User login
Official Newspaper of the American College of Surgeons
Chemotherapy/local excision avoids proctectomy in rectal cancer
Chemotherapy and local excision led to organ preservation in over half of early-stage rectal cancer patients in a small study, but follow-up was only a median of 15.4 months.
Even so, “we believe that subsequent trials ... are warranted,” said lead investigator Hagen F. Kennecke, MD, medical director of GI oncology at Providence Cancer Institute, Portland, Ore., who presented the findings at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting.
“The results are quite promising,” said study discussant Karyn Stitzenberg, MD, a surgical oncologist at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
“The reported organ preservation rates of 57% to 79% compare favorably with the rates previously demonstrated in studies of neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by local excision,” but longer-term follow up is needed “to know the true organ preservation rate,” she said.
Organ preservation – sparing the rectum during treatment – is a hot topic in rectal cancer. Total mesorectal excision (TME) is still the go-to option, but it’s fraught with bad GI, urinary, sexual, and other complications for patients. “Consequently, the concept of organ preservation ... is very appealing,” Dr. Stitzenberg explained.
The chemoradiation/local excision approach she referenced is gaining traction as an alternative, but the radiation component is itself associated with substantial short- and long-term problems, including sphincter dysfunction and wound healing complications.
The goal of Dr. Kennecke’s study, dubbed NEO [Neoadjuvant, Excision, Observation], was to see if the radiation could be left out altogether.
Recruited at eight centers in Canada and one in the United States, the 58 subjects had clinical stage T1-T3 A/B node-negative tumors with no pathologic high-risk features.
They received neoadjuvant FOLFOX (six cycles in 32 patients, 91% completion rate) or CAPOX (four cycles in 26 patients, 89% completion); 56 of the 58 subjects then went on to transanal endoscopic tumor excision; one of the other two patients wasn’t eligible because of tumor progression and the other one declined.
The 33 patients who were stage T0/T1N0 after treatment were spared organ removal and underwent observation every 3-6 months. TME was recommended for the 23 others who were stage 2 or higher or had nodal metastases following chemotherapy and excision.
The numbers translated to a per-protocol organ preservation rate of 57% over a median follow-up of 15.4 months; when the 13 patients who declined TME were added, the rate climbed to 79%.
Although “organ preservation in rectal cancer is becoming an increasingly promising and realistic option for a subset of patients,” Dr. Stitzenberg said, there are more reasons to be cautious beyond the short follow-up.
“The standard of care treatment for these patients would have been proctectomy ... Most would not have [had] systemic chemotherapy. As a result, the added morbidity of FOLFOX or CAPOX needs to be considered.” The study reported that there were no unexpected toxicities, but “what were the expected toxicities? How many patients experienced grade 3 to 5 complications?” she wondered.
Also, how realistic is it to expect patients to report for surveillance every few months outside of a trial? And how can they best be watched to make sure recurrence is caught “while salvage TME is still feasible? There are many longer-term follow-up questions that remain to be answered,” Dr. Stitzenberg said.
Even with short follow-up, there were two locoregional recurrences across the cohort (3.5%), both treated by TME to R0/1 resection. There were no distant relapses.
Subjects were a median of 67 years old, and over two-thirds were men. The majority had stage 2 disease at baseline. Tumors were well to moderately differentiated nonmucinous rectal adenocarcinomas with a median height of 6 cm.
The work was funded by the Canadian Cancer Trials Group. Dr. Kennecke disclosed relationships with Advanced Accelerator Applications, Ipsen, and Taiho Pharmaceutical. Dr. Stitzenberg had no relevant disclosures.
Chemotherapy and local excision led to organ preservation in over half of early-stage rectal cancer patients in a small study, but follow-up was only a median of 15.4 months.
Even so, “we believe that subsequent trials ... are warranted,” said lead investigator Hagen F. Kennecke, MD, medical director of GI oncology at Providence Cancer Institute, Portland, Ore., who presented the findings at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting.
“The results are quite promising,” said study discussant Karyn Stitzenberg, MD, a surgical oncologist at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
“The reported organ preservation rates of 57% to 79% compare favorably with the rates previously demonstrated in studies of neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by local excision,” but longer-term follow up is needed “to know the true organ preservation rate,” she said.
Organ preservation – sparing the rectum during treatment – is a hot topic in rectal cancer. Total mesorectal excision (TME) is still the go-to option, but it’s fraught with bad GI, urinary, sexual, and other complications for patients. “Consequently, the concept of organ preservation ... is very appealing,” Dr. Stitzenberg explained.
The chemoradiation/local excision approach she referenced is gaining traction as an alternative, but the radiation component is itself associated with substantial short- and long-term problems, including sphincter dysfunction and wound healing complications.
The goal of Dr. Kennecke’s study, dubbed NEO [Neoadjuvant, Excision, Observation], was to see if the radiation could be left out altogether.
Recruited at eight centers in Canada and one in the United States, the 58 subjects had clinical stage T1-T3 A/B node-negative tumors with no pathologic high-risk features.
They received neoadjuvant FOLFOX (six cycles in 32 patients, 91% completion rate) or CAPOX (four cycles in 26 patients, 89% completion); 56 of the 58 subjects then went on to transanal endoscopic tumor excision; one of the other two patients wasn’t eligible because of tumor progression and the other one declined.
The 33 patients who were stage T0/T1N0 after treatment were spared organ removal and underwent observation every 3-6 months. TME was recommended for the 23 others who were stage 2 or higher or had nodal metastases following chemotherapy and excision.
The numbers translated to a per-protocol organ preservation rate of 57% over a median follow-up of 15.4 months; when the 13 patients who declined TME were added, the rate climbed to 79%.
Although “organ preservation in rectal cancer is becoming an increasingly promising and realistic option for a subset of patients,” Dr. Stitzenberg said, there are more reasons to be cautious beyond the short follow-up.
“The standard of care treatment for these patients would have been proctectomy ... Most would not have [had] systemic chemotherapy. As a result, the added morbidity of FOLFOX or CAPOX needs to be considered.” The study reported that there were no unexpected toxicities, but “what were the expected toxicities? How many patients experienced grade 3 to 5 complications?” she wondered.
Also, how realistic is it to expect patients to report for surveillance every few months outside of a trial? And how can they best be watched to make sure recurrence is caught “while salvage TME is still feasible? There are many longer-term follow-up questions that remain to be answered,” Dr. Stitzenberg said.
Even with short follow-up, there were two locoregional recurrences across the cohort (3.5%), both treated by TME to R0/1 resection. There were no distant relapses.
Subjects were a median of 67 years old, and over two-thirds were men. The majority had stage 2 disease at baseline. Tumors were well to moderately differentiated nonmucinous rectal adenocarcinomas with a median height of 6 cm.
The work was funded by the Canadian Cancer Trials Group. Dr. Kennecke disclosed relationships with Advanced Accelerator Applications, Ipsen, and Taiho Pharmaceutical. Dr. Stitzenberg had no relevant disclosures.
Chemotherapy and local excision led to organ preservation in over half of early-stage rectal cancer patients in a small study, but follow-up was only a median of 15.4 months.
Even so, “we believe that subsequent trials ... are warranted,” said lead investigator Hagen F. Kennecke, MD, medical director of GI oncology at Providence Cancer Institute, Portland, Ore., who presented the findings at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting.
“The results are quite promising,” said study discussant Karyn Stitzenberg, MD, a surgical oncologist at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
“The reported organ preservation rates of 57% to 79% compare favorably with the rates previously demonstrated in studies of neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by local excision,” but longer-term follow up is needed “to know the true organ preservation rate,” she said.
Organ preservation – sparing the rectum during treatment – is a hot topic in rectal cancer. Total mesorectal excision (TME) is still the go-to option, but it’s fraught with bad GI, urinary, sexual, and other complications for patients. “Consequently, the concept of organ preservation ... is very appealing,” Dr. Stitzenberg explained.
The chemoradiation/local excision approach she referenced is gaining traction as an alternative, but the radiation component is itself associated with substantial short- and long-term problems, including sphincter dysfunction and wound healing complications.
The goal of Dr. Kennecke’s study, dubbed NEO [Neoadjuvant, Excision, Observation], was to see if the radiation could be left out altogether.
Recruited at eight centers in Canada and one in the United States, the 58 subjects had clinical stage T1-T3 A/B node-negative tumors with no pathologic high-risk features.
They received neoadjuvant FOLFOX (six cycles in 32 patients, 91% completion rate) or CAPOX (four cycles in 26 patients, 89% completion); 56 of the 58 subjects then went on to transanal endoscopic tumor excision; one of the other two patients wasn’t eligible because of tumor progression and the other one declined.
The 33 patients who were stage T0/T1N0 after treatment were spared organ removal and underwent observation every 3-6 months. TME was recommended for the 23 others who were stage 2 or higher or had nodal metastases following chemotherapy and excision.
The numbers translated to a per-protocol organ preservation rate of 57% over a median follow-up of 15.4 months; when the 13 patients who declined TME were added, the rate climbed to 79%.
Although “organ preservation in rectal cancer is becoming an increasingly promising and realistic option for a subset of patients,” Dr. Stitzenberg said, there are more reasons to be cautious beyond the short follow-up.
“The standard of care treatment for these patients would have been proctectomy ... Most would not have [had] systemic chemotherapy. As a result, the added morbidity of FOLFOX or CAPOX needs to be considered.” The study reported that there were no unexpected toxicities, but “what were the expected toxicities? How many patients experienced grade 3 to 5 complications?” she wondered.
Also, how realistic is it to expect patients to report for surveillance every few months outside of a trial? And how can they best be watched to make sure recurrence is caught “while salvage TME is still feasible? There are many longer-term follow-up questions that remain to be answered,” Dr. Stitzenberg said.
Even with short follow-up, there were two locoregional recurrences across the cohort (3.5%), both treated by TME to R0/1 resection. There were no distant relapses.
Subjects were a median of 67 years old, and over two-thirds were men. The majority had stage 2 disease at baseline. Tumors were well to moderately differentiated nonmucinous rectal adenocarcinomas with a median height of 6 cm.
The work was funded by the Canadian Cancer Trials Group. Dr. Kennecke disclosed relationships with Advanced Accelerator Applications, Ipsen, and Taiho Pharmaceutical. Dr. Stitzenberg had no relevant disclosures.
FROM ASCO 2021
JAMA podcast on racism in medicine faces backlash
Published on Feb. 23, the episode is hosted on JAMA’s learning platform for doctors and is available for continuing medical education credits.
“No physician is racist, so how can there be structural racism in health care? An explanation of the idea by doctors for doctors in this user-friendly podcast,” JAMA wrote in a Twitter post to promote the episode. That tweet has since been deleted.
The episode features host Ed Livingston, MD, deputy editor for clinical reviews and education at JAMA, and guest Mitchell Katz, MD, president and CEO for NYC Health + Hospitals and deputy editor for JAMA Internal Medicine. Dr. Livingston approaches the episode as “structural racism for skeptics,” and Dr. Katz tries to explain how structural racism deepens health disparities and what health systems can do about it.
“Many physicians are skeptical of structural racism, the idea that economic, educational, and other societal systems preferentially disadvantage Black Americans and other communities of color,” the episode description says.
In the podcast, Dr. Livingston and Dr. Katz speak about health care disparities and racial inequality. Dr. Livingston, who says he “didn’t understand the concept” going into the episode, suggests that racism was made illegal in the 1960s and that the discussion of “structural racism” should shift away from the term “racism” and focus on socioeconomic status instead.
“What you’re talking about isn’t so much racism ... it isn’t their race, it isn’t their color, it’s their socioeconomic status,” Dr. Livingston says. “Is that a fair statement?”
But Dr. Katz says that “acknowledging structural racism can be helpful to us. Structural racism refers to a system in which policies or practices or how we look at people perpetuates racial inequality.”
Dr. Katz points to the creation of a hospital in San Francisco in the 1880s to treat patients of Chinese ethnicity separately. Outside of health care, he talks about environmental racism between neighborhoods with inequalities in hospitals, schools, and social services.
“All of those things have an impact on that minority person,” Dr. Katz says. “The big thing we can all do is move away from trying to interrogate each other’s opinions and move to a place where we are looking at the policies of our institutions and making sure that they promote equality.”
Dr. Livingston concludes the episode by reemphasizing that “racism” should be taken out of the conversation and it should instead focus on the “structural” aspect of socioeconomics.
“Minorities ... aren’t [in those neighborhoods] because they’re not allowed to buy houses or they can’t get a job because they’re Black or Hispanic. That would be illegal,” Dr. Livingston says. “But disproportionality does exist.”
Efforts to reach Dr. Livingston were unsuccessful. Dr. Katz distanced himself from Dr. Livingston in a statement released on March 4.
“Systemic and interpersonal racism both still exist in our country — they must be rooted out. I do not share the JAMA host’s belief of doing away with the word ‘racism’ will help us be more successful in ending inequities that exists across racial and ethnic lines,” Dr. Katz said. “Further, I believe that we will only produce an equitable society when social and political structures do not continue to produce and perpetuate disparate results based on social race and ethnicity.”
Dr. Katz reiterated that both interpersonal and structural racism continue to exist in the United States, “and it is woefully naive to say that no physician is a racist just because the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbade it.”
He also recommended JAMA use this controversy “as a learning opportunity for continued dialogue and create another podcast series as an open conversation that invites diverse experts in the field to have an open discussion about structural racism in healthcare.”
The podcast and JAMA’s tweet promoting it were widely criticized on Twitter. In interviews with WebMD, many doctors expressed disbelief that such a respected journal would lend its name to this podcast episode.
B. Bobby Chiong, MD, a radiologist in New York, said although JAMA’s effort to engage with its audience about racism is laudable, it missed the mark.
“I think the backlash comes from how they tried to make a podcast about the subject and somehow made themselves an example of unconscious bias and unfamiliarity with just how embedded in our system is structural racism,” he said.
Perhaps the podcast’s worst offense was its failure to address the painful history of racial bias in this country that still permeates the medical community, says Tamara Saint-Surin, MD, assistant professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
“For physicians in leadership to have the belief that structural racism does not exist in medicine, they don’t really appreciate what affects their patients and what their patients were dealing with,” Dr. Saint-Surin said in an interview. “It was a very harmful podcast and goes to show we still have so much work to do.”
Along with a flawed premise, she says, the podcast was not nearly long enough to address such a nuanced issue. And Dr. Livingston focused on interpersonal racism rather than structural racism, she said, failing to address widespread problems such as higher rates of asthma among Black populations living in areas with poor air quality.
The number of Black doctors remains low and the lack of representation adds to an environment already rife with racism, according to many medical professionals.
Shirlene Obuobi, MD, an internal medicine doctor in Chicago, said JAMA failed to live up to its own standards by publishing material that lacked research and expertise.
“I can’t submit a clinical trial to JAMA without them combing through methods with a fine-tooth comb,” Dr. Obuobi said. “They didn’t uphold the standards they normally apply to anyone else.”
Both the editor of JAMA and the head of the American Medical Association issued statements criticizing the episode and the tweet that promoted it.
JAMA Editor-in-Chief Howard Bauchner, MD, said, “The language of the tweet, and some portions of the podcast, do not reflect my commitment as editorial leader of JAMA and JAMA Network to call out and discuss the adverse effects of injustice, inequity, and racism in society and medicine as JAMA has done for many years.” He said JAMA will schedule a future podcast to address the concerns raised about the recent episode.
AMA CEO James L. Madara, MD, said, “The AMA’s House of Delegates passed policy stating that racism is structural, systemic, cultural, and interpersonal, and we are deeply disturbed – and angered – by a recent JAMA podcast that questioned the existence of structural racism and the affiliated tweet that promoted the podcast and stated ‘no physician is racist, so how can there be structural racism in health care?’ ”
He continued: “JAMA has editorial independence from AMA, but this tweet and podcast are inconsistent with the policies and views of AMA, and I’m concerned about and acknowledge the harms they have caused. Structural racism in health care and our society exists, and it is incumbent on all of us to fix it.”
This article was updated 3/5/21.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Published on Feb. 23, the episode is hosted on JAMA’s learning platform for doctors and is available for continuing medical education credits.
“No physician is racist, so how can there be structural racism in health care? An explanation of the idea by doctors for doctors in this user-friendly podcast,” JAMA wrote in a Twitter post to promote the episode. That tweet has since been deleted.
The episode features host Ed Livingston, MD, deputy editor for clinical reviews and education at JAMA, and guest Mitchell Katz, MD, president and CEO for NYC Health + Hospitals and deputy editor for JAMA Internal Medicine. Dr. Livingston approaches the episode as “structural racism for skeptics,” and Dr. Katz tries to explain how structural racism deepens health disparities and what health systems can do about it.
“Many physicians are skeptical of structural racism, the idea that economic, educational, and other societal systems preferentially disadvantage Black Americans and other communities of color,” the episode description says.
In the podcast, Dr. Livingston and Dr. Katz speak about health care disparities and racial inequality. Dr. Livingston, who says he “didn’t understand the concept” going into the episode, suggests that racism was made illegal in the 1960s and that the discussion of “structural racism” should shift away from the term “racism” and focus on socioeconomic status instead.
“What you’re talking about isn’t so much racism ... it isn’t their race, it isn’t their color, it’s their socioeconomic status,” Dr. Livingston says. “Is that a fair statement?”
But Dr. Katz says that “acknowledging structural racism can be helpful to us. Structural racism refers to a system in which policies or practices or how we look at people perpetuates racial inequality.”
Dr. Katz points to the creation of a hospital in San Francisco in the 1880s to treat patients of Chinese ethnicity separately. Outside of health care, he talks about environmental racism between neighborhoods with inequalities in hospitals, schools, and social services.
“All of those things have an impact on that minority person,” Dr. Katz says. “The big thing we can all do is move away from trying to interrogate each other’s opinions and move to a place where we are looking at the policies of our institutions and making sure that they promote equality.”
Dr. Livingston concludes the episode by reemphasizing that “racism” should be taken out of the conversation and it should instead focus on the “structural” aspect of socioeconomics.
“Minorities ... aren’t [in those neighborhoods] because they’re not allowed to buy houses or they can’t get a job because they’re Black or Hispanic. That would be illegal,” Dr. Livingston says. “But disproportionality does exist.”
Efforts to reach Dr. Livingston were unsuccessful. Dr. Katz distanced himself from Dr. Livingston in a statement released on March 4.
“Systemic and interpersonal racism both still exist in our country — they must be rooted out. I do not share the JAMA host’s belief of doing away with the word ‘racism’ will help us be more successful in ending inequities that exists across racial and ethnic lines,” Dr. Katz said. “Further, I believe that we will only produce an equitable society when social and political structures do not continue to produce and perpetuate disparate results based on social race and ethnicity.”
Dr. Katz reiterated that both interpersonal and structural racism continue to exist in the United States, “and it is woefully naive to say that no physician is a racist just because the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbade it.”
He also recommended JAMA use this controversy “as a learning opportunity for continued dialogue and create another podcast series as an open conversation that invites diverse experts in the field to have an open discussion about structural racism in healthcare.”
The podcast and JAMA’s tweet promoting it were widely criticized on Twitter. In interviews with WebMD, many doctors expressed disbelief that such a respected journal would lend its name to this podcast episode.
B. Bobby Chiong, MD, a radiologist in New York, said although JAMA’s effort to engage with its audience about racism is laudable, it missed the mark.
“I think the backlash comes from how they tried to make a podcast about the subject and somehow made themselves an example of unconscious bias and unfamiliarity with just how embedded in our system is structural racism,” he said.
Perhaps the podcast’s worst offense was its failure to address the painful history of racial bias in this country that still permeates the medical community, says Tamara Saint-Surin, MD, assistant professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
“For physicians in leadership to have the belief that structural racism does not exist in medicine, they don’t really appreciate what affects their patients and what their patients were dealing with,” Dr. Saint-Surin said in an interview. “It was a very harmful podcast and goes to show we still have so much work to do.”
Along with a flawed premise, she says, the podcast was not nearly long enough to address such a nuanced issue. And Dr. Livingston focused on interpersonal racism rather than structural racism, she said, failing to address widespread problems such as higher rates of asthma among Black populations living in areas with poor air quality.
The number of Black doctors remains low and the lack of representation adds to an environment already rife with racism, according to many medical professionals.
Shirlene Obuobi, MD, an internal medicine doctor in Chicago, said JAMA failed to live up to its own standards by publishing material that lacked research and expertise.
“I can’t submit a clinical trial to JAMA without them combing through methods with a fine-tooth comb,” Dr. Obuobi said. “They didn’t uphold the standards they normally apply to anyone else.”
Both the editor of JAMA and the head of the American Medical Association issued statements criticizing the episode and the tweet that promoted it.
JAMA Editor-in-Chief Howard Bauchner, MD, said, “The language of the tweet, and some portions of the podcast, do not reflect my commitment as editorial leader of JAMA and JAMA Network to call out and discuss the adverse effects of injustice, inequity, and racism in society and medicine as JAMA has done for many years.” He said JAMA will schedule a future podcast to address the concerns raised about the recent episode.
AMA CEO James L. Madara, MD, said, “The AMA’s House of Delegates passed policy stating that racism is structural, systemic, cultural, and interpersonal, and we are deeply disturbed – and angered – by a recent JAMA podcast that questioned the existence of structural racism and the affiliated tweet that promoted the podcast and stated ‘no physician is racist, so how can there be structural racism in health care?’ ”
He continued: “JAMA has editorial independence from AMA, but this tweet and podcast are inconsistent with the policies and views of AMA, and I’m concerned about and acknowledge the harms they have caused. Structural racism in health care and our society exists, and it is incumbent on all of us to fix it.”
This article was updated 3/5/21.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Published on Feb. 23, the episode is hosted on JAMA’s learning platform for doctors and is available for continuing medical education credits.
“No physician is racist, so how can there be structural racism in health care? An explanation of the idea by doctors for doctors in this user-friendly podcast,” JAMA wrote in a Twitter post to promote the episode. That tweet has since been deleted.
The episode features host Ed Livingston, MD, deputy editor for clinical reviews and education at JAMA, and guest Mitchell Katz, MD, president and CEO for NYC Health + Hospitals and deputy editor for JAMA Internal Medicine. Dr. Livingston approaches the episode as “structural racism for skeptics,” and Dr. Katz tries to explain how structural racism deepens health disparities and what health systems can do about it.
“Many physicians are skeptical of structural racism, the idea that economic, educational, and other societal systems preferentially disadvantage Black Americans and other communities of color,” the episode description says.
In the podcast, Dr. Livingston and Dr. Katz speak about health care disparities and racial inequality. Dr. Livingston, who says he “didn’t understand the concept” going into the episode, suggests that racism was made illegal in the 1960s and that the discussion of “structural racism” should shift away from the term “racism” and focus on socioeconomic status instead.
“What you’re talking about isn’t so much racism ... it isn’t their race, it isn’t their color, it’s their socioeconomic status,” Dr. Livingston says. “Is that a fair statement?”
But Dr. Katz says that “acknowledging structural racism can be helpful to us. Structural racism refers to a system in which policies or practices or how we look at people perpetuates racial inequality.”
Dr. Katz points to the creation of a hospital in San Francisco in the 1880s to treat patients of Chinese ethnicity separately. Outside of health care, he talks about environmental racism between neighborhoods with inequalities in hospitals, schools, and social services.
“All of those things have an impact on that minority person,” Dr. Katz says. “The big thing we can all do is move away from trying to interrogate each other’s opinions and move to a place where we are looking at the policies of our institutions and making sure that they promote equality.”
Dr. Livingston concludes the episode by reemphasizing that “racism” should be taken out of the conversation and it should instead focus on the “structural” aspect of socioeconomics.
“Minorities ... aren’t [in those neighborhoods] because they’re not allowed to buy houses or they can’t get a job because they’re Black or Hispanic. That would be illegal,” Dr. Livingston says. “But disproportionality does exist.”
Efforts to reach Dr. Livingston were unsuccessful. Dr. Katz distanced himself from Dr. Livingston in a statement released on March 4.
“Systemic and interpersonal racism both still exist in our country — they must be rooted out. I do not share the JAMA host’s belief of doing away with the word ‘racism’ will help us be more successful in ending inequities that exists across racial and ethnic lines,” Dr. Katz said. “Further, I believe that we will only produce an equitable society when social and political structures do not continue to produce and perpetuate disparate results based on social race and ethnicity.”
Dr. Katz reiterated that both interpersonal and structural racism continue to exist in the United States, “and it is woefully naive to say that no physician is a racist just because the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbade it.”
He also recommended JAMA use this controversy “as a learning opportunity for continued dialogue and create another podcast series as an open conversation that invites diverse experts in the field to have an open discussion about structural racism in healthcare.”
The podcast and JAMA’s tweet promoting it were widely criticized on Twitter. In interviews with WebMD, many doctors expressed disbelief that such a respected journal would lend its name to this podcast episode.
B. Bobby Chiong, MD, a radiologist in New York, said although JAMA’s effort to engage with its audience about racism is laudable, it missed the mark.
“I think the backlash comes from how they tried to make a podcast about the subject and somehow made themselves an example of unconscious bias and unfamiliarity with just how embedded in our system is structural racism,” he said.
Perhaps the podcast’s worst offense was its failure to address the painful history of racial bias in this country that still permeates the medical community, says Tamara Saint-Surin, MD, assistant professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
“For physicians in leadership to have the belief that structural racism does not exist in medicine, they don’t really appreciate what affects their patients and what their patients were dealing with,” Dr. Saint-Surin said in an interview. “It was a very harmful podcast and goes to show we still have so much work to do.”
Along with a flawed premise, she says, the podcast was not nearly long enough to address such a nuanced issue. And Dr. Livingston focused on interpersonal racism rather than structural racism, she said, failing to address widespread problems such as higher rates of asthma among Black populations living in areas with poor air quality.
The number of Black doctors remains low and the lack of representation adds to an environment already rife with racism, according to many medical professionals.
Shirlene Obuobi, MD, an internal medicine doctor in Chicago, said JAMA failed to live up to its own standards by publishing material that lacked research and expertise.
“I can’t submit a clinical trial to JAMA without them combing through methods with a fine-tooth comb,” Dr. Obuobi said. “They didn’t uphold the standards they normally apply to anyone else.”
Both the editor of JAMA and the head of the American Medical Association issued statements criticizing the episode and the tweet that promoted it.
JAMA Editor-in-Chief Howard Bauchner, MD, said, “The language of the tweet, and some portions of the podcast, do not reflect my commitment as editorial leader of JAMA and JAMA Network to call out and discuss the adverse effects of injustice, inequity, and racism in society and medicine as JAMA has done for many years.” He said JAMA will schedule a future podcast to address the concerns raised about the recent episode.
AMA CEO James L. Madara, MD, said, “The AMA’s House of Delegates passed policy stating that racism is structural, systemic, cultural, and interpersonal, and we are deeply disturbed – and angered – by a recent JAMA podcast that questioned the existence of structural racism and the affiliated tweet that promoted the podcast and stated ‘no physician is racist, so how can there be structural racism in health care?’ ”
He continued: “JAMA has editorial independence from AMA, but this tweet and podcast are inconsistent with the policies and views of AMA, and I’m concerned about and acknowledge the harms they have caused. Structural racism in health care and our society exists, and it is incumbent on all of us to fix it.”
This article was updated 3/5/21.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Von Willebrand disease guidelines address women’s bleeding concerns
New guidelines issued jointly by four major international hematology groups focus on the management of patients with von Willebrand disease (VWD), the most common bleeding disorder in the world.
The evidence-based guidelines, published in Blood Advances, were developed in collaboration by the American Society of Hematology (ASH), the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis, the National Hemophilia Foundation, and the World Federation of Hemophilia. They outline key recommendations spanning the care of patients with a broad range of therapeutic needs.
“We addressed some of the questions that were most important to the community, but certainly there are a lot of areas that we couldn’t cover” said coauthor Veronica H. Flood, MD, of the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee.
The guidelines process began with a survey sent to the von Willebrand disease community, including patients, caregivers, nurses, physicians, and scientists. The respondents were asked to prioritize issues that they felt should be addressed in the guidelines.
“Interestingly, some of the issues were the same between patients and caregivers and physicians, and some were different, but there were obviously some areas that we just couldn’t cover,” she said in an interview.
One of the areas of greatest concern for respondents was bleeding in women, and many of the recommendations include specific considerations for management of gynecologic and obstetric patients, Dr. Flood said.
“We also tried to make the questions applicable to as many patients with von Willebrand disease as possible,” she added.
Some of the questions, such as recommendation 1, regarding prophylaxis, are geared toward management of patients with severe disease, while others, such as recommendations for treatment of menstrual bleeding, are more suited for patients with milder VWD.
All of the recommendations in the guidelines are “conditional” (suggested), due to very low certainty in the evidence of effects, the authors noted.
Prophylaxis
The guidelines suggest long-term prophylaxis for patients with a history of severe and frequent bleeds, with periodic assessment of the need for prophylaxis.
Desmopressin
For those patients who may benefit from the use of desmopressin, primarily those with type 1 VWD, and who have a baseline von Willebrand factor (VWF) level below 0.30 IU/mL, the panel issued a conditional recommendation for a desmopressin trial with treatment based on the patient’s results compared with not performing a trial and treating with tranexamic acid or factor concentrate. The guidelines also advise against treating with desmopressin in the absence of a trial. In a section of “good practice statements,” the guidelines indicate that using desmopressin in patients with type 2B VWD is generally contraindicated, because of the risk of thrombocytopenia as a result of increased platelet binding. In addition, desmopressin is generally contraindicated in patients with active cardiovascular disease, patients with seizure disorders, patients less than 2 years old, and patients with type 1C VWD in the setting of surgery.
Antithrombotic therapy
The guideline panelists conditionally recommend antithrombotic therapy with either antiplatelet agents or anticoagulants, with an emphasis on reassessing bleeding risk throughout the course of treatment.
An accompanying good practice statement calls for individualized assessments of risks and benefits of specific antithrombotic therapies by a multidisciplinary team including hematologists, cardiovascular specialists, and the patient.
Major surgery
This section includes a recommendation for targeting both factor VIII and VWF activity levels to a minimum of 50 IU/mL for at least 3 days after surgery, and a suggestion against using factor VIII target levels alone.
Minor surgery/invasive procedures
The panelists suggest increasing VWF activity levels to a minimum of 0.50 IU/mL with desmopressin or factor concentrate with the addition of tranexamic acid over raising VWF levels to at least 0.50 IU/mL with desmopressin or factor concentrate alone.
In addition, the panelists suggest “giving tranexamic acid alone over increasing VWF activity levels to a minimum threshold of 0.50 IU/mL with any intervention in patients with type 1 VWD with baseline VWF activity levels of 0.30 IU/mL and a mild bleeding phenotype undergoing minor mucosal procedures.”
Heavy menstrual bleeding
In women with heavy menstrual bleeding who do not plan to conceive, the panel suggests either combined hormonal therapy or levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system, or tranexamic acid over desmopressin.
In women who wish to conceive, the panel suggests using tranexamic acid over desmopressin.
Neuraxial anesthesia during labor
For women in labor for whom neuraxial anesthesia is considered, the guidelines suggest targeting a VWF activity level from 0.50 to 1.50 IU/mL over targeting a level above 1.50 IU/mL.
Postpartum management
“The guideline panel suggests the use of tranexamic acid over not using it in women with type 1 VWD or low VWF levels (and this may also apply to types 2 and 3 VWD) during the postpartum period,” the guidelines say.
An accompanying good practice statement says that tranexamic acid can be provided orally or intravenously. The oral dose is 25 mg/kg three times daily for 10-14 days, or longer if blood loss remains heavy.
Dr. Flood said that the guidelines were developed under the assumption that they would apply to care of patients in regions with a high or moderately high degree of clinical resources.
“We recognize that this eliminates a great deal of the globe, and our hope is that ASH and the other sponsoring organizations are going to let us revise this and do a version for lower-resourced settings,” she said.
New guidelines issued jointly by four major international hematology groups focus on the management of patients with von Willebrand disease (VWD), the most common bleeding disorder in the world.
The evidence-based guidelines, published in Blood Advances, were developed in collaboration by the American Society of Hematology (ASH), the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis, the National Hemophilia Foundation, and the World Federation of Hemophilia. They outline key recommendations spanning the care of patients with a broad range of therapeutic needs.
“We addressed some of the questions that were most important to the community, but certainly there are a lot of areas that we couldn’t cover” said coauthor Veronica H. Flood, MD, of the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee.
The guidelines process began with a survey sent to the von Willebrand disease community, including patients, caregivers, nurses, physicians, and scientists. The respondents were asked to prioritize issues that they felt should be addressed in the guidelines.
“Interestingly, some of the issues were the same between patients and caregivers and physicians, and some were different, but there were obviously some areas that we just couldn’t cover,” she said in an interview.
One of the areas of greatest concern for respondents was bleeding in women, and many of the recommendations include specific considerations for management of gynecologic and obstetric patients, Dr. Flood said.
“We also tried to make the questions applicable to as many patients with von Willebrand disease as possible,” she added.
Some of the questions, such as recommendation 1, regarding prophylaxis, are geared toward management of patients with severe disease, while others, such as recommendations for treatment of menstrual bleeding, are more suited for patients with milder VWD.
All of the recommendations in the guidelines are “conditional” (suggested), due to very low certainty in the evidence of effects, the authors noted.
Prophylaxis
The guidelines suggest long-term prophylaxis for patients with a history of severe and frequent bleeds, with periodic assessment of the need for prophylaxis.
Desmopressin
For those patients who may benefit from the use of desmopressin, primarily those with type 1 VWD, and who have a baseline von Willebrand factor (VWF) level below 0.30 IU/mL, the panel issued a conditional recommendation for a desmopressin trial with treatment based on the patient’s results compared with not performing a trial and treating with tranexamic acid or factor concentrate. The guidelines also advise against treating with desmopressin in the absence of a trial. In a section of “good practice statements,” the guidelines indicate that using desmopressin in patients with type 2B VWD is generally contraindicated, because of the risk of thrombocytopenia as a result of increased platelet binding. In addition, desmopressin is generally contraindicated in patients with active cardiovascular disease, patients with seizure disorders, patients less than 2 years old, and patients with type 1C VWD in the setting of surgery.
Antithrombotic therapy
The guideline panelists conditionally recommend antithrombotic therapy with either antiplatelet agents or anticoagulants, with an emphasis on reassessing bleeding risk throughout the course of treatment.
An accompanying good practice statement calls for individualized assessments of risks and benefits of specific antithrombotic therapies by a multidisciplinary team including hematologists, cardiovascular specialists, and the patient.
Major surgery
This section includes a recommendation for targeting both factor VIII and VWF activity levels to a minimum of 50 IU/mL for at least 3 days after surgery, and a suggestion against using factor VIII target levels alone.
Minor surgery/invasive procedures
The panelists suggest increasing VWF activity levels to a minimum of 0.50 IU/mL with desmopressin or factor concentrate with the addition of tranexamic acid over raising VWF levels to at least 0.50 IU/mL with desmopressin or factor concentrate alone.
In addition, the panelists suggest “giving tranexamic acid alone over increasing VWF activity levels to a minimum threshold of 0.50 IU/mL with any intervention in patients with type 1 VWD with baseline VWF activity levels of 0.30 IU/mL and a mild bleeding phenotype undergoing minor mucosal procedures.”
Heavy menstrual bleeding
In women with heavy menstrual bleeding who do not plan to conceive, the panel suggests either combined hormonal therapy or levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system, or tranexamic acid over desmopressin.
In women who wish to conceive, the panel suggests using tranexamic acid over desmopressin.
Neuraxial anesthesia during labor
For women in labor for whom neuraxial anesthesia is considered, the guidelines suggest targeting a VWF activity level from 0.50 to 1.50 IU/mL over targeting a level above 1.50 IU/mL.
Postpartum management
“The guideline panel suggests the use of tranexamic acid over not using it in women with type 1 VWD or low VWF levels (and this may also apply to types 2 and 3 VWD) during the postpartum period,” the guidelines say.
An accompanying good practice statement says that tranexamic acid can be provided orally or intravenously. The oral dose is 25 mg/kg three times daily for 10-14 days, or longer if blood loss remains heavy.
Dr. Flood said that the guidelines were developed under the assumption that they would apply to care of patients in regions with a high or moderately high degree of clinical resources.
“We recognize that this eliminates a great deal of the globe, and our hope is that ASH and the other sponsoring organizations are going to let us revise this and do a version for lower-resourced settings,” she said.
New guidelines issued jointly by four major international hematology groups focus on the management of patients with von Willebrand disease (VWD), the most common bleeding disorder in the world.
The evidence-based guidelines, published in Blood Advances, were developed in collaboration by the American Society of Hematology (ASH), the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis, the National Hemophilia Foundation, and the World Federation of Hemophilia. They outline key recommendations spanning the care of patients with a broad range of therapeutic needs.
“We addressed some of the questions that were most important to the community, but certainly there are a lot of areas that we couldn’t cover” said coauthor Veronica H. Flood, MD, of the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee.
The guidelines process began with a survey sent to the von Willebrand disease community, including patients, caregivers, nurses, physicians, and scientists. The respondents were asked to prioritize issues that they felt should be addressed in the guidelines.
“Interestingly, some of the issues were the same between patients and caregivers and physicians, and some were different, but there were obviously some areas that we just couldn’t cover,” she said in an interview.
One of the areas of greatest concern for respondents was bleeding in women, and many of the recommendations include specific considerations for management of gynecologic and obstetric patients, Dr. Flood said.
“We also tried to make the questions applicable to as many patients with von Willebrand disease as possible,” she added.
Some of the questions, such as recommendation 1, regarding prophylaxis, are geared toward management of patients with severe disease, while others, such as recommendations for treatment of menstrual bleeding, are more suited for patients with milder VWD.
All of the recommendations in the guidelines are “conditional” (suggested), due to very low certainty in the evidence of effects, the authors noted.
Prophylaxis
The guidelines suggest long-term prophylaxis for patients with a history of severe and frequent bleeds, with periodic assessment of the need for prophylaxis.
Desmopressin
For those patients who may benefit from the use of desmopressin, primarily those with type 1 VWD, and who have a baseline von Willebrand factor (VWF) level below 0.30 IU/mL, the panel issued a conditional recommendation for a desmopressin trial with treatment based on the patient’s results compared with not performing a trial and treating with tranexamic acid or factor concentrate. The guidelines also advise against treating with desmopressin in the absence of a trial. In a section of “good practice statements,” the guidelines indicate that using desmopressin in patients with type 2B VWD is generally contraindicated, because of the risk of thrombocytopenia as a result of increased platelet binding. In addition, desmopressin is generally contraindicated in patients with active cardiovascular disease, patients with seizure disorders, patients less than 2 years old, and patients with type 1C VWD in the setting of surgery.
Antithrombotic therapy
The guideline panelists conditionally recommend antithrombotic therapy with either antiplatelet agents or anticoagulants, with an emphasis on reassessing bleeding risk throughout the course of treatment.
An accompanying good practice statement calls for individualized assessments of risks and benefits of specific antithrombotic therapies by a multidisciplinary team including hematologists, cardiovascular specialists, and the patient.
Major surgery
This section includes a recommendation for targeting both factor VIII and VWF activity levels to a minimum of 50 IU/mL for at least 3 days after surgery, and a suggestion against using factor VIII target levels alone.
Minor surgery/invasive procedures
The panelists suggest increasing VWF activity levels to a minimum of 0.50 IU/mL with desmopressin or factor concentrate with the addition of tranexamic acid over raising VWF levels to at least 0.50 IU/mL with desmopressin or factor concentrate alone.
In addition, the panelists suggest “giving tranexamic acid alone over increasing VWF activity levels to a minimum threshold of 0.50 IU/mL with any intervention in patients with type 1 VWD with baseline VWF activity levels of 0.30 IU/mL and a mild bleeding phenotype undergoing minor mucosal procedures.”
Heavy menstrual bleeding
In women with heavy menstrual bleeding who do not plan to conceive, the panel suggests either combined hormonal therapy or levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system, or tranexamic acid over desmopressin.
In women who wish to conceive, the panel suggests using tranexamic acid over desmopressin.
Neuraxial anesthesia during labor
For women in labor for whom neuraxial anesthesia is considered, the guidelines suggest targeting a VWF activity level from 0.50 to 1.50 IU/mL over targeting a level above 1.50 IU/mL.
Postpartum management
“The guideline panel suggests the use of tranexamic acid over not using it in women with type 1 VWD or low VWF levels (and this may also apply to types 2 and 3 VWD) during the postpartum period,” the guidelines say.
An accompanying good practice statement says that tranexamic acid can be provided orally or intravenously. The oral dose is 25 mg/kg three times daily for 10-14 days, or longer if blood loss remains heavy.
Dr. Flood said that the guidelines were developed under the assumption that they would apply to care of patients in regions with a high or moderately high degree of clinical resources.
“We recognize that this eliminates a great deal of the globe, and our hope is that ASH and the other sponsoring organizations are going to let us revise this and do a version for lower-resourced settings,” she said.
FROM BLOOD ADVANCES
‘Excellent short-term outcomes’ seen in HCV+ liver transplants to HCV– recipients
Liver transplantation using hepatitis C virus (HCV)-seropositive grafts to HCV-seronegative recipients resulted in “excellent short-term outcomes,” according to the results of a prospective, multicenter study reported in the Journal of Hepatology.
A total of 34 HCV– liver transplantation recipients received grafts from HCV+ donors (20 HCV viremic and 14 nonviremic) from January 2018 to September 2019, according to Bashar Aqel, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Ariz., and colleagues.
Seven of the grafts were obtained from donation after cardiac death (DCD). Six recipients underwent simultaneous liver/kidney (SLK) transplant, and four patients were repeat liver transplants.
Sustained viral response
None of the recipients of an HCV nonviremic graft developed HCV viremia. However, all 20 patients who received HCV viremic grafts had HCV viremia confirmed within 3 days after liver transplant. Direct-acting antiviral (DAA) treatment was started at the median time of 27.5 days in these patients.
All 20 patients successfully completed the treatment and achieved a sustained viral response. In addition, the DAA treatment was well tolerated with minimal adverse events, according to the researchers.
However, one patient died, having developed HCV-related acute membranous nephropathy that resulted in end-stage kidney disease. In addition, a recipient of an HCV nonviremic graft died with acute myocardial infarction 610 days post liver transplant, the authors reported.
“This multicenter study demonstrated LT [liver transplantation] using HCV-seropositive grafts to HCV-seronegative recipients resulted in acceptable short-term outcomes even with the use of DCD grafts and expansion into SLK or repeat LT. However, a careful ongoing assessment regarding patient and graft selection, complications, and the timing of treatment is required,” the researchers concluded.
The study was funded in part by the McIver Estate Young Investigator Benefactor Award. The authors reported they had no potential conflicts.
SOURCE: Aqel B et al. J Hepatol. 2020, Nov 11. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2020.11.005.
Liver transplantation using hepatitis C virus (HCV)-seropositive grafts to HCV-seronegative recipients resulted in “excellent short-term outcomes,” according to the results of a prospective, multicenter study reported in the Journal of Hepatology.
A total of 34 HCV– liver transplantation recipients received grafts from HCV+ donors (20 HCV viremic and 14 nonviremic) from January 2018 to September 2019, according to Bashar Aqel, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Ariz., and colleagues.
Seven of the grafts were obtained from donation after cardiac death (DCD). Six recipients underwent simultaneous liver/kidney (SLK) transplant, and four patients were repeat liver transplants.
Sustained viral response
None of the recipients of an HCV nonviremic graft developed HCV viremia. However, all 20 patients who received HCV viremic grafts had HCV viremia confirmed within 3 days after liver transplant. Direct-acting antiviral (DAA) treatment was started at the median time of 27.5 days in these patients.
All 20 patients successfully completed the treatment and achieved a sustained viral response. In addition, the DAA treatment was well tolerated with minimal adverse events, according to the researchers.
However, one patient died, having developed HCV-related acute membranous nephropathy that resulted in end-stage kidney disease. In addition, a recipient of an HCV nonviremic graft died with acute myocardial infarction 610 days post liver transplant, the authors reported.
“This multicenter study demonstrated LT [liver transplantation] using HCV-seropositive grafts to HCV-seronegative recipients resulted in acceptable short-term outcomes even with the use of DCD grafts and expansion into SLK or repeat LT. However, a careful ongoing assessment regarding patient and graft selection, complications, and the timing of treatment is required,” the researchers concluded.
The study was funded in part by the McIver Estate Young Investigator Benefactor Award. The authors reported they had no potential conflicts.
SOURCE: Aqel B et al. J Hepatol. 2020, Nov 11. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2020.11.005.
Liver transplantation using hepatitis C virus (HCV)-seropositive grafts to HCV-seronegative recipients resulted in “excellent short-term outcomes,” according to the results of a prospective, multicenter study reported in the Journal of Hepatology.
A total of 34 HCV– liver transplantation recipients received grafts from HCV+ donors (20 HCV viremic and 14 nonviremic) from January 2018 to September 2019, according to Bashar Aqel, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Ariz., and colleagues.
Seven of the grafts were obtained from donation after cardiac death (DCD). Six recipients underwent simultaneous liver/kidney (SLK) transplant, and four patients were repeat liver transplants.
Sustained viral response
None of the recipients of an HCV nonviremic graft developed HCV viremia. However, all 20 patients who received HCV viremic grafts had HCV viremia confirmed within 3 days after liver transplant. Direct-acting antiviral (DAA) treatment was started at the median time of 27.5 days in these patients.
All 20 patients successfully completed the treatment and achieved a sustained viral response. In addition, the DAA treatment was well tolerated with minimal adverse events, according to the researchers.
However, one patient died, having developed HCV-related acute membranous nephropathy that resulted in end-stage kidney disease. In addition, a recipient of an HCV nonviremic graft died with acute myocardial infarction 610 days post liver transplant, the authors reported.
“This multicenter study demonstrated LT [liver transplantation] using HCV-seropositive grafts to HCV-seronegative recipients resulted in acceptable short-term outcomes even with the use of DCD grafts and expansion into SLK or repeat LT. However, a careful ongoing assessment regarding patient and graft selection, complications, and the timing of treatment is required,” the researchers concluded.
The study was funded in part by the McIver Estate Young Investigator Benefactor Award. The authors reported they had no potential conflicts.
SOURCE: Aqel B et al. J Hepatol. 2020, Nov 11. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2020.11.005.
FROM JOURNAL OF HEPATOLOGY
Predicting complications of cytoreductive nephrectomy in metastatic RCC
according to an analysis of registry data.
Higher intraoperative blood loss was also associated with low-grade postoperative complications. Intraoperative complications were more likely in patients who had concurrent thrombectomy and surgery on adjacent organs.
Eduard Roussel, MD, of University Hospitals Leuven (Belgium) and colleagues reported these findings in European Urology Oncology.
The authors noted that the role of CN in metastatic RCC is controversial. The CARMENA trial, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, “shifted treatment paradigms” away from surgery by suggesting that sunitinib alone is noninferior to sunitinib after CN.
“Nonetheless, there is a general consensus that certain selected subgroups of patients with low-volume, single-site metastases and few adverse IMDC [International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium] criteria would still benefit from the continued use of upfront CN,” the authors wrote.
They advised clinicians to weigh the risks and benefits of CN, particularly because “postoperative morbidity might preclude or delay the use of subsequent systemic therapies.” However, the risk/benefit calculation for CN has been difficult because past investigations have tended to focus only on survival outcomes, so there isn’t much data on morbidity, the authors wrote.
Patient characteristics and complications
To investigate morbidity associated with CN, Dr. Roussel and colleagues reviewed data from the Registry of Metastatic RCC (REMARCC). The team analyzed the clinical records of 736 patients who underwent nephrectomy for metastatic RCC during 1980-2019.
The patients’ median age was 63 years (range, 55-70 years), and about three-quarters were men. The majority had clear cell carcinoma, and the lungs were the most common site of metastases.
More than 97% of procedures were complete nephrectomies, and the rest were partial. The median estimated blood loss was 400 mL, and the median follow-up was 16.5 months.
There were 69 patients who had intraoperative complications, most commonly bleeding (n = 25), spleen laceration (n = 13), and vascular injury (n = 11).
There were 217 patients who had postoperative complications, including 45 patients with high-grade complications (grade 3-5) and 10 who died.
The most common postoperative complications were vascular/lymphatic in nature. These occurred in 67 patients and included 10 lymphoceles.
“[G]iven the relatively high rate of postoperative lymphoceles, which is probably attributable to the performance of lymph node dissections and the lack of proven oncological survival benefit thereof, surgeons might reconsider the performance of lymphadenectomy during CN,” the investigators wrote.
Other common postoperative complications included infectious and cardiopulmonary issues, which occurred in 42 and 39 patients, respectively.
Predictors of complications
Thrombectomy and adjacent organ removal were significant predictors of intraoperative complications on multivariable analysis. The odds ratios were 1.38 (P = .009) for thrombectomy and 2.71 (P = .004) for adjacent organ removal.
Estimated blood loss was a significant predictor of low- and high-grade postoperative complications. The OR for high-grade complications per 200 mL of blood lost was 1.06 (P = .007), and the OR for low-grade complications per 200 mL blood lost was 1.09 (P = .001).
There was a strong inverse correlation with CN case load at each center and high-grade postoperative complications, which highlights “the impact of centralization of care on postoperative outcomes in complex surgical scenarios,” the investigators wrote. The OR per 25 cases was 0.88 (P = .04).
Results were largely the same when the analysis was limited to the 560 subjects treated since 2006, in the targeted therapy era, except that adjacent organ removal as a predictor of intraoperative complications did not quite reach statistical significance (P = .06).
The presurgery risk factors identified in this study should assist with presurgical counseling, said Zachery Reichert, MD, PhD, a genitourinary medical oncologist and assistant professor at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, who was not involved in this study.
“This is especially important for patients who require thrombectomy or adjacent organ removal or do not have access to a surgeon with high cytoreductive nephrectomy caseloads,” he said.
Dr. Reichert reported having no disclosures. There was no external funding for this study, and the investigators didn’t have any disclosures.
SOURCE: Roussel E et al. Eur Urol Oncol. 2020 Aug;3(4):523-9.
according to an analysis of registry data.
Higher intraoperative blood loss was also associated with low-grade postoperative complications. Intraoperative complications were more likely in patients who had concurrent thrombectomy and surgery on adjacent organs.
Eduard Roussel, MD, of University Hospitals Leuven (Belgium) and colleagues reported these findings in European Urology Oncology.
The authors noted that the role of CN in metastatic RCC is controversial. The CARMENA trial, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, “shifted treatment paradigms” away from surgery by suggesting that sunitinib alone is noninferior to sunitinib after CN.
“Nonetheless, there is a general consensus that certain selected subgroups of patients with low-volume, single-site metastases and few adverse IMDC [International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium] criteria would still benefit from the continued use of upfront CN,” the authors wrote.
They advised clinicians to weigh the risks and benefits of CN, particularly because “postoperative morbidity might preclude or delay the use of subsequent systemic therapies.” However, the risk/benefit calculation for CN has been difficult because past investigations have tended to focus only on survival outcomes, so there isn’t much data on morbidity, the authors wrote.
Patient characteristics and complications
To investigate morbidity associated with CN, Dr. Roussel and colleagues reviewed data from the Registry of Metastatic RCC (REMARCC). The team analyzed the clinical records of 736 patients who underwent nephrectomy for metastatic RCC during 1980-2019.
The patients’ median age was 63 years (range, 55-70 years), and about three-quarters were men. The majority had clear cell carcinoma, and the lungs were the most common site of metastases.
More than 97% of procedures were complete nephrectomies, and the rest were partial. The median estimated blood loss was 400 mL, and the median follow-up was 16.5 months.
There were 69 patients who had intraoperative complications, most commonly bleeding (n = 25), spleen laceration (n = 13), and vascular injury (n = 11).
There were 217 patients who had postoperative complications, including 45 patients with high-grade complications (grade 3-5) and 10 who died.
The most common postoperative complications were vascular/lymphatic in nature. These occurred in 67 patients and included 10 lymphoceles.
“[G]iven the relatively high rate of postoperative lymphoceles, which is probably attributable to the performance of lymph node dissections and the lack of proven oncological survival benefit thereof, surgeons might reconsider the performance of lymphadenectomy during CN,” the investigators wrote.
Other common postoperative complications included infectious and cardiopulmonary issues, which occurred in 42 and 39 patients, respectively.
Predictors of complications
Thrombectomy and adjacent organ removal were significant predictors of intraoperative complications on multivariable analysis. The odds ratios were 1.38 (P = .009) for thrombectomy and 2.71 (P = .004) for adjacent organ removal.
Estimated blood loss was a significant predictor of low- and high-grade postoperative complications. The OR for high-grade complications per 200 mL of blood lost was 1.06 (P = .007), and the OR for low-grade complications per 200 mL blood lost was 1.09 (P = .001).
There was a strong inverse correlation with CN case load at each center and high-grade postoperative complications, which highlights “the impact of centralization of care on postoperative outcomes in complex surgical scenarios,” the investigators wrote. The OR per 25 cases was 0.88 (P = .04).
Results were largely the same when the analysis was limited to the 560 subjects treated since 2006, in the targeted therapy era, except that adjacent organ removal as a predictor of intraoperative complications did not quite reach statistical significance (P = .06).
The presurgery risk factors identified in this study should assist with presurgical counseling, said Zachery Reichert, MD, PhD, a genitourinary medical oncologist and assistant professor at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, who was not involved in this study.
“This is especially important for patients who require thrombectomy or adjacent organ removal or do not have access to a surgeon with high cytoreductive nephrectomy caseloads,” he said.
Dr. Reichert reported having no disclosures. There was no external funding for this study, and the investigators didn’t have any disclosures.
SOURCE: Roussel E et al. Eur Urol Oncol. 2020 Aug;3(4):523-9.
according to an analysis of registry data.
Higher intraoperative blood loss was also associated with low-grade postoperative complications. Intraoperative complications were more likely in patients who had concurrent thrombectomy and surgery on adjacent organs.
Eduard Roussel, MD, of University Hospitals Leuven (Belgium) and colleagues reported these findings in European Urology Oncology.
The authors noted that the role of CN in metastatic RCC is controversial. The CARMENA trial, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, “shifted treatment paradigms” away from surgery by suggesting that sunitinib alone is noninferior to sunitinib after CN.
“Nonetheless, there is a general consensus that certain selected subgroups of patients with low-volume, single-site metastases and few adverse IMDC [International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium] criteria would still benefit from the continued use of upfront CN,” the authors wrote.
They advised clinicians to weigh the risks and benefits of CN, particularly because “postoperative morbidity might preclude or delay the use of subsequent systemic therapies.” However, the risk/benefit calculation for CN has been difficult because past investigations have tended to focus only on survival outcomes, so there isn’t much data on morbidity, the authors wrote.
Patient characteristics and complications
To investigate morbidity associated with CN, Dr. Roussel and colleagues reviewed data from the Registry of Metastatic RCC (REMARCC). The team analyzed the clinical records of 736 patients who underwent nephrectomy for metastatic RCC during 1980-2019.
The patients’ median age was 63 years (range, 55-70 years), and about three-quarters were men. The majority had clear cell carcinoma, and the lungs were the most common site of metastases.
More than 97% of procedures were complete nephrectomies, and the rest were partial. The median estimated blood loss was 400 mL, and the median follow-up was 16.5 months.
There were 69 patients who had intraoperative complications, most commonly bleeding (n = 25), spleen laceration (n = 13), and vascular injury (n = 11).
There were 217 patients who had postoperative complications, including 45 patients with high-grade complications (grade 3-5) and 10 who died.
The most common postoperative complications were vascular/lymphatic in nature. These occurred in 67 patients and included 10 lymphoceles.
“[G]iven the relatively high rate of postoperative lymphoceles, which is probably attributable to the performance of lymph node dissections and the lack of proven oncological survival benefit thereof, surgeons might reconsider the performance of lymphadenectomy during CN,” the investigators wrote.
Other common postoperative complications included infectious and cardiopulmonary issues, which occurred in 42 and 39 patients, respectively.
Predictors of complications
Thrombectomy and adjacent organ removal were significant predictors of intraoperative complications on multivariable analysis. The odds ratios were 1.38 (P = .009) for thrombectomy and 2.71 (P = .004) for adjacent organ removal.
Estimated blood loss was a significant predictor of low- and high-grade postoperative complications. The OR for high-grade complications per 200 mL of blood lost was 1.06 (P = .007), and the OR for low-grade complications per 200 mL blood lost was 1.09 (P = .001).
There was a strong inverse correlation with CN case load at each center and high-grade postoperative complications, which highlights “the impact of centralization of care on postoperative outcomes in complex surgical scenarios,” the investigators wrote. The OR per 25 cases was 0.88 (P = .04).
Results were largely the same when the analysis was limited to the 560 subjects treated since 2006, in the targeted therapy era, except that adjacent organ removal as a predictor of intraoperative complications did not quite reach statistical significance (P = .06).
The presurgery risk factors identified in this study should assist with presurgical counseling, said Zachery Reichert, MD, PhD, a genitourinary medical oncologist and assistant professor at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, who was not involved in this study.
“This is especially important for patients who require thrombectomy or adjacent organ removal or do not have access to a surgeon with high cytoreductive nephrectomy caseloads,” he said.
Dr. Reichert reported having no disclosures. There was no external funding for this study, and the investigators didn’t have any disclosures.
SOURCE: Roussel E et al. Eur Urol Oncol. 2020 Aug;3(4):523-9.
FROM EUROPEAN UROLOGY ONCOLOGY
Endoscopic full-thickness resection of colorectal lesions appears safe and effective
Endoscopic full-thickness resection (eFTR) of complex colorectal lesions appears safe and effective, based on prospective data from 20 Dutch hospitals.
Macroscopic complete en bloc resection was achieved in 83.9% of procedures with an adverse event rate of 9.3%, reported lead author Liselotte W. Zwager, a PhD candidate at the University of Amsterdam, and colleagues.
“With the advantage of enabling a transmural resection, eFTR offers an alternative to radical surgery in lesions considered incurable with current resection techniques such as endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) or endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD),” the investigators wrote in Endoscopy.
But more data are needed for widespread adoption, they noted. “Several studies have reported encouraging results on the short-term safety and efficacy of eFTR for numerous indications. However, firm conclusions on clinical results will require analysis of large prospective series of patients in everyday clinical practice.”
The present study provided data from 362 patients who underwent 367 procedures at 5 academic and 15 nonacademic centers in the Netherlands.
Patients were eligible for eFTR if polyps were nonlifting or in difficult-to-reach locations, or if T1 colorectal cancer (CRC) was suspected. In addition, eFTR was performed for subepithelial tumors, and as secondary completion treatment after incomplete endoscopic resection of T1 CRC with a positive or nonassessable resection margin. Lesions greater than 30 mm were excluded because of device diameter constraints.
The primary outcome was macroscopic complete en bloc resection. Secondary outcomes included adverse events, full-thickness resection rate, and clinical success, the latter of which was defined by tumor-free resection margins (R0).
Out of 367 procedures, eFTR was most frequently conducted because of incomplete resection of T1 CRC (41%), followed by nonlifting or difficult-to-reach polyps (36%), suspected T1 CRC (19%), and least often, subepithelial tumors (4%).
Complete en bloc resection was achieved in 83.9% of procedures. Excluding 21 procedures in which eFTR was not performed because of inaccessibility of the lesion (n = 7) or immobility of tissue prohibiting retraction of the lesion into the cap (n = 14), R0 was achieved in 82.4% of cases. Among the same group, full-thickness resection rate was comparable, at 83.2%.
Adverse events occurred in 34 patients (9.3%), among whom 10 (2.7%) underwent emergency surgery for perforations or appendicitis.
“In conclusion,” the investigators wrote, “eFTR is an exciting, innovative resection technique that is clinically feasible and safe for complex colorectal lesions, with the potential to obviate the need for surgical resection. Further efficacy studies on eFTR as a primary and secondary treatment option for T1 CRC are needed, focusing on both the short- and long-term oncologic results.”
Peter V. Draganov, MD, of the University of Florida, Gainesville, called the R0 resection rate “respectable,” and suggested that the study “reconfirms on a larger scale that eFTR with the full-thickness resection device is successful in the majority of cases.”
“The full-thickness resection device expands our armamentarium to remove difficult polyps and early CRC,” he said.
Still, Dr. Draganov, who has previously advised careful patient selection for eFTR, noted certain drawbacks of the technique. “The presented data highlight some of the limitations of the full-thickness resection device, including the relatively small size of the lesion [median diameter, 23 mm] that can be resected, and challenges related to accessing and capturing the lesion due to the limited visibility and maneuverability of the device.”
Ultimately, Dr. Draganov supported the investigators’ call for more data. “Before eFTR becomes a primary modality for management of T1 CRC, we do need follow-up data on long-term cancer-related outcomes,” he said.
The study was supported by Ovesco Endoscopy. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Cook, Ethicon, Olympus, and others.
SOURCE: Zwager LW et al. Endoscopy. 2020 Jun 4. doi: 10.1055/a-1176-1107.
Endoscopic full-thickness resection (eFTR) of complex colorectal lesions appears safe and effective, based on prospective data from 20 Dutch hospitals.
Macroscopic complete en bloc resection was achieved in 83.9% of procedures with an adverse event rate of 9.3%, reported lead author Liselotte W. Zwager, a PhD candidate at the University of Amsterdam, and colleagues.
“With the advantage of enabling a transmural resection, eFTR offers an alternative to radical surgery in lesions considered incurable with current resection techniques such as endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) or endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD),” the investigators wrote in Endoscopy.
But more data are needed for widespread adoption, they noted. “Several studies have reported encouraging results on the short-term safety and efficacy of eFTR for numerous indications. However, firm conclusions on clinical results will require analysis of large prospective series of patients in everyday clinical practice.”
The present study provided data from 362 patients who underwent 367 procedures at 5 academic and 15 nonacademic centers in the Netherlands.
Patients were eligible for eFTR if polyps were nonlifting or in difficult-to-reach locations, or if T1 colorectal cancer (CRC) was suspected. In addition, eFTR was performed for subepithelial tumors, and as secondary completion treatment after incomplete endoscopic resection of T1 CRC with a positive or nonassessable resection margin. Lesions greater than 30 mm were excluded because of device diameter constraints.
The primary outcome was macroscopic complete en bloc resection. Secondary outcomes included adverse events, full-thickness resection rate, and clinical success, the latter of which was defined by tumor-free resection margins (R0).
Out of 367 procedures, eFTR was most frequently conducted because of incomplete resection of T1 CRC (41%), followed by nonlifting or difficult-to-reach polyps (36%), suspected T1 CRC (19%), and least often, subepithelial tumors (4%).
Complete en bloc resection was achieved in 83.9% of procedures. Excluding 21 procedures in which eFTR was not performed because of inaccessibility of the lesion (n = 7) or immobility of tissue prohibiting retraction of the lesion into the cap (n = 14), R0 was achieved in 82.4% of cases. Among the same group, full-thickness resection rate was comparable, at 83.2%.
Adverse events occurred in 34 patients (9.3%), among whom 10 (2.7%) underwent emergency surgery for perforations or appendicitis.
“In conclusion,” the investigators wrote, “eFTR is an exciting, innovative resection technique that is clinically feasible and safe for complex colorectal lesions, with the potential to obviate the need for surgical resection. Further efficacy studies on eFTR as a primary and secondary treatment option for T1 CRC are needed, focusing on both the short- and long-term oncologic results.”
Peter V. Draganov, MD, of the University of Florida, Gainesville, called the R0 resection rate “respectable,” and suggested that the study “reconfirms on a larger scale that eFTR with the full-thickness resection device is successful in the majority of cases.”
“The full-thickness resection device expands our armamentarium to remove difficult polyps and early CRC,” he said.
Still, Dr. Draganov, who has previously advised careful patient selection for eFTR, noted certain drawbacks of the technique. “The presented data highlight some of the limitations of the full-thickness resection device, including the relatively small size of the lesion [median diameter, 23 mm] that can be resected, and challenges related to accessing and capturing the lesion due to the limited visibility and maneuverability of the device.”
Ultimately, Dr. Draganov supported the investigators’ call for more data. “Before eFTR becomes a primary modality for management of T1 CRC, we do need follow-up data on long-term cancer-related outcomes,” he said.
The study was supported by Ovesco Endoscopy. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Cook, Ethicon, Olympus, and others.
SOURCE: Zwager LW et al. Endoscopy. 2020 Jun 4. doi: 10.1055/a-1176-1107.
Endoscopic full-thickness resection (eFTR) of complex colorectal lesions appears safe and effective, based on prospective data from 20 Dutch hospitals.
Macroscopic complete en bloc resection was achieved in 83.9% of procedures with an adverse event rate of 9.3%, reported lead author Liselotte W. Zwager, a PhD candidate at the University of Amsterdam, and colleagues.
“With the advantage of enabling a transmural resection, eFTR offers an alternative to radical surgery in lesions considered incurable with current resection techniques such as endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) or endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD),” the investigators wrote in Endoscopy.
But more data are needed for widespread adoption, they noted. “Several studies have reported encouraging results on the short-term safety and efficacy of eFTR for numerous indications. However, firm conclusions on clinical results will require analysis of large prospective series of patients in everyday clinical practice.”
The present study provided data from 362 patients who underwent 367 procedures at 5 academic and 15 nonacademic centers in the Netherlands.
Patients were eligible for eFTR if polyps were nonlifting or in difficult-to-reach locations, or if T1 colorectal cancer (CRC) was suspected. In addition, eFTR was performed for subepithelial tumors, and as secondary completion treatment after incomplete endoscopic resection of T1 CRC with a positive or nonassessable resection margin. Lesions greater than 30 mm were excluded because of device diameter constraints.
The primary outcome was macroscopic complete en bloc resection. Secondary outcomes included adverse events, full-thickness resection rate, and clinical success, the latter of which was defined by tumor-free resection margins (R0).
Out of 367 procedures, eFTR was most frequently conducted because of incomplete resection of T1 CRC (41%), followed by nonlifting or difficult-to-reach polyps (36%), suspected T1 CRC (19%), and least often, subepithelial tumors (4%).
Complete en bloc resection was achieved in 83.9% of procedures. Excluding 21 procedures in which eFTR was not performed because of inaccessibility of the lesion (n = 7) or immobility of tissue prohibiting retraction of the lesion into the cap (n = 14), R0 was achieved in 82.4% of cases. Among the same group, full-thickness resection rate was comparable, at 83.2%.
Adverse events occurred in 34 patients (9.3%), among whom 10 (2.7%) underwent emergency surgery for perforations or appendicitis.
“In conclusion,” the investigators wrote, “eFTR is an exciting, innovative resection technique that is clinically feasible and safe for complex colorectal lesions, with the potential to obviate the need for surgical resection. Further efficacy studies on eFTR as a primary and secondary treatment option for T1 CRC are needed, focusing on both the short- and long-term oncologic results.”
Peter V. Draganov, MD, of the University of Florida, Gainesville, called the R0 resection rate “respectable,” and suggested that the study “reconfirms on a larger scale that eFTR with the full-thickness resection device is successful in the majority of cases.”
“The full-thickness resection device expands our armamentarium to remove difficult polyps and early CRC,” he said.
Still, Dr. Draganov, who has previously advised careful patient selection for eFTR, noted certain drawbacks of the technique. “The presented data highlight some of the limitations of the full-thickness resection device, including the relatively small size of the lesion [median diameter, 23 mm] that can be resected, and challenges related to accessing and capturing the lesion due to the limited visibility and maneuverability of the device.”
Ultimately, Dr. Draganov supported the investigators’ call for more data. “Before eFTR becomes a primary modality for management of T1 CRC, we do need follow-up data on long-term cancer-related outcomes,” he said.
The study was supported by Ovesco Endoscopy. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Cook, Ethicon, Olympus, and others.
SOURCE: Zwager LW et al. Endoscopy. 2020 Jun 4. doi: 10.1055/a-1176-1107.
FROM ENDOSCOPY
Sex-based disparities in liver allocation driven by organ size mismatch, MELD score
Addressing local supply constraints may be insufficient to improve poorer outcomes among women who need a liver transplant, based on a large retrospective analysis.
Sex-based disparities in liver allocation were more strongly associated with liver size mismatch and MELD (Model for End-stage Liver Disease) score than geographic factors, reported lead author Jayme E. Locke, MD, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and colleagues.
“Currently, the transplant community is considering geographic redistribution ... to redefine local organ supply by replacing donor service areas with fixed concentric circles around donor hospitals,” the investigators wrote in JAMA Surgery. “However, newly proposed geographic models rely on the same metric for medical urgency, the MELD score, and offer no solution for candidates with small body stature who may appear at the top of the match run yet are routinely skipped secondary to discrepancies in donor-recipient size.”
To further investigate the driving forces behind sex-based disparities, the investigators conducted the first national study of its kind, involving 81,357 adults who were wait-listed for liver transplant. Primary outcomes included deceased donor liver transplant and wait list mortality. Using multivariate regression models and inverse odds ratio weighting, the investigators determined proportions of disparity shared across MELD score, candidate anthropometric and liver measurements, and geographic location.
Compared with men, women were 14.4% less likely to receive a transplant, and 8.6% more likely to die on the wait list.
The only geographic factor significantly associated with the increased disparity between female sex and wait list mortality was organ procurement organization, which was associated with a 22% increase. The disparity between rates of transplant receipt was not linked with any geographic factors.
In contrast, MELD score accounted for increases in disparity of 10.3% and 50.1% for organ receipt and wait list mortality, respectively. Candidate anthropometric and liver measurements played an even greater role, raising disparity by 49.0% for organ receipt and 125.8% for wait list mortality.
“Size mismatch between the donor and intended recipient and incorrect assessments of liver disease severity were more strongly associated with the observed sex disparity in wait list mortality than local supply of organs,” the investigators wrote.
Dr. Locke and colleagues noted that ongoing debates about geographic disparity hinge upon the assumption that the MELD score accurately measures disease severity, despite known shortcomings, including reliance upon serum creatinine level, which is influenced by muscle mass and therefore overestimates kidney function in women, and sex-based differences in size, which the MELD score does not incorporate whatsoever.
As such, the investigators suggested that addressing issues with the MELD score and organ size mismatch should be part of a more comprehensive approach to fixing sex-based disparities among candidates for liver transplant.
“Although geographic factors matter, examining geographic access alone may be insufficient,” they concluded.
James F. Markmann, MD, PhD, chief of the division of transplantation at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, who has previously published research in support of geographic redistribution, said in an interview that the study by Dr. Locke and colleagues “highlights a well-known problem in the liver transplant field.”
“The cause of this disparity is nicely illustrated by Dr. Locke’s work, which shows multiple contributing factors,” Dr. Markmann said.
While Dr. Markmann agreed with Dr. Locke and colleagues’ proposal that estimated glomerular filtration rate, instead of creatinine, could be used to more accurately measure renal function across sexes, he suggested that the disparities uncovered by their analysis are more likely driven by body size than sex.
“A more impactful factor and one obvious to those performing transplants is that on average the smaller body habitus of females makes more organs unsuitable due to size mismatch,” Dr. Markmann said. “In general, it is technically much less of a barrier to put a small liver into a large patient, than a large liver in a small patient. But, the same disparity in access almost certainly applies to small males; unfortunately, the authors did not examine this point. If allocation changes are envisioned to gain greater fairness in organ access, at least for the recipient size issue, it should be a size issue and not a sex issue.”
Dr. Markmann went on to explain that steps are currently being taken to make liver access more equitable.
“As of February 4th of this year, a broader sharing program for deceased donor livers was implemented,” he said. “This will make more organs available to those in greatest need. It will also potentially increase the number of liver offers to sick patients with a small body habitus and will hopefully reduce the excess morbidity and mortality they suffer.”
According to Willscott E. Naugler, MD and Susan L. Orloff, MD, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, novel clinical strategies need to be reinforced with a broader mindset in order to close the gap between men and women.
“A change in the MELD score is unlikely to fix this problem,” they wrote in an accompanying JAMA Surgery editorial, “but it is not hard to think of solutions; one could imagine, for example, allowing women of small stature to access pediatric livers while ramping up liver splits to increase contributions to the pediatric pool.”
Dr. Naugler and Dr. Orloff went on to suggest that barriers to equity may be culturally insidious.
“It is likely that the same unconscious biases that lead us to pay women surgeons less account for the lack of will to make these simple changes,” they wrote. “Not mentioned are multiple sociocultural elements that favor men over women in organ transplant. ... These realities cannot be fixed with changes to the MELD score, and we must be mindful not to let such notions distract from the essential hard work of creating long-lasting cultural changes that underpin a true path forward.”
The investigators disclosed relationships with Sanofi, Hansa Medical, Natera, and others.
SOURCE: Locke JE et al. JAMA Surg. 2020 May 20. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2020.1129.
Addressing local supply constraints may be insufficient to improve poorer outcomes among women who need a liver transplant, based on a large retrospective analysis.
Sex-based disparities in liver allocation were more strongly associated with liver size mismatch and MELD (Model for End-stage Liver Disease) score than geographic factors, reported lead author Jayme E. Locke, MD, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and colleagues.
“Currently, the transplant community is considering geographic redistribution ... to redefine local organ supply by replacing donor service areas with fixed concentric circles around donor hospitals,” the investigators wrote in JAMA Surgery. “However, newly proposed geographic models rely on the same metric for medical urgency, the MELD score, and offer no solution for candidates with small body stature who may appear at the top of the match run yet are routinely skipped secondary to discrepancies in donor-recipient size.”
To further investigate the driving forces behind sex-based disparities, the investigators conducted the first national study of its kind, involving 81,357 adults who were wait-listed for liver transplant. Primary outcomes included deceased donor liver transplant and wait list mortality. Using multivariate regression models and inverse odds ratio weighting, the investigators determined proportions of disparity shared across MELD score, candidate anthropometric and liver measurements, and geographic location.
Compared with men, women were 14.4% less likely to receive a transplant, and 8.6% more likely to die on the wait list.
The only geographic factor significantly associated with the increased disparity between female sex and wait list mortality was organ procurement organization, which was associated with a 22% increase. The disparity between rates of transplant receipt was not linked with any geographic factors.
In contrast, MELD score accounted for increases in disparity of 10.3% and 50.1% for organ receipt and wait list mortality, respectively. Candidate anthropometric and liver measurements played an even greater role, raising disparity by 49.0% for organ receipt and 125.8% for wait list mortality.
“Size mismatch between the donor and intended recipient and incorrect assessments of liver disease severity were more strongly associated with the observed sex disparity in wait list mortality than local supply of organs,” the investigators wrote.
Dr. Locke and colleagues noted that ongoing debates about geographic disparity hinge upon the assumption that the MELD score accurately measures disease severity, despite known shortcomings, including reliance upon serum creatinine level, which is influenced by muscle mass and therefore overestimates kidney function in women, and sex-based differences in size, which the MELD score does not incorporate whatsoever.
As such, the investigators suggested that addressing issues with the MELD score and organ size mismatch should be part of a more comprehensive approach to fixing sex-based disparities among candidates for liver transplant.
“Although geographic factors matter, examining geographic access alone may be insufficient,” they concluded.
James F. Markmann, MD, PhD, chief of the division of transplantation at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, who has previously published research in support of geographic redistribution, said in an interview that the study by Dr. Locke and colleagues “highlights a well-known problem in the liver transplant field.”
“The cause of this disparity is nicely illustrated by Dr. Locke’s work, which shows multiple contributing factors,” Dr. Markmann said.
While Dr. Markmann agreed with Dr. Locke and colleagues’ proposal that estimated glomerular filtration rate, instead of creatinine, could be used to more accurately measure renal function across sexes, he suggested that the disparities uncovered by their analysis are more likely driven by body size than sex.
“A more impactful factor and one obvious to those performing transplants is that on average the smaller body habitus of females makes more organs unsuitable due to size mismatch,” Dr. Markmann said. “In general, it is technically much less of a barrier to put a small liver into a large patient, than a large liver in a small patient. But, the same disparity in access almost certainly applies to small males; unfortunately, the authors did not examine this point. If allocation changes are envisioned to gain greater fairness in organ access, at least for the recipient size issue, it should be a size issue and not a sex issue.”
Dr. Markmann went on to explain that steps are currently being taken to make liver access more equitable.
“As of February 4th of this year, a broader sharing program for deceased donor livers was implemented,” he said. “This will make more organs available to those in greatest need. It will also potentially increase the number of liver offers to sick patients with a small body habitus and will hopefully reduce the excess morbidity and mortality they suffer.”
According to Willscott E. Naugler, MD and Susan L. Orloff, MD, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, novel clinical strategies need to be reinforced with a broader mindset in order to close the gap between men and women.
“A change in the MELD score is unlikely to fix this problem,” they wrote in an accompanying JAMA Surgery editorial, “but it is not hard to think of solutions; one could imagine, for example, allowing women of small stature to access pediatric livers while ramping up liver splits to increase contributions to the pediatric pool.”
Dr. Naugler and Dr. Orloff went on to suggest that barriers to equity may be culturally insidious.
“It is likely that the same unconscious biases that lead us to pay women surgeons less account for the lack of will to make these simple changes,” they wrote. “Not mentioned are multiple sociocultural elements that favor men over women in organ transplant. ... These realities cannot be fixed with changes to the MELD score, and we must be mindful not to let such notions distract from the essential hard work of creating long-lasting cultural changes that underpin a true path forward.”
The investigators disclosed relationships with Sanofi, Hansa Medical, Natera, and others.
SOURCE: Locke JE et al. JAMA Surg. 2020 May 20. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2020.1129.
Addressing local supply constraints may be insufficient to improve poorer outcomes among women who need a liver transplant, based on a large retrospective analysis.
Sex-based disparities in liver allocation were more strongly associated with liver size mismatch and MELD (Model for End-stage Liver Disease) score than geographic factors, reported lead author Jayme E. Locke, MD, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and colleagues.
“Currently, the transplant community is considering geographic redistribution ... to redefine local organ supply by replacing donor service areas with fixed concentric circles around donor hospitals,” the investigators wrote in JAMA Surgery. “However, newly proposed geographic models rely on the same metric for medical urgency, the MELD score, and offer no solution for candidates with small body stature who may appear at the top of the match run yet are routinely skipped secondary to discrepancies in donor-recipient size.”
To further investigate the driving forces behind sex-based disparities, the investigators conducted the first national study of its kind, involving 81,357 adults who were wait-listed for liver transplant. Primary outcomes included deceased donor liver transplant and wait list mortality. Using multivariate regression models and inverse odds ratio weighting, the investigators determined proportions of disparity shared across MELD score, candidate anthropometric and liver measurements, and geographic location.
Compared with men, women were 14.4% less likely to receive a transplant, and 8.6% more likely to die on the wait list.
The only geographic factor significantly associated with the increased disparity between female sex and wait list mortality was organ procurement organization, which was associated with a 22% increase. The disparity between rates of transplant receipt was not linked with any geographic factors.
In contrast, MELD score accounted for increases in disparity of 10.3% and 50.1% for organ receipt and wait list mortality, respectively. Candidate anthropometric and liver measurements played an even greater role, raising disparity by 49.0% for organ receipt and 125.8% for wait list mortality.
“Size mismatch between the donor and intended recipient and incorrect assessments of liver disease severity were more strongly associated with the observed sex disparity in wait list mortality than local supply of organs,” the investigators wrote.
Dr. Locke and colleagues noted that ongoing debates about geographic disparity hinge upon the assumption that the MELD score accurately measures disease severity, despite known shortcomings, including reliance upon serum creatinine level, which is influenced by muscle mass and therefore overestimates kidney function in women, and sex-based differences in size, which the MELD score does not incorporate whatsoever.
As such, the investigators suggested that addressing issues with the MELD score and organ size mismatch should be part of a more comprehensive approach to fixing sex-based disparities among candidates for liver transplant.
“Although geographic factors matter, examining geographic access alone may be insufficient,” they concluded.
James F. Markmann, MD, PhD, chief of the division of transplantation at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, who has previously published research in support of geographic redistribution, said in an interview that the study by Dr. Locke and colleagues “highlights a well-known problem in the liver transplant field.”
“The cause of this disparity is nicely illustrated by Dr. Locke’s work, which shows multiple contributing factors,” Dr. Markmann said.
While Dr. Markmann agreed with Dr. Locke and colleagues’ proposal that estimated glomerular filtration rate, instead of creatinine, could be used to more accurately measure renal function across sexes, he suggested that the disparities uncovered by their analysis are more likely driven by body size than sex.
“A more impactful factor and one obvious to those performing transplants is that on average the smaller body habitus of females makes more organs unsuitable due to size mismatch,” Dr. Markmann said. “In general, it is technically much less of a barrier to put a small liver into a large patient, than a large liver in a small patient. But, the same disparity in access almost certainly applies to small males; unfortunately, the authors did not examine this point. If allocation changes are envisioned to gain greater fairness in organ access, at least for the recipient size issue, it should be a size issue and not a sex issue.”
Dr. Markmann went on to explain that steps are currently being taken to make liver access more equitable.
“As of February 4th of this year, a broader sharing program for deceased donor livers was implemented,” he said. “This will make more organs available to those in greatest need. It will also potentially increase the number of liver offers to sick patients with a small body habitus and will hopefully reduce the excess morbidity and mortality they suffer.”
According to Willscott E. Naugler, MD and Susan L. Orloff, MD, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, novel clinical strategies need to be reinforced with a broader mindset in order to close the gap between men and women.
“A change in the MELD score is unlikely to fix this problem,” they wrote in an accompanying JAMA Surgery editorial, “but it is not hard to think of solutions; one could imagine, for example, allowing women of small stature to access pediatric livers while ramping up liver splits to increase contributions to the pediatric pool.”
Dr. Naugler and Dr. Orloff went on to suggest that barriers to equity may be culturally insidious.
“It is likely that the same unconscious biases that lead us to pay women surgeons less account for the lack of will to make these simple changes,” they wrote. “Not mentioned are multiple sociocultural elements that favor men over women in organ transplant. ... These realities cannot be fixed with changes to the MELD score, and we must be mindful not to let such notions distract from the essential hard work of creating long-lasting cultural changes that underpin a true path forward.”
The investigators disclosed relationships with Sanofi, Hansa Medical, Natera, and others.
SOURCE: Locke JE et al. JAMA Surg. 2020 May 20. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2020.1129.
FROM JAMA SURGERY
Pandemic strains blood supply for COVID-19 and noninfected patients
The COVID-19 pandemic is putting a strain on the blood supply and could be putting people – including those who normally get transfusions, such as patients with sickle cell disease and cancer – at risk.
“Around the beginning of March, the hematology community got wind of what was going on because the blood banks were saying think about your patients and begin to restrict blood usage because we are expecting an increase in usage for COVID-positive ICU patients,” Ifeyinwa (Ify) Osunkwo, MD, a specialist in hematology and sickle cell disease at Levine Cancer Institute in Charlotte, N.C., said in an interview.
“I think that was the first call to arms around hematology ... you don’t want to shortchange somebody who is well and who is being sustained by life-giving transfusions and cut out their transfusion therapy because you are hoping to use the blood for people who are coming in with COVID-19,” she continued. “That is an ethical dilemma that no doctor wants to have to go through. But the reality is we have to do something to make it work for everybody.”
And the timing of the social restrictions due to the pandemic has added additional strain on the blood supply.
“Over the winter, traditionally, blood drives slow down because of the flu and different viruses,” she noted. “The spring and the summer are when we see the biggest recruitment and uptake of blood donation. COVID-19 hit [and] a lot of the blood drives that were traditionally scheduled to supply blood for the country have been canceled because of the new guidance for social distancing.”
Another big source of blood are health care professionals themselves and they may not be able to donate because of the extra hours being worked because of the pandemic.
In speaking about the needs for traditional patients such as those who are dealing with cancer or leukemia or sickle cell diseases as well as those who are being treated for COVID-19 in North Carolina, “we are not at the critical point, but I am a little bit nervous that we may get there because they are not going to up the usual blood drives anytime this summer. We project [sometime] in the fall, but maybe not even then. So there needs to be a significant call-out for people to make every effort to donate blood,” said Dr. Osunkwo. She added that in places such as New York City that are hot spots for the COVID-19 outbreak, the need is likely a lot greater.
She recalled a recent incident at a New York hospital that highlighted how those managing blood supplies are being restrictive and how this could be harming patients.
“A sickle cell patient came in with COVID-19 and the treatment recommendation was do a red blood cell exchange but the blood bank was nervous about getting enough blood to supply for that exchange transfusion,” she said, noting that the doctor still went to bat for that patient to get the needed treatment. “We gave her the supporting evidence that when you are on treatment for sickle cell disease, you tend to do better if you get COVID-19 or any other viral infection. The symptoms of COVID-19 in sickle cell disease is acute chest syndrome, for which the treatment is red blood cell exchange. Not doing that for [these patients] is really not giving them the optimal way of managing their disease, and managing their disease in the setting of COVID-19.”
To that end, Dr. Osunkwo stressed that doctors need to be doing all they can to get the word out that blood is needed and that the American Red Cross and other donation organizations are making it safe for people to donate. She has been using social media to highlight when her fellow doctors and others make donations as a way to motivate individuals.
“Everybody can do something during this pandemic,” she said. “Don’t feel like you are not working, that you are not a frontline worker, that you have nothing to contribute. You can donate blood. Your cousin can donate blood. You can tell your friends, your neighbors, your relatives, your enemies to go donate. We will take every kind of blood we can get because people are needing it more now. Even though we canceled elective surgeries, my patients when they get COVID-19, they need more blood ... than they usually do during their regular sickle cell admission. It is going to be the same for people who have other blood disorders like cancer and leukemia. We can’t stop life-saving treatments just because we have the COVID pandemic.”
Dr. Osunkwo also praised recent actions taken by the Food and Drug Administration to lessen some of the deferral periods for when an individual can donate.
The FDA on April 2 issued three sets of revised recommendations aimed at getting more people eligible to donate blood. All of the revised recommendations will remain in effect after the COVID-19 health emergency is declared over.
The first revised recommendation makes changes to December 2015 guidance.
For male blood donors who would have been deferred for having sex with another male partner, the deferral period has been reduced from 12 months to 3 months. That deferral period change also applies to female donors who had sex with a man who had sex with another man as well as for those with recent tattoos and piercings.
The second recommendation revises guidance from August 2013 and relates to the risk of transfusion-transmitted malaria.
Under the new recommendations, for those who traveled to malaria-endemic areas (and are residents of malaria non-endemic countries), the FDA is lowering the recommended deferral period from 12 months to 3 months, and also provides notices of an alternate procedure that permits donations without a deferral period provided the blood components are pathogen-reduced using an FDA-approved pathogen reduction device.
The third recommendation finalizes draft guidance from January that eliminates the referral period for donors who spent time in certain European countries or were on military bases in Europe and were previously considered to have been exposed to a potential risk of transmission of Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease or Variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease.
Dr. Osunkwo reports consultancy and being on the speakers bureau and participating in the advisory board for Novartis, and relationships with a variety of other pharmaceutical companies. She is the editor-in-chief for Hematology News.
The COVID-19 pandemic is putting a strain on the blood supply and could be putting people – including those who normally get transfusions, such as patients with sickle cell disease and cancer – at risk.
“Around the beginning of March, the hematology community got wind of what was going on because the blood banks were saying think about your patients and begin to restrict blood usage because we are expecting an increase in usage for COVID-positive ICU patients,” Ifeyinwa (Ify) Osunkwo, MD, a specialist in hematology and sickle cell disease at Levine Cancer Institute in Charlotte, N.C., said in an interview.
“I think that was the first call to arms around hematology ... you don’t want to shortchange somebody who is well and who is being sustained by life-giving transfusions and cut out their transfusion therapy because you are hoping to use the blood for people who are coming in with COVID-19,” she continued. “That is an ethical dilemma that no doctor wants to have to go through. But the reality is we have to do something to make it work for everybody.”
And the timing of the social restrictions due to the pandemic has added additional strain on the blood supply.
“Over the winter, traditionally, blood drives slow down because of the flu and different viruses,” she noted. “The spring and the summer are when we see the biggest recruitment and uptake of blood donation. COVID-19 hit [and] a lot of the blood drives that were traditionally scheduled to supply blood for the country have been canceled because of the new guidance for social distancing.”
Another big source of blood are health care professionals themselves and they may not be able to donate because of the extra hours being worked because of the pandemic.
In speaking about the needs for traditional patients such as those who are dealing with cancer or leukemia or sickle cell diseases as well as those who are being treated for COVID-19 in North Carolina, “we are not at the critical point, but I am a little bit nervous that we may get there because they are not going to up the usual blood drives anytime this summer. We project [sometime] in the fall, but maybe not even then. So there needs to be a significant call-out for people to make every effort to donate blood,” said Dr. Osunkwo. She added that in places such as New York City that are hot spots for the COVID-19 outbreak, the need is likely a lot greater.
She recalled a recent incident at a New York hospital that highlighted how those managing blood supplies are being restrictive and how this could be harming patients.
“A sickle cell patient came in with COVID-19 and the treatment recommendation was do a red blood cell exchange but the blood bank was nervous about getting enough blood to supply for that exchange transfusion,” she said, noting that the doctor still went to bat for that patient to get the needed treatment. “We gave her the supporting evidence that when you are on treatment for sickle cell disease, you tend to do better if you get COVID-19 or any other viral infection. The symptoms of COVID-19 in sickle cell disease is acute chest syndrome, for which the treatment is red blood cell exchange. Not doing that for [these patients] is really not giving them the optimal way of managing their disease, and managing their disease in the setting of COVID-19.”
To that end, Dr. Osunkwo stressed that doctors need to be doing all they can to get the word out that blood is needed and that the American Red Cross and other donation organizations are making it safe for people to donate. She has been using social media to highlight when her fellow doctors and others make donations as a way to motivate individuals.
“Everybody can do something during this pandemic,” she said. “Don’t feel like you are not working, that you are not a frontline worker, that you have nothing to contribute. You can donate blood. Your cousin can donate blood. You can tell your friends, your neighbors, your relatives, your enemies to go donate. We will take every kind of blood we can get because people are needing it more now. Even though we canceled elective surgeries, my patients when they get COVID-19, they need more blood ... than they usually do during their regular sickle cell admission. It is going to be the same for people who have other blood disorders like cancer and leukemia. We can’t stop life-saving treatments just because we have the COVID pandemic.”
Dr. Osunkwo also praised recent actions taken by the Food and Drug Administration to lessen some of the deferral periods for when an individual can donate.
The FDA on April 2 issued three sets of revised recommendations aimed at getting more people eligible to donate blood. All of the revised recommendations will remain in effect after the COVID-19 health emergency is declared over.
The first revised recommendation makes changes to December 2015 guidance.
For male blood donors who would have been deferred for having sex with another male partner, the deferral period has been reduced from 12 months to 3 months. That deferral period change also applies to female donors who had sex with a man who had sex with another man as well as for those with recent tattoos and piercings.
The second recommendation revises guidance from August 2013 and relates to the risk of transfusion-transmitted malaria.
Under the new recommendations, for those who traveled to malaria-endemic areas (and are residents of malaria non-endemic countries), the FDA is lowering the recommended deferral period from 12 months to 3 months, and also provides notices of an alternate procedure that permits donations without a deferral period provided the blood components are pathogen-reduced using an FDA-approved pathogen reduction device.
The third recommendation finalizes draft guidance from January that eliminates the referral period for donors who spent time in certain European countries or were on military bases in Europe and were previously considered to have been exposed to a potential risk of transmission of Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease or Variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease.
Dr. Osunkwo reports consultancy and being on the speakers bureau and participating in the advisory board for Novartis, and relationships with a variety of other pharmaceutical companies. She is the editor-in-chief for Hematology News.
The COVID-19 pandemic is putting a strain on the blood supply and could be putting people – including those who normally get transfusions, such as patients with sickle cell disease and cancer – at risk.
“Around the beginning of March, the hematology community got wind of what was going on because the blood banks were saying think about your patients and begin to restrict blood usage because we are expecting an increase in usage for COVID-positive ICU patients,” Ifeyinwa (Ify) Osunkwo, MD, a specialist in hematology and sickle cell disease at Levine Cancer Institute in Charlotte, N.C., said in an interview.
“I think that was the first call to arms around hematology ... you don’t want to shortchange somebody who is well and who is being sustained by life-giving transfusions and cut out their transfusion therapy because you are hoping to use the blood for people who are coming in with COVID-19,” she continued. “That is an ethical dilemma that no doctor wants to have to go through. But the reality is we have to do something to make it work for everybody.”
And the timing of the social restrictions due to the pandemic has added additional strain on the blood supply.
“Over the winter, traditionally, blood drives slow down because of the flu and different viruses,” she noted. “The spring and the summer are when we see the biggest recruitment and uptake of blood donation. COVID-19 hit [and] a lot of the blood drives that were traditionally scheduled to supply blood for the country have been canceled because of the new guidance for social distancing.”
Another big source of blood are health care professionals themselves and they may not be able to donate because of the extra hours being worked because of the pandemic.
In speaking about the needs for traditional patients such as those who are dealing with cancer or leukemia or sickle cell diseases as well as those who are being treated for COVID-19 in North Carolina, “we are not at the critical point, but I am a little bit nervous that we may get there because they are not going to up the usual blood drives anytime this summer. We project [sometime] in the fall, but maybe not even then. So there needs to be a significant call-out for people to make every effort to donate blood,” said Dr. Osunkwo. She added that in places such as New York City that are hot spots for the COVID-19 outbreak, the need is likely a lot greater.
She recalled a recent incident at a New York hospital that highlighted how those managing blood supplies are being restrictive and how this could be harming patients.
“A sickle cell patient came in with COVID-19 and the treatment recommendation was do a red blood cell exchange but the blood bank was nervous about getting enough blood to supply for that exchange transfusion,” she said, noting that the doctor still went to bat for that patient to get the needed treatment. “We gave her the supporting evidence that when you are on treatment for sickle cell disease, you tend to do better if you get COVID-19 or any other viral infection. The symptoms of COVID-19 in sickle cell disease is acute chest syndrome, for which the treatment is red blood cell exchange. Not doing that for [these patients] is really not giving them the optimal way of managing their disease, and managing their disease in the setting of COVID-19.”
To that end, Dr. Osunkwo stressed that doctors need to be doing all they can to get the word out that blood is needed and that the American Red Cross and other donation organizations are making it safe for people to donate. She has been using social media to highlight when her fellow doctors and others make donations as a way to motivate individuals.
“Everybody can do something during this pandemic,” she said. “Don’t feel like you are not working, that you are not a frontline worker, that you have nothing to contribute. You can donate blood. Your cousin can donate blood. You can tell your friends, your neighbors, your relatives, your enemies to go donate. We will take every kind of blood we can get because people are needing it more now. Even though we canceled elective surgeries, my patients when they get COVID-19, they need more blood ... than they usually do during their regular sickle cell admission. It is going to be the same for people who have other blood disorders like cancer and leukemia. We can’t stop life-saving treatments just because we have the COVID pandemic.”
Dr. Osunkwo also praised recent actions taken by the Food and Drug Administration to lessen some of the deferral periods for when an individual can donate.
The FDA on April 2 issued three sets of revised recommendations aimed at getting more people eligible to donate blood. All of the revised recommendations will remain in effect after the COVID-19 health emergency is declared over.
The first revised recommendation makes changes to December 2015 guidance.
For male blood donors who would have been deferred for having sex with another male partner, the deferral period has been reduced from 12 months to 3 months. That deferral period change also applies to female donors who had sex with a man who had sex with another man as well as for those with recent tattoos and piercings.
The second recommendation revises guidance from August 2013 and relates to the risk of transfusion-transmitted malaria.
Under the new recommendations, for those who traveled to malaria-endemic areas (and are residents of malaria non-endemic countries), the FDA is lowering the recommended deferral period from 12 months to 3 months, and also provides notices of an alternate procedure that permits donations without a deferral period provided the blood components are pathogen-reduced using an FDA-approved pathogen reduction device.
The third recommendation finalizes draft guidance from January that eliminates the referral period for donors who spent time in certain European countries or were on military bases in Europe and were previously considered to have been exposed to a potential risk of transmission of Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease or Variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease.
Dr. Osunkwo reports consultancy and being on the speakers bureau and participating in the advisory board for Novartis, and relationships with a variety of other pharmaceutical companies. She is the editor-in-chief for Hematology News.
Advice from the front lines: How cancer centers can cope with COVID-19
according to the medical director of a cancer care alliance in the first U.S. epicenter of the coronavirus outbreak.
Jennie R. Crews, MD, the medical director of the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance (SCCA), discussed the SCCA experience and offered advice for other cancer centers in a webinar hosted by the Association of Community Cancer Centers.
Dr. Crews highlighted the SCCA’s use of algorithms to predict which patients can be managed via telehealth and which require face-to-face visits, human resource issues that arose at SCCA, screening and testing procedures, and the importance of communication with patients, caregivers, and staff.
Communication
Dr. Crews stressed the value of clear, regular, and internally consistent staff communication in a variety of formats. SCCA sends daily email blasts to their personnel regarding policies and procedures, which are archived on the SCCA intranet site.
SCCA also holds weekly town hall meetings at which leaders respond to staff questions regarding practical matters they have encountered and future plans. Providers’ up-to-the-minute familiarity with policies and procedures enables all team members to uniformly and clearly communicate to patients and caregivers.
Dr. Crews emphasized the value of consistency and “over-communication” in projecting confidence and preparedness to patients and caregivers during an unsettling time. SCCA has developed fact sheets, posted current information on the SCCA website, and provided education during doorway screenings.
Screening and testing
All SCCA staff members are screened daily at the practice entrance so they have personal experience with the process utilized for patients. Because symptoms associated with coronavirus infection may overlap with cancer treatment–related complaints, SCCA clinicians have expanded the typical coronavirus screening questionnaire for patients on cancer treatment.
Patients with ambiguous symptoms are masked, taken to a physically separate area of the SCCA clinics, and screened further by an advanced practice provider. The patients are then triaged to either the clinic for treatment or to the emergency department for further triage and care.
Although testing processes and procedures have been modified, Dr. Crews advised codifying those policies and procedures, including notification of results and follow-up for both patients and staff. Dr. Crews also stressed the importance of clearly articulated return-to-work policies for staff who have potential exposure and/or positive test results.
At the University of Washington’s virology laboratory, they have a test turnaround time of less than 12 hours.
Planning ahead
Dr. Crews highlighted the importance of community-based surge planning, utilizing predictive models to assess inpatient capacity requirements and potential repurposing of providers.
The SCCA is prepared to close selected community sites and shift personnel to other locations if personnel needs cannot be met because of illness or quarantine. Contingency plans include specialized pharmacy services for patients requiring chemotherapy.
The SCCA has not yet experienced shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE). However, Dr. Crews said staff require detailed education regarding the use of PPE in order to safeguard the supply while providing maximal staff protection.
Helping the helpers
During the pandemic, SCCA has dealt with a variety of challenging human resource issues, including:
- Extending sick time beyond what was previously “stored” in staff members’ earned time off.
- Childcare during an extended hiatus in school and daycare schedules.
- Programs to maintain and/or restore employee wellness (including staff-centered support services, spiritual care, mindfulness exercises, and town halls).
Dr. Crews also discussed recruitment of community resources to provide meals for staff from local restaurants with restricted hours and transportation resources for staff and patients, as visitors are restricted (currently one per patient).
Managing care
Dr. Crews noted that the University of Washington had a foundational structure for a telehealth program prior to the pandemic. Their telehealth committee enabled SCCA to scale up the service quickly with their academic partners, including training modules for and certification of providers, outfitting off-site personnel with dedicated lines and hardware, and provision of personal Zoom accounts.
SCCA also devised algorithms for determining when face-to-face visits, remote management, or deferred visits are appropriate in various scenarios. The algorithms were developed by disease-specialized teams.
As a general rule, routine chemotherapy and radiation are administered on schedule. On-treatment and follow-up office visits are conducted via telehealth if possible. In some cases, initiation of chemotherapy and radiation has been delayed, and screening services have been suspended.
In response to questions about palliative care during the pandemic, Dr. Crews said SCCA has encouraged their patients to complete, review, or update their advance directives. The SCCA has not had the need to resuscitate a coronavirus-infected outpatient but has instituted policies for utilizing full PPE on any patient requiring resuscitation.
In her closing remarks, Dr. Crews stressed that the response to COVID-19 in Washington state has required an intense collaboration among colleagues, the community, and government leaders, as the actions required extended far beyond medical decision makers alone.
Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.
according to the medical director of a cancer care alliance in the first U.S. epicenter of the coronavirus outbreak.
Jennie R. Crews, MD, the medical director of the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance (SCCA), discussed the SCCA experience and offered advice for other cancer centers in a webinar hosted by the Association of Community Cancer Centers.
Dr. Crews highlighted the SCCA’s use of algorithms to predict which patients can be managed via telehealth and which require face-to-face visits, human resource issues that arose at SCCA, screening and testing procedures, and the importance of communication with patients, caregivers, and staff.
Communication
Dr. Crews stressed the value of clear, regular, and internally consistent staff communication in a variety of formats. SCCA sends daily email blasts to their personnel regarding policies and procedures, which are archived on the SCCA intranet site.
SCCA also holds weekly town hall meetings at which leaders respond to staff questions regarding practical matters they have encountered and future plans. Providers’ up-to-the-minute familiarity with policies and procedures enables all team members to uniformly and clearly communicate to patients and caregivers.
Dr. Crews emphasized the value of consistency and “over-communication” in projecting confidence and preparedness to patients and caregivers during an unsettling time. SCCA has developed fact sheets, posted current information on the SCCA website, and provided education during doorway screenings.
Screening and testing
All SCCA staff members are screened daily at the practice entrance so they have personal experience with the process utilized for patients. Because symptoms associated with coronavirus infection may overlap with cancer treatment–related complaints, SCCA clinicians have expanded the typical coronavirus screening questionnaire for patients on cancer treatment.
Patients with ambiguous symptoms are masked, taken to a physically separate area of the SCCA clinics, and screened further by an advanced practice provider. The patients are then triaged to either the clinic for treatment or to the emergency department for further triage and care.
Although testing processes and procedures have been modified, Dr. Crews advised codifying those policies and procedures, including notification of results and follow-up for both patients and staff. Dr. Crews also stressed the importance of clearly articulated return-to-work policies for staff who have potential exposure and/or positive test results.
At the University of Washington’s virology laboratory, they have a test turnaround time of less than 12 hours.
Planning ahead
Dr. Crews highlighted the importance of community-based surge planning, utilizing predictive models to assess inpatient capacity requirements and potential repurposing of providers.
The SCCA is prepared to close selected community sites and shift personnel to other locations if personnel needs cannot be met because of illness or quarantine. Contingency plans include specialized pharmacy services for patients requiring chemotherapy.
The SCCA has not yet experienced shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE). However, Dr. Crews said staff require detailed education regarding the use of PPE in order to safeguard the supply while providing maximal staff protection.
Helping the helpers
During the pandemic, SCCA has dealt with a variety of challenging human resource issues, including:
- Extending sick time beyond what was previously “stored” in staff members’ earned time off.
- Childcare during an extended hiatus in school and daycare schedules.
- Programs to maintain and/or restore employee wellness (including staff-centered support services, spiritual care, mindfulness exercises, and town halls).
Dr. Crews also discussed recruitment of community resources to provide meals for staff from local restaurants with restricted hours and transportation resources for staff and patients, as visitors are restricted (currently one per patient).
Managing care
Dr. Crews noted that the University of Washington had a foundational structure for a telehealth program prior to the pandemic. Their telehealth committee enabled SCCA to scale up the service quickly with their academic partners, including training modules for and certification of providers, outfitting off-site personnel with dedicated lines and hardware, and provision of personal Zoom accounts.
SCCA also devised algorithms for determining when face-to-face visits, remote management, or deferred visits are appropriate in various scenarios. The algorithms were developed by disease-specialized teams.
As a general rule, routine chemotherapy and radiation are administered on schedule. On-treatment and follow-up office visits are conducted via telehealth if possible. In some cases, initiation of chemotherapy and radiation has been delayed, and screening services have been suspended.
In response to questions about palliative care during the pandemic, Dr. Crews said SCCA has encouraged their patients to complete, review, or update their advance directives. The SCCA has not had the need to resuscitate a coronavirus-infected outpatient but has instituted policies for utilizing full PPE on any patient requiring resuscitation.
In her closing remarks, Dr. Crews stressed that the response to COVID-19 in Washington state has required an intense collaboration among colleagues, the community, and government leaders, as the actions required extended far beyond medical decision makers alone.
Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.
according to the medical director of a cancer care alliance in the first U.S. epicenter of the coronavirus outbreak.
Jennie R. Crews, MD, the medical director of the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance (SCCA), discussed the SCCA experience and offered advice for other cancer centers in a webinar hosted by the Association of Community Cancer Centers.
Dr. Crews highlighted the SCCA’s use of algorithms to predict which patients can be managed via telehealth and which require face-to-face visits, human resource issues that arose at SCCA, screening and testing procedures, and the importance of communication with patients, caregivers, and staff.
Communication
Dr. Crews stressed the value of clear, regular, and internally consistent staff communication in a variety of formats. SCCA sends daily email blasts to their personnel regarding policies and procedures, which are archived on the SCCA intranet site.
SCCA also holds weekly town hall meetings at which leaders respond to staff questions regarding practical matters they have encountered and future plans. Providers’ up-to-the-minute familiarity with policies and procedures enables all team members to uniformly and clearly communicate to patients and caregivers.
Dr. Crews emphasized the value of consistency and “over-communication” in projecting confidence and preparedness to patients and caregivers during an unsettling time. SCCA has developed fact sheets, posted current information on the SCCA website, and provided education during doorway screenings.
Screening and testing
All SCCA staff members are screened daily at the practice entrance so they have personal experience with the process utilized for patients. Because symptoms associated with coronavirus infection may overlap with cancer treatment–related complaints, SCCA clinicians have expanded the typical coronavirus screening questionnaire for patients on cancer treatment.
Patients with ambiguous symptoms are masked, taken to a physically separate area of the SCCA clinics, and screened further by an advanced practice provider. The patients are then triaged to either the clinic for treatment or to the emergency department for further triage and care.
Although testing processes and procedures have been modified, Dr. Crews advised codifying those policies and procedures, including notification of results and follow-up for both patients and staff. Dr. Crews also stressed the importance of clearly articulated return-to-work policies for staff who have potential exposure and/or positive test results.
At the University of Washington’s virology laboratory, they have a test turnaround time of less than 12 hours.
Planning ahead
Dr. Crews highlighted the importance of community-based surge planning, utilizing predictive models to assess inpatient capacity requirements and potential repurposing of providers.
The SCCA is prepared to close selected community sites and shift personnel to other locations if personnel needs cannot be met because of illness or quarantine. Contingency plans include specialized pharmacy services for patients requiring chemotherapy.
The SCCA has not yet experienced shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE). However, Dr. Crews said staff require detailed education regarding the use of PPE in order to safeguard the supply while providing maximal staff protection.
Helping the helpers
During the pandemic, SCCA has dealt with a variety of challenging human resource issues, including:
- Extending sick time beyond what was previously “stored” in staff members’ earned time off.
- Childcare during an extended hiatus in school and daycare schedules.
- Programs to maintain and/or restore employee wellness (including staff-centered support services, spiritual care, mindfulness exercises, and town halls).
Dr. Crews also discussed recruitment of community resources to provide meals for staff from local restaurants with restricted hours and transportation resources for staff and patients, as visitors are restricted (currently one per patient).
Managing care
Dr. Crews noted that the University of Washington had a foundational structure for a telehealth program prior to the pandemic. Their telehealth committee enabled SCCA to scale up the service quickly with their academic partners, including training modules for and certification of providers, outfitting off-site personnel with dedicated lines and hardware, and provision of personal Zoom accounts.
SCCA also devised algorithms for determining when face-to-face visits, remote management, or deferred visits are appropriate in various scenarios. The algorithms were developed by disease-specialized teams.
As a general rule, routine chemotherapy and radiation are administered on schedule. On-treatment and follow-up office visits are conducted via telehealth if possible. In some cases, initiation of chemotherapy and radiation has been delayed, and screening services have been suspended.
In response to questions about palliative care during the pandemic, Dr. Crews said SCCA has encouraged their patients to complete, review, or update their advance directives. The SCCA has not had the need to resuscitate a coronavirus-infected outpatient but has instituted policies for utilizing full PPE on any patient requiring resuscitation.
In her closing remarks, Dr. Crews stressed that the response to COVID-19 in Washington state has required an intense collaboration among colleagues, the community, and government leaders, as the actions required extended far beyond medical decision makers alone.
Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.
No staff COVID-19 diagnoses after plan at Chinese cancer center
Short-term results
No staff members or patients were diagnosed with COVID-19 after “strict protective measures” for screening and managing patients were implemented at the National Cancer Center/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Sciences, in Beijing, according to a report published online April 1 in JAMA Oncology.
However, the time period for the analysis, which included nearly 3000 patients, was short — only about 3 weeks (February 12 to March 3). Also, Beijing is more than 1100 kilometers from Wuhan, the center of the Chinese outbreak of COVID-19.
The Beijing cancer hospital implemented a multipronged safety plan in February in order to “avoid COVID-19 related nosocomial cross-infection between patients and medical staff,” explain the authors, led by medical oncologist Zhijie Wang, MD.
Notably, “all of the measures taken in China are actively being implemented and used in major oncology centers in the United States,” Robert Carlson, MD, chief executive officer, National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), told Medscape Medical News.
John Greene, MD, section chief, Infectious Disease and Tropical Medicine, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida, pointed out that the Chinese safety plan, which is full of “good measures,” is being largely used at his center. However, he observed that one tool — doing a temperature check at the hospital front door — is not well supported by most of the literature. “It gives good optics and looks like you are doing the most you possibly can, but scientifically it may not be as effective [as other screening measures],” he said.
The Chinese plan consists of four broad elements
First, the above-mentioned on-site temperature tests are performed at the entrances of the hospital, outpatient clinic, and wards. Contact and travel histories related to the Wuhan epidemic area are also established and recorded.
Second, an outpatient appointment scheduling system allows both online scheduling and on-site registration. Online consultation channels are open daily, featuring instruction on medication taking and cancer-related symptom management. These “substantially reduced the flow of people in the hospital,” write the authors. On-site patients must wear a mask and have their own disinfectant.
Third, for patients with cancer preparing to be admitted to hospital, symptoms associated with COVID-19, such as fever and cough, are recorded. Mandatory blood tests and CT scans of the lungs are performed. COVID-19 virus nucleic acid tests are performed for patients with suspected pneumonia on imaging.
Fourth, some anticancer drugs conventionally administered by infusion have been changed to oral administration, such as etoposide and vinorelbine. For adjuvant or maintenance chemotherapy, the infusion intervals were appropriately prolonged depending on patients’ conditions.
Eight out of 2,900 patients had imaging suspicious for infection
The Chinese authors report that a total of 2,944 patients with cancer were seen for clinic consultation and treatment in the wards (2795 outpatients and 149 inpatients).
Patients with cancer are believed to have a higher probability of severe illness and increased mortality compared with the healthy population once infected with COVID-19, point out the authors.
Under the new “strict screening strategy,” 27 patients showed radiologic manifestations of inflammatory changes or multiple-site exudative pneumonia in the lungs, including eight suspected of having COVID-19 infection. “Fortunately, negative results from nucleic acid testing ultimately excluded COVID-19 infection in all these patients,” the authors report.
However, two of these patients “presented with recovered pneumonia after symptomatic treatment.” Commenting on this finding, Moffitt’s Greene said that may mean these two patients were tested and found to be positive but were early in the infection and not yet shedding the virus, or they were infected after the initial negative result.
Greene said his center has implemented some measures not mentioned in the Chinese plan. For example, the Florida center no longer allows inpatient visitation. Also, one third of staff now work from home, resulting in less social interaction. Social distancing in meetings, the cafeteria, and hallways is being observed “aggressively,” and most meetings are now on Zoom, he said.
Moffitt has not been hard hit with COVID-19 and is at level one preparedness, the lowest rung. The center has performed 60 tests to date, with only one positive for the virus (< 2%), Greene told Medscape Medical News.
Currently, in the larger Tampa Bay community setting, about 12% of tests are positive.
The low percentage found among the Moffitt patients “tells you that a lot of cancer patients have fever and respiratory symptoms due to other viruses and, more importantly, other reasons, whether it’s their immunotherapy or chemotherapy or their cancer,” said Greene.
NCCN’s Carlson said the publication of the Chinese data was a good sign in terms of international science.
“This is a strong example of how the global oncology community rapidly shares information and experience whenever it makes a difference in patient care,” he commented.
The authors, as well as Carlson and Greene, have reported no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Short-term results
Short-term results
No staff members or patients were diagnosed with COVID-19 after “strict protective measures” for screening and managing patients were implemented at the National Cancer Center/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Sciences, in Beijing, according to a report published online April 1 in JAMA Oncology.
However, the time period for the analysis, which included nearly 3000 patients, was short — only about 3 weeks (February 12 to March 3). Also, Beijing is more than 1100 kilometers from Wuhan, the center of the Chinese outbreak of COVID-19.
The Beijing cancer hospital implemented a multipronged safety plan in February in order to “avoid COVID-19 related nosocomial cross-infection between patients and medical staff,” explain the authors, led by medical oncologist Zhijie Wang, MD.
Notably, “all of the measures taken in China are actively being implemented and used in major oncology centers in the United States,” Robert Carlson, MD, chief executive officer, National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), told Medscape Medical News.
John Greene, MD, section chief, Infectious Disease and Tropical Medicine, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida, pointed out that the Chinese safety plan, which is full of “good measures,” is being largely used at his center. However, he observed that one tool — doing a temperature check at the hospital front door — is not well supported by most of the literature. “It gives good optics and looks like you are doing the most you possibly can, but scientifically it may not be as effective [as other screening measures],” he said.
The Chinese plan consists of four broad elements
First, the above-mentioned on-site temperature tests are performed at the entrances of the hospital, outpatient clinic, and wards. Contact and travel histories related to the Wuhan epidemic area are also established and recorded.
Second, an outpatient appointment scheduling system allows both online scheduling and on-site registration. Online consultation channels are open daily, featuring instruction on medication taking and cancer-related symptom management. These “substantially reduced the flow of people in the hospital,” write the authors. On-site patients must wear a mask and have their own disinfectant.
Third, for patients with cancer preparing to be admitted to hospital, symptoms associated with COVID-19, such as fever and cough, are recorded. Mandatory blood tests and CT scans of the lungs are performed. COVID-19 virus nucleic acid tests are performed for patients with suspected pneumonia on imaging.
Fourth, some anticancer drugs conventionally administered by infusion have been changed to oral administration, such as etoposide and vinorelbine. For adjuvant or maintenance chemotherapy, the infusion intervals were appropriately prolonged depending on patients’ conditions.
Eight out of 2,900 patients had imaging suspicious for infection
The Chinese authors report that a total of 2,944 patients with cancer were seen for clinic consultation and treatment in the wards (2795 outpatients and 149 inpatients).
Patients with cancer are believed to have a higher probability of severe illness and increased mortality compared with the healthy population once infected with COVID-19, point out the authors.
Under the new “strict screening strategy,” 27 patients showed radiologic manifestations of inflammatory changes or multiple-site exudative pneumonia in the lungs, including eight suspected of having COVID-19 infection. “Fortunately, negative results from nucleic acid testing ultimately excluded COVID-19 infection in all these patients,” the authors report.
However, two of these patients “presented with recovered pneumonia after symptomatic treatment.” Commenting on this finding, Moffitt’s Greene said that may mean these two patients were tested and found to be positive but were early in the infection and not yet shedding the virus, or they were infected after the initial negative result.
Greene said his center has implemented some measures not mentioned in the Chinese plan. For example, the Florida center no longer allows inpatient visitation. Also, one third of staff now work from home, resulting in less social interaction. Social distancing in meetings, the cafeteria, and hallways is being observed “aggressively,” and most meetings are now on Zoom, he said.
Moffitt has not been hard hit with COVID-19 and is at level one preparedness, the lowest rung. The center has performed 60 tests to date, with only one positive for the virus (< 2%), Greene told Medscape Medical News.
Currently, in the larger Tampa Bay community setting, about 12% of tests are positive.
The low percentage found among the Moffitt patients “tells you that a lot of cancer patients have fever and respiratory symptoms due to other viruses and, more importantly, other reasons, whether it’s their immunotherapy or chemotherapy or their cancer,” said Greene.
NCCN’s Carlson said the publication of the Chinese data was a good sign in terms of international science.
“This is a strong example of how the global oncology community rapidly shares information and experience whenever it makes a difference in patient care,” he commented.
The authors, as well as Carlson and Greene, have reported no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
No staff members or patients were diagnosed with COVID-19 after “strict protective measures” for screening and managing patients were implemented at the National Cancer Center/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Sciences, in Beijing, according to a report published online April 1 in JAMA Oncology.
However, the time period for the analysis, which included nearly 3000 patients, was short — only about 3 weeks (February 12 to March 3). Also, Beijing is more than 1100 kilometers from Wuhan, the center of the Chinese outbreak of COVID-19.
The Beijing cancer hospital implemented a multipronged safety plan in February in order to “avoid COVID-19 related nosocomial cross-infection between patients and medical staff,” explain the authors, led by medical oncologist Zhijie Wang, MD.
Notably, “all of the measures taken in China are actively being implemented and used in major oncology centers in the United States,” Robert Carlson, MD, chief executive officer, National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), told Medscape Medical News.
John Greene, MD, section chief, Infectious Disease and Tropical Medicine, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida, pointed out that the Chinese safety plan, which is full of “good measures,” is being largely used at his center. However, he observed that one tool — doing a temperature check at the hospital front door — is not well supported by most of the literature. “It gives good optics and looks like you are doing the most you possibly can, but scientifically it may not be as effective [as other screening measures],” he said.
The Chinese plan consists of four broad elements
First, the above-mentioned on-site temperature tests are performed at the entrances of the hospital, outpatient clinic, and wards. Contact and travel histories related to the Wuhan epidemic area are also established and recorded.
Second, an outpatient appointment scheduling system allows both online scheduling and on-site registration. Online consultation channels are open daily, featuring instruction on medication taking and cancer-related symptom management. These “substantially reduced the flow of people in the hospital,” write the authors. On-site patients must wear a mask and have their own disinfectant.
Third, for patients with cancer preparing to be admitted to hospital, symptoms associated with COVID-19, such as fever and cough, are recorded. Mandatory blood tests and CT scans of the lungs are performed. COVID-19 virus nucleic acid tests are performed for patients with suspected pneumonia on imaging.
Fourth, some anticancer drugs conventionally administered by infusion have been changed to oral administration, such as etoposide and vinorelbine. For adjuvant or maintenance chemotherapy, the infusion intervals were appropriately prolonged depending on patients’ conditions.
Eight out of 2,900 patients had imaging suspicious for infection
The Chinese authors report that a total of 2,944 patients with cancer were seen for clinic consultation and treatment in the wards (2795 outpatients and 149 inpatients).
Patients with cancer are believed to have a higher probability of severe illness and increased mortality compared with the healthy population once infected with COVID-19, point out the authors.
Under the new “strict screening strategy,” 27 patients showed radiologic manifestations of inflammatory changes or multiple-site exudative pneumonia in the lungs, including eight suspected of having COVID-19 infection. “Fortunately, negative results from nucleic acid testing ultimately excluded COVID-19 infection in all these patients,” the authors report.
However, two of these patients “presented with recovered pneumonia after symptomatic treatment.” Commenting on this finding, Moffitt’s Greene said that may mean these two patients were tested and found to be positive but were early in the infection and not yet shedding the virus, or they were infected after the initial negative result.
Greene said his center has implemented some measures not mentioned in the Chinese plan. For example, the Florida center no longer allows inpatient visitation. Also, one third of staff now work from home, resulting in less social interaction. Social distancing in meetings, the cafeteria, and hallways is being observed “aggressively,” and most meetings are now on Zoom, he said.
Moffitt has not been hard hit with COVID-19 and is at level one preparedness, the lowest rung. The center has performed 60 tests to date, with only one positive for the virus (< 2%), Greene told Medscape Medical News.
Currently, in the larger Tampa Bay community setting, about 12% of tests are positive.
The low percentage found among the Moffitt patients “tells you that a lot of cancer patients have fever and respiratory symptoms due to other viruses and, more importantly, other reasons, whether it’s their immunotherapy or chemotherapy or their cancer,” said Greene.
NCCN’s Carlson said the publication of the Chinese data was a good sign in terms of international science.
“This is a strong example of how the global oncology community rapidly shares information and experience whenever it makes a difference in patient care,” he commented.
The authors, as well as Carlson and Greene, have reported no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.