News

TOPLINE:

Patients with COVID had a higher risk of developing diplopia and cranial nerve VI palsy than those with influenza. Compared with unvaccinated patients, recipients of mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 had a more than 30% reduced risk of developing posterior-segment complications including retinal edema, vitreous hemorrhage, and optic neuritis.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort analysis of US electronic health records from March 2020 to April 2021 to assess eye complications after COVID and the effect of mRNA vaccination on them.
• They analyzed matched cohorts of 73,654 vaccinated patients with COVID (mean age, 60.6 years; 61.6% women) and 73,654 unvaccinated patients with the condition (mean age, 61.2 years; 62.8% women); vaccination status was determined based on recorded receipt of an mRNA vaccine.
• In a separate matched analysis, 77,809 patients with COVID (mean age, 39.3 years; 58.8% women) were compared with a historic cohort of 77,809 patients with influenza (mean age, 39.7 years; 58.9% women).
• The incidence of ophthalmic conditions — retinal artery occlusion, retinal vein occlusion, retinal edema, vitreous hemorrhage, and neuro-ophthalmic manifestations — was assessed within 4 months of infection.

TAKEAWAY:

• Vaccinated patients with COVID had 32% lower odds of retinal edema (odds ratio [OR], 0.68; 99.5% CI, 0.54-0.85), 45% lower odds of vitreous hemorrhage (OR, 0.55; 99.5% CI, 0.44-0.68), and 40% lower odds of optic neuritis (OR, 0.60; 99.5% CI, 0.43-0.85) than unvaccinated patients with the disease.
• No significant differences were found in the incidence of retinal artery occlusion, retinal vein occlusion, or retinal hemorrhage between the vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts.
• Patients with COVID had markedly higher odds of diplopia (OR, 1.89; 99.5% CI, 1.53-2.32) and cranial nerve VI palsy (OR, 3.19; 99.5% CI, 1.82-5.59) than those with influenza.
• The incidence of other neuro-ophthalmic manifestations and retinal complications was similar between patients with COVID and those with influenza.

IN PRACTICE:

“The complications we assessed were rare, though our results showed an increased incidence of retinal edema, vitreous hemorrhage, and optic neuritis in the nonvaccinated COVID-19 cohort,” the researchers reported.

“The increased incidence of retinal edema and vitreous hemorrhage in the nonvaccinated cohort suggests a potential for COVID-19 to affect posterior segment structures,” they added.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Alexander E. Azar, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland. It was published online in Eye.

LIMITATIONS:

This study could not determine if vaccination against COVID could prevent ophthalmic manifestations. Vaccination status may have been underreported since many participants received COVID vaccines at pharmacies or community centers not directly documented in the electronic health records. The study’s timeframe only reflected data from early strains of SARS-CoV-2 between March 2020 and April 2021, potentially limiting generalizability to newer variants or later vaccination phases. 

DISCLOSURES:

This study received support from the Clinical and Translational Science Collaborative of Cleveland, funded by the National Institutes of Health, National Center for Advancing Translational Science, and other sources. Some authors reported serving as consultants, participating in speakers’ bureaus, receiving personal fees, and having other ties with multiple pharmaceutical companies.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with COVID had a higher risk of developing diplopia and cranial nerve VI palsy than those with influenza. Compared with unvaccinated patients, recipients of mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 had a more than 30% reduced risk of developing posterior-segment complications including retinal edema, vitreous hemorrhage, and optic neuritis.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort analysis of US electronic health records from March 2020 to April 2021 to assess eye complications after COVID and the effect of mRNA vaccination on them.
• They analyzed matched cohorts of 73,654 vaccinated patients with COVID (mean age, 60.6 years; 61.6% women) and 73,654 unvaccinated patients with the condition (mean age, 61.2 years; 62.8% women); vaccination status was determined based on recorded receipt of an mRNA vaccine.
• In a separate matched analysis, 77,809 patients with COVID (mean age, 39.3 years; 58.8% women) were compared with a historic cohort of 77,809 patients with influenza (mean age, 39.7 years; 58.9% women).
• The incidence of ophthalmic conditions — retinal artery occlusion, retinal vein occlusion, retinal edema, vitreous hemorrhage, and neuro-ophthalmic manifestations — was assessed within 4 months of infection.

TAKEAWAY:

• Vaccinated patients with COVID had 32% lower odds of retinal edema (odds ratio [OR], 0.68; 99.5% CI, 0.54-0.85), 45% lower odds of vitreous hemorrhage (OR, 0.55; 99.5% CI, 0.44-0.68), and 40% lower odds of optic neuritis (OR, 0.60; 99.5% CI, 0.43-0.85) than unvaccinated patients with the disease.
• No significant differences were found in the incidence of retinal artery occlusion, retinal vein occlusion, or retinal hemorrhage between the vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts.
• Patients with COVID had markedly higher odds of diplopia (OR, 1.89; 99.5% CI, 1.53-2.32) and cranial nerve VI palsy (OR, 3.19; 99.5% CI, 1.82-5.59) than those with influenza.
• The incidence of other neuro-ophthalmic manifestations and retinal complications was similar between patients with COVID and those with influenza.

IN PRACTICE:

“The complications we assessed were rare, though our results showed an increased incidence of retinal edema, vitreous hemorrhage, and optic neuritis in the nonvaccinated COVID-19 cohort,” the researchers reported.

“The increased incidence of retinal edema and vitreous hemorrhage in the nonvaccinated cohort suggests a potential for COVID-19 to affect posterior segment structures,” they added.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Alexander E. Azar, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland. It was published online in Eye.

LIMITATIONS:

This study could not determine if vaccination against COVID could prevent ophthalmic manifestations. Vaccination status may have been underreported since many participants received COVID vaccines at pharmacies or community centers not directly documented in the electronic health records. The study’s timeframe only reflected data from early strains of SARS-CoV-2 between March 2020 and April 2021, potentially limiting generalizability to newer variants or later vaccination phases. 

DISCLOSURES:

This study received support from the Clinical and Translational Science Collaborative of Cleveland, funded by the National Institutes of Health, National Center for Advancing Translational Science, and other sources. Some authors reported serving as consultants, participating in speakers’ bureaus, receiving personal fees, and having other ties with multiple pharmaceutical companies.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with COVID had a higher risk of developing diplopia and cranial nerve VI palsy than those with influenza. Compared with unvaccinated patients, recipients of mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 had a more than 30% reduced risk of developing posterior-segment complications including retinal edema, vitreous hemorrhage, and optic neuritis.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort analysis of US electronic health records from March 2020 to April 2021 to assess eye complications after COVID and the effect of mRNA vaccination on them.
• They analyzed matched cohorts of 73,654 vaccinated patients with COVID (mean age, 60.6 years; 61.6% women) and 73,654 unvaccinated patients with the condition (mean age, 61.2 years; 62.8% women); vaccination status was determined based on recorded receipt of an mRNA vaccine.
• In a separate matched analysis, 77,809 patients with COVID (mean age, 39.3 years; 58.8% women) were compared with a historic cohort of 77,809 patients with influenza (mean age, 39.7 years; 58.9% women).
• The incidence of ophthalmic conditions — retinal artery occlusion, retinal vein occlusion, retinal edema, vitreous hemorrhage, and neuro-ophthalmic manifestations — was assessed within 4 months of infection.

TAKEAWAY:

• Vaccinated patients with COVID had 32% lower odds of retinal edema (odds ratio [OR], 0.68; 99.5% CI, 0.54-0.85), 45% lower odds of vitreous hemorrhage (OR, 0.55; 99.5% CI, 0.44-0.68), and 40% lower odds of optic neuritis (OR, 0.60; 99.5% CI, 0.43-0.85) than unvaccinated patients with the disease.
• No significant differences were found in the incidence of retinal artery occlusion, retinal vein occlusion, or retinal hemorrhage between the vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts.
• Patients with COVID had markedly higher odds of diplopia (OR, 1.89; 99.5% CI, 1.53-2.32) and cranial nerve VI palsy (OR, 3.19; 99.5% CI, 1.82-5.59) than those with influenza.
• The incidence of other neuro-ophthalmic manifestations and retinal complications was similar between patients with COVID and those with influenza.

IN PRACTICE:

“The complications we assessed were rare, though our results showed an increased incidence of retinal edema, vitreous hemorrhage, and optic neuritis in the nonvaccinated COVID-19 cohort,” the researchers reported.

“The increased incidence of retinal edema and vitreous hemorrhage in the nonvaccinated cohort suggests a potential for COVID-19 to affect posterior segment structures,” they added.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Alexander E. Azar, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland. It was published online in Eye.

LIMITATIONS:

This study could not determine if vaccination against COVID could prevent ophthalmic manifestations. Vaccination status may have been underreported since many participants received COVID vaccines at pharmacies or community centers not directly documented in the electronic health records. The study’s timeframe only reflected data from early strains of SARS-CoV-2 between March 2020 and April 2021, potentially limiting generalizability to newer variants or later vaccination phases. 

DISCLOSURES:

This study received support from the Clinical and Translational Science Collaborative of Cleveland, funded by the National Institutes of Health, National Center for Advancing Translational Science, and other sources. Some authors reported serving as consultants, participating in speakers’ bureaus, receiving personal fees, and having other ties with multiple pharmaceutical companies.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Efforts to identify older men at risk for osteoporosis and treat those who are eligible received a boost from results reported from a Veterans Affairs (VA) study that showed a significant increase in screening, treatment, and medication adherence.

The cluster randomized trial used a centralized nurse-led intervention to assess men for traditional osteoporosis risk factors, offer bone density testing, and recommend treatment for eligible men. Over 2 years, the intervention group had a higher average femoral neck bone density than patients who underwent usual care.

“We designed this study to see if a risk factor-based approach, which is what most of the guidelines use, made sense and was feasible — that men would be accepting of screening and [the approach] would yield a similar proportion of people who need osteoporosis treatment as screening in women, which is widely recommended and implemented. And sure enough, we found that about 85% of the men in the VA primary care practices in our target age range of between 65 and 85 actually met criteria for screening, and over half of them had low bone mass. They were very accepting of screening, very accepting of treatment, and had excellent compliance rates. So, our study, we believe, supports the idea of identifying men with at least one risk factor for fracture and offering them osteoporosis screening starting at age 65, similar to what we do for women,” Cathleen S. Colón-Emeric, MD, MHS, said in an interview. She is the lead author of the study, a physician in the Durham VA Health Care System, and professor of medicine at Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina.

“We were able to see a positive effect on bone density in the bone health group, compared with the usual care group, which suggests that if we followed these folks longer and had enough of them, we would be able to show a fracture reduction benefit,” Colón-Emeric said.

There have been few randomized trials of screening interventions in men, leading to inconsistencies in guidelines, according to the authors of the new study, published online in JAMA Internal Medicine . Both the US Preventive Services Task Force and the Veterans Health Administration National Center for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention consider there to be insufficient evidence to recommend for or against screening in men who have not experienced a fracture. Some professional societies recommend such screening, but there are inconsistencies in the recommended criteria, such as age range or risk factors.

Beyond the age of 50 years, one in five men will experience an osteoporosis-related fracture at some point in their life, according to a 2009 study. Treatment is inexpensive and effective in both men and women, and economic models suggest that screening using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) would be cost-effective. Still, screening is rare among men, with fewer than 10% of men getting screened before having an osteoporosis-related fracture.

“It’s important to screen men at risk for osteoporosis due to the dramatically increased mortality men suffer after a fragility fracture compared with women. Within 1 year of a hip fracture, mortality is as high as 36%. Studies have also shown that osteoporosis in men is undertreated, with only 10%-50% being prescribed antifracture treatment within 1 year of a hip fracture. Most individuals do not regain their prior level of function after a hip fracture,” said Joe C. Huang, MD, who was asked for comment. He is a clinical assistant professor of gerontology and geriatric medicine at Harborview Medical Center Senior Care Clinic and Healthy Bones Clinic in Seattle.

 

Details of the Intervention

The bone health service (BHS) intervention employed an electronic health record case-finding tool and a nurse care manager who undertook screening and treatment monitoring. They identified potential risk factors that included hyperthyroidism, hyperparathyroidism, rheumatoid arthritis, alcohol dependence, chronic lung disease, chronic liver disease, stroke, parkinsonism, prostate cancer, smoking, diabetes, pernicious anemia, gastrectomy, or high-risk medication use in at least 3 months of the prior 2 years. These medications included traditional antiepileptics, glucocorticoids, and androgen deprivation therapy.

The BHS nurse invited eligible men to be screened using an initial letter, followed by up to three phone calls. After DXA screening, the nurse scheduled an electronic consult with an osteoporosis expert, and patients with a T-score between -1 and -2.4 and an elevated 10-year fracture risk as measured by the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool were recommended for osteoporosis medication, vitamin D, and dietary or supplemental calcium. Following the prescription, the nurse provided patient education over the phone and mailed out written instructions. The nurse also made phone calls at 1 month, 6 months, and 12 months to encourage adherence and address common treatment barriers such as forgetting to take medication or dealing with gastrointestinal effects. The researchers recruited 38 primary care physicians from two VA health systems. The study included 3112 male veterans between the ages of 65 and 85 years (40.4% Black and 56% White). Nearly all participants (85.5%) had at least one indication for screening according to VA undersecretary guidelines, and almost a third (32.1%) had been prescribed androgen deprivation therapy, traditional antiepileptic drugs, or glucocorticoids.

Over a mean follow-up of 1.5 years, there was a much higher screening rate in the BHS group (49.2% vs 2.3%; P < .001), with a similar overall yield of DXA results recommending osteoporosis treatment (22.4% vs 27.2%). In the BHS group, 84.4% of patients who had treatment recommended followed through with treatment initiation. The mean persistence over follow-up was 657 days (SD, 366 days), and adherence was high with a mean proportion of days covered of 91.7%.

It was not possible to statistically compare adherence with the usual-care group because there were too few screened patients found to be eligible for treatment in that group, but the historic mean proportion of days covered at the two participating facilities was 52%. 

After 2 years, the mean femoral neck T-score tested randomly in a subset of patients was better in the BHS arm, although it did not meet statistical significance according to the Bonferroni corrected criterion of P < .025 (-0.55 vs -0.70; P = .04). Fracture rates were similar between the two groups (1.8% vs 2.0%; P = .69). 

 

Can the Findings Be Translated Across Clinics?

It remains to be seen how well the model could translate to other healthcare settings, according to Kenny Lin, MD, MPH, who was asked for comment on the study. “Outside of the VA health system and perhaps integrated HMOs [health maintenance organizations] such as Kaiser, Geisinger, etc., it seems unlikely that most primary care docs will have access to a centralized bone health service. Who’s going to pay for it? It leaves unanswered the question of whether it’s more efficient to address [osteoporosis] screening on a practice or population level. I suspect the latter is probably superior, but this study doesn’t provide any empiric evidence that this is so,” said Lin, associate director of the Penn Medicine Lancaster General Hospital’s Family Medicine Residency Program, Lancaster, Pennsylvania. The findings could help sway recommendations to screen men for osteoporosis, according to Susan Ott, MD, who was also asked for comment. Guideline committees “have been trying to be very scientific [about it]. I think they overdo it because they only look at one or two kinds of studies, and there are more kinds of science than just a randomized clinical trial. But they’re kind of stuck on that. The fact that this study was a randomized trial maybe they will finally change their recommendation, because there really shouldn’t be any difference in screening for men and for women. The men are actually discriminated against,” said Ott, emeritus professor of medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle.

In fact, she noted that the risks for men are similar to those for women, except that men tend to develop issues 5-10 years later in life. To screen and treat men, healthcare systems can “do the same thing they do with women. Just change the age range,” Ott said.

Lin sounded a different note, suggesting that the focus should remain on improvement of screening and treatment adherence in women. “We know that up to two thirds of women discontinue osteoporosis drugs within a year, and if we can’t figure out how to improve abysmal adherence in women, it’s unlikely we will persuade enough men to take these drugs to make a difference,” he said.

The study was funded by a grant from the VA Health Systems Research. Colón-Emeric, Lin, Ott, and Huang reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Efforts to identify older men at risk for osteoporosis and treat those who are eligible received a boost from results reported from a Veterans Affairs (VA) study that showed a significant increase in screening, treatment, and medication adherence.

The cluster randomized trial used a centralized nurse-led intervention to assess men for traditional osteoporosis risk factors, offer bone density testing, and recommend treatment for eligible men. Over 2 years, the intervention group had a higher average femoral neck bone density than patients who underwent usual care.

“We designed this study to see if a risk factor-based approach, which is what most of the guidelines use, made sense and was feasible — that men would be accepting of screening and [the approach] would yield a similar proportion of people who need osteoporosis treatment as screening in women, which is widely recommended and implemented. And sure enough, we found that about 85% of the men in the VA primary care practices in our target age range of between 65 and 85 actually met criteria for screening, and over half of them had low bone mass. They were very accepting of screening, very accepting of treatment, and had excellent compliance rates. So, our study, we believe, supports the idea of identifying men with at least one risk factor for fracture and offering them osteoporosis screening starting at age 65, similar to what we do for women,” Cathleen S. Colón-Emeric, MD, MHS, said in an interview. She is the lead author of the study, a physician in the Durham VA Health Care System, and professor of medicine at Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina.

“We were able to see a positive effect on bone density in the bone health group, compared with the usual care group, which suggests that if we followed these folks longer and had enough of them, we would be able to show a fracture reduction benefit,” Colón-Emeric said.

There have been few randomized trials of screening interventions in men, leading to inconsistencies in guidelines, according to the authors of the new study, published online in JAMA Internal Medicine . Both the US Preventive Services Task Force and the Veterans Health Administration National Center for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention consider there to be insufficient evidence to recommend for or against screening in men who have not experienced a fracture. Some professional societies recommend such screening, but there are inconsistencies in the recommended criteria, such as age range or risk factors.

Beyond the age of 50 years, one in five men will experience an osteoporosis-related fracture at some point in their life, according to a 2009 study. Treatment is inexpensive and effective in both men and women, and economic models suggest that screening using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) would be cost-effective. Still, screening is rare among men, with fewer than 10% of men getting screened before having an osteoporosis-related fracture.

“It’s important to screen men at risk for osteoporosis due to the dramatically increased mortality men suffer after a fragility fracture compared with women. Within 1 year of a hip fracture, mortality is as high as 36%. Studies have also shown that osteoporosis in men is undertreated, with only 10%-50% being prescribed antifracture treatment within 1 year of a hip fracture. Most individuals do not regain their prior level of function after a hip fracture,” said Joe C. Huang, MD, who was asked for comment. He is a clinical assistant professor of gerontology and geriatric medicine at Harborview Medical Center Senior Care Clinic and Healthy Bones Clinic in Seattle.

 

Details of the Intervention

The bone health service (BHS) intervention employed an electronic health record case-finding tool and a nurse care manager who undertook screening and treatment monitoring. They identified potential risk factors that included hyperthyroidism, hyperparathyroidism, rheumatoid arthritis, alcohol dependence, chronic lung disease, chronic liver disease, stroke, parkinsonism, prostate cancer, smoking, diabetes, pernicious anemia, gastrectomy, or high-risk medication use in at least 3 months of the prior 2 years. These medications included traditional antiepileptics, glucocorticoids, and androgen deprivation therapy.

The BHS nurse invited eligible men to be screened using an initial letter, followed by up to three phone calls. After DXA screening, the nurse scheduled an electronic consult with an osteoporosis expert, and patients with a T-score between -1 and -2.4 and an elevated 10-year fracture risk as measured by the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool were recommended for osteoporosis medication, vitamin D, and dietary or supplemental calcium. Following the prescription, the nurse provided patient education over the phone and mailed out written instructions. The nurse also made phone calls at 1 month, 6 months, and 12 months to encourage adherence and address common treatment barriers such as forgetting to take medication or dealing with gastrointestinal effects. The researchers recruited 38 primary care physicians from two VA health systems. The study included 3112 male veterans between the ages of 65 and 85 years (40.4% Black and 56% White). Nearly all participants (85.5%) had at least one indication for screening according to VA undersecretary guidelines, and almost a third (32.1%) had been prescribed androgen deprivation therapy, traditional antiepileptic drugs, or glucocorticoids.

Over a mean follow-up of 1.5 years, there was a much higher screening rate in the BHS group (49.2% vs 2.3%; P < .001), with a similar overall yield of DXA results recommending osteoporosis treatment (22.4% vs 27.2%). In the BHS group, 84.4% of patients who had treatment recommended followed through with treatment initiation. The mean persistence over follow-up was 657 days (SD, 366 days), and adherence was high with a mean proportion of days covered of 91.7%.

It was not possible to statistically compare adherence with the usual-care group because there were too few screened patients found to be eligible for treatment in that group, but the historic mean proportion of days covered at the two participating facilities was 52%. 

After 2 years, the mean femoral neck T-score tested randomly in a subset of patients was better in the BHS arm, although it did not meet statistical significance according to the Bonferroni corrected criterion of P < .025 (-0.55 vs -0.70; P = .04). Fracture rates were similar between the two groups (1.8% vs 2.0%; P = .69). 

 

Can the Findings Be Translated Across Clinics?

It remains to be seen how well the model could translate to other healthcare settings, according to Kenny Lin, MD, MPH, who was asked for comment on the study. “Outside of the VA health system and perhaps integrated HMOs [health maintenance organizations] such as Kaiser, Geisinger, etc., it seems unlikely that most primary care docs will have access to a centralized bone health service. Who’s going to pay for it? It leaves unanswered the question of whether it’s more efficient to address [osteoporosis] screening on a practice or population level. I suspect the latter is probably superior, but this study doesn’t provide any empiric evidence that this is so,” said Lin, associate director of the Penn Medicine Lancaster General Hospital’s Family Medicine Residency Program, Lancaster, Pennsylvania. The findings could help sway recommendations to screen men for osteoporosis, according to Susan Ott, MD, who was also asked for comment. Guideline committees “have been trying to be very scientific [about it]. I think they overdo it because they only look at one or two kinds of studies, and there are more kinds of science than just a randomized clinical trial. But they’re kind of stuck on that. The fact that this study was a randomized trial maybe they will finally change their recommendation, because there really shouldn’t be any difference in screening for men and for women. The men are actually discriminated against,” said Ott, emeritus professor of medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle.

In fact, she noted that the risks for men are similar to those for women, except that men tend to develop issues 5-10 years later in life. To screen and treat men, healthcare systems can “do the same thing they do with women. Just change the age range,” Ott said.

Lin sounded a different note, suggesting that the focus should remain on improvement of screening and treatment adherence in women. “We know that up to two thirds of women discontinue osteoporosis drugs within a year, and if we can’t figure out how to improve abysmal adherence in women, it’s unlikely we will persuade enough men to take these drugs to make a difference,” he said.

The study was funded by a grant from the VA Health Systems Research. Colón-Emeric, Lin, Ott, and Huang reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Efforts to identify older men at risk for osteoporosis and treat those who are eligible received a boost from results reported from a Veterans Affairs (VA) study that showed a significant increase in screening, treatment, and medication adherence.

The cluster randomized trial used a centralized nurse-led intervention to assess men for traditional osteoporosis risk factors, offer bone density testing, and recommend treatment for eligible men. Over 2 years, the intervention group had a higher average femoral neck bone density than patients who underwent usual care.

“We designed this study to see if a risk factor-based approach, which is what most of the guidelines use, made sense and was feasible — that men would be accepting of screening and [the approach] would yield a similar proportion of people who need osteoporosis treatment as screening in women, which is widely recommended and implemented. And sure enough, we found that about 85% of the men in the VA primary care practices in our target age range of between 65 and 85 actually met criteria for screening, and over half of them had low bone mass. They were very accepting of screening, very accepting of treatment, and had excellent compliance rates. So, our study, we believe, supports the idea of identifying men with at least one risk factor for fracture and offering them osteoporosis screening starting at age 65, similar to what we do for women,” Cathleen S. Colón-Emeric, MD, MHS, said in an interview. She is the lead author of the study, a physician in the Durham VA Health Care System, and professor of medicine at Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina.

“We were able to see a positive effect on bone density in the bone health group, compared with the usual care group, which suggests that if we followed these folks longer and had enough of them, we would be able to show a fracture reduction benefit,” Colón-Emeric said.

There have been few randomized trials of screening interventions in men, leading to inconsistencies in guidelines, according to the authors of the new study, published online in JAMA Internal Medicine . Both the US Preventive Services Task Force and the Veterans Health Administration National Center for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention consider there to be insufficient evidence to recommend for or against screening in men who have not experienced a fracture. Some professional societies recommend such screening, but there are inconsistencies in the recommended criteria, such as age range or risk factors.

Beyond the age of 50 years, one in five men will experience an osteoporosis-related fracture at some point in their life, according to a 2009 study. Treatment is inexpensive and effective in both men and women, and economic models suggest that screening using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) would be cost-effective. Still, screening is rare among men, with fewer than 10% of men getting screened before having an osteoporosis-related fracture.

“It’s important to screen men at risk for osteoporosis due to the dramatically increased mortality men suffer after a fragility fracture compared with women. Within 1 year of a hip fracture, mortality is as high as 36%. Studies have also shown that osteoporosis in men is undertreated, with only 10%-50% being prescribed antifracture treatment within 1 year of a hip fracture. Most individuals do not regain their prior level of function after a hip fracture,” said Joe C. Huang, MD, who was asked for comment. He is a clinical assistant professor of gerontology and geriatric medicine at Harborview Medical Center Senior Care Clinic and Healthy Bones Clinic in Seattle.

 

Details of the Intervention

The bone health service (BHS) intervention employed an electronic health record case-finding tool and a nurse care manager who undertook screening and treatment monitoring. They identified potential risk factors that included hyperthyroidism, hyperparathyroidism, rheumatoid arthritis, alcohol dependence, chronic lung disease, chronic liver disease, stroke, parkinsonism, prostate cancer, smoking, diabetes, pernicious anemia, gastrectomy, or high-risk medication use in at least 3 months of the prior 2 years. These medications included traditional antiepileptics, glucocorticoids, and androgen deprivation therapy.

The BHS nurse invited eligible men to be screened using an initial letter, followed by up to three phone calls. After DXA screening, the nurse scheduled an electronic consult with an osteoporosis expert, and patients with a T-score between -1 and -2.4 and an elevated 10-year fracture risk as measured by the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool were recommended for osteoporosis medication, vitamin D, and dietary or supplemental calcium. Following the prescription, the nurse provided patient education over the phone and mailed out written instructions. The nurse also made phone calls at 1 month, 6 months, and 12 months to encourage adherence and address common treatment barriers such as forgetting to take medication or dealing with gastrointestinal effects. The researchers recruited 38 primary care physicians from two VA health systems. The study included 3112 male veterans between the ages of 65 and 85 years (40.4% Black and 56% White). Nearly all participants (85.5%) had at least one indication for screening according to VA undersecretary guidelines, and almost a third (32.1%) had been prescribed androgen deprivation therapy, traditional antiepileptic drugs, or glucocorticoids.

Over a mean follow-up of 1.5 years, there was a much higher screening rate in the BHS group (49.2% vs 2.3%; P < .001), with a similar overall yield of DXA results recommending osteoporosis treatment (22.4% vs 27.2%). In the BHS group, 84.4% of patients who had treatment recommended followed through with treatment initiation. The mean persistence over follow-up was 657 days (SD, 366 days), and adherence was high with a mean proportion of days covered of 91.7%.

It was not possible to statistically compare adherence with the usual-care group because there were too few screened patients found to be eligible for treatment in that group, but the historic mean proportion of days covered at the two participating facilities was 52%. 

After 2 years, the mean femoral neck T-score tested randomly in a subset of patients was better in the BHS arm, although it did not meet statistical significance according to the Bonferroni corrected criterion of P < .025 (-0.55 vs -0.70; P = .04). Fracture rates were similar between the two groups (1.8% vs 2.0%; P = .69). 

 

Can the Findings Be Translated Across Clinics?

It remains to be seen how well the model could translate to other healthcare settings, according to Kenny Lin, MD, MPH, who was asked for comment on the study. “Outside of the VA health system and perhaps integrated HMOs [health maintenance organizations] such as Kaiser, Geisinger, etc., it seems unlikely that most primary care docs will have access to a centralized bone health service. Who’s going to pay for it? It leaves unanswered the question of whether it’s more efficient to address [osteoporosis] screening on a practice or population level. I suspect the latter is probably superior, but this study doesn’t provide any empiric evidence that this is so,” said Lin, associate director of the Penn Medicine Lancaster General Hospital’s Family Medicine Residency Program, Lancaster, Pennsylvania. The findings could help sway recommendations to screen men for osteoporosis, according to Susan Ott, MD, who was also asked for comment. Guideline committees “have been trying to be very scientific [about it]. I think they overdo it because they only look at one or two kinds of studies, and there are more kinds of science than just a randomized clinical trial. But they’re kind of stuck on that. The fact that this study was a randomized trial maybe they will finally change their recommendation, because there really shouldn’t be any difference in screening for men and for women. The men are actually discriminated against,” said Ott, emeritus professor of medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle.

In fact, she noted that the risks for men are similar to those for women, except that men tend to develop issues 5-10 years later in life. To screen and treat men, healthcare systems can “do the same thing they do with women. Just change the age range,” Ott said.

Lin sounded a different note, suggesting that the focus should remain on improvement of screening and treatment adherence in women. “We know that up to two thirds of women discontinue osteoporosis drugs within a year, and if we can’t figure out how to improve abysmal adherence in women, it’s unlikely we will persuade enough men to take these drugs to make a difference,” he said.

The study was funded by a grant from the VA Health Systems Research. Colón-Emeric, Lin, Ott, and Huang reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Pascale M. White, MD, MBA, MS never tires of excising precancerous polyps.

“To know that I have removed something that could have been potentially dangerous to this patient in years to come, that wasn’t causing any symptoms but silently lurking there” is a great feeling, said Dr. White, an associate professor with dual appointments in the divisions of gastroenterology and liver diseases at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. 

“When I do procedures, I always go in with the mindset that this could be a lifesaving procedure for this patient. And that definitely keeps me excited about the field,” she said. 

Colorectal cancer is preventable, but when it comes to screening, there are large health disparities. African Americans are 20% more likely to get diagnosed with colorectal cancer and 40% more likely to die from the disease. “Knowing that there are low screening rates among this population, there’s a lot of work to be done with mitigating those disparities,” said Dr. White, who has made it her life’s work to expand access to care and address health inequities. 

Dr. White is an inaugural director of Health Equity in Action for Liver and Digestive Diseases (HEALD) and an inaugural fellow of the United Hospital Fund’s Health Equity Fellowship. In 2025, she received the AGA-Pfizer Beacon of Hope Award, which celebrates three women in the GI field who have played a key role in advancing gender and health equity in medicine. 

Much of her work involves going directly into communities and educating patients and providers on the different choices for colorectal cancer screening. “Through the United Hospital Fund’s Health Equity Fellowship, I have partnered with an East Harlem community health center to conduct seminars and tailor a one-page shared decision tool for colorectal cancer screening to jumpstart discussions on screening choices between patients and providers,” said Dr. White.

In an interview, she offered more details about her mission to connect with communities to improve screening rates for colorectal cancer.

 

Can you discuss your work with HEALD?

Dr. White: HEALD is a growing initiative to identify and address any access barriers to our screening programs. At this time, I’m working to identify how patients are getting referred to us in our division for colorectal cancer screening and how we can create a more streamlined and robust pathway for patients in the community, namely at federally qualified health centers in East Harlem.

You co-founded the Association of Black Gastroenterologists and Hepatologists (ABGH) in 2021. What are you hoping to accomplish with this organization?

Dr. White: ABGH was co-founded by eleven of us from across the country for the purpose of addressing health care disparities in GI and liver diseases that disproportionately affect Black patient populations. Our mission is to promote health equity, advance science and develop the careers of Black gastroenterologists, hepatologists, and scientists.

Our mentorship program is one way we give back to incoming residents who are interested in pursuing a career in GI. The Nurturing, Excelling, and Unifying Sisters in Medicine (NEXUS) conference centers the perspectives of Black women in medicine from all specialties. The ABGH Summit is an educational conference that features renowned experts in the health equity space.

But at the center of it all is our community outreach. When we started the organization after Chadwick Boseman’s death during the height of the COVID pandemic, all our community events were held over Zoom. Now with our in-person events you can feel the energy in the room. Our main community facing event is called Bustin’ A Gut. It’s a genius combination of comedy and medical education. We have a panel of physicians and comedians. The physicians talk about a range of GI topics such as colorectal cancer screening choices, alarm signs or symptoms of colon cancer, nutrition, and general gut health. The community members feel comfortable asking their questions and the comedians help keep the conversation entertaining and lighthearted. It’s a true laugh and learn event.

 

How did you become interested in health equity? Was there a specific event or circumstance you could share?

Dr. White: It was my residency training at New York University and my experiences at Bellevue Hospital that really introduced me to a place where everyone could get care. Whether you are coming from another country or right up the street, Bellevue saw everyone who walked through its doors. This is in deep contrast to the vast majority of hospitals where if you do not have insurance, you cannot be seen. Then there are people who have access to care but are overwhelmed by the complexities of the medical system.

Consider colorectal cancer, for example. It is a preventable disease, yet most people aren’t getting screened because they either don’t know they should, they are fearful of the process, or they don’t know how to go about getting the tests done. These are namely knowledge barriers that we can address. I thought: If there’s something I could do to help patients learn about colorectal cancer screening and how they can take steps to prevent this disease, then that’s how I want to spend my career.

 

You created the Direct Access GI Clinic (DAGIC), one of the projects that led to the AGA-Pfizer Beacon of Hope Award for Gender and Health Equity. How does DAGIC reduce wait times and improve endoscopic care coordination for underserved, high-risk patients?

Dr. White: I developed and implemented a clinic workflow that identified high-risk patients who were sent for direct access procedures but who needed office consultations prior to their procedures. These were the sickest of the sickest patients that needed to be prioritized. Working with my nurse practitioner and office ncurse, we triaged these patients and carved out dedicated time in the week where only DAGIC patients were scheduled.

Creating this direct workflow meant that these patients no longer had to wait three months. They were waiting at most, two to three weeks to be seen. I don’t take for granted that one change in a system can lead to impactful outcomes in patient care and access.

 

You also co-authored an update to the American College of Gastroenterology’s colorectal cancer screening guidelines for African Americans. Is there anything unique and important that’s worth noting?

Dr. White: We updated those guidelines to include physician recommendation as a potential barrier to screening. We know that patients are more likely to be screened if they are recommended to do so by their physician. Yet, some patients are less likely to receive a physician recommendation for screening. We need to dive deeper into the reasons why this is happening. And if there are any gaps, for example in physician knowledge, that’s something we should readily address.

One of your interests is guiding students, residents, and fellows. What advice would you give to aspiring medical students?

Dr. White: Keep an open mind and explore all your options before committing to a specialty. If you find the field exciting and you are motivated to spend time learning more about it, seek opportunities to conduct research and find a mentor that can further guide you on your journey.

Lightning Round

What’s your favorite season of the year?

Fall 

What’s your favorite way to spend a weekend?

Playing golf

If you could have dinner with any historical figure, who would it be?

Barack Obama

What’s your go-to karaoke song?

Livin’ on a Prayer by Bon Jovi 

What’s one thing on your bucket list?

Travel to Rome 

If you could instantly learn any skill, what would it be?

Speak Mandarin 

What’s your favorite holiday tradition?

Watching Hallmark movies with my daughter 

Are you a planner or more spontaneous?

Planner 

What’s the best piece of advice you’ve ever received?

Progress, not perfection
 

Expand Your GI Community with AGA Membership

Renew your AGA membership by Dec. 31 to continue getting to know your AGA Gastro Squad through our monthly column. AGA member spotlights introduce members to one another while recognizing their accomplishments.

Want to recognize a colleague? Submit a nomination to GINews@gastro.org. 
 

Pascale M. White, MD, MBA, MS never tires of excising precancerous polyps.

“To know that I have removed something that could have been potentially dangerous to this patient in years to come, that wasn’t causing any symptoms but silently lurking there” is a great feeling, said Dr. White, an associate professor with dual appointments in the divisions of gastroenterology and liver diseases at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. 

“When I do procedures, I always go in with the mindset that this could be a lifesaving procedure for this patient. And that definitely keeps me excited about the field,” she said. 

Colorectal cancer is preventable, but when it comes to screening, there are large health disparities. African Americans are 20% more likely to get diagnosed with colorectal cancer and 40% more likely to die from the disease. “Knowing that there are low screening rates among this population, there’s a lot of work to be done with mitigating those disparities,” said Dr. White, who has made it her life’s work to expand access to care and address health inequities. 

Dr. White is an inaugural director of Health Equity in Action for Liver and Digestive Diseases (HEALD) and an inaugural fellow of the United Hospital Fund’s Health Equity Fellowship. In 2025, she received the AGA-Pfizer Beacon of Hope Award, which celebrates three women in the GI field who have played a key role in advancing gender and health equity in medicine. 

Much of her work involves going directly into communities and educating patients and providers on the different choices for colorectal cancer screening. “Through the United Hospital Fund’s Health Equity Fellowship, I have partnered with an East Harlem community health center to conduct seminars and tailor a one-page shared decision tool for colorectal cancer screening to jumpstart discussions on screening choices between patients and providers,” said Dr. White.

In an interview, she offered more details about her mission to connect with communities to improve screening rates for colorectal cancer.

 

Can you discuss your work with HEALD?

Dr. White: HEALD is a growing initiative to identify and address any access barriers to our screening programs. At this time, I’m working to identify how patients are getting referred to us in our division for colorectal cancer screening and how we can create a more streamlined and robust pathway for patients in the community, namely at federally qualified health centers in East Harlem.

You co-founded the Association of Black Gastroenterologists and Hepatologists (ABGH) in 2021. What are you hoping to accomplish with this organization?

Dr. White: ABGH was co-founded by eleven of us from across the country for the purpose of addressing health care disparities in GI and liver diseases that disproportionately affect Black patient populations. Our mission is to promote health equity, advance science and develop the careers of Black gastroenterologists, hepatologists, and scientists.

Our mentorship program is one way we give back to incoming residents who are interested in pursuing a career in GI. The Nurturing, Excelling, and Unifying Sisters in Medicine (NEXUS) conference centers the perspectives of Black women in medicine from all specialties. The ABGH Summit is an educational conference that features renowned experts in the health equity space.

But at the center of it all is our community outreach. When we started the organization after Chadwick Boseman’s death during the height of the COVID pandemic, all our community events were held over Zoom. Now with our in-person events you can feel the energy in the room. Our main community facing event is called Bustin’ A Gut. It’s a genius combination of comedy and medical education. We have a panel of physicians and comedians. The physicians talk about a range of GI topics such as colorectal cancer screening choices, alarm signs or symptoms of colon cancer, nutrition, and general gut health. The community members feel comfortable asking their questions and the comedians help keep the conversation entertaining and lighthearted. It’s a true laugh and learn event.

 

How did you become interested in health equity? Was there a specific event or circumstance you could share?

Dr. White: It was my residency training at New York University and my experiences at Bellevue Hospital that really introduced me to a place where everyone could get care. Whether you are coming from another country or right up the street, Bellevue saw everyone who walked through its doors. This is in deep contrast to the vast majority of hospitals where if you do not have insurance, you cannot be seen. Then there are people who have access to care but are overwhelmed by the complexities of the medical system.

Consider colorectal cancer, for example. It is a preventable disease, yet most people aren’t getting screened because they either don’t know they should, they are fearful of the process, or they don’t know how to go about getting the tests done. These are namely knowledge barriers that we can address. I thought: If there’s something I could do to help patients learn about colorectal cancer screening and how they can take steps to prevent this disease, then that’s how I want to spend my career.

 

You created the Direct Access GI Clinic (DAGIC), one of the projects that led to the AGA-Pfizer Beacon of Hope Award for Gender and Health Equity. How does DAGIC reduce wait times and improve endoscopic care coordination for underserved, high-risk patients?

Dr. White: I developed and implemented a clinic workflow that identified high-risk patients who were sent for direct access procedures but who needed office consultations prior to their procedures. These were the sickest of the sickest patients that needed to be prioritized. Working with my nurse practitioner and office ncurse, we triaged these patients and carved out dedicated time in the week where only DAGIC patients were scheduled.

Creating this direct workflow meant that these patients no longer had to wait three months. They were waiting at most, two to three weeks to be seen. I don’t take for granted that one change in a system can lead to impactful outcomes in patient care and access.

 

You also co-authored an update to the American College of Gastroenterology’s colorectal cancer screening guidelines for African Americans. Is there anything unique and important that’s worth noting?

Dr. White: We updated those guidelines to include physician recommendation as a potential barrier to screening. We know that patients are more likely to be screened if they are recommended to do so by their physician. Yet, some patients are less likely to receive a physician recommendation for screening. We need to dive deeper into the reasons why this is happening. And if there are any gaps, for example in physician knowledge, that’s something we should readily address.

One of your interests is guiding students, residents, and fellows. What advice would you give to aspiring medical students?

Dr. White: Keep an open mind and explore all your options before committing to a specialty. If you find the field exciting and you are motivated to spend time learning more about it, seek opportunities to conduct research and find a mentor that can further guide you on your journey.

Lightning Round

What’s your favorite season of the year?

Fall 

What’s your favorite way to spend a weekend?

Playing golf

If you could have dinner with any historical figure, who would it be?

Barack Obama

What’s your go-to karaoke song?

Livin’ on a Prayer by Bon Jovi 

What’s one thing on your bucket list?

Travel to Rome 

If you could instantly learn any skill, what would it be?

Speak Mandarin 

What’s your favorite holiday tradition?

Watching Hallmark movies with my daughter 

Are you a planner or more spontaneous?

Planner 

What’s the best piece of advice you’ve ever received?

Progress, not perfection
 

Expand Your GI Community with AGA Membership

Renew your AGA membership by Dec. 31 to continue getting to know your AGA Gastro Squad through our monthly column. AGA member spotlights introduce members to one another while recognizing their accomplishments.

Want to recognize a colleague? Submit a nomination to GINews@gastro.org. 
 

Pascale M. White, MD, MBA, MS never tires of excising precancerous polyps.

“To know that I have removed something that could have been potentially dangerous to this patient in years to come, that wasn’t causing any symptoms but silently lurking there” is a great feeling, said Dr. White, an associate professor with dual appointments in the divisions of gastroenterology and liver diseases at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. 

“When I do procedures, I always go in with the mindset that this could be a lifesaving procedure for this patient. And that definitely keeps me excited about the field,” she said. 

Colorectal cancer is preventable, but when it comes to screening, there are large health disparities. African Americans are 20% more likely to get diagnosed with colorectal cancer and 40% more likely to die from the disease. “Knowing that there are low screening rates among this population, there’s a lot of work to be done with mitigating those disparities,” said Dr. White, who has made it her life’s work to expand access to care and address health inequities. 

Dr. White is an inaugural director of Health Equity in Action for Liver and Digestive Diseases (HEALD) and an inaugural fellow of the United Hospital Fund’s Health Equity Fellowship. In 2025, she received the AGA-Pfizer Beacon of Hope Award, which celebrates three women in the GI field who have played a key role in advancing gender and health equity in medicine. 

Much of her work involves going directly into communities and educating patients and providers on the different choices for colorectal cancer screening. “Through the United Hospital Fund’s Health Equity Fellowship, I have partnered with an East Harlem community health center to conduct seminars and tailor a one-page shared decision tool for colorectal cancer screening to jumpstart discussions on screening choices between patients and providers,” said Dr. White.

In an interview, she offered more details about her mission to connect with communities to improve screening rates for colorectal cancer.

 

Can you discuss your work with HEALD?

Dr. White: HEALD is a growing initiative to identify and address any access barriers to our screening programs. At this time, I’m working to identify how patients are getting referred to us in our division for colorectal cancer screening and how we can create a more streamlined and robust pathway for patients in the community, namely at federally qualified health centers in East Harlem.

You co-founded the Association of Black Gastroenterologists and Hepatologists (ABGH) in 2021. What are you hoping to accomplish with this organization?

Dr. White: ABGH was co-founded by eleven of us from across the country for the purpose of addressing health care disparities in GI and liver diseases that disproportionately affect Black patient populations. Our mission is to promote health equity, advance science and develop the careers of Black gastroenterologists, hepatologists, and scientists.

Our mentorship program is one way we give back to incoming residents who are interested in pursuing a career in GI. The Nurturing, Excelling, and Unifying Sisters in Medicine (NEXUS) conference centers the perspectives of Black women in medicine from all specialties. The ABGH Summit is an educational conference that features renowned experts in the health equity space.

But at the center of it all is our community outreach. When we started the organization after Chadwick Boseman’s death during the height of the COVID pandemic, all our community events were held over Zoom. Now with our in-person events you can feel the energy in the room. Our main community facing event is called Bustin’ A Gut. It’s a genius combination of comedy and medical education. We have a panel of physicians and comedians. The physicians talk about a range of GI topics such as colorectal cancer screening choices, alarm signs or symptoms of colon cancer, nutrition, and general gut health. The community members feel comfortable asking their questions and the comedians help keep the conversation entertaining and lighthearted. It’s a true laugh and learn event.

 

How did you become interested in health equity? Was there a specific event or circumstance you could share?

Dr. White: It was my residency training at New York University and my experiences at Bellevue Hospital that really introduced me to a place where everyone could get care. Whether you are coming from another country or right up the street, Bellevue saw everyone who walked through its doors. This is in deep contrast to the vast majority of hospitals where if you do not have insurance, you cannot be seen. Then there are people who have access to care but are overwhelmed by the complexities of the medical system.

Consider colorectal cancer, for example. It is a preventable disease, yet most people aren’t getting screened because they either don’t know they should, they are fearful of the process, or they don’t know how to go about getting the tests done. These are namely knowledge barriers that we can address. I thought: If there’s something I could do to help patients learn about colorectal cancer screening and how they can take steps to prevent this disease, then that’s how I want to spend my career.

 

You created the Direct Access GI Clinic (DAGIC), one of the projects that led to the AGA-Pfizer Beacon of Hope Award for Gender and Health Equity. How does DAGIC reduce wait times and improve endoscopic care coordination for underserved, high-risk patients?

Dr. White: I developed and implemented a clinic workflow that identified high-risk patients who were sent for direct access procedures but who needed office consultations prior to their procedures. These were the sickest of the sickest patients that needed to be prioritized. Working with my nurse practitioner and office ncurse, we triaged these patients and carved out dedicated time in the week where only DAGIC patients were scheduled.

Creating this direct workflow meant that these patients no longer had to wait three months. They were waiting at most, two to three weeks to be seen. I don’t take for granted that one change in a system can lead to impactful outcomes in patient care and access.

 

You also co-authored an update to the American College of Gastroenterology’s colorectal cancer screening guidelines for African Americans. Is there anything unique and important that’s worth noting?

Dr. White: We updated those guidelines to include physician recommendation as a potential barrier to screening. We know that patients are more likely to be screened if they are recommended to do so by their physician. Yet, some patients are less likely to receive a physician recommendation for screening. We need to dive deeper into the reasons why this is happening. And if there are any gaps, for example in physician knowledge, that’s something we should readily address.

One of your interests is guiding students, residents, and fellows. What advice would you give to aspiring medical students?

Dr. White: Keep an open mind and explore all your options before committing to a specialty. If you find the field exciting and you are motivated to spend time learning more about it, seek opportunities to conduct research and find a mentor that can further guide you on your journey.

Lightning Round

What’s your favorite season of the year?

Fall 

What’s your favorite way to spend a weekend?

Playing golf

If you could have dinner with any historical figure, who would it be?

Barack Obama

What’s your go-to karaoke song?

Livin’ on a Prayer by Bon Jovi 

What’s one thing on your bucket list?

Travel to Rome 

If you could instantly learn any skill, what would it be?

Speak Mandarin 

What’s your favorite holiday tradition?

Watching Hallmark movies with my daughter 

Are you a planner or more spontaneous?

Planner 

What’s the best piece of advice you’ve ever received?

Progress, not perfection
 

Expand Your GI Community with AGA Membership

Renew your AGA membership by Dec. 31 to continue getting to know your AGA Gastro Squad through our monthly column. AGA member spotlights introduce members to one another while recognizing their accomplishments.

Want to recognize a colleague? Submit a nomination to GINews@gastro.org. 
 

PHOENIX – A 70-year-old Vietnam veteran with oropharyngeal cancer presented challenges beyond his disease. 

He couldn’t afford transportation for daily radiation treatments and had lost > 10% of his body weight due to pain and eating difficulties, recalled radiation oncologist Vinita Takiar, MD, PhD, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology. 

To make matters more difficult, his wife held medical power of attorney despite his apparent competence to make decisions, said Takiar, who formerly worked with the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Cincinnati Healthcare System and is now chair of radiation oncology at Penn State University. 

All these factors would likely have derailed his treatment if not for a coordinated team intervention, Takiar said. Fortunately, the clinic launched a multifaceted effort involving representatives from the social work, dentistry, ethics, nutrition, and chaplaincy departments. 

When surgery became impossible because the patient couldn’t lie on the operating table for adequate tumor exposure, she said, the existing team framework enabled a seamless and rapid transition to radiation with concurrent chemotherapy.

The patient completed treatment with an excellent response, offering a lesson in the importance of multidisciplinary care in head-and-neck cancers, she said. 

In fact, when it comes to these forms of cancer, coordinated care “is probably more impactful than any treatment that we’re going to come up with,” she said. “The data show that when we do multidisciplinary care and we do it well, it actually improves the patient experience and outcomes.”

As Takiar noted, teamwork matters in many ways. It leads to better logistics and can address disparities, reduce financial burden and stigma, and even increase clinical trial involvement. 

She pointed to studies linking teamwork to better outcomes, support for patients, and overall survival.

Takiar highlighted different parts of teams headed by radiation oncologists who act as “a node to improve multimodal care delivery.”

Speech and swallowing specialists, for example, are helpful in head-and-neck cancer because “there’s an impact on speech, swallowing, and appearance. Our patients don’t want to go out to dinner with friends because they can’t do it.”

Dentists and prosthodontists are key team members too: “I have dentists who have my cell phone number. They just call me: ‘Can I do this extraction? Was this in your radiation field? What was the dose?’”

Other team members include ear, nose, and throat specialists, palliative and supportive care specialists, medical oncologists, nurses, pathologists, transportation workers, and service connection specialists. She noted that previous military experience can affect radiation therapy. For example, the physical restraints required during treatment present particular challenges for veterans who’ve had wartime trauma. These patients may require therapy adjustments.

What’s next on the horizon? Takiar highlighted precision oncology and molecular profiling, artificial intelligence in care decisions and in radiation planning, telemedicine and virtual tumor boards, and expanded survivorship programs. 

As for now, she urged colleagues to not be afraid to chat with radiation oncologists. “Please talk to us. We prioritize open communication and shared decision-making with the entire team,” she said. “If you see something and think your radiation oncologist should know about it, you think it was caused by the radiation, you should reach out to us.”

Takiar reported no disclosures. 

PHOENIX – A 70-year-old Vietnam veteran with oropharyngeal cancer presented challenges beyond his disease. 

He couldn’t afford transportation for daily radiation treatments and had lost > 10% of his body weight due to pain and eating difficulties, recalled radiation oncologist Vinita Takiar, MD, PhD, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology. 

To make matters more difficult, his wife held medical power of attorney despite his apparent competence to make decisions, said Takiar, who formerly worked with the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Cincinnati Healthcare System and is now chair of radiation oncology at Penn State University. 

All these factors would likely have derailed his treatment if not for a coordinated team intervention, Takiar said. Fortunately, the clinic launched a multifaceted effort involving representatives from the social work, dentistry, ethics, nutrition, and chaplaincy departments. 

When surgery became impossible because the patient couldn’t lie on the operating table for adequate tumor exposure, she said, the existing team framework enabled a seamless and rapid transition to radiation with concurrent chemotherapy.

The patient completed treatment with an excellent response, offering a lesson in the importance of multidisciplinary care in head-and-neck cancers, she said. 

In fact, when it comes to these forms of cancer, coordinated care “is probably more impactful than any treatment that we’re going to come up with,” she said. “The data show that when we do multidisciplinary care and we do it well, it actually improves the patient experience and outcomes.”

As Takiar noted, teamwork matters in many ways. It leads to better logistics and can address disparities, reduce financial burden and stigma, and even increase clinical trial involvement. 

She pointed to studies linking teamwork to better outcomes, support for patients, and overall survival.

Takiar highlighted different parts of teams headed by radiation oncologists who act as “a node to improve multimodal care delivery.”

Speech and swallowing specialists, for example, are helpful in head-and-neck cancer because “there’s an impact on speech, swallowing, and appearance. Our patients don’t want to go out to dinner with friends because they can’t do it.”

Dentists and prosthodontists are key team members too: “I have dentists who have my cell phone number. They just call me: ‘Can I do this extraction? Was this in your radiation field? What was the dose?’”

Other team members include ear, nose, and throat specialists, palliative and supportive care specialists, medical oncologists, nurses, pathologists, transportation workers, and service connection specialists. She noted that previous military experience can affect radiation therapy. For example, the physical restraints required during treatment present particular challenges for veterans who’ve had wartime trauma. These patients may require therapy adjustments.

What’s next on the horizon? Takiar highlighted precision oncology and molecular profiling, artificial intelligence in care decisions and in radiation planning, telemedicine and virtual tumor boards, and expanded survivorship programs. 

As for now, she urged colleagues to not be afraid to chat with radiation oncologists. “Please talk to us. We prioritize open communication and shared decision-making with the entire team,” she said. “If you see something and think your radiation oncologist should know about it, you think it was caused by the radiation, you should reach out to us.”

Takiar reported no disclosures. 

PHOENIX – A 70-year-old Vietnam veteran with oropharyngeal cancer presented challenges beyond his disease. 

He couldn’t afford transportation for daily radiation treatments and had lost > 10% of his body weight due to pain and eating difficulties, recalled radiation oncologist Vinita Takiar, MD, PhD, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology. 

To make matters more difficult, his wife held medical power of attorney despite his apparent competence to make decisions, said Takiar, who formerly worked with the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Cincinnati Healthcare System and is now chair of radiation oncology at Penn State University. 

All these factors would likely have derailed his treatment if not for a coordinated team intervention, Takiar said. Fortunately, the clinic launched a multifaceted effort involving representatives from the social work, dentistry, ethics, nutrition, and chaplaincy departments. 

When surgery became impossible because the patient couldn’t lie on the operating table for adequate tumor exposure, she said, the existing team framework enabled a seamless and rapid transition to radiation with concurrent chemotherapy.

The patient completed treatment with an excellent response, offering a lesson in the importance of multidisciplinary care in head-and-neck cancers, she said. 

In fact, when it comes to these forms of cancer, coordinated care “is probably more impactful than any treatment that we’re going to come up with,” she said. “The data show that when we do multidisciplinary care and we do it well, it actually improves the patient experience and outcomes.”

As Takiar noted, teamwork matters in many ways. It leads to better logistics and can address disparities, reduce financial burden and stigma, and even increase clinical trial involvement. 

She pointed to studies linking teamwork to better outcomes, support for patients, and overall survival.

Takiar highlighted different parts of teams headed by radiation oncologists who act as “a node to improve multimodal care delivery.”

Speech and swallowing specialists, for example, are helpful in head-and-neck cancer because “there’s an impact on speech, swallowing, and appearance. Our patients don’t want to go out to dinner with friends because they can’t do it.”

Dentists and prosthodontists are key team members too: “I have dentists who have my cell phone number. They just call me: ‘Can I do this extraction? Was this in your radiation field? What was the dose?’”

Other team members include ear, nose, and throat specialists, palliative and supportive care specialists, medical oncologists, nurses, pathologists, transportation workers, and service connection specialists. She noted that previous military experience can affect radiation therapy. For example, the physical restraints required during treatment present particular challenges for veterans who’ve had wartime trauma. These patients may require therapy adjustments.

What’s next on the horizon? Takiar highlighted precision oncology and molecular profiling, artificial intelligence in care decisions and in radiation planning, telemedicine and virtual tumor boards, and expanded survivorship programs. 

As for now, she urged colleagues to not be afraid to chat with radiation oncologists. “Please talk to us. We prioritize open communication and shared decision-making with the entire team,” she said. “If you see something and think your radiation oncologist should know about it, you think it was caused by the radiation, you should reach out to us.”

Takiar reported no disclosures. 

Military culture may hold 2 salient risk factors for eating disorders: exposure to trauma and body condition standards. A recent study from the US Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) Salisbury Health Care System (VASHCS) found that veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) are more likely to report eating disturbances—particularly issues related to body dissatisfaction and dissatisfaction with eating habits. A 2019 study found that one-third of veterans who were overweight or obese screened positive for engaging in “making weight” behaviors during military service, or unhealthy weight control strategies. Frequently reported weight management behavior was excessive exercise, fasting/skipping meals, sitting in a sauna/wearing a latex suit, laxatives, diuretics, and vomiting.

Service members who are “normal” weight by civilian standards may be labeled “overweight” by the military. In a March 12 memo, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth ordered a US Department of Defense review of existing standards for physical fitness, body composition, and grooming. “Our troops will be fit — not fat. Our troops will look sharp — not sloppy. We seek only quality — not quotas. BOTTOM LINE: our @DeptofDefense will make standards HIGH & GREAT again — across the entire force,” he posted on X.

The desire to control weight to fit military standards, however, isn’t the only risk factor. Researchers at VASHCS surveyed 527 post-9/11 veterans (80.7% male) who typically deployed 1 or 2 times. All participants completed the Structured Clinical Interview for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition; the Neuro-Quality of Life in Neurological Disorders Positive Affect and Well-Being Scale (PAWB); and the Eating Disturbances Scale. 

Nearly half (46%) of the sample met diagnostic criteria for a lifetime PTSD diagnosis. The study also reported significantly greater eating disturbances in veterans with a lifetime PTSD diagnosis than those without. Women reported significantly greater eating disturbances than men.

Most participants (80%) reported some level of dissatisfaction with their eating disturbances and 74% of participants reported feeling as if they were too fat.

Eating disturbances include refusing food, overexercising, overeating, and misusing laxatives or diuretic pills. Previous research that suggest that 10% to 15% of female veterans and 4% to 8% of male veterans report clinically significant disordered eating behaviors, especially binge eating. One study found that 78% of 45,477 overweight or obese veterans receiving care in VA facilities reported clinically significant binge eating. In a 2021 study, 254 veterans presenting for routine clinical care completed self‐report questionnaires assessing eating disorders, PTSD, depression, and shame, and 31% met probable criteria for bulimia nervosa, binge‐eating disorder, or purging disorder.

According to a 2023 study, eating disturbances that do not meet diagnostic criteria for a formal disorder can be problematic and may function as coping strategies for some facets of military life. The VASHCS researchers found that interventions focused on PAWB, such as acceptance and commitment therapy or compassion-focused therapy, may have potential as a protective factor. Including components that foster hope, optimism, and personal strength may positively mitigate the relationship between PTSD and eating disturbances. PAWB was significantly correlated with eating disturbances; individuals with a lifetime PTSD diagnosis reported significantly lower PAWB than those without.

Interventions grounded in positive psychology have shown promise. A group-based program found “noticeable” (although nonsignificant) improvements in optimistic thinking and treatment engagement. The study also cites that clinicians are beginning to incorporate positive psychology strategies (eg, gratitude journaling, goal setting, and “best possible self” visualization) as adjuncts to traditional treatments. Positive psychology, they write, holds “significant promise as a complementary approach to enhance recovery outcomes in both PTSD and eating disorders.” 

Military culture may hold 2 salient risk factors for eating disorders: exposure to trauma and body condition standards. A recent study from the US Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) Salisbury Health Care System (VASHCS) found that veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) are more likely to report eating disturbances—particularly issues related to body dissatisfaction and dissatisfaction with eating habits. A 2019 study found that one-third of veterans who were overweight or obese screened positive for engaging in “making weight” behaviors during military service, or unhealthy weight control strategies. Frequently reported weight management behavior was excessive exercise, fasting/skipping meals, sitting in a sauna/wearing a latex suit, laxatives, diuretics, and vomiting.

Service members who are “normal” weight by civilian standards may be labeled “overweight” by the military. In a March 12 memo, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth ordered a US Department of Defense review of existing standards for physical fitness, body composition, and grooming. “Our troops will be fit — not fat. Our troops will look sharp — not sloppy. We seek only quality — not quotas. BOTTOM LINE: our @DeptofDefense will make standards HIGH & GREAT again — across the entire force,” he posted on X.

The desire to control weight to fit military standards, however, isn’t the only risk factor. Researchers at VASHCS surveyed 527 post-9/11 veterans (80.7% male) who typically deployed 1 or 2 times. All participants completed the Structured Clinical Interview for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition; the Neuro-Quality of Life in Neurological Disorders Positive Affect and Well-Being Scale (PAWB); and the Eating Disturbances Scale. 

Nearly half (46%) of the sample met diagnostic criteria for a lifetime PTSD diagnosis. The study also reported significantly greater eating disturbances in veterans with a lifetime PTSD diagnosis than those without. Women reported significantly greater eating disturbances than men.

Most participants (80%) reported some level of dissatisfaction with their eating disturbances and 74% of participants reported feeling as if they were too fat.

Eating disturbances include refusing food, overexercising, overeating, and misusing laxatives or diuretic pills. Previous research that suggest that 10% to 15% of female veterans and 4% to 8% of male veterans report clinically significant disordered eating behaviors, especially binge eating. One study found that 78% of 45,477 overweight or obese veterans receiving care in VA facilities reported clinically significant binge eating. In a 2021 study, 254 veterans presenting for routine clinical care completed self‐report questionnaires assessing eating disorders, PTSD, depression, and shame, and 31% met probable criteria for bulimia nervosa, binge‐eating disorder, or purging disorder.

According to a 2023 study, eating disturbances that do not meet diagnostic criteria for a formal disorder can be problematic and may function as coping strategies for some facets of military life. The VASHCS researchers found that interventions focused on PAWB, such as acceptance and commitment therapy or compassion-focused therapy, may have potential as a protective factor. Including components that foster hope, optimism, and personal strength may positively mitigate the relationship between PTSD and eating disturbances. PAWB was significantly correlated with eating disturbances; individuals with a lifetime PTSD diagnosis reported significantly lower PAWB than those without.

Interventions grounded in positive psychology have shown promise. A group-based program found “noticeable” (although nonsignificant) improvements in optimistic thinking and treatment engagement. The study also cites that clinicians are beginning to incorporate positive psychology strategies (eg, gratitude journaling, goal setting, and “best possible self” visualization) as adjuncts to traditional treatments. Positive psychology, they write, holds “significant promise as a complementary approach to enhance recovery outcomes in both PTSD and eating disorders.” 

Military culture may hold 2 salient risk factors for eating disorders: exposure to trauma and body condition standards. A recent study from the US Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) Salisbury Health Care System (VASHCS) found that veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) are more likely to report eating disturbances—particularly issues related to body dissatisfaction and dissatisfaction with eating habits. A 2019 study found that one-third of veterans who were overweight or obese screened positive for engaging in “making weight” behaviors during military service, or unhealthy weight control strategies. Frequently reported weight management behavior was excessive exercise, fasting/skipping meals, sitting in a sauna/wearing a latex suit, laxatives, diuretics, and vomiting.

Service members who are “normal” weight by civilian standards may be labeled “overweight” by the military. In a March 12 memo, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth ordered a US Department of Defense review of existing standards for physical fitness, body composition, and grooming. “Our troops will be fit — not fat. Our troops will look sharp — not sloppy. We seek only quality — not quotas. BOTTOM LINE: our @DeptofDefense will make standards HIGH & GREAT again — across the entire force,” he posted on X.

The desire to control weight to fit military standards, however, isn’t the only risk factor. Researchers at VASHCS surveyed 527 post-9/11 veterans (80.7% male) who typically deployed 1 or 2 times. All participants completed the Structured Clinical Interview for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition; the Neuro-Quality of Life in Neurological Disorders Positive Affect and Well-Being Scale (PAWB); and the Eating Disturbances Scale. 

Nearly half (46%) of the sample met diagnostic criteria for a lifetime PTSD diagnosis. The study also reported significantly greater eating disturbances in veterans with a lifetime PTSD diagnosis than those without. Women reported significantly greater eating disturbances than men.

Most participants (80%) reported some level of dissatisfaction with their eating disturbances and 74% of participants reported feeling as if they were too fat.

Eating disturbances include refusing food, overexercising, overeating, and misusing laxatives or diuretic pills. Previous research that suggest that 10% to 15% of female veterans and 4% to 8% of male veterans report clinically significant disordered eating behaviors, especially binge eating. One study found that 78% of 45,477 overweight or obese veterans receiving care in VA facilities reported clinically significant binge eating. In a 2021 study, 254 veterans presenting for routine clinical care completed self‐report questionnaires assessing eating disorders, PTSD, depression, and shame, and 31% met probable criteria for bulimia nervosa, binge‐eating disorder, or purging disorder.

According to a 2023 study, eating disturbances that do not meet diagnostic criteria for a formal disorder can be problematic and may function as coping strategies for some facets of military life. The VASHCS researchers found that interventions focused on PAWB, such as acceptance and commitment therapy or compassion-focused therapy, may have potential as a protective factor. Including components that foster hope, optimism, and personal strength may positively mitigate the relationship between PTSD and eating disturbances. PAWB was significantly correlated with eating disturbances; individuals with a lifetime PTSD diagnosis reported significantly lower PAWB than those without.

Interventions grounded in positive psychology have shown promise. A group-based program found “noticeable” (although nonsignificant) improvements in optimistic thinking and treatment engagement. The study also cites that clinicians are beginning to incorporate positive psychology strategies (eg, gratitude journaling, goal setting, and “best possible self” visualization) as adjuncts to traditional treatments. Positive psychology, they write, holds “significant promise as a complementary approach to enhance recovery outcomes in both PTSD and eating disorders.” 

Jessica Korman, MD, wants to erase what she says is a stigma in the gastroenterology profession surrounding anal disease. 

“I think gastroenterologists are uniquely positioned to help with diagnosing anal diseases, in particular anal cancer,” she said. “It is part of the digestive tract, and my mission is to help gastroenterologists remember that.”

Dr. Korman is a gastroenterologist with Capital Digestive Care in Washington D.C., where she serves as chair of its Women’s Committee and as a member of the board of managers. She’s also the medical director of the Endoscopy Center of Washington D.C. 

A recipient of the 2025 AGA Distinguished Clinician Award in Private Practice, Dr. Korman has dedicated her career to educating clinicians on anal cancer screening and anal human papillomavirus. On the research front, she participated as an investigator in the ANAL Cancer-HSIL Outcomes Research (ANCHOR) trial, which led to international anal cancer screening guidelines.

She also co-directs the International Anal Neoplasia Society (IANS) Standard High Resolution Anoscopy course. 

When she’s not serving her patients, Dr. Korman speaks in the community about anal cancer awareness and screening. In the last few years, Dr. Korman has presented grand rounds at various institutions and speaks at major medical conferences. “I just try to advocate and help gastroenterologists understand who is at risk, how to look for anal cancer, how to screen, and who to refer. If anyone invites me to speak, I generally will do it,” said Dr. Korman.

In an interview, she talked about the outcomes of the ANCHOR trial and how it may inform future research, and her work to reduce bias and stigma for LGBTQ+ patients.

 

You decided to become a physician after studying in Egypt and Israel and volunteering with Physicians for Human Rights. Can you talk about that journey?

Dr. Korman: I majored in Religion and Middle East studies, and I minored in Arabic. I thought I was going to become a professor of religious studies. But during my time studying abroad and volunteering for Physicians for Human Rights, I was deeply moved by how physicians connect with the core of our shared humanity. Becoming a physician allows one to meet the most fundamental of human needs—caring for another’s health—in a direct and meaningful way.

My father is a physician, a gastroenterologist, but I never considered it as a career option growing up. The year after I graduated college, I accompanied my parents to my father’s medical school reunion and I thought, ‘Why did I never think about this?’ I decided to go back to school to take the pre-med requirements. Gastroenterology seemed to combine the ability to work with my hands, do procedures, have long-term relationships with patients, and think about complex problems.

GI medicine often involves detective work. What is the most challenging case you’ve encountered?

Dr. Korman: Sometimes the patients who have very severe disorders of gut-brain interaction can be the most challenging because finding treatments for them or getting them to a place where they accept certain types of treatment can be really difficult. And of course, you have to put your detective hat on and make sure you have ruled out all the “zebras.” It can take years to build the level of trust where patients are willing to accept the diagnosis and then pursue appropriate treatment. 

I always try my best, but I don’t like to give up. I will refer a patient to a colleague if they have a problem and I can’t figure out what the diagnosis is or find a treatment that works. I believe in second and third opinions. I recognize that there’s a limit to what my brain can do and that we all have blind spots. Maybe someone will look at the case with fresh eyes and think of something else.

 

What was the most impactful outcomes of the ANAL Cancer-HSIL Outcomes Research (ANCHOR) trial?

Dr. Korman: This was a National Institutes of Health (NIH)-sponsored, randomized controlled trial with 26 clinical sites. We studied people living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), as they are the most at-risk group for anal cancer.

We were looking to prove that treating high grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL) of the anal canal would lead to a significant reduction in the rates of anal cancer. No one in the medical community would accept guidelines or recommendations about what to do with anal pre-cancers until we proved that treatment worked. 

We published the findings in 2022. The study concluded when we met our endpoint earlier than expected. We were able to prove that treating high grade anal dysplasia does indeed lead to a very significant reduction in progression to anal cancer. That ultimately led to guidelines. The International Anal Neoplasia Society came out with consensus guidelines on screening for anal cancer in January 2024. In August 2024, NIH, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Infectious Diseases Society of America came out with screening guidelines for people living with HIV. 

 

Were there any other outcomes from this research?

Dr. Korman: One of the great things about the study is that we accumulated a bank of tissue and biologic specimens. There were about 4,500 patients randomized into the trial, but about 10,000 patients screened. So, we have a massive collection of biospecimens that we can use to ask questions about the progression of HSIL to anal cancer. We would like to understand more about viral and host molecular mechanisms and hopefully find biomarkers that will identify individuals at particularly high risk of progression. It’s a more precision medicine type of approach. 

Education has been a cornerstone of your career. What’s the most rewarding part of teaching the IANS standard high resolution endoscopy course?

Dr. Korman: I first took the course in 2010, and that’s when I started my journey of learning how to perform high resolution endoscopy. Last year I was asked to help co-direct the course. It is now virtual and asynchronous where everything is recorded. But it was exciting to help reorganize the course, update the lectures, and make sure that everything is current. We get to answer questions from participants from all over the world. I think there are participants from 23 countries who have taken the course, which is amazing.

Could you share your work with the LGBTQIA+ population? What specific needs/challenges does this population have with GI care?

Dr. Korman: Many people in the sexual and gender minority community have experienced discrimination in health care settings or know of someone who has. For these reasons, LGBTQIA+ people may approach health care with the expectation of a negative encounter, or they may avoid accessing care altogether. Because anal cancer disproportionately affects sexual and gender minority communities, creating a warm, inclusive environment is key to identifying who is at risk, building trust, and ensuring patients receive the care they need. When you’re talking about anal cancer, there’s a lot of stigma and shame. I think people are afraid to seek care.

Gastroenterology has traditionally been an “old boys club” but that is changing. We’re trying to work on educating people on how to recognize their own biases and move beyond them to provide care that’s affirming and where people feel that they have a safe space to talk about their concerns. Men who have sex with men, in particular living with HIV, are at the highest risk of developing anal cancer. If you don’t know that your patient is a man who has sex with men, or they don’t want to disclose that they’re living with HIV, you don’t know to screen them, and then you’re missing an opportunity to potentially prevent a cancer.

What advice would you give to aspiring medical students interested in GI?

Dr. Korman: GI is the most exciting and interesting field. We take care of so many different organs, and we’re never bored. If medical students want to get into GI, I recommend that they try to be in an office or an endoscopy center and see if it’s really for them and get some hands-on experience if possible. To be truly great at this profession, you really must see it as a calling – jump in with your whole heart and not see it as just a job. If you can do that, you’ll succeed.

How do you handle stress and maintain work-life balance?

Dr. Korman: Exercise. I try to work out at least five days a week. I can’t live without it. That keeps me going. What do I do for fun? I spend time with my family and my friends. I enjoy going to new restaurants and being outdoors, especially near a body of water. I travel, and I love watching movies. I am also guilty of binge-watching TV on a regular basis as well.

 

Lightning Round

Coffee or tea?

Coffee, 100%



What’s your favorite book?

I can’t say I have just one, but I recently read Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow and loved it



Beach vacation or mountain retreat?

Beach



Early bird or night owl?

Early bird



What’s your go-to comfort food?

Anything with bananas



If you could travel anywhere, where would you go?

Vietnam or African safari



What’s your favorite childhood memory?

Swim team when I was a kid



If you could instantly learn any skill, what would it be?

Playing the drums



Are you a planner or more spontaneous?

Planner, although it’s not my strong suit, if I’m being honest.

Jessica Korman, MD, wants to erase what she says is a stigma in the gastroenterology profession surrounding anal disease. 

“I think gastroenterologists are uniquely positioned to help with diagnosing anal diseases, in particular anal cancer,” she said. “It is part of the digestive tract, and my mission is to help gastroenterologists remember that.”

Dr. Korman is a gastroenterologist with Capital Digestive Care in Washington D.C., where she serves as chair of its Women’s Committee and as a member of the board of managers. She’s also the medical director of the Endoscopy Center of Washington D.C. 

A recipient of the 2025 AGA Distinguished Clinician Award in Private Practice, Dr. Korman has dedicated her career to educating clinicians on anal cancer screening and anal human papillomavirus. On the research front, she participated as an investigator in the ANAL Cancer-HSIL Outcomes Research (ANCHOR) trial, which led to international anal cancer screening guidelines.

She also co-directs the International Anal Neoplasia Society (IANS) Standard High Resolution Anoscopy course. 

When she’s not serving her patients, Dr. Korman speaks in the community about anal cancer awareness and screening. In the last few years, Dr. Korman has presented grand rounds at various institutions and speaks at major medical conferences. “I just try to advocate and help gastroenterologists understand who is at risk, how to look for anal cancer, how to screen, and who to refer. If anyone invites me to speak, I generally will do it,” said Dr. Korman.

In an interview, she talked about the outcomes of the ANCHOR trial and how it may inform future research, and her work to reduce bias and stigma for LGBTQ+ patients.

 

You decided to become a physician after studying in Egypt and Israel and volunteering with Physicians for Human Rights. Can you talk about that journey?

Dr. Korman: I majored in Religion and Middle East studies, and I minored in Arabic. I thought I was going to become a professor of religious studies. But during my time studying abroad and volunteering for Physicians for Human Rights, I was deeply moved by how physicians connect with the core of our shared humanity. Becoming a physician allows one to meet the most fundamental of human needs—caring for another’s health—in a direct and meaningful way.

My father is a physician, a gastroenterologist, but I never considered it as a career option growing up. The year after I graduated college, I accompanied my parents to my father’s medical school reunion and I thought, ‘Why did I never think about this?’ I decided to go back to school to take the pre-med requirements. Gastroenterology seemed to combine the ability to work with my hands, do procedures, have long-term relationships with patients, and think about complex problems.

GI medicine often involves detective work. What is the most challenging case you’ve encountered?

Dr. Korman: Sometimes the patients who have very severe disorders of gut-brain interaction can be the most challenging because finding treatments for them or getting them to a place where they accept certain types of treatment can be really difficult. And of course, you have to put your detective hat on and make sure you have ruled out all the “zebras.” It can take years to build the level of trust where patients are willing to accept the diagnosis and then pursue appropriate treatment. 

I always try my best, but I don’t like to give up. I will refer a patient to a colleague if they have a problem and I can’t figure out what the diagnosis is or find a treatment that works. I believe in second and third opinions. I recognize that there’s a limit to what my brain can do and that we all have blind spots. Maybe someone will look at the case with fresh eyes and think of something else.

 

What was the most impactful outcomes of the ANAL Cancer-HSIL Outcomes Research (ANCHOR) trial?

Dr. Korman: This was a National Institutes of Health (NIH)-sponsored, randomized controlled trial with 26 clinical sites. We studied people living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), as they are the most at-risk group for anal cancer.

We were looking to prove that treating high grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL) of the anal canal would lead to a significant reduction in the rates of anal cancer. No one in the medical community would accept guidelines or recommendations about what to do with anal pre-cancers until we proved that treatment worked. 

We published the findings in 2022. The study concluded when we met our endpoint earlier than expected. We were able to prove that treating high grade anal dysplasia does indeed lead to a very significant reduction in progression to anal cancer. That ultimately led to guidelines. The International Anal Neoplasia Society came out with consensus guidelines on screening for anal cancer in January 2024. In August 2024, NIH, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Infectious Diseases Society of America came out with screening guidelines for people living with HIV. 

 

Were there any other outcomes from this research?

Dr. Korman: One of the great things about the study is that we accumulated a bank of tissue and biologic specimens. There were about 4,500 patients randomized into the trial, but about 10,000 patients screened. So, we have a massive collection of biospecimens that we can use to ask questions about the progression of HSIL to anal cancer. We would like to understand more about viral and host molecular mechanisms and hopefully find biomarkers that will identify individuals at particularly high risk of progression. It’s a more precision medicine type of approach. 

Education has been a cornerstone of your career. What’s the most rewarding part of teaching the IANS standard high resolution endoscopy course?

Dr. Korman: I first took the course in 2010, and that’s when I started my journey of learning how to perform high resolution endoscopy. Last year I was asked to help co-direct the course. It is now virtual and asynchronous where everything is recorded. But it was exciting to help reorganize the course, update the lectures, and make sure that everything is current. We get to answer questions from participants from all over the world. I think there are participants from 23 countries who have taken the course, which is amazing.

Could you share your work with the LGBTQIA+ population? What specific needs/challenges does this population have with GI care?

Dr. Korman: Many people in the sexual and gender minority community have experienced discrimination in health care settings or know of someone who has. For these reasons, LGBTQIA+ people may approach health care with the expectation of a negative encounter, or they may avoid accessing care altogether. Because anal cancer disproportionately affects sexual and gender minority communities, creating a warm, inclusive environment is key to identifying who is at risk, building trust, and ensuring patients receive the care they need. When you’re talking about anal cancer, there’s a lot of stigma and shame. I think people are afraid to seek care.

Gastroenterology has traditionally been an “old boys club” but that is changing. We’re trying to work on educating people on how to recognize their own biases and move beyond them to provide care that’s affirming and where people feel that they have a safe space to talk about their concerns. Men who have sex with men, in particular living with HIV, are at the highest risk of developing anal cancer. If you don’t know that your patient is a man who has sex with men, or they don’t want to disclose that they’re living with HIV, you don’t know to screen them, and then you’re missing an opportunity to potentially prevent a cancer.

What advice would you give to aspiring medical students interested in GI?

Dr. Korman: GI is the most exciting and interesting field. We take care of so many different organs, and we’re never bored. If medical students want to get into GI, I recommend that they try to be in an office or an endoscopy center and see if it’s really for them and get some hands-on experience if possible. To be truly great at this profession, you really must see it as a calling – jump in with your whole heart and not see it as just a job. If you can do that, you’ll succeed.

How do you handle stress and maintain work-life balance?

Dr. Korman: Exercise. I try to work out at least five days a week. I can’t live without it. That keeps me going. What do I do for fun? I spend time with my family and my friends. I enjoy going to new restaurants and being outdoors, especially near a body of water. I travel, and I love watching movies. I am also guilty of binge-watching TV on a regular basis as well.

 

Lightning Round

Coffee or tea?

Coffee, 100%



What’s your favorite book?

I can’t say I have just one, but I recently read Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow and loved it



Beach vacation or mountain retreat?

Beach



Early bird or night owl?

Early bird



What’s your go-to comfort food?

Anything with bananas



If you could travel anywhere, where would you go?

Vietnam or African safari



What’s your favorite childhood memory?

Swim team when I was a kid



If you could instantly learn any skill, what would it be?

Playing the drums



Are you a planner or more spontaneous?

Planner, although it’s not my strong suit, if I’m being honest.

Jessica Korman, MD, wants to erase what she says is a stigma in the gastroenterology profession surrounding anal disease. 

“I think gastroenterologists are uniquely positioned to help with diagnosing anal diseases, in particular anal cancer,” she said. “It is part of the digestive tract, and my mission is to help gastroenterologists remember that.”

Dr. Korman is a gastroenterologist with Capital Digestive Care in Washington D.C., where she serves as chair of its Women’s Committee and as a member of the board of managers. She’s also the medical director of the Endoscopy Center of Washington D.C. 

A recipient of the 2025 AGA Distinguished Clinician Award in Private Practice, Dr. Korman has dedicated her career to educating clinicians on anal cancer screening and anal human papillomavirus. On the research front, she participated as an investigator in the ANAL Cancer-HSIL Outcomes Research (ANCHOR) trial, which led to international anal cancer screening guidelines.

She also co-directs the International Anal Neoplasia Society (IANS) Standard High Resolution Anoscopy course. 

When she’s not serving her patients, Dr. Korman speaks in the community about anal cancer awareness and screening. In the last few years, Dr. Korman has presented grand rounds at various institutions and speaks at major medical conferences. “I just try to advocate and help gastroenterologists understand who is at risk, how to look for anal cancer, how to screen, and who to refer. If anyone invites me to speak, I generally will do it,” said Dr. Korman.

In an interview, she talked about the outcomes of the ANCHOR trial and how it may inform future research, and her work to reduce bias and stigma for LGBTQ+ patients.

 

You decided to become a physician after studying in Egypt and Israel and volunteering with Physicians for Human Rights. Can you talk about that journey?

Dr. Korman: I majored in Religion and Middle East studies, and I minored in Arabic. I thought I was going to become a professor of religious studies. But during my time studying abroad and volunteering for Physicians for Human Rights, I was deeply moved by how physicians connect with the core of our shared humanity. Becoming a physician allows one to meet the most fundamental of human needs—caring for another’s health—in a direct and meaningful way.

My father is a physician, a gastroenterologist, but I never considered it as a career option growing up. The year after I graduated college, I accompanied my parents to my father’s medical school reunion and I thought, ‘Why did I never think about this?’ I decided to go back to school to take the pre-med requirements. Gastroenterology seemed to combine the ability to work with my hands, do procedures, have long-term relationships with patients, and think about complex problems.

GI medicine often involves detective work. What is the most challenging case you’ve encountered?

Dr. Korman: Sometimes the patients who have very severe disorders of gut-brain interaction can be the most challenging because finding treatments for them or getting them to a place where they accept certain types of treatment can be really difficult. And of course, you have to put your detective hat on and make sure you have ruled out all the “zebras.” It can take years to build the level of trust where patients are willing to accept the diagnosis and then pursue appropriate treatment. 

I always try my best, but I don’t like to give up. I will refer a patient to a colleague if they have a problem and I can’t figure out what the diagnosis is or find a treatment that works. I believe in second and third opinions. I recognize that there’s a limit to what my brain can do and that we all have blind spots. Maybe someone will look at the case with fresh eyes and think of something else.

 

What was the most impactful outcomes of the ANAL Cancer-HSIL Outcomes Research (ANCHOR) trial?

Dr. Korman: This was a National Institutes of Health (NIH)-sponsored, randomized controlled trial with 26 clinical sites. We studied people living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), as they are the most at-risk group for anal cancer.

We were looking to prove that treating high grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL) of the anal canal would lead to a significant reduction in the rates of anal cancer. No one in the medical community would accept guidelines or recommendations about what to do with anal pre-cancers until we proved that treatment worked. 

We published the findings in 2022. The study concluded when we met our endpoint earlier than expected. We were able to prove that treating high grade anal dysplasia does indeed lead to a very significant reduction in progression to anal cancer. That ultimately led to guidelines. The International Anal Neoplasia Society came out with consensus guidelines on screening for anal cancer in January 2024. In August 2024, NIH, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Infectious Diseases Society of America came out with screening guidelines for people living with HIV. 

 

Were there any other outcomes from this research?

Dr. Korman: One of the great things about the study is that we accumulated a bank of tissue and biologic specimens. There were about 4,500 patients randomized into the trial, but about 10,000 patients screened. So, we have a massive collection of biospecimens that we can use to ask questions about the progression of HSIL to anal cancer. We would like to understand more about viral and host molecular mechanisms and hopefully find biomarkers that will identify individuals at particularly high risk of progression. It’s a more precision medicine type of approach. 

Education has been a cornerstone of your career. What’s the most rewarding part of teaching the IANS standard high resolution endoscopy course?

Dr. Korman: I first took the course in 2010, and that’s when I started my journey of learning how to perform high resolution endoscopy. Last year I was asked to help co-direct the course. It is now virtual and asynchronous where everything is recorded. But it was exciting to help reorganize the course, update the lectures, and make sure that everything is current. We get to answer questions from participants from all over the world. I think there are participants from 23 countries who have taken the course, which is amazing.

Could you share your work with the LGBTQIA+ population? What specific needs/challenges does this population have with GI care?

Dr. Korman: Many people in the sexual and gender minority community have experienced discrimination in health care settings or know of someone who has. For these reasons, LGBTQIA+ people may approach health care with the expectation of a negative encounter, or they may avoid accessing care altogether. Because anal cancer disproportionately affects sexual and gender minority communities, creating a warm, inclusive environment is key to identifying who is at risk, building trust, and ensuring patients receive the care they need. When you’re talking about anal cancer, there’s a lot of stigma and shame. I think people are afraid to seek care.

Gastroenterology has traditionally been an “old boys club” but that is changing. We’re trying to work on educating people on how to recognize their own biases and move beyond them to provide care that’s affirming and where people feel that they have a safe space to talk about their concerns. Men who have sex with men, in particular living with HIV, are at the highest risk of developing anal cancer. If you don’t know that your patient is a man who has sex with men, or they don’t want to disclose that they’re living with HIV, you don’t know to screen them, and then you’re missing an opportunity to potentially prevent a cancer.

What advice would you give to aspiring medical students interested in GI?

Dr. Korman: GI is the most exciting and interesting field. We take care of so many different organs, and we’re never bored. If medical students want to get into GI, I recommend that they try to be in an office or an endoscopy center and see if it’s really for them and get some hands-on experience if possible. To be truly great at this profession, you really must see it as a calling – jump in with your whole heart and not see it as just a job. If you can do that, you’ll succeed.

How do you handle stress and maintain work-life balance?

Dr. Korman: Exercise. I try to work out at least five days a week. I can’t live without it. That keeps me going. What do I do for fun? I spend time with my family and my friends. I enjoy going to new restaurants and being outdoors, especially near a body of water. I travel, and I love watching movies. I am also guilty of binge-watching TV on a regular basis as well.

 

Lightning Round

Coffee or tea?

Coffee, 100%



What’s your favorite book?

I can’t say I have just one, but I recently read Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow and loved it



Beach vacation or mountain retreat?

Beach



Early bird or night owl?

Early bird



What’s your go-to comfort food?

Anything with bananas



If you could travel anywhere, where would you go?

Vietnam or African safari



What’s your favorite childhood memory?

Swim team when I was a kid



If you could instantly learn any skill, what would it be?

Playing the drums



Are you a planner or more spontaneous?

Planner, although it’s not my strong suit, if I’m being honest.

TOPLINE:

An artificial intelligence (AI) system flagged high-risk areas on mammograms for potentially missed interval breast cancers (IBCs), which radiologists had also retrospectively identified as abnormal. Moreover, the AI detected a substantial number of IBCs that manual review had overlooked.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective analysis of 119 IBC screening mammograms of women (mean age, 57.3 years) with a high breast density (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System [BI-RADS] c/d, 63.0%) using data retrieved from Cancer Registries of Eastern Switzerland and Grisons-Glarus databases.
• A recorded tumour was classified as IBC when an invasive or in situ BC was diagnosed within 24 months after a normal screening mammogram.
• Three radiologists retrospectively assessed the mammograms for visible signs of BC, which were then classified as either potentially missed IBCs or IBCs without retrospective abnormalities on the basis of consensus conference recommendations of radiologists.
• An AI system generated two scores (a scale of 0 to 100): a case score reflecting the likelihood that the mammogram currently harbours cancer and a risk score estimating the probability of a BC diagnosis within 2 years.

TAKEAWAY:

• Radiologists classified 68.9% of IBCs as those having no retrospective abnormalities and assigned significantly higher BI-RADS scores to the remaining 31.1% of potentially missed IBCs (P < .05).
• Potentially missed IBCs received significantly higher AI case scores (mean, 54.1 vs 23.1; P < .05) and were assigned to a higher risk category (48.7% vs 14.6%; P < .05) than IBCs without retrospective abnormalities.
• Of all IBC cases, 46.2% received an AI case score > 25, 25.2% scored > 50, and 13.4% scored > 75.
• Potentially missed IBCs scored widely between low and high risk and case scores, whereas IBCs without retrospective abnormalities scored low case and risk scores. Specifically, 73.0% of potentially missed IBCs vs 34.1% of IBCs without retrospective abnormalities had case scores > 25, 51.4% vs 13.4% had case scores > 50, and 29.7% vs 6.1% had case scores > 75.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our research highlights that an AI system can identify BC signs in relevant portions of IBC screening mammograms and thus potentially reduce the number of IBCs in an MSP [mammography screening program] that currently does not utilize an AI system,” the authors of the study concluded, adding that “it can identify some IBCs that are not visible to humans (IBCs without retrospective abnormalities).”

SOURCE:

This study was led by Jonas Subelack, Chair of Health Economics, Policy and Management, School of Medicine, University of St. Gallen, St. Gallen, Switzerland. It was published online in European Radiology.

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective study design inherently limited causal conclusions. Without access to diagnostic mammograms or the detailed position of BC, researchers could not evaluate whether AI-marked lesions corresponded to later detected BCs.

DISCLOSURES:

This research was funded by the Cancer League of Eastern Switzerland. One author reported receiving consulting and speaker fees from iCAD.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

An artificial intelligence (AI) system flagged high-risk areas on mammograms for potentially missed interval breast cancers (IBCs), which radiologists had also retrospectively identified as abnormal. Moreover, the AI detected a substantial number of IBCs that manual review had overlooked.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective analysis of 119 IBC screening mammograms of women (mean age, 57.3 years) with a high breast density (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System [BI-RADS] c/d, 63.0%) using data retrieved from Cancer Registries of Eastern Switzerland and Grisons-Glarus databases.
• A recorded tumour was classified as IBC when an invasive or in situ BC was diagnosed within 24 months after a normal screening mammogram.
• Three radiologists retrospectively assessed the mammograms for visible signs of BC, which were then classified as either potentially missed IBCs or IBCs without retrospective abnormalities on the basis of consensus conference recommendations of radiologists.
• An AI system generated two scores (a scale of 0 to 100): a case score reflecting the likelihood that the mammogram currently harbours cancer and a risk score estimating the probability of a BC diagnosis within 2 years.

TAKEAWAY:

• Radiologists classified 68.9% of IBCs as those having no retrospective abnormalities and assigned significantly higher BI-RADS scores to the remaining 31.1% of potentially missed IBCs (P < .05).
• Potentially missed IBCs received significantly higher AI case scores (mean, 54.1 vs 23.1; P < .05) and were assigned to a higher risk category (48.7% vs 14.6%; P < .05) than IBCs without retrospective abnormalities.
• Of all IBC cases, 46.2% received an AI case score > 25, 25.2% scored > 50, and 13.4% scored > 75.
• Potentially missed IBCs scored widely between low and high risk and case scores, whereas IBCs without retrospective abnormalities scored low case and risk scores. Specifically, 73.0% of potentially missed IBCs vs 34.1% of IBCs without retrospective abnormalities had case scores > 25, 51.4% vs 13.4% had case scores > 50, and 29.7% vs 6.1% had case scores > 75.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our research highlights that an AI system can identify BC signs in relevant portions of IBC screening mammograms and thus potentially reduce the number of IBCs in an MSP [mammography screening program] that currently does not utilize an AI system,” the authors of the study concluded, adding that “it can identify some IBCs that are not visible to humans (IBCs without retrospective abnormalities).”

SOURCE:

This study was led by Jonas Subelack, Chair of Health Economics, Policy and Management, School of Medicine, University of St. Gallen, St. Gallen, Switzerland. It was published online in European Radiology.

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective study design inherently limited causal conclusions. Without access to diagnostic mammograms or the detailed position of BC, researchers could not evaluate whether AI-marked lesions corresponded to later detected BCs.

DISCLOSURES:

This research was funded by the Cancer League of Eastern Switzerland. One author reported receiving consulting and speaker fees from iCAD.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

An artificial intelligence (AI) system flagged high-risk areas on mammograms for potentially missed interval breast cancers (IBCs), which radiologists had also retrospectively identified as abnormal. Moreover, the AI detected a substantial number of IBCs that manual review had overlooked.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective analysis of 119 IBC screening mammograms of women (mean age, 57.3 years) with a high breast density (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System [BI-RADS] c/d, 63.0%) using data retrieved from Cancer Registries of Eastern Switzerland and Grisons-Glarus databases.
• A recorded tumour was classified as IBC when an invasive or in situ BC was diagnosed within 24 months after a normal screening mammogram.
• Three radiologists retrospectively assessed the mammograms for visible signs of BC, which were then classified as either potentially missed IBCs or IBCs without retrospective abnormalities on the basis of consensus conference recommendations of radiologists.
• An AI system generated two scores (a scale of 0 to 100): a case score reflecting the likelihood that the mammogram currently harbours cancer and a risk score estimating the probability of a BC diagnosis within 2 years.

TAKEAWAY:

• Radiologists classified 68.9% of IBCs as those having no retrospective abnormalities and assigned significantly higher BI-RADS scores to the remaining 31.1% of potentially missed IBCs (P < .05).
• Potentially missed IBCs received significantly higher AI case scores (mean, 54.1 vs 23.1; P < .05) and were assigned to a higher risk category (48.7% vs 14.6%; P < .05) than IBCs without retrospective abnormalities.
• Of all IBC cases, 46.2% received an AI case score > 25, 25.2% scored > 50, and 13.4% scored > 75.
• Potentially missed IBCs scored widely between low and high risk and case scores, whereas IBCs without retrospective abnormalities scored low case and risk scores. Specifically, 73.0% of potentially missed IBCs vs 34.1% of IBCs without retrospective abnormalities had case scores > 25, 51.4% vs 13.4% had case scores > 50, and 29.7% vs 6.1% had case scores > 75.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our research highlights that an AI system can identify BC signs in relevant portions of IBC screening mammograms and thus potentially reduce the number of IBCs in an MSP [mammography screening program] that currently does not utilize an AI system,” the authors of the study concluded, adding that “it can identify some IBCs that are not visible to humans (IBCs without retrospective abnormalities).”

SOURCE:

This study was led by Jonas Subelack, Chair of Health Economics, Policy and Management, School of Medicine, University of St. Gallen, St. Gallen, Switzerland. It was published online in European Radiology.

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective study design inherently limited causal conclusions. Without access to diagnostic mammograms or the detailed position of BC, researchers could not evaluate whether AI-marked lesions corresponded to later detected BCs.

DISCLOSURES:

This research was funded by the Cancer League of Eastern Switzerland. One author reported receiving consulting and speaker fees from iCAD.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

For > 10 years, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Office of Inspector General (OIG) has annually surveyed Veterans Health Administration (VHA) facilities about staffing. Its recently released report is the 8th to find severe shortages—in this case, across the board. There were 4434 severe staffing shortages reported across all 139 VHA facilities in fiscal year (FY) 2025, a 50% increase from FY 2024.

In the OIG report lexicon, a severe shortage refers to "particular occupations that are difficult to fill," and is not necessarily an indication of vacancies. Vacancy refers to a "specific unoccupied position and is distinct from the designation of a severe shortage." For example, a facility could identify an occupation as a severe occupational shortage, which could have no vacant positions or 100 vacant positions.

Nearly all facilities (94%) had severe shortages for medical officers, and 79% had severe shortages for nurses even with VHA's ability to make noncompetitive appointments for those occupations. Psychology was the most frequently reported severe clinical occupational staffing shortage, reported by 79 facilities (57%), down slightly from FY 2024 (61%). One facility reported 116 clinical occupational shortages.

The report notes that the OIG does not verify or otherwise confirm the questionnaire responses, but it appears to support other data. In the first 9 months of FY 2024, the VA added 223 physicians and 3196 nurses compared with a deficit of 781 physicians and 2129 nurses over the same period in FY 2025.

VHA facilities are finding it hard to reverse the trend. According to internal documents examined by ProPublica, nearly 4 in 10 of the roughly 2000 doctors offered jobs from January through March 2025 turned them down, 4 times the rate in the same time period in 2024. VHA also lost twice as many nurses as it hired between January and June. Many potential candidates reportedly were worried about the stability of VA employment.

VA spokesperson Peter Kasperowicz did not dispute the ProPublica findings but accused the news outlet of bias and "cherry-picking issues that are mostly routine." A nationwide shortage of health care workers has made hiring and retention difficult, he said.

Kasperowicz said the VA is "working to address" the number of doctors declining job offers by speeding up the hiring process and that the agency "has several strategies to navigate shortages." Those include referring veterans to telehealth and private clinicians.

In a statement released Aug. 12, Sen Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), ranking member of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, said, "This report confirms what we've warned for months—this Administration is driving dedicated VA employees to the private sector at untenable rates."

The OIG survey did not ask about facilities' rationales for identifying shortages. Moreover, the OIG says the responses don't reflect the possible impacts of "workforce reshaping efforts," such as the Deferred Resignation Program announced on January 28, 2025.

In response to the OIG report, Kasperowicz said it is "not based on actual VA health care facility vacancies and therefore is not a reliable indicator of staffing shortages." In a statement to CBS News, he added, "The report simply lists occupations facilities feel are difficult for which to recruit and retain, so the results are completely subjective, not standardized, and unreliable." According to Kasperowicz, the system-wide vacancy rates for doctors and nurses are 14% and 10%, respectively, which are in line with historical averages.

The OIG made no recommendations but "encourages VA leaders to use these review results to inform staffing initiatives and organizational change."

For > 10 years, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Office of Inspector General (OIG) has annually surveyed Veterans Health Administration (VHA) facilities about staffing. Its recently released report is the 8th to find severe shortages—in this case, across the board. There were 4434 severe staffing shortages reported across all 139 VHA facilities in fiscal year (FY) 2025, a 50% increase from FY 2024.

In the OIG report lexicon, a severe shortage refers to "particular occupations that are difficult to fill," and is not necessarily an indication of vacancies. Vacancy refers to a "specific unoccupied position and is distinct from the designation of a severe shortage." For example, a facility could identify an occupation as a severe occupational shortage, which could have no vacant positions or 100 vacant positions.

Nearly all facilities (94%) had severe shortages for medical officers, and 79% had severe shortages for nurses even with VHA's ability to make noncompetitive appointments for those occupations. Psychology was the most frequently reported severe clinical occupational staffing shortage, reported by 79 facilities (57%), down slightly from FY 2024 (61%). One facility reported 116 clinical occupational shortages.

The report notes that the OIG does not verify or otherwise confirm the questionnaire responses, but it appears to support other data. In the first 9 months of FY 2024, the VA added 223 physicians and 3196 nurses compared with a deficit of 781 physicians and 2129 nurses over the same period in FY 2025.

VHA facilities are finding it hard to reverse the trend. According to internal documents examined by ProPublica, nearly 4 in 10 of the roughly 2000 doctors offered jobs from January through March 2025 turned them down, 4 times the rate in the same time period in 2024. VHA also lost twice as many nurses as it hired between January and June. Many potential candidates reportedly were worried about the stability of VA employment.

VA spokesperson Peter Kasperowicz did not dispute the ProPublica findings but accused the news outlet of bias and "cherry-picking issues that are mostly routine." A nationwide shortage of health care workers has made hiring and retention difficult, he said.

Kasperowicz said the VA is "working to address" the number of doctors declining job offers by speeding up the hiring process and that the agency "has several strategies to navigate shortages." Those include referring veterans to telehealth and private clinicians.

In a statement released Aug. 12, Sen Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), ranking member of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, said, "This report confirms what we've warned for months—this Administration is driving dedicated VA employees to the private sector at untenable rates."

The OIG survey did not ask about facilities' rationales for identifying shortages. Moreover, the OIG says the responses don't reflect the possible impacts of "workforce reshaping efforts," such as the Deferred Resignation Program announced on January 28, 2025.

In response to the OIG report, Kasperowicz said it is "not based on actual VA health care facility vacancies and therefore is not a reliable indicator of staffing shortages." In a statement to CBS News, he added, "The report simply lists occupations facilities feel are difficult for which to recruit and retain, so the results are completely subjective, not standardized, and unreliable." According to Kasperowicz, the system-wide vacancy rates for doctors and nurses are 14% and 10%, respectively, which are in line with historical averages.

The OIG made no recommendations but "encourages VA leaders to use these review results to inform staffing initiatives and organizational change."

For > 10 years, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Office of Inspector General (OIG) has annually surveyed Veterans Health Administration (VHA) facilities about staffing. Its recently released report is the 8th to find severe shortages—in this case, across the board. There were 4434 severe staffing shortages reported across all 139 VHA facilities in fiscal year (FY) 2025, a 50% increase from FY 2024.

In the OIG report lexicon, a severe shortage refers to "particular occupations that are difficult to fill," and is not necessarily an indication of vacancies. Vacancy refers to a "specific unoccupied position and is distinct from the designation of a severe shortage." For example, a facility could identify an occupation as a severe occupational shortage, which could have no vacant positions or 100 vacant positions.

Nearly all facilities (94%) had severe shortages for medical officers, and 79% had severe shortages for nurses even with VHA's ability to make noncompetitive appointments for those occupations. Psychology was the most frequently reported severe clinical occupational staffing shortage, reported by 79 facilities (57%), down slightly from FY 2024 (61%). One facility reported 116 clinical occupational shortages.

The report notes that the OIG does not verify or otherwise confirm the questionnaire responses, but it appears to support other data. In the first 9 months of FY 2024, the VA added 223 physicians and 3196 nurses compared with a deficit of 781 physicians and 2129 nurses over the same period in FY 2025.

VHA facilities are finding it hard to reverse the trend. According to internal documents examined by ProPublica, nearly 4 in 10 of the roughly 2000 doctors offered jobs from January through March 2025 turned them down, 4 times the rate in the same time period in 2024. VHA also lost twice as many nurses as it hired between January and June. Many potential candidates reportedly were worried about the stability of VA employment.

VA spokesperson Peter Kasperowicz did not dispute the ProPublica findings but accused the news outlet of bias and "cherry-picking issues that are mostly routine." A nationwide shortage of health care workers has made hiring and retention difficult, he said.

Kasperowicz said the VA is "working to address" the number of doctors declining job offers by speeding up the hiring process and that the agency "has several strategies to navigate shortages." Those include referring veterans to telehealth and private clinicians.

In a statement released Aug. 12, Sen Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), ranking member of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, said, "This report confirms what we've warned for months—this Administration is driving dedicated VA employees to the private sector at untenable rates."

The OIG survey did not ask about facilities' rationales for identifying shortages. Moreover, the OIG says the responses don't reflect the possible impacts of "workforce reshaping efforts," such as the Deferred Resignation Program announced on January 28, 2025.

In response to the OIG report, Kasperowicz said it is "not based on actual VA health care facility vacancies and therefore is not a reliable indicator of staffing shortages." In a statement to CBS News, he added, "The report simply lists occupations facilities feel are difficult for which to recruit and retain, so the results are completely subjective, not standardized, and unreliable." According to Kasperowicz, the system-wide vacancy rates for doctors and nurses are 14% and 10%, respectively, which are in line with historical averages.

The OIG made no recommendations but "encourages VA leaders to use these review results to inform staffing initiatives and organizational change."

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is on pace to cut nearly 30,000 positions by the end of fiscal year 2025, an initiative driven by a federal hiring freeze, deferred resignations, retirements, and normal attrition. According to the VA Workforce Dashboard, health care experienced the most significant net change through the first 9 months of fiscal year 2025. That included 2129 fewer registered nurses, 751 fewer physicians, and drops of 565 licensed practical nurses, 564 nurse assistants, and 1294 medical support assistants. In total, nearly 17,000 VA employees have left their jobs and 12,000 more are expected to leave by the end of September 2025.

According to VA Secretary Doug Collins, the departures have eliminated the need for the "large-scale" reduction-in-force that he proposed earlier in 2025.

The VA also announced that in accordance with an Executive Order issued by President Donald Trump, it is terminating collective bargaining rights for most of its employees, including most clinical staff not in leadership positions. The order includes the National Nurses Organizing Committee/National Nurses United, which represents 16,000 VA nurses, and the American Federation of Government Employees, which represents 320,000 VA employees. The order exempted police officers, firefighters, and security guards. The Unions have indicated they will continue to fight the changes.

VA staffing has undergone significant reversals over the past year. The VA added 223 physicians and 3196 nurses in the first 9 months of fiscal year 2024 before reversing course this year. According to the Workforce Dashboard, the VA and Veterans Health Administration combined to hire 26,984 employees in fiscal year 2025. Cumulative losses, however, totaled 54,308.

During exit interviews, VA employees noted a variety of reasons for their departure. "Personal/family matters" and "geographic relocation" were cited by many job categories. In addition, medical and dental workers also noted "poor working relationship with supervisor or coworker(s)," "desired work schedule not offered," and "job stress/pressure" among the causes. The VA has lost 148 psychologists in fiscal year 2025 who cited "lack of trust/confidence in senior leaders," as well as "policy or technology barriers to getting the work done," and "job stress/pressure" among their reasons for departure.

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is on pace to cut nearly 30,000 positions by the end of fiscal year 2025, an initiative driven by a federal hiring freeze, deferred resignations, retirements, and normal attrition. According to the VA Workforce Dashboard, health care experienced the most significant net change through the first 9 months of fiscal year 2025. That included 2129 fewer registered nurses, 751 fewer physicians, and drops of 565 licensed practical nurses, 564 nurse assistants, and 1294 medical support assistants. In total, nearly 17,000 VA employees have left their jobs and 12,000 more are expected to leave by the end of September 2025.

According to VA Secretary Doug Collins, the departures have eliminated the need for the "large-scale" reduction-in-force that he proposed earlier in 2025.

The VA also announced that in accordance with an Executive Order issued by President Donald Trump, it is terminating collective bargaining rights for most of its employees, including most clinical staff not in leadership positions. The order includes the National Nurses Organizing Committee/National Nurses United, which represents 16,000 VA nurses, and the American Federation of Government Employees, which represents 320,000 VA employees. The order exempted police officers, firefighters, and security guards. The Unions have indicated they will continue to fight the changes.

VA staffing has undergone significant reversals over the past year. The VA added 223 physicians and 3196 nurses in the first 9 months of fiscal year 2024 before reversing course this year. According to the Workforce Dashboard, the VA and Veterans Health Administration combined to hire 26,984 employees in fiscal year 2025. Cumulative losses, however, totaled 54,308.

During exit interviews, VA employees noted a variety of reasons for their departure. "Personal/family matters" and "geographic relocation" were cited by many job categories. In addition, medical and dental workers also noted "poor working relationship with supervisor or coworker(s)," "desired work schedule not offered," and "job stress/pressure" among the causes. The VA has lost 148 psychologists in fiscal year 2025 who cited "lack of trust/confidence in senior leaders," as well as "policy or technology barriers to getting the work done," and "job stress/pressure" among their reasons for departure.

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is on pace to cut nearly 30,000 positions by the end of fiscal year 2025, an initiative driven by a federal hiring freeze, deferred resignations, retirements, and normal attrition. According to the VA Workforce Dashboard, health care experienced the most significant net change through the first 9 months of fiscal year 2025. That included 2129 fewer registered nurses, 751 fewer physicians, and drops of 565 licensed practical nurses, 564 nurse assistants, and 1294 medical support assistants. In total, nearly 17,000 VA employees have left their jobs and 12,000 more are expected to leave by the end of September 2025.

According to VA Secretary Doug Collins, the departures have eliminated the need for the "large-scale" reduction-in-force that he proposed earlier in 2025.

The VA also announced that in accordance with an Executive Order issued by President Donald Trump, it is terminating collective bargaining rights for most of its employees, including most clinical staff not in leadership positions. The order includes the National Nurses Organizing Committee/National Nurses United, which represents 16,000 VA nurses, and the American Federation of Government Employees, which represents 320,000 VA employees. The order exempted police officers, firefighters, and security guards. The Unions have indicated they will continue to fight the changes.

VA staffing has undergone significant reversals over the past year. The VA added 223 physicians and 3196 nurses in the first 9 months of fiscal year 2024 before reversing course this year. According to the Workforce Dashboard, the VA and Veterans Health Administration combined to hire 26,984 employees in fiscal year 2025. Cumulative losses, however, totaled 54,308.

During exit interviews, VA employees noted a variety of reasons for their departure. "Personal/family matters" and "geographic relocation" were cited by many job categories. In addition, medical and dental workers also noted "poor working relationship with supervisor or coworker(s)," "desired work schedule not offered," and "job stress/pressure" among the causes. The VA has lost 148 psychologists in fiscal year 2025 who cited "lack of trust/confidence in senior leaders," as well as "policy or technology barriers to getting the work done," and "job stress/pressure" among their reasons for departure.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said on July 28 that he will work to “fix” the program that compensates victims of vaccine injuries, the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.

Kennedy, a long-time vaccine skeptic and former vaccine injury plaintiff lawyer, accused the program and its so-called “Vaccine Court” of corruption and inefficiency in a post on X. He has long been an outspoken critic of the program.

“I will not allow the VICP to continue to ignore its mandate and fail its mission of quickly and fairly compensating vaccine-injured individuals,” he wrote, adding he was working with Attorney General Pam Bondi. “Together, we will steer the Vaccine Court back to its original congressional intent.”

He said the structure disadvantaged claimants because the Department of Health & Human Services – which he now leads – is the defendant, as opposed to vaccine makers.

Changing the VICP would be the latest in a series of far-reaching actions by Kennedy to reshape U.S. regulation of vaccines, food and medicine.

In June, he fired all 17 members of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, a panel of vaccine experts, replacing them with 7 handpicked members, including known vaccine skeptics.

One of them earned thousands of dollars as an expert witness in litigation against Merck’s, Gardasil vaccine, court records show. Kennedy himself played an instrumental role in organizing mass litigation over the vaccine.

He also is planning to remove all the members of another advisory panel that determines what preventive health measures insurers must cover, the Wall Street Journal reported on July 25. An HHS spokesperson said Kennedy had not yet made a decision regarding the 16-member U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

Kennedy has for years sown doubt about the safety and efficacy of vaccines. He has a history of clashing with the medical establishment and spreading misinformation about vaccines, including promoting a debunked link between vaccines and autism despite scientific evidence to the contrary.

He has also said the measles vaccine contains cells from aborted fetuses and that the mumps vaccination does not work, comments he made as the U.S. battles one of its worst outbreaks of measles in 25 years.

Kennedy made millions over the years from advocating against vaccines through case referrals, book sales, and consulting fees paid by a nonprofit he founded, according to ethics disclosures.

(Reporting by Ahmed Aboulenein; Additional reporting by Ryan Patrick Jones in Toronto; Editing by Doina Chiacu and Nia Williams)

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said on July 28 that he will work to “fix” the program that compensates victims of vaccine injuries, the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.

Kennedy, a long-time vaccine skeptic and former vaccine injury plaintiff lawyer, accused the program and its so-called “Vaccine Court” of corruption and inefficiency in a post on X. He has long been an outspoken critic of the program.

“I will not allow the VICP to continue to ignore its mandate and fail its mission of quickly and fairly compensating vaccine-injured individuals,” he wrote, adding he was working with Attorney General Pam Bondi. “Together, we will steer the Vaccine Court back to its original congressional intent.”

He said the structure disadvantaged claimants because the Department of Health & Human Services – which he now leads – is the defendant, as opposed to vaccine makers.

Changing the VICP would be the latest in a series of far-reaching actions by Kennedy to reshape U.S. regulation of vaccines, food and medicine.

In June, he fired all 17 members of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, a panel of vaccine experts, replacing them with 7 handpicked members, including known vaccine skeptics.

One of them earned thousands of dollars as an expert witness in litigation against Merck’s, Gardasil vaccine, court records show. Kennedy himself played an instrumental role in organizing mass litigation over the vaccine.

He also is planning to remove all the members of another advisory panel that determines what preventive health measures insurers must cover, the Wall Street Journal reported on July 25. An HHS spokesperson said Kennedy had not yet made a decision regarding the 16-member U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

Kennedy has for years sown doubt about the safety and efficacy of vaccines. He has a history of clashing with the medical establishment and spreading misinformation about vaccines, including promoting a debunked link between vaccines and autism despite scientific evidence to the contrary.

He has also said the measles vaccine contains cells from aborted fetuses and that the mumps vaccination does not work, comments he made as the U.S. battles one of its worst outbreaks of measles in 25 years.

Kennedy made millions over the years from advocating against vaccines through case referrals, book sales, and consulting fees paid by a nonprofit he founded, according to ethics disclosures.

(Reporting by Ahmed Aboulenein; Additional reporting by Ryan Patrick Jones in Toronto; Editing by Doina Chiacu and Nia Williams)

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said on July 28 that he will work to “fix” the program that compensates victims of vaccine injuries, the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.

Kennedy, a long-time vaccine skeptic and former vaccine injury plaintiff lawyer, accused the program and its so-called “Vaccine Court” of corruption and inefficiency in a post on X. He has long been an outspoken critic of the program.

“I will not allow the VICP to continue to ignore its mandate and fail its mission of quickly and fairly compensating vaccine-injured individuals,” he wrote, adding he was working with Attorney General Pam Bondi. “Together, we will steer the Vaccine Court back to its original congressional intent.”

He said the structure disadvantaged claimants because the Department of Health & Human Services – which he now leads – is the defendant, as opposed to vaccine makers.

Changing the VICP would be the latest in a series of far-reaching actions by Kennedy to reshape U.S. regulation of vaccines, food and medicine.

In June, he fired all 17 members of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, a panel of vaccine experts, replacing them with 7 handpicked members, including known vaccine skeptics.

One of them earned thousands of dollars as an expert witness in litigation against Merck’s, Gardasil vaccine, court records show. Kennedy himself played an instrumental role in organizing mass litigation over the vaccine.

He also is planning to remove all the members of another advisory panel that determines what preventive health measures insurers must cover, the Wall Street Journal reported on July 25. An HHS spokesperson said Kennedy had not yet made a decision regarding the 16-member U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

Kennedy has for years sown doubt about the safety and efficacy of vaccines. He has a history of clashing with the medical establishment and spreading misinformation about vaccines, including promoting a debunked link between vaccines and autism despite scientific evidence to the contrary.

He has also said the measles vaccine contains cells from aborted fetuses and that the mumps vaccination does not work, comments he made as the U.S. battles one of its worst outbreaks of measles in 25 years.

Kennedy made millions over the years from advocating against vaccines through case referrals, book sales, and consulting fees paid by a nonprofit he founded, according to ethics disclosures.

(Reporting by Ahmed Aboulenein; Additional reporting by Ryan Patrick Jones in Toronto; Editing by Doina Chiacu and Nia Williams)

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.