User login
Medical Liability for the Gastroenterologist
While nearly 75% of physicians in low-risk specialties and 99% of physicians in high-risk specialties may face a malpractice claim in their careers,1 malpractice is rarely discussed openly in medical school, residency, fellowship, or even amongst colleagues. Indeed, one study suggested that more than 10% of practicing gastroenterologists may face a malpractice claim,2 with gastroenterologists expected to spend 10-15% of their careers with an outstanding malpractice claim3 as cases may take 27-29 months to resolve on average.4
Believing that if a physician is sued, one must have done something “wrong” or that speaking about one’s experience may implicate a colleague, creates an intense stigma and isolation that only serves to aggravate the “second victim syndrome” (SVS) that is well documented in the surgical literature.2 Herein,
What is Malpractice? Why Do Physicians Get Sued?
Malpractice is defined as negligence on the part of a physician which causes physical or emotional damage to the patient. This requires a variety of legal issues to be evaluated (e.g. breach of duty between the physicians and patient, breach of standard of care), that often center around the question: would a “reasonable, careful, and prudent” doctor behave in the same manner in the same circumstance?
While some fields of medicine lend themselves better to algorithmic applications of highly evidence-based guidelines, many aspects of GI care and endoscopic practice are highly physician/patient-specific, dependent on local expertise, and based on low-quality evidence. As a result, an assessment of negligence may be quite subjective, depending on the expert retained by a plaintiff. Conflicting expert testimony on what professional custom is and whether practice deviates may hinge on technical details that may or may not be appreciated by a lay jury.
Plaintiffs must prove both that they have sustained an injury and that the injury (emotional or physical) was due to the physician’s negligence. While this may be straightforward in a “slip-and-fall” tort claim, medical malpractice claims usually involve sick patients with multiple comorbidities, where assigning causality to a single intervention/misinterpretation/missed opportunity is difficult to weigh against competing causes of adverse outcomes. Assessing a specific liability requires that the plaintiff prove this to a “more likely than not” standard which may be part of the reason why only 30% of cases are closed with indemnity payments, a figure that has not changed significantly in the past decade.4
While the perception amongst physicians is that tort legislation is ever increasing, data from the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB) demonstrates that the number of paid claims against physicians has decreased by 75% in the last 20 years.5 This may reflect a progressive improvement in the quality of care delivered or success of “tort reform” on the state level to limit damages and “nuisance” lawsuits. However, another more problematic possibility is that with the corporatization of medicine, an untold number of physicians may be removed from litigation as a named party, with their institution shielding them from reporting. While the number of cases may or may not be declining, the average indemnity payment appears to be rising to $330,000 on average,4 with one study suggesting a significant growth in paid claims in gastroenterology.6
Historically, studies of closed malpractice claims have demonstrated that 59% involved diagnostic errors involving a cancer diagnosis,7 though why this actually happens may be for a wide variety of reasons including errors in the development of a differential diagnosis, ordering of an appropriate diagnostic test, interpretation of the diagnostic test, or follow-up of an abnormality identified.
What are the Intended/Unintended Consequences of Litigation?
The objective of our tort system is to compensate patients for economic damages (medical costs and lost wages) and non-economic damages (pain and suffering), and to ideally deter negligent behavior of providers. Interestingly, data from the NPDB have suggested that approximately 1% of all physicians account for 32% of all paid claims, with the same study showing that among physicians with paid claims, 4% had at least 3.8
While certain fields are obviously more prone to litigation, the risk of additional claims on a physician with 3 prior claims was more than 3 times that of physicians with 1 lifetime claim. One would assume that the system was built to drive out a small proportion of “bad actors.” Indeed, similar data from the NPDB has demonstrated that the number of claims against physicians was associated both with their leaving the practice of medicine and relocating to smaller practice settings.9
Another frequent question is whether the threat of litigation drives “defensive medicine” (i.e. medical care that is not beneficial) or avoidance medicine (i.e. excluding high risk patients and procedures from ones’ practice). These behaviors have been well documented in physicians around the world,10 as well as several surveys of gastroenterologists specifically suggesting regular ordering of unnecessary imaging/endoscopy and referrals of patients to specialists that may not be necessary.11,12
However, does defensive medicine work: does spending more prevent you from being the target of a lawsuit? In an observational study in Florida from 2000-2009, researchers demonstrated that across specialties, greater average spending by physicians was associated with a reduced risk of incurring a malpractice claim. Indeed, the likelihood of a top quintile spending internist having a malpractice incident vs a bottom quintile spending internist was 0.3% vs 1.5%.13
Approximately 10.4-43.3% of physicians may experience SVS, experiencing trauma after an adverse patient event/medical error, manifesting with psychological trauma (shame, guilt, anxiety) and cognitive limitations (burnout, stress).2 Significant emotional consequences are common on the part of the physician and have well-documented stages to recovery,14 which if ignored may lead to long-term detrimental mental/emotional health of the physician and their future patients.
Specifically, in one study, 80.8% of physicians who had a closed malpractice claim reported significant emotional distress (regardless of the legal outcome), with frequent reports of mood symptoms that affected professional conduct.15 Recognizing these effects and implementing peer counseling and institutional support may help to expedite recovery and mitigate future adverse career outcomes.14
Anatomy/Timeline of a Liability Lawsuit
Medical malpractice cases are heard in state courts, in the jurisdictions where the care was provided. From the time an event occurs to when a jury verdict may be rendered may take 4-5 years or more depending on the local statute of limitations, discovery process, backlog of the local case docket, and specific circumstances of the case. The length of time is important to consider given the likelihood that a physician may advance in training or move practice locations during the course of litigation. Several common myths surrounding this process are summarized in the accompanying box, titled “Myths Surrounding Medical Liability Litigation.”
The plaintiff faces a statute of limitations to file a lawsuit that may range from 1-6 years depending on the state. The first indication that legal action may be pending will generally be a plaintiff’s formal request for medical records. After these records are reviewed, the plaintiff’s attorney will consult one or more experts (often credentialed in the same specialty) to assess if the case is viable and to ultimately form the basis of an affidavit of merit from a plaintiff expert.
Once the lawsuit is filed, the physician(s) named will be assigned an attorney by their employer/insurance company. A state medical board malpractice questionnaire will generally follow that will seek to independently evaluate the alleged malpractice with interrogatives to determine if censure is warranted. There is a formal response to the plaintiff’s petition by the defense and then the discovery phase begins where both sides depose the defendants/plaintiffs and retain medical experts that are favorable to their arguments.
In choosing potential “experts,” physicians must ensure that they are willing/able to be present for a potential trial, do not have any personal/professional/academic conflicts with the defendants, and are willing to provide compelling testimony to a jury. A pre-trial conference and trial date is set which may be >12 months away depending on the local docket. While the amount of time a trial may take is variable, it may be up to 5-7 days that the defendants are expected to be in court in addition to days where depositions are being taken.
During the discovery process, dismissal of the physician from the lawsuit is pursued. In addition, settlement negotiations generally proceed in parallel with discovery process and may result in a pre-trial/pre-verdict settlement. Once a verdict is reached, whether for the plaintiff or the defendant, the case may be appealed, and the trial preparation process may be repeated.
Conclusions
Awareness of the medical liability process is critical for trainees and attendings alike, given the high likelihood of litigation in a gastroenterologist’s career. Specific considerations like local tort law and malpractice coverage are important to be familiar. Ongoing health services research help to shape our understanding on the intended and unintended consequences of litigation on medicine, though detailed data on outcomes/settlements are limited by confidentiality agreements, which may hamper efforts to improve patient safety.
Dr. Das is associate professor of medicine in the Division of Gastroenterology at Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri. He has served as a consultant for Olympus, but has no other relevant conflicts.
References
1. Jena AB, et al. Malpractice Risk According to Physician Specialty. N Engl J Med. 2011 Aug. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa1012370.
2. Chong RIH, et al. Scoping review of the second victim syndrome among surgeons: Understanding the impact, responses, and support systems. Am J Surg 2024 Mar. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2023.09.045.
3. Seabury S, et al. On Average, Physicians Spend Nearly 11 Percent Of Their 40-Year Careers With An Open, Unresolved Malpractice Claim. Health Aff Proj Hope. 2013 Jan. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2012.0967.
4. CRICO Strategies. Medical Malpractice in America: A 10-Year Asessment with Insights. 2018. Accessed Apr 28, 2025.
5. Studdert DM, Hall MA. Medical Malpractice Law — Doctrine and Dynamics. N Engl J Med 2022 Oct. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp2201675.
6. Schaffer AC, et al. Rates and Characteristics of Paid Malpractice Claims Among US Physicians by Specialty, 1992-2014. JAMA Intern Med. 2017 May. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.0311.
7. Gandhi TK, et al. Missed and Delayed Diagnoses in the Ambulatory Setting: A Study of Closed Malpractice Claims. Ann Intern Med. 2006 Oct. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-145-7-200610030-00006.
8. Studdert DM, et al. Prevalence and Characteristics of Physicians Prone to Malpractice Claims. N Engl J Med. 2016 Jan. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa1506137.
9. Studdert DM, et al. Changes in Practice among Physicians with Malpractice Claims. N Engl J Med. 2019 Mar. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa1809981.
10. Ries NM, Jansen J. Physicians’ views and experiences of defensive medicine: An international review of empirical research. Health Policy. 2021 May. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2021.02.005.
11. Hiyama T, et al. Defensive medicine practices among gastroenterologists in Japan. World J Gastroenterol. 2006 Dec. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v12.i47.7671.
12. Elli L, et al. Defensive medicine practices among gastroenterologists in Lombardy: Between lawsuits and the economic crisis. Dig Liver Dis. 2013 Jun. doi: 10.1016/j.dld.2013.01.004.
13. Jena AB, et al. Physician spending and subsequent risk of malpractice claims: observational study. BMJ. 2015 Nov. doi: 10.1136/bmj.h5516.
14. Scott SD, et al. The natural history of recovery for the healthcare provider “second victim” after adverse patient events. BMJ Qual Saf. 2009 Oct. doi: 10.1136/qshc.2009.032870.
15. Gómez-Durán EL, et al. Physicians as second victims after a malpractice claim: An important issue in need of attention. J Healthc Qual Res. 2018 Oct. doi: 10.1016/j.jhqr.2018.06.002.
While nearly 75% of physicians in low-risk specialties and 99% of physicians in high-risk specialties may face a malpractice claim in their careers,1 malpractice is rarely discussed openly in medical school, residency, fellowship, or even amongst colleagues. Indeed, one study suggested that more than 10% of practicing gastroenterologists may face a malpractice claim,2 with gastroenterologists expected to spend 10-15% of their careers with an outstanding malpractice claim3 as cases may take 27-29 months to resolve on average.4
Believing that if a physician is sued, one must have done something “wrong” or that speaking about one’s experience may implicate a colleague, creates an intense stigma and isolation that only serves to aggravate the “second victim syndrome” (SVS) that is well documented in the surgical literature.2 Herein,
What is Malpractice? Why Do Physicians Get Sued?
Malpractice is defined as negligence on the part of a physician which causes physical or emotional damage to the patient. This requires a variety of legal issues to be evaluated (e.g. breach of duty between the physicians and patient, breach of standard of care), that often center around the question: would a “reasonable, careful, and prudent” doctor behave in the same manner in the same circumstance?
While some fields of medicine lend themselves better to algorithmic applications of highly evidence-based guidelines, many aspects of GI care and endoscopic practice are highly physician/patient-specific, dependent on local expertise, and based on low-quality evidence. As a result, an assessment of negligence may be quite subjective, depending on the expert retained by a plaintiff. Conflicting expert testimony on what professional custom is and whether practice deviates may hinge on technical details that may or may not be appreciated by a lay jury.
Plaintiffs must prove both that they have sustained an injury and that the injury (emotional or physical) was due to the physician’s negligence. While this may be straightforward in a “slip-and-fall” tort claim, medical malpractice claims usually involve sick patients with multiple comorbidities, where assigning causality to a single intervention/misinterpretation/missed opportunity is difficult to weigh against competing causes of adverse outcomes. Assessing a specific liability requires that the plaintiff prove this to a “more likely than not” standard which may be part of the reason why only 30% of cases are closed with indemnity payments, a figure that has not changed significantly in the past decade.4
While the perception amongst physicians is that tort legislation is ever increasing, data from the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB) demonstrates that the number of paid claims against physicians has decreased by 75% in the last 20 years.5 This may reflect a progressive improvement in the quality of care delivered or success of “tort reform” on the state level to limit damages and “nuisance” lawsuits. However, another more problematic possibility is that with the corporatization of medicine, an untold number of physicians may be removed from litigation as a named party, with their institution shielding them from reporting. While the number of cases may or may not be declining, the average indemnity payment appears to be rising to $330,000 on average,4 with one study suggesting a significant growth in paid claims in gastroenterology.6
Historically, studies of closed malpractice claims have demonstrated that 59% involved diagnostic errors involving a cancer diagnosis,7 though why this actually happens may be for a wide variety of reasons including errors in the development of a differential diagnosis, ordering of an appropriate diagnostic test, interpretation of the diagnostic test, or follow-up of an abnormality identified.
What are the Intended/Unintended Consequences of Litigation?
The objective of our tort system is to compensate patients for economic damages (medical costs and lost wages) and non-economic damages (pain and suffering), and to ideally deter negligent behavior of providers. Interestingly, data from the NPDB have suggested that approximately 1% of all physicians account for 32% of all paid claims, with the same study showing that among physicians with paid claims, 4% had at least 3.8
While certain fields are obviously more prone to litigation, the risk of additional claims on a physician with 3 prior claims was more than 3 times that of physicians with 1 lifetime claim. One would assume that the system was built to drive out a small proportion of “bad actors.” Indeed, similar data from the NPDB has demonstrated that the number of claims against physicians was associated both with their leaving the practice of medicine and relocating to smaller practice settings.9
Another frequent question is whether the threat of litigation drives “defensive medicine” (i.e. medical care that is not beneficial) or avoidance medicine (i.e. excluding high risk patients and procedures from ones’ practice). These behaviors have been well documented in physicians around the world,10 as well as several surveys of gastroenterologists specifically suggesting regular ordering of unnecessary imaging/endoscopy and referrals of patients to specialists that may not be necessary.11,12
However, does defensive medicine work: does spending more prevent you from being the target of a lawsuit? In an observational study in Florida from 2000-2009, researchers demonstrated that across specialties, greater average spending by physicians was associated with a reduced risk of incurring a malpractice claim. Indeed, the likelihood of a top quintile spending internist having a malpractice incident vs a bottom quintile spending internist was 0.3% vs 1.5%.13
Approximately 10.4-43.3% of physicians may experience SVS, experiencing trauma after an adverse patient event/medical error, manifesting with psychological trauma (shame, guilt, anxiety) and cognitive limitations (burnout, stress).2 Significant emotional consequences are common on the part of the physician and have well-documented stages to recovery,14 which if ignored may lead to long-term detrimental mental/emotional health of the physician and their future patients.
Specifically, in one study, 80.8% of physicians who had a closed malpractice claim reported significant emotional distress (regardless of the legal outcome), with frequent reports of mood symptoms that affected professional conduct.15 Recognizing these effects and implementing peer counseling and institutional support may help to expedite recovery and mitigate future adverse career outcomes.14
Anatomy/Timeline of a Liability Lawsuit
Medical malpractice cases are heard in state courts, in the jurisdictions where the care was provided. From the time an event occurs to when a jury verdict may be rendered may take 4-5 years or more depending on the local statute of limitations, discovery process, backlog of the local case docket, and specific circumstances of the case. The length of time is important to consider given the likelihood that a physician may advance in training or move practice locations during the course of litigation. Several common myths surrounding this process are summarized in the accompanying box, titled “Myths Surrounding Medical Liability Litigation.”
The plaintiff faces a statute of limitations to file a lawsuit that may range from 1-6 years depending on the state. The first indication that legal action may be pending will generally be a plaintiff’s formal request for medical records. After these records are reviewed, the plaintiff’s attorney will consult one or more experts (often credentialed in the same specialty) to assess if the case is viable and to ultimately form the basis of an affidavit of merit from a plaintiff expert.
Once the lawsuit is filed, the physician(s) named will be assigned an attorney by their employer/insurance company. A state medical board malpractice questionnaire will generally follow that will seek to independently evaluate the alleged malpractice with interrogatives to determine if censure is warranted. There is a formal response to the plaintiff’s petition by the defense and then the discovery phase begins where both sides depose the defendants/plaintiffs and retain medical experts that are favorable to their arguments.
In choosing potential “experts,” physicians must ensure that they are willing/able to be present for a potential trial, do not have any personal/professional/academic conflicts with the defendants, and are willing to provide compelling testimony to a jury. A pre-trial conference and trial date is set which may be >12 months away depending on the local docket. While the amount of time a trial may take is variable, it may be up to 5-7 days that the defendants are expected to be in court in addition to days where depositions are being taken.
During the discovery process, dismissal of the physician from the lawsuit is pursued. In addition, settlement negotiations generally proceed in parallel with discovery process and may result in a pre-trial/pre-verdict settlement. Once a verdict is reached, whether for the plaintiff or the defendant, the case may be appealed, and the trial preparation process may be repeated.
Conclusions
Awareness of the medical liability process is critical for trainees and attendings alike, given the high likelihood of litigation in a gastroenterologist’s career. Specific considerations like local tort law and malpractice coverage are important to be familiar. Ongoing health services research help to shape our understanding on the intended and unintended consequences of litigation on medicine, though detailed data on outcomes/settlements are limited by confidentiality agreements, which may hamper efforts to improve patient safety.
Dr. Das is associate professor of medicine in the Division of Gastroenterology at Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri. He has served as a consultant for Olympus, but has no other relevant conflicts.
References
1. Jena AB, et al. Malpractice Risk According to Physician Specialty. N Engl J Med. 2011 Aug. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa1012370.
2. Chong RIH, et al. Scoping review of the second victim syndrome among surgeons: Understanding the impact, responses, and support systems. Am J Surg 2024 Mar. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2023.09.045.
3. Seabury S, et al. On Average, Physicians Spend Nearly 11 Percent Of Their 40-Year Careers With An Open, Unresolved Malpractice Claim. Health Aff Proj Hope. 2013 Jan. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2012.0967.
4. CRICO Strategies. Medical Malpractice in America: A 10-Year Asessment with Insights. 2018. Accessed Apr 28, 2025.
5. Studdert DM, Hall MA. Medical Malpractice Law — Doctrine and Dynamics. N Engl J Med 2022 Oct. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp2201675.
6. Schaffer AC, et al. Rates and Characteristics of Paid Malpractice Claims Among US Physicians by Specialty, 1992-2014. JAMA Intern Med. 2017 May. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.0311.
7. Gandhi TK, et al. Missed and Delayed Diagnoses in the Ambulatory Setting: A Study of Closed Malpractice Claims. Ann Intern Med. 2006 Oct. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-145-7-200610030-00006.
8. Studdert DM, et al. Prevalence and Characteristics of Physicians Prone to Malpractice Claims. N Engl J Med. 2016 Jan. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa1506137.
9. Studdert DM, et al. Changes in Practice among Physicians with Malpractice Claims. N Engl J Med. 2019 Mar. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa1809981.
10. Ries NM, Jansen J. Physicians’ views and experiences of defensive medicine: An international review of empirical research. Health Policy. 2021 May. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2021.02.005.
11. Hiyama T, et al. Defensive medicine practices among gastroenterologists in Japan. World J Gastroenterol. 2006 Dec. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v12.i47.7671.
12. Elli L, et al. Defensive medicine practices among gastroenterologists in Lombardy: Between lawsuits and the economic crisis. Dig Liver Dis. 2013 Jun. doi: 10.1016/j.dld.2013.01.004.
13. Jena AB, et al. Physician spending and subsequent risk of malpractice claims: observational study. BMJ. 2015 Nov. doi: 10.1136/bmj.h5516.
14. Scott SD, et al. The natural history of recovery for the healthcare provider “second victim” after adverse patient events. BMJ Qual Saf. 2009 Oct. doi: 10.1136/qshc.2009.032870.
15. Gómez-Durán EL, et al. Physicians as second victims after a malpractice claim: An important issue in need of attention. J Healthc Qual Res. 2018 Oct. doi: 10.1016/j.jhqr.2018.06.002.
While nearly 75% of physicians in low-risk specialties and 99% of physicians in high-risk specialties may face a malpractice claim in their careers,1 malpractice is rarely discussed openly in medical school, residency, fellowship, or even amongst colleagues. Indeed, one study suggested that more than 10% of practicing gastroenterologists may face a malpractice claim,2 with gastroenterologists expected to spend 10-15% of their careers with an outstanding malpractice claim3 as cases may take 27-29 months to resolve on average.4
Believing that if a physician is sued, one must have done something “wrong” or that speaking about one’s experience may implicate a colleague, creates an intense stigma and isolation that only serves to aggravate the “second victim syndrome” (SVS) that is well documented in the surgical literature.2 Herein,
What is Malpractice? Why Do Physicians Get Sued?
Malpractice is defined as negligence on the part of a physician which causes physical or emotional damage to the patient. This requires a variety of legal issues to be evaluated (e.g. breach of duty between the physicians and patient, breach of standard of care), that often center around the question: would a “reasonable, careful, and prudent” doctor behave in the same manner in the same circumstance?
While some fields of medicine lend themselves better to algorithmic applications of highly evidence-based guidelines, many aspects of GI care and endoscopic practice are highly physician/patient-specific, dependent on local expertise, and based on low-quality evidence. As a result, an assessment of negligence may be quite subjective, depending on the expert retained by a plaintiff. Conflicting expert testimony on what professional custom is and whether practice deviates may hinge on technical details that may or may not be appreciated by a lay jury.
Plaintiffs must prove both that they have sustained an injury and that the injury (emotional or physical) was due to the physician’s negligence. While this may be straightforward in a “slip-and-fall” tort claim, medical malpractice claims usually involve sick patients with multiple comorbidities, where assigning causality to a single intervention/misinterpretation/missed opportunity is difficult to weigh against competing causes of adverse outcomes. Assessing a specific liability requires that the plaintiff prove this to a “more likely than not” standard which may be part of the reason why only 30% of cases are closed with indemnity payments, a figure that has not changed significantly in the past decade.4
While the perception amongst physicians is that tort legislation is ever increasing, data from the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB) demonstrates that the number of paid claims against physicians has decreased by 75% in the last 20 years.5 This may reflect a progressive improvement in the quality of care delivered or success of “tort reform” on the state level to limit damages and “nuisance” lawsuits. However, another more problematic possibility is that with the corporatization of medicine, an untold number of physicians may be removed from litigation as a named party, with their institution shielding them from reporting. While the number of cases may or may not be declining, the average indemnity payment appears to be rising to $330,000 on average,4 with one study suggesting a significant growth in paid claims in gastroenterology.6
Historically, studies of closed malpractice claims have demonstrated that 59% involved diagnostic errors involving a cancer diagnosis,7 though why this actually happens may be for a wide variety of reasons including errors in the development of a differential diagnosis, ordering of an appropriate diagnostic test, interpretation of the diagnostic test, or follow-up of an abnormality identified.
What are the Intended/Unintended Consequences of Litigation?
The objective of our tort system is to compensate patients for economic damages (medical costs and lost wages) and non-economic damages (pain and suffering), and to ideally deter negligent behavior of providers. Interestingly, data from the NPDB have suggested that approximately 1% of all physicians account for 32% of all paid claims, with the same study showing that among physicians with paid claims, 4% had at least 3.8
While certain fields are obviously more prone to litigation, the risk of additional claims on a physician with 3 prior claims was more than 3 times that of physicians with 1 lifetime claim. One would assume that the system was built to drive out a small proportion of “bad actors.” Indeed, similar data from the NPDB has demonstrated that the number of claims against physicians was associated both with their leaving the practice of medicine and relocating to smaller practice settings.9
Another frequent question is whether the threat of litigation drives “defensive medicine” (i.e. medical care that is not beneficial) or avoidance medicine (i.e. excluding high risk patients and procedures from ones’ practice). These behaviors have been well documented in physicians around the world,10 as well as several surveys of gastroenterologists specifically suggesting regular ordering of unnecessary imaging/endoscopy and referrals of patients to specialists that may not be necessary.11,12
However, does defensive medicine work: does spending more prevent you from being the target of a lawsuit? In an observational study in Florida from 2000-2009, researchers demonstrated that across specialties, greater average spending by physicians was associated with a reduced risk of incurring a malpractice claim. Indeed, the likelihood of a top quintile spending internist having a malpractice incident vs a bottom quintile spending internist was 0.3% vs 1.5%.13
Approximately 10.4-43.3% of physicians may experience SVS, experiencing trauma after an adverse patient event/medical error, manifesting with psychological trauma (shame, guilt, anxiety) and cognitive limitations (burnout, stress).2 Significant emotional consequences are common on the part of the physician and have well-documented stages to recovery,14 which if ignored may lead to long-term detrimental mental/emotional health of the physician and their future patients.
Specifically, in one study, 80.8% of physicians who had a closed malpractice claim reported significant emotional distress (regardless of the legal outcome), with frequent reports of mood symptoms that affected professional conduct.15 Recognizing these effects and implementing peer counseling and institutional support may help to expedite recovery and mitigate future adverse career outcomes.14
Anatomy/Timeline of a Liability Lawsuit
Medical malpractice cases are heard in state courts, in the jurisdictions where the care was provided. From the time an event occurs to when a jury verdict may be rendered may take 4-5 years or more depending on the local statute of limitations, discovery process, backlog of the local case docket, and specific circumstances of the case. The length of time is important to consider given the likelihood that a physician may advance in training or move practice locations during the course of litigation. Several common myths surrounding this process are summarized in the accompanying box, titled “Myths Surrounding Medical Liability Litigation.”
The plaintiff faces a statute of limitations to file a lawsuit that may range from 1-6 years depending on the state. The first indication that legal action may be pending will generally be a plaintiff’s formal request for medical records. After these records are reviewed, the plaintiff’s attorney will consult one or more experts (often credentialed in the same specialty) to assess if the case is viable and to ultimately form the basis of an affidavit of merit from a plaintiff expert.
Once the lawsuit is filed, the physician(s) named will be assigned an attorney by their employer/insurance company. A state medical board malpractice questionnaire will generally follow that will seek to independently evaluate the alleged malpractice with interrogatives to determine if censure is warranted. There is a formal response to the plaintiff’s petition by the defense and then the discovery phase begins where both sides depose the defendants/plaintiffs and retain medical experts that are favorable to their arguments.
In choosing potential “experts,” physicians must ensure that they are willing/able to be present for a potential trial, do not have any personal/professional/academic conflicts with the defendants, and are willing to provide compelling testimony to a jury. A pre-trial conference and trial date is set which may be >12 months away depending on the local docket. While the amount of time a trial may take is variable, it may be up to 5-7 days that the defendants are expected to be in court in addition to days where depositions are being taken.
During the discovery process, dismissal of the physician from the lawsuit is pursued. In addition, settlement negotiations generally proceed in parallel with discovery process and may result in a pre-trial/pre-verdict settlement. Once a verdict is reached, whether for the plaintiff or the defendant, the case may be appealed, and the trial preparation process may be repeated.
Conclusions
Awareness of the medical liability process is critical for trainees and attendings alike, given the high likelihood of litigation in a gastroenterologist’s career. Specific considerations like local tort law and malpractice coverage are important to be familiar. Ongoing health services research help to shape our understanding on the intended and unintended consequences of litigation on medicine, though detailed data on outcomes/settlements are limited by confidentiality agreements, which may hamper efforts to improve patient safety.
Dr. Das is associate professor of medicine in the Division of Gastroenterology at Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri. He has served as a consultant for Olympus, but has no other relevant conflicts.
References
1. Jena AB, et al. Malpractice Risk According to Physician Specialty. N Engl J Med. 2011 Aug. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa1012370.
2. Chong RIH, et al. Scoping review of the second victim syndrome among surgeons: Understanding the impact, responses, and support systems. Am J Surg 2024 Mar. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2023.09.045.
3. Seabury S, et al. On Average, Physicians Spend Nearly 11 Percent Of Their 40-Year Careers With An Open, Unresolved Malpractice Claim. Health Aff Proj Hope. 2013 Jan. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2012.0967.
4. CRICO Strategies. Medical Malpractice in America: A 10-Year Asessment with Insights. 2018. Accessed Apr 28, 2025.
5. Studdert DM, Hall MA. Medical Malpractice Law — Doctrine and Dynamics. N Engl J Med 2022 Oct. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp2201675.
6. Schaffer AC, et al. Rates and Characteristics of Paid Malpractice Claims Among US Physicians by Specialty, 1992-2014. JAMA Intern Med. 2017 May. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.0311.
7. Gandhi TK, et al. Missed and Delayed Diagnoses in the Ambulatory Setting: A Study of Closed Malpractice Claims. Ann Intern Med. 2006 Oct. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-145-7-200610030-00006.
8. Studdert DM, et al. Prevalence and Characteristics of Physicians Prone to Malpractice Claims. N Engl J Med. 2016 Jan. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa1506137.
9. Studdert DM, et al. Changes in Practice among Physicians with Malpractice Claims. N Engl J Med. 2019 Mar. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa1809981.
10. Ries NM, Jansen J. Physicians’ views and experiences of defensive medicine: An international review of empirical research. Health Policy. 2021 May. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2021.02.005.
11. Hiyama T, et al. Defensive medicine practices among gastroenterologists in Japan. World J Gastroenterol. 2006 Dec. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v12.i47.7671.
12. Elli L, et al. Defensive medicine practices among gastroenterologists in Lombardy: Between lawsuits and the economic crisis. Dig Liver Dis. 2013 Jun. doi: 10.1016/j.dld.2013.01.004.
13. Jena AB, et al. Physician spending and subsequent risk of malpractice claims: observational study. BMJ. 2015 Nov. doi: 10.1136/bmj.h5516.
14. Scott SD, et al. The natural history of recovery for the healthcare provider “second victim” after adverse patient events. BMJ Qual Saf. 2009 Oct. doi: 10.1136/qshc.2009.032870.
15. Gómez-Durán EL, et al. Physicians as second victims after a malpractice claim: An important issue in need of attention. J Healthc Qual Res. 2018 Oct. doi: 10.1016/j.jhqr.2018.06.002.
Remembering Why We Are In Medicine
Dear Friends,
There have been recent policy changes that may be affecting trainees and practicing physicians, whether directly impacting our current practices or influencing the decisions that shape our careers. During these challenging times, I am trying to remind myself more often of why I am in medicine – my patients. I will continue to advocate for my patients on Hill Days to affect change in policy. I will continue to provide the best care I can and fight for resources to do so. I will continue to adapt to the changing climate and do what is best for my practice so that I can deliver the care I think my patients need. By remembering why I am in medicine, I can fight for a future of medicine and science that is still bright.
In this issue’s “In Focus” article, Dr. Yasmin G. Hernandez-Barco and Dr. Motaz Ashkar review the diagnostic and treatment approaches to exocrine pancreatic insufficiency, including common symptoms, differential diagnoses, and the different pancreatic enzyme replacement therapies.
Medications for weight loss are becoming more widely available; however, the literature on what to do with these medications in gastrointestinal endoscopy is still lacking. Dr. Sitharthan Sekar and Dr. Nikiya Asamoah summarize the current data and available guidelines in our “Short Clinical Review.”
With another new academic year upon us, this issue’s “Early Career” section features Dr. Allon Kahn’s top tips for becoming an effective gastroenterology consultant. He describes the 5 principles that would improve patient care and relationships with referring providers.
In the “Finance/Legal” section, Dr. Koushik Das dissects what happens when a physician gets sued, including the basis of malpractice suits, consequences, and anticipated timeline.
If you are interested in contributing or have ideas for future TNG topics, please contact me (tjudy@wustl.edu) or Danielle Kiefer (dkiefer@gastro.org), Communications/Managing Editor of TNG.
Until next time, I leave you with a historical fun fact, because we would not be where we are now without appreciating where we were: the pancreas was first discovered by a Greek surgeon, Herophilus, in 336 BC, but its exocrine and endocrine functions were not described until the 1850s-1860s by D. Moyse in Paris and Paul Langerhans in Berlin, respectively.
Yours truly,
Judy A. Trieu, MD, MPH
Editor-in-Chief
Assistant Professor of Medicine
Interventional Endoscopy, Division of Gastroenterology
Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis
Dear Friends,
There have been recent policy changes that may be affecting trainees and practicing physicians, whether directly impacting our current practices or influencing the decisions that shape our careers. During these challenging times, I am trying to remind myself more often of why I am in medicine – my patients. I will continue to advocate for my patients on Hill Days to affect change in policy. I will continue to provide the best care I can and fight for resources to do so. I will continue to adapt to the changing climate and do what is best for my practice so that I can deliver the care I think my patients need. By remembering why I am in medicine, I can fight for a future of medicine and science that is still bright.
In this issue’s “In Focus” article, Dr. Yasmin G. Hernandez-Barco and Dr. Motaz Ashkar review the diagnostic and treatment approaches to exocrine pancreatic insufficiency, including common symptoms, differential diagnoses, and the different pancreatic enzyme replacement therapies.
Medications for weight loss are becoming more widely available; however, the literature on what to do with these medications in gastrointestinal endoscopy is still lacking. Dr. Sitharthan Sekar and Dr. Nikiya Asamoah summarize the current data and available guidelines in our “Short Clinical Review.”
With another new academic year upon us, this issue’s “Early Career” section features Dr. Allon Kahn’s top tips for becoming an effective gastroenterology consultant. He describes the 5 principles that would improve patient care and relationships with referring providers.
In the “Finance/Legal” section, Dr. Koushik Das dissects what happens when a physician gets sued, including the basis of malpractice suits, consequences, and anticipated timeline.
If you are interested in contributing or have ideas for future TNG topics, please contact me (tjudy@wustl.edu) or Danielle Kiefer (dkiefer@gastro.org), Communications/Managing Editor of TNG.
Until next time, I leave you with a historical fun fact, because we would not be where we are now without appreciating where we were: the pancreas was first discovered by a Greek surgeon, Herophilus, in 336 BC, but its exocrine and endocrine functions were not described until the 1850s-1860s by D. Moyse in Paris and Paul Langerhans in Berlin, respectively.
Yours truly,
Judy A. Trieu, MD, MPH
Editor-in-Chief
Assistant Professor of Medicine
Interventional Endoscopy, Division of Gastroenterology
Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis
Dear Friends,
There have been recent policy changes that may be affecting trainees and practicing physicians, whether directly impacting our current practices or influencing the decisions that shape our careers. During these challenging times, I am trying to remind myself more often of why I am in medicine – my patients. I will continue to advocate for my patients on Hill Days to affect change in policy. I will continue to provide the best care I can and fight for resources to do so. I will continue to adapt to the changing climate and do what is best for my practice so that I can deliver the care I think my patients need. By remembering why I am in medicine, I can fight for a future of medicine and science that is still bright.
In this issue’s “In Focus” article, Dr. Yasmin G. Hernandez-Barco and Dr. Motaz Ashkar review the diagnostic and treatment approaches to exocrine pancreatic insufficiency, including common symptoms, differential diagnoses, and the different pancreatic enzyme replacement therapies.
Medications for weight loss are becoming more widely available; however, the literature on what to do with these medications in gastrointestinal endoscopy is still lacking. Dr. Sitharthan Sekar and Dr. Nikiya Asamoah summarize the current data and available guidelines in our “Short Clinical Review.”
With another new academic year upon us, this issue’s “Early Career” section features Dr. Allon Kahn’s top tips for becoming an effective gastroenterology consultant. He describes the 5 principles that would improve patient care and relationships with referring providers.
In the “Finance/Legal” section, Dr. Koushik Das dissects what happens when a physician gets sued, including the basis of malpractice suits, consequences, and anticipated timeline.
If you are interested in contributing or have ideas for future TNG topics, please contact me (tjudy@wustl.edu) or Danielle Kiefer (dkiefer@gastro.org), Communications/Managing Editor of TNG.
Until next time, I leave you with a historical fun fact, because we would not be where we are now without appreciating where we were: the pancreas was first discovered by a Greek surgeon, Herophilus, in 336 BC, but its exocrine and endocrine functions were not described until the 1850s-1860s by D. Moyse in Paris and Paul Langerhans in Berlin, respectively.
Yours truly,
Judy A. Trieu, MD, MPH
Editor-in-Chief
Assistant Professor of Medicine
Interventional Endoscopy, Division of Gastroenterology
Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis
Positioning Yourself For Success in Private Practice
In this video, Peter Naas, MD, of Gastroenterology Associates in Greenville, South Carolina, shares insights on how young physicians can best position themselves for a successful career in private practice gastroenterology.
In this video, Peter Naas, MD, of Gastroenterology Associates in Greenville, South Carolina, shares insights on how young physicians can best position themselves for a successful career in private practice gastroenterology.
In this video, Peter Naas, MD, of Gastroenterology Associates in Greenville, South Carolina, shares insights on how young physicians can best position themselves for a successful career in private practice gastroenterology.
A Voice for Those Caring for Veterans With Cancer
A Voice for Those Caring for Veterans With Cancer
At some point, most Americans will experience the anxiety associated with an organizational restructure or a corporate budget cut that leads to job loss. Self-assurances may follow by telling ourselves we will be fine, and we could even start a new position that (if we're lucky) will be better than our previous one. It can be devastating, but is not a life-or-death scenario.
Unless you care for veterans with cancer.
The recent workforce reductions across the US Department of Veterans of Affairs (VA) health care system, whether through voluntary retirements or forced layoffs, is a life-threatening crisis. Every position lost has the potential to directly impact whether a veteran receives the necessary care in their battle with cancer.
Veterans deserve every opportunity, treatment plan, and resource available to ensure their comfort and survival. They are entitled to the specialized, comprehensive, and thorough care they receive through the VA—care that cannot be duplicated in community health care. Because many of the health challenges they face are a direct result of serving our country, we owe it to them to provide the best care available from the most highly-trained and competent clinicians. This level of excellence cannot be achieved in a gutted or chaotic system.
Reducing or eliminating VA health care positions is a decision that demands careful examination. Like any organization, the VA experiences some measure of waste or inefficiency that should be eliminated. But that cannot be done swiftly or in large-scale action.
Consider these examples: the reduction of force resulting in the removal of those deemed to hold unnecessary administrative positions—such as continuing education or physician oversight—has a direct impact on a clinician's ability to provide the most current and precise care. Reduced research funding limits the VA's contribution to health care innovation. The loss of contract positions that appear superfluous on paper represent the staff who schedule appointments, chemotherapy or radiation therapy, and wrap-around services for veterans. Even reducing auxiliary services like laundry may seem like a cost-saving measure—until the hospital can't admit new patients due to lack of sanitized linens.
VA employees know that veterans need specialized care for their complex and unique challenges. That individualized care has led to the VA nearly eliminating disparity gaps experienced in traditional health care. The removal of support positions and opportunities in professional development demands coordination with less-prepared community-based health care; overpopulated work environments will have a lasting impact. Limiting the workforce will make it impossible to provide coordinated and exceptional care.
The Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO) is a leader in professional development opportunities for those who care for veterans with cancer. As a nonprofit organization, AVAHO is also a voice for those working with veterans with cancer to ensure they receive the care they deserve. AVAHO is calling on its colleagues, veterans, and those committed to supporting veterans to voice their opposition to reducing critical staff, research, and resources within the VA.
We ask veterans to share stories describing the difference VA care makes. We ask clinicians—including those within the federal system—to explain how a system that is well-staffed, supported, and with ample resources can impact patient care. Americans must stand for the care our veterans have earned.
Most importantly, we call on policymakers to carefully consider the impact each position has on the outcome of excellent, well-coordinated, and state-of-the-art care. The lives of our veterans depend on it.
AVAHO is a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization dedicated to supporting and educating health care providers who serve veterans with cancer and hematological disorders. You can find out more and support their advocacy initiatives at www.avaho.org.
At some point, most Americans will experience the anxiety associated with an organizational restructure or a corporate budget cut that leads to job loss. Self-assurances may follow by telling ourselves we will be fine, and we could even start a new position that (if we're lucky) will be better than our previous one. It can be devastating, but is not a life-or-death scenario.
Unless you care for veterans with cancer.
The recent workforce reductions across the US Department of Veterans of Affairs (VA) health care system, whether through voluntary retirements or forced layoffs, is a life-threatening crisis. Every position lost has the potential to directly impact whether a veteran receives the necessary care in their battle with cancer.
Veterans deserve every opportunity, treatment plan, and resource available to ensure their comfort and survival. They are entitled to the specialized, comprehensive, and thorough care they receive through the VA—care that cannot be duplicated in community health care. Because many of the health challenges they face are a direct result of serving our country, we owe it to them to provide the best care available from the most highly-trained and competent clinicians. This level of excellence cannot be achieved in a gutted or chaotic system.
Reducing or eliminating VA health care positions is a decision that demands careful examination. Like any organization, the VA experiences some measure of waste or inefficiency that should be eliminated. But that cannot be done swiftly or in large-scale action.
Consider these examples: the reduction of force resulting in the removal of those deemed to hold unnecessary administrative positions—such as continuing education or physician oversight—has a direct impact on a clinician's ability to provide the most current and precise care. Reduced research funding limits the VA's contribution to health care innovation. The loss of contract positions that appear superfluous on paper represent the staff who schedule appointments, chemotherapy or radiation therapy, and wrap-around services for veterans. Even reducing auxiliary services like laundry may seem like a cost-saving measure—until the hospital can't admit new patients due to lack of sanitized linens.
VA employees know that veterans need specialized care for their complex and unique challenges. That individualized care has led to the VA nearly eliminating disparity gaps experienced in traditional health care. The removal of support positions and opportunities in professional development demands coordination with less-prepared community-based health care; overpopulated work environments will have a lasting impact. Limiting the workforce will make it impossible to provide coordinated and exceptional care.
The Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO) is a leader in professional development opportunities for those who care for veterans with cancer. As a nonprofit organization, AVAHO is also a voice for those working with veterans with cancer to ensure they receive the care they deserve. AVAHO is calling on its colleagues, veterans, and those committed to supporting veterans to voice their opposition to reducing critical staff, research, and resources within the VA.
We ask veterans to share stories describing the difference VA care makes. We ask clinicians—including those within the federal system—to explain how a system that is well-staffed, supported, and with ample resources can impact patient care. Americans must stand for the care our veterans have earned.
Most importantly, we call on policymakers to carefully consider the impact each position has on the outcome of excellent, well-coordinated, and state-of-the-art care. The lives of our veterans depend on it.
AVAHO is a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization dedicated to supporting and educating health care providers who serve veterans with cancer and hematological disorders. You can find out more and support their advocacy initiatives at www.avaho.org.
At some point, most Americans will experience the anxiety associated with an organizational restructure or a corporate budget cut that leads to job loss. Self-assurances may follow by telling ourselves we will be fine, and we could even start a new position that (if we're lucky) will be better than our previous one. It can be devastating, but is not a life-or-death scenario.
Unless you care for veterans with cancer.
The recent workforce reductions across the US Department of Veterans of Affairs (VA) health care system, whether through voluntary retirements or forced layoffs, is a life-threatening crisis. Every position lost has the potential to directly impact whether a veteran receives the necessary care in their battle with cancer.
Veterans deserve every opportunity, treatment plan, and resource available to ensure their comfort and survival. They are entitled to the specialized, comprehensive, and thorough care they receive through the VA—care that cannot be duplicated in community health care. Because many of the health challenges they face are a direct result of serving our country, we owe it to them to provide the best care available from the most highly-trained and competent clinicians. This level of excellence cannot be achieved in a gutted or chaotic system.
Reducing or eliminating VA health care positions is a decision that demands careful examination. Like any organization, the VA experiences some measure of waste or inefficiency that should be eliminated. But that cannot be done swiftly or in large-scale action.
Consider these examples: the reduction of force resulting in the removal of those deemed to hold unnecessary administrative positions—such as continuing education or physician oversight—has a direct impact on a clinician's ability to provide the most current and precise care. Reduced research funding limits the VA's contribution to health care innovation. The loss of contract positions that appear superfluous on paper represent the staff who schedule appointments, chemotherapy or radiation therapy, and wrap-around services for veterans. Even reducing auxiliary services like laundry may seem like a cost-saving measure—until the hospital can't admit new patients due to lack of sanitized linens.
VA employees know that veterans need specialized care for their complex and unique challenges. That individualized care has led to the VA nearly eliminating disparity gaps experienced in traditional health care. The removal of support positions and opportunities in professional development demands coordination with less-prepared community-based health care; overpopulated work environments will have a lasting impact. Limiting the workforce will make it impossible to provide coordinated and exceptional care.
The Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO) is a leader in professional development opportunities for those who care for veterans with cancer. As a nonprofit organization, AVAHO is also a voice for those working with veterans with cancer to ensure they receive the care they deserve. AVAHO is calling on its colleagues, veterans, and those committed to supporting veterans to voice their opposition to reducing critical staff, research, and resources within the VA.
We ask veterans to share stories describing the difference VA care makes. We ask clinicians—including those within the federal system—to explain how a system that is well-staffed, supported, and with ample resources can impact patient care. Americans must stand for the care our veterans have earned.
Most importantly, we call on policymakers to carefully consider the impact each position has on the outcome of excellent, well-coordinated, and state-of-the-art care. The lives of our veterans depend on it.
AVAHO is a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization dedicated to supporting and educating health care providers who serve veterans with cancer and hematological disorders. You can find out more and support their advocacy initiatives at www.avaho.org.
A Voice for Those Caring for Veterans With Cancer
A Voice for Those Caring for Veterans With Cancer
Evolving Standards of Practice: Esophageal Varices and Barrett’s Esophagus
Dear colleagues,
In the dynamic field of medicine, long-held practices are being reevaluated in light of new evidence and evolving standards of practice.
Dr. Anahita Rabiee discusses the importance of prioritizing non-selective beta blockers (NSBB) over endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) in the primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding in patients with compensated cirrhosis. Drawing on data from the PREDESCI trial and real-world experience, she argues that NSBB address the upstream driver—portal hypertension—more broadly and effectively than EVL. In a complementary piece, Dr. Tarek Sawas explores the nuanced landscape of screening and surveillance in Barrett’s esophagus. From how to manage irregular Z-lines, to rethinking the need for 1-year follow-up endoscopies and interpreting the implications of the BOSS trial, Dr. Sawas advocates for a more personalized, risk-based approach.
We hope these perspectives spark dialogue and reflection in your own practice. Join the conversation on X at @AGA_GIHN.
Gyanprakash A. Ketwaroo, MD, MSc, is associate professor of medicine, Yale University, New Haven, and chief of endoscopy at West Haven VA Medical Center, both in Connecticut. He is an associate editor for GI & Hepatology News.
Choose NSBBs, Not EVL, in Patients with Compensated Cirrhosis
BY ANAHITA RABIEE, MD, MHS
I strongly favor the use of non selective beta blockers (NSBBs) in patients with compensated cirrhosis, rather than endoscopy and esophageal variceal ligation (EVL) for primary prophylaxis.
Since the results of PREDESCI trial (β blockers to prevent decompensation of cirrhosis in patients with clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH)) were published in 2019, there has been much debate on the role of screening endoscopy and EVL for primary prophylaxis. While many argue that a single randomized trial should not overturn long standing practice, several compelling reasons convince me to choose NSBBs, when possible.
Recent guidance from major liver societies now recommends NSBBs as first line therapy for CSPH. Yet, adoption in clinical practice remains inconsistent.
Here is why I believe NSBB represent a better solution:
Treating Upstream, Not Just a Local Treatment
NSBBs such as propranolol and nadolol decrease portal pressure by decreasing portal venous inflow through β1 and β2 adrenergic blockade. Carvedilol is often preferred given its additional α1 adrenergic blocking activity making it the most effective one in decreasing the portal pressure. Therefore, NSBBs address the upstream driver of decompensation by decreasing portal pressures.
EVL, in contrast, is a local fix that only prevents variceal bleeding. Ascites, not variceal bleeding, is the most common initial decompensating event and is associated with high mortality. Preventing all forms of decompensation is clearly preferable to preventing just one.
Broader Eligibility, More Patients Benefit
CSPH is defined as hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG)>10 mmHg, the threshold where increased portal venous inflow secondary to splanchnic vasodilation and hyperdynamic circulation drives the increase in portal hypertension. This threshold has been shown to strongly predict decompensation in patients with compensated disease.
While all patients with varices have CSPH, not all patients with CSPH have varices. They can be identified by other non invasive criteria such as cross sectional imaging showing collaterals, or liver stiffness and platelet thresholds that have been previously validated. By restricting intervention to those with large varices and offering only EVL, we miss the opportunity to intervene earlier and to a broader group that would benefit from this treatment.
Comprehensive Protection Without Repeated Endoscopies
Once on an appropriate NSBB dose, patients are protected against variceal bleeding (at least as effectively as EVL). This eliminates the need for repeated surveillance endoscopies to identify and treat large varices in otherwise compensated patients.
Better Tolerated and – In Many Cases – Overlaps With Existing Medication List!
While overtreatment is a concern, regular endoscopies every two years are also burdensome. Many patients already need beta blockers for cardiac conditions such as atrial fibrillation, ischemic heart disease or hypertension. Carvedilol, in particular, offers dual benefit for both hepatologists and cardiologists.
It is important to emphasize that these arguments apply to compensated cirrhosis. In decompensated disease, the approach changes. After a variceal bleed, both NSBBs and EVL are required for secondary prophylaxis. In patients with prior ascites but no variceal bleed, the benefit of NSBBs is less pronounced since decompensation has already occurred. In this setting, NSBBs can still be used selectively, but only if systolic blood pressure remains above 90 mmHg.
The evidence supporting NSBBs over EVL in compensated cirrhosis is not perfect, but few things in medicine are. Given current data, NSBBs should be the first line therapy in compensated cirrhosis with CSPH. Once a patient is on an appropriate and tolerated NSBB dose, routine endoscopic surveillance is unnecessary. Endoscopy should be reserved for those who cannot tolerate NSBBs, in whom EVL is then indicated if large varices are present.
Dr. Rabiee is based at the Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, and the Veterans Affairs Connecticut Healthcare System, West Haven, Connecticut. She has no disclosures in regard to this article.
Rethinking Screening and Surveillance in Barrett’s Esophagus: Navigating Controversies and Nuances
BY TAREK SAWAS, MD, MPH
Barrett’s esophagus (BE) is a precursor to esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). Despite our comprehensive guidelines, many of the day-to-day decisions still rely on clinical judgment and honest conversations with patients. This article explores common scenarios in which management decisions are nuanced and the right answer remains debatable.
Irregular Z-Line/Ultrashort Segment BE: Leave Or Watch It?
Few findings provoke more confusion than irregular Z-line or intestinal metaplasia (IM) < 1 cm at the gastroesophageal junction (GEJ). For years, we have debated whether these subtle changes represent a precursor to EAC or simply a benign variant. We have wrestled with how to handle these cases from whether we should take biopsies to how to perform surveillance.
The American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) guideline suggests that irregular Z-lines should not be routinely biopsied or surveyed. Similarly, the upcoming American Gastroenterology Association (AGA) surveillance guideline suggests against surveillance of IM<1 cm citing the low individual annual risk of progression to high-grade dysplasia (HGD) and EAC of 0.23% per year which is lower than that of non-dysplastic Barrett’s esophagus (NDBE). However, this is not the entire picture.
Despite the low per-patient risk, IM<1cm is highly prevalent with columnar mucosa observed in approximately 15% of patients undergoing upper endoscopy. This paradox is unsettling. While any one patient with IM<1 cm is unlikely to progress to EAC, the group accounts for a meaningful share of the EAC burden. Some experts have argued that this justifies routine biopsy and surveillance in all patients with visible columnar mucosa regardless of length. However, this approach risks overwhelming our surveillance infrastructure.
A recent decision modeling analysis suggested that at the lowest progression rates, either no surveillance or one-time endoscopy can be considered. Based on these data, I do not regularly biopsy ultrashort segments unless the mucosa appears suspicious. In those with IM<1 cm detected during a high-quality endoscopic exam, no follow-up is needed. However, if the exam is suboptimal, I perform a 1-time high-quality repeat exam. If there is no evidence of dysplasia then I do not pursue any further surveillance.
The One-Year Follow-Up Endoscopy: Is It Necessary?
Another controversy is the one-year follow-up endoscopy after an initial diagnosis of NDBE. Proponents of this approach cite the high proportion of post endoscopy esophageal neoplasia and cancer (PEEN/PEEC) detected in the first year after diagnosis (missed HGD/EAC). In fact, PEEN account for about a quarter of all HGD/EAC cases diagnosed during surveillance.
While this approach might mitigate PEEN/PEEC risk, it may not be necessary if the index endoscopy is high quality. To ensure high quality exams, several best practices have been proposed including:
- Use of high-definition white light endoscopy (HD-WLE) with chromoendoscopy (virtual or dye based)
- Appropriate inspection time (1 minute per cm of circumferential BE)
- Accurate documentation using the Prague criteria
- Adherence to the Seattle protocol with additional targeted biopsies
If the index endoscopy meets these quality metrics, I typically do not bring the patient back at one year. However, if the exam quality is in question, then I repeat it at one year to establish a reliable baseline and rule out prevalent neoplasia.
Surveillance In NDBE: After BOSS, Do We Rethink Everything?
The recently published BOSS trial (Barrett’s Oesophagus Surveillance Study) has reignited the debate over the value of endoscopic surveillance in NDBE. In this study, 3,453 patients with NDBE across the UK were randomized to either surveillance endoscopy every two years or endoscopy only as clinically indicated. After a median follow-up of 12.8 years, the trial found no significant difference in all-cause mortality between the two groups.
While these findings are important, they should be interpreted with caution. First, the primary endpoint, all-cause mortality, is not optimal for evaluating surveillance for EAC. Surveillance is not intended to reduce all-cause mortality but rather to reduce EAC–related mortality. Second, a substantial number of patients in the no surveillance group still underwent endoscopy at intervals that were not meaningfully different from those in the surveillance group. If both groups receive similar exposure to endoscopy, the comparison loses power. Lastly, the trial was underpowered due to overestimation of progression risk during its initial design. As we have since learned, the risk of progression of NDBE is lower than originally assumed.
So where do we stand now? For me, the BOSS trial does not negate the value of surveillance. it reminds us that a one-size-fits-all approach is inefficient, and our strategy must be risk based. For low-risk individuals, particularly older adults with short-segment NDBE, surveillance may offer little benefit. But in healthier, younger patients with longer segments or additional risk factors, surveillance remains an essential tool for early neoplasia detection.
When to Stop Surveillance
Perhaps the most under-discussed point is when to stop surveillance. Existing guidelines do not account for competing mortality risks unrelated to EAC or provide specific recommendations regarding cessation of surveillance. The desired benefits of surveillance likely diminish with advanced age and greater comorbidity because of lower life expectancy and ineligibility for definitive therapy for EAC.
A recent modeling study found that the optimal ages for last surveillance were 81, 80, 77, and 73 years for men with no, mild, moderate, and severe comorbidity respectively and 75, 73, 73, and 69 years for women. In my practice, I discuss surveillance cessation in patients older than 75 based on their comorbidities. If the risk of progression is outweighed by the risk of the procedure or by the reality of limited life expectancy, we should not hesitate to consider surveillance cessation.
In summary, high-quality endoscopic exam in appropriately selected patients remains the cornerstone of BE surveillance. A more personalized, risk-based approach is needed taking into account competing comorbidities. Emerging technology through risk stratification tools such as biomarkers and artificial intelligence may refine our approach and help address the current limitations.
Dr. Sawas is based at the University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, Texas. He has no disclosures in regard to this article.
Dear colleagues,
In the dynamic field of medicine, long-held practices are being reevaluated in light of new evidence and evolving standards of practice.
Dr. Anahita Rabiee discusses the importance of prioritizing non-selective beta blockers (NSBB) over endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) in the primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding in patients with compensated cirrhosis. Drawing on data from the PREDESCI trial and real-world experience, she argues that NSBB address the upstream driver—portal hypertension—more broadly and effectively than EVL. In a complementary piece, Dr. Tarek Sawas explores the nuanced landscape of screening and surveillance in Barrett’s esophagus. From how to manage irregular Z-lines, to rethinking the need for 1-year follow-up endoscopies and interpreting the implications of the BOSS trial, Dr. Sawas advocates for a more personalized, risk-based approach.
We hope these perspectives spark dialogue and reflection in your own practice. Join the conversation on X at @AGA_GIHN.
Gyanprakash A. Ketwaroo, MD, MSc, is associate professor of medicine, Yale University, New Haven, and chief of endoscopy at West Haven VA Medical Center, both in Connecticut. He is an associate editor for GI & Hepatology News.
Choose NSBBs, Not EVL, in Patients with Compensated Cirrhosis
BY ANAHITA RABIEE, MD, MHS
I strongly favor the use of non selective beta blockers (NSBBs) in patients with compensated cirrhosis, rather than endoscopy and esophageal variceal ligation (EVL) for primary prophylaxis.
Since the results of PREDESCI trial (β blockers to prevent decompensation of cirrhosis in patients with clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH)) were published in 2019, there has been much debate on the role of screening endoscopy and EVL for primary prophylaxis. While many argue that a single randomized trial should not overturn long standing practice, several compelling reasons convince me to choose NSBBs, when possible.
Recent guidance from major liver societies now recommends NSBBs as first line therapy for CSPH. Yet, adoption in clinical practice remains inconsistent.
Here is why I believe NSBB represent a better solution:
Treating Upstream, Not Just a Local Treatment
NSBBs such as propranolol and nadolol decrease portal pressure by decreasing portal venous inflow through β1 and β2 adrenergic blockade. Carvedilol is often preferred given its additional α1 adrenergic blocking activity making it the most effective one in decreasing the portal pressure. Therefore, NSBBs address the upstream driver of decompensation by decreasing portal pressures.
EVL, in contrast, is a local fix that only prevents variceal bleeding. Ascites, not variceal bleeding, is the most common initial decompensating event and is associated with high mortality. Preventing all forms of decompensation is clearly preferable to preventing just one.
Broader Eligibility, More Patients Benefit
CSPH is defined as hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG)>10 mmHg, the threshold where increased portal venous inflow secondary to splanchnic vasodilation and hyperdynamic circulation drives the increase in portal hypertension. This threshold has been shown to strongly predict decompensation in patients with compensated disease.
While all patients with varices have CSPH, not all patients with CSPH have varices. They can be identified by other non invasive criteria such as cross sectional imaging showing collaterals, or liver stiffness and platelet thresholds that have been previously validated. By restricting intervention to those with large varices and offering only EVL, we miss the opportunity to intervene earlier and to a broader group that would benefit from this treatment.
Comprehensive Protection Without Repeated Endoscopies
Once on an appropriate NSBB dose, patients are protected against variceal bleeding (at least as effectively as EVL). This eliminates the need for repeated surveillance endoscopies to identify and treat large varices in otherwise compensated patients.
Better Tolerated and – In Many Cases – Overlaps With Existing Medication List!
While overtreatment is a concern, regular endoscopies every two years are also burdensome. Many patients already need beta blockers for cardiac conditions such as atrial fibrillation, ischemic heart disease or hypertension. Carvedilol, in particular, offers dual benefit for both hepatologists and cardiologists.
It is important to emphasize that these arguments apply to compensated cirrhosis. In decompensated disease, the approach changes. After a variceal bleed, both NSBBs and EVL are required for secondary prophylaxis. In patients with prior ascites but no variceal bleed, the benefit of NSBBs is less pronounced since decompensation has already occurred. In this setting, NSBBs can still be used selectively, but only if systolic blood pressure remains above 90 mmHg.
The evidence supporting NSBBs over EVL in compensated cirrhosis is not perfect, but few things in medicine are. Given current data, NSBBs should be the first line therapy in compensated cirrhosis with CSPH. Once a patient is on an appropriate and tolerated NSBB dose, routine endoscopic surveillance is unnecessary. Endoscopy should be reserved for those who cannot tolerate NSBBs, in whom EVL is then indicated if large varices are present.
Dr. Rabiee is based at the Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, and the Veterans Affairs Connecticut Healthcare System, West Haven, Connecticut. She has no disclosures in regard to this article.
Rethinking Screening and Surveillance in Barrett’s Esophagus: Navigating Controversies and Nuances
BY TAREK SAWAS, MD, MPH
Barrett’s esophagus (BE) is a precursor to esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). Despite our comprehensive guidelines, many of the day-to-day decisions still rely on clinical judgment and honest conversations with patients. This article explores common scenarios in which management decisions are nuanced and the right answer remains debatable.
Irregular Z-Line/Ultrashort Segment BE: Leave Or Watch It?
Few findings provoke more confusion than irregular Z-line or intestinal metaplasia (IM) < 1 cm at the gastroesophageal junction (GEJ). For years, we have debated whether these subtle changes represent a precursor to EAC or simply a benign variant. We have wrestled with how to handle these cases from whether we should take biopsies to how to perform surveillance.
The American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) guideline suggests that irregular Z-lines should not be routinely biopsied or surveyed. Similarly, the upcoming American Gastroenterology Association (AGA) surveillance guideline suggests against surveillance of IM<1 cm citing the low individual annual risk of progression to high-grade dysplasia (HGD) and EAC of 0.23% per year which is lower than that of non-dysplastic Barrett’s esophagus (NDBE). However, this is not the entire picture.
Despite the low per-patient risk, IM<1cm is highly prevalent with columnar mucosa observed in approximately 15% of patients undergoing upper endoscopy. This paradox is unsettling. While any one patient with IM<1 cm is unlikely to progress to EAC, the group accounts for a meaningful share of the EAC burden. Some experts have argued that this justifies routine biopsy and surveillance in all patients with visible columnar mucosa regardless of length. However, this approach risks overwhelming our surveillance infrastructure.
A recent decision modeling analysis suggested that at the lowest progression rates, either no surveillance or one-time endoscopy can be considered. Based on these data, I do not regularly biopsy ultrashort segments unless the mucosa appears suspicious. In those with IM<1 cm detected during a high-quality endoscopic exam, no follow-up is needed. However, if the exam is suboptimal, I perform a 1-time high-quality repeat exam. If there is no evidence of dysplasia then I do not pursue any further surveillance.
The One-Year Follow-Up Endoscopy: Is It Necessary?
Another controversy is the one-year follow-up endoscopy after an initial diagnosis of NDBE. Proponents of this approach cite the high proportion of post endoscopy esophageal neoplasia and cancer (PEEN/PEEC) detected in the first year after diagnosis (missed HGD/EAC). In fact, PEEN account for about a quarter of all HGD/EAC cases diagnosed during surveillance.
While this approach might mitigate PEEN/PEEC risk, it may not be necessary if the index endoscopy is high quality. To ensure high quality exams, several best practices have been proposed including:
- Use of high-definition white light endoscopy (HD-WLE) with chromoendoscopy (virtual or dye based)
- Appropriate inspection time (1 minute per cm of circumferential BE)
- Accurate documentation using the Prague criteria
- Adherence to the Seattle protocol with additional targeted biopsies
If the index endoscopy meets these quality metrics, I typically do not bring the patient back at one year. However, if the exam quality is in question, then I repeat it at one year to establish a reliable baseline and rule out prevalent neoplasia.
Surveillance In NDBE: After BOSS, Do We Rethink Everything?
The recently published BOSS trial (Barrett’s Oesophagus Surveillance Study) has reignited the debate over the value of endoscopic surveillance in NDBE. In this study, 3,453 patients with NDBE across the UK were randomized to either surveillance endoscopy every two years or endoscopy only as clinically indicated. After a median follow-up of 12.8 years, the trial found no significant difference in all-cause mortality between the two groups.
While these findings are important, they should be interpreted with caution. First, the primary endpoint, all-cause mortality, is not optimal for evaluating surveillance for EAC. Surveillance is not intended to reduce all-cause mortality but rather to reduce EAC–related mortality. Second, a substantial number of patients in the no surveillance group still underwent endoscopy at intervals that were not meaningfully different from those in the surveillance group. If both groups receive similar exposure to endoscopy, the comparison loses power. Lastly, the trial was underpowered due to overestimation of progression risk during its initial design. As we have since learned, the risk of progression of NDBE is lower than originally assumed.
So where do we stand now? For me, the BOSS trial does not negate the value of surveillance. it reminds us that a one-size-fits-all approach is inefficient, and our strategy must be risk based. For low-risk individuals, particularly older adults with short-segment NDBE, surveillance may offer little benefit. But in healthier, younger patients with longer segments or additional risk factors, surveillance remains an essential tool for early neoplasia detection.
When to Stop Surveillance
Perhaps the most under-discussed point is when to stop surveillance. Existing guidelines do not account for competing mortality risks unrelated to EAC or provide specific recommendations regarding cessation of surveillance. The desired benefits of surveillance likely diminish with advanced age and greater comorbidity because of lower life expectancy and ineligibility for definitive therapy for EAC.
A recent modeling study found that the optimal ages for last surveillance were 81, 80, 77, and 73 years for men with no, mild, moderate, and severe comorbidity respectively and 75, 73, 73, and 69 years for women. In my practice, I discuss surveillance cessation in patients older than 75 based on their comorbidities. If the risk of progression is outweighed by the risk of the procedure or by the reality of limited life expectancy, we should not hesitate to consider surveillance cessation.
In summary, high-quality endoscopic exam in appropriately selected patients remains the cornerstone of BE surveillance. A more personalized, risk-based approach is needed taking into account competing comorbidities. Emerging technology through risk stratification tools such as biomarkers and artificial intelligence may refine our approach and help address the current limitations.
Dr. Sawas is based at the University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, Texas. He has no disclosures in regard to this article.
Dear colleagues,
In the dynamic field of medicine, long-held practices are being reevaluated in light of new evidence and evolving standards of practice.
Dr. Anahita Rabiee discusses the importance of prioritizing non-selective beta blockers (NSBB) over endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) in the primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding in patients with compensated cirrhosis. Drawing on data from the PREDESCI trial and real-world experience, she argues that NSBB address the upstream driver—portal hypertension—more broadly and effectively than EVL. In a complementary piece, Dr. Tarek Sawas explores the nuanced landscape of screening and surveillance in Barrett’s esophagus. From how to manage irregular Z-lines, to rethinking the need for 1-year follow-up endoscopies and interpreting the implications of the BOSS trial, Dr. Sawas advocates for a more personalized, risk-based approach.
We hope these perspectives spark dialogue and reflection in your own practice. Join the conversation on X at @AGA_GIHN.
Gyanprakash A. Ketwaroo, MD, MSc, is associate professor of medicine, Yale University, New Haven, and chief of endoscopy at West Haven VA Medical Center, both in Connecticut. He is an associate editor for GI & Hepatology News.
Choose NSBBs, Not EVL, in Patients with Compensated Cirrhosis
BY ANAHITA RABIEE, MD, MHS
I strongly favor the use of non selective beta blockers (NSBBs) in patients with compensated cirrhosis, rather than endoscopy and esophageal variceal ligation (EVL) for primary prophylaxis.
Since the results of PREDESCI trial (β blockers to prevent decompensation of cirrhosis in patients with clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH)) were published in 2019, there has been much debate on the role of screening endoscopy and EVL for primary prophylaxis. While many argue that a single randomized trial should not overturn long standing practice, several compelling reasons convince me to choose NSBBs, when possible.
Recent guidance from major liver societies now recommends NSBBs as first line therapy for CSPH. Yet, adoption in clinical practice remains inconsistent.
Here is why I believe NSBB represent a better solution:
Treating Upstream, Not Just a Local Treatment
NSBBs such as propranolol and nadolol decrease portal pressure by decreasing portal venous inflow through β1 and β2 adrenergic blockade. Carvedilol is often preferred given its additional α1 adrenergic blocking activity making it the most effective one in decreasing the portal pressure. Therefore, NSBBs address the upstream driver of decompensation by decreasing portal pressures.
EVL, in contrast, is a local fix that only prevents variceal bleeding. Ascites, not variceal bleeding, is the most common initial decompensating event and is associated with high mortality. Preventing all forms of decompensation is clearly preferable to preventing just one.
Broader Eligibility, More Patients Benefit
CSPH is defined as hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG)>10 mmHg, the threshold where increased portal venous inflow secondary to splanchnic vasodilation and hyperdynamic circulation drives the increase in portal hypertension. This threshold has been shown to strongly predict decompensation in patients with compensated disease.
While all patients with varices have CSPH, not all patients with CSPH have varices. They can be identified by other non invasive criteria such as cross sectional imaging showing collaterals, or liver stiffness and platelet thresholds that have been previously validated. By restricting intervention to those with large varices and offering only EVL, we miss the opportunity to intervene earlier and to a broader group that would benefit from this treatment.
Comprehensive Protection Without Repeated Endoscopies
Once on an appropriate NSBB dose, patients are protected against variceal bleeding (at least as effectively as EVL). This eliminates the need for repeated surveillance endoscopies to identify and treat large varices in otherwise compensated patients.
Better Tolerated and – In Many Cases – Overlaps With Existing Medication List!
While overtreatment is a concern, regular endoscopies every two years are also burdensome. Many patients already need beta blockers for cardiac conditions such as atrial fibrillation, ischemic heart disease or hypertension. Carvedilol, in particular, offers dual benefit for both hepatologists and cardiologists.
It is important to emphasize that these arguments apply to compensated cirrhosis. In decompensated disease, the approach changes. After a variceal bleed, both NSBBs and EVL are required for secondary prophylaxis. In patients with prior ascites but no variceal bleed, the benefit of NSBBs is less pronounced since decompensation has already occurred. In this setting, NSBBs can still be used selectively, but only if systolic blood pressure remains above 90 mmHg.
The evidence supporting NSBBs over EVL in compensated cirrhosis is not perfect, but few things in medicine are. Given current data, NSBBs should be the first line therapy in compensated cirrhosis with CSPH. Once a patient is on an appropriate and tolerated NSBB dose, routine endoscopic surveillance is unnecessary. Endoscopy should be reserved for those who cannot tolerate NSBBs, in whom EVL is then indicated if large varices are present.
Dr. Rabiee is based at the Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, and the Veterans Affairs Connecticut Healthcare System, West Haven, Connecticut. She has no disclosures in regard to this article.
Rethinking Screening and Surveillance in Barrett’s Esophagus: Navigating Controversies and Nuances
BY TAREK SAWAS, MD, MPH
Barrett’s esophagus (BE) is a precursor to esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). Despite our comprehensive guidelines, many of the day-to-day decisions still rely on clinical judgment and honest conversations with patients. This article explores common scenarios in which management decisions are nuanced and the right answer remains debatable.
Irregular Z-Line/Ultrashort Segment BE: Leave Or Watch It?
Few findings provoke more confusion than irregular Z-line or intestinal metaplasia (IM) < 1 cm at the gastroesophageal junction (GEJ). For years, we have debated whether these subtle changes represent a precursor to EAC or simply a benign variant. We have wrestled with how to handle these cases from whether we should take biopsies to how to perform surveillance.
The American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) guideline suggests that irregular Z-lines should not be routinely biopsied or surveyed. Similarly, the upcoming American Gastroenterology Association (AGA) surveillance guideline suggests against surveillance of IM<1 cm citing the low individual annual risk of progression to high-grade dysplasia (HGD) and EAC of 0.23% per year which is lower than that of non-dysplastic Barrett’s esophagus (NDBE). However, this is not the entire picture.
Despite the low per-patient risk, IM<1cm is highly prevalent with columnar mucosa observed in approximately 15% of patients undergoing upper endoscopy. This paradox is unsettling. While any one patient with IM<1 cm is unlikely to progress to EAC, the group accounts for a meaningful share of the EAC burden. Some experts have argued that this justifies routine biopsy and surveillance in all patients with visible columnar mucosa regardless of length. However, this approach risks overwhelming our surveillance infrastructure.
A recent decision modeling analysis suggested that at the lowest progression rates, either no surveillance or one-time endoscopy can be considered. Based on these data, I do not regularly biopsy ultrashort segments unless the mucosa appears suspicious. In those with IM<1 cm detected during a high-quality endoscopic exam, no follow-up is needed. However, if the exam is suboptimal, I perform a 1-time high-quality repeat exam. If there is no evidence of dysplasia then I do not pursue any further surveillance.
The One-Year Follow-Up Endoscopy: Is It Necessary?
Another controversy is the one-year follow-up endoscopy after an initial diagnosis of NDBE. Proponents of this approach cite the high proportion of post endoscopy esophageal neoplasia and cancer (PEEN/PEEC) detected in the first year after diagnosis (missed HGD/EAC). In fact, PEEN account for about a quarter of all HGD/EAC cases diagnosed during surveillance.
While this approach might mitigate PEEN/PEEC risk, it may not be necessary if the index endoscopy is high quality. To ensure high quality exams, several best practices have been proposed including:
- Use of high-definition white light endoscopy (HD-WLE) with chromoendoscopy (virtual or dye based)
- Appropriate inspection time (1 minute per cm of circumferential BE)
- Accurate documentation using the Prague criteria
- Adherence to the Seattle protocol with additional targeted biopsies
If the index endoscopy meets these quality metrics, I typically do not bring the patient back at one year. However, if the exam quality is in question, then I repeat it at one year to establish a reliable baseline and rule out prevalent neoplasia.
Surveillance In NDBE: After BOSS, Do We Rethink Everything?
The recently published BOSS trial (Barrett’s Oesophagus Surveillance Study) has reignited the debate over the value of endoscopic surveillance in NDBE. In this study, 3,453 patients with NDBE across the UK were randomized to either surveillance endoscopy every two years or endoscopy only as clinically indicated. After a median follow-up of 12.8 years, the trial found no significant difference in all-cause mortality between the two groups.
While these findings are important, they should be interpreted with caution. First, the primary endpoint, all-cause mortality, is not optimal for evaluating surveillance for EAC. Surveillance is not intended to reduce all-cause mortality but rather to reduce EAC–related mortality. Second, a substantial number of patients in the no surveillance group still underwent endoscopy at intervals that were not meaningfully different from those in the surveillance group. If both groups receive similar exposure to endoscopy, the comparison loses power. Lastly, the trial was underpowered due to overestimation of progression risk during its initial design. As we have since learned, the risk of progression of NDBE is lower than originally assumed.
So where do we stand now? For me, the BOSS trial does not negate the value of surveillance. it reminds us that a one-size-fits-all approach is inefficient, and our strategy must be risk based. For low-risk individuals, particularly older adults with short-segment NDBE, surveillance may offer little benefit. But in healthier, younger patients with longer segments or additional risk factors, surveillance remains an essential tool for early neoplasia detection.
When to Stop Surveillance
Perhaps the most under-discussed point is when to stop surveillance. Existing guidelines do not account for competing mortality risks unrelated to EAC or provide specific recommendations regarding cessation of surveillance. The desired benefits of surveillance likely diminish with advanced age and greater comorbidity because of lower life expectancy and ineligibility for definitive therapy for EAC.
A recent modeling study found that the optimal ages for last surveillance were 81, 80, 77, and 73 years for men with no, mild, moderate, and severe comorbidity respectively and 75, 73, 73, and 69 years for women. In my practice, I discuss surveillance cessation in patients older than 75 based on their comorbidities. If the risk of progression is outweighed by the risk of the procedure or by the reality of limited life expectancy, we should not hesitate to consider surveillance cessation.
In summary, high-quality endoscopic exam in appropriately selected patients remains the cornerstone of BE surveillance. A more personalized, risk-based approach is needed taking into account competing comorbidities. Emerging technology through risk stratification tools such as biomarkers and artificial intelligence may refine our approach and help address the current limitations.
Dr. Sawas is based at the University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, Texas. He has no disclosures in regard to this article.
GLP-1 Receptor Agonist Use in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: A Review of Current Evidence and Guidelines
The use of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) has increased over the past several years and has become a cornerstone in both diabetes and weight loss management, particularly because of its unique combination of glucose control, weight reduction potential, and cardiac and metabolic benefits. However, increased use of these agents presents a dilemma in gastrointestinal endoscopy as it pertains to their safety and management during the periprocedural period.
highlighting gaps and future directions.
Pharmacology and Mechanisms of Action
GLP-1 RAs have several mechanisms of action that make them relevant in gastrointestinal endoscopy. These medications modulate glucose control via enhancement of glucose-dependent insulin secretion and reduction of postprandial glucagon, which promotes satiety and delays gastric emptying. This delay in gastric emptying mediated by vagal pathways has been postulated to increase gastric residuals, posing a risk for aspiration during anesthesia.1
It is important to also consider the pharmacokinetics of GLP-1 RAs, as some have shorter half-lives on the order of several hours, like exenatide, while others, like semaglutide, are dosed weekly. Additionally, common side effects of GLP-1 RAs include nausea, vomiting, bloating, and early satiety, which pose challenges for patients undergoing endoscopic procedures.
Current Guidelines
Various societies have published guidelines on the periprocedural use of GLP-1 RAs. The American Society of Anesthesiologist (ASA) in 2023 presented early recommendations to hold GLP-1 RAs either day of procedure or week prior depending on pharmacokinetics, because of the risk of delayed gastric emptying and increased potential for aspiration.2 Soon thereafter, a multi-gastroenterology society guideline was released stating more data is needed to decide if GLP-1 RAs need to be held prior to endoscopic procedures.3
In early 2024, the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) published a rapid clinical update that advocated for a more individualized approach, particularly in light of limited overall data for GLP-1 RAs and endoscopic procedures.4 In asymptomatic patients who follow typical fasting protocols for procedures, it is generally safe to proceed with endoscopy without holding GLP-1 RAs. In symptomatic patients (nausea, abdominal distension, etc), the AGA advises additional precautions, including performing transabdominal ultrasound if feasible to assess retained gastric contents. The AGA also suggests placing a patient on a clear liquid diet the day prior to the procedure — rather than holding GLP-1 RAs — as another reasonable strategy.
The guidelines continue to evolve with newer multi-society guidelines establishing best practices. While initially in 2023 the ASA did recommend holding these medications prior to endoscopy, the initial guidance was based on expert opinion with limited evidence. Newer multi-society guidance published jointly by the ASA along with various gastroenterology societies, including the AGA in December 2024, takes a more nuanced approach.5
The newer guidelines include two main recommendations:
1. Periprocedural management of GLP-1 RAs should be a joint decision among the procedural, anesthesia, and prescribing team balancing metabolic needs vs patient risks.
- In a low-risk patient, one that is asymptomatic and on standard dosing, among other factors, the guidance states that GLP-1 RAs can be continued.
- In higher-risk patients, the original guidance of holding a day or a week prior to endoscopic procedures should be followed.
2. Periprocedural management of GLP-1 RAs should attempt to minimize the aspiration risks loosely associated with delayed gastric emptying.
- Consider a 24-hour clear liquid diet a day prior to the procedure and transabdominal ultrasound to check gastric contents.
- It is acknowledged that this guidance is based on limited evidence and will be evolving as new medications and data are released.
Recent Clinical Studies
Although there is very little data to guide clinicians, several recent studies have been published that can direct clinical decision-making as guidelines continue to be refined and updated.
A multicenter trial of approximately 800 patients undergoing upper endoscopy found a significant difference in rates of retained gastric contents between those that underwent endoscopy who did and did not follow the ASA guidance on periprocedural management of GLP-1 RAs (12.7% vs 4.4%; P < .0001). However, there were no significant differences in rates of aborted procedures or unplanned intubations.
Furthermore, a multivariable analysis was performed controlling for GLP-1 RA type and other factors, which found the likelihood of gastric retention increased by 36% for every 1% increase in hemoglobin A1c. This study suggests that a more individualized approach to holding GLP-1 RA would be applicable rather than a universal periprocedural hold.6
More recently, a single-center study of nearly 600 patients undergoing upper endoscopy showed that while there were slightly increased rates of retained gastric contents (OR 3.80; P = .003) and aborted procedures (1.3% vs 0%; P = .02), the rates of adverse anesthesia events (hypoxia, etc) were similar between the groups and no cases of pulmonary aspiration were noted.7
One single-center study of 57 patients evaluated the safety of GLP-1 RAs in those undergoing endoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. GLP-1 RAs were continued on all patients, but all adhered to a liquid only diet for at least 24 hours prior to the procedure. There were no instances of retained gastric solids, aspiration, or hypoxia. This study suggests that with a 24-hour clear liquid diet and routine NPO recommendations prior to endoscopy, it would be safe to continue GLP-1 RAs. This study provides rationale for the AGA recommendation for a clear liquid diet 24 hours prior to endoscopic procedures for those on GLP-1 RAs.8
A study looking at those who underwent emergency surgery and endoscopy with claims data of use of GLP-1 RAs found an overall incidence of postoperative respiratory complications of 3.5% for those with GLP-1 RAs fill history vs 4.0% for those without (P = .12). Approximately 800 of the 24,000 patients identified had undergone endoscopic procedures for GI bleeding or food impaction. The study overall showed that preoperative use of GLP-1 RAs in patients undergoing surgery or endoscopy, evaluated as a combined group, was not associated with an increased risk of pulmonary complications.9
Lastly, a systematic review and meta-analysis that included 15 studies that quantified gastric emptying using various methods, including gastric emptying scintigraphy and acetaminophen absorption test, found that there was a quantifiable delay in gastric emptying of about 36 minutes, compared to placebo (P < .01), in patients using GLP-1 RAs. However, compared to standard periprocedural fasting, this delay is clinically insignificant and standard fasting protocols would still be appropriate for patients on GLP-1 RAs.10
These studies taken together suggest that while GLP-1 RAs can mildly increase the likelihood of retained gastric contents, there is no statistically significant increase in the risk of aspiration or other anesthesia complications. Furthermore, while decreased gastric emptying is a known effect of GLP-1 RAs, this effect may not be clinically significant in the context of standard periprocedural fasting protocols particularly when combined with a 24-hour clear liquid diet. These findings support at a minimum a more patient-specific strategy for periprocedural management of GLP-1 RAs.
Clinical Implications
These most recent studies, as well as prior studies and guidelines by various societies lead to a dilemma among endoscopists on proper patient counseling on GLP-1 RAs use before endoscopic procedures. Clinicians must balance the metabolic benefits of GLP-1 RAs with potential endoscopic complications and risks.
Holding therapy theoretically decreases aspiration risk and pulmonary complications, though evidence remains low to support this. Holding medication, however, affects glycemic control leading to potential rebound hyperglycemia which may impact and delay plans for endoscopy. With growing indications for the use of GLP-1 RAs, a more tailored patient-centered treatment plan may be required, especially with consideration of procedure indication and comorbidities.
Currently, practice patterns at different institutions vary widely, making standardization much more difficult. Some centers have opted to follow ASA guidelines of holding these medications up to 1 week prior to procedures, while others have continued therapy with no pre-procedural adjustments. This leaves endoscopists to deal with the downstream effects of inconvenience to patients, care delays, and financial considerations if procedures are postponed related to GLP-1 RAs use.
Future Directions
Future studies are needed to make further evidence-based recommendations. Studies should focus on stratifying risks and recommendations based on procedure type (EGD, colonoscopy, etc). More widespread implementation of gastric ultrasound can assist in real-time decision-making, albeit this would require expertise and dedicated time within the pre-procedural workflow. Randomized controlled trials comparing outcomes of patients who continue GLP-1 RAs vs those who discontinue stratified by baseline risk will be instrumental for making concrete guidelines that provide clarity on periprocedural management of GLP-1 RAs.
Conclusion
The periprocedural management of GLP-1 RAs remains a controversial topic that presents unique challenges in endoscopy. Several guidelines have been released by various stakeholders including anesthesiologists, gastroenterologists, and other prescribing providers. Clinical data remains limited with no robust evidence available to suggest that gastric emptying delays caused by GLP-1 RAs prior to endoscopic procedures significantly increases risk of aspiration, pulmonary complications, or other comorbidities. Evolving multi-society guidelines will be important to establish more consistent practices with reassessment of the data as new studies emerge. A multidisciplinary, individualized patient approach may be the best strategy for managing GLP-1 RAs for patients undergoing endoscopic procedures.
Dr. Sekar and Dr. Asamoah are based in the department of gastroenterology at MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, D.C. Dr. Sekar reports no conflicts of interest in regard to this article. Dr. Asamoah serves on the Johnson & Johnson advisory board for inflammatory bowel disease–related therapies.
References
1. Halim MA et al. Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Inhibits Prandial Gastrointestinal Motility Through Myenteric Neuronal Mechanisms in Humans. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2018 Feb. doi: 10.1210/jc.2017-02006.
2. American Society of Anesthesiologists. American Society of Anesthesiologists releases consensus-based guidance on preoperative use of GLP-1 receptor agonists. 2023 Jun 20. www.asahq.org/about-asa/newsroom/news-releases/2023/06/american-society-of-anesthesiologists-consensus-based-guidance-on-preoperative
3. American Gastroenterological Association. GI multi-society statement regarding GLP-1 agonists and endoscopy. 2023 Jul 25. gastro.org/news/gi-multi-society-statement-regarding-glp-1-agonists-and-endoscopy/.
4. Hashash JG et al. AGA Rapid Clinical Practice Update on the Management of Patients Taking GLP-1 Receptor Agonists Prior to Endoscopy: Communication. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2024 Apr. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2023.11.002.
5. Kindel TL et al; American Gastroenterological Association; American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery; American Society of Anesthesiologists; International Society of Perioperative Care of Patients with Obesity; Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons. Multi-society Clinical Practice Guidance for the Safe Use of Glucagon-like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists in the Perioperative Period. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2024 Oct. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2024.10.003.
6. Phan J et al. Glucagon-Like Peptide Receptor Agonists Use Before Endoscopy Is Associated With Low Retained Gastric Contents: A Multicenter Cross-Sectional Analysis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2025 Mar. doi: 10.14309/ajg.0000000000002969.
7. Panchal S et al. Endoscopy and Anesthesia Outcomes Associated With Glucagon-like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonist use in Patients Undergoing Outpatient Upper Endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2025 Aug. doi:10.1016/j.gie.2025.01.004.
8. Maselli DB et al. Safe Continuation of glucagon-like Peptide 1 Receptor Agonists at Endoscopy: A Case Series of 57 Adults Undergoing Endoscopic Sleeve Gastroplasty. Obes Surg. 2024 Jul. doi: 10.1007/s11695-024-07278-2.
9. Dixit AA et al. Preoperative GLP-1 Receptor Agonist Use and Risk of Postoperative Respiratory Complications. JAMA. 2024 Apr. doi: 10.1001/jama.2024.5003.
10. Hiramoto B et al. Quantified Metrics of Gastric Emptying Delay by Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Agonists: A systematic review and meta-analysis with insights for periprocedural management. Am J Gastroenterol. 2024 Jun. doi: 10.14309/ajg.0000000000002820.
The use of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) has increased over the past several years and has become a cornerstone in both diabetes and weight loss management, particularly because of its unique combination of glucose control, weight reduction potential, and cardiac and metabolic benefits. However, increased use of these agents presents a dilemma in gastrointestinal endoscopy as it pertains to their safety and management during the periprocedural period.
highlighting gaps and future directions.
Pharmacology and Mechanisms of Action
GLP-1 RAs have several mechanisms of action that make them relevant in gastrointestinal endoscopy. These medications modulate glucose control via enhancement of glucose-dependent insulin secretion and reduction of postprandial glucagon, which promotes satiety and delays gastric emptying. This delay in gastric emptying mediated by vagal pathways has been postulated to increase gastric residuals, posing a risk for aspiration during anesthesia.1
It is important to also consider the pharmacokinetics of GLP-1 RAs, as some have shorter half-lives on the order of several hours, like exenatide, while others, like semaglutide, are dosed weekly. Additionally, common side effects of GLP-1 RAs include nausea, vomiting, bloating, and early satiety, which pose challenges for patients undergoing endoscopic procedures.
Current Guidelines
Various societies have published guidelines on the periprocedural use of GLP-1 RAs. The American Society of Anesthesiologist (ASA) in 2023 presented early recommendations to hold GLP-1 RAs either day of procedure or week prior depending on pharmacokinetics, because of the risk of delayed gastric emptying and increased potential for aspiration.2 Soon thereafter, a multi-gastroenterology society guideline was released stating more data is needed to decide if GLP-1 RAs need to be held prior to endoscopic procedures.3
In early 2024, the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) published a rapid clinical update that advocated for a more individualized approach, particularly in light of limited overall data for GLP-1 RAs and endoscopic procedures.4 In asymptomatic patients who follow typical fasting protocols for procedures, it is generally safe to proceed with endoscopy without holding GLP-1 RAs. In symptomatic patients (nausea, abdominal distension, etc), the AGA advises additional precautions, including performing transabdominal ultrasound if feasible to assess retained gastric contents. The AGA also suggests placing a patient on a clear liquid diet the day prior to the procedure — rather than holding GLP-1 RAs — as another reasonable strategy.
The guidelines continue to evolve with newer multi-society guidelines establishing best practices. While initially in 2023 the ASA did recommend holding these medications prior to endoscopy, the initial guidance was based on expert opinion with limited evidence. Newer multi-society guidance published jointly by the ASA along with various gastroenterology societies, including the AGA in December 2024, takes a more nuanced approach.5
The newer guidelines include two main recommendations:
1. Periprocedural management of GLP-1 RAs should be a joint decision among the procedural, anesthesia, and prescribing team balancing metabolic needs vs patient risks.
- In a low-risk patient, one that is asymptomatic and on standard dosing, among other factors, the guidance states that GLP-1 RAs can be continued.
- In higher-risk patients, the original guidance of holding a day or a week prior to endoscopic procedures should be followed.
2. Periprocedural management of GLP-1 RAs should attempt to minimize the aspiration risks loosely associated with delayed gastric emptying.
- Consider a 24-hour clear liquid diet a day prior to the procedure and transabdominal ultrasound to check gastric contents.
- It is acknowledged that this guidance is based on limited evidence and will be evolving as new medications and data are released.
Recent Clinical Studies
Although there is very little data to guide clinicians, several recent studies have been published that can direct clinical decision-making as guidelines continue to be refined and updated.
A multicenter trial of approximately 800 patients undergoing upper endoscopy found a significant difference in rates of retained gastric contents between those that underwent endoscopy who did and did not follow the ASA guidance on periprocedural management of GLP-1 RAs (12.7% vs 4.4%; P < .0001). However, there were no significant differences in rates of aborted procedures or unplanned intubations.
Furthermore, a multivariable analysis was performed controlling for GLP-1 RA type and other factors, which found the likelihood of gastric retention increased by 36% for every 1% increase in hemoglobin A1c. This study suggests that a more individualized approach to holding GLP-1 RA would be applicable rather than a universal periprocedural hold.6
More recently, a single-center study of nearly 600 patients undergoing upper endoscopy showed that while there were slightly increased rates of retained gastric contents (OR 3.80; P = .003) and aborted procedures (1.3% vs 0%; P = .02), the rates of adverse anesthesia events (hypoxia, etc) were similar between the groups and no cases of pulmonary aspiration were noted.7
One single-center study of 57 patients evaluated the safety of GLP-1 RAs in those undergoing endoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. GLP-1 RAs were continued on all patients, but all adhered to a liquid only diet for at least 24 hours prior to the procedure. There were no instances of retained gastric solids, aspiration, or hypoxia. This study suggests that with a 24-hour clear liquid diet and routine NPO recommendations prior to endoscopy, it would be safe to continue GLP-1 RAs. This study provides rationale for the AGA recommendation for a clear liquid diet 24 hours prior to endoscopic procedures for those on GLP-1 RAs.8
A study looking at those who underwent emergency surgery and endoscopy with claims data of use of GLP-1 RAs found an overall incidence of postoperative respiratory complications of 3.5% for those with GLP-1 RAs fill history vs 4.0% for those without (P = .12). Approximately 800 of the 24,000 patients identified had undergone endoscopic procedures for GI bleeding or food impaction. The study overall showed that preoperative use of GLP-1 RAs in patients undergoing surgery or endoscopy, evaluated as a combined group, was not associated with an increased risk of pulmonary complications.9
Lastly, a systematic review and meta-analysis that included 15 studies that quantified gastric emptying using various methods, including gastric emptying scintigraphy and acetaminophen absorption test, found that there was a quantifiable delay in gastric emptying of about 36 minutes, compared to placebo (P < .01), in patients using GLP-1 RAs. However, compared to standard periprocedural fasting, this delay is clinically insignificant and standard fasting protocols would still be appropriate for patients on GLP-1 RAs.10
These studies taken together suggest that while GLP-1 RAs can mildly increase the likelihood of retained gastric contents, there is no statistically significant increase in the risk of aspiration or other anesthesia complications. Furthermore, while decreased gastric emptying is a known effect of GLP-1 RAs, this effect may not be clinically significant in the context of standard periprocedural fasting protocols particularly when combined with a 24-hour clear liquid diet. These findings support at a minimum a more patient-specific strategy for periprocedural management of GLP-1 RAs.
Clinical Implications
These most recent studies, as well as prior studies and guidelines by various societies lead to a dilemma among endoscopists on proper patient counseling on GLP-1 RAs use before endoscopic procedures. Clinicians must balance the metabolic benefits of GLP-1 RAs with potential endoscopic complications and risks.
Holding therapy theoretically decreases aspiration risk and pulmonary complications, though evidence remains low to support this. Holding medication, however, affects glycemic control leading to potential rebound hyperglycemia which may impact and delay plans for endoscopy. With growing indications for the use of GLP-1 RAs, a more tailored patient-centered treatment plan may be required, especially with consideration of procedure indication and comorbidities.
Currently, practice patterns at different institutions vary widely, making standardization much more difficult. Some centers have opted to follow ASA guidelines of holding these medications up to 1 week prior to procedures, while others have continued therapy with no pre-procedural adjustments. This leaves endoscopists to deal with the downstream effects of inconvenience to patients, care delays, and financial considerations if procedures are postponed related to GLP-1 RAs use.
Future Directions
Future studies are needed to make further evidence-based recommendations. Studies should focus on stratifying risks and recommendations based on procedure type (EGD, colonoscopy, etc). More widespread implementation of gastric ultrasound can assist in real-time decision-making, albeit this would require expertise and dedicated time within the pre-procedural workflow. Randomized controlled trials comparing outcomes of patients who continue GLP-1 RAs vs those who discontinue stratified by baseline risk will be instrumental for making concrete guidelines that provide clarity on periprocedural management of GLP-1 RAs.
Conclusion
The periprocedural management of GLP-1 RAs remains a controversial topic that presents unique challenges in endoscopy. Several guidelines have been released by various stakeholders including anesthesiologists, gastroenterologists, and other prescribing providers. Clinical data remains limited with no robust evidence available to suggest that gastric emptying delays caused by GLP-1 RAs prior to endoscopic procedures significantly increases risk of aspiration, pulmonary complications, or other comorbidities. Evolving multi-society guidelines will be important to establish more consistent practices with reassessment of the data as new studies emerge. A multidisciplinary, individualized patient approach may be the best strategy for managing GLP-1 RAs for patients undergoing endoscopic procedures.
Dr. Sekar and Dr. Asamoah are based in the department of gastroenterology at MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, D.C. Dr. Sekar reports no conflicts of interest in regard to this article. Dr. Asamoah serves on the Johnson & Johnson advisory board for inflammatory bowel disease–related therapies.
References
1. Halim MA et al. Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Inhibits Prandial Gastrointestinal Motility Through Myenteric Neuronal Mechanisms in Humans. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2018 Feb. doi: 10.1210/jc.2017-02006.
2. American Society of Anesthesiologists. American Society of Anesthesiologists releases consensus-based guidance on preoperative use of GLP-1 receptor agonists. 2023 Jun 20. www.asahq.org/about-asa/newsroom/news-releases/2023/06/american-society-of-anesthesiologists-consensus-based-guidance-on-preoperative
3. American Gastroenterological Association. GI multi-society statement regarding GLP-1 agonists and endoscopy. 2023 Jul 25. gastro.org/news/gi-multi-society-statement-regarding-glp-1-agonists-and-endoscopy/.
4. Hashash JG et al. AGA Rapid Clinical Practice Update on the Management of Patients Taking GLP-1 Receptor Agonists Prior to Endoscopy: Communication. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2024 Apr. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2023.11.002.
5. Kindel TL et al; American Gastroenterological Association; American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery; American Society of Anesthesiologists; International Society of Perioperative Care of Patients with Obesity; Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons. Multi-society Clinical Practice Guidance for the Safe Use of Glucagon-like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists in the Perioperative Period. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2024 Oct. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2024.10.003.
6. Phan J et al. Glucagon-Like Peptide Receptor Agonists Use Before Endoscopy Is Associated With Low Retained Gastric Contents: A Multicenter Cross-Sectional Analysis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2025 Mar. doi: 10.14309/ajg.0000000000002969.
7. Panchal S et al. Endoscopy and Anesthesia Outcomes Associated With Glucagon-like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonist use in Patients Undergoing Outpatient Upper Endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2025 Aug. doi:10.1016/j.gie.2025.01.004.
8. Maselli DB et al. Safe Continuation of glucagon-like Peptide 1 Receptor Agonists at Endoscopy: A Case Series of 57 Adults Undergoing Endoscopic Sleeve Gastroplasty. Obes Surg. 2024 Jul. doi: 10.1007/s11695-024-07278-2.
9. Dixit AA et al. Preoperative GLP-1 Receptor Agonist Use and Risk of Postoperative Respiratory Complications. JAMA. 2024 Apr. doi: 10.1001/jama.2024.5003.
10. Hiramoto B et al. Quantified Metrics of Gastric Emptying Delay by Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Agonists: A systematic review and meta-analysis with insights for periprocedural management. Am J Gastroenterol. 2024 Jun. doi: 10.14309/ajg.0000000000002820.
The use of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) has increased over the past several years and has become a cornerstone in both diabetes and weight loss management, particularly because of its unique combination of glucose control, weight reduction potential, and cardiac and metabolic benefits. However, increased use of these agents presents a dilemma in gastrointestinal endoscopy as it pertains to their safety and management during the periprocedural period.
highlighting gaps and future directions.
Pharmacology and Mechanisms of Action
GLP-1 RAs have several mechanisms of action that make them relevant in gastrointestinal endoscopy. These medications modulate glucose control via enhancement of glucose-dependent insulin secretion and reduction of postprandial glucagon, which promotes satiety and delays gastric emptying. This delay in gastric emptying mediated by vagal pathways has been postulated to increase gastric residuals, posing a risk for aspiration during anesthesia.1
It is important to also consider the pharmacokinetics of GLP-1 RAs, as some have shorter half-lives on the order of several hours, like exenatide, while others, like semaglutide, are dosed weekly. Additionally, common side effects of GLP-1 RAs include nausea, vomiting, bloating, and early satiety, which pose challenges for patients undergoing endoscopic procedures.
Current Guidelines
Various societies have published guidelines on the periprocedural use of GLP-1 RAs. The American Society of Anesthesiologist (ASA) in 2023 presented early recommendations to hold GLP-1 RAs either day of procedure or week prior depending on pharmacokinetics, because of the risk of delayed gastric emptying and increased potential for aspiration.2 Soon thereafter, a multi-gastroenterology society guideline was released stating more data is needed to decide if GLP-1 RAs need to be held prior to endoscopic procedures.3
In early 2024, the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) published a rapid clinical update that advocated for a more individualized approach, particularly in light of limited overall data for GLP-1 RAs and endoscopic procedures.4 In asymptomatic patients who follow typical fasting protocols for procedures, it is generally safe to proceed with endoscopy without holding GLP-1 RAs. In symptomatic patients (nausea, abdominal distension, etc), the AGA advises additional precautions, including performing transabdominal ultrasound if feasible to assess retained gastric contents. The AGA also suggests placing a patient on a clear liquid diet the day prior to the procedure — rather than holding GLP-1 RAs — as another reasonable strategy.
The guidelines continue to evolve with newer multi-society guidelines establishing best practices. While initially in 2023 the ASA did recommend holding these medications prior to endoscopy, the initial guidance was based on expert opinion with limited evidence. Newer multi-society guidance published jointly by the ASA along with various gastroenterology societies, including the AGA in December 2024, takes a more nuanced approach.5
The newer guidelines include two main recommendations:
1. Periprocedural management of GLP-1 RAs should be a joint decision among the procedural, anesthesia, and prescribing team balancing metabolic needs vs patient risks.
- In a low-risk patient, one that is asymptomatic and on standard dosing, among other factors, the guidance states that GLP-1 RAs can be continued.
- In higher-risk patients, the original guidance of holding a day or a week prior to endoscopic procedures should be followed.
2. Periprocedural management of GLP-1 RAs should attempt to minimize the aspiration risks loosely associated with delayed gastric emptying.
- Consider a 24-hour clear liquid diet a day prior to the procedure and transabdominal ultrasound to check gastric contents.
- It is acknowledged that this guidance is based on limited evidence and will be evolving as new medications and data are released.
Recent Clinical Studies
Although there is very little data to guide clinicians, several recent studies have been published that can direct clinical decision-making as guidelines continue to be refined and updated.
A multicenter trial of approximately 800 patients undergoing upper endoscopy found a significant difference in rates of retained gastric contents between those that underwent endoscopy who did and did not follow the ASA guidance on periprocedural management of GLP-1 RAs (12.7% vs 4.4%; P < .0001). However, there were no significant differences in rates of aborted procedures or unplanned intubations.
Furthermore, a multivariable analysis was performed controlling for GLP-1 RA type and other factors, which found the likelihood of gastric retention increased by 36% for every 1% increase in hemoglobin A1c. This study suggests that a more individualized approach to holding GLP-1 RA would be applicable rather than a universal periprocedural hold.6
More recently, a single-center study of nearly 600 patients undergoing upper endoscopy showed that while there were slightly increased rates of retained gastric contents (OR 3.80; P = .003) and aborted procedures (1.3% vs 0%; P = .02), the rates of adverse anesthesia events (hypoxia, etc) were similar between the groups and no cases of pulmonary aspiration were noted.7
One single-center study of 57 patients evaluated the safety of GLP-1 RAs in those undergoing endoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. GLP-1 RAs were continued on all patients, but all adhered to a liquid only diet for at least 24 hours prior to the procedure. There were no instances of retained gastric solids, aspiration, or hypoxia. This study suggests that with a 24-hour clear liquid diet and routine NPO recommendations prior to endoscopy, it would be safe to continue GLP-1 RAs. This study provides rationale for the AGA recommendation for a clear liquid diet 24 hours prior to endoscopic procedures for those on GLP-1 RAs.8
A study looking at those who underwent emergency surgery and endoscopy with claims data of use of GLP-1 RAs found an overall incidence of postoperative respiratory complications of 3.5% for those with GLP-1 RAs fill history vs 4.0% for those without (P = .12). Approximately 800 of the 24,000 patients identified had undergone endoscopic procedures for GI bleeding or food impaction. The study overall showed that preoperative use of GLP-1 RAs in patients undergoing surgery or endoscopy, evaluated as a combined group, was not associated with an increased risk of pulmonary complications.9
Lastly, a systematic review and meta-analysis that included 15 studies that quantified gastric emptying using various methods, including gastric emptying scintigraphy and acetaminophen absorption test, found that there was a quantifiable delay in gastric emptying of about 36 minutes, compared to placebo (P < .01), in patients using GLP-1 RAs. However, compared to standard periprocedural fasting, this delay is clinically insignificant and standard fasting protocols would still be appropriate for patients on GLP-1 RAs.10
These studies taken together suggest that while GLP-1 RAs can mildly increase the likelihood of retained gastric contents, there is no statistically significant increase in the risk of aspiration or other anesthesia complications. Furthermore, while decreased gastric emptying is a known effect of GLP-1 RAs, this effect may not be clinically significant in the context of standard periprocedural fasting protocols particularly when combined with a 24-hour clear liquid diet. These findings support at a minimum a more patient-specific strategy for periprocedural management of GLP-1 RAs.
Clinical Implications
These most recent studies, as well as prior studies and guidelines by various societies lead to a dilemma among endoscopists on proper patient counseling on GLP-1 RAs use before endoscopic procedures. Clinicians must balance the metabolic benefits of GLP-1 RAs with potential endoscopic complications and risks.
Holding therapy theoretically decreases aspiration risk and pulmonary complications, though evidence remains low to support this. Holding medication, however, affects glycemic control leading to potential rebound hyperglycemia which may impact and delay plans for endoscopy. With growing indications for the use of GLP-1 RAs, a more tailored patient-centered treatment plan may be required, especially with consideration of procedure indication and comorbidities.
Currently, practice patterns at different institutions vary widely, making standardization much more difficult. Some centers have opted to follow ASA guidelines of holding these medications up to 1 week prior to procedures, while others have continued therapy with no pre-procedural adjustments. This leaves endoscopists to deal with the downstream effects of inconvenience to patients, care delays, and financial considerations if procedures are postponed related to GLP-1 RAs use.
Future Directions
Future studies are needed to make further evidence-based recommendations. Studies should focus on stratifying risks and recommendations based on procedure type (EGD, colonoscopy, etc). More widespread implementation of gastric ultrasound can assist in real-time decision-making, albeit this would require expertise and dedicated time within the pre-procedural workflow. Randomized controlled trials comparing outcomes of patients who continue GLP-1 RAs vs those who discontinue stratified by baseline risk will be instrumental for making concrete guidelines that provide clarity on periprocedural management of GLP-1 RAs.
Conclusion
The periprocedural management of GLP-1 RAs remains a controversial topic that presents unique challenges in endoscopy. Several guidelines have been released by various stakeholders including anesthesiologists, gastroenterologists, and other prescribing providers. Clinical data remains limited with no robust evidence available to suggest that gastric emptying delays caused by GLP-1 RAs prior to endoscopic procedures significantly increases risk of aspiration, pulmonary complications, or other comorbidities. Evolving multi-society guidelines will be important to establish more consistent practices with reassessment of the data as new studies emerge. A multidisciplinary, individualized patient approach may be the best strategy for managing GLP-1 RAs for patients undergoing endoscopic procedures.
Dr. Sekar and Dr. Asamoah are based in the department of gastroenterology at MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, D.C. Dr. Sekar reports no conflicts of interest in regard to this article. Dr. Asamoah serves on the Johnson & Johnson advisory board for inflammatory bowel disease–related therapies.
References
1. Halim MA et al. Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Inhibits Prandial Gastrointestinal Motility Through Myenteric Neuronal Mechanisms in Humans. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2018 Feb. doi: 10.1210/jc.2017-02006.
2. American Society of Anesthesiologists. American Society of Anesthesiologists releases consensus-based guidance on preoperative use of GLP-1 receptor agonists. 2023 Jun 20. www.asahq.org/about-asa/newsroom/news-releases/2023/06/american-society-of-anesthesiologists-consensus-based-guidance-on-preoperative
3. American Gastroenterological Association. GI multi-society statement regarding GLP-1 agonists and endoscopy. 2023 Jul 25. gastro.org/news/gi-multi-society-statement-regarding-glp-1-agonists-and-endoscopy/.
4. Hashash JG et al. AGA Rapid Clinical Practice Update on the Management of Patients Taking GLP-1 Receptor Agonists Prior to Endoscopy: Communication. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2024 Apr. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2023.11.002.
5. Kindel TL et al; American Gastroenterological Association; American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery; American Society of Anesthesiologists; International Society of Perioperative Care of Patients with Obesity; Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons. Multi-society Clinical Practice Guidance for the Safe Use of Glucagon-like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists in the Perioperative Period. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2024 Oct. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2024.10.003.
6. Phan J et al. Glucagon-Like Peptide Receptor Agonists Use Before Endoscopy Is Associated With Low Retained Gastric Contents: A Multicenter Cross-Sectional Analysis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2025 Mar. doi: 10.14309/ajg.0000000000002969.
7. Panchal S et al. Endoscopy and Anesthesia Outcomes Associated With Glucagon-like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonist use in Patients Undergoing Outpatient Upper Endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2025 Aug. doi:10.1016/j.gie.2025.01.004.
8. Maselli DB et al. Safe Continuation of glucagon-like Peptide 1 Receptor Agonists at Endoscopy: A Case Series of 57 Adults Undergoing Endoscopic Sleeve Gastroplasty. Obes Surg. 2024 Jul. doi: 10.1007/s11695-024-07278-2.
9. Dixit AA et al. Preoperative GLP-1 Receptor Agonist Use and Risk of Postoperative Respiratory Complications. JAMA. 2024 Apr. doi: 10.1001/jama.2024.5003.
10. Hiramoto B et al. Quantified Metrics of Gastric Emptying Delay by Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Agonists: A systematic review and meta-analysis with insights for periprocedural management. Am J Gastroenterol. 2024 Jun. doi: 10.14309/ajg.0000000000002820.
Top 5 Tips for Becoming an Effective Gastroenterology Consultant
Gastroenterology (GI) subspecialty training is carefully designed to develop expertise in digestive diseases and gastrointestinal endoscopy, while facilitating the transition from generalist to subspecialty consultant. The concept of effective consultation extends far beyond clinical expertise and has been explored repeatedly, beginning with Goldman’s “Ten Commandments” in 1983.1,2 How should these best practices be specifically applied to GI? More importantly, what kind of experience would you want if you were the referring provider or the patient themselves?
Below are
1. Be Kind
Survey studies of medical/surgical residents and attending hospitalists have demonstrated that willingness to accept consultation requests was the single factor consistently rated as most important in determining the quality of the consultation interaction.3,4 Unfortunately, nearly 65% of respondents reported encountering pushback when requesting subspecialty consultation. It is critical to recognize that when you receive a GI consult request, the requester has already decided that it is needed. Whether that request comports with our individual notion of “necessary” or “important,” this is a colleague’s request for help. There are myriad reasons why a request may be made, but they are unified in this principle.
Effective teamwork in healthcare settings enhances clinical performance and patient safety. Positive relationships with colleagues and healthcare team members also mitigate the emotional basis for physician burnout.5 Be kind and courteous to those who seek your assistance. Move beyond the notion of the “bad” or “soft” consult and seek instead to understand how you can help.
A requesting physician may phrase the consult question vaguely or may know that the patient is having a GI-related issue, but simply lack the specific knowledge to know what is needed. In these instances, it is our role to listen and help guide them to the correct thought process to ensure the best care of the patient. These important interactions establish our reputation, create our referral bases, and directly affect our sense of personal satisfaction.
2. Be Timely
GI presents an appealing breadth of pathology, but this also corresponds to a wide variety of indications for consultation and, therefore, urgency of need. In a busy clinical practice, not all requests can be urgently prioritized. However, it is the consultant’s responsibility to identify patients that require urgent evaluation and intervention to avert a potential adverse outcome.
We are well-trained in the medical triage of consultations. There are explicit guidelines for assessing urgency for GI bleeding, foreign body ingestion, choledocholithiasis, and many other indications. However, there are often special contextual circumstances that will elevate the urgency of a seemingly non-urgent consult request. Does the patient have an upcoming surgery or treatment that will depend on your input? Are they facing an imminent loss of insurance coverage? Is their non-severe GI disease leading to more severe impact on non-GI organ systems? The referring provider knows the patient better than you – seek to understand the context of the consult request.
Timeliness also applies to our communication. Communicate recommendations directly to the consulting service as soon as the patient is seen. When a colleague reaches out with a concern about a patient, make sure to take that request seriously. If you are unable to address the concern immediately, at least provide acknowledgment and an estimated timeline for response. As the maxim states, the effectiveness of a consultant is just as dependent on availability as it is on ability.
3. Be Specific
The same survey studies indicate that the second most critical aspect of successful subspecialty consultation is delivering clear recommendations. Accordingly, I always urge my trainees to challenge me when we leave a consult interaction if they feel that our plan is vague or imprecise.
Specificity in consult recommendations is an essential way to demonstrate your expertise and provide value. Clear and definitive recommendations enhance others’ perception of your skill, reduce the need for additional clarifying communication, and lead to more efficient, higher quality care. Avoid vague language, such as asking the requester to “consider” a test or intervention. When recommending medication, specify the dose, frequency, duration, and expected timeline of effect. Rather than recommending “cross-sectional imaging,” specify what modality and protocol. Instead of recommending “adequate resuscitation,” specify your target endpoints. If you engage in multidisciplinary discussion, ensure you strive for a specific group consensus plan and communicate this to all members of the team.
Specificity also applies to the quality of your documentation. Ensure that your clinical notes outline your rationale for your recommended plan, specific contingencies based on results of recommended testing, and a plan for follow-up care. When referring for open-access endoscopy, specifically outline what to look for and which specimens or endoscopic interventions are needed. Be precise in your procedure documentation – avoid vague terms such as small/medium/large and instead quantify in terms of millimeter/centimeter measurement. If you do not adopt specific classification schemes (e.g. Prague classification, Paris classification, Eosinophilic Esophagitis Endoscopic Reference Score, etc.), ensure you provide enough descriptive language to convey an adequate understanding of the findings.
4. Be Helpful
A consultant’s primary directive is to be of service to the consulting provider and the patient. As an educational leader, I am often asked what attributes separate a high-performing trainee from an average one. My feeling is that the most critical attribute is a sense of ownership over patient care.
As a consultant, when others feel we are exhibiting engagement and ownership in a patient’s care, they perceive that we are working together as an effective healthcare team. Interestingly, survey studies of inpatient care show that primary services do not necessarily value assistance with orders or care coordination – they consider these as core aspects of their daily work. What they did value was ongoing daily progress notes/communication, regardless of patient acuity or consulting specialty. This is a potent signal that our continued engagement (both inpatient and outpatient) is perceived as helpful.
Helpfulness is further aided by ensuring mutual understanding. While survey data indicate that sharing specific literature citations may not always be perceived positively, explaining the consultant’s rationale for their recommendations is highly valued. Take the time to tactfully explain your assessment of the patient and why you arrived at your specific recommendations. If your recommendations differ from what the requester expected (e.g. a procedure was expected but is not offered), ensure you explain why and answer questions they may have. This fosters mutual respect and proactively averts conflict or discontent from misunderstanding.
Multidisciplinary collaboration is another important avenue for aiding our patients and colleagues. Studies across a wide range of disease processes (including GI bleeding, IBD, etc.) and medical settings have demonstrated that multidisciplinary collaboration unequivocally improves patient outcomes.6 The success of these collaborations relies on our willingness to fully engage in these conversations, despite the fact that they may often be logistically challenging.
We all know how difficult it can be to locate and organize multiple medical specialists with complex varying clinical schedules and busy personal lives. Choosing to do so demonstrates a dedication to providing the highest level of care and elevates both patient and physician satisfaction. Having chosen to cultivate several ongoing multidisciplinary conferences/collaborations, I can attest to the notion that the outcome is well worth the effort.
5. Be Honest
While we always strive to provide the answers for our patients and colleagues, we must also acknowledge our limitations. Be honest with yourself when you encounter a scenario that pushes beyond the boundaries of your knowledge and comfort. Be willing to admit when you yourself need to consult others or seek an outside referral to provide the care a patient needs. Aspiring physicians often espouse that a devotion to lifelong learning is a key driver of their desire to pursue a career in medicine. These scenarios provide a key opportunity to expand our knowledge while doing what is right for our patients.
Be equally honest about your comfort with “curbside” consultations. Studies show that subspecialists receive on average of 3-4 such requests per week.7 The perception of these interactions is starkly discrepant between the requester and recipient. While over 80% of surveyed primary nonsurgical services felt that curbside consultations were helpful in patient care, a similar proportion of subspecialists expressed concern that insufficient clinical information was provided, even leading to a fear of litigation. While straightforward, informal conversations on narrow, well-defined questions can be helpful and efficient, the consultant should always feel comfortable seeking an opportunity for formal consultation when the details are unclear or the case/question is complex.
Closing Thoughts
Being an effective GI consultant isn’t just about what you know—it’s about how you apply it, how you communicate it, and how you make others feel in the process.
The attributes outlined above are not ancillary traits—they are essential components of high-quality consultation. When consistently applied, they enhance collaboration, improve patient outcomes, and reinforce trust within the healthcare system. By committing to them, you establish your reputation of excellence and play a role in elevating the field of gastroenterology more broadly.
Dr. Kahn is based in the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona. He reports no conflicts of interest in regard to this article.
References
1. Goldman L, et al. Ten commandments for effective consultations. Arch Intern Med. 1983 Sep.
2. Salerno SM, et al. Principles of effective consultation: an update for the 21st-century consultant. Arch Intern Med. 2007 Feb. doi: 10.1001/archinte.167.3.271.
3. Adams TN, et al. Hospitalist Perspective of Interactions with Medicine Subspecialty Consult Services. J Hosp Med. 2018 May. doi: 10.12788/jhm.2882.
4. Matsuo T, et al. Essential consultants’ skills and attitudes (Willing CONSULT): a cross-sectional survey. BMC Med Educ. 2021 Jul. doi: 10.1186/s12909-021-02810-9.
5. Welp A, Manser T. Integrating teamwork, clinician occupational well-being and patient safety - development of a conceptual framework based on a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2016 Jul. doi: 10.1186/s12913-016-1535-y.
6. Webster CS, et al. Interprofessional Learning in Multidisciplinary Healthcare Teams Is Associated With Reduced Patient Mortality: A Quantitative Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. J Patient Saf. 2024 Jan. doi: 10.1097/PTS.0000000000001170.
7. Lin M, et al. Curbside Consultations: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016 Jan. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2015.09.026.
Gastroenterology (GI) subspecialty training is carefully designed to develop expertise in digestive diseases and gastrointestinal endoscopy, while facilitating the transition from generalist to subspecialty consultant. The concept of effective consultation extends far beyond clinical expertise and has been explored repeatedly, beginning with Goldman’s “Ten Commandments” in 1983.1,2 How should these best practices be specifically applied to GI? More importantly, what kind of experience would you want if you were the referring provider or the patient themselves?
Below are
1. Be Kind
Survey studies of medical/surgical residents and attending hospitalists have demonstrated that willingness to accept consultation requests was the single factor consistently rated as most important in determining the quality of the consultation interaction.3,4 Unfortunately, nearly 65% of respondents reported encountering pushback when requesting subspecialty consultation. It is critical to recognize that when you receive a GI consult request, the requester has already decided that it is needed. Whether that request comports with our individual notion of “necessary” or “important,” this is a colleague’s request for help. There are myriad reasons why a request may be made, but they are unified in this principle.
Effective teamwork in healthcare settings enhances clinical performance and patient safety. Positive relationships with colleagues and healthcare team members also mitigate the emotional basis for physician burnout.5 Be kind and courteous to those who seek your assistance. Move beyond the notion of the “bad” or “soft” consult and seek instead to understand how you can help.
A requesting physician may phrase the consult question vaguely or may know that the patient is having a GI-related issue, but simply lack the specific knowledge to know what is needed. In these instances, it is our role to listen and help guide them to the correct thought process to ensure the best care of the patient. These important interactions establish our reputation, create our referral bases, and directly affect our sense of personal satisfaction.
2. Be Timely
GI presents an appealing breadth of pathology, but this also corresponds to a wide variety of indications for consultation and, therefore, urgency of need. In a busy clinical practice, not all requests can be urgently prioritized. However, it is the consultant’s responsibility to identify patients that require urgent evaluation and intervention to avert a potential adverse outcome.
We are well-trained in the medical triage of consultations. There are explicit guidelines for assessing urgency for GI bleeding, foreign body ingestion, choledocholithiasis, and many other indications. However, there are often special contextual circumstances that will elevate the urgency of a seemingly non-urgent consult request. Does the patient have an upcoming surgery or treatment that will depend on your input? Are they facing an imminent loss of insurance coverage? Is their non-severe GI disease leading to more severe impact on non-GI organ systems? The referring provider knows the patient better than you – seek to understand the context of the consult request.
Timeliness also applies to our communication. Communicate recommendations directly to the consulting service as soon as the patient is seen. When a colleague reaches out with a concern about a patient, make sure to take that request seriously. If you are unable to address the concern immediately, at least provide acknowledgment and an estimated timeline for response. As the maxim states, the effectiveness of a consultant is just as dependent on availability as it is on ability.
3. Be Specific
The same survey studies indicate that the second most critical aspect of successful subspecialty consultation is delivering clear recommendations. Accordingly, I always urge my trainees to challenge me when we leave a consult interaction if they feel that our plan is vague or imprecise.
Specificity in consult recommendations is an essential way to demonstrate your expertise and provide value. Clear and definitive recommendations enhance others’ perception of your skill, reduce the need for additional clarifying communication, and lead to more efficient, higher quality care. Avoid vague language, such as asking the requester to “consider” a test or intervention. When recommending medication, specify the dose, frequency, duration, and expected timeline of effect. Rather than recommending “cross-sectional imaging,” specify what modality and protocol. Instead of recommending “adequate resuscitation,” specify your target endpoints. If you engage in multidisciplinary discussion, ensure you strive for a specific group consensus plan and communicate this to all members of the team.
Specificity also applies to the quality of your documentation. Ensure that your clinical notes outline your rationale for your recommended plan, specific contingencies based on results of recommended testing, and a plan for follow-up care. When referring for open-access endoscopy, specifically outline what to look for and which specimens or endoscopic interventions are needed. Be precise in your procedure documentation – avoid vague terms such as small/medium/large and instead quantify in terms of millimeter/centimeter measurement. If you do not adopt specific classification schemes (e.g. Prague classification, Paris classification, Eosinophilic Esophagitis Endoscopic Reference Score, etc.), ensure you provide enough descriptive language to convey an adequate understanding of the findings.
4. Be Helpful
A consultant’s primary directive is to be of service to the consulting provider and the patient. As an educational leader, I am often asked what attributes separate a high-performing trainee from an average one. My feeling is that the most critical attribute is a sense of ownership over patient care.
As a consultant, when others feel we are exhibiting engagement and ownership in a patient’s care, they perceive that we are working together as an effective healthcare team. Interestingly, survey studies of inpatient care show that primary services do not necessarily value assistance with orders or care coordination – they consider these as core aspects of their daily work. What they did value was ongoing daily progress notes/communication, regardless of patient acuity or consulting specialty. This is a potent signal that our continued engagement (both inpatient and outpatient) is perceived as helpful.
Helpfulness is further aided by ensuring mutual understanding. While survey data indicate that sharing specific literature citations may not always be perceived positively, explaining the consultant’s rationale for their recommendations is highly valued. Take the time to tactfully explain your assessment of the patient and why you arrived at your specific recommendations. If your recommendations differ from what the requester expected (e.g. a procedure was expected but is not offered), ensure you explain why and answer questions they may have. This fosters mutual respect and proactively averts conflict or discontent from misunderstanding.
Multidisciplinary collaboration is another important avenue for aiding our patients and colleagues. Studies across a wide range of disease processes (including GI bleeding, IBD, etc.) and medical settings have demonstrated that multidisciplinary collaboration unequivocally improves patient outcomes.6 The success of these collaborations relies on our willingness to fully engage in these conversations, despite the fact that they may often be logistically challenging.
We all know how difficult it can be to locate and organize multiple medical specialists with complex varying clinical schedules and busy personal lives. Choosing to do so demonstrates a dedication to providing the highest level of care and elevates both patient and physician satisfaction. Having chosen to cultivate several ongoing multidisciplinary conferences/collaborations, I can attest to the notion that the outcome is well worth the effort.
5. Be Honest
While we always strive to provide the answers for our patients and colleagues, we must also acknowledge our limitations. Be honest with yourself when you encounter a scenario that pushes beyond the boundaries of your knowledge and comfort. Be willing to admit when you yourself need to consult others or seek an outside referral to provide the care a patient needs. Aspiring physicians often espouse that a devotion to lifelong learning is a key driver of their desire to pursue a career in medicine. These scenarios provide a key opportunity to expand our knowledge while doing what is right for our patients.
Be equally honest about your comfort with “curbside” consultations. Studies show that subspecialists receive on average of 3-4 such requests per week.7 The perception of these interactions is starkly discrepant between the requester and recipient. While over 80% of surveyed primary nonsurgical services felt that curbside consultations were helpful in patient care, a similar proportion of subspecialists expressed concern that insufficient clinical information was provided, even leading to a fear of litigation. While straightforward, informal conversations on narrow, well-defined questions can be helpful and efficient, the consultant should always feel comfortable seeking an opportunity for formal consultation when the details are unclear or the case/question is complex.
Closing Thoughts
Being an effective GI consultant isn’t just about what you know—it’s about how you apply it, how you communicate it, and how you make others feel in the process.
The attributes outlined above are not ancillary traits—they are essential components of high-quality consultation. When consistently applied, they enhance collaboration, improve patient outcomes, and reinforce trust within the healthcare system. By committing to them, you establish your reputation of excellence and play a role in elevating the field of gastroenterology more broadly.
Dr. Kahn is based in the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona. He reports no conflicts of interest in regard to this article.
References
1. Goldman L, et al. Ten commandments for effective consultations. Arch Intern Med. 1983 Sep.
2. Salerno SM, et al. Principles of effective consultation: an update for the 21st-century consultant. Arch Intern Med. 2007 Feb. doi: 10.1001/archinte.167.3.271.
3. Adams TN, et al. Hospitalist Perspective of Interactions with Medicine Subspecialty Consult Services. J Hosp Med. 2018 May. doi: 10.12788/jhm.2882.
4. Matsuo T, et al. Essential consultants’ skills and attitudes (Willing CONSULT): a cross-sectional survey. BMC Med Educ. 2021 Jul. doi: 10.1186/s12909-021-02810-9.
5. Welp A, Manser T. Integrating teamwork, clinician occupational well-being and patient safety - development of a conceptual framework based on a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2016 Jul. doi: 10.1186/s12913-016-1535-y.
6. Webster CS, et al. Interprofessional Learning in Multidisciplinary Healthcare Teams Is Associated With Reduced Patient Mortality: A Quantitative Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. J Patient Saf. 2024 Jan. doi: 10.1097/PTS.0000000000001170.
7. Lin M, et al. Curbside Consultations: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016 Jan. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2015.09.026.
Gastroenterology (GI) subspecialty training is carefully designed to develop expertise in digestive diseases and gastrointestinal endoscopy, while facilitating the transition from generalist to subspecialty consultant. The concept of effective consultation extends far beyond clinical expertise and has been explored repeatedly, beginning with Goldman’s “Ten Commandments” in 1983.1,2 How should these best practices be specifically applied to GI? More importantly, what kind of experience would you want if you were the referring provider or the patient themselves?
Below are
1. Be Kind
Survey studies of medical/surgical residents and attending hospitalists have demonstrated that willingness to accept consultation requests was the single factor consistently rated as most important in determining the quality of the consultation interaction.3,4 Unfortunately, nearly 65% of respondents reported encountering pushback when requesting subspecialty consultation. It is critical to recognize that when you receive a GI consult request, the requester has already decided that it is needed. Whether that request comports with our individual notion of “necessary” or “important,” this is a colleague’s request for help. There are myriad reasons why a request may be made, but they are unified in this principle.
Effective teamwork in healthcare settings enhances clinical performance and patient safety. Positive relationships with colleagues and healthcare team members also mitigate the emotional basis for physician burnout.5 Be kind and courteous to those who seek your assistance. Move beyond the notion of the “bad” or “soft” consult and seek instead to understand how you can help.
A requesting physician may phrase the consult question vaguely or may know that the patient is having a GI-related issue, but simply lack the specific knowledge to know what is needed. In these instances, it is our role to listen and help guide them to the correct thought process to ensure the best care of the patient. These important interactions establish our reputation, create our referral bases, and directly affect our sense of personal satisfaction.
2. Be Timely
GI presents an appealing breadth of pathology, but this also corresponds to a wide variety of indications for consultation and, therefore, urgency of need. In a busy clinical practice, not all requests can be urgently prioritized. However, it is the consultant’s responsibility to identify patients that require urgent evaluation and intervention to avert a potential adverse outcome.
We are well-trained in the medical triage of consultations. There are explicit guidelines for assessing urgency for GI bleeding, foreign body ingestion, choledocholithiasis, and many other indications. However, there are often special contextual circumstances that will elevate the urgency of a seemingly non-urgent consult request. Does the patient have an upcoming surgery or treatment that will depend on your input? Are they facing an imminent loss of insurance coverage? Is their non-severe GI disease leading to more severe impact on non-GI organ systems? The referring provider knows the patient better than you – seek to understand the context of the consult request.
Timeliness also applies to our communication. Communicate recommendations directly to the consulting service as soon as the patient is seen. When a colleague reaches out with a concern about a patient, make sure to take that request seriously. If you are unable to address the concern immediately, at least provide acknowledgment and an estimated timeline for response. As the maxim states, the effectiveness of a consultant is just as dependent on availability as it is on ability.
3. Be Specific
The same survey studies indicate that the second most critical aspect of successful subspecialty consultation is delivering clear recommendations. Accordingly, I always urge my trainees to challenge me when we leave a consult interaction if they feel that our plan is vague or imprecise.
Specificity in consult recommendations is an essential way to demonstrate your expertise and provide value. Clear and definitive recommendations enhance others’ perception of your skill, reduce the need for additional clarifying communication, and lead to more efficient, higher quality care. Avoid vague language, such as asking the requester to “consider” a test or intervention. When recommending medication, specify the dose, frequency, duration, and expected timeline of effect. Rather than recommending “cross-sectional imaging,” specify what modality and protocol. Instead of recommending “adequate resuscitation,” specify your target endpoints. If you engage in multidisciplinary discussion, ensure you strive for a specific group consensus plan and communicate this to all members of the team.
Specificity also applies to the quality of your documentation. Ensure that your clinical notes outline your rationale for your recommended plan, specific contingencies based on results of recommended testing, and a plan for follow-up care. When referring for open-access endoscopy, specifically outline what to look for and which specimens or endoscopic interventions are needed. Be precise in your procedure documentation – avoid vague terms such as small/medium/large and instead quantify in terms of millimeter/centimeter measurement. If you do not adopt specific classification schemes (e.g. Prague classification, Paris classification, Eosinophilic Esophagitis Endoscopic Reference Score, etc.), ensure you provide enough descriptive language to convey an adequate understanding of the findings.
4. Be Helpful
A consultant’s primary directive is to be of service to the consulting provider and the patient. As an educational leader, I am often asked what attributes separate a high-performing trainee from an average one. My feeling is that the most critical attribute is a sense of ownership over patient care.
As a consultant, when others feel we are exhibiting engagement and ownership in a patient’s care, they perceive that we are working together as an effective healthcare team. Interestingly, survey studies of inpatient care show that primary services do not necessarily value assistance with orders or care coordination – they consider these as core aspects of their daily work. What they did value was ongoing daily progress notes/communication, regardless of patient acuity or consulting specialty. This is a potent signal that our continued engagement (both inpatient and outpatient) is perceived as helpful.
Helpfulness is further aided by ensuring mutual understanding. While survey data indicate that sharing specific literature citations may not always be perceived positively, explaining the consultant’s rationale for their recommendations is highly valued. Take the time to tactfully explain your assessment of the patient and why you arrived at your specific recommendations. If your recommendations differ from what the requester expected (e.g. a procedure was expected but is not offered), ensure you explain why and answer questions they may have. This fosters mutual respect and proactively averts conflict or discontent from misunderstanding.
Multidisciplinary collaboration is another important avenue for aiding our patients and colleagues. Studies across a wide range of disease processes (including GI bleeding, IBD, etc.) and medical settings have demonstrated that multidisciplinary collaboration unequivocally improves patient outcomes.6 The success of these collaborations relies on our willingness to fully engage in these conversations, despite the fact that they may often be logistically challenging.
We all know how difficult it can be to locate and organize multiple medical specialists with complex varying clinical schedules and busy personal lives. Choosing to do so demonstrates a dedication to providing the highest level of care and elevates both patient and physician satisfaction. Having chosen to cultivate several ongoing multidisciplinary conferences/collaborations, I can attest to the notion that the outcome is well worth the effort.
5. Be Honest
While we always strive to provide the answers for our patients and colleagues, we must also acknowledge our limitations. Be honest with yourself when you encounter a scenario that pushes beyond the boundaries of your knowledge and comfort. Be willing to admit when you yourself need to consult others or seek an outside referral to provide the care a patient needs. Aspiring physicians often espouse that a devotion to lifelong learning is a key driver of their desire to pursue a career in medicine. These scenarios provide a key opportunity to expand our knowledge while doing what is right for our patients.
Be equally honest about your comfort with “curbside” consultations. Studies show that subspecialists receive on average of 3-4 such requests per week.7 The perception of these interactions is starkly discrepant between the requester and recipient. While over 80% of surveyed primary nonsurgical services felt that curbside consultations were helpful in patient care, a similar proportion of subspecialists expressed concern that insufficient clinical information was provided, even leading to a fear of litigation. While straightforward, informal conversations on narrow, well-defined questions can be helpful and efficient, the consultant should always feel comfortable seeking an opportunity for formal consultation when the details are unclear or the case/question is complex.
Closing Thoughts
Being an effective GI consultant isn’t just about what you know—it’s about how you apply it, how you communicate it, and how you make others feel in the process.
The attributes outlined above are not ancillary traits—they are essential components of high-quality consultation. When consistently applied, they enhance collaboration, improve patient outcomes, and reinforce trust within the healthcare system. By committing to them, you establish your reputation of excellence and play a role in elevating the field of gastroenterology more broadly.
Dr. Kahn is based in the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona. He reports no conflicts of interest in regard to this article.
References
1. Goldman L, et al. Ten commandments for effective consultations. Arch Intern Med. 1983 Sep.
2. Salerno SM, et al. Principles of effective consultation: an update for the 21st-century consultant. Arch Intern Med. 2007 Feb. doi: 10.1001/archinte.167.3.271.
3. Adams TN, et al. Hospitalist Perspective of Interactions with Medicine Subspecialty Consult Services. J Hosp Med. 2018 May. doi: 10.12788/jhm.2882.
4. Matsuo T, et al. Essential consultants’ skills and attitudes (Willing CONSULT): a cross-sectional survey. BMC Med Educ. 2021 Jul. doi: 10.1186/s12909-021-02810-9.
5. Welp A, Manser T. Integrating teamwork, clinician occupational well-being and patient safety - development of a conceptual framework based on a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2016 Jul. doi: 10.1186/s12913-016-1535-y.
6. Webster CS, et al. Interprofessional Learning in Multidisciplinary Healthcare Teams Is Associated With Reduced Patient Mortality: A Quantitative Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. J Patient Saf. 2024 Jan. doi: 10.1097/PTS.0000000000001170.
7. Lin M, et al. Curbside Consultations: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016 Jan. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2015.09.026.
Military Imposters: What Drives Them and How They Damage Us All
Military Imposters: What Drives Them and How They Damage Us All
The better part of valor is discretion.
Henry IV, Part 1 by William Shakespeare1
This is the second part of an exploration of the phenomenon of stolen valor, where individuals claim military exploits or acts of heroism that are either fabricated or exaggerated, and/or awards and medals they did not earn.2 In June, I focused on the unsettling story of Sarah Cavanaugh, a young US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) social worker who posed as a decorated, heroic, and seriously wounded Marine veteran for years. Cavanaugh’s manipulative masquerade allowed her to receive coveted spots in veteran recovery programs, thousands of dollars in fraudulent donations, the leadership of a local Veterans of Foreign Wars post, and eventually a federal conviction and prison sentence.3 The first column focused on the legal history of stolen valor; this editorial analyzes the clinical import and ethical impact of the behavior of military imposters. Military imposters are the culprits who steal valor.
It would be easy and perhaps reassuring to assume that stolen valor has emerged as another deplorable example of a national culture in which the betrayal of trust in human beings and loss of faith in institutions and aspirations has reached a nadir. Ironically, stolen valor is inextricably linked to the founding of the United States. When General George Washington inaugurated the American military tradition of awarding decorations to honor the bravery and sacrifices of the patriot Army, he anticipated military imposters. He tried to deter stolen valor through the threat of chastisement: “Should any who are not entitled to these honors have the insolence to assume the badges of them, they shall be severely punished,” Washington warned.4
It is plausible to think such despicable conduct occurs only as the ugly side of the beauty of our unparalleled national freedom, but this is a mistake. Cases of stolen valor have been reported in many countries around the world, with some of the most infamous found in the United Kingdom.5
While many brazen military imposters like Cavanaugh never serve, there is a small subset who honorably wore a uniform yet embellish their service record with secret missions and meritorious gallantry that purportedly earned them high rank and even higher awards. A most puzzling and disturbing example of this group is an allegation that surfaced when celebrated Navy SEAL Chris Kyle declared in American Sniper that he had won 3 additional combat awards for combat valor in addition to the Silver Star and 3 Bronze Stars actually listed in his service record.6
The fact that for centuries stolen valor has plagued multiple nations suggests, at least to this psychiatrically trained mind, that something deeper and darker in human nature than profit alone drives military imposters. Philosopher Verna Gehring has distilled these less tangible motivations into the concept of virtue imposters. According to Gehring, military phonies are a notorious exemplar: “The military phony adopts a past not her own, acts of courage she did not perform—she impersonates the heroic character and virtues she does not possess.”7 There could be no more apposite depiction of Cavanaugh, other military imposters, or a legion of other offenders of honor. 8
As with Cavanaugh, financial gain is a byproduct of the machinations of military imposters and is usually secondary to the pursuit of nonmaterial rewards such as power, influence, admiration, emulation, empathy, and charity. Gehring contends, and I agree, that virtue imposters are more pernicious and culpable than the plethora of more prosaic scammers and swindlers who use deceit primarily as a means of economic exploitation: “The virtue impostor by contrast plays on people’s better natures—their generosity, humility, and their need for heroes.”7
Military imposters cause real and lasting harm. Every veteran who exaggerates claims or scams the VA unjustly steals human and monetary resources from other deserving veterans whose integrity would not permit them to break the rules.9 Yet, even more harmful is the potential damage to therapeutic relationships: federal practitioners may become skeptical of a veteran’s history even when there is little to no grounds for suspicion. Veterans, in turn, may experience a breach of trust and betrayal not only from health care professionals and VA leaders but from their brothers and sisters in arms. On an ever-wider scale, every military impostor who is exposed may diminish the respect and honor all veterans have earned.
It is clear, then, why a small group of former service members has adopted the cause of uncovering military imposters and adroitly using the media to identify signs of stolen valor.10 Yet deception mars even these mostly well-intentioned campaigns, as some more zealous stolen valor hunters may make allegations that turn out to be false.11 Nevertheless, 500 years ago and in a very different context Shakespeare was, right on the mark: the better part of valor is discretion in describing one’s achievements, in relying on the veracity of our veteran’s narratives, and when there are sound reasons to do so verifying the truth of what our patients, friends, and even family tell us about their time in the military.1
- Shakespeare W. Introduction in: Henry IV, Part 1. Folger Sharespeare Library. Accessed July 24, 2025. https://www.folger.edu/explore/shakespeares-works/henry-iv-part-1/
- Geppert CM. What about stolen valor actually is illegal? Fed Pract. 2025;42(6):218-219. doi:10.12788/fp.0599
- Lehrfeld J. Woman who faked being cancer-stricken Marine gets 6 years in prison. Military Times. March 15, 2023. Accessed July 24, 2025. https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2023/03/15/woman-who-faked-being-sick-marine-purple-heart-gets-6-years-in-prison/
- Washington G. General Orders, 7 August 1782 in: Papers of George Washington. Founders Online. August 7, 1782. Accessed July 24, 2025. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/99-01-02-09056 5. Simpson LK. The men who impersonate military personnel for stolen glory. The Conversation. Updated November 17, 2016. Accessed July 24, 2025. https://theconversation.com/the-men-who-impersonate-military-personnel-for-stolen-glory-62233
- Larter DB. New questions cast doubt on ‘American Sniper‘ Chris Kyle‘s combat record. Navy Times. May 25, 2016. Accessed July 24, 2025. https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2016/05/25/new-questions-cast-doubt-on-american-sniper-chris-kyle-s-combat-record
- Gehring VV. Phonies, fakes, and frauds—and the social harms they cause. Philos Public Policy Q. 2003;23:14-20.
- Liem, E. The 6 most shocking military imposters ever. Military.com. July 7, 2015. Accessed July 29, 2025. https://www.military.com/undertheradar/2015/07/the-6-most-shocking-military-impostors-ever 9. Sisk R. Some vets with PTSD are scamming the VA: testimony. Military.com. June 8, 2017. Accessed July 24, 2025. https://www.military.com/daily-news/2017/06/08/some-vets-with-ptsd-are-scamming-va-testimony.html
- Bushatz A. How to spot a veteran. Military.com. October 3, 2022. Updated September 16, 2024. Accessed July 24, 2025. https://www.military.com/veterans-day/how-spot-veteran.html
- Monroe R. How to spot a military imposter. The New Yorker. October 19, 2020. Accessed July 24, 2025. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/10/26/how-to-spot-a-military-impostor
The better part of valor is discretion.
Henry IV, Part 1 by William Shakespeare1
This is the second part of an exploration of the phenomenon of stolen valor, where individuals claim military exploits or acts of heroism that are either fabricated or exaggerated, and/or awards and medals they did not earn.2 In June, I focused on the unsettling story of Sarah Cavanaugh, a young US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) social worker who posed as a decorated, heroic, and seriously wounded Marine veteran for years. Cavanaugh’s manipulative masquerade allowed her to receive coveted spots in veteran recovery programs, thousands of dollars in fraudulent donations, the leadership of a local Veterans of Foreign Wars post, and eventually a federal conviction and prison sentence.3 The first column focused on the legal history of stolen valor; this editorial analyzes the clinical import and ethical impact of the behavior of military imposters. Military imposters are the culprits who steal valor.
It would be easy and perhaps reassuring to assume that stolen valor has emerged as another deplorable example of a national culture in which the betrayal of trust in human beings and loss of faith in institutions and aspirations has reached a nadir. Ironically, stolen valor is inextricably linked to the founding of the United States. When General George Washington inaugurated the American military tradition of awarding decorations to honor the bravery and sacrifices of the patriot Army, he anticipated military imposters. He tried to deter stolen valor through the threat of chastisement: “Should any who are not entitled to these honors have the insolence to assume the badges of them, they shall be severely punished,” Washington warned.4
It is plausible to think such despicable conduct occurs only as the ugly side of the beauty of our unparalleled national freedom, but this is a mistake. Cases of stolen valor have been reported in many countries around the world, with some of the most infamous found in the United Kingdom.5
While many brazen military imposters like Cavanaugh never serve, there is a small subset who honorably wore a uniform yet embellish their service record with secret missions and meritorious gallantry that purportedly earned them high rank and even higher awards. A most puzzling and disturbing example of this group is an allegation that surfaced when celebrated Navy SEAL Chris Kyle declared in American Sniper that he had won 3 additional combat awards for combat valor in addition to the Silver Star and 3 Bronze Stars actually listed in his service record.6
The fact that for centuries stolen valor has plagued multiple nations suggests, at least to this psychiatrically trained mind, that something deeper and darker in human nature than profit alone drives military imposters. Philosopher Verna Gehring has distilled these less tangible motivations into the concept of virtue imposters. According to Gehring, military phonies are a notorious exemplar: “The military phony adopts a past not her own, acts of courage she did not perform—she impersonates the heroic character and virtues she does not possess.”7 There could be no more apposite depiction of Cavanaugh, other military imposters, or a legion of other offenders of honor. 8
As with Cavanaugh, financial gain is a byproduct of the machinations of military imposters and is usually secondary to the pursuit of nonmaterial rewards such as power, influence, admiration, emulation, empathy, and charity. Gehring contends, and I agree, that virtue imposters are more pernicious and culpable than the plethora of more prosaic scammers and swindlers who use deceit primarily as a means of economic exploitation: “The virtue impostor by contrast plays on people’s better natures—their generosity, humility, and their need for heroes.”7
Military imposters cause real and lasting harm. Every veteran who exaggerates claims or scams the VA unjustly steals human and monetary resources from other deserving veterans whose integrity would not permit them to break the rules.9 Yet, even more harmful is the potential damage to therapeutic relationships: federal practitioners may become skeptical of a veteran’s history even when there is little to no grounds for suspicion. Veterans, in turn, may experience a breach of trust and betrayal not only from health care professionals and VA leaders but from their brothers and sisters in arms. On an ever-wider scale, every military impostor who is exposed may diminish the respect and honor all veterans have earned.
It is clear, then, why a small group of former service members has adopted the cause of uncovering military imposters and adroitly using the media to identify signs of stolen valor.10 Yet deception mars even these mostly well-intentioned campaigns, as some more zealous stolen valor hunters may make allegations that turn out to be false.11 Nevertheless, 500 years ago and in a very different context Shakespeare was, right on the mark: the better part of valor is discretion in describing one’s achievements, in relying on the veracity of our veteran’s narratives, and when there are sound reasons to do so verifying the truth of what our patients, friends, and even family tell us about their time in the military.1
The better part of valor is discretion.
Henry IV, Part 1 by William Shakespeare1
This is the second part of an exploration of the phenomenon of stolen valor, where individuals claim military exploits or acts of heroism that are either fabricated or exaggerated, and/or awards and medals they did not earn.2 In June, I focused on the unsettling story of Sarah Cavanaugh, a young US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) social worker who posed as a decorated, heroic, and seriously wounded Marine veteran for years. Cavanaugh’s manipulative masquerade allowed her to receive coveted spots in veteran recovery programs, thousands of dollars in fraudulent donations, the leadership of a local Veterans of Foreign Wars post, and eventually a federal conviction and prison sentence.3 The first column focused on the legal history of stolen valor; this editorial analyzes the clinical import and ethical impact of the behavior of military imposters. Military imposters are the culprits who steal valor.
It would be easy and perhaps reassuring to assume that stolen valor has emerged as another deplorable example of a national culture in which the betrayal of trust in human beings and loss of faith in institutions and aspirations has reached a nadir. Ironically, stolen valor is inextricably linked to the founding of the United States. When General George Washington inaugurated the American military tradition of awarding decorations to honor the bravery and sacrifices of the patriot Army, he anticipated military imposters. He tried to deter stolen valor through the threat of chastisement: “Should any who are not entitled to these honors have the insolence to assume the badges of them, they shall be severely punished,” Washington warned.4
It is plausible to think such despicable conduct occurs only as the ugly side of the beauty of our unparalleled national freedom, but this is a mistake. Cases of stolen valor have been reported in many countries around the world, with some of the most infamous found in the United Kingdom.5
While many brazen military imposters like Cavanaugh never serve, there is a small subset who honorably wore a uniform yet embellish their service record with secret missions and meritorious gallantry that purportedly earned them high rank and even higher awards. A most puzzling and disturbing example of this group is an allegation that surfaced when celebrated Navy SEAL Chris Kyle declared in American Sniper that he had won 3 additional combat awards for combat valor in addition to the Silver Star and 3 Bronze Stars actually listed in his service record.6
The fact that for centuries stolen valor has plagued multiple nations suggests, at least to this psychiatrically trained mind, that something deeper and darker in human nature than profit alone drives military imposters. Philosopher Verna Gehring has distilled these less tangible motivations into the concept of virtue imposters. According to Gehring, military phonies are a notorious exemplar: “The military phony adopts a past not her own, acts of courage she did not perform—she impersonates the heroic character and virtues she does not possess.”7 There could be no more apposite depiction of Cavanaugh, other military imposters, or a legion of other offenders of honor. 8
As with Cavanaugh, financial gain is a byproduct of the machinations of military imposters and is usually secondary to the pursuit of nonmaterial rewards such as power, influence, admiration, emulation, empathy, and charity. Gehring contends, and I agree, that virtue imposters are more pernicious and culpable than the plethora of more prosaic scammers and swindlers who use deceit primarily as a means of economic exploitation: “The virtue impostor by contrast plays on people’s better natures—their generosity, humility, and their need for heroes.”7
Military imposters cause real and lasting harm. Every veteran who exaggerates claims or scams the VA unjustly steals human and monetary resources from other deserving veterans whose integrity would not permit them to break the rules.9 Yet, even more harmful is the potential damage to therapeutic relationships: federal practitioners may become skeptical of a veteran’s history even when there is little to no grounds for suspicion. Veterans, in turn, may experience a breach of trust and betrayal not only from health care professionals and VA leaders but from their brothers and sisters in arms. On an ever-wider scale, every military impostor who is exposed may diminish the respect and honor all veterans have earned.
It is clear, then, why a small group of former service members has adopted the cause of uncovering military imposters and adroitly using the media to identify signs of stolen valor.10 Yet deception mars even these mostly well-intentioned campaigns, as some more zealous stolen valor hunters may make allegations that turn out to be false.11 Nevertheless, 500 years ago and in a very different context Shakespeare was, right on the mark: the better part of valor is discretion in describing one’s achievements, in relying on the veracity of our veteran’s narratives, and when there are sound reasons to do so verifying the truth of what our patients, friends, and even family tell us about their time in the military.1
- Shakespeare W. Introduction in: Henry IV, Part 1. Folger Sharespeare Library. Accessed July 24, 2025. https://www.folger.edu/explore/shakespeares-works/henry-iv-part-1/
- Geppert CM. What about stolen valor actually is illegal? Fed Pract. 2025;42(6):218-219. doi:10.12788/fp.0599
- Lehrfeld J. Woman who faked being cancer-stricken Marine gets 6 years in prison. Military Times. March 15, 2023. Accessed July 24, 2025. https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2023/03/15/woman-who-faked-being-sick-marine-purple-heart-gets-6-years-in-prison/
- Washington G. General Orders, 7 August 1782 in: Papers of George Washington. Founders Online. August 7, 1782. Accessed July 24, 2025. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/99-01-02-09056 5. Simpson LK. The men who impersonate military personnel for stolen glory. The Conversation. Updated November 17, 2016. Accessed July 24, 2025. https://theconversation.com/the-men-who-impersonate-military-personnel-for-stolen-glory-62233
- Larter DB. New questions cast doubt on ‘American Sniper‘ Chris Kyle‘s combat record. Navy Times. May 25, 2016. Accessed July 24, 2025. https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2016/05/25/new-questions-cast-doubt-on-american-sniper-chris-kyle-s-combat-record
- Gehring VV. Phonies, fakes, and frauds—and the social harms they cause. Philos Public Policy Q. 2003;23:14-20.
- Liem, E. The 6 most shocking military imposters ever. Military.com. July 7, 2015. Accessed July 29, 2025. https://www.military.com/undertheradar/2015/07/the-6-most-shocking-military-impostors-ever 9. Sisk R. Some vets with PTSD are scamming the VA: testimony. Military.com. June 8, 2017. Accessed July 24, 2025. https://www.military.com/daily-news/2017/06/08/some-vets-with-ptsd-are-scamming-va-testimony.html
- Bushatz A. How to spot a veteran. Military.com. October 3, 2022. Updated September 16, 2024. Accessed July 24, 2025. https://www.military.com/veterans-day/how-spot-veteran.html
- Monroe R. How to spot a military imposter. The New Yorker. October 19, 2020. Accessed July 24, 2025. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/10/26/how-to-spot-a-military-impostor
- Shakespeare W. Introduction in: Henry IV, Part 1. Folger Sharespeare Library. Accessed July 24, 2025. https://www.folger.edu/explore/shakespeares-works/henry-iv-part-1/
- Geppert CM. What about stolen valor actually is illegal? Fed Pract. 2025;42(6):218-219. doi:10.12788/fp.0599
- Lehrfeld J. Woman who faked being cancer-stricken Marine gets 6 years in prison. Military Times. March 15, 2023. Accessed July 24, 2025. https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2023/03/15/woman-who-faked-being-sick-marine-purple-heart-gets-6-years-in-prison/
- Washington G. General Orders, 7 August 1782 in: Papers of George Washington. Founders Online. August 7, 1782. Accessed July 24, 2025. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/99-01-02-09056 5. Simpson LK. The men who impersonate military personnel for stolen glory. The Conversation. Updated November 17, 2016. Accessed July 24, 2025. https://theconversation.com/the-men-who-impersonate-military-personnel-for-stolen-glory-62233
- Larter DB. New questions cast doubt on ‘American Sniper‘ Chris Kyle‘s combat record. Navy Times. May 25, 2016. Accessed July 24, 2025. https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2016/05/25/new-questions-cast-doubt-on-american-sniper-chris-kyle-s-combat-record
- Gehring VV. Phonies, fakes, and frauds—and the social harms they cause. Philos Public Policy Q. 2003;23:14-20.
- Liem, E. The 6 most shocking military imposters ever. Military.com. July 7, 2015. Accessed July 29, 2025. https://www.military.com/undertheradar/2015/07/the-6-most-shocking-military-impostors-ever 9. Sisk R. Some vets with PTSD are scamming the VA: testimony. Military.com. June 8, 2017. Accessed July 24, 2025. https://www.military.com/daily-news/2017/06/08/some-vets-with-ptsd-are-scamming-va-testimony.html
- Bushatz A. How to spot a veteran. Military.com. October 3, 2022. Updated September 16, 2024. Accessed July 24, 2025. https://www.military.com/veterans-day/how-spot-veteran.html
- Monroe R. How to spot a military imposter. The New Yorker. October 19, 2020. Accessed July 24, 2025. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/10/26/how-to-spot-a-military-impostor
Military Imposters: What Drives Them and How They Damage Us All
Military Imposters: What Drives Them and How They Damage Us All
These Two Simple Interventions May Cut Colorectal Cancer Recurrence Risk
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
New guidelines have lowered the age to begin screening for colon cancer to 45 years old. Although this change is positive, we’re still seeing advanced cancer in younger patients who haven’t been screened in time.
Once diagnosed, these patients undergo surgery and chemotherapy and often return to us asking, “What can I do now to help myself?”
Two recent studies highlight interventions that are simple, affordable, and actionable today: exercise and aspirin. Let’s take a closer look at the results.
Exercise’s Risk Reduction Potential
The idea that exercise reduces cancer recurrence and mortality is supported by observational data. The mechanistic effects behind this have been ascribed to metabolic growth factors, inflammatory changes, immune function changes, and perhaps even positive impact on sleep.
A study just published in The New England Journal of Medicine examined structured exercise after adjuvant chemotherapy for colon cancer. The phase 3 randomized CHALLENGE trial, mostly conducted at Canadian and Australian centers, recruited patients with resected stage II or III colon cancer (9.8% and 90.2%, respectively) who had completed adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients with recurrences within a year of diagnosis were excluded, as they were more likely to have highly aggressive, biologically active disease.
Patients were randomized to receive healthcare education materials alone or in conjunction with a structured exercise program over a 3-year follow-up period.
The exercise intervention, delivered in person or virtually, focused on increasing recreational aerobic activity over baseline by at least 10 metabolic equivalent task (MET). An increment of 10 MET hours per week is not too vigorous. It is essentially the equivalent of adding about 45-60 minutes of brisk walking or 25-30 minutes of jogging 3-4 times a week.
Patients were asked to increase MET over the first 6 months and then maintain or further increase the amount over the next 2.5 years. They were permitted to structure their own exercise program by choosing the type, frequency, intensity, and duration of aerobic exercise.
The primary endpoint was disease-free survival, with secondary endpoints assessing overall survival, patient-reported outcomes, and other outcomes. Although designed to detect differences at 3 years, follow-up was also performed out to 5 and 8 years.
At a median follow-up of 7.9 years, exercise reduced the relative risk of disease recurrence, new primary cancer, or death by 28% (P = .02). This benefit persisted — and even strengthened — over time, with disease-free survival increasing by 6.4 and 7.1 percentage points at 5 and 8 years, respectively.
Musculoskeletal adverse events were slightly higher in the exercise group compared with the health education group (18.5% vs 11.5%, respectively), but only 10% were directly attributed to the exercise.
There are considerations when interpreting these results. First, there was an attrition over time for compliance and training. It would be interesting to see whether that impacted the results. Second, it’s unclear whether patient pedigree or a genomic pathway may predispose to a benefit here for the exercise group.
But overall, this phase 3 trial provides class 1 evidence supporting exercise as a low-cost, high-impact intervention to reduce cancer recurrence.
Adjuvant Aspirin in Colon Cancer Subset
That’s a perfect segue into another recent study looking at the effects of adjuvant aspirin on the prevention of recurrence.
The ALASCCA trial— conducted across centers in Sweden, Denmark, Finland, and Norway — assessed patients with stage I-III rectal cancer or stage II-III colon cancer. It focused on a subset of patients with an oncogenic abnormality called PIK3CA (phosphatidylinositol-4,5-bisphosphate 3-kinase catalytic subunit alpha).
PIK3CA occurs in approximately a third of colon cancers and is associated with significant chemotherapy resistance and a higher rate of disease progression.
Of the included patients, 1103 (37%) had alterations in the PIK3CA pathway. Researchers randomized patients to receive either 160 mg of aspirin or placebo daily for 3 years, starting within 3 months of surgery.
Among patients with PIK3CA mutations, aspirin dramatically reduced the risk for time to recurrence by nearly 50% at 3 years (P = .044). Adverse events associated with aspirin were minimal, including one case each of gastrointestinal bleeding, hematoma, and allergic reaction.
There is no evidence that higher aspirin doses provide greater prevention of colorectal cancer recurrence. The 160-mg use in the current study is fairly normal, roughly equivalent to two low-dose (81-mg) aspirin tablets.
Now, it’s worth noting that the use of aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease was initially recommended by the US Preventive Services Task Force in 2016. This recommendation was then recanted in 2022, when the same group reported limited net benefit to this approach.
Two Proactive Actions
These studies highlight 2 interventions — exercise and aspirin — that are low cost, accessible, and appeal to patients eager to help prevent their cancer from recurring.
Exercise is broadly beneficial and can be recommended immediately.
For aspirin, patients should work with their oncologist to determine their PIK3CA mutation status, as this subgroup appears to benefit the most.
These findings offer patients meaningful, proactive interventions they can apply to support their recovery and reduce the risk of recurrence. Hopefully these new findings will help guide your clinical conversations.
Johnson is a regular contributor to Medscape. He is professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, and a past president of the American College of Gastroenterology. His primary focus is the clinical practice of gastroenterology. He has published extensively in the internal medicine/gastroenterology literature, with principal research interests in esophageal and colon disease, and more recently in sleep and microbiome effects on gastrointestinal health and disease. He disclosed that he is an adviser for ISOThrive.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
New guidelines have lowered the age to begin screening for colon cancer to 45 years old. Although this change is positive, we’re still seeing advanced cancer in younger patients who haven’t been screened in time.
Once diagnosed, these patients undergo surgery and chemotherapy and often return to us asking, “What can I do now to help myself?”
Two recent studies highlight interventions that are simple, affordable, and actionable today: exercise and aspirin. Let’s take a closer look at the results.
Exercise’s Risk Reduction Potential
The idea that exercise reduces cancer recurrence and mortality is supported by observational data. The mechanistic effects behind this have been ascribed to metabolic growth factors, inflammatory changes, immune function changes, and perhaps even positive impact on sleep.
A study just published in The New England Journal of Medicine examined structured exercise after adjuvant chemotherapy for colon cancer. The phase 3 randomized CHALLENGE trial, mostly conducted at Canadian and Australian centers, recruited patients with resected stage II or III colon cancer (9.8% and 90.2%, respectively) who had completed adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients with recurrences within a year of diagnosis were excluded, as they were more likely to have highly aggressive, biologically active disease.
Patients were randomized to receive healthcare education materials alone or in conjunction with a structured exercise program over a 3-year follow-up period.
The exercise intervention, delivered in person or virtually, focused on increasing recreational aerobic activity over baseline by at least 10 metabolic equivalent task (MET). An increment of 10 MET hours per week is not too vigorous. It is essentially the equivalent of adding about 45-60 minutes of brisk walking or 25-30 minutes of jogging 3-4 times a week.
Patients were asked to increase MET over the first 6 months and then maintain or further increase the amount over the next 2.5 years. They were permitted to structure their own exercise program by choosing the type, frequency, intensity, and duration of aerobic exercise.
The primary endpoint was disease-free survival, with secondary endpoints assessing overall survival, patient-reported outcomes, and other outcomes. Although designed to detect differences at 3 years, follow-up was also performed out to 5 and 8 years.
At a median follow-up of 7.9 years, exercise reduced the relative risk of disease recurrence, new primary cancer, or death by 28% (P = .02). This benefit persisted — and even strengthened — over time, with disease-free survival increasing by 6.4 and 7.1 percentage points at 5 and 8 years, respectively.
Musculoskeletal adverse events were slightly higher in the exercise group compared with the health education group (18.5% vs 11.5%, respectively), but only 10% were directly attributed to the exercise.
There are considerations when interpreting these results. First, there was an attrition over time for compliance and training. It would be interesting to see whether that impacted the results. Second, it’s unclear whether patient pedigree or a genomic pathway may predispose to a benefit here for the exercise group.
But overall, this phase 3 trial provides class 1 evidence supporting exercise as a low-cost, high-impact intervention to reduce cancer recurrence.
Adjuvant Aspirin in Colon Cancer Subset
That’s a perfect segue into another recent study looking at the effects of adjuvant aspirin on the prevention of recurrence.
The ALASCCA trial— conducted across centers in Sweden, Denmark, Finland, and Norway — assessed patients with stage I-III rectal cancer or stage II-III colon cancer. It focused on a subset of patients with an oncogenic abnormality called PIK3CA (phosphatidylinositol-4,5-bisphosphate 3-kinase catalytic subunit alpha).
PIK3CA occurs in approximately a third of colon cancers and is associated with significant chemotherapy resistance and a higher rate of disease progression.
Of the included patients, 1103 (37%) had alterations in the PIK3CA pathway. Researchers randomized patients to receive either 160 mg of aspirin or placebo daily for 3 years, starting within 3 months of surgery.
Among patients with PIK3CA mutations, aspirin dramatically reduced the risk for time to recurrence by nearly 50% at 3 years (P = .044). Adverse events associated with aspirin were minimal, including one case each of gastrointestinal bleeding, hematoma, and allergic reaction.
There is no evidence that higher aspirin doses provide greater prevention of colorectal cancer recurrence. The 160-mg use in the current study is fairly normal, roughly equivalent to two low-dose (81-mg) aspirin tablets.
Now, it’s worth noting that the use of aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease was initially recommended by the US Preventive Services Task Force in 2016. This recommendation was then recanted in 2022, when the same group reported limited net benefit to this approach.
Two Proactive Actions
These studies highlight 2 interventions — exercise and aspirin — that are low cost, accessible, and appeal to patients eager to help prevent their cancer from recurring.
Exercise is broadly beneficial and can be recommended immediately.
For aspirin, patients should work with their oncologist to determine their PIK3CA mutation status, as this subgroup appears to benefit the most.
These findings offer patients meaningful, proactive interventions they can apply to support their recovery and reduce the risk of recurrence. Hopefully these new findings will help guide your clinical conversations.
Johnson is a regular contributor to Medscape. He is professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, and a past president of the American College of Gastroenterology. His primary focus is the clinical practice of gastroenterology. He has published extensively in the internal medicine/gastroenterology literature, with principal research interests in esophageal and colon disease, and more recently in sleep and microbiome effects on gastrointestinal health and disease. He disclosed that he is an adviser for ISOThrive.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
New guidelines have lowered the age to begin screening for colon cancer to 45 years old. Although this change is positive, we’re still seeing advanced cancer in younger patients who haven’t been screened in time.
Once diagnosed, these patients undergo surgery and chemotherapy and often return to us asking, “What can I do now to help myself?”
Two recent studies highlight interventions that are simple, affordable, and actionable today: exercise and aspirin. Let’s take a closer look at the results.
Exercise’s Risk Reduction Potential
The idea that exercise reduces cancer recurrence and mortality is supported by observational data. The mechanistic effects behind this have been ascribed to metabolic growth factors, inflammatory changes, immune function changes, and perhaps even positive impact on sleep.
A study just published in The New England Journal of Medicine examined structured exercise after adjuvant chemotherapy for colon cancer. The phase 3 randomized CHALLENGE trial, mostly conducted at Canadian and Australian centers, recruited patients with resected stage II or III colon cancer (9.8% and 90.2%, respectively) who had completed adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients with recurrences within a year of diagnosis were excluded, as they were more likely to have highly aggressive, biologically active disease.
Patients were randomized to receive healthcare education materials alone or in conjunction with a structured exercise program over a 3-year follow-up period.
The exercise intervention, delivered in person or virtually, focused on increasing recreational aerobic activity over baseline by at least 10 metabolic equivalent task (MET). An increment of 10 MET hours per week is not too vigorous. It is essentially the equivalent of adding about 45-60 minutes of brisk walking or 25-30 minutes of jogging 3-4 times a week.
Patients were asked to increase MET over the first 6 months and then maintain or further increase the amount over the next 2.5 years. They were permitted to structure their own exercise program by choosing the type, frequency, intensity, and duration of aerobic exercise.
The primary endpoint was disease-free survival, with secondary endpoints assessing overall survival, patient-reported outcomes, and other outcomes. Although designed to detect differences at 3 years, follow-up was also performed out to 5 and 8 years.
At a median follow-up of 7.9 years, exercise reduced the relative risk of disease recurrence, new primary cancer, or death by 28% (P = .02). This benefit persisted — and even strengthened — over time, with disease-free survival increasing by 6.4 and 7.1 percentage points at 5 and 8 years, respectively.
Musculoskeletal adverse events were slightly higher in the exercise group compared with the health education group (18.5% vs 11.5%, respectively), but only 10% were directly attributed to the exercise.
There are considerations when interpreting these results. First, there was an attrition over time for compliance and training. It would be interesting to see whether that impacted the results. Second, it’s unclear whether patient pedigree or a genomic pathway may predispose to a benefit here for the exercise group.
But overall, this phase 3 trial provides class 1 evidence supporting exercise as a low-cost, high-impact intervention to reduce cancer recurrence.
Adjuvant Aspirin in Colon Cancer Subset
That’s a perfect segue into another recent study looking at the effects of adjuvant aspirin on the prevention of recurrence.
The ALASCCA trial— conducted across centers in Sweden, Denmark, Finland, and Norway — assessed patients with stage I-III rectal cancer or stage II-III colon cancer. It focused on a subset of patients with an oncogenic abnormality called PIK3CA (phosphatidylinositol-4,5-bisphosphate 3-kinase catalytic subunit alpha).
PIK3CA occurs in approximately a third of colon cancers and is associated with significant chemotherapy resistance and a higher rate of disease progression.
Of the included patients, 1103 (37%) had alterations in the PIK3CA pathway. Researchers randomized patients to receive either 160 mg of aspirin or placebo daily for 3 years, starting within 3 months of surgery.
Among patients with PIK3CA mutations, aspirin dramatically reduced the risk for time to recurrence by nearly 50% at 3 years (P = .044). Adverse events associated with aspirin were minimal, including one case each of gastrointestinal bleeding, hematoma, and allergic reaction.
There is no evidence that higher aspirin doses provide greater prevention of colorectal cancer recurrence. The 160-mg use in the current study is fairly normal, roughly equivalent to two low-dose (81-mg) aspirin tablets.
Now, it’s worth noting that the use of aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease was initially recommended by the US Preventive Services Task Force in 2016. This recommendation was then recanted in 2022, when the same group reported limited net benefit to this approach.
Two Proactive Actions
These studies highlight 2 interventions — exercise and aspirin — that are low cost, accessible, and appeal to patients eager to help prevent their cancer from recurring.
Exercise is broadly beneficial and can be recommended immediately.
For aspirin, patients should work with their oncologist to determine their PIK3CA mutation status, as this subgroup appears to benefit the most.
These findings offer patients meaningful, proactive interventions they can apply to support their recovery and reduce the risk of recurrence. Hopefully these new findings will help guide your clinical conversations.
Johnson is a regular contributor to Medscape. He is professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, and a past president of the American College of Gastroenterology. His primary focus is the clinical practice of gastroenterology. He has published extensively in the internal medicine/gastroenterology literature, with principal research interests in esophageal and colon disease, and more recently in sleep and microbiome effects on gastrointestinal health and disease. He disclosed that he is an adviser for ISOThrive.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Endometrial Cancer: 5 Things to Know
Endometrial cancer is a common type of gynecologic cancer, and its incidence is rising steadily in the United States and globally. Most cases are endometrioid adenocarcinomas, arising from the inner lining of the uterus — the endometrium. While many patients are diagnosed early because of noticeable symptoms like abnormal bleeding, trends in both incidence and mortality are concerning, especially given the persistent racial and socioeconomic disparities in outcomes.
In addition to being the most common uterine malignancy, endometrial cancer is at the forefront of precision oncology in gynecology. The traditional classification systems based on histology and hormone dependence are now being augmented by molecular subtyping that better informs prognosis and treatment. As diagnostic tools, genetic testing, and therapeutic strategies advance, the management of endometrial cancer is becoming increasingly personalized.
Here are five things to know about endometrial cancer:
1. Endometrial cancer is one of the few cancers with increasing mortality.
Endometrial cancer accounts for the majority of uterine cancers in the United States with an overall lifetime risk for women of about 1 in 40. Since the mid-2000s, incidence rates have risen steadily, by > 1% per year, reflecting both lifestyle and environmental factors. Importantly, the disease tends to be diagnosed at an early stage due to the presence of warning signs like postmenopausal bleeding, which contributes to relatively favorable survival outcomes when caught early.
However, mortality trends continue to evolve. From 1999 to 2013, death rates from endometrial cancer in the US declined slightly, but since 2013, they have increased sharply — by > 8% annually — according to recent data. This upward trend in mortality disproportionately affects non-Hispanic Black women, who experience the highest mortality rate (4.7 per 100,000) among all racial and ethnic groups. This disparity is likely caused by a complex interplay of factors, including delays in diagnosis, more aggressive tumor biology, and inequities in access to care. Addressing these disparities remains a key priority in improving outcomes.
2. Risk factors go beyond hormones and age.
Risk factors for endometrial cancer include prolonged exposure to unopposed estrogen, which can result from estrogen-only hormone replacement therapy, higher BMI, and early menarche or late menopause. Nulliparity (having never been pregnant) and older age also increase risk, as does tamoxifen use — a medication commonly prescribed for breast cancer prevention. These factors cumulatively increase endometrial proliferation and the potential for atypical cellular changes. Endometrial hyperplasia, a known precursor to cancer, is often linked to these hormonal imbalances and may require surveillance or treatment.
Beyond estrogen’s influence, a growing body of research is uncovering additional risk contributors. Women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), metabolic syndrome, or diabetes face elevated risk of developing endometrial cancer. Genetic syndromes, particularly Lynch and Cowden syndromes, are associated with significantly increased lifetime risks of endometrial cancer. Environmental exposures, such as the use of hair relaxers, are being investigated as emerging risk factors. Additionally, race remains a risk marker, with Black women not only experiencing higher mortality but also more aggressive subtypes of the disease. These complex, overlapping risks highlight the importance of individualized risk assessment and early intervention strategies.
3. Postmenopausal bleeding is the hallmark symptom — but not the only one.
In endometrial cancer, the majority of cases are diagnosed at an early stage, largely because of the hallmark symptom of postmenopausal bleeding. In addition to bleeding, patients may present with vaginal discharge, pyometra, and even pain and abdominal distension in advanced disease. Any bleeding in a postmenopausal woman should prompt evaluation, as it may signal endometrial hyperplasia or carcinoma. In premenopausal women, irregular or heavy menstrual bleeding may raise suspicion, particularly when accompanied by risk factors such as PCOS.
The diagnostic workup for suspected endometrial cancer in women, particularly those presenting with postmenopausal bleeding, begins with a focused clinical assessment and frequently includes transvaginal ultrasound (TVUS) to evaluate the endometrium. While TVUS can aid in identifying structural abnormalities or suggest malignancy, endometrial sampling is warranted in all postmenopausal women with abnormal bleeding, regardless of endometrial thickness. Office-based biopsy is the preferred initial approach due to its convenience and diagnostic yield; however, if the sample is nondiagnostic or technically difficult to obtain, hysteroscopy with directed biopsy or dilation and curettage should be pursued.
4. Classification systems are evolving to include molecular subtypes.
Historically, endometrial cancers were classified using the World Health Organization system based on histology and by hormone dependence: Type 1 (estrogen-dependent, typically endometrioid and low grade) and Type 2 (non-estrogen dependent, often serous and high grade). Type 1 cancers tend to have a better prognosis and slower progression, while Type 2 cancers are more aggressive and require intensive treatment. While helpful, this binary classification does not fully capture the biological diversity or treatment responsiveness of the disease.
The field is now moving toward molecular classification, which offers a more nuanced understanding. The four main molecular subtypes include: polymerase epsilon (POLE)-mutant, mismatch repair (MMR)-deficient, p53-abnormal, and no specific molecular profile (NSMP). These groups differ in prognosis and therapeutic implications. POLE-mutant tumors with extremely high mutational burdens generally have excellent outcomes and may not require aggressive adjuvant therapy. In contrast, p53-abnormal tumors are associated with chromosomal instability, TP53 mutations, and poor outcomes, necessitating more aggressive multimodal treatment. MMR-deficient tumors are particularly responsive to immunotherapy. These molecular distinctions are changing how clinicians approach risk stratification and management in patients with endometrial cancer.
5. Treatment is increasingly personalized — and immunotherapy is expanding.
The cornerstone of treatment for early-stage endometrial cancer is surgical: total hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, often with sentinel node mapping or lymphadenectomy. Adjuvant therapy depends on factors such as stage, grade, histology, and molecular subtype. Fertility-sparing management with progestin therapy is an option for highly selected patients with early-stage, low-grade tumors. Clinical guidelines recommend that fertility desires be addressed prior to initiating treatment, as standard surgical management typically results in loss of reproductive capacity.
For advanced or recurrent disease, treatment becomes more complex and increasingly individualized. Chemotherapy, often with carboplatin and paclitaxel, is standard for stage III/IV and recurrent disease. Molecular findings now guide additional therapy: For instance, MMR-deficient tumors may respond to checkpoint inhibitors. As targeted agents and combination regimens continue to emerge, treatment of endometrial is increasingly focused on precision medicine.
Markman is professor of medical oncology and therapeutics research and President of Medicine & Science at City of Hope in Atlanta and Chicago. He has disclosed relevant financial relationships with AstraZeneca, GSK and Myriad.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Endometrial cancer is a common type of gynecologic cancer, and its incidence is rising steadily in the United States and globally. Most cases are endometrioid adenocarcinomas, arising from the inner lining of the uterus — the endometrium. While many patients are diagnosed early because of noticeable symptoms like abnormal bleeding, trends in both incidence and mortality are concerning, especially given the persistent racial and socioeconomic disparities in outcomes.
In addition to being the most common uterine malignancy, endometrial cancer is at the forefront of precision oncology in gynecology. The traditional classification systems based on histology and hormone dependence are now being augmented by molecular subtyping that better informs prognosis and treatment. As diagnostic tools, genetic testing, and therapeutic strategies advance, the management of endometrial cancer is becoming increasingly personalized.
Here are five things to know about endometrial cancer:
1. Endometrial cancer is one of the few cancers with increasing mortality.
Endometrial cancer accounts for the majority of uterine cancers in the United States with an overall lifetime risk for women of about 1 in 40. Since the mid-2000s, incidence rates have risen steadily, by > 1% per year, reflecting both lifestyle and environmental factors. Importantly, the disease tends to be diagnosed at an early stage due to the presence of warning signs like postmenopausal bleeding, which contributes to relatively favorable survival outcomes when caught early.
However, mortality trends continue to evolve. From 1999 to 2013, death rates from endometrial cancer in the US declined slightly, but since 2013, they have increased sharply — by > 8% annually — according to recent data. This upward trend in mortality disproportionately affects non-Hispanic Black women, who experience the highest mortality rate (4.7 per 100,000) among all racial and ethnic groups. This disparity is likely caused by a complex interplay of factors, including delays in diagnosis, more aggressive tumor biology, and inequities in access to care. Addressing these disparities remains a key priority in improving outcomes.
2. Risk factors go beyond hormones and age.
Risk factors for endometrial cancer include prolonged exposure to unopposed estrogen, which can result from estrogen-only hormone replacement therapy, higher BMI, and early menarche or late menopause. Nulliparity (having never been pregnant) and older age also increase risk, as does tamoxifen use — a medication commonly prescribed for breast cancer prevention. These factors cumulatively increase endometrial proliferation and the potential for atypical cellular changes. Endometrial hyperplasia, a known precursor to cancer, is often linked to these hormonal imbalances and may require surveillance or treatment.
Beyond estrogen’s influence, a growing body of research is uncovering additional risk contributors. Women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), metabolic syndrome, or diabetes face elevated risk of developing endometrial cancer. Genetic syndromes, particularly Lynch and Cowden syndromes, are associated with significantly increased lifetime risks of endometrial cancer. Environmental exposures, such as the use of hair relaxers, are being investigated as emerging risk factors. Additionally, race remains a risk marker, with Black women not only experiencing higher mortality but also more aggressive subtypes of the disease. These complex, overlapping risks highlight the importance of individualized risk assessment and early intervention strategies.
3. Postmenopausal bleeding is the hallmark symptom — but not the only one.
In endometrial cancer, the majority of cases are diagnosed at an early stage, largely because of the hallmark symptom of postmenopausal bleeding. In addition to bleeding, patients may present with vaginal discharge, pyometra, and even pain and abdominal distension in advanced disease. Any bleeding in a postmenopausal woman should prompt evaluation, as it may signal endometrial hyperplasia or carcinoma. In premenopausal women, irregular or heavy menstrual bleeding may raise suspicion, particularly when accompanied by risk factors such as PCOS.
The diagnostic workup for suspected endometrial cancer in women, particularly those presenting with postmenopausal bleeding, begins with a focused clinical assessment and frequently includes transvaginal ultrasound (TVUS) to evaluate the endometrium. While TVUS can aid in identifying structural abnormalities or suggest malignancy, endometrial sampling is warranted in all postmenopausal women with abnormal bleeding, regardless of endometrial thickness. Office-based biopsy is the preferred initial approach due to its convenience and diagnostic yield; however, if the sample is nondiagnostic or technically difficult to obtain, hysteroscopy with directed biopsy or dilation and curettage should be pursued.
4. Classification systems are evolving to include molecular subtypes.
Historically, endometrial cancers were classified using the World Health Organization system based on histology and by hormone dependence: Type 1 (estrogen-dependent, typically endometrioid and low grade) and Type 2 (non-estrogen dependent, often serous and high grade). Type 1 cancers tend to have a better prognosis and slower progression, while Type 2 cancers are more aggressive and require intensive treatment. While helpful, this binary classification does not fully capture the biological diversity or treatment responsiveness of the disease.
The field is now moving toward molecular classification, which offers a more nuanced understanding. The four main molecular subtypes include: polymerase epsilon (POLE)-mutant, mismatch repair (MMR)-deficient, p53-abnormal, and no specific molecular profile (NSMP). These groups differ in prognosis and therapeutic implications. POLE-mutant tumors with extremely high mutational burdens generally have excellent outcomes and may not require aggressive adjuvant therapy. In contrast, p53-abnormal tumors are associated with chromosomal instability, TP53 mutations, and poor outcomes, necessitating more aggressive multimodal treatment. MMR-deficient tumors are particularly responsive to immunotherapy. These molecular distinctions are changing how clinicians approach risk stratification and management in patients with endometrial cancer.
5. Treatment is increasingly personalized — and immunotherapy is expanding.
The cornerstone of treatment for early-stage endometrial cancer is surgical: total hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, often with sentinel node mapping or lymphadenectomy. Adjuvant therapy depends on factors such as stage, grade, histology, and molecular subtype. Fertility-sparing management with progestin therapy is an option for highly selected patients with early-stage, low-grade tumors. Clinical guidelines recommend that fertility desires be addressed prior to initiating treatment, as standard surgical management typically results in loss of reproductive capacity.
For advanced or recurrent disease, treatment becomes more complex and increasingly individualized. Chemotherapy, often with carboplatin and paclitaxel, is standard for stage III/IV and recurrent disease. Molecular findings now guide additional therapy: For instance, MMR-deficient tumors may respond to checkpoint inhibitors. As targeted agents and combination regimens continue to emerge, treatment of endometrial is increasingly focused on precision medicine.
Markman is professor of medical oncology and therapeutics research and President of Medicine & Science at City of Hope in Atlanta and Chicago. He has disclosed relevant financial relationships with AstraZeneca, GSK and Myriad.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Endometrial cancer is a common type of gynecologic cancer, and its incidence is rising steadily in the United States and globally. Most cases are endometrioid adenocarcinomas, arising from the inner lining of the uterus — the endometrium. While many patients are diagnosed early because of noticeable symptoms like abnormal bleeding, trends in both incidence and mortality are concerning, especially given the persistent racial and socioeconomic disparities in outcomes.
In addition to being the most common uterine malignancy, endometrial cancer is at the forefront of precision oncology in gynecology. The traditional classification systems based on histology and hormone dependence are now being augmented by molecular subtyping that better informs prognosis and treatment. As diagnostic tools, genetic testing, and therapeutic strategies advance, the management of endometrial cancer is becoming increasingly personalized.
Here are five things to know about endometrial cancer:
1. Endometrial cancer is one of the few cancers with increasing mortality.
Endometrial cancer accounts for the majority of uterine cancers in the United States with an overall lifetime risk for women of about 1 in 40. Since the mid-2000s, incidence rates have risen steadily, by > 1% per year, reflecting both lifestyle and environmental factors. Importantly, the disease tends to be diagnosed at an early stage due to the presence of warning signs like postmenopausal bleeding, which contributes to relatively favorable survival outcomes when caught early.
However, mortality trends continue to evolve. From 1999 to 2013, death rates from endometrial cancer in the US declined slightly, but since 2013, they have increased sharply — by > 8% annually — according to recent data. This upward trend in mortality disproportionately affects non-Hispanic Black women, who experience the highest mortality rate (4.7 per 100,000) among all racial and ethnic groups. This disparity is likely caused by a complex interplay of factors, including delays in diagnosis, more aggressive tumor biology, and inequities in access to care. Addressing these disparities remains a key priority in improving outcomes.
2. Risk factors go beyond hormones and age.
Risk factors for endometrial cancer include prolonged exposure to unopposed estrogen, which can result from estrogen-only hormone replacement therapy, higher BMI, and early menarche or late menopause. Nulliparity (having never been pregnant) and older age also increase risk, as does tamoxifen use — a medication commonly prescribed for breast cancer prevention. These factors cumulatively increase endometrial proliferation and the potential for atypical cellular changes. Endometrial hyperplasia, a known precursor to cancer, is often linked to these hormonal imbalances and may require surveillance or treatment.
Beyond estrogen’s influence, a growing body of research is uncovering additional risk contributors. Women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), metabolic syndrome, or diabetes face elevated risk of developing endometrial cancer. Genetic syndromes, particularly Lynch and Cowden syndromes, are associated with significantly increased lifetime risks of endometrial cancer. Environmental exposures, such as the use of hair relaxers, are being investigated as emerging risk factors. Additionally, race remains a risk marker, with Black women not only experiencing higher mortality but also more aggressive subtypes of the disease. These complex, overlapping risks highlight the importance of individualized risk assessment and early intervention strategies.
3. Postmenopausal bleeding is the hallmark symptom — but not the only one.
In endometrial cancer, the majority of cases are diagnosed at an early stage, largely because of the hallmark symptom of postmenopausal bleeding. In addition to bleeding, patients may present with vaginal discharge, pyometra, and even pain and abdominal distension in advanced disease. Any bleeding in a postmenopausal woman should prompt evaluation, as it may signal endometrial hyperplasia or carcinoma. In premenopausal women, irregular or heavy menstrual bleeding may raise suspicion, particularly when accompanied by risk factors such as PCOS.
The diagnostic workup for suspected endometrial cancer in women, particularly those presenting with postmenopausal bleeding, begins with a focused clinical assessment and frequently includes transvaginal ultrasound (TVUS) to evaluate the endometrium. While TVUS can aid in identifying structural abnormalities or suggest malignancy, endometrial sampling is warranted in all postmenopausal women with abnormal bleeding, regardless of endometrial thickness. Office-based biopsy is the preferred initial approach due to its convenience and diagnostic yield; however, if the sample is nondiagnostic or technically difficult to obtain, hysteroscopy with directed biopsy or dilation and curettage should be pursued.
4. Classification systems are evolving to include molecular subtypes.
Historically, endometrial cancers were classified using the World Health Organization system based on histology and by hormone dependence: Type 1 (estrogen-dependent, typically endometrioid and low grade) and Type 2 (non-estrogen dependent, often serous and high grade). Type 1 cancers tend to have a better prognosis and slower progression, while Type 2 cancers are more aggressive and require intensive treatment. While helpful, this binary classification does not fully capture the biological diversity or treatment responsiveness of the disease.
The field is now moving toward molecular classification, which offers a more nuanced understanding. The four main molecular subtypes include: polymerase epsilon (POLE)-mutant, mismatch repair (MMR)-deficient, p53-abnormal, and no specific molecular profile (NSMP). These groups differ in prognosis and therapeutic implications. POLE-mutant tumors with extremely high mutational burdens generally have excellent outcomes and may not require aggressive adjuvant therapy. In contrast, p53-abnormal tumors are associated with chromosomal instability, TP53 mutations, and poor outcomes, necessitating more aggressive multimodal treatment. MMR-deficient tumors are particularly responsive to immunotherapy. These molecular distinctions are changing how clinicians approach risk stratification and management in patients with endometrial cancer.
5. Treatment is increasingly personalized — and immunotherapy is expanding.
The cornerstone of treatment for early-stage endometrial cancer is surgical: total hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, often with sentinel node mapping or lymphadenectomy. Adjuvant therapy depends on factors such as stage, grade, histology, and molecular subtype. Fertility-sparing management with progestin therapy is an option for highly selected patients with early-stage, low-grade tumors. Clinical guidelines recommend that fertility desires be addressed prior to initiating treatment, as standard surgical management typically results in loss of reproductive capacity.
For advanced or recurrent disease, treatment becomes more complex and increasingly individualized. Chemotherapy, often with carboplatin and paclitaxel, is standard for stage III/IV and recurrent disease. Molecular findings now guide additional therapy: For instance, MMR-deficient tumors may respond to checkpoint inhibitors. As targeted agents and combination regimens continue to emerge, treatment of endometrial is increasingly focused on precision medicine.
Markman is professor of medical oncology and therapeutics research and President of Medicine & Science at City of Hope in Atlanta and Chicago. He has disclosed relevant financial relationships with AstraZeneca, GSK and Myriad.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.