News

In a 2023 study published in the Annals of Emergency Medicine, European researchers fed the AI system ChatGPT information on 30 ER patients. Details included physician notes on the patients’ symptoms, physical exams, and lab results. ChatGPT made the correct diagnosis in 97% of patients compared to 87% for human doctors.

AI 1, Physicians 0

JAMA Cardiology reported in 2021 that an AI trained on nearly a million ECGs performed comparably to or exceeded cardiologist clinical diagnoses and the MUSE (GE Healthcare) system›s automated ECG analysis for most diagnostic classes.

AI 2, Physicians 0

Google’s medically focused AI model (Med-PaLM2) scored 85%+ when answering US Medical Licensing Examination–style questions. That›s an «expert» physician level and far beyond the accuracy threshold needed to pass the actual exam.

AI 3, Physicians 0

A new AI tool that uses an online finger-tapping test outperformed primary care physicians when assessing the severity of Parkinson’s disease.

AI 4, Physicians 0

JAMA Ophthalmology reported in 2024 that a chatbot outperformed glaucoma specialists and matched retina specialists in diagnostic and treatment accuracy.

AI 5, Physicians 0

Should we stop? Because we could go on. In the last few years, these AI vs Physician studies have proliferated, and guess who’s winning?

65% of Doctors are Concerned

Now, the standard answer with anything AI-and-Medicine goes something like this: AI is coming, and it will be a transformative tool for physicians and improve patient care.

But the underlying unanswered question is: Physicians spend many years and a lot of money to become really good at what they do. How, exactly, should a doctor feel about a machine that can suddenly do the job better and faster?

The Medscape 2023 Physician and AI Report surveyed 1043 US physicians about their views on AI. In total, 65% are concerned about AI making diagnosis and treatment decisions, but 56% are enthusiastic about having it as an adjunct.

Cardiologists, anesthesiologists, and radiologists are most enthusiastic about AI, whereas family physicians and pediatricians are the least enthusiastic.

To get a more personal view of how physicians and other healthcare professionals are feeling about this transformative tech, I spoke with a variety of practicing doctors, a psychotherapist, and a third-year Harvard Medical School student.

‘Abysmally Poor Understanding’

Alfredo A. Sadun, MD, PhD, has been a neuro-ophthalmologist for nearly 50 years. A graduate of MIT and vice-chair of ophthalmology at UCLA, he’s long been fascinated by AI’s march into medicine. He’s watched it accomplish things that no ophthalmologist can do, such as identify gender, age, and risk for heart attack and stroke from retinal scans. But he doesn›t see the same level of interest and comprehension among the medical community.

“There’s still an abysmally poor understanding of AI among physicians in general,” he said. “It’s striking because these are intelligent, well-educated people. But we tend to draw conclusions based on what we’re familiar with, and most doctors’ experience with computers involves EHRs [electronic health records] and administrative garbage. It’s the reason they’re burning out.”

Easing the Burden

Anthony Philippakis, MD, PhD, left his cardiology practice in 2015 to become the chief data officer at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard. While there, he helped develop an AI-based method for identifying patients at risk for atrial fibrillation. Now, he’s a general partner at Google Ventures with the goal of bridging the gap between data sciences and medicine. His perspective on AI is unique, given that he’s seen the issue from both sides.

“I am not a bitter physician, but to be honest, when I was practicing, way too much of my time was spent staring at screens and not enough laying hands on patients,” he said. “Can you imagine what it would be like to speak to the EHR naturally and say, ‘Please order the following labs for this patient and notify me when the results come in.’ Boy, would that improve healthcare and physician satisfaction. Every physician I know is excited and optimistic about that. Almost everyone I’ve talked to feels like AI could take a lot of the stuff they don’t like doing off their plates.”

Indeed, the dividing line between physician support for AI and physician suspicion or skepticism of AI is just that. In our survey, more than three quarters of physicians said they would consider using AI for office administrative tasks, scheduling, EHRs, researching medical conditions, and even summarizing a patient’s record before a visit. But far fewer are supportive of it delivering diagnoses and treatments. This, despite an estimated 800,000 Americans dying or becoming permanently disabled each year because of diagnostic error.

Could AI Have Diagnosed This?

John D. Nuschke, MD, has been a primary care physician in Allentown, Pennsylvania, for 40 years. He’s a jovial general physician who insists his patients call him Jack. He’s recently started using an AI medical scribe called Freed. With the patient’s permission, it listens in on the visit and generates notes, saving Dr. Nuschke time and helping him focus on the person. He likes that type of assistance, but when it comes to AI replacing him, he’s skeptical.

“I had this patient I diagnosed with prostate cancer,” he explained. “He got treated and was fine for 5 years. Then, he started losing weight and feeling awful — got weak as a kitten. He went back to his urologist and oncologist who thought he had metastatic prostate cancer. He went through PET scans and blood work, but there was no sign his cancer had returned. So the specialists sent him back to me, and the second he walked in, I saw he was floridly hyperthyroid. I could tell across the room just by looking at him. Would AI have been able to make that diagnosis? Does AI do physical exams?”

Dr. Nuschke said he’s also had several instances where patients received their cancer diagnosis from the lab through an automated patient-portal system rather than from him. “That’s an AI of sorts, and I found it distressing,” he said.

Empathy From a Robot

All the doctors I spoke to were hopeful that by freeing them from the burden of administrative work, they would be able to return to the reason they got into this business in the first place — to spend more time with patients in need and support them with grace and compassion.

But suppose AI could do that too?

In a 2023 study conducted at the University of California San Diego and published in JAMA Internal Medicine, three licensed healthcare professionals compared the responses of ChatGPT and physicians to real-world health questions. The panel rated the AI’s answers nearly four times higher in quality and almost 10 times more empathetic than physicians’ replies.

A similar 2024 study in Nature found that Google’s large-language model AI matched or surpassed physician diagnostic accuracy in all six of the medical specialties considered. Plus, it outperformed doctors in 24 of 26 criteria for conversation quality, including politeness, explanation, honesty, and expressing care and commitment.

Nathaniel Chin, MD, is a gerontologist at the University of Wisconsin and advisory board member for the Alzheimer’s Foundation of America. Although he admits that studies like these “sadden me,” he’s also a realist. “There was hesitation among physicians at the beginning of the pandemic to virtual care because we missed the human connection,” he explained, “but we worked our way around that. We need to remember that what makes a chatbot strong is that it’s nothuman. It doesn’t burn out, it doesn’t get tired, it can look at data very quickly, and it doesn’t have to go home to a family and try to balance work with other aspects of life. A human being is very complex, whereas a chatbot has one single purpose.”

“Even if you don’t have AI in your space now or don’t like the idea of it, that doesn’t matter,” he added. “It’s coming. But it needs to be done right. If AI is implemented by clinicians for clinicians, it has great potential. But if it’s implemented by businesspeople for business reasons, perhaps not.”

‘The Ones Who Use the Tools the Best Will Be the Best’

One branch of medicine that stands to be dramatically affected by AI is mental health. Because bots are natural data-crunchers, they are becoming adept at analyzing the many subtle clues (phrasing in social media posts and text messages, smartwatch biometrics, therapy session videos…) that could indicate depression or other psychological disorders. In fact, its availability via smartphone apps could help democratize and destigmatize the practice.

“There is a day ahead — probably within 5 years — when a patient won’t be able to tell the difference between a real therapist and an AI therapist,” said Ken Mallon, MS, LMFT, a clinical psychotherapist and data scientist in San Jose, California. “That doesn’t worry me, though. It’s hard on therapists’ egos, but new technologies get developed. Things change. People who embrace these tools will benefit from them. The ones who use the tools the best will be the best.”

Time to Restructure Med School

Aditya Jain is in his third year at Harvard Medical School. At age 24, he’s heading into this brave new medical world with excitement and anxiety. Excitement because he sees AI revolutionizing healthcare on every level. Although the current generations of physicians and patients may grumble about its onset, he believes younger ones will feel comfortable with “DocGPT.” He’s excited that his generation of physicians will be the “translators and managers of this transition” and redefine “what it means to be a doctor.”

His anxiety, however, stems from the fact that AI has come on so fast that “it has not yet crossed the threshold of medical education,” he said. “Medical schools still largely prepare students to work as solo clinical decision makers. Most of my first 2 years were spent on pattern recognition and rote memorization, skills that AI can and will master.”

Indeed, Mr. Jain said AI was not a part of his first- or second-year curriculum. “I talk to students who are a year older than me, graduating, heading to residency, and they tell me they wish they had gotten a better grasp of how to use these technologies in medicine and in their practice. They were surprised to hear that people in my year hadn’t started using ChatGPT. We need to expend a lot more effort within the field, within academia, within practicing physicians, to figure out what our role will be in a world where AI is matching or even exceeding human intelligence. And then we need to restructure the medical education to better accomplish these goals.”

So Are You Ready for AI to Be a Better Doctor Than You?

“Yes, I am,” said Dr. Philippakis without hesitation. “When I was going through my medical training, I was continually confronted with the reality that I personally was not smart enough to keep all the information in my head that could be used to make a good decision for a patient. We have now reached a point where the amount of information that is important and useful in the practice of medicine outstrips what a human being can know. The opportunity to enable physicians with AI to remedy that situation is a good thing for doctors and, most importantly, a good thing for patients. I believe the future of medicine belongs not so much to the AI practitioner but to the AI-enabled practitioner.”

“Quick story,” added Dr. Chin. “I asked ChatGPT two questions. The first was ‘Explain the difference between Alzheimer’s and dementia’ because that’s the most common misconception in my field. And it gave me a pretty darn good answer — one I would use in a presentation with some tweaking. Then I asked it, ‘Are you a better doctor than me?’ And it replied, ‘My purpose is not to replace you, my purpose is to be supportive of you and enhance your ability.’ ”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In a 2023 study published in the Annals of Emergency Medicine, European researchers fed the AI system ChatGPT information on 30 ER patients. Details included physician notes on the patients’ symptoms, physical exams, and lab results. ChatGPT made the correct diagnosis in 97% of patients compared to 87% for human doctors.

AI 1, Physicians 0

JAMA Cardiology reported in 2021 that an AI trained on nearly a million ECGs performed comparably to or exceeded cardiologist clinical diagnoses and the MUSE (GE Healthcare) system›s automated ECG analysis for most diagnostic classes.

AI 2, Physicians 0

Google’s medically focused AI model (Med-PaLM2) scored 85%+ when answering US Medical Licensing Examination–style questions. That›s an «expert» physician level and far beyond the accuracy threshold needed to pass the actual exam.

AI 3, Physicians 0

A new AI tool that uses an online finger-tapping test outperformed primary care physicians when assessing the severity of Parkinson’s disease.

AI 4, Physicians 0

JAMA Ophthalmology reported in 2024 that a chatbot outperformed glaucoma specialists and matched retina specialists in diagnostic and treatment accuracy.

AI 5, Physicians 0

Should we stop? Because we could go on. In the last few years, these AI vs Physician studies have proliferated, and guess who’s winning?

65% of Doctors are Concerned

Now, the standard answer with anything AI-and-Medicine goes something like this: AI is coming, and it will be a transformative tool for physicians and improve patient care.

But the underlying unanswered question is: Physicians spend many years and a lot of money to become really good at what they do. How, exactly, should a doctor feel about a machine that can suddenly do the job better and faster?

The Medscape 2023 Physician and AI Report surveyed 1043 US physicians about their views on AI. In total, 65% are concerned about AI making diagnosis and treatment decisions, but 56% are enthusiastic about having it as an adjunct.

Cardiologists, anesthesiologists, and radiologists are most enthusiastic about AI, whereas family physicians and pediatricians are the least enthusiastic.

To get a more personal view of how physicians and other healthcare professionals are feeling about this transformative tech, I spoke with a variety of practicing doctors, a psychotherapist, and a third-year Harvard Medical School student.

‘Abysmally Poor Understanding’

Alfredo A. Sadun, MD, PhD, has been a neuro-ophthalmologist for nearly 50 years. A graduate of MIT and vice-chair of ophthalmology at UCLA, he’s long been fascinated by AI’s march into medicine. He’s watched it accomplish things that no ophthalmologist can do, such as identify gender, age, and risk for heart attack and stroke from retinal scans. But he doesn›t see the same level of interest and comprehension among the medical community.

“There’s still an abysmally poor understanding of AI among physicians in general,” he said. “It’s striking because these are intelligent, well-educated people. But we tend to draw conclusions based on what we’re familiar with, and most doctors’ experience with computers involves EHRs [electronic health records] and administrative garbage. It’s the reason they’re burning out.”

Easing the Burden

Anthony Philippakis, MD, PhD, left his cardiology practice in 2015 to become the chief data officer at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard. While there, he helped develop an AI-based method for identifying patients at risk for atrial fibrillation. Now, he’s a general partner at Google Ventures with the goal of bridging the gap between data sciences and medicine. His perspective on AI is unique, given that he’s seen the issue from both sides.

“I am not a bitter physician, but to be honest, when I was practicing, way too much of my time was spent staring at screens and not enough laying hands on patients,” he said. “Can you imagine what it would be like to speak to the EHR naturally and say, ‘Please order the following labs for this patient and notify me when the results come in.’ Boy, would that improve healthcare and physician satisfaction. Every physician I know is excited and optimistic about that. Almost everyone I’ve talked to feels like AI could take a lot of the stuff they don’t like doing off their plates.”

Indeed, the dividing line between physician support for AI and physician suspicion or skepticism of AI is just that. In our survey, more than three quarters of physicians said they would consider using AI for office administrative tasks, scheduling, EHRs, researching medical conditions, and even summarizing a patient’s record before a visit. But far fewer are supportive of it delivering diagnoses and treatments. This, despite an estimated 800,000 Americans dying or becoming permanently disabled each year because of diagnostic error.

Could AI Have Diagnosed This?

John D. Nuschke, MD, has been a primary care physician in Allentown, Pennsylvania, for 40 years. He’s a jovial general physician who insists his patients call him Jack. He’s recently started using an AI medical scribe called Freed. With the patient’s permission, it listens in on the visit and generates notes, saving Dr. Nuschke time and helping him focus on the person. He likes that type of assistance, but when it comes to AI replacing him, he’s skeptical.

“I had this patient I diagnosed with prostate cancer,” he explained. “He got treated and was fine for 5 years. Then, he started losing weight and feeling awful — got weak as a kitten. He went back to his urologist and oncologist who thought he had metastatic prostate cancer. He went through PET scans and blood work, but there was no sign his cancer had returned. So the specialists sent him back to me, and the second he walked in, I saw he was floridly hyperthyroid. I could tell across the room just by looking at him. Would AI have been able to make that diagnosis? Does AI do physical exams?”

Dr. Nuschke said he’s also had several instances where patients received their cancer diagnosis from the lab through an automated patient-portal system rather than from him. “That’s an AI of sorts, and I found it distressing,” he said.

Empathy From a Robot

All the doctors I spoke to were hopeful that by freeing them from the burden of administrative work, they would be able to return to the reason they got into this business in the first place — to spend more time with patients in need and support them with grace and compassion.

But suppose AI could do that too?

In a 2023 study conducted at the University of California San Diego and published in JAMA Internal Medicine, three licensed healthcare professionals compared the responses of ChatGPT and physicians to real-world health questions. The panel rated the AI’s answers nearly four times higher in quality and almost 10 times more empathetic than physicians’ replies.

A similar 2024 study in Nature found that Google’s large-language model AI matched or surpassed physician diagnostic accuracy in all six of the medical specialties considered. Plus, it outperformed doctors in 24 of 26 criteria for conversation quality, including politeness, explanation, honesty, and expressing care and commitment.

Nathaniel Chin, MD, is a gerontologist at the University of Wisconsin and advisory board member for the Alzheimer’s Foundation of America. Although he admits that studies like these “sadden me,” he’s also a realist. “There was hesitation among physicians at the beginning of the pandemic to virtual care because we missed the human connection,” he explained, “but we worked our way around that. We need to remember that what makes a chatbot strong is that it’s nothuman. It doesn’t burn out, it doesn’t get tired, it can look at data very quickly, and it doesn’t have to go home to a family and try to balance work with other aspects of life. A human being is very complex, whereas a chatbot has one single purpose.”

“Even if you don’t have AI in your space now or don’t like the idea of it, that doesn’t matter,” he added. “It’s coming. But it needs to be done right. If AI is implemented by clinicians for clinicians, it has great potential. But if it’s implemented by businesspeople for business reasons, perhaps not.”

‘The Ones Who Use the Tools the Best Will Be the Best’

One branch of medicine that stands to be dramatically affected by AI is mental health. Because bots are natural data-crunchers, they are becoming adept at analyzing the many subtle clues (phrasing in social media posts and text messages, smartwatch biometrics, therapy session videos…) that could indicate depression or other psychological disorders. In fact, its availability via smartphone apps could help democratize and destigmatize the practice.

“There is a day ahead — probably within 5 years — when a patient won’t be able to tell the difference between a real therapist and an AI therapist,” said Ken Mallon, MS, LMFT, a clinical psychotherapist and data scientist in San Jose, California. “That doesn’t worry me, though. It’s hard on therapists’ egos, but new technologies get developed. Things change. People who embrace these tools will benefit from them. The ones who use the tools the best will be the best.”

Time to Restructure Med School

Aditya Jain is in his third year at Harvard Medical School. At age 24, he’s heading into this brave new medical world with excitement and anxiety. Excitement because he sees AI revolutionizing healthcare on every level. Although the current generations of physicians and patients may grumble about its onset, he believes younger ones will feel comfortable with “DocGPT.” He’s excited that his generation of physicians will be the “translators and managers of this transition” and redefine “what it means to be a doctor.”

His anxiety, however, stems from the fact that AI has come on so fast that “it has not yet crossed the threshold of medical education,” he said. “Medical schools still largely prepare students to work as solo clinical decision makers. Most of my first 2 years were spent on pattern recognition and rote memorization, skills that AI can and will master.”

Indeed, Mr. Jain said AI was not a part of his first- or second-year curriculum. “I talk to students who are a year older than me, graduating, heading to residency, and they tell me they wish they had gotten a better grasp of how to use these technologies in medicine and in their practice. They were surprised to hear that people in my year hadn’t started using ChatGPT. We need to expend a lot more effort within the field, within academia, within practicing physicians, to figure out what our role will be in a world where AI is matching or even exceeding human intelligence. And then we need to restructure the medical education to better accomplish these goals.”

So Are You Ready for AI to Be a Better Doctor Than You?

“Yes, I am,” said Dr. Philippakis without hesitation. “When I was going through my medical training, I was continually confronted with the reality that I personally was not smart enough to keep all the information in my head that could be used to make a good decision for a patient. We have now reached a point where the amount of information that is important and useful in the practice of medicine outstrips what a human being can know. The opportunity to enable physicians with AI to remedy that situation is a good thing for doctors and, most importantly, a good thing for patients. I believe the future of medicine belongs not so much to the AI practitioner but to the AI-enabled practitioner.”

“Quick story,” added Dr. Chin. “I asked ChatGPT two questions. The first was ‘Explain the difference between Alzheimer’s and dementia’ because that’s the most common misconception in my field. And it gave me a pretty darn good answer — one I would use in a presentation with some tweaking. Then I asked it, ‘Are you a better doctor than me?’ And it replied, ‘My purpose is not to replace you, my purpose is to be supportive of you and enhance your ability.’ ”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In a 2023 study published in the Annals of Emergency Medicine, European researchers fed the AI system ChatGPT information on 30 ER patients. Details included physician notes on the patients’ symptoms, physical exams, and lab results. ChatGPT made the correct diagnosis in 97% of patients compared to 87% for human doctors.

AI 1, Physicians 0

JAMA Cardiology reported in 2021 that an AI trained on nearly a million ECGs performed comparably to or exceeded cardiologist clinical diagnoses and the MUSE (GE Healthcare) system›s automated ECG analysis for most diagnostic classes.

AI 2, Physicians 0

Google’s medically focused AI model (Med-PaLM2) scored 85%+ when answering US Medical Licensing Examination–style questions. That›s an «expert» physician level and far beyond the accuracy threshold needed to pass the actual exam.

AI 3, Physicians 0

A new AI tool that uses an online finger-tapping test outperformed primary care physicians when assessing the severity of Parkinson’s disease.

AI 4, Physicians 0

JAMA Ophthalmology reported in 2024 that a chatbot outperformed glaucoma specialists and matched retina specialists in diagnostic and treatment accuracy.

AI 5, Physicians 0

Should we stop? Because we could go on. In the last few years, these AI vs Physician studies have proliferated, and guess who’s winning?

65% of Doctors are Concerned

Now, the standard answer with anything AI-and-Medicine goes something like this: AI is coming, and it will be a transformative tool for physicians and improve patient care.

But the underlying unanswered question is: Physicians spend many years and a lot of money to become really good at what they do. How, exactly, should a doctor feel about a machine that can suddenly do the job better and faster?

The Medscape 2023 Physician and AI Report surveyed 1043 US physicians about their views on AI. In total, 65% are concerned about AI making diagnosis and treatment decisions, but 56% are enthusiastic about having it as an adjunct.

Cardiologists, anesthesiologists, and radiologists are most enthusiastic about AI, whereas family physicians and pediatricians are the least enthusiastic.

To get a more personal view of how physicians and other healthcare professionals are feeling about this transformative tech, I spoke with a variety of practicing doctors, a psychotherapist, and a third-year Harvard Medical School student.

‘Abysmally Poor Understanding’

Alfredo A. Sadun, MD, PhD, has been a neuro-ophthalmologist for nearly 50 years. A graduate of MIT and vice-chair of ophthalmology at UCLA, he’s long been fascinated by AI’s march into medicine. He’s watched it accomplish things that no ophthalmologist can do, such as identify gender, age, and risk for heart attack and stroke from retinal scans. But he doesn›t see the same level of interest and comprehension among the medical community.

“There’s still an abysmally poor understanding of AI among physicians in general,” he said. “It’s striking because these are intelligent, well-educated people. But we tend to draw conclusions based on what we’re familiar with, and most doctors’ experience with computers involves EHRs [electronic health records] and administrative garbage. It’s the reason they’re burning out.”

Easing the Burden

Anthony Philippakis, MD, PhD, left his cardiology practice in 2015 to become the chief data officer at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard. While there, he helped develop an AI-based method for identifying patients at risk for atrial fibrillation. Now, he’s a general partner at Google Ventures with the goal of bridging the gap between data sciences and medicine. His perspective on AI is unique, given that he’s seen the issue from both sides.

“I am not a bitter physician, but to be honest, when I was practicing, way too much of my time was spent staring at screens and not enough laying hands on patients,” he said. “Can you imagine what it would be like to speak to the EHR naturally and say, ‘Please order the following labs for this patient and notify me when the results come in.’ Boy, would that improve healthcare and physician satisfaction. Every physician I know is excited and optimistic about that. Almost everyone I’ve talked to feels like AI could take a lot of the stuff they don’t like doing off their plates.”

Indeed, the dividing line between physician support for AI and physician suspicion or skepticism of AI is just that. In our survey, more than three quarters of physicians said they would consider using AI for office administrative tasks, scheduling, EHRs, researching medical conditions, and even summarizing a patient’s record before a visit. But far fewer are supportive of it delivering diagnoses and treatments. This, despite an estimated 800,000 Americans dying or becoming permanently disabled each year because of diagnostic error.

Could AI Have Diagnosed This?

John D. Nuschke, MD, has been a primary care physician in Allentown, Pennsylvania, for 40 years. He’s a jovial general physician who insists his patients call him Jack. He’s recently started using an AI medical scribe called Freed. With the patient’s permission, it listens in on the visit and generates notes, saving Dr. Nuschke time and helping him focus on the person. He likes that type of assistance, but when it comes to AI replacing him, he’s skeptical.

“I had this patient I diagnosed with prostate cancer,” he explained. “He got treated and was fine for 5 years. Then, he started losing weight and feeling awful — got weak as a kitten. He went back to his urologist and oncologist who thought he had metastatic prostate cancer. He went through PET scans and blood work, but there was no sign his cancer had returned. So the specialists sent him back to me, and the second he walked in, I saw he was floridly hyperthyroid. I could tell across the room just by looking at him. Would AI have been able to make that diagnosis? Does AI do physical exams?”

Dr. Nuschke said he’s also had several instances where patients received their cancer diagnosis from the lab through an automated patient-portal system rather than from him. “That’s an AI of sorts, and I found it distressing,” he said.

Empathy From a Robot

All the doctors I spoke to were hopeful that by freeing them from the burden of administrative work, they would be able to return to the reason they got into this business in the first place — to spend more time with patients in need and support them with grace and compassion.

But suppose AI could do that too?

In a 2023 study conducted at the University of California San Diego and published in JAMA Internal Medicine, three licensed healthcare professionals compared the responses of ChatGPT and physicians to real-world health questions. The panel rated the AI’s answers nearly four times higher in quality and almost 10 times more empathetic than physicians’ replies.

A similar 2024 study in Nature found that Google’s large-language model AI matched or surpassed physician diagnostic accuracy in all six of the medical specialties considered. Plus, it outperformed doctors in 24 of 26 criteria for conversation quality, including politeness, explanation, honesty, and expressing care and commitment.

Nathaniel Chin, MD, is a gerontologist at the University of Wisconsin and advisory board member for the Alzheimer’s Foundation of America. Although he admits that studies like these “sadden me,” he’s also a realist. “There was hesitation among physicians at the beginning of the pandemic to virtual care because we missed the human connection,” he explained, “but we worked our way around that. We need to remember that what makes a chatbot strong is that it’s nothuman. It doesn’t burn out, it doesn’t get tired, it can look at data very quickly, and it doesn’t have to go home to a family and try to balance work with other aspects of life. A human being is very complex, whereas a chatbot has one single purpose.”

“Even if you don’t have AI in your space now or don’t like the idea of it, that doesn’t matter,” he added. “It’s coming. But it needs to be done right. If AI is implemented by clinicians for clinicians, it has great potential. But if it’s implemented by businesspeople for business reasons, perhaps not.”

‘The Ones Who Use the Tools the Best Will Be the Best’

One branch of medicine that stands to be dramatically affected by AI is mental health. Because bots are natural data-crunchers, they are becoming adept at analyzing the many subtle clues (phrasing in social media posts and text messages, smartwatch biometrics, therapy session videos…) that could indicate depression or other psychological disorders. In fact, its availability via smartphone apps could help democratize and destigmatize the practice.

“There is a day ahead — probably within 5 years — when a patient won’t be able to tell the difference between a real therapist and an AI therapist,” said Ken Mallon, MS, LMFT, a clinical psychotherapist and data scientist in San Jose, California. “That doesn’t worry me, though. It’s hard on therapists’ egos, but new technologies get developed. Things change. People who embrace these tools will benefit from them. The ones who use the tools the best will be the best.”

Time to Restructure Med School

Aditya Jain is in his third year at Harvard Medical School. At age 24, he’s heading into this brave new medical world with excitement and anxiety. Excitement because he sees AI revolutionizing healthcare on every level. Although the current generations of physicians and patients may grumble about its onset, he believes younger ones will feel comfortable with “DocGPT.” He’s excited that his generation of physicians will be the “translators and managers of this transition” and redefine “what it means to be a doctor.”

His anxiety, however, stems from the fact that AI has come on so fast that “it has not yet crossed the threshold of medical education,” he said. “Medical schools still largely prepare students to work as solo clinical decision makers. Most of my first 2 years were spent on pattern recognition and rote memorization, skills that AI can and will master.”

Indeed, Mr. Jain said AI was not a part of his first- or second-year curriculum. “I talk to students who are a year older than me, graduating, heading to residency, and they tell me they wish they had gotten a better grasp of how to use these technologies in medicine and in their practice. They were surprised to hear that people in my year hadn’t started using ChatGPT. We need to expend a lot more effort within the field, within academia, within practicing physicians, to figure out what our role will be in a world where AI is matching or even exceeding human intelligence. And then we need to restructure the medical education to better accomplish these goals.”

So Are You Ready for AI to Be a Better Doctor Than You?

“Yes, I am,” said Dr. Philippakis without hesitation. “When I was going through my medical training, I was continually confronted with the reality that I personally was not smart enough to keep all the information in my head that could be used to make a good decision for a patient. We have now reached a point where the amount of information that is important and useful in the practice of medicine outstrips what a human being can know. The opportunity to enable physicians with AI to remedy that situation is a good thing for doctors and, most importantly, a good thing for patients. I believe the future of medicine belongs not so much to the AI practitioner but to the AI-enabled practitioner.”

“Quick story,” added Dr. Chin. “I asked ChatGPT two questions. The first was ‘Explain the difference between Alzheimer’s and dementia’ because that’s the most common misconception in my field. And it gave me a pretty darn good answer — one I would use in a presentation with some tweaking. Then I asked it, ‘Are you a better doctor than me?’ And it replied, ‘My purpose is not to replace you, my purpose is to be supportive of you and enhance your ability.’ ”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — A new blood test that combines cell-free DNA fragmentomes and protein biomarkers to screen for ovarian cancer shows promising results, according to an initial analysis. 

The test, under development by Delfi Diagnostics, “looks very sensitive for detecting ovarian cancer early,” said company founder and board member Victor E. Velculescu, MD, PhD, codirector of Cancer Genetics and Epigenetics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. 

The assay uses machine learning to integrate cell-free DNA fragment patterns with concentrations of two ovarian cancer biomarkers — CA125 and HE4 — to detect tumors. 

While fragmentation patterns are organized in healthy people, they are chaotic in cancer and reveal both its presence and location, said Velculescu who presented the findings at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting.

The researchers tested the assay in 134 women with ovarian cancer, 204 women without cancer, and 203 women with benign adnexal masses. The approach identified 69% of stage 1 cancers, 76% of stage 2, 85% of stage 3, and 100% of stage 4 at a specificity of over 99% and an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.97.

The test identified 91% of high-grade serous ovarian cancers — the most common type of ovarian cancer.

The AUC for distinguishing benign masses from cancer was 0.87, with 60% of ovarian cancers detected at a specificity of 95%. 

“In the preoperative setting where lower specificity is acceptable, this approach may improve management of adnexal masses,” the investigators said in their abstract.

Dr. Velculescu cautioned that the report “is an initial analysis” and that his team is working on validating the finding on a larger scale in both average and high-risk women.

If validated, the test “could enable population-wide ovarian cancer screening,” he added.

Delfi recently launched a lung cancer screening blood test — FirstLook Lung— that also uses a “fragmentomics” approach to detect tumors. The company is hopeful it will reach the market with a similar test for ovarian cancer, but it’s not a certainty. 

With lung cancer, we know screening helps. For ovarian cancer, however, it’s unclear whether this will help or not, said Dr. Velculescu. But based on the study findings, but “we are now optimistic that this could make an impact. We have more work to do.” 

This presentation was one of many at the meeting about liquid biopsies using DNA, RNA, and proteins to detect cancer, including a new assay for pancreatic cancer, another cancer that like ovarian cancer is difficult to detect in the early stages. 

“This is the future,” said study moderator Roy S. Herbst, MD, PhD, chief of medical oncology at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut. 

He called liquid biopsy “a great advance” in many oncology settings, including cancer screening because finding tumors early offers the best chance at cure. 

However, one of the main concerns about rolling out liquid biopsies for wide-scale cancer screening is the possibility that a test will come back positive, but no tumor will be seen on diagnostic imaging, said Herbst. It won’t be clear if the test was a false positive or if the patient has a brewing tumor that can’t be located and treated, a difficult situation for both patients and doctors. 

What to do in that situation is “a policy question that the entire country is asking now as liquid biopsies are moving forward,” he said. We are going to have to come together to figure it out and learn how to use these tests.

The work was funded by Delfi Diagnostics, the National Institutes of Health, and others. Dr. Velculescu, in addition to founding Delfi, holds patents on the technology. Dr. Herbst is a consultant, researcher, and/or holds stock in many companies, including AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and Checkpoint Therapeutics. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

SAN DIEGO — A new blood test that combines cell-free DNA fragmentomes and protein biomarkers to screen for ovarian cancer shows promising results, according to an initial analysis. 

The test, under development by Delfi Diagnostics, “looks very sensitive for detecting ovarian cancer early,” said company founder and board member Victor E. Velculescu, MD, PhD, codirector of Cancer Genetics and Epigenetics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. 

The assay uses machine learning to integrate cell-free DNA fragment patterns with concentrations of two ovarian cancer biomarkers — CA125 and HE4 — to detect tumors. 

While fragmentation patterns are organized in healthy people, they are chaotic in cancer and reveal both its presence and location, said Velculescu who presented the findings at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting.

The researchers tested the assay in 134 women with ovarian cancer, 204 women without cancer, and 203 women with benign adnexal masses. The approach identified 69% of stage 1 cancers, 76% of stage 2, 85% of stage 3, and 100% of stage 4 at a specificity of over 99% and an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.97.

The test identified 91% of high-grade serous ovarian cancers — the most common type of ovarian cancer.

The AUC for distinguishing benign masses from cancer was 0.87, with 60% of ovarian cancers detected at a specificity of 95%. 

“In the preoperative setting where lower specificity is acceptable, this approach may improve management of adnexal masses,” the investigators said in their abstract.

Dr. Velculescu cautioned that the report “is an initial analysis” and that his team is working on validating the finding on a larger scale in both average and high-risk women.

If validated, the test “could enable population-wide ovarian cancer screening,” he added.

Delfi recently launched a lung cancer screening blood test — FirstLook Lung— that also uses a “fragmentomics” approach to detect tumors. The company is hopeful it will reach the market with a similar test for ovarian cancer, but it’s not a certainty. 

With lung cancer, we know screening helps. For ovarian cancer, however, it’s unclear whether this will help or not, said Dr. Velculescu. But based on the study findings, but “we are now optimistic that this could make an impact. We have more work to do.” 

This presentation was one of many at the meeting about liquid biopsies using DNA, RNA, and proteins to detect cancer, including a new assay for pancreatic cancer, another cancer that like ovarian cancer is difficult to detect in the early stages. 

“This is the future,” said study moderator Roy S. Herbst, MD, PhD, chief of medical oncology at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut. 

He called liquid biopsy “a great advance” in many oncology settings, including cancer screening because finding tumors early offers the best chance at cure. 

However, one of the main concerns about rolling out liquid biopsies for wide-scale cancer screening is the possibility that a test will come back positive, but no tumor will be seen on diagnostic imaging, said Herbst. It won’t be clear if the test was a false positive or if the patient has a brewing tumor that can’t be located and treated, a difficult situation for both patients and doctors. 

What to do in that situation is “a policy question that the entire country is asking now as liquid biopsies are moving forward,” he said. We are going to have to come together to figure it out and learn how to use these tests.

The work was funded by Delfi Diagnostics, the National Institutes of Health, and others. Dr. Velculescu, in addition to founding Delfi, holds patents on the technology. Dr. Herbst is a consultant, researcher, and/or holds stock in many companies, including AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and Checkpoint Therapeutics. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

SAN DIEGO — A new blood test that combines cell-free DNA fragmentomes and protein biomarkers to screen for ovarian cancer shows promising results, according to an initial analysis. 

The test, under development by Delfi Diagnostics, “looks very sensitive for detecting ovarian cancer early,” said company founder and board member Victor E. Velculescu, MD, PhD, codirector of Cancer Genetics and Epigenetics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. 

The assay uses machine learning to integrate cell-free DNA fragment patterns with concentrations of two ovarian cancer biomarkers — CA125 and HE4 — to detect tumors. 

While fragmentation patterns are organized in healthy people, they are chaotic in cancer and reveal both its presence and location, said Velculescu who presented the findings at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting.

The researchers tested the assay in 134 women with ovarian cancer, 204 women without cancer, and 203 women with benign adnexal masses. The approach identified 69% of stage 1 cancers, 76% of stage 2, 85% of stage 3, and 100% of stage 4 at a specificity of over 99% and an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.97.

The test identified 91% of high-grade serous ovarian cancers — the most common type of ovarian cancer.

The AUC for distinguishing benign masses from cancer was 0.87, with 60% of ovarian cancers detected at a specificity of 95%. 

“In the preoperative setting where lower specificity is acceptable, this approach may improve management of adnexal masses,” the investigators said in their abstract.

Dr. Velculescu cautioned that the report “is an initial analysis” and that his team is working on validating the finding on a larger scale in both average and high-risk women.

If validated, the test “could enable population-wide ovarian cancer screening,” he added.

Delfi recently launched a lung cancer screening blood test — FirstLook Lung— that also uses a “fragmentomics” approach to detect tumors. The company is hopeful it will reach the market with a similar test for ovarian cancer, but it’s not a certainty. 

With lung cancer, we know screening helps. For ovarian cancer, however, it’s unclear whether this will help or not, said Dr. Velculescu. But based on the study findings, but “we are now optimistic that this could make an impact. We have more work to do.” 

This presentation was one of many at the meeting about liquid biopsies using DNA, RNA, and proteins to detect cancer, including a new assay for pancreatic cancer, another cancer that like ovarian cancer is difficult to detect in the early stages. 

“This is the future,” said study moderator Roy S. Herbst, MD, PhD, chief of medical oncology at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut. 

He called liquid biopsy “a great advance” in many oncology settings, including cancer screening because finding tumors early offers the best chance at cure. 

However, one of the main concerns about rolling out liquid biopsies for wide-scale cancer screening is the possibility that a test will come back positive, but no tumor will be seen on diagnostic imaging, said Herbst. It won’t be clear if the test was a false positive or if the patient has a brewing tumor that can’t be located and treated, a difficult situation for both patients and doctors. 

What to do in that situation is “a policy question that the entire country is asking now as liquid biopsies are moving forward,” he said. We are going to have to come together to figure it out and learn how to use these tests.

The work was funded by Delfi Diagnostics, the National Institutes of Health, and others. Dr. Velculescu, in addition to founding Delfi, holds patents on the technology. Dr. Herbst is a consultant, researcher, and/or holds stock in many companies, including AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and Checkpoint Therapeutics. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

TOPLINE:

A recent survey highlighted ethical concerns US oncologists have about using artificial intelligence (AI) to help make cancer treatment decisions and revealed some contradictory views about how best to integrate these tools into practice. Most respondents, for instance, said patients should not be expected to understand how AI tools work, but many also felt patients could make treatment decisions based on AI-generated recommendations. Most oncologists also felt responsible for protecting patients from biased AI, but few were confident that they could do so.

METHODOLOGY:

• The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has  for use in various medical specialties over the past few decades, and increasingly, AI tools are being integrated into cancer care.
• However, the uptake of these tools in oncology has raised ethical questions and concerns, including challenges with AI bias, error, or misuse, as well as issues explaining how an AI model reached a result.
• In the current study, researchers asked 204 oncologists from 37 states for their views on the ethical implications of using AI for cancer care.
• Among the survey respondents, 64% were men and 63% were non-Hispanic White; 29% were from academic practices, 47% had received some education on AI use in healthcare, and 45% were familiar with clinical decision models.
• The researchers assessed respondents’ answers to various questions, including whether to provide informed consent for AI use and how oncologists would approach a scenario where the AI model and the oncologist recommended a different treatment regimen.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 81% of oncologists supported having patient consent to use an AI model during treatment decisions, and 85% felt that oncologists needed to be able to explain an AI-based clinical decision model to use it in the clinic; however, only 23% felt that patients also needed to be able to explain an AI model.
• When an AI decision model recommended a different treatment regimen than the treating oncologist, the most common response (36.8%) was to present both options to the patient and let the patient decide. Oncologists from academic settings were about 2.5 times more likely than those from other settings to let the patient decide. About 34% of respondents said they would present both options but recommend the oncologist’s regimen, whereas about 22% said they would present both but recommend the AI’s regimen. A small percentage would only present the oncologist’s regimen (5%) or the AI’s regimen (about 2.5%).
• About three of four respondents (76.5%) agreed that oncologists should protect patients from biased AI tools; however, only about one of four (27.9%) felt confident they could identify biased AI models.
• Most oncologists (91%) felt that AI developers were responsible for the medico-legal problems associated with AI use; less than half (47%) said oncologists or hospitals (43%) shared this responsibility.

IN PRACTICE:

“Together, these data characterize barriers that may impede the ethical adoption of AI into cancer care. The findings suggest that the implementation of AI in oncology must include rigorous assessments of its effect on care decisions, as well as decisional responsibility when problems related to AI use arise,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Andrew Hantel, MD, from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, was published last month in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study had a moderate sample size and response rate, although demographics of participating oncologists appear to be nationally representative. The cross-sectional study design limited the generalizability of the findings over time as AI is integrated into cancer care.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute, the Dana-Farber McGraw/Patterson Research Fund, and the Mark Foundation Emerging Leader Award. Dr. Hantel reported receiving personal fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, the American Journal of Managed Care, Genentech, and GSK.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A recent survey highlighted ethical concerns US oncologists have about using artificial intelligence (AI) to help make cancer treatment decisions and revealed some contradictory views about how best to integrate these tools into practice. Most respondents, for instance, said patients should not be expected to understand how AI tools work, but many also felt patients could make treatment decisions based on AI-generated recommendations. Most oncologists also felt responsible for protecting patients from biased AI, but few were confident that they could do so.

METHODOLOGY:

• The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has  for use in various medical specialties over the past few decades, and increasingly, AI tools are being integrated into cancer care.
• However, the uptake of these tools in oncology has raised ethical questions and concerns, including challenges with AI bias, error, or misuse, as well as issues explaining how an AI model reached a result.
• In the current study, researchers asked 204 oncologists from 37 states for their views on the ethical implications of using AI for cancer care.
• Among the survey respondents, 64% were men and 63% were non-Hispanic White; 29% were from academic practices, 47% had received some education on AI use in healthcare, and 45% were familiar with clinical decision models.
• The researchers assessed respondents’ answers to various questions, including whether to provide informed consent for AI use and how oncologists would approach a scenario where the AI model and the oncologist recommended a different treatment regimen.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 81% of oncologists supported having patient consent to use an AI model during treatment decisions, and 85% felt that oncologists needed to be able to explain an AI-based clinical decision model to use it in the clinic; however, only 23% felt that patients also needed to be able to explain an AI model.
• When an AI decision model recommended a different treatment regimen than the treating oncologist, the most common response (36.8%) was to present both options to the patient and let the patient decide. Oncologists from academic settings were about 2.5 times more likely than those from other settings to let the patient decide. About 34% of respondents said they would present both options but recommend the oncologist’s regimen, whereas about 22% said they would present both but recommend the AI’s regimen. A small percentage would only present the oncologist’s regimen (5%) or the AI’s regimen (about 2.5%).
• About three of four respondents (76.5%) agreed that oncologists should protect patients from biased AI tools; however, only about one of four (27.9%) felt confident they could identify biased AI models.
• Most oncologists (91%) felt that AI developers were responsible for the medico-legal problems associated with AI use; less than half (47%) said oncologists or hospitals (43%) shared this responsibility.

IN PRACTICE:

“Together, these data characterize barriers that may impede the ethical adoption of AI into cancer care. The findings suggest that the implementation of AI in oncology must include rigorous assessments of its effect on care decisions, as well as decisional responsibility when problems related to AI use arise,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Andrew Hantel, MD, from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, was published last month in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study had a moderate sample size and response rate, although demographics of participating oncologists appear to be nationally representative. The cross-sectional study design limited the generalizability of the findings over time as AI is integrated into cancer care.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute, the Dana-Farber McGraw/Patterson Research Fund, and the Mark Foundation Emerging Leader Award. Dr. Hantel reported receiving personal fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, the American Journal of Managed Care, Genentech, and GSK.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A recent survey highlighted ethical concerns US oncologists have about using artificial intelligence (AI) to help make cancer treatment decisions and revealed some contradictory views about how best to integrate these tools into practice. Most respondents, for instance, said patients should not be expected to understand how AI tools work, but many also felt patients could make treatment decisions based on AI-generated recommendations. Most oncologists also felt responsible for protecting patients from biased AI, but few were confident that they could do so.

METHODOLOGY:

• The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has  for use in various medical specialties over the past few decades, and increasingly, AI tools are being integrated into cancer care.
• However, the uptake of these tools in oncology has raised ethical questions and concerns, including challenges with AI bias, error, or misuse, as well as issues explaining how an AI model reached a result.
• In the current study, researchers asked 204 oncologists from 37 states for their views on the ethical implications of using AI for cancer care.
• Among the survey respondents, 64% were men and 63% were non-Hispanic White; 29% were from academic practices, 47% had received some education on AI use in healthcare, and 45% were familiar with clinical decision models.
• The researchers assessed respondents’ answers to various questions, including whether to provide informed consent for AI use and how oncologists would approach a scenario where the AI model and the oncologist recommended a different treatment regimen.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 81% of oncologists supported having patient consent to use an AI model during treatment decisions, and 85% felt that oncologists needed to be able to explain an AI-based clinical decision model to use it in the clinic; however, only 23% felt that patients also needed to be able to explain an AI model.
• When an AI decision model recommended a different treatment regimen than the treating oncologist, the most common response (36.8%) was to present both options to the patient and let the patient decide. Oncologists from academic settings were about 2.5 times more likely than those from other settings to let the patient decide. About 34% of respondents said they would present both options but recommend the oncologist’s regimen, whereas about 22% said they would present both but recommend the AI’s regimen. A small percentage would only present the oncologist’s regimen (5%) or the AI’s regimen (about 2.5%).
• About three of four respondents (76.5%) agreed that oncologists should protect patients from biased AI tools; however, only about one of four (27.9%) felt confident they could identify biased AI models.
• Most oncologists (91%) felt that AI developers were responsible for the medico-legal problems associated with AI use; less than half (47%) said oncologists or hospitals (43%) shared this responsibility.

IN PRACTICE:

“Together, these data characterize barriers that may impede the ethical adoption of AI into cancer care. The findings suggest that the implementation of AI in oncology must include rigorous assessments of its effect on care decisions, as well as decisional responsibility when problems related to AI use arise,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Andrew Hantel, MD, from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, was published last month in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study had a moderate sample size and response rate, although demographics of participating oncologists appear to be nationally representative. The cross-sectional study design limited the generalizability of the findings over time as AI is integrated into cancer care.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute, the Dana-Farber McGraw/Patterson Research Fund, and the Mark Foundation Emerging Leader Award. Dr. Hantel reported receiving personal fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, the American Journal of Managed Care, Genentech, and GSK.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

For individuals aged 45-49 years at average risk for colorectal cancer (CRC), the adenoma detection rate (ADR) in screening colonoscopies is 28%, which is comparable with rates seen in those aged 50-54 years.

METHODOLOGY:

• The rising incidence of CRC in younger populations prompted most guidelines to recommend screening to start at age 45. The impact of lowering the screening age on adenoma and sessile serrated lesion detection rates remains unclear, however.
• Researchers conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 16 studies; all studies were retrospective except one.
• Patients aged 45-49 years undergoing colonoscopy for any indication were included, with a separate analysis of patients in that age group at average CRC risk undergoing screening colonoscopies.
• The primary outcome was the overall detection rates of adenomas and sessile serrated lesions for colonoscopies performed for any indication.

TAKEAWAY:

• Across 15 studies, 41,709 adenomas were detected in 150,436 colonoscopies performed for any indication, resulting in a pooled overall ADR of 23.1%.
• Across six studies, 1162 sessile serrated lesions were reported in 11,457 colonoscopies performed for any indication, with a pooled detection rate of 6.3%.
• Across seven studies, the pooled ADR in screening colonoscopies performed on individuals with average CRC risk was 28.2%, which is comparable with that of 50- to 54-year-old individuals undergoing screening colonoscopy. There was not enough data to calculate the sessile serrated lesion detection rate in average-risk patients.
• The ADR was higher in the United States and Canada (26.1%) compared with studies from Asia (16.9%).

IN PRACTICE:

“The comparable detection rates of precancerous lesions in this age group to those 50 to 54 years old support starting CRC screening at 45 years of age,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Mohamed Abdallah, MD, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Minnesota Medical Center, Minneapolis, was published online in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

LIMITATIONS:

The inclusion of retrospective studies has an inherent bias. The heterogeneity between studies may limit the generalizability of the findings. Some studies that reported detection rates included individuals at both average and high risk for CRC, so they could not be used to evaluate ADRs in individuals with an average risk for CRC. Data duplication could not be ruled out.

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

For individuals aged 45-49 years at average risk for colorectal cancer (CRC), the adenoma detection rate (ADR) in screening colonoscopies is 28%, which is comparable with rates seen in those aged 50-54 years.

METHODOLOGY:

• The rising incidence of CRC in younger populations prompted most guidelines to recommend screening to start at age 45. The impact of lowering the screening age on adenoma and sessile serrated lesion detection rates remains unclear, however.
• Researchers conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 16 studies; all studies were retrospective except one.
• Patients aged 45-49 years undergoing colonoscopy for any indication were included, with a separate analysis of patients in that age group at average CRC risk undergoing screening colonoscopies.
• The primary outcome was the overall detection rates of adenomas and sessile serrated lesions for colonoscopies performed for any indication.

TAKEAWAY:

• Across 15 studies, 41,709 adenomas were detected in 150,436 colonoscopies performed for any indication, resulting in a pooled overall ADR of 23.1%.
• Across six studies, 1162 sessile serrated lesions were reported in 11,457 colonoscopies performed for any indication, with a pooled detection rate of 6.3%.
• Across seven studies, the pooled ADR in screening colonoscopies performed on individuals with average CRC risk was 28.2%, which is comparable with that of 50- to 54-year-old individuals undergoing screening colonoscopy. There was not enough data to calculate the sessile serrated lesion detection rate in average-risk patients.
• The ADR was higher in the United States and Canada (26.1%) compared with studies from Asia (16.9%).

IN PRACTICE:

“The comparable detection rates of precancerous lesions in this age group to those 50 to 54 years old support starting CRC screening at 45 years of age,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Mohamed Abdallah, MD, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Minnesota Medical Center, Minneapolis, was published online in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

LIMITATIONS:

The inclusion of retrospective studies has an inherent bias. The heterogeneity between studies may limit the generalizability of the findings. Some studies that reported detection rates included individuals at both average and high risk for CRC, so they could not be used to evaluate ADRs in individuals with an average risk for CRC. Data duplication could not be ruled out.

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

For individuals aged 45-49 years at average risk for colorectal cancer (CRC), the adenoma detection rate (ADR) in screening colonoscopies is 28%, which is comparable with rates seen in those aged 50-54 years.

METHODOLOGY:

• The rising incidence of CRC in younger populations prompted most guidelines to recommend screening to start at age 45. The impact of lowering the screening age on adenoma and sessile serrated lesion detection rates remains unclear, however.
• Researchers conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 16 studies; all studies were retrospective except one.
• Patients aged 45-49 years undergoing colonoscopy for any indication were included, with a separate analysis of patients in that age group at average CRC risk undergoing screening colonoscopies.
• The primary outcome was the overall detection rates of adenomas and sessile serrated lesions for colonoscopies performed for any indication.

TAKEAWAY:

• Across 15 studies, 41,709 adenomas were detected in 150,436 colonoscopies performed for any indication, resulting in a pooled overall ADR of 23.1%.
• Across six studies, 1162 sessile serrated lesions were reported in 11,457 colonoscopies performed for any indication, with a pooled detection rate of 6.3%.
• Across seven studies, the pooled ADR in screening colonoscopies performed on individuals with average CRC risk was 28.2%, which is comparable with that of 50- to 54-year-old individuals undergoing screening colonoscopy. There was not enough data to calculate the sessile serrated lesion detection rate in average-risk patients.
• The ADR was higher in the United States and Canada (26.1%) compared with studies from Asia (16.9%).

IN PRACTICE:

“The comparable detection rates of precancerous lesions in this age group to those 50 to 54 years old support starting CRC screening at 45 years of age,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Mohamed Abdallah, MD, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Minnesota Medical Center, Minneapolis, was published online in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

LIMITATIONS:

The inclusion of retrospective studies has an inherent bias. The heterogeneity between studies may limit the generalizability of the findings. Some studies that reported detection rates included individuals at both average and high risk for CRC, so they could not be used to evaluate ADRs in individuals with an average risk for CRC. Data duplication could not be ruled out.

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Multitarget stool-based tests are showing promise for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in average-risk individuals and could edge out the current standard fecal immunochemical test (FIT).

These new tests aren’t radical departures from the standard FIT. Like the standard test, the multitarget FIT uses antibodies to test for hemoglobin in stool samples. But these multitarget approaches take the standard FIT a step further by testing for additional DNA, RNA, or protein biomarkers associated with CRC to help improve early detection.

Currently, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends two FIT tests — standard FIT and stool FIT-DNA — as well as a third noninvasive CRC screening test, guaiac fecal occult blood test (gFOBT). gFOBT detects heme, a component of hemoglobin, through a chemical reaction.

But both standard FIT and stool FIT-DNA come with caveats. Compared to the standard test, FIT-DNA tends to be better at detecting traces of blood in the stool, and thus can uncover more instances of CRC or other advanced lesions. The flipside is that the DNA test also often leads to more false-positive findings.

In fact, the American College of Physicians does not recommend stool FIT-DNA for screening, citing issues such as cost — more than $600 per test vs about $30 for standard FIT — and the greater likelihood of false-positives compared with both standard FIT and gFOBT.

Given these trade-offs with current noninvasive screening options, developing a FIT option that can improve early detection of CRC and advanced precancerous lesions without increasing false-positives could make a big difference in outcomes. 

Three new noninvasive multitarget tests under investigation — an updated DNA-based test, Cologuard 2.0 (Exact Sciences; Madison, WI); an RNA-based test, ColoSense (Geneoscopy; St Louis, MO); and a protein-based test from CRCbioscreen (Amsterdam, the Netherlands) — may be able to do just that. 
 

Cologuard 2.0: Multitarget Stool DNA-Based Test

An updated version of the stool FIT-DNA is currently under development. Dubbed Next Generation Cologuard, or Cologuard 2.0, this multitarget test detects three novel methylated DNA markers along with fecal hemoglobin.

In a recent trial comparing Cologuard 2.0 vs standard FIT, 20,176 participants aged 40 years or older were screened with Cologuard 2.0 as well as standard FIT before they all also received a colonoscopy. The researchers compared findings with Cologuard 2.0 and standard FIT, which used a positivity cutoff ≥ 20 mcg hemoglobin/g feces. 

The researchers then assessed Cologuard 2.0’s sensitivity (a gauge of how well it detects disease that is truly present) and specificity (a measure of how well a test indicates the absence of disease when no disease is present) compared with standard FIT and the original Cologuard test.

Overall, Cologuard 2.0 demonstrated better sensitivity for CRC than did standard FIT (93.9% vs 67.3%, respectively) and for advanced precancerous lesions (43.4% vs 23.3%). The next-generation test, for instance, identified 92 of 98 participants with colonoscopy-confirmed CRC diagnoses vs 66 cases using standard FIT.

Compared with the original Cologuard, Cologuard 2.0’s sensitivity improved slightly for CRC, from 92% to 93.9%,; for advanced precancerous lesions, from 42% to 43.4%; and for high-grade dysplasia, from 69% to 75%. Specificity also improved with the latest version, from 87% to 90.6%. 

However, Cologuard 2.0’s specificity for advanced neoplasia was worse than that of standard FIT (90.6% vs 94.8%, respectively), which would increase the likelihood of false-positive findings.

Despite its lower specificity compared with standard FIT, Cologuard 2.0 has several advantages. The test can identify more people with CRC and advanced precancerous lesions than the standard test and can lead to fewer false-positives than the original Cologuard test.

Cologuard maker Exact Sciences has submitted trial data to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for approval.
 

Multitarget Stool RNA-Based Test

ColoSense, an RNA-based stool test, looks for eight RNA biomarkers associated with CRC. 

The company says that RNA-based testing has an advantage over DNA biomarker assays, such as the currently marketed Cologuard test, because it isn›t subject to the age-related changes in DNA methylation that can throw off the results from DNA assays. 

Like Cologuard 2.0, Geneoscopy’s Colosense test is under review by the FDA.

The data Geneoscopy submitted to the FDA came from the CRC-PREVENT trial, which included 8920 participants who were screened with both ColoSense and standard FIT before all had a colonoscopy. The participants ranged in age from 45 to 90 years, with 22% between 45 and 50 years old, a population recently added to the USPSTF screening recommendations. 

ColoSense showed higher sensitivity than standard FIT for the presence of CRC (94% vs 78%, respectively) and advanced adenomas (46% vs 29%). In the group aged 45-50 years, the RNA-based test had a sensitivity of 100% for CRC, correctly identifying all five people with colonoscopy-confirmed CRC, and 45% for advanced adenomas.

However, ColoSense was less specific than standard FIT compared with negative colonoscopy findings (88% vs 96%, respectively) and negative findings for advanced lesions or CRC (85.5% vs 94.9%); thus, it was more likely to lead to false-positive results.

Overall, the investigators said ColoSense is comparable to Cologuard — its chief market rival — in terms of sensitivity for CRC and advanced adenomas but has higher sensitivity for colorectal neoplasia in people aged 50 years or younger.
 

Multitarget Protein-Based Test

The multitarget protein-based FIT uses antibodies to test for two additional proteins: calprotectin, an inflammatory marker associated with CRC, and serpin family F member 2, a protease inhibitor thought to be upregulated in colon cancer. 

A 2021 study of 1284 patients found that the sensitivity of the multitarget protein-based test was 42.9% for advanced neoplasias compared with 37.3% with standard FIT. Its specificity was similar to that of standard FIT, at 96.6% for advanced neoplasias. 

In a more recent report published in The Lancet Oncology, the team modeled three scenarios comparing the two FIT tests. These scenarios used different cutoff values for a test to be positive for CRC or an advanced lesion.

Overall, the analysis included stool samples from 13,187 patients aged 55-75 years who were in the Netherlands’ national CRC screening program. Stool samples were evaluated with both the multitarget test and the standard FIT, using a positivity cutoff ≥ 47 mcg hemoglobin/g feces. Colonoscopy data were available for only 1270 participants. 

In scenario 1, the multitarget test had a lower threshold for a positive test and consequently identified more precancerous lesions than the standard FIT (828 vs 354, respectively). The multitarget FIT identified a few more CRC cases: Of 29 colonoscopy-confirmed CRC cases, the multitarget FIT identified 26 vs 23 with standard FIT. 

But the multitarget FIT also had more than double the number of false-positives than the standard FIT (347 vs 161, respectively).

Perhaps the most telling comparison occurred in scenario 2, with both tests set at the same low positivity threshold to minimize false-positives.

As expected, the two tests had similar positivity rates for advanced lesions, with the multitarget test correctly identifying 22 of 29 people with CRC, one fewer than the standard test. The protein-based test identified slightly more people with advanced lesions (156 vs 136 with the standard test), leading to a higher sensitivity for advanced lesions. 

Most notably, the protein-based test resulted in fewer false-positives than did the standard test (295 vs 311, respectively) , resulting in a slightly higher specificity.

In this scenario, “a single screening round might not have the biggest impact on cancer incidence and mortality,” the authors said, but the higher detection rate would still accumulate over 20 years of testing. The authors estimated that, under this scenario, substituting the multitarget FIT for the standard test in the Netherlands’ CRC screening program could reduce CRC incidence by 5% and CRC mortality by 4%.

Gerrit Meijer, MD, PhD, a pathologist at the Netherlands Cancer Institute, and colleagues recently launched a company called CRCbioscreen to commercialize this multitarget FIT for large-scale programs. The company›s priority is to develop and validate a clinical-grade test to sell to federal governments with national screening programs, such as those throughout Europe, Australia, and Asia, Dr. Meijer told this news organization. Dr. Meijer expects this process will take about 4 years.

The test will be developed for the US market, but with no nationwide screening program in the United States, future availability will depend on interest from providers and institutions, noted Dr. Meijer, who is also chief scientific officer at CRCbioscreen.

Overall, these three new multitarget stool-based CRC screening tests could help catch more cancers and advanced precancerous lesions. And, if the tests have a high enough specificity, a negative test result could also allow people to forgo screening colonoscopy. 

Still, people with a positive FIT finding would require follow-up colonoscopy, but about 10% of patients decline colonoscopy following an abnormal FIT, Mark A. Lewis, MD, director of gastrointestinal oncology at Intermountain Health in Murray, Utah, told this news organization last year. That means that even if precancerous lesions and CRC are being caught earlier, treatment can’t be started unless people follow through with colonoscopy.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Multitarget stool-based tests are showing promise for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in average-risk individuals and could edge out the current standard fecal immunochemical test (FIT).

These new tests aren’t radical departures from the standard FIT. Like the standard test, the multitarget FIT uses antibodies to test for hemoglobin in stool samples. But these multitarget approaches take the standard FIT a step further by testing for additional DNA, RNA, or protein biomarkers associated with CRC to help improve early detection.

Currently, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends two FIT tests — standard FIT and stool FIT-DNA — as well as a third noninvasive CRC screening test, guaiac fecal occult blood test (gFOBT). gFOBT detects heme, a component of hemoglobin, through a chemical reaction.

But both standard FIT and stool FIT-DNA come with caveats. Compared to the standard test, FIT-DNA tends to be better at detecting traces of blood in the stool, and thus can uncover more instances of CRC or other advanced lesions. The flipside is that the DNA test also often leads to more false-positive findings.

In fact, the American College of Physicians does not recommend stool FIT-DNA for screening, citing issues such as cost — more than $600 per test vs about $30 for standard FIT — and the greater likelihood of false-positives compared with both standard FIT and gFOBT.

Given these trade-offs with current noninvasive screening options, developing a FIT option that can improve early detection of CRC and advanced precancerous lesions without increasing false-positives could make a big difference in outcomes. 

Three new noninvasive multitarget tests under investigation — an updated DNA-based test, Cologuard 2.0 (Exact Sciences; Madison, WI); an RNA-based test, ColoSense (Geneoscopy; St Louis, MO); and a protein-based test from CRCbioscreen (Amsterdam, the Netherlands) — may be able to do just that. 
 

Cologuard 2.0: Multitarget Stool DNA-Based Test

An updated version of the stool FIT-DNA is currently under development. Dubbed Next Generation Cologuard, or Cologuard 2.0, this multitarget test detects three novel methylated DNA markers along with fecal hemoglobin.

In a recent trial comparing Cologuard 2.0 vs standard FIT, 20,176 participants aged 40 years or older were screened with Cologuard 2.0 as well as standard FIT before they all also received a colonoscopy. The researchers compared findings with Cologuard 2.0 and standard FIT, which used a positivity cutoff ≥ 20 mcg hemoglobin/g feces. 

The researchers then assessed Cologuard 2.0’s sensitivity (a gauge of how well it detects disease that is truly present) and specificity (a measure of how well a test indicates the absence of disease when no disease is present) compared with standard FIT and the original Cologuard test.

Overall, Cologuard 2.0 demonstrated better sensitivity for CRC than did standard FIT (93.9% vs 67.3%, respectively) and for advanced precancerous lesions (43.4% vs 23.3%). The next-generation test, for instance, identified 92 of 98 participants with colonoscopy-confirmed CRC diagnoses vs 66 cases using standard FIT.

Compared with the original Cologuard, Cologuard 2.0’s sensitivity improved slightly for CRC, from 92% to 93.9%,; for advanced precancerous lesions, from 42% to 43.4%; and for high-grade dysplasia, from 69% to 75%. Specificity also improved with the latest version, from 87% to 90.6%. 

However, Cologuard 2.0’s specificity for advanced neoplasia was worse than that of standard FIT (90.6% vs 94.8%, respectively), which would increase the likelihood of false-positive findings.

Despite its lower specificity compared with standard FIT, Cologuard 2.0 has several advantages. The test can identify more people with CRC and advanced precancerous lesions than the standard test and can lead to fewer false-positives than the original Cologuard test.

Cologuard maker Exact Sciences has submitted trial data to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for approval.
 

Multitarget Stool RNA-Based Test

ColoSense, an RNA-based stool test, looks for eight RNA biomarkers associated with CRC. 

The company says that RNA-based testing has an advantage over DNA biomarker assays, such as the currently marketed Cologuard test, because it isn›t subject to the age-related changes in DNA methylation that can throw off the results from DNA assays. 

Like Cologuard 2.0, Geneoscopy’s Colosense test is under review by the FDA.

The data Geneoscopy submitted to the FDA came from the CRC-PREVENT trial, which included 8920 participants who were screened with both ColoSense and standard FIT before all had a colonoscopy. The participants ranged in age from 45 to 90 years, with 22% between 45 and 50 years old, a population recently added to the USPSTF screening recommendations. 

ColoSense showed higher sensitivity than standard FIT for the presence of CRC (94% vs 78%, respectively) and advanced adenomas (46% vs 29%). In the group aged 45-50 years, the RNA-based test had a sensitivity of 100% for CRC, correctly identifying all five people with colonoscopy-confirmed CRC, and 45% for advanced adenomas.

However, ColoSense was less specific than standard FIT compared with negative colonoscopy findings (88% vs 96%, respectively) and negative findings for advanced lesions or CRC (85.5% vs 94.9%); thus, it was more likely to lead to false-positive results.

Overall, the investigators said ColoSense is comparable to Cologuard — its chief market rival — in terms of sensitivity for CRC and advanced adenomas but has higher sensitivity for colorectal neoplasia in people aged 50 years or younger.
 

Multitarget Protein-Based Test

The multitarget protein-based FIT uses antibodies to test for two additional proteins: calprotectin, an inflammatory marker associated with CRC, and serpin family F member 2, a protease inhibitor thought to be upregulated in colon cancer. 

A 2021 study of 1284 patients found that the sensitivity of the multitarget protein-based test was 42.9% for advanced neoplasias compared with 37.3% with standard FIT. Its specificity was similar to that of standard FIT, at 96.6% for advanced neoplasias. 

In a more recent report published in The Lancet Oncology, the team modeled three scenarios comparing the two FIT tests. These scenarios used different cutoff values for a test to be positive for CRC or an advanced lesion.

Overall, the analysis included stool samples from 13,187 patients aged 55-75 years who were in the Netherlands’ national CRC screening program. Stool samples were evaluated with both the multitarget test and the standard FIT, using a positivity cutoff ≥ 47 mcg hemoglobin/g feces. Colonoscopy data were available for only 1270 participants. 

In scenario 1, the multitarget test had a lower threshold for a positive test and consequently identified more precancerous lesions than the standard FIT (828 vs 354, respectively). The multitarget FIT identified a few more CRC cases: Of 29 colonoscopy-confirmed CRC cases, the multitarget FIT identified 26 vs 23 with standard FIT. 

But the multitarget FIT also had more than double the number of false-positives than the standard FIT (347 vs 161, respectively).

Perhaps the most telling comparison occurred in scenario 2, with both tests set at the same low positivity threshold to minimize false-positives.

As expected, the two tests had similar positivity rates for advanced lesions, with the multitarget test correctly identifying 22 of 29 people with CRC, one fewer than the standard test. The protein-based test identified slightly more people with advanced lesions (156 vs 136 with the standard test), leading to a higher sensitivity for advanced lesions. 

Most notably, the protein-based test resulted in fewer false-positives than did the standard test (295 vs 311, respectively) , resulting in a slightly higher specificity.

In this scenario, “a single screening round might not have the biggest impact on cancer incidence and mortality,” the authors said, but the higher detection rate would still accumulate over 20 years of testing. The authors estimated that, under this scenario, substituting the multitarget FIT for the standard test in the Netherlands’ CRC screening program could reduce CRC incidence by 5% and CRC mortality by 4%.

Gerrit Meijer, MD, PhD, a pathologist at the Netherlands Cancer Institute, and colleagues recently launched a company called CRCbioscreen to commercialize this multitarget FIT for large-scale programs. The company›s priority is to develop and validate a clinical-grade test to sell to federal governments with national screening programs, such as those throughout Europe, Australia, and Asia, Dr. Meijer told this news organization. Dr. Meijer expects this process will take about 4 years.

The test will be developed for the US market, but with no nationwide screening program in the United States, future availability will depend on interest from providers and institutions, noted Dr. Meijer, who is also chief scientific officer at CRCbioscreen.

Overall, these three new multitarget stool-based CRC screening tests could help catch more cancers and advanced precancerous lesions. And, if the tests have a high enough specificity, a negative test result could also allow people to forgo screening colonoscopy. 

Still, people with a positive FIT finding would require follow-up colonoscopy, but about 10% of patients decline colonoscopy following an abnormal FIT, Mark A. Lewis, MD, director of gastrointestinal oncology at Intermountain Health in Murray, Utah, told this news organization last year. That means that even if precancerous lesions and CRC are being caught earlier, treatment can’t be started unless people follow through with colonoscopy.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Multitarget stool-based tests are showing promise for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in average-risk individuals and could edge out the current standard fecal immunochemical test (FIT).

These new tests aren’t radical departures from the standard FIT. Like the standard test, the multitarget FIT uses antibodies to test for hemoglobin in stool samples. But these multitarget approaches take the standard FIT a step further by testing for additional DNA, RNA, or protein biomarkers associated with CRC to help improve early detection.

Currently, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends two FIT tests — standard FIT and stool FIT-DNA — as well as a third noninvasive CRC screening test, guaiac fecal occult blood test (gFOBT). gFOBT detects heme, a component of hemoglobin, through a chemical reaction.

But both standard FIT and stool FIT-DNA come with caveats. Compared to the standard test, FIT-DNA tends to be better at detecting traces of blood in the stool, and thus can uncover more instances of CRC or other advanced lesions. The flipside is that the DNA test also often leads to more false-positive findings.

In fact, the American College of Physicians does not recommend stool FIT-DNA for screening, citing issues such as cost — more than $600 per test vs about $30 for standard FIT — and the greater likelihood of false-positives compared with both standard FIT and gFOBT.

Given these trade-offs with current noninvasive screening options, developing a FIT option that can improve early detection of CRC and advanced precancerous lesions without increasing false-positives could make a big difference in outcomes. 

Three new noninvasive multitarget tests under investigation — an updated DNA-based test, Cologuard 2.0 (Exact Sciences; Madison, WI); an RNA-based test, ColoSense (Geneoscopy; St Louis, MO); and a protein-based test from CRCbioscreen (Amsterdam, the Netherlands) — may be able to do just that. 
 

Cologuard 2.0: Multitarget Stool DNA-Based Test

An updated version of the stool FIT-DNA is currently under development. Dubbed Next Generation Cologuard, or Cologuard 2.0, this multitarget test detects three novel methylated DNA markers along with fecal hemoglobin.

In a recent trial comparing Cologuard 2.0 vs standard FIT, 20,176 participants aged 40 years or older were screened with Cologuard 2.0 as well as standard FIT before they all also received a colonoscopy. The researchers compared findings with Cologuard 2.0 and standard FIT, which used a positivity cutoff ≥ 20 mcg hemoglobin/g feces. 

The researchers then assessed Cologuard 2.0’s sensitivity (a gauge of how well it detects disease that is truly present) and specificity (a measure of how well a test indicates the absence of disease when no disease is present) compared with standard FIT and the original Cologuard test.

Overall, Cologuard 2.0 demonstrated better sensitivity for CRC than did standard FIT (93.9% vs 67.3%, respectively) and for advanced precancerous lesions (43.4% vs 23.3%). The next-generation test, for instance, identified 92 of 98 participants with colonoscopy-confirmed CRC diagnoses vs 66 cases using standard FIT.

Compared with the original Cologuard, Cologuard 2.0’s sensitivity improved slightly for CRC, from 92% to 93.9%,; for advanced precancerous lesions, from 42% to 43.4%; and for high-grade dysplasia, from 69% to 75%. Specificity also improved with the latest version, from 87% to 90.6%. 

However, Cologuard 2.0’s specificity for advanced neoplasia was worse than that of standard FIT (90.6% vs 94.8%, respectively), which would increase the likelihood of false-positive findings.

Despite its lower specificity compared with standard FIT, Cologuard 2.0 has several advantages. The test can identify more people with CRC and advanced precancerous lesions than the standard test and can lead to fewer false-positives than the original Cologuard test.

Cologuard maker Exact Sciences has submitted trial data to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for approval.
 

Multitarget Stool RNA-Based Test

ColoSense, an RNA-based stool test, looks for eight RNA biomarkers associated with CRC. 

The company says that RNA-based testing has an advantage over DNA biomarker assays, such as the currently marketed Cologuard test, because it isn›t subject to the age-related changes in DNA methylation that can throw off the results from DNA assays. 

Like Cologuard 2.0, Geneoscopy’s Colosense test is under review by the FDA.

The data Geneoscopy submitted to the FDA came from the CRC-PREVENT trial, which included 8920 participants who were screened with both ColoSense and standard FIT before all had a colonoscopy. The participants ranged in age from 45 to 90 years, with 22% between 45 and 50 years old, a population recently added to the USPSTF screening recommendations. 

ColoSense showed higher sensitivity than standard FIT for the presence of CRC (94% vs 78%, respectively) and advanced adenomas (46% vs 29%). In the group aged 45-50 years, the RNA-based test had a sensitivity of 100% for CRC, correctly identifying all five people with colonoscopy-confirmed CRC, and 45% for advanced adenomas.

However, ColoSense was less specific than standard FIT compared with negative colonoscopy findings (88% vs 96%, respectively) and negative findings for advanced lesions or CRC (85.5% vs 94.9%); thus, it was more likely to lead to false-positive results.

Overall, the investigators said ColoSense is comparable to Cologuard — its chief market rival — in terms of sensitivity for CRC and advanced adenomas but has higher sensitivity for colorectal neoplasia in people aged 50 years or younger.
 

Multitarget Protein-Based Test

The multitarget protein-based FIT uses antibodies to test for two additional proteins: calprotectin, an inflammatory marker associated with CRC, and serpin family F member 2, a protease inhibitor thought to be upregulated in colon cancer. 

A 2021 study of 1284 patients found that the sensitivity of the multitarget protein-based test was 42.9% for advanced neoplasias compared with 37.3% with standard FIT. Its specificity was similar to that of standard FIT, at 96.6% for advanced neoplasias. 

In a more recent report published in The Lancet Oncology, the team modeled three scenarios comparing the two FIT tests. These scenarios used different cutoff values for a test to be positive for CRC or an advanced lesion.

Overall, the analysis included stool samples from 13,187 patients aged 55-75 years who were in the Netherlands’ national CRC screening program. Stool samples were evaluated with both the multitarget test and the standard FIT, using a positivity cutoff ≥ 47 mcg hemoglobin/g feces. Colonoscopy data were available for only 1270 participants. 

In scenario 1, the multitarget test had a lower threshold for a positive test and consequently identified more precancerous lesions than the standard FIT (828 vs 354, respectively). The multitarget FIT identified a few more CRC cases: Of 29 colonoscopy-confirmed CRC cases, the multitarget FIT identified 26 vs 23 with standard FIT. 

But the multitarget FIT also had more than double the number of false-positives than the standard FIT (347 vs 161, respectively).

Perhaps the most telling comparison occurred in scenario 2, with both tests set at the same low positivity threshold to minimize false-positives.

As expected, the two tests had similar positivity rates for advanced lesions, with the multitarget test correctly identifying 22 of 29 people with CRC, one fewer than the standard test. The protein-based test identified slightly more people with advanced lesions (156 vs 136 with the standard test), leading to a higher sensitivity for advanced lesions. 

Most notably, the protein-based test resulted in fewer false-positives than did the standard test (295 vs 311, respectively) , resulting in a slightly higher specificity.

In this scenario, “a single screening round might not have the biggest impact on cancer incidence and mortality,” the authors said, but the higher detection rate would still accumulate over 20 years of testing. The authors estimated that, under this scenario, substituting the multitarget FIT for the standard test in the Netherlands’ CRC screening program could reduce CRC incidence by 5% and CRC mortality by 4%.

Gerrit Meijer, MD, PhD, a pathologist at the Netherlands Cancer Institute, and colleagues recently launched a company called CRCbioscreen to commercialize this multitarget FIT for large-scale programs. The company›s priority is to develop and validate a clinical-grade test to sell to federal governments with national screening programs, such as those throughout Europe, Australia, and Asia, Dr. Meijer told this news organization. Dr. Meijer expects this process will take about 4 years.

The test will be developed for the US market, but with no nationwide screening program in the United States, future availability will depend on interest from providers and institutions, noted Dr. Meijer, who is also chief scientific officer at CRCbioscreen.

Overall, these three new multitarget stool-based CRC screening tests could help catch more cancers and advanced precancerous lesions. And, if the tests have a high enough specificity, a negative test result could also allow people to forgo screening colonoscopy. 

Still, people with a positive FIT finding would require follow-up colonoscopy, but about 10% of patients decline colonoscopy following an abnormal FIT, Mark A. Lewis, MD, director of gastrointestinal oncology at Intermountain Health in Murray, Utah, told this news organization last year. That means that even if precancerous lesions and CRC are being caught earlier, treatment can’t be started unless people follow through with colonoscopy.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In recent years, innovative use of bispecific antibodies and CAR T-cell therapy has ushered in an era when many patients with relapsed/refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) — who once had prognoses of 6 months or less — now survive for multiple years with the malignancy, and some are cured.

The comparative benefits and limitations of these two treatments for r/r ALL were a topic for discussion at the Great Debates & Updates Hematological Malignancies conference, held April 5-6 in New York City.

“Every single patient with ALL should benefit from bispecific antibodies before getting CAR-T cells, and I want to make the case that everybody should get CAR T as well. But they should get blinatumomab before they get CAR T,” said Elias Jabbour, MD, of the MD Anderson Cancer Center at The University of Texas in Houston, whose presentation focused on the merits of bispecific antibodies.

MD Anderson Cancer Center

His argument was based on data indicating that patients have better chances of long-term remission with the use of bispecific antibodies when they are administered in an earlier round of salvage treatment — and the fact that patients who are not cured with these drugs can still achieve a lower disease burden and perform better on CAR T-cell therapy than those who don’t receive the drugs.

“When blinatumomab is used as a consolidation during the first salvage treatment and spaces out transplantation, 3-year overall survival increases in the relapse setting, deepening responses and reducing the rate of VOD (veno-occlusive disease). The safety and efficacy of CAR T depends on a disease burden. If you have a minimal residual disease (MRD), you have a safer outcome and a better outcome in the long run,” Dr. Jabbour explained.

This point of view is supported by data from the treatment of patients r/r ALL with low intensity chemotherapy + inotuzumab ozogamicin (Besponsa; Pfizer) +/- blinatumomab (Blincyto; Amgen), knows as Mini-HCVD + Ino +/-Blina. Trial members achieved a median overall survival (OS) rate of 17 months, a 3-year survival rate of 42%, and an overall MRD negativity rate of 85%.

Dr. Jabbour noted that blinatumomab has its limitations. Generally, this treatment is administered intravenously every few weeks and can be cumbersome for patients who must travel to an infusion center. However, data from a phase 1b trial of single agent subcutaneous blinatumomab for advanced ALL has demonstrated that this formulation can be effective and can lead to MRD negativity, possibly paving the way for easier administration of the drug.

Aditi Shastri, MD, a leukemia specialist at New York’s Montefiore Medical Center who attended the debate, agreed that the data presented did support Dr. Jabbour’s contention that subcutaneous blinatumomab could make treatment available to even more people with r/r ALL. “It’s easier to administer than the blina pump and could act as a bridge to curative therapies like AlloHSCT,” she said.

Jae Park, MD, a leukemia and cellular therapy specialist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, argued that CAR T is the most potent therapy for r/r ALL. Dr. Park agreed that inotuzumab and blinatumomab have yielded tremendous progress in the treatment of patients with r/r ALL, but he noted that bispecific antibodies lack some of the advantages of CAR T.

Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center

In recent years, innovative use of bispecific antibodies and CAR T-cell therapy has ushered in an era when many patients with relapsed/refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) — who once had prognoses of 6 months or less — now survive for multiple years with the malignancy, and some are cured.

The comparative benefits and limitations of these two treatments for r/r ALL were a topic for discussion at the Great Debates & Updates Hematological Malignancies conference, held April 5-6 in New York City.

“Every single patient with ALL should benefit from bispecific antibodies before getting CAR-T cells, and I want to make the case that everybody should get CAR T as well. But they should get blinatumomab before they get CAR T,” said Elias Jabbour, MD, of the MD Anderson Cancer Center at The University of Texas in Houston, whose presentation focused on the merits of bispecific antibodies.

MD Anderson Cancer Center

His argument was based on data indicating that patients have better chances of long-term remission with the use of bispecific antibodies when they are administered in an earlier round of salvage treatment — and the fact that patients who are not cured with these drugs can still achieve a lower disease burden and perform better on CAR T-cell therapy than those who don’t receive the drugs.

“When blinatumomab is used as a consolidation during the first salvage treatment and spaces out transplantation, 3-year overall survival increases in the relapse setting, deepening responses and reducing the rate of VOD (veno-occlusive disease). The safety and efficacy of CAR T depends on a disease burden. If you have a minimal residual disease (MRD), you have a safer outcome and a better outcome in the long run,” Dr. Jabbour explained.

This point of view is supported by data from the treatment of patients r/r ALL with low intensity chemotherapy + inotuzumab ozogamicin (Besponsa; Pfizer) +/- blinatumomab (Blincyto; Amgen), knows as Mini-HCVD + Ino +/-Blina. Trial members achieved a median overall survival (OS) rate of 17 months, a 3-year survival rate of 42%, and an overall MRD negativity rate of 85%.

Dr. Jabbour noted that blinatumomab has its limitations. Generally, this treatment is administered intravenously every few weeks and can be cumbersome for patients who must travel to an infusion center. However, data from a phase 1b trial of single agent subcutaneous blinatumomab for advanced ALL has demonstrated that this formulation can be effective and can lead to MRD negativity, possibly paving the way for easier administration of the drug.

Aditi Shastri, MD, a leukemia specialist at New York’s Montefiore Medical Center who attended the debate, agreed that the data presented did support Dr. Jabbour’s contention that subcutaneous blinatumomab could make treatment available to even more people with r/r ALL. “It’s easier to administer than the blina pump and could act as a bridge to curative therapies like AlloHSCT,” she said.

Jae Park, MD, a leukemia and cellular therapy specialist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, argued that CAR T is the most potent therapy for r/r ALL. Dr. Park agreed that inotuzumab and blinatumomab have yielded tremendous progress in the treatment of patients with r/r ALL, but he noted that bispecific antibodies lack some of the advantages of CAR T.

Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center

In recent years, innovative use of bispecific antibodies and CAR T-cell therapy has ushered in an era when many patients with relapsed/refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) — who once had prognoses of 6 months or less — now survive for multiple years with the malignancy, and some are cured.

The comparative benefits and limitations of these two treatments for r/r ALL were a topic for discussion at the Great Debates & Updates Hematological Malignancies conference, held April 5-6 in New York City.

“Every single patient with ALL should benefit from bispecific antibodies before getting CAR-T cells, and I want to make the case that everybody should get CAR T as well. But they should get blinatumomab before they get CAR T,” said Elias Jabbour, MD, of the MD Anderson Cancer Center at The University of Texas in Houston, whose presentation focused on the merits of bispecific antibodies.

MD Anderson Cancer Center

His argument was based on data indicating that patients have better chances of long-term remission with the use of bispecific antibodies when they are administered in an earlier round of salvage treatment — and the fact that patients who are not cured with these drugs can still achieve a lower disease burden and perform better on CAR T-cell therapy than those who don’t receive the drugs.

“When blinatumomab is used as a consolidation during the first salvage treatment and spaces out transplantation, 3-year overall survival increases in the relapse setting, deepening responses and reducing the rate of VOD (veno-occlusive disease). The safety and efficacy of CAR T depends on a disease burden. If you have a minimal residual disease (MRD), you have a safer outcome and a better outcome in the long run,” Dr. Jabbour explained.

This point of view is supported by data from the treatment of patients r/r ALL with low intensity chemotherapy + inotuzumab ozogamicin (Besponsa; Pfizer) +/- blinatumomab (Blincyto; Amgen), knows as Mini-HCVD + Ino +/-Blina. Trial members achieved a median overall survival (OS) rate of 17 months, a 3-year survival rate of 42%, and an overall MRD negativity rate of 85%.

Dr. Jabbour noted that blinatumomab has its limitations. Generally, this treatment is administered intravenously every few weeks and can be cumbersome for patients who must travel to an infusion center. However, data from a phase 1b trial of single agent subcutaneous blinatumomab for advanced ALL has demonstrated that this formulation can be effective and can lead to MRD negativity, possibly paving the way for easier administration of the drug.

Aditi Shastri, MD, a leukemia specialist at New York’s Montefiore Medical Center who attended the debate, agreed that the data presented did support Dr. Jabbour’s contention that subcutaneous blinatumomab could make treatment available to even more people with r/r ALL. “It’s easier to administer than the blina pump and could act as a bridge to curative therapies like AlloHSCT,” she said.

Jae Park, MD, a leukemia and cellular therapy specialist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, argued that CAR T is the most potent therapy for r/r ALL. Dr. Park agreed that inotuzumab and blinatumomab have yielded tremendous progress in the treatment of patients with r/r ALL, but he noted that bispecific antibodies lack some of the advantages of CAR T.

Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center

Physicians who misuse the “copy-and-paste” feature in patients’ electronic health records (EHRs) can face serious consequences, including lost hospital privileges, fines, and malpractice lawsuits.

In California, a locum tenens physician lost her hospital privileges after repeatedly violating the copy-and-paste policy developed at Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital, Santa Rosa, California.

“Her use of copy and paste impaired continuity of care,” said Alvin Gore, MD, who was involved in the case as the hospital’s director of utilization management.

Dr. Gore said the hospital warned the doctor, but she did not change her behavior. He did not identify the physician, citing confidentiality. The case occurred more than 5 years ago. Since then, several physicians have been called onto the carpet for violations of the policy, but no one else has lost privileges, Dr. Gore said.

Copy-paste practices can save doctors’ time when dealing with cumbersome EHR systems, but they also can lead to redundant, outdated, or inconsistent information that can compromise patient care, experts said.

“EHRs are imperfect, time consuming, and somewhat rigid,” said Robert A. Dowling, MD, a practice management consultant for large medical groups. “If physicians can’t easily figure out a complex system, they’re likely to use a workaround like copy and paste.”

Copy-and-paste abuse has also led to fines. A six-member cardiology group in Somerville, New Jersey, paid a $422,000 fine to the federal government to settle copy-and-paste charges, following an investigation by the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services, according to the Report on Medicare Compliance.

This big settlement, announced in 2016, is a rare case in which physicians were charged with copy-and-paste fraud — intentionally using it to enhance reimbursement.

More commonly, Medicare contractors identify physicians who unintentionally received overpayments through sloppy copy-and-paste practices, according to a coding and documentation auditor who worked for 10 years at a Medicare contractor in Pennsylvania.

Such cases are frequent and are handled confidentially, said the auditor, who asked not to be identified. Practices must return the overpayment, and the physicians involved are “contacted and educated,” she said.

Copy and paste can also show up in malpractice lawsuits. In a 2012 survey, 53% of professional liability carriers said they had handled an EHR-related malpractice claim, and 71% of those claims included copy-and-paste use.

One such case, described by CRICO, a malpractice carrier based in Massachusetts, took place in 2012-2013. “A patient developed amiodarone toxicity because the patient›s history and medications were copied from a previous note that did not document that the patient was already on the medication,» CRICO stated.

“If you do face a malpractice claim, copying and pasting the same note repeatedly makes you look clinically inattentive, even if the copy/pasted material is unrelated to the adverse event,” CRICO officials noted in a report.
 

The Push to Use Copy and Paste

Copy and paste is a great time-saver. One study linked its use to lower burnout rates. However, it can easily introduce errors into the medical record. “This can be a huge problem,” Dr. Dowling said. “If, for example, you copy forward a previous note that said the patient had blood in their urine ‘6 days ago,’ it is immediately inaccurate.”

Practices can control use of copy and paste through coding clerks who read the medical records and then educate doctors when problems crop up.

The Pennsylvania auditor, who now works for a large group practice, said the group has very few copy-and-paste problems because of her role. “Not charting responsibly rarely happens because I work very closely with the doctors,” she said.

Dr. Dowling, however, reports that many physicians continue to overuse copy and paste. He points to a 2022 study which found that, on average, half the clinical note at one health system had been copied and pasted.

One solution might be to sanction physicians for overusing copy and paste, just as they’re sometimes penalized for not completing their notes on time with a reduction in income or possible termination.

Practices could periodically audit medical records for excessive copy-paste use. EHR systems like Epic’s can indicate how much of a doctor’s note has been copied. But Dr. Dowling doesn’t know of any practices that do this.

“There is little appetite to introduce a new enforcement activity for physicians,” he said. “Physicians would see it just as a way to make their lives more difficult than they already are.”
 

Monitoring in Hospitals and Health Systems

Some hospitals and health systems have gone as far as disabling copy-and-paste function in their EHR systems. However, enterprising physicians have found ways around these blocks.

Some institutions have also introduced formal policies, directing doctors on how they can copy and paste, including Banner Health in Arizona, Northwell Health in New York, UConn Health in Connecticut, University of Maryland Medical System, and University of Toledo in Ohio.

Definitions of what is not acceptable vary, but most of these policies oppose copying someone else’s notes and direct physicians to indicate the origin of pasted material.

Santa Rosa Memorial’s policy is quite specific. It still allows some copy and paste but stipulates that it cannot be used for the chief complaint, the review of systems, the physical examination, and the assessment and plan in the medical record, except when the information can’t be obtained directly from the patient. Also, physicians must summarize test results and provide references to other providers’ notes.

Dr. Gore said he and a physician educator who works with physicians on clinical documentation proposed the policy about a decade ago. When physicians on staff were asked to comment, some said they would be opposed to a complete ban, but they generally agreed that copy and paste was a serious problem that needed to be addressed, he said.

The hospital could have simply adopted guidelines, as opposed to rules with consequences, but “we wanted our policy to have teeth,” Dr. Gore said.

When violators are identified, Dr. Gore says he meets with them confidentially and educates them on proper use of copy and paste. Sometimes, the department head is brought in. Some physicians go on to violate the policy again and have to attend another meeting, he said, but aside from the one case, no one else has been disciplined.

It’s unclear how many physicians have faced consequences for misusing copy-paste features — such data aren’t tracked, and sanctions are likely to be handled confidentially, as a personnel matter.

Geisinger Health in Pennsylvania regularly monitors copy-and-paste usage and makes it part of physicians’ professional evaluations, according to a 2022 presentation by a Geisinger official.

Meanwhile, even when systems don’t have specific policies, they may still discipline physicians when copy and paste leads to errors. Scott MacDonald, MD, chief medical information officer at UC Davis Health in Sacramento, California, told this news organization that copy-and-paste abuse has come up a few times over the years in investigations of clinical errors.
 

Holding Physicians Accountable

Physicians can be held accountable for copy and paste by Medicare contractors and in malpractice lawsuits, but the most obvious way is at their place of work: A practice, hospital, or health system.

One physician has lost staff privileges, but more typically, coding clerks or colleagues talk to offending physicians and try to educate them on proper use of copy and paste.

Educational outreach, however, is often ineffective, said Robert Hirschtick, MD, a retired teaching physician at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois. “The physician may be directed to take an online course,” he said. “When they take the course, the goal is to get it done with, rather than to learn something new.”

Dr. Hirschtick’s articles on copy and paste, including one titled, “Sloppy and Paste,” have put him at the front lines of the debate. “This is an ethical issue,” he said in an interview. He agrees that some forms of copy and paste are permissible, but in many cases, “it is intellectually dishonest and potentially even plagiarism,” he said.

Dr. Hirschtick argues that copy-and-paste policies need more teeth. “Tying violations to compensation would be quite effective,” he said. “Even if physicians were rarely penalized, just knowing that it could happen to you might be enough. But I haven’t heard of anyone doing this.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Physicians who misuse the “copy-and-paste” feature in patients’ electronic health records (EHRs) can face serious consequences, including lost hospital privileges, fines, and malpractice lawsuits.

In California, a locum tenens physician lost her hospital privileges after repeatedly violating the copy-and-paste policy developed at Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital, Santa Rosa, California.

“Her use of copy and paste impaired continuity of care,” said Alvin Gore, MD, who was involved in the case as the hospital’s director of utilization management.

Dr. Gore said the hospital warned the doctor, but she did not change her behavior. He did not identify the physician, citing confidentiality. The case occurred more than 5 years ago. Since then, several physicians have been called onto the carpet for violations of the policy, but no one else has lost privileges, Dr. Gore said.

Copy-paste practices can save doctors’ time when dealing with cumbersome EHR systems, but they also can lead to redundant, outdated, or inconsistent information that can compromise patient care, experts said.

“EHRs are imperfect, time consuming, and somewhat rigid,” said Robert A. Dowling, MD, a practice management consultant for large medical groups. “If physicians can’t easily figure out a complex system, they’re likely to use a workaround like copy and paste.”

Copy-and-paste abuse has also led to fines. A six-member cardiology group in Somerville, New Jersey, paid a $422,000 fine to the federal government to settle copy-and-paste charges, following an investigation by the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services, according to the Report on Medicare Compliance.

This big settlement, announced in 2016, is a rare case in which physicians were charged with copy-and-paste fraud — intentionally using it to enhance reimbursement.

More commonly, Medicare contractors identify physicians who unintentionally received overpayments through sloppy copy-and-paste practices, according to a coding and documentation auditor who worked for 10 years at a Medicare contractor in Pennsylvania.

Such cases are frequent and are handled confidentially, said the auditor, who asked not to be identified. Practices must return the overpayment, and the physicians involved are “contacted and educated,” she said.

Copy and paste can also show up in malpractice lawsuits. In a 2012 survey, 53% of professional liability carriers said they had handled an EHR-related malpractice claim, and 71% of those claims included copy-and-paste use.

One such case, described by CRICO, a malpractice carrier based in Massachusetts, took place in 2012-2013. “A patient developed amiodarone toxicity because the patient›s history and medications were copied from a previous note that did not document that the patient was already on the medication,» CRICO stated.

“If you do face a malpractice claim, copying and pasting the same note repeatedly makes you look clinically inattentive, even if the copy/pasted material is unrelated to the adverse event,” CRICO officials noted in a report.
 

The Push to Use Copy and Paste

Copy and paste is a great time-saver. One study linked its use to lower burnout rates. However, it can easily introduce errors into the medical record. “This can be a huge problem,” Dr. Dowling said. “If, for example, you copy forward a previous note that said the patient had blood in their urine ‘6 days ago,’ it is immediately inaccurate.”

Practices can control use of copy and paste through coding clerks who read the medical records and then educate doctors when problems crop up.

The Pennsylvania auditor, who now works for a large group practice, said the group has very few copy-and-paste problems because of her role. “Not charting responsibly rarely happens because I work very closely with the doctors,” she said.

Dr. Dowling, however, reports that many physicians continue to overuse copy and paste. He points to a 2022 study which found that, on average, half the clinical note at one health system had been copied and pasted.

One solution might be to sanction physicians for overusing copy and paste, just as they’re sometimes penalized for not completing their notes on time with a reduction in income or possible termination.

Practices could periodically audit medical records for excessive copy-paste use. EHR systems like Epic’s can indicate how much of a doctor’s note has been copied. But Dr. Dowling doesn’t know of any practices that do this.

“There is little appetite to introduce a new enforcement activity for physicians,” he said. “Physicians would see it just as a way to make their lives more difficult than they already are.”
 

Monitoring in Hospitals and Health Systems

Some hospitals and health systems have gone as far as disabling copy-and-paste function in their EHR systems. However, enterprising physicians have found ways around these blocks.

Some institutions have also introduced formal policies, directing doctors on how they can copy and paste, including Banner Health in Arizona, Northwell Health in New York, UConn Health in Connecticut, University of Maryland Medical System, and University of Toledo in Ohio.

Definitions of what is not acceptable vary, but most of these policies oppose copying someone else’s notes and direct physicians to indicate the origin of pasted material.

Santa Rosa Memorial’s policy is quite specific. It still allows some copy and paste but stipulates that it cannot be used for the chief complaint, the review of systems, the physical examination, and the assessment and plan in the medical record, except when the information can’t be obtained directly from the patient. Also, physicians must summarize test results and provide references to other providers’ notes.

Dr. Gore said he and a physician educator who works with physicians on clinical documentation proposed the policy about a decade ago. When physicians on staff were asked to comment, some said they would be opposed to a complete ban, but they generally agreed that copy and paste was a serious problem that needed to be addressed, he said.

The hospital could have simply adopted guidelines, as opposed to rules with consequences, but “we wanted our policy to have teeth,” Dr. Gore said.

When violators are identified, Dr. Gore says he meets with them confidentially and educates them on proper use of copy and paste. Sometimes, the department head is brought in. Some physicians go on to violate the policy again and have to attend another meeting, he said, but aside from the one case, no one else has been disciplined.

It’s unclear how many physicians have faced consequences for misusing copy-paste features — such data aren’t tracked, and sanctions are likely to be handled confidentially, as a personnel matter.

Geisinger Health in Pennsylvania regularly monitors copy-and-paste usage and makes it part of physicians’ professional evaluations, according to a 2022 presentation by a Geisinger official.

Meanwhile, even when systems don’t have specific policies, they may still discipline physicians when copy and paste leads to errors. Scott MacDonald, MD, chief medical information officer at UC Davis Health in Sacramento, California, told this news organization that copy-and-paste abuse has come up a few times over the years in investigations of clinical errors.
 

Holding Physicians Accountable

Physicians can be held accountable for copy and paste by Medicare contractors and in malpractice lawsuits, but the most obvious way is at their place of work: A practice, hospital, or health system.

One physician has lost staff privileges, but more typically, coding clerks or colleagues talk to offending physicians and try to educate them on proper use of copy and paste.

Educational outreach, however, is often ineffective, said Robert Hirschtick, MD, a retired teaching physician at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois. “The physician may be directed to take an online course,” he said. “When they take the course, the goal is to get it done with, rather than to learn something new.”

Dr. Hirschtick’s articles on copy and paste, including one titled, “Sloppy and Paste,” have put him at the front lines of the debate. “This is an ethical issue,” he said in an interview. He agrees that some forms of copy and paste are permissible, but in many cases, “it is intellectually dishonest and potentially even plagiarism,” he said.

Dr. Hirschtick argues that copy-and-paste policies need more teeth. “Tying violations to compensation would be quite effective,” he said. “Even if physicians were rarely penalized, just knowing that it could happen to you might be enough. But I haven’t heard of anyone doing this.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Physicians who misuse the “copy-and-paste” feature in patients’ electronic health records (EHRs) can face serious consequences, including lost hospital privileges, fines, and malpractice lawsuits.

In California, a locum tenens physician lost her hospital privileges after repeatedly violating the copy-and-paste policy developed at Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital, Santa Rosa, California.

“Her use of copy and paste impaired continuity of care,” said Alvin Gore, MD, who was involved in the case as the hospital’s director of utilization management.

Dr. Gore said the hospital warned the doctor, but she did not change her behavior. He did not identify the physician, citing confidentiality. The case occurred more than 5 years ago. Since then, several physicians have been called onto the carpet for violations of the policy, but no one else has lost privileges, Dr. Gore said.

Copy-paste practices can save doctors’ time when dealing with cumbersome EHR systems, but they also can lead to redundant, outdated, or inconsistent information that can compromise patient care, experts said.

“EHRs are imperfect, time consuming, and somewhat rigid,” said Robert A. Dowling, MD, a practice management consultant for large medical groups. “If physicians can’t easily figure out a complex system, they’re likely to use a workaround like copy and paste.”

Copy-and-paste abuse has also led to fines. A six-member cardiology group in Somerville, New Jersey, paid a $422,000 fine to the federal government to settle copy-and-paste charges, following an investigation by the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services, according to the Report on Medicare Compliance.

This big settlement, announced in 2016, is a rare case in which physicians were charged with copy-and-paste fraud — intentionally using it to enhance reimbursement.

More commonly, Medicare contractors identify physicians who unintentionally received overpayments through sloppy copy-and-paste practices, according to a coding and documentation auditor who worked for 10 years at a Medicare contractor in Pennsylvania.

Such cases are frequent and are handled confidentially, said the auditor, who asked not to be identified. Practices must return the overpayment, and the physicians involved are “contacted and educated,” she said.

Copy and paste can also show up in malpractice lawsuits. In a 2012 survey, 53% of professional liability carriers said they had handled an EHR-related malpractice claim, and 71% of those claims included copy-and-paste use.

One such case, described by CRICO, a malpractice carrier based in Massachusetts, took place in 2012-2013. “A patient developed amiodarone toxicity because the patient›s history and medications were copied from a previous note that did not document that the patient was already on the medication,» CRICO stated.

“If you do face a malpractice claim, copying and pasting the same note repeatedly makes you look clinically inattentive, even if the copy/pasted material is unrelated to the adverse event,” CRICO officials noted in a report.
 

The Push to Use Copy and Paste

Copy and paste is a great time-saver. One study linked its use to lower burnout rates. However, it can easily introduce errors into the medical record. “This can be a huge problem,” Dr. Dowling said. “If, for example, you copy forward a previous note that said the patient had blood in their urine ‘6 days ago,’ it is immediately inaccurate.”

Practices can control use of copy and paste through coding clerks who read the medical records and then educate doctors when problems crop up.

The Pennsylvania auditor, who now works for a large group practice, said the group has very few copy-and-paste problems because of her role. “Not charting responsibly rarely happens because I work very closely with the doctors,” she said.

Dr. Dowling, however, reports that many physicians continue to overuse copy and paste. He points to a 2022 study which found that, on average, half the clinical note at one health system had been copied and pasted.

One solution might be to sanction physicians for overusing copy and paste, just as they’re sometimes penalized for not completing their notes on time with a reduction in income or possible termination.

Practices could periodically audit medical records for excessive copy-paste use. EHR systems like Epic’s can indicate how much of a doctor’s note has been copied. But Dr. Dowling doesn’t know of any practices that do this.

“There is little appetite to introduce a new enforcement activity for physicians,” he said. “Physicians would see it just as a way to make their lives more difficult than they already are.”
 

Monitoring in Hospitals and Health Systems

Some hospitals and health systems have gone as far as disabling copy-and-paste function in their EHR systems. However, enterprising physicians have found ways around these blocks.

Some institutions have also introduced formal policies, directing doctors on how they can copy and paste, including Banner Health in Arizona, Northwell Health in New York, UConn Health in Connecticut, University of Maryland Medical System, and University of Toledo in Ohio.

Definitions of what is not acceptable vary, but most of these policies oppose copying someone else’s notes and direct physicians to indicate the origin of pasted material.

Santa Rosa Memorial’s policy is quite specific. It still allows some copy and paste but stipulates that it cannot be used for the chief complaint, the review of systems, the physical examination, and the assessment and plan in the medical record, except when the information can’t be obtained directly from the patient. Also, physicians must summarize test results and provide references to other providers’ notes.

Dr. Gore said he and a physician educator who works with physicians on clinical documentation proposed the policy about a decade ago. When physicians on staff were asked to comment, some said they would be opposed to a complete ban, but they generally agreed that copy and paste was a serious problem that needed to be addressed, he said.

The hospital could have simply adopted guidelines, as opposed to rules with consequences, but “we wanted our policy to have teeth,” Dr. Gore said.

When violators are identified, Dr. Gore says he meets with them confidentially and educates them on proper use of copy and paste. Sometimes, the department head is brought in. Some physicians go on to violate the policy again and have to attend another meeting, he said, but aside from the one case, no one else has been disciplined.

It’s unclear how many physicians have faced consequences for misusing copy-paste features — such data aren’t tracked, and sanctions are likely to be handled confidentially, as a personnel matter.

Geisinger Health in Pennsylvania regularly monitors copy-and-paste usage and makes it part of physicians’ professional evaluations, according to a 2022 presentation by a Geisinger official.

Meanwhile, even when systems don’t have specific policies, they may still discipline physicians when copy and paste leads to errors. Scott MacDonald, MD, chief medical information officer at UC Davis Health in Sacramento, California, told this news organization that copy-and-paste abuse has come up a few times over the years in investigations of clinical errors.
 

Holding Physicians Accountable

Physicians can be held accountable for copy and paste by Medicare contractors and in malpractice lawsuits, but the most obvious way is at their place of work: A practice, hospital, or health system.

One physician has lost staff privileges, but more typically, coding clerks or colleagues talk to offending physicians and try to educate them on proper use of copy and paste.

Educational outreach, however, is often ineffective, said Robert Hirschtick, MD, a retired teaching physician at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois. “The physician may be directed to take an online course,” he said. “When they take the course, the goal is to get it done with, rather than to learn something new.”

Dr. Hirschtick’s articles on copy and paste, including one titled, “Sloppy and Paste,” have put him at the front lines of the debate. “This is an ethical issue,” he said in an interview. He agrees that some forms of copy and paste are permissible, but in many cases, “it is intellectually dishonest and potentially even plagiarism,” he said.

Dr. Hirschtick argues that copy-and-paste policies need more teeth. “Tying violations to compensation would be quite effective,” he said. “Even if physicians were rarely penalized, just knowing that it could happen to you might be enough. But I haven’t heard of anyone doing this.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — A liquid biopsy assay that combines a microRNA signature and a well-known biomarker for pancreatic cancer has demonstrated an accuracy of 97% for detecting stage I/II pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, the most common type of pancreatic cancer.

It is quite encouraging to know we have a blood test that could potentially find this disease early, said Ajay Goel, PhD, a molecular diagnostics specialist at City of Hope in Duarte, California, who presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR).

Dr. Goel and colleagues developed a signature for pancreatic cancer based on microRNAs identified in the exomes shed from pancreatic cancers and cell-free DNA markers found in the blood of patients with the disease.

Their initial assay tested blood samples for this signature in a training cohort of 252 people in Japan, approximately 60% of whom had pancreatic cancer. The rest were healthy controls. The assay was then tested in validation cohorts of 400 subjects, half with pancreatic cancer and half controls, in China and South Korea.

In both the initial and validation tests, the microRNA assay had an accuracy of about 90% for stage I/II pancreatic cancer, already far better than commercially available assays.

In an additional validation cohort in the United States with 139 patients with pancreatic cancer and 193 controls at six centers across the country, the researchers found that adding carbohydrate antigen 19-9 — a well-known marker of pancreatic cancer — to the assay boosted the test’s accuracy to 97%.

The test performed the same whether the tumor was in the head or tail of the pancreas.

“We are very excited about this data,” said Dr. Goel.

The technology was recently licensed to Pharus Diagnostics for commercial development, which will likely include a prospective screening trial, he told this news organization.

Because pancreatic cancer is fairly uncommon, Dr. Goel did not anticipate the test being used for general screening but rather for screening high-risk patients such as those with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes, a family history of pancreatic cancer, or predisposing genetic mutations.

“It should be a very inexpensive test; it doesn’t cost us much to do in the lab,” he added.

Study moderator Ryan Corcoran, MD, PhD, a gastrointestinal (GI) oncologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, saw the potential.

“As a GI oncologist, I know how lethal and hard to treat pancreatic cancer is,” he said. A test that could reliably detect pancreatic cancer early, with an acceptable false-positive rate, would be extremely useful.

“The cure rate is many, many times higher,” if we detect it before it has a chance to spread, he explained.

In the meantime, Dr. Goel said there’s more work to be done.

Almost 4,000 subjects have been enrolled in ongoing validation efforts, and efforts are underway to use the test to screen thousands of banked blood samples from the PLCO, a prospective cancer screening trial in healthy subjects.

The researchers also want to see if the test can distinguish benign pancreatic cysts from ones that turn cancerous.

The idea is to find the earliest possible signs of this disease to see if we can find it not “at the moment of clinical diagnosis, but possibly 6 months, 1 year, 2 years earlier” than with radiologic imaging, Dr. Goel said.

The work was funded by the National Cancer Institute and others. Dr. Goel is a consultant for Pharus Diagnostics and Cellomics. Dr. Corcoran is a consultant for, has grants from, and/or holds stock in numerous companies, including Pfizer, Novartis, Eli Lilly, and Revolution Medicines.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — A liquid biopsy assay that combines a microRNA signature and a well-known biomarker for pancreatic cancer has demonstrated an accuracy of 97% for detecting stage I/II pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, the most common type of pancreatic cancer.

It is quite encouraging to know we have a blood test that could potentially find this disease early, said Ajay Goel, PhD, a molecular diagnostics specialist at City of Hope in Duarte, California, who presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR).

Dr. Goel and colleagues developed a signature for pancreatic cancer based on microRNAs identified in the exomes shed from pancreatic cancers and cell-free DNA markers found in the blood of patients with the disease.

Their initial assay tested blood samples for this signature in a training cohort of 252 people in Japan, approximately 60% of whom had pancreatic cancer. The rest were healthy controls. The assay was then tested in validation cohorts of 400 subjects, half with pancreatic cancer and half controls, in China and South Korea.

In both the initial and validation tests, the microRNA assay had an accuracy of about 90% for stage I/II pancreatic cancer, already far better than commercially available assays.

In an additional validation cohort in the United States with 139 patients with pancreatic cancer and 193 controls at six centers across the country, the researchers found that adding carbohydrate antigen 19-9 — a well-known marker of pancreatic cancer — to the assay boosted the test’s accuracy to 97%.

The test performed the same whether the tumor was in the head or tail of the pancreas.

“We are very excited about this data,” said Dr. Goel.

The technology was recently licensed to Pharus Diagnostics for commercial development, which will likely include a prospective screening trial, he told this news organization.

Because pancreatic cancer is fairly uncommon, Dr. Goel did not anticipate the test being used for general screening but rather for screening high-risk patients such as those with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes, a family history of pancreatic cancer, or predisposing genetic mutations.

“It should be a very inexpensive test; it doesn’t cost us much to do in the lab,” he added.

Study moderator Ryan Corcoran, MD, PhD, a gastrointestinal (GI) oncologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, saw the potential.

“As a GI oncologist, I know how lethal and hard to treat pancreatic cancer is,” he said. A test that could reliably detect pancreatic cancer early, with an acceptable false-positive rate, would be extremely useful.

“The cure rate is many, many times higher,” if we detect it before it has a chance to spread, he explained.

In the meantime, Dr. Goel said there’s more work to be done.

Almost 4,000 subjects have been enrolled in ongoing validation efforts, and efforts are underway to use the test to screen thousands of banked blood samples from the PLCO, a prospective cancer screening trial in healthy subjects.

The researchers also want to see if the test can distinguish benign pancreatic cysts from ones that turn cancerous.

The idea is to find the earliest possible signs of this disease to see if we can find it not “at the moment of clinical diagnosis, but possibly 6 months, 1 year, 2 years earlier” than with radiologic imaging, Dr. Goel said.

The work was funded by the National Cancer Institute and others. Dr. Goel is a consultant for Pharus Diagnostics and Cellomics. Dr. Corcoran is a consultant for, has grants from, and/or holds stock in numerous companies, including Pfizer, Novartis, Eli Lilly, and Revolution Medicines.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — A liquid biopsy assay that combines a microRNA signature and a well-known biomarker for pancreatic cancer has demonstrated an accuracy of 97% for detecting stage I/II pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, the most common type of pancreatic cancer.

It is quite encouraging to know we have a blood test that could potentially find this disease early, said Ajay Goel, PhD, a molecular diagnostics specialist at City of Hope in Duarte, California, who presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR).

Dr. Goel and colleagues developed a signature for pancreatic cancer based on microRNAs identified in the exomes shed from pancreatic cancers and cell-free DNA markers found in the blood of patients with the disease.

Their initial assay tested blood samples for this signature in a training cohort of 252 people in Japan, approximately 60% of whom had pancreatic cancer. The rest were healthy controls. The assay was then tested in validation cohorts of 400 subjects, half with pancreatic cancer and half controls, in China and South Korea.

In both the initial and validation tests, the microRNA assay had an accuracy of about 90% for stage I/II pancreatic cancer, already far better than commercially available assays.

In an additional validation cohort in the United States with 139 patients with pancreatic cancer and 193 controls at six centers across the country, the researchers found that adding carbohydrate antigen 19-9 — a well-known marker of pancreatic cancer — to the assay boosted the test’s accuracy to 97%.

The test performed the same whether the tumor was in the head or tail of the pancreas.

“We are very excited about this data,” said Dr. Goel.

The technology was recently licensed to Pharus Diagnostics for commercial development, which will likely include a prospective screening trial, he told this news organization.

Because pancreatic cancer is fairly uncommon, Dr. Goel did not anticipate the test being used for general screening but rather for screening high-risk patients such as those with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes, a family history of pancreatic cancer, or predisposing genetic mutations.

“It should be a very inexpensive test; it doesn’t cost us much to do in the lab,” he added.

Study moderator Ryan Corcoran, MD, PhD, a gastrointestinal (GI) oncologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, saw the potential.

“As a GI oncologist, I know how lethal and hard to treat pancreatic cancer is,” he said. A test that could reliably detect pancreatic cancer early, with an acceptable false-positive rate, would be extremely useful.

“The cure rate is many, many times higher,” if we detect it before it has a chance to spread, he explained.

In the meantime, Dr. Goel said there’s more work to be done.

Almost 4,000 subjects have been enrolled in ongoing validation efforts, and efforts are underway to use the test to screen thousands of banked blood samples from the PLCO, a prospective cancer screening trial in healthy subjects.

The researchers also want to see if the test can distinguish benign pancreatic cysts from ones that turn cancerous.

The idea is to find the earliest possible signs of this disease to see if we can find it not “at the moment of clinical diagnosis, but possibly 6 months, 1 year, 2 years earlier” than with radiologic imaging, Dr. Goel said.

The work was funded by the National Cancer Institute and others. Dr. Goel is a consultant for Pharus Diagnostics and Cellomics. Dr. Corcoran is a consultant for, has grants from, and/or holds stock in numerous companies, including Pfizer, Novartis, Eli Lilly, and Revolution Medicines.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The acronym AIDS is redundant, loaded with stigma, and potentially harmful, according to a group of specialists who suggest replacing the term with “advanced HIV.”

The acronym AIDS has “outlived its usefulness and we should transition toward a more descriptive language that aligns with contemporary challenges in HIV,” reports Isaac Núñez, MD, from the Department of Medical Education, Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición Salvador Zubirán in Mexico City, Mexico, and colleagues.

People generally associate the acronym AIDS with patients who have no available treatment options and a short life expectancy, said Dr. Núñez. That mischaracterization may affect treatment decisions by patients and clinicians and could result in exaggerated infection-control measures.

Using the HIV/AIDS combination erroneously implies equivalence and can mislead the public and clinicians, which the authors explained in their Viewpoint article published in The Lancet HIV.
 

Original Reason for the Term

AIDS, which stands for acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, was coined in 1982 by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to name a disease with an unknown cause that affected people with weakened cell-mediated immunity.

“When HIV was found to be the cause of the disease (labeled HIV in 1986), the term AIDS, strictly speaking, became unnecessary,” Dr. Núñez said.

AIDS was originally intended as a case definition for surveillance purposes, and treatment decisions were based on whether patients met the case definition for AIDS, he pointed out.

“The fact that some people still do so in this day and age shows that this is not only unhelpful, but misleading and even harmful,” he noted. Without the label AIDS, clinicians can focus on whether and for how long people have been on treatment, whether they recently switched treatment, and other factors that will help determine appropriate care.
 

Some Organizations Removed AIDS From Their Names

Some organizations have already removed AIDS from their names. For example, the International AIDS Society–USA, which issues guidelines on antiretroviral treatment, changed its name to the International Antiviral Society–USA. 

In 2017, the name of AIDS.gov was changed to HIV.gov. In its explanation, the group wrote, “Today, people with HIV who are diagnosed early, linked to care, start antiretroviral therapy, and take it as prescribed can achieve life-long viral suppression that prevents HIV infection from progressing to AIDS.”

A different view on the term AIDS comes from Greg Millett, MPH, vice president at the Foundation for AIDS Research (amfAR) and the director of amfAR’s Public Policy Office. 

Although he believes that AIDS is an anachronistic term, as a researcher for more than 30 years in the field; a policy director in Washington; a scientist; and a person living with HIV, “it feels like a distinction without a difference. At least from where I sit, there are far more pressing issues that we’re facing as an HIV community,” Millett shared. 

For instance, “we’re seeing that global, as well as domestic, HIV funding is in, by far, the most precarious position that I’ve ever seen in the field. Calling it AIDS or HIV makes no difference in trying to alleviate that jeopardy,” he said.

Millett also said that the stigma and persecution and, in some cases, criminalization of people living with HIV or AIDS is pervasive and won’t go away with a name change, which is a point the authors also acknowledged.

“We need to focus on the social determinants of health,” he said. “That is the thing that is going to move the needle among people living with HIV, not nomenclature.”

Millett likens the argument to the one between Black and African American. “As a Black American, I remember fierce debates in the early ‘90s over whether we should be called African Americans or Blacks. Some argued that African American carried greater dignity and would help with self-esteem and address inequities by emphasizing that we are American. Many others said that it doesn’t make a difference.”

“It is clear that being called African American has not fixed intractable issues like poverty, structural racism, or inequities in incarceration,” he pointed out.
 

End the Epidemic, Not the Name 

The authors misinterpret the impact of the term on stigma, said James W. Curran, MD, MPH, dean emeritus of the Rollins School of Public Health and professor of epidemiology and global health at Emory University, both in Atlanta, Georgia. The term AIDS “is more likely attributed to the fatal nature of the infection itself,” without treatment, he explained, and the mode of transmission, exacerbated by homophobia.

“The term has been in widespread use for 40 years and recognized worldwide,” Dr. Curran, who led the nation’s efforts in the battle against HIV and AIDS at the CDC for 15 years before joining Emory as dean, said.

He also worries about the continued trajectory of lives lost: “Over 35 million people worldwide have perished from HIV/AIDS, including over 500,000 per year now.”

Meanwhile, “global programs such as PEPFAR [the US President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief] are under fire and threatened by Congress as no longer necessary. Removing AIDS from the terminology may add to confusion,” making people think “that the epidemic is over,” he said.

Although the authors argue that keeping the term may cause harm, eliminating it might worsen a different kind of harm. “There is a risk that abolishing the term will further de-emphasize the importance of the problem, with no significant impact on stigma,” Dr. Curran added.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The acronym AIDS is redundant, loaded with stigma, and potentially harmful, according to a group of specialists who suggest replacing the term with “advanced HIV.”

The acronym AIDS has “outlived its usefulness and we should transition toward a more descriptive language that aligns with contemporary challenges in HIV,” reports Isaac Núñez, MD, from the Department of Medical Education, Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición Salvador Zubirán in Mexico City, Mexico, and colleagues.

People generally associate the acronym AIDS with patients who have no available treatment options and a short life expectancy, said Dr. Núñez. That mischaracterization may affect treatment decisions by patients and clinicians and could result in exaggerated infection-control measures.

Using the HIV/AIDS combination erroneously implies equivalence and can mislead the public and clinicians, which the authors explained in their Viewpoint article published in The Lancet HIV.
 

Original Reason for the Term

AIDS, which stands for acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, was coined in 1982 by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to name a disease with an unknown cause that affected people with weakened cell-mediated immunity.

“When HIV was found to be the cause of the disease (labeled HIV in 1986), the term AIDS, strictly speaking, became unnecessary,” Dr. Núñez said.

AIDS was originally intended as a case definition for surveillance purposes, and treatment decisions were based on whether patients met the case definition for AIDS, he pointed out.

“The fact that some people still do so in this day and age shows that this is not only unhelpful, but misleading and even harmful,” he noted. Without the label AIDS, clinicians can focus on whether and for how long people have been on treatment, whether they recently switched treatment, and other factors that will help determine appropriate care.
 

Some Organizations Removed AIDS From Their Names

Some organizations have already removed AIDS from their names. For example, the International AIDS Society–USA, which issues guidelines on antiretroviral treatment, changed its name to the International Antiviral Society–USA. 

In 2017, the name of AIDS.gov was changed to HIV.gov. In its explanation, the group wrote, “Today, people with HIV who are diagnosed early, linked to care, start antiretroviral therapy, and take it as prescribed can achieve life-long viral suppression that prevents HIV infection from progressing to AIDS.”

A different view on the term AIDS comes from Greg Millett, MPH, vice president at the Foundation for AIDS Research (amfAR) and the director of amfAR’s Public Policy Office. 

Although he believes that AIDS is an anachronistic term, as a researcher for more than 30 years in the field; a policy director in Washington; a scientist; and a person living with HIV, “it feels like a distinction without a difference. At least from where I sit, there are far more pressing issues that we’re facing as an HIV community,” Millett shared. 

For instance, “we’re seeing that global, as well as domestic, HIV funding is in, by far, the most precarious position that I’ve ever seen in the field. Calling it AIDS or HIV makes no difference in trying to alleviate that jeopardy,” he said.

Millett also said that the stigma and persecution and, in some cases, criminalization of people living with HIV or AIDS is pervasive and won’t go away with a name change, which is a point the authors also acknowledged.

“We need to focus on the social determinants of health,” he said. “That is the thing that is going to move the needle among people living with HIV, not nomenclature.”

Millett likens the argument to the one between Black and African American. “As a Black American, I remember fierce debates in the early ‘90s over whether we should be called African Americans or Blacks. Some argued that African American carried greater dignity and would help with self-esteem and address inequities by emphasizing that we are American. Many others said that it doesn’t make a difference.”

“It is clear that being called African American has not fixed intractable issues like poverty, structural racism, or inequities in incarceration,” he pointed out.
 

End the Epidemic, Not the Name 

The authors misinterpret the impact of the term on stigma, said James W. Curran, MD, MPH, dean emeritus of the Rollins School of Public Health and professor of epidemiology and global health at Emory University, both in Atlanta, Georgia. The term AIDS “is more likely attributed to the fatal nature of the infection itself,” without treatment, he explained, and the mode of transmission, exacerbated by homophobia.

“The term has been in widespread use for 40 years and recognized worldwide,” Dr. Curran, who led the nation’s efforts in the battle against HIV and AIDS at the CDC for 15 years before joining Emory as dean, said.

He also worries about the continued trajectory of lives lost: “Over 35 million people worldwide have perished from HIV/AIDS, including over 500,000 per year now.”

Meanwhile, “global programs such as PEPFAR [the US President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief] are under fire and threatened by Congress as no longer necessary. Removing AIDS from the terminology may add to confusion,” making people think “that the epidemic is over,” he said.

Although the authors argue that keeping the term may cause harm, eliminating it might worsen a different kind of harm. “There is a risk that abolishing the term will further de-emphasize the importance of the problem, with no significant impact on stigma,” Dr. Curran added.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The acronym AIDS is redundant, loaded with stigma, and potentially harmful, according to a group of specialists who suggest replacing the term with “advanced HIV.”

The acronym AIDS has “outlived its usefulness and we should transition toward a more descriptive language that aligns with contemporary challenges in HIV,” reports Isaac Núñez, MD, from the Department of Medical Education, Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición Salvador Zubirán in Mexico City, Mexico, and colleagues.

People generally associate the acronym AIDS with patients who have no available treatment options and a short life expectancy, said Dr. Núñez. That mischaracterization may affect treatment decisions by patients and clinicians and could result in exaggerated infection-control measures.

Using the HIV/AIDS combination erroneously implies equivalence and can mislead the public and clinicians, which the authors explained in their Viewpoint article published in The Lancet HIV.
 

Original Reason for the Term

AIDS, which stands for acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, was coined in 1982 by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to name a disease with an unknown cause that affected people with weakened cell-mediated immunity.

“When HIV was found to be the cause of the disease (labeled HIV in 1986), the term AIDS, strictly speaking, became unnecessary,” Dr. Núñez said.

AIDS was originally intended as a case definition for surveillance purposes, and treatment decisions were based on whether patients met the case definition for AIDS, he pointed out.

“The fact that some people still do so in this day and age shows that this is not only unhelpful, but misleading and even harmful,” he noted. Without the label AIDS, clinicians can focus on whether and for how long people have been on treatment, whether they recently switched treatment, and other factors that will help determine appropriate care.
 

Some Organizations Removed AIDS From Their Names

Some organizations have already removed AIDS from their names. For example, the International AIDS Society–USA, which issues guidelines on antiretroviral treatment, changed its name to the International Antiviral Society–USA. 

In 2017, the name of AIDS.gov was changed to HIV.gov. In its explanation, the group wrote, “Today, people with HIV who are diagnosed early, linked to care, start antiretroviral therapy, and take it as prescribed can achieve life-long viral suppression that prevents HIV infection from progressing to AIDS.”

A different view on the term AIDS comes from Greg Millett, MPH, vice president at the Foundation for AIDS Research (amfAR) and the director of amfAR’s Public Policy Office. 

Although he believes that AIDS is an anachronistic term, as a researcher for more than 30 years in the field; a policy director in Washington; a scientist; and a person living with HIV, “it feels like a distinction without a difference. At least from where I sit, there are far more pressing issues that we’re facing as an HIV community,” Millett shared. 

For instance, “we’re seeing that global, as well as domestic, HIV funding is in, by far, the most precarious position that I’ve ever seen in the field. Calling it AIDS or HIV makes no difference in trying to alleviate that jeopardy,” he said.

Millett also said that the stigma and persecution and, in some cases, criminalization of people living with HIV or AIDS is pervasive and won’t go away with a name change, which is a point the authors also acknowledged.

“We need to focus on the social determinants of health,” he said. “That is the thing that is going to move the needle among people living with HIV, not nomenclature.”

Millett likens the argument to the one between Black and African American. “As a Black American, I remember fierce debates in the early ‘90s over whether we should be called African Americans or Blacks. Some argued that African American carried greater dignity and would help with self-esteem and address inequities by emphasizing that we are American. Many others said that it doesn’t make a difference.”

“It is clear that being called African American has not fixed intractable issues like poverty, structural racism, or inequities in incarceration,” he pointed out.
 

End the Epidemic, Not the Name 

The authors misinterpret the impact of the term on stigma, said James W. Curran, MD, MPH, dean emeritus of the Rollins School of Public Health and professor of epidemiology and global health at Emory University, both in Atlanta, Georgia. The term AIDS “is more likely attributed to the fatal nature of the infection itself,” without treatment, he explained, and the mode of transmission, exacerbated by homophobia.

“The term has been in widespread use for 40 years and recognized worldwide,” Dr. Curran, who led the nation’s efforts in the battle against HIV and AIDS at the CDC for 15 years before joining Emory as dean, said.

He also worries about the continued trajectory of lives lost: “Over 35 million people worldwide have perished from HIV/AIDS, including over 500,000 per year now.”

Meanwhile, “global programs such as PEPFAR [the US President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief] are under fire and threatened by Congress as no longer necessary. Removing AIDS from the terminology may add to confusion,” making people think “that the epidemic is over,” he said.

Although the authors argue that keeping the term may cause harm, eliminating it might worsen a different kind of harm. “There is a risk that abolishing the term will further de-emphasize the importance of the problem, with no significant impact on stigma,” Dr. Curran added.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — A novel multicancer early detection (MCED) blood test has demonstrated promising real-world results in detecting new cancers, including several cases of early-stage disease.

This was the conclusion of recent data presented by Ora Karp Gordon, MD, MS, during a session at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting.

The MCED test, known as Galleri, was made clinically available in the United States in April 2021. Developed by GRAIL LLC, the test analyzes cell-free DNA in the blood using targeted methylation analysis and machine learning to detect the presence of a cancer signal and determine its organ of origin or cancer signal origin. The initial screening of over 53,000 individuals with the Galleri test detected a cancer signal in 1.1% of participants.

The new real-world analysis examines the outcomes of repeat MCED testing in 5,794 individuals.

The study looked at individuals who initially received a ‘no cancer signal detected’ result and then underwent a second Galleri test. Over 80% of participants received their follow-up test 10-18 months after the first, with a median interval between blood draws of 12.9 months.

“The repeat tests detect those cancer cases that have reached the detection threshold since their last MCED test, which should be less than one year of incidence,” Dr. Gordon, professor at Saint John’s Cancer Institute, Santa Monica, California, said in an interview. “We are just now starting to see results from patients who get their second and even third round of screening.”

“Galleri is recommended to be used annually in addition to USPSTF [US Preventive Services Task Force]–recommended cancer screening tests, like mammography and colonoscopy,” she said.

This recommendation is based on a modeling study suggesting that annual screening would improve stage shift, diagnostic yield, and potentially mortality when compared to biennial screening, although biennial screening was still favorable compared with no screening, she explained.
 

Early Real-World Evidence of Repeat Testing

Among the cohort of 5,794 individuals who received repeat testing, 26 received a positive cancer signal on their second test, yielding a cancer signal detection rate of 0.45% (95% CI: 0.31%-0.66%). The cancer signal detection rate was slightly higher in men. The rate was 0.50% (95% CI: 0.32%-0.81%; 17 of 3367) in men versus 0.37% (95% CI: 0.2%-0.7%; 9 of 2427) in women.

During her presentation, Dr. Gordon highlighted that the repeat testing signal detection rate was lower than the initial 0.95% rate (95% CI: 0.87-1.0; 510 of 53,744) seen in the previous larger cohort of patients who were retested at 1 year.

She acknowledged that the lower cancer signal detection rate of repeat testing may indicate some degree of ‘early adopter’ bias, where those who return for a second test are systematically different from the general screening population. This could suggest that broader population-level screening may yield different results, she continued.
 

Shift Toward Unscreened Cancers

The top cancer types identified in the second round of testing were lymphoid, head and neck, bladder/urothelial, colorectal, and anal cancers. Clinicians were able to confirm clinical outcomes in 12 of 26 cases, in which cancer signals were detected. Of those 12 cases, 8 individuals received a cancer diagnosis and 4 did not have cancer. The remaining 14 of 26 cases in which cancer signals were detected are still under investigation.

“We found a shift away from USPSTF screen-detected cancers, like breast, lung, and prostate, and relative increase in unscreened urinary, head and neck, and lymphoid cancers, with 75% of cancers being those without any screening guidelines,” Dr. Gordon said in an interview.

She added that patients who choose to retest may have different cancer rates for several reasons, including bias toward a population that is health conscious and adhered to all recommended cancer screening.

“So the shift toward unscreened cancers is not unexpected and highlights the value of Galleri,” she said, but also acknowledged that “continued monitoring is needed to see if this translates in a persistent finding over time and tests.”
 

Shift Toward Early-Stage Cancers

Staging information was available for five cases, and Dr. Gordon highlighted in her talk that four of these confirmed cancers were stage I, including cancers of the anus, head and neck, bladder, and lymphoma. The fifth confirmed cancer with staging information was stage IV ovarian cancer.

“It is still early, and the numbers are very small, but the detection of early-stage cancers with second annual testing is very encouraging as these are the cases where MCED testing could have the greatest impact in improving outcomes through earlier treatment,” Dr. Gordon told this publication.

During an interview after the talk, Kenneth L. Kehl, MD, MPH, echoed that data must be confirmed in larger cohorts.

“The shift toward earlier stage cancers that are less detectable by standard screening methods is an interesting result, but we need to be cautious since the numbers were relatively small, and we do not have data on cancers that were diagnosed among patients whose second MCED test was also negative,” said Dr. Kehl, a medical oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.
 

MCED Results Could Help Direct Diagnostic Workup

The test’s ability to predict the organ of origin was highly accurate, correctly identifying the cancer type in all eight confirmed cases. Among the eight cases with a confirmed cancer diagnosis, the accuracy of the first prediction was 100%, and diagnoses included invasive cancers across multiple tissues and organs, including anus, colon, head and neck, urothelial tract, ovary, and the lymphatic system.

“The fact that the site of origin for 100% of confirmed cancers was accurately predicted with GRAIL’s CSO by Galleri test confirms the promise that this can guide workup when a cancer signal is detected,” Dr. Gordon noted in the interview.
 

Looking Ahead

Dr. Kehl, who was not involved in the MCED study, noted in an interview that “further data on test characteristics beyond positive predictive value, including the sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive value, as well as demonstration of clinical benefit — ideally in a randomized trial — will likely be required for MCED testing to become a standard public health recommendation.”

He added that challenges associated with implementing annual screening with MCED tests include the risks of both false positives and false negatives as testing becomes more widely available.

“False positives cause anxiety and lead to additional testing that may carry its own risks, and we need to understand if potentially false negative tests will be associated with less uptake of established screening strategies,” Dr. Kehl said in an interview. However, he noted that serial testing could lead to more frequent diagnoses of early-stage cancers that may be less detectable by standard methods.

Dr. Gordon reported financial relationships with GRAIL LLC and Genetic Technologies Corporation. Dr. Kehl reported no relationships with entities whose primary business is producing, marketing, selling, reselling, or distributing healthcare products used by or on patients.

SAN DIEGO — A novel multicancer early detection (MCED) blood test has demonstrated promising real-world results in detecting new cancers, including several cases of early-stage disease.

This was the conclusion of recent data presented by Ora Karp Gordon, MD, MS, during a session at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting.

The MCED test, known as Galleri, was made clinically available in the United States in April 2021. Developed by GRAIL LLC, the test analyzes cell-free DNA in the blood using targeted methylation analysis and machine learning to detect the presence of a cancer signal and determine its organ of origin or cancer signal origin. The initial screening of over 53,000 individuals with the Galleri test detected a cancer signal in 1.1% of participants.

The new real-world analysis examines the outcomes of repeat MCED testing in 5,794 individuals.

The study looked at individuals who initially received a ‘no cancer signal detected’ result and then underwent a second Galleri test. Over 80% of participants received their follow-up test 10-18 months after the first, with a median interval between blood draws of 12.9 months.

“The repeat tests detect those cancer cases that have reached the detection threshold since their last MCED test, which should be less than one year of incidence,” Dr. Gordon, professor at Saint John’s Cancer Institute, Santa Monica, California, said in an interview. “We are just now starting to see results from patients who get their second and even third round of screening.”

“Galleri is recommended to be used annually in addition to USPSTF [US Preventive Services Task Force]–recommended cancer screening tests, like mammography and colonoscopy,” she said.

This recommendation is based on a modeling study suggesting that annual screening would improve stage shift, diagnostic yield, and potentially mortality when compared to biennial screening, although biennial screening was still favorable compared with no screening, she explained.
 

Early Real-World Evidence of Repeat Testing

Among the cohort of 5,794 individuals who received repeat testing, 26 received a positive cancer signal on their second test, yielding a cancer signal detection rate of 0.45% (95% CI: 0.31%-0.66%). The cancer signal detection rate was slightly higher in men. The rate was 0.50% (95% CI: 0.32%-0.81%; 17 of 3367) in men versus 0.37% (95% CI: 0.2%-0.7%; 9 of 2427) in women.

During her presentation, Dr. Gordon highlighted that the repeat testing signal detection rate was lower than the initial 0.95% rate (95% CI: 0.87-1.0; 510 of 53,744) seen in the previous larger cohort of patients who were retested at 1 year.

She acknowledged that the lower cancer signal detection rate of repeat testing may indicate some degree of ‘early adopter’ bias, where those who return for a second test are systematically different from the general screening population. This could suggest that broader population-level screening may yield different results, she continued.
 

Shift Toward Unscreened Cancers

The top cancer types identified in the second round of testing were lymphoid, head and neck, bladder/urothelial, colorectal, and anal cancers. Clinicians were able to confirm clinical outcomes in 12 of 26 cases, in which cancer signals were detected. Of those 12 cases, 8 individuals received a cancer diagnosis and 4 did not have cancer. The remaining 14 of 26 cases in which cancer signals were detected are still under investigation.

“We found a shift away from USPSTF screen-detected cancers, like breast, lung, and prostate, and relative increase in unscreened urinary, head and neck, and lymphoid cancers, with 75% of cancers being those without any screening guidelines,” Dr. Gordon said in an interview.

She added that patients who choose to retest may have different cancer rates for several reasons, including bias toward a population that is health conscious and adhered to all recommended cancer screening.

“So the shift toward unscreened cancers is not unexpected and highlights the value of Galleri,” she said, but also acknowledged that “continued monitoring is needed to see if this translates in a persistent finding over time and tests.”
 

Shift Toward Early-Stage Cancers

Staging information was available for five cases, and Dr. Gordon highlighted in her talk that four of these confirmed cancers were stage I, including cancers of the anus, head and neck, bladder, and lymphoma. The fifth confirmed cancer with staging information was stage IV ovarian cancer.

“It is still early, and the numbers are very small, but the detection of early-stage cancers with second annual testing is very encouraging as these are the cases where MCED testing could have the greatest impact in improving outcomes through earlier treatment,” Dr. Gordon told this publication.

During an interview after the talk, Kenneth L. Kehl, MD, MPH, echoed that data must be confirmed in larger cohorts.

“The shift toward earlier stage cancers that are less detectable by standard screening methods is an interesting result, but we need to be cautious since the numbers were relatively small, and we do not have data on cancers that were diagnosed among patients whose second MCED test was also negative,” said Dr. Kehl, a medical oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.
 

MCED Results Could Help Direct Diagnostic Workup

The test’s ability to predict the organ of origin was highly accurate, correctly identifying the cancer type in all eight confirmed cases. Among the eight cases with a confirmed cancer diagnosis, the accuracy of the first prediction was 100%, and diagnoses included invasive cancers across multiple tissues and organs, including anus, colon, head and neck, urothelial tract, ovary, and the lymphatic system.

“The fact that the site of origin for 100% of confirmed cancers was accurately predicted with GRAIL’s CSO by Galleri test confirms the promise that this can guide workup when a cancer signal is detected,” Dr. Gordon noted in the interview.
 

Looking Ahead

Dr. Kehl, who was not involved in the MCED study, noted in an interview that “further data on test characteristics beyond positive predictive value, including the sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive value, as well as demonstration of clinical benefit — ideally in a randomized trial — will likely be required for MCED testing to become a standard public health recommendation.”

He added that challenges associated with implementing annual screening with MCED tests include the risks of both false positives and false negatives as testing becomes more widely available.

“False positives cause anxiety and lead to additional testing that may carry its own risks, and we need to understand if potentially false negative tests will be associated with less uptake of established screening strategies,” Dr. Kehl said in an interview. However, he noted that serial testing could lead to more frequent diagnoses of early-stage cancers that may be less detectable by standard methods.

Dr. Gordon reported financial relationships with GRAIL LLC and Genetic Technologies Corporation. Dr. Kehl reported no relationships with entities whose primary business is producing, marketing, selling, reselling, or distributing healthcare products used by or on patients.

SAN DIEGO — A novel multicancer early detection (MCED) blood test has demonstrated promising real-world results in detecting new cancers, including several cases of early-stage disease.

This was the conclusion of recent data presented by Ora Karp Gordon, MD, MS, during a session at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting.

The MCED test, known as Galleri, was made clinically available in the United States in April 2021. Developed by GRAIL LLC, the test analyzes cell-free DNA in the blood using targeted methylation analysis and machine learning to detect the presence of a cancer signal and determine its organ of origin or cancer signal origin. The initial screening of over 53,000 individuals with the Galleri test detected a cancer signal in 1.1% of participants.

The new real-world analysis examines the outcomes of repeat MCED testing in 5,794 individuals.

The study looked at individuals who initially received a ‘no cancer signal detected’ result and then underwent a second Galleri test. Over 80% of participants received their follow-up test 10-18 months after the first, with a median interval between blood draws of 12.9 months.

“The repeat tests detect those cancer cases that have reached the detection threshold since their last MCED test, which should be less than one year of incidence,” Dr. Gordon, professor at Saint John’s Cancer Institute, Santa Monica, California, said in an interview. “We are just now starting to see results from patients who get their second and even third round of screening.”

“Galleri is recommended to be used annually in addition to USPSTF [US Preventive Services Task Force]–recommended cancer screening tests, like mammography and colonoscopy,” she said.

This recommendation is based on a modeling study suggesting that annual screening would improve stage shift, diagnostic yield, and potentially mortality when compared to biennial screening, although biennial screening was still favorable compared with no screening, she explained.
 

Early Real-World Evidence of Repeat Testing

Among the cohort of 5,794 individuals who received repeat testing, 26 received a positive cancer signal on their second test, yielding a cancer signal detection rate of 0.45% (95% CI: 0.31%-0.66%). The cancer signal detection rate was slightly higher in men. The rate was 0.50% (95% CI: 0.32%-0.81%; 17 of 3367) in men versus 0.37% (95% CI: 0.2%-0.7%; 9 of 2427) in women.

During her presentation, Dr. Gordon highlighted that the repeat testing signal detection rate was lower than the initial 0.95% rate (95% CI: 0.87-1.0; 510 of 53,744) seen in the previous larger cohort of patients who were retested at 1 year.

She acknowledged that the lower cancer signal detection rate of repeat testing may indicate some degree of ‘early adopter’ bias, where those who return for a second test are systematically different from the general screening population. This could suggest that broader population-level screening may yield different results, she continued.
 

Shift Toward Unscreened Cancers

The top cancer types identified in the second round of testing were lymphoid, head and neck, bladder/urothelial, colorectal, and anal cancers. Clinicians were able to confirm clinical outcomes in 12 of 26 cases, in which cancer signals were detected. Of those 12 cases, 8 individuals received a cancer diagnosis and 4 did not have cancer. The remaining 14 of 26 cases in which cancer signals were detected are still under investigation.

“We found a shift away from USPSTF screen-detected cancers, like breast, lung, and prostate, and relative increase in unscreened urinary, head and neck, and lymphoid cancers, with 75% of cancers being those without any screening guidelines,” Dr. Gordon said in an interview.

She added that patients who choose to retest may have different cancer rates for several reasons, including bias toward a population that is health conscious and adhered to all recommended cancer screening.

“So the shift toward unscreened cancers is not unexpected and highlights the value of Galleri,” she said, but also acknowledged that “continued monitoring is needed to see if this translates in a persistent finding over time and tests.”
 

Shift Toward Early-Stage Cancers

Staging information was available for five cases, and Dr. Gordon highlighted in her talk that four of these confirmed cancers were stage I, including cancers of the anus, head and neck, bladder, and lymphoma. The fifth confirmed cancer with staging information was stage IV ovarian cancer.

“It is still early, and the numbers are very small, but the detection of early-stage cancers with second annual testing is very encouraging as these are the cases where MCED testing could have the greatest impact in improving outcomes through earlier treatment,” Dr. Gordon told this publication.

During an interview after the talk, Kenneth L. Kehl, MD, MPH, echoed that data must be confirmed in larger cohorts.

“The shift toward earlier stage cancers that are less detectable by standard screening methods is an interesting result, but we need to be cautious since the numbers were relatively small, and we do not have data on cancers that were diagnosed among patients whose second MCED test was also negative,” said Dr. Kehl, a medical oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.
 

MCED Results Could Help Direct Diagnostic Workup

The test’s ability to predict the organ of origin was highly accurate, correctly identifying the cancer type in all eight confirmed cases. Among the eight cases with a confirmed cancer diagnosis, the accuracy of the first prediction was 100%, and diagnoses included invasive cancers across multiple tissues and organs, including anus, colon, head and neck, urothelial tract, ovary, and the lymphatic system.

“The fact that the site of origin for 100% of confirmed cancers was accurately predicted with GRAIL’s CSO by Galleri test confirms the promise that this can guide workup when a cancer signal is detected,” Dr. Gordon noted in the interview.
 

Looking Ahead

Dr. Kehl, who was not involved in the MCED study, noted in an interview that “further data on test characteristics beyond positive predictive value, including the sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive value, as well as demonstration of clinical benefit — ideally in a randomized trial — will likely be required for MCED testing to become a standard public health recommendation.”

He added that challenges associated with implementing annual screening with MCED tests include the risks of both false positives and false negatives as testing becomes more widely available.

“False positives cause anxiety and lead to additional testing that may carry its own risks, and we need to understand if potentially false negative tests will be associated with less uptake of established screening strategies,” Dr. Kehl said in an interview. However, he noted that serial testing could lead to more frequent diagnoses of early-stage cancers that may be less detectable by standard methods.

Dr. Gordon reported financial relationships with GRAIL LLC and Genetic Technologies Corporation. Dr. Kehl reported no relationships with entities whose primary business is producing, marketing, selling, reselling, or distributing healthcare products used by or on patients.