Gynecologic Surgery

TOPLINE:

Various surgical approaches to treat vaginal vault prolapse may be similarly safe and effective and can produce high rates of patient satisfaction.

METHODOLOGY:

• A randomized clinical trial at nine sites in the United States included 360 women with vaginal vault prolapse after hysterectomy (average age, 66 years).
• The women were randomly assigned to undergo native tissue repair (transvaginal repair using the sacrospinous or uterosacral ligament), sacrocolpopexy (mesh repair placed abdominally via open or minimally invasive surgery), or transvaginal mesh repair.

TAKEAWAY:

• At 36 months, a composite measure of treatment failure — based on the need for retreatment, the presence of symptoms, or prolapse beyond the hymen — had occurred in 28% of the women who received sacrocolpopexy, 29% who received transvaginal mesh, and 43% who underwent native tissue repair.
• Sacrocolpopexy was superior to native tissue repair for treatment success (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.57; P = .01), and transvaginal mesh was noninferior to sacrocolpopexy, the researchers found.
• All of the surgical approaches were associated with high rates of treatment satisfaction and improved quality of life and sexual function.
• Adverse events and mesh complications were uncommon.

IN PRACTICE:

“All approaches were associated with high treatment satisfaction; improved symptoms, quality of life, and sexual function; and low rates of regret,” the authors of the study wrote. “As such, clinicians counseling patients with prolapse can discuss the ramifications of each approach and engage in shared, individualized decision-making.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Shawn A. Menefee, MD, Kaiser Permanente San Diego in San Diego, California. It was published online in JAMA Surgery.

LIMITATIONS:

The US Food and Drug Administration in April 2019 banned transvaginal mesh for pelvic organ prolapse because of concerns about complications such as exposure and erosion. Five trial participants who had been assigned to receive transvaginal mesh but had not yet received it at that time were rerandomized to one of the other surgical approaches.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the National Institutes of Health Office of Research on Women’s Health. Researchers disclosed consulting for companies that market medical devices.

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

TOPLINE:

Various surgical approaches to treat vaginal vault prolapse may be similarly safe and effective and can produce high rates of patient satisfaction.

METHODOLOGY:

• A randomized clinical trial at nine sites in the United States included 360 women with vaginal vault prolapse after hysterectomy (average age, 66 years).
• The women were randomly assigned to undergo native tissue repair (transvaginal repair using the sacrospinous or uterosacral ligament), sacrocolpopexy (mesh repair placed abdominally via open or minimally invasive surgery), or transvaginal mesh repair.

TAKEAWAY:

• At 36 months, a composite measure of treatment failure — based on the need for retreatment, the presence of symptoms, or prolapse beyond the hymen — had occurred in 28% of the women who received sacrocolpopexy, 29% who received transvaginal mesh, and 43% who underwent native tissue repair.
• Sacrocolpopexy was superior to native tissue repair for treatment success (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.57; P = .01), and transvaginal mesh was noninferior to sacrocolpopexy, the researchers found.
• All of the surgical approaches were associated with high rates of treatment satisfaction and improved quality of life and sexual function.
• Adverse events and mesh complications were uncommon.

IN PRACTICE:

“All approaches were associated with high treatment satisfaction; improved symptoms, quality of life, and sexual function; and low rates of regret,” the authors of the study wrote. “As such, clinicians counseling patients with prolapse can discuss the ramifications of each approach and engage in shared, individualized decision-making.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Shawn A. Menefee, MD, Kaiser Permanente San Diego in San Diego, California. It was published online in JAMA Surgery.

LIMITATIONS:

The US Food and Drug Administration in April 2019 banned transvaginal mesh for pelvic organ prolapse because of concerns about complications such as exposure and erosion. Five trial participants who had been assigned to receive transvaginal mesh but had not yet received it at that time were rerandomized to one of the other surgical approaches.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the National Institutes of Health Office of Research on Women’s Health. Researchers disclosed consulting for companies that market medical devices.

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

TOPLINE:

Various surgical approaches to treat vaginal vault prolapse may be similarly safe and effective and can produce high rates of patient satisfaction.

METHODOLOGY:

• A randomized clinical trial at nine sites in the United States included 360 women with vaginal vault prolapse after hysterectomy (average age, 66 years).
• The women were randomly assigned to undergo native tissue repair (transvaginal repair using the sacrospinous or uterosacral ligament), sacrocolpopexy (mesh repair placed abdominally via open or minimally invasive surgery), or transvaginal mesh repair.

TAKEAWAY:

• At 36 months, a composite measure of treatment failure — based on the need for retreatment, the presence of symptoms, or prolapse beyond the hymen — had occurred in 28% of the women who received sacrocolpopexy, 29% who received transvaginal mesh, and 43% who underwent native tissue repair.
• Sacrocolpopexy was superior to native tissue repair for treatment success (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.57; P = .01), and transvaginal mesh was noninferior to sacrocolpopexy, the researchers found.
• All of the surgical approaches were associated with high rates of treatment satisfaction and improved quality of life and sexual function.
• Adverse events and mesh complications were uncommon.

IN PRACTICE:

“All approaches were associated with high treatment satisfaction; improved symptoms, quality of life, and sexual function; and low rates of regret,” the authors of the study wrote. “As such, clinicians counseling patients with prolapse can discuss the ramifications of each approach and engage in shared, individualized decision-making.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Shawn A. Menefee, MD, Kaiser Permanente San Diego in San Diego, California. It was published online in JAMA Surgery.

LIMITATIONS:

The US Food and Drug Administration in April 2019 banned transvaginal mesh for pelvic organ prolapse because of concerns about complications such as exposure and erosion. Five trial participants who had been assigned to receive transvaginal mesh but had not yet received it at that time were rerandomized to one of the other surgical approaches.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the National Institutes of Health Office of Research on Women’s Health. Researchers disclosed consulting for companies that market medical devices.

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

TOPLINE:

Bariatric surgery may lower the risk for breast cancer in women with obesity, particularly in premenopausal women and in women with high insulin levels at baseline.

METHODOLOGY:

• Previous research suggests that bariatric surgery is associated with a lower risk for cancer in people with obesity, as well as female-specific cancers in women with obesity, especially those with higher baseline insulin levels. But there is a need for large prospective studies with more detailed patient information.
• The current secondary analysis included 2867 matched women (mean age, 48 years) from a prospective nonrandomized Swedish trial, which recruited men and women who had obesity between 1987 and 2001.
• Overall, 1420 women underwent bariatric surgery, and 1447 received usual care.
• Median baseline insulin levels were 15.8 μIU/L. In the surgery group, 68.3% of patients had vertical banded gastroplasty, 18.3% underwent gastric banding, and 13.4% underwent gastric bypass.
• The main outcome was breast cancer incidence, as identified from Swedish National Cancer Registry.

TAKEAWAY:

• Over a median follow-up of 23.9 years, 66 breast cancer events occurred in the surgery group and 88 in the usual care group (P = .02).
• Bariatric surgery was associated with a 33% lower risk for breast cancer (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.67), after excluding cases that occurred within the first 3 years (to account for any undiagnosed breast cancer at baseline) and adjusting for age, body mass index, alcohol, and smoking status.
• Looking at the menopausal status at baseline, bariatric surgery was associated with a reduced risk for breast cancer in premenopausal women (aHR, 0.64) but not postmenopausal women (aHR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.49-1.45; P = .54).
• Bariatric surgery was also associated with a lower risk for breast cancer in women with baseline insulin levels above the median (aHR, 0.55) than in those with baseline insulin levels below the median (aHR, 1.01).

IN PRACTICE:

“The surgical treatment benefit was predominantly seen in women with hyperinsulinemia, suggesting insulin may be used as a predictor of treatment effect,” the authors wrote. Authors of an accompanying editorial, however, cautioned that “it is not known if insulin levels or insulin resistance are true biomarkers of breast cancer risk in patients with obesity undergoing bariatric surgery” and urged further research into underlying biological mechanisms.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Felipe M. Kristensson, MD, from Institute of Medicine, Department of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, the Sahlgrenska Academy at University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden, was published online in JAMA Surgery. The accompanying editorial was led by Swati A. Kulkarni, MD, of the Comprehensive Cancer Center, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was not randomized. Breast cancer was not a predefined outcome of the main trial. Most patients underwent vertical banded gastroplasty, which is rarely used and could limit applicability of the results; however, vertical banded gastroplasty results in weight loss similar to that observed after sleeve gastrectomy. Follow-up values for insulin and insulin resistance were not available. The researchers noted significant differences in 12 out of 17 baseline characteristics between the two groups, including a larger proportion of postmenopausal women in the usual care group.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the Swedish state, Swedish Research Council, the Health & Medical Care Committee of the Region Västra Götaland, and the Adlerbert Research Foundation. The authors did not report any conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Bariatric surgery may lower the risk for breast cancer in women with obesity, particularly in premenopausal women and in women with high insulin levels at baseline.

METHODOLOGY:

• Previous research suggests that bariatric surgery is associated with a lower risk for cancer in people with obesity, as well as female-specific cancers in women with obesity, especially those with higher baseline insulin levels. But there is a need for large prospective studies with more detailed patient information.
• The current secondary analysis included 2867 matched women (mean age, 48 years) from a prospective nonrandomized Swedish trial, which recruited men and women who had obesity between 1987 and 2001.
• Overall, 1420 women underwent bariatric surgery, and 1447 received usual care.
• Median baseline insulin levels were 15.8 μIU/L. In the surgery group, 68.3% of patients had vertical banded gastroplasty, 18.3% underwent gastric banding, and 13.4% underwent gastric bypass.
• The main outcome was breast cancer incidence, as identified from Swedish National Cancer Registry.

TAKEAWAY:

• Over a median follow-up of 23.9 years, 66 breast cancer events occurred in the surgery group and 88 in the usual care group (P = .02).
• Bariatric surgery was associated with a 33% lower risk for breast cancer (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.67), after excluding cases that occurred within the first 3 years (to account for any undiagnosed breast cancer at baseline) and adjusting for age, body mass index, alcohol, and smoking status.
• Looking at the menopausal status at baseline, bariatric surgery was associated with a reduced risk for breast cancer in premenopausal women (aHR, 0.64) but not postmenopausal women (aHR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.49-1.45; P = .54).
• Bariatric surgery was also associated with a lower risk for breast cancer in women with baseline insulin levels above the median (aHR, 0.55) than in those with baseline insulin levels below the median (aHR, 1.01).

IN PRACTICE:

“The surgical treatment benefit was predominantly seen in women with hyperinsulinemia, suggesting insulin may be used as a predictor of treatment effect,” the authors wrote. Authors of an accompanying editorial, however, cautioned that “it is not known if insulin levels or insulin resistance are true biomarkers of breast cancer risk in patients with obesity undergoing bariatric surgery” and urged further research into underlying biological mechanisms.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Felipe M. Kristensson, MD, from Institute of Medicine, Department of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, the Sahlgrenska Academy at University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden, was published online in JAMA Surgery. The accompanying editorial was led by Swati A. Kulkarni, MD, of the Comprehensive Cancer Center, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was not randomized. Breast cancer was not a predefined outcome of the main trial. Most patients underwent vertical banded gastroplasty, which is rarely used and could limit applicability of the results; however, vertical banded gastroplasty results in weight loss similar to that observed after sleeve gastrectomy. Follow-up values for insulin and insulin resistance were not available. The researchers noted significant differences in 12 out of 17 baseline characteristics between the two groups, including a larger proportion of postmenopausal women in the usual care group.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the Swedish state, Swedish Research Council, the Health & Medical Care Committee of the Region Västra Götaland, and the Adlerbert Research Foundation. The authors did not report any conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Bariatric surgery may lower the risk for breast cancer in women with obesity, particularly in premenopausal women and in women with high insulin levels at baseline.

METHODOLOGY:

• Previous research suggests that bariatric surgery is associated with a lower risk for cancer in people with obesity, as well as female-specific cancers in women with obesity, especially those with higher baseline insulin levels. But there is a need for large prospective studies with more detailed patient information.
• The current secondary analysis included 2867 matched women (mean age, 48 years) from a prospective nonrandomized Swedish trial, which recruited men and women who had obesity between 1987 and 2001.
• Overall, 1420 women underwent bariatric surgery, and 1447 received usual care.
• Median baseline insulin levels were 15.8 μIU/L. In the surgery group, 68.3% of patients had vertical banded gastroplasty, 18.3% underwent gastric banding, and 13.4% underwent gastric bypass.
• The main outcome was breast cancer incidence, as identified from Swedish National Cancer Registry.

TAKEAWAY:

• Over a median follow-up of 23.9 years, 66 breast cancer events occurred in the surgery group and 88 in the usual care group (P = .02).
• Bariatric surgery was associated with a 33% lower risk for breast cancer (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.67), after excluding cases that occurred within the first 3 years (to account for any undiagnosed breast cancer at baseline) and adjusting for age, body mass index, alcohol, and smoking status.
• Looking at the menopausal status at baseline, bariatric surgery was associated with a reduced risk for breast cancer in premenopausal women (aHR, 0.64) but not postmenopausal women (aHR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.49-1.45; P = .54).
• Bariatric surgery was also associated with a lower risk for breast cancer in women with baseline insulin levels above the median (aHR, 0.55) than in those with baseline insulin levels below the median (aHR, 1.01).

IN PRACTICE:

“The surgical treatment benefit was predominantly seen in women with hyperinsulinemia, suggesting insulin may be used as a predictor of treatment effect,” the authors wrote. Authors of an accompanying editorial, however, cautioned that “it is not known if insulin levels or insulin resistance are true biomarkers of breast cancer risk in patients with obesity undergoing bariatric surgery” and urged further research into underlying biological mechanisms.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Felipe M. Kristensson, MD, from Institute of Medicine, Department of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, the Sahlgrenska Academy at University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden, was published online in JAMA Surgery. The accompanying editorial was led by Swati A. Kulkarni, MD, of the Comprehensive Cancer Center, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was not randomized. Breast cancer was not a predefined outcome of the main trial. Most patients underwent vertical banded gastroplasty, which is rarely used and could limit applicability of the results; however, vertical banded gastroplasty results in weight loss similar to that observed after sleeve gastrectomy. Follow-up values for insulin and insulin resistance were not available. The researchers noted significant differences in 12 out of 17 baseline characteristics between the two groups, including a larger proportion of postmenopausal women in the usual care group.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the Swedish state, Swedish Research Council, the Health & Medical Care Committee of the Region Västra Götaland, and the Adlerbert Research Foundation. The authors did not report any conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Florida has become the first state to allow doctors to perform cesarean sections outside of hospitals, siding with a private equity-owned physicians group that says the change will lower costs and give pregnant women the homier birthing atmosphere that many desire.

But the hospital industry and the nation’s leading obstetricians’ association say that even though some Florida hospitals have closed their maternity wards in recent years, performing C-sections in doctor-run clinics will increase the risks for women and babies when complications arise.

“A pregnant patient that is considered low-risk in one moment can suddenly need lifesaving care in the next,” Cole Greves, an Orlando perinatologist who chairs the Florida chapter of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said in an email to KFF Health News. The new birth clinics, “even with increased regulation, cannot guarantee the level of safety patients would receive within a hospital.”

This spring, a law was enacted allowing “advanced birth centers,” where physicians can deliver babies vaginally or by C-section to women deemed at low risk of complications. Women would be able to stay overnight at the clinics.

Women’s Care Enterprises, a private equity-owned physicians group with locations mostly in Florida along with California and Kentucky, lobbied the state legislature to make the change. BC Partners, a London-based investment firm, bought Women’s Care in 2020.

“We have patients who don’t want to deliver in a hospital, and that breaks our heart,” said Stephen Snow, who recently retired as an ob.gyn. with Women’s Care and testified before the Florida Legislature advocating for the change in 2018.

Brittany Miller, vice president of strategic initiatives with Women’s Care, said the group would not comment on the issue.

Health experts are leery.

“What this looks like is a poor substitute for quality obstetrical care effectively being billed as something that gives people more choices,” said Alice Abernathy, an assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine. “This feels like a bad band-aid on a chronic issue that will make outcomes worse rather than better,” Abernathy said.

Nearly one-third of U.S. births occur via C-section, the surgical delivery of a baby through an incision in the mother’s abdomen and uterus. Generally, doctors use the procedure when they believe it is safer than vaginal delivery for the parent, the baby, or both. Such medical decisions can take place months before birth, or in an emergency.

Florida state Sen. Gayle Harrell, the Republican who sponsored the birth center bill, said having a C-section outside of a hospital may seem like a radical change, but so was the opening of outpatient surgery centers in the late 1980s.

Harrell, who managed her husband’s ob.gyn. practice, said birth centers will have to meet the same high standards for staffing, infection control, and other aspects as those at outpatient surgery centers.

“Given where we are with the need, and maternity deserts across the state, this is something that will help us and help moms get the best care,” she said.

Seventeen hospitals in the state have closed their maternity units since 2019, with many citing low insurance reimbursement and high malpractice costs, according to the Florida Hospital Association.

Mary Mayhew, CEO of the Florida Hospital Association, said it is wrong to compare birth centers to ambulatory surgery centers because of the many risks associated with C-sections, such as hemorrhaging.

The Florida law requires advanced birth centers to have a transfer agreement with a hospital, but it does not dictate where the facilities can open nor their proximity to a hospital.

“We have serious concerns about the impact this model has on our collective efforts to improve maternal and infant health,” Mayhew said. “Our hospitals do not see this in the best interest of providing quality and safety in labor and delivery.”

Despite its opposition to the new birth centers, the Florida Hospital Association did not fight passage of the overall bill because it also included a major increase in the amount Medicaid pays hospitals for maternity care.

Mayhew said it is unlikely that the birth centers would help address care shortages. Hospitals are already struggling with a shortage of ob.gyns., she said, and it is unrealistic to expect advanced birth centers to open in rural areas with a large proportion of people on Medicaid, which pays the lowest reimbursement for labor and delivery care.

It is unclear whether insurers will cover the advanced birth centers, though most insurers and Medicaid cover care at midwife-run birth centers. The advanced birth centers will not accept emergency walk-ins and will treat only patients whose insurance contracts with the facilities, making them in-network.

Snow, the retired ob.gyn. with Women’s Care, said the group plans to open an advanced birth center in the Tampa or Orlando area.

The advanced birth center concept is an improvement on midwife care that enables deliveries outside of hospitals, he said, as the centers allow women to stay overnight and, if necessary, offer anesthesia and C-sections.

Snow acknowledged that, with a private equity firm invested in Women’s Care, the birth center idea is also about making money. But he said hospitals have the same profit incentive and, like midwives, likely oppose the idea of centers that can provide C-sections because they could cut into hospital revenue.

“We are trying to reduce the cost of medicine, and this would be more cost-effective and more pleasant for patients,” he said.

Kate Bauer, executive director of the American Association of Birth Centers, said patients could confuse advanced birth centers with the existing, free-standing birth centers for low-risk births that have been run by midwives for decades. There are currently 31 licensed birth centers in Florida and 411 free-standing birth centers in the United States, she said.

“This is a radical departure from the standard of care,” Bauer said. “It’s a bad idea,” she said, because it could increase risks to mom and baby.

No other state allows C-sections outside of hospitals. The only facility that offers similar care is a birth clinic in Wichita, Kansas, which is connected by a short walkway to a hospital, Wesley Medical Center.

The clinic provides “hotel-like” maternity suites where staffers deliver about 100 babies a month, compared with 500 per month in the hospital itself.

Morgan Tracy, a maternity nurse navigator at the center, said the concept works largely because the hospital and birthing suites can share staff and pharmacy access, plus patients can be quickly transferred to the main hospital if complications arise.

“The beauty is there are team members on both sides of the street,” Tracy said.
 

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

Florida has become the first state to allow doctors to perform cesarean sections outside of hospitals, siding with a private equity-owned physicians group that says the change will lower costs and give pregnant women the homier birthing atmosphere that many desire.

But the hospital industry and the nation’s leading obstetricians’ association say that even though some Florida hospitals have closed their maternity wards in recent years, performing C-sections in doctor-run clinics will increase the risks for women and babies when complications arise.

“A pregnant patient that is considered low-risk in one moment can suddenly need lifesaving care in the next,” Cole Greves, an Orlando perinatologist who chairs the Florida chapter of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said in an email to KFF Health News. The new birth clinics, “even with increased regulation, cannot guarantee the level of safety patients would receive within a hospital.”

This spring, a law was enacted allowing “advanced birth centers,” where physicians can deliver babies vaginally or by C-section to women deemed at low risk of complications. Women would be able to stay overnight at the clinics.

Women’s Care Enterprises, a private equity-owned physicians group with locations mostly in Florida along with California and Kentucky, lobbied the state legislature to make the change. BC Partners, a London-based investment firm, bought Women’s Care in 2020.

“We have patients who don’t want to deliver in a hospital, and that breaks our heart,” said Stephen Snow, who recently retired as an ob.gyn. with Women’s Care and testified before the Florida Legislature advocating for the change in 2018.

Brittany Miller, vice president of strategic initiatives with Women’s Care, said the group would not comment on the issue.

Health experts are leery.

“What this looks like is a poor substitute for quality obstetrical care effectively being billed as something that gives people more choices,” said Alice Abernathy, an assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine. “This feels like a bad band-aid on a chronic issue that will make outcomes worse rather than better,” Abernathy said.

Nearly one-third of U.S. births occur via C-section, the surgical delivery of a baby through an incision in the mother’s abdomen and uterus. Generally, doctors use the procedure when they believe it is safer than vaginal delivery for the parent, the baby, or both. Such medical decisions can take place months before birth, or in an emergency.

Florida state Sen. Gayle Harrell, the Republican who sponsored the birth center bill, said having a C-section outside of a hospital may seem like a radical change, but so was the opening of outpatient surgery centers in the late 1980s.

Harrell, who managed her husband’s ob.gyn. practice, said birth centers will have to meet the same high standards for staffing, infection control, and other aspects as those at outpatient surgery centers.

“Given where we are with the need, and maternity deserts across the state, this is something that will help us and help moms get the best care,” she said.

Seventeen hospitals in the state have closed their maternity units since 2019, with many citing low insurance reimbursement and high malpractice costs, according to the Florida Hospital Association.

Mary Mayhew, CEO of the Florida Hospital Association, said it is wrong to compare birth centers to ambulatory surgery centers because of the many risks associated with C-sections, such as hemorrhaging.

The Florida law requires advanced birth centers to have a transfer agreement with a hospital, but it does not dictate where the facilities can open nor their proximity to a hospital.

“We have serious concerns about the impact this model has on our collective efforts to improve maternal and infant health,” Mayhew said. “Our hospitals do not see this in the best interest of providing quality and safety in labor and delivery.”

Despite its opposition to the new birth centers, the Florida Hospital Association did not fight passage of the overall bill because it also included a major increase in the amount Medicaid pays hospitals for maternity care.

Mayhew said it is unlikely that the birth centers would help address care shortages. Hospitals are already struggling with a shortage of ob.gyns., she said, and it is unrealistic to expect advanced birth centers to open in rural areas with a large proportion of people on Medicaid, which pays the lowest reimbursement for labor and delivery care.

It is unclear whether insurers will cover the advanced birth centers, though most insurers and Medicaid cover care at midwife-run birth centers. The advanced birth centers will not accept emergency walk-ins and will treat only patients whose insurance contracts with the facilities, making them in-network.

Snow, the retired ob.gyn. with Women’s Care, said the group plans to open an advanced birth center in the Tampa or Orlando area.

The advanced birth center concept is an improvement on midwife care that enables deliveries outside of hospitals, he said, as the centers allow women to stay overnight and, if necessary, offer anesthesia and C-sections.

Snow acknowledged that, with a private equity firm invested in Women’s Care, the birth center idea is also about making money. But he said hospitals have the same profit incentive and, like midwives, likely oppose the idea of centers that can provide C-sections because they could cut into hospital revenue.

“We are trying to reduce the cost of medicine, and this would be more cost-effective and more pleasant for patients,” he said.

Kate Bauer, executive director of the American Association of Birth Centers, said patients could confuse advanced birth centers with the existing, free-standing birth centers for low-risk births that have been run by midwives for decades. There are currently 31 licensed birth centers in Florida and 411 free-standing birth centers in the United States, she said.

“This is a radical departure from the standard of care,” Bauer said. “It’s a bad idea,” she said, because it could increase risks to mom and baby.

No other state allows C-sections outside of hospitals. The only facility that offers similar care is a birth clinic in Wichita, Kansas, which is connected by a short walkway to a hospital, Wesley Medical Center.

The clinic provides “hotel-like” maternity suites where staffers deliver about 100 babies a month, compared with 500 per month in the hospital itself.

Morgan Tracy, a maternity nurse navigator at the center, said the concept works largely because the hospital and birthing suites can share staff and pharmacy access, plus patients can be quickly transferred to the main hospital if complications arise.

“The beauty is there are team members on both sides of the street,” Tracy said.
 

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

Florida has become the first state to allow doctors to perform cesarean sections outside of hospitals, siding with a private equity-owned physicians group that says the change will lower costs and give pregnant women the homier birthing atmosphere that many desire.

But the hospital industry and the nation’s leading obstetricians’ association say that even though some Florida hospitals have closed their maternity wards in recent years, performing C-sections in doctor-run clinics will increase the risks for women and babies when complications arise.

“A pregnant patient that is considered low-risk in one moment can suddenly need lifesaving care in the next,” Cole Greves, an Orlando perinatologist who chairs the Florida chapter of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said in an email to KFF Health News. The new birth clinics, “even with increased regulation, cannot guarantee the level of safety patients would receive within a hospital.”

This spring, a law was enacted allowing “advanced birth centers,” where physicians can deliver babies vaginally or by C-section to women deemed at low risk of complications. Women would be able to stay overnight at the clinics.

Women’s Care Enterprises, a private equity-owned physicians group with locations mostly in Florida along with California and Kentucky, lobbied the state legislature to make the change. BC Partners, a London-based investment firm, bought Women’s Care in 2020.

“We have patients who don’t want to deliver in a hospital, and that breaks our heart,” said Stephen Snow, who recently retired as an ob.gyn. with Women’s Care and testified before the Florida Legislature advocating for the change in 2018.

Brittany Miller, vice president of strategic initiatives with Women’s Care, said the group would not comment on the issue.

Health experts are leery.

“What this looks like is a poor substitute for quality obstetrical care effectively being billed as something that gives people more choices,” said Alice Abernathy, an assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine. “This feels like a bad band-aid on a chronic issue that will make outcomes worse rather than better,” Abernathy said.

Nearly one-third of U.S. births occur via C-section, the surgical delivery of a baby through an incision in the mother’s abdomen and uterus. Generally, doctors use the procedure when they believe it is safer than vaginal delivery for the parent, the baby, or both. Such medical decisions can take place months before birth, or in an emergency.

Florida state Sen. Gayle Harrell, the Republican who sponsored the birth center bill, said having a C-section outside of a hospital may seem like a radical change, but so was the opening of outpatient surgery centers in the late 1980s.

Harrell, who managed her husband’s ob.gyn. practice, said birth centers will have to meet the same high standards for staffing, infection control, and other aspects as those at outpatient surgery centers.

“Given where we are with the need, and maternity deserts across the state, this is something that will help us and help moms get the best care,” she said.

Seventeen hospitals in the state have closed their maternity units since 2019, with many citing low insurance reimbursement and high malpractice costs, according to the Florida Hospital Association.

Mary Mayhew, CEO of the Florida Hospital Association, said it is wrong to compare birth centers to ambulatory surgery centers because of the many risks associated with C-sections, such as hemorrhaging.

The Florida law requires advanced birth centers to have a transfer agreement with a hospital, but it does not dictate where the facilities can open nor their proximity to a hospital.

“We have serious concerns about the impact this model has on our collective efforts to improve maternal and infant health,” Mayhew said. “Our hospitals do not see this in the best interest of providing quality and safety in labor and delivery.”

Despite its opposition to the new birth centers, the Florida Hospital Association did not fight passage of the overall bill because it also included a major increase in the amount Medicaid pays hospitals for maternity care.

Mayhew said it is unlikely that the birth centers would help address care shortages. Hospitals are already struggling with a shortage of ob.gyns., she said, and it is unrealistic to expect advanced birth centers to open in rural areas with a large proportion of people on Medicaid, which pays the lowest reimbursement for labor and delivery care.

It is unclear whether insurers will cover the advanced birth centers, though most insurers and Medicaid cover care at midwife-run birth centers. The advanced birth centers will not accept emergency walk-ins and will treat only patients whose insurance contracts with the facilities, making them in-network.

Snow, the retired ob.gyn. with Women’s Care, said the group plans to open an advanced birth center in the Tampa or Orlando area.

The advanced birth center concept is an improvement on midwife care that enables deliveries outside of hospitals, he said, as the centers allow women to stay overnight and, if necessary, offer anesthesia and C-sections.

Snow acknowledged that, with a private equity firm invested in Women’s Care, the birth center idea is also about making money. But he said hospitals have the same profit incentive and, like midwives, likely oppose the idea of centers that can provide C-sections because they could cut into hospital revenue.

“We are trying to reduce the cost of medicine, and this would be more cost-effective and more pleasant for patients,” he said.

Kate Bauer, executive director of the American Association of Birth Centers, said patients could confuse advanced birth centers with the existing, free-standing birth centers for low-risk births that have been run by midwives for decades. There are currently 31 licensed birth centers in Florida and 411 free-standing birth centers in the United States, she said.

“This is a radical departure from the standard of care,” Bauer said. “It’s a bad idea,” she said, because it could increase risks to mom and baby.

No other state allows C-sections outside of hospitals. The only facility that offers similar care is a birth clinic in Wichita, Kansas, which is connected by a short walkway to a hospital, Wesley Medical Center.

The clinic provides “hotel-like” maternity suites where staffers deliver about 100 babies a month, compared with 500 per month in the hospital itself.

Morgan Tracy, a maternity nurse navigator at the center, said the concept works largely because the hospital and birthing suites can share staff and pharmacy access, plus patients can be quickly transferred to the main hospital if complications arise.

“The beauty is there are team members on both sides of the street,” Tracy said.
 

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

Reintervention rates after uterus-preserving surgery for leiomyomata were lowest after vaginal myomectomy, the most frequent among four therapeutic approaches, a large cohort study reported.

Accounting for censoring, the 7-year reintervention risk for vaginal myomectomy was 20.6%, followed by uterine artery embolization (26%), endometrial ablation (35.5%), and hysteroscopic myomectomy (37%).

Hysterectomies accounted for 63.2% of reinterventions according to lead author Susanna D. Mitro, PhD, a research scientist in the Division of Research and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, and colleagues.

Mitro_Susanna_CA_web.jpg

The Study

In a cohort of 10,324 patients ages 18-50, 19.9% were Asian, 21.2% Black, 21.3% Hispanic, and 32.5% White, with 5.2% of other races and ethnicities. The most affected age groups were 41-45 and 46-50 years. All participants underwent a first uterus-preserving procedure after leiomyoma diagnosis according to 2009-2021 electronic health records at Kaiser Permanente Northern California.

Reintervention referred to a second uterus-preserving procedure or hysterectomy. Median follow-up was 3.8 years (interquartile range, 1.8-7.4 years), and the proportions of index procedures were as follows: 18% (1857) for hysteroscopic myomectomy; 16.2% (1669) for uterine artery embolization; 21.4% (2211) for endometrial ablations; and 44.4% (4,587) for myomectomy.

Reintervention rates were higher in younger patients after uterine artery embolization, with patients ages 18-35 at the index procedure having 1.4-3.7 times greater reintervention rates than patients ages 46-50 years. Reintervention rates for hysteroscopic myomectomy varied by parity, with multiparous patients at 35% greater risk than their nulliparous counterparts.

On the age issue, the authors note that symptom recurrence may be less common in older patients, perhaps because of the onset of menopause. “Alternatively, findings may be explained by age-specific care strategies: Older patients experiencing symptom recurrence may prefer to wait until the onset of menopause rather than pursuing another surgical treatment,” they wrote.

A recent study with 7 years’ follow-up reported a 2.4 times greater risk of hysterectomy after uterine artery embolization versus myomectomy. Reintervention rates may be lower after myomectomy because otherwise asymptomatic patients pursue myomectomy to treat infertility, the authors wrote. Alternatively, myomectomy may more completely remove leiomyomas.

These common benign tumors take a toll on healthcare resources, in 2012 costing up to $9.4 billion annually (in 2010 dollars) for related surgeries, medications, and procedures. Leiomyomas are reportedly the most frequent reason for hysterectomy.

Robust data on the optimal therapeutic approach to fibroids have been sparse, however, with a 2017 comparative-effectiveness review from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality reporting that evidence on leiomyoma treatments was insufficient to guide clinical care. Few well-conducted trials of leiomyoma treatment have directly compared different treatment options, the authors noted.

The rate of myomectomy is reported to be 9.2 per 10,000 woman-years in Black women and 1.3 per 10,000 woman years in White women, and the recurrence rate after myomectomy can be as great as 60% when patients are followed up to 5 years.

The authors said their findings “may be a reference to discuss expectations for treatment outcomes when choosing initial uterus-preserving treatment for leiomyomas, especially for patients receiving treatment years before the likely onset of menopause.”

This research was supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases of the National Institutes of Health. Coauthor Dr. Lauren Wise is a paid consultant for AbbVie and has received in-kind donations from Swiss Precision Diagnostics and Kindara.com; she has also received payment from the Gates Foundation.

Reintervention rates after uterus-preserving surgery for leiomyomata were lowest after vaginal myomectomy, the most frequent among four therapeutic approaches, a large cohort study reported.

Accounting for censoring, the 7-year reintervention risk for vaginal myomectomy was 20.6%, followed by uterine artery embolization (26%), endometrial ablation (35.5%), and hysteroscopic myomectomy (37%).

Hysterectomies accounted for 63.2% of reinterventions according to lead author Susanna D. Mitro, PhD, a research scientist in the Division of Research and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, and colleagues.

Mitro_Susanna_CA_web.jpg

The Study

In a cohort of 10,324 patients ages 18-50, 19.9% were Asian, 21.2% Black, 21.3% Hispanic, and 32.5% White, with 5.2% of other races and ethnicities. The most affected age groups were 41-45 and 46-50 years. All participants underwent a first uterus-preserving procedure after leiomyoma diagnosis according to 2009-2021 electronic health records at Kaiser Permanente Northern California.

Reintervention referred to a second uterus-preserving procedure or hysterectomy. Median follow-up was 3.8 years (interquartile range, 1.8-7.4 years), and the proportions of index procedures were as follows: 18% (1857) for hysteroscopic myomectomy; 16.2% (1669) for uterine artery embolization; 21.4% (2211) for endometrial ablations; and 44.4% (4,587) for myomectomy.

Reintervention rates were higher in younger patients after uterine artery embolization, with patients ages 18-35 at the index procedure having 1.4-3.7 times greater reintervention rates than patients ages 46-50 years. Reintervention rates for hysteroscopic myomectomy varied by parity, with multiparous patients at 35% greater risk than their nulliparous counterparts.

On the age issue, the authors note that symptom recurrence may be less common in older patients, perhaps because of the onset of menopause. “Alternatively, findings may be explained by age-specific care strategies: Older patients experiencing symptom recurrence may prefer to wait until the onset of menopause rather than pursuing another surgical treatment,” they wrote.

A recent study with 7 years’ follow-up reported a 2.4 times greater risk of hysterectomy after uterine artery embolization versus myomectomy. Reintervention rates may be lower after myomectomy because otherwise asymptomatic patients pursue myomectomy to treat infertility, the authors wrote. Alternatively, myomectomy may more completely remove leiomyomas.

These common benign tumors take a toll on healthcare resources, in 2012 costing up to $9.4 billion annually (in 2010 dollars) for related surgeries, medications, and procedures. Leiomyomas are reportedly the most frequent reason for hysterectomy.

Robust data on the optimal therapeutic approach to fibroids have been sparse, however, with a 2017 comparative-effectiveness review from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality reporting that evidence on leiomyoma treatments was insufficient to guide clinical care. Few well-conducted trials of leiomyoma treatment have directly compared different treatment options, the authors noted.

The rate of myomectomy is reported to be 9.2 per 10,000 woman-years in Black women and 1.3 per 10,000 woman years in White women, and the recurrence rate after myomectomy can be as great as 60% when patients are followed up to 5 years.

The authors said their findings “may be a reference to discuss expectations for treatment outcomes when choosing initial uterus-preserving treatment for leiomyomas, especially for patients receiving treatment years before the likely onset of menopause.”

This research was supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases of the National Institutes of Health. Coauthor Dr. Lauren Wise is a paid consultant for AbbVie and has received in-kind donations from Swiss Precision Diagnostics and Kindara.com; she has also received payment from the Gates Foundation.

Reintervention rates after uterus-preserving surgery for leiomyomata were lowest after vaginal myomectomy, the most frequent among four therapeutic approaches, a large cohort study reported.

Accounting for censoring, the 7-year reintervention risk for vaginal myomectomy was 20.6%, followed by uterine artery embolization (26%), endometrial ablation (35.5%), and hysteroscopic myomectomy (37%).

Hysterectomies accounted for 63.2% of reinterventions according to lead author Susanna D. Mitro, PhD, a research scientist in the Division of Research and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, and colleagues.

Mitro_Susanna_CA_web.jpg

The Study

In a cohort of 10,324 patients ages 18-50, 19.9% were Asian, 21.2% Black, 21.3% Hispanic, and 32.5% White, with 5.2% of other races and ethnicities. The most affected age groups were 41-45 and 46-50 years. All participants underwent a first uterus-preserving procedure after leiomyoma diagnosis according to 2009-2021 electronic health records at Kaiser Permanente Northern California.

Reintervention referred to a second uterus-preserving procedure or hysterectomy. Median follow-up was 3.8 years (interquartile range, 1.8-7.4 years), and the proportions of index procedures were as follows: 18% (1857) for hysteroscopic myomectomy; 16.2% (1669) for uterine artery embolization; 21.4% (2211) for endometrial ablations; and 44.4% (4,587) for myomectomy.

Reintervention rates were higher in younger patients after uterine artery embolization, with patients ages 18-35 at the index procedure having 1.4-3.7 times greater reintervention rates than patients ages 46-50 years. Reintervention rates for hysteroscopic myomectomy varied by parity, with multiparous patients at 35% greater risk than their nulliparous counterparts.

On the age issue, the authors note that symptom recurrence may be less common in older patients, perhaps because of the onset of menopause. “Alternatively, findings may be explained by age-specific care strategies: Older patients experiencing symptom recurrence may prefer to wait until the onset of menopause rather than pursuing another surgical treatment,” they wrote.

A recent study with 7 years’ follow-up reported a 2.4 times greater risk of hysterectomy after uterine artery embolization versus myomectomy. Reintervention rates may be lower after myomectomy because otherwise asymptomatic patients pursue myomectomy to treat infertility, the authors wrote. Alternatively, myomectomy may more completely remove leiomyomas.

These common benign tumors take a toll on healthcare resources, in 2012 costing up to $9.4 billion annually (in 2010 dollars) for related surgeries, medications, and procedures. Leiomyomas are reportedly the most frequent reason for hysterectomy.

Robust data on the optimal therapeutic approach to fibroids have been sparse, however, with a 2017 comparative-effectiveness review from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality reporting that evidence on leiomyoma treatments was insufficient to guide clinical care. Few well-conducted trials of leiomyoma treatment have directly compared different treatment options, the authors noted.

The rate of myomectomy is reported to be 9.2 per 10,000 woman-years in Black women and 1.3 per 10,000 woman years in White women, and the recurrence rate after myomectomy can be as great as 60% when patients are followed up to 5 years.

The authors said their findings “may be a reference to discuss expectations for treatment outcomes when choosing initial uterus-preserving treatment for leiomyomas, especially for patients receiving treatment years before the likely onset of menopause.”

This research was supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases of the National Institutes of Health. Coauthor Dr. Lauren Wise is a paid consultant for AbbVie and has received in-kind donations from Swiss Precision Diagnostics and Kindara.com; she has also received payment from the Gates Foundation.

A longtime Kaiser Permanente surgeon is suing a fellow physician for allegedly submitting false medical board complaints against him in an attempt to get him fired.

Joseph Stalfire III, MD, claims Ming Hsieh, MD, began a campaign to harm his reputation after Dr. Stalfire hurt his leg and went on medical leave. Dr. Stalfire, a board-certified ob.gyn., has worked for Kaiser Permanente in western Oregon for more than 20 years, including several years as a regional chief surgical officer.

Dr. Stalfire is accusing Dr. Hsieh of defamation and intentional emotional distress, according to the March 25 lawsuit filed in Marion County Circuit Court. Northwest Permanente P.C., a Kaiser subsidiary, is also named as a defendant.

Dr. Stalfire is asking for $1.2 million in economic damages and $300,000 in noneconomic damages. Dr. Hsieh has not yet responded to the legal complaint.

Dr. Stalfire’s attorney did not respond to a message seeking comment. Dr. Hsieh is representing himself, according to court records. A Kaiser Permanente spokeswoman told this news organization that Kaiser does not comment on pending litigation.

The conflict began in February 2023, after Dr. Stalfire underwent surgery to correct issues stemming from severe injuries when a tree fell on his leg, according to court records. 

Dr. Hsieh, a Kaiser ob.gyn., senior physician, and quality assurance lead, allegedly contacted Dr. Stalfire after the surgery and demanded he return to work earlier than medically recommended. Dr. Stalfire claims Dr. Hsieh questioned his retirement plans and his ability to continue working to pressure him into quitting. 

Dr. Stalfire reported Dr. Hsieh’s conduct to Kaiser’s human resources department. However, the complaint contends Dr. Hsieh’s actions only escalated after the report was made. According to the complaint, Dr. Hsieh began telling coworkers Dr. Stalfire was “lying” about his injuries. Dr. Hsieh also allegedly contacted administrators and schedulers to ask about Dr. Stalfire’s injuries and suggested that he was not “legitimately recovering from serious injuries.” The complaint claims that Dr. Hsieh told Dr. Stalfire’s colleagues that he was a “con man,” a “criminal,” and “despicable.”

According to Dr. Stalfire’s complaint, in August 2023, Dr. Hsieh submitted numerous anonymous complaints about Dr. Stalfire to the Washington Medical Commission, the Oregon Medical Board, and other governmental agencies. Dr. Stalfire defended himself against the complaints, and they were dismissed. The lawsuit does not specify the nature of the complaints.

Dr. Stalfire later made public record requests for the complaints and discovered Dr. Hsieh had used his deceased mother-in-law’s phone number as his contact information, according to the lawsuit. 

Despite multiple reports about Dr. Hsieh’s conduct, Dr. Stalfire claims Kaiser retained Dr. Hsieh as an employee and took no action to prevent him from making false statements about Dr. Stalfire. 

He claims Dr. Hsieh’s harassment and Kaiser’s inaction harmed his professional reputation, caused lost work time, and resulted in severe emotional distress that required mental health treatment. The harm caused continues to impact his ability to work, the suit contends. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A longtime Kaiser Permanente surgeon is suing a fellow physician for allegedly submitting false medical board complaints against him in an attempt to get him fired.

Joseph Stalfire III, MD, claims Ming Hsieh, MD, began a campaign to harm his reputation after Dr. Stalfire hurt his leg and went on medical leave. Dr. Stalfire, a board-certified ob.gyn., has worked for Kaiser Permanente in western Oregon for more than 20 years, including several years as a regional chief surgical officer.

Dr. Stalfire is accusing Dr. Hsieh of defamation and intentional emotional distress, according to the March 25 lawsuit filed in Marion County Circuit Court. Northwest Permanente P.C., a Kaiser subsidiary, is also named as a defendant.

Dr. Stalfire is asking for $1.2 million in economic damages and $300,000 in noneconomic damages. Dr. Hsieh has not yet responded to the legal complaint.

Dr. Stalfire’s attorney did not respond to a message seeking comment. Dr. Hsieh is representing himself, according to court records. A Kaiser Permanente spokeswoman told this news organization that Kaiser does not comment on pending litigation.

The conflict began in February 2023, after Dr. Stalfire underwent surgery to correct issues stemming from severe injuries when a tree fell on his leg, according to court records. 

Dr. Hsieh, a Kaiser ob.gyn., senior physician, and quality assurance lead, allegedly contacted Dr. Stalfire after the surgery and demanded he return to work earlier than medically recommended. Dr. Stalfire claims Dr. Hsieh questioned his retirement plans and his ability to continue working to pressure him into quitting. 

Dr. Stalfire reported Dr. Hsieh’s conduct to Kaiser’s human resources department. However, the complaint contends Dr. Hsieh’s actions only escalated after the report was made. According to the complaint, Dr. Hsieh began telling coworkers Dr. Stalfire was “lying” about his injuries. Dr. Hsieh also allegedly contacted administrators and schedulers to ask about Dr. Stalfire’s injuries and suggested that he was not “legitimately recovering from serious injuries.” The complaint claims that Dr. Hsieh told Dr. Stalfire’s colleagues that he was a “con man,” a “criminal,” and “despicable.”

According to Dr. Stalfire’s complaint, in August 2023, Dr. Hsieh submitted numerous anonymous complaints about Dr. Stalfire to the Washington Medical Commission, the Oregon Medical Board, and other governmental agencies. Dr. Stalfire defended himself against the complaints, and they were dismissed. The lawsuit does not specify the nature of the complaints.

Dr. Stalfire later made public record requests for the complaints and discovered Dr. Hsieh had used his deceased mother-in-law’s phone number as his contact information, according to the lawsuit. 

Despite multiple reports about Dr. Hsieh’s conduct, Dr. Stalfire claims Kaiser retained Dr. Hsieh as an employee and took no action to prevent him from making false statements about Dr. Stalfire. 

He claims Dr. Hsieh’s harassment and Kaiser’s inaction harmed his professional reputation, caused lost work time, and resulted in severe emotional distress that required mental health treatment. The harm caused continues to impact his ability to work, the suit contends. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A longtime Kaiser Permanente surgeon is suing a fellow physician for allegedly submitting false medical board complaints against him in an attempt to get him fired.

Joseph Stalfire III, MD, claims Ming Hsieh, MD, began a campaign to harm his reputation after Dr. Stalfire hurt his leg and went on medical leave. Dr. Stalfire, a board-certified ob.gyn., has worked for Kaiser Permanente in western Oregon for more than 20 years, including several years as a regional chief surgical officer.

Dr. Stalfire is accusing Dr. Hsieh of defamation and intentional emotional distress, according to the March 25 lawsuit filed in Marion County Circuit Court. Northwest Permanente P.C., a Kaiser subsidiary, is also named as a defendant.

Dr. Stalfire is asking for $1.2 million in economic damages and $300,000 in noneconomic damages. Dr. Hsieh has not yet responded to the legal complaint.

Dr. Stalfire’s attorney did not respond to a message seeking comment. Dr. Hsieh is representing himself, according to court records. A Kaiser Permanente spokeswoman told this news organization that Kaiser does not comment on pending litigation.

The conflict began in February 2023, after Dr. Stalfire underwent surgery to correct issues stemming from severe injuries when a tree fell on his leg, according to court records. 

Dr. Hsieh, a Kaiser ob.gyn., senior physician, and quality assurance lead, allegedly contacted Dr. Stalfire after the surgery and demanded he return to work earlier than medically recommended. Dr. Stalfire claims Dr. Hsieh questioned his retirement plans and his ability to continue working to pressure him into quitting. 

Dr. Stalfire reported Dr. Hsieh’s conduct to Kaiser’s human resources department. However, the complaint contends Dr. Hsieh’s actions only escalated after the report was made. According to the complaint, Dr. Hsieh began telling coworkers Dr. Stalfire was “lying” about his injuries. Dr. Hsieh also allegedly contacted administrators and schedulers to ask about Dr. Stalfire’s injuries and suggested that he was not “legitimately recovering from serious injuries.” The complaint claims that Dr. Hsieh told Dr. Stalfire’s colleagues that he was a “con man,” a “criminal,” and “despicable.”

According to Dr. Stalfire’s complaint, in August 2023, Dr. Hsieh submitted numerous anonymous complaints about Dr. Stalfire to the Washington Medical Commission, the Oregon Medical Board, and other governmental agencies. Dr. Stalfire defended himself against the complaints, and they were dismissed. The lawsuit does not specify the nature of the complaints.

Dr. Stalfire later made public record requests for the complaints and discovered Dr. Hsieh had used his deceased mother-in-law’s phone number as his contact information, according to the lawsuit. 

Despite multiple reports about Dr. Hsieh’s conduct, Dr. Stalfire claims Kaiser retained Dr. Hsieh as an employee and took no action to prevent him from making false statements about Dr. Stalfire. 

He claims Dr. Hsieh’s harassment and Kaiser’s inaction harmed his professional reputation, caused lost work time, and resulted in severe emotional distress that required mental health treatment. The harm caused continues to impact his ability to work, the suit contends. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Minimally invasive cytoreductive surgery for epithelial ovarian cancer appears to be safe and does not compromise survival, compared with open surgery, when patients have completely resected tumors.

This was a finding of a retrospective study presented by Judy Hayek, MD, during an oral abstract session at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer, in San Diego.

Among 2,412 women in the National Cancer Database with tumor-free surgical margins (R0 resections) after interval debulking surgery (IDS), the median overall survival (OS) was 46 months for those who had undergone an open procedure or minimally invasive surgery (MIS) that was converted to an open procedure. In contrast, the median OS was 51 months for patients who underwent laparoscopic or robot-assisted minimally invasive surgery, reported Dr. Hayek, a gynecologic oncology fellow at SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University in Brooklyn, New York.

“R0 resection at the time of interval debulking surgery has similar survival outcomes by minimally invasive surgery versus laparotomy, while R0 resection via laparotomy is associated with higher perioperative mortality. There is no interaction between the extent of surgery and the impact of MIS on survival,” she said during her presentation.

The session included a debate on the pros and cons of minimally invasive vs. open surgery in this population.
 

Growing Use of MIS

Over the last decade, minimally invasive surgery for interval debulking was shown to be safe and feasible. More recently, two studies using National Cancer Database cohorts showed that survival was similar and perioperative outcomes were better with a minimally invasive approach at the time of IDS for patients with early disease, Dr. Hayek said (Obstet Gynecol 2017 Jul;130(1):71-79; and Gynecol Oncol 2023 May:172:130-137).

Potential limitations of MIS include the absence of haptic feedback compared with open surgery, and the possibility that limited visualization of the surgical field could lead to missed residual disease and subsequent poor outcomes for patients who were presumed to have complete gross resections, she said.
 

Outcomes Compared

Dr. Hayek and colleagues conducted their study to evaluate survival outcomes after R0 resections by MIS or laparotomy in IDS for patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer.

As noted before, they looked at outcomes for 2,412 women with stage IIIC or IV cancers of all histology types who were diagnosed from 2010 through 2019. A total of 624 patients (25.9%) had minimally invasive procedures, and 1,788 (74.1%) had open surgery or MIS that had been converted to open procedures.

Of the minimally invasive procedures, 48.7% were robot-assisted, and the remainder were laparoscopic.

Over the decade of the study, the frequency of minimally invasive surgery steadily increased, from 11.9% of all procedures in 2010 to 36.5% in 2019.

Also as noted, there was no difference in median overall survival, at 46 months for open/converted procedures vs. 51 months for minimally invasive procedures.

As might be expected, the mean length of stay was shorter with the less invasive surgery: 3.3 days compared with 5.3 days with open surgery (P less than .001). In addition, 30-day and 90-day mortality rates were also lower with MIS, at 0.8% and 1.9%, respectively, compared with 1.6% and 3.5% with laparotomy (P = .006 for 30-day mortality, and .003 for 90-day).

There were also no differences in overall survival between the procedure types when the cases were stratified according to extent of surgery. Within the minimally invasive surgery groups there were no differences in median OS for patients whose surgery was performed laparoscopically or with robotic assistance.

The study was limited by a lack of data on either patient-specific tumor burden, neoadjuvant chemotherapy use, progression-free survival, cause of death, or surgical morbidity, Dr. Hayek acknowledged.
 

MIS Use Debatable: CON

Despite the good outcomes with minimally invasive techniques in this favorable-risk population, critics contend that MIS interval cytoreduction is too risky in the majority of cases.

In the debate portion of the session, Kara Long Roche, MD, an associate attending in the section of ovarian cancer surgery at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, argued that the potential for MIS missing residual disease is too great.

“We know from almost every retrospective and prospective study done that the volume of residual disease after debulking, whether primary or interval, is the most important prognostic factor for our patients that we can modify,” she said.

Rather than debating morbidity, mortality, or criteria for resection, “I would argue that the question we need to debate is can MIS interval debulking achieve a completeness of resection, i.e., volume of residual disease?” she said.

Dr. Roche contended that retrospective studies such as that reported by Dr. Hayek cannot adequately answer this question because of selection bias. Patients selected for MIS have better responses to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and more favorable tumor biology; and, therefore, overall survival may not be the optimal endpoint for retrospective studies.

In addition, neoadjuvant chemotherapy does not automatically preclude the need for extensive upper abdominal surgery since almost half of patients who receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy are found to have bulky upper abdominal disease at the time of debulking.

Dr. Roche especially cautioned against what she called the WNL or “We Never Looked” phenomenon, in which patients are found on open surgery and organ mobilization to have disease that was not evident on presurgical imaging.

She acknowledged that for some patients the risks of laparotomy are likely to outweigh the benefit of a radical resection, and stressed that for such patients forgoing surgery or optimizing perioperative care may be more important than the size of the incision.

MIS IDS should be the exception, not the rule. We need prospective data with appropriate endpoints. We need surgical quality control in both arms, and we need to continue to focus on surgical education and training so that our trainees can graduate doing these procedures via any approach,” she concluded.
 

Debate: PRO

Arguing in favor of MIS for ovarian cancer, J. Alejandro Rauh-Hain, MD, MPH, associate professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, told attendees “the only bias I have is that I actually love doing open surgery, but I’m going to try to convince you that there is a potential role for minimally invasive surgery in the future for selected patients with ovarian cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy.”

He noted that several studies have convincingly shown that neoadjuvant chemotherapy does not adversely affect oncologic outcomes for patients with advanced-stage ovarian cancer, and decreases perioperative morbidity in patients who receive it, including reductions in serious adverse events, risk of stoma, and 30-day postoperative mortality.

In addition, low use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy is associated with increased risks for 90-day postoperative deaths in both low- and high surgical volume centers in the US, according to unpublished National Cancer Database data.

Dr. Rauh-Hain noted that neoadjuvant chemotherapy use has steadily increased from 2010 through 2020, and added that in 2022, 32% of interval cytoreductive surgeries in the United States were performed with a minimally invasive approach.

To get a better handle on the MIS vs. open-surgery question, Dr. Rauh-Hain and colleagues at MD Anderson and 13 other centers in the United States, Canada, and Europe are currently recruiting patients for the Laparoscopic Cytoreduction After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy (LANCE) trial. In this phase 3 noninferiority study, patients with stage IIIC-IV ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube cancer who have complete or partial responses and CA125 normalization after three or four cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy will be randomized to laparotomy or MIS, followed by adjuvant platinum- and taxane-based chemotherapy.

The study by Hayek et al. was internally supported. Dr. Hayek and Dr. Roche reported having no conflicts of interest. Dr. Rauh-Hain disclosed financial relationships with Guidepoint Consulting, and the Schlesinger Group.

Minimally invasive cytoreductive surgery for epithelial ovarian cancer appears to be safe and does not compromise survival, compared with open surgery, when patients have completely resected tumors.

This was a finding of a retrospective study presented by Judy Hayek, MD, during an oral abstract session at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer, in San Diego.

Among 2,412 women in the National Cancer Database with tumor-free surgical margins (R0 resections) after interval debulking surgery (IDS), the median overall survival (OS) was 46 months for those who had undergone an open procedure or minimally invasive surgery (MIS) that was converted to an open procedure. In contrast, the median OS was 51 months for patients who underwent laparoscopic or robot-assisted minimally invasive surgery, reported Dr. Hayek, a gynecologic oncology fellow at SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University in Brooklyn, New York.

“R0 resection at the time of interval debulking surgery has similar survival outcomes by minimally invasive surgery versus laparotomy, while R0 resection via laparotomy is associated with higher perioperative mortality. There is no interaction between the extent of surgery and the impact of MIS on survival,” she said during her presentation.

The session included a debate on the pros and cons of minimally invasive vs. open surgery in this population.
 

Growing Use of MIS

Over the last decade, minimally invasive surgery for interval debulking was shown to be safe and feasible. More recently, two studies using National Cancer Database cohorts showed that survival was similar and perioperative outcomes were better with a minimally invasive approach at the time of IDS for patients with early disease, Dr. Hayek said (Obstet Gynecol 2017 Jul;130(1):71-79; and Gynecol Oncol 2023 May:172:130-137).

Potential limitations of MIS include the absence of haptic feedback compared with open surgery, and the possibility that limited visualization of the surgical field could lead to missed residual disease and subsequent poor outcomes for patients who were presumed to have complete gross resections, she said.
 

Outcomes Compared

Dr. Hayek and colleagues conducted their study to evaluate survival outcomes after R0 resections by MIS or laparotomy in IDS for patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer.

As noted before, they looked at outcomes for 2,412 women with stage IIIC or IV cancers of all histology types who were diagnosed from 2010 through 2019. A total of 624 patients (25.9%) had minimally invasive procedures, and 1,788 (74.1%) had open surgery or MIS that had been converted to open procedures.

Of the minimally invasive procedures, 48.7% were robot-assisted, and the remainder were laparoscopic.

Over the decade of the study, the frequency of minimally invasive surgery steadily increased, from 11.9% of all procedures in 2010 to 36.5% in 2019.

Also as noted, there was no difference in median overall survival, at 46 months for open/converted procedures vs. 51 months for minimally invasive procedures.

As might be expected, the mean length of stay was shorter with the less invasive surgery: 3.3 days compared with 5.3 days with open surgery (P less than .001). In addition, 30-day and 90-day mortality rates were also lower with MIS, at 0.8% and 1.9%, respectively, compared with 1.6% and 3.5% with laparotomy (P = .006 for 30-day mortality, and .003 for 90-day).

There were also no differences in overall survival between the procedure types when the cases were stratified according to extent of surgery. Within the minimally invasive surgery groups there were no differences in median OS for patients whose surgery was performed laparoscopically or with robotic assistance.

The study was limited by a lack of data on either patient-specific tumor burden, neoadjuvant chemotherapy use, progression-free survival, cause of death, or surgical morbidity, Dr. Hayek acknowledged.
 

MIS Use Debatable: CON

Despite the good outcomes with minimally invasive techniques in this favorable-risk population, critics contend that MIS interval cytoreduction is too risky in the majority of cases.

In the debate portion of the session, Kara Long Roche, MD, an associate attending in the section of ovarian cancer surgery at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, argued that the potential for MIS missing residual disease is too great.

“We know from almost every retrospective and prospective study done that the volume of residual disease after debulking, whether primary or interval, is the most important prognostic factor for our patients that we can modify,” she said.

Rather than debating morbidity, mortality, or criteria for resection, “I would argue that the question we need to debate is can MIS interval debulking achieve a completeness of resection, i.e., volume of residual disease?” she said.

Dr. Roche contended that retrospective studies such as that reported by Dr. Hayek cannot adequately answer this question because of selection bias. Patients selected for MIS have better responses to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and more favorable tumor biology; and, therefore, overall survival may not be the optimal endpoint for retrospective studies.

In addition, neoadjuvant chemotherapy does not automatically preclude the need for extensive upper abdominal surgery since almost half of patients who receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy are found to have bulky upper abdominal disease at the time of debulking.

Dr. Roche especially cautioned against what she called the WNL or “We Never Looked” phenomenon, in which patients are found on open surgery and organ mobilization to have disease that was not evident on presurgical imaging.

She acknowledged that for some patients the risks of laparotomy are likely to outweigh the benefit of a radical resection, and stressed that for such patients forgoing surgery or optimizing perioperative care may be more important than the size of the incision.

MIS IDS should be the exception, not the rule. We need prospective data with appropriate endpoints. We need surgical quality control in both arms, and we need to continue to focus on surgical education and training so that our trainees can graduate doing these procedures via any approach,” she concluded.
 

Debate: PRO

Arguing in favor of MIS for ovarian cancer, J. Alejandro Rauh-Hain, MD, MPH, associate professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, told attendees “the only bias I have is that I actually love doing open surgery, but I’m going to try to convince you that there is a potential role for minimally invasive surgery in the future for selected patients with ovarian cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy.”

He noted that several studies have convincingly shown that neoadjuvant chemotherapy does not adversely affect oncologic outcomes for patients with advanced-stage ovarian cancer, and decreases perioperative morbidity in patients who receive it, including reductions in serious adverse events, risk of stoma, and 30-day postoperative mortality.

In addition, low use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy is associated with increased risks for 90-day postoperative deaths in both low- and high surgical volume centers in the US, according to unpublished National Cancer Database data.

Dr. Rauh-Hain noted that neoadjuvant chemotherapy use has steadily increased from 2010 through 2020, and added that in 2022, 32% of interval cytoreductive surgeries in the United States were performed with a minimally invasive approach.

To get a better handle on the MIS vs. open-surgery question, Dr. Rauh-Hain and colleagues at MD Anderson and 13 other centers in the United States, Canada, and Europe are currently recruiting patients for the Laparoscopic Cytoreduction After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy (LANCE) trial. In this phase 3 noninferiority study, patients with stage IIIC-IV ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube cancer who have complete or partial responses and CA125 normalization after three or four cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy will be randomized to laparotomy or MIS, followed by adjuvant platinum- and taxane-based chemotherapy.

The study by Hayek et al. was internally supported. Dr. Hayek and Dr. Roche reported having no conflicts of interest. Dr. Rauh-Hain disclosed financial relationships with Guidepoint Consulting, and the Schlesinger Group.

Minimally invasive cytoreductive surgery for epithelial ovarian cancer appears to be safe and does not compromise survival, compared with open surgery, when patients have completely resected tumors.

This was a finding of a retrospective study presented by Judy Hayek, MD, during an oral abstract session at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer, in San Diego.

Among 2,412 women in the National Cancer Database with tumor-free surgical margins (R0 resections) after interval debulking surgery (IDS), the median overall survival (OS) was 46 months for those who had undergone an open procedure or minimally invasive surgery (MIS) that was converted to an open procedure. In contrast, the median OS was 51 months for patients who underwent laparoscopic or robot-assisted minimally invasive surgery, reported Dr. Hayek, a gynecologic oncology fellow at SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University in Brooklyn, New York.

“R0 resection at the time of interval debulking surgery has similar survival outcomes by minimally invasive surgery versus laparotomy, while R0 resection via laparotomy is associated with higher perioperative mortality. There is no interaction between the extent of surgery and the impact of MIS on survival,” she said during her presentation.

The session included a debate on the pros and cons of minimally invasive vs. open surgery in this population.
 

Growing Use of MIS

Over the last decade, minimally invasive surgery for interval debulking was shown to be safe and feasible. More recently, two studies using National Cancer Database cohorts showed that survival was similar and perioperative outcomes were better with a minimally invasive approach at the time of IDS for patients with early disease, Dr. Hayek said (Obstet Gynecol 2017 Jul;130(1):71-79; and Gynecol Oncol 2023 May:172:130-137).

Potential limitations of MIS include the absence of haptic feedback compared with open surgery, and the possibility that limited visualization of the surgical field could lead to missed residual disease and subsequent poor outcomes for patients who were presumed to have complete gross resections, she said.
 

Outcomes Compared

Dr. Hayek and colleagues conducted their study to evaluate survival outcomes after R0 resections by MIS or laparotomy in IDS for patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer.

As noted before, they looked at outcomes for 2,412 women with stage IIIC or IV cancers of all histology types who were diagnosed from 2010 through 2019. A total of 624 patients (25.9%) had minimally invasive procedures, and 1,788 (74.1%) had open surgery or MIS that had been converted to open procedures.

Of the minimally invasive procedures, 48.7% were robot-assisted, and the remainder were laparoscopic.

Over the decade of the study, the frequency of minimally invasive surgery steadily increased, from 11.9% of all procedures in 2010 to 36.5% in 2019.

Also as noted, there was no difference in median overall survival, at 46 months for open/converted procedures vs. 51 months for minimally invasive procedures.

As might be expected, the mean length of stay was shorter with the less invasive surgery: 3.3 days compared with 5.3 days with open surgery (P less than .001). In addition, 30-day and 90-day mortality rates were also lower with MIS, at 0.8% and 1.9%, respectively, compared with 1.6% and 3.5% with laparotomy (P = .006 for 30-day mortality, and .003 for 90-day).

There were also no differences in overall survival between the procedure types when the cases were stratified according to extent of surgery. Within the minimally invasive surgery groups there were no differences in median OS for patients whose surgery was performed laparoscopically or with robotic assistance.

The study was limited by a lack of data on either patient-specific tumor burden, neoadjuvant chemotherapy use, progression-free survival, cause of death, or surgical morbidity, Dr. Hayek acknowledged.
 

MIS Use Debatable: CON

Despite the good outcomes with minimally invasive techniques in this favorable-risk population, critics contend that MIS interval cytoreduction is too risky in the majority of cases.

In the debate portion of the session, Kara Long Roche, MD, an associate attending in the section of ovarian cancer surgery at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, argued that the potential for MIS missing residual disease is too great.

“We know from almost every retrospective and prospective study done that the volume of residual disease after debulking, whether primary or interval, is the most important prognostic factor for our patients that we can modify,” she said.

Rather than debating morbidity, mortality, or criteria for resection, “I would argue that the question we need to debate is can MIS interval debulking achieve a completeness of resection, i.e., volume of residual disease?” she said.

Dr. Roche contended that retrospective studies such as that reported by Dr. Hayek cannot adequately answer this question because of selection bias. Patients selected for MIS have better responses to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and more favorable tumor biology; and, therefore, overall survival may not be the optimal endpoint for retrospective studies.

In addition, neoadjuvant chemotherapy does not automatically preclude the need for extensive upper abdominal surgery since almost half of patients who receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy are found to have bulky upper abdominal disease at the time of debulking.

Dr. Roche especially cautioned against what she called the WNL or “We Never Looked” phenomenon, in which patients are found on open surgery and organ mobilization to have disease that was not evident on presurgical imaging.

She acknowledged that for some patients the risks of laparotomy are likely to outweigh the benefit of a radical resection, and stressed that for such patients forgoing surgery or optimizing perioperative care may be more important than the size of the incision.

MIS IDS should be the exception, not the rule. We need prospective data with appropriate endpoints. We need surgical quality control in both arms, and we need to continue to focus on surgical education and training so that our trainees can graduate doing these procedures via any approach,” she concluded.
 

Debate: PRO

Arguing in favor of MIS for ovarian cancer, J. Alejandro Rauh-Hain, MD, MPH, associate professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, told attendees “the only bias I have is that I actually love doing open surgery, but I’m going to try to convince you that there is a potential role for minimally invasive surgery in the future for selected patients with ovarian cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy.”

He noted that several studies have convincingly shown that neoadjuvant chemotherapy does not adversely affect oncologic outcomes for patients with advanced-stage ovarian cancer, and decreases perioperative morbidity in patients who receive it, including reductions in serious adverse events, risk of stoma, and 30-day postoperative mortality.

In addition, low use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy is associated with increased risks for 90-day postoperative deaths in both low- and high surgical volume centers in the US, according to unpublished National Cancer Database data.

Dr. Rauh-Hain noted that neoadjuvant chemotherapy use has steadily increased from 2010 through 2020, and added that in 2022, 32% of interval cytoreductive surgeries in the United States were performed with a minimally invasive approach.

To get a better handle on the MIS vs. open-surgery question, Dr. Rauh-Hain and colleagues at MD Anderson and 13 other centers in the United States, Canada, and Europe are currently recruiting patients for the Laparoscopic Cytoreduction After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy (LANCE) trial. In this phase 3 noninferiority study, patients with stage IIIC-IV ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube cancer who have complete or partial responses and CA125 normalization after three or four cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy will be randomized to laparotomy or MIS, followed by adjuvant platinum- and taxane-based chemotherapy.

The study by Hayek et al. was internally supported. Dr. Hayek and Dr. Roche reported having no conflicts of interest. Dr. Rauh-Hain disclosed financial relationships with Guidepoint Consulting, and the Schlesinger Group.

For early-stage cervical cancer, non-radical surgery (simple hysterectomy or cone biopsy plus pelvic lymphadenectomy) appears safe with no lasting negative impact on quality of life, according to results of the GOG-278 trial.

In fact, patients’ quality of life was improved after surgery in both groups, and their concerns about cancer recurrence decreased, especially for those undergoing simple hysterectomy, said Allan Covens, MD, in his late-breaking abstract presentation at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO)’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer. 

“Cone biopsy patients reported less concerns about reproductive fertility after surgery and over time compared to preop assessments,” he added.

Due to screening in developed countries, a large proportion of cervical cancers are discovered at an early stage. Treatment of these cancers with radical surgery is associated with high cure rates but significant adverse effects on quality of life, said Dr. Covens, who is with the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

He and his colleagues wanted to see if non-radical surgery could be safely used instead. “Multiple case series have indicated that non-radical surgery is associated with less morbidity and improved quality of life,” he explained. “If this can be proven in a prospective evaluation, it will change future practice.”

GOG-278 was a prospective cohort study of women with stage IA1 (lymph-vascular space invasion+) and IA2-IB1 (≤ 2 cm) carcinoma of the cervix who underwent non-radical surgery (simple hysterectomy or fertility-preserving cone biopsy) and pelvic lymphadenectomy. Criteria included ≤ 10 mm stromal invasion and negative margins on the final cone biopsy.

The primary objectives were to assess changes in functional outcomes of quality of life (bladder/bowel function, sexual function, cancer worry, and reproductive concerns), using validated instruments. Findings were based on 55 patients who underwent cone biopsy and 113 who underwent simple hysterectomy.

Both simple hysterectomy and cone biopsy were associated with “small” declines in sexual function and bladder/bowel function at 4-6 weeks after surgery, but function “quickly” recovered to baseline by 6 months, Dr. Covens reported.

Twelve patients reported a diagnosis of lymphedema, with a Gynecologic Cancer Lymphedema Questionnaire score change of 4 or higher on at least two consecutive evaluations from baseline. This occurred in six cone biopsy and six simple hysterectomy patients.

In a separate presentation, Dr. Covens reported secondary oncologic outcomes from GOG-278, which suggest that non-radical surgery for early-stage cervical cancer is safe, with low perioperative morbidity, although longer follow-up is needed.

He also reported 16 pregnancies in 15 patients who had undergone cone biopsies; 12 of these were successful, and there were four early pregnancy losses.
 

‘Impressive’ Data

Study discussant Kristin Bixel, MD, with The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, said the data are “impressive” and clearly show that non-radical surgery has “minimal impact on bladder/bowel function, with no long-term differences from baseline.”

She added that the incidence of lymphedema was “honestly significantly lower than what I typically counsel patients about” and wondered if the percentage of patients with lymphedema would increase over time.

Dr. Bixel particularly noted the decrease in cancer worry scores after surgery, as sometimes patients who have less radical procedures fear that this comes with an increased risk for recurrence.

The “growing body of data suggests that less radical surgery is safe and effective for early-stage low-risk cervical cancer and highlights the potential reproductive success,” she concluded.

Funding for the study was provided by grants from NRG Oncology. Dr. Covens had no disclosures. Dr. Bixel has received research funding from the Intuitive Foundation.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For early-stage cervical cancer, non-radical surgery (simple hysterectomy or cone biopsy plus pelvic lymphadenectomy) appears safe with no lasting negative impact on quality of life, according to results of the GOG-278 trial.

In fact, patients’ quality of life was improved after surgery in both groups, and their concerns about cancer recurrence decreased, especially for those undergoing simple hysterectomy, said Allan Covens, MD, in his late-breaking abstract presentation at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO)’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer. 

“Cone biopsy patients reported less concerns about reproductive fertility after surgery and over time compared to preop assessments,” he added.

Due to screening in developed countries, a large proportion of cervical cancers are discovered at an early stage. Treatment of these cancers with radical surgery is associated with high cure rates but significant adverse effects on quality of life, said Dr. Covens, who is with the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

He and his colleagues wanted to see if non-radical surgery could be safely used instead. “Multiple case series have indicated that non-radical surgery is associated with less morbidity and improved quality of life,” he explained. “If this can be proven in a prospective evaluation, it will change future practice.”

GOG-278 was a prospective cohort study of women with stage IA1 (lymph-vascular space invasion+) and IA2-IB1 (≤ 2 cm) carcinoma of the cervix who underwent non-radical surgery (simple hysterectomy or fertility-preserving cone biopsy) and pelvic lymphadenectomy. Criteria included ≤ 10 mm stromal invasion and negative margins on the final cone biopsy.

The primary objectives were to assess changes in functional outcomes of quality of life (bladder/bowel function, sexual function, cancer worry, and reproductive concerns), using validated instruments. Findings were based on 55 patients who underwent cone biopsy and 113 who underwent simple hysterectomy.

Both simple hysterectomy and cone biopsy were associated with “small” declines in sexual function and bladder/bowel function at 4-6 weeks after surgery, but function “quickly” recovered to baseline by 6 months, Dr. Covens reported.

Twelve patients reported a diagnosis of lymphedema, with a Gynecologic Cancer Lymphedema Questionnaire score change of 4 or higher on at least two consecutive evaluations from baseline. This occurred in six cone biopsy and six simple hysterectomy patients.

In a separate presentation, Dr. Covens reported secondary oncologic outcomes from GOG-278, which suggest that non-radical surgery for early-stage cervical cancer is safe, with low perioperative morbidity, although longer follow-up is needed.

He also reported 16 pregnancies in 15 patients who had undergone cone biopsies; 12 of these were successful, and there were four early pregnancy losses.
 

‘Impressive’ Data

Study discussant Kristin Bixel, MD, with The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, said the data are “impressive” and clearly show that non-radical surgery has “minimal impact on bladder/bowel function, with no long-term differences from baseline.”

She added that the incidence of lymphedema was “honestly significantly lower than what I typically counsel patients about” and wondered if the percentage of patients with lymphedema would increase over time.

Dr. Bixel particularly noted the decrease in cancer worry scores after surgery, as sometimes patients who have less radical procedures fear that this comes with an increased risk for recurrence.

The “growing body of data suggests that less radical surgery is safe and effective for early-stage low-risk cervical cancer and highlights the potential reproductive success,” she concluded.

Funding for the study was provided by grants from NRG Oncology. Dr. Covens had no disclosures. Dr. Bixel has received research funding from the Intuitive Foundation.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For early-stage cervical cancer, non-radical surgery (simple hysterectomy or cone biopsy plus pelvic lymphadenectomy) appears safe with no lasting negative impact on quality of life, according to results of the GOG-278 trial.

In fact, patients’ quality of life was improved after surgery in both groups, and their concerns about cancer recurrence decreased, especially for those undergoing simple hysterectomy, said Allan Covens, MD, in his late-breaking abstract presentation at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO)’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer. 

“Cone biopsy patients reported less concerns about reproductive fertility after surgery and over time compared to preop assessments,” he added.

Due to screening in developed countries, a large proportion of cervical cancers are discovered at an early stage. Treatment of these cancers with radical surgery is associated with high cure rates but significant adverse effects on quality of life, said Dr. Covens, who is with the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

He and his colleagues wanted to see if non-radical surgery could be safely used instead. “Multiple case series have indicated that non-radical surgery is associated with less morbidity and improved quality of life,” he explained. “If this can be proven in a prospective evaluation, it will change future practice.”

GOG-278 was a prospective cohort study of women with stage IA1 (lymph-vascular space invasion+) and IA2-IB1 (≤ 2 cm) carcinoma of the cervix who underwent non-radical surgery (simple hysterectomy or fertility-preserving cone biopsy) and pelvic lymphadenectomy. Criteria included ≤ 10 mm stromal invasion and negative margins on the final cone biopsy.

The primary objectives were to assess changes in functional outcomes of quality of life (bladder/bowel function, sexual function, cancer worry, and reproductive concerns), using validated instruments. Findings were based on 55 patients who underwent cone biopsy and 113 who underwent simple hysterectomy.

Both simple hysterectomy and cone biopsy were associated with “small” declines in sexual function and bladder/bowel function at 4-6 weeks after surgery, but function “quickly” recovered to baseline by 6 months, Dr. Covens reported.

Twelve patients reported a diagnosis of lymphedema, with a Gynecologic Cancer Lymphedema Questionnaire score change of 4 or higher on at least two consecutive evaluations from baseline. This occurred in six cone biopsy and six simple hysterectomy patients.

In a separate presentation, Dr. Covens reported secondary oncologic outcomes from GOG-278, which suggest that non-radical surgery for early-stage cervical cancer is safe, with low perioperative morbidity, although longer follow-up is needed.

He also reported 16 pregnancies in 15 patients who had undergone cone biopsies; 12 of these were successful, and there were four early pregnancy losses.
 

‘Impressive’ Data

Study discussant Kristin Bixel, MD, with The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, said the data are “impressive” and clearly show that non-radical surgery has “minimal impact on bladder/bowel function, with no long-term differences from baseline.”

She added that the incidence of lymphedema was “honestly significantly lower than what I typically counsel patients about” and wondered if the percentage of patients with lymphedema would increase over time.

Dr. Bixel particularly noted the decrease in cancer worry scores after surgery, as sometimes patients who have less radical procedures fear that this comes with an increased risk for recurrence.

The “growing body of data suggests that less radical surgery is safe and effective for early-stage low-risk cervical cancer and highlights the potential reproductive success,” she concluded.

Funding for the study was provided by grants from NRG Oncology. Dr. Covens had no disclosures. Dr. Bixel has received research funding from the Intuitive Foundation.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MARYLAND — Implementation of a standardized induction of labor protocol had no significant effect on the rates of cesarean delivery in patients with obesity, based on data from more than 5000 individuals.

Previous research has shown that the risk for cesarean delivery increases by 5% with each 1-kg/m² increase in body mass index (BMI) among nulliparous patients, said Melissa Riegel, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, in a presentation at the meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. (abstract 82).

Research on the relationship between obesity and higher cesarean delivery rates “has been clouded by the inability to reduce variation in care,” Dr. Riegel said at the meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal Fetal Medicine. Failed induction of labor (IOL) is a leading indicator for cesarean delivery, and cesarean delivery is 80% more likely in patients with obesity undergoing IOL than in normal-weight patients, Dr. Riegel said.

Possible explanations for these differences include provider factors such as variability in care management, conscious and unconscious biases, or physiologic differences in patients with obesity such as elevated hormones, differences in the labor curve, and higher doses of oxytocin and prostaglandins, Dr. Riegel said.

Dr. Riegel and colleagues hypothesized that differences in cesarean delivery rates would persist despite a standardized labor induction protocol, thereby supporting the effects of factors other than variations in care on increased cesarean delivery risk after IOL in patients with obesity.

The researchers reviewed data from two sites comparing 2-year periods before and after implementation of an IOL protocol from 2018 to 2022. The study population included nulliparous women with singleton pregnancies at term who underwent IOL with intact membranes and unfavorable cervices, and had a BMI of at least 30 kg/m² at delivery. The preimplementation group (PRE) included 2480 individuals and the postimplementation group (POST) included 2651 individuals. Patients were divided into weight classes based on BMI: 30-34.9; 35-39.9; ≥40.

The standardized protocol consisted of active labor management with cervical exams, with an amniotomy by the time of the first exam with 4 cm or greater cervical dilation, and further intervention with medication such as oxytocin or an intrauterine pressure catheter if no cervical change was noted after 2 hours.

In a multivariate analysis, the overall cesarean delivery rate was 24.9% before the protocol implementation and 26.0% in the postimplementation group. There were no differences in the risk of cesarean delivery in any obesity class from the PRE to POST period.

In addition, no significant differences appeared in the secondary outcomes of duration of labor, maternal morbidity, or neonatal morbidity, Dr. Riegel said. Nonreassuring fetal heart rate tracing was the most common reason for cesarean delivery across all obesity classes and the PRE and POST groups.

Study limitations included the use of data from only two sites, but the results were strengthened by the large sample size, said Dr. Reigel. The results indicate that reducing variation in IOL management had no significant effect on the relationship between obesity and cesarean delivery and support underlying physiologic explanations, she said.
 

Making the Case for Physiology

“By standardizing induction practices, we were able to minimize differences in care and better answer why the increased cesarean delivery rate exists in this patient population,” Dr. Riegel said in an interview. The findings were in line with the primary hypothesis that standardized induction would not affect cesarean delivery rates in patients with obesity, she said. Instead, the findings support potential physiologic differences as “the driving force behind this relationship,” she added.

Looking ahead, “There is a role for translational work to investigate the specific biological changes in patients with obesity that might contribute to an increased risk of cesarean delivery and there is also a role for investigating the effectiveness of different labor induction interventions specifically in patients with obesity,” Dr. Riegel said.
 

Different Induction Protocols Needed for Obese Patients?

“Given that severe maternal morbidity and mortality are continuing to increase in the United States, this study is critical, as we know that both cesarean delivery and obesity are driving factors in increasing maternal morbidity,” said Marissa Platner, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, in an interview.

However, the novel takeaway message from the current study is that patients with obesity were more likely to require cesarean delivery even with a protocol in which variation in labor induction techniques are minimized, said Dr. Platner, who was not involved in the study. “This leads to the question of [whether] we should have different standards or protocols for our patients with obesity, as well as a need for clear counseling for these patients early on in pregnancy,” she said.

As for further research, “It would be interesting to see if the risk of cesarean delivery changed based on class of obesity, and the primary drivers of cesarean delivery in this study,” Dr. Platner said. “Additionally, it would be helpful to know how much pitocin was needed for patients, based on their BMI category, to achieve successful vaginal delivery,” she noted.

The study was supported by a grant from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Development. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Platner had no financial conflicts to disclose.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MARYLAND — Implementation of a standardized induction of labor protocol had no significant effect on the rates of cesarean delivery in patients with obesity, based on data from more than 5000 individuals.

Previous research has shown that the risk for cesarean delivery increases by 5% with each 1-kg/m² increase in body mass index (BMI) among nulliparous patients, said Melissa Riegel, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, in a presentation at the meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. (abstract 82).

Research on the relationship between obesity and higher cesarean delivery rates “has been clouded by the inability to reduce variation in care,” Dr. Riegel said at the meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal Fetal Medicine. Failed induction of labor (IOL) is a leading indicator for cesarean delivery, and cesarean delivery is 80% more likely in patients with obesity undergoing IOL than in normal-weight patients, Dr. Riegel said.

Possible explanations for these differences include provider factors such as variability in care management, conscious and unconscious biases, or physiologic differences in patients with obesity such as elevated hormones, differences in the labor curve, and higher doses of oxytocin and prostaglandins, Dr. Riegel said.

Dr. Riegel and colleagues hypothesized that differences in cesarean delivery rates would persist despite a standardized labor induction protocol, thereby supporting the effects of factors other than variations in care on increased cesarean delivery risk after IOL in patients with obesity.

The researchers reviewed data from two sites comparing 2-year periods before and after implementation of an IOL protocol from 2018 to 2022. The study population included nulliparous women with singleton pregnancies at term who underwent IOL with intact membranes and unfavorable cervices, and had a BMI of at least 30 kg/m² at delivery. The preimplementation group (PRE) included 2480 individuals and the postimplementation group (POST) included 2651 individuals. Patients were divided into weight classes based on BMI: 30-34.9; 35-39.9; ≥40.

The standardized protocol consisted of active labor management with cervical exams, with an amniotomy by the time of the first exam with 4 cm or greater cervical dilation, and further intervention with medication such as oxytocin or an intrauterine pressure catheter if no cervical change was noted after 2 hours.

In a multivariate analysis, the overall cesarean delivery rate was 24.9% before the protocol implementation and 26.0% in the postimplementation group. There were no differences in the risk of cesarean delivery in any obesity class from the PRE to POST period.

In addition, no significant differences appeared in the secondary outcomes of duration of labor, maternal morbidity, or neonatal morbidity, Dr. Riegel said. Nonreassuring fetal heart rate tracing was the most common reason for cesarean delivery across all obesity classes and the PRE and POST groups.

Study limitations included the use of data from only two sites, but the results were strengthened by the large sample size, said Dr. Reigel. The results indicate that reducing variation in IOL management had no significant effect on the relationship between obesity and cesarean delivery and support underlying physiologic explanations, she said.
 

Making the Case for Physiology

“By standardizing induction practices, we were able to minimize differences in care and better answer why the increased cesarean delivery rate exists in this patient population,” Dr. Riegel said in an interview. The findings were in line with the primary hypothesis that standardized induction would not affect cesarean delivery rates in patients with obesity, she said. Instead, the findings support potential physiologic differences as “the driving force behind this relationship,” she added.

Looking ahead, “There is a role for translational work to investigate the specific biological changes in patients with obesity that might contribute to an increased risk of cesarean delivery and there is also a role for investigating the effectiveness of different labor induction interventions specifically in patients with obesity,” Dr. Riegel said.
 

Different Induction Protocols Needed for Obese Patients?

“Given that severe maternal morbidity and mortality are continuing to increase in the United States, this study is critical, as we know that both cesarean delivery and obesity are driving factors in increasing maternal morbidity,” said Marissa Platner, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, in an interview.

However, the novel takeaway message from the current study is that patients with obesity were more likely to require cesarean delivery even with a protocol in which variation in labor induction techniques are minimized, said Dr. Platner, who was not involved in the study. “This leads to the question of [whether] we should have different standards or protocols for our patients with obesity, as well as a need for clear counseling for these patients early on in pregnancy,” she said.

As for further research, “It would be interesting to see if the risk of cesarean delivery changed based on class of obesity, and the primary drivers of cesarean delivery in this study,” Dr. Platner said. “Additionally, it would be helpful to know how much pitocin was needed for patients, based on their BMI category, to achieve successful vaginal delivery,” she noted.

The study was supported by a grant from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Development. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Platner had no financial conflicts to disclose.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MARYLAND — Implementation of a standardized induction of labor protocol had no significant effect on the rates of cesarean delivery in patients with obesity, based on data from more than 5000 individuals.

Previous research has shown that the risk for cesarean delivery increases by 5% with each 1-kg/m² increase in body mass index (BMI) among nulliparous patients, said Melissa Riegel, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, in a presentation at the meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. (abstract 82).

Research on the relationship between obesity and higher cesarean delivery rates “has been clouded by the inability to reduce variation in care,” Dr. Riegel said at the meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal Fetal Medicine. Failed induction of labor (IOL) is a leading indicator for cesarean delivery, and cesarean delivery is 80% more likely in patients with obesity undergoing IOL than in normal-weight patients, Dr. Riegel said.

Possible explanations for these differences include provider factors such as variability in care management, conscious and unconscious biases, or physiologic differences in patients with obesity such as elevated hormones, differences in the labor curve, and higher doses of oxytocin and prostaglandins, Dr. Riegel said.

Dr. Riegel and colleagues hypothesized that differences in cesarean delivery rates would persist despite a standardized labor induction protocol, thereby supporting the effects of factors other than variations in care on increased cesarean delivery risk after IOL in patients with obesity.

The researchers reviewed data from two sites comparing 2-year periods before and after implementation of an IOL protocol from 2018 to 2022. The study population included nulliparous women with singleton pregnancies at term who underwent IOL with intact membranes and unfavorable cervices, and had a BMI of at least 30 kg/m² at delivery. The preimplementation group (PRE) included 2480 individuals and the postimplementation group (POST) included 2651 individuals. Patients were divided into weight classes based on BMI: 30-34.9; 35-39.9; ≥40.

The standardized protocol consisted of active labor management with cervical exams, with an amniotomy by the time of the first exam with 4 cm or greater cervical dilation, and further intervention with medication such as oxytocin or an intrauterine pressure catheter if no cervical change was noted after 2 hours.

In a multivariate analysis, the overall cesarean delivery rate was 24.9% before the protocol implementation and 26.0% in the postimplementation group. There were no differences in the risk of cesarean delivery in any obesity class from the PRE to POST period.

In addition, no significant differences appeared in the secondary outcomes of duration of labor, maternal morbidity, or neonatal morbidity, Dr. Riegel said. Nonreassuring fetal heart rate tracing was the most common reason for cesarean delivery across all obesity classes and the PRE and POST groups.

Study limitations included the use of data from only two sites, but the results were strengthened by the large sample size, said Dr. Reigel. The results indicate that reducing variation in IOL management had no significant effect on the relationship between obesity and cesarean delivery and support underlying physiologic explanations, she said.
 

Making the Case for Physiology

“By standardizing induction practices, we were able to minimize differences in care and better answer why the increased cesarean delivery rate exists in this patient population,” Dr. Riegel said in an interview. The findings were in line with the primary hypothesis that standardized induction would not affect cesarean delivery rates in patients with obesity, she said. Instead, the findings support potential physiologic differences as “the driving force behind this relationship,” she added.

Looking ahead, “There is a role for translational work to investigate the specific biological changes in patients with obesity that might contribute to an increased risk of cesarean delivery and there is also a role for investigating the effectiveness of different labor induction interventions specifically in patients with obesity,” Dr. Riegel said.
 

Different Induction Protocols Needed for Obese Patients?

“Given that severe maternal morbidity and mortality are continuing to increase in the United States, this study is critical, as we know that both cesarean delivery and obesity are driving factors in increasing maternal morbidity,” said Marissa Platner, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, in an interview.

However, the novel takeaway message from the current study is that patients with obesity were more likely to require cesarean delivery even with a protocol in which variation in labor induction techniques are minimized, said Dr. Platner, who was not involved in the study. “This leads to the question of [whether] we should have different standards or protocols for our patients with obesity, as well as a need for clear counseling for these patients early on in pregnancy,” she said.

As for further research, “It would be interesting to see if the risk of cesarean delivery changed based on class of obesity, and the primary drivers of cesarean delivery in this study,” Dr. Platner said. “Additionally, it would be helpful to know how much pitocin was needed for patients, based on their BMI category, to achieve successful vaginal delivery,” she noted.

The study was supported by a grant from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Development. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Platner had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Pediatrician Michelle Collins-Ogle, MD, already has a busy practice helping young people address questions about their gender identity. She has treated more than 230 patients over the past 2 years at Children’s Hospital at Montefiore in the Bronx, New York.

Dr. Collins-Ogle specializes in adolescent medicine in New York, a state without the restrictions on such care that have been enacted in roughly half the country.

On December 13, 2023, Ohio lawmakers passed a bill banning gender-affirming medical care to minors which Gov. Mike DeWine vetoed on December 29. Another 26 states have similar restrictions in place, according to a tally provided to this news organization by the Human Rights Campaign, which tracks this issue.

Clinicians like Dr. Collins-Ogle are feeling the impact. In her practice, Dr. Collins-Ogle met a couple that moved from Texas to New York to allow their child to access gender-affirming medical care.

“They wanted their child to be able to receive medical care, but they also were afraid for their own safety, of having their child taken from them, and being locked up,” Dr. Collins-Ogle told this news organization. 

With patients have also come protestors and harassment. In fact, many physicians are reluctant to speak on this topic amid a recent spate of threats. Psychiatric News reported that conservative pundits and high-profile social media accounts have targeted physicians who provide gender-affirming medical care, spurring harassment campaigns against clinics in cities such as Akron, Boston, and Nashville. “The attackers asserted that the clinics were mutilating children and giving them ‘chemical castration drugs,’ among other claims,” the Psychiatric News reported.

This news organization contacted more than a half dozen organizations that provide gender-affirming care for adolescents and teens seeking interviews about the effects of these restrictions.

All but Montefiore’s Dr. Collins-Ogle turned down the request.

“If my kids are brave enough to come see me, I can’t cower,” Dr. Collins-Ogle said. 

But Dr. Collins-Ogle emphasized she understands why many fellow physicians are concerned about speaking publicly about gender-affirming medical care. 
 

Dissenters Spread Misinformation and Threats

Recent years have seen increasing politicization of this issue, often due to inaccurate depictions of gender-affirming medical care circulating on social media. 

In 2022, the American Medical Association (AMA), the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), and the Children’s Hospital Association asked the Justice Department to investigate what they called “increasing threats of violence against physicians, hospitals, and families of children for providing and seeking evidence-based gender-affirming care.” 

The three organizations also called on X (formerly known as Twitter), TikTok, and Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, to do more to address coordinated campaigns of disinformation. 

“We cannot stand by as threats of violence against our members and their patients proliferate with little consequence,” said Moira Szilagyi, MD, PhD, then AAP president in a statement. 
 

Medical Groups Defend Care to Prevent Suicide

The AAP, AMA, and other influential medical associations are banding together to fight new legal restrictions on gender-affirming medical care for teens and adolescents. (These briefs do not discuss surgeries typically available for adults.) 

Since 2022, these medical organizations have filed amicus briefs in cases challenging new restrictions put in place in Arkansas, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Texas. 

Other signers to the amicus briefs: 

• Academic Pediatric Association
• American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry
• American Academy of Family Physicians
• American Academy of Nursing
• GLMA: Health Professionals Advancing LGBTQ+ Equality
• American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
• American College of Osteopathic Pediatricians
• The American College of Physicians
• American Pediatric Society
• Association of Medical School Pediatric Department Chairs, Inc.
• Endocrine Society
• National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners
• The Pediatric Endocrine Society, Societies for Pediatric Urology
• Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine
• Society for Pediatric Research
• The Society of Pediatric Nurses
• World Professional Association for Transgender Health

In these amicus briefs, the medical groups argue that evidence-based guidelines support the use of medication in treating gender dysphoria. The amicus briefs in particular cite an Endocrine Society guideline and the standards of care developed by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH).

Research shows that adolescents with gender dysphoria who receive puberty blockers and other medications experience less depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation, the groups have said.

“In light of this evidence supporting the connection between lack of access to gender-affirming care and lifetime suicide risk, banning such care can put patients’ lives at risk,” the AAP and other groups said.
 

Debate Over Source of Gender Identity Concerns 

Having doubts and concerns about one’s gender remains a relatively rare phenomena, although it appears more common among younger people. 

Among US adults, 0.5% or about 1.3 million people identify as transgender whereas about 1.4% or about 300,000 people in the 13-17–year-old group do so, according to a report issued in 2022 by the Williams Institute of the UCLA School of Law. 
 

Questionable Diagnosis Drives Bans on Care

The term “rapid-onset gender dysphoria,” referring to young people who suddenly question their gender as part of peer group dynamics, persists in political debates. The conservative Heritage Foundation has used the term as well as “social contagion” in its effort to seek restrictions on gender-affirming care for young people. 

Ohio Rep. Gary Click, a Republican, said at an April 2023 hearing that his Save Adolescents from Experimentation (SAFE) bill would prevent teens from being harmed due to “social contagion” or “ rapid-onset gender dysphoria.” 

The bill, which the Ohio legislature cleared in December, would block physicians from starting new patients on puberty blockers. (It also bars surgeries as part of gender-affirming medical care, although hospital officials and physicians told lawmakers these are not done in Ohio.) 

Among the groups opposing Click’s bill were the Ohio chapter of the AAP, the Ohio State Medical Association and several hospitals and hospital groups as well as physicians speaking independently. 

Gender-Affirming Care ‘Buys Time’ to Avoid Impulsive Decisions

Kate Krueck, MD, a pediatrician with a practice in the Columbus area, testified about her experience as the mother of a transgender child who once attempted suicide. 

“It wasn’t always easy to reconstruct my vision of a baby with a vagina into the adolescent before me with a new name and changed pronouns, but they were still the same incredible person,” Krueck said. 

She urged lawmakers to understand how puberty blockers can “buy time” for teens to cope with a body at odds with their vision of themselves, noting that many of the effects of these medications are largely reversible. The side effects that are not reversible, such as facial hair growth and the growth of Adam’s Apple, are certainly outweighed by the risks of withholding treatment, she said. 
 

Bad Patient Experience Drives Detractor Activist

Arguing against that point was Chloe Cole, a detransitioner activist who had returned to a female identity. At the Ohio legislative hearings, Ms. Cole spoke of her experience in California as a teen treated for gender dysphoria.

“I was fast-tracked by medical butchers starting at 13 when I was given cross sex hormones, and they took my breasts away from me at 15 years old,” she said.

Ms. Cole appears frequently to testify in favor of bans on gender-affirming medical care. In 2022, she told the Ohio lawmakers about her experience of attending a class with about a dozen other young people in the midst of female-to-male transitions. She now sees that class as having inadvertently helped reinforce her decision to have her breasts removed.

“Despite all these consultations and classes, I don’t feel like I understood all the ramifications that came with any of the medical decisions I was making,” Ms. Cole said. “I didn’t realize how traumatic the recovery would be, and it wasn’t until I was almost a year post-op that I realized I may want to breastfeed my future children; I will never be able to do that.”

Ms. Cole also spoke in July before the US House subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government.

“I look in the mirror sometimes, and I feel like a monster,” Ms. Cole said at the House hearing, which was titled “ The Dangers and Due Process Violations of ‘Gender-Affirming Care’.” 

During the hearing, Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR), who also made a gender transition, thanked Ms. Cole but noted that her case is an exception.

A 2022 Lancet Child and Adolescent Health article reported that 704 (98%) people in the Netherlands who had started gender-affirming medical treatment in adolescence continued to use gender-affirming hormones at follow-up. Ms. Minter credits this high rate of continuation to clinicians taking their duties to adolescents seriously. 

State legislatures and medical boards oversee the regulation of medical practice in the US. But a few Republicans in both chambers of the US Congress have shown an interest in enacting a federal ban restricting physicians’ ability to provide gender-affirming medical care. 

They include Rep. Mike Johnson of Louisiana, who in October 2023 became Speaker of the House. He chaired the July hearing at which Ms. Cole spoke. He’s also a sponsor of a House bill introduced by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA). 

This measure, which has the support of 45 House Republicans, would make it a felony to perform any gender-affirming care on a minor, and it permits a minor on whom such care is performed to bring a civil action against each individual who provided the care. Sen. JD Vance (R-OH) introduced the companion Senate measure.
 

Reality of Gender-Affirming Care

The drive to pass laws like those in Ohio and Arkansas stem from a lack of knowledge about gender-affirming treatments, including a false idea that doctors prescribe medications at teens’ requests, Montefiore’s Dr. Collins-Ogle said. 

“There’s a misperception that young people will say ‘I’m transgender’ and that those of us who provide care are just giving them hormones or whatever they want. It’s not true, and it doesn’t happen that way,” Dr. Collins-Ogle said. 

At the Children’s Hospital at Montefiore, Dr. Collins-Ogle said her work with patients wrestling with gender identity issues begins with questions. 

“What’s your understanding of dysphoria? Where’s the incongruence between the gender you were assigned at birth and what you’re feeling now? You have to be able to verbalize that” before the treatment proceeds, she said. 

Sometimes teens leave after an initial conversation and then return later when they have a more clearly defined sense of what dysphoria means. 

“There are other kids who clearly, clearly understand that the gender they were assigned at birth is not who they are,” she said. 

Children now wrestle with added concerns that their parents could be put at risk for trying to help them, she said. 

“These kids go through so much. And we have these people in powerful positions telling them that they don’t matter and telling them, ‘We’re going to cut off your access to healthcare, Medicaid; if your parents tried to seek out this care for you, we’re going to put them in jail,’” she said. 

“It’s the biggest factor in fear mongering,” she said. 

Dr. Collins-Ogle said she wonders why legislators who lack medical training are trying to dictate how physicians can practice. 

“I took a Hippocratic oath to do no harm. I have a medical board that I answer to,” she said. “I don’t understand how legislators can get away with legislating about something they know nothing about.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Pediatrician Michelle Collins-Ogle, MD, already has a busy practice helping young people address questions about their gender identity. She has treated more than 230 patients over the past 2 years at Children’s Hospital at Montefiore in the Bronx, New York.

Dr. Collins-Ogle specializes in adolescent medicine in New York, a state without the restrictions on such care that have been enacted in roughly half the country.

On December 13, 2023, Ohio lawmakers passed a bill banning gender-affirming medical care to minors which Gov. Mike DeWine vetoed on December 29. Another 26 states have similar restrictions in place, according to a tally provided to this news organization by the Human Rights Campaign, which tracks this issue.

Clinicians like Dr. Collins-Ogle are feeling the impact. In her practice, Dr. Collins-Ogle met a couple that moved from Texas to New York to allow their child to access gender-affirming medical care.

“They wanted their child to be able to receive medical care, but they also were afraid for their own safety, of having their child taken from them, and being locked up,” Dr. Collins-Ogle told this news organization. 

With patients have also come protestors and harassment. In fact, many physicians are reluctant to speak on this topic amid a recent spate of threats. Psychiatric News reported that conservative pundits and high-profile social media accounts have targeted physicians who provide gender-affirming medical care, spurring harassment campaigns against clinics in cities such as Akron, Boston, and Nashville. “The attackers asserted that the clinics were mutilating children and giving them ‘chemical castration drugs,’ among other claims,” the Psychiatric News reported.

This news organization contacted more than a half dozen organizations that provide gender-affirming care for adolescents and teens seeking interviews about the effects of these restrictions.

All but Montefiore’s Dr. Collins-Ogle turned down the request.

“If my kids are brave enough to come see me, I can’t cower,” Dr. Collins-Ogle said. 

But Dr. Collins-Ogle emphasized she understands why many fellow physicians are concerned about speaking publicly about gender-affirming medical care. 
 

Dissenters Spread Misinformation and Threats

Recent years have seen increasing politicization of this issue, often due to inaccurate depictions of gender-affirming medical care circulating on social media. 

In 2022, the American Medical Association (AMA), the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), and the Children’s Hospital Association asked the Justice Department to investigate what they called “increasing threats of violence against physicians, hospitals, and families of children for providing and seeking evidence-based gender-affirming care.” 

The three organizations also called on X (formerly known as Twitter), TikTok, and Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, to do more to address coordinated campaigns of disinformation. 

“We cannot stand by as threats of violence against our members and their patients proliferate with little consequence,” said Moira Szilagyi, MD, PhD, then AAP president in a statement. 
 

Medical Groups Defend Care to Prevent Suicide

The AAP, AMA, and other influential medical associations are banding together to fight new legal restrictions on gender-affirming medical care for teens and adolescents. (These briefs do not discuss surgeries typically available for adults.) 

Since 2022, these medical organizations have filed amicus briefs in cases challenging new restrictions put in place in Arkansas, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Texas. 

Other signers to the amicus briefs: 

• Academic Pediatric Association
• American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry
• American Academy of Family Physicians
• American Academy of Nursing
• GLMA: Health Professionals Advancing LGBTQ+ Equality
• American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
• American College of Osteopathic Pediatricians
• The American College of Physicians
• American Pediatric Society
• Association of Medical School Pediatric Department Chairs, Inc.
• Endocrine Society
• National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners
• The Pediatric Endocrine Society, Societies for Pediatric Urology
• Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine
• Society for Pediatric Research
• The Society of Pediatric Nurses
• World Professional Association for Transgender Health

In these amicus briefs, the medical groups argue that evidence-based guidelines support the use of medication in treating gender dysphoria. The amicus briefs in particular cite an Endocrine Society guideline and the standards of care developed by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH).

Research shows that adolescents with gender dysphoria who receive puberty blockers and other medications experience less depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation, the groups have said.

“In light of this evidence supporting the connection between lack of access to gender-affirming care and lifetime suicide risk, banning such care can put patients’ lives at risk,” the AAP and other groups said.
 

Debate Over Source of Gender Identity Concerns 

Having doubts and concerns about one’s gender remains a relatively rare phenomena, although it appears more common among younger people. 

Among US adults, 0.5% or about 1.3 million people identify as transgender whereas about 1.4% or about 300,000 people in the 13-17–year-old group do so, according to a report issued in 2022 by the Williams Institute of the UCLA School of Law. 
 

Questionable Diagnosis Drives Bans on Care

The term “rapid-onset gender dysphoria,” referring to young people who suddenly question their gender as part of peer group dynamics, persists in political debates. The conservative Heritage Foundation has used the term as well as “social contagion” in its effort to seek restrictions on gender-affirming care for young people. 

Ohio Rep. Gary Click, a Republican, said at an April 2023 hearing that his Save Adolescents from Experimentation (SAFE) bill would prevent teens from being harmed due to “social contagion” or “ rapid-onset gender dysphoria.” 

The bill, which the Ohio legislature cleared in December, would block physicians from starting new patients on puberty blockers. (It also bars surgeries as part of gender-affirming medical care, although hospital officials and physicians told lawmakers these are not done in Ohio.) 

Among the groups opposing Click’s bill were the Ohio chapter of the AAP, the Ohio State Medical Association and several hospitals and hospital groups as well as physicians speaking independently. 

Gender-Affirming Care ‘Buys Time’ to Avoid Impulsive Decisions

Kate Krueck, MD, a pediatrician with a practice in the Columbus area, testified about her experience as the mother of a transgender child who once attempted suicide. 

“It wasn’t always easy to reconstruct my vision of a baby with a vagina into the adolescent before me with a new name and changed pronouns, but they were still the same incredible person,” Krueck said. 

She urged lawmakers to understand how puberty blockers can “buy time” for teens to cope with a body at odds with their vision of themselves, noting that many of the effects of these medications are largely reversible. The side effects that are not reversible, such as facial hair growth and the growth of Adam’s Apple, are certainly outweighed by the risks of withholding treatment, she said. 
 

Bad Patient Experience Drives Detractor Activist

Arguing against that point was Chloe Cole, a detransitioner activist who had returned to a female identity. At the Ohio legislative hearings, Ms. Cole spoke of her experience in California as a teen treated for gender dysphoria.

“I was fast-tracked by medical butchers starting at 13 when I was given cross sex hormones, and they took my breasts away from me at 15 years old,” she said.

Ms. Cole appears frequently to testify in favor of bans on gender-affirming medical care. In 2022, she told the Ohio lawmakers about her experience of attending a class with about a dozen other young people in the midst of female-to-male transitions. She now sees that class as having inadvertently helped reinforce her decision to have her breasts removed.

“Despite all these consultations and classes, I don’t feel like I understood all the ramifications that came with any of the medical decisions I was making,” Ms. Cole said. “I didn’t realize how traumatic the recovery would be, and it wasn’t until I was almost a year post-op that I realized I may want to breastfeed my future children; I will never be able to do that.”

Ms. Cole also spoke in July before the US House subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government.

“I look in the mirror sometimes, and I feel like a monster,” Ms. Cole said at the House hearing, which was titled “ The Dangers and Due Process Violations of ‘Gender-Affirming Care’.” 

During the hearing, Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR), who also made a gender transition, thanked Ms. Cole but noted that her case is an exception.

A 2022 Lancet Child and Adolescent Health article reported that 704 (98%) people in the Netherlands who had started gender-affirming medical treatment in adolescence continued to use gender-affirming hormones at follow-up. Ms. Minter credits this high rate of continuation to clinicians taking their duties to adolescents seriously. 

State legislatures and medical boards oversee the regulation of medical practice in the US. But a few Republicans in both chambers of the US Congress have shown an interest in enacting a federal ban restricting physicians’ ability to provide gender-affirming medical care. 

They include Rep. Mike Johnson of Louisiana, who in October 2023 became Speaker of the House. He chaired the July hearing at which Ms. Cole spoke. He’s also a sponsor of a House bill introduced by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA). 

This measure, which has the support of 45 House Republicans, would make it a felony to perform any gender-affirming care on a minor, and it permits a minor on whom such care is performed to bring a civil action against each individual who provided the care. Sen. JD Vance (R-OH) introduced the companion Senate measure.
 

Reality of Gender-Affirming Care

The drive to pass laws like those in Ohio and Arkansas stem from a lack of knowledge about gender-affirming treatments, including a false idea that doctors prescribe medications at teens’ requests, Montefiore’s Dr. Collins-Ogle said. 

“There’s a misperception that young people will say ‘I’m transgender’ and that those of us who provide care are just giving them hormones or whatever they want. It’s not true, and it doesn’t happen that way,” Dr. Collins-Ogle said. 

At the Children’s Hospital at Montefiore, Dr. Collins-Ogle said her work with patients wrestling with gender identity issues begins with questions. 

“What’s your understanding of dysphoria? Where’s the incongruence between the gender you were assigned at birth and what you’re feeling now? You have to be able to verbalize that” before the treatment proceeds, she said. 

Sometimes teens leave after an initial conversation and then return later when they have a more clearly defined sense of what dysphoria means. 

“There are other kids who clearly, clearly understand that the gender they were assigned at birth is not who they are,” she said. 

Children now wrestle with added concerns that their parents could be put at risk for trying to help them, she said. 

“These kids go through so much. And we have these people in powerful positions telling them that they don’t matter and telling them, ‘We’re going to cut off your access to healthcare, Medicaid; if your parents tried to seek out this care for you, we’re going to put them in jail,’” she said. 

“It’s the biggest factor in fear mongering,” she said. 

Dr. Collins-Ogle said she wonders why legislators who lack medical training are trying to dictate how physicians can practice. 

“I took a Hippocratic oath to do no harm. I have a medical board that I answer to,” she said. “I don’t understand how legislators can get away with legislating about something they know nothing about.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Pediatrician Michelle Collins-Ogle, MD, already has a busy practice helping young people address questions about their gender identity. She has treated more than 230 patients over the past 2 years at Children’s Hospital at Montefiore in the Bronx, New York.

Dr. Collins-Ogle specializes in adolescent medicine in New York, a state without the restrictions on such care that have been enacted in roughly half the country.

On December 13, 2023, Ohio lawmakers passed a bill banning gender-affirming medical care to minors which Gov. Mike DeWine vetoed on December 29. Another 26 states have similar restrictions in place, according to a tally provided to this news organization by the Human Rights Campaign, which tracks this issue.

Clinicians like Dr. Collins-Ogle are feeling the impact. In her practice, Dr. Collins-Ogle met a couple that moved from Texas to New York to allow their child to access gender-affirming medical care.

“They wanted their child to be able to receive medical care, but they also were afraid for their own safety, of having their child taken from them, and being locked up,” Dr. Collins-Ogle told this news organization. 

With patients have also come protestors and harassment. In fact, many physicians are reluctant to speak on this topic amid a recent spate of threats. Psychiatric News reported that conservative pundits and high-profile social media accounts have targeted physicians who provide gender-affirming medical care, spurring harassment campaigns against clinics in cities such as Akron, Boston, and Nashville. “The attackers asserted that the clinics were mutilating children and giving them ‘chemical castration drugs,’ among other claims,” the Psychiatric News reported.

This news organization contacted more than a half dozen organizations that provide gender-affirming care for adolescents and teens seeking interviews about the effects of these restrictions.

All but Montefiore’s Dr. Collins-Ogle turned down the request.

“If my kids are brave enough to come see me, I can’t cower,” Dr. Collins-Ogle said. 

But Dr. Collins-Ogle emphasized she understands why many fellow physicians are concerned about speaking publicly about gender-affirming medical care. 
 

Dissenters Spread Misinformation and Threats

Recent years have seen increasing politicization of this issue, often due to inaccurate depictions of gender-affirming medical care circulating on social media. 

In 2022, the American Medical Association (AMA), the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), and the Children’s Hospital Association asked the Justice Department to investigate what they called “increasing threats of violence against physicians, hospitals, and families of children for providing and seeking evidence-based gender-affirming care.” 

The three organizations also called on X (formerly known as Twitter), TikTok, and Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, to do more to address coordinated campaigns of disinformation. 

“We cannot stand by as threats of violence against our members and their patients proliferate with little consequence,” said Moira Szilagyi, MD, PhD, then AAP president in a statement. 
 

Medical Groups Defend Care to Prevent Suicide

The AAP, AMA, and other influential medical associations are banding together to fight new legal restrictions on gender-affirming medical care for teens and adolescents. (These briefs do not discuss surgeries typically available for adults.) 

Since 2022, these medical organizations have filed amicus briefs in cases challenging new restrictions put in place in Arkansas, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Texas. 

Other signers to the amicus briefs: 

• Academic Pediatric Association
• American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry
• American Academy of Family Physicians
• American Academy of Nursing
• GLMA: Health Professionals Advancing LGBTQ+ Equality
• American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
• American College of Osteopathic Pediatricians
• The American College of Physicians
• American Pediatric Society
• Association of Medical School Pediatric Department Chairs, Inc.
• Endocrine Society
• National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners
• The Pediatric Endocrine Society, Societies for Pediatric Urology
• Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine
• Society for Pediatric Research
• The Society of Pediatric Nurses
• World Professional Association for Transgender Health

In these amicus briefs, the medical groups argue that evidence-based guidelines support the use of medication in treating gender dysphoria. The amicus briefs in particular cite an Endocrine Society guideline and the standards of care developed by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH).

Research shows that adolescents with gender dysphoria who receive puberty blockers and other medications experience less depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation, the groups have said.

“In light of this evidence supporting the connection between lack of access to gender-affirming care and lifetime suicide risk, banning such care can put patients’ lives at risk,” the AAP and other groups said.
 

Debate Over Source of Gender Identity Concerns 

Having doubts and concerns about one’s gender remains a relatively rare phenomena, although it appears more common among younger people. 

Among US adults, 0.5% or about 1.3 million people identify as transgender whereas about 1.4% or about 300,000 people in the 13-17–year-old group do so, according to a report issued in 2022 by the Williams Institute of the UCLA School of Law. 
 

Questionable Diagnosis Drives Bans on Care

The term “rapid-onset gender dysphoria,” referring to young people who suddenly question their gender as part of peer group dynamics, persists in political debates. The conservative Heritage Foundation has used the term as well as “social contagion” in its effort to seek restrictions on gender-affirming care for young people. 

Ohio Rep. Gary Click, a Republican, said at an April 2023 hearing that his Save Adolescents from Experimentation (SAFE) bill would prevent teens from being harmed due to “social contagion” or “ rapid-onset gender dysphoria.” 

The bill, which the Ohio legislature cleared in December, would block physicians from starting new patients on puberty blockers. (It also bars surgeries as part of gender-affirming medical care, although hospital officials and physicians told lawmakers these are not done in Ohio.) 

Among the groups opposing Click’s bill were the Ohio chapter of the AAP, the Ohio State Medical Association and several hospitals and hospital groups as well as physicians speaking independently. 

Gender-Affirming Care ‘Buys Time’ to Avoid Impulsive Decisions

Kate Krueck, MD, a pediatrician with a practice in the Columbus area, testified about her experience as the mother of a transgender child who once attempted suicide. 

“It wasn’t always easy to reconstruct my vision of a baby with a vagina into the adolescent before me with a new name and changed pronouns, but they were still the same incredible person,” Krueck said. 

She urged lawmakers to understand how puberty blockers can “buy time” for teens to cope with a body at odds with their vision of themselves, noting that many of the effects of these medications are largely reversible. The side effects that are not reversible, such as facial hair growth and the growth of Adam’s Apple, are certainly outweighed by the risks of withholding treatment, she said. 
 

Bad Patient Experience Drives Detractor Activist

Arguing against that point was Chloe Cole, a detransitioner activist who had returned to a female identity. At the Ohio legislative hearings, Ms. Cole spoke of her experience in California as a teen treated for gender dysphoria.

“I was fast-tracked by medical butchers starting at 13 when I was given cross sex hormones, and they took my breasts away from me at 15 years old,” she said.

Ms. Cole appears frequently to testify in favor of bans on gender-affirming medical care. In 2022, she told the Ohio lawmakers about her experience of attending a class with about a dozen other young people in the midst of female-to-male transitions. She now sees that class as having inadvertently helped reinforce her decision to have her breasts removed.

“Despite all these consultations and classes, I don’t feel like I understood all the ramifications that came with any of the medical decisions I was making,” Ms. Cole said. “I didn’t realize how traumatic the recovery would be, and it wasn’t until I was almost a year post-op that I realized I may want to breastfeed my future children; I will never be able to do that.”

Ms. Cole also spoke in July before the US House subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government.

“I look in the mirror sometimes, and I feel like a monster,” Ms. Cole said at the House hearing, which was titled “ The Dangers and Due Process Violations of ‘Gender-Affirming Care’.” 

During the hearing, Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR), who also made a gender transition, thanked Ms. Cole but noted that her case is an exception.

A 2022 Lancet Child and Adolescent Health article reported that 704 (98%) people in the Netherlands who had started gender-affirming medical treatment in adolescence continued to use gender-affirming hormones at follow-up. Ms. Minter credits this high rate of continuation to clinicians taking their duties to adolescents seriously. 

State legislatures and medical boards oversee the regulation of medical practice in the US. But a few Republicans in both chambers of the US Congress have shown an interest in enacting a federal ban restricting physicians’ ability to provide gender-affirming medical care. 

They include Rep. Mike Johnson of Louisiana, who in October 2023 became Speaker of the House. He chaired the July hearing at which Ms. Cole spoke. He’s also a sponsor of a House bill introduced by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA). 

This measure, which has the support of 45 House Republicans, would make it a felony to perform any gender-affirming care on a minor, and it permits a minor on whom such care is performed to bring a civil action against each individual who provided the care. Sen. JD Vance (R-OH) introduced the companion Senate measure.
 

Reality of Gender-Affirming Care

The drive to pass laws like those in Ohio and Arkansas stem from a lack of knowledge about gender-affirming treatments, including a false idea that doctors prescribe medications at teens’ requests, Montefiore’s Dr. Collins-Ogle said. 

“There’s a misperception that young people will say ‘I’m transgender’ and that those of us who provide care are just giving them hormones or whatever they want. It’s not true, and it doesn’t happen that way,” Dr. Collins-Ogle said. 

At the Children’s Hospital at Montefiore, Dr. Collins-Ogle said her work with patients wrestling with gender identity issues begins with questions. 

“What’s your understanding of dysphoria? Where’s the incongruence between the gender you were assigned at birth and what you’re feeling now? You have to be able to verbalize that” before the treatment proceeds, she said. 

Sometimes teens leave after an initial conversation and then return later when they have a more clearly defined sense of what dysphoria means. 

“There are other kids who clearly, clearly understand that the gender they were assigned at birth is not who they are,” she said. 

Children now wrestle with added concerns that their parents could be put at risk for trying to help them, she said. 

“These kids go through so much. And we have these people in powerful positions telling them that they don’t matter and telling them, ‘We’re going to cut off your access to healthcare, Medicaid; if your parents tried to seek out this care for you, we’re going to put them in jail,’” she said. 

“It’s the biggest factor in fear mongering,” she said. 

Dr. Collins-Ogle said she wonders why legislators who lack medical training are trying to dictate how physicians can practice. 

“I took a Hippocratic oath to do no harm. I have a medical board that I answer to,” she said. “I don’t understand how legislators can get away with legislating about something they know nothing about.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

An intrauterine vacuum-induced hemorrhage control device provided prompt and effective management of bleeding in cases of obstetric hemorrhage, based on data from 800 individuals.

Morbidity and mortality related to postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) are often preventable if caught early, but the persistent rise in PPH-associated morbidity illustrates the need for new and innovative treatments, wrote Dena Goffman, MD, of New York-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, and colleagues.

Goffman_Dena_NY_web.jpg

The device, known as the Jada System, was cleared by the Food and Drug Administration for management of abnormal postpartum uterine bleeding or postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) in August 2020 and showed safety and effectiveness in a registrational study of 106 patients, the researchers said.

In a postmarket registry medical record review known as RUBY (Treating Abnormal Postpartum Uterine Bleeding or Postpartum Hemorrhage with the Jada System), the researchers examined data collected from Oct. 8, 2020, to March 31, 2022, at 16 centers in the United States. The findings were published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

The study population included all individuals treated with an intrauterine vacuum-induced hemorrhage control device; of these, 530 were vaginal births and 270 were cesarean births. A total of 94.3% had uterine atony, alone or in conjunction with other causes of bleeding. The median maternal age was 30.3 years; approximately 60% and 53% of patients in the vaginal and cesarean groups were White, and approximately 43% and 49% of patients in the two groups, respectively, were nulliparous.

The median blood loss at the time of device insertion was 1,250 mL in vaginal births and 1,980 mL in cesarean births, and the median time from delivery of the placenta to device insertion was 31 minutes and 108 minutes in the two groups, respectively.

The primary endpoint was treatment success, defined as control of bleeding after device insertion, with no escalation of treatment or recurrence of bleeding after the initial bleeding control and device removal.

Treatment success was achieved in 92.5% of vaginal births and 83.7% of cesarean births, and in 95.8% and 88.2%, respectively, among patients with isolated uterine atony. The median insertion time was 3.1 hours for vaginal births and 4.6 hours for cesarean births.

The safety profile was similar to that in the registrational trial and adverse effects were those expected in patients with PPH, the researchers noted.

A total of 14 SAEs were reported in 13 patients with vaginal births, and 22 SAEs were reported in 21 patients with cesarean births. Of these, three were identified as possibly related to the device or procedure (two cases of endometritis in the vaginal birth group and one case of hemorrhagic shock in the cesarean group); no uterine perforations of deaths were reported during the study.

The study was limited by several factors including the use of data mainly from academic centers, which could limit generalizability, and by the use of a mix of estimated and quantitative reporting of blood loss, the researchers noted. Other limitations include the inability to make direct comparisons to other treatments for PPH.

However, the results confirm the safety and efficacy of the device in a real-world setting and support its use as an important new tool in the management of PPH and reducing maternal morbidity and mortality, they concluded.

Two companies were involved in the study; Alydia Health contributed to the concept, design, and analysis, and Organon contributed to data analysis and reviewed the manuscript.

Dr. Goffman disclosed research support from Organon and Alydia Health, as well as serving as a speaker for Haymarket and PRIME PPH education and for Laborie, participation in the Cooper Surgical Obstetrical Safety Council, and serving as an editor for UpToDate. Several coauthors disclosed relationships with multiple companies including Organon and Alydia Health.

An intrauterine vacuum-induced hemorrhage control device provided prompt and effective management of bleeding in cases of obstetric hemorrhage, based on data from 800 individuals.

Morbidity and mortality related to postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) are often preventable if caught early, but the persistent rise in PPH-associated morbidity illustrates the need for new and innovative treatments, wrote Dena Goffman, MD, of New York-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, and colleagues.

Goffman_Dena_NY_web.jpg

The device, known as the Jada System, was cleared by the Food and Drug Administration for management of abnormal postpartum uterine bleeding or postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) in August 2020 and showed safety and effectiveness in a registrational study of 106 patients, the researchers said.

In a postmarket registry medical record review known as RUBY (Treating Abnormal Postpartum Uterine Bleeding or Postpartum Hemorrhage with the Jada System), the researchers examined data collected from Oct. 8, 2020, to March 31, 2022, at 16 centers in the United States. The findings were published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

The study population included all individuals treated with an intrauterine vacuum-induced hemorrhage control device; of these, 530 were vaginal births and 270 were cesarean births. A total of 94.3% had uterine atony, alone or in conjunction with other causes of bleeding. The median maternal age was 30.3 years; approximately 60% and 53% of patients in the vaginal and cesarean groups were White, and approximately 43% and 49% of patients in the two groups, respectively, were nulliparous.

The median blood loss at the time of device insertion was 1,250 mL in vaginal births and 1,980 mL in cesarean births, and the median time from delivery of the placenta to device insertion was 31 minutes and 108 minutes in the two groups, respectively.

The primary endpoint was treatment success, defined as control of bleeding after device insertion, with no escalation of treatment or recurrence of bleeding after the initial bleeding control and device removal.

Treatment success was achieved in 92.5% of vaginal births and 83.7% of cesarean births, and in 95.8% and 88.2%, respectively, among patients with isolated uterine atony. The median insertion time was 3.1 hours for vaginal births and 4.6 hours for cesarean births.

The safety profile was similar to that in the registrational trial and adverse effects were those expected in patients with PPH, the researchers noted.

A total of 14 SAEs were reported in 13 patients with vaginal births, and 22 SAEs were reported in 21 patients with cesarean births. Of these, three were identified as possibly related to the device or procedure (two cases of endometritis in the vaginal birth group and one case of hemorrhagic shock in the cesarean group); no uterine perforations of deaths were reported during the study.

The study was limited by several factors including the use of data mainly from academic centers, which could limit generalizability, and by the use of a mix of estimated and quantitative reporting of blood loss, the researchers noted. Other limitations include the inability to make direct comparisons to other treatments for PPH.

However, the results confirm the safety and efficacy of the device in a real-world setting and support its use as an important new tool in the management of PPH and reducing maternal morbidity and mortality, they concluded.

Two companies were involved in the study; Alydia Health contributed to the concept, design, and analysis, and Organon contributed to data analysis and reviewed the manuscript.

Dr. Goffman disclosed research support from Organon and Alydia Health, as well as serving as a speaker for Haymarket and PRIME PPH education and for Laborie, participation in the Cooper Surgical Obstetrical Safety Council, and serving as an editor for UpToDate. Several coauthors disclosed relationships with multiple companies including Organon and Alydia Health.

An intrauterine vacuum-induced hemorrhage control device provided prompt and effective management of bleeding in cases of obstetric hemorrhage, based on data from 800 individuals.

Morbidity and mortality related to postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) are often preventable if caught early, but the persistent rise in PPH-associated morbidity illustrates the need for new and innovative treatments, wrote Dena Goffman, MD, of New York-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, and colleagues.

Goffman_Dena_NY_web.jpg

The device, known as the Jada System, was cleared by the Food and Drug Administration for management of abnormal postpartum uterine bleeding or postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) in August 2020 and showed safety and effectiveness in a registrational study of 106 patients, the researchers said.

In a postmarket registry medical record review known as RUBY (Treating Abnormal Postpartum Uterine Bleeding or Postpartum Hemorrhage with the Jada System), the researchers examined data collected from Oct. 8, 2020, to March 31, 2022, at 16 centers in the United States. The findings were published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

The study population included all individuals treated with an intrauterine vacuum-induced hemorrhage control device; of these, 530 were vaginal births and 270 were cesarean births. A total of 94.3% had uterine atony, alone or in conjunction with other causes of bleeding. The median maternal age was 30.3 years; approximately 60% and 53% of patients in the vaginal and cesarean groups were White, and approximately 43% and 49% of patients in the two groups, respectively, were nulliparous.

The median blood loss at the time of device insertion was 1,250 mL in vaginal births and 1,980 mL in cesarean births, and the median time from delivery of the placenta to device insertion was 31 minutes and 108 minutes in the two groups, respectively.

The primary endpoint was treatment success, defined as control of bleeding after device insertion, with no escalation of treatment or recurrence of bleeding after the initial bleeding control and device removal.

Treatment success was achieved in 92.5% of vaginal births and 83.7% of cesarean births, and in 95.8% and 88.2%, respectively, among patients with isolated uterine atony. The median insertion time was 3.1 hours for vaginal births and 4.6 hours for cesarean births.

The safety profile was similar to that in the registrational trial and adverse effects were those expected in patients with PPH, the researchers noted.

A total of 14 SAEs were reported in 13 patients with vaginal births, and 22 SAEs were reported in 21 patients with cesarean births. Of these, three were identified as possibly related to the device or procedure (two cases of endometritis in the vaginal birth group and one case of hemorrhagic shock in the cesarean group); no uterine perforations of deaths were reported during the study.

The study was limited by several factors including the use of data mainly from academic centers, which could limit generalizability, and by the use of a mix of estimated and quantitative reporting of blood loss, the researchers noted. Other limitations include the inability to make direct comparisons to other treatments for PPH.

However, the results confirm the safety and efficacy of the device in a real-world setting and support its use as an important new tool in the management of PPH and reducing maternal morbidity and mortality, they concluded.

Two companies were involved in the study; Alydia Health contributed to the concept, design, and analysis, and Organon contributed to data analysis and reviewed the manuscript.

Dr. Goffman disclosed research support from Organon and Alydia Health, as well as serving as a speaker for Haymarket and PRIME PPH education and for Laborie, participation in the Cooper Surgical Obstetrical Safety Council, and serving as an editor for UpToDate. Several coauthors disclosed relationships with multiple companies including Organon and Alydia Health.