David J. Kerr, CBE, MD, DSc

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hello. I’m David Kerr, professor of cancer medicine from University of Oxford. I’d like to talk today about how we communicate with patients.

This is current on my mind because on Friday after clinic, I popped around to see a couple of patients who were in our local hospice. They were there for end-of-life care, being wonderfully well looked after. These were patients I have looked after for 3, 4, or 5 years, patients whom I cared for, and patients of whom I was fond. I think that relationship was reciprocated by them.

I found myself in the hospice, standing at the patients’ bedside, towering above them, effectively saying goodbye. The dynamics of that setting just made me think about how odd it seemed. We know that any effective communication between patients and doctors is absolutely critical and fundamental to the delivery of patient-centered care. It’s really hard to measure and challenging to attain in the dynamic, often noisy environment of a busy ward or even in the relative peace and quiet of a hospice.

We know that specific behavior by doctors can make a real difference to how they’re perceived by the patient, including their communicative skills and so on. I’ve been a doctor for more than 40 years, but sophisticated communicator though I think I am, there I was, standing by the bedside. It’s really interesting and odd, actually, when you stop and think about it.

There’s an increasing body of evidence that suggests that if the physician sits at the patient’s bedside, establishes better, more direct eye-to-eye contact and so on, then the quality of communication and patient satisfaction is improved.

I picked up on a recent study published just a few days ago in The BMJ; the title of the study is “Effect of Chair Placement on Physicians’ Behavior and Patients’ Satisfaction: Randomized Deception Trial.”

It was done in a single center and there were 125 separate physician interactions. In half of them, the chair in the patient’s room was in its conventional place back against the wall, round a corner, not particularly accessible. The randomization, or the active intervention, if you like, was to have a chair placed less than 3 feet from the patient’s bed and at the patient’s eye level.

What was really interesting was that of these randomized interventions in the setting in which the chair placement was close to the patient’s bed — it was accessible, less than 3 feet — 38 of the 60 physicians sat down in the chair and engaged with the patient from that level.

In the other setting, in which the chair wasn’t immediately adjacent to the bedside (it was back against the wall, out of the way), only in 5 of 60 did the physician retrieve the chair and move it to the right position. Otherwise, they stood and talked to the patient in that way.

The patient satisfaction scores that were measured using a conventional tool were much better for those seated physicians rather than those who stood and towered above.

This is an interesting study with statistically significant findings. It didn’t mean that the physicians who sat spent more time with the patient. It was the same in both settings, at about 10 or 11 minutes. It didn’t alter the physician’s perception of how long they spent with the patient — they guessed it was about 10 minutes, equally on both sides — or indeed the patient’s interpretation of how long the physician stayed.

It wasn’t a temporal thing but just the quality of communication. The patient satisfaction was much better, just simply by sitting at the patient’s bedside and engaging with them. It’s a tiny thing to do that made for a significant qualitative improvement. I’ve learned that lesson. No more towering above. No more standing at the bottom of the patient’s bedside, as I was taught and as I’ve always done.

I’m going to nudge my behavior. I’m going to use the psychology of that small study to nudge myself, the junior doctors that I train, and perhaps even my consultant colleagues, to do the same. It’s a small but effective step forward in improving patient-centered communication.

I’d be delighted to see what you think. How many of you stand? Being old-school, I would have thought that that’s most of us. How many of you make the effort to drag the chair over to sit at the patient’s bedside and to engage more fully? I’d be really interested in any comments that you’ve got.

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

Dr. Kerr disclosed the following relevant financial relationships Served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Celleron Therapeutics and Oxford Cancer Biomarkers (board of directors); Afrox (charity; trustee); and GlaxoSmithKline and Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals (consultant). Serve(d) as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for Genomic Health and Merck Serono. Received research grant from Roche. Has a 5% or greater equity interest in Celleron Therapeutics and Oxford Cancer Biomarkers.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hello. I’m David Kerr, professor of cancer medicine from University of Oxford. I’d like to talk today about how we communicate with patients.

This is current on my mind because on Friday after clinic, I popped around to see a couple of patients who were in our local hospice. They were there for end-of-life care, being wonderfully well looked after. These were patients I have looked after for 3, 4, or 5 years, patients whom I cared for, and patients of whom I was fond. I think that relationship was reciprocated by them.

I found myself in the hospice, standing at the patients’ bedside, towering above them, effectively saying goodbye. The dynamics of that setting just made me think about how odd it seemed. We know that any effective communication between patients and doctors is absolutely critical and fundamental to the delivery of patient-centered care. It’s really hard to measure and challenging to attain in the dynamic, often noisy environment of a busy ward or even in the relative peace and quiet of a hospice.

We know that specific behavior by doctors can make a real difference to how they’re perceived by the patient, including their communicative skills and so on. I’ve been a doctor for more than 40 years, but sophisticated communicator though I think I am, there I was, standing by the bedside. It’s really interesting and odd, actually, when you stop and think about it.

There’s an increasing body of evidence that suggests that if the physician sits at the patient’s bedside, establishes better, more direct eye-to-eye contact and so on, then the quality of communication and patient satisfaction is improved.

I picked up on a recent study published just a few days ago in The BMJ; the title of the study is “Effect of Chair Placement on Physicians’ Behavior and Patients’ Satisfaction: Randomized Deception Trial.”

It was done in a single center and there were 125 separate physician interactions. In half of them, the chair in the patient’s room was in its conventional place back against the wall, round a corner, not particularly accessible. The randomization, or the active intervention, if you like, was to have a chair placed less than 3 feet from the patient’s bed and at the patient’s eye level.

What was really interesting was that of these randomized interventions in the setting in which the chair placement was close to the patient’s bed — it was accessible, less than 3 feet — 38 of the 60 physicians sat down in the chair and engaged with the patient from that level.

In the other setting, in which the chair wasn’t immediately adjacent to the bedside (it was back against the wall, out of the way), only in 5 of 60 did the physician retrieve the chair and move it to the right position. Otherwise, they stood and talked to the patient in that way.

The patient satisfaction scores that were measured using a conventional tool were much better for those seated physicians rather than those who stood and towered above.

This is an interesting study with statistically significant findings. It didn’t mean that the physicians who sat spent more time with the patient. It was the same in both settings, at about 10 or 11 minutes. It didn’t alter the physician’s perception of how long they spent with the patient — they guessed it was about 10 minutes, equally on both sides — or indeed the patient’s interpretation of how long the physician stayed.

It wasn’t a temporal thing but just the quality of communication. The patient satisfaction was much better, just simply by sitting at the patient’s bedside and engaging with them. It’s a tiny thing to do that made for a significant qualitative improvement. I’ve learned that lesson. No more towering above. No more standing at the bottom of the patient’s bedside, as I was taught and as I’ve always done.

I’m going to nudge my behavior. I’m going to use the psychology of that small study to nudge myself, the junior doctors that I train, and perhaps even my consultant colleagues, to do the same. It’s a small but effective step forward in improving patient-centered communication.

I’d be delighted to see what you think. How many of you stand? Being old-school, I would have thought that that’s most of us. How many of you make the effort to drag the chair over to sit at the patient’s bedside and to engage more fully? I’d be really interested in any comments that you’ve got.

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

Dr. Kerr disclosed the following relevant financial relationships Served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Celleron Therapeutics and Oxford Cancer Biomarkers (board of directors); Afrox (charity; trustee); and GlaxoSmithKline and Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals (consultant). Serve(d) as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for Genomic Health and Merck Serono. Received research grant from Roche. Has a 5% or greater equity interest in Celleron Therapeutics and Oxford Cancer Biomarkers.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hello. I’m David Kerr, professor of cancer medicine from University of Oxford. I’d like to talk today about how we communicate with patients.

This is current on my mind because on Friday after clinic, I popped around to see a couple of patients who were in our local hospice. They were there for end-of-life care, being wonderfully well looked after. These were patients I have looked after for 3, 4, or 5 years, patients whom I cared for, and patients of whom I was fond. I think that relationship was reciprocated by them.

I found myself in the hospice, standing at the patients’ bedside, towering above them, effectively saying goodbye. The dynamics of that setting just made me think about how odd it seemed. We know that any effective communication between patients and doctors is absolutely critical and fundamental to the delivery of patient-centered care. It’s really hard to measure and challenging to attain in the dynamic, often noisy environment of a busy ward or even in the relative peace and quiet of a hospice.

We know that specific behavior by doctors can make a real difference to how they’re perceived by the patient, including their communicative skills and so on. I’ve been a doctor for more than 40 years, but sophisticated communicator though I think I am, there I was, standing by the bedside. It’s really interesting and odd, actually, when you stop and think about it.

There’s an increasing body of evidence that suggests that if the physician sits at the patient’s bedside, establishes better, more direct eye-to-eye contact and so on, then the quality of communication and patient satisfaction is improved.

I picked up on a recent study published just a few days ago in The BMJ; the title of the study is “Effect of Chair Placement on Physicians’ Behavior and Patients’ Satisfaction: Randomized Deception Trial.”

It was done in a single center and there were 125 separate physician interactions. In half of them, the chair in the patient’s room was in its conventional place back against the wall, round a corner, not particularly accessible. The randomization, or the active intervention, if you like, was to have a chair placed less than 3 feet from the patient’s bed and at the patient’s eye level.

What was really interesting was that of these randomized interventions in the setting in which the chair placement was close to the patient’s bed — it was accessible, less than 3 feet — 38 of the 60 physicians sat down in the chair and engaged with the patient from that level.

In the other setting, in which the chair wasn’t immediately adjacent to the bedside (it was back against the wall, out of the way), only in 5 of 60 did the physician retrieve the chair and move it to the right position. Otherwise, they stood and talked to the patient in that way.

The patient satisfaction scores that were measured using a conventional tool were much better for those seated physicians rather than those who stood and towered above.

This is an interesting study with statistically significant findings. It didn’t mean that the physicians who sat spent more time with the patient. It was the same in both settings, at about 10 or 11 minutes. It didn’t alter the physician’s perception of how long they spent with the patient — they guessed it was about 10 minutes, equally on both sides — or indeed the patient’s interpretation of how long the physician stayed.

It wasn’t a temporal thing but just the quality of communication. The patient satisfaction was much better, just simply by sitting at the patient’s bedside and engaging with them. It’s a tiny thing to do that made for a significant qualitative improvement. I’ve learned that lesson. No more towering above. No more standing at the bottom of the patient’s bedside, as I was taught and as I’ve always done.

I’m going to nudge my behavior. I’m going to use the psychology of that small study to nudge myself, the junior doctors that I train, and perhaps even my consultant colleagues, to do the same. It’s a small but effective step forward in improving patient-centered communication.

I’d be delighted to see what you think. How many of you stand? Being old-school, I would have thought that that’s most of us. How many of you make the effort to drag the chair over to sit at the patient’s bedside and to engage more fully? I’d be really interested in any comments that you’ve got.

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

Dr. Kerr disclosed the following relevant financial relationships Served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Celleron Therapeutics and Oxford Cancer Biomarkers (board of directors); Afrox (charity; trustee); and GlaxoSmithKline and Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals (consultant). Serve(d) as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for Genomic Health and Merck Serono. Received research grant from Roche. Has a 5% or greater equity interest in Celleron Therapeutics and Oxford Cancer Biomarkers.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

One of my abiding interests, part of my daily routine as a cancer physician, is considering whether we should or should not recommend adjuvant therapy for patients who have just had potentially curative resection of their colorectal cancer.

Our group, the QUASAR Group, made a very significant contribution in terms of trials and knowledge in this field. One of the things that we still need to discuss and think about in our wider community is the impact of adjuvant chemotherapy in older patients.

Colorectal cancer is a disease of the elderly, with the median age of presentation around 72. We know that, at presentation, more than 50% of patients are aged 65 or over and one third of patients are 75 or over. It’s a disease predominantly of the elderly. Are we justified in giving combination chemotherapy with oxaliplatin to high-risk resected colorectal cancer patients?

There’s a very nice report of a meta-analysis by Dottorini and colleagues that came out recently in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. It’s an excellent group. They did their meta-analytical work according to a strict, rational protocol. Their statistical analyses were on point, and they collected data from all the relevant trials.

According to the results of their study, it could be concluded that the addition of oxaliplatin to adjuvant therapy for resected high-risk colorectal cancer in older patients — patients older than 70 — doesn’t result in any statistically significant gain in terms of preventing recurrences or saving lives.

When we did our QUASAR trials, initially we were looking at control vs fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy. Although there was an overall impact on survival of the whole trial group (the 5000 patients in our study), when we looked by decile, there was a significant diminution of benefit even to fluoropyrimidine therapy in our trial in patients aged 70 or above. I think this careful meta-analysis must make us question the use of oxaliplatin in elderly patients.

What could the explanation be? Why could the well-known and described benefits of oxaliplatin, particularly for stage III disease, attenuate in older people? It may be to do with reduction in dose intensity. Older people have more side effects; therefore, the chemotherapy isn’t completed as planned. Although, increasingly these days, we tend only to be giving 3 months of treatment.

Is there something biologically in terms of the biology or the somatic mutational landscape of the tumor in older people? I don’t think so. Certainly, in terms of their capacity, in terms of stem cell reserve to be as resistant to the side effects of chemotherapy as younger people, we know that does attenuate with age.

Food for thought: The majority of patients I see in the clinic for the adjuvant treatment are elderly. The majority are coming these days with high-risk stage II or stage III disease. There is a real question mark about whether we should be using oxaliplatin at all.

Clearly, one would say that we need more trials of chemotherapy in older folk to see if the addition of drugs like oxaliplatin to a fluoropyrimidine backbone really does make a difference. I’ve said many times before that we, the medical community recommending adjuvant treatment, need to have better risk stratifiers. We need to have better prognostic markers. We need to have better indices that would allow us to perhaps consider these combination treatments in a more focused group of patients who may have a higher risk for recurrence.

Have a look at the paper and see what you think. I think it’s well done. It’s certainly given me pause for thought about the treatment that we will offer our elderly patients.

Have a think about it. Let me know if there are any comments that you’d like to make. For the time being, over and out.

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

One of my abiding interests, part of my daily routine as a cancer physician, is considering whether we should or should not recommend adjuvant therapy for patients who have just had potentially curative resection of their colorectal cancer.

Our group, the QUASAR Group, made a very significant contribution in terms of trials and knowledge in this field. One of the things that we still need to discuss and think about in our wider community is the impact of adjuvant chemotherapy in older patients.

Colorectal cancer is a disease of the elderly, with the median age of presentation around 72. We know that, at presentation, more than 50% of patients are aged 65 or over and one third of patients are 75 or over. It’s a disease predominantly of the elderly. Are we justified in giving combination chemotherapy with oxaliplatin to high-risk resected colorectal cancer patients?

There’s a very nice report of a meta-analysis by Dottorini and colleagues that came out recently in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. It’s an excellent group. They did their meta-analytical work according to a strict, rational protocol. Their statistical analyses were on point, and they collected data from all the relevant trials.

According to the results of their study, it could be concluded that the addition of oxaliplatin to adjuvant therapy for resected high-risk colorectal cancer in older patients — patients older than 70 — doesn’t result in any statistically significant gain in terms of preventing recurrences or saving lives.

When we did our QUASAR trials, initially we were looking at control vs fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy. Although there was an overall impact on survival of the whole trial group (the 5000 patients in our study), when we looked by decile, there was a significant diminution of benefit even to fluoropyrimidine therapy in our trial in patients aged 70 or above. I think this careful meta-analysis must make us question the use of oxaliplatin in elderly patients.

What could the explanation be? Why could the well-known and described benefits of oxaliplatin, particularly for stage III disease, attenuate in older people? It may be to do with reduction in dose intensity. Older people have more side effects; therefore, the chemotherapy isn’t completed as planned. Although, increasingly these days, we tend only to be giving 3 months of treatment.

Is there something biologically in terms of the biology or the somatic mutational landscape of the tumor in older people? I don’t think so. Certainly, in terms of their capacity, in terms of stem cell reserve to be as resistant to the side effects of chemotherapy as younger people, we know that does attenuate with age.

Food for thought: The majority of patients I see in the clinic for the adjuvant treatment are elderly. The majority are coming these days with high-risk stage II or stage III disease. There is a real question mark about whether we should be using oxaliplatin at all.

Clearly, one would say that we need more trials of chemotherapy in older folk to see if the addition of drugs like oxaliplatin to a fluoropyrimidine backbone really does make a difference. I’ve said many times before that we, the medical community recommending adjuvant treatment, need to have better risk stratifiers. We need to have better prognostic markers. We need to have better indices that would allow us to perhaps consider these combination treatments in a more focused group of patients who may have a higher risk for recurrence.

Have a look at the paper and see what you think. I think it’s well done. It’s certainly given me pause for thought about the treatment that we will offer our elderly patients.

Have a think about it. Let me know if there are any comments that you’d like to make. For the time being, over and out.

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

One of my abiding interests, part of my daily routine as a cancer physician, is considering whether we should or should not recommend adjuvant therapy for patients who have just had potentially curative resection of their colorectal cancer.

Our group, the QUASAR Group, made a very significant contribution in terms of trials and knowledge in this field. One of the things that we still need to discuss and think about in our wider community is the impact of adjuvant chemotherapy in older patients.

Colorectal cancer is a disease of the elderly, with the median age of presentation around 72. We know that, at presentation, more than 50% of patients are aged 65 or over and one third of patients are 75 or over. It’s a disease predominantly of the elderly. Are we justified in giving combination chemotherapy with oxaliplatin to high-risk resected colorectal cancer patients?

There’s a very nice report of a meta-analysis by Dottorini and colleagues that came out recently in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. It’s an excellent group. They did their meta-analytical work according to a strict, rational protocol. Their statistical analyses were on point, and they collected data from all the relevant trials.

According to the results of their study, it could be concluded that the addition of oxaliplatin to adjuvant therapy for resected high-risk colorectal cancer in older patients — patients older than 70 — doesn’t result in any statistically significant gain in terms of preventing recurrences or saving lives.

When we did our QUASAR trials, initially we were looking at control vs fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy. Although there was an overall impact on survival of the whole trial group (the 5000 patients in our study), when we looked by decile, there was a significant diminution of benefit even to fluoropyrimidine therapy in our trial in patients aged 70 or above. I think this careful meta-analysis must make us question the use of oxaliplatin in elderly patients.

What could the explanation be? Why could the well-known and described benefits of oxaliplatin, particularly for stage III disease, attenuate in older people? It may be to do with reduction in dose intensity. Older people have more side effects; therefore, the chemotherapy isn’t completed as planned. Although, increasingly these days, we tend only to be giving 3 months of treatment.

Is there something biologically in terms of the biology or the somatic mutational landscape of the tumor in older people? I don’t think so. Certainly, in terms of their capacity, in terms of stem cell reserve to be as resistant to the side effects of chemotherapy as younger people, we know that does attenuate with age.

Food for thought: The majority of patients I see in the clinic for the adjuvant treatment are elderly. The majority are coming these days with high-risk stage II or stage III disease. There is a real question mark about whether we should be using oxaliplatin at all.

Clearly, one would say that we need more trials of chemotherapy in older folk to see if the addition of drugs like oxaliplatin to a fluoropyrimidine backbone really does make a difference. I’ve said many times before that we, the medical community recommending adjuvant treatment, need to have better risk stratifiers. We need to have better prognostic markers. We need to have better indices that would allow us to perhaps consider these combination treatments in a more focused group of patients who may have a higher risk for recurrence.

Have a look at the paper and see what you think. I think it’s well done. It’s certainly given me pause for thought about the treatment that we will offer our elderly patients.

Have a think about it. Let me know if there are any comments that you’d like to make. For the time being, over and out.

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’d like to discuss an article that’s appeared recently in The Lancet. It looks at the impact of minimum unit pricing for alcohol on alcohol-related deaths and hospital admissions in Scotland, my home country. Why is that important to me as a cancer doctor? We know that alcohol underpins epidemiologically a whole range of different tumor types.

Anyway, it’s a really interesting experiment. It also looks at the impact of governments and health policy. In 2018, the Scottish government introduced a minimum unit pricing for alcohol of around $0.60 per unit of alcohol. The idea was that if you drive up the price of getting access to alcohol, that should reduce harm, deaths, and hospital admissions.

Wyper and colleagues did a rather nice controlled, time-interrupted series. The legislation was introduced in 2018, so they looked at our public-health databases, hospital admissions, deaths, and so on for the time span from 2012 to 2018, then for about 3 years after the introduction of legislation in 2018. They used England as a control.

They showed that there was a reduction in fully alcohol-attributed deaths by 13.4% in Scotland, and a reduction in chronic hospital admissions related to alcohol by almost 10%. It works.

What was also interesting was that the benefits were confined to the lower socioeconomic classes. One could argue, whether intended or otherwise, that this was a health-policy intervention targeted at the lower socioeconomic classes. Perhaps, one would hope as a consequence that this would reduce the health equity gap.

We know that the differences in Scotland are remarkable. When we compare the highest with the lowest socioeconomic classes, there’s a 4- to 4.5-fold difference in likelihood of death benefiting, of course, the wealthy. The health-equity gap between rich and poor is getting wider, not becoming narrower. Interventions of this sort make a difference.

Of course, there’s good evidence from other areas in which price control can make a difference. Tobacco is perhaps the best example of it. People have also talked about sugar or fat taxes to see whether their actions reduce levels of obesity, overeating, and other problems.

It’s a really nice study, with very compelling data, very well worked out in terms of the methodology and statistics. There are lives saved and lives prolonged.

What it doesn’t do is tell us about the amount of alcohol that people were taking. It shows that if you are less well off and the price of alcohol goes up, you’ve got less money to spend on alcohol. Therefore, that reduction results in the reduction in harm associated with it.

What’s really interesting is something I hadn’t realized about what’s called the alcohol-harm paradox. When you look at drinkers across the socioeconomic spectrum, including wealthy and poor drinkers, even for those who have exactly the same consumption of alcohol, there seems to be significantly more harm done to the poor than to the wealthy.

There may be some behavioral explanations for this, but they don’t explain all the difference. More work needs to be done there. It’s a really interesting story and I think a brave policy put forward by the Scottish government, which has returned rewards and is something that one would consider replicating around the world to see what other benefits might accrue from it.

I’m very interested to watch further forward over the next 2 decades to see what impact, if any, this alcohol-pricing legislation has on the incidence of cancer, looking at breast cancer, some gastrointestinal tumors, and so on, in which we know alcohol plays a part in their carcinogenesis.

Dr. Kerris a professor of cancer medicine at the University of Oxford (England). He reported conflicts of interest with Celleron Therapeutics, Oxford Cancer Biomarkers, Afrox, GlaxoSmithKline, Bayer, Genomic Health, Merck Serono, and Roche.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’d like to discuss an article that’s appeared recently in The Lancet. It looks at the impact of minimum unit pricing for alcohol on alcohol-related deaths and hospital admissions in Scotland, my home country. Why is that important to me as a cancer doctor? We know that alcohol underpins epidemiologically a whole range of different tumor types.

Anyway, it’s a really interesting experiment. It also looks at the impact of governments and health policy. In 2018, the Scottish government introduced a minimum unit pricing for alcohol of around $0.60 per unit of alcohol. The idea was that if you drive up the price of getting access to alcohol, that should reduce harm, deaths, and hospital admissions.

Wyper and colleagues did a rather nice controlled, time-interrupted series. The legislation was introduced in 2018, so they looked at our public-health databases, hospital admissions, deaths, and so on for the time span from 2012 to 2018, then for about 3 years after the introduction of legislation in 2018. They used England as a control.

They showed that there was a reduction in fully alcohol-attributed deaths by 13.4% in Scotland, and a reduction in chronic hospital admissions related to alcohol by almost 10%. It works.

What was also interesting was that the benefits were confined to the lower socioeconomic classes. One could argue, whether intended or otherwise, that this was a health-policy intervention targeted at the lower socioeconomic classes. Perhaps, one would hope as a consequence that this would reduce the health equity gap.

We know that the differences in Scotland are remarkable. When we compare the highest with the lowest socioeconomic classes, there’s a 4- to 4.5-fold difference in likelihood of death benefiting, of course, the wealthy. The health-equity gap between rich and poor is getting wider, not becoming narrower. Interventions of this sort make a difference.

Of course, there’s good evidence from other areas in which price control can make a difference. Tobacco is perhaps the best example of it. People have also talked about sugar or fat taxes to see whether their actions reduce levels of obesity, overeating, and other problems.

It’s a really nice study, with very compelling data, very well worked out in terms of the methodology and statistics. There are lives saved and lives prolonged.

What it doesn’t do is tell us about the amount of alcohol that people were taking. It shows that if you are less well off and the price of alcohol goes up, you’ve got less money to spend on alcohol. Therefore, that reduction results in the reduction in harm associated with it.

What’s really interesting is something I hadn’t realized about what’s called the alcohol-harm paradox. When you look at drinkers across the socioeconomic spectrum, including wealthy and poor drinkers, even for those who have exactly the same consumption of alcohol, there seems to be significantly more harm done to the poor than to the wealthy.

There may be some behavioral explanations for this, but they don’t explain all the difference. More work needs to be done there. It’s a really interesting story and I think a brave policy put forward by the Scottish government, which has returned rewards and is something that one would consider replicating around the world to see what other benefits might accrue from it.

I’m very interested to watch further forward over the next 2 decades to see what impact, if any, this alcohol-pricing legislation has on the incidence of cancer, looking at breast cancer, some gastrointestinal tumors, and so on, in which we know alcohol plays a part in their carcinogenesis.

Dr. Kerris a professor of cancer medicine at the University of Oxford (England). He reported conflicts of interest with Celleron Therapeutics, Oxford Cancer Biomarkers, Afrox, GlaxoSmithKline, Bayer, Genomic Health, Merck Serono, and Roche.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’d like to discuss an article that’s appeared recently in The Lancet. It looks at the impact of minimum unit pricing for alcohol on alcohol-related deaths and hospital admissions in Scotland, my home country. Why is that important to me as a cancer doctor? We know that alcohol underpins epidemiologically a whole range of different tumor types.

Anyway, it’s a really interesting experiment. It also looks at the impact of governments and health policy. In 2018, the Scottish government introduced a minimum unit pricing for alcohol of around $0.60 per unit of alcohol. The idea was that if you drive up the price of getting access to alcohol, that should reduce harm, deaths, and hospital admissions.

Wyper and colleagues did a rather nice controlled, time-interrupted series. The legislation was introduced in 2018, so they looked at our public-health databases, hospital admissions, deaths, and so on for the time span from 2012 to 2018, then for about 3 years after the introduction of legislation in 2018. They used England as a control.

They showed that there was a reduction in fully alcohol-attributed deaths by 13.4% in Scotland, and a reduction in chronic hospital admissions related to alcohol by almost 10%. It works.

What was also interesting was that the benefits were confined to the lower socioeconomic classes. One could argue, whether intended or otherwise, that this was a health-policy intervention targeted at the lower socioeconomic classes. Perhaps, one would hope as a consequence that this would reduce the health equity gap.

We know that the differences in Scotland are remarkable. When we compare the highest with the lowest socioeconomic classes, there’s a 4- to 4.5-fold difference in likelihood of death benefiting, of course, the wealthy. The health-equity gap between rich and poor is getting wider, not becoming narrower. Interventions of this sort make a difference.

Of course, there’s good evidence from other areas in which price control can make a difference. Tobacco is perhaps the best example of it. People have also talked about sugar or fat taxes to see whether their actions reduce levels of obesity, overeating, and other problems.

It’s a really nice study, with very compelling data, very well worked out in terms of the methodology and statistics. There are lives saved and lives prolonged.

What it doesn’t do is tell us about the amount of alcohol that people were taking. It shows that if you are less well off and the price of alcohol goes up, you’ve got less money to spend on alcohol. Therefore, that reduction results in the reduction in harm associated with it.

What’s really interesting is something I hadn’t realized about what’s called the alcohol-harm paradox. When you look at drinkers across the socioeconomic spectrum, including wealthy and poor drinkers, even for those who have exactly the same consumption of alcohol, there seems to be significantly more harm done to the poor than to the wealthy.

There may be some behavioral explanations for this, but they don’t explain all the difference. More work needs to be done there. It’s a really interesting story and I think a brave policy put forward by the Scottish government, which has returned rewards and is something that one would consider replicating around the world to see what other benefits might accrue from it.

I’m very interested to watch further forward over the next 2 decades to see what impact, if any, this alcohol-pricing legislation has on the incidence of cancer, looking at breast cancer, some gastrointestinal tumors, and so on, in which we know alcohol plays a part in their carcinogenesis.

Dr. Kerris a professor of cancer medicine at the University of Oxford (England). He reported conflicts of interest with Celleron Therapeutics, Oxford Cancer Biomarkers, Afrox, GlaxoSmithKline, Bayer, Genomic Health, Merck Serono, and Roche.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’m David Kerr, professor of cancer medicine at the University of Oxford. I’d like to talk to you today about something specific and generic around guidelines.

Annals of Oncology, my old journal, has just published an outstanding set of guidelines delivered by the ESMO (European Society for Medical Oncology) guidelines group. It’s around the management of toxicities from immunotherapy, and it’s the ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline for diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up, delivered by Dr. Haanen and, of course, a number of colleagues on behalf of the wider committee.

Have a look at it. I’m not going to talk about the details of it. It’s very well written. It’s very clear and evidence based, of course. There are many helpful hints and a very clear blueprint as to how we should better manage the myriad of potential side effects from immunotherapy.

It tells us a little about the basis of the science, some of the mechanistic work that’s going on in allowing us to understand why some people react in such different ways, almost as if the immune systems are primed to overreact. It gives a very helpful, stepwise look at how we best diagnose, manage, and, in the longer term, follow up patients who have problems with these very important drugs.

All of us recognize the extraordinary impact they’ve made across a wide range of different tumor types, and therefore, as practicing oncologists and health care professionals in the field, all of us need to understand better the details as to how we better care for our patients on these drugs.

Have a look at it. It’s well written and useful, and I think it’s a document that I’ll turn to when I’m looking for a refresher or advice in the future.

The generic focus is about guidelines. Many years ago, I was one of the architects of the British National Cancer Plan, and for me, there were four simple principles at that stage in our development of how we would improve the delivery of cancer control in the United Kingdom. It was around site specialization, particularly of our surgical colleagues who embraced this with vigor. God bless them.

It was using guidelines to help level up the quality of treatment that we were giving, of course underpinned by research, and using – one would hope – modern IT and telecommunications to improve the networking that we use to deliver multidisciplinary cancer care, one of the key elements. Guidelines were embedded in that.

A couple of years ago, we did a survey of cancer physicians around the world. Almost 30 different countries were represented, and we asked which guidelines were most used. It was a very interesting set of responses. The three dominant guidelines – this will surprise no one – are the NCCN (National Comprehensive Cancer Network) guidelines, the ESMO guidelines, and the ASCO (American Society of Clinical Oncology) guidelines.

Rather than selecting one and one being completely dominant, what seemed to be the case is that our colleagues around the world dipped in and used all three. They may prefer NCCN for some particular tumor type or some particular aspect of how they’re structured, but at the same time, we would dip into the ESMO guidelines for specific bits of help, as well as the ASCO guidelines.

I find this fascinating. I assume that in different regions, depending on how they were affiliated in terms of additional training or links to Europe or links to the United States, that one or other of these guideline groups would predominate, but no. In each country, in each region, given the large data bank that we have of guidelines now, it’s a sort of pick-and-mix situation.

I was initially surprised but then took comfort from it. There’s nothing I hate more than the wasted energy of reduplication and saying, well come on, if there is one guideline set that does truly command the attention of the world, then the other should stop. It’s wasted energy, which is something that none of us can afford.

The fact that each of these trusted, evidence-based, beautifully presented guidelines is used in different ways was important. A message to the guideline groups from me is: “Thank you for your professionalism, for the hard work of hundreds of cancer specialists from all different specialties, and for their contribution to developing these guidelines.”

It’s worth it, it’s working, people are using them, and they’re making a difference. It’s all about leveling up the quality of cancer care that we deliver.

Specifically, have a look at the ESMO immune guidelines. They are great. I hope you find them helpful. Generically, thanks to all of you who are contributing and working so hard to make these data available to improve the quality of cancer care around the world.

Thanks for listening, as always. I’m interested in any comments that you might have, but for the time being, Medscapers, ahoy.

David J. Kerr, CBE, MD, DSc, is a professor of cancer medicine at the University of Oxford. He reported conflicts of interest with Celleron Therapeutics, Oxford Cancer Biomarkers, Afrox, GlaxoSmithKline, Bayer, Genomic Health, and Merck Serono.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’m David Kerr, professor of cancer medicine at the University of Oxford. I’d like to talk to you today about something specific and generic around guidelines.

Annals of Oncology, my old journal, has just published an outstanding set of guidelines delivered by the ESMO (European Society for Medical Oncology) guidelines group. It’s around the management of toxicities from immunotherapy, and it’s the ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline for diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up, delivered by Dr. Haanen and, of course, a number of colleagues on behalf of the wider committee.

Have a look at it. I’m not going to talk about the details of it. It’s very well written. It’s very clear and evidence based, of course. There are many helpful hints and a very clear blueprint as to how we should better manage the myriad of potential side effects from immunotherapy.

It tells us a little about the basis of the science, some of the mechanistic work that’s going on in allowing us to understand why some people react in such different ways, almost as if the immune systems are primed to overreact. It gives a very helpful, stepwise look at how we best diagnose, manage, and, in the longer term, follow up patients who have problems with these very important drugs.

All of us recognize the extraordinary impact they’ve made across a wide range of different tumor types, and therefore, as practicing oncologists and health care professionals in the field, all of us need to understand better the details as to how we better care for our patients on these drugs.

Have a look at it. It’s well written and useful, and I think it’s a document that I’ll turn to when I’m looking for a refresher or advice in the future.

The generic focus is about guidelines. Many years ago, I was one of the architects of the British National Cancer Plan, and for me, there were four simple principles at that stage in our development of how we would improve the delivery of cancer control in the United Kingdom. It was around site specialization, particularly of our surgical colleagues who embraced this with vigor. God bless them.

It was using guidelines to help level up the quality of treatment that we were giving, of course underpinned by research, and using – one would hope – modern IT and telecommunications to improve the networking that we use to deliver multidisciplinary cancer care, one of the key elements. Guidelines were embedded in that.

A couple of years ago, we did a survey of cancer physicians around the world. Almost 30 different countries were represented, and we asked which guidelines were most used. It was a very interesting set of responses. The three dominant guidelines – this will surprise no one – are the NCCN (National Comprehensive Cancer Network) guidelines, the ESMO guidelines, and the ASCO (American Society of Clinical Oncology) guidelines.

Rather than selecting one and one being completely dominant, what seemed to be the case is that our colleagues around the world dipped in and used all three. They may prefer NCCN for some particular tumor type or some particular aspect of how they’re structured, but at the same time, we would dip into the ESMO guidelines for specific bits of help, as well as the ASCO guidelines.

I find this fascinating. I assume that in different regions, depending on how they were affiliated in terms of additional training or links to Europe or links to the United States, that one or other of these guideline groups would predominate, but no. In each country, in each region, given the large data bank that we have of guidelines now, it’s a sort of pick-and-mix situation.

I was initially surprised but then took comfort from it. There’s nothing I hate more than the wasted energy of reduplication and saying, well come on, if there is one guideline set that does truly command the attention of the world, then the other should stop. It’s wasted energy, which is something that none of us can afford.

The fact that each of these trusted, evidence-based, beautifully presented guidelines is used in different ways was important. A message to the guideline groups from me is: “Thank you for your professionalism, for the hard work of hundreds of cancer specialists from all different specialties, and for their contribution to developing these guidelines.”

It’s worth it, it’s working, people are using them, and they’re making a difference. It’s all about leveling up the quality of cancer care that we deliver.

Specifically, have a look at the ESMO immune guidelines. They are great. I hope you find them helpful. Generically, thanks to all of you who are contributing and working so hard to make these data available to improve the quality of cancer care around the world.

Thanks for listening, as always. I’m interested in any comments that you might have, but for the time being, Medscapers, ahoy.

David J. Kerr, CBE, MD, DSc, is a professor of cancer medicine at the University of Oxford. He reported conflicts of interest with Celleron Therapeutics, Oxford Cancer Biomarkers, Afrox, GlaxoSmithKline, Bayer, Genomic Health, and Merck Serono.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’m David Kerr, professor of cancer medicine at the University of Oxford. I’d like to talk to you today about something specific and generic around guidelines.

Annals of Oncology, my old journal, has just published an outstanding set of guidelines delivered by the ESMO (European Society for Medical Oncology) guidelines group. It’s around the management of toxicities from immunotherapy, and it’s the ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline for diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up, delivered by Dr. Haanen and, of course, a number of colleagues on behalf of the wider committee.

Have a look at it. I’m not going to talk about the details of it. It’s very well written. It’s very clear and evidence based, of course. There are many helpful hints and a very clear blueprint as to how we should better manage the myriad of potential side effects from immunotherapy.

It tells us a little about the basis of the science, some of the mechanistic work that’s going on in allowing us to understand why some people react in such different ways, almost as if the immune systems are primed to overreact. It gives a very helpful, stepwise look at how we best diagnose, manage, and, in the longer term, follow up patients who have problems with these very important drugs.

All of us recognize the extraordinary impact they’ve made across a wide range of different tumor types, and therefore, as practicing oncologists and health care professionals in the field, all of us need to understand better the details as to how we better care for our patients on these drugs.

Have a look at it. It’s well written and useful, and I think it’s a document that I’ll turn to when I’m looking for a refresher or advice in the future.

The generic focus is about guidelines. Many years ago, I was one of the architects of the British National Cancer Plan, and for me, there were four simple principles at that stage in our development of how we would improve the delivery of cancer control in the United Kingdom. It was around site specialization, particularly of our surgical colleagues who embraced this with vigor. God bless them.

It was using guidelines to help level up the quality of treatment that we were giving, of course underpinned by research, and using – one would hope – modern IT and telecommunications to improve the networking that we use to deliver multidisciplinary cancer care, one of the key elements. Guidelines were embedded in that.

A couple of years ago, we did a survey of cancer physicians around the world. Almost 30 different countries were represented, and we asked which guidelines were most used. It was a very interesting set of responses. The three dominant guidelines – this will surprise no one – are the NCCN (National Comprehensive Cancer Network) guidelines, the ESMO guidelines, and the ASCO (American Society of Clinical Oncology) guidelines.

Rather than selecting one and one being completely dominant, what seemed to be the case is that our colleagues around the world dipped in and used all three. They may prefer NCCN for some particular tumor type or some particular aspect of how they’re structured, but at the same time, we would dip into the ESMO guidelines for specific bits of help, as well as the ASCO guidelines.

I find this fascinating. I assume that in different regions, depending on how they were affiliated in terms of additional training or links to Europe or links to the United States, that one or other of these guideline groups would predominate, but no. In each country, in each region, given the large data bank that we have of guidelines now, it’s a sort of pick-and-mix situation.

I was initially surprised but then took comfort from it. There’s nothing I hate more than the wasted energy of reduplication and saying, well come on, if there is one guideline set that does truly command the attention of the world, then the other should stop. It’s wasted energy, which is something that none of us can afford.

The fact that each of these trusted, evidence-based, beautifully presented guidelines is used in different ways was important. A message to the guideline groups from me is: “Thank you for your professionalism, for the hard work of hundreds of cancer specialists from all different specialties, and for their contribution to developing these guidelines.”

It’s worth it, it’s working, people are using them, and they’re making a difference. It’s all about leveling up the quality of cancer care that we deliver.

Specifically, have a look at the ESMO immune guidelines. They are great. I hope you find them helpful. Generically, thanks to all of you who are contributing and working so hard to make these data available to improve the quality of cancer care around the world.

Thanks for listening, as always. I’m interested in any comments that you might have, but for the time being, Medscapers, ahoy.

David J. Kerr, CBE, MD, DSc, is a professor of cancer medicine at the University of Oxford. He reported conflicts of interest with Celleron Therapeutics, Oxford Cancer Biomarkers, Afrox, GlaxoSmithKline, Bayer, Genomic Health, and Merck Serono.

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