and then we just sat there. There would be shooting and then a pause. You’d think it was over. And then there would be more shooting and another pause. It felt like it never was going to stop.

After a short period of time, somebody came in with an official badge, maybe FBI, who knows. They said: “Okay, everybody up. We’ve got to get you out of here.” So, we all got up and headed across the stage. The gate they were taking us to was in full view of the shooter, so it wasn’t very safe.

As I got up, I looked out at the field. Bodies were scattered everywhere. I’m a trauma surgeon by trade. I couldn’t just leave.

I told my two best friends to take my wife with them. My wife lost her mind at that point. She didn’t want me to run out on the field. But I had to. I saw the injured and they needed help. Another buddy and I jumped over the fence and started taking care of people.

The feeling of being out on the field was one of complete frustration. I was in sandals, shorts, and a t-shirt. We had no stretchers, no medical supplies, no nothing. I didn’t have a belt to use as a tourniquet. I didn’t even have a bandage.

Worse: We were seeing high-velocity gunshot wounds that I’ve seen for 20 years in the Army. I know how to take care of them. I know how to fix them. But there wasn’t a single thing I could do.

We had to get people off the field, so we started gathering up as many as we could. We didn’t know if we were going to get shot at again, so we were trying to hide behind things as we ran. Our main objective was just to get people to a place of safety.

A lot of it is a blur. But a few patients stick out in my mind.

A father and son. The father had been shot through the abdomen, exited out through his back. He was in severe pain and couldn’t walk.

A young girl shot in the arm. Her parents carrying her.

A group of people doing CPR on a young lady. She had a gunshot wound to the head or neck. She was obviously dead. But they were still doing chest compressions in the middle of the field. I had to say to them: “She’s dead. You can’t save her. You need to get off the field.” But they wouldn’t stop. We picked her up and took her out while they continued to do CPR.

Later, I realized I knew that woman. She was part of a group of friends that we would see at the festival. I hadn’t recognized her. I also didn’t know that my friend Marco was there. A month or 2 later, we figured out that he was one of the people doing CPR. And I was the guy who came up and said his friend was dead.

Some people were so badly injured we couldn’t lift them. We started tearing apart the fencing used to separate the crowd and slid sections of the barricades under the wounded to carry them. We also carried off a bunch of people who were dead.

We were moving patients to a covered bar area where we thought they would be safer. What we didn’t know was there was an ambulance rally point at the very far end of the field. Unfortunately, we had no idea it was there.

I saw a lot of other first responders out there, people from the fire department, corpsmen from the Navy, medics. I ran into an anesthesia provider and a series of nurses.

When we got everybody off the field, we started moving them into vehicles. People were bringing their trucks up. One guy even stole a truck so he could drive people to the ED. There wasn’t a lot of triage. We were just stacking whoever we could into the backs of these pickups.

I tried to help a nurse taking care of a lady who had been shot in the neck. She was sitting sort of half upright with the patient lying in her arms. When I reached to help her, she said: “You can’t move her.”

“We need to get her to the hospital,” I replied.

“This is the only position that this lady has an airway,” she said. “You’re going to have to move both of us together. If I move at all, she loses her airway.”

So, a group of us managed to slide something underneath and lift them into the back of a truck.

Loading the wounded went on for a while. And then, just like that, everybody was gone.

I walked back out onto this field which not too long ago held 30,000 people. It was as if aliens had just suddenly beamed everyone out.

There was stuff on the ground everywhere – blankets, clothing, single boots, wallets, purses. I walked past a food stand with food still cooking on the grill. There was a beer tap still running. It was the weirdest feeling I’d ever had in my life.

After that, things got a little crazy again. There had been a report of a second shooter, and no one knew if it was real or not. The police started herding a group of us across the street to the Tropicana. We were still trying to take cover as we walked there. We went past a big lion statue in front of one of the casinos. I have a picture from two years earlier of me sitting on the back of that lion. I remember thinking: Now I’m hunkered down behind the same lion hiding from a shooter. Times change.

They brought about 50 of us into a food court, which was closed. They wouldn’t tell us what was going on. And they wouldn’t let us leave. This went on for hours. Meanwhile, I had dropped my cell phone on the field, so my wife couldn’t get hold of me, and later she told me she assumed I’d been shot. I was just hoping that she was safe.

People were huddled together, crying, holding each other. Most were wearing Western concert–going stuff, which for a lot of them wasn’t very much clothing. The hotel eventually brought some blankets.

I was covered in blood. My shirt, shorts, and sandals were soaked. It was running down my legs. I couldn’t find anything to eat or drink. At one point, I sat down at a slot machine, put a hundred dollars in, and started playing slots. I didn’t know what else to do. It didn’t take me very long to lose it all.

Finally, I started looking for a way to get out. I checked all the exits, but there were security and police there. Then I ran into a guy who said he had found a fire exit. When we opened the fire door, there was a big security guard there, and he said: “You can’t leave.”

We said: “Try to stop us. We’re out of here.”

Another thing I’ll always remember – after I broke out of the Tropicana, I was low crawling through the bushes along the Strip toward my hotel. I got a block away and stood up to cross the street. I pushed the crosswalk button and waited. There were no cars, no people. I’ve just broken all the rules, violated police orders, and now I’m standing there waiting for a blinking light to allow me to cross the street!

I made it back to my hotel room around 3:30 or 4:00 in the morning. My wife was hysterical because I hadn’t been answering my cell phone. I came in, and she gave me a big hug, and I got in the shower. Our plane was leaving in a few hours, so we laid down, but didn’t sleep.

As we were getting ready to leave, my wife’s phone rang, and it was my number. A guy at the same hotel had found my phone on the field and called the “in case of emergency” number. So, I got my phone back.

It wasn’t easy to deal with the aftermath. It really affected everybody’s life. To this day, I’m particular about where we sit at concerts. My wife isn’t comfortable if she can’t see an exit. I now have a med bag in my car with tourniquets, pressure dressings, airway masks for CPR.

I’ll never forget that feeling of absolute frustration. That lady without an airway – I could’ve put a trach in her very quickly and made a difference. Were they able to keep her airway? Did she live?

The father and son – did the father make it? I have no idea what happened to any of them. Later, I went through and looked at the pictures of all the people who had died, but I couldn’t recognize anybody.

The hardest part was being there with my wife. I’ve been in places where people are shooting at you, in vehicles that are getting bombed. I’ve always believed that when it’s your time, it’s your time. If I get shot, well, okay, that happens. But if she got shot or my friends ... that would be really tough.

A year later, I gave a talk about it at a conference. I thought I had worked through everything. But all of those feelings, all of that helplessness, that anger, everything came roaring back to the surface again. They asked me how I deal with it, and I said: “Well ... poorly.” I’m the guy who sticks it in a box in the back of his brain, tucks it in and buries it with a bunch of other boxes, and hopes it never comes out again. But every once in a while, it does.

There were all kinds of people out on that field, some with medical training, some without, all determined to help, trying to get those injured people where they needed to be. In retrospect, it does make you feel good. Somebody was shooting at us, but people were still willing to stand up and risk their lives to help others.

We still talk with our friends about what happened that night. Over the years, it’s become less and less. But there’s still a text sent out every year on that day: “Today is the anniversary. Glad we’re all alive. Thanks for being our friends.”

Dr. Sebesta is a bariatric surgeon with MultiCare Health System in Tacoma, Wash.

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

Sunday night. Las Vegas. Jason Aldean had just started playing.

My wife and I were at the 2017 Route 91 Harvest Festival with three other couples; two of them were our close friends. We were sitting in the VIP section, a tented area right next to the stage. We started hearing what I was convinced were fireworks.

I’ve been in the Army for 20 some years. I’ve been deployed and shot at multiple times. But these shots were far away. And you don’t expect people to be shooting at you at a concert.

I was on the edge of the VIP area, so I could see around the corner of the tent. I looked up at the Mandalay Bay and saw the muzzle flash in the hotel window. That’s when I knew.

I screamed: “Somebody’s shooting at us! Everybody get down!”

It took a while for people to realize what was going on. When the first couple volleys sprayed into the crowd, nobody understood. But once enough people had been hit and dropped, everyone knew, and it was just mass exodus.

People screamed and ran everywhere. Some of them tried to jump over the front barrier so they could get underneath the stage. Others were trying to pick up loved ones who’d been shot.

The next 15 minutes are a little foggy. I was helping my wife and the people around us to get down. Funny things come back to you afterward. One of my friends was carrying a 16-ounce beer in his hand. Somebody’s shooting at him and he’s walking around with his beer like he’s afraid to put it down. It was so surreal.

We got everybody underneath the tent, and then we just sat there. There would be shooting and then a pause. You’d think it was over. And then there would be more shooting and another pause. It felt like it never was going to stop.

After a short period of time, somebody came in with an official badge, maybe FBI, who knows. They said: “Okay, everybody up. We’ve got to get you out of here.” So, we all got up and headed across the stage. The gate they were taking us to was in full view of the shooter, so it wasn’t very safe.

As I got up, I looked out at the field. Bodies were scattered everywhere. I’m a trauma surgeon by trade. I couldn’t just leave.

I told my two best friends to take my wife with them. My wife lost her mind at that point. She didn’t want me to run out on the field. But I had to. I saw the injured and they needed help. Another buddy and I jumped over the fence and started taking care of people.

The feeling of being out on the field was one of complete frustration. I was in sandals, shorts, and a t-shirt. We had no stretchers, no medical supplies, no nothing. I didn’t have a belt to use as a tourniquet. I didn’t even have a bandage.

Worse: We were seeing high-velocity gunshot wounds that I’ve seen for 20 years in the Army. I know how to take care of them. I know how to fix them. But there wasn’t a single thing I could do.

We had to get people off the field, so we started gathering up as many as we could. We didn’t know if we were going to get shot at again, so we were trying to hide behind things as we ran. Our main objective was just to get people to a place of safety.

A lot of it is a blur. But a few patients stick out in my mind.

A father and son. The father had been shot through the abdomen, exited out through his back. He was in severe pain and couldn’t walk.

A young girl shot in the arm. Her parents carrying her.

A group of people doing CPR on a young lady. She had a gunshot wound to the head or neck. She was obviously dead. But they were still doing chest compressions in the middle of the field. I had to say to them: “She’s dead. You can’t save her. You need to get off the field.” But they wouldn’t stop. We picked her up and took her out while they continued to do CPR.

Later, I realized I knew that woman. She was part of a group of friends that we would see at the festival. I hadn’t recognized her. I also didn’t know that my friend Marco was there. A month or 2 later, we figured out that he was one of the people doing CPR. And I was the guy who came up and said his friend was dead.

Some people were so badly injured we couldn’t lift them. We started tearing apart the fencing used to separate the crowd and slid sections of the barricades under the wounded to carry them. We also carried off a bunch of people who were dead.

We were moving patients to a covered bar area where we thought they would be safer. What we didn’t know was there was an ambulance rally point at the very far end of the field. Unfortunately, we had no idea it was there.

I saw a lot of other first responders out there, people from the fire department, corpsmen from the Navy, medics. I ran into an anesthesia provider and a series of nurses.

When we got everybody off the field, we started moving them into vehicles. People were bringing their trucks up. One guy even stole a truck so he could drive people to the ED. There wasn’t a lot of triage. We were just stacking whoever we could into the backs of these pickups.

I tried to help a nurse taking care of a lady who had been shot in the neck. She was sitting sort of half upright with the patient lying in her arms. When I reached to help her, she said: “You can’t move her.”

“We need to get her to the hospital,” I replied.

“This is the only position that this lady has an airway,” she said. “You’re going to have to move both of us together. If I move at all, she loses her airway.”

So, a group of us managed to slide something underneath and lift them into the back of a truck.

Loading the wounded went on for a while. And then, just like that, everybody was gone.

I walked back out onto this field which not too long ago held 30,000 people. It was as if aliens had just suddenly beamed everyone out.

There was stuff on the ground everywhere – blankets, clothing, single boots, wallets, purses. I walked past a food stand with food still cooking on the grill. There was a beer tap still running. It was the weirdest feeling I’d ever had in my life.

After that, things got a little crazy again. There had been a report of a second shooter, and no one knew if it was real or not. The police started herding a group of us across the street to the Tropicana. We were still trying to take cover as we walked there. We went past a big lion statue in front of one of the casinos. I have a picture from two years earlier of me sitting on the back of that lion. I remember thinking: Now I’m hunkered down behind the same lion hiding from a shooter. Times change.

They brought about 50 of us into a food court, which was closed. They wouldn’t tell us what was going on. And they wouldn’t let us leave. This went on for hours. Meanwhile, I had dropped my cell phone on the field, so my wife couldn’t get hold of me, and later she told me she assumed I’d been shot. I was just hoping that she was safe.

People were huddled together, crying, holding each other. Most were wearing Western concert–going stuff, which for a lot of them wasn’t very much clothing. The hotel eventually brought some blankets.

I was covered in blood. My shirt, shorts, and sandals were soaked. It was running down my legs. I couldn’t find anything to eat or drink. At one point, I sat down at a slot machine, put a hundred dollars in, and started playing slots. I didn’t know what else to do. It didn’t take me very long to lose it all.

Finally, I started looking for a way to get out. I checked all the exits, but there were security and police there. Then I ran into a guy who said he had found a fire exit. When we opened the fire door, there was a big security guard there, and he said: “You can’t leave.”

We said: “Try to stop us. We’re out of here.”

Another thing I’ll always remember – after I broke out of the Tropicana, I was low crawling through the bushes along the Strip toward my hotel. I got a block away and stood up to cross the street. I pushed the crosswalk button and waited. There were no cars, no people. I’ve just broken all the rules, violated police orders, and now I’m standing there waiting for a blinking light to allow me to cross the street!

I made it back to my hotel room around 3:30 or 4:00 in the morning. My wife was hysterical because I hadn’t been answering my cell phone. I came in, and she gave me a big hug, and I got in the shower. Our plane was leaving in a few hours, so we laid down, but didn’t sleep.

As we were getting ready to leave, my wife’s phone rang, and it was my number. A guy at the same hotel had found my phone on the field and called the “in case of emergency” number. So, I got my phone back.

It wasn’t easy to deal with the aftermath. It really affected everybody’s life. To this day, I’m particular about where we sit at concerts. My wife isn’t comfortable if she can’t see an exit. I now have a med bag in my car with tourniquets, pressure dressings, airway masks for CPR.

I’ll never forget that feeling of absolute frustration. That lady without an airway – I could’ve put a trach in her very quickly and made a difference. Were they able to keep her airway? Did she live?

The father and son – did the father make it? I have no idea what happened to any of them. Later, I went through and looked at the pictures of all the people who had died, but I couldn’t recognize anybody.

The hardest part was being there with my wife. I’ve been in places where people are shooting at you, in vehicles that are getting bombed. I’ve always believed that when it’s your time, it’s your time. If I get shot, well, okay, that happens. But if she got shot or my friends ... that would be really tough.

A year later, I gave a talk about it at a conference. I thought I had worked through everything. But all of those feelings, all of that helplessness, that anger, everything came roaring back to the surface again. They asked me how I deal with it, and I said: “Well ... poorly.” I’m the guy who sticks it in a box in the back of his brain, tucks it in and buries it with a bunch of other boxes, and hopes it never comes out again. But every once in a while, it does.

There were all kinds of people out on that field, some with medical training, some without, all determined to help, trying to get those injured people where they needed to be. In retrospect, it does make you feel good. Somebody was shooting at us, but people were still willing to stand up and risk their lives to help others.

We still talk with our friends about what happened that night. Over the years, it’s become less and less. But there’s still a text sent out every year on that day: “Today is the anniversary. Glad we’re all alive. Thanks for being our friends.”

Dr. Sebesta is a bariatric surgeon with MultiCare Health System in Tacoma, Wash.

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

Sunday night. Las Vegas. Jason Aldean had just started playing.

My wife and I were at the 2017 Route 91 Harvest Festival with three other couples; two of them were our close friends. We were sitting in the VIP section, a tented area right next to the stage. We started hearing what I was convinced were fireworks.

I’ve been in the Army for 20 some years. I’ve been deployed and shot at multiple times. But these shots were far away. And you don’t expect people to be shooting at you at a concert.

I was on the edge of the VIP area, so I could see around the corner of the tent. I looked up at the Mandalay Bay and saw the muzzle flash in the hotel window. That’s when I knew.

I screamed: “Somebody’s shooting at us! Everybody get down!”

It took a while for people to realize what was going on. When the first couple volleys sprayed into the crowd, nobody understood. But once enough people had been hit and dropped, everyone knew, and it was just mass exodus.

People screamed and ran everywhere. Some of them tried to jump over the front barrier so they could get underneath the stage. Others were trying to pick up loved ones who’d been shot.

The next 15 minutes are a little foggy. I was helping my wife and the people around us to get down. Funny things come back to you afterward. One of my friends was carrying a 16-ounce beer in his hand. Somebody’s shooting at him and he’s walking around with his beer like he’s afraid to put it down. It was so surreal.

We got everybody underneath the tent, and then we just sat there. There would be shooting and then a pause. You’d think it was over. And then there would be more shooting and another pause. It felt like it never was going to stop.

After a short period of time, somebody came in with an official badge, maybe FBI, who knows. They said: “Okay, everybody up. We’ve got to get you out of here.” So, we all got up and headed across the stage. The gate they were taking us to was in full view of the shooter, so it wasn’t very safe.

As I got up, I looked out at the field. Bodies were scattered everywhere. I’m a trauma surgeon by trade. I couldn’t just leave.

I told my two best friends to take my wife with them. My wife lost her mind at that point. She didn’t want me to run out on the field. But I had to. I saw the injured and they needed help. Another buddy and I jumped over the fence and started taking care of people.

The feeling of being out on the field was one of complete frustration. I was in sandals, shorts, and a t-shirt. We had no stretchers, no medical supplies, no nothing. I didn’t have a belt to use as a tourniquet. I didn’t even have a bandage.

Worse: We were seeing high-velocity gunshot wounds that I’ve seen for 20 years in the Army. I know how to take care of them. I know how to fix them. But there wasn’t a single thing I could do.

We had to get people off the field, so we started gathering up as many as we could. We didn’t know if we were going to get shot at again, so we were trying to hide behind things as we ran. Our main objective was just to get people to a place of safety.

A lot of it is a blur. But a few patients stick out in my mind.

A father and son. The father had been shot through the abdomen, exited out through his back. He was in severe pain and couldn’t walk.

A young girl shot in the arm. Her parents carrying her.

A group of people doing CPR on a young lady. She had a gunshot wound to the head or neck. She was obviously dead. But they were still doing chest compressions in the middle of the field. I had to say to them: “She’s dead. You can’t save her. You need to get off the field.” But they wouldn’t stop. We picked her up and took her out while they continued to do CPR.

Later, I realized I knew that woman. She was part of a group of friends that we would see at the festival. I hadn’t recognized her. I also didn’t know that my friend Marco was there. A month or 2 later, we figured out that he was one of the people doing CPR. And I was the guy who came up and said his friend was dead.

Some people were so badly injured we couldn’t lift them. We started tearing apart the fencing used to separate the crowd and slid sections of the barricades under the wounded to carry them. We also carried off a bunch of people who were dead.

We were moving patients to a covered bar area where we thought they would be safer. What we didn’t know was there was an ambulance rally point at the very far end of the field. Unfortunately, we had no idea it was there.

I saw a lot of other first responders out there, people from the fire department, corpsmen from the Navy, medics. I ran into an anesthesia provider and a series of nurses.

When we got everybody off the field, we started moving them into vehicles. People were bringing their trucks up. One guy even stole a truck so he could drive people to the ED. There wasn’t a lot of triage. We were just stacking whoever we could into the backs of these pickups.

I tried to help a nurse taking care of a lady who had been shot in the neck. She was sitting sort of half upright with the patient lying in her arms. When I reached to help her, she said: “You can’t move her.”

“We need to get her to the hospital,” I replied.

“This is the only position that this lady has an airway,” she said. “You’re going to have to move both of us together. If I move at all, she loses her airway.”

So, a group of us managed to slide something underneath and lift them into the back of a truck.

Loading the wounded went on for a while. And then, just like that, everybody was gone.

I walked back out onto this field which not too long ago held 30,000 people. It was as if aliens had just suddenly beamed everyone out.

There was stuff on the ground everywhere – blankets, clothing, single boots, wallets, purses. I walked past a food stand with food still cooking on the grill. There was a beer tap still running. It was the weirdest feeling I’d ever had in my life.

After that, things got a little crazy again. There had been a report of a second shooter, and no one knew if it was real or not. The police started herding a group of us across the street to the Tropicana. We were still trying to take cover as we walked there. We went past a big lion statue in front of one of the casinos. I have a picture from two years earlier of me sitting on the back of that lion. I remember thinking: Now I’m hunkered down behind the same lion hiding from a shooter. Times change.

They brought about 50 of us into a food court, which was closed. They wouldn’t tell us what was going on. And they wouldn’t let us leave. This went on for hours. Meanwhile, I had dropped my cell phone on the field, so my wife couldn’t get hold of me, and later she told me she assumed I’d been shot. I was just hoping that she was safe.

People were huddled together, crying, holding each other. Most were wearing Western concert–going stuff, which for a lot of them wasn’t very much clothing. The hotel eventually brought some blankets.

I was covered in blood. My shirt, shorts, and sandals were soaked. It was running down my legs. I couldn’t find anything to eat or drink. At one point, I sat down at a slot machine, put a hundred dollars in, and started playing slots. I didn’t know what else to do. It didn’t take me very long to lose it all.

Finally, I started looking for a way to get out. I checked all the exits, but there were security and police there. Then I ran into a guy who said he had found a fire exit. When we opened the fire door, there was a big security guard there, and he said: “You can’t leave.”

We said: “Try to stop us. We’re out of here.”

Another thing I’ll always remember – after I broke out of the Tropicana, I was low crawling through the bushes along the Strip toward my hotel. I got a block away and stood up to cross the street. I pushed the crosswalk button and waited. There were no cars, no people. I’ve just broken all the rules, violated police orders, and now I’m standing there waiting for a blinking light to allow me to cross the street!

I made it back to my hotel room around 3:30 or 4:00 in the morning. My wife was hysterical because I hadn’t been answering my cell phone. I came in, and she gave me a big hug, and I got in the shower. Our plane was leaving in a few hours, so we laid down, but didn’t sleep.

As we were getting ready to leave, my wife’s phone rang, and it was my number. A guy at the same hotel had found my phone on the field and called the “in case of emergency” number. So, I got my phone back.

It wasn’t easy to deal with the aftermath. It really affected everybody’s life. To this day, I’m particular about where we sit at concerts. My wife isn’t comfortable if she can’t see an exit. I now have a med bag in my car with tourniquets, pressure dressings, airway masks for CPR.

I’ll never forget that feeling of absolute frustration. That lady without an airway – I could’ve put a trach in her very quickly and made a difference. Were they able to keep her airway? Did she live?

The father and son – did the father make it? I have no idea what happened to any of them. Later, I went through and looked at the pictures of all the people who had died, but I couldn’t recognize anybody.

The hardest part was being there with my wife. I’ve been in places where people are shooting at you, in vehicles that are getting bombed. I’ve always believed that when it’s your time, it’s your time. If I get shot, well, okay, that happens. But if she got shot or my friends ... that would be really tough.

A year later, I gave a talk about it at a conference. I thought I had worked through everything. But all of those feelings, all of that helplessness, that anger, everything came roaring back to the surface again. They asked me how I deal with it, and I said: “Well ... poorly.” I’m the guy who sticks it in a box in the back of his brain, tucks it in and buries it with a bunch of other boxes, and hopes it never comes out again. But every once in a while, it does.

There were all kinds of people out on that field, some with medical training, some without, all determined to help, trying to get those injured people where they needed to be. In retrospect, it does make you feel good. Somebody was shooting at us, but people were still willing to stand up and risk their lives to help others.

We still talk with our friends about what happened that night. Over the years, it’s become less and less. But there’s still a text sent out every year on that day: “Today is the anniversary. Glad we’re all alive. Thanks for being our friends.”

Dr. Sebesta is a bariatric surgeon with MultiCare Health System in Tacoma, Wash.

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

During the 2023 DDW Presidential Plenary Session held in May during the annual Digestive Disease Week^®, attendees heard about two major historical events that helped shape the field of gastroenterology.

University of Michigan

The first event took place in 1822 at Fort Mackinac, which today is known as Mackinac Island on northern Lake Huron in Michigan. Alexis St. Martin, a French-Canadian fur trapper, was standing outside of the general store when a shotgun blast accidentally struck him in the stomach. Ordinarily, this would have been a fatal wound, but St. Martin miraculously survived--but with a gastric fistula that permanently exposed the interior of his stomach.

William Beaumont, the post surgeon at Fort Mackinac, engaged in a series of experiments – purportedly 238 – to study human digestion. In one experiment, Dr. Beaumont would pull food in and out of the stomach to study digestion. In another, he would withdraw fluid from the stomach to observe digestion outside of the body. The experiments caused St. Martin considerable discomfort. He eventually returned to Canada, but returned later when the U.S. Army agreed to compensate him for some of his expenses. Today, the experiments would be called into question as having crossed ethical boundaries. Dr. Beaumont published the results from his experiments in a book that established the fundamental basics of our current beliefs about digestion. The experiments arguably mark the first example of gastrointestinal research in the United States.

The second historical event – the invention of the fiber-optic endoscope – also occurred in Michigan. At the University of Michigan, Basil Hirschowitz, MD, invented a flexible, fiber-optic instrument that could be used to look into the stomach, and perhaps even the duodenum. He first tried the invention on himself, and in 1957, he demonstrated it at the national meeting of the American Gastroscopic Society by reading a telephone directory through the new device.

The instrument was soon adopted for clinical use by physicians. Whether the fiber-optic machine was superior for visualizing the stomach was hotly debated, but what was very clear was that the fiber-optic tool was more comfortable for patients. By the mid-1960s, the fiber-optic invention had become the instrument of choice for gastrointestinal endoscopy. Many advances have since been made to the original instrument.

Dr. Howell is the Elizabeth Farrand Professor and a professor of internal medicine, history, and health management and policy at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. He has no financial disclosures.

During the 2023 DDW Presidential Plenary Session held in May during the annual Digestive Disease Week^®, attendees heard about two major historical events that helped shape the field of gastroenterology.

University of Michigan

The first event took place in 1822 at Fort Mackinac, which today is known as Mackinac Island on northern Lake Huron in Michigan. Alexis St. Martin, a French-Canadian fur trapper, was standing outside of the general store when a shotgun blast accidentally struck him in the stomach. Ordinarily, this would have been a fatal wound, but St. Martin miraculously survived--but with a gastric fistula that permanently exposed the interior of his stomach.

William Beaumont, the post surgeon at Fort Mackinac, engaged in a series of experiments – purportedly 238 – to study human digestion. In one experiment, Dr. Beaumont would pull food in and out of the stomach to study digestion. In another, he would withdraw fluid from the stomach to observe digestion outside of the body. The experiments caused St. Martin considerable discomfort. He eventually returned to Canada, but returned later when the U.S. Army agreed to compensate him for some of his expenses. Today, the experiments would be called into question as having crossed ethical boundaries. Dr. Beaumont published the results from his experiments in a book that established the fundamental basics of our current beliefs about digestion. The experiments arguably mark the first example of gastrointestinal research in the United States.

The second historical event – the invention of the fiber-optic endoscope – also occurred in Michigan. At the University of Michigan, Basil Hirschowitz, MD, invented a flexible, fiber-optic instrument that could be used to look into the stomach, and perhaps even the duodenum. He first tried the invention on himself, and in 1957, he demonstrated it at the national meeting of the American Gastroscopic Society by reading a telephone directory through the new device.

The instrument was soon adopted for clinical use by physicians. Whether the fiber-optic machine was superior for visualizing the stomach was hotly debated, but what was very clear was that the fiber-optic tool was more comfortable for patients. By the mid-1960s, the fiber-optic invention had become the instrument of choice for gastrointestinal endoscopy. Many advances have since been made to the original instrument.

Dr. Howell is the Elizabeth Farrand Professor and a professor of internal medicine, history, and health management and policy at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. He has no financial disclosures.

During the 2023 DDW Presidential Plenary Session held in May during the annual Digestive Disease Week^®, attendees heard about two major historical events that helped shape the field of gastroenterology.

University of Michigan

The first event took place in 1822 at Fort Mackinac, which today is known as Mackinac Island on northern Lake Huron in Michigan. Alexis St. Martin, a French-Canadian fur trapper, was standing outside of the general store when a shotgun blast accidentally struck him in the stomach. Ordinarily, this would have been a fatal wound, but St. Martin miraculously survived--but with a gastric fistula that permanently exposed the interior of his stomach.

William Beaumont, the post surgeon at Fort Mackinac, engaged in a series of experiments – purportedly 238 – to study human digestion. In one experiment, Dr. Beaumont would pull food in and out of the stomach to study digestion. In another, he would withdraw fluid from the stomach to observe digestion outside of the body. The experiments caused St. Martin considerable discomfort. He eventually returned to Canada, but returned later when the U.S. Army agreed to compensate him for some of his expenses. Today, the experiments would be called into question as having crossed ethical boundaries. Dr. Beaumont published the results from his experiments in a book that established the fundamental basics of our current beliefs about digestion. The experiments arguably mark the first example of gastrointestinal research in the United States.

The second historical event – the invention of the fiber-optic endoscope – also occurred in Michigan. At the University of Michigan, Basil Hirschowitz, MD, invented a flexible, fiber-optic instrument that could be used to look into the stomach, and perhaps even the duodenum. He first tried the invention on himself, and in 1957, he demonstrated it at the national meeting of the American Gastroscopic Society by reading a telephone directory through the new device.

The instrument was soon adopted for clinical use by physicians. Whether the fiber-optic machine was superior for visualizing the stomach was hotly debated, but what was very clear was that the fiber-optic tool was more comfortable for patients. By the mid-1960s, the fiber-optic invention had become the instrument of choice for gastrointestinal endoscopy. Many advances have since been made to the original instrument.

Dr. Howell is the Elizabeth Farrand Professor and a professor of internal medicine, history, and health management and policy at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. He has no financial disclosures.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has issued a report alerting clinicians to emerging cases of alpha-gal syndrome (AGS) linked with tick bites.

AGS causes patients to become allergic to meat, and in some cases the reaction can be life-threatening. Symptoms typically start 2-6 hours after eating the meat.

The American Gastroenterological Association published a Clinical Practice Update in February notifying gastroenterologists that a subset of AGS patients are presenting with abdominal pain, nausea, diarrhea or vomiting, without skin changes or anaphylaxis. If alpha-gal is suspected, serum tests for immunoglobulin E (IgE) antibodies should be performed.

“It is important for gastroenterologists to be aware of this condition and to be capable of diagnosing and treating it in a timely manner,” wrote authors of the clinical practice update in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

A Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report demonstrates that health care provider knowledge is low surrounding AGS. Almost half of the 1,500 health care providers surveyed (42%) had never heard of the syndrome and another 35% were not confident in diagnosing or managing affected patients.

The low knowledge is concerning because the range of the lone star tick, which is the species primarily associated with this syndrome, is expanding. The knowledge gaps may lead to delayed or overlooked diagnoses.

“Improved health care provider education might facilitate a rapid diagnosis of AGS, improve patient care, and support public health understanding of this emerging condition,” write the report authors, led by Ann Carpenter, DVM, with the CDC.

Another Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, with lead author Johanna S. Salzer, DVM, PhD, of the CDC, also issued on July 28, notes that specific symptoms and severity of AGS vary and no cure or treatment is currently available. From 2010 to 2018, there were more than 34,000 suspected cases of AGS in the United States, but current knowledge of where the cases have occurred is limited, the study authors write.

According to the report, the suspected AGS cases were concentrated in areas where the lone star tick is known to be found, particularly throughout Arkansas, Kentucky, Missouri, and Suffolk County, N.Y.

The report also notes that, “during 2017-2021, there was an annual increase in positive test results for AGS in the United States. More than 90,000 suspected AGS cases were identified during the study period, and the number of new suspected cases increased by approximately 15,000 each year during the study.”

An AGS diagnosis “can be made with GI distress and increased serum alpha-gal IgE antibodies whose symptoms are relieved adequately on an alpha-gal avoidance diet that eliminates pork, beef, and mammalian-derived products,” the practice update says.

Patients whose symptoms also include facial swelling, urticaria, and trouble breathing should be referred to allergists, the AGA update states.

Patients should also be counseled to avoid further tick bites because additional bites can worsen the allergy.

The authors declare no relevant financial relationships.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has issued a report alerting clinicians to emerging cases of alpha-gal syndrome (AGS) linked with tick bites.

AGS causes patients to become allergic to meat, and in some cases the reaction can be life-threatening. Symptoms typically start 2-6 hours after eating the meat.

The American Gastroenterological Association published a Clinical Practice Update in February notifying gastroenterologists that a subset of AGS patients are presenting with abdominal pain, nausea, diarrhea or vomiting, without skin changes or anaphylaxis. If alpha-gal is suspected, serum tests for immunoglobulin E (IgE) antibodies should be performed.

“It is important for gastroenterologists to be aware of this condition and to be capable of diagnosing and treating it in a timely manner,” wrote authors of the clinical practice update in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

A Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report demonstrates that health care provider knowledge is low surrounding AGS. Almost half of the 1,500 health care providers surveyed (42%) had never heard of the syndrome and another 35% were not confident in diagnosing or managing affected patients.

The low knowledge is concerning because the range of the lone star tick, which is the species primarily associated with this syndrome, is expanding. The knowledge gaps may lead to delayed or overlooked diagnoses.

“Improved health care provider education might facilitate a rapid diagnosis of AGS, improve patient care, and support public health understanding of this emerging condition,” write the report authors, led by Ann Carpenter, DVM, with the CDC.

Another Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, with lead author Johanna S. Salzer, DVM, PhD, of the CDC, also issued on July 28, notes that specific symptoms and severity of AGS vary and no cure or treatment is currently available. From 2010 to 2018, there were more than 34,000 suspected cases of AGS in the United States, but current knowledge of where the cases have occurred is limited, the study authors write.

According to the report, the suspected AGS cases were concentrated in areas where the lone star tick is known to be found, particularly throughout Arkansas, Kentucky, Missouri, and Suffolk County, N.Y.

The report also notes that, “during 2017-2021, there was an annual increase in positive test results for AGS in the United States. More than 90,000 suspected AGS cases were identified during the study period, and the number of new suspected cases increased by approximately 15,000 each year during the study.”

An AGS diagnosis “can be made with GI distress and increased serum alpha-gal IgE antibodies whose symptoms are relieved adequately on an alpha-gal avoidance diet that eliminates pork, beef, and mammalian-derived products,” the practice update says.

Patients whose symptoms also include facial swelling, urticaria, and trouble breathing should be referred to allergists, the AGA update states.

Patients should also be counseled to avoid further tick bites because additional bites can worsen the allergy.

The authors declare no relevant financial relationships.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has issued a report alerting clinicians to emerging cases of alpha-gal syndrome (AGS) linked with tick bites.

AGS causes patients to become allergic to meat, and in some cases the reaction can be life-threatening. Symptoms typically start 2-6 hours after eating the meat.

The American Gastroenterological Association published a Clinical Practice Update in February notifying gastroenterologists that a subset of AGS patients are presenting with abdominal pain, nausea, diarrhea or vomiting, without skin changes or anaphylaxis. If alpha-gal is suspected, serum tests for immunoglobulin E (IgE) antibodies should be performed.

“It is important for gastroenterologists to be aware of this condition and to be capable of diagnosing and treating it in a timely manner,” wrote authors of the clinical practice update in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

A Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report demonstrates that health care provider knowledge is low surrounding AGS. Almost half of the 1,500 health care providers surveyed (42%) had never heard of the syndrome and another 35% were not confident in diagnosing or managing affected patients.

The low knowledge is concerning because the range of the lone star tick, which is the species primarily associated with this syndrome, is expanding. The knowledge gaps may lead to delayed or overlooked diagnoses.

“Improved health care provider education might facilitate a rapid diagnosis of AGS, improve patient care, and support public health understanding of this emerging condition,” write the report authors, led by Ann Carpenter, DVM, with the CDC.

Another Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, with lead author Johanna S. Salzer, DVM, PhD, of the CDC, also issued on July 28, notes that specific symptoms and severity of AGS vary and no cure or treatment is currently available. From 2010 to 2018, there were more than 34,000 suspected cases of AGS in the United States, but current knowledge of where the cases have occurred is limited, the study authors write.

According to the report, the suspected AGS cases were concentrated in areas where the lone star tick is known to be found, particularly throughout Arkansas, Kentucky, Missouri, and Suffolk County, N.Y.

The report also notes that, “during 2017-2021, there was an annual increase in positive test results for AGS in the United States. More than 90,000 suspected AGS cases were identified during the study period, and the number of new suspected cases increased by approximately 15,000 each year during the study.”

An AGS diagnosis “can be made with GI distress and increased serum alpha-gal IgE antibodies whose symptoms are relieved adequately on an alpha-gal avoidance diet that eliminates pork, beef, and mammalian-derived products,” the practice update says.

Patients whose symptoms also include facial swelling, urticaria, and trouble breathing should be referred to allergists, the AGA update states.

Patients should also be counseled to avoid further tick bites because additional bites can worsen the allergy.

The authors declare no relevant financial relationships.

For carefully selected patients with colorectal cancer (CRC), a liver transplant may offer long-term survival and potentially even cure unresectable liver metastases.

Findings from a Norwegian review of 61 patients who had liver transplants for unresectable colorectal liver metastases found half of patients were still alive at 5 years, and about one in five appeared to be cured at 10 years.

“It seems likely that there is a small group of patients with unresectable colorectal liver metastases who should be considered for transplant, and long-term survival and possibly cure are achievable in these patients with appropriate selection,” Ryan Ellis, MD, and Michael D’Angelica, MD, wrote in a commentary published alongside the study in JAMA Surgery.

The core question, however, is how to identify patients who will benefit the most from a liver transplant, said Dr. Ellis and Dr. D’Angelica, both surgical oncologists in the Hepatopancreatobiliary Service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York. Looking closely at who did well in this analysis can offer clues to appropriate patient selection, the editorialists said.

Three decades ago, the oncology community had largely abandoned liver transplant in this population after studies showed overall 5-year survival of less than 20%. Some patients, however, did better, which prompted the Norwegian investigators to attempt to refine patient selection.

In the current prospective nonrandomized study, 61 patients had liver transplants for unresectable metastases at Oslo University Hospital from 2006 to 2020.

The researchers reported a median overall survival of 60.3 months, with about half of patients (50.4%) alive at 5 years.

Most patients (78.3%) experienced a relapse after liver transplant, with a median time to relapse of 9 months and with most occurring within 2 years of transplant. Median overall survival from time of relapse was 37.1 months, with 5-year survival at nearly 35% in this group and with one patient still alive 156 months after relapse.

The remaining 21.7% of patients (n = 13) did not experience a relapse post-transplant at their last follow-up.

Given the variety of responses to liver transplant, how can experts differentiate patients who will benefit most from those who won’t?

The researchers looked at several factors, including Oslo score and Fong Clinical Risk Score. The Oslo score assesses overall survival among liver transplant patients, while the Fong score predicts recurrence risk for patients with CRC liver metastasis following resection. These scores assign one point for each adverse prognostic factor.

Among the 10 patients who had an Oslo Score of 0, median overall survival was 151.6 months, and the 5-year and 10-year survival rates reached nearly 89%. Among the 27 patients with an Oslo Score of 1, median overall survival was 60.3 months, and 5-year overall survival was 54.7%. No patients with an Oslo score of 4 lived for 5 years.

As for FCRS, median overall survival was 164.9 months among those with a score of 1, 90.5 months among those with a score of 2, 59.9 months for those with a score of 3, 32.8 months for those with a score of 4, and 25.3 months for those with the highest score of 5 (P < .001). Overall, these patients had 5-year overall survival of 100%, 63.9%, 49.4%, 33.3%, and 0%, respectively.

In addition to Oslo and Fong scores, metabolic tumor volume on PET scan (PET-MTV) was also a good prognostic factor for survival. Among the 40 patients with MTV values less than 70 cm³, median 5-year overall survival was nearly 67%, while those with values above 70 cm³ had a median 5-year overall survival of 23.3%.

Additional harbingers of low 5-year survival, in addition to higher Oslo and Fong scores and PET-MTV above 70 cm³, included a tumor size greater than 5.5 cm, progressive disease while receiving chemotherapy, primary tumors in the ascending colon, tumor burden scores of 9 or higher, and nine or more liver lesions.

Overall, the current analysis can help oncologists identify patients who may benefit from a liver transplant.

The findings indicate that “patients with liver-only metastases and favorable pretransplant prognostic scoring [have] long-term survival comparable with conventional indications for liver transplant, thus providing a potential curative treatment option in patients otherwise offered only palliative care,” said investigators led by Svein Dueland, MD, PhD, a member of the Transplant Oncology Research Group at Oslo University Hospital.

Perhaps “the most compelling argument in favor of liver transplant lies in the likely curative potential evidenced by the 13 disease-free patients,” Dr. Ellis and Dr. D’Angelica wrote.

But even some patients who had early recurrences did well following transplant. The investigators noted that early recurrences in this population aren’t as dire as in other settings because they generally manifest as slow growing lung metastases that can be caught early and resected with curative intent.

A major hurdle to broader use of liver transplants in this population is the scarcity of donor grafts. To manage demand, the investigators suggested “extended-criteria donor grafts” – grafts that don’t meet ideal criteria – and the use of the RAPID technique for liver transplant, which opens the door to using one graft for two patients and using living donors with low risk to the donor.

Another challenge will be identifying patients with unresectable colorectal liver metastases who may experience long-term survival following transplant and possibly a cure. “We all will need to keep a sharp eye out for these patients – they might be hard to find!” Dr. Ellis and Dr. D’Angelica wrote.

The study was supported by Oslo University Hospital, the Norwegian Cancer Society, and South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority. The investigators and editorialists report no relevant financial relationships.

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

For carefully selected patients with colorectal cancer (CRC), a liver transplant may offer long-term survival and potentially even cure unresectable liver metastases.

Findings from a Norwegian review of 61 patients who had liver transplants for unresectable colorectal liver metastases found half of patients were still alive at 5 years, and about one in five appeared to be cured at 10 years.

“It seems likely that there is a small group of patients with unresectable colorectal liver metastases who should be considered for transplant, and long-term survival and possibly cure are achievable in these patients with appropriate selection,” Ryan Ellis, MD, and Michael D’Angelica, MD, wrote in a commentary published alongside the study in JAMA Surgery.

The core question, however, is how to identify patients who will benefit the most from a liver transplant, said Dr. Ellis and Dr. D’Angelica, both surgical oncologists in the Hepatopancreatobiliary Service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York. Looking closely at who did well in this analysis can offer clues to appropriate patient selection, the editorialists said.

Three decades ago, the oncology community had largely abandoned liver transplant in this population after studies showed overall 5-year survival of less than 20%. Some patients, however, did better, which prompted the Norwegian investigators to attempt to refine patient selection.

In the current prospective nonrandomized study, 61 patients had liver transplants for unresectable metastases at Oslo University Hospital from 2006 to 2020.

The researchers reported a median overall survival of 60.3 months, with about half of patients (50.4%) alive at 5 years.

Most patients (78.3%) experienced a relapse after liver transplant, with a median time to relapse of 9 months and with most occurring within 2 years of transplant. Median overall survival from time of relapse was 37.1 months, with 5-year survival at nearly 35% in this group and with one patient still alive 156 months after relapse.

The remaining 21.7% of patients (n = 13) did not experience a relapse post-transplant at their last follow-up.

Given the variety of responses to liver transplant, how can experts differentiate patients who will benefit most from those who won’t?

The researchers looked at several factors, including Oslo score and Fong Clinical Risk Score. The Oslo score assesses overall survival among liver transplant patients, while the Fong score predicts recurrence risk for patients with CRC liver metastasis following resection. These scores assign one point for each adverse prognostic factor.

Among the 10 patients who had an Oslo Score of 0, median overall survival was 151.6 months, and the 5-year and 10-year survival rates reached nearly 89%. Among the 27 patients with an Oslo Score of 1, median overall survival was 60.3 months, and 5-year overall survival was 54.7%. No patients with an Oslo score of 4 lived for 5 years.

As for FCRS, median overall survival was 164.9 months among those with a score of 1, 90.5 months among those with a score of 2, 59.9 months for those with a score of 3, 32.8 months for those with a score of 4, and 25.3 months for those with the highest score of 5 (P < .001). Overall, these patients had 5-year overall survival of 100%, 63.9%, 49.4%, 33.3%, and 0%, respectively.

In addition to Oslo and Fong scores, metabolic tumor volume on PET scan (PET-MTV) was also a good prognostic factor for survival. Among the 40 patients with MTV values less than 70 cm³, median 5-year overall survival was nearly 67%, while those with values above 70 cm³ had a median 5-year overall survival of 23.3%.

Additional harbingers of low 5-year survival, in addition to higher Oslo and Fong scores and PET-MTV above 70 cm³, included a tumor size greater than 5.5 cm, progressive disease while receiving chemotherapy, primary tumors in the ascending colon, tumor burden scores of 9 or higher, and nine or more liver lesions.

Overall, the current analysis can help oncologists identify patients who may benefit from a liver transplant.

The findings indicate that “patients with liver-only metastases and favorable pretransplant prognostic scoring [have] long-term survival comparable with conventional indications for liver transplant, thus providing a potential curative treatment option in patients otherwise offered only palliative care,” said investigators led by Svein Dueland, MD, PhD, a member of the Transplant Oncology Research Group at Oslo University Hospital.

Perhaps “the most compelling argument in favor of liver transplant lies in the likely curative potential evidenced by the 13 disease-free patients,” Dr. Ellis and Dr. D’Angelica wrote.

But even some patients who had early recurrences did well following transplant. The investigators noted that early recurrences in this population aren’t as dire as in other settings because they generally manifest as slow growing lung metastases that can be caught early and resected with curative intent.

A major hurdle to broader use of liver transplants in this population is the scarcity of donor grafts. To manage demand, the investigators suggested “extended-criteria donor grafts” – grafts that don’t meet ideal criteria – and the use of the RAPID technique for liver transplant, which opens the door to using one graft for two patients and using living donors with low risk to the donor.

Another challenge will be identifying patients with unresectable colorectal liver metastases who may experience long-term survival following transplant and possibly a cure. “We all will need to keep a sharp eye out for these patients – they might be hard to find!” Dr. Ellis and Dr. D’Angelica wrote.

The study was supported by Oslo University Hospital, the Norwegian Cancer Society, and South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority. The investigators and editorialists report no relevant financial relationships.

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

For carefully selected patients with colorectal cancer (CRC), a liver transplant may offer long-term survival and potentially even cure unresectable liver metastases.

Findings from a Norwegian review of 61 patients who had liver transplants for unresectable colorectal liver metastases found half of patients were still alive at 5 years, and about one in five appeared to be cured at 10 years.

“It seems likely that there is a small group of patients with unresectable colorectal liver metastases who should be considered for transplant, and long-term survival and possibly cure are achievable in these patients with appropriate selection,” Ryan Ellis, MD, and Michael D’Angelica, MD, wrote in a commentary published alongside the study in JAMA Surgery.

The core question, however, is how to identify patients who will benefit the most from a liver transplant, said Dr. Ellis and Dr. D’Angelica, both surgical oncologists in the Hepatopancreatobiliary Service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York. Looking closely at who did well in this analysis can offer clues to appropriate patient selection, the editorialists said.

Three decades ago, the oncology community had largely abandoned liver transplant in this population after studies showed overall 5-year survival of less than 20%. Some patients, however, did better, which prompted the Norwegian investigators to attempt to refine patient selection.

In the current prospective nonrandomized study, 61 patients had liver transplants for unresectable metastases at Oslo University Hospital from 2006 to 2020.

The researchers reported a median overall survival of 60.3 months, with about half of patients (50.4%) alive at 5 years.

Most patients (78.3%) experienced a relapse after liver transplant, with a median time to relapse of 9 months and with most occurring within 2 years of transplant. Median overall survival from time of relapse was 37.1 months, with 5-year survival at nearly 35% in this group and with one patient still alive 156 months after relapse.

The remaining 21.7% of patients (n = 13) did not experience a relapse post-transplant at their last follow-up.

Given the variety of responses to liver transplant, how can experts differentiate patients who will benefit most from those who won’t?

The researchers looked at several factors, including Oslo score and Fong Clinical Risk Score. The Oslo score assesses overall survival among liver transplant patients, while the Fong score predicts recurrence risk for patients with CRC liver metastasis following resection. These scores assign one point for each adverse prognostic factor.

Among the 10 patients who had an Oslo Score of 0, median overall survival was 151.6 months, and the 5-year and 10-year survival rates reached nearly 89%. Among the 27 patients with an Oslo Score of 1, median overall survival was 60.3 months, and 5-year overall survival was 54.7%. No patients with an Oslo score of 4 lived for 5 years.

As for FCRS, median overall survival was 164.9 months among those with a score of 1, 90.5 months among those with a score of 2, 59.9 months for those with a score of 3, 32.8 months for those with a score of 4, and 25.3 months for those with the highest score of 5 (P < .001). Overall, these patients had 5-year overall survival of 100%, 63.9%, 49.4%, 33.3%, and 0%, respectively.

In addition to Oslo and Fong scores, metabolic tumor volume on PET scan (PET-MTV) was also a good prognostic factor for survival. Among the 40 patients with MTV values less than 70 cm³, median 5-year overall survival was nearly 67%, while those with values above 70 cm³ had a median 5-year overall survival of 23.3%.

Additional harbingers of low 5-year survival, in addition to higher Oslo and Fong scores and PET-MTV above 70 cm³, included a tumor size greater than 5.5 cm, progressive disease while receiving chemotherapy, primary tumors in the ascending colon, tumor burden scores of 9 or higher, and nine or more liver lesions.

Overall, the current analysis can help oncologists identify patients who may benefit from a liver transplant.

The findings indicate that “patients with liver-only metastases and favorable pretransplant prognostic scoring [have] long-term survival comparable with conventional indications for liver transplant, thus providing a potential curative treatment option in patients otherwise offered only palliative care,” said investigators led by Svein Dueland, MD, PhD, a member of the Transplant Oncology Research Group at Oslo University Hospital.

Perhaps “the most compelling argument in favor of liver transplant lies in the likely curative potential evidenced by the 13 disease-free patients,” Dr. Ellis and Dr. D’Angelica wrote.

But even some patients who had early recurrences did well following transplant. The investigators noted that early recurrences in this population aren’t as dire as in other settings because they generally manifest as slow growing lung metastases that can be caught early and resected with curative intent.

A major hurdle to broader use of liver transplants in this population is the scarcity of donor grafts. To manage demand, the investigators suggested “extended-criteria donor grafts” – grafts that don’t meet ideal criteria – and the use of the RAPID technique for liver transplant, which opens the door to using one graft for two patients and using living donors with low risk to the donor.

Another challenge will be identifying patients with unresectable colorectal liver metastases who may experience long-term survival following transplant and possibly a cure. “We all will need to keep a sharp eye out for these patients – they might be hard to find!” Dr. Ellis and Dr. D’Angelica wrote.

The study was supported by Oslo University Hospital, the Norwegian Cancer Society, and South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority. The investigators and editorialists report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Ethylene oxide is a compound used to sterilize more than 20 billion devices sold in the U.S. every year. Although this sterilization process helps keep medical devices – and patients – safe, the odorless, flammable gas may also be harming people who live near sterilization plants and who may inhale the compound, which has been linked to an elevated risk of cancer.

Regulatory agencies are currently feuding over the best way to address the dilemma: preserving patient safety versus protecting public health. Lawmakers are weighing in on the matter, which has been the source of multiple civil lawsuits filed by individuals who say they have suffered health problems as a result of exposure to ethylene oxide.

The Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration agree that use of the compound should be limited, but they are at odds about how quickly limits should be put in place, according to Axios.

A new commercial standard for ethylene oxide proposed by the EPA in April would impose stricter emission restrictions for sterilization facilities and chemical plants – a move that would cut ethylene oxide emissions by 80%, the EPA estimates.

While the FDA says it “shares concerns about the release of ethylene oxide at unsafe levels into the environment,” the agency cautions that moving too fast to cut emissions would disrupt the medical supply chain, which is already experiencing turbulence. The U.S. has been facing the worst drug supply shortages in a decade in addition to severe medical device shortages.

Currently, other methods of sterilization cannot replace the use of ethylene oxide for many devices. Ethylene oxide is used to sterilize about half of all medical devices in the U.S., the FDA says. Given the country’s reliance on this compound for sterilization, the FDA says it is “equally concerned about the potential impact of shortages of sterilized medical devices that would result from disruptions in commercial sterilizer facility operations.”

In 2019, Illinois temporarily closed a sterilization facility over concern regarding ethylene oxide emissions. The closure caused a shortage of a pediatric breathing tube.

Some lawmakers agree that an Interior-Environment bill would require FDA certification that any action by the EPA would not cause a medical device shortage.

The FDA has been working to identify safe alternatives to ethylene oxide for sterilizing medical supplies as well as strategies to reduce emissions of ethylene oxide by capturing the gas or by turning it into a harmless byproduct. In 2019, the FDA launched a pilot program to incentivize companies to develop new sterilization technologies.

“The FDA remains focused in our commitment to encourage novel ways to sterilize medical devices while reducing adverse impacts on the environment and public health and developing solutions to avoid potential shortages of devices that the American public relies upon,” the agency said.

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

Ethylene oxide is a compound used to sterilize more than 20 billion devices sold in the U.S. every year. Although this sterilization process helps keep medical devices – and patients – safe, the odorless, flammable gas may also be harming people who live near sterilization plants and who may inhale the compound, which has been linked to an elevated risk of cancer.

Regulatory agencies are currently feuding over the best way to address the dilemma: preserving patient safety versus protecting public health. Lawmakers are weighing in on the matter, which has been the source of multiple civil lawsuits filed by individuals who say they have suffered health problems as a result of exposure to ethylene oxide.

The Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration agree that use of the compound should be limited, but they are at odds about how quickly limits should be put in place, according to Axios.

A new commercial standard for ethylene oxide proposed by the EPA in April would impose stricter emission restrictions for sterilization facilities and chemical plants – a move that would cut ethylene oxide emissions by 80%, the EPA estimates.

While the FDA says it “shares concerns about the release of ethylene oxide at unsafe levels into the environment,” the agency cautions that moving too fast to cut emissions would disrupt the medical supply chain, which is already experiencing turbulence. The U.S. has been facing the worst drug supply shortages in a decade in addition to severe medical device shortages.

Currently, other methods of sterilization cannot replace the use of ethylene oxide for many devices. Ethylene oxide is used to sterilize about half of all medical devices in the U.S., the FDA says. Given the country’s reliance on this compound for sterilization, the FDA says it is “equally concerned about the potential impact of shortages of sterilized medical devices that would result from disruptions in commercial sterilizer facility operations.”

In 2019, Illinois temporarily closed a sterilization facility over concern regarding ethylene oxide emissions. The closure caused a shortage of a pediatric breathing tube.

Some lawmakers agree that an Interior-Environment bill would require FDA certification that any action by the EPA would not cause a medical device shortage.

The FDA has been working to identify safe alternatives to ethylene oxide for sterilizing medical supplies as well as strategies to reduce emissions of ethylene oxide by capturing the gas or by turning it into a harmless byproduct. In 2019, the FDA launched a pilot program to incentivize companies to develop new sterilization technologies.

“The FDA remains focused in our commitment to encourage novel ways to sterilize medical devices while reducing adverse impacts on the environment and public health and developing solutions to avoid potential shortages of devices that the American public relies upon,” the agency said.

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

Ethylene oxide is a compound used to sterilize more than 20 billion devices sold in the U.S. every year. Although this sterilization process helps keep medical devices – and patients – safe, the odorless, flammable gas may also be harming people who live near sterilization plants and who may inhale the compound, which has been linked to an elevated risk of cancer.

Regulatory agencies are currently feuding over the best way to address the dilemma: preserving patient safety versus protecting public health. Lawmakers are weighing in on the matter, which has been the source of multiple civil lawsuits filed by individuals who say they have suffered health problems as a result of exposure to ethylene oxide.

The Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration agree that use of the compound should be limited, but they are at odds about how quickly limits should be put in place, according to Axios.

A new commercial standard for ethylene oxide proposed by the EPA in April would impose stricter emission restrictions for sterilization facilities and chemical plants – a move that would cut ethylene oxide emissions by 80%, the EPA estimates.

While the FDA says it “shares concerns about the release of ethylene oxide at unsafe levels into the environment,” the agency cautions that moving too fast to cut emissions would disrupt the medical supply chain, which is already experiencing turbulence. The U.S. has been facing the worst drug supply shortages in a decade in addition to severe medical device shortages.

Currently, other methods of sterilization cannot replace the use of ethylene oxide for many devices. Ethylene oxide is used to sterilize about half of all medical devices in the U.S., the FDA says. Given the country’s reliance on this compound for sterilization, the FDA says it is “equally concerned about the potential impact of shortages of sterilized medical devices that would result from disruptions in commercial sterilizer facility operations.”

In 2019, Illinois temporarily closed a sterilization facility over concern regarding ethylene oxide emissions. The closure caused a shortage of a pediatric breathing tube.

Some lawmakers agree that an Interior-Environment bill would require FDA certification that any action by the EPA would not cause a medical device shortage.

The FDA has been working to identify safe alternatives to ethylene oxide for sterilizing medical supplies as well as strategies to reduce emissions of ethylene oxide by capturing the gas or by turning it into a harmless byproduct. In 2019, the FDA launched a pilot program to incentivize companies to develop new sterilization technologies.

“The FDA remains focused in our commitment to encourage novel ways to sterilize medical devices while reducing adverse impacts on the environment and public health and developing solutions to avoid potential shortages of devices that the American public relies upon,” the agency said.

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

Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is a therapeutic approach to health care used in association with or in place of standard medical therapeutic approaches. When describing CAM, the terms complementary and alternative are often used interchangeably, but the terms refer to different concepts. A nonmainstream approach used together with conventional medicine is considered complementary, whereas an approach used in place of conventional medicine is considered alternative. Most people who use nonmainstream approaches also use conventional health care.¹

Integrative medicine represents therapeutic interventions that bring conventional and complementary approaches together in a coordinated way. Integrative health also emphasizes multimodal interventions, which are ≥ 2 interventions such as conventional (eg, medication, physical rehabilitation, psychotherapy) and complementary health approaches (eg, acupuncture, yoga, and probiotics) in various combinations, with an emphasis on treating the whole person rather than 1 organ system. Integrative health aims for well-coordinated care among different practitioners and institutions.¹

Functional medicine requires an individualized assessment and therapeutic plan for each patient, including optimizing the function of each organ system. It uses research to understand a patient’s unique needs and formulates a plan that often uses diet, exercise, and stress reduction methods. Functional medicine may use combinations of naturopathic, osteopathic, and chiropractic medicine, among other therapies. Functional medicine has been called a systems biology model, and patients and practitioners work together to achieve the highest expression of health by addressing the underlying causes of disease.^2,3

According to a 2012 national survey, more than 30% of adults and about 12% of children use health care approaches that are not part of conventional medical care or that may have unconventional origins. A National Center for Health Statistics study found that the most common complementary medical interventions from 2002 to 2012 included natural products, deep breathing, yoga and other movement programs, and chiropractic, among others. Magnets, magnetic fields, and copper devices (MMFC), which are the focus of this study, were not among the top listed interventions.⁴ Recent data showed that individuals in the United States are high users of CAM, including many patients who have neoplastic disease.^5,6

MMFCs are a part of CAM and are reported to be a billion-dollar industry worldwide, although it is not well studied.^7,8 In our study, magnet refers to the use of a magnet in contact with the body, magnetic field refers to exposure to a magnetic field administered without direct contact with the body, and copper devices refer to devices that are in contact with the body, such as bracelets, necklaces, wraps, and joint braces. These devices are often constructed using copper mesh, or weaved copper wires. Advertising has helped to increase interest in the use of these devices for musculoskeletal pain and restricted joint movement therapies. However, it is less clear whether MMFCs are being used to provide therapy for other medical conditions, such as neoplastic disease.

It is unclear how widespread MMFC use is or how it is accessed. A 2016 study of veterans and CAM use did not specifically address MMFCs.⁹ A Japanese study of the use of CAM provided or prescribed by a physician found that just 12 of 1575 respondents (0.7%) described using magnetic therapy.¹⁰ A Korean internet study that assessed the use of CAM found that of 1668 respondents who received CAM therapy by practice or advice of a physician, 1.2% used magnet therapy.^11,12 An online study of CAM use in patients with multiple sclerosis found that 9 of 1286 respondents (0.7%) had used magnetic field therapy in the previous 3 months.¹³

In this study, we aimed to assess MMFC use and perspectives in a veteran population at the Carl T. Hayden Veterans Affairs Medical Center (CTHVAMC) in Phoenix, Arizona.

METHODS

We created a brief questionnaire regarding MMFC use and perspectives and distributed it to veteran patients at the infusion center at the CTHVAMC. The study was approved by the CTHVAMC department of research, and the institutional review board determined that informed consent was not required. The questionnaire did not collect any specific personal identifying data but included the participant’s sex, age, and diagnosis. Although there are standardized questionnaires concerning the use of CAM, we designed a new survey for MMFCs. The participants in the study were consecutive patients referred to the CTHVAMC infusion center for IV or other nonoral therapies. Referrals came from endocrinology, gastroenterology, hematology/oncology, neurology, rheumatology, and other specialties (eg, allergy/immunology).

The questionnaire was 1 page (front and back) and was completed anonymously without involvement by the study investigators or infusion center staff. Dated and consecutively numbered questionnaires were given to patients receiving therapy regardless of their diagnosis. Ages were categorized into groups: 18 to 30 years; 31 to 50 years; 51 to 65 years; and ≥ 66 years. Diagnoses were categorized by specialty: endocrinology, gastroenterology, hematology/oncology, neurology, rheumatology, and other. We noted in a previous similar study that the exact diagnosis was often left blank, but the specialty was more often completed.⁹ Since some patients required multiple visits to the infusion center, respondents were asked whether they had previously answered the questionnaire; there were no duplications.

The population we studied was under stress while receiving therapy for underlying illnesses. To improve the response rate and accuracy of the responses, we limited the number of survey questions. Since many of the respondents in the infusion center for therapy received medications that could alter their ability to respond, all questionnaires were administered prior to therapeutic intervention. In addition to the background data, respondents were asked: Do you apply magnets to your body, use magnetic field therapy, or copper devices? If you use any of these therapies, is it for pain, your diagnosis, or other? Would you consider participating in a clinical trial using magnets applied to the body or magnetic therapy?

RESULTS

We collected 210 surveys. Four surveys were missing data and were excluded. The majority of respondents (n = 133, 64%) were in the hematology/oncology diagnostic group and 121 (59%) were aged ≥ 66 years (Table 1).

Respondents were asked whether they were using MMFC therapies. The results from all age groups showed an 18% overall use and in the diagnosis groups an overall use of 23%. Eighteen respondents (35%) aged 51 to 65 years reported using MMFC, followed by 6 respondents (21%) aged 31 to 50 years. Patients with an endocrinology diagnosis had the highest rate of MMFC use (6 of 11 patients; 55%) but more patients (33 of 133 [25%]) with a hematology/oncology diagnosis used MMFCs.

Copper was the most widely used MMFC therapy among individuals who used a single MMFC therapy. Twenty respondents reported copper use, 6 used magnets, and no respondents used magnetic field therapy (Table 2).

DISCUSSION

We surveyed a population of veterans at the CTHVAMC infusion center who were receiving antineoplastic chemotherapy, biologic therapy, immunomodulatory therapy, transfusion, and other therapies to evaluate their use of MMFC. We chose this group to sample because of how accessible this group was and the belief that there would be an adequate survey response. We hypothesized that by asking about a specific group of CAM therapies and not, as in many surveys, multiple CAM therapies, there would be an improved response rate. We expected that very few respondents would indicate MMFC use because in a similar study conducted in 2003 to 2004 at CTHVAMC, none of the 380 survey respondents (all with a hematology/oncology diagnosis) indicated magnet or magnetic field use (JR Salvatore, unpublished data). Although copper devices were available at that time, they were not included in that study. The current survey added copper devices and showed a greater use of MMFC, including copper devices. We identified veterans who used either 1 MMFC or multiple therapies. In both groups, copper devices were the most common. This may be due to the ubiquity and availability of copper devices. These devices are highly visible and promoted by professional athletes and other well-known personalities.

Our findings showed 2 unexpected results. First, there was greater than expected use of magnets and copper devices. Second, an even less expected result that there was considerable interest in participating in clinical research that used magnets or magnetic fields.

Respondents indicated a high interest in participating in clinical trials using magnets or magnetic fields regardless of their history of MMFC use. We did not ask about a trial using copper devices because there is less scientific/medical research to justify studying those devices as opposed to data that support the use of magnets or magnetic fields. The data presented in this study suggest interest in participating in clinical trials using magnets or magnetic field therapy. One clinical trial combined static magnets as an adjuvant to antineoplastic chemotherapy.¹⁴ We believe this is the first publication to specifically quantify both MMFC use in a veteran (or any) population, and to identify the desire to participate in clinical studies that would utilize magnets or magnetic fields, whether or not they currently use magnets or magnetic fields. Based on current knowledge, it is not clear whether use of MMFC by patients represents a risk or a benefit to the population studied, and seeking that information is part of the continuation of our work. We also believe that the data in this study will help practitioners to consider asking patients specifically whether they are using these therapies, and if so why and with what result. We are extending our work to a more generalized patient population.

The use of copper devices relates to beliefs (dating to the mid-1800s) that there was a relationship between copper deficiency and rheumatologic disorders. Copper devices are used as therapies because of the belief that small amounts of copper are absorbed through the skin, decreasing inflammation, particularly around joint spaces.¹⁵ Recent data suggest a mechanism for copper-induced cell death.¹⁶ Although this recent research suggests a mechanism for how copper might induce cell death, it is unclear how this would be applied to establishing a mechanism for the health effects of wearing copper devices. Since copper devices are thought to decrease inflammation, they may have a theoretical function by decreasing the number of inflammatory cells in an affected space.

CAM magnetics are typically of lower strength. The field generated by magnets is measured and reported in Tesla. Magnetic resonance imaging typically generates from 1.5 to 3 Tesla. A refrigerator magnet is about 1 milliTesla.¹⁷ In a study conducted at the CTHVAMC, the strength of the magnets used was measured at distances from the magnet. For example, at 2 cm from the magnet, the measured strength was 18 milliTesla.¹⁴ Many MMFC devices approved by the US Food and Drug Administration are pulsed electromagnetic fields (PEMF) devices for healing of nonunion fractures (approved in 1979); cervical and lumbar fusion therapies (approved in 2004); and therapy for anxiety and depression (approved in 2006).¹⁸

Limitations

Patients with endocrinology diagnoses were the most likely to use MMFCs but were a very small percentage of the infusion center population, which could skew the data. The surveyed individuals may not have been representative of the overall patient population. Similarly, the patient population at CTHVAMC, which is primarily male and aged ≥ 66 years, may not be representative of other veteran and nonveteran patient populations.

Conclusions

MMFC devices are being used regularly by patients as a form of CAM therapy, but few studies researching the use of CAM therapy have generated data that are as specific as this study is about the use of these MMFC devices. Although there is considerable general public awareness of MMFC therapies and devices, we believe that there is a need to quantify the use of these devices. We further believe that our study is one of the first to look specifically at the use of MMFCs in a veteran population. We have found a considerable use of MMFCs in the veteran population studied, and we also showed that whether or not veterans are using these devices, they are willing to be part of research that uses the devices. Further studies would look at a more general veteran population, look more in depth at the way and for what purpose these devices are being used, and consider the development of clinical research studies that use MMFCs.

Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is a therapeutic approach to health care used in association with or in place of standard medical therapeutic approaches. When describing CAM, the terms complementary and alternative are often used interchangeably, but the terms refer to different concepts. A nonmainstream approach used together with conventional medicine is considered complementary, whereas an approach used in place of conventional medicine is considered alternative. Most people who use nonmainstream approaches also use conventional health care.¹

Integrative medicine represents therapeutic interventions that bring conventional and complementary approaches together in a coordinated way. Integrative health also emphasizes multimodal interventions, which are ≥ 2 interventions such as conventional (eg, medication, physical rehabilitation, psychotherapy) and complementary health approaches (eg, acupuncture, yoga, and probiotics) in various combinations, with an emphasis on treating the whole person rather than 1 organ system. Integrative health aims for well-coordinated care among different practitioners and institutions.¹

Functional medicine requires an individualized assessment and therapeutic plan for each patient, including optimizing the function of each organ system. It uses research to understand a patient’s unique needs and formulates a plan that often uses diet, exercise, and stress reduction methods. Functional medicine may use combinations of naturopathic, osteopathic, and chiropractic medicine, among other therapies. Functional medicine has been called a systems biology model, and patients and practitioners work together to achieve the highest expression of health by addressing the underlying causes of disease.^2,3

According to a 2012 national survey, more than 30% of adults and about 12% of children use health care approaches that are not part of conventional medical care or that may have unconventional origins. A National Center for Health Statistics study found that the most common complementary medical interventions from 2002 to 2012 included natural products, deep breathing, yoga and other movement programs, and chiropractic, among others. Magnets, magnetic fields, and copper devices (MMFC), which are the focus of this study, were not among the top listed interventions.⁴ Recent data showed that individuals in the United States are high users of CAM, including many patients who have neoplastic disease.^5,6

MMFCs are a part of CAM and are reported to be a billion-dollar industry worldwide, although it is not well studied.^7,8 In our study, magnet refers to the use of a magnet in contact with the body, magnetic field refers to exposure to a magnetic field administered without direct contact with the body, and copper devices refer to devices that are in contact with the body, such as bracelets, necklaces, wraps, and joint braces. These devices are often constructed using copper mesh, or weaved copper wires. Advertising has helped to increase interest in the use of these devices for musculoskeletal pain and restricted joint movement therapies. However, it is less clear whether MMFCs are being used to provide therapy for other medical conditions, such as neoplastic disease.

It is unclear how widespread MMFC use is or how it is accessed. A 2016 study of veterans and CAM use did not specifically address MMFCs.⁹ A Japanese study of the use of CAM provided or prescribed by a physician found that just 12 of 1575 respondents (0.7%) described using magnetic therapy.¹⁰ A Korean internet study that assessed the use of CAM found that of 1668 respondents who received CAM therapy by practice or advice of a physician, 1.2% used magnet therapy.^11,12 An online study of CAM use in patients with multiple sclerosis found that 9 of 1286 respondents (0.7%) had used magnetic field therapy in the previous 3 months.¹³

In this study, we aimed to assess MMFC use and perspectives in a veteran population at the Carl T. Hayden Veterans Affairs Medical Center (CTHVAMC) in Phoenix, Arizona.

METHODS

We created a brief questionnaire regarding MMFC use and perspectives and distributed it to veteran patients at the infusion center at the CTHVAMC. The study was approved by the CTHVAMC department of research, and the institutional review board determined that informed consent was not required. The questionnaire did not collect any specific personal identifying data but included the participant’s sex, age, and diagnosis. Although there are standardized questionnaires concerning the use of CAM, we designed a new survey for MMFCs. The participants in the study were consecutive patients referred to the CTHVAMC infusion center for IV or other nonoral therapies. Referrals came from endocrinology, gastroenterology, hematology/oncology, neurology, rheumatology, and other specialties (eg, allergy/immunology).

The questionnaire was 1 page (front and back) and was completed anonymously without involvement by the study investigators or infusion center staff. Dated and consecutively numbered questionnaires were given to patients receiving therapy regardless of their diagnosis. Ages were categorized into groups: 18 to 30 years; 31 to 50 years; 51 to 65 years; and ≥ 66 years. Diagnoses were categorized by specialty: endocrinology, gastroenterology, hematology/oncology, neurology, rheumatology, and other. We noted in a previous similar study that the exact diagnosis was often left blank, but the specialty was more often completed.⁹ Since some patients required multiple visits to the infusion center, respondents were asked whether they had previously answered the questionnaire; there were no duplications.

The population we studied was under stress while receiving therapy for underlying illnesses. To improve the response rate and accuracy of the responses, we limited the number of survey questions. Since many of the respondents in the infusion center for therapy received medications that could alter their ability to respond, all questionnaires were administered prior to therapeutic intervention. In addition to the background data, respondents were asked: Do you apply magnets to your body, use magnetic field therapy, or copper devices? If you use any of these therapies, is it for pain, your diagnosis, or other? Would you consider participating in a clinical trial using magnets applied to the body or magnetic therapy?

RESULTS

We collected 210 surveys. Four surveys were missing data and were excluded. The majority of respondents (n = 133, 64%) were in the hematology/oncology diagnostic group and 121 (59%) were aged ≥ 66 years (Table 1).

Respondents were asked whether they were using MMFC therapies. The results from all age groups showed an 18% overall use and in the diagnosis groups an overall use of 23%. Eighteen respondents (35%) aged 51 to 65 years reported using MMFC, followed by 6 respondents (21%) aged 31 to 50 years. Patients with an endocrinology diagnosis had the highest rate of MMFC use (6 of 11 patients; 55%) but more patients (33 of 133 [25%]) with a hematology/oncology diagnosis used MMFCs.

Copper was the most widely used MMFC therapy among individuals who used a single MMFC therapy. Twenty respondents reported copper use, 6 used magnets, and no respondents used magnetic field therapy (Table 2).

DISCUSSION

We surveyed a population of veterans at the CTHVAMC infusion center who were receiving antineoplastic chemotherapy, biologic therapy, immunomodulatory therapy, transfusion, and other therapies to evaluate their use of MMFC. We chose this group to sample because of how accessible this group was and the belief that there would be an adequate survey response. We hypothesized that by asking about a specific group of CAM therapies and not, as in many surveys, multiple CAM therapies, there would be an improved response rate. We expected that very few respondents would indicate MMFC use because in a similar study conducted in 2003 to 2004 at CTHVAMC, none of the 380 survey respondents (all with a hematology/oncology diagnosis) indicated magnet or magnetic field use (JR Salvatore, unpublished data). Although copper devices were available at that time, they were not included in that study. The current survey added copper devices and showed a greater use of MMFC, including copper devices. We identified veterans who used either 1 MMFC or multiple therapies. In both groups, copper devices were the most common. This may be due to the ubiquity and availability of copper devices. These devices are highly visible and promoted by professional athletes and other well-known personalities.

Our findings showed 2 unexpected results. First, there was greater than expected use of magnets and copper devices. Second, an even less expected result that there was considerable interest in participating in clinical research that used magnets or magnetic fields.

Respondents indicated a high interest in participating in clinical trials using magnets or magnetic fields regardless of their history of MMFC use. We did not ask about a trial using copper devices because there is less scientific/medical research to justify studying those devices as opposed to data that support the use of magnets or magnetic fields. The data presented in this study suggest interest in participating in clinical trials using magnets or magnetic field therapy. One clinical trial combined static magnets as an adjuvant to antineoplastic chemotherapy.¹⁴ We believe this is the first publication to specifically quantify both MMFC use in a veteran (or any) population, and to identify the desire to participate in clinical studies that would utilize magnets or magnetic fields, whether or not they currently use magnets or magnetic fields. Based on current knowledge, it is not clear whether use of MMFC by patients represents a risk or a benefit to the population studied, and seeking that information is part of the continuation of our work. We also believe that the data in this study will help practitioners to consider asking patients specifically whether they are using these therapies, and if so why and with what result. We are extending our work to a more generalized patient population.

The use of copper devices relates to beliefs (dating to the mid-1800s) that there was a relationship between copper deficiency and rheumatologic disorders. Copper devices are used as therapies because of the belief that small amounts of copper are absorbed through the skin, decreasing inflammation, particularly around joint spaces.¹⁵ Recent data suggest a mechanism for copper-induced cell death.¹⁶ Although this recent research suggests a mechanism for how copper might induce cell death, it is unclear how this would be applied to establishing a mechanism for the health effects of wearing copper devices. Since copper devices are thought to decrease inflammation, they may have a theoretical function by decreasing the number of inflammatory cells in an affected space.

CAM magnetics are typically of lower strength. The field generated by magnets is measured and reported in Tesla. Magnetic resonance imaging typically generates from 1.5 to 3 Tesla. A refrigerator magnet is about 1 milliTesla.¹⁷ In a study conducted at the CTHVAMC, the strength of the magnets used was measured at distances from the magnet. For example, at 2 cm from the magnet, the measured strength was 18 milliTesla.¹⁴ Many MMFC devices approved by the US Food and Drug Administration are pulsed electromagnetic fields (PEMF) devices for healing of nonunion fractures (approved in 1979); cervical and lumbar fusion therapies (approved in 2004); and therapy for anxiety and depression (approved in 2006).¹⁸

Limitations

Patients with endocrinology diagnoses were the most likely to use MMFCs but were a very small percentage of the infusion center population, which could skew the data. The surveyed individuals may not have been representative of the overall patient population. Similarly, the patient population at CTHVAMC, which is primarily male and aged ≥ 66 years, may not be representative of other veteran and nonveteran patient populations.

Conclusions

MMFC devices are being used regularly by patients as a form of CAM therapy, but few studies researching the use of CAM therapy have generated data that are as specific as this study is about the use of these MMFC devices. Although there is considerable general public awareness of MMFC therapies and devices, we believe that there is a need to quantify the use of these devices. We further believe that our study is one of the first to look specifically at the use of MMFCs in a veteran population. We have found a considerable use of MMFCs in the veteran population studied, and we also showed that whether or not veterans are using these devices, they are willing to be part of research that uses the devices. Further studies would look at a more general veteran population, look more in depth at the way and for what purpose these devices are being used, and consider the development of clinical research studies that use MMFCs.

Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is a therapeutic approach to health care used in association with or in place of standard medical therapeutic approaches. When describing CAM, the terms complementary and alternative are often used interchangeably, but the terms refer to different concepts. A nonmainstream approach used together with conventional medicine is considered complementary, whereas an approach used in place of conventional medicine is considered alternative. Most people who use nonmainstream approaches also use conventional health care.¹

Integrative medicine represents therapeutic interventions that bring conventional and complementary approaches together in a coordinated way. Integrative health also emphasizes multimodal interventions, which are ≥ 2 interventions such as conventional (eg, medication, physical rehabilitation, psychotherapy) and complementary health approaches (eg, acupuncture, yoga, and probiotics) in various combinations, with an emphasis on treating the whole person rather than 1 organ system. Integrative health aims for well-coordinated care among different practitioners and institutions.¹

Functional medicine requires an individualized assessment and therapeutic plan for each patient, including optimizing the function of each organ system. It uses research to understand a patient’s unique needs and formulates a plan that often uses diet, exercise, and stress reduction methods. Functional medicine may use combinations of naturopathic, osteopathic, and chiropractic medicine, among other therapies. Functional medicine has been called a systems biology model, and patients and practitioners work together to achieve the highest expression of health by addressing the underlying causes of disease.^2,3

According to a 2012 national survey, more than 30% of adults and about 12% of children use health care approaches that are not part of conventional medical care or that may have unconventional origins. A National Center for Health Statistics study found that the most common complementary medical interventions from 2002 to 2012 included natural products, deep breathing, yoga and other movement programs, and chiropractic, among others. Magnets, magnetic fields, and copper devices (MMFC), which are the focus of this study, were not among the top listed interventions.⁴ Recent data showed that individuals in the United States are high users of CAM, including many patients who have neoplastic disease.^5,6

MMFCs are a part of CAM and are reported to be a billion-dollar industry worldwide, although it is not well studied.^7,8 In our study, magnet refers to the use of a magnet in contact with the body, magnetic field refers to exposure to a magnetic field administered without direct contact with the body, and copper devices refer to devices that are in contact with the body, such as bracelets, necklaces, wraps, and joint braces. These devices are often constructed using copper mesh, or weaved copper wires. Advertising has helped to increase interest in the use of these devices for musculoskeletal pain and restricted joint movement therapies. However, it is less clear whether MMFCs are being used to provide therapy for other medical conditions, such as neoplastic disease.

It is unclear how widespread MMFC use is or how it is accessed. A 2016 study of veterans and CAM use did not specifically address MMFCs.⁹ A Japanese study of the use of CAM provided or prescribed by a physician found that just 12 of 1575 respondents (0.7%) described using magnetic therapy.¹⁰ A Korean internet study that assessed the use of CAM found that of 1668 respondents who received CAM therapy by practice or advice of a physician, 1.2% used magnet therapy.^11,12 An online study of CAM use in patients with multiple sclerosis found that 9 of 1286 respondents (0.7%) had used magnetic field therapy in the previous 3 months.¹³

In this study, we aimed to assess MMFC use and perspectives in a veteran population at the Carl T. Hayden Veterans Affairs Medical Center (CTHVAMC) in Phoenix, Arizona.

METHODS

We created a brief questionnaire regarding MMFC use and perspectives and distributed it to veteran patients at the infusion center at the CTHVAMC. The study was approved by the CTHVAMC department of research, and the institutional review board determined that informed consent was not required. The questionnaire did not collect any specific personal identifying data but included the participant’s sex, age, and diagnosis. Although there are standardized questionnaires concerning the use of CAM, we designed a new survey for MMFCs. The participants in the study were consecutive patients referred to the CTHVAMC infusion center for IV or other nonoral therapies. Referrals came from endocrinology, gastroenterology, hematology/oncology, neurology, rheumatology, and other specialties (eg, allergy/immunology).

The questionnaire was 1 page (front and back) and was completed anonymously without involvement by the study investigators or infusion center staff. Dated and consecutively numbered questionnaires were given to patients receiving therapy regardless of their diagnosis. Ages were categorized into groups: 18 to 30 years; 31 to 50 years; 51 to 65 years; and ≥ 66 years. Diagnoses were categorized by specialty: endocrinology, gastroenterology, hematology/oncology, neurology, rheumatology, and other. We noted in a previous similar study that the exact diagnosis was often left blank, but the specialty was more often completed.⁹ Since some patients required multiple visits to the infusion center, respondents were asked whether they had previously answered the questionnaire; there were no duplications.

The population we studied was under stress while receiving therapy for underlying illnesses. To improve the response rate and accuracy of the responses, we limited the number of survey questions. Since many of the respondents in the infusion center for therapy received medications that could alter their ability to respond, all questionnaires were administered prior to therapeutic intervention. In addition to the background data, respondents were asked: Do you apply magnets to your body, use magnetic field therapy, or copper devices? If you use any of these therapies, is it for pain, your diagnosis, or other? Would you consider participating in a clinical trial using magnets applied to the body or magnetic therapy?

RESULTS

We collected 210 surveys. Four surveys were missing data and were excluded. The majority of respondents (n = 133, 64%) were in the hematology/oncology diagnostic group and 121 (59%) were aged ≥ 66 years (Table 1).

Respondents were asked whether they were using MMFC therapies. The results from all age groups showed an 18% overall use and in the diagnosis groups an overall use of 23%. Eighteen respondents (35%) aged 51 to 65 years reported using MMFC, followed by 6 respondents (21%) aged 31 to 50 years. Patients with an endocrinology diagnosis had the highest rate of MMFC use (6 of 11 patients; 55%) but more patients (33 of 133 [25%]) with a hematology/oncology diagnosis used MMFCs.

Copper was the most widely used MMFC therapy among individuals who used a single MMFC therapy. Twenty respondents reported copper use, 6 used magnets, and no respondents used magnetic field therapy (Table 2).

DISCUSSION

We surveyed a population of veterans at the CTHVAMC infusion center who were receiving antineoplastic chemotherapy, biologic therapy, immunomodulatory therapy, transfusion, and other therapies to evaluate their use of MMFC. We chose this group to sample because of how accessible this group was and the belief that there would be an adequate survey response. We hypothesized that by asking about a specific group of CAM therapies and not, as in many surveys, multiple CAM therapies, there would be an improved response rate. We expected that very few respondents would indicate MMFC use because in a similar study conducted in 2003 to 2004 at CTHVAMC, none of the 380 survey respondents (all with a hematology/oncology diagnosis) indicated magnet or magnetic field use (JR Salvatore, unpublished data). Although copper devices were available at that time, they were not included in that study. The current survey added copper devices and showed a greater use of MMFC, including copper devices. We identified veterans who used either 1 MMFC or multiple therapies. In both groups, copper devices were the most common. This may be due to the ubiquity and availability of copper devices. These devices are highly visible and promoted by professional athletes and other well-known personalities.

Our findings showed 2 unexpected results. First, there was greater than expected use of magnets and copper devices. Second, an even less expected result that there was considerable interest in participating in clinical research that used magnets or magnetic fields.

Respondents indicated a high interest in participating in clinical trials using magnets or magnetic fields regardless of their history of MMFC use. We did not ask about a trial using copper devices because there is less scientific/medical research to justify studying those devices as opposed to data that support the use of magnets or magnetic fields. The data presented in this study suggest interest in participating in clinical trials using magnets or magnetic field therapy. One clinical trial combined static magnets as an adjuvant to antineoplastic chemotherapy.¹⁴ We believe this is the first publication to specifically quantify both MMFC use in a veteran (or any) population, and to identify the desire to participate in clinical studies that would utilize magnets or magnetic fields, whether or not they currently use magnets or magnetic fields. Based on current knowledge, it is not clear whether use of MMFC by patients represents a risk or a benefit to the population studied, and seeking that information is part of the continuation of our work. We also believe that the data in this study will help practitioners to consider asking patients specifically whether they are using these therapies, and if so why and with what result. We are extending our work to a more generalized patient population.

The use of copper devices relates to beliefs (dating to the mid-1800s) that there was a relationship between copper deficiency and rheumatologic disorders. Copper devices are used as therapies because of the belief that small amounts of copper are absorbed through the skin, decreasing inflammation, particularly around joint spaces.¹⁵ Recent data suggest a mechanism for copper-induced cell death.¹⁶ Although this recent research suggests a mechanism for how copper might induce cell death, it is unclear how this would be applied to establishing a mechanism for the health effects of wearing copper devices. Since copper devices are thought to decrease inflammation, they may have a theoretical function by decreasing the number of inflammatory cells in an affected space.

CAM magnetics are typically of lower strength. The field generated by magnets is measured and reported in Tesla. Magnetic resonance imaging typically generates from 1.5 to 3 Tesla. A refrigerator magnet is about 1 milliTesla.¹⁷ In a study conducted at the CTHVAMC, the strength of the magnets used was measured at distances from the magnet. For example, at 2 cm from the magnet, the measured strength was 18 milliTesla.¹⁴ Many MMFC devices approved by the US Food and Drug Administration are pulsed electromagnetic fields (PEMF) devices for healing of nonunion fractures (approved in 1979); cervical and lumbar fusion therapies (approved in 2004); and therapy for anxiety and depression (approved in 2006).¹⁸

Limitations

Patients with endocrinology diagnoses were the most likely to use MMFCs but were a very small percentage of the infusion center population, which could skew the data. The surveyed individuals may not have been representative of the overall patient population. Similarly, the patient population at CTHVAMC, which is primarily male and aged ≥ 66 years, may not be representative of other veteran and nonveteran patient populations.

Conclusions

MMFC devices are being used regularly by patients as a form of CAM therapy, but few studies researching the use of CAM therapy have generated data that are as specific as this study is about the use of these MMFC devices. Although there is considerable general public awareness of MMFC therapies and devices, we believe that there is a need to quantify the use of these devices. We further believe that our study is one of the first to look specifically at the use of MMFCs in a veteran population. We have found a considerable use of MMFCs in the veteran population studied, and we also showed that whether or not veterans are using these devices, they are willing to be part of research that uses the devices. Further studies would look at a more general veteran population, look more in depth at the way and for what purpose these devices are being used, and consider the development of clinical research studies that use MMFCs.

Originally developed for the treatment of refractory epilepsy, the ketogenic diet is distinguished by its high-fat, moderate-protein, and low-carbohydrate food program. Preclinical models provide emerging evidence that a ketogenic diet can have therapeutic potential for a broad range of cancers. The Warburg effect is a condition where cancer cells increase the uptake and fermentation of glucose to produce lactate for their metabolism, which is called aerobic glycolysis. Lactate is the key driver of cancer angiogenesis and proliferation.^1,2

The ketogenic diet promotes a metabolic shift from glycolysis to mitochondrial metabolism in normal cells while cancer cells have dysfunction in their mitochondria due to damage in cellular respiration. The ketogenic diet creates a metabolic state whereby blood glucose levels are reduced, and blood ketone bodies (D-β-hydroxybutyrate and acetoacetate) are elevated. In normal cells, the ketogenic diet causes a decrease in glucose intake for glycolysis, which makes them unable to produce enough substrate to enter the tricarboxylic acid (TCA) cycle for adenosine triphosphate (ATP) production. Fatty acid oxidation plays a key role in ketone body synthesis as a “super fuel” that enter the TCA cycle as an alternative pathway to generate ATP. On the other hand, cancer cells are unable to use ketone bodies to produce ATP for energy and metabolism due to mitochondrial defects. Lack of energy subsequently leads to the inhibition of proliferation and survival of cancer cells.^3,4

CASE PRESENTATION

A 69-year-old veteran had iron deficiency anemia (hemoglobin, 6.5 g/dL) about 5 years previously. He underwent a colonoscopy that revealed a near circumferential ulcerated mass measuring 7 cm in the transverse colon. Biopsy results showed mucinous adenocarcinoma of the colon with a foci of signet ring cells (Figure 2).

The patient received adjuvant treatment with FOLFOX (fluorouracil, leucovorin calcium, and oxaliplatin), but within several months he developed pancreatic and worsening omental metastasis seen on PET/CT. He was then started on FOLFIRI (fluorouracil, leucovorin calcium, and irinotecan hydrochloride) plus bevacizumab 16 months after his initial diagnosis. He underwent a pancreatic mastectomy that confirmed adenocarcinoma 9 months later. Afterward, he briefly resumed FOLFIRI and bevacizumab. Next-generation sequencing testing with Foundation One CDx revealed a wild-type (WT) KRAS with a high degree of tumor mutation burden of 37 muts/Mb, BRAF V600E mutation, and high microsatellite instability (MSI-H).

 

 

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this case report is to describe whether a patient receiving active cancer treatment was able to tolerate the ketogenic diet in conjunction with chemotherapy or immunotherapy. Most literature published on the subject evaluated the tolerability and response of the ketogenic diet after the failure of standard therapy. Our patient was diagnosed with stage III mucinous colon adenocarcinoma. He received adjuvant chemotherapy but quickly developed metastatic disease to the pancreas and omentum. We started him on encorafenib and cetuximab based on the BEACON study that showed improvement in response rate and survival when compared with standard chemotherapy for patients with BRAF V600E mutation.⁵ Unfortunately, his cancer quickly progressed within 4 months and again did not respond to pembrolizumab despite MSI-H, which lasted for another 4 months.

We suggested the ketogenic diet and the patient agreed. He started the diet along with trifluridine/tipiracil, and bevacizumab in January 2021. The patient’s metastatic cancer stabilized for 9 months until his disease progressed again. He was started on doublet immune checkpoint inhibitors ipilimumab and nivolumab based on his MSI-H and high tumor mutation burden with the continuation of the ketogenic diet until now. The CheckMate 142 study revealed that the combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab in patients with MSI-H previously treated for metastatic colon cancer showed some benefit.⁶

Our patient had the loss of nuclear expression of MLH1 and PMS2 (zero tumor stained) but no evidence of the loss expression of MSH2 and MSH6 genes (99% tumor stained). About 8% to 12% of patients with metastatic colon cancer have BRAF V600E mutations that are usually mucinous type, poorly differentiated, and located in the right side of the colon, which portends to a poor prognosis. Tumor DNA mismatch repair damage results in genetic hypermutability and leads to MSI that is sensitive to treatment with checkpoint inhibitors, as in our patient. Only about 3% of MSI-H tumors are due to germline mutations such as Lynch syndrome (hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer). The presence of both MLH1 hypermethylation and BRAF mutation, as in our patient, is a strong indication of somatic rather than germline mutation.⁷

GKI, which represents the ratio of glucose to ketone, was developed to evaluate the efficacy of the ketogenic diet. This index measures the degree of metabolic stress on tumor cells through the decrease of glucose levels and increase of ketone bodies. A GKI of ≤ 1.0 has been suggested as the ideal therapeutic goal for cancer management.⁸ As levels of blood glucose decline, the blood levels of ketone bodies should rise. These 2 lines should eventually intersect at a certain point beyond which one enters the therapeutic zone or therapeutic ketosis zone. This is when tumor growth is expected to slow or cease.⁹ The patient’s ketone (β-hydroxybutyrate) level was initially high (0.71 mmol/L) with a GKI of 8.2. (low ketotic level), which meant he tolerated a rather strict diet for the first several months. This was also reflected in his 18 lb weight loss (almost 10% of body weight) and cancer stabilization, as in our previous publication.¹ Unfortunately, the patient was unable to maintain high ketone and lower GKI levels due to fatigue from depleted carbohydrate intake. He added some carbohydrate snacks in between meals, which improved the fatigue. His ketone level has been < 0.5 mmol/L ever since, albeit his disease continues to be stable. The patient continues his daily work and reports a better QOL, based on the ECOG QLC-C30 form that he completed every 3 months.¹⁰ Currently, the patient is still receiving ipilimumab and nivolumab while maintaining the ketogenic diet with stable metastatic disease on PET/CT.

Ketogenic Diet and Cellular Mechanism of Action

PI3K/Akt (phosphatidylinositol-3-kinase) signaling is one of the most important intracellular pathways for tumor cells. It leads to the inhibition of apoptosis and the promotion of cell proliferation, metabolism, and angiogenesis. Deregulation of the PI3K pathway either via amplification of PI3K by tyrosine kinase growth factor receptors or inactivation of the tumor suppressor phosphatase and tensin homolog (PTEN), which is the negative regulator of the PI3K pathway, contributes to the development of cancer cells.¹¹

A study by Goncalves and colleagues revealed an interesting relationship between the PI3K pathway and the benefit of the ketogenic diet to slow tumor growth. PI3K inhibitors inhibit glucose uptake into skeletal muscle and adipose tissue that activate hepatic glycogenolysis. This event results in hyperglycemia due to the pancreas releasing very high levels of insulin into the blood (hyperinsulinemia) that subsequently reactivate PI3K signaling and cause resistance to PI3K inhibitors. The ketogenic diet reportedly minimized the hyperglycemia and hyperinsulinemia induced by the PI3K inhibitor and enhanced the efficacy of PI3K inhibitors in tumor models. Studies combining PI3K inhibitors and ketogenic diet are underway. Hence, combining the ketogenic diet with chemotherapy or other novel treatment should be the focus of ketogenic diet trials.^12,13

 

 

Ketogenic Diet and Oncology Studies

The impact of the ketogenic diet on the growth of murine pancreatic tumors was evaluated by Yang and colleagues. The ketogenic diet decreased glucose concentration that enters the TCA cycle and increased fatty acid oxidation that produces β-hydroxybutyrate. This event promotes the generation of ATP, although with only modest elevations of NADH with less impact on tumor growth. The combination of ketogenic diet and standard chemotherapy substantially raised tumor NADH and suppressed the growth of murine tumor cells, they noted.¹⁴ Furukawa and colleagues compared 10 patients with metastatic colon cancer receiving chemotherapy plus the modified medium-chain triglyceride ketogenic diet for 1 year with 14 patients receiving chemotherapy only. The ketogenic diet group exhibited a response rate of 60% with 5 patients achieving a complete response and a disease control rate of 70%, while the chemotherapy-alone group showed a response rate of only 21% with no complete response and a disease control rate of 64%.¹⁵

The ketogenic diet also reportedly stimulates cytokine and CD4+ and CD8+ T-cell production that stimulates T-cell killing activity. The ketogenic diet may overcome several immune escape mechanisms by downregulating the expression of cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) and programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) on tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes.¹⁶ Our patient tolerated the combination of the ketogenic diet with ipilimumab (CTLA-4 inhibitor) and nivolumab (PD-1 inhibitor) without significant toxicities and stabilization of his disease.

Future Directions

We originally presented the abstract and poster of this case report at the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology annual meeting in San Diego, California, in September 2022.¹⁷ Based on our previous experience, we are now using a modified Atkins diet, which is a less strict diet consisting of 60% fat, 30% protein, and 10% carbohydrates combined with chemotherapy and/or immunotherapy. The composition of fat to carbohydrate plus protein in the traditional ketogenic diet is usually 4:1 or 3:1, while in modified Atkins diet the ratio is 1:1 or 2:1. The benefit of the modified Atkins diet is that patients can consume more protein than a strict ketogenic diet and they can be more liberal in carbohydrate allowances. We are about to open a study protocol of combining a modified Atkin diet and chemotherapy and/or immunotherapy as a first-line treatment for veterans with all types of advanced or metastatic solid tumors at VACCHCS. The study protocol was approved by the VA Office of Research and Development and has been submitted to the VACCHCS Institutional Review Board for review. Once approved, we will start patient recruitment.

CONCLUSIONS

Cancer cells have defects in their mitochondria that prevent them from generating energy for metabolism in the absence of glucose. They also depend on the PI3K signaling pathway to survive. The ketogenic diet has the advantage of affecting cancer cell growth by exploiting these mitochondrial defects and blocking hyperglycemia. There is growing evidence that the ketogenic diet is feasible, tolerable, and reportedly inhibits cancer growth. Our case report and previous publications suggest that the ketogenic diet can be added to chemotherapy and/or immunotherapy as an adjunct to standard-of-care cancer treatment while maintaining good QOL. We are planning to open a clinical trial using the modified Atkins diet in conjunction with active cancer treatments as first-line therapy for metastatic solid tumors at the VACCHCS. We are also working closely with researchers from several veteran hospitals to do a diet collaborative study. We believe the ketogenic diet is an important part of cancer treatment and has a promising future. More research should be dedicated to this very interesting field.

Acknowledgments

We previously presented this case report in an abstract and poster at the September 2022 AVAHO meeting in San Diego, California.

Originally developed for the treatment of refractory epilepsy, the ketogenic diet is distinguished by its high-fat, moderate-protein, and low-carbohydrate food program. Preclinical models provide emerging evidence that a ketogenic diet can have therapeutic potential for a broad range of cancers. The Warburg effect is a condition where cancer cells increase the uptake and fermentation of glucose to produce lactate for their metabolism, which is called aerobic glycolysis. Lactate is the key driver of cancer angiogenesis and proliferation.^1,2

The ketogenic diet promotes a metabolic shift from glycolysis to mitochondrial metabolism in normal cells while cancer cells have dysfunction in their mitochondria due to damage in cellular respiration. The ketogenic diet creates a metabolic state whereby blood glucose levels are reduced, and blood ketone bodies (D-β-hydroxybutyrate and acetoacetate) are elevated. In normal cells, the ketogenic diet causes a decrease in glucose intake for glycolysis, which makes them unable to produce enough substrate to enter the tricarboxylic acid (TCA) cycle for adenosine triphosphate (ATP) production. Fatty acid oxidation plays a key role in ketone body synthesis as a “super fuel” that enter the TCA cycle as an alternative pathway to generate ATP. On the other hand, cancer cells are unable to use ketone bodies to produce ATP for energy and metabolism due to mitochondrial defects. Lack of energy subsequently leads to the inhibition of proliferation and survival of cancer cells.^3,4

CASE PRESENTATION

A 69-year-old veteran had iron deficiency anemia (hemoglobin, 6.5 g/dL) about 5 years previously. He underwent a colonoscopy that revealed a near circumferential ulcerated mass measuring 7 cm in the transverse colon. Biopsy results showed mucinous adenocarcinoma of the colon with a foci of signet ring cells (Figure 2).

The patient received adjuvant treatment with FOLFOX (fluorouracil, leucovorin calcium, and oxaliplatin), but within several months he developed pancreatic and worsening omental metastasis seen on PET/CT. He was then started on FOLFIRI (fluorouracil, leucovorin calcium, and irinotecan hydrochloride) plus bevacizumab 16 months after his initial diagnosis. He underwent a pancreatic mastectomy that confirmed adenocarcinoma 9 months later. Afterward, he briefly resumed FOLFIRI and bevacizumab. Next-generation sequencing testing with Foundation One CDx revealed a wild-type (WT) KRAS with a high degree of tumor mutation burden of 37 muts/Mb, BRAF V600E mutation, and high microsatellite instability (MSI-H).

 

 

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this case report is to describe whether a patient receiving active cancer treatment was able to tolerate the ketogenic diet in conjunction with chemotherapy or immunotherapy. Most literature published on the subject evaluated the tolerability and response of the ketogenic diet after the failure of standard therapy. Our patient was diagnosed with stage III mucinous colon adenocarcinoma. He received adjuvant chemotherapy but quickly developed metastatic disease to the pancreas and omentum. We started him on encorafenib and cetuximab based on the BEACON study that showed improvement in response rate and survival when compared with standard chemotherapy for patients with BRAF V600E mutation.⁵ Unfortunately, his cancer quickly progressed within 4 months and again did not respond to pembrolizumab despite MSI-H, which lasted for another 4 months.

We suggested the ketogenic diet and the patient agreed. He started the diet along with trifluridine/tipiracil, and bevacizumab in January 2021. The patient’s metastatic cancer stabilized for 9 months until his disease progressed again. He was started on doublet immune checkpoint inhibitors ipilimumab and nivolumab based on his MSI-H and high tumor mutation burden with the continuation of the ketogenic diet until now. The CheckMate 142 study revealed that the combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab in patients with MSI-H previously treated for metastatic colon cancer showed some benefit.⁶

Our patient had the loss of nuclear expression of MLH1 and PMS2 (zero tumor stained) but no evidence of the loss expression of MSH2 and MSH6 genes (99% tumor stained). About 8% to 12% of patients with metastatic colon cancer have BRAF V600E mutations that are usually mucinous type, poorly differentiated, and located in the right side of the colon, which portends to a poor prognosis. Tumor DNA mismatch repair damage results in genetic hypermutability and leads to MSI that is sensitive to treatment with checkpoint inhibitors, as in our patient. Only about 3% of MSI-H tumors are due to germline mutations such as Lynch syndrome (hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer). The presence of both MLH1 hypermethylation and BRAF mutation, as in our patient, is a strong indication of somatic rather than germline mutation.⁷

GKI, which represents the ratio of glucose to ketone, was developed to evaluate the efficacy of the ketogenic diet. This index measures the degree of metabolic stress on tumor cells through the decrease of glucose levels and increase of ketone bodies. A GKI of ≤ 1.0 has been suggested as the ideal therapeutic goal for cancer management.⁸ As levels of blood glucose decline, the blood levels of ketone bodies should rise. These 2 lines should eventually intersect at a certain point beyond which one enters the therapeutic zone or therapeutic ketosis zone. This is when tumor growth is expected to slow or cease.⁹ The patient’s ketone (β-hydroxybutyrate) level was initially high (0.71 mmol/L) with a GKI of 8.2. (low ketotic level), which meant he tolerated a rather strict diet for the first several months. This was also reflected in his 18 lb weight loss (almost 10% of body weight) and cancer stabilization, as in our previous publication.¹ Unfortunately, the patient was unable to maintain high ketone and lower GKI levels due to fatigue from depleted carbohydrate intake. He added some carbohydrate snacks in between meals, which improved the fatigue. His ketone level has been < 0.5 mmol/L ever since, albeit his disease continues to be stable. The patient continues his daily work and reports a better QOL, based on the ECOG QLC-C30 form that he completed every 3 months.¹⁰ Currently, the patient is still receiving ipilimumab and nivolumab while maintaining the ketogenic diet with stable metastatic disease on PET/CT.

Ketogenic Diet and Cellular Mechanism of Action

PI3K/Akt (phosphatidylinositol-3-kinase) signaling is one of the most important intracellular pathways for tumor cells. It leads to the inhibition of apoptosis and the promotion of cell proliferation, metabolism, and angiogenesis. Deregulation of the PI3K pathway either via amplification of PI3K by tyrosine kinase growth factor receptors or inactivation of the tumor suppressor phosphatase and tensin homolog (PTEN), which is the negative regulator of the PI3K pathway, contributes to the development of cancer cells.¹¹

A study by Goncalves and colleagues revealed an interesting relationship between the PI3K pathway and the benefit of the ketogenic diet to slow tumor growth. PI3K inhibitors inhibit glucose uptake into skeletal muscle and adipose tissue that activate hepatic glycogenolysis. This event results in hyperglycemia due to the pancreas releasing very high levels of insulin into the blood (hyperinsulinemia) that subsequently reactivate PI3K signaling and cause resistance to PI3K inhibitors. The ketogenic diet reportedly minimized the hyperglycemia and hyperinsulinemia induced by the PI3K inhibitor and enhanced the efficacy of PI3K inhibitors in tumor models. Studies combining PI3K inhibitors and ketogenic diet are underway. Hence, combining the ketogenic diet with chemotherapy or other novel treatment should be the focus of ketogenic diet trials.^12,13

 

 

Ketogenic Diet and Oncology Studies

The impact of the ketogenic diet on the growth of murine pancreatic tumors was evaluated by Yang and colleagues. The ketogenic diet decreased glucose concentration that enters the TCA cycle and increased fatty acid oxidation that produces β-hydroxybutyrate. This event promotes the generation of ATP, although with only modest elevations of NADH with less impact on tumor growth. The combination of ketogenic diet and standard chemotherapy substantially raised tumor NADH and suppressed the growth of murine tumor cells, they noted.¹⁴ Furukawa and colleagues compared 10 patients with metastatic colon cancer receiving chemotherapy plus the modified medium-chain triglyceride ketogenic diet for 1 year with 14 patients receiving chemotherapy only. The ketogenic diet group exhibited a response rate of 60% with 5 patients achieving a complete response and a disease control rate of 70%, while the chemotherapy-alone group showed a response rate of only 21% with no complete response and a disease control rate of 64%.¹⁵

The ketogenic diet also reportedly stimulates cytokine and CD4+ and CD8+ T-cell production that stimulates T-cell killing activity. The ketogenic diet may overcome several immune escape mechanisms by downregulating the expression of cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) and programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) on tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes.¹⁶ Our patient tolerated the combination of the ketogenic diet with ipilimumab (CTLA-4 inhibitor) and nivolumab (PD-1 inhibitor) without significant toxicities and stabilization of his disease.

Future Directions

We originally presented the abstract and poster of this case report at the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology annual meeting in San Diego, California, in September 2022.¹⁷ Based on our previous experience, we are now using a modified Atkins diet, which is a less strict diet consisting of 60% fat, 30% protein, and 10% carbohydrates combined with chemotherapy and/or immunotherapy. The composition of fat to carbohydrate plus protein in the traditional ketogenic diet is usually 4:1 or 3:1, while in modified Atkins diet the ratio is 1:1 or 2:1. The benefit of the modified Atkins diet is that patients can consume more protein than a strict ketogenic diet and they can be more liberal in carbohydrate allowances. We are about to open a study protocol of combining a modified Atkin diet and chemotherapy and/or immunotherapy as a first-line treatment for veterans with all types of advanced or metastatic solid tumors at VACCHCS. The study protocol was approved by the VA Office of Research and Development and has been submitted to the VACCHCS Institutional Review Board for review. Once approved, we will start patient recruitment.

CONCLUSIONS

Cancer cells have defects in their mitochondria that prevent them from generating energy for metabolism in the absence of glucose. They also depend on the PI3K signaling pathway to survive. The ketogenic diet has the advantage of affecting cancer cell growth by exploiting these mitochondrial defects and blocking hyperglycemia. There is growing evidence that the ketogenic diet is feasible, tolerable, and reportedly inhibits cancer growth. Our case report and previous publications suggest that the ketogenic diet can be added to chemotherapy and/or immunotherapy as an adjunct to standard-of-care cancer treatment while maintaining good QOL. We are planning to open a clinical trial using the modified Atkins diet in conjunction with active cancer treatments as first-line therapy for metastatic solid tumors at the VACCHCS. We are also working closely with researchers from several veteran hospitals to do a diet collaborative study. We believe the ketogenic diet is an important part of cancer treatment and has a promising future. More research should be dedicated to this very interesting field.

Acknowledgments

We previously presented this case report in an abstract and poster at the September 2022 AVAHO meeting in San Diego, California.

Originally developed for the treatment of refractory epilepsy, the ketogenic diet is distinguished by its high-fat, moderate-protein, and low-carbohydrate food program. Preclinical models provide emerging evidence that a ketogenic diet can have therapeutic potential for a broad range of cancers. The Warburg effect is a condition where cancer cells increase the uptake and fermentation of glucose to produce lactate for their metabolism, which is called aerobic glycolysis. Lactate is the key driver of cancer angiogenesis and proliferation.^1,2

The ketogenic diet promotes a metabolic shift from glycolysis to mitochondrial metabolism in normal cells while cancer cells have dysfunction in their mitochondria due to damage in cellular respiration. The ketogenic diet creates a metabolic state whereby blood glucose levels are reduced, and blood ketone bodies (D-β-hydroxybutyrate and acetoacetate) are elevated. In normal cells, the ketogenic diet causes a decrease in glucose intake for glycolysis, which makes them unable to produce enough substrate to enter the tricarboxylic acid (TCA) cycle for adenosine triphosphate (ATP) production. Fatty acid oxidation plays a key role in ketone body synthesis as a “super fuel” that enter the TCA cycle as an alternative pathway to generate ATP. On the other hand, cancer cells are unable to use ketone bodies to produce ATP for energy and metabolism due to mitochondrial defects. Lack of energy subsequently leads to the inhibition of proliferation and survival of cancer cells.^3,4

CASE PRESENTATION

A 69-year-old veteran had iron deficiency anemia (hemoglobin, 6.5 g/dL) about 5 years previously. He underwent a colonoscopy that revealed a near circumferential ulcerated mass measuring 7 cm in the transverse colon. Biopsy results showed mucinous adenocarcinoma of the colon with a foci of signet ring cells (Figure 2).

The patient received adjuvant treatment with FOLFOX (fluorouracil, leucovorin calcium, and oxaliplatin), but within several months he developed pancreatic and worsening omental metastasis seen on PET/CT. He was then started on FOLFIRI (fluorouracil, leucovorin calcium, and irinotecan hydrochloride) plus bevacizumab 16 months after his initial diagnosis. He underwent a pancreatic mastectomy that confirmed adenocarcinoma 9 months later. Afterward, he briefly resumed FOLFIRI and bevacizumab. Next-generation sequencing testing with Foundation One CDx revealed a wild-type (WT) KRAS with a high degree of tumor mutation burden of 37 muts/Mb, BRAF V600E mutation, and high microsatellite instability (MSI-H).

 

 

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this case report is to describe whether a patient receiving active cancer treatment was able to tolerate the ketogenic diet in conjunction with chemotherapy or immunotherapy. Most literature published on the subject evaluated the tolerability and response of the ketogenic diet after the failure of standard therapy. Our patient was diagnosed with stage III mucinous colon adenocarcinoma. He received adjuvant chemotherapy but quickly developed metastatic disease to the pancreas and omentum. We started him on encorafenib and cetuximab based on the BEACON study that showed improvement in response rate and survival when compared with standard chemotherapy for patients with BRAF V600E mutation.⁵ Unfortunately, his cancer quickly progressed within 4 months and again did not respond to pembrolizumab despite MSI-H, which lasted for another 4 months.

We suggested the ketogenic diet and the patient agreed. He started the diet along with trifluridine/tipiracil, and bevacizumab in January 2021. The patient’s metastatic cancer stabilized for 9 months until his disease progressed again. He was started on doublet immune checkpoint inhibitors ipilimumab and nivolumab based on his MSI-H and high tumor mutation burden with the continuation of the ketogenic diet until now. The CheckMate 142 study revealed that the combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab in patients with MSI-H previously treated for metastatic colon cancer showed some benefit.⁶

Our patient had the loss of nuclear expression of MLH1 and PMS2 (zero tumor stained) but no evidence of the loss expression of MSH2 and MSH6 genes (99% tumor stained). About 8% to 12% of patients with metastatic colon cancer have BRAF V600E mutations that are usually mucinous type, poorly differentiated, and located in the right side of the colon, which portends to a poor prognosis. Tumor DNA mismatch repair damage results in genetic hypermutability and leads to MSI that is sensitive to treatment with checkpoint inhibitors, as in our patient. Only about 3% of MSI-H tumors are due to germline mutations such as Lynch syndrome (hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer). The presence of both MLH1 hypermethylation and BRAF mutation, as in our patient, is a strong indication of somatic rather than germline mutation.⁷

GKI, which represents the ratio of glucose to ketone, was developed to evaluate the efficacy of the ketogenic diet. This index measures the degree of metabolic stress on tumor cells through the decrease of glucose levels and increase of ketone bodies. A GKI of ≤ 1.0 has been suggested as the ideal therapeutic goal for cancer management.⁸ As levels of blood glucose decline, the blood levels of ketone bodies should rise. These 2 lines should eventually intersect at a certain point beyond which one enters the therapeutic zone or therapeutic ketosis zone. This is when tumor growth is expected to slow or cease.⁹ The patient’s ketone (β-hydroxybutyrate) level was initially high (0.71 mmol/L) with a GKI of 8.2. (low ketotic level), which meant he tolerated a rather strict diet for the first several months. This was also reflected in his 18 lb weight loss (almost 10% of body weight) and cancer stabilization, as in our previous publication.¹ Unfortunately, the patient was unable to maintain high ketone and lower GKI levels due to fatigue from depleted carbohydrate intake. He added some carbohydrate snacks in between meals, which improved the fatigue. His ketone level has been < 0.5 mmol/L ever since, albeit his disease continues to be stable. The patient continues his daily work and reports a better QOL, based on the ECOG QLC-C30 form that he completed every 3 months.¹⁰ Currently, the patient is still receiving ipilimumab and nivolumab while maintaining the ketogenic diet with stable metastatic disease on PET/CT.

Ketogenic Diet and Cellular Mechanism of Action

PI3K/Akt (phosphatidylinositol-3-kinase) signaling is one of the most important intracellular pathways for tumor cells. It leads to the inhibition of apoptosis and the promotion of cell proliferation, metabolism, and angiogenesis. Deregulation of the PI3K pathway either via amplification of PI3K by tyrosine kinase growth factor receptors or inactivation of the tumor suppressor phosphatase and tensin homolog (PTEN), which is the negative regulator of the PI3K pathway, contributes to the development of cancer cells.¹¹

A study by Goncalves and colleagues revealed an interesting relationship between the PI3K pathway and the benefit of the ketogenic diet to slow tumor growth. PI3K inhibitors inhibit glucose uptake into skeletal muscle and adipose tissue that activate hepatic glycogenolysis. This event results in hyperglycemia due to the pancreas releasing very high levels of insulin into the blood (hyperinsulinemia) that subsequently reactivate PI3K signaling and cause resistance to PI3K inhibitors. The ketogenic diet reportedly minimized the hyperglycemia and hyperinsulinemia induced by the PI3K inhibitor and enhanced the efficacy of PI3K inhibitors in tumor models. Studies combining PI3K inhibitors and ketogenic diet are underway. Hence, combining the ketogenic diet with chemotherapy or other novel treatment should be the focus of ketogenic diet trials.^12,13

 

 

Ketogenic Diet and Oncology Studies

The impact of the ketogenic diet on the growth of murine pancreatic tumors was evaluated by Yang and colleagues. The ketogenic diet decreased glucose concentration that enters the TCA cycle and increased fatty acid oxidation that produces β-hydroxybutyrate. This event promotes the generation of ATP, although with only modest elevations of NADH with less impact on tumor growth. The combination of ketogenic diet and standard chemotherapy substantially raised tumor NADH and suppressed the growth of murine tumor cells, they noted.¹⁴ Furukawa and colleagues compared 10 patients with metastatic colon cancer receiving chemotherapy plus the modified medium-chain triglyceride ketogenic diet for 1 year with 14 patients receiving chemotherapy only. The ketogenic diet group exhibited a response rate of 60% with 5 patients achieving a complete response and a disease control rate of 70%, while the chemotherapy-alone group showed a response rate of only 21% with no complete response and a disease control rate of 64%.¹⁵

The ketogenic diet also reportedly stimulates cytokine and CD4+ and CD8+ T-cell production that stimulates T-cell killing activity. The ketogenic diet may overcome several immune escape mechanisms by downregulating the expression of cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) and programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) on tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes.¹⁶ Our patient tolerated the combination of the ketogenic diet with ipilimumab (CTLA-4 inhibitor) and nivolumab (PD-1 inhibitor) without significant toxicities and stabilization of his disease.

Future Directions

We originally presented the abstract and poster of this case report at the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology annual meeting in San Diego, California, in September 2022.¹⁷ Based on our previous experience, we are now using a modified Atkins diet, which is a less strict diet consisting of 60% fat, 30% protein, and 10% carbohydrates combined with chemotherapy and/or immunotherapy. The composition of fat to carbohydrate plus protein in the traditional ketogenic diet is usually 4:1 or 3:1, while in modified Atkins diet the ratio is 1:1 or 2:1. The benefit of the modified Atkins diet is that patients can consume more protein than a strict ketogenic diet and they can be more liberal in carbohydrate allowances. We are about to open a study protocol of combining a modified Atkin diet and chemotherapy and/or immunotherapy as a first-line treatment for veterans with all types of advanced or metastatic solid tumors at VACCHCS. The study protocol was approved by the VA Office of Research and Development and has been submitted to the VACCHCS Institutional Review Board for review. Once approved, we will start patient recruitment.

CONCLUSIONS

Cancer cells have defects in their mitochondria that prevent them from generating energy for metabolism in the absence of glucose. They also depend on the PI3K signaling pathway to survive. The ketogenic diet has the advantage of affecting cancer cell growth by exploiting these mitochondrial defects and blocking hyperglycemia. There is growing evidence that the ketogenic diet is feasible, tolerable, and reportedly inhibits cancer growth. Our case report and previous publications suggest that the ketogenic diet can be added to chemotherapy and/or immunotherapy as an adjunct to standard-of-care cancer treatment while maintaining good QOL. We are planning to open a clinical trial using the modified Atkins diet in conjunction with active cancer treatments as first-line therapy for metastatic solid tumors at the VACCHCS. We are also working closely with researchers from several veteran hospitals to do a diet collaborative study. We believe the ketogenic diet is an important part of cancer treatment and has a promising future. More research should be dedicated to this very interesting field.

Acknowledgments

We previously presented this case report in an abstract and poster at the September 2022 AVAHO meeting in San Diego, California.

P ruritus is a characteristic and often debilitating clinical manifestation reported by about 50% of patients with polycythemia vera (PV). The exact pathophysiology of PV-associated pruritus is poorly understood. The itch sensation may arise from a central phenomenon without skin itch receptor involvement, as is seen in opioid-induced pruritus, or peripherally via unmyelinated C fibers. Various interventions have been used with mixed results for symptom management in this patient population.¹

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), such as paroxetine and fluoxetine, have historically demonstrated some efficacy in treating PV-associated pruritus.² Alongside SSRIs, phlebotomy, antihistamines, phototherapy, interferon a, and myelosuppressive medications also comprise the various current treatment options. In addition to lacking efficacy, antihistamines can cause somnolence, constipation, and xerostomia.^3,4 Phlebotomy and cytoreductive therapy are often effective in controlling erythrocytosis but fail to alleviate the disabling pruritus.^1,5,6 More recently, suboptimal symptom alleviation has prompted the discovery of agents that target the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) and Janus kinase 2 (Jak2) pathways.¹

Naltrexone is an opioid antagonist shown to suppress pruritus in various dermatologic pathologies involving histamine-independent pathways.^3,7,8 A systematic search strategy identified 34 studies on PV-associated pruritus, its pathophysiology and interventions, and naltrexone as a therapeutic agent. Only 1 study in the literature has described the use of naltrexone for uremic and cholestatic pruritus.⁹ We describe the successful use of naltrexone monotherapy for the treatment of pruritus in a patient with PV.

Case Presentation

A 40-year-old man with Jak2-positive PV treated with ruxolitinib presented to the outpatient Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center Supportive Care Clinic in Houston, Texas, for severe refractory pruritus. Wheals manifested in pruritic regions of the patient’s skin without gross excoriations or erythema. Pruritus reportedly began diffusely across the posterior torso. Through the rapid progression of an episode lasting 30 to 45 minutes, the lesions and pruritus would spread to the anterior torso, extend to the upper extremities bilaterally, and finally descend to the lower extremities bilaterally. A persistent sensation of heat or warmth on the patient’s skin was present, and periodically, this would culminate in a burning sensation comparable to “lying flat on one’s back directly on a hornet’s nest…[followed by] a million stings” that was inconsistent with erythromelalgia given the absence of erythema. The intensity of the pruritic episodes was subjectively also described as “enough to make [him] want to jump off the roof of a building…[causing] moments of deep, deep frustration…[and] the worst of all the symptoms one may encounter because of [PV].”

Pruritus was exacerbated by sweating, heat, contact with any liquids on the skin, and sunburns, which doubled the intensity. The patient reported minimal, temporary relief with cannabidiol and cold fabric or air on his skin. His current regimen and nonpharmacologic efforts provided no relief and included oatmeal baths, cornstarch after showers, and patting instead of rubbing the skin with topical products. Trials with nonprescription diphenhydramine, loratadine, and calamine and zinc were not successful. He had not pursued phototherapy due to time limitations and travel constraints. He had a history of phlebotomies and hydroxyurea use, which he preferred to avoid and discontinued 1 year before presentation.

Despite improving hematocrit (< 45% goal) and platelet counts with ruxolitinib, the patient reported worsening pruritus that significantly impaired quality of life. His sleep and social and physical activities were hindered, preventing him from working. The patient’s active medications also included low-dose aspirin, sertraline, hydroxyzine, triamcinolone acetonide, and pregabalin for sciatica. Given persistent symptoms despite multimodal therapy and lifestyle modifications, the patient was started on naltrexone 25 mg daily, which provided immediate relief of symptoms. He continues to have adequate symptom control 2 years after naltrexone initiation.

Literature Review

A systematic search strategy was developed with the assistance of a medical librarian in Medline Ovid, using both Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms and synonymous keywords. The strategy was then translated to Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane to extract publications investigating PV, pruritus, and/or naltrexone therapy. All searches were conducted on July 18, 2022, and the results of the literature review were as follows: 2 results from Medline Ovid; 34 results from Embase (2 were duplicates of Medline Ovid results); 3 results from Web of Science (all of which were duplicates of Medline Ovid or Embase results); and 0 results from Cochrane (Figure).

Discussion

Although pruritus is a common and often excruciating manifestation of PV, its pathophysiology remains unclear. Some patients with decreasing or newly normal hematocrit and hemoglobin levels have paradoxically experienced an intensification of their pruritus, which introduces erythropoietin signaling pathways as a potential mechanism of the symptom.⁸ However, iron replacement therapy for patients with exacerbated pruritus after phlebotomies has not demonstrated consistent relief of pruritus.⁸ Normalization of platelet levels also has not been historically associated with improvement of pruritus.^8,9 It has been hypothesized that cells harboring Jak2 mutations at any stage of the hematopoietic pathway mature and accumulate to cause pruritus in PV.⁹ This theory has been foundational in the development of drugs with activity against cells expressing Jak2 mutations and interventions targeting histamine-releasing mast cells.^9-11

The effective use of naltrexone in our patient suggests that histamine may not be the most effective or sole therapeutic target against pruritus in PV. Naltrexone targets opioid receptors in all layers of the epidermis, affecting cell adhesion and keratinocyte production, and exhibits anti-inflammatory effects through interactions with nonopioid receptors, including Toll-like receptor 4.¹² The efficacy of oral naltrexone has been documented in patients with pruritus associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors, psoriasis, eczema, lichen simplex chronicus, prurigo nodularis, cholestasis, uremia, and multiple rheumatologic diseases.^{3,4,7-9,12-14} Opioid pathways also may be involved in peripheral and/or central processing of pruritus associated with PV.

Importantly, patients who are potential candidates for naltrexone therapy should be notified and advised of the risk of drug interactions with opioids, which could lead to symptoms of opioid withdrawal. Other common adverse effects of naltrexone include hepatotoxicity (especially in patients with a history of significant alcohol consumption), abdominal pain, nausea, arthralgias, myalgias, insomnia, headaches, fatigue, and anxiety.¹² Therefore, it is integral to screen patients for opioid dependence and determine their baseline liver function. Patients should be monitored following naltrexone initiation to determine whether the drug is an appropriate and effective intervention against PV-associated pruritus.

CONCLUSIONS

This case study demonstrates that naltrexone may be a safe, effective, nonsedating, and cost-efficient oral alternative for refractory PV-associated pruritus. Future directions involve consideration of case series or randomized clinical trials investigating the efficacy of naltrexone in treating PV-associated pruritus. Further research is also warranted to better understand the pathophysiology of this symptom of PV to enhance and potentially expand medical management for patients.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Amy Sisson (The Texas Medical Center Library) for her guidance and support in the literature review methodology.

P ruritus is a characteristic and often debilitating clinical manifestation reported by about 50% of patients with polycythemia vera (PV). The exact pathophysiology of PV-associated pruritus is poorly understood. The itch sensation may arise from a central phenomenon without skin itch receptor involvement, as is seen in opioid-induced pruritus, or peripherally via unmyelinated C fibers. Various interventions have been used with mixed results for symptom management in this patient population.¹

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), such as paroxetine and fluoxetine, have historically demonstrated some efficacy in treating PV-associated pruritus.² Alongside SSRIs, phlebotomy, antihistamines, phototherapy, interferon a, and myelosuppressive medications also comprise the various current treatment options. In addition to lacking efficacy, antihistamines can cause somnolence, constipation, and xerostomia.^3,4 Phlebotomy and cytoreductive therapy are often effective in controlling erythrocytosis but fail to alleviate the disabling pruritus.^1,5,6 More recently, suboptimal symptom alleviation has prompted the discovery of agents that target the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) and Janus kinase 2 (Jak2) pathways.¹

Naltrexone is an opioid antagonist shown to suppress pruritus in various dermatologic pathologies involving histamine-independent pathways.^3,7,8 A systematic search strategy identified 34 studies on PV-associated pruritus, its pathophysiology and interventions, and naltrexone as a therapeutic agent. Only 1 study in the literature has described the use of naltrexone for uremic and cholestatic pruritus.⁹ We describe the successful use of naltrexone monotherapy for the treatment of pruritus in a patient with PV.

Case Presentation

A 40-year-old man with Jak2-positive PV treated with ruxolitinib presented to the outpatient Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center Supportive Care Clinic in Houston, Texas, for severe refractory pruritus. Wheals manifested in pruritic regions of the patient’s skin without gross excoriations or erythema. Pruritus reportedly began diffusely across the posterior torso. Through the rapid progression of an episode lasting 30 to 45 minutes, the lesions and pruritus would spread to the anterior torso, extend to the upper extremities bilaterally, and finally descend to the lower extremities bilaterally. A persistent sensation of heat or warmth on the patient’s skin was present, and periodically, this would culminate in a burning sensation comparable to “lying flat on one’s back directly on a hornet’s nest…[followed by] a million stings” that was inconsistent with erythromelalgia given the absence of erythema. The intensity of the pruritic episodes was subjectively also described as “enough to make [him] want to jump off the roof of a building…[causing] moments of deep, deep frustration…[and] the worst of all the symptoms one may encounter because of [PV].”

Pruritus was exacerbated by sweating, heat, contact with any liquids on the skin, and sunburns, which doubled the intensity. The patient reported minimal, temporary relief with cannabidiol and cold fabric or air on his skin. His current regimen and nonpharmacologic efforts provided no relief and included oatmeal baths, cornstarch after showers, and patting instead of rubbing the skin with topical products. Trials with nonprescription diphenhydramine, loratadine, and calamine and zinc were not successful. He had not pursued phototherapy due to time limitations and travel constraints. He had a history of phlebotomies and hydroxyurea use, which he preferred to avoid and discontinued 1 year before presentation.

Despite improving hematocrit (< 45% goal) and platelet counts with ruxolitinib, the patient reported worsening pruritus that significantly impaired quality of life. His sleep and social and physical activities were hindered, preventing him from working. The patient’s active medications also included low-dose aspirin, sertraline, hydroxyzine, triamcinolone acetonide, and pregabalin for sciatica. Given persistent symptoms despite multimodal therapy and lifestyle modifications, the patient was started on naltrexone 25 mg daily, which provided immediate relief of symptoms. He continues to have adequate symptom control 2 years after naltrexone initiation.

Literature Review

A systematic search strategy was developed with the assistance of a medical librarian in Medline Ovid, using both Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms and synonymous keywords. The strategy was then translated to Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane to extract publications investigating PV, pruritus, and/or naltrexone therapy. All searches were conducted on July 18, 2022, and the results of the literature review were as follows: 2 results from Medline Ovid; 34 results from Embase (2 were duplicates of Medline Ovid results); 3 results from Web of Science (all of which were duplicates of Medline Ovid or Embase results); and 0 results from Cochrane (Figure).

Discussion

Although pruritus is a common and often excruciating manifestation of PV, its pathophysiology remains unclear. Some patients with decreasing or newly normal hematocrit and hemoglobin levels have paradoxically experienced an intensification of their pruritus, which introduces erythropoietin signaling pathways as a potential mechanism of the symptom.⁸ However, iron replacement therapy for patients with exacerbated pruritus after phlebotomies has not demonstrated consistent relief of pruritus.⁸ Normalization of platelet levels also has not been historically associated with improvement of pruritus.^8,9 It has been hypothesized that cells harboring Jak2 mutations at any stage of the hematopoietic pathway mature and accumulate to cause pruritus in PV.⁹ This theory has been foundational in the development of drugs with activity against cells expressing Jak2 mutations and interventions targeting histamine-releasing mast cells.^9-11

The effective use of naltrexone in our patient suggests that histamine may not be the most effective or sole therapeutic target against pruritus in PV. Naltrexone targets opioid receptors in all layers of the epidermis, affecting cell adhesion and keratinocyte production, and exhibits anti-inflammatory effects through interactions with nonopioid receptors, including Toll-like receptor 4.¹² The efficacy of oral naltrexone has been documented in patients with pruritus associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors, psoriasis, eczema, lichen simplex chronicus, prurigo nodularis, cholestasis, uremia, and multiple rheumatologic diseases.^{3,4,7-9,12-14} Opioid pathways also may be involved in peripheral and/or central processing of pruritus associated with PV.

Importantly, patients who are potential candidates for naltrexone therapy should be notified and advised of the risk of drug interactions with opioids, which could lead to symptoms of opioid withdrawal. Other common adverse effects of naltrexone include hepatotoxicity (especially in patients with a history of significant alcohol consumption), abdominal pain, nausea, arthralgias, myalgias, insomnia, headaches, fatigue, and anxiety.¹² Therefore, it is integral to screen patients for opioid dependence and determine their baseline liver function. Patients should be monitored following naltrexone initiation to determine whether the drug is an appropriate and effective intervention against PV-associated pruritus.

CONCLUSIONS

This case study demonstrates that naltrexone may be a safe, effective, nonsedating, and cost-efficient oral alternative for refractory PV-associated pruritus. Future directions involve consideration of case series or randomized clinical trials investigating the efficacy of naltrexone in treating PV-associated pruritus. Further research is also warranted to better understand the pathophysiology of this symptom of PV to enhance and potentially expand medical management for patients.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Amy Sisson (The Texas Medical Center Library) for her guidance and support in the literature review methodology.

P ruritus is a characteristic and often debilitating clinical manifestation reported by about 50% of patients with polycythemia vera (PV). The exact pathophysiology of PV-associated pruritus is poorly understood. The itch sensation may arise from a central phenomenon without skin itch receptor involvement, as is seen in opioid-induced pruritus, or peripherally via unmyelinated C fibers. Various interventions have been used with mixed results for symptom management in this patient population.¹

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), such as paroxetine and fluoxetine, have historically demonstrated some efficacy in treating PV-associated pruritus.² Alongside SSRIs, phlebotomy, antihistamines, phototherapy, interferon a, and myelosuppressive medications also comprise the various current treatment options. In addition to lacking efficacy, antihistamines can cause somnolence, constipation, and xerostomia.^3,4 Phlebotomy and cytoreductive therapy are often effective in controlling erythrocytosis but fail to alleviate the disabling pruritus.^1,5,6 More recently, suboptimal symptom alleviation has prompted the discovery of agents that target the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) and Janus kinase 2 (Jak2) pathways.¹

Naltrexone is an opioid antagonist shown to suppress pruritus in various dermatologic pathologies involving histamine-independent pathways.^3,7,8 A systematic search strategy identified 34 studies on PV-associated pruritus, its pathophysiology and interventions, and naltrexone as a therapeutic agent. Only 1 study in the literature has described the use of naltrexone for uremic and cholestatic pruritus.⁹ We describe the successful use of naltrexone monotherapy for the treatment of pruritus in a patient with PV.

Case Presentation

A 40-year-old man with Jak2-positive PV treated with ruxolitinib presented to the outpatient Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center Supportive Care Clinic in Houston, Texas, for severe refractory pruritus. Wheals manifested in pruritic regions of the patient’s skin without gross excoriations or erythema. Pruritus reportedly began diffusely across the posterior torso. Through the rapid progression of an episode lasting 30 to 45 minutes, the lesions and pruritus would spread to the anterior torso, extend to the upper extremities bilaterally, and finally descend to the lower extremities bilaterally. A persistent sensation of heat or warmth on the patient’s skin was present, and periodically, this would culminate in a burning sensation comparable to “lying flat on one’s back directly on a hornet’s nest…[followed by] a million stings” that was inconsistent with erythromelalgia given the absence of erythema. The intensity of the pruritic episodes was subjectively also described as “enough to make [him] want to jump off the roof of a building…[causing] moments of deep, deep frustration…[and] the worst of all the symptoms one may encounter because of [PV].”

Pruritus was exacerbated by sweating, heat, contact with any liquids on the skin, and sunburns, which doubled the intensity. The patient reported minimal, temporary relief with cannabidiol and cold fabric or air on his skin. His current regimen and nonpharmacologic efforts provided no relief and included oatmeal baths, cornstarch after showers, and patting instead of rubbing the skin with topical products. Trials with nonprescription diphenhydramine, loratadine, and calamine and zinc were not successful. He had not pursued phototherapy due to time limitations and travel constraints. He had a history of phlebotomies and hydroxyurea use, which he preferred to avoid and discontinued 1 year before presentation.

Despite improving hematocrit (< 45% goal) and platelet counts with ruxolitinib, the patient reported worsening pruritus that significantly impaired quality of life. His sleep and social and physical activities were hindered, preventing him from working. The patient’s active medications also included low-dose aspirin, sertraline, hydroxyzine, triamcinolone acetonide, and pregabalin for sciatica. Given persistent symptoms despite multimodal therapy and lifestyle modifications, the patient was started on naltrexone 25 mg daily, which provided immediate relief of symptoms. He continues to have adequate symptom control 2 years after naltrexone initiation.

Literature Review

A systematic search strategy was developed with the assistance of a medical librarian in Medline Ovid, using both Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms and synonymous keywords. The strategy was then translated to Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane to extract publications investigating PV, pruritus, and/or naltrexone therapy. All searches were conducted on July 18, 2022, and the results of the literature review were as follows: 2 results from Medline Ovid; 34 results from Embase (2 were duplicates of Medline Ovid results); 3 results from Web of Science (all of which were duplicates of Medline Ovid or Embase results); and 0 results from Cochrane (Figure).

Discussion

Although pruritus is a common and often excruciating manifestation of PV, its pathophysiology remains unclear. Some patients with decreasing or newly normal hematocrit and hemoglobin levels have paradoxically experienced an intensification of their pruritus, which introduces erythropoietin signaling pathways as a potential mechanism of the symptom.⁸ However, iron replacement therapy for patients with exacerbated pruritus after phlebotomies has not demonstrated consistent relief of pruritus.⁸ Normalization of platelet levels also has not been historically associated with improvement of pruritus.^8,9 It has been hypothesized that cells harboring Jak2 mutations at any stage of the hematopoietic pathway mature and accumulate to cause pruritus in PV.⁹ This theory has been foundational in the development of drugs with activity against cells expressing Jak2 mutations and interventions targeting histamine-releasing mast cells.^9-11

The effective use of naltrexone in our patient suggests that histamine may not be the most effective or sole therapeutic target against pruritus in PV. Naltrexone targets opioid receptors in all layers of the epidermis, affecting cell adhesion and keratinocyte production, and exhibits anti-inflammatory effects through interactions with nonopioid receptors, including Toll-like receptor 4.¹² The efficacy of oral naltrexone has been documented in patients with pruritus associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors, psoriasis, eczema, lichen simplex chronicus, prurigo nodularis, cholestasis, uremia, and multiple rheumatologic diseases.^{3,4,7-9,12-14} Opioid pathways also may be involved in peripheral and/or central processing of pruritus associated with PV.

Importantly, patients who are potential candidates for naltrexone therapy should be notified and advised of the risk of drug interactions with opioids, which could lead to symptoms of opioid withdrawal. Other common adverse effects of naltrexone include hepatotoxicity (especially in patients with a history of significant alcohol consumption), abdominal pain, nausea, arthralgias, myalgias, insomnia, headaches, fatigue, and anxiety.¹² Therefore, it is integral to screen patients for opioid dependence and determine their baseline liver function. Patients should be monitored following naltrexone initiation to determine whether the drug is an appropriate and effective intervention against PV-associated pruritus.

CONCLUSIONS

This case study demonstrates that naltrexone may be a safe, effective, nonsedating, and cost-efficient oral alternative for refractory PV-associated pruritus. Future directions involve consideration of case series or randomized clinical trials investigating the efficacy of naltrexone in treating PV-associated pruritus. Further research is also warranted to better understand the pathophysiology of this symptom of PV to enhance and potentially expand medical management for patients.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Amy Sisson (The Texas Medical Center Library) for her guidance and support in the literature review methodology.

Most cancer treatment regimens include the administration of several chemotherapeutic agents. Drug-drug interactions (DDIs) can increase the risk of fatal adverse events and reduce therapeutic efficacy.^1,2 Erlotinib, gefitinib, afatinib, osimertinib, and icotinib are epidermal growth factor receptor–tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs) that have proven efficacy for treating advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Erlotinib strongly inhibits cytochrome P450 (CYP) isoenzymes CYP 1A1, moderately inhibits CYP 3A4 and 2C8, and induces CYP 1A1 and 1A2.² Gefitinib weakly inhibits CYP 2C19 and 2D6.² CYP 3A4 inducers and inhibitors affect metabolism of both erlotinib and gefitinib.^3,4

Erlotinib and gefitinib are first-generation EGFR-TKIs and have been approved for NSCLC treatment by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). These agents have been used since the early 2000s and increase the possibility of long-term response and survival.^2,5,6 EGFR-TKIs have a range of potential DDIs, including interactions with CYP-dependent metabolism, uridine diphosphate-glucuronosyltransferase, and transporter proteins.² Few retrospective studies have focused on the therapeutic efficacy of erlotinib, gefitinib, or the combination of these agents.^7-14

DDIs from cancer and noncancer therapies could lead to treatment discontinuation and affect patient outcomes. The goals for this study were to perform a broad-scale retrospective analysis focused on investigating prescribed drugs used with erlotinib and gefitinib and determine patient outcomes as obtained through several Military Health System (MHS) databases. Our investigation focused on (1) the functions of these drugs; (2) identifying adverse effects (AEs) that patients experienced; (3) evaluating differences when these drugs are used alone vs concomitantly, and between the completed vs discontinued treatment groups; (4) identifying all drugs used during erlotinib or gefitinib treatment; and (5) evaluating DDIs with antidepressants.

This retrospective study was performed at the Department of Research Programs at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center (WRNMMC) in Bethesda, Maryland. The WRNMMC Institutional Review Board approved the study protocol and ensured compliance with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act as an exempt protocol. The Joint Pathology Center of the US Department of Defense (DoD) Cancer Registry and MHS data experts from the Comprehensive Ambulatory/Professional Encounter Record (CAPER) and the Pharmacy Data Transaction Service (PDTS) provided data for the analysis.

Methods

The DoD Cancer Registry Program was established in 1986 by the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs. The registry currently contains data from 1998 to 2023. CAPER and PDTS are part of the MHS Data Repository/Management Analysis and Reporting Tool database. Each observation in the CAPER record represents an ambulatory encounter at a military treatment facility (MTF). CAPER records are available from 2003 to 2023.

Each observation in the PDTS record represents an outpatient prescription filled for an MHS beneficiary at MTFs through the TRICARE mail-order program or a retail pharmacy in the United States. Missing from this record are prescriptions filled at civilian pharmacies outside the United States and inpatient pharmacy prescriptions. The MHS Data Repository PDTS record is available from 2002 to 2023. The Composite Health Care System—the legacy system—is being replaced by GENESIS at MTFs.

Data Extraction Design

The study design involved a cross-sectional analysis. We requested data extraction for erlotinib and gefitinib from 1998 to 2021. Data from the DoD Cancer Registry were used to identify patients who received cancer treatment. Once patients were identified, the CAPER database was searched for diagnoses to identify other health conditions, while the PDTS database was used to populate a list of prescription medications filled during chemotherapy treatment.

Data collected from the Joint Pathology Center included cancer treatment (alone or concomitant), cancer information (cancer types and stages), demographics (sex, age at diagnosis), and physicians’ comments on AEs. Collected data from the MHS include diagnosis and filled prescription history from initiation to completion of the therapy period (or a buffer of 6 months after the initial period). We used all collected data in this analysis. The only exclusion criterion was a provided physician’s note commenting that the patient did not use erlotinib or gefitinib.

Data Extraction Analysis

The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program Coding and Staging Manual 2016 and the International Classification of Diseases for Oncology (ICD-O) were used to decode disease and cancer types.^15,16 Data sorting and analysis were performed using Microsoft Excel. The percentage for the total was calculated by using the total number of patients or data available within the gefitinib and erlotinib groups divided by total number of patients or data variables. The subgroup percentage was calculated by using the number of patients or data available within the subgroup divided by the total number of patients in that subgroup.

In alone vs concomitant and completed vs discontinued treatment groups, a 2-tailed, 2-sample z test was used to calculate P to determine statistical significance (P < .05) using a statistics website.¹⁷ Concomitant was defined as erlotinib or gefitinib taken with other medication(s) before, after, or at the same time as cancer therapy. For the retrospective data analysis, physicians’ notes with “.”, “,”, “/”, “;”, (period, comma, forward slash, semicolon) or space between medication names were interpreted as concurrent, while “+”, “-/+” (plus, minus/plus), or and between drug names were interpreted as combined. Completed treatment was defined as erlotinib or gefitinib as the last medication the patient took without recorded AEs; switching or experiencing AEs was defined as discontinued treatment.

Results

Erlotinib

The Joint Pathology Center provided 387 entries for 382 patients aged 21 to 93 years (mean, 65 years) who were treated systemically with erlotinib from January 1, 2001, to December 31, 2020. Five patients had duplicate entries because they had different cancer sites. There were 287 patients (74%) with lung cancer, 61 (16%) with pancreatic cancer, and 39 (10%) with other cancers. For lung cancer, there were 118 patients (30%) for the upper lobe, 78 (20%) for the lower lobe, and 60 (16%) not otherwise specified (NOS). Other lung cancer sites had fewer patients: 21 (5%) middle lobe lung, 6 (2%) overlapping lung lesion(s), and 4 (1%) main bronchus of the lung. For pancreatic cancer, there were 27 patients (7%) for the head of the pancreas, 10 (3%) pancreas NOS, 9 (2%) body of the pancreas, 9 (2%) tail of the pancreas, 4 (1%) overlapping lesions of the pancreas, 1 (< 1%) pancreatic duct, and 1 (< 1%) other specified parts of the pancreas

There were 342 patients (88%) who were aged > 50 years; 186 male patients (48%) and 201 female patients (52%). There were 293 patients (76%) who had a cancer diagnosis of stage III or IV disease and 94 (24%) who had a cancer diagnosis of stage ≤ II (combination of data for stage 0, 1, and 2, not applicable, and unknown). For their systemic treatment, 161 patients (42%) were treated with erlotinib alone and 226 (58%) received erlotinib concomitantly with additional chemotherapy.

Among the 123 patients who discontinued their treatment, 101 switched treatment with no AEs notes, 22 died or experienced fatigue with blurry vision, constipation, nonspecific gastrointestinal effects, grade-4 diarrhea (as defined by the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events), or developed a pleural fluid, pneumonitis, renal failure, skin swelling and facial rash, and unknown AEs of discontinuation. Patients who discontinued treatment because of unknown AEs had physicians’ notes that detailed emergency department visits, peripheral vascular disease, progressive disease, and treatment cessation, but did not specify the exact symptom(s) that led to discontinuation. The causes of death are unknown because they were not detailed in the available notes or databases. The overall results in this retrospective review cannot establish causality between taking erlotinib or gefitinib and death.

Gefitinib

In September 2021, the Joint Pathology Center provided 33 entries for 33 patients who were systemically treated with gefitinib from January 1, 2002, to December 31, 2017. The patient ages ranged from 49 to 89 years with a mean age of 66 years. There were 31 (94%) and 2 (6%) patients with lung and other cancers, respectively. The upper lobe, lower lobe, and lung NOS had the most patients: 14 (42%), 8 (24%), and 6 (18%), respectively.

There were 31 patients (94%) who were aged > 50 years; 15 were male (45%) and 18 were female (55%). There were 26 patients (79%) who had a cancer diagnosis of stage III or IV disease. Nineteen patients (58%) were treated with gefitinib alone, and 14 (42%) were treated with gefitinib concomitantly with additional chemotherapy. Thirty-one patients (94%) were treated for lung cancer (Table 2). Thirty-three patients are a small sample size to determine whether patients were likely to stop gefitinib if used concomitantly with other drugs. Among the patients treated with gefitinib monotherapy, 5% (n = 1) stopped treatment, whereas 29% (n = 4) of patients treated concomitantly discontinued treatment (P = .06). All comparisons for gefitinib yielded insignificant P values. Physicians’ notes indicated that the reasons for gefitinib discontinuation were life-altering pruritis and unknown (progressive disease outcome) (Table 3).

Management Analysis and Reporting Tool Database

MHS data analysts provided data on diagnoses for 348 patients among 415 submitted, with 232 and 112 patients completing and discontinuing erlotinib or gefitinib treatment, respectively. Each patient had 1 to 104 (completed treatment group) and 1 to 157 (discontinued treatment group) unique health conditions documented. The MHS reported 1319 unique-diagnosis conditions for the completed group and 1266 for the discontinued group. Patients with additional health issues stopped chemotherapy use more often than those without; P < .001 for the completed group (232 patients, 1319 diagnoses) vs the discontinued group (112 patients, 1266 diagnoses). The mean (SD) number of diagnoses was 19 (17) for the completed and 30 (22) for the discontinued treatment groups (Figure).

MHS data was provided for patients who filled erlotinib (n = 240) or gefitinib (n = 18). Among the 258 patients, there were 179 and 79 patients in the completed and discontinued treatment groups, respectively. Each patient filled 1 to 75 (for the completed treatment group) and 3 to 103 (for the discontinued treatment group) prescription drugs. There were 805 unique-filled prescriptions for the completed and 670 for the discontinued group. Patients in the discontinued group filled more prescriptions than those who completed treatment; P < .001 for the completed group (179 patients,805 drugs) vs the discontinued group (79 patients, 670 drugs).

The mean (SD) number of filled prescription drugs was 19 (11) for the completed group and 29 (18) for the discontinued treatment group. The 5 most filled prescriptions with erlotinib from 258 patients with PDTS data were ondansetron (151 prescriptions, 10 recorded AEs), dexamethasone (119 prescriptions, 9 recorded AEs), prochlorperazine (105 prescriptions, 15 recorded AEs), oxycodone (99 prescriptions, 1 AE), and docusate (96 prescriptions, 7 recorded AEs).

Discussion

The difference between erlotinib and gefitinib data can be attributed to the FDA approval date and gefitinib’s association with a higher frequency of hepatotoxicity.^18-20 The FDA designated gefitinib as an orphan drug for EGFR mutation–positive NSCLC treatment. Gefitinib first received accelerated approval in 2003 for the treatment of locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC. Gefitinib then was voluntarily withdrawn from the market following confirmatory clinical trials that did not verify clinical benefit.

The current approval is for a different patient population—previously untreated, metastatic EGFR exon 19 or 21 L858R mutation—than the 2003 approval.^4,6 There was no record of gefitinib use after 2017 in our study.

Erlotinib is a reversible EGFR-TKI that is approved by the FDA as first-line (maintenance) or second-line treatment (after progression following at least 1 earlier chemotherapy regimen) for patients with metastatic NSCLC who harbor EGFR exon 19 deletions or exon 21 L858R substitution mutations, as detected by an FDA-approved test.³ Since 2005, the FDA also approved erlotinib for first-line treatment of patients with locally advanced, unresectable, or metastatic pancreatic cancer in combination with gemcitabine.³ Without FDA indication, erlotinib is used for colorectal, head and neck, ovarian carcinoma, pancreatic carcinoma, and breast cancer.²¹

Erlotinib and gefitinib are not considered first-line treatments in EGFR exon 19 or 21–mutated NSCLC because osimertinib was approved in 2018. Targeted therapies for EGFR mutation continue to advance at a fast pace, with amivantamab and mobocertinib now FDA approved for EGFR exon 20 insertion–mutated NSCLC.

Erlotinib Use

Thirty-nine patients (10%) in this study were prescribed erlotinib for off-label indications. Erlotinib was used alone or in combination with bevacizumab, capecitabine, cisplatin, denosumab, docetaxel, gemcitabine, and the MEK-inhibitor selumetinib. Erlotinib combined with cisplatin, denosumab, docetaxel, and gemcitabine had no recorded AEs, with 10 data entries for gemcitabine and 1 for other drugs. Three patients received bevacizumab and erlotinib, and 1 patient (diagnosed with kidney NOS) showed rash or facial swelling/erythema and diffuse body itching then stable disease after 2 cycles.

One patient (diagnosed with cancer located at the pancreas head) was bridged with capecitabine and erlotinib when going on a vacation, then received FOLFIRINOX (a combination chemotherapy regimen containing folinic acid [leucovorin], fluorouracil, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin), which led to significant fatigue, blurry vision, and constipation. One patient was treated for lung NOS with the MEK-inhibitor selumetinib plus erlotinib and developed pneumonitis following treatment.

Because oncologists followed guidelines and protocols in systemic treatment, DDIs of erlotinib concurrently (before or after) and in combination with cancer drugs were unlikely. Further investigation is needed for several 1:1:1 DDIs with noncancer drugs. A retrospective overview is not a randomized clinical study; therefore, analysis is limited. Data from the MHS were obtained solely from notes from physicians who treated the patients; therefore, exact information explaining whether a patient completed treatment or had to withdraw could not be extrapolated (ie, blood/plasma samples were not obtained to confirm).

Discontinued Treatment

The reasons for treatment discontinuation with erlotinib or gefitinib varied among patients, with no consistent AE or cause. Most data were for switching treatments after discontinuing treatment with erlotinib (101 of 123 patients) and gefitinib (2 of 5 patients). This is not surprising given the widely recognized pillars of therapy for NSCLC: chemotherapy, target therapy, and immunotherapy.²² From the MHS records, the reasons patients switched treatment of erlotinib or gefitinib were not listed or listed as due to negative EGFR testing, lack of responsiveness, or enrollment in a different treatment.

Physicians’ notes on AEs were not detailed in most cases. Notes for gastrointestinal effects, life-altering pruritis, intolerance, peripheral vascular disease, pneumonitis, and progressive disease described the change in status or appearance of a new medical condition but did not indicate whether erlotinib or gefitinib caused the changes or worsened a pre-existing condition.

The causes of AEs were not described in the available notes or the databases. This retrospective data analysis only focused on identifying drugs involved with erlotinib and gefitinib treatment; further mapping of DDIs among patients experiencing AEs needs to be performed, then in vitro data testing before researchers can reach a conclusion.

DDIs With Antidepressants

We used the PDTS database to evaluate patients who experienced AEs, excluding patients who switched treatment. Thirteen patients filled a prescription for erlotinib and reported taking 220 cancer and noncancer prescription drugs. One patient (pruritis) was taking gefitinib along with 16 noncancer prescription drugs.

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and other antidepressants have been implicated in CYP 2D6 inhibition and DDIs.^48,49 Losartan is a widely used antihypertensive drug with a favorable DDI profile.⁵⁰ Erlotinib and gefitinib are primarily metabolized via CYP 2D6 and 3A4 pathways. DDIs from in vitro human hepatocytes assays revealed that gefitinib had significant metabolic changes in a 1:1 (P < .05) combination with paroxetine or sertraline, and a 1:1:1 combination with losartan and fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, paroxetine, or sertraline. Citalopram and venlafaxine seemed to be unaffected by any combination (P ≥ .05).⁵¹ Erlotinib with fluoxetine or losartan 1:1 yielded insignificant differences in metabolism for all drugs (P ≥ .05). Three drug combinations of 1:1:1 involving fluoxetine and losartan with erlotinib yielded significant degrees of inhibition of fluoxetine and losartan metabolism (P < .05) but not erlotinib.⁵²

Our data showed that 16 antidepressants (amitriptyline, bupropion, citalopram, desvenlafaxine, duloxetine, escitalopram, imipramine, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, mirtazapine, nortriptyline, paroxetine, phenelzine, sertraline, trazodone, and venlafaxine) were recorded with concomitant erlotinib or gefitinib from initiation to completion of therapy or a buffer of 6 months from the first diagnosis date. Based on the date dispensed and days’ supply, only escitalopram could be used in combination with gefitinib treatment. The one patient who filled a prescription for gefitinib and escitalopram completed treatment without recorded AEs. PDTS database confirmed that patients experienced AEs with 5 antidepressants (amitriptyline, mirtazapine, paroxetine, trazodone, and venlafaxine) with concomitant erlotinib use.

Based on the date dispensed and days’ supply, only trazodone could be used in combination with erlotinib. PDTS database showed that cancer drugs (erlotinib and megestrol) and 39 noncancer drugs (including acetaminophen, azithromycin, dexamethasone, hydrocortisone, and polyethylene glycol) were filled by 1 patient whose physician noted skin rash. Another limitation of using databases to reflect clinical practice is that although megestrol is listed as a cancer drug by code in the PDTS database, it is not used for nonendometrial or gynecologic cancers. However, because of the PDTS database classification, megestrol is classified as a cancer drug in this retrospective review.

This retrospective review found no significant DDIs for erlotinib or gefitinib, with 1 antidepressant taken by 1 patient for each respective treatment. The degree of inhibition and induction for escitalopram and trazodone are categorized as weak, minimal, or none; therefore, while 1:1 DDIs might be little or no effect, 1:1:1 combination DDIs could have a different outcome. This retrospective data collection cannot be linked to the in­ vitro hepatocyte DDIs from erlotinib and gefitinib in previous studies.^51,52

Conclusions

This retrospective study describes erlotinib and gefitinib use in the MHS and their potential for DDIs. Because of military service requirements, people who are qualified to serve must be healthy or have either controlled or nonactive medical diagnoses and be physically fit. Consequently, our patient population had fewer common medical illnesses, such as diabetes and obesity, compared with the general population. Most noncancer drugs mentioned in this study are not known CYP metabolizers; therefore, recorded AEs alone cannot conclusively determine whether there is a DDI among erlotinib or gefitinib and noncancer drugs. Antidepressants generally are safe but have boxed warnings in the US for increased risk of suicidal ideation in young people.^53,54 This retrospective study did not find statistically significant DDIs for erlotinib or gefitinib with antidepressants. Based on this retrospective data analysis, future in vitro testing is needed to assess DDIs for erlotinib or gefitinib and cancer or noncancer drugs identified in this study.

Acknowledgments

The Department of Research Program funds at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center supported this protocol. We sincerely appreciate the contribution of data extraction from the Joint Pathology Center teams (Francisco J. Rentas, John D. McGeeney, Kimberly M. Greenfield, Beatriz A. Hallo, and Johnny P. Beason) and the MHS database personnel (Maj Ryan Costantino, Lee Ann Zarzabal, Brandon Jenkins, and Alex Rittel). We gratefully thank you for the protocol support from the Department of Research programs: CDR Wesley R. Campbell, CDR Ling Ye, Yaling Zhou, Elizabeth Schafer, Robert Roogow, Micah Stretch, Diane Beaner, Adrienne Woodard, David L. Evers, and Paula Amann.

Most cancer treatment regimens include the administration of several chemotherapeutic agents. Drug-drug interactions (DDIs) can increase the risk of fatal adverse events and reduce therapeutic efficacy.^1,2 Erlotinib, gefitinib, afatinib, osimertinib, and icotinib are epidermal growth factor receptor–tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs) that have proven efficacy for treating advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Erlotinib strongly inhibits cytochrome P450 (CYP) isoenzymes CYP 1A1, moderately inhibits CYP 3A4 and 2C8, and induces CYP 1A1 and 1A2.² Gefitinib weakly inhibits CYP 2C19 and 2D6.² CYP 3A4 inducers and inhibitors affect metabolism of both erlotinib and gefitinib.^3,4

Erlotinib and gefitinib are first-generation EGFR-TKIs and have been approved for NSCLC treatment by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). These agents have been used since the early 2000s and increase the possibility of long-term response and survival.^2,5,6 EGFR-TKIs have a range of potential DDIs, including interactions with CYP-dependent metabolism, uridine diphosphate-glucuronosyltransferase, and transporter proteins.² Few retrospective studies have focused on the therapeutic efficacy of erlotinib, gefitinib, or the combination of these agents.^7-14

DDIs from cancer and noncancer therapies could lead to treatment discontinuation and affect patient outcomes. The goals for this study were to perform a broad-scale retrospective analysis focused on investigating prescribed drugs used with erlotinib and gefitinib and determine patient outcomes as obtained through several Military Health System (MHS) databases. Our investigation focused on (1) the functions of these drugs; (2) identifying adverse effects (AEs) that patients experienced; (3) evaluating differences when these drugs are used alone vs concomitantly, and between the completed vs discontinued treatment groups; (4) identifying all drugs used during erlotinib or gefitinib treatment; and (5) evaluating DDIs with antidepressants.

This retrospective study was performed at the Department of Research Programs at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center (WRNMMC) in Bethesda, Maryland. The WRNMMC Institutional Review Board approved the study protocol and ensured compliance with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act as an exempt protocol. The Joint Pathology Center of the US Department of Defense (DoD) Cancer Registry and MHS data experts from the Comprehensive Ambulatory/Professional Encounter Record (CAPER) and the Pharmacy Data Transaction Service (PDTS) provided data for the analysis.

Methods

The DoD Cancer Registry Program was established in 1986 by the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs. The registry currently contains data from 1998 to 2023. CAPER and PDTS are part of the MHS Data Repository/Management Analysis and Reporting Tool database. Each observation in the CAPER record represents an ambulatory encounter at a military treatment facility (MTF). CAPER records are available from 2003 to 2023.

Each observation in the PDTS record represents an outpatient prescription filled for an MHS beneficiary at MTFs through the TRICARE mail-order program or a retail pharmacy in the United States. Missing from this record are prescriptions filled at civilian pharmacies outside the United States and inpatient pharmacy prescriptions. The MHS Data Repository PDTS record is available from 2002 to 2023. The Composite Health Care System—the legacy system—is being replaced by GENESIS at MTFs.

Data Extraction Design

The study design involved a cross-sectional analysis. We requested data extraction for erlotinib and gefitinib from 1998 to 2021. Data from the DoD Cancer Registry were used to identify patients who received cancer treatment. Once patients were identified, the CAPER database was searched for diagnoses to identify other health conditions, while the PDTS database was used to populate a list of prescription medications filled during chemotherapy treatment.

Data collected from the Joint Pathology Center included cancer treatment (alone or concomitant), cancer information (cancer types and stages), demographics (sex, age at diagnosis), and physicians’ comments on AEs. Collected data from the MHS include diagnosis and filled prescription history from initiation to completion of the therapy period (or a buffer of 6 months after the initial period). We used all collected data in this analysis. The only exclusion criterion was a provided physician’s note commenting that the patient did not use erlotinib or gefitinib.

Data Extraction Analysis

The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program Coding and Staging Manual 2016 and the International Classification of Diseases for Oncology (ICD-O) were used to decode disease and cancer types.^15,16 Data sorting and analysis were performed using Microsoft Excel. The percentage for the total was calculated by using the total number of patients or data available within the gefitinib and erlotinib groups divided by total number of patients or data variables. The subgroup percentage was calculated by using the number of patients or data available within the subgroup divided by the total number of patients in that subgroup.

In alone vs concomitant and completed vs discontinued treatment groups, a 2-tailed, 2-sample z test was used to calculate P to determine statistical significance (P < .05) using a statistics website.¹⁷ Concomitant was defined as erlotinib or gefitinib taken with other medication(s) before, after, or at the same time as cancer therapy. For the retrospective data analysis, physicians’ notes with “.”, “,”, “/”, “;”, (period, comma, forward slash, semicolon) or space between medication names were interpreted as concurrent, while “+”, “-/+” (plus, minus/plus), or and between drug names were interpreted as combined. Completed treatment was defined as erlotinib or gefitinib as the last medication the patient took without recorded AEs; switching or experiencing AEs was defined as discontinued treatment.

Results

Erlotinib

The Joint Pathology Center provided 387 entries for 382 patients aged 21 to 93 years (mean, 65 years) who were treated systemically with erlotinib from January 1, 2001, to December 31, 2020. Five patients had duplicate entries because they had different cancer sites. There were 287 patients (74%) with lung cancer, 61 (16%) with pancreatic cancer, and 39 (10%) with other cancers. For lung cancer, there were 118 patients (30%) for the upper lobe, 78 (20%) for the lower lobe, and 60 (16%) not otherwise specified (NOS). Other lung cancer sites had fewer patients: 21 (5%) middle lobe lung, 6 (2%) overlapping lung lesion(s), and 4 (1%) main bronchus of the lung. For pancreatic cancer, there were 27 patients (7%) for the head of the pancreas, 10 (3%) pancreas NOS, 9 (2%) body of the pancreas, 9 (2%) tail of the pancreas, 4 (1%) overlapping lesions of the pancreas, 1 (< 1%) pancreatic duct, and 1 (< 1%) other specified parts of the pancreas

There were 342 patients (88%) who were aged > 50 years; 186 male patients (48%) and 201 female patients (52%). There were 293 patients (76%) who had a cancer diagnosis of stage III or IV disease and 94 (24%) who had a cancer diagnosis of stage ≤ II (combination of data for stage 0, 1, and 2, not applicable, and unknown). For their systemic treatment, 161 patients (42%) were treated with erlotinib alone and 226 (58%) received erlotinib concomitantly with additional chemotherapy.

Among the 123 patients who discontinued their treatment, 101 switched treatment with no AEs notes, 22 died or experienced fatigue with blurry vision, constipation, nonspecific gastrointestinal effects, grade-4 diarrhea (as defined by the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events), or developed a pleural fluid, pneumonitis, renal failure, skin swelling and facial rash, and unknown AEs of discontinuation. Patients who discontinued treatment because of unknown AEs had physicians’ notes that detailed emergency department visits, peripheral vascular disease, progressive disease, and treatment cessation, but did not specify the exact symptom(s) that led to discontinuation. The causes of death are unknown because they were not detailed in the available notes or databases. The overall results in this retrospective review cannot establish causality between taking erlotinib or gefitinib and death.

Gefitinib

In September 2021, the Joint Pathology Center provided 33 entries for 33 patients who were systemically treated with gefitinib from January 1, 2002, to December 31, 2017. The patient ages ranged from 49 to 89 years with a mean age of 66 years. There were 31 (94%) and 2 (6%) patients with lung and other cancers, respectively. The upper lobe, lower lobe, and lung NOS had the most patients: 14 (42%), 8 (24%), and 6 (18%), respectively.

There were 31 patients (94%) who were aged > 50 years; 15 were male (45%) and 18 were female (55%). There were 26 patients (79%) who had a cancer diagnosis of stage III or IV disease. Nineteen patients (58%) were treated with gefitinib alone, and 14 (42%) were treated with gefitinib concomitantly with additional chemotherapy. Thirty-one patients (94%) were treated for lung cancer (Table 2). Thirty-three patients are a small sample size to determine whether patients were likely to stop gefitinib if used concomitantly with other drugs. Among the patients treated with gefitinib monotherapy, 5% (n = 1) stopped treatment, whereas 29% (n = 4) of patients treated concomitantly discontinued treatment (P = .06). All comparisons for gefitinib yielded insignificant P values. Physicians’ notes indicated that the reasons for gefitinib discontinuation were life-altering pruritis and unknown (progressive disease outcome) (Table 3).

Management Analysis and Reporting Tool Database

MHS data analysts provided data on diagnoses for 348 patients among 415 submitted, with 232 and 112 patients completing and discontinuing erlotinib or gefitinib treatment, respectively. Each patient had 1 to 104 (completed treatment group) and 1 to 157 (discontinued treatment group) unique health conditions documented. The MHS reported 1319 unique-diagnosis conditions for the completed group and 1266 for the discontinued group. Patients with additional health issues stopped chemotherapy use more often than those without; P < .001 for the completed group (232 patients, 1319 diagnoses) vs the discontinued group (112 patients, 1266 diagnoses). The mean (SD) number of diagnoses was 19 (17) for the completed and 30 (22) for the discontinued treatment groups (Figure).

MHS data was provided for patients who filled erlotinib (n = 240) or gefitinib (n = 18). Among the 258 patients, there were 179 and 79 patients in the completed and discontinued treatment groups, respectively. Each patient filled 1 to 75 (for the completed treatment group) and 3 to 103 (for the discontinued treatment group) prescription drugs. There were 805 unique-filled prescriptions for the completed and 670 for the discontinued group. Patients in the discontinued group filled more prescriptions than those who completed treatment; P < .001 for the completed group (179 patients,805 drugs) vs the discontinued group (79 patients, 670 drugs).

The mean (SD) number of filled prescription drugs was 19 (11) for the completed group and 29 (18) for the discontinued treatment group. The 5 most filled prescriptions with erlotinib from 258 patients with PDTS data were ondansetron (151 prescriptions, 10 recorded AEs), dexamethasone (119 prescriptions, 9 recorded AEs), prochlorperazine (105 prescriptions, 15 recorded AEs), oxycodone (99 prescriptions, 1 AE), and docusate (96 prescriptions, 7 recorded AEs).

Discussion

The difference between erlotinib and gefitinib data can be attributed to the FDA approval date and gefitinib’s association with a higher frequency of hepatotoxicity.^18-20 The FDA designated gefitinib as an orphan drug for EGFR mutation–positive NSCLC treatment. Gefitinib first received accelerated approval in 2003 for the treatment of locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC. Gefitinib then was voluntarily withdrawn from the market following confirmatory clinical trials that did not verify clinical benefit.

The current approval is for a different patient population—previously untreated, metastatic EGFR exon 19 or 21 L858R mutation—than the 2003 approval.^4,6 There was no record of gefitinib use after 2017 in our study.

Erlotinib is a reversible EGFR-TKI that is approved by the FDA as first-line (maintenance) or second-line treatment (after progression following at least 1 earlier chemotherapy regimen) for patients with metastatic NSCLC who harbor EGFR exon 19 deletions or exon 21 L858R substitution mutations, as detected by an FDA-approved test.³ Since 2005, the FDA also approved erlotinib for first-line treatment of patients with locally advanced, unresectable, or metastatic pancreatic cancer in combination with gemcitabine.³ Without FDA indication, erlotinib is used for colorectal, head and neck, ovarian carcinoma, pancreatic carcinoma, and breast cancer.²¹

Erlotinib and gefitinib are not considered first-line treatments in EGFR exon 19 or 21–mutated NSCLC because osimertinib was approved in 2018. Targeted therapies for EGFR mutation continue to advance at a fast pace, with amivantamab and mobocertinib now FDA approved for EGFR exon 20 insertion–mutated NSCLC.

Erlotinib Use

Thirty-nine patients (10%) in this study were prescribed erlotinib for off-label indications. Erlotinib was used alone or in combination with bevacizumab, capecitabine, cisplatin, denosumab, docetaxel, gemcitabine, and the MEK-inhibitor selumetinib. Erlotinib combined with cisplatin, denosumab, docetaxel, and gemcitabine had no recorded AEs, with 10 data entries for gemcitabine and 1 for other drugs. Three patients received bevacizumab and erlotinib, and 1 patient (diagnosed with kidney NOS) showed rash or facial swelling/erythema and diffuse body itching then stable disease after 2 cycles.

One patient (diagnosed with cancer located at the pancreas head) was bridged with capecitabine and erlotinib when going on a vacation, then received FOLFIRINOX (a combination chemotherapy regimen containing folinic acid [leucovorin], fluorouracil, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin), which led to significant fatigue, blurry vision, and constipation. One patient was treated for lung NOS with the MEK-inhibitor selumetinib plus erlotinib and developed pneumonitis following treatment.

Because oncologists followed guidelines and protocols in systemic treatment, DDIs of erlotinib concurrently (before or after) and in combination with cancer drugs were unlikely. Further investigation is needed for several 1:1:1 DDIs with noncancer drugs. A retrospective overview is not a randomized clinical study; therefore, analysis is limited. Data from the MHS were obtained solely from notes from physicians who treated the patients; therefore, exact information explaining whether a patient completed treatment or had to withdraw could not be extrapolated (ie, blood/plasma samples were not obtained to confirm).

Discontinued Treatment

The reasons for treatment discontinuation with erlotinib or gefitinib varied among patients, with no consistent AE or cause. Most data were for switching treatments after discontinuing treatment with erlotinib (101 of 123 patients) and gefitinib (2 of 5 patients). This is not surprising given the widely recognized pillars of therapy for NSCLC: chemotherapy, target therapy, and immunotherapy.²² From the MHS records, the reasons patients switched treatment of erlotinib or gefitinib were not listed or listed as due to negative EGFR testing, lack of responsiveness, or enrollment in a different treatment.

Physicians’ notes on AEs were not detailed in most cases. Notes for gastrointestinal effects, life-altering pruritis, intolerance, peripheral vascular disease, pneumonitis, and progressive disease described the change in status or appearance of a new medical condition but did not indicate whether erlotinib or gefitinib caused the changes or worsened a pre-existing condition.

The causes of AEs were not described in the available notes or the databases. This retrospective data analysis only focused on identifying drugs involved with erlotinib and gefitinib treatment; further mapping of DDIs among patients experiencing AEs needs to be performed, then in vitro data testing before researchers can reach a conclusion.

DDIs With Antidepressants

We used the PDTS database to evaluate patients who experienced AEs, excluding patients who switched treatment. Thirteen patients filled a prescription for erlotinib and reported taking 220 cancer and noncancer prescription drugs. One patient (pruritis) was taking gefitinib along with 16 noncancer prescription drugs.

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and other antidepressants have been implicated in CYP 2D6 inhibition and DDIs.^48,49 Losartan is a widely used antihypertensive drug with a favorable DDI profile.⁵⁰ Erlotinib and gefitinib are primarily metabolized via CYP 2D6 and 3A4 pathways. DDIs from in vitro human hepatocytes assays revealed that gefitinib had significant metabolic changes in a 1:1 (P < .05) combination with paroxetine or sertraline, and a 1:1:1 combination with losartan and fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, paroxetine, or sertraline. Citalopram and venlafaxine seemed to be unaffected by any combination (P ≥ .05).⁵¹ Erlotinib with fluoxetine or losartan 1:1 yielded insignificant differences in metabolism for all drugs (P ≥ .05). Three drug combinations of 1:1:1 involving fluoxetine and losartan with erlotinib yielded significant degrees of inhibition of fluoxetine and losartan metabolism (P < .05) but not erlotinib.⁵²

Our data showed that 16 antidepressants (amitriptyline, bupropion, citalopram, desvenlafaxine, duloxetine, escitalopram, imipramine, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, mirtazapine, nortriptyline, paroxetine, phenelzine, sertraline, trazodone, and venlafaxine) were recorded with concomitant erlotinib or gefitinib from initiation to completion of therapy or a buffer of 6 months from the first diagnosis date. Based on the date dispensed and days’ supply, only escitalopram could be used in combination with gefitinib treatment. The one patient who filled a prescription for gefitinib and escitalopram completed treatment without recorded AEs. PDTS database confirmed that patients experienced AEs with 5 antidepressants (amitriptyline, mirtazapine, paroxetine, trazodone, and venlafaxine) with concomitant erlotinib use.

Based on the date dispensed and days’ supply, only trazodone could be used in combination with erlotinib. PDTS database showed that cancer drugs (erlotinib and megestrol) and 39 noncancer drugs (including acetaminophen, azithromycin, dexamethasone, hydrocortisone, and polyethylene glycol) were filled by 1 patient whose physician noted skin rash. Another limitation of using databases to reflect clinical practice is that although megestrol is listed as a cancer drug by code in the PDTS database, it is not used for nonendometrial or gynecologic cancers. However, because of the PDTS database classification, megestrol is classified as a cancer drug in this retrospective review.

This retrospective review found no significant DDIs for erlotinib or gefitinib, with 1 antidepressant taken by 1 patient for each respective treatment. The degree of inhibition and induction for escitalopram and trazodone are categorized as weak, minimal, or none; therefore, while 1:1 DDIs might be little or no effect, 1:1:1 combination DDIs could have a different outcome. This retrospective data collection cannot be linked to the in­ vitro hepatocyte DDIs from erlotinib and gefitinib in previous studies.^51,52

Conclusions

This retrospective study describes erlotinib and gefitinib use in the MHS and their potential for DDIs. Because of military service requirements, people who are qualified to serve must be healthy or have either controlled or nonactive medical diagnoses and be physically fit. Consequently, our patient population had fewer common medical illnesses, such as diabetes and obesity, compared with the general population. Most noncancer drugs mentioned in this study are not known CYP metabolizers; therefore, recorded AEs alone cannot conclusively determine whether there is a DDI among erlotinib or gefitinib and noncancer drugs. Antidepressants generally are safe but have boxed warnings in the US for increased risk of suicidal ideation in young people.^53,54 This retrospective study did not find statistically significant DDIs for erlotinib or gefitinib with antidepressants. Based on this retrospective data analysis, future in vitro testing is needed to assess DDIs for erlotinib or gefitinib and cancer or noncancer drugs identified in this study.

Acknowledgments

The Department of Research Program funds at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center supported this protocol. We sincerely appreciate the contribution of data extraction from the Joint Pathology Center teams (Francisco J. Rentas, John D. McGeeney, Kimberly M. Greenfield, Beatriz A. Hallo, and Johnny P. Beason) and the MHS database personnel (Maj Ryan Costantino, Lee Ann Zarzabal, Brandon Jenkins, and Alex Rittel). We gratefully thank you for the protocol support from the Department of Research programs: CDR Wesley R. Campbell, CDR Ling Ye, Yaling Zhou, Elizabeth Schafer, Robert Roogow, Micah Stretch, Diane Beaner, Adrienne Woodard, David L. Evers, and Paula Amann.

Most cancer treatment regimens include the administration of several chemotherapeutic agents. Drug-drug interactions (DDIs) can increase the risk of fatal adverse events and reduce therapeutic efficacy.^1,2 Erlotinib, gefitinib, afatinib, osimertinib, and icotinib are epidermal growth factor receptor–tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs) that have proven efficacy for treating advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Erlotinib strongly inhibits cytochrome P450 (CYP) isoenzymes CYP 1A1, moderately inhibits CYP 3A4 and 2C8, and induces CYP 1A1 and 1A2.² Gefitinib weakly inhibits CYP 2C19 and 2D6.² CYP 3A4 inducers and inhibitors affect metabolism of both erlotinib and gefitinib.^3,4

Erlotinib and gefitinib are first-generation EGFR-TKIs and have been approved for NSCLC treatment by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). These agents have been used since the early 2000s and increase the possibility of long-term response and survival.^2,5,6 EGFR-TKIs have a range of potential DDIs, including interactions with CYP-dependent metabolism, uridine diphosphate-glucuronosyltransferase, and transporter proteins.² Few retrospective studies have focused on the therapeutic efficacy of erlotinib, gefitinib, or the combination of these agents.^7-14

DDIs from cancer and noncancer therapies could lead to treatment discontinuation and affect patient outcomes. The goals for this study were to perform a broad-scale retrospective analysis focused on investigating prescribed drugs used with erlotinib and gefitinib and determine patient outcomes as obtained through several Military Health System (MHS) databases. Our investigation focused on (1) the functions of these drugs; (2) identifying adverse effects (AEs) that patients experienced; (3) evaluating differences when these drugs are used alone vs concomitantly, and between the completed vs discontinued treatment groups; (4) identifying all drugs used during erlotinib or gefitinib treatment; and (5) evaluating DDIs with antidepressants.

This retrospective study was performed at the Department of Research Programs at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center (WRNMMC) in Bethesda, Maryland. The WRNMMC Institutional Review Board approved the study protocol and ensured compliance with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act as an exempt protocol. The Joint Pathology Center of the US Department of Defense (DoD) Cancer Registry and MHS data experts from the Comprehensive Ambulatory/Professional Encounter Record (CAPER) and the Pharmacy Data Transaction Service (PDTS) provided data for the analysis.

Methods

The DoD Cancer Registry Program was established in 1986 by the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs. The registry currently contains data from 1998 to 2023. CAPER and PDTS are part of the MHS Data Repository/Management Analysis and Reporting Tool database. Each observation in the CAPER record represents an ambulatory encounter at a military treatment facility (MTF). CAPER records are available from 2003 to 2023.

Each observation in the PDTS record represents an outpatient prescription filled for an MHS beneficiary at MTFs through the TRICARE mail-order program or a retail pharmacy in the United States. Missing from this record are prescriptions filled at civilian pharmacies outside the United States and inpatient pharmacy prescriptions. The MHS Data Repository PDTS record is available from 2002 to 2023. The Composite Health Care System—the legacy system—is being replaced by GENESIS at MTFs.

Data Extraction Design

The study design involved a cross-sectional analysis. We requested data extraction for erlotinib and gefitinib from 1998 to 2021. Data from the DoD Cancer Registry were used to identify patients who received cancer treatment. Once patients were identified, the CAPER database was searched for diagnoses to identify other health conditions, while the PDTS database was used to populate a list of prescription medications filled during chemotherapy treatment.

Data collected from the Joint Pathology Center included cancer treatment (alone or concomitant), cancer information (cancer types and stages), demographics (sex, age at diagnosis), and physicians’ comments on AEs. Collected data from the MHS include diagnosis and filled prescription history from initiation to completion of the therapy period (or a buffer of 6 months after the initial period). We used all collected data in this analysis. The only exclusion criterion was a provided physician’s note commenting that the patient did not use erlotinib or gefitinib.

Data Extraction Analysis

The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program Coding and Staging Manual 2016 and the International Classification of Diseases for Oncology (ICD-O) were used to decode disease and cancer types.^15,16 Data sorting and analysis were performed using Microsoft Excel. The percentage for the total was calculated by using the total number of patients or data available within the gefitinib and erlotinib groups divided by total number of patients or data variables. The subgroup percentage was calculated by using the number of patients or data available within the subgroup divided by the total number of patients in that subgroup.

In alone vs concomitant and completed vs discontinued treatment groups, a 2-tailed, 2-sample z test was used to calculate P to determine statistical significance (P < .05) using a statistics website.¹⁷ Concomitant was defined as erlotinib or gefitinib taken with other medication(s) before, after, or at the same time as cancer therapy. For the retrospective data analysis, physicians’ notes with “.”, “,”, “/”, “;”, (period, comma, forward slash, semicolon) or space between medication names were interpreted as concurrent, while “+”, “-/+” (plus, minus/plus), or and between drug names were interpreted as combined. Completed treatment was defined as erlotinib or gefitinib as the last medication the patient took without recorded AEs; switching or experiencing AEs was defined as discontinued treatment.

Results

Erlotinib

The Joint Pathology Center provided 387 entries for 382 patients aged 21 to 93 years (mean, 65 years) who were treated systemically with erlotinib from January 1, 2001, to December 31, 2020. Five patients had duplicate entries because they had different cancer sites. There were 287 patients (74%) with lung cancer, 61 (16%) with pancreatic cancer, and 39 (10%) with other cancers. For lung cancer, there were 118 patients (30%) for the upper lobe, 78 (20%) for the lower lobe, and 60 (16%) not otherwise specified (NOS). Other lung cancer sites had fewer patients: 21 (5%) middle lobe lung, 6 (2%) overlapping lung lesion(s), and 4 (1%) main bronchus of the lung. For pancreatic cancer, there were 27 patients (7%) for the head of the pancreas, 10 (3%) pancreas NOS, 9 (2%) body of the pancreas, 9 (2%) tail of the pancreas, 4 (1%) overlapping lesions of the pancreas, 1 (< 1%) pancreatic duct, and 1 (< 1%) other specified parts of the pancreas

There were 342 patients (88%) who were aged > 50 years; 186 male patients (48%) and 201 female patients (52%). There were 293 patients (76%) who had a cancer diagnosis of stage III or IV disease and 94 (24%) who had a cancer diagnosis of stage ≤ II (combination of data for stage 0, 1, and 2, not applicable, and unknown). For their systemic treatment, 161 patients (42%) were treated with erlotinib alone and 226 (58%) received erlotinib concomitantly with additional chemotherapy.

Among the 123 patients who discontinued their treatment, 101 switched treatment with no AEs notes, 22 died or experienced fatigue with blurry vision, constipation, nonspecific gastrointestinal effects, grade-4 diarrhea (as defined by the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events), or developed a pleural fluid, pneumonitis, renal failure, skin swelling and facial rash, and unknown AEs of discontinuation. Patients who discontinued treatment because of unknown AEs had physicians’ notes that detailed emergency department visits, peripheral vascular disease, progressive disease, and treatment cessation, but did not specify the exact symptom(s) that led to discontinuation. The causes of death are unknown because they were not detailed in the available notes or databases. The overall results in this retrospective review cannot establish causality between taking erlotinib or gefitinib and death.

Gefitinib

In September 2021, the Joint Pathology Center provided 33 entries for 33 patients who were systemically treated with gefitinib from January 1, 2002, to December 31, 2017. The patient ages ranged from 49 to 89 years with a mean age of 66 years. There were 31 (94%) and 2 (6%) patients with lung and other cancers, respectively. The upper lobe, lower lobe, and lung NOS had the most patients: 14 (42%), 8 (24%), and 6 (18%), respectively.

There were 31 patients (94%) who were aged > 50 years; 15 were male (45%) and 18 were female (55%). There were 26 patients (79%) who had a cancer diagnosis of stage III or IV disease. Nineteen patients (58%) were treated with gefitinib alone, and 14 (42%) were treated with gefitinib concomitantly with additional chemotherapy. Thirty-one patients (94%) were treated for lung cancer (Table 2). Thirty-three patients are a small sample size to determine whether patients were likely to stop gefitinib if used concomitantly with other drugs. Among the patients treated with gefitinib monotherapy, 5% (n = 1) stopped treatment, whereas 29% (n = 4) of patients treated concomitantly discontinued treatment (P = .06). All comparisons for gefitinib yielded insignificant P values. Physicians’ notes indicated that the reasons for gefitinib discontinuation were life-altering pruritis and unknown (progressive disease outcome) (Table 3).

Management Analysis and Reporting Tool Database

MHS data analysts provided data on diagnoses for 348 patients among 415 submitted, with 232 and 112 patients completing and discontinuing erlotinib or gefitinib treatment, respectively. Each patient had 1 to 104 (completed treatment group) and 1 to 157 (discontinued treatment group) unique health conditions documented. The MHS reported 1319 unique-diagnosis conditions for the completed group and 1266 for the discontinued group. Patients with additional health issues stopped chemotherapy use more often than those without; P < .001 for the completed group (232 patients, 1319 diagnoses) vs the discontinued group (112 patients, 1266 diagnoses). The mean (SD) number of diagnoses was 19 (17) for the completed and 30 (22) for the discontinued treatment groups (Figure).

MHS data was provided for patients who filled erlotinib (n = 240) or gefitinib (n = 18). Among the 258 patients, there were 179 and 79 patients in the completed and discontinued treatment groups, respectively. Each patient filled 1 to 75 (for the completed treatment group) and 3 to 103 (for the discontinued treatment group) prescription drugs. There were 805 unique-filled prescriptions for the completed and 670 for the discontinued group. Patients in the discontinued group filled more prescriptions than those who completed treatment; P < .001 for the completed group (179 patients,805 drugs) vs the discontinued group (79 patients, 670 drugs).

The mean (SD) number of filled prescription drugs was 19 (11) for the completed group and 29 (18) for the discontinued treatment group. The 5 most filled prescriptions with erlotinib from 258 patients with PDTS data were ondansetron (151 prescriptions, 10 recorded AEs), dexamethasone (119 prescriptions, 9 recorded AEs), prochlorperazine (105 prescriptions, 15 recorded AEs), oxycodone (99 prescriptions, 1 AE), and docusate (96 prescriptions, 7 recorded AEs).

Discussion

The difference between erlotinib and gefitinib data can be attributed to the FDA approval date and gefitinib’s association with a higher frequency of hepatotoxicity.^18-20 The FDA designated gefitinib as an orphan drug for EGFR mutation–positive NSCLC treatment. Gefitinib first received accelerated approval in 2003 for the treatment of locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC. Gefitinib then was voluntarily withdrawn from the market following confirmatory clinical trials that did not verify clinical benefit.

The current approval is for a different patient population—previously untreated, metastatic EGFR exon 19 or 21 L858R mutation—than the 2003 approval.^4,6 There was no record of gefitinib use after 2017 in our study.

Erlotinib is a reversible EGFR-TKI that is approved by the FDA as first-line (maintenance) or second-line treatment (after progression following at least 1 earlier chemotherapy regimen) for patients with metastatic NSCLC who harbor EGFR exon 19 deletions or exon 21 L858R substitution mutations, as detected by an FDA-approved test.³ Since 2005, the FDA also approved erlotinib for first-line treatment of patients with locally advanced, unresectable, or metastatic pancreatic cancer in combination with gemcitabine.³ Without FDA indication, erlotinib is used for colorectal, head and neck, ovarian carcinoma, pancreatic carcinoma, and breast cancer.²¹

Erlotinib and gefitinib are not considered first-line treatments in EGFR exon 19 or 21–mutated NSCLC because osimertinib was approved in 2018. Targeted therapies for EGFR mutation continue to advance at a fast pace, with amivantamab and mobocertinib now FDA approved for EGFR exon 20 insertion–mutated NSCLC.

Erlotinib Use

Thirty-nine patients (10%) in this study were prescribed erlotinib for off-label indications. Erlotinib was used alone or in combination with bevacizumab, capecitabine, cisplatin, denosumab, docetaxel, gemcitabine, and the MEK-inhibitor selumetinib. Erlotinib combined with cisplatin, denosumab, docetaxel, and gemcitabine had no recorded AEs, with 10 data entries for gemcitabine and 1 for other drugs. Three patients received bevacizumab and erlotinib, and 1 patient (diagnosed with kidney NOS) showed rash or facial swelling/erythema and diffuse body itching then stable disease after 2 cycles.

One patient (diagnosed with cancer located at the pancreas head) was bridged with capecitabine and erlotinib when going on a vacation, then received FOLFIRINOX (a combination chemotherapy regimen containing folinic acid [leucovorin], fluorouracil, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin), which led to significant fatigue, blurry vision, and constipation. One patient was treated for lung NOS with the MEK-inhibitor selumetinib plus erlotinib and developed pneumonitis following treatment.

Because oncologists followed guidelines and protocols in systemic treatment, DDIs of erlotinib concurrently (before or after) and in combination with cancer drugs were unlikely. Further investigation is needed for several 1:1:1 DDIs with noncancer drugs. A retrospective overview is not a randomized clinical study; therefore, analysis is limited. Data from the MHS were obtained solely from notes from physicians who treated the patients; therefore, exact information explaining whether a patient completed treatment or had to withdraw could not be extrapolated (ie, blood/plasma samples were not obtained to confirm).

Discontinued Treatment

The reasons for treatment discontinuation with erlotinib or gefitinib varied among patients, with no consistent AE or cause. Most data were for switching treatments after discontinuing treatment with erlotinib (101 of 123 patients) and gefitinib (2 of 5 patients). This is not surprising given the widely recognized pillars of therapy for NSCLC: chemotherapy, target therapy, and immunotherapy.²² From the MHS records, the reasons patients switched treatment of erlotinib or gefitinib were not listed or listed as due to negative EGFR testing, lack of responsiveness, or enrollment in a different treatment.

Physicians’ notes on AEs were not detailed in most cases. Notes for gastrointestinal effects, life-altering pruritis, intolerance, peripheral vascular disease, pneumonitis, and progressive disease described the change in status or appearance of a new medical condition but did not indicate whether erlotinib or gefitinib caused the changes or worsened a pre-existing condition.

The causes of AEs were not described in the available notes or the databases. This retrospective data analysis only focused on identifying drugs involved with erlotinib and gefitinib treatment; further mapping of DDIs among patients experiencing AEs needs to be performed, then in vitro data testing before researchers can reach a conclusion.

DDIs With Antidepressants

We used the PDTS database to evaluate patients who experienced AEs, excluding patients who switched treatment. Thirteen patients filled a prescription for erlotinib and reported taking 220 cancer and noncancer prescription drugs. One patient (pruritis) was taking gefitinib along with 16 noncancer prescription drugs.

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and other antidepressants have been implicated in CYP 2D6 inhibition and DDIs.^48,49 Losartan is a widely used antihypertensive drug with a favorable DDI profile.⁵⁰ Erlotinib and gefitinib are primarily metabolized via CYP 2D6 and 3A4 pathways. DDIs from in vitro human hepatocytes assays revealed that gefitinib had significant metabolic changes in a 1:1 (P < .05) combination with paroxetine or sertraline, and a 1:1:1 combination with losartan and fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, paroxetine, or sertraline. Citalopram and venlafaxine seemed to be unaffected by any combination (P ≥ .05).⁵¹ Erlotinib with fluoxetine or losartan 1:1 yielded insignificant differences in metabolism for all drugs (P ≥ .05). Three drug combinations of 1:1:1 involving fluoxetine and losartan with erlotinib yielded significant degrees of inhibition of fluoxetine and losartan metabolism (P < .05) but not erlotinib.⁵²

Our data showed that 16 antidepressants (amitriptyline, bupropion, citalopram, desvenlafaxine, duloxetine, escitalopram, imipramine, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, mirtazapine, nortriptyline, paroxetine, phenelzine, sertraline, trazodone, and venlafaxine) were recorded with concomitant erlotinib or gefitinib from initiation to completion of therapy or a buffer of 6 months from the first diagnosis date. Based on the date dispensed and days’ supply, only escitalopram could be used in combination with gefitinib treatment. The one patient who filled a prescription for gefitinib and escitalopram completed treatment without recorded AEs. PDTS database confirmed that patients experienced AEs with 5 antidepressants (amitriptyline, mirtazapine, paroxetine, trazodone, and venlafaxine) with concomitant erlotinib use.

Based on the date dispensed and days’ supply, only trazodone could be used in combination with erlotinib. PDTS database showed that cancer drugs (erlotinib and megestrol) and 39 noncancer drugs (including acetaminophen, azithromycin, dexamethasone, hydrocortisone, and polyethylene glycol) were filled by 1 patient whose physician noted skin rash. Another limitation of using databases to reflect clinical practice is that although megestrol is listed as a cancer drug by code in the PDTS database, it is not used for nonendometrial or gynecologic cancers. However, because of the PDTS database classification, megestrol is classified as a cancer drug in this retrospective review.

This retrospective review found no significant DDIs for erlotinib or gefitinib, with 1 antidepressant taken by 1 patient for each respective treatment. The degree of inhibition and induction for escitalopram and trazodone are categorized as weak, minimal, or none; therefore, while 1:1 DDIs might be little or no effect, 1:1:1 combination DDIs could have a different outcome. This retrospective data collection cannot be linked to the in­ vitro hepatocyte DDIs from erlotinib and gefitinib in previous studies.^51,52

Conclusions

This retrospective study describes erlotinib and gefitinib use in the MHS and their potential for DDIs. Because of military service requirements, people who are qualified to serve must be healthy or have either controlled or nonactive medical diagnoses and be physically fit. Consequently, our patient population had fewer common medical illnesses, such as diabetes and obesity, compared with the general population. Most noncancer drugs mentioned in this study are not known CYP metabolizers; therefore, recorded AEs alone cannot conclusively determine whether there is a DDI among erlotinib or gefitinib and noncancer drugs. Antidepressants generally are safe but have boxed warnings in the US for increased risk of suicidal ideation in young people.^53,54 This retrospective study did not find statistically significant DDIs for erlotinib or gefitinib with antidepressants. Based on this retrospective data analysis, future in vitro testing is needed to assess DDIs for erlotinib or gefitinib and cancer or noncancer drugs identified in this study.

Acknowledgments

The Department of Research Program funds at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center supported this protocol. We sincerely appreciate the contribution of data extraction from the Joint Pathology Center teams (Francisco J. Rentas, John D. McGeeney, Kimberly M. Greenfield, Beatriz A. Hallo, and Johnny P. Beason) and the MHS database personnel (Maj Ryan Costantino, Lee Ann Zarzabal, Brandon Jenkins, and Alex Rittel). We gratefully thank you for the protocol support from the Department of Research programs: CDR Wesley R. Campbell, CDR Ling Ye, Yaling Zhou, Elizabeth Schafer, Robert Roogow, Micah Stretch, Diane Beaner, Adrienne Woodard, David L. Evers, and Paula Amann.

Gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is a common cause of hospital admissions. The yearly incidence of upper GI bleeding is 80 to 150/100,000 people and lower GI bleeding is 87/100,000 people.^1,2 The differential tends to initially be broad but narrows with good history followed by endoscopic findings. Getting an appropriate history can be difficult at times, which leads health care practitioners to rely more on interventional results.

Amyloidosis is a rare disorder of abnormal protein folding, leading to the deposition of insoluble fibrils that disrupt normal tissues and cause disease.³ There are 2 main types of amyloidosis, systemic and transthyretin, and 4 subtypes. Systemic amyloidosis includes amyloid light-chain (AL) deposition, caused by plasma cell dyscrasia, and amyloid A (AA) protein deposition, caused by systemic autoimmune illness or infections. Transthyretin amyloidosis is caused by changes and deposition of the transthyretin protein consisting of either unstable, mutant protein or wild type protein. Biopsy-proven amyloidosis of the GI tract is rare.⁴ About 60% of patients with AA amyloidosis and 8% with AL amyloidosis have GI involvement.⁵

We present a case of nonspecific symptoms that ultimately lined up perfectly with the official histologic confirmation of intestinal amyloidosis.

Case Presentation

A 79-year-old man with a history of type 2 diabetes mellitus, congestive heart failure, hyperlipidemia, obstructive sleep apnea, hypothyroidism, hypertension, coronary artery disease status postcoronary artery bypass grafting, and stent placements presented for 3 episodes of large, bright red bowel movements. He reported past bleeding and straining with stools, but bleeding of this amount had not been noted prior. He also reported dry heaves, lower abdominal pain, constipation with straining, early satiety with dysphagia, weakness, and decreased appetite. Lastly, he mentioned intentionally losing about 35 to 40 pounds in the past 3 to 4 months and over the past several months increased abdominal distention. However, he stated he had no history of alcohol misuse, liver or intestinal disease, cirrhosis, or other autoimmune diseases. His most recent colonoscopy was more than a decade prior and showed no acute process. The patient never had an esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD).

On initial presentation, the patient’s vital signs showed no acute findings. His physical examination noted a chronically ill–appearing male with decreased breath sounds to the bases bilaterally and noted abdominal distention with mild generalized tenderness. Laboratory findings were significant for a hemoglobin level, 9.4 g/dL (reference range, 11.6-15.3); iron, 23 ug/dL (reference range, 45-160); transferrin saturation, 8% (reference range, 15-50); ferritin level, 80 ng/mL (reference range, 30-300); and carcinoembryonic antigen level, 1.5 ng/mL (reference range, 0-2.9). Aspartate aminotransferase level was 54 IU/L (reference range, 0-40); alanine transaminase, 24 IU/L (reference range, 7-52); albumin, 2.7 g/dL (reference range, 3.4-5.7); international normalized ratio, 1.3 (reference range, 0-1.1); creatinine, 1.74 mg/dL (reference range, 0.44-1.27); alkaline phosphatase, 369 IU/L (reference range, 39-117). White blood cell count was 15.5 × 10⁹/L (reference range, 3.5-10.3), and lactic acid was 2.5 mmol/L (reference range, 0.5-2.2). He was started on piperacillin/tazobactam in the emergency department and transitioned to ciprofloxacin and metronidazole for presumed intra-abdominal infection. Paracentesis showed a serum ascites albumin gradient of > 1.1 g/dL with no signs of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis. Computed tomography of the abdomen and pelvis with contrast was suspicious for colitis involving the proximal colon, and colonic mass could not be excluded. Also noted was hepatosplenomegaly with abdominopelvic ascites.

Based on these findings, an EGD and colonoscopy were done. The EGD showed mild portal hypertensive gastropathy.

Discussion

Amyloidosis is a rare disorder of abnormal protein folding, leading to the deposition of insoluble fibrils that disrupt normal tissues and cause disease.³ There are several variations of amyloid, but the most common type is AL amyloidosis, which affects several organs, including the heart, kidney, liver, nervous system, and GI tract. When AL amyloidosis involves the liver, the median survival time is about 8.5 months.⁶ There are different ways to diagnose the disease, but a tissue biopsy and Congo Red staining can confirm specific organ involvement as seen in our case.

This case adds another layer to our constantly expanding differential as health care practitioners and proves that atypical patient presentations may not be atypical after all. GI amyloidosis tends to present similarly to our patient with bleeding, malabsorption, dysmotility, and protein-losing gastroenteropathy as ascites, edema, pericardial effusions, and laboratory evidence of hypoalbuminemia.⁷ Because amyloidosis is a systemic illness, early recognition is important as intestinal complications tend to present as symptoms, but mortality is more often caused by renal failure, cardiomyopathy, or ischemic heart disease, making early multispecialty involvement very important.⁸

Conclusions

Health care practitioners in all specialties should be aware of and include intestinal amyloidosis in their differential diagnosis when working up GI bleeds with the hope of identifying the disease early. With early recognition, rapid biopsy identification, and early specialist involvement, patients will get the opportunity for expedited multidisciplinary treatment and potentially delay rapid decompensation as shown by the evidence in this case.

Gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is a common cause of hospital admissions. The yearly incidence of upper GI bleeding is 80 to 150/100,000 people and lower GI bleeding is 87/100,000 people.^1,2 The differential tends to initially be broad but narrows with good history followed by endoscopic findings. Getting an appropriate history can be difficult at times, which leads health care practitioners to rely more on interventional results.

Amyloidosis is a rare disorder of abnormal protein folding, leading to the deposition of insoluble fibrils that disrupt normal tissues and cause disease.³ There are 2 main types of amyloidosis, systemic and transthyretin, and 4 subtypes. Systemic amyloidosis includes amyloid light-chain (AL) deposition, caused by plasma cell dyscrasia, and amyloid A (AA) protein deposition, caused by systemic autoimmune illness or infections. Transthyretin amyloidosis is caused by changes and deposition of the transthyretin protein consisting of either unstable, mutant protein or wild type protein. Biopsy-proven amyloidosis of the GI tract is rare.⁴ About 60% of patients with AA amyloidosis and 8% with AL amyloidosis have GI involvement.⁵

We present a case of nonspecific symptoms that ultimately lined up perfectly with the official histologic confirmation of intestinal amyloidosis.

Case Presentation

A 79-year-old man with a history of type 2 diabetes mellitus, congestive heart failure, hyperlipidemia, obstructive sleep apnea, hypothyroidism, hypertension, coronary artery disease status postcoronary artery bypass grafting, and stent placements presented for 3 episodes of large, bright red bowel movements. He reported past bleeding and straining with stools, but bleeding of this amount had not been noted prior. He also reported dry heaves, lower abdominal pain, constipation with straining, early satiety with dysphagia, weakness, and decreased appetite. Lastly, he mentioned intentionally losing about 35 to 40 pounds in the past 3 to 4 months and over the past several months increased abdominal distention. However, he stated he had no history of alcohol misuse, liver or intestinal disease, cirrhosis, or other autoimmune diseases. His most recent colonoscopy was more than a decade prior and showed no acute process. The patient never had an esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD).

On initial presentation, the patient’s vital signs showed no acute findings. His physical examination noted a chronically ill–appearing male with decreased breath sounds to the bases bilaterally and noted abdominal distention with mild generalized tenderness. Laboratory findings were significant for a hemoglobin level, 9.4 g/dL (reference range, 11.6-15.3); iron, 23 ug/dL (reference range, 45-160); transferrin saturation, 8% (reference range, 15-50); ferritin level, 80 ng/mL (reference range, 30-300); and carcinoembryonic antigen level, 1.5 ng/mL (reference range, 0-2.9). Aspartate aminotransferase level was 54 IU/L (reference range, 0-40); alanine transaminase, 24 IU/L (reference range, 7-52); albumin, 2.7 g/dL (reference range, 3.4-5.7); international normalized ratio, 1.3 (reference range, 0-1.1); creatinine, 1.74 mg/dL (reference range, 0.44-1.27); alkaline phosphatase, 369 IU/L (reference range, 39-117). White blood cell count was 15.5 × 10⁹/L (reference range, 3.5-10.3), and lactic acid was 2.5 mmol/L (reference range, 0.5-2.2). He was started on piperacillin/tazobactam in the emergency department and transitioned to ciprofloxacin and metronidazole for presumed intra-abdominal infection. Paracentesis showed a serum ascites albumin gradient of > 1.1 g/dL with no signs of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis. Computed tomography of the abdomen and pelvis with contrast was suspicious for colitis involving the proximal colon, and colonic mass could not be excluded. Also noted was hepatosplenomegaly with abdominopelvic ascites.

Based on these findings, an EGD and colonoscopy were done. The EGD showed mild portal hypertensive gastropathy.

Discussion

Amyloidosis is a rare disorder of abnormal protein folding, leading to the deposition of insoluble fibrils that disrupt normal tissues and cause disease.³ There are several variations of amyloid, but the most common type is AL amyloidosis, which affects several organs, including the heart, kidney, liver, nervous system, and GI tract. When AL amyloidosis involves the liver, the median survival time is about 8.5 months.⁶ There are different ways to diagnose the disease, but a tissue biopsy and Congo Red staining can confirm specific organ involvement as seen in our case.

This case adds another layer to our constantly expanding differential as health care practitioners and proves that atypical patient presentations may not be atypical after all. GI amyloidosis tends to present similarly to our patient with bleeding, malabsorption, dysmotility, and protein-losing gastroenteropathy as ascites, edema, pericardial effusions, and laboratory evidence of hypoalbuminemia.⁷ Because amyloidosis is a systemic illness, early recognition is important as intestinal complications tend to present as symptoms, but mortality is more often caused by renal failure, cardiomyopathy, or ischemic heart disease, making early multispecialty involvement very important.⁸

Conclusions

Health care practitioners in all specialties should be aware of and include intestinal amyloidosis in their differential diagnosis when working up GI bleeds with the hope of identifying the disease early. With early recognition, rapid biopsy identification, and early specialist involvement, patients will get the opportunity for expedited multidisciplinary treatment and potentially delay rapid decompensation as shown by the evidence in this case.

Gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is a common cause of hospital admissions. The yearly incidence of upper GI bleeding is 80 to 150/100,000 people and lower GI bleeding is 87/100,000 people.^1,2 The differential tends to initially be broad but narrows with good history followed by endoscopic findings. Getting an appropriate history can be difficult at times, which leads health care practitioners to rely more on interventional results.

Amyloidosis is a rare disorder of abnormal protein folding, leading to the deposition of insoluble fibrils that disrupt normal tissues and cause disease.³ There are 2 main types of amyloidosis, systemic and transthyretin, and 4 subtypes. Systemic amyloidosis includes amyloid light-chain (AL) deposition, caused by plasma cell dyscrasia, and amyloid A (AA) protein deposition, caused by systemic autoimmune illness or infections. Transthyretin amyloidosis is caused by changes and deposition of the transthyretin protein consisting of either unstable, mutant protein or wild type protein. Biopsy-proven amyloidosis of the GI tract is rare.⁴ About 60% of patients with AA amyloidosis and 8% with AL amyloidosis have GI involvement.⁵

We present a case of nonspecific symptoms that ultimately lined up perfectly with the official histologic confirmation of intestinal amyloidosis.

Case Presentation

A 79-year-old man with a history of type 2 diabetes mellitus, congestive heart failure, hyperlipidemia, obstructive sleep apnea, hypothyroidism, hypertension, coronary artery disease status postcoronary artery bypass grafting, and stent placements presented for 3 episodes of large, bright red bowel movements. He reported past bleeding and straining with stools, but bleeding of this amount had not been noted prior. He also reported dry heaves, lower abdominal pain, constipation with straining, early satiety with dysphagia, weakness, and decreased appetite. Lastly, he mentioned intentionally losing about 35 to 40 pounds in the past 3 to 4 months and over the past several months increased abdominal distention. However, he stated he had no history of alcohol misuse, liver or intestinal disease, cirrhosis, or other autoimmune diseases. His most recent colonoscopy was more than a decade prior and showed no acute process. The patient never had an esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD).

On initial presentation, the patient’s vital signs showed no acute findings. His physical examination noted a chronically ill–appearing male with decreased breath sounds to the bases bilaterally and noted abdominal distention with mild generalized tenderness. Laboratory findings were significant for a hemoglobin level, 9.4 g/dL (reference range, 11.6-15.3); iron, 23 ug/dL (reference range, 45-160); transferrin saturation, 8% (reference range, 15-50); ferritin level, 80 ng/mL (reference range, 30-300); and carcinoembryonic antigen level, 1.5 ng/mL (reference range, 0-2.9). Aspartate aminotransferase level was 54 IU/L (reference range, 0-40); alanine transaminase, 24 IU/L (reference range, 7-52); albumin, 2.7 g/dL (reference range, 3.4-5.7); international normalized ratio, 1.3 (reference range, 0-1.1); creatinine, 1.74 mg/dL (reference range, 0.44-1.27); alkaline phosphatase, 369 IU/L (reference range, 39-117). White blood cell count was 15.5 × 10⁹/L (reference range, 3.5-10.3), and lactic acid was 2.5 mmol/L (reference range, 0.5-2.2). He was started on piperacillin/tazobactam in the emergency department and transitioned to ciprofloxacin and metronidazole for presumed intra-abdominal infection. Paracentesis showed a serum ascites albumin gradient of > 1.1 g/dL with no signs of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis. Computed tomography of the abdomen and pelvis with contrast was suspicious for colitis involving the proximal colon, and colonic mass could not be excluded. Also noted was hepatosplenomegaly with abdominopelvic ascites.

Based on these findings, an EGD and colonoscopy were done. The EGD showed mild portal hypertensive gastropathy.

Discussion

Amyloidosis is a rare disorder of abnormal protein folding, leading to the deposition of insoluble fibrils that disrupt normal tissues and cause disease.³ There are several variations of amyloid, but the most common type is AL amyloidosis, which affects several organs, including the heart, kidney, liver, nervous system, and GI tract. When AL amyloidosis involves the liver, the median survival time is about 8.5 months.⁶ There are different ways to diagnose the disease, but a tissue biopsy and Congo Red staining can confirm specific organ involvement as seen in our case.

This case adds another layer to our constantly expanding differential as health care practitioners and proves that atypical patient presentations may not be atypical after all. GI amyloidosis tends to present similarly to our patient with bleeding, malabsorption, dysmotility, and protein-losing gastroenteropathy as ascites, edema, pericardial effusions, and laboratory evidence of hypoalbuminemia.⁷ Because amyloidosis is a systemic illness, early recognition is important as intestinal complications tend to present as symptoms, but mortality is more often caused by renal failure, cardiomyopathy, or ischemic heart disease, making early multispecialty involvement very important.⁸

Conclusions

Health care practitioners in all specialties should be aware of and include intestinal amyloidosis in their differential diagnosis when working up GI bleeds with the hope of identifying the disease early. With early recognition, rapid biopsy identification, and early specialist involvement, patients will get the opportunity for expedited multidisciplinary treatment and potentially delay rapid decompensation as shown by the evidence in this case.