OBG Management

In May 2020, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), along with other organizations and physicians (Council of University Chairs of Obstetrics and Gynecology, New York State Academy of Family Physicians, SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Justice Collective, Honor MacNaughton, MD), filed a civil action against the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) challenging the requirements of in-person mifepristone dispensing, which was one of the 3 restrictions placed on the medicine as part of mifepristone’s risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS). The requirements, which also include provider certification and patient signatures on specified consent forms, specifically target dosages of mifepristone for use related to abortions and miscarriages but do not apply when prescribing mifepristone for other medical conditions, even with higher doses. During the pandemic, the FDA suspended the REMS requirements for many other medications, including those more toxic than mifepristone. Additionally, the HHS activated a “telemedicine exception” that allows physicians to use telemedicine to satisfy mandatory requirements for prescribing controlled substances, including opioids, while minimizing the patient’s and provider’s risk of exposure to COVID-19 with in-person appointments. Notably, mifepristone for abortion and miscarriage management was excluded from this relaxation of the REMS requirement.

On July 13, 2020, a Federal District Court concluded that the in-person requirements were a “substantial obstacle” for women seeking abortions during the COVID-19 pandemic and granted a preliminary injunction to temporarily stop the FDA’s enforcement of the in-person requirements for mifepristone. We wrote about what that decision meant for ObGyns and urged clinicians to advocate to make the injunction permanent (OBG Manag. 2020;32(12):13-14, 23, 38. doi: 10.12788/obgm.0034.)

From there, however, the FDA worked to reverse that decision, which included applications to the District Court and to the Supreme Court for a stay of the injunction. If successful, this would suspend the injunction while the case was pending. In October, after the Supreme Court deferred review of the application (preferring a review by the lower courts), the District Court upheld the injunction of the in-person requirements citing the worsening pandemic crisis.

In-person requirement re-instated

On January 12, 2021, the United States Supreme Court granted the stay of the District Court’s injunction, which allowed the federal government to enforce the in-person requirement for mifepristone once again. The decision came down to a vote of 6 to 3. As is typical for decisions on stay orders, the court did not release a majority opinion explaining the reasoning behind this decision. In a concurring opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the decision was not a judgment of if the requirements for in-person dispensing of mifepristone imposed an undue burden on women seeking an abortion. Instead, the Chief Justice explained that the decision came down to if a District Court could order the FDA to change their regulations based on “the court’s own evaluations of the COVID-19 pandemic,” maintaining that the court could not overrule “the politically accountable entities with the ‘background, competence, and expertise to assess public health.’”¹ No other justices joined his opinion.

A worrisome pattern of a conservative supermajority

In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor criticized the government’s “statistically insignificant, cherry-picked data” and argued that the government did not provide any explanation from an FDA or HHS official explaining why mifepristone’s in-person requirement is more important than the in-person requirements of other drugs that have been waived during the pandemic.² Therefore, she explained, there is “no reasoned decision” by any health official anywhere on which they can base the decision to grant the stay.

This ruling was the Supreme Court’s first major decision on reproductive health since the confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett and may be an insight into future decisions of the new conservative supermajority on abortion and reproductive health issues. Particularly worrisome is what this decision could mean for stays in abortion cases that dictate whether or not the regulation is enforced during an active case. Even if cases are ruled in favor of patients and abortion providers, if the courts continue to allow enforcement of abortion restrictions during litigation, this could result in permanent closure of abortion clinics and prevent many individuals from accessing safe and legal abortion.

Looking toward the future

In the setting of almost 29 million cases of COVID-19 and more than 526,000 deaths, this stay order requires women seeking a medication abortion to make an appointment at a clinic, risking possible exposure to COVID-19, in order to access mifepristone.^3,4 The Biden administration can and should remove the FDA requirement for in-person delivery of mifepristone, which would mitigate the effects of the stay order and allow women to obtain medication abortions during the pandemic.

Take action

• Contact your local ACLU (find them here) or lawyer in your area for assistance navigating the legal landscape to prescribe mifepristone after this stay order
• Minimize a patient’s wait time for mifepristone administration by blocking time in your weekly schedule for patients seeking abortion care
• Work with other providers and health care professionals in your area to submit petitions to the FDA

In May 2020, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), along with other organizations and physicians (Council of University Chairs of Obstetrics and Gynecology, New York State Academy of Family Physicians, SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Justice Collective, Honor MacNaughton, MD), filed a civil action against the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) challenging the requirements of in-person mifepristone dispensing, which was one of the 3 restrictions placed on the medicine as part of mifepristone’s risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS). The requirements, which also include provider certification and patient signatures on specified consent forms, specifically target dosages of mifepristone for use related to abortions and miscarriages but do not apply when prescribing mifepristone for other medical conditions, even with higher doses. During the pandemic, the FDA suspended the REMS requirements for many other medications, including those more toxic than mifepristone. Additionally, the HHS activated a “telemedicine exception” that allows physicians to use telemedicine to satisfy mandatory requirements for prescribing controlled substances, including opioids, while minimizing the patient’s and provider’s risk of exposure to COVID-19 with in-person appointments. Notably, mifepristone for abortion and miscarriage management was excluded from this relaxation of the REMS requirement.

On July 13, 2020, a Federal District Court concluded that the in-person requirements were a “substantial obstacle” for women seeking abortions during the COVID-19 pandemic and granted a preliminary injunction to temporarily stop the FDA’s enforcement of the in-person requirements for mifepristone. We wrote about what that decision meant for ObGyns and urged clinicians to advocate to make the injunction permanent (OBG Manag. 2020;32(12):13-14, 23, 38. doi: 10.12788/obgm.0034.)

From there, however, the FDA worked to reverse that decision, which included applications to the District Court and to the Supreme Court for a stay of the injunction. If successful, this would suspend the injunction while the case was pending. In October, after the Supreme Court deferred review of the application (preferring a review by the lower courts), the District Court upheld the injunction of the in-person requirements citing the worsening pandemic crisis.

In-person requirement re-instated

On January 12, 2021, the United States Supreme Court granted the stay of the District Court’s injunction, which allowed the federal government to enforce the in-person requirement for mifepristone once again. The decision came down to a vote of 6 to 3. As is typical for decisions on stay orders, the court did not release a majority opinion explaining the reasoning behind this decision. In a concurring opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the decision was not a judgment of if the requirements for in-person dispensing of mifepristone imposed an undue burden on women seeking an abortion. Instead, the Chief Justice explained that the decision came down to if a District Court could order the FDA to change their regulations based on “the court’s own evaluations of the COVID-19 pandemic,” maintaining that the court could not overrule “the politically accountable entities with the ‘background, competence, and expertise to assess public health.’”¹ No other justices joined his opinion.

A worrisome pattern of a conservative supermajority

In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor criticized the government’s “statistically insignificant, cherry-picked data” and argued that the government did not provide any explanation from an FDA or HHS official explaining why mifepristone’s in-person requirement is more important than the in-person requirements of other drugs that have been waived during the pandemic.² Therefore, she explained, there is “no reasoned decision” by any health official anywhere on which they can base the decision to grant the stay.

This ruling was the Supreme Court’s first major decision on reproductive health since the confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett and may be an insight into future decisions of the new conservative supermajority on abortion and reproductive health issues. Particularly worrisome is what this decision could mean for stays in abortion cases that dictate whether or not the regulation is enforced during an active case. Even if cases are ruled in favor of patients and abortion providers, if the courts continue to allow enforcement of abortion restrictions during litigation, this could result in permanent closure of abortion clinics and prevent many individuals from accessing safe and legal abortion.

Looking toward the future

In the setting of almost 29 million cases of COVID-19 and more than 526,000 deaths, this stay order requires women seeking a medication abortion to make an appointment at a clinic, risking possible exposure to COVID-19, in order to access mifepristone.^3,4 The Biden administration can and should remove the FDA requirement for in-person delivery of mifepristone, which would mitigate the effects of the stay order and allow women to obtain medication abortions during the pandemic.

Take action

• Contact your local ACLU (find them here) or lawyer in your area for assistance navigating the legal landscape to prescribe mifepristone after this stay order
• Minimize a patient’s wait time for mifepristone administration by blocking time in your weekly schedule for patients seeking abortion care
• Work with other providers and health care professionals in your area to submit petitions to the FDA

In May 2020, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), along with other organizations and physicians (Council of University Chairs of Obstetrics and Gynecology, New York State Academy of Family Physicians, SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Justice Collective, Honor MacNaughton, MD), filed a civil action against the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) challenging the requirements of in-person mifepristone dispensing, which was one of the 3 restrictions placed on the medicine as part of mifepristone’s risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS). The requirements, which also include provider certification and patient signatures on specified consent forms, specifically target dosages of mifepristone for use related to abortions and miscarriages but do not apply when prescribing mifepristone for other medical conditions, even with higher doses. During the pandemic, the FDA suspended the REMS requirements for many other medications, including those more toxic than mifepristone. Additionally, the HHS activated a “telemedicine exception” that allows physicians to use telemedicine to satisfy mandatory requirements for prescribing controlled substances, including opioids, while minimizing the patient’s and provider’s risk of exposure to COVID-19 with in-person appointments. Notably, mifepristone for abortion and miscarriage management was excluded from this relaxation of the REMS requirement.

On July 13, 2020, a Federal District Court concluded that the in-person requirements were a “substantial obstacle” for women seeking abortions during the COVID-19 pandemic and granted a preliminary injunction to temporarily stop the FDA’s enforcement of the in-person requirements for mifepristone. We wrote about what that decision meant for ObGyns and urged clinicians to advocate to make the injunction permanent (OBG Manag. 2020;32(12):13-14, 23, 38. doi: 10.12788/obgm.0034.)

From there, however, the FDA worked to reverse that decision, which included applications to the District Court and to the Supreme Court for a stay of the injunction. If successful, this would suspend the injunction while the case was pending. In October, after the Supreme Court deferred review of the application (preferring a review by the lower courts), the District Court upheld the injunction of the in-person requirements citing the worsening pandemic crisis.

In-person requirement re-instated

On January 12, 2021, the United States Supreme Court granted the stay of the District Court’s injunction, which allowed the federal government to enforce the in-person requirement for mifepristone once again. The decision came down to a vote of 6 to 3. As is typical for decisions on stay orders, the court did not release a majority opinion explaining the reasoning behind this decision. In a concurring opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the decision was not a judgment of if the requirements for in-person dispensing of mifepristone imposed an undue burden on women seeking an abortion. Instead, the Chief Justice explained that the decision came down to if a District Court could order the FDA to change their regulations based on “the court’s own evaluations of the COVID-19 pandemic,” maintaining that the court could not overrule “the politically accountable entities with the ‘background, competence, and expertise to assess public health.’”¹ No other justices joined his opinion.

A worrisome pattern of a conservative supermajority

In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor criticized the government’s “statistically insignificant, cherry-picked data” and argued that the government did not provide any explanation from an FDA or HHS official explaining why mifepristone’s in-person requirement is more important than the in-person requirements of other drugs that have been waived during the pandemic.² Therefore, she explained, there is “no reasoned decision” by any health official anywhere on which they can base the decision to grant the stay.

This ruling was the Supreme Court’s first major decision on reproductive health since the confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett and may be an insight into future decisions of the new conservative supermajority on abortion and reproductive health issues. Particularly worrisome is what this decision could mean for stays in abortion cases that dictate whether or not the regulation is enforced during an active case. Even if cases are ruled in favor of patients and abortion providers, if the courts continue to allow enforcement of abortion restrictions during litigation, this could result in permanent closure of abortion clinics and prevent many individuals from accessing safe and legal abortion.

Looking toward the future

In the setting of almost 29 million cases of COVID-19 and more than 526,000 deaths, this stay order requires women seeking a medication abortion to make an appointment at a clinic, risking possible exposure to COVID-19, in order to access mifepristone.^3,4 The Biden administration can and should remove the FDA requirement for in-person delivery of mifepristone, which would mitigate the effects of the stay order and allow women to obtain medication abortions during the pandemic.

Take action

• Contact your local ACLU (find them here) or lawyer in your area for assistance navigating the legal landscape to prescribe mifepristone after this stay order
• Minimize a patient’s wait time for mifepristone administration by blocking time in your weekly schedule for patients seeking abortion care
• Work with other providers and health care professionals in your area to submit petitions to the FDA

[polldaddy:10771173]

[polldaddy:10771173]

[polldaddy:10771173]

CASE Young woman with family history of breast cancer detects lump

Two weeks after noting a lump on her breast when her cat happened to jump on her in that spot, a 28-year-old woman (G0) went to her primary care provider. She was referred to her gynecologist; breast imaging, ultrasonography, and mammography were obtained, with microcalcifications noted. A fine needle aspiration diagnosed intraductal malignancy. The surgical breast tissue specimen was estrogen receptor (ER)- and progestogen receptor (PR)-positive and HER2-negative. Other tumor markers were obtained, including carcinoembryonic antigen, and tissue polypeptide specific antigen, p53, cathepsin D, cyclin E, and nestin, but results were not available.

With regard to family history, the woman’s mother and maternal grandmother had a history of breast cancer. The patient and her family underwent gene testing. The patient was found to be BRCA1- and BRCA2-positive; her mother was BRCA1-positive, an older sister was BRCA2-positive, and her grandmother was not tested.

The question arose in light of her family history as to why she was not tested for BRCA and appropriately counseled by her gynecologist prior to the cancer diagnosis. Litigation was initiated. While the case did not go forward regarding litigation, it is indeed a case in point. (Please note that this is a hypothetical case. It is based on a composite of several cases.)
 

Medical considerations

Breast cancer is the most common type of cancer affecting women in the Western world.¹ Advances in clinical testing for gene mutations have escalated and allowed for identification of patients at increased risk for breast and ovarian cancer. Along with these advances come professional liability risk. After looking at the medical considerations for BRCA1 and 2 testing, we will consider a number of important legal issues. In the view of some commentators, the failure to diagnose genetic mutations in patients predisposed to cancer is “poised to become the next wave of medical professional liability lawsuits.”²

BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes provide tumor suppressor proteins, and assessment for mutations is recommended for individuals at high risk for breast and/or ovarian cancer; mutations in BRCA genes cause DNA damage, which increases the chance of developing cancer. The other way to look at it is, BRCA1 and 2 are tumor suppressor genes that are integrally involved with DNA damage control. Once there is a mutation, it adversely affects the beneficial effects of the gene. Mutations in these genes account for 5% to 10% of all hereditary breast cancers.³ Of note, men with BRCA2 are at increased risk for prostate cancer.

A patient who presents to her gynecologist stating that there is a family history of breast cancer, without knowledge of genetic components, presents a challenge (and a medicolegal risk) for the provider to assess. Prediction models have been used to determine specific patient risk for carrying a genetic mutation with resultant breast cancer development.⁴ Risk prediction models do not appear to be a good answer to predicting who is more likely to develop breast or ovarian cancer, however. A Mayo model may assist (FIGURE).⁵ Clinicians should also be aware of other models of risk assessment, including the Gail Model (TABLE 1).⁶

Continue to: Guidelines for genetic testing...

Guidelines for genetic testing

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists states that patient medical history and family history are paramount in obtaining information regarding risk for breast and ovarian cancer. First- and second-degree relatives are allocated to this category. Information regarding age of diagnosis, maternal and paternal lineage, and ethnic background can imply a need for genetic testing (TABLE 2).^7,8 A number of genetics national organizations have participated in recommendations and include the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics, the National Society for Genetic Counselors, and the Society of Gynecologic Oncology.⁷

The question always surfaces, could the clinical outcome of the cancer when diagnosed have been changed if screening were undertaken, with earlier diagnosis, or prevented with prophylactic mastectomy, and changed the end result. In addition, it is well known that breast augmentation mammoplasty alters the ability to accurately evaluate mammograms. Patients considering this type of plastic surgery, ideally, should be counselled accordingly.⁹

Bottom line, we as clinicians must be cognizant of both ACOG and United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations regarding screening and gene testing for women considered high risk for breast cancer based on family history.⁷

Legal considerations

The case presented demonstrates that the discovery of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, and reliable tests for determining the existence of the genes, brought with them legal issues as well as medical advantages. We look at professional liability (malpractice) questions this technology raises, and then consider the outcome of the hypothetical case. (BRCA is used here to apply broadly—not only to BRCA1 and 2 but also to PALB2, CHEK2, and similar genetic abnormalities.)

To date, the most visible BRCA legal issues covered in cases and law reviews have focused more on patent law than malpractice. The most important of these was a decision of the US Supreme Court in Association for Molecular Pathology v Myriad Genetics.¹⁰ The US Patent Office was granting patents to companies finding useful, naturally occurring segments of human DNA, and had granted Myriad several patents on BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. This patent policy had the potential to seriously interfere with broad scientific use of these genes.¹¹ Fortunately, the Supreme Court stepped in and unanimously invalidated such patents. It held that a “naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated.” The Court noted, “Finding the location of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes does not render the genes patent eligible ‘new . . . composition[s] of matter.’”⁸ The Court did allow the patenting of tests for specific gene structures, and artificial changes in naturally occurring genes.

Malpractice and BRCA

While the BRCA patent wars have lingered, the potential for a significant increase in BRCA-related malpractice cases is of increasing concern. Like most malpractice liability, these new claims are based on very old principles of negligence.¹² To prevail, the plaintiff (ordinarily, an injured patient) must demonstrate 4 things:

• A duty. That is, the physician owed a duty to the injured party. Usually (but not always) that requires a professional relationship between the physician and the person injured.
• A breach of that duty. Malpractice liability is based on the fact that the physician did something that a reasonably careful physician (generally, of the same specialty) would not have done, or that the physician failed to do something that a reasonable physician would have done. This usually means that the profession itself sees what the physician did (or did not do) as medically inappropriate. In medical malpractice cases, that is ordinarily measured by what the usual or common practice is among prudent physicians. In rare circumstances, courts have found the standard practice of a profession to be negligent. Where, for example, it was custom for a professional not to give an eye pressure test to anyone under age 40, a court found that common standard to be inappropriate.¹³ In the words of Judge Learned Hand (speaking about a different case), “a whole calling may have unduly lagged in the adoption of new and available devices. It never may set its own tests.”¹⁴ Underlying negligence is a cost-benefit analysis (discussed below).
• Damages. There must have been some damage that courts recognize, usually loss of money or opportunity to work, the cost of care, pain and suffering, or loss of enjoyment/quality of life. In malpractice, many states now recognize the “loss of chance” or the “loss of a chance.” That means, if a “physician negligently fails to diagnose a curable disease, and the patient is harmed by the disease, the physician should be liable for causing the ‘loss of a chance of a cure.’”¹⁵ (Delay in diagnosis is the most common reason for claims in breast cancer care.)¹⁶
• Causation. The breach of duty (negligence) must have caused the damages. The causation must have been reasonably close. If a driver drives through a stop sign, or a physician misreads a test, and someone is injured but there is no connection between the negligence and the injury, there is not tort liability.

The 4 elements of malpractice just described are raised in some way in the possible liability associated with BRCA testing. We next look at the ways in which liability may arise from that testing (or lack of it).

Underlying much of the following discussion is the “cost-benefit” consideration noted above. This concept is that the total cost (financial and health) of testing should be compared with the value of the benefits of testing, taking into account the probabilities that the testing will result in better health outcomes. BRCA testing, for example, is essentially cost-free in terms of physical risk. Its financial cost, while not trivial, is not great, and it is commonly covered by health insurance.¹⁷ In terms of benefits, the testing has the potential for providing critical information in making treatment decisions for a meaningful percentage of patients and their families. There are many ways of analyzing the liability risks of genetic malpractice,^7,18 and the following is intended to discuss some of the greatest risks related to BRCA testing.

Continue to: Areas of liability...

The failure to recommend a test. The circumstances in which BRCA testing should be undertaken are set out by professional organizations (noted above). These recommendations are not static, however. They change from time to time. Given the potential harm caused by the failure to test in relevant circumstances, malpractice liability is certainly a possibility when the failure to recommend a test to a patient results in a cancer that might have been prevented had the genetic problem been identified in a timely manner. The circumstances in which testing should be considered continue to change, placing an obligation on clinicians to stay well informed of changing genetic understandings. Another risk is that one specialist may assume that it is the job of another specialist to order the test. Whatever the cause of the failure to test, or unnecessary delay in testing, it appears to be the primary basis for BRCA liability.

The failure to properly interpret a test. Any test that is misinterpreted may lead to harm for the patient. A false negative, of course, may mean that preventive treatment that could have been undertaken will be foregone, as a “loss of a chance.” On the other hand, a false positive can lead to radical, unnecessary surgery or treatment. If a misinterpretation occurred because of carelessness by the testing organization, or confusion by a practitioner, there is a likelihood of negligence.¹⁹

A different form of “misinterpretation” could be reasonable—and not negligent. Advances in scientific-medical understanding may result in the outcome of tests being reconsidered and changed. That has been the case with genetic testing and breast cancer. The availability of multiple breast cancer SNPs (single nucleotide polymorphisms), and combining this information with other risk factors for example, results in a polygenic risk score that may be at odds with the level of risk from earlier testing.^20,21 This naturally leads to the question of when later, updated testing should be recommended to look for a better current interpretation.^22,23

The failure to act on BRCA test results. Testing is of no value, of course, if the results are not used properly. Test results or analyses that are not sent to the proper physicians, or are somehow ignored when properly directed, is a “never” event—it should never happen. It almost always would be considered negligence, and if the patient were injured, could lead to liability. Amazingly, one study found that, in genetic testing liability cases, nearly 20% of the claims arose from failure to return test results to patients.²⁴ In addition, when a patient is found to be BRCA-positive, there is an obligation to discuss the options for dealing with the increased risk associated with the gene mutation(s), as well as to recommend the prudent course of action or to refer the patient to someone who will have that discussion.

Informed consent to the patient. BRCA testing requires informed consent. The physical risks of the testing process are minimal, of course, but it carries a number of other emotional and family risks. The informed consent process is an invitation to an honest discussion between clinicians and patients. It should be an opportunity to discuss what the testing is, and is not, and what the test may mean for treatment. It may also be an opportunity to discuss the implications for other members of the patient’s family (noted below).

One element of informed consent is a discussion of the consequences of failure to consent, or to undertake one of the alternatives. In the case of BRCA testing, this is especially important in cases in which a patient expresses a hesitancy to be tested with an “I’d rather not know philosophy.” Although clinicians should not practice law, some patient concerns about discrimination may be addressed by the protection that the federal Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) and other laws provide (which prohibit insurance and employment discrimination based on genetic information). A good source of information about GINA and related nondiscrimination laws is provided by the National Human Genome Research Institute.²⁵ In addition, the National Institutes of Health has a website that may be helpful to many patients²⁶ (and a much more complex site for health professionals).²⁷ At the same time, courts have resisted plaintiffs/patients who have tried to use informed consent as a way of suing for failure to offer genetic testing.^28,29

The failure to refer. In some cases, a patient should be formally referred for genetics consultation. The considerations here are similar to other circumstances in modern, fast developing medical practice that require special sensitivity to those occasions in which a patient will benefit from additional expertise. It is a principle that the AMA Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs has expressed this way: “In the absence of adequate expertise in pretest and posttest counseling, a physician should refer the patient to an appropriate specialist.”³⁰ The failure to refer, when that deviates from acceptable practice, may result in liability.

Informing others. BRCA testing is an area of medicine in which results may be of great significance not only to the patient but also to the patient’s family.³¹ Physicians should counsel patients on the importance of informing relatives about relevant results and “should make themselves available to assist patients in communicating with relatives to discuss opportunities for counseling and testing, as appropriate.”³⁰ The question may arise, however, of whether in some circumstances physicians should go a step further in ensuring relatives receive important information regarding their loved one’s health.³² The law has been reluctant to impose liability to “third parties” (someone not a patient). Duties usually arise through the physician-patient relationship. There are exceptions. Perhaps the best known has been the obligation of mental health professionals to take action to protect third parties from patients who have made believable threats against identifiable victims.³³ There are indications that some courts could find, in extreme circumstances, a “duty to warn” nonpatients in some instances where it is essential to inform third parties that they should receive a specific form of genetic testing.^34,35 Such a duty would, of course, have to protect the privacy rights of the patient to the maximum extent possible. A general duty of this type has not been established widely, but may be part of the future.

Continue to: Was there liability in our example case?...

Was there liability in our example case?

The hypothetical case provided above suggests that there could be liability. Routine medical history by the primary care physician would have produced the fact that the patient’s mother, sister, and maternal grandmother had breast cancer. That would clearly have put her in a category of those who should have received genetic testing. Yet, she was not tested until after her cancer was found. From the limited facts we have, it appears that this timeline of events would have been outside accepted practice—and negligent. The case was not pursued by the patient, however, and this may represent the current state of liability for BRCA issues.

The extent of liability seems to be significant

Our discussion of liability suggests that there is significant potential for BRCA testing negligence within practice, and that the damages in these cases could be substantial. Yet the predicted “tsunami” of malpractice lawsuits related to genetic testing has not appeared.^36,37 One study of cases in the United States (through 2016) found a “slowly rising tide” of liability cases instead of a tsunami,²⁴ as the number of claims made was low. On the other hand, the payments where damages were awarded were an order of magnitude larger than other malpractice cases—a mean of $5.3 million and median of $2 million. This is compared with mean values in the range of $275,000 to $600,000 in other areas of malpractice.

The majority of the genetic malpractice cases involve prenatal and newborn testing, and diagnosis/susceptibility/pharmacogenomic accounting for about 25% of cases. In terms of type of errors claimed, approximately 50% were diagnostic-interpretation errors, 30% failure to offer testing, nearly 20% failure to return test results to the patients, and a few remaining cases of failure to properly treat in light of genetic testing.²⁴

Despite a few very large payments, however, the fact remains that there is a surprisingly low number of genetics malpractice cases. Gary Marchant and colleagues suggest that several reasons may account for this:

• the clinical implementation of genetic science has been slower than expected
• the lack of expertise of many physicians in genetic science
• expert witnesses have sometimes been hard to find
• the lack of understanding by plaintiffs’ attorneys of genetic malpractice
• potential plaintiffs’ lack of understanding of the nature of genetic testing and the harms resulting from genetic negligence.^17,24,37

The tide is slowly coming in

By all appearances, there is every reason to think that genetic malpractice will be increasing, and that the recent past of much higher damages per claim paid in the genetics area will be part of that tide. The National Human Genome Research LawSeq project has suggested a number of useful ways of dealing with the liability issues.¹⁸ In addition to the BRCA issues that we have considered in this article for ObGyns, there are other critical issues of prenatal and newborn genetic testing.³⁸ But those are topics for another day. ●

CASE Young woman with family history of breast cancer detects lump

Two weeks after noting a lump on her breast when her cat happened to jump on her in that spot, a 28-year-old woman (G0) went to her primary care provider. She was referred to her gynecologist; breast imaging, ultrasonography, and mammography were obtained, with microcalcifications noted. A fine needle aspiration diagnosed intraductal malignancy. The surgical breast tissue specimen was estrogen receptor (ER)- and progestogen receptor (PR)-positive and HER2-negative. Other tumor markers were obtained, including carcinoembryonic antigen, and tissue polypeptide specific antigen, p53, cathepsin D, cyclin E, and nestin, but results were not available.

With regard to family history, the woman’s mother and maternal grandmother had a history of breast cancer. The patient and her family underwent gene testing. The patient was found to be BRCA1- and BRCA2-positive; her mother was BRCA1-positive, an older sister was BRCA2-positive, and her grandmother was not tested.

The question arose in light of her family history as to why she was not tested for BRCA and appropriately counseled by her gynecologist prior to the cancer diagnosis. Litigation was initiated. While the case did not go forward regarding litigation, it is indeed a case in point. (Please note that this is a hypothetical case. It is based on a composite of several cases.)
 

Medical considerations

Breast cancer is the most common type of cancer affecting women in the Western world.¹ Advances in clinical testing for gene mutations have escalated and allowed for identification of patients at increased risk for breast and ovarian cancer. Along with these advances come professional liability risk. After looking at the medical considerations for BRCA1 and 2 testing, we will consider a number of important legal issues. In the view of some commentators, the failure to diagnose genetic mutations in patients predisposed to cancer is “poised to become the next wave of medical professional liability lawsuits.”²

BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes provide tumor suppressor proteins, and assessment for mutations is recommended for individuals at high risk for breast and/or ovarian cancer; mutations in BRCA genes cause DNA damage, which increases the chance of developing cancer. The other way to look at it is, BRCA1 and 2 are tumor suppressor genes that are integrally involved with DNA damage control. Once there is a mutation, it adversely affects the beneficial effects of the gene. Mutations in these genes account for 5% to 10% of all hereditary breast cancers.³ Of note, men with BRCA2 are at increased risk for prostate cancer.

A patient who presents to her gynecologist stating that there is a family history of breast cancer, without knowledge of genetic components, presents a challenge (and a medicolegal risk) for the provider to assess. Prediction models have been used to determine specific patient risk for carrying a genetic mutation with resultant breast cancer development.⁴ Risk prediction models do not appear to be a good answer to predicting who is more likely to develop breast or ovarian cancer, however. A Mayo model may assist (FIGURE).⁵ Clinicians should also be aware of other models of risk assessment, including the Gail Model (TABLE 1).⁶

Continue to: Guidelines for genetic testing...

Guidelines for genetic testing

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists states that patient medical history and family history are paramount in obtaining information regarding risk for breast and ovarian cancer. First- and second-degree relatives are allocated to this category. Information regarding age of diagnosis, maternal and paternal lineage, and ethnic background can imply a need for genetic testing (TABLE 2).^7,8 A number of genetics national organizations have participated in recommendations and include the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics, the National Society for Genetic Counselors, and the Society of Gynecologic Oncology.⁷

The question always surfaces, could the clinical outcome of the cancer when diagnosed have been changed if screening were undertaken, with earlier diagnosis, or prevented with prophylactic mastectomy, and changed the end result. In addition, it is well known that breast augmentation mammoplasty alters the ability to accurately evaluate mammograms. Patients considering this type of plastic surgery, ideally, should be counselled accordingly.⁹

Bottom line, we as clinicians must be cognizant of both ACOG and United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations regarding screening and gene testing for women considered high risk for breast cancer based on family history.⁷

Legal considerations

The case presented demonstrates that the discovery of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, and reliable tests for determining the existence of the genes, brought with them legal issues as well as medical advantages. We look at professional liability (malpractice) questions this technology raises, and then consider the outcome of the hypothetical case. (BRCA is used here to apply broadly—not only to BRCA1 and 2 but also to PALB2, CHEK2, and similar genetic abnormalities.)

To date, the most visible BRCA legal issues covered in cases and law reviews have focused more on patent law than malpractice. The most important of these was a decision of the US Supreme Court in Association for Molecular Pathology v Myriad Genetics.¹⁰ The US Patent Office was granting patents to companies finding useful, naturally occurring segments of human DNA, and had granted Myriad several patents on BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. This patent policy had the potential to seriously interfere with broad scientific use of these genes.¹¹ Fortunately, the Supreme Court stepped in and unanimously invalidated such patents. It held that a “naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated.” The Court noted, “Finding the location of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes does not render the genes patent eligible ‘new . . . composition[s] of matter.’”⁸ The Court did allow the patenting of tests for specific gene structures, and artificial changes in naturally occurring genes.

Malpractice and BRCA

While the BRCA patent wars have lingered, the potential for a significant increase in BRCA-related malpractice cases is of increasing concern. Like most malpractice liability, these new claims are based on very old principles of negligence.¹² To prevail, the plaintiff (ordinarily, an injured patient) must demonstrate 4 things:

• A duty. That is, the physician owed a duty to the injured party. Usually (but not always) that requires a professional relationship between the physician and the person injured.
• A breach of that duty. Malpractice liability is based on the fact that the physician did something that a reasonably careful physician (generally, of the same specialty) would not have done, or that the physician failed to do something that a reasonable physician would have done. This usually means that the profession itself sees what the physician did (or did not do) as medically inappropriate. In medical malpractice cases, that is ordinarily measured by what the usual or common practice is among prudent physicians. In rare circumstances, courts have found the standard practice of a profession to be negligent. Where, for example, it was custom for a professional not to give an eye pressure test to anyone under age 40, a court found that common standard to be inappropriate.¹³ In the words of Judge Learned Hand (speaking about a different case), “a whole calling may have unduly lagged in the adoption of new and available devices. It never may set its own tests.”¹⁴ Underlying negligence is a cost-benefit analysis (discussed below).
• Damages. There must have been some damage that courts recognize, usually loss of money or opportunity to work, the cost of care, pain and suffering, or loss of enjoyment/quality of life. In malpractice, many states now recognize the “loss of chance” or the “loss of a chance.” That means, if a “physician negligently fails to diagnose a curable disease, and the patient is harmed by the disease, the physician should be liable for causing the ‘loss of a chance of a cure.’”¹⁵ (Delay in diagnosis is the most common reason for claims in breast cancer care.)¹⁶
• Causation. The breach of duty (negligence) must have caused the damages. The causation must have been reasonably close. If a driver drives through a stop sign, or a physician misreads a test, and someone is injured but there is no connection between the negligence and the injury, there is not tort liability.

The 4 elements of malpractice just described are raised in some way in the possible liability associated with BRCA testing. We next look at the ways in which liability may arise from that testing (or lack of it).

Underlying much of the following discussion is the “cost-benefit” consideration noted above. This concept is that the total cost (financial and health) of testing should be compared with the value of the benefits of testing, taking into account the probabilities that the testing will result in better health outcomes. BRCA testing, for example, is essentially cost-free in terms of physical risk. Its financial cost, while not trivial, is not great, and it is commonly covered by health insurance.¹⁷ In terms of benefits, the testing has the potential for providing critical information in making treatment decisions for a meaningful percentage of patients and their families. There are many ways of analyzing the liability risks of genetic malpractice,^7,18 and the following is intended to discuss some of the greatest risks related to BRCA testing.

Continue to: Areas of liability...

The failure to recommend a test. The circumstances in which BRCA testing should be undertaken are set out by professional organizations (noted above). These recommendations are not static, however. They change from time to time. Given the potential harm caused by the failure to test in relevant circumstances, malpractice liability is certainly a possibility when the failure to recommend a test to a patient results in a cancer that might have been prevented had the genetic problem been identified in a timely manner. The circumstances in which testing should be considered continue to change, placing an obligation on clinicians to stay well informed of changing genetic understandings. Another risk is that one specialist may assume that it is the job of another specialist to order the test. Whatever the cause of the failure to test, or unnecessary delay in testing, it appears to be the primary basis for BRCA liability.

The failure to properly interpret a test. Any test that is misinterpreted may lead to harm for the patient. A false negative, of course, may mean that preventive treatment that could have been undertaken will be foregone, as a “loss of a chance.” On the other hand, a false positive can lead to radical, unnecessary surgery or treatment. If a misinterpretation occurred because of carelessness by the testing organization, or confusion by a practitioner, there is a likelihood of negligence.¹⁹

A different form of “misinterpretation” could be reasonable—and not negligent. Advances in scientific-medical understanding may result in the outcome of tests being reconsidered and changed. That has been the case with genetic testing and breast cancer. The availability of multiple breast cancer SNPs (single nucleotide polymorphisms), and combining this information with other risk factors for example, results in a polygenic risk score that may be at odds with the level of risk from earlier testing.^20,21 This naturally leads to the question of when later, updated testing should be recommended to look for a better current interpretation.^22,23

The failure to act on BRCA test results. Testing is of no value, of course, if the results are not used properly. Test results or analyses that are not sent to the proper physicians, or are somehow ignored when properly directed, is a “never” event—it should never happen. It almost always would be considered negligence, and if the patient were injured, could lead to liability. Amazingly, one study found that, in genetic testing liability cases, nearly 20% of the claims arose from failure to return test results to patients.²⁴ In addition, when a patient is found to be BRCA-positive, there is an obligation to discuss the options for dealing with the increased risk associated with the gene mutation(s), as well as to recommend the prudent course of action or to refer the patient to someone who will have that discussion.

Informed consent to the patient. BRCA testing requires informed consent. The physical risks of the testing process are minimal, of course, but it carries a number of other emotional and family risks. The informed consent process is an invitation to an honest discussion between clinicians and patients. It should be an opportunity to discuss what the testing is, and is not, and what the test may mean for treatment. It may also be an opportunity to discuss the implications for other members of the patient’s family (noted below).

One element of informed consent is a discussion of the consequences of failure to consent, or to undertake one of the alternatives. In the case of BRCA testing, this is especially important in cases in which a patient expresses a hesitancy to be tested with an “I’d rather not know philosophy.” Although clinicians should not practice law, some patient concerns about discrimination may be addressed by the protection that the federal Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) and other laws provide (which prohibit insurance and employment discrimination based on genetic information). A good source of information about GINA and related nondiscrimination laws is provided by the National Human Genome Research Institute.²⁵ In addition, the National Institutes of Health has a website that may be helpful to many patients²⁶ (and a much more complex site for health professionals).²⁷ At the same time, courts have resisted plaintiffs/patients who have tried to use informed consent as a way of suing for failure to offer genetic testing.^28,29

The failure to refer. In some cases, a patient should be formally referred for genetics consultation. The considerations here are similar to other circumstances in modern, fast developing medical practice that require special sensitivity to those occasions in which a patient will benefit from additional expertise. It is a principle that the AMA Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs has expressed this way: “In the absence of adequate expertise in pretest and posttest counseling, a physician should refer the patient to an appropriate specialist.”³⁰ The failure to refer, when that deviates from acceptable practice, may result in liability.

Informing others. BRCA testing is an area of medicine in which results may be of great significance not only to the patient but also to the patient’s family.³¹ Physicians should counsel patients on the importance of informing relatives about relevant results and “should make themselves available to assist patients in communicating with relatives to discuss opportunities for counseling and testing, as appropriate.”³⁰ The question may arise, however, of whether in some circumstances physicians should go a step further in ensuring relatives receive important information regarding their loved one’s health.³² The law has been reluctant to impose liability to “third parties” (someone not a patient). Duties usually arise through the physician-patient relationship. There are exceptions. Perhaps the best known has been the obligation of mental health professionals to take action to protect third parties from patients who have made believable threats against identifiable victims.³³ There are indications that some courts could find, in extreme circumstances, a “duty to warn” nonpatients in some instances where it is essential to inform third parties that they should receive a specific form of genetic testing.^34,35 Such a duty would, of course, have to protect the privacy rights of the patient to the maximum extent possible. A general duty of this type has not been established widely, but may be part of the future.

Continue to: Was there liability in our example case?...

Was there liability in our example case?

The hypothetical case provided above suggests that there could be liability. Routine medical history by the primary care physician would have produced the fact that the patient’s mother, sister, and maternal grandmother had breast cancer. That would clearly have put her in a category of those who should have received genetic testing. Yet, she was not tested until after her cancer was found. From the limited facts we have, it appears that this timeline of events would have been outside accepted practice—and negligent. The case was not pursued by the patient, however, and this may represent the current state of liability for BRCA issues.

The extent of liability seems to be significant

Our discussion of liability suggests that there is significant potential for BRCA testing negligence within practice, and that the damages in these cases could be substantial. Yet the predicted “tsunami” of malpractice lawsuits related to genetic testing has not appeared.^36,37 One study of cases in the United States (through 2016) found a “slowly rising tide” of liability cases instead of a tsunami,²⁴ as the number of claims made was low. On the other hand, the payments where damages were awarded were an order of magnitude larger than other malpractice cases—a mean of $5.3 million and median of $2 million. This is compared with mean values in the range of $275,000 to $600,000 in other areas of malpractice.

The majority of the genetic malpractice cases involve prenatal and newborn testing, and diagnosis/susceptibility/pharmacogenomic accounting for about 25% of cases. In terms of type of errors claimed, approximately 50% were diagnostic-interpretation errors, 30% failure to offer testing, nearly 20% failure to return test results to the patients, and a few remaining cases of failure to properly treat in light of genetic testing.²⁴

Despite a few very large payments, however, the fact remains that there is a surprisingly low number of genetics malpractice cases. Gary Marchant and colleagues suggest that several reasons may account for this:

• the clinical implementation of genetic science has been slower than expected
• the lack of expertise of many physicians in genetic science
• expert witnesses have sometimes been hard to find
• the lack of understanding by plaintiffs’ attorneys of genetic malpractice
• potential plaintiffs’ lack of understanding of the nature of genetic testing and the harms resulting from genetic negligence.^17,24,37

The tide is slowly coming in

By all appearances, there is every reason to think that genetic malpractice will be increasing, and that the recent past of much higher damages per claim paid in the genetics area will be part of that tide. The National Human Genome Research LawSeq project has suggested a number of useful ways of dealing with the liability issues.¹⁸ In addition to the BRCA issues that we have considered in this article for ObGyns, there are other critical issues of prenatal and newborn genetic testing.³⁸ But those are topics for another day. ●

CASE Young woman with family history of breast cancer detects lump

Two weeks after noting a lump on her breast when her cat happened to jump on her in that spot, a 28-year-old woman (G0) went to her primary care provider. She was referred to her gynecologist; breast imaging, ultrasonography, and mammography were obtained, with microcalcifications noted. A fine needle aspiration diagnosed intraductal malignancy. The surgical breast tissue specimen was estrogen receptor (ER)- and progestogen receptor (PR)-positive and HER2-negative. Other tumor markers were obtained, including carcinoembryonic antigen, and tissue polypeptide specific antigen, p53, cathepsin D, cyclin E, and nestin, but results were not available.

With regard to family history, the woman’s mother and maternal grandmother had a history of breast cancer. The patient and her family underwent gene testing. The patient was found to be BRCA1- and BRCA2-positive; her mother was BRCA1-positive, an older sister was BRCA2-positive, and her grandmother was not tested.

The question arose in light of her family history as to why she was not tested for BRCA and appropriately counseled by her gynecologist prior to the cancer diagnosis. Litigation was initiated. While the case did not go forward regarding litigation, it is indeed a case in point. (Please note that this is a hypothetical case. It is based on a composite of several cases.)
 

Medical considerations

Breast cancer is the most common type of cancer affecting women in the Western world.¹ Advances in clinical testing for gene mutations have escalated and allowed for identification of patients at increased risk for breast and ovarian cancer. Along with these advances come professional liability risk. After looking at the medical considerations for BRCA1 and 2 testing, we will consider a number of important legal issues. In the view of some commentators, the failure to diagnose genetic mutations in patients predisposed to cancer is “poised to become the next wave of medical professional liability lawsuits.”²

BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes provide tumor suppressor proteins, and assessment for mutations is recommended for individuals at high risk for breast and/or ovarian cancer; mutations in BRCA genes cause DNA damage, which increases the chance of developing cancer. The other way to look at it is, BRCA1 and 2 are tumor suppressor genes that are integrally involved with DNA damage control. Once there is a mutation, it adversely affects the beneficial effects of the gene. Mutations in these genes account for 5% to 10% of all hereditary breast cancers.³ Of note, men with BRCA2 are at increased risk for prostate cancer.

A patient who presents to her gynecologist stating that there is a family history of breast cancer, without knowledge of genetic components, presents a challenge (and a medicolegal risk) for the provider to assess. Prediction models have been used to determine specific patient risk for carrying a genetic mutation with resultant breast cancer development.⁴ Risk prediction models do not appear to be a good answer to predicting who is more likely to develop breast or ovarian cancer, however. A Mayo model may assist (FIGURE).⁵ Clinicians should also be aware of other models of risk assessment, including the Gail Model (TABLE 1).⁶

Continue to: Guidelines for genetic testing...

Guidelines for genetic testing

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists states that patient medical history and family history are paramount in obtaining information regarding risk for breast and ovarian cancer. First- and second-degree relatives are allocated to this category. Information regarding age of diagnosis, maternal and paternal lineage, and ethnic background can imply a need for genetic testing (TABLE 2).^7,8 A number of genetics national organizations have participated in recommendations and include the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics, the National Society for Genetic Counselors, and the Society of Gynecologic Oncology.⁷

The question always surfaces, could the clinical outcome of the cancer when diagnosed have been changed if screening were undertaken, with earlier diagnosis, or prevented with prophylactic mastectomy, and changed the end result. In addition, it is well known that breast augmentation mammoplasty alters the ability to accurately evaluate mammograms. Patients considering this type of plastic surgery, ideally, should be counselled accordingly.⁹

Bottom line, we as clinicians must be cognizant of both ACOG and United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations regarding screening and gene testing for women considered high risk for breast cancer based on family history.⁷

Legal considerations

The case presented demonstrates that the discovery of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, and reliable tests for determining the existence of the genes, brought with them legal issues as well as medical advantages. We look at professional liability (malpractice) questions this technology raises, and then consider the outcome of the hypothetical case. (BRCA is used here to apply broadly—not only to BRCA1 and 2 but also to PALB2, CHEK2, and similar genetic abnormalities.)

To date, the most visible BRCA legal issues covered in cases and law reviews have focused more on patent law than malpractice. The most important of these was a decision of the US Supreme Court in Association for Molecular Pathology v Myriad Genetics.¹⁰ The US Patent Office was granting patents to companies finding useful, naturally occurring segments of human DNA, and had granted Myriad several patents on BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. This patent policy had the potential to seriously interfere with broad scientific use of these genes.¹¹ Fortunately, the Supreme Court stepped in and unanimously invalidated such patents. It held that a “naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated.” The Court noted, “Finding the location of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes does not render the genes patent eligible ‘new . . . composition[s] of matter.’”⁸ The Court did allow the patenting of tests for specific gene structures, and artificial changes in naturally occurring genes.

Malpractice and BRCA

While the BRCA patent wars have lingered, the potential for a significant increase in BRCA-related malpractice cases is of increasing concern. Like most malpractice liability, these new claims are based on very old principles of negligence.¹² To prevail, the plaintiff (ordinarily, an injured patient) must demonstrate 4 things:

• A duty. That is, the physician owed a duty to the injured party. Usually (but not always) that requires a professional relationship between the physician and the person injured.
• A breach of that duty. Malpractice liability is based on the fact that the physician did something that a reasonably careful physician (generally, of the same specialty) would not have done, or that the physician failed to do something that a reasonable physician would have done. This usually means that the profession itself sees what the physician did (or did not do) as medically inappropriate. In medical malpractice cases, that is ordinarily measured by what the usual or common practice is among prudent physicians. In rare circumstances, courts have found the standard practice of a profession to be negligent. Where, for example, it was custom for a professional not to give an eye pressure test to anyone under age 40, a court found that common standard to be inappropriate.¹³ In the words of Judge Learned Hand (speaking about a different case), “a whole calling may have unduly lagged in the adoption of new and available devices. It never may set its own tests.”¹⁴ Underlying negligence is a cost-benefit analysis (discussed below).
• Damages. There must have been some damage that courts recognize, usually loss of money or opportunity to work, the cost of care, pain and suffering, or loss of enjoyment/quality of life. In malpractice, many states now recognize the “loss of chance” or the “loss of a chance.” That means, if a “physician negligently fails to diagnose a curable disease, and the patient is harmed by the disease, the physician should be liable for causing the ‘loss of a chance of a cure.’”¹⁵ (Delay in diagnosis is the most common reason for claims in breast cancer care.)¹⁶
• Causation. The breach of duty (negligence) must have caused the damages. The causation must have been reasonably close. If a driver drives through a stop sign, or a physician misreads a test, and someone is injured but there is no connection between the negligence and the injury, there is not tort liability.

The 4 elements of malpractice just described are raised in some way in the possible liability associated with BRCA testing. We next look at the ways in which liability may arise from that testing (or lack of it).

Underlying much of the following discussion is the “cost-benefit” consideration noted above. This concept is that the total cost (financial and health) of testing should be compared with the value of the benefits of testing, taking into account the probabilities that the testing will result in better health outcomes. BRCA testing, for example, is essentially cost-free in terms of physical risk. Its financial cost, while not trivial, is not great, and it is commonly covered by health insurance.¹⁷ In terms of benefits, the testing has the potential for providing critical information in making treatment decisions for a meaningful percentage of patients and their families. There are many ways of analyzing the liability risks of genetic malpractice,^7,18 and the following is intended to discuss some of the greatest risks related to BRCA testing.

Continue to: Areas of liability...

The failure to recommend a test. The circumstances in which BRCA testing should be undertaken are set out by professional organizations (noted above). These recommendations are not static, however. They change from time to time. Given the potential harm caused by the failure to test in relevant circumstances, malpractice liability is certainly a possibility when the failure to recommend a test to a patient results in a cancer that might have been prevented had the genetic problem been identified in a timely manner. The circumstances in which testing should be considered continue to change, placing an obligation on clinicians to stay well informed of changing genetic understandings. Another risk is that one specialist may assume that it is the job of another specialist to order the test. Whatever the cause of the failure to test, or unnecessary delay in testing, it appears to be the primary basis for BRCA liability.

The failure to properly interpret a test. Any test that is misinterpreted may lead to harm for the patient. A false negative, of course, may mean that preventive treatment that could have been undertaken will be foregone, as a “loss of a chance.” On the other hand, a false positive can lead to radical, unnecessary surgery or treatment. If a misinterpretation occurred because of carelessness by the testing organization, or confusion by a practitioner, there is a likelihood of negligence.¹⁹

A different form of “misinterpretation” could be reasonable—and not negligent. Advances in scientific-medical understanding may result in the outcome of tests being reconsidered and changed. That has been the case with genetic testing and breast cancer. The availability of multiple breast cancer SNPs (single nucleotide polymorphisms), and combining this information with other risk factors for example, results in a polygenic risk score that may be at odds with the level of risk from earlier testing.^20,21 This naturally leads to the question of when later, updated testing should be recommended to look for a better current interpretation.^22,23

The failure to act on BRCA test results. Testing is of no value, of course, if the results are not used properly. Test results or analyses that are not sent to the proper physicians, or are somehow ignored when properly directed, is a “never” event—it should never happen. It almost always would be considered negligence, and if the patient were injured, could lead to liability. Amazingly, one study found that, in genetic testing liability cases, nearly 20% of the claims arose from failure to return test results to patients.²⁴ In addition, when a patient is found to be BRCA-positive, there is an obligation to discuss the options for dealing with the increased risk associated with the gene mutation(s), as well as to recommend the prudent course of action or to refer the patient to someone who will have that discussion.

Informed consent to the patient. BRCA testing requires informed consent. The physical risks of the testing process are minimal, of course, but it carries a number of other emotional and family risks. The informed consent process is an invitation to an honest discussion between clinicians and patients. It should be an opportunity to discuss what the testing is, and is not, and what the test may mean for treatment. It may also be an opportunity to discuss the implications for other members of the patient’s family (noted below).

One element of informed consent is a discussion of the consequences of failure to consent, or to undertake one of the alternatives. In the case of BRCA testing, this is especially important in cases in which a patient expresses a hesitancy to be tested with an “I’d rather not know philosophy.” Although clinicians should not practice law, some patient concerns about discrimination may be addressed by the protection that the federal Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) and other laws provide (which prohibit insurance and employment discrimination based on genetic information). A good source of information about GINA and related nondiscrimination laws is provided by the National Human Genome Research Institute.²⁵ In addition, the National Institutes of Health has a website that may be helpful to many patients²⁶ (and a much more complex site for health professionals).²⁷ At the same time, courts have resisted plaintiffs/patients who have tried to use informed consent as a way of suing for failure to offer genetic testing.^28,29

The failure to refer. In some cases, a patient should be formally referred for genetics consultation. The considerations here are similar to other circumstances in modern, fast developing medical practice that require special sensitivity to those occasions in which a patient will benefit from additional expertise. It is a principle that the AMA Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs has expressed this way: “In the absence of adequate expertise in pretest and posttest counseling, a physician should refer the patient to an appropriate specialist.”³⁰ The failure to refer, when that deviates from acceptable practice, may result in liability.

Informing others. BRCA testing is an area of medicine in which results may be of great significance not only to the patient but also to the patient’s family.³¹ Physicians should counsel patients on the importance of informing relatives about relevant results and “should make themselves available to assist patients in communicating with relatives to discuss opportunities for counseling and testing, as appropriate.”³⁰ The question may arise, however, of whether in some circumstances physicians should go a step further in ensuring relatives receive important information regarding their loved one’s health.³² The law has been reluctant to impose liability to “third parties” (someone not a patient). Duties usually arise through the physician-patient relationship. There are exceptions. Perhaps the best known has been the obligation of mental health professionals to take action to protect third parties from patients who have made believable threats against identifiable victims.³³ There are indications that some courts could find, in extreme circumstances, a “duty to warn” nonpatients in some instances where it is essential to inform third parties that they should receive a specific form of genetic testing.^34,35 Such a duty would, of course, have to protect the privacy rights of the patient to the maximum extent possible. A general duty of this type has not been established widely, but may be part of the future.

Continue to: Was there liability in our example case?...

Was there liability in our example case?

The hypothetical case provided above suggests that there could be liability. Routine medical history by the primary care physician would have produced the fact that the patient’s mother, sister, and maternal grandmother had breast cancer. That would clearly have put her in a category of those who should have received genetic testing. Yet, she was not tested until after her cancer was found. From the limited facts we have, it appears that this timeline of events would have been outside accepted practice—and negligent. The case was not pursued by the patient, however, and this may represent the current state of liability for BRCA issues.

The extent of liability seems to be significant

Our discussion of liability suggests that there is significant potential for BRCA testing negligence within practice, and that the damages in these cases could be substantial. Yet the predicted “tsunami” of malpractice lawsuits related to genetic testing has not appeared.^36,37 One study of cases in the United States (through 2016) found a “slowly rising tide” of liability cases instead of a tsunami,²⁴ as the number of claims made was low. On the other hand, the payments where damages were awarded were an order of magnitude larger than other malpractice cases—a mean of $5.3 million and median of $2 million. This is compared with mean values in the range of $275,000 to $600,000 in other areas of malpractice.

The majority of the genetic malpractice cases involve prenatal and newborn testing, and diagnosis/susceptibility/pharmacogenomic accounting for about 25% of cases. In terms of type of errors claimed, approximately 50% were diagnostic-interpretation errors, 30% failure to offer testing, nearly 20% failure to return test results to the patients, and a few remaining cases of failure to properly treat in light of genetic testing.²⁴

Despite a few very large payments, however, the fact remains that there is a surprisingly low number of genetics malpractice cases. Gary Marchant and colleagues suggest that several reasons may account for this:

• the clinical implementation of genetic science has been slower than expected
• the lack of expertise of many physicians in genetic science
• expert witnesses have sometimes been hard to find
• the lack of understanding by plaintiffs’ attorneys of genetic malpractice
• potential plaintiffs’ lack of understanding of the nature of genetic testing and the harms resulting from genetic negligence.^17,24,37

The tide is slowly coming in

By all appearances, there is every reason to think that genetic malpractice will be increasing, and that the recent past of much higher damages per claim paid in the genetics area will be part of that tide. The National Human Genome Research LawSeq project has suggested a number of useful ways of dealing with the liability issues.¹⁸ In addition to the BRCA issues that we have considered in this article for ObGyns, there are other critical issues of prenatal and newborn genetic testing.³⁸ But those are topics for another day. ●

Gynecologic malignancies continue to be a major cause of cancer-related mortality in women. In 2020, a number of developments changed practice in gynecologic oncology. In this Update, we highlight 3 important articles. The first showed that human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination reduced the rate of cervical cancer. The next evaluated a novel targeted therapeutic approach using the combination of pembrolizumab and lenvatinib in women with recurrent endometrial carcinoma that progressed after prior systemic therapy. Finally, the third article showed that talcum powder was not associated with an increased risk of ovarian cancer. We provide here a brief overview of the major findings of these studies and how these results are influencing practice.

Evidence establishes that HPV vaccination cuts risk of invasive cervical cancer

Lei J, Ploner A, Elfström KM, et al. HPV vaccination and the risk of invasive cervical cancer. N Engl J Med. 2020;383:1340-1348.

HPV infection is associated with 99% of cervical cancers, and approximately 65% to 75% of cases involve HPV 16 or 18.^1,2 The quadrivalent HPV (6, 11, 16, 18) vaccine was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2006 for the prevention of cervical intraepithelial lesions and genital warts associated with HPV.^3-5 Previous studies of the HPV vaccine showed it to be effective in preventing HPV infection, genital warts, and high-grade precancerous cervical lesions, such as cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 (CIN2) and grade 3 (CIN3).^6-8 While the vaccine offers a number of advantages, the long-term goal of the vaccine—to reduce the incidence of invasive cervical cancer—was not shown until recently.

Large study followed HPV vaccinated and unvaccinated women

Lei and colleagues conducted a registry based cohort study from 2006 through 2017 of women aged 10 to 30 years who were living in Sweden.⁹ They followed the women from their 10th birthday until they were diagnosed with cervical cancer, died, emigrated from Sweden, were lost to follow-up, or turned 31 years of age. In the study, the unique personal identity numbers assigned to all Swedish residents were linked to a number of large national administrative databases. Beginning in 2007 in Sweden, the quadrivalent vaccine was subsidized for use in girls aged 13 to 17, and a subsequent catch-up period that started in 2012 incorporated women who had not been vaccinated.

Continue to: Cervical cancer rates were lowest in women vaccinated before age 17...

Cervical cancer rates were lowest in women vaccinated before age 17

A total of 1,672,983 women were included in the study; 527,871 received at least one dose of the HPV vaccine. During the study period, cervical cancer was diagnosed in 19 women who had received the quadrivalent HPV vaccine and in 538 women who had not received the vaccine. Women who initiated vaccination before age 17 had the lowest rates of cervical cancer (4 cases per 100,000 persons), followed by women vaccinated after age 17 (54 cases per 100,000 persons) and then those who were not vaccinated (94 cases per 100,000 persons).

After adjusting for confounders, the incidence rate ratio (RR) of cervical cancer was significantly lower among vaccinated women compared with unvaccinated women (RR, 0.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.21– 0.57) (FIGURE 1).⁹ In addition, women who were vaccinated before age 17 demonstrated the greatest benefit. For those vaccinated before age 17 versus those who were unvaccinated, the RR was 0.12 (95% CI, 0.00–0.34). For women vaccinated between age 17 and 30 versus unvaccinated women, the RR was 0.47 (95% CI, 0.27–0.75).

Promising option for patients with advanced endometrial cancer: Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab

Makker V, Taylor MH, Aghajanian C, et al. Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in patients with advanced endometrial cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38:2981-2992.

Advanced stage endometrial cancer is associated with a 17% 5-year survival rate.¹⁰ Paclitaxel with carboplatin is the standard first-line treatment for advanced, recurrent, and metastatic endometrial cancer; for women who do not respond to this regimen, effective treatment options are limited.^11,12

The immunotherapy approach

Immunotherapy is a more recently developed treatment, an approach in which the immune system is activated to target cancer cells. Pembrolizumab is a commonly used agent for many solid tumors.¹³ This drug binds to the programmed cell death receptor 1 (PD-1) or PD-ligand 1 (PD-L1), a component of the immune checkpoint, which then allows the immune system to target and destroy cancer cells.¹⁴

Prembrolizumab is FDA approved for use in the treatment of microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H)/mismatch repair deficient (dMMR) solid tumors that have progressed after prior therapy and for which there are no satisfactory alternative treatment options.¹⁵ Endometrial cancers frequently display microsatellite instability and mismatch repair defects.¹⁶

Lenvatinib is an oral multikinase inhibitor that targets vascular endothelial growth factor receptors 1, 2, and 3; fibroblast growth factor receptors 1, 2, 3, and 4; and platelet derived growth factor receptor alpha, RET, and KIT.^17-19 In a phase 2 study of lenvatinib monotherapy for advanced previously treated endometrial cancer, the response rate was 14.3%.²⁰

While some preclinical studies have examined the combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors with lenvatinib,^21-23 a recent study is the first to evaluate this combination in patients with advanced tumors.²⁴

Continue to: Prembrolizumab-lenvatinib combination therapy...

Prembrolizumab-lenvatinib combination therapy

Makker and colleagues conducted an ongoing multinational, open-label, phase 1B/2 study of lenvatinib 20 mg daily orally plus pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously once every 3 weeks in patients with select solid tumors.²⁴ Women with previously treated endometrial carcinoma (N = 125) were included. Of the study participants, 49% were PD-L1 positive and 10% were MSI-H/dMMR. The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR) at 24 weeks, which was 38.0% (95% CI, 28.8%–47.8%).

The median duration of response was 21.2 months (95% CI, 7.6 months to not estimable). The ORR was similar in patients with PD-L1 expressing tumors (35.8%; 95% CI, 23.1%–50.2%), who are more likely to respond to immunotherapy, compared with those without PD-L1 expression (39.5%; 95% CI, 25.0%–55.6%). For patients with MSI-H/dMMR, there was a higher ORR (63.6%; 95% CI, 30.8%–89.1%, versus 36.2%; 95% CI, 26.5%–46.7%).

Median progression-free survival was 7.4 months (95% CI, 5.3–8.7 months) and median overall survival was 16.7 months (15 months to not estimable). Moderate to severe treatment-related adverse events occurred in 83 patients (66.9%), and 22 patients (17.7%) discontinued 1 or both study drugs because of adverse effects. Two deaths were judged to be treatment related.

What is the risk of ovarian cancer in women who use powder in the genital area?

O’Brien KM, Tworoger SS, Harris HR, et al. Association of powder use in the genital area with risk of ovarian cancer. JAMA. 2020;323:49-59.

Women apply talcum powder to their genital area to keep skin dry and to prevent rashes. Powder can be applied by direct application, sanitary napkins, diaphragms, or tampons. Most powder products contain the mineral talc. Because it often is found in nature with asbestos, a known carcinogen, talc’s carcinogenic effects have been investigated.^26,27

Talc also might ascend through the genital tract and irritate the epithelial lining of the fallopian tubes or ovaries, possibly triggering an inflammatory response that may promote carcinogenesis.^28,29 Case-control studies have reported a possible association between genital powder use and ovarian cancer.^30,31 Since these studies, talc-related lawsuits and media coverage have increased.^32,33

Large prospective cohorts provide data for analysis

In a pooled analysis of 4 large US-based observational cohorts between 1976 and 2017, O’Brien and colleagues noted that 38% of the 252,745 women included in the study self-reported the use of powder in the genital area.³⁴ With a median of 11.2 years of follow-up, 2,168 women developed ovarian cancer (58 cases/100,000 person-years). Among women who reported using genital powder, the incidence of ovarian cancer was 61 cases/100,000 person-years, while for women who reported never using genital powder, the incidence was 55 cases/100,000 person-years. This corresponded to an estimated hazard ratio (HR) of 1.08 (95% CI, 0.99–1.17).

Frequent powder use, long-term use, and never use. Similar findings were seen for those with frequent use versus never use (HR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.97–1.23) and long-term use versus never use (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.82– 1.25). When restricting the group to women with a patent reproductive tract at baseline, the HR was 1.13 (95% CI, 1.01–1.26), but the P value for interaction comparing women with versus women without a patent reproductive tract was 0.15 (FIGURE 2).³⁴

Bottom line. In contrast to a prior meta-analysis, in this study there was no statistically significant association between the self-reported use of powder in the genital area and the incidence of ovarian cancer. ●

Gynecologic malignancies continue to be a major cause of cancer-related mortality in women. In 2020, a number of developments changed practice in gynecologic oncology. In this Update, we highlight 3 important articles. The first showed that human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination reduced the rate of cervical cancer. The next evaluated a novel targeted therapeutic approach using the combination of pembrolizumab and lenvatinib in women with recurrent endometrial carcinoma that progressed after prior systemic therapy. Finally, the third article showed that talcum powder was not associated with an increased risk of ovarian cancer. We provide here a brief overview of the major findings of these studies and how these results are influencing practice.

Evidence establishes that HPV vaccination cuts risk of invasive cervical cancer

Lei J, Ploner A, Elfström KM, et al. HPV vaccination and the risk of invasive cervical cancer. N Engl J Med. 2020;383:1340-1348.

HPV infection is associated with 99% of cervical cancers, and approximately 65% to 75% of cases involve HPV 16 or 18.^1,2 The quadrivalent HPV (6, 11, 16, 18) vaccine was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2006 for the prevention of cervical intraepithelial lesions and genital warts associated with HPV.^3-5 Previous studies of the HPV vaccine showed it to be effective in preventing HPV infection, genital warts, and high-grade precancerous cervical lesions, such as cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 (CIN2) and grade 3 (CIN3).^6-8 While the vaccine offers a number of advantages, the long-term goal of the vaccine—to reduce the incidence of invasive cervical cancer—was not shown until recently.

Large study followed HPV vaccinated and unvaccinated women

Lei and colleagues conducted a registry based cohort study from 2006 through 2017 of women aged 10 to 30 years who were living in Sweden.⁹ They followed the women from their 10th birthday until they were diagnosed with cervical cancer, died, emigrated from Sweden, were lost to follow-up, or turned 31 years of age. In the study, the unique personal identity numbers assigned to all Swedish residents were linked to a number of large national administrative databases. Beginning in 2007 in Sweden, the quadrivalent vaccine was subsidized for use in girls aged 13 to 17, and a subsequent catch-up period that started in 2012 incorporated women who had not been vaccinated.

Continue to: Cervical cancer rates were lowest in women vaccinated before age 17...

Cervical cancer rates were lowest in women vaccinated before age 17

A total of 1,672,983 women were included in the study; 527,871 received at least one dose of the HPV vaccine. During the study period, cervical cancer was diagnosed in 19 women who had received the quadrivalent HPV vaccine and in 538 women who had not received the vaccine. Women who initiated vaccination before age 17 had the lowest rates of cervical cancer (4 cases per 100,000 persons), followed by women vaccinated after age 17 (54 cases per 100,000 persons) and then those who were not vaccinated (94 cases per 100,000 persons).

After adjusting for confounders, the incidence rate ratio (RR) of cervical cancer was significantly lower among vaccinated women compared with unvaccinated women (RR, 0.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.21– 0.57) (FIGURE 1).⁹ In addition, women who were vaccinated before age 17 demonstrated the greatest benefit. For those vaccinated before age 17 versus those who were unvaccinated, the RR was 0.12 (95% CI, 0.00–0.34). For women vaccinated between age 17 and 30 versus unvaccinated women, the RR was 0.47 (95% CI, 0.27–0.75).

Promising option for patients with advanced endometrial cancer: Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab

Makker V, Taylor MH, Aghajanian C, et al. Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in patients with advanced endometrial cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38:2981-2992.

Advanced stage endometrial cancer is associated with a 17% 5-year survival rate.¹⁰ Paclitaxel with carboplatin is the standard first-line treatment for advanced, recurrent, and metastatic endometrial cancer; for women who do not respond to this regimen, effective treatment options are limited.^11,12

The immunotherapy approach

Immunotherapy is a more recently developed treatment, an approach in which the immune system is activated to target cancer cells. Pembrolizumab is a commonly used agent for many solid tumors.¹³ This drug binds to the programmed cell death receptor 1 (PD-1) or PD-ligand 1 (PD-L1), a component of the immune checkpoint, which then allows the immune system to target and destroy cancer cells.¹⁴

Prembrolizumab is FDA approved for use in the treatment of microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H)/mismatch repair deficient (dMMR) solid tumors that have progressed after prior therapy and for which there are no satisfactory alternative treatment options.¹⁵ Endometrial cancers frequently display microsatellite instability and mismatch repair defects.¹⁶

Lenvatinib is an oral multikinase inhibitor that targets vascular endothelial growth factor receptors 1, 2, and 3; fibroblast growth factor receptors 1, 2, 3, and 4; and platelet derived growth factor receptor alpha, RET, and KIT.^17-19 In a phase 2 study of lenvatinib monotherapy for advanced previously treated endometrial cancer, the response rate was 14.3%.²⁰

While some preclinical studies have examined the combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors with lenvatinib,^21-23 a recent study is the first to evaluate this combination in patients with advanced tumors.²⁴

Continue to: Prembrolizumab-lenvatinib combination therapy...

Prembrolizumab-lenvatinib combination therapy

Makker and colleagues conducted an ongoing multinational, open-label, phase 1B/2 study of lenvatinib 20 mg daily orally plus pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously once every 3 weeks in patients with select solid tumors.²⁴ Women with previously treated endometrial carcinoma (N = 125) were included. Of the study participants, 49% were PD-L1 positive and 10% were MSI-H/dMMR. The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR) at 24 weeks, which was 38.0% (95% CI, 28.8%–47.8%).

The median duration of response was 21.2 months (95% CI, 7.6 months to not estimable). The ORR was similar in patients with PD-L1 expressing tumors (35.8%; 95% CI, 23.1%–50.2%), who are more likely to respond to immunotherapy, compared with those without PD-L1 expression (39.5%; 95% CI, 25.0%–55.6%). For patients with MSI-H/dMMR, there was a higher ORR (63.6%; 95% CI, 30.8%–89.1%, versus 36.2%; 95% CI, 26.5%–46.7%).

Median progression-free survival was 7.4 months (95% CI, 5.3–8.7 months) and median overall survival was 16.7 months (15 months to not estimable). Moderate to severe treatment-related adverse events occurred in 83 patients (66.9%), and 22 patients (17.7%) discontinued 1 or both study drugs because of adverse effects. Two deaths were judged to be treatment related.

What is the risk of ovarian cancer in women who use powder in the genital area?

O’Brien KM, Tworoger SS, Harris HR, et al. Association of powder use in the genital area with risk of ovarian cancer. JAMA. 2020;323:49-59.

Women apply talcum powder to their genital area to keep skin dry and to prevent rashes. Powder can be applied by direct application, sanitary napkins, diaphragms, or tampons. Most powder products contain the mineral talc. Because it often is found in nature with asbestos, a known carcinogen, talc’s carcinogenic effects have been investigated.^26,27

Talc also might ascend through the genital tract and irritate the epithelial lining of the fallopian tubes or ovaries, possibly triggering an inflammatory response that may promote carcinogenesis.^28,29 Case-control studies have reported a possible association between genital powder use and ovarian cancer.^30,31 Since these studies, talc-related lawsuits and media coverage have increased.^32,33

Large prospective cohorts provide data for analysis

In a pooled analysis of 4 large US-based observational cohorts between 1976 and 2017, O’Brien and colleagues noted that 38% of the 252,745 women included in the study self-reported the use of powder in the genital area.³⁴ With a median of 11.2 years of follow-up, 2,168 women developed ovarian cancer (58 cases/100,000 person-years). Among women who reported using genital powder, the incidence of ovarian cancer was 61 cases/100,000 person-years, while for women who reported never using genital powder, the incidence was 55 cases/100,000 person-years. This corresponded to an estimated hazard ratio (HR) of 1.08 (95% CI, 0.99–1.17).

Frequent powder use, long-term use, and never use. Similar findings were seen for those with frequent use versus never use (HR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.97–1.23) and long-term use versus never use (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.82– 1.25). When restricting the group to women with a patent reproductive tract at baseline, the HR was 1.13 (95% CI, 1.01–1.26), but the P value for interaction comparing women with versus women without a patent reproductive tract was 0.15 (FIGURE 2).³⁴

Bottom line. In contrast to a prior meta-analysis, in this study there was no statistically significant association between the self-reported use of powder in the genital area and the incidence of ovarian cancer. ●

Gynecologic malignancies continue to be a major cause of cancer-related mortality in women. In 2020, a number of developments changed practice in gynecologic oncology. In this Update, we highlight 3 important articles. The first showed that human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination reduced the rate of cervical cancer. The next evaluated a novel targeted therapeutic approach using the combination of pembrolizumab and lenvatinib in women with recurrent endometrial carcinoma that progressed after prior systemic therapy. Finally, the third article showed that talcum powder was not associated with an increased risk of ovarian cancer. We provide here a brief overview of the major findings of these studies and how these results are influencing practice.

Evidence establishes that HPV vaccination cuts risk of invasive cervical cancer

Lei J, Ploner A, Elfström KM, et al. HPV vaccination and the risk of invasive cervical cancer. N Engl J Med. 2020;383:1340-1348.

HPV infection is associated with 99% of cervical cancers, and approximately 65% to 75% of cases involve HPV 16 or 18.^1,2 The quadrivalent HPV (6, 11, 16, 18) vaccine was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2006 for the prevention of cervical intraepithelial lesions and genital warts associated with HPV.^3-5 Previous studies of the HPV vaccine showed it to be effective in preventing HPV infection, genital warts, and high-grade precancerous cervical lesions, such as cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 (CIN2) and grade 3 (CIN3).^6-8 While the vaccine offers a number of advantages, the long-term goal of the vaccine—to reduce the incidence of invasive cervical cancer—was not shown until recently.

Large study followed HPV vaccinated and unvaccinated women

Lei and colleagues conducted a registry based cohort study from 2006 through 2017 of women aged 10 to 30 years who were living in Sweden.⁹ They followed the women from their 10th birthday until they were diagnosed with cervical cancer, died, emigrated from Sweden, were lost to follow-up, or turned 31 years of age. In the study, the unique personal identity numbers assigned to all Swedish residents were linked to a number of large national administrative databases. Beginning in 2007 in Sweden, the quadrivalent vaccine was subsidized for use in girls aged 13 to 17, and a subsequent catch-up period that started in 2012 incorporated women who had not been vaccinated.

Continue to: Cervical cancer rates were lowest in women vaccinated before age 17...

Cervical cancer rates were lowest in women vaccinated before age 17

A total of 1,672,983 women were included in the study; 527,871 received at least one dose of the HPV vaccine. During the study period, cervical cancer was diagnosed in 19 women who had received the quadrivalent HPV vaccine and in 538 women who had not received the vaccine. Women who initiated vaccination before age 17 had the lowest rates of cervical cancer (4 cases per 100,000 persons), followed by women vaccinated after age 17 (54 cases per 100,000 persons) and then those who were not vaccinated (94 cases per 100,000 persons).

After adjusting for confounders, the incidence rate ratio (RR) of cervical cancer was significantly lower among vaccinated women compared with unvaccinated women (RR, 0.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.21– 0.57) (FIGURE 1).⁹ In addition, women who were vaccinated before age 17 demonstrated the greatest benefit. For those vaccinated before age 17 versus those who were unvaccinated, the RR was 0.12 (95% CI, 0.00–0.34). For women vaccinated between age 17 and 30 versus unvaccinated women, the RR was 0.47 (95% CI, 0.27–0.75).

Promising option for patients with advanced endometrial cancer: Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab

Makker V, Taylor MH, Aghajanian C, et al. Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in patients with advanced endometrial cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38:2981-2992.

Advanced stage endometrial cancer is associated with a 17% 5-year survival rate.¹⁰ Paclitaxel with carboplatin is the standard first-line treatment for advanced, recurrent, and metastatic endometrial cancer; for women who do not respond to this regimen, effective treatment options are limited.^11,12

The immunotherapy approach

Immunotherapy is a more recently developed treatment, an approach in which the immune system is activated to target cancer cells. Pembrolizumab is a commonly used agent for many solid tumors.¹³ This drug binds to the programmed cell death receptor 1 (PD-1) or PD-ligand 1 (PD-L1), a component of the immune checkpoint, which then allows the immune system to target and destroy cancer cells.¹⁴

Prembrolizumab is FDA approved for use in the treatment of microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H)/mismatch repair deficient (dMMR) solid tumors that have progressed after prior therapy and for which there are no satisfactory alternative treatment options.¹⁵ Endometrial cancers frequently display microsatellite instability and mismatch repair defects.¹⁶

Lenvatinib is an oral multikinase inhibitor that targets vascular endothelial growth factor receptors 1, 2, and 3; fibroblast growth factor receptors 1, 2, 3, and 4; and platelet derived growth factor receptor alpha, RET, and KIT.^17-19 In a phase 2 study of lenvatinib monotherapy for advanced previously treated endometrial cancer, the response rate was 14.3%.²⁰

While some preclinical studies have examined the combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors with lenvatinib,^21-23 a recent study is the first to evaluate this combination in patients with advanced tumors.²⁴

Continue to: Prembrolizumab-lenvatinib combination therapy...

Prembrolizumab-lenvatinib combination therapy

Makker and colleagues conducted an ongoing multinational, open-label, phase 1B/2 study of lenvatinib 20 mg daily orally plus pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously once every 3 weeks in patients with select solid tumors.²⁴ Women with previously treated endometrial carcinoma (N = 125) were included. Of the study participants, 49% were PD-L1 positive and 10% were MSI-H/dMMR. The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR) at 24 weeks, which was 38.0% (95% CI, 28.8%–47.8%).

The median duration of response was 21.2 months (95% CI, 7.6 months to not estimable). The ORR was similar in patients with PD-L1 expressing tumors (35.8%; 95% CI, 23.1%–50.2%), who are more likely to respond to immunotherapy, compared with those without PD-L1 expression (39.5%; 95% CI, 25.0%–55.6%). For patients with MSI-H/dMMR, there was a higher ORR (63.6%; 95% CI, 30.8%–89.1%, versus 36.2%; 95% CI, 26.5%–46.7%).

Median progression-free survival was 7.4 months (95% CI, 5.3–8.7 months) and median overall survival was 16.7 months (15 months to not estimable). Moderate to severe treatment-related adverse events occurred in 83 patients (66.9%), and 22 patients (17.7%) discontinued 1 or both study drugs because of adverse effects. Two deaths were judged to be treatment related.

What is the risk of ovarian cancer in women who use powder in the genital area?

O’Brien KM, Tworoger SS, Harris HR, et al. Association of powder use in the genital area with risk of ovarian cancer. JAMA. 2020;323:49-59.

Women apply talcum powder to their genital area to keep skin dry and to prevent rashes. Powder can be applied by direct application, sanitary napkins, diaphragms, or tampons. Most powder products contain the mineral talc. Because it often is found in nature with asbestos, a known carcinogen, talc’s carcinogenic effects have been investigated.^26,27

Talc also might ascend through the genital tract and irritate the epithelial lining of the fallopian tubes or ovaries, possibly triggering an inflammatory response that may promote carcinogenesis.^28,29 Case-control studies have reported a possible association between genital powder use and ovarian cancer.^30,31 Since these studies, talc-related lawsuits and media coverage have increased.^32,33

Large prospective cohorts provide data for analysis

In a pooled analysis of 4 large US-based observational cohorts between 1976 and 2017, O’Brien and colleagues noted that 38% of the 252,745 women included in the study self-reported the use of powder in the genital area.³⁴ With a median of 11.2 years of follow-up, 2,168 women developed ovarian cancer (58 cases/100,000 person-years). Among women who reported using genital powder, the incidence of ovarian cancer was 61 cases/100,000 person-years, while for women who reported never using genital powder, the incidence was 55 cases/100,000 person-years. This corresponded to an estimated hazard ratio (HR) of 1.08 (95% CI, 0.99–1.17).

Frequent powder use, long-term use, and never use. Similar findings were seen for those with frequent use versus never use (HR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.97–1.23) and long-term use versus never use (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.82– 1.25). When restricting the group to women with a patent reproductive tract at baseline, the HR was 1.13 (95% CI, 1.01–1.26), but the P value for interaction comparing women with versus women without a patent reproductive tract was 0.15 (FIGURE 2).³⁴

Bottom line. In contrast to a prior meta-analysis, in this study there was no statistically significant association between the self-reported use of powder in the genital area and the incidence of ovarian cancer. ●

Pelvic floor disorders (PFDs) affect many pregnant and newly postpartum women. These conditions, including urinary incontinence, anal incontinence, and pelvic organ prolapse (POP), can be overshadowed by common pregnancy and postpartum concerns (TABLE 1).¹ With the use of a few quick screening questions, however, PFDs easily can be identified in this at-risk population. Active management need not be delayed until after delivery for women experiencing bother, as options exist for women with PFDs during pregnancy as well as postpartum.

In this article, we discuss the common PFDs that obstetric clinicians face in the context of case scenarios and review how you can be better equipped to care for affected individuals.

CASE 1 Screening

A 30-year-old woman (G1P1) presents for her routine postpartum visit after an operative vaginal delivery with a second-degree laceration.

How would you screen this patient for PFDs?

Why screening for PFDs matters

While there are no validated PFD screening tools for this patient population, clinicians can ask a series of brief open-ended questions as part of the review of systems to efficiently evaluate for the common PFDs in peripartum patients (see “Screening questions to evaluate patients for peripartum pelvic floor disorders” below).

Pelvic floor disorders in the peripartum period can have a significant negative impact. In pregnancy, nearly half of women report psychological strain due to the presence of bowel, bladder, prolapse, or sexual dysfunction symptoms.² Postpartum, PFDs have negative effects on overall health, well-being, and self-esteem, with significantly increased rates of postpartum depression in women who experience urinary incontinence.^3,4 Proactively inquiring about PFD symptoms, providing anticipatory guidance, and recommending treatment options can positively impact a patient in multiple domains.

CASE 2 Stress urinary incontinence

A 27-year-old woman (G1P1) presents 2 months following spontaneous vaginal delivery with symptoms of urine leakage with laughing and running. Her urinary incontinence has been improving since delivery, but it continues to be bothersome.

What would you recommend for this patient?

Conservative SUI management strategies in pregnancy

Urinary tract symptoms are common in pregnancy, with up to 41.8% of women reporting urinary symptom distress in the third trimester.⁵ During pregnancy, estrogen and progesterone decrease urethral pressure that, together with increased intra-abdominal pressure from the gravid uterus, can cause or worsen stress urinary incontinence (SUI).⁶

During pregnancy, women should be offered conservative therapies for SUI. For women who can perform a pelvic floor contraction (a Kegel exercise), self-guided pelvic floor muscle exercises (PFMEs) may be helpful (see “Pelvic floor muscle exercises” below). We recommend that women start with 1 to 2 sets of 10 Kegel exercises per day and that they hold the squeeze for 2 to 3 seconds, working up to holding for 10 seconds. The goal is to strengthen and improve muscle control so that the Kegel squeeze can be paired with activities that cause SUI.

For women who are unable to perform a Kegel exercise or are not improving with a home PFME regimen, referral to pelvic floor physical therapy (PFPT) can be considered. While data support the efficacy of PFPT for SUI treatment in nonpregnant women,⁷ data are lacking on PFME in pregnancy.

In women without urinary incontinence, PFME in early pregnancy can prevent the onset of incontinence in late pregnancy and the postpartum period.⁸ By contrast, the same 2020 Cochrane Review found no evidence that antenatal pelvic floor muscle therapy in incontinent women decreases incontinence in mid- or late-pregnancy or in the postpartum period.⁸ As the quality of this evidence is very low and there is no evidence of harm with PFME, we continue to recommend it for women with bothersome SUI.

Incontinence pessaries or vaginal inserts (such as Poise Impressa bladder supports) can be helpful for SUI treatment. An incontinence pessary can be fitted in the office, and fitting kits are available for both. Pessaries can safely be used in pregnancy, but there are no data on the efficacy of pessaries for treating SUI in pregnancy. In nonpregnant women, evidence demonstrates 63% satisfaction 3 months post–pessary placement for SUI.⁷

We do not recommend invasive procedures for the treatment of SUI during pregnancy or in the first 6 months following delivery. There is no evidence that elective cesarean delivery prevents persistent SUI postpartum.⁹

Continue to: Managing SUI in the postpartum period...

Managing SUI in the postpartum period

After the first 6 months postpartum and exhaustion of conservative measures, we offer surgical interventions for women with persistent, bothersome incontinence. Surgery for SUI typically is not recommended until childbearing is complete, but it can be considered if the patient’s bother is significant.

For women with bothersome SUI who still desire future pregnancy, management options include periurethral bulking, a retropubic urethropexy (Burch procedure), or a midurethral sling procedure. Women who undergo an anti-incontinence procedure have an increased risk for urinary retention during a subsequent pregnancy.¹⁰ Most women with a midurethral sling will continue to be continent following an obstetric delivery.

Anticipatory guidance

At 3 months postpartum, the incidence of urinary incontinence is 6% to 40%, depending on parity and delivery type. Postpartum urinary incontinence is most common after instrumented vaginal delivery (32%) followed by spontaneous vaginal delivery (28%) and cesarean delivery (15%). The mean prevalence of any type of urinary incontinence is 33% at 3 months postpartum, and only small changes in the rate of urinary incontinence occur over the first postpartum year.¹¹ While urinary incontinence is common postpartum, it should not be considered normal. We counsel that symptoms may improve spontaneously, but treatment can be initiated if the patient experiences significant bother.

A longitudinal cohort study that followed women from 3 months to 12 years postpartum found that, of women with urinary incontinence at 3 months postpartum, 76% continued to report incontinence at 12 years postpartum.¹² We recommend that women be counseled that, even when symptoms resolve, they remain at increased risk for urinary incontinence in the future. Invasive therapies should be used to treat bothersome urinary incontinence, not to prevent future incontinence.

CASE 3 Fecal incontinence

A 24-year-old woman (G1P1) presents 3 weeks postpartum following a forceps-assisted vaginal delivery complicated by a 3c laceration. She reports fecal urgency, inability to control flatus, and once-daily fecal incontinence.

How would you evaluate these symptoms?

Steps in evaluation

The initial evaluation should include an inquiry regarding the patient’s stool consistency and bowel regimen. The Bristol stool form scale can be used to help patients describe their typical bowel movements (TABLE 2).¹³ During healing, the goal is to achieve a Bristol type 4 stool, both to avoid straining and to improve continence, as loose stool is the most difficult to control.

A physical examination can evaluate healing and sphincter integrity; it should include inspection of the distal vagina and perineal body and a digital rectal exam. Anal canal resting tone and squeeze strength should be evaluated, and the digital rectal examination scoring system (DRESS) can be useful for quantification (TABLE 3).¹⁴ Lack of tone at rest in the anterolateral portion of the sphincter complex can indicate an internal anal sphincter defect, as 80% of the resting tone comes from this muscle (FIGURE).¹⁵

The rectovaginal septum should be assessed given the increased risk of rectovaginal fistula in women with obstetric anal sphincter injury (OASI). The patient should be instructed to contract the anal sphincter, allowing evaluation of muscular contraction. Lack of contraction anteriolaterally may indicate external anal sphincter separation.

Continue to: Conservative options for improving fecal incontinence symptoms...

Conservative options for improving fecal incontinence symptoms

The patient can be counseled regarding stool bulking, first with insoluble fiber supplementation and cessation of stool softeners if she is incontinent of liquid stool. If these measures are not effective, use of a constipating agent, such as loperamide, can improve stool consistency and thereby decrease incontinence episodes. PFPT with biofeedback can be offered as well. While typically we do not recommend initiating PFPT before 6 weeks postpartum, so the initial phases of healing can occur, early referral enables the patient to avoid a delay in access to care.

The patient also can be counseled about a referral to a pelvic floor specialist for further evaluation. A variety of peripartum pelvic floor disorder clinics are being established by Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery (FPMRS) physicians. These clinics provide the benefit of comprehensive care for pelvic floor disorders in this unique population.

When conservative measures fail. If a patient has persistent bowel control issues despite conservative measures, a referral to an FPMRS physician should be initiated.

Delivery route in future pregnancies

The risk of a subsequent OASI is low. While this means that many women can safely pursue a future vaginal delivery, a scheduled cesarean delivery is indicated for women with persistent bowel control issues, wound healing complications, and those who experienced psychological trauma from their delivery.¹⁶ We recommend a shared-decision making approach, reviewing modifiable and nonmodifiable risk factors to help determine whether or not a future vaginal birth is appropriate. It is important to highlight that a cesarean delivery does not protect against fecal incontinence in women with a history of OASI; however, there is benefit in preventing worsening of anal incontinence, if present.¹⁷

CASE 4 Uterovaginal prolapse

A 36-year-old woman (G3P3) presents for her routine postpartum visit at 6 weeks after a spontaneous vaginal delivery without lacerations. She reports a persistent feeling of vaginal pressure and fullness. She thinks she felt a bulge with wiping after a bowel movement.

What options are available for this patient?

Prolapse in the peripartum population

Previous studies have revealed an increased prevalence of POP in pregnant women on examination compared with their nulligravid counterparts (47.6% vs 0%).¹⁸ With the changes in the hormonal milieu in pregnancy, as well as the weight of the gravid uterus on the pelvic floor, it is not surprising that pregnancy may be the inciting event to expose even transient defects in pelvic organ support.¹⁹

It is well established that increasing parity and, to a lesser extent, larger babies are associated with increased risk for future POP and surgery for prolapse. In the first year postpartum, nearly one-third of women have stage 2 or greater prolapse on exam, with studies demonstrating an increased prevalence of postpartum POP in women who delivered vaginally compared with those who delivered by cesarean.^20,21

Initial evaluation

Diagnosis can be made during a routine pelvic exam by having the patient perform a Valsalva maneuver while in the lithotomy position. Using half of a speculum permits evaluation of the anterior and posterior vaginal walls separately, and Valsalva during a bimanual exam can aid in evaluating descensus of the uterus and cervix.

Excellent free patient education resources available online through the American Urogynecologic Society and the International Urogynecological Association can be used to direct counseling.

Continue to: Treatments you can offer for POP...

For pregnant or postpartum patients with bothersome prolapse, initial management options include pessary fitting and/or PFPT referral. In pregnancy, women often can be successfully fitted with a pessary for POP; however, as expulsion is a common issue, selection of a stiffer or space-occupying device may be more efficacious.

Often, early onset POP in pregnancy resolves as the gravid uterus lifts out of the pelvis in the second trimester, at which time the pessary can be discontinued. In the postpartum period, a pessary fitting can be undertaken similarly to that in nonpregnant patients. While data are lacking in the peripartum population, evidence supports the positive impact of PFPT on improving POP symptom bother.²² Additionally, for postpartum women who experience OASI, PFPT can produce significant improvement in subjective POP and associated bother.²³

Impact of future childbearing wishes on treatment

The desire for future childbearing does not preclude treatment of patients experiencing bother from POP after conservative management options have failed. Both vaginal native tissue and mesh-augmented uterine-sparing repairs are performed by many FPMRS specialists and are associated with good outcomes. As with SUI, we do not recommend invasive treatment for POP during pregnancy or before 6 months postpartum.

In conclusion

Obstetric specialists play an essential role in caring for women with PFDs in the peripartum period. Basic evaluation, counseling, and management can be initiated using many of the resources already available in an obstetric ambulatory practice. Important adjunctive resources include those available for both providers and patients through the American Urogynecologic Society and the International Urogynecological Association. In addition, clinicians can partner with pelvic floor specialists through the growing number of FPMRS-run peripartum pelvic floor disorder clinics across the country and pelvic floor physical therapists.

If these specialty clinics and therapists are not available in your area, FPMRS specialists, urologists, gastroenterologists, and/or colorectal surgeons can aid in patient diagnosis and management to reach the ultimate goal of improving PFDs in this at-risk population. ●

Pelvic floor disorders (PFDs) affect many pregnant and newly postpartum women. These conditions, including urinary incontinence, anal incontinence, and pelvic organ prolapse (POP), can be overshadowed by common pregnancy and postpartum concerns (TABLE 1).¹ With the use of a few quick screening questions, however, PFDs easily can be identified in this at-risk population. Active management need not be delayed until after delivery for women experiencing bother, as options exist for women with PFDs during pregnancy as well as postpartum.

In this article, we discuss the common PFDs that obstetric clinicians face in the context of case scenarios and review how you can be better equipped to care for affected individuals.

CASE 1 Screening

A 30-year-old woman (G1P1) presents for her routine postpartum visit after an operative vaginal delivery with a second-degree laceration.

How would you screen this patient for PFDs?

Why screening for PFDs matters

While there are no validated PFD screening tools for this patient population, clinicians can ask a series of brief open-ended questions as part of the review of systems to efficiently evaluate for the common PFDs in peripartum patients (see “Screening questions to evaluate patients for peripartum pelvic floor disorders” below).

Pelvic floor disorders in the peripartum period can have a significant negative impact. In pregnancy, nearly half of women report psychological strain due to the presence of bowel, bladder, prolapse, or sexual dysfunction symptoms.² Postpartum, PFDs have negative effects on overall health, well-being, and self-esteem, with significantly increased rates of postpartum depression in women who experience urinary incontinence.^3,4 Proactively inquiring about PFD symptoms, providing anticipatory guidance, and recommending treatment options can positively impact a patient in multiple domains.

CASE 2 Stress urinary incontinence

A 27-year-old woman (G1P1) presents 2 months following spontaneous vaginal delivery with symptoms of urine leakage with laughing and running. Her urinary incontinence has been improving since delivery, but it continues to be bothersome.

What would you recommend for this patient?

Conservative SUI management strategies in pregnancy

Urinary tract symptoms are common in pregnancy, with up to 41.8% of women reporting urinary symptom distress in the third trimester.⁵ During pregnancy, estrogen and progesterone decrease urethral pressure that, together with increased intra-abdominal pressure from the gravid uterus, can cause or worsen stress urinary incontinence (SUI).⁶

During pregnancy, women should be offered conservative therapies for SUI. For women who can perform a pelvic floor contraction (a Kegel exercise), self-guided pelvic floor muscle exercises (PFMEs) may be helpful (see “Pelvic floor muscle exercises” below). We recommend that women start with 1 to 2 sets of 10 Kegel exercises per day and that they hold the squeeze for 2 to 3 seconds, working up to holding for 10 seconds. The goal is to strengthen and improve muscle control so that the Kegel squeeze can be paired with activities that cause SUI.

For women who are unable to perform a Kegel exercise or are not improving with a home PFME regimen, referral to pelvic floor physical therapy (PFPT) can be considered. While data support the efficacy of PFPT for SUI treatment in nonpregnant women,⁷ data are lacking on PFME in pregnancy.

In women without urinary incontinence, PFME in early pregnancy can prevent the onset of incontinence in late pregnancy and the postpartum period.⁸ By contrast, the same 2020 Cochrane Review found no evidence that antenatal pelvic floor muscle therapy in incontinent women decreases incontinence in mid- or late-pregnancy or in the postpartum period.⁸ As the quality of this evidence is very low and there is no evidence of harm with PFME, we continue to recommend it for women with bothersome SUI.

Incontinence pessaries or vaginal inserts (such as Poise Impressa bladder supports) can be helpful for SUI treatment. An incontinence pessary can be fitted in the office, and fitting kits are available for both. Pessaries can safely be used in pregnancy, but there are no data on the efficacy of pessaries for treating SUI in pregnancy. In nonpregnant women, evidence demonstrates 63% satisfaction 3 months post–pessary placement for SUI.⁷

We do not recommend invasive procedures for the treatment of SUI during pregnancy or in the first 6 months following delivery. There is no evidence that elective cesarean delivery prevents persistent SUI postpartum.⁹

Continue to: Managing SUI in the postpartum period...

Managing SUI in the postpartum period

After the first 6 months postpartum and exhaustion of conservative measures, we offer surgical interventions for women with persistent, bothersome incontinence. Surgery for SUI typically is not recommended until childbearing is complete, but it can be considered if the patient’s bother is significant.

For women with bothersome SUI who still desire future pregnancy, management options include periurethral bulking, a retropubic urethropexy (Burch procedure), or a midurethral sling procedure. Women who undergo an anti-incontinence procedure have an increased risk for urinary retention during a subsequent pregnancy.¹⁰ Most women with a midurethral sling will continue to be continent following an obstetric delivery.

Anticipatory guidance

At 3 months postpartum, the incidence of urinary incontinence is 6% to 40%, depending on parity and delivery type. Postpartum urinary incontinence is most common after instrumented vaginal delivery (32%) followed by spontaneous vaginal delivery (28%) and cesarean delivery (15%). The mean prevalence of any type of urinary incontinence is 33% at 3 months postpartum, and only small changes in the rate of urinary incontinence occur over the first postpartum year.¹¹ While urinary incontinence is common postpartum, it should not be considered normal. We counsel that symptoms may improve spontaneously, but treatment can be initiated if the patient experiences significant bother.

A longitudinal cohort study that followed women from 3 months to 12 years postpartum found that, of women with urinary incontinence at 3 months postpartum, 76% continued to report incontinence at 12 years postpartum.¹² We recommend that women be counseled that, even when symptoms resolve, they remain at increased risk for urinary incontinence in the future. Invasive therapies should be used to treat bothersome urinary incontinence, not to prevent future incontinence.

CASE 3 Fecal incontinence

A 24-year-old woman (G1P1) presents 3 weeks postpartum following a forceps-assisted vaginal delivery complicated by a 3c laceration. She reports fecal urgency, inability to control flatus, and once-daily fecal incontinence.

How would you evaluate these symptoms?

Steps in evaluation

The initial evaluation should include an inquiry regarding the patient’s stool consistency and bowel regimen. The Bristol stool form scale can be used to help patients describe their typical bowel movements (TABLE 2).¹³ During healing, the goal is to achieve a Bristol type 4 stool, both to avoid straining and to improve continence, as loose stool is the most difficult to control.

A physical examination can evaluate healing and sphincter integrity; it should include inspection of the distal vagina and perineal body and a digital rectal exam. Anal canal resting tone and squeeze strength should be evaluated, and the digital rectal examination scoring system (DRESS) can be useful for quantification (TABLE 3).¹⁴ Lack of tone at rest in the anterolateral portion of the sphincter complex can indicate an internal anal sphincter defect, as 80% of the resting tone comes from this muscle (FIGURE).¹⁵

The rectovaginal septum should be assessed given the increased risk of rectovaginal fistula in women with obstetric anal sphincter injury (OASI). The patient should be instructed to contract the anal sphincter, allowing evaluation of muscular contraction. Lack of contraction anteriolaterally may indicate external anal sphincter separation.

Continue to: Conservative options for improving fecal incontinence symptoms...

Conservative options for improving fecal incontinence symptoms

The patient can be counseled regarding stool bulking, first with insoluble fiber supplementation and cessation of stool softeners if she is incontinent of liquid stool. If these measures are not effective, use of a constipating agent, such as loperamide, can improve stool consistency and thereby decrease incontinence episodes. PFPT with biofeedback can be offered as well. While typically we do not recommend initiating PFPT before 6 weeks postpartum, so the initial phases of healing can occur, early referral enables the patient to avoid a delay in access to care.

The patient also can be counseled about a referral to a pelvic floor specialist for further evaluation. A variety of peripartum pelvic floor disorder clinics are being established by Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery (FPMRS) physicians. These clinics provide the benefit of comprehensive care for pelvic floor disorders in this unique population.

When conservative measures fail. If a patient has persistent bowel control issues despite conservative measures, a referral to an FPMRS physician should be initiated.

Delivery route in future pregnancies

The risk of a subsequent OASI is low. While this means that many women can safely pursue a future vaginal delivery, a scheduled cesarean delivery is indicated for women with persistent bowel control issues, wound healing complications, and those who experienced psychological trauma from their delivery.¹⁶ We recommend a shared-decision making approach, reviewing modifiable and nonmodifiable risk factors to help determine whether or not a future vaginal birth is appropriate. It is important to highlight that a cesarean delivery does not protect against fecal incontinence in women with a history of OASI; however, there is benefit in preventing worsening of anal incontinence, if present.¹⁷

CASE 4 Uterovaginal prolapse

A 36-year-old woman (G3P3) presents for her routine postpartum visit at 6 weeks after a spontaneous vaginal delivery without lacerations. She reports a persistent feeling of vaginal pressure and fullness. She thinks she felt a bulge with wiping after a bowel movement.

What options are available for this patient?

Prolapse in the peripartum population

Previous studies have revealed an increased prevalence of POP in pregnant women on examination compared with their nulligravid counterparts (47.6% vs 0%).¹⁸ With the changes in the hormonal milieu in pregnancy, as well as the weight of the gravid uterus on the pelvic floor, it is not surprising that pregnancy may be the inciting event to expose even transient defects in pelvic organ support.¹⁹

It is well established that increasing parity and, to a lesser extent, larger babies are associated with increased risk for future POP and surgery for prolapse. In the first year postpartum, nearly one-third of women have stage 2 or greater prolapse on exam, with studies demonstrating an increased prevalence of postpartum POP in women who delivered vaginally compared with those who delivered by cesarean.^20,21

Initial evaluation

Diagnosis can be made during a routine pelvic exam by having the patient perform a Valsalva maneuver while in the lithotomy position. Using half of a speculum permits evaluation of the anterior and posterior vaginal walls separately, and Valsalva during a bimanual exam can aid in evaluating descensus of the uterus and cervix.

Excellent free patient education resources available online through the American Urogynecologic Society and the International Urogynecological Association can be used to direct counseling.

Continue to: Treatments you can offer for POP...

For pregnant or postpartum patients with bothersome prolapse, initial management options include pessary fitting and/or PFPT referral. In pregnancy, women often can be successfully fitted with a pessary for POP; however, as expulsion is a common issue, selection of a stiffer or space-occupying device may be more efficacious.

Often, early onset POP in pregnancy resolves as the gravid uterus lifts out of the pelvis in the second trimester, at which time the pessary can be discontinued. In the postpartum period, a pessary fitting can be undertaken similarly to that in nonpregnant patients. While data are lacking in the peripartum population, evidence supports the positive impact of PFPT on improving POP symptom bother.²² Additionally, for postpartum women who experience OASI, PFPT can produce significant improvement in subjective POP and associated bother.²³

Impact of future childbearing wishes on treatment

The desire for future childbearing does not preclude treatment of patients experiencing bother from POP after conservative management options have failed. Both vaginal native tissue and mesh-augmented uterine-sparing repairs are performed by many FPMRS specialists and are associated with good outcomes. As with SUI, we do not recommend invasive treatment for POP during pregnancy or before 6 months postpartum.

In conclusion

Obstetric specialists play an essential role in caring for women with PFDs in the peripartum period. Basic evaluation, counseling, and management can be initiated using many of the resources already available in an obstetric ambulatory practice. Important adjunctive resources include those available for both providers and patients through the American Urogynecologic Society and the International Urogynecological Association. In addition, clinicians can partner with pelvic floor specialists through the growing number of FPMRS-run peripartum pelvic floor disorder clinics across the country and pelvic floor physical therapists.

If these specialty clinics and therapists are not available in your area, FPMRS specialists, urologists, gastroenterologists, and/or colorectal surgeons can aid in patient diagnosis and management to reach the ultimate goal of improving PFDs in this at-risk population. ●

Pelvic floor disorders (PFDs) affect many pregnant and newly postpartum women. These conditions, including urinary incontinence, anal incontinence, and pelvic organ prolapse (POP), can be overshadowed by common pregnancy and postpartum concerns (TABLE 1).¹ With the use of a few quick screening questions, however, PFDs easily can be identified in this at-risk population. Active management need not be delayed until after delivery for women experiencing bother, as options exist for women with PFDs during pregnancy as well as postpartum.

In this article, we discuss the common PFDs that obstetric clinicians face in the context of case scenarios and review how you can be better equipped to care for affected individuals.

CASE 1 Screening

A 30-year-old woman (G1P1) presents for her routine postpartum visit after an operative vaginal delivery with a second-degree laceration.

How would you screen this patient for PFDs?

Why screening for PFDs matters

While there are no validated PFD screening tools for this patient population, clinicians can ask a series of brief open-ended questions as part of the review of systems to efficiently evaluate for the common PFDs in peripartum patients (see “Screening questions to evaluate patients for peripartum pelvic floor disorders” below).

Pelvic floor disorders in the peripartum period can have a significant negative impact. In pregnancy, nearly half of women report psychological strain due to the presence of bowel, bladder, prolapse, or sexual dysfunction symptoms.² Postpartum, PFDs have negative effects on overall health, well-being, and self-esteem, with significantly increased rates of postpartum depression in women who experience urinary incontinence.^3,4 Proactively inquiring about PFD symptoms, providing anticipatory guidance, and recommending treatment options can positively impact a patient in multiple domains.

CASE 2 Stress urinary incontinence

A 27-year-old woman (G1P1) presents 2 months following spontaneous vaginal delivery with symptoms of urine leakage with laughing and running. Her urinary incontinence has been improving since delivery, but it continues to be bothersome.

What would you recommend for this patient?

Conservative SUI management strategies in pregnancy

Urinary tract symptoms are common in pregnancy, with up to 41.8% of women reporting urinary symptom distress in the third trimester.⁵ During pregnancy, estrogen and progesterone decrease urethral pressure that, together with increased intra-abdominal pressure from the gravid uterus, can cause or worsen stress urinary incontinence (SUI).⁶

During pregnancy, women should be offered conservative therapies for SUI. For women who can perform a pelvic floor contraction (a Kegel exercise), self-guided pelvic floor muscle exercises (PFMEs) may be helpful (see “Pelvic floor muscle exercises” below). We recommend that women start with 1 to 2 sets of 10 Kegel exercises per day and that they hold the squeeze for 2 to 3 seconds, working up to holding for 10 seconds. The goal is to strengthen and improve muscle control so that the Kegel squeeze can be paired with activities that cause SUI.

For women who are unable to perform a Kegel exercise or are not improving with a home PFME regimen, referral to pelvic floor physical therapy (PFPT) can be considered. While data support the efficacy of PFPT for SUI treatment in nonpregnant women,⁷ data are lacking on PFME in pregnancy.

In women without urinary incontinence, PFME in early pregnancy can prevent the onset of incontinence in late pregnancy and the postpartum period.⁸ By contrast, the same 2020 Cochrane Review found no evidence that antenatal pelvic floor muscle therapy in incontinent women decreases incontinence in mid- or late-pregnancy or in the postpartum period.⁸ As the quality of this evidence is very low and there is no evidence of harm with PFME, we continue to recommend it for women with bothersome SUI.

Incontinence pessaries or vaginal inserts (such as Poise Impressa bladder supports) can be helpful for SUI treatment. An incontinence pessary can be fitted in the office, and fitting kits are available for both. Pessaries can safely be used in pregnancy, but there are no data on the efficacy of pessaries for treating SUI in pregnancy. In nonpregnant women, evidence demonstrates 63% satisfaction 3 months post–pessary placement for SUI.⁷

We do not recommend invasive procedures for the treatment of SUI during pregnancy or in the first 6 months following delivery. There is no evidence that elective cesarean delivery prevents persistent SUI postpartum.⁹

Continue to: Managing SUI in the postpartum period...

Managing SUI in the postpartum period

After the first 6 months postpartum and exhaustion of conservative measures, we offer surgical interventions for women with persistent, bothersome incontinence. Surgery for SUI typically is not recommended until childbearing is complete, but it can be considered if the patient’s bother is significant.

For women with bothersome SUI who still desire future pregnancy, management options include periurethral bulking, a retropubic urethropexy (Burch procedure), or a midurethral sling procedure. Women who undergo an anti-incontinence procedure have an increased risk for urinary retention during a subsequent pregnancy.¹⁰ Most women with a midurethral sling will continue to be continent following an obstetric delivery.

Anticipatory guidance

At 3 months postpartum, the incidence of urinary incontinence is 6% to 40%, depending on parity and delivery type. Postpartum urinary incontinence is most common after instrumented vaginal delivery (32%) followed by spontaneous vaginal delivery (28%) and cesarean delivery (15%). The mean prevalence of any type of urinary incontinence is 33% at 3 months postpartum, and only small changes in the rate of urinary incontinence occur over the first postpartum year.¹¹ While urinary incontinence is common postpartum, it should not be considered normal. We counsel that symptoms may improve spontaneously, but treatment can be initiated if the patient experiences significant bother.

A longitudinal cohort study that followed women from 3 months to 12 years postpartum found that, of women with urinary incontinence at 3 months postpartum, 76% continued to report incontinence at 12 years postpartum.¹² We recommend that women be counseled that, even when symptoms resolve, they remain at increased risk for urinary incontinence in the future. Invasive therapies should be used to treat bothersome urinary incontinence, not to prevent future incontinence.

CASE 3 Fecal incontinence

A 24-year-old woman (G1P1) presents 3 weeks postpartum following a forceps-assisted vaginal delivery complicated by a 3c laceration. She reports fecal urgency, inability to control flatus, and once-daily fecal incontinence.

How would you evaluate these symptoms?

Steps in evaluation

The initial evaluation should include an inquiry regarding the patient’s stool consistency and bowel regimen. The Bristol stool form scale can be used to help patients describe their typical bowel movements (TABLE 2).¹³ During healing, the goal is to achieve a Bristol type 4 stool, both to avoid straining and to improve continence, as loose stool is the most difficult to control.

A physical examination can evaluate healing and sphincter integrity; it should include inspection of the distal vagina and perineal body and a digital rectal exam. Anal canal resting tone and squeeze strength should be evaluated, and the digital rectal examination scoring system (DRESS) can be useful for quantification (TABLE 3).¹⁴ Lack of tone at rest in the anterolateral portion of the sphincter complex can indicate an internal anal sphincter defect, as 80% of the resting tone comes from this muscle (FIGURE).¹⁵

The rectovaginal septum should be assessed given the increased risk of rectovaginal fistula in women with obstetric anal sphincter injury (OASI). The patient should be instructed to contract the anal sphincter, allowing evaluation of muscular contraction. Lack of contraction anteriolaterally may indicate external anal sphincter separation.

Continue to: Conservative options for improving fecal incontinence symptoms...

Conservative options for improving fecal incontinence symptoms

The patient can be counseled regarding stool bulking, first with insoluble fiber supplementation and cessation of stool softeners if she is incontinent of liquid stool. If these measures are not effective, use of a constipating agent, such as loperamide, can improve stool consistency and thereby decrease incontinence episodes. PFPT with biofeedback can be offered as well. While typically we do not recommend initiating PFPT before 6 weeks postpartum, so the initial phases of healing can occur, early referral enables the patient to avoid a delay in access to care.

The patient also can be counseled about a referral to a pelvic floor specialist for further evaluation. A variety of peripartum pelvic floor disorder clinics are being established by Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery (FPMRS) physicians. These clinics provide the benefit of comprehensive care for pelvic floor disorders in this unique population.

When conservative measures fail. If a patient has persistent bowel control issues despite conservative measures, a referral to an FPMRS physician should be initiated.