User login
AVAHO
div[contains(@class, 'header__large-screen')]
div[contains(@class, 'read-next-article')]
div[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
section[contains(@class, 'footer-nav-section-wrapper')]
footer[@id='footer']
div[contains(@class, 'main-prefix')]
section[contains(@class, 'nav-hidden')]
div[contains(@class, 'ce-card-content')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-ce-stack')]
Gum disease linked to colorectal cancer: COLDENT study
findings from the population-based case-control COLDENT study suggest.
The rate of new CRC diagnoses among individuals in the study who had a history of PD was nearly 50% higher than in those with no such history, after adjustment for a host of medical and demographic factors, the investigators noted.
This isn’t the first time PD has been linked with extra-oral health outcomes, including gastrointestinal cancers. It has been shown to be associated with several major systemic diseases, such as cardiovascular, respiratory, chronic kidney, and metabolic diseases. Evidence also suggests a link between PD and Alzheimer’s disease.
However, prior studies that looked at the connection between PD and CRC have relied on secondary analyses of data from other studies and are limited by other methodologic shortcomings, noted the researchers, led by Amal Idrissi Janati, DDS, University of Montreal.
To better assess the etiologic role of PD in the development of CRC, Dr. Janati and colleagues analyzed 348 histologically confirmed cases of colon or rectal cancer diagnosed from January 2013 to December 2019 and compared them to 310 matched controls.
The rate of new CRC diagnoses among individuals with a history of PD was 1.4 times higher than among those with no PD history after adjustment for age and gender. It increased to 1.45 times higher when the researchers also adjusted for body mass index, education, income, diabetes, family history of CRC, regular use of aspirin and non-aspirin nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and lifetime cumulative smoking, consumption of red and processed meats, alcohol consumption, and total physical activity score.
The findings were published online Jan. 26 in Cancer Causes and Control.
“Our results support the hypothesis of an association between PD and sporadic CRC risk,” the researchers said, adding that further epidemiologic studies are recommended.
They speculated that the “putative mechanism of PD and cancer association involves the spread of periodontal pathogens to extra-oral sites, dissemination of bacteria endotoxins, and release of inflammation products directly into the bloodstream.”
The chronic inflammation associated with PD “promotes carcinogenesis by induction of gene mutations, inhibition of apoptosis, stimulation of angiogenesis, cell proliferation, and epigenetic alterations,” they added.
The COLDENT study was supported by the Cancer Research Society. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
findings from the population-based case-control COLDENT study suggest.
The rate of new CRC diagnoses among individuals in the study who had a history of PD was nearly 50% higher than in those with no such history, after adjustment for a host of medical and demographic factors, the investigators noted.
This isn’t the first time PD has been linked with extra-oral health outcomes, including gastrointestinal cancers. It has been shown to be associated with several major systemic diseases, such as cardiovascular, respiratory, chronic kidney, and metabolic diseases. Evidence also suggests a link between PD and Alzheimer’s disease.
However, prior studies that looked at the connection between PD and CRC have relied on secondary analyses of data from other studies and are limited by other methodologic shortcomings, noted the researchers, led by Amal Idrissi Janati, DDS, University of Montreal.
To better assess the etiologic role of PD in the development of CRC, Dr. Janati and colleagues analyzed 348 histologically confirmed cases of colon or rectal cancer diagnosed from January 2013 to December 2019 and compared them to 310 matched controls.
The rate of new CRC diagnoses among individuals with a history of PD was 1.4 times higher than among those with no PD history after adjustment for age and gender. It increased to 1.45 times higher when the researchers also adjusted for body mass index, education, income, diabetes, family history of CRC, regular use of aspirin and non-aspirin nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and lifetime cumulative smoking, consumption of red and processed meats, alcohol consumption, and total physical activity score.
The findings were published online Jan. 26 in Cancer Causes and Control.
“Our results support the hypothesis of an association between PD and sporadic CRC risk,” the researchers said, adding that further epidemiologic studies are recommended.
They speculated that the “putative mechanism of PD and cancer association involves the spread of periodontal pathogens to extra-oral sites, dissemination of bacteria endotoxins, and release of inflammation products directly into the bloodstream.”
The chronic inflammation associated with PD “promotes carcinogenesis by induction of gene mutations, inhibition of apoptosis, stimulation of angiogenesis, cell proliferation, and epigenetic alterations,” they added.
The COLDENT study was supported by the Cancer Research Society. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
findings from the population-based case-control COLDENT study suggest.
The rate of new CRC diagnoses among individuals in the study who had a history of PD was nearly 50% higher than in those with no such history, after adjustment for a host of medical and demographic factors, the investigators noted.
This isn’t the first time PD has been linked with extra-oral health outcomes, including gastrointestinal cancers. It has been shown to be associated with several major systemic diseases, such as cardiovascular, respiratory, chronic kidney, and metabolic diseases. Evidence also suggests a link between PD and Alzheimer’s disease.
However, prior studies that looked at the connection between PD and CRC have relied on secondary analyses of data from other studies and are limited by other methodologic shortcomings, noted the researchers, led by Amal Idrissi Janati, DDS, University of Montreal.
To better assess the etiologic role of PD in the development of CRC, Dr. Janati and colleagues analyzed 348 histologically confirmed cases of colon or rectal cancer diagnosed from January 2013 to December 2019 and compared them to 310 matched controls.
The rate of new CRC diagnoses among individuals with a history of PD was 1.4 times higher than among those with no PD history after adjustment for age and gender. It increased to 1.45 times higher when the researchers also adjusted for body mass index, education, income, diabetes, family history of CRC, regular use of aspirin and non-aspirin nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and lifetime cumulative smoking, consumption of red and processed meats, alcohol consumption, and total physical activity score.
The findings were published online Jan. 26 in Cancer Causes and Control.
“Our results support the hypothesis of an association between PD and sporadic CRC risk,” the researchers said, adding that further epidemiologic studies are recommended.
They speculated that the “putative mechanism of PD and cancer association involves the spread of periodontal pathogens to extra-oral sites, dissemination of bacteria endotoxins, and release of inflammation products directly into the bloodstream.”
The chronic inflammation associated with PD “promotes carcinogenesis by induction of gene mutations, inhibition of apoptosis, stimulation of angiogenesis, cell proliferation, and epigenetic alterations,” they added.
The COLDENT study was supported by the Cancer Research Society. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM CANCER CAUSES AND CONTROL
Biomarkers in saliva may detect hepatocellular carcinoma
MicroRNAs (miRNAs) that signal hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), the most common type of liver cancer, have been detected in saliva for the first time, according to results from a pilot study.
The findings were published online in PeerJ.
The small, noncoding RNAs regulate many cellular functions and affect cancer development and progression.
The discovery has the potential to offer a noninvasive alternative or complement to available detection tools – ultrasound and the blood biomarker alpha fetoprotein (AFP) – which lack sensitivity, said Daniel Rotroff, PhD, MSPH, senior author of the study and a researcher in the Department of Quantitative Health Sciences at the Cleveland Clinic.
“Right now, the current clinical tools are not adequate,” he told this news organization. “They miss approximately 40% to 50% of the patients who have HCC.”
Scientists are interested in finding better ways to detect liver cancer, the rates of which are growing rapidly. HCC represents 80% of all liver cancers.
“HCC and liver cancer are the fastest growing cancers in the United States,” Dr. Rotroff said. “They are the fifth and seventh leading cause of cancer death in men and women, respectively.”
Driving the growth are increases in hepatitis C, obesity, fatty liver disease, and alcoholism.
Nancy Reau, MD, the Richard B. Capps Chair of Hepatology and section chief, Hepatology, at Rush Medical College, Chicago, who was not part of the study, told this news organization that despite the study’s being relatively small in scale, the preliminary information it provides is nonetheless “really attractive.”
If larger studies confirm the results, the discovery could open up the possibility of patients mailing in saliva samples from their homes to screen for liver cancer.
The pandemic, she noted, highlighted the shortcomings of ultrasound in screening for liver cancer, as it required patients to come into a facility.
“You’d love to have a biomarker that was more accessible and accurate,” she said. “It would have lots of applicability where cancer surveillance is less available.”
Dr. Rotroff added that “we do know saliva samples can be stable at room temperature. It opens up possibilities to expand the net of being able to screen a wider number of patients.”
Differentiating HCC from cirrhosis
Investigators at the Cleveland Clinic performed small RNA sequencing in 20 patients with HCC and compared the findings to sequencing of 19 patients with cirrhosis.
Liver cirrhosis is the primary risk factor for developing HCC, so distinguishing patients with HCC from this cohort of high-risk patients serves as a proof of principle.
The sequencing showed that 4,565 precursor and mature miRNAs were detected in saliva and that 365 were significantly different between those with HCC compared to cirrhosis (false discovery rate, P < .05).
“Interestingly, 283 of these miRNAs were significantly downregulated in patients with HCC,” the authors write.
Machine learning found a combination of 10 miRNAs and covariates that accurately classified patients with HCC (area under the curve = 0.87).
The researchers note that miRNAs have been found in saliva and have shown potential as noninvasive biomarkers for a number of other cancers, including breast, oral, and lung cancers.
Additionally, Dr. Rotroff said, microRNAs have been shown to be altered in the tumor tissue of HCC, compared with the surrounding tissue.
Catching cancer early
Dr. Reau noted that a strength of the study is that it validated the biomarker in a diverse group of patients already diagnosed with liver cancer, including people with early-stage cancer, those who underwent transplantation, and those with recurrent cancer.
“Everyone searching for biomarkers is looking to make sure that the surveillance tool identifies the patient when it can pay off with early treatment,” Dr. Reau said.
“You don’t want to identify cancer when it’s bad, and you don’t have any options.
This is a little bit where AFP sometimes fails. Even if ultrasound isn’t that accurate, it still generally identifies people when they fit within curative guidelines.”
Dr. Rotroff also stressed the importance of detecting the cancers early, noting that the prognosis for patients with HCC before it has metastasized is greater than 4 years, but the prognosis drops to less than 1 year if it has metastasized.
Dr. Rotroff has an equity stake in Clarified Precision Medicine. He holds intellectual property related to the detection of HCC. Dr. Reau reports no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
MicroRNAs (miRNAs) that signal hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), the most common type of liver cancer, have been detected in saliva for the first time, according to results from a pilot study.
The findings were published online in PeerJ.
The small, noncoding RNAs regulate many cellular functions and affect cancer development and progression.
The discovery has the potential to offer a noninvasive alternative or complement to available detection tools – ultrasound and the blood biomarker alpha fetoprotein (AFP) – which lack sensitivity, said Daniel Rotroff, PhD, MSPH, senior author of the study and a researcher in the Department of Quantitative Health Sciences at the Cleveland Clinic.
“Right now, the current clinical tools are not adequate,” he told this news organization. “They miss approximately 40% to 50% of the patients who have HCC.”
Scientists are interested in finding better ways to detect liver cancer, the rates of which are growing rapidly. HCC represents 80% of all liver cancers.
“HCC and liver cancer are the fastest growing cancers in the United States,” Dr. Rotroff said. “They are the fifth and seventh leading cause of cancer death in men and women, respectively.”
Driving the growth are increases in hepatitis C, obesity, fatty liver disease, and alcoholism.
Nancy Reau, MD, the Richard B. Capps Chair of Hepatology and section chief, Hepatology, at Rush Medical College, Chicago, who was not part of the study, told this news organization that despite the study’s being relatively small in scale, the preliminary information it provides is nonetheless “really attractive.”
If larger studies confirm the results, the discovery could open up the possibility of patients mailing in saliva samples from their homes to screen for liver cancer.
The pandemic, she noted, highlighted the shortcomings of ultrasound in screening for liver cancer, as it required patients to come into a facility.
“You’d love to have a biomarker that was more accessible and accurate,” she said. “It would have lots of applicability where cancer surveillance is less available.”
Dr. Rotroff added that “we do know saliva samples can be stable at room temperature. It opens up possibilities to expand the net of being able to screen a wider number of patients.”
Differentiating HCC from cirrhosis
Investigators at the Cleveland Clinic performed small RNA sequencing in 20 patients with HCC and compared the findings to sequencing of 19 patients with cirrhosis.
Liver cirrhosis is the primary risk factor for developing HCC, so distinguishing patients with HCC from this cohort of high-risk patients serves as a proof of principle.
The sequencing showed that 4,565 precursor and mature miRNAs were detected in saliva and that 365 were significantly different between those with HCC compared to cirrhosis (false discovery rate, P < .05).
“Interestingly, 283 of these miRNAs were significantly downregulated in patients with HCC,” the authors write.
Machine learning found a combination of 10 miRNAs and covariates that accurately classified patients with HCC (area under the curve = 0.87).
The researchers note that miRNAs have been found in saliva and have shown potential as noninvasive biomarkers for a number of other cancers, including breast, oral, and lung cancers.
Additionally, Dr. Rotroff said, microRNAs have been shown to be altered in the tumor tissue of HCC, compared with the surrounding tissue.
Catching cancer early
Dr. Reau noted that a strength of the study is that it validated the biomarker in a diverse group of patients already diagnosed with liver cancer, including people with early-stage cancer, those who underwent transplantation, and those with recurrent cancer.
“Everyone searching for biomarkers is looking to make sure that the surveillance tool identifies the patient when it can pay off with early treatment,” Dr. Reau said.
“You don’t want to identify cancer when it’s bad, and you don’t have any options.
This is a little bit where AFP sometimes fails. Even if ultrasound isn’t that accurate, it still generally identifies people when they fit within curative guidelines.”
Dr. Rotroff also stressed the importance of detecting the cancers early, noting that the prognosis for patients with HCC before it has metastasized is greater than 4 years, but the prognosis drops to less than 1 year if it has metastasized.
Dr. Rotroff has an equity stake in Clarified Precision Medicine. He holds intellectual property related to the detection of HCC. Dr. Reau reports no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
MicroRNAs (miRNAs) that signal hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), the most common type of liver cancer, have been detected in saliva for the first time, according to results from a pilot study.
The findings were published online in PeerJ.
The small, noncoding RNAs regulate many cellular functions and affect cancer development and progression.
The discovery has the potential to offer a noninvasive alternative or complement to available detection tools – ultrasound and the blood biomarker alpha fetoprotein (AFP) – which lack sensitivity, said Daniel Rotroff, PhD, MSPH, senior author of the study and a researcher in the Department of Quantitative Health Sciences at the Cleveland Clinic.
“Right now, the current clinical tools are not adequate,” he told this news organization. “They miss approximately 40% to 50% of the patients who have HCC.”
Scientists are interested in finding better ways to detect liver cancer, the rates of which are growing rapidly. HCC represents 80% of all liver cancers.
“HCC and liver cancer are the fastest growing cancers in the United States,” Dr. Rotroff said. “They are the fifth and seventh leading cause of cancer death in men and women, respectively.”
Driving the growth are increases in hepatitis C, obesity, fatty liver disease, and alcoholism.
Nancy Reau, MD, the Richard B. Capps Chair of Hepatology and section chief, Hepatology, at Rush Medical College, Chicago, who was not part of the study, told this news organization that despite the study’s being relatively small in scale, the preliminary information it provides is nonetheless “really attractive.”
If larger studies confirm the results, the discovery could open up the possibility of patients mailing in saliva samples from their homes to screen for liver cancer.
The pandemic, she noted, highlighted the shortcomings of ultrasound in screening for liver cancer, as it required patients to come into a facility.
“You’d love to have a biomarker that was more accessible and accurate,” she said. “It would have lots of applicability where cancer surveillance is less available.”
Dr. Rotroff added that “we do know saliva samples can be stable at room temperature. It opens up possibilities to expand the net of being able to screen a wider number of patients.”
Differentiating HCC from cirrhosis
Investigators at the Cleveland Clinic performed small RNA sequencing in 20 patients with HCC and compared the findings to sequencing of 19 patients with cirrhosis.
Liver cirrhosis is the primary risk factor for developing HCC, so distinguishing patients with HCC from this cohort of high-risk patients serves as a proof of principle.
The sequencing showed that 4,565 precursor and mature miRNAs were detected in saliva and that 365 were significantly different between those with HCC compared to cirrhosis (false discovery rate, P < .05).
“Interestingly, 283 of these miRNAs were significantly downregulated in patients with HCC,” the authors write.
Machine learning found a combination of 10 miRNAs and covariates that accurately classified patients with HCC (area under the curve = 0.87).
The researchers note that miRNAs have been found in saliva and have shown potential as noninvasive biomarkers for a number of other cancers, including breast, oral, and lung cancers.
Additionally, Dr. Rotroff said, microRNAs have been shown to be altered in the tumor tissue of HCC, compared with the surrounding tissue.
Catching cancer early
Dr. Reau noted that a strength of the study is that it validated the biomarker in a diverse group of patients already diagnosed with liver cancer, including people with early-stage cancer, those who underwent transplantation, and those with recurrent cancer.
“Everyone searching for biomarkers is looking to make sure that the surveillance tool identifies the patient when it can pay off with early treatment,” Dr. Reau said.
“You don’t want to identify cancer when it’s bad, and you don’t have any options.
This is a little bit where AFP sometimes fails. Even if ultrasound isn’t that accurate, it still generally identifies people when they fit within curative guidelines.”
Dr. Rotroff also stressed the importance of detecting the cancers early, noting that the prognosis for patients with HCC before it has metastasized is greater than 4 years, but the prognosis drops to less than 1 year if it has metastasized.
Dr. Rotroff has an equity stake in Clarified Precision Medicine. He holds intellectual property related to the detection of HCC. Dr. Reau reports no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Stopping venetoclax treatment early reduces CLL survival outcomes
“There’s not a lot of awareness about the fact that you’re probably better off not permanently discontinuing treatment,” Anthony R. Mato, first author of the research published in Haematologica, said in an interview.
“Instead, attempting dose reductions with later resumption to complete the planned schedule for treatment probably could improve outcomes,” said Dr. Mato, who is director of the CLL Program at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.
Venetoclax, a potent B-cell lymphoma-2 (BCL2) inhibitor, provides a novel, chemotherapy-free treatment option for first-line and r/r CLL. While its safety profile is manageable, treatment interruptions are very common, and premature discontinuations are reported in about a third of patients, often because of adverse events.
Lacking data on the effects of those interruptions on survival outcomes, Dr. Mato and colleagues conducted a post hoc analysis of the phase 3 MURANO trial. In this open-label study, treatment with six cycles of venetoclax in combination with rituximab followed by venetoclax once daily for a total of 2 years showed superior progression-free survival, compared with six cycles of bendamustine plus rituximab in patients with r/r CLL (P < .0001).
The current analysis involved 194 intention-to-treat patients from the trial’s venetoclax arm, among whom 140 (72%) completed 2 years of therapy, and 54 (28%) prematurely discontinued treatment. The most common reasons for discontinuation were adverse events (53.7%) and disease progression (22.2%).
Among those with early discontinuation for any reason except disease progression, the rate of progression-free survival was significantly inferior, compared with those who completed the treatment (hazard ratio, 5.98; P < .0001), as was the rate or discontinuation caused specifically by adverse events, which most commonly involved neutropenia or thrombocytopenia (HR, 5.82; P < .0001).
Those who discontinued had a mean duration of venetoclax therapy of 11.3 months, compared with 24.4 months for all patients. For each additional month of venetoclax therapy, there was a significantly lower risk of a progression-free survival event (P = .0263) and of an overall survival event (P < .0001).
The treatment interruption rate was much higher, at 69% (134), involving neutropenia in 43% (84) of instances and requiring dose reductions in 23% (45) of cases.
However, in contrast to permanent discontinuations, the temporary interruptions and dose reductions had no significant effect on progression-free or overall survival, regardless of the duration.
“Improved progression-free and overall survival were associated with greater cumulative venetoclax treatment exposure,” the authors wrote.
“The results of these analyses highlight the importance of appropriately managing treatment modifications to ensure optimal outcomes for patients receiving targeted treatment for CLL,” they said.
Key measures including “better supportive care, use of growth factors, and more aggressive strategies for dose reduction could potentially help to improve or decrease the number of patients discontinuing due to an adverse event,” Dr. Mato added.“We can’t say definitively because this is not a randomized study – it’s a retrospective analysis from a randomized study – but those measures likely could have a positive impact on patient outcomes.”
The study received support from Genentech and AbbVie. Dr. Mato reported consulting or other relationships with AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Celgene, DTRM, Genentech, Janssen, Loxo, PCYC, Sunesis, and TG Therapeutics.
“There’s not a lot of awareness about the fact that you’re probably better off not permanently discontinuing treatment,” Anthony R. Mato, first author of the research published in Haematologica, said in an interview.
“Instead, attempting dose reductions with later resumption to complete the planned schedule for treatment probably could improve outcomes,” said Dr. Mato, who is director of the CLL Program at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.
Venetoclax, a potent B-cell lymphoma-2 (BCL2) inhibitor, provides a novel, chemotherapy-free treatment option for first-line and r/r CLL. While its safety profile is manageable, treatment interruptions are very common, and premature discontinuations are reported in about a third of patients, often because of adverse events.
Lacking data on the effects of those interruptions on survival outcomes, Dr. Mato and colleagues conducted a post hoc analysis of the phase 3 MURANO trial. In this open-label study, treatment with six cycles of venetoclax in combination with rituximab followed by venetoclax once daily for a total of 2 years showed superior progression-free survival, compared with six cycles of bendamustine plus rituximab in patients with r/r CLL (P < .0001).
The current analysis involved 194 intention-to-treat patients from the trial’s venetoclax arm, among whom 140 (72%) completed 2 years of therapy, and 54 (28%) prematurely discontinued treatment. The most common reasons for discontinuation were adverse events (53.7%) and disease progression (22.2%).
Among those with early discontinuation for any reason except disease progression, the rate of progression-free survival was significantly inferior, compared with those who completed the treatment (hazard ratio, 5.98; P < .0001), as was the rate or discontinuation caused specifically by adverse events, which most commonly involved neutropenia or thrombocytopenia (HR, 5.82; P < .0001).
Those who discontinued had a mean duration of venetoclax therapy of 11.3 months, compared with 24.4 months for all patients. For each additional month of venetoclax therapy, there was a significantly lower risk of a progression-free survival event (P = .0263) and of an overall survival event (P < .0001).
The treatment interruption rate was much higher, at 69% (134), involving neutropenia in 43% (84) of instances and requiring dose reductions in 23% (45) of cases.
However, in contrast to permanent discontinuations, the temporary interruptions and dose reductions had no significant effect on progression-free or overall survival, regardless of the duration.
“Improved progression-free and overall survival were associated with greater cumulative venetoclax treatment exposure,” the authors wrote.
“The results of these analyses highlight the importance of appropriately managing treatment modifications to ensure optimal outcomes for patients receiving targeted treatment for CLL,” they said.
Key measures including “better supportive care, use of growth factors, and more aggressive strategies for dose reduction could potentially help to improve or decrease the number of patients discontinuing due to an adverse event,” Dr. Mato added.“We can’t say definitively because this is not a randomized study – it’s a retrospective analysis from a randomized study – but those measures likely could have a positive impact on patient outcomes.”
The study received support from Genentech and AbbVie. Dr. Mato reported consulting or other relationships with AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Celgene, DTRM, Genentech, Janssen, Loxo, PCYC, Sunesis, and TG Therapeutics.
“There’s not a lot of awareness about the fact that you’re probably better off not permanently discontinuing treatment,” Anthony R. Mato, first author of the research published in Haematologica, said in an interview.
“Instead, attempting dose reductions with later resumption to complete the planned schedule for treatment probably could improve outcomes,” said Dr. Mato, who is director of the CLL Program at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.
Venetoclax, a potent B-cell lymphoma-2 (BCL2) inhibitor, provides a novel, chemotherapy-free treatment option for first-line and r/r CLL. While its safety profile is manageable, treatment interruptions are very common, and premature discontinuations are reported in about a third of patients, often because of adverse events.
Lacking data on the effects of those interruptions on survival outcomes, Dr. Mato and colleagues conducted a post hoc analysis of the phase 3 MURANO trial. In this open-label study, treatment with six cycles of venetoclax in combination with rituximab followed by venetoclax once daily for a total of 2 years showed superior progression-free survival, compared with six cycles of bendamustine plus rituximab in patients with r/r CLL (P < .0001).
The current analysis involved 194 intention-to-treat patients from the trial’s venetoclax arm, among whom 140 (72%) completed 2 years of therapy, and 54 (28%) prematurely discontinued treatment. The most common reasons for discontinuation were adverse events (53.7%) and disease progression (22.2%).
Among those with early discontinuation for any reason except disease progression, the rate of progression-free survival was significantly inferior, compared with those who completed the treatment (hazard ratio, 5.98; P < .0001), as was the rate or discontinuation caused specifically by adverse events, which most commonly involved neutropenia or thrombocytopenia (HR, 5.82; P < .0001).
Those who discontinued had a mean duration of venetoclax therapy of 11.3 months, compared with 24.4 months for all patients. For each additional month of venetoclax therapy, there was a significantly lower risk of a progression-free survival event (P = .0263) and of an overall survival event (P < .0001).
The treatment interruption rate was much higher, at 69% (134), involving neutropenia in 43% (84) of instances and requiring dose reductions in 23% (45) of cases.
However, in contrast to permanent discontinuations, the temporary interruptions and dose reductions had no significant effect on progression-free or overall survival, regardless of the duration.
“Improved progression-free and overall survival were associated with greater cumulative venetoclax treatment exposure,” the authors wrote.
“The results of these analyses highlight the importance of appropriately managing treatment modifications to ensure optimal outcomes for patients receiving targeted treatment for CLL,” they said.
Key measures including “better supportive care, use of growth factors, and more aggressive strategies for dose reduction could potentially help to improve or decrease the number of patients discontinuing due to an adverse event,” Dr. Mato added.“We can’t say definitively because this is not a randomized study – it’s a retrospective analysis from a randomized study – but those measures likely could have a positive impact on patient outcomes.”
The study received support from Genentech and AbbVie. Dr. Mato reported consulting or other relationships with AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Celgene, DTRM, Genentech, Janssen, Loxo, PCYC, Sunesis, and TG Therapeutics.
Primer message boosts colorectal cancer screening rates
Researchers have found a simple, low-cost way to get more adults to complete a fecal immunochemical test (FIT) to screen for colorectal cancer (CRC).
In a randomized controlled trial, patients who received an electronic “primer” message through their patient portal before the test kit arrived in their mailbox were more apt to complete and return the test than peers who didn’t get the electronic message.
“We were thrilled by the magnitude of the impact,” Gregory Goshgarian, MSc, MPH, and Daniel Croymans, MD, with the department of medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, said in a joint email to this news organization.
At UCLA Health, “including a primer patient portal message is now standard practice for our FIT mailer program,” they added.
Their study was published online Feb. 4 in JAMA Network Open.
Heads-up message boosts compliance
CRC screening rates in the United States remain well below the national benchmark of 80%, and COVID-19 hasn’t helped. As a result, multiple medical and professional societies have emphasized the use of a mailed FIT outreach program.
As part of the outreach program, researchers at UCLA Health developed an electronic primer message within the electronic patient portal to alert patients due for CRC screening that they would be receiving a FIT kit in the mail.
They tested the impact of the primer messages in a randomized controlled trial involving 2,339 adults (mean age, 59 years, 57.5% women). Out of these, 1,157 received the standard mailed FIT kit (control group) and 1,182 received the standard mailed FIT kit plus a primer message sent through their personal patient portal.
Adding the primer message significantly increased the FIT completion rate at 6 months by 5.5%, with rates of 37.6% in the intervention group versus 32.1% in the control group.
After adjusting for patient demographics, the primer (versus no primer) led to significantly increased odds of completing CRC screening (adjusted odds ratio: 1.29; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-1.53; P = .004).
The primer message also shortened the time to FIT screening by 3 days (35 days with the primer vs. 38 days without).
Dr. Goshgarian and Dr. Croymans believe the priming messages worked well in their patient population because at the beginning of the intervention they identified a potential lack of awareness of the incoming FIT kit mailer as a barrier to uptake.
“We believe patients were receiving the kits with minimal advanced warning and discarding it as a mistake or hesitant to complete it because they did not understand the value to them,” they told this news organization.
“Therefore, a priming message helped to bridge that gap and allowed patients to be aware of the incoming FIT kits, know why it was important to do the FIT kit, and ultimately led to increasing our FIT kit return rates and thus CRC screening,” they said.
The researchers caution that their findings may be more relevant to patient populations who are more engaged in their health or who are more technologically savvy. In the UCLA Health system, roughly 84% of patients have an activated patient portal.
‘Good enhancement’ for health care systems
Reached for comment, Aasma Shaukat, MD, MPH, professor of medicine, NYU Langone Health, and first author of the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) 2021 CRC screening guidelines, said the results are “interesting but not entirely surprising.”
“There’s literature supporting that a letter or notification prior to the FIT being mailed improves its uptake. Here, the authors applied it to their health care system in a quality improvement study and demonstrated it works,” Dr. Shaukat said.
“This is a good enhancement for health care systems where most of their patients are using or accessing their health chart portal,” added Dr. Shaukat.
“Caveats are that the generalizability is not known. It requires EHR [electronic health record] support tools and patients with access to a computer and enrolled and able to access their electronic chart, likely those with high literacy and English speaking.”
Funding for the study was provided by the UCLA Health Department of Medicine. Dr. Goshgarian, Dr. Croymans, and Dr. Shaukat have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Researchers have found a simple, low-cost way to get more adults to complete a fecal immunochemical test (FIT) to screen for colorectal cancer (CRC).
In a randomized controlled trial, patients who received an electronic “primer” message through their patient portal before the test kit arrived in their mailbox were more apt to complete and return the test than peers who didn’t get the electronic message.
“We were thrilled by the magnitude of the impact,” Gregory Goshgarian, MSc, MPH, and Daniel Croymans, MD, with the department of medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, said in a joint email to this news organization.
At UCLA Health, “including a primer patient portal message is now standard practice for our FIT mailer program,” they added.
Their study was published online Feb. 4 in JAMA Network Open.
Heads-up message boosts compliance
CRC screening rates in the United States remain well below the national benchmark of 80%, and COVID-19 hasn’t helped. As a result, multiple medical and professional societies have emphasized the use of a mailed FIT outreach program.
As part of the outreach program, researchers at UCLA Health developed an electronic primer message within the electronic patient portal to alert patients due for CRC screening that they would be receiving a FIT kit in the mail.
They tested the impact of the primer messages in a randomized controlled trial involving 2,339 adults (mean age, 59 years, 57.5% women). Out of these, 1,157 received the standard mailed FIT kit (control group) and 1,182 received the standard mailed FIT kit plus a primer message sent through their personal patient portal.
Adding the primer message significantly increased the FIT completion rate at 6 months by 5.5%, with rates of 37.6% in the intervention group versus 32.1% in the control group.
After adjusting for patient demographics, the primer (versus no primer) led to significantly increased odds of completing CRC screening (adjusted odds ratio: 1.29; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-1.53; P = .004).
The primer message also shortened the time to FIT screening by 3 days (35 days with the primer vs. 38 days without).
Dr. Goshgarian and Dr. Croymans believe the priming messages worked well in their patient population because at the beginning of the intervention they identified a potential lack of awareness of the incoming FIT kit mailer as a barrier to uptake.
“We believe patients were receiving the kits with minimal advanced warning and discarding it as a mistake or hesitant to complete it because they did not understand the value to them,” they told this news organization.
“Therefore, a priming message helped to bridge that gap and allowed patients to be aware of the incoming FIT kits, know why it was important to do the FIT kit, and ultimately led to increasing our FIT kit return rates and thus CRC screening,” they said.
The researchers caution that their findings may be more relevant to patient populations who are more engaged in their health or who are more technologically savvy. In the UCLA Health system, roughly 84% of patients have an activated patient portal.
‘Good enhancement’ for health care systems
Reached for comment, Aasma Shaukat, MD, MPH, professor of medicine, NYU Langone Health, and first author of the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) 2021 CRC screening guidelines, said the results are “interesting but not entirely surprising.”
“There’s literature supporting that a letter or notification prior to the FIT being mailed improves its uptake. Here, the authors applied it to their health care system in a quality improvement study and demonstrated it works,” Dr. Shaukat said.
“This is a good enhancement for health care systems where most of their patients are using or accessing their health chart portal,” added Dr. Shaukat.
“Caveats are that the generalizability is not known. It requires EHR [electronic health record] support tools and patients with access to a computer and enrolled and able to access their electronic chart, likely those with high literacy and English speaking.”
Funding for the study was provided by the UCLA Health Department of Medicine. Dr. Goshgarian, Dr. Croymans, and Dr. Shaukat have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Researchers have found a simple, low-cost way to get more adults to complete a fecal immunochemical test (FIT) to screen for colorectal cancer (CRC).
In a randomized controlled trial, patients who received an electronic “primer” message through their patient portal before the test kit arrived in their mailbox were more apt to complete and return the test than peers who didn’t get the electronic message.
“We were thrilled by the magnitude of the impact,” Gregory Goshgarian, MSc, MPH, and Daniel Croymans, MD, with the department of medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, said in a joint email to this news organization.
At UCLA Health, “including a primer patient portal message is now standard practice for our FIT mailer program,” they added.
Their study was published online Feb. 4 in JAMA Network Open.
Heads-up message boosts compliance
CRC screening rates in the United States remain well below the national benchmark of 80%, and COVID-19 hasn’t helped. As a result, multiple medical and professional societies have emphasized the use of a mailed FIT outreach program.
As part of the outreach program, researchers at UCLA Health developed an electronic primer message within the electronic patient portal to alert patients due for CRC screening that they would be receiving a FIT kit in the mail.
They tested the impact of the primer messages in a randomized controlled trial involving 2,339 adults (mean age, 59 years, 57.5% women). Out of these, 1,157 received the standard mailed FIT kit (control group) and 1,182 received the standard mailed FIT kit plus a primer message sent through their personal patient portal.
Adding the primer message significantly increased the FIT completion rate at 6 months by 5.5%, with rates of 37.6% in the intervention group versus 32.1% in the control group.
After adjusting for patient demographics, the primer (versus no primer) led to significantly increased odds of completing CRC screening (adjusted odds ratio: 1.29; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-1.53; P = .004).
The primer message also shortened the time to FIT screening by 3 days (35 days with the primer vs. 38 days without).
Dr. Goshgarian and Dr. Croymans believe the priming messages worked well in their patient population because at the beginning of the intervention they identified a potential lack of awareness of the incoming FIT kit mailer as a barrier to uptake.
“We believe patients were receiving the kits with minimal advanced warning and discarding it as a mistake or hesitant to complete it because they did not understand the value to them,” they told this news organization.
“Therefore, a priming message helped to bridge that gap and allowed patients to be aware of the incoming FIT kits, know why it was important to do the FIT kit, and ultimately led to increasing our FIT kit return rates and thus CRC screening,” they said.
The researchers caution that their findings may be more relevant to patient populations who are more engaged in their health or who are more technologically savvy. In the UCLA Health system, roughly 84% of patients have an activated patient portal.
‘Good enhancement’ for health care systems
Reached for comment, Aasma Shaukat, MD, MPH, professor of medicine, NYU Langone Health, and first author of the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) 2021 CRC screening guidelines, said the results are “interesting but not entirely surprising.”
“There’s literature supporting that a letter or notification prior to the FIT being mailed improves its uptake. Here, the authors applied it to their health care system in a quality improvement study and demonstrated it works,” Dr. Shaukat said.
“This is a good enhancement for health care systems where most of their patients are using or accessing their health chart portal,” added Dr. Shaukat.
“Caveats are that the generalizability is not known. It requires EHR [electronic health record] support tools and patients with access to a computer and enrolled and able to access their electronic chart, likely those with high literacy and English speaking.”
Funding for the study was provided by the UCLA Health Department of Medicine. Dr. Goshgarian, Dr. Croymans, and Dr. Shaukat have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
Enough is enough: the pandemic and loss of female oncologists
Imagine this: As a young girl, you decide you want to become a doctor when you grow up. You spend countless hours studying, researching, and volunteering to eventually make it into medical school. Four years later, you graduate top of your class and match into your first-choice residency program. You are so proud of yourself!
During your last year of residency, a pandemic takes the entire world by storm. You persevere through your last 14 months of residency that included additional time in the ICU, not seeing your colleagues, and interviewing for your new job all from your own living room. After all of this, you finally get to start doing what you have been waiting to do for the past decade: train with the brilliant minds in hematology and oncology.
All of a sudden, You start to question: If these incredible women have decided that the sacrifice this career requires is too much, then (1) How will I survive? and (2) Did I make a huge mistake in my career decision? Spoiler alert: This girl is me.
The World Health Organization defines burnout as a “syndrome conceptualized as resulting from chronic workplace stress that has not been successfully managed. It is characterized by energy depletion or exhaustion, increased mental distance from one’s job, and reduced professional efficacy.”
We know that 33% of oncologists are feeling burned out right now, according to the Medscape National Physician Burnout & Suicide Report 2021. Of the 51% of female physicians that are burned out, work-life balance has been identified as the biggest workplace concern to them. Research has shown that hours per week devoted to direct patient care is the dominant predictor of burnout for practicing oncologists. But in academic oncology, that is followed by grant deadlines, manuscript rejections, and the constant reminders that you are a new face in oncology, a specialty that was previously male-dominated.
In less than a year, we have had several key female oncologists leave our cancer center. While some made the decision to retire early, two of them chose to pivot their careers and leave clinical medicine to assist with drug development and clinical trials. Although this is extremely important work for cancer care, I was shocked to hear that these amazing and successful clinicians were choosing to remove all direct patient care from their practice, when for many of them, patient care was what motivated them to pursue medicine in the first place. They were loved by their patients, respected as researchers, and well known as educators within the division.
One shared that she no longer felt like she could be a good mother, wife, or daughter with what was currently being demanded of her to have a successful academic career. In hearing this news, I was saddened to have to say goodbye to a mentor of mine and immediately started second-guessing my career choice. I felt that my goal of having an impactful career and prosperous home life was not only unattainable but potentially unrealistic.
While we know that female physicians already experience a greater degree of burnout, the pandemic has only added fuel to the fire. This is especially true in cancer care. It has been estimated that new cancer diagnosis have decreased by as much as 23% since the beginning of the pandemic. This delay in diagnosis will lead to patients presenting with more advanced disease, busier clinic schedules, and worsened clinical outcomes for years to come. With no end in sight, I worry what this will mean for women currently in oncology, in addition to those in training or deciding if they should pursue this as a career.
Extrapolating evidence from prior epidemics, physicians are at increased risk for burnout due to immediate and long-term effects from this pandemic. We need to act now to not only continue addressing previously existing individual and organizational causes of burnout but also develop strategies to provide support for the COVID-19–specific impacts on oncologists’ well-being. An editorial published by the American Society of Clinical Oncology provides helpful suggestions on how to do this.
A recent cross-sectional survey found that 22% of academic female oncologists were likely or very likely to pursue a career outside of academia in the next 5 years. Losing these women would be detrimental to the field. This would mean a significant number of patients losing their long-term oncologists with whom they have years of care, trainees losing their professional and research mentors to guide and help mold them into successful independent practitioners and researchers, and arguably most important, little girls losing role models to show them that regardless of their gender, they can become an oncologist.Dr. Poterala is a current hematology and oncology fellow at the University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center, Madison. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Imagine this: As a young girl, you decide you want to become a doctor when you grow up. You spend countless hours studying, researching, and volunteering to eventually make it into medical school. Four years later, you graduate top of your class and match into your first-choice residency program. You are so proud of yourself!
During your last year of residency, a pandemic takes the entire world by storm. You persevere through your last 14 months of residency that included additional time in the ICU, not seeing your colleagues, and interviewing for your new job all from your own living room. After all of this, you finally get to start doing what you have been waiting to do for the past decade: train with the brilliant minds in hematology and oncology.
All of a sudden, You start to question: If these incredible women have decided that the sacrifice this career requires is too much, then (1) How will I survive? and (2) Did I make a huge mistake in my career decision? Spoiler alert: This girl is me.
The World Health Organization defines burnout as a “syndrome conceptualized as resulting from chronic workplace stress that has not been successfully managed. It is characterized by energy depletion or exhaustion, increased mental distance from one’s job, and reduced professional efficacy.”
We know that 33% of oncologists are feeling burned out right now, according to the Medscape National Physician Burnout & Suicide Report 2021. Of the 51% of female physicians that are burned out, work-life balance has been identified as the biggest workplace concern to them. Research has shown that hours per week devoted to direct patient care is the dominant predictor of burnout for practicing oncologists. But in academic oncology, that is followed by grant deadlines, manuscript rejections, and the constant reminders that you are a new face in oncology, a specialty that was previously male-dominated.
In less than a year, we have had several key female oncologists leave our cancer center. While some made the decision to retire early, two of them chose to pivot their careers and leave clinical medicine to assist with drug development and clinical trials. Although this is extremely important work for cancer care, I was shocked to hear that these amazing and successful clinicians were choosing to remove all direct patient care from their practice, when for many of them, patient care was what motivated them to pursue medicine in the first place. They were loved by their patients, respected as researchers, and well known as educators within the division.
One shared that she no longer felt like she could be a good mother, wife, or daughter with what was currently being demanded of her to have a successful academic career. In hearing this news, I was saddened to have to say goodbye to a mentor of mine and immediately started second-guessing my career choice. I felt that my goal of having an impactful career and prosperous home life was not only unattainable but potentially unrealistic.
While we know that female physicians already experience a greater degree of burnout, the pandemic has only added fuel to the fire. This is especially true in cancer care. It has been estimated that new cancer diagnosis have decreased by as much as 23% since the beginning of the pandemic. This delay in diagnosis will lead to patients presenting with more advanced disease, busier clinic schedules, and worsened clinical outcomes for years to come. With no end in sight, I worry what this will mean for women currently in oncology, in addition to those in training or deciding if they should pursue this as a career.
Extrapolating evidence from prior epidemics, physicians are at increased risk for burnout due to immediate and long-term effects from this pandemic. We need to act now to not only continue addressing previously existing individual and organizational causes of burnout but also develop strategies to provide support for the COVID-19–specific impacts on oncologists’ well-being. An editorial published by the American Society of Clinical Oncology provides helpful suggestions on how to do this.
A recent cross-sectional survey found that 22% of academic female oncologists were likely or very likely to pursue a career outside of academia in the next 5 years. Losing these women would be detrimental to the field. This would mean a significant number of patients losing their long-term oncologists with whom they have years of care, trainees losing their professional and research mentors to guide and help mold them into successful independent practitioners and researchers, and arguably most important, little girls losing role models to show them that regardless of their gender, they can become an oncologist.Dr. Poterala is a current hematology and oncology fellow at the University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center, Madison. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Imagine this: As a young girl, you decide you want to become a doctor when you grow up. You spend countless hours studying, researching, and volunteering to eventually make it into medical school. Four years later, you graduate top of your class and match into your first-choice residency program. You are so proud of yourself!
During your last year of residency, a pandemic takes the entire world by storm. You persevere through your last 14 months of residency that included additional time in the ICU, not seeing your colleagues, and interviewing for your new job all from your own living room. After all of this, you finally get to start doing what you have been waiting to do for the past decade: train with the brilliant minds in hematology and oncology.
All of a sudden, You start to question: If these incredible women have decided that the sacrifice this career requires is too much, then (1) How will I survive? and (2) Did I make a huge mistake in my career decision? Spoiler alert: This girl is me.
The World Health Organization defines burnout as a “syndrome conceptualized as resulting from chronic workplace stress that has not been successfully managed. It is characterized by energy depletion or exhaustion, increased mental distance from one’s job, and reduced professional efficacy.”
We know that 33% of oncologists are feeling burned out right now, according to the Medscape National Physician Burnout & Suicide Report 2021. Of the 51% of female physicians that are burned out, work-life balance has been identified as the biggest workplace concern to them. Research has shown that hours per week devoted to direct patient care is the dominant predictor of burnout for practicing oncologists. But in academic oncology, that is followed by grant deadlines, manuscript rejections, and the constant reminders that you are a new face in oncology, a specialty that was previously male-dominated.
In less than a year, we have had several key female oncologists leave our cancer center. While some made the decision to retire early, two of them chose to pivot their careers and leave clinical medicine to assist with drug development and clinical trials. Although this is extremely important work for cancer care, I was shocked to hear that these amazing and successful clinicians were choosing to remove all direct patient care from their practice, when for many of them, patient care was what motivated them to pursue medicine in the first place. They were loved by their patients, respected as researchers, and well known as educators within the division.
One shared that she no longer felt like she could be a good mother, wife, or daughter with what was currently being demanded of her to have a successful academic career. In hearing this news, I was saddened to have to say goodbye to a mentor of mine and immediately started second-guessing my career choice. I felt that my goal of having an impactful career and prosperous home life was not only unattainable but potentially unrealistic.
While we know that female physicians already experience a greater degree of burnout, the pandemic has only added fuel to the fire. This is especially true in cancer care. It has been estimated that new cancer diagnosis have decreased by as much as 23% since the beginning of the pandemic. This delay in diagnosis will lead to patients presenting with more advanced disease, busier clinic schedules, and worsened clinical outcomes for years to come. With no end in sight, I worry what this will mean for women currently in oncology, in addition to those in training or deciding if they should pursue this as a career.
Extrapolating evidence from prior epidemics, physicians are at increased risk for burnout due to immediate and long-term effects from this pandemic. We need to act now to not only continue addressing previously existing individual and organizational causes of burnout but also develop strategies to provide support for the COVID-19–specific impacts on oncologists’ well-being. An editorial published by the American Society of Clinical Oncology provides helpful suggestions on how to do this.
A recent cross-sectional survey found that 22% of academic female oncologists were likely or very likely to pursue a career outside of academia in the next 5 years. Losing these women would be detrimental to the field. This would mean a significant number of patients losing their long-term oncologists with whom they have years of care, trainees losing their professional and research mentors to guide and help mold them into successful independent practitioners and researchers, and arguably most important, little girls losing role models to show them that regardless of their gender, they can become an oncologist.Dr. Poterala is a current hematology and oncology fellow at the University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center, Madison. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Improved follow-up needed to find late-stage pancreatic cancers
A relatively large number of late-stage pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas (PDACs) are detected during follow-up surveillance, yet no single patient- or protocol-specific factor appears to be significantly associated with detecting late-stage disease during this period, according to a new systematic literature review and meta-analysis.
The researchers, led by Ankit Chhoda, MD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., wrote in Gastroenterology that interval progression in high-risk individuals “highlights the need for improved follow-up methodology with higher accuracy to detect prognostically significant and treatable lesions.”
Individuals at high risk for PDAC are encouraged to undergo routine surveillance for the disease because early detection and resection of T1N0M0 PDAC and high-grade precursors may improve survival outcomes. According to Dr. Chhoda and colleagues, challenges of interval progression of cancers during the surveillance period for gastrointestinal malignancies have been well described in the general and at-risk patient populations. Previous studies, the authors explained, have not scrutinized the issues associated with late-stage PDACs detected during follow-up surveillance.
“Late-stage PDACs necessitate critical appraisal of current follow-up strategies to detect successful targets and perform timely resections,” the authors wrote. The researchers added that the diagnosis of late-stage PDACs during follow-up emphasizes the need for implementing “quality measures to avoid preventable causes, including surveillance adherence and diagnostic errors.”
To understand the incidence rates of late-stage PDACs during follow-up in high-risk individuals, Dr. Chhoda and researchers performed a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of data that included follow-up strategies for early PDAC detection among a high-risk population.
Outcomes of interest for the analysis included the overall diagnosis of advanced neoplasia as well as surveillance-detected/interval late-stage PDACs (T2–4N0M0/metastatic stage PDAC) during follow-up. The investigators defined surveillance-detected and interval late-stage PDACs as late-stage PDACs that were detected during surveillance and as those presenting symptomatically between visits, respectively.
The researchers also performed metaregression of the incidence rates of late-stage PDACs to examine the relationship with clinicoradiologic features in high-risk individuals.
A total of 13 studies on surveillance in 2,169 high-risk individuals were included in the systematic review, while 12 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Across studies, high-risk individuals were followed for over 7,302.72 patient-years for the purposes of detecting incident lesions or progression of preexisting pancreatic abnormalities.
In all high-risk individuals who underwent follow-up, the investigators identified a total yield of advanced neoplasia of 53. This total yield consisted of 7 high-grade pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasms, 7 high-grade intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms, and 39 PDACs. According to the meta-analysis, the cumulative incidence of advanced neoplasia was 3.3 (95% confidence interval, 0.6-7.4; P < .001) per 1,000 patient-years. During follow-up, the cumulative incidence of surveillance-detected/interval late-stage PDACs was 1.7 per 1,000 patient-years (95% CI, 0.2-4.0; P = .03).
In a separate analysis, the investigators sought to identify the relationship between the modality of follow-up imaging and late-stage PDAC incidence. Imaging modalities used during follow-up were mostly cross-sectional imaging, such as computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging with cholangiopancreatography (n = 4) or endoscopic ultrasound and cross-sectional modalities (n = 8).
The investigators found no significant associations between late-stage PDACs and surveillance imaging, baseline pancreatic morphology, study location, genetic background, gender, or age. Incidence of late-stage PDACs in studies with mostly cross-sectional imaging was 0.7 per 1,000 patient-years (95% CI, 0.0-8.0). This incidence rate was lower than that reported with EUS and cross-sectional modalities (2.5 per 1,000 patient-years; 95% CI, 0.6-5.4), but this difference was not statistically significant (P = .2).
No significant difference was found during follow-up in the incidence of late-stage PDACs between high-risk individuals with baseline pancreatic abnormalities (0.0 no significant difference; 95% CI, 0.0-0.3) vs. high-risk individuals with normal baseline (0.9 per 1,000 patient-years; 95% CI, 0.0-2.8) (P = .9).
Most studies included in the analysis did not report on diagnostic errors and surveillance adherence, the researchers wrote. Nonadherence to surveillance as well as delays in surveillance accounted for four late-stage PDACs, and surveillance cessation and/or delays were reported in 4 out of 19 high-risk individuals. There was limited information on symptoms, presentation timing, site of lesion, and surveillance adherence, which the investigators indicated prevented a formal meta-analysis.
In their summary, the study authors noted that in clinical practice there is a need for improved quality measures and adherence to surveillance programs to reduce the risk of diagnostic errors. The authors stated that evidence on the impact of these quality measures “on surveillance outcomes will not only improve quality of surveillance practices, but also enrich our communication with patients who undergo surveillance.”
The researchers reported no conflicts of interest with the pharmaceutical industry, and the study did not receive any funding.
A relatively large number of late-stage pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas (PDACs) are detected during follow-up surveillance, yet no single patient- or protocol-specific factor appears to be significantly associated with detecting late-stage disease during this period, according to a new systematic literature review and meta-analysis.
The researchers, led by Ankit Chhoda, MD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., wrote in Gastroenterology that interval progression in high-risk individuals “highlights the need for improved follow-up methodology with higher accuracy to detect prognostically significant and treatable lesions.”
Individuals at high risk for PDAC are encouraged to undergo routine surveillance for the disease because early detection and resection of T1N0M0 PDAC and high-grade precursors may improve survival outcomes. According to Dr. Chhoda and colleagues, challenges of interval progression of cancers during the surveillance period for gastrointestinal malignancies have been well described in the general and at-risk patient populations. Previous studies, the authors explained, have not scrutinized the issues associated with late-stage PDACs detected during follow-up surveillance.
“Late-stage PDACs necessitate critical appraisal of current follow-up strategies to detect successful targets and perform timely resections,” the authors wrote. The researchers added that the diagnosis of late-stage PDACs during follow-up emphasizes the need for implementing “quality measures to avoid preventable causes, including surveillance adherence and diagnostic errors.”
To understand the incidence rates of late-stage PDACs during follow-up in high-risk individuals, Dr. Chhoda and researchers performed a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of data that included follow-up strategies for early PDAC detection among a high-risk population.
Outcomes of interest for the analysis included the overall diagnosis of advanced neoplasia as well as surveillance-detected/interval late-stage PDACs (T2–4N0M0/metastatic stage PDAC) during follow-up. The investigators defined surveillance-detected and interval late-stage PDACs as late-stage PDACs that were detected during surveillance and as those presenting symptomatically between visits, respectively.
The researchers also performed metaregression of the incidence rates of late-stage PDACs to examine the relationship with clinicoradiologic features in high-risk individuals.
A total of 13 studies on surveillance in 2,169 high-risk individuals were included in the systematic review, while 12 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Across studies, high-risk individuals were followed for over 7,302.72 patient-years for the purposes of detecting incident lesions or progression of preexisting pancreatic abnormalities.
In all high-risk individuals who underwent follow-up, the investigators identified a total yield of advanced neoplasia of 53. This total yield consisted of 7 high-grade pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasms, 7 high-grade intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms, and 39 PDACs. According to the meta-analysis, the cumulative incidence of advanced neoplasia was 3.3 (95% confidence interval, 0.6-7.4; P < .001) per 1,000 patient-years. During follow-up, the cumulative incidence of surveillance-detected/interval late-stage PDACs was 1.7 per 1,000 patient-years (95% CI, 0.2-4.0; P = .03).
In a separate analysis, the investigators sought to identify the relationship between the modality of follow-up imaging and late-stage PDAC incidence. Imaging modalities used during follow-up were mostly cross-sectional imaging, such as computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging with cholangiopancreatography (n = 4) or endoscopic ultrasound and cross-sectional modalities (n = 8).
The investigators found no significant associations between late-stage PDACs and surveillance imaging, baseline pancreatic morphology, study location, genetic background, gender, or age. Incidence of late-stage PDACs in studies with mostly cross-sectional imaging was 0.7 per 1,000 patient-years (95% CI, 0.0-8.0). This incidence rate was lower than that reported with EUS and cross-sectional modalities (2.5 per 1,000 patient-years; 95% CI, 0.6-5.4), but this difference was not statistically significant (P = .2).
No significant difference was found during follow-up in the incidence of late-stage PDACs between high-risk individuals with baseline pancreatic abnormalities (0.0 no significant difference; 95% CI, 0.0-0.3) vs. high-risk individuals with normal baseline (0.9 per 1,000 patient-years; 95% CI, 0.0-2.8) (P = .9).
Most studies included in the analysis did not report on diagnostic errors and surveillance adherence, the researchers wrote. Nonadherence to surveillance as well as delays in surveillance accounted for four late-stage PDACs, and surveillance cessation and/or delays were reported in 4 out of 19 high-risk individuals. There was limited information on symptoms, presentation timing, site of lesion, and surveillance adherence, which the investigators indicated prevented a formal meta-analysis.
In their summary, the study authors noted that in clinical practice there is a need for improved quality measures and adherence to surveillance programs to reduce the risk of diagnostic errors. The authors stated that evidence on the impact of these quality measures “on surveillance outcomes will not only improve quality of surveillance practices, but also enrich our communication with patients who undergo surveillance.”
The researchers reported no conflicts of interest with the pharmaceutical industry, and the study did not receive any funding.
A relatively large number of late-stage pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas (PDACs) are detected during follow-up surveillance, yet no single patient- or protocol-specific factor appears to be significantly associated with detecting late-stage disease during this period, according to a new systematic literature review and meta-analysis.
The researchers, led by Ankit Chhoda, MD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., wrote in Gastroenterology that interval progression in high-risk individuals “highlights the need for improved follow-up methodology with higher accuracy to detect prognostically significant and treatable lesions.”
Individuals at high risk for PDAC are encouraged to undergo routine surveillance for the disease because early detection and resection of T1N0M0 PDAC and high-grade precursors may improve survival outcomes. According to Dr. Chhoda and colleagues, challenges of interval progression of cancers during the surveillance period for gastrointestinal malignancies have been well described in the general and at-risk patient populations. Previous studies, the authors explained, have not scrutinized the issues associated with late-stage PDACs detected during follow-up surveillance.
“Late-stage PDACs necessitate critical appraisal of current follow-up strategies to detect successful targets and perform timely resections,” the authors wrote. The researchers added that the diagnosis of late-stage PDACs during follow-up emphasizes the need for implementing “quality measures to avoid preventable causes, including surveillance adherence and diagnostic errors.”
To understand the incidence rates of late-stage PDACs during follow-up in high-risk individuals, Dr. Chhoda and researchers performed a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of data that included follow-up strategies for early PDAC detection among a high-risk population.
Outcomes of interest for the analysis included the overall diagnosis of advanced neoplasia as well as surveillance-detected/interval late-stage PDACs (T2–4N0M0/metastatic stage PDAC) during follow-up. The investigators defined surveillance-detected and interval late-stage PDACs as late-stage PDACs that were detected during surveillance and as those presenting symptomatically between visits, respectively.
The researchers also performed metaregression of the incidence rates of late-stage PDACs to examine the relationship with clinicoradiologic features in high-risk individuals.
A total of 13 studies on surveillance in 2,169 high-risk individuals were included in the systematic review, while 12 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Across studies, high-risk individuals were followed for over 7,302.72 patient-years for the purposes of detecting incident lesions or progression of preexisting pancreatic abnormalities.
In all high-risk individuals who underwent follow-up, the investigators identified a total yield of advanced neoplasia of 53. This total yield consisted of 7 high-grade pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasms, 7 high-grade intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms, and 39 PDACs. According to the meta-analysis, the cumulative incidence of advanced neoplasia was 3.3 (95% confidence interval, 0.6-7.4; P < .001) per 1,000 patient-years. During follow-up, the cumulative incidence of surveillance-detected/interval late-stage PDACs was 1.7 per 1,000 patient-years (95% CI, 0.2-4.0; P = .03).
In a separate analysis, the investigators sought to identify the relationship between the modality of follow-up imaging and late-stage PDAC incidence. Imaging modalities used during follow-up were mostly cross-sectional imaging, such as computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging with cholangiopancreatography (n = 4) or endoscopic ultrasound and cross-sectional modalities (n = 8).
The investigators found no significant associations between late-stage PDACs and surveillance imaging, baseline pancreatic morphology, study location, genetic background, gender, or age. Incidence of late-stage PDACs in studies with mostly cross-sectional imaging was 0.7 per 1,000 patient-years (95% CI, 0.0-8.0). This incidence rate was lower than that reported with EUS and cross-sectional modalities (2.5 per 1,000 patient-years; 95% CI, 0.6-5.4), but this difference was not statistically significant (P = .2).
No significant difference was found during follow-up in the incidence of late-stage PDACs between high-risk individuals with baseline pancreatic abnormalities (0.0 no significant difference; 95% CI, 0.0-0.3) vs. high-risk individuals with normal baseline (0.9 per 1,000 patient-years; 95% CI, 0.0-2.8) (P = .9).
Most studies included in the analysis did not report on diagnostic errors and surveillance adherence, the researchers wrote. Nonadherence to surveillance as well as delays in surveillance accounted for four late-stage PDACs, and surveillance cessation and/or delays were reported in 4 out of 19 high-risk individuals. There was limited information on symptoms, presentation timing, site of lesion, and surveillance adherence, which the investigators indicated prevented a formal meta-analysis.
In their summary, the study authors noted that in clinical practice there is a need for improved quality measures and adherence to surveillance programs to reduce the risk of diagnostic errors. The authors stated that evidence on the impact of these quality measures “on surveillance outcomes will not only improve quality of surveillance practices, but also enrich our communication with patients who undergo surveillance.”
The researchers reported no conflicts of interest with the pharmaceutical industry, and the study did not receive any funding.
FROM GASTROENTEROLOGY
Oncologists in malpractice suits: Less than other specialties
, notes the latest Medscape Malpractice Report.
Over a third (39%) of oncologists who were surveyed said that they had been named in at least one malpractice suit, according to the Medscape Oncologist Malpractice Report 2021.
This number is considerably lower than that reported by physicians across all specialties (51%), and it is also much lower than that reported by oncologists in past years. In the 2019 report, 54% of oncologists surveyed said they had been named in a malpractice suit, while in the 2017 report, the figure was 53%.
The dramatic decline in malpractice suits may have much to do with the COVID-19 pandemic, when oncology care was in a state of flux.
“Fewer people were seeking cancer care during the COVID pandemic, which might have impacted the number of lawsuits brought against oncologists,” says Paul Walker, a New York–based malpractice attorney at Walker Medical Law, who represents physicians and other healthcare professionals.
“Additionally, a fair number of people who died of COVID were also older,” he pointed out, and it is often older people who get cancer, so there were fewer older people who consulted an oncologist or were treated by one, he added.
However, the pandemic may be storing up trouble for future years. “Patient fears of contracting COVID-19 have led many to avoid seeking or resuming care, so delays in diagnosing new cancer cases could mean that more patients are diagnosed at a later stage of their disease, leading to potential adverse events and malpractice claims,” commented David L. Feldman, MD, MBA, chief medical officer of The Doctors Company Group.
This latest 2021 Medscape Malpractice Report was compiled from an online survey that included more than 4,300 physicians from 29 specialties. It included 106 oncologists. More than half of respondents (56%) had been in practice for more than 25 years, and 54% were aged 60 years or older. The survey was available from May 21 to August 28, 2021.
Similar to findings in previous years, complications from treatment/surgery were the most common reason for the lawsuits (31%). Failure to make a correct diagnosis or a delay in diagnosis was the second most common reason (23%), while 20% of patients sued because of a poor outcome or disease progression.
Surprise at being sued
Among the oncologists who reported involvement in a lawsuit in 2021, the majority (86%) said they were “very surprised” or “somewhat surprised” by the malpractice suit, which is similar to that of other physicians surveyed. However, fewer were surprised this year as compared to 2019 and 2017 (90% and 94%).
One reason for the surprise over the litigation was that it concerned a patient who had been treated a long time ago. One oncologist wrote that “the patient had not seen me for over 7 years and during that time, he did not call me with his new symptomatology. I was only named in the suit because I had previously been involved.”
Another common scenario reported by oncologists was being named in a lawsuit which was brought by another clinician’s patient. “I was the chairperson of the department, and one of the doctors in the practice was involved in the suit,” wrote one respondent. “I was named as an accomplice.”
More than half of surveyed oncologists said that they were able to identify the patient who bought the suit, and these figures are again comparable to those of other physicians. One oncologist commented that in the case he was involved with, the family did not understand or accept the nature of cancer and the different ways that a patient could die of complications. This patient had died of sepsis and pneumonia related to decubitus ulcers that were completely unrelated to her radiation therapy.
As in the case above, sometimes it is the family who filed the lawsuit, not the patient.
“The patient may even recognize that you did your best and be grateful for your skill and efforts, but the family can’t accept that grandma died of cancer and brings a lawsuit,” said Dennis Hursh, an attorney with Physicians Agreement Health Law in Pennsylvania.
When looking at outcomes of the lawsuit, 40% of oncologists were dismissed from the suit within the first few months, or the case was settled before going to trial. This trend is also consistent with the results from the 2019 and 2017 surveys. When the case did go to trial, 10% received a favorable verdict, which was the same in 2019.
“It seems that most of my clients end up being released from lawsuits, and many lawsuits are dismissed prior to proceeding to trial,” Mr. Hursh commented.
Murdering psychopath
Some oncologists weighed in on what they felt was the worst experience of being sued.
“Mental anguish, knowing that I did nothing wrong,” said one physician. Another reported that it was a feeling of being “inadequate and totally alone.”
Another oncologist commented that the “depositions from lawyers implied that I was worse than a murdering psychopath. My reputation was permanently damaged.”
However, the vast majority of oncologists (88%) did not believe that the lawsuit negatively affected their career, which was similar to physicians in general. That said, many did complain about the ongoing requirement to report the lawsuit to the credentialing committee, even if it was dismissed, and then having to pay increased malpractice premiums. “I still need to document this episode every single time I apply for any medical position, even more than 29 years after I was dismissed from the case,” said one respondent.
When asked if they would do anything differently, many oncologists (42%) said no, they would not have done anything differently. This is similar to the responses from physicians in general and with 2019 responses from oncologists. However, 15% of the respondents said that in retrospect, they would not have taken on that patient to begin with.
Some oncologists noted that they would have been more conscientious in relaying the information to the referring physician. Evan Lyman, an associate attorney at Voute, Lohrfink, McAndrew, Meisner & Roberts, LLP, in White Plains, N.Y., pointed out that a common reason for lawsuits is a slip-up of communication between the specialist and the referring physician.
Oncologists who had been sued have some insights to offer to colleagues, should they find themselves in a similar situation.
“Only answer with short and precise statements,” wrote one oncologist. “Attend all the depositions as much as you can; they are more likely to fabricate or exaggerate if you are not sitting in the room.”
Another physician said to base “everything on the medical record and do not answer hypothetical questions.”
“Document all interactions with patients as if a jury will be reading them, word by word,” said one respondent.
As for the public or patients, oncologists had this message: “malpractice suits should be rarely launched and only when gross errors can be absolutely proven.”
Another oncologist pointed out that communication is key. “Speak to the physicians against whom you have distrust. Lots of things could be cleared by good communication.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, notes the latest Medscape Malpractice Report.
Over a third (39%) of oncologists who were surveyed said that they had been named in at least one malpractice suit, according to the Medscape Oncologist Malpractice Report 2021.
This number is considerably lower than that reported by physicians across all specialties (51%), and it is also much lower than that reported by oncologists in past years. In the 2019 report, 54% of oncologists surveyed said they had been named in a malpractice suit, while in the 2017 report, the figure was 53%.
The dramatic decline in malpractice suits may have much to do with the COVID-19 pandemic, when oncology care was in a state of flux.
“Fewer people were seeking cancer care during the COVID pandemic, which might have impacted the number of lawsuits brought against oncologists,” says Paul Walker, a New York–based malpractice attorney at Walker Medical Law, who represents physicians and other healthcare professionals.
“Additionally, a fair number of people who died of COVID were also older,” he pointed out, and it is often older people who get cancer, so there were fewer older people who consulted an oncologist or were treated by one, he added.
However, the pandemic may be storing up trouble for future years. “Patient fears of contracting COVID-19 have led many to avoid seeking or resuming care, so delays in diagnosing new cancer cases could mean that more patients are diagnosed at a later stage of their disease, leading to potential adverse events and malpractice claims,” commented David L. Feldman, MD, MBA, chief medical officer of The Doctors Company Group.
This latest 2021 Medscape Malpractice Report was compiled from an online survey that included more than 4,300 physicians from 29 specialties. It included 106 oncologists. More than half of respondents (56%) had been in practice for more than 25 years, and 54% were aged 60 years or older. The survey was available from May 21 to August 28, 2021.
Similar to findings in previous years, complications from treatment/surgery were the most common reason for the lawsuits (31%). Failure to make a correct diagnosis or a delay in diagnosis was the second most common reason (23%), while 20% of patients sued because of a poor outcome or disease progression.
Surprise at being sued
Among the oncologists who reported involvement in a lawsuit in 2021, the majority (86%) said they were “very surprised” or “somewhat surprised” by the malpractice suit, which is similar to that of other physicians surveyed. However, fewer were surprised this year as compared to 2019 and 2017 (90% and 94%).
One reason for the surprise over the litigation was that it concerned a patient who had been treated a long time ago. One oncologist wrote that “the patient had not seen me for over 7 years and during that time, he did not call me with his new symptomatology. I was only named in the suit because I had previously been involved.”
Another common scenario reported by oncologists was being named in a lawsuit which was brought by another clinician’s patient. “I was the chairperson of the department, and one of the doctors in the practice was involved in the suit,” wrote one respondent. “I was named as an accomplice.”
More than half of surveyed oncologists said that they were able to identify the patient who bought the suit, and these figures are again comparable to those of other physicians. One oncologist commented that in the case he was involved with, the family did not understand or accept the nature of cancer and the different ways that a patient could die of complications. This patient had died of sepsis and pneumonia related to decubitus ulcers that were completely unrelated to her radiation therapy.
As in the case above, sometimes it is the family who filed the lawsuit, not the patient.
“The patient may even recognize that you did your best and be grateful for your skill and efforts, but the family can’t accept that grandma died of cancer and brings a lawsuit,” said Dennis Hursh, an attorney with Physicians Agreement Health Law in Pennsylvania.
When looking at outcomes of the lawsuit, 40% of oncologists were dismissed from the suit within the first few months, or the case was settled before going to trial. This trend is also consistent with the results from the 2019 and 2017 surveys. When the case did go to trial, 10% received a favorable verdict, which was the same in 2019.
“It seems that most of my clients end up being released from lawsuits, and many lawsuits are dismissed prior to proceeding to trial,” Mr. Hursh commented.
Murdering psychopath
Some oncologists weighed in on what they felt was the worst experience of being sued.
“Mental anguish, knowing that I did nothing wrong,” said one physician. Another reported that it was a feeling of being “inadequate and totally alone.”
Another oncologist commented that the “depositions from lawyers implied that I was worse than a murdering psychopath. My reputation was permanently damaged.”
However, the vast majority of oncologists (88%) did not believe that the lawsuit negatively affected their career, which was similar to physicians in general. That said, many did complain about the ongoing requirement to report the lawsuit to the credentialing committee, even if it was dismissed, and then having to pay increased malpractice premiums. “I still need to document this episode every single time I apply for any medical position, even more than 29 years after I was dismissed from the case,” said one respondent.
When asked if they would do anything differently, many oncologists (42%) said no, they would not have done anything differently. This is similar to the responses from physicians in general and with 2019 responses from oncologists. However, 15% of the respondents said that in retrospect, they would not have taken on that patient to begin with.
Some oncologists noted that they would have been more conscientious in relaying the information to the referring physician. Evan Lyman, an associate attorney at Voute, Lohrfink, McAndrew, Meisner & Roberts, LLP, in White Plains, N.Y., pointed out that a common reason for lawsuits is a slip-up of communication between the specialist and the referring physician.
Oncologists who had been sued have some insights to offer to colleagues, should they find themselves in a similar situation.
“Only answer with short and precise statements,” wrote one oncologist. “Attend all the depositions as much as you can; they are more likely to fabricate or exaggerate if you are not sitting in the room.”
Another physician said to base “everything on the medical record and do not answer hypothetical questions.”
“Document all interactions with patients as if a jury will be reading them, word by word,” said one respondent.
As for the public or patients, oncologists had this message: “malpractice suits should be rarely launched and only when gross errors can be absolutely proven.”
Another oncologist pointed out that communication is key. “Speak to the physicians against whom you have distrust. Lots of things could be cleared by good communication.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, notes the latest Medscape Malpractice Report.
Over a third (39%) of oncologists who were surveyed said that they had been named in at least one malpractice suit, according to the Medscape Oncologist Malpractice Report 2021.
This number is considerably lower than that reported by physicians across all specialties (51%), and it is also much lower than that reported by oncologists in past years. In the 2019 report, 54% of oncologists surveyed said they had been named in a malpractice suit, while in the 2017 report, the figure was 53%.
The dramatic decline in malpractice suits may have much to do with the COVID-19 pandemic, when oncology care was in a state of flux.
“Fewer people were seeking cancer care during the COVID pandemic, which might have impacted the number of lawsuits brought against oncologists,” says Paul Walker, a New York–based malpractice attorney at Walker Medical Law, who represents physicians and other healthcare professionals.
“Additionally, a fair number of people who died of COVID were also older,” he pointed out, and it is often older people who get cancer, so there were fewer older people who consulted an oncologist or were treated by one, he added.
However, the pandemic may be storing up trouble for future years. “Patient fears of contracting COVID-19 have led many to avoid seeking or resuming care, so delays in diagnosing new cancer cases could mean that more patients are diagnosed at a later stage of their disease, leading to potential adverse events and malpractice claims,” commented David L. Feldman, MD, MBA, chief medical officer of The Doctors Company Group.
This latest 2021 Medscape Malpractice Report was compiled from an online survey that included more than 4,300 physicians from 29 specialties. It included 106 oncologists. More than half of respondents (56%) had been in practice for more than 25 years, and 54% were aged 60 years or older. The survey was available from May 21 to August 28, 2021.
Similar to findings in previous years, complications from treatment/surgery were the most common reason for the lawsuits (31%). Failure to make a correct diagnosis or a delay in diagnosis was the second most common reason (23%), while 20% of patients sued because of a poor outcome or disease progression.
Surprise at being sued
Among the oncologists who reported involvement in a lawsuit in 2021, the majority (86%) said they were “very surprised” or “somewhat surprised” by the malpractice suit, which is similar to that of other physicians surveyed. However, fewer were surprised this year as compared to 2019 and 2017 (90% and 94%).
One reason for the surprise over the litigation was that it concerned a patient who had been treated a long time ago. One oncologist wrote that “the patient had not seen me for over 7 years and during that time, he did not call me with his new symptomatology. I was only named in the suit because I had previously been involved.”
Another common scenario reported by oncologists was being named in a lawsuit which was brought by another clinician’s patient. “I was the chairperson of the department, and one of the doctors in the practice was involved in the suit,” wrote one respondent. “I was named as an accomplice.”
More than half of surveyed oncologists said that they were able to identify the patient who bought the suit, and these figures are again comparable to those of other physicians. One oncologist commented that in the case he was involved with, the family did not understand or accept the nature of cancer and the different ways that a patient could die of complications. This patient had died of sepsis and pneumonia related to decubitus ulcers that were completely unrelated to her radiation therapy.
As in the case above, sometimes it is the family who filed the lawsuit, not the patient.
“The patient may even recognize that you did your best and be grateful for your skill and efforts, but the family can’t accept that grandma died of cancer and brings a lawsuit,” said Dennis Hursh, an attorney with Physicians Agreement Health Law in Pennsylvania.
When looking at outcomes of the lawsuit, 40% of oncologists were dismissed from the suit within the first few months, or the case was settled before going to trial. This trend is also consistent with the results from the 2019 and 2017 surveys. When the case did go to trial, 10% received a favorable verdict, which was the same in 2019.
“It seems that most of my clients end up being released from lawsuits, and many lawsuits are dismissed prior to proceeding to trial,” Mr. Hursh commented.
Murdering psychopath
Some oncologists weighed in on what they felt was the worst experience of being sued.
“Mental anguish, knowing that I did nothing wrong,” said one physician. Another reported that it was a feeling of being “inadequate and totally alone.”
Another oncologist commented that the “depositions from lawyers implied that I was worse than a murdering psychopath. My reputation was permanently damaged.”
However, the vast majority of oncologists (88%) did not believe that the lawsuit negatively affected their career, which was similar to physicians in general. That said, many did complain about the ongoing requirement to report the lawsuit to the credentialing committee, even if it was dismissed, and then having to pay increased malpractice premiums. “I still need to document this episode every single time I apply for any medical position, even more than 29 years after I was dismissed from the case,” said one respondent.
When asked if they would do anything differently, many oncologists (42%) said no, they would not have done anything differently. This is similar to the responses from physicians in general and with 2019 responses from oncologists. However, 15% of the respondents said that in retrospect, they would not have taken on that patient to begin with.
Some oncologists noted that they would have been more conscientious in relaying the information to the referring physician. Evan Lyman, an associate attorney at Voute, Lohrfink, McAndrew, Meisner & Roberts, LLP, in White Plains, N.Y., pointed out that a common reason for lawsuits is a slip-up of communication between the specialist and the referring physician.
Oncologists who had been sued have some insights to offer to colleagues, should they find themselves in a similar situation.
“Only answer with short and precise statements,” wrote one oncologist. “Attend all the depositions as much as you can; they are more likely to fabricate or exaggerate if you are not sitting in the room.”
Another physician said to base “everything on the medical record and do not answer hypothetical questions.”
“Document all interactions with patients as if a jury will be reading them, word by word,” said one respondent.
As for the public or patients, oncologists had this message: “malpractice suits should be rarely launched and only when gross errors can be absolutely proven.”
Another oncologist pointed out that communication is key. “Speak to the physicians against whom you have distrust. Lots of things could be cleared by good communication.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
EMA gives green light to new CAR T-cell therapy
At its late January meeting, the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use of the European Medicines Agency recommended for approval lisocabtagene maraleucel (Breyanzi, Bristol-Myers Squibb). This chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy is indicated for the treatment of relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma (PMBCL), and follicular lymphoma grade 3B (FL3B). The indication is for use in patients who have received at least two lines of treatment.
The benefits of lisocabtagene maraleucel, noted the CHMP, are its ability to provide high and durable responses in patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL, PMBCL, and FL3B. The most common side effects reported are neutropenia, anemia, cytokine release syndrome, fatigue, and thrombocytopenia.
The product is already approved in the United States for the same indication. The Food and Drug Administration’s approval came with a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy because of the risk for serious adverse events, including cytokine release syndrome.
During development, it was designated as an orphan medicine. The EMA will now review the information available to date to determine if the orphan designation can be maintained.
Biosimilar pegfilgrastim
At the same meeting, the committee recommended approval of a biosimilar product for pegfilgrastim (Stimufend, Fresenius Kabi Deutschland), which is used to reduce the duration of neutropenia and the incidence of febrile neutropenia after cytotoxic chemotherapy.
The committee noted that this product has been shown to be highly similar to the reference product Neulasta (pegfilgrastim), which has been available in the EU for 2 decades (authorized in 2002). Data have demonstrated that Stimufend has comparable quality, safety, and efficacy to Neulasta.
Its full indication is to reduce the duration of neutropenia and incidence of febrile neutropenia in adult patients treated with cytotoxic chemotherapy for malignancies, with the exception of chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) and myelodysplastic syndromes.
Generic versions of dasatinib
Also recommended for approval were for two generic formulations of dasatinib (Dasatinib Accord and Dasatinib Accordpharma, both from Accord Healthcare) for the treatment of various leukemias.
These are generic versions of dasatinib (Sprycel), which has been available in the European Union since 2006.
The CHMP noted that studies have demonstrated the satisfactory quality of Dasatinib Accord, as well as its bioequivalence to the reference product. This generic is indicated for the treatment of adult patients with Philadelphia chromosome–positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia with resistance or intolerance to prior therapy and pediatric patients with newly diagnosed Ph+ ALL in combination with chemotherapy.
Dasatinib Accordpharma has a wider set of indications, which include the treatment of adult patients with newly diagnosed Ph+ CML in the chronic phase; chronic, accelerated, or blast phase CML with resistance or intolerance to prior therapy including imatinib; and Ph+ ALL and lymphoid blast CML with resistance or intolerance to prior therapy. In addition, this generic is indicated for the treatment of pediatric patients with newly diagnosed Ph+ CML in the chronic phase or Ph+ CML-CP resistant or intolerant to prior therapy including imatinib and newly diagnosed Ph+ ALL in combination with chemotherapy.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
At its late January meeting, the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use of the European Medicines Agency recommended for approval lisocabtagene maraleucel (Breyanzi, Bristol-Myers Squibb). This chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy is indicated for the treatment of relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma (PMBCL), and follicular lymphoma grade 3B (FL3B). The indication is for use in patients who have received at least two lines of treatment.
The benefits of lisocabtagene maraleucel, noted the CHMP, are its ability to provide high and durable responses in patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL, PMBCL, and FL3B. The most common side effects reported are neutropenia, anemia, cytokine release syndrome, fatigue, and thrombocytopenia.
The product is already approved in the United States for the same indication. The Food and Drug Administration’s approval came with a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy because of the risk for serious adverse events, including cytokine release syndrome.
During development, it was designated as an orphan medicine. The EMA will now review the information available to date to determine if the orphan designation can be maintained.
Biosimilar pegfilgrastim
At the same meeting, the committee recommended approval of a biosimilar product for pegfilgrastim (Stimufend, Fresenius Kabi Deutschland), which is used to reduce the duration of neutropenia and the incidence of febrile neutropenia after cytotoxic chemotherapy.
The committee noted that this product has been shown to be highly similar to the reference product Neulasta (pegfilgrastim), which has been available in the EU for 2 decades (authorized in 2002). Data have demonstrated that Stimufend has comparable quality, safety, and efficacy to Neulasta.
Its full indication is to reduce the duration of neutropenia and incidence of febrile neutropenia in adult patients treated with cytotoxic chemotherapy for malignancies, with the exception of chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) and myelodysplastic syndromes.
Generic versions of dasatinib
Also recommended for approval were for two generic formulations of dasatinib (Dasatinib Accord and Dasatinib Accordpharma, both from Accord Healthcare) for the treatment of various leukemias.
These are generic versions of dasatinib (Sprycel), which has been available in the European Union since 2006.
The CHMP noted that studies have demonstrated the satisfactory quality of Dasatinib Accord, as well as its bioequivalence to the reference product. This generic is indicated for the treatment of adult patients with Philadelphia chromosome–positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia with resistance or intolerance to prior therapy and pediatric patients with newly diagnosed Ph+ ALL in combination with chemotherapy.
Dasatinib Accordpharma has a wider set of indications, which include the treatment of adult patients with newly diagnosed Ph+ CML in the chronic phase; chronic, accelerated, or blast phase CML with resistance or intolerance to prior therapy including imatinib; and Ph+ ALL and lymphoid blast CML with resistance or intolerance to prior therapy. In addition, this generic is indicated for the treatment of pediatric patients with newly diagnosed Ph+ CML in the chronic phase or Ph+ CML-CP resistant or intolerant to prior therapy including imatinib and newly diagnosed Ph+ ALL in combination with chemotherapy.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
At its late January meeting, the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use of the European Medicines Agency recommended for approval lisocabtagene maraleucel (Breyanzi, Bristol-Myers Squibb). This chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy is indicated for the treatment of relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma (PMBCL), and follicular lymphoma grade 3B (FL3B). The indication is for use in patients who have received at least two lines of treatment.
The benefits of lisocabtagene maraleucel, noted the CHMP, are its ability to provide high and durable responses in patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL, PMBCL, and FL3B. The most common side effects reported are neutropenia, anemia, cytokine release syndrome, fatigue, and thrombocytopenia.
The product is already approved in the United States for the same indication. The Food and Drug Administration’s approval came with a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy because of the risk for serious adverse events, including cytokine release syndrome.
During development, it was designated as an orphan medicine. The EMA will now review the information available to date to determine if the orphan designation can be maintained.
Biosimilar pegfilgrastim
At the same meeting, the committee recommended approval of a biosimilar product for pegfilgrastim (Stimufend, Fresenius Kabi Deutschland), which is used to reduce the duration of neutropenia and the incidence of febrile neutropenia after cytotoxic chemotherapy.
The committee noted that this product has been shown to be highly similar to the reference product Neulasta (pegfilgrastim), which has been available in the EU for 2 decades (authorized in 2002). Data have demonstrated that Stimufend has comparable quality, safety, and efficacy to Neulasta.
Its full indication is to reduce the duration of neutropenia and incidence of febrile neutropenia in adult patients treated with cytotoxic chemotherapy for malignancies, with the exception of chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) and myelodysplastic syndromes.
Generic versions of dasatinib
Also recommended for approval were for two generic formulations of dasatinib (Dasatinib Accord and Dasatinib Accordpharma, both from Accord Healthcare) for the treatment of various leukemias.
These are generic versions of dasatinib (Sprycel), which has been available in the European Union since 2006.
The CHMP noted that studies have demonstrated the satisfactory quality of Dasatinib Accord, as well as its bioequivalence to the reference product. This generic is indicated for the treatment of adult patients with Philadelphia chromosome–positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia with resistance or intolerance to prior therapy and pediatric patients with newly diagnosed Ph+ ALL in combination with chemotherapy.
Dasatinib Accordpharma has a wider set of indications, which include the treatment of adult patients with newly diagnosed Ph+ CML in the chronic phase; chronic, accelerated, or blast phase CML with resistance or intolerance to prior therapy including imatinib; and Ph+ ALL and lymphoid blast CML with resistance or intolerance to prior therapy. In addition, this generic is indicated for the treatment of pediatric patients with newly diagnosed Ph+ CML in the chronic phase or Ph+ CML-CP resistant or intolerant to prior therapy including imatinib and newly diagnosed Ph+ ALL in combination with chemotherapy.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Alleviating chemo-related nausea is a huge unmet need
This transcript has been edited for clarity. The transcript and an accompanying video first appeared on Medscape.com.
This is Mark Kris from chilly New York and Memorial Sloan Kettering. Today I want to talk about a recent article in the Journal of Clinical Oncology that reported a study of a new neurokinin-1 antagonist called fosnetupitant. This was a well-conducted trial that demonstrates the noninferiority of IV fosnetupitant when compared with IV fosaprepitant. By their study criteria, fosnetupitant was not inferior.
But my reason for discussing this is that the paper and the trial miss the point for the field right now. Although the authors talk about the prevention of nausea and vomiting in the introduction, in the paper itself and in the abstract results section, there’s not a single mention about the medication’s ability to control nausea, which is the critical issue for our patients today. You have to go into the supplementary data to find it mentioned, and what you find is that the prevention of nausea is 50% for both the control and this new drug. We control nausea in only half of the patients who receive cisplatin in 2022. That is a huge issue.
When you ask patients what are the effects of cancer treatment that they fear most, that concerns them most, it’s nausea and emesis; indeed, nausea has replaced emesis as the biggest concern. And although this trial used emesis as the main endpoint, and it was useful in defining the drug, it was not useful in coming up with a new treatment that addresses a huge need. Further, the authors talk about an advantage to fosnetupitant based on infusion reactions, but it is a difference of 0.3% vs. 3%. They talk about that sort of thing in the abstract and in the discussion section but don’t include nausea as part of the key endpoint of this trial. Again, you had to dig deeply to find out that, frankly, fosnetupitant was no better than the drugs we already have.
The other concerning point is that we do have another drug that works well. If you go to the American Society of Clinical Oncology or National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for patients receiving high dosages of cisplatin, you find a four-drug regimen, including olanzapine, and that was not used here. Why is olanzapine so critical? It’s an available drug, it’s an inexpensive drug, it’s a safe drug, and it improves nausea by 15%.
So they did this huge trial to show noninferiority, and they neglected to give a drug that could deal with the most serious side effect of cancer therapy – nausea – and improve things by 15%.
A challenge to people in this field: We have to do better. Nausea is a big problem. While noninferiority trials can be helpful for drug development, they’re not really helpful for the field. With a problem of this magnitude, we need better drugs to control nausea. In the meantime, I urge you all to follow the guidelines for high doses of cisplatin. Please use the four-drug regimen that is recommended in the guidelines and widely used in the United States. Going forward, make sure that when we expend huge amounts of energy to develop new agents and report them in our medical journals, that we look for ways to advance care where there are significant gaps in our ability to deliver what we want. Delivering better control of nausea is something we all need to be committed to. It’s a huge unmet need, and I hope future trials will address that need. Our patients will be better for it and we’ll be better in that we’re delivering what patients deserve, what they need, and what they ask for.
Mark G. Kris, MD, is chief of the thoracic oncology service and the William and Joy Ruane Chair in Thoracic Oncology at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. He reported serving as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for AstraZeneca, Roche/Genentech, and Ariad Pharmaceuticals, and has received research grants from Pfizer, PUMA, and Roche/Genentech.
This transcript has been edited for clarity. The transcript and an accompanying video first appeared on Medscape.com.
This is Mark Kris from chilly New York and Memorial Sloan Kettering. Today I want to talk about a recent article in the Journal of Clinical Oncology that reported a study of a new neurokinin-1 antagonist called fosnetupitant. This was a well-conducted trial that demonstrates the noninferiority of IV fosnetupitant when compared with IV fosaprepitant. By their study criteria, fosnetupitant was not inferior.
But my reason for discussing this is that the paper and the trial miss the point for the field right now. Although the authors talk about the prevention of nausea and vomiting in the introduction, in the paper itself and in the abstract results section, there’s not a single mention about the medication’s ability to control nausea, which is the critical issue for our patients today. You have to go into the supplementary data to find it mentioned, and what you find is that the prevention of nausea is 50% for both the control and this new drug. We control nausea in only half of the patients who receive cisplatin in 2022. That is a huge issue.
When you ask patients what are the effects of cancer treatment that they fear most, that concerns them most, it’s nausea and emesis; indeed, nausea has replaced emesis as the biggest concern. And although this trial used emesis as the main endpoint, and it was useful in defining the drug, it was not useful in coming up with a new treatment that addresses a huge need. Further, the authors talk about an advantage to fosnetupitant based on infusion reactions, but it is a difference of 0.3% vs. 3%. They talk about that sort of thing in the abstract and in the discussion section but don’t include nausea as part of the key endpoint of this trial. Again, you had to dig deeply to find out that, frankly, fosnetupitant was no better than the drugs we already have.
The other concerning point is that we do have another drug that works well. If you go to the American Society of Clinical Oncology or National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for patients receiving high dosages of cisplatin, you find a four-drug regimen, including olanzapine, and that was not used here. Why is olanzapine so critical? It’s an available drug, it’s an inexpensive drug, it’s a safe drug, and it improves nausea by 15%.
So they did this huge trial to show noninferiority, and they neglected to give a drug that could deal with the most serious side effect of cancer therapy – nausea – and improve things by 15%.
A challenge to people in this field: We have to do better. Nausea is a big problem. While noninferiority trials can be helpful for drug development, they’re not really helpful for the field. With a problem of this magnitude, we need better drugs to control nausea. In the meantime, I urge you all to follow the guidelines for high doses of cisplatin. Please use the four-drug regimen that is recommended in the guidelines and widely used in the United States. Going forward, make sure that when we expend huge amounts of energy to develop new agents and report them in our medical journals, that we look for ways to advance care where there are significant gaps in our ability to deliver what we want. Delivering better control of nausea is something we all need to be committed to. It’s a huge unmet need, and I hope future trials will address that need. Our patients will be better for it and we’ll be better in that we’re delivering what patients deserve, what they need, and what they ask for.
Mark G. Kris, MD, is chief of the thoracic oncology service and the William and Joy Ruane Chair in Thoracic Oncology at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. He reported serving as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for AstraZeneca, Roche/Genentech, and Ariad Pharmaceuticals, and has received research grants from Pfizer, PUMA, and Roche/Genentech.
This transcript has been edited for clarity. The transcript and an accompanying video first appeared on Medscape.com.
This is Mark Kris from chilly New York and Memorial Sloan Kettering. Today I want to talk about a recent article in the Journal of Clinical Oncology that reported a study of a new neurokinin-1 antagonist called fosnetupitant. This was a well-conducted trial that demonstrates the noninferiority of IV fosnetupitant when compared with IV fosaprepitant. By their study criteria, fosnetupitant was not inferior.
But my reason for discussing this is that the paper and the trial miss the point for the field right now. Although the authors talk about the prevention of nausea and vomiting in the introduction, in the paper itself and in the abstract results section, there’s not a single mention about the medication’s ability to control nausea, which is the critical issue for our patients today. You have to go into the supplementary data to find it mentioned, and what you find is that the prevention of nausea is 50% for both the control and this new drug. We control nausea in only half of the patients who receive cisplatin in 2022. That is a huge issue.
When you ask patients what are the effects of cancer treatment that they fear most, that concerns them most, it’s nausea and emesis; indeed, nausea has replaced emesis as the biggest concern. And although this trial used emesis as the main endpoint, and it was useful in defining the drug, it was not useful in coming up with a new treatment that addresses a huge need. Further, the authors talk about an advantage to fosnetupitant based on infusion reactions, but it is a difference of 0.3% vs. 3%. They talk about that sort of thing in the abstract and in the discussion section but don’t include nausea as part of the key endpoint of this trial. Again, you had to dig deeply to find out that, frankly, fosnetupitant was no better than the drugs we already have.
The other concerning point is that we do have another drug that works well. If you go to the American Society of Clinical Oncology or National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for patients receiving high dosages of cisplatin, you find a four-drug regimen, including olanzapine, and that was not used here. Why is olanzapine so critical? It’s an available drug, it’s an inexpensive drug, it’s a safe drug, and it improves nausea by 15%.
So they did this huge trial to show noninferiority, and they neglected to give a drug that could deal with the most serious side effect of cancer therapy – nausea – and improve things by 15%.
A challenge to people in this field: We have to do better. Nausea is a big problem. While noninferiority trials can be helpful for drug development, they’re not really helpful for the field. With a problem of this magnitude, we need better drugs to control nausea. In the meantime, I urge you all to follow the guidelines for high doses of cisplatin. Please use the four-drug regimen that is recommended in the guidelines and widely used in the United States. Going forward, make sure that when we expend huge amounts of energy to develop new agents and report them in our medical journals, that we look for ways to advance care where there are significant gaps in our ability to deliver what we want. Delivering better control of nausea is something we all need to be committed to. It’s a huge unmet need, and I hope future trials will address that need. Our patients will be better for it and we’ll be better in that we’re delivering what patients deserve, what they need, and what they ask for.
Mark G. Kris, MD, is chief of the thoracic oncology service and the William and Joy Ruane Chair in Thoracic Oncology at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. He reported serving as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for AstraZeneca, Roche/Genentech, and Ariad Pharmaceuticals, and has received research grants from Pfizer, PUMA, and Roche/Genentech.
Global pediatric oncology workforce hit hard, but resilient amid pandemic
according to a study that surveyed workers from more than 200 institutions in 79 countries.
A snapshot of the extensive findings reveals that half of participating institutions experienced staffing shortages that had a “major impact” on pediatric cancer care. On the financial front, many respondents pointed to instances of unpaid leave and diminished salary, and others highlighted the psychological toll of providing care, including high rates of burnout and stress. The challenges were evident across high- and low-income countries.
Despite these barriers, pediatric oncology clinicians demonstrated incredible perseverance.
Health care professionals “caring for children with cancer across the world were shown to be incredibly resilient, coming together to continue to provide care even in the direst circumstances,” Elizabeth R. Sniderman, MSN, APRN, of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, and colleagues concluded.
The findings, published online Jan. 24, 2022, in Cancer, highlight the global impact of COVID-19 on pediatric oncology clinicians early in the pandemic.
The survey, conducted in summer 2020, included responses from 311 pediatric oncology clinicians who completed a 60-item questionnaire about their experiences of clinical care, resources, and support. The investigators also convened 19 multidisciplinary focus groups who answered questions related to teamwork, communication, and changes to care. Respondents practiced in low- to high-income countries, and included pediatric hematologists and oncologists, nurses, and infectious disease physicians.
Overall, the investigators found that just over half of institutions experienced “major” shortages of clinical staff (108 of 213), and two-thirds experienced reductions in staffing availability (141 of 213). Notably, national income was not associated with this reduction; rather, staffing shortages were more likely to occur in countries with greater COVID-19 incidence and mortality rates.
Respondents reported experiencing threats to their physical health, with half pointing to a lack of necessary personal protective equipment. The financial and psychological toll of the pandemic represented another major stressor, with the effects described across all income levels.
One respondent from Belarus commented on financial concerns, noting that “people don’t really want to admit that they don’t feel well ... they know, that if infected, unpaid self-isolation is waiting for them. Either you don’t go to work for 2 weeks, unpaid, or you go to work for 2 weeks, paid, and endanger all of your colleagues with your infection.”
A respondent from Mexico described the psychological stress: “Honestly, I think that sometimes we put aside the mental health of all of us involved, myself included. I think we were all on the verge of collapse ... practically all the residents who were rotating here told us that they had anxiety attacks, panic attacks, they could not sleep, [and] many of them needed psychiatric medicine.”
Others highlighted feelings of guilt about their ability to provide the highest level of care. An oncologist in the United States noted: “This was a major stress for many providers because [we are] feeling unable to provide the same level of care which we used to provide. And this is what eventually takes a toll.”
And despite these pandemic-related challenges, the study authors found that only 46% of institutions (99 of 213) made psychological support available to staff.
Rays of hope
But it was not all bad news.
Participants also described a greater sense of teamwork, communication, and collegiality throughout the pandemic – “stabilizing elements,” which helped mitigate the many physical, psychological, and financial stressors.
An infection-control physician in Belarus highlighted the importance of receiving “support and encouragement” from colleagues: “When a person gets tired and they have no more enthusiasm, it’s easy to give up and say: ‘I can’t do this anymore.’ But when you see a colleague who tries ... to share the work, and help each other, then you get extra strength.”
An oncologist in South Africa agreed, noting that “everyone has got their sleeves rolled up and are doing the work ... and that’s a testament to everyone that we work with. There was no one that shied away from work or used this as an excuse to do less work.”
An oncologist in Spain described practicing during the pandemic being “one of the best experiences I have had,” explaining that “I have been working in this hospital for ... 25 years, [and] I have never had the feeling of being so informed at all levels.”
Overall, the findings paint a picture of a resilient workforce, and offer lessons about preparedness for future crises, the investigators concluded.
“To protect pediatric oncology providers and their patients, organizations must pay attention to interventions that increase physical, psychological, and financial safety,” the authors stressed. For instance, providing adequate personal protective equipment and vaccines, allowing for time off and rest, and setting up professional psychology services as well as access to peer-support programs can help protect staff.
Although this survey took place relatively early in the pandemic, organizations should take heed of the findings, Lorena V. Baroni, MD, of Hospital J P Garrahan, Buenos Aires, and Eric Bouffet, MD, of The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, wrote in an accompanying editorial.
“The results presented in this study should not be taken lightly,” Dr. Baroni and Dr. Bouffet wrote. “The most concerning findings are the physical and psychological impact experienced by pediatric oncology providers.” And perhaps most surprisingly, “the survey did not identify any difference based on country income groups. Participants in both low- and high-income countries described similar oncologic care limitations.”
Overall, these findings “reflect a serious risk that can ultimately affect the care of children and compromise the success of their treatment,” Dr. Baroni and Dr. Bouffet wrote.
This study was supported by the American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities. The study authors and editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
according to a study that surveyed workers from more than 200 institutions in 79 countries.
A snapshot of the extensive findings reveals that half of participating institutions experienced staffing shortages that had a “major impact” on pediatric cancer care. On the financial front, many respondents pointed to instances of unpaid leave and diminished salary, and others highlighted the psychological toll of providing care, including high rates of burnout and stress. The challenges were evident across high- and low-income countries.
Despite these barriers, pediatric oncology clinicians demonstrated incredible perseverance.
Health care professionals “caring for children with cancer across the world were shown to be incredibly resilient, coming together to continue to provide care even in the direst circumstances,” Elizabeth R. Sniderman, MSN, APRN, of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, and colleagues concluded.
The findings, published online Jan. 24, 2022, in Cancer, highlight the global impact of COVID-19 on pediatric oncology clinicians early in the pandemic.
The survey, conducted in summer 2020, included responses from 311 pediatric oncology clinicians who completed a 60-item questionnaire about their experiences of clinical care, resources, and support. The investigators also convened 19 multidisciplinary focus groups who answered questions related to teamwork, communication, and changes to care. Respondents practiced in low- to high-income countries, and included pediatric hematologists and oncologists, nurses, and infectious disease physicians.
Overall, the investigators found that just over half of institutions experienced “major” shortages of clinical staff (108 of 213), and two-thirds experienced reductions in staffing availability (141 of 213). Notably, national income was not associated with this reduction; rather, staffing shortages were more likely to occur in countries with greater COVID-19 incidence and mortality rates.
Respondents reported experiencing threats to their physical health, with half pointing to a lack of necessary personal protective equipment. The financial and psychological toll of the pandemic represented another major stressor, with the effects described across all income levels.
One respondent from Belarus commented on financial concerns, noting that “people don’t really want to admit that they don’t feel well ... they know, that if infected, unpaid self-isolation is waiting for them. Either you don’t go to work for 2 weeks, unpaid, or you go to work for 2 weeks, paid, and endanger all of your colleagues with your infection.”
A respondent from Mexico described the psychological stress: “Honestly, I think that sometimes we put aside the mental health of all of us involved, myself included. I think we were all on the verge of collapse ... practically all the residents who were rotating here told us that they had anxiety attacks, panic attacks, they could not sleep, [and] many of them needed psychiatric medicine.”
Others highlighted feelings of guilt about their ability to provide the highest level of care. An oncologist in the United States noted: “This was a major stress for many providers because [we are] feeling unable to provide the same level of care which we used to provide. And this is what eventually takes a toll.”
And despite these pandemic-related challenges, the study authors found that only 46% of institutions (99 of 213) made psychological support available to staff.
Rays of hope
But it was not all bad news.
Participants also described a greater sense of teamwork, communication, and collegiality throughout the pandemic – “stabilizing elements,” which helped mitigate the many physical, psychological, and financial stressors.
An infection-control physician in Belarus highlighted the importance of receiving “support and encouragement” from colleagues: “When a person gets tired and they have no more enthusiasm, it’s easy to give up and say: ‘I can’t do this anymore.’ But when you see a colleague who tries ... to share the work, and help each other, then you get extra strength.”
An oncologist in South Africa agreed, noting that “everyone has got their sleeves rolled up and are doing the work ... and that’s a testament to everyone that we work with. There was no one that shied away from work or used this as an excuse to do less work.”
An oncologist in Spain described practicing during the pandemic being “one of the best experiences I have had,” explaining that “I have been working in this hospital for ... 25 years, [and] I have never had the feeling of being so informed at all levels.”
Overall, the findings paint a picture of a resilient workforce, and offer lessons about preparedness for future crises, the investigators concluded.
“To protect pediatric oncology providers and their patients, organizations must pay attention to interventions that increase physical, psychological, and financial safety,” the authors stressed. For instance, providing adequate personal protective equipment and vaccines, allowing for time off and rest, and setting up professional psychology services as well as access to peer-support programs can help protect staff.
Although this survey took place relatively early in the pandemic, organizations should take heed of the findings, Lorena V. Baroni, MD, of Hospital J P Garrahan, Buenos Aires, and Eric Bouffet, MD, of The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, wrote in an accompanying editorial.
“The results presented in this study should not be taken lightly,” Dr. Baroni and Dr. Bouffet wrote. “The most concerning findings are the physical and psychological impact experienced by pediatric oncology providers.” And perhaps most surprisingly, “the survey did not identify any difference based on country income groups. Participants in both low- and high-income countries described similar oncologic care limitations.”
Overall, these findings “reflect a serious risk that can ultimately affect the care of children and compromise the success of their treatment,” Dr. Baroni and Dr. Bouffet wrote.
This study was supported by the American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities. The study authors and editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
according to a study that surveyed workers from more than 200 institutions in 79 countries.
A snapshot of the extensive findings reveals that half of participating institutions experienced staffing shortages that had a “major impact” on pediatric cancer care. On the financial front, many respondents pointed to instances of unpaid leave and diminished salary, and others highlighted the psychological toll of providing care, including high rates of burnout and stress. The challenges were evident across high- and low-income countries.
Despite these barriers, pediatric oncology clinicians demonstrated incredible perseverance.
Health care professionals “caring for children with cancer across the world were shown to be incredibly resilient, coming together to continue to provide care even in the direst circumstances,” Elizabeth R. Sniderman, MSN, APRN, of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, and colleagues concluded.
The findings, published online Jan. 24, 2022, in Cancer, highlight the global impact of COVID-19 on pediatric oncology clinicians early in the pandemic.
The survey, conducted in summer 2020, included responses from 311 pediatric oncology clinicians who completed a 60-item questionnaire about their experiences of clinical care, resources, and support. The investigators also convened 19 multidisciplinary focus groups who answered questions related to teamwork, communication, and changes to care. Respondents practiced in low- to high-income countries, and included pediatric hematologists and oncologists, nurses, and infectious disease physicians.
Overall, the investigators found that just over half of institutions experienced “major” shortages of clinical staff (108 of 213), and two-thirds experienced reductions in staffing availability (141 of 213). Notably, national income was not associated with this reduction; rather, staffing shortages were more likely to occur in countries with greater COVID-19 incidence and mortality rates.
Respondents reported experiencing threats to their physical health, with half pointing to a lack of necessary personal protective equipment. The financial and psychological toll of the pandemic represented another major stressor, with the effects described across all income levels.
One respondent from Belarus commented on financial concerns, noting that “people don’t really want to admit that they don’t feel well ... they know, that if infected, unpaid self-isolation is waiting for them. Either you don’t go to work for 2 weeks, unpaid, or you go to work for 2 weeks, paid, and endanger all of your colleagues with your infection.”
A respondent from Mexico described the psychological stress: “Honestly, I think that sometimes we put aside the mental health of all of us involved, myself included. I think we were all on the verge of collapse ... practically all the residents who were rotating here told us that they had anxiety attacks, panic attacks, they could not sleep, [and] many of them needed psychiatric medicine.”
Others highlighted feelings of guilt about their ability to provide the highest level of care. An oncologist in the United States noted: “This was a major stress for many providers because [we are] feeling unable to provide the same level of care which we used to provide. And this is what eventually takes a toll.”
And despite these pandemic-related challenges, the study authors found that only 46% of institutions (99 of 213) made psychological support available to staff.
Rays of hope
But it was not all bad news.
Participants also described a greater sense of teamwork, communication, and collegiality throughout the pandemic – “stabilizing elements,” which helped mitigate the many physical, psychological, and financial stressors.
An infection-control physician in Belarus highlighted the importance of receiving “support and encouragement” from colleagues: “When a person gets tired and they have no more enthusiasm, it’s easy to give up and say: ‘I can’t do this anymore.’ But when you see a colleague who tries ... to share the work, and help each other, then you get extra strength.”
An oncologist in South Africa agreed, noting that “everyone has got their sleeves rolled up and are doing the work ... and that’s a testament to everyone that we work with. There was no one that shied away from work or used this as an excuse to do less work.”
An oncologist in Spain described practicing during the pandemic being “one of the best experiences I have had,” explaining that “I have been working in this hospital for ... 25 years, [and] I have never had the feeling of being so informed at all levels.”
Overall, the findings paint a picture of a resilient workforce, and offer lessons about preparedness for future crises, the investigators concluded.
“To protect pediatric oncology providers and their patients, organizations must pay attention to interventions that increase physical, psychological, and financial safety,” the authors stressed. For instance, providing adequate personal protective equipment and vaccines, allowing for time off and rest, and setting up professional psychology services as well as access to peer-support programs can help protect staff.
Although this survey took place relatively early in the pandemic, organizations should take heed of the findings, Lorena V. Baroni, MD, of Hospital J P Garrahan, Buenos Aires, and Eric Bouffet, MD, of The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, wrote in an accompanying editorial.
“The results presented in this study should not be taken lightly,” Dr. Baroni and Dr. Bouffet wrote. “The most concerning findings are the physical and psychological impact experienced by pediatric oncology providers.” And perhaps most surprisingly, “the survey did not identify any difference based on country income groups. Participants in both low- and high-income countries described similar oncologic care limitations.”
Overall, these findings “reflect a serious risk that can ultimately affect the care of children and compromise the success of their treatment,” Dr. Baroni and Dr. Bouffet wrote.
This study was supported by the American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities. The study authors and editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM CANCER