Some Continue to Use Uterine-Fibroid Tool, Saying Risk of Cancer Is Remote

An advisory from the Food and Drug Administration that strongly cautioned doctors against performing a common surgical procedure on women is upending the landscape of care across the U.S.

The FDA surprised gynecologists last month when it issued an advisory against using a device called a power laparoscopic morcellator, saying it can spread a dangerous hidden cancer. The bladed tools are used in minimally invasive surgeries to slice up and remove uterine growths called fibroids, sometimes as part of a hysterectomy.

No figures are available on how many doctors have chosen to heed the nonbinding warning, which the agency plans to revisit in a hearing this summer. But dozens of interviews show the advisory has divided hospitals and gynecologists, many of whom are still using the device, and left women puzzling over their options. The tool was being used in an estimated 50,000 uterine surgeries each year.

The FDA said women undergoing surgery for what look like benign fibroids actually have a 1 in 350 risk of hosting an undetected cancer called a uterine sarcoma. Morcellating these tumors can significantly worsen the odds of long-term survival, the agency said. Johnson & Johnson, the largest morcellator maker, suspended global sales soon afterward.

Many doctors believe the FDA overreached, and think the cancer risk is so small that gynecologists can go an entire career without seeing a case.

Hospitals and private practices are taking an array of approaches. The University of Pittsburgh Medical Center system, which has more than 50 obstetrics and gynecology practices, opted to continue morcellating.

The medical system changed its informed-consent forms to include wording on cancer risk and told doctors to discuss the risk with patients. But Allen Hogge, chairman of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences there, questioned the data behind the FDA’s estimate. The FDA began looking at the issue after media reports late last year about a prominent Boston doctor who discovered she had sarcoma after morcellation.

“I think this is mostly public relations and not science,” Dr. Hogge said. In response, the FDA said it conducted a rigorous analysis of published literature.

Duke University Health System is also continues to use the power morcellator after gaining a patient’s informed consent. HCA Holdings Inc., a major for-profit health-care company with hospitals and surgery centers in 20 states, recommended its affiliated doctors follow the FDA’s guidance, a spokesman said. I

n upstate New York, Unity Health System, a community hospital with multiple offices throughout Rochester, declared a moratorium on power morcellators six weeks ago but said it plans to revisit the issue next month.

Other doctors say their move away from the device may be permanent. “I probably will not ever use it again,” said Plano, Texas, gynecologist Keith Reisler, who said the rare exception might be an obese patient who would have a higher risk from a large incision. “The recent numbers made me uncomfortable because the question is: what are we going to find out next?”

The advisory roiled Florida Hospital, an Orlando-based system that is home to one of the primary J&J training centers for the tool. “There [were] very strong emotions on all sides of the fence and a lot of people quite frankly upset with the FDA’s warning,” said Chief Medical Officer Neil Finkler, a gynecologic oncologist who said he treated two patients who died from sarcomas after morcellations performed by other doctors, and agrees with the FDA’s guidance. The system chose to suspend the practice.

The conflicting views are confounding some women who wonder if they should opt for another choice such as open abdominal surgery, which has a long recovery time and carries its own risks, or vaginal procedures that many gynecologists don’t know how to do.

After three years of painful fibroids, Terri Keeler, a 44-year-old school aide and spinning instructor in Wexford, Pa., was heading for a laparoscopic hysterectomy. But she paused this month to balance the FDA’s advisory against comments from her University of Pittsburgh doctor, who she said told her that a hidden sarcoma was very rare.

Suketu Mansuria, Ms. Keeler’s doctor and the assistant director of gynecologic minimally invasive surgery at the medical center, acknowledged the conversation, one he holds all such patients. “I say that in my opinion, one in 350 is an overestimation,” he said. He said the choice is always up the patient.

The FDA move “has totally confused things,” Ms. Keeler said. “I’m questioning what I’m going to do.”

Medical societies, including the influential American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, recently further complicated the debate. ACOG issued a statement on May 9 defending morcellation for many patients. The group acknowledged the cancer-spreading risk, which they said should be disclosed, but said the procedure spares women from more invasive surgery.

ACOG’s view carries weight with doctors, hospitals, health insurers and another significant stakeholder: malpractice liability insurers.

Doctors Co., the largest doctor-owned malpractice insurer, plans to note both the FDA advisory and the ACOG response in the next issue of a publication it sends to 75,000 physicians, said David Troxel, the insurer’s medical director.

“I don’t want to pre-empt the national medical specialty society when they get on this right away,” Dr. Troxel said.

His Napa, Calif.-based company hasn’t advised doctors on whether to perform surgery with morcellators, but will advise them to discuss the risks, benefits and alternatives with patients, Dr. Troxel said.

Another liability insurer, ProAssurance Corp. of Birmingham, Ala., said it has received many questions on morcellation from insured hospitals and doctors. The insurer doesn’t give clinical advice but also is stressing the need for informed-consent discussions with patients, a spokesman said. This includes making sure patients are aware of the FDA advisory, he said.

Written by Jennifer Levitz And Jon Kamp and published by The Wall Street Journal, May 21, 2014.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U. S. C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www. law. cornell. edu/uscode/17/107. shtml“