AVAHO

In late 2016, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and the Prostate Cancer Foundation (PCF) announced a multiyear public-private partnership to deliver precision oncology and best-in-class care to all veterans battling prostate cancer.¹ The creation of this partnership was due to several favorable factors. At that time, VA Secretary Robert A. McDonald had created the Secretary’s Center for Strategic Partnerships. This Center provided a mechanism for nonprofit and industry partners to collaborate with the VA, thereby advancing partnerships that served the VA mission of “serving and honoring…America’s veterans.”^1,2 Concurrently, Vice President Joseph Biden’s Cancer Moonshot (later renamed the Beau Biden Cancer Moonshot) charged PCF and other cancer-focused organizations with the ambitious goal of making a decade’s worth of advancements in cancer prevention, diagnosis, and treatment in 5 years.³ As such, both organizations were positioned to recognize and address the unique prostate cancer challenges faced by male veterans, which ultimately led to the PCF-VA partnership.

A number of factors have allowed the PCF-VA partnership to scale the Centers of Excellence (COE) program. This article seeks to highlight the strategic organizing and mobilization techniques employed by the PCF-VA partnership, which can inform future public-private hybrid initiatives focused on precision medicine.

Executive Leadership as Patient Advocates

From its creation, the PCF-VA partnership placed as much importance on veteran patient care as it has on making oncologic advances. The fact that this focus came primarily from executive leadership was critical to the partnership’s success. PCF board members emphasized the significance of prioritizing veterans and military families in cancer research efforts.

A notable example is S. Ward “Trip” Casscells, MD, a veteran who was deployed to Iraq in 2006 and subsequently served as US Department of Defense Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs. He focused much of his leadership on ensuring that veterans and military families, having performed a critical service for the country, were served with this same degree of excellence when it came to health.⁴ Fellow PCF Board member Lawrence Stupski, spoke publicly about his drug-resistant form of prostate cancer, bringing awareness to the complexity of ending death and suffering from the disease.⁵ Like Casscells, Stupski has a military service background, and served in Vietnam in 1968 as an officer in the US Navy. Both participated in multiple prostate cancer clinical trials themselves, serving as models of veteran trial participants. This visibility and leadership created a culture where veterans were not just instrumental in advancing cancer research, but also representative of a responsibility to ensure high-quality care for an underserved and at-risk community (Figure 1).

VHA Economy of Scale

Utilizing the vast capacity of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) for care was integral to the success of the partnership. The VHA serves 9 million veterans each year in 1,255 health care facilities, which include 170 medical centers and 1,075 outpatient clinics.⁶ As the nation’s largest integrated health care system, the VHA approaches cancer care with a single electronic health record system across all of its facilities, featuring comprehensive clinical outcome documentation.⁷ The VHA’s systemwide DNA sequence platform, through the National Precision Oncology Program (NPOP), also provided an optimal area for research and standardization of precision oncology practices on a national scale.⁸

Centers of Excellence: An Adaptable Model

The primary thrust of the partnership centers on the PCF-VA COEs, which form the Precision Oncology Program for Cancer of the Prostate (POPCaP) network. Over the last 4 years, PCF-deployed philanthropy has established 12 PCF-VA COEs, located in the Bronx and Manhattan, New York; Tampa Bay, Florida; Los Angeles, California; Seattle, Washington; Chicago, Illinois; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Ann Arbor, Michigan; Durham, North Carolina; Washington, DC; Boston, Massachusetts; and Portland, Oregon. Sites were initially chosen based on strong connections to academic medical centers, National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive care centers, and physician-scientists who were professionally invested in precision prostate cancer oncology. Drawing on PCF’s existing networks helped to identify these areas, which were already rich in human and technological capital, before expanding to areas that were less resource rich. Future health partnerships may therefore consider capitalizing on existing relationships to spark initial growth, which can provide pathways for scaling.

In collaboration with NPOP, COEs work to sequence genomic and somatic tissue from veterans with metastatic prostate cancer, connect patients to appropriate clinical trials and treatment pathways, and advance guidelines for precision cancer care. Certain aspects of COE operations remain constant across all facilities. Annual progress reports, comprising of a written report, slide deck of accomplishments, and bulleted delineation of challenges and future plans are required of all COE-funded investigators. All COEs also are tasked with hiring a center coordinator, instituting a standardized sequencing and mutation reporting protocol, participating in consortium-wide phase 3 studies, and engaging in monthly conference calls to assess progress. A complete list of requirements is found in the Table.

However, the methods through which these goals must be completed is at the discretion of the COE investigators. Each COE, due to institutional and patient variance, experiences distinctive challenges and must mold its practice to fit existing capacities. For example, certain sites optimized workflow by training coordinators to analyze specimens, thereby improving care speed for veteran patients. Other COEs maximized nearby resources by hiring offsite specialists such as genetic counselors and interventional radiologists. By providing the freedom to design site-specific methodology, the PCF-VA partnership allows each COE to meet the award goals through any appropriate path using the funds provided, increasing efficiency and optimizing progress. This diversity of protocol also helped to expand the capabilities of the POPCaP Network, allowing sites to specialize in areas of interest in precision oncology. This eventually helped to inform future initiatives.

Accelerating Clinical Trials

A critical feature of the POPCaP network is the Prostate Cancer Analysis for Therapy Choice (PATCH) plexus.⁹ Through this investigative umbrella, veterans who are sequenced at any COE are given access to clinical trials at sites across POPCaP. Funding is available to support veteran travel to these sites, decreasing the chance that a veteran’s location is a barrier to treatment. In this way, the PCF-VA partnership continues to broaden treatment scopes for tens of thousands of veterans while simultaneously advancing clinical knowledge of precision oncology.

Fostering a Scientific Community

The PCF-VA partnership’s COE initiative capitalizes on resources from both nonprofit and public sectors to cultivate dynamic scientific discourse and investigative support. Through monthly meetings of the NPOP Molecular Oncology Tumor Board, COE investigators receive guidance and education to better assist veterans sequenced through their programs. Another example of enriched scientific collaboration are the Dream Team investigators, who were collaboratively funded by PCF, Stand Up 2 Cancer, and the American Association for Cancer Research.¹⁰ These teams made significant strides in genomic profiling of advanced prostate cancer and outpatient computed tomography-guided metastatic bone biopsy techniques. Through the PCF-VA partnership, COE researchers benefited from these investigators’ insight and expertise during regular check-in calls with investigators. PCF’s Prescription Pad, also connects all investigators to current therapies and trials, better informing them of future directions for their own work (Figure 3).^11,12

The PCF-VA partnership also facilitates peer-to-peer communication through regular inperson and virtual meetings of investigators, coordinators, and other stakeholders. These meetings allow the creation of focused working groups composed of COE leaders across the nation. The working groups seek to improve all aspects of functionality, including operational roadblocks, sequencing and phenotyping protocols, and addressing health service disparities. The VA Puget Sound Health Care System in Seattle, Washington, and the West Los Angeles VA Medical Center in California both are mentorship sites that play instrumental roles in guiding newer sites through challenges, such as obtaining rapid pathology results and navigating the VA system. This interinvestigator communication also helps to recruit new junior and senior investigators to POPCaP, thereby broadening the network’s reach.

Future Pathways

In line with the mission outlined in the MOU of developing treatments for veteran populations, the PCF-VA partnership has actively pursued addressing veteran health inequities. In 2018, a $2.5 million gift from Robert F. Smith, Founder, Chairman, and Chief Executive Officer of Vista Equity Partners, set up the Chicago COE with the express purpose of serving African American veterans, who represent men at highest risk of prostate cancer incidence and mortality.¹³ A regularly convened health disparities working group explores future efforts. This group, composed of VA investigators, epidemiologists, geneticists, and other field leaders, seeks to advance the most compelling approaches to eliminate inequities in prostate cancer care.

A novel nursing initiative that focuses on the role of nurses in providing genetic services for prostate cancer is being developed. The need for new genetic care models and significant barriers to genetic service delivery have been well-documented for prostate cancer.¹⁴ The initiative provides nurses with opportunities to train with POPCaP and VA geneticists, enroll in a City of Hope genetics course, and to join a collaborative of geneticists, medical oncologists, and nurse practitioners.¹⁵ By furthering nursing education and leadership, the initiative empowers nurses to fill the gaps in veteran health care, particularly in genomics-based precision oncology.

The COE platform also has provided the foundation for the building of COEs for other cancers relevant to veterans, such as lung cancer. This expansion of COE function helps to further the VA goal of not only creating COEs, but a system of excellence. More recently, COE infrastructure has been leveraged in the fight against COVID-19 through HITCH, a clinical trial investigating the use of temporary androgen suppression in improving clinical outcomes of veterans with COVID-19.¹⁶ This expansion of function also provides a mechanism for COEs to continue to be funded in the future: attracting federal capital, private philanthropy, and industrial support is dependent on realized and expanded goals, as well as demonstrable progress in veteran care.

Conclusions

The PCF-VA partnership serves as an example of a public-private health partnership pursuing strategic pathways and bold goals to ensure that every eligible veteran has access to precision oncology. These pathways include advocacy on the part of executive leadership, recognizing existing economies of scale, building compelling narratives to maximize funding, creating flexible requirements, and facilitating a robust, resource-rich scientific network. This partnership already has opened doors to future initiatives and continues to adapt to a rapidly changing health landscape. The discussed strategies have the potential to inform future health initiatives and showcase how a systemic approach to eradicating health inequities can greatly benefit underserved communities.

The success of the PCF-VA partnership represents more than just an efficient partnership model. The partnership’s emphasis on veterans, who exemplify service, highlights the extent to which cancer patients sacrifice to contribute to medical research. This service necessitates a service in kind: all health stakeholders share the responsibility to rapidly advance therapies and care, both to honor the patients who have come before, and to meet the needs of patients with treatment resistant forms of the disease urgently awaiting precision breakthroughs and cures.

In late 2016, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and the Prostate Cancer Foundation (PCF) announced a multiyear public-private partnership to deliver precision oncology and best-in-class care to all veterans battling prostate cancer.¹ The creation of this partnership was due to several favorable factors. At that time, VA Secretary Robert A. McDonald had created the Secretary’s Center for Strategic Partnerships. This Center provided a mechanism for nonprofit and industry partners to collaborate with the VA, thereby advancing partnerships that served the VA mission of “serving and honoring…America’s veterans.”^1,2 Concurrently, Vice President Joseph Biden’s Cancer Moonshot (later renamed the Beau Biden Cancer Moonshot) charged PCF and other cancer-focused organizations with the ambitious goal of making a decade’s worth of advancements in cancer prevention, diagnosis, and treatment in 5 years.³ As such, both organizations were positioned to recognize and address the unique prostate cancer challenges faced by male veterans, which ultimately led to the PCF-VA partnership.

A number of factors have allowed the PCF-VA partnership to scale the Centers of Excellence (COE) program. This article seeks to highlight the strategic organizing and mobilization techniques employed by the PCF-VA partnership, which can inform future public-private hybrid initiatives focused on precision medicine.

Executive Leadership as Patient Advocates

From its creation, the PCF-VA partnership placed as much importance on veteran patient care as it has on making oncologic advances. The fact that this focus came primarily from executive leadership was critical to the partnership’s success. PCF board members emphasized the significance of prioritizing veterans and military families in cancer research efforts.

A notable example is S. Ward “Trip” Casscells, MD, a veteran who was deployed to Iraq in 2006 and subsequently served as US Department of Defense Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs. He focused much of his leadership on ensuring that veterans and military families, having performed a critical service for the country, were served with this same degree of excellence when it came to health.⁴ Fellow PCF Board member Lawrence Stupski, spoke publicly about his drug-resistant form of prostate cancer, bringing awareness to the complexity of ending death and suffering from the disease.⁵ Like Casscells, Stupski has a military service background, and served in Vietnam in 1968 as an officer in the US Navy. Both participated in multiple prostate cancer clinical trials themselves, serving as models of veteran trial participants. This visibility and leadership created a culture where veterans were not just instrumental in advancing cancer research, but also representative of a responsibility to ensure high-quality care for an underserved and at-risk community (Figure 1).

VHA Economy of Scale

Utilizing the vast capacity of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) for care was integral to the success of the partnership. The VHA serves 9 million veterans each year in 1,255 health care facilities, which include 170 medical centers and 1,075 outpatient clinics.⁶ As the nation’s largest integrated health care system, the VHA approaches cancer care with a single electronic health record system across all of its facilities, featuring comprehensive clinical outcome documentation.⁷ The VHA’s systemwide DNA sequence platform, through the National Precision Oncology Program (NPOP), also provided an optimal area for research and standardization of precision oncology practices on a national scale.⁸

Centers of Excellence: An Adaptable Model

The primary thrust of the partnership centers on the PCF-VA COEs, which form the Precision Oncology Program for Cancer of the Prostate (POPCaP) network. Over the last 4 years, PCF-deployed philanthropy has established 12 PCF-VA COEs, located in the Bronx and Manhattan, New York; Tampa Bay, Florida; Los Angeles, California; Seattle, Washington; Chicago, Illinois; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Ann Arbor, Michigan; Durham, North Carolina; Washington, DC; Boston, Massachusetts; and Portland, Oregon. Sites were initially chosen based on strong connections to academic medical centers, National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive care centers, and physician-scientists who were professionally invested in precision prostate cancer oncology. Drawing on PCF’s existing networks helped to identify these areas, which were already rich in human and technological capital, before expanding to areas that were less resource rich. Future health partnerships may therefore consider capitalizing on existing relationships to spark initial growth, which can provide pathways for scaling.

In collaboration with NPOP, COEs work to sequence genomic and somatic tissue from veterans with metastatic prostate cancer, connect patients to appropriate clinical trials and treatment pathways, and advance guidelines for precision cancer care. Certain aspects of COE operations remain constant across all facilities. Annual progress reports, comprising of a written report, slide deck of accomplishments, and bulleted delineation of challenges and future plans are required of all COE-funded investigators. All COEs also are tasked with hiring a center coordinator, instituting a standardized sequencing and mutation reporting protocol, participating in consortium-wide phase 3 studies, and engaging in monthly conference calls to assess progress. A complete list of requirements is found in the Table.

However, the methods through which these goals must be completed is at the discretion of the COE investigators. Each COE, due to institutional and patient variance, experiences distinctive challenges and must mold its practice to fit existing capacities. For example, certain sites optimized workflow by training coordinators to analyze specimens, thereby improving care speed for veteran patients. Other COEs maximized nearby resources by hiring offsite specialists such as genetic counselors and interventional radiologists. By providing the freedom to design site-specific methodology, the PCF-VA partnership allows each COE to meet the award goals through any appropriate path using the funds provided, increasing efficiency and optimizing progress. This diversity of protocol also helped to expand the capabilities of the POPCaP Network, allowing sites to specialize in areas of interest in precision oncology. This eventually helped to inform future initiatives.

Accelerating Clinical Trials

A critical feature of the POPCaP network is the Prostate Cancer Analysis for Therapy Choice (PATCH) plexus.⁹ Through this investigative umbrella, veterans who are sequenced at any COE are given access to clinical trials at sites across POPCaP. Funding is available to support veteran travel to these sites, decreasing the chance that a veteran’s location is a barrier to treatment. In this way, the PCF-VA partnership continues to broaden treatment scopes for tens of thousands of veterans while simultaneously advancing clinical knowledge of precision oncology.

Fostering a Scientific Community

The PCF-VA partnership’s COE initiative capitalizes on resources from both nonprofit and public sectors to cultivate dynamic scientific discourse and investigative support. Through monthly meetings of the NPOP Molecular Oncology Tumor Board, COE investigators receive guidance and education to better assist veterans sequenced through their programs. Another example of enriched scientific collaboration are the Dream Team investigators, who were collaboratively funded by PCF, Stand Up 2 Cancer, and the American Association for Cancer Research.¹⁰ These teams made significant strides in genomic profiling of advanced prostate cancer and outpatient computed tomography-guided metastatic bone biopsy techniques. Through the PCF-VA partnership, COE researchers benefited from these investigators’ insight and expertise during regular check-in calls with investigators. PCF’s Prescription Pad, also connects all investigators to current therapies and trials, better informing them of future directions for their own work (Figure 3).^11,12

The PCF-VA partnership also facilitates peer-to-peer communication through regular inperson and virtual meetings of investigators, coordinators, and other stakeholders. These meetings allow the creation of focused working groups composed of COE leaders across the nation. The working groups seek to improve all aspects of functionality, including operational roadblocks, sequencing and phenotyping protocols, and addressing health service disparities. The VA Puget Sound Health Care System in Seattle, Washington, and the West Los Angeles VA Medical Center in California both are mentorship sites that play instrumental roles in guiding newer sites through challenges, such as obtaining rapid pathology results and navigating the VA system. This interinvestigator communication also helps to recruit new junior and senior investigators to POPCaP, thereby broadening the network’s reach.

Future Pathways

In line with the mission outlined in the MOU of developing treatments for veteran populations, the PCF-VA partnership has actively pursued addressing veteran health inequities. In 2018, a $2.5 million gift from Robert F. Smith, Founder, Chairman, and Chief Executive Officer of Vista Equity Partners, set up the Chicago COE with the express purpose of serving African American veterans, who represent men at highest risk of prostate cancer incidence and mortality.¹³ A regularly convened health disparities working group explores future efforts. This group, composed of VA investigators, epidemiologists, geneticists, and other field leaders, seeks to advance the most compelling approaches to eliminate inequities in prostate cancer care.

A novel nursing initiative that focuses on the role of nurses in providing genetic services for prostate cancer is being developed. The need for new genetic care models and significant barriers to genetic service delivery have been well-documented for prostate cancer.¹⁴ The initiative provides nurses with opportunities to train with POPCaP and VA geneticists, enroll in a City of Hope genetics course, and to join a collaborative of geneticists, medical oncologists, and nurse practitioners.¹⁵ By furthering nursing education and leadership, the initiative empowers nurses to fill the gaps in veteran health care, particularly in genomics-based precision oncology.

The COE platform also has provided the foundation for the building of COEs for other cancers relevant to veterans, such as lung cancer. This expansion of COE function helps to further the VA goal of not only creating COEs, but a system of excellence. More recently, COE infrastructure has been leveraged in the fight against COVID-19 through HITCH, a clinical trial investigating the use of temporary androgen suppression in improving clinical outcomes of veterans with COVID-19.¹⁶ This expansion of function also provides a mechanism for COEs to continue to be funded in the future: attracting federal capital, private philanthropy, and industrial support is dependent on realized and expanded goals, as well as demonstrable progress in veteran care.

Conclusions

The PCF-VA partnership serves as an example of a public-private health partnership pursuing strategic pathways and bold goals to ensure that every eligible veteran has access to precision oncology. These pathways include advocacy on the part of executive leadership, recognizing existing economies of scale, building compelling narratives to maximize funding, creating flexible requirements, and facilitating a robust, resource-rich scientific network. This partnership already has opened doors to future initiatives and continues to adapt to a rapidly changing health landscape. The discussed strategies have the potential to inform future health initiatives and showcase how a systemic approach to eradicating health inequities can greatly benefit underserved communities.

The success of the PCF-VA partnership represents more than just an efficient partnership model. The partnership’s emphasis on veterans, who exemplify service, highlights the extent to which cancer patients sacrifice to contribute to medical research. This service necessitates a service in kind: all health stakeholders share the responsibility to rapidly advance therapies and care, both to honor the patients who have come before, and to meet the needs of patients with treatment resistant forms of the disease urgently awaiting precision breakthroughs and cures.

In late 2016, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and the Prostate Cancer Foundation (PCF) announced a multiyear public-private partnership to deliver precision oncology and best-in-class care to all veterans battling prostate cancer.¹ The creation of this partnership was due to several favorable factors. At that time, VA Secretary Robert A. McDonald had created the Secretary’s Center for Strategic Partnerships. This Center provided a mechanism for nonprofit and industry partners to collaborate with the VA, thereby advancing partnerships that served the VA mission of “serving and honoring…America’s veterans.”^1,2 Concurrently, Vice President Joseph Biden’s Cancer Moonshot (later renamed the Beau Biden Cancer Moonshot) charged PCF and other cancer-focused organizations with the ambitious goal of making a decade’s worth of advancements in cancer prevention, diagnosis, and treatment in 5 years.³ As such, both organizations were positioned to recognize and address the unique prostate cancer challenges faced by male veterans, which ultimately led to the PCF-VA partnership.

A number of factors have allowed the PCF-VA partnership to scale the Centers of Excellence (COE) program. This article seeks to highlight the strategic organizing and mobilization techniques employed by the PCF-VA partnership, which can inform future public-private hybrid initiatives focused on precision medicine.

Executive Leadership as Patient Advocates

From its creation, the PCF-VA partnership placed as much importance on veteran patient care as it has on making oncologic advances. The fact that this focus came primarily from executive leadership was critical to the partnership’s success. PCF board members emphasized the significance of prioritizing veterans and military families in cancer research efforts.

A notable example is S. Ward “Trip” Casscells, MD, a veteran who was deployed to Iraq in 2006 and subsequently served as US Department of Defense Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs. He focused much of his leadership on ensuring that veterans and military families, having performed a critical service for the country, were served with this same degree of excellence when it came to health.⁴ Fellow PCF Board member Lawrence Stupski, spoke publicly about his drug-resistant form of prostate cancer, bringing awareness to the complexity of ending death and suffering from the disease.⁵ Like Casscells, Stupski has a military service background, and served in Vietnam in 1968 as an officer in the US Navy. Both participated in multiple prostate cancer clinical trials themselves, serving as models of veteran trial participants. This visibility and leadership created a culture where veterans were not just instrumental in advancing cancer research, but also representative of a responsibility to ensure high-quality care for an underserved and at-risk community (Figure 1).

VHA Economy of Scale

Utilizing the vast capacity of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) for care was integral to the success of the partnership. The VHA serves 9 million veterans each year in 1,255 health care facilities, which include 170 medical centers and 1,075 outpatient clinics.⁶ As the nation’s largest integrated health care system, the VHA approaches cancer care with a single electronic health record system across all of its facilities, featuring comprehensive clinical outcome documentation.⁷ The VHA’s systemwide DNA sequence platform, through the National Precision Oncology Program (NPOP), also provided an optimal area for research and standardization of precision oncology practices on a national scale.⁸

Centers of Excellence: An Adaptable Model

The primary thrust of the partnership centers on the PCF-VA COEs, which form the Precision Oncology Program for Cancer of the Prostate (POPCaP) network. Over the last 4 years, PCF-deployed philanthropy has established 12 PCF-VA COEs, located in the Bronx and Manhattan, New York; Tampa Bay, Florida; Los Angeles, California; Seattle, Washington; Chicago, Illinois; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Ann Arbor, Michigan; Durham, North Carolina; Washington, DC; Boston, Massachusetts; and Portland, Oregon. Sites were initially chosen based on strong connections to academic medical centers, National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive care centers, and physician-scientists who were professionally invested in precision prostate cancer oncology. Drawing on PCF’s existing networks helped to identify these areas, which were already rich in human and technological capital, before expanding to areas that were less resource rich. Future health partnerships may therefore consider capitalizing on existing relationships to spark initial growth, which can provide pathways for scaling.

In collaboration with NPOP, COEs work to sequence genomic and somatic tissue from veterans with metastatic prostate cancer, connect patients to appropriate clinical trials and treatment pathways, and advance guidelines for precision cancer care. Certain aspects of COE operations remain constant across all facilities. Annual progress reports, comprising of a written report, slide deck of accomplishments, and bulleted delineation of challenges and future plans are required of all COE-funded investigators. All COEs also are tasked with hiring a center coordinator, instituting a standardized sequencing and mutation reporting protocol, participating in consortium-wide phase 3 studies, and engaging in monthly conference calls to assess progress. A complete list of requirements is found in the Table.

However, the methods through which these goals must be completed is at the discretion of the COE investigators. Each COE, due to institutional and patient variance, experiences distinctive challenges and must mold its practice to fit existing capacities. For example, certain sites optimized workflow by training coordinators to analyze specimens, thereby improving care speed for veteran patients. Other COEs maximized nearby resources by hiring offsite specialists such as genetic counselors and interventional radiologists. By providing the freedom to design site-specific methodology, the PCF-VA partnership allows each COE to meet the award goals through any appropriate path using the funds provided, increasing efficiency and optimizing progress. This diversity of protocol also helped to expand the capabilities of the POPCaP Network, allowing sites to specialize in areas of interest in precision oncology. This eventually helped to inform future initiatives.

Accelerating Clinical Trials

A critical feature of the POPCaP network is the Prostate Cancer Analysis for Therapy Choice (PATCH) plexus.⁹ Through this investigative umbrella, veterans who are sequenced at any COE are given access to clinical trials at sites across POPCaP. Funding is available to support veteran travel to these sites, decreasing the chance that a veteran’s location is a barrier to treatment. In this way, the PCF-VA partnership continues to broaden treatment scopes for tens of thousands of veterans while simultaneously advancing clinical knowledge of precision oncology.

Fostering a Scientific Community

The PCF-VA partnership’s COE initiative capitalizes on resources from both nonprofit and public sectors to cultivate dynamic scientific discourse and investigative support. Through monthly meetings of the NPOP Molecular Oncology Tumor Board, COE investigators receive guidance and education to better assist veterans sequenced through their programs. Another example of enriched scientific collaboration are the Dream Team investigators, who were collaboratively funded by PCF, Stand Up 2 Cancer, and the American Association for Cancer Research.¹⁰ These teams made significant strides in genomic profiling of advanced prostate cancer and outpatient computed tomography-guided metastatic bone biopsy techniques. Through the PCF-VA partnership, COE researchers benefited from these investigators’ insight and expertise during regular check-in calls with investigators. PCF’s Prescription Pad, also connects all investigators to current therapies and trials, better informing them of future directions for their own work (Figure 3).^11,12

The PCF-VA partnership also facilitates peer-to-peer communication through regular inperson and virtual meetings of investigators, coordinators, and other stakeholders. These meetings allow the creation of focused working groups composed of COE leaders across the nation. The working groups seek to improve all aspects of functionality, including operational roadblocks, sequencing and phenotyping protocols, and addressing health service disparities. The VA Puget Sound Health Care System in Seattle, Washington, and the West Los Angeles VA Medical Center in California both are mentorship sites that play instrumental roles in guiding newer sites through challenges, such as obtaining rapid pathology results and navigating the VA system. This interinvestigator communication also helps to recruit new junior and senior investigators to POPCaP, thereby broadening the network’s reach.

Future Pathways

In line with the mission outlined in the MOU of developing treatments for veteran populations, the PCF-VA partnership has actively pursued addressing veteran health inequities. In 2018, a $2.5 million gift from Robert F. Smith, Founder, Chairman, and Chief Executive Officer of Vista Equity Partners, set up the Chicago COE with the express purpose of serving African American veterans, who represent men at highest risk of prostate cancer incidence and mortality.¹³ A regularly convened health disparities working group explores future efforts. This group, composed of VA investigators, epidemiologists, geneticists, and other field leaders, seeks to advance the most compelling approaches to eliminate inequities in prostate cancer care.

A novel nursing initiative that focuses on the role of nurses in providing genetic services for prostate cancer is being developed. The need for new genetic care models and significant barriers to genetic service delivery have been well-documented for prostate cancer.¹⁴ The initiative provides nurses with opportunities to train with POPCaP and VA geneticists, enroll in a City of Hope genetics course, and to join a collaborative of geneticists, medical oncologists, and nurse practitioners.¹⁵ By furthering nursing education and leadership, the initiative empowers nurses to fill the gaps in veteran health care, particularly in genomics-based precision oncology.

The COE platform also has provided the foundation for the building of COEs for other cancers relevant to veterans, such as lung cancer. This expansion of COE function helps to further the VA goal of not only creating COEs, but a system of excellence. More recently, COE infrastructure has been leveraged in the fight against COVID-19 through HITCH, a clinical trial investigating the use of temporary androgen suppression in improving clinical outcomes of veterans with COVID-19.¹⁶ This expansion of function also provides a mechanism for COEs to continue to be funded in the future: attracting federal capital, private philanthropy, and industrial support is dependent on realized and expanded goals, as well as demonstrable progress in veteran care.

Conclusions

The PCF-VA partnership serves as an example of a public-private health partnership pursuing strategic pathways and bold goals to ensure that every eligible veteran has access to precision oncology. These pathways include advocacy on the part of executive leadership, recognizing existing economies of scale, building compelling narratives to maximize funding, creating flexible requirements, and facilitating a robust, resource-rich scientific network. This partnership already has opened doors to future initiatives and continues to adapt to a rapidly changing health landscape. The discussed strategies have the potential to inform future health initiatives and showcase how a systemic approach to eradicating health inequities can greatly benefit underserved communities.

The success of the PCF-VA partnership represents more than just an efficient partnership model. The partnership’s emphasis on veterans, who exemplify service, highlights the extent to which cancer patients sacrifice to contribute to medical research. This service necessitates a service in kind: all health stakeholders share the responsibility to rapidly advance therapies and care, both to honor the patients who have come before, and to meet the needs of patients with treatment resistant forms of the disease urgently awaiting precision breakthroughs and cures.

A remote monitoring system was highly effective in managing symptoms and improving quality of life among patients with cancer who were receiving chemotherapy, say researchers reporting the first clinical trial of the new approach.

The study tested the Advanced Symptom Management System (ASyMS) for patients with various cancer types who were undergoing treatment at cancer centers in several European countries. The study primarily focused on patients who were being treated with curative intent.

The 24-hour monitoring system optimized symptom management in a manner safe, secure, and in “real time,” the team reports. This is particularly relevant during the COVID-19 pandemic, they note.

“Our findings suggest that an evidence based remote monitoring intervention, such as ASyMS, has potential for implementation into routine care to make a meaningful difference to people with cancer,” the authors conclude.

The findings were published online in BMJ.

The results show that “ASyMS can be implemented across multiple countries within diverse health care systems,” commented lead author Roma Maguire, PhD, a professor of digital health and care at the University of Strathclyde, in Glasgow, and director of the Health and Care Futures initiative.

So far, the system has only been used in clinical research studies, but “our findings do suggest that it is feasible to implement our system on a wider scale,” she added.

The study cohort included 829 patients with various cancers, including nonmetastatic breast cancer, colorectal cancer, Hodgkin disease, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The patients were receiving first-line adjuvant chemotherapy or chemotherapy for the first time in 5 years. They were recruited from 12 cancer centers in Austria, Greece, Norway, the Republic of Ireland, and the United Kingdom.

Patients were randomly assigned to receive ASyMS (n = 415) or standard care (n = 414) during six cycles of chemotherapy.

The primary outcome was symptom burden, as determined using the Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale. Secondary outcomes included health-related quality of life, as determined by results on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–General, the Supportive Care Needs Survey–Short Form, the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory–Revised, the Communication and Attitudinal Self-Efficacy scale for cancer, and the Work Limitations Questionnaire.

Patients in the intervention group completed a daily symptom questionnaire on a handheld ASyMS device, which generated alerts to health care professionals if any intervention was needed. The patients were also provided with advice and information on how to manage their symptoms themselves.

Among patients using ASyMS, symptom burden remained at prechemotherapy levels over all six chemotherapy cycles. Conversely, the control group reported an increase in symptom burden from cycle 1; symptom burden slowly decreased during the remaining chemotherapy cycles.

Overall, the investigators found that, among the patients who used ASyMS, psychological and physical symptoms were significantly reduced, along with the level of distress associated with each symptom.

In addition, for the patients who used ASyMS, health-related quality-of-life scores were higher across all cycles. The authors note that the improvements in health-related quality of life are consistent with findings from recent trials of the use of remote monitoring systems in chemotherapy care. The intervention group also experienced significant improvements regarding the need for supportive care.

Improvements in symptom burden differed among countries. The greatest improvements were seen among patients with breast cancer, Hodgkin disease, or non-Hodgkin lymphoma in Austria, Ireland, and the United Kingdom. The reasons for these differences are unclear, the authors note. ASyMS was developed in the United Kingdom, and it’s possible that ASyMS is more effective in countries that have health care systems similar to the system in the United Kingdom, they suggest.

The incidence of adverse events was similar for the two groups, although the rate of neutropenia was higher among patients using ASyMS (n = 125; 64%) in comparison with the standard-care group ( n = 71; 36%). Three deaths occurred in each study arm. The number of planned hospital admissions was similar between the two groups (34 vs. 38), as was the number of unplanned hospital admissions (120 vs. 109). No ASyMS device-related incidents were reported.

The trial was funded by the European Commission and was sponsored by the University of Strathclyde. Dr. Maguire has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A remote monitoring system was highly effective in managing symptoms and improving quality of life among patients with cancer who were receiving chemotherapy, say researchers reporting the first clinical trial of the new approach.

The study tested the Advanced Symptom Management System (ASyMS) for patients with various cancer types who were undergoing treatment at cancer centers in several European countries. The study primarily focused on patients who were being treated with curative intent.

The 24-hour monitoring system optimized symptom management in a manner safe, secure, and in “real time,” the team reports. This is particularly relevant during the COVID-19 pandemic, they note.

“Our findings suggest that an evidence based remote monitoring intervention, such as ASyMS, has potential for implementation into routine care to make a meaningful difference to people with cancer,” the authors conclude.

The findings were published online in BMJ.

The results show that “ASyMS can be implemented across multiple countries within diverse health care systems,” commented lead author Roma Maguire, PhD, a professor of digital health and care at the University of Strathclyde, in Glasgow, and director of the Health and Care Futures initiative.

So far, the system has only been used in clinical research studies, but “our findings do suggest that it is feasible to implement our system on a wider scale,” she added.

The study cohort included 829 patients with various cancers, including nonmetastatic breast cancer, colorectal cancer, Hodgkin disease, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The patients were receiving first-line adjuvant chemotherapy or chemotherapy for the first time in 5 years. They were recruited from 12 cancer centers in Austria, Greece, Norway, the Republic of Ireland, and the United Kingdom.

Patients were randomly assigned to receive ASyMS (n = 415) or standard care (n = 414) during six cycles of chemotherapy.

The primary outcome was symptom burden, as determined using the Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale. Secondary outcomes included health-related quality of life, as determined by results on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–General, the Supportive Care Needs Survey–Short Form, the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory–Revised, the Communication and Attitudinal Self-Efficacy scale for cancer, and the Work Limitations Questionnaire.

Patients in the intervention group completed a daily symptom questionnaire on a handheld ASyMS device, which generated alerts to health care professionals if any intervention was needed. The patients were also provided with advice and information on how to manage their symptoms themselves.

Among patients using ASyMS, symptom burden remained at prechemotherapy levels over all six chemotherapy cycles. Conversely, the control group reported an increase in symptom burden from cycle 1; symptom burden slowly decreased during the remaining chemotherapy cycles.

Overall, the investigators found that, among the patients who used ASyMS, psychological and physical symptoms were significantly reduced, along with the level of distress associated with each symptom.

In addition, for the patients who used ASyMS, health-related quality-of-life scores were higher across all cycles. The authors note that the improvements in health-related quality of life are consistent with findings from recent trials of the use of remote monitoring systems in chemotherapy care. The intervention group also experienced significant improvements regarding the need for supportive care.

Improvements in symptom burden differed among countries. The greatest improvements were seen among patients with breast cancer, Hodgkin disease, or non-Hodgkin lymphoma in Austria, Ireland, and the United Kingdom. The reasons for these differences are unclear, the authors note. ASyMS was developed in the United Kingdom, and it’s possible that ASyMS is more effective in countries that have health care systems similar to the system in the United Kingdom, they suggest.

The incidence of adverse events was similar for the two groups, although the rate of neutropenia was higher among patients using ASyMS (n = 125; 64%) in comparison with the standard-care group ( n = 71; 36%). Three deaths occurred in each study arm. The number of planned hospital admissions was similar between the two groups (34 vs. 38), as was the number of unplanned hospital admissions (120 vs. 109). No ASyMS device-related incidents were reported.

The trial was funded by the European Commission and was sponsored by the University of Strathclyde. Dr. Maguire has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A remote monitoring system was highly effective in managing symptoms and improving quality of life among patients with cancer who were receiving chemotherapy, say researchers reporting the first clinical trial of the new approach.

The study tested the Advanced Symptom Management System (ASyMS) for patients with various cancer types who were undergoing treatment at cancer centers in several European countries. The study primarily focused on patients who were being treated with curative intent.

The 24-hour monitoring system optimized symptom management in a manner safe, secure, and in “real time,” the team reports. This is particularly relevant during the COVID-19 pandemic, they note.

“Our findings suggest that an evidence based remote monitoring intervention, such as ASyMS, has potential for implementation into routine care to make a meaningful difference to people with cancer,” the authors conclude.

The findings were published online in BMJ.

The results show that “ASyMS can be implemented across multiple countries within diverse health care systems,” commented lead author Roma Maguire, PhD, a professor of digital health and care at the University of Strathclyde, in Glasgow, and director of the Health and Care Futures initiative.

So far, the system has only been used in clinical research studies, but “our findings do suggest that it is feasible to implement our system on a wider scale,” she added.

The study cohort included 829 patients with various cancers, including nonmetastatic breast cancer, colorectal cancer, Hodgkin disease, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The patients were receiving first-line adjuvant chemotherapy or chemotherapy for the first time in 5 years. They were recruited from 12 cancer centers in Austria, Greece, Norway, the Republic of Ireland, and the United Kingdom.

Patients were randomly assigned to receive ASyMS (n = 415) or standard care (n = 414) during six cycles of chemotherapy.

The primary outcome was symptom burden, as determined using the Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale. Secondary outcomes included health-related quality of life, as determined by results on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–General, the Supportive Care Needs Survey–Short Form, the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory–Revised, the Communication and Attitudinal Self-Efficacy scale for cancer, and the Work Limitations Questionnaire.

Patients in the intervention group completed a daily symptom questionnaire on a handheld ASyMS device, which generated alerts to health care professionals if any intervention was needed. The patients were also provided with advice and information on how to manage their symptoms themselves.

Among patients using ASyMS, symptom burden remained at prechemotherapy levels over all six chemotherapy cycles. Conversely, the control group reported an increase in symptom burden from cycle 1; symptom burden slowly decreased during the remaining chemotherapy cycles.

Overall, the investigators found that, among the patients who used ASyMS, psychological and physical symptoms were significantly reduced, along with the level of distress associated with each symptom.

In addition, for the patients who used ASyMS, health-related quality-of-life scores were higher across all cycles. The authors note that the improvements in health-related quality of life are consistent with findings from recent trials of the use of remote monitoring systems in chemotherapy care. The intervention group also experienced significant improvements regarding the need for supportive care.

Improvements in symptom burden differed among countries. The greatest improvements were seen among patients with breast cancer, Hodgkin disease, or non-Hodgkin lymphoma in Austria, Ireland, and the United Kingdom. The reasons for these differences are unclear, the authors note. ASyMS was developed in the United Kingdom, and it’s possible that ASyMS is more effective in countries that have health care systems similar to the system in the United Kingdom, they suggest.

The incidence of adverse events was similar for the two groups, although the rate of neutropenia was higher among patients using ASyMS (n = 125; 64%) in comparison with the standard-care group ( n = 71; 36%). Three deaths occurred in each study arm. The number of planned hospital admissions was similar between the two groups (34 vs. 38), as was the number of unplanned hospital admissions (120 vs. 109). No ASyMS device-related incidents were reported.

The trial was funded by the European Commission and was sponsored by the University of Strathclyde. Dr. Maguire has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Wrong-site surgery

Florida regulators have imposed a fine and other measures on a Tampa doctor who made a crucial error prior to his patient’s testicular surgery, as a story in the Miami Herald, among other news sites, reports.

On Sept. 10, 2019, a patient referred to in state documents as “C.F.” showed up for a procedure – a varicocelectomy – that would remove the enlarged veins in his left testicle. His doctor that day was Raul Fernandez-Crespo, MD, a urologist who had been licensed to practice in Florida since April of the same year. Dr. Fernandez-Crespo completed his urology residency at the University of Puerto Rico in 2019.

Following a conversation with C.F., Dr. Fernandez-Crespo designated what he believed was the proper surgical site – his patient’s right testicle.

He then proceeded to operate, but at some point during the procedure – news accounts don’t make clear when or how he became aware of his error – he realized C.F. had actually consented to a left-testicle varicocelectomy. With his patient still sedated, Dr. Fernandez-Crespo also completed the second procedure.

His mistake came to the attention of the Department of Health, which filed an administrative complaint against the surgeon. On June 17, 2021, the department’s medical licensing body, the Florida Board of Medicine, handed down its final order about the case.

In addition to imposing a $2,500 fine on Dr. Fernandez-Crespo and issuing “a letter of concern” – a public document that can be used as evidence in any relevant future disciplinary action against him – regulators said the surgeon must reimburse $2,045.56 to the department for its case-related administrative costs; take a 5-hour CME course in risk management or attend 8 hours of board disciplinary hearings; and, finally, give a 1-hour lecture on wrong-site surgeries at a board-approved medical facility.

Before this, Dr. Fernandez-Crespo had no previous disciplinary history with the Florida Board of Medicine.
 

Huge judgment after fertility procedure goes wrong

A Connecticut couple whose fertility and prenatal care at a state university health center proved disastrous will receive millions of dollars in damages, according to a report in the Hartford Courant.

In 2014, Jean-Marie Monroe-Lynch and her husband, Aaron Lynch, went to UConn Health, in Farmington, for treatment of Jean-Marie’s infertility. Her care was overseen by the Center for Advanced Reproductive Services (CARS), a private company then under contract with UConn Health. (The contract, which ended in 2014, obligated UConn to provide CARS providers with medical malpractice coverage.)

There, Jean-Marie was inseminated with sperm from a donor who turned out to be a carrier for cytomegalovirus (CMV), the herpes virus that can cause severe birth defects, or fetal death, when contracted by a pregnant woman. The insemination resulted in a twin pregnancy, a boy and a girl. The girl, Shay, died in utero after several of her organs became infected with CMV; the boy, Joshua, was born with severe mental and physical disabilities.

In their suit, Ms. Monroe-Lynch and her husband alleged that they were never cautioned about the risks associated with using a sperm donor whose blood had tested positive for CMV antibodies. Their suit further alleged that, at the 20-week ultrasound, UConn’s prenatal team failed to detect evidence of congenital CMV infection and again failed, at the 22-week ultrasound, to properly recognize and respond to abnormal findings.

“They totally dropped the ball,” said the couple’s attorney. “If you’re a pregnant woman and contract the virus for the first time, the results can be devastating.” 

CARS disputes this conclusion, arguing that the plaintiffs failed to prove as a “matter of scientific fact” that Ms. Monroe-Lynch was infected with CMV as the result of her intrauterine insemination.

But Superior Court Judge Mark H. Taylor disagreed. In his 107-page ruling, he said that the court “agrees with the vast majority of superior courts, concluding that a physician providing obstetric care owes a direct duty to a mother to prevent harm to her child during gestation and delivery.”

Jean-Marie Monroe-Lynch and Aaron Lynch received a $37.6 million award, consisting of $24.1 million in economic damages and $13.5 million in noneconomic damages.

Their surviving child, Joshua, will reportedly require a lifetime of medical and other care. In the meantime, UConn Health vows to appeal the Superior Court’s decision.
 

COVID patient’s relative demands justice for fatal outcome

An Indiana man whose grandfather recently died after suffering a stroke is calling on state lawmakers to rethink legislation passed earlier this year to protect health care providers during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a story reported by CBS4Indy.

Late last year, Daniel Enlow’s 83-year-old grandfather, Edward Rigney, was checked into Eskenazi Hospital, in Indianapolis. Mr. Rigney suffered from COPD and had also been diagnosed with COVID-19.

At some point during his hospitalization, medical staff attempted to place what seems to have been an arterial line in order to monitor his condition. During the procedure, or at some point shortly thereafter, an “iatrogenic air embolus” was released into his veins and caused a stroke, according to medical records and Mr. Rigney’s death certificate.

“I started asking for medical records because I wanted to know what was happening leading up to it in black and white in front of me,” said Mr. Enlow, who wished to present his evidence to a medical review panel, as required by Indiana law. The first step in this process would have been to consult with a medical malpractice attorney, but several declined to take his case.

Why? Because a pair of bills passed by Indiana legislators in early 2021 make COVID-19–related suits – even tangentially related ones – potentially difficult to take to court.

The bills raised the bar to file a medical malpractice claim in COVID-19 cases and to allow only those that involve “gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct.”

“In the vast majority of cases, it’s impossible to prove that,” said Fred Schultz, immediate past president of the Indiana Trial Lawyers Association, who lobbied against the legislation.

The bills were never designed to offer “blanket freedom,” said GOP State Senator Aaron Freeman, sponsor of one of the bills. “If something is being used in a way that it is a complete bar to certain claims, then maybe we need to go back and look at it and open that up a little bit and make it less restrictive. I’m certainly open to having those conversations.”

Meanwhile, Mr. Enlow has vowed to keep pushing in the name of his late grandfather. The hospital’s parent company, Eskenazi Health, has declined to comment.

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

Wrong-site surgery

Florida regulators have imposed a fine and other measures on a Tampa doctor who made a crucial error prior to his patient’s testicular surgery, as a story in the Miami Herald, among other news sites, reports.

On Sept. 10, 2019, a patient referred to in state documents as “C.F.” showed up for a procedure – a varicocelectomy – that would remove the enlarged veins in his left testicle. His doctor that day was Raul Fernandez-Crespo, MD, a urologist who had been licensed to practice in Florida since April of the same year. Dr. Fernandez-Crespo completed his urology residency at the University of Puerto Rico in 2019.

Following a conversation with C.F., Dr. Fernandez-Crespo designated what he believed was the proper surgical site – his patient’s right testicle.

He then proceeded to operate, but at some point during the procedure – news accounts don’t make clear when or how he became aware of his error – he realized C.F. had actually consented to a left-testicle varicocelectomy. With his patient still sedated, Dr. Fernandez-Crespo also completed the second procedure.

His mistake came to the attention of the Department of Health, which filed an administrative complaint against the surgeon. On June 17, 2021, the department’s medical licensing body, the Florida Board of Medicine, handed down its final order about the case.

In addition to imposing a $2,500 fine on Dr. Fernandez-Crespo and issuing “a letter of concern” – a public document that can be used as evidence in any relevant future disciplinary action against him – regulators said the surgeon must reimburse $2,045.56 to the department for its case-related administrative costs; take a 5-hour CME course in risk management or attend 8 hours of board disciplinary hearings; and, finally, give a 1-hour lecture on wrong-site surgeries at a board-approved medical facility.

Before this, Dr. Fernandez-Crespo had no previous disciplinary history with the Florida Board of Medicine.
 

Huge judgment after fertility procedure goes wrong

A Connecticut couple whose fertility and prenatal care at a state university health center proved disastrous will receive millions of dollars in damages, according to a report in the Hartford Courant.

In 2014, Jean-Marie Monroe-Lynch and her husband, Aaron Lynch, went to UConn Health, in Farmington, for treatment of Jean-Marie’s infertility. Her care was overseen by the Center for Advanced Reproductive Services (CARS), a private company then under contract with UConn Health. (The contract, which ended in 2014, obligated UConn to provide CARS providers with medical malpractice coverage.)

There, Jean-Marie was inseminated with sperm from a donor who turned out to be a carrier for cytomegalovirus (CMV), the herpes virus that can cause severe birth defects, or fetal death, when contracted by a pregnant woman. The insemination resulted in a twin pregnancy, a boy and a girl. The girl, Shay, died in utero after several of her organs became infected with CMV; the boy, Joshua, was born with severe mental and physical disabilities.

In their suit, Ms. Monroe-Lynch and her husband alleged that they were never cautioned about the risks associated with using a sperm donor whose blood had tested positive for CMV antibodies. Their suit further alleged that, at the 20-week ultrasound, UConn’s prenatal team failed to detect evidence of congenital CMV infection and again failed, at the 22-week ultrasound, to properly recognize and respond to abnormal findings.

“They totally dropped the ball,” said the couple’s attorney. “If you’re a pregnant woman and contract the virus for the first time, the results can be devastating.” 

CARS disputes this conclusion, arguing that the plaintiffs failed to prove as a “matter of scientific fact” that Ms. Monroe-Lynch was infected with CMV as the result of her intrauterine insemination.

But Superior Court Judge Mark H. Taylor disagreed. In his 107-page ruling, he said that the court “agrees with the vast majority of superior courts, concluding that a physician providing obstetric care owes a direct duty to a mother to prevent harm to her child during gestation and delivery.”

Jean-Marie Monroe-Lynch and Aaron Lynch received a $37.6 million award, consisting of $24.1 million in economic damages and $13.5 million in noneconomic damages.

Their surviving child, Joshua, will reportedly require a lifetime of medical and other care. In the meantime, UConn Health vows to appeal the Superior Court’s decision.
 

COVID patient’s relative demands justice for fatal outcome

An Indiana man whose grandfather recently died after suffering a stroke is calling on state lawmakers to rethink legislation passed earlier this year to protect health care providers during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a story reported by CBS4Indy.

Late last year, Daniel Enlow’s 83-year-old grandfather, Edward Rigney, was checked into Eskenazi Hospital, in Indianapolis. Mr. Rigney suffered from COPD and had also been diagnosed with COVID-19.

At some point during his hospitalization, medical staff attempted to place what seems to have been an arterial line in order to monitor his condition. During the procedure, or at some point shortly thereafter, an “iatrogenic air embolus” was released into his veins and caused a stroke, according to medical records and Mr. Rigney’s death certificate.

“I started asking for medical records because I wanted to know what was happening leading up to it in black and white in front of me,” said Mr. Enlow, who wished to present his evidence to a medical review panel, as required by Indiana law. The first step in this process would have been to consult with a medical malpractice attorney, but several declined to take his case.

Why? Because a pair of bills passed by Indiana legislators in early 2021 make COVID-19–related suits – even tangentially related ones – potentially difficult to take to court.

The bills raised the bar to file a medical malpractice claim in COVID-19 cases and to allow only those that involve “gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct.”

“In the vast majority of cases, it’s impossible to prove that,” said Fred Schultz, immediate past president of the Indiana Trial Lawyers Association, who lobbied against the legislation.

The bills were never designed to offer “blanket freedom,” said GOP State Senator Aaron Freeman, sponsor of one of the bills. “If something is being used in a way that it is a complete bar to certain claims, then maybe we need to go back and look at it and open that up a little bit and make it less restrictive. I’m certainly open to having those conversations.”

Meanwhile, Mr. Enlow has vowed to keep pushing in the name of his late grandfather. The hospital’s parent company, Eskenazi Health, has declined to comment.

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

Wrong-site surgery

Florida regulators have imposed a fine and other measures on a Tampa doctor who made a crucial error prior to his patient’s testicular surgery, as a story in the Miami Herald, among other news sites, reports.

On Sept. 10, 2019, a patient referred to in state documents as “C.F.” showed up for a procedure – a varicocelectomy – that would remove the enlarged veins in his left testicle. His doctor that day was Raul Fernandez-Crespo, MD, a urologist who had been licensed to practice in Florida since April of the same year. Dr. Fernandez-Crespo completed his urology residency at the University of Puerto Rico in 2019.

Following a conversation with C.F., Dr. Fernandez-Crespo designated what he believed was the proper surgical site – his patient’s right testicle.

He then proceeded to operate, but at some point during the procedure – news accounts don’t make clear when or how he became aware of his error – he realized C.F. had actually consented to a left-testicle varicocelectomy. With his patient still sedated, Dr. Fernandez-Crespo also completed the second procedure.

His mistake came to the attention of the Department of Health, which filed an administrative complaint against the surgeon. On June 17, 2021, the department’s medical licensing body, the Florida Board of Medicine, handed down its final order about the case.

In addition to imposing a $2,500 fine on Dr. Fernandez-Crespo and issuing “a letter of concern” – a public document that can be used as evidence in any relevant future disciplinary action against him – regulators said the surgeon must reimburse $2,045.56 to the department for its case-related administrative costs; take a 5-hour CME course in risk management or attend 8 hours of board disciplinary hearings; and, finally, give a 1-hour lecture on wrong-site surgeries at a board-approved medical facility.

Before this, Dr. Fernandez-Crespo had no previous disciplinary history with the Florida Board of Medicine.
 

Huge judgment after fertility procedure goes wrong

A Connecticut couple whose fertility and prenatal care at a state university health center proved disastrous will receive millions of dollars in damages, according to a report in the Hartford Courant.

In 2014, Jean-Marie Monroe-Lynch and her husband, Aaron Lynch, went to UConn Health, in Farmington, for treatment of Jean-Marie’s infertility. Her care was overseen by the Center for Advanced Reproductive Services (CARS), a private company then under contract with UConn Health. (The contract, which ended in 2014, obligated UConn to provide CARS providers with medical malpractice coverage.)

There, Jean-Marie was inseminated with sperm from a donor who turned out to be a carrier for cytomegalovirus (CMV), the herpes virus that can cause severe birth defects, or fetal death, when contracted by a pregnant woman. The insemination resulted in a twin pregnancy, a boy and a girl. The girl, Shay, died in utero after several of her organs became infected with CMV; the boy, Joshua, was born with severe mental and physical disabilities.

In their suit, Ms. Monroe-Lynch and her husband alleged that they were never cautioned about the risks associated with using a sperm donor whose blood had tested positive for CMV antibodies. Their suit further alleged that, at the 20-week ultrasound, UConn’s prenatal team failed to detect evidence of congenital CMV infection and again failed, at the 22-week ultrasound, to properly recognize and respond to abnormal findings.

“They totally dropped the ball,” said the couple’s attorney. “If you’re a pregnant woman and contract the virus for the first time, the results can be devastating.” 

CARS disputes this conclusion, arguing that the plaintiffs failed to prove as a “matter of scientific fact” that Ms. Monroe-Lynch was infected with CMV as the result of her intrauterine insemination.

But Superior Court Judge Mark H. Taylor disagreed. In his 107-page ruling, he said that the court “agrees with the vast majority of superior courts, concluding that a physician providing obstetric care owes a direct duty to a mother to prevent harm to her child during gestation and delivery.”

Jean-Marie Monroe-Lynch and Aaron Lynch received a $37.6 million award, consisting of $24.1 million in economic damages and $13.5 million in noneconomic damages.

Their surviving child, Joshua, will reportedly require a lifetime of medical and other care. In the meantime, UConn Health vows to appeal the Superior Court’s decision.
 

COVID patient’s relative demands justice for fatal outcome

An Indiana man whose grandfather recently died after suffering a stroke is calling on state lawmakers to rethink legislation passed earlier this year to protect health care providers during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a story reported by CBS4Indy.

Late last year, Daniel Enlow’s 83-year-old grandfather, Edward Rigney, was checked into Eskenazi Hospital, in Indianapolis. Mr. Rigney suffered from COPD and had also been diagnosed with COVID-19.

At some point during his hospitalization, medical staff attempted to place what seems to have been an arterial line in order to monitor his condition. During the procedure, or at some point shortly thereafter, an “iatrogenic air embolus” was released into his veins and caused a stroke, according to medical records and Mr. Rigney’s death certificate.

“I started asking for medical records because I wanted to know what was happening leading up to it in black and white in front of me,” said Mr. Enlow, who wished to present his evidence to a medical review panel, as required by Indiana law. The first step in this process would have been to consult with a medical malpractice attorney, but several declined to take his case.

Why? Because a pair of bills passed by Indiana legislators in early 2021 make COVID-19–related suits – even tangentially related ones – potentially difficult to take to court.

The bills raised the bar to file a medical malpractice claim in COVID-19 cases and to allow only those that involve “gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct.”

“In the vast majority of cases, it’s impossible to prove that,” said Fred Schultz, immediate past president of the Indiana Trial Lawyers Association, who lobbied against the legislation.

The bills were never designed to offer “blanket freedom,” said GOP State Senator Aaron Freeman, sponsor of one of the bills. “If something is being used in a way that it is a complete bar to certain claims, then maybe we need to go back and look at it and open that up a little bit and make it less restrictive. I’m certainly open to having those conversations.”

Meanwhile, Mr. Enlow has vowed to keep pushing in the name of his late grandfather. The hospital’s parent company, Eskenazi Health, has declined to comment.

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

A case report describes a novel helmet device that generates a noninvasive oscillating magnetic field and that shrunk a glioblastoma tumor by about a third.

This is the first time that the wearable Oncomagnetic device was tried with a patient.

The patient had end-stage recurrent glioblastoma and had undergone all standard therapy options. He wore the device for 5 weeks but died from an unrelated injury, so the treatment period was cut short.

A brain scan showed a 31% reduction of contrast-enhanced tumor volume, and an autopsy of his brain confirmed the rapid response to the treatment.

The case study was published online on July 22, 2021, in Frontiers in Oncology.

“I believe that there is a great potential with this device,” said study author David S. Baskin, MD, director of the Kenneth R. Peak Center for Brain and Pituitary Tumor Treatment in the department of neurosurgery at Houston Methodist Hospital. “This is a very exciting time.”

The team is now treating several patients with glioblastoma under compassionate use.

In an independent comment, Adilia Hormigo, MD, PhD, director of the neuro-oncology program at the Tisch Cancer Institute, Mount Sinai Health System, New York, noted that a clinical trial is needed to evaluate the device. “But this is an interesting idea, and we have to be open-minded in treating this fatal disease.”
 

Oscillating magnetic fields

The Oncomagnetic device consists of three oncoscillators that are attached to the outside of a helmet and are connected to a microprocessor-based electronic controller powered by a rechargeable battery.

It consists of a series of rotating magnets that produce oscillating magnetic fields that cover the entire brain, including the upper part of the brain stem. The device induces rapid apoptosis of glioblastoma cells, Dr. Baskin explained. Its mechanism of action involves disruption of the electron transport in the mitochondrial respiratory chain, causing an elevation of reactive oxygen species and caspase-dependent cancer cell death.

Dr. Baskin emphasized that the new Oncomagnetic device is very different from the Optune device (Novocare), which is already approved by the Food and Drug Administration and has been shown to increase survival among patients with glioblastoma. Optune uses tumor-treating fields (TTFs), which are electromagnetic waves that are delivered via an electric field generator through four transducer arrays that are placed on a shaved scalp. Preclinical studies indicated that the TTFs disrupt cell division by disrupting several steps in the mitotic process that are crucial for cell division.

Both of these devices “are using a type of external maneuver” rather than invasive intracranial approaches, said Dr. Hormingo. The experimental Oncomagnetic device may have an advantage in that it needs to be worn by the patient for fewer hours, she commented. A better understanding of the physics and underlying mechanism is needed, however. Clinical trials are an essential next step.
 

Most common brain cancer in adults

Glioblastoma is the most common malignant tumor of the brain in adults. Outcomes continue to be dismal. In more than 40 years, median survival has only modestly improved.

“We haven’t gotten very far with glioblastoma despite millions of dollars in research,” Dr. Baskin said. “With treatment, survival is about 15 months, and those are not very good months.”
 

Out of the box

Standard treatments for glioblastoma include surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy, and many patients cannot tolerate some of these, Dr. Baskin noted. Hence, there is a great need for a different therapeutic approach that yields better outcomes with lower toxicity.

“We didn’t want to develop another chemotherapeutic agent that would help you live another 2 months,” he said in an interview. “We were trying to think out of the box.

“If you want to do something that will really make a difference in an aggressive tumor like glioblastoma, you have to attack something so basic that the tumor can’t evade it,” he said. “For example, with temozolomide, if it is unmethylated, the tumor can repair the DNA damage from the chemotherapy. Even if you’re sensitive to begin with, over time, the tumor will eventually become resistant.”

The new device stems from work by Dr. Baskin and colleagues on mitochondria, which he describes as the powerhouse of the cell. “Mitochondrial DNA can’t repair itself, so if you damage the mitochondria, you will damage the cell, and theoretically, it cannot repair itself,” he said.

In preclinical models, the oscillating magnetic fields generated by the new device were shown to kill patient-derived glioblastoma cells in cell culture without having cytotoxic effects on cortical neurons and normal human astrocytes. Animal studies also showed that it was effective and nontoxic, explained Dr. Baskin.

However, getting the device to human clinical trials has been slow going. “We wanted to start an early-phase trial for an investigational device, but the FDA is overwhelmed with COVID-related applications,” he said. “That has taken priority, and we understand that. So we were able to evaluate it on a patient through compassionate use via the [Food and Drug Administration]–approved Expanded Access Program.”
 

Exciting possibilities

The patient was a 53-year-old man who had undergone radiotherapy and chemotherapy, and the tumor was progressing. Imaging revealed the presence of leptomeningeal disease, which is associated with a poor outcome and a median survival of 3.5-3.9 months.

The patient was fitted with the helmet device and wore it under supervision for the first 3 days of treatment, during which time the strength of the oscillating magnetic fields was escalated. After this initial supervised phase, the treatment continued at home without supervision, using the same regimen as on the third day.

Treatment was first administered for 2 hours while under supervision and was then gradually increased to a maximum of 6 hours per day. The patient was evaluated clinically on days 7, 16, 30, and 44 after initiation of treatment. No serious adverse events were reported during treatment. The patient’s wife reported subjective improvement in speech and cognitive function.

Dr. Baskin noted that the patient had been experiencing falls for the past year and a half before treatment was initiated. “And then he tripped and fell and sustained a head injury that he subsequently died from,” he said.

Autopsy results confirmed the rapid response to treatment, and tumor shrinkage appeared to correlate with the treatment dose.

“Our results in the laboratory and with this patient open a new world of noninvasive and nontoxic therapy for brain cancer, with many exciting possibilities for the future,” Dr. Baskin commented.

He said his team has experimented with this approach with other tumor types in the laboratory, including triple-negative breast cancer and lung cancer. “We’ve only tried it in a culture so far, but it seems to melt the cancer cells,” he said.

The work was supported by a grant from the Translational Research Initiative of the Houston Methodist Research Institute and several foundations. Dr. Baskin and two coauthors are listed as inventors on a U.S. patent application filed by Houston Methodist Hospital for the device used in this report.

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

A case report describes a novel helmet device that generates a noninvasive oscillating magnetic field and that shrunk a glioblastoma tumor by about a third.

This is the first time that the wearable Oncomagnetic device was tried with a patient.

The patient had end-stage recurrent glioblastoma and had undergone all standard therapy options. He wore the device for 5 weeks but died from an unrelated injury, so the treatment period was cut short.

A brain scan showed a 31% reduction of contrast-enhanced tumor volume, and an autopsy of his brain confirmed the rapid response to the treatment.

The case study was published online on July 22, 2021, in Frontiers in Oncology.

“I believe that there is a great potential with this device,” said study author David S. Baskin, MD, director of the Kenneth R. Peak Center for Brain and Pituitary Tumor Treatment in the department of neurosurgery at Houston Methodist Hospital. “This is a very exciting time.”

The team is now treating several patients with glioblastoma under compassionate use.

In an independent comment, Adilia Hormigo, MD, PhD, director of the neuro-oncology program at the Tisch Cancer Institute, Mount Sinai Health System, New York, noted that a clinical trial is needed to evaluate the device. “But this is an interesting idea, and we have to be open-minded in treating this fatal disease.”
 

Oscillating magnetic fields

The Oncomagnetic device consists of three oncoscillators that are attached to the outside of a helmet and are connected to a microprocessor-based electronic controller powered by a rechargeable battery.

It consists of a series of rotating magnets that produce oscillating magnetic fields that cover the entire brain, including the upper part of the brain stem. The device induces rapid apoptosis of glioblastoma cells, Dr. Baskin explained. Its mechanism of action involves disruption of the electron transport in the mitochondrial respiratory chain, causing an elevation of reactive oxygen species and caspase-dependent cancer cell death.

Dr. Baskin emphasized that the new Oncomagnetic device is very different from the Optune device (Novocare), which is already approved by the Food and Drug Administration and has been shown to increase survival among patients with glioblastoma. Optune uses tumor-treating fields (TTFs), which are electromagnetic waves that are delivered via an electric field generator through four transducer arrays that are placed on a shaved scalp. Preclinical studies indicated that the TTFs disrupt cell division by disrupting several steps in the mitotic process that are crucial for cell division.

Both of these devices “are using a type of external maneuver” rather than invasive intracranial approaches, said Dr. Hormingo. The experimental Oncomagnetic device may have an advantage in that it needs to be worn by the patient for fewer hours, she commented. A better understanding of the physics and underlying mechanism is needed, however. Clinical trials are an essential next step.
 

Most common brain cancer in adults

Glioblastoma is the most common malignant tumor of the brain in adults. Outcomes continue to be dismal. In more than 40 years, median survival has only modestly improved.

“We haven’t gotten very far with glioblastoma despite millions of dollars in research,” Dr. Baskin said. “With treatment, survival is about 15 months, and those are not very good months.”
 

Out of the box

Standard treatments for glioblastoma include surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy, and many patients cannot tolerate some of these, Dr. Baskin noted. Hence, there is a great need for a different therapeutic approach that yields better outcomes with lower toxicity.

“We didn’t want to develop another chemotherapeutic agent that would help you live another 2 months,” he said in an interview. “We were trying to think out of the box.

“If you want to do something that will really make a difference in an aggressive tumor like glioblastoma, you have to attack something so basic that the tumor can’t evade it,” he said. “For example, with temozolomide, if it is unmethylated, the tumor can repair the DNA damage from the chemotherapy. Even if you’re sensitive to begin with, over time, the tumor will eventually become resistant.”

The new device stems from work by Dr. Baskin and colleagues on mitochondria, which he describes as the powerhouse of the cell. “Mitochondrial DNA can’t repair itself, so if you damage the mitochondria, you will damage the cell, and theoretically, it cannot repair itself,” he said.

In preclinical models, the oscillating magnetic fields generated by the new device were shown to kill patient-derived glioblastoma cells in cell culture without having cytotoxic effects on cortical neurons and normal human astrocytes. Animal studies also showed that it was effective and nontoxic, explained Dr. Baskin.

However, getting the device to human clinical trials has been slow going. “We wanted to start an early-phase trial for an investigational device, but the FDA is overwhelmed with COVID-related applications,” he said. “That has taken priority, and we understand that. So we were able to evaluate it on a patient through compassionate use via the [Food and Drug Administration]–approved Expanded Access Program.”
 

Exciting possibilities

The patient was a 53-year-old man who had undergone radiotherapy and chemotherapy, and the tumor was progressing. Imaging revealed the presence of leptomeningeal disease, which is associated with a poor outcome and a median survival of 3.5-3.9 months.

The patient was fitted with the helmet device and wore it under supervision for the first 3 days of treatment, during which time the strength of the oscillating magnetic fields was escalated. After this initial supervised phase, the treatment continued at home without supervision, using the same regimen as on the third day.

Treatment was first administered for 2 hours while under supervision and was then gradually increased to a maximum of 6 hours per day. The patient was evaluated clinically on days 7, 16, 30, and 44 after initiation of treatment. No serious adverse events were reported during treatment. The patient’s wife reported subjective improvement in speech and cognitive function.

Dr. Baskin noted that the patient had been experiencing falls for the past year and a half before treatment was initiated. “And then he tripped and fell and sustained a head injury that he subsequently died from,” he said.

Autopsy results confirmed the rapid response to treatment, and tumor shrinkage appeared to correlate with the treatment dose.

“Our results in the laboratory and with this patient open a new world of noninvasive and nontoxic therapy for brain cancer, with many exciting possibilities for the future,” Dr. Baskin commented.

He said his team has experimented with this approach with other tumor types in the laboratory, including triple-negative breast cancer and lung cancer. “We’ve only tried it in a culture so far, but it seems to melt the cancer cells,” he said.

The work was supported by a grant from the Translational Research Initiative of the Houston Methodist Research Institute and several foundations. Dr. Baskin and two coauthors are listed as inventors on a U.S. patent application filed by Houston Methodist Hospital for the device used in this report.

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

A case report describes a novel helmet device that generates a noninvasive oscillating magnetic field and that shrunk a glioblastoma tumor by about a third.

This is the first time that the wearable Oncomagnetic device was tried with a patient.

The patient had end-stage recurrent glioblastoma and had undergone all standard therapy options. He wore the device for 5 weeks but died from an unrelated injury, so the treatment period was cut short.

A brain scan showed a 31% reduction of contrast-enhanced tumor volume, and an autopsy of his brain confirmed the rapid response to the treatment.

The case study was published online on July 22, 2021, in Frontiers in Oncology.

“I believe that there is a great potential with this device,” said study author David S. Baskin, MD, director of the Kenneth R. Peak Center for Brain and Pituitary Tumor Treatment in the department of neurosurgery at Houston Methodist Hospital. “This is a very exciting time.”

The team is now treating several patients with glioblastoma under compassionate use.

In an independent comment, Adilia Hormigo, MD, PhD, director of the neuro-oncology program at the Tisch Cancer Institute, Mount Sinai Health System, New York, noted that a clinical trial is needed to evaluate the device. “But this is an interesting idea, and we have to be open-minded in treating this fatal disease.”
 

Oscillating magnetic fields

The Oncomagnetic device consists of three oncoscillators that are attached to the outside of a helmet and are connected to a microprocessor-based electronic controller powered by a rechargeable battery.

It consists of a series of rotating magnets that produce oscillating magnetic fields that cover the entire brain, including the upper part of the brain stem. The device induces rapid apoptosis of glioblastoma cells, Dr. Baskin explained. Its mechanism of action involves disruption of the electron transport in the mitochondrial respiratory chain, causing an elevation of reactive oxygen species and caspase-dependent cancer cell death.

Dr. Baskin emphasized that the new Oncomagnetic device is very different from the Optune device (Novocare), which is already approved by the Food and Drug Administration and has been shown to increase survival among patients with glioblastoma. Optune uses tumor-treating fields (TTFs), which are electromagnetic waves that are delivered via an electric field generator through four transducer arrays that are placed on a shaved scalp. Preclinical studies indicated that the TTFs disrupt cell division by disrupting several steps in the mitotic process that are crucial for cell division.

Both of these devices “are using a type of external maneuver” rather than invasive intracranial approaches, said Dr. Hormingo. The experimental Oncomagnetic device may have an advantage in that it needs to be worn by the patient for fewer hours, she commented. A better understanding of the physics and underlying mechanism is needed, however. Clinical trials are an essential next step.
 

Most common brain cancer in adults

Glioblastoma is the most common malignant tumor of the brain in adults. Outcomes continue to be dismal. In more than 40 years, median survival has only modestly improved.

“We haven’t gotten very far with glioblastoma despite millions of dollars in research,” Dr. Baskin said. “With treatment, survival is about 15 months, and those are not very good months.”
 

Out of the box

Standard treatments for glioblastoma include surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy, and many patients cannot tolerate some of these, Dr. Baskin noted. Hence, there is a great need for a different therapeutic approach that yields better outcomes with lower toxicity.

“We didn’t want to develop another chemotherapeutic agent that would help you live another 2 months,” he said in an interview. “We were trying to think out of the box.

“If you want to do something that will really make a difference in an aggressive tumor like glioblastoma, you have to attack something so basic that the tumor can’t evade it,” he said. “For example, with temozolomide, if it is unmethylated, the tumor can repair the DNA damage from the chemotherapy. Even if you’re sensitive to begin with, over time, the tumor will eventually become resistant.”

The new device stems from work by Dr. Baskin and colleagues on mitochondria, which he describes as the powerhouse of the cell. “Mitochondrial DNA can’t repair itself, so if you damage the mitochondria, you will damage the cell, and theoretically, it cannot repair itself,” he said.

In preclinical models, the oscillating magnetic fields generated by the new device were shown to kill patient-derived glioblastoma cells in cell culture without having cytotoxic effects on cortical neurons and normal human astrocytes. Animal studies also showed that it was effective and nontoxic, explained Dr. Baskin.

However, getting the device to human clinical trials has been slow going. “We wanted to start an early-phase trial for an investigational device, but the FDA is overwhelmed with COVID-related applications,” he said. “That has taken priority, and we understand that. So we were able to evaluate it on a patient through compassionate use via the [Food and Drug Administration]–approved Expanded Access Program.”
 

Exciting possibilities

The patient was a 53-year-old man who had undergone radiotherapy and chemotherapy, and the tumor was progressing. Imaging revealed the presence of leptomeningeal disease, which is associated with a poor outcome and a median survival of 3.5-3.9 months.

The patient was fitted with the helmet device and wore it under supervision for the first 3 days of treatment, during which time the strength of the oscillating magnetic fields was escalated. After this initial supervised phase, the treatment continued at home without supervision, using the same regimen as on the third day.

Treatment was first administered for 2 hours while under supervision and was then gradually increased to a maximum of 6 hours per day. The patient was evaluated clinically on days 7, 16, 30, and 44 after initiation of treatment. No serious adverse events were reported during treatment. The patient’s wife reported subjective improvement in speech and cognitive function.

Dr. Baskin noted that the patient had been experiencing falls for the past year and a half before treatment was initiated. “And then he tripped and fell and sustained a head injury that he subsequently died from,” he said.

Autopsy results confirmed the rapid response to treatment, and tumor shrinkage appeared to correlate with the treatment dose.

“Our results in the laboratory and with this patient open a new world of noninvasive and nontoxic therapy for brain cancer, with many exciting possibilities for the future,” Dr. Baskin commented.

He said his team has experimented with this approach with other tumor types in the laboratory, including triple-negative breast cancer and lung cancer. “We’ve only tried it in a culture so far, but it seems to melt the cancer cells,” he said.

The work was supported by a grant from the Translational Research Initiative of the Houston Methodist Research Institute and several foundations. Dr. Baskin and two coauthors are listed as inventors on a U.S. patent application filed by Houston Methodist Hospital for the device used in this report.

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

A Federal Practitioner Exclusive

Topics Include:

• Asthma
• Traumatic Brain Injury
• Dementia
• Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder
• Pain
• Migraine
• Suicide/Suicide Prevention
• Depression
• Anxiety
• Substance Use Disorder
• Tobacco
• Diabetes/Cardiovascular Disease
• Diabetic Retinopathy
• COVID-19
• Vaccination
• HIV
• Cancer Screening
  
  To read the supplement click on the cover image or here 

A Federal Practitioner Exclusive

Topics Include:

• Asthma
• Traumatic Brain Injury
• Dementia
• Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder
• Pain
• Migraine
• Suicide/Suicide Prevention
• Depression
• Anxiety
• Substance Use Disorder
• Tobacco
• Diabetes/Cardiovascular Disease
• Diabetic Retinopathy
• COVID-19
• Vaccination
• HIV
• Cancer Screening
  
  To read the supplement click on the cover image or here 

A Federal Practitioner Exclusive

Topics Include:

• Asthma
• Traumatic Brain Injury
• Dementia
• Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder
• Pain
• Migraine
• Suicide/Suicide Prevention
• Depression
• Anxiety
• Substance Use Disorder
• Tobacco
• Diabetes/Cardiovascular Disease
• Diabetic Retinopathy
• COVID-19
• Vaccination
• HIV
• Cancer Screening
  
  To read the supplement click on the cover image or here 

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has issued a safety alert regarding an increased risk of death associated with Pepaxto (melphalan flufenamide) used in patients with multiple myeloma participating in the ongoing OCEAN clinical trial.

The drug was granted accelerated approval in February 2021 for use in combination with dexamethasone in the treatment of adults with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who had received at least four prior lines of therapy and whose disease was refractory to at least one proteasome inhibitor, one immunomodulator, and one CD38-directed monoclonal antibody.

As a condition of the accelerated approval, the manufacturer, Oncopeptides, was required to conduct a confirmatory clinical trial and launched the OCEAN trial.

Enrollment in OCEAN as well as other ongoing trials of the drug have now been halted, according to the FDA alert.

The warning comes in the wake of OCEAN trial findings showing worse survival among patients in the experimental group, who were receiving melphalan plus low-dose dexamethasone, compared with patients in the control group, who were receiving pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone (hazard ratio for overall survival, 1.104). Median overall survival in the treatment and control groups was 19.7 and 25.0 months, respectively.

Health care professionals should “review patients’ progress on Pepaxto and discuss the risks of continued administration with each patient in the context of other treatments,” and patients currently receiving the drug should discuss the risks and benefits with their health care professional, the FDA advises. “Patients receiving clinical benefit from Pepaxto may continue treatment in the OCEAN trial provided they are informed of the risks and sign a revised written informed consent.”

The FDA also hinted at “a future public meeting to discuss the safety findings and explore the continued marketing of Pepaxto,” which has a price tag of $19,000 per treatment course.
 

Accelerated approval data

Melphalan flufenamide was initially evaluated in combination with low-dose dexamethasone in the multicenter, single-arm HORIZON trial of adults with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who received at least four prior lines of therapy and whose disease was refractory to at least one proteasome inhibitor, one immunomodulator, and one CD38-directed monoclonal antibody.

Patients received melphalan flufenamide at a dose of 40 mg intravenously on day 1 along with oral dexamethasone at a dose of 40 mg (or 20 mg for those over age 75 years) on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of each 28-day cycle until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

The most common adverse reactions, occurring in at least 20% of patients, were fatigue, nausea, diarrhea, pyrexia, and respiratory tract infection. The most common laboratory abnormalities, occurring in at least 50% of patients, were decreased leukocytes, platelets, lymphocytes, neutrophils, and hemoglobin, and increased creatinine.

Accelerated approval was granted after the HORIZON trial showed an overall response rate of 23.7% and median duration of response of 4.2 months. The application by Oncopeptides received priority review and orphan drug status.
 

Confirmatory trial data

The confirmatory OCEAN trial compared melphalan flufenamide plus low-dose dexamethasone to pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma following 2-4 lines of therapy and in patients who were resistant to lenalidomide in the last line of therapy.

The FDA conducted an efficacy and safety evaluation of the OCEAN trial using a data cutoff date of February 3, 2021. At a median follow-up of 19.1 months, 117 of 246 patients (48%) in the melphalan flufenamide group had died, compared with 108 of 249 patients (43%) in the pomalidomide control group.

“Patient safety is paramount to Oncopeptides,” the company said in a press statement, which also notes that “dialogue with the FDA” is ongoing and that updated information will be provided as it becomes available.

The company plans to submit complete data from the OCEAN study to the International Myeloma Workshop meeting in Vienna being held September 8-11, 2021.

Health care professionals and patients should report adverse events or quality issues experienced with melphalan flufenamide or any other medication to the FDA MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting program, either online or by downloading and completing a reporting form and submitting via fax at 1-800-FDA-0178.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has issued a safety alert regarding an increased risk of death associated with Pepaxto (melphalan flufenamide) used in patients with multiple myeloma participating in the ongoing OCEAN clinical trial.

The drug was granted accelerated approval in February 2021 for use in combination with dexamethasone in the treatment of adults with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who had received at least four prior lines of therapy and whose disease was refractory to at least one proteasome inhibitor, one immunomodulator, and one CD38-directed monoclonal antibody.

As a condition of the accelerated approval, the manufacturer, Oncopeptides, was required to conduct a confirmatory clinical trial and launched the OCEAN trial.

Enrollment in OCEAN as well as other ongoing trials of the drug have now been halted, according to the FDA alert.

The warning comes in the wake of OCEAN trial findings showing worse survival among patients in the experimental group, who were receiving melphalan plus low-dose dexamethasone, compared with patients in the control group, who were receiving pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone (hazard ratio for overall survival, 1.104). Median overall survival in the treatment and control groups was 19.7 and 25.0 months, respectively.

Health care professionals should “review patients’ progress on Pepaxto and discuss the risks of continued administration with each patient in the context of other treatments,” and patients currently receiving the drug should discuss the risks and benefits with their health care professional, the FDA advises. “Patients receiving clinical benefit from Pepaxto may continue treatment in the OCEAN trial provided they are informed of the risks and sign a revised written informed consent.”

The FDA also hinted at “a future public meeting to discuss the safety findings and explore the continued marketing of Pepaxto,” which has a price tag of $19,000 per treatment course.
 

Accelerated approval data

Melphalan flufenamide was initially evaluated in combination with low-dose dexamethasone in the multicenter, single-arm HORIZON trial of adults with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who received at least four prior lines of therapy and whose disease was refractory to at least one proteasome inhibitor, one immunomodulator, and one CD38-directed monoclonal antibody.

Patients received melphalan flufenamide at a dose of 40 mg intravenously on day 1 along with oral dexamethasone at a dose of 40 mg (or 20 mg for those over age 75 years) on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of each 28-day cycle until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

The most common adverse reactions, occurring in at least 20% of patients, were fatigue, nausea, diarrhea, pyrexia, and respiratory tract infection. The most common laboratory abnormalities, occurring in at least 50% of patients, were decreased leukocytes, platelets, lymphocytes, neutrophils, and hemoglobin, and increased creatinine.

Accelerated approval was granted after the HORIZON trial showed an overall response rate of 23.7% and median duration of response of 4.2 months. The application by Oncopeptides received priority review and orphan drug status.
 

Confirmatory trial data

The confirmatory OCEAN trial compared melphalan flufenamide plus low-dose dexamethasone to pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma following 2-4 lines of therapy and in patients who were resistant to lenalidomide in the last line of therapy.

The FDA conducted an efficacy and safety evaluation of the OCEAN trial using a data cutoff date of February 3, 2021. At a median follow-up of 19.1 months, 117 of 246 patients (48%) in the melphalan flufenamide group had died, compared with 108 of 249 patients (43%) in the pomalidomide control group.

“Patient safety is paramount to Oncopeptides,” the company said in a press statement, which also notes that “dialogue with the FDA” is ongoing and that updated information will be provided as it becomes available.

The company plans to submit complete data from the OCEAN study to the International Myeloma Workshop meeting in Vienna being held September 8-11, 2021.

Health care professionals and patients should report adverse events or quality issues experienced with melphalan flufenamide or any other medication to the FDA MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting program, either online or by downloading and completing a reporting form and submitting via fax at 1-800-FDA-0178.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has issued a safety alert regarding an increased risk of death associated with Pepaxto (melphalan flufenamide) used in patients with multiple myeloma participating in the ongoing OCEAN clinical trial.

The drug was granted accelerated approval in February 2021 for use in combination with dexamethasone in the treatment of adults with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who had received at least four prior lines of therapy and whose disease was refractory to at least one proteasome inhibitor, one immunomodulator, and one CD38-directed monoclonal antibody.

As a condition of the accelerated approval, the manufacturer, Oncopeptides, was required to conduct a confirmatory clinical trial and launched the OCEAN trial.

Enrollment in OCEAN as well as other ongoing trials of the drug have now been halted, according to the FDA alert.

The warning comes in the wake of OCEAN trial findings showing worse survival among patients in the experimental group, who were receiving melphalan plus low-dose dexamethasone, compared with patients in the control group, who were receiving pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone (hazard ratio for overall survival, 1.104). Median overall survival in the treatment and control groups was 19.7 and 25.0 months, respectively.

Health care professionals should “review patients’ progress on Pepaxto and discuss the risks of continued administration with each patient in the context of other treatments,” and patients currently receiving the drug should discuss the risks and benefits with their health care professional, the FDA advises. “Patients receiving clinical benefit from Pepaxto may continue treatment in the OCEAN trial provided they are informed of the risks and sign a revised written informed consent.”

The FDA also hinted at “a future public meeting to discuss the safety findings and explore the continued marketing of Pepaxto,” which has a price tag of $19,000 per treatment course.
 

Accelerated approval data

Melphalan flufenamide was initially evaluated in combination with low-dose dexamethasone in the multicenter, single-arm HORIZON trial of adults with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who received at least four prior lines of therapy and whose disease was refractory to at least one proteasome inhibitor, one immunomodulator, and one CD38-directed monoclonal antibody.

Patients received melphalan flufenamide at a dose of 40 mg intravenously on day 1 along with oral dexamethasone at a dose of 40 mg (or 20 mg for those over age 75 years) on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of each 28-day cycle until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

The most common adverse reactions, occurring in at least 20% of patients, were fatigue, nausea, diarrhea, pyrexia, and respiratory tract infection. The most common laboratory abnormalities, occurring in at least 50% of patients, were decreased leukocytes, platelets, lymphocytes, neutrophils, and hemoglobin, and increased creatinine.

Accelerated approval was granted after the HORIZON trial showed an overall response rate of 23.7% and median duration of response of 4.2 months. The application by Oncopeptides received priority review and orphan drug status.
 

Confirmatory trial data

The confirmatory OCEAN trial compared melphalan flufenamide plus low-dose dexamethasone to pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma following 2-4 lines of therapy and in patients who were resistant to lenalidomide in the last line of therapy.

The FDA conducted an efficacy and safety evaluation of the OCEAN trial using a data cutoff date of February 3, 2021. At a median follow-up of 19.1 months, 117 of 246 patients (48%) in the melphalan flufenamide group had died, compared with 108 of 249 patients (43%) in the pomalidomide control group.

“Patient safety is paramount to Oncopeptides,” the company said in a press statement, which also notes that “dialogue with the FDA” is ongoing and that updated information will be provided as it becomes available.

The company plans to submit complete data from the OCEAN study to the International Myeloma Workshop meeting in Vienna being held September 8-11, 2021.

Health care professionals and patients should report adverse events or quality issues experienced with melphalan flufenamide or any other medication to the FDA MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting program, either online or by downloading and completing a reporting form and submitting via fax at 1-800-FDA-0178.

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

Many of the changes to cancer clinical trials forced through by the COVID-19 pandemic should remain, as they have made trials “more patient centered and efficient,” according to a group of thought leaders in oncology.

Among the potential improvements were more efficient study enrollment through secure electronic platforms, direct shipment of oral drugs to patients, remote assessment of adverse events, and streamlined data collection.

These changes should be implemented on a permanent basis, the group argues in a commentary published online July 21, 2021, in Cancer Discovery, a journal of the American Association for Cancer Research.

“The ability to distribute oral investigational drugs by mail to patients at their home has probably been the single most impactful change to clinical trial conduct, linked with virtual visits with patients to assess side effects and symptoms,” commented lead author Keith Flaherty, MD, who is director of clinical research at Massachusetts General Hospital, a professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and a member of the AACR board of directors.

“This has made it more feasible for patients for whom participation in clinical trials poses a disruption of their ability to work or provide care for family members to participate in trials,” he added in a press statement issued by the AACR.
 

Pandemic halted many clinical trials

A survey of cancer programs in early 2020 showed that nearly 60% halted screening and/or enrollment for at least some trials because of COVID-19.

“In the spring of 2020, clinical trial conduct halted and then restarted focusing on the bare minimum procedures that first allowed patients continued access to their experimental therapies, and then allowed clinical trial sites and sponsors to collect information on the effects of the therapies,” the authors said.

“The COVID-19–induced changes to clinical trials were a big challenge, probably the largest change in clinical trial conduct since the start of modern oncology clinical testing,” they commented.

“But it also represents an opportunity to rethink the key aspects of clinical trial conduct that are strictly necessary to reach the goal of testing the effectiveness of cancer therapies, and which others are dispensable or provide only minor additional contributions,” they added.

As previously reported at the time by this news organization, efforts to find alternative approaches to conducting trials amid the pandemic led to the emergence of a few “silver linings.”

Key adaptations made to clinical trials and highlighted by the authors include:

• Uptake of remote consenting and telemedicine
• Use of alternative laboratories and imaging centers
• Delivery or administration of investigational drugs at patients’ homes or local clinics
• Commercial attainment of study drugs already approved for other indications

Indeed, the restrictions encountered during the pandemic underscore the importance of designing patient-centered trials versus study site–centered trials, added Antoni Ribas, MD, commentary coauthor and immediate past president of the AACR.

Many of the changes implemented during the pandemic could help increase access for patients living in underserved communities who are underrepresented in clinical trials, he explained.
 

Harnessing the lessons learned

The authors also recommended the following additional adaptations, which they believe will enhance efficiency and further expand access to clinical trials:

• Incorporating patient-reported outcomes and alternative endpoints in efficacy assessments
• Aiming for 100% remote drug infusions and monitoring
• Increasing funding for clinical trials conducted in underserved communities
• Expanding clinical trial eligibility to include patients with a wide range of comorbidities
• Reducing collection of low-grade adverse events and allowing minor protocol deviations

The group’s recommendations are based on discussions by the AACR COVID-19 and Cancer Task Force, in which they participated.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology is also working to leverage pandemic-related lessons to streamline care and trial planning.

ASCO’s “Road to Recovery” recommendations, published in December 2020, aim to “ensure lessons learned from the COVID-19 experience are used to craft a more equitable, accessible, and efficient clinical research system that protects patient safety, ensures scientific integrity, and maintains data quality,” the authors explained.

Dr. Flaherty and colleagues further underscore the importance of focusing on improvements going forward.

“Guided by lessons learned, many of the remote assessments and trial efficiencies deployed during the pandemic can be preserved and improved upon. We strongly encourage use of these streamlined procedures where appropriate in future prospectively designed cancer clinical trials,” they wrote.

Dr. Flaherty reported receiving personal fees from numerous pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Ribas reported receiving grants from Agilent and Bristol Myers Squibb.

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

Many of the changes to cancer clinical trials forced through by the COVID-19 pandemic should remain, as they have made trials “more patient centered and efficient,” according to a group of thought leaders in oncology.

Among the potential improvements were more efficient study enrollment through secure electronic platforms, direct shipment of oral drugs to patients, remote assessment of adverse events, and streamlined data collection.

These changes should be implemented on a permanent basis, the group argues in a commentary published online July 21, 2021, in Cancer Discovery, a journal of the American Association for Cancer Research.

“The ability to distribute oral investigational drugs by mail to patients at their home has probably been the single most impactful change to clinical trial conduct, linked with virtual visits with patients to assess side effects and symptoms,” commented lead author Keith Flaherty, MD, who is director of clinical research at Massachusetts General Hospital, a professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and a member of the AACR board of directors.

“This has made it more feasible for patients for whom participation in clinical trials poses a disruption of their ability to work or provide care for family members to participate in trials,” he added in a press statement issued by the AACR.
 

Pandemic halted many clinical trials

A survey of cancer programs in early 2020 showed that nearly 60% halted screening and/or enrollment for at least some trials because of COVID-19.

“In the spring of 2020, clinical trial conduct halted and then restarted focusing on the bare minimum procedures that first allowed patients continued access to their experimental therapies, and then allowed clinical trial sites and sponsors to collect information on the effects of the therapies,” the authors said.

“The COVID-19–induced changes to clinical trials were a big challenge, probably the largest change in clinical trial conduct since the start of modern oncology clinical testing,” they commented.

“But it also represents an opportunity to rethink the key aspects of clinical trial conduct that are strictly necessary to reach the goal of testing the effectiveness of cancer therapies, and which others are dispensable or provide only minor additional contributions,” they added.

As previously reported at the time by this news organization, efforts to find alternative approaches to conducting trials amid the pandemic led to the emergence of a few “silver linings.”

Key adaptations made to clinical trials and highlighted by the authors include:

• Uptake of remote consenting and telemedicine
• Use of alternative laboratories and imaging centers
• Delivery or administration of investigational drugs at patients’ homes or local clinics
• Commercial attainment of study drugs already approved for other indications

Indeed, the restrictions encountered during the pandemic underscore the importance of designing patient-centered trials versus study site–centered trials, added Antoni Ribas, MD, commentary coauthor and immediate past president of the AACR.

Many of the changes implemented during the pandemic could help increase access for patients living in underserved communities who are underrepresented in clinical trials, he explained.
 

Harnessing the lessons learned

The authors also recommended the following additional adaptations, which they believe will enhance efficiency and further expand access to clinical trials:

• Incorporating patient-reported outcomes and alternative endpoints in efficacy assessments
• Aiming for 100% remote drug infusions and monitoring
• Increasing funding for clinical trials conducted in underserved communities
• Expanding clinical trial eligibility to include patients with a wide range of comorbidities
• Reducing collection of low-grade adverse events and allowing minor protocol deviations

The group’s recommendations are based on discussions by the AACR COVID-19 and Cancer Task Force, in which they participated.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology is also working to leverage pandemic-related lessons to streamline care and trial planning.

ASCO’s “Road to Recovery” recommendations, published in December 2020, aim to “ensure lessons learned from the COVID-19 experience are used to craft a more equitable, accessible, and efficient clinical research system that protects patient safety, ensures scientific integrity, and maintains data quality,” the authors explained.

Dr. Flaherty and colleagues further underscore the importance of focusing on improvements going forward.

“Guided by lessons learned, many of the remote assessments and trial efficiencies deployed during the pandemic can be preserved and improved upon. We strongly encourage use of these streamlined procedures where appropriate in future prospectively designed cancer clinical trials,” they wrote.

Dr. Flaherty reported receiving personal fees from numerous pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Ribas reported receiving grants from Agilent and Bristol Myers Squibb.

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

Many of the changes to cancer clinical trials forced through by the COVID-19 pandemic should remain, as they have made trials “more patient centered and efficient,” according to a group of thought leaders in oncology.

Among the potential improvements were more efficient study enrollment through secure electronic platforms, direct shipment of oral drugs to patients, remote assessment of adverse events, and streamlined data collection.

These changes should be implemented on a permanent basis, the group argues in a commentary published online July 21, 2021, in Cancer Discovery, a journal of the American Association for Cancer Research.

“The ability to distribute oral investigational drugs by mail to patients at their home has probably been the single most impactful change to clinical trial conduct, linked with virtual visits with patients to assess side effects and symptoms,” commented lead author Keith Flaherty, MD, who is director of clinical research at Massachusetts General Hospital, a professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and a member of the AACR board of directors.

“This has made it more feasible for patients for whom participation in clinical trials poses a disruption of their ability to work or provide care for family members to participate in trials,” he added in a press statement issued by the AACR.
 

Pandemic halted many clinical trials

A survey of cancer programs in early 2020 showed that nearly 60% halted screening and/or enrollment for at least some trials because of COVID-19.

“In the spring of 2020, clinical trial conduct halted and then restarted focusing on the bare minimum procedures that first allowed patients continued access to their experimental therapies, and then allowed clinical trial sites and sponsors to collect information on the effects of the therapies,” the authors said.

“The COVID-19–induced changes to clinical trials were a big challenge, probably the largest change in clinical trial conduct since the start of modern oncology clinical testing,” they commented.

“But it also represents an opportunity to rethink the key aspects of clinical trial conduct that are strictly necessary to reach the goal of testing the effectiveness of cancer therapies, and which others are dispensable or provide only minor additional contributions,” they added.

As previously reported at the time by this news organization, efforts to find alternative approaches to conducting trials amid the pandemic led to the emergence of a few “silver linings.”

Key adaptations made to clinical trials and highlighted by the authors include:

• Uptake of remote consenting and telemedicine
• Use of alternative laboratories and imaging centers
• Delivery or administration of investigational drugs at patients’ homes or local clinics
• Commercial attainment of study drugs already approved for other indications

Indeed, the restrictions encountered during the pandemic underscore the importance of designing patient-centered trials versus study site–centered trials, added Antoni Ribas, MD, commentary coauthor and immediate past president of the AACR.

Many of the changes implemented during the pandemic could help increase access for patients living in underserved communities who are underrepresented in clinical trials, he explained.
 

Harnessing the lessons learned

The authors also recommended the following additional adaptations, which they believe will enhance efficiency and further expand access to clinical trials:

• Incorporating patient-reported outcomes and alternative endpoints in efficacy assessments
• Aiming for 100% remote drug infusions and monitoring
• Increasing funding for clinical trials conducted in underserved communities
• Expanding clinical trial eligibility to include patients with a wide range of comorbidities
• Reducing collection of low-grade adverse events and allowing minor protocol deviations

The group’s recommendations are based on discussions by the AACR COVID-19 and Cancer Task Force, in which they participated.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology is also working to leverage pandemic-related lessons to streamline care and trial planning.

ASCO’s “Road to Recovery” recommendations, published in December 2020, aim to “ensure lessons learned from the COVID-19 experience are used to craft a more equitable, accessible, and efficient clinical research system that protects patient safety, ensures scientific integrity, and maintains data quality,” the authors explained.

Dr. Flaherty and colleagues further underscore the importance of focusing on improvements going forward.

“Guided by lessons learned, many of the remote assessments and trial efficiencies deployed during the pandemic can be preserved and improved upon. We strongly encourage use of these streamlined procedures where appropriate in future prospectively designed cancer clinical trials,” they wrote.

Dr. Flaherty reported receiving personal fees from numerous pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Ribas reported receiving grants from Agilent and Bristol Myers Squibb.

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

Clinical trials underway across the United States are exploring the use of robotic surgical devices for nipple-sparing mastectomy, but are either not collecting cancer outcomes or not doing so as a primary measure – despite a stiff warning from the Food and Drug Administration that those outcomes are important.

The FDA warning was issued in February 2019 to both the public and physicians. The FDA cautioned that the safety and effectiveness of robotic surgical devices for mastectomy “have not been established” and robots are not approved for the prevention or treatment of breast cancer.

The agency also noted that “diminished long-term survival” was associated with robotic surgery in another women’s cancer, that of hysterectomy for cervical cancer.

The FDA also made a surprising statement. The agency typically approves the robot for surgical use based on 30-day complication rates (compared with standards of care). But it said that going forward it “anticipates” that any evaluation of new use of robots in cancer “would be supported” by cancer outcomes such as progression-free survival and overall survival, which require much longer follow-up.

In short, the FDA hinted that it would change how it regulated medical devices, or at least robots used in women’s cancers. “The FDA takes women’s health very seriously,” said the organization.

Fast forward to 2021, and there are several prospective clinical trials of robot-assisted nipple-sparing mastectomy underway in the United States, including a five-center study sponsored by Intuitive Surgical, the maker of da Vinci robots, the dominant machine on the market. There are also single-center studies at Ohio State and University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center.

However, in each case, the study design either excludes cancer outcomes or does not primarily focus on those measures.

Instead, the primary outcomes are relatively short term and include safety and efficacy measures such as en bloc (in one piece) removal of the breast tissue, conversions to open mastectomy, and the incidence of adverse events during surgery and up to 6 weeks after surgery.

Importantly, none of the studies is a randomized trial; all have single arms.

That’s not what is needed, says breast surgeon Julie A. Margenthaler, MD of Washington University in St. Louis.

“I firmly believe that robotic-assisted mastectomy should only be considered in the context of a well-designed, randomized trial evaluating patient selection, patient safety, surgical complications, and oncologic outcomes with a concomitant cost analysis,” Dr. Margenthaler wrote in an essay published last year in JAMA Surgery.

As with the FDA warning, she cites worse survival with commonly used minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer, saying it “is a stark reminder that the marketing of robotic surgery has its roots in cosmesis and convenience rather than oncologic outcomes.”

In addition, robotic surgery is prohibitively expensive, said Dr. Margenthaler. In fact, cost is her “main criticism regarding robotic-assisted mastectomy.” It costs an additional $6,000 for robot use per procedure, according to a study conducted at a center in Taiwan. “I simply cannot be convinced that this will ever achieve cost-effective or even cost-neutral status,” Dr. Margenthaler wrote.
 

Not looking at the right outcomes

“They’re not looking at the right outcomes,” said Hooman Noorchashm, MD, PhD, about the current trials in the United States. He is a former surgeon and faculty member at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, and is now a patient advocate after his wife, Amy Reed, MD, died of uterine cancer in 2017 following a laparoscopic hysterectomy performed with a power morcellator that resulted in the upstaging of an undetected gynecologic cancer.

“You have to look at oncologic outcomes and do randomized, noninferiority trials to demonstrate that those cancer outcomes are at least equivalent to standard of care,” he said in an interview.

The current U.S. trials are “totally inappropriate,” he said.

Are randomized trials forthcoming after this initial set of single-arm trials? This news organization reached out to Intuitive Surgical, maker of the market leader da Vinci robotic surgical equipment to find out.  

“Any plans for use of da Vinci Xi surgical system in nipple-sparing mastectomy will be based on these [single-arm] study results as well as other data and evidence,” said a company spokesperson, who did not confirm use of a randomized trial.

What about the FDA? Will the agency change its current approach to approving robots in surgeries for women’s cancers and require – not just anticipate – cancer-related outcomes data? At press time, the FDA did not respond to a request for comment.  

Not having a randomized trial with cancer outcomes in any eventual FDA review opens the door for robotic mastectomy to be cleared for use in some mastectomies with short-term, nononcologic data, said Dr. Noorchashm.
 

Safety concerns with robotic mastectomy

Proponents of robot-assisted nipple-sparing mastectomy, which is coupled with reconstruction to preserve the shape of both the breast and nipple-areola area, suggest that improved patient cosmesis is a significant advantage with the high-tech intervention, said Dr. Margenthaler.

That’s because most robotic mastectomies performed to date (almost exclusively in Europe and Asia) have employed a 3- to 5-cm vertical incision located behind the lateral breast fold, allowing the scar to be hidden under the patient’s arm.

But therein also lies a safety concern, she asserted.

The “oncologic integrity” of the specimen on extraction is in question in some cases, she wrote, because of “such a small opening.”

Dr. Noorchashm agreed: “It all comes down to trying to get a large specimen out of a small incision.”

Traditional open mastectomy optimally yields the en bloc removal of a tumor – in one whole piece – to avoid fragmenting the cancerous tissue and possibly leaving residual disease behind. These undesirable events are associated with a higher risk for recurrence and treatment failure, he explained.

Thus, there is a need for a randomized trial with longer-term oncologic outcomes that compares the new approach with traditional open mastectomy, argued both Dr. Margenthaler and Dr. Noorchashm.
 

In defense of single-arm trials

“Oncologic safety is what we are concerned about and what we would like to study,” said Ko Un (Clara) Park, MD, a breast surgeon at The Ohio State University in Columbus.

Dr. Park is leading a single-center, single-arm pilot study of robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy enrolling up to 20 women with early-stage breast cancer or inherited genetic risk factors (but no cancer diagnosis). The trial, sponsored by a Pelotonia Idea Grant and Ohio State, recently enrolled its first patient.

The study’s primary outcomes include the feasibility of removal of the breast tissue en bloc; however, none of the outcomes are classic oncologic metrics such as progression-free survival.

The en bloc removal outcome is in direct response to the FDA’s concerns about minimally invasive cancer surgeries in women, Dr. Park said in an interview. The pilot trial has an investigational device exemption (IDE) granted by the FDA.

“The reason why we can’t just open a randomized controlled study (of robot versus open) and measure oncologic outcomes like recurrence-free survival is because, before we get to that point, we have to make sure” basic safety issues are addressed and established, she explained.

But Dr. Noorchashm said that argument is missing the larger, more important point: “They are still doing an oncologic procedure – you are still obliged to do noninferiority [randomized] testing with respect to cancer outcomes.”

Dr. Park sounded a different note: “We are doing it as safely as we can do it.”
 

Prophylactic use is also a cancer surgery

Intuitive’s five-center trial does not include en bloc removal of the breast gland as a primary outcome. Instead, the two primary outcomes are conversions to open mastectomy (efficacy measure) and the incidence of adverse events during surgery to 42 days after surgery (safety measure).

The company’s trial does not include any women with breast cancer, but is limited to women at increased risk for breast cancer and seeking prophylactic nipple-sparing mastectomy surgery.

Enrollment in the 145-patient single-arm trial began in the last few months and has a primary completion date of December 2022. It also has an IDE from the FDA.

“I do think that things like this need to be done with caution,” said Katherine Kopkash, MD, an investigator in the Intuitive trial and a breast surgeon at NorthShore University HealthSystem in Evanston, Ill., referring to the trial’s FDA exemption.  

Dr. Kopkash said in an interview that the researchers in the multisite, single-arm Intuitive trial will also track oncologic outcomes, but the trial description at clinicaltrials.gov does not indicate that.

Both Dr. Kopkash and Dr. Park cited the high-profile missteps that took place in 2018 at Monmouth County Medical Center in Long Branch, N.J., during what was described as the first-ever use of robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy for invasive cancer in the United States, as reported by Medscape Medical News. However, neither the center or surgeon, Stephen Chagares, MD, requested or received an IDE from the FDA, and use of robotic mastectomy was halted after two cases.

It’s conceivable that Intuitive will seek out FDA clearance for use of its da Vinci system in robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy with data in a prophylactic setting and then expand the pool of patients, argued Dr. Noorchashm.

“Even if you introduce a new technology ... for a narrow subset of patients, the application of it eventually occurs on a ‘sliding scale,’ ” he said.

The former surgeon gave an example: The first device used in gastric bypass surgery was cleared for use in 2001 by the FDA for adults who were “severely morbidly obese.” But by the late 2000s, the operation was also being performed on people with lower body mass indexes who hadn’t exhausted traditional weight loss procedures. “It was very lucrative,” Dr. Noorchashm said about the surgery.
 

Surgeons only get one body

Intuitive has been hugely successful in developing and marketing its da Vinci system around the world for general and oncologic surgeries, with more than 1 million surgeries in 2018, a greater than sevenfold increase in 10 years, according to the authors of a new essay published in the June issue of the Annals of Surgery. The authors include breast surgeon Rosa F. Hwang, MD, of MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, who is also an investigator for the Intuitive trial.

However, robotic mastectomy is still a new surgery – only about 150 patients have been treated in the world, mostly in Italy, France, Taiwan, and Korea, the authors noted.

Despite such small numbers, “there’s a lot of interest in bringing this to the United States,” said Dr. Park.

One of the arguments in favor of robotic mastectomy for nipple-sparing procedures has nothing to do with patients. Instead, it is improved ergonomics – the robot makes a tough surgery easier on the surgeon.

Even stalwart robot critic Dr. Margenthaler conceded that this was possibly a winning feature.

“Nipple-sparing mastectomy is a very physically demanding procedure for the surgeon, resulting in higher rates of neck and back pain and fatigue compared with a standard skin-sparing approach,” she noted. She suggested, however, that practitioners of traditional mastectomy ought to first experiment with changes to patient positioning and incision placement to alleviate stress before looking to the robot for change.

When this news organization interviewed NorthShore University’s Dr. Kopkash, she had conducted four nipple-sparing mastectomies in the previous week. “It’s a difficult procedure on our bodies. I just turned 40 and I’m considered young for a surgeon. We get one body for our career and we have to figure out ways to make it work and protect it.”

Intuitive Surgical is funding the five-center clinical trial of robot-assisted nipple-sparing mastectomy, and UT Southwestern is funding its own trial. The Ohio State trial is funded by the university and a Pelotonia Idea Grant. Dr. Noorchashm and Dr. Margenthaler have no relevant financial disclosures.

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

Clinical trials underway across the United States are exploring the use of robotic surgical devices for nipple-sparing mastectomy, but are either not collecting cancer outcomes or not doing so as a primary measure – despite a stiff warning from the Food and Drug Administration that those outcomes are important.

The FDA warning was issued in February 2019 to both the public and physicians. The FDA cautioned that the safety and effectiveness of robotic surgical devices for mastectomy “have not been established” and robots are not approved for the prevention or treatment of breast cancer.

The agency also noted that “diminished long-term survival” was associated with robotic surgery in another women’s cancer, that of hysterectomy for cervical cancer.

The FDA also made a surprising statement. The agency typically approves the robot for surgical use based on 30-day complication rates (compared with standards of care). But it said that going forward it “anticipates” that any evaluation of new use of robots in cancer “would be supported” by cancer outcomes such as progression-free survival and overall survival, which require much longer follow-up.

In short, the FDA hinted that it would change how it regulated medical devices, or at least robots used in women’s cancers. “The FDA takes women’s health very seriously,” said the organization.

Fast forward to 2021, and there are several prospective clinical trials of robot-assisted nipple-sparing mastectomy underway in the United States, including a five-center study sponsored by Intuitive Surgical, the maker of da Vinci robots, the dominant machine on the market. There are also single-center studies at Ohio State and University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center.

However, in each case, the study design either excludes cancer outcomes or does not primarily focus on those measures.

Instead, the primary outcomes are relatively short term and include safety and efficacy measures such as en bloc (in one piece) removal of the breast tissue, conversions to open mastectomy, and the incidence of adverse events during surgery and up to 6 weeks after surgery.

Importantly, none of the studies is a randomized trial; all have single arms.

That’s not what is needed, says breast surgeon Julie A. Margenthaler, MD of Washington University in St. Louis.

“I firmly believe that robotic-assisted mastectomy should only be considered in the context of a well-designed, randomized trial evaluating patient selection, patient safety, surgical complications, and oncologic outcomes with a concomitant cost analysis,” Dr. Margenthaler wrote in an essay published last year in JAMA Surgery.

As with the FDA warning, she cites worse survival with commonly used minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer, saying it “is a stark reminder that the marketing of robotic surgery has its roots in cosmesis and convenience rather than oncologic outcomes.”

In addition, robotic surgery is prohibitively expensive, said Dr. Margenthaler. In fact, cost is her “main criticism regarding robotic-assisted mastectomy.” It costs an additional $6,000 for robot use per procedure, according to a study conducted at a center in Taiwan. “I simply cannot be convinced that this will ever achieve cost-effective or even cost-neutral status,” Dr. Margenthaler wrote.
 

Not looking at the right outcomes

“They’re not looking at the right outcomes,” said Hooman Noorchashm, MD, PhD, about the current trials in the United States. He is a former surgeon and faculty member at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, and is now a patient advocate after his wife, Amy Reed, MD, died of uterine cancer in 2017 following a laparoscopic hysterectomy performed with a power morcellator that resulted in the upstaging of an undetected gynecologic cancer.

“You have to look at oncologic outcomes and do randomized, noninferiority trials to demonstrate that those cancer outcomes are at least equivalent to standard of care,” he said in an interview.

The current U.S. trials are “totally inappropriate,” he said.

Are randomized trials forthcoming after this initial set of single-arm trials? This news organization reached out to Intuitive Surgical, maker of the market leader da Vinci robotic surgical equipment to find out.  

“Any plans for use of da Vinci Xi surgical system in nipple-sparing mastectomy will be based on these [single-arm] study results as well as other data and evidence,” said a company spokesperson, who did not confirm use of a randomized trial.

What about the FDA? Will the agency change its current approach to approving robots in surgeries for women’s cancers and require – not just anticipate – cancer-related outcomes data? At press time, the FDA did not respond to a request for comment.  

Not having a randomized trial with cancer outcomes in any eventual FDA review opens the door for robotic mastectomy to be cleared for use in some mastectomies with short-term, nononcologic data, said Dr. Noorchashm.
 

Safety concerns with robotic mastectomy

Proponents of robot-assisted nipple-sparing mastectomy, which is coupled with reconstruction to preserve the shape of both the breast and nipple-areola area, suggest that improved patient cosmesis is a significant advantage with the high-tech intervention, said Dr. Margenthaler.

That’s because most robotic mastectomies performed to date (almost exclusively in Europe and Asia) have employed a 3- to 5-cm vertical incision located behind the lateral breast fold, allowing the scar to be hidden under the patient’s arm.

But therein also lies a safety concern, she asserted.

The “oncologic integrity” of the specimen on extraction is in question in some cases, she wrote, because of “such a small opening.”

Dr. Noorchashm agreed: “It all comes down to trying to get a large specimen out of a small incision.”

Traditional open mastectomy optimally yields the en bloc removal of a tumor – in one whole piece – to avoid fragmenting the cancerous tissue and possibly leaving residual disease behind. These undesirable events are associated with a higher risk for recurrence and treatment failure, he explained.

Thus, there is a need for a randomized trial with longer-term oncologic outcomes that compares the new approach with traditional open mastectomy, argued both Dr. Margenthaler and Dr. Noorchashm.
 

In defense of single-arm trials

“Oncologic safety is what we are concerned about and what we would like to study,” said Ko Un (Clara) Park, MD, a breast surgeon at The Ohio State University in Columbus.

Dr. Park is leading a single-center, single-arm pilot study of robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy enrolling up to 20 women with early-stage breast cancer or inherited genetic risk factors (but no cancer diagnosis). The trial, sponsored by a Pelotonia Idea Grant and Ohio State, recently enrolled its first patient.

The study’s primary outcomes include the feasibility of removal of the breast tissue en bloc; however, none of the outcomes are classic oncologic metrics such as progression-free survival.

The en bloc removal outcome is in direct response to the FDA’s concerns about minimally invasive cancer surgeries in women, Dr. Park said in an interview. The pilot trial has an investigational device exemption (IDE) granted by the FDA.

“The reason why we can’t just open a randomized controlled study (of robot versus open) and measure oncologic outcomes like recurrence-free survival is because, before we get to that point, we have to make sure” basic safety issues are addressed and established, she explained.

But Dr. Noorchashm said that argument is missing the larger, more important point: “They are still doing an oncologic procedure – you are still obliged to do noninferiority [randomized] testing with respect to cancer outcomes.”

Dr. Park sounded a different note: “We are doing it as safely as we can do it.”
 

Prophylactic use is also a cancer surgery

Intuitive’s five-center trial does not include en bloc removal of the breast gland as a primary outcome. Instead, the two primary outcomes are conversions to open mastectomy (efficacy measure) and the incidence of adverse events during surgery to 42 days after surgery (safety measure).

The company’s trial does not include any women with breast cancer, but is limited to women at increased risk for breast cancer and seeking prophylactic nipple-sparing mastectomy surgery.

Enrollment in the 145-patient single-arm trial began in the last few months and has a primary completion date of December 2022. It also has an IDE from the FDA.

“I do think that things like this need to be done with caution,” said Katherine Kopkash, MD, an investigator in the Intuitive trial and a breast surgeon at NorthShore University HealthSystem in Evanston, Ill., referring to the trial’s FDA exemption.  

Dr. Kopkash said in an interview that the researchers in the multisite, single-arm Intuitive trial will also track oncologic outcomes, but the trial description at clinicaltrials.gov does not indicate that.

Both Dr. Kopkash and Dr. Park cited the high-profile missteps that took place in 2018 at Monmouth County Medical Center in Long Branch, N.J., during what was described as the first-ever use of robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy for invasive cancer in the United States, as reported by Medscape Medical News. However, neither the center or surgeon, Stephen Chagares, MD, requested or received an IDE from the FDA, and use of robotic mastectomy was halted after two cases.

It’s conceivable that Intuitive will seek out FDA clearance for use of its da Vinci system in robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy with data in a prophylactic setting and then expand the pool of patients, argued Dr. Noorchashm.

“Even if you introduce a new technology ... for a narrow subset of patients, the application of it eventually occurs on a ‘sliding scale,’ ” he said.

The former surgeon gave an example: The first device used in gastric bypass surgery was cleared for use in 2001 by the FDA for adults who were “severely morbidly obese.” But by the late 2000s, the operation was also being performed on people with lower body mass indexes who hadn’t exhausted traditional weight loss procedures. “It was very lucrative,” Dr. Noorchashm said about the surgery.
 

Surgeons only get one body

Intuitive has been hugely successful in developing and marketing its da Vinci system around the world for general and oncologic surgeries, with more than 1 million surgeries in 2018, a greater than sevenfold increase in 10 years, according to the authors of a new essay published in the June issue of the Annals of Surgery. The authors include breast surgeon Rosa F. Hwang, MD, of MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, who is also an investigator for the Intuitive trial.

However, robotic mastectomy is still a new surgery – only about 150 patients have been treated in the world, mostly in Italy, France, Taiwan, and Korea, the authors noted.

Despite such small numbers, “there’s a lot of interest in bringing this to the United States,” said Dr. Park.

One of the arguments in favor of robotic mastectomy for nipple-sparing procedures has nothing to do with patients. Instead, it is improved ergonomics – the robot makes a tough surgery easier on the surgeon.

Even stalwart robot critic Dr. Margenthaler conceded that this was possibly a winning feature.

“Nipple-sparing mastectomy is a very physically demanding procedure for the surgeon, resulting in higher rates of neck and back pain and fatigue compared with a standard skin-sparing approach,” she noted. She suggested, however, that practitioners of traditional mastectomy ought to first experiment with changes to patient positioning and incision placement to alleviate stress before looking to the robot for change.

When this news organization interviewed NorthShore University’s Dr. Kopkash, she had conducted four nipple-sparing mastectomies in the previous week. “It’s a difficult procedure on our bodies. I just turned 40 and I’m considered young for a surgeon. We get one body for our career and we have to figure out ways to make it work and protect it.”

Intuitive Surgical is funding the five-center clinical trial of robot-assisted nipple-sparing mastectomy, and UT Southwestern is funding its own trial. The Ohio State trial is funded by the university and a Pelotonia Idea Grant. Dr. Noorchashm and Dr. Margenthaler have no relevant financial disclosures.

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

Clinical trials underway across the United States are exploring the use of robotic surgical devices for nipple-sparing mastectomy, but are either not collecting cancer outcomes or not doing so as a primary measure – despite a stiff warning from the Food and Drug Administration that those outcomes are important.

The FDA warning was issued in February 2019 to both the public and physicians. The FDA cautioned that the safety and effectiveness of robotic surgical devices for mastectomy “have not been established” and robots are not approved for the prevention or treatment of breast cancer.

The agency also noted that “diminished long-term survival” was associated with robotic surgery in another women’s cancer, that of hysterectomy for cervical cancer.

The FDA also made a surprising statement. The agency typically approves the robot for surgical use based on 30-day complication rates (compared with standards of care). But it said that going forward it “anticipates” that any evaluation of new use of robots in cancer “would be supported” by cancer outcomes such as progression-free survival and overall survival, which require much longer follow-up.

In short, the FDA hinted that it would change how it regulated medical devices, or at least robots used in women’s cancers. “The FDA takes women’s health very seriously,” said the organization.

Fast forward to 2021, and there are several prospective clinical trials of robot-assisted nipple-sparing mastectomy underway in the United States, including a five-center study sponsored by Intuitive Surgical, the maker of da Vinci robots, the dominant machine on the market. There are also single-center studies at Ohio State and University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center.

However, in each case, the study design either excludes cancer outcomes or does not primarily focus on those measures.

Instead, the primary outcomes are relatively short term and include safety and efficacy measures such as en bloc (in one piece) removal of the breast tissue, conversions to open mastectomy, and the incidence of adverse events during surgery and up to 6 weeks after surgery.

Importantly, none of the studies is a randomized trial; all have single arms.

That’s not what is needed, says breast surgeon Julie A. Margenthaler, MD of Washington University in St. Louis.

“I firmly believe that robotic-assisted mastectomy should only be considered in the context of a well-designed, randomized trial evaluating patient selection, patient safety, surgical complications, and oncologic outcomes with a concomitant cost analysis,” Dr. Margenthaler wrote in an essay published last year in JAMA Surgery.

As with the FDA warning, she cites worse survival with commonly used minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer, saying it “is a stark reminder that the marketing of robotic surgery has its roots in cosmesis and convenience rather than oncologic outcomes.”

In addition, robotic surgery is prohibitively expensive, said Dr. Margenthaler. In fact, cost is her “main criticism regarding robotic-assisted mastectomy.” It costs an additional $6,000 for robot use per procedure, according to a study conducted at a center in Taiwan. “I simply cannot be convinced that this will ever achieve cost-effective or even cost-neutral status,” Dr. Margenthaler wrote.
 

Not looking at the right outcomes

“They’re not looking at the right outcomes,” said Hooman Noorchashm, MD, PhD, about the current trials in the United States. He is a former surgeon and faculty member at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, and is now a patient advocate after his wife, Amy Reed, MD, died of uterine cancer in 2017 following a laparoscopic hysterectomy performed with a power morcellator that resulted in the upstaging of an undetected gynecologic cancer.

“You have to look at oncologic outcomes and do randomized, noninferiority trials to demonstrate that those cancer outcomes are at least equivalent to standard of care,” he said in an interview.

The current U.S. trials are “totally inappropriate,” he said.

Are randomized trials forthcoming after this initial set of single-arm trials? This news organization reached out to Intuitive Surgical, maker of the market leader da Vinci robotic surgical equipment to find out.  

“Any plans for use of da Vinci Xi surgical system in nipple-sparing mastectomy will be based on these [single-arm] study results as well as other data and evidence,” said a company spokesperson, who did not confirm use of a randomized trial.

What about the FDA? Will the agency change its current approach to approving robots in surgeries for women’s cancers and require – not just anticipate – cancer-related outcomes data? At press time, the FDA did not respond to a request for comment.  

Not having a randomized trial with cancer outcomes in any eventual FDA review opens the door for robotic mastectomy to be cleared for use in some mastectomies with short-term, nononcologic data, said Dr. Noorchashm.
 

Safety concerns with robotic mastectomy

Proponents of robot-assisted nipple-sparing mastectomy, which is coupled with reconstruction to preserve the shape of both the breast and nipple-areola area, suggest that improved patient cosmesis is a significant advantage with the high-tech intervention, said Dr. Margenthaler.

That’s because most robotic mastectomies performed to date (almost exclusively in Europe and Asia) have employed a 3- to 5-cm vertical incision located behind the lateral breast fold, allowing the scar to be hidden under the patient’s arm.

But therein also lies a safety concern, she asserted.

The “oncologic integrity” of the specimen on extraction is in question in some cases, she wrote, because of “such a small opening.”

Dr. Noorchashm agreed: “It all comes down to trying to get a large specimen out of a small incision.”

Traditional open mastectomy optimally yields the en bloc removal of a tumor – in one whole piece – to avoid fragmenting the cancerous tissue and possibly leaving residual disease behind. These undesirable events are associated with a higher risk for recurrence and treatment failure, he explained.

Thus, there is a need for a randomized trial with longer-term oncologic outcomes that compares the new approach with traditional open mastectomy, argued both Dr. Margenthaler and Dr. Noorchashm.
 

In defense of single-arm trials

“Oncologic safety is what we are concerned about and what we would like to study,” said Ko Un (Clara) Park, MD, a breast surgeon at The Ohio State University in Columbus.

Dr. Park is leading a single-center, single-arm pilot study of robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy enrolling up to 20 women with early-stage breast cancer or inherited genetic risk factors (but no cancer diagnosis). The trial, sponsored by a Pelotonia Idea Grant and Ohio State, recently enrolled its first patient.

The study’s primary outcomes include the feasibility of removal of the breast tissue en bloc; however, none of the outcomes are classic oncologic metrics such as progression-free survival.

The en bloc removal outcome is in direct response to the FDA’s concerns about minimally invasive cancer surgeries in women, Dr. Park said in an interview. The pilot trial has an investigational device exemption (IDE) granted by the FDA.

“The reason why we can’t just open a randomized controlled study (of robot versus open) and measure oncologic outcomes like recurrence-free survival is because, before we get to that point, we have to make sure” basic safety issues are addressed and established, she explained.

But Dr. Noorchashm said that argument is missing the larger, more important point: “They are still doing an oncologic procedure – you are still obliged to do noninferiority [randomized] testing with respect to cancer outcomes.”

Dr. Park sounded a different note: “We are doing it as safely as we can do it.”
 

Prophylactic use is also a cancer surgery

Intuitive’s five-center trial does not include en bloc removal of the breast gland as a primary outcome. Instead, the two primary outcomes are conversions to open mastectomy (efficacy measure) and the incidence of adverse events during surgery to 42 days after surgery (safety measure).

The company’s trial does not include any women with breast cancer, but is limited to women at increased risk for breast cancer and seeking prophylactic nipple-sparing mastectomy surgery.

Enrollment in the 145-patient single-arm trial began in the last few months and has a primary completion date of December 2022. It also has an IDE from the FDA.

“I do think that things like this need to be done with caution,” said Katherine Kopkash, MD, an investigator in the Intuitive trial and a breast surgeon at NorthShore University HealthSystem in Evanston, Ill., referring to the trial’s FDA exemption.  

Dr. Kopkash said in an interview that the researchers in the multisite, single-arm Intuitive trial will also track oncologic outcomes, but the trial description at clinicaltrials.gov does not indicate that.

Both Dr. Kopkash and Dr. Park cited the high-profile missteps that took place in 2018 at Monmouth County Medical Center in Long Branch, N.J., during what was described as the first-ever use of robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy for invasive cancer in the United States, as reported by Medscape Medical News. However, neither the center or surgeon, Stephen Chagares, MD, requested or received an IDE from the FDA, and use of robotic mastectomy was halted after two cases.

It’s conceivable that Intuitive will seek out FDA clearance for use of its da Vinci system in robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy with data in a prophylactic setting and then expand the pool of patients, argued Dr. Noorchashm.

“Even if you introduce a new technology ... for a narrow subset of patients, the application of it eventually occurs on a ‘sliding scale,’ ” he said.

The former surgeon gave an example: The first device used in gastric bypass surgery was cleared for use in 2001 by the FDA for adults who were “severely morbidly obese.” But by the late 2000s, the operation was also being performed on people with lower body mass indexes who hadn’t exhausted traditional weight loss procedures. “It was very lucrative,” Dr. Noorchashm said about the surgery.
 

Surgeons only get one body

Intuitive has been hugely successful in developing and marketing its da Vinci system around the world for general and oncologic surgeries, with more than 1 million surgeries in 2018, a greater than sevenfold increase in 10 years, according to the authors of a new essay published in the June issue of the Annals of Surgery. The authors include breast surgeon Rosa F. Hwang, MD, of MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, who is also an investigator for the Intuitive trial.

However, robotic mastectomy is still a new surgery – only about 150 patients have been treated in the world, mostly in Italy, France, Taiwan, and Korea, the authors noted.

Despite such small numbers, “there’s a lot of interest in bringing this to the United States,” said Dr. Park.

One of the arguments in favor of robotic mastectomy for nipple-sparing procedures has nothing to do with patients. Instead, it is improved ergonomics – the robot makes a tough surgery easier on the surgeon.

Even stalwart robot critic Dr. Margenthaler conceded that this was possibly a winning feature.

“Nipple-sparing mastectomy is a very physically demanding procedure for the surgeon, resulting in higher rates of neck and back pain and fatigue compared with a standard skin-sparing approach,” she noted. She suggested, however, that practitioners of traditional mastectomy ought to first experiment with changes to patient positioning and incision placement to alleviate stress before looking to the robot for change.

When this news organization interviewed NorthShore University’s Dr. Kopkash, she had conducted four nipple-sparing mastectomies in the previous week. “It’s a difficult procedure on our bodies. I just turned 40 and I’m considered young for a surgeon. We get one body for our career and we have to figure out ways to make it work and protect it.”

Intuitive Surgical is funding the five-center clinical trial of robot-assisted nipple-sparing mastectomy, and UT Southwestern is funding its own trial. The Ohio State trial is funded by the university and a Pelotonia Idea Grant. Dr. Noorchashm and Dr. Margenthaler have no relevant financial disclosures.

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

The tragic loss of three medical residents in our beloved South Bronx hospital shook us to the core. They were our colleagues and friends – promising young physicians whose lives and contributions to our hospital family will never be forgotten. We miss them and we grieve them.

We have been keenly aware of the growing trend of physician suicides across the country. That’s one of the reasons why, years ago, we established the nationally recognized Helping Healers Heal program across our health system and more recently expanded other mental health counseling and support to our frontline clinicians.

Our focus is wellness and prevention, as well as helping address the sadness, anxiety, and depression that so many of us experience after a traumatic event. During the surge of the COVID pandemic, these programs proved to be essential, as we expanded these services to all staff, not just those on the frontlines of patient care.

We share Dr. Pamela Wible’s concerns about the physician suicide crisis in this country. However, she misrepresented our residency program and made numerous statements that are false and simply hurtful.

Out of respect for our colleagues and their families, we cannot share everything that we know about this tragic and irreparable loss. But we must set the record straight about a number of incorrect references made by Dr. Wible:

1. We lost two residents to suicide. Though no less horrific, the third death was investigated and declared an accident by the police department.

2. Resident work hours and workload are closely monitored to follow guidance set by the New York State Department of Health and by ACGME. In fact, at the peak of the COVID pandemic, when we were caring for nearly 130 intubated patients at a time, we adopted a strict residency program schedule with built-in breaks and reduced shifts and hours. Even at that tasking time, no one worked more than 80 hours. Although the maximum number of patients assigned to an intern allowed by ACGME is 10, we rarely have more than five or six patients assigned to each of our interns.

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

The tragic loss of three medical residents in our beloved South Bronx hospital shook us to the core. They were our colleagues and friends – promising young physicians whose lives and contributions to our hospital family will never be forgotten. We miss them and we grieve them.

We have been keenly aware of the growing trend of physician suicides across the country. That’s one of the reasons why, years ago, we established the nationally recognized Helping Healers Heal program across our health system and more recently expanded other mental health counseling and support to our frontline clinicians.

Our focus is wellness and prevention, as well as helping address the sadness, anxiety, and depression that so many of us experience after a traumatic event. During the surge of the COVID pandemic, these programs proved to be essential, as we expanded these services to all staff, not just those on the frontlines of patient care.

We share Dr. Pamela Wible’s concerns about the physician suicide crisis in this country. However, she misrepresented our residency program and made numerous statements that are false and simply hurtful.

Out of respect for our colleagues and their families, we cannot share everything that we know about this tragic and irreparable loss. But we must set the record straight about a number of incorrect references made by Dr. Wible:

1. We lost two residents to suicide. Though no less horrific, the third death was investigated and declared an accident by the police department.

2. Resident work hours and workload are closely monitored to follow guidance set by the New York State Department of Health and by ACGME. In fact, at the peak of the COVID pandemic, when we were caring for nearly 130 intubated patients at a time, we adopted a strict residency program schedule with built-in breaks and reduced shifts and hours. Even at that tasking time, no one worked more than 80 hours. Although the maximum number of patients assigned to an intern allowed by ACGME is 10, we rarely have more than five or six patients assigned to each of our interns.

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

The tragic loss of three medical residents in our beloved South Bronx hospital shook us to the core. They were our colleagues and friends – promising young physicians whose lives and contributions to our hospital family will never be forgotten. We miss them and we grieve them.

We have been keenly aware of the growing trend of physician suicides across the country. That’s one of the reasons why, years ago, we established the nationally recognized Helping Healers Heal program across our health system and more recently expanded other mental health counseling and support to our frontline clinicians.

Our focus is wellness and prevention, as well as helping address the sadness, anxiety, and depression that so many of us experience after a traumatic event. During the surge of the COVID pandemic, these programs proved to be essential, as we expanded these services to all staff, not just those on the frontlines of patient care.

We share Dr. Pamela Wible’s concerns about the physician suicide crisis in this country. However, she misrepresented our residency program and made numerous statements that are false and simply hurtful.

Out of respect for our colleagues and their families, we cannot share everything that we know about this tragic and irreparable loss. But we must set the record straight about a number of incorrect references made by Dr. Wible:

1. We lost two residents to suicide. Though no less horrific, the third death was investigated and declared an accident by the police department.

2. Resident work hours and workload are closely monitored to follow guidance set by the New York State Department of Health and by ACGME. In fact, at the peak of the COVID pandemic, when we were caring for nearly 130 intubated patients at a time, we adopted a strict residency program schedule with built-in breaks and reduced shifts and hours. Even at that tasking time, no one worked more than 80 hours. Although the maximum number of patients assigned to an intern allowed by ACGME is 10, we rarely have more than five or six patients assigned to each of our interns.

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

The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, the state of California, and New York City announced July 26 that employees will be required to be vaccinated against COVID-19 in coming months -- or, in the case of California and New York City, undergo regular testing.

The VA becomes the first federal agency to mandate COVID vaccinations for workers. In a news release, VA Secretary Denis McDonough said the mandate is “the best way to keep Veterans safe, especially as the Delta variant spreads across the country.”

VA health care personnel -- including doctors, dentists, podiatrists, optometrists, registered nurses, physician assistants, and chiropractors -- have 8 weeks to become fully vaccinated, the news release said. The New York Times reported that about 115,000 workers will be affected.

The trifecta of federal-state-municipal vaccine requirements arrived as the nation searches for ways to get more people vaccinated to tamp down the Delta variant.

Some organizations, including the military, have already said vaccinations will be required as soon as the Food and Drug Administration formally approves the vaccines, which are now given under emergency use authorizations. The FDA has said the Pfizer vaccine could receive full approval within months.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom said the requirements he announced July 27 were the first in the nation on the state level.

“As the state’s largest employer, we are leading by example and requiring all state and health care workers to show proof of vaccination or be tested regularly, and we are encouraging local governments and businesses to do the same,” he said in a news release.

California employees must provide proof of vaccination or get tested at least once a week. The policy starts Aug. 2 for state employees and Aug. 9 for state health care workers and employees of congregate facilities, such as jails or homeless shelters.

California, especially the southern part of the state, is grappling with a COVID-19 surge. The state’s daily case rate more than quadrupled, from a low of 1.9 cases per 100,000 in May to at least 9.5 cases per 100,000 today, the release said.

In New York City, Mayor Bill de Blasio had previously announced that city health and hospital employees and those working in Department of Health and Mental Hygiene clinical settings would be required to provide proof of vaccination or have regular testing.

On July 27 he expanded the rule to cover all city employees, with a Sept. 13 deadline for most of them, according to a news release.

“This is what it takes to continue our recovery for all of us while fighting back the Delta variant,” Mayor de Blasio said. “It’s going to take all of us to finally end the fight against COVID-19.”

“We have a moral responsibility to take every precaution possible to ensure we keep ourselves, our colleagues and loved ones safe,” NYC Health + Hospitals President and CEO Mitchell Katz, MD, said in the release. “Our city’s new testing requirement for city workers provides more [peace] of mind until more people get their safe and effective COVID-19 vaccine.”

NBC News reported the plan would affect about 340,000 employees.

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

The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, the state of California, and New York City announced July 26 that employees will be required to be vaccinated against COVID-19 in coming months -- or, in the case of California and New York City, undergo regular testing.

The VA becomes the first federal agency to mandate COVID vaccinations for workers. In a news release, VA Secretary Denis McDonough said the mandate is “the best way to keep Veterans safe, especially as the Delta variant spreads across the country.”

VA health care personnel -- including doctors, dentists, podiatrists, optometrists, registered nurses, physician assistants, and chiropractors -- have 8 weeks to become fully vaccinated, the news release said. The New York Times reported that about 115,000 workers will be affected.

The trifecta of federal-state-municipal vaccine requirements arrived as the nation searches for ways to get more people vaccinated to tamp down the Delta variant.

Some organizations, including the military, have already said vaccinations will be required as soon as the Food and Drug Administration formally approves the vaccines, which are now given under emergency use authorizations. The FDA has said the Pfizer vaccine could receive full approval within months.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom said the requirements he announced July 27 were the first in the nation on the state level.

“As the state’s largest employer, we are leading by example and requiring all state and health care workers to show proof of vaccination or be tested regularly, and we are encouraging local governments and businesses to do the same,” he said in a news release.

California employees must provide proof of vaccination or get tested at least once a week. The policy starts Aug. 2 for state employees and Aug. 9 for state health care workers and employees of congregate facilities, such as jails or homeless shelters.

California, especially the southern part of the state, is grappling with a COVID-19 surge. The state’s daily case rate more than quadrupled, from a low of 1.9 cases per 100,000 in May to at least 9.5 cases per 100,000 today, the release said.

In New York City, Mayor Bill de Blasio had previously announced that city health and hospital employees and those working in Department of Health and Mental Hygiene clinical settings would be required to provide proof of vaccination or have regular testing.

On July 27 he expanded the rule to cover all city employees, with a Sept. 13 deadline for most of them, according to a news release.

“This is what it takes to continue our recovery for all of us while fighting back the Delta variant,” Mayor de Blasio said. “It’s going to take all of us to finally end the fight against COVID-19.”

“We have a moral responsibility to take every precaution possible to ensure we keep ourselves, our colleagues and loved ones safe,” NYC Health + Hospitals President and CEO Mitchell Katz, MD, said in the release. “Our city’s new testing requirement for city workers provides more [peace] of mind until more people get their safe and effective COVID-19 vaccine.”

NBC News reported the plan would affect about 340,000 employees.

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

The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, the state of California, and New York City announced July 26 that employees will be required to be vaccinated against COVID-19 in coming months -- or, in the case of California and New York City, undergo regular testing.

The VA becomes the first federal agency to mandate COVID vaccinations for workers. In a news release, VA Secretary Denis McDonough said the mandate is “the best way to keep Veterans safe, especially as the Delta variant spreads across the country.”

VA health care personnel -- including doctors, dentists, podiatrists, optometrists, registered nurses, physician assistants, and chiropractors -- have 8 weeks to become fully vaccinated, the news release said. The New York Times reported that about 115,000 workers will be affected.

The trifecta of federal-state-municipal vaccine requirements arrived as the nation searches for ways to get more people vaccinated to tamp down the Delta variant.

Some organizations, including the military, have already said vaccinations will be required as soon as the Food and Drug Administration formally approves the vaccines, which are now given under emergency use authorizations. The FDA has said the Pfizer vaccine could receive full approval within months.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom said the requirements he announced July 27 were the first in the nation on the state level.

“As the state’s largest employer, we are leading by example and requiring all state and health care workers to show proof of vaccination or be tested regularly, and we are encouraging local governments and businesses to do the same,” he said in a news release.

California employees must provide proof of vaccination or get tested at least once a week. The policy starts Aug. 2 for state employees and Aug. 9 for state health care workers and employees of congregate facilities, such as jails or homeless shelters.

California, especially the southern part of the state, is grappling with a COVID-19 surge. The state’s daily case rate more than quadrupled, from a low of 1.9 cases per 100,000 in May to at least 9.5 cases per 100,000 today, the release said.

In New York City, Mayor Bill de Blasio had previously announced that city health and hospital employees and those working in Department of Health and Mental Hygiene clinical settings would be required to provide proof of vaccination or have regular testing.

On July 27 he expanded the rule to cover all city employees, with a Sept. 13 deadline for most of them, according to a news release.

“This is what it takes to continue our recovery for all of us while fighting back the Delta variant,” Mayor de Blasio said. “It’s going to take all of us to finally end the fight against COVID-19.”

“We have a moral responsibility to take every precaution possible to ensure we keep ourselves, our colleagues and loved ones safe,” NYC Health + Hospitals President and CEO Mitchell Katz, MD, said in the release. “Our city’s new testing requirement for city workers provides more [peace] of mind until more people get their safe and effective COVID-19 vaccine.”

NBC News reported the plan would affect about 340,000 employees.

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