<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<recommendedContent xmlns="http://api.mspoke.com">
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_467"
                     title="FDA Unveils New Safety Plan for Medical Imaging"
                     score="0.011"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/Radiology/DiagnosticRadiology/tb/18398?impressionId=1265779365231"
                     
      &lt;p&gt;WASHINGTON  --  The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) says it wants to issue new safety requirements for manufacturers of computed tomography (CT) and fluoroscopic devices to reduce unnecessary radiation from medical imaging.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The FDA&apos;s plan focuses on three procedures with high radiation doses: CT, nuclear medicine studies, and fluoroscopy. These are the greatest contributors to total radiation exposure within the U.S. population, the FDA said. That&apos;s because they require much higher radiation doses than other radiographic procedures, such as standard X-rays, dental X-rays, and mammography.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;The amount of radiation Americans are exposed to from medical imaging has dramatically increased over the past 20 years,&quot; Jeffrey Shuren, MD, director of the FDA&apos;s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in a prepared statement. &quot;The goal of FDA&apos;s initiative is to support the benefits associated with medical imaging while minimizing the risks.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;While the three procedures have led to early diagnosis of disease, they expose patients to ionizing radiation that may increase lifetime cancer risk  --  although there is debate within the medical community about the extent of the danger.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Radiologist Joseph Schoepf, MD, director of Cardiovascular Imaging at the Medical University of South Carolina, lauded the FDA&apos;s initiative and said it would restore the public&apos;s trust in imaging.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;It is important to note, however, that an increase in cancer mortality [from radiation] has not been observed,&quot; he added. &quot;On the contrary, cancer mortality has dramatically decreased over the past decades, in step with increased utilization of medical imaging.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The &lt;em&gt;Archives of Internal Medicine &lt;/em&gt;recently published results from two studies indicating that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.medpagetoday.com/Radiology/DiagnosticRadiology/17530&quot; mce_href=&quot;http://www.medpagetoday.com/Radiology/DiagnosticRadiology/17530&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot; title=&quot;CT&amp;#8200;Scans&amp;#8200;May&amp;#8200;Deliver&amp;#8200;Higher-than-Expected&amp;#8200;Radiation&amp;#8200;Doses&quot;&gt;CT scans deliver much higher doses of radiation &lt;/a&gt;than previously thought. The FDA has noted that a patient would have to get 400 standard chest X-rays to be exposed to the same level of radiation as just one CT abdomen scan.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In an accompanying editorial, the journal&apos;s editor, Rita Redberg, MD, wrote that the studies &quot;make us question if we have gotten carried away in our enthusiasm&quot; for CT.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It&apos;s becoming clear, she said, that the large doses of radiation from CT scans will lead to additional cancers, which must be taken into account when physicians consider CT for their patients.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;By working with healthcare providers and other federal agencies, the FDA says it hopes to promote safer use of medical imaging and increase patient awareness of their radiation exposure. Part of that involves pushing providers to justify their radiation procedures and optimize the radiation dose in each one.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;span&gt;Schoepf, who serves on several American College of Radiology committees that discuss the proper used of various imaging procedures, approved of the FDA&apos;s goal but cautioned against restrictions that would hinder clinicians.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;There is indeed a need for enhanced transparency, better patient education, more dialogue between patients and their healthcare providers, and increased involvement of the patient in the decision process leading up to an imaging study,&quot; Schoepf said.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;span&gt;&quot;What is often forgotten in this discussion is that serious injury or death, resulting from missing a potentially life-threatening diagnosis if no imaging is performed, is a much greater, more imminent, and very real risk.&quot;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In its statement, the FDA said it wants to boost efforts to develop at least one national registry of radiation doses that will capture information from a variety of imaging studies that can be used to establish benchmarks for healthcare facilities to use with patients.&lt;/p&gt;


 &lt;p&gt;Donald Frush, MD, a radiologist at Duke Medical Center and expert in CT radiation doses in children, said that radiation doses for CT examination vary widely, depending on the size of the patient and the body area scanned, among other things.&lt;/p&gt;
    &lt;p&gt;&quot;However, sometimes this variation is not necessary, and the dose may be excessive,&quot; Frush said.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;The ACR launched a similar registry about a year ago, according to spokesman Shawn Farley. The database is intended as a guide so a radiologist can quickly see how levels of radiation delivered in other practices and hospitals compare to what he or she is delivering.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;Now that the FDA has come out in favor of doing that, we&apos;re hoping that will put a little more weight behind the process and make more facilities want to take part in this,&quot; Farley told &lt;em&gt;MedPage Today. &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;


 &lt;p&gt;Schoepf noted that European governments already require a permanent record of radiation exposure for each patient.&lt;/p&gt;
    &lt;p&gt;As a result, manufacturers of radiation equipment, most of whom sell their products in Europe, already have that capability, he said. So it shouldn&apos;t be difficult to implement the same standard in the U.S.&lt;/p&gt;
    &lt;p&gt;&quot;Radiation exposure should be no secret,&quot; Schoepf said.&lt;/p&gt;


&lt;p&gt;The FDA will hold a public meeting March 30 and 31 to hear comments on what types of safety requirements to establish for manufacturers of CT and fluoroscopic devices. Requirements might include: &lt;ul&gt; &lt;li&gt;That the radiation device display, record, and report equipment settings and radiation dose&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;Alerting users when the dose exceeds the optimal dose for most patients&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;Increased training for users&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;Ability to capture and transmit radiation dose information to a patient&apos;s electronic medical record in addition to national dose registries &lt;/li&gt; &lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;This article was developed in collaboration with ABC News. &lt;/em&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.medpagetoday.com/upload/2009/10/1/14357_1.jpg&quot; mce_src=&quot;http://www.medpagetoday.com/upload/2009/10/1/14357_1.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
    </recommendedItem>
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_400"
                     title="Fractured Evidence: Spine Repair Debate Heats Up"
                     score="0.01"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/Surgery/Orthopedics/tb/18303?impressionId=1265779365231"
                     
      &lt;p&gt;Hundreds of thousands have benefited from vertebroplasty, advocates insist. They say the minimally-invasive procedure has freed them from hospital beds and dependence on intravenous narcotics.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Spine physicians swear that inserting a large-gauge needle into fractured vertebrae and injecting a cement compound to stabilize the bone hastens healing and helps relieve the often-crippling pain of compression fractures brought on by osteoporosis or metastatic disease.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;But two recently-published, randomized controlled trials  --  the gold standard of evidence-based medicine  --  say otherwise. As far as disability and pain relief were concerned, they found that vertebroplasty for osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures was no better than a sham procedure.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Publication of the results triggered an outraged backlash from radiologists, for whom vertebroplasty is a bread-and-butter operation. The entire specialist community lambasted the studies  --  statistically and methodologically.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;But experts in evidence-based medicine argue that when profits are on the line, it&apos;s easy to be persuaded that studies are flawed.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;So the debate rages, with radiologists citing case after case of success, arguing that patients with the worst fractures will have no treatment alternatives if the nation&apos;s third-party payers  --  Medicare and the insurance companies&lt;strong&gt; -&lt;/strong&gt;- refuse to pay for the procedure anymore.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Studies&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Both randomized, controlled studies were published last August in the &lt;em&gt;New England Journal of Medicine&lt;/em&gt;. They involved a combined total of about 200 patients. Each found that vertebroplasty did not yield significantly better results in terms of disability or short-term pain relief than sham procedures for patients with this type of vertebral fracture.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In an e-mail to &lt;em&gt;MedPage Today&lt;/em&gt;, the author of one study, Rachelle Buchbinder, PhD, of Monash University in Australia, suggested that the research showed the procedure was ineffective.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;Based upon the results of both trials I don&apos;t think that this treatment should be offered in routine care,&quot; she declared.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;But the leader of the other trial, David Kallmes, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., offered a different interpretation. He said the studies have been largely misunderstood by the trials&apos; critics&lt;strong&gt;.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;I&apos;ve been practicing for 15 years and had strong confidence that the procedure was effective, and that&apos;s exactly what we showed,&quot; he said in a telephone interview.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mean baseline pain intensity on a 10-point scale was 6.9 in the vertebroplasty group and 7.2 in the sham-operated group in his trial, which had 131 patients. One month later, these scores had declined to 3.9 and 4.6, respectively.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Kallmes said this degree of pain reduction with vertebroplasty &quot;exactly reproduces our prior experience.&quot; He vehemently denied that the findings were &quot;discordant&quot; with prior experience, as two statements from the Society of Interventional Radiology (SIR) put it.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;I don&apos;t know what they&apos;re talking about,&quot; Kallmes said. &quot;It is concordant.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;He said the real surprise was the effectiveness of the sham procedure, which should be the focus of follow-up investigations.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It involved inserting needles into the spinal column and injecting short-acting painkillers such as lidocaine, as was also done with vertebroplasty prior to inserting needles into the fractured vertebrae and injecting the cement.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Flaws&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Critics of the two studies cite a laundry list of complaints: too few patients, failure to meet enrollment, inclusion of patients with milder degrees of pain and disability than those usually treated.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a November commentary from SIR, issued in conjunction with &lt;em&gt;NEJM&apos;s &lt;/em&gt;publication of letters critical of the studies, J. Kevin McGraw, MD, of Riverside Radiology and Interventional Associates in Columbus, Ohio, highlighted the fact that Kallmes&apos; study originally called for 250 patients.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Only 131 enrolled, and the vast majority  --  1,682 of 1,813 screened  --  were excluded, &quot;introducing significant selection bias into the study,&quot; he complained.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;McGraw also pointed out that Kallmes&apos; group didn&apos;t use screening MRI to ensure that a fracture was the cause of the patient&apos;s pain.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition, he did some additional statistical noodling and found that if one additional patient had reported a favorable response in the vertebroplasty group, the &lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;-value would be 0.04, rather than a nonsignificant 0.06. Likewise, if one more patient had an unfavorable response in control group, the association&apos;s&lt;em&gt; P&lt;/em&gt;-value would become significant.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Finally, in the crossover part of the trial, McGraw highlighted that 12% of patients in the vertebroplasty arm elected the sham procedure, while 43% of those who got the sham went for the real thing.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;The tremendous crossover rate speaks for some obvious benefit of vertebroplasty over sham and is worthy of a future adequately powered analysis to evaluate,&quot; McGraw wrote.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As for the Buchbinder trial, McGraw said it was convoluted by selection bias, since two-thirds of patients came from a single center and their procedures were performed by a single radiologist. The commentary also criticizes the volume of cement injected into vertebrae as lower than normal.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Similarly, the North American Spine Society issued a critique of patient selection criteria and outcome measures, and questioned whether the sham treatment was actually an active therapy. The statement suggested that dry needling might be a more appropriate control.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;One of the letters published in &lt;em&gt;NEJM&lt;/em&gt; also criticized the protocol requirement that patients undergo four weeks of medical therapy prior to enrollment in the trial. During that time, some fractures would have already healed, &quot;resulting in a study on healed fractures,&quot; a group of Australian physicians wrote.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;SIR president Brian F. Stainken, MD, took issue with the fact that patients with the most pain  --  typically older, osteoporotic women  --  weren&apos;t represented.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;McGraw said these patients would be the least likely to agree to be in a randomized trial with a 50% chance of receiving the sham treatment.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;Most people in severe pain won&apos;t enroll,&quot; Stainken said. &quot;At some level, research design has to take reality into consideration.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;The population with low-grade pain, that&apos;s the population these papers focused on,&quot; he continued. &quot;It&apos;s not clear what the right solution is for this group. But I think the contribution of these [two &lt;em&gt;NEJM&lt;/em&gt; studies] may be toward that.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;On the Defense&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Kallmes, however, responded that there was no difference in baseline pain scores between patients entering the study and those considered eligible but refusing to participate.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;He also told &lt;em&gt;MedPage Today&lt;/em&gt; that he and colleagues &quot;enrolled patients that are very similar to those treated around the world.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;These studies were by far, by far, the best studies ever done,&quot; Kallmes declared.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;I have full confidence that if we had shown something different, that is, if we had found the procedure was more effective than placebo, people would have embraced it and said they were great studies,&quot; he continued.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;They would have said, &apos;Look at it, they were prospective, randomized, blinded, near 100% follow-up.&apos; They would have been held up as the paragon for how to do studies in the future  --  if we had reinforced people&apos;s preconceived notions.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Richard Deyo, MD, MPH, professor of evidence-based medicine at Oregon Health &amp;amp; Science University in Portland and deputy editor of &lt;em&gt;Spine,&lt;/em&gt; told &lt;em&gt;MedPage Today&lt;/em&gt; that the studies are the best evidence to date regarding the effectiveness of vertebroplasty in these patients.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;No study is perfect, and these are not perfect, but I do think they&apos;re the best we have,&quot; Deyo said.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Deyo said there was some validity to complaints that the studies enrolled too few patients, although both trials were adequately powered to detect a difference in pain reduction.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;If the benefit of this treatment were as enormous as many of the advocates argue,&quot; he said, &quot;then it would take a much smaller study to demonstrate a huge benefit.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, the studies were too small to evaluate the effects among various patient subgroups.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Kallmes also criticized the societies&apos; press releases, charging they were written by some &quot;who haven&apos;t read the studies carefully.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;The societies are in a great position,&quot; he said. &quot;They have thought leaders that they can partner with to move the science forward. Moving the science forward is not done by sending out press releases.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Radiologists&apos; Concerns&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;SIR&apos;s reaction may not be surprising, given that radiologists are so vested in vertebroplasty. Medicare will pay physicians from $522 to $554 for a procedure on one vertebra performed in a hospital or outpatient surgery clinic  --  or more than $2,000 if it&apos;s conducted in the physician&apos;s office.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The number of annual procedures varies from office to office, and radiologists provide varying estimates. McGraw said he performs about 150 vertebroplasties annually, and Stainken said the procedure accounts for about 20% of radiologists&apos; procedures, although that estimate &quot;may be a little high.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;One of the radiologists&apos; main concerns is that insurance companies will use the trials to justify ending coverage of vertebroplasty for osteoporotic spinal fractures.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;But insurers started playing that card long before the &lt;em&gt;NEJM&lt;/em&gt; trials were published.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a 2008 report, the Technology Evaluation Center of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association (BCBSA) concluded that neither vertebroplasty nor the related kyphoplasty  --  which restores compression-fractured vertebrae to their normal size with a balloon before the cement injection  --  had been demonstrated to be any better at improving net health outcomes than medical treatments.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;That same year, Wellpoint, the insurance giant with 35 million members, announced plans to classify both procedures &quot;investigational.&quot; That prompted a letter from SIR imploring the company to reconsider.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Another spine physician, Christopher Bono, MD, of Brigham &amp;amp; Women&apos;s Hospital in Boston, told &lt;em&gt;MedPage Today &lt;/em&gt;that Aetna was also reconsidering coverage for vertebroplasty following the &lt;em&gt;NEJM&lt;/em&gt; publications.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;He said that he believed the firms would not end coverage entirely, but policies would be more restrictive.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;My gut sense is that payers are going to be much more selective in who they will pay for [regarding vertebroplasty],&quot; Bono said. &quot;They will ask for certain documentation and many more criteria than they did in the past.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;McGraw worries that seniors will be &quot;denied coverage when they are in the twilight of their lives and could possibly have long-standing suffering&quot; that &quot;could lead to their demise.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Stainken said there&apos;s &quot;clear, unambiguous data that prolonged bed rest is the beginning of the cycle of decline for these patients. The key is to be able to do everything we can to ... keep these patients ambulatory and avoid that whole scenario.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Change is Hard&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Deyo said money may partly explain the reluctance of physicians who perform vertebroplasties to scale back their use of the procedure.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;There are people who are making a living doing this, and you don&apos;t easily change what you do for a living,&quot; Deyo said.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The man credited with coining the term &quot;evidence-based medicine&quot; agreed.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;If you are making money from a procedure, it is very easy to persuade yourself that new evidence that the procedure is ineffective is in some way flawed or limited to allow you to continue to make money on the procedure,&quot; Gordon Guyatt, MD, of McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, told &lt;em&gt;MedPage Today.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;When we have opinions and beliefs, we are very resistant to new evidence.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Kallmes, too, said there are psychological reasons for not accepting the results: &quot;People just don&apos;t want to be convinced. They don&apos;t want to change their preconceived notions.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;They have this anecdotal experience,&quot; he added, &quot;but I can tell them anecdotes of miraculous results with the placebo. So if they do this same study themselves, they may find the same thing I found.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Still, McGraw and Bono insisted the studies were too flawed to serve as the evidence base for clinical practice.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;Before we make these two studies the Holy Grail of evidentiary medicine with regard to vertebroplasty, we need to have larger trials,&quot; McGraw said.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Bono said evidence-based medicine, properly implemented, has three components: reviewing and applying the best data, &quot;but also incorporating surgeon experience and patient preference.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;If you are just using the first, and I&apos;m a strong advocate for using data and literature and references, I think you&apos;re doing a disservice,&quot; he said. &quot;And then if you are misinterpreting the data or twisting the data or slanting the data, and eliminating the other two, you are really abusing the word evidence-based medicine.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Outcomes&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;So, will vertebroplasty go the way of other procedures that seemed to work clinically, but bombed in trials, such as knee arthroscopy for osteoarthritis?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;SIR is awaiting the results of VERTOS II, a 200-patient Dutch trial comparing vertebroplasty with conservative therapy in patients with painful, osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures. And Stainken called for large trials that will address several of the methodology issues raised with the &lt;em&gt;NEJM &lt;/em&gt;reports.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;With regard to the potential placebo effect, Kallmes said he has nearly completed a 20-patient, open-label study of a procedure like that used as the sham in the randomized trial  --  a spinal injection of short-acting painkillers.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Also in the works is a comparative trial of vertebroplasty and balloon kyphoplasty, he said.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Stainken said he has heard from colleagues who said they had slowed down or stopped doing the procedures after the studies were published, &quot;which is not unreasonable  --  to think it through and understand the situation.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, most have resumed performing the procedure, and demand for it continues, he added.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Aman Patel, MD, an associate professor of radiology and neurosurgery at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York City, said he and his colleagues have not changed their practice since learning of the studies&apos; findings.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, he has started telling patients about the findings from the &lt;em&gt;NEJM&lt;/em&gt; studies so they can be fully informed of the existing evidence about the risks and benefits of vertebroplasty.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;I firmly believe this procedure benefits some, if not many, patients,&quot; Patel said.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;McGraw said he tells patients about the trials, but he also tells patients who he thinks would benefit from vertebroplasty that he doesn&apos;t believe the findings apply to them.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;He said one patient had initially declined the procedure after talking it over. &quot;That patient called me up a week later to proceed with vertebroplasty,&quot; he said.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Even if the findings don&apos;t change the way spine doctors use vertebroplasty in the short term, Deyo suspects the results will lead to fewer procedures in the long run.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Guyatt and Deyo predicted that eventually, a critical mass of evidence would be assembled  --  assuming future randomized studies replicate these results  --  that would convince even the most steadfast adherents.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Also, the &lt;em&gt;NEJM&lt;/em&gt; studies could have an immediate effect in promoting more research by increasing the level of doubt about the procedure, Deyo said: &quot;I don&apos;t think we have the final word here.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;float:left;border-style:solid;border-width:1px;border-color:#8dabbc;font-family:arial;font-size:12px;background-color:#DBE9F2;padding:5px;&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;Deyo, Guyatt, Patel, and Stainken reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Bono reported financial relationships other than research funding with Life Spine, Depuy, Medtronic, and Stryker, and research funding from Archus Orthopedics and Synthes Spine. He was lead author of the North American Spine Society&apos;s critique of the two randomized trials published in the &lt;em&gt;New England Journal of Medicine&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;McGraw has had relationships with Cardinal Spine, Arthrocare Spine, and Hatch Medical.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Kallmes reported relationships with ArthroCare, Stryker, Cardinal, and Cook.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Buchbinder reported receiving research funding from Cook.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;clear:both;&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
    </recommendedItem>
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_357"
                     title="Targeted Therapy Disappoints in Recurrent Brain Tumors (CME/CE)"
                     score="0.01"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/HematologyOncology/BrainCancer/tb/18237?impressionId=1265779365231"
                     
      &lt;p&gt;High hopes for treating recurrent glioblastoma with the novel, targeted antiangiogenic enzastaurin have been diminished by disappointing phase III results.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The study failed its primary endpoint with a median progression-free survival of 1.5 months compared with 1.6 months on conventional lomustine (CeeNu, &lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.08).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Nor were there any other significant benefits, despite generally good tolerability, Wolfgang Wick, MD, of the University of Heidelberg, Germany, and colleagues reported online in the &lt;em&gt;Journal of Clinical Oncology&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In an earlier &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.medpagetoday.com/HematologyOncology/BrainCancer/1062&quot; mce_href=&quot;http://www.medpagetoday.com/HematologyOncology/BrainCancer/1062&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;phase II study&lt;/a&gt;, the drug shrank tumors in 22% of heavily pretreated patients with recurrent glioblastoma, a heavily vascular cancer and one of the toughest to treat.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The experimental agent is a potent and selective inhibitor of protein kinase C-beta, which mediates the most important regulator of vessel growth in glioma.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Even so, jumping directly into a phase III study before the final results of a phase II study might have been premature, even with a strong preclinical rationale, the authors and an accompanying editorial said.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Evanthia Galanis, MD, DSc, and Jan C. Buckner, MD, both of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., wrote in an editorial that response rate &quot;can be particularly misleading as an indicator of antitumor activity of antiangiogenic agents.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Reduced vascular permeability can appear as improvement on enhanced MRI, without true antitumor effect, the editorialists noted. Nor does response rate correlate well with progression-free or overall survival in this type of cancer, they wrote.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Still, they cautioned, these negative phase III results aren&apos;t the final word on the drug whose modest activity was comparable to standard treatment  --  and with satisfactory tolerability.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;It would therefore still be worth incorporating enzastaurin in rationally designed combinatorial regimens, especially if based on a strong mechanistic rationale or preclinical demonstration of synergistic activity,&quot; Galanis and Buckner wrote.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The study randomized patients with World Health Organization grade 4 glioblastoma to receive six-week cycles of open-label enzastaurin 500 mg/d (1,125-mg loading dose on day one) or lomustine (100 to 130 mg/m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; on day one).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It was stopped at the planned interim futility analysis after enrollment of 266 patients.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The researchers had powered the study for a 45% improvement in median progression-free survival, but found it actually tended to be 28% better with lomustine (HR 1.28, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.70).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Six-month progression-free survival rates were 11.1% with the experimental treatment, compared with 19.0% among controls (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.13).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Overall survival, too, was similar at 6.6 and 7.1 months, respectively (HR 1.20, &lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.25). Objective response rate showed no differences either (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.501).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Patient-reported time to deterioration  --  measured on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy&amp;#8211;Brain questionnaire  --  was 2.27 months with enzastaurin compared with 2.33 months for lomustine (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.54).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Results likewise were similar between the groups for physical and functional well-being and for brain tumor&amp;#8211;specific concerns (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;&amp;gt;0.05).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Adverse event rates were not different between groups, although more were drug-related in the lomustine group (62% versus 44%, &lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.008).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Enzastaurin did have the advantage of less hematologic toxicity overall (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;&amp;#8804;0.001), and specifically for grade 3 to 4 adverse events (one versus 46 events, &lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;&amp;#8804;0.001).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Study deaths in the enzastaurin group totaled 11, including four due to adverse events and one drug-related; while the four deaths in lomustine-treated patients were disease-related.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;float:left;border-style:solid;border-width:1px;border-color:#8dabbc;font-family:arial;font-size:12px;background-color:#DBE9F2;padding:5px;&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;The study was supported by Eli Lilly, including writing and editorial support.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Wick and co-authors reported financial conflicts of interest with Eli Lilly, including employment and stock ownership for some.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Co-authors also reported financial conflicts of interest with Merck, Genentech, Enzon, Schering-Plough, and AstraZeneca.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Galanis reported conflicts of interest with Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gradalis, Genetech, and Bayer Pharmaceuticals.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Buckner reported conflicts of interest with Merck Serono, Genentech, Excelixis, Bayer Pharmaceuticals, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Anti-Sense Pharma.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;clear:both;&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
    </recommendedItem>
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_304"
                     title="&apos;Virtual&apos; Colon Scans Effective in Seniors (CME/CE)"
                     score="0.003"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/HematologyOncology/ColonCancer/tb/18164?impressionId=1265779365231"
                     
      Patients 65 and older are as suitable as younger individuals for CT colonography, said researchers conducting a large retrospective study.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;Advanced neoplasias were detected with CT colonography  --  often called &quot;virtual colonoscopy&quot;  --  in older patients at more than double the rate in the general screening population, reported David H. Kim, MD, of the University of Wisconsin in Madison, Wis., and colleagues in the February issue of &lt;em&gt;Radiology&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;They found that 7.6% of older patients had advanced neoplasias, compared with 3.2% of all patients screened in the university&apos;s clinic (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;&amp;lt;0.001).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On the basis of this and other findings in 577 individuals 65 and older versus the entire group of 3,120 patients undergoing the procedure, Kim and colleagues concluded that &quot;CT colonography performance is maintained in an older cohort.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;Overall, the observations from this clinical experience confirm that CT colonography may be a valuable screening modality in the older population,&quot; they wrote.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, the study did not address several objections raised by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) in its decision last year to deny Medicare coverage for the procedure. (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.medpagetoday.com/PublicHealthPolicy/Medicare/14186&quot; mce_href=&quot;http://www.medpagetoday.com/PublicHealthPolicy/Medicare/14186&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Medicare Finalizes Denial of Virtual Colonoscopy Coverage&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;CMS had pointed to relatively low sensitivity of CT colonography compared with optical colonoscopy in prospective trials, especially for small lesions.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The agency also determined that CT colonography increased the costs of positive findings, since abnormalities in the CT scans must be confirmed with optical colonoscopy. In addition, CMS said there was no evidence to support claims that the less invasive imaging procedure would be more acceptable to patients and therefore would raise screening rates.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The data analyzed by Kim and colleagues did not allow for calculations of false-negative rates or predictive values of positive or negative findings. Nor did the researchers report cost information.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mean age of their older cohort was 69.2 (SD 3.8). The oldest was 79.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The researchers reported that 15.3% of the older patients were referred for optical colonoscopy on the basis of the CT results, compared with 7.9% of the overall screening group.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Less than 4% of positive findings were determined to be false with the optical procedure (3.6% for polyps 6 to 10 mm in diameter, 2.1% for larger lesions).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Of the 59 advanced neoplasias identified in the older patients, all but three were at least 10 mm in size.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The scans also suggested abnormalities outside the colon in 89 (15.4%) patients. Of these, 45 received a full workup, which revealed substantial and previously unsuspected diagnoses in 21 cases  -- 18 were vascular aneurysms. The other three included one lung tumor, a femoral hernia, and a malrotation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Kim and colleagues reported that no &quot;substantial complications&quot; such as perforations or major hemorrhage occurred in the older patients, either with the CT scan or follow-up colonoscopy.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;They also indicated that the ratio of large to small neoplasias was similar in the older patients compared with their CT screening group as a whole. Histologic and morphologic findings were similar as well.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The researchers cited the observational nature of the study, in which negative findings were not corroborated with optical colonoscopy, and its restriction to a single center as its main limitations.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;float:left;border-style:solid;border-width:1px;border-color:#8dabbc;font-family:arial;font-size:12px;background-color:#DBE9F2;padding:5px;&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;No external funding for the study was reported.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Kim and one co-author reported relationships with Viatronix and Medicsight and are co-founders of a company called VirtuoCTC, which produces educational materials on CT colonography.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;clear:both;&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
    </recommendedItem>
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_242"
                     title="Ultrasound Aids Early Ovarian Cancer Detection (CME/CE)"
                     score="-0.002"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/Radiology/DiagnosticRadiology/tb/18096?impressionId=1265779365231"
                     
      &lt;p&gt;Serum biomarkers identified through proteomic analysis, coupled with contrast-enhanced ultrasound, ultimately may provide a means for early diagnosis of ovarian cancer, researchers say.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;Exciting preliminary data have shown that specific combinations of peptides from molecules, such as &lt;em&gt;BRCA2&lt;/em&gt;, exist in the serum of epithelial ovarian cancer patients,&quot; Sonia Dutta, MD, of Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York, and colleagues reported in the February&lt;em&gt; American Journal of Roentgenology&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This discovery suggests that &quot;highly discriminatory proteins&quot; may serve as biomarkers for early epithelial cell ovarian cancer, although the findings must be further validated, the authors wrote.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Despite advances in surgery and chemotherapy, survival from advanced stage ovarian cancer is only 30%, and the authors cite a &quot;dire need&quot; for a validated screening method to detect the disease early.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Unsuccessful efforts find a biomarker for this deadly malignancy have focused primarily on a single cancer-specific marker, which the authors concede is a &quot;mission impossible.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Impediments to the identification of cancer-specific markers include the molecular heterogeneity that characterizes different tumors, the sharing of pathophysiologic events among cancer and other diseases, and low marker production and concentration.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;To overcome these difficulties, a new approach known as proteomics is being used to analyze the entire protein complement of a cell.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The rationale for this analytical technique lies in a significantly greater understanding of the tumor microenvironment. It is now known that tumor cells participate in complex interactions with surrounding structures and other cell populations.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;This biochemical cross-talk is hypothesized to generate a cascade of specific and sensitive biomarkers elaborated directly from the tumor cell population, indirectly from the interacting non-tumor cells or extracellular molecules, or a specific product of the microecology,&quot; they explained.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In fact, the most specific cancer markers may turn out to be molecules that normally are not malignant but that have been modified by that tumor microenvironment  --  clipped, cleaved, phosphorylated, or glycosylated  --  and carry a detailed picture of the local pathophysiology.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Previous techniques used in the hunt for markers, such as two-dimensional gel electrophoresis, were unable to detect these altered or clipped molecules, which occupy the low molecular weight range of the proteome.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mass spectrometry, which is most sensitive in the low molecular weight range, is now a tool used to explore these modified protein molecules and has already revealed a vast number of previously unknown biomarkers.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The next steps, the researchers explained, will be to develop capture reagents that can measure the markers and, using reverse-phase protein array, to further characterize proteins of interest.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;But any diagnostic information gained through proteomic analysis must be verified by some imaging technique. Conventional ultrasound has proven inadequate, but pulse-inversion harmonic ultrasound currently appears to differentiate malignant from benign lesions.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For example, although the time to peak enhancement with contrast-enhanced ultrasound is similar in benign and malignant masses, a small study found that malignant lesions have: &lt;ul&gt; &lt;li&gt;Greater peak enhancement (23.3 versus 12.3 dB, &lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;&amp;lt;0.01)&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;Longer half wash-out time (139.9 versus 46.3 seconds, &lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;&amp;lt;0.01)&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;Greater area under the enhancement curve (2,012.9 versus 523.9 seconds, &lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.07)&lt;/li&gt; &lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The authors noted that these enhancement kinetics data were from just 17 patients and are therefore limited, but stated that the technique &quot;shows great promise.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition, the diagnostic capacity of ultrasound can be further increased by the use of intravenous contrast agents, which may help visualize the early microvascular changes typical of malignancy.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The researchers predicted that, by using a combination of clinically relevant biomarkers identified through proteomic analyses plus contrast-enhanced ultrasound, &quot;we will likely be able to shift from an era of diagnosing advanced-stage ovarian cancer to that of early-stage disease and, most important, save the lives of many women.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;float:left;border-style:solid;border-width:1px;border-color:#8dabbc;font-family:arial;font-size:12px;background-color:#DBE9F2;padding:5px;&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;No disclosures were provided.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;clear:both;&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
    </recommendedItem>
</recommendedContent>