Quitting smoking significantly reduces the risk of cardiovascular disease, but past smokers are still at elevated cardiovascular risk, compared with nonsmokers, for up to 25 years after smoking cessation, research in JAMA suggests.

AtnoYdur/Thinkstock

A retrospective analysis of data from 8,770 individuals in the Framingham Heart Study compared the incidence of myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, or cardiovascular death in ever-smokers with that of never smokers.

Only 40% of the total cohort had never smoked. Of the 4,115 current smokers at baseline, 38.6% quit during the course of the study and did not relapse but 51.4% continued to smoke until they developed cardiovascular disease or dropped out of the study.

Current smokers had a significant 4.68-fold higher incidence of cardiovascular disease, compared with those who had never smoked, but those who stopped smoking showed a 39% decline in their risk of cardiovascular disease within 5 years of cessation.

However, individuals who were formerly heavy smokers – defined as at least 20 pack-years of smoking – retained a risk of cardiovascular disease 25% higher than that of never smokers until 10-15 years after quitting smoking. At 16 years, the 95% confidence interval for cardiovascular disease risk among former smokers versus that of never smokers finally and consistently included the null value of 1.

The study pooled two cohorts; the original cohort, who attended their fourth examination during 1954-1958 and an offspring cohort who attended their first examination during 1971-1975. The authors saw a difference between the two cohorts in the time course of cardiovascular disease risk in heavy smokers.

In the original cohort, former heavy smoking ceased to be significantly associated with increased cardiovascular disease risk within 5-10 years of cessation, but in the offspring cohort, it took 25 years after cessation for the incidence to decline to the same level of risk seen in never smokers.

“The upper estimate of this time course is a decade longer than that of the Nurses’ Health Study results for coronary heart disease and cardiovascular death and more than 20 years longer than in some prior reports for coronary heart disease and stroke,” wrote Meredith S. Duncan from the division of cardiovascular medicine at the Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., and coauthors. “Although the exact amount of time after quitting at which former smokers’ CVD risk ceases to differ significantly from that of never smokers is unknown (and may further depend on cumulative exposure), these findings support a longer time course of risk reduction than was previously thought, yielding implications for CVD risk stratification of former smokers.”

However, they did note that the study could not account for environmental tobacco smoke exposure and that the participants were mostly of white European ancestry, which limited the generalizability of the findings to other populations.

The Framingham Health Study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. One author declared a consultancy with a pharmaceutical company on a proposed clinical trial. No other conflicts of interest were declared.

SOURCE: Duncan M et al. JAMA 2019. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.10298.

Quitting smoking significantly reduces the risk of cardiovascular disease, but past smokers are still at elevated cardiovascular risk, compared with nonsmokers, for up to 25 years after smoking cessation, research in JAMA suggests.

AtnoYdur/Thinkstock

A retrospective analysis of data from 8,770 individuals in the Framingham Heart Study compared the incidence of myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, or cardiovascular death in ever-smokers with that of never smokers.

Only 40% of the total cohort had never smoked. Of the 4,115 current smokers at baseline, 38.6% quit during the course of the study and did not relapse but 51.4% continued to smoke until they developed cardiovascular disease or dropped out of the study.

Current smokers had a significant 4.68-fold higher incidence of cardiovascular disease, compared with those who had never smoked, but those who stopped smoking showed a 39% decline in their risk of cardiovascular disease within 5 years of cessation.

However, individuals who were formerly heavy smokers – defined as at least 20 pack-years of smoking – retained a risk of cardiovascular disease 25% higher than that of never smokers until 10-15 years after quitting smoking. At 16 years, the 95% confidence interval for cardiovascular disease risk among former smokers versus that of never smokers finally and consistently included the null value of 1.

The study pooled two cohorts; the original cohort, who attended their fourth examination during 1954-1958 and an offspring cohort who attended their first examination during 1971-1975. The authors saw a difference between the two cohorts in the time course of cardiovascular disease risk in heavy smokers.

In the original cohort, former heavy smoking ceased to be significantly associated with increased cardiovascular disease risk within 5-10 years of cessation, but in the offspring cohort, it took 25 years after cessation for the incidence to decline to the same level of risk seen in never smokers.

“The upper estimate of this time course is a decade longer than that of the Nurses’ Health Study results for coronary heart disease and cardiovascular death and more than 20 years longer than in some prior reports for coronary heart disease and stroke,” wrote Meredith S. Duncan from the division of cardiovascular medicine at the Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., and coauthors. “Although the exact amount of time after quitting at which former smokers’ CVD risk ceases to differ significantly from that of never smokers is unknown (and may further depend on cumulative exposure), these findings support a longer time course of risk reduction than was previously thought, yielding implications for CVD risk stratification of former smokers.”

However, they did note that the study could not account for environmental tobacco smoke exposure and that the participants were mostly of white European ancestry, which limited the generalizability of the findings to other populations.

The Framingham Health Study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. One author declared a consultancy with a pharmaceutical company on a proposed clinical trial. No other conflicts of interest were declared.

SOURCE: Duncan M et al. JAMA 2019. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.10298.

Quitting smoking significantly reduces the risk of cardiovascular disease, but past smokers are still at elevated cardiovascular risk, compared with nonsmokers, for up to 25 years after smoking cessation, research in JAMA suggests.

AtnoYdur/Thinkstock

A retrospective analysis of data from 8,770 individuals in the Framingham Heart Study compared the incidence of myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, or cardiovascular death in ever-smokers with that of never smokers.

Only 40% of the total cohort had never smoked. Of the 4,115 current smokers at baseline, 38.6% quit during the course of the study and did not relapse but 51.4% continued to smoke until they developed cardiovascular disease or dropped out of the study.

Current smokers had a significant 4.68-fold higher incidence of cardiovascular disease, compared with those who had never smoked, but those who stopped smoking showed a 39% decline in their risk of cardiovascular disease within 5 years of cessation.

However, individuals who were formerly heavy smokers – defined as at least 20 pack-years of smoking – retained a risk of cardiovascular disease 25% higher than that of never smokers until 10-15 years after quitting smoking. At 16 years, the 95% confidence interval for cardiovascular disease risk among former smokers versus that of never smokers finally and consistently included the null value of 1.

The study pooled two cohorts; the original cohort, who attended their fourth examination during 1954-1958 and an offspring cohort who attended their first examination during 1971-1975. The authors saw a difference between the two cohorts in the time course of cardiovascular disease risk in heavy smokers.

In the original cohort, former heavy smoking ceased to be significantly associated with increased cardiovascular disease risk within 5-10 years of cessation, but in the offspring cohort, it took 25 years after cessation for the incidence to decline to the same level of risk seen in never smokers.

“The upper estimate of this time course is a decade longer than that of the Nurses’ Health Study results for coronary heart disease and cardiovascular death and more than 20 years longer than in some prior reports for coronary heart disease and stroke,” wrote Meredith S. Duncan from the division of cardiovascular medicine at the Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., and coauthors. “Although the exact amount of time after quitting at which former smokers’ CVD risk ceases to differ significantly from that of never smokers is unknown (and may further depend on cumulative exposure), these findings support a longer time course of risk reduction than was previously thought, yielding implications for CVD risk stratification of former smokers.”

However, they did note that the study could not account for environmental tobacco smoke exposure and that the participants were mostly of white European ancestry, which limited the generalizability of the findings to other populations.

The Framingham Health Study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. One author declared a consultancy with a pharmaceutical company on a proposed clinical trial. No other conflicts of interest were declared.

SOURCE: Duncan M et al. JAMA 2019. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.10298.

A new model using 14 biomarkers may be more accurate at predicting longer-term mortality than a model comprising conventional risk factors, based on the largest metabolomics study to date.

The prognostic model was more accurate at predicting 5- and 10-year mortality across all ages, reported Joris Deelen, PhD, of Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center and colleagues.

“These results suggest that metabolic biomarker profiling could potentially be used to guide patient care, if further validated in relevant clinical settings,” the investigators wrote in Nature Communications.

“There is no consensus on the ultimate set of predictors of longer-term [5-10 years] mortality risk, since the predictive power of the currently used risk factors is limited, especially at higher ages,” the investigators wrote. “However, it is especially this age group and follow-up time window for which a robust tool would aid clinicians in assessing whether treatment is still sensible.”

The current study was a survival meta-analysis of 44,168 individuals from 12 cohorts aged between 18 and 109 years at baseline. First, the investigators looked for associations between 226 metabolic biomarkers and all-cause mortality in the 5,512 people who died during follow-up. This revealed associations between mortality and 136 biomarkers, which increased to 159 biomarkers after adjusting for recently reported all-cause mortality associations with albumin, very low-density lipoprotein (VLDL) particle size, citrate, and glycoprotein acetyls. Because of strong correlations between many of the biomarkers evaluated, the investigators pared the field down to 63 biomarkers, then used a forward-backward procedure to ultimately identify 14 biomarkers independently associated with mortality. Of the four recently described biomarkers, citrate was excluded from the final model because of its minimal contribution to mortality estimates.

The 14 biomarkers were total lipids in chylomicrons and extremely large VLDL cholesterol, total lipids in small HDL cholesterol, mean diameter for VLDL cholesterol particles, ratio of polyunsaturated fatty acids to total fatty acids, glucose, lactate, histidine, isoleucine, leucine, valine, phenylalanine, acetoacetate, albumin, and glycoprotein acetyls.

“The 14 identified biomarkers are involved in various processes, such as lipoprotein and fatty acid metabolism, glycolysis, fluid balance, and inflammation. Although the majority of these biomarkers have been associated with mortality before, this is the first study that shows their independent effect when combined into one model,” the researchers wrote.

Implementation of the new biomarker model led to a score that typically ranged from –2 to 3. A 1-point increase was associated with a 173% increased risk of death (hazard ratio, 2.73; P less than 1 x 10^–132). Analysis of cause-specific mortality revealed that most biomarkers were predictive of multiple causes of death. Some biomarkers were more focused; glucose, for example, was more predictive of cardiovascular-related death than of death because of cancer or nonlocalized infections. Compared with a model incorporating conventional risk factors, the biomarker model more accurately predicted 5- and 10-year mortality, with respective C-statistics of 0.837 versus 0.772 and 0.830 versus 0.790. This superiority was even more pronounced when only individuals aged older than 60 years were included.

The study was funded by Biobanking and BioMolecular resources Research Initiative–Netherlands. The investigators reported additional relationships with Nightingale Health, Novo Nordisk, and Bayer.

SOURCE: Deelen J et al. Nature Comm. 2019 Aug 20. doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-11311-9.

A new model using 14 biomarkers may be more accurate at predicting longer-term mortality than a model comprising conventional risk factors, based on the largest metabolomics study to date.

The prognostic model was more accurate at predicting 5- and 10-year mortality across all ages, reported Joris Deelen, PhD, of Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center and colleagues.

“These results suggest that metabolic biomarker profiling could potentially be used to guide patient care, if further validated in relevant clinical settings,” the investigators wrote in Nature Communications.

“There is no consensus on the ultimate set of predictors of longer-term [5-10 years] mortality risk, since the predictive power of the currently used risk factors is limited, especially at higher ages,” the investigators wrote. “However, it is especially this age group and follow-up time window for which a robust tool would aid clinicians in assessing whether treatment is still sensible.”

The current study was a survival meta-analysis of 44,168 individuals from 12 cohorts aged between 18 and 109 years at baseline. First, the investigators looked for associations between 226 metabolic biomarkers and all-cause mortality in the 5,512 people who died during follow-up. This revealed associations between mortality and 136 biomarkers, which increased to 159 biomarkers after adjusting for recently reported all-cause mortality associations with albumin, very low-density lipoprotein (VLDL) particle size, citrate, and glycoprotein acetyls. Because of strong correlations between many of the biomarkers evaluated, the investigators pared the field down to 63 biomarkers, then used a forward-backward procedure to ultimately identify 14 biomarkers independently associated with mortality. Of the four recently described biomarkers, citrate was excluded from the final model because of its minimal contribution to mortality estimates.

The 14 biomarkers were total lipids in chylomicrons and extremely large VLDL cholesterol, total lipids in small HDL cholesterol, mean diameter for VLDL cholesterol particles, ratio of polyunsaturated fatty acids to total fatty acids, glucose, lactate, histidine, isoleucine, leucine, valine, phenylalanine, acetoacetate, albumin, and glycoprotein acetyls.

“The 14 identified biomarkers are involved in various processes, such as lipoprotein and fatty acid metabolism, glycolysis, fluid balance, and inflammation. Although the majority of these biomarkers have been associated with mortality before, this is the first study that shows their independent effect when combined into one model,” the researchers wrote.

Implementation of the new biomarker model led to a score that typically ranged from –2 to 3. A 1-point increase was associated with a 173% increased risk of death (hazard ratio, 2.73; P less than 1 x 10^–132). Analysis of cause-specific mortality revealed that most biomarkers were predictive of multiple causes of death. Some biomarkers were more focused; glucose, for example, was more predictive of cardiovascular-related death than of death because of cancer or nonlocalized infections. Compared with a model incorporating conventional risk factors, the biomarker model more accurately predicted 5- and 10-year mortality, with respective C-statistics of 0.837 versus 0.772 and 0.830 versus 0.790. This superiority was even more pronounced when only individuals aged older than 60 years were included.

The study was funded by Biobanking and BioMolecular resources Research Initiative–Netherlands. The investigators reported additional relationships with Nightingale Health, Novo Nordisk, and Bayer.

SOURCE: Deelen J et al. Nature Comm. 2019 Aug 20. doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-11311-9.

A new model using 14 biomarkers may be more accurate at predicting longer-term mortality than a model comprising conventional risk factors, based on the largest metabolomics study to date.

The prognostic model was more accurate at predicting 5- and 10-year mortality across all ages, reported Joris Deelen, PhD, of Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center and colleagues.

“These results suggest that metabolic biomarker profiling could potentially be used to guide patient care, if further validated in relevant clinical settings,” the investigators wrote in Nature Communications.

“There is no consensus on the ultimate set of predictors of longer-term [5-10 years] mortality risk, since the predictive power of the currently used risk factors is limited, especially at higher ages,” the investigators wrote. “However, it is especially this age group and follow-up time window for which a robust tool would aid clinicians in assessing whether treatment is still sensible.”

The current study was a survival meta-analysis of 44,168 individuals from 12 cohorts aged between 18 and 109 years at baseline. First, the investigators looked for associations between 226 metabolic biomarkers and all-cause mortality in the 5,512 people who died during follow-up. This revealed associations between mortality and 136 biomarkers, which increased to 159 biomarkers after adjusting for recently reported all-cause mortality associations with albumin, very low-density lipoprotein (VLDL) particle size, citrate, and glycoprotein acetyls. Because of strong correlations between many of the biomarkers evaluated, the investigators pared the field down to 63 biomarkers, then used a forward-backward procedure to ultimately identify 14 biomarkers independently associated with mortality. Of the four recently described biomarkers, citrate was excluded from the final model because of its minimal contribution to mortality estimates.

The 14 biomarkers were total lipids in chylomicrons and extremely large VLDL cholesterol, total lipids in small HDL cholesterol, mean diameter for VLDL cholesterol particles, ratio of polyunsaturated fatty acids to total fatty acids, glucose, lactate, histidine, isoleucine, leucine, valine, phenylalanine, acetoacetate, albumin, and glycoprotein acetyls.

“The 14 identified biomarkers are involved in various processes, such as lipoprotein and fatty acid metabolism, glycolysis, fluid balance, and inflammation. Although the majority of these biomarkers have been associated with mortality before, this is the first study that shows their independent effect when combined into one model,” the researchers wrote.

Implementation of the new biomarker model led to a score that typically ranged from –2 to 3. A 1-point increase was associated with a 173% increased risk of death (hazard ratio, 2.73; P less than 1 x 10^–132). Analysis of cause-specific mortality revealed that most biomarkers were predictive of multiple causes of death. Some biomarkers were more focused; glucose, for example, was more predictive of cardiovascular-related death than of death because of cancer or nonlocalized infections. Compared with a model incorporating conventional risk factors, the biomarker model more accurately predicted 5- and 10-year mortality, with respective C-statistics of 0.837 versus 0.772 and 0.830 versus 0.790. This superiority was even more pronounced when only individuals aged older than 60 years were included.

The study was funded by Biobanking and BioMolecular resources Research Initiative–Netherlands. The investigators reported additional relationships with Nightingale Health, Novo Nordisk, and Bayer.

SOURCE: Deelen J et al. Nature Comm. 2019 Aug 20. doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-11311-9.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has updated its recommendations on assessment of breast cancer susceptibility gene (BRCA)-related cancer, substantially expanding the pool of individuals for whom risk assessment, testing, and counseling would be warranted.

Christian Jasiuk/Thinkstock

In its 2013 recommendation, the USPSTF said referral for genetic counseling and evaluation for BRCA1/2 testing was warranted for women who had a family history linked to increased risk of potentially harmful BRCA1/2 mutations.

The updated recommendations, just published in JAMA, expand the screening-eligible population to include those with personal cancer history, and more specifically call out ancestry linked to BRCA1/2 mutations as a risk factor (JAMA. 2019;322[7]:652-65. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.10987).

“The USPSTF recommends that primary care clinicians assess women with a personal or family history of breast, ovarian, tubal, or peritoneal cancer or who have an ancestry associated with BRCA1/2 gene mutations with an appropriate brief familial risk assessment tool,” wrote Douglas K. Owens, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, and coauthors of the task force report.

Positive results on the risk assessment tool should prompt genetic counseling, and genetic testing if indicated after counseling, the USPSTF added in its statement.

By contrast, the task force recommends against routine assessment, counseling, and testing in women with no family history, personal history, or ancestry linked to possibly harmful BRCA1/2 gene mutations, consistent with their previous recommendation.

Mutations of BRCA1/2 genes occur in an estimated 1 in 300-500 women in the general population, and account for 15% of ovarian cancer and up to 10% of breast cancer cases, according to the USPSTF.

Breast cancer risk is increased up to 65% by 70 years in those women with clinically significant BRCA1/2 mutations, while risk of ovarian, fallopian tube, or peritoneal cancer are increased by up to 39%, according to studies cited by the USPSTF.
 

Important step forward

Including women with prior breast and ovarian cancer in the screening-eligible population is an “important step forward,” Susan Domcheck, MD, and Mark Robson, MD, said in a related editorial.

“While further expansion of the USPSTF recommendation should be considered, the importance is clear: Identification of individuals at risk of carrying a BRCA1/2 mutation can be lifesaving and should be a part of routine medical care,” Dr. Domcheck and Dr. Robson said in their editorial, which appears in JAMA.

While the updated recommendations explicitly call out ancestry as a risk factor, they stop short of endorsing testing for unaffected Ashkenazi Jewish women with no family history, the authors said.

“However, the statement may be interpreted as a step toward supporting unselected testing in this group,” they added.

Among unselected individuals of Ashkenazi Jewish descent, 1 in 40 have 1 of 3 specific BRCA1 or BRCA2 founder mutations, according to one study cited by Dr. Domcheck and Dr. Robson.
 

More research needed

Current research is still “limited or lacking” to address many key questions about the benefits and harms of risk assessment, genetic counseling, and genetic testing in women without BRCA1/2-related cancer, according to authors of a literature review used by the USPSTF.

Notably, the ability of risk assessment, testing, and counseling to reduce cancer incidence and mortality among such women has not been directly evaluated by studies to date, said the review authors, led by Heidi D. Nelson, MD, MPH, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.

“Without effectiveness trials of intensive screening, practice standards have preceded supporting evidence,” said Dr. Nelson and coauthors noted in a report on the review findings.

In observational studies, mastectomy and oophorectomy have been associated with substantial reductions in subsequent cancer incidence and mortality; however, they are invasive procedures with potential complications, the authors noted.

“To determine the appropriateness of risk assessment and genetic testing for BRCA1/2 mutations as a preventive service in primary care, more information is needed about mutation prevalence and the effect of testing in the general population,” they added.

Researchers studying BRCA1/2 assessment as preventive service in primary care have generally looked at highly selected patient populations in referral centers, and have reported relatively short-term outcomes, they said.

Research is additionally needed on access to genetic testing and follow-up, effectiveness of risk stratification and multigene panels, and the impact of direct-to-consumer genetic testing, among other key questions, the authors of the review added.
 

Treatment implications

While the USPSTF recommendations do not mention systemic therapy, finding a BRCA mutation in a cancer patient today has important implications for treatment, said Rachel L. Yung, MD, and Larissa A. Korde, MD, MPH

Specifically, poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors have proved effective in certain BRCA-related cancers, Dr. Yung and Dr. Korde said in an editorial on the updated recommendations appearing in JAMA Oncology.

The Food and Drug Administration has already approved several PARP inhibitors for treatment of BRCA-linked metastatic breast or ovarian cancers, and studies are underway for other tumor types, including prostate and pancreatic cancers that harbor a BRCA mutation.

“Increasing awareness of BRCA mutation as a target for treatment will likely lead to an increase in the identification of patients with cancer harboring germline BRCA mutations, which in turn will increase the need for cascade testing for relatives of affected probands,” wrote Dr. Yung and Dr. Korde.
 

Addressing disparities in care

The USPSTF recommendations for BRCA risk assessment do not address disparities in testing referral and variation in breast cancer phenotypes among women of African ancestry, owing to lack of evidence, according to Lisa Newman, MD, MPH, of the Interdisciplinary Breast Program at New York–Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York.

“Paradoxically, the data-driven basis for the USPSTF recommendation statement may magnify existing genetic testing disparities,” Dr. Newman wrote in an editorial that appears in JAMA Surgery.

Non-Hispanic black women in the United States have a twofold higher incidence of triple-negative breast cancer, which is a well documented risk factor for BRCA1 mutation carrier status, according to Dr. Newman.

Despite this, she added, genetic counseling and testing referrals remain “disproportionately low” among U.S. patients of African ancestry.

“It remains imperative for clinicians to exercise clinical judgment and to be mindful of patient subsets that do not necessarily fit into recommendations designed for the majority or general populations,” Dr. Newman concluded in her editorial.

The USPSTF is funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Members of the task force receive travel reimbursement and honoraria for participating in USPSTF meetings.
 

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has updated its recommendations on assessment of breast cancer susceptibility gene (BRCA)-related cancer, substantially expanding the pool of individuals for whom risk assessment, testing, and counseling would be warranted.

Christian Jasiuk/Thinkstock

In its 2013 recommendation, the USPSTF said referral for genetic counseling and evaluation for BRCA1/2 testing was warranted for women who had a family history linked to increased risk of potentially harmful BRCA1/2 mutations.

The updated recommendations, just published in JAMA, expand the screening-eligible population to include those with personal cancer history, and more specifically call out ancestry linked to BRCA1/2 mutations as a risk factor (JAMA. 2019;322[7]:652-65. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.10987).

“The USPSTF recommends that primary care clinicians assess women with a personal or family history of breast, ovarian, tubal, or peritoneal cancer or who have an ancestry associated with BRCA1/2 gene mutations with an appropriate brief familial risk assessment tool,” wrote Douglas K. Owens, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, and coauthors of the task force report.

Positive results on the risk assessment tool should prompt genetic counseling, and genetic testing if indicated after counseling, the USPSTF added in its statement.

By contrast, the task force recommends against routine assessment, counseling, and testing in women with no family history, personal history, or ancestry linked to possibly harmful BRCA1/2 gene mutations, consistent with their previous recommendation.

Mutations of BRCA1/2 genes occur in an estimated 1 in 300-500 women in the general population, and account for 15% of ovarian cancer and up to 10% of breast cancer cases, according to the USPSTF.

Breast cancer risk is increased up to 65% by 70 years in those women with clinically significant BRCA1/2 mutations, while risk of ovarian, fallopian tube, or peritoneal cancer are increased by up to 39%, according to studies cited by the USPSTF.
 

Important step forward

Including women with prior breast and ovarian cancer in the screening-eligible population is an “important step forward,” Susan Domcheck, MD, and Mark Robson, MD, said in a related editorial.

“While further expansion of the USPSTF recommendation should be considered, the importance is clear: Identification of individuals at risk of carrying a BRCA1/2 mutation can be lifesaving and should be a part of routine medical care,” Dr. Domcheck and Dr. Robson said in their editorial, which appears in JAMA.

While the updated recommendations explicitly call out ancestry as a risk factor, they stop short of endorsing testing for unaffected Ashkenazi Jewish women with no family history, the authors said.

“However, the statement may be interpreted as a step toward supporting unselected testing in this group,” they added.

Among unselected individuals of Ashkenazi Jewish descent, 1 in 40 have 1 of 3 specific BRCA1 or BRCA2 founder mutations, according to one study cited by Dr. Domcheck and Dr. Robson.
 

More research needed

Current research is still “limited or lacking” to address many key questions about the benefits and harms of risk assessment, genetic counseling, and genetic testing in women without BRCA1/2-related cancer, according to authors of a literature review used by the USPSTF.

Notably, the ability of risk assessment, testing, and counseling to reduce cancer incidence and mortality among such women has not been directly evaluated by studies to date, said the review authors, led by Heidi D. Nelson, MD, MPH, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.

“Without effectiveness trials of intensive screening, practice standards have preceded supporting evidence,” said Dr. Nelson and coauthors noted in a report on the review findings.

In observational studies, mastectomy and oophorectomy have been associated with substantial reductions in subsequent cancer incidence and mortality; however, they are invasive procedures with potential complications, the authors noted.

“To determine the appropriateness of risk assessment and genetic testing for BRCA1/2 mutations as a preventive service in primary care, more information is needed about mutation prevalence and the effect of testing in the general population,” they added.

Researchers studying BRCA1/2 assessment as preventive service in primary care have generally looked at highly selected patient populations in referral centers, and have reported relatively short-term outcomes, they said.

Research is additionally needed on access to genetic testing and follow-up, effectiveness of risk stratification and multigene panels, and the impact of direct-to-consumer genetic testing, among other key questions, the authors of the review added.
 

Treatment implications

While the USPSTF recommendations do not mention systemic therapy, finding a BRCA mutation in a cancer patient today has important implications for treatment, said Rachel L. Yung, MD, and Larissa A. Korde, MD, MPH

Specifically, poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors have proved effective in certain BRCA-related cancers, Dr. Yung and Dr. Korde said in an editorial on the updated recommendations appearing in JAMA Oncology.

The Food and Drug Administration has already approved several PARP inhibitors for treatment of BRCA-linked metastatic breast or ovarian cancers, and studies are underway for other tumor types, including prostate and pancreatic cancers that harbor a BRCA mutation.

“Increasing awareness of BRCA mutation as a target for treatment will likely lead to an increase in the identification of patients with cancer harboring germline BRCA mutations, which in turn will increase the need for cascade testing for relatives of affected probands,” wrote Dr. Yung and Dr. Korde.
 

Addressing disparities in care

The USPSTF recommendations for BRCA risk assessment do not address disparities in testing referral and variation in breast cancer phenotypes among women of African ancestry, owing to lack of evidence, according to Lisa Newman, MD, MPH, of the Interdisciplinary Breast Program at New York–Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York.

“Paradoxically, the data-driven basis for the USPSTF recommendation statement may magnify existing genetic testing disparities,” Dr. Newman wrote in an editorial that appears in JAMA Surgery.

Non-Hispanic black women in the United States have a twofold higher incidence of triple-negative breast cancer, which is a well documented risk factor for BRCA1 mutation carrier status, according to Dr. Newman.

Despite this, she added, genetic counseling and testing referrals remain “disproportionately low” among U.S. patients of African ancestry.

“It remains imperative for clinicians to exercise clinical judgment and to be mindful of patient subsets that do not necessarily fit into recommendations designed for the majority or general populations,” Dr. Newman concluded in her editorial.

The USPSTF is funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Members of the task force receive travel reimbursement and honoraria for participating in USPSTF meetings.
 

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has updated its recommendations on assessment of breast cancer susceptibility gene (BRCA)-related cancer, substantially expanding the pool of individuals for whom risk assessment, testing, and counseling would be warranted.

Christian Jasiuk/Thinkstock

In its 2013 recommendation, the USPSTF said referral for genetic counseling and evaluation for BRCA1/2 testing was warranted for women who had a family history linked to increased risk of potentially harmful BRCA1/2 mutations.

The updated recommendations, just published in JAMA, expand the screening-eligible population to include those with personal cancer history, and more specifically call out ancestry linked to BRCA1/2 mutations as a risk factor (JAMA. 2019;322[7]:652-65. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.10987).

“The USPSTF recommends that primary care clinicians assess women with a personal or family history of breast, ovarian, tubal, or peritoneal cancer or who have an ancestry associated with BRCA1/2 gene mutations with an appropriate brief familial risk assessment tool,” wrote Douglas K. Owens, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, and coauthors of the task force report.

Positive results on the risk assessment tool should prompt genetic counseling, and genetic testing if indicated after counseling, the USPSTF added in its statement.

By contrast, the task force recommends against routine assessment, counseling, and testing in women with no family history, personal history, or ancestry linked to possibly harmful BRCA1/2 gene mutations, consistent with their previous recommendation.

Mutations of BRCA1/2 genes occur in an estimated 1 in 300-500 women in the general population, and account for 15% of ovarian cancer and up to 10% of breast cancer cases, according to the USPSTF.

Breast cancer risk is increased up to 65% by 70 years in those women with clinically significant BRCA1/2 mutations, while risk of ovarian, fallopian tube, or peritoneal cancer are increased by up to 39%, according to studies cited by the USPSTF.
 

Important step forward

Including women with prior breast and ovarian cancer in the screening-eligible population is an “important step forward,” Susan Domcheck, MD, and Mark Robson, MD, said in a related editorial.

“While further expansion of the USPSTF recommendation should be considered, the importance is clear: Identification of individuals at risk of carrying a BRCA1/2 mutation can be lifesaving and should be a part of routine medical care,” Dr. Domcheck and Dr. Robson said in their editorial, which appears in JAMA.

While the updated recommendations explicitly call out ancestry as a risk factor, they stop short of endorsing testing for unaffected Ashkenazi Jewish women with no family history, the authors said.

“However, the statement may be interpreted as a step toward supporting unselected testing in this group,” they added.

Among unselected individuals of Ashkenazi Jewish descent, 1 in 40 have 1 of 3 specific BRCA1 or BRCA2 founder mutations, according to one study cited by Dr. Domcheck and Dr. Robson.
 

More research needed

Current research is still “limited or lacking” to address many key questions about the benefits and harms of risk assessment, genetic counseling, and genetic testing in women without BRCA1/2-related cancer, according to authors of a literature review used by the USPSTF.

Notably, the ability of risk assessment, testing, and counseling to reduce cancer incidence and mortality among such women has not been directly evaluated by studies to date, said the review authors, led by Heidi D. Nelson, MD, MPH, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.

“Without effectiveness trials of intensive screening, practice standards have preceded supporting evidence,” said Dr. Nelson and coauthors noted in a report on the review findings.

In observational studies, mastectomy and oophorectomy have been associated with substantial reductions in subsequent cancer incidence and mortality; however, they are invasive procedures with potential complications, the authors noted.

“To determine the appropriateness of risk assessment and genetic testing for BRCA1/2 mutations as a preventive service in primary care, more information is needed about mutation prevalence and the effect of testing in the general population,” they added.

Researchers studying BRCA1/2 assessment as preventive service in primary care have generally looked at highly selected patient populations in referral centers, and have reported relatively short-term outcomes, they said.

Research is additionally needed on access to genetic testing and follow-up, effectiveness of risk stratification and multigene panels, and the impact of direct-to-consumer genetic testing, among other key questions, the authors of the review added.
 

Treatment implications

While the USPSTF recommendations do not mention systemic therapy, finding a BRCA mutation in a cancer patient today has important implications for treatment, said Rachel L. Yung, MD, and Larissa A. Korde, MD, MPH

Specifically, poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors have proved effective in certain BRCA-related cancers, Dr. Yung and Dr. Korde said in an editorial on the updated recommendations appearing in JAMA Oncology.

The Food and Drug Administration has already approved several PARP inhibitors for treatment of BRCA-linked metastatic breast or ovarian cancers, and studies are underway for other tumor types, including prostate and pancreatic cancers that harbor a BRCA mutation.

“Increasing awareness of BRCA mutation as a target for treatment will likely lead to an increase in the identification of patients with cancer harboring germline BRCA mutations, which in turn will increase the need for cascade testing for relatives of affected probands,” wrote Dr. Yung and Dr. Korde.
 

Addressing disparities in care

The USPSTF recommendations for BRCA risk assessment do not address disparities in testing referral and variation in breast cancer phenotypes among women of African ancestry, owing to lack of evidence, according to Lisa Newman, MD, MPH, of the Interdisciplinary Breast Program at New York–Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York.

“Paradoxically, the data-driven basis for the USPSTF recommendation statement may magnify existing genetic testing disparities,” Dr. Newman wrote in an editorial that appears in JAMA Surgery.

Non-Hispanic black women in the United States have a twofold higher incidence of triple-negative breast cancer, which is a well documented risk factor for BRCA1 mutation carrier status, according to Dr. Newman.

Despite this, she added, genetic counseling and testing referrals remain “disproportionately low” among U.S. patients of African ancestry.

“It remains imperative for clinicians to exercise clinical judgment and to be mindful of patient subsets that do not necessarily fit into recommendations designed for the majority or general populations,” Dr. Newman concluded in her editorial.

The USPSTF is funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Members of the task force receive travel reimbursement and honoraria for participating in USPSTF meetings.
 

The Food and Drug Administration has announced its approval of lefamulin (Xenleta) for the treatment of community-acquired bacterial pneumonia in adults.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

Approval was based on results of two clinical trials assessing a total of 1,289 people with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia. In these trials, lefamulin was compared with moxifloxacin with and without linezolid. Patients who received lefamulin had similar rates of treatment success as those taking moxifloxacin alone or moxifloxacin plus linezolid.

The most common adverse reactions associated with lefamulin include diarrhea, nausea, reactions at the injection site, elevated liver enzymes, and vomiting. Patients with prolonged QT interval, patients with arrhythmias, patients receiving treatment with antiarrhythmic agents, and patients receiving other drugs that prolong the QT interval are contraindicated. In addition, because of evidence of fetal harm in animal studies, pregnant women should be advised of potential risks before receiving lefamulin.

“This new drug provides another option for the treatment of patients with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia, a serious disease. For managing this serious disease, it is important for physicians and patients to have treatment options,” Ed Cox, MD, MPH, director of the FDA’s Office of Antimicrobial Products, said in the press release.

lfranki@mdedge.com

The Food and Drug Administration has announced its approval of lefamulin (Xenleta) for the treatment of community-acquired bacterial pneumonia in adults.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

Approval was based on results of two clinical trials assessing a total of 1,289 people with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia. In these trials, lefamulin was compared with moxifloxacin with and without linezolid. Patients who received lefamulin had similar rates of treatment success as those taking moxifloxacin alone or moxifloxacin plus linezolid.

The most common adverse reactions associated with lefamulin include diarrhea, nausea, reactions at the injection site, elevated liver enzymes, and vomiting. Patients with prolonged QT interval, patients with arrhythmias, patients receiving treatment with antiarrhythmic agents, and patients receiving other drugs that prolong the QT interval are contraindicated. In addition, because of evidence of fetal harm in animal studies, pregnant women should be advised of potential risks before receiving lefamulin.

“This new drug provides another option for the treatment of patients with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia, a serious disease. For managing this serious disease, it is important for physicians and patients to have treatment options,” Ed Cox, MD, MPH, director of the FDA’s Office of Antimicrobial Products, said in the press release.

lfranki@mdedge.com

The Food and Drug Administration has announced its approval of lefamulin (Xenleta) for the treatment of community-acquired bacterial pneumonia in adults.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

Approval was based on results of two clinical trials assessing a total of 1,289 people with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia. In these trials, lefamulin was compared with moxifloxacin with and without linezolid. Patients who received lefamulin had similar rates of treatment success as those taking moxifloxacin alone or moxifloxacin plus linezolid.

The most common adverse reactions associated with lefamulin include diarrhea, nausea, reactions at the injection site, elevated liver enzymes, and vomiting. Patients with prolonged QT interval, patients with arrhythmias, patients receiving treatment with antiarrhythmic agents, and patients receiving other drugs that prolong the QT interval are contraindicated. In addition, because of evidence of fetal harm in animal studies, pregnant women should be advised of potential risks before receiving lefamulin.

“This new drug provides another option for the treatment of patients with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia, a serious disease. For managing this serious disease, it is important for physicians and patients to have treatment options,” Ed Cox, MD, MPH, director of the FDA’s Office of Antimicrobial Products, said in the press release.

lfranki@mdedge.com

One in 100 people worldwide experience a condition called schizophrenia. There is widespread disagreement regarding what should be the appropriate name for this condition. Raquelle Mesholam-Gately, PhD, Matcheri Keshavan, MD, the Consumer Advisory Board, and associated members of the research team at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center are conducting a study about renaming schizophrenia.

They are requesting your opinion on this matter. If you choose to be in the study, you will complete this survey, which will take 5 to 10 minutes. The survey is anonymous, and no one will be able to link your answers back to you. Please do not include your name or other information that could be used to identify you in the survey responses. Participation in this study is voluntary.

Take the survey: https://forms.gle/fBVvrkGbVSU3H7Cz8

One in 100 people worldwide experience a condition called schizophrenia. There is widespread disagreement regarding what should be the appropriate name for this condition. Raquelle Mesholam-Gately, PhD, Matcheri Keshavan, MD, the Consumer Advisory Board, and associated members of the research team at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center are conducting a study about renaming schizophrenia.

They are requesting your opinion on this matter. If you choose to be in the study, you will complete this survey, which will take 5 to 10 minutes. The survey is anonymous, and no one will be able to link your answers back to you. Please do not include your name or other information that could be used to identify you in the survey responses. Participation in this study is voluntary.

Take the survey: https://forms.gle/fBVvrkGbVSU3H7Cz8

One in 100 people worldwide experience a condition called schizophrenia. There is widespread disagreement regarding what should be the appropriate name for this condition. Raquelle Mesholam-Gately, PhD, Matcheri Keshavan, MD, the Consumer Advisory Board, and associated members of the research team at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center are conducting a study about renaming schizophrenia.

They are requesting your opinion on this matter. If you choose to be in the study, you will complete this survey, which will take 5 to 10 minutes. The survey is anonymous, and no one will be able to link your answers back to you. Please do not include your name or other information that could be used to identify you in the survey responses. Participation in this study is voluntary.

Take the survey: https://forms.gle/fBVvrkGbVSU3H7Cz8

A Federal Communications Commission report recommends that 988 be designated as a nationwide suicide and mental health crisis support hotline, because a three-digit number “could be more effective” than the current 10-digit number, according to an FCC release.

The report was prepared by the FCC’s Wireline Competition Bureau and Office of Economics and Analytics at the direction of the National Suicide Hotline Improvement Act of 2018. The current service, known as the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline, uses the 10-digit number of 800-273-8255 (TALK). The report noted that the hotline has proved effective: The service answered 2.2 million calls in 2018 and various assessments have shown significant reductions in hopelessness and suicidal ideation among callers.

However, based on data and conclusions from some of those assessments, the report determined “that the Lifeline could be more effective in preventing suicides and providing crisis intervention if it were accessible via a simple, easy-to-remember, 3-digit dialing code.” The report examined the feasibility of three-digit options, including N11 options such as 211 and 511, but based on an analysis by the North American Numbering Council, it found that “technical and operational concerns related to the 988 code could be more easily and quickly addressed and resolved than any re-education efforts related to repurposing a N11 code.”

Suicide and mental health crises have been on the rise, according to numbers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention cited by the FCC report. Among the 50 states, 49 saw increases during 1999-2016, and more than half saw increases greater than 20%. The report describes how some groups, such as veterans and LGBTQ youth, are at especially high risk: More than 6,000 veterans each year died by suicide during 2008-2016, and LGBTQ youth are almost three times as likely as are heterosexual youth to contemplate suicide, with more than 500,000 expected to attempt suicide this year.
 

cpalmer@mdedge.com

A Federal Communications Commission report recommends that 988 be designated as a nationwide suicide and mental health crisis support hotline, because a three-digit number “could be more effective” than the current 10-digit number, according to an FCC release.

The report was prepared by the FCC’s Wireline Competition Bureau and Office of Economics and Analytics at the direction of the National Suicide Hotline Improvement Act of 2018. The current service, known as the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline, uses the 10-digit number of 800-273-8255 (TALK). The report noted that the hotline has proved effective: The service answered 2.2 million calls in 2018 and various assessments have shown significant reductions in hopelessness and suicidal ideation among callers.

However, based on data and conclusions from some of those assessments, the report determined “that the Lifeline could be more effective in preventing suicides and providing crisis intervention if it were accessible via a simple, easy-to-remember, 3-digit dialing code.” The report examined the feasibility of three-digit options, including N11 options such as 211 and 511, but based on an analysis by the North American Numbering Council, it found that “technical and operational concerns related to the 988 code could be more easily and quickly addressed and resolved than any re-education efforts related to repurposing a N11 code.”

Suicide and mental health crises have been on the rise, according to numbers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention cited by the FCC report. Among the 50 states, 49 saw increases during 1999-2016, and more than half saw increases greater than 20%. The report describes how some groups, such as veterans and LGBTQ youth, are at especially high risk: More than 6,000 veterans each year died by suicide during 2008-2016, and LGBTQ youth are almost three times as likely as are heterosexual youth to contemplate suicide, with more than 500,000 expected to attempt suicide this year.
 

cpalmer@mdedge.com

A Federal Communications Commission report recommends that 988 be designated as a nationwide suicide and mental health crisis support hotline, because a three-digit number “could be more effective” than the current 10-digit number, according to an FCC release.

The report was prepared by the FCC’s Wireline Competition Bureau and Office of Economics and Analytics at the direction of the National Suicide Hotline Improvement Act of 2018. The current service, known as the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline, uses the 10-digit number of 800-273-8255 (TALK). The report noted that the hotline has proved effective: The service answered 2.2 million calls in 2018 and various assessments have shown significant reductions in hopelessness and suicidal ideation among callers.

However, based on data and conclusions from some of those assessments, the report determined “that the Lifeline could be more effective in preventing suicides and providing crisis intervention if it were accessible via a simple, easy-to-remember, 3-digit dialing code.” The report examined the feasibility of three-digit options, including N11 options such as 211 and 511, but based on an analysis by the North American Numbering Council, it found that “technical and operational concerns related to the 988 code could be more easily and quickly addressed and resolved than any re-education efforts related to repurposing a N11 code.”

Suicide and mental health crises have been on the rise, according to numbers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention cited by the FCC report. Among the 50 states, 49 saw increases during 1999-2016, and more than half saw increases greater than 20%. The report describes how some groups, such as veterans and LGBTQ youth, are at especially high risk: More than 6,000 veterans each year died by suicide during 2008-2016, and LGBTQ youth are almost three times as likely as are heterosexual youth to contemplate suicide, with more than 500,000 expected to attempt suicide this year.
 

cpalmer@mdedge.com

As the summer draws to a close and I have finished my 20th road trip with my three children who frequently complain of “being too hot” or that the “sun is in my eyes” while in the car, I would like to raise attention to the need for sun protection for all passengers in cars. Sun protection in the car is almost always neglected, particularly for passengers. As thoughtful parents, we lather our kids with sunscreen before going to the pool or beach, but do we really remember to do this, or to provide sunglasses before embarking on a 5-hour car ride? Many people do not. We must raise awareness of the risk of UV light in cars, and take better care of both our children and ourselves.

anyaberkut/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Windshield glass is federally regulated to allow in a maximum amount of light for visibility, but has no requirements for sun protection. Many people do not understand the difference between UVA and UVB protection, let alone that UVB radiation is blocked by the window glass, but UVA radiation is not, and reaches the skin and eyes through glass. By law, windshields must be made of laminated glass, which includes two 2.1-mm layers of glass separated by a 0.8-mm piece of plastic. The glass is made to break easily upon impact and the plastic then stretches to absorb the impact. The thin layer of plastic also helps windshields absorb nearly all of the sun’s UVA and UVB rays. Sunroofs also contain UV-protective technology, which blocks UVA and UVB radiation while also keeping the car cool and protecting against direct sun exposure. However, rear windows do not offer the same protection.

Side and rear windows are made of a cheaper tempered glass that does not include a plastic layer, thereby offering no UVA protection. In a study by Butler et al. reviewing 900 head and neck cancers, 53% were found on the left side, and those who spent more hours driving each week had a higher chance of getting a left-side skin cancer (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2010 Dec;63[6]:1006-10). Many automakers have not helped this problem; while there is higher-SPF glass that can be used, it is more costly for automobile manufacturers – and ultimately for consumers. A cheaper and more practical alternative is a UV film that can be applied to the glass; these films both improve UV protection and cool the car. In addition to providing sun protection, it can be assumed that the subsequent reduction of temperature within a car decreases the usage of air conditioners, thus improving both fuel economy and the environment.

Aftermarket window tinting and UV films can also be applied by glass-tinting companies and auto dealers for $150-$200. Companies like Solar Gard, LLUMAr, and 3M offer window films that can block UV rays. While these are available, the legal allowable tint limit varies from state to state. Visible light transmission (VLT) is the measurement of the percent of visible light that gets through a car’s window. The lower the VLT, the darker the tint. Most states prohibit less than 50% VLT for the driver and front passenger window, and 35% for the rear passenger, side, and rear windows.


To mitigate this, I offer patients with severe photo-dermitides a letter of medical necessity to the DMV to allow a higher percentage of tinting and recommend that they get aftermarket UV-protective films or tints on their vehicles. Regardless of whether higher tints are an option for them, sun protection of the skin and eyes is recommended for all passengers. Sunscreen with broad-spectrum coverage is recommended regardless of how long a car ride might be, and it is recommended that individuals keep the sunroof closed while driving for added UV protection. The use of polarized sunglasses for adults and children is also recommended to avoid UV damage to the eyes. Sunscreens and glasses with protection against blue light are also recommended for passengers who stare at screens and tablets during long car rides.

Dr. Talakoub and Dr. Wesley are cocontributors to this column. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. This month’s column is by Dr. Talakoub. Write to them at dermnews@mdedge.com. They had no relevant disclosures.

As the summer draws to a close and I have finished my 20th road trip with my three children who frequently complain of “being too hot” or that the “sun is in my eyes” while in the car, I would like to raise attention to the need for sun protection for all passengers in cars. Sun protection in the car is almost always neglected, particularly for passengers. As thoughtful parents, we lather our kids with sunscreen before going to the pool or beach, but do we really remember to do this, or to provide sunglasses before embarking on a 5-hour car ride? Many people do not. We must raise awareness of the risk of UV light in cars, and take better care of both our children and ourselves.

anyaberkut/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Windshield glass is federally regulated to allow in a maximum amount of light for visibility, but has no requirements for sun protection. Many people do not understand the difference between UVA and UVB protection, let alone that UVB radiation is blocked by the window glass, but UVA radiation is not, and reaches the skin and eyes through glass. By law, windshields must be made of laminated glass, which includes two 2.1-mm layers of glass separated by a 0.8-mm piece of plastic. The glass is made to break easily upon impact and the plastic then stretches to absorb the impact. The thin layer of plastic also helps windshields absorb nearly all of the sun’s UVA and UVB rays. Sunroofs also contain UV-protective technology, which blocks UVA and UVB radiation while also keeping the car cool and protecting against direct sun exposure. However, rear windows do not offer the same protection.

Side and rear windows are made of a cheaper tempered glass that does not include a plastic layer, thereby offering no UVA protection. In a study by Butler et al. reviewing 900 head and neck cancers, 53% were found on the left side, and those who spent more hours driving each week had a higher chance of getting a left-side skin cancer (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2010 Dec;63[6]:1006-10). Many automakers have not helped this problem; while there is higher-SPF glass that can be used, it is more costly for automobile manufacturers – and ultimately for consumers. A cheaper and more practical alternative is a UV film that can be applied to the glass; these films both improve UV protection and cool the car. In addition to providing sun protection, it can be assumed that the subsequent reduction of temperature within a car decreases the usage of air conditioners, thus improving both fuel economy and the environment.

Aftermarket window tinting and UV films can also be applied by glass-tinting companies and auto dealers for $150-$200. Companies like Solar Gard, LLUMAr, and 3M offer window films that can block UV rays. While these are available, the legal allowable tint limit varies from state to state. Visible light transmission (VLT) is the measurement of the percent of visible light that gets through a car’s window. The lower the VLT, the darker the tint. Most states prohibit less than 50% VLT for the driver and front passenger window, and 35% for the rear passenger, side, and rear windows.


To mitigate this, I offer patients with severe photo-dermitides a letter of medical necessity to the DMV to allow a higher percentage of tinting and recommend that they get aftermarket UV-protective films or tints on their vehicles. Regardless of whether higher tints are an option for them, sun protection of the skin and eyes is recommended for all passengers. Sunscreen with broad-spectrum coverage is recommended regardless of how long a car ride might be, and it is recommended that individuals keep the sunroof closed while driving for added UV protection. The use of polarized sunglasses for adults and children is also recommended to avoid UV damage to the eyes. Sunscreens and glasses with protection against blue light are also recommended for passengers who stare at screens and tablets during long car rides.

Dr. Talakoub and Dr. Wesley are cocontributors to this column. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. This month’s column is by Dr. Talakoub. Write to them at dermnews@mdedge.com. They had no relevant disclosures.

As the summer draws to a close and I have finished my 20th road trip with my three children who frequently complain of “being too hot” or that the “sun is in my eyes” while in the car, I would like to raise attention to the need for sun protection for all passengers in cars. Sun protection in the car is almost always neglected, particularly for passengers. As thoughtful parents, we lather our kids with sunscreen before going to the pool or beach, but do we really remember to do this, or to provide sunglasses before embarking on a 5-hour car ride? Many people do not. We must raise awareness of the risk of UV light in cars, and take better care of both our children and ourselves.

anyaberkut/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Windshield glass is federally regulated to allow in a maximum amount of light for visibility, but has no requirements for sun protection. Many people do not understand the difference between UVA and UVB protection, let alone that UVB radiation is blocked by the window glass, but UVA radiation is not, and reaches the skin and eyes through glass. By law, windshields must be made of laminated glass, which includes two 2.1-mm layers of glass separated by a 0.8-mm piece of plastic. The glass is made to break easily upon impact and the plastic then stretches to absorb the impact. The thin layer of plastic also helps windshields absorb nearly all of the sun’s UVA and UVB rays. Sunroofs also contain UV-protective technology, which blocks UVA and UVB radiation while also keeping the car cool and protecting against direct sun exposure. However, rear windows do not offer the same protection.

Side and rear windows are made of a cheaper tempered glass that does not include a plastic layer, thereby offering no UVA protection. In a study by Butler et al. reviewing 900 head and neck cancers, 53% were found on the left side, and those who spent more hours driving each week had a higher chance of getting a left-side skin cancer (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2010 Dec;63[6]:1006-10). Many automakers have not helped this problem; while there is higher-SPF glass that can be used, it is more costly for automobile manufacturers – and ultimately for consumers. A cheaper and more practical alternative is a UV film that can be applied to the glass; these films both improve UV protection and cool the car. In addition to providing sun protection, it can be assumed that the subsequent reduction of temperature within a car decreases the usage of air conditioners, thus improving both fuel economy and the environment.

Aftermarket window tinting and UV films can also be applied by glass-tinting companies and auto dealers for $150-$200. Companies like Solar Gard, LLUMAr, and 3M offer window films that can block UV rays. While these are available, the legal allowable tint limit varies from state to state. Visible light transmission (VLT) is the measurement of the percent of visible light that gets through a car’s window. The lower the VLT, the darker the tint. Most states prohibit less than 50% VLT for the driver and front passenger window, and 35% for the rear passenger, side, and rear windows.


To mitigate this, I offer patients with severe photo-dermitides a letter of medical necessity to the DMV to allow a higher percentage of tinting and recommend that they get aftermarket UV-protective films or tints on their vehicles. Regardless of whether higher tints are an option for them, sun protection of the skin and eyes is recommended for all passengers. Sunscreen with broad-spectrum coverage is recommended regardless of how long a car ride might be, and it is recommended that individuals keep the sunroof closed while driving for added UV protection. The use of polarized sunglasses for adults and children is also recommended to avoid UV damage to the eyes. Sunscreens and glasses with protection against blue light are also recommended for passengers who stare at screens and tablets during long car rides.

Dr. Talakoub and Dr. Wesley are cocontributors to this column. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. This month’s column is by Dr. Talakoub. Write to them at dermnews@mdedge.com. They had no relevant disclosures.

Teaching a new resident can be a beautiful and exasperating experience. Recently, a stiff-white-coat family medicine resident showed up eager for his first day in dermatology. Working with him reminded me how exciting the journey is from resident to attending. It also reminded me how slow residents are – we’re 10 minutes into a visit and not yet done injecting anesthesia. A simple biopsy and electrodesiccation of a basal cell carcinoma would take 3 minutes – easy, rote, like driving home and being surprised when you arrive. But this task is making my resident so fraught with fear he’s barely moving. He won’t be crawling for long; his journey from novice to confident physician will be quick. Like a student pilot learning to fly, in a few hundred hours he’ll be flying solo.

After a year, most residents are adept, exuding the temerity of an attending. But as any practicing physician knows, medicine can make cowards of us all without warning. An experienced pilot facing an unexpected gusty 25-knot crosswind landing can find himself or herself a trembling beginner just as an excellent clinician can be overwhelmed facing an unexpectedly sick patient.

Not long after my visiting resident, I was back to my own packed clinic. With one swoop of a dermablade, I intended to quickly extirpate a keratoacanthoma on the back of an elderly man’s hand. I hardly had to think about it. However, when I lifted the blade, dark blood pooled where a dorsal saphenous vein used to live. After much electrodesiccation (and sutures) this particular biopsy was safely landed. But it wasn’t without a bit of blood loss and inconvenience for the patient. What might I have done differently? Injected 5-fluorouracil instead? Done an incisional biopsy? Used a different blade? More importantly, what will I do next time?


To avoid adverse outcomes, it might seem like the best strategy is to avoid deteriorating conditions, whether flying or in clinic. That would be a mistake. The journey from apprehension to mastery must pass through discomfort. It is only by working through unease and successfully managing complications that expertise is forged. Our days are mostly routine and the longer the period without adversity, the greater the risk of complacency. Consider seeking difficulty once in awhile and learn how to work through it. No pilot wants to be in a situation he or she hasn’t practiced managing.

For some physicians and residents, an unexpected complication or adverse outcome can make them apprehensive and defensive. I’ve seen doctors choose not to treat complicated diseases or dire lesions because of a previous bad experience or adverse outcome. It is sometimes appropriate to transfer a patient to a different service, but as physicians, it’s also our job to take care of our patient. When it’s your plane, you’ll have to land it.

Much later (or so it seemed), my resident finally finished the electrodesiccation and curettage. He had a look of relief knowing he has landed safely. I hope he realizes that this is a trip that he must take over and over again. One is never done learning to fly.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

Teaching a new resident can be a beautiful and exasperating experience. Recently, a stiff-white-coat family medicine resident showed up eager for his first day in dermatology. Working with him reminded me how exciting the journey is from resident to attending. It also reminded me how slow residents are – we’re 10 minutes into a visit and not yet done injecting anesthesia. A simple biopsy and electrodesiccation of a basal cell carcinoma would take 3 minutes – easy, rote, like driving home and being surprised when you arrive. But this task is making my resident so fraught with fear he’s barely moving. He won’t be crawling for long; his journey from novice to confident physician will be quick. Like a student pilot learning to fly, in a few hundred hours he’ll be flying solo.

After a year, most residents are adept, exuding the temerity of an attending. But as any practicing physician knows, medicine can make cowards of us all without warning. An experienced pilot facing an unexpected gusty 25-knot crosswind landing can find himself or herself a trembling beginner just as an excellent clinician can be overwhelmed facing an unexpectedly sick patient.

Not long after my visiting resident, I was back to my own packed clinic. With one swoop of a dermablade, I intended to quickly extirpate a keratoacanthoma on the back of an elderly man’s hand. I hardly had to think about it. However, when I lifted the blade, dark blood pooled where a dorsal saphenous vein used to live. After much electrodesiccation (and sutures) this particular biopsy was safely landed. But it wasn’t without a bit of blood loss and inconvenience for the patient. What might I have done differently? Injected 5-fluorouracil instead? Done an incisional biopsy? Used a different blade? More importantly, what will I do next time?


To avoid adverse outcomes, it might seem like the best strategy is to avoid deteriorating conditions, whether flying or in clinic. That would be a mistake. The journey from apprehension to mastery must pass through discomfort. It is only by working through unease and successfully managing complications that expertise is forged. Our days are mostly routine and the longer the period without adversity, the greater the risk of complacency. Consider seeking difficulty once in awhile and learn how to work through it. No pilot wants to be in a situation he or she hasn’t practiced managing.

For some physicians and residents, an unexpected complication or adverse outcome can make them apprehensive and defensive. I’ve seen doctors choose not to treat complicated diseases or dire lesions because of a previous bad experience or adverse outcome. It is sometimes appropriate to transfer a patient to a different service, but as physicians, it’s also our job to take care of our patient. When it’s your plane, you’ll have to land it.

Much later (or so it seemed), my resident finally finished the electrodesiccation and curettage. He had a look of relief knowing he has landed safely. I hope he realizes that this is a trip that he must take over and over again. One is never done learning to fly.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

Teaching a new resident can be a beautiful and exasperating experience. Recently, a stiff-white-coat family medicine resident showed up eager for his first day in dermatology. Working with him reminded me how exciting the journey is from resident to attending. It also reminded me how slow residents are – we’re 10 minutes into a visit and not yet done injecting anesthesia. A simple biopsy and electrodesiccation of a basal cell carcinoma would take 3 minutes – easy, rote, like driving home and being surprised when you arrive. But this task is making my resident so fraught with fear he’s barely moving. He won’t be crawling for long; his journey from novice to confident physician will be quick. Like a student pilot learning to fly, in a few hundred hours he’ll be flying solo.

After a year, most residents are adept, exuding the temerity of an attending. But as any practicing physician knows, medicine can make cowards of us all without warning. An experienced pilot facing an unexpected gusty 25-knot crosswind landing can find himself or herself a trembling beginner just as an excellent clinician can be overwhelmed facing an unexpectedly sick patient.

Not long after my visiting resident, I was back to my own packed clinic. With one swoop of a dermablade, I intended to quickly extirpate a keratoacanthoma on the back of an elderly man’s hand. I hardly had to think about it. However, when I lifted the blade, dark blood pooled where a dorsal saphenous vein used to live. After much electrodesiccation (and sutures) this particular biopsy was safely landed. But it wasn’t without a bit of blood loss and inconvenience for the patient. What might I have done differently? Injected 5-fluorouracil instead? Done an incisional biopsy? Used a different blade? More importantly, what will I do next time?


To avoid adverse outcomes, it might seem like the best strategy is to avoid deteriorating conditions, whether flying or in clinic. That would be a mistake. The journey from apprehension to mastery must pass through discomfort. It is only by working through unease and successfully managing complications that expertise is forged. Our days are mostly routine and the longer the period without adversity, the greater the risk of complacency. Consider seeking difficulty once in awhile and learn how to work through it. No pilot wants to be in a situation he or she hasn’t practiced managing.

For some physicians and residents, an unexpected complication or adverse outcome can make them apprehensive and defensive. I’ve seen doctors choose not to treat complicated diseases or dire lesions because of a previous bad experience or adverse outcome. It is sometimes appropriate to transfer a patient to a different service, but as physicians, it’s also our job to take care of our patient. When it’s your plane, you’ll have to land it.

Much later (or so it seemed), my resident finally finished the electrodesiccation and curettage. He had a look of relief knowing he has landed safely. I hope he realizes that this is a trip that he must take over and over again. One is never done learning to fly.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

An essential feature of cancer is its ability to evade the immune system. Multiple mechanisms are used for this purpose, including the disruption of antigen presentation and suppression of the immune response. The latter mechanism involves the activation of T-cell inhibition by recruiting regulatory T cells that weaken this response. Recent progress in understanding the ability of cancer to evade the immune system has paved the way to develop strategies to reverse this process and reactivate the immune system. Particularly, immune checkpoint signaling between T cells and tumor cells has been targeted with a new class of drug, immune checkpoint inhibitors. Immunotherapy has been an established and effective treatment in bladder cancer since 1976 when Morales and colleagues demonstrated that intravesical treatments with bacillus Calmette-Guérin can treat carcinoma in situ and prevent nonmuscle invasive urothelial cancer recurrence.^1,2 This treatment elicits a cytotoxic response via antigenic presentation by bladder tumor cells.

Cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein (CTLA)-4, programmed death-1 (PD-1) and programmed death-ligand-1 (PD-L1) are molecules that downregulate the immune response and are targets of therapeutic antibodies that have demonstrated clinical efficacy across a wide range of malignancies. Five such agents—pembrolizumab, atezolizumab, nivolumab, avelumab and durvalumab—were recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for clinical use in patients with advanced urothelial cancers.³ This class of agents also has been approved for several other malignancies, most notably in melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer, and renal cell carcinoma.³

Immune Biology

CTLA-4 is expressed on activated CD4 and CD8 T cells and competes with CD28 on T cells to interact with the costimulatory B7 proteins on antigen presenting cells. The CD28/B7 interaction promotes T-cell activation and effector functions, and the CTLA-4/B7 interaction inhibits them. In addition, PD-1 is a receptor expressed on CD4 and CD8 T cells, T regulatory (Treg) cells, B cells and natural killer (NK) cells that interacts with its ligand PD-L1 to suppress the immune response. Urothelial cancer possesses features that make it an adequate target for immunotherapeutic agents. Primarily, it is characterized by a high-mutation load, which lends itself to an increased expression of immunogenic antigens on tumor cells.⁴

Immunotherapy Treatments in Cisplatin-Ineligible Patients

Cisplatin-based chemotherapy is the first-line treatment and standard of care in unresectable or metastatic urothelial cancer. However, many patients are unable to receive cisplatin secondary to renal dysfunction, poor performance status, or other comorbidities. Alternative cytotoxic therapies in the first-line setting such as carboplatin-based regimens are associated with inferior outcomes and poor tolerability. There is, therefore, a need for effective and well-tolerated therapies in cisplatin-ineligible patients (Table).

In the phase 2 Keynote-052 trial, 370 cisplatin-ineligible patients were treated with the anti-PD-1 antibody pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks for up to 2 years.⁵At a median follow-up of 9.5 months, the objective response rate (+ORR) was 29% for the entire cohort, with a 7% complete response (CR) rate, and a 22% partial response (PR) rate.⁵ The median duration of response had not been reached at the time of analysis. Responses were seen regardless of PD-L1 expression, although high response rates were noted in patients whose tumors had PD-L1 expression > 10%. Pembrolizumab had an acceptable tolerability profile in this population. The most common grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse event (AE) was fatigue at 2%; 5% of patients discontinued therapy due to treatment related AEs, whereas 17% of patients had immune-mediated AEs.⁵

Similarly, in a single-arm phase 2 trial, atezolizumab, an anti-PD-L1 antibody, dosed at 1,200 mg every 3 weeks was used as first-line therapy in 119 patients with advanced urothelial cancer who were cisplatin ineligible. At a median follow-up of 17 months, the ORR was 23%, with a 9% CR rate. The median duration of response had not been reached. Median progression free survival (PFS) was 2.7 months, whereas overall survival (OS) was 16 months. Eight percent of patients had an AE leading to treatment discontinuation, and 17% had immune-mediated AEs.⁶ Both pembrolizumab and atezolizumab were granted FDA approval in 2017 for patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who are not eligible for cisplatin-based chemotherapy.³

Immunotherapy Treatments After Progression With Cisplatin

Cytotoxic chemotherapy in the second-line setting with disease progression following platinum-based treatment has shown dismal responses, with a median OS of about 6 to 7 months.⁷ Immunotherapy provides an effective and a much-needed option in this scenario.

Five antibodies targeting the PD-1/PD-L1 pathway, pembrolizumab, nivolumab, atezolizumab, avelumab and durvalumab, have been granted FDA approval for patients who have progressed during or after platinum-based therapy (Table).³ In the phase 3 Keynote-045 trial, 542 patients were randomly assigned to receive either pembrolizumab 200 mg administered every 3 weeks or investigator’s choice chemotherapy (paclitaxel, docetaxel, or vinflunine).⁷ Median OS was 10.3 months in the pembrolizumab group and 7.4 months in the chemotherapy group (hazard ratio for death, 0.73; P = .002). Serious (grade 3 or above) treatment-related AEs were significantly less frequent with pembrolizumab (15% vs 49.4%).⁷ In a phase 2 trial, 270 patients were treated with nivolumab, a PD-1 inhibitor, at a dose of 3 mg/kg given every 2 weeks.⁸ The ORR was 19.6%, while the median OS for the entire cohort was 7 months. Responses were seen at all levels of PD-L1 expression, although in patients whose tumor expressed PD-L1 ≥1%, median OS was 11.3 months.⁸

It should be noted that in a large phase 3 trial comparing atezolizumab with chemotherapy in the second-line setting, ORR and OS were not statistically different between the 2 groups, although the duration of response was longer with atezolizumab.⁹ In early phase trials, avelumab and durvalumab, both PD-L1 inhibitors showed an ORR of about 17%, with higher ORR seen in patients with tumors positive for PD-L1 expression.^10,11 The AE profile of immune checkpoint inhibitors is relatively favorable in clinical trials. The American Society of Clinical Oncology and National Comprehensive Cancer Network have jointly published evidence-based guidelines for the management of their immune related AEs.¹²

Future Directions

Several challenges have emerged with immunotherapy treatments. One issue is the relatively low ORRs for immune checkpoint inhibitors, ranging from 13.4% to 24% depending on the trial. Therefore, there is a need to identify reliable biomarkers and selection criteria to predict their efficacy and improve patient selection. Although tumor PD-L1 expression has shown some usefulness in this setting, responses have been noted in patients whose tumors have low or no expression of PD-L1. This low predictive accuracy is caused by several factors, including PD-L1 intratumor expression heterogeneity, primary vs metastatic site PD-L1 expression heterogeneity, lack of consensus on which PD-L1 assays and which value cutoffs to use, and the differences seen in marker expression depending on the freshness of the tissue specimen.

Other predictive biomarkers with potential include tumor gene expression profiles/tumor mutational load, T-cell and B-cell signatures. The optimal imaging modality and timing of this imaging for response assessment also is uncertain. So-called tumor pseudo-progression seen on imaging after treatment with these agents as a result of the immune/inflammatory response to the tumor is now a well-recognized phenomenon, but it can be challenging to differentiate from true disease progression. Other challenges include deciding on which immune checkpoint inhibitor to use given a lack of head-to-head comparisons of these immunotherapeutic agents, finding the proper drug doses to maximize efficacy, as well as determining the optimal duration of treatment in patients with continued response to immunotherapy. Many oncologists continue these treatments for up to 2 years in the setting of a significant or complete response.

Conclusion

Immune checkpoint inhibitors have emerged as pivotal treatments for patients with advanced urothelial cancer who are unfit to receive cisplatin in the first-line setting or who experience disease progression after cisplatin-based chemotherapy. This field continues to expand at a rapid pace due to multiple ongoing clinical trials assessing these agents, whether alone, in combination with cytotoxic, targeted, radiation therapies, or with other immune checkpoint inhibitors, both in the advanced as well as the neoadjuvant/adjuvant settings.

An essential feature of cancer is its ability to evade the immune system. Multiple mechanisms are used for this purpose, including the disruption of antigen presentation and suppression of the immune response. The latter mechanism involves the activation of T-cell inhibition by recruiting regulatory T cells that weaken this response. Recent progress in understanding the ability of cancer to evade the immune system has paved the way to develop strategies to reverse this process and reactivate the immune system. Particularly, immune checkpoint signaling between T cells and tumor cells has been targeted with a new class of drug, immune checkpoint inhibitors. Immunotherapy has been an established and effective treatment in bladder cancer since 1976 when Morales and colleagues demonstrated that intravesical treatments with bacillus Calmette-Guérin can treat carcinoma in situ and prevent nonmuscle invasive urothelial cancer recurrence.^1,2 This treatment elicits a cytotoxic response via antigenic presentation by bladder tumor cells.

Cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein (CTLA)-4, programmed death-1 (PD-1) and programmed death-ligand-1 (PD-L1) are molecules that downregulate the immune response and are targets of therapeutic antibodies that have demonstrated clinical efficacy across a wide range of malignancies. Five such agents—pembrolizumab, atezolizumab, nivolumab, avelumab and durvalumab—were recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for clinical use in patients with advanced urothelial cancers.³ This class of agents also has been approved for several other malignancies, most notably in melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer, and renal cell carcinoma.³

Immune Biology

CTLA-4 is expressed on activated CD4 and CD8 T cells and competes with CD28 on T cells to interact with the costimulatory B7 proteins on antigen presenting cells. The CD28/B7 interaction promotes T-cell activation and effector functions, and the CTLA-4/B7 interaction inhibits them. In addition, PD-1 is a receptor expressed on CD4 and CD8 T cells, T regulatory (Treg) cells, B cells and natural killer (NK) cells that interacts with its ligand PD-L1 to suppress the immune response. Urothelial cancer possesses features that make it an adequate target for immunotherapeutic agents. Primarily, it is characterized by a high-mutation load, which lends itself to an increased expression of immunogenic antigens on tumor cells.⁴

Immunotherapy Treatments in Cisplatin-Ineligible Patients

Cisplatin-based chemotherapy is the first-line treatment and standard of care in unresectable or metastatic urothelial cancer. However, many patients are unable to receive cisplatin secondary to renal dysfunction, poor performance status, or other comorbidities. Alternative cytotoxic therapies in the first-line setting such as carboplatin-based regimens are associated with inferior outcomes and poor tolerability. There is, therefore, a need for effective and well-tolerated therapies in cisplatin-ineligible patients (Table).

In the phase 2 Keynote-052 trial, 370 cisplatin-ineligible patients were treated with the anti-PD-1 antibody pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks for up to 2 years.⁵At a median follow-up of 9.5 months, the objective response rate (+ORR) was 29% for the entire cohort, with a 7% complete response (CR) rate, and a 22% partial response (PR) rate.⁵ The median duration of response had not been reached at the time of analysis. Responses were seen regardless of PD-L1 expression, although high response rates were noted in patients whose tumors had PD-L1 expression > 10%. Pembrolizumab had an acceptable tolerability profile in this population. The most common grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse event (AE) was fatigue at 2%; 5% of patients discontinued therapy due to treatment related AEs, whereas 17% of patients had immune-mediated AEs.⁵

Similarly, in a single-arm phase 2 trial, atezolizumab, an anti-PD-L1 antibody, dosed at 1,200 mg every 3 weeks was used as first-line therapy in 119 patients with advanced urothelial cancer who were cisplatin ineligible. At a median follow-up of 17 months, the ORR was 23%, with a 9% CR rate. The median duration of response had not been reached. Median progression free survival (PFS) was 2.7 months, whereas overall survival (OS) was 16 months. Eight percent of patients had an AE leading to treatment discontinuation, and 17% had immune-mediated AEs.⁶ Both pembrolizumab and atezolizumab were granted FDA approval in 2017 for patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who are not eligible for cisplatin-based chemotherapy.³

Immunotherapy Treatments After Progression With Cisplatin

Cytotoxic chemotherapy in the second-line setting with disease progression following platinum-based treatment has shown dismal responses, with a median OS of about 6 to 7 months.⁷ Immunotherapy provides an effective and a much-needed option in this scenario.

Five antibodies targeting the PD-1/PD-L1 pathway, pembrolizumab, nivolumab, atezolizumab, avelumab and durvalumab, have been granted FDA approval for patients who have progressed during or after platinum-based therapy (Table).³ In the phase 3 Keynote-045 trial, 542 patients were randomly assigned to receive either pembrolizumab 200 mg administered every 3 weeks or investigator’s choice chemotherapy (paclitaxel, docetaxel, or vinflunine).⁷ Median OS was 10.3 months in the pembrolizumab group and 7.4 months in the chemotherapy group (hazard ratio for death, 0.73; P = .002). Serious (grade 3 or above) treatment-related AEs were significantly less frequent with pembrolizumab (15% vs 49.4%).⁷ In a phase 2 trial, 270 patients were treated with nivolumab, a PD-1 inhibitor, at a dose of 3 mg/kg given every 2 weeks.⁸ The ORR was 19.6%, while the median OS for the entire cohort was 7 months. Responses were seen at all levels of PD-L1 expression, although in patients whose tumor expressed PD-L1 ≥1%, median OS was 11.3 months.⁸

It should be noted that in a large phase 3 trial comparing atezolizumab with chemotherapy in the second-line setting, ORR and OS were not statistically different between the 2 groups, although the duration of response was longer with atezolizumab.⁹ In early phase trials, avelumab and durvalumab, both PD-L1 inhibitors showed an ORR of about 17%, with higher ORR seen in patients with tumors positive for PD-L1 expression.^10,11 The AE profile of immune checkpoint inhibitors is relatively favorable in clinical trials. The American Society of Clinical Oncology and National Comprehensive Cancer Network have jointly published evidence-based guidelines for the management of their immune related AEs.¹²

Future Directions

Several challenges have emerged with immunotherapy treatments. One issue is the relatively low ORRs for immune checkpoint inhibitors, ranging from 13.4% to 24% depending on the trial. Therefore, there is a need to identify reliable biomarkers and selection criteria to predict their efficacy and improve patient selection. Although tumor PD-L1 expression has shown some usefulness in this setting, responses have been noted in patients whose tumors have low or no expression of PD-L1. This low predictive accuracy is caused by several factors, including PD-L1 intratumor expression heterogeneity, primary vs metastatic site PD-L1 expression heterogeneity, lack of consensus on which PD-L1 assays and which value cutoffs to use, and the differences seen in marker expression depending on the freshness of the tissue specimen.

Other predictive biomarkers with potential include tumor gene expression profiles/tumor mutational load, T-cell and B-cell signatures. The optimal imaging modality and timing of this imaging for response assessment also is uncertain. So-called tumor pseudo-progression seen on imaging after treatment with these agents as a result of the immune/inflammatory response to the tumor is now a well-recognized phenomenon, but it can be challenging to differentiate from true disease progression. Other challenges include deciding on which immune checkpoint inhibitor to use given a lack of head-to-head comparisons of these immunotherapeutic agents, finding the proper drug doses to maximize efficacy, as well as determining the optimal duration of treatment in patients with continued response to immunotherapy. Many oncologists continue these treatments for up to 2 years in the setting of a significant or complete response.

Conclusion

Immune checkpoint inhibitors have emerged as pivotal treatments for patients with advanced urothelial cancer who are unfit to receive cisplatin in the first-line setting or who experience disease progression after cisplatin-based chemotherapy. This field continues to expand at a rapid pace due to multiple ongoing clinical trials assessing these agents, whether alone, in combination with cytotoxic, targeted, radiation therapies, or with other immune checkpoint inhibitors, both in the advanced as well as the neoadjuvant/adjuvant settings.

An essential feature of cancer is its ability to evade the immune system. Multiple mechanisms are used for this purpose, including the disruption of antigen presentation and suppression of the immune response. The latter mechanism involves the activation of T-cell inhibition by recruiting regulatory T cells that weaken this response. Recent progress in understanding the ability of cancer to evade the immune system has paved the way to develop strategies to reverse this process and reactivate the immune system. Particularly, immune checkpoint signaling between T cells and tumor cells has been targeted with a new class of drug, immune checkpoint inhibitors. Immunotherapy has been an established and effective treatment in bladder cancer since 1976 when Morales and colleagues demonstrated that intravesical treatments with bacillus Calmette-Guérin can treat carcinoma in situ and prevent nonmuscle invasive urothelial cancer recurrence.^1,2 This treatment elicits a cytotoxic response via antigenic presentation by bladder tumor cells.

Cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein (CTLA)-4, programmed death-1 (PD-1) and programmed death-ligand-1 (PD-L1) are molecules that downregulate the immune response and are targets of therapeutic antibodies that have demonstrated clinical efficacy across a wide range of malignancies. Five such agents—pembrolizumab, atezolizumab, nivolumab, avelumab and durvalumab—were recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for clinical use in patients with advanced urothelial cancers.³ This class of agents also has been approved for several other malignancies, most notably in melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer, and renal cell carcinoma.³

Immune Biology

CTLA-4 is expressed on activated CD4 and CD8 T cells and competes with CD28 on T cells to interact with the costimulatory B7 proteins on antigen presenting cells. The CD28/B7 interaction promotes T-cell activation and effector functions, and the CTLA-4/B7 interaction inhibits them. In addition, PD-1 is a receptor expressed on CD4 and CD8 T cells, T regulatory (Treg) cells, B cells and natural killer (NK) cells that interacts with its ligand PD-L1 to suppress the immune response. Urothelial cancer possesses features that make it an adequate target for immunotherapeutic agents. Primarily, it is characterized by a high-mutation load, which lends itself to an increased expression of immunogenic antigens on tumor cells.⁴

Immunotherapy Treatments in Cisplatin-Ineligible Patients

Cisplatin-based chemotherapy is the first-line treatment and standard of care in unresectable or metastatic urothelial cancer. However, many patients are unable to receive cisplatin secondary to renal dysfunction, poor performance status, or other comorbidities. Alternative cytotoxic therapies in the first-line setting such as carboplatin-based regimens are associated with inferior outcomes and poor tolerability. There is, therefore, a need for effective and well-tolerated therapies in cisplatin-ineligible patients (Table).

In the phase 2 Keynote-052 trial, 370 cisplatin-ineligible patients were treated with the anti-PD-1 antibody pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks for up to 2 years.⁵At a median follow-up of 9.5 months, the objective response rate (+ORR) was 29% for the entire cohort, with a 7% complete response (CR) rate, and a 22% partial response (PR) rate.⁵ The median duration of response had not been reached at the time of analysis. Responses were seen regardless of PD-L1 expression, although high response rates were noted in patients whose tumors had PD-L1 expression > 10%. Pembrolizumab had an acceptable tolerability profile in this population. The most common grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse event (AE) was fatigue at 2%; 5% of patients discontinued therapy due to treatment related AEs, whereas 17% of patients had immune-mediated AEs.⁵

Similarly, in a single-arm phase 2 trial, atezolizumab, an anti-PD-L1 antibody, dosed at 1,200 mg every 3 weeks was used as first-line therapy in 119 patients with advanced urothelial cancer who were cisplatin ineligible. At a median follow-up of 17 months, the ORR was 23%, with a 9% CR rate. The median duration of response had not been reached. Median progression free survival (PFS) was 2.7 months, whereas overall survival (OS) was 16 months. Eight percent of patients had an AE leading to treatment discontinuation, and 17% had immune-mediated AEs.⁶ Both pembrolizumab and atezolizumab were granted FDA approval in 2017 for patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who are not eligible for cisplatin-based chemotherapy.³

Immunotherapy Treatments After Progression With Cisplatin

Cytotoxic chemotherapy in the second-line setting with disease progression following platinum-based treatment has shown dismal responses, with a median OS of about 6 to 7 months.⁷ Immunotherapy provides an effective and a much-needed option in this scenario.

Five antibodies targeting the PD-1/PD-L1 pathway, pembrolizumab, nivolumab, atezolizumab, avelumab and durvalumab, have been granted FDA approval for patients who have progressed during or after platinum-based therapy (Table).³ In the phase 3 Keynote-045 trial, 542 patients were randomly assigned to receive either pembrolizumab 200 mg administered every 3 weeks or investigator’s choice chemotherapy (paclitaxel, docetaxel, or vinflunine).⁷ Median OS was 10.3 months in the pembrolizumab group and 7.4 months in the chemotherapy group (hazard ratio for death, 0.73; P = .002). Serious (grade 3 or above) treatment-related AEs were significantly less frequent with pembrolizumab (15% vs 49.4%).⁷ In a phase 2 trial, 270 patients were treated with nivolumab, a PD-1 inhibitor, at a dose of 3 mg/kg given every 2 weeks.⁸ The ORR was 19.6%, while the median OS for the entire cohort was 7 months. Responses were seen at all levels of PD-L1 expression, although in patients whose tumor expressed PD-L1 ≥1%, median OS was 11.3 months.⁸

It should be noted that in a large phase 3 trial comparing atezolizumab with chemotherapy in the second-line setting, ORR and OS were not statistically different between the 2 groups, although the duration of response was longer with atezolizumab.⁹ In early phase trials, avelumab and durvalumab, both PD-L1 inhibitors showed an ORR of about 17%, with higher ORR seen in patients with tumors positive for PD-L1 expression.^10,11 The AE profile of immune checkpoint inhibitors is relatively favorable in clinical trials. The American Society of Clinical Oncology and National Comprehensive Cancer Network have jointly published evidence-based guidelines for the management of their immune related AEs.¹²

Future Directions

Several challenges have emerged with immunotherapy treatments. One issue is the relatively low ORRs for immune checkpoint inhibitors, ranging from 13.4% to 24% depending on the trial. Therefore, there is a need to identify reliable biomarkers and selection criteria to predict their efficacy and improve patient selection. Although tumor PD-L1 expression has shown some usefulness in this setting, responses have been noted in patients whose tumors have low or no expression of PD-L1. This low predictive accuracy is caused by several factors, including PD-L1 intratumor expression heterogeneity, primary vs metastatic site PD-L1 expression heterogeneity, lack of consensus on which PD-L1 assays and which value cutoffs to use, and the differences seen in marker expression depending on the freshness of the tissue specimen.

Other predictive biomarkers with potential include tumor gene expression profiles/tumor mutational load, T-cell and B-cell signatures. The optimal imaging modality and timing of this imaging for response assessment also is uncertain. So-called tumor pseudo-progression seen on imaging after treatment with these agents as a result of the immune/inflammatory response to the tumor is now a well-recognized phenomenon, but it can be challenging to differentiate from true disease progression. Other challenges include deciding on which immune checkpoint inhibitor to use given a lack of head-to-head comparisons of these immunotherapeutic agents, finding the proper drug doses to maximize efficacy, as well as determining the optimal duration of treatment in patients with continued response to immunotherapy. Many oncologists continue these treatments for up to 2 years in the setting of a significant or complete response.

Conclusion

Immune checkpoint inhibitors have emerged as pivotal treatments for patients with advanced urothelial cancer who are unfit to receive cisplatin in the first-line setting or who experience disease progression after cisplatin-based chemotherapy. This field continues to expand at a rapid pace due to multiple ongoing clinical trials assessing these agents, whether alone, in combination with cytotoxic, targeted, radiation therapies, or with other immune checkpoint inhibitors, both in the advanced as well as the neoadjuvant/adjuvant settings.

Infants with bacteremic urinary tract infections on short-term versus long-term parenteral antibiotics before oral antibiotics had similar outcomes, according to a study.

AndyL/iStock/Getty Images Plus

While previous studies have shown short-term parenteral antibiotic therapy to be safe and equally effective in uncomplicated urinary tract infections (UTIs), short-term therapy safety in bacteremic UTI had not been established, Sanyukta Desai, MD, of the University of Cincinnati and Cincinnati Children’s Hospital and associates wrote in Pediatrics.

“As a result, infants with bacteremic UTI often receive prolonged courses of parenteral antibiotics, which can lead to long hospitalizations and increased costs,” they said.

In a multicenter, retrospective cohort study, Dr. Desai and associates analyzed a group of 115 infants aged 60 days or younger who were admitted to a group of 11 participating EDs between July 1, 2011, and June 30, 2016, if they had a UTI caused by a bacterial pathogen. Half of the infants were administered parenteral antibiotics for 7 days or less before being switched to oral antibiotics, and the rest were given parenteral antibiotics for more than 7 days before switching to oral. Infants were more likely to receive long-term parenteral treatment if they were ill appearing and had growth of a non–Escherichia coli organism.

Six infants (two in the short-term group, four in the long-term group) had a recurrent UTI, each one diagnosed between 15 and 30 days after discharge; the adjusted risk difference between the two groups was 3% (95% confidence interval, –5.8 to 12.7). Two of the infants in the long-term group with a recurrent UTI had a different organism than during the index infection. When comparing only the infants with growth of the same pathogen that caused the index UTI, the adjusted risk difference between the two groups was 0.2% (95% CI, –7.8 to 8.3).

A total of 15 infants (6 in the short-term group, 9 in the long-term group) had 30-day all-cause reutilization, with no significant difference between groups (adjusted risk difference, 3%; 95% CI, –14.6 to 20.4).

Mean length of stay was significantly longer in the long-term treatment group, compared with the short-term group (11 days vs. 5 days; adjusted mean difference, 6 days; 95% CI, 4.0-8.8).

No infants experienced a serious adverse event such as ICU readmission, need for mechanical ventilation or vasopressor use, or signs of neurologic sequelae within 30 days of discharge from the index hospitalization, the investigators noted. Peripherally inserted central catheters were required in 13 infants; of these, 1 infant had to revisit an ED because of a related mechanical complication.

“Researchers in future prospective studies should seek to establish the bioavailability and optimal dosing of oral antibiotics in young infants and assess if there are particular subpopulations of infants with bacteremic UTI who may benefit from longer courses of parenteral antibiotic therapy,” Dr. Desai and associates concluded.

In a related editorial, Natalia V. Leva, MD, and Hillary L. Copp, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, noted that the study represents a “critical piece of a complicated puzzle that not only includes minimum duration of parenteral antibiotic treatment but also involves bioavailability of antimicrobial agents in infants and total treatment duration, which includes parenteral and oral antibiotic therapy.”

The question that remains is how long a duration of parenteral antibiotic is necessary, Dr. Leva and Dr. Copp wrote. “Desai et al. used a relatively arbitrary cutoff of 7 days on the basis of the distribution of antibiotic course among their patient population; however, this is likely more a reflection of clinical practice than it is evidence based.” They concluded that this study provided evidence that a “short course of parenteral antibiotics in infants [aged 60 days or younger] with bacteremic UTI is safe and effective. Although the current study does not address total duration of antibiotics [parenteral and oral], it does shine a light on where we should focus future research endeavors.”

The study authors reported that they had no conflicts of interest. The study was supported in part by a National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences grant and an Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality grant. The editorialists had no relevant conflicts of interest and received no external funding.

lfranki@mdedge.com

SOURCEs: Desai S et al. Pediatrics. 2019 Aug 20. doi: 10.1542/peds.2018-3844; Leva et al. 2019 Aug 20. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-1611.

Infants with bacteremic urinary tract infections on short-term versus long-term parenteral antibiotics before oral antibiotics had similar outcomes, according to a study.

AndyL/iStock/Getty Images Plus

While previous studies have shown short-term parenteral antibiotic therapy to be safe and equally effective in uncomplicated urinary tract infections (UTIs), short-term therapy safety in bacteremic UTI had not been established, Sanyukta Desai, MD, of the University of Cincinnati and Cincinnati Children’s Hospital and associates wrote in Pediatrics.

“As a result, infants with bacteremic UTI often receive prolonged courses of parenteral antibiotics, which can lead to long hospitalizations and increased costs,” they said.

In a multicenter, retrospective cohort study, Dr. Desai and associates analyzed a group of 115 infants aged 60 days or younger who were admitted to a group of 11 participating EDs between July 1, 2011, and June 30, 2016, if they had a UTI caused by a bacterial pathogen. Half of the infants were administered parenteral antibiotics for 7 days or less before being switched to oral antibiotics, and the rest were given parenteral antibiotics for more than 7 days before switching to oral. Infants were more likely to receive long-term parenteral treatment if they were ill appearing and had growth of a non–Escherichia coli organism.

Six infants (two in the short-term group, four in the long-term group) had a recurrent UTI, each one diagnosed between 15 and 30 days after discharge; the adjusted risk difference between the two groups was 3% (95% confidence interval, –5.8 to 12.7). Two of the infants in the long-term group with a recurrent UTI had a different organism than during the index infection. When comparing only the infants with growth of the same pathogen that caused the index UTI, the adjusted risk difference between the two groups was 0.2% (95% CI, –7.8 to 8.3).

A total of 15 infants (6 in the short-term group, 9 in the long-term group) had 30-day all-cause reutilization, with no significant difference between groups (adjusted risk difference, 3%; 95% CI, –14.6 to 20.4).

Mean length of stay was significantly longer in the long-term treatment group, compared with the short-term group (11 days vs. 5 days; adjusted mean difference, 6 days; 95% CI, 4.0-8.8).

No infants experienced a serious adverse event such as ICU readmission, need for mechanical ventilation or vasopressor use, or signs of neurologic sequelae within 30 days of discharge from the index hospitalization, the investigators noted. Peripherally inserted central catheters were required in 13 infants; of these, 1 infant had to revisit an ED because of a related mechanical complication.

“Researchers in future prospective studies should seek to establish the bioavailability and optimal dosing of oral antibiotics in young infants and assess if there are particular subpopulations of infants with bacteremic UTI who may benefit from longer courses of parenteral antibiotic therapy,” Dr. Desai and associates concluded.

In a related editorial, Natalia V. Leva, MD, and Hillary L. Copp, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, noted that the study represents a “critical piece of a complicated puzzle that not only includes minimum duration of parenteral antibiotic treatment but also involves bioavailability of antimicrobial agents in infants and total treatment duration, which includes parenteral and oral antibiotic therapy.”

The question that remains is how long a duration of parenteral antibiotic is necessary, Dr. Leva and Dr. Copp wrote. “Desai et al. used a relatively arbitrary cutoff of 7 days on the basis of the distribution of antibiotic course among their patient population; however, this is likely more a reflection of clinical practice than it is evidence based.” They concluded that this study provided evidence that a “short course of parenteral antibiotics in infants [aged 60 days or younger] with bacteremic UTI is safe and effective. Although the current study does not address total duration of antibiotics [parenteral and oral], it does shine a light on where we should focus future research endeavors.”

The study authors reported that they had no conflicts of interest. The study was supported in part by a National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences grant and an Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality grant. The editorialists had no relevant conflicts of interest and received no external funding.

lfranki@mdedge.com

SOURCEs: Desai S et al. Pediatrics. 2019 Aug 20. doi: 10.1542/peds.2018-3844; Leva et al. 2019 Aug 20. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-1611.

Infants with bacteremic urinary tract infections on short-term versus long-term parenteral antibiotics before oral antibiotics had similar outcomes, according to a study.

AndyL/iStock/Getty Images Plus

While previous studies have shown short-term parenteral antibiotic therapy to be safe and equally effective in uncomplicated urinary tract infections (UTIs), short-term therapy safety in bacteremic UTI had not been established, Sanyukta Desai, MD, of the University of Cincinnati and Cincinnati Children’s Hospital and associates wrote in Pediatrics.

“As a result, infants with bacteremic UTI often receive prolonged courses of parenteral antibiotics, which can lead to long hospitalizations and increased costs,” they said.

In a multicenter, retrospective cohort study, Dr. Desai and associates analyzed a group of 115 infants aged 60 days or younger who were admitted to a group of 11 participating EDs between July 1, 2011, and June 30, 2016, if they had a UTI caused by a bacterial pathogen. Half of the infants were administered parenteral antibiotics for 7 days or less before being switched to oral antibiotics, and the rest were given parenteral antibiotics for more than 7 days before switching to oral. Infants were more likely to receive long-term parenteral treatment if they were ill appearing and had growth of a non–Escherichia coli organism.

Six infants (two in the short-term group, four in the long-term group) had a recurrent UTI, each one diagnosed between 15 and 30 days after discharge; the adjusted risk difference between the two groups was 3% (95% confidence interval, –5.8 to 12.7). Two of the infants in the long-term group with a recurrent UTI had a different organism than during the index infection. When comparing only the infants with growth of the same pathogen that caused the index UTI, the adjusted risk difference between the two groups was 0.2% (95% CI, –7.8 to 8.3).

A total of 15 infants (6 in the short-term group, 9 in the long-term group) had 30-day all-cause reutilization, with no significant difference between groups (adjusted risk difference, 3%; 95% CI, –14.6 to 20.4).

Mean length of stay was significantly longer in the long-term treatment group, compared with the short-term group (11 days vs. 5 days; adjusted mean difference, 6 days; 95% CI, 4.0-8.8).

No infants experienced a serious adverse event such as ICU readmission, need for mechanical ventilation or vasopressor use, or signs of neurologic sequelae within 30 days of discharge from the index hospitalization, the investigators noted. Peripherally inserted central catheters were required in 13 infants; of these, 1 infant had to revisit an ED because of a related mechanical complication.

“Researchers in future prospective studies should seek to establish the bioavailability and optimal dosing of oral antibiotics in young infants and assess if there are particular subpopulations of infants with bacteremic UTI who may benefit from longer courses of parenteral antibiotic therapy,” Dr. Desai and associates concluded.

In a related editorial, Natalia V. Leva, MD, and Hillary L. Copp, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, noted that the study represents a “critical piece of a complicated puzzle that not only includes minimum duration of parenteral antibiotic treatment but also involves bioavailability of antimicrobial agents in infants and total treatment duration, which includes parenteral and oral antibiotic therapy.”

The question that remains is how long a duration of parenteral antibiotic is necessary, Dr. Leva and Dr. Copp wrote. “Desai et al. used a relatively arbitrary cutoff of 7 days on the basis of the distribution of antibiotic course among their patient population; however, this is likely more a reflection of clinical practice than it is evidence based.” They concluded that this study provided evidence that a “short course of parenteral antibiotics in infants [aged 60 days or younger] with bacteremic UTI is safe and effective. Although the current study does not address total duration of antibiotics [parenteral and oral], it does shine a light on where we should focus future research endeavors.”

The study authors reported that they had no conflicts of interest. The study was supported in part by a National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences grant and an Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality grant. The editorialists had no relevant conflicts of interest and received no external funding.

lfranki@mdedge.com

SOURCEs: Desai S et al. Pediatrics. 2019 Aug 20. doi: 10.1542/peds.2018-3844; Leva et al. 2019 Aug 20. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-1611.