Commentary

It has now been 30 years since the first total laparoscopic hysterectomy was performed. The benefits of minimally invasive gynecologic surgery (MIGS) – and of minimally invasive hysterectomy specifically – are now well documented. Since this milestone procedure, both instrumentation and technique have improved significantly.

Physician experience is the most important determinant for which minimally invasive approach is used to perform hysterectomy. This includes traditional laparoscopy, as well as the robotically assisted laparoscopic approach. However, certain patient characteristics also may influence the choice. A uterus that is undescended, combined with a narrow introitus, for instance, can be a contributory factor in choosing to perform laparoscopic hysterectomy. Additionally, so can an extremely large uterus and an extremely high body mass index (BMI).

These latter two factors – a very large uterus (which we define as more than 15-16 weeks’ gestational size) and a BMI over 60 kg/m² – historically were considered to be contraindications to laparoscopic hysterectomy. But as the proficiency, comfort, and skill of a new generation of laparoscopic surgeons increases, the tide is shifting with respect to both morbid obesity and the very large uterus.

With growing experience and improved instrumentation, the majority of gynecologists who are fellowship-trained in MIGS are able to routinely and safely perform laparoscopic hysterectomy for uteri weighing 1-2 kg and in patients who have extreme morbid obesity. The literature, moreover, increasingly features case reports of laparoscopic removal of very large uteri and reviews/discussions of total laparoscopic hysterectomy being feasible.

In our own experience, total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) of the very large uterus can be safely and advantageously performed using key instruments and refinements in technique, as well as thorough patient counseling regarding the risk of unexpected sarcomas. Recently, we safely performed total laparoscopic hysterectomy for a patient with a uterus that – somewhat unexpectedly – weighed 7.4 kg.
 

Surgical pearls

Performing safe and effective total laparoscopic hysterectomy for large uteri – and for morbidly obese patients – hinges largely on modifications in entry and port placement, patient positioning, and choice of instrumentation. With these modifications, we can achieve adequate visualization of critical anatomy and can minimize bleeding. Otherwise, the surgery itself is largely the same. Here are the principles we find most helpful.

Entry and port placement

Traditionally, for TLHs, a camera port is placed at the umbilicus to provide a full view of the pelvis. For the larger uterus – and in women who are extremely obese – we aim to introduce the laparoscope higher. A reliable landmark is the Palmer’s point in the left upper quadrant. From here, we can identify areas for the placement of additional trocars.

In general, we place ancillary 5-mm ports more cephalad and lateral to the uterus than we otherwise would. Such placement facilitates effective visualization while accommodating manipulation of the uterus and allows us to avoid bleeding around the vascular upper pedicles. Overall, we have much better control through all parts of the surgery when we operate lateral to the uterus.
 

Patient positioning

In addition to the Trendelenburg position, we have adopted an “airplaning” technique for patients with a very large uterus in which the bed is tilted from side to side so that the left and right sides of the body are rotated upward as needed. This allows for gravitational-assisted retraction when it otherwise is not possible.

Instrumentation

For morbidly obese patients, we use Kii Fios advanced fixation trocars. These come in 5- and 10-mm sizes and are equipped with an intraperitoneal balloon that can be inflated to prevent sliding of the trocar out of the abdominal wall.

By far the most valuable instrument for the morbidly obese and the very large uterus is a 30-degree laparoscope. With our higher port placement as described, the 30-degree scope provides visualization of critical structures that wouldn’t be possible with a 0-degree scope.

The Rumi uterine manipulator comes with cups that come in different sizes and can fit around the cervix and help delineate the cervicouterine junction. We use this manipulator for all laparoscopic hysterectomies, but it is a must for the very large uterus.

Extensive desiccation of the utero-ovarian pedicles and uterine arteries is critical, and for this we advise using the rotating bipolar RoBi instrument. Use of the conventional bipolar instrument allows us to use targeted and anatomically guided application of energy. This ensures certainty that vessels whose limits exceed the diameter for advanced bipolar devices (typically 7 mm) are completely sealed. In-depth knowledge of pelvic anatomy and advanced laparoscopic dissection is paramount during these steps to ensure that vital structures are not damaged by the wider thermal spread of the traditional bipolar device. For cutting, the use of ultrasonic energy is important to prevent energy from spreading laterally.

Lastly, we recommend a good suction irrigator because, if bleeding occurs, it tends to be heavy because of the enlarged nature of feeding vasculature. When placed through an umbilical or suprapubic port, the suction irrigator also may be used to help with the rotational vectors and traction for further uterine manipulation.
 

Technique

Courtesy Dr. Paya Pasic

We usually operate from top to bottom, transecting the upper pedicles such as the infundibulopelvic (IP) ligaments or utero-ovarian ligaments first, rather than the round ligaments. This helps us achieve additional mobility of the uterus. Some surgeons believe that retroperitoneal dissection and ligation of the uterine arteries at their origin is essential, but we find that, with good uterine manipulation and the use of a 30-degree scope, we achieve adequate visualization for identifying the ureter and uterine artery on the sidewall and consequently do not need to dissect retroperitoneally.

When using the uterine manipulator with the colpotomy cup, the uterus is pushed upward, increasing the distance between the vaginal fornix and the ureters. Uterine arteries can easily be identified and desiccated using conventional bipolar energy. When the colpotomy cup is pushed cephalad, the application of the bipolar energy within the limits of the cup is safe. The thermal spread does not pose a threat to the ureters, which are displaced 1.5-2 cm laterally. Large fibroids often contribute to distorted anatomical planes, and a colpotomy cup provides a firm palpable surface between the cervix and vagina during dissection.

When dealing with large uteri, one must sometimes think outside the box and deviate from standard technique. For instance, in patients with distorted anatomy because of large fibroids, it helps to first control the pedicles that are most easily accessible. Sometimes it is acceptable to perform oophorectomy if the IP ligament is more accessible and the utero-ovarian pedicle is distorted by dilated veins and adherent to the uterus. After transection of each pedicle, we gain more mobility of the uterus and better visualization for the next step.

Inserting the camera through ancillary ports – a technique known as “port hopping” – helps to visualize and take down adhesions much better and more safely than using the camera from the umbilical port only. Port hopping with a 30-degree laparoscope helps to obtain a 360-degree view of adhesions and anatomy, which is exceedingly helpful in cases in which crucial anatomical structures are within close proximity of one another.

In general it is more challenging to perform TLH on a patient with a broad uterus or a patient with low posterior fibroids that are occupying the pelvis than on a patient with fibroids in the upper abdomen. The main challenge for the surgeon is to safely secure the uterine arteries and control the blood supply to the uterus.

Access to the pelvic sidewall is obtained with the combination of 30-degree scope, uterine manipulator, and the suction irrigator introduced through the midline port; the cervix and uterus are deviated upward. Instead of the suction irrigator or blunt dissector used for internal uterine manipulation, some surgeons use myoma screws or a 5-mm single-tooth tenaculum to manipulate a large uterus. Both of those instruments are valuable and work well, but often a large uterus requires extensive manipulation. Repositioning of any sharp instruments that pierce the serosa can often lead to additional blood loss. It is preferable to avoid this blood loss on a large uterus at all costs because it can be brisk and stains the surgical pedicles, making the remainder of the procedure unnecessarily difficult.

Once the uterine arteries are desiccated, if fibroids are obscuring the view, the corpus of the uterus can be detached from the cervix as in supracervical hysterectomy fashion. From there, the uterus can be placed in the upper abdomen while colpotomy can be performed.

In patients with multiple fibroids, we do not recommend performing myomectomy first, unless the fibroid is pedunculated and on a very small stalk. Improved uterine manipulation and retroperitoneal dissection are preferred over myomectomy to safely complete hysterectomy for the broad uterus. In our opinion, any attempt at myomectomy would lead to unnecessary blood loss and additional operative time with minimal benefit.

In patients with fibroids that grow into the broad ligament and pelvic sidewall, the natural course of the ureter becomes displaced laterally. This is contrary to the popular misconception that the ureter is more medially located in the setting of broad-ligament fibroids. To ensure safe access to the uterine arteries, the vesicouterine peritoneum can be incised and extended cephalad along the broad ligament and, then, using the above-mentioned technique, by pushing the uterus and the fibroid to the contralateral side via the suction irrigator, the uterine arteries can be easily accessed.

Another useful technique is to use diluted vasopressin injected into the lower pole of the uterus to cause vasoconstriction and minimize the bleeding. The concentration is 1 cc of 20 units of vasopressin in 100-400 cc of saline. This technique is very useful for myomectomies, and some surgeons find it also helpful for hysterectomy. The plasma half-life of vasopressin is 10-20 minutes, and a large quantity is needed to help with vasoconstriction in a big uterus. The safe upper limits of vasopressin dosing are not firmly established. A fibroid uterus with aberrant vasculature may require a greater-than-acceptable dose to control bleeding.

It is important to ensure that patients have an optimized hemoglobin level preoperatively. We use a hemoglobin level of 8 g/dL as a lowest cutoff value for performing TLH without preoperative transfusion. Regarding bowel preparation, neither the literature nor our own experience support its value, so we typically do not use it.
 

Morcellation and patient counseling

Courtesy Dr. Paya Pasic

Uteri up to 12 weeks’ gestational size usually can be extracted transvaginally, and most uteri regardless of size can be morcellated and extracted through the vagina, providing that the vaginal fornix is accessible from below. In some cases, such as when the apex is too high, a minilaparotomic incision is needed to extract the uterus, or when available, power morcellation can be performed.

A major challenge, given our growing ability to laparoscopically remove very larger uteri, is that uteri heavier than about 2.5 kg in weight cannot be morcellated inside a morcellation bag. The risk of upstaging a known or suspected uterine malignancy, or of spreading an unknown malignant sarcoma (presumed benign myoma), should be incorporated in each patient’s decision making.

Thorough counseling about surgical options and on the risks of morcellating a very large uterus without containment in a bag is essential. Each patient must understand the risks and decide whether the benefits of minimally invasive surgery outweigh these risks. While MRI can sometimes provide increased suspicion of a leiomyosarcoma, malignancy can never be completed excluded preoperatively.
 

Removal of a 7.4-kg uterus

Our patient was a 44-year-old with a markedly enlarged fibroid uterus. Having been told by other providers that she was not a candidate for minimally invasive hysterectomy, she had delayed surgical management for a number of years, allowing for such a generous uterine size to develop.

The patient was knowledgeable about her condition and, given her comorbid obesity, she requested a minimally invasive approach. Preoperative imaging included an ultrasound, which had to be completed abdominally because of the size of her uterus, and an additional MRI was needed to further characterize the extent and nature of her uterus. A very detailed discussion regarding risk of leiomyosarcoma, operative complications, and conversion to laparotomy ensued.

Intraoperatively, we placed the first 5 mm port in the left upper quadrant initially to survey the anatomy for feasibility of laparoscopic hysterectomy. The left utero-ovarian pedicle was easily viewed by airplaning the bed alone. While the right utero-ovarian pedicle was much more skewed and enlarged, the right IP was easily accessible and the ureter well visualized.

The decision was made to place additional ports and proceed with laparoscopic hysterectomy. The 5-mm assistant ports were placed lateral and directly above the upper vascular pedicles. Operative time was 4 hours and 12 minutes, and blood loss was only 700 cc. Her preoperative hemoglobin was optimized at 13.3 g/dL and dropped to 11.3 g/dL postoperatively. The patient was discharged home the next morning and had a normal recovery with no complications.
 

Dr. Pasic is professor of obstetrics, gynecology & women’s health; director of the section of advanced gynecologic endoscopy; and codirector of the AAGL fellowship in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery at the University of Louisville (Ky.). Dr. Pasic is the current president of the International Society of Gynecologic Endoscopy. He is also a past president of the AAGL (2009). Dr. Cesta is Dr. Pasic’s current fellow in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery as well as an instructor in obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Louisville. Dr. Pasic disclosed he is a consultant for Ethicon Endo, Medtronic, and Olympus and is a speaker for Cooper Surgical, which manufactures some of the instruments mentioned in this article. Dr. Cesta had no relevant financial disclosures.

It has now been 30 years since the first total laparoscopic hysterectomy was performed. The benefits of minimally invasive gynecologic surgery (MIGS) – and of minimally invasive hysterectomy specifically – are now well documented. Since this milestone procedure, both instrumentation and technique have improved significantly.

Physician experience is the most important determinant for which minimally invasive approach is used to perform hysterectomy. This includes traditional laparoscopy, as well as the robotically assisted laparoscopic approach. However, certain patient characteristics also may influence the choice. A uterus that is undescended, combined with a narrow introitus, for instance, can be a contributory factor in choosing to perform laparoscopic hysterectomy. Additionally, so can an extremely large uterus and an extremely high body mass index (BMI).

These latter two factors – a very large uterus (which we define as more than 15-16 weeks’ gestational size) and a BMI over 60 kg/m² – historically were considered to be contraindications to laparoscopic hysterectomy. But as the proficiency, comfort, and skill of a new generation of laparoscopic surgeons increases, the tide is shifting with respect to both morbid obesity and the very large uterus.

With growing experience and improved instrumentation, the majority of gynecologists who are fellowship-trained in MIGS are able to routinely and safely perform laparoscopic hysterectomy for uteri weighing 1-2 kg and in patients who have extreme morbid obesity. The literature, moreover, increasingly features case reports of laparoscopic removal of very large uteri and reviews/discussions of total laparoscopic hysterectomy being feasible.

In our own experience, total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) of the very large uterus can be safely and advantageously performed using key instruments and refinements in technique, as well as thorough patient counseling regarding the risk of unexpected sarcomas. Recently, we safely performed total laparoscopic hysterectomy for a patient with a uterus that – somewhat unexpectedly – weighed 7.4 kg.
 

Surgical pearls

Performing safe and effective total laparoscopic hysterectomy for large uteri – and for morbidly obese patients – hinges largely on modifications in entry and port placement, patient positioning, and choice of instrumentation. With these modifications, we can achieve adequate visualization of critical anatomy and can minimize bleeding. Otherwise, the surgery itself is largely the same. Here are the principles we find most helpful.

Entry and port placement

Traditionally, for TLHs, a camera port is placed at the umbilicus to provide a full view of the pelvis. For the larger uterus – and in women who are extremely obese – we aim to introduce the laparoscope higher. A reliable landmark is the Palmer’s point in the left upper quadrant. From here, we can identify areas for the placement of additional trocars.

In general, we place ancillary 5-mm ports more cephalad and lateral to the uterus than we otherwise would. Such placement facilitates effective visualization while accommodating manipulation of the uterus and allows us to avoid bleeding around the vascular upper pedicles. Overall, we have much better control through all parts of the surgery when we operate lateral to the uterus.
 

Patient positioning

In addition to the Trendelenburg position, we have adopted an “airplaning” technique for patients with a very large uterus in which the bed is tilted from side to side so that the left and right sides of the body are rotated upward as needed. This allows for gravitational-assisted retraction when it otherwise is not possible.

Instrumentation

For morbidly obese patients, we use Kii Fios advanced fixation trocars. These come in 5- and 10-mm sizes and are equipped with an intraperitoneal balloon that can be inflated to prevent sliding of the trocar out of the abdominal wall.

By far the most valuable instrument for the morbidly obese and the very large uterus is a 30-degree laparoscope. With our higher port placement as described, the 30-degree scope provides visualization of critical structures that wouldn’t be possible with a 0-degree scope.

The Rumi uterine manipulator comes with cups that come in different sizes and can fit around the cervix and help delineate the cervicouterine junction. We use this manipulator for all laparoscopic hysterectomies, but it is a must for the very large uterus.

Extensive desiccation of the utero-ovarian pedicles and uterine arteries is critical, and for this we advise using the rotating bipolar RoBi instrument. Use of the conventional bipolar instrument allows us to use targeted and anatomically guided application of energy. This ensures certainty that vessels whose limits exceed the diameter for advanced bipolar devices (typically 7 mm) are completely sealed. In-depth knowledge of pelvic anatomy and advanced laparoscopic dissection is paramount during these steps to ensure that vital structures are not damaged by the wider thermal spread of the traditional bipolar device. For cutting, the use of ultrasonic energy is important to prevent energy from spreading laterally.

Lastly, we recommend a good suction irrigator because, if bleeding occurs, it tends to be heavy because of the enlarged nature of feeding vasculature. When placed through an umbilical or suprapubic port, the suction irrigator also may be used to help with the rotational vectors and traction for further uterine manipulation.
 

Technique

Courtesy Dr. Paya Pasic

We usually operate from top to bottom, transecting the upper pedicles such as the infundibulopelvic (IP) ligaments or utero-ovarian ligaments first, rather than the round ligaments. This helps us achieve additional mobility of the uterus. Some surgeons believe that retroperitoneal dissection and ligation of the uterine arteries at their origin is essential, but we find that, with good uterine manipulation and the use of a 30-degree scope, we achieve adequate visualization for identifying the ureter and uterine artery on the sidewall and consequently do not need to dissect retroperitoneally.

When using the uterine manipulator with the colpotomy cup, the uterus is pushed upward, increasing the distance between the vaginal fornix and the ureters. Uterine arteries can easily be identified and desiccated using conventional bipolar energy. When the colpotomy cup is pushed cephalad, the application of the bipolar energy within the limits of the cup is safe. The thermal spread does not pose a threat to the ureters, which are displaced 1.5-2 cm laterally. Large fibroids often contribute to distorted anatomical planes, and a colpotomy cup provides a firm palpable surface between the cervix and vagina during dissection.

When dealing with large uteri, one must sometimes think outside the box and deviate from standard technique. For instance, in patients with distorted anatomy because of large fibroids, it helps to first control the pedicles that are most easily accessible. Sometimes it is acceptable to perform oophorectomy if the IP ligament is more accessible and the utero-ovarian pedicle is distorted by dilated veins and adherent to the uterus. After transection of each pedicle, we gain more mobility of the uterus and better visualization for the next step.

Inserting the camera through ancillary ports – a technique known as “port hopping” – helps to visualize and take down adhesions much better and more safely than using the camera from the umbilical port only. Port hopping with a 30-degree laparoscope helps to obtain a 360-degree view of adhesions and anatomy, which is exceedingly helpful in cases in which crucial anatomical structures are within close proximity of one another.

In general it is more challenging to perform TLH on a patient with a broad uterus or a patient with low posterior fibroids that are occupying the pelvis than on a patient with fibroids in the upper abdomen. The main challenge for the surgeon is to safely secure the uterine arteries and control the blood supply to the uterus.

Access to the pelvic sidewall is obtained with the combination of 30-degree scope, uterine manipulator, and the suction irrigator introduced through the midline port; the cervix and uterus are deviated upward. Instead of the suction irrigator or blunt dissector used for internal uterine manipulation, some surgeons use myoma screws or a 5-mm single-tooth tenaculum to manipulate a large uterus. Both of those instruments are valuable and work well, but often a large uterus requires extensive manipulation. Repositioning of any sharp instruments that pierce the serosa can often lead to additional blood loss. It is preferable to avoid this blood loss on a large uterus at all costs because it can be brisk and stains the surgical pedicles, making the remainder of the procedure unnecessarily difficult.

Once the uterine arteries are desiccated, if fibroids are obscuring the view, the corpus of the uterus can be detached from the cervix as in supracervical hysterectomy fashion. From there, the uterus can be placed in the upper abdomen while colpotomy can be performed.

In patients with multiple fibroids, we do not recommend performing myomectomy first, unless the fibroid is pedunculated and on a very small stalk. Improved uterine manipulation and retroperitoneal dissection are preferred over myomectomy to safely complete hysterectomy for the broad uterus. In our opinion, any attempt at myomectomy would lead to unnecessary blood loss and additional operative time with minimal benefit.

In patients with fibroids that grow into the broad ligament and pelvic sidewall, the natural course of the ureter becomes displaced laterally. This is contrary to the popular misconception that the ureter is more medially located in the setting of broad-ligament fibroids. To ensure safe access to the uterine arteries, the vesicouterine peritoneum can be incised and extended cephalad along the broad ligament and, then, using the above-mentioned technique, by pushing the uterus and the fibroid to the contralateral side via the suction irrigator, the uterine arteries can be easily accessed.

Another useful technique is to use diluted vasopressin injected into the lower pole of the uterus to cause vasoconstriction and minimize the bleeding. The concentration is 1 cc of 20 units of vasopressin in 100-400 cc of saline. This technique is very useful for myomectomies, and some surgeons find it also helpful for hysterectomy. The plasma half-life of vasopressin is 10-20 minutes, and a large quantity is needed to help with vasoconstriction in a big uterus. The safe upper limits of vasopressin dosing are not firmly established. A fibroid uterus with aberrant vasculature may require a greater-than-acceptable dose to control bleeding.

It is important to ensure that patients have an optimized hemoglobin level preoperatively. We use a hemoglobin level of 8 g/dL as a lowest cutoff value for performing TLH without preoperative transfusion. Regarding bowel preparation, neither the literature nor our own experience support its value, so we typically do not use it.
 

Morcellation and patient counseling

Courtesy Dr. Paya Pasic

Uteri up to 12 weeks’ gestational size usually can be extracted transvaginally, and most uteri regardless of size can be morcellated and extracted through the vagina, providing that the vaginal fornix is accessible from below. In some cases, such as when the apex is too high, a minilaparotomic incision is needed to extract the uterus, or when available, power morcellation can be performed.

A major challenge, given our growing ability to laparoscopically remove very larger uteri, is that uteri heavier than about 2.5 kg in weight cannot be morcellated inside a morcellation bag. The risk of upstaging a known or suspected uterine malignancy, or of spreading an unknown malignant sarcoma (presumed benign myoma), should be incorporated in each patient’s decision making.

Thorough counseling about surgical options and on the risks of morcellating a very large uterus without containment in a bag is essential. Each patient must understand the risks and decide whether the benefits of minimally invasive surgery outweigh these risks. While MRI can sometimes provide increased suspicion of a leiomyosarcoma, malignancy can never be completed excluded preoperatively.
 

Removal of a 7.4-kg uterus

Our patient was a 44-year-old with a markedly enlarged fibroid uterus. Having been told by other providers that she was not a candidate for minimally invasive hysterectomy, she had delayed surgical management for a number of years, allowing for such a generous uterine size to develop.

The patient was knowledgeable about her condition and, given her comorbid obesity, she requested a minimally invasive approach. Preoperative imaging included an ultrasound, which had to be completed abdominally because of the size of her uterus, and an additional MRI was needed to further characterize the extent and nature of her uterus. A very detailed discussion regarding risk of leiomyosarcoma, operative complications, and conversion to laparotomy ensued.

Intraoperatively, we placed the first 5 mm port in the left upper quadrant initially to survey the anatomy for feasibility of laparoscopic hysterectomy. The left utero-ovarian pedicle was easily viewed by airplaning the bed alone. While the right utero-ovarian pedicle was much more skewed and enlarged, the right IP was easily accessible and the ureter well visualized.

The decision was made to place additional ports and proceed with laparoscopic hysterectomy. The 5-mm assistant ports were placed lateral and directly above the upper vascular pedicles. Operative time was 4 hours and 12 minutes, and blood loss was only 700 cc. Her preoperative hemoglobin was optimized at 13.3 g/dL and dropped to 11.3 g/dL postoperatively. The patient was discharged home the next morning and had a normal recovery with no complications.
 

Dr. Pasic is professor of obstetrics, gynecology & women’s health; director of the section of advanced gynecologic endoscopy; and codirector of the AAGL fellowship in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery at the University of Louisville (Ky.). Dr. Pasic is the current president of the International Society of Gynecologic Endoscopy. He is also a past president of the AAGL (2009). Dr. Cesta is Dr. Pasic’s current fellow in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery as well as an instructor in obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Louisville. Dr. Pasic disclosed he is a consultant for Ethicon Endo, Medtronic, and Olympus and is a speaker for Cooper Surgical, which manufactures some of the instruments mentioned in this article. Dr. Cesta had no relevant financial disclosures.

It has now been 30 years since the first total laparoscopic hysterectomy was performed. The benefits of minimally invasive gynecologic surgery (MIGS) – and of minimally invasive hysterectomy specifically – are now well documented. Since this milestone procedure, both instrumentation and technique have improved significantly.

Physician experience is the most important determinant for which minimally invasive approach is used to perform hysterectomy. This includes traditional laparoscopy, as well as the robotically assisted laparoscopic approach. However, certain patient characteristics also may influence the choice. A uterus that is undescended, combined with a narrow introitus, for instance, can be a contributory factor in choosing to perform laparoscopic hysterectomy. Additionally, so can an extremely large uterus and an extremely high body mass index (BMI).

These latter two factors – a very large uterus (which we define as more than 15-16 weeks’ gestational size) and a BMI over 60 kg/m² – historically were considered to be contraindications to laparoscopic hysterectomy. But as the proficiency, comfort, and skill of a new generation of laparoscopic surgeons increases, the tide is shifting with respect to both morbid obesity and the very large uterus.

With growing experience and improved instrumentation, the majority of gynecologists who are fellowship-trained in MIGS are able to routinely and safely perform laparoscopic hysterectomy for uteri weighing 1-2 kg and in patients who have extreme morbid obesity. The literature, moreover, increasingly features case reports of laparoscopic removal of very large uteri and reviews/discussions of total laparoscopic hysterectomy being feasible.

In our own experience, total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) of the very large uterus can be safely and advantageously performed using key instruments and refinements in technique, as well as thorough patient counseling regarding the risk of unexpected sarcomas. Recently, we safely performed total laparoscopic hysterectomy for a patient with a uterus that – somewhat unexpectedly – weighed 7.4 kg.
 

Surgical pearls

Performing safe and effective total laparoscopic hysterectomy for large uteri – and for morbidly obese patients – hinges largely on modifications in entry and port placement, patient positioning, and choice of instrumentation. With these modifications, we can achieve adequate visualization of critical anatomy and can minimize bleeding. Otherwise, the surgery itself is largely the same. Here are the principles we find most helpful.

Entry and port placement

Traditionally, for TLHs, a camera port is placed at the umbilicus to provide a full view of the pelvis. For the larger uterus – and in women who are extremely obese – we aim to introduce the laparoscope higher. A reliable landmark is the Palmer’s point in the left upper quadrant. From here, we can identify areas for the placement of additional trocars.

In general, we place ancillary 5-mm ports more cephalad and lateral to the uterus than we otherwise would. Such placement facilitates effective visualization while accommodating manipulation of the uterus and allows us to avoid bleeding around the vascular upper pedicles. Overall, we have much better control through all parts of the surgery when we operate lateral to the uterus.
 

Patient positioning

In addition to the Trendelenburg position, we have adopted an “airplaning” technique for patients with a very large uterus in which the bed is tilted from side to side so that the left and right sides of the body are rotated upward as needed. This allows for gravitational-assisted retraction when it otherwise is not possible.

Instrumentation

For morbidly obese patients, we use Kii Fios advanced fixation trocars. These come in 5- and 10-mm sizes and are equipped with an intraperitoneal balloon that can be inflated to prevent sliding of the trocar out of the abdominal wall.

By far the most valuable instrument for the morbidly obese and the very large uterus is a 30-degree laparoscope. With our higher port placement as described, the 30-degree scope provides visualization of critical structures that wouldn’t be possible with a 0-degree scope.

The Rumi uterine manipulator comes with cups that come in different sizes and can fit around the cervix and help delineate the cervicouterine junction. We use this manipulator for all laparoscopic hysterectomies, but it is a must for the very large uterus.

Extensive desiccation of the utero-ovarian pedicles and uterine arteries is critical, and for this we advise using the rotating bipolar RoBi instrument. Use of the conventional bipolar instrument allows us to use targeted and anatomically guided application of energy. This ensures certainty that vessels whose limits exceed the diameter for advanced bipolar devices (typically 7 mm) are completely sealed. In-depth knowledge of pelvic anatomy and advanced laparoscopic dissection is paramount during these steps to ensure that vital structures are not damaged by the wider thermal spread of the traditional bipolar device. For cutting, the use of ultrasonic energy is important to prevent energy from spreading laterally.

Lastly, we recommend a good suction irrigator because, if bleeding occurs, it tends to be heavy because of the enlarged nature of feeding vasculature. When placed through an umbilical or suprapubic port, the suction irrigator also may be used to help with the rotational vectors and traction for further uterine manipulation.
 

Technique

Courtesy Dr. Paya Pasic

We usually operate from top to bottom, transecting the upper pedicles such as the infundibulopelvic (IP) ligaments or utero-ovarian ligaments first, rather than the round ligaments. This helps us achieve additional mobility of the uterus. Some surgeons believe that retroperitoneal dissection and ligation of the uterine arteries at their origin is essential, but we find that, with good uterine manipulation and the use of a 30-degree scope, we achieve adequate visualization for identifying the ureter and uterine artery on the sidewall and consequently do not need to dissect retroperitoneally.

When using the uterine manipulator with the colpotomy cup, the uterus is pushed upward, increasing the distance between the vaginal fornix and the ureters. Uterine arteries can easily be identified and desiccated using conventional bipolar energy. When the colpotomy cup is pushed cephalad, the application of the bipolar energy within the limits of the cup is safe. The thermal spread does not pose a threat to the ureters, which are displaced 1.5-2 cm laterally. Large fibroids often contribute to distorted anatomical planes, and a colpotomy cup provides a firm palpable surface between the cervix and vagina during dissection.

When dealing with large uteri, one must sometimes think outside the box and deviate from standard technique. For instance, in patients with distorted anatomy because of large fibroids, it helps to first control the pedicles that are most easily accessible. Sometimes it is acceptable to perform oophorectomy if the IP ligament is more accessible and the utero-ovarian pedicle is distorted by dilated veins and adherent to the uterus. After transection of each pedicle, we gain more mobility of the uterus and better visualization for the next step.

Inserting the camera through ancillary ports – a technique known as “port hopping” – helps to visualize and take down adhesions much better and more safely than using the camera from the umbilical port only. Port hopping with a 30-degree laparoscope helps to obtain a 360-degree view of adhesions and anatomy, which is exceedingly helpful in cases in which crucial anatomical structures are within close proximity of one another.

In general it is more challenging to perform TLH on a patient with a broad uterus or a patient with low posterior fibroids that are occupying the pelvis than on a patient with fibroids in the upper abdomen. The main challenge for the surgeon is to safely secure the uterine arteries and control the blood supply to the uterus.

Access to the pelvic sidewall is obtained with the combination of 30-degree scope, uterine manipulator, and the suction irrigator introduced through the midline port; the cervix and uterus are deviated upward. Instead of the suction irrigator or blunt dissector used for internal uterine manipulation, some surgeons use myoma screws or a 5-mm single-tooth tenaculum to manipulate a large uterus. Both of those instruments are valuable and work well, but often a large uterus requires extensive manipulation. Repositioning of any sharp instruments that pierce the serosa can often lead to additional blood loss. It is preferable to avoid this blood loss on a large uterus at all costs because it can be brisk and stains the surgical pedicles, making the remainder of the procedure unnecessarily difficult.

Once the uterine arteries are desiccated, if fibroids are obscuring the view, the corpus of the uterus can be detached from the cervix as in supracervical hysterectomy fashion. From there, the uterus can be placed in the upper abdomen while colpotomy can be performed.

In patients with multiple fibroids, we do not recommend performing myomectomy first, unless the fibroid is pedunculated and on a very small stalk. Improved uterine manipulation and retroperitoneal dissection are preferred over myomectomy to safely complete hysterectomy for the broad uterus. In our opinion, any attempt at myomectomy would lead to unnecessary blood loss and additional operative time with minimal benefit.

In patients with fibroids that grow into the broad ligament and pelvic sidewall, the natural course of the ureter becomes displaced laterally. This is contrary to the popular misconception that the ureter is more medially located in the setting of broad-ligament fibroids. To ensure safe access to the uterine arteries, the vesicouterine peritoneum can be incised and extended cephalad along the broad ligament and, then, using the above-mentioned technique, by pushing the uterus and the fibroid to the contralateral side via the suction irrigator, the uterine arteries can be easily accessed.

Another useful technique is to use diluted vasopressin injected into the lower pole of the uterus to cause vasoconstriction and minimize the bleeding. The concentration is 1 cc of 20 units of vasopressin in 100-400 cc of saline. This technique is very useful for myomectomies, and some surgeons find it also helpful for hysterectomy. The plasma half-life of vasopressin is 10-20 minutes, and a large quantity is needed to help with vasoconstriction in a big uterus. The safe upper limits of vasopressin dosing are not firmly established. A fibroid uterus with aberrant vasculature may require a greater-than-acceptable dose to control bleeding.

It is important to ensure that patients have an optimized hemoglobin level preoperatively. We use a hemoglobin level of 8 g/dL as a lowest cutoff value for performing TLH without preoperative transfusion. Regarding bowel preparation, neither the literature nor our own experience support its value, so we typically do not use it.
 

Morcellation and patient counseling

Courtesy Dr. Paya Pasic

Uteri up to 12 weeks’ gestational size usually can be extracted transvaginally, and most uteri regardless of size can be morcellated and extracted through the vagina, providing that the vaginal fornix is accessible from below. In some cases, such as when the apex is too high, a minilaparotomic incision is needed to extract the uterus, or when available, power morcellation can be performed.

A major challenge, given our growing ability to laparoscopically remove very larger uteri, is that uteri heavier than about 2.5 kg in weight cannot be morcellated inside a morcellation bag. The risk of upstaging a known or suspected uterine malignancy, or of spreading an unknown malignant sarcoma (presumed benign myoma), should be incorporated in each patient’s decision making.

Thorough counseling about surgical options and on the risks of morcellating a very large uterus without containment in a bag is essential. Each patient must understand the risks and decide whether the benefits of minimally invasive surgery outweigh these risks. While MRI can sometimes provide increased suspicion of a leiomyosarcoma, malignancy can never be completed excluded preoperatively.
 

Removal of a 7.4-kg uterus

Our patient was a 44-year-old with a markedly enlarged fibroid uterus. Having been told by other providers that she was not a candidate for minimally invasive hysterectomy, she had delayed surgical management for a number of years, allowing for such a generous uterine size to develop.

The patient was knowledgeable about her condition and, given her comorbid obesity, she requested a minimally invasive approach. Preoperative imaging included an ultrasound, which had to be completed abdominally because of the size of her uterus, and an additional MRI was needed to further characterize the extent and nature of her uterus. A very detailed discussion regarding risk of leiomyosarcoma, operative complications, and conversion to laparotomy ensued.

Intraoperatively, we placed the first 5 mm port in the left upper quadrant initially to survey the anatomy for feasibility of laparoscopic hysterectomy. The left utero-ovarian pedicle was easily viewed by airplaning the bed alone. While the right utero-ovarian pedicle was much more skewed and enlarged, the right IP was easily accessible and the ureter well visualized.

The decision was made to place additional ports and proceed with laparoscopic hysterectomy. The 5-mm assistant ports were placed lateral and directly above the upper vascular pedicles. Operative time was 4 hours and 12 minutes, and blood loss was only 700 cc. Her preoperative hemoglobin was optimized at 13.3 g/dL and dropped to 11.3 g/dL postoperatively. The patient was discharged home the next morning and had a normal recovery with no complications.
 

Dr. Pasic is professor of obstetrics, gynecology & women’s health; director of the section of advanced gynecologic endoscopy; and codirector of the AAGL fellowship in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery at the University of Louisville (Ky.). Dr. Pasic is the current president of the International Society of Gynecologic Endoscopy. He is also a past president of the AAGL (2009). Dr. Cesta is Dr. Pasic’s current fellow in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery as well as an instructor in obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Louisville. Dr. Pasic disclosed he is a consultant for Ethicon Endo, Medtronic, and Olympus and is a speaker for Cooper Surgical, which manufactures some of the instruments mentioned in this article. Dr. Cesta had no relevant financial disclosures.

In his excellent treatise on the history of hysterectomy, Chris Sutton, MBBch, noted that, while Themison of Athens in 50 bc and Soranus of Ephesus in 120 ad were reported to have performed vaginal hysterectomy, these cases essentially were emergency amputation of severely prolapsed uteri, which usually involved cutting both ureters and the bladder (J Minim Invas Gynecol. 2010 Jul;17[4]:421–35). It was not until 1801 that the first planned elective vaginal hysterectomy was performed, and it was not until the mid 19th century, in 1853, that Walter Burnham, MD, in Lowell, Mass., performed the first abdominal hysterectomy resulting in patient survival.

Seemingly incredible, it was only 125 years later, in autumn of 1988 at William Nesbitt Memorial Hospital in Kingston, Pa., that Harry Reich, MD, performed the first total laparoscopically assisted hysterectomy.

Since Dr. Reich’s groundbreaking procedure, the performance of laparoscopic hysterectomy has advanced at a feverish pace. In my own practice, I have not performed an abdominal hysterectomy since 1998. My two partners, who are both fellowship-trained in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery (MIGS), Aarathi Cholkeri-Singh, MD, who joined my practice in 2007, and Kristen Sasaki, MD, who joined my practice in 2014, have never performed an open hysterectomy since starting practice. Despite these advances, a minimally invasive approach to hysterectomy is not without challenge. One of the most difficult situations is the truly large uterus – greater than 2,500 grams.

For this edition of the Master Class in Gynecologic Surgery, I have enlisted the assistance of Paya Pasic, MD, and Megan Cesta, MD, to discuss the next frontier: the removal of the multiple kilogram uterus.

Dr. Pasic is an internationally recognized leader in laparoscopic MIGS. He is professor of obstetrics, gynecology & women’s health; director, section of advanced gynecologic endoscopy, and codirector of the AAGL fellowship in MIGS at the University of Louisville (Ky.). Dr. Pasic is the current president of the International Society of Gynecologic Endoscopy. He is also a past president of the AAGL (2009). Dr. Pasic is published in the field of MIGS, having authored many publications, book chapters, monographs, and textbooks.

Dr. Cesta is Dr. Pasic’s current fellow in MIGS and an instructor in obstetrics and gynecology at the university.

It is truly a pleasure to welcome Dr. Pasic and Dr. Cesta to this edition of the Master Class in Gynecologic Surgery.

Dr. Miller is a clinical associate professor at the University of Illinois in Chicago and past president of the AAGL. He is a reproductive endocrinologist and minimally invasive gynecologic surgeon in metropolitan Chicago and the director of minimally invasive gynecologic surgery at Advocate Lutheran General Hospital, Park Ridge, Ill. He has no disclosures relevant to this Master Class. Email him at obnews@mdedge.com.

In his excellent treatise on the history of hysterectomy, Chris Sutton, MBBch, noted that, while Themison of Athens in 50 bc and Soranus of Ephesus in 120 ad were reported to have performed vaginal hysterectomy, these cases essentially were emergency amputation of severely prolapsed uteri, which usually involved cutting both ureters and the bladder (J Minim Invas Gynecol. 2010 Jul;17[4]:421–35). It was not until 1801 that the first planned elective vaginal hysterectomy was performed, and it was not until the mid 19th century, in 1853, that Walter Burnham, MD, in Lowell, Mass., performed the first abdominal hysterectomy resulting in patient survival.

Seemingly incredible, it was only 125 years later, in autumn of 1988 at William Nesbitt Memorial Hospital in Kingston, Pa., that Harry Reich, MD, performed the first total laparoscopically assisted hysterectomy.

Since Dr. Reich’s groundbreaking procedure, the performance of laparoscopic hysterectomy has advanced at a feverish pace. In my own practice, I have not performed an abdominal hysterectomy since 1998. My two partners, who are both fellowship-trained in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery (MIGS), Aarathi Cholkeri-Singh, MD, who joined my practice in 2007, and Kristen Sasaki, MD, who joined my practice in 2014, have never performed an open hysterectomy since starting practice. Despite these advances, a minimally invasive approach to hysterectomy is not without challenge. One of the most difficult situations is the truly large uterus – greater than 2,500 grams.

For this edition of the Master Class in Gynecologic Surgery, I have enlisted the assistance of Paya Pasic, MD, and Megan Cesta, MD, to discuss the next frontier: the removal of the multiple kilogram uterus.

Dr. Pasic is an internationally recognized leader in laparoscopic MIGS. He is professor of obstetrics, gynecology & women’s health; director, section of advanced gynecologic endoscopy, and codirector of the AAGL fellowship in MIGS at the University of Louisville (Ky.). Dr. Pasic is the current president of the International Society of Gynecologic Endoscopy. He is also a past president of the AAGL (2009). Dr. Pasic is published in the field of MIGS, having authored many publications, book chapters, monographs, and textbooks.

Dr. Cesta is Dr. Pasic’s current fellow in MIGS and an instructor in obstetrics and gynecology at the university.

It is truly a pleasure to welcome Dr. Pasic and Dr. Cesta to this edition of the Master Class in Gynecologic Surgery.

Dr. Miller is a clinical associate professor at the University of Illinois in Chicago and past president of the AAGL. He is a reproductive endocrinologist and minimally invasive gynecologic surgeon in metropolitan Chicago and the director of minimally invasive gynecologic surgery at Advocate Lutheran General Hospital, Park Ridge, Ill. He has no disclosures relevant to this Master Class. Email him at obnews@mdedge.com.

In his excellent treatise on the history of hysterectomy, Chris Sutton, MBBch, noted that, while Themison of Athens in 50 bc and Soranus of Ephesus in 120 ad were reported to have performed vaginal hysterectomy, these cases essentially were emergency amputation of severely prolapsed uteri, which usually involved cutting both ureters and the bladder (J Minim Invas Gynecol. 2010 Jul;17[4]:421–35). It was not until 1801 that the first planned elective vaginal hysterectomy was performed, and it was not until the mid 19th century, in 1853, that Walter Burnham, MD, in Lowell, Mass., performed the first abdominal hysterectomy resulting in patient survival.

Seemingly incredible, it was only 125 years later, in autumn of 1988 at William Nesbitt Memorial Hospital in Kingston, Pa., that Harry Reich, MD, performed the first total laparoscopically assisted hysterectomy.

Since Dr. Reich’s groundbreaking procedure, the performance of laparoscopic hysterectomy has advanced at a feverish pace. In my own practice, I have not performed an abdominal hysterectomy since 1998. My two partners, who are both fellowship-trained in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery (MIGS), Aarathi Cholkeri-Singh, MD, who joined my practice in 2007, and Kristen Sasaki, MD, who joined my practice in 2014, have never performed an open hysterectomy since starting practice. Despite these advances, a minimally invasive approach to hysterectomy is not without challenge. One of the most difficult situations is the truly large uterus – greater than 2,500 grams.

For this edition of the Master Class in Gynecologic Surgery, I have enlisted the assistance of Paya Pasic, MD, and Megan Cesta, MD, to discuss the next frontier: the removal of the multiple kilogram uterus.

Dr. Pasic is an internationally recognized leader in laparoscopic MIGS. He is professor of obstetrics, gynecology & women’s health; director, section of advanced gynecologic endoscopy, and codirector of the AAGL fellowship in MIGS at the University of Louisville (Ky.). Dr. Pasic is the current president of the International Society of Gynecologic Endoscopy. He is also a past president of the AAGL (2009). Dr. Pasic is published in the field of MIGS, having authored many publications, book chapters, monographs, and textbooks.

Dr. Cesta is Dr. Pasic’s current fellow in MIGS and an instructor in obstetrics and gynecology at the university.

It is truly a pleasure to welcome Dr. Pasic and Dr. Cesta to this edition of the Master Class in Gynecologic Surgery.

Dr. Miller is a clinical associate professor at the University of Illinois in Chicago and past president of the AAGL. He is a reproductive endocrinologist and minimally invasive gynecologic surgeon in metropolitan Chicago and the director of minimally invasive gynecologic surgery at Advocate Lutheran General Hospital, Park Ridge, Ill. He has no disclosures relevant to this Master Class. Email him at obnews@mdedge.com.

Sequencing Therapies

Mark Klein, MD. The last few years, there have been several new trials in prostate cancer for people in a metastatic setting or more advanced local setting, such as the STAMPEDE, LATITUDE, and CHAARTED trials.^1-4 In addition, recently a few trials have examined apalutamide and enzalutamide for people who have had PSA (prostate-specific antigen) levels rapidly rising within about 10 months or so. One of the questions that arises is, how do we wrap our heads around sequencing these therapies. Is there a sequence that we should be doing and thinking about upfront and how do the different trials compare?

Julie Graff, MD. It just got more complicated. There was news today (December 20, 2018) that using enzalutamide early on in newly diagnosed metastatic prostate cancer may have positive results. It is not yet approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), but for patients who present with metastatic prostate cancer, we may have 4 potential treatments. We could have androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) alone, ADT plus docetaxel, enzalutamide, or abiraterone.

When I see patients in this situation, I talk to them about their options, the pros and cons of each option, and try to cover all the trials that look at these combinations. It can be quite a long visit. I talk to the patient about who benefits most, whether it is patients with high-risk factors or high-volume cancers. Also, I talk with the patient about all the adverse effects (AEs), and I look at my patients’ comorbid conditions and come up with a plan.

I encourage any patient who has high-volume or high-risk disease to consider more than just ADT alone. For many patients, I have been using abiraterone plus ADT. I have a wonderful pharmacist. As a medical oncologist, I can’t do it on my own. I need someone to follow patients’ laboratory results and to be available for medication questions and complications.

Elizabeth Hansen, PharmD. With the increasing number of patients on oral antineoplastics, monitoring patients in the outpatient setting has become an increasing priority and one of my major roles as a pharmacist in the clinic at the Chalmers P. Wylie VA Ambulatory Care Center in Columbus, Ohio. This is especially important as some of these treatments require frequent laboratory monitoring, such as abiraterone with liver function tests every 2 weeks for the first 3 months of treatment and monthly thereafter. Without frequent-follow up it’s easy for these patients to get lost in the shuffle.

Abhishek Solanki, MD. You could argue that a fifth option is prostate-directed radiation for patients who have limited metastases based on the STAMPEDE trial, which we’ve started integrating into our practice at the Edward Hines, Jr. Veterans Affairs Hospital in Chicago, Illinois.⁴

Mark Klein. Do you have a feel for the data and using radiation in oligometastatic (≤ 5 metastatic tumors) disease in prostate cancer and how well that might work?

Abhishek Solanki. The best data we have are from the multi-arm, multistage STAMPEDE trial systemic therapies and local therapy in the setting of high-risk localized disease and metastatic disease.⁶ The most recent publication looked specifically at the population with newly diagnosed metastatic disease and compared standard ADT (and docetaxel in about 18% of the patients) with or without prostate-directed radiation therapy. There was no survival benefit with radiation in the overall population, but in the subgroup of patients with low metastatic burden, there was an 8% survival benefit at 3 years.

It’s difficult to know what to make of that information because, as we’ve discussed already, there are other systemic therapy options that are being used more and more upfront such as abiraterone. Can you see the same benefit of radiation in that setting? The flip side is that in this study, radiation just targeted the prostate; could survival be improved even more by targeting all sites of disease in patients with oligometastatic disease? These are still open questions in prostate cancer and there are clinical trials attempting to define the clinical benefit of radiation in the metastatic setting for patients with limited metastases.

Mark Klein. How do you select patients for radiation in this particular situation; How do you approach stratification when radiation is started upfront?

Abhishek Solanki. In the STAMPEDE trial, low metastatic burden was defined based on the definition in the CHAARTED trial, which was those patients who did not have ≥ 4 bone metastases with ≥ 1 outside the vertebral bodies or pelvis, and did not have visceral metastases.⁷ That’s tough, because this definition could be a patient with a solitary bone metastasis but also could include some patients who have involved nodes extending all the way up to the retroperitoneal nodes—that is a fairly heterogeneous population. What we have done at our institution is select patients who have 3 to 5 metastases, administer prostate radiation therapy, and add stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for the other sites of disease, invoking the oligometastasis approach.

We have been doing this more frequently in the last few months. Typically, we’ll do 3 to 5 fractions of SBRT to metastases. For the primary, if the patient chooses SBRT, we’ll take that approach. If the patient chooses a more standard fractionation, we’ll do 20 treatments, but from a logistic perspective, most patients would rather come in for 5 treatments than 20. We also typically would start these patients on systemic hormonal therapy.

Mark Klein. At that point, are they referred back to medical oncology for surveillance?

Abhishek Solanki. Yes, they are followed by medical oncology and radiation oncology, and typically would continue hormonal therapy.

Mark Klein. Julie, how have you thought about presenting the therapeutic options for those patients who would be either eligible for docetaxel with high-bulk disease or abiraterone? Do you find patients prefer one or the other?

Julie Graff. I try to be very open about all the possibilities, and I present both. I don’t just decide for the patient chemotherapy vs abiraterone, but after we talk about it, most of my patients do opt for the abiraterone. I had a patient referred from the community—we are seeing more and more of this because abiraterone is so expensive—whose ejection fraction was about 38%. I said to that patient, “we could do chemotherapy, but we shouldn’t do abiraterone.” But usually it’s not that clear-cut.

Elizabeth Hansen. There was also an update from the STAMPEDE trial published recently comparing upfront abiraterone and prednisone to docetaxel (18 weeks) in advanced or metastatic prostate cancer. Results from this trial indicated a nearly identical overall survival (OS) (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.16; 95% CI, 0.82-1.65; P = .40). However, the failure-free survival (HR = 0.51; 95% CI, 0.39-0.67; P < .001) and progression-free survival (PFS) (HR= 0.65; 95% CI, 0.0.48-0.88; P = .005) favored abiraterone.^8,9 The authors argue that while there was no change in OS, this trial demonstrates an important difference in the pattern of treatment failure.

Julie, do you think there will be any change in the treatment paradigm between docetaxel and abiraterone with this new update?

Julie Graff. I wasn’t that impressed by that study. I do not see it as practice changing, and it makes sense to me that the PFS is different in the 2 arms because we give chemotherapy and take a break vs giving abiraterone indefinitely. For me, there’s not really a shift.

Patients With Rising PSAs

Mark Klein. Let’s discuss the data from the recent studies on enzalutamide and apalutamide for the patients with fast-rising PSAs. In your discussions with other prostate researchers, will this become a standard part of practice or not?

Julie Graff. I was one of the authors on the SPARTAN apalutamide study.¹⁰ For a long time, we have had patients without metastatic disease but with a PSA relapse after surgery or radiation; and the PSA levels climb when the cancer becomes resistant to ADT. We haven’t had many options in that setting except to use bicalutamide and some older androgen receptor (AR) antagonists. We used to use estrogen and ketoconazole as well.

But now 2 studies have come out looking at a primary endpoint of metastases-free survival. Patients whose PSA was doubling every 10 months or shorter were randomized to either apalutamide (SPARTAN¹⁰) or enzalutamide (PROSPER¹¹), both second-generation AR antagonists. There was a placebo control arm in each of the studies. Both studies found that adding the second-generation AR targeting agent delayed the time to metastatic disease by about 2 years. There is not any signal yet for statistically significant OS benefit, so it is not entirely clear if you could wait for the first metastasis to develop and then give 1 of these treatments and have the same OS benefit.

At the VA Portland Health Care System (VAPORHCS), it took a while to make these drugs available. My fellows were excited to give these drugs right away, but I often counsel patients that we don’t know if the second-generation AR targeting agents will improve survival. They almost certainly will bring down PSAs, which helps with peace of mind, but anything we add to the ADT can cause more AEs.

I have been cautious with second-generation AR antagonists because patients, when they take one of these drugs, are going to be on it for a long time. The FDA has approved those 2 drugs regardless of PSA doubling time, but I would not give it for a PSA doubling time > 10 months. In my practice about a quarter of patients who would qualify for apalutamide or enzalutamide are actually taking one, and the others are monitored closely with computed tomography (CT) and bone scans. When the disease becomes metastatic, then we start those drugs.

Mark Klein. Why 10 months, why not 6 months, a year, or 18 months? Is there reasoning behind that?

Julie Graff. There was a publication by Matthew Smith showing that the PSA doubling time was predictive of the development of metastatic disease and cancer death or prostate cancer death, and that 10 months seemed to be the cutoff between when the prostate cancer was going to become deadly vs not.¹² If you actually look at the trial data, I think the PSA doubling time was between 3 and 4 months for the participants, so pretty short.

Adverse Effects

Mark Klein. What are the AEs people are seeing from using apalutamide, enzalutamide, and abiraterone? What are they seeing in their practice vs what is in the studies? When I have had to stop people on abiraterone or drop down the dose, almost always it has been for fatigue. We check liver function tests (LFTs) repeatedly, but I can’t remember ever having to drop down the dose or take it away even for that reason.

Elizabeth Hansen. The toxicities of these 3 agents are very different. In my practice I have seen a few patients develop hepatotoxicity with abiraterone, and I think this reflects the known incidence of transaminitis (grade 3/4) seen in clinical trials, reported at 6%. Generally, we’ve been able to restart treatment by withholding abiraterone until liver function returns to baseline and then subsequently dose reducing. Like Julie mentioned, abiraterone should be used with caution and/or avoided in patients with serious cardiac disease, recent myocardial infarction, or heart failure. I also always check blood pressure history, to ensure it is well controlled prior to initiation, and order a home blood pressure cuff for monitoring. With enzalutamide one of the main concerns is fatigue, which occurred in > 10% of patients in clinical trials. In my experience this has been dose limiting and can be managed with dose reductions. Seizures also occurred in 0.4% of patients on enzalutamide, so I always ask about seizure history and screen the medication list for concomitant medications that may lower the seizure threshold or other risk factors such as brain metastasis. Last, enzalutamide is a strong CYP3A4 inducer, so there is a strong possibility for drug interactions with other medications, and it is associated with increased cardiac events. With apalutamide you have the cardiac concerns, thyroid dysfunction, fracture risk, and drug interactions to worry about as well. To be honest, we have not used this agent yet at my practice.

Mark Klein. At the Minneapolis VA Health Care System (MVAHCS) when apalutamide first came out, for the PSA rapid doubling, there had already been an abstract presenting the enzalutamide data. We have chosen to recommend enzalutamide as our choice for the people with PSA doubling based on the cost. It’s significantly cheaper for the VA. Between the 2 papers there is very little difference in the efficacy data. I’m wondering what other sites have done with regard to that specific point at their VAs?

Elizabeth Hansen. In Columbus, we prefer to use either abiraterone and enzalutamide because they’re essentially cost neutral. However, this may change with generic abiraterone coming to market. Apalutamide is really cost prohibitive currently.

Julie Graff. I agree.

Patient Education

Mark Klein. At MVAHCS, the navigators handle a lot of upfront education. We have 3 navigators, including Kathleen Nelson who is on this roundtable. She works with patients and provides much of the patient education. How have you handled education for patients?

Kathleen Nelson. For the most part, our pharmacists do the drug-specific education for the oral agents, and the nurse navigators provide more generic education. We did a trial for patients on IV therapies. We learned that patients really don’t report in much detail, but if you call and ask them specific questions, then you can tease out some more detail.

Elizabeth Hansen. It is interesting that every site is different. One of my main roles is oral antineoplastic monitoring, which includes many patients on enzalutamide or abiraterone. At least initially with these patients, I try to follow them closely—abiraterone more so than enzalutamide. I typically call every 2 to 4 weeks, in between clinic visits, to follow up the laboratory tests and manage the AEs. I always try to ask direct and open-ended questions: How often are you checking your blood pressure? What is your current weight? How has your energy level changed since therapy initiation?

The VA telehealth system is amazing. For patients who need to monitor blood pressure regularly, it’s really nice for them to have those numbers come directly back to me in CPRS (Computerized Patient Record System). That has worked wonders for some of our patients to get them through therapy.

Mark Klein. What do you tend to use when the prostate cancer is progressing for a patient? And how do you determine that progression? Some studies will use PSA rise only as a marker for progression. Other studies have not used PSA rise as the only marker for progression and oftentimes require some sort of bone scan criteria or CT imaging criteria for progression.

Julie Graff. We have a limited number of treatment options. Providers typically use enzalutamide or abiraterone as there is a high degree of resistance between the 2. Then there is chemotherapy and then radium, which quite a few people don’t qualify for. We need to be very thoughtful when we change treatments. I look at the 3 factors of biochemical progression or response—PSA, radiographic progression, and clinical progression. If I don’t see 2 out of 3, I typically don’t change treatments. Then after enzalutamide or abiraterone, I wait until there are cancer-related symptoms before I consider chemotherapy and closely monitor my patients.

Imaging Modalities

Abhishek Solanki. Over the last few years the Hines VA Hospital has used fluciclovine positron emission tomography (PET), which is one of the novel imaging modalities for prostate cancer. Really the 2 novel imaging modalities that have gained the most excitement are prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET and fluciclovine PET. Fluciclovine PET is based on a synthetic amino acid that’s taken up in multiple tissues, including prostate cancer. It has changed our practice in the localized setting for patients who have developed recurrence after radiation or radical prostatectomy. We have incorporated the scan into our workup of patients with recurrent disease, which can give us some more information at lower PSAs than historically we could get with CT, bone scan, or magnetic resonance imaging.

Our medical oncologists have started using it more and more as well. We are getting a lot of patients who have a negative CT or bone scan but have a positive fluciclovine PET. There are a few different disease settings where that becomes relevant. In patients who develop biochemical recurrence after radiation or salvage radiation after radical, we are finding that a lot of these patients who have no CT or bone scan findings of disease ultimately are found to have a PET-positive lesion. Sometimes it’s difficult to know how best to help patients with PET-only disease. Should you target the disease with an oligometastasis approach or just pursue systemic therapy or surveillance? It is challenging but more and more we are moving toward metastasis-directed therapy. There are multiple randomized trials in progress testing whether metastasis-directed therapy to the PET areas of recurrence can improve outcomes or delay systemic ADT. The STOMP trial randomized surveillance vs SBRT or surgery for patients with oligometastatic disease that showed improvement in biochemical control and ADT-free survival.¹³ However this was a small trial that tried to identify a signal. More definitive trials are necessary.

The other setting where we have found novel PET imaging to be helpful is in patients who have become castration resistant but don’t have clear metastases on conventional imaging. We’re identifying more patients who have only a few sites of progression, and we’ll pursue metastasis-directed therapy to those areas to try to get more mileage out of the systemic therapy that the patient is currently on and to try to avoid having to switch to the next line with the idea that, potentially, the progression site is just a limited clone that is progressing despite the current systemic therapy.
 

Mark Klein. I find that to be a very attractive approach. I’m assuming you do that for any systemic therapy where people have maybe 1 or 2 sites and they do not have a big PSA jump. Do you have a number of sites that you’re willing to radiate? And then, when you do that, what radiation fractionation and dosing do you use? Is there any observational data behind that for efficacy?

Abhishek Solanki. It is a patient by patient decision. Some patients, if they have a very rapid pace of progression shortly after starting systemic therapy and metastases have grown in several areas, we think that perhaps this person may benefit less from aggressive local therapy. But if it’s somebody who has been on systemic therapy for a while and has up to 3 sites of disease growth, we consider SBRT for oligoprogressive disease. Typically, we’ll use SBRT, which delivers a high dose of radiation over 3 to 5 treatments. With SBRT you can give a higher biologic dose and use more sophisticated treatment machines and image guidance for treatments to focus the radiation on the tumor area and limit exposure to normal tissue structures.

In prostate cancer to the primary site, we will typically do around 35 to 40 Gy in 5 fractions. For metastases, it depends on the site. If it’s in the lung, typically we will do 3 to 5 treatments, giving approximately 50 to 60 Gy in that course. In the spine, we use lower doses near the spinal cord and the cauda equina, typically about 30 Gy in 3 fractions. In the liver, similar to the lung, we’ll typically do 50-54 Gy in 3-5 fractions. There aren’t a lot of high-level data guiding the optimal dose/fractionation to metastases, but these are the doses we’ll use for various malignancies.

Treatment Options for Patients With Adverse Events

Mark Klein. I was just reviewing the 2004 study that randomized patients to mitoxantrone or docetaxel for up to 10 cycles.^14,15 Who are good candidates for docetaxel after they have exhausted abiraterone and enzalutamide? How long do you hold to the 10-cycle rule, or do you go beyond that if they’re doing well? And if they’re not a good candidate, what are some options?

Julie Graff. The best candidates are those who are having a cancer-related AE, particularly pain, because docetaxel only improves survival over mitoxantrone by about 2.5 months. I don’t talk to patients about it as though it is a life extender, but it seems to help control pain—about 70% of patients benefited in terms of pain or some other cancer-related symptom.¹⁴

I have a lot of patients who say, “Never will I do chemotherapy.” I refer those patients to hospice, or if they’re appropriate for radium-223, I consider that. I typically give about 6 cycles of chemotherapy and then see how they’re doing. In some patients, the cancer just doesn’t respond to it.

I do tell patients about the papers that you mentioned, the 2 studies of docetaxel vs mitoxantrone where they use about 10 cycles, and some of my patients go all 10.^14,15 Sometimes we have to stop because of neuropathy or some other AE. I believe in taking breaks and that you can probably start it later.

Elizabeth Hansen. I agree, our practice is similar. A lot of our patients are not very interested in chemotherapy. You have to take into consideration their ECOG (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group) status, their goals, and quality of life when talking to them about these medications. And a lot of them tend to choose more of a palliative route. Depending on their AEs and how things are going, we will dose reduce, hold treatment, or give treatment holidays.

Mark Klein. If patients are progressing on docetaxel, what are options that people would use? Radium-223 certainly is available for patients with nonvisceral metastases, as well as cabazitaxel, mitoxantrone, estramustine and other older drugs.

Julie Graff. We have some clinical trials for patients postdocetaxel. We have the TRITON2 and TRITON3 studies open at the VA. (NCT02952534 and NCT02975934, respectively) A lot of patients would get a biopsy, and we’d look for a BRCA 1 or 2 and ATM mutation. For those patients who don’t have those mutations—and maybe 80% of them don’t—we talk about radium-223 for the patients without visceral metastases and bone pain. I have had a fair number of patients go on cabazitaxel, but I have not used mitoxantrone since cabazitaxel came out. It’s not off the table, but it hasn’t shown improvement in survival.

Elizabeth Hansen. One of our challenges, because we’re an ambulatory care center, is that we are unable to give radium-223 in house, and these services have to be sent out to a non-VA facility. It is doable, but it takes more legwork and organization on our part.

Julie Graff. We have not had radium-223, although we’re working to get that online. And we are physically connected to Oregon Health Science University (OHSU), so we send our patients there for radium. It is a pain because the doctors at OHSU don’t have CPRS access. I’m often in the middle of making sure the complete blood counts (CBCs) are sent to OHSU and to get my patients their treatments.

Mark Klein. The Minneapolis VAMC has radium-223 on site, and we have used it for patients whose cancer has progressed while on docetaxel without visceral metastases. Katie, have you had an opportunity to coordinate that care for patients?

Kathleen Nelson. Radium is administered at our facility by one of our nuclear medicine physicians. A complete blood count is checked at least 3 days prior to the infusion date but no sooner than 6 days. Due to the cost of the material, ordering without knowing the patient’s counts are within a safe range to administer is prohibitive. This adds an additional burden of 2 visits (lab with return visit) to the patient. We have treated 12 patients. Four patients stopped treatment prior to completing the 6 planned treatments citing debilitating fatigue and/or nonresolution of symptoms as their reason to stop treatment. One patient died. The 7 remaining patients subjectively reported varying degrees of pain relief.

Elizabeth Hansen. Another thing to mention is the lack of a PSA response from radium-223 as well. Patients are generally very diligent about monitoring their PSA, so this can be a bit distressing.

Mark Klein. Julie, have you noticed a PSA flare with radium-223? I know it has been reported.

Julie Graff. I haven’t. But I put little stock in PSAs in these patients. I spend 20 minutes explaining to patients that the PSA is not helpful in determining whether or not the radium is working. I tell them that the bone marker alkaline phosphatase may decrease. And I think it’s important to note, too, that radium-223 is not a treatment we have on the shelf. We order it from Denver I believe. It is weight based, and it takes 5 days to get.

Clinical Trials

Mark Klein. That leads us into clinical trials. What is the role for precision oncology in prostate cancer right now, specifically looking at particular panels? One would be the DNA repair enzyme-based genes and/or also the AR variants and any other markers.

Elizabeth Hansen. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network came out with a statement recommending germ-line and somatic-mutation testing in all patients with metastatic prostate cancer. This highlights the need to offer patients the availability of clinical trials.

Julie Graff. I agree. We occasionally get to a place in the disease where patients are feeling fine, but we don’t have anything else to offer. The studies by Robinson¹⁶ and then Matteo¹⁷ showed that (a) these DNA repair defects are present in about a quarter of patients; and (b) that PARP inhibitors can help these patients. At least it has an anticancer effect.

What’s interesting is that we have TRITON2, and TRITON3, which are sponsored by Clovis,for patients with BRCA 1/2 and ATM mutations and using the PARP-inhibitor rucaparib. Based on the data we have available, we thought a quarter of patients would have the mutation in the tumor, but they’re finding that it is more like 10% to 15%. They are screening many patients but not finding it.

I agree that clinical trials are the way to go. I am hopeful that we’ll get more treatments based on molecular markers. The approval for pembrolizumab in any tumor type with microsatellite instability is interesting, but in prostate cancer, I believe that’s about 3%. I haven’t seen anyone qualify for pembrolizumab based on that. Another plug for clinical trials: Let’s learn more and offer our patients potentially beneficial treatments earlier.

Mark Klein. The first interim analysis from the TRITON2 study found about 12% of patients had alterations in BRCA 1/2. But in those that met the RECIST criteria, they were able to have evaluable disease via that standard with about a 44% response rate so far and a 51% PSA response rate. It is promising data, but it’s only 85 patients so far. We’ll know more because the TRITON2 study is of a more pretreated population than the TRITION3 study at this point. Are there any data on precision medicine and radiation in prostate cancer?

Abhishek Solanki. In the prostate cancer setting, there are not a lot of emerging data specifically looking at using precision oncology biomarkers to help guide decisions in radiation therapy. For example, genomic classifiers, like GenomeDx Decipher (Vancouver, BC) and Myriad Genetics Prolaris (Salt Lake City, UT) are increasingly being utilized in patients with localized disease. Decipher can help predict the risk of recurrence after radical prostatectomy. The difficulty is that there are limited data that show that by using these genomic classifiers, one can improve outcomes in patients over traditional clinical characteristics.

There are 2 trials currently ongoing through NRG Oncology that are using Decipher. The GU002 is a trial for patients who had a radical prostatectomy and had a postoperative PSA that never nadired below 0.2. These patients are randomized between salvage radiation with hormone therapy with or without docetaxel. This trial is collecting Decipher results for patients enrolled in the study. The GU006 is a trial for a slightly more favorable group of patients who do nadir but still have biochemical recurrence and relatively low PSAs. This trial randomizes between radiotherapy alone and radiotherapy and 6 months of apalutamide, stratifying patients based on Decipher results, specially differentiating between patients who have a luminal vs basal subtype of prostate cancer. There are data that suggest that patients who have a luminal subtype may benefit more from the combination of radiation and hormone therapy vs patients who have basal subtype.¹⁸ However this hasn’t been validated in a prospective setting, and that’s what this trial will hopefully do.

Immunotherapies

Mark Klein. Outside of prostate cancer, there has been a lot of research trying to determine how to improve PD-L1 expression. Where are immunotherapy trials moving? How radiation might play a role in conjunction with immunotherapy.

Julie Graff. Two phase 3 studies did not show statistically improved survival or statistically significant survival improvement on ipilimumab, an immunotherapy agent that targets CTLA4. Some early studies of the PD-1 drugs nivolumab and pembrolizumab did not show much response with monotherapy. Despite the negative phase 3 studies for ipilimumab, we periodically see exceptional responses.

In prostate cancer, enzalutamide is FDA approved. And there’s currently a phase 3 study of the PD-L1 inhibitor atezolizumab plus enzalutamide in patients who have progressed on abiraterone. That trial is fully accrued, but the results are not yet known. Soon a study will compare pembrolizumab plus enzalutamide vs enzalutamide alone. So the combinations are getting more interesting.

I just received a Prostate Cancer Foundation Challenge Award to open a VA-only study looking at fecal microbiota transplant from responders to nonresponders to see how manipulating host factors can increase potential responses to PD-1 inhibition.

Abhishek Solanki. The classic mechanism by which radiation therapy works is direct DNA damage and indirect DNA damage through hydroxyl radicals that leads to cytotoxicity. But preclinical and clinical data suggest that radiation therapy can augment the local and systemic immunotherapy response. The radiation oncologist’s dream is what is called the abscopal effect, which is the idea that when you treat one site of disease with radiation, it can induce a response at other sites that didn’t get radiation therapy through reactivation of the immune system. I like to think of the abscopal effect like bigfoot—it’s elusive. However, it seems that the setting it is most likely to happen in is in combination with immunotherapy.

One of the ways that radiation fails locally is that it can upregulate PD-1 expression, and as a result, you can have progression of the tumor because of local immune suppression. We know that T cells are important for the activity of radiation therapy. If you combine checkpoint inhibition with radiation therapy, you can not only have better local control in the area of the tumor, but perhaps you can release tumor antigens that will then induce a systemic response.

The other potential mechanism by which radiation may work synergistically with immunotherapy is as a debulking agent. There are some data that suggest that the ratio of T-cell reinvigoration to bulk of disease, or the volume of tumor burden, is important. That is, having T-cell reinvigoration may not be sufficient to have a response to immunotherapy in patients with a large burden of disease. By using radiation to debulk disease, perhaps you could help make checkpoint inhibition more effective. Ultimately, in the setting of prostate cancer, there are not a lot of data yet showing meaningful benefits with the combination of immunotherapy and radiotherapy, but there are trials that are ongoing that will educate on potential synergy.

Pharmacy

Julie Graff. Before we end I want to make sure that we applaud the amazing pharmacists and patient care navigation teams in the VA who do such a great job of getting veterans the appropriate treatment expeditiously and keeping them safe. It’s something that is truly unique to the VA. And I want to thank the people on this call who do this every day.

Elizabeth Hansen. Thank you Julie. Compared with working in the community, at the VA I’m honestly amazed by the ease of access to these medications for our patients. Being able to deliver medications sometimes the same day to the patient is just not something that happens in the community. It’s nice to see that our veterans are getting cared for in that manner.

Author disclosures
Dr. Solanki participated in advisory boards for Blue Earth Diagnostics’ fluciclovine PET and was previously paid as a consultant. Dr. Graff is a consultant for Sanofi (docetaxel) and Astellas (enzalutamide), and has received research funding (no personal funding)from Sanofi, Merck (pembrolizumab), Astellas, and Jannsen (abiraterone, apalutamide). The other authors report no actual or potential conflicts of interest with regard to this article.

Disclaimer
The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Federal Practitioner, Frontline Medical Communications Inc., the US Government, or any of its agencies. This article may discuss unlabeled or investigational use of certain drugs. Please review the complete prescribing information for specific drugs or drug combinations—including indications, contraindications, warnings, and adverse effects—before administering pharmacologic therapy to patients.

Sequencing Therapies

Mark Klein, MD. The last few years, there have been several new trials in prostate cancer for people in a metastatic setting or more advanced local setting, such as the STAMPEDE, LATITUDE, and CHAARTED trials.^1-4 In addition, recently a few trials have examined apalutamide and enzalutamide for people who have had PSA (prostate-specific antigen) levels rapidly rising within about 10 months or so. One of the questions that arises is, how do we wrap our heads around sequencing these therapies. Is there a sequence that we should be doing and thinking about upfront and how do the different trials compare?

Julie Graff, MD. It just got more complicated. There was news today (December 20, 2018) that using enzalutamide early on in newly diagnosed metastatic prostate cancer may have positive results. It is not yet approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), but for patients who present with metastatic prostate cancer, we may have 4 potential treatments. We could have androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) alone, ADT plus docetaxel, enzalutamide, or abiraterone.

When I see patients in this situation, I talk to them about their options, the pros and cons of each option, and try to cover all the trials that look at these combinations. It can be quite a long visit. I talk to the patient about who benefits most, whether it is patients with high-risk factors or high-volume cancers. Also, I talk with the patient about all the adverse effects (AEs), and I look at my patients’ comorbid conditions and come up with a plan.

I encourage any patient who has high-volume or high-risk disease to consider more than just ADT alone. For many patients, I have been using abiraterone plus ADT. I have a wonderful pharmacist. As a medical oncologist, I can’t do it on my own. I need someone to follow patients’ laboratory results and to be available for medication questions and complications.

Elizabeth Hansen, PharmD. With the increasing number of patients on oral antineoplastics, monitoring patients in the outpatient setting has become an increasing priority and one of my major roles as a pharmacist in the clinic at the Chalmers P. Wylie VA Ambulatory Care Center in Columbus, Ohio. This is especially important as some of these treatments require frequent laboratory monitoring, such as abiraterone with liver function tests every 2 weeks for the first 3 months of treatment and monthly thereafter. Without frequent-follow up it’s easy for these patients to get lost in the shuffle.

Abhishek Solanki, MD. You could argue that a fifth option is prostate-directed radiation for patients who have limited metastases based on the STAMPEDE trial, which we’ve started integrating into our practice at the Edward Hines, Jr. Veterans Affairs Hospital in Chicago, Illinois.⁴

Mark Klein. Do you have a feel for the data and using radiation in oligometastatic (≤ 5 metastatic tumors) disease in prostate cancer and how well that might work?

Abhishek Solanki. The best data we have are from the multi-arm, multistage STAMPEDE trial systemic therapies and local therapy in the setting of high-risk localized disease and metastatic disease.⁶ The most recent publication looked specifically at the population with newly diagnosed metastatic disease and compared standard ADT (and docetaxel in about 18% of the patients) with or without prostate-directed radiation therapy. There was no survival benefit with radiation in the overall population, but in the subgroup of patients with low metastatic burden, there was an 8% survival benefit at 3 years.

It’s difficult to know what to make of that information because, as we’ve discussed already, there are other systemic therapy options that are being used more and more upfront such as abiraterone. Can you see the same benefit of radiation in that setting? The flip side is that in this study, radiation just targeted the prostate; could survival be improved even more by targeting all sites of disease in patients with oligometastatic disease? These are still open questions in prostate cancer and there are clinical trials attempting to define the clinical benefit of radiation in the metastatic setting for patients with limited metastases.

Mark Klein. How do you select patients for radiation in this particular situation; How do you approach stratification when radiation is started upfront?

Abhishek Solanki. In the STAMPEDE trial, low metastatic burden was defined based on the definition in the CHAARTED trial, which was those patients who did not have ≥ 4 bone metastases with ≥ 1 outside the vertebral bodies or pelvis, and did not have visceral metastases.⁷ That’s tough, because this definition could be a patient with a solitary bone metastasis but also could include some patients who have involved nodes extending all the way up to the retroperitoneal nodes—that is a fairly heterogeneous population. What we have done at our institution is select patients who have 3 to 5 metastases, administer prostate radiation therapy, and add stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for the other sites of disease, invoking the oligometastasis approach.

We have been doing this more frequently in the last few months. Typically, we’ll do 3 to 5 fractions of SBRT to metastases. For the primary, if the patient chooses SBRT, we’ll take that approach. If the patient chooses a more standard fractionation, we’ll do 20 treatments, but from a logistic perspective, most patients would rather come in for 5 treatments than 20. We also typically would start these patients on systemic hormonal therapy.

Mark Klein. At that point, are they referred back to medical oncology for surveillance?

Abhishek Solanki. Yes, they are followed by medical oncology and radiation oncology, and typically would continue hormonal therapy.

Mark Klein. Julie, how have you thought about presenting the therapeutic options for those patients who would be either eligible for docetaxel with high-bulk disease or abiraterone? Do you find patients prefer one or the other?

Julie Graff. I try to be very open about all the possibilities, and I present both. I don’t just decide for the patient chemotherapy vs abiraterone, but after we talk about it, most of my patients do opt for the abiraterone. I had a patient referred from the community—we are seeing more and more of this because abiraterone is so expensive—whose ejection fraction was about 38%. I said to that patient, “we could do chemotherapy, but we shouldn’t do abiraterone.” But usually it’s not that clear-cut.

Elizabeth Hansen. There was also an update from the STAMPEDE trial published recently comparing upfront abiraterone and prednisone to docetaxel (18 weeks) in advanced or metastatic prostate cancer. Results from this trial indicated a nearly identical overall survival (OS) (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.16; 95% CI, 0.82-1.65; P = .40). However, the failure-free survival (HR = 0.51; 95% CI, 0.39-0.67; P < .001) and progression-free survival (PFS) (HR= 0.65; 95% CI, 0.0.48-0.88; P = .005) favored abiraterone.^8,9 The authors argue that while there was no change in OS, this trial demonstrates an important difference in the pattern of treatment failure.

Julie, do you think there will be any change in the treatment paradigm between docetaxel and abiraterone with this new update?

Julie Graff. I wasn’t that impressed by that study. I do not see it as practice changing, and it makes sense to me that the PFS is different in the 2 arms because we give chemotherapy and take a break vs giving abiraterone indefinitely. For me, there’s not really a shift.

Patients With Rising PSAs

Mark Klein. Let’s discuss the data from the recent studies on enzalutamide and apalutamide for the patients with fast-rising PSAs. In your discussions with other prostate researchers, will this become a standard part of practice or not?

Julie Graff. I was one of the authors on the SPARTAN apalutamide study.¹⁰ For a long time, we have had patients without metastatic disease but with a PSA relapse after surgery or radiation; and the PSA levels climb when the cancer becomes resistant to ADT. We haven’t had many options in that setting except to use bicalutamide and some older androgen receptor (AR) antagonists. We used to use estrogen and ketoconazole as well.

But now 2 studies have come out looking at a primary endpoint of metastases-free survival. Patients whose PSA was doubling every 10 months or shorter were randomized to either apalutamide (SPARTAN¹⁰) or enzalutamide (PROSPER¹¹), both second-generation AR antagonists. There was a placebo control arm in each of the studies. Both studies found that adding the second-generation AR targeting agent delayed the time to metastatic disease by about 2 years. There is not any signal yet for statistically significant OS benefit, so it is not entirely clear if you could wait for the first metastasis to develop and then give 1 of these treatments and have the same OS benefit.

At the VA Portland Health Care System (VAPORHCS), it took a while to make these drugs available. My fellows were excited to give these drugs right away, but I often counsel patients that we don’t know if the second-generation AR targeting agents will improve survival. They almost certainly will bring down PSAs, which helps with peace of mind, but anything we add to the ADT can cause more AEs.

I have been cautious with second-generation AR antagonists because patients, when they take one of these drugs, are going to be on it for a long time. The FDA has approved those 2 drugs regardless of PSA doubling time, but I would not give it for a PSA doubling time > 10 months. In my practice about a quarter of patients who would qualify for apalutamide or enzalutamide are actually taking one, and the others are monitored closely with computed tomography (CT) and bone scans. When the disease becomes metastatic, then we start those drugs.

Mark Klein. Why 10 months, why not 6 months, a year, or 18 months? Is there reasoning behind that?

Julie Graff. There was a publication by Matthew Smith showing that the PSA doubling time was predictive of the development of metastatic disease and cancer death or prostate cancer death, and that 10 months seemed to be the cutoff between when the prostate cancer was going to become deadly vs not.¹² If you actually look at the trial data, I think the PSA doubling time was between 3 and 4 months for the participants, so pretty short.

Adverse Effects

Mark Klein. What are the AEs people are seeing from using apalutamide, enzalutamide, and abiraterone? What are they seeing in their practice vs what is in the studies? When I have had to stop people on abiraterone or drop down the dose, almost always it has been for fatigue. We check liver function tests (LFTs) repeatedly, but I can’t remember ever having to drop down the dose or take it away even for that reason.

Elizabeth Hansen. The toxicities of these 3 agents are very different. In my practice I have seen a few patients develop hepatotoxicity with abiraterone, and I think this reflects the known incidence of transaminitis (grade 3/4) seen in clinical trials, reported at 6%. Generally, we’ve been able to restart treatment by withholding abiraterone until liver function returns to baseline and then subsequently dose reducing. Like Julie mentioned, abiraterone should be used with caution and/or avoided in patients with serious cardiac disease, recent myocardial infarction, or heart failure. I also always check blood pressure history, to ensure it is well controlled prior to initiation, and order a home blood pressure cuff for monitoring. With enzalutamide one of the main concerns is fatigue, which occurred in > 10% of patients in clinical trials. In my experience this has been dose limiting and can be managed with dose reductions. Seizures also occurred in 0.4% of patients on enzalutamide, so I always ask about seizure history and screen the medication list for concomitant medications that may lower the seizure threshold or other risk factors such as brain metastasis. Last, enzalutamide is a strong CYP3A4 inducer, so there is a strong possibility for drug interactions with other medications, and it is associated with increased cardiac events. With apalutamide you have the cardiac concerns, thyroid dysfunction, fracture risk, and drug interactions to worry about as well. To be honest, we have not used this agent yet at my practice.

Mark Klein. At the Minneapolis VA Health Care System (MVAHCS) when apalutamide first came out, for the PSA rapid doubling, there had already been an abstract presenting the enzalutamide data. We have chosen to recommend enzalutamide as our choice for the people with PSA doubling based on the cost. It’s significantly cheaper for the VA. Between the 2 papers there is very little difference in the efficacy data. I’m wondering what other sites have done with regard to that specific point at their VAs?

Elizabeth Hansen. In Columbus, we prefer to use either abiraterone and enzalutamide because they’re essentially cost neutral. However, this may change with generic abiraterone coming to market. Apalutamide is really cost prohibitive currently.

Julie Graff. I agree.

Patient Education

Mark Klein. At MVAHCS, the navigators handle a lot of upfront education. We have 3 navigators, including Kathleen Nelson who is on this roundtable. She works with patients and provides much of the patient education. How have you handled education for patients?

Kathleen Nelson. For the most part, our pharmacists do the drug-specific education for the oral agents, and the nurse navigators provide more generic education. We did a trial for patients on IV therapies. We learned that patients really don’t report in much detail, but if you call and ask them specific questions, then you can tease out some more detail.

Elizabeth Hansen. It is interesting that every site is different. One of my main roles is oral antineoplastic monitoring, which includes many patients on enzalutamide or abiraterone. At least initially with these patients, I try to follow them closely—abiraterone more so than enzalutamide. I typically call every 2 to 4 weeks, in between clinic visits, to follow up the laboratory tests and manage the AEs. I always try to ask direct and open-ended questions: How often are you checking your blood pressure? What is your current weight? How has your energy level changed since therapy initiation?

The VA telehealth system is amazing. For patients who need to monitor blood pressure regularly, it’s really nice for them to have those numbers come directly back to me in CPRS (Computerized Patient Record System). That has worked wonders for some of our patients to get them through therapy.

Mark Klein. What do you tend to use when the prostate cancer is progressing for a patient? And how do you determine that progression? Some studies will use PSA rise only as a marker for progression. Other studies have not used PSA rise as the only marker for progression and oftentimes require some sort of bone scan criteria or CT imaging criteria for progression.

Julie Graff. We have a limited number of treatment options. Providers typically use enzalutamide or abiraterone as there is a high degree of resistance between the 2. Then there is chemotherapy and then radium, which quite a few people don’t qualify for. We need to be very thoughtful when we change treatments. I look at the 3 factors of biochemical progression or response—PSA, radiographic progression, and clinical progression. If I don’t see 2 out of 3, I typically don’t change treatments. Then after enzalutamide or abiraterone, I wait until there are cancer-related symptoms before I consider chemotherapy and closely monitor my patients.

Imaging Modalities

Abhishek Solanki. Over the last few years the Hines VA Hospital has used fluciclovine positron emission tomography (PET), which is one of the novel imaging modalities for prostate cancer. Really the 2 novel imaging modalities that have gained the most excitement are prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET and fluciclovine PET. Fluciclovine PET is based on a synthetic amino acid that’s taken up in multiple tissues, including prostate cancer. It has changed our practice in the localized setting for patients who have developed recurrence after radiation or radical prostatectomy. We have incorporated the scan into our workup of patients with recurrent disease, which can give us some more information at lower PSAs than historically we could get with CT, bone scan, or magnetic resonance imaging.

Our medical oncologists have started using it more and more as well. We are getting a lot of patients who have a negative CT or bone scan but have a positive fluciclovine PET. There are a few different disease settings where that becomes relevant. In patients who develop biochemical recurrence after radiation or salvage radiation after radical, we are finding that a lot of these patients who have no CT or bone scan findings of disease ultimately are found to have a PET-positive lesion. Sometimes it’s difficult to know how best to help patients with PET-only disease. Should you target the disease with an oligometastasis approach or just pursue systemic therapy or surveillance? It is challenging but more and more we are moving toward metastasis-directed therapy. There are multiple randomized trials in progress testing whether metastasis-directed therapy to the PET areas of recurrence can improve outcomes or delay systemic ADT. The STOMP trial randomized surveillance vs SBRT or surgery for patients with oligometastatic disease that showed improvement in biochemical control and ADT-free survival.¹³ However this was a small trial that tried to identify a signal. More definitive trials are necessary.

The other setting where we have found novel PET imaging to be helpful is in patients who have become castration resistant but don’t have clear metastases on conventional imaging. We’re identifying more patients who have only a few sites of progression, and we’ll pursue metastasis-directed therapy to those areas to try to get more mileage out of the systemic therapy that the patient is currently on and to try to avoid having to switch to the next line with the idea that, potentially, the progression site is just a limited clone that is progressing despite the current systemic therapy.
 

Mark Klein. I find that to be a very attractive approach. I’m assuming you do that for any systemic therapy where people have maybe 1 or 2 sites and they do not have a big PSA jump. Do you have a number of sites that you’re willing to radiate? And then, when you do that, what radiation fractionation and dosing do you use? Is there any observational data behind that for efficacy?

Abhishek Solanki. It is a patient by patient decision. Some patients, if they have a very rapid pace of progression shortly after starting systemic therapy and metastases have grown in several areas, we think that perhaps this person may benefit less from aggressive local therapy. But if it’s somebody who has been on systemic therapy for a while and has up to 3 sites of disease growth, we consider SBRT for oligoprogressive disease. Typically, we’ll use SBRT, which delivers a high dose of radiation over 3 to 5 treatments. With SBRT you can give a higher biologic dose and use more sophisticated treatment machines and image guidance for treatments to focus the radiation on the tumor area and limit exposure to normal tissue structures.

In prostate cancer to the primary site, we will typically do around 35 to 40 Gy in 5 fractions. For metastases, it depends on the site. If it’s in the lung, typically we will do 3 to 5 treatments, giving approximately 50 to 60 Gy in that course. In the spine, we use lower doses near the spinal cord and the cauda equina, typically about 30 Gy in 3 fractions. In the liver, similar to the lung, we’ll typically do 50-54 Gy in 3-5 fractions. There aren’t a lot of high-level data guiding the optimal dose/fractionation to metastases, but these are the doses we’ll use for various malignancies.

Treatment Options for Patients With Adverse Events

Mark Klein. I was just reviewing the 2004 study that randomized patients to mitoxantrone or docetaxel for up to 10 cycles.^14,15 Who are good candidates for docetaxel after they have exhausted abiraterone and enzalutamide? How long do you hold to the 10-cycle rule, or do you go beyond that if they’re doing well? And if they’re not a good candidate, what are some options?

Julie Graff. The best candidates are those who are having a cancer-related AE, particularly pain, because docetaxel only improves survival over mitoxantrone by about 2.5 months. I don’t talk to patients about it as though it is a life extender, but it seems to help control pain—about 70% of patients benefited in terms of pain or some other cancer-related symptom.¹⁴

I have a lot of patients who say, “Never will I do chemotherapy.” I refer those patients to hospice, or if they’re appropriate for radium-223, I consider that. I typically give about 6 cycles of chemotherapy and then see how they’re doing. In some patients, the cancer just doesn’t respond to it.

I do tell patients about the papers that you mentioned, the 2 studies of docetaxel vs mitoxantrone where they use about 10 cycles, and some of my patients go all 10.^14,15 Sometimes we have to stop because of neuropathy or some other AE. I believe in taking breaks and that you can probably start it later.

Elizabeth Hansen. I agree, our practice is similar. A lot of our patients are not very interested in chemotherapy. You have to take into consideration their ECOG (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group) status, their goals, and quality of life when talking to them about these medications. And a lot of them tend to choose more of a palliative route. Depending on their AEs and how things are going, we will dose reduce, hold treatment, or give treatment holidays.

Mark Klein. If patients are progressing on docetaxel, what are options that people would use? Radium-223 certainly is available for patients with nonvisceral metastases, as well as cabazitaxel, mitoxantrone, estramustine and other older drugs.

Julie Graff. We have some clinical trials for patients postdocetaxel. We have the TRITON2 and TRITON3 studies open at the VA. (NCT02952534 and NCT02975934, respectively) A lot of patients would get a biopsy, and we’d look for a BRCA 1 or 2 and ATM mutation. For those patients who don’t have those mutations—and maybe 80% of them don’t—we talk about radium-223 for the patients without visceral metastases and bone pain. I have had a fair number of patients go on cabazitaxel, but I have not used mitoxantrone since cabazitaxel came out. It’s not off the table, but it hasn’t shown improvement in survival.

Elizabeth Hansen. One of our challenges, because we’re an ambulatory care center, is that we are unable to give radium-223 in house, and these services have to be sent out to a non-VA facility. It is doable, but it takes more legwork and organization on our part.

Julie Graff. We have not had radium-223, although we’re working to get that online. And we are physically connected to Oregon Health Science University (OHSU), so we send our patients there for radium. It is a pain because the doctors at OHSU don’t have CPRS access. I’m often in the middle of making sure the complete blood counts (CBCs) are sent to OHSU and to get my patients their treatments.

Mark Klein. The Minneapolis VAMC has radium-223 on site, and we have used it for patients whose cancer has progressed while on docetaxel without visceral metastases. Katie, have you had an opportunity to coordinate that care for patients?

Kathleen Nelson. Radium is administered at our facility by one of our nuclear medicine physicians. A complete blood count is checked at least 3 days prior to the infusion date but no sooner than 6 days. Due to the cost of the material, ordering without knowing the patient’s counts are within a safe range to administer is prohibitive. This adds an additional burden of 2 visits (lab with return visit) to the patient. We have treated 12 patients. Four patients stopped treatment prior to completing the 6 planned treatments citing debilitating fatigue and/or nonresolution of symptoms as their reason to stop treatment. One patient died. The 7 remaining patients subjectively reported varying degrees of pain relief.

Elizabeth Hansen. Another thing to mention is the lack of a PSA response from radium-223 as well. Patients are generally very diligent about monitoring their PSA, so this can be a bit distressing.

Mark Klein. Julie, have you noticed a PSA flare with radium-223? I know it has been reported.

Julie Graff. I haven’t. But I put little stock in PSAs in these patients. I spend 20 minutes explaining to patients that the PSA is not helpful in determining whether or not the radium is working. I tell them that the bone marker alkaline phosphatase may decrease. And I think it’s important to note, too, that radium-223 is not a treatment we have on the shelf. We order it from Denver I believe. It is weight based, and it takes 5 days to get.

Clinical Trials

Mark Klein. That leads us into clinical trials. What is the role for precision oncology in prostate cancer right now, specifically looking at particular panels? One would be the DNA repair enzyme-based genes and/or also the AR variants and any other markers.

Elizabeth Hansen. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network came out with a statement recommending germ-line and somatic-mutation testing in all patients with metastatic prostate cancer. This highlights the need to offer patients the availability of clinical trials.

Julie Graff. I agree. We occasionally get to a place in the disease where patients are feeling fine, but we don’t have anything else to offer. The studies by Robinson¹⁶ and then Matteo¹⁷ showed that (a) these DNA repair defects are present in about a quarter of patients; and (b) that PARP inhibitors can help these patients. At least it has an anticancer effect.

What’s interesting is that we have TRITON2, and TRITON3, which are sponsored by Clovis,for patients with BRCA 1/2 and ATM mutations and using the PARP-inhibitor rucaparib. Based on the data we have available, we thought a quarter of patients would have the mutation in the tumor, but they’re finding that it is more like 10% to 15%. They are screening many patients but not finding it.

I agree that clinical trials are the way to go. I am hopeful that we’ll get more treatments based on molecular markers. The approval for pembrolizumab in any tumor type with microsatellite instability is interesting, but in prostate cancer, I believe that’s about 3%. I haven’t seen anyone qualify for pembrolizumab based on that. Another plug for clinical trials: Let’s learn more and offer our patients potentially beneficial treatments earlier.

Mark Klein. The first interim analysis from the TRITON2 study found about 12% of patients had alterations in BRCA 1/2. But in those that met the RECIST criteria, they were able to have evaluable disease via that standard with about a 44% response rate so far and a 51% PSA response rate. It is promising data, but it’s only 85 patients so far. We’ll know more because the TRITON2 study is of a more pretreated population than the TRITION3 study at this point. Are there any data on precision medicine and radiation in prostate cancer?

Abhishek Solanki. In the prostate cancer setting, there are not a lot of emerging data specifically looking at using precision oncology biomarkers to help guide decisions in radiation therapy. For example, genomic classifiers, like GenomeDx Decipher (Vancouver, BC) and Myriad Genetics Prolaris (Salt Lake City, UT) are increasingly being utilized in patients with localized disease. Decipher can help predict the risk of recurrence after radical prostatectomy. The difficulty is that there are limited data that show that by using these genomic classifiers, one can improve outcomes in patients over traditional clinical characteristics.

There are 2 trials currently ongoing through NRG Oncology that are using Decipher. The GU002 is a trial for patients who had a radical prostatectomy and had a postoperative PSA that never nadired below 0.2. These patients are randomized between salvage radiation with hormone therapy with or without docetaxel. This trial is collecting Decipher results for patients enrolled in the study. The GU006 is a trial for a slightly more favorable group of patients who do nadir but still have biochemical recurrence and relatively low PSAs. This trial randomizes between radiotherapy alone and radiotherapy and 6 months of apalutamide, stratifying patients based on Decipher results, specially differentiating between patients who have a luminal vs basal subtype of prostate cancer. There are data that suggest that patients who have a luminal subtype may benefit more from the combination of radiation and hormone therapy vs patients who have basal subtype.¹⁸ However this hasn’t been validated in a prospective setting, and that’s what this trial will hopefully do.

Immunotherapies

Mark Klein. Outside of prostate cancer, there has been a lot of research trying to determine how to improve PD-L1 expression. Where are immunotherapy trials moving? How radiation might play a role in conjunction with immunotherapy.

Julie Graff. Two phase 3 studies did not show statistically improved survival or statistically significant survival improvement on ipilimumab, an immunotherapy agent that targets CTLA4. Some early studies of the PD-1 drugs nivolumab and pembrolizumab did not show much response with monotherapy. Despite the negative phase 3 studies for ipilimumab, we periodically see exceptional responses.

In prostate cancer, enzalutamide is FDA approved. And there’s currently a phase 3 study of the PD-L1 inhibitor atezolizumab plus enzalutamide in patients who have progressed on abiraterone. That trial is fully accrued, but the results are not yet known. Soon a study will compare pembrolizumab plus enzalutamide vs enzalutamide alone. So the combinations are getting more interesting.

I just received a Prostate Cancer Foundation Challenge Award to open a VA-only study looking at fecal microbiota transplant from responders to nonresponders to see how manipulating host factors can increase potential responses to PD-1 inhibition.

Abhishek Solanki. The classic mechanism by which radiation therapy works is direct DNA damage and indirect DNA damage through hydroxyl radicals that leads to cytotoxicity. But preclinical and clinical data suggest that radiation therapy can augment the local and systemic immunotherapy response. The radiation oncologist’s dream is what is called the abscopal effect, which is the idea that when you treat one site of disease with radiation, it can induce a response at other sites that didn’t get radiation therapy through reactivation of the immune system. I like to think of the abscopal effect like bigfoot—it’s elusive. However, it seems that the setting it is most likely to happen in is in combination with immunotherapy.

One of the ways that radiation fails locally is that it can upregulate PD-1 expression, and as a result, you can have progression of the tumor because of local immune suppression. We know that T cells are important for the activity of radiation therapy. If you combine checkpoint inhibition with radiation therapy, you can not only have better local control in the area of the tumor, but perhaps you can release tumor antigens that will then induce a systemic response.

The other potential mechanism by which radiation may work synergistically with immunotherapy is as a debulking agent. There are some data that suggest that the ratio of T-cell reinvigoration to bulk of disease, or the volume of tumor burden, is important. That is, having T-cell reinvigoration may not be sufficient to have a response to immunotherapy in patients with a large burden of disease. By using radiation to debulk disease, perhaps you could help make checkpoint inhibition more effective. Ultimately, in the setting of prostate cancer, there are not a lot of data yet showing meaningful benefits with the combination of immunotherapy and radiotherapy, but there are trials that are ongoing that will educate on potential synergy.

Pharmacy

Julie Graff. Before we end I want to make sure that we applaud the amazing pharmacists and patient care navigation teams in the VA who do such a great job of getting veterans the appropriate treatment expeditiously and keeping them safe. It’s something that is truly unique to the VA. And I want to thank the people on this call who do this every day.

Elizabeth Hansen. Thank you Julie. Compared with working in the community, at the VA I’m honestly amazed by the ease of access to these medications for our patients. Being able to deliver medications sometimes the same day to the patient is just not something that happens in the community. It’s nice to see that our veterans are getting cared for in that manner.

Author disclosures
Dr. Solanki participated in advisory boards for Blue Earth Diagnostics’ fluciclovine PET and was previously paid as a consultant. Dr. Graff is a consultant for Sanofi (docetaxel) and Astellas (enzalutamide), and has received research funding (no personal funding)from Sanofi, Merck (pembrolizumab), Astellas, and Jannsen (abiraterone, apalutamide). The other authors report no actual or potential conflicts of interest with regard to this article.

Disclaimer
The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Federal Practitioner, Frontline Medical Communications Inc., the US Government, or any of its agencies. This article may discuss unlabeled or investigational use of certain drugs. Please review the complete prescribing information for specific drugs or drug combinations—including indications, contraindications, warnings, and adverse effects—before administering pharmacologic therapy to patients.

Sequencing Therapies

Mark Klein, MD. The last few years, there have been several new trials in prostate cancer for people in a metastatic setting or more advanced local setting, such as the STAMPEDE, LATITUDE, and CHAARTED trials.^1-4 In addition, recently a few trials have examined apalutamide and enzalutamide for people who have had PSA (prostate-specific antigen) levels rapidly rising within about 10 months or so. One of the questions that arises is, how do we wrap our heads around sequencing these therapies. Is there a sequence that we should be doing and thinking about upfront and how do the different trials compare?

Julie Graff, MD. It just got more complicated. There was news today (December 20, 2018) that using enzalutamide early on in newly diagnosed metastatic prostate cancer may have positive results. It is not yet approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), but for patients who present with metastatic prostate cancer, we may have 4 potential treatments. We could have androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) alone, ADT plus docetaxel, enzalutamide, or abiraterone.

When I see patients in this situation, I talk to them about their options, the pros and cons of each option, and try to cover all the trials that look at these combinations. It can be quite a long visit. I talk to the patient about who benefits most, whether it is patients with high-risk factors or high-volume cancers. Also, I talk with the patient about all the adverse effects (AEs), and I look at my patients’ comorbid conditions and come up with a plan.

I encourage any patient who has high-volume or high-risk disease to consider more than just ADT alone. For many patients, I have been using abiraterone plus ADT. I have a wonderful pharmacist. As a medical oncologist, I can’t do it on my own. I need someone to follow patients’ laboratory results and to be available for medication questions and complications.

Elizabeth Hansen, PharmD. With the increasing number of patients on oral antineoplastics, monitoring patients in the outpatient setting has become an increasing priority and one of my major roles as a pharmacist in the clinic at the Chalmers P. Wylie VA Ambulatory Care Center in Columbus, Ohio. This is especially important as some of these treatments require frequent laboratory monitoring, such as abiraterone with liver function tests every 2 weeks for the first 3 months of treatment and monthly thereafter. Without frequent-follow up it’s easy for these patients to get lost in the shuffle.

Abhishek Solanki, MD. You could argue that a fifth option is prostate-directed radiation for patients who have limited metastases based on the STAMPEDE trial, which we’ve started integrating into our practice at the Edward Hines, Jr. Veterans Affairs Hospital in Chicago, Illinois.⁴

Mark Klein. Do you have a feel for the data and using radiation in oligometastatic (≤ 5 metastatic tumors) disease in prostate cancer and how well that might work?

Abhishek Solanki. The best data we have are from the multi-arm, multistage STAMPEDE trial systemic therapies and local therapy in the setting of high-risk localized disease and metastatic disease.⁶ The most recent publication looked specifically at the population with newly diagnosed metastatic disease and compared standard ADT (and docetaxel in about 18% of the patients) with or without prostate-directed radiation therapy. There was no survival benefit with radiation in the overall population, but in the subgroup of patients with low metastatic burden, there was an 8% survival benefit at 3 years.

It’s difficult to know what to make of that information because, as we’ve discussed already, there are other systemic therapy options that are being used more and more upfront such as abiraterone. Can you see the same benefit of radiation in that setting? The flip side is that in this study, radiation just targeted the prostate; could survival be improved even more by targeting all sites of disease in patients with oligometastatic disease? These are still open questions in prostate cancer and there are clinical trials attempting to define the clinical benefit of radiation in the metastatic setting for patients with limited metastases.

Mark Klein. How do you select patients for radiation in this particular situation; How do you approach stratification when radiation is started upfront?

Abhishek Solanki. In the STAMPEDE trial, low metastatic burden was defined based on the definition in the CHAARTED trial, which was those patients who did not have ≥ 4 bone metastases with ≥ 1 outside the vertebral bodies or pelvis, and did not have visceral metastases.⁷ That’s tough, because this definition could be a patient with a solitary bone metastasis but also could include some patients who have involved nodes extending all the way up to the retroperitoneal nodes—that is a fairly heterogeneous population. What we have done at our institution is select patients who have 3 to 5 metastases, administer prostate radiation therapy, and add stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for the other sites of disease, invoking the oligometastasis approach.

We have been doing this more frequently in the last few months. Typically, we’ll do 3 to 5 fractions of SBRT to metastases. For the primary, if the patient chooses SBRT, we’ll take that approach. If the patient chooses a more standard fractionation, we’ll do 20 treatments, but from a logistic perspective, most patients would rather come in for 5 treatments than 20. We also typically would start these patients on systemic hormonal therapy.

Mark Klein. At that point, are they referred back to medical oncology for surveillance?

Abhishek Solanki. Yes, they are followed by medical oncology and radiation oncology, and typically would continue hormonal therapy.

Mark Klein. Julie, how have you thought about presenting the therapeutic options for those patients who would be either eligible for docetaxel with high-bulk disease or abiraterone? Do you find patients prefer one or the other?

Julie Graff. I try to be very open about all the possibilities, and I present both. I don’t just decide for the patient chemotherapy vs abiraterone, but after we talk about it, most of my patients do opt for the abiraterone. I had a patient referred from the community—we are seeing more and more of this because abiraterone is so expensive—whose ejection fraction was about 38%. I said to that patient, “we could do chemotherapy, but we shouldn’t do abiraterone.” But usually it’s not that clear-cut.

Elizabeth Hansen. There was also an update from the STAMPEDE trial published recently comparing upfront abiraterone and prednisone to docetaxel (18 weeks) in advanced or metastatic prostate cancer. Results from this trial indicated a nearly identical overall survival (OS) (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.16; 95% CI, 0.82-1.65; P = .40). However, the failure-free survival (HR = 0.51; 95% CI, 0.39-0.67; P < .001) and progression-free survival (PFS) (HR= 0.65; 95% CI, 0.0.48-0.88; P = .005) favored abiraterone.^8,9 The authors argue that while there was no change in OS, this trial demonstrates an important difference in the pattern of treatment failure.

Julie, do you think there will be any change in the treatment paradigm between docetaxel and abiraterone with this new update?

Julie Graff. I wasn’t that impressed by that study. I do not see it as practice changing, and it makes sense to me that the PFS is different in the 2 arms because we give chemotherapy and take a break vs giving abiraterone indefinitely. For me, there’s not really a shift.

Patients With Rising PSAs

Mark Klein. Let’s discuss the data from the recent studies on enzalutamide and apalutamide for the patients with fast-rising PSAs. In your discussions with other prostate researchers, will this become a standard part of practice or not?

Julie Graff. I was one of the authors on the SPARTAN apalutamide study.¹⁰ For a long time, we have had patients without metastatic disease but with a PSA relapse after surgery or radiation; and the PSA levels climb when the cancer becomes resistant to ADT. We haven’t had many options in that setting except to use bicalutamide and some older androgen receptor (AR) antagonists. We used to use estrogen and ketoconazole as well.

But now 2 studies have come out looking at a primary endpoint of metastases-free survival. Patients whose PSA was doubling every 10 months or shorter were randomized to either apalutamide (SPARTAN¹⁰) or enzalutamide (PROSPER¹¹), both second-generation AR antagonists. There was a placebo control arm in each of the studies. Both studies found that adding the second-generation AR targeting agent delayed the time to metastatic disease by about 2 years. There is not any signal yet for statistically significant OS benefit, so it is not entirely clear if you could wait for the first metastasis to develop and then give 1 of these treatments and have the same OS benefit.

At the VA Portland Health Care System (VAPORHCS), it took a while to make these drugs available. My fellows were excited to give these drugs right away, but I often counsel patients that we don’t know if the second-generation AR targeting agents will improve survival. They almost certainly will bring down PSAs, which helps with peace of mind, but anything we add to the ADT can cause more AEs.

I have been cautious with second-generation AR antagonists because patients, when they take one of these drugs, are going to be on it for a long time. The FDA has approved those 2 drugs regardless of PSA doubling time, but I would not give it for a PSA doubling time > 10 months. In my practice about a quarter of patients who would qualify for apalutamide or enzalutamide are actually taking one, and the others are monitored closely with computed tomography (CT) and bone scans. When the disease becomes metastatic, then we start those drugs.

Mark Klein. Why 10 months, why not 6 months, a year, or 18 months? Is there reasoning behind that?

Julie Graff. There was a publication by Matthew Smith showing that the PSA doubling time was predictive of the development of metastatic disease and cancer death or prostate cancer death, and that 10 months seemed to be the cutoff between when the prostate cancer was going to become deadly vs not.¹² If you actually look at the trial data, I think the PSA doubling time was between 3 and 4 months for the participants, so pretty short.

Adverse Effects

Mark Klein. What are the AEs people are seeing from using apalutamide, enzalutamide, and abiraterone? What are they seeing in their practice vs what is in the studies? When I have had to stop people on abiraterone or drop down the dose, almost always it has been for fatigue. We check liver function tests (LFTs) repeatedly, but I can’t remember ever having to drop down the dose or take it away even for that reason.

Elizabeth Hansen. The toxicities of these 3 agents are very different. In my practice I have seen a few patients develop hepatotoxicity with abiraterone, and I think this reflects the known incidence of transaminitis (grade 3/4) seen in clinical trials, reported at 6%. Generally, we’ve been able to restart treatment by withholding abiraterone until liver function returns to baseline and then subsequently dose reducing. Like Julie mentioned, abiraterone should be used with caution and/or avoided in patients with serious cardiac disease, recent myocardial infarction, or heart failure. I also always check blood pressure history, to ensure it is well controlled prior to initiation, and order a home blood pressure cuff for monitoring. With enzalutamide one of the main concerns is fatigue, which occurred in > 10% of patients in clinical trials. In my experience this has been dose limiting and can be managed with dose reductions. Seizures also occurred in 0.4% of patients on enzalutamide, so I always ask about seizure history and screen the medication list for concomitant medications that may lower the seizure threshold or other risk factors such as brain metastasis. Last, enzalutamide is a strong CYP3A4 inducer, so there is a strong possibility for drug interactions with other medications, and it is associated with increased cardiac events. With apalutamide you have the cardiac concerns, thyroid dysfunction, fracture risk, and drug interactions to worry about as well. To be honest, we have not used this agent yet at my practice.

Mark Klein. At the Minneapolis VA Health Care System (MVAHCS) when apalutamide first came out, for the PSA rapid doubling, there had already been an abstract presenting the enzalutamide data. We have chosen to recommend enzalutamide as our choice for the people with PSA doubling based on the cost. It’s significantly cheaper for the VA. Between the 2 papers there is very little difference in the efficacy data. I’m wondering what other sites have done with regard to that specific point at their VAs?

Elizabeth Hansen. In Columbus, we prefer to use either abiraterone and enzalutamide because they’re essentially cost neutral. However, this may change with generic abiraterone coming to market. Apalutamide is really cost prohibitive currently.

Julie Graff. I agree.

Patient Education

Mark Klein. At MVAHCS, the navigators handle a lot of upfront education. We have 3 navigators, including Kathleen Nelson who is on this roundtable. She works with patients and provides much of the patient education. How have you handled education for patients?

Kathleen Nelson. For the most part, our pharmacists do the drug-specific education for the oral agents, and the nurse navigators provide more generic education. We did a trial for patients on IV therapies. We learned that patients really don’t report in much detail, but if you call and ask them specific questions, then you can tease out some more detail.

Elizabeth Hansen. It is interesting that every site is different. One of my main roles is oral antineoplastic monitoring, which includes many patients on enzalutamide or abiraterone. At least initially with these patients, I try to follow them closely—abiraterone more so than enzalutamide. I typically call every 2 to 4 weeks, in between clinic visits, to follow up the laboratory tests and manage the AEs. I always try to ask direct and open-ended questions: How often are you checking your blood pressure? What is your current weight? How has your energy level changed since therapy initiation?

The VA telehealth system is amazing. For patients who need to monitor blood pressure regularly, it’s really nice for them to have those numbers come directly back to me in CPRS (Computerized Patient Record System). That has worked wonders for some of our patients to get them through therapy.

Mark Klein. What do you tend to use when the prostate cancer is progressing for a patient? And how do you determine that progression? Some studies will use PSA rise only as a marker for progression. Other studies have not used PSA rise as the only marker for progression and oftentimes require some sort of bone scan criteria or CT imaging criteria for progression.

Julie Graff. We have a limited number of treatment options. Providers typically use enzalutamide or abiraterone as there is a high degree of resistance between the 2. Then there is chemotherapy and then radium, which quite a few people don’t qualify for. We need to be very thoughtful when we change treatments. I look at the 3 factors of biochemical progression or response—PSA, radiographic progression, and clinical progression. If I don’t see 2 out of 3, I typically don’t change treatments. Then after enzalutamide or abiraterone, I wait until there are cancer-related symptoms before I consider chemotherapy and closely monitor my patients.

Imaging Modalities

Abhishek Solanki. Over the last few years the Hines VA Hospital has used fluciclovine positron emission tomography (PET), which is one of the novel imaging modalities for prostate cancer. Really the 2 novel imaging modalities that have gained the most excitement are prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET and fluciclovine PET. Fluciclovine PET is based on a synthetic amino acid that’s taken up in multiple tissues, including prostate cancer. It has changed our practice in the localized setting for patients who have developed recurrence after radiation or radical prostatectomy. We have incorporated the scan into our workup of patients with recurrent disease, which can give us some more information at lower PSAs than historically we could get with CT, bone scan, or magnetic resonance imaging.

Our medical oncologists have started using it more and more as well. We are getting a lot of patients who have a negative CT or bone scan but have a positive fluciclovine PET. There are a few different disease settings where that becomes relevant. In patients who develop biochemical recurrence after radiation or salvage radiation after radical, we are finding that a lot of these patients who have no CT or bone scan findings of disease ultimately are found to have a PET-positive lesion. Sometimes it’s difficult to know how best to help patients with PET-only disease. Should you target the disease with an oligometastasis approach or just pursue systemic therapy or surveillance? It is challenging but more and more we are moving toward metastasis-directed therapy. There are multiple randomized trials in progress testing whether metastasis-directed therapy to the PET areas of recurrence can improve outcomes or delay systemic ADT. The STOMP trial randomized surveillance vs SBRT or surgery for patients with oligometastatic disease that showed improvement in biochemical control and ADT-free survival.¹³ However this was a small trial that tried to identify a signal. More definitive trials are necessary.

The other setting where we have found novel PET imaging to be helpful is in patients who have become castration resistant but don’t have clear metastases on conventional imaging. We’re identifying more patients who have only a few sites of progression, and we’ll pursue metastasis-directed therapy to those areas to try to get more mileage out of the systemic therapy that the patient is currently on and to try to avoid having to switch to the next line with the idea that, potentially, the progression site is just a limited clone that is progressing despite the current systemic therapy.
 

Mark Klein. I find that to be a very attractive approach. I’m assuming you do that for any systemic therapy where people have maybe 1 or 2 sites and they do not have a big PSA jump. Do you have a number of sites that you’re willing to radiate? And then, when you do that, what radiation fractionation and dosing do you use? Is there any observational data behind that for efficacy?

Abhishek Solanki. It is a patient by patient decision. Some patients, if they have a very rapid pace of progression shortly after starting systemic therapy and metastases have grown in several areas, we think that perhaps this person may benefit less from aggressive local therapy. But if it’s somebody who has been on systemic therapy for a while and has up to 3 sites of disease growth, we consider SBRT for oligoprogressive disease. Typically, we’ll use SBRT, which delivers a high dose of radiation over 3 to 5 treatments. With SBRT you can give a higher biologic dose and use more sophisticated treatment machines and image guidance for treatments to focus the radiation on the tumor area and limit exposure to normal tissue structures.

In prostate cancer to the primary site, we will typically do around 35 to 40 Gy in 5 fractions. For metastases, it depends on the site. If it’s in the lung, typically we will do 3 to 5 treatments, giving approximately 50 to 60 Gy in that course. In the spine, we use lower doses near the spinal cord and the cauda equina, typically about 30 Gy in 3 fractions. In the liver, similar to the lung, we’ll typically do 50-54 Gy in 3-5 fractions. There aren’t a lot of high-level data guiding the optimal dose/fractionation to metastases, but these are the doses we’ll use for various malignancies.

Treatment Options for Patients With Adverse Events

Mark Klein. I was just reviewing the 2004 study that randomized patients to mitoxantrone or docetaxel for up to 10 cycles.^14,15 Who are good candidates for docetaxel after they have exhausted abiraterone and enzalutamide? How long do you hold to the 10-cycle rule, or do you go beyond that if they’re doing well? And if they’re not a good candidate, what are some options?

Julie Graff. The best candidates are those who are having a cancer-related AE, particularly pain, because docetaxel only improves survival over mitoxantrone by about 2.5 months. I don’t talk to patients about it as though it is a life extender, but it seems to help control pain—about 70% of patients benefited in terms of pain or some other cancer-related symptom.¹⁴

I have a lot of patients who say, “Never will I do chemotherapy.” I refer those patients to hospice, or if they’re appropriate for radium-223, I consider that. I typically give about 6 cycles of chemotherapy and then see how they’re doing. In some patients, the cancer just doesn’t respond to it.

I do tell patients about the papers that you mentioned, the 2 studies of docetaxel vs mitoxantrone where they use about 10 cycles, and some of my patients go all 10.^14,15 Sometimes we have to stop because of neuropathy or some other AE. I believe in taking breaks and that you can probably start it later.

Elizabeth Hansen. I agree, our practice is similar. A lot of our patients are not very interested in chemotherapy. You have to take into consideration their ECOG (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group) status, their goals, and quality of life when talking to them about these medications. And a lot of them tend to choose more of a palliative route. Depending on their AEs and how things are going, we will dose reduce, hold treatment, or give treatment holidays.

Mark Klein. If patients are progressing on docetaxel, what are options that people would use? Radium-223 certainly is available for patients with nonvisceral metastases, as well as cabazitaxel, mitoxantrone, estramustine and other older drugs.

Julie Graff. We have some clinical trials for patients postdocetaxel. We have the TRITON2 and TRITON3 studies open at the VA. (NCT02952534 and NCT02975934, respectively) A lot of patients would get a biopsy, and we’d look for a BRCA 1 or 2 and ATM mutation. For those patients who don’t have those mutations—and maybe 80% of them don’t—we talk about radium-223 for the patients without visceral metastases and bone pain. I have had a fair number of patients go on cabazitaxel, but I have not used mitoxantrone since cabazitaxel came out. It’s not off the table, but it hasn’t shown improvement in survival.

Elizabeth Hansen. One of our challenges, because we’re an ambulatory care center, is that we are unable to give radium-223 in house, and these services have to be sent out to a non-VA facility. It is doable, but it takes more legwork and organization on our part.

Julie Graff. We have not had radium-223, although we’re working to get that online. And we are physically connected to Oregon Health Science University (OHSU), so we send our patients there for radium. It is a pain because the doctors at OHSU don’t have CPRS access. I’m often in the middle of making sure the complete blood counts (CBCs) are sent to OHSU and to get my patients their treatments.

Mark Klein. The Minneapolis VAMC has radium-223 on site, and we have used it for patients whose cancer has progressed while on docetaxel without visceral metastases. Katie, have you had an opportunity to coordinate that care for patients?

Kathleen Nelson. Radium is administered at our facility by one of our nuclear medicine physicians. A complete blood count is checked at least 3 days prior to the infusion date but no sooner than 6 days. Due to the cost of the material, ordering without knowing the patient’s counts are within a safe range to administer is prohibitive. This adds an additional burden of 2 visits (lab with return visit) to the patient. We have treated 12 patients. Four patients stopped treatment prior to completing the 6 planned treatments citing debilitating fatigue and/or nonresolution of symptoms as their reason to stop treatment. One patient died. The 7 remaining patients subjectively reported varying degrees of pain relief.

Elizabeth Hansen. Another thing to mention is the lack of a PSA response from radium-223 as well. Patients are generally very diligent about monitoring their PSA, so this can be a bit distressing.

Mark Klein. Julie, have you noticed a PSA flare with radium-223? I know it has been reported.

Julie Graff. I haven’t. But I put little stock in PSAs in these patients. I spend 20 minutes explaining to patients that the PSA is not helpful in determining whether or not the radium is working. I tell them that the bone marker alkaline phosphatase may decrease. And I think it’s important to note, too, that radium-223 is not a treatment we have on the shelf. We order it from Denver I believe. It is weight based, and it takes 5 days to get.

Clinical Trials

Mark Klein. That leads us into clinical trials. What is the role for precision oncology in prostate cancer right now, specifically looking at particular panels? One would be the DNA repair enzyme-based genes and/or also the AR variants and any other markers.

Elizabeth Hansen. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network came out with a statement recommending germ-line and somatic-mutation testing in all patients with metastatic prostate cancer. This highlights the need to offer patients the availability of clinical trials.

Julie Graff. I agree. We occasionally get to a place in the disease where patients are feeling fine, but we don’t have anything else to offer. The studies by Robinson¹⁶ and then Matteo¹⁷ showed that (a) these DNA repair defects are present in about a quarter of patients; and (b) that PARP inhibitors can help these patients. At least it has an anticancer effect.

What’s interesting is that we have TRITON2, and TRITON3, which are sponsored by Clovis,for patients with BRCA 1/2 and ATM mutations and using the PARP-inhibitor rucaparib. Based on the data we have available, we thought a quarter of patients would have the mutation in the tumor, but they’re finding that it is more like 10% to 15%. They are screening many patients but not finding it.

I agree that clinical trials are the way to go. I am hopeful that we’ll get more treatments based on molecular markers. The approval for pembrolizumab in any tumor type with microsatellite instability is interesting, but in prostate cancer, I believe that’s about 3%. I haven’t seen anyone qualify for pembrolizumab based on that. Another plug for clinical trials: Let’s learn more and offer our patients potentially beneficial treatments earlier.

Mark Klein. The first interim analysis from the TRITON2 study found about 12% of patients had alterations in BRCA 1/2. But in those that met the RECIST criteria, they were able to have evaluable disease via that standard with about a 44% response rate so far and a 51% PSA response rate. It is promising data, but it’s only 85 patients so far. We’ll know more because the TRITON2 study is of a more pretreated population than the TRITION3 study at this point. Are there any data on precision medicine and radiation in prostate cancer?

Abhishek Solanki. In the prostate cancer setting, there are not a lot of emerging data specifically looking at using precision oncology biomarkers to help guide decisions in radiation therapy. For example, genomic classifiers, like GenomeDx Decipher (Vancouver, BC) and Myriad Genetics Prolaris (Salt Lake City, UT) are increasingly being utilized in patients with localized disease. Decipher can help predict the risk of recurrence after radical prostatectomy. The difficulty is that there are limited data that show that by using these genomic classifiers, one can improve outcomes in patients over traditional clinical characteristics.

There are 2 trials currently ongoing through NRG Oncology that are using Decipher. The GU002 is a trial for patients who had a radical prostatectomy and had a postoperative PSA that never nadired below 0.2. These patients are randomized between salvage radiation with hormone therapy with or without docetaxel. This trial is collecting Decipher results for patients enrolled in the study. The GU006 is a trial for a slightly more favorable group of patients who do nadir but still have biochemical recurrence and relatively low PSAs. This trial randomizes between radiotherapy alone and radiotherapy and 6 months of apalutamide, stratifying patients based on Decipher results, specially differentiating between patients who have a luminal vs basal subtype of prostate cancer. There are data that suggest that patients who have a luminal subtype may benefit more from the combination of radiation and hormone therapy vs patients who have basal subtype.¹⁸ However this hasn’t been validated in a prospective setting, and that’s what this trial will hopefully do.

Immunotherapies

Mark Klein. Outside of prostate cancer, there has been a lot of research trying to determine how to improve PD-L1 expression. Where are immunotherapy trials moving? How radiation might play a role in conjunction with immunotherapy.

Julie Graff. Two phase 3 studies did not show statistically improved survival or statistically significant survival improvement on ipilimumab, an immunotherapy agent that targets CTLA4. Some early studies of the PD-1 drugs nivolumab and pembrolizumab did not show much response with monotherapy. Despite the negative phase 3 studies for ipilimumab, we periodically see exceptional responses.

In prostate cancer, enzalutamide is FDA approved. And there’s currently a phase 3 study of the PD-L1 inhibitor atezolizumab plus enzalutamide in patients who have progressed on abiraterone. That trial is fully accrued, but the results are not yet known. Soon a study will compare pembrolizumab plus enzalutamide vs enzalutamide alone. So the combinations are getting more interesting.

I just received a Prostate Cancer Foundation Challenge Award to open a VA-only study looking at fecal microbiota transplant from responders to nonresponders to see how manipulating host factors can increase potential responses to PD-1 inhibition.

Abhishek Solanki. The classic mechanism by which radiation therapy works is direct DNA damage and indirect DNA damage through hydroxyl radicals that leads to cytotoxicity. But preclinical and clinical data suggest that radiation therapy can augment the local and systemic immunotherapy response. The radiation oncologist’s dream is what is called the abscopal effect, which is the idea that when you treat one site of disease with radiation, it can induce a response at other sites that didn’t get radiation therapy through reactivation of the immune system. I like to think of the abscopal effect like bigfoot—it’s elusive. However, it seems that the setting it is most likely to happen in is in combination with immunotherapy.

One of the ways that radiation fails locally is that it can upregulate PD-1 expression, and as a result, you can have progression of the tumor because of local immune suppression. We know that T cells are important for the activity of radiation therapy. If you combine checkpoint inhibition with radiation therapy, you can not only have better local control in the area of the tumor, but perhaps you can release tumor antigens that will then induce a systemic response.

The other potential mechanism by which radiation may work synergistically with immunotherapy is as a debulking agent. There are some data that suggest that the ratio of T-cell reinvigoration to bulk of disease, or the volume of tumor burden, is important. That is, having T-cell reinvigoration may not be sufficient to have a response to immunotherapy in patients with a large burden of disease. By using radiation to debulk disease, perhaps you could help make checkpoint inhibition more effective. Ultimately, in the setting of prostate cancer, there are not a lot of data yet showing meaningful benefits with the combination of immunotherapy and radiotherapy, but there are trials that are ongoing that will educate on potential synergy.

Pharmacy

Julie Graff. Before we end I want to make sure that we applaud the amazing pharmacists and patient care navigation teams in the VA who do such a great job of getting veterans the appropriate treatment expeditiously and keeping them safe. It’s something that is truly unique to the VA. And I want to thank the people on this call who do this every day.

Elizabeth Hansen. Thank you Julie. Compared with working in the community, at the VA I’m honestly amazed by the ease of access to these medications for our patients. Being able to deliver medications sometimes the same day to the patient is just not something that happens in the community. It’s nice to see that our veterans are getting cared for in that manner.

Author disclosures
Dr. Solanki participated in advisory boards for Blue Earth Diagnostics’ fluciclovine PET and was previously paid as a consultant. Dr. Graff is a consultant for Sanofi (docetaxel) and Astellas (enzalutamide), and has received research funding (no personal funding)from Sanofi, Merck (pembrolizumab), Astellas, and Jannsen (abiraterone, apalutamide). The other authors report no actual or potential conflicts of interest with regard to this article.

Disclaimer
The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Federal Practitioner, Frontline Medical Communications Inc., the US Government, or any of its agencies. This article may discuss unlabeled or investigational use of certain drugs. Please review the complete prescribing information for specific drugs or drug combinations—including indications, contraindications, warnings, and adverse effects—before administering pharmacologic therapy to patients.

The general public may have been led to believe that by decoding genes into their constituent parts, clinicians can prevent or predict serious illnesses and personalize treatment. While this may be true in some areas of medicine, such as oncology, using a pharmacogenetic testing-based “lookup table” to prescribe psychiatric medications is disturbing. This practice could lead to incorrect prescriptions, as well as a lack of follow-up or appropriate dosage titration or medication switching. These problems could put a patient’s life at risk and, consequently, bring the field of psychiatry into disrepute.

In the last few years, using pharmacogenetics to predict or prevent illness and personalize treatment has become very attractive. A 2019 meta-analysis of 5 randomized controlled trials examined the use of pharmacogenetic-guided decision support tools for major depressive disorder (MDD). Researchers randomized 1,737 participants with MDD to either pharmacogenetic-guided decision support tools or treatment as usual.¹ Patients were assessed using the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale–17 three times over 8 weeks. Compared with those who received treatment as usual, those who were managed using pharmacogenetic-guided decision support tools were more likely to achieve remission from depressive symptoms (relative risk = 1.71; 95% CI, 1.17 to 2.48; P = .005). However, these results are controversial because the included studies were industry-funded, and proprietary algorithms were used to interpret the results. (Editor's note: For more information about this study and pharma­cogenetic testing, see “Pharmacogenomics testing: What the FDA says,” Savvy Psychopharmacology, Current Psych­­iatry. April 2019, p. 29-33.)

In a policy statement on the use of pharmacogenetic testing in psychiatry, the International Society of Psychiatric Genetics (ISPG) explained that such testing should be viewed as a decision support tool to assist in implementing good clinical care, rather than as an alternative to standard protocols.² Furthermore, the ISPG stated that “common genetic variants are not sufficient to cause psychiatric disorders such as depression, bipolar disorder, substance dependence, or schizophrenia.”²

Some manufacturers have claimed that their pharmacogenetic tests can provide information on how a patient will respond to medications for treating depression and other conditions, and when a clinician can or should change a patient’s medication. However, the relationship between DNA variations and the effectiveness of antidepressant medications has not been established, and basing clinical decisions on the results of these tests may lead to inappropriate medication changes.

Pharmacogenetic tests are being advertised to both clinicians and patients, but the FDA has not approved the use of any test for providing information on a patient’s ability to respond to any specific medication.³ Therefore, psychiatrists should discuss the use of pharmacogenetic testing with their patients, and advise patients to avoid stopping or changing their medications based on the results of any pharmacogenetic test. Clinicians should not change a patient’s medication regimen solely based on the results of pharmacogenetic testing. These tests are not supported by scientific or clinical evidence, and using these tests for clinical decisions may put the patient at risk for potentially serious health consequences.

Aneela Jafri, MD, MS
Research Volunteer
Ocean Medical Center
Nutley, New Jersey

Ramon Solhkhah, MD
Founding Chair and Professor
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Health
Hackensack Meridian School of Medicine at Seton Hall University
Nutley, New Jersey
Chair
Department of Psychiatry
Jersey Shore University Medical Center
Neptune, New Jersey
Residency Training Director
General Psychiatry
Ocean Medical Center
Brick, New Jersey

Stacy Doumas, MD
Vice Chair
Associate Professor
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Health
Hackensack Meridian School of Medicine at Seton Hall University
Nutley, New Jersey
Vice Chair for Education & Research
Residency Training Director
General Psychiatry
Jersey Shore University Medical Center Neptune, New Jersey

Saba Afzal, MD
Assistant Professor
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Health
Hackensack Meridian School of Medicine at Seton Hall University
Nutley, New Jersey
Associate Residency Training Director General Psychiatry
Ocean Medical Center
Brick, New Jersey

Disclosures: The authors report no financial relationships with any companies whose products are mentioned in this article, or with manufacturers of competing products.

The general public may have been led to believe that by decoding genes into their constituent parts, clinicians can prevent or predict serious illnesses and personalize treatment. While this may be true in some areas of medicine, such as oncology, using a pharmacogenetic testing-based “lookup table” to prescribe psychiatric medications is disturbing. This practice could lead to incorrect prescriptions, as well as a lack of follow-up or appropriate dosage titration or medication switching. These problems could put a patient’s life at risk and, consequently, bring the field of psychiatry into disrepute.

In the last few years, using pharmacogenetics to predict or prevent illness and personalize treatment has become very attractive. A 2019 meta-analysis of 5 randomized controlled trials examined the use of pharmacogenetic-guided decision support tools for major depressive disorder (MDD). Researchers randomized 1,737 participants with MDD to either pharmacogenetic-guided decision support tools or treatment as usual.¹ Patients were assessed using the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale–17 three times over 8 weeks. Compared with those who received treatment as usual, those who were managed using pharmacogenetic-guided decision support tools were more likely to achieve remission from depressive symptoms (relative risk = 1.71; 95% CI, 1.17 to 2.48; P = .005). However, these results are controversial because the included studies were industry-funded, and proprietary algorithms were used to interpret the results. (Editor's note: For more information about this study and pharma­cogenetic testing, see “Pharmacogenomics testing: What the FDA says,” Savvy Psychopharmacology, Current Psych­­iatry. April 2019, p. 29-33.)

In a policy statement on the use of pharmacogenetic testing in psychiatry, the International Society of Psychiatric Genetics (ISPG) explained that such testing should be viewed as a decision support tool to assist in implementing good clinical care, rather than as an alternative to standard protocols.² Furthermore, the ISPG stated that “common genetic variants are not sufficient to cause psychiatric disorders such as depression, bipolar disorder, substance dependence, or schizophrenia.”²

Some manufacturers have claimed that their pharmacogenetic tests can provide information on how a patient will respond to medications for treating depression and other conditions, and when a clinician can or should change a patient’s medication. However, the relationship between DNA variations and the effectiveness of antidepressant medications has not been established, and basing clinical decisions on the results of these tests may lead to inappropriate medication changes.

Pharmacogenetic tests are being advertised to both clinicians and patients, but the FDA has not approved the use of any test for providing information on a patient’s ability to respond to any specific medication.³ Therefore, psychiatrists should discuss the use of pharmacogenetic testing with their patients, and advise patients to avoid stopping or changing their medications based on the results of any pharmacogenetic test. Clinicians should not change a patient’s medication regimen solely based on the results of pharmacogenetic testing. These tests are not supported by scientific or clinical evidence, and using these tests for clinical decisions may put the patient at risk for potentially serious health consequences.

Aneela Jafri, MD, MS
Research Volunteer
Ocean Medical Center
Nutley, New Jersey

Ramon Solhkhah, MD
Founding Chair and Professor
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Health
Hackensack Meridian School of Medicine at Seton Hall University
Nutley, New Jersey
Chair
Department of Psychiatry
Jersey Shore University Medical Center
Neptune, New Jersey
Residency Training Director
General Psychiatry
Ocean Medical Center
Brick, New Jersey

Stacy Doumas, MD
Vice Chair
Associate Professor
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Health
Hackensack Meridian School of Medicine at Seton Hall University
Nutley, New Jersey
Vice Chair for Education & Research
Residency Training Director
General Psychiatry
Jersey Shore University Medical Center Neptune, New Jersey

Saba Afzal, MD
Assistant Professor
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Health
Hackensack Meridian School of Medicine at Seton Hall University
Nutley, New Jersey
Associate Residency Training Director General Psychiatry
Ocean Medical Center
Brick, New Jersey

Disclosures: The authors report no financial relationships with any companies whose products are mentioned in this article, or with manufacturers of competing products.

The general public may have been led to believe that by decoding genes into their constituent parts, clinicians can prevent or predict serious illnesses and personalize treatment. While this may be true in some areas of medicine, such as oncology, using a pharmacogenetic testing-based “lookup table” to prescribe psychiatric medications is disturbing. This practice could lead to incorrect prescriptions, as well as a lack of follow-up or appropriate dosage titration or medication switching. These problems could put a patient’s life at risk and, consequently, bring the field of psychiatry into disrepute.

In the last few years, using pharmacogenetics to predict or prevent illness and personalize treatment has become very attractive. A 2019 meta-analysis of 5 randomized controlled trials examined the use of pharmacogenetic-guided decision support tools for major depressive disorder (MDD). Researchers randomized 1,737 participants with MDD to either pharmacogenetic-guided decision support tools or treatment as usual.¹ Patients were assessed using the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale–17 three times over 8 weeks. Compared with those who received treatment as usual, those who were managed using pharmacogenetic-guided decision support tools were more likely to achieve remission from depressive symptoms (relative risk = 1.71; 95% CI, 1.17 to 2.48; P = .005). However, these results are controversial because the included studies were industry-funded, and proprietary algorithms were used to interpret the results. (Editor's note: For more information about this study and pharma­cogenetic testing, see “Pharmacogenomics testing: What the FDA says,” Savvy Psychopharmacology, Current Psych­­iatry. April 2019, p. 29-33.)

In a policy statement on the use of pharmacogenetic testing in psychiatry, the International Society of Psychiatric Genetics (ISPG) explained that such testing should be viewed as a decision support tool to assist in implementing good clinical care, rather than as an alternative to standard protocols.² Furthermore, the ISPG stated that “common genetic variants are not sufficient to cause psychiatric disorders such as depression, bipolar disorder, substance dependence, or schizophrenia.”²

Some manufacturers have claimed that their pharmacogenetic tests can provide information on how a patient will respond to medications for treating depression and other conditions, and when a clinician can or should change a patient’s medication. However, the relationship between DNA variations and the effectiveness of antidepressant medications has not been established, and basing clinical decisions on the results of these tests may lead to inappropriate medication changes.

Pharmacogenetic tests are being advertised to both clinicians and patients, but the FDA has not approved the use of any test for providing information on a patient’s ability to respond to any specific medication.³ Therefore, psychiatrists should discuss the use of pharmacogenetic testing with their patients, and advise patients to avoid stopping or changing their medications based on the results of any pharmacogenetic test. Clinicians should not change a patient’s medication regimen solely based on the results of pharmacogenetic testing. These tests are not supported by scientific or clinical evidence, and using these tests for clinical decisions may put the patient at risk for potentially serious health consequences.

Aneela Jafri, MD, MS
Research Volunteer
Ocean Medical Center
Nutley, New Jersey

Ramon Solhkhah, MD
Founding Chair and Professor
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Health
Hackensack Meridian School of Medicine at Seton Hall University
Nutley, New Jersey
Chair
Department of Psychiatry
Jersey Shore University Medical Center
Neptune, New Jersey
Residency Training Director
General Psychiatry
Ocean Medical Center
Brick, New Jersey

Stacy Doumas, MD
Vice Chair
Associate Professor
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Health
Hackensack Meridian School of Medicine at Seton Hall University
Nutley, New Jersey
Vice Chair for Education & Research
Residency Training Director
General Psychiatry
Jersey Shore University Medical Center Neptune, New Jersey

Saba Afzal, MD
Assistant Professor
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Health
Hackensack Meridian School of Medicine at Seton Hall University
Nutley, New Jersey
Associate Residency Training Director General Psychiatry
Ocean Medical Center
Brick, New Jersey

Disclosures: The authors report no financial relationships with any companies whose products are mentioned in this article, or with manufacturers of competing products.

One of the most malignant threats that is adversely impacting physicians is the insidious metastasis of the term “provider” within the national health care system over the past 2 to 3 decades.

This demeaning adjective is outrageously inappropriate and beneath the stature of medical doctors (MDs) who sacrificed 12 to 15 years of their lives in college, medical schools, residency programs, and post-residency fellowships to become physicians, specialists, and subspecialists. It is distressing to see hospitals, clinics, pharmacies, insurance corporations, and managed care companies refer to psychiatrists and other physicians as “providers.” It is time to fight back and restore our noble medical identity, which society has always respected and appreciated.

Our unique professional identify is at stake. We do not want to be lumped with nonphysicians as if we are interchangeable parts of a health care system or cogs in a wheel. No other mental health professional has the extensive training, scientific knowledge, clinical expertise, research accomplishments, and teaching/supervisory abilities that physicians have. We strongly uphold the sacred tenet of the physician-patient relationship, and adamantly reject its corruption into a provider-consumer transaction.

Even plumbers and electricians are not referred to as “providers.” Lawyers are not called legal aid providers. Teachers are not called knowledge providers, and administrators and CEOs are not called management providers. So why should physicians in any specialty, including psychiatry, obsequiously accept the denigration of their esteemed medical identify into the vague, amorphous ipseity of a “provider”? Family physicians, internists, and pediatricians used to be called primary care physicians, but have been reduced to primary care providers, which is insulting and degrading to these highly trained MD specialists.

The corruption and debasement of the professional identify of physicians and the propagation of the usage of the belittling term “provider” can be traced back to 3 entities:

1. The Nazi Third Reich. This is the most evil origin of the term “provider,” inflicted on Jewish physicians as part of the despicable persecution of German Jews in the 1930s. The Nazis decided to deprive pediatricians of being called physicians (“Arzt” in German) and forcefully relabeled them as “behandlers” or “providers,” thus erasing their noble medical identity.¹ In 1933, all Jewish pediatricians were expelled or forced to resign from the German Society of Pediatrics and were no longer allowed to be called doctors. This deliberate and systematic humiliation of pediatric clinicians and scientists was followed by deporting the lowly “providers” to concentration camps. So why perpetuate this pernicious Nazi terminology?

2. The Federal Government. The term “provider” was introduced and propagated in Public Law 93-641 titled “The National Health Planning and Resource Development Act of 1974.” In that document, patients were referred to as “consumers” and physicians as “providers” (this term was used 19 times in that law). At that time, the civil service employees who drafted the law that marginalized physicians by using generic, nonmedical nomenclature may not have realized the dire consequences of relabeling physicians as “providers.”

Continue to: Insurance companies, managed care companies, and consolidated health systems...

3. Insurance companies, managed care companies, and consolidated health systems have jubilantly adopted the term “provider” because they can equate physicians with less expensive, nonphysician clinicians (physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and certified registered nurse anesthetists), especially when physicians across several specialties (particularly psychiatry) are in short supply. None of these clinicians deserve to be labeled “providers,” either.

To understand why the term “provider” was used instead of “clinicians” or “clinical practitioner,” one must recognize the “businessification” of medicine and the commoditization of clinical care in our country. In some ways, health care has adopted a model similar to a fast-food joint, where workers provide customers with a hamburger. The question here is why did the 1.1 million physicians in the United States not halt this terminology shift before it spread and permeated the national health care system? Physicians who graduate from medical schools (not “provider” schools!) must vigorously and loudly fight back and put this wicked genie back in its bottle. This is feasible only if the American Medical Association (which would never conceive of itself as the “American Provider Association”), along with all 48 specialty organizations (Table), including the American Psychiatric Association (APA), unite and demand that physicians be called medical doctors or physicians, or by a term that reflects their specialty (orthopedists, psychiatrists, oncologists, gastroenterologists, anesthesiologists, cardiologists, etc.). This is an urgent issue to prevent the dissolution of our professional identity and its highly regarded societal image. It is a travesty that we physicians have allowed it to go on unopposed and to become entrenched in the dumbed-down jargon of health care. Physicians tend to avoid confrontation and adversarial stances, but we must unite and demand a return to the traditional nomenclature of medicine.

Much debate has emerged lately about an epidemic of “burnout” among physicians. Proposed causes include the savage increase in the amount of paperwork at the expense of patient care, the sense of helplessness that pre-authorization has inflicted on physicians’ decision-making, and the tyranny of relative value units (RVUs) as a benchmark for physician performance, as if healing patients is like manufacturing widgets. However, the blow to the self-esteem of physicians by being called “providers” daily is certainly another major factor contributing to burnout. It is perfectly legitimate for physicians to expect recognition for their long, rigorous, and uniquely advanced medical training, instead of being lumped together with less qualified professionals as anonymous “providers” in the name of politically correct pseudo-equality of all clinical practitioners. Let the administrators stop and contemplate whether tertiary or quaternary care for the most complex and severely ill patients in medical, surgical, or psychiatric intensive care units can operate without highly specialized physicians.

I urge APA leadership to take a visible and strong stand to rid psychiatrists of this assault on our medical identity. As I mentioned in my January 2020 editorial,² it is vital that the name of our national psychiatric organization (APA) be modified to the American Psychiatric Physicians Association, to remind all health care systems, as well as patients, the public, and the media, of our medical identity as physicians before we specialized in psychiatry.

Continue to: Patients, not clients

 

 

Patients, not clients

We should also emphasize that our suffering and medically ill patients with serious neuropsychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, depression, panic disorder, or obsessive-compulsive disorder are patients, not clients. The terminology used in community mental health centers around the country almost universally includes “providers” and “clients.” This de-medicalization of psychiatrists and our patients must be corrected and reversed so that the public understands that treating mental illness is not a business transaction between a “provider” and a “client.” Using the correct terminology may help generate sympathy and compassion towards patients with serious psychiatric illnesses, just as it does for patients with cancer, heart disease, or stroke. The term “client” will never evoke the public sympathy and support that our patients truly deserve.

Let’s keep this issue alive and translate our demands into actions, both locally and nationally. Psychiatrists and physicians of all other specialties must stand up for their rights and inform their systems of care that they must be called by their legitimate and lawful name: physicians or medical doctors (never “providers”). This is an issue that unites all 1.1 million of us. The US health care system would collapse without us, and asking that we be called exactly what our medical license displays is our right and our professional identity.

One of the most malignant threats that is adversely impacting physicians is the insidious metastasis of the term “provider” within the national health care system over the past 2 to 3 decades.

This demeaning adjective is outrageously inappropriate and beneath the stature of medical doctors (MDs) who sacrificed 12 to 15 years of their lives in college, medical schools, residency programs, and post-residency fellowships to become physicians, specialists, and subspecialists. It is distressing to see hospitals, clinics, pharmacies, insurance corporations, and managed care companies refer to psychiatrists and other physicians as “providers.” It is time to fight back and restore our noble medical identity, which society has always respected and appreciated.

Our unique professional identify is at stake. We do not want to be lumped with nonphysicians as if we are interchangeable parts of a health care system or cogs in a wheel. No other mental health professional has the extensive training, scientific knowledge, clinical expertise, research accomplishments, and teaching/supervisory abilities that physicians have. We strongly uphold the sacred tenet of the physician-patient relationship, and adamantly reject its corruption into a provider-consumer transaction.

Even plumbers and electricians are not referred to as “providers.” Lawyers are not called legal aid providers. Teachers are not called knowledge providers, and administrators and CEOs are not called management providers. So why should physicians in any specialty, including psychiatry, obsequiously accept the denigration of their esteemed medical identify into the vague, amorphous ipseity of a “provider”? Family physicians, internists, and pediatricians used to be called primary care physicians, but have been reduced to primary care providers, which is insulting and degrading to these highly trained MD specialists.

The corruption and debasement of the professional identify of physicians and the propagation of the usage of the belittling term “provider” can be traced back to 3 entities:

1. The Nazi Third Reich. This is the most evil origin of the term “provider,” inflicted on Jewish physicians as part of the despicable persecution of German Jews in the 1930s. The Nazis decided to deprive pediatricians of being called physicians (“Arzt” in German) and forcefully relabeled them as “behandlers” or “providers,” thus erasing their noble medical identity.¹ In 1933, all Jewish pediatricians were expelled or forced to resign from the German Society of Pediatrics and were no longer allowed to be called doctors. This deliberate and systematic humiliation of pediatric clinicians and scientists was followed by deporting the lowly “providers” to concentration camps. So why perpetuate this pernicious Nazi terminology?

2. The Federal Government. The term “provider” was introduced and propagated in Public Law 93-641 titled “The National Health Planning and Resource Development Act of 1974.” In that document, patients were referred to as “consumers” and physicians as “providers” (this term was used 19 times in that law). At that time, the civil service employees who drafted the law that marginalized physicians by using generic, nonmedical nomenclature may not have realized the dire consequences of relabeling physicians as “providers.”

Continue to: Insurance companies, managed care companies, and consolidated health systems...

3. Insurance companies, managed care companies, and consolidated health systems have jubilantly adopted the term “provider” because they can equate physicians with less expensive, nonphysician clinicians (physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and certified registered nurse anesthetists), especially when physicians across several specialties (particularly psychiatry) are in short supply. None of these clinicians deserve to be labeled “providers,” either.

To understand why the term “provider” was used instead of “clinicians” or “clinical practitioner,” one must recognize the “businessification” of medicine and the commoditization of clinical care in our country. In some ways, health care has adopted a model similar to a fast-food joint, where workers provide customers with a hamburger. The question here is why did the 1.1 million physicians in the United States not halt this terminology shift before it spread and permeated the national health care system? Physicians who graduate from medical schools (not “provider” schools!) must vigorously and loudly fight back and put this wicked genie back in its bottle. This is feasible only if the American Medical Association (which would never conceive of itself as the “American Provider Association”), along with all 48 specialty organizations (Table), including the American Psychiatric Association (APA), unite and demand that physicians be called medical doctors or physicians, or by a term that reflects their specialty (orthopedists, psychiatrists, oncologists, gastroenterologists, anesthesiologists, cardiologists, etc.). This is an urgent issue to prevent the dissolution of our professional identity and its highly regarded societal image. It is a travesty that we physicians have allowed it to go on unopposed and to become entrenched in the dumbed-down jargon of health care. Physicians tend to avoid confrontation and adversarial stances, but we must unite and demand a return to the traditional nomenclature of medicine.

Much debate has emerged lately about an epidemic of “burnout” among physicians. Proposed causes include the savage increase in the amount of paperwork at the expense of patient care, the sense of helplessness that pre-authorization has inflicted on physicians’ decision-making, and the tyranny of relative value units (RVUs) as a benchmark for physician performance, as if healing patients is like manufacturing widgets. However, the blow to the self-esteem of physicians by being called “providers” daily is certainly another major factor contributing to burnout. It is perfectly legitimate for physicians to expect recognition for their long, rigorous, and uniquely advanced medical training, instead of being lumped together with less qualified professionals as anonymous “providers” in the name of politically correct pseudo-equality of all clinical practitioners. Let the administrators stop and contemplate whether tertiary or quaternary care for the most complex and severely ill patients in medical, surgical, or psychiatric intensive care units can operate without highly specialized physicians.

I urge APA leadership to take a visible and strong stand to rid psychiatrists of this assault on our medical identity. As I mentioned in my January 2020 editorial,² it is vital that the name of our national psychiatric organization (APA) be modified to the American Psychiatric Physicians Association, to remind all health care systems, as well as patients, the public, and the media, of our medical identity as physicians before we specialized in psychiatry.

Continue to: Patients, not clients

 

 

Patients, not clients

We should also emphasize that our suffering and medically ill patients with serious neuropsychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, depression, panic disorder, or obsessive-compulsive disorder are patients, not clients. The terminology used in community mental health centers around the country almost universally includes “providers” and “clients.” This de-medicalization of psychiatrists and our patients must be corrected and reversed so that the public understands that treating mental illness is not a business transaction between a “provider” and a “client.” Using the correct terminology may help generate sympathy and compassion towards patients with serious psychiatric illnesses, just as it does for patients with cancer, heart disease, or stroke. The term “client” will never evoke the public sympathy and support that our patients truly deserve.

Let’s keep this issue alive and translate our demands into actions, both locally and nationally. Psychiatrists and physicians of all other specialties must stand up for their rights and inform their systems of care that they must be called by their legitimate and lawful name: physicians or medical doctors (never “providers”). This is an issue that unites all 1.1 million of us. The US health care system would collapse without us, and asking that we be called exactly what our medical license displays is our right and our professional identity.

One of the most malignant threats that is adversely impacting physicians is the insidious metastasis of the term “provider” within the national health care system over the past 2 to 3 decades.

This demeaning adjective is outrageously inappropriate and beneath the stature of medical doctors (MDs) who sacrificed 12 to 15 years of their lives in college, medical schools, residency programs, and post-residency fellowships to become physicians, specialists, and subspecialists. It is distressing to see hospitals, clinics, pharmacies, insurance corporations, and managed care companies refer to psychiatrists and other physicians as “providers.” It is time to fight back and restore our noble medical identity, which society has always respected and appreciated.

Our unique professional identify is at stake. We do not want to be lumped with nonphysicians as if we are interchangeable parts of a health care system or cogs in a wheel. No other mental health professional has the extensive training, scientific knowledge, clinical expertise, research accomplishments, and teaching/supervisory abilities that physicians have. We strongly uphold the sacred tenet of the physician-patient relationship, and adamantly reject its corruption into a provider-consumer transaction.

Even plumbers and electricians are not referred to as “providers.” Lawyers are not called legal aid providers. Teachers are not called knowledge providers, and administrators and CEOs are not called management providers. So why should physicians in any specialty, including psychiatry, obsequiously accept the denigration of their esteemed medical identify into the vague, amorphous ipseity of a “provider”? Family physicians, internists, and pediatricians used to be called primary care physicians, but have been reduced to primary care providers, which is insulting and degrading to these highly trained MD specialists.

The corruption and debasement of the professional identify of physicians and the propagation of the usage of the belittling term “provider” can be traced back to 3 entities:

1. The Nazi Third Reich. This is the most evil origin of the term “provider,” inflicted on Jewish physicians as part of the despicable persecution of German Jews in the 1930s. The Nazis decided to deprive pediatricians of being called physicians (“Arzt” in German) and forcefully relabeled them as “behandlers” or “providers,” thus erasing their noble medical identity.¹ In 1933, all Jewish pediatricians were expelled or forced to resign from the German Society of Pediatrics and were no longer allowed to be called doctors. This deliberate and systematic humiliation of pediatric clinicians and scientists was followed by deporting the lowly “providers” to concentration camps. So why perpetuate this pernicious Nazi terminology?

2. The Federal Government. The term “provider” was introduced and propagated in Public Law 93-641 titled “The National Health Planning and Resource Development Act of 1974.” In that document, patients were referred to as “consumers” and physicians as “providers” (this term was used 19 times in that law). At that time, the civil service employees who drafted the law that marginalized physicians by using generic, nonmedical nomenclature may not have realized the dire consequences of relabeling physicians as “providers.”

Continue to: Insurance companies, managed care companies, and consolidated health systems...

3. Insurance companies, managed care companies, and consolidated health systems have jubilantly adopted the term “provider” because they can equate physicians with less expensive, nonphysician clinicians (physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and certified registered nurse anesthetists), especially when physicians across several specialties (particularly psychiatry) are in short supply. None of these clinicians deserve to be labeled “providers,” either.

To understand why the term “provider” was used instead of “clinicians” or “clinical practitioner,” one must recognize the “businessification” of medicine and the commoditization of clinical care in our country. In some ways, health care has adopted a model similar to a fast-food joint, where workers provide customers with a hamburger. The question here is why did the 1.1 million physicians in the United States not halt this terminology shift before it spread and permeated the national health care system? Physicians who graduate from medical schools (not “provider” schools!) must vigorously and loudly fight back and put this wicked genie back in its bottle. This is feasible only if the American Medical Association (which would never conceive of itself as the “American Provider Association”), along with all 48 specialty organizations (Table), including the American Psychiatric Association (APA), unite and demand that physicians be called medical doctors or physicians, or by a term that reflects their specialty (orthopedists, psychiatrists, oncologists, gastroenterologists, anesthesiologists, cardiologists, etc.). This is an urgent issue to prevent the dissolution of our professional identity and its highly regarded societal image. It is a travesty that we physicians have allowed it to go on unopposed and to become entrenched in the dumbed-down jargon of health care. Physicians tend to avoid confrontation and adversarial stances, but we must unite and demand a return to the traditional nomenclature of medicine.

Much debate has emerged lately about an epidemic of “burnout” among physicians. Proposed causes include the savage increase in the amount of paperwork at the expense of patient care, the sense of helplessness that pre-authorization has inflicted on physicians’ decision-making, and the tyranny of relative value units (RVUs) as a benchmark for physician performance, as if healing patients is like manufacturing widgets. However, the blow to the self-esteem of physicians by being called “providers” daily is certainly another major factor contributing to burnout. It is perfectly legitimate for physicians to expect recognition for their long, rigorous, and uniquely advanced medical training, instead of being lumped together with less qualified professionals as anonymous “providers” in the name of politically correct pseudo-equality of all clinical practitioners. Let the administrators stop and contemplate whether tertiary or quaternary care for the most complex and severely ill patients in medical, surgical, or psychiatric intensive care units can operate without highly specialized physicians.

I urge APA leadership to take a visible and strong stand to rid psychiatrists of this assault on our medical identity. As I mentioned in my January 2020 editorial,² it is vital that the name of our national psychiatric organization (APA) be modified to the American Psychiatric Physicians Association, to remind all health care systems, as well as patients, the public, and the media, of our medical identity as physicians before we specialized in psychiatry.

Continue to: Patients, not clients

 

 

Patients, not clients

We should also emphasize that our suffering and medically ill patients with serious neuropsychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, depression, panic disorder, or obsessive-compulsive disorder are patients, not clients. The terminology used in community mental health centers around the country almost universally includes “providers” and “clients.” This de-medicalization of psychiatrists and our patients must be corrected and reversed so that the public understands that treating mental illness is not a business transaction between a “provider” and a “client.” Using the correct terminology may help generate sympathy and compassion towards patients with serious psychiatric illnesses, just as it does for patients with cancer, heart disease, or stroke. The term “client” will never evoke the public sympathy and support that our patients truly deserve.

Let’s keep this issue alive and translate our demands into actions, both locally and nationally. Psychiatrists and physicians of all other specialties must stand up for their rights and inform their systems of care that they must be called by their legitimate and lawful name: physicians or medical doctors (never “providers”). This is an issue that unites all 1.1 million of us. The US health care system would collapse without us, and asking that we be called exactly what our medical license displays is our right and our professional identity.

As practicing clinicians, we all want to do what is best for patients. We hope our treatments will improve actual health outcomes (and not intermediate process metrics), so we make decisions based on “evidence” that lies on a continuum from “I hope” on one end to “I’m sure” on the other. This month, our three lead articles represent differing points along that continuum.

First, we consider H. pylori and gastric cancer. We know H. pylori eradication reduces ulcer risk and that H. pylori is a risk for gastric cancer. We did not know whether eradication reduces cancer risk. In a large retrospective study from the VA, Kumar et al demonstrated that eradication (not just treatment) substantially reduced subsequent gastric cancers. These data are not definitive, but they nudge us towards the “I’m sure” end of the continuum.

A second group of studies (both retrospective and prospective) suggests that successful weight loss after bariatric surgery was associated with a substantial reduction of risk for 13 cancer types related to obesity. Moderate evidence but again nudging us away from “I hope.”

A third article highlights the recent Clinical Practice Update on Barrett’s esophagus published by the AGA Clinical Practice Update Committee in Gastroenterology’s February 2020 issue. This practice update helps us understand the impact we will make on cancer reduction with surveillance and treatment of Barrett’s. Despite this publication, Barrett’s management remains closer to “hope” than “sure.”

The difficulty we face, as clinician or patient, is what to do when outcomes are really serious but evidence remains close to the “I hope” end. Take a reasonably healthy 68-year-old man with asymptomatic coronary disease, but a very high (and increasing) coronary artery calcium score, despite maximum statins and appropriate lifestyle practices. Should he initiate a PCSK9 inhibitor ($14,000 per year) absent evidence that it would alter cardiac risk? Recently, a retrospective study nudged us along the continuum (Peng et al. JACC Cardiovascular Imaging. 2020 Jan;13[1 Pt 1]:83-93). A serious outcome, suggestive but not definitive evidence, and no time for an RCT. Will such aggressive therapy help? I sure hope so.
 

John I. Allen, MD, MBA, AGAF
Editor in Chief

As practicing clinicians, we all want to do what is best for patients. We hope our treatments will improve actual health outcomes (and not intermediate process metrics), so we make decisions based on “evidence” that lies on a continuum from “I hope” on one end to “I’m sure” on the other. This month, our three lead articles represent differing points along that continuum.

First, we consider H. pylori and gastric cancer. We know H. pylori eradication reduces ulcer risk and that H. pylori is a risk for gastric cancer. We did not know whether eradication reduces cancer risk. In a large retrospective study from the VA, Kumar et al demonstrated that eradication (not just treatment) substantially reduced subsequent gastric cancers. These data are not definitive, but they nudge us towards the “I’m sure” end of the continuum.

A second group of studies (both retrospective and prospective) suggests that successful weight loss after bariatric surgery was associated with a substantial reduction of risk for 13 cancer types related to obesity. Moderate evidence but again nudging us away from “I hope.”

A third article highlights the recent Clinical Practice Update on Barrett’s esophagus published by the AGA Clinical Practice Update Committee in Gastroenterology’s February 2020 issue. This practice update helps us understand the impact we will make on cancer reduction with surveillance and treatment of Barrett’s. Despite this publication, Barrett’s management remains closer to “hope” than “sure.”

The difficulty we face, as clinician or patient, is what to do when outcomes are really serious but evidence remains close to the “I hope” end. Take a reasonably healthy 68-year-old man with asymptomatic coronary disease, but a very high (and increasing) coronary artery calcium score, despite maximum statins and appropriate lifestyle practices. Should he initiate a PCSK9 inhibitor ($14,000 per year) absent evidence that it would alter cardiac risk? Recently, a retrospective study nudged us along the continuum (Peng et al. JACC Cardiovascular Imaging. 2020 Jan;13[1 Pt 1]:83-93). A serious outcome, suggestive but not definitive evidence, and no time for an RCT. Will such aggressive therapy help? I sure hope so.
 

John I. Allen, MD, MBA, AGAF
Editor in Chief

As practicing clinicians, we all want to do what is best for patients. We hope our treatments will improve actual health outcomes (and not intermediate process metrics), so we make decisions based on “evidence” that lies on a continuum from “I hope” on one end to “I’m sure” on the other. This month, our three lead articles represent differing points along that continuum.

First, we consider H. pylori and gastric cancer. We know H. pylori eradication reduces ulcer risk and that H. pylori is a risk for gastric cancer. We did not know whether eradication reduces cancer risk. In a large retrospective study from the VA, Kumar et al demonstrated that eradication (not just treatment) substantially reduced subsequent gastric cancers. These data are not definitive, but they nudge us towards the “I’m sure” end of the continuum.

A second group of studies (both retrospective and prospective) suggests that successful weight loss after bariatric surgery was associated with a substantial reduction of risk for 13 cancer types related to obesity. Moderate evidence but again nudging us away from “I hope.”

A third article highlights the recent Clinical Practice Update on Barrett’s esophagus published by the AGA Clinical Practice Update Committee in Gastroenterology’s February 2020 issue. This practice update helps us understand the impact we will make on cancer reduction with surveillance and treatment of Barrett’s. Despite this publication, Barrett’s management remains closer to “hope” than “sure.”

The difficulty we face, as clinician or patient, is what to do when outcomes are really serious but evidence remains close to the “I hope” end. Take a reasonably healthy 68-year-old man with asymptomatic coronary disease, but a very high (and increasing) coronary artery calcium score, despite maximum statins and appropriate lifestyle practices. Should he initiate a PCSK9 inhibitor ($14,000 per year) absent evidence that it would alter cardiac risk? Recently, a retrospective study nudged us along the continuum (Peng et al. JACC Cardiovascular Imaging. 2020 Jan;13[1 Pt 1]:83-93). A serious outcome, suggestive but not definitive evidence, and no time for an RCT. Will such aggressive therapy help? I sure hope so.
 

John I. Allen, MD, MBA, AGAF
Editor in Chief

A number of years ago, a patient I was treating mentioned that she was not eating tomatoes. There had been stories in the news about people contracting bacterial infections from tomatoes, but I paused for a moment, then asked her: “Have there been any contaminated tomatoes here in Maryland?” There had not been and I was still happily eating salsa, but my patient thought about this differently: If disease-causing tomatoes were to come to our state, someone would be the first person to become ill. She did not want to take any risks. My patient, however, was a heavy smoker and already grappling with health issues that were caused by smoking, so I found her choice of what she should worry about and how it influenced her behavior to be perplexing. I realize it’s not the same; nicotine is an addiction, while tomatoes remain a choice for most of us, and it’s common for people to worry about very unlikely events even when we are surrounded by very real and statistically more probable threats to our well-being.

Today’s news reports are filled with stories about 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV), an illness that started in Wuhan, China; as of Jan. 31, 2020, there were 9,776 confirmed cases and 213 deaths. There have been an additional 118 cases reported outside of mainland China, including 6 in the United States, and no one outside of China has died.

The response to the virus has been remarkable: Wuhan, a city of more than 11 million inhabitants, is on lockdown, as are 15 other cities in China; 46 million people have been affected, the largest quarantine in human history. Travel is restricted in parts of China, airports all over the world are screening those who fly in from Wuhan, foreign governments are bringing their citizens home from Wuhan, and even Starbucks has temporarily closed half its stores in China. The economics of containing this virus are astounding.

In the meantime, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that, as of the week of Jan. 25, there have been 19 million cases of the flu in the United States. Of those stricken, 180,000 people have been hospitalized and 10,000 have died, including 68 pediatric patients. No cities are on lockdown, public transportation runs as usual, airports don’t screen passengers for flu symptoms, and Starbucks continues to serve vanilla lattes to any willing customer. Anxiety about illness is not new; we’ve seen it with SARS, Ebola, measles, and even around Chipotle’s food poisoning cases – to name just a few recent scares. We have also seen a lot of media on vaping-related deaths, and as of early January 2020, vaping-related illnesses affected 2,602 people with 59 deaths. It has been a topic of discussion among legislators, with an emphasis on either outlawing the flavoring that might appeal to younger people or simply outlawing e-cigarettes. No one, however, is talking about outlawing regular cigarettes, despite the fact that many people have switched from cigarettes to vaping products as a way to quit smoking. So, while vaping has caused 59 deaths since 2018, cigarettes are responsible for 480,000 fatalities a year in the United States and smokers live, on average, 10 years less than nonsmokers.

So what fuels anxiety about the latest health scare, and why aren’t we more anxious about the more common causes of premature mortality? Certainly, the newness and the unknown are factors in the coronavirus scare. It’s not certain how this illness was introduced into the human population, although one theory is that it started with the consumption of bats who carry the virus. It’s spreading fast, and in some people, it has been lethal. The incubation period is not known, or whether it is contagious before symptoms appear. Coronavirus is getting a lot of public health attention and the World Health Organization just announced that the virus is a public health emergency of international concern. On the televised news on Jan. 29, 2020, coronavirus was the top story in the United States, even though an impeachment trial is in progress for our country’s president.

The public health response of locking down cities may help contain the outbreak and prevent a global epidemic, although millions of people had already left Wuhan, so the heavy-handed attempt to prevent spread of the virus may well be too late. In the case of the Ebola virus – a much more lethal disease that was also thought to be introduced by bats – public health measures certainly curtailed global spread, and the epidemic of 2014-2016 was limited to 28,600 cases and 11,325 deaths, nearly all of them in West Africa.

Most of the things that cause people to die are not new and are not topics the media chooses to sensationalize. Dissemination of news has changed over the decades, with so much more of it, instant reports on social media, and competition for viewers that leads journalists to pull at our emotions. We might worry about getting food poisoning from romaine lettuce – if that is what the news is focusing on – but we don’t worry when we enter our cars, keep firearms in our homes, or light up cigarettes. And while we may, or may not, get flu shots and avoid those who have the flu, how and where we position both our anxiety and our resources does not always make sense. Certainly some people are predisposed to worry about both common and uncommon dangers, while others seem never to worry and engage in acts that many of us would consider dangerous. If we are looking for logic, it may be hard to find – there are those who would happily go bungee jumping but wouldn’t dream of leaving the house out without hand sanitizer.

The repercussions from this massive response to the Wuhan coronavirus are significant. For the millions of people on lockdown in China, each day gets emotionally harder; some may begin to have issues procuring food, and the financial losses for the economy will be significant. It’s not really possible to know yet if this response is warranted; we do know that infectious diseases can kill millions. The AIDS pandemic has taken the lives of 36 million people since 1981, and the influenza pandemic of 1918 resulted in an estimated 20 million to 50 million deaths after infecting 500 million people. Still, one might wonder if other, more mundane causes of morbidity and mortality – the ones that no longer garner our dread or make it to the front pages – might also be worthy of more hype and resources.

Dr. Miller is coauthor with Annette Hanson, MD, of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins, both in Baltimore.

A number of years ago, a patient I was treating mentioned that she was not eating tomatoes. There had been stories in the news about people contracting bacterial infections from tomatoes, but I paused for a moment, then asked her: “Have there been any contaminated tomatoes here in Maryland?” There had not been and I was still happily eating salsa, but my patient thought about this differently: If disease-causing tomatoes were to come to our state, someone would be the first person to become ill. She did not want to take any risks. My patient, however, was a heavy smoker and already grappling with health issues that were caused by smoking, so I found her choice of what she should worry about and how it influenced her behavior to be perplexing. I realize it’s not the same; nicotine is an addiction, while tomatoes remain a choice for most of us, and it’s common for people to worry about very unlikely events even when we are surrounded by very real and statistically more probable threats to our well-being.

Today’s news reports are filled with stories about 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV), an illness that started in Wuhan, China; as of Jan. 31, 2020, there were 9,776 confirmed cases and 213 deaths. There have been an additional 118 cases reported outside of mainland China, including 6 in the United States, and no one outside of China has died.

The response to the virus has been remarkable: Wuhan, a city of more than 11 million inhabitants, is on lockdown, as are 15 other cities in China; 46 million people have been affected, the largest quarantine in human history. Travel is restricted in parts of China, airports all over the world are screening those who fly in from Wuhan, foreign governments are bringing their citizens home from Wuhan, and even Starbucks has temporarily closed half its stores in China. The economics of containing this virus are astounding.

In the meantime, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that, as of the week of Jan. 25, there have been 19 million cases of the flu in the United States. Of those stricken, 180,000 people have been hospitalized and 10,000 have died, including 68 pediatric patients. No cities are on lockdown, public transportation runs as usual, airports don’t screen passengers for flu symptoms, and Starbucks continues to serve vanilla lattes to any willing customer. Anxiety about illness is not new; we’ve seen it with SARS, Ebola, measles, and even around Chipotle’s food poisoning cases – to name just a few recent scares. We have also seen a lot of media on vaping-related deaths, and as of early January 2020, vaping-related illnesses affected 2,602 people with 59 deaths. It has been a topic of discussion among legislators, with an emphasis on either outlawing the flavoring that might appeal to younger people or simply outlawing e-cigarettes. No one, however, is talking about outlawing regular cigarettes, despite the fact that many people have switched from cigarettes to vaping products as a way to quit smoking. So, while vaping has caused 59 deaths since 2018, cigarettes are responsible for 480,000 fatalities a year in the United States and smokers live, on average, 10 years less than nonsmokers.

So what fuels anxiety about the latest health scare, and why aren’t we more anxious about the more common causes of premature mortality? Certainly, the newness and the unknown are factors in the coronavirus scare. It’s not certain how this illness was introduced into the human population, although one theory is that it started with the consumption of bats who carry the virus. It’s spreading fast, and in some people, it has been lethal. The incubation period is not known, or whether it is contagious before symptoms appear. Coronavirus is getting a lot of public health attention and the World Health Organization just announced that the virus is a public health emergency of international concern. On the televised news on Jan. 29, 2020, coronavirus was the top story in the United States, even though an impeachment trial is in progress for our country’s president.

The public health response of locking down cities may help contain the outbreak and prevent a global epidemic, although millions of people had already left Wuhan, so the heavy-handed attempt to prevent spread of the virus may well be too late. In the case of the Ebola virus – a much more lethal disease that was also thought to be introduced by bats – public health measures certainly curtailed global spread, and the epidemic of 2014-2016 was limited to 28,600 cases and 11,325 deaths, nearly all of them in West Africa.

Most of the things that cause people to die are not new and are not topics the media chooses to sensationalize. Dissemination of news has changed over the decades, with so much more of it, instant reports on social media, and competition for viewers that leads journalists to pull at our emotions. We might worry about getting food poisoning from romaine lettuce – if that is what the news is focusing on – but we don’t worry when we enter our cars, keep firearms in our homes, or light up cigarettes. And while we may, or may not, get flu shots and avoid those who have the flu, how and where we position both our anxiety and our resources does not always make sense. Certainly some people are predisposed to worry about both common and uncommon dangers, while others seem never to worry and engage in acts that many of us would consider dangerous. If we are looking for logic, it may be hard to find – there are those who would happily go bungee jumping but wouldn’t dream of leaving the house out without hand sanitizer.

The repercussions from this massive response to the Wuhan coronavirus are significant. For the millions of people on lockdown in China, each day gets emotionally harder; some may begin to have issues procuring food, and the financial losses for the economy will be significant. It’s not really possible to know yet if this response is warranted; we do know that infectious diseases can kill millions. The AIDS pandemic has taken the lives of 36 million people since 1981, and the influenza pandemic of 1918 resulted in an estimated 20 million to 50 million deaths after infecting 500 million people. Still, one might wonder if other, more mundane causes of morbidity and mortality – the ones that no longer garner our dread or make it to the front pages – might also be worthy of more hype and resources.

Dr. Miller is coauthor with Annette Hanson, MD, of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins, both in Baltimore.

A number of years ago, a patient I was treating mentioned that she was not eating tomatoes. There had been stories in the news about people contracting bacterial infections from tomatoes, but I paused for a moment, then asked her: “Have there been any contaminated tomatoes here in Maryland?” There had not been and I was still happily eating salsa, but my patient thought about this differently: If disease-causing tomatoes were to come to our state, someone would be the first person to become ill. She did not want to take any risks. My patient, however, was a heavy smoker and already grappling with health issues that were caused by smoking, so I found her choice of what she should worry about and how it influenced her behavior to be perplexing. I realize it’s not the same; nicotine is an addiction, while tomatoes remain a choice for most of us, and it’s common for people to worry about very unlikely events even when we are surrounded by very real and statistically more probable threats to our well-being.

Today’s news reports are filled with stories about 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV), an illness that started in Wuhan, China; as of Jan. 31, 2020, there were 9,776 confirmed cases and 213 deaths. There have been an additional 118 cases reported outside of mainland China, including 6 in the United States, and no one outside of China has died.

The response to the virus has been remarkable: Wuhan, a city of more than 11 million inhabitants, is on lockdown, as are 15 other cities in China; 46 million people have been affected, the largest quarantine in human history. Travel is restricted in parts of China, airports all over the world are screening those who fly in from Wuhan, foreign governments are bringing their citizens home from Wuhan, and even Starbucks has temporarily closed half its stores in China. The economics of containing this virus are astounding.

In the meantime, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that, as of the week of Jan. 25, there have been 19 million cases of the flu in the United States. Of those stricken, 180,000 people have been hospitalized and 10,000 have died, including 68 pediatric patients. No cities are on lockdown, public transportation runs as usual, airports don’t screen passengers for flu symptoms, and Starbucks continues to serve vanilla lattes to any willing customer. Anxiety about illness is not new; we’ve seen it with SARS, Ebola, measles, and even around Chipotle’s food poisoning cases – to name just a few recent scares. We have also seen a lot of media on vaping-related deaths, and as of early January 2020, vaping-related illnesses affected 2,602 people with 59 deaths. It has been a topic of discussion among legislators, with an emphasis on either outlawing the flavoring that might appeal to younger people or simply outlawing e-cigarettes. No one, however, is talking about outlawing regular cigarettes, despite the fact that many people have switched from cigarettes to vaping products as a way to quit smoking. So, while vaping has caused 59 deaths since 2018, cigarettes are responsible for 480,000 fatalities a year in the United States and smokers live, on average, 10 years less than nonsmokers.

So what fuels anxiety about the latest health scare, and why aren’t we more anxious about the more common causes of premature mortality? Certainly, the newness and the unknown are factors in the coronavirus scare. It’s not certain how this illness was introduced into the human population, although one theory is that it started with the consumption of bats who carry the virus. It’s spreading fast, and in some people, it has been lethal. The incubation period is not known, or whether it is contagious before symptoms appear. Coronavirus is getting a lot of public health attention and the World Health Organization just announced that the virus is a public health emergency of international concern. On the televised news on Jan. 29, 2020, coronavirus was the top story in the United States, even though an impeachment trial is in progress for our country’s president.

The public health response of locking down cities may help contain the outbreak and prevent a global epidemic, although millions of people had already left Wuhan, so the heavy-handed attempt to prevent spread of the virus may well be too late. In the case of the Ebola virus – a much more lethal disease that was also thought to be introduced by bats – public health measures certainly curtailed global spread, and the epidemic of 2014-2016 was limited to 28,600 cases and 11,325 deaths, nearly all of them in West Africa.

Most of the things that cause people to die are not new and are not topics the media chooses to sensationalize. Dissemination of news has changed over the decades, with so much more of it, instant reports on social media, and competition for viewers that leads journalists to pull at our emotions. We might worry about getting food poisoning from romaine lettuce – if that is what the news is focusing on – but we don’t worry when we enter our cars, keep firearms in our homes, or light up cigarettes. And while we may, or may not, get flu shots and avoid those who have the flu, how and where we position both our anxiety and our resources does not always make sense. Certainly some people are predisposed to worry about both common and uncommon dangers, while others seem never to worry and engage in acts that many of us would consider dangerous. If we are looking for logic, it may be hard to find – there are those who would happily go bungee jumping but wouldn’t dream of leaving the house out without hand sanitizer.

The repercussions from this massive response to the Wuhan coronavirus are significant. For the millions of people on lockdown in China, each day gets emotionally harder; some may begin to have issues procuring food, and the financial losses for the economy will be significant. It’s not really possible to know yet if this response is warranted; we do know that infectious diseases can kill millions. The AIDS pandemic has taken the lives of 36 million people since 1981, and the influenza pandemic of 1918 resulted in an estimated 20 million to 50 million deaths after infecting 500 million people. Still, one might wonder if other, more mundane causes of morbidity and mortality – the ones that no longer garner our dread or make it to the front pages – might also be worthy of more hype and resources.

Dr. Miller is coauthor with Annette Hanson, MD, of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins, both in Baltimore.

Alzheimer disease and related dementias are a global health concern, affecting nearly 47 million people worldwide. Alzheimer disease and related dementias were among the top 10 causes of death worldwide in 2015 and are expected to increase by 10 million cases annually.¹ Despite the ethnic diversity of the US, there are considerable gaps in the literature regarding dementia and how it is diagnosed and treated among many ethnic and racial groups.

In 2012, President Barack Obama signed a declaration with the intention of decreasing ethnoracial disparities in Alzheimer disease research and treatment by increasing clinical care, research, and services targeted to racial and ethnic minorities.² Despite that declaration, in the US there are gaps in access to care for the geriatric population in general. The American Geriatrics Society estimates that the US has fewer than half the needed number of practicing geriatricians. In 2016, there was 1 geriatrician for every 1,924 Americans aged ≥ 65 years.³ Furthermore, health care providers (HCPs) are often not of the same ethnicity or adequately trained to assess and build relationships with ethnically and racially diverse populations.² Given the projected growth in the numbers of individuals worldwide with dementia, we have a responsibility to continue to develop strategies to provide more inclusive care.

By 2060, minority populations aged ≥ 65 years are expected to represent 45% of the US population, up from 22% in 2014.⁴ The growth of racial and ethnic minority groups are expected to exceed the growth of the non-Hispanic white population in the next few decades. By 2060, it is estimated that the US population will increase by 75% for non-Hispanic whites, 172% for African Americans, 270% for Asian and Pacific Islanders, 274% for American Indian and Alaska Natives, and 391% for Hispanics.⁴

A growing body of evidence suggests that Alzheimer disease and related dementias may disproportionately afflict minority groups in the US, which will become quite significant in the years ahead. The Alzheimer’s Association estimates that the prevalence of Alzheimer disease and other dementias among those aged > 65 years, is about twice the rate in African Americans and about 1.5 times the rate in Hispanics when compared with non-Hispanic whites.⁵ While increases in the incidence of Alzheimer disease and related dementias in non-Hispanic whites is expected to plateau around 2050, its incidence in ethnic and racial minority groups will continue to grow, especially among Hispanics.⁴ This stark realization provides additional compelling reasons for the US to develop preventative interventions or treatment options that may help delay the onset of the disease and to improve the quality of life of those with the disease or caregiving for those afflicted with it. Culturally competent care of these individuals is paramount.

Diagnosis

Early and accurate diagnosis of individuals with dementia confers many benefits, including early treatment; clinical trial participation; management of comorbid conditions; training, education, and support for patients and families; and legal, financial, and end of life care planning.³ Beyond the logistical concerns (such as HCP shortages), one of the challenges of assessing minority groups is finding staff who are culturally competent or speak the language necessary to accurately communicate and interact with these subgroups. Hispanics and African Americans often receive delayed or inadequate health care services or are diagnosed in an emergency department or other nontraditional setting.⁵

Even those individuals seeking or receiving care in primary care settings are not always forthcoming about their cognitive status. Only 56% of respondents in a recent survey of patients who had experienced subjective cognitive decline reported that they had discussed it with their HCP.⁴ This reticence is thought to be influenced by multiple factors, including distrust of the medical establishment, religious or spiritual beliefs, cultural or family beliefs and expectations about geriatric care, and lack of understanding about normal aging vs cognitive disorders. Furthermore, the sensitivity and specificity of current diagnostic tests for dementia have been questioned for nonwhite populations given the clinical presentation of dementia can vary across ethnoracial groups.⁵

As Luria noted, cognitive assessment tools developed and validated for use with one culture frequently results in experimental failures and are not valid for use with other cultural groups.¹ Cognitive testing results are influenced by educational and cultural factors, and this is one of the challenges in correctly diagnosing those of differing ethnoracial backgrounds. Individuals in racial and ethnic minorities may have limited formal education and/or high illiteracy rates and/or cultural nuances to problem solving, thinking, and memory that may not be reflected in current assessment tools.¹

There is hope that testing bias could be altered or eliminated using neuroimaging or biomarkers. However, the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative study of patients in the US and Canada included < 5% African American or Hispanic participants in its total sample. Few studies have systematically examined ethnoracial differences in amyloid positron emission tomography, and none have been published to date in ethnoracially diverse groups that assess the more recently developed tau imaging agents.¹

Diversity Among Caregivers

The research community must make greater efforts to improve recruitment of more diverse populations into clinical trials. Recent efforts by the National Institute on Aging in conjunction with the Alzheimer’s Association include developing a national strategy for clinical research recruitment and retention with an emphasis on local and diverse populations. This strategy should include various training modules, webinars, and similar educational opportunities for researchers and clinical HCPs, including HCPs from diverse ethnoracial backgrounds, to implement culturally appropriate research methodologies across these diverse groups. It is important that these educational materials be disseminated to caregivers in a way they can comprehend, as the impact on caregivers of those with Alzheimer disease and related dementias is considerable.

The US currently has 7 unpaid caregivers for every adult in the high-risk group of patients aged ≥ 65 years, but this will decline to a ratio of 4:1 by 2030.⁴ More than two-thirds of caregivers are non-Hispanic white, while 10% are African American, 8% are Hispanic, and 5% are Asian.³ About 34% of caregivers are themselves aged ≥ 65 years and are at risk for declines in their own health given the time and financial requirements of caring for someone else.³ In 2017, the 16.1 million family and other unpaid caregivers of people with dementia provided an estimated 18.4 billion hours of unpaid care, often resulting in considerable financial strain for these individuals. More than half of the caregivers report providing ≥ 21 hours of care per week; and 42% reported providing an average of 9 hours of care per day for people with dementia.

Caregivers report increased stress, sleep deprivation, depression and anxiety, and uncertainty in their ability to provide quality care to the individual with Alzheimer or a related dementia.³ The disproportionate prevalence of Alzheimer disease and other dementias in racially and ethnically diverse populations could further magnify already existing socioeconomic and other disparities and potentially lead to worsening of health outcomes in these groups.⁴ Given that minority populations tend to cluster geographically, community partnerships with local churches, senior centers, community centers, and other nontraditional settings may offer better opportunities for connecting with caregivers.

Conclusions

The growth and increasing diversity of the US older adult population in the coming decades require us as HCPs, researchers, and educators to dedicate more resources to ethnoracially diverse populations. There are still a great many unknowns about Alzheimer disease and dementia, most especially among nonwhites. Research, clinical care, and education must focus on outreach to marginalized groups so we may better be able to diagnose and treat the fastest growing older adult populations in the US. A complex combination of educational, cultural, social, and environmental factors likely contribute to delayed diagnosis and care of these groups, as well as lack of access to medical care, research venues, and trust issues between minority groups and the medical establishment. We all have an obligation to acknowledge these disparities and elicit the support of our colleagues and workplaces to raise awareness and dedicate necessary resources to this growing concern.

Alzheimer disease and related dementias are a global health concern, affecting nearly 47 million people worldwide. Alzheimer disease and related dementias were among the top 10 causes of death worldwide in 2015 and are expected to increase by 10 million cases annually.¹ Despite the ethnic diversity of the US, there are considerable gaps in the literature regarding dementia and how it is diagnosed and treated among many ethnic and racial groups.

In 2012, President Barack Obama signed a declaration with the intention of decreasing ethnoracial disparities in Alzheimer disease research and treatment by increasing clinical care, research, and services targeted to racial and ethnic minorities.² Despite that declaration, in the US there are gaps in access to care for the geriatric population in general. The American Geriatrics Society estimates that the US has fewer than half the needed number of practicing geriatricians. In 2016, there was 1 geriatrician for every 1,924 Americans aged ≥ 65 years.³ Furthermore, health care providers (HCPs) are often not of the same ethnicity or adequately trained to assess and build relationships with ethnically and racially diverse populations.² Given the projected growth in the numbers of individuals worldwide with dementia, we have a responsibility to continue to develop strategies to provide more inclusive care.

By 2060, minority populations aged ≥ 65 years are expected to represent 45% of the US population, up from 22% in 2014.⁴ The growth of racial and ethnic minority groups are expected to exceed the growth of the non-Hispanic white population in the next few decades. By 2060, it is estimated that the US population will increase by 75% for non-Hispanic whites, 172% for African Americans, 270% for Asian and Pacific Islanders, 274% for American Indian and Alaska Natives, and 391% for Hispanics.⁴

A growing body of evidence suggests that Alzheimer disease and related dementias may disproportionately afflict minority groups in the US, which will become quite significant in the years ahead. The Alzheimer’s Association estimates that the prevalence of Alzheimer disease and other dementias among those aged > 65 years, is about twice the rate in African Americans and about 1.5 times the rate in Hispanics when compared with non-Hispanic whites.⁵ While increases in the incidence of Alzheimer disease and related dementias in non-Hispanic whites is expected to plateau around 2050, its incidence in ethnic and racial minority groups will continue to grow, especially among Hispanics.⁴ This stark realization provides additional compelling reasons for the US to develop preventative interventions or treatment options that may help delay the onset of the disease and to improve the quality of life of those with the disease or caregiving for those afflicted with it. Culturally competent care of these individuals is paramount.

Diagnosis

Early and accurate diagnosis of individuals with dementia confers many benefits, including early treatment; clinical trial participation; management of comorbid conditions; training, education, and support for patients and families; and legal, financial, and end of life care planning.³ Beyond the logistical concerns (such as HCP shortages), one of the challenges of assessing minority groups is finding staff who are culturally competent or speak the language necessary to accurately communicate and interact with these subgroups. Hispanics and African Americans often receive delayed or inadequate health care services or are diagnosed in an emergency department or other nontraditional setting.⁵

Even those individuals seeking or receiving care in primary care settings are not always forthcoming about their cognitive status. Only 56% of respondents in a recent survey of patients who had experienced subjective cognitive decline reported that they had discussed it with their HCP.⁴ This reticence is thought to be influenced by multiple factors, including distrust of the medical establishment, religious or spiritual beliefs, cultural or family beliefs and expectations about geriatric care, and lack of understanding about normal aging vs cognitive disorders. Furthermore, the sensitivity and specificity of current diagnostic tests for dementia have been questioned for nonwhite populations given the clinical presentation of dementia can vary across ethnoracial groups.⁵

As Luria noted, cognitive assessment tools developed and validated for use with one culture frequently results in experimental failures and are not valid for use with other cultural groups.¹ Cognitive testing results are influenced by educational and cultural factors, and this is one of the challenges in correctly diagnosing those of differing ethnoracial backgrounds. Individuals in racial and ethnic minorities may have limited formal education and/or high illiteracy rates and/or cultural nuances to problem solving, thinking, and memory that may not be reflected in current assessment tools.¹

There is hope that testing bias could be altered or eliminated using neuroimaging or biomarkers. However, the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative study of patients in the US and Canada included < 5% African American or Hispanic participants in its total sample. Few studies have systematically examined ethnoracial differences in amyloid positron emission tomography, and none have been published to date in ethnoracially diverse groups that assess the more recently developed tau imaging agents.¹

Diversity Among Caregivers

The research community must make greater efforts to improve recruitment of more diverse populations into clinical trials. Recent efforts by the National Institute on Aging in conjunction with the Alzheimer’s Association include developing a national strategy for clinical research recruitment and retention with an emphasis on local and diverse populations. This strategy should include various training modules, webinars, and similar educational opportunities for researchers and clinical HCPs, including HCPs from diverse ethnoracial backgrounds, to implement culturally appropriate research methodologies across these diverse groups. It is important that these educational materials be disseminated to caregivers in a way they can comprehend, as the impact on caregivers of those with Alzheimer disease and related dementias is considerable.

The US currently has 7 unpaid caregivers for every adult in the high-risk group of patients aged ≥ 65 years, but this will decline to a ratio of 4:1 by 2030.⁴ More than two-thirds of caregivers are non-Hispanic white, while 10% are African American, 8% are Hispanic, and 5% are Asian.³ About 34% of caregivers are themselves aged ≥ 65 years and are at risk for declines in their own health given the time and financial requirements of caring for someone else.³ In 2017, the 16.1 million family and other unpaid caregivers of people with dementia provided an estimated 18.4 billion hours of unpaid care, often resulting in considerable financial strain for these individuals. More than half of the caregivers report providing ≥ 21 hours of care per week; and 42% reported providing an average of 9 hours of care per day for people with dementia.

Caregivers report increased stress, sleep deprivation, depression and anxiety, and uncertainty in their ability to provide quality care to the individual with Alzheimer or a related dementia.³ The disproportionate prevalence of Alzheimer disease and other dementias in racially and ethnically diverse populations could further magnify already existing socioeconomic and other disparities and potentially lead to worsening of health outcomes in these groups.⁴ Given that minority populations tend to cluster geographically, community partnerships with local churches, senior centers, community centers, and other nontraditional settings may offer better opportunities for connecting with caregivers.

Conclusions

The growth and increasing diversity of the US older adult population in the coming decades require us as HCPs, researchers, and educators to dedicate more resources to ethnoracially diverse populations. There are still a great many unknowns about Alzheimer disease and dementia, most especially among nonwhites. Research, clinical care, and education must focus on outreach to marginalized groups so we may better be able to diagnose and treat the fastest growing older adult populations in the US. A complex combination of educational, cultural, social, and environmental factors likely contribute to delayed diagnosis and care of these groups, as well as lack of access to medical care, research venues, and trust issues between minority groups and the medical establishment. We all have an obligation to acknowledge these disparities and elicit the support of our colleagues and workplaces to raise awareness and dedicate necessary resources to this growing concern.

Alzheimer disease and related dementias are a global health concern, affecting nearly 47 million people worldwide. Alzheimer disease and related dementias were among the top 10 causes of death worldwide in 2015 and are expected to increase by 10 million cases annually.¹ Despite the ethnic diversity of the US, there are considerable gaps in the literature regarding dementia and how it is diagnosed and treated among many ethnic and racial groups.

In 2012, President Barack Obama signed a declaration with the intention of decreasing ethnoracial disparities in Alzheimer disease research and treatment by increasing clinical care, research, and services targeted to racial and ethnic minorities.² Despite that declaration, in the US there are gaps in access to care for the geriatric population in general. The American Geriatrics Society estimates that the US has fewer than half the needed number of practicing geriatricians. In 2016, there was 1 geriatrician for every 1,924 Americans aged ≥ 65 years.³ Furthermore, health care providers (HCPs) are often not of the same ethnicity or adequately trained to assess and build relationships with ethnically and racially diverse populations.² Given the projected growth in the numbers of individuals worldwide with dementia, we have a responsibility to continue to develop strategies to provide more inclusive care.

By 2060, minority populations aged ≥ 65 years are expected to represent 45% of the US population, up from 22% in 2014.⁴ The growth of racial and ethnic minority groups are expected to exceed the growth of the non-Hispanic white population in the next few decades. By 2060, it is estimated that the US population will increase by 75% for non-Hispanic whites, 172% for African Americans, 270% for Asian and Pacific Islanders, 274% for American Indian and Alaska Natives, and 391% for Hispanics.⁴

A growing body of evidence suggests that Alzheimer disease and related dementias may disproportionately afflict minority groups in the US, which will become quite significant in the years ahead. The Alzheimer’s Association estimates that the prevalence of Alzheimer disease and other dementias among those aged > 65 years, is about twice the rate in African Americans and about 1.5 times the rate in Hispanics when compared with non-Hispanic whites.⁵ While increases in the incidence of Alzheimer disease and related dementias in non-Hispanic whites is expected to plateau around 2050, its incidence in ethnic and racial minority groups will continue to grow, especially among Hispanics.⁴ This stark realization provides additional compelling reasons for the US to develop preventative interventions or treatment options that may help delay the onset of the disease and to improve the quality of life of those with the disease or caregiving for those afflicted with it. Culturally competent care of these individuals is paramount.

Diagnosis

Early and accurate diagnosis of individuals with dementia confers many benefits, including early treatment; clinical trial participation; management of comorbid conditions; training, education, and support for patients and families; and legal, financial, and end of life care planning.³ Beyond the logistical concerns (such as HCP shortages), one of the challenges of assessing minority groups is finding staff who are culturally competent or speak the language necessary to accurately communicate and interact with these subgroups. Hispanics and African Americans often receive delayed or inadequate health care services or are diagnosed in an emergency department or other nontraditional setting.⁵

Even those individuals seeking or receiving care in primary care settings are not always forthcoming about their cognitive status. Only 56% of respondents in a recent survey of patients who had experienced subjective cognitive decline reported that they had discussed it with their HCP.⁴ This reticence is thought to be influenced by multiple factors, including distrust of the medical establishment, religious or spiritual beliefs, cultural or family beliefs and expectations about geriatric care, and lack of understanding about normal aging vs cognitive disorders. Furthermore, the sensitivity and specificity of current diagnostic tests for dementia have been questioned for nonwhite populations given the clinical presentation of dementia can vary across ethnoracial groups.⁵

As Luria noted, cognitive assessment tools developed and validated for use with one culture frequently results in experimental failures and are not valid for use with other cultural groups.¹ Cognitive testing results are influenced by educational and cultural factors, and this is one of the challenges in correctly diagnosing those of differing ethnoracial backgrounds. Individuals in racial and ethnic minorities may have limited formal education and/or high illiteracy rates and/or cultural nuances to problem solving, thinking, and memory that may not be reflected in current assessment tools.¹

There is hope that testing bias could be altered or eliminated using neuroimaging or biomarkers. However, the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative study of patients in the US and Canada included < 5% African American or Hispanic participants in its total sample. Few studies have systematically examined ethnoracial differences in amyloid positron emission tomography, and none have been published to date in ethnoracially diverse groups that assess the more recently developed tau imaging agents.¹

Diversity Among Caregivers

The research community must make greater efforts to improve recruitment of more diverse populations into clinical trials. Recent efforts by the National Institute on Aging in conjunction with the Alzheimer’s Association include developing a national strategy for clinical research recruitment and retention with an emphasis on local and diverse populations. This strategy should include various training modules, webinars, and similar educational opportunities for researchers and clinical HCPs, including HCPs from diverse ethnoracial backgrounds, to implement culturally appropriate research methodologies across these diverse groups. It is important that these educational materials be disseminated to caregivers in a way they can comprehend, as the impact on caregivers of those with Alzheimer disease and related dementias is considerable.

The US currently has 7 unpaid caregivers for every adult in the high-risk group of patients aged ≥ 65 years, but this will decline to a ratio of 4:1 by 2030.⁴ More than two-thirds of caregivers are non-Hispanic white, while 10% are African American, 8% are Hispanic, and 5% are Asian.³ About 34% of caregivers are themselves aged ≥ 65 years and are at risk for declines in their own health given the time and financial requirements of caring for someone else.³ In 2017, the 16.1 million family and other unpaid caregivers of people with dementia provided an estimated 18.4 billion hours of unpaid care, often resulting in considerable financial strain for these individuals. More than half of the caregivers report providing ≥ 21 hours of care per week; and 42% reported providing an average of 9 hours of care per day for people with dementia.

Caregivers report increased stress, sleep deprivation, depression and anxiety, and uncertainty in their ability to provide quality care to the individual with Alzheimer or a related dementia.³ The disproportionate prevalence of Alzheimer disease and other dementias in racially and ethnically diverse populations could further magnify already existing socioeconomic and other disparities and potentially lead to worsening of health outcomes in these groups.⁴ Given that minority populations tend to cluster geographically, community partnerships with local churches, senior centers, community centers, and other nontraditional settings may offer better opportunities for connecting with caregivers.

Conclusions

The growth and increasing diversity of the US older adult population in the coming decades require us as HCPs, researchers, and educators to dedicate more resources to ethnoracially diverse populations. There are still a great many unknowns about Alzheimer disease and dementia, most especially among nonwhites. Research, clinical care, and education must focus on outreach to marginalized groups so we may better be able to diagnose and treat the fastest growing older adult populations in the US. A complex combination of educational, cultural, social, and environmental factors likely contribute to delayed diagnosis and care of these groups, as well as lack of access to medical care, research venues, and trust issues between minority groups and the medical establishment. We all have an obligation to acknowledge these disparities and elicit the support of our colleagues and workplaces to raise awareness and dedicate necessary resources to this growing concern.

Like me, some of you may have been following the agonizing news about the unprecedented brushfires in Australia that have devastated human, animal, and vegetative life in that country so culturally akin to our own.¹ For many people who believe the overwhelming majority of scientific reports on climate change, these apocalyptic fires are an empirical demonstration of the truth of the dire prophecies for the future of our planet. Scientists have demonstrated that although climate change may not have caused the worst fires in Australia’s history, they may have contributed to the conditions that enabled them to spread so far and wide and reach such a destructive intensity.²The heartbreaking pictures of singed koalas and displaced people and the helpless feeling that all I can do from here is donate money set me to thinking about the relationship between the military, health, and climate change, which is the subject of this column.

As I write this in mid-January of a new decade and glance at the weather headlines, I read about an earthquake in Puerto Rico and tornadoes in the southern US. This makes it quite plausible that our comfortable lifestyle and technological civilization could in the coming decades go the way of the dinosaurs, also victims of climate change.

Initially, my first thought about this relationship is a negative one—images of scorched earth policies that stretch back to ancient wars jump to mind. Reflection and research on the topic though suggest that the relationship may be more complicated and conflicted. Alas, I can only touch on a few of the themes in this brief format.

It may not be as obvious that climate change also threatens the military, which is the guardian of that civilization. In 2018, for example, Hurricane Michael caused nearly $5 billion in damages to Tyndall Air Force Base in Florida.³ A year later, the US Department of Defense (DoD) released a report on the effects of climate change as mandated by Congress.⁴ Even though some congressional critics expressed concern about the report’s lack of depth and detail,⁵ the report asserted that, “The effects of a changing climate are a national security issue with potential impacts to Department of Defense (DoD or the Department) missions, operational plans, and installations.”⁴

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is not immune either. Natural disasters have already disrupted the delivery of health care at its many aging facilities. Climate change was called the “engine”⁶ driving Hurricane Maria, which in 2017 slammed into Puerto Rico, including its VA medical center, and resulted in shortages of supplies, staff, and basic utilities.⁷ The facility and the island are still trying to rebuild. In response to weather-exposed vulnerability in VA infrastructure, Senator and presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Senator Brian Schatz (D-HI), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Military Construction, sent a letter to VA leadership arguing that “Strengthening VA’s resilience to climate change is consistent with the agency’s mission to deliver timely, high-quality care and benefits to America’s veterans.”⁸

It has been reported that the current administration has countered initiatives to prepare for the challenges of providing health care to service members and veterans in a climate changed world.⁹ Sadly, but predictably, in the politicized federal health care arena, the safety of our service members and, in turn, the domestic and national security and peace that depend on them are caught in the partisan debate over global warming, though it is not likely Congress or federal agency leaders will abandon planning to safeguard service members who will see duty and combat in a radically altered ecology and veterans and who will need to have VA continue to be the reliable safety net despite an increasingly erratic environment.¹⁰

Climate change is a divisive political issue; there is a proud tradition of conservatism and self-reliance in military members, active duty and veteran alike. That was why I was surprised and impressed when I saw the results of a recent survey on climate change. In January 2019, 293 active-duty service members and veterans were surveyed.

Participants were selected to reflect the ethnic makeup, educational level, and political allegiance of the military population, which enhanced the validity of the findings.¹¹Participants were asked to indicate whether they believed that the earth was warming secondary to human or natural processes; not growing warmer at all; or whether they were unsure. Similar to the general population, 46% agreed that climate change is anthropogenic.¹¹ More than three-fourths believed it was likely climate change would adversely affect the places they worked, like military installations; 61% thought it likely that global warming could lead to armed conflict over resources. Seven in 10 respondents believed that climate is changing vs 46% who did not. Of respondents who believe climate change is real, 87% see it as a threat to military bases compared with 60% who do not accept the science that the earth is warming.¹¹

This survey, though, is only a small study, and the military and VA are big tents under which a wide range of political persuasions and diverse beliefs co-exist. There are many readers of Federal Practitioner who will no doubt reject nearly every word I have written, in what I know is a controversial column. But it matters that the military and veteran constituency are thinking and speaking about the issue of climate change.¹¹ Why? The answer takes us back to the disaster in Australia. When the fires and the devastation they wrought escalated beyond the powers of the civil authorities to handle, it was the military whose technical skill, coordinated readiness, and personal courage and dedication that was called on to rescue thousands of civilians from the inferno.¹² So it will be in our country and around the world when disasters—manmade, natural, or both—threaten to engulf life in all its wondrous variety. Those who battle extreme weather will have unique health needs, and their valiant sacrifices deserve to have health care systems ready and able to treat them.

Like me, some of you may have been following the agonizing news about the unprecedented brushfires in Australia that have devastated human, animal, and vegetative life in that country so culturally akin to our own.¹ For many people who believe the overwhelming majority of scientific reports on climate change, these apocalyptic fires are an empirical demonstration of the truth of the dire prophecies for the future of our planet. Scientists have demonstrated that although climate change may not have caused the worst fires in Australia’s history, they may have contributed to the conditions that enabled them to spread so far and wide and reach such a destructive intensity.²The heartbreaking pictures of singed koalas and displaced people and the helpless feeling that all I can do from here is donate money set me to thinking about the relationship between the military, health, and climate change, which is the subject of this column.

As I write this in mid-January of a new decade and glance at the weather headlines, I read about an earthquake in Puerto Rico and tornadoes in the southern US. This makes it quite plausible that our comfortable lifestyle and technological civilization could in the coming decades go the way of the dinosaurs, also victims of climate change.

Initially, my first thought about this relationship is a negative one—images of scorched earth policies that stretch back to ancient wars jump to mind. Reflection and research on the topic though suggest that the relationship may be more complicated and conflicted. Alas, I can only touch on a few of the themes in this brief format.

It may not be as obvious that climate change also threatens the military, which is the guardian of that civilization. In 2018, for example, Hurricane Michael caused nearly $5 billion in damages to Tyndall Air Force Base in Florida.³ A year later, the US Department of Defense (DoD) released a report on the effects of climate change as mandated by Congress.⁴ Even though some congressional critics expressed concern about the report’s lack of depth and detail,⁵ the report asserted that, “The effects of a changing climate are a national security issue with potential impacts to Department of Defense (DoD or the Department) missions, operational plans, and installations.”⁴

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is not immune either. Natural disasters have already disrupted the delivery of health care at its many aging facilities. Climate change was called the “engine”⁶ driving Hurricane Maria, which in 2017 slammed into Puerto Rico, including its VA medical center, and resulted in shortages of supplies, staff, and basic utilities.⁷ The facility and the island are still trying to rebuild. In response to weather-exposed vulnerability in VA infrastructure, Senator and presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Senator Brian Schatz (D-HI), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Military Construction, sent a letter to VA leadership arguing that “Strengthening VA’s resilience to climate change is consistent with the agency’s mission to deliver timely, high-quality care and benefits to America’s veterans.”⁸

It has been reported that the current administration has countered initiatives to prepare for the challenges of providing health care to service members and veterans in a climate changed world.⁹ Sadly, but predictably, in the politicized federal health care arena, the safety of our service members and, in turn, the domestic and national security and peace that depend on them are caught in the partisan debate over global warming, though it is not likely Congress or federal agency leaders will abandon planning to safeguard service members who will see duty and combat in a radically altered ecology and veterans and who will need to have VA continue to be the reliable safety net despite an increasingly erratic environment.¹⁰

Climate change is a divisive political issue; there is a proud tradition of conservatism and self-reliance in military members, active duty and veteran alike. That was why I was surprised and impressed when I saw the results of a recent survey on climate change. In January 2019, 293 active-duty service members and veterans were surveyed.

Participants were selected to reflect the ethnic makeup, educational level, and political allegiance of the military population, which enhanced the validity of the findings.¹¹Participants were asked to indicate whether they believed that the earth was warming secondary to human or natural processes; not growing warmer at all; or whether they were unsure. Similar to the general population, 46% agreed that climate change is anthropogenic.¹¹ More than three-fourths believed it was likely climate change would adversely affect the places they worked, like military installations; 61% thought it likely that global warming could lead to armed conflict over resources. Seven in 10 respondents believed that climate is changing vs 46% who did not. Of respondents who believe climate change is real, 87% see it as a threat to military bases compared with 60% who do not accept the science that the earth is warming.¹¹

This survey, though, is only a small study, and the military and VA are big tents under which a wide range of political persuasions and diverse beliefs co-exist. There are many readers of Federal Practitioner who will no doubt reject nearly every word I have written, in what I know is a controversial column. But it matters that the military and veteran constituency are thinking and speaking about the issue of climate change.¹¹ Why? The answer takes us back to the disaster in Australia. When the fires and the devastation they wrought escalated beyond the powers of the civil authorities to handle, it was the military whose technical skill, coordinated readiness, and personal courage and dedication that was called on to rescue thousands of civilians from the inferno.¹² So it will be in our country and around the world when disasters—manmade, natural, or both—threaten to engulf life in all its wondrous variety. Those who battle extreme weather will have unique health needs, and their valiant sacrifices deserve to have health care systems ready and able to treat them.

Like me, some of you may have been following the agonizing news about the unprecedented brushfires in Australia that have devastated human, animal, and vegetative life in that country so culturally akin to our own.¹ For many people who believe the overwhelming majority of scientific reports on climate change, these apocalyptic fires are an empirical demonstration of the truth of the dire prophecies for the future of our planet. Scientists have demonstrated that although climate change may not have caused the worst fires in Australia’s history, they may have contributed to the conditions that enabled them to spread so far and wide and reach such a destructive intensity.²The heartbreaking pictures of singed koalas and displaced people and the helpless feeling that all I can do from here is donate money set me to thinking about the relationship between the military, health, and climate change, which is the subject of this column.

As I write this in mid-January of a new decade and glance at the weather headlines, I read about an earthquake in Puerto Rico and tornadoes in the southern US. This makes it quite plausible that our comfortable lifestyle and technological civilization could in the coming decades go the way of the dinosaurs, also victims of climate change.

Initially, my first thought about this relationship is a negative one—images of scorched earth policies that stretch back to ancient wars jump to mind. Reflection and research on the topic though suggest that the relationship may be more complicated and conflicted. Alas, I can only touch on a few of the themes in this brief format.

It may not be as obvious that climate change also threatens the military, which is the guardian of that civilization. In 2018, for example, Hurricane Michael caused nearly $5 billion in damages to Tyndall Air Force Base in Florida.³ A year later, the US Department of Defense (DoD) released a report on the effects of climate change as mandated by Congress.⁴ Even though some congressional critics expressed concern about the report’s lack of depth and detail,⁵ the report asserted that, “The effects of a changing climate are a national security issue with potential impacts to Department of Defense (DoD or the Department) missions, operational plans, and installations.”⁴

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is not immune either. Natural disasters have already disrupted the delivery of health care at its many aging facilities. Climate change was called the “engine”⁶ driving Hurricane Maria, which in 2017 slammed into Puerto Rico, including its VA medical center, and resulted in shortages of supplies, staff, and basic utilities.⁷ The facility and the island are still trying to rebuild. In response to weather-exposed vulnerability in VA infrastructure, Senator and presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Senator Brian Schatz (D-HI), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Military Construction, sent a letter to VA leadership arguing that “Strengthening VA’s resilience to climate change is consistent with the agency’s mission to deliver timely, high-quality care and benefits to America’s veterans.”⁸

It has been reported that the current administration has countered initiatives to prepare for the challenges of providing health care to service members and veterans in a climate changed world.⁹ Sadly, but predictably, in the politicized federal health care arena, the safety of our service members and, in turn, the domestic and national security and peace that depend on them are caught in the partisan debate over global warming, though it is not likely Congress or federal agency leaders will abandon planning to safeguard service members who will see duty and combat in a radically altered ecology and veterans and who will need to have VA continue to be the reliable safety net despite an increasingly erratic environment.¹⁰

Climate change is a divisive political issue; there is a proud tradition of conservatism and self-reliance in military members, active duty and veteran alike. That was why I was surprised and impressed when I saw the results of a recent survey on climate change. In January 2019, 293 active-duty service members and veterans were surveyed.

Participants were selected to reflect the ethnic makeup, educational level, and political allegiance of the military population, which enhanced the validity of the findings.¹¹Participants were asked to indicate whether they believed that the earth was warming secondary to human or natural processes; not growing warmer at all; or whether they were unsure. Similar to the general population, 46% agreed that climate change is anthropogenic.¹¹ More than three-fourths believed it was likely climate change would adversely affect the places they worked, like military installations; 61% thought it likely that global warming could lead to armed conflict over resources. Seven in 10 respondents believed that climate is changing vs 46% who did not. Of respondents who believe climate change is real, 87% see it as a threat to military bases compared with 60% who do not accept the science that the earth is warming.¹¹

This survey, though, is only a small study, and the military and VA are big tents under which a wide range of political persuasions and diverse beliefs co-exist. There are many readers of Federal Practitioner who will no doubt reject nearly every word I have written, in what I know is a controversial column. But it matters that the military and veteran constituency are thinking and speaking about the issue of climate change.¹¹ Why? The answer takes us back to the disaster in Australia. When the fires and the devastation they wrought escalated beyond the powers of the civil authorities to handle, it was the military whose technical skill, coordinated readiness, and personal courage and dedication that was called on to rescue thousands of civilians from the inferno.¹² So it will be in our country and around the world when disasters—manmade, natural, or both—threaten to engulf life in all its wondrous variety. Those who battle extreme weather will have unique health needs, and their valiant sacrifices deserve to have health care systems ready and able to treat them.

Although the last decade has brought appropriate increased interest in the diagnosis and treatment of postpartum depression, with screening initiatives across more than 40 states in place and even new medications being brought to market for treatment, far less attention has been given to diagnosis and treatment of a particularly serious psychiatric illness: postpartum psychosis.

Postpartum psychosis is relatively rare, with an incidence of 1 in 1,000 births, but it is one of the most serious complications of modern obstetrics. Clinically, women can experience rapid mood changes, most often with the presentation that is consistent with a manic-like psychosis, with associated symptoms of delusional thinking, hallucinations, paranoia and either depression or elation, or an amalgam of these so-called “mixed symptoms.” Onset of symptoms typically is early, within 72 hours as is classically described, but may have a somewhat later time of onset in some women.

Many investigators have studied risk factors for postpartum psychosis, and it has been well established that a history of mood disorder, particularly bipolar disorder, is one of the strongest predictors of risk for postpartum psychosis. Women with histories of postpartum psychosis are at very high risk of recurrence, with as many as 70%-90% of women experiencing recurrence if not prophylaxed with an appropriate agent. From a clinical point of view, women with postpartum psychosis typically are hospitalized, given that this is both a psychiatric and potential obstetrical emergency. In fact, the data would suggest that although postpartum suicide and infanticide are not common, they can be a tragic concomitant of postpartum psychosis (Am J Psychiatry. 2016 Dec 1;173[12]:1179-88).

A great amount of interest has been placed on the etiology of postpartum psychosis, as it’s a dramatic presentation with very rapid onset in the acute postpartum period. A rich evidence base with respect to an algorithm of treatment that maximizes likelihood of full recovery or sustaining of euthymia after recovery is limited. Few studies have looked systematically at the optimum way to treat postpartum psychosis. Clinical wisdom has dictated that, given the dramatic symptoms with which these patients present, most patients are treated with lithium and an antipsychotic medication as if they have a manic-like psychosis. It may take brief or extended periods of time for patients to stabilize. Once they are stabilized, one of the most challenging questions for clinicians is how long to treat. Again, an evidence base clearly informing this question is lacking.

Over the years, many clinicians have treated patients with postpartum psychosis as if they have bipolar disorder, given the index presentation of the illness, so some of these patients are treated with antimanic drugs indefinitely. However, clinical experience from several centers that treat women with postpartum psychosis suggests that in remitted patients, a proportion of them may be able to taper and discontinue treatment, then sustain well-being for protracted periods.

One obstacle with respect to treatment of postpartum psychosis derives from the short length of stay after delivery for many women. Some women who present with symptoms of postpartum psychosis in the first 24-48 hours frequently are managed with direct admission to an inpatient psychiatric service. But others may not develop symptoms until they are home, which may place both mother and newborn at risk.

Given that the risk for recurrent postpartum psychosis is so great (70%-90%), women with histories of postpartum psychosis invariably are prophylaxed with mood stabilizer prior to delivery in a subsequent pregnancy. In our own center, we have published on the value of such prophylactic intervention, not just in women with postpartum psychosis, but in women with bipolar disorder, who are, as noted, at great risk for developing postpartum psychotic symptoms (Am J Psychiatry. 1995 Nov;152[11]:1641-5.)

Although postpartum psychosis may be rare, over the last 3 decades we have seen a substantial number of women with postpartum psychosis and have been fascinated with the spectrum of symptoms with which some women with postpartum psychotic illness present. We also have been impressed with the time required for some women to recompensate from their illness and the course of their disorder after they have seemingly remitted. Some women appear to be able to discontinue treatment as noted above; others, particularly if there is any history of bipolar disorder, need to be maintained on treatment with mood stabilizer indefinitely.

To better understand the phenomenology of postpartum psychosis, as well as the longitudinal course of the illness, in 2019, the Mass General Hospital Postpartum Psychosis Project (MGHP3) was established. The project is conducted as a hospital-based registry where women with histories of postpartum psychosis over the last decade are invited to participate in an in-depth interview to understand both symptoms and course of underlying illness. This is complemented by obtaining a sample of saliva, which is used for genetic testing to try to identify a genetic underpinning associated with postpartum psychosis, as the question of genetic etiology of postpartum psychosis is still an open one.

As part of the MGHP3 project, clinicians across the country are able to contact perinatal psychiatrists in our center with expertise in the treatment of postpartum psychosis. Our psychiatrists also can counsel clinicians on issues regarding long-term management of postpartum psychosis because for many, knowledge of precisely how to manage this disorder or the follow-up treatment may be incomplete.

From a clinical point of view, the relevant questions really include not only acute treatment, which has already been outlined, but also the issue of duration of treatment. While some patients may be able to taper and discontinue treatment after, for example, a year of being totally well, to date we are unable to know who those patients are. We tend to be more conservative in our own center and treat patients with puerperal psychosis for a more protracted period of time, usually over several years. We also ask women about their family history of bipolar disorder or postpartum psychosis. Depending on the clinical course (if the patient really has sustained euthymia), we consider slow taper and ultimate discontinuation. As always, treatment decisions are tailored to individual clinical history, course, and patient wishes.

Postpartum psychosis remains one of the most serious illnesses that we find in reproductive psychiatry, and incomplete attention has been given to this devastating illness, which we read about periodically in newspapers and magazines. Greater understanding of postpartum psychosis will lead to a more precision-like psychiatric approach, tailoring treatment to the invariable heterogeneity of this illness.

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Email Dr. Cohen at obnews@mdedge.com.

Although the last decade has brought appropriate increased interest in the diagnosis and treatment of postpartum depression, with screening initiatives across more than 40 states in place and even new medications being brought to market for treatment, far less attention has been given to diagnosis and treatment of a particularly serious psychiatric illness: postpartum psychosis.

Postpartum psychosis is relatively rare, with an incidence of 1 in 1,000 births, but it is one of the most serious complications of modern obstetrics. Clinically, women can experience rapid mood changes, most often with the presentation that is consistent with a manic-like psychosis, with associated symptoms of delusional thinking, hallucinations, paranoia and either depression or elation, or an amalgam of these so-called “mixed symptoms.” Onset of symptoms typically is early, within 72 hours as is classically described, but may have a somewhat later time of onset in some women.

Many investigators have studied risk factors for postpartum psychosis, and it has been well established that a history of mood disorder, particularly bipolar disorder, is one of the strongest predictors of risk for postpartum psychosis. Women with histories of postpartum psychosis are at very high risk of recurrence, with as many as 70%-90% of women experiencing recurrence if not prophylaxed with an appropriate agent. From a clinical point of view, women with postpartum psychosis typically are hospitalized, given that this is both a psychiatric and potential obstetrical emergency. In fact, the data would suggest that although postpartum suicide and infanticide are not common, they can be a tragic concomitant of postpartum psychosis (Am J Psychiatry. 2016 Dec 1;173[12]:1179-88).

A great amount of interest has been placed on the etiology of postpartum psychosis, as it’s a dramatic presentation with very rapid onset in the acute postpartum period. A rich evidence base with respect to an algorithm of treatment that maximizes likelihood of full recovery or sustaining of euthymia after recovery is limited. Few studies have looked systematically at the optimum way to treat postpartum psychosis. Clinical wisdom has dictated that, given the dramatic symptoms with which these patients present, most patients are treated with lithium and an antipsychotic medication as if they have a manic-like psychosis. It may take brief or extended periods of time for patients to stabilize. Once they are stabilized, one of the most challenging questions for clinicians is how long to treat. Again, an evidence base clearly informing this question is lacking.

Over the years, many clinicians have treated patients with postpartum psychosis as if they have bipolar disorder, given the index presentation of the illness, so some of these patients are treated with antimanic drugs indefinitely. However, clinical experience from several centers that treat women with postpartum psychosis suggests that in remitted patients, a proportion of them may be able to taper and discontinue treatment, then sustain well-being for protracted periods.

One obstacle with respect to treatment of postpartum psychosis derives from the short length of stay after delivery for many women. Some women who present with symptoms of postpartum psychosis in the first 24-48 hours frequently are managed with direct admission to an inpatient psychiatric service. But others may not develop symptoms until they are home, which may place both mother and newborn at risk.

Given that the risk for recurrent postpartum psychosis is so great (70%-90%), women with histories of postpartum psychosis invariably are prophylaxed with mood stabilizer prior to delivery in a subsequent pregnancy. In our own center, we have published on the value of such prophylactic intervention, not just in women with postpartum psychosis, but in women with bipolar disorder, who are, as noted, at great risk for developing postpartum psychotic symptoms (Am J Psychiatry. 1995 Nov;152[11]:1641-5.)

Although postpartum psychosis may be rare, over the last 3 decades we have seen a substantial number of women with postpartum psychosis and have been fascinated with the spectrum of symptoms with which some women with postpartum psychotic illness present. We also have been impressed with the time required for some women to recompensate from their illness and the course of their disorder after they have seemingly remitted. Some women appear to be able to discontinue treatment as noted above; others, particularly if there is any history of bipolar disorder, need to be maintained on treatment with mood stabilizer indefinitely.

To better understand the phenomenology of postpartum psychosis, as well as the longitudinal course of the illness, in 2019, the Mass General Hospital Postpartum Psychosis Project (MGHP3) was established. The project is conducted as a hospital-based registry where women with histories of postpartum psychosis over the last decade are invited to participate in an in-depth interview to understand both symptoms and course of underlying illness. This is complemented by obtaining a sample of saliva, which is used for genetic testing to try to identify a genetic underpinning associated with postpartum psychosis, as the question of genetic etiology of postpartum psychosis is still an open one.

As part of the MGHP3 project, clinicians across the country are able to contact perinatal psychiatrists in our center with expertise in the treatment of postpartum psychosis. Our psychiatrists also can counsel clinicians on issues regarding long-term management of postpartum psychosis because for many, knowledge of precisely how to manage this disorder or the follow-up treatment may be incomplete.

From a clinical point of view, the relevant questions really include not only acute treatment, which has already been outlined, but also the issue of duration of treatment. While some patients may be able to taper and discontinue treatment after, for example, a year of being totally well, to date we are unable to know who those patients are. We tend to be more conservative in our own center and treat patients with puerperal psychosis for a more protracted period of time, usually over several years. We also ask women about their family history of bipolar disorder or postpartum psychosis. Depending on the clinical course (if the patient really has sustained euthymia), we consider slow taper and ultimate discontinuation. As always, treatment decisions are tailored to individual clinical history, course, and patient wishes.

Postpartum psychosis remains one of the most serious illnesses that we find in reproductive psychiatry, and incomplete attention has been given to this devastating illness, which we read about periodically in newspapers and magazines. Greater understanding of postpartum psychosis will lead to a more precision-like psychiatric approach, tailoring treatment to the invariable heterogeneity of this illness.

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Email Dr. Cohen at obnews@mdedge.com.

Although the last decade has brought appropriate increased interest in the diagnosis and treatment of postpartum depression, with screening initiatives across more than 40 states in place and even new medications being brought to market for treatment, far less attention has been given to diagnosis and treatment of a particularly serious psychiatric illness: postpartum psychosis.

Postpartum psychosis is relatively rare, with an incidence of 1 in 1,000 births, but it is one of the most serious complications of modern obstetrics. Clinically, women can experience rapid mood changes, most often with the presentation that is consistent with a manic-like psychosis, with associated symptoms of delusional thinking, hallucinations, paranoia and either depression or elation, or an amalgam of these so-called “mixed symptoms.” Onset of symptoms typically is early, within 72 hours as is classically described, but may have a somewhat later time of onset in some women.

Many investigators have studied risk factors for postpartum psychosis, and it has been well established that a history of mood disorder, particularly bipolar disorder, is one of the strongest predictors of risk for postpartum psychosis. Women with histories of postpartum psychosis are at very high risk of recurrence, with as many as 70%-90% of women experiencing recurrence if not prophylaxed with an appropriate agent. From a clinical point of view, women with postpartum psychosis typically are hospitalized, given that this is both a psychiatric and potential obstetrical emergency. In fact, the data would suggest that although postpartum suicide and infanticide are not common, they can be a tragic concomitant of postpartum psychosis (Am J Psychiatry. 2016 Dec 1;173[12]:1179-88).

A great amount of interest has been placed on the etiology of postpartum psychosis, as it’s a dramatic presentation with very rapid onset in the acute postpartum period. A rich evidence base with respect to an algorithm of treatment that maximizes likelihood of full recovery or sustaining of euthymia after recovery is limited. Few studies have looked systematically at the optimum way to treat postpartum psychosis. Clinical wisdom has dictated that, given the dramatic symptoms with which these patients present, most patients are treated with lithium and an antipsychotic medication as if they have a manic-like psychosis. It may take brief or extended periods of time for patients to stabilize. Once they are stabilized, one of the most challenging questions for clinicians is how long to treat. Again, an evidence base clearly informing this question is lacking.

Over the years, many clinicians have treated patients with postpartum psychosis as if they have bipolar disorder, given the index presentation of the illness, so some of these patients are treated with antimanic drugs indefinitely. However, clinical experience from several centers that treat women with postpartum psychosis suggests that in remitted patients, a proportion of them may be able to taper and discontinue treatment, then sustain well-being for protracted periods.

One obstacle with respect to treatment of postpartum psychosis derives from the short length of stay after delivery for many women. Some women who present with symptoms of postpartum psychosis in the first 24-48 hours frequently are managed with direct admission to an inpatient psychiatric service. But others may not develop symptoms until they are home, which may place both mother and newborn at risk.

Given that the risk for recurrent postpartum psychosis is so great (70%-90%), women with histories of postpartum psychosis invariably are prophylaxed with mood stabilizer prior to delivery in a subsequent pregnancy. In our own center, we have published on the value of such prophylactic intervention, not just in women with postpartum psychosis, but in women with bipolar disorder, who are, as noted, at great risk for developing postpartum psychotic symptoms (Am J Psychiatry. 1995 Nov;152[11]:1641-5.)

Although postpartum psychosis may be rare, over the last 3 decades we have seen a substantial number of women with postpartum psychosis and have been fascinated with the spectrum of symptoms with which some women with postpartum psychotic illness present. We also have been impressed with the time required for some women to recompensate from their illness and the course of their disorder after they have seemingly remitted. Some women appear to be able to discontinue treatment as noted above; others, particularly if there is any history of bipolar disorder, need to be maintained on treatment with mood stabilizer indefinitely.

To better understand the phenomenology of postpartum psychosis, as well as the longitudinal course of the illness, in 2019, the Mass General Hospital Postpartum Psychosis Project (MGHP3) was established. The project is conducted as a hospital-based registry where women with histories of postpartum psychosis over the last decade are invited to participate in an in-depth interview to understand both symptoms and course of underlying illness. This is complemented by obtaining a sample of saliva, which is used for genetic testing to try to identify a genetic underpinning associated with postpartum psychosis, as the question of genetic etiology of postpartum psychosis is still an open one.

As part of the MGHP3 project, clinicians across the country are able to contact perinatal psychiatrists in our center with expertise in the treatment of postpartum psychosis. Our psychiatrists also can counsel clinicians on issues regarding long-term management of postpartum psychosis because for many, knowledge of precisely how to manage this disorder or the follow-up treatment may be incomplete.

From a clinical point of view, the relevant questions really include not only acute treatment, which has already been outlined, but also the issue of duration of treatment. While some patients may be able to taper and discontinue treatment after, for example, a year of being totally well, to date we are unable to know who those patients are. We tend to be more conservative in our own center and treat patients with puerperal psychosis for a more protracted period of time, usually over several years. We also ask women about their family history of bipolar disorder or postpartum psychosis. Depending on the clinical course (if the patient really has sustained euthymia), we consider slow taper and ultimate discontinuation. As always, treatment decisions are tailored to individual clinical history, course, and patient wishes.

Postpartum psychosis remains one of the most serious illnesses that we find in reproductive psychiatry, and incomplete attention has been given to this devastating illness, which we read about periodically in newspapers and magazines. Greater understanding of postpartum psychosis will lead to a more precision-like psychiatric approach, tailoring treatment to the invariable heterogeneity of this illness.

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Email Dr. Cohen at obnews@mdedge.com.