Assessment of the safety of nivolumab in people living with HIV with advanced cancer on antiretroviral therapy: the AIDS Malignancy Consortium 095 Study.

BACKGROUND: Although immunotherapy has emerged as a therapeutic strategy for many cancers, there are limited studies establishing the safety and efficacy in people living with HIV (PLWH) and cancer. METHODS: PLWH and solid tumors or Kaposi sarcoma (KS) receiving antiretroviral therapy and a suppressed HIV viral load received nivolumab at 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks, in two dose deescalation cohorts stratified by CD4 count (stratum 1: CD4 count > 200/µL and stratum 2: CD4 count 100-199/µL). An expansion cohort of 24 participants with a CD4 count > 200/µL was then enrolled. RESULTS: A total of 36 PLWH received nivolumab, including 15 with KS and 21 with a variety of other solid tumors. None of the first 12 participants had dose-limiting toxicity in both CD4 strata, and five patients (14%) overall had grade 3 or higher immune related adverse events. Objective partial response occurred in nine PLWH and cancer (25%), including in six of 15 with KS (40%; 95% CI, 16.3-64.7). The median duration of response was 9.0 months overall and 12.5 months in KS. Responses were observed regardless of PDL1 expression. There were no significant changes in CD4 count or HIV viral load. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab has a safety profile in PLWH similar to HIV-negative subjects with cancer, and also efficacy in KS. Plasma HIV remained suppressed and CD4 counts remained stable during treatment and antiretroviral therapy, indicating no adverse impact on immune function. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02408861.

2019 ASCCP Risk-Based Management Consensus Guidelines: Updates Through 2023.

ABSTRACT: This Research Letter summarizes all updates to the 2019 Guidelines through September 2023, including: endorsement of the 2021 Opportunistic Infections guidelines for HIV+ or immunosuppressed patients; clarification of use of human papillomavirus testing alone for patients undergoing observation for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2; revision of unsatisfactory cytology management; clarification that 2012 guidelines should be followed for patients aged 25 years and older screened with cytology only; management of patients for whom colposcopy was recommended but not completed; clarification that after treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2+, 3 negative human papillomavirus tests or cotests at 6, 18, and 30 months are recommended before the patient can return to a 3-year testing interval; and clarification of postcolposcopy management of minimally abnormal results.

Assessment of Cervical Cancer Prevention and Treatment Infrastructure in Belize.

PURPOSE: Belize has one of the highest cervical cancer burdens among Latin American and Caribbean countries, despite the implementation of national policies to increase access to prevention and treatment services. This study evaluates the policies, infrastructure, and workforce of the cervical cancer management system in Belize to inform capacity building efforts. METHODS: In 2018, health facility assessments were conducted across all six districts of Belize at the national pathology facility and 12 public facilities identified as critical to cervical cancer control. Human and infrastructure resource availability and existing policies related to cervical cancer screening and treatment services were assessed through a structured instrument. RESULTS: The public cervical cancer screening workforce in Belize consists of 75 primary care nurses and physicians-one per 1,076 screening-eligible women, with 44% conducting rural outreach. All districts have at least one screening facility, but 50% perform screening services only once per week. Colposcopy and loop electrical excision procedures are available in three and four districts, respectively; radical hysterectomy and chemotherapy are available in two districts; and radiation therapy is unavailable. Of essential pathology equipment, 38.5% were present and functional, 23% were present but nonfunctional, and 38.5% were unavailable. Additionally, 35% of supplies were unavailable at the time of assessment, and 75% were unavailable at least once in the 12 months before assessment. CONCLUSION: Public-sector cervical cancer management services differ among districts of Belize, with tertiary service availability concentrated in the largest district. Screening, outreach, and pathology are limited mostly by resource availability. This study characterizes the current capacity of services in Belize and pinpoints health system components for future investment and capacity-building efforts.

A demonstration of automated visual evaluation of cervical images taken with a smartphone camera.

We examined whether automated visual evaluation (AVE), a deep learning computer application for cervical cancer screening, can be used on cervix images taken by a contemporary smartphone camera. A large number of cervix images acquired by the commercial MobileODT EVA system were filtered for acceptable visual quality and then 7587 filtered images from 3221 women were annotated by a group of gynecologic oncologists (so the gold standard is an expert impression, not histopathology). We tested and analyzed on multiple random splits of the images using two deep learning, object detection networks. For all the receiver operating characteristics curves, the area under the curve values for the discrimination of the most likely precancer cases from least likely cases (most likely controls) were above 0.90. These results showed that AVE can classify cervix images with confidence scores that are strongly associated with expert evaluations of severity for the same images. The results on a small subset of images that have histopathologic diagnoses further supported the capability of AVE for predicting cervical precancer. We examined the associations of AVE severity score with gynecologic oncologist impression at all regions where we had a sufficient number of cases and controls, and the influence of a woman's age. The method was found generally resilient to regional variation in the appearance of the cervix. This work suggests that using AVE on smartphones could be a useful adjunct to health-worker visual assessment with acetic acid, a cervical cancer screening method commonly used in low- and middle-resource settings.

Evaluation of 3 approaches for assessing adherence to vaginal gel application in clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Accurate measurement of adherence to product use is an ongoing challenge in microbicide trials. METHODS: We compared adherence estimates using 2 applicator tests (a dye stain assay [DSA] and an ultraviolet light assay [UVA]), the Wisebag (an applicator container that electronically tracks container openings), and self-reported adherence (ability, frequency, and percent missed doses). Healthy, HIV-negative, nonpregnant US women aged 23 to 45 years received a Wisebag and 32 applicators filled with placebo gel were instructed to insert 1 applicator daily for 30 days, returned the Wisebag and all applicators, and completed an exit interview. Emptied applicators were tested by UVA and then DSA, and scored by 2 blinded readers. Positive and negative controls were randomly included in applicator batches. RESULTS: Among 42 women enrolled, 39 completed the study. Both DSA and UVA yielded similar sensitivity (97% and 95%) and specificity (79% and 79%). Two participants had fully inoperable Wisebags, and 9 had partially inoperable Wisebags. The proportion of participants considered to have high adherence (≥80%) varied: 43% (Wisebag), 46% (UVA), 49% (DSA), and 62% to 82% (self-reports). For estimating high adherence, Wisebag had a sensitivity of 76% (95% confidence interval, 50%-93%) and a specificity of 85% (95% confidence interval, 62%-97%) compared with DSA. Although 28% of participants reported forgetting to open the Wisebag daily, 59% said that it helped them remember gel use. CONCLUSIONS: Dye stain assay and UVA performed similarly. Compared with these tests, self-reports overestimated and Wisebag underestimated adherence. Although Wisebag may encourage gel use, the applicator tests currently seem more useful for measuring use in clinical trials.

Histopathologic differences account for racial disparity in uterine cancer survival.

OBJECTIVE: The incidence for uterine cancers has been reported to be higher among white women, whereas mortality is higher among black women. Reasons for the higher mortality among black women are not completely understood. The aim of our study is to examine the relationship between race/ethnicity, histopathologic subtype, and survival in uterine cancer. METHODS: We abstracted socio-demographic, treatment, and survival data for all women who were diagnosed with uterine cancer at Montefiore Medical Center from January 1999 through December 2009. Pathology records were reviewed. RESULTS: 984 patients were identified. Racial/ethnic distribution was 382 (39%) white, 308 (31%) black, 232 (24%) Hispanic, and 62 (6.3%) other races, mixed, or unknown. 592 (60%) patients had endometrioid histology. Blacks were much more likely than whites to have non-endometrioid histologies (p<0.001), including papillary serous, carcinosarcoma, and leiomyosarcoma. Blacks and Hispanics were at least as likely as whites to receive either chemotherapy or radiation therapy. The hazard ratio for death for black versus white patients was 1.94 (p<0.001) when all histological subtypes were included. The hazard ratio for Hispanics for death was 1.2 (p=0.32) compared to whites. However, when patients were divided into endometrioid and non-endometrioid histological subtypes, there was no significant difference in survival by race/ethnicity. CONCLUSION: Black patients with uterine cancer are much more likely to die and are much more likely to have non-endometrioid histologies than white patients. There are no differences in survival among white, black, or Hispanic women with uterine cancer, after control for histological subtype.