Ob.Gyn. News

Many patients use cannabis to manage their cancer-related symptoms. However, research indicates that patients often do so without speaking to their oncologists first, and oncologists may be hesitant to broach the topic with their patients.

Updated guidelines from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) on the use of cannabis and cannabinoids in adults with cancer stress that it’s an important conversation to have.

According to the ASCO expert panel, access to and use of cannabis alongside cancer care have outpaced the science on evidence-based indications, and overall high-quality data on the effects of cannabis during cancer care are lacking. While several observational studies support cannabis use to help ease chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting, the literature remains more divided on other potential benefits, such as alleviating cancer pain and sleep problems, and some evidence points to potential downsides of cannabis use.

Oncologists should “absolutely talk to patients” about cannabis, Brooke Worster, MD, medical director for the Master of Science in Medical Cannabis Science & Business program at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, told Medscape Medical News.

“Patients are interested, and they are going to find access to information. As a medical professional, it’s our job to help guide them through these spaces in a safe, nonjudgmental way.”

But, Worster noted, oncologists don’t have to be experts on cannabis to begin the conversation with patients.

So, “let yourself off the hook,” Worster urged.

Plus, avoiding the conversation won’t stop patients from using cannabis. In a recent study, Worster and her colleagues found that nearly one third of patients at 12 National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers had used cannabis since their diagnosis — most often for sleep disturbance, pain, stress, and anxiety. Most (60%) felt somewhat or extremely comfortable talking to their healthcare provider about it, but only 21.5% said they had done so. Even fewer — about 10% — had talked to their treating oncologist.

Because patients may not discuss cannabis use, it’s especially important for oncologists to open up a line of communication, said Worster, also the enterprise director of supportive oncology at the Thomas Jefferson University.
 

Evidence on Cannabis During Cancer Care

A substantial proportion of people with cancer believe cannabis can help manage cancer-related symptoms.

In Worster’s recent survey study, regardless of whether patients had used cannabis, almost 90% of those surveyed reported a perceived benefit. Although 65% also reported perceived risks for cannabis use, including difficulty concentrating, lung damage, and impaired memory, the perceived benefits outweighed the risks.

Despite generally positive perceptions, the overall literature on the benefits of cannabis in patients with cancer paints a less clear picture.

The ASCO guidelines, which were based on 13 systematic reviews and five additional primary studies, reported that cannabis can improve refractory, chemotherapy-induced nausea or vomiting when added to guideline-concordant antiemetic regimens, but that there is no clear evidence of benefit or harm for other supportive care outcomes.

The “certainty of evidence for most outcomes was low or very low,” the ASCO authors wrote.

The ASCO experts explained that, outside the context of a clinical trial, the evidence is not sufficient to recommend cannabis or cannabinoids for managing cancer pain, sleep issues, appetite loss, or anxiety and depression. For these outcomes, some studies indicate a benefit, while others don’t.

Real-world data from a large registry study, for instance, have indicated that medical cannabis is “a safe and effective complementary treatment for pain relief in patients with cancer.” However, a 2020 meta-analysis found that, in studies with a low risk for bias, adding cannabinoids to opioids did not reduce cancer pain in adults with advanced cancer.

There can be downsides to cannabis use, too. In one recent study, some patients reported feeling worse physically and psychologically compared with those who didn’t use cannabis. Another study found that oral cannabis was associated with “bothersome” side effects, including sedation, dizziness, and transient anxiety.

The ASCO guidelines also made it clear that cannabis or cannabinoids should not be used as cancer-directed treatment, outside of a clinical trial.
 

Talking to Patients About Cannabis

Given the level of evidence and patient interest in cannabis, it is important for oncologists to raise the topic of cannabis use with their patients.

To help inform decision-making and approaches to care, the ASCO guidelines suggest that oncologists can guide care themselves or direct patients to appropriate “unbiased, evidence-based” resources. For those who use cannabis or cannabinoids outside of evidence-based indications or clinician recommendations, it’s important to explore patients’ goals, educate them, and try to minimize harm.

One strategy for broaching the topic, Worster suggested, is to simply ask patients if they have tried or considered trying cannabis to control symptoms like nausea and vomiting, loss of appetite, or cancer pain.

The conversation with patients should then include an overview of the potential benefits and potential risks for cannabis use as well as risk reduction strategies, Worster noted.

But “approach it in an open and nonjudgmental frame of mind,” she said. “Just have a conversation.”

Discussing the formulation and concentration of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) in products matters as well.

Will the product be inhaled, ingested, or topical? Inhaled cannabis is not ideal but is sometimes what patients have access to, Worster explained. Inhaled formulations tend to have faster onset, which might be preferable for treating chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting, whereas edible formulations may take a while to start working.

It’s also important to warn patients about taking too much, she said, explaining that inhaling THC at higher doses can increase the risk for cardiovascular effects, anxiety, paranoia, panic, and psychosis.

CBD, on the other hand, is anti-inflammatory, but early data suggest it may blunt immune responses in high doses and should be used cautiously by patients receiving immunotherapy.

Worster noted that as laws change and the science advances, new cannabis products and formulations will emerge, as will artificial intelligence tools for helping to guide patients and clinicians in optimal use of cannabis for cancer care. State websites are a particularly helpful tool for providing state-specific medical education related to cannabis laws and use, as well, she said.

The bottom line, she said, is that talking to patients about the ins and outs of cannabis use “really matters.”

Worster disclosed that she is a medical consultant for EO Care.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Many patients use cannabis to manage their cancer-related symptoms. However, research indicates that patients often do so without speaking to their oncologists first, and oncologists may be hesitant to broach the topic with their patients.

Updated guidelines from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) on the use of cannabis and cannabinoids in adults with cancer stress that it’s an important conversation to have.

According to the ASCO expert panel, access to and use of cannabis alongside cancer care have outpaced the science on evidence-based indications, and overall high-quality data on the effects of cannabis during cancer care are lacking. While several observational studies support cannabis use to help ease chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting, the literature remains more divided on other potential benefits, such as alleviating cancer pain and sleep problems, and some evidence points to potential downsides of cannabis use.

Oncologists should “absolutely talk to patients” about cannabis, Brooke Worster, MD, medical director for the Master of Science in Medical Cannabis Science & Business program at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, told Medscape Medical News.

“Patients are interested, and they are going to find access to information. As a medical professional, it’s our job to help guide them through these spaces in a safe, nonjudgmental way.”

But, Worster noted, oncologists don’t have to be experts on cannabis to begin the conversation with patients.

So, “let yourself off the hook,” Worster urged.

Plus, avoiding the conversation won’t stop patients from using cannabis. In a recent study, Worster and her colleagues found that nearly one third of patients at 12 National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers had used cannabis since their diagnosis — most often for sleep disturbance, pain, stress, and anxiety. Most (60%) felt somewhat or extremely comfortable talking to their healthcare provider about it, but only 21.5% said they had done so. Even fewer — about 10% — had talked to their treating oncologist.

Because patients may not discuss cannabis use, it’s especially important for oncologists to open up a line of communication, said Worster, also the enterprise director of supportive oncology at the Thomas Jefferson University.
 

Evidence on Cannabis During Cancer Care

A substantial proportion of people with cancer believe cannabis can help manage cancer-related symptoms.

In Worster’s recent survey study, regardless of whether patients had used cannabis, almost 90% of those surveyed reported a perceived benefit. Although 65% also reported perceived risks for cannabis use, including difficulty concentrating, lung damage, and impaired memory, the perceived benefits outweighed the risks.

Despite generally positive perceptions, the overall literature on the benefits of cannabis in patients with cancer paints a less clear picture.

The ASCO guidelines, which were based on 13 systematic reviews and five additional primary studies, reported that cannabis can improve refractory, chemotherapy-induced nausea or vomiting when added to guideline-concordant antiemetic regimens, but that there is no clear evidence of benefit or harm for other supportive care outcomes.

The “certainty of evidence for most outcomes was low or very low,” the ASCO authors wrote.

The ASCO experts explained that, outside the context of a clinical trial, the evidence is not sufficient to recommend cannabis or cannabinoids for managing cancer pain, sleep issues, appetite loss, or anxiety and depression. For these outcomes, some studies indicate a benefit, while others don’t.

Real-world data from a large registry study, for instance, have indicated that medical cannabis is “a safe and effective complementary treatment for pain relief in patients with cancer.” However, a 2020 meta-analysis found that, in studies with a low risk for bias, adding cannabinoids to opioids did not reduce cancer pain in adults with advanced cancer.

There can be downsides to cannabis use, too. In one recent study, some patients reported feeling worse physically and psychologically compared with those who didn’t use cannabis. Another study found that oral cannabis was associated with “bothersome” side effects, including sedation, dizziness, and transient anxiety.

The ASCO guidelines also made it clear that cannabis or cannabinoids should not be used as cancer-directed treatment, outside of a clinical trial.
 

Talking to Patients About Cannabis

Given the level of evidence and patient interest in cannabis, it is important for oncologists to raise the topic of cannabis use with their patients.

To help inform decision-making and approaches to care, the ASCO guidelines suggest that oncologists can guide care themselves or direct patients to appropriate “unbiased, evidence-based” resources. For those who use cannabis or cannabinoids outside of evidence-based indications or clinician recommendations, it’s important to explore patients’ goals, educate them, and try to minimize harm.

One strategy for broaching the topic, Worster suggested, is to simply ask patients if they have tried or considered trying cannabis to control symptoms like nausea and vomiting, loss of appetite, or cancer pain.

The conversation with patients should then include an overview of the potential benefits and potential risks for cannabis use as well as risk reduction strategies, Worster noted.

But “approach it in an open and nonjudgmental frame of mind,” she said. “Just have a conversation.”

Discussing the formulation and concentration of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) in products matters as well.

Will the product be inhaled, ingested, or topical? Inhaled cannabis is not ideal but is sometimes what patients have access to, Worster explained. Inhaled formulations tend to have faster onset, which might be preferable for treating chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting, whereas edible formulations may take a while to start working.

It’s also important to warn patients about taking too much, she said, explaining that inhaling THC at higher doses can increase the risk for cardiovascular effects, anxiety, paranoia, panic, and psychosis.

CBD, on the other hand, is anti-inflammatory, but early data suggest it may blunt immune responses in high doses and should be used cautiously by patients receiving immunotherapy.

Worster noted that as laws change and the science advances, new cannabis products and formulations will emerge, as will artificial intelligence tools for helping to guide patients and clinicians in optimal use of cannabis for cancer care. State websites are a particularly helpful tool for providing state-specific medical education related to cannabis laws and use, as well, she said.

The bottom line, she said, is that talking to patients about the ins and outs of cannabis use “really matters.”

Worster disclosed that she is a medical consultant for EO Care.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Many patients use cannabis to manage their cancer-related symptoms. However, research indicates that patients often do so without speaking to their oncologists first, and oncologists may be hesitant to broach the topic with their patients.

Updated guidelines from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) on the use of cannabis and cannabinoids in adults with cancer stress that it’s an important conversation to have.

According to the ASCO expert panel, access to and use of cannabis alongside cancer care have outpaced the science on evidence-based indications, and overall high-quality data on the effects of cannabis during cancer care are lacking. While several observational studies support cannabis use to help ease chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting, the literature remains more divided on other potential benefits, such as alleviating cancer pain and sleep problems, and some evidence points to potential downsides of cannabis use.

Oncologists should “absolutely talk to patients” about cannabis, Brooke Worster, MD, medical director for the Master of Science in Medical Cannabis Science & Business program at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, told Medscape Medical News.

“Patients are interested, and they are going to find access to information. As a medical professional, it’s our job to help guide them through these spaces in a safe, nonjudgmental way.”

But, Worster noted, oncologists don’t have to be experts on cannabis to begin the conversation with patients.

So, “let yourself off the hook,” Worster urged.

Plus, avoiding the conversation won’t stop patients from using cannabis. In a recent study, Worster and her colleagues found that nearly one third of patients at 12 National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers had used cannabis since their diagnosis — most often for sleep disturbance, pain, stress, and anxiety. Most (60%) felt somewhat or extremely comfortable talking to their healthcare provider about it, but only 21.5% said they had done so. Even fewer — about 10% — had talked to their treating oncologist.

Because patients may not discuss cannabis use, it’s especially important for oncologists to open up a line of communication, said Worster, also the enterprise director of supportive oncology at the Thomas Jefferson University.
 

Evidence on Cannabis During Cancer Care

A substantial proportion of people with cancer believe cannabis can help manage cancer-related symptoms.

In Worster’s recent survey study, regardless of whether patients had used cannabis, almost 90% of those surveyed reported a perceived benefit. Although 65% also reported perceived risks for cannabis use, including difficulty concentrating, lung damage, and impaired memory, the perceived benefits outweighed the risks.

Despite generally positive perceptions, the overall literature on the benefits of cannabis in patients with cancer paints a less clear picture.

The ASCO guidelines, which were based on 13 systematic reviews and five additional primary studies, reported that cannabis can improve refractory, chemotherapy-induced nausea or vomiting when added to guideline-concordant antiemetic regimens, but that there is no clear evidence of benefit or harm for other supportive care outcomes.

The “certainty of evidence for most outcomes was low or very low,” the ASCO authors wrote.

The ASCO experts explained that, outside the context of a clinical trial, the evidence is not sufficient to recommend cannabis or cannabinoids for managing cancer pain, sleep issues, appetite loss, or anxiety and depression. For these outcomes, some studies indicate a benefit, while others don’t.

Real-world data from a large registry study, for instance, have indicated that medical cannabis is “a safe and effective complementary treatment for pain relief in patients with cancer.” However, a 2020 meta-analysis found that, in studies with a low risk for bias, adding cannabinoids to opioids did not reduce cancer pain in adults with advanced cancer.

There can be downsides to cannabis use, too. In one recent study, some patients reported feeling worse physically and psychologically compared with those who didn’t use cannabis. Another study found that oral cannabis was associated with “bothersome” side effects, including sedation, dizziness, and transient anxiety.

The ASCO guidelines also made it clear that cannabis or cannabinoids should not be used as cancer-directed treatment, outside of a clinical trial.
 

Talking to Patients About Cannabis

Given the level of evidence and patient interest in cannabis, it is important for oncologists to raise the topic of cannabis use with their patients.

To help inform decision-making and approaches to care, the ASCO guidelines suggest that oncologists can guide care themselves or direct patients to appropriate “unbiased, evidence-based” resources. For those who use cannabis or cannabinoids outside of evidence-based indications or clinician recommendations, it’s important to explore patients’ goals, educate them, and try to minimize harm.

One strategy for broaching the topic, Worster suggested, is to simply ask patients if they have tried or considered trying cannabis to control symptoms like nausea and vomiting, loss of appetite, or cancer pain.

The conversation with patients should then include an overview of the potential benefits and potential risks for cannabis use as well as risk reduction strategies, Worster noted.

But “approach it in an open and nonjudgmental frame of mind,” she said. “Just have a conversation.”

Discussing the formulation and concentration of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) in products matters as well.

Will the product be inhaled, ingested, or topical? Inhaled cannabis is not ideal but is sometimes what patients have access to, Worster explained. Inhaled formulations tend to have faster onset, which might be preferable for treating chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting, whereas edible formulations may take a while to start working.

It’s also important to warn patients about taking too much, she said, explaining that inhaling THC at higher doses can increase the risk for cardiovascular effects, anxiety, paranoia, panic, and psychosis.

CBD, on the other hand, is anti-inflammatory, but early data suggest it may blunt immune responses in high doses and should be used cautiously by patients receiving immunotherapy.

Worster noted that as laws change and the science advances, new cannabis products and formulations will emerge, as will artificial intelligence tools for helping to guide patients and clinicians in optimal use of cannabis for cancer care. State websites are a particularly helpful tool for providing state-specific medical education related to cannabis laws and use, as well, she said.

The bottom line, she said, is that talking to patients about the ins and outs of cannabis use “really matters.”

Worster disclosed that she is a medical consultant for EO Care.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Human papillomavirus (HPV) is one of the most common sexually transmitted infections and persistent infection with high-risk strains is the leading cause of cervical cancer. Fortunately, vaccines are available to prevent many HPV-related diseases, but they haven’t fully eliminated the risks. Cervical cancer screening remains essential for early detection and prevention.

The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) currently recommends regular cervical cancer screenings for women aged 21-65. These screenings can include a Pap test every 3 years, a combination of HPV testing and Pap smear every 5 years, or high-risk HPV testing alone every 5 years, depending on age and individual risk factors.

Although these guidelines are currently under review, routine screenings have been instrumental in reducing cervical cancer rates. However, many patients still face barriers that prevent them from accessing these services. Common challenges include discomfort with pelvic exams, lack of time, and limited access to healthcare services. In recent years, advancements in home-based diagnostic testing have opened new avenues for preventative care.

Home HPV testing is one such advancement, offering an alternative to traditional in-office screening methods. While the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not yet approved home HPV testing, self-collection in clinical settings is available and gaining traction. Primary care physicians can integrate this self-collection method into their practices, helping to close the screening gap, especially for underserved populations.

If approved, home HPV testing could be a game-changer for patients who have difficulty attending in-person visits. Geographical barriers, transportation issues, and personal discomfort with in-office exams can prevent patients from receiving the care they need. Home testing eliminates many of these hurdles, enabling patients to perform the test in the comfort of their own homes at a time that works for them. This flexibility is particularly beneficial for rural and underserved populations, where access to healthcare is limited.

Similarly, in-office self-collection offers a comfortable alternative for those who find traditional pelvic exams uncomfortable or distressing. Self-administered HPV tests allow patients to take control of their cervical cancer screening, fostering empowerment and personal responsibility for their health. By reducing the discomfort and inconvenience of traditional screening, self-collection can improve adherence to screening guidelines, leading to earlier detection and prevention of cervical cancer.

Primary care physicians may soon offer both in-office and at-home testing options, tailoring the approach to each patient’s unique needs. Virtual appointments provide an excellent opportunity to educate patients about the importance of cervical cancer screening and offer guidance on using home HPV testing kits. This personalized care ensures patients feel supported even without in-person visits. If home testing becomes FDA approved, patients could receive test kits by mail, perform the test, and send it back to the lab for analysis. For those with positive results, primary care physicians can ensure timely follow-up, including Pap smears or colposcopies, to further evaluate cervical health.

Although home HPV testing offers many benefits, there are valid concerns about accuracy and follow-up care. Studies show that self-collected samples for HPV testing are highly accurate, with sensitivity and specificity comparable with clinician-collected samples, echoing the success of self-swabbing for other sexually transmitted infections.

It is crucial, however, that patients receive clear instructions on proper sample collection to maintain this accuracy. Follow-up care is another essential aspect of the screening process. While many HPV infections resolve on their own, high-risk strains require closer monitoring to prevent progression to cervical cancer. Primary care physicians must establish clear protocols for notifying patients of their results and ensuring appropriate follow-up appointments.

Additionally, there may be concerns about the cost and insurance coverage of home HPV tests. However, home testing could prove more cost-effective than multiple in-office visits, especially when factoring in travel expenses and missed work. Physicians should work to make home testing accessible to all patients, including those in low-income and rural communities.

Should these options become more widely available, it will be important to communicate that this does not fully eliminate the need for pelvic exams. As primary care physicians, we will still need to advise patients that they should bring up concerns of vaginal bleeding, vaginal discharge, and other symptoms. Pelvic exams will still be necessary for diagnosis when symptoms are present. Home HPV tests also will not replace in-office clinician collected exams for those who do not feel comfortable with self-collection.

Home and in-office self-collection for HPV testing are promising tools for improving cervical cancer screening rates and patient satisfaction. By offering a convenient, private, and accessible option, primary care physicians can help more patients stay on track with their preventive care and reduce their risk of cervical cancer. As this technology continues to evolve, embracing both in-office and home HPV testing will be essential to ensuring all patients benefit from these innovations.
 

Dr. Wheat is Vice Chair of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, Department of Family and Community Medicine and Associate Professor, Family and Community Medicine Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago. She serves on the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News. You can contact her at fpnews@mdedge.com.

References

Daponte N et al. HPV-Based Self-Sampling in Cervical Cancer Screening: An Updated Review of the Current Evidence in the Literature. Cancers (Basel). 2023 Mar 8;15(6):1669.

Di Gennaro G et al. Does self-sampling for human papilloma virus testing have the potential to increase cervical cancer screening? An updated meta-analysis of observational studies and randomized clinical trials. Front Public Health. 2022 Dec 8;10:1003461.

US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for Cervical Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA. 2018;320(7):674-686.

Human papillomavirus (HPV) is one of the most common sexually transmitted infections and persistent infection with high-risk strains is the leading cause of cervical cancer. Fortunately, vaccines are available to prevent many HPV-related diseases, but they haven’t fully eliminated the risks. Cervical cancer screening remains essential for early detection and prevention.

The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) currently recommends regular cervical cancer screenings for women aged 21-65. These screenings can include a Pap test every 3 years, a combination of HPV testing and Pap smear every 5 years, or high-risk HPV testing alone every 5 years, depending on age and individual risk factors.

Although these guidelines are currently under review, routine screenings have been instrumental in reducing cervical cancer rates. However, many patients still face barriers that prevent them from accessing these services. Common challenges include discomfort with pelvic exams, lack of time, and limited access to healthcare services. In recent years, advancements in home-based diagnostic testing have opened new avenues for preventative care.

Home HPV testing is one such advancement, offering an alternative to traditional in-office screening methods. While the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not yet approved home HPV testing, self-collection in clinical settings is available and gaining traction. Primary care physicians can integrate this self-collection method into their practices, helping to close the screening gap, especially for underserved populations.

If approved, home HPV testing could be a game-changer for patients who have difficulty attending in-person visits. Geographical barriers, transportation issues, and personal discomfort with in-office exams can prevent patients from receiving the care they need. Home testing eliminates many of these hurdles, enabling patients to perform the test in the comfort of their own homes at a time that works for them. This flexibility is particularly beneficial for rural and underserved populations, where access to healthcare is limited.

Similarly, in-office self-collection offers a comfortable alternative for those who find traditional pelvic exams uncomfortable or distressing. Self-administered HPV tests allow patients to take control of their cervical cancer screening, fostering empowerment and personal responsibility for their health. By reducing the discomfort and inconvenience of traditional screening, self-collection can improve adherence to screening guidelines, leading to earlier detection and prevention of cervical cancer.

Primary care physicians may soon offer both in-office and at-home testing options, tailoring the approach to each patient’s unique needs. Virtual appointments provide an excellent opportunity to educate patients about the importance of cervical cancer screening and offer guidance on using home HPV testing kits. This personalized care ensures patients feel supported even without in-person visits. If home testing becomes FDA approved, patients could receive test kits by mail, perform the test, and send it back to the lab for analysis. For those with positive results, primary care physicians can ensure timely follow-up, including Pap smears or colposcopies, to further evaluate cervical health.

Although home HPV testing offers many benefits, there are valid concerns about accuracy and follow-up care. Studies show that self-collected samples for HPV testing are highly accurate, with sensitivity and specificity comparable with clinician-collected samples, echoing the success of self-swabbing for other sexually transmitted infections.

It is crucial, however, that patients receive clear instructions on proper sample collection to maintain this accuracy. Follow-up care is another essential aspect of the screening process. While many HPV infections resolve on their own, high-risk strains require closer monitoring to prevent progression to cervical cancer. Primary care physicians must establish clear protocols for notifying patients of their results and ensuring appropriate follow-up appointments.

Additionally, there may be concerns about the cost and insurance coverage of home HPV tests. However, home testing could prove more cost-effective than multiple in-office visits, especially when factoring in travel expenses and missed work. Physicians should work to make home testing accessible to all patients, including those in low-income and rural communities.

Should these options become more widely available, it will be important to communicate that this does not fully eliminate the need for pelvic exams. As primary care physicians, we will still need to advise patients that they should bring up concerns of vaginal bleeding, vaginal discharge, and other symptoms. Pelvic exams will still be necessary for diagnosis when symptoms are present. Home HPV tests also will not replace in-office clinician collected exams for those who do not feel comfortable with self-collection.

Home and in-office self-collection for HPV testing are promising tools for improving cervical cancer screening rates and patient satisfaction. By offering a convenient, private, and accessible option, primary care physicians can help more patients stay on track with their preventive care and reduce their risk of cervical cancer. As this technology continues to evolve, embracing both in-office and home HPV testing will be essential to ensuring all patients benefit from these innovations.
 

Dr. Wheat is Vice Chair of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, Department of Family and Community Medicine and Associate Professor, Family and Community Medicine Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago. She serves on the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News. You can contact her at fpnews@mdedge.com.

References

Daponte N et al. HPV-Based Self-Sampling in Cervical Cancer Screening: An Updated Review of the Current Evidence in the Literature. Cancers (Basel). 2023 Mar 8;15(6):1669.

Di Gennaro G et al. Does self-sampling for human papilloma virus testing have the potential to increase cervical cancer screening? An updated meta-analysis of observational studies and randomized clinical trials. Front Public Health. 2022 Dec 8;10:1003461.

US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for Cervical Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA. 2018;320(7):674-686.

Human papillomavirus (HPV) is one of the most common sexually transmitted infections and persistent infection with high-risk strains is the leading cause of cervical cancer. Fortunately, vaccines are available to prevent many HPV-related diseases, but they haven’t fully eliminated the risks. Cervical cancer screening remains essential for early detection and prevention.

The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) currently recommends regular cervical cancer screenings for women aged 21-65. These screenings can include a Pap test every 3 years, a combination of HPV testing and Pap smear every 5 years, or high-risk HPV testing alone every 5 years, depending on age and individual risk factors.

Although these guidelines are currently under review, routine screenings have been instrumental in reducing cervical cancer rates. However, many patients still face barriers that prevent them from accessing these services. Common challenges include discomfort with pelvic exams, lack of time, and limited access to healthcare services. In recent years, advancements in home-based diagnostic testing have opened new avenues for preventative care.

Home HPV testing is one such advancement, offering an alternative to traditional in-office screening methods. While the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not yet approved home HPV testing, self-collection in clinical settings is available and gaining traction. Primary care physicians can integrate this self-collection method into their practices, helping to close the screening gap, especially for underserved populations.

If approved, home HPV testing could be a game-changer for patients who have difficulty attending in-person visits. Geographical barriers, transportation issues, and personal discomfort with in-office exams can prevent patients from receiving the care they need. Home testing eliminates many of these hurdles, enabling patients to perform the test in the comfort of their own homes at a time that works for them. This flexibility is particularly beneficial for rural and underserved populations, where access to healthcare is limited.

Similarly, in-office self-collection offers a comfortable alternative for those who find traditional pelvic exams uncomfortable or distressing. Self-administered HPV tests allow patients to take control of their cervical cancer screening, fostering empowerment and personal responsibility for their health. By reducing the discomfort and inconvenience of traditional screening, self-collection can improve adherence to screening guidelines, leading to earlier detection and prevention of cervical cancer.

Primary care physicians may soon offer both in-office and at-home testing options, tailoring the approach to each patient’s unique needs. Virtual appointments provide an excellent opportunity to educate patients about the importance of cervical cancer screening and offer guidance on using home HPV testing kits. This personalized care ensures patients feel supported even without in-person visits. If home testing becomes FDA approved, patients could receive test kits by mail, perform the test, and send it back to the lab for analysis. For those with positive results, primary care physicians can ensure timely follow-up, including Pap smears or colposcopies, to further evaluate cervical health.

Although home HPV testing offers many benefits, there are valid concerns about accuracy and follow-up care. Studies show that self-collected samples for HPV testing are highly accurate, with sensitivity and specificity comparable with clinician-collected samples, echoing the success of self-swabbing for other sexually transmitted infections.

It is crucial, however, that patients receive clear instructions on proper sample collection to maintain this accuracy. Follow-up care is another essential aspect of the screening process. While many HPV infections resolve on their own, high-risk strains require closer monitoring to prevent progression to cervical cancer. Primary care physicians must establish clear protocols for notifying patients of their results and ensuring appropriate follow-up appointments.

Additionally, there may be concerns about the cost and insurance coverage of home HPV tests. However, home testing could prove more cost-effective than multiple in-office visits, especially when factoring in travel expenses and missed work. Physicians should work to make home testing accessible to all patients, including those in low-income and rural communities.

Should these options become more widely available, it will be important to communicate that this does not fully eliminate the need for pelvic exams. As primary care physicians, we will still need to advise patients that they should bring up concerns of vaginal bleeding, vaginal discharge, and other symptoms. Pelvic exams will still be necessary for diagnosis when symptoms are present. Home HPV tests also will not replace in-office clinician collected exams for those who do not feel comfortable with self-collection.

Home and in-office self-collection for HPV testing are promising tools for improving cervical cancer screening rates and patient satisfaction. By offering a convenient, private, and accessible option, primary care physicians can help more patients stay on track with their preventive care and reduce their risk of cervical cancer. As this technology continues to evolve, embracing both in-office and home HPV testing will be essential to ensuring all patients benefit from these innovations.
 

Dr. Wheat is Vice Chair of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, Department of Family and Community Medicine and Associate Professor, Family and Community Medicine Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago. She serves on the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News. You can contact her at fpnews@mdedge.com.

References

Daponte N et al. HPV-Based Self-Sampling in Cervical Cancer Screening: An Updated Review of the Current Evidence in the Literature. Cancers (Basel). 2023 Mar 8;15(6):1669.

Di Gennaro G et al. Does self-sampling for human papilloma virus testing have the potential to increase cervical cancer screening? An updated meta-analysis of observational studies and randomized clinical trials. Front Public Health. 2022 Dec 8;10:1003461.

US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for Cervical Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA. 2018;320(7):674-686.

Sarah, a new mom who’s thrilled about her 3-month-old baby, is struggling with her sex life. Her once vibrant physical relationship with her partner has dwindled, and she’s dealing with painful intercourse and a notable drop in desire.

Pregnancy and childbirth are transformative experiences that affect every facet of a person’s life, including their sexual well-being. Despite this fact, clinicians frequently ignore sexual well-being, beyond contraception, in prenatal and postpartum care. In peripartum care, anticipatory guidance is recognized to be crucial to the well-being of new parents and their babies. Why should sexual well-being get the shaft? 
 

Why Talk About Sex?

Sex is a fundamental aspect of many people’s lives and relationships and can significantly affect overall well-being. Despite cultural narratives that often exclude the sexual function and pleasure aspect of sexual health from peripartum discussions, many new parents face sexual challenges that can worsen their physical and emotional health.

While up to 88% of new parents report problems with sexual well-being, less than 30% report receiving anticipatory guidance about sexual function changes. One study found only 15% of postpartum women reported discussing sexual concerns with their medical providers. And, when new parents receive more information about sexual health, they tend to report improved sexual well-being. Clearly, a gap needs bridging.

Sexual health doesn’t just affect individual well-being; it intertwines with relationship satisfaction. Attending to satisfaction in one’s relationship may be an important component of child health as well. 

Declines in the frequency of sexual engagement and desire are common after childbirth. Changes in arousal, orgasm, and sexual pleasure, often accompanied by pain, are also reported by many women. Some birthing parents report changes to the sensation of their genitals that are thought to be related to stretch of the pudendal nerve during parturition. Most experience resolution of these concerns within the first year after childbirth, although some women report persistent problems, including up to 33% with persistent sexual pain.

Many factors can contribute to postpartum sexual issues, including hormonal changes, body image concerns, and mental health conditions. Breastfeeding, for instance, can lead to vaginal dryness and reduced sexual arousal due to hormonal shifts. Body image issues and mood disorders like depression and anxiety can also adversely affect sexual function. Women with postpartum depression are more likely to experience sexual concerns, and the relationship between sexual difficulties and depression can be bidirectional.
 

Empowerment and Expectations

One commonly cited recommendation is to wait until 6 weeks postpartum before resuming penetrative intercourse after a normal vaginal delivery. However, this guideline lacks robust scientific backing. Many people might feel ready for sexual intercourse much sooner or, conversely, might not feel comfortable at the 6-week mark. As clinicians, we must empower our patients to trust their own bodies and make decisions based on their comfort and readiness.

The 6-week advice can sometimes unintentionally convey to women that they are not experts on their own bodies, or that any kind of sex is risky. Acknowledging the recovery timeline for every person is unique and various forms of sexual expression are safe can help foster a healthier approach to resuming sexual activities. In one study of postpartum sexual behavior, in the first 6 weeks after delivery, the most common kinds of sexual play included giving oral sex to a partner and solo sex. Between 80% and 90% have resumed vaginal-receiving sexual play (including intercourse) by 3 months. 

While recognizing that changes to sexual experience occur, we need to reinforce that gradual recovery is expected. And if women express distress about a sexual change, or if those changes persist, primary care providers should be prepared to help them with their concerns. 

Parents need to know experiencing pain is not something they should “just deal with” or ignore. Attempting to repeatedly endure sexual pain can cause new issues, such as high-tone dysfunction of the pelvic floor or an understandable decrease in willingness or receptiveness to sexual play of any kind. Encouraging open communication about these issues can help couples navigate these changes more smoothly.

Partners, especially new fathers, also experience sexual and emotional challenges. They can feel blindsided by the changes in their relationship and might struggle with feelings of jealousy or inadequacy. Understanding partners also face difficulties can help in providing a more comprehensive approach to sexual health care.
 

Starting the Conversation

So, how can we initiate these important conversations with new parents? Start by providing permission. As healthcare providers, we need to create an environment where discussing sexual health is normalized and welcomed. Simple, nonjudgmental statements can open the door to these discussions. For example, saying, “Many people notice changes in their sexual desire or pleasure after childbirth. Has anything like this happened to you or your partner?” can encourage patients to share their concerns.

Assessing the importance to patients of sexual problems can help direct the need for intervention. Follow up on these concerns and offer support, whether through counseling, pelvic floor physical therapy, or a referral to a sexual medicine specialist, a sex therapist, or other appropriate resource.

Let’s return to Sarah. In the ideal world, at 3 months postpartum she will already have had a handful of clinical conversations about her sexual well-being with her healthcare team — at prenatal visits, at well-baby visits, and at her postpartum checkups. Several of these conversations included her partner. They both understand the transition to parenthood could be rocky for their sex lives. They’ve set aside time to connect and stay physically close. She’s listened to her body and only engaged in sexual play for which she feels ready. Now, noting that some aspects of sexual play are persistently uncomfortable, she knows it’s time to follow up. Without shame or anxiety, she books an appointment with you, knowing that you understand how important this issue is for her, her partner, and her baby. 

If you’re working with new parents, remember: Open dialogue about sexual health is not just beneficial — it’s essential. Let’s bridge the gap in care by embracing these conversations and offering the support new parents truly need.
 

Dr. Kranz, Clinical Assistant Professor of Obstetrics/Gynecology and Family Medicine, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Sarah, a new mom who’s thrilled about her 3-month-old baby, is struggling with her sex life. Her once vibrant physical relationship with her partner has dwindled, and she’s dealing with painful intercourse and a notable drop in desire.

Pregnancy and childbirth are transformative experiences that affect every facet of a person’s life, including their sexual well-being. Despite this fact, clinicians frequently ignore sexual well-being, beyond contraception, in prenatal and postpartum care. In peripartum care, anticipatory guidance is recognized to be crucial to the well-being of new parents and their babies. Why should sexual well-being get the shaft? 
 

Why Talk About Sex?

Sex is a fundamental aspect of many people’s lives and relationships and can significantly affect overall well-being. Despite cultural narratives that often exclude the sexual function and pleasure aspect of sexual health from peripartum discussions, many new parents face sexual challenges that can worsen their physical and emotional health.

While up to 88% of new parents report problems with sexual well-being, less than 30% report receiving anticipatory guidance about sexual function changes. One study found only 15% of postpartum women reported discussing sexual concerns with their medical providers. And, when new parents receive more information about sexual health, they tend to report improved sexual well-being. Clearly, a gap needs bridging.

Sexual health doesn’t just affect individual well-being; it intertwines with relationship satisfaction. Attending to satisfaction in one’s relationship may be an important component of child health as well. 

Declines in the frequency of sexual engagement and desire are common after childbirth. Changes in arousal, orgasm, and sexual pleasure, often accompanied by pain, are also reported by many women. Some birthing parents report changes to the sensation of their genitals that are thought to be related to stretch of the pudendal nerve during parturition. Most experience resolution of these concerns within the first year after childbirth, although some women report persistent problems, including up to 33% with persistent sexual pain.

Many factors can contribute to postpartum sexual issues, including hormonal changes, body image concerns, and mental health conditions. Breastfeeding, for instance, can lead to vaginal dryness and reduced sexual arousal due to hormonal shifts. Body image issues and mood disorders like depression and anxiety can also adversely affect sexual function. Women with postpartum depression are more likely to experience sexual concerns, and the relationship between sexual difficulties and depression can be bidirectional.
 

Empowerment and Expectations

One commonly cited recommendation is to wait until 6 weeks postpartum before resuming penetrative intercourse after a normal vaginal delivery. However, this guideline lacks robust scientific backing. Many people might feel ready for sexual intercourse much sooner or, conversely, might not feel comfortable at the 6-week mark. As clinicians, we must empower our patients to trust their own bodies and make decisions based on their comfort and readiness.

The 6-week advice can sometimes unintentionally convey to women that they are not experts on their own bodies, or that any kind of sex is risky. Acknowledging the recovery timeline for every person is unique and various forms of sexual expression are safe can help foster a healthier approach to resuming sexual activities. In one study of postpartum sexual behavior, in the first 6 weeks after delivery, the most common kinds of sexual play included giving oral sex to a partner and solo sex. Between 80% and 90% have resumed vaginal-receiving sexual play (including intercourse) by 3 months. 

While recognizing that changes to sexual experience occur, we need to reinforce that gradual recovery is expected. And if women express distress about a sexual change, or if those changes persist, primary care providers should be prepared to help them with their concerns. 

Parents need to know experiencing pain is not something they should “just deal with” or ignore. Attempting to repeatedly endure sexual pain can cause new issues, such as high-tone dysfunction of the pelvic floor or an understandable decrease in willingness or receptiveness to sexual play of any kind. Encouraging open communication about these issues can help couples navigate these changes more smoothly.

Partners, especially new fathers, also experience sexual and emotional challenges. They can feel blindsided by the changes in their relationship and might struggle with feelings of jealousy or inadequacy. Understanding partners also face difficulties can help in providing a more comprehensive approach to sexual health care.
 

Starting the Conversation

So, how can we initiate these important conversations with new parents? Start by providing permission. As healthcare providers, we need to create an environment where discussing sexual health is normalized and welcomed. Simple, nonjudgmental statements can open the door to these discussions. For example, saying, “Many people notice changes in their sexual desire or pleasure after childbirth. Has anything like this happened to you or your partner?” can encourage patients to share their concerns.

Assessing the importance to patients of sexual problems can help direct the need for intervention. Follow up on these concerns and offer support, whether through counseling, pelvic floor physical therapy, or a referral to a sexual medicine specialist, a sex therapist, or other appropriate resource.

Let’s return to Sarah. In the ideal world, at 3 months postpartum she will already have had a handful of clinical conversations about her sexual well-being with her healthcare team — at prenatal visits, at well-baby visits, and at her postpartum checkups. Several of these conversations included her partner. They both understand the transition to parenthood could be rocky for their sex lives. They’ve set aside time to connect and stay physically close. She’s listened to her body and only engaged in sexual play for which she feels ready. Now, noting that some aspects of sexual play are persistently uncomfortable, she knows it’s time to follow up. Without shame or anxiety, she books an appointment with you, knowing that you understand how important this issue is for her, her partner, and her baby. 

If you’re working with new parents, remember: Open dialogue about sexual health is not just beneficial — it’s essential. Let’s bridge the gap in care by embracing these conversations and offering the support new parents truly need.
 

Dr. Kranz, Clinical Assistant Professor of Obstetrics/Gynecology and Family Medicine, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Sarah, a new mom who’s thrilled about her 3-month-old baby, is struggling with her sex life. Her once vibrant physical relationship with her partner has dwindled, and she’s dealing with painful intercourse and a notable drop in desire.

Pregnancy and childbirth are transformative experiences that affect every facet of a person’s life, including their sexual well-being. Despite this fact, clinicians frequently ignore sexual well-being, beyond contraception, in prenatal and postpartum care. In peripartum care, anticipatory guidance is recognized to be crucial to the well-being of new parents and their babies. Why should sexual well-being get the shaft? 
 

Why Talk About Sex?

Sex is a fundamental aspect of many people’s lives and relationships and can significantly affect overall well-being. Despite cultural narratives that often exclude the sexual function and pleasure aspect of sexual health from peripartum discussions, many new parents face sexual challenges that can worsen their physical and emotional health.

While up to 88% of new parents report problems with sexual well-being, less than 30% report receiving anticipatory guidance about sexual function changes. One study found only 15% of postpartum women reported discussing sexual concerns with their medical providers. And, when new parents receive more information about sexual health, they tend to report improved sexual well-being. Clearly, a gap needs bridging.

Sexual health doesn’t just affect individual well-being; it intertwines with relationship satisfaction. Attending to satisfaction in one’s relationship may be an important component of child health as well. 

Declines in the frequency of sexual engagement and desire are common after childbirth. Changes in arousal, orgasm, and sexual pleasure, often accompanied by pain, are also reported by many women. Some birthing parents report changes to the sensation of their genitals that are thought to be related to stretch of the pudendal nerve during parturition. Most experience resolution of these concerns within the first year after childbirth, although some women report persistent problems, including up to 33% with persistent sexual pain.

Many factors can contribute to postpartum sexual issues, including hormonal changes, body image concerns, and mental health conditions. Breastfeeding, for instance, can lead to vaginal dryness and reduced sexual arousal due to hormonal shifts. Body image issues and mood disorders like depression and anxiety can also adversely affect sexual function. Women with postpartum depression are more likely to experience sexual concerns, and the relationship between sexual difficulties and depression can be bidirectional.
 

Empowerment and Expectations

One commonly cited recommendation is to wait until 6 weeks postpartum before resuming penetrative intercourse after a normal vaginal delivery. However, this guideline lacks robust scientific backing. Many people might feel ready for sexual intercourse much sooner or, conversely, might not feel comfortable at the 6-week mark. As clinicians, we must empower our patients to trust their own bodies and make decisions based on their comfort and readiness.

The 6-week advice can sometimes unintentionally convey to women that they are not experts on their own bodies, or that any kind of sex is risky. Acknowledging the recovery timeline for every person is unique and various forms of sexual expression are safe can help foster a healthier approach to resuming sexual activities. In one study of postpartum sexual behavior, in the first 6 weeks after delivery, the most common kinds of sexual play included giving oral sex to a partner and solo sex. Between 80% and 90% have resumed vaginal-receiving sexual play (including intercourse) by 3 months. 

While recognizing that changes to sexual experience occur, we need to reinforce that gradual recovery is expected. And if women express distress about a sexual change, or if those changes persist, primary care providers should be prepared to help them with their concerns. 

Parents need to know experiencing pain is not something they should “just deal with” or ignore. Attempting to repeatedly endure sexual pain can cause new issues, such as high-tone dysfunction of the pelvic floor or an understandable decrease in willingness or receptiveness to sexual play of any kind. Encouraging open communication about these issues can help couples navigate these changes more smoothly.

Partners, especially new fathers, also experience sexual and emotional challenges. They can feel blindsided by the changes in their relationship and might struggle with feelings of jealousy or inadequacy. Understanding partners also face difficulties can help in providing a more comprehensive approach to sexual health care.
 

Starting the Conversation

So, how can we initiate these important conversations with new parents? Start by providing permission. As healthcare providers, we need to create an environment where discussing sexual health is normalized and welcomed. Simple, nonjudgmental statements can open the door to these discussions. For example, saying, “Many people notice changes in their sexual desire or pleasure after childbirth. Has anything like this happened to you or your partner?” can encourage patients to share their concerns.

Assessing the importance to patients of sexual problems can help direct the need for intervention. Follow up on these concerns and offer support, whether through counseling, pelvic floor physical therapy, or a referral to a sexual medicine specialist, a sex therapist, or other appropriate resource.

Let’s return to Sarah. In the ideal world, at 3 months postpartum she will already have had a handful of clinical conversations about her sexual well-being with her healthcare team — at prenatal visits, at well-baby visits, and at her postpartum checkups. Several of these conversations included her partner. They both understand the transition to parenthood could be rocky for their sex lives. They’ve set aside time to connect and stay physically close. She’s listened to her body and only engaged in sexual play for which she feels ready. Now, noting that some aspects of sexual play are persistently uncomfortable, she knows it’s time to follow up. Without shame or anxiety, she books an appointment with you, knowing that you understand how important this issue is for her, her partner, and her baby. 

If you’re working with new parents, remember: Open dialogue about sexual health is not just beneficial — it’s essential. Let’s bridge the gap in care by embracing these conversations and offering the support new parents truly need.
 

Dr. Kranz, Clinical Assistant Professor of Obstetrics/Gynecology and Family Medicine, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

TOPLINE:

Patients with early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) and high immune infiltration showed improved disease-free survival (DFS) with adjuvant capecitabine. These “immune-hot” patients had a 5-year DFS rate of 96.9% compared with 79.4% in the control group.

METHODOLOGY:

• In some studies, adding extended capecitabine to standard adjuvant chemotherapy has been shown to improve DFS in patients with early-stage TNBC, and one subset analysis suggested improved outcomes were most strongly associated with high immune infiltration.
• Researchers conducted a retrospective analysis of CBCSG010, a randomized phase 3 clinical trial, to identify the specific population that benefited from adjuvant capecitabine by analyzing the immune infiltration status of the tumors.
• The CBCSGO10 study of 585 patients originally found adjuvant capecitabine improved 5-year survival in patients with TNBC by 5.9%.
• This analysis included 207 patients (capecitabine arm, n = 104; control arm, n = 103) with serial formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tumor specimens, of which RNA sequencing data were available from 36 patients (capecitabine, n = 24; control, n = 12).
• Transcriptome data on the tumor microenvironment were validated with immunohistochemical staining of two markers, programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) and CD8, as well as stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (sTILs); patients with high PD-L1, CD8, and sTIL expression levels were defined as “immune hot.”

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients with TNBC and high immune infiltration treated with capecitabine had a 5-year DFS rate of 96.9% compared with 79.4% in the control group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.13; 95% CI, 0.03-0.52; P = .049).
• In the capecitabine group, the immune-hot patients had a higher 5-year DFS rate (96.9%) compared with immune-cold patients (76.4%; HR, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.04-0.29; P = .028).
• Gene ontology analysis showed greater enrichment of immune-related pathways in patients without recurrence in the capecitabine group, as well as higher expression of TYMP, a key liver enzyme in the metabolism of capecitabine.
• High expression levels of immune biomarkers PD-L1, CD8, and sTILs were associated with significantly improved DFS in the capecitabine group.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study suggested that immune-hot patients with TNBC are more likely to benefit from adjuvant capecitabine and that combining immunotherapy with chemotherapy may be expected to be more effective in immune-hot patients,” wrote the study authors.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Wenya Wu, MMed, and Yunsong Yang, MD, at the Department of Breast Surgery, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center in Shanghai, People’s Republic of China. It was published online October 2024 in JNCCN — Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective nature of the sample collection limited the availability of RNA sequencing data. External verification was challenging due to limited accessibility of transcriptome data from patients treated with additional adjuvant capecitabine or standard chemotherapy alone. The criteria for identifying immune-hot tumors require further exploration and determination.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, China Postdoctoral Science Foundation, and Shanghai Science and Technology Development Foundation. The authors disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

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

TOPLINE:

Patients with early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) and high immune infiltration showed improved disease-free survival (DFS) with adjuvant capecitabine. These “immune-hot” patients had a 5-year DFS rate of 96.9% compared with 79.4% in the control group.

METHODOLOGY:

• In some studies, adding extended capecitabine to standard adjuvant chemotherapy has been shown to improve DFS in patients with early-stage TNBC, and one subset analysis suggested improved outcomes were most strongly associated with high immune infiltration.
• Researchers conducted a retrospective analysis of CBCSG010, a randomized phase 3 clinical trial, to identify the specific population that benefited from adjuvant capecitabine by analyzing the immune infiltration status of the tumors.
• The CBCSGO10 study of 585 patients originally found adjuvant capecitabine improved 5-year survival in patients with TNBC by 5.9%.
• This analysis included 207 patients (capecitabine arm, n = 104; control arm, n = 103) with serial formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tumor specimens, of which RNA sequencing data were available from 36 patients (capecitabine, n = 24; control, n = 12).
• Transcriptome data on the tumor microenvironment were validated with immunohistochemical staining of two markers, programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) and CD8, as well as stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (sTILs); patients with high PD-L1, CD8, and sTIL expression levels were defined as “immune hot.”

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients with TNBC and high immune infiltration treated with capecitabine had a 5-year DFS rate of 96.9% compared with 79.4% in the control group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.13; 95% CI, 0.03-0.52; P = .049).
• In the capecitabine group, the immune-hot patients had a higher 5-year DFS rate (96.9%) compared with immune-cold patients (76.4%; HR, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.04-0.29; P = .028).
• Gene ontology analysis showed greater enrichment of immune-related pathways in patients without recurrence in the capecitabine group, as well as higher expression of TYMP, a key liver enzyme in the metabolism of capecitabine.
• High expression levels of immune biomarkers PD-L1, CD8, and sTILs were associated with significantly improved DFS in the capecitabine group.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study suggested that immune-hot patients with TNBC are more likely to benefit from adjuvant capecitabine and that combining immunotherapy with chemotherapy may be expected to be more effective in immune-hot patients,” wrote the study authors.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Wenya Wu, MMed, and Yunsong Yang, MD, at the Department of Breast Surgery, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center in Shanghai, People’s Republic of China. It was published online October 2024 in JNCCN — Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective nature of the sample collection limited the availability of RNA sequencing data. External verification was challenging due to limited accessibility of transcriptome data from patients treated with additional adjuvant capecitabine or standard chemotherapy alone. The criteria for identifying immune-hot tumors require further exploration and determination.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, China Postdoctoral Science Foundation, and Shanghai Science and Technology Development Foundation. The authors disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

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

TOPLINE:

Patients with early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) and high immune infiltration showed improved disease-free survival (DFS) with adjuvant capecitabine. These “immune-hot” patients had a 5-year DFS rate of 96.9% compared with 79.4% in the control group.

METHODOLOGY:

• In some studies, adding extended capecitabine to standard adjuvant chemotherapy has been shown to improve DFS in patients with early-stage TNBC, and one subset analysis suggested improved outcomes were most strongly associated with high immune infiltration.
• Researchers conducted a retrospective analysis of CBCSG010, a randomized phase 3 clinical trial, to identify the specific population that benefited from adjuvant capecitabine by analyzing the immune infiltration status of the tumors.
• The CBCSGO10 study of 585 patients originally found adjuvant capecitabine improved 5-year survival in patients with TNBC by 5.9%.
• This analysis included 207 patients (capecitabine arm, n = 104; control arm, n = 103) with serial formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tumor specimens, of which RNA sequencing data were available from 36 patients (capecitabine, n = 24; control, n = 12).
• Transcriptome data on the tumor microenvironment were validated with immunohistochemical staining of two markers, programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) and CD8, as well as stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (sTILs); patients with high PD-L1, CD8, and sTIL expression levels were defined as “immune hot.”

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients with TNBC and high immune infiltration treated with capecitabine had a 5-year DFS rate of 96.9% compared with 79.4% in the control group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.13; 95% CI, 0.03-0.52; P = .049).
• In the capecitabine group, the immune-hot patients had a higher 5-year DFS rate (96.9%) compared with immune-cold patients (76.4%; HR, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.04-0.29; P = .028).
• Gene ontology analysis showed greater enrichment of immune-related pathways in patients without recurrence in the capecitabine group, as well as higher expression of TYMP, a key liver enzyme in the metabolism of capecitabine.
• High expression levels of immune biomarkers PD-L1, CD8, and sTILs were associated with significantly improved DFS in the capecitabine group.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study suggested that immune-hot patients with TNBC are more likely to benefit from adjuvant capecitabine and that combining immunotherapy with chemotherapy may be expected to be more effective in immune-hot patients,” wrote the study authors.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Wenya Wu, MMed, and Yunsong Yang, MD, at the Department of Breast Surgery, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center in Shanghai, People’s Republic of China. It was published online October 2024 in JNCCN — Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective nature of the sample collection limited the availability of RNA sequencing data. External verification was challenging due to limited accessibility of transcriptome data from patients treated with additional adjuvant capecitabine or standard chemotherapy alone. The criteria for identifying immune-hot tumors require further exploration and determination.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, China Postdoctoral Science Foundation, and Shanghai Science and Technology Development Foundation. The authors disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

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

TOPLINE:

Individuals using contraceptive pills, patches, and rings must frequently interact with the healthcare system for continued use. More than half of US contraceptive users prefer alternative sources over traditional in-person care. Only 35.6% of respondents selected in-person care as their most preferred source.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a cross-sectional nationally representative survey in the United States in 2022 through NORC’s AmeriSpeak panel.
• A total of 3059 eligible panelists, aged 15-44 years, completed the survey, with 595 individuals currently using a pill, patch, or ring contraceptive included in the analysis.
• Primary outcomes measured were the use of any preferred source and the most preferred source when obtaining contraception.
• Sources included in-person care, telehealth, pharmacist-prescribed, online service, and over the counter.
• Data were analyzed from January 25, 2023, to August 15, 2024.

TAKEAWAY:

• Only 35.6% of respondents selected in-person care as their most preferred source of contraception.
• Only 49.7% of respondents obtained their method from a preferred source, while 39.8% received it from their most preferred source.
• Respondents who previously reported being unable to get their method on time had higher odds of preferring an alternative source (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 2.57; 95% CI, 1.36-4.87).
• Those who recently received person-centered contraceptive counseling had lower odds of preferring an alternative source (AOR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.35-0.98).

IN PRACTICE:

“The low level of preference for in-person care suggests that expanding contraceptive sources outside of traditional healthcare settings has a role in ameliorating barriers to access and can promote reproductive autonomy,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Anu Manchikanti Gómez, PhD, Sexual Health and Reproductive Equity Program, School of Social Welfare, University of California, Berkeley. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s cross-sectional design limited the ability to establish causality. The sample was limited to individuals aged 15-44 years, which may not represent all contraceptive users. Self-reported data may be subject to recall bias. The study did not distinguish between synchronous and asynchronous telehealth preferences.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by Arnold Ventures. Gómez disclosed receiving personal fees from various organizations outside the submitted work. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

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:

Individuals using contraceptive pills, patches, and rings must frequently interact with the healthcare system for continued use. More than half of US contraceptive users prefer alternative sources over traditional in-person care. Only 35.6% of respondents selected in-person care as their most preferred source.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a cross-sectional nationally representative survey in the United States in 2022 through NORC’s AmeriSpeak panel.
• A total of 3059 eligible panelists, aged 15-44 years, completed the survey, with 595 individuals currently using a pill, patch, or ring contraceptive included in the analysis.
• Primary outcomes measured were the use of any preferred source and the most preferred source when obtaining contraception.
• Sources included in-person care, telehealth, pharmacist-prescribed, online service, and over the counter.
• Data were analyzed from January 25, 2023, to August 15, 2024.

TAKEAWAY:

• Only 35.6% of respondents selected in-person care as their most preferred source of contraception.
• Only 49.7% of respondents obtained their method from a preferred source, while 39.8% received it from their most preferred source.
• Respondents who previously reported being unable to get their method on time had higher odds of preferring an alternative source (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 2.57; 95% CI, 1.36-4.87).
• Those who recently received person-centered contraceptive counseling had lower odds of preferring an alternative source (AOR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.35-0.98).

IN PRACTICE:

“The low level of preference for in-person care suggests that expanding contraceptive sources outside of traditional healthcare settings has a role in ameliorating barriers to access and can promote reproductive autonomy,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Anu Manchikanti Gómez, PhD, Sexual Health and Reproductive Equity Program, School of Social Welfare, University of California, Berkeley. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s cross-sectional design limited the ability to establish causality. The sample was limited to individuals aged 15-44 years, which may not represent all contraceptive users. Self-reported data may be subject to recall bias. The study did not distinguish between synchronous and asynchronous telehealth preferences.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by Arnold Ventures. Gómez disclosed receiving personal fees from various organizations outside the submitted work. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

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:

Individuals using contraceptive pills, patches, and rings must frequently interact with the healthcare system for continued use. More than half of US contraceptive users prefer alternative sources over traditional in-person care. Only 35.6% of respondents selected in-person care as their most preferred source.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a cross-sectional nationally representative survey in the United States in 2022 through NORC’s AmeriSpeak panel.
• A total of 3059 eligible panelists, aged 15-44 years, completed the survey, with 595 individuals currently using a pill, patch, or ring contraceptive included in the analysis.
• Primary outcomes measured were the use of any preferred source and the most preferred source when obtaining contraception.
• Sources included in-person care, telehealth, pharmacist-prescribed, online service, and over the counter.
• Data were analyzed from January 25, 2023, to August 15, 2024.

TAKEAWAY:

• Only 35.6% of respondents selected in-person care as their most preferred source of contraception.
• Only 49.7% of respondents obtained their method from a preferred source, while 39.8% received it from their most preferred source.
• Respondents who previously reported being unable to get their method on time had higher odds of preferring an alternative source (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 2.57; 95% CI, 1.36-4.87).
• Those who recently received person-centered contraceptive counseling had lower odds of preferring an alternative source (AOR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.35-0.98).

IN PRACTICE:

“The low level of preference for in-person care suggests that expanding contraceptive sources outside of traditional healthcare settings has a role in ameliorating barriers to access and can promote reproductive autonomy,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Anu Manchikanti Gómez, PhD, Sexual Health and Reproductive Equity Program, School of Social Welfare, University of California, Berkeley. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s cross-sectional design limited the ability to establish causality. The sample was limited to individuals aged 15-44 years, which may not represent all contraceptive users. Self-reported data may be subject to recall bias. The study did not distinguish between synchronous and asynchronous telehealth preferences.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by Arnold Ventures. Gómez disclosed receiving personal fees from various organizations outside the submitted work. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

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:

Adolescent girls with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) have an increased risk for hypertension, according to a new study which underscores the importance of blood pressure surveillance in this population.

METHODOLOGY:

• The retrospective cohort study examined the association between PCOS and hypertension in adolescent girls within a diverse community-based US healthcare population.
• The researchers analyzed data from 224,418 adolescent girls (mean age at index visit, 14.9 years; 15.8% classified as having obesity) who had a well-child visit between 2013 and 2019, during which their systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure were measured.
• Blood pressure in the hypertensive range was classified using the 2017 American Academy of Pediatrics Practice Guideline, with thresholds of 130/80 mm Hg or greater.

TAKEAWAY:

• The proportion of adolescent girls with high blood pressure was significantly greater among those with PCOS than among those without the condition (18.2% vs 7.1%; P < .001).
• Adolescent girls with PCOS had a 25% higher risk for hypertension than those without the disorder (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.25; 95% CI, 1.10-1.42).
• Similarly, adolescent girls with obesity and PCOS had a 23% higher risk for high blood pressure than those without PCOS (aOR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.06-1.42).

IN PRACTICE:

“The high prevalence of [hypertension] associated with PCOS emphasizes the key role of early [blood pressure] monitoring in this high-risk group,” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Sherry Zhang, MD, Kaiser Permanente Oakland Medical Center, Oakland, California, and was published online in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The study relied on coded diagnoses of PCOS from clinical settings, which may have led to detection and referral biases. The findings may not be generalizable to an unselected population in which adolescent girls are systematically screened for both PCOS and hypertension.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by the Cardiovascular and Metabolic Conditions Research Section and the Biostatistical Consulting Unit at the Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California and by the Kaiser Permanente Northern California Community Health Program. The authors declared having no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Adolescent girls with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) have an increased risk for hypertension, according to a new study which underscores the importance of blood pressure surveillance in this population.

METHODOLOGY:

• The retrospective cohort study examined the association between PCOS and hypertension in adolescent girls within a diverse community-based US healthcare population.
• The researchers analyzed data from 224,418 adolescent girls (mean age at index visit, 14.9 years; 15.8% classified as having obesity) who had a well-child visit between 2013 and 2019, during which their systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure were measured.
• Blood pressure in the hypertensive range was classified using the 2017 American Academy of Pediatrics Practice Guideline, with thresholds of 130/80 mm Hg or greater.

TAKEAWAY:

• The proportion of adolescent girls with high blood pressure was significantly greater among those with PCOS than among those without the condition (18.2% vs 7.1%; P < .001).
• Adolescent girls with PCOS had a 25% higher risk for hypertension than those without the disorder (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.25; 95% CI, 1.10-1.42).
• Similarly, adolescent girls with obesity and PCOS had a 23% higher risk for high blood pressure than those without PCOS (aOR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.06-1.42).

IN PRACTICE:

“The high prevalence of [hypertension] associated with PCOS emphasizes the key role of early [blood pressure] monitoring in this high-risk group,” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Sherry Zhang, MD, Kaiser Permanente Oakland Medical Center, Oakland, California, and was published online in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The study relied on coded diagnoses of PCOS from clinical settings, which may have led to detection and referral biases. The findings may not be generalizable to an unselected population in which adolescent girls are systematically screened for both PCOS and hypertension.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by the Cardiovascular and Metabolic Conditions Research Section and the Biostatistical Consulting Unit at the Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California and by the Kaiser Permanente Northern California Community Health Program. The authors declared having no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Adolescent girls with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) have an increased risk for hypertension, according to a new study which underscores the importance of blood pressure surveillance in this population.

METHODOLOGY:

• The retrospective cohort study examined the association between PCOS and hypertension in adolescent girls within a diverse community-based US healthcare population.
• The researchers analyzed data from 224,418 adolescent girls (mean age at index visit, 14.9 years; 15.8% classified as having obesity) who had a well-child visit between 2013 and 2019, during which their systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure were measured.
• Blood pressure in the hypertensive range was classified using the 2017 American Academy of Pediatrics Practice Guideline, with thresholds of 130/80 mm Hg or greater.

TAKEAWAY:

• The proportion of adolescent girls with high blood pressure was significantly greater among those with PCOS than among those without the condition (18.2% vs 7.1%; P < .001).
• Adolescent girls with PCOS had a 25% higher risk for hypertension than those without the disorder (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.25; 95% CI, 1.10-1.42).
• Similarly, adolescent girls with obesity and PCOS had a 23% higher risk for high blood pressure than those without PCOS (aOR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.06-1.42).

IN PRACTICE:

“The high prevalence of [hypertension] associated with PCOS emphasizes the key role of early [blood pressure] monitoring in this high-risk group,” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Sherry Zhang, MD, Kaiser Permanente Oakland Medical Center, Oakland, California, and was published online in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The study relied on coded diagnoses of PCOS from clinical settings, which may have led to detection and referral biases. The findings may not be generalizable to an unselected population in which adolescent girls are systematically screened for both PCOS and hypertension.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by the Cardiovascular and Metabolic Conditions Research Section and the Biostatistical Consulting Unit at the Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California and by the Kaiser Permanente Northern California Community Health Program. The authors declared having no conflicts of interest.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

What do we do if we don’t like patients? We take the Hippocratic Oath as young students in Glasgow. We do that just before our graduation ceremony; we hold our hands up and repeat the Hippocratic Oath: “First, do no harm,” and so on.

What happens if we intensely dislike a patient? Is it possible to offer them the very best care? I was thinking back over a long career. I’ve been a cancer doctor for 40 years and I quite like saying that.

I can only think genuinely over a couple of times in which I’ve acted reflexively when a patient has done something awful. The couple of times it happened, it was just terrible racist comments to junior doctors who were with me. Extraordinarily dreadful things such as, “I don’t want to be touched by ...” or something of that sort.

Without really thinking about it, you react as a normal citizen and say, “That’s absolutely awful. Apologize immediately or leave the consultation room, and never ever come back again.” 

I remember that it happened once in Glasgow and once when I was a young professor in Birmingham, and it’s just an automatic gut reaction. The patient got a fright, and I immediately apologized and groveled around. In that relationship, we hold all the power, don’t we? Rather than being gentle about it, I was genuinely angry because of these ridiculous comments. 

Otherwise, I think most of the doctor-patient relationships are predicated on nonromantic love. I think patients want us to love them as one would a son, mother, father, or daughter, because if we do, then we will do better for them and we’ll pull out all the stops. “Placebo” means “I will please.” I think in the vast majority of cases, at least in our National Health Service (NHS), patients come with trust and a sense of wanting to build that relationship. That may be changing, but not for me. 

What about putting the boot on the other foot? What if the patients don’t like us rather than vice versa? As part of our accreditation appraisal process, from time to time we have to take patient surveys as to whether the patients felt that, after they had been seen in a consultation, they were treated with dignity, the quality of information given was appropriate, and they were treated with kindness. 

It’s an excellent exercise. Without bragging about it, patients objectively, according to these measures, appreciate the service that I give. It’s like getting five-star reviews on Trustpilot, or whatever these things are, that allow you to review car salesmen and so on. I have always had five-star reviews across the board. 

That, again, I thought was just a feature of that relationship, of patients wanting to please. These are patients who had been treated, who were in the outpatient department, who were in the midst of battle. Still, the scores are very high. I speak to my colleagues and that’s not uniformly the case. Patients actually do use these feedback forms, I think in a positive rather than negative way, reflecting back on the way that they were treated.

It has caused some of my colleagues to think quite hard about their personal style and approach to patients. That sense of feedback is important. 

What about losing trust? If that’s at the heart of everything that we do, then what would be an objective measure of losing trust? Again, in our healthcare system, it has been exceedingly unusual for a patient to request a second opinion. Now, that’s changing. The government is trying to change it. Leaders of the NHS are trying to change it so that patients feel assured that they can seek second opinions.

Again, in all the years I’ve been a cancer doctor, it has been incredibly infrequent that somebody has sought a second opinion after I’ve said something. That may be a measure of trust. Again, I’ve lived through an NHS in which seeking second opinions was something of a rarity. 

I’d be really interested to see what you think. In your own sphere of healthcare practice, is it possible for us to look after patients that we don’t like, or should we be honest and say, “I don’t like you. Our relationship has broken down. I want you to be seen by a colleague,” or “I want you to be nursed by somebody else”?

Has that happened? Is that something that you think is common or may become more common? What about when trust breaks down the other way? Can you think of instances in which the relationship, for whatever reason, just didn’t work and the patient had to move on because of that loss of trust and what underpinned it? I’d be really interested to know. 

I seek to be informed rather than the other way around. Can we truly look after patients that we don’t like or can we rise above it as Hippocrates might have done? 

Thanks for listening, as always. For the time being, over and out.

Dr. Kerr, Professor, Nuffield Department of Clinical Laboratory Science, University of Oxford; Professor of Cancer Medicine, Oxford Cancer Centre, Oxford, United Kingdom, disclosed ties with Celleron Therapeutics, Oxford Cancer Biomarkers, Afrox, GlaxoSmithKline, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Genomic Health, Merck Serono, and Roche.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

What do we do if we don’t like patients? We take the Hippocratic Oath as young students in Glasgow. We do that just before our graduation ceremony; we hold our hands up and repeat the Hippocratic Oath: “First, do no harm,” and so on.

What happens if we intensely dislike a patient? Is it possible to offer them the very best care? I was thinking back over a long career. I’ve been a cancer doctor for 40 years and I quite like saying that.

I can only think genuinely over a couple of times in which I’ve acted reflexively when a patient has done something awful. The couple of times it happened, it was just terrible racist comments to junior doctors who were with me. Extraordinarily dreadful things such as, “I don’t want to be touched by ...” or something of that sort.

Without really thinking about it, you react as a normal citizen and say, “That’s absolutely awful. Apologize immediately or leave the consultation room, and never ever come back again.” 

I remember that it happened once in Glasgow and once when I was a young professor in Birmingham, and it’s just an automatic gut reaction. The patient got a fright, and I immediately apologized and groveled around. In that relationship, we hold all the power, don’t we? Rather than being gentle about it, I was genuinely angry because of these ridiculous comments. 

Otherwise, I think most of the doctor-patient relationships are predicated on nonromantic love. I think patients want us to love them as one would a son, mother, father, or daughter, because if we do, then we will do better for them and we’ll pull out all the stops. “Placebo” means “I will please.” I think in the vast majority of cases, at least in our National Health Service (NHS), patients come with trust and a sense of wanting to build that relationship. That may be changing, but not for me. 

What about putting the boot on the other foot? What if the patients don’t like us rather than vice versa? As part of our accreditation appraisal process, from time to time we have to take patient surveys as to whether the patients felt that, after they had been seen in a consultation, they were treated with dignity, the quality of information given was appropriate, and they were treated with kindness. 

It’s an excellent exercise. Without bragging about it, patients objectively, according to these measures, appreciate the service that I give. It’s like getting five-star reviews on Trustpilot, or whatever these things are, that allow you to review car salesmen and so on. I have always had five-star reviews across the board. 

That, again, I thought was just a feature of that relationship, of patients wanting to please. These are patients who had been treated, who were in the outpatient department, who were in the midst of battle. Still, the scores are very high. I speak to my colleagues and that’s not uniformly the case. Patients actually do use these feedback forms, I think in a positive rather than negative way, reflecting back on the way that they were treated.

It has caused some of my colleagues to think quite hard about their personal style and approach to patients. That sense of feedback is important. 

What about losing trust? If that’s at the heart of everything that we do, then what would be an objective measure of losing trust? Again, in our healthcare system, it has been exceedingly unusual for a patient to request a second opinion. Now, that’s changing. The government is trying to change it. Leaders of the NHS are trying to change it so that patients feel assured that they can seek second opinions.

Again, in all the years I’ve been a cancer doctor, it has been incredibly infrequent that somebody has sought a second opinion after I’ve said something. That may be a measure of trust. Again, I’ve lived through an NHS in which seeking second opinions was something of a rarity. 

I’d be really interested to see what you think. In your own sphere of healthcare practice, is it possible for us to look after patients that we don’t like, or should we be honest and say, “I don’t like you. Our relationship has broken down. I want you to be seen by a colleague,” or “I want you to be nursed by somebody else”?

Has that happened? Is that something that you think is common or may become more common? What about when trust breaks down the other way? Can you think of instances in which the relationship, for whatever reason, just didn’t work and the patient had to move on because of that loss of trust and what underpinned it? I’d be really interested to know. 

I seek to be informed rather than the other way around. Can we truly look after patients that we don’t like or can we rise above it as Hippocrates might have done? 

Thanks for listening, as always. For the time being, over and out.

Dr. Kerr, Professor, Nuffield Department of Clinical Laboratory Science, University of Oxford; Professor of Cancer Medicine, Oxford Cancer Centre, Oxford, United Kingdom, disclosed ties with Celleron Therapeutics, Oxford Cancer Biomarkers, Afrox, GlaxoSmithKline, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Genomic Health, Merck Serono, and Roche.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

What do we do if we don’t like patients? We take the Hippocratic Oath as young students in Glasgow. We do that just before our graduation ceremony; we hold our hands up and repeat the Hippocratic Oath: “First, do no harm,” and so on.

What happens if we intensely dislike a patient? Is it possible to offer them the very best care? I was thinking back over a long career. I’ve been a cancer doctor for 40 years and I quite like saying that.

I can only think genuinely over a couple of times in which I’ve acted reflexively when a patient has done something awful. The couple of times it happened, it was just terrible racist comments to junior doctors who were with me. Extraordinarily dreadful things such as, “I don’t want to be touched by ...” or something of that sort.

Without really thinking about it, you react as a normal citizen and say, “That’s absolutely awful. Apologize immediately or leave the consultation room, and never ever come back again.” 

I remember that it happened once in Glasgow and once when I was a young professor in Birmingham, and it’s just an automatic gut reaction. The patient got a fright, and I immediately apologized and groveled around. In that relationship, we hold all the power, don’t we? Rather than being gentle about it, I was genuinely angry because of these ridiculous comments. 

Otherwise, I think most of the doctor-patient relationships are predicated on nonromantic love. I think patients want us to love them as one would a son, mother, father, or daughter, because if we do, then we will do better for them and we’ll pull out all the stops. “Placebo” means “I will please.” I think in the vast majority of cases, at least in our National Health Service (NHS), patients come with trust and a sense of wanting to build that relationship. That may be changing, but not for me. 

What about putting the boot on the other foot? What if the patients don’t like us rather than vice versa? As part of our accreditation appraisal process, from time to time we have to take patient surveys as to whether the patients felt that, after they had been seen in a consultation, they were treated with dignity, the quality of information given was appropriate, and they were treated with kindness. 

It’s an excellent exercise. Without bragging about it, patients objectively, according to these measures, appreciate the service that I give. It’s like getting five-star reviews on Trustpilot, or whatever these things are, that allow you to review car salesmen and so on. I have always had five-star reviews across the board. 

That, again, I thought was just a feature of that relationship, of patients wanting to please. These are patients who had been treated, who were in the outpatient department, who were in the midst of battle. Still, the scores are very high. I speak to my colleagues and that’s not uniformly the case. Patients actually do use these feedback forms, I think in a positive rather than negative way, reflecting back on the way that they were treated.

It has caused some of my colleagues to think quite hard about their personal style and approach to patients. That sense of feedback is important. 

What about losing trust? If that’s at the heart of everything that we do, then what would be an objective measure of losing trust? Again, in our healthcare system, it has been exceedingly unusual for a patient to request a second opinion. Now, that’s changing. The government is trying to change it. Leaders of the NHS are trying to change it so that patients feel assured that they can seek second opinions.

Again, in all the years I’ve been a cancer doctor, it has been incredibly infrequent that somebody has sought a second opinion after I’ve said something. That may be a measure of trust. Again, I’ve lived through an NHS in which seeking second opinions was something of a rarity. 

I’d be really interested to see what you think. In your own sphere of healthcare practice, is it possible for us to look after patients that we don’t like, or should we be honest and say, “I don’t like you. Our relationship has broken down. I want you to be seen by a colleague,” or “I want you to be nursed by somebody else”?

Has that happened? Is that something that you think is common or may become more common? What about when trust breaks down the other way? Can you think of instances in which the relationship, for whatever reason, just didn’t work and the patient had to move on because of that loss of trust and what underpinned it? I’d be really interested to know. 

I seek to be informed rather than the other way around. Can we truly look after patients that we don’t like or can we rise above it as Hippocrates might have done? 

Thanks for listening, as always. For the time being, over and out.

Dr. Kerr, Professor, Nuffield Department of Clinical Laboratory Science, University of Oxford; Professor of Cancer Medicine, Oxford Cancer Centre, Oxford, United Kingdom, disclosed ties with Celleron Therapeutics, Oxford Cancer Biomarkers, Afrox, GlaxoSmithKline, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Genomic Health, Merck Serono, and Roche.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new serum containing 2-mercaptonicotinoyl glycine (Melasyl) as its main ingredient was at least as good as, if not better than, cysteamine 5% cream in treating facial melasma in a randomized controlled study presented at the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) 2024 Congress.

“Melasyl is a new potent melanogenesis inhibitor that exhibits a unique mode of action while preserving melanocyte integrity,” Mukta Sachdev, MD, head of the Department of Dermatology at Manipal Hospital in Bangalore, India, said at a late-breaking news session.

Both the serum and the cysteamine cream lightened participants’ skin to a similar extent, according to the modified Melasma Area and Severity Index (mMASI), with respective reductions of 4.19 and 3.81 points over a period of 4 months from baseline values of 11.15 and 10.93. 

Toa55/iStock/Getty Images

The mMASI score ranges from 0 to 24, with the lowest score representing the least and the highest score the most severe hyperpigmentation of the skin.

But the serum performed better than the cream by another measure. Judged by investigators blinded to which preparation study participants had been using, there was a significantly higher reduction in the Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) score from baseline among those treated with the serum than among those treated with the cream (−51.85% vs −39.06%; P = .0163). 

Moreover, after 4 months of treatment, there were significantly more participants with clear or almost clear skin with the serum than with the cream (17.46% vs 7.81%; P = .0163), Sachdev reported.

Other skin parameters relative to melasma, such as the brightness of skin tone and evenness of the improvement, improved more in the participants using the serum vs cream, she said. 

With “no side effects, no local skin reactions,” Sachdev said, “quality of life improved significantly and similarly, and almost all subjects in both groups were very satisfied with their treatment options.”
 

Active Ingredients

Margarida Gonçalo, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology at the University of Coimbra, in Portugal, who co-chaired the late-breaking news session, commented: “It’s really nice to have new products to treat such a devastating disease.”

Session co-chair, Lidia Rudnicka, MD, head of the Department of Dermatology, Medical University of Warsaw, in Poland, and president of the Polish Dermatological Society, wanted to know more about the active ingredients of the serum and the study’s design. 

Sachdev replied that the serum also contains other ingredients that provide “antioxidant protection” and moisturization. These include retinyl palmitate, which works on the dermal-epidermal junction, and hyaluronic acid, as well as “soothing agents,” such as the medicinal herb Centella asiatica, she said.
 

Study Design

Conducted at a single center in India, the study involved 127 adults aged 20-50 years with melasma. For inclusion, the participants had to have facial epidermal or mixed melasma (phototypes III-V) for more than 1 year; those with dermal melasma were excluded. 

Participants were randomly allocated to receive either the serum, which was applied topically to the areas of interest twice a day in the morning and then at bedtime (n = 63), or cysteamine cream (n = 64), which was applied once a day in addition to a neutral moisturizer. Treatment was for 4 months, with an on-site visit every month. 

All participants were supplied with the same sunscreen/ultraviolet protector applied twice a day (once in the morning and again at midday) and a neutral hydrating cleanser that was used in the morning and evening. 
 

Practical Implications

Over 4 months, both products showed significant improvement in melasma without reaching a plateau, Sachdev reported, with the serum demonstrating superior efficacy and tolerability, as judged by the investigators. 

The study suggests that the serum is a promising non-hydroquinone treatment for melasma, she said. Hydroquinone-containing topical preparations are used to depigment the skin, but their long-term use can be limited for safety reasons. 

“When products like this demonstrate improvement, it is something for the dermatologist to think about because we now have newer ingredients, which are safer and well tolerated,” she continued, noting that there appeared to be no risk for exogenous ochronosis, which can occur with long-term application of hydroquinone.

“So, I think the armamentarium of non-hydroquinone products for the treatment of melasma is rapidly expanding, and there are studies now with clinically proven efficacy,” Sachdev concluded. 

The study was supported by L’Oréal France La Roche-Posay, which launched Melasyl in March 2024. Sachdev reported receipt of research support and honoraria from the company. Gonçalo and Rudnicka were not involved in the study and had no relevant conflicts of interest to report. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new serum containing 2-mercaptonicotinoyl glycine (Melasyl) as its main ingredient was at least as good as, if not better than, cysteamine 5% cream in treating facial melasma in a randomized controlled study presented at the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) 2024 Congress.

“Melasyl is a new potent melanogenesis inhibitor that exhibits a unique mode of action while preserving melanocyte integrity,” Mukta Sachdev, MD, head of the Department of Dermatology at Manipal Hospital in Bangalore, India, said at a late-breaking news session.

Both the serum and the cysteamine cream lightened participants’ skin to a similar extent, according to the modified Melasma Area and Severity Index (mMASI), with respective reductions of 4.19 and 3.81 points over a period of 4 months from baseline values of 11.15 and 10.93. 

Toa55/iStock/Getty Images

The mMASI score ranges from 0 to 24, with the lowest score representing the least and the highest score the most severe hyperpigmentation of the skin.

But the serum performed better than the cream by another measure. Judged by investigators blinded to which preparation study participants had been using, there was a significantly higher reduction in the Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) score from baseline among those treated with the serum than among those treated with the cream (−51.85% vs −39.06%; P = .0163). 

Moreover, after 4 months of treatment, there were significantly more participants with clear or almost clear skin with the serum than with the cream (17.46% vs 7.81%; P = .0163), Sachdev reported.

Other skin parameters relative to melasma, such as the brightness of skin tone and evenness of the improvement, improved more in the participants using the serum vs cream, she said. 

With “no side effects, no local skin reactions,” Sachdev said, “quality of life improved significantly and similarly, and almost all subjects in both groups were very satisfied with their treatment options.”
 

Active Ingredients

Margarida Gonçalo, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology at the University of Coimbra, in Portugal, who co-chaired the late-breaking news session, commented: “It’s really nice to have new products to treat such a devastating disease.”

Session co-chair, Lidia Rudnicka, MD, head of the Department of Dermatology, Medical University of Warsaw, in Poland, and president of the Polish Dermatological Society, wanted to know more about the active ingredients of the serum and the study’s design. 

Sachdev replied that the serum also contains other ingredients that provide “antioxidant protection” and moisturization. These include retinyl palmitate, which works on the dermal-epidermal junction, and hyaluronic acid, as well as “soothing agents,” such as the medicinal herb Centella asiatica, she said.
 

Study Design

Conducted at a single center in India, the study involved 127 adults aged 20-50 years with melasma. For inclusion, the participants had to have facial epidermal or mixed melasma (phototypes III-V) for more than 1 year; those with dermal melasma were excluded. 

Participants were randomly allocated to receive either the serum, which was applied topically to the areas of interest twice a day in the morning and then at bedtime (n = 63), or cysteamine cream (n = 64), which was applied once a day in addition to a neutral moisturizer. Treatment was for 4 months, with an on-site visit every month. 

All participants were supplied with the same sunscreen/ultraviolet protector applied twice a day (once in the morning and again at midday) and a neutral hydrating cleanser that was used in the morning and evening. 
 

Practical Implications

Over 4 months, both products showed significant improvement in melasma without reaching a plateau, Sachdev reported, with the serum demonstrating superior efficacy and tolerability, as judged by the investigators. 

The study suggests that the serum is a promising non-hydroquinone treatment for melasma, she said. Hydroquinone-containing topical preparations are used to depigment the skin, but their long-term use can be limited for safety reasons. 

“When products like this demonstrate improvement, it is something for the dermatologist to think about because we now have newer ingredients, which are safer and well tolerated,” she continued, noting that there appeared to be no risk for exogenous ochronosis, which can occur with long-term application of hydroquinone.

“So, I think the armamentarium of non-hydroquinone products for the treatment of melasma is rapidly expanding, and there are studies now with clinically proven efficacy,” Sachdev concluded. 

The study was supported by L’Oréal France La Roche-Posay, which launched Melasyl in March 2024. Sachdev reported receipt of research support and honoraria from the company. Gonçalo and Rudnicka were not involved in the study and had no relevant conflicts of interest to report. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new serum containing 2-mercaptonicotinoyl glycine (Melasyl) as its main ingredient was at least as good as, if not better than, cysteamine 5% cream in treating facial melasma in a randomized controlled study presented at the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) 2024 Congress.

“Melasyl is a new potent melanogenesis inhibitor that exhibits a unique mode of action while preserving melanocyte integrity,” Mukta Sachdev, MD, head of the Department of Dermatology at Manipal Hospital in Bangalore, India, said at a late-breaking news session.

Both the serum and the cysteamine cream lightened participants’ skin to a similar extent, according to the modified Melasma Area and Severity Index (mMASI), with respective reductions of 4.19 and 3.81 points over a period of 4 months from baseline values of 11.15 and 10.93. 

Toa55/iStock/Getty Images

The mMASI score ranges from 0 to 24, with the lowest score representing the least and the highest score the most severe hyperpigmentation of the skin.

But the serum performed better than the cream by another measure. Judged by investigators blinded to which preparation study participants had been using, there was a significantly higher reduction in the Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) score from baseline among those treated with the serum than among those treated with the cream (−51.85% vs −39.06%; P = .0163). 

Moreover, after 4 months of treatment, there were significantly more participants with clear or almost clear skin with the serum than with the cream (17.46% vs 7.81%; P = .0163), Sachdev reported.

Other skin parameters relative to melasma, such as the brightness of skin tone and evenness of the improvement, improved more in the participants using the serum vs cream, she said. 

With “no side effects, no local skin reactions,” Sachdev said, “quality of life improved significantly and similarly, and almost all subjects in both groups were very satisfied with their treatment options.”
 

Active Ingredients

Margarida Gonçalo, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology at the University of Coimbra, in Portugal, who co-chaired the late-breaking news session, commented: “It’s really nice to have new products to treat such a devastating disease.”

Session co-chair, Lidia Rudnicka, MD, head of the Department of Dermatology, Medical University of Warsaw, in Poland, and president of the Polish Dermatological Society, wanted to know more about the active ingredients of the serum and the study’s design. 

Sachdev replied that the serum also contains other ingredients that provide “antioxidant protection” and moisturization. These include retinyl palmitate, which works on the dermal-epidermal junction, and hyaluronic acid, as well as “soothing agents,” such as the medicinal herb Centella asiatica, she said.
 

Study Design

Conducted at a single center in India, the study involved 127 adults aged 20-50 years with melasma. For inclusion, the participants had to have facial epidermal or mixed melasma (phototypes III-V) for more than 1 year; those with dermal melasma were excluded. 

Participants were randomly allocated to receive either the serum, which was applied topically to the areas of interest twice a day in the morning and then at bedtime (n = 63), or cysteamine cream (n = 64), which was applied once a day in addition to a neutral moisturizer. Treatment was for 4 months, with an on-site visit every month. 

All participants were supplied with the same sunscreen/ultraviolet protector applied twice a day (once in the morning and again at midday) and a neutral hydrating cleanser that was used in the morning and evening. 
 

Practical Implications

Over 4 months, both products showed significant improvement in melasma without reaching a plateau, Sachdev reported, with the serum demonstrating superior efficacy and tolerability, as judged by the investigators. 

The study suggests that the serum is a promising non-hydroquinone treatment for melasma, she said. Hydroquinone-containing topical preparations are used to depigment the skin, but their long-term use can be limited for safety reasons. 

“When products like this demonstrate improvement, it is something for the dermatologist to think about because we now have newer ingredients, which are safer and well tolerated,” she continued, noting that there appeared to be no risk for exogenous ochronosis, which can occur with long-term application of hydroquinone.

“So, I think the armamentarium of non-hydroquinone products for the treatment of melasma is rapidly expanding, and there are studies now with clinically proven efficacy,” Sachdev concluded. 

The study was supported by L’Oréal France La Roche-Posay, which launched Melasyl in March 2024. Sachdev reported receipt of research support and honoraria from the company. Gonçalo and Rudnicka were not involved in the study and had no relevant conflicts of interest to report. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX), with bone mineral density, predicts the risk for major osteoporotic fractures and hip fractures in patients with cancer, but FRAX without bone mineral density slightly overestimates these risks, a new analysis found.

METHODOLOGY:

• Cancer-specific guidelines recommend using FRAX to assess fracture risk, but its applicability in patients with cancer remains unclear.
• This retrospective cohort study included 9877 patients with cancer (mean age, 67.1 years) and 45,875 matched control individuals without cancer (mean age, 66.2 years). All participants had dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans.
• Researchers collected data on bone mineral density and fractures. The 10-year probabilities of major osteoporotic fractures and hip fractures were calculated using FRAX, and the observed 10-year probabilities of these fractures were compared with FRAX-derived probabilities.
• Compared with individuals without cancer, patients with cancer had a shorter mean follow-up duration (8.5 vs 7.6 years), a slightly higher mean body mass index, and a higher percentage of parental hip fractures (7.0% vs 8.2%); additionally, patients with cancer were more likely to have secondary causes of osteoporosis (10% vs 38.4%) and less likely to receive osteoporosis medication (9.9% vs 4.2%).

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with individuals without cancer, patients with cancer had a significantly higher incidence rate of major fractures (12.9 vs 14.5 per 1000 person-years) and hip fractures (3.5 vs 4.2 per 1000 person-years).
• FRAX with bone mineral density exhibited excellent calibration for predicting major osteoporotic fractures (slope, 1.03) and hip fractures (0.97) in patients with cancer, regardless of the site of cancer diagnosis. FRAX without bone mineral density, however, underestimated the risk for both major (0.87) and hip fractures (0.72).
• In patients with cancer, FRAX with bone mineral density findings were associated with incident major osteoporotic fractures (hazard ratio [HR] per SD, 1.84) and hip fractures (HR per SD, 3.61).
• When models were adjusted for FRAX with bone mineral density, patients with cancer had an increased risk for both major osteoporotic fractures (HR, 1.17) and hip fractures (HR, 1.30). No difference was found in the risk for fracture between patients with and individuals without cancer when the models were adjusted for FRAX without bone mineral density, even when considering osteoporosis medication use.

IN PRACTICE:

“This retrospective cohort study demonstrates that individuals with cancer are at higher risk of fracture than individuals without cancer and that FRAX, particularly with BMD [bone mineral density], may accurately predict fracture risk in this population. These results, along with the known mortality risk of osteoporotic fractures among cancer survivors, further emphasize the clinical importance of closing the current osteoporosis care gap among cancer survivors,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Carrie Ye, MD, MPH, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

This study cohort included a selected group of cancer survivors who were referred for DXA scans and may not represent the general cancer population. The cohort consisted predominantly of women, limiting the generalizability to men with cancer. Given the heterogeneity of the population, the findings may not be applicable to all cancer subgroups. Information on cancer stage or the presence of bone metastases at the time of fracture risk assessment was lacking, which could have affected the findings.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by the CancerCare Manitoba Foundation. Three authors reported having ties with various sources, including two who received grants from various organizations.
 

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 appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX), with bone mineral density, predicts the risk for major osteoporotic fractures and hip fractures in patients with cancer, but FRAX without bone mineral density slightly overestimates these risks, a new analysis found.

METHODOLOGY:

• Cancer-specific guidelines recommend using FRAX to assess fracture risk, but its applicability in patients with cancer remains unclear.
• This retrospective cohort study included 9877 patients with cancer (mean age, 67.1 years) and 45,875 matched control individuals without cancer (mean age, 66.2 years). All participants had dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans.
• Researchers collected data on bone mineral density and fractures. The 10-year probabilities of major osteoporotic fractures and hip fractures were calculated using FRAX, and the observed 10-year probabilities of these fractures were compared with FRAX-derived probabilities.
• Compared with individuals without cancer, patients with cancer had a shorter mean follow-up duration (8.5 vs 7.6 years), a slightly higher mean body mass index, and a higher percentage of parental hip fractures (7.0% vs 8.2%); additionally, patients with cancer were more likely to have secondary causes of osteoporosis (10% vs 38.4%) and less likely to receive osteoporosis medication (9.9% vs 4.2%).

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with individuals without cancer, patients with cancer had a significantly higher incidence rate of major fractures (12.9 vs 14.5 per 1000 person-years) and hip fractures (3.5 vs 4.2 per 1000 person-years).
• FRAX with bone mineral density exhibited excellent calibration for predicting major osteoporotic fractures (slope, 1.03) and hip fractures (0.97) in patients with cancer, regardless of the site of cancer diagnosis. FRAX without bone mineral density, however, underestimated the risk for both major (0.87) and hip fractures (0.72).
• In patients with cancer, FRAX with bone mineral density findings were associated with incident major osteoporotic fractures (hazard ratio [HR] per SD, 1.84) and hip fractures (HR per SD, 3.61).
• When models were adjusted for FRAX with bone mineral density, patients with cancer had an increased risk for both major osteoporotic fractures (HR, 1.17) and hip fractures (HR, 1.30). No difference was found in the risk for fracture between patients with and individuals without cancer when the models were adjusted for FRAX without bone mineral density, even when considering osteoporosis medication use.

IN PRACTICE:

“This retrospective cohort study demonstrates that individuals with cancer are at higher risk of fracture than individuals without cancer and that FRAX, particularly with BMD [bone mineral density], may accurately predict fracture risk in this population. These results, along with the known mortality risk of osteoporotic fractures among cancer survivors, further emphasize the clinical importance of closing the current osteoporosis care gap among cancer survivors,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Carrie Ye, MD, MPH, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

This study cohort included a selected group of cancer survivors who were referred for DXA scans and may not represent the general cancer population. The cohort consisted predominantly of women, limiting the generalizability to men with cancer. Given the heterogeneity of the population, the findings may not be applicable to all cancer subgroups. Information on cancer stage or the presence of bone metastases at the time of fracture risk assessment was lacking, which could have affected the findings.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by the CancerCare Manitoba Foundation. Three authors reported having ties with various sources, including two who received grants from various organizations.
 

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 appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX), with bone mineral density, predicts the risk for major osteoporotic fractures and hip fractures in patients with cancer, but FRAX without bone mineral density slightly overestimates these risks, a new analysis found.

METHODOLOGY:

• Cancer-specific guidelines recommend using FRAX to assess fracture risk, but its applicability in patients with cancer remains unclear.
• This retrospective cohort study included 9877 patients with cancer (mean age, 67.1 years) and 45,875 matched control individuals without cancer (mean age, 66.2 years). All participants had dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans.
• Researchers collected data on bone mineral density and fractures. The 10-year probabilities of major osteoporotic fractures and hip fractures were calculated using FRAX, and the observed 10-year probabilities of these fractures were compared with FRAX-derived probabilities.
• Compared with individuals without cancer, patients with cancer had a shorter mean follow-up duration (8.5 vs 7.6 years), a slightly higher mean body mass index, and a higher percentage of parental hip fractures (7.0% vs 8.2%); additionally, patients with cancer were more likely to have secondary causes of osteoporosis (10% vs 38.4%) and less likely to receive osteoporosis medication (9.9% vs 4.2%).

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with individuals without cancer, patients with cancer had a significantly higher incidence rate of major fractures (12.9 vs 14.5 per 1000 person-years) and hip fractures (3.5 vs 4.2 per 1000 person-years).
• FRAX with bone mineral density exhibited excellent calibration for predicting major osteoporotic fractures (slope, 1.03) and hip fractures (0.97) in patients with cancer, regardless of the site of cancer diagnosis. FRAX without bone mineral density, however, underestimated the risk for both major (0.87) and hip fractures (0.72).
• In patients with cancer, FRAX with bone mineral density findings were associated with incident major osteoporotic fractures (hazard ratio [HR] per SD, 1.84) and hip fractures (HR per SD, 3.61).
• When models were adjusted for FRAX with bone mineral density, patients with cancer had an increased risk for both major osteoporotic fractures (HR, 1.17) and hip fractures (HR, 1.30). No difference was found in the risk for fracture between patients with and individuals without cancer when the models were adjusted for FRAX without bone mineral density, even when considering osteoporosis medication use.

IN PRACTICE:

“This retrospective cohort study demonstrates that individuals with cancer are at higher risk of fracture than individuals without cancer and that FRAX, particularly with BMD [bone mineral density], may accurately predict fracture risk in this population. These results, along with the known mortality risk of osteoporotic fractures among cancer survivors, further emphasize the clinical importance of closing the current osteoporosis care gap among cancer survivors,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Carrie Ye, MD, MPH, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

This study cohort included a selected group of cancer survivors who were referred for DXA scans and may not represent the general cancer population. The cohort consisted predominantly of women, limiting the generalizability to men with cancer. Given the heterogeneity of the population, the findings may not be applicable to all cancer subgroups. Information on cancer stage or the presence of bone metastases at the time of fracture risk assessment was lacking, which could have affected the findings.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by the CancerCare Manitoba Foundation. Three authors reported having ties with various sources, including two who received grants from various organizations.
 

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 appeared on Medscape.com.

Twice a month, a 40-foot-long truck transformed into a mobile clinic travels the Rio Grande Valley to provide rural Texans with women’s health care, including birth control.

The clinic, called the UniMóvil, is part of the Healthy Mujeres program at the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley School of Medicine in Edinburg.

The United States has about 3000 mobile health programs. But Saul Rivas, an ob.gyn., said he wasn’t aware of any that shared the specific mission of Healthy Mujeres when he helped launch the initiative in 2017. “Mujeres” means “women” in Spanish.

It’s now part of a small but growing number of mobile programs aimed at increasing rural access to women’s health services, including long-acting reversible contraception.

There are two kinds of these highly effective methods: intrauterine devices, known as IUDs, and hormonal implants inserted into the upper arm. These birth control options can be especially difficult to obtain — or have removed — in rural areas.

“Women who want to prevent an unintended pregnancy should have whatever works best for them,” said Kelly Conroy, senior director of mobile and maternal health programs at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock.

The school is launching a mobile women’s health and contraception program in rural parts of the state in October.

Rural areas have disproportionately fewer doctors, including ob.gyns., than urban areas. And rural providers may not be able to afford to stock long-acting birth control devices or may not be trained in administering them, program leaders say.

Mobile clinics help shrink that gap in rural care, but they can be challenging to operate, said Elizabeth Jones, a senior director at the National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association.

Money is the greatest obstacle, Jones said. The Texas program costs up to $400,000 a year. A 2020 study of 173 mobile clinics found they cost an average of more than $630,000 a year. Mobile dental programs were the most expensive, averaging more than $1 million.

While many programs launch with the help of grants, they can be difficult to sustain, especially with over a decade of decreased or stagnant funding to Title X, a federal money stream that helps low-income people receive family planning services.

For example, a mobile contraception program serving rural Pennsylvania lasted less than 3 years before closing in 2023. It shut down after losing federal funding, said a spokesperson for the clinic that ran it.

Rural mobile programs aren’t as efficient or profitable as brick-and-mortar clinics. That’s because staff members may have to make hours-long trips to reach towns where they’ll probably see fewer patients than they would at a traditional site, Jones said.

She said organizations that can’t afford mobile programs can consider setting up “pop-up clinics” at existing health and community sites in rural areas.

Maria Briones is a patient who has benefited from the Healthy Mujeres program in southern Texas. The 41-year-old day care worker was concerned because she wasn’t getting her menstrual period with her IUD.

She considered going to Mexico to have the device removed because few doctors take her insurance on the US side of the Rio Grande Valley.

But Briones learned that the UniMóvil was visiting a small Texas city about 20 minutes from her home. She told the staff there that she doesn’t want more kids but was worried about the IUD.

Briones decided to keep the device after learning it’s safe and normal not to have periods while using an IUD. She won’t get billed for her appointment with the mobile clinic, even though the university health system doesn’t take her insurance.

“They have a lot of patience, and they answered all the questions that I had,” Briones said.

IUDs and hormonal implants are highly effective and can last up to 10 years. But they’re also expensive — devices can cost more than $1,000 without insurance — and inserting an IUD can be painful.

Patient-rights advocates are also concerned that some providers pressure people to use these devices.

They say ethical birth control programs aim to empower patients to choose the contraceptive method — if any — that is best for them, instead of promoting long-acting methods in an attempt to lower birth and poverty rates. They point to the history of eugenics-inspired sterilization and even more recent incidents.

For example, an investigation by Time magazine found doctors are more likely to push Black, Latina, young, and low-income women than other patients to use long-acting birth control — and to refuse to remove the devices.

Rivas said Healthy Mujeres staffers are trained on this issue.

“Our goal isn’t necessarily to place IUDs and implants,” he said. It’s to “provide education and help patients make the best decisions for themselves.”

David Wise, a spokesperson for the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, said staff members with the university’s mobile program will ask patients if they want to get pregnant in the next year, and will support their choice. The Arkansas and Texas programs also remove IUDs and hormonal arm implants if patients aren’t happy with them.

The Arkansas initiative will visit 14 rural counties with four vehicles the size of food trucks that were used in previous mobile health efforts. Staffing and equipment will be covered by a 2-year, $431,000 grant from an anonymous donor, Wise said.

In addition to contraception, faculty and medical residents staffing the vehicles will offer women’s health screenings, vaccinations, prenatal care, and testing and treatment for sexually transmitted infections.

Rivas said the Texas program was inspired by a study that found that, 6 months after giving birth, 34% of surveyed Texas mothers said long-acting contraception is their preferred birth control option — but only 13% were using that method.

“We started thinking about ways to address that gap,” Rivas said.

Healthy Mujeres, which is funded through multiple grants, started with a focus on contraception. It later expanded to services such as pregnancy ultrasounds, cervical cancer screenings, and testing for sexually transmitted infections.

While the Texas and Arkansas programs can bill insurance, they also have funding to help uninsured and underinsured patients afford their services. Both use community health workers — called promotoras in largely Spanish-speaking communities like the Rio Grande Valley — to connect patients with food, transportation, additional medical services, and other needs.

They partner with organizations that locals trust, such as food pantries and community colleges, which let the mobile units set up in their parking lots. And to further increase the availability of long-acting contraception in rural areas, the universities are training their students and local providers on how to insert, remove, and get reimbursed for the devices.

One difference between the programs is dictated by state laws. The Arkansas program can provide birth control to minors without a parent or guardian’s consent. But in Texas, most minors need consent before receiving health care, including contraception.

Advocates say these initiatives might help lower the rates of unintended and teen pregnancies in both states, which are higher than the national average.

Rivas and Conroy said their programs haven’t received much pushback. But Rivas said some churches that had asked the UniMóvil to visit their congregations changed their minds after learning the services included birth control.

Catherine Phillips, director of the Respect Life Office at Arkansas’ Catholic diocese, said the diocese supports efforts to achieve health care equity and she’s personally interested in mobile programs that visit rural areas such as where she lives.

But Phillips said the Arkansas program’s focus on birth control, especially long-acting methods, violates the teachings of the Catholic Church. Offering these services to minors without parental consent “makes it more egregious,” she said.

Jones said that, while these programs have hefty costs and other challenges, they also have benefits that can’t be measured in numbers.

“Building community trust and making an impact in the communities most impacted by health inequities — that’s invaluable,” she said.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

Twice a month, a 40-foot-long truck transformed into a mobile clinic travels the Rio Grande Valley to provide rural Texans with women’s health care, including birth control.

The clinic, called the UniMóvil, is part of the Healthy Mujeres program at the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley School of Medicine in Edinburg.

The United States has about 3000 mobile health programs. But Saul Rivas, an ob.gyn., said he wasn’t aware of any that shared the specific mission of Healthy Mujeres when he helped launch the initiative in 2017. “Mujeres” means “women” in Spanish.

It’s now part of a small but growing number of mobile programs aimed at increasing rural access to women’s health services, including long-acting reversible contraception.

There are two kinds of these highly effective methods: intrauterine devices, known as IUDs, and hormonal implants inserted into the upper arm. These birth control options can be especially difficult to obtain — or have removed — in rural areas.

“Women who want to prevent an unintended pregnancy should have whatever works best for them,” said Kelly Conroy, senior director of mobile and maternal health programs at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock.

The school is launching a mobile women’s health and contraception program in rural parts of the state in October.

Rural areas have disproportionately fewer doctors, including ob.gyns., than urban areas. And rural providers may not be able to afford to stock long-acting birth control devices or may not be trained in administering them, program leaders say.

Mobile clinics help shrink that gap in rural care, but they can be challenging to operate, said Elizabeth Jones, a senior director at the National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association.

Money is the greatest obstacle, Jones said. The Texas program costs up to $400,000 a year. A 2020 study of 173 mobile clinics found they cost an average of more than $630,000 a year. Mobile dental programs were the most expensive, averaging more than $1 million.

While many programs launch with the help of grants, they can be difficult to sustain, especially with over a decade of decreased or stagnant funding to Title X, a federal money stream that helps low-income people receive family planning services.

For example, a mobile contraception program serving rural Pennsylvania lasted less than 3 years before closing in 2023. It shut down after losing federal funding, said a spokesperson for the clinic that ran it.

Rural mobile programs aren’t as efficient or profitable as brick-and-mortar clinics. That’s because staff members may have to make hours-long trips to reach towns where they’ll probably see fewer patients than they would at a traditional site, Jones said.

She said organizations that can’t afford mobile programs can consider setting up “pop-up clinics” at existing health and community sites in rural areas.

Maria Briones is a patient who has benefited from the Healthy Mujeres program in southern Texas. The 41-year-old day care worker was concerned because she wasn’t getting her menstrual period with her IUD.

She considered going to Mexico to have the device removed because few doctors take her insurance on the US side of the Rio Grande Valley.

But Briones learned that the UniMóvil was visiting a small Texas city about 20 minutes from her home. She told the staff there that she doesn’t want more kids but was worried about the IUD.

Briones decided to keep the device after learning it’s safe and normal not to have periods while using an IUD. She won’t get billed for her appointment with the mobile clinic, even though the university health system doesn’t take her insurance.

“They have a lot of patience, and they answered all the questions that I had,” Briones said.

IUDs and hormonal implants are highly effective and can last up to 10 years. But they’re also expensive — devices can cost more than $1,000 without insurance — and inserting an IUD can be painful.

Patient-rights advocates are also concerned that some providers pressure people to use these devices.

They say ethical birth control programs aim to empower patients to choose the contraceptive method — if any — that is best for them, instead of promoting long-acting methods in an attempt to lower birth and poverty rates. They point to the history of eugenics-inspired sterilization and even more recent incidents.

For example, an investigation by Time magazine found doctors are more likely to push Black, Latina, young, and low-income women than other patients to use long-acting birth control — and to refuse to remove the devices.

Rivas said Healthy Mujeres staffers are trained on this issue.

“Our goal isn’t necessarily to place IUDs and implants,” he said. It’s to “provide education and help patients make the best decisions for themselves.”

David Wise, a spokesperson for the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, said staff members with the university’s mobile program will ask patients if they want to get pregnant in the next year, and will support their choice. The Arkansas and Texas programs also remove IUDs and hormonal arm implants if patients aren’t happy with them.

The Arkansas initiative will visit 14 rural counties with four vehicles the size of food trucks that were used in previous mobile health efforts. Staffing and equipment will be covered by a 2-year, $431,000 grant from an anonymous donor, Wise said.

In addition to contraception, faculty and medical residents staffing the vehicles will offer women’s health screenings, vaccinations, prenatal care, and testing and treatment for sexually transmitted infections.

Rivas said the Texas program was inspired by a study that found that, 6 months after giving birth, 34% of surveyed Texas mothers said long-acting contraception is their preferred birth control option — but only 13% were using that method.

“We started thinking about ways to address that gap,” Rivas said.

Healthy Mujeres, which is funded through multiple grants, started with a focus on contraception. It later expanded to services such as pregnancy ultrasounds, cervical cancer screenings, and testing for sexually transmitted infections.

While the Texas and Arkansas programs can bill insurance, they also have funding to help uninsured and underinsured patients afford their services. Both use community health workers — called promotoras in largely Spanish-speaking communities like the Rio Grande Valley — to connect patients with food, transportation, additional medical services, and other needs.

They partner with organizations that locals trust, such as food pantries and community colleges, which let the mobile units set up in their parking lots. And to further increase the availability of long-acting contraception in rural areas, the universities are training their students and local providers on how to insert, remove, and get reimbursed for the devices.