OBG Management

9vHPV VACCINE: PREVENTION OF OROPHARYNGEAL CANCER

ROBERT L. BARBIERI, MD (EDITORIAL; NOVEMBER 2020)

HPV vaccine for older ObGyns?

I am 67 years old and recently retired. I breathed in the smoke from laser conizations, LEEPs (loop electrosurgical excision procedures), and cautery of condyloma for 35 years. Am I a good candidate for the HPV vaccine?

Gus Barkett, DO

Muskegon, Michigan

Dr. Barbieri responds

I thank Dr. Barkett for his important question. As you know, the US Food and Drug Administration has approved 9vHPV vaccination for people 27 to 45 years of age. I do not believe there are sufficient data to provide an evidence-based answer for physicians with occupational exposure to HPV who are more than 45 years of age. My recommendation would be to have a consult with an otolaryngologist expert in HPV-induced oral-pharyngeal cancer.

EXAMINING THE EVIDENCE: HOW EFFECTIVE IS SCREENING MAMMOGRAPHY FOR PREVENTING BREAST CANCER MORTALITY?

ANDREW M. KAUNITZ, MD (AUGUST 2020)

Discordant results on screening mammography

In regard to the discussion on screening mammography for preventing breast cancer mortality, I would like to call attention to a more recent study than the ones referenced in the article. The study by Duffy and colleagues was from Sweden and included almost 550,000 women.¹ Results of the study showed a statistically significant reduction of 41% in 10-year mortality and a 25% reduction in the incidence of advanced-stage disease at the time of diagnosis in women who underwent routine screening mammograms. In Sweden, routine screening is defined as a mammogram every 18 months for women aged 40 to 54 years and every 24 months after that, up to age 69.

I do not know if we will ever come to a consensus on the utility of mammograms or how often they should be done, but I wanted to illustrate this counterpoint.

Lisa Gennari, MD

Cincinnati, Ohio

Reference

1. Duffy SW, Tabar L, Yen AM, et al. Mammography screening reduces rates of advanced and fatal breast cancers: results in 549,091 women. Cancer. 2020;126:2971-2979.

Dr. Kaunitz responds

I thank Dr. Gennari for her interest in the Examining the Evidence discussion that summarized the findings of an article from Australia published in late summer of last year.¹ That article indicated that as screening mammograms became common in the state of Victoria over several decades, the incidence of advanced breast cancer doubled, mirroring findings from the United States, Holland, and Norway. During the same time period, breast cancer mortality declined substantially. The authors concluded that all of the decline in breast cancer mortality that they observed since 1994 could be attributed not to screening mammography but rather to the introduction and uptake of adjuvant therapy (tamoxifen and chemotherapy).

In contrast, in the article Dr. Gennari cites, also published last summer, the authors found that the widespread uptake of screening mammograms among women residing in 9 counties in Sweden was associated with a decline in the incidence of advanced breast cancer. I am not able to explain these discrepant findings. However, as the authors pointed out, they employed a new strategy: measuring the incidence of breast cancer that proved fatal one decade after diagnosis.

Differing findings and interpretations of data that address benefits and risks of screening mammography lead to differing recommendations from professional societies and confusion among clinicians and our patients. Although it can be challenging in the constraints of time allotted for well-woman visits, I try to engage in shared decision making with my patients regarding when to start/stop mammography as well as frequency of screening.

Reference 
 

1. Burton R, Stevenson C. Assessment of breast cancer mortality trends associated with mammographic screening and adjuvant therapy from 1986 to 2013 in the state of Victoria, Australia. JAMA Netw Open. 2020:3:e208249.

Continue to: NEW HORMONAL MEDICAL TREATMENT...

NEW HORMONAL MEDICAL TREATMENT IS AN IMPORTANT ADVANCE FOR AUB CAUSED BY UTERINE FIBROIDS

ROBERT L. BARBIERI, MD (EDITORIAL; AUGUST 2020)

New AUB medical treatment

I appreciate Dr. Barbieri’s concise and pertinent review of myomatous disease etiology and treatments. I have a question regarding therapy with Oriahnn (elagolix, estradiol, and norethindrone acetate capsules). Most myomatous-related bleeding occurs in premenopausal women. The elagolix suppresses luteinizing hormone and follicle stimulating hormone, and the norethindrone is added to protect the endometrium from the estradiol. Do the elagolix and norethindrone also provide contraception?

Geoffrey J. Zann, MD, MBA

Boca Raton, Florida

Dr. Barbieri responds

Dr. Zann raises an important clinical question that arises often in practice. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not approved Oriahnn as a contraceptive. The FDA prescribing information recommends: Advise women to use non-hormonal contraception during treatment and for one week after discontinuing Oriahnn. Oriahnn may delay the ability to recognize the occurrence of a pregnancy because it alters menstrual bleeding. Perform pregnancy testing if pregnancy is suspected and discontinue Oriahnn if pregnancy is confirmed.

In Oriahnn, the elagolix dose is 300 mg twice daily. If a patient reliably takes 600 mg of elagolix daily, it is highly unlikely that she will ovulate. However, in practice, many patients miss doses of their medication, reducing the contraceptive effectiveness. For example, the combined estrogen-progestin contraceptive is highly effective at suppressing ovulation, but the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that 9% of women taking an estrogen-progestin contraceptive will become pregnant each year.^1,2
 

Oriahnn also contains norethindrone acetate at a dose of 0.5 mg daily. The FDA has approved norethindrone at a dose of 0.35 mg daily as a contraceptive. The CDC estimates that 9% of women prescribed a progestin-only pill will become pregnant each year with typical use.^1,2

I counsel my patients that if they reliably take their prescribed Oriahnn medication as directed, they are unlikely to become pregnant, and a backup method of contraception will further help to reduce their risk of becoming pregnant.

References 

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. US selected practice recommendations for contraceptive use, 2013. MMWR Morbid Mortal Weekly Rep. 2013;62(RR-5):1-59.
2. Trussell J. Contraceptive failure in the United States. Contraception. 2011;83:397-404.

9vHPV VACCINE: PREVENTION OF OROPHARYNGEAL CANCER

ROBERT L. BARBIERI, MD (EDITORIAL; NOVEMBER 2020)

HPV vaccine for older ObGyns?

I am 67 years old and recently retired. I breathed in the smoke from laser conizations, LEEPs (loop electrosurgical excision procedures), and cautery of condyloma for 35 years. Am I a good candidate for the HPV vaccine?

Gus Barkett, DO

Muskegon, Michigan

Dr. Barbieri responds

I thank Dr. Barkett for his important question. As you know, the US Food and Drug Administration has approved 9vHPV vaccination for people 27 to 45 years of age. I do not believe there are sufficient data to provide an evidence-based answer for physicians with occupational exposure to HPV who are more than 45 years of age. My recommendation would be to have a consult with an otolaryngologist expert in HPV-induced oral-pharyngeal cancer.

EXAMINING THE EVIDENCE: HOW EFFECTIVE IS SCREENING MAMMOGRAPHY FOR PREVENTING BREAST CANCER MORTALITY?

ANDREW M. KAUNITZ, MD (AUGUST 2020)

Discordant results on screening mammography

In regard to the discussion on screening mammography for preventing breast cancer mortality, I would like to call attention to a more recent study than the ones referenced in the article. The study by Duffy and colleagues was from Sweden and included almost 550,000 women.¹ Results of the study showed a statistically significant reduction of 41% in 10-year mortality and a 25% reduction in the incidence of advanced-stage disease at the time of diagnosis in women who underwent routine screening mammograms. In Sweden, routine screening is defined as a mammogram every 18 months for women aged 40 to 54 years and every 24 months after that, up to age 69.

I do not know if we will ever come to a consensus on the utility of mammograms or how often they should be done, but I wanted to illustrate this counterpoint.

Lisa Gennari, MD

Cincinnati, Ohio

Reference

1. Duffy SW, Tabar L, Yen AM, et al. Mammography screening reduces rates of advanced and fatal breast cancers: results in 549,091 women. Cancer. 2020;126:2971-2979.

Dr. Kaunitz responds

I thank Dr. Gennari for her interest in the Examining the Evidence discussion that summarized the findings of an article from Australia published in late summer of last year.¹ That article indicated that as screening mammograms became common in the state of Victoria over several decades, the incidence of advanced breast cancer doubled, mirroring findings from the United States, Holland, and Norway. During the same time period, breast cancer mortality declined substantially. The authors concluded that all of the decline in breast cancer mortality that they observed since 1994 could be attributed not to screening mammography but rather to the introduction and uptake of adjuvant therapy (tamoxifen and chemotherapy).

In contrast, in the article Dr. Gennari cites, also published last summer, the authors found that the widespread uptake of screening mammograms among women residing in 9 counties in Sweden was associated with a decline in the incidence of advanced breast cancer. I am not able to explain these discrepant findings. However, as the authors pointed out, they employed a new strategy: measuring the incidence of breast cancer that proved fatal one decade after diagnosis.

Differing findings and interpretations of data that address benefits and risks of screening mammography lead to differing recommendations from professional societies and confusion among clinicians and our patients. Although it can be challenging in the constraints of time allotted for well-woman visits, I try to engage in shared decision making with my patients regarding when to start/stop mammography as well as frequency of screening.

Reference 
 

1. Burton R, Stevenson C. Assessment of breast cancer mortality trends associated with mammographic screening and adjuvant therapy from 1986 to 2013 in the state of Victoria, Australia. JAMA Netw Open. 2020:3:e208249.

Continue to: NEW HORMONAL MEDICAL TREATMENT...

NEW HORMONAL MEDICAL TREATMENT IS AN IMPORTANT ADVANCE FOR AUB CAUSED BY UTERINE FIBROIDS

ROBERT L. BARBIERI, MD (EDITORIAL; AUGUST 2020)

New AUB medical treatment

I appreciate Dr. Barbieri’s concise and pertinent review of myomatous disease etiology and treatments. I have a question regarding therapy with Oriahnn (elagolix, estradiol, and norethindrone acetate capsules). Most myomatous-related bleeding occurs in premenopausal women. The elagolix suppresses luteinizing hormone and follicle stimulating hormone, and the norethindrone is added to protect the endometrium from the estradiol. Do the elagolix and norethindrone also provide contraception?

Geoffrey J. Zann, MD, MBA

Boca Raton, Florida

Dr. Barbieri responds

Dr. Zann raises an important clinical question that arises often in practice. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not approved Oriahnn as a contraceptive. The FDA prescribing information recommends: Advise women to use non-hormonal contraception during treatment and for one week after discontinuing Oriahnn. Oriahnn may delay the ability to recognize the occurrence of a pregnancy because it alters menstrual bleeding. Perform pregnancy testing if pregnancy is suspected and discontinue Oriahnn if pregnancy is confirmed.

In Oriahnn, the elagolix dose is 300 mg twice daily. If a patient reliably takes 600 mg of elagolix daily, it is highly unlikely that she will ovulate. However, in practice, many patients miss doses of their medication, reducing the contraceptive effectiveness. For example, the combined estrogen-progestin contraceptive is highly effective at suppressing ovulation, but the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that 9% of women taking an estrogen-progestin contraceptive will become pregnant each year.^1,2
 

Oriahnn also contains norethindrone acetate at a dose of 0.5 mg daily. The FDA has approved norethindrone at a dose of 0.35 mg daily as a contraceptive. The CDC estimates that 9% of women prescribed a progestin-only pill will become pregnant each year with typical use.^1,2

I counsel my patients that if they reliably take their prescribed Oriahnn medication as directed, they are unlikely to become pregnant, and a backup method of contraception will further help to reduce their risk of becoming pregnant.

References 

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. US selected practice recommendations for contraceptive use, 2013. MMWR Morbid Mortal Weekly Rep. 2013;62(RR-5):1-59.
2. Trussell J. Contraceptive failure in the United States. Contraception. 2011;83:397-404.

9vHPV VACCINE: PREVENTION OF OROPHARYNGEAL CANCER

ROBERT L. BARBIERI, MD (EDITORIAL; NOVEMBER 2020)

HPV vaccine for older ObGyns?

I am 67 years old and recently retired. I breathed in the smoke from laser conizations, LEEPs (loop electrosurgical excision procedures), and cautery of condyloma for 35 years. Am I a good candidate for the HPV vaccine?

Gus Barkett, DO

Muskegon, Michigan

Dr. Barbieri responds

I thank Dr. Barkett for his important question. As you know, the US Food and Drug Administration has approved 9vHPV vaccination for people 27 to 45 years of age. I do not believe there are sufficient data to provide an evidence-based answer for physicians with occupational exposure to HPV who are more than 45 years of age. My recommendation would be to have a consult with an otolaryngologist expert in HPV-induced oral-pharyngeal cancer.

EXAMINING THE EVIDENCE: HOW EFFECTIVE IS SCREENING MAMMOGRAPHY FOR PREVENTING BREAST CANCER MORTALITY?

ANDREW M. KAUNITZ, MD (AUGUST 2020)

Discordant results on screening mammography

In regard to the discussion on screening mammography for preventing breast cancer mortality, I would like to call attention to a more recent study than the ones referenced in the article. The study by Duffy and colleagues was from Sweden and included almost 550,000 women.¹ Results of the study showed a statistically significant reduction of 41% in 10-year mortality and a 25% reduction in the incidence of advanced-stage disease at the time of diagnosis in women who underwent routine screening mammograms. In Sweden, routine screening is defined as a mammogram every 18 months for women aged 40 to 54 years and every 24 months after that, up to age 69.

I do not know if we will ever come to a consensus on the utility of mammograms or how often they should be done, but I wanted to illustrate this counterpoint.

Lisa Gennari, MD

Cincinnati, Ohio

Reference

1. Duffy SW, Tabar L, Yen AM, et al. Mammography screening reduces rates of advanced and fatal breast cancers: results in 549,091 women. Cancer. 2020;126:2971-2979.

Dr. Kaunitz responds

I thank Dr. Gennari for her interest in the Examining the Evidence discussion that summarized the findings of an article from Australia published in late summer of last year.¹ That article indicated that as screening mammograms became common in the state of Victoria over several decades, the incidence of advanced breast cancer doubled, mirroring findings from the United States, Holland, and Norway. During the same time period, breast cancer mortality declined substantially. The authors concluded that all of the decline in breast cancer mortality that they observed since 1994 could be attributed not to screening mammography but rather to the introduction and uptake of adjuvant therapy (tamoxifen and chemotherapy).

In contrast, in the article Dr. Gennari cites, also published last summer, the authors found that the widespread uptake of screening mammograms among women residing in 9 counties in Sweden was associated with a decline in the incidence of advanced breast cancer. I am not able to explain these discrepant findings. However, as the authors pointed out, they employed a new strategy: measuring the incidence of breast cancer that proved fatal one decade after diagnosis.

Differing findings and interpretations of data that address benefits and risks of screening mammography lead to differing recommendations from professional societies and confusion among clinicians and our patients. Although it can be challenging in the constraints of time allotted for well-woman visits, I try to engage in shared decision making with my patients regarding when to start/stop mammography as well as frequency of screening.

Reference 
 

1. Burton R, Stevenson C. Assessment of breast cancer mortality trends associated with mammographic screening and adjuvant therapy from 1986 to 2013 in the state of Victoria, Australia. JAMA Netw Open. 2020:3:e208249.

Continue to: NEW HORMONAL MEDICAL TREATMENT...

NEW HORMONAL MEDICAL TREATMENT IS AN IMPORTANT ADVANCE FOR AUB CAUSED BY UTERINE FIBROIDS

ROBERT L. BARBIERI, MD (EDITORIAL; AUGUST 2020)

New AUB medical treatment

I appreciate Dr. Barbieri’s concise and pertinent review of myomatous disease etiology and treatments. I have a question regarding therapy with Oriahnn (elagolix, estradiol, and norethindrone acetate capsules). Most myomatous-related bleeding occurs in premenopausal women. The elagolix suppresses luteinizing hormone and follicle stimulating hormone, and the norethindrone is added to protect the endometrium from the estradiol. Do the elagolix and norethindrone also provide contraception?

Geoffrey J. Zann, MD, MBA

Boca Raton, Florida

Dr. Barbieri responds

Dr. Zann raises an important clinical question that arises often in practice. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not approved Oriahnn as a contraceptive. The FDA prescribing information recommends: Advise women to use non-hormonal contraception during treatment and for one week after discontinuing Oriahnn. Oriahnn may delay the ability to recognize the occurrence of a pregnancy because it alters menstrual bleeding. Perform pregnancy testing if pregnancy is suspected and discontinue Oriahnn if pregnancy is confirmed.

In Oriahnn, the elagolix dose is 300 mg twice daily. If a patient reliably takes 600 mg of elagolix daily, it is highly unlikely that she will ovulate. However, in practice, many patients miss doses of their medication, reducing the contraceptive effectiveness. For example, the combined estrogen-progestin contraceptive is highly effective at suppressing ovulation, but the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that 9% of women taking an estrogen-progestin contraceptive will become pregnant each year.^1,2
 

Oriahnn also contains norethindrone acetate at a dose of 0.5 mg daily. The FDA has approved norethindrone at a dose of 0.35 mg daily as a contraceptive. The CDC estimates that 9% of women prescribed a progestin-only pill will become pregnant each year with typical use.^1,2

I counsel my patients that if they reliably take their prescribed Oriahnn medication as directed, they are unlikely to become pregnant, and a backup method of contraception will further help to reduce their risk of becoming pregnant.

References 

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. US selected practice recommendations for contraceptive use, 2013. MMWR Morbid Mortal Weekly Rep. 2013;62(RR-5):1-59.
2. Trussell J. Contraceptive failure in the United States. Contraception. 2011;83:397-404.

Many screening tools are available in the public domain to assess a variety of symptoms related to im­paired mental health. These tools can be used to quickly evaluate for mood, suicidal ide­ation or behavior, anxiety, sleep, substance use, pain, trauma, memory, and cognition (TABLE). Individuals with poor mental health incur high health care costs. Those suffering from anxiety and posttraumatic stress have more outpatient and emergency department visits and hospitalizations than patients with­out these disorders,^1,2 although use of mental health care services has been related to a de­crease in the overutilization of health care ser­vices in general.³

Here we review several screening tools that can help you to identify symptoms of mental illnesses and thus, provide prompt early intervention, including referrals to psy­chological and psychiatric services.

Mood disorders

Most patients with mood disorders are treated in primary care settings.⁴ Quickly measuring patients’ mood symptoms can expedite treat­ment for those who need it. Many primary care clinics use the 9-item Patient Health Question­naire (PHQ-9) to screen for depression.⁵ The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has recommended screening for depression with adequate systems to ensure accurate diagnoses, effective treatment, and follow-up. Although the USPSTF did not specially endorse screening for bipolar disorder, it fol­lowed that recommendation with the qualify­ing statement, “positive screening results [for depression] should lead to additional assess­ment that considers severity of depression and comorbid psychological problems, alternate diagnoses, and medical conditions.”⁶ Thus, fol­lowing a positive screen result for depression, consider using a screening tool for mood dis­orders to provide diagnostic clarification.

The Mood Disorder Question­naire (MDQ) is a validated 15-item, self-administered questionnaire that takes only 5 minutes to use in screening adult patients for bipolar I disorder.⁷ The MDQ assesses specific behaviors related to bipolar disorder, symptom co-occurrence, and functional im­pairment. The MDQ has low sensitivity (58%) but good specificity (93%) in a primary care setting.⁸ However, the MDQ is not a diagnos­tic instrument. A positive screen result should prompt a more thorough clinical evaluation, if necessary, by a professional trained in psychi­atric disorders.

We recommend completing the MDQ pri­or to prescribing antidepressants. You can also monitor a patient’s response to treatment with serial MDQ testing. The MDQ is useful, too, when a patient has unclear mood symptoms that may have features overlapping with bi­polar disorder. Furthermore, we recommend screening for bipolar disorder with every patient who reports symptoms of depression, given that some pharmacologic treatments (predominately selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors) can induce mania in patients who actually have unrecognized bipolar disorder.⁹

Continue to: Suicide...

Suicide

Suicide is the 10th leading cause of death among the general population. All demo­graphic groups are impacted by suicide; how­ever, the most vulnerable are men ages 45 to 64 years.¹⁰ Given the imminent risk to indi­viduals who experience suicidal ideation, properly assessing and targeting suicidal risk is paramount.

The Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS) can be completed in an inter­view format or as a patient self-report. Ver­sions of the C-SSRS are available for children, adolescents, and adults. It can be used in practice with any patient who may be at risk for suicide. Specifically, consider using the C-SSRS when a patient scores 1 or greater on the PHQ-9 or when risk is revealed with an­other brief screening tool that includes sui­cidal ideation.

The C-SSRS covers 10 categories related to suicidal ideation and behavior that the cli­nician explores with questions requiring only Yes/No responses. The C-SSRS demonstrates moderate-to-strong internal consistency and reliability, and it has shown a high degree of sensitivity (95%) and specificity (95%) for sui­cidal ideation.¹¹

Anxiety and physiologic arousal

Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) is one of the most common anxiety disorders, with an estimated prevalence of 2.8% to 8.5% among primary care patients.¹² Brief, validated screening tools such as the Generalized Anxi­ety Disorder–7 item (GAD-7) scale can be ef­fective in identifying anxiety and other related disorders in primary care settings.

The GAD-7 comprises 7 items inquir­ing about symptoms experienced in the past 2 weeks. Scores range from 0 to 21, with cutoffs of 5, 10, and 15 indicating mild, moderate, and severe anxiety, respectively. This question­naire is appropriate for use with adults and has strong specificity, internal consistency, and test-retest reliability.¹² Specificity and sen­sitivity of the GAD-7 are maximized at a cutoff score of 10 or greater, both exceeding 80%.¹² The GAD-7 can be used when patients report symptoms of anxiety or when one needs to screen for anxiety with new patients or more clearly understand symptoms among patients who have complex mental health concerns.

The Screen for Child Anxiety Related Disorders (SCARED) is a 41-item self-report measure of anxiety for children ages 8 to 18. The SCARED questionnaire yields an overall anxiety score, as well as subscales for panic disorder or significant somatic symptoms, generalized anxiety disorder, separation anxi­ety, social anxiety disorder, and significant school avoidance.¹³ There is also a 5-item ver­sion of the SCARED, which can be useful for brief screening in fast-paced settings when no anxiety disorder is suspected, or for children who may have anxiety but exhibit reduced ver­bal capacity. The SCARED has been found to have moderate sensitivity (81.8%) and speci­ficity (52%) for diagnosing anxiety disorders in a community sample, with an optimal cutoff point of 22 on the total scale.¹⁴

Sleep

Sleep concerns are common, with the preva­lence of insomnia among adults in the United States estimated to be 19.2%.¹⁵ The importance of assessing these concerns cannot be over­stated, and primary care providers are the ones patients consult most often.¹⁶ The gold standard in assessing sleep disorders is a structured clinical interview, polysomnogra­phy, sleep diary, and actigraphy (home-based monitoring of movement through a device, often worn on the wrist).^17,18 However, this work-up is expensive, time-intensive, and im­practical in integrated care settings; thus the need for a brief, self-report screening tool to guide further assessment and intervention.

The Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) assess­es patients’ perceptions of their insomnia. The ISI was developed to aid both in the clinical evaluation of patients with insomnia and to measure treatment outcomes. Administration of the ISI takes approximately 5 minutes, and scoring takes less than 1 minute.

The ISI is composed of 7 items that mea­sure the severity of sleep onset and sleep main­tenance difficulties, satisfaction with current sleep, impact on daily functioning, impair­ment observable to others, and degree of dis­tress caused by the sleep problems. Each item is scored on a 0 to 4 Likert-type scale, and the individual items are summed for a total score of 0 to 28, with higher scores suggesting more severe insomnia. Evidence-based guidelines recommend cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) as the first-line treatment for adults with primary insomnia.¹⁹

Several validation studies have found the ISI to be a reliable measure of perceived in­somnia severity, and one that is sensitive to changes in patients’ perceptions of treatment outcomes.^20,21 An additional validation study confirmed that in primary care settings, a cut­off score of 14 should be used to indicate the likely presence of clinical insomnia²² and to guide further assessment and intervention.

The percentage of insomniac patients correctly identified with the ISI was 82.2%, with moderate sensitivity (82.4%) and speci­ficity (82.1%).²² A positive predictive value of 70% was found, meaning that an insomnia disorder is probable when the ISI total score is 14 or higher; conversely, the negative predic­tive value was 90.2%.

Continue to: Substance use and pain...

The evaluation of alcohol and drug use is an integral part of assessing risky health behav­iors. The 10-item Alcohol Use Disorder Iden­tification Test (AUDIT) is a self-report tool developed by the World Health Organiza­tion.^23,24 Validated in medical settings, scores of 8 or higher suggest problematic drinking.^25,26 The AUDIT has demonstrated high specificity (94%) and moderate sensitivity (81%) in pri­mary care settings.²⁷ The AUDIT-C (items 1, 2, and 3 of the AUDIT) has also demonstrated comparable sensitivity, although slightly low­er specificity, than the full AUDIT, suggesting that this 3-question screen can also be used in primary care settings.²⁷

Opioid medications, frequently pre­scribed for chronic pain, present serious risks for many patients. The Screener and Opioid Assessment for Patients with Pain–Revised (SOAPP-R) is a 24-item self-reporting scale that can be completed in approximately 10 minutes.²⁸ A score of 18 or higher has identified 81% of patients at high risk for opioid misuse in a clinical setting, with moderate specificity (68%). Although other factors should be considered when assess­ing risk of opioid misuse, the SOAPP-R is a helpful and quick addition to an opioid risk assessment.

The CRAFFT Screening Tool for Adoles­cent Substance Use is administered by the clinician for youths ages 14 to 21. The first 3 questions ask about use of alcohol, mari­juana, or other substances during the past 12 months. What follows are questions relat­ed to the young person’s specific experiences with substances in relation to Cars, Relaxation, being Alone, Forgetting, Family/Friends, and Trouble (CRAFFT). The CRAFFT has shown moderate sensitivity (76%) and good speci­ficity (94%) for identifying any problem with substance use.²⁹ These measures may be ad­ministered to clarify or confirm substance use patterns (ie, duration, frequency), or to determine the severity of problems re­lated to substance use (ie, social or legal problems).
 

Trauma and PTSD

Approximately 7.7 million adults per year will experience posttraumatic stress disor­der (PTSD) symptoms, although PTSD can affect individuals of any age.³⁰ Given the im­pact that trauma can have, assess for PTSD in patients who have a history of trauma or who otherwise seem to be at risk. The Post-traumatic Stress Disorder Checklist (PCL-5) is a 20-item self-report questionnaire that screens for symptoms directly from the Di­agnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition (DSM-5) criteria for PTSD. One limitation is that the question­naire is only validated for adults ages 18 years or older. Completion of the PCL-5 takes 5 to 10 minutes. The PCL-5 has strong internal consistency reliability (94%) and test-retest reliability (82%).³¹ With a cutoff score of 33 or higher, the sensitivity and specificity have been shown to be moderately high (74.5% and 70.6%, respectively).³²

The Child and Adolescent Trauma Screen (CATS) is used to assess for poten­tially traumatic events and PTSD symptoms in children and adolescents. These symp­toms are based on the DSM-5, and there­fore the CATS can act as a useful diagnostic aid. The CATS is also available in Spanish, with both caregiver-report (for children ages 3-6 years or 7-17 years) and self-report (for ages 7-17 years) versions. Practical use of the PCL-5 and the CATS involves screen­ing for PTSD symptoms, supporting a pro­visional diagnosis of PTSD, and monitoring PTSD symptom changes during and after treatment.
 

Memory and cognition

Cognitive screening is a first step in evaluat­ing possible dementia and other neuropsy­chological disorders. The importance of brief cognitive screening in primary care cannot be understated, especially for an aging patient population. Although the Mini Mental Status Exam (MMSE) has been widely used among health care providers and researchers, we rec­ommend the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA).

The MoCA is a simple, standalone cogni­tive screening tool validated for adults ages 55 to 85 years.³³ The MoCA addresses many im­portant cognitive domains, fits on one page, and can be administered by a trained provider in 10 minutes. Research also suggests that it has strong test-retest reliability and positive and negative predictive values for mild cogni­tive impairment and Alzheimer dementia, and it has been found to be more sensitive than the MMSE.³⁴ We additionally recommend the MoCA as it measures several cognitive skills that are not addressed on the MMSE, includ­ing verbal fluency and abstraction.³⁴ Scores below 25 are suggestive of cognitive impair­ment and should lead to a referral for neuro­psychological testing.

The MoCA’s sensitivity for detecting cog­nitive impairment is high (94%), and specific­ity is low (42%).³⁵ To ensure consistency and accuracy in administering the MoCA, certifi­cation is now required via an online training program through www.mocatest.org.
 

Adapting these screening tools to practice

These tools are not meant to be used at every appointment. Every practice is different, and each clinic or physician can tailor the use of these screening tools to the needs of the patient population, as concerns arise, or in collaboration with other providers. Additionally, these screening tools can be used in both integrated care and in private practice, to prompt a more thorough assessment or to aid in—and inform—treatment. Although some physicians choose to administer certain screening tools at each clinic visit, knowing about the availability of other tools can be useful in assessing various issues. The FIGURE can be used to aid in the clini­cal decision-making process.

Many screening tools are available in the public domain to assess a variety of symptoms related to im­paired mental health. These tools can be used to quickly evaluate for mood, suicidal ide­ation or behavior, anxiety, sleep, substance use, pain, trauma, memory, and cognition (TABLE). Individuals with poor mental health incur high health care costs. Those suffering from anxiety and posttraumatic stress have more outpatient and emergency department visits and hospitalizations than patients with­out these disorders,^1,2 although use of mental health care services has been related to a de­crease in the overutilization of health care ser­vices in general.³

Here we review several screening tools that can help you to identify symptoms of mental illnesses and thus, provide prompt early intervention, including referrals to psy­chological and psychiatric services.

Mood disorders

Most patients with mood disorders are treated in primary care settings.⁴ Quickly measuring patients’ mood symptoms can expedite treat­ment for those who need it. Many primary care clinics use the 9-item Patient Health Question­naire (PHQ-9) to screen for depression.⁵ The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has recommended screening for depression with adequate systems to ensure accurate diagnoses, effective treatment, and follow-up. Although the USPSTF did not specially endorse screening for bipolar disorder, it fol­lowed that recommendation with the qualify­ing statement, “positive screening results [for depression] should lead to additional assess­ment that considers severity of depression and comorbid psychological problems, alternate diagnoses, and medical conditions.”⁶ Thus, fol­lowing a positive screen result for depression, consider using a screening tool for mood dis­orders to provide diagnostic clarification.

The Mood Disorder Question­naire (MDQ) is a validated 15-item, self-administered questionnaire that takes only 5 minutes to use in screening adult patients for bipolar I disorder.⁷ The MDQ assesses specific behaviors related to bipolar disorder, symptom co-occurrence, and functional im­pairment. The MDQ has low sensitivity (58%) but good specificity (93%) in a primary care setting.⁸ However, the MDQ is not a diagnos­tic instrument. A positive screen result should prompt a more thorough clinical evaluation, if necessary, by a professional trained in psychi­atric disorders.

We recommend completing the MDQ pri­or to prescribing antidepressants. You can also monitor a patient’s response to treatment with serial MDQ testing. The MDQ is useful, too, when a patient has unclear mood symptoms that may have features overlapping with bi­polar disorder. Furthermore, we recommend screening for bipolar disorder with every patient who reports symptoms of depression, given that some pharmacologic treatments (predominately selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors) can induce mania in patients who actually have unrecognized bipolar disorder.⁹

Continue to: Suicide...

Suicide

Suicide is the 10th leading cause of death among the general population. All demo­graphic groups are impacted by suicide; how­ever, the most vulnerable are men ages 45 to 64 years.¹⁰ Given the imminent risk to indi­viduals who experience suicidal ideation, properly assessing and targeting suicidal risk is paramount.

The Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS) can be completed in an inter­view format or as a patient self-report. Ver­sions of the C-SSRS are available for children, adolescents, and adults. It can be used in practice with any patient who may be at risk for suicide. Specifically, consider using the C-SSRS when a patient scores 1 or greater on the PHQ-9 or when risk is revealed with an­other brief screening tool that includes sui­cidal ideation.

The C-SSRS covers 10 categories related to suicidal ideation and behavior that the cli­nician explores with questions requiring only Yes/No responses. The C-SSRS demonstrates moderate-to-strong internal consistency and reliability, and it has shown a high degree of sensitivity (95%) and specificity (95%) for sui­cidal ideation.¹¹

Anxiety and physiologic arousal

Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) is one of the most common anxiety disorders, with an estimated prevalence of 2.8% to 8.5% among primary care patients.¹² Brief, validated screening tools such as the Generalized Anxi­ety Disorder–7 item (GAD-7) scale can be ef­fective in identifying anxiety and other related disorders in primary care settings.

The GAD-7 comprises 7 items inquir­ing about symptoms experienced in the past 2 weeks. Scores range from 0 to 21, with cutoffs of 5, 10, and 15 indicating mild, moderate, and severe anxiety, respectively. This question­naire is appropriate for use with adults and has strong specificity, internal consistency, and test-retest reliability.¹² Specificity and sen­sitivity of the GAD-7 are maximized at a cutoff score of 10 or greater, both exceeding 80%.¹² The GAD-7 can be used when patients report symptoms of anxiety or when one needs to screen for anxiety with new patients or more clearly understand symptoms among patients who have complex mental health concerns.

The Screen for Child Anxiety Related Disorders (SCARED) is a 41-item self-report measure of anxiety for children ages 8 to 18. The SCARED questionnaire yields an overall anxiety score, as well as subscales for panic disorder or significant somatic symptoms, generalized anxiety disorder, separation anxi­ety, social anxiety disorder, and significant school avoidance.¹³ There is also a 5-item ver­sion of the SCARED, which can be useful for brief screening in fast-paced settings when no anxiety disorder is suspected, or for children who may have anxiety but exhibit reduced ver­bal capacity. The SCARED has been found to have moderate sensitivity (81.8%) and speci­ficity (52%) for diagnosing anxiety disorders in a community sample, with an optimal cutoff point of 22 on the total scale.¹⁴

Sleep

Sleep concerns are common, with the preva­lence of insomnia among adults in the United States estimated to be 19.2%.¹⁵ The importance of assessing these concerns cannot be over­stated, and primary care providers are the ones patients consult most often.¹⁶ The gold standard in assessing sleep disorders is a structured clinical interview, polysomnogra­phy, sleep diary, and actigraphy (home-based monitoring of movement through a device, often worn on the wrist).^17,18 However, this work-up is expensive, time-intensive, and im­practical in integrated care settings; thus the need for a brief, self-report screening tool to guide further assessment and intervention.

The Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) assess­es patients’ perceptions of their insomnia. The ISI was developed to aid both in the clinical evaluation of patients with insomnia and to measure treatment outcomes. Administration of the ISI takes approximately 5 minutes, and scoring takes less than 1 minute.

The ISI is composed of 7 items that mea­sure the severity of sleep onset and sleep main­tenance difficulties, satisfaction with current sleep, impact on daily functioning, impair­ment observable to others, and degree of dis­tress caused by the sleep problems. Each item is scored on a 0 to 4 Likert-type scale, and the individual items are summed for a total score of 0 to 28, with higher scores suggesting more severe insomnia. Evidence-based guidelines recommend cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) as the first-line treatment for adults with primary insomnia.¹⁹

Several validation studies have found the ISI to be a reliable measure of perceived in­somnia severity, and one that is sensitive to changes in patients’ perceptions of treatment outcomes.^20,21 An additional validation study confirmed that in primary care settings, a cut­off score of 14 should be used to indicate the likely presence of clinical insomnia²² and to guide further assessment and intervention.

The percentage of insomniac patients correctly identified with the ISI was 82.2%, with moderate sensitivity (82.4%) and speci­ficity (82.1%).²² A positive predictive value of 70% was found, meaning that an insomnia disorder is probable when the ISI total score is 14 or higher; conversely, the negative predic­tive value was 90.2%.

Continue to: Substance use and pain...

The evaluation of alcohol and drug use is an integral part of assessing risky health behav­iors. The 10-item Alcohol Use Disorder Iden­tification Test (AUDIT) is a self-report tool developed by the World Health Organiza­tion.^23,24 Validated in medical settings, scores of 8 or higher suggest problematic drinking.^25,26 The AUDIT has demonstrated high specificity (94%) and moderate sensitivity (81%) in pri­mary care settings.²⁷ The AUDIT-C (items 1, 2, and 3 of the AUDIT) has also demonstrated comparable sensitivity, although slightly low­er specificity, than the full AUDIT, suggesting that this 3-question screen can also be used in primary care settings.²⁷

Opioid medications, frequently pre­scribed for chronic pain, present serious risks for many patients. The Screener and Opioid Assessment for Patients with Pain–Revised (SOAPP-R) is a 24-item self-reporting scale that can be completed in approximately 10 minutes.²⁸ A score of 18 or higher has identified 81% of patients at high risk for opioid misuse in a clinical setting, with moderate specificity (68%). Although other factors should be considered when assess­ing risk of opioid misuse, the SOAPP-R is a helpful and quick addition to an opioid risk assessment.

The CRAFFT Screening Tool for Adoles­cent Substance Use is administered by the clinician for youths ages 14 to 21. The first 3 questions ask about use of alcohol, mari­juana, or other substances during the past 12 months. What follows are questions relat­ed to the young person’s specific experiences with substances in relation to Cars, Relaxation, being Alone, Forgetting, Family/Friends, and Trouble (CRAFFT). The CRAFFT has shown moderate sensitivity (76%) and good speci­ficity (94%) for identifying any problem with substance use.²⁹ These measures may be ad­ministered to clarify or confirm substance use patterns (ie, duration, frequency), or to determine the severity of problems re­lated to substance use (ie, social or legal problems).
 

Trauma and PTSD

Approximately 7.7 million adults per year will experience posttraumatic stress disor­der (PTSD) symptoms, although PTSD can affect individuals of any age.³⁰ Given the im­pact that trauma can have, assess for PTSD in patients who have a history of trauma or who otherwise seem to be at risk. The Post-traumatic Stress Disorder Checklist (PCL-5) is a 20-item self-report questionnaire that screens for symptoms directly from the Di­agnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition (DSM-5) criteria for PTSD. One limitation is that the question­naire is only validated for adults ages 18 years or older. Completion of the PCL-5 takes 5 to 10 minutes. The PCL-5 has strong internal consistency reliability (94%) and test-retest reliability (82%).³¹ With a cutoff score of 33 or higher, the sensitivity and specificity have been shown to be moderately high (74.5% and 70.6%, respectively).³²

The Child and Adolescent Trauma Screen (CATS) is used to assess for poten­tially traumatic events and PTSD symptoms in children and adolescents. These symp­toms are based on the DSM-5, and there­fore the CATS can act as a useful diagnostic aid. The CATS is also available in Spanish, with both caregiver-report (for children ages 3-6 years or 7-17 years) and self-report (for ages 7-17 years) versions. Practical use of the PCL-5 and the CATS involves screen­ing for PTSD symptoms, supporting a pro­visional diagnosis of PTSD, and monitoring PTSD symptom changes during and after treatment.
 

Memory and cognition

Cognitive screening is a first step in evaluat­ing possible dementia and other neuropsy­chological disorders. The importance of brief cognitive screening in primary care cannot be understated, especially for an aging patient population. Although the Mini Mental Status Exam (MMSE) has been widely used among health care providers and researchers, we rec­ommend the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA).

The MoCA is a simple, standalone cogni­tive screening tool validated for adults ages 55 to 85 years.³³ The MoCA addresses many im­portant cognitive domains, fits on one page, and can be administered by a trained provider in 10 minutes. Research also suggests that it has strong test-retest reliability and positive and negative predictive values for mild cogni­tive impairment and Alzheimer dementia, and it has been found to be more sensitive than the MMSE.³⁴ We additionally recommend the MoCA as it measures several cognitive skills that are not addressed on the MMSE, includ­ing verbal fluency and abstraction.³⁴ Scores below 25 are suggestive of cognitive impair­ment and should lead to a referral for neuro­psychological testing.

The MoCA’s sensitivity for detecting cog­nitive impairment is high (94%), and specific­ity is low (42%).³⁵ To ensure consistency and accuracy in administering the MoCA, certifi­cation is now required via an online training program through www.mocatest.org.
 

Adapting these screening tools to practice

These tools are not meant to be used at every appointment. Every practice is different, and each clinic or physician can tailor the use of these screening tools to the needs of the patient population, as concerns arise, or in collaboration with other providers. Additionally, these screening tools can be used in both integrated care and in private practice, to prompt a more thorough assessment or to aid in—and inform—treatment. Although some physicians choose to administer certain screening tools at each clinic visit, knowing about the availability of other tools can be useful in assessing various issues. The FIGURE can be used to aid in the clini­cal decision-making process.

Many screening tools are available in the public domain to assess a variety of symptoms related to im­paired mental health. These tools can be used to quickly evaluate for mood, suicidal ide­ation or behavior, anxiety, sleep, substance use, pain, trauma, memory, and cognition (TABLE). Individuals with poor mental health incur high health care costs. Those suffering from anxiety and posttraumatic stress have more outpatient and emergency department visits and hospitalizations than patients with­out these disorders,^1,2 although use of mental health care services has been related to a de­crease in the overutilization of health care ser­vices in general.³

Here we review several screening tools that can help you to identify symptoms of mental illnesses and thus, provide prompt early intervention, including referrals to psy­chological and psychiatric services.

Mood disorders

Most patients with mood disorders are treated in primary care settings.⁴ Quickly measuring patients’ mood symptoms can expedite treat­ment for those who need it. Many primary care clinics use the 9-item Patient Health Question­naire (PHQ-9) to screen for depression.⁵ The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has recommended screening for depression with adequate systems to ensure accurate diagnoses, effective treatment, and follow-up. Although the USPSTF did not specially endorse screening for bipolar disorder, it fol­lowed that recommendation with the qualify­ing statement, “positive screening results [for depression] should lead to additional assess­ment that considers severity of depression and comorbid psychological problems, alternate diagnoses, and medical conditions.”⁶ Thus, fol­lowing a positive screen result for depression, consider using a screening tool for mood dis­orders to provide diagnostic clarification.

The Mood Disorder Question­naire (MDQ) is a validated 15-item, self-administered questionnaire that takes only 5 minutes to use in screening adult patients for bipolar I disorder.⁷ The MDQ assesses specific behaviors related to bipolar disorder, symptom co-occurrence, and functional im­pairment. The MDQ has low sensitivity (58%) but good specificity (93%) in a primary care setting.⁸ However, the MDQ is not a diagnos­tic instrument. A positive screen result should prompt a more thorough clinical evaluation, if necessary, by a professional trained in psychi­atric disorders.

We recommend completing the MDQ pri­or to prescribing antidepressants. You can also monitor a patient’s response to treatment with serial MDQ testing. The MDQ is useful, too, when a patient has unclear mood symptoms that may have features overlapping with bi­polar disorder. Furthermore, we recommend screening for bipolar disorder with every patient who reports symptoms of depression, given that some pharmacologic treatments (predominately selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors) can induce mania in patients who actually have unrecognized bipolar disorder.⁹

Continue to: Suicide...

Suicide

Suicide is the 10th leading cause of death among the general population. All demo­graphic groups are impacted by suicide; how­ever, the most vulnerable are men ages 45 to 64 years.¹⁰ Given the imminent risk to indi­viduals who experience suicidal ideation, properly assessing and targeting suicidal risk is paramount.

The Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS) can be completed in an inter­view format or as a patient self-report. Ver­sions of the C-SSRS are available for children, adolescents, and adults. It can be used in practice with any patient who may be at risk for suicide. Specifically, consider using the C-SSRS when a patient scores 1 or greater on the PHQ-9 or when risk is revealed with an­other brief screening tool that includes sui­cidal ideation.

The C-SSRS covers 10 categories related to suicidal ideation and behavior that the cli­nician explores with questions requiring only Yes/No responses. The C-SSRS demonstrates moderate-to-strong internal consistency and reliability, and it has shown a high degree of sensitivity (95%) and specificity (95%) for sui­cidal ideation.¹¹

Anxiety and physiologic arousal

Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) is one of the most common anxiety disorders, with an estimated prevalence of 2.8% to 8.5% among primary care patients.¹² Brief, validated screening tools such as the Generalized Anxi­ety Disorder–7 item (GAD-7) scale can be ef­fective in identifying anxiety and other related disorders in primary care settings.

The GAD-7 comprises 7 items inquir­ing about symptoms experienced in the past 2 weeks. Scores range from 0 to 21, with cutoffs of 5, 10, and 15 indicating mild, moderate, and severe anxiety, respectively. This question­naire is appropriate for use with adults and has strong specificity, internal consistency, and test-retest reliability.¹² Specificity and sen­sitivity of the GAD-7 are maximized at a cutoff score of 10 or greater, both exceeding 80%.¹² The GAD-7 can be used when patients report symptoms of anxiety or when one needs to screen for anxiety with new patients or more clearly understand symptoms among patients who have complex mental health concerns.

The Screen for Child Anxiety Related Disorders (SCARED) is a 41-item self-report measure of anxiety for children ages 8 to 18. The SCARED questionnaire yields an overall anxiety score, as well as subscales for panic disorder or significant somatic symptoms, generalized anxiety disorder, separation anxi­ety, social anxiety disorder, and significant school avoidance.¹³ There is also a 5-item ver­sion of the SCARED, which can be useful for brief screening in fast-paced settings when no anxiety disorder is suspected, or for children who may have anxiety but exhibit reduced ver­bal capacity. The SCARED has been found to have moderate sensitivity (81.8%) and speci­ficity (52%) for diagnosing anxiety disorders in a community sample, with an optimal cutoff point of 22 on the total scale.¹⁴

Sleep

Sleep concerns are common, with the preva­lence of insomnia among adults in the United States estimated to be 19.2%.¹⁵ The importance of assessing these concerns cannot be over­stated, and primary care providers are the ones patients consult most often.¹⁶ The gold standard in assessing sleep disorders is a structured clinical interview, polysomnogra­phy, sleep diary, and actigraphy (home-based monitoring of movement through a device, often worn on the wrist).^17,18 However, this work-up is expensive, time-intensive, and im­practical in integrated care settings; thus the need for a brief, self-report screening tool to guide further assessment and intervention.

The Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) assess­es patients’ perceptions of their insomnia. The ISI was developed to aid both in the clinical evaluation of patients with insomnia and to measure treatment outcomes. Administration of the ISI takes approximately 5 minutes, and scoring takes less than 1 minute.

The ISI is composed of 7 items that mea­sure the severity of sleep onset and sleep main­tenance difficulties, satisfaction with current sleep, impact on daily functioning, impair­ment observable to others, and degree of dis­tress caused by the sleep problems. Each item is scored on a 0 to 4 Likert-type scale, and the individual items are summed for a total score of 0 to 28, with higher scores suggesting more severe insomnia. Evidence-based guidelines recommend cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) as the first-line treatment for adults with primary insomnia.¹⁹

Several validation studies have found the ISI to be a reliable measure of perceived in­somnia severity, and one that is sensitive to changes in patients’ perceptions of treatment outcomes.^20,21 An additional validation study confirmed that in primary care settings, a cut­off score of 14 should be used to indicate the likely presence of clinical insomnia²² and to guide further assessment and intervention.

The percentage of insomniac patients correctly identified with the ISI was 82.2%, with moderate sensitivity (82.4%) and speci­ficity (82.1%).²² A positive predictive value of 70% was found, meaning that an insomnia disorder is probable when the ISI total score is 14 or higher; conversely, the negative predic­tive value was 90.2%.

Continue to: Substance use and pain...

The evaluation of alcohol and drug use is an integral part of assessing risky health behav­iors. The 10-item Alcohol Use Disorder Iden­tification Test (AUDIT) is a self-report tool developed by the World Health Organiza­tion.^23,24 Validated in medical settings, scores of 8 or higher suggest problematic drinking.^25,26 The AUDIT has demonstrated high specificity (94%) and moderate sensitivity (81%) in pri­mary care settings.²⁷ The AUDIT-C (items 1, 2, and 3 of the AUDIT) has also demonstrated comparable sensitivity, although slightly low­er specificity, than the full AUDIT, suggesting that this 3-question screen can also be used in primary care settings.²⁷

Opioid medications, frequently pre­scribed for chronic pain, present serious risks for many patients. The Screener and Opioid Assessment for Patients with Pain–Revised (SOAPP-R) is a 24-item self-reporting scale that can be completed in approximately 10 minutes.²⁸ A score of 18 or higher has identified 81% of patients at high risk for opioid misuse in a clinical setting, with moderate specificity (68%). Although other factors should be considered when assess­ing risk of opioid misuse, the SOAPP-R is a helpful and quick addition to an opioid risk assessment.

The CRAFFT Screening Tool for Adoles­cent Substance Use is administered by the clinician for youths ages 14 to 21. The first 3 questions ask about use of alcohol, mari­juana, or other substances during the past 12 months. What follows are questions relat­ed to the young person’s specific experiences with substances in relation to Cars, Relaxation, being Alone, Forgetting, Family/Friends, and Trouble (CRAFFT). The CRAFFT has shown moderate sensitivity (76%) and good speci­ficity (94%) for identifying any problem with substance use.²⁹ These measures may be ad­ministered to clarify or confirm substance use patterns (ie, duration, frequency), or to determine the severity of problems re­lated to substance use (ie, social or legal problems).
 

Trauma and PTSD

Approximately 7.7 million adults per year will experience posttraumatic stress disor­der (PTSD) symptoms, although PTSD can affect individuals of any age.³⁰ Given the im­pact that trauma can have, assess for PTSD in patients who have a history of trauma or who otherwise seem to be at risk. The Post-traumatic Stress Disorder Checklist (PCL-5) is a 20-item self-report questionnaire that screens for symptoms directly from the Di­agnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition (DSM-5) criteria for PTSD. One limitation is that the question­naire is only validated for adults ages 18 years or older. Completion of the PCL-5 takes 5 to 10 minutes. The PCL-5 has strong internal consistency reliability (94%) and test-retest reliability (82%).³¹ With a cutoff score of 33 or higher, the sensitivity and specificity have been shown to be moderately high (74.5% and 70.6%, respectively).³²

The Child and Adolescent Trauma Screen (CATS) is used to assess for poten­tially traumatic events and PTSD symptoms in children and adolescents. These symp­toms are based on the DSM-5, and there­fore the CATS can act as a useful diagnostic aid. The CATS is also available in Spanish, with both caregiver-report (for children ages 3-6 years or 7-17 years) and self-report (for ages 7-17 years) versions. Practical use of the PCL-5 and the CATS involves screen­ing for PTSD symptoms, supporting a pro­visional diagnosis of PTSD, and monitoring PTSD symptom changes during and after treatment.
 

Memory and cognition

Cognitive screening is a first step in evaluat­ing possible dementia and other neuropsy­chological disorders. The importance of brief cognitive screening in primary care cannot be understated, especially for an aging patient population. Although the Mini Mental Status Exam (MMSE) has been widely used among health care providers and researchers, we rec­ommend the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA).

The MoCA is a simple, standalone cogni­tive screening tool validated for adults ages 55 to 85 years.³³ The MoCA addresses many im­portant cognitive domains, fits on one page, and can be administered by a trained provider in 10 minutes. Research also suggests that it has strong test-retest reliability and positive and negative predictive values for mild cogni­tive impairment and Alzheimer dementia, and it has been found to be more sensitive than the MMSE.³⁴ We additionally recommend the MoCA as it measures several cognitive skills that are not addressed on the MMSE, includ­ing verbal fluency and abstraction.³⁴ Scores below 25 are suggestive of cognitive impair­ment and should lead to a referral for neuro­psychological testing.

The MoCA’s sensitivity for detecting cog­nitive impairment is high (94%), and specific­ity is low (42%).³⁵ To ensure consistency and accuracy in administering the MoCA, certifi­cation is now required via an online training program through www.mocatest.org.
 

Adapting these screening tools to practice

These tools are not meant to be used at every appointment. Every practice is different, and each clinic or physician can tailor the use of these screening tools to the needs of the patient population, as concerns arise, or in collaboration with other providers. Additionally, these screening tools can be used in both integrated care and in private practice, to prompt a more thorough assessment or to aid in—and inform—treatment. Although some physicians choose to administer certain screening tools at each clinic visit, knowing about the availability of other tools can be useful in assessing various issues. The FIGURE can be used to aid in the clini­cal decision-making process.

How should I be approaching cervical cancer screening: with primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing, or cotesting? We get this question all the time from clinicians. Although they have heard of the latest cervical cancer screening guidelines for stand-alone “primary” HPV testing, they are still ordering cervical cytology (Papanicolaou, or Pap, test) for women aged 21 to 29 years and cotesting (cervical cytology with HPV testing) for women with a cervix aged 30 and older.

Changes in cervical cancer testing guidance

Cervical cancer occurs in more than 13,000 women in the United States annually.¹ High-risk types of HPV—the known cause of cervical cancer—also cause a large majority of cancers of the anus, vagina, vulva, and oropharynx.²

Cervical cancer screening programs in the United States have markedly decreased the incidence of and mortality from cervical cancer since introduction of the Pap smear in the 1950s. In 2000, HPV testing was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as a reflex test to a Pap smear result of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US). HPV testing was then approved for use with cytology as a cotest in 2003 and subsequently as a primary stand-alone test in 2014.

Recently, the American Cancer Society (ACS) released new cervical screening guidelines that depart from prior guidelines.³ They recommend not to screen 21- to 24-year-olds and to start screening at age 25 until age 65 with the preferred strategy of primary HPV testing every 5 years, using an FDA-approved HPV test. Alternative screening strategies are cytology (Pap) every 3 years or cotesting every 5 years.

The 2018 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines differ from the ACS guidelines. The USPSTF recommends cytology every 3 years as the preferred method for women with a cervix who are aged 21 to 29 years and, for women with a cervix who are aged 30 to 65 years, the option for cytology every 3 years, primary HPV testing every 5 years, or cotesting every 5 years (TABLE).⁴

Why the reluctance to switch to HPV testing?

Despite FDA approval in 2014 for primary HPV testing and concurrent professional society guidance to use this testing strategy in women with a cervix who are aged 25 years and older, few practices in the United States have switched over to primary HPV testing for cervical cancer screening.^5,6 Several reasons underlie this inertia:

• Many practices currently use HPV tests that are not FDA approved for primary HPV testing.
• Until recently, national screening guidelines did not recommend primary HPV testing as the preferred testing strategy.
• Long-established guidance on the importance of regular cervical cytology screening promoted by the ACS and others (which especially impacts women with a cervix older than age 50 who guide their younger daughters) will rely on significant re-education to move away from the established “Pap smear” cultural icon to a new approach.
• Last but not least, companies that manufacture HPV tests and laboratories integrated to offer such tests not yet approved for primary screening are promoting reliance on the prior proven cotest strategy. They have lobbied to preserve cotesting as a primary test, with some laboratory database studies showing gaps in detection with HPV test screening alone.^7-9

Currently, the FDA-approved HPV tests for primary HPV screening include the Cobas HPV test (Roche) and the BD Onclarity HPV assay (Becton, Dickinson and Company). Both are DNA tests for 14 high-risk types of HPV that include genotyping for HPV 16 and 18.

Continue to: Follow the evidence...

Several trials in Europe and Canada provide supporting evidence for primary HPV testing, and many European countries have moved to primary HPV testing as their preferred screening method.^10,11 The new ACS guidelines put us more in sync with the rest of the world, where HPV testing is the dominant strategy.

It is true that doing additional tests will find more disease; cotesting has been shown to very minimally increase detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2/3 (CIN 2/3) compared with HPV testing alone, but it incurs many more costs and procedures.¹² The vast majority of cervical cancer is HPV positive, and cytology still can be used as a triage to primary HPV screening until tests with better sensitivity and/or specificity (such as dual stain and methylation) can be employed to reduce unnecessary “false-positive” driven procedures.

As mentioned, many strong forces are trying to keep cotesting as the preferred strategy. It is important for clinicians to recognize the corporate investment into screening platforms, relationships, and products that underlie some of these efforts so as not to be unfairly influenced by their lobbying. Data from well-conducted, high-quality studies should be the evidence on which one bases a cervical cancer screening strategy.

Innovation catalyzes change

We acknowledge that it is difficult to give up something you have been doing for decades, so there is natural resistance by both patients and clinicians to move the Pap smear into a secondary role. But the data support primary HPV testing as the best screening option from a public health perspective.

At some point, hopefully soon, primary HPV testing will receive approval for self-sampling; this has the potential to reach patients in rural or remote locations who may otherwise not get screened for cervical cancer.¹³

The 2019 risk-based management guidelines from the ASCCP (American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology) also incorporate the use of HPV-based screening and surveillance after abnormal tests or colposcopy. Therefore, switching to primary HPV screening will not impact your ability to follow patients appropriately based on clinical guidelines.

Our advice to clinicians is to switch to primary HPV screening now if possible. If that is not feasible, continue your current strategy until you can make the change. And, of course, we recommend that you implement an HPV vaccination program in your practice to maximize primary prevention of HPV-related cancers. ●

How should I be approaching cervical cancer screening: with primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing, or cotesting? We get this question all the time from clinicians. Although they have heard of the latest cervical cancer screening guidelines for stand-alone “primary” HPV testing, they are still ordering cervical cytology (Papanicolaou, or Pap, test) for women aged 21 to 29 years and cotesting (cervical cytology with HPV testing) for women with a cervix aged 30 and older.

Changes in cervical cancer testing guidance

Cervical cancer occurs in more than 13,000 women in the United States annually.¹ High-risk types of HPV—the known cause of cervical cancer—also cause a large majority of cancers of the anus, vagina, vulva, and oropharynx.²

Cervical cancer screening programs in the United States have markedly decreased the incidence of and mortality from cervical cancer since introduction of the Pap smear in the 1950s. In 2000, HPV testing was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as a reflex test to a Pap smear result of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US). HPV testing was then approved for use with cytology as a cotest in 2003 and subsequently as a primary stand-alone test in 2014.

Recently, the American Cancer Society (ACS) released new cervical screening guidelines that depart from prior guidelines.³ They recommend not to screen 21- to 24-year-olds and to start screening at age 25 until age 65 with the preferred strategy of primary HPV testing every 5 years, using an FDA-approved HPV test. Alternative screening strategies are cytology (Pap) every 3 years or cotesting every 5 years.

The 2018 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines differ from the ACS guidelines. The USPSTF recommends cytology every 3 years as the preferred method for women with a cervix who are aged 21 to 29 years and, for women with a cervix who are aged 30 to 65 years, the option for cytology every 3 years, primary HPV testing every 5 years, or cotesting every 5 years (TABLE).⁴

Why the reluctance to switch to HPV testing?

Despite FDA approval in 2014 for primary HPV testing and concurrent professional society guidance to use this testing strategy in women with a cervix who are aged 25 years and older, few practices in the United States have switched over to primary HPV testing for cervical cancer screening.^5,6 Several reasons underlie this inertia:

• Many practices currently use HPV tests that are not FDA approved for primary HPV testing.
• Until recently, national screening guidelines did not recommend primary HPV testing as the preferred testing strategy.
• Long-established guidance on the importance of regular cervical cytology screening promoted by the ACS and others (which especially impacts women with a cervix older than age 50 who guide their younger daughters) will rely on significant re-education to move away from the established “Pap smear” cultural icon to a new approach.
• Last but not least, companies that manufacture HPV tests and laboratories integrated to offer such tests not yet approved for primary screening are promoting reliance on the prior proven cotest strategy. They have lobbied to preserve cotesting as a primary test, with some laboratory database studies showing gaps in detection with HPV test screening alone.^7-9

Currently, the FDA-approved HPV tests for primary HPV screening include the Cobas HPV test (Roche) and the BD Onclarity HPV assay (Becton, Dickinson and Company). Both are DNA tests for 14 high-risk types of HPV that include genotyping for HPV 16 and 18.

Continue to: Follow the evidence...

Several trials in Europe and Canada provide supporting evidence for primary HPV testing, and many European countries have moved to primary HPV testing as their preferred screening method.^10,11 The new ACS guidelines put us more in sync with the rest of the world, where HPV testing is the dominant strategy.

It is true that doing additional tests will find more disease; cotesting has been shown to very minimally increase detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2/3 (CIN 2/3) compared with HPV testing alone, but it incurs many more costs and procedures.¹² The vast majority of cervical cancer is HPV positive, and cytology still can be used as a triage to primary HPV screening until tests with better sensitivity and/or specificity (such as dual stain and methylation) can be employed to reduce unnecessary “false-positive” driven procedures.

As mentioned, many strong forces are trying to keep cotesting as the preferred strategy. It is important for clinicians to recognize the corporate investment into screening platforms, relationships, and products that underlie some of these efforts so as not to be unfairly influenced by their lobbying. Data from well-conducted, high-quality studies should be the evidence on which one bases a cervical cancer screening strategy.

Innovation catalyzes change

We acknowledge that it is difficult to give up something you have been doing for decades, so there is natural resistance by both patients and clinicians to move the Pap smear into a secondary role. But the data support primary HPV testing as the best screening option from a public health perspective.

At some point, hopefully soon, primary HPV testing will receive approval for self-sampling; this has the potential to reach patients in rural or remote locations who may otherwise not get screened for cervical cancer.¹³

The 2019 risk-based management guidelines from the ASCCP (American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology) also incorporate the use of HPV-based screening and surveillance after abnormal tests or colposcopy. Therefore, switching to primary HPV screening will not impact your ability to follow patients appropriately based on clinical guidelines.

Our advice to clinicians is to switch to primary HPV screening now if possible. If that is not feasible, continue your current strategy until you can make the change. And, of course, we recommend that you implement an HPV vaccination program in your practice to maximize primary prevention of HPV-related cancers. ●

How should I be approaching cervical cancer screening: with primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing, or cotesting? We get this question all the time from clinicians. Although they have heard of the latest cervical cancer screening guidelines for stand-alone “primary” HPV testing, they are still ordering cervical cytology (Papanicolaou, or Pap, test) for women aged 21 to 29 years and cotesting (cervical cytology with HPV testing) for women with a cervix aged 30 and older.

Changes in cervical cancer testing guidance

Cervical cancer occurs in more than 13,000 women in the United States annually.¹ High-risk types of HPV—the known cause of cervical cancer—also cause a large majority of cancers of the anus, vagina, vulva, and oropharynx.²

Cervical cancer screening programs in the United States have markedly decreased the incidence of and mortality from cervical cancer since introduction of the Pap smear in the 1950s. In 2000, HPV testing was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as a reflex test to a Pap smear result of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US). HPV testing was then approved for use with cytology as a cotest in 2003 and subsequently as a primary stand-alone test in 2014.

Recently, the American Cancer Society (ACS) released new cervical screening guidelines that depart from prior guidelines.³ They recommend not to screen 21- to 24-year-olds and to start screening at age 25 until age 65 with the preferred strategy of primary HPV testing every 5 years, using an FDA-approved HPV test. Alternative screening strategies are cytology (Pap) every 3 years or cotesting every 5 years.

The 2018 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines differ from the ACS guidelines. The USPSTF recommends cytology every 3 years as the preferred method for women with a cervix who are aged 21 to 29 years and, for women with a cervix who are aged 30 to 65 years, the option for cytology every 3 years, primary HPV testing every 5 years, or cotesting every 5 years (TABLE).⁴

Why the reluctance to switch to HPV testing?

Despite FDA approval in 2014 for primary HPV testing and concurrent professional society guidance to use this testing strategy in women with a cervix who are aged 25 years and older, few practices in the United States have switched over to primary HPV testing for cervical cancer screening.^5,6 Several reasons underlie this inertia:

• Many practices currently use HPV tests that are not FDA approved for primary HPV testing.
• Until recently, national screening guidelines did not recommend primary HPV testing as the preferred testing strategy.
• Long-established guidance on the importance of regular cervical cytology screening promoted by the ACS and others (which especially impacts women with a cervix older than age 50 who guide their younger daughters) will rely on significant re-education to move away from the established “Pap smear” cultural icon to a new approach.
• Last but not least, companies that manufacture HPV tests and laboratories integrated to offer such tests not yet approved for primary screening are promoting reliance on the prior proven cotest strategy. They have lobbied to preserve cotesting as a primary test, with some laboratory database studies showing gaps in detection with HPV test screening alone.^7-9

Currently, the FDA-approved HPV tests for primary HPV screening include the Cobas HPV test (Roche) and the BD Onclarity HPV assay (Becton, Dickinson and Company). Both are DNA tests for 14 high-risk types of HPV that include genotyping for HPV 16 and 18.

Continue to: Follow the evidence...

Several trials in Europe and Canada provide supporting evidence for primary HPV testing, and many European countries have moved to primary HPV testing as their preferred screening method.^10,11 The new ACS guidelines put us more in sync with the rest of the world, where HPV testing is the dominant strategy.

It is true that doing additional tests will find more disease; cotesting has been shown to very minimally increase detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2/3 (CIN 2/3) compared with HPV testing alone, but it incurs many more costs and procedures.¹² The vast majority of cervical cancer is HPV positive, and cytology still can be used as a triage to primary HPV screening until tests with better sensitivity and/or specificity (such as dual stain and methylation) can be employed to reduce unnecessary “false-positive” driven procedures.

As mentioned, many strong forces are trying to keep cotesting as the preferred strategy. It is important for clinicians to recognize the corporate investment into screening platforms, relationships, and products that underlie some of these efforts so as not to be unfairly influenced by their lobbying. Data from well-conducted, high-quality studies should be the evidence on which one bases a cervical cancer screening strategy.

Innovation catalyzes change

We acknowledge that it is difficult to give up something you have been doing for decades, so there is natural resistance by both patients and clinicians to move the Pap smear into a secondary role. But the data support primary HPV testing as the best screening option from a public health perspective.

At some point, hopefully soon, primary HPV testing will receive approval for self-sampling; this has the potential to reach patients in rural or remote locations who may otherwise not get screened for cervical cancer.¹³

The 2019 risk-based management guidelines from the ASCCP (American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology) also incorporate the use of HPV-based screening and surveillance after abnormal tests or colposcopy. Therefore, switching to primary HPV screening will not impact your ability to follow patients appropriately based on clinical guidelines.

Our advice to clinicians is to switch to primary HPV screening now if possible. If that is not feasible, continue your current strategy until you can make the change. And, of course, we recommend that you implement an HPV vaccination program in your practice to maximize primary prevention of HPV-related cancers. ●

Uterine leiomyomata (fibroids) are the most common pelvic tumor of women. When women are planning to conceive, and their fibroid(s) are clinically significant, causing abnormal uterine bleeding or bulk symptoms, it is often optimal to remove the uterine tumor(s) before conception. Advances in minimally invasive surgery offer women the option of laparoscopic or robot-assisted myomectomy with a low rate of operative complications, including excessive blood loss and hysterectomy, and a low rate of postoperative complications, including major pelvic adhesions and uterine rupture during subsequent pregnancy.^1-3 However, many women become pregnant when they have clinically significant fibroids, and at least one-third of these women will have a cesarean birth.

Important clinical issues are the relative benefits and risks of performing a myomectomy at the time of the cesarean birth, so called cesarean myomectomy. Cesarean myomectomy offers carefully selected women the opportunity to have a cesarean birth and myomectomy in one operation, thereby avoiding a second major operation. Over the past 6 decades, most experts in the United States and the United Kingdom have strongly recommended against myomectomy at the time of cesarean delivery because of the risk of excessive blood loss and hysterectomy. Recently, expert opinion has shifted, especially in continental Europe and Asia, and cesarean myomectomy is now viewed as an acceptable surgical option in a limited number of clinical situations, including removal of pedunculated fibroids, excision of large solitary subserosal fibroids, and to achieve optimal management of the hysterotomy incision.

Decades of expert guidance: Avoid cesarean myomectomy at all costs

Dr. K.S.J. Olah succinctly captured the standard teaching that cesarean myomectomy should be avoided in this personal vignette:

Many years ago as a trainee I removed a subserosal fibroid during a cesarean section that was hanging by a thin stalk on the back of the uterus. The berating I received was severe and disproportionate to the crime. The rule was that myomectomy performed at cesarean section was not just frowned upon but expressly forbidden. It has always been considered foolish to consider removing fibroids at cesarean section, mostly because of the associated morbidity and the risk of haemorrhage requiring hysterectomy.⁴

Dr. Olah quoted guidance from Shaw’s Textbook of Operative Gynaecology,⁵ “It should be stressed that myomectomy in pregnancy should be avoided at all costs, including at caesarean section.” However, large case series published over the past 10 years report that, in limited clinical situations, cesarean myomectomy is a viable surgical option, where benefit may outweigh risk.^6-14 The current literature has many weaknesses, including failure to specifically identify the indication for the cesarean myomectomy and lack of controlled prospective clinical trials. In almost all cases, cesarean myomectomy is performed after delivery of the fetus and placenta.

Continue to: The pedunculated, FIGO type 7 fibroid...

The International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) leiomyoma classification system identifies subserosal pedunculated fibroids as type 7 (FIGURE).¹⁵ Pedunculated fibroids are attached to the uterus by a stalk that is ≤10% of the mean of the 3 diameters of the fibroid. When a clinically significant pedunculated fibroid, causing bulk symptoms, is encountered at cesarean birth, I recommend that it be removed. This will save many patients a second major operation to perform a myomectomy. The surgical risk of removing a pedunculated is low.

The solitary FIGO type 6 fibroid

Type 6 fibroids are subserosal fibroids with less than 50% of their mass being subserosal. The type 6 fibroid is relatively easy to enucleate from the uterus. Following removal of a type 6 fibroid, closure of the serosal defect is relatively straightforward. In carefully selected cases, if the type 6 fibroid is causing bulk symptoms, cesarean myomectomy may be indicated with a low risk of operative complications.

The FIGO type 2-5 fibroid

The type 2-5 fibroid is a transmural fibroid with significant mass abutting both the endometrial cavity and serosal surface. Excision of a type 2-5 fibroid is likely to result in a large transmyometrial defect that will be more difficult to close and could be associated with greater blood loss. Although data are limited, I would recommend against cesarean myomectomy for type 2-5 fibroids in most clinical situations.

Myomectomy to achieve optimal management of the cesarean hysterotomy incision

Many surgeons performing a cesarean birth for a woman with clinically significant fibroids will plan the hysterotomy incision to avoid the fibroids. However, following delivery and contraction of the uterus, proper closure of the hysterotomy incision may be very difficult without removing a fibroid that is abutting the hysterotomy incision. Surgeons have reported performing myomectomy on lower uterine segment fibroids before making the hysterotomy incision in order to facilitate the hysterotomy incision and closure.¹⁶ Myomectomy prior to delivery of the newborn must be associated with additional risks to the fetus. I would prefer to identify an optimal site to perform a hysterotomy, deliver the newborn and placenta, and then consider myomectomy.

Complications associated with cesarean myomectomy

The evidence concerning the complications of cesarean birth plus myomectomy compared with cesarean birth alone in women with fibroids is limited to case series. There are no reported controlled clinical trials to guide practice. The largest single case series reported on 1,242 women with fibroids who had a cesarean birth plus myomectomy compared with 3 control groups, including 200 women without fibroids who had a cesarean birth, 145 women with fibroids who had a cesarean birth and no myomectomy, and 51 women with fibroids who had a cesarean hysterectomy. The investigators reported no significant differences in preoperative to postoperative hemoglobin change, incidence of postoperative fever, or length of hospital stay among the 4 groups.⁸ The authors concluded that myomectomy during cesarean birth was a safe and effective procedure.

Continue to: A systematic review and meta-analysis reported...

A systematic review and meta-analysis reported on the results of 17 studies which included 4,702 women who had a cesarean myomectomy and 1,843 women with cesarean birth without myomectomy.¹⁷ The authors of the meta-analysis noted that most reported case series had excluded women with a high risk of bleeding, including women with placenta previa, placenta accreta, coagulation disorders, and a history of multiple myomectomy operations. The investigators reported that, compared with the control women, the women undergoing cesarean myomectomy had a statistically significant but clinically insignificant decrease in mean hemoglobin concentration (-0.27 g/dL), a significant increase in mean operative time (+15 minutes) and a significant increase in the length of hospital stay (+0.36 days). There was an increase in the need for blood transfusion (risk ratio, 1.45; 95% confidence interval, 1.05–1.99), but only 3% of women undergoing cesarean myomectomy received a blood transfusion. There was no significant difference between the two groups in the incidence of postoperative fever. The authors concluded that cesarean myomectomy is a safe procedure when performed by experienced surgeons with appropriate hemostatic techniques.

Techniques to reduce blood loss at the time of cesarean myomectomy

A detailed review of all the available techniques to reduce blood loss at the time of cesarean myomectomy is beyond the scope of this editorial. All gynecologists know that control of uterine blood flow through the uterine artery, infundibulopelvic vessels and internal iliac artery can help to reduce bleeding at the time of myomectomy. Tourniquets, vascular clamps, and artery ligation all have been reported to be useful at the time of cesarean myomectomy. In addition, intravenous infusion of oxytocin and tranexamic acid is often used at the time of cesarean myomectomy. Direct injection of uterotonics, including carbetocin, oxytocin, and vasopressin, into the uterus also has been reported. Cell saver blood salvage technology has been utilized in a limited number of cases of cesarean myomectomy.^8,18,19

Medicine is not a static field

Discoveries and new data help guide advances in medical practice. After 6 decades of strict adherence to the advice that myomectomy in pregnancy should be avoided at all costs, including at caesarean delivery, new data indicate that in carefully selected cases cesarean myomectomy is an acceptable operation. ●

Uterine leiomyomata (fibroids) are the most common pelvic tumor of women. When women are planning to conceive, and their fibroid(s) are clinically significant, causing abnormal uterine bleeding or bulk symptoms, it is often optimal to remove the uterine tumor(s) before conception. Advances in minimally invasive surgery offer women the option of laparoscopic or robot-assisted myomectomy with a low rate of operative complications, including excessive blood loss and hysterectomy, and a low rate of postoperative complications, including major pelvic adhesions and uterine rupture during subsequent pregnancy.^1-3 However, many women become pregnant when they have clinically significant fibroids, and at least one-third of these women will have a cesarean birth.

Important clinical issues are the relative benefits and risks of performing a myomectomy at the time of the cesarean birth, so called cesarean myomectomy. Cesarean myomectomy offers carefully selected women the opportunity to have a cesarean birth and myomectomy in one operation, thereby avoiding a second major operation. Over the past 6 decades, most experts in the United States and the United Kingdom have strongly recommended against myomectomy at the time of cesarean delivery because of the risk of excessive blood loss and hysterectomy. Recently, expert opinion has shifted, especially in continental Europe and Asia, and cesarean myomectomy is now viewed as an acceptable surgical option in a limited number of clinical situations, including removal of pedunculated fibroids, excision of large solitary subserosal fibroids, and to achieve optimal management of the hysterotomy incision.

Decades of expert guidance: Avoid cesarean myomectomy at all costs

Dr. K.S.J. Olah succinctly captured the standard teaching that cesarean myomectomy should be avoided in this personal vignette:

Many years ago as a trainee I removed a subserosal fibroid during a cesarean section that was hanging by a thin stalk on the back of the uterus. The berating I received was severe and disproportionate to the crime. The rule was that myomectomy performed at cesarean section was not just frowned upon but expressly forbidden. It has always been considered foolish to consider removing fibroids at cesarean section, mostly because of the associated morbidity and the risk of haemorrhage requiring hysterectomy.⁴

Dr. Olah quoted guidance from Shaw’s Textbook of Operative Gynaecology,⁵ “It should be stressed that myomectomy in pregnancy should be avoided at all costs, including at caesarean section.” However, large case series published over the past 10 years report that, in limited clinical situations, cesarean myomectomy is a viable surgical option, where benefit may outweigh risk.^6-14 The current literature has many weaknesses, including failure to specifically identify the indication for the cesarean myomectomy and lack of controlled prospective clinical trials. In almost all cases, cesarean myomectomy is performed after delivery of the fetus and placenta.

Continue to: The pedunculated, FIGO type 7 fibroid...

The International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) leiomyoma classification system identifies subserosal pedunculated fibroids as type 7 (FIGURE).¹⁵ Pedunculated fibroids are attached to the uterus by a stalk that is ≤10% of the mean of the 3 diameters of the fibroid. When a clinically significant pedunculated fibroid, causing bulk symptoms, is encountered at cesarean birth, I recommend that it be removed. This will save many patients a second major operation to perform a myomectomy. The surgical risk of removing a pedunculated is low.

The solitary FIGO type 6 fibroid

Type 6 fibroids are subserosal fibroids with less than 50% of their mass being subserosal. The type 6 fibroid is relatively easy to enucleate from the uterus. Following removal of a type 6 fibroid, closure of the serosal defect is relatively straightforward. In carefully selected cases, if the type 6 fibroid is causing bulk symptoms, cesarean myomectomy may be indicated with a low risk of operative complications.

The FIGO type 2-5 fibroid

The type 2-5 fibroid is a transmural fibroid with significant mass abutting both the endometrial cavity and serosal surface. Excision of a type 2-5 fibroid is likely to result in a large transmyometrial defect that will be more difficult to close and could be associated with greater blood loss. Although data are limited, I would recommend against cesarean myomectomy for type 2-5 fibroids in most clinical situations.

Myomectomy to achieve optimal management of the cesarean hysterotomy incision

Many surgeons performing a cesarean birth for a woman with clinically significant fibroids will plan the hysterotomy incision to avoid the fibroids. However, following delivery and contraction of the uterus, proper closure of the hysterotomy incision may be very difficult without removing a fibroid that is abutting the hysterotomy incision. Surgeons have reported performing myomectomy on lower uterine segment fibroids before making the hysterotomy incision in order to facilitate the hysterotomy incision and closure.¹⁶ Myomectomy prior to delivery of the newborn must be associated with additional risks to the fetus. I would prefer to identify an optimal site to perform a hysterotomy, deliver the newborn and placenta, and then consider myomectomy.

Complications associated with cesarean myomectomy

The evidence concerning the complications of cesarean birth plus myomectomy compared with cesarean birth alone in women with fibroids is limited to case series. There are no reported controlled clinical trials to guide practice. The largest single case series reported on 1,242 women with fibroids who had a cesarean birth plus myomectomy compared with 3 control groups, including 200 women without fibroids who had a cesarean birth, 145 women with fibroids who had a cesarean birth and no myomectomy, and 51 women with fibroids who had a cesarean hysterectomy. The investigators reported no significant differences in preoperative to postoperative hemoglobin change, incidence of postoperative fever, or length of hospital stay among the 4 groups.⁸ The authors concluded that myomectomy during cesarean birth was a safe and effective procedure.

Continue to: A systematic review and meta-analysis reported...

A systematic review and meta-analysis reported on the results of 17 studies which included 4,702 women who had a cesarean myomectomy and 1,843 women with cesarean birth without myomectomy.¹⁷ The authors of the meta-analysis noted that most reported case series had excluded women with a high risk of bleeding, including women with placenta previa, placenta accreta, coagulation disorders, and a history of multiple myomectomy operations. The investigators reported that, compared with the control women, the women undergoing cesarean myomectomy had a statistically significant but clinically insignificant decrease in mean hemoglobin concentration (-0.27 g/dL), a significant increase in mean operative time (+15 minutes) and a significant increase in the length of hospital stay (+0.36 days). There was an increase in the need for blood transfusion (risk ratio, 1.45; 95% confidence interval, 1.05–1.99), but only 3% of women undergoing cesarean myomectomy received a blood transfusion. There was no significant difference between the two groups in the incidence of postoperative fever. The authors concluded that cesarean myomectomy is a safe procedure when performed by experienced surgeons with appropriate hemostatic techniques.

Techniques to reduce blood loss at the time of cesarean myomectomy

A detailed review of all the available techniques to reduce blood loss at the time of cesarean myomectomy is beyond the scope of this editorial. All gynecologists know that control of uterine blood flow through the uterine artery, infundibulopelvic vessels and internal iliac artery can help to reduce bleeding at the time of myomectomy. Tourniquets, vascular clamps, and artery ligation all have been reported to be useful at the time of cesarean myomectomy. In addition, intravenous infusion of oxytocin and tranexamic acid is often used at the time of cesarean myomectomy. Direct injection of uterotonics, including carbetocin, oxytocin, and vasopressin, into the uterus also has been reported. Cell saver blood salvage technology has been utilized in a limited number of cases of cesarean myomectomy.^8,18,19

Medicine is not a static field

Discoveries and new data help guide advances in medical practice. After 6 decades of strict adherence to the advice that myomectomy in pregnancy should be avoided at all costs, including at caesarean delivery, new data indicate that in carefully selected cases cesarean myomectomy is an acceptable operation. ●

Uterine leiomyomata (fibroids) are the most common pelvic tumor of women. When women are planning to conceive, and their fibroid(s) are clinically significant, causing abnormal uterine bleeding or bulk symptoms, it is often optimal to remove the uterine tumor(s) before conception. Advances in minimally invasive surgery offer women the option of laparoscopic or robot-assisted myomectomy with a low rate of operative complications, including excessive blood loss and hysterectomy, and a low rate of postoperative complications, including major pelvic adhesions and uterine rupture during subsequent pregnancy.^1-3 However, many women become pregnant when they have clinically significant fibroids, and at least one-third of these women will have a cesarean birth.

Important clinical issues are the relative benefits and risks of performing a myomectomy at the time of the cesarean birth, so called cesarean myomectomy. Cesarean myomectomy offers carefully selected women the opportunity to have a cesarean birth and myomectomy in one operation, thereby avoiding a second major operation. Over the past 6 decades, most experts in the United States and the United Kingdom have strongly recommended against myomectomy at the time of cesarean delivery because of the risk of excessive blood loss and hysterectomy. Recently, expert opinion has shifted, especially in continental Europe and Asia, and cesarean myomectomy is now viewed as an acceptable surgical option in a limited number of clinical situations, including removal of pedunculated fibroids, excision of large solitary subserosal fibroids, and to achieve optimal management of the hysterotomy incision.

Decades of expert guidance: Avoid cesarean myomectomy at all costs

Dr. K.S.J. Olah succinctly captured the standard teaching that cesarean myomectomy should be avoided in this personal vignette:

Many years ago as a trainee I removed a subserosal fibroid during a cesarean section that was hanging by a thin stalk on the back of the uterus. The berating I received was severe and disproportionate to the crime. The rule was that myomectomy performed at cesarean section was not just frowned upon but expressly forbidden. It has always been considered foolish to consider removing fibroids at cesarean section, mostly because of the associated morbidity and the risk of haemorrhage requiring hysterectomy.⁴

Dr. Olah quoted guidance from Shaw’s Textbook of Operative Gynaecology,⁵ “It should be stressed that myomectomy in pregnancy should be avoided at all costs, including at caesarean section.” However, large case series published over the past 10 years report that, in limited clinical situations, cesarean myomectomy is a viable surgical option, where benefit may outweigh risk.^6-14 The current literature has many weaknesses, including failure to specifically identify the indication for the cesarean myomectomy and lack of controlled prospective clinical trials. In almost all cases, cesarean myomectomy is performed after delivery of the fetus and placenta.

Continue to: The pedunculated, FIGO type 7 fibroid...

The International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) leiomyoma classification system identifies subserosal pedunculated fibroids as type 7 (FIGURE).¹⁵ Pedunculated fibroids are attached to the uterus by a stalk that is ≤10% of the mean of the 3 diameters of the fibroid. When a clinically significant pedunculated fibroid, causing bulk symptoms, is encountered at cesarean birth, I recommend that it be removed. This will save many patients a second major operation to perform a myomectomy. The surgical risk of removing a pedunculated is low.

The solitary FIGO type 6 fibroid

Type 6 fibroids are subserosal fibroids with less than 50% of their mass being subserosal. The type 6 fibroid is relatively easy to enucleate from the uterus. Following removal of a type 6 fibroid, closure of the serosal defect is relatively straightforward. In carefully selected cases, if the type 6 fibroid is causing bulk symptoms, cesarean myomectomy may be indicated with a low risk of operative complications.

The FIGO type 2-5 fibroid

The type 2-5 fibroid is a transmural fibroid with significant mass abutting both the endometrial cavity and serosal surface. Excision of a type 2-5 fibroid is likely to result in a large transmyometrial defect that will be more difficult to close and could be associated with greater blood loss. Although data are limited, I would recommend against cesarean myomectomy for type 2-5 fibroids in most clinical situations.

Myomectomy to achieve optimal management of the cesarean hysterotomy incision

Many surgeons performing a cesarean birth for a woman with clinically significant fibroids will plan the hysterotomy incision to avoid the fibroids. However, following delivery and contraction of the uterus, proper closure of the hysterotomy incision may be very difficult without removing a fibroid that is abutting the hysterotomy incision. Surgeons have reported performing myomectomy on lower uterine segment fibroids before making the hysterotomy incision in order to facilitate the hysterotomy incision and closure.¹⁶ Myomectomy prior to delivery of the newborn must be associated with additional risks to the fetus. I would prefer to identify an optimal site to perform a hysterotomy, deliver the newborn and placenta, and then consider myomectomy.

Complications associated with cesarean myomectomy

The evidence concerning the complications of cesarean birth plus myomectomy compared with cesarean birth alone in women with fibroids is limited to case series. There are no reported controlled clinical trials to guide practice. The largest single case series reported on 1,242 women with fibroids who had a cesarean birth plus myomectomy compared with 3 control groups, including 200 women without fibroids who had a cesarean birth, 145 women with fibroids who had a cesarean birth and no myomectomy, and 51 women with fibroids who had a cesarean hysterectomy. The investigators reported no significant differences in preoperative to postoperative hemoglobin change, incidence of postoperative fever, or length of hospital stay among the 4 groups.⁸ The authors concluded that myomectomy during cesarean birth was a safe and effective procedure.

Continue to: A systematic review and meta-analysis reported...

A systematic review and meta-analysis reported on the results of 17 studies which included 4,702 women who had a cesarean myomectomy and 1,843 women with cesarean birth without myomectomy.¹⁷ The authors of the meta-analysis noted that most reported case series had excluded women with a high risk of bleeding, including women with placenta previa, placenta accreta, coagulation disorders, and a history of multiple myomectomy operations. The investigators reported that, compared with the control women, the women undergoing cesarean myomectomy had a statistically significant but clinically insignificant decrease in mean hemoglobin concentration (-0.27 g/dL), a significant increase in mean operative time (+15 minutes) and a significant increase in the length of hospital stay (+0.36 days). There was an increase in the need for blood transfusion (risk ratio, 1.45; 95% confidence interval, 1.05–1.99), but only 3% of women undergoing cesarean myomectomy received a blood transfusion. There was no significant difference between the two groups in the incidence of postoperative fever. The authors concluded that cesarean myomectomy is a safe procedure when performed by experienced surgeons with appropriate hemostatic techniques.

Techniques to reduce blood loss at the time of cesarean myomectomy

A detailed review of all the available techniques to reduce blood loss at the time of cesarean myomectomy is beyond the scope of this editorial. All gynecologists know that control of uterine blood flow through the uterine artery, infundibulopelvic vessels and internal iliac artery can help to reduce bleeding at the time of myomectomy. Tourniquets, vascular clamps, and artery ligation all have been reported to be useful at the time of cesarean myomectomy. In addition, intravenous infusion of oxytocin and tranexamic acid is often used at the time of cesarean myomectomy. Direct injection of uterotonics, including carbetocin, oxytocin, and vasopressin, into the uterus also has been reported. Cell saver blood salvage technology has been utilized in a limited number of cases of cesarean myomectomy.^8,18,19

Medicine is not a static field

Discoveries and new data help guide advances in medical practice. After 6 decades of strict adherence to the advice that myomectomy in pregnancy should be avoided at all costs, including at caesarean delivery, new data indicate that in carefully selected cases cesarean myomectomy is an acceptable operation. ●

Karlsson T, Johansson T, Hoguland J, et al. Time-dependent effects of oral contraceptive use on breast, ovarian and endometrial cancers. Cancer Research. 2020;canres.2476.2020. doi:10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-20-2476.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

The long-term effects of OC use on gynecologic and breast cancers has been uncertain, with different reports yielding conflicting findings. To assess the time-dependent and long-term associations between OC use and the risk of breast, ovarian, and endometrial cancer in women born between 1939 and 1970, Karlsson and colleagues used data from the UK Biobank (which includes a large cross-sectional cohort of individuals recruited between 2006 and 2010) and national databases.

Details of the study

A total of 256,661 women were included in this study. Of these, 82% (210,443) had used or were currently using OC (ever-users) and 18% (46,218) had never used OC (never-users). There were 17,739; 1,966; and 2,462 cases of breast, ovarian, and endometrial cancer, respectively, identified.

In analyses adjusted for 10 parameters, the ORs for ovarian (OR, 0.72) and endometrial cancer (OR, 0.68) were lower among ever-users of OC compared with never-users (P<.05). However, the OR for breast cancer (OR, 1.02) was similar among ever-users and never-users of OC (P>.05).

Among women followed to age 55, results were similar for the 2 gynecologic cancers but were significantly higher for breast cancer (OR, 1.10; P<.05). With 20 or more years of OC use, greater prevention of ovarian (OR, 0.60) and, particularly, endometrial cancer (OR, 0.36) was observed (P<.05). However, the risk of breast cancer was similar in never-users and long-term users of OC.

Study strengths and limitations

A strength of this study is that, compared with most previous studies, it had a much longer follow-up period.

The authors noted, however, that among the potential limitations in the study design was the fact that only 6% of participants invited to the UK Biobank volunteered to participate in the study. This may have resulted in participation bias within the cohort, reflecting a healthier cohort that is not representative of the overall population. ●

Karlsson T, Johansson T, Hoguland J, et al. Time-dependent effects of oral contraceptive use on breast, ovarian and endometrial cancers. Cancer Research. 2020;canres.2476.2020. doi:10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-20-2476.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

The long-term effects of OC use on gynecologic and breast cancers has been uncertain, with different reports yielding conflicting findings. To assess the time-dependent and long-term associations between OC use and the risk of breast, ovarian, and endometrial cancer in women born between 1939 and 1970, Karlsson and colleagues used data from the UK Biobank (which includes a large cross-sectional cohort of individuals recruited between 2006 and 2010) and national databases.

Details of the study

A total of 256,661 women were included in this study. Of these, 82% (210,443) had used or were currently using OC (ever-users) and 18% (46,218) had never used OC (never-users). There were 17,739; 1,966; and 2,462 cases of breast, ovarian, and endometrial cancer, respectively, identified.

In analyses adjusted for 10 parameters, the ORs for ovarian (OR, 0.72) and endometrial cancer (OR, 0.68) were lower among ever-users of OC compared with never-users (P<.05). However, the OR for breast cancer (OR, 1.02) was similar among ever-users and never-users of OC (P>.05).

Among women followed to age 55, results were similar for the 2 gynecologic cancers but were significantly higher for breast cancer (OR, 1.10; P<.05). With 20 or more years of OC use, greater prevention of ovarian (OR, 0.60) and, particularly, endometrial cancer (OR, 0.36) was observed (P<.05). However, the risk of breast cancer was similar in never-users and long-term users of OC.

Study strengths and limitations

A strength of this study is that, compared with most previous studies, it had a much longer follow-up period.

The authors noted, however, that among the potential limitations in the study design was the fact that only 6% of participants invited to the UK Biobank volunteered to participate in the study. This may have resulted in participation bias within the cohort, reflecting a healthier cohort that is not representative of the overall population. ●

Karlsson T, Johansson T, Hoguland J, et al. Time-dependent effects of oral contraceptive use on breast, ovarian and endometrial cancers. Cancer Research. 2020;canres.2476.2020. doi:10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-20-2476.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

The long-term effects of OC use on gynecologic and breast cancers has been uncertain, with different reports yielding conflicting findings. To assess the time-dependent and long-term associations between OC use and the risk of breast, ovarian, and endometrial cancer in women born between 1939 and 1970, Karlsson and colleagues used data from the UK Biobank (which includes a large cross-sectional cohort of individuals recruited between 2006 and 2010) and national databases.

Details of the study

A total of 256,661 women were included in this study. Of these, 82% (210,443) had used or were currently using OC (ever-users) and 18% (46,218) had never used OC (never-users). There were 17,739; 1,966; and 2,462 cases of breast, ovarian, and endometrial cancer, respectively, identified.

In analyses adjusted for 10 parameters, the ORs for ovarian (OR, 0.72) and endometrial cancer (OR, 0.68) were lower among ever-users of OC compared with never-users (P<.05). However, the OR for breast cancer (OR, 1.02) was similar among ever-users and never-users of OC (P>.05).

Among women followed to age 55, results were similar for the 2 gynecologic cancers but were significantly higher for breast cancer (OR, 1.10; P<.05). With 20 or more years of OC use, greater prevention of ovarian (OR, 0.60) and, particularly, endometrial cancer (OR, 0.36) was observed (P<.05). However, the risk of breast cancer was similar in never-users and long-term users of OC.

Study strengths and limitations

A strength of this study is that, compared with most previous studies, it had a much longer follow-up period.

The authors noted, however, that among the potential limitations in the study design was the fact that only 6% of participants invited to the UK Biobank volunteered to participate in the study. This may have resulted in participation bias within the cohort, reflecting a healthier cohort that is not representative of the overall population. ●