Mixed Topics

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted accelerated approval to zenocutuzumab-zbco (Bizengri, Merus) as an intravenous infusion for the treatment of certain adults with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) or pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

Specifically, the systemic agent was approved for those with advanced, unresectable, or metastatic NSCLC or pancreatic adenocarcinoma harboring a neuregulin 1 (NRG1) gene fusion who progress on or after prior systemic therapy, according to the FDA.

The approval, based on findings from the multicenter, open-label eNRGy study, is the first from the FDA for a systemic therapy in this setting. In the multicohort study, treatment was associated with an overall response rate of 33% and 40% in 64 patients with NSCLC and 40 patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma, respectively. Median duration of response was 7.4 months in the NSCLC patients and ranged from 3.7 to 16.6 months in those with pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

Adverse reactions occurring in at least 10% of patients included diarrhea, musculoskeletal pain, fatigue, nausea, infusion-related reactions, dyspnea, rash, constipation, vomiting, abdominal pain, and edema. Grade 3 or 4 laboratory abnormalities occurring in at least 10% of patients included increased gamma-glutamyl transferase and decreased hemoglobin, sodium, and platelets.

“The Personalized Medicine Coalition applauds the approval of BIZENGRI®,” Edward Abrahams, president of the Personalized Medicine Coalition, a Washington-based education and advocacy organization, stated in a press release from Merus. “In keeping with the growing number of personalized medicines on the market today, BIZENGRI® offers the only approved NRG1+ therapy for patients with these difficult-to-treat cancers.”

The agent is expected to be available for use in the “coming weeks,” according to Merus.

“The FDA approval of BIZENGRI® marks an important milestone for patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma or NSCLC that is advanced unresectable or metastatic and harbors the NRG1 gene fusion,” noted Alison Schram, MD, an attending medical oncologist in the Early Drug Development Service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, and a principal investigator for the ongoing eNRGy trial. “I have seen firsthand how treatment with BIZENGRI® can deliver clinically meaningful outcomes for patients.”

Prescribing information for zenocutuzumab-zbco includes a Boxed Warning for embryo-fetal toxicity. The recommended treatment dose is 750 mg every 2 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

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

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted accelerated approval to zenocutuzumab-zbco (Bizengri, Merus) as an intravenous infusion for the treatment of certain adults with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) or pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

Specifically, the systemic agent was approved for those with advanced, unresectable, or metastatic NSCLC or pancreatic adenocarcinoma harboring a neuregulin 1 (NRG1) gene fusion who progress on or after prior systemic therapy, according to the FDA.

The approval, based on findings from the multicenter, open-label eNRGy study, is the first from the FDA for a systemic therapy in this setting. In the multicohort study, treatment was associated with an overall response rate of 33% and 40% in 64 patients with NSCLC and 40 patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma, respectively. Median duration of response was 7.4 months in the NSCLC patients and ranged from 3.7 to 16.6 months in those with pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

Adverse reactions occurring in at least 10% of patients included diarrhea, musculoskeletal pain, fatigue, nausea, infusion-related reactions, dyspnea, rash, constipation, vomiting, abdominal pain, and edema. Grade 3 or 4 laboratory abnormalities occurring in at least 10% of patients included increased gamma-glutamyl transferase and decreased hemoglobin, sodium, and platelets.

“The Personalized Medicine Coalition applauds the approval of BIZENGRI®,” Edward Abrahams, president of the Personalized Medicine Coalition, a Washington-based education and advocacy organization, stated in a press release from Merus. “In keeping with the growing number of personalized medicines on the market today, BIZENGRI® offers the only approved NRG1+ therapy for patients with these difficult-to-treat cancers.”

The agent is expected to be available for use in the “coming weeks,” according to Merus.

“The FDA approval of BIZENGRI® marks an important milestone for patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma or NSCLC that is advanced unresectable or metastatic and harbors the NRG1 gene fusion,” noted Alison Schram, MD, an attending medical oncologist in the Early Drug Development Service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, and a principal investigator for the ongoing eNRGy trial. “I have seen firsthand how treatment with BIZENGRI® can deliver clinically meaningful outcomes for patients.”

Prescribing information for zenocutuzumab-zbco includes a Boxed Warning for embryo-fetal toxicity. The recommended treatment dose is 750 mg every 2 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

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

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted accelerated approval to zenocutuzumab-zbco (Bizengri, Merus) as an intravenous infusion for the treatment of certain adults with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) or pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

Specifically, the systemic agent was approved for those with advanced, unresectable, or metastatic NSCLC or pancreatic adenocarcinoma harboring a neuregulin 1 (NRG1) gene fusion who progress on or after prior systemic therapy, according to the FDA.

The approval, based on findings from the multicenter, open-label eNRGy study, is the first from the FDA for a systemic therapy in this setting. In the multicohort study, treatment was associated with an overall response rate of 33% and 40% in 64 patients with NSCLC and 40 patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma, respectively. Median duration of response was 7.4 months in the NSCLC patients and ranged from 3.7 to 16.6 months in those with pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

Adverse reactions occurring in at least 10% of patients included diarrhea, musculoskeletal pain, fatigue, nausea, infusion-related reactions, dyspnea, rash, constipation, vomiting, abdominal pain, and edema. Grade 3 or 4 laboratory abnormalities occurring in at least 10% of patients included increased gamma-glutamyl transferase and decreased hemoglobin, sodium, and platelets.

“The Personalized Medicine Coalition applauds the approval of BIZENGRI®,” Edward Abrahams, president of the Personalized Medicine Coalition, a Washington-based education and advocacy organization, stated in a press release from Merus. “In keeping with the growing number of personalized medicines on the market today, BIZENGRI® offers the only approved NRG1+ therapy for patients with these difficult-to-treat cancers.”

The agent is expected to be available for use in the “coming weeks,” according to Merus.

“The FDA approval of BIZENGRI® marks an important milestone for patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma or NSCLC that is advanced unresectable or metastatic and harbors the NRG1 gene fusion,” noted Alison Schram, MD, an attending medical oncologist in the Early Drug Development Service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, and a principal investigator for the ongoing eNRGy trial. “I have seen firsthand how treatment with BIZENGRI® can deliver clinically meaningful outcomes for patients.”

Prescribing information for zenocutuzumab-zbco includes a Boxed Warning for embryo-fetal toxicity. The recommended treatment dose is 750 mg every 2 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

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

THE DIAGNOSIS: Fixed Drug Eruption

Based on the patient’s clinical presentation and history of similar eruptions, a diagnosis of levofloxacin-induced fixed drug eruption (FDE) was made. After cessation of the drug, the lesions resolved within 1 week without any residual postinflammatory hyperpigmentation.

Fixed drug eruption is an adverse cutaneous reaction characterized by the onset of a rash at a fixed location each time a specific medication is administered. Patients typically report a history of similar eruptions, often involving the upper and lower extremities, genital area, or mucous membranes. The most common causative agents vary, but retrospective analyses primarily implicate nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs followed by antibiotics (eg, amoxicillin, levofloxacin, doxycycline) and antiepileptics.^1,2

While FDE can be solitary or scattered, most patients have 5 or fewer lesions, with a mean interval of 48 hours from exposure to the causative agent to onset of the rash.¹ The lesions can be differentiated by their typically solitary, well-demarcated, round or oval appearance; they also are erythematous to purple with a dusky center. The lesions may increase in size and number with each additional exposure to the offending medication.^1,3 Postinflammatory hyperpigmentation may last for weeks to months after the acute inflammatory response has resolved.

The high risk for recurrence of FDE may be explained by the presence of tissue resident memory T (TRM) cells in the affected skin that evoke a characteristic clinical manifestation upon administration of a causative agent.^2,3 Intraepidermal CD8⁺ TRM cells, which have an effectormemory phenotype, may contribute to the development of localized tissue damage; these cells demonstrate their effector function by the rapid increase in interferon gamma after challenge.² Within 24 hours of administration of the offending medication, CD8⁺ TRM cells migrate upward in the epidermis, and their activity leads to the epidermal necrosis observed with FDE. The self-limiting nature of FDE can be explained by the action of CD4+ Foxp3+ regulatory T cells that migrate similarly and induce the production of IL-10, which limits the damage inflicted by the CD8⁺ T cells.¹

Type I hypersensitivity reactions are IgE mediated; typically occur much more rapidly than FDE; and involve a raised urticarial rash, pruritus, and flushing. Urticaria is useful in identifying IgE-mediated reactions and mast cell degranulation. Previous exposure to the drug in question is required for diagnosis.⁴

Type IV delayed hypersensitivity reactions—including contact dermatitis and FDE—are mediated by T cells rather than IgE. These reactions occur at least 48 to 72 hours after drug exposure.⁴ Contact dermatitis follows exposure to an irritant but generally is limited to the site of contact and manifests with burning or stinging. Chronic contact dermatitis is characterized by erythema, scaling, and lichenification that may be associated with burning pain.

The target lesions of erythema multiforme are associated with the use of medications such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, antiepileptics, and antibiotics in fewer than 10% of cases. Infections are the predominant cause, with herpes simplex virus 1 being the most common etiology.⁵ Erythema multiforme lesions have 3 concentric segments: a dark red inflammatory zone surrounded by a pale ring of edema, both of which are surrounded by an erythematous halo. Lesions initially are distributed symmetrically on the extensor surfaces of the upper and lower extremities, but mucosal involvement may be present.⁵

Sweet syndrome, also known as acute febrile neutrophilic dermatosis, involves fever and peripheral neutrophilia in addition to cutaneous erythematous eruptions and dermal neutrophilic infiltration on histopathology.⁶ Most cases are idiopathic but may occur in the setting of malignancy or drug administration. A major criterion for drug-induced Sweet syndrome is abrupt onset of painful erythematous plaques or nodules with pyrexia.⁶

THE DIAGNOSIS: Fixed Drug Eruption

Based on the patient’s clinical presentation and history of similar eruptions, a diagnosis of levofloxacin-induced fixed drug eruption (FDE) was made. After cessation of the drug, the lesions resolved within 1 week without any residual postinflammatory hyperpigmentation.

Fixed drug eruption is an adverse cutaneous reaction characterized by the onset of a rash at a fixed location each time a specific medication is administered. Patients typically report a history of similar eruptions, often involving the upper and lower extremities, genital area, or mucous membranes. The most common causative agents vary, but retrospective analyses primarily implicate nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs followed by antibiotics (eg, amoxicillin, levofloxacin, doxycycline) and antiepileptics.^1,2

While FDE can be solitary or scattered, most patients have 5 or fewer lesions, with a mean interval of 48 hours from exposure to the causative agent to onset of the rash.¹ The lesions can be differentiated by their typically solitary, well-demarcated, round or oval appearance; they also are erythematous to purple with a dusky center. The lesions may increase in size and number with each additional exposure to the offending medication.^1,3 Postinflammatory hyperpigmentation may last for weeks to months after the acute inflammatory response has resolved.

The high risk for recurrence of FDE may be explained by the presence of tissue resident memory T (TRM) cells in the affected skin that evoke a characteristic clinical manifestation upon administration of a causative agent.^2,3 Intraepidermal CD8⁺ TRM cells, which have an effectormemory phenotype, may contribute to the development of localized tissue damage; these cells demonstrate their effector function by the rapid increase in interferon gamma after challenge.² Within 24 hours of administration of the offending medication, CD8⁺ TRM cells migrate upward in the epidermis, and their activity leads to the epidermal necrosis observed with FDE. The self-limiting nature of FDE can be explained by the action of CD4+ Foxp3+ regulatory T cells that migrate similarly and induce the production of IL-10, which limits the damage inflicted by the CD8⁺ T cells.¹

Type I hypersensitivity reactions are IgE mediated; typically occur much more rapidly than FDE; and involve a raised urticarial rash, pruritus, and flushing. Urticaria is useful in identifying IgE-mediated reactions and mast cell degranulation. Previous exposure to the drug in question is required for diagnosis.⁴

Type IV delayed hypersensitivity reactions—including contact dermatitis and FDE—are mediated by T cells rather than IgE. These reactions occur at least 48 to 72 hours after drug exposure.⁴ Contact dermatitis follows exposure to an irritant but generally is limited to the site of contact and manifests with burning or stinging. Chronic contact dermatitis is characterized by erythema, scaling, and lichenification that may be associated with burning pain.

The target lesions of erythema multiforme are associated with the use of medications such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, antiepileptics, and antibiotics in fewer than 10% of cases. Infections are the predominant cause, with herpes simplex virus 1 being the most common etiology.⁵ Erythema multiforme lesions have 3 concentric segments: a dark red inflammatory zone surrounded by a pale ring of edema, both of which are surrounded by an erythematous halo. Lesions initially are distributed symmetrically on the extensor surfaces of the upper and lower extremities, but mucosal involvement may be present.⁵

Sweet syndrome, also known as acute febrile neutrophilic dermatosis, involves fever and peripheral neutrophilia in addition to cutaneous erythematous eruptions and dermal neutrophilic infiltration on histopathology.⁶ Most cases are idiopathic but may occur in the setting of malignancy or drug administration. A major criterion for drug-induced Sweet syndrome is abrupt onset of painful erythematous plaques or nodules with pyrexia.⁶

THE DIAGNOSIS: Fixed Drug Eruption

Based on the patient’s clinical presentation and history of similar eruptions, a diagnosis of levofloxacin-induced fixed drug eruption (FDE) was made. After cessation of the drug, the lesions resolved within 1 week without any residual postinflammatory hyperpigmentation.

Fixed drug eruption is an adverse cutaneous reaction characterized by the onset of a rash at a fixed location each time a specific medication is administered. Patients typically report a history of similar eruptions, often involving the upper and lower extremities, genital area, or mucous membranes. The most common causative agents vary, but retrospective analyses primarily implicate nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs followed by antibiotics (eg, amoxicillin, levofloxacin, doxycycline) and antiepileptics.^1,2

While FDE can be solitary or scattered, most patients have 5 or fewer lesions, with a mean interval of 48 hours from exposure to the causative agent to onset of the rash.¹ The lesions can be differentiated by their typically solitary, well-demarcated, round or oval appearance; they also are erythematous to purple with a dusky center. The lesions may increase in size and number with each additional exposure to the offending medication.^1,3 Postinflammatory hyperpigmentation may last for weeks to months after the acute inflammatory response has resolved.

The high risk for recurrence of FDE may be explained by the presence of tissue resident memory T (TRM) cells in the affected skin that evoke a characteristic clinical manifestation upon administration of a causative agent.^2,3 Intraepidermal CD8⁺ TRM cells, which have an effectormemory phenotype, may contribute to the development of localized tissue damage; these cells demonstrate their effector function by the rapid increase in interferon gamma after challenge.² Within 24 hours of administration of the offending medication, CD8⁺ TRM cells migrate upward in the epidermis, and their activity leads to the epidermal necrosis observed with FDE. The self-limiting nature of FDE can be explained by the action of CD4+ Foxp3+ regulatory T cells that migrate similarly and induce the production of IL-10, which limits the damage inflicted by the CD8⁺ T cells.¹

Type I hypersensitivity reactions are IgE mediated; typically occur much more rapidly than FDE; and involve a raised urticarial rash, pruritus, and flushing. Urticaria is useful in identifying IgE-mediated reactions and mast cell degranulation. Previous exposure to the drug in question is required for diagnosis.⁴

Type IV delayed hypersensitivity reactions—including contact dermatitis and FDE—are mediated by T cells rather than IgE. These reactions occur at least 48 to 72 hours after drug exposure.⁴ Contact dermatitis follows exposure to an irritant but generally is limited to the site of contact and manifests with burning or stinging. Chronic contact dermatitis is characterized by erythema, scaling, and lichenification that may be associated with burning pain.

The target lesions of erythema multiforme are associated with the use of medications such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, antiepileptics, and antibiotics in fewer than 10% of cases. Infections are the predominant cause, with herpes simplex virus 1 being the most common etiology.⁵ Erythema multiforme lesions have 3 concentric segments: a dark red inflammatory zone surrounded by a pale ring of edema, both of which are surrounded by an erythematous halo. Lesions initially are distributed symmetrically on the extensor surfaces of the upper and lower extremities, but mucosal involvement may be present.⁵

Sweet syndrome, also known as acute febrile neutrophilic dermatosis, involves fever and peripheral neutrophilia in addition to cutaneous erythematous eruptions and dermal neutrophilic infiltration on histopathology.⁶ Most cases are idiopathic but may occur in the setting of malignancy or drug administration. A major criterion for drug-induced Sweet syndrome is abrupt onset of painful erythematous plaques or nodules with pyrexia.⁶

Cyclosporine is a calcineurin inhibitor and immunosuppressive medication with several indications, including prevention of parenchymal organ and bone marrow transplant rejection as well as treatment of numerous dermatologic conditions (eg, psoriasis, atopic dermatitis). Although it is an effective medication, there are many known adverse effects including nephrotoxicity, hypertension, and gingival hyperplasia.¹ Addressing symptomatic cyclosporine-induced gingival hyperplasia can be challenging, especially if continued use of cyclosporine is necessary for adequate control of the underlying disease. We present a simplified approach for conservative management of cyclosporine-induced gingival hyperplasia that allows for continued use of cyclosporine.

Practice Gap

Cyclosporine-induced gingival hyperplasia is a fibrous overgrowth of the interdental papilla and labial gingiva that may lead to gum pain, difficulty eating, gingivitis, and/ or tooth decay or loss.² The condition usually occurs 3 to 6 months after starting cyclosporine but may occur as soon as 1 month later.^1,3 The pathophysiology of this adverse effect is incompletely understood, but several mechanisms have been implicated, including upregulation of the salivary proinflammatory cytokines IL-1α, IL-8, and IL-6.¹ Additionally, patients with cyclosporine-induced gingival hyperplasia have increased bacterial colonization with species such as Porphyromonas gingivalis.⁴ Risk factors for cyclosporine- induced gingival hyperplasia include higher serum concentrations (>400 ng/mL) of cyclosporine, history of gingival hyperplasia, concomitant use of calcium channel blockers, and insufficient oral hygiene.^2,3 A study by Seymour and Smith⁵ found that proper oral hygiene leads to less severe cases of cyclosporine-induced gingival hyperplasia but does not prevent gingival overgrowth. Treatment of cyclosporine-induced gingival hyperplasia traditionally involves targeting oral bacteria and reducing inflammation. Decreasing dental plaque through regular tooth-brushing and interdental cleaning may reduce symptoms such as bleeding and discomfort of the gums.

The intensity of cyclosporine-induced gingival hyperplasia can be reduced with chlorhexidine or azithromycin. Individually, each therapy has been shown to clinically improve cyclosporine-induced gingival hyperplasia; however, to our knowledge the combination of these treatments has not been reported.¹ We present a simplified approach to treating cyclosporine-induced gingival hyperplasia using both azithromycin and chlorhexidine. This conservative approach results in effective and sustained improvement of gingival hyperplasia while allowing patients to continue cyclosporine therapy to control underlying disease with minimal adverse effects.

Technique

Before initiating treatment, it is important to confirm that the etiology of gingival hyperplasia is due to cyclosporine use and rule out nutritional deficiencies and autoimmune conditions as potential causes. Be sure to inquire about nutritional intake, systemic symptoms, and family history of autoimmune conditions. Our approach includes the use of azithromycin 500 mg once daily for 7 days followed by chlorhexidine 0.12% oral solution 15 mL twice daily (swish undiluted for 30 seconds, then spit) for at least 3 months for optimal management of gingival hyperplasia. Chlorhexidine should be continued for at least 6 months to maintain symptom resolution. While cyclosporine therapy may be continued throughout the duration of this regimen, consider switching to other immunosuppressive medications that are not associated with gingival hyperplasia (eg, tacrolimus) if symptoms are severe and/or resistant to therapy.^1,6

We applied this technique to treat cyclosporine-induced gingival hyperplasia in a 28-year-old woman with a 3-year history of primary aplastic anemia. The patient initially presented with pain and bleeding of the gums of several months’ duration and reported experiencing gum pain when eating solid foods. Her medications included cyclosporine 225 mg daily for aplastic anemia and dapsone 100 mg daily for pneumocystis pneumonia prophylaxis, both of which were taken for the past 6 months. Oral examination revealed pink to bright red hyperplastic gingivae (Figure). She had no other symptoms associated with aplastic anemia and no signs of vitamin or nutritional deficiencies. She denied pre-existing periodontitis prior to starting cyclosporine and reported that the symptoms started several months after initiating cyclosporine therapy. Thus, the clinical diagnosis of cyclosporine-induced gingival hyperplasia was made, and treatment with azithromycin and chlorhexidine was initiated with marked reduction in symptoms.

Conservative management of gingival hyperplasia with oral hygiene including regular tooth-brushing and flossing and antimicrobial therapies was preferred in this patient to reduce gum pain and minimize the risk for tooth loss while also limiting the use of surgically invasive interventions. Due to limited therapeutic options for aplastic anemia, continued administration of cyclosporine was necessary in our patient to prevent further complications.

Practice Implications

The precise mechanism by which azithromycin treats gingival hyperplasia is unclear but may involve its antimicrobial and anti-inflammatory properties. Small concentrations of azithromycin have been shown to persist in macrophages and fibroblasts of the gingiva even with short-term administration of 3 to 5 days.⁷ Chlorhexidine is another antimicrobial agent often used in oral rinse solutions to decrease plaque formation and prevent gingivitis. Chlorhexidine can reduce cyclosporine-induced gingival overgrowth when used twice daily.⁸ After rinsing with chlorhexidine, saliva exhibits antibacterial activity for up to 5 hours; however, tooth and gum discoloration may occur.⁸

Recurrence of gingival hyperplasia is likely if cyclosporine is not discontinued or maintained with treatment.³ Conventional gingivectomy should be considered for cases in which conservative treatment is ineffective, aesthetic concerns arise, or gingival hyperplasia persists for more than 6 to 12 months after discontinuing cyclosporine.¹

We theorize that the microbial properties of azithromycin and chlorhexidine help reduce periodontal inflammation and bacterial overgrowth in patients with cyclosporine-induced gingival hyperplasia, which allows for restoration of gingival health. Our case highlights the efficacy of our treatment approach using a 7-day course of azithromycin followed by twice-daily use of chlorhexidine oral rinse in the treatment of cyclosporine-induced gingival hyperplasia with continued use of cyclosporine.

Cyclosporine is a calcineurin inhibitor and immunosuppressive medication with several indications, including prevention of parenchymal organ and bone marrow transplant rejection as well as treatment of numerous dermatologic conditions (eg, psoriasis, atopic dermatitis). Although it is an effective medication, there are many known adverse effects including nephrotoxicity, hypertension, and gingival hyperplasia.¹ Addressing symptomatic cyclosporine-induced gingival hyperplasia can be challenging, especially if continued use of cyclosporine is necessary for adequate control of the underlying disease. We present a simplified approach for conservative management of cyclosporine-induced gingival hyperplasia that allows for continued use of cyclosporine.

Practice Gap

Cyclosporine-induced gingival hyperplasia is a fibrous overgrowth of the interdental papilla and labial gingiva that may lead to gum pain, difficulty eating, gingivitis, and/ or tooth decay or loss.² The condition usually occurs 3 to 6 months after starting cyclosporine but may occur as soon as 1 month later.^1,3 The pathophysiology of this adverse effect is incompletely understood, but several mechanisms have been implicated, including upregulation of the salivary proinflammatory cytokines IL-1α, IL-8, and IL-6.¹ Additionally, patients with cyclosporine-induced gingival hyperplasia have increased bacterial colonization with species such as Porphyromonas gingivalis.⁴ Risk factors for cyclosporine- induced gingival hyperplasia include higher serum concentrations (>400 ng/mL) of cyclosporine, history of gingival hyperplasia, concomitant use of calcium channel blockers, and insufficient oral hygiene.^2,3 A study by Seymour and Smith⁵ found that proper oral hygiene leads to less severe cases of cyclosporine-induced gingival hyperplasia but does not prevent gingival overgrowth. Treatment of cyclosporine-induced gingival hyperplasia traditionally involves targeting oral bacteria and reducing inflammation. Decreasing dental plaque through regular tooth-brushing and interdental cleaning may reduce symptoms such as bleeding and discomfort of the gums.

The intensity of cyclosporine-induced gingival hyperplasia can be reduced with chlorhexidine or azithromycin. Individually, each therapy has been shown to clinically improve cyclosporine-induced gingival hyperplasia; however, to our knowledge the combination of these treatments has not been reported.¹ We present a simplified approach to treating cyclosporine-induced gingival hyperplasia using both azithromycin and chlorhexidine. This conservative approach results in effective and sustained improvement of gingival hyperplasia while allowing patients to continue cyclosporine therapy to control underlying disease with minimal adverse effects.

Technique

Before initiating treatment, it is important to confirm that the etiology of gingival hyperplasia is due to cyclosporine use and rule out nutritional deficiencies and autoimmune conditions as potential causes. Be sure to inquire about nutritional intake, systemic symptoms, and family history of autoimmune conditions. Our approach includes the use of azithromycin 500 mg once daily for 7 days followed by chlorhexidine 0.12% oral solution 15 mL twice daily (swish undiluted for 30 seconds, then spit) for at least 3 months for optimal management of gingival hyperplasia. Chlorhexidine should be continued for at least 6 months to maintain symptom resolution. While cyclosporine therapy may be continued throughout the duration of this regimen, consider switching to other immunosuppressive medications that are not associated with gingival hyperplasia (eg, tacrolimus) if symptoms are severe and/or resistant to therapy.^1,6

We applied this technique to treat cyclosporine-induced gingival hyperplasia in a 28-year-old woman with a 3-year history of primary aplastic anemia. The patient initially presented with pain and bleeding of the gums of several months’ duration and reported experiencing gum pain when eating solid foods. Her medications included cyclosporine 225 mg daily for aplastic anemia and dapsone 100 mg daily for pneumocystis pneumonia prophylaxis, both of which were taken for the past 6 months. Oral examination revealed pink to bright red hyperplastic gingivae (Figure). She had no other symptoms associated with aplastic anemia and no signs of vitamin or nutritional deficiencies. She denied pre-existing periodontitis prior to starting cyclosporine and reported that the symptoms started several months after initiating cyclosporine therapy. Thus, the clinical diagnosis of cyclosporine-induced gingival hyperplasia was made, and treatment with azithromycin and chlorhexidine was initiated with marked reduction in symptoms.

Conservative management of gingival hyperplasia with oral hygiene including regular tooth-brushing and flossing and antimicrobial therapies was preferred in this patient to reduce gum pain and minimize the risk for tooth loss while also limiting the use of surgically invasive interventions. Due to limited therapeutic options for aplastic anemia, continued administration of cyclosporine was necessary in our patient to prevent further complications.

Practice Implications

The precise mechanism by which azithromycin treats gingival hyperplasia is unclear but may involve its antimicrobial and anti-inflammatory properties. Small concentrations of azithromycin have been shown to persist in macrophages and fibroblasts of the gingiva even with short-term administration of 3 to 5 days.⁷ Chlorhexidine is another antimicrobial agent often used in oral rinse solutions to decrease plaque formation and prevent gingivitis. Chlorhexidine can reduce cyclosporine-induced gingival overgrowth when used twice daily.⁸ After rinsing with chlorhexidine, saliva exhibits antibacterial activity for up to 5 hours; however, tooth and gum discoloration may occur.⁸

Recurrence of gingival hyperplasia is likely if cyclosporine is not discontinued or maintained with treatment.³ Conventional gingivectomy should be considered for cases in which conservative treatment is ineffective, aesthetic concerns arise, or gingival hyperplasia persists for more than 6 to 12 months after discontinuing cyclosporine.¹

We theorize that the microbial properties of azithromycin and chlorhexidine help reduce periodontal inflammation and bacterial overgrowth in patients with cyclosporine-induced gingival hyperplasia, which allows for restoration of gingival health. Our case highlights the efficacy of our treatment approach using a 7-day course of azithromycin followed by twice-daily use of chlorhexidine oral rinse in the treatment of cyclosporine-induced gingival hyperplasia with continued use of cyclosporine.

Cyclosporine is a calcineurin inhibitor and immunosuppressive medication with several indications, including prevention of parenchymal organ and bone marrow transplant rejection as well as treatment of numerous dermatologic conditions (eg, psoriasis, atopic dermatitis). Although it is an effective medication, there are many known adverse effects including nephrotoxicity, hypertension, and gingival hyperplasia.¹ Addressing symptomatic cyclosporine-induced gingival hyperplasia can be challenging, especially if continued use of cyclosporine is necessary for adequate control of the underlying disease. We present a simplified approach for conservative management of cyclosporine-induced gingival hyperplasia that allows for continued use of cyclosporine.

Practice Gap

Cyclosporine-induced gingival hyperplasia is a fibrous overgrowth of the interdental papilla and labial gingiva that may lead to gum pain, difficulty eating, gingivitis, and/ or tooth decay or loss.² The condition usually occurs 3 to 6 months after starting cyclosporine but may occur as soon as 1 month later.^1,3 The pathophysiology of this adverse effect is incompletely understood, but several mechanisms have been implicated, including upregulation of the salivary proinflammatory cytokines IL-1α, IL-8, and IL-6.¹ Additionally, patients with cyclosporine-induced gingival hyperplasia have increased bacterial colonization with species such as Porphyromonas gingivalis.⁴ Risk factors for cyclosporine- induced gingival hyperplasia include higher serum concentrations (>400 ng/mL) of cyclosporine, history of gingival hyperplasia, concomitant use of calcium channel blockers, and insufficient oral hygiene.^2,3 A study by Seymour and Smith⁵ found that proper oral hygiene leads to less severe cases of cyclosporine-induced gingival hyperplasia but does not prevent gingival overgrowth. Treatment of cyclosporine-induced gingival hyperplasia traditionally involves targeting oral bacteria and reducing inflammation. Decreasing dental plaque through regular tooth-brushing and interdental cleaning may reduce symptoms such as bleeding and discomfort of the gums.

The intensity of cyclosporine-induced gingival hyperplasia can be reduced with chlorhexidine or azithromycin. Individually, each therapy has been shown to clinically improve cyclosporine-induced gingival hyperplasia; however, to our knowledge the combination of these treatments has not been reported.¹ We present a simplified approach to treating cyclosporine-induced gingival hyperplasia using both azithromycin and chlorhexidine. This conservative approach results in effective and sustained improvement of gingival hyperplasia while allowing patients to continue cyclosporine therapy to control underlying disease with minimal adverse effects.

Technique

Before initiating treatment, it is important to confirm that the etiology of gingival hyperplasia is due to cyclosporine use and rule out nutritional deficiencies and autoimmune conditions as potential causes. Be sure to inquire about nutritional intake, systemic symptoms, and family history of autoimmune conditions. Our approach includes the use of azithromycin 500 mg once daily for 7 days followed by chlorhexidine 0.12% oral solution 15 mL twice daily (swish undiluted for 30 seconds, then spit) for at least 3 months for optimal management of gingival hyperplasia. Chlorhexidine should be continued for at least 6 months to maintain symptom resolution. While cyclosporine therapy may be continued throughout the duration of this regimen, consider switching to other immunosuppressive medications that are not associated with gingival hyperplasia (eg, tacrolimus) if symptoms are severe and/or resistant to therapy.^1,6

We applied this technique to treat cyclosporine-induced gingival hyperplasia in a 28-year-old woman with a 3-year history of primary aplastic anemia. The patient initially presented with pain and bleeding of the gums of several months’ duration and reported experiencing gum pain when eating solid foods. Her medications included cyclosporine 225 mg daily for aplastic anemia and dapsone 100 mg daily for pneumocystis pneumonia prophylaxis, both of which were taken for the past 6 months. Oral examination revealed pink to bright red hyperplastic gingivae (Figure). She had no other symptoms associated with aplastic anemia and no signs of vitamin or nutritional deficiencies. She denied pre-existing periodontitis prior to starting cyclosporine and reported that the symptoms started several months after initiating cyclosporine therapy. Thus, the clinical diagnosis of cyclosporine-induced gingival hyperplasia was made, and treatment with azithromycin and chlorhexidine was initiated with marked reduction in symptoms.

Conservative management of gingival hyperplasia with oral hygiene including regular tooth-brushing and flossing and antimicrobial therapies was preferred in this patient to reduce gum pain and minimize the risk for tooth loss while also limiting the use of surgically invasive interventions. Due to limited therapeutic options for aplastic anemia, continued administration of cyclosporine was necessary in our patient to prevent further complications.

Practice Implications

The precise mechanism by which azithromycin treats gingival hyperplasia is unclear but may involve its antimicrobial and anti-inflammatory properties. Small concentrations of azithromycin have been shown to persist in macrophages and fibroblasts of the gingiva even with short-term administration of 3 to 5 days.⁷ Chlorhexidine is another antimicrobial agent often used in oral rinse solutions to decrease plaque formation and prevent gingivitis. Chlorhexidine can reduce cyclosporine-induced gingival overgrowth when used twice daily.⁸ After rinsing with chlorhexidine, saliva exhibits antibacterial activity for up to 5 hours; however, tooth and gum discoloration may occur.⁸

Recurrence of gingival hyperplasia is likely if cyclosporine is not discontinued or maintained with treatment.³ Conventional gingivectomy should be considered for cases in which conservative treatment is ineffective, aesthetic concerns arise, or gingival hyperplasia persists for more than 6 to 12 months after discontinuing cyclosporine.¹

We theorize that the microbial properties of azithromycin and chlorhexidine help reduce periodontal inflammation and bacterial overgrowth in patients with cyclosporine-induced gingival hyperplasia, which allows for restoration of gingival health. Our case highlights the efficacy of our treatment approach using a 7-day course of azithromycin followed by twice-daily use of chlorhexidine oral rinse in the treatment of cyclosporine-induced gingival hyperplasia with continued use of cyclosporine.

Rose Gerber was 39, mother to a third grader and a kindergartener, when the diagnosis came: Advanced HER2-positive breast cancer.

“On one of my first or second appointments, I took in a little picture of Alexander and Isabella,” Gerber said. Gerber showed her oncologist the picture and told her: “I’ll do anything. I just want to be there for them.”

That was 21 years ago. Today, her current cancer status is “no evidence of disease.”

Over the past 2 decades, Gerber has gotten to be there for her children. Her youngest is now a television producer and her oldest, a CPA.

In that time, Gerber has had one constant: Her oncologist, Kandhasamy Jagathambal, MD, or Dr. Jaga, as she’s often called. 

“I’ve seen multiple physicians over my 21 years, but my oncologist has always been the focal point, guiding me in the right direction,” Gerber said in an interview.

Over the years, Jaga guided Gerber through a range of treatment decisions, including a Herceptin clinical trial that the mom of two views as lifesaving. Jaga often took on the role of both doctor and therapist, even providing comfort in the smaller moments when Gerber would fret about her weight gain.

The oncologist-patient “bond is very, very, very special,” said Gerber, who now works as director of patient advocacy and education at the Community Oncology Alliance.

Gerber isn’t alone in calling out the depth of the oncologist-patient bond.

Over years, sometimes decades, patients and oncologists can experience a whole world together: The treatment successes, relapses, uncertainties, and tough calls. As a result, a deep therapeutic alliance often develops. And with each new hurdle or decision, that collaborative, human connection between doctor and patient continues to form new layers.

“It’s like a shared bonding experience over trauma, like strangers trapped on a subway and then we get out, and we’re now on the other side, celebrating together,” said Saad Khan, MD, an associate professor of medicine (oncology) at Stanford University in California.

 

Connecting Through Stress

Although studies exploring the oncologist-patient bond are limited, some research suggests that a strong therapeutic alliance between patients and oncologists not only provides a foundation for quality care but can also help improve patients’ quality of life, protect against suicidal ideation, and increase treatment adherence.

Because of how stressful and frightening a cancer diagnosis can be, creating “a trusting, uninterrupted, almost sacred environment for them” is paramount for Khan. “I have no doubt that the most important part of their treatment is that they find an oncologist in whom they have total confidence,” Khan wrote in a blog.

The stress that patients with cancer experience is well documented, but oncologists take on a lot themselves and can also experience intense stress (.

“I consider my patient’s battles to be my battles,” Khan wrote.

The stress can start with the daily schedule. Oncologists often have a high volume of patients and tend to spend more time with each individual than most.

According to a 2023 survey, oncologists see about 68 patients a week, on average, but some oncologists, like Khan, have many more. Khan typically sees 20-30 patients a day and continues to care for many over years.

The survey also found that oncologists tend to spend a lot of time with their patients. Compared with other physicians, oncologists are two times more likely to spend at least 25 minutes with each patient.

With this kind of patient volume and time, Khan said, “you’re going to be exhausted.”

What can compound the exhaustion are the occasions oncologists need to deliver bad news — this treatment isn’t working, your cancer has come roaring back and, perhaps the hardest, we have no therapeutic options left. The end-of-life conversations, in particular, can be heartbreaking, especially when a patient is young and not ready to stop trying.

“It can be hard for doctors to discuss the end of life,” Don Dizon, MD, director of the Pelvic Malignancies Program at Lifespan Cancer Institute and director of Medical Oncology at Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, wrote in a column in 2023. Instead, it can be tempting and is often easier to focus on the next treatment, “instilling hope that there’s more that can be done,” even if doing more will only do harm.

In the face of these challenging decisions, growing a personal connection with patients over time can help keep oncologists going.

“We’re not just chemotherapy salesmen,” Khan said in an interview. “We get to know their social support network, who’s going to be driving them [to and from appointments], where they go on vacation, their cat’s name, who their neighbors are.”

 

A ‘Special Relationship’

Ralph V. Boccia, MD, is often asked what he does.

The next question that often comes — “Why do I do what I do?” — is Boccia’s favorite.

“Someone needs to take these patients through their journey,” Boccia, the founder of The Center for Cancer and Blood Disorders, Bethesda, Maryland, typically responds. He also often notes that “it is a special relationship you develop with the patient and their families.”

Boccia thinks about one long-term patient who captures this bond.

Joan Pinson, 70, was diagnosed with multiple myeloma about 25 years ago, when patients’ average survival was about 4 years.

Over a quarter century, Pinson has pivoted to different treatments, amid multiple relapses and remissions. Throughout most of this cancer journey, Boccia has been her primary oncologist, performing a stem cell transplant in 2000 and steering her to six clinical trials.

Her last relapse was 2 years ago, and since then she has been doing well on oral chemotherapy.

“Every time I relapsed, by the next appointment, he’d say, ‘here is what we are going to do,’ ” Pinson recalled. “I never worried, I never panicked. I knew he would take care of me.”

Over the years, Pinson and Boccia have shared many personal moments, sometimes by accident. One special moment happened early on in Pinson’s cancer journey. During an appointment, Boccia had “one ear to the phone” as his wife was about to deliver their first baby, Pinson recalled.

Later, Pinson met that child as a young man working in Boccia’s lab. She has also met Boccia’s wife, a nurse, when she filled in one day in the chemotherapy room.

Boccia now also treats Pinson’s husband who has prostate cancer, and he ruled out cancer when Pinson’s son, now in his 40s, had some worrisome symptoms.

More than 2 decades ago, Pinson told Boccia her goal was to see her youngest child graduate from high school. Now, six grandsons later, she has lived far beyond that goal.

“He has kept me alive,” said Pinson.

 

The Dying Patient

Harsha Vyas, MD, FACP, remembers the first encounter his office had with a 29-year-old woman referred with a diagnosis of stage IV breast cancer.

After just 15 minutes in the waiting room, the woman announced she was leaving. Although office staff assured the woman that she was next, the patient walked out.

Several months later, Vyas was called for an inpatient consult. It was the same woman.

Her lungs were full of fluid, and she was struggling to breathe, said Vyas, president and CEO of the Cancer Center of Middle Georgia, Dublin, and assistant professor at Augusta University in Georgia.

The woman, a single mother, told Vyas about her three young kids at home and asked him, “Doc, do something, please help me,” he recalled.

“Absolutely,” Vyas told her. But he had to be brutally honest about her prognosis and firm that she needed to follow his instructions. “You have a breast cancer I cannot cure,” he said. “All I can do is control the disease.”

From that first day, until the day she died, she came to every appointment and followed the treatment plan Vyas laid out.

For about 2 years, she responded well to treatment. And as the time passed and the trust grew, she began to open up to him. She showed him pictures. She talked about her children and being a mother.

“I’ve got to get my kids in a better place. I’m going to be there for them,” he recalled her saying.

Vyas admired her resourcefulness. She held down a part-time job, working retail and at a local restaurant. She figured out childcare so she could get to her chemotherapy appointments every 3 weeks and manage the copays.

Several years later, when she knew she was approaching the end of her life, she asked Vyas a question that hit hard.

“Doc, I don’t want to die and my kids find me dead. What can we do about it?”

Vyas, who has three daughters, imagined how traumatic this would be for a child. She and Vyas made the shared decision to cease treatment and begin home hospice. When the end was approaching, a hospice worker took over, waiting for bodily functions to cease.

When news of a death comes, “I say a little prayer, it’s almost like a send-off for that soul. That helps me absorb the news ... and let it go.”

But when the bond grows strong over time, as with his patient with breast cancer, Vyas said, “a piece of her is still with me.”

Khan had no relevant disclosures. Boccia and Vyas had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Rose Gerber was 39, mother to a third grader and a kindergartener, when the diagnosis came: Advanced HER2-positive breast cancer.

“On one of my first or second appointments, I took in a little picture of Alexander and Isabella,” Gerber said. Gerber showed her oncologist the picture and told her: “I’ll do anything. I just want to be there for them.”

That was 21 years ago. Today, her current cancer status is “no evidence of disease.”

Over the past 2 decades, Gerber has gotten to be there for her children. Her youngest is now a television producer and her oldest, a CPA.

In that time, Gerber has had one constant: Her oncologist, Kandhasamy Jagathambal, MD, or Dr. Jaga, as she’s often called. 

“I’ve seen multiple physicians over my 21 years, but my oncologist has always been the focal point, guiding me in the right direction,” Gerber said in an interview.

Over the years, Jaga guided Gerber through a range of treatment decisions, including a Herceptin clinical trial that the mom of two views as lifesaving. Jaga often took on the role of both doctor and therapist, even providing comfort in the smaller moments when Gerber would fret about her weight gain.

The oncologist-patient “bond is very, very, very special,” said Gerber, who now works as director of patient advocacy and education at the Community Oncology Alliance.

Gerber isn’t alone in calling out the depth of the oncologist-patient bond.

Over years, sometimes decades, patients and oncologists can experience a whole world together: The treatment successes, relapses, uncertainties, and tough calls. As a result, a deep therapeutic alliance often develops. And with each new hurdle or decision, that collaborative, human connection between doctor and patient continues to form new layers.

“It’s like a shared bonding experience over trauma, like strangers trapped on a subway and then we get out, and we’re now on the other side, celebrating together,” said Saad Khan, MD, an associate professor of medicine (oncology) at Stanford University in California.

 

Connecting Through Stress

Although studies exploring the oncologist-patient bond are limited, some research suggests that a strong therapeutic alliance between patients and oncologists not only provides a foundation for quality care but can also help improve patients’ quality of life, protect against suicidal ideation, and increase treatment adherence.

Because of how stressful and frightening a cancer diagnosis can be, creating “a trusting, uninterrupted, almost sacred environment for them” is paramount for Khan. “I have no doubt that the most important part of their treatment is that they find an oncologist in whom they have total confidence,” Khan wrote in a blog.

The stress that patients with cancer experience is well documented, but oncologists take on a lot themselves and can also experience intense stress (.

“I consider my patient’s battles to be my battles,” Khan wrote.

The stress can start with the daily schedule. Oncologists often have a high volume of patients and tend to spend more time with each individual than most.

According to a 2023 survey, oncologists see about 68 patients a week, on average, but some oncologists, like Khan, have many more. Khan typically sees 20-30 patients a day and continues to care for many over years.

The survey also found that oncologists tend to spend a lot of time with their patients. Compared with other physicians, oncologists are two times more likely to spend at least 25 minutes with each patient.

With this kind of patient volume and time, Khan said, “you’re going to be exhausted.”

What can compound the exhaustion are the occasions oncologists need to deliver bad news — this treatment isn’t working, your cancer has come roaring back and, perhaps the hardest, we have no therapeutic options left. The end-of-life conversations, in particular, can be heartbreaking, especially when a patient is young and not ready to stop trying.

“It can be hard for doctors to discuss the end of life,” Don Dizon, MD, director of the Pelvic Malignancies Program at Lifespan Cancer Institute and director of Medical Oncology at Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, wrote in a column in 2023. Instead, it can be tempting and is often easier to focus on the next treatment, “instilling hope that there’s more that can be done,” even if doing more will only do harm.

In the face of these challenging decisions, growing a personal connection with patients over time can help keep oncologists going.

“We’re not just chemotherapy salesmen,” Khan said in an interview. “We get to know their social support network, who’s going to be driving them [to and from appointments], where they go on vacation, their cat’s name, who their neighbors are.”

 

A ‘Special Relationship’

Ralph V. Boccia, MD, is often asked what he does.

The next question that often comes — “Why do I do what I do?” — is Boccia’s favorite.

“Someone needs to take these patients through their journey,” Boccia, the founder of The Center for Cancer and Blood Disorders, Bethesda, Maryland, typically responds. He also often notes that “it is a special relationship you develop with the patient and their families.”

Boccia thinks about one long-term patient who captures this bond.

Joan Pinson, 70, was diagnosed with multiple myeloma about 25 years ago, when patients’ average survival was about 4 years.

Over a quarter century, Pinson has pivoted to different treatments, amid multiple relapses and remissions. Throughout most of this cancer journey, Boccia has been her primary oncologist, performing a stem cell transplant in 2000 and steering her to six clinical trials.

Her last relapse was 2 years ago, and since then she has been doing well on oral chemotherapy.

“Every time I relapsed, by the next appointment, he’d say, ‘here is what we are going to do,’ ” Pinson recalled. “I never worried, I never panicked. I knew he would take care of me.”

Over the years, Pinson and Boccia have shared many personal moments, sometimes by accident. One special moment happened early on in Pinson’s cancer journey. During an appointment, Boccia had “one ear to the phone” as his wife was about to deliver their first baby, Pinson recalled.

Later, Pinson met that child as a young man working in Boccia’s lab. She has also met Boccia’s wife, a nurse, when she filled in one day in the chemotherapy room.

Boccia now also treats Pinson’s husband who has prostate cancer, and he ruled out cancer when Pinson’s son, now in his 40s, had some worrisome symptoms.

More than 2 decades ago, Pinson told Boccia her goal was to see her youngest child graduate from high school. Now, six grandsons later, she has lived far beyond that goal.

“He has kept me alive,” said Pinson.

 

The Dying Patient

Harsha Vyas, MD, FACP, remembers the first encounter his office had with a 29-year-old woman referred with a diagnosis of stage IV breast cancer.

After just 15 minutes in the waiting room, the woman announced she was leaving. Although office staff assured the woman that she was next, the patient walked out.

Several months later, Vyas was called for an inpatient consult. It was the same woman.

Her lungs were full of fluid, and she was struggling to breathe, said Vyas, president and CEO of the Cancer Center of Middle Georgia, Dublin, and assistant professor at Augusta University in Georgia.

The woman, a single mother, told Vyas about her three young kids at home and asked him, “Doc, do something, please help me,” he recalled.

“Absolutely,” Vyas told her. But he had to be brutally honest about her prognosis and firm that she needed to follow his instructions. “You have a breast cancer I cannot cure,” he said. “All I can do is control the disease.”

From that first day, until the day she died, she came to every appointment and followed the treatment plan Vyas laid out.

For about 2 years, she responded well to treatment. And as the time passed and the trust grew, she began to open up to him. She showed him pictures. She talked about her children and being a mother.

“I’ve got to get my kids in a better place. I’m going to be there for them,” he recalled her saying.

Vyas admired her resourcefulness. She held down a part-time job, working retail and at a local restaurant. She figured out childcare so she could get to her chemotherapy appointments every 3 weeks and manage the copays.

Several years later, when she knew she was approaching the end of her life, she asked Vyas a question that hit hard.

“Doc, I don’t want to die and my kids find me dead. What can we do about it?”

Vyas, who has three daughters, imagined how traumatic this would be for a child. She and Vyas made the shared decision to cease treatment and begin home hospice. When the end was approaching, a hospice worker took over, waiting for bodily functions to cease.

When news of a death comes, “I say a little prayer, it’s almost like a send-off for that soul. That helps me absorb the news ... and let it go.”

But when the bond grows strong over time, as with his patient with breast cancer, Vyas said, “a piece of her is still with me.”

Khan had no relevant disclosures. Boccia and Vyas had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Rose Gerber was 39, mother to a third grader and a kindergartener, when the diagnosis came: Advanced HER2-positive breast cancer.

“On one of my first or second appointments, I took in a little picture of Alexander and Isabella,” Gerber said. Gerber showed her oncologist the picture and told her: “I’ll do anything. I just want to be there for them.”

That was 21 years ago. Today, her current cancer status is “no evidence of disease.”

Over the past 2 decades, Gerber has gotten to be there for her children. Her youngest is now a television producer and her oldest, a CPA.

In that time, Gerber has had one constant: Her oncologist, Kandhasamy Jagathambal, MD, or Dr. Jaga, as she’s often called. 

“I’ve seen multiple physicians over my 21 years, but my oncologist has always been the focal point, guiding me in the right direction,” Gerber said in an interview.

Over the years, Jaga guided Gerber through a range of treatment decisions, including a Herceptin clinical trial that the mom of two views as lifesaving. Jaga often took on the role of both doctor and therapist, even providing comfort in the smaller moments when Gerber would fret about her weight gain.

The oncologist-patient “bond is very, very, very special,” said Gerber, who now works as director of patient advocacy and education at the Community Oncology Alliance.

Gerber isn’t alone in calling out the depth of the oncologist-patient bond.

Over years, sometimes decades, patients and oncologists can experience a whole world together: The treatment successes, relapses, uncertainties, and tough calls. As a result, a deep therapeutic alliance often develops. And with each new hurdle or decision, that collaborative, human connection between doctor and patient continues to form new layers.

“It’s like a shared bonding experience over trauma, like strangers trapped on a subway and then we get out, and we’re now on the other side, celebrating together,” said Saad Khan, MD, an associate professor of medicine (oncology) at Stanford University in California.

 

Connecting Through Stress

Although studies exploring the oncologist-patient bond are limited, some research suggests that a strong therapeutic alliance between patients and oncologists not only provides a foundation for quality care but can also help improve patients’ quality of life, protect against suicidal ideation, and increase treatment adherence.

Because of how stressful and frightening a cancer diagnosis can be, creating “a trusting, uninterrupted, almost sacred environment for them” is paramount for Khan. “I have no doubt that the most important part of their treatment is that they find an oncologist in whom they have total confidence,” Khan wrote in a blog.

The stress that patients with cancer experience is well documented, but oncologists take on a lot themselves and can also experience intense stress (.

“I consider my patient’s battles to be my battles,” Khan wrote.

The stress can start with the daily schedule. Oncologists often have a high volume of patients and tend to spend more time with each individual than most.

According to a 2023 survey, oncologists see about 68 patients a week, on average, but some oncologists, like Khan, have many more. Khan typically sees 20-30 patients a day and continues to care for many over years.

The survey also found that oncologists tend to spend a lot of time with their patients. Compared with other physicians, oncologists are two times more likely to spend at least 25 minutes with each patient.

With this kind of patient volume and time, Khan said, “you’re going to be exhausted.”

What can compound the exhaustion are the occasions oncologists need to deliver bad news — this treatment isn’t working, your cancer has come roaring back and, perhaps the hardest, we have no therapeutic options left. The end-of-life conversations, in particular, can be heartbreaking, especially when a patient is young and not ready to stop trying.

“It can be hard for doctors to discuss the end of life,” Don Dizon, MD, director of the Pelvic Malignancies Program at Lifespan Cancer Institute and director of Medical Oncology at Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, wrote in a column in 2023. Instead, it can be tempting and is often easier to focus on the next treatment, “instilling hope that there’s more that can be done,” even if doing more will only do harm.

In the face of these challenging decisions, growing a personal connection with patients over time can help keep oncologists going.

“We’re not just chemotherapy salesmen,” Khan said in an interview. “We get to know their social support network, who’s going to be driving them [to and from appointments], where they go on vacation, their cat’s name, who their neighbors are.”

 

A ‘Special Relationship’

Ralph V. Boccia, MD, is often asked what he does.

The next question that often comes — “Why do I do what I do?” — is Boccia’s favorite.

“Someone needs to take these patients through their journey,” Boccia, the founder of The Center for Cancer and Blood Disorders, Bethesda, Maryland, typically responds. He also often notes that “it is a special relationship you develop with the patient and their families.”

Boccia thinks about one long-term patient who captures this bond.

Joan Pinson, 70, was diagnosed with multiple myeloma about 25 years ago, when patients’ average survival was about 4 years.

Over a quarter century, Pinson has pivoted to different treatments, amid multiple relapses and remissions. Throughout most of this cancer journey, Boccia has been her primary oncologist, performing a stem cell transplant in 2000 and steering her to six clinical trials.

Her last relapse was 2 years ago, and since then she has been doing well on oral chemotherapy.

“Every time I relapsed, by the next appointment, he’d say, ‘here is what we are going to do,’ ” Pinson recalled. “I never worried, I never panicked. I knew he would take care of me.”

Over the years, Pinson and Boccia have shared many personal moments, sometimes by accident. One special moment happened early on in Pinson’s cancer journey. During an appointment, Boccia had “one ear to the phone” as his wife was about to deliver their first baby, Pinson recalled.

Later, Pinson met that child as a young man working in Boccia’s lab. She has also met Boccia’s wife, a nurse, when she filled in one day in the chemotherapy room.

Boccia now also treats Pinson’s husband who has prostate cancer, and he ruled out cancer when Pinson’s son, now in his 40s, had some worrisome symptoms.

More than 2 decades ago, Pinson told Boccia her goal was to see her youngest child graduate from high school. Now, six grandsons later, she has lived far beyond that goal.

“He has kept me alive,” said Pinson.

 

The Dying Patient

Harsha Vyas, MD, FACP, remembers the first encounter his office had with a 29-year-old woman referred with a diagnosis of stage IV breast cancer.

After just 15 minutes in the waiting room, the woman announced she was leaving. Although office staff assured the woman that she was next, the patient walked out.

Several months later, Vyas was called for an inpatient consult. It was the same woman.

Her lungs were full of fluid, and she was struggling to breathe, said Vyas, president and CEO of the Cancer Center of Middle Georgia, Dublin, and assistant professor at Augusta University in Georgia.

The woman, a single mother, told Vyas about her three young kids at home and asked him, “Doc, do something, please help me,” he recalled.

“Absolutely,” Vyas told her. But he had to be brutally honest about her prognosis and firm that she needed to follow his instructions. “You have a breast cancer I cannot cure,” he said. “All I can do is control the disease.”

From that first day, until the day she died, she came to every appointment and followed the treatment plan Vyas laid out.

For about 2 years, she responded well to treatment. And as the time passed and the trust grew, she began to open up to him. She showed him pictures. She talked about her children and being a mother.

“I’ve got to get my kids in a better place. I’m going to be there for them,” he recalled her saying.

Vyas admired her resourcefulness. She held down a part-time job, working retail and at a local restaurant. She figured out childcare so she could get to her chemotherapy appointments every 3 weeks and manage the copays.

Several years later, when she knew she was approaching the end of her life, she asked Vyas a question that hit hard.

“Doc, I don’t want to die and my kids find me dead. What can we do about it?”

Vyas, who has three daughters, imagined how traumatic this would be for a child. She and Vyas made the shared decision to cease treatment and begin home hospice. When the end was approaching, a hospice worker took over, waiting for bodily functions to cease.

When news of a death comes, “I say a little prayer, it’s almost like a send-off for that soul. That helps me absorb the news ... and let it go.”

But when the bond grows strong over time, as with his patient with breast cancer, Vyas said, “a piece of her is still with me.”

Khan had no relevant disclosures. Boccia and Vyas had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Microplastics have been found in the lungs, liver, blood, and heart. Now, researchers report they have found the first evidence of the substances in human brains.

In a recent case series study that examined olfactory bulb tissue from deceased individuals, 8 of the 15 decedent brains showed the presence of microplastics, most commonly polypropylene, a plastic typically used in food packaging and water bottles.

Measuring less than 5 mm in size, microplastics are formed over time as plastic materials break down but don’t biodegrade. Exposure to these substances can come through food, air, and skin absorption.

While scientists are learning more about how these substances are absorbed by the body, questions remain about how much exposure is safe, what effect — if any — microplastics could have on brain function, and what clinicians should tell their patients.

 

What Are the Major Health Concerns?

The Plastic Health Council estimates that more than 500 million metric tons of plastic are produced worldwide each year. In addition, it reports that plastic products can contain more than 16,000 chemicals, about a quarter of which have been found to be hazardous to human health and the environment. Microplastics and nanoplastics can enter the body through the air, in food, or absorption through the skin.

A study published in March showed that patients with carotid plaques and the presence of microplastics and nanoplastics were at an increased risk for death or major cardiovascular events.

Other studies have shown a link between these substances and placental inflammation and preterm births, reduced male fertility, and endocrine disruption — as well as accelerated spread of cancer cells in the gut.

There is also evidence suggesting that microplastics may facilitate the development of antibiotic resistance in bacteria and could contribute to the rise in food allergies.

And now, Thais Mauad, MD, PhD, and colleagues have found the substances in the brain.

 

How Is the Brain Affected?

The investigators examined olfactory bulb tissues from 15 deceased Sao Paulo, Brazil, residents ranging in age from 33 to 100 years who underwent routine coroner autopsies. All but three of the participants were men.

Exclusion criteria included having undergone previous neurosurgical interventions. The tissues were analyzed using micro–Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (µFTIR).

In addition, the researchers practiced a “plastic-free approach” in their analysis, which included using filters and covering glassware and samples with aluminum foil.

Study findings showed microplastics in 8 of the 15 participants — including in the centenarian. In total, there were 16 synthetic polymer particles and fibers detected, with up to four microplastics detected per olfactory bulb. Polypropylene was the most common polymer found (44%), followed by polyamide, nylon, and polyethylene vinyl acetate. These substances are commonly used in a wide range of products, including food packaging, textiles, kitchen utensils, medical devices, and adhesives.

The microplastic particles ranged in length from 5.5 to 26 microns (one millionth of a meter), with a width that ranged from 3 to 25 microns. The mean fiber length and width was 21 and 4 microns, respectively. For comparison, the diameter of one human hair averages about 70 microns, according to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

“To our knowledge, this is the first study in which the presence of microplastics in the human brain was identified and characterized using µFTIR,” the researchers wrote.

 

How Do Microplastics Reach the Brain?

Although the possibility of microplastics crossing the blood-brain barrier has been questioned, senior investigator Mauad, associate professor in the Department of Pathology, the University of Sao Paulo in Brazil, noted that the olfactory pathway could offer an entry route through inhalation of the particles.

This means that “breathing within indoor environments could be a major source of plastic pollution in the brain,” she said in a press release.

“With much smaller nanoplastics entering the body with greater ease, the total level of plastic particles may be much higher. What is worrying is the capacity of such particles to be internalized by cells and alter how our bodies function,” she added.

Mauad said that although questions remain regarding the health implications of their findings, some animal studies have shown that the presence of microplastics in the brain is linked to neurotoxic effects, including oxidative stress.

In addition, exposure to particulate matter has been linked previously to such neurologic conditions as dementia and neurodegenerative conditions such as Parkinson’s disease “seem to have a connection with nasal abnormalities as initial symptoms,” the investigators noted.

While the olfactory pathway appears to be a likely route of exposure the researchers noted that other potential entry routes, including through blood circulation, may also be involved.

The research suggests that inhaling microplastics while indoors may be unavoidable, Mauad said, making it unlikely individuals can eliminate exposure to these substances.

“Everything that surrounds us is plastic. So we can’t really get rid of it,” she said.

 

Are Microplastics Regulated?

The most effective solution would be stricter regulations, Mauad said.

“The industry has chosen to sell many things in plastic, and I think this has to change. We need more policies to decrease plastic production — especially single-use plastic,” she said.

Federal, state, and local regulations for microplastics are “virtually nonexistent,” reported the Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council (ITRC), a state-led coalition that produces documents and trainings related to regulatory issues.

In 2021, the ITRC sent a survey to all US states asking about microplastics regulations. Of the 26 states that responded, only 4 said they had conducted sampling for microplastics. None of the responders indicated they had established any criteria or standards for microplastics, although eight states indicated they had plans to pursue them in the future.

Although federal regulations include the Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2015 and the Save Our Seas Act 2.0, the rules don’t directly pertain to microplastics.

There are also no regulations currently in place regarding microplastics or nanoplastics in food. A report issued in July by the FDA claimed that “the overall scientific evidence does not demonstrate that levels of microplastics or nanoplastics found in foods pose a risk to human health.”

International efforts to regulate microplastics are much further along. First created in 2022, the treaty would forge an international, legally binding agreement.

While it is a step in the right direction, the Plastic Health Council has cautioned about “the omission of measures in draft provisions that fully address the impact of plastic pollution on human health.” The treaty should reduce plastic production, eliminate single-use plastic items, and call for testing of all chemicals in plastics, the council argues.

The final round of negotiations for the UN Global Plastic Treaty is set for completion before the end of the year.

 

What Should Clinicians Know?

Much remains unknown about the potential health effects of microplastic exposure. So how can clinicians respond to questions from concerned patients?

“We don’t yet have enough evidence about the plastic particle itself, like those highlighted in the current study — and even more so when it comes to nanoplastics, which are a thousand times smaller,” said Phoebe Stapleton, PhD, associated professor in the Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology at the Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy at Rutgers University, Piscataway, New Jersey.

“But we do have a lot of evidence about the chemicals that are used to make plastics, and we’ve already seen regulation there from the EPA. That’s one conversation that clinicians could have with patients: about those chemicals,” she added.

Stapleton recommended clinicians stay current on the latest research and be ready to respond should a patient raise the issue. She also noted the importance of exercising caution when interpreting these new findings.

While the study is important — especially because it highlights inhalation as a viable route of entry — exposure through the olfactory area is still just a theory and hasn’t yet been fully proven.

In addition, Stapleton wonders whether there are tissues where these substances are not found. A discovery like that “would be really exciting because that means that that tissue has mechanisms protecting it, and maybe, we could learn more about how to keep microplastics out,” she said.

She would also like to see more studies on specific adverse health effects from microplastics in the body.

Mauad agreed.

“That’s the next set of questions: What are the toxicities or lack thereof in those tissues? That will give us more information as it pertains to human health. It doesn’t feel good to know they’re in our tissues, but we still don’t have a real understanding of what they’re doing when they’re there,” she said.

The current study was funded by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation and by grants from the Brazilian Research Council and the Soa State Research Agency. It was also funded by the Plastic Soup Foundation — which, together with A Plastic Planet, forms the Plastic Health Council. The investigators and Stapleton reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Microplastics have been found in the lungs, liver, blood, and heart. Now, researchers report they have found the first evidence of the substances in human brains.

In a recent case series study that examined olfactory bulb tissue from deceased individuals, 8 of the 15 decedent brains showed the presence of microplastics, most commonly polypropylene, a plastic typically used in food packaging and water bottles.

Measuring less than 5 mm in size, microplastics are formed over time as plastic materials break down but don’t biodegrade. Exposure to these substances can come through food, air, and skin absorption.

While scientists are learning more about how these substances are absorbed by the body, questions remain about how much exposure is safe, what effect — if any — microplastics could have on brain function, and what clinicians should tell their patients.

 

What Are the Major Health Concerns?

The Plastic Health Council estimates that more than 500 million metric tons of plastic are produced worldwide each year. In addition, it reports that plastic products can contain more than 16,000 chemicals, about a quarter of which have been found to be hazardous to human health and the environment. Microplastics and nanoplastics can enter the body through the air, in food, or absorption through the skin.

A study published in March showed that patients with carotid plaques and the presence of microplastics and nanoplastics were at an increased risk for death or major cardiovascular events.

Other studies have shown a link between these substances and placental inflammation and preterm births, reduced male fertility, and endocrine disruption — as well as accelerated spread of cancer cells in the gut.

There is also evidence suggesting that microplastics may facilitate the development of antibiotic resistance in bacteria and could contribute to the rise in food allergies.

And now, Thais Mauad, MD, PhD, and colleagues have found the substances in the brain.

 

How Is the Brain Affected?

The investigators examined olfactory bulb tissues from 15 deceased Sao Paulo, Brazil, residents ranging in age from 33 to 100 years who underwent routine coroner autopsies. All but three of the participants were men.

Exclusion criteria included having undergone previous neurosurgical interventions. The tissues were analyzed using micro–Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (µFTIR).

In addition, the researchers practiced a “plastic-free approach” in their analysis, which included using filters and covering glassware and samples with aluminum foil.

Study findings showed microplastics in 8 of the 15 participants — including in the centenarian. In total, there were 16 synthetic polymer particles and fibers detected, with up to four microplastics detected per olfactory bulb. Polypropylene was the most common polymer found (44%), followed by polyamide, nylon, and polyethylene vinyl acetate. These substances are commonly used in a wide range of products, including food packaging, textiles, kitchen utensils, medical devices, and adhesives.

The microplastic particles ranged in length from 5.5 to 26 microns (one millionth of a meter), with a width that ranged from 3 to 25 microns. The mean fiber length and width was 21 and 4 microns, respectively. For comparison, the diameter of one human hair averages about 70 microns, according to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

“To our knowledge, this is the first study in which the presence of microplastics in the human brain was identified and characterized using µFTIR,” the researchers wrote.

 

How Do Microplastics Reach the Brain?

Although the possibility of microplastics crossing the blood-brain barrier has been questioned, senior investigator Mauad, associate professor in the Department of Pathology, the University of Sao Paulo in Brazil, noted that the olfactory pathway could offer an entry route through inhalation of the particles.

This means that “breathing within indoor environments could be a major source of plastic pollution in the brain,” she said in a press release.

“With much smaller nanoplastics entering the body with greater ease, the total level of plastic particles may be much higher. What is worrying is the capacity of such particles to be internalized by cells and alter how our bodies function,” she added.

Mauad said that although questions remain regarding the health implications of their findings, some animal studies have shown that the presence of microplastics in the brain is linked to neurotoxic effects, including oxidative stress.

In addition, exposure to particulate matter has been linked previously to such neurologic conditions as dementia and neurodegenerative conditions such as Parkinson’s disease “seem to have a connection with nasal abnormalities as initial symptoms,” the investigators noted.

While the olfactory pathway appears to be a likely route of exposure the researchers noted that other potential entry routes, including through blood circulation, may also be involved.

The research suggests that inhaling microplastics while indoors may be unavoidable, Mauad said, making it unlikely individuals can eliminate exposure to these substances.

“Everything that surrounds us is plastic. So we can’t really get rid of it,” she said.

 

Are Microplastics Regulated?

The most effective solution would be stricter regulations, Mauad said.

“The industry has chosen to sell many things in plastic, and I think this has to change. We need more policies to decrease plastic production — especially single-use plastic,” she said.

Federal, state, and local regulations for microplastics are “virtually nonexistent,” reported the Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council (ITRC), a state-led coalition that produces documents and trainings related to regulatory issues.

In 2021, the ITRC sent a survey to all US states asking about microplastics regulations. Of the 26 states that responded, only 4 said they had conducted sampling for microplastics. None of the responders indicated they had established any criteria or standards for microplastics, although eight states indicated they had plans to pursue them in the future.

Although federal regulations include the Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2015 and the Save Our Seas Act 2.0, the rules don’t directly pertain to microplastics.

There are also no regulations currently in place regarding microplastics or nanoplastics in food. A report issued in July by the FDA claimed that “the overall scientific evidence does not demonstrate that levels of microplastics or nanoplastics found in foods pose a risk to human health.”

International efforts to regulate microplastics are much further along. First created in 2022, the treaty would forge an international, legally binding agreement.

While it is a step in the right direction, the Plastic Health Council has cautioned about “the omission of measures in draft provisions that fully address the impact of plastic pollution on human health.” The treaty should reduce plastic production, eliminate single-use plastic items, and call for testing of all chemicals in plastics, the council argues.

The final round of negotiations for the UN Global Plastic Treaty is set for completion before the end of the year.

 

What Should Clinicians Know?

Much remains unknown about the potential health effects of microplastic exposure. So how can clinicians respond to questions from concerned patients?

“We don’t yet have enough evidence about the plastic particle itself, like those highlighted in the current study — and even more so when it comes to nanoplastics, which are a thousand times smaller,” said Phoebe Stapleton, PhD, associated professor in the Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology at the Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy at Rutgers University, Piscataway, New Jersey.

“But we do have a lot of evidence about the chemicals that are used to make plastics, and we’ve already seen regulation there from the EPA. That’s one conversation that clinicians could have with patients: about those chemicals,” she added.

Stapleton recommended clinicians stay current on the latest research and be ready to respond should a patient raise the issue. She also noted the importance of exercising caution when interpreting these new findings.

While the study is important — especially because it highlights inhalation as a viable route of entry — exposure through the olfactory area is still just a theory and hasn’t yet been fully proven.

In addition, Stapleton wonders whether there are tissues where these substances are not found. A discovery like that “would be really exciting because that means that that tissue has mechanisms protecting it, and maybe, we could learn more about how to keep microplastics out,” she said.

She would also like to see more studies on specific adverse health effects from microplastics in the body.

Mauad agreed.

“That’s the next set of questions: What are the toxicities or lack thereof in those tissues? That will give us more information as it pertains to human health. It doesn’t feel good to know they’re in our tissues, but we still don’t have a real understanding of what they’re doing when they’re there,” she said.

The current study was funded by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation and by grants from the Brazilian Research Council and the Soa State Research Agency. It was also funded by the Plastic Soup Foundation — which, together with A Plastic Planet, forms the Plastic Health Council. The investigators and Stapleton reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Microplastics have been found in the lungs, liver, blood, and heart. Now, researchers report they have found the first evidence of the substances in human brains.

In a recent case series study that examined olfactory bulb tissue from deceased individuals, 8 of the 15 decedent brains showed the presence of microplastics, most commonly polypropylene, a plastic typically used in food packaging and water bottles.

Measuring less than 5 mm in size, microplastics are formed over time as plastic materials break down but don’t biodegrade. Exposure to these substances can come through food, air, and skin absorption.

While scientists are learning more about how these substances are absorbed by the body, questions remain about how much exposure is safe, what effect — if any — microplastics could have on brain function, and what clinicians should tell their patients.

 

What Are the Major Health Concerns?

The Plastic Health Council estimates that more than 500 million metric tons of plastic are produced worldwide each year. In addition, it reports that plastic products can contain more than 16,000 chemicals, about a quarter of which have been found to be hazardous to human health and the environment. Microplastics and nanoplastics can enter the body through the air, in food, or absorption through the skin.

A study published in March showed that patients with carotid plaques and the presence of microplastics and nanoplastics were at an increased risk for death or major cardiovascular events.

Other studies have shown a link between these substances and placental inflammation and preterm births, reduced male fertility, and endocrine disruption — as well as accelerated spread of cancer cells in the gut.

There is also evidence suggesting that microplastics may facilitate the development of antibiotic resistance in bacteria and could contribute to the rise in food allergies.

And now, Thais Mauad, MD, PhD, and colleagues have found the substances in the brain.

 

How Is the Brain Affected?

The investigators examined olfactory bulb tissues from 15 deceased Sao Paulo, Brazil, residents ranging in age from 33 to 100 years who underwent routine coroner autopsies. All but three of the participants were men.

Exclusion criteria included having undergone previous neurosurgical interventions. The tissues were analyzed using micro–Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (µFTIR).

In addition, the researchers practiced a “plastic-free approach” in their analysis, which included using filters and covering glassware and samples with aluminum foil.

Study findings showed microplastics in 8 of the 15 participants — including in the centenarian. In total, there were 16 synthetic polymer particles and fibers detected, with up to four microplastics detected per olfactory bulb. Polypropylene was the most common polymer found (44%), followed by polyamide, nylon, and polyethylene vinyl acetate. These substances are commonly used in a wide range of products, including food packaging, textiles, kitchen utensils, medical devices, and adhesives.

The microplastic particles ranged in length from 5.5 to 26 microns (one millionth of a meter), with a width that ranged from 3 to 25 microns. The mean fiber length and width was 21 and 4 microns, respectively. For comparison, the diameter of one human hair averages about 70 microns, according to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

“To our knowledge, this is the first study in which the presence of microplastics in the human brain was identified and characterized using µFTIR,” the researchers wrote.

 

How Do Microplastics Reach the Brain?

Although the possibility of microplastics crossing the blood-brain barrier has been questioned, senior investigator Mauad, associate professor in the Department of Pathology, the University of Sao Paulo in Brazil, noted that the olfactory pathway could offer an entry route through inhalation of the particles.

This means that “breathing within indoor environments could be a major source of plastic pollution in the brain,” she said in a press release.

“With much smaller nanoplastics entering the body with greater ease, the total level of plastic particles may be much higher. What is worrying is the capacity of such particles to be internalized by cells and alter how our bodies function,” she added.

Mauad said that although questions remain regarding the health implications of their findings, some animal studies have shown that the presence of microplastics in the brain is linked to neurotoxic effects, including oxidative stress.

In addition, exposure to particulate matter has been linked previously to such neurologic conditions as dementia and neurodegenerative conditions such as Parkinson’s disease “seem to have a connection with nasal abnormalities as initial symptoms,” the investigators noted.

While the olfactory pathway appears to be a likely route of exposure the researchers noted that other potential entry routes, including through blood circulation, may also be involved.

The research suggests that inhaling microplastics while indoors may be unavoidable, Mauad said, making it unlikely individuals can eliminate exposure to these substances.

“Everything that surrounds us is plastic. So we can’t really get rid of it,” she said.

 

Are Microplastics Regulated?

The most effective solution would be stricter regulations, Mauad said.

“The industry has chosen to sell many things in plastic, and I think this has to change. We need more policies to decrease plastic production — especially single-use plastic,” she said.

Federal, state, and local regulations for microplastics are “virtually nonexistent,” reported the Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council (ITRC), a state-led coalition that produces documents and trainings related to regulatory issues.

In 2021, the ITRC sent a survey to all US states asking about microplastics regulations. Of the 26 states that responded, only 4 said they had conducted sampling for microplastics. None of the responders indicated they had established any criteria or standards for microplastics, although eight states indicated they had plans to pursue them in the future.

Although federal regulations include the Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2015 and the Save Our Seas Act 2.0, the rules don’t directly pertain to microplastics.

There are also no regulations currently in place regarding microplastics or nanoplastics in food. A report issued in July by the FDA claimed that “the overall scientific evidence does not demonstrate that levels of microplastics or nanoplastics found in foods pose a risk to human health.”

International efforts to regulate microplastics are much further along. First created in 2022, the treaty would forge an international, legally binding agreement.

While it is a step in the right direction, the Plastic Health Council has cautioned about “the omission of measures in draft provisions that fully address the impact of plastic pollution on human health.” The treaty should reduce plastic production, eliminate single-use plastic items, and call for testing of all chemicals in plastics, the council argues.

The final round of negotiations for the UN Global Plastic Treaty is set for completion before the end of the year.

 

What Should Clinicians Know?

Much remains unknown about the potential health effects of microplastic exposure. So how can clinicians respond to questions from concerned patients?

“We don’t yet have enough evidence about the plastic particle itself, like those highlighted in the current study — and even more so when it comes to nanoplastics, which are a thousand times smaller,” said Phoebe Stapleton, PhD, associated professor in the Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology at the Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy at Rutgers University, Piscataway, New Jersey.

“But we do have a lot of evidence about the chemicals that are used to make plastics, and we’ve already seen regulation there from the EPA. That’s one conversation that clinicians could have with patients: about those chemicals,” she added.

Stapleton recommended clinicians stay current on the latest research and be ready to respond should a patient raise the issue. She also noted the importance of exercising caution when interpreting these new findings.

While the study is important — especially because it highlights inhalation as a viable route of entry — exposure through the olfactory area is still just a theory and hasn’t yet been fully proven.

In addition, Stapleton wonders whether there are tissues where these substances are not found. A discovery like that “would be really exciting because that means that that tissue has mechanisms protecting it, and maybe, we could learn more about how to keep microplastics out,” she said.

She would also like to see more studies on specific adverse health effects from microplastics in the body.

Mauad agreed.

“That’s the next set of questions: What are the toxicities or lack thereof in those tissues? That will give us more information as it pertains to human health. It doesn’t feel good to know they’re in our tissues, but we still don’t have a real understanding of what they’re doing when they’re there,” she said.

The current study was funded by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation and by grants from the Brazilian Research Council and the Soa State Research Agency. It was also funded by the Plastic Soup Foundation — which, together with A Plastic Planet, forms the Plastic Health Council. The investigators and Stapleton reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Recently published consensus guidelines for low-dose oral minoxidil (LDOM) treatment of hair loss provide best-practice recommendations in areas ranging from pretreatment considerations and counseling to patient monitoring. With large randomized, controlled trials lacking, the guidelines authors and other dermatologists said the paper provides practical pointers that should increase clinicians’ confidence in prescribing LDOM for hair loss.

Comfort and Confidence

Benjamin N. Ungar, MD, director of the Alopecia Center of Excellence at Mount Sinai Icahn School of Medicine, New York City, said he hopes that the guidelines will “make dermatologists in practice more comfortable with the use of low-dose oral minoxidil to treat different kinds of hair loss, and therefore, more patients will benefit.” He was not an author of the paper, which was published online in JAMA Dermatology on November 20, but was asked to comment.

Members of the multidisciplinary Low-Dose Oral Minoxidil Initiation steering committee recruited dermatologists with hair loss expertise from 12 countries. Using a modified four-round Delphi process that required at least 70% agreement, the group of 43 dermatologists crafted 76 consensus statements. “Notably,” said Co-senior author Jennifer Fu, MD, director of the Hair Disorders Clinic at the University of California, San Francisco, “27 items achieved at least 90% consensus after the first two rounds, indicating broad agreement in expert practice.”

Indications for LDOM

At least 90% of experts concurred regarding the appropriateness of LDOM use for androgenetic alopecia (AGA) and age-related thinning and in cases where topical minoxidil proves ineffective or problematic. Additional situations in which LDOM might provide direct benefit involve follicular miniaturization, such as alopecia areata, or hair cycle disruption, such as chemotherapy. The authors also recommended considering LDOM over topical minoxidil when the latter is more expensive and when patients desire enhanced hypertrichosis.

 

Contraindications and Precautions

Before prescribing LDOM, the authors wrote, clinicians may consult with primary care or cardiology when contraindications (cardiovascular issues, pregnancy/nursing, and potential drug interactions) or precautions (history of tachycardia or arrhythmia, hypotension, or impaired kidney function) exist. Patients with precautions may require blood pressure monitoring, as well as monitoring for adverse effects of treatment. The panel also suggested the latter for all patients at the time of LDOM initiation and dose escalation. The authors advised against routine baseline laboratory and EKG testing in cases without relevant precautions.

Dosing Considerations

Along with systemic adverse event risk and baseline hair loss severity, key dosing considerations include patient age, sex, and whether patients desire hypertrichosis. Consensus on daily doses for adolescent females and males begins at 0.625 mg and 1.25 mg, respectively, and ranges up to 2.5 mg for adolescent females vs 5 mg for adult females and adolescent and adult males.

Presently, said Ungar, many dermatologists — including some who prescribe LDOM — remain uncomfortable even with very low doses, perhaps because of an invalid perception of cardiovascular safety issues including potential hypotension and pericardial effusions. However, recently published data include a review published November 7 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, which showed no significant effect of LDOM on blood pressure. And in a September Journal of Drugs in Dermatology article the authors found no impact on pericardial effusions in a 100-patient cohort.

Some dermatologists worry about the impact hypertrichosis may have on patients, Ungar added. Although incidence estimates range from 15% to 30%, he said, more than half of his patients experience hypertrichosis. “However, most continue treatment because the beneficial effects outweigh the effect of hypertrichosis.”



 

Practical Roadmap

Adam Friedman, MD, who was not involved with the publication, applauds its inclusion of pragmatic clinical guidance, which he said consensus papers often lack. “This paper sets a great roadmap for working low-dose oral minoxidil into your clinical practice, Friedman, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, DC, said in an interview.

Rather than limiting LDOM use to AGA, he said, the paper is most helpful in showing the spectrum of disease states for which the expert panel prescribes LDOM. “We use it as adjunctive therapy for many other things, both scarring and nonscarring hair loss,” he added.

In appropriate clinical contexts, the authors wrote, clinicians may consider combining LDOM with spironolactone or beta-blockers. Friedman said that in his hands, combining LDOM with a 5-alpha reductase inhibitor (5ARI) is “absolutely outstanding.” Minoxidil increases blood flow to the scalp, he explained, while 5ARIs prevent production of dihydrotestosterone, which miniaturizes hair.

Fu said, “We hope these consensus outcomes will be helpful to dermatology colleagues as they consider using LDOM to treat hair loss in their adult and adolescent patient populations. We anticipate that these guidelines will be updated as additional evidence-based data emerges and are encouraged that we are already seeing new publications on this topic.”

Important areas for future research, she noted, include pediatric use of LDOM, the comparative efficacy of topical vs oral minoxidil, the safety of oral minoxidil for patients with a history of allergic contact dermatitis to topical minoxidil, and the use of other off-label forms of minoxidil, such as compounded oral minoxidil and sublingual minoxidil.

The study was funded by the University of California, San Francisco, Department of Dermatology Medical Student Summer Research Fellowship Program. Fu reported personal fees from Pfizer, Eli Lilly and Company, and Sun Pharma outside of the study. The full list of author disclosures can be found in the paper. Ungar and Friedman reported no relevant financial relationships.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Recently published consensus guidelines for low-dose oral minoxidil (LDOM) treatment of hair loss provide best-practice recommendations in areas ranging from pretreatment considerations and counseling to patient monitoring. With large randomized, controlled trials lacking, the guidelines authors and other dermatologists said the paper provides practical pointers that should increase clinicians’ confidence in prescribing LDOM for hair loss.

Comfort and Confidence

Benjamin N. Ungar, MD, director of the Alopecia Center of Excellence at Mount Sinai Icahn School of Medicine, New York City, said he hopes that the guidelines will “make dermatologists in practice more comfortable with the use of low-dose oral minoxidil to treat different kinds of hair loss, and therefore, more patients will benefit.” He was not an author of the paper, which was published online in JAMA Dermatology on November 20, but was asked to comment.

Members of the multidisciplinary Low-Dose Oral Minoxidil Initiation steering committee recruited dermatologists with hair loss expertise from 12 countries. Using a modified four-round Delphi process that required at least 70% agreement, the group of 43 dermatologists crafted 76 consensus statements. “Notably,” said Co-senior author Jennifer Fu, MD, director of the Hair Disorders Clinic at the University of California, San Francisco, “27 items achieved at least 90% consensus after the first two rounds, indicating broad agreement in expert practice.”

Indications for LDOM

At least 90% of experts concurred regarding the appropriateness of LDOM use for androgenetic alopecia (AGA) and age-related thinning and in cases where topical minoxidil proves ineffective or problematic. Additional situations in which LDOM might provide direct benefit involve follicular miniaturization, such as alopecia areata, or hair cycle disruption, such as chemotherapy. The authors also recommended considering LDOM over topical minoxidil when the latter is more expensive and when patients desire enhanced hypertrichosis.

 

Contraindications and Precautions

Before prescribing LDOM, the authors wrote, clinicians may consult with primary care or cardiology when contraindications (cardiovascular issues, pregnancy/nursing, and potential drug interactions) or precautions (history of tachycardia or arrhythmia, hypotension, or impaired kidney function) exist. Patients with precautions may require blood pressure monitoring, as well as monitoring for adverse effects of treatment. The panel also suggested the latter for all patients at the time of LDOM initiation and dose escalation. The authors advised against routine baseline laboratory and EKG testing in cases without relevant precautions.

Dosing Considerations

Along with systemic adverse event risk and baseline hair loss severity, key dosing considerations include patient age, sex, and whether patients desire hypertrichosis. Consensus on daily doses for adolescent females and males begins at 0.625 mg and 1.25 mg, respectively, and ranges up to 2.5 mg for adolescent females vs 5 mg for adult females and adolescent and adult males.

Presently, said Ungar, many dermatologists — including some who prescribe LDOM — remain uncomfortable even with very low doses, perhaps because of an invalid perception of cardiovascular safety issues including potential hypotension and pericardial effusions. However, recently published data include a review published November 7 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, which showed no significant effect of LDOM on blood pressure. And in a September Journal of Drugs in Dermatology article the authors found no impact on pericardial effusions in a 100-patient cohort.

Some dermatologists worry about the impact hypertrichosis may have on patients, Ungar added. Although incidence estimates range from 15% to 30%, he said, more than half of his patients experience hypertrichosis. “However, most continue treatment because the beneficial effects outweigh the effect of hypertrichosis.”



 

Practical Roadmap

Adam Friedman, MD, who was not involved with the publication, applauds its inclusion of pragmatic clinical guidance, which he said consensus papers often lack. “This paper sets a great roadmap for working low-dose oral minoxidil into your clinical practice, Friedman, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, DC, said in an interview.

Rather than limiting LDOM use to AGA, he said, the paper is most helpful in showing the spectrum of disease states for which the expert panel prescribes LDOM. “We use it as adjunctive therapy for many other things, both scarring and nonscarring hair loss,” he added.

In appropriate clinical contexts, the authors wrote, clinicians may consider combining LDOM with spironolactone or beta-blockers. Friedman said that in his hands, combining LDOM with a 5-alpha reductase inhibitor (5ARI) is “absolutely outstanding.” Minoxidil increases blood flow to the scalp, he explained, while 5ARIs prevent production of dihydrotestosterone, which miniaturizes hair.

Fu said, “We hope these consensus outcomes will be helpful to dermatology colleagues as they consider using LDOM to treat hair loss in their adult and adolescent patient populations. We anticipate that these guidelines will be updated as additional evidence-based data emerges and are encouraged that we are already seeing new publications on this topic.”

Important areas for future research, she noted, include pediatric use of LDOM, the comparative efficacy of topical vs oral minoxidil, the safety of oral minoxidil for patients with a history of allergic contact dermatitis to topical minoxidil, and the use of other off-label forms of minoxidil, such as compounded oral minoxidil and sublingual minoxidil.

The study was funded by the University of California, San Francisco, Department of Dermatology Medical Student Summer Research Fellowship Program. Fu reported personal fees from Pfizer, Eli Lilly and Company, and Sun Pharma outside of the study. The full list of author disclosures can be found in the paper. Ungar and Friedman reported no relevant financial relationships.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Recently published consensus guidelines for low-dose oral minoxidil (LDOM) treatment of hair loss provide best-practice recommendations in areas ranging from pretreatment considerations and counseling to patient monitoring. With large randomized, controlled trials lacking, the guidelines authors and other dermatologists said the paper provides practical pointers that should increase clinicians’ confidence in prescribing LDOM for hair loss.

Comfort and Confidence

Benjamin N. Ungar, MD, director of the Alopecia Center of Excellence at Mount Sinai Icahn School of Medicine, New York City, said he hopes that the guidelines will “make dermatologists in practice more comfortable with the use of low-dose oral minoxidil to treat different kinds of hair loss, and therefore, more patients will benefit.” He was not an author of the paper, which was published online in JAMA Dermatology on November 20, but was asked to comment.

Members of the multidisciplinary Low-Dose Oral Minoxidil Initiation steering committee recruited dermatologists with hair loss expertise from 12 countries. Using a modified four-round Delphi process that required at least 70% agreement, the group of 43 dermatologists crafted 76 consensus statements. “Notably,” said Co-senior author Jennifer Fu, MD, director of the Hair Disorders Clinic at the University of California, San Francisco, “27 items achieved at least 90% consensus after the first two rounds, indicating broad agreement in expert practice.”

Indications for LDOM

At least 90% of experts concurred regarding the appropriateness of LDOM use for androgenetic alopecia (AGA) and age-related thinning and in cases where topical minoxidil proves ineffective or problematic. Additional situations in which LDOM might provide direct benefit involve follicular miniaturization, such as alopecia areata, or hair cycle disruption, such as chemotherapy. The authors also recommended considering LDOM over topical minoxidil when the latter is more expensive and when patients desire enhanced hypertrichosis.

 

Contraindications and Precautions

Before prescribing LDOM, the authors wrote, clinicians may consult with primary care or cardiology when contraindications (cardiovascular issues, pregnancy/nursing, and potential drug interactions) or precautions (history of tachycardia or arrhythmia, hypotension, or impaired kidney function) exist. Patients with precautions may require blood pressure monitoring, as well as monitoring for adverse effects of treatment. The panel also suggested the latter for all patients at the time of LDOM initiation and dose escalation. The authors advised against routine baseline laboratory and EKG testing in cases without relevant precautions.

Dosing Considerations

Along with systemic adverse event risk and baseline hair loss severity, key dosing considerations include patient age, sex, and whether patients desire hypertrichosis. Consensus on daily doses for adolescent females and males begins at 0.625 mg and 1.25 mg, respectively, and ranges up to 2.5 mg for adolescent females vs 5 mg for adult females and adolescent and adult males.

Presently, said Ungar, many dermatologists — including some who prescribe LDOM — remain uncomfortable even with very low doses, perhaps because of an invalid perception of cardiovascular safety issues including potential hypotension and pericardial effusions. However, recently published data include a review published November 7 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, which showed no significant effect of LDOM on blood pressure. And in a September Journal of Drugs in Dermatology article the authors found no impact on pericardial effusions in a 100-patient cohort.

Some dermatologists worry about the impact hypertrichosis may have on patients, Ungar added. Although incidence estimates range from 15% to 30%, he said, more than half of his patients experience hypertrichosis. “However, most continue treatment because the beneficial effects outweigh the effect of hypertrichosis.”



 

Practical Roadmap

Adam Friedman, MD, who was not involved with the publication, applauds its inclusion of pragmatic clinical guidance, which he said consensus papers often lack. “This paper sets a great roadmap for working low-dose oral minoxidil into your clinical practice, Friedman, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, DC, said in an interview.

Rather than limiting LDOM use to AGA, he said, the paper is most helpful in showing the spectrum of disease states for which the expert panel prescribes LDOM. “We use it as adjunctive therapy for many other things, both scarring and nonscarring hair loss,” he added.

In appropriate clinical contexts, the authors wrote, clinicians may consider combining LDOM with spironolactone or beta-blockers. Friedman said that in his hands, combining LDOM with a 5-alpha reductase inhibitor (5ARI) is “absolutely outstanding.” Minoxidil increases blood flow to the scalp, he explained, while 5ARIs prevent production of dihydrotestosterone, which miniaturizes hair.

Fu said, “We hope these consensus outcomes will be helpful to dermatology colleagues as they consider using LDOM to treat hair loss in their adult and adolescent patient populations. We anticipate that these guidelines will be updated as additional evidence-based data emerges and are encouraged that we are already seeing new publications on this topic.”

Important areas for future research, she noted, include pediatric use of LDOM, the comparative efficacy of topical vs oral minoxidil, the safety of oral minoxidil for patients with a history of allergic contact dermatitis to topical minoxidil, and the use of other off-label forms of minoxidil, such as compounded oral minoxidil and sublingual minoxidil.

The study was funded by the University of California, San Francisco, Department of Dermatology Medical Student Summer Research Fellowship Program. Fu reported personal fees from Pfizer, Eli Lilly and Company, and Sun Pharma outside of the study. The full list of author disclosures can be found in the paper. Ungar and Friedman reported no relevant financial relationships.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) has expanded two cancer genetic risk assessment guidelines to meet the growing understanding of hereditary cancer risk and use of genetic tests in cancer prevention, screening, and treatment. 

Additional cancer types were included in the title and content for both guidelines. Prostate cancer was added to Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast, Ovarian, Pancreatic, and Prostate, and endometrial and gastric cancer were added to Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Colorectal, Endometrial, and Gastric.

For these cancers, the expanded guidelines include information on when genetic testing is recommended and what type of testing may be best. These guidelines also detail the hereditary conditions and genetic mutations associated with elevated cancer risk and include appropriate “next steps” for individuals who have them, which may involve increased screening or prevention surgeries.

“These updates include the spectrum of genes associated with genetic syndromes, the range of risk associated with each pathogenic variant, the improvements in screening and prevention strategies, the role of genetic data to inform cancer treatment, and the expansion of the role of genetic counseling as this field moves forward,” Mary B. Daly, MD, PhD, with Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, said in a news release. Daly chaired the panel that updated the breast, ovarian, pancreatic, and prostate cancer guidelines.

Oncologists should, for instance, ask patients about their family and personal history of cancer and known germline variants at time of initial diagnosis. With prostate cancer, if patients meet criteria for germline testing, multigene testing should include a host of variants, including BRCA1, BRCA2, ATM, PALB2, CHEK2, HOXB13, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2.

The updated guidelines on genetic risk assessment of colorectal, endometrial, and gastric cancer include new recommendations to consider for hereditary cancer screening in patients with newly diagnosed endometrial cancer, for evaluating and managing CDH1-associated gastric cancer risk, and for managing gastric cancer risk in patients with APC pathogenic variants. 

For CDH1-associated gastric cancer, for instance, the guidelines recommend carriers be referred to institutions with expertise in managing risks for cancer associated with CDH1, “given the still limited understanding and rarity of this syndrome.” 

“These expanded guidelines reflect the recommendations from leading experts on genetic testing based on the latest scientific research across the cancer spectrum, consolidated into two convenient resources,” said NCCN CEO Crystal S. Denlinger, MD, with Fox Chase Cancer Center, in a news release. 

“This information is critical for guiding shared decision-making between health care providers and their patients, enhancing screening practices as appropriate, and potentially choosing options for prevention and targeted treatment choices. Genetic testing guidelines enable us to better care for people with cancer and their family members,” Denlinger added.

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

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) has expanded two cancer genetic risk assessment guidelines to meet the growing understanding of hereditary cancer risk and use of genetic tests in cancer prevention, screening, and treatment. 

Additional cancer types were included in the title and content for both guidelines. Prostate cancer was added to Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast, Ovarian, Pancreatic, and Prostate, and endometrial and gastric cancer were added to Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Colorectal, Endometrial, and Gastric.

For these cancers, the expanded guidelines include information on when genetic testing is recommended and what type of testing may be best. These guidelines also detail the hereditary conditions and genetic mutations associated with elevated cancer risk and include appropriate “next steps” for individuals who have them, which may involve increased screening or prevention surgeries.

“These updates include the spectrum of genes associated with genetic syndromes, the range of risk associated with each pathogenic variant, the improvements in screening and prevention strategies, the role of genetic data to inform cancer treatment, and the expansion of the role of genetic counseling as this field moves forward,” Mary B. Daly, MD, PhD, with Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, said in a news release. Daly chaired the panel that updated the breast, ovarian, pancreatic, and prostate cancer guidelines.

Oncologists should, for instance, ask patients about their family and personal history of cancer and known germline variants at time of initial diagnosis. With prostate cancer, if patients meet criteria for germline testing, multigene testing should include a host of variants, including BRCA1, BRCA2, ATM, PALB2, CHEK2, HOXB13, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2.

The updated guidelines on genetic risk assessment of colorectal, endometrial, and gastric cancer include new recommendations to consider for hereditary cancer screening in patients with newly diagnosed endometrial cancer, for evaluating and managing CDH1-associated gastric cancer risk, and for managing gastric cancer risk in patients with APC pathogenic variants. 

For CDH1-associated gastric cancer, for instance, the guidelines recommend carriers be referred to institutions with expertise in managing risks for cancer associated with CDH1, “given the still limited understanding and rarity of this syndrome.” 

“These expanded guidelines reflect the recommendations from leading experts on genetic testing based on the latest scientific research across the cancer spectrum, consolidated into two convenient resources,” said NCCN CEO Crystal S. Denlinger, MD, with Fox Chase Cancer Center, in a news release. 

“This information is critical for guiding shared decision-making between health care providers and their patients, enhancing screening practices as appropriate, and potentially choosing options for prevention and targeted treatment choices. Genetic testing guidelines enable us to better care for people with cancer and their family members,” Denlinger added.

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

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) has expanded two cancer genetic risk assessment guidelines to meet the growing understanding of hereditary cancer risk and use of genetic tests in cancer prevention, screening, and treatment. 

Additional cancer types were included in the title and content for both guidelines. Prostate cancer was added to Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast, Ovarian, Pancreatic, and Prostate, and endometrial and gastric cancer were added to Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Colorectal, Endometrial, and Gastric.

For these cancers, the expanded guidelines include information on when genetic testing is recommended and what type of testing may be best. These guidelines also detail the hereditary conditions and genetic mutations associated with elevated cancer risk and include appropriate “next steps” for individuals who have them, which may involve increased screening or prevention surgeries.

“These updates include the spectrum of genes associated with genetic syndromes, the range of risk associated with each pathogenic variant, the improvements in screening and prevention strategies, the role of genetic data to inform cancer treatment, and the expansion of the role of genetic counseling as this field moves forward,” Mary B. Daly, MD, PhD, with Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, said in a news release. Daly chaired the panel that updated the breast, ovarian, pancreatic, and prostate cancer guidelines.

Oncologists should, for instance, ask patients about their family and personal history of cancer and known germline variants at time of initial diagnosis. With prostate cancer, if patients meet criteria for germline testing, multigene testing should include a host of variants, including BRCA1, BRCA2, ATM, PALB2, CHEK2, HOXB13, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2.

The updated guidelines on genetic risk assessment of colorectal, endometrial, and gastric cancer include new recommendations to consider for hereditary cancer screening in patients with newly diagnosed endometrial cancer, for evaluating and managing CDH1-associated gastric cancer risk, and for managing gastric cancer risk in patients with APC pathogenic variants. 

For CDH1-associated gastric cancer, for instance, the guidelines recommend carriers be referred to institutions with expertise in managing risks for cancer associated with CDH1, “given the still limited understanding and rarity of this syndrome.” 

“These expanded guidelines reflect the recommendations from leading experts on genetic testing based on the latest scientific research across the cancer spectrum, consolidated into two convenient resources,” said NCCN CEO Crystal S. Denlinger, MD, with Fox Chase Cancer Center, in a news release. 

“This information is critical for guiding shared decision-making between health care providers and their patients, enhancing screening practices as appropriate, and potentially choosing options for prevention and targeted treatment choices. Genetic testing guidelines enable us to better care for people with cancer and their family members,” Denlinger added.

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

TOPLINE:

The increase in incidence of pancreatic cancer among young Americans is largely caused by improved detection of early-stage endocrine cancer, not an increase in pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Given the stable mortality rates in this population, the increase in incidence likely reflects previously undetected cases instead of a true rise in new cases, researchers say.

METHODOLOGY:

• Data from several registries have indicated that the incidence of pancreatic cancer among younger individuals, particularly women, is on the rise in the United States and worldwide.
• In a new analysis, researchers wanted to see if the observed increase in pancreatic cancer incidence among young Americans represented a true rise in cancer occurrence or indicated greater diagnostic scrutiny. If pancreatic cancer incidence is really increasing, “incidence and mortality would be expected to increase concurrently, as would early- and late-stage diagnoses,” the researchers explained.
• The researchers collected data on pancreatic cancer incidence, histology, and stage distribution for individuals aged 15-39 years from US Cancer Statistics, a database covering almost the entire US population from 2001 to 2020. Pancreatic cancer mortality data from the same timeframe came from the National Vital Statistics System.
• The researchers looked at four histologic categories: Adenocarcinoma, the dominant pancreatic cancer histology, as well as more rare subtypes — endocrine and solid pseudopapillary — and “other” category. Researchers also categorized stage-specific incidence as early stage (in situ or localized) or late stage (regional or distant).

TAKEAWAY:

• The incidence of pancreatic cancer increased 2.1-fold in young women (incidence, 3.3-6.9 per million) and 1.6-fold in young men (incidence, 3.9-6.2 per million) between 2001 and 2019. However, mortality rates remained stable for women (1.5 deaths per million; annual percent change [AAPC], −0.5%; 95% CI, –1.4% to 0.5%) and men (2.5 deaths per million; AAPC, –0.1%; 95% CI, –0.8% to 0.6%) over this period.
• Looking at cancer subtypes, the increase in incidence was largely caused by early-stage endocrine cancer and solid pseudopapillary neoplasms in women, not adenocarcinoma (which remained stable over the study period).
• Looking at cancer stage, most of the increase in incidence came from detection of smaller tumors (< 2 cm) and early-stage cancer, which rose from 0.6 to 3.7 per million in women and from 0.4 to 2.2 per million in men. The authors also found no statistically significant change in the incidence of late-stage cancer in women or men.
• Rates of surgical treatment for pancreatic cancer increased, more than tripling among women (from 1.5 to 4.7 per million) and more than doubling among men (from 1.1 to 2.3 per million).

IN PRACTICE:

“Pancreatic cancer now can be another cancer subject to overdiagnosis: The detection of disease not destined to cause symptoms or death,” the authors concluded. “Although the observed changes in incidence are small, overdiagnosis is especially concerning for pancreatic cancer, as pancreatic surgery has substantial risk for morbidity (in particular, pancreatic fistulas) and mortality.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Vishal R. Patel, MD, MPH, and corresponding author H. Gilbert Welch, MD, MPH, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, was published online on November 19 in Annals of Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was limited by the lack of data on the method of cancer detection, which may have affected the interpretation of the findings.

DISCLOSURES:

Disclosure forms are available with the article online.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The increase in incidence of pancreatic cancer among young Americans is largely caused by improved detection of early-stage endocrine cancer, not an increase in pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Given the stable mortality rates in this population, the increase in incidence likely reflects previously undetected cases instead of a true rise in new cases, researchers say.

METHODOLOGY:

• Data from several registries have indicated that the incidence of pancreatic cancer among younger individuals, particularly women, is on the rise in the United States and worldwide.
• In a new analysis, researchers wanted to see if the observed increase in pancreatic cancer incidence among young Americans represented a true rise in cancer occurrence or indicated greater diagnostic scrutiny. If pancreatic cancer incidence is really increasing, “incidence and mortality would be expected to increase concurrently, as would early- and late-stage diagnoses,” the researchers explained.
• The researchers collected data on pancreatic cancer incidence, histology, and stage distribution for individuals aged 15-39 years from US Cancer Statistics, a database covering almost the entire US population from 2001 to 2020. Pancreatic cancer mortality data from the same timeframe came from the National Vital Statistics System.
• The researchers looked at four histologic categories: Adenocarcinoma, the dominant pancreatic cancer histology, as well as more rare subtypes — endocrine and solid pseudopapillary — and “other” category. Researchers also categorized stage-specific incidence as early stage (in situ or localized) or late stage (regional or distant).

TAKEAWAY:

• The incidence of pancreatic cancer increased 2.1-fold in young women (incidence, 3.3-6.9 per million) and 1.6-fold in young men (incidence, 3.9-6.2 per million) between 2001 and 2019. However, mortality rates remained stable for women (1.5 deaths per million; annual percent change [AAPC], −0.5%; 95% CI, –1.4% to 0.5%) and men (2.5 deaths per million; AAPC, –0.1%; 95% CI, –0.8% to 0.6%) over this period.
• Looking at cancer subtypes, the increase in incidence was largely caused by early-stage endocrine cancer and solid pseudopapillary neoplasms in women, not adenocarcinoma (which remained stable over the study period).
• Looking at cancer stage, most of the increase in incidence came from detection of smaller tumors (< 2 cm) and early-stage cancer, which rose from 0.6 to 3.7 per million in women and from 0.4 to 2.2 per million in men. The authors also found no statistically significant change in the incidence of late-stage cancer in women or men.
• Rates of surgical treatment for pancreatic cancer increased, more than tripling among women (from 1.5 to 4.7 per million) and more than doubling among men (from 1.1 to 2.3 per million).

IN PRACTICE:

“Pancreatic cancer now can be another cancer subject to overdiagnosis: The detection of disease not destined to cause symptoms or death,” the authors concluded. “Although the observed changes in incidence are small, overdiagnosis is especially concerning for pancreatic cancer, as pancreatic surgery has substantial risk for morbidity (in particular, pancreatic fistulas) and mortality.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Vishal R. Patel, MD, MPH, and corresponding author H. Gilbert Welch, MD, MPH, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, was published online on November 19 in Annals of Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was limited by the lack of data on the method of cancer detection, which may have affected the interpretation of the findings.

DISCLOSURES:

Disclosure forms are available with the article online.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The increase in incidence of pancreatic cancer among young Americans is largely caused by improved detection of early-stage endocrine cancer, not an increase in pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Given the stable mortality rates in this population, the increase in incidence likely reflects previously undetected cases instead of a true rise in new cases, researchers say.

METHODOLOGY:

• Data from several registries have indicated that the incidence of pancreatic cancer among younger individuals, particularly women, is on the rise in the United States and worldwide.
• In a new analysis, researchers wanted to see if the observed increase in pancreatic cancer incidence among young Americans represented a true rise in cancer occurrence or indicated greater diagnostic scrutiny. If pancreatic cancer incidence is really increasing, “incidence and mortality would be expected to increase concurrently, as would early- and late-stage diagnoses,” the researchers explained.
• The researchers collected data on pancreatic cancer incidence, histology, and stage distribution for individuals aged 15-39 years from US Cancer Statistics, a database covering almost the entire US population from 2001 to 2020. Pancreatic cancer mortality data from the same timeframe came from the National Vital Statistics System.
• The researchers looked at four histologic categories: Adenocarcinoma, the dominant pancreatic cancer histology, as well as more rare subtypes — endocrine and solid pseudopapillary — and “other” category. Researchers also categorized stage-specific incidence as early stage (in situ or localized) or late stage (regional or distant).

TAKEAWAY:

• The incidence of pancreatic cancer increased 2.1-fold in young women (incidence, 3.3-6.9 per million) and 1.6-fold in young men (incidence, 3.9-6.2 per million) between 2001 and 2019. However, mortality rates remained stable for women (1.5 deaths per million; annual percent change [AAPC], −0.5%; 95% CI, –1.4% to 0.5%) and men (2.5 deaths per million; AAPC, –0.1%; 95% CI, –0.8% to 0.6%) over this period.
• Looking at cancer subtypes, the increase in incidence was largely caused by early-stage endocrine cancer and solid pseudopapillary neoplasms in women, not adenocarcinoma (which remained stable over the study period).
• Looking at cancer stage, most of the increase in incidence came from detection of smaller tumors (< 2 cm) and early-stage cancer, which rose from 0.6 to 3.7 per million in women and from 0.4 to 2.2 per million in men. The authors also found no statistically significant change in the incidence of late-stage cancer in women or men.
• Rates of surgical treatment for pancreatic cancer increased, more than tripling among women (from 1.5 to 4.7 per million) and more than doubling among men (from 1.1 to 2.3 per million).

IN PRACTICE:

“Pancreatic cancer now can be another cancer subject to overdiagnosis: The detection of disease not destined to cause symptoms or death,” the authors concluded. “Although the observed changes in incidence are small, overdiagnosis is especially concerning for pancreatic cancer, as pancreatic surgery has substantial risk for morbidity (in particular, pancreatic fistulas) and mortality.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Vishal R. Patel, MD, MPH, and corresponding author H. Gilbert Welch, MD, MPH, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, was published online on November 19 in Annals of Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was limited by the lack of data on the method of cancer detection, which may have affected the interpretation of the findings.

DISCLOSURES:

Disclosure forms are available with the article online.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Supporting meaningful research that has a positive impact on the health and quality of life of veterans is a priority of the US Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Research and Development.¹ For nearly a century, VA researchers have been conducting high quality studies. To continue this trajectory, it is imperative to attract, train, and retain exceptional investigators while nurturing their development throughout their careers.²

Mentorship is defined as guidance provided by an experienced and trusted party to another (usually junior) individual with the intent of helping the person succeed. It benefits the mentee, mentor, and their institutions.³ Mentorship is crucial for personal and professional development as well as productivity, which may help reduce clinician burnout.^4-7 Conversely, a lack of mentorship could have negative effects on work satisfaction and stagnate career progression.⁸

Mentorship is vital for developing and advancing a VA investigator’s research agenda. Funding, grant writing, and research design were among the most discussed topics in a large comprehensive mentorship program for academic faculty.⁹ However, there are several known barriers to effective research mentorship; among them include a lack of resources, time constraints, and competing clinical priorities.^10,11

Finding time for effective one-on-one research mentoring is difficult within the time constraints of clinical duties; a group mentorship model may help overcome this barrier. Group mentorship can aid in personal and professional development because no single mentor can effectively meet every mentoring need of an individual.¹² Group mentorship also allows for the exchange of ideas among individuals with different backgrounds and the ability to utilize the strengths of each member of the group. For example, a member may have methodological expertise, while another may be skilled in grantsmanship. A team of mentors may be more beneficial for both the mentors (eg, establish a more manageable workload) and the mentee (eg, gains a broader perspective of expertise) when compared to having a single mentor.³

Peer mentorship within the group setting may also yield additional benefits. For example, having a supportive peer group may help reduce stress levels and burnout, while also improving overall well-being.^3,13 Formal mentorship programs do not frequently discuss concerns such as work-life balance, so including peers as mentors may help fill this void.⁹ Peer mentorship has also been found to be beneficial in providing mentees with pooled resources and shared learning.^12,13 This article describes the components, benefits, impacts, and challenges of a group research mentorship program for VA clinicians interested in conducting VA-relevant research.

Program Description

The VA Clinical Research Mentorship Program was initiated at the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System (VAAAHS) in October 2015 by the Chief of Medicine to assist VA clinician investigators with developing and submitting VA clinical science and health services research grant applications. The program offers group and one-on-one consultation services through the expertise of 2 experienced investigators/faculty mentors who also serve as program directors, each of whom devote about 3 to 5 hours per month to activities associated with the mentorship program (eg, attending the meeting, reviewing materials sent by mentees, and one-on-one discussions with mentees).

The program also fostered peer-led mentorship. This encourages all attendees to provide feedback during group sessions and communication by mentees outside the group sessions. An experienced project manager serves as program coordinator and contributes about 4 hours per month for activities such as attending, scheduling, and sending reminders for each meeting, distributing handouts, reviewing materials, and answering mentee’s questions via email. A statistician and additional research staff (ie, an epidemiologist and research assistant) do not attend the recurring meetings, but are available for offline consultation as needed. The program runs on a 12-month cycle with regular meetings occurring twice monthly during the 9-month academic period. Resources to support the program, primarily program director(s) and project coordinator effort, are provided by the Chief of Medicine and through the VAAAHS affiliated VA Health Systems Research (formerly Health Services Research & Development) Center of Innovation.

Invitations for new mentees are sent annually. Mentees expressing interest in the program outside of its annual recruitment period are evaluated for inclusion on a rolling basis. Recruitment begins with the program coordinator sending email notifications to all VAAAHS Medicine Service faculty, section chiefs, and division chiefs at the VAAAHS academic affiliate. Recipients are encouraged to distribute the announcement to eligible applicants and refer them to the application materials for entry consideration into the program. The application consists of the applicant’s curriculum vitae and a 1-page summary that includes a description of their research area of interest, how it is relevant to the VA, in addition to an idea for a research study, its potential significance, and proposed methodology. Applicant materials are reviewed by the program coordinator and program directors. The applicants are evaluated using a simple scoring approach that focuses on the applicant’s research area and agenda, past research training, past research productivity, potential for obtaining VA funding, and whether they have sufficient research time.

Program eligibility initially required being a physician with ≥ 1/8 VA appointment from the Medicine Service. However, clinicians with clinical appointments from other VA services are also accepted for participation as needed. Applicants must have previous research experience and have a career goal to obtain external funding for conducting and publishing original research. Those who have previously served as a principal investigator on a funded VA grant proposal are not eligible as new applicants but can remain in the program as peer mentors. The number of annual applicants varies and ranges from 1 to 11; on average, about 90% of applicants receive invitations to join the program.

Sessions

The program holds recurring meetings twice monthly for 1 hour during the 9-month academic year. However, program directors are available year-round, and mentees are encouraged to communicate questions or concerns via email during nonacademic months. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, all meetings were held in-person. However, the group pivoted to virtual meetings and continues to utilize this format. The dedicated program coordinator is responsible for coordinating meetings and distributing meeting materials.

Each session is informal, flexible, and supportive. Attendance is not enforced, and mentees are allowed to join meetings as their schedules permit; however, program directors and program coordinator attend each meeting. In advance of each session, the program coordinator sends out a call for agenda items to all active members invited to discuss any research related items. Each mentee presents their ideas to lead the discussion for their portion of the meeting with no defined format required.

A variety of topics are covered including, but not limited to: (1) grant-specific concerns (eg, questions related to specific aim pages, grantsmanship, postsubmission comments from reviewers, or postaward logistics); (2) research procedures (eg, questions related to methodological practices or institutional review board concerns); (3) manuscript or presentation preparation; and (4) careerrelated issues. The program coordinator distributes handouts prior to meetings and mentees may record their presentations. These handouts may include, but are not limited to, specific aims pages, analytical plans, grant solicitations, and PowerPoint presentations. If a resource that can benefit the entire group is mentioned during the meeting, the program coordinator is responsible for distribution.

The program follows a group facilitated discussion format. Program directors facilitate each meeting, but input is encouraged from all attendees. This model allows for mentees to learn from the faculty mentors as well as peer mentees in a simultaneous and efficient fashion. Group discussions foster collective problem solving, peer support, and resource sharing that would not be possible through individualized mentorship. Participants have access to varied expertise during each session which reduces the need to seek specialized help elsewhere. Participants are also encouraged to contact the program directors or research staff for consultation as needed. Some one-on-one consultations have transitioned to a more sustained and ongoing mentorship relationship between a program director and mentee, but most are often brief email exchanges or a single meeting.

Participants

Since its inception in 2015, 35 clinicians have enrolled in the program. The mentees are equally distributed by sex and practice in a variety of disciplines including gastroenterology, hematology/oncology, cardiology, and general medicine (Table 1). Mentees have submitted 33 grant proposals addressing a variety of health care issues to a diverse group of federal and nonfederal funding agencies (Table 2). As of May 15, 2024, 19 (58%) of the submitted applications have been funded.

Many factors contribute to a successfully funded grant application, and several mentees report that participating in the mentorship program was helpful. For example, a mentee became the first lead investigator for a VA Cooperative Studies Program funded at VAAAHS. The VA Cooperative Studies Program, a division of the Office of Research and Development, plans and conducts large multicenter clinical trials and epidemiological studies within the VA via a vast network of clinician investigators, statisticians, and other key research experts.¹⁴

Several program mentees have also received VA Clinical Science Research and Development Career Development Awards. The VA Career Development program supports investigators during their early research careers with a goal of retaining talented researchers committed to improving the health and care of veterans.¹⁵

Survey Responses

Mentee productivity and updates are tracked through direct mentee input, as requested by the program coordinator. Since 2022, participants could complete an end-of-year survey based on an assessment tool used in a VAAAHS nonresearch mentorship program.¹⁶ The survey, distributed to mentees and program directors, requests feedback on logistics (eg, if the meeting was a good use of time and barriers to attendance); perceptions of effectiveness (eg, ability to discuss agenda items, helpfulness with setting and reaching research goals, and quality of mentors’ feedback); and the impact of the mentoring program on work satisfaction and clinician burnout. Respondents are also encouraged to leave open-ended qualitative feedback.

To date the survey has elicited 19 responses. Seventeen (89%) indicated that they agree or strongly agree the meetings were an effective use of their time and 11 (58%) indicated that they were able to discuss all or most of the items they wanted to during the meeting. Sixteen respondents (84%) agreed the program helped them set and achieve their research goals and 14 respondents (74%) agreed the feedback they received during the meeting was specific, actionable, and focused on how to improve their research agenda. Seventeen respondents (89%) agreed the program increased their work satisfaction, while 13 respondents (68%) felt the program reduced levels of clinician burnout.

As attendance was not mandatory, the survey asked participants how often they attended meetings during the past year. Responses were mixed: 4 (21%) respondents attended regularly (12 to 16 times per year) and 8 (42%) attended most sessions (8 to 11 times per year). Noted barriers to attendance included conflicts with patient care activities and conflicts with other high priority meetings.

Mentees also provided qualitive feedback regarding the program. They highlighted the supportive environment, valuable expertise of the mentors, and usefulness of obtaining tailored feedback from the group. “This group is an amazing resource to anyone developing a research career,” a mentee noted, adding that the program directors “fostered an incredibly supportive group where research ideas and methodology can be explored in a nonthreatening and creative environment.”

Conclusions

This mentorship program aims to help aspiring VA clinician investigators develop and submit competitive research grant applications. The addition of the program to the existing robust research environments at VAAAHS and its academic affiliate appears to have contributed to this success, with 58% of applications submitted by program mentees receiving funding.

In addition to funding success, we also found that most participants have a favorable impression of the program. Of the participants who responded to the program evaluation survey, nearly all indicated the program was an effective use of their time. The program also appeared to increase work satisfaction and reduce levels of clinician burnout. Barriers to attendance were also noted, with the most frequent being scheduling conflicts.

This program’s format includes facilitated group discussion as well as peer mentorship. This collaborative structure allows for an efficient and rich learning experience. Feedback from multiple perspectives encourages natural networking and relationship building. Incorporating the collective wisdom of the faculty mentors and peer mentees is beneficial; it not only empowers the mentees but also enriches the experience for the mentors. This program can serve as a model for other VA facilities—or non-VA academic medical centers—to enhance their research programs.

Supporting meaningful research that has a positive impact on the health and quality of life of veterans is a priority of the US Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Research and Development.¹ For nearly a century, VA researchers have been conducting high quality studies. To continue this trajectory, it is imperative to attract, train, and retain exceptional investigators while nurturing their development throughout their careers.²

Mentorship is defined as guidance provided by an experienced and trusted party to another (usually junior) individual with the intent of helping the person succeed. It benefits the mentee, mentor, and their institutions.³ Mentorship is crucial for personal and professional development as well as productivity, which may help reduce clinician burnout.^4-7 Conversely, a lack of mentorship could have negative effects on work satisfaction and stagnate career progression.⁸

Mentorship is vital for developing and advancing a VA investigator’s research agenda. Funding, grant writing, and research design were among the most discussed topics in a large comprehensive mentorship program for academic faculty.⁹ However, there are several known barriers to effective research mentorship; among them include a lack of resources, time constraints, and competing clinical priorities.^10,11

Finding time for effective one-on-one research mentoring is difficult within the time constraints of clinical duties; a group mentorship model may help overcome this barrier. Group mentorship can aid in personal and professional development because no single mentor can effectively meet every mentoring need of an individual.¹² Group mentorship also allows for the exchange of ideas among individuals with different backgrounds and the ability to utilize the strengths of each member of the group. For example, a member may have methodological expertise, while another may be skilled in grantsmanship. A team of mentors may be more beneficial for both the mentors (eg, establish a more manageable workload) and the mentee (eg, gains a broader perspective of expertise) when compared to having a single mentor.³

Peer mentorship within the group setting may also yield additional benefits. For example, having a supportive peer group may help reduce stress levels and burnout, while also improving overall well-being.^3,13 Formal mentorship programs do not frequently discuss concerns such as work-life balance, so including peers as mentors may help fill this void.⁹ Peer mentorship has also been found to be beneficial in providing mentees with pooled resources and shared learning.^12,13 This article describes the components, benefits, impacts, and challenges of a group research mentorship program for VA clinicians interested in conducting VA-relevant research.

Program Description

The VA Clinical Research Mentorship Program was initiated at the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System (VAAAHS) in October 2015 by the Chief of Medicine to assist VA clinician investigators with developing and submitting VA clinical science and health services research grant applications. The program offers group and one-on-one consultation services through the expertise of 2 experienced investigators/faculty mentors who also serve as program directors, each of whom devote about 3 to 5 hours per month to activities associated with the mentorship program (eg, attending the meeting, reviewing materials sent by mentees, and one-on-one discussions with mentees).

The program also fostered peer-led mentorship. This encourages all attendees to provide feedback during group sessions and communication by mentees outside the group sessions. An experienced project manager serves as program coordinator and contributes about 4 hours per month for activities such as attending, scheduling, and sending reminders for each meeting, distributing handouts, reviewing materials, and answering mentee’s questions via email. A statistician and additional research staff (ie, an epidemiologist and research assistant) do not attend the recurring meetings, but are available for offline consultation as needed. The program runs on a 12-month cycle with regular meetings occurring twice monthly during the 9-month academic period. Resources to support the program, primarily program director(s) and project coordinator effort, are provided by the Chief of Medicine and through the VAAAHS affiliated VA Health Systems Research (formerly Health Services Research & Development) Center of Innovation.

Invitations for new mentees are sent annually. Mentees expressing interest in the program outside of its annual recruitment period are evaluated for inclusion on a rolling basis. Recruitment begins with the program coordinator sending email notifications to all VAAAHS Medicine Service faculty, section chiefs, and division chiefs at the VAAAHS academic affiliate. Recipients are encouraged to distribute the announcement to eligible applicants and refer them to the application materials for entry consideration into the program. The application consists of the applicant’s curriculum vitae and a 1-page summary that includes a description of their research area of interest, how it is relevant to the VA, in addition to an idea for a research study, its potential significance, and proposed methodology. Applicant materials are reviewed by the program coordinator and program directors. The applicants are evaluated using a simple scoring approach that focuses on the applicant’s research area and agenda, past research training, past research productivity, potential for obtaining VA funding, and whether they have sufficient research time.

Program eligibility initially required being a physician with ≥ 1/8 VA appointment from the Medicine Service. However, clinicians with clinical appointments from other VA services are also accepted for participation as needed. Applicants must have previous research experience and have a career goal to obtain external funding for conducting and publishing original research. Those who have previously served as a principal investigator on a funded VA grant proposal are not eligible as new applicants but can remain in the program as peer mentors. The number of annual applicants varies and ranges from 1 to 11; on average, about 90% of applicants receive invitations to join the program.

Sessions

The program holds recurring meetings twice monthly for 1 hour during the 9-month academic year. However, program directors are available year-round, and mentees are encouraged to communicate questions or concerns via email during nonacademic months. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, all meetings were held in-person. However, the group pivoted to virtual meetings and continues to utilize this format. The dedicated program coordinator is responsible for coordinating meetings and distributing meeting materials.

Each session is informal, flexible, and supportive. Attendance is not enforced, and mentees are allowed to join meetings as their schedules permit; however, program directors and program coordinator attend each meeting. In advance of each session, the program coordinator sends out a call for agenda items to all active members invited to discuss any research related items. Each mentee presents their ideas to lead the discussion for their portion of the meeting with no defined format required.

A variety of topics are covered including, but not limited to: (1) grant-specific concerns (eg, questions related to specific aim pages, grantsmanship, postsubmission comments from reviewers, or postaward logistics); (2) research procedures (eg, questions related to methodological practices or institutional review board concerns); (3) manuscript or presentation preparation; and (4) careerrelated issues. The program coordinator distributes handouts prior to meetings and mentees may record their presentations. These handouts may include, but are not limited to, specific aims pages, analytical plans, grant solicitations, and PowerPoint presentations. If a resource that can benefit the entire group is mentioned during the meeting, the program coordinator is responsible for distribution.

The program follows a group facilitated discussion format. Program directors facilitate each meeting, but input is encouraged from all attendees. This model allows for mentees to learn from the faculty mentors as well as peer mentees in a simultaneous and efficient fashion. Group discussions foster collective problem solving, peer support, and resource sharing that would not be possible through individualized mentorship. Participants have access to varied expertise during each session which reduces the need to seek specialized help elsewhere. Participants are also encouraged to contact the program directors or research staff for consultation as needed. Some one-on-one consultations have transitioned to a more sustained and ongoing mentorship relationship between a program director and mentee, but most are often brief email exchanges or a single meeting.

Participants

Since its inception in 2015, 35 clinicians have enrolled in the program. The mentees are equally distributed by sex and practice in a variety of disciplines including gastroenterology, hematology/oncology, cardiology, and general medicine (Table 1). Mentees have submitted 33 grant proposals addressing a variety of health care issues to a diverse group of federal and nonfederal funding agencies (Table 2). As of May 15, 2024, 19 (58%) of the submitted applications have been funded.

Many factors contribute to a successfully funded grant application, and several mentees report that participating in the mentorship program was helpful. For example, a mentee became the first lead investigator for a VA Cooperative Studies Program funded at VAAAHS. The VA Cooperative Studies Program, a division of the Office of Research and Development, plans and conducts large multicenter clinical trials and epidemiological studies within the VA via a vast network of clinician investigators, statisticians, and other key research experts.¹⁴

Several program mentees have also received VA Clinical Science Research and Development Career Development Awards. The VA Career Development program supports investigators during their early research careers with a goal of retaining talented researchers committed to improving the health and care of veterans.¹⁵

Survey Responses

Mentee productivity and updates are tracked through direct mentee input, as requested by the program coordinator. Since 2022, participants could complete an end-of-year survey based on an assessment tool used in a VAAAHS nonresearch mentorship program.¹⁶ The survey, distributed to mentees and program directors, requests feedback on logistics (eg, if the meeting was a good use of time and barriers to attendance); perceptions of effectiveness (eg, ability to discuss agenda items, helpfulness with setting and reaching research goals, and quality of mentors’ feedback); and the impact of the mentoring program on work satisfaction and clinician burnout. Respondents are also encouraged to leave open-ended qualitative feedback.

To date the survey has elicited 19 responses. Seventeen (89%) indicated that they agree or strongly agree the meetings were an effective use of their time and 11 (58%) indicated that they were able to discuss all or most of the items they wanted to during the meeting. Sixteen respondents (84%) agreed the program helped them set and achieve their research goals and 14 respondents (74%) agreed the feedback they received during the meeting was specific, actionable, and focused on how to improve their research agenda. Seventeen respondents (89%) agreed the program increased their work satisfaction, while 13 respondents (68%) felt the program reduced levels of clinician burnout.

As attendance was not mandatory, the survey asked participants how often they attended meetings during the past year. Responses were mixed: 4 (21%) respondents attended regularly (12 to 16 times per year) and 8 (42%) attended most sessions (8 to 11 times per year). Noted barriers to attendance included conflicts with patient care activities and conflicts with other high priority meetings.

Mentees also provided qualitive feedback regarding the program. They highlighted the supportive environment, valuable expertise of the mentors, and usefulness of obtaining tailored feedback from the group. “This group is an amazing resource to anyone developing a research career,” a mentee noted, adding that the program directors “fostered an incredibly supportive group where research ideas and methodology can be explored in a nonthreatening and creative environment.”

Conclusions

This mentorship program aims to help aspiring VA clinician investigators develop and submit competitive research grant applications. The addition of the program to the existing robust research environments at VAAAHS and its academic affiliate appears to have contributed to this success, with 58% of applications submitted by program mentees receiving funding.

In addition to funding success, we also found that most participants have a favorable impression of the program. Of the participants who responded to the program evaluation survey, nearly all indicated the program was an effective use of their time. The program also appeared to increase work satisfaction and reduce levels of clinician burnout. Barriers to attendance were also noted, with the most frequent being scheduling conflicts.

This program’s format includes facilitated group discussion as well as peer mentorship. This collaborative structure allows for an efficient and rich learning experience. Feedback from multiple perspectives encourages natural networking and relationship building. Incorporating the collective wisdom of the faculty mentors and peer mentees is beneficial; it not only empowers the mentees but also enriches the experience for the mentors. This program can serve as a model for other VA facilities—or non-VA academic medical centers—to enhance their research programs.

Supporting meaningful research that has a positive impact on the health and quality of life of veterans is a priority of the US Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Research and Development.¹ For nearly a century, VA researchers have been conducting high quality studies. To continue this trajectory, it is imperative to attract, train, and retain exceptional investigators while nurturing their development throughout their careers.²

Mentorship is defined as guidance provided by an experienced and trusted party to another (usually junior) individual with the intent of helping the person succeed. It benefits the mentee, mentor, and their institutions.³ Mentorship is crucial for personal and professional development as well as productivity, which may help reduce clinician burnout.^4-7 Conversely, a lack of mentorship could have negative effects on work satisfaction and stagnate career progression.⁸

Mentorship is vital for developing and advancing a VA investigator’s research agenda. Funding, grant writing, and research design were among the most discussed topics in a large comprehensive mentorship program for academic faculty.⁹ However, there are several known barriers to effective research mentorship; among them include a lack of resources, time constraints, and competing clinical priorities.^10,11

Finding time for effective one-on-one research mentoring is difficult within the time constraints of clinical duties; a group mentorship model may help overcome this barrier. Group mentorship can aid in personal and professional development because no single mentor can effectively meet every mentoring need of an individual.¹² Group mentorship also allows for the exchange of ideas among individuals with different backgrounds and the ability to utilize the strengths of each member of the group. For example, a member may have methodological expertise, while another may be skilled in grantsmanship. A team of mentors may be more beneficial for both the mentors (eg, establish a more manageable workload) and the mentee (eg, gains a broader perspective of expertise) when compared to having a single mentor.³

Peer mentorship within the group setting may also yield additional benefits. For example, having a supportive peer group may help reduce stress levels and burnout, while also improving overall well-being.^3,13 Formal mentorship programs do not frequently discuss concerns such as work-life balance, so including peers as mentors may help fill this void.⁹ Peer mentorship has also been found to be beneficial in providing mentees with pooled resources and shared learning.^12,13 This article describes the components, benefits, impacts, and challenges of a group research mentorship program for VA clinicians interested in conducting VA-relevant research.

Program Description

The VA Clinical Research Mentorship Program was initiated at the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System (VAAAHS) in October 2015 by the Chief of Medicine to assist VA clinician investigators with developing and submitting VA clinical science and health services research grant applications. The program offers group and one-on-one consultation services through the expertise of 2 experienced investigators/faculty mentors who also serve as program directors, each of whom devote about 3 to 5 hours per month to activities associated with the mentorship program (eg, attending the meeting, reviewing materials sent by mentees, and one-on-one discussions with mentees).

The program also fostered peer-led mentorship. This encourages all attendees to provide feedback during group sessions and communication by mentees outside the group sessions. An experienced project manager serves as program coordinator and contributes about 4 hours per month for activities such as attending, scheduling, and sending reminders for each meeting, distributing handouts, reviewing materials, and answering mentee’s questions via email. A statistician and additional research staff (ie, an epidemiologist and research assistant) do not attend the recurring meetings, but are available for offline consultation as needed. The program runs on a 12-month cycle with regular meetings occurring twice monthly during the 9-month academic period. Resources to support the program, primarily program director(s) and project coordinator effort, are provided by the Chief of Medicine and through the VAAAHS affiliated VA Health Systems Research (formerly Health Services Research & Development) Center of Innovation.

Invitations for new mentees are sent annually. Mentees expressing interest in the program outside of its annual recruitment period are evaluated for inclusion on a rolling basis. Recruitment begins with the program coordinator sending email notifications to all VAAAHS Medicine Service faculty, section chiefs, and division chiefs at the VAAAHS academic affiliate. Recipients are encouraged to distribute the announcement to eligible applicants and refer them to the application materials for entry consideration into the program. The application consists of the applicant’s curriculum vitae and a 1-page summary that includes a description of their research area of interest, how it is relevant to the VA, in addition to an idea for a research study, its potential significance, and proposed methodology. Applicant materials are reviewed by the program coordinator and program directors. The applicants are evaluated using a simple scoring approach that focuses on the applicant’s research area and agenda, past research training, past research productivity, potential for obtaining VA funding, and whether they have sufficient research time.

Program eligibility initially required being a physician with ≥ 1/8 VA appointment from the Medicine Service. However, clinicians with clinical appointments from other VA services are also accepted for participation as needed. Applicants must have previous research experience and have a career goal to obtain external funding for conducting and publishing original research. Those who have previously served as a principal investigator on a funded VA grant proposal are not eligible as new applicants but can remain in the program as peer mentors. The number of annual applicants varies and ranges from 1 to 11; on average, about 90% of applicants receive invitations to join the program.

Sessions

The program holds recurring meetings twice monthly for 1 hour during the 9-month academic year. However, program directors are available year-round, and mentees are encouraged to communicate questions or concerns via email during nonacademic months. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, all meetings were held in-person. However, the group pivoted to virtual meetings and continues to utilize this format. The dedicated program coordinator is responsible for coordinating meetings and distributing meeting materials.

Each session is informal, flexible, and supportive. Attendance is not enforced, and mentees are allowed to join meetings as their schedules permit; however, program directors and program coordinator attend each meeting. In advance of each session, the program coordinator sends out a call for agenda items to all active members invited to discuss any research related items. Each mentee presents their ideas to lead the discussion for their portion of the meeting with no defined format required.

A variety of topics are covered including, but not limited to: (1) grant-specific concerns (eg, questions related to specific aim pages, grantsmanship, postsubmission comments from reviewers, or postaward logistics); (2) research procedures (eg, questions related to methodological practices or institutional review board concerns); (3) manuscript or presentation preparation; and (4) careerrelated issues. The program coordinator distributes handouts prior to meetings and mentees may record their presentations. These handouts may include, but are not limited to, specific aims pages, analytical plans, grant solicitations, and PowerPoint presentations. If a resource that can benefit the entire group is mentioned during the meeting, the program coordinator is responsible for distribution.

The program follows a group facilitated discussion format. Program directors facilitate each meeting, but input is encouraged from all attendees. This model allows for mentees to learn from the faculty mentors as well as peer mentees in a simultaneous and efficient fashion. Group discussions foster collective problem solving, peer support, and resource sharing that would not be possible through individualized mentorship. Participants have access to varied expertise during each session which reduces the need to seek specialized help elsewhere. Participants are also encouraged to contact the program directors or research staff for consultation as needed. Some one-on-one consultations have transitioned to a more sustained and ongoing mentorship relationship between a program director and mentee, but most are often brief email exchanges or a single meeting.

Participants

Since its inception in 2015, 35 clinicians have enrolled in the program. The mentees are equally distributed by sex and practice in a variety of disciplines including gastroenterology, hematology/oncology, cardiology, and general medicine (Table 1). Mentees have submitted 33 grant proposals addressing a variety of health care issues to a diverse group of federal and nonfederal funding agencies (Table 2). As of May 15, 2024, 19 (58%) of the submitted applications have been funded.

Many factors contribute to a successfully funded grant application, and several mentees report that participating in the mentorship program was helpful. For example, a mentee became the first lead investigator for a VA Cooperative Studies Program funded at VAAAHS. The VA Cooperative Studies Program, a division of the Office of Research and Development, plans and conducts large multicenter clinical trials and epidemiological studies within the VA via a vast network of clinician investigators, statisticians, and other key research experts.¹⁴

Several program mentees have also received VA Clinical Science Research and Development Career Development Awards. The VA Career Development program supports investigators during their early research careers with a goal of retaining talented researchers committed to improving the health and care of veterans.¹⁵

Survey Responses

Mentee productivity and updates are tracked through direct mentee input, as requested by the program coordinator. Since 2022, participants could complete an end-of-year survey based on an assessment tool used in a VAAAHS nonresearch mentorship program.¹⁶ The survey, distributed to mentees and program directors, requests feedback on logistics (eg, if the meeting was a good use of time and barriers to attendance); perceptions of effectiveness (eg, ability to discuss agenda items, helpfulness with setting and reaching research goals, and quality of mentors’ feedback); and the impact of the mentoring program on work satisfaction and clinician burnout. Respondents are also encouraged to leave open-ended qualitative feedback.

To date the survey has elicited 19 responses. Seventeen (89%) indicated that they agree or strongly agree the meetings were an effective use of their time and 11 (58%) indicated that they were able to discuss all or most of the items they wanted to during the meeting. Sixteen respondents (84%) agreed the program helped them set and achieve their research goals and 14 respondents (74%) agreed the feedback they received during the meeting was specific, actionable, and focused on how to improve their research agenda. Seventeen respondents (89%) agreed the program increased their work satisfaction, while 13 respondents (68%) felt the program reduced levels of clinician burnout.

As attendance was not mandatory, the survey asked participants how often they attended meetings during the past year. Responses were mixed: 4 (21%) respondents attended regularly (12 to 16 times per year) and 8 (42%) attended most sessions (8 to 11 times per year). Noted barriers to attendance included conflicts with patient care activities and conflicts with other high priority meetings.

Mentees also provided qualitive feedback regarding the program. They highlighted the supportive environment, valuable expertise of the mentors, and usefulness of obtaining tailored feedback from the group. “This group is an amazing resource to anyone developing a research career,” a mentee noted, adding that the program directors “fostered an incredibly supportive group where research ideas and methodology can be explored in a nonthreatening and creative environment.”

Conclusions

This mentorship program aims to help aspiring VA clinician investigators develop and submit competitive research grant applications. The addition of the program to the existing robust research environments at VAAAHS and its academic affiliate appears to have contributed to this success, with 58% of applications submitted by program mentees receiving funding.

In addition to funding success, we also found that most participants have a favorable impression of the program. Of the participants who responded to the program evaluation survey, nearly all indicated the program was an effective use of their time. The program also appeared to increase work satisfaction and reduce levels of clinician burnout. Barriers to attendance were also noted, with the most frequent being scheduling conflicts.

This program’s format includes facilitated group discussion as well as peer mentorship. This collaborative structure allows for an efficient and rich learning experience. Feedback from multiple perspectives encourages natural networking and relationship building. Incorporating the collective wisdom of the faculty mentors and peer mentees is beneficial; it not only empowers the mentees but also enriches the experience for the mentors. This program can serve as a model for other VA facilities—or non-VA academic medical centers—to enhance their research programs.

Dear Friends,

One of the challenges I faced during training was managing my life outside of work. Many astute trainees started their financial empowerment journey early. However, I was too overwhelmed with what I did not know (the financial world) and just avoided it. Over the last year, I finally decided to embrace my lack of knowledge and find the support of experts, just as we would in medicine. A lot of questions from my journey translated into several articles in the “Finance” section of The New Gastroenterologist, so I encourage those who need guidance on embarking on their financial journeys to explore that section!

This issue of The New Gastroenterologist reviews common topics seen in gastroenterology clinic visits. In the “In Focus” section, Dr. Patrick Chang, Dr. Supisara Tintara, and Dr. Jennifer Phan – all from the University of Southern California – review diagnostic modalities to assess gastroesophageal reflux disease with an emphasis on medical, endoscopic, and surgical managements.

 

With the rise in metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), patient education is starting in the primary care and gastroenterologist’s office. Dr. Newsha Nikzad, medical student Daniel Huynh, and Dr. Nikki Duong share their approach to ask effectively about and communicate lifestyle modifications, with examples of using sensitive language and prompts to help guide patients, in the “Short Clinical Review” section.

The “Finance” section highlights the ins and outs of a physician mortgage loan and additional information for first time home buyers, reviewed by John G. Kelley II, a physician mortgage specialist and vice president of mortgage lending at Arvest Bank. 

Lastly, in the “Early Career” section, Dr. Neil Gupta shares his experiences of transitioning from academic medicine to building a private practice group. He reflects on lessons learned from the first year after establishing his practice. 

If you are interested in contributing or have ideas for future TNG topics, please contact me (tjudy@wustl.edu) or Danielle Kiefer (dkiefer@gastro.org), managing editor of TNG.

Until next time, I leave you with a historical fun fact because we would not be where we are now without appreciating where we were: The first proton pump inhibitor was omeprazole, discovered 45 years ago in 1979 in Sweden, and clinically available in the United States only 36 years ago in 1988.

 

Yours truly, 

Judy A. Trieu, MD, MPH

Editor-in-Chief

Assistant Professor of Medicine

Interventional Endoscopy, Division of Gastroenterology

Washington University in St. Louis

Dear Friends,

One of the challenges I faced during training was managing my life outside of work. Many astute trainees started their financial empowerment journey early. However, I was too overwhelmed with what I did not know (the financial world) and just avoided it. Over the last year, I finally decided to embrace my lack of knowledge and find the support of experts, just as we would in medicine. A lot of questions from my journey translated into several articles in the “Finance” section of The New Gastroenterologist, so I encourage those who need guidance on embarking on their financial journeys to explore that section!

This issue of The New Gastroenterologist reviews common topics seen in gastroenterology clinic visits. In the “In Focus” section, Dr. Patrick Chang, Dr. Supisara Tintara, and Dr. Jennifer Phan – all from the University of Southern California – review diagnostic modalities to assess gastroesophageal reflux disease with an emphasis on medical, endoscopic, and surgical managements.

 

With the rise in metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), patient education is starting in the primary care and gastroenterologist’s office. Dr. Newsha Nikzad, medical student Daniel Huynh, and Dr. Nikki Duong share their approach to ask effectively about and communicate lifestyle modifications, with examples of using sensitive language and prompts to help guide patients, in the “Short Clinical Review” section.

The “Finance” section highlights the ins and outs of a physician mortgage loan and additional information for first time home buyers, reviewed by John G. Kelley II, a physician mortgage specialist and vice president of mortgage lending at Arvest Bank. 

Lastly, in the “Early Career” section, Dr. Neil Gupta shares his experiences of transitioning from academic medicine to building a private practice group. He reflects on lessons learned from the first year after establishing his practice. 

If you are interested in contributing or have ideas for future TNG topics, please contact me (tjudy@wustl.edu) or Danielle Kiefer (dkiefer@gastro.org), managing editor of TNG.

Until next time, I leave you with a historical fun fact because we would not be where we are now without appreciating where we were: The first proton pump inhibitor was omeprazole, discovered 45 years ago in 1979 in Sweden, and clinically available in the United States only 36 years ago in 1988.

 

Yours truly, 

Judy A. Trieu, MD, MPH

Editor-in-Chief

Assistant Professor of Medicine

Interventional Endoscopy, Division of Gastroenterology

Washington University in St. Louis

Dear Friends,

One of the challenges I faced during training was managing my life outside of work. Many astute trainees started their financial empowerment journey early. However, I was too overwhelmed with what I did not know (the financial world) and just avoided it. Over the last year, I finally decided to embrace my lack of knowledge and find the support of experts, just as we would in medicine. A lot of questions from my journey translated into several articles in the “Finance” section of The New Gastroenterologist, so I encourage those who need guidance on embarking on their financial journeys to explore that section!

This issue of The New Gastroenterologist reviews common topics seen in gastroenterology clinic visits. In the “In Focus” section, Dr. Patrick Chang, Dr. Supisara Tintara, and Dr. Jennifer Phan – all from the University of Southern California – review diagnostic modalities to assess gastroesophageal reflux disease with an emphasis on medical, endoscopic, and surgical managements.

 

With the rise in metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), patient education is starting in the primary care and gastroenterologist’s office. Dr. Newsha Nikzad, medical student Daniel Huynh, and Dr. Nikki Duong share their approach to ask effectively about and communicate lifestyle modifications, with examples of using sensitive language and prompts to help guide patients, in the “Short Clinical Review” section.

The “Finance” section highlights the ins and outs of a physician mortgage loan and additional information for first time home buyers, reviewed by John G. Kelley II, a physician mortgage specialist and vice president of mortgage lending at Arvest Bank. 

Lastly, in the “Early Career” section, Dr. Neil Gupta shares his experiences of transitioning from academic medicine to building a private practice group. He reflects on lessons learned from the first year after establishing his practice. 

If you are interested in contributing or have ideas for future TNG topics, please contact me (tjudy@wustl.edu) or Danielle Kiefer (dkiefer@gastro.org), managing editor of TNG.

Until next time, I leave you with a historical fun fact because we would not be where we are now without appreciating where we were: The first proton pump inhibitor was omeprazole, discovered 45 years ago in 1979 in Sweden, and clinically available in the United States only 36 years ago in 1988.

 

Yours truly, 

Judy A. Trieu, MD, MPH

Editor-in-Chief

Assistant Professor of Medicine

Interventional Endoscopy, Division of Gastroenterology

Washington University in St. Louis