User login
Ovarian Cancer: Another Promising Target for Liquid Biopsy
according to an initial analysis.
The test, under development by Delfi Diagnostics, “looks very sensitive for detecting ovarian cancer early,” said company founder and board member Victor E. Velculescu, MD, PhD, codirector of Cancer Genetics and Epigenetics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.
The assay uses machine learning to integrate cell-free DNA fragment patterns with concentrations of two ovarian cancer biomarkers — CA125 and HE4 — to detect tumors.
While fragmentation patterns are organized in healthy people, they are chaotic in cancer and reveal both its presence and location, said Velculescu who presented the findings at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting.
The researchers tested the assay in 134 women with ovarian cancer, 204 women without cancer, and 203 women with benign adnexal masses. The approach identified 69% of stage 1 cancers, 76% of stage 2, 85% of stage 3, and 100% of stage 4 at a specificity of over 99% and an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.97.
The test identified 91% of high-grade serous ovarian cancers — the most common type of ovarian cancer.
The AUC for distinguishing benign masses from cancer was 0.87, with 60% of ovarian cancers detected at a specificity of 95%.
“In the preoperative setting where lower specificity is acceptable, this approach may improve management of adnexal masses,” the investigators said in their abstract.
Dr. Velculescu cautioned that the report “is an initial analysis” and that his team is working on validating the finding on a larger scale in both average and high-risk women.
If validated, the test “could enable population-wide ovarian cancer screening,” he added.
Delfi recently launched a lung cancer screening blood test — FirstLook Lung— that also uses a “fragmentomics” approach to detect tumors. The company is hopeful it will reach the market with a similar test for ovarian cancer, but it’s not a certainty.
With lung cancer, we know screening helps. For ovarian cancer, however, it’s unclear whether this will help or not, said Dr. Velculescu. But based on the study findings, but “we are now optimistic that this could make an impact. We have more work to do.”
This presentation was one of many at the meeting about liquid biopsies using DNA, RNA, and proteins to detect cancer, including a new assay for pancreatic cancer, another cancer that like ovarian cancer is difficult to detect in the early stages.
“This is the future,” said study moderator Roy S. Herbst, MD, PhD, chief of medical oncology at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut.
He called liquid biopsy “a great advance” in many oncology settings, including cancer screening because finding tumors early offers the best chance at cure.
However, one of the main concerns about rolling out liquid biopsies for wide-scale cancer screening is the possibility that a test will come back positive, but no tumor will be seen on diagnostic imaging, said Herbst. It won’t be clear if the test was a false positive or if the patient has a brewing tumor that can’t be located and treated, a difficult situation for both patients and doctors.
What to do in that situation is “a policy question that the entire country is asking now as liquid biopsies are moving forward,” he said. We are going to have to come together to figure it out and learn how to use these tests.
The work was funded by Delfi Diagnostics, the National Institutes of Health, and others. Dr. Velculescu, in addition to founding Delfi, holds patents on the technology. Dr. Herbst is a consultant, researcher, and/or holds stock in many companies, including AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and Checkpoint Therapeutics.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
according to an initial analysis.
The test, under development by Delfi Diagnostics, “looks very sensitive for detecting ovarian cancer early,” said company founder and board member Victor E. Velculescu, MD, PhD, codirector of Cancer Genetics and Epigenetics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.
The assay uses machine learning to integrate cell-free DNA fragment patterns with concentrations of two ovarian cancer biomarkers — CA125 and HE4 — to detect tumors.
While fragmentation patterns are organized in healthy people, they are chaotic in cancer and reveal both its presence and location, said Velculescu who presented the findings at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting.
The researchers tested the assay in 134 women with ovarian cancer, 204 women without cancer, and 203 women with benign adnexal masses. The approach identified 69% of stage 1 cancers, 76% of stage 2, 85% of stage 3, and 100% of stage 4 at a specificity of over 99% and an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.97.
The test identified 91% of high-grade serous ovarian cancers — the most common type of ovarian cancer.
The AUC for distinguishing benign masses from cancer was 0.87, with 60% of ovarian cancers detected at a specificity of 95%.
“In the preoperative setting where lower specificity is acceptable, this approach may improve management of adnexal masses,” the investigators said in their abstract.
Dr. Velculescu cautioned that the report “is an initial analysis” and that his team is working on validating the finding on a larger scale in both average and high-risk women.
If validated, the test “could enable population-wide ovarian cancer screening,” he added.
Delfi recently launched a lung cancer screening blood test — FirstLook Lung— that also uses a “fragmentomics” approach to detect tumors. The company is hopeful it will reach the market with a similar test for ovarian cancer, but it’s not a certainty.
With lung cancer, we know screening helps. For ovarian cancer, however, it’s unclear whether this will help or not, said Dr. Velculescu. But based on the study findings, but “we are now optimistic that this could make an impact. We have more work to do.”
This presentation was one of many at the meeting about liquid biopsies using DNA, RNA, and proteins to detect cancer, including a new assay for pancreatic cancer, another cancer that like ovarian cancer is difficult to detect in the early stages.
“This is the future,” said study moderator Roy S. Herbst, MD, PhD, chief of medical oncology at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut.
He called liquid biopsy “a great advance” in many oncology settings, including cancer screening because finding tumors early offers the best chance at cure.
However, one of the main concerns about rolling out liquid biopsies for wide-scale cancer screening is the possibility that a test will come back positive, but no tumor will be seen on diagnostic imaging, said Herbst. It won’t be clear if the test was a false positive or if the patient has a brewing tumor that can’t be located and treated, a difficult situation for both patients and doctors.
What to do in that situation is “a policy question that the entire country is asking now as liquid biopsies are moving forward,” he said. We are going to have to come together to figure it out and learn how to use these tests.
The work was funded by Delfi Diagnostics, the National Institutes of Health, and others. Dr. Velculescu, in addition to founding Delfi, holds patents on the technology. Dr. Herbst is a consultant, researcher, and/or holds stock in many companies, including AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and Checkpoint Therapeutics.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
according to an initial analysis.
The test, under development by Delfi Diagnostics, “looks very sensitive for detecting ovarian cancer early,” said company founder and board member Victor E. Velculescu, MD, PhD, codirector of Cancer Genetics and Epigenetics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.
The assay uses machine learning to integrate cell-free DNA fragment patterns with concentrations of two ovarian cancer biomarkers — CA125 and HE4 — to detect tumors.
While fragmentation patterns are organized in healthy people, they are chaotic in cancer and reveal both its presence and location, said Velculescu who presented the findings at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting.
The researchers tested the assay in 134 women with ovarian cancer, 204 women without cancer, and 203 women with benign adnexal masses. The approach identified 69% of stage 1 cancers, 76% of stage 2, 85% of stage 3, and 100% of stage 4 at a specificity of over 99% and an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.97.
The test identified 91% of high-grade serous ovarian cancers — the most common type of ovarian cancer.
The AUC for distinguishing benign masses from cancer was 0.87, with 60% of ovarian cancers detected at a specificity of 95%.
“In the preoperative setting where lower specificity is acceptable, this approach may improve management of adnexal masses,” the investigators said in their abstract.
Dr. Velculescu cautioned that the report “is an initial analysis” and that his team is working on validating the finding on a larger scale in both average and high-risk women.
If validated, the test “could enable population-wide ovarian cancer screening,” he added.
Delfi recently launched a lung cancer screening blood test — FirstLook Lung— that also uses a “fragmentomics” approach to detect tumors. The company is hopeful it will reach the market with a similar test for ovarian cancer, but it’s not a certainty.
With lung cancer, we know screening helps. For ovarian cancer, however, it’s unclear whether this will help or not, said Dr. Velculescu. But based on the study findings, but “we are now optimistic that this could make an impact. We have more work to do.”
This presentation was one of many at the meeting about liquid biopsies using DNA, RNA, and proteins to detect cancer, including a new assay for pancreatic cancer, another cancer that like ovarian cancer is difficult to detect in the early stages.
“This is the future,” said study moderator Roy S. Herbst, MD, PhD, chief of medical oncology at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut.
He called liquid biopsy “a great advance” in many oncology settings, including cancer screening because finding tumors early offers the best chance at cure.
However, one of the main concerns about rolling out liquid biopsies for wide-scale cancer screening is the possibility that a test will come back positive, but no tumor will be seen on diagnostic imaging, said Herbst. It won’t be clear if the test was a false positive or if the patient has a brewing tumor that can’t be located and treated, a difficult situation for both patients and doctors.
What to do in that situation is “a policy question that the entire country is asking now as liquid biopsies are moving forward,” he said. We are going to have to come together to figure it out and learn how to use these tests.
The work was funded by Delfi Diagnostics, the National Institutes of Health, and others. Dr. Velculescu, in addition to founding Delfi, holds patents on the technology. Dr. Herbst is a consultant, researcher, and/or holds stock in many companies, including AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and Checkpoint Therapeutics.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
FROM AACR 2024
Surgeon Claims Colleague Made False Board Complaints to Get Him Fired
A longtime Kaiser Permanente surgeon is suing a fellow physician for allegedly submitting false medical board complaints against him in an attempt to get him fired.
Dr. Stalfire, a board-certified ob.gyn., has worked for Kaiser Permanente in western Oregon for more than 20 years, including several years as a regional chief surgical officer.
Dr. Stalfire is accusing Dr. Hsieh of defamation and intentional emotional distress, according to the March 25 lawsuit filed in Marion County Circuit Court. Northwest Permanente P.C., a Kaiser subsidiary, is also named as a defendant.
Dr. Stalfire is asking for $1.2 million in economic damages and $300,000 in noneconomic damages. Dr. Hsieh has not yet responded to the legal complaint.
Dr. Stalfire’s attorney did not respond to a message seeking comment. Dr. Hsieh is representing himself, according to court records. A Kaiser Permanente spokeswoman told this news organization that Kaiser does not comment on pending litigation.
The conflict began in February 2023, after Dr. Stalfire underwent surgery to correct issues stemming from severe injuries when a tree fell on his leg, according to court records.
Dr. Hsieh, a Kaiser ob.gyn., senior physician, and quality assurance lead, allegedly contacted Dr. Stalfire after the surgery and demanded he return to work earlier than medically recommended. Dr. Stalfire claims Dr. Hsieh questioned his retirement plans and his ability to continue working to pressure him into quitting.
Dr. Stalfire reported Dr. Hsieh’s conduct to Kaiser’s human resources department. However, the complaint contends Dr. Hsieh’s actions only escalated after the report was made. According to the complaint, Dr. Hsieh began telling coworkers Dr. Stalfire was “lying” about his injuries. Dr. Hsieh also allegedly contacted administrators and schedulers to ask about Dr. Stalfire’s injuries and suggested that he was not “legitimately recovering from serious injuries.” The complaint claims that Dr. Hsieh told Dr. Stalfire’s colleagues that he was a “con man,” a “criminal,” and “despicable.”
According to Dr. Stalfire’s complaint, in August 2023, Dr. Hsieh submitted numerous anonymous complaints about Dr. Stalfire to the Washington Medical Commission, the Oregon Medical Board, and other governmental agencies. Dr. Stalfire defended himself against the complaints, and they were dismissed. The lawsuit does not specify the nature of the complaints.
Dr. Stalfire later made public record requests for the complaints and discovered Dr. Hsieh had used his deceased mother-in-law’s phone number as his contact information, according to the lawsuit.
Despite multiple reports about Dr. Hsieh’s conduct, Dr. Stalfire claims Kaiser retained Dr. Hsieh as an employee and took no action to prevent him from making false statements about Dr. Stalfire.
He claims Dr. Hsieh’s harassment and Kaiser’s inaction harmed his professional reputation, caused lost work time, and resulted in severe emotional distress that required mental health treatment. The harm caused continues to impact his ability to work, the suit contends.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
A longtime Kaiser Permanente surgeon is suing a fellow physician for allegedly submitting false medical board complaints against him in an attempt to get him fired.
Dr. Stalfire, a board-certified ob.gyn., has worked for Kaiser Permanente in western Oregon for more than 20 years, including several years as a regional chief surgical officer.
Dr. Stalfire is accusing Dr. Hsieh of defamation and intentional emotional distress, according to the March 25 lawsuit filed in Marion County Circuit Court. Northwest Permanente P.C., a Kaiser subsidiary, is also named as a defendant.
Dr. Stalfire is asking for $1.2 million in economic damages and $300,000 in noneconomic damages. Dr. Hsieh has not yet responded to the legal complaint.
Dr. Stalfire’s attorney did not respond to a message seeking comment. Dr. Hsieh is representing himself, according to court records. A Kaiser Permanente spokeswoman told this news organization that Kaiser does not comment on pending litigation.
The conflict began in February 2023, after Dr. Stalfire underwent surgery to correct issues stemming from severe injuries when a tree fell on his leg, according to court records.
Dr. Hsieh, a Kaiser ob.gyn., senior physician, and quality assurance lead, allegedly contacted Dr. Stalfire after the surgery and demanded he return to work earlier than medically recommended. Dr. Stalfire claims Dr. Hsieh questioned his retirement plans and his ability to continue working to pressure him into quitting.
Dr. Stalfire reported Dr. Hsieh’s conduct to Kaiser’s human resources department. However, the complaint contends Dr. Hsieh’s actions only escalated after the report was made. According to the complaint, Dr. Hsieh began telling coworkers Dr. Stalfire was “lying” about his injuries. Dr. Hsieh also allegedly contacted administrators and schedulers to ask about Dr. Stalfire’s injuries and suggested that he was not “legitimately recovering from serious injuries.” The complaint claims that Dr. Hsieh told Dr. Stalfire’s colleagues that he was a “con man,” a “criminal,” and “despicable.”
According to Dr. Stalfire’s complaint, in August 2023, Dr. Hsieh submitted numerous anonymous complaints about Dr. Stalfire to the Washington Medical Commission, the Oregon Medical Board, and other governmental agencies. Dr. Stalfire defended himself against the complaints, and they were dismissed. The lawsuit does not specify the nature of the complaints.
Dr. Stalfire later made public record requests for the complaints and discovered Dr. Hsieh had used his deceased mother-in-law’s phone number as his contact information, according to the lawsuit.
Despite multiple reports about Dr. Hsieh’s conduct, Dr. Stalfire claims Kaiser retained Dr. Hsieh as an employee and took no action to prevent him from making false statements about Dr. Stalfire.
He claims Dr. Hsieh’s harassment and Kaiser’s inaction harmed his professional reputation, caused lost work time, and resulted in severe emotional distress that required mental health treatment. The harm caused continues to impact his ability to work, the suit contends.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
A longtime Kaiser Permanente surgeon is suing a fellow physician for allegedly submitting false medical board complaints against him in an attempt to get him fired.
Dr. Stalfire, a board-certified ob.gyn., has worked for Kaiser Permanente in western Oregon for more than 20 years, including several years as a regional chief surgical officer.
Dr. Stalfire is accusing Dr. Hsieh of defamation and intentional emotional distress, according to the March 25 lawsuit filed in Marion County Circuit Court. Northwest Permanente P.C., a Kaiser subsidiary, is also named as a defendant.
Dr. Stalfire is asking for $1.2 million in economic damages and $300,000 in noneconomic damages. Dr. Hsieh has not yet responded to the legal complaint.
Dr. Stalfire’s attorney did not respond to a message seeking comment. Dr. Hsieh is representing himself, according to court records. A Kaiser Permanente spokeswoman told this news organization that Kaiser does not comment on pending litigation.
The conflict began in February 2023, after Dr. Stalfire underwent surgery to correct issues stemming from severe injuries when a tree fell on his leg, according to court records.
Dr. Hsieh, a Kaiser ob.gyn., senior physician, and quality assurance lead, allegedly contacted Dr. Stalfire after the surgery and demanded he return to work earlier than medically recommended. Dr. Stalfire claims Dr. Hsieh questioned his retirement plans and his ability to continue working to pressure him into quitting.
Dr. Stalfire reported Dr. Hsieh’s conduct to Kaiser’s human resources department. However, the complaint contends Dr. Hsieh’s actions only escalated after the report was made. According to the complaint, Dr. Hsieh began telling coworkers Dr. Stalfire was “lying” about his injuries. Dr. Hsieh also allegedly contacted administrators and schedulers to ask about Dr. Stalfire’s injuries and suggested that he was not “legitimately recovering from serious injuries.” The complaint claims that Dr. Hsieh told Dr. Stalfire’s colleagues that he was a “con man,” a “criminal,” and “despicable.”
According to Dr. Stalfire’s complaint, in August 2023, Dr. Hsieh submitted numerous anonymous complaints about Dr. Stalfire to the Washington Medical Commission, the Oregon Medical Board, and other governmental agencies. Dr. Stalfire defended himself against the complaints, and they were dismissed. The lawsuit does not specify the nature of the complaints.
Dr. Stalfire later made public record requests for the complaints and discovered Dr. Hsieh had used his deceased mother-in-law’s phone number as his contact information, according to the lawsuit.
Despite multiple reports about Dr. Hsieh’s conduct, Dr. Stalfire claims Kaiser retained Dr. Hsieh as an employee and took no action to prevent him from making false statements about Dr. Stalfire.
He claims Dr. Hsieh’s harassment and Kaiser’s inaction harmed his professional reputation, caused lost work time, and resulted in severe emotional distress that required mental health treatment. The harm caused continues to impact his ability to work, the suit contends.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Minimally Invasive Cytoreductive Approach Comparable to Open Surgery for Ovarian Cancer
This was a finding of a retrospective study presented by Judy Hayek, MD, during an oral abstract session at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer, in San Diego.
Among 2,412 women in the National Cancer Database with tumor-free surgical margins (R0 resections) after interval debulking surgery (IDS), the median overall survival (OS) was 46 months for those who had undergone an open procedure or minimally invasive surgery (MIS) that was converted to an open procedure. In contrast, the median OS was 51 months for patients who underwent laparoscopic or robot-assisted minimally invasive surgery, reported Dr. Hayek, a gynecologic oncology fellow at SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University in Brooklyn, New York.
“R0 resection at the time of interval debulking surgery has similar survival outcomes by minimally invasive surgery versus laparotomy, while R0 resection via laparotomy is associated with higher perioperative mortality. There is no interaction between the extent of surgery and the impact of MIS on survival,” she said during her presentation.
The session included a debate on the pros and cons of minimally invasive vs. open surgery in this population.
Growing Use of MIS
Over the last decade, minimally invasive surgery for interval debulking was shown to be safe and feasible. More recently, two studies using National Cancer Database cohorts showed that survival was similar and perioperative outcomes were better with a minimally invasive approach at the time of IDS for patients with early disease, Dr. Hayek said (Obstet Gynecol 2017 Jul;130(1):71-79; and Gynecol Oncol 2023 May:172:130-137).
Potential limitations of MIS include the absence of haptic feedback compared with open surgery, and the possibility that limited visualization of the surgical field could lead to missed residual disease and subsequent poor outcomes for patients who were presumed to have complete gross resections, she said.
Outcomes Compared
Dr. Hayek and colleagues conducted their study to evaluate survival outcomes after R0 resections by MIS or laparotomy in IDS for patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer.
As noted before, they looked at outcomes for 2,412 women with stage IIIC or IV cancers of all histology types who were diagnosed from 2010 through 2019. A total of 624 patients (25.9%) had minimally invasive procedures, and 1,788 (74.1%) had open surgery or MIS that had been converted to open procedures.
Of the minimally invasive procedures, 48.7% were robot-assisted, and the remainder were laparoscopic.
Over the decade of the study, the frequency of minimally invasive surgery steadily increased, from 11.9% of all procedures in 2010 to 36.5% in 2019.
Also as noted, there was no difference in median overall survival, at 46 months for open/converted procedures vs. 51 months for minimally invasive procedures.
As might be expected, the mean length of stay was shorter with the less invasive surgery: 3.3 days compared with 5.3 days with open surgery (P less than .001). In addition, 30-day and 90-day mortality rates were also lower with MIS, at 0.8% and 1.9%, respectively, compared with 1.6% and 3.5% with laparotomy (P = .006 for 30-day mortality, and .003 for 90-day).
There were also no differences in overall survival between the procedure types when the cases were stratified according to extent of surgery. Within the minimally invasive surgery groups there were no differences in median OS for patients whose surgery was performed laparoscopically or with robotic assistance.
The study was limited by a lack of data on either patient-specific tumor burden, neoadjuvant chemotherapy use, progression-free survival, cause of death, or surgical morbidity, Dr. Hayek acknowledged.
MIS Use Debatable: CON
Despite the good outcomes with minimally invasive techniques in this favorable-risk population, critics contend that MIS interval cytoreduction is too risky in the majority of cases.
In the debate portion of the session, Kara Long Roche, MD, an associate attending in the section of ovarian cancer surgery at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, argued that the potential for MIS missing residual disease is too great.
“We know from almost every retrospective and prospective study done that the volume of residual disease after debulking, whether primary or interval, is the most important prognostic factor for our patients that we can modify,” she said.
Rather than debating morbidity, mortality, or criteria for resection, “I would argue that the question we need to debate is can MIS interval debulking achieve a completeness of resection, i.e., volume of residual disease?” she said.
Dr. Roche contended that retrospective studies such as that reported by Dr. Hayek cannot adequately answer this question because of selection bias. Patients selected for MIS have better responses to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and more favorable tumor biology; and, therefore, overall survival may not be the optimal endpoint for retrospective studies.
In addition, neoadjuvant chemotherapy does not automatically preclude the need for extensive upper abdominal surgery since almost half of patients who receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy are found to have bulky upper abdominal disease at the time of debulking.
Dr. Roche especially cautioned against what she called the WNL or “We Never Looked” phenomenon, in which patients are found on open surgery and organ mobilization to have disease that was not evident on presurgical imaging.
She acknowledged that for some patients the risks of laparotomy are likely to outweigh the benefit of a radical resection, and stressed that for such patients forgoing surgery or optimizing perioperative care may be more important than the size of the incision.
MIS IDS should be the exception, not the rule. We need prospective data with appropriate endpoints. We need surgical quality control in both arms, and we need to continue to focus on surgical education and training so that our trainees can graduate doing these procedures via any approach,” she concluded.
Debate: PRO
Arguing in favor of MIS for ovarian cancer, J. Alejandro Rauh-Hain, MD, MPH, associate professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, told attendees “the only bias I have is that I actually love doing open surgery, but I’m going to try to convince you that there is a potential role for minimally invasive surgery in the future for selected patients with ovarian cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy.”
He noted that several studies have convincingly shown that neoadjuvant chemotherapy does not adversely affect oncologic outcomes for patients with advanced-stage ovarian cancer, and decreases perioperative morbidity in patients who receive it, including reductions in serious adverse events, risk of stoma, and 30-day postoperative mortality.
In addition, low use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy is associated with increased risks for 90-day postoperative deaths in both low- and high surgical volume centers in the US, according to unpublished National Cancer Database data.
Dr. Rauh-Hain noted that neoadjuvant chemotherapy use has steadily increased from 2010 through 2020, and added that in 2022, 32% of interval cytoreductive surgeries in the United States were performed with a minimally invasive approach.
To get a better handle on the MIS vs. open-surgery question, Dr. Rauh-Hain and colleagues at MD Anderson and 13 other centers in the United States, Canada, and Europe are currently recruiting patients for the Laparoscopic Cytoreduction After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy (LANCE) trial. In this phase 3 noninferiority study, patients with stage IIIC-IV ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube cancer who have complete or partial responses and CA125 normalization after three or four cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy will be randomized to laparotomy or MIS, followed by adjuvant platinum- and taxane-based chemotherapy.
The study by Hayek et al. was internally supported. Dr. Hayek and Dr. Roche reported having no conflicts of interest. Dr. Rauh-Hain disclosed financial relationships with Guidepoint Consulting, and the Schlesinger Group.
This was a finding of a retrospective study presented by Judy Hayek, MD, during an oral abstract session at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer, in San Diego.
Among 2,412 women in the National Cancer Database with tumor-free surgical margins (R0 resections) after interval debulking surgery (IDS), the median overall survival (OS) was 46 months for those who had undergone an open procedure or minimally invasive surgery (MIS) that was converted to an open procedure. In contrast, the median OS was 51 months for patients who underwent laparoscopic or robot-assisted minimally invasive surgery, reported Dr. Hayek, a gynecologic oncology fellow at SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University in Brooklyn, New York.
“R0 resection at the time of interval debulking surgery has similar survival outcomes by minimally invasive surgery versus laparotomy, while R0 resection via laparotomy is associated with higher perioperative mortality. There is no interaction between the extent of surgery and the impact of MIS on survival,” she said during her presentation.
The session included a debate on the pros and cons of minimally invasive vs. open surgery in this population.
Growing Use of MIS
Over the last decade, minimally invasive surgery for interval debulking was shown to be safe and feasible. More recently, two studies using National Cancer Database cohorts showed that survival was similar and perioperative outcomes were better with a minimally invasive approach at the time of IDS for patients with early disease, Dr. Hayek said (Obstet Gynecol 2017 Jul;130(1):71-79; and Gynecol Oncol 2023 May:172:130-137).
Potential limitations of MIS include the absence of haptic feedback compared with open surgery, and the possibility that limited visualization of the surgical field could lead to missed residual disease and subsequent poor outcomes for patients who were presumed to have complete gross resections, she said.
Outcomes Compared
Dr. Hayek and colleagues conducted their study to evaluate survival outcomes after R0 resections by MIS or laparotomy in IDS for patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer.
As noted before, they looked at outcomes for 2,412 women with stage IIIC or IV cancers of all histology types who were diagnosed from 2010 through 2019. A total of 624 patients (25.9%) had minimally invasive procedures, and 1,788 (74.1%) had open surgery or MIS that had been converted to open procedures.
Of the minimally invasive procedures, 48.7% were robot-assisted, and the remainder were laparoscopic.
Over the decade of the study, the frequency of minimally invasive surgery steadily increased, from 11.9% of all procedures in 2010 to 36.5% in 2019.
Also as noted, there was no difference in median overall survival, at 46 months for open/converted procedures vs. 51 months for minimally invasive procedures.
As might be expected, the mean length of stay was shorter with the less invasive surgery: 3.3 days compared with 5.3 days with open surgery (P less than .001). In addition, 30-day and 90-day mortality rates were also lower with MIS, at 0.8% and 1.9%, respectively, compared with 1.6% and 3.5% with laparotomy (P = .006 for 30-day mortality, and .003 for 90-day).
There were also no differences in overall survival between the procedure types when the cases were stratified according to extent of surgery. Within the minimally invasive surgery groups there were no differences in median OS for patients whose surgery was performed laparoscopically or with robotic assistance.
The study was limited by a lack of data on either patient-specific tumor burden, neoadjuvant chemotherapy use, progression-free survival, cause of death, or surgical morbidity, Dr. Hayek acknowledged.
MIS Use Debatable: CON
Despite the good outcomes with minimally invasive techniques in this favorable-risk population, critics contend that MIS interval cytoreduction is too risky in the majority of cases.
In the debate portion of the session, Kara Long Roche, MD, an associate attending in the section of ovarian cancer surgery at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, argued that the potential for MIS missing residual disease is too great.
“We know from almost every retrospective and prospective study done that the volume of residual disease after debulking, whether primary or interval, is the most important prognostic factor for our patients that we can modify,” she said.
Rather than debating morbidity, mortality, or criteria for resection, “I would argue that the question we need to debate is can MIS interval debulking achieve a completeness of resection, i.e., volume of residual disease?” she said.
Dr. Roche contended that retrospective studies such as that reported by Dr. Hayek cannot adequately answer this question because of selection bias. Patients selected for MIS have better responses to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and more favorable tumor biology; and, therefore, overall survival may not be the optimal endpoint for retrospective studies.
In addition, neoadjuvant chemotherapy does not automatically preclude the need for extensive upper abdominal surgery since almost half of patients who receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy are found to have bulky upper abdominal disease at the time of debulking.
Dr. Roche especially cautioned against what she called the WNL or “We Never Looked” phenomenon, in which patients are found on open surgery and organ mobilization to have disease that was not evident on presurgical imaging.
She acknowledged that for some patients the risks of laparotomy are likely to outweigh the benefit of a radical resection, and stressed that for such patients forgoing surgery or optimizing perioperative care may be more important than the size of the incision.
MIS IDS should be the exception, not the rule. We need prospective data with appropriate endpoints. We need surgical quality control in both arms, and we need to continue to focus on surgical education and training so that our trainees can graduate doing these procedures via any approach,” she concluded.
Debate: PRO
Arguing in favor of MIS for ovarian cancer, J. Alejandro Rauh-Hain, MD, MPH, associate professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, told attendees “the only bias I have is that I actually love doing open surgery, but I’m going to try to convince you that there is a potential role for minimally invasive surgery in the future for selected patients with ovarian cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy.”
He noted that several studies have convincingly shown that neoadjuvant chemotherapy does not adversely affect oncologic outcomes for patients with advanced-stage ovarian cancer, and decreases perioperative morbidity in patients who receive it, including reductions in serious adverse events, risk of stoma, and 30-day postoperative mortality.
In addition, low use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy is associated with increased risks for 90-day postoperative deaths in both low- and high surgical volume centers in the US, according to unpublished National Cancer Database data.
Dr. Rauh-Hain noted that neoadjuvant chemotherapy use has steadily increased from 2010 through 2020, and added that in 2022, 32% of interval cytoreductive surgeries in the United States were performed with a minimally invasive approach.
To get a better handle on the MIS vs. open-surgery question, Dr. Rauh-Hain and colleagues at MD Anderson and 13 other centers in the United States, Canada, and Europe are currently recruiting patients for the Laparoscopic Cytoreduction After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy (LANCE) trial. In this phase 3 noninferiority study, patients with stage IIIC-IV ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube cancer who have complete or partial responses and CA125 normalization after three or four cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy will be randomized to laparotomy or MIS, followed by adjuvant platinum- and taxane-based chemotherapy.
The study by Hayek et al. was internally supported. Dr. Hayek and Dr. Roche reported having no conflicts of interest. Dr. Rauh-Hain disclosed financial relationships with Guidepoint Consulting, and the Schlesinger Group.
This was a finding of a retrospective study presented by Judy Hayek, MD, during an oral abstract session at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer, in San Diego.
Among 2,412 women in the National Cancer Database with tumor-free surgical margins (R0 resections) after interval debulking surgery (IDS), the median overall survival (OS) was 46 months for those who had undergone an open procedure or minimally invasive surgery (MIS) that was converted to an open procedure. In contrast, the median OS was 51 months for patients who underwent laparoscopic or robot-assisted minimally invasive surgery, reported Dr. Hayek, a gynecologic oncology fellow at SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University in Brooklyn, New York.
“R0 resection at the time of interval debulking surgery has similar survival outcomes by minimally invasive surgery versus laparotomy, while R0 resection via laparotomy is associated with higher perioperative mortality. There is no interaction between the extent of surgery and the impact of MIS on survival,” she said during her presentation.
The session included a debate on the pros and cons of minimally invasive vs. open surgery in this population.
Growing Use of MIS
Over the last decade, minimally invasive surgery for interval debulking was shown to be safe and feasible. More recently, two studies using National Cancer Database cohorts showed that survival was similar and perioperative outcomes were better with a minimally invasive approach at the time of IDS for patients with early disease, Dr. Hayek said (Obstet Gynecol 2017 Jul;130(1):71-79; and Gynecol Oncol 2023 May:172:130-137).
Potential limitations of MIS include the absence of haptic feedback compared with open surgery, and the possibility that limited visualization of the surgical field could lead to missed residual disease and subsequent poor outcomes for patients who were presumed to have complete gross resections, she said.
Outcomes Compared
Dr. Hayek and colleagues conducted their study to evaluate survival outcomes after R0 resections by MIS or laparotomy in IDS for patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer.
As noted before, they looked at outcomes for 2,412 women with stage IIIC or IV cancers of all histology types who were diagnosed from 2010 through 2019. A total of 624 patients (25.9%) had minimally invasive procedures, and 1,788 (74.1%) had open surgery or MIS that had been converted to open procedures.
Of the minimally invasive procedures, 48.7% were robot-assisted, and the remainder were laparoscopic.
Over the decade of the study, the frequency of minimally invasive surgery steadily increased, from 11.9% of all procedures in 2010 to 36.5% in 2019.
Also as noted, there was no difference in median overall survival, at 46 months for open/converted procedures vs. 51 months for minimally invasive procedures.
As might be expected, the mean length of stay was shorter with the less invasive surgery: 3.3 days compared with 5.3 days with open surgery (P less than .001). In addition, 30-day and 90-day mortality rates were also lower with MIS, at 0.8% and 1.9%, respectively, compared with 1.6% and 3.5% with laparotomy (P = .006 for 30-day mortality, and .003 for 90-day).
There were also no differences in overall survival between the procedure types when the cases were stratified according to extent of surgery. Within the minimally invasive surgery groups there were no differences in median OS for patients whose surgery was performed laparoscopically or with robotic assistance.
The study was limited by a lack of data on either patient-specific tumor burden, neoadjuvant chemotherapy use, progression-free survival, cause of death, or surgical morbidity, Dr. Hayek acknowledged.
MIS Use Debatable: CON
Despite the good outcomes with minimally invasive techniques in this favorable-risk population, critics contend that MIS interval cytoreduction is too risky in the majority of cases.
In the debate portion of the session, Kara Long Roche, MD, an associate attending in the section of ovarian cancer surgery at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, argued that the potential for MIS missing residual disease is too great.
“We know from almost every retrospective and prospective study done that the volume of residual disease after debulking, whether primary or interval, is the most important prognostic factor for our patients that we can modify,” she said.
Rather than debating morbidity, mortality, or criteria for resection, “I would argue that the question we need to debate is can MIS interval debulking achieve a completeness of resection, i.e., volume of residual disease?” she said.
Dr. Roche contended that retrospective studies such as that reported by Dr. Hayek cannot adequately answer this question because of selection bias. Patients selected for MIS have better responses to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and more favorable tumor biology; and, therefore, overall survival may not be the optimal endpoint for retrospective studies.
In addition, neoadjuvant chemotherapy does not automatically preclude the need for extensive upper abdominal surgery since almost half of patients who receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy are found to have bulky upper abdominal disease at the time of debulking.
Dr. Roche especially cautioned against what she called the WNL or “We Never Looked” phenomenon, in which patients are found on open surgery and organ mobilization to have disease that was not evident on presurgical imaging.
She acknowledged that for some patients the risks of laparotomy are likely to outweigh the benefit of a radical resection, and stressed that for such patients forgoing surgery or optimizing perioperative care may be more important than the size of the incision.
MIS IDS should be the exception, not the rule. We need prospective data with appropriate endpoints. We need surgical quality control in both arms, and we need to continue to focus on surgical education and training so that our trainees can graduate doing these procedures via any approach,” she concluded.
Debate: PRO
Arguing in favor of MIS for ovarian cancer, J. Alejandro Rauh-Hain, MD, MPH, associate professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, told attendees “the only bias I have is that I actually love doing open surgery, but I’m going to try to convince you that there is a potential role for minimally invasive surgery in the future for selected patients with ovarian cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy.”
He noted that several studies have convincingly shown that neoadjuvant chemotherapy does not adversely affect oncologic outcomes for patients with advanced-stage ovarian cancer, and decreases perioperative morbidity in patients who receive it, including reductions in serious adverse events, risk of stoma, and 30-day postoperative mortality.
In addition, low use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy is associated with increased risks for 90-day postoperative deaths in both low- and high surgical volume centers in the US, according to unpublished National Cancer Database data.
Dr. Rauh-Hain noted that neoadjuvant chemotherapy use has steadily increased from 2010 through 2020, and added that in 2022, 32% of interval cytoreductive surgeries in the United States were performed with a minimally invasive approach.
To get a better handle on the MIS vs. open-surgery question, Dr. Rauh-Hain and colleagues at MD Anderson and 13 other centers in the United States, Canada, and Europe are currently recruiting patients for the Laparoscopic Cytoreduction After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy (LANCE) trial. In this phase 3 noninferiority study, patients with stage IIIC-IV ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube cancer who have complete or partial responses and CA125 normalization after three or four cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy will be randomized to laparotomy or MIS, followed by adjuvant platinum- and taxane-based chemotherapy.
The study by Hayek et al. was internally supported. Dr. Hayek and Dr. Roche reported having no conflicts of interest. Dr. Rauh-Hain disclosed financial relationships with Guidepoint Consulting, and the Schlesinger Group.
FROM SGO 2024
Therapeutic HPV16 vaccine clears virus in most patients with CIN
The vaccine, pNGVL4a-CRTE6E7L2, also showed signs of efficacy in patients living with HIV, reported Kimberly Lynn Levinson, MD, MPH, associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore.
“We demonstrated a 78% rate of clearance for both histologic regression and HPV16, with some clearance of other HPV types,” she said in an oral abstract presentation at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer, held in San Diego.
Further evaluation of the vaccine in vulvar, vaginal, and other tissue types is required, and evaluation of immune response at the local and systemic is ongoing, Dr. Levinson said.
In contrast to HPV16 prophylactic vaccines, which form an antibody-specific response to HPV, therapeutic vaccines elicit a cell-mediated immunity, primarily focusing on the virus’ E6 and E7 proteins.
There are currently only three Food and Drug Administration–approved therapeutic vaccines for cancer, but none are as yet approved for treatment of gynecologic malignancies.
According to the US National Institutes of Health, there are multiple therapeutic HPV vaccines in development using either vector-based, peptide and protein-based, or nucleic-acid based approaches, or whole cell (dendritic cell) approaches.
Current Study
Dr. Levinson noted that “DNA vaccines are both well tolerated and simple to produce, and the addition of calreticulin enhances immune response.”
The investigational vaccine is delivered via an electoporation device (TriGrid delivery system) that stimulates muscle at the injection site to produce an enhanced immune response.
In preclinical studies the device was associated with an enhanced immune response compared with standard intramuscular injection. The enhance immune effect persisted despite CD4 T cell depletion.
The investigators conducted a phase 1 dose-escalation study, administering the vaccine to two separate cohorts: women without HIV who had HPV16-positive cervical dysplasia (CIN 2/3) and women living with HIV with HPV16-positive cervical or vulvovaginal dysplasia (CIN 2/3, VIN 2/3 or VAIN 2/3).
The vaccine was delivered at weeks 0, 4, and 8, at doses of 0.3 mg, 1.0 mg, or 3.0 mg. At week 12, all patients underwent site-specific biopsy to verify non-progression.
At 6 months, the patients then underwent definitive treatment with either loop electro excision or vulvar/vaginal excision. At 12 months, all patients had standard evaluations with biopsies.
Dr. Levinson reported results for the first 14 women enrolled, 10 of whom were HIV-negative and 4 of whom were HIV-positive.
Of nine women in the HIV-negative arm who had completed 6-month visits and were evaluable, two had HPV16 clearance by 2-month follow-up, and seven had clearance at 6 months. Other HPV subtypes cleared in two of five patients at 3 months and in three of five at 6 months.
In addition, seven of nine patients in this arm had histologic regression at 6 months.
In the HIV-positive arm, the two patients with CIN had no HPV16 clearance at 3 months, but both had clearance at 16 months. The vaccine did not clear other HPV subtypes in these patients, however.
Of the two women in this arm who had VIN, one had HPV16 clearance and histologic regression at 6 months. The other patient had neither viral clearance nor histologic regression.
All participants tolerated each vaccine well. Adverse events were all grade 1 in severity and resolved within 4 weeks. The most common event was tenderness at the injection site. There were also three cases of mild headache, two cases of drowsiness, and one of nausea.
What’s Next?
In the question-and-answer session following the presentation, Ronald D. Alvarez, MD, MBA, chairman and clinical service chief of obstetrics and gynecology at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee, asked Dr. Levinson how the vaccine development will proceed.
“Obviously, you have more data to collect and analyze, but how are you going to move forward with what looks like equal efficacy between the 1 milligram and the 3 milligram doses? Are you just going to go with the maximum tolerated dose, or consider a lower dose if it shows equal efficacy in terms of histologic regression as well as HPV clearance?” he asked.
“This is something we’re very interested in, and we do plan for the dose-expansion phase to go with the higher dose,” Dr. Levinson replied. “We need to evaluate it further and we may need to do further randomization between the medium dose and the highest dose to determine if there are differences both with systemic and local responses.”
Robert DeBernardo, MD, section head of obstetrics and gynecology and the Women’s Health Institute at the Cleveland Clinic, asked whether Dr. Levinson and colleagues were considering evaluating the vaccine in transplant recipients, “because we have a lot of persistent HPV in that subgroup.”
Dr. Levinson said that one of the dose-expansion cohorts for further study is a population of patients scheduled for transplantation.
“What we’re interested in is looking at whether we can ‘cure’ HPV prior to transplantation, and we think that’s going to be the best way to show that this vaccine potentially eliminates the virus, because if we can eliminate the virus and then take a population that’s going to be immunodeficient, then that would show that there’s no reactivation of the virus,” she said.
The study is supported by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Levinson, Dr. Alvarez, and Dr. DeBernardo had no conflicts of interest to report.
The vaccine, pNGVL4a-CRTE6E7L2, also showed signs of efficacy in patients living with HIV, reported Kimberly Lynn Levinson, MD, MPH, associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore.
“We demonstrated a 78% rate of clearance for both histologic regression and HPV16, with some clearance of other HPV types,” she said in an oral abstract presentation at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer, held in San Diego.
Further evaluation of the vaccine in vulvar, vaginal, and other tissue types is required, and evaluation of immune response at the local and systemic is ongoing, Dr. Levinson said.
In contrast to HPV16 prophylactic vaccines, which form an antibody-specific response to HPV, therapeutic vaccines elicit a cell-mediated immunity, primarily focusing on the virus’ E6 and E7 proteins.
There are currently only three Food and Drug Administration–approved therapeutic vaccines for cancer, but none are as yet approved for treatment of gynecologic malignancies.
According to the US National Institutes of Health, there are multiple therapeutic HPV vaccines in development using either vector-based, peptide and protein-based, or nucleic-acid based approaches, or whole cell (dendritic cell) approaches.
Current Study
Dr. Levinson noted that “DNA vaccines are both well tolerated and simple to produce, and the addition of calreticulin enhances immune response.”
The investigational vaccine is delivered via an electoporation device (TriGrid delivery system) that stimulates muscle at the injection site to produce an enhanced immune response.
In preclinical studies the device was associated with an enhanced immune response compared with standard intramuscular injection. The enhance immune effect persisted despite CD4 T cell depletion.
The investigators conducted a phase 1 dose-escalation study, administering the vaccine to two separate cohorts: women without HIV who had HPV16-positive cervical dysplasia (CIN 2/3) and women living with HIV with HPV16-positive cervical or vulvovaginal dysplasia (CIN 2/3, VIN 2/3 or VAIN 2/3).
The vaccine was delivered at weeks 0, 4, and 8, at doses of 0.3 mg, 1.0 mg, or 3.0 mg. At week 12, all patients underwent site-specific biopsy to verify non-progression.
At 6 months, the patients then underwent definitive treatment with either loop electro excision or vulvar/vaginal excision. At 12 months, all patients had standard evaluations with biopsies.
Dr. Levinson reported results for the first 14 women enrolled, 10 of whom were HIV-negative and 4 of whom were HIV-positive.
Of nine women in the HIV-negative arm who had completed 6-month visits and were evaluable, two had HPV16 clearance by 2-month follow-up, and seven had clearance at 6 months. Other HPV subtypes cleared in two of five patients at 3 months and in three of five at 6 months.
In addition, seven of nine patients in this arm had histologic regression at 6 months.
In the HIV-positive arm, the two patients with CIN had no HPV16 clearance at 3 months, but both had clearance at 16 months. The vaccine did not clear other HPV subtypes in these patients, however.
Of the two women in this arm who had VIN, one had HPV16 clearance and histologic regression at 6 months. The other patient had neither viral clearance nor histologic regression.
All participants tolerated each vaccine well. Adverse events were all grade 1 in severity and resolved within 4 weeks. The most common event was tenderness at the injection site. There were also three cases of mild headache, two cases of drowsiness, and one of nausea.
What’s Next?
In the question-and-answer session following the presentation, Ronald D. Alvarez, MD, MBA, chairman and clinical service chief of obstetrics and gynecology at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee, asked Dr. Levinson how the vaccine development will proceed.
“Obviously, you have more data to collect and analyze, but how are you going to move forward with what looks like equal efficacy between the 1 milligram and the 3 milligram doses? Are you just going to go with the maximum tolerated dose, or consider a lower dose if it shows equal efficacy in terms of histologic regression as well as HPV clearance?” he asked.
“This is something we’re very interested in, and we do plan for the dose-expansion phase to go with the higher dose,” Dr. Levinson replied. “We need to evaluate it further and we may need to do further randomization between the medium dose and the highest dose to determine if there are differences both with systemic and local responses.”
Robert DeBernardo, MD, section head of obstetrics and gynecology and the Women’s Health Institute at the Cleveland Clinic, asked whether Dr. Levinson and colleagues were considering evaluating the vaccine in transplant recipients, “because we have a lot of persistent HPV in that subgroup.”
Dr. Levinson said that one of the dose-expansion cohorts for further study is a population of patients scheduled for transplantation.
“What we’re interested in is looking at whether we can ‘cure’ HPV prior to transplantation, and we think that’s going to be the best way to show that this vaccine potentially eliminates the virus, because if we can eliminate the virus and then take a population that’s going to be immunodeficient, then that would show that there’s no reactivation of the virus,” she said.
The study is supported by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Levinson, Dr. Alvarez, and Dr. DeBernardo had no conflicts of interest to report.
The vaccine, pNGVL4a-CRTE6E7L2, also showed signs of efficacy in patients living with HIV, reported Kimberly Lynn Levinson, MD, MPH, associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore.
“We demonstrated a 78% rate of clearance for both histologic regression and HPV16, with some clearance of other HPV types,” she said in an oral abstract presentation at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer, held in San Diego.
Further evaluation of the vaccine in vulvar, vaginal, and other tissue types is required, and evaluation of immune response at the local and systemic is ongoing, Dr. Levinson said.
In contrast to HPV16 prophylactic vaccines, which form an antibody-specific response to HPV, therapeutic vaccines elicit a cell-mediated immunity, primarily focusing on the virus’ E6 and E7 proteins.
There are currently only three Food and Drug Administration–approved therapeutic vaccines for cancer, but none are as yet approved for treatment of gynecologic malignancies.
According to the US National Institutes of Health, there are multiple therapeutic HPV vaccines in development using either vector-based, peptide and protein-based, or nucleic-acid based approaches, or whole cell (dendritic cell) approaches.
Current Study
Dr. Levinson noted that “DNA vaccines are both well tolerated and simple to produce, and the addition of calreticulin enhances immune response.”
The investigational vaccine is delivered via an electoporation device (TriGrid delivery system) that stimulates muscle at the injection site to produce an enhanced immune response.
In preclinical studies the device was associated with an enhanced immune response compared with standard intramuscular injection. The enhance immune effect persisted despite CD4 T cell depletion.
The investigators conducted a phase 1 dose-escalation study, administering the vaccine to two separate cohorts: women without HIV who had HPV16-positive cervical dysplasia (CIN 2/3) and women living with HIV with HPV16-positive cervical or vulvovaginal dysplasia (CIN 2/3, VIN 2/3 or VAIN 2/3).
The vaccine was delivered at weeks 0, 4, and 8, at doses of 0.3 mg, 1.0 mg, or 3.0 mg. At week 12, all patients underwent site-specific biopsy to verify non-progression.
At 6 months, the patients then underwent definitive treatment with either loop electro excision or vulvar/vaginal excision. At 12 months, all patients had standard evaluations with biopsies.
Dr. Levinson reported results for the first 14 women enrolled, 10 of whom were HIV-negative and 4 of whom were HIV-positive.
Of nine women in the HIV-negative arm who had completed 6-month visits and were evaluable, two had HPV16 clearance by 2-month follow-up, and seven had clearance at 6 months. Other HPV subtypes cleared in two of five patients at 3 months and in three of five at 6 months.
In addition, seven of nine patients in this arm had histologic regression at 6 months.
In the HIV-positive arm, the two patients with CIN had no HPV16 clearance at 3 months, but both had clearance at 16 months. The vaccine did not clear other HPV subtypes in these patients, however.
Of the two women in this arm who had VIN, one had HPV16 clearance and histologic regression at 6 months. The other patient had neither viral clearance nor histologic regression.
All participants tolerated each vaccine well. Adverse events were all grade 1 in severity and resolved within 4 weeks. The most common event was tenderness at the injection site. There were also three cases of mild headache, two cases of drowsiness, and one of nausea.
What’s Next?
In the question-and-answer session following the presentation, Ronald D. Alvarez, MD, MBA, chairman and clinical service chief of obstetrics and gynecology at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee, asked Dr. Levinson how the vaccine development will proceed.
“Obviously, you have more data to collect and analyze, but how are you going to move forward with what looks like equal efficacy between the 1 milligram and the 3 milligram doses? Are you just going to go with the maximum tolerated dose, or consider a lower dose if it shows equal efficacy in terms of histologic regression as well as HPV clearance?” he asked.
“This is something we’re very interested in, and we do plan for the dose-expansion phase to go with the higher dose,” Dr. Levinson replied. “We need to evaluate it further and we may need to do further randomization between the medium dose and the highest dose to determine if there are differences both with systemic and local responses.”
Robert DeBernardo, MD, section head of obstetrics and gynecology and the Women’s Health Institute at the Cleveland Clinic, asked whether Dr. Levinson and colleagues were considering evaluating the vaccine in transplant recipients, “because we have a lot of persistent HPV in that subgroup.”
Dr. Levinson said that one of the dose-expansion cohorts for further study is a population of patients scheduled for transplantation.
“What we’re interested in is looking at whether we can ‘cure’ HPV prior to transplantation, and we think that’s going to be the best way to show that this vaccine potentially eliminates the virus, because if we can eliminate the virus and then take a population that’s going to be immunodeficient, then that would show that there’s no reactivation of the virus,” she said.
The study is supported by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Levinson, Dr. Alvarez, and Dr. DeBernardo had no conflicts of interest to report.
FROM SGO 2024
Non-Radical Surgery a Win-Win for Early Cervical Cancer
according to results of the GOG-278 trial.
In fact, patients’ quality of life was improved after surgery in both groups, and their concerns about cancer recurrence decreased, especially for those undergoing simple hysterectomy, said Allan Covens, MD, in his late-breaking abstract presentation at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO)’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer.
“Cone biopsy patients reported less concerns about reproductive fertility after surgery and over time compared to preop assessments,” he added.
Due to screening in developed countries, a large proportion of cervical cancers are discovered at an early stage. Treatment of these cancers with radical surgery is associated with high cure rates but significant adverse effects on quality of life, said Dr. Covens, who is with the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
He and his colleagues wanted to see if non-radical surgery could be safely used instead. “Multiple case series have indicated that non-radical surgery is associated with less morbidity and improved quality of life,” he explained. “If this can be proven in a prospective evaluation, it will change future practice.”
GOG-278 was a prospective cohort study of women with stage IA1 (lymph-vascular space invasion+) and IA2-IB1 (≤ 2 cm) carcinoma of the cervix who underwent non-radical surgery (simple hysterectomy or fertility-preserving cone biopsy) and pelvic lymphadenectomy. Criteria included ≤ 10 mm stromal invasion and negative margins on the final cone biopsy.
The primary objectives were to assess changes in functional outcomes of quality of life (bladder/bowel function, sexual function, cancer worry, and reproductive concerns), using validated instruments. Findings were based on 55 patients who underwent cone biopsy and 113 who underwent simple hysterectomy.
Both simple hysterectomy and cone biopsy were associated with “small” declines in sexual function and bladder/bowel function at 4-6 weeks after surgery, but function “quickly” recovered to baseline by 6 months, Dr. Covens reported.
Twelve patients reported a diagnosis of lymphedema, with a Gynecologic Cancer Lymphedema Questionnaire score change of 4 or higher on at least two consecutive evaluations from baseline. This occurred in six cone biopsy and six simple hysterectomy patients.
In a separate presentation, Dr. Covens reported secondary oncologic outcomes from GOG-278, which suggest that non-radical surgery for early-stage cervical cancer is safe, with low perioperative morbidity, although longer follow-up is needed.
He also reported 16 pregnancies in 15 patients who had undergone cone biopsies; 12 of these were successful, and there were four early pregnancy losses.
‘Impressive’ Data
Study discussant Kristin Bixel, MD, with The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, said the data are “impressive” and clearly show that non-radical surgery has “minimal impact on bladder/bowel function, with no long-term differences from baseline.”
She added that the incidence of lymphedema was “honestly significantly lower than what I typically counsel patients about” and wondered if the percentage of patients with lymphedema would increase over time.
Dr. Bixel particularly noted the decrease in cancer worry scores after surgery, as sometimes patients who have less radical procedures fear that this comes with an increased risk for recurrence.
The “growing body of data suggests that less radical surgery is safe and effective for early-stage low-risk cervical cancer and highlights the potential reproductive success,” she concluded.
Funding for the study was provided by grants from NRG Oncology. Dr. Covens had no disclosures. Dr. Bixel has received research funding from the Intuitive Foundation.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
according to results of the GOG-278 trial.
In fact, patients’ quality of life was improved after surgery in both groups, and their concerns about cancer recurrence decreased, especially for those undergoing simple hysterectomy, said Allan Covens, MD, in his late-breaking abstract presentation at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO)’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer.
“Cone biopsy patients reported less concerns about reproductive fertility after surgery and over time compared to preop assessments,” he added.
Due to screening in developed countries, a large proportion of cervical cancers are discovered at an early stage. Treatment of these cancers with radical surgery is associated with high cure rates but significant adverse effects on quality of life, said Dr. Covens, who is with the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
He and his colleagues wanted to see if non-radical surgery could be safely used instead. “Multiple case series have indicated that non-radical surgery is associated with less morbidity and improved quality of life,” he explained. “If this can be proven in a prospective evaluation, it will change future practice.”
GOG-278 was a prospective cohort study of women with stage IA1 (lymph-vascular space invasion+) and IA2-IB1 (≤ 2 cm) carcinoma of the cervix who underwent non-radical surgery (simple hysterectomy or fertility-preserving cone biopsy) and pelvic lymphadenectomy. Criteria included ≤ 10 mm stromal invasion and negative margins on the final cone biopsy.
The primary objectives were to assess changes in functional outcomes of quality of life (bladder/bowel function, sexual function, cancer worry, and reproductive concerns), using validated instruments. Findings were based on 55 patients who underwent cone biopsy and 113 who underwent simple hysterectomy.
Both simple hysterectomy and cone biopsy were associated with “small” declines in sexual function and bladder/bowel function at 4-6 weeks after surgery, but function “quickly” recovered to baseline by 6 months, Dr. Covens reported.
Twelve patients reported a diagnosis of lymphedema, with a Gynecologic Cancer Lymphedema Questionnaire score change of 4 or higher on at least two consecutive evaluations from baseline. This occurred in six cone biopsy and six simple hysterectomy patients.
In a separate presentation, Dr. Covens reported secondary oncologic outcomes from GOG-278, which suggest that non-radical surgery for early-stage cervical cancer is safe, with low perioperative morbidity, although longer follow-up is needed.
He also reported 16 pregnancies in 15 patients who had undergone cone biopsies; 12 of these were successful, and there were four early pregnancy losses.
‘Impressive’ Data
Study discussant Kristin Bixel, MD, with The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, said the data are “impressive” and clearly show that non-radical surgery has “minimal impact on bladder/bowel function, with no long-term differences from baseline.”
She added that the incidence of lymphedema was “honestly significantly lower than what I typically counsel patients about” and wondered if the percentage of patients with lymphedema would increase over time.
Dr. Bixel particularly noted the decrease in cancer worry scores after surgery, as sometimes patients who have less radical procedures fear that this comes with an increased risk for recurrence.
The “growing body of data suggests that less radical surgery is safe and effective for early-stage low-risk cervical cancer and highlights the potential reproductive success,” she concluded.
Funding for the study was provided by grants from NRG Oncology. Dr. Covens had no disclosures. Dr. Bixel has received research funding from the Intuitive Foundation.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
according to results of the GOG-278 trial.
In fact, patients’ quality of life was improved after surgery in both groups, and their concerns about cancer recurrence decreased, especially for those undergoing simple hysterectomy, said Allan Covens, MD, in his late-breaking abstract presentation at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO)’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer.
“Cone biopsy patients reported less concerns about reproductive fertility after surgery and over time compared to preop assessments,” he added.
Due to screening in developed countries, a large proportion of cervical cancers are discovered at an early stage. Treatment of these cancers with radical surgery is associated with high cure rates but significant adverse effects on quality of life, said Dr. Covens, who is with the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
He and his colleagues wanted to see if non-radical surgery could be safely used instead. “Multiple case series have indicated that non-radical surgery is associated with less morbidity and improved quality of life,” he explained. “If this can be proven in a prospective evaluation, it will change future practice.”
GOG-278 was a prospective cohort study of women with stage IA1 (lymph-vascular space invasion+) and IA2-IB1 (≤ 2 cm) carcinoma of the cervix who underwent non-radical surgery (simple hysterectomy or fertility-preserving cone biopsy) and pelvic lymphadenectomy. Criteria included ≤ 10 mm stromal invasion and negative margins on the final cone biopsy.
The primary objectives were to assess changes in functional outcomes of quality of life (bladder/bowel function, sexual function, cancer worry, and reproductive concerns), using validated instruments. Findings were based on 55 patients who underwent cone biopsy and 113 who underwent simple hysterectomy.
Both simple hysterectomy and cone biopsy were associated with “small” declines in sexual function and bladder/bowel function at 4-6 weeks after surgery, but function “quickly” recovered to baseline by 6 months, Dr. Covens reported.
Twelve patients reported a diagnosis of lymphedema, with a Gynecologic Cancer Lymphedema Questionnaire score change of 4 or higher on at least two consecutive evaluations from baseline. This occurred in six cone biopsy and six simple hysterectomy patients.
In a separate presentation, Dr. Covens reported secondary oncologic outcomes from GOG-278, which suggest that non-radical surgery for early-stage cervical cancer is safe, with low perioperative morbidity, although longer follow-up is needed.
He also reported 16 pregnancies in 15 patients who had undergone cone biopsies; 12 of these were successful, and there were four early pregnancy losses.
‘Impressive’ Data
Study discussant Kristin Bixel, MD, with The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, said the data are “impressive” and clearly show that non-radical surgery has “minimal impact on bladder/bowel function, with no long-term differences from baseline.”
She added that the incidence of lymphedema was “honestly significantly lower than what I typically counsel patients about” and wondered if the percentage of patients with lymphedema would increase over time.
Dr. Bixel particularly noted the decrease in cancer worry scores after surgery, as sometimes patients who have less radical procedures fear that this comes with an increased risk for recurrence.
The “growing body of data suggests that less radical surgery is safe and effective for early-stage low-risk cervical cancer and highlights the potential reproductive success,” she concluded.
Funding for the study was provided by grants from NRG Oncology. Dr. Covens had no disclosures. Dr. Bixel has received research funding from the Intuitive Foundation.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM SGO 2024
Web-Based Aid Educates Women on Tubal Sterilization
Although tubal sterilization is common, especially among those with lower income and education levels, misunderstandings persist about the reversibility of the procedure, and previous studies suggest that many pregnant individuals are not making well-informed decisions, wrote Sonya Borrero, MD, of the University of Pittsburgh, and colleagues.
In a study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers randomized 350 pregnant individuals with Medicaid insurance to usual care or usual care plus a web-based decision aid in English or Spanish called MyDecision/MiDecisión that included written, audio, and video information about tubal sterilization. The tool also included an interactive table comparing tubal sterilization to other contraceptive options, exercises to clarify patients’ values, knowledge checks, and a final summary report.
The two primary outcomes were knowledge of tubal sterilization based on a 10-question true/false test and decisional conflict about contraceptive choices using the low-literacy Decision Conflict Scale. The participants ranged in age from 21 to 45 years, with a mean age of 29.7 years. Participants were randomized prior to 24 weeks’ gestation, and those in the intervention group completed the intervention immediately using a personal device or a university device in the clinical setting. Further assessments occurred by phone during the third trimester and at 3 months postpartum.
Participants in the decision aid group showed significantly greater knowledge of tubal sterilization compared with controls, with a mean of 76.5% correct responses to the knowledge questions, vs. 55.6% in the control group (P < .001). Decisional conflict scores also were significantly lower in the intervention group compared with controls (mean 12.7 vs. 18.7, P = .002).
The most dramatic knowledge gap related to permanence of tubal sterilization; 90.1% of participants in the intervention group answered correctly that the procedure is not easily reversible, compared to 39.3% of the controls. Similarly, 86.6% of the intervention group responded correctly that the tubes do not “come untied” spontaneously, vs. 33.7% of controls (P < .001 for both).
The findings were limited by several factors including the focus only on pregnant Medicaid patients, the presentation of the decision tool only at a point early in pregnancy, which may have been too soon for some participants to consider tubal sterilization, and a lack of data on long-term satisfaction or regret about tubal sterilization decisions, the researchers noted.
However, the knowledge differences between the intervention and control groups remained significant at the third trimester assessment, they said.
More research is needed in other populations and using other time points, but the current study results suggest that use of the MyDecision/MiDecisión tool in a real-world clinical setting at the actual time of decision-making could improve knowledge and inform patients’ choices, the researchers concluded. Improved patient education also could inform policy decisions about the potential elimination of the 30-day waiting period for sterilization procedures, they said.
The study was supported by the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
Although tubal sterilization is common, especially among those with lower income and education levels, misunderstandings persist about the reversibility of the procedure, and previous studies suggest that many pregnant individuals are not making well-informed decisions, wrote Sonya Borrero, MD, of the University of Pittsburgh, and colleagues.
In a study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers randomized 350 pregnant individuals with Medicaid insurance to usual care or usual care plus a web-based decision aid in English or Spanish called MyDecision/MiDecisión that included written, audio, and video information about tubal sterilization. The tool also included an interactive table comparing tubal sterilization to other contraceptive options, exercises to clarify patients’ values, knowledge checks, and a final summary report.
The two primary outcomes were knowledge of tubal sterilization based on a 10-question true/false test and decisional conflict about contraceptive choices using the low-literacy Decision Conflict Scale. The participants ranged in age from 21 to 45 years, with a mean age of 29.7 years. Participants were randomized prior to 24 weeks’ gestation, and those in the intervention group completed the intervention immediately using a personal device or a university device in the clinical setting. Further assessments occurred by phone during the third trimester and at 3 months postpartum.
Participants in the decision aid group showed significantly greater knowledge of tubal sterilization compared with controls, with a mean of 76.5% correct responses to the knowledge questions, vs. 55.6% in the control group (P < .001). Decisional conflict scores also were significantly lower in the intervention group compared with controls (mean 12.7 vs. 18.7, P = .002).
The most dramatic knowledge gap related to permanence of tubal sterilization; 90.1% of participants in the intervention group answered correctly that the procedure is not easily reversible, compared to 39.3% of the controls. Similarly, 86.6% of the intervention group responded correctly that the tubes do not “come untied” spontaneously, vs. 33.7% of controls (P < .001 for both).
The findings were limited by several factors including the focus only on pregnant Medicaid patients, the presentation of the decision tool only at a point early in pregnancy, which may have been too soon for some participants to consider tubal sterilization, and a lack of data on long-term satisfaction or regret about tubal sterilization decisions, the researchers noted.
However, the knowledge differences between the intervention and control groups remained significant at the third trimester assessment, they said.
More research is needed in other populations and using other time points, but the current study results suggest that use of the MyDecision/MiDecisión tool in a real-world clinical setting at the actual time of decision-making could improve knowledge and inform patients’ choices, the researchers concluded. Improved patient education also could inform policy decisions about the potential elimination of the 30-day waiting period for sterilization procedures, they said.
The study was supported by the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
Although tubal sterilization is common, especially among those with lower income and education levels, misunderstandings persist about the reversibility of the procedure, and previous studies suggest that many pregnant individuals are not making well-informed decisions, wrote Sonya Borrero, MD, of the University of Pittsburgh, and colleagues.
In a study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers randomized 350 pregnant individuals with Medicaid insurance to usual care or usual care plus a web-based decision aid in English or Spanish called MyDecision/MiDecisión that included written, audio, and video information about tubal sterilization. The tool also included an interactive table comparing tubal sterilization to other contraceptive options, exercises to clarify patients’ values, knowledge checks, and a final summary report.
The two primary outcomes were knowledge of tubal sterilization based on a 10-question true/false test and decisional conflict about contraceptive choices using the low-literacy Decision Conflict Scale. The participants ranged in age from 21 to 45 years, with a mean age of 29.7 years. Participants were randomized prior to 24 weeks’ gestation, and those in the intervention group completed the intervention immediately using a personal device or a university device in the clinical setting. Further assessments occurred by phone during the third trimester and at 3 months postpartum.
Participants in the decision aid group showed significantly greater knowledge of tubal sterilization compared with controls, with a mean of 76.5% correct responses to the knowledge questions, vs. 55.6% in the control group (P < .001). Decisional conflict scores also were significantly lower in the intervention group compared with controls (mean 12.7 vs. 18.7, P = .002).
The most dramatic knowledge gap related to permanence of tubal sterilization; 90.1% of participants in the intervention group answered correctly that the procedure is not easily reversible, compared to 39.3% of the controls. Similarly, 86.6% of the intervention group responded correctly that the tubes do not “come untied” spontaneously, vs. 33.7% of controls (P < .001 for both).
The findings were limited by several factors including the focus only on pregnant Medicaid patients, the presentation of the decision tool only at a point early in pregnancy, which may have been too soon for some participants to consider tubal sterilization, and a lack of data on long-term satisfaction or regret about tubal sterilization decisions, the researchers noted.
However, the knowledge differences between the intervention and control groups remained significant at the third trimester assessment, they said.
More research is needed in other populations and using other time points, but the current study results suggest that use of the MyDecision/MiDecisión tool in a real-world clinical setting at the actual time of decision-making could improve knowledge and inform patients’ choices, the researchers concluded. Improved patient education also could inform policy decisions about the potential elimination of the 30-day waiting period for sterilization procedures, they said.
The study was supported by the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
QOL Not Harmed With Add-On Pembrolizumab in Cervical Cancer
according to patient-reported outcome analyses from the KEYNOTE-A18 trial.
Progression-free survival data from the trial, reported at the 2023 meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology, showed a 30% reduction in the risk for progression (P =.002) with the addition of pembrolizumab vs placebo, as well as favorable overall survival trends, reported Leslie Randall, MD, with VCU Health in Richmond, Virginia. Now the new analyses bring the “voices of the patients from this large phase 3 study.”
“I think the data can put us at ease and give patients a measure of comfort because there was no detriment in the quality of life,” said Dr. Randall, who presented the data on March 17 at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO) 2024 conference.
The phase 3 KEYNOTE-A18 trial enrolled 1060 patients new to treatment who had either stage 1B2-2B disease with lymph node involvement or stage 3-4A disease. They were randomly allocated to receive pembrolizumab or placebo plus concurrent chemoradiotherapy.
Patient-reported outcome instruments used in the study were the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) 30-item quality-of-life (QOL) core questionnaire (QLQ-C30), the EORTC cervical cancer–specific module (QLQ-CX24), and the EuroQol EQ-5D-5L visual analog scale (VAS).
Prespecified secondary study endpoints were changes from baseline to week 36 in QLQ-C30 global health status/QOL (GHS/QOL) and physical functioning, and the QLQ-CX24 symptom-experience scale.
At baseline, patient-reported outcome scores were similar between treatment groups. Patients in both treatment groups had an initial decrease in QLQ-C30 GHS/QOL and physical functioning subscale and EQ-5D-5L VAS scores at weeks 3 and 6, but these improved relative to baseline at week 12 and subsequent weeks.
A similar number of patients in the pembrolizumab and placebo groups had improved or stable scores for QLQ-C30 GHS/QOL (76% vs 75%), QLQ-C30 physical functioning (77% vs 77%), QLQ-CX24 symptom experience (85% vs 85%) and EQ-5D-5L VAS (73% vs 76%).
Across all QOL instruments evaluated, there were no meaningful differences in patient-reported outcomes among patients who received pembrolizumab compared with those who received placebo, said Dr. Randall.
The improvement in progression-free survival, coupled with the patient-reported outcomes showing no additional harms to quality of life, support pembrolizumab plus concurrent chemoradiotherapy as a “new standard of care” for patients with high-risk locally advanced cervical cancer, she told attendees.
“We have had stunning success in cervical cancer treatments over the past 10-15 years, and now we see that the addition of pembrolizumab to standard chemotherapy not only improves outcome but very importantly does not significantly impact the quality of life in our patients,” said study discussant R. Wendel Naumann, MD, Atrium Health Levine Cancer Institute, Charlotte, North Carolina.
Funding for KEYNOTE-A18 was provided by Merck. Dr. Randall has disclosed relationships with Seagen/Genmab, Merck, GSK, ImmunoGen, AstraZeneca, and On Target Laboratories. Dr. Naumann has no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
according to patient-reported outcome analyses from the KEYNOTE-A18 trial.
Progression-free survival data from the trial, reported at the 2023 meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology, showed a 30% reduction in the risk for progression (P =.002) with the addition of pembrolizumab vs placebo, as well as favorable overall survival trends, reported Leslie Randall, MD, with VCU Health in Richmond, Virginia. Now the new analyses bring the “voices of the patients from this large phase 3 study.”
“I think the data can put us at ease and give patients a measure of comfort because there was no detriment in the quality of life,” said Dr. Randall, who presented the data on March 17 at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO) 2024 conference.
The phase 3 KEYNOTE-A18 trial enrolled 1060 patients new to treatment who had either stage 1B2-2B disease with lymph node involvement or stage 3-4A disease. They were randomly allocated to receive pembrolizumab or placebo plus concurrent chemoradiotherapy.
Patient-reported outcome instruments used in the study were the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) 30-item quality-of-life (QOL) core questionnaire (QLQ-C30), the EORTC cervical cancer–specific module (QLQ-CX24), and the EuroQol EQ-5D-5L visual analog scale (VAS).
Prespecified secondary study endpoints were changes from baseline to week 36 in QLQ-C30 global health status/QOL (GHS/QOL) and physical functioning, and the QLQ-CX24 symptom-experience scale.
At baseline, patient-reported outcome scores were similar between treatment groups. Patients in both treatment groups had an initial decrease in QLQ-C30 GHS/QOL and physical functioning subscale and EQ-5D-5L VAS scores at weeks 3 and 6, but these improved relative to baseline at week 12 and subsequent weeks.
A similar number of patients in the pembrolizumab and placebo groups had improved or stable scores for QLQ-C30 GHS/QOL (76% vs 75%), QLQ-C30 physical functioning (77% vs 77%), QLQ-CX24 symptom experience (85% vs 85%) and EQ-5D-5L VAS (73% vs 76%).
Across all QOL instruments evaluated, there were no meaningful differences in patient-reported outcomes among patients who received pembrolizumab compared with those who received placebo, said Dr. Randall.
The improvement in progression-free survival, coupled with the patient-reported outcomes showing no additional harms to quality of life, support pembrolizumab plus concurrent chemoradiotherapy as a “new standard of care” for patients with high-risk locally advanced cervical cancer, she told attendees.
“We have had stunning success in cervical cancer treatments over the past 10-15 years, and now we see that the addition of pembrolizumab to standard chemotherapy not only improves outcome but very importantly does not significantly impact the quality of life in our patients,” said study discussant R. Wendel Naumann, MD, Atrium Health Levine Cancer Institute, Charlotte, North Carolina.
Funding for KEYNOTE-A18 was provided by Merck. Dr. Randall has disclosed relationships with Seagen/Genmab, Merck, GSK, ImmunoGen, AstraZeneca, and On Target Laboratories. Dr. Naumann has no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
according to patient-reported outcome analyses from the KEYNOTE-A18 trial.
Progression-free survival data from the trial, reported at the 2023 meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology, showed a 30% reduction in the risk for progression (P =.002) with the addition of pembrolizumab vs placebo, as well as favorable overall survival trends, reported Leslie Randall, MD, with VCU Health in Richmond, Virginia. Now the new analyses bring the “voices of the patients from this large phase 3 study.”
“I think the data can put us at ease and give patients a measure of comfort because there was no detriment in the quality of life,” said Dr. Randall, who presented the data on March 17 at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO) 2024 conference.
The phase 3 KEYNOTE-A18 trial enrolled 1060 patients new to treatment who had either stage 1B2-2B disease with lymph node involvement or stage 3-4A disease. They were randomly allocated to receive pembrolizumab or placebo plus concurrent chemoradiotherapy.
Patient-reported outcome instruments used in the study were the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) 30-item quality-of-life (QOL) core questionnaire (QLQ-C30), the EORTC cervical cancer–specific module (QLQ-CX24), and the EuroQol EQ-5D-5L visual analog scale (VAS).
Prespecified secondary study endpoints were changes from baseline to week 36 in QLQ-C30 global health status/QOL (GHS/QOL) and physical functioning, and the QLQ-CX24 symptom-experience scale.
At baseline, patient-reported outcome scores were similar between treatment groups. Patients in both treatment groups had an initial decrease in QLQ-C30 GHS/QOL and physical functioning subscale and EQ-5D-5L VAS scores at weeks 3 and 6, but these improved relative to baseline at week 12 and subsequent weeks.
A similar number of patients in the pembrolizumab and placebo groups had improved or stable scores for QLQ-C30 GHS/QOL (76% vs 75%), QLQ-C30 physical functioning (77% vs 77%), QLQ-CX24 symptom experience (85% vs 85%) and EQ-5D-5L VAS (73% vs 76%).
Across all QOL instruments evaluated, there were no meaningful differences in patient-reported outcomes among patients who received pembrolizumab compared with those who received placebo, said Dr. Randall.
The improvement in progression-free survival, coupled with the patient-reported outcomes showing no additional harms to quality of life, support pembrolizumab plus concurrent chemoradiotherapy as a “new standard of care” for patients with high-risk locally advanced cervical cancer, she told attendees.
“We have had stunning success in cervical cancer treatments over the past 10-15 years, and now we see that the addition of pembrolizumab to standard chemotherapy not only improves outcome but very importantly does not significantly impact the quality of life in our patients,” said study discussant R. Wendel Naumann, MD, Atrium Health Levine Cancer Institute, Charlotte, North Carolina.
Funding for KEYNOTE-A18 was provided by Merck. Dr. Randall has disclosed relationships with Seagen/Genmab, Merck, GSK, ImmunoGen, AstraZeneca, and On Target Laboratories. Dr. Naumann has no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
RUBY: ‘A Huge Win’ for Patients With Advanced or Recurrent Endometrial Cancer
The benefit of the combination of the programmed death protein 1 (PD-1) inhibitor dostarlimab (Jemperli) and chemotherapy was even more pronounced among patients with DNA mismatch repair deficient/microsatellite instability high (dMMR/MSI-H) tumors.
These results, from the second interim analysis of the phase 3 ENGOT-EN6-NSGO/GOG-3031/RUBY trial, were cheered by audience members when they were reported at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO)’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer, held in San Diego, California.
“Overall survival benefit to the addition of PD-1 inhibitor to chemotherapy upfront for patients with advanced and recurrent MSI-high endometrial cancer: SOLD!” said invited discussant Gini Fleming, medical director of gynecologic oncology at the University of Chicago.
“I think this is a huge win for our patients. It’s something that none of us have seen before over many years of working with endometrial cancer and should be incorporated into everybody’s practice as of yesterday,” she said.
Continued Improvement
Results from the first interim analysis of the trial showed that dostarlimab and chemotherapy significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) in the dMMR/MSI-H population, and there was an early trend toward improved overall survival, compared with chemotherapy plus placebo.
As Matthew A. Powell, MD from Washington University School of Medicine in Saint Louis, Missouri reported at SGO 2024, that early trend has become an undeniable survival advantage.
At a median follow-up of 37.2 months, the median overall survival was 44.6 months for patients randomized to the combination, compared with 28.2 months for those assigned to chemotherapy plus placebo.
The respective 3-year overall survival (OS) rates were 54.9% and 42.9%, translating into a hazard ratio (HR) for death with dostarlimab/chemotherapy of 0.69 (P = .002).
Among the subset of patients with dMMR/MSI-H tumors the survival benefit conferred by the combination was even greater, with median OS not reached in the dostarlimab group vs 31.4 months in the chemotherapy-alone arm, with respective 3-year OS rates of 78% and 46%. This difference translated into a HR for death with the combination of 0.32 (P = .0002) for patients with deficient mismatch-repair cancers.
“Dostarlimab plus carboplatin-paclitaxel chemotherapy demonstrated statistically significant and clinically meaningful overall survival improvements in the overall population, a substantial unprecedented overall survival benefit in patients with defective mismatch-repair tumors, and a clinically meaningful; 7-month improvement in the OS difference in patients with proficient mismatch-repair tumors,” Dr. Powell said.
RUBY Details
The trial was conducted in 494 patients with primary advanced stage III or IV or first recurrent endometrial cancer who received first-line treatment with standard chemotherapy with carboplatin (area under the concentration–time curve, 5 mg/mL per minute) and paclitaxel (175 mg/m2 of body surface area), every 3 weeks (six cycles). They were also randomized to receive either dostarlimab (1000 mg) or dostarlimab placebo every 6 weeks for up to 3 years.
Within the cohort, 118 patients (23.9%) had dMMR/MSI-H tumors.
At the time of the first interim analysis the estimated progression-free survival at 24 months in the dMMR–MSI-H subgroup was 61.4% in the dostarlimab group vs 15.7 in the placebo group (HR for progression or death, 0.28; P < .001). For the entire cohort, progression-free survival at 24 months was 36.1% vs 18.1% (HR, 0.64; P < .001).
A prespecified exploratory analysis of progression-free survival in proficient MMR, microsatellite stable (MSS) patients was also done, and a clinically relevant benefit was observed.
Overall survival at that time also favored dostarlimab, although it was only mature for 33% of the population. But at 24 months, OS rates were 71.3% vs 56.0% among placebo recipients; this difference approached but did not reach statistical significance.
The overall response rate in the dMMR–MSI-H population vs the placebo group was 77.6% vs 69%, respectively, and 68.1% and 63.4% in the pMMR/MSS population.
The most common adverse events observed were nausea, alopecia, and fatigue. Grade 3 and higher adverse events at the most recent follow-up were more frequent in the dostarlimab group than in the placebo group (72.2% vs 60.2%).
“Importantly, safety was maintained” at the second interim analysis, Dr. Powell said.
“No new safety signals were noted, no new deaths related to therapy were noted with the subsequent 1-year additional analysis time,” he said.
What’s Next?
Dr. Fleming reviewed potential strategies for further improving care of patients with advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer during her discussion.
“What are the next directions for patients with MSI-high disease? Well, obviously could we use immune checkpoint inhibitors without chemotherapy and not compromise results? There are two ongoing trials or trials that we’re awaiting results of that have compared single-agent immune checkpoint inhibitor to just chemotherapy in mismatch repair-deficient advanced disease, and hopefully we can extrapolate from these trials to determine if this might be a more patient-friendly and equally effective strategy, but we don’t yet know,” she said.
Dr. Fleming also noted that ongoing or planned clinical trials will address questions about potential options for patients with MSI-H tumors whose disease progresses on frontline chemotherapy and immunotherapy. Other trials are assessing whether combining radiotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors will be effective in treating patients with earlier-stage tumors, or whether the addition of a PARP inhibitor might offer additional benefit for these patients.
“Immune checkpoint inhibitor should be given first line to patients with advanced/recurrent microsatellite [instability] endometrial cancer, and they should be considered as front line in patients with microsatellite stable disease. At this point, unfortunately, we have no reasonable predictive factors to know which of those patients with microsatellite stable disease will truly benefit. Multiple other agents are being tested in this setting, and will hopefully prove useful in subgroups,” she said.
The study is funded by GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Powell reports grants/research support from GSK and honoraria/consultation fees from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Eisai, GSK, Immunogen, and Merck. Dr. Fleming reports serving as an institutional principal investigator for trials sponsored by multiple companies, not including GSK.
The benefit of the combination of the programmed death protein 1 (PD-1) inhibitor dostarlimab (Jemperli) and chemotherapy was even more pronounced among patients with DNA mismatch repair deficient/microsatellite instability high (dMMR/MSI-H) tumors.
These results, from the second interim analysis of the phase 3 ENGOT-EN6-NSGO/GOG-3031/RUBY trial, were cheered by audience members when they were reported at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO)’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer, held in San Diego, California.
“Overall survival benefit to the addition of PD-1 inhibitor to chemotherapy upfront for patients with advanced and recurrent MSI-high endometrial cancer: SOLD!” said invited discussant Gini Fleming, medical director of gynecologic oncology at the University of Chicago.
“I think this is a huge win for our patients. It’s something that none of us have seen before over many years of working with endometrial cancer and should be incorporated into everybody’s practice as of yesterday,” she said.
Continued Improvement
Results from the first interim analysis of the trial showed that dostarlimab and chemotherapy significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) in the dMMR/MSI-H population, and there was an early trend toward improved overall survival, compared with chemotherapy plus placebo.
As Matthew A. Powell, MD from Washington University School of Medicine in Saint Louis, Missouri reported at SGO 2024, that early trend has become an undeniable survival advantage.
At a median follow-up of 37.2 months, the median overall survival was 44.6 months for patients randomized to the combination, compared with 28.2 months for those assigned to chemotherapy plus placebo.
The respective 3-year overall survival (OS) rates were 54.9% and 42.9%, translating into a hazard ratio (HR) for death with dostarlimab/chemotherapy of 0.69 (P = .002).
Among the subset of patients with dMMR/MSI-H tumors the survival benefit conferred by the combination was even greater, with median OS not reached in the dostarlimab group vs 31.4 months in the chemotherapy-alone arm, with respective 3-year OS rates of 78% and 46%. This difference translated into a HR for death with the combination of 0.32 (P = .0002) for patients with deficient mismatch-repair cancers.
“Dostarlimab plus carboplatin-paclitaxel chemotherapy demonstrated statistically significant and clinically meaningful overall survival improvements in the overall population, a substantial unprecedented overall survival benefit in patients with defective mismatch-repair tumors, and a clinically meaningful; 7-month improvement in the OS difference in patients with proficient mismatch-repair tumors,” Dr. Powell said.
RUBY Details
The trial was conducted in 494 patients with primary advanced stage III or IV or first recurrent endometrial cancer who received first-line treatment with standard chemotherapy with carboplatin (area under the concentration–time curve, 5 mg/mL per minute) and paclitaxel (175 mg/m2 of body surface area), every 3 weeks (six cycles). They were also randomized to receive either dostarlimab (1000 mg) or dostarlimab placebo every 6 weeks for up to 3 years.
Within the cohort, 118 patients (23.9%) had dMMR/MSI-H tumors.
At the time of the first interim analysis the estimated progression-free survival at 24 months in the dMMR–MSI-H subgroup was 61.4% in the dostarlimab group vs 15.7 in the placebo group (HR for progression or death, 0.28; P < .001). For the entire cohort, progression-free survival at 24 months was 36.1% vs 18.1% (HR, 0.64; P < .001).
A prespecified exploratory analysis of progression-free survival in proficient MMR, microsatellite stable (MSS) patients was also done, and a clinically relevant benefit was observed.
Overall survival at that time also favored dostarlimab, although it was only mature for 33% of the population. But at 24 months, OS rates were 71.3% vs 56.0% among placebo recipients; this difference approached but did not reach statistical significance.
The overall response rate in the dMMR–MSI-H population vs the placebo group was 77.6% vs 69%, respectively, and 68.1% and 63.4% in the pMMR/MSS population.
The most common adverse events observed were nausea, alopecia, and fatigue. Grade 3 and higher adverse events at the most recent follow-up were more frequent in the dostarlimab group than in the placebo group (72.2% vs 60.2%).
“Importantly, safety was maintained” at the second interim analysis, Dr. Powell said.
“No new safety signals were noted, no new deaths related to therapy were noted with the subsequent 1-year additional analysis time,” he said.
What’s Next?
Dr. Fleming reviewed potential strategies for further improving care of patients with advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer during her discussion.
“What are the next directions for patients with MSI-high disease? Well, obviously could we use immune checkpoint inhibitors without chemotherapy and not compromise results? There are two ongoing trials or trials that we’re awaiting results of that have compared single-agent immune checkpoint inhibitor to just chemotherapy in mismatch repair-deficient advanced disease, and hopefully we can extrapolate from these trials to determine if this might be a more patient-friendly and equally effective strategy, but we don’t yet know,” she said.
Dr. Fleming also noted that ongoing or planned clinical trials will address questions about potential options for patients with MSI-H tumors whose disease progresses on frontline chemotherapy and immunotherapy. Other trials are assessing whether combining radiotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors will be effective in treating patients with earlier-stage tumors, or whether the addition of a PARP inhibitor might offer additional benefit for these patients.
“Immune checkpoint inhibitor should be given first line to patients with advanced/recurrent microsatellite [instability] endometrial cancer, and they should be considered as front line in patients with microsatellite stable disease. At this point, unfortunately, we have no reasonable predictive factors to know which of those patients with microsatellite stable disease will truly benefit. Multiple other agents are being tested in this setting, and will hopefully prove useful in subgroups,” she said.
The study is funded by GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Powell reports grants/research support from GSK and honoraria/consultation fees from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Eisai, GSK, Immunogen, and Merck. Dr. Fleming reports serving as an institutional principal investigator for trials sponsored by multiple companies, not including GSK.
The benefit of the combination of the programmed death protein 1 (PD-1) inhibitor dostarlimab (Jemperli) and chemotherapy was even more pronounced among patients with DNA mismatch repair deficient/microsatellite instability high (dMMR/MSI-H) tumors.
These results, from the second interim analysis of the phase 3 ENGOT-EN6-NSGO/GOG-3031/RUBY trial, were cheered by audience members when they were reported at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO)’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer, held in San Diego, California.
“Overall survival benefit to the addition of PD-1 inhibitor to chemotherapy upfront for patients with advanced and recurrent MSI-high endometrial cancer: SOLD!” said invited discussant Gini Fleming, medical director of gynecologic oncology at the University of Chicago.
“I think this is a huge win for our patients. It’s something that none of us have seen before over many years of working with endometrial cancer and should be incorporated into everybody’s practice as of yesterday,” she said.
Continued Improvement
Results from the first interim analysis of the trial showed that dostarlimab and chemotherapy significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) in the dMMR/MSI-H population, and there was an early trend toward improved overall survival, compared with chemotherapy plus placebo.
As Matthew A. Powell, MD from Washington University School of Medicine in Saint Louis, Missouri reported at SGO 2024, that early trend has become an undeniable survival advantage.
At a median follow-up of 37.2 months, the median overall survival was 44.6 months for patients randomized to the combination, compared with 28.2 months for those assigned to chemotherapy plus placebo.
The respective 3-year overall survival (OS) rates were 54.9% and 42.9%, translating into a hazard ratio (HR) for death with dostarlimab/chemotherapy of 0.69 (P = .002).
Among the subset of patients with dMMR/MSI-H tumors the survival benefit conferred by the combination was even greater, with median OS not reached in the dostarlimab group vs 31.4 months in the chemotherapy-alone arm, with respective 3-year OS rates of 78% and 46%. This difference translated into a HR for death with the combination of 0.32 (P = .0002) for patients with deficient mismatch-repair cancers.
“Dostarlimab plus carboplatin-paclitaxel chemotherapy demonstrated statistically significant and clinically meaningful overall survival improvements in the overall population, a substantial unprecedented overall survival benefit in patients with defective mismatch-repair tumors, and a clinically meaningful; 7-month improvement in the OS difference in patients with proficient mismatch-repair tumors,” Dr. Powell said.
RUBY Details
The trial was conducted in 494 patients with primary advanced stage III or IV or first recurrent endometrial cancer who received first-line treatment with standard chemotherapy with carboplatin (area under the concentration–time curve, 5 mg/mL per minute) and paclitaxel (175 mg/m2 of body surface area), every 3 weeks (six cycles). They were also randomized to receive either dostarlimab (1000 mg) or dostarlimab placebo every 6 weeks for up to 3 years.
Within the cohort, 118 patients (23.9%) had dMMR/MSI-H tumors.
At the time of the first interim analysis the estimated progression-free survival at 24 months in the dMMR–MSI-H subgroup was 61.4% in the dostarlimab group vs 15.7 in the placebo group (HR for progression or death, 0.28; P < .001). For the entire cohort, progression-free survival at 24 months was 36.1% vs 18.1% (HR, 0.64; P < .001).
A prespecified exploratory analysis of progression-free survival in proficient MMR, microsatellite stable (MSS) patients was also done, and a clinically relevant benefit was observed.
Overall survival at that time also favored dostarlimab, although it was only mature for 33% of the population. But at 24 months, OS rates were 71.3% vs 56.0% among placebo recipients; this difference approached but did not reach statistical significance.
The overall response rate in the dMMR–MSI-H population vs the placebo group was 77.6% vs 69%, respectively, and 68.1% and 63.4% in the pMMR/MSS population.
The most common adverse events observed were nausea, alopecia, and fatigue. Grade 3 and higher adverse events at the most recent follow-up were more frequent in the dostarlimab group than in the placebo group (72.2% vs 60.2%).
“Importantly, safety was maintained” at the second interim analysis, Dr. Powell said.
“No new safety signals were noted, no new deaths related to therapy were noted with the subsequent 1-year additional analysis time,” he said.
What’s Next?
Dr. Fleming reviewed potential strategies for further improving care of patients with advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer during her discussion.
“What are the next directions for patients with MSI-high disease? Well, obviously could we use immune checkpoint inhibitors without chemotherapy and not compromise results? There are two ongoing trials or trials that we’re awaiting results of that have compared single-agent immune checkpoint inhibitor to just chemotherapy in mismatch repair-deficient advanced disease, and hopefully we can extrapolate from these trials to determine if this might be a more patient-friendly and equally effective strategy, but we don’t yet know,” she said.
Dr. Fleming also noted that ongoing or planned clinical trials will address questions about potential options for patients with MSI-H tumors whose disease progresses on frontline chemotherapy and immunotherapy. Other trials are assessing whether combining radiotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors will be effective in treating patients with earlier-stage tumors, or whether the addition of a PARP inhibitor might offer additional benefit for these patients.
“Immune checkpoint inhibitor should be given first line to patients with advanced/recurrent microsatellite [instability] endometrial cancer, and they should be considered as front line in patients with microsatellite stable disease. At this point, unfortunately, we have no reasonable predictive factors to know which of those patients with microsatellite stable disease will truly benefit. Multiple other agents are being tested in this setting, and will hopefully prove useful in subgroups,” she said.
The study is funded by GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Powell reports grants/research support from GSK and honoraria/consultation fees from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Eisai, GSK, Immunogen, and Merck. Dr. Fleming reports serving as an institutional principal investigator for trials sponsored by multiple companies, not including GSK.
FROM SGO 2024
Inexperience Diagnosing Syphilis Adding to Higher Rates
With rates of syphilis rising quickly in the United States and elsewhere, clinicians are having to up their game when it comes to diagnosing and treating an infection that they may not be paying enough attention to.
More than 200,000 cases of syphilis were reported in the United States in 2022, which is the highest number since 1950 and is a 17.3% increase over 2021, according to the latest figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The rate of infection has increased almost every year since a historic low in 2001.
And the trend is not limited to the United States. Last year, the infection rate in the United Kingdom hit a 50-year high, said David Mabey, BCh, DM, from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. Syphilis and other sexually transmitted infections are also a major problem in low- and middle-income countries, he added, although good data are not always available.
Many of today’s healthcare professionals have little experience with the disease, shared Ina Park, MD, a sexually transmitted infections specialist at the University of California at San Francisco. “An entire generation of physicians — including myself — did not see any cases until we were well out of our training,” Dr. Park reported. “We’re really playing catch-up.”
A Centuries-Old Ailment
Dr. Park offered some advice on the challenges of diagnosing what can be an elusive infection at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI) 2024 Annual Meeting in Denver. That advice boiled down to one simple rule: “Test, test, test.”
Because syphilis can mimic so many other conditions and can have long periods of latency, it can be easily missed or even misdiagnosed by experienced physicians, said Dr. Park. Clinicians need to keep it front of mind and have a lower threshold for testing, even if there are no obvious symptoms.
Following the CDC’s new recommendations for syphilis screening will help, she noted; every sexually active patient aged between 15 and 44 years who lives in a county with a syphilis infection rate of 4.6 per 100,000 people or higher should get the test. And clinicians should remain vigilant, even in areas with a lower prevalence. “If you can’t account for new symptoms in a sexually active patient, order a test,” said Dr. Park.
Complicated Cases
The lack of experience with syphilis affects not just diagnosis but also treatment, particularly for complex cases, said Khalil Ghanem, MD, PhD, from the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore. “When you don’t have to deal with something for a while, you forget how to deal with it,” he added.
At CROI, Dr. Ghanem offered suggestions for how to navigate complicated cases of ocular syphilis, otic syphilis, and neurosyphilis, and how to interpret test results when a patient’s antigen titers are being “unruly.”
With potential ocular or otic syphilis, you shouldn’t wait for a specialist like an ophthalmologist to weigh in but instead refer the patient directly to the emergency department because of the risk that the symptoms may become irreversible and result in permanent blindness or deafness. “You don’t want to dilly-dally with those conditions,” Dr. Ghanem said.
Closely monitoring a patient’s rapid plasma regain and venereal disease research laboratory antigen levels is the only way to manage syphilis and to determine whether the infection is responding to treatment, he noted, but sometimes those titers “don’t do what you think they should be doing” and fail to decline or even go up after treatment.
“You don’t know if they went up because the patient was re-infected, or they developed neurosyphilis, or there was a problem at the lab,” he said. “It can be challenging to interpret.”
To decipher confusing test results, Dr. Ghanem recommended getting a detailed history to understand whether a patient is at risk for reinfection, whether there are signs of neurosyphilis or other complications, whether pregnancy is possible, and so on. “Based on the answers, you can determine what the most rational approach to treatment would be,” he shared.
Drug Shortages
Efforts to get the infection under control have become more complicated. Last summer, Pfizer announced that it had run out of penicillin G benzathine (Bicillin), an injectable, long-acting drug that is one of the main treatments for syphilis and the only one that can be given to pregnant people. Supplies for children ran out at the end of June 2023, and supplies for adults were gone by the end of September.
Because Pfizer is the only company that manufactures penicillin G benzathine, there is no one to pick up the slack in the short-term, so the shortage is expected to continue until at least the middle of 2024.
In response, the US Food and Drug Administration has temporarily allowed the use of benzylpenicillin benzathine (Extencilline), a French formulation that has not been approved in the United States, until supplies of penicillin G benzathine are stabilized.
The shortage has shone a spotlight on the important issue of a lack of alternatives for the treatment of syphilis during pregnancy, which increases the risk for congenital syphilis. “Hopefully, this pushes the National Institutes of Health and others to step up their game on studies for alternative drugs for use in pregnancy,” Dr. Ghanem said.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
With rates of syphilis rising quickly in the United States and elsewhere, clinicians are having to up their game when it comes to diagnosing and treating an infection that they may not be paying enough attention to.
More than 200,000 cases of syphilis were reported in the United States in 2022, which is the highest number since 1950 and is a 17.3% increase over 2021, according to the latest figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The rate of infection has increased almost every year since a historic low in 2001.
And the trend is not limited to the United States. Last year, the infection rate in the United Kingdom hit a 50-year high, said David Mabey, BCh, DM, from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. Syphilis and other sexually transmitted infections are also a major problem in low- and middle-income countries, he added, although good data are not always available.
Many of today’s healthcare professionals have little experience with the disease, shared Ina Park, MD, a sexually transmitted infections specialist at the University of California at San Francisco. “An entire generation of physicians — including myself — did not see any cases until we were well out of our training,” Dr. Park reported. “We’re really playing catch-up.”
A Centuries-Old Ailment
Dr. Park offered some advice on the challenges of diagnosing what can be an elusive infection at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI) 2024 Annual Meeting in Denver. That advice boiled down to one simple rule: “Test, test, test.”
Because syphilis can mimic so many other conditions and can have long periods of latency, it can be easily missed or even misdiagnosed by experienced physicians, said Dr. Park. Clinicians need to keep it front of mind and have a lower threshold for testing, even if there are no obvious symptoms.
Following the CDC’s new recommendations for syphilis screening will help, she noted; every sexually active patient aged between 15 and 44 years who lives in a county with a syphilis infection rate of 4.6 per 100,000 people or higher should get the test. And clinicians should remain vigilant, even in areas with a lower prevalence. “If you can’t account for new symptoms in a sexually active patient, order a test,” said Dr. Park.
Complicated Cases
The lack of experience with syphilis affects not just diagnosis but also treatment, particularly for complex cases, said Khalil Ghanem, MD, PhD, from the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore. “When you don’t have to deal with something for a while, you forget how to deal with it,” he added.
At CROI, Dr. Ghanem offered suggestions for how to navigate complicated cases of ocular syphilis, otic syphilis, and neurosyphilis, and how to interpret test results when a patient’s antigen titers are being “unruly.”
With potential ocular or otic syphilis, you shouldn’t wait for a specialist like an ophthalmologist to weigh in but instead refer the patient directly to the emergency department because of the risk that the symptoms may become irreversible and result in permanent blindness or deafness. “You don’t want to dilly-dally with those conditions,” Dr. Ghanem said.
Closely monitoring a patient’s rapid plasma regain and venereal disease research laboratory antigen levels is the only way to manage syphilis and to determine whether the infection is responding to treatment, he noted, but sometimes those titers “don’t do what you think they should be doing” and fail to decline or even go up after treatment.
“You don’t know if they went up because the patient was re-infected, or they developed neurosyphilis, or there was a problem at the lab,” he said. “It can be challenging to interpret.”
To decipher confusing test results, Dr. Ghanem recommended getting a detailed history to understand whether a patient is at risk for reinfection, whether there are signs of neurosyphilis or other complications, whether pregnancy is possible, and so on. “Based on the answers, you can determine what the most rational approach to treatment would be,” he shared.
Drug Shortages
Efforts to get the infection under control have become more complicated. Last summer, Pfizer announced that it had run out of penicillin G benzathine (Bicillin), an injectable, long-acting drug that is one of the main treatments for syphilis and the only one that can be given to pregnant people. Supplies for children ran out at the end of June 2023, and supplies for adults were gone by the end of September.
Because Pfizer is the only company that manufactures penicillin G benzathine, there is no one to pick up the slack in the short-term, so the shortage is expected to continue until at least the middle of 2024.
In response, the US Food and Drug Administration has temporarily allowed the use of benzylpenicillin benzathine (Extencilline), a French formulation that has not been approved in the United States, until supplies of penicillin G benzathine are stabilized.
The shortage has shone a spotlight on the important issue of a lack of alternatives for the treatment of syphilis during pregnancy, which increases the risk for congenital syphilis. “Hopefully, this pushes the National Institutes of Health and others to step up their game on studies for alternative drugs for use in pregnancy,” Dr. Ghanem said.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
With rates of syphilis rising quickly in the United States and elsewhere, clinicians are having to up their game when it comes to diagnosing and treating an infection that they may not be paying enough attention to.
More than 200,000 cases of syphilis were reported in the United States in 2022, which is the highest number since 1950 and is a 17.3% increase over 2021, according to the latest figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The rate of infection has increased almost every year since a historic low in 2001.
And the trend is not limited to the United States. Last year, the infection rate in the United Kingdom hit a 50-year high, said David Mabey, BCh, DM, from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. Syphilis and other sexually transmitted infections are also a major problem in low- and middle-income countries, he added, although good data are not always available.
Many of today’s healthcare professionals have little experience with the disease, shared Ina Park, MD, a sexually transmitted infections specialist at the University of California at San Francisco. “An entire generation of physicians — including myself — did not see any cases until we were well out of our training,” Dr. Park reported. “We’re really playing catch-up.”
A Centuries-Old Ailment
Dr. Park offered some advice on the challenges of diagnosing what can be an elusive infection at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI) 2024 Annual Meeting in Denver. That advice boiled down to one simple rule: “Test, test, test.”
Because syphilis can mimic so many other conditions and can have long periods of latency, it can be easily missed or even misdiagnosed by experienced physicians, said Dr. Park. Clinicians need to keep it front of mind and have a lower threshold for testing, even if there are no obvious symptoms.
Following the CDC’s new recommendations for syphilis screening will help, she noted; every sexually active patient aged between 15 and 44 years who lives in a county with a syphilis infection rate of 4.6 per 100,000 people or higher should get the test. And clinicians should remain vigilant, even in areas with a lower prevalence. “If you can’t account for new symptoms in a sexually active patient, order a test,” said Dr. Park.
Complicated Cases
The lack of experience with syphilis affects not just diagnosis but also treatment, particularly for complex cases, said Khalil Ghanem, MD, PhD, from the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore. “When you don’t have to deal with something for a while, you forget how to deal with it,” he added.
At CROI, Dr. Ghanem offered suggestions for how to navigate complicated cases of ocular syphilis, otic syphilis, and neurosyphilis, and how to interpret test results when a patient’s antigen titers are being “unruly.”
With potential ocular or otic syphilis, you shouldn’t wait for a specialist like an ophthalmologist to weigh in but instead refer the patient directly to the emergency department because of the risk that the symptoms may become irreversible and result in permanent blindness or deafness. “You don’t want to dilly-dally with those conditions,” Dr. Ghanem said.
Closely monitoring a patient’s rapid plasma regain and venereal disease research laboratory antigen levels is the only way to manage syphilis and to determine whether the infection is responding to treatment, he noted, but sometimes those titers “don’t do what you think they should be doing” and fail to decline or even go up after treatment.
“You don’t know if they went up because the patient was re-infected, or they developed neurosyphilis, or there was a problem at the lab,” he said. “It can be challenging to interpret.”
To decipher confusing test results, Dr. Ghanem recommended getting a detailed history to understand whether a patient is at risk for reinfection, whether there are signs of neurosyphilis or other complications, whether pregnancy is possible, and so on. “Based on the answers, you can determine what the most rational approach to treatment would be,” he shared.
Drug Shortages
Efforts to get the infection under control have become more complicated. Last summer, Pfizer announced that it had run out of penicillin G benzathine (Bicillin), an injectable, long-acting drug that is one of the main treatments for syphilis and the only one that can be given to pregnant people. Supplies for children ran out at the end of June 2023, and supplies for adults were gone by the end of September.
Because Pfizer is the only company that manufactures penicillin G benzathine, there is no one to pick up the slack in the short-term, so the shortage is expected to continue until at least the middle of 2024.
In response, the US Food and Drug Administration has temporarily allowed the use of benzylpenicillin benzathine (Extencilline), a French formulation that has not been approved in the United States, until supplies of penicillin G benzathine are stabilized.
The shortage has shone a spotlight on the important issue of a lack of alternatives for the treatment of syphilis during pregnancy, which increases the risk for congenital syphilis. “Hopefully, this pushes the National Institutes of Health and others to step up their game on studies for alternative drugs for use in pregnancy,” Dr. Ghanem said.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Biological Sex Differences: Key to Understanding Long COVID?
Letícia Soares was infected with COVID-19 in April 2020, in the final year of postdoctoral studies in disease ecology at a Canadian University. What started with piercing migraines and severe fatigue in 2020 soon spiraled into a myriad of long COVID symptoms: Gastrointestinal issues, sleep problems, joint and muscle pain, along with unexpected menstrual changes.
After an absence of menstrual bleeding and its usual signs, she later suffered from severe periods and symptoms that worsened her long COVID condition. “It just baffled me,” said Soares, now 39. “It was debilitating.”
Cases like Soares’s are leading scientists to spend more time trying to understand the biological sex disparity in chronic illnesses such as long COVID that until recently have all but been ignored. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, long COVID affects nearly twice as many women as men.
What’s more, up to two thirds of female patients with long COVID report an increase in symptoms related to menstruation, which suggests a possible link between sex hormone fluctuations and immune dysfunction in the illness.
“These illnesses are underfunded and understudied relative to their disease burdens,” said Beth Pollack, a research scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, who studies complex chronic illnesses.
Addressing knowledge gaps, especially around sex differences, could significantly improve our understanding of complex chronic illnesses, said Pollack, who coauthored a 2023 literature review of female reproductive health impacts of long COVID.
Emerging ‘Menstrual Science’ Could Be Key
There is a critical need, she said, for studies on these illnesses to include considerations of sex differences, hormones, reproductive phases, and reproductive conditions. This research could potentially inform doctors and other clinicians or lead to treatments, both for reproductive symptoms and for the illnesses themselves.
Pollack noted that reproductive symptoms are prevalent across a group of infection-associated chronic illnesses she studies, all of which disproportionately affect women. These associated conditions, traditionally studied in isolation, share pathologies like reproductive health concerns, signaling a need for focused research on their shared mechanisms.
Recognizing this critical gap, “menstrual science” is emerging as a pivotal area of study, aiming to connect these dots through focused research on hormonal influences.
Researchers at the University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia, for example, are studying whether hormones play a role in causing or worsening the symptoms of long COVID. By comparing hormone levels in people with these conditions with those in healthy people and by tracking how symptoms change with hormone levels over time and across menstrual cycles, scientists hope to find patterns that could help diagnose these conditions more easily and lead to new treatments. They’re also examining how hormonal life phases such as puberty, pregnancy, or perimenopause and hormone treatments like birth control might affect these illnesses.
How Gender and Long COVID Intertwine
The pathologies of long COVID, affecting at least 65 million people worldwide, currently focus on four hypotheses: Persistent viral infection, reactivation of dormant viruses (such as common herpes viruses), inflammation-related damage to tissues and organs, and autoimmunity (the body attacking itself).
It’s this last reason that holds some of the most interesting clues on biological sex differences, said Akiko Iwasaki, PhD, a Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, immunologist who has led numerous research breakthroughs on long COVID since the start of the pandemic. Women have two X chromosomes, for example, and although one is inactivated, the inactivation is incomplete.
Some cells still express genes from the “inactivated genes” on the X chromosome, Iwasaki said. Those include key immune genes, which trigger a more robust response to infections and vaccinations but also predispose them to autoimmune reactions. “It comes at the cost of triggering too much immune response,” Iwasaki said.
Sex hormones also factor in. Testosterone, which is higher in males, is immunosuppressive, so it can dampen immune responses, Iwasaki said. That may contribute to making males more likely to get severe acute infections of COVID-19 but have fewer long-term effects.
Estrogen, on the other hand, is known to enhance the immune response. It can increase the production of antibodies and the activation of T cells, which are critical for fighting off infections. This heightened immune response, however, might also contribute to the persistent inflammation observed in long COVID, where the immune system continues to react even after the acute infection has resolved.
Sex-Specific Symptoms and Marginalized Communities
Of the more than 200 symptoms long haulers experience, Iwasaki said, several are also sex-specific. A recent draft study by Iwasaki and another leading COVID researcher, David Putrino, PhD, at Mount Sinai Health System in New York City, shows hair loss as one of the most female-dominant symptoms and sexual dysfunction among males.
In examining sex differences, another question is why long COVID rates in the trans community are disproportionately high. One of the reasons Iwasaki’s lab is looking at testosterone closely is because anecdotal evidence from female-to-male trans individuals indicates that testosterone therapy improved their long COVID symptoms significantly. It also raises the possibility that hormone therapy could help.
However, patients and advocates say it’s also important to consider socioeconomic factors in the trans community. “We need to start at this population and social structure level to understand why trans people over and over are put in harm’s way,” said JD Davids, a trans patient-researcher with long COVID and the cofounder and codirector of Strategies for High Impact and its Long COVID Justice project.
For trans people, said Davids, risk factors for both severe COVID and long COVID include being part of low-income groups, belonging to marginalized racial and ethnic communities, and living in crowded environments such as shelters or prisons.
The disproportionate impact of long COVID on marginalized communities, especially when seen through the lens of historical medical neglect, also demands attention, said Iwasaki. “Women used to be labeled hysteric when they complained about these kinds of symptoms.”
Where It All Leads
The possibility of diagnosing long COVID with a simple blood test could radically change some doctors’ false perceptions that it is not a real condition, Iwasaki said, ensuring it is recognized and treated with the seriousness it deserves.
“I feel like we need to get there with long COVID. If we can order a blood test and say somebody has a long COVID because of these values, then suddenly the diseases become medically explainable,” Iwasaki added. This advancement is critical for propelling research forward, she said, refining treatment approaches — including those that target sex-specific hormone, immunity, and inflammation issues — and improving the well-being of those living with long COVID.
This hope resonates with scientists like Pollack, who recently led the first National Institutes of Health-sponsored research webinar on less studied pathologies in myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) and long COVID, and with the experiences of individuals like Soares, who navigates through the unpredictable nature of both of these conditions with resilience.
“This illness never ceases to surprise me in how it changes my body. I feel like it’s a constant adaptation,” said Soares. Now living in Salvador, Brazil, her daily life has dramatically shifted to the confines of her home.
“It’s how I have more predictability in my symptoms,” she said, pointing out the pressing need for the scientific advancements that Iwasaki envisions and a deepening of our understanding of the disease’s impacts on patients’ lives.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Letícia Soares was infected with COVID-19 in April 2020, in the final year of postdoctoral studies in disease ecology at a Canadian University. What started with piercing migraines and severe fatigue in 2020 soon spiraled into a myriad of long COVID symptoms: Gastrointestinal issues, sleep problems, joint and muscle pain, along with unexpected menstrual changes.
After an absence of menstrual bleeding and its usual signs, she later suffered from severe periods and symptoms that worsened her long COVID condition. “It just baffled me,” said Soares, now 39. “It was debilitating.”
Cases like Soares’s are leading scientists to spend more time trying to understand the biological sex disparity in chronic illnesses such as long COVID that until recently have all but been ignored. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, long COVID affects nearly twice as many women as men.
What’s more, up to two thirds of female patients with long COVID report an increase in symptoms related to menstruation, which suggests a possible link between sex hormone fluctuations and immune dysfunction in the illness.
“These illnesses are underfunded and understudied relative to their disease burdens,” said Beth Pollack, a research scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, who studies complex chronic illnesses.
Addressing knowledge gaps, especially around sex differences, could significantly improve our understanding of complex chronic illnesses, said Pollack, who coauthored a 2023 literature review of female reproductive health impacts of long COVID.
Emerging ‘Menstrual Science’ Could Be Key
There is a critical need, she said, for studies on these illnesses to include considerations of sex differences, hormones, reproductive phases, and reproductive conditions. This research could potentially inform doctors and other clinicians or lead to treatments, both for reproductive symptoms and for the illnesses themselves.
Pollack noted that reproductive symptoms are prevalent across a group of infection-associated chronic illnesses she studies, all of which disproportionately affect women. These associated conditions, traditionally studied in isolation, share pathologies like reproductive health concerns, signaling a need for focused research on their shared mechanisms.
Recognizing this critical gap, “menstrual science” is emerging as a pivotal area of study, aiming to connect these dots through focused research on hormonal influences.
Researchers at the University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia, for example, are studying whether hormones play a role in causing or worsening the symptoms of long COVID. By comparing hormone levels in people with these conditions with those in healthy people and by tracking how symptoms change with hormone levels over time and across menstrual cycles, scientists hope to find patterns that could help diagnose these conditions more easily and lead to new treatments. They’re also examining how hormonal life phases such as puberty, pregnancy, or perimenopause and hormone treatments like birth control might affect these illnesses.
How Gender and Long COVID Intertwine
The pathologies of long COVID, affecting at least 65 million people worldwide, currently focus on four hypotheses: Persistent viral infection, reactivation of dormant viruses (such as common herpes viruses), inflammation-related damage to tissues and organs, and autoimmunity (the body attacking itself).
It’s this last reason that holds some of the most interesting clues on biological sex differences, said Akiko Iwasaki, PhD, a Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, immunologist who has led numerous research breakthroughs on long COVID since the start of the pandemic. Women have two X chromosomes, for example, and although one is inactivated, the inactivation is incomplete.
Some cells still express genes from the “inactivated genes” on the X chromosome, Iwasaki said. Those include key immune genes, which trigger a more robust response to infections and vaccinations but also predispose them to autoimmune reactions. “It comes at the cost of triggering too much immune response,” Iwasaki said.
Sex hormones also factor in. Testosterone, which is higher in males, is immunosuppressive, so it can dampen immune responses, Iwasaki said. That may contribute to making males more likely to get severe acute infections of COVID-19 but have fewer long-term effects.
Estrogen, on the other hand, is known to enhance the immune response. It can increase the production of antibodies and the activation of T cells, which are critical for fighting off infections. This heightened immune response, however, might also contribute to the persistent inflammation observed in long COVID, where the immune system continues to react even after the acute infection has resolved.
Sex-Specific Symptoms and Marginalized Communities
Of the more than 200 symptoms long haulers experience, Iwasaki said, several are also sex-specific. A recent draft study by Iwasaki and another leading COVID researcher, David Putrino, PhD, at Mount Sinai Health System in New York City, shows hair loss as one of the most female-dominant symptoms and sexual dysfunction among males.
In examining sex differences, another question is why long COVID rates in the trans community are disproportionately high. One of the reasons Iwasaki’s lab is looking at testosterone closely is because anecdotal evidence from female-to-male trans individuals indicates that testosterone therapy improved their long COVID symptoms significantly. It also raises the possibility that hormone therapy could help.
However, patients and advocates say it’s also important to consider socioeconomic factors in the trans community. “We need to start at this population and social structure level to understand why trans people over and over are put in harm’s way,” said JD Davids, a trans patient-researcher with long COVID and the cofounder and codirector of Strategies for High Impact and its Long COVID Justice project.
For trans people, said Davids, risk factors for both severe COVID and long COVID include being part of low-income groups, belonging to marginalized racial and ethnic communities, and living in crowded environments such as shelters or prisons.
The disproportionate impact of long COVID on marginalized communities, especially when seen through the lens of historical medical neglect, also demands attention, said Iwasaki. “Women used to be labeled hysteric when they complained about these kinds of symptoms.”
Where It All Leads
The possibility of diagnosing long COVID with a simple blood test could radically change some doctors’ false perceptions that it is not a real condition, Iwasaki said, ensuring it is recognized and treated with the seriousness it deserves.
“I feel like we need to get there with long COVID. If we can order a blood test and say somebody has a long COVID because of these values, then suddenly the diseases become medically explainable,” Iwasaki added. This advancement is critical for propelling research forward, she said, refining treatment approaches — including those that target sex-specific hormone, immunity, and inflammation issues — and improving the well-being of those living with long COVID.
This hope resonates with scientists like Pollack, who recently led the first National Institutes of Health-sponsored research webinar on less studied pathologies in myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) and long COVID, and with the experiences of individuals like Soares, who navigates through the unpredictable nature of both of these conditions with resilience.
“This illness never ceases to surprise me in how it changes my body. I feel like it’s a constant adaptation,” said Soares. Now living in Salvador, Brazil, her daily life has dramatically shifted to the confines of her home.
“It’s how I have more predictability in my symptoms,” she said, pointing out the pressing need for the scientific advancements that Iwasaki envisions and a deepening of our understanding of the disease’s impacts on patients’ lives.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Letícia Soares was infected with COVID-19 in April 2020, in the final year of postdoctoral studies in disease ecology at a Canadian University. What started with piercing migraines and severe fatigue in 2020 soon spiraled into a myriad of long COVID symptoms: Gastrointestinal issues, sleep problems, joint and muscle pain, along with unexpected menstrual changes.
After an absence of menstrual bleeding and its usual signs, she later suffered from severe periods and symptoms that worsened her long COVID condition. “It just baffled me,” said Soares, now 39. “It was debilitating.”
Cases like Soares’s are leading scientists to spend more time trying to understand the biological sex disparity in chronic illnesses such as long COVID that until recently have all but been ignored. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, long COVID affects nearly twice as many women as men.
What’s more, up to two thirds of female patients with long COVID report an increase in symptoms related to menstruation, which suggests a possible link between sex hormone fluctuations and immune dysfunction in the illness.
“These illnesses are underfunded and understudied relative to their disease burdens,” said Beth Pollack, a research scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, who studies complex chronic illnesses.
Addressing knowledge gaps, especially around sex differences, could significantly improve our understanding of complex chronic illnesses, said Pollack, who coauthored a 2023 literature review of female reproductive health impacts of long COVID.
Emerging ‘Menstrual Science’ Could Be Key
There is a critical need, she said, for studies on these illnesses to include considerations of sex differences, hormones, reproductive phases, and reproductive conditions. This research could potentially inform doctors and other clinicians or lead to treatments, both for reproductive symptoms and for the illnesses themselves.
Pollack noted that reproductive symptoms are prevalent across a group of infection-associated chronic illnesses she studies, all of which disproportionately affect women. These associated conditions, traditionally studied in isolation, share pathologies like reproductive health concerns, signaling a need for focused research on their shared mechanisms.
Recognizing this critical gap, “menstrual science” is emerging as a pivotal area of study, aiming to connect these dots through focused research on hormonal influences.
Researchers at the University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia, for example, are studying whether hormones play a role in causing or worsening the symptoms of long COVID. By comparing hormone levels in people with these conditions with those in healthy people and by tracking how symptoms change with hormone levels over time and across menstrual cycles, scientists hope to find patterns that could help diagnose these conditions more easily and lead to new treatments. They’re also examining how hormonal life phases such as puberty, pregnancy, or perimenopause and hormone treatments like birth control might affect these illnesses.
How Gender and Long COVID Intertwine
The pathologies of long COVID, affecting at least 65 million people worldwide, currently focus on four hypotheses: Persistent viral infection, reactivation of dormant viruses (such as common herpes viruses), inflammation-related damage to tissues and organs, and autoimmunity (the body attacking itself).
It’s this last reason that holds some of the most interesting clues on biological sex differences, said Akiko Iwasaki, PhD, a Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, immunologist who has led numerous research breakthroughs on long COVID since the start of the pandemic. Women have two X chromosomes, for example, and although one is inactivated, the inactivation is incomplete.
Some cells still express genes from the “inactivated genes” on the X chromosome, Iwasaki said. Those include key immune genes, which trigger a more robust response to infections and vaccinations but also predispose them to autoimmune reactions. “It comes at the cost of triggering too much immune response,” Iwasaki said.
Sex hormones also factor in. Testosterone, which is higher in males, is immunosuppressive, so it can dampen immune responses, Iwasaki said. That may contribute to making males more likely to get severe acute infections of COVID-19 but have fewer long-term effects.
Estrogen, on the other hand, is known to enhance the immune response. It can increase the production of antibodies and the activation of T cells, which are critical for fighting off infections. This heightened immune response, however, might also contribute to the persistent inflammation observed in long COVID, where the immune system continues to react even after the acute infection has resolved.
Sex-Specific Symptoms and Marginalized Communities
Of the more than 200 symptoms long haulers experience, Iwasaki said, several are also sex-specific. A recent draft study by Iwasaki and another leading COVID researcher, David Putrino, PhD, at Mount Sinai Health System in New York City, shows hair loss as one of the most female-dominant symptoms and sexual dysfunction among males.
In examining sex differences, another question is why long COVID rates in the trans community are disproportionately high. One of the reasons Iwasaki’s lab is looking at testosterone closely is because anecdotal evidence from female-to-male trans individuals indicates that testosterone therapy improved their long COVID symptoms significantly. It also raises the possibility that hormone therapy could help.
However, patients and advocates say it’s also important to consider socioeconomic factors in the trans community. “We need to start at this population and social structure level to understand why trans people over and over are put in harm’s way,” said JD Davids, a trans patient-researcher with long COVID and the cofounder and codirector of Strategies for High Impact and its Long COVID Justice project.
For trans people, said Davids, risk factors for both severe COVID and long COVID include being part of low-income groups, belonging to marginalized racial and ethnic communities, and living in crowded environments such as shelters or prisons.
The disproportionate impact of long COVID on marginalized communities, especially when seen through the lens of historical medical neglect, also demands attention, said Iwasaki. “Women used to be labeled hysteric when they complained about these kinds of symptoms.”
Where It All Leads
The possibility of diagnosing long COVID with a simple blood test could radically change some doctors’ false perceptions that it is not a real condition, Iwasaki said, ensuring it is recognized and treated with the seriousness it deserves.
“I feel like we need to get there with long COVID. If we can order a blood test and say somebody has a long COVID because of these values, then suddenly the diseases become medically explainable,” Iwasaki added. This advancement is critical for propelling research forward, she said, refining treatment approaches — including those that target sex-specific hormone, immunity, and inflammation issues — and improving the well-being of those living with long COVID.
This hope resonates with scientists like Pollack, who recently led the first National Institutes of Health-sponsored research webinar on less studied pathologies in myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) and long COVID, and with the experiences of individuals like Soares, who navigates through the unpredictable nature of both of these conditions with resilience.
“This illness never ceases to surprise me in how it changes my body. I feel like it’s a constant adaptation,” said Soares. Now living in Salvador, Brazil, her daily life has dramatically shifted to the confines of her home.
“It’s how I have more predictability in my symptoms,” she said, pointing out the pressing need for the scientific advancements that Iwasaki envisions and a deepening of our understanding of the disease’s impacts on patients’ lives.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.