User login
-
No Routine Cancer Screening Option? New MCED Tests May Help
Analyses presented during a session at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting, revealed that three new MCED tests — CanScan, MERCURY, and OncoSeek — could detect a range of cancers and recognize the tissue of origin with high accuracy. One — OncoSeek — could also provide an affordable cancer screening option for individuals living in lower-income countries.
The need for these noninvasive liquid biopsy tests that can accurately identify multiple cancer types with a single blood draw, especially cancers without routine screening strategies, is pressing. “We know that the current cancer standard of care screening will identify less than 50% of all cancers, while more than 50% of all cancer deaths occur in types of cancer with no recommended screening,” said co-moderator Marie E. Wood, MD, of the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, in Aurora, Colorado.
That being said, “the clinical utility of multicancer detection tests has not been established and we’re concerned about issues of overdiagnosis and overtreatment,” she noted.
The Early Data
One new MCED test called CanScan, developed by Geneseeq Technology, uses plasma cell-free DNA fragment patterns to detect cancer signals as well as identify the tissue of origin across 13 cancer types.
Overall, the CanScan test covers cancer types that contribute to two thirds of new cancer cases and 74% of morality globally, said presenter Shanshan Yang, of Geneseeq Research Institute, in Nanjing, China.
However, only five of these cancer types have screening recommendations issued by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), Dr. Yang added.
The interim data comes from an ongoing large-scale prospective study evaluating the MCED test in a cohort of asymptomatic individuals between ages 45 and 75 years with an average risk for cancer and no cancer-related symptoms on enrollment.
Patients at baseline had their blood collected for the CanScan test and subsequently received annual routine physical exams once a year for 3 consecutive years, with an additional 2 years of follow-up.
The analysis included 3724 participants with analyzable samples at the data cutoff in September 2023. Among the 3724 participants, 29 had confirmed cancer diagnoses. Among these cases, 14 patients had their cancer confirmed through USPSTF recommended screening and 15 were detected through outside of standard USPSTF screening, such as a thyroid ultrasound, Dr. Yang explained.
Almost 90% of the cancers (26 of 29) were detected in the stage I or II, and eight (27.5%) were not one of the test’s 13 targeted cancer types.
The CanScan test had a sensitivity of 55.2%, identifying 16 of 29 of the patients with cancer, including 10 of 21 individuals with stage I (47.6%), and two of three with stage II (66.7%).
The test had a high specificity of 97.9%, meaning out of 100 people screened, only two had false negative findings.
Among the 15 patients who had their cancer detected outside of USPSTF screening recommendations, eight (53.3%) were found using a CanScan test, including patients with liver and endometrial cancers.
Compared with a positive predictive value of (PPV) of 1.6% with screening or physical exam methods alone, the CanScan test had a PPV of 17.4%, Dr. Yang reported.
“The MCED test holds significant potential for early cancer screening in asymptomatic populations,” Dr. Yang and colleagues concluded.
Another new MCED test called MERCURY, also developed by Geneseeq Technology and presented during the session, used a similar method to detect cancer signals and predict the tissue of origin across 13 cancer types.
The researchers initially validated the test using 3076 patients with cancer and 3477 healthy controls with a target specificity of 99%. In this group, researchers reported a sensitivity of 0.865 and a specificity of 0.989.
The team then performed an independent validation analysis with 1465 participants, 732 with cancer and 733 with no cancer, and confirmed a high sensitivity and specificity of 0.874 and 0.978, respectively. The sensitivity increased incrementally by cancer stage — 0.768 for stage I, 0.840 for stage II, 0.923 for stage III, and 0.971 for stage IV.
The test identified the tissue of origin with high accuracy, the researchers noted, but cautioned that the test needs “to be further validated in a prospective cohort study.”
MCED in Low-Income Settings
The session also featured findings on a new affordable MCED test called OncoSeek, which could provide greater access to cancer testing in low- and middle-income countries.
The OncoSeek algorithm identifies the presence of cancer using seven protein tumor markers alongside clinical information, such as gender and age. Like other tests, the test also predicts the possible tissue of origin.
The test can be run on clinical protein assay instruments that are already widely available, such as Roche cobas analyzer, Mao Mao, MD, PhD, the founder and CEO of SeekIn, of Shenzhen, China, told this news organization.
This “feature makes the test accessible worldwide, even in low- and middle-income countries,” he said. “These instruments are fully-automated and part of today’s clinical practice. Therefore, the test does not require additional infrastructure building and lab personal training.”
Another notable advantage: the OncoSeek test only costs about $20, compared with other MCED tests, which can cost anywhere from $200 to $1000.
To validate the technology in a large, diverse cohort, Dr. Mao and colleagues enrolled approximately 10,000 participants, including 2003 cancer cases and 7888 non-cancer cases.
Peripheral blood was collected from each participant and analyzed using a panel of the seven protein tumor markers — AFP, CA125, CA15-3, CA19-9, CA72-4, CEA, and CYFRA 21-1.
To reduce the risk for false positive findings, the team designed the OncoSeek algorithm to achieve a specificity of 93%. Dr. Mao and colleagues found a sensitivity of 51.7%, resulting in an overall accuracy of 84.6%.
The performance was consistent in additional validation cohorts in Brazil, China, and the United States, with sensitivities ranging from 39.0% to 77.6% for detecting nine common cancer types, including breast, colorectal, liver, lung, lymphoma, esophagus, ovary, pancreas, and stomach. The sensitivity for pancreatic cancer was at the high end of 77.6%.
The test could predict the tissue of origin in about two thirds of cases.
Given its low cost, OncoSeek represents an affordable and accessible option for cancer screening, the authors concluded.
Overall, “I think MCEDs have the potential to enhance cancer screening,” Dr. Wood told this news organization.
Still, questions remain about the optimal use of these tests, such as whether they are best for average-risk or higher risk populations, and how to integrate them into standard screening, she said.
Dr. Wood also cautioned that the studies presented in the session represent early data, and it is likely that the numbers, such as sensitivity and specificity, will change with further prospective analyses.
And ultimately, these tests should complement, not replace, standard screening. “A negative testing should not be taken as a sign to avoid standard screening,” Dr. Wood said.
Dr. Yang is an employee of Geneseeq Technology, Inc., and Dr. Mao is an employee of SeekIn. Dr. Wood had no disclosures to report.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Analyses presented during a session at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting, revealed that three new MCED tests — CanScan, MERCURY, and OncoSeek — could detect a range of cancers and recognize the tissue of origin with high accuracy. One — OncoSeek — could also provide an affordable cancer screening option for individuals living in lower-income countries.
The need for these noninvasive liquid biopsy tests that can accurately identify multiple cancer types with a single blood draw, especially cancers without routine screening strategies, is pressing. “We know that the current cancer standard of care screening will identify less than 50% of all cancers, while more than 50% of all cancer deaths occur in types of cancer with no recommended screening,” said co-moderator Marie E. Wood, MD, of the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, in Aurora, Colorado.
That being said, “the clinical utility of multicancer detection tests has not been established and we’re concerned about issues of overdiagnosis and overtreatment,” she noted.
The Early Data
One new MCED test called CanScan, developed by Geneseeq Technology, uses plasma cell-free DNA fragment patterns to detect cancer signals as well as identify the tissue of origin across 13 cancer types.
Overall, the CanScan test covers cancer types that contribute to two thirds of new cancer cases and 74% of morality globally, said presenter Shanshan Yang, of Geneseeq Research Institute, in Nanjing, China.
However, only five of these cancer types have screening recommendations issued by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), Dr. Yang added.
The interim data comes from an ongoing large-scale prospective study evaluating the MCED test in a cohort of asymptomatic individuals between ages 45 and 75 years with an average risk for cancer and no cancer-related symptoms on enrollment.
Patients at baseline had their blood collected for the CanScan test and subsequently received annual routine physical exams once a year for 3 consecutive years, with an additional 2 years of follow-up.
The analysis included 3724 participants with analyzable samples at the data cutoff in September 2023. Among the 3724 participants, 29 had confirmed cancer diagnoses. Among these cases, 14 patients had their cancer confirmed through USPSTF recommended screening and 15 were detected through outside of standard USPSTF screening, such as a thyroid ultrasound, Dr. Yang explained.
Almost 90% of the cancers (26 of 29) were detected in the stage I or II, and eight (27.5%) were not one of the test’s 13 targeted cancer types.
The CanScan test had a sensitivity of 55.2%, identifying 16 of 29 of the patients with cancer, including 10 of 21 individuals with stage I (47.6%), and two of three with stage II (66.7%).
The test had a high specificity of 97.9%, meaning out of 100 people screened, only two had false negative findings.
Among the 15 patients who had their cancer detected outside of USPSTF screening recommendations, eight (53.3%) were found using a CanScan test, including patients with liver and endometrial cancers.
Compared with a positive predictive value of (PPV) of 1.6% with screening or physical exam methods alone, the CanScan test had a PPV of 17.4%, Dr. Yang reported.
“The MCED test holds significant potential for early cancer screening in asymptomatic populations,” Dr. Yang and colleagues concluded.
Another new MCED test called MERCURY, also developed by Geneseeq Technology and presented during the session, used a similar method to detect cancer signals and predict the tissue of origin across 13 cancer types.
The researchers initially validated the test using 3076 patients with cancer and 3477 healthy controls with a target specificity of 99%. In this group, researchers reported a sensitivity of 0.865 and a specificity of 0.989.
The team then performed an independent validation analysis with 1465 participants, 732 with cancer and 733 with no cancer, and confirmed a high sensitivity and specificity of 0.874 and 0.978, respectively. The sensitivity increased incrementally by cancer stage — 0.768 for stage I, 0.840 for stage II, 0.923 for stage III, and 0.971 for stage IV.
The test identified the tissue of origin with high accuracy, the researchers noted, but cautioned that the test needs “to be further validated in a prospective cohort study.”
MCED in Low-Income Settings
The session also featured findings on a new affordable MCED test called OncoSeek, which could provide greater access to cancer testing in low- and middle-income countries.
The OncoSeek algorithm identifies the presence of cancer using seven protein tumor markers alongside clinical information, such as gender and age. Like other tests, the test also predicts the possible tissue of origin.
The test can be run on clinical protein assay instruments that are already widely available, such as Roche cobas analyzer, Mao Mao, MD, PhD, the founder and CEO of SeekIn, of Shenzhen, China, told this news organization.
This “feature makes the test accessible worldwide, even in low- and middle-income countries,” he said. “These instruments are fully-automated and part of today’s clinical practice. Therefore, the test does not require additional infrastructure building and lab personal training.”
Another notable advantage: the OncoSeek test only costs about $20, compared with other MCED tests, which can cost anywhere from $200 to $1000.
To validate the technology in a large, diverse cohort, Dr. Mao and colleagues enrolled approximately 10,000 participants, including 2003 cancer cases and 7888 non-cancer cases.
Peripheral blood was collected from each participant and analyzed using a panel of the seven protein tumor markers — AFP, CA125, CA15-3, CA19-9, CA72-4, CEA, and CYFRA 21-1.
To reduce the risk for false positive findings, the team designed the OncoSeek algorithm to achieve a specificity of 93%. Dr. Mao and colleagues found a sensitivity of 51.7%, resulting in an overall accuracy of 84.6%.
The performance was consistent in additional validation cohorts in Brazil, China, and the United States, with sensitivities ranging from 39.0% to 77.6% for detecting nine common cancer types, including breast, colorectal, liver, lung, lymphoma, esophagus, ovary, pancreas, and stomach. The sensitivity for pancreatic cancer was at the high end of 77.6%.
The test could predict the tissue of origin in about two thirds of cases.
Given its low cost, OncoSeek represents an affordable and accessible option for cancer screening, the authors concluded.
Overall, “I think MCEDs have the potential to enhance cancer screening,” Dr. Wood told this news organization.
Still, questions remain about the optimal use of these tests, such as whether they are best for average-risk or higher risk populations, and how to integrate them into standard screening, she said.
Dr. Wood also cautioned that the studies presented in the session represent early data, and it is likely that the numbers, such as sensitivity and specificity, will change with further prospective analyses.
And ultimately, these tests should complement, not replace, standard screening. “A negative testing should not be taken as a sign to avoid standard screening,” Dr. Wood said.
Dr. Yang is an employee of Geneseeq Technology, Inc., and Dr. Mao is an employee of SeekIn. Dr. Wood had no disclosures to report.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Analyses presented during a session at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting, revealed that three new MCED tests — CanScan, MERCURY, and OncoSeek — could detect a range of cancers and recognize the tissue of origin with high accuracy. One — OncoSeek — could also provide an affordable cancer screening option for individuals living in lower-income countries.
The need for these noninvasive liquid biopsy tests that can accurately identify multiple cancer types with a single blood draw, especially cancers without routine screening strategies, is pressing. “We know that the current cancer standard of care screening will identify less than 50% of all cancers, while more than 50% of all cancer deaths occur in types of cancer with no recommended screening,” said co-moderator Marie E. Wood, MD, of the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, in Aurora, Colorado.
That being said, “the clinical utility of multicancer detection tests has not been established and we’re concerned about issues of overdiagnosis and overtreatment,” she noted.
The Early Data
One new MCED test called CanScan, developed by Geneseeq Technology, uses plasma cell-free DNA fragment patterns to detect cancer signals as well as identify the tissue of origin across 13 cancer types.
Overall, the CanScan test covers cancer types that contribute to two thirds of new cancer cases and 74% of morality globally, said presenter Shanshan Yang, of Geneseeq Research Institute, in Nanjing, China.
However, only five of these cancer types have screening recommendations issued by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), Dr. Yang added.
The interim data comes from an ongoing large-scale prospective study evaluating the MCED test in a cohort of asymptomatic individuals between ages 45 and 75 years with an average risk for cancer and no cancer-related symptoms on enrollment.
Patients at baseline had their blood collected for the CanScan test and subsequently received annual routine physical exams once a year for 3 consecutive years, with an additional 2 years of follow-up.
The analysis included 3724 participants with analyzable samples at the data cutoff in September 2023. Among the 3724 participants, 29 had confirmed cancer diagnoses. Among these cases, 14 patients had their cancer confirmed through USPSTF recommended screening and 15 were detected through outside of standard USPSTF screening, such as a thyroid ultrasound, Dr. Yang explained.
Almost 90% of the cancers (26 of 29) were detected in the stage I or II, and eight (27.5%) were not one of the test’s 13 targeted cancer types.
The CanScan test had a sensitivity of 55.2%, identifying 16 of 29 of the patients with cancer, including 10 of 21 individuals with stage I (47.6%), and two of three with stage II (66.7%).
The test had a high specificity of 97.9%, meaning out of 100 people screened, only two had false negative findings.
Among the 15 patients who had their cancer detected outside of USPSTF screening recommendations, eight (53.3%) were found using a CanScan test, including patients with liver and endometrial cancers.
Compared with a positive predictive value of (PPV) of 1.6% with screening or physical exam methods alone, the CanScan test had a PPV of 17.4%, Dr. Yang reported.
“The MCED test holds significant potential for early cancer screening in asymptomatic populations,” Dr. Yang and colleagues concluded.
Another new MCED test called MERCURY, also developed by Geneseeq Technology and presented during the session, used a similar method to detect cancer signals and predict the tissue of origin across 13 cancer types.
The researchers initially validated the test using 3076 patients with cancer and 3477 healthy controls with a target specificity of 99%. In this group, researchers reported a sensitivity of 0.865 and a specificity of 0.989.
The team then performed an independent validation analysis with 1465 participants, 732 with cancer and 733 with no cancer, and confirmed a high sensitivity and specificity of 0.874 and 0.978, respectively. The sensitivity increased incrementally by cancer stage — 0.768 for stage I, 0.840 for stage II, 0.923 for stage III, and 0.971 for stage IV.
The test identified the tissue of origin with high accuracy, the researchers noted, but cautioned that the test needs “to be further validated in a prospective cohort study.”
MCED in Low-Income Settings
The session also featured findings on a new affordable MCED test called OncoSeek, which could provide greater access to cancer testing in low- and middle-income countries.
The OncoSeek algorithm identifies the presence of cancer using seven protein tumor markers alongside clinical information, such as gender and age. Like other tests, the test also predicts the possible tissue of origin.
The test can be run on clinical protein assay instruments that are already widely available, such as Roche cobas analyzer, Mao Mao, MD, PhD, the founder and CEO of SeekIn, of Shenzhen, China, told this news organization.
This “feature makes the test accessible worldwide, even in low- and middle-income countries,” he said. “These instruments are fully-automated and part of today’s clinical practice. Therefore, the test does not require additional infrastructure building and lab personal training.”
Another notable advantage: the OncoSeek test only costs about $20, compared with other MCED tests, which can cost anywhere from $200 to $1000.
To validate the technology in a large, diverse cohort, Dr. Mao and colleagues enrolled approximately 10,000 participants, including 2003 cancer cases and 7888 non-cancer cases.
Peripheral blood was collected from each participant and analyzed using a panel of the seven protein tumor markers — AFP, CA125, CA15-3, CA19-9, CA72-4, CEA, and CYFRA 21-1.
To reduce the risk for false positive findings, the team designed the OncoSeek algorithm to achieve a specificity of 93%. Dr. Mao and colleagues found a sensitivity of 51.7%, resulting in an overall accuracy of 84.6%.
The performance was consistent in additional validation cohorts in Brazil, China, and the United States, with sensitivities ranging from 39.0% to 77.6% for detecting nine common cancer types, including breast, colorectal, liver, lung, lymphoma, esophagus, ovary, pancreas, and stomach. The sensitivity for pancreatic cancer was at the high end of 77.6%.
The test could predict the tissue of origin in about two thirds of cases.
Given its low cost, OncoSeek represents an affordable and accessible option for cancer screening, the authors concluded.
Overall, “I think MCEDs have the potential to enhance cancer screening,” Dr. Wood told this news organization.
Still, questions remain about the optimal use of these tests, such as whether they are best for average-risk or higher risk populations, and how to integrate them into standard screening, she said.
Dr. Wood also cautioned that the studies presented in the session represent early data, and it is likely that the numbers, such as sensitivity and specificity, will change with further prospective analyses.
And ultimately, these tests should complement, not replace, standard screening. “A negative testing should not be taken as a sign to avoid standard screening,” Dr. Wood said.
Dr. Yang is an employee of Geneseeq Technology, Inc., and Dr. Mao is an employee of SeekIn. Dr. Wood had no disclosures to report.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Oncologists Voice Ethical Concerns Over AI in Cancer Care
TOPLINE:
Most respondents, for instance, said patients should not be expected to understand how AI tools work, but many also felt patients could make treatment decisions based on AI-generated recommendations. Most oncologists also felt responsible for protecting patients from biased AI, but few were confident that they could do so.
METHODOLOGY:
- The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has for use in various medical specialties over the past few decades, and increasingly, AI tools are being integrated into cancer care.
- However, the uptake of these tools in oncology has raised ethical questions and concerns, including challenges with AI bias, error, or misuse, as well as issues explaining how an AI model reached a result.
- In the current study, researchers asked 204 oncologists from 37 states for their views on the ethical implications of using AI for cancer care.
- Among the survey respondents, 64% were men and 63% were non-Hispanic White; 29% were from academic practices, 47% had received some education on AI use in healthcare, and 45% were familiar with clinical decision models.
- The researchers assessed respondents’ answers to various questions, including whether to provide informed consent for AI use and how oncologists would approach a scenario where the AI model and the oncologist recommended a different treatment regimen.
TAKEAWAY:
- Overall, 81% of oncologists supported having patient consent to use an AI model during treatment decisions, and 85% felt that oncologists needed to be able to explain an AI-based clinical decision model to use it in the clinic; however, only 23% felt that patients also needed to be able to explain an AI model.
- When an AI decision model recommended a different treatment regimen than the treating oncologist, the most common response (36.8%) was to present both options to the patient and let the patient decide. Oncologists from academic settings were about 2.5 times more likely than those from other settings to let the patient decide. About 34% of respondents said they would present both options but recommend the oncologist’s regimen, whereas about 22% said they would present both but recommend the AI’s regimen. A small percentage would only present the oncologist’s regimen (5%) or the AI’s regimen (about 2.5%).
- About three of four respondents (76.5%) agreed that oncologists should protect patients from biased AI tools; however, only about one of four (27.9%) felt confident they could identify biased AI models.
- Most oncologists (91%) felt that AI developers were responsible for the medico-legal problems associated with AI use; less than half (47%) said oncologists or hospitals (43%) shared this responsibility.
IN PRACTICE:
“Together, these data characterize barriers that may impede the ethical adoption of AI into cancer care. The findings suggest that the implementation of AI in oncology must include rigorous assessments of its effect on care decisions, as well as decisional responsibility when problems related to AI use arise,” the authors concluded.
SOURCE:
The study, with first author Andrew Hantel, MD, from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, was published last month in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
The study had a moderate sample size and response rate, although demographics of participating oncologists appear to be nationally representative. The cross-sectional study design limited the generalizability of the findings over time as AI is integrated into cancer care.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute, the Dana-Farber McGraw/Patterson Research Fund, and the Mark Foundation Emerging Leader Award. Dr. Hantel reported receiving personal fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, the American Journal of Managed Care, Genentech, and GSK.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Most respondents, for instance, said patients should not be expected to understand how AI tools work, but many also felt patients could make treatment decisions based on AI-generated recommendations. Most oncologists also felt responsible for protecting patients from biased AI, but few were confident that they could do so.
METHODOLOGY:
- The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has for use in various medical specialties over the past few decades, and increasingly, AI tools are being integrated into cancer care.
- However, the uptake of these tools in oncology has raised ethical questions and concerns, including challenges with AI bias, error, or misuse, as well as issues explaining how an AI model reached a result.
- In the current study, researchers asked 204 oncologists from 37 states for their views on the ethical implications of using AI for cancer care.
- Among the survey respondents, 64% were men and 63% were non-Hispanic White; 29% were from academic practices, 47% had received some education on AI use in healthcare, and 45% were familiar with clinical decision models.
- The researchers assessed respondents’ answers to various questions, including whether to provide informed consent for AI use and how oncologists would approach a scenario where the AI model and the oncologist recommended a different treatment regimen.
TAKEAWAY:
- Overall, 81% of oncologists supported having patient consent to use an AI model during treatment decisions, and 85% felt that oncologists needed to be able to explain an AI-based clinical decision model to use it in the clinic; however, only 23% felt that patients also needed to be able to explain an AI model.
- When an AI decision model recommended a different treatment regimen than the treating oncologist, the most common response (36.8%) was to present both options to the patient and let the patient decide. Oncologists from academic settings were about 2.5 times more likely than those from other settings to let the patient decide. About 34% of respondents said they would present both options but recommend the oncologist’s regimen, whereas about 22% said they would present both but recommend the AI’s regimen. A small percentage would only present the oncologist’s regimen (5%) or the AI’s regimen (about 2.5%).
- About three of four respondents (76.5%) agreed that oncologists should protect patients from biased AI tools; however, only about one of four (27.9%) felt confident they could identify biased AI models.
- Most oncologists (91%) felt that AI developers were responsible for the medico-legal problems associated with AI use; less than half (47%) said oncologists or hospitals (43%) shared this responsibility.
IN PRACTICE:
“Together, these data characterize barriers that may impede the ethical adoption of AI into cancer care. The findings suggest that the implementation of AI in oncology must include rigorous assessments of its effect on care decisions, as well as decisional responsibility when problems related to AI use arise,” the authors concluded.
SOURCE:
The study, with first author Andrew Hantel, MD, from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, was published last month in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
The study had a moderate sample size and response rate, although demographics of participating oncologists appear to be nationally representative. The cross-sectional study design limited the generalizability of the findings over time as AI is integrated into cancer care.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute, the Dana-Farber McGraw/Patterson Research Fund, and the Mark Foundation Emerging Leader Award. Dr. Hantel reported receiving personal fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, the American Journal of Managed Care, Genentech, and GSK.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Most respondents, for instance, said patients should not be expected to understand how AI tools work, but many also felt patients could make treatment decisions based on AI-generated recommendations. Most oncologists also felt responsible for protecting patients from biased AI, but few were confident that they could do so.
METHODOLOGY:
- The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has for use in various medical specialties over the past few decades, and increasingly, AI tools are being integrated into cancer care.
- However, the uptake of these tools in oncology has raised ethical questions and concerns, including challenges with AI bias, error, or misuse, as well as issues explaining how an AI model reached a result.
- In the current study, researchers asked 204 oncologists from 37 states for their views on the ethical implications of using AI for cancer care.
- Among the survey respondents, 64% were men and 63% were non-Hispanic White; 29% were from academic practices, 47% had received some education on AI use in healthcare, and 45% were familiar with clinical decision models.
- The researchers assessed respondents’ answers to various questions, including whether to provide informed consent for AI use and how oncologists would approach a scenario where the AI model and the oncologist recommended a different treatment regimen.
TAKEAWAY:
- Overall, 81% of oncologists supported having patient consent to use an AI model during treatment decisions, and 85% felt that oncologists needed to be able to explain an AI-based clinical decision model to use it in the clinic; however, only 23% felt that patients also needed to be able to explain an AI model.
- When an AI decision model recommended a different treatment regimen than the treating oncologist, the most common response (36.8%) was to present both options to the patient and let the patient decide. Oncologists from academic settings were about 2.5 times more likely than those from other settings to let the patient decide. About 34% of respondents said they would present both options but recommend the oncologist’s regimen, whereas about 22% said they would present both but recommend the AI’s regimen. A small percentage would only present the oncologist’s regimen (5%) or the AI’s regimen (about 2.5%).
- About three of four respondents (76.5%) agreed that oncologists should protect patients from biased AI tools; however, only about one of four (27.9%) felt confident they could identify biased AI models.
- Most oncologists (91%) felt that AI developers were responsible for the medico-legal problems associated with AI use; less than half (47%) said oncologists or hospitals (43%) shared this responsibility.
IN PRACTICE:
“Together, these data characterize barriers that may impede the ethical adoption of AI into cancer care. The findings suggest that the implementation of AI in oncology must include rigorous assessments of its effect on care decisions, as well as decisional responsibility when problems related to AI use arise,” the authors concluded.
SOURCE:
The study, with first author Andrew Hantel, MD, from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, was published last month in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
The study had a moderate sample size and response rate, although demographics of participating oncologists appear to be nationally representative. The cross-sectional study design limited the generalizability of the findings over time as AI is integrated into cancer care.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute, the Dana-Farber McGraw/Patterson Research Fund, and the Mark Foundation Emerging Leader Award. Dr. Hantel reported receiving personal fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, the American Journal of Managed Care, Genentech, and GSK.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
ALL: Which Life-Saving Tx Is Best?
The comparative benefits and limitations of these two treatments for r/r ALL were a topic for discussion at the Great Debates & Updates Hematological Malignancies conference, held April 5-6 in New York City.
“Every single patient with ALL should benefit from bispecific antibodies before getting CAR-T cells, and I want to make the case that everybody should get CAR T as well. But they should get blinatumomab before they get CAR T,” said Elias Jabbour, MD, of the MD Anderson Cancer Center at The University of Texas in Houston, whose presentation focused on the merits of bispecific antibodies.
His argument was based on data indicating that patients have better chances of long-term remission with the use of bispecific antibodies when they are administered in an earlier round of salvage treatment — and the fact that patients who are not cured with these drugs can still achieve a lower disease burden and perform better on CAR T-cell therapy than those who don’t receive the drugs.
“When blinatumomab is used as a consolidation during the first salvage treatment and spaces out transplantation, 3-year overall survival increases in the relapse setting, deepening responses and reducing the rate of VOD (veno-occlusive disease). The safety and efficacy of CAR T depends on a disease burden. If you have a minimal residual disease (MRD), you have a safer outcome and a better outcome in the long run,” Dr. Jabbour explained.
This point of view is supported by data from the treatment of patients r/r ALL with low intensity chemotherapy + inotuzumab ozogamicin (Besponsa; Pfizer) +/- blinatumomab (Blincyto; Amgen), knows as Mini-HCVD + Ino +/-Blina. Trial members achieved a median overall survival (OS) rate of 17 months, a 3-year survival rate of 42%, and an overall MRD negativity rate of 85%.
Dr. Jabbour noted that blinatumomab has its limitations. Generally, this treatment is administered intravenously every few weeks and can be cumbersome for patients who must travel to an infusion center. However, data from a phase 1b trial of single agent subcutaneous blinatumomab for advanced ALL has demonstrated that this formulation can be effective and can lead to MRD negativity, possibly paving the way for easier administration of the drug.
Aditi Shastri, MD, a leukemia specialist at New York’s Montefiore Medical Center who attended the debate, agreed that the data presented did support Dr. Jabbour’s contention that subcutaneous blinatumomab could make treatment available to even more people with r/r ALL. “It’s easier to administer than the blina pump and could act as a bridge to curative therapies like AlloHSCT,” she said.
Jae Park, MD, a leukemia and cellular therapy specialist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, argued that CAR T is the most potent therapy for r/r ALL. Dr. Park agreed that inotuzumab and blinatumomab have yielded tremendous progress in the treatment of patients with r/r ALL, but he noted that bispecific antibodies lack some of the advantages of CAR T.
Dr. Park said that the biggest difference between the two therapies is that CAR T requires but a single infusion of a living drug. Patients do need to stay close to treatment centers to receive treatment for toxicities, but after about 28 days, they can go home and be monitored from a distance. Furthermore, patients may start by receiving 1 million T-cells, but those cells exponentially expand 100,000- to 1,000,000-fold, meaning that the T-cells to treat cancer have the potential to persist for months and sometimes years.
Furthermore, results from ZUMA-3 Trial of the CD19-targeting CAR T-Cell therapy brexucabtagene autoleucel (Tecartus; Kite Pharma) suggest that CAR T outperforms Mini-HCVD + Ino +/-Blina in patients with r/r ALL. Participants in the trial showed an overall response rate around 80%, a 71% complete response rate, and a median OS of 25.4 months. Patients who achieved a complete response had an even better median OS of 47 months. Although this was not a head-to-head trial with Mini-HCVD + Ino +/-Blina, if the plateau of long-term survivors continues, “this drug could be set apart from treatment with monoclonal antibodies,” Dr. Park said.
However, brexucabtagene autoleucel is not a cure or even an option for all patients. Some patients are too frail to get the drug, and they risk experiencing cytokine release syndrome (CRS). Data from the FELIX study suggest that the CAR T-cell treatment Obe-cel could offer a safety profile that reduces the risk of serious side effects while remaining effective at treating r/r ALL. Obe-cel showed efficacy very similar to that of brexucabtagene autoleucel, with a 70%-80% response rate, and only 2% of patients experienced CRS.
Dr. Park noted that the next frontier in CAR T-cell therapy is figuring out which patients will respond well to CAR T and which are going to need more treatment after CAR T. However, he noted that evidence suggests patients with low MRD are likely to do best on CAR T and that bispecific antibodies can help patients get to what might be the best chance at a cure for r/r ALL, namely CAR-T.
The moderator of the debate, Jessica Altman, MD, professor of medicine, hematology oncology division, Feinberg School of Medicine at Northwestern University in Chicago, noted: “My take home is that antibody therapy and CAR-T will be sequenced and used together.” She noted that blinatumomab is moving into the front line of therapy, as in the E1910 trials, and how this treatment allows for study and use of CAR T earlier in the care of patients “when there may be less toxicity and higher response.”
Jabbour concluded on a similar note, adding that the “cure for this disease will happen in our lifetime. We will shorten therapy by doing immunotherapy upfront followed by CAR T consolidation and no more transplantation. I don’t think antibodies immunotherapies or CAR T need be competitive, they can be used in a complimentary fashion.”
Jabbour reported no financial disclosures. Park disclosed ties with Allogene, Artiva Biotherapeutics, Amgen, Affyimmune, BeBiopharma, Beigene, Bright Pharmaceuticals, Autolus, Caribou Biosciences, Galapagos, Kite, Medpace, Minerva Biotechnologies, Pfizer, Servier, Sobi, and Takeda. Neither Altman nor Shastri reported any disclosures.
The comparative benefits and limitations of these two treatments for r/r ALL were a topic for discussion at the Great Debates & Updates Hematological Malignancies conference, held April 5-6 in New York City.
“Every single patient with ALL should benefit from bispecific antibodies before getting CAR-T cells, and I want to make the case that everybody should get CAR T as well. But they should get blinatumomab before they get CAR T,” said Elias Jabbour, MD, of the MD Anderson Cancer Center at The University of Texas in Houston, whose presentation focused on the merits of bispecific antibodies.
His argument was based on data indicating that patients have better chances of long-term remission with the use of bispecific antibodies when they are administered in an earlier round of salvage treatment — and the fact that patients who are not cured with these drugs can still achieve a lower disease burden and perform better on CAR T-cell therapy than those who don’t receive the drugs.
“When blinatumomab is used as a consolidation during the first salvage treatment and spaces out transplantation, 3-year overall survival increases in the relapse setting, deepening responses and reducing the rate of VOD (veno-occlusive disease). The safety and efficacy of CAR T depends on a disease burden. If you have a minimal residual disease (MRD), you have a safer outcome and a better outcome in the long run,” Dr. Jabbour explained.
This point of view is supported by data from the treatment of patients r/r ALL with low intensity chemotherapy + inotuzumab ozogamicin (Besponsa; Pfizer) +/- blinatumomab (Blincyto; Amgen), knows as Mini-HCVD + Ino +/-Blina. Trial members achieved a median overall survival (OS) rate of 17 months, a 3-year survival rate of 42%, and an overall MRD negativity rate of 85%.
Dr. Jabbour noted that blinatumomab has its limitations. Generally, this treatment is administered intravenously every few weeks and can be cumbersome for patients who must travel to an infusion center. However, data from a phase 1b trial of single agent subcutaneous blinatumomab for advanced ALL has demonstrated that this formulation can be effective and can lead to MRD negativity, possibly paving the way for easier administration of the drug.
Aditi Shastri, MD, a leukemia specialist at New York’s Montefiore Medical Center who attended the debate, agreed that the data presented did support Dr. Jabbour’s contention that subcutaneous blinatumomab could make treatment available to even more people with r/r ALL. “It’s easier to administer than the blina pump and could act as a bridge to curative therapies like AlloHSCT,” she said.
Jae Park, MD, a leukemia and cellular therapy specialist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, argued that CAR T is the most potent therapy for r/r ALL. Dr. Park agreed that inotuzumab and blinatumomab have yielded tremendous progress in the treatment of patients with r/r ALL, but he noted that bispecific antibodies lack some of the advantages of CAR T.
Dr. Park said that the biggest difference between the two therapies is that CAR T requires but a single infusion of a living drug. Patients do need to stay close to treatment centers to receive treatment for toxicities, but after about 28 days, they can go home and be monitored from a distance. Furthermore, patients may start by receiving 1 million T-cells, but those cells exponentially expand 100,000- to 1,000,000-fold, meaning that the T-cells to treat cancer have the potential to persist for months and sometimes years.
Furthermore, results from ZUMA-3 Trial of the CD19-targeting CAR T-Cell therapy brexucabtagene autoleucel (Tecartus; Kite Pharma) suggest that CAR T outperforms Mini-HCVD + Ino +/-Blina in patients with r/r ALL. Participants in the trial showed an overall response rate around 80%, a 71% complete response rate, and a median OS of 25.4 months. Patients who achieved a complete response had an even better median OS of 47 months. Although this was not a head-to-head trial with Mini-HCVD + Ino +/-Blina, if the plateau of long-term survivors continues, “this drug could be set apart from treatment with monoclonal antibodies,” Dr. Park said.
However, brexucabtagene autoleucel is not a cure or even an option for all patients. Some patients are too frail to get the drug, and they risk experiencing cytokine release syndrome (CRS). Data from the FELIX study suggest that the CAR T-cell treatment Obe-cel could offer a safety profile that reduces the risk of serious side effects while remaining effective at treating r/r ALL. Obe-cel showed efficacy very similar to that of brexucabtagene autoleucel, with a 70%-80% response rate, and only 2% of patients experienced CRS.
Dr. Park noted that the next frontier in CAR T-cell therapy is figuring out which patients will respond well to CAR T and which are going to need more treatment after CAR T. However, he noted that evidence suggests patients with low MRD are likely to do best on CAR T and that bispecific antibodies can help patients get to what might be the best chance at a cure for r/r ALL, namely CAR-T.
The moderator of the debate, Jessica Altman, MD, professor of medicine, hematology oncology division, Feinberg School of Medicine at Northwestern University in Chicago, noted: “My take home is that antibody therapy and CAR-T will be sequenced and used together.” She noted that blinatumomab is moving into the front line of therapy, as in the E1910 trials, and how this treatment allows for study and use of CAR T earlier in the care of patients “when there may be less toxicity and higher response.”
Jabbour concluded on a similar note, adding that the “cure for this disease will happen in our lifetime. We will shorten therapy by doing immunotherapy upfront followed by CAR T consolidation and no more transplantation. I don’t think antibodies immunotherapies or CAR T need be competitive, they can be used in a complimentary fashion.”
Jabbour reported no financial disclosures. Park disclosed ties with Allogene, Artiva Biotherapeutics, Amgen, Affyimmune, BeBiopharma, Beigene, Bright Pharmaceuticals, Autolus, Caribou Biosciences, Galapagos, Kite, Medpace, Minerva Biotechnologies, Pfizer, Servier, Sobi, and Takeda. Neither Altman nor Shastri reported any disclosures.
The comparative benefits and limitations of these two treatments for r/r ALL were a topic for discussion at the Great Debates & Updates Hematological Malignancies conference, held April 5-6 in New York City.
“Every single patient with ALL should benefit from bispecific antibodies before getting CAR-T cells, and I want to make the case that everybody should get CAR T as well. But they should get blinatumomab before they get CAR T,” said Elias Jabbour, MD, of the MD Anderson Cancer Center at The University of Texas in Houston, whose presentation focused on the merits of bispecific antibodies.
His argument was based on data indicating that patients have better chances of long-term remission with the use of bispecific antibodies when they are administered in an earlier round of salvage treatment — and the fact that patients who are not cured with these drugs can still achieve a lower disease burden and perform better on CAR T-cell therapy than those who don’t receive the drugs.
“When blinatumomab is used as a consolidation during the first salvage treatment and spaces out transplantation, 3-year overall survival increases in the relapse setting, deepening responses and reducing the rate of VOD (veno-occlusive disease). The safety and efficacy of CAR T depends on a disease burden. If you have a minimal residual disease (MRD), you have a safer outcome and a better outcome in the long run,” Dr. Jabbour explained.
This point of view is supported by data from the treatment of patients r/r ALL with low intensity chemotherapy + inotuzumab ozogamicin (Besponsa; Pfizer) +/- blinatumomab (Blincyto; Amgen), knows as Mini-HCVD + Ino +/-Blina. Trial members achieved a median overall survival (OS) rate of 17 months, a 3-year survival rate of 42%, and an overall MRD negativity rate of 85%.
Dr. Jabbour noted that blinatumomab has its limitations. Generally, this treatment is administered intravenously every few weeks and can be cumbersome for patients who must travel to an infusion center. However, data from a phase 1b trial of single agent subcutaneous blinatumomab for advanced ALL has demonstrated that this formulation can be effective and can lead to MRD negativity, possibly paving the way for easier administration of the drug.
Aditi Shastri, MD, a leukemia specialist at New York’s Montefiore Medical Center who attended the debate, agreed that the data presented did support Dr. Jabbour’s contention that subcutaneous blinatumomab could make treatment available to even more people with r/r ALL. “It’s easier to administer than the blina pump and could act as a bridge to curative therapies like AlloHSCT,” she said.
Jae Park, MD, a leukemia and cellular therapy specialist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, argued that CAR T is the most potent therapy for r/r ALL. Dr. Park agreed that inotuzumab and blinatumomab have yielded tremendous progress in the treatment of patients with r/r ALL, but he noted that bispecific antibodies lack some of the advantages of CAR T.
Dr. Park said that the biggest difference between the two therapies is that CAR T requires but a single infusion of a living drug. Patients do need to stay close to treatment centers to receive treatment for toxicities, but after about 28 days, they can go home and be monitored from a distance. Furthermore, patients may start by receiving 1 million T-cells, but those cells exponentially expand 100,000- to 1,000,000-fold, meaning that the T-cells to treat cancer have the potential to persist for months and sometimes years.
Furthermore, results from ZUMA-3 Trial of the CD19-targeting CAR T-Cell therapy brexucabtagene autoleucel (Tecartus; Kite Pharma) suggest that CAR T outperforms Mini-HCVD + Ino +/-Blina in patients with r/r ALL. Participants in the trial showed an overall response rate around 80%, a 71% complete response rate, and a median OS of 25.4 months. Patients who achieved a complete response had an even better median OS of 47 months. Although this was not a head-to-head trial with Mini-HCVD + Ino +/-Blina, if the plateau of long-term survivors continues, “this drug could be set apart from treatment with monoclonal antibodies,” Dr. Park said.
However, brexucabtagene autoleucel is not a cure or even an option for all patients. Some patients are too frail to get the drug, and they risk experiencing cytokine release syndrome (CRS). Data from the FELIX study suggest that the CAR T-cell treatment Obe-cel could offer a safety profile that reduces the risk of serious side effects while remaining effective at treating r/r ALL. Obe-cel showed efficacy very similar to that of brexucabtagene autoleucel, with a 70%-80% response rate, and only 2% of patients experienced CRS.
Dr. Park noted that the next frontier in CAR T-cell therapy is figuring out which patients will respond well to CAR T and which are going to need more treatment after CAR T. However, he noted that evidence suggests patients with low MRD are likely to do best on CAR T and that bispecific antibodies can help patients get to what might be the best chance at a cure for r/r ALL, namely CAR-T.
The moderator of the debate, Jessica Altman, MD, professor of medicine, hematology oncology division, Feinberg School of Medicine at Northwestern University in Chicago, noted: “My take home is that antibody therapy and CAR-T will be sequenced and used together.” She noted that blinatumomab is moving into the front line of therapy, as in the E1910 trials, and how this treatment allows for study and use of CAR T earlier in the care of patients “when there may be less toxicity and higher response.”
Jabbour concluded on a similar note, adding that the “cure for this disease will happen in our lifetime. We will shorten therapy by doing immunotherapy upfront followed by CAR T consolidation and no more transplantation. I don’t think antibodies immunotherapies or CAR T need be competitive, they can be used in a complimentary fashion.”
Jabbour reported no financial disclosures. Park disclosed ties with Allogene, Artiva Biotherapeutics, Amgen, Affyimmune, BeBiopharma, Beigene, Bright Pharmaceuticals, Autolus, Caribou Biosciences, Galapagos, Kite, Medpace, Minerva Biotechnologies, Pfizer, Servier, Sobi, and Takeda. Neither Altman nor Shastri reported any disclosures.
FROM GREAT DEBATES & UPDATES HEMATOLOGIC MALIGNANCIES
EHR Copy and Paste Can Get Physicians Into Trouble
Physicians who misuse the “copy-and-paste” feature in patients’ electronic health records (EHRs) can face serious consequences, including lost hospital privileges, fines, and malpractice lawsuits.
In California, a locum tenens physician lost her hospital privileges after repeatedly violating the copy-and-paste policy developed at Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital, Santa Rosa, California.
“Her use of copy and paste impaired continuity of care,” said Alvin Gore, MD, who was involved in the case as the hospital’s director of utilization management.
Dr. Gore said the hospital warned the doctor, but she did not change her behavior. He did not identify the physician, citing confidentiality. The case occurred more than 5 years ago. Since then, several physicians have been called onto the carpet for violations of the policy, but no one else has lost privileges, Dr. Gore said.
“EHRs are imperfect, time consuming, and somewhat rigid,” said Robert A. Dowling, MD, a practice management consultant for large medical groups. “If physicians can’t easily figure out a complex system, they’re likely to use a workaround like copy and paste.”
Copy-and-paste abuse has also led to fines. A six-member cardiology group in Somerville, New Jersey, paid a $422,000 fine to the federal government to settle copy-and-paste charges, following an investigation by the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services, according to the Report on Medicare Compliance.
This big settlement, announced in 2016, is a rare case in which physicians were charged with copy-and-paste fraud — intentionally using it to enhance reimbursement.
More commonly, Medicare contractors identify physicians who unintentionally received overpayments through sloppy copy-and-paste practices, according to a coding and documentation auditor who worked for 10 years at a Medicare contractor in Pennsylvania.
Such cases are frequent and are handled confidentially, said the auditor, who asked not to be identified. Practices must return the overpayment, and the physicians involved are “contacted and educated,” she said.
Copy and paste can also show up in malpractice lawsuits. In a 2012 survey, 53% of professional liability carriers said they had handled an EHR-related malpractice claim, and 71% of those claims included copy-and-paste use.
One such case, described by CRICO, a malpractice carrier based in Massachusetts, took place in 2012-2013. “A patient developed amiodarone toxicity because the patient›s history and medications were copied from a previous note that did not document that the patient was already on the medication,» CRICO stated.
“If you do face a malpractice claim, copying and pasting the same note repeatedly makes you look clinically inattentive, even if the copy/pasted material is unrelated to the adverse event,” CRICO officials noted in a report.
The Push to Use Copy and Paste
Copy and paste is a great time-saver. One study linked its use to lower burnout rates. However, it can easily introduce errors into the medical record. “This can be a huge problem,” Dr. Dowling said. “If, for example, you copy forward a previous note that said the patient had blood in their urine ‘6 days ago,’ it is immediately inaccurate.”
Practices can control use of copy and paste through coding clerks who read the medical records and then educate doctors when problems crop up.
The Pennsylvania auditor, who now works for a large group practice, said the group has very few copy-and-paste problems because of her role. “Not charting responsibly rarely happens because I work very closely with the doctors,” she said.
Dr. Dowling, however, reports that many physicians continue to overuse copy and paste. He points to a 2022 study which found that, on average, half the clinical note at one health system had been copied and pasted.
One solution might be to sanction physicians for overusing copy and paste, just as they’re sometimes penalized for not completing their notes on time with a reduction in income or possible termination.
Practices could periodically audit medical records for excessive copy-paste use. EHR systems like Epic’s can indicate how much of a doctor’s note has been copied. But Dr. Dowling doesn’t know of any practices that do this.
“There is little appetite to introduce a new enforcement activity for physicians,” he said. “Physicians would see it just as a way to make their lives more difficult than they already are.”
Monitoring in Hospitals and Health Systems
Some hospitals and health systems have gone as far as disabling copy-and-paste function in their EHR systems. However, enterprising physicians have found ways around these blocks.
Some institutions have also introduced formal policies, directing doctors on how they can copy and paste, including Banner Health in Arizona, Northwell Health in New York, UConn Health in Connecticut, University of Maryland Medical System, and University of Toledo in Ohio.
Definitions of what is not acceptable vary, but most of these policies oppose copying someone else’s notes and direct physicians to indicate the origin of pasted material.
Santa Rosa Memorial’s policy is quite specific. It still allows some copy and paste but stipulates that it cannot be used for the chief complaint, the review of systems, the physical examination, and the assessment and plan in the medical record, except when the information can’t be obtained directly from the patient. Also, physicians must summarize test results and provide references to other providers’ notes.
Dr. Gore said he and a physician educator who works with physicians on clinical documentation proposed the policy about a decade ago. When physicians on staff were asked to comment, some said they would be opposed to a complete ban, but they generally agreed that copy and paste was a serious problem that needed to be addressed, he said.
The hospital could have simply adopted guidelines, as opposed to rules with consequences, but “we wanted our policy to have teeth,” Dr. Gore said.
When violators are identified, Dr. Gore says he meets with them confidentially and educates them on proper use of copy and paste. Sometimes, the department head is brought in. Some physicians go on to violate the policy again and have to attend another meeting, he said, but aside from the one case, no one else has been disciplined.
It’s unclear how many physicians have faced consequences for misusing copy-paste features — such data aren’t tracked, and sanctions are likely to be handled confidentially, as a personnel matter.
Geisinger Health in Pennsylvania regularly monitors copy-and-paste usage and makes it part of physicians’ professional evaluations, according to a 2022 presentation by a Geisinger official.
Meanwhile, even when systems don’t have specific policies, they may still discipline physicians when copy and paste leads to errors. Scott MacDonald, MD, chief medical information officer at UC Davis Health in Sacramento, California, told this news organization that copy-and-paste abuse has come up a few times over the years in investigations of clinical errors.
Holding Physicians Accountable
Physicians can be held accountable for copy and paste by Medicare contractors and in malpractice lawsuits, but the most obvious way is at their place of work: A practice, hospital, or health system.
One physician has lost staff privileges, but more typically, coding clerks or colleagues talk to offending physicians and try to educate them on proper use of copy and paste.
Educational outreach, however, is often ineffective, said Robert Hirschtick, MD, a retired teaching physician at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois. “The physician may be directed to take an online course,” he said. “When they take the course, the goal is to get it done with, rather than to learn something new.”
Dr. Hirschtick’s articles on copy and paste, including one titled, “Sloppy and Paste,” have put him at the front lines of the debate. “This is an ethical issue,” he said in an interview. He agrees that some forms of copy and paste are permissible, but in many cases, “it is intellectually dishonest and potentially even plagiarism,” he said.
Dr. Hirschtick argues that copy-and-paste policies need more teeth. “Tying violations to compensation would be quite effective,” he said. “Even if physicians were rarely penalized, just knowing that it could happen to you might be enough. But I haven’t heard of anyone doing this.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Physicians who misuse the “copy-and-paste” feature in patients’ electronic health records (EHRs) can face serious consequences, including lost hospital privileges, fines, and malpractice lawsuits.
In California, a locum tenens physician lost her hospital privileges after repeatedly violating the copy-and-paste policy developed at Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital, Santa Rosa, California.
“Her use of copy and paste impaired continuity of care,” said Alvin Gore, MD, who was involved in the case as the hospital’s director of utilization management.
Dr. Gore said the hospital warned the doctor, but she did not change her behavior. He did not identify the physician, citing confidentiality. The case occurred more than 5 years ago. Since then, several physicians have been called onto the carpet for violations of the policy, but no one else has lost privileges, Dr. Gore said.
“EHRs are imperfect, time consuming, and somewhat rigid,” said Robert A. Dowling, MD, a practice management consultant for large medical groups. “If physicians can’t easily figure out a complex system, they’re likely to use a workaround like copy and paste.”
Copy-and-paste abuse has also led to fines. A six-member cardiology group in Somerville, New Jersey, paid a $422,000 fine to the federal government to settle copy-and-paste charges, following an investigation by the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services, according to the Report on Medicare Compliance.
This big settlement, announced in 2016, is a rare case in which physicians were charged with copy-and-paste fraud — intentionally using it to enhance reimbursement.
More commonly, Medicare contractors identify physicians who unintentionally received overpayments through sloppy copy-and-paste practices, according to a coding and documentation auditor who worked for 10 years at a Medicare contractor in Pennsylvania.
Such cases are frequent and are handled confidentially, said the auditor, who asked not to be identified. Practices must return the overpayment, and the physicians involved are “contacted and educated,” she said.
Copy and paste can also show up in malpractice lawsuits. In a 2012 survey, 53% of professional liability carriers said they had handled an EHR-related malpractice claim, and 71% of those claims included copy-and-paste use.
One such case, described by CRICO, a malpractice carrier based in Massachusetts, took place in 2012-2013. “A patient developed amiodarone toxicity because the patient›s history and medications were copied from a previous note that did not document that the patient was already on the medication,» CRICO stated.
“If you do face a malpractice claim, copying and pasting the same note repeatedly makes you look clinically inattentive, even if the copy/pasted material is unrelated to the adverse event,” CRICO officials noted in a report.
The Push to Use Copy and Paste
Copy and paste is a great time-saver. One study linked its use to lower burnout rates. However, it can easily introduce errors into the medical record. “This can be a huge problem,” Dr. Dowling said. “If, for example, you copy forward a previous note that said the patient had blood in their urine ‘6 days ago,’ it is immediately inaccurate.”
Practices can control use of copy and paste through coding clerks who read the medical records and then educate doctors when problems crop up.
The Pennsylvania auditor, who now works for a large group practice, said the group has very few copy-and-paste problems because of her role. “Not charting responsibly rarely happens because I work very closely with the doctors,” she said.
Dr. Dowling, however, reports that many physicians continue to overuse copy and paste. He points to a 2022 study which found that, on average, half the clinical note at one health system had been copied and pasted.
One solution might be to sanction physicians for overusing copy and paste, just as they’re sometimes penalized for not completing their notes on time with a reduction in income or possible termination.
Practices could periodically audit medical records for excessive copy-paste use. EHR systems like Epic’s can indicate how much of a doctor’s note has been copied. But Dr. Dowling doesn’t know of any practices that do this.
“There is little appetite to introduce a new enforcement activity for physicians,” he said. “Physicians would see it just as a way to make their lives more difficult than they already are.”
Monitoring in Hospitals and Health Systems
Some hospitals and health systems have gone as far as disabling copy-and-paste function in their EHR systems. However, enterprising physicians have found ways around these blocks.
Some institutions have also introduced formal policies, directing doctors on how they can copy and paste, including Banner Health in Arizona, Northwell Health in New York, UConn Health in Connecticut, University of Maryland Medical System, and University of Toledo in Ohio.
Definitions of what is not acceptable vary, but most of these policies oppose copying someone else’s notes and direct physicians to indicate the origin of pasted material.
Santa Rosa Memorial’s policy is quite specific. It still allows some copy and paste but stipulates that it cannot be used for the chief complaint, the review of systems, the physical examination, and the assessment and plan in the medical record, except when the information can’t be obtained directly from the patient. Also, physicians must summarize test results and provide references to other providers’ notes.
Dr. Gore said he and a physician educator who works with physicians on clinical documentation proposed the policy about a decade ago. When physicians on staff were asked to comment, some said they would be opposed to a complete ban, but they generally agreed that copy and paste was a serious problem that needed to be addressed, he said.
The hospital could have simply adopted guidelines, as opposed to rules with consequences, but “we wanted our policy to have teeth,” Dr. Gore said.
When violators are identified, Dr. Gore says he meets with them confidentially and educates them on proper use of copy and paste. Sometimes, the department head is brought in. Some physicians go on to violate the policy again and have to attend another meeting, he said, but aside from the one case, no one else has been disciplined.
It’s unclear how many physicians have faced consequences for misusing copy-paste features — such data aren’t tracked, and sanctions are likely to be handled confidentially, as a personnel matter.
Geisinger Health in Pennsylvania regularly monitors copy-and-paste usage and makes it part of physicians’ professional evaluations, according to a 2022 presentation by a Geisinger official.
Meanwhile, even when systems don’t have specific policies, they may still discipline physicians when copy and paste leads to errors. Scott MacDonald, MD, chief medical information officer at UC Davis Health in Sacramento, California, told this news organization that copy-and-paste abuse has come up a few times over the years in investigations of clinical errors.
Holding Physicians Accountable
Physicians can be held accountable for copy and paste by Medicare contractors and in malpractice lawsuits, but the most obvious way is at their place of work: A practice, hospital, or health system.
One physician has lost staff privileges, but more typically, coding clerks or colleagues talk to offending physicians and try to educate them on proper use of copy and paste.
Educational outreach, however, is often ineffective, said Robert Hirschtick, MD, a retired teaching physician at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois. “The physician may be directed to take an online course,” he said. “When they take the course, the goal is to get it done with, rather than to learn something new.”
Dr. Hirschtick’s articles on copy and paste, including one titled, “Sloppy and Paste,” have put him at the front lines of the debate. “This is an ethical issue,” he said in an interview. He agrees that some forms of copy and paste are permissible, but in many cases, “it is intellectually dishonest and potentially even plagiarism,” he said.
Dr. Hirschtick argues that copy-and-paste policies need more teeth. “Tying violations to compensation would be quite effective,” he said. “Even if physicians were rarely penalized, just knowing that it could happen to you might be enough. But I haven’t heard of anyone doing this.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Physicians who misuse the “copy-and-paste” feature in patients’ electronic health records (EHRs) can face serious consequences, including lost hospital privileges, fines, and malpractice lawsuits.
In California, a locum tenens physician lost her hospital privileges after repeatedly violating the copy-and-paste policy developed at Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital, Santa Rosa, California.
“Her use of copy and paste impaired continuity of care,” said Alvin Gore, MD, who was involved in the case as the hospital’s director of utilization management.
Dr. Gore said the hospital warned the doctor, but she did not change her behavior. He did not identify the physician, citing confidentiality. The case occurred more than 5 years ago. Since then, several physicians have been called onto the carpet for violations of the policy, but no one else has lost privileges, Dr. Gore said.
“EHRs are imperfect, time consuming, and somewhat rigid,” said Robert A. Dowling, MD, a practice management consultant for large medical groups. “If physicians can’t easily figure out a complex system, they’re likely to use a workaround like copy and paste.”
Copy-and-paste abuse has also led to fines. A six-member cardiology group in Somerville, New Jersey, paid a $422,000 fine to the federal government to settle copy-and-paste charges, following an investigation by the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services, according to the Report on Medicare Compliance.
This big settlement, announced in 2016, is a rare case in which physicians were charged with copy-and-paste fraud — intentionally using it to enhance reimbursement.
More commonly, Medicare contractors identify physicians who unintentionally received overpayments through sloppy copy-and-paste practices, according to a coding and documentation auditor who worked for 10 years at a Medicare contractor in Pennsylvania.
Such cases are frequent and are handled confidentially, said the auditor, who asked not to be identified. Practices must return the overpayment, and the physicians involved are “contacted and educated,” she said.
Copy and paste can also show up in malpractice lawsuits. In a 2012 survey, 53% of professional liability carriers said they had handled an EHR-related malpractice claim, and 71% of those claims included copy-and-paste use.
One such case, described by CRICO, a malpractice carrier based in Massachusetts, took place in 2012-2013. “A patient developed amiodarone toxicity because the patient›s history and medications were copied from a previous note that did not document that the patient was already on the medication,» CRICO stated.
“If you do face a malpractice claim, copying and pasting the same note repeatedly makes you look clinically inattentive, even if the copy/pasted material is unrelated to the adverse event,” CRICO officials noted in a report.
The Push to Use Copy and Paste
Copy and paste is a great time-saver. One study linked its use to lower burnout rates. However, it can easily introduce errors into the medical record. “This can be a huge problem,” Dr. Dowling said. “If, for example, you copy forward a previous note that said the patient had blood in their urine ‘6 days ago,’ it is immediately inaccurate.”
Practices can control use of copy and paste through coding clerks who read the medical records and then educate doctors when problems crop up.
The Pennsylvania auditor, who now works for a large group practice, said the group has very few copy-and-paste problems because of her role. “Not charting responsibly rarely happens because I work very closely with the doctors,” she said.
Dr. Dowling, however, reports that many physicians continue to overuse copy and paste. He points to a 2022 study which found that, on average, half the clinical note at one health system had been copied and pasted.
One solution might be to sanction physicians for overusing copy and paste, just as they’re sometimes penalized for not completing their notes on time with a reduction in income or possible termination.
Practices could periodically audit medical records for excessive copy-paste use. EHR systems like Epic’s can indicate how much of a doctor’s note has been copied. But Dr. Dowling doesn’t know of any practices that do this.
“There is little appetite to introduce a new enforcement activity for physicians,” he said. “Physicians would see it just as a way to make their lives more difficult than they already are.”
Monitoring in Hospitals and Health Systems
Some hospitals and health systems have gone as far as disabling copy-and-paste function in their EHR systems. However, enterprising physicians have found ways around these blocks.
Some institutions have also introduced formal policies, directing doctors on how they can copy and paste, including Banner Health in Arizona, Northwell Health in New York, UConn Health in Connecticut, University of Maryland Medical System, and University of Toledo in Ohio.
Definitions of what is not acceptable vary, but most of these policies oppose copying someone else’s notes and direct physicians to indicate the origin of pasted material.
Santa Rosa Memorial’s policy is quite specific. It still allows some copy and paste but stipulates that it cannot be used for the chief complaint, the review of systems, the physical examination, and the assessment and plan in the medical record, except when the information can’t be obtained directly from the patient. Also, physicians must summarize test results and provide references to other providers’ notes.
Dr. Gore said he and a physician educator who works with physicians on clinical documentation proposed the policy about a decade ago. When physicians on staff were asked to comment, some said they would be opposed to a complete ban, but they generally agreed that copy and paste was a serious problem that needed to be addressed, he said.
The hospital could have simply adopted guidelines, as opposed to rules with consequences, but “we wanted our policy to have teeth,” Dr. Gore said.
When violators are identified, Dr. Gore says he meets with them confidentially and educates them on proper use of copy and paste. Sometimes, the department head is brought in. Some physicians go on to violate the policy again and have to attend another meeting, he said, but aside from the one case, no one else has been disciplined.
It’s unclear how many physicians have faced consequences for misusing copy-paste features — such data aren’t tracked, and sanctions are likely to be handled confidentially, as a personnel matter.
Geisinger Health in Pennsylvania regularly monitors copy-and-paste usage and makes it part of physicians’ professional evaluations, according to a 2022 presentation by a Geisinger official.
Meanwhile, even when systems don’t have specific policies, they may still discipline physicians when copy and paste leads to errors. Scott MacDonald, MD, chief medical information officer at UC Davis Health in Sacramento, California, told this news organization that copy-and-paste abuse has come up a few times over the years in investigations of clinical errors.
Holding Physicians Accountable
Physicians can be held accountable for copy and paste by Medicare contractors and in malpractice lawsuits, but the most obvious way is at their place of work: A practice, hospital, or health system.
One physician has lost staff privileges, but more typically, coding clerks or colleagues talk to offending physicians and try to educate them on proper use of copy and paste.
Educational outreach, however, is often ineffective, said Robert Hirschtick, MD, a retired teaching physician at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois. “The physician may be directed to take an online course,” he said. “When they take the course, the goal is to get it done with, rather than to learn something new.”
Dr. Hirschtick’s articles on copy and paste, including one titled, “Sloppy and Paste,” have put him at the front lines of the debate. “This is an ethical issue,” he said in an interview. He agrees that some forms of copy and paste are permissible, but in many cases, “it is intellectually dishonest and potentially even plagiarism,” he said.
Dr. Hirschtick argues that copy-and-paste policies need more teeth. “Tying violations to compensation would be quite effective,” he said. “Even if physicians were rarely penalized, just knowing that it could happen to you might be enough. But I haven’t heard of anyone doing this.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Medicine or Politics? Doctors Defend Their Social Activism
It should come as no surprise that when physicians speak out on social and political issues, there is sometimes a backlash. This can range from the typical trolling that occurs online to rarer cases of professional penalties. Two doctors were fired by NYU Langone Health late last year after they posted social media messages about the Israel-Hamas war. Still, many physicians are not only willing to stand up for what they believe in, but they see it as an essential part of their profession.
"We're now at a place where doctors need to engage in public advocacy as an urgent part of our job," wrote Rob Davidson, MD, an emergency department physician, at the onslaught of the COVID-19 pandemic. In an Op-Ed piece for The Guardian, Dr. Davidson noted how the virus forced many physicians into becoming "activist doctors," calling for adequate personal protective equipment and correcting misinformation. "What we want above all is for the administration to listen to doctors, nurses, and frontline health workers - and stop playing politics," he wrote.
'It's Not About Being Political'
The intersection of medicine and politics is hardly new. Doctors frequently testify before Congress, sharing their expertise on issues concerning public health. This, however, isn't the same as "playing politics."
"I'm not taking political stances," said Megan Ranney, MD, Dean of the Yale School of Public Health. "Rather, I'm using science to inform best practices, and I'm vocal around the area where I have expertise where we could do collectively better."
Dr. Ranney's work to end firearm injury and death garnered particular attention when she co-authored an open letter to the National Rifle Association (NRA) in 2018. She wrote the letter in response to a tweet by the organization, admonishing physicians to "stay in their lane" when it comes to gun control.
Dr. Ranney's letter discussed gun violence as a public health crisis and urged the NRA to "be part of the solution" by joining the collective effort to reduce firearm injury and death through research, education, and advocacy. "We are not anti-gun," she stated. "We are anti-bullet hole," adding that "almost half of doctors own guns."
The NRA disagreed. When Dr. Ranney testified before Congress during a hearing on gun violence in 2023, NRA spokesperson Billy McLaughlin condemned her testimony as an effort to "dismantle the Second Amendment," calling Dr. Ranney "a known gun control extremist."
"If you actually read what I write, or if you actually listen to what I say, I'm not saying things on behalf of one political party or another," said Dr. Ranney. "It's not about being political. It's about recognizing our role in describing what's happening and making it clear for the world to see. Showing where, based off of data, there may be a better path to improve health and wellbeing."
In spite of the backlash, Dr. Ranney has no regrets about being an activist. "In the current media landscape, folks love to slap labels on people that may or may not be accurate. To me, what matters isn't where I land with a particular politician or political party, but how the work that I do improves health for populations."
When the Need to Act Outweighs the Fear
Laura Andreson, DO, an ob.gyn, took activism a step further when she joined a group of women in Tennessee to file a suit against the state, the attorney general, and the state board of medical examiners. The issue was the Tennessee's abortion ban, which the suit claimed prevented women from getting "necessary and potentially life-saving medical care."
Dr. Andreson, who says she was "not at all" politically active in the past, began to realize how the abortion ban could drastically affect her profession and her patients. "I don't know what flipped in me, but I just felt like I could do this," she said.
Like Dr. Ranney, Dr. Andreson has been as visible as she has been vocal, giving press conferences and interviews, but she acknowledges she has some fears about safety. In fact, after filing the lawsuit, the Center for Reproductive Rights recommended that she go to a website, DeleteMe, that removes personal data from the internet, making it more difficult for people to find her information. "But my need to do this and my desire to do this is stronger than my fears," she added.
Dr. Andreson, who is part of a small practice, did check with both her coworkers and the hospital administration before moving forward with the lawsuit. She was relieved to find that she had the support of her practice and that there wasn't anything in the hospital bylaws to prevent her from filing the lawsuit. "But the people in the bigger institutions who probably have an even better expert base than I do, they are handcuffed," she said.
It has been, in Dr. Andreson's words, "a little uncomfortable" being on the board of the Tennessee Medical Association when the Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners is part of the lawsuit. "We're all members of the same group," she said. "But I'm not suing them as individuals; I'm suing them as an entity that is under our government."
Dr. Andreson said most people have been supportive of her activist work, though she admitted to feeling frustrated when she encounters apathy from fellow ob.gyns. She got little response when she circulated information explaining the abortion laws and trying to get others involved. But she still sees education as being a key part of making change happen.
"I think advocacy, as someone who is considered a responsible, trustworthy person by your community, is important, because you can sway some people just by educating them," she said.
Fighting Inequities in Medicine and Beyond
Christina Chen, MD, says she felt very supported by her medical community at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, when she and 16 other Asian American physicians posted a video on Instagram in 2020 highlighting increased violence and harassment of Asian Americans during COVID-19. It soon went viral, and the Mayo Clinic distributed it across their social media channels. The only negative repercussions Mayo faced were a few posts on social media saying that politics should not be brought into the healthcare space. Dr. Chen disagrees.
"Social issues and political decisions have direct impact on the health of our communities," Dr. Chen said. "We know that we still have a long way to go to solve health inequities, which is a public health problem, and we all play a huge role in voicing our concerns."
Activism, however, seems to be more complicated when it involves physicians being critical of inequities within the medical field. Nephrologist, Vanessa Grubbs, MD, MPH, founded the nonprofit Black Doc Village in 2022 to raise awareness about the wrongful dismissal of Black residents and expand the Black physician workforce.
Dr. Grubbs said that the medical community has not been supportive of her activism. "The reason why I'm no longer in academia is in part because they got very upset with me tweeting about how some trainees are biased in their treatment of attendings," she said. "Senior White men attendings are often treated very differently than junior women of color faculty."
Dr. Grubbs also expressed her views in 2020 essay in the New England Journal of Medicine where she criticized academic medical institutions for ignoring systemic racism, paying lip service to diversity, equity, and inclusion, and staying "deafeningly silent" when issues of racism are raised.
Today, Black Doc Village is focused on conducting research that can be used to change policy. And Dr. Grubbs now has the full support of her colleagues at West Oakland Health, in Oakland, California, which aspires to advance the Bay Area Black community's health and dignity. "So, no one here has a problem with me speaking out," she added.
The emphasis on data-driven activism as opposed to "playing politics," is a recurring theme for many physicians who publicly engage with social issues.
"It's not partisan," Dr. Ranney said. "Rather, it's a commitment to translating science into actionable steps that can be used regardless of what political party you are in. My job is not to be on one side or the other, but to advance human health." These doctors challenge their critics to explain how such a goal is outside their purview.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
It should come as no surprise that when physicians speak out on social and political issues, there is sometimes a backlash. This can range from the typical trolling that occurs online to rarer cases of professional penalties. Two doctors were fired by NYU Langone Health late last year after they posted social media messages about the Israel-Hamas war. Still, many physicians are not only willing to stand up for what they believe in, but they see it as an essential part of their profession.
"We're now at a place where doctors need to engage in public advocacy as an urgent part of our job," wrote Rob Davidson, MD, an emergency department physician, at the onslaught of the COVID-19 pandemic. In an Op-Ed piece for The Guardian, Dr. Davidson noted how the virus forced many physicians into becoming "activist doctors," calling for adequate personal protective equipment and correcting misinformation. "What we want above all is for the administration to listen to doctors, nurses, and frontline health workers - and stop playing politics," he wrote.
'It's Not About Being Political'
The intersection of medicine and politics is hardly new. Doctors frequently testify before Congress, sharing their expertise on issues concerning public health. This, however, isn't the same as "playing politics."
"I'm not taking political stances," said Megan Ranney, MD, Dean of the Yale School of Public Health. "Rather, I'm using science to inform best practices, and I'm vocal around the area where I have expertise where we could do collectively better."
Dr. Ranney's work to end firearm injury and death garnered particular attention when she co-authored an open letter to the National Rifle Association (NRA) in 2018. She wrote the letter in response to a tweet by the organization, admonishing physicians to "stay in their lane" when it comes to gun control.
Dr. Ranney's letter discussed gun violence as a public health crisis and urged the NRA to "be part of the solution" by joining the collective effort to reduce firearm injury and death through research, education, and advocacy. "We are not anti-gun," she stated. "We are anti-bullet hole," adding that "almost half of doctors own guns."
The NRA disagreed. When Dr. Ranney testified before Congress during a hearing on gun violence in 2023, NRA spokesperson Billy McLaughlin condemned her testimony as an effort to "dismantle the Second Amendment," calling Dr. Ranney "a known gun control extremist."
"If you actually read what I write, or if you actually listen to what I say, I'm not saying things on behalf of one political party or another," said Dr. Ranney. "It's not about being political. It's about recognizing our role in describing what's happening and making it clear for the world to see. Showing where, based off of data, there may be a better path to improve health and wellbeing."
In spite of the backlash, Dr. Ranney has no regrets about being an activist. "In the current media landscape, folks love to slap labels on people that may or may not be accurate. To me, what matters isn't where I land with a particular politician or political party, but how the work that I do improves health for populations."
When the Need to Act Outweighs the Fear
Laura Andreson, DO, an ob.gyn, took activism a step further when she joined a group of women in Tennessee to file a suit against the state, the attorney general, and the state board of medical examiners. The issue was the Tennessee's abortion ban, which the suit claimed prevented women from getting "necessary and potentially life-saving medical care."
Dr. Andreson, who says she was "not at all" politically active in the past, began to realize how the abortion ban could drastically affect her profession and her patients. "I don't know what flipped in me, but I just felt like I could do this," she said.
Like Dr. Ranney, Dr. Andreson has been as visible as she has been vocal, giving press conferences and interviews, but she acknowledges she has some fears about safety. In fact, after filing the lawsuit, the Center for Reproductive Rights recommended that she go to a website, DeleteMe, that removes personal data from the internet, making it more difficult for people to find her information. "But my need to do this and my desire to do this is stronger than my fears," she added.
Dr. Andreson, who is part of a small practice, did check with both her coworkers and the hospital administration before moving forward with the lawsuit. She was relieved to find that she had the support of her practice and that there wasn't anything in the hospital bylaws to prevent her from filing the lawsuit. "But the people in the bigger institutions who probably have an even better expert base than I do, they are handcuffed," she said.
It has been, in Dr. Andreson's words, "a little uncomfortable" being on the board of the Tennessee Medical Association when the Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners is part of the lawsuit. "We're all members of the same group," she said. "But I'm not suing them as individuals; I'm suing them as an entity that is under our government."
Dr. Andreson said most people have been supportive of her activist work, though she admitted to feeling frustrated when she encounters apathy from fellow ob.gyns. She got little response when she circulated information explaining the abortion laws and trying to get others involved. But she still sees education as being a key part of making change happen.
"I think advocacy, as someone who is considered a responsible, trustworthy person by your community, is important, because you can sway some people just by educating them," she said.
Fighting Inequities in Medicine and Beyond
Christina Chen, MD, says she felt very supported by her medical community at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, when she and 16 other Asian American physicians posted a video on Instagram in 2020 highlighting increased violence and harassment of Asian Americans during COVID-19. It soon went viral, and the Mayo Clinic distributed it across their social media channels. The only negative repercussions Mayo faced were a few posts on social media saying that politics should not be brought into the healthcare space. Dr. Chen disagrees.
"Social issues and political decisions have direct impact on the health of our communities," Dr. Chen said. "We know that we still have a long way to go to solve health inequities, which is a public health problem, and we all play a huge role in voicing our concerns."
Activism, however, seems to be more complicated when it involves physicians being critical of inequities within the medical field. Nephrologist, Vanessa Grubbs, MD, MPH, founded the nonprofit Black Doc Village in 2022 to raise awareness about the wrongful dismissal of Black residents and expand the Black physician workforce.
Dr. Grubbs said that the medical community has not been supportive of her activism. "The reason why I'm no longer in academia is in part because they got very upset with me tweeting about how some trainees are biased in their treatment of attendings," she said. "Senior White men attendings are often treated very differently than junior women of color faculty."
Dr. Grubbs also expressed her views in 2020 essay in the New England Journal of Medicine where she criticized academic medical institutions for ignoring systemic racism, paying lip service to diversity, equity, and inclusion, and staying "deafeningly silent" when issues of racism are raised.
Today, Black Doc Village is focused on conducting research that can be used to change policy. And Dr. Grubbs now has the full support of her colleagues at West Oakland Health, in Oakland, California, which aspires to advance the Bay Area Black community's health and dignity. "So, no one here has a problem with me speaking out," she added.
The emphasis on data-driven activism as opposed to "playing politics," is a recurring theme for many physicians who publicly engage with social issues.
"It's not partisan," Dr. Ranney said. "Rather, it's a commitment to translating science into actionable steps that can be used regardless of what political party you are in. My job is not to be on one side or the other, but to advance human health." These doctors challenge their critics to explain how such a goal is outside their purview.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
It should come as no surprise that when physicians speak out on social and political issues, there is sometimes a backlash. This can range from the typical trolling that occurs online to rarer cases of professional penalties. Two doctors were fired by NYU Langone Health late last year after they posted social media messages about the Israel-Hamas war. Still, many physicians are not only willing to stand up for what they believe in, but they see it as an essential part of their profession.
"We're now at a place where doctors need to engage in public advocacy as an urgent part of our job," wrote Rob Davidson, MD, an emergency department physician, at the onslaught of the COVID-19 pandemic. In an Op-Ed piece for The Guardian, Dr. Davidson noted how the virus forced many physicians into becoming "activist doctors," calling for adequate personal protective equipment and correcting misinformation. "What we want above all is for the administration to listen to doctors, nurses, and frontline health workers - and stop playing politics," he wrote.
'It's Not About Being Political'
The intersection of medicine and politics is hardly new. Doctors frequently testify before Congress, sharing their expertise on issues concerning public health. This, however, isn't the same as "playing politics."
"I'm not taking political stances," said Megan Ranney, MD, Dean of the Yale School of Public Health. "Rather, I'm using science to inform best practices, and I'm vocal around the area where I have expertise where we could do collectively better."
Dr. Ranney's work to end firearm injury and death garnered particular attention when she co-authored an open letter to the National Rifle Association (NRA) in 2018. She wrote the letter in response to a tweet by the organization, admonishing physicians to "stay in their lane" when it comes to gun control.
Dr. Ranney's letter discussed gun violence as a public health crisis and urged the NRA to "be part of the solution" by joining the collective effort to reduce firearm injury and death through research, education, and advocacy. "We are not anti-gun," she stated. "We are anti-bullet hole," adding that "almost half of doctors own guns."
The NRA disagreed. When Dr. Ranney testified before Congress during a hearing on gun violence in 2023, NRA spokesperson Billy McLaughlin condemned her testimony as an effort to "dismantle the Second Amendment," calling Dr. Ranney "a known gun control extremist."
"If you actually read what I write, or if you actually listen to what I say, I'm not saying things on behalf of one political party or another," said Dr. Ranney. "It's not about being political. It's about recognizing our role in describing what's happening and making it clear for the world to see. Showing where, based off of data, there may be a better path to improve health and wellbeing."
In spite of the backlash, Dr. Ranney has no regrets about being an activist. "In the current media landscape, folks love to slap labels on people that may or may not be accurate. To me, what matters isn't where I land with a particular politician or political party, but how the work that I do improves health for populations."
When the Need to Act Outweighs the Fear
Laura Andreson, DO, an ob.gyn, took activism a step further when she joined a group of women in Tennessee to file a suit against the state, the attorney general, and the state board of medical examiners. The issue was the Tennessee's abortion ban, which the suit claimed prevented women from getting "necessary and potentially life-saving medical care."
Dr. Andreson, who says she was "not at all" politically active in the past, began to realize how the abortion ban could drastically affect her profession and her patients. "I don't know what flipped in me, but I just felt like I could do this," she said.
Like Dr. Ranney, Dr. Andreson has been as visible as she has been vocal, giving press conferences and interviews, but she acknowledges she has some fears about safety. In fact, after filing the lawsuit, the Center for Reproductive Rights recommended that she go to a website, DeleteMe, that removes personal data from the internet, making it more difficult for people to find her information. "But my need to do this and my desire to do this is stronger than my fears," she added.
Dr. Andreson, who is part of a small practice, did check with both her coworkers and the hospital administration before moving forward with the lawsuit. She was relieved to find that she had the support of her practice and that there wasn't anything in the hospital bylaws to prevent her from filing the lawsuit. "But the people in the bigger institutions who probably have an even better expert base than I do, they are handcuffed," she said.
It has been, in Dr. Andreson's words, "a little uncomfortable" being on the board of the Tennessee Medical Association when the Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners is part of the lawsuit. "We're all members of the same group," she said. "But I'm not suing them as individuals; I'm suing them as an entity that is under our government."
Dr. Andreson said most people have been supportive of her activist work, though she admitted to feeling frustrated when she encounters apathy from fellow ob.gyns. She got little response when she circulated information explaining the abortion laws and trying to get others involved. But she still sees education as being a key part of making change happen.
"I think advocacy, as someone who is considered a responsible, trustworthy person by your community, is important, because you can sway some people just by educating them," she said.
Fighting Inequities in Medicine and Beyond
Christina Chen, MD, says she felt very supported by her medical community at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, when she and 16 other Asian American physicians posted a video on Instagram in 2020 highlighting increased violence and harassment of Asian Americans during COVID-19. It soon went viral, and the Mayo Clinic distributed it across their social media channels. The only negative repercussions Mayo faced were a few posts on social media saying that politics should not be brought into the healthcare space. Dr. Chen disagrees.
"Social issues and political decisions have direct impact on the health of our communities," Dr. Chen said. "We know that we still have a long way to go to solve health inequities, which is a public health problem, and we all play a huge role in voicing our concerns."
Activism, however, seems to be more complicated when it involves physicians being critical of inequities within the medical field. Nephrologist, Vanessa Grubbs, MD, MPH, founded the nonprofit Black Doc Village in 2022 to raise awareness about the wrongful dismissal of Black residents and expand the Black physician workforce.
Dr. Grubbs said that the medical community has not been supportive of her activism. "The reason why I'm no longer in academia is in part because they got very upset with me tweeting about how some trainees are biased in their treatment of attendings," she said. "Senior White men attendings are often treated very differently than junior women of color faculty."
Dr. Grubbs also expressed her views in 2020 essay in the New England Journal of Medicine where she criticized academic medical institutions for ignoring systemic racism, paying lip service to diversity, equity, and inclusion, and staying "deafeningly silent" when issues of racism are raised.
Today, Black Doc Village is focused on conducting research that can be used to change policy. And Dr. Grubbs now has the full support of her colleagues at West Oakland Health, in Oakland, California, which aspires to advance the Bay Area Black community's health and dignity. "So, no one here has a problem with me speaking out," she added.
The emphasis on data-driven activism as opposed to "playing politics," is a recurring theme for many physicians who publicly engage with social issues.
"It's not partisan," Dr. Ranney said. "Rather, it's a commitment to translating science into actionable steps that can be used regardless of what political party you are in. My job is not to be on one side or the other, but to advance human health." These doctors challenge their critics to explain how such a goal is outside their purview.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Less Than 50% of Accelerated Approvals Show Clinical Benefit
despite being on the US market for more than 5 years, according to a new study.
Under the program, drugs are approved for marketing if they show benefit in surrogate markers thought to indicate efficacy. Progression-free survival, tumor response, and duration of response are the most used surrogate markers for accelerated approvals of cancer drugs. These are based largely on imaging studies that show either a stop in growth in the case of progression-free survival or tumor shrinkage in the case of tumor response.
Following accelerated approvals, companies are then supposed to show actual clinical benefit in confirmatory trials.
The problem with relying on surrogate markers for drug approvals is that they don’t always correlate with longer survival or improved quality of life, said Edward Cliff, MBBS, who presented the findings at the American Association for Cancer Research 2024 annual meeting (abstract 918). The study was also published in JAMA to coincide with the meeting presentation.
In some cancers, these markers work well, but in others they don’t, said Dr. Cliff, a hematology trainee at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, when the work was conducted, and now a hematology fellow at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, Australia.
To determine whether cancer drugs granted accelerated approval ultimately show an overall survival or quality of life benefit, researchers reviewed 46 cancer drugs granted accelerated approvals between 2013 and 2017. Twenty (43%) were granted full approval after demonstrating survival or quality-of-life benefits.
Nine, however, were converted to full approvals on the basis of surrogate markers. These include a full approval for pembrolizumab in previously treated recurrent or refractory head and neck squamous cell carcinoma and a full approval for nivolumab for refractory locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, both based on tumor response rate and duration of response.
Of the remaining 17 drugs evaluated in the trial, 10 have been withdrawn and seven do not yet have confirmatory trial results.
The reliance on surrogate markers means that these drugs are used for treatment, covered by insurance, and added to guidelines — all without solid evidence of real-world clinical benefit, said Dr. Cliff.
However, the goal should not be to do away with the accelerated approval process, because it sometimes does deliver powerful agents to patients quickly. Instead, Dr. Cliff told this news organization, the system needs to be improved so that “we keep the speed while getting certainty around clinical benefits” with robust and timely confirmatory trials.
In the meantime, “clinicians should communicate with patients about any residual uncertainty of clinical benefit when they offer novel therapies,” Dr. Cliff explained. “It’s important for them to have the information.”
There has been some progress on the issue. In December 2022, the US Congress passed the Food and Drug Administration Omnibus Reform Act. Among other things, the Act requires companies to have confirmation trials underway as a condition for accelerated approval, and to provide regular reports on their progress. The Act also expedites the withdrawal process for drugs that don’t show a benefit.
The Act has been put to the test twice recently. In February, FDA used the expedited process to remove the multiple myeloma drug melphalan flufenamide from the market. Melphalan flufenamide hadn’t been sold in the US for quite some time, so the process wasn’t contentious.
In March, Regeneron announced that accelerated approval for the follicular and diffuse B cell lymphoma drug odronextamab has been delayed pending enrollment in a confirmatory trial.
“There have been some promising steps,” Dr. Cliff said, but much work needs to be done.
Study moderator Shivaani Kummar, MD, agreed, noting that “the data is showing that the confirmatory trials aren’t happening at the pace which they should.”
But the solution is not to curtail approvals; it’s to make sure that accelerated approval commitments are met, said Dr. Kummar.
Still, “as a practicing oncologist, I welcome the accelerated pathway,” Dr. Kummar, a medical oncologist/hematologist at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, told this news organization. “I want the availability to my patients.”
Having drugs approved on the basis of surrogate markers doesn’t necessarily mean patients are getting ineffective therapies, Dr. Kummar noted. For instance, if an agent just shrinks the tumor, it can sometimes still be “a huge clinical benefit because it can take the symptoms away.”
As for prescribing drugs based on accelerated approvals, she said she tells her patients that trials have been promising, but we don’t know what the long-term effects are. She and her patient then make a decision together.
The study was funded by Arnold Ventures. Dr. Kummar reported support from several companies, including Bayer, Gilead, and others. Dr. Cliff had no disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
despite being on the US market for more than 5 years, according to a new study.
Under the program, drugs are approved for marketing if they show benefit in surrogate markers thought to indicate efficacy. Progression-free survival, tumor response, and duration of response are the most used surrogate markers for accelerated approvals of cancer drugs. These are based largely on imaging studies that show either a stop in growth in the case of progression-free survival or tumor shrinkage in the case of tumor response.
Following accelerated approvals, companies are then supposed to show actual clinical benefit in confirmatory trials.
The problem with relying on surrogate markers for drug approvals is that they don’t always correlate with longer survival or improved quality of life, said Edward Cliff, MBBS, who presented the findings at the American Association for Cancer Research 2024 annual meeting (abstract 918). The study was also published in JAMA to coincide with the meeting presentation.
In some cancers, these markers work well, but in others they don’t, said Dr. Cliff, a hematology trainee at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, when the work was conducted, and now a hematology fellow at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, Australia.
To determine whether cancer drugs granted accelerated approval ultimately show an overall survival or quality of life benefit, researchers reviewed 46 cancer drugs granted accelerated approvals between 2013 and 2017. Twenty (43%) were granted full approval after demonstrating survival or quality-of-life benefits.
Nine, however, were converted to full approvals on the basis of surrogate markers. These include a full approval for pembrolizumab in previously treated recurrent or refractory head and neck squamous cell carcinoma and a full approval for nivolumab for refractory locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, both based on tumor response rate and duration of response.
Of the remaining 17 drugs evaluated in the trial, 10 have been withdrawn and seven do not yet have confirmatory trial results.
The reliance on surrogate markers means that these drugs are used for treatment, covered by insurance, and added to guidelines — all without solid evidence of real-world clinical benefit, said Dr. Cliff.
However, the goal should not be to do away with the accelerated approval process, because it sometimes does deliver powerful agents to patients quickly. Instead, Dr. Cliff told this news organization, the system needs to be improved so that “we keep the speed while getting certainty around clinical benefits” with robust and timely confirmatory trials.
In the meantime, “clinicians should communicate with patients about any residual uncertainty of clinical benefit when they offer novel therapies,” Dr. Cliff explained. “It’s important for them to have the information.”
There has been some progress on the issue. In December 2022, the US Congress passed the Food and Drug Administration Omnibus Reform Act. Among other things, the Act requires companies to have confirmation trials underway as a condition for accelerated approval, and to provide regular reports on their progress. The Act also expedites the withdrawal process for drugs that don’t show a benefit.
The Act has been put to the test twice recently. In February, FDA used the expedited process to remove the multiple myeloma drug melphalan flufenamide from the market. Melphalan flufenamide hadn’t been sold in the US for quite some time, so the process wasn’t contentious.
In March, Regeneron announced that accelerated approval for the follicular and diffuse B cell lymphoma drug odronextamab has been delayed pending enrollment in a confirmatory trial.
“There have been some promising steps,” Dr. Cliff said, but much work needs to be done.
Study moderator Shivaani Kummar, MD, agreed, noting that “the data is showing that the confirmatory trials aren’t happening at the pace which they should.”
But the solution is not to curtail approvals; it’s to make sure that accelerated approval commitments are met, said Dr. Kummar.
Still, “as a practicing oncologist, I welcome the accelerated pathway,” Dr. Kummar, a medical oncologist/hematologist at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, told this news organization. “I want the availability to my patients.”
Having drugs approved on the basis of surrogate markers doesn’t necessarily mean patients are getting ineffective therapies, Dr. Kummar noted. For instance, if an agent just shrinks the tumor, it can sometimes still be “a huge clinical benefit because it can take the symptoms away.”
As for prescribing drugs based on accelerated approvals, she said she tells her patients that trials have been promising, but we don’t know what the long-term effects are. She and her patient then make a decision together.
The study was funded by Arnold Ventures. Dr. Kummar reported support from several companies, including Bayer, Gilead, and others. Dr. Cliff had no disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
despite being on the US market for more than 5 years, according to a new study.
Under the program, drugs are approved for marketing if they show benefit in surrogate markers thought to indicate efficacy. Progression-free survival, tumor response, and duration of response are the most used surrogate markers for accelerated approvals of cancer drugs. These are based largely on imaging studies that show either a stop in growth in the case of progression-free survival or tumor shrinkage in the case of tumor response.
Following accelerated approvals, companies are then supposed to show actual clinical benefit in confirmatory trials.
The problem with relying on surrogate markers for drug approvals is that they don’t always correlate with longer survival or improved quality of life, said Edward Cliff, MBBS, who presented the findings at the American Association for Cancer Research 2024 annual meeting (abstract 918). The study was also published in JAMA to coincide with the meeting presentation.
In some cancers, these markers work well, but in others they don’t, said Dr. Cliff, a hematology trainee at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, when the work was conducted, and now a hematology fellow at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, Australia.
To determine whether cancer drugs granted accelerated approval ultimately show an overall survival or quality of life benefit, researchers reviewed 46 cancer drugs granted accelerated approvals between 2013 and 2017. Twenty (43%) were granted full approval after demonstrating survival or quality-of-life benefits.
Nine, however, were converted to full approvals on the basis of surrogate markers. These include a full approval for pembrolizumab in previously treated recurrent or refractory head and neck squamous cell carcinoma and a full approval for nivolumab for refractory locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, both based on tumor response rate and duration of response.
Of the remaining 17 drugs evaluated in the trial, 10 have been withdrawn and seven do not yet have confirmatory trial results.
The reliance on surrogate markers means that these drugs are used for treatment, covered by insurance, and added to guidelines — all without solid evidence of real-world clinical benefit, said Dr. Cliff.
However, the goal should not be to do away with the accelerated approval process, because it sometimes does deliver powerful agents to patients quickly. Instead, Dr. Cliff told this news organization, the system needs to be improved so that “we keep the speed while getting certainty around clinical benefits” with robust and timely confirmatory trials.
In the meantime, “clinicians should communicate with patients about any residual uncertainty of clinical benefit when they offer novel therapies,” Dr. Cliff explained. “It’s important for them to have the information.”
There has been some progress on the issue. In December 2022, the US Congress passed the Food and Drug Administration Omnibus Reform Act. Among other things, the Act requires companies to have confirmation trials underway as a condition for accelerated approval, and to provide regular reports on their progress. The Act also expedites the withdrawal process for drugs that don’t show a benefit.
The Act has been put to the test twice recently. In February, FDA used the expedited process to remove the multiple myeloma drug melphalan flufenamide from the market. Melphalan flufenamide hadn’t been sold in the US for quite some time, so the process wasn’t contentious.
In March, Regeneron announced that accelerated approval for the follicular and diffuse B cell lymphoma drug odronextamab has been delayed pending enrollment in a confirmatory trial.
“There have been some promising steps,” Dr. Cliff said, but much work needs to be done.
Study moderator Shivaani Kummar, MD, agreed, noting that “the data is showing that the confirmatory trials aren’t happening at the pace which they should.”
But the solution is not to curtail approvals; it’s to make sure that accelerated approval commitments are met, said Dr. Kummar.
Still, “as a practicing oncologist, I welcome the accelerated pathway,” Dr. Kummar, a medical oncologist/hematologist at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, told this news organization. “I want the availability to my patients.”
Having drugs approved on the basis of surrogate markers doesn’t necessarily mean patients are getting ineffective therapies, Dr. Kummar noted. For instance, if an agent just shrinks the tumor, it can sometimes still be “a huge clinical benefit because it can take the symptoms away.”
As for prescribing drugs based on accelerated approvals, she said she tells her patients that trials have been promising, but we don’t know what the long-term effects are. She and her patient then make a decision together.
The study was funded by Arnold Ventures. Dr. Kummar reported support from several companies, including Bayer, Gilead, and others. Dr. Cliff had no disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Abecma Approved for Earlier Lines in Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma
The approval expands the chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy’s indications to earlier lines of treatment after exposure to these other main therapy classes, Bristol Myers Squibb said in a press release.
Approval was based on the KarMMa-3 trial, in which 254 patients were randomly assigned to ide-cel and 132 to investigators’ choice of standard regimens, consisting of combinations of daratumumab, dexamethasone, and other agents.
After a median follow-up of 15.9 months, median progression-free survival was three times higher in the ide-cel arm: 13.3 months with the CAR T-cell therapy vs 4.4 months with standard treatment. Overall, 39% of patients on ide-cel had a complete response vs 5% on standard regimens.
The approval includes a new recommended dose range of 300-510 x 106 CAR-positive T cells.
Ide-cel carries a boxed warning for cytokine release syndrome, neurologic toxicities, hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis/macrophage activation syndrome, prolonged cytopenia, and secondary hematologic cancers.
In trials, cytokine release syndrome occurred in 89% (310 of 349) of patients in the KarMMa-3 and KarMMa studies, which included grade 3 syndrome in 7% (23 of 349) and fatal cases in 0.9% (3 of 349) of patients.
A one-time treatment is over $500,000, according to drugs.com.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The approval expands the chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy’s indications to earlier lines of treatment after exposure to these other main therapy classes, Bristol Myers Squibb said in a press release.
Approval was based on the KarMMa-3 trial, in which 254 patients were randomly assigned to ide-cel and 132 to investigators’ choice of standard regimens, consisting of combinations of daratumumab, dexamethasone, and other agents.
After a median follow-up of 15.9 months, median progression-free survival was three times higher in the ide-cel arm: 13.3 months with the CAR T-cell therapy vs 4.4 months with standard treatment. Overall, 39% of patients on ide-cel had a complete response vs 5% on standard regimens.
The approval includes a new recommended dose range of 300-510 x 106 CAR-positive T cells.
Ide-cel carries a boxed warning for cytokine release syndrome, neurologic toxicities, hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis/macrophage activation syndrome, prolonged cytopenia, and secondary hematologic cancers.
In trials, cytokine release syndrome occurred in 89% (310 of 349) of patients in the KarMMa-3 and KarMMa studies, which included grade 3 syndrome in 7% (23 of 349) and fatal cases in 0.9% (3 of 349) of patients.
A one-time treatment is over $500,000, according to drugs.com.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The approval expands the chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy’s indications to earlier lines of treatment after exposure to these other main therapy classes, Bristol Myers Squibb said in a press release.
Approval was based on the KarMMa-3 trial, in which 254 patients were randomly assigned to ide-cel and 132 to investigators’ choice of standard regimens, consisting of combinations of daratumumab, dexamethasone, and other agents.
After a median follow-up of 15.9 months, median progression-free survival was three times higher in the ide-cel arm: 13.3 months with the CAR T-cell therapy vs 4.4 months with standard treatment. Overall, 39% of patients on ide-cel had a complete response vs 5% on standard regimens.
The approval includes a new recommended dose range of 300-510 x 106 CAR-positive T cells.
Ide-cel carries a boxed warning for cytokine release syndrome, neurologic toxicities, hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis/macrophage activation syndrome, prolonged cytopenia, and secondary hematologic cancers.
In trials, cytokine release syndrome occurred in 89% (310 of 349) of patients in the KarMMa-3 and KarMMa studies, which included grade 3 syndrome in 7% (23 of 349) and fatal cases in 0.9% (3 of 349) of patients.
A one-time treatment is over $500,000, according to drugs.com.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Oncology Practice and Lab to Pay $4 Million in Kickback Case
The US Department of Justice (DOJ) announced on April 2 that Oncology San Antonio, PA, and its physicians have agreed to pay $1.3 million, and CorePath Laboratories, PA, has agreed to pay nearly $2.75 million plus accrued interest in civil settlements with the United States and Texas for alleged violations of the False Claims Act.
According to the DOJ, the diagnostic reference laboratory, CorePath Laboratories, conducted in-office bone marrow biopsies at Oncology San Antonio practice locations and performed diagnostic testing on the samples. CorePath Laboratories agreed to pay $115 for each biopsy referred by Oncology San Antonio physicians, and these biopsy payments were allegedly paid to the private practices of three physicians at Oncology San Antonio. This arrangement allegedly began in August 2016.
The DOJ claimed that the payments for referring biopsies constituted illegal kickbacks under the Anti-Kickback Statute, which prohibits offering or receiving payments to encourage referrals of services covered by federal healthcare programs like Medicare and Medicaid.
“Violations of the Anti-Kickback Statute involving oncology services can waste scarce federal healthcare program funds and corrupt the medical decision-making process,” Special Agent in Charge Jason E. Meadows with the US Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General said in a statement.
Oncology San Antonio told this news organization that the cost and distraction of prolonged litigation were the primary factors in its decision to settle. “The decision to settle was an extremely difficult one because Oncology San Antonio was confident that it would have prevailed in any action,” the practice said via email.
This civil settlement with Oncology San Antonio also resolved allegations that a physician affiliated with the practice, Jayasree Rao, MD, provided unnecessary tests, services, and treatments to patients covered by Medicare, TRICARE, and Texas Medicaid in the San Antonio Metro Area and billed these federal healthcare programs for the unnecessary services.
The DOJ identified Slavisa Gasic, MD, a physician formerly employed by Dr. Rao, as a whistleblower in the investigation. When asked for comment, Oncology San Antonio alleged Dr. Gasic was “disgruntled for not being promoted.”
According to Oncology San Antonio, the contract for bone marrow biopsies was negotiated and signed by a former nonphysician officer of the company without the input of Oncology San Antonio physicians. The contract permitted bone marrow biopsies at Oncology San Antonio clinics instead of requiring older adult and sick patients to go to a different facility for these services.
“Oncology San Antonio and Rao vehemently denied Gasic’s allegations as wholly unfounded,” the company told this news organization.
Dr. Rao retired in March and is no longer practicing. CorePath Laboratories, PA, did not respond to this news organization’s request for comment.
According to the DOJ press release, the “investigation and resolution of this matter illustrate the government’s emphasis on combating healthcare fraud.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The US Department of Justice (DOJ) announced on April 2 that Oncology San Antonio, PA, and its physicians have agreed to pay $1.3 million, and CorePath Laboratories, PA, has agreed to pay nearly $2.75 million plus accrued interest in civil settlements with the United States and Texas for alleged violations of the False Claims Act.
According to the DOJ, the diagnostic reference laboratory, CorePath Laboratories, conducted in-office bone marrow biopsies at Oncology San Antonio practice locations and performed diagnostic testing on the samples. CorePath Laboratories agreed to pay $115 for each biopsy referred by Oncology San Antonio physicians, and these biopsy payments were allegedly paid to the private practices of three physicians at Oncology San Antonio. This arrangement allegedly began in August 2016.
The DOJ claimed that the payments for referring biopsies constituted illegal kickbacks under the Anti-Kickback Statute, which prohibits offering or receiving payments to encourage referrals of services covered by federal healthcare programs like Medicare and Medicaid.
“Violations of the Anti-Kickback Statute involving oncology services can waste scarce federal healthcare program funds and corrupt the medical decision-making process,” Special Agent in Charge Jason E. Meadows with the US Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General said in a statement.
Oncology San Antonio told this news organization that the cost and distraction of prolonged litigation were the primary factors in its decision to settle. “The decision to settle was an extremely difficult one because Oncology San Antonio was confident that it would have prevailed in any action,” the practice said via email.
This civil settlement with Oncology San Antonio also resolved allegations that a physician affiliated with the practice, Jayasree Rao, MD, provided unnecessary tests, services, and treatments to patients covered by Medicare, TRICARE, and Texas Medicaid in the San Antonio Metro Area and billed these federal healthcare programs for the unnecessary services.
The DOJ identified Slavisa Gasic, MD, a physician formerly employed by Dr. Rao, as a whistleblower in the investigation. When asked for comment, Oncology San Antonio alleged Dr. Gasic was “disgruntled for not being promoted.”
According to Oncology San Antonio, the contract for bone marrow biopsies was negotiated and signed by a former nonphysician officer of the company without the input of Oncology San Antonio physicians. The contract permitted bone marrow biopsies at Oncology San Antonio clinics instead of requiring older adult and sick patients to go to a different facility for these services.
“Oncology San Antonio and Rao vehemently denied Gasic’s allegations as wholly unfounded,” the company told this news organization.
Dr. Rao retired in March and is no longer practicing. CorePath Laboratories, PA, did not respond to this news organization’s request for comment.
According to the DOJ press release, the “investigation and resolution of this matter illustrate the government’s emphasis on combating healthcare fraud.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The US Department of Justice (DOJ) announced on April 2 that Oncology San Antonio, PA, and its physicians have agreed to pay $1.3 million, and CorePath Laboratories, PA, has agreed to pay nearly $2.75 million plus accrued interest in civil settlements with the United States and Texas for alleged violations of the False Claims Act.
According to the DOJ, the diagnostic reference laboratory, CorePath Laboratories, conducted in-office bone marrow biopsies at Oncology San Antonio practice locations and performed diagnostic testing on the samples. CorePath Laboratories agreed to pay $115 for each biopsy referred by Oncology San Antonio physicians, and these biopsy payments were allegedly paid to the private practices of three physicians at Oncology San Antonio. This arrangement allegedly began in August 2016.
The DOJ claimed that the payments for referring biopsies constituted illegal kickbacks under the Anti-Kickback Statute, which prohibits offering or receiving payments to encourage referrals of services covered by federal healthcare programs like Medicare and Medicaid.
“Violations of the Anti-Kickback Statute involving oncology services can waste scarce federal healthcare program funds and corrupt the medical decision-making process,” Special Agent in Charge Jason E. Meadows with the US Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General said in a statement.
Oncology San Antonio told this news organization that the cost and distraction of prolonged litigation were the primary factors in its decision to settle. “The decision to settle was an extremely difficult one because Oncology San Antonio was confident that it would have prevailed in any action,” the practice said via email.
This civil settlement with Oncology San Antonio also resolved allegations that a physician affiliated with the practice, Jayasree Rao, MD, provided unnecessary tests, services, and treatments to patients covered by Medicare, TRICARE, and Texas Medicaid in the San Antonio Metro Area and billed these federal healthcare programs for the unnecessary services.
The DOJ identified Slavisa Gasic, MD, a physician formerly employed by Dr. Rao, as a whistleblower in the investigation. When asked for comment, Oncology San Antonio alleged Dr. Gasic was “disgruntled for not being promoted.”
According to Oncology San Antonio, the contract for bone marrow biopsies was negotiated and signed by a former nonphysician officer of the company without the input of Oncology San Antonio physicians. The contract permitted bone marrow biopsies at Oncology San Antonio clinics instead of requiring older adult and sick patients to go to a different facility for these services.
“Oncology San Antonio and Rao vehemently denied Gasic’s allegations as wholly unfounded,” the company told this news organization.
Dr. Rao retired in March and is no longer practicing. CorePath Laboratories, PA, did not respond to this news organization’s request for comment.
According to the DOJ press release, the “investigation and resolution of this matter illustrate the government’s emphasis on combating healthcare fraud.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Virtual Reality Brings Relief to Hospitalized Patients With Cancer
suggests a new randomized controlled trial.
While both interventions brought some pain relief, VR therapy yielded greater, longer-lasting comfort, reported lead author Hunter Groninger, MD, of MedStar Health Research Institute, Hyattsville, Maryland, and colleagues.
“Investigators have explored immersive VR interventions in cancer populations for a variety of indications including anxiety, depression, fatigue, and procedure‐associated pain, particularly among patients with pediatric cancer and adult breast cancer,” the investigators wrote in Cancer. “Nevertheless, despite growing evidence supporting the efficacy of VR‐delivered interventions for analgesia, few data address its role to mitigate cancer‐related pain specifically.”
To address this knowledge gap, Dr. Groninger and colleagues enrolled 128 adult hospitalized patients with cancer of any kind, all of whom had moderate to severe pain (self-reported score at least 4 out of 10) within the past 24 hours.
Study Methods and Results
Patients were randomized to receive either 10 minutes of immersive VR distraction therapy or 10 minutes of two-dimensional guided imagery distraction therapy.
“[The VR therapy] provides noncompetitive experiences in which the user can move around and explore natural environments (e.g., beachscape, forest) from standing, seated, or fixed positions, including within a hospital bed or chair,” the investigators wrote. “We provided over‐the‐ear headphones to assure high sound quality for the experience in the virtual natural environment.”
The two-dimensional intervention, delivered via electronic tablet, featured a meditation with images of natural landscapes and instrumental background music.
“We chose this active control because it is readily available and reflects content similar to relaxation‐focused television channels that are increasingly common in hospital settings,” the investigators noted.
Compared with this more common approach, patients who received VR therapy had significantly greater immediate reduction in pain (mean change in pain score, –1.4 vs –0.7; P = .03). Twenty-four hours later, improvements in the VR group generally persisted, while pain level in the two-dimensional group returned almost to baseline (P = .004). In addition, patients in the VR group reported significantly greater improvements in general distress and pain bothersomeness.
“VR therapies may modulate the pain experience by reducing the level of attention paid to noxious stimuli, thereby suppressing transmission of painful sensations via pain processing pathways to the cerebral cortex, particularly with more active VR experiences compared to passive experiences,” the investigators wrote.
Downsides to Using VR
Although VR brought more benefit, participants in the VR group more often reported difficulty using the intervention compared with those who interacted with an electronic tablet.
Plus, one VR user described mild dizziness that resolved with pharmacologic intervention. Still, approximately 9 out of 10 participants in each group reported willingness to try the intervention again.
Future VR Research
“Virtual reality is a rapidly evolving technology with a wealth of potential patient‐facing applications,” the investigators wrote. “Future studies should explore repeated use, optimal dosing, and impact on VR therapy on opioid analgesic requirements as well as usability testing, VR content preferences and facilitators of analgesia, and barriers and facilitators to use in acute care settings.”
This study was supported by the American Cancer Society. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.
suggests a new randomized controlled trial.
While both interventions brought some pain relief, VR therapy yielded greater, longer-lasting comfort, reported lead author Hunter Groninger, MD, of MedStar Health Research Institute, Hyattsville, Maryland, and colleagues.
“Investigators have explored immersive VR interventions in cancer populations for a variety of indications including anxiety, depression, fatigue, and procedure‐associated pain, particularly among patients with pediatric cancer and adult breast cancer,” the investigators wrote in Cancer. “Nevertheless, despite growing evidence supporting the efficacy of VR‐delivered interventions for analgesia, few data address its role to mitigate cancer‐related pain specifically.”
To address this knowledge gap, Dr. Groninger and colleagues enrolled 128 adult hospitalized patients with cancer of any kind, all of whom had moderate to severe pain (self-reported score at least 4 out of 10) within the past 24 hours.
Study Methods and Results
Patients were randomized to receive either 10 minutes of immersive VR distraction therapy or 10 minutes of two-dimensional guided imagery distraction therapy.
“[The VR therapy] provides noncompetitive experiences in which the user can move around and explore natural environments (e.g., beachscape, forest) from standing, seated, or fixed positions, including within a hospital bed or chair,” the investigators wrote. “We provided over‐the‐ear headphones to assure high sound quality for the experience in the virtual natural environment.”
The two-dimensional intervention, delivered via electronic tablet, featured a meditation with images of natural landscapes and instrumental background music.
“We chose this active control because it is readily available and reflects content similar to relaxation‐focused television channels that are increasingly common in hospital settings,” the investigators noted.
Compared with this more common approach, patients who received VR therapy had significantly greater immediate reduction in pain (mean change in pain score, –1.4 vs –0.7; P = .03). Twenty-four hours later, improvements in the VR group generally persisted, while pain level in the two-dimensional group returned almost to baseline (P = .004). In addition, patients in the VR group reported significantly greater improvements in general distress and pain bothersomeness.
“VR therapies may modulate the pain experience by reducing the level of attention paid to noxious stimuli, thereby suppressing transmission of painful sensations via pain processing pathways to the cerebral cortex, particularly with more active VR experiences compared to passive experiences,” the investigators wrote.
Downsides to Using VR
Although VR brought more benefit, participants in the VR group more often reported difficulty using the intervention compared with those who interacted with an electronic tablet.
Plus, one VR user described mild dizziness that resolved with pharmacologic intervention. Still, approximately 9 out of 10 participants in each group reported willingness to try the intervention again.
Future VR Research
“Virtual reality is a rapidly evolving technology with a wealth of potential patient‐facing applications,” the investigators wrote. “Future studies should explore repeated use, optimal dosing, and impact on VR therapy on opioid analgesic requirements as well as usability testing, VR content preferences and facilitators of analgesia, and barriers and facilitators to use in acute care settings.”
This study was supported by the American Cancer Society. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.
suggests a new randomized controlled trial.
While both interventions brought some pain relief, VR therapy yielded greater, longer-lasting comfort, reported lead author Hunter Groninger, MD, of MedStar Health Research Institute, Hyattsville, Maryland, and colleagues.
“Investigators have explored immersive VR interventions in cancer populations for a variety of indications including anxiety, depression, fatigue, and procedure‐associated pain, particularly among patients with pediatric cancer and adult breast cancer,” the investigators wrote in Cancer. “Nevertheless, despite growing evidence supporting the efficacy of VR‐delivered interventions for analgesia, few data address its role to mitigate cancer‐related pain specifically.”
To address this knowledge gap, Dr. Groninger and colleagues enrolled 128 adult hospitalized patients with cancer of any kind, all of whom had moderate to severe pain (self-reported score at least 4 out of 10) within the past 24 hours.
Study Methods and Results
Patients were randomized to receive either 10 minutes of immersive VR distraction therapy or 10 minutes of two-dimensional guided imagery distraction therapy.
“[The VR therapy] provides noncompetitive experiences in which the user can move around and explore natural environments (e.g., beachscape, forest) from standing, seated, or fixed positions, including within a hospital bed or chair,” the investigators wrote. “We provided over‐the‐ear headphones to assure high sound quality for the experience in the virtual natural environment.”
The two-dimensional intervention, delivered via electronic tablet, featured a meditation with images of natural landscapes and instrumental background music.
“We chose this active control because it is readily available and reflects content similar to relaxation‐focused television channels that are increasingly common in hospital settings,” the investigators noted.
Compared with this more common approach, patients who received VR therapy had significantly greater immediate reduction in pain (mean change in pain score, –1.4 vs –0.7; P = .03). Twenty-four hours later, improvements in the VR group generally persisted, while pain level in the two-dimensional group returned almost to baseline (P = .004). In addition, patients in the VR group reported significantly greater improvements in general distress and pain bothersomeness.
“VR therapies may modulate the pain experience by reducing the level of attention paid to noxious stimuli, thereby suppressing transmission of painful sensations via pain processing pathways to the cerebral cortex, particularly with more active VR experiences compared to passive experiences,” the investigators wrote.
Downsides to Using VR
Although VR brought more benefit, participants in the VR group more often reported difficulty using the intervention compared with those who interacted with an electronic tablet.
Plus, one VR user described mild dizziness that resolved with pharmacologic intervention. Still, approximately 9 out of 10 participants in each group reported willingness to try the intervention again.
Future VR Research
“Virtual reality is a rapidly evolving technology with a wealth of potential patient‐facing applications,” the investigators wrote. “Future studies should explore repeated use, optimal dosing, and impact on VR therapy on opioid analgesic requirements as well as usability testing, VR content preferences and facilitators of analgesia, and barriers and facilitators to use in acute care settings.”
This study was supported by the American Cancer Society. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.
FROM CANCER
Should Opioids Be Used for Chronic Cancer Pain?
from legal concerns to threats of violence, say the authors of new research.
These findings suggest that evidence-based, systematic guidance is needed to steer opioid usage in cancer survivorship, wrote lead author Hailey W. Bulls, PhD, of the University of Pittsburgh, and colleagues.
“Prescription opioids are considered the standard of care to treat moderate to severe cancer pain during active treatment, yet guidance in the posttreatment survivorship phase is much less clear,” the investigators wrote. “Existing clinical resources recognize that opioid prescribing in survivorship is complex and nuanced and that the relative benefits and risks in this population are not fully understood.”
Who Should Manage Chronic Cancer Pain?
Despite the knowledge gap, survivors are typically excluded from long-term opioid use studies, leaving providers in a largely data-free zone. Simultaneously, patients who had been receiving focused care during their cancer treatment find themselves with an ill-defined health care team.
“Without a clear transition of care, survivors may seek pain management services from a variety of specialties, including oncologists, palliative care clinicians, primary care clinicians, and pain management specialists,” the investigators wrote. “However, many clinicians may view pain management to be outside of their skill set and may not be well equipped to handle opioid continuation or deprescribing [or] to manage the potential consequences of long‐term opioid use like side effects, misuse, and/or opioid use disorder.”
What Factors Guide Opioid Prescribing Practices for Chronic Cancer Pain?
To learn more about prescribing practices in this setting, Dr. Bulls and colleagues conducted qualitative interviews with 20 providers representing four specialties: oncology (n = 5), palliative care (n = 8), primary care (n = 5), and pain management (n = 2). Eighteen of these participants were physicians and two were advanced practice providers. Average time in clinical practice was about 16 years.
These interviews yielded three themes.
First, no “medical home” exists for chronic pain management in cancer survivors.
“Although clinicians generally agreed that minimizing the role of opioids in chronic pain management in cancer survivors was desirable, they described a lack of common treatment protocols to guide pain management in survivorship,” the investigators wrote.
Second, the interviews revealed that prescribing strategies are partly driven by peer pressure, sometimes leading to tension between providers and feelings of self-doubt.
“I feel like there’s been this weird judgment thing that’s happened [to] the prescribers,” one primary care provider said during the interview. “Because, when I trained … pain was a vital sign, and we were supposed to treat pain, and now I feel like we’re all being judged for that.”
The third theme revolved around fear of consequences resulting from prescribing practices, including fears of violent repercussions.
“You may not know, but pain specialists have been shot in this country for [refusing to prescribe opioids],” one pain management specialist said during the interview. “There’s been a number of shootings of pain specialists who would not prescribe opioids. So, I mean, there’s real issues of violence.”
Meanwhile, a palliative care provider described legal pressure from the opposite direction:
“I think there’s a lot of fear of litigiousness … and loss of licenses. That sort of makes them pressure us into not prescribing opioids or sticking with a certain number per day that might not be therapeutic for a patient.”
Reflecting on these themes, the investigators identified “a fundamental uncertainty in survivorship pain management.”
What Strategies Might Improve Opioid Prescribing Practices for Chronic Cancer Pain?
After sharing their attitudes about prescribing opioids for chronic cancer pain, the clinicians were asked for suggestions to improve the situation.
They offered four main suggestions: create relevant guidelines, increase education and access to pain management options for clinicians, increase interdisciplinary communication across medical subspecialties, and promote multidisciplinary care in the survivorship setting.
Dr. Bulls and colleagues supported these strategies in their concluding remarks and called for more research.
This study was supported by the National Institute of Drug Abuse, the National Institutes of Health, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, and the National Cancer Institute. The investigators disclosed relationships with Arcadia Health Solutions and Biomotivate.
from legal concerns to threats of violence, say the authors of new research.
These findings suggest that evidence-based, systematic guidance is needed to steer opioid usage in cancer survivorship, wrote lead author Hailey W. Bulls, PhD, of the University of Pittsburgh, and colleagues.
“Prescription opioids are considered the standard of care to treat moderate to severe cancer pain during active treatment, yet guidance in the posttreatment survivorship phase is much less clear,” the investigators wrote. “Existing clinical resources recognize that opioid prescribing in survivorship is complex and nuanced and that the relative benefits and risks in this population are not fully understood.”
Who Should Manage Chronic Cancer Pain?
Despite the knowledge gap, survivors are typically excluded from long-term opioid use studies, leaving providers in a largely data-free zone. Simultaneously, patients who had been receiving focused care during their cancer treatment find themselves with an ill-defined health care team.
“Without a clear transition of care, survivors may seek pain management services from a variety of specialties, including oncologists, palliative care clinicians, primary care clinicians, and pain management specialists,” the investigators wrote. “However, many clinicians may view pain management to be outside of their skill set and may not be well equipped to handle opioid continuation or deprescribing [or] to manage the potential consequences of long‐term opioid use like side effects, misuse, and/or opioid use disorder.”
What Factors Guide Opioid Prescribing Practices for Chronic Cancer Pain?
To learn more about prescribing practices in this setting, Dr. Bulls and colleagues conducted qualitative interviews with 20 providers representing four specialties: oncology (n = 5), palliative care (n = 8), primary care (n = 5), and pain management (n = 2). Eighteen of these participants were physicians and two were advanced practice providers. Average time in clinical practice was about 16 years.
These interviews yielded three themes.
First, no “medical home” exists for chronic pain management in cancer survivors.
“Although clinicians generally agreed that minimizing the role of opioids in chronic pain management in cancer survivors was desirable, they described a lack of common treatment protocols to guide pain management in survivorship,” the investigators wrote.
Second, the interviews revealed that prescribing strategies are partly driven by peer pressure, sometimes leading to tension between providers and feelings of self-doubt.
“I feel like there’s been this weird judgment thing that’s happened [to] the prescribers,” one primary care provider said during the interview. “Because, when I trained … pain was a vital sign, and we were supposed to treat pain, and now I feel like we’re all being judged for that.”
The third theme revolved around fear of consequences resulting from prescribing practices, including fears of violent repercussions.
“You may not know, but pain specialists have been shot in this country for [refusing to prescribe opioids],” one pain management specialist said during the interview. “There’s been a number of shootings of pain specialists who would not prescribe opioids. So, I mean, there’s real issues of violence.”
Meanwhile, a palliative care provider described legal pressure from the opposite direction:
“I think there’s a lot of fear of litigiousness … and loss of licenses. That sort of makes them pressure us into not prescribing opioids or sticking with a certain number per day that might not be therapeutic for a patient.”
Reflecting on these themes, the investigators identified “a fundamental uncertainty in survivorship pain management.”
What Strategies Might Improve Opioid Prescribing Practices for Chronic Cancer Pain?
After sharing their attitudes about prescribing opioids for chronic cancer pain, the clinicians were asked for suggestions to improve the situation.
They offered four main suggestions: create relevant guidelines, increase education and access to pain management options for clinicians, increase interdisciplinary communication across medical subspecialties, and promote multidisciplinary care in the survivorship setting.
Dr. Bulls and colleagues supported these strategies in their concluding remarks and called for more research.
This study was supported by the National Institute of Drug Abuse, the National Institutes of Health, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, and the National Cancer Institute. The investigators disclosed relationships with Arcadia Health Solutions and Biomotivate.
from legal concerns to threats of violence, say the authors of new research.
These findings suggest that evidence-based, systematic guidance is needed to steer opioid usage in cancer survivorship, wrote lead author Hailey W. Bulls, PhD, of the University of Pittsburgh, and colleagues.
“Prescription opioids are considered the standard of care to treat moderate to severe cancer pain during active treatment, yet guidance in the posttreatment survivorship phase is much less clear,” the investigators wrote. “Existing clinical resources recognize that opioid prescribing in survivorship is complex and nuanced and that the relative benefits and risks in this population are not fully understood.”
Who Should Manage Chronic Cancer Pain?
Despite the knowledge gap, survivors are typically excluded from long-term opioid use studies, leaving providers in a largely data-free zone. Simultaneously, patients who had been receiving focused care during their cancer treatment find themselves with an ill-defined health care team.
“Without a clear transition of care, survivors may seek pain management services from a variety of specialties, including oncologists, palliative care clinicians, primary care clinicians, and pain management specialists,” the investigators wrote. “However, many clinicians may view pain management to be outside of their skill set and may not be well equipped to handle opioid continuation or deprescribing [or] to manage the potential consequences of long‐term opioid use like side effects, misuse, and/or opioid use disorder.”
What Factors Guide Opioid Prescribing Practices for Chronic Cancer Pain?
To learn more about prescribing practices in this setting, Dr. Bulls and colleagues conducted qualitative interviews with 20 providers representing four specialties: oncology (n = 5), palliative care (n = 8), primary care (n = 5), and pain management (n = 2). Eighteen of these participants were physicians and two were advanced practice providers. Average time in clinical practice was about 16 years.
These interviews yielded three themes.
First, no “medical home” exists for chronic pain management in cancer survivors.
“Although clinicians generally agreed that minimizing the role of opioids in chronic pain management in cancer survivors was desirable, they described a lack of common treatment protocols to guide pain management in survivorship,” the investigators wrote.
Second, the interviews revealed that prescribing strategies are partly driven by peer pressure, sometimes leading to tension between providers and feelings of self-doubt.
“I feel like there’s been this weird judgment thing that’s happened [to] the prescribers,” one primary care provider said during the interview. “Because, when I trained … pain was a vital sign, and we were supposed to treat pain, and now I feel like we’re all being judged for that.”
The third theme revolved around fear of consequences resulting from prescribing practices, including fears of violent repercussions.
“You may not know, but pain specialists have been shot in this country for [refusing to prescribe opioids],” one pain management specialist said during the interview. “There’s been a number of shootings of pain specialists who would not prescribe opioids. So, I mean, there’s real issues of violence.”
Meanwhile, a palliative care provider described legal pressure from the opposite direction:
“I think there’s a lot of fear of litigiousness … and loss of licenses. That sort of makes them pressure us into not prescribing opioids or sticking with a certain number per day that might not be therapeutic for a patient.”
Reflecting on these themes, the investigators identified “a fundamental uncertainty in survivorship pain management.”
What Strategies Might Improve Opioid Prescribing Practices for Chronic Cancer Pain?
After sharing their attitudes about prescribing opioids for chronic cancer pain, the clinicians were asked for suggestions to improve the situation.
They offered four main suggestions: create relevant guidelines, increase education and access to pain management options for clinicians, increase interdisciplinary communication across medical subspecialties, and promote multidisciplinary care in the survivorship setting.
Dr. Bulls and colleagues supported these strategies in their concluding remarks and called for more research.
This study was supported by the National Institute of Drug Abuse, the National Institutes of Health, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, and the National Cancer Institute. The investigators disclosed relationships with Arcadia Health Solutions and Biomotivate.
FROM CANCER