User login
When too much treatment creates more harm than good
Ann Marco, 73, who was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in late 2018, credits her oncology team for saving her life. They treated her with chemotherapy, debulking surgery, and more chemotherapy. But it is her second and current care team that helped restore Ms. Marco’s quality of life, directing her toward such resources as palliative care, physical therapy and counseling for her and her husband.
“I can’t say enough about my palliative care doctor. She helped me manage pain, and the fatigue associated with chemotherapy. When she noticed that my leg was swollen she suspected a blood clot and sent me for an ultrasound,” Ms. Marco said.
The ultrasound revealed that she did indeed have a blood clot, for which she received, and continues to receive, medication. “Because with ovarian cancer, you always have blood clots. So little things like that, though they’re not that little, have really helped me in my journey with this cancer,” Ms. Marco said.
That journey has had its ups and downs. One chemotherapy regimen was so intolerable she decided to discontinue it, with full support of her oncologist. I told her, I just want to live my life, whether that’s only 6 more months or 3 years, but I don’t want to live it like this. And she said, ‘Ann, we’re going to do what you want to do.’”
Nine months later, when her cancer started growing again, Ms. Marco returned to chemotherapy. But this regimen has been much more tolerable, and it also appears to be doing its job. A recent CT scan showed that the tumors are shrinking.
“They’ll never go away. I have metastatic cancer. But they’re smaller, and I was really thrilled about that. It’s the best news I’ve had in more than 3 years,” Ms. Marco said.
End-of-life aggressive care still common
, shows a study published in JCO Oncology Practice.
“We have good evidence that the types of aggressive end-of-life care we looked at in this paper are generally related to a lower quality of life for patients, poorer bereavement outcomes for their families, and even shorter duration survivals,” said lead author Megan A. Mullins, PhD, MPH, a postdoctoral research fellow at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. “This suggests there’s a disconnect between what people think aggressive care might do and what it’s doing.”
In their evaluation of variation in end-of-life care, Dr. Mullins and her colleagues analyzed SEER-Medicare data on 6,288 women with ovarian cancer who died between 2016 and 2020. They found that 51% of those women received some form of aggressive cancer care. The most common forms were not being admitted to hospice (28.9%), receiving an invasive procedure (20.7%) and being admitted to an intensive care unit (18.6%).
Dr. Mullins noted that since palliative care was officially recognized as a specialty in 2006, there has been increasing guidance for earlier integration of palliative care and reducing the aggressiveness of end-of-life care; both ASCO and the National Quality Form have standards advising against aggressive end-of-life care.
“But there are a lot of complicated factors that I think make it hard to move the needle in this area,” she said. “For one thing, particularly with ovarian cancer, women tend to have recurrences. I’ve spoken with physicians who got their patients through a difficult patch; they rebounded and they did fine. You don’t know for sure if that’s going to happen again if you try something else. Prognostication is not an exact science.”
Also, end-of-life discussions can be challenging conversations. “Nobody wants to take hope away from their patients. But there’s evidence to show that these conversations don’t actually reduce patients’ hopes – that’s a misconception,” Dr. Mullins said.
“It’s challenging. In the United States, we don’t like to talk about death and dying. But I think having these conversations earlier and more often can help make them a more regular part of care,” she said.
Brittany A. Davidson, MD, a gynecologic oncologist with Duke Health in Durham, N.C., who wrote an accompanying editorial, acknowledges that end-of-life can be fraught with fear, anxiety, and a lot of emotion. But she finds helping patients and their families navigate the ups and downs of their cancer one of the most rewarding aspects of her career as a physician.
“We want to help patients and their family members make these transitions as smoothly as possible,” she said.
A proponent of communications skills training for physicians in general, Dr. Brittany said doctors can learn to identify cues that patients are ready to have conversations about their end-of-life care.
“Those cues will help us facilitate conversations sooner rather than later so we’re not waiting until the very end,” she said.
What these conversations consist of varies depending on where the patient is in her cancer trajectory. In a patient with recurrent ovarian or recurrent uterine cancer, this might start with making sure the patient understands that while their cancer is treatable, it is very unlikely to be curable.
“I have often had patients who have been treated for cancer for several years and didn’t know their cancer wasn’t curable. How many missed opportunities have we overlooked?” Dr. Davidson said.
Then the conversation can turn to the goals of treatment. What’s important to the patient? “Are there events they want to be around for? Symptoms they want to avoid? Some patients really want to know what it’s going to be like to die. I try to take the lead from the patient. Ask what kind of information is helpful to them. Is it numbers? Is it symptoms? It’s really different for everybody,” Dr. Davidson said.
Although Dr. Mullins’s research and Dr. Davidson’s editorial suggest there’s room for improvement toward achieving goal-concordant care in gynecological cancers, Dr. Davidson suspects these patients might be faring a bit better than patients with other types of cancer based on her own anecdotal observations.
“One of the unique things about gynecologic oncology is that we have an amazing longitudinal relationship with our patients – we are not only their surgeons, we’re their oncologists. In other solid tumors, care is fractionated.
“That’s one of the reasons I love gynecologic oncology. I have the opportunity to know my patients through all the stages they experience as part of their cancer. I’d like to think that allows me a better opportunity to get to know them and help them recognize the value of palliative care,” Dr. Mullins said.
Ann Marco, 73, who was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in late 2018, credits her oncology team for saving her life. They treated her with chemotherapy, debulking surgery, and more chemotherapy. But it is her second and current care team that helped restore Ms. Marco’s quality of life, directing her toward such resources as palliative care, physical therapy and counseling for her and her husband.
“I can’t say enough about my palliative care doctor. She helped me manage pain, and the fatigue associated with chemotherapy. When she noticed that my leg was swollen she suspected a blood clot and sent me for an ultrasound,” Ms. Marco said.
The ultrasound revealed that she did indeed have a blood clot, for which she received, and continues to receive, medication. “Because with ovarian cancer, you always have blood clots. So little things like that, though they’re not that little, have really helped me in my journey with this cancer,” Ms. Marco said.
That journey has had its ups and downs. One chemotherapy regimen was so intolerable she decided to discontinue it, with full support of her oncologist. I told her, I just want to live my life, whether that’s only 6 more months or 3 years, but I don’t want to live it like this. And she said, ‘Ann, we’re going to do what you want to do.’”
Nine months later, when her cancer started growing again, Ms. Marco returned to chemotherapy. But this regimen has been much more tolerable, and it also appears to be doing its job. A recent CT scan showed that the tumors are shrinking.
“They’ll never go away. I have metastatic cancer. But they’re smaller, and I was really thrilled about that. It’s the best news I’ve had in more than 3 years,” Ms. Marco said.
End-of-life aggressive care still common
, shows a study published in JCO Oncology Practice.
“We have good evidence that the types of aggressive end-of-life care we looked at in this paper are generally related to a lower quality of life for patients, poorer bereavement outcomes for their families, and even shorter duration survivals,” said lead author Megan A. Mullins, PhD, MPH, a postdoctoral research fellow at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. “This suggests there’s a disconnect between what people think aggressive care might do and what it’s doing.”
In their evaluation of variation in end-of-life care, Dr. Mullins and her colleagues analyzed SEER-Medicare data on 6,288 women with ovarian cancer who died between 2016 and 2020. They found that 51% of those women received some form of aggressive cancer care. The most common forms were not being admitted to hospice (28.9%), receiving an invasive procedure (20.7%) and being admitted to an intensive care unit (18.6%).
Dr. Mullins noted that since palliative care was officially recognized as a specialty in 2006, there has been increasing guidance for earlier integration of palliative care and reducing the aggressiveness of end-of-life care; both ASCO and the National Quality Form have standards advising against aggressive end-of-life care.
“But there are a lot of complicated factors that I think make it hard to move the needle in this area,” she said. “For one thing, particularly with ovarian cancer, women tend to have recurrences. I’ve spoken with physicians who got their patients through a difficult patch; they rebounded and they did fine. You don’t know for sure if that’s going to happen again if you try something else. Prognostication is not an exact science.”
Also, end-of-life discussions can be challenging conversations. “Nobody wants to take hope away from their patients. But there’s evidence to show that these conversations don’t actually reduce patients’ hopes – that’s a misconception,” Dr. Mullins said.
“It’s challenging. In the United States, we don’t like to talk about death and dying. But I think having these conversations earlier and more often can help make them a more regular part of care,” she said.
Brittany A. Davidson, MD, a gynecologic oncologist with Duke Health in Durham, N.C., who wrote an accompanying editorial, acknowledges that end-of-life can be fraught with fear, anxiety, and a lot of emotion. But she finds helping patients and their families navigate the ups and downs of their cancer one of the most rewarding aspects of her career as a physician.
“We want to help patients and their family members make these transitions as smoothly as possible,” she said.
A proponent of communications skills training for physicians in general, Dr. Brittany said doctors can learn to identify cues that patients are ready to have conversations about their end-of-life care.
“Those cues will help us facilitate conversations sooner rather than later so we’re not waiting until the very end,” she said.
What these conversations consist of varies depending on where the patient is in her cancer trajectory. In a patient with recurrent ovarian or recurrent uterine cancer, this might start with making sure the patient understands that while their cancer is treatable, it is very unlikely to be curable.
“I have often had patients who have been treated for cancer for several years and didn’t know their cancer wasn’t curable. How many missed opportunities have we overlooked?” Dr. Davidson said.
Then the conversation can turn to the goals of treatment. What’s important to the patient? “Are there events they want to be around for? Symptoms they want to avoid? Some patients really want to know what it’s going to be like to die. I try to take the lead from the patient. Ask what kind of information is helpful to them. Is it numbers? Is it symptoms? It’s really different for everybody,” Dr. Davidson said.
Although Dr. Mullins’s research and Dr. Davidson’s editorial suggest there’s room for improvement toward achieving goal-concordant care in gynecological cancers, Dr. Davidson suspects these patients might be faring a bit better than patients with other types of cancer based on her own anecdotal observations.
“One of the unique things about gynecologic oncology is that we have an amazing longitudinal relationship with our patients – we are not only their surgeons, we’re their oncologists. In other solid tumors, care is fractionated.
“That’s one of the reasons I love gynecologic oncology. I have the opportunity to know my patients through all the stages they experience as part of their cancer. I’d like to think that allows me a better opportunity to get to know them and help them recognize the value of palliative care,” Dr. Mullins said.
Ann Marco, 73, who was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in late 2018, credits her oncology team for saving her life. They treated her with chemotherapy, debulking surgery, and more chemotherapy. But it is her second and current care team that helped restore Ms. Marco’s quality of life, directing her toward such resources as palliative care, physical therapy and counseling for her and her husband.
“I can’t say enough about my palliative care doctor. She helped me manage pain, and the fatigue associated with chemotherapy. When she noticed that my leg was swollen she suspected a blood clot and sent me for an ultrasound,” Ms. Marco said.
The ultrasound revealed that she did indeed have a blood clot, for which she received, and continues to receive, medication. “Because with ovarian cancer, you always have blood clots. So little things like that, though they’re not that little, have really helped me in my journey with this cancer,” Ms. Marco said.
That journey has had its ups and downs. One chemotherapy regimen was so intolerable she decided to discontinue it, with full support of her oncologist. I told her, I just want to live my life, whether that’s only 6 more months or 3 years, but I don’t want to live it like this. And she said, ‘Ann, we’re going to do what you want to do.’”
Nine months later, when her cancer started growing again, Ms. Marco returned to chemotherapy. But this regimen has been much more tolerable, and it also appears to be doing its job. A recent CT scan showed that the tumors are shrinking.
“They’ll never go away. I have metastatic cancer. But they’re smaller, and I was really thrilled about that. It’s the best news I’ve had in more than 3 years,” Ms. Marco said.
End-of-life aggressive care still common
, shows a study published in JCO Oncology Practice.
“We have good evidence that the types of aggressive end-of-life care we looked at in this paper are generally related to a lower quality of life for patients, poorer bereavement outcomes for their families, and even shorter duration survivals,” said lead author Megan A. Mullins, PhD, MPH, a postdoctoral research fellow at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. “This suggests there’s a disconnect between what people think aggressive care might do and what it’s doing.”
In their evaluation of variation in end-of-life care, Dr. Mullins and her colleagues analyzed SEER-Medicare data on 6,288 women with ovarian cancer who died between 2016 and 2020. They found that 51% of those women received some form of aggressive cancer care. The most common forms were not being admitted to hospice (28.9%), receiving an invasive procedure (20.7%) and being admitted to an intensive care unit (18.6%).
Dr. Mullins noted that since palliative care was officially recognized as a specialty in 2006, there has been increasing guidance for earlier integration of palliative care and reducing the aggressiveness of end-of-life care; both ASCO and the National Quality Form have standards advising against aggressive end-of-life care.
“But there are a lot of complicated factors that I think make it hard to move the needle in this area,” she said. “For one thing, particularly with ovarian cancer, women tend to have recurrences. I’ve spoken with physicians who got their patients through a difficult patch; they rebounded and they did fine. You don’t know for sure if that’s going to happen again if you try something else. Prognostication is not an exact science.”
Also, end-of-life discussions can be challenging conversations. “Nobody wants to take hope away from their patients. But there’s evidence to show that these conversations don’t actually reduce patients’ hopes – that’s a misconception,” Dr. Mullins said.
“It’s challenging. In the United States, we don’t like to talk about death and dying. But I think having these conversations earlier and more often can help make them a more regular part of care,” she said.
Brittany A. Davidson, MD, a gynecologic oncologist with Duke Health in Durham, N.C., who wrote an accompanying editorial, acknowledges that end-of-life can be fraught with fear, anxiety, and a lot of emotion. But she finds helping patients and their families navigate the ups and downs of their cancer one of the most rewarding aspects of her career as a physician.
“We want to help patients and their family members make these transitions as smoothly as possible,” she said.
A proponent of communications skills training for physicians in general, Dr. Brittany said doctors can learn to identify cues that patients are ready to have conversations about their end-of-life care.
“Those cues will help us facilitate conversations sooner rather than later so we’re not waiting until the very end,” she said.
What these conversations consist of varies depending on where the patient is in her cancer trajectory. In a patient with recurrent ovarian or recurrent uterine cancer, this might start with making sure the patient understands that while their cancer is treatable, it is very unlikely to be curable.
“I have often had patients who have been treated for cancer for several years and didn’t know their cancer wasn’t curable. How many missed opportunities have we overlooked?” Dr. Davidson said.
Then the conversation can turn to the goals of treatment. What’s important to the patient? “Are there events they want to be around for? Symptoms they want to avoid? Some patients really want to know what it’s going to be like to die. I try to take the lead from the patient. Ask what kind of information is helpful to them. Is it numbers? Is it symptoms? It’s really different for everybody,” Dr. Davidson said.
Although Dr. Mullins’s research and Dr. Davidson’s editorial suggest there’s room for improvement toward achieving goal-concordant care in gynecological cancers, Dr. Davidson suspects these patients might be faring a bit better than patients with other types of cancer based on her own anecdotal observations.
“One of the unique things about gynecologic oncology is that we have an amazing longitudinal relationship with our patients – we are not only their surgeons, we’re their oncologists. In other solid tumors, care is fractionated.
“That’s one of the reasons I love gynecologic oncology. I have the opportunity to know my patients through all the stages they experience as part of their cancer. I’d like to think that allows me a better opportunity to get to know them and help them recognize the value of palliative care,” Dr. Mullins said.
More Black mothers deliver by cesarean, not always by choice
When 29-year-old Sakeenah Fowler was pregnant with her first child, doctors kept a close watch. Ms. Fowler has lupus, high blood pressure, a history of blood clotting, and kidney problems that all could have endangered her or the health of her unborn baby.
She saw maternal-fetal specialists who could keep watch of her high-risk pregnancy, and she collected urine samples every 24 hours to make sure her kidneys were functioning properly from her home in Roebuck, S.C.
But the pregnancy ultimately proved uneventful; even her kidneys remained stable. So Ms. Fowler said she was shocked when her doctors ordered an emergency cesarean delivery after she had gone into active labor.
“I was already dilated all the way to 6 cm,” but the baby’s heart rate had decreased by a small amount, she says. “They thought it was best to just go ahead with a C-section.”
Ms. Fowler, who is Black, said she believes the surgical intervention was unnecessary and that she wasn’t given a chance to discuss her options for a vaginal childbirth.
“They already had it in their minds that I wasn’t going to make it through the pregnancy without any issues; then when I did, it was like they wanted to find something that made me have to have a C-section,” Ms. Fowler said. “It was close to the holidays; everybody was ready to go home. It was just like I was pushed to do what they wanted me to do.”
Ms. Fowler’s sense of a lack of choice is important beyond the measure of patient experience. While cesarean deliveries can be a lifeline for mother and baby, they can put up massive roadblocks to maternal and infant health when not necessary.
“The risk of hemorrhage, infection – on average, all of these go up when you have surgery instead of a vaginal delivery,” says Kimberly B. Glazer, PhD, a perinatal epidemiologist at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.
“Birth is one of the most salient experiences you can have. People want to feel like their values and preferences – whatever they may be – were honored and respected. Even if the delivery goes a different way than you wanted, feeling like your values were taken into account is very important.”
More than 1 million women undergo cesarean deliveries in the United States every year, composing over 31% of all births in 2020, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The World Health Organization, meanwhile, recommends a rate of cesarean delivery of no more than 15% per region. Whether or not all the U.S. procedures were medically warranted is unclear, however.
Black women have higher odds of undergoing a cesarean: 36% undergo surgical deliveries annually, compared with about 30% of White women. Black women are also about three times more likely to die of pregnancy-related causes than White women.
Risk becomes reality
Ms. Fowler eventually developed an infection in her cesarean surgical wound, but her doctors initially insisted her alternating chills and fever were merely postpartum hormonal swings, she says.
“I thought something had to be wrong, but they just kept saying nothing was wrong,” she says.
By the time her doctors caught the infection, Ms. Fowler was readmitted to the hospital for several days of IV antibiotic therapy. The infection “almost got into my bloodstream and could have killed me,” she says.
While cesarean deliveries are associated with decreases in maternal, neonatal, and infant mortality, the benefits are only seen up to a certain threshold. The WHO, for instance, has reported that over the 15% threshold, that lower mortality benefit disappears.
“When medically necessary, cesarean delivery can improve outcomes for mother and baby. But the fact that cesarean section rates have increased in recent years without a corresponding improvement in health outcomes indicates overreliance on the procedure,” Dr. Glazer says.
Clinical discretion leads to biased judgment calls
Rates of cesarean deliveries are even higher among low-risk pregnancies in women of color than in White women. Between 2016 and 2019, the overall rate of cesarean deliveries for low-risk births was 23%, according to a recent analysis. But the rate was almost 18% higher among Black women than among White women (27% vs. 22%).
“When you see data about these subjective indications varying by race and ethnicity, I think that’s pointing us toward some answers,” Dr. Glazer says. “Once you adjust for all these measures, prepregnancy characteristics, and risk factors, the research identifies variation in quality and outcomes that is rooted in structural and systemic racism in health care, implicit bias from clinicians.”
Researchers investigating cesarean deliveries have found that Black women are more likely to undergo the surgery for reasons that are highly subjective, such as fetal distress.
“There is a huge range of how concerning a fetal heart rate can be, and some health providers might perform a C-section for only minor changes in the fetal heart rate, while others might wait until it is much worse,” said Rebecca Hamm, MD, an assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania.
At least some of the differences in care can be explained by where women deliver their babies, studies have shown. Women of color disproportionately deliver at hospitals with poorer quality outcomes for moms and babies.
Dealing with the aftermath
There can be costs that reverberate throughout the life of a mother, child, and their family as the result of surgical delivery.
“Cesarean sections cost a lot more,” says Jamila Taylor, PhD, director of health care reform and a senior fellow with The Century Foundation, a progressive policy think tank in Washington, D.C. The cost of a cesarean delivery averages about $17,000, compared with about $12,200 for a vaginal birth; for uninsured patients, surgical deliveries cost about $9,000 more than vaginal deliveries.
Dr. Taylor, who has studied the historical mistreatment of Black women in obstetrics, noted that this cost includes not just the bill for surgery but also a prolonged recovery time that is often spent in a hospital bed.
Beyond the detrimental effect that a large hospital bill for delivery and aftercare can have on families, other costs can crop up later. Infants delivered by cesarean surgery are more likely to develop an infection, breathing problems, and to spend time in the neonatal intensive care unit than babies born vaginally. Although studies suggest these outcomes may result from a medically necessary health concern that spurred the cesarean surgery, they often stem from the delivery itself.
Babies born surgically also miss out on the benefits of passing through the birth canal, such as supporting a newborn’s immune system and preparing their lungs to breathe oxygen after birth.
Most of the efforts to reduce inequities in maternal care are happening at the clinical level, aimed at both patients and providers, Dr. Taylor says.
“As advocates, we’re talking about how we can help Black women be advocates for themselves in the health care system – if the physician suggests a C-section, getting a second opinion, or walking through what a [surgical delivery] will mean and what their recovery will look like,” she says.
Women are also increasingly choosing non-hospital settings to deliver when possible, Dr. Taylor says. Including doulas or midwife practitioners in the maternal care team can reduce unnecessary cesarean deliveries among Black women, according to Camille Clare, MD, chair of the New York chapter of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
Also, last year, race was removed from the vaginal birth after C-section (VBAC) calculator, which is used to gauge the safety of vaginal delivery in women with a history of surgical birth. The original calculator included race-based correction factors for Black women and Hispanic women. It predicted a lower likelihood of successful vaginal deliveries for women who already had a C-section and who identify as Black or Hispanic than for White women with otherwise identical characteristics, such as age, weight, and a history of cesarean delivery.
“Those are things that over time should reduce the high rates of cesarean section for Black women in particular,” Dr. Clare says.
In addition to embracing the updated calculator and including nurse-midwives and doulas in their obstetrics services, Penn Medicine, Philadelphia received a federal grant to study the impact of creating a standard plan for deliveries. This includes standardizing the induction of labor and any effect that might have on reducing C-section rates.
“This idea that biases lead to difference in decisionmaking, and that by standardizing practices we could address these differences – people were somewhat resistant at first,” Dr. Hamm says. “They didn’t believe there were differences in their practices.”
People struggle to recognize those differences, she says, and “it takes active participation in reducing disparities to make that happen.”
At the community level, Synergistic Sisters in Science (SIS), a group of maternal health experts and health equity advocates, is working on a project called PM3, to reduce maternal mortality through mobile technology.
The smartphone app will provide information for new moms to empower them to start conversations with health care providers. It also connects users to social support and resources. SIS is especially hoping to engage Black women living in rural areas.
“There is so much mistrust due to things like unnecessary C-sections and the fact that Black women feel they aren’t heard,” said Natalie Hernandez, PhD, executive director of the Center for Maternal Health Equity at Morehouse School of Medicine, Atlanta. “Here is a tool that gives a woman information that’s culturally centered, looks like her, and was informed by her voice.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
When 29-year-old Sakeenah Fowler was pregnant with her first child, doctors kept a close watch. Ms. Fowler has lupus, high blood pressure, a history of blood clotting, and kidney problems that all could have endangered her or the health of her unborn baby.
She saw maternal-fetal specialists who could keep watch of her high-risk pregnancy, and she collected urine samples every 24 hours to make sure her kidneys were functioning properly from her home in Roebuck, S.C.
But the pregnancy ultimately proved uneventful; even her kidneys remained stable. So Ms. Fowler said she was shocked when her doctors ordered an emergency cesarean delivery after she had gone into active labor.
“I was already dilated all the way to 6 cm,” but the baby’s heart rate had decreased by a small amount, she says. “They thought it was best to just go ahead with a C-section.”
Ms. Fowler, who is Black, said she believes the surgical intervention was unnecessary and that she wasn’t given a chance to discuss her options for a vaginal childbirth.
“They already had it in their minds that I wasn’t going to make it through the pregnancy without any issues; then when I did, it was like they wanted to find something that made me have to have a C-section,” Ms. Fowler said. “It was close to the holidays; everybody was ready to go home. It was just like I was pushed to do what they wanted me to do.”
Ms. Fowler’s sense of a lack of choice is important beyond the measure of patient experience. While cesarean deliveries can be a lifeline for mother and baby, they can put up massive roadblocks to maternal and infant health when not necessary.
“The risk of hemorrhage, infection – on average, all of these go up when you have surgery instead of a vaginal delivery,” says Kimberly B. Glazer, PhD, a perinatal epidemiologist at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.
“Birth is one of the most salient experiences you can have. People want to feel like their values and preferences – whatever they may be – were honored and respected. Even if the delivery goes a different way than you wanted, feeling like your values were taken into account is very important.”
More than 1 million women undergo cesarean deliveries in the United States every year, composing over 31% of all births in 2020, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The World Health Organization, meanwhile, recommends a rate of cesarean delivery of no more than 15% per region. Whether or not all the U.S. procedures were medically warranted is unclear, however.
Black women have higher odds of undergoing a cesarean: 36% undergo surgical deliveries annually, compared with about 30% of White women. Black women are also about three times more likely to die of pregnancy-related causes than White women.
Risk becomes reality
Ms. Fowler eventually developed an infection in her cesarean surgical wound, but her doctors initially insisted her alternating chills and fever were merely postpartum hormonal swings, she says.
“I thought something had to be wrong, but they just kept saying nothing was wrong,” she says.
By the time her doctors caught the infection, Ms. Fowler was readmitted to the hospital for several days of IV antibiotic therapy. The infection “almost got into my bloodstream and could have killed me,” she says.
While cesarean deliveries are associated with decreases in maternal, neonatal, and infant mortality, the benefits are only seen up to a certain threshold. The WHO, for instance, has reported that over the 15% threshold, that lower mortality benefit disappears.
“When medically necessary, cesarean delivery can improve outcomes for mother and baby. But the fact that cesarean section rates have increased in recent years without a corresponding improvement in health outcomes indicates overreliance on the procedure,” Dr. Glazer says.
Clinical discretion leads to biased judgment calls
Rates of cesarean deliveries are even higher among low-risk pregnancies in women of color than in White women. Between 2016 and 2019, the overall rate of cesarean deliveries for low-risk births was 23%, according to a recent analysis. But the rate was almost 18% higher among Black women than among White women (27% vs. 22%).
“When you see data about these subjective indications varying by race and ethnicity, I think that’s pointing us toward some answers,” Dr. Glazer says. “Once you adjust for all these measures, prepregnancy characteristics, and risk factors, the research identifies variation in quality and outcomes that is rooted in structural and systemic racism in health care, implicit bias from clinicians.”
Researchers investigating cesarean deliveries have found that Black women are more likely to undergo the surgery for reasons that are highly subjective, such as fetal distress.
“There is a huge range of how concerning a fetal heart rate can be, and some health providers might perform a C-section for only minor changes in the fetal heart rate, while others might wait until it is much worse,” said Rebecca Hamm, MD, an assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania.
At least some of the differences in care can be explained by where women deliver their babies, studies have shown. Women of color disproportionately deliver at hospitals with poorer quality outcomes for moms and babies.
Dealing with the aftermath
There can be costs that reverberate throughout the life of a mother, child, and their family as the result of surgical delivery.
“Cesarean sections cost a lot more,” says Jamila Taylor, PhD, director of health care reform and a senior fellow with The Century Foundation, a progressive policy think tank in Washington, D.C. The cost of a cesarean delivery averages about $17,000, compared with about $12,200 for a vaginal birth; for uninsured patients, surgical deliveries cost about $9,000 more than vaginal deliveries.
Dr. Taylor, who has studied the historical mistreatment of Black women in obstetrics, noted that this cost includes not just the bill for surgery but also a prolonged recovery time that is often spent in a hospital bed.
Beyond the detrimental effect that a large hospital bill for delivery and aftercare can have on families, other costs can crop up later. Infants delivered by cesarean surgery are more likely to develop an infection, breathing problems, and to spend time in the neonatal intensive care unit than babies born vaginally. Although studies suggest these outcomes may result from a medically necessary health concern that spurred the cesarean surgery, they often stem from the delivery itself.
Babies born surgically also miss out on the benefits of passing through the birth canal, such as supporting a newborn’s immune system and preparing their lungs to breathe oxygen after birth.
Most of the efforts to reduce inequities in maternal care are happening at the clinical level, aimed at both patients and providers, Dr. Taylor says.
“As advocates, we’re talking about how we can help Black women be advocates for themselves in the health care system – if the physician suggests a C-section, getting a second opinion, or walking through what a [surgical delivery] will mean and what their recovery will look like,” she says.
Women are also increasingly choosing non-hospital settings to deliver when possible, Dr. Taylor says. Including doulas or midwife practitioners in the maternal care team can reduce unnecessary cesarean deliveries among Black women, according to Camille Clare, MD, chair of the New York chapter of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
Also, last year, race was removed from the vaginal birth after C-section (VBAC) calculator, which is used to gauge the safety of vaginal delivery in women with a history of surgical birth. The original calculator included race-based correction factors for Black women and Hispanic women. It predicted a lower likelihood of successful vaginal deliveries for women who already had a C-section and who identify as Black or Hispanic than for White women with otherwise identical characteristics, such as age, weight, and a history of cesarean delivery.
“Those are things that over time should reduce the high rates of cesarean section for Black women in particular,” Dr. Clare says.
In addition to embracing the updated calculator and including nurse-midwives and doulas in their obstetrics services, Penn Medicine, Philadelphia received a federal grant to study the impact of creating a standard plan for deliveries. This includes standardizing the induction of labor and any effect that might have on reducing C-section rates.
“This idea that biases lead to difference in decisionmaking, and that by standardizing practices we could address these differences – people were somewhat resistant at first,” Dr. Hamm says. “They didn’t believe there were differences in their practices.”
People struggle to recognize those differences, she says, and “it takes active participation in reducing disparities to make that happen.”
At the community level, Synergistic Sisters in Science (SIS), a group of maternal health experts and health equity advocates, is working on a project called PM3, to reduce maternal mortality through mobile technology.
The smartphone app will provide information for new moms to empower them to start conversations with health care providers. It also connects users to social support and resources. SIS is especially hoping to engage Black women living in rural areas.
“There is so much mistrust due to things like unnecessary C-sections and the fact that Black women feel they aren’t heard,” said Natalie Hernandez, PhD, executive director of the Center for Maternal Health Equity at Morehouse School of Medicine, Atlanta. “Here is a tool that gives a woman information that’s culturally centered, looks like her, and was informed by her voice.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
When 29-year-old Sakeenah Fowler was pregnant with her first child, doctors kept a close watch. Ms. Fowler has lupus, high blood pressure, a history of blood clotting, and kidney problems that all could have endangered her or the health of her unborn baby.
She saw maternal-fetal specialists who could keep watch of her high-risk pregnancy, and she collected urine samples every 24 hours to make sure her kidneys were functioning properly from her home in Roebuck, S.C.
But the pregnancy ultimately proved uneventful; even her kidneys remained stable. So Ms. Fowler said she was shocked when her doctors ordered an emergency cesarean delivery after she had gone into active labor.
“I was already dilated all the way to 6 cm,” but the baby’s heart rate had decreased by a small amount, she says. “They thought it was best to just go ahead with a C-section.”
Ms. Fowler, who is Black, said she believes the surgical intervention was unnecessary and that she wasn’t given a chance to discuss her options for a vaginal childbirth.
“They already had it in their minds that I wasn’t going to make it through the pregnancy without any issues; then when I did, it was like they wanted to find something that made me have to have a C-section,” Ms. Fowler said. “It was close to the holidays; everybody was ready to go home. It was just like I was pushed to do what they wanted me to do.”
Ms. Fowler’s sense of a lack of choice is important beyond the measure of patient experience. While cesarean deliveries can be a lifeline for mother and baby, they can put up massive roadblocks to maternal and infant health when not necessary.
“The risk of hemorrhage, infection – on average, all of these go up when you have surgery instead of a vaginal delivery,” says Kimberly B. Glazer, PhD, a perinatal epidemiologist at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.
“Birth is one of the most salient experiences you can have. People want to feel like their values and preferences – whatever they may be – were honored and respected. Even if the delivery goes a different way than you wanted, feeling like your values were taken into account is very important.”
More than 1 million women undergo cesarean deliveries in the United States every year, composing over 31% of all births in 2020, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The World Health Organization, meanwhile, recommends a rate of cesarean delivery of no more than 15% per region. Whether or not all the U.S. procedures were medically warranted is unclear, however.
Black women have higher odds of undergoing a cesarean: 36% undergo surgical deliveries annually, compared with about 30% of White women. Black women are also about three times more likely to die of pregnancy-related causes than White women.
Risk becomes reality
Ms. Fowler eventually developed an infection in her cesarean surgical wound, but her doctors initially insisted her alternating chills and fever were merely postpartum hormonal swings, she says.
“I thought something had to be wrong, but they just kept saying nothing was wrong,” she says.
By the time her doctors caught the infection, Ms. Fowler was readmitted to the hospital for several days of IV antibiotic therapy. The infection “almost got into my bloodstream and could have killed me,” she says.
While cesarean deliveries are associated with decreases in maternal, neonatal, and infant mortality, the benefits are only seen up to a certain threshold. The WHO, for instance, has reported that over the 15% threshold, that lower mortality benefit disappears.
“When medically necessary, cesarean delivery can improve outcomes for mother and baby. But the fact that cesarean section rates have increased in recent years without a corresponding improvement in health outcomes indicates overreliance on the procedure,” Dr. Glazer says.
Clinical discretion leads to biased judgment calls
Rates of cesarean deliveries are even higher among low-risk pregnancies in women of color than in White women. Between 2016 and 2019, the overall rate of cesarean deliveries for low-risk births was 23%, according to a recent analysis. But the rate was almost 18% higher among Black women than among White women (27% vs. 22%).
“When you see data about these subjective indications varying by race and ethnicity, I think that’s pointing us toward some answers,” Dr. Glazer says. “Once you adjust for all these measures, prepregnancy characteristics, and risk factors, the research identifies variation in quality and outcomes that is rooted in structural and systemic racism in health care, implicit bias from clinicians.”
Researchers investigating cesarean deliveries have found that Black women are more likely to undergo the surgery for reasons that are highly subjective, such as fetal distress.
“There is a huge range of how concerning a fetal heart rate can be, and some health providers might perform a C-section for only minor changes in the fetal heart rate, while others might wait until it is much worse,” said Rebecca Hamm, MD, an assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania.
At least some of the differences in care can be explained by where women deliver their babies, studies have shown. Women of color disproportionately deliver at hospitals with poorer quality outcomes for moms and babies.
Dealing with the aftermath
There can be costs that reverberate throughout the life of a mother, child, and their family as the result of surgical delivery.
“Cesarean sections cost a lot more,” says Jamila Taylor, PhD, director of health care reform and a senior fellow with The Century Foundation, a progressive policy think tank in Washington, D.C. The cost of a cesarean delivery averages about $17,000, compared with about $12,200 for a vaginal birth; for uninsured patients, surgical deliveries cost about $9,000 more than vaginal deliveries.
Dr. Taylor, who has studied the historical mistreatment of Black women in obstetrics, noted that this cost includes not just the bill for surgery but also a prolonged recovery time that is often spent in a hospital bed.
Beyond the detrimental effect that a large hospital bill for delivery and aftercare can have on families, other costs can crop up later. Infants delivered by cesarean surgery are more likely to develop an infection, breathing problems, and to spend time in the neonatal intensive care unit than babies born vaginally. Although studies suggest these outcomes may result from a medically necessary health concern that spurred the cesarean surgery, they often stem from the delivery itself.
Babies born surgically also miss out on the benefits of passing through the birth canal, such as supporting a newborn’s immune system and preparing their lungs to breathe oxygen after birth.
Most of the efforts to reduce inequities in maternal care are happening at the clinical level, aimed at both patients and providers, Dr. Taylor says.
“As advocates, we’re talking about how we can help Black women be advocates for themselves in the health care system – if the physician suggests a C-section, getting a second opinion, or walking through what a [surgical delivery] will mean and what their recovery will look like,” she says.
Women are also increasingly choosing non-hospital settings to deliver when possible, Dr. Taylor says. Including doulas or midwife practitioners in the maternal care team can reduce unnecessary cesarean deliveries among Black women, according to Camille Clare, MD, chair of the New York chapter of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
Also, last year, race was removed from the vaginal birth after C-section (VBAC) calculator, which is used to gauge the safety of vaginal delivery in women with a history of surgical birth. The original calculator included race-based correction factors for Black women and Hispanic women. It predicted a lower likelihood of successful vaginal deliveries for women who already had a C-section and who identify as Black or Hispanic than for White women with otherwise identical characteristics, such as age, weight, and a history of cesarean delivery.
“Those are things that over time should reduce the high rates of cesarean section for Black women in particular,” Dr. Clare says.
In addition to embracing the updated calculator and including nurse-midwives and doulas in their obstetrics services, Penn Medicine, Philadelphia received a federal grant to study the impact of creating a standard plan for deliveries. This includes standardizing the induction of labor and any effect that might have on reducing C-section rates.
“This idea that biases lead to difference in decisionmaking, and that by standardizing practices we could address these differences – people were somewhat resistant at first,” Dr. Hamm says. “They didn’t believe there were differences in their practices.”
People struggle to recognize those differences, she says, and “it takes active participation in reducing disparities to make that happen.”
At the community level, Synergistic Sisters in Science (SIS), a group of maternal health experts and health equity advocates, is working on a project called PM3, to reduce maternal mortality through mobile technology.
The smartphone app will provide information for new moms to empower them to start conversations with health care providers. It also connects users to social support and resources. SIS is especially hoping to engage Black women living in rural areas.
“There is so much mistrust due to things like unnecessary C-sections and the fact that Black women feel they aren’t heard,” said Natalie Hernandez, PhD, executive director of the Center for Maternal Health Equity at Morehouse School of Medicine, Atlanta. “Here is a tool that gives a woman information that’s culturally centered, looks like her, and was informed by her voice.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
International group identifies actions to improve lung cancer survival
The International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership, a collaboration of physicians, clinicians, researchers, policy makers, and data experts, has reached a consensus on key actions designed to standardize and homogenize lung cancer care that includes early diagnosis and access to care for all patients.
This consensus, reported at the 2022 European Lung Cancer Congress, is an effort to address disparities in care recognized by the group’s in-house research team. The team identified significantly different survival rates in early stage lung cancer patients from a group of countries with similar health care metrics, such as health care expenditure and universal access to health care.
“This group of countries is very comparable, but we saw a 20% difference in survival in localized, stage I and II cancers. When you consider that lung cancer is a bigger killer than any other cancer –more than breast, prostate, and colon cancer combined – that’s thousands of people,” said the project’s lead clinician, Christian Finley, MD, a thoracic surgeon with St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton (Ont.).
Founded in 2009, the ICBP includes about 500 experts in its core countries of Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Australia, the United Kingdom, and Canada; New Zealand and Ireland have also participated. The goal of the partnership is to benchmark survival and other outcomes in cancer and to research why disparities between countries exist.
“That’s why we keep the membership fairly small, so that we can actually make more meaningful research projects to get into depth in factors beyond benchmarking survival and mortality,” said study author Charlotte Lynch, MSc, a senior researcher with Cancer Research UK in London.
To help narrow the disparity gap, Ms. Lynch, Dr. Finley and colleagues brought together nine key informants from ICBP countries to discuss local clinical insights and best practices, and ultimately came up a list of five recommendations considered most crucial: implementing cost-effective, equitable, and effective screening; ensuring diagnoses of lung cancer within 30 days of referral; developing thoracic centers of excellence; launching an international audit of lung cancer care; and prioritizing the recognition of improvements in lung cancer care and outcomes.
“For example, points supporting the screening call to action focus on timely access to cross-sectional imaging and availability and development of patient and health care practitioner lung cancer awareness materials,” Ms. Lynch said.
Another example would be the point that describes the need for a minimum data set to evaluate lung cancer patients’ diagnosis, treatment, and aftercare.
“I think we all work in a very disrupted system right now. Screening programs really took a hit during the pandemic, and I think people coming out of those disruptions are trying to imagine a more effective system using tools like information technologies, mobile clinics and having a better understanding of equity,” Dr. Finley said.
Ms. Lynch said the ICBP intends to use the consensus to generate concrete actions. “We’re thinking about how we can get everyone in the room to share lessons learned and best practices to push things forward rather than saying, ‘this is what should be done,’ making sure we do the next steps, collaborative thinking, and moving forward.”
In a press release, Antonio Passaro, MD, a lung cancer expert from the European Institute of Oncology in Milan, said there is a need to prioritize primary and secondary prevention of lung cancer.
“Although a much-debated topic in recent years, a strong body of research has now shown that lung cancer screening through annual computed tomography scans in individuals with a history of smoking can improve detection rates. Targeting the right populations with these interventions will be crucial to implementing screening approaches that are both efficacious and cost effective,” he stated.
The authors declared no conflicts of interest and this study was not funded.
The International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership, a collaboration of physicians, clinicians, researchers, policy makers, and data experts, has reached a consensus on key actions designed to standardize and homogenize lung cancer care that includes early diagnosis and access to care for all patients.
This consensus, reported at the 2022 European Lung Cancer Congress, is an effort to address disparities in care recognized by the group’s in-house research team. The team identified significantly different survival rates in early stage lung cancer patients from a group of countries with similar health care metrics, such as health care expenditure and universal access to health care.
“This group of countries is very comparable, but we saw a 20% difference in survival in localized, stage I and II cancers. When you consider that lung cancer is a bigger killer than any other cancer –more than breast, prostate, and colon cancer combined – that’s thousands of people,” said the project’s lead clinician, Christian Finley, MD, a thoracic surgeon with St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton (Ont.).
Founded in 2009, the ICBP includes about 500 experts in its core countries of Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Australia, the United Kingdom, and Canada; New Zealand and Ireland have also participated. The goal of the partnership is to benchmark survival and other outcomes in cancer and to research why disparities between countries exist.
“That’s why we keep the membership fairly small, so that we can actually make more meaningful research projects to get into depth in factors beyond benchmarking survival and mortality,” said study author Charlotte Lynch, MSc, a senior researcher with Cancer Research UK in London.
To help narrow the disparity gap, Ms. Lynch, Dr. Finley and colleagues brought together nine key informants from ICBP countries to discuss local clinical insights and best practices, and ultimately came up a list of five recommendations considered most crucial: implementing cost-effective, equitable, and effective screening; ensuring diagnoses of lung cancer within 30 days of referral; developing thoracic centers of excellence; launching an international audit of lung cancer care; and prioritizing the recognition of improvements in lung cancer care and outcomes.
“For example, points supporting the screening call to action focus on timely access to cross-sectional imaging and availability and development of patient and health care practitioner lung cancer awareness materials,” Ms. Lynch said.
Another example would be the point that describes the need for a minimum data set to evaluate lung cancer patients’ diagnosis, treatment, and aftercare.
“I think we all work in a very disrupted system right now. Screening programs really took a hit during the pandemic, and I think people coming out of those disruptions are trying to imagine a more effective system using tools like information technologies, mobile clinics and having a better understanding of equity,” Dr. Finley said.
Ms. Lynch said the ICBP intends to use the consensus to generate concrete actions. “We’re thinking about how we can get everyone in the room to share lessons learned and best practices to push things forward rather than saying, ‘this is what should be done,’ making sure we do the next steps, collaborative thinking, and moving forward.”
In a press release, Antonio Passaro, MD, a lung cancer expert from the European Institute of Oncology in Milan, said there is a need to prioritize primary and secondary prevention of lung cancer.
“Although a much-debated topic in recent years, a strong body of research has now shown that lung cancer screening through annual computed tomography scans in individuals with a history of smoking can improve detection rates. Targeting the right populations with these interventions will be crucial to implementing screening approaches that are both efficacious and cost effective,” he stated.
The authors declared no conflicts of interest and this study was not funded.
The International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership, a collaboration of physicians, clinicians, researchers, policy makers, and data experts, has reached a consensus on key actions designed to standardize and homogenize lung cancer care that includes early diagnosis and access to care for all patients.
This consensus, reported at the 2022 European Lung Cancer Congress, is an effort to address disparities in care recognized by the group’s in-house research team. The team identified significantly different survival rates in early stage lung cancer patients from a group of countries with similar health care metrics, such as health care expenditure and universal access to health care.
“This group of countries is very comparable, but we saw a 20% difference in survival in localized, stage I and II cancers. When you consider that lung cancer is a bigger killer than any other cancer –more than breast, prostate, and colon cancer combined – that’s thousands of people,” said the project’s lead clinician, Christian Finley, MD, a thoracic surgeon with St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton (Ont.).
Founded in 2009, the ICBP includes about 500 experts in its core countries of Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Australia, the United Kingdom, and Canada; New Zealand and Ireland have also participated. The goal of the partnership is to benchmark survival and other outcomes in cancer and to research why disparities between countries exist.
“That’s why we keep the membership fairly small, so that we can actually make more meaningful research projects to get into depth in factors beyond benchmarking survival and mortality,” said study author Charlotte Lynch, MSc, a senior researcher with Cancer Research UK in London.
To help narrow the disparity gap, Ms. Lynch, Dr. Finley and colleagues brought together nine key informants from ICBP countries to discuss local clinical insights and best practices, and ultimately came up a list of five recommendations considered most crucial: implementing cost-effective, equitable, and effective screening; ensuring diagnoses of lung cancer within 30 days of referral; developing thoracic centers of excellence; launching an international audit of lung cancer care; and prioritizing the recognition of improvements in lung cancer care and outcomes.
“For example, points supporting the screening call to action focus on timely access to cross-sectional imaging and availability and development of patient and health care practitioner lung cancer awareness materials,” Ms. Lynch said.
Another example would be the point that describes the need for a minimum data set to evaluate lung cancer patients’ diagnosis, treatment, and aftercare.
“I think we all work in a very disrupted system right now. Screening programs really took a hit during the pandemic, and I think people coming out of those disruptions are trying to imagine a more effective system using tools like information technologies, mobile clinics and having a better understanding of equity,” Dr. Finley said.
Ms. Lynch said the ICBP intends to use the consensus to generate concrete actions. “We’re thinking about how we can get everyone in the room to share lessons learned and best practices to push things forward rather than saying, ‘this is what should be done,’ making sure we do the next steps, collaborative thinking, and moving forward.”
In a press release, Antonio Passaro, MD, a lung cancer expert from the European Institute of Oncology in Milan, said there is a need to prioritize primary and secondary prevention of lung cancer.
“Although a much-debated topic in recent years, a strong body of research has now shown that lung cancer screening through annual computed tomography scans in individuals with a history of smoking can improve detection rates. Targeting the right populations with these interventions will be crucial to implementing screening approaches that are both efficacious and cost effective,” he stated.
The authors declared no conflicts of interest and this study was not funded.
FROM ELCC 2022
Biomarker testing gains momentum in NSCLC
Despite Spain’s lack of a national project or standard protocol for biomarker testing, , according to a Spanish national registry study reported at the 2022 European Lung Cancer Congress.
“In recent years we’ve developed drugs that target biomarkers, so it’s important to identify those biomarkers to guide treatment and have an impact on the survival of our patients,” said lead author Virginia Calvo, MD, a medical oncologist with the Puerta de Hierro Majadahonda University Hospital, Madrid.
“If we don’t know our patients’ biomarkers, we can’t treat them with targeted therapies,” she added, noting that the overall survival of lung cancer patients has increased by 15% in the last 10 years, largely because of better therapies such as targeted drugs for advanced stage disease and immunotherapies.
To assess the status of biomarker testing in Spain, Dr. Calvo and colleagues analyzed data from the country’s Thoracic Tumor Registry on 9,239 patients diagnosed with metastatic NSCLC from 2016 to the present, 7,467 (81%) with nonsquamous tumors and 1,772 (19%) with squamous tumors.
They found that 85% of patients with nonsquamous NSCLC and about 53% of those with squamous cancers had undergone biomarker testing. They discovered that 4,115 (44%) of patients tested positive for EGFR, ALK, KRAS, BRAF, ROS1, or PD-L1.
Dr. Calvo attributes the widespread use of biomarker testing and its significant increase in the last 5 years to the growing knowledge and understanding of the disease.
“We are learning more about NSCLC, and I think in the next few years the number of biomarkers are going to grow,” she said.
The study’s findings also highlight the importance of establishing and maintaining cancer registries, Dr. Calvo said, noting that 182 hospitals across Spain and more than 550 experts participate in the Thoracic Tumors Registry, which includes data on patients from every Spanish territory.
“It’s important to collect information on real-life cancer care so that we know what our real situation is and take steps to improve it,” she said.
She anticipates that treatment for NSCLC patients will become increasingly complex in the future with the growing number of different biomarkers and the proportion of patients who test positive for them. “We may need to establish national strategies to implement next generation sequencing so that we can identify different biomarkers and improve the survival of our patients.”
In a press release, Rolf Stahel, MD, president of the European Thoracic Oncology Platform, said that it would be helpful to look at how frequently molecular testing led to patients receiving appropriate targeted treatment.
In the United States, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommends biomarker testing for eligible patients with newly diagnosed stage 4 NSCLC, and it can be considered for patients with squamous histology because 5%-10% of these tumors have targetable mutations. “This is because numerous lines of evidence show that patients with stage 4 NSCLC and a targetable mutation, typically have improved overall survival when treated with a targeted therapy,” wrote the authors of the NCCN recommendations.
“For newly diagnosed stage 4 NSCLC, there is always a tension between the need to start therapy versus waiting for molecular results. This is because if a recommended targeted option is identified, it is the optimal first-line therapy. Targeted therapy cannot be given to everyone. Different biomarkers predict response to different agents. This has been well illustrated and it makes testing critically important for patients with NSCLC,” Dara Aisner, MD, PhD, associate professor of pathology with the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, wrote in the NCCN guideline.
The study presented at ELCC was funded by a grant from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Program. Dr. Calvo has received fees from Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD and AstraZeneca.
Despite Spain’s lack of a national project or standard protocol for biomarker testing, , according to a Spanish national registry study reported at the 2022 European Lung Cancer Congress.
“In recent years we’ve developed drugs that target biomarkers, so it’s important to identify those biomarkers to guide treatment and have an impact on the survival of our patients,” said lead author Virginia Calvo, MD, a medical oncologist with the Puerta de Hierro Majadahonda University Hospital, Madrid.
“If we don’t know our patients’ biomarkers, we can’t treat them with targeted therapies,” she added, noting that the overall survival of lung cancer patients has increased by 15% in the last 10 years, largely because of better therapies such as targeted drugs for advanced stage disease and immunotherapies.
To assess the status of biomarker testing in Spain, Dr. Calvo and colleagues analyzed data from the country’s Thoracic Tumor Registry on 9,239 patients diagnosed with metastatic NSCLC from 2016 to the present, 7,467 (81%) with nonsquamous tumors and 1,772 (19%) with squamous tumors.
They found that 85% of patients with nonsquamous NSCLC and about 53% of those with squamous cancers had undergone biomarker testing. They discovered that 4,115 (44%) of patients tested positive for EGFR, ALK, KRAS, BRAF, ROS1, or PD-L1.
Dr. Calvo attributes the widespread use of biomarker testing and its significant increase in the last 5 years to the growing knowledge and understanding of the disease.
“We are learning more about NSCLC, and I think in the next few years the number of biomarkers are going to grow,” she said.
The study’s findings also highlight the importance of establishing and maintaining cancer registries, Dr. Calvo said, noting that 182 hospitals across Spain and more than 550 experts participate in the Thoracic Tumors Registry, which includes data on patients from every Spanish territory.
“It’s important to collect information on real-life cancer care so that we know what our real situation is and take steps to improve it,” she said.
She anticipates that treatment for NSCLC patients will become increasingly complex in the future with the growing number of different biomarkers and the proportion of patients who test positive for them. “We may need to establish national strategies to implement next generation sequencing so that we can identify different biomarkers and improve the survival of our patients.”
In a press release, Rolf Stahel, MD, president of the European Thoracic Oncology Platform, said that it would be helpful to look at how frequently molecular testing led to patients receiving appropriate targeted treatment.
In the United States, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommends biomarker testing for eligible patients with newly diagnosed stage 4 NSCLC, and it can be considered for patients with squamous histology because 5%-10% of these tumors have targetable mutations. “This is because numerous lines of evidence show that patients with stage 4 NSCLC and a targetable mutation, typically have improved overall survival when treated with a targeted therapy,” wrote the authors of the NCCN recommendations.
“For newly diagnosed stage 4 NSCLC, there is always a tension between the need to start therapy versus waiting for molecular results. This is because if a recommended targeted option is identified, it is the optimal first-line therapy. Targeted therapy cannot be given to everyone. Different biomarkers predict response to different agents. This has been well illustrated and it makes testing critically important for patients with NSCLC,” Dara Aisner, MD, PhD, associate professor of pathology with the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, wrote in the NCCN guideline.
The study presented at ELCC was funded by a grant from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Program. Dr. Calvo has received fees from Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD and AstraZeneca.
Despite Spain’s lack of a national project or standard protocol for biomarker testing, , according to a Spanish national registry study reported at the 2022 European Lung Cancer Congress.
“In recent years we’ve developed drugs that target biomarkers, so it’s important to identify those biomarkers to guide treatment and have an impact on the survival of our patients,” said lead author Virginia Calvo, MD, a medical oncologist with the Puerta de Hierro Majadahonda University Hospital, Madrid.
“If we don’t know our patients’ biomarkers, we can’t treat them with targeted therapies,” she added, noting that the overall survival of lung cancer patients has increased by 15% in the last 10 years, largely because of better therapies such as targeted drugs for advanced stage disease and immunotherapies.
To assess the status of biomarker testing in Spain, Dr. Calvo and colleagues analyzed data from the country’s Thoracic Tumor Registry on 9,239 patients diagnosed with metastatic NSCLC from 2016 to the present, 7,467 (81%) with nonsquamous tumors and 1,772 (19%) with squamous tumors.
They found that 85% of patients with nonsquamous NSCLC and about 53% of those with squamous cancers had undergone biomarker testing. They discovered that 4,115 (44%) of patients tested positive for EGFR, ALK, KRAS, BRAF, ROS1, or PD-L1.
Dr. Calvo attributes the widespread use of biomarker testing and its significant increase in the last 5 years to the growing knowledge and understanding of the disease.
“We are learning more about NSCLC, and I think in the next few years the number of biomarkers are going to grow,” she said.
The study’s findings also highlight the importance of establishing and maintaining cancer registries, Dr. Calvo said, noting that 182 hospitals across Spain and more than 550 experts participate in the Thoracic Tumors Registry, which includes data on patients from every Spanish territory.
“It’s important to collect information on real-life cancer care so that we know what our real situation is and take steps to improve it,” she said.
She anticipates that treatment for NSCLC patients will become increasingly complex in the future with the growing number of different biomarkers and the proportion of patients who test positive for them. “We may need to establish national strategies to implement next generation sequencing so that we can identify different biomarkers and improve the survival of our patients.”
In a press release, Rolf Stahel, MD, president of the European Thoracic Oncology Platform, said that it would be helpful to look at how frequently molecular testing led to patients receiving appropriate targeted treatment.
In the United States, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommends biomarker testing for eligible patients with newly diagnosed stage 4 NSCLC, and it can be considered for patients with squamous histology because 5%-10% of these tumors have targetable mutations. “This is because numerous lines of evidence show that patients with stage 4 NSCLC and a targetable mutation, typically have improved overall survival when treated with a targeted therapy,” wrote the authors of the NCCN recommendations.
“For newly diagnosed stage 4 NSCLC, there is always a tension between the need to start therapy versus waiting for molecular results. This is because if a recommended targeted option is identified, it is the optimal first-line therapy. Targeted therapy cannot be given to everyone. Different biomarkers predict response to different agents. This has been well illustrated and it makes testing critically important for patients with NSCLC,” Dara Aisner, MD, PhD, associate professor of pathology with the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, wrote in the NCCN guideline.
The study presented at ELCC was funded by a grant from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Program. Dr. Calvo has received fees from Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD and AstraZeneca.
FROM ELCC 2022