User login
Minimal Risks With SBRT in Stage I NSCLC
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- SBRT is generally considered a safe treatment option in patients with stage I NSCLC who have medically inoperable tumors or who refuse surgery. Although rare, clinically relevant acute toxicities or early mortality can occur.
- In the current real-world analysis, researchers explored toxicity and 90-day mortality outcomes in patients who received SBRT to develop a better understanding of how often they happen and whether certain patients are at higher risk.
- Researchers analyzed data from the Dutch Lung Cancer Audit for Radiotherapy database, which included 7279 patients with stage I NSCLC who received SBRT between January 2017 and December 2021.
- Participants had a mean age of 72.5 years; 21.6% were older than 80 years. Over half were men (50.7%), most (73.3%) had WHO scores of 0-1, and about two thirds (64.6%) had cT1a-b tumors, mostly in the upper lobes (65.2%).
- Prediction models for acute toxicity and 90-day mortality were developed and internally validated using logistic regression analysis. Acute toxicity was defined as grade 2 or higher radiation pneumonitis or grade 3 or higher non-hematologic toxicity within 90 days after SBRT. The 90-day mortality was defined as mortality from any cause within 90 days after SBRT.
TAKEAWAY:
- Acute toxicity was observed in 3.8% patients, with more common types including dyspnea (1.8%), radiation pneumonitis (1.2%), fatigue (0.3%), and dysphagia (0.2%).
- Predictors for acute toxicity included WHO performance status of 2 or higher (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.89; P = .003), middle or lower lobe tumor location (aOR, 1.38), cT1c-cT2a stage (aOR, 1.66), as well as lower forced expiratory volume in 1 second and higher mean lung dose.
- Overall, 90-day mortality was observed in 1.7% patients, with predictors including male sex, WHO performance status of 2 or higher (aOR, 6.11; P < .001), and acute toxicity (aOR, 8.89; P < .001).
- Advanced age was not associated with a higher risk for acute toxicity or 90-day mortality.
IN PRACTICE:
“This real-world study confirms that clinically relevant acute toxicity after lung SBRT for stage I NSCLC is rare,” and the 90-day mortality rate is low, the authors wrote. “Although these findings could inform clinical practice and enable individualized risk estimations, these parameters (and the others in the presented nomograms) should not serve as contraindication for SBRT as the benefits in terms of local control and survival outweigh the risks in most patients.”
SOURCE:
This study, led by Peter S.N. van Rossum, MD, PhD, Amsterdam UMC in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, was published online in Journal of Thoracic Oncology.
LIMITATIONS:
Patients with ultracentral tumor locations were excluded, which may have limited the generalizability of the findings. The Dutch Lung Cancer Audit for Radiotherapy database does not register whether a patient has interstitial lung disease or whether the treated tumor is at a central location, which carry increased risks for toxicity. The findings may not be applicable to patients receiving combined immunotherapy and SBRT, as this combination was not included in the current analysis. External validation of the prediction models is needed for application outside the Netherlands.
DISCLOSURES:
The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
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:
METHODOLOGY:
- SBRT is generally considered a safe treatment option in patients with stage I NSCLC who have medically inoperable tumors or who refuse surgery. Although rare, clinically relevant acute toxicities or early mortality can occur.
- In the current real-world analysis, researchers explored toxicity and 90-day mortality outcomes in patients who received SBRT to develop a better understanding of how often they happen and whether certain patients are at higher risk.
- Researchers analyzed data from the Dutch Lung Cancer Audit for Radiotherapy database, which included 7279 patients with stage I NSCLC who received SBRT between January 2017 and December 2021.
- Participants had a mean age of 72.5 years; 21.6% were older than 80 years. Over half were men (50.7%), most (73.3%) had WHO scores of 0-1, and about two thirds (64.6%) had cT1a-b tumors, mostly in the upper lobes (65.2%).
- Prediction models for acute toxicity and 90-day mortality were developed and internally validated using logistic regression analysis. Acute toxicity was defined as grade 2 or higher radiation pneumonitis or grade 3 or higher non-hematologic toxicity within 90 days after SBRT. The 90-day mortality was defined as mortality from any cause within 90 days after SBRT.
TAKEAWAY:
- Acute toxicity was observed in 3.8% patients, with more common types including dyspnea (1.8%), radiation pneumonitis (1.2%), fatigue (0.3%), and dysphagia (0.2%).
- Predictors for acute toxicity included WHO performance status of 2 or higher (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.89; P = .003), middle or lower lobe tumor location (aOR, 1.38), cT1c-cT2a stage (aOR, 1.66), as well as lower forced expiratory volume in 1 second and higher mean lung dose.
- Overall, 90-day mortality was observed in 1.7% patients, with predictors including male sex, WHO performance status of 2 or higher (aOR, 6.11; P < .001), and acute toxicity (aOR, 8.89; P < .001).
- Advanced age was not associated with a higher risk for acute toxicity or 90-day mortality.
IN PRACTICE:
“This real-world study confirms that clinically relevant acute toxicity after lung SBRT for stage I NSCLC is rare,” and the 90-day mortality rate is low, the authors wrote. “Although these findings could inform clinical practice and enable individualized risk estimations, these parameters (and the others in the presented nomograms) should not serve as contraindication for SBRT as the benefits in terms of local control and survival outweigh the risks in most patients.”
SOURCE:
This study, led by Peter S.N. van Rossum, MD, PhD, Amsterdam UMC in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, was published online in Journal of Thoracic Oncology.
LIMITATIONS:
Patients with ultracentral tumor locations were excluded, which may have limited the generalizability of the findings. The Dutch Lung Cancer Audit for Radiotherapy database does not register whether a patient has interstitial lung disease or whether the treated tumor is at a central location, which carry increased risks for toxicity. The findings may not be applicable to patients receiving combined immunotherapy and SBRT, as this combination was not included in the current analysis. External validation of the prediction models is needed for application outside the Netherlands.
DISCLOSURES:
The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
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:
METHODOLOGY:
- SBRT is generally considered a safe treatment option in patients with stage I NSCLC who have medically inoperable tumors or who refuse surgery. Although rare, clinically relevant acute toxicities or early mortality can occur.
- In the current real-world analysis, researchers explored toxicity and 90-day mortality outcomes in patients who received SBRT to develop a better understanding of how often they happen and whether certain patients are at higher risk.
- Researchers analyzed data from the Dutch Lung Cancer Audit for Radiotherapy database, which included 7279 patients with stage I NSCLC who received SBRT between January 2017 and December 2021.
- Participants had a mean age of 72.5 years; 21.6% were older than 80 years. Over half were men (50.7%), most (73.3%) had WHO scores of 0-1, and about two thirds (64.6%) had cT1a-b tumors, mostly in the upper lobes (65.2%).
- Prediction models for acute toxicity and 90-day mortality were developed and internally validated using logistic regression analysis. Acute toxicity was defined as grade 2 or higher radiation pneumonitis or grade 3 or higher non-hematologic toxicity within 90 days after SBRT. The 90-day mortality was defined as mortality from any cause within 90 days after SBRT.
TAKEAWAY:
- Acute toxicity was observed in 3.8% patients, with more common types including dyspnea (1.8%), radiation pneumonitis (1.2%), fatigue (0.3%), and dysphagia (0.2%).
- Predictors for acute toxicity included WHO performance status of 2 or higher (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.89; P = .003), middle or lower lobe tumor location (aOR, 1.38), cT1c-cT2a stage (aOR, 1.66), as well as lower forced expiratory volume in 1 second and higher mean lung dose.
- Overall, 90-day mortality was observed in 1.7% patients, with predictors including male sex, WHO performance status of 2 or higher (aOR, 6.11; P < .001), and acute toxicity (aOR, 8.89; P < .001).
- Advanced age was not associated with a higher risk for acute toxicity or 90-day mortality.
IN PRACTICE:
“This real-world study confirms that clinically relevant acute toxicity after lung SBRT for stage I NSCLC is rare,” and the 90-day mortality rate is low, the authors wrote. “Although these findings could inform clinical practice and enable individualized risk estimations, these parameters (and the others in the presented nomograms) should not serve as contraindication for SBRT as the benefits in terms of local control and survival outweigh the risks in most patients.”
SOURCE:
This study, led by Peter S.N. van Rossum, MD, PhD, Amsterdam UMC in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, was published online in Journal of Thoracic Oncology.
LIMITATIONS:
Patients with ultracentral tumor locations were excluded, which may have limited the generalizability of the findings. The Dutch Lung Cancer Audit for Radiotherapy database does not register whether a patient has interstitial lung disease or whether the treated tumor is at a central location, which carry increased risks for toxicity. The findings may not be applicable to patients receiving combined immunotherapy and SBRT, as this combination was not included in the current analysis. External validation of the prediction models is needed for application outside the Netherlands.
DISCLOSURES:
The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
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.
FDA Issues Complete Response Letter for Myeloma Drug
On August 20, Regeneron announced that it had received a complete response letter from the FDA regarding its Biologics License Application for linvoseltamab, citing issues at a third-party manufacturer.
More specifically, Regeneron said in a company press release that the FDA issued the complete response letter based on findings from “a preapproval inspection at a third-party fill/finish manufacturer for another company’s product candidate.”
The third-party manufacturer told Regeneron it believes that the issues have been resolved, Regeneron said, and that facility is now awaiting a follow-up FDA inspection in the “coming months.”
Regeneron noted that this “anticipated outcome” from the FDA preapproval inspection had been disclosed previously during a company earnings call on August 1.
On that call, Regeneron had discussed the FDA’s concerns about the third-party manufacturer and anticipated that “any potential FDA approval for linvoseltamab is likely to be delayed beyond the August 22 PDUFA date.”
Regeneron had initially filed a Biologics License Application for its bispecific antibody in 2023, based on findings from the phase 1/2 single arm LINKER-MM1 trial.
In the latest published trial findings, investigators reported that, at a median follow-up of about 14 months, 71% of the 117 patients receiving 200 mg of linvoseltamab achieved an overall response, with 50% achieving a complete response. The probability of survival at 12 months was 75.3%.
This would have been the first approval for linvoseltamab, which would have joined two agents already on the US market for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: teclistamab (Tecvayli, Janssen) and elranatamab (Elrexfio, Pfizer).
Pricing information for linvoseltamab is not yet available, but its competitors teclistamab and elranatamab are reported to cost around $40,000 per month.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
On August 20, Regeneron announced that it had received a complete response letter from the FDA regarding its Biologics License Application for linvoseltamab, citing issues at a third-party manufacturer.
More specifically, Regeneron said in a company press release that the FDA issued the complete response letter based on findings from “a preapproval inspection at a third-party fill/finish manufacturer for another company’s product candidate.”
The third-party manufacturer told Regeneron it believes that the issues have been resolved, Regeneron said, and that facility is now awaiting a follow-up FDA inspection in the “coming months.”
Regeneron noted that this “anticipated outcome” from the FDA preapproval inspection had been disclosed previously during a company earnings call on August 1.
On that call, Regeneron had discussed the FDA’s concerns about the third-party manufacturer and anticipated that “any potential FDA approval for linvoseltamab is likely to be delayed beyond the August 22 PDUFA date.”
Regeneron had initially filed a Biologics License Application for its bispecific antibody in 2023, based on findings from the phase 1/2 single arm LINKER-MM1 trial.
In the latest published trial findings, investigators reported that, at a median follow-up of about 14 months, 71% of the 117 patients receiving 200 mg of linvoseltamab achieved an overall response, with 50% achieving a complete response. The probability of survival at 12 months was 75.3%.
This would have been the first approval for linvoseltamab, which would have joined two agents already on the US market for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: teclistamab (Tecvayli, Janssen) and elranatamab (Elrexfio, Pfizer).
Pricing information for linvoseltamab is not yet available, but its competitors teclistamab and elranatamab are reported to cost around $40,000 per month.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
On August 20, Regeneron announced that it had received a complete response letter from the FDA regarding its Biologics License Application for linvoseltamab, citing issues at a third-party manufacturer.
More specifically, Regeneron said in a company press release that the FDA issued the complete response letter based on findings from “a preapproval inspection at a third-party fill/finish manufacturer for another company’s product candidate.”
The third-party manufacturer told Regeneron it believes that the issues have been resolved, Regeneron said, and that facility is now awaiting a follow-up FDA inspection in the “coming months.”
Regeneron noted that this “anticipated outcome” from the FDA preapproval inspection had been disclosed previously during a company earnings call on August 1.
On that call, Regeneron had discussed the FDA’s concerns about the third-party manufacturer and anticipated that “any potential FDA approval for linvoseltamab is likely to be delayed beyond the August 22 PDUFA date.”
Regeneron had initially filed a Biologics License Application for its bispecific antibody in 2023, based on findings from the phase 1/2 single arm LINKER-MM1 trial.
In the latest published trial findings, investigators reported that, at a median follow-up of about 14 months, 71% of the 117 patients receiving 200 mg of linvoseltamab achieved an overall response, with 50% achieving a complete response. The probability of survival at 12 months was 75.3%.
This would have been the first approval for linvoseltamab, which would have joined two agents already on the US market for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: teclistamab (Tecvayli, Janssen) and elranatamab (Elrexfio, Pfizer).
Pricing information for linvoseltamab is not yet available, but its competitors teclistamab and elranatamab are reported to cost around $40,000 per month.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Can ChatGPT Improve Pancreatic Cancer Synoptic Reports?
TOPLINE:
GPT-4 generated highly accurate pancreatic cancer synoptic reports from original reports, outperforming GPT-3.5.
METHODOLOGY:
- Compared with original reports, structured imaging reports help surgeons assess tumor resectability in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. However, radiologist uptake of structured reporting remains inconsistent.
- To determine whether converting free-text (ie, original) radiology reports into structured reports can benefit surgeons, researchers evaluated how well GPT-4 and GPT-3.5 were able to generate pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma synoptic reports from originals.
- The retrospective study included 180 consecutive pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma staging CT reports, which were reviewed by two radiologists to establish a reference standard for 14 key findings and National Comprehensive Cancer Network resectability category.
- Researchers prompted GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 to create synoptic reports from original reports using the same criteria, and surgeons compared the precision, accuracy, and time to assess the original and artificial intelligence (AI)–generated reports.
TAKEAWAY:
- GPT-4 outperformed GPT-3.5 on all metrics evaluated. For instance, compared with GPT-3.5, GPT-4 achieved equal or higher F1 scores for all 14 key features (F1 scores help assess the precision and recall of a machine-learning model).
- GPT-4 also demonstrated greater precision than GPT-3.5 for extracting superior mesenteric artery involvement (100% vs 88.8%, respectively) and for categorizing resectability.
- Compared with original reports, AI-generated reports helped surgeons better categorize resectability (83% vs 76%, respectively; P = .03), and surgeons spent less time when using AI-generated reports.
- The AI-generated reports did lead to some clinically notable errors. GPT-4, for instance, made errors in extracting common hepatic artery involvement.
IN PRACTICE:
“In our study, GPT-4 was near-perfect at automatically creating pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma synoptic reports from original reports, outperforming GPT-3.5 overall,” the authors wrote. This “represents a useful application that can increase standardization and improve communication between radiologists and surgeons.” However, the authors cautioned, the “presence of some clinically significant errors highlights the need for implementation in supervised and preliminary contexts, rather than being relied on for management decisions.”
SOURCE:
The study, with first author Rajesh Bhayana, MD, University Health Network in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, was published online in Radiology.
LIMITATIONS:
While GPT-4 showed high accuracy in report generation, it did lead to some errors. Researchers also relied on original reports when generating the AI reports, and the original reports can contain ambiguous descriptions and language.
DISCLOSURES:
Dr. Bhayana reported no relevant conflicts of interest. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
GPT-4 generated highly accurate pancreatic cancer synoptic reports from original reports, outperforming GPT-3.5.
METHODOLOGY:
- Compared with original reports, structured imaging reports help surgeons assess tumor resectability in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. However, radiologist uptake of structured reporting remains inconsistent.
- To determine whether converting free-text (ie, original) radiology reports into structured reports can benefit surgeons, researchers evaluated how well GPT-4 and GPT-3.5 were able to generate pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma synoptic reports from originals.
- The retrospective study included 180 consecutive pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma staging CT reports, which were reviewed by two radiologists to establish a reference standard for 14 key findings and National Comprehensive Cancer Network resectability category.
- Researchers prompted GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 to create synoptic reports from original reports using the same criteria, and surgeons compared the precision, accuracy, and time to assess the original and artificial intelligence (AI)–generated reports.
TAKEAWAY:
- GPT-4 outperformed GPT-3.5 on all metrics evaluated. For instance, compared with GPT-3.5, GPT-4 achieved equal or higher F1 scores for all 14 key features (F1 scores help assess the precision and recall of a machine-learning model).
- GPT-4 also demonstrated greater precision than GPT-3.5 for extracting superior mesenteric artery involvement (100% vs 88.8%, respectively) and for categorizing resectability.
- Compared with original reports, AI-generated reports helped surgeons better categorize resectability (83% vs 76%, respectively; P = .03), and surgeons spent less time when using AI-generated reports.
- The AI-generated reports did lead to some clinically notable errors. GPT-4, for instance, made errors in extracting common hepatic artery involvement.
IN PRACTICE:
“In our study, GPT-4 was near-perfect at automatically creating pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma synoptic reports from original reports, outperforming GPT-3.5 overall,” the authors wrote. This “represents a useful application that can increase standardization and improve communication between radiologists and surgeons.” However, the authors cautioned, the “presence of some clinically significant errors highlights the need for implementation in supervised and preliminary contexts, rather than being relied on for management decisions.”
SOURCE:
The study, with first author Rajesh Bhayana, MD, University Health Network in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, was published online in Radiology.
LIMITATIONS:
While GPT-4 showed high accuracy in report generation, it did lead to some errors. Researchers also relied on original reports when generating the AI reports, and the original reports can contain ambiguous descriptions and language.
DISCLOSURES:
Dr. Bhayana reported no relevant conflicts of interest. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
GPT-4 generated highly accurate pancreatic cancer synoptic reports from original reports, outperforming GPT-3.5.
METHODOLOGY:
- Compared with original reports, structured imaging reports help surgeons assess tumor resectability in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. However, radiologist uptake of structured reporting remains inconsistent.
- To determine whether converting free-text (ie, original) radiology reports into structured reports can benefit surgeons, researchers evaluated how well GPT-4 and GPT-3.5 were able to generate pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma synoptic reports from originals.
- The retrospective study included 180 consecutive pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma staging CT reports, which were reviewed by two radiologists to establish a reference standard for 14 key findings and National Comprehensive Cancer Network resectability category.
- Researchers prompted GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 to create synoptic reports from original reports using the same criteria, and surgeons compared the precision, accuracy, and time to assess the original and artificial intelligence (AI)–generated reports.
TAKEAWAY:
- GPT-4 outperformed GPT-3.5 on all metrics evaluated. For instance, compared with GPT-3.5, GPT-4 achieved equal or higher F1 scores for all 14 key features (F1 scores help assess the precision and recall of a machine-learning model).
- GPT-4 also demonstrated greater precision than GPT-3.5 for extracting superior mesenteric artery involvement (100% vs 88.8%, respectively) and for categorizing resectability.
- Compared with original reports, AI-generated reports helped surgeons better categorize resectability (83% vs 76%, respectively; P = .03), and surgeons spent less time when using AI-generated reports.
- The AI-generated reports did lead to some clinically notable errors. GPT-4, for instance, made errors in extracting common hepatic artery involvement.
IN PRACTICE:
“In our study, GPT-4 was near-perfect at automatically creating pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma synoptic reports from original reports, outperforming GPT-3.5 overall,” the authors wrote. This “represents a useful application that can increase standardization and improve communication between radiologists and surgeons.” However, the authors cautioned, the “presence of some clinically significant errors highlights the need for implementation in supervised and preliminary contexts, rather than being relied on for management decisions.”
SOURCE:
The study, with first author Rajesh Bhayana, MD, University Health Network in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, was published online in Radiology.
LIMITATIONS:
While GPT-4 showed high accuracy in report generation, it did lead to some errors. Researchers also relied on original reports when generating the AI reports, and the original reports can contain ambiguous descriptions and language.
DISCLOSURES:
Dr. Bhayana reported no relevant conflicts of interest. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
‘Left in the Dark’: Prior Authorization Erodes Trust, Costs More
Mark Lewis, MD, saw the pain in his patient’s body. The man’s gastrointestinal tumor had metastasized to his bones. Even breathing had become agonizing.
It was a Friday afternoon. Dr. Lewis could see his patient would struggle to make it through the weekend without some pain relief.
When this happens, “the clock is ticking,” said Dr. Lewis, director of gastrointestinal oncology at Intermountain Health in Salt Lake City, Utah. “A patient, especially one with more advanced disease, only has so much time to wait for care.”
Dr. Lewis sent in an electronic request for an opioid prescription to help ease his patient’s pain through the weekend. Once the prescription had gone through, Dr. Lewis told his patient the medication should be ready to pick up at his local pharmacy.
Dr. Lewis left work that Friday feeling a little lighter, knowing the pain medication would help his patient over the weekend.
Moments after walking into the clinic on Monday morning, Dr. Lewis received an unexpected message: “Your patient is in the hospital.”
The events of the weekend soon unfolded.
Dr. Lewis learned that when his patient went to the pharmacy to pick up his pain medication, the pharmacist told him the prescription required prior authorization.
The patient left the pharmacy empty-handed. Hours later, he was in the emergency room (ER) in extreme pain — the exact situation Dr. Lewis had been trying to avoid.
Dr. Lewis felt a sense of powerlessness in that moment.
“I had been left in the dark,” he said. The oncologist-patient relationship is predicated on trust and “that trust is eroded when I can’t give my patients the care they need,” he explained. “I can’t stand overpromising and underdelivering to them.”
Dr. Lewis had received no communication from the insurer that the prescription required prior authorization, no red flag that the request had been denied, and no notification to call the insurer.
Although physicians may need to tread carefully when prescribing opioids over the long term, “this was simply a prescription for 2-3 days of opioids for the exact patient who the drugs were developed to benefit,” Dr. Lewis said. But instead, “he ended up in ER with a pain crisis.”
Prior authorization delays like this often mean patients pay the price.
“These delays are not trivial,” Dr. Lewis said.
A recent study, presented at the ASCO Quality Care Symposium in October, found that among 3304 supportive care prescriptions requiring prior authorization, insurance companies denied 8% of requests, with final denials taking as long as 78 days. Among approved prescriptions, about 40% happened on the same day, while the remaining took anywhere from 1 to 54 days.
Denying or delaying necessary and cost-effective care, even briefly, can harm patients and lead to higher costs. A 2022 survey from the American Medical Association found that instead of reducing low-value care as insurance companies claim, prior authorization often leads to higher overall use of healthcare resources. More specifically, almost half of physicians surveyed said that prior authorization led to an ER visit or need for immediate care.
In this patient’s case, filling the opioid prescription that Friday would have cost no more than $300, possibly as little as $30. The ER visit to manage the patient’s pain crisis costs thousands.
The major issue overall, Dr. Lewis said, is the disconnect between the time spent waiting for prior authorization approvals and the necessity of these treatments. Dr. Lewis says even standard chemotherapy often requires prior authorization.
“The currency we all share is time,” Dr. Lewis said. “But it often feels like there’s very little urgency on insurance company side to approve a treatment, which places a heavy weight on patients and physicians.”
“It just shouldn’t be this hard,” he said.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com as part of the Gatekeepers of Care series on issues oncologists and people with cancer face navigating health insurance company requirements. Read more about the series here. Please email vstern@medscape.net to share experiences with prior authorization or other challenges receiving care.
Mark Lewis, MD, saw the pain in his patient’s body. The man’s gastrointestinal tumor had metastasized to his bones. Even breathing had become agonizing.
It was a Friday afternoon. Dr. Lewis could see his patient would struggle to make it through the weekend without some pain relief.
When this happens, “the clock is ticking,” said Dr. Lewis, director of gastrointestinal oncology at Intermountain Health in Salt Lake City, Utah. “A patient, especially one with more advanced disease, only has so much time to wait for care.”
Dr. Lewis sent in an electronic request for an opioid prescription to help ease his patient’s pain through the weekend. Once the prescription had gone through, Dr. Lewis told his patient the medication should be ready to pick up at his local pharmacy.
Dr. Lewis left work that Friday feeling a little lighter, knowing the pain medication would help his patient over the weekend.
Moments after walking into the clinic on Monday morning, Dr. Lewis received an unexpected message: “Your patient is in the hospital.”
The events of the weekend soon unfolded.
Dr. Lewis learned that when his patient went to the pharmacy to pick up his pain medication, the pharmacist told him the prescription required prior authorization.
The patient left the pharmacy empty-handed. Hours later, he was in the emergency room (ER) in extreme pain — the exact situation Dr. Lewis had been trying to avoid.
Dr. Lewis felt a sense of powerlessness in that moment.
“I had been left in the dark,” he said. The oncologist-patient relationship is predicated on trust and “that trust is eroded when I can’t give my patients the care they need,” he explained. “I can’t stand overpromising and underdelivering to them.”
Dr. Lewis had received no communication from the insurer that the prescription required prior authorization, no red flag that the request had been denied, and no notification to call the insurer.
Although physicians may need to tread carefully when prescribing opioids over the long term, “this was simply a prescription for 2-3 days of opioids for the exact patient who the drugs were developed to benefit,” Dr. Lewis said. But instead, “he ended up in ER with a pain crisis.”
Prior authorization delays like this often mean patients pay the price.
“These delays are not trivial,” Dr. Lewis said.
A recent study, presented at the ASCO Quality Care Symposium in October, found that among 3304 supportive care prescriptions requiring prior authorization, insurance companies denied 8% of requests, with final denials taking as long as 78 days. Among approved prescriptions, about 40% happened on the same day, while the remaining took anywhere from 1 to 54 days.
Denying or delaying necessary and cost-effective care, even briefly, can harm patients and lead to higher costs. A 2022 survey from the American Medical Association found that instead of reducing low-value care as insurance companies claim, prior authorization often leads to higher overall use of healthcare resources. More specifically, almost half of physicians surveyed said that prior authorization led to an ER visit or need for immediate care.
In this patient’s case, filling the opioid prescription that Friday would have cost no more than $300, possibly as little as $30. The ER visit to manage the patient’s pain crisis costs thousands.
The major issue overall, Dr. Lewis said, is the disconnect between the time spent waiting for prior authorization approvals and the necessity of these treatments. Dr. Lewis says even standard chemotherapy often requires prior authorization.
“The currency we all share is time,” Dr. Lewis said. “But it often feels like there’s very little urgency on insurance company side to approve a treatment, which places a heavy weight on patients and physicians.”
“It just shouldn’t be this hard,” he said.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com as part of the Gatekeepers of Care series on issues oncologists and people with cancer face navigating health insurance company requirements. Read more about the series here. Please email vstern@medscape.net to share experiences with prior authorization or other challenges receiving care.
Mark Lewis, MD, saw the pain in his patient’s body. The man’s gastrointestinal tumor had metastasized to his bones. Even breathing had become agonizing.
It was a Friday afternoon. Dr. Lewis could see his patient would struggle to make it through the weekend without some pain relief.
When this happens, “the clock is ticking,” said Dr. Lewis, director of gastrointestinal oncology at Intermountain Health in Salt Lake City, Utah. “A patient, especially one with more advanced disease, only has so much time to wait for care.”
Dr. Lewis sent in an electronic request for an opioid prescription to help ease his patient’s pain through the weekend. Once the prescription had gone through, Dr. Lewis told his patient the medication should be ready to pick up at his local pharmacy.
Dr. Lewis left work that Friday feeling a little lighter, knowing the pain medication would help his patient over the weekend.
Moments after walking into the clinic on Monday morning, Dr. Lewis received an unexpected message: “Your patient is in the hospital.”
The events of the weekend soon unfolded.
Dr. Lewis learned that when his patient went to the pharmacy to pick up his pain medication, the pharmacist told him the prescription required prior authorization.
The patient left the pharmacy empty-handed. Hours later, he was in the emergency room (ER) in extreme pain — the exact situation Dr. Lewis had been trying to avoid.
Dr. Lewis felt a sense of powerlessness in that moment.
“I had been left in the dark,” he said. The oncologist-patient relationship is predicated on trust and “that trust is eroded when I can’t give my patients the care they need,” he explained. “I can’t stand overpromising and underdelivering to them.”
Dr. Lewis had received no communication from the insurer that the prescription required prior authorization, no red flag that the request had been denied, and no notification to call the insurer.
Although physicians may need to tread carefully when prescribing opioids over the long term, “this was simply a prescription for 2-3 days of opioids for the exact patient who the drugs were developed to benefit,” Dr. Lewis said. But instead, “he ended up in ER with a pain crisis.”
Prior authorization delays like this often mean patients pay the price.
“These delays are not trivial,” Dr. Lewis said.
A recent study, presented at the ASCO Quality Care Symposium in October, found that among 3304 supportive care prescriptions requiring prior authorization, insurance companies denied 8% of requests, with final denials taking as long as 78 days. Among approved prescriptions, about 40% happened on the same day, while the remaining took anywhere from 1 to 54 days.
Denying or delaying necessary and cost-effective care, even briefly, can harm patients and lead to higher costs. A 2022 survey from the American Medical Association found that instead of reducing low-value care as insurance companies claim, prior authorization often leads to higher overall use of healthcare resources. More specifically, almost half of physicians surveyed said that prior authorization led to an ER visit or need for immediate care.
In this patient’s case, filling the opioid prescription that Friday would have cost no more than $300, possibly as little as $30. The ER visit to manage the patient’s pain crisis costs thousands.
The major issue overall, Dr. Lewis said, is the disconnect between the time spent waiting for prior authorization approvals and the necessity of these treatments. Dr. Lewis says even standard chemotherapy often requires prior authorization.
“The currency we all share is time,” Dr. Lewis said. “But it often feels like there’s very little urgency on insurance company side to approve a treatment, which places a heavy weight on patients and physicians.”
“It just shouldn’t be this hard,” he said.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com as part of the Gatekeepers of Care series on issues oncologists and people with cancer face navigating health insurance company requirements. Read more about the series here. Please email vstern@medscape.net to share experiences with prior authorization or other challenges receiving care.
FDA approves first 2 gene-editing therapies for sickle cell
These “milestone treatments” mark the first cell-based gene therapies for this debilitating and potentially life-threatening blood disorder that affects about 100,000 people in the United States.
The two therapies are exagamglogene autotemcel, or exa-cel (Casgevy; Vertex Pharmaceuticals and Crispr Therapeutics), and lovotibeglogene autotemcel, or lovo-cel (Lyfgenia; bluebird bio).
“The approval of the first gene therapies for [sickle cell disease] represents a tremendous step forward for the [sickle cell] community, which has been historically overlooked and underfunded,” said Robert A. Brodsky, MD, of Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, in a statement from the American Society of Hematology, following the approval.
“We are excited to advance the field, especially for individuals whose lives have been severely disrupted by the disease, by approving two cell-based gene therapies today,” Nicole Verdun, MD, of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, added in an agency press release.
Sickle cell disease involves a mutation in hemoglobin, a protein in red blood cells that provides oxygen to tissues. The mutation leads red blood cells to develop a crescent or sickle shape, which can restrict blood flow and cause severe pain and organ damage, known as vaso-occlusive events or crises.
Treatment options prior to these approvals primarily included red blood transfusions and hydroxyurea alongside pain management. The only potential curative option has been allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, but that comes with significant risks and most patients don’t have an appropriate donor.
Exa-cel
Exa-cel uses CRISPR gene-editing technology. Before the infusion, patients undergo myeloablative conditioning, which removes cells from the bone marrow. These cells are genetically modified to produce fetal hemoglobin. Patients then receive an infusion of the edited cells, which can help restore normal hemoglobin production.
The FDA approval was based on data from the pivotal CLIMB SCD-121 trial. In an October advisory committee meeting, the FDA highlighted trial data demonstrating that 29 of 31 patients reached the trial’s primary endpoint: freedom from severe vaso-occlusive crises over a 12-month period. In addition, 28 of these patients remained free of vaso-occlusive crises for almost 2 years.
The committee noted that one of the 31 patients died about 9 months after receiving an exa-cel infusion.
The cell-based gene therapy also increased both fetal and total hemoglobin, with total hemoglobin levels increasing to > 11 g/dL by month 3 and remaining at that level afterward. No patients experienced graft failure or rejection.
The most common side effects included low platelets and white blood cell counts, mouth sores, nausea, musculoskeletal pain, vomiting, and febrile neutropenia.
Exa-cel could “provide a one-time functional cure” for patients with severe sickle cell disease, according to Franco Locatelli, MD, of Sapienza University of Rome, who presented initial findings last year.
While the current approval is for patients with infusion-dependent sickle cell disease, exa-cel is also being evaluated in patients with another blood disorder, beta-thalassemia.
Lovo-cel
Lovo-cel, a cell-based gene therapy, uses a different technology — a lentiviral vector, or gene delivery vehicle — that can also genetically modify a patient’s blood stem cells.
Like exa-cel, lovo-cel is a one-time, single-dose infusion that contains the patient’s modified cells. Before the infusion, patients undergo myeloablative conditioning. The patient’s stem cells are then genetically modified to allow them to produce the most common form of hemoglobin, HbA
This approval was based on data from a single-arm, 24-month study in patients aged 12-50 years who had sickle cell disease and a history of vaso-occlusive events.
Overall, 88% of patients (28 of 32) achieved complete resolution of vaso-occlusive events 6-18 months after the infusion.
The most common side effects included stomatitis; febrile neutropenia; and low platelet, white blood cell, and red blood cell counts.
The FDA noted that hematologic cancer has occurred in patients treated with lovo-cel, and the label includes a black-box warning about the risk.
Dr. Brodsky noted, however, that “while these new gene therapies are potentially life-changing for individuals living with [sickle cell disease], they must be accessible to be effective.”
Access is a potential concern. Exa-cel and lovo-cel could cost about $2 million.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
These “milestone treatments” mark the first cell-based gene therapies for this debilitating and potentially life-threatening blood disorder that affects about 100,000 people in the United States.
The two therapies are exagamglogene autotemcel, or exa-cel (Casgevy; Vertex Pharmaceuticals and Crispr Therapeutics), and lovotibeglogene autotemcel, or lovo-cel (Lyfgenia; bluebird bio).
“The approval of the first gene therapies for [sickle cell disease] represents a tremendous step forward for the [sickle cell] community, which has been historically overlooked and underfunded,” said Robert A. Brodsky, MD, of Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, in a statement from the American Society of Hematology, following the approval.
“We are excited to advance the field, especially for individuals whose lives have been severely disrupted by the disease, by approving two cell-based gene therapies today,” Nicole Verdun, MD, of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, added in an agency press release.
Sickle cell disease involves a mutation in hemoglobin, a protein in red blood cells that provides oxygen to tissues. The mutation leads red blood cells to develop a crescent or sickle shape, which can restrict blood flow and cause severe pain and organ damage, known as vaso-occlusive events or crises.
Treatment options prior to these approvals primarily included red blood transfusions and hydroxyurea alongside pain management. The only potential curative option has been allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, but that comes with significant risks and most patients don’t have an appropriate donor.
Exa-cel
Exa-cel uses CRISPR gene-editing technology. Before the infusion, patients undergo myeloablative conditioning, which removes cells from the bone marrow. These cells are genetically modified to produce fetal hemoglobin. Patients then receive an infusion of the edited cells, which can help restore normal hemoglobin production.
The FDA approval was based on data from the pivotal CLIMB SCD-121 trial. In an October advisory committee meeting, the FDA highlighted trial data demonstrating that 29 of 31 patients reached the trial’s primary endpoint: freedom from severe vaso-occlusive crises over a 12-month period. In addition, 28 of these patients remained free of vaso-occlusive crises for almost 2 years.
The committee noted that one of the 31 patients died about 9 months after receiving an exa-cel infusion.
The cell-based gene therapy also increased both fetal and total hemoglobin, with total hemoglobin levels increasing to > 11 g/dL by month 3 and remaining at that level afterward. No patients experienced graft failure or rejection.
The most common side effects included low platelets and white blood cell counts, mouth sores, nausea, musculoskeletal pain, vomiting, and febrile neutropenia.
Exa-cel could “provide a one-time functional cure” for patients with severe sickle cell disease, according to Franco Locatelli, MD, of Sapienza University of Rome, who presented initial findings last year.
While the current approval is for patients with infusion-dependent sickle cell disease, exa-cel is also being evaluated in patients with another blood disorder, beta-thalassemia.
Lovo-cel
Lovo-cel, a cell-based gene therapy, uses a different technology — a lentiviral vector, or gene delivery vehicle — that can also genetically modify a patient’s blood stem cells.
Like exa-cel, lovo-cel is a one-time, single-dose infusion that contains the patient’s modified cells. Before the infusion, patients undergo myeloablative conditioning. The patient’s stem cells are then genetically modified to allow them to produce the most common form of hemoglobin, HbA
This approval was based on data from a single-arm, 24-month study in patients aged 12-50 years who had sickle cell disease and a history of vaso-occlusive events.
Overall, 88% of patients (28 of 32) achieved complete resolution of vaso-occlusive events 6-18 months after the infusion.
The most common side effects included stomatitis; febrile neutropenia; and low platelet, white blood cell, and red blood cell counts.
The FDA noted that hematologic cancer has occurred in patients treated with lovo-cel, and the label includes a black-box warning about the risk.
Dr. Brodsky noted, however, that “while these new gene therapies are potentially life-changing for individuals living with [sickle cell disease], they must be accessible to be effective.”
Access is a potential concern. Exa-cel and lovo-cel could cost about $2 million.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
These “milestone treatments” mark the first cell-based gene therapies for this debilitating and potentially life-threatening blood disorder that affects about 100,000 people in the United States.
The two therapies are exagamglogene autotemcel, or exa-cel (Casgevy; Vertex Pharmaceuticals and Crispr Therapeutics), and lovotibeglogene autotemcel, or lovo-cel (Lyfgenia; bluebird bio).
“The approval of the first gene therapies for [sickle cell disease] represents a tremendous step forward for the [sickle cell] community, which has been historically overlooked and underfunded,” said Robert A. Brodsky, MD, of Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, in a statement from the American Society of Hematology, following the approval.
“We are excited to advance the field, especially for individuals whose lives have been severely disrupted by the disease, by approving two cell-based gene therapies today,” Nicole Verdun, MD, of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, added in an agency press release.
Sickle cell disease involves a mutation in hemoglobin, a protein in red blood cells that provides oxygen to tissues. The mutation leads red blood cells to develop a crescent or sickle shape, which can restrict blood flow and cause severe pain and organ damage, known as vaso-occlusive events or crises.
Treatment options prior to these approvals primarily included red blood transfusions and hydroxyurea alongside pain management. The only potential curative option has been allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, but that comes with significant risks and most patients don’t have an appropriate donor.
Exa-cel
Exa-cel uses CRISPR gene-editing technology. Before the infusion, patients undergo myeloablative conditioning, which removes cells from the bone marrow. These cells are genetically modified to produce fetal hemoglobin. Patients then receive an infusion of the edited cells, which can help restore normal hemoglobin production.
The FDA approval was based on data from the pivotal CLIMB SCD-121 trial. In an October advisory committee meeting, the FDA highlighted trial data demonstrating that 29 of 31 patients reached the trial’s primary endpoint: freedom from severe vaso-occlusive crises over a 12-month period. In addition, 28 of these patients remained free of vaso-occlusive crises for almost 2 years.
The committee noted that one of the 31 patients died about 9 months after receiving an exa-cel infusion.
The cell-based gene therapy also increased both fetal and total hemoglobin, with total hemoglobin levels increasing to > 11 g/dL by month 3 and remaining at that level afterward. No patients experienced graft failure or rejection.
The most common side effects included low platelets and white blood cell counts, mouth sores, nausea, musculoskeletal pain, vomiting, and febrile neutropenia.
Exa-cel could “provide a one-time functional cure” for patients with severe sickle cell disease, according to Franco Locatelli, MD, of Sapienza University of Rome, who presented initial findings last year.
While the current approval is for patients with infusion-dependent sickle cell disease, exa-cel is also being evaluated in patients with another blood disorder, beta-thalassemia.
Lovo-cel
Lovo-cel, a cell-based gene therapy, uses a different technology — a lentiviral vector, or gene delivery vehicle — that can also genetically modify a patient’s blood stem cells.
Like exa-cel, lovo-cel is a one-time, single-dose infusion that contains the patient’s modified cells. Before the infusion, patients undergo myeloablative conditioning. The patient’s stem cells are then genetically modified to allow them to produce the most common form of hemoglobin, HbA
This approval was based on data from a single-arm, 24-month study in patients aged 12-50 years who had sickle cell disease and a history of vaso-occlusive events.
Overall, 88% of patients (28 of 32) achieved complete resolution of vaso-occlusive events 6-18 months after the infusion.
The most common side effects included stomatitis; febrile neutropenia; and low platelet, white blood cell, and red blood cell counts.
The FDA noted that hematologic cancer has occurred in patients treated with lovo-cel, and the label includes a black-box warning about the risk.
Dr. Brodsky noted, however, that “while these new gene therapies are potentially life-changing for individuals living with [sickle cell disease], they must be accessible to be effective.”
Access is a potential concern. Exa-cel and lovo-cel could cost about $2 million.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
‘Infuriating’ prescription denial leaves patient without antiemetics
It was Friday, and oncologist Coral Olazagasti, MD, faced a ticking clock.
The patient – a man with HPV-related oropharyngeal cancer – was experiencing severe side effects from standard chemoradiation with weekly cisplatin. Intense nausea and grade 3 mucositis, in particular, left him struggling to swallow or take in any food or fluids.
He was on 8 mg of ondansetron (Zofran) every 8 hours, as needed, to keep the nausea at bay. The pills along with a feeding tube helped, but his symptoms were so intense, neither was quite enough.
“He still needed to be hospitalized twice for dehydration,” said Dr. Olazagasti, who specializes in head and neck medical cancer at Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center in Miami.
But when it came time to renew his ondansetron prescription, his insurance company denied it.
The reasoning: “The company had only approved 30 tablets a month and, for them, it was unjustifiable to approve anything above that amount,” Dr. Olazagasti explained.
After Dr. Olazagasti called the insurance company to resolve the issue, a company representative told her to fill out a prior authorization form.
But it was already after 7:30 p.m. ET on Friday.
At that point, finding the prior authorization documents, filling them out, and submitting them would take more time – and the paperwork couldn’t be filed until Monday.
“My patient was at home with zero tablets left and horrible symptoms. He couldn’t keep anything down,” Dr. Olazagasti said.
On Monday, the oncology team sent the prior authorization request, and her patient received his medication a few days later.
“My patient had to wait about 5 days to get the nausea meds he needed,” she said. In the meantime, he was in pain. “Having a refill of this simple supportive care medication rejected was infuriating.”
When Dr. Olazagasti vented her frustrations on Twitter, several people chimed in, suggesting purchasing the drug at a discount through GoodRx or Cost Plus instead of going through the insurance company.
At Cost Plus, for instance, 30 8-mg pills would cost $6.30, but ordering from the online pharmacy would mean waiting several days for delivery.
Discounts through GoodRx may provide a potentially faster solution in a pinch, but the pharmacy matters. In Miami, 30 8-mg pills would cost $19.99 at Costco with a GoodRx coupon, but $233.56 at CVS and $253.60 at Walgreens.
Although potentially useful, these options may not be the obvious choice for oncologists and patients, especially when a drug has already been approved and covered by the insurer. In this case, the denial was also a surprise, which left Dr. Olazagasti and her patient scrambling right before the weekend.
In addition, companies providing discounted generic drugs may only have a limited number of oncology-related medications. Cost Plus, for instance, now sells more than 1,000 generic prescription drugs at a fraction of what insurance companies charge, but only about 7 are cancer drugs.
On a broader level, Dr. Olazagasti noted, “insurance companies have a responsibility to cover these drugs. If we all get so fed up that we start relying on alternate routes to get patients their treatments, then insurance companies are let off the hook.”
However, using an alternative option like GoodRx or CostPlus could mean bypassing insurance company obstacles in certain cases.
“The hurdles someone may have to go through to get a generic drug approved are very frustrating,” said Stacie B. Dusetzina, PhD, professor of health policy and a professor of cancer research at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn.
In a weekend emergency situation, if the drug is discounted through GoodRx, “it can be a good backup strategy to send the prescription to the pharmacy” and more generally “worth it for patients to check if they can get a better deal on generic drugs through these companies.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
It was Friday, and oncologist Coral Olazagasti, MD, faced a ticking clock.
The patient – a man with HPV-related oropharyngeal cancer – was experiencing severe side effects from standard chemoradiation with weekly cisplatin. Intense nausea and grade 3 mucositis, in particular, left him struggling to swallow or take in any food or fluids.
He was on 8 mg of ondansetron (Zofran) every 8 hours, as needed, to keep the nausea at bay. The pills along with a feeding tube helped, but his symptoms were so intense, neither was quite enough.
“He still needed to be hospitalized twice for dehydration,” said Dr. Olazagasti, who specializes in head and neck medical cancer at Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center in Miami.
But when it came time to renew his ondansetron prescription, his insurance company denied it.
The reasoning: “The company had only approved 30 tablets a month and, for them, it was unjustifiable to approve anything above that amount,” Dr. Olazagasti explained.
After Dr. Olazagasti called the insurance company to resolve the issue, a company representative told her to fill out a prior authorization form.
But it was already after 7:30 p.m. ET on Friday.
At that point, finding the prior authorization documents, filling them out, and submitting them would take more time – and the paperwork couldn’t be filed until Monday.
“My patient was at home with zero tablets left and horrible symptoms. He couldn’t keep anything down,” Dr. Olazagasti said.
On Monday, the oncology team sent the prior authorization request, and her patient received his medication a few days later.
“My patient had to wait about 5 days to get the nausea meds he needed,” she said. In the meantime, he was in pain. “Having a refill of this simple supportive care medication rejected was infuriating.”
When Dr. Olazagasti vented her frustrations on Twitter, several people chimed in, suggesting purchasing the drug at a discount through GoodRx or Cost Plus instead of going through the insurance company.
At Cost Plus, for instance, 30 8-mg pills would cost $6.30, but ordering from the online pharmacy would mean waiting several days for delivery.
Discounts through GoodRx may provide a potentially faster solution in a pinch, but the pharmacy matters. In Miami, 30 8-mg pills would cost $19.99 at Costco with a GoodRx coupon, but $233.56 at CVS and $253.60 at Walgreens.
Although potentially useful, these options may not be the obvious choice for oncologists and patients, especially when a drug has already been approved and covered by the insurer. In this case, the denial was also a surprise, which left Dr. Olazagasti and her patient scrambling right before the weekend.
In addition, companies providing discounted generic drugs may only have a limited number of oncology-related medications. Cost Plus, for instance, now sells more than 1,000 generic prescription drugs at a fraction of what insurance companies charge, but only about 7 are cancer drugs.
On a broader level, Dr. Olazagasti noted, “insurance companies have a responsibility to cover these drugs. If we all get so fed up that we start relying on alternate routes to get patients their treatments, then insurance companies are let off the hook.”
However, using an alternative option like GoodRx or CostPlus could mean bypassing insurance company obstacles in certain cases.
“The hurdles someone may have to go through to get a generic drug approved are very frustrating,” said Stacie B. Dusetzina, PhD, professor of health policy and a professor of cancer research at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn.
In a weekend emergency situation, if the drug is discounted through GoodRx, “it can be a good backup strategy to send the prescription to the pharmacy” and more generally “worth it for patients to check if they can get a better deal on generic drugs through these companies.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
It was Friday, and oncologist Coral Olazagasti, MD, faced a ticking clock.
The patient – a man with HPV-related oropharyngeal cancer – was experiencing severe side effects from standard chemoradiation with weekly cisplatin. Intense nausea and grade 3 mucositis, in particular, left him struggling to swallow or take in any food or fluids.
He was on 8 mg of ondansetron (Zofran) every 8 hours, as needed, to keep the nausea at bay. The pills along with a feeding tube helped, but his symptoms were so intense, neither was quite enough.
“He still needed to be hospitalized twice for dehydration,” said Dr. Olazagasti, who specializes in head and neck medical cancer at Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center in Miami.
But when it came time to renew his ondansetron prescription, his insurance company denied it.
The reasoning: “The company had only approved 30 tablets a month and, for them, it was unjustifiable to approve anything above that amount,” Dr. Olazagasti explained.
After Dr. Olazagasti called the insurance company to resolve the issue, a company representative told her to fill out a prior authorization form.
But it was already after 7:30 p.m. ET on Friday.
At that point, finding the prior authorization documents, filling them out, and submitting them would take more time – and the paperwork couldn’t be filed until Monday.
“My patient was at home with zero tablets left and horrible symptoms. He couldn’t keep anything down,” Dr. Olazagasti said.
On Monday, the oncology team sent the prior authorization request, and her patient received his medication a few days later.
“My patient had to wait about 5 days to get the nausea meds he needed,” she said. In the meantime, he was in pain. “Having a refill of this simple supportive care medication rejected was infuriating.”
When Dr. Olazagasti vented her frustrations on Twitter, several people chimed in, suggesting purchasing the drug at a discount through GoodRx or Cost Plus instead of going through the insurance company.
At Cost Plus, for instance, 30 8-mg pills would cost $6.30, but ordering from the online pharmacy would mean waiting several days for delivery.
Discounts through GoodRx may provide a potentially faster solution in a pinch, but the pharmacy matters. In Miami, 30 8-mg pills would cost $19.99 at Costco with a GoodRx coupon, but $233.56 at CVS and $253.60 at Walgreens.
Although potentially useful, these options may not be the obvious choice for oncologists and patients, especially when a drug has already been approved and covered by the insurer. In this case, the denial was also a surprise, which left Dr. Olazagasti and her patient scrambling right before the weekend.
In addition, companies providing discounted generic drugs may only have a limited number of oncology-related medications. Cost Plus, for instance, now sells more than 1,000 generic prescription drugs at a fraction of what insurance companies charge, but only about 7 are cancer drugs.
On a broader level, Dr. Olazagasti noted, “insurance companies have a responsibility to cover these drugs. If we all get so fed up that we start relying on alternate routes to get patients their treatments, then insurance companies are let off the hook.”
However, using an alternative option like GoodRx or CostPlus could mean bypassing insurance company obstacles in certain cases.
“The hurdles someone may have to go through to get a generic drug approved are very frustrating,” said Stacie B. Dusetzina, PhD, professor of health policy and a professor of cancer research at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn.
In a weekend emergency situation, if the drug is discounted through GoodRx, “it can be a good backup strategy to send the prescription to the pharmacy” and more generally “worth it for patients to check if they can get a better deal on generic drugs through these companies.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Oncologist to insurer: ‘This denial will not stand’
“Is this really the hill you want to die on?” asked Rebecca Shatsky, MD, a medical oncologist at the University of California, San Diego.
It was Nov. 18 and Dr. Shatsky was on the phone with a retired oncologist working for the health insurance company Premera Blue Cross.
Dr. Shatsky was appealing a prior authorization denial for pembrolizumab (Keytruda) to treat her patient with stage IIIc triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). She hoped the peer-to-peer would reverse the denial. The Food and Drug Administration had approved the immunotherapy for people with high-risk TNBC both in the neoadjuvant setting alongside chemotherapy and, in her patient’s case, as a single-agent adjuvant treatment based on data from the KEYNOTE 522 trial.
In the peer-to-peer, Dr. Shatsky laid out the evidence, but she could tell the physician wasn’t going to budge.
When she pressed him further, asking why he was denying potentially lifesaving care for her patient, he said the data on whether patients really need adjuvant pembrolizumab were not clear yet.
“The man – who was not a breast oncologist – was essentially mansplaining breast oncology to me,” she said in an interview. “I don’t need a nonexpert giving me their misinterpretation of the data.”
Dr. Shatsky informed him that this decision would not stand. She would be escalating the claim.
“I’m not going to let you get in way of my patient’s survival,” Dr. Shatsky told the physician during the peer-to-peer. “We have one shot to cure this, and if we don’t do it now, patients’ average lifespan is 17 months.”
The conversation turned a few heads in her office.
“My whole office stopped and stared. But then they clapped after they realized why I was yelling,” she tweeted later that night.
She continued: “@premera picked the wrong oncologist to mess with today. I will not be letting this go. This denial. Will. Not. Stand. An insurance company should not get to tell me how to practice medicine when Phase III RCT data and @NCCN + @ASCO guideline support my decision!”
A spokesperson for Premera said in a statement that, “while we did see many of the details about the case were posted to Twitter, we cannot comment on the specifics you noted due to privacy policies.”
The spokesperson explained that Premera has “the same goal as our provider partners: ensure our members have access to quality health care,” noting that prior authorization helps health plans evaluate the medical necessity and safety of health care services given that “15%-30% of care is unnecessary.”
“We also understand that providers may not agree with our decisions, which is why we have a robust appeals process,” the spokesperson said, suggesting Dr. Shatsky could have appealed the decision a second time.
And “if the member or provider still disagrees with Premera’s coverage decision after the initial appeal, providers can request review by a medical expert outside Premera who works for an independent review organization,” and the company “will pay for” and “abide by” that decision, the spokesperson added.
The Twitter storm
After Dr. Shatsky tweeted about her experience with Premera, she received a flood of support from the Twitterverse. The thread garnered tens of thousands of likes and hundreds of comments offering support and advice.
Several people suggested asking Merck for help accessing the drug. But Dr. Shatsky said no, “I’m tired of laying down and letting [insurance companies] win. It IS worth fighting for.”
The next morning, Dr. Shatsky got a call. It was the vice president of medical management at Premera.
“We’ve talked again, and we’ll give you the drug,” Dr. Shatsky recalled the Premera vice president saying.
The next day, Monday morning, Dr. Shatsky’s patient received her first infusion of pembrolizumab.
Although relieved, Dr. Shatsky noted that it wasn’t until she posted her experience to Twitter that Premera seemed to take notice.
Plus, “an oncologist without a strong social media following may not have gotten care approved and that’s not how medicine should work,” said Dr. Anderson, assistant professor in the department of clinical pharmacy, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.
Tatiana Prowell, MD, expressed similar concerns in a Nov. 20 tweet: “And sadly, the patients with cancer & an even busier, more exhausted doctor who doesn’t have a big [reach] on social media will be denied appropriate care. And that’s bank for insurers.”
But, Dr. Prowell noted sarcastically: “At least a patient with cancer had her care delayed & a dedicated OncTwitter colleague’s Physician Burnout was exacerbated.”
In this case, the prior authorization process took about a week – requiring an initial prior authorization request, an appeal after the request was denied, a peer-to-peer resulting in a second denial, and finally a tweet and a phone call from a top executive at the company.
In fact, these delays have become so common that Dr. Shatsky needs to anticipate and incorporate likely delays into her workflow.
“I learn which drugs will take a long time to get prior authorization for and then plan enough time so that my patient’s care is hopefully not delayed,” Dr. Shatsky said. “It should not be so hard to get appropriate and time-sensitive care for our patients.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“Is this really the hill you want to die on?” asked Rebecca Shatsky, MD, a medical oncologist at the University of California, San Diego.
It was Nov. 18 and Dr. Shatsky was on the phone with a retired oncologist working for the health insurance company Premera Blue Cross.
Dr. Shatsky was appealing a prior authorization denial for pembrolizumab (Keytruda) to treat her patient with stage IIIc triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). She hoped the peer-to-peer would reverse the denial. The Food and Drug Administration had approved the immunotherapy for people with high-risk TNBC both in the neoadjuvant setting alongside chemotherapy and, in her patient’s case, as a single-agent adjuvant treatment based on data from the KEYNOTE 522 trial.
In the peer-to-peer, Dr. Shatsky laid out the evidence, but she could tell the physician wasn’t going to budge.
When she pressed him further, asking why he was denying potentially lifesaving care for her patient, he said the data on whether patients really need adjuvant pembrolizumab were not clear yet.
“The man – who was not a breast oncologist – was essentially mansplaining breast oncology to me,” she said in an interview. “I don’t need a nonexpert giving me their misinterpretation of the data.”
Dr. Shatsky informed him that this decision would not stand. She would be escalating the claim.
“I’m not going to let you get in way of my patient’s survival,” Dr. Shatsky told the physician during the peer-to-peer. “We have one shot to cure this, and if we don’t do it now, patients’ average lifespan is 17 months.”
The conversation turned a few heads in her office.
“My whole office stopped and stared. But then they clapped after they realized why I was yelling,” she tweeted later that night.
She continued: “@premera picked the wrong oncologist to mess with today. I will not be letting this go. This denial. Will. Not. Stand. An insurance company should not get to tell me how to practice medicine when Phase III RCT data and @NCCN + @ASCO guideline support my decision!”
A spokesperson for Premera said in a statement that, “while we did see many of the details about the case were posted to Twitter, we cannot comment on the specifics you noted due to privacy policies.”
The spokesperson explained that Premera has “the same goal as our provider partners: ensure our members have access to quality health care,” noting that prior authorization helps health plans evaluate the medical necessity and safety of health care services given that “15%-30% of care is unnecessary.”
“We also understand that providers may not agree with our decisions, which is why we have a robust appeals process,” the spokesperson said, suggesting Dr. Shatsky could have appealed the decision a second time.
And “if the member or provider still disagrees with Premera’s coverage decision after the initial appeal, providers can request review by a medical expert outside Premera who works for an independent review organization,” and the company “will pay for” and “abide by” that decision, the spokesperson added.
The Twitter storm
After Dr. Shatsky tweeted about her experience with Premera, she received a flood of support from the Twitterverse. The thread garnered tens of thousands of likes and hundreds of comments offering support and advice.
Several people suggested asking Merck for help accessing the drug. But Dr. Shatsky said no, “I’m tired of laying down and letting [insurance companies] win. It IS worth fighting for.”
The next morning, Dr. Shatsky got a call. It was the vice president of medical management at Premera.
“We’ve talked again, and we’ll give you the drug,” Dr. Shatsky recalled the Premera vice president saying.
The next day, Monday morning, Dr. Shatsky’s patient received her first infusion of pembrolizumab.
Although relieved, Dr. Shatsky noted that it wasn’t until she posted her experience to Twitter that Premera seemed to take notice.
Plus, “an oncologist without a strong social media following may not have gotten care approved and that’s not how medicine should work,” said Dr. Anderson, assistant professor in the department of clinical pharmacy, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.
Tatiana Prowell, MD, expressed similar concerns in a Nov. 20 tweet: “And sadly, the patients with cancer & an even busier, more exhausted doctor who doesn’t have a big [reach] on social media will be denied appropriate care. And that’s bank for insurers.”
But, Dr. Prowell noted sarcastically: “At least a patient with cancer had her care delayed & a dedicated OncTwitter colleague’s Physician Burnout was exacerbated.”
In this case, the prior authorization process took about a week – requiring an initial prior authorization request, an appeal after the request was denied, a peer-to-peer resulting in a second denial, and finally a tweet and a phone call from a top executive at the company.
In fact, these delays have become so common that Dr. Shatsky needs to anticipate and incorporate likely delays into her workflow.
“I learn which drugs will take a long time to get prior authorization for and then plan enough time so that my patient’s care is hopefully not delayed,” Dr. Shatsky said. “It should not be so hard to get appropriate and time-sensitive care for our patients.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“Is this really the hill you want to die on?” asked Rebecca Shatsky, MD, a medical oncologist at the University of California, San Diego.
It was Nov. 18 and Dr. Shatsky was on the phone with a retired oncologist working for the health insurance company Premera Blue Cross.
Dr. Shatsky was appealing a prior authorization denial for pembrolizumab (Keytruda) to treat her patient with stage IIIc triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). She hoped the peer-to-peer would reverse the denial. The Food and Drug Administration had approved the immunotherapy for people with high-risk TNBC both in the neoadjuvant setting alongside chemotherapy and, in her patient’s case, as a single-agent adjuvant treatment based on data from the KEYNOTE 522 trial.
In the peer-to-peer, Dr. Shatsky laid out the evidence, but she could tell the physician wasn’t going to budge.
When she pressed him further, asking why he was denying potentially lifesaving care for her patient, he said the data on whether patients really need adjuvant pembrolizumab were not clear yet.
“The man – who was not a breast oncologist – was essentially mansplaining breast oncology to me,” she said in an interview. “I don’t need a nonexpert giving me their misinterpretation of the data.”
Dr. Shatsky informed him that this decision would not stand. She would be escalating the claim.
“I’m not going to let you get in way of my patient’s survival,” Dr. Shatsky told the physician during the peer-to-peer. “We have one shot to cure this, and if we don’t do it now, patients’ average lifespan is 17 months.”
The conversation turned a few heads in her office.
“My whole office stopped and stared. But then they clapped after they realized why I was yelling,” she tweeted later that night.
She continued: “@premera picked the wrong oncologist to mess with today. I will not be letting this go. This denial. Will. Not. Stand. An insurance company should not get to tell me how to practice medicine when Phase III RCT data and @NCCN + @ASCO guideline support my decision!”
A spokesperson for Premera said in a statement that, “while we did see many of the details about the case were posted to Twitter, we cannot comment on the specifics you noted due to privacy policies.”
The spokesperson explained that Premera has “the same goal as our provider partners: ensure our members have access to quality health care,” noting that prior authorization helps health plans evaluate the medical necessity and safety of health care services given that “15%-30% of care is unnecessary.”
“We also understand that providers may not agree with our decisions, which is why we have a robust appeals process,” the spokesperson said, suggesting Dr. Shatsky could have appealed the decision a second time.
And “if the member or provider still disagrees with Premera’s coverage decision after the initial appeal, providers can request review by a medical expert outside Premera who works for an independent review organization,” and the company “will pay for” and “abide by” that decision, the spokesperson added.
The Twitter storm
After Dr. Shatsky tweeted about her experience with Premera, she received a flood of support from the Twitterverse. The thread garnered tens of thousands of likes and hundreds of comments offering support and advice.
Several people suggested asking Merck for help accessing the drug. But Dr. Shatsky said no, “I’m tired of laying down and letting [insurance companies] win. It IS worth fighting for.”
The next morning, Dr. Shatsky got a call. It was the vice president of medical management at Premera.
“We’ve talked again, and we’ll give you the drug,” Dr. Shatsky recalled the Premera vice president saying.
The next day, Monday morning, Dr. Shatsky’s patient received her first infusion of pembrolizumab.
Although relieved, Dr. Shatsky noted that it wasn’t until she posted her experience to Twitter that Premera seemed to take notice.
Plus, “an oncologist without a strong social media following may not have gotten care approved and that’s not how medicine should work,” said Dr. Anderson, assistant professor in the department of clinical pharmacy, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.
Tatiana Prowell, MD, expressed similar concerns in a Nov. 20 tweet: “And sadly, the patients with cancer & an even busier, more exhausted doctor who doesn’t have a big [reach] on social media will be denied appropriate care. And that’s bank for insurers.”
But, Dr. Prowell noted sarcastically: “At least a patient with cancer had her care delayed & a dedicated OncTwitter colleague’s Physician Burnout was exacerbated.”
In this case, the prior authorization process took about a week – requiring an initial prior authorization request, an appeal after the request was denied, a peer-to-peer resulting in a second denial, and finally a tweet and a phone call from a top executive at the company.
In fact, these delays have become so common that Dr. Shatsky needs to anticipate and incorporate likely delays into her workflow.
“I learn which drugs will take a long time to get prior authorization for and then plan enough time so that my patient’s care is hopefully not delayed,” Dr. Shatsky said. “It should not be so hard to get appropriate and time-sensitive care for our patients.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Life and death decisions: What keeps oncologists up at night
It was 2 a.m. And Rebecca Shatsky, MD, could not sleep.
The breast oncologist was thinking about a patient of hers with metastatic cancer.
The patient’s disease had been asymptomatic for some time. Then without warning, her cancer suddenly exploded. Her bone marrow was failing, and her liver was not far behind.
Dr. Shatsky had a treatment plan ready to go but still, she felt uneasy.
“I had to be honest with her that I didn’t know if this plan would work,” says Dr. Shatsky, a medical oncologist at University of California, San Diego (UCSD).
That night, after visiting the patient in the hospital, Dr. Shatsky lay awake going over her next move, making sure it was the right one and hoping it would help keep the disease at bay.
“It’s so much pressure when someone is depending on you to make life or death decisions,” Dr. Shatsky said.
And in the quiet hours of night, these concerns grow louder.
Dr. Shatsky is not alone.
“There’s no off button,” says Aaron Goodman, MD, a hematologist at UCSD Health who goes by “Papa Heme” on Twitter. “I’m always thinking about my patients. Constantly.”
The public rarely gets a glimpse of these private moments. On occasion, oncologists will share a personal story, but more often, insights come from broad research on the ethical, emotional, and psychological toll of practicing medicine.
Many oncologists carry this baggage home with them because they have no other option.
“There is simply no time to process the weight of the day when I’ve got seven more patients who need my full attention before lunch,” Mark Lewis, MD, director, department of gastrointestinal oncology, Intermountain Healthcare, Salt Lake City, Utah. “That is why my processing happens outside of the office, when my brain can be quiet.”
What am I missing?
Dr. Goodman recognizes the gravity of each decision he makes. He pores over every detail of a patient’s scans, lab results, history, and symptoms.
But no matter how many times he checks and rechecks, one question nags at him: What am I missing?
For Dr. Goodman, this exhaustive level of attention is worth it.
“When errors are made, it’s someone’s life,” Dr. Goodman said. “Nothing would have prepared me for this responsibility. Until it lies on you, it’s impossible to understand how much trust patients put into us.”
That trust becomes most apparent for Dr. Goodman when facing a decision about how to treat a patient with acute myeloid leukemia who’s in remission.
Give more chemotherapy to root out the leukemia cells still lurking in the body, and the patient faces a high risk of the cancer returning. Pick stem cell transplant, and the chance of being cured goes up significantly, but the patient could also die within 100 days of the transplant.
“All together, the data show I’m helping patients with a transplant, but for the individual, I could be causing harm. Someone could be living less because of a decision I made,” Dr. Goodman said.
For patients with advanced cancer, oncologists may need to think several moves ahead. Mapping out a patient’s treatment options can feel like a game of chess. Dr. Shatsky is always trying to anticipate how the tumor will behave, what is driving it, and how lifestyle factors may influence a patient’s response in the present and the future.
“It is a mind game,” she says. “Like in chess, I try to outsmart my opponent. But with advanced cancer, there are not necessarily clear-cut guidelines or one way to manage the disease, and I have to do the best I can with drugs I have.”
That’s the art of oncology: Balancing the many knowns and unknowns of a person’s cancer alongside the toxicities of treatment and a patient’s hopes and goals.
Throughout the year, Don Dizon, MD, will see a number of patients with advanced disease. In these instances, the question he often wrestles with is if the patient can’t be cured, whether more treatment will just cause greater harm.
Dr. Dizon recently faced this dilemma with an older patient with metastatic disease who had not done well with an initial treatment regimen. After outlining the risks for more chemotherapy, he explained one option would be to forgo it and simply treat her symptoms.
“It’s an impossible choice,” says Dr. Dizon, director of women’s cancers at Lifespan Cancer Institute and director of medical oncology at Rhode Island Hospital, Providence.
Chemotherapy can provide symptom relief, but it can also be toxic – and patients may be so frail, they can die from more therapy.
“I told my patient, if in your heart, you want to try more therapy, that’s okay. But it’s also okay if you don’t,” Dr. Dizon recalled.
Her response: “You’re supposed to give me the answer.”
However, for patients approaching the end of life, there often is no right answer.
“It’s part of the discomfort you live with as a patient and oncologist, and when I leave the clinic, that’s one thing that follows me home,” Dr. Dizon said. “At the end of the day, I need to look in the mirror and know I did the best I could.”
The difficult conversation
Every Sunday, Dr. Lewis feels the weight of the week ahead. He and his wife, a pediatrician, call it the “Sunday scaries.”
It’s when Dr. Lewis begins thinking about the delicate conversations to come, rehearsing how he’s going to share the news that a person has advanced cancer or that a cancer, once in remission, has returned.
“Before the pandemic, I had 36 people come to a visit where I delivered some very heavy news and it became a Greek chorus of sobbing,” he recalls.
For every oncologist, delivering bad news is an integral part of the job. But after spending months, sometimes years, with a patient and the family, Dr. Lewis knows how to take the temperature of the room – who will likely prefer a more blunt style and who might need a gentler touch.
“The longer you know a patient and family, the better you can gauge the best approach,” Dr. Lewis said. “And for some, you know it’ll be complete devastation no matter what.”
When Jennifer Lycette, MD, prepares for a difficult conversation, she’ll run down all the possible ways it could go. Sometimes her brain will get stuck in a loop, cycling through the different trajectories on repeat.
“For years, I didn’t know how to cope with that,” said Dr. Lycette, medical director at Providence Oncology and Hematology Care Clinic in Seaside, Ore. “I wasn’t taught the tools to cope with that in my medical training. It took midcareer professional coaching that I sought out on my own to learn to remind myself that no matter what the person says, I have the experience and skill set to handle what comes next and to simply be present in the moment with the patient.”
The question that now sits with Dr. Lycette hours after a visit is what she could have done better. She knows from experience how important it is to choose her words carefully.
Early in her career, Dr. Lycette had a patient with stage IV cancer who wanted to know more about the death process. Because most people ask about pain, she assured him that he likely wouldn’t experience too much pain with his type of cancer.
“It will probably be like falling asleep,” said Dr. Lycette, hoping she was offering comfort. “When I saw him next, he told me he hadn’t slept.”
He was afraid that if he did, he wouldn’t wake up.
In that moment, Dr. Lycette realized the power that her words carry and the importance of trying to understand the inner lives of her patients.
Life outside the clinic
Sometimes an oncologist’s late-night ruminations have little to do with cancer itself.
Manali Patel, MD, finds herself worrying if her patients will have enough to eat and whether she will be able to help.
“I was up at 3 a.m. one morning, thinking about how we’re going to fund a project for patients from low-income households who we discovered were experiencing severe food insecurity – what grants we need, what foundations we can work with,” said Dr. Patel, a medical oncologist at Stanford Hospital and Clinics and the VA Palo Alto Health Care System in California.
The past few years of the pandemic have added a new layer of worry for Dr. Patel.
“I don’t want my patients to die from a preventable virus when they’ve already been through so much suffering,” Dr. Patel said.
This thought feeds worries about how her actions outside the clinic could unintentionally harm her patients. Should she go to a big medical conference? A family gathering? The grocery store?
“There are some places you can’t avoid, but these decisions have caused a lot of strife for me,” she said. “The health and safety of our patients – that’s in our wheelhouse – but so many of the policies are outside of our control.”
The inevitable losses and the wins
For patients with metastatic disease, eventually the treatment options will run out.
Dr. Shatsky likes to be up front with patients about that reality: “There will come a day when I will tell you there’s nothing more I can do, and you need to trust that I’m being honest with you and that’s the truth.”
For Dr. Goodman, the devastation that bad news brings patients and families is glaring. He knows there will be no more normalcy in their lives.
“I see a lot of suffering, but I know the suffering happens regardless of whether I see it or not,” Dr. Goodman said.
That’s why holding on to the victories can be so important. Dr. Goodman recalled a young patient who came to him with a 20-cm tumor and is now cured. “Had I not met that individual and done what I had done, he’d be dead, but now he’s going to live his life,” Dr. Goodman said. “But I don’t wake up at 2 a.m. thinking about that.”
Dr. Shatsky gets a lot of joy from the wins – the patients who do really well, the times when she can help a friend or colleagues – and those moments go a long way to outweigh the hurt, worry, and workload.
When dealing with so much gray, “the wins are important, knowing you can make a difference is important,” Dr. Dizon said.
And there’s a delicate balance.
“I think patients want an oncologist who cares and is genuinely invested in their outcomes but not someone who is so sad all the time,” Dr. Lewis said. “When I lose a patient, I still grieve each loss, but I can’t mourn every patient’s death like it’s a family member. Otherwise, I’d break.”
What would you do if you had terminal cancer?
Dr. Dizon recalled how a friend handled the news. She went home and made dinner, he said.
Ultimately, she lived for many years. She saw her kids get married, met her first grandchild, and had time to prepare, something not everyone gets the chance to do.
That’s why it’s important to “do what you normally do as long as you can,” Dr. Dizon said. “Live your life.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
It was 2 a.m. And Rebecca Shatsky, MD, could not sleep.
The breast oncologist was thinking about a patient of hers with metastatic cancer.
The patient’s disease had been asymptomatic for some time. Then without warning, her cancer suddenly exploded. Her bone marrow was failing, and her liver was not far behind.
Dr. Shatsky had a treatment plan ready to go but still, she felt uneasy.
“I had to be honest with her that I didn’t know if this plan would work,” says Dr. Shatsky, a medical oncologist at University of California, San Diego (UCSD).
That night, after visiting the patient in the hospital, Dr. Shatsky lay awake going over her next move, making sure it was the right one and hoping it would help keep the disease at bay.
“It’s so much pressure when someone is depending on you to make life or death decisions,” Dr. Shatsky said.
And in the quiet hours of night, these concerns grow louder.
Dr. Shatsky is not alone.
“There’s no off button,” says Aaron Goodman, MD, a hematologist at UCSD Health who goes by “Papa Heme” on Twitter. “I’m always thinking about my patients. Constantly.”
The public rarely gets a glimpse of these private moments. On occasion, oncologists will share a personal story, but more often, insights come from broad research on the ethical, emotional, and psychological toll of practicing medicine.
Many oncologists carry this baggage home with them because they have no other option.
“There is simply no time to process the weight of the day when I’ve got seven more patients who need my full attention before lunch,” Mark Lewis, MD, director, department of gastrointestinal oncology, Intermountain Healthcare, Salt Lake City, Utah. “That is why my processing happens outside of the office, when my brain can be quiet.”
What am I missing?
Dr. Goodman recognizes the gravity of each decision he makes. He pores over every detail of a patient’s scans, lab results, history, and symptoms.
But no matter how many times he checks and rechecks, one question nags at him: What am I missing?
For Dr. Goodman, this exhaustive level of attention is worth it.
“When errors are made, it’s someone’s life,” Dr. Goodman said. “Nothing would have prepared me for this responsibility. Until it lies on you, it’s impossible to understand how much trust patients put into us.”
That trust becomes most apparent for Dr. Goodman when facing a decision about how to treat a patient with acute myeloid leukemia who’s in remission.
Give more chemotherapy to root out the leukemia cells still lurking in the body, and the patient faces a high risk of the cancer returning. Pick stem cell transplant, and the chance of being cured goes up significantly, but the patient could also die within 100 days of the transplant.
“All together, the data show I’m helping patients with a transplant, but for the individual, I could be causing harm. Someone could be living less because of a decision I made,” Dr. Goodman said.
For patients with advanced cancer, oncologists may need to think several moves ahead. Mapping out a patient’s treatment options can feel like a game of chess. Dr. Shatsky is always trying to anticipate how the tumor will behave, what is driving it, and how lifestyle factors may influence a patient’s response in the present and the future.
“It is a mind game,” she says. “Like in chess, I try to outsmart my opponent. But with advanced cancer, there are not necessarily clear-cut guidelines or one way to manage the disease, and I have to do the best I can with drugs I have.”
That’s the art of oncology: Balancing the many knowns and unknowns of a person’s cancer alongside the toxicities of treatment and a patient’s hopes and goals.
Throughout the year, Don Dizon, MD, will see a number of patients with advanced disease. In these instances, the question he often wrestles with is if the patient can’t be cured, whether more treatment will just cause greater harm.
Dr. Dizon recently faced this dilemma with an older patient with metastatic disease who had not done well with an initial treatment regimen. After outlining the risks for more chemotherapy, he explained one option would be to forgo it and simply treat her symptoms.
“It’s an impossible choice,” says Dr. Dizon, director of women’s cancers at Lifespan Cancer Institute and director of medical oncology at Rhode Island Hospital, Providence.
Chemotherapy can provide symptom relief, but it can also be toxic – and patients may be so frail, they can die from more therapy.
“I told my patient, if in your heart, you want to try more therapy, that’s okay. But it’s also okay if you don’t,” Dr. Dizon recalled.
Her response: “You’re supposed to give me the answer.”
However, for patients approaching the end of life, there often is no right answer.
“It’s part of the discomfort you live with as a patient and oncologist, and when I leave the clinic, that’s one thing that follows me home,” Dr. Dizon said. “At the end of the day, I need to look in the mirror and know I did the best I could.”
The difficult conversation
Every Sunday, Dr. Lewis feels the weight of the week ahead. He and his wife, a pediatrician, call it the “Sunday scaries.”
It’s when Dr. Lewis begins thinking about the delicate conversations to come, rehearsing how he’s going to share the news that a person has advanced cancer or that a cancer, once in remission, has returned.
“Before the pandemic, I had 36 people come to a visit where I delivered some very heavy news and it became a Greek chorus of sobbing,” he recalls.
For every oncologist, delivering bad news is an integral part of the job. But after spending months, sometimes years, with a patient and the family, Dr. Lewis knows how to take the temperature of the room – who will likely prefer a more blunt style and who might need a gentler touch.
“The longer you know a patient and family, the better you can gauge the best approach,” Dr. Lewis said. “And for some, you know it’ll be complete devastation no matter what.”
When Jennifer Lycette, MD, prepares for a difficult conversation, she’ll run down all the possible ways it could go. Sometimes her brain will get stuck in a loop, cycling through the different trajectories on repeat.
“For years, I didn’t know how to cope with that,” said Dr. Lycette, medical director at Providence Oncology and Hematology Care Clinic in Seaside, Ore. “I wasn’t taught the tools to cope with that in my medical training. It took midcareer professional coaching that I sought out on my own to learn to remind myself that no matter what the person says, I have the experience and skill set to handle what comes next and to simply be present in the moment with the patient.”
The question that now sits with Dr. Lycette hours after a visit is what she could have done better. She knows from experience how important it is to choose her words carefully.
Early in her career, Dr. Lycette had a patient with stage IV cancer who wanted to know more about the death process. Because most people ask about pain, she assured him that he likely wouldn’t experience too much pain with his type of cancer.
“It will probably be like falling asleep,” said Dr. Lycette, hoping she was offering comfort. “When I saw him next, he told me he hadn’t slept.”
He was afraid that if he did, he wouldn’t wake up.
In that moment, Dr. Lycette realized the power that her words carry and the importance of trying to understand the inner lives of her patients.
Life outside the clinic
Sometimes an oncologist’s late-night ruminations have little to do with cancer itself.
Manali Patel, MD, finds herself worrying if her patients will have enough to eat and whether she will be able to help.
“I was up at 3 a.m. one morning, thinking about how we’re going to fund a project for patients from low-income households who we discovered were experiencing severe food insecurity – what grants we need, what foundations we can work with,” said Dr. Patel, a medical oncologist at Stanford Hospital and Clinics and the VA Palo Alto Health Care System in California.
The past few years of the pandemic have added a new layer of worry for Dr. Patel.
“I don’t want my patients to die from a preventable virus when they’ve already been through so much suffering,” Dr. Patel said.
This thought feeds worries about how her actions outside the clinic could unintentionally harm her patients. Should she go to a big medical conference? A family gathering? The grocery store?
“There are some places you can’t avoid, but these decisions have caused a lot of strife for me,” she said. “The health and safety of our patients – that’s in our wheelhouse – but so many of the policies are outside of our control.”
The inevitable losses and the wins
For patients with metastatic disease, eventually the treatment options will run out.
Dr. Shatsky likes to be up front with patients about that reality: “There will come a day when I will tell you there’s nothing more I can do, and you need to trust that I’m being honest with you and that’s the truth.”
For Dr. Goodman, the devastation that bad news brings patients and families is glaring. He knows there will be no more normalcy in their lives.
“I see a lot of suffering, but I know the suffering happens regardless of whether I see it or not,” Dr. Goodman said.
That’s why holding on to the victories can be so important. Dr. Goodman recalled a young patient who came to him with a 20-cm tumor and is now cured. “Had I not met that individual and done what I had done, he’d be dead, but now he’s going to live his life,” Dr. Goodman said. “But I don’t wake up at 2 a.m. thinking about that.”
Dr. Shatsky gets a lot of joy from the wins – the patients who do really well, the times when she can help a friend or colleagues – and those moments go a long way to outweigh the hurt, worry, and workload.
When dealing with so much gray, “the wins are important, knowing you can make a difference is important,” Dr. Dizon said.
And there’s a delicate balance.
“I think patients want an oncologist who cares and is genuinely invested in their outcomes but not someone who is so sad all the time,” Dr. Lewis said. “When I lose a patient, I still grieve each loss, but I can’t mourn every patient’s death like it’s a family member. Otherwise, I’d break.”
What would you do if you had terminal cancer?
Dr. Dizon recalled how a friend handled the news. She went home and made dinner, he said.
Ultimately, she lived for many years. She saw her kids get married, met her first grandchild, and had time to prepare, something not everyone gets the chance to do.
That’s why it’s important to “do what you normally do as long as you can,” Dr. Dizon said. “Live your life.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
It was 2 a.m. And Rebecca Shatsky, MD, could not sleep.
The breast oncologist was thinking about a patient of hers with metastatic cancer.
The patient’s disease had been asymptomatic for some time. Then without warning, her cancer suddenly exploded. Her bone marrow was failing, and her liver was not far behind.
Dr. Shatsky had a treatment plan ready to go but still, she felt uneasy.
“I had to be honest with her that I didn’t know if this plan would work,” says Dr. Shatsky, a medical oncologist at University of California, San Diego (UCSD).
That night, after visiting the patient in the hospital, Dr. Shatsky lay awake going over her next move, making sure it was the right one and hoping it would help keep the disease at bay.
“It’s so much pressure when someone is depending on you to make life or death decisions,” Dr. Shatsky said.
And in the quiet hours of night, these concerns grow louder.
Dr. Shatsky is not alone.
“There’s no off button,” says Aaron Goodman, MD, a hematologist at UCSD Health who goes by “Papa Heme” on Twitter. “I’m always thinking about my patients. Constantly.”
The public rarely gets a glimpse of these private moments. On occasion, oncologists will share a personal story, but more often, insights come from broad research on the ethical, emotional, and psychological toll of practicing medicine.
Many oncologists carry this baggage home with them because they have no other option.
“There is simply no time to process the weight of the day when I’ve got seven more patients who need my full attention before lunch,” Mark Lewis, MD, director, department of gastrointestinal oncology, Intermountain Healthcare, Salt Lake City, Utah. “That is why my processing happens outside of the office, when my brain can be quiet.”
What am I missing?
Dr. Goodman recognizes the gravity of each decision he makes. He pores over every detail of a patient’s scans, lab results, history, and symptoms.
But no matter how many times he checks and rechecks, one question nags at him: What am I missing?
For Dr. Goodman, this exhaustive level of attention is worth it.
“When errors are made, it’s someone’s life,” Dr. Goodman said. “Nothing would have prepared me for this responsibility. Until it lies on you, it’s impossible to understand how much trust patients put into us.”
That trust becomes most apparent for Dr. Goodman when facing a decision about how to treat a patient with acute myeloid leukemia who’s in remission.
Give more chemotherapy to root out the leukemia cells still lurking in the body, and the patient faces a high risk of the cancer returning. Pick stem cell transplant, and the chance of being cured goes up significantly, but the patient could also die within 100 days of the transplant.
“All together, the data show I’m helping patients with a transplant, but for the individual, I could be causing harm. Someone could be living less because of a decision I made,” Dr. Goodman said.
For patients with advanced cancer, oncologists may need to think several moves ahead. Mapping out a patient’s treatment options can feel like a game of chess. Dr. Shatsky is always trying to anticipate how the tumor will behave, what is driving it, and how lifestyle factors may influence a patient’s response in the present and the future.
“It is a mind game,” she says. “Like in chess, I try to outsmart my opponent. But with advanced cancer, there are not necessarily clear-cut guidelines or one way to manage the disease, and I have to do the best I can with drugs I have.”
That’s the art of oncology: Balancing the many knowns and unknowns of a person’s cancer alongside the toxicities of treatment and a patient’s hopes and goals.
Throughout the year, Don Dizon, MD, will see a number of patients with advanced disease. In these instances, the question he often wrestles with is if the patient can’t be cured, whether more treatment will just cause greater harm.
Dr. Dizon recently faced this dilemma with an older patient with metastatic disease who had not done well with an initial treatment regimen. After outlining the risks for more chemotherapy, he explained one option would be to forgo it and simply treat her symptoms.
“It’s an impossible choice,” says Dr. Dizon, director of women’s cancers at Lifespan Cancer Institute and director of medical oncology at Rhode Island Hospital, Providence.
Chemotherapy can provide symptom relief, but it can also be toxic – and patients may be so frail, they can die from more therapy.
“I told my patient, if in your heart, you want to try more therapy, that’s okay. But it’s also okay if you don’t,” Dr. Dizon recalled.
Her response: “You’re supposed to give me the answer.”
However, for patients approaching the end of life, there often is no right answer.
“It’s part of the discomfort you live with as a patient and oncologist, and when I leave the clinic, that’s one thing that follows me home,” Dr. Dizon said. “At the end of the day, I need to look in the mirror and know I did the best I could.”
The difficult conversation
Every Sunday, Dr. Lewis feels the weight of the week ahead. He and his wife, a pediatrician, call it the “Sunday scaries.”
It’s when Dr. Lewis begins thinking about the delicate conversations to come, rehearsing how he’s going to share the news that a person has advanced cancer or that a cancer, once in remission, has returned.
“Before the pandemic, I had 36 people come to a visit where I delivered some very heavy news and it became a Greek chorus of sobbing,” he recalls.
For every oncologist, delivering bad news is an integral part of the job. But after spending months, sometimes years, with a patient and the family, Dr. Lewis knows how to take the temperature of the room – who will likely prefer a more blunt style and who might need a gentler touch.
“The longer you know a patient and family, the better you can gauge the best approach,” Dr. Lewis said. “And for some, you know it’ll be complete devastation no matter what.”
When Jennifer Lycette, MD, prepares for a difficult conversation, she’ll run down all the possible ways it could go. Sometimes her brain will get stuck in a loop, cycling through the different trajectories on repeat.
“For years, I didn’t know how to cope with that,” said Dr. Lycette, medical director at Providence Oncology and Hematology Care Clinic in Seaside, Ore. “I wasn’t taught the tools to cope with that in my medical training. It took midcareer professional coaching that I sought out on my own to learn to remind myself that no matter what the person says, I have the experience and skill set to handle what comes next and to simply be present in the moment with the patient.”
The question that now sits with Dr. Lycette hours after a visit is what she could have done better. She knows from experience how important it is to choose her words carefully.
Early in her career, Dr. Lycette had a patient with stage IV cancer who wanted to know more about the death process. Because most people ask about pain, she assured him that he likely wouldn’t experience too much pain with his type of cancer.
“It will probably be like falling asleep,” said Dr. Lycette, hoping she was offering comfort. “When I saw him next, he told me he hadn’t slept.”
He was afraid that if he did, he wouldn’t wake up.
In that moment, Dr. Lycette realized the power that her words carry and the importance of trying to understand the inner lives of her patients.
Life outside the clinic
Sometimes an oncologist’s late-night ruminations have little to do with cancer itself.
Manali Patel, MD, finds herself worrying if her patients will have enough to eat and whether she will be able to help.
“I was up at 3 a.m. one morning, thinking about how we’re going to fund a project for patients from low-income households who we discovered were experiencing severe food insecurity – what grants we need, what foundations we can work with,” said Dr. Patel, a medical oncologist at Stanford Hospital and Clinics and the VA Palo Alto Health Care System in California.
The past few years of the pandemic have added a new layer of worry for Dr. Patel.
“I don’t want my patients to die from a preventable virus when they’ve already been through so much suffering,” Dr. Patel said.
This thought feeds worries about how her actions outside the clinic could unintentionally harm her patients. Should she go to a big medical conference? A family gathering? The grocery store?
“There are some places you can’t avoid, but these decisions have caused a lot of strife for me,” she said. “The health and safety of our patients – that’s in our wheelhouse – but so many of the policies are outside of our control.”
The inevitable losses and the wins
For patients with metastatic disease, eventually the treatment options will run out.
Dr. Shatsky likes to be up front with patients about that reality: “There will come a day when I will tell you there’s nothing more I can do, and you need to trust that I’m being honest with you and that’s the truth.”
For Dr. Goodman, the devastation that bad news brings patients and families is glaring. He knows there will be no more normalcy in their lives.
“I see a lot of suffering, but I know the suffering happens regardless of whether I see it or not,” Dr. Goodman said.
That’s why holding on to the victories can be so important. Dr. Goodman recalled a young patient who came to him with a 20-cm tumor and is now cured. “Had I not met that individual and done what I had done, he’d be dead, but now he’s going to live his life,” Dr. Goodman said. “But I don’t wake up at 2 a.m. thinking about that.”
Dr. Shatsky gets a lot of joy from the wins – the patients who do really well, the times when she can help a friend or colleagues – and those moments go a long way to outweigh the hurt, worry, and workload.
When dealing with so much gray, “the wins are important, knowing you can make a difference is important,” Dr. Dizon said.
And there’s a delicate balance.
“I think patients want an oncologist who cares and is genuinely invested in their outcomes but not someone who is so sad all the time,” Dr. Lewis said. “When I lose a patient, I still grieve each loss, but I can’t mourn every patient’s death like it’s a family member. Otherwise, I’d break.”
What would you do if you had terminal cancer?
Dr. Dizon recalled how a friend handled the news. She went home and made dinner, he said.
Ultimately, she lived for many years. She saw her kids get married, met her first grandchild, and had time to prepare, something not everyone gets the chance to do.
That’s why it’s important to “do what you normally do as long as you can,” Dr. Dizon said. “Live your life.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA withdraws lymphoma drug approval after investigation
Umbralisib had received accelerated approval in February 2021 to treat adults with relapsed or refractory marginal zone lymphoma following at least one prior therapy and those with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma who had received at least three prior therapies.
But safety concerns began to emerge in the phase 3 UNITY-CLL trial, which evaluated the drug in a related cancer type: chronic lymphocytic leukemia.
Last February, the FDA said it was investigating a possible increased risk of death associated with umbralisib.
Five months later, the results are in.
“Updated findings from the UNITY-CLL clinical trial continued to show a possible increased risk of death in patients receiving Ukoniq. As a result, we determined the risks of treatment with Ukoniq outweigh its benefits,” the FDA wrote in a drug safety communication published June 1.
In April, the drug manufacturer, TG Therapeutics, announced it was voluntarily withdrawing umbralisib from the market for its approved uses in marginal zone lymphoma and follicular lymphoma.
The FDA’s safety notice includes instructions for physicians and patients. The FDA urges health care professionals to “stop prescribing Ukoniq and switch patients to alternative treatments” and to “inform patients currently taking Ukoniq of the increased risk of death seen in the clinical trial and advise them to stop taking the medicine.”
In special instances in which a patient may be benefiting from the drug, the company plans to make umbralisib available under expanded access.
The FDA also recommends that patients who discontinue taking the drug dispose of unused umbralisib using a drug take-back location, such as a pharmacy, or throwing it away in the household trash after placing it in a sealed bag mixed with dirt or cat litter and removing personal identification information.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Umbralisib had received accelerated approval in February 2021 to treat adults with relapsed or refractory marginal zone lymphoma following at least one prior therapy and those with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma who had received at least three prior therapies.
But safety concerns began to emerge in the phase 3 UNITY-CLL trial, which evaluated the drug in a related cancer type: chronic lymphocytic leukemia.
Last February, the FDA said it was investigating a possible increased risk of death associated with umbralisib.
Five months later, the results are in.
“Updated findings from the UNITY-CLL clinical trial continued to show a possible increased risk of death in patients receiving Ukoniq. As a result, we determined the risks of treatment with Ukoniq outweigh its benefits,” the FDA wrote in a drug safety communication published June 1.
In April, the drug manufacturer, TG Therapeutics, announced it was voluntarily withdrawing umbralisib from the market for its approved uses in marginal zone lymphoma and follicular lymphoma.
The FDA’s safety notice includes instructions for physicians and patients. The FDA urges health care professionals to “stop prescribing Ukoniq and switch patients to alternative treatments” and to “inform patients currently taking Ukoniq of the increased risk of death seen in the clinical trial and advise them to stop taking the medicine.”
In special instances in which a patient may be benefiting from the drug, the company plans to make umbralisib available under expanded access.
The FDA also recommends that patients who discontinue taking the drug dispose of unused umbralisib using a drug take-back location, such as a pharmacy, or throwing it away in the household trash after placing it in a sealed bag mixed with dirt or cat litter and removing personal identification information.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Umbralisib had received accelerated approval in February 2021 to treat adults with relapsed or refractory marginal zone lymphoma following at least one prior therapy and those with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma who had received at least three prior therapies.
But safety concerns began to emerge in the phase 3 UNITY-CLL trial, which evaluated the drug in a related cancer type: chronic lymphocytic leukemia.
Last February, the FDA said it was investigating a possible increased risk of death associated with umbralisib.
Five months later, the results are in.
“Updated findings from the UNITY-CLL clinical trial continued to show a possible increased risk of death in patients receiving Ukoniq. As a result, we determined the risks of treatment with Ukoniq outweigh its benefits,” the FDA wrote in a drug safety communication published June 1.
In April, the drug manufacturer, TG Therapeutics, announced it was voluntarily withdrawing umbralisib from the market for its approved uses in marginal zone lymphoma and follicular lymphoma.
The FDA’s safety notice includes instructions for physicians and patients. The FDA urges health care professionals to “stop prescribing Ukoniq and switch patients to alternative treatments” and to “inform patients currently taking Ukoniq of the increased risk of death seen in the clinical trial and advise them to stop taking the medicine.”
In special instances in which a patient may be benefiting from the drug, the company plans to make umbralisib available under expanded access.
The FDA also recommends that patients who discontinue taking the drug dispose of unused umbralisib using a drug take-back location, such as a pharmacy, or throwing it away in the household trash after placing it in a sealed bag mixed with dirt or cat litter and removing personal identification information.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Geography hampers access to lung cancer screening
a recent analysis shows.
That percentage, although quite small, still translates to more than 750,000 individuals who are eligible to receive lung cancer screening but live at least 40 miles from a facility.
Overall, a larger proportion of eligible individuals in rural areas had no access to a facility, but a greater number of people in urban areas had no access, especially at shorter distances.
Understanding access issues is important given that “lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography scanning (LDCT) reduces mortality among high-risk adults, ... [but] annual screening rates remain low,” write study authors Liora Sahar, PhD, of the American Cancer Society in Atlanta, and colleagues.
The study was published online Feb. 15 in the journal Cancer.
It expands on a previous report, which found that “less than 6% of those 55 to 79 years of age do not have access to registry screening facilities”.
The new analysis incorporates the most recent guidelines from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which lowered the screening age to 50 years and compares access across urban and rural areas.
Dr. Sahar and colleagues calculated the distances from population centers to screening facilities and estimated the number of individuals living within different distances of those facilities – 10, 20, 40, 50, and 100 miles. Geographical subdivisions, or census tracts, were also classified along a spectrum of rural to urban.
The authors found that, overall, about 14.8 million people aged 50-80 years are eligible for lung cancer screening, and 5.1% of that population – or 753,038 individuals – do not live within 40 miles of a facility and have no access to screening.
The proportion of people affected by access issues varies by geographic location. For eligible people living 40 miles or more from a facility, almost 25% (n = 287,803) in rural counties had no access, compared with 1.6% (n = 195,120) in metropolitan areas.
At greater distances to facilities (50 and 100 miles), these proportions diminish. In rural counties, for instance, 16% of eligible individuals (n = 186,401) living 50 or more miles away and 2.8% (n = 33,504) living 100 or more miles away had no access to a facility.
Not surprisingly, across all distances, “there is a significantly higher percentage of rural residents who do not have access to facilities in comparison with those in urban settings,” the authors write. “There are fewer facilities in rural areas, so residents need to travel longer distances to reach a facility.”
Notably, however, distance to a facility was not necessarily the greatest barrier to screening. The authors found a greater number of eligible individuals living in or close to urban areas were not getting screening when facilities were 10 miles away – more than 2.8 million in metropolitan areas versus just over 1 million in rural areas.
“The total number of individuals with no access in urban areas exceeds that of rural individuals, particularly at shorter distances ... [which] reveals an additional underserved population.”
Identifying geographic areas with greater access issues can help researchers address barriers to screening and improve uptake.
“Areas and local pockets with persistently low or no access across short and long distances should be considered for tailored interventions, such as implementing mobile units, repurposing existing imaging or health facilities, and adding appropriate navigation, radiology, and screening program staff to better support the communities,” the authors conclude.
The study was supported in part by the National Lung Cancer Roundtable. Coauthor Debra S. Dyer, MD, serves on the clinical advisory board for computer software company Imidex and on the GO2 Foundation scientific advisory board; she also serves as a consultant for Lung Ambition Alliance. Coauthor Ella A. Kazerooni, MD, reports past participation on the Bristol Myers Squibb Foundation advisory board. The other authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
a recent analysis shows.
That percentage, although quite small, still translates to more than 750,000 individuals who are eligible to receive lung cancer screening but live at least 40 miles from a facility.
Overall, a larger proportion of eligible individuals in rural areas had no access to a facility, but a greater number of people in urban areas had no access, especially at shorter distances.
Understanding access issues is important given that “lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography scanning (LDCT) reduces mortality among high-risk adults, ... [but] annual screening rates remain low,” write study authors Liora Sahar, PhD, of the American Cancer Society in Atlanta, and colleagues.
The study was published online Feb. 15 in the journal Cancer.
It expands on a previous report, which found that “less than 6% of those 55 to 79 years of age do not have access to registry screening facilities”.
The new analysis incorporates the most recent guidelines from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which lowered the screening age to 50 years and compares access across urban and rural areas.
Dr. Sahar and colleagues calculated the distances from population centers to screening facilities and estimated the number of individuals living within different distances of those facilities – 10, 20, 40, 50, and 100 miles. Geographical subdivisions, or census tracts, were also classified along a spectrum of rural to urban.
The authors found that, overall, about 14.8 million people aged 50-80 years are eligible for lung cancer screening, and 5.1% of that population – or 753,038 individuals – do not live within 40 miles of a facility and have no access to screening.
The proportion of people affected by access issues varies by geographic location. For eligible people living 40 miles or more from a facility, almost 25% (n = 287,803) in rural counties had no access, compared with 1.6% (n = 195,120) in metropolitan areas.
At greater distances to facilities (50 and 100 miles), these proportions diminish. In rural counties, for instance, 16% of eligible individuals (n = 186,401) living 50 or more miles away and 2.8% (n = 33,504) living 100 or more miles away had no access to a facility.
Not surprisingly, across all distances, “there is a significantly higher percentage of rural residents who do not have access to facilities in comparison with those in urban settings,” the authors write. “There are fewer facilities in rural areas, so residents need to travel longer distances to reach a facility.”
Notably, however, distance to a facility was not necessarily the greatest barrier to screening. The authors found a greater number of eligible individuals living in or close to urban areas were not getting screening when facilities were 10 miles away – more than 2.8 million in metropolitan areas versus just over 1 million in rural areas.
“The total number of individuals with no access in urban areas exceeds that of rural individuals, particularly at shorter distances ... [which] reveals an additional underserved population.”
Identifying geographic areas with greater access issues can help researchers address barriers to screening and improve uptake.
“Areas and local pockets with persistently low or no access across short and long distances should be considered for tailored interventions, such as implementing mobile units, repurposing existing imaging or health facilities, and adding appropriate navigation, radiology, and screening program staff to better support the communities,” the authors conclude.
The study was supported in part by the National Lung Cancer Roundtable. Coauthor Debra S. Dyer, MD, serves on the clinical advisory board for computer software company Imidex and on the GO2 Foundation scientific advisory board; she also serves as a consultant for Lung Ambition Alliance. Coauthor Ella A. Kazerooni, MD, reports past participation on the Bristol Myers Squibb Foundation advisory board. The other authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
a recent analysis shows.
That percentage, although quite small, still translates to more than 750,000 individuals who are eligible to receive lung cancer screening but live at least 40 miles from a facility.
Overall, a larger proportion of eligible individuals in rural areas had no access to a facility, but a greater number of people in urban areas had no access, especially at shorter distances.
Understanding access issues is important given that “lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography scanning (LDCT) reduces mortality among high-risk adults, ... [but] annual screening rates remain low,” write study authors Liora Sahar, PhD, of the American Cancer Society in Atlanta, and colleagues.
The study was published online Feb. 15 in the journal Cancer.
It expands on a previous report, which found that “less than 6% of those 55 to 79 years of age do not have access to registry screening facilities”.
The new analysis incorporates the most recent guidelines from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which lowered the screening age to 50 years and compares access across urban and rural areas.
Dr. Sahar and colleagues calculated the distances from population centers to screening facilities and estimated the number of individuals living within different distances of those facilities – 10, 20, 40, 50, and 100 miles. Geographical subdivisions, or census tracts, were also classified along a spectrum of rural to urban.
The authors found that, overall, about 14.8 million people aged 50-80 years are eligible for lung cancer screening, and 5.1% of that population – or 753,038 individuals – do not live within 40 miles of a facility and have no access to screening.
The proportion of people affected by access issues varies by geographic location. For eligible people living 40 miles or more from a facility, almost 25% (n = 287,803) in rural counties had no access, compared with 1.6% (n = 195,120) in metropolitan areas.
At greater distances to facilities (50 and 100 miles), these proportions diminish. In rural counties, for instance, 16% of eligible individuals (n = 186,401) living 50 or more miles away and 2.8% (n = 33,504) living 100 or more miles away had no access to a facility.
Not surprisingly, across all distances, “there is a significantly higher percentage of rural residents who do not have access to facilities in comparison with those in urban settings,” the authors write. “There are fewer facilities in rural areas, so residents need to travel longer distances to reach a facility.”
Notably, however, distance to a facility was not necessarily the greatest barrier to screening. The authors found a greater number of eligible individuals living in or close to urban areas were not getting screening when facilities were 10 miles away – more than 2.8 million in metropolitan areas versus just over 1 million in rural areas.
“The total number of individuals with no access in urban areas exceeds that of rural individuals, particularly at shorter distances ... [which] reveals an additional underserved population.”
Identifying geographic areas with greater access issues can help researchers address barriers to screening and improve uptake.
“Areas and local pockets with persistently low or no access across short and long distances should be considered for tailored interventions, such as implementing mobile units, repurposing existing imaging or health facilities, and adding appropriate navigation, radiology, and screening program staff to better support the communities,” the authors conclude.
The study was supported in part by the National Lung Cancer Roundtable. Coauthor Debra S. Dyer, MD, serves on the clinical advisory board for computer software company Imidex and on the GO2 Foundation scientific advisory board; she also serves as a consultant for Lung Ambition Alliance. Coauthor Ella A. Kazerooni, MD, reports past participation on the Bristol Myers Squibb Foundation advisory board. The other authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM CANCER