User login
No Routine Cancer Screening Option? New MCED Tests May Help
Analyses presented during a session at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting, revealed that three new MCED tests — CanScan, MERCURY, and OncoSeek — could detect a range of cancers and recognize the tissue of origin with high accuracy. One — OncoSeek — could also provide an affordable cancer screening option for individuals living in lower-income countries.
The need for these noninvasive liquid biopsy tests that can accurately identify multiple cancer types with a single blood draw, especially cancers without routine screening strategies, is pressing. “We know that the current cancer standard of care screening will identify less than 50% of all cancers, while more than 50% of all cancer deaths occur in types of cancer with no recommended screening,” said co-moderator Marie E. Wood, MD, of the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, in Aurora, Colorado.
That being said, “the clinical utility of multicancer detection tests has not been established and we’re concerned about issues of overdiagnosis and overtreatment,” she noted.
The Early Data
One new MCED test called CanScan, developed by Geneseeq Technology, uses plasma cell-free DNA fragment patterns to detect cancer signals as well as identify the tissue of origin across 13 cancer types.
Overall, the CanScan test covers cancer types that contribute to two thirds of new cancer cases and 74% of morality globally, said presenter Shanshan Yang, of Geneseeq Research Institute, in Nanjing, China.
However, only five of these cancer types have screening recommendations issued by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), Dr. Yang added.
The interim data comes from an ongoing large-scale prospective study evaluating the MCED test in a cohort of asymptomatic individuals between ages 45 and 75 years with an average risk for cancer and no cancer-related symptoms on enrollment.
Patients at baseline had their blood collected for the CanScan test and subsequently received annual routine physical exams once a year for 3 consecutive years, with an additional 2 years of follow-up.
The analysis included 3724 participants with analyzable samples at the data cutoff in September 2023. Among the 3724 participants, 29 had confirmed cancer diagnoses. Among these cases, 14 patients had their cancer confirmed through USPSTF recommended screening and 15 were detected through outside of standard USPSTF screening, such as a thyroid ultrasound, Dr. Yang explained.
Almost 90% of the cancers (26 of 29) were detected in the stage I or II, and eight (27.5%) were not one of the test’s 13 targeted cancer types.
The CanScan test had a sensitivity of 55.2%, identifying 16 of 29 of the patients with cancer, including 10 of 21 individuals with stage I (47.6%), and two of three with stage II (66.7%).
The test had a high specificity of 97.9%, meaning out of 100 people screened, only two had false negative findings.
Among the 15 patients who had their cancer detected outside of USPSTF screening recommendations, eight (53.3%) were found using a CanScan test, including patients with liver and endometrial cancers.
Compared with a positive predictive value of (PPV) of 1.6% with screening or physical exam methods alone, the CanScan test had a PPV of 17.4%, Dr. Yang reported.
“The MCED test holds significant potential for early cancer screening in asymptomatic populations,” Dr. Yang and colleagues concluded.
Another new MCED test called MERCURY, also developed by Geneseeq Technology and presented during the session, used a similar method to detect cancer signals and predict the tissue of origin across 13 cancer types.
The researchers initially validated the test using 3076 patients with cancer and 3477 healthy controls with a target specificity of 99%. In this group, researchers reported a sensitivity of 0.865 and a specificity of 0.989.
The team then performed an independent validation analysis with 1465 participants, 732 with cancer and 733 with no cancer, and confirmed a high sensitivity and specificity of 0.874 and 0.978, respectively. The sensitivity increased incrementally by cancer stage — 0.768 for stage I, 0.840 for stage II, 0.923 for stage III, and 0.971 for stage IV.
The test identified the tissue of origin with high accuracy, the researchers noted, but cautioned that the test needs “to be further validated in a prospective cohort study.”
MCED in Low-Income Settings
The session also featured findings on a new affordable MCED test called OncoSeek, which could provide greater access to cancer testing in low- and middle-income countries.
The OncoSeek algorithm identifies the presence of cancer using seven protein tumor markers alongside clinical information, such as gender and age. Like other tests, the test also predicts the possible tissue of origin.
The test can be run on clinical protein assay instruments that are already widely available, such as Roche cobas analyzer, Mao Mao, MD, PhD, the founder and CEO of SeekIn, of Shenzhen, China, told this news organization.
This “feature makes the test accessible worldwide, even in low- and middle-income countries,” he said. “These instruments are fully-automated and part of today’s clinical practice. Therefore, the test does not require additional infrastructure building and lab personal training.”
Another notable advantage: the OncoSeek test only costs about $20, compared with other MCED tests, which can cost anywhere from $200 to $1000.
To validate the technology in a large, diverse cohort, Dr. Mao and colleagues enrolled approximately 10,000 participants, including 2003 cancer cases and 7888 non-cancer cases.
Peripheral blood was collected from each participant and analyzed using a panel of the seven protein tumor markers — AFP, CA125, CA15-3, CA19-9, CA72-4, CEA, and CYFRA 21-1.
To reduce the risk for false positive findings, the team designed the OncoSeek algorithm to achieve a specificity of 93%. Dr. Mao and colleagues found a sensitivity of 51.7%, resulting in an overall accuracy of 84.6%.
The performance was consistent in additional validation cohorts in Brazil, China, and the United States, with sensitivities ranging from 39.0% to 77.6% for detecting nine common cancer types, including breast, colorectal, liver, lung, lymphoma, esophagus, ovary, pancreas, and stomach. The sensitivity for pancreatic cancer was at the high end of 77.6%.
The test could predict the tissue of origin in about two thirds of cases.
Given its low cost, OncoSeek represents an affordable and accessible option for cancer screening, the authors concluded.
Overall, “I think MCEDs have the potential to enhance cancer screening,” Dr. Wood told this news organization.
Still, questions remain about the optimal use of these tests, such as whether they are best for average-risk or higher risk populations, and how to integrate them into standard screening, she said.
Dr. Wood also cautioned that the studies presented in the session represent early data, and it is likely that the numbers, such as sensitivity and specificity, will change with further prospective analyses.
And ultimately, these tests should complement, not replace, standard screening. “A negative testing should not be taken as a sign to avoid standard screening,” Dr. Wood said.
Dr. Yang is an employee of Geneseeq Technology, Inc., and Dr. Mao is an employee of SeekIn. Dr. Wood had no disclosures to report.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Analyses presented during a session at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting, revealed that three new MCED tests — CanScan, MERCURY, and OncoSeek — could detect a range of cancers and recognize the tissue of origin with high accuracy. One — OncoSeek — could also provide an affordable cancer screening option for individuals living in lower-income countries.
The need for these noninvasive liquid biopsy tests that can accurately identify multiple cancer types with a single blood draw, especially cancers without routine screening strategies, is pressing. “We know that the current cancer standard of care screening will identify less than 50% of all cancers, while more than 50% of all cancer deaths occur in types of cancer with no recommended screening,” said co-moderator Marie E. Wood, MD, of the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, in Aurora, Colorado.
That being said, “the clinical utility of multicancer detection tests has not been established and we’re concerned about issues of overdiagnosis and overtreatment,” she noted.
The Early Data
One new MCED test called CanScan, developed by Geneseeq Technology, uses plasma cell-free DNA fragment patterns to detect cancer signals as well as identify the tissue of origin across 13 cancer types.
Overall, the CanScan test covers cancer types that contribute to two thirds of new cancer cases and 74% of morality globally, said presenter Shanshan Yang, of Geneseeq Research Institute, in Nanjing, China.
However, only five of these cancer types have screening recommendations issued by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), Dr. Yang added.
The interim data comes from an ongoing large-scale prospective study evaluating the MCED test in a cohort of asymptomatic individuals between ages 45 and 75 years with an average risk for cancer and no cancer-related symptoms on enrollment.
Patients at baseline had their blood collected for the CanScan test and subsequently received annual routine physical exams once a year for 3 consecutive years, with an additional 2 years of follow-up.
The analysis included 3724 participants with analyzable samples at the data cutoff in September 2023. Among the 3724 participants, 29 had confirmed cancer diagnoses. Among these cases, 14 patients had their cancer confirmed through USPSTF recommended screening and 15 were detected through outside of standard USPSTF screening, such as a thyroid ultrasound, Dr. Yang explained.
Almost 90% of the cancers (26 of 29) were detected in the stage I or II, and eight (27.5%) were not one of the test’s 13 targeted cancer types.
The CanScan test had a sensitivity of 55.2%, identifying 16 of 29 of the patients with cancer, including 10 of 21 individuals with stage I (47.6%), and two of three with stage II (66.7%).
The test had a high specificity of 97.9%, meaning out of 100 people screened, only two had false negative findings.
Among the 15 patients who had their cancer detected outside of USPSTF screening recommendations, eight (53.3%) were found using a CanScan test, including patients with liver and endometrial cancers.
Compared with a positive predictive value of (PPV) of 1.6% with screening or physical exam methods alone, the CanScan test had a PPV of 17.4%, Dr. Yang reported.
“The MCED test holds significant potential for early cancer screening in asymptomatic populations,” Dr. Yang and colleagues concluded.
Another new MCED test called MERCURY, also developed by Geneseeq Technology and presented during the session, used a similar method to detect cancer signals and predict the tissue of origin across 13 cancer types.
The researchers initially validated the test using 3076 patients with cancer and 3477 healthy controls with a target specificity of 99%. In this group, researchers reported a sensitivity of 0.865 and a specificity of 0.989.
The team then performed an independent validation analysis with 1465 participants, 732 with cancer and 733 with no cancer, and confirmed a high sensitivity and specificity of 0.874 and 0.978, respectively. The sensitivity increased incrementally by cancer stage — 0.768 for stage I, 0.840 for stage II, 0.923 for stage III, and 0.971 for stage IV.
The test identified the tissue of origin with high accuracy, the researchers noted, but cautioned that the test needs “to be further validated in a prospective cohort study.”
MCED in Low-Income Settings
The session also featured findings on a new affordable MCED test called OncoSeek, which could provide greater access to cancer testing in low- and middle-income countries.
The OncoSeek algorithm identifies the presence of cancer using seven protein tumor markers alongside clinical information, such as gender and age. Like other tests, the test also predicts the possible tissue of origin.
The test can be run on clinical protein assay instruments that are already widely available, such as Roche cobas analyzer, Mao Mao, MD, PhD, the founder and CEO of SeekIn, of Shenzhen, China, told this news organization.
This “feature makes the test accessible worldwide, even in low- and middle-income countries,” he said. “These instruments are fully-automated and part of today’s clinical practice. Therefore, the test does not require additional infrastructure building and lab personal training.”
Another notable advantage: the OncoSeek test only costs about $20, compared with other MCED tests, which can cost anywhere from $200 to $1000.
To validate the technology in a large, diverse cohort, Dr. Mao and colleagues enrolled approximately 10,000 participants, including 2003 cancer cases and 7888 non-cancer cases.
Peripheral blood was collected from each participant and analyzed using a panel of the seven protein tumor markers — AFP, CA125, CA15-3, CA19-9, CA72-4, CEA, and CYFRA 21-1.
To reduce the risk for false positive findings, the team designed the OncoSeek algorithm to achieve a specificity of 93%. Dr. Mao and colleagues found a sensitivity of 51.7%, resulting in an overall accuracy of 84.6%.
The performance was consistent in additional validation cohorts in Brazil, China, and the United States, with sensitivities ranging from 39.0% to 77.6% for detecting nine common cancer types, including breast, colorectal, liver, lung, lymphoma, esophagus, ovary, pancreas, and stomach. The sensitivity for pancreatic cancer was at the high end of 77.6%.
The test could predict the tissue of origin in about two thirds of cases.
Given its low cost, OncoSeek represents an affordable and accessible option for cancer screening, the authors concluded.
Overall, “I think MCEDs have the potential to enhance cancer screening,” Dr. Wood told this news organization.
Still, questions remain about the optimal use of these tests, such as whether they are best for average-risk or higher risk populations, and how to integrate them into standard screening, she said.
Dr. Wood also cautioned that the studies presented in the session represent early data, and it is likely that the numbers, such as sensitivity and specificity, will change with further prospective analyses.
And ultimately, these tests should complement, not replace, standard screening. “A negative testing should not be taken as a sign to avoid standard screening,” Dr. Wood said.
Dr. Yang is an employee of Geneseeq Technology, Inc., and Dr. Mao is an employee of SeekIn. Dr. Wood had no disclosures to report.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Analyses presented during a session at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting, revealed that three new MCED tests — CanScan, MERCURY, and OncoSeek — could detect a range of cancers and recognize the tissue of origin with high accuracy. One — OncoSeek — could also provide an affordable cancer screening option for individuals living in lower-income countries.
The need for these noninvasive liquid biopsy tests that can accurately identify multiple cancer types with a single blood draw, especially cancers without routine screening strategies, is pressing. “We know that the current cancer standard of care screening will identify less than 50% of all cancers, while more than 50% of all cancer deaths occur in types of cancer with no recommended screening,” said co-moderator Marie E. Wood, MD, of the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, in Aurora, Colorado.
That being said, “the clinical utility of multicancer detection tests has not been established and we’re concerned about issues of overdiagnosis and overtreatment,” she noted.
The Early Data
One new MCED test called CanScan, developed by Geneseeq Technology, uses plasma cell-free DNA fragment patterns to detect cancer signals as well as identify the tissue of origin across 13 cancer types.
Overall, the CanScan test covers cancer types that contribute to two thirds of new cancer cases and 74% of morality globally, said presenter Shanshan Yang, of Geneseeq Research Institute, in Nanjing, China.
However, only five of these cancer types have screening recommendations issued by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), Dr. Yang added.
The interim data comes from an ongoing large-scale prospective study evaluating the MCED test in a cohort of asymptomatic individuals between ages 45 and 75 years with an average risk for cancer and no cancer-related symptoms on enrollment.
Patients at baseline had their blood collected for the CanScan test and subsequently received annual routine physical exams once a year for 3 consecutive years, with an additional 2 years of follow-up.
The analysis included 3724 participants with analyzable samples at the data cutoff in September 2023. Among the 3724 participants, 29 had confirmed cancer diagnoses. Among these cases, 14 patients had their cancer confirmed through USPSTF recommended screening and 15 were detected through outside of standard USPSTF screening, such as a thyroid ultrasound, Dr. Yang explained.
Almost 90% of the cancers (26 of 29) were detected in the stage I or II, and eight (27.5%) were not one of the test’s 13 targeted cancer types.
The CanScan test had a sensitivity of 55.2%, identifying 16 of 29 of the patients with cancer, including 10 of 21 individuals with stage I (47.6%), and two of three with stage II (66.7%).
The test had a high specificity of 97.9%, meaning out of 100 people screened, only two had false negative findings.
Among the 15 patients who had their cancer detected outside of USPSTF screening recommendations, eight (53.3%) were found using a CanScan test, including patients with liver and endometrial cancers.
Compared with a positive predictive value of (PPV) of 1.6% with screening or physical exam methods alone, the CanScan test had a PPV of 17.4%, Dr. Yang reported.
“The MCED test holds significant potential for early cancer screening in asymptomatic populations,” Dr. Yang and colleagues concluded.
Another new MCED test called MERCURY, also developed by Geneseeq Technology and presented during the session, used a similar method to detect cancer signals and predict the tissue of origin across 13 cancer types.
The researchers initially validated the test using 3076 patients with cancer and 3477 healthy controls with a target specificity of 99%. In this group, researchers reported a sensitivity of 0.865 and a specificity of 0.989.
The team then performed an independent validation analysis with 1465 participants, 732 with cancer and 733 with no cancer, and confirmed a high sensitivity and specificity of 0.874 and 0.978, respectively. The sensitivity increased incrementally by cancer stage — 0.768 for stage I, 0.840 for stage II, 0.923 for stage III, and 0.971 for stage IV.
The test identified the tissue of origin with high accuracy, the researchers noted, but cautioned that the test needs “to be further validated in a prospective cohort study.”
MCED in Low-Income Settings
The session also featured findings on a new affordable MCED test called OncoSeek, which could provide greater access to cancer testing in low- and middle-income countries.
The OncoSeek algorithm identifies the presence of cancer using seven protein tumor markers alongside clinical information, such as gender and age. Like other tests, the test also predicts the possible tissue of origin.
The test can be run on clinical protein assay instruments that are already widely available, such as Roche cobas analyzer, Mao Mao, MD, PhD, the founder and CEO of SeekIn, of Shenzhen, China, told this news organization.
This “feature makes the test accessible worldwide, even in low- and middle-income countries,” he said. “These instruments are fully-automated and part of today’s clinical practice. Therefore, the test does not require additional infrastructure building and lab personal training.”
Another notable advantage: the OncoSeek test only costs about $20, compared with other MCED tests, which can cost anywhere from $200 to $1000.
To validate the technology in a large, diverse cohort, Dr. Mao and colleagues enrolled approximately 10,000 participants, including 2003 cancer cases and 7888 non-cancer cases.
Peripheral blood was collected from each participant and analyzed using a panel of the seven protein tumor markers — AFP, CA125, CA15-3, CA19-9, CA72-4, CEA, and CYFRA 21-1.
To reduce the risk for false positive findings, the team designed the OncoSeek algorithm to achieve a specificity of 93%. Dr. Mao and colleagues found a sensitivity of 51.7%, resulting in an overall accuracy of 84.6%.
The performance was consistent in additional validation cohorts in Brazil, China, and the United States, with sensitivities ranging from 39.0% to 77.6% for detecting nine common cancer types, including breast, colorectal, liver, lung, lymphoma, esophagus, ovary, pancreas, and stomach. The sensitivity for pancreatic cancer was at the high end of 77.6%.
The test could predict the tissue of origin in about two thirds of cases.
Given its low cost, OncoSeek represents an affordable and accessible option for cancer screening, the authors concluded.
Overall, “I think MCEDs have the potential to enhance cancer screening,” Dr. Wood told this news organization.
Still, questions remain about the optimal use of these tests, such as whether they are best for average-risk or higher risk populations, and how to integrate them into standard screening, she said.
Dr. Wood also cautioned that the studies presented in the session represent early data, and it is likely that the numbers, such as sensitivity and specificity, will change with further prospective analyses.
And ultimately, these tests should complement, not replace, standard screening. “A negative testing should not be taken as a sign to avoid standard screening,” Dr. Wood said.
Dr. Yang is an employee of Geneseeq Technology, Inc., and Dr. Mao is an employee of SeekIn. Dr. Wood had no disclosures to report.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Are You Ready for AI to Be a Better Doctor Than You?
In a 2023 study published in the Annals of Emergency Medicine, European researchers fed the AI system ChatGPT information on 30 ER patients. Details included physician notes on the patients’ symptoms, physical exams, and lab results. ChatGPT made the correct diagnosis in 97% of patients compared to 87% for human doctors.
AI 1, Physicians 0
JAMA Cardiology reported in 2021 that an AI trained on nearly a million ECGs performed comparably to or exceeded cardiologist clinical diagnoses and the MUSE (GE Healthcare) system›s automated ECG analysis for most diagnostic classes.
AI 2, Physicians 0
Google’s medically focused AI model (Med-PaLM2) scored 85%+ when answering US Medical Licensing Examination–style questions. That›s an «expert» physician level and far beyond the accuracy threshold needed to pass the actual exam.
AI 3, Physicians 0
A new AI tool that uses an online finger-tapping test outperformed primary care physicians when assessing the severity of Parkinson’s disease.
AI 4, Physicians 0
JAMA Ophthalmology reported in 2024 that a chatbot outperformed glaucoma specialists and matched retina specialists in diagnostic and treatment accuracy.
AI 5, Physicians 0
Should we stop? Because we could go on. In the last few years, these AI vs Physician studies have proliferated, and guess who’s winning?
65% of Doctors are Concerned
Now, the standard answer with anything AI-and-Medicine goes something like this: AI is coming, and it will be a transformative tool for physicians and improve patient care.
But the underlying unanswered question is:
The Medscape 2023 Physician and AI Report surveyed 1043 US physicians about their views on AI. In total, 65% are concerned about AI making diagnosis and treatment decisions, but 56% are enthusiastic about having it as an adjunct.
Cardiologists, anesthesiologists, and radiologists are most enthusiastic about AI, whereas family physicians and pediatricians are the least enthusiastic.
To get a more personal view of how physicians and other healthcare professionals are feeling about this transformative tech, I spoke with a variety of practicing doctors, a psychotherapist, and a third-year Harvard Medical School student.
‘Abysmally Poor Understanding’
Alfredo A. Sadun, MD, PhD, has been a neuro-ophthalmologist for nearly 50 years. A graduate of MIT and vice-chair of ophthalmology at UCLA, he’s long been fascinated by AI’s march into medicine. He’s watched it accomplish things that no ophthalmologist can do, such as identify gender, age, and risk for heart attack and stroke from retinal scans. But he doesn›t see the same level of interest and comprehension among the medical community.
“There’s still an abysmally poor understanding of AI among physicians in general,” he said. “It’s striking because these are intelligent, well-educated people. But we tend to draw conclusions based on what we’re familiar with, and most doctors’ experience with computers involves EHRs [electronic health records] and administrative garbage. It’s the reason they’re burning out.”
Easing the Burden
Anthony Philippakis, MD, PhD, left his cardiology practice in 2015 to become the chief data officer at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard. While there, he helped develop an AI-based method for identifying patients at risk for atrial fibrillation. Now, he’s a general partner at Google Ventures with the goal of bridging the gap between data sciences and medicine. His perspective on AI is unique, given that he’s seen the issue from both sides.
“I am not a bitter physician, but to be honest, when I was practicing, way too much of my time was spent staring at screens and not enough laying hands on patients,” he said. “Can you imagine what it would be like to speak to the EHR naturally and say, ‘Please order the following labs for this patient and notify me when the results come in.’ Boy, would that improve healthcare and physician satisfaction. Every physician I know is excited and optimistic about that. Almost everyone I’ve talked to feels like AI could take a lot of the stuff they don’t like doing off their plates.”
Indeed, the dividing line between physician support for AI and physician suspicion or skepticism of AI is just that. In our survey, more than three quarters of physicians said they would consider using AI for office administrative tasks, scheduling, EHRs, researching medical conditions, and even summarizing a patient’s record before a visit. But far fewer are supportive of it delivering diagnoses and treatments. This, despite an estimated 800,000 Americans dying or becoming permanently disabled each year because of diagnostic error.
Could AI Have Diagnosed This?
John D. Nuschke, MD, has been a primary care physician in Allentown, Pennsylvania, for 40 years. He’s a jovial general physician who insists his patients call him Jack. He’s recently started using an AI medical scribe called Freed. With the patient’s permission, it listens in on the visit and generates notes, saving Dr. Nuschke time and helping him focus on the person. He likes that type of assistance, but when it comes to AI replacing him, he’s skeptical.
“I had this patient I diagnosed with prostate cancer,” he explained. “He got treated and was fine for 5 years. Then, he started losing weight and feeling awful — got weak as a kitten. He went back to his urologist and oncologist who thought he had metastatic prostate cancer. He went through PET scans and blood work, but there was no sign his cancer had returned. So the specialists sent him back to me, and the second he walked in, I saw he was floridly hyperthyroid. I could tell across the room just by looking at him. Would AI have been able to make that diagnosis? Does AI do physical exams?”
Dr. Nuschke said he’s also had several instances where patients received their cancer diagnosis from the lab through an automated patient-portal system rather than from him. “That’s an AI of sorts, and I found it distressing,” he said.
Empathy From a Robot
All the doctors I spoke to were hopeful that by freeing them from the burden of administrative work, they would be able to return to the reason they got into this business in the first place — to spend more time with patients in need and support them with grace and compassion.
But suppose AI could do that too?
In a 2023 study conducted at the University of California San Diego and published in JAMA Internal Medicine, three licensed healthcare professionals compared the responses of ChatGPT and physicians to real-world health questions. The panel rated the AI’s answers nearly four times higher in quality and almost 10 times more empathetic than physicians’ replies.
A similar 2024 study in Nature found that Google’s large-language model AI matched or surpassed physician diagnostic accuracy in all six of the medical specialties considered. Plus, it outperformed doctors in 24 of 26 criteria for conversation quality, including politeness, explanation, honesty, and expressing care and commitment.
Nathaniel Chin, MD, is a gerontologist at the University of Wisconsin and advisory board member for the Alzheimer’s Foundation of America. Although he admits that studies like these “sadden me,” he’s also a realist. “There was hesitation among physicians at the beginning of the pandemic to virtual care because we missed the human connection,” he explained, “but we worked our way around that. We need to remember that what makes a chatbot strong is that it’s nothuman. It doesn’t burn out, it doesn’t get tired, it can look at data very quickly, and it doesn’t have to go home to a family and try to balance work with other aspects of life. A human being is very complex, whereas a chatbot has one single purpose.”
“Even if you don’t have AI in your space now or don’t like the idea of it, that doesn’t matter,” he added. “It’s coming. But it needs to be done right. If AI is implemented by clinicians for clinicians, it has great potential. But if it’s implemented by businesspeople for business reasons, perhaps not.”
‘The Ones Who Use the Tools the Best Will Be the Best’
One branch of medicine that stands to be dramatically affected by AI is mental health. Because bots are natural data-crunchers, they are becoming adept at analyzing the many subtle clues (phrasing in social media posts and text messages, smartwatch biometrics, therapy session videos…) that could indicate depression or other psychological disorders. In fact, its availability via smartphone apps could help democratize and destigmatize the practice.
“There is a day ahead — probably within 5 years — when a patient won’t be able to tell the difference between a real therapist and an AI therapist,” said Ken Mallon, MS, LMFT, a clinical psychotherapist and data scientist in San Jose, California. “That doesn’t worry me, though. It’s hard on therapists’ egos, but new technologies get developed. Things change. People who embrace these tools will benefit from them. The ones who use the tools the best will be the best.”
Time to Restructure Med School
Aditya Jain is in his third year at Harvard Medical School. At age 24, he’s heading into this brave new medical world with excitement and anxiety. Excitement because he sees AI revolutionizing healthcare on every level. Although the current generations of physicians and patients may grumble about its onset, he believes younger ones will feel comfortable with “DocGPT.” He’s excited that his generation of physicians will be the “translators and managers of this transition” and redefine “what it means to be a doctor.”
His anxiety, however, stems from the fact that AI has come on so fast that “it has not yet crossed the threshold of medical education,” he said. “Medical schools still largely prepare students to work as solo clinical decision makers. Most of my first 2 years were spent on pattern recognition and rote memorization, skills that AI can and will master.”
Indeed, Mr. Jain said AI was not a part of his first- or second-year curriculum. “I talk to students who are a year older than me, graduating, heading to residency, and they tell me they wish they had gotten a better grasp of how to use these technologies in medicine and in their practice. They were surprised to hear that people in my year hadn’t started using ChatGPT. We need to expend a lot more effort within the field, within academia, within practicing physicians, to figure out what our role will be in a world where AI is matching or even exceeding human intelligence. And then we need to restructure the medical education to better accomplish these goals.”
So Are You Ready for AI to Be a Better Doctor Than You?
“Yes, I am,” said Dr. Philippakis without hesitation. “When I was going through my medical training, I was continually confronted with the reality that I personally was not smart enough to keep all the information in my head that could be used to make a good decision for a patient. We have now reached a point where the amount of information that is important and useful in the practice of medicine outstrips what a human being can know. The opportunity to enable physicians with AI to remedy that situation is a good thing for doctors and, most importantly, a good thing for patients. I believe the future of medicine belongs not so much to the AI practitioner but to the AI-enabled practitioner.”
“Quick story,” added Dr. Chin. “I asked ChatGPT two questions. The first was ‘Explain the difference between Alzheimer’s and dementia’ because that’s the most common misconception in my field. And it gave me a pretty darn good answer — one I would use in a presentation with some tweaking. Then I asked it, ‘Are you a better doctor than me?’ And it replied, ‘My purpose is not to replace you, my purpose is to be supportive of you and enhance your ability.’ ”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
In a 2023 study published in the Annals of Emergency Medicine, European researchers fed the AI system ChatGPT information on 30 ER patients. Details included physician notes on the patients’ symptoms, physical exams, and lab results. ChatGPT made the correct diagnosis in 97% of patients compared to 87% for human doctors.
AI 1, Physicians 0
JAMA Cardiology reported in 2021 that an AI trained on nearly a million ECGs performed comparably to or exceeded cardiologist clinical diagnoses and the MUSE (GE Healthcare) system›s automated ECG analysis for most diagnostic classes.
AI 2, Physicians 0
Google’s medically focused AI model (Med-PaLM2) scored 85%+ when answering US Medical Licensing Examination–style questions. That›s an «expert» physician level and far beyond the accuracy threshold needed to pass the actual exam.
AI 3, Physicians 0
A new AI tool that uses an online finger-tapping test outperformed primary care physicians when assessing the severity of Parkinson’s disease.
AI 4, Physicians 0
JAMA Ophthalmology reported in 2024 that a chatbot outperformed glaucoma specialists and matched retina specialists in diagnostic and treatment accuracy.
AI 5, Physicians 0
Should we stop? Because we could go on. In the last few years, these AI vs Physician studies have proliferated, and guess who’s winning?
65% of Doctors are Concerned
Now, the standard answer with anything AI-and-Medicine goes something like this: AI is coming, and it will be a transformative tool for physicians and improve patient care.
But the underlying unanswered question is:
The Medscape 2023 Physician and AI Report surveyed 1043 US physicians about their views on AI. In total, 65% are concerned about AI making diagnosis and treatment decisions, but 56% are enthusiastic about having it as an adjunct.
Cardiologists, anesthesiologists, and radiologists are most enthusiastic about AI, whereas family physicians and pediatricians are the least enthusiastic.
To get a more personal view of how physicians and other healthcare professionals are feeling about this transformative tech, I spoke with a variety of practicing doctors, a psychotherapist, and a third-year Harvard Medical School student.
‘Abysmally Poor Understanding’
Alfredo A. Sadun, MD, PhD, has been a neuro-ophthalmologist for nearly 50 years. A graduate of MIT and vice-chair of ophthalmology at UCLA, he’s long been fascinated by AI’s march into medicine. He’s watched it accomplish things that no ophthalmologist can do, such as identify gender, age, and risk for heart attack and stroke from retinal scans. But he doesn›t see the same level of interest and comprehension among the medical community.
“There’s still an abysmally poor understanding of AI among physicians in general,” he said. “It’s striking because these are intelligent, well-educated people. But we tend to draw conclusions based on what we’re familiar with, and most doctors’ experience with computers involves EHRs [electronic health records] and administrative garbage. It’s the reason they’re burning out.”
Easing the Burden
Anthony Philippakis, MD, PhD, left his cardiology practice in 2015 to become the chief data officer at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard. While there, he helped develop an AI-based method for identifying patients at risk for atrial fibrillation. Now, he’s a general partner at Google Ventures with the goal of bridging the gap between data sciences and medicine. His perspective on AI is unique, given that he’s seen the issue from both sides.
“I am not a bitter physician, but to be honest, when I was practicing, way too much of my time was spent staring at screens and not enough laying hands on patients,” he said. “Can you imagine what it would be like to speak to the EHR naturally and say, ‘Please order the following labs for this patient and notify me when the results come in.’ Boy, would that improve healthcare and physician satisfaction. Every physician I know is excited and optimistic about that. Almost everyone I’ve talked to feels like AI could take a lot of the stuff they don’t like doing off their plates.”
Indeed, the dividing line between physician support for AI and physician suspicion or skepticism of AI is just that. In our survey, more than three quarters of physicians said they would consider using AI for office administrative tasks, scheduling, EHRs, researching medical conditions, and even summarizing a patient’s record before a visit. But far fewer are supportive of it delivering diagnoses and treatments. This, despite an estimated 800,000 Americans dying or becoming permanently disabled each year because of diagnostic error.
Could AI Have Diagnosed This?
John D. Nuschke, MD, has been a primary care physician in Allentown, Pennsylvania, for 40 years. He’s a jovial general physician who insists his patients call him Jack. He’s recently started using an AI medical scribe called Freed. With the patient’s permission, it listens in on the visit and generates notes, saving Dr. Nuschke time and helping him focus on the person. He likes that type of assistance, but when it comes to AI replacing him, he’s skeptical.
“I had this patient I diagnosed with prostate cancer,” he explained. “He got treated and was fine for 5 years. Then, he started losing weight and feeling awful — got weak as a kitten. He went back to his urologist and oncologist who thought he had metastatic prostate cancer. He went through PET scans and blood work, but there was no sign his cancer had returned. So the specialists sent him back to me, and the second he walked in, I saw he was floridly hyperthyroid. I could tell across the room just by looking at him. Would AI have been able to make that diagnosis? Does AI do physical exams?”
Dr. Nuschke said he’s also had several instances where patients received their cancer diagnosis from the lab through an automated patient-portal system rather than from him. “That’s an AI of sorts, and I found it distressing,” he said.
Empathy From a Robot
All the doctors I spoke to were hopeful that by freeing them from the burden of administrative work, they would be able to return to the reason they got into this business in the first place — to spend more time with patients in need and support them with grace and compassion.
But suppose AI could do that too?
In a 2023 study conducted at the University of California San Diego and published in JAMA Internal Medicine, three licensed healthcare professionals compared the responses of ChatGPT and physicians to real-world health questions. The panel rated the AI’s answers nearly four times higher in quality and almost 10 times more empathetic than physicians’ replies.
A similar 2024 study in Nature found that Google’s large-language model AI matched or surpassed physician diagnostic accuracy in all six of the medical specialties considered. Plus, it outperformed doctors in 24 of 26 criteria for conversation quality, including politeness, explanation, honesty, and expressing care and commitment.
Nathaniel Chin, MD, is a gerontologist at the University of Wisconsin and advisory board member for the Alzheimer’s Foundation of America. Although he admits that studies like these “sadden me,” he’s also a realist. “There was hesitation among physicians at the beginning of the pandemic to virtual care because we missed the human connection,” he explained, “but we worked our way around that. We need to remember that what makes a chatbot strong is that it’s nothuman. It doesn’t burn out, it doesn’t get tired, it can look at data very quickly, and it doesn’t have to go home to a family and try to balance work with other aspects of life. A human being is very complex, whereas a chatbot has one single purpose.”
“Even if you don’t have AI in your space now or don’t like the idea of it, that doesn’t matter,” he added. “It’s coming. But it needs to be done right. If AI is implemented by clinicians for clinicians, it has great potential. But if it’s implemented by businesspeople for business reasons, perhaps not.”
‘The Ones Who Use the Tools the Best Will Be the Best’
One branch of medicine that stands to be dramatically affected by AI is mental health. Because bots are natural data-crunchers, they are becoming adept at analyzing the many subtle clues (phrasing in social media posts and text messages, smartwatch biometrics, therapy session videos…) that could indicate depression or other psychological disorders. In fact, its availability via smartphone apps could help democratize and destigmatize the practice.
“There is a day ahead — probably within 5 years — when a patient won’t be able to tell the difference between a real therapist and an AI therapist,” said Ken Mallon, MS, LMFT, a clinical psychotherapist and data scientist in San Jose, California. “That doesn’t worry me, though. It’s hard on therapists’ egos, but new technologies get developed. Things change. People who embrace these tools will benefit from them. The ones who use the tools the best will be the best.”
Time to Restructure Med School
Aditya Jain is in his third year at Harvard Medical School. At age 24, he’s heading into this brave new medical world with excitement and anxiety. Excitement because he sees AI revolutionizing healthcare on every level. Although the current generations of physicians and patients may grumble about its onset, he believes younger ones will feel comfortable with “DocGPT.” He’s excited that his generation of physicians will be the “translators and managers of this transition” and redefine “what it means to be a doctor.”
His anxiety, however, stems from the fact that AI has come on so fast that “it has not yet crossed the threshold of medical education,” he said. “Medical schools still largely prepare students to work as solo clinical decision makers. Most of my first 2 years were spent on pattern recognition and rote memorization, skills that AI can and will master.”
Indeed, Mr. Jain said AI was not a part of his first- or second-year curriculum. “I talk to students who are a year older than me, graduating, heading to residency, and they tell me they wish they had gotten a better grasp of how to use these technologies in medicine and in their practice. They were surprised to hear that people in my year hadn’t started using ChatGPT. We need to expend a lot more effort within the field, within academia, within practicing physicians, to figure out what our role will be in a world where AI is matching or even exceeding human intelligence. And then we need to restructure the medical education to better accomplish these goals.”
So Are You Ready for AI to Be a Better Doctor Than You?
“Yes, I am,” said Dr. Philippakis without hesitation. “When I was going through my medical training, I was continually confronted with the reality that I personally was not smart enough to keep all the information in my head that could be used to make a good decision for a patient. We have now reached a point where the amount of information that is important and useful in the practice of medicine outstrips what a human being can know. The opportunity to enable physicians with AI to remedy that situation is a good thing for doctors and, most importantly, a good thing for patients. I believe the future of medicine belongs not so much to the AI practitioner but to the AI-enabled practitioner.”
“Quick story,” added Dr. Chin. “I asked ChatGPT two questions. The first was ‘Explain the difference between Alzheimer’s and dementia’ because that’s the most common misconception in my field. And it gave me a pretty darn good answer — one I would use in a presentation with some tweaking. Then I asked it, ‘Are you a better doctor than me?’ And it replied, ‘My purpose is not to replace you, my purpose is to be supportive of you and enhance your ability.’ ”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
In a 2023 study published in the Annals of Emergency Medicine, European researchers fed the AI system ChatGPT information on 30 ER patients. Details included physician notes on the patients’ symptoms, physical exams, and lab results. ChatGPT made the correct diagnosis in 97% of patients compared to 87% for human doctors.
AI 1, Physicians 0
JAMA Cardiology reported in 2021 that an AI trained on nearly a million ECGs performed comparably to or exceeded cardiologist clinical diagnoses and the MUSE (GE Healthcare) system›s automated ECG analysis for most diagnostic classes.
AI 2, Physicians 0
Google’s medically focused AI model (Med-PaLM2) scored 85%+ when answering US Medical Licensing Examination–style questions. That›s an «expert» physician level and far beyond the accuracy threshold needed to pass the actual exam.
AI 3, Physicians 0
A new AI tool that uses an online finger-tapping test outperformed primary care physicians when assessing the severity of Parkinson’s disease.
AI 4, Physicians 0
JAMA Ophthalmology reported in 2024 that a chatbot outperformed glaucoma specialists and matched retina specialists in diagnostic and treatment accuracy.
AI 5, Physicians 0
Should we stop? Because we could go on. In the last few years, these AI vs Physician studies have proliferated, and guess who’s winning?
65% of Doctors are Concerned
Now, the standard answer with anything AI-and-Medicine goes something like this: AI is coming, and it will be a transformative tool for physicians and improve patient care.
But the underlying unanswered question is:
The Medscape 2023 Physician and AI Report surveyed 1043 US physicians about their views on AI. In total, 65% are concerned about AI making diagnosis and treatment decisions, but 56% are enthusiastic about having it as an adjunct.
Cardiologists, anesthesiologists, and radiologists are most enthusiastic about AI, whereas family physicians and pediatricians are the least enthusiastic.
To get a more personal view of how physicians and other healthcare professionals are feeling about this transformative tech, I spoke with a variety of practicing doctors, a psychotherapist, and a third-year Harvard Medical School student.
‘Abysmally Poor Understanding’
Alfredo A. Sadun, MD, PhD, has been a neuro-ophthalmologist for nearly 50 years. A graduate of MIT and vice-chair of ophthalmology at UCLA, he’s long been fascinated by AI’s march into medicine. He’s watched it accomplish things that no ophthalmologist can do, such as identify gender, age, and risk for heart attack and stroke from retinal scans. But he doesn›t see the same level of interest and comprehension among the medical community.
“There’s still an abysmally poor understanding of AI among physicians in general,” he said. “It’s striking because these are intelligent, well-educated people. But we tend to draw conclusions based on what we’re familiar with, and most doctors’ experience with computers involves EHRs [electronic health records] and administrative garbage. It’s the reason they’re burning out.”
Easing the Burden
Anthony Philippakis, MD, PhD, left his cardiology practice in 2015 to become the chief data officer at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard. While there, he helped develop an AI-based method for identifying patients at risk for atrial fibrillation. Now, he’s a general partner at Google Ventures with the goal of bridging the gap between data sciences and medicine. His perspective on AI is unique, given that he’s seen the issue from both sides.
“I am not a bitter physician, but to be honest, when I was practicing, way too much of my time was spent staring at screens and not enough laying hands on patients,” he said. “Can you imagine what it would be like to speak to the EHR naturally and say, ‘Please order the following labs for this patient and notify me when the results come in.’ Boy, would that improve healthcare and physician satisfaction. Every physician I know is excited and optimistic about that. Almost everyone I’ve talked to feels like AI could take a lot of the stuff they don’t like doing off their plates.”
Indeed, the dividing line between physician support for AI and physician suspicion or skepticism of AI is just that. In our survey, more than three quarters of physicians said they would consider using AI for office administrative tasks, scheduling, EHRs, researching medical conditions, and even summarizing a patient’s record before a visit. But far fewer are supportive of it delivering diagnoses and treatments. This, despite an estimated 800,000 Americans dying or becoming permanently disabled each year because of diagnostic error.
Could AI Have Diagnosed This?
John D. Nuschke, MD, has been a primary care physician in Allentown, Pennsylvania, for 40 years. He’s a jovial general physician who insists his patients call him Jack. He’s recently started using an AI medical scribe called Freed. With the patient’s permission, it listens in on the visit and generates notes, saving Dr. Nuschke time and helping him focus on the person. He likes that type of assistance, but when it comes to AI replacing him, he’s skeptical.
“I had this patient I diagnosed with prostate cancer,” he explained. “He got treated and was fine for 5 years. Then, he started losing weight and feeling awful — got weak as a kitten. He went back to his urologist and oncologist who thought he had metastatic prostate cancer. He went through PET scans and blood work, but there was no sign his cancer had returned. So the specialists sent him back to me, and the second he walked in, I saw he was floridly hyperthyroid. I could tell across the room just by looking at him. Would AI have been able to make that diagnosis? Does AI do physical exams?”
Dr. Nuschke said he’s also had several instances where patients received their cancer diagnosis from the lab through an automated patient-portal system rather than from him. “That’s an AI of sorts, and I found it distressing,” he said.
Empathy From a Robot
All the doctors I spoke to were hopeful that by freeing them from the burden of administrative work, they would be able to return to the reason they got into this business in the first place — to spend more time with patients in need and support them with grace and compassion.
But suppose AI could do that too?
In a 2023 study conducted at the University of California San Diego and published in JAMA Internal Medicine, three licensed healthcare professionals compared the responses of ChatGPT and physicians to real-world health questions. The panel rated the AI’s answers nearly four times higher in quality and almost 10 times more empathetic than physicians’ replies.
A similar 2024 study in Nature found that Google’s large-language model AI matched or surpassed physician diagnostic accuracy in all six of the medical specialties considered. Plus, it outperformed doctors in 24 of 26 criteria for conversation quality, including politeness, explanation, honesty, and expressing care and commitment.
Nathaniel Chin, MD, is a gerontologist at the University of Wisconsin and advisory board member for the Alzheimer’s Foundation of America. Although he admits that studies like these “sadden me,” he’s also a realist. “There was hesitation among physicians at the beginning of the pandemic to virtual care because we missed the human connection,” he explained, “but we worked our way around that. We need to remember that what makes a chatbot strong is that it’s nothuman. It doesn’t burn out, it doesn’t get tired, it can look at data very quickly, and it doesn’t have to go home to a family and try to balance work with other aspects of life. A human being is very complex, whereas a chatbot has one single purpose.”
“Even if you don’t have AI in your space now or don’t like the idea of it, that doesn’t matter,” he added. “It’s coming. But it needs to be done right. If AI is implemented by clinicians for clinicians, it has great potential. But if it’s implemented by businesspeople for business reasons, perhaps not.”
‘The Ones Who Use the Tools the Best Will Be the Best’
One branch of medicine that stands to be dramatically affected by AI is mental health. Because bots are natural data-crunchers, they are becoming adept at analyzing the many subtle clues (phrasing in social media posts and text messages, smartwatch biometrics, therapy session videos…) that could indicate depression or other psychological disorders. In fact, its availability via smartphone apps could help democratize and destigmatize the practice.
“There is a day ahead — probably within 5 years — when a patient won’t be able to tell the difference between a real therapist and an AI therapist,” said Ken Mallon, MS, LMFT, a clinical psychotherapist and data scientist in San Jose, California. “That doesn’t worry me, though. It’s hard on therapists’ egos, but new technologies get developed. Things change. People who embrace these tools will benefit from them. The ones who use the tools the best will be the best.”
Time to Restructure Med School
Aditya Jain is in his third year at Harvard Medical School. At age 24, he’s heading into this brave new medical world with excitement and anxiety. Excitement because he sees AI revolutionizing healthcare on every level. Although the current generations of physicians and patients may grumble about its onset, he believes younger ones will feel comfortable with “DocGPT.” He’s excited that his generation of physicians will be the “translators and managers of this transition” and redefine “what it means to be a doctor.”
His anxiety, however, stems from the fact that AI has come on so fast that “it has not yet crossed the threshold of medical education,” he said. “Medical schools still largely prepare students to work as solo clinical decision makers. Most of my first 2 years were spent on pattern recognition and rote memorization, skills that AI can and will master.”
Indeed, Mr. Jain said AI was not a part of his first- or second-year curriculum. “I talk to students who are a year older than me, graduating, heading to residency, and they tell me they wish they had gotten a better grasp of how to use these technologies in medicine and in their practice. They were surprised to hear that people in my year hadn’t started using ChatGPT. We need to expend a lot more effort within the field, within academia, within practicing physicians, to figure out what our role will be in a world where AI is matching or even exceeding human intelligence. And then we need to restructure the medical education to better accomplish these goals.”
So Are You Ready for AI to Be a Better Doctor Than You?
“Yes, I am,” said Dr. Philippakis without hesitation. “When I was going through my medical training, I was continually confronted with the reality that I personally was not smart enough to keep all the information in my head that could be used to make a good decision for a patient. We have now reached a point where the amount of information that is important and useful in the practice of medicine outstrips what a human being can know. The opportunity to enable physicians with AI to remedy that situation is a good thing for doctors and, most importantly, a good thing for patients. I believe the future of medicine belongs not so much to the AI practitioner but to the AI-enabled practitioner.”
“Quick story,” added Dr. Chin. “I asked ChatGPT two questions. The first was ‘Explain the difference between Alzheimer’s and dementia’ because that’s the most common misconception in my field. And it gave me a pretty darn good answer — one I would use in a presentation with some tweaking. Then I asked it, ‘Are you a better doctor than me?’ And it replied, ‘My purpose is not to replace you, my purpose is to be supportive of you and enhance your ability.’ ”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Oncologists Voice Ethical Concerns Over AI in Cancer Care
TOPLINE:
Most respondents, for instance, said patients should not be expected to understand how AI tools work, but many also felt patients could make treatment decisions based on AI-generated recommendations. Most oncologists also felt responsible for protecting patients from biased AI, but few were confident that they could do so.
METHODOLOGY:
- The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has for use in various medical specialties over the past few decades, and increasingly, AI tools are being integrated into cancer care.
- However, the uptake of these tools in oncology has raised ethical questions and concerns, including challenges with AI bias, error, or misuse, as well as issues explaining how an AI model reached a result.
- In the current study, researchers asked 204 oncologists from 37 states for their views on the ethical implications of using AI for cancer care.
- Among the survey respondents, 64% were men and 63% were non-Hispanic White; 29% were from academic practices, 47% had received some education on AI use in healthcare, and 45% were familiar with clinical decision models.
- The researchers assessed respondents’ answers to various questions, including whether to provide informed consent for AI use and how oncologists would approach a scenario where the AI model and the oncologist recommended a different treatment regimen.
TAKEAWAY:
- Overall, 81% of oncologists supported having patient consent to use an AI model during treatment decisions, and 85% felt that oncologists needed to be able to explain an AI-based clinical decision model to use it in the clinic; however, only 23% felt that patients also needed to be able to explain an AI model.
- When an AI decision model recommended a different treatment regimen than the treating oncologist, the most common response (36.8%) was to present both options to the patient and let the patient decide. Oncologists from academic settings were about 2.5 times more likely than those from other settings to let the patient decide. About 34% of respondents said they would present both options but recommend the oncologist’s regimen, whereas about 22% said they would present both but recommend the AI’s regimen. A small percentage would only present the oncologist’s regimen (5%) or the AI’s regimen (about 2.5%).
- About three of four respondents (76.5%) agreed that oncologists should protect patients from biased AI tools; however, only about one of four (27.9%) felt confident they could identify biased AI models.
- Most oncologists (91%) felt that AI developers were responsible for the medico-legal problems associated with AI use; less than half (47%) said oncologists or hospitals (43%) shared this responsibility.
IN PRACTICE:
“Together, these data characterize barriers that may impede the ethical adoption of AI into cancer care. The findings suggest that the implementation of AI in oncology must include rigorous assessments of its effect on care decisions, as well as decisional responsibility when problems related to AI use arise,” the authors concluded.
SOURCE:
The study, with first author Andrew Hantel, MD, from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, was published last month in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
The study had a moderate sample size and response rate, although demographics of participating oncologists appear to be nationally representative. The cross-sectional study design limited the generalizability of the findings over time as AI is integrated into cancer care.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute, the Dana-Farber McGraw/Patterson Research Fund, and the Mark Foundation Emerging Leader Award. Dr. Hantel reported receiving personal fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, the American Journal of Managed Care, Genentech, and GSK.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Most respondents, for instance, said patients should not be expected to understand how AI tools work, but many also felt patients could make treatment decisions based on AI-generated recommendations. Most oncologists also felt responsible for protecting patients from biased AI, but few were confident that they could do so.
METHODOLOGY:
- The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has for use in various medical specialties over the past few decades, and increasingly, AI tools are being integrated into cancer care.
- However, the uptake of these tools in oncology has raised ethical questions and concerns, including challenges with AI bias, error, or misuse, as well as issues explaining how an AI model reached a result.
- In the current study, researchers asked 204 oncologists from 37 states for their views on the ethical implications of using AI for cancer care.
- Among the survey respondents, 64% were men and 63% were non-Hispanic White; 29% were from academic practices, 47% had received some education on AI use in healthcare, and 45% were familiar with clinical decision models.
- The researchers assessed respondents’ answers to various questions, including whether to provide informed consent for AI use and how oncologists would approach a scenario where the AI model and the oncologist recommended a different treatment regimen.
TAKEAWAY:
- Overall, 81% of oncologists supported having patient consent to use an AI model during treatment decisions, and 85% felt that oncologists needed to be able to explain an AI-based clinical decision model to use it in the clinic; however, only 23% felt that patients also needed to be able to explain an AI model.
- When an AI decision model recommended a different treatment regimen than the treating oncologist, the most common response (36.8%) was to present both options to the patient and let the patient decide. Oncologists from academic settings were about 2.5 times more likely than those from other settings to let the patient decide. About 34% of respondents said they would present both options but recommend the oncologist’s regimen, whereas about 22% said they would present both but recommend the AI’s regimen. A small percentage would only present the oncologist’s regimen (5%) or the AI’s regimen (about 2.5%).
- About three of four respondents (76.5%) agreed that oncologists should protect patients from biased AI tools; however, only about one of four (27.9%) felt confident they could identify biased AI models.
- Most oncologists (91%) felt that AI developers were responsible for the medico-legal problems associated with AI use; less than half (47%) said oncologists or hospitals (43%) shared this responsibility.
IN PRACTICE:
“Together, these data characterize barriers that may impede the ethical adoption of AI into cancer care. The findings suggest that the implementation of AI in oncology must include rigorous assessments of its effect on care decisions, as well as decisional responsibility when problems related to AI use arise,” the authors concluded.
SOURCE:
The study, with first author Andrew Hantel, MD, from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, was published last month in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
The study had a moderate sample size and response rate, although demographics of participating oncologists appear to be nationally representative. The cross-sectional study design limited the generalizability of the findings over time as AI is integrated into cancer care.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute, the Dana-Farber McGraw/Patterson Research Fund, and the Mark Foundation Emerging Leader Award. Dr. Hantel reported receiving personal fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, the American Journal of Managed Care, Genentech, and GSK.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Most respondents, for instance, said patients should not be expected to understand how AI tools work, but many also felt patients could make treatment decisions based on AI-generated recommendations. Most oncologists also felt responsible for protecting patients from biased AI, but few were confident that they could do so.
METHODOLOGY:
- The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has for use in various medical specialties over the past few decades, and increasingly, AI tools are being integrated into cancer care.
- However, the uptake of these tools in oncology has raised ethical questions and concerns, including challenges with AI bias, error, or misuse, as well as issues explaining how an AI model reached a result.
- In the current study, researchers asked 204 oncologists from 37 states for their views on the ethical implications of using AI for cancer care.
- Among the survey respondents, 64% were men and 63% were non-Hispanic White; 29% were from academic practices, 47% had received some education on AI use in healthcare, and 45% were familiar with clinical decision models.
- The researchers assessed respondents’ answers to various questions, including whether to provide informed consent for AI use and how oncologists would approach a scenario where the AI model and the oncologist recommended a different treatment regimen.
TAKEAWAY:
- Overall, 81% of oncologists supported having patient consent to use an AI model during treatment decisions, and 85% felt that oncologists needed to be able to explain an AI-based clinical decision model to use it in the clinic; however, only 23% felt that patients also needed to be able to explain an AI model.
- When an AI decision model recommended a different treatment regimen than the treating oncologist, the most common response (36.8%) was to present both options to the patient and let the patient decide. Oncologists from academic settings were about 2.5 times more likely than those from other settings to let the patient decide. About 34% of respondents said they would present both options but recommend the oncologist’s regimen, whereas about 22% said they would present both but recommend the AI’s regimen. A small percentage would only present the oncologist’s regimen (5%) or the AI’s regimen (about 2.5%).
- About three of four respondents (76.5%) agreed that oncologists should protect patients from biased AI tools; however, only about one of four (27.9%) felt confident they could identify biased AI models.
- Most oncologists (91%) felt that AI developers were responsible for the medico-legal problems associated with AI use; less than half (47%) said oncologists or hospitals (43%) shared this responsibility.
IN PRACTICE:
“Together, these data characterize barriers that may impede the ethical adoption of AI into cancer care. The findings suggest that the implementation of AI in oncology must include rigorous assessments of its effect on care decisions, as well as decisional responsibility when problems related to AI use arise,” the authors concluded.
SOURCE:
The study, with first author Andrew Hantel, MD, from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, was published last month in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
The study had a moderate sample size and response rate, although demographics of participating oncologists appear to be nationally representative. The cross-sectional study design limited the generalizability of the findings over time as AI is integrated into cancer care.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute, the Dana-Farber McGraw/Patterson Research Fund, and the Mark Foundation Emerging Leader Award. Dr. Hantel reported receiving personal fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, the American Journal of Managed Care, Genentech, and GSK.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
EHR Copy and Paste Can Get Physicians Into Trouble
Physicians who misuse the “copy-and-paste” feature in patients’ electronic health records (EHRs) can face serious consequences, including lost hospital privileges, fines, and malpractice lawsuits.
In California, a locum tenens physician lost her hospital privileges after repeatedly violating the copy-and-paste policy developed at Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital, Santa Rosa, California.
“Her use of copy and paste impaired continuity of care,” said Alvin Gore, MD, who was involved in the case as the hospital’s director of utilization management.
Dr. Gore said the hospital warned the doctor, but she did not change her behavior. He did not identify the physician, citing confidentiality. The case occurred more than 5 years ago. Since then, several physicians have been called onto the carpet for violations of the policy, but no one else has lost privileges, Dr. Gore said.
“EHRs are imperfect, time consuming, and somewhat rigid,” said Robert A. Dowling, MD, a practice management consultant for large medical groups. “If physicians can’t easily figure out a complex system, they’re likely to use a workaround like copy and paste.”
Copy-and-paste abuse has also led to fines. A six-member cardiology group in Somerville, New Jersey, paid a $422,000 fine to the federal government to settle copy-and-paste charges, following an investigation by the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services, according to the Report on Medicare Compliance.
This big settlement, announced in 2016, is a rare case in which physicians were charged with copy-and-paste fraud — intentionally using it to enhance reimbursement.
More commonly, Medicare contractors identify physicians who unintentionally received overpayments through sloppy copy-and-paste practices, according to a coding and documentation auditor who worked for 10 years at a Medicare contractor in Pennsylvania.
Such cases are frequent and are handled confidentially, said the auditor, who asked not to be identified. Practices must return the overpayment, and the physicians involved are “contacted and educated,” she said.
Copy and paste can also show up in malpractice lawsuits. In a 2012 survey, 53% of professional liability carriers said they had handled an EHR-related malpractice claim, and 71% of those claims included copy-and-paste use.
One such case, described by CRICO, a malpractice carrier based in Massachusetts, took place in 2012-2013. “A patient developed amiodarone toxicity because the patient›s history and medications were copied from a previous note that did not document that the patient was already on the medication,» CRICO stated.
“If you do face a malpractice claim, copying and pasting the same note repeatedly makes you look clinically inattentive, even if the copy/pasted material is unrelated to the adverse event,” CRICO officials noted in a report.
The Push to Use Copy and Paste
Copy and paste is a great time-saver. One study linked its use to lower burnout rates. However, it can easily introduce errors into the medical record. “This can be a huge problem,” Dr. Dowling said. “If, for example, you copy forward a previous note that said the patient had blood in their urine ‘6 days ago,’ it is immediately inaccurate.”
Practices can control use of copy and paste through coding clerks who read the medical records and then educate doctors when problems crop up.
The Pennsylvania auditor, who now works for a large group practice, said the group has very few copy-and-paste problems because of her role. “Not charting responsibly rarely happens because I work very closely with the doctors,” she said.
Dr. Dowling, however, reports that many physicians continue to overuse copy and paste. He points to a 2022 study which found that, on average, half the clinical note at one health system had been copied and pasted.
One solution might be to sanction physicians for overusing copy and paste, just as they’re sometimes penalized for not completing their notes on time with a reduction in income or possible termination.
Practices could periodically audit medical records for excessive copy-paste use. EHR systems like Epic’s can indicate how much of a doctor’s note has been copied. But Dr. Dowling doesn’t know of any practices that do this.
“There is little appetite to introduce a new enforcement activity for physicians,” he said. “Physicians would see it just as a way to make their lives more difficult than they already are.”
Monitoring in Hospitals and Health Systems
Some hospitals and health systems have gone as far as disabling copy-and-paste function in their EHR systems. However, enterprising physicians have found ways around these blocks.
Some institutions have also introduced formal policies, directing doctors on how they can copy and paste, including Banner Health in Arizona, Northwell Health in New York, UConn Health in Connecticut, University of Maryland Medical System, and University of Toledo in Ohio.
Definitions of what is not acceptable vary, but most of these policies oppose copying someone else’s notes and direct physicians to indicate the origin of pasted material.
Santa Rosa Memorial’s policy is quite specific. It still allows some copy and paste but stipulates that it cannot be used for the chief complaint, the review of systems, the physical examination, and the assessment and plan in the medical record, except when the information can’t be obtained directly from the patient. Also, physicians must summarize test results and provide references to other providers’ notes.
Dr. Gore said he and a physician educator who works with physicians on clinical documentation proposed the policy about a decade ago. When physicians on staff were asked to comment, some said they would be opposed to a complete ban, but they generally agreed that copy and paste was a serious problem that needed to be addressed, he said.
The hospital could have simply adopted guidelines, as opposed to rules with consequences, but “we wanted our policy to have teeth,” Dr. Gore said.
When violators are identified, Dr. Gore says he meets with them confidentially and educates them on proper use of copy and paste. Sometimes, the department head is brought in. Some physicians go on to violate the policy again and have to attend another meeting, he said, but aside from the one case, no one else has been disciplined.
It’s unclear how many physicians have faced consequences for misusing copy-paste features — such data aren’t tracked, and sanctions are likely to be handled confidentially, as a personnel matter.
Geisinger Health in Pennsylvania regularly monitors copy-and-paste usage and makes it part of physicians’ professional evaluations, according to a 2022 presentation by a Geisinger official.
Meanwhile, even when systems don’t have specific policies, they may still discipline physicians when copy and paste leads to errors. Scott MacDonald, MD, chief medical information officer at UC Davis Health in Sacramento, California, told this news organization that copy-and-paste abuse has come up a few times over the years in investigations of clinical errors.
Holding Physicians Accountable
Physicians can be held accountable for copy and paste by Medicare contractors and in malpractice lawsuits, but the most obvious way is at their place of work: A practice, hospital, or health system.
One physician has lost staff privileges, but more typically, coding clerks or colleagues talk to offending physicians and try to educate them on proper use of copy and paste.
Educational outreach, however, is often ineffective, said Robert Hirschtick, MD, a retired teaching physician at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois. “The physician may be directed to take an online course,” he said. “When they take the course, the goal is to get it done with, rather than to learn something new.”
Dr. Hirschtick’s articles on copy and paste, including one titled, “Sloppy and Paste,” have put him at the front lines of the debate. “This is an ethical issue,” he said in an interview. He agrees that some forms of copy and paste are permissible, but in many cases, “it is intellectually dishonest and potentially even plagiarism,” he said.
Dr. Hirschtick argues that copy-and-paste policies need more teeth. “Tying violations to compensation would be quite effective,” he said. “Even if physicians were rarely penalized, just knowing that it could happen to you might be enough. But I haven’t heard of anyone doing this.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Physicians who misuse the “copy-and-paste” feature in patients’ electronic health records (EHRs) can face serious consequences, including lost hospital privileges, fines, and malpractice lawsuits.
In California, a locum tenens physician lost her hospital privileges after repeatedly violating the copy-and-paste policy developed at Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital, Santa Rosa, California.
“Her use of copy and paste impaired continuity of care,” said Alvin Gore, MD, who was involved in the case as the hospital’s director of utilization management.
Dr. Gore said the hospital warned the doctor, but she did not change her behavior. He did not identify the physician, citing confidentiality. The case occurred more than 5 years ago. Since then, several physicians have been called onto the carpet for violations of the policy, but no one else has lost privileges, Dr. Gore said.
“EHRs are imperfect, time consuming, and somewhat rigid,” said Robert A. Dowling, MD, a practice management consultant for large medical groups. “If physicians can’t easily figure out a complex system, they’re likely to use a workaround like copy and paste.”
Copy-and-paste abuse has also led to fines. A six-member cardiology group in Somerville, New Jersey, paid a $422,000 fine to the federal government to settle copy-and-paste charges, following an investigation by the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services, according to the Report on Medicare Compliance.
This big settlement, announced in 2016, is a rare case in which physicians were charged with copy-and-paste fraud — intentionally using it to enhance reimbursement.
More commonly, Medicare contractors identify physicians who unintentionally received overpayments through sloppy copy-and-paste practices, according to a coding and documentation auditor who worked for 10 years at a Medicare contractor in Pennsylvania.
Such cases are frequent and are handled confidentially, said the auditor, who asked not to be identified. Practices must return the overpayment, and the physicians involved are “contacted and educated,” she said.
Copy and paste can also show up in malpractice lawsuits. In a 2012 survey, 53% of professional liability carriers said they had handled an EHR-related malpractice claim, and 71% of those claims included copy-and-paste use.
One such case, described by CRICO, a malpractice carrier based in Massachusetts, took place in 2012-2013. “A patient developed amiodarone toxicity because the patient›s history and medications were copied from a previous note that did not document that the patient was already on the medication,» CRICO stated.
“If you do face a malpractice claim, copying and pasting the same note repeatedly makes you look clinically inattentive, even if the copy/pasted material is unrelated to the adverse event,” CRICO officials noted in a report.
The Push to Use Copy and Paste
Copy and paste is a great time-saver. One study linked its use to lower burnout rates. However, it can easily introduce errors into the medical record. “This can be a huge problem,” Dr. Dowling said. “If, for example, you copy forward a previous note that said the patient had blood in their urine ‘6 days ago,’ it is immediately inaccurate.”
Practices can control use of copy and paste through coding clerks who read the medical records and then educate doctors when problems crop up.
The Pennsylvania auditor, who now works for a large group practice, said the group has very few copy-and-paste problems because of her role. “Not charting responsibly rarely happens because I work very closely with the doctors,” she said.
Dr. Dowling, however, reports that many physicians continue to overuse copy and paste. He points to a 2022 study which found that, on average, half the clinical note at one health system had been copied and pasted.
One solution might be to sanction physicians for overusing copy and paste, just as they’re sometimes penalized for not completing their notes on time with a reduction in income or possible termination.
Practices could periodically audit medical records for excessive copy-paste use. EHR systems like Epic’s can indicate how much of a doctor’s note has been copied. But Dr. Dowling doesn’t know of any practices that do this.
“There is little appetite to introduce a new enforcement activity for physicians,” he said. “Physicians would see it just as a way to make their lives more difficult than they already are.”
Monitoring in Hospitals and Health Systems
Some hospitals and health systems have gone as far as disabling copy-and-paste function in their EHR systems. However, enterprising physicians have found ways around these blocks.
Some institutions have also introduced formal policies, directing doctors on how they can copy and paste, including Banner Health in Arizona, Northwell Health in New York, UConn Health in Connecticut, University of Maryland Medical System, and University of Toledo in Ohio.
Definitions of what is not acceptable vary, but most of these policies oppose copying someone else’s notes and direct physicians to indicate the origin of pasted material.
Santa Rosa Memorial’s policy is quite specific. It still allows some copy and paste but stipulates that it cannot be used for the chief complaint, the review of systems, the physical examination, and the assessment and plan in the medical record, except when the information can’t be obtained directly from the patient. Also, physicians must summarize test results and provide references to other providers’ notes.
Dr. Gore said he and a physician educator who works with physicians on clinical documentation proposed the policy about a decade ago. When physicians on staff were asked to comment, some said they would be opposed to a complete ban, but they generally agreed that copy and paste was a serious problem that needed to be addressed, he said.
The hospital could have simply adopted guidelines, as opposed to rules with consequences, but “we wanted our policy to have teeth,” Dr. Gore said.
When violators are identified, Dr. Gore says he meets with them confidentially and educates them on proper use of copy and paste. Sometimes, the department head is brought in. Some physicians go on to violate the policy again and have to attend another meeting, he said, but aside from the one case, no one else has been disciplined.
It’s unclear how many physicians have faced consequences for misusing copy-paste features — such data aren’t tracked, and sanctions are likely to be handled confidentially, as a personnel matter.
Geisinger Health in Pennsylvania regularly monitors copy-and-paste usage and makes it part of physicians’ professional evaluations, according to a 2022 presentation by a Geisinger official.
Meanwhile, even when systems don’t have specific policies, they may still discipline physicians when copy and paste leads to errors. Scott MacDonald, MD, chief medical information officer at UC Davis Health in Sacramento, California, told this news organization that copy-and-paste abuse has come up a few times over the years in investigations of clinical errors.
Holding Physicians Accountable
Physicians can be held accountable for copy and paste by Medicare contractors and in malpractice lawsuits, but the most obvious way is at their place of work: A practice, hospital, or health system.
One physician has lost staff privileges, but more typically, coding clerks or colleagues talk to offending physicians and try to educate them on proper use of copy and paste.
Educational outreach, however, is often ineffective, said Robert Hirschtick, MD, a retired teaching physician at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois. “The physician may be directed to take an online course,” he said. “When they take the course, the goal is to get it done with, rather than to learn something new.”
Dr. Hirschtick’s articles on copy and paste, including one titled, “Sloppy and Paste,” have put him at the front lines of the debate. “This is an ethical issue,” he said in an interview. He agrees that some forms of copy and paste are permissible, but in many cases, “it is intellectually dishonest and potentially even plagiarism,” he said.
Dr. Hirschtick argues that copy-and-paste policies need more teeth. “Tying violations to compensation would be quite effective,” he said. “Even if physicians were rarely penalized, just knowing that it could happen to you might be enough. But I haven’t heard of anyone doing this.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Physicians who misuse the “copy-and-paste” feature in patients’ electronic health records (EHRs) can face serious consequences, including lost hospital privileges, fines, and malpractice lawsuits.
In California, a locum tenens physician lost her hospital privileges after repeatedly violating the copy-and-paste policy developed at Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital, Santa Rosa, California.
“Her use of copy and paste impaired continuity of care,” said Alvin Gore, MD, who was involved in the case as the hospital’s director of utilization management.
Dr. Gore said the hospital warned the doctor, but she did not change her behavior. He did not identify the physician, citing confidentiality. The case occurred more than 5 years ago. Since then, several physicians have been called onto the carpet for violations of the policy, but no one else has lost privileges, Dr. Gore said.
“EHRs are imperfect, time consuming, and somewhat rigid,” said Robert A. Dowling, MD, a practice management consultant for large medical groups. “If physicians can’t easily figure out a complex system, they’re likely to use a workaround like copy and paste.”
Copy-and-paste abuse has also led to fines. A six-member cardiology group in Somerville, New Jersey, paid a $422,000 fine to the federal government to settle copy-and-paste charges, following an investigation by the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services, according to the Report on Medicare Compliance.
This big settlement, announced in 2016, is a rare case in which physicians were charged with copy-and-paste fraud — intentionally using it to enhance reimbursement.
More commonly, Medicare contractors identify physicians who unintentionally received overpayments through sloppy copy-and-paste practices, according to a coding and documentation auditor who worked for 10 years at a Medicare contractor in Pennsylvania.
Such cases are frequent and are handled confidentially, said the auditor, who asked not to be identified. Practices must return the overpayment, and the physicians involved are “contacted and educated,” she said.
Copy and paste can also show up in malpractice lawsuits. In a 2012 survey, 53% of professional liability carriers said they had handled an EHR-related malpractice claim, and 71% of those claims included copy-and-paste use.
One such case, described by CRICO, a malpractice carrier based in Massachusetts, took place in 2012-2013. “A patient developed amiodarone toxicity because the patient›s history and medications were copied from a previous note that did not document that the patient was already on the medication,» CRICO stated.
“If you do face a malpractice claim, copying and pasting the same note repeatedly makes you look clinically inattentive, even if the copy/pasted material is unrelated to the adverse event,” CRICO officials noted in a report.
The Push to Use Copy and Paste
Copy and paste is a great time-saver. One study linked its use to lower burnout rates. However, it can easily introduce errors into the medical record. “This can be a huge problem,” Dr. Dowling said. “If, for example, you copy forward a previous note that said the patient had blood in their urine ‘6 days ago,’ it is immediately inaccurate.”
Practices can control use of copy and paste through coding clerks who read the medical records and then educate doctors when problems crop up.
The Pennsylvania auditor, who now works for a large group practice, said the group has very few copy-and-paste problems because of her role. “Not charting responsibly rarely happens because I work very closely with the doctors,” she said.
Dr. Dowling, however, reports that many physicians continue to overuse copy and paste. He points to a 2022 study which found that, on average, half the clinical note at one health system had been copied and pasted.
One solution might be to sanction physicians for overusing copy and paste, just as they’re sometimes penalized for not completing their notes on time with a reduction in income or possible termination.
Practices could periodically audit medical records for excessive copy-paste use. EHR systems like Epic’s can indicate how much of a doctor’s note has been copied. But Dr. Dowling doesn’t know of any practices that do this.
“There is little appetite to introduce a new enforcement activity for physicians,” he said. “Physicians would see it just as a way to make their lives more difficult than they already are.”
Monitoring in Hospitals and Health Systems
Some hospitals and health systems have gone as far as disabling copy-and-paste function in their EHR systems. However, enterprising physicians have found ways around these blocks.
Some institutions have also introduced formal policies, directing doctors on how they can copy and paste, including Banner Health in Arizona, Northwell Health in New York, UConn Health in Connecticut, University of Maryland Medical System, and University of Toledo in Ohio.
Definitions of what is not acceptable vary, but most of these policies oppose copying someone else’s notes and direct physicians to indicate the origin of pasted material.
Santa Rosa Memorial’s policy is quite specific. It still allows some copy and paste but stipulates that it cannot be used for the chief complaint, the review of systems, the physical examination, and the assessment and plan in the medical record, except when the information can’t be obtained directly from the patient. Also, physicians must summarize test results and provide references to other providers’ notes.
Dr. Gore said he and a physician educator who works with physicians on clinical documentation proposed the policy about a decade ago. When physicians on staff were asked to comment, some said they would be opposed to a complete ban, but they generally agreed that copy and paste was a serious problem that needed to be addressed, he said.
The hospital could have simply adopted guidelines, as opposed to rules with consequences, but “we wanted our policy to have teeth,” Dr. Gore said.
When violators are identified, Dr. Gore says he meets with them confidentially and educates them on proper use of copy and paste. Sometimes, the department head is brought in. Some physicians go on to violate the policy again and have to attend another meeting, he said, but aside from the one case, no one else has been disciplined.
It’s unclear how many physicians have faced consequences for misusing copy-paste features — such data aren’t tracked, and sanctions are likely to be handled confidentially, as a personnel matter.
Geisinger Health in Pennsylvania regularly monitors copy-and-paste usage and makes it part of physicians’ professional evaluations, according to a 2022 presentation by a Geisinger official.
Meanwhile, even when systems don’t have specific policies, they may still discipline physicians when copy and paste leads to errors. Scott MacDonald, MD, chief medical information officer at UC Davis Health in Sacramento, California, told this news organization that copy-and-paste abuse has come up a few times over the years in investigations of clinical errors.
Holding Physicians Accountable
Physicians can be held accountable for copy and paste by Medicare contractors and in malpractice lawsuits, but the most obvious way is at their place of work: A practice, hospital, or health system.
One physician has lost staff privileges, but more typically, coding clerks or colleagues talk to offending physicians and try to educate them on proper use of copy and paste.
Educational outreach, however, is often ineffective, said Robert Hirschtick, MD, a retired teaching physician at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois. “The physician may be directed to take an online course,” he said. “When they take the course, the goal is to get it done with, rather than to learn something new.”
Dr. Hirschtick’s articles on copy and paste, including one titled, “Sloppy and Paste,” have put him at the front lines of the debate. “This is an ethical issue,” he said in an interview. He agrees that some forms of copy and paste are permissible, but in many cases, “it is intellectually dishonest and potentially even plagiarism,” he said.
Dr. Hirschtick argues that copy-and-paste policies need more teeth. “Tying violations to compensation would be quite effective,” he said. “Even if physicians were rarely penalized, just knowing that it could happen to you might be enough. But I haven’t heard of anyone doing this.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Medicine or Politics? Doctors Defend Their Social Activism
It should come as no surprise that when physicians speak out on social and political issues, there is sometimes a backlash. This can range from the typical trolling that occurs online to rarer cases of professional penalties. Two doctors were fired by NYU Langone Health late last year after they posted social media messages about the Israel-Hamas war. Still, many physicians are not only willing to stand up for what they believe in, but they see it as an essential part of their profession.
"We're now at a place where doctors need to engage in public advocacy as an urgent part of our job," wrote Rob Davidson, MD, an emergency department physician, at the onslaught of the COVID-19 pandemic. In an Op-Ed piece for The Guardian, Dr. Davidson noted how the virus forced many physicians into becoming "activist doctors," calling for adequate personal protective equipment and correcting misinformation. "What we want above all is for the administration to listen to doctors, nurses, and frontline health workers - and stop playing politics," he wrote.
'It's Not About Being Political'
The intersection of medicine and politics is hardly new. Doctors frequently testify before Congress, sharing their expertise on issues concerning public health. This, however, isn't the same as "playing politics."
"I'm not taking political stances," said Megan Ranney, MD, Dean of the Yale School of Public Health. "Rather, I'm using science to inform best practices, and I'm vocal around the area where I have expertise where we could do collectively better."
Dr. Ranney's work to end firearm injury and death garnered particular attention when she co-authored an open letter to the National Rifle Association (NRA) in 2018. She wrote the letter in response to a tweet by the organization, admonishing physicians to "stay in their lane" when it comes to gun control.
Dr. Ranney's letter discussed gun violence as a public health crisis and urged the NRA to "be part of the solution" by joining the collective effort to reduce firearm injury and death through research, education, and advocacy. "We are not anti-gun," she stated. "We are anti-bullet hole," adding that "almost half of doctors own guns."
The NRA disagreed. When Dr. Ranney testified before Congress during a hearing on gun violence in 2023, NRA spokesperson Billy McLaughlin condemned her testimony as an effort to "dismantle the Second Amendment," calling Dr. Ranney "a known gun control extremist."
"If you actually read what I write, or if you actually listen to what I say, I'm not saying things on behalf of one political party or another," said Dr. Ranney. "It's not about being political. It's about recognizing our role in describing what's happening and making it clear for the world to see. Showing where, based off of data, there may be a better path to improve health and wellbeing."
In spite of the backlash, Dr. Ranney has no regrets about being an activist. "In the current media landscape, folks love to slap labels on people that may or may not be accurate. To me, what matters isn't where I land with a particular politician or political party, but how the work that I do improves health for populations."
When the Need to Act Outweighs the Fear
Laura Andreson, DO, an ob.gyn, took activism a step further when she joined a group of women in Tennessee to file a suit against the state, the attorney general, and the state board of medical examiners. The issue was the Tennessee's abortion ban, which the suit claimed prevented women from getting "necessary and potentially life-saving medical care."
Dr. Andreson, who says she was "not at all" politically active in the past, began to realize how the abortion ban could drastically affect her profession and her patients. "I don't know what flipped in me, but I just felt like I could do this," she said.
Like Dr. Ranney, Dr. Andreson has been as visible as she has been vocal, giving press conferences and interviews, but she acknowledges she has some fears about safety. In fact, after filing the lawsuit, the Center for Reproductive Rights recommended that she go to a website, DeleteMe, that removes personal data from the internet, making it more difficult for people to find her information. "But my need to do this and my desire to do this is stronger than my fears," she added.
Dr. Andreson, who is part of a small practice, did check with both her coworkers and the hospital administration before moving forward with the lawsuit. She was relieved to find that she had the support of her practice and that there wasn't anything in the hospital bylaws to prevent her from filing the lawsuit. "But the people in the bigger institutions who probably have an even better expert base than I do, they are handcuffed," she said.
It has been, in Dr. Andreson's words, "a little uncomfortable" being on the board of the Tennessee Medical Association when the Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners is part of the lawsuit. "We're all members of the same group," she said. "But I'm not suing them as individuals; I'm suing them as an entity that is under our government."
Dr. Andreson said most people have been supportive of her activist work, though she admitted to feeling frustrated when she encounters apathy from fellow ob.gyns. She got little response when she circulated information explaining the abortion laws and trying to get others involved. But she still sees education as being a key part of making change happen.
"I think advocacy, as someone who is considered a responsible, trustworthy person by your community, is important, because you can sway some people just by educating them," she said.
Fighting Inequities in Medicine and Beyond
Christina Chen, MD, says she felt very supported by her medical community at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, when she and 16 other Asian American physicians posted a video on Instagram in 2020 highlighting increased violence and harassment of Asian Americans during COVID-19. It soon went viral, and the Mayo Clinic distributed it across their social media channels. The only negative repercussions Mayo faced were a few posts on social media saying that politics should not be brought into the healthcare space. Dr. Chen disagrees.
"Social issues and political decisions have direct impact on the health of our communities," Dr. Chen said. "We know that we still have a long way to go to solve health inequities, which is a public health problem, and we all play a huge role in voicing our concerns."
Activism, however, seems to be more complicated when it involves physicians being critical of inequities within the medical field. Nephrologist, Vanessa Grubbs, MD, MPH, founded the nonprofit Black Doc Village in 2022 to raise awareness about the wrongful dismissal of Black residents and expand the Black physician workforce.
Dr. Grubbs said that the medical community has not been supportive of her activism. "The reason why I'm no longer in academia is in part because they got very upset with me tweeting about how some trainees are biased in their treatment of attendings," she said. "Senior White men attendings are often treated very differently than junior women of color faculty."
Dr. Grubbs also expressed her views in 2020 essay in the New England Journal of Medicine where she criticized academic medical institutions for ignoring systemic racism, paying lip service to diversity, equity, and inclusion, and staying "deafeningly silent" when issues of racism are raised.
Today, Black Doc Village is focused on conducting research that can be used to change policy. And Dr. Grubbs now has the full support of her colleagues at West Oakland Health, in Oakland, California, which aspires to advance the Bay Area Black community's health and dignity. "So, no one here has a problem with me speaking out," she added.
The emphasis on data-driven activism as opposed to "playing politics," is a recurring theme for many physicians who publicly engage with social issues.
"It's not partisan," Dr. Ranney said. "Rather, it's a commitment to translating science into actionable steps that can be used regardless of what political party you are in. My job is not to be on one side or the other, but to advance human health." These doctors challenge their critics to explain how such a goal is outside their purview.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
It should come as no surprise that when physicians speak out on social and political issues, there is sometimes a backlash. This can range from the typical trolling that occurs online to rarer cases of professional penalties. Two doctors were fired by NYU Langone Health late last year after they posted social media messages about the Israel-Hamas war. Still, many physicians are not only willing to stand up for what they believe in, but they see it as an essential part of their profession.
"We're now at a place where doctors need to engage in public advocacy as an urgent part of our job," wrote Rob Davidson, MD, an emergency department physician, at the onslaught of the COVID-19 pandemic. In an Op-Ed piece for The Guardian, Dr. Davidson noted how the virus forced many physicians into becoming "activist doctors," calling for adequate personal protective equipment and correcting misinformation. "What we want above all is for the administration to listen to doctors, nurses, and frontline health workers - and stop playing politics," he wrote.
'It's Not About Being Political'
The intersection of medicine and politics is hardly new. Doctors frequently testify before Congress, sharing their expertise on issues concerning public health. This, however, isn't the same as "playing politics."
"I'm not taking political stances," said Megan Ranney, MD, Dean of the Yale School of Public Health. "Rather, I'm using science to inform best practices, and I'm vocal around the area where I have expertise where we could do collectively better."
Dr. Ranney's work to end firearm injury and death garnered particular attention when she co-authored an open letter to the National Rifle Association (NRA) in 2018. She wrote the letter in response to a tweet by the organization, admonishing physicians to "stay in their lane" when it comes to gun control.
Dr. Ranney's letter discussed gun violence as a public health crisis and urged the NRA to "be part of the solution" by joining the collective effort to reduce firearm injury and death through research, education, and advocacy. "We are not anti-gun," she stated. "We are anti-bullet hole," adding that "almost half of doctors own guns."
The NRA disagreed. When Dr. Ranney testified before Congress during a hearing on gun violence in 2023, NRA spokesperson Billy McLaughlin condemned her testimony as an effort to "dismantle the Second Amendment," calling Dr. Ranney "a known gun control extremist."
"If you actually read what I write, or if you actually listen to what I say, I'm not saying things on behalf of one political party or another," said Dr. Ranney. "It's not about being political. It's about recognizing our role in describing what's happening and making it clear for the world to see. Showing where, based off of data, there may be a better path to improve health and wellbeing."
In spite of the backlash, Dr. Ranney has no regrets about being an activist. "In the current media landscape, folks love to slap labels on people that may or may not be accurate. To me, what matters isn't where I land with a particular politician or political party, but how the work that I do improves health for populations."
When the Need to Act Outweighs the Fear
Laura Andreson, DO, an ob.gyn, took activism a step further when she joined a group of women in Tennessee to file a suit against the state, the attorney general, and the state board of medical examiners. The issue was the Tennessee's abortion ban, which the suit claimed prevented women from getting "necessary and potentially life-saving medical care."
Dr. Andreson, who says she was "not at all" politically active in the past, began to realize how the abortion ban could drastically affect her profession and her patients. "I don't know what flipped in me, but I just felt like I could do this," she said.
Like Dr. Ranney, Dr. Andreson has been as visible as she has been vocal, giving press conferences and interviews, but she acknowledges she has some fears about safety. In fact, after filing the lawsuit, the Center for Reproductive Rights recommended that she go to a website, DeleteMe, that removes personal data from the internet, making it more difficult for people to find her information. "But my need to do this and my desire to do this is stronger than my fears," she added.
Dr. Andreson, who is part of a small practice, did check with both her coworkers and the hospital administration before moving forward with the lawsuit. She was relieved to find that she had the support of her practice and that there wasn't anything in the hospital bylaws to prevent her from filing the lawsuit. "But the people in the bigger institutions who probably have an even better expert base than I do, they are handcuffed," she said.
It has been, in Dr. Andreson's words, "a little uncomfortable" being on the board of the Tennessee Medical Association when the Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners is part of the lawsuit. "We're all members of the same group," she said. "But I'm not suing them as individuals; I'm suing them as an entity that is under our government."
Dr. Andreson said most people have been supportive of her activist work, though she admitted to feeling frustrated when she encounters apathy from fellow ob.gyns. She got little response when she circulated information explaining the abortion laws and trying to get others involved. But she still sees education as being a key part of making change happen.
"I think advocacy, as someone who is considered a responsible, trustworthy person by your community, is important, because you can sway some people just by educating them," she said.
Fighting Inequities in Medicine and Beyond
Christina Chen, MD, says she felt very supported by her medical community at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, when she and 16 other Asian American physicians posted a video on Instagram in 2020 highlighting increased violence and harassment of Asian Americans during COVID-19. It soon went viral, and the Mayo Clinic distributed it across their social media channels. The only negative repercussions Mayo faced were a few posts on social media saying that politics should not be brought into the healthcare space. Dr. Chen disagrees.
"Social issues and political decisions have direct impact on the health of our communities," Dr. Chen said. "We know that we still have a long way to go to solve health inequities, which is a public health problem, and we all play a huge role in voicing our concerns."
Activism, however, seems to be more complicated when it involves physicians being critical of inequities within the medical field. Nephrologist, Vanessa Grubbs, MD, MPH, founded the nonprofit Black Doc Village in 2022 to raise awareness about the wrongful dismissal of Black residents and expand the Black physician workforce.
Dr. Grubbs said that the medical community has not been supportive of her activism. "The reason why I'm no longer in academia is in part because they got very upset with me tweeting about how some trainees are biased in their treatment of attendings," she said. "Senior White men attendings are often treated very differently than junior women of color faculty."
Dr. Grubbs also expressed her views in 2020 essay in the New England Journal of Medicine where she criticized academic medical institutions for ignoring systemic racism, paying lip service to diversity, equity, and inclusion, and staying "deafeningly silent" when issues of racism are raised.
Today, Black Doc Village is focused on conducting research that can be used to change policy. And Dr. Grubbs now has the full support of her colleagues at West Oakland Health, in Oakland, California, which aspires to advance the Bay Area Black community's health and dignity. "So, no one here has a problem with me speaking out," she added.
The emphasis on data-driven activism as opposed to "playing politics," is a recurring theme for many physicians who publicly engage with social issues.
"It's not partisan," Dr. Ranney said. "Rather, it's a commitment to translating science into actionable steps that can be used regardless of what political party you are in. My job is not to be on one side or the other, but to advance human health." These doctors challenge their critics to explain how such a goal is outside their purview.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
It should come as no surprise that when physicians speak out on social and political issues, there is sometimes a backlash. This can range from the typical trolling that occurs online to rarer cases of professional penalties. Two doctors were fired by NYU Langone Health late last year after they posted social media messages about the Israel-Hamas war. Still, many physicians are not only willing to stand up for what they believe in, but they see it as an essential part of their profession.
"We're now at a place where doctors need to engage in public advocacy as an urgent part of our job," wrote Rob Davidson, MD, an emergency department physician, at the onslaught of the COVID-19 pandemic. In an Op-Ed piece for The Guardian, Dr. Davidson noted how the virus forced many physicians into becoming "activist doctors," calling for adequate personal protective equipment and correcting misinformation. "What we want above all is for the administration to listen to doctors, nurses, and frontline health workers - and stop playing politics," he wrote.
'It's Not About Being Political'
The intersection of medicine and politics is hardly new. Doctors frequently testify before Congress, sharing their expertise on issues concerning public health. This, however, isn't the same as "playing politics."
"I'm not taking political stances," said Megan Ranney, MD, Dean of the Yale School of Public Health. "Rather, I'm using science to inform best practices, and I'm vocal around the area where I have expertise where we could do collectively better."
Dr. Ranney's work to end firearm injury and death garnered particular attention when she co-authored an open letter to the National Rifle Association (NRA) in 2018. She wrote the letter in response to a tweet by the organization, admonishing physicians to "stay in their lane" when it comes to gun control.
Dr. Ranney's letter discussed gun violence as a public health crisis and urged the NRA to "be part of the solution" by joining the collective effort to reduce firearm injury and death through research, education, and advocacy. "We are not anti-gun," she stated. "We are anti-bullet hole," adding that "almost half of doctors own guns."
The NRA disagreed. When Dr. Ranney testified before Congress during a hearing on gun violence in 2023, NRA spokesperson Billy McLaughlin condemned her testimony as an effort to "dismantle the Second Amendment," calling Dr. Ranney "a known gun control extremist."
"If you actually read what I write, or if you actually listen to what I say, I'm not saying things on behalf of one political party or another," said Dr. Ranney. "It's not about being political. It's about recognizing our role in describing what's happening and making it clear for the world to see. Showing where, based off of data, there may be a better path to improve health and wellbeing."
In spite of the backlash, Dr. Ranney has no regrets about being an activist. "In the current media landscape, folks love to slap labels on people that may or may not be accurate. To me, what matters isn't where I land with a particular politician or political party, but how the work that I do improves health for populations."
When the Need to Act Outweighs the Fear
Laura Andreson, DO, an ob.gyn, took activism a step further when she joined a group of women in Tennessee to file a suit against the state, the attorney general, and the state board of medical examiners. The issue was the Tennessee's abortion ban, which the suit claimed prevented women from getting "necessary and potentially life-saving medical care."
Dr. Andreson, who says she was "not at all" politically active in the past, began to realize how the abortion ban could drastically affect her profession and her patients. "I don't know what flipped in me, but I just felt like I could do this," she said.
Like Dr. Ranney, Dr. Andreson has been as visible as she has been vocal, giving press conferences and interviews, but she acknowledges she has some fears about safety. In fact, after filing the lawsuit, the Center for Reproductive Rights recommended that she go to a website, DeleteMe, that removes personal data from the internet, making it more difficult for people to find her information. "But my need to do this and my desire to do this is stronger than my fears," she added.
Dr. Andreson, who is part of a small practice, did check with both her coworkers and the hospital administration before moving forward with the lawsuit. She was relieved to find that she had the support of her practice and that there wasn't anything in the hospital bylaws to prevent her from filing the lawsuit. "But the people in the bigger institutions who probably have an even better expert base than I do, they are handcuffed," she said.
It has been, in Dr. Andreson's words, "a little uncomfortable" being on the board of the Tennessee Medical Association when the Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners is part of the lawsuit. "We're all members of the same group," she said. "But I'm not suing them as individuals; I'm suing them as an entity that is under our government."
Dr. Andreson said most people have been supportive of her activist work, though she admitted to feeling frustrated when she encounters apathy from fellow ob.gyns. She got little response when she circulated information explaining the abortion laws and trying to get others involved. But she still sees education as being a key part of making change happen.
"I think advocacy, as someone who is considered a responsible, trustworthy person by your community, is important, because you can sway some people just by educating them," she said.
Fighting Inequities in Medicine and Beyond
Christina Chen, MD, says she felt very supported by her medical community at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, when she and 16 other Asian American physicians posted a video on Instagram in 2020 highlighting increased violence and harassment of Asian Americans during COVID-19. It soon went viral, and the Mayo Clinic distributed it across their social media channels. The only negative repercussions Mayo faced were a few posts on social media saying that politics should not be brought into the healthcare space. Dr. Chen disagrees.
"Social issues and political decisions have direct impact on the health of our communities," Dr. Chen said. "We know that we still have a long way to go to solve health inequities, which is a public health problem, and we all play a huge role in voicing our concerns."
Activism, however, seems to be more complicated when it involves physicians being critical of inequities within the medical field. Nephrologist, Vanessa Grubbs, MD, MPH, founded the nonprofit Black Doc Village in 2022 to raise awareness about the wrongful dismissal of Black residents and expand the Black physician workforce.
Dr. Grubbs said that the medical community has not been supportive of her activism. "The reason why I'm no longer in academia is in part because they got very upset with me tweeting about how some trainees are biased in their treatment of attendings," she said. "Senior White men attendings are often treated very differently than junior women of color faculty."
Dr. Grubbs also expressed her views in 2020 essay in the New England Journal of Medicine where she criticized academic medical institutions for ignoring systemic racism, paying lip service to diversity, equity, and inclusion, and staying "deafeningly silent" when issues of racism are raised.
Today, Black Doc Village is focused on conducting research that can be used to change policy. And Dr. Grubbs now has the full support of her colleagues at West Oakland Health, in Oakland, California, which aspires to advance the Bay Area Black community's health and dignity. "So, no one here has a problem with me speaking out," she added.
The emphasis on data-driven activism as opposed to "playing politics," is a recurring theme for many physicians who publicly engage with social issues.
"It's not partisan," Dr. Ranney said. "Rather, it's a commitment to translating science into actionable steps that can be used regardless of what political party you are in. My job is not to be on one side or the other, but to advance human health." These doctors challenge their critics to explain how such a goal is outside their purview.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Less Than 50% of Accelerated Approvals Show Clinical Benefit
despite being on the US market for more than 5 years, according to a new study.
Under the program, drugs are approved for marketing if they show benefit in surrogate markers thought to indicate efficacy. Progression-free survival, tumor response, and duration of response are the most used surrogate markers for accelerated approvals of cancer drugs. These are based largely on imaging studies that show either a stop in growth in the case of progression-free survival or tumor shrinkage in the case of tumor response.
Following accelerated approvals, companies are then supposed to show actual clinical benefit in confirmatory trials.
The problem with relying on surrogate markers for drug approvals is that they don’t always correlate with longer survival or improved quality of life, said Edward Cliff, MBBS, who presented the findings at the American Association for Cancer Research 2024 annual meeting (abstract 918). The study was also published in JAMA to coincide with the meeting presentation.
In some cancers, these markers work well, but in others they don’t, said Dr. Cliff, a hematology trainee at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, when the work was conducted, and now a hematology fellow at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, Australia.
To determine whether cancer drugs granted accelerated approval ultimately show an overall survival or quality of life benefit, researchers reviewed 46 cancer drugs granted accelerated approvals between 2013 and 2017. Twenty (43%) were granted full approval after demonstrating survival or quality-of-life benefits.
Nine, however, were converted to full approvals on the basis of surrogate markers. These include a full approval for pembrolizumab in previously treated recurrent or refractory head and neck squamous cell carcinoma and a full approval for nivolumab for refractory locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, both based on tumor response rate and duration of response.
Of the remaining 17 drugs evaluated in the trial, 10 have been withdrawn and seven do not yet have confirmatory trial results.
The reliance on surrogate markers means that these drugs are used for treatment, covered by insurance, and added to guidelines — all without solid evidence of real-world clinical benefit, said Dr. Cliff.
However, the goal should not be to do away with the accelerated approval process, because it sometimes does deliver powerful agents to patients quickly. Instead, Dr. Cliff told this news organization, the system needs to be improved so that “we keep the speed while getting certainty around clinical benefits” with robust and timely confirmatory trials.
In the meantime, “clinicians should communicate with patients about any residual uncertainty of clinical benefit when they offer novel therapies,” Dr. Cliff explained. “It’s important for them to have the information.”
There has been some progress on the issue. In December 2022, the US Congress passed the Food and Drug Administration Omnibus Reform Act. Among other things, the Act requires companies to have confirmation trials underway as a condition for accelerated approval, and to provide regular reports on their progress. The Act also expedites the withdrawal process for drugs that don’t show a benefit.
The Act has been put to the test twice recently. In February, FDA used the expedited process to remove the multiple myeloma drug melphalan flufenamide from the market. Melphalan flufenamide hadn’t been sold in the US for quite some time, so the process wasn’t contentious.
In March, Regeneron announced that accelerated approval for the follicular and diffuse B cell lymphoma drug odronextamab has been delayed pending enrollment in a confirmatory trial.
“There have been some promising steps,” Dr. Cliff said, but much work needs to be done.
Study moderator Shivaani Kummar, MD, agreed, noting that “the data is showing that the confirmatory trials aren’t happening at the pace which they should.”
But the solution is not to curtail approvals; it’s to make sure that accelerated approval commitments are met, said Dr. Kummar.
Still, “as a practicing oncologist, I welcome the accelerated pathway,” Dr. Kummar, a medical oncologist/hematologist at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, told this news organization. “I want the availability to my patients.”
Having drugs approved on the basis of surrogate markers doesn’t necessarily mean patients are getting ineffective therapies, Dr. Kummar noted. For instance, if an agent just shrinks the tumor, it can sometimes still be “a huge clinical benefit because it can take the symptoms away.”
As for prescribing drugs based on accelerated approvals, she said she tells her patients that trials have been promising, but we don’t know what the long-term effects are. She and her patient then make a decision together.
The study was funded by Arnold Ventures. Dr. Kummar reported support from several companies, including Bayer, Gilead, and others. Dr. Cliff had no disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
despite being on the US market for more than 5 years, according to a new study.
Under the program, drugs are approved for marketing if they show benefit in surrogate markers thought to indicate efficacy. Progression-free survival, tumor response, and duration of response are the most used surrogate markers for accelerated approvals of cancer drugs. These are based largely on imaging studies that show either a stop in growth in the case of progression-free survival or tumor shrinkage in the case of tumor response.
Following accelerated approvals, companies are then supposed to show actual clinical benefit in confirmatory trials.
The problem with relying on surrogate markers for drug approvals is that they don’t always correlate with longer survival or improved quality of life, said Edward Cliff, MBBS, who presented the findings at the American Association for Cancer Research 2024 annual meeting (abstract 918). The study was also published in JAMA to coincide with the meeting presentation.
In some cancers, these markers work well, but in others they don’t, said Dr. Cliff, a hematology trainee at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, when the work was conducted, and now a hematology fellow at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, Australia.
To determine whether cancer drugs granted accelerated approval ultimately show an overall survival or quality of life benefit, researchers reviewed 46 cancer drugs granted accelerated approvals between 2013 and 2017. Twenty (43%) were granted full approval after demonstrating survival or quality-of-life benefits.
Nine, however, were converted to full approvals on the basis of surrogate markers. These include a full approval for pembrolizumab in previously treated recurrent or refractory head and neck squamous cell carcinoma and a full approval for nivolumab for refractory locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, both based on tumor response rate and duration of response.
Of the remaining 17 drugs evaluated in the trial, 10 have been withdrawn and seven do not yet have confirmatory trial results.
The reliance on surrogate markers means that these drugs are used for treatment, covered by insurance, and added to guidelines — all without solid evidence of real-world clinical benefit, said Dr. Cliff.
However, the goal should not be to do away with the accelerated approval process, because it sometimes does deliver powerful agents to patients quickly. Instead, Dr. Cliff told this news organization, the system needs to be improved so that “we keep the speed while getting certainty around clinical benefits” with robust and timely confirmatory trials.
In the meantime, “clinicians should communicate with patients about any residual uncertainty of clinical benefit when they offer novel therapies,” Dr. Cliff explained. “It’s important for them to have the information.”
There has been some progress on the issue. In December 2022, the US Congress passed the Food and Drug Administration Omnibus Reform Act. Among other things, the Act requires companies to have confirmation trials underway as a condition for accelerated approval, and to provide regular reports on their progress. The Act also expedites the withdrawal process for drugs that don’t show a benefit.
The Act has been put to the test twice recently. In February, FDA used the expedited process to remove the multiple myeloma drug melphalan flufenamide from the market. Melphalan flufenamide hadn’t been sold in the US for quite some time, so the process wasn’t contentious.
In March, Regeneron announced that accelerated approval for the follicular and diffuse B cell lymphoma drug odronextamab has been delayed pending enrollment in a confirmatory trial.
“There have been some promising steps,” Dr. Cliff said, but much work needs to be done.
Study moderator Shivaani Kummar, MD, agreed, noting that “the data is showing that the confirmatory trials aren’t happening at the pace which they should.”
But the solution is not to curtail approvals; it’s to make sure that accelerated approval commitments are met, said Dr. Kummar.
Still, “as a practicing oncologist, I welcome the accelerated pathway,” Dr. Kummar, a medical oncologist/hematologist at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, told this news organization. “I want the availability to my patients.”
Having drugs approved on the basis of surrogate markers doesn’t necessarily mean patients are getting ineffective therapies, Dr. Kummar noted. For instance, if an agent just shrinks the tumor, it can sometimes still be “a huge clinical benefit because it can take the symptoms away.”
As for prescribing drugs based on accelerated approvals, she said she tells her patients that trials have been promising, but we don’t know what the long-term effects are. She and her patient then make a decision together.
The study was funded by Arnold Ventures. Dr. Kummar reported support from several companies, including Bayer, Gilead, and others. Dr. Cliff had no disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
despite being on the US market for more than 5 years, according to a new study.
Under the program, drugs are approved for marketing if they show benefit in surrogate markers thought to indicate efficacy. Progression-free survival, tumor response, and duration of response are the most used surrogate markers for accelerated approvals of cancer drugs. These are based largely on imaging studies that show either a stop in growth in the case of progression-free survival or tumor shrinkage in the case of tumor response.
Following accelerated approvals, companies are then supposed to show actual clinical benefit in confirmatory trials.
The problem with relying on surrogate markers for drug approvals is that they don’t always correlate with longer survival or improved quality of life, said Edward Cliff, MBBS, who presented the findings at the American Association for Cancer Research 2024 annual meeting (abstract 918). The study was also published in JAMA to coincide with the meeting presentation.
In some cancers, these markers work well, but in others they don’t, said Dr. Cliff, a hematology trainee at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, when the work was conducted, and now a hematology fellow at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, Australia.
To determine whether cancer drugs granted accelerated approval ultimately show an overall survival or quality of life benefit, researchers reviewed 46 cancer drugs granted accelerated approvals between 2013 and 2017. Twenty (43%) were granted full approval after demonstrating survival or quality-of-life benefits.
Nine, however, were converted to full approvals on the basis of surrogate markers. These include a full approval for pembrolizumab in previously treated recurrent or refractory head and neck squamous cell carcinoma and a full approval for nivolumab for refractory locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, both based on tumor response rate and duration of response.
Of the remaining 17 drugs evaluated in the trial, 10 have been withdrawn and seven do not yet have confirmatory trial results.
The reliance on surrogate markers means that these drugs are used for treatment, covered by insurance, and added to guidelines — all without solid evidence of real-world clinical benefit, said Dr. Cliff.
However, the goal should not be to do away with the accelerated approval process, because it sometimes does deliver powerful agents to patients quickly. Instead, Dr. Cliff told this news organization, the system needs to be improved so that “we keep the speed while getting certainty around clinical benefits” with robust and timely confirmatory trials.
In the meantime, “clinicians should communicate with patients about any residual uncertainty of clinical benefit when they offer novel therapies,” Dr. Cliff explained. “It’s important for them to have the information.”
There has been some progress on the issue. In December 2022, the US Congress passed the Food and Drug Administration Omnibus Reform Act. Among other things, the Act requires companies to have confirmation trials underway as a condition for accelerated approval, and to provide regular reports on their progress. The Act also expedites the withdrawal process for drugs that don’t show a benefit.
The Act has been put to the test twice recently. In February, FDA used the expedited process to remove the multiple myeloma drug melphalan flufenamide from the market. Melphalan flufenamide hadn’t been sold in the US for quite some time, so the process wasn’t contentious.
In March, Regeneron announced that accelerated approval for the follicular and diffuse B cell lymphoma drug odronextamab has been delayed pending enrollment in a confirmatory trial.
“There have been some promising steps,” Dr. Cliff said, but much work needs to be done.
Study moderator Shivaani Kummar, MD, agreed, noting that “the data is showing that the confirmatory trials aren’t happening at the pace which they should.”
But the solution is not to curtail approvals; it’s to make sure that accelerated approval commitments are met, said Dr. Kummar.
Still, “as a practicing oncologist, I welcome the accelerated pathway,” Dr. Kummar, a medical oncologist/hematologist at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, told this news organization. “I want the availability to my patients.”
Having drugs approved on the basis of surrogate markers doesn’t necessarily mean patients are getting ineffective therapies, Dr. Kummar noted. For instance, if an agent just shrinks the tumor, it can sometimes still be “a huge clinical benefit because it can take the symptoms away.”
As for prescribing drugs based on accelerated approvals, she said she tells her patients that trials have been promising, but we don’t know what the long-term effects are. She and her patient then make a decision together.
The study was funded by Arnold Ventures. Dr. Kummar reported support from several companies, including Bayer, Gilead, and others. Dr. Cliff had no disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA Expands Enhertu Indication to HER2-Positive Solid Tumors
The agent had already been approved for several cancer types, including certain patients with unresectable or metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer as well as adults with locally advanced or metastatic HER2-positive gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma who had received a prior trastuzumab-based regimen.
The current accelerated approval is the first tumor-agnostic approval of a HER2-directed therapy and antibody drug conjugate.
“Until approval of trastuzumab deruxtecan, patients with metastatic HER2-positive tumors have had limited treatment options,” Funda Meric-Bernstam, MD, chair of investigational cancer therapeutics at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said in an AstraZeneca press statement. “Based on the clinically meaningful response rates across clinical trials, this tumor-agnostic approval means that patients may now be treated with a HER2-directed medicine.”
Approval was based on findings in 192 patients enrolled in either the DESTINY-PanTumor02 trial, the DESTINY-Lung01 trial, or the DESTINY-CRC02 trial. Patients in the multicenter trials underwent treatment until disease progression, death, withdrawal of consent or unacceptable toxicity.
Confirmed objective response rates were 51.4%, 52.9%, and 46.9% in the three studies, respectively. Median duration of response was 19.4, 6.9, and 5.5 months, respectively.
The most common adverse reactions occurring in at least 20% of patients included decreased white blood cell count, hemoglobin, lymphocyte count, and neutrophil count, as well as nausea, fatigue, platelet count, vomiting, alopecia, diarrhea, stomatitis, and upper respiratory tract infection.
Full prescribing information includes a boxed warning about the risk for interstitial lung disease and embryo-fetal toxicity.
The recommended dosage is 5.4 mg/kg given as an intravenous infusion one every 3 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The agent had already been approved for several cancer types, including certain patients with unresectable or metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer as well as adults with locally advanced or metastatic HER2-positive gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma who had received a prior trastuzumab-based regimen.
The current accelerated approval is the first tumor-agnostic approval of a HER2-directed therapy and antibody drug conjugate.
“Until approval of trastuzumab deruxtecan, patients with metastatic HER2-positive tumors have had limited treatment options,” Funda Meric-Bernstam, MD, chair of investigational cancer therapeutics at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said in an AstraZeneca press statement. “Based on the clinically meaningful response rates across clinical trials, this tumor-agnostic approval means that patients may now be treated with a HER2-directed medicine.”
Approval was based on findings in 192 patients enrolled in either the DESTINY-PanTumor02 trial, the DESTINY-Lung01 trial, or the DESTINY-CRC02 trial. Patients in the multicenter trials underwent treatment until disease progression, death, withdrawal of consent or unacceptable toxicity.
Confirmed objective response rates were 51.4%, 52.9%, and 46.9% in the three studies, respectively. Median duration of response was 19.4, 6.9, and 5.5 months, respectively.
The most common adverse reactions occurring in at least 20% of patients included decreased white blood cell count, hemoglobin, lymphocyte count, and neutrophil count, as well as nausea, fatigue, platelet count, vomiting, alopecia, diarrhea, stomatitis, and upper respiratory tract infection.
Full prescribing information includes a boxed warning about the risk for interstitial lung disease and embryo-fetal toxicity.
The recommended dosage is 5.4 mg/kg given as an intravenous infusion one every 3 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The agent had already been approved for several cancer types, including certain patients with unresectable or metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer as well as adults with locally advanced or metastatic HER2-positive gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma who had received a prior trastuzumab-based regimen.
The current accelerated approval is the first tumor-agnostic approval of a HER2-directed therapy and antibody drug conjugate.
“Until approval of trastuzumab deruxtecan, patients with metastatic HER2-positive tumors have had limited treatment options,” Funda Meric-Bernstam, MD, chair of investigational cancer therapeutics at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said in an AstraZeneca press statement. “Based on the clinically meaningful response rates across clinical trials, this tumor-agnostic approval means that patients may now be treated with a HER2-directed medicine.”
Approval was based on findings in 192 patients enrolled in either the DESTINY-PanTumor02 trial, the DESTINY-Lung01 trial, or the DESTINY-CRC02 trial. Patients in the multicenter trials underwent treatment until disease progression, death, withdrawal of consent or unacceptable toxicity.
Confirmed objective response rates were 51.4%, 52.9%, and 46.9% in the three studies, respectively. Median duration of response was 19.4, 6.9, and 5.5 months, respectively.
The most common adverse reactions occurring in at least 20% of patients included decreased white blood cell count, hemoglobin, lymphocyte count, and neutrophil count, as well as nausea, fatigue, platelet count, vomiting, alopecia, diarrhea, stomatitis, and upper respiratory tract infection.
Full prescribing information includes a boxed warning about the risk for interstitial lung disease and embryo-fetal toxicity.
The recommended dosage is 5.4 mg/kg given as an intravenous infusion one every 3 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
New Quality Measure Improves Follow-Up for CRC Screening
the developers said.
As part of their work, the researchers conducted a retrospective study of 20,581 adults aged 50-75 years from 38 health systems that showed that fewer than half (48%) had a follow-up colonoscopy within 180 days of an initial abnormal SBT for CRC.
“The low follow-up rates to an abnormal SBT were initially surprising,” first author Elizabeth L. Ciemins, PhD, MPH, MA, Research and Analytics, American Medical Group Association (AMGA), Alexandria, Virginia, told this news organization.
“However, once we interviewed clinicians and learned that this was not a measure they were tracking, along with their own incorrect assumptions of a much higher follow-up rate, the low rates made sense. As is commonly said, ‘you can’t change what you don’t measure,’” she said.
The CRC screening completion measure the researchers propose “builds on and addresses an important shortcoming in an existing measure and will help ensure complete screening for CRC,” they noted in their JAMA Network Open paper.
The key elements of the follow-up measure are the date and result of a SBT and the date of the follow-up colonoscopy — if it occurred, Dr. Ciemins explained.
“Currently, health systems are not consistently tracking this measure, but they have the data elements to do so, especially if they are doing colonoscopies in-house,” she said.
Field testing showed that use of this new measure is “feasible, valid, and reliable,” the authors said. Dr. Ciemins believed this CRC screening completion measure could be widely implemented.
“Three AMGA member health systems feasibility tested the data elements and found that they could reliably abstract the required elements from electronic health records (EHRs),” she told this news organization.
The researchers are currently testing the measure among 20 AMGA member health systems, that are submitting quarterly data on a version of the specified measure.
“Advancing this measure as a quality performance measure could significantly increase the early detection of CRC, thereby improving health and ultimately saving lives,” the authors concluded in their paper.
The Right Direction, But Questions Remain
The coauthors of a linked commentary said this research highlights the “suboptimal” rates of a timely follow-up colonoscopy after positive SBT results. They applauded the authors for “focusing attention on a meaningful approach to measuring high-quality CRC screening and providing guidance for standardized measurement.”
However, several questions arise from this study, “including whether 6 months is the ideal interval for colonoscopy completion after a positive SBT result, where this measure fits in the context of existing CRC screening measures, and how to implement it in practice,” Jennifer K. Maratt, MD, with Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, and coauthors wrote.
“This measure alone does not address all the gaps in the screening process, nor does it address barriers to colonoscopy completion, but it points us in the right direction for measuring the success of screening programs,” Dr. Maratt and her colleagues added.
The study was supported by a grant from the AARP. The authors and editorial writers had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
the developers said.
As part of their work, the researchers conducted a retrospective study of 20,581 adults aged 50-75 years from 38 health systems that showed that fewer than half (48%) had a follow-up colonoscopy within 180 days of an initial abnormal SBT for CRC.
“The low follow-up rates to an abnormal SBT were initially surprising,” first author Elizabeth L. Ciemins, PhD, MPH, MA, Research and Analytics, American Medical Group Association (AMGA), Alexandria, Virginia, told this news organization.
“However, once we interviewed clinicians and learned that this was not a measure they were tracking, along with their own incorrect assumptions of a much higher follow-up rate, the low rates made sense. As is commonly said, ‘you can’t change what you don’t measure,’” she said.
The CRC screening completion measure the researchers propose “builds on and addresses an important shortcoming in an existing measure and will help ensure complete screening for CRC,” they noted in their JAMA Network Open paper.
The key elements of the follow-up measure are the date and result of a SBT and the date of the follow-up colonoscopy — if it occurred, Dr. Ciemins explained.
“Currently, health systems are not consistently tracking this measure, but they have the data elements to do so, especially if they are doing colonoscopies in-house,” she said.
Field testing showed that use of this new measure is “feasible, valid, and reliable,” the authors said. Dr. Ciemins believed this CRC screening completion measure could be widely implemented.
“Three AMGA member health systems feasibility tested the data elements and found that they could reliably abstract the required elements from electronic health records (EHRs),” she told this news organization.
The researchers are currently testing the measure among 20 AMGA member health systems, that are submitting quarterly data on a version of the specified measure.
“Advancing this measure as a quality performance measure could significantly increase the early detection of CRC, thereby improving health and ultimately saving lives,” the authors concluded in their paper.
The Right Direction, But Questions Remain
The coauthors of a linked commentary said this research highlights the “suboptimal” rates of a timely follow-up colonoscopy after positive SBT results. They applauded the authors for “focusing attention on a meaningful approach to measuring high-quality CRC screening and providing guidance for standardized measurement.”
However, several questions arise from this study, “including whether 6 months is the ideal interval for colonoscopy completion after a positive SBT result, where this measure fits in the context of existing CRC screening measures, and how to implement it in practice,” Jennifer K. Maratt, MD, with Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, and coauthors wrote.
“This measure alone does not address all the gaps in the screening process, nor does it address barriers to colonoscopy completion, but it points us in the right direction for measuring the success of screening programs,” Dr. Maratt and her colleagues added.
The study was supported by a grant from the AARP. The authors and editorial writers had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
the developers said.
As part of their work, the researchers conducted a retrospective study of 20,581 adults aged 50-75 years from 38 health systems that showed that fewer than half (48%) had a follow-up colonoscopy within 180 days of an initial abnormal SBT for CRC.
“The low follow-up rates to an abnormal SBT were initially surprising,” first author Elizabeth L. Ciemins, PhD, MPH, MA, Research and Analytics, American Medical Group Association (AMGA), Alexandria, Virginia, told this news organization.
“However, once we interviewed clinicians and learned that this was not a measure they were tracking, along with their own incorrect assumptions of a much higher follow-up rate, the low rates made sense. As is commonly said, ‘you can’t change what you don’t measure,’” she said.
The CRC screening completion measure the researchers propose “builds on and addresses an important shortcoming in an existing measure and will help ensure complete screening for CRC,” they noted in their JAMA Network Open paper.
The key elements of the follow-up measure are the date and result of a SBT and the date of the follow-up colonoscopy — if it occurred, Dr. Ciemins explained.
“Currently, health systems are not consistently tracking this measure, but they have the data elements to do so, especially if they are doing colonoscopies in-house,” she said.
Field testing showed that use of this new measure is “feasible, valid, and reliable,” the authors said. Dr. Ciemins believed this CRC screening completion measure could be widely implemented.
“Three AMGA member health systems feasibility tested the data elements and found that they could reliably abstract the required elements from electronic health records (EHRs),” she told this news organization.
The researchers are currently testing the measure among 20 AMGA member health systems, that are submitting quarterly data on a version of the specified measure.
“Advancing this measure as a quality performance measure could significantly increase the early detection of CRC, thereby improving health and ultimately saving lives,” the authors concluded in their paper.
The Right Direction, But Questions Remain
The coauthors of a linked commentary said this research highlights the “suboptimal” rates of a timely follow-up colonoscopy after positive SBT results. They applauded the authors for “focusing attention on a meaningful approach to measuring high-quality CRC screening and providing guidance for standardized measurement.”
However, several questions arise from this study, “including whether 6 months is the ideal interval for colonoscopy completion after a positive SBT result, where this measure fits in the context of existing CRC screening measures, and how to implement it in practice,” Jennifer K. Maratt, MD, with Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, and coauthors wrote.
“This measure alone does not address all the gaps in the screening process, nor does it address barriers to colonoscopy completion, but it points us in the right direction for measuring the success of screening programs,” Dr. Maratt and her colleagues added.
The study was supported by a grant from the AARP. The authors and editorial writers had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Oncology Practice and Lab to Pay $4 Million in Kickback Case
The US Department of Justice (DOJ) announced on April 2 that Oncology San Antonio, PA, and its physicians have agreed to pay $1.3 million, and CorePath Laboratories, PA, has agreed to pay nearly $2.75 million plus accrued interest in civil settlements with the United States and Texas for alleged violations of the False Claims Act.
According to the DOJ, the diagnostic reference laboratory, CorePath Laboratories, conducted in-office bone marrow biopsies at Oncology San Antonio practice locations and performed diagnostic testing on the samples. CorePath Laboratories agreed to pay $115 for each biopsy referred by Oncology San Antonio physicians, and these biopsy payments were allegedly paid to the private practices of three physicians at Oncology San Antonio. This arrangement allegedly began in August 2016.
The DOJ claimed that the payments for referring biopsies constituted illegal kickbacks under the Anti-Kickback Statute, which prohibits offering or receiving payments to encourage referrals of services covered by federal healthcare programs like Medicare and Medicaid.
“Violations of the Anti-Kickback Statute involving oncology services can waste scarce federal healthcare program funds and corrupt the medical decision-making process,” Special Agent in Charge Jason E. Meadows with the US Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General said in a statement.
Oncology San Antonio told this news organization that the cost and distraction of prolonged litigation were the primary factors in its decision to settle. “The decision to settle was an extremely difficult one because Oncology San Antonio was confident that it would have prevailed in any action,” the practice said via email.
This civil settlement with Oncology San Antonio also resolved allegations that a physician affiliated with the practice, Jayasree Rao, MD, provided unnecessary tests, services, and treatments to patients covered by Medicare, TRICARE, and Texas Medicaid in the San Antonio Metro Area and billed these federal healthcare programs for the unnecessary services.
The DOJ identified Slavisa Gasic, MD, a physician formerly employed by Dr. Rao, as a whistleblower in the investigation. When asked for comment, Oncology San Antonio alleged Dr. Gasic was “disgruntled for not being promoted.”
According to Oncology San Antonio, the contract for bone marrow biopsies was negotiated and signed by a former nonphysician officer of the company without the input of Oncology San Antonio physicians. The contract permitted bone marrow biopsies at Oncology San Antonio clinics instead of requiring older adult and sick patients to go to a different facility for these services.
“Oncology San Antonio and Rao vehemently denied Gasic’s allegations as wholly unfounded,” the company told this news organization.
Dr. Rao retired in March and is no longer practicing. CorePath Laboratories, PA, did not respond to this news organization’s request for comment.
According to the DOJ press release, the “investigation and resolution of this matter illustrate the government’s emphasis on combating healthcare fraud.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The US Department of Justice (DOJ) announced on April 2 that Oncology San Antonio, PA, and its physicians have agreed to pay $1.3 million, and CorePath Laboratories, PA, has agreed to pay nearly $2.75 million plus accrued interest in civil settlements with the United States and Texas for alleged violations of the False Claims Act.
According to the DOJ, the diagnostic reference laboratory, CorePath Laboratories, conducted in-office bone marrow biopsies at Oncology San Antonio practice locations and performed diagnostic testing on the samples. CorePath Laboratories agreed to pay $115 for each biopsy referred by Oncology San Antonio physicians, and these biopsy payments were allegedly paid to the private practices of three physicians at Oncology San Antonio. This arrangement allegedly began in August 2016.
The DOJ claimed that the payments for referring biopsies constituted illegal kickbacks under the Anti-Kickback Statute, which prohibits offering or receiving payments to encourage referrals of services covered by federal healthcare programs like Medicare and Medicaid.
“Violations of the Anti-Kickback Statute involving oncology services can waste scarce federal healthcare program funds and corrupt the medical decision-making process,” Special Agent in Charge Jason E. Meadows with the US Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General said in a statement.
Oncology San Antonio told this news organization that the cost and distraction of prolonged litigation were the primary factors in its decision to settle. “The decision to settle was an extremely difficult one because Oncology San Antonio was confident that it would have prevailed in any action,” the practice said via email.
This civil settlement with Oncology San Antonio also resolved allegations that a physician affiliated with the practice, Jayasree Rao, MD, provided unnecessary tests, services, and treatments to patients covered by Medicare, TRICARE, and Texas Medicaid in the San Antonio Metro Area and billed these federal healthcare programs for the unnecessary services.
The DOJ identified Slavisa Gasic, MD, a physician formerly employed by Dr. Rao, as a whistleblower in the investigation. When asked for comment, Oncology San Antonio alleged Dr. Gasic was “disgruntled for not being promoted.”
According to Oncology San Antonio, the contract for bone marrow biopsies was negotiated and signed by a former nonphysician officer of the company without the input of Oncology San Antonio physicians. The contract permitted bone marrow biopsies at Oncology San Antonio clinics instead of requiring older adult and sick patients to go to a different facility for these services.
“Oncology San Antonio and Rao vehemently denied Gasic’s allegations as wholly unfounded,” the company told this news organization.
Dr. Rao retired in March and is no longer practicing. CorePath Laboratories, PA, did not respond to this news organization’s request for comment.
According to the DOJ press release, the “investigation and resolution of this matter illustrate the government’s emphasis on combating healthcare fraud.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The US Department of Justice (DOJ) announced on April 2 that Oncology San Antonio, PA, and its physicians have agreed to pay $1.3 million, and CorePath Laboratories, PA, has agreed to pay nearly $2.75 million plus accrued interest in civil settlements with the United States and Texas for alleged violations of the False Claims Act.
According to the DOJ, the diagnostic reference laboratory, CorePath Laboratories, conducted in-office bone marrow biopsies at Oncology San Antonio practice locations and performed diagnostic testing on the samples. CorePath Laboratories agreed to pay $115 for each biopsy referred by Oncology San Antonio physicians, and these biopsy payments were allegedly paid to the private practices of three physicians at Oncology San Antonio. This arrangement allegedly began in August 2016.
The DOJ claimed that the payments for referring biopsies constituted illegal kickbacks under the Anti-Kickback Statute, which prohibits offering or receiving payments to encourage referrals of services covered by federal healthcare programs like Medicare and Medicaid.
“Violations of the Anti-Kickback Statute involving oncology services can waste scarce federal healthcare program funds and corrupt the medical decision-making process,” Special Agent in Charge Jason E. Meadows with the US Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General said in a statement.
Oncology San Antonio told this news organization that the cost and distraction of prolonged litigation were the primary factors in its decision to settle. “The decision to settle was an extremely difficult one because Oncology San Antonio was confident that it would have prevailed in any action,” the practice said via email.
This civil settlement with Oncology San Antonio also resolved allegations that a physician affiliated with the practice, Jayasree Rao, MD, provided unnecessary tests, services, and treatments to patients covered by Medicare, TRICARE, and Texas Medicaid in the San Antonio Metro Area and billed these federal healthcare programs for the unnecessary services.
The DOJ identified Slavisa Gasic, MD, a physician formerly employed by Dr. Rao, as a whistleblower in the investigation. When asked for comment, Oncology San Antonio alleged Dr. Gasic was “disgruntled for not being promoted.”
According to Oncology San Antonio, the contract for bone marrow biopsies was negotiated and signed by a former nonphysician officer of the company without the input of Oncology San Antonio physicians. The contract permitted bone marrow biopsies at Oncology San Antonio clinics instead of requiring older adult and sick patients to go to a different facility for these services.
“Oncology San Antonio and Rao vehemently denied Gasic’s allegations as wholly unfounded,” the company told this news organization.
Dr. Rao retired in March and is no longer practicing. CorePath Laboratories, PA, did not respond to this news organization’s request for comment.
According to the DOJ press release, the “investigation and resolution of this matter illustrate the government’s emphasis on combating healthcare fraud.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Prostate Cancer Tsunami Coming, Experts Caution
An “inevitable” global surge in prostate cancer is coming, with a worldwide doubling of cases to 2.9 million and an 85% increase in deaths to nearly 700,000 by the year 2040, the Lancet Commission on Prostate Cancer warned this week.
At a meeting of urologists in Paris, the commission said that the acceleration is already underway in high-income countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom but will gain momentum in low- and medium-income countries.
Nick James, MD, lead author of The Lancet report and professor of prostate and bladder cancer research at The Institute of Cancer Research in London, said that the surge, in part, is a medical success story.
Dr. James told this news organization.
“There is a big rise in the high-income countries. But we’re going to see a big rise in the number of 50-, 60-, 70-year-olds in the coming decades in the poorer countries, and with that comes more prostate cancer. High-income countries such as the UK and USA will also see smaller increases for the same reason.”
According to the report, to be presented April 6 at the 2024 European Association of Urology Congress in Paris, “The case for prostate cancer screening for all men aged 50-70 years (and all men of African origin aged 45–70 years) in high-income countries is strengthening with improved use of technologies such as MRI and growing evidence for the safety of active surveillance.”
Andrew Vickers, PhD, a biostatistician at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, said that the Lancet Commission came to similar conclusions as he and an international group of researchers did in a 2023 policy paper in The BMJ. A major gap, Dr. Vickers said, is misuse of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening.
“We found that the ubiquitous policy compromise of letting patients decide for themselves about PSA has led to the worst possible outcomes of overuse in men unlikely to benefit, high rates of overdiagnosis and overtreatment, and economic and racial inequity,” Dr. Vickers said. “Our view is that PSA screening should be done well — by implementing straightforward harm-reduction strategies like restricting screening in older men and use of secondary tests before biopsy — or not at all.”
Dr. James said that undertreatment of advanced disease is widespread; only about 30%-40% of men in the United States receive combination hormone therapy for metastatic disease, for example. “Simply doing what we know works would improve outcomes,” he said.
Dr. James said that men of African ancestry are twice as likely to develop prostate cancer, but whether treatment should follow a different approach in these men is unclear. The new report stressed the need to include more men of African ancestry in research.
Brandon Mahal, MD, vice chair of research in radiation oncology the University of Miami Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center and a coauthor of the report, said that new approaches are needed to enable earlier diagnosis of prostate cancer in men in low- to middle-income countries, where most patients present with metastatic disease and are less likely to survive for long periods.
Dr. James recommended pop-up clinics and mobile testing to encourage men who are at high risk for prostate cancer but feel well to detect lethal cancers early.
In England, for example, Dr. James helped introduce an outreach program called The Man Van which provided free health checks, including PSA tests, to high-risk men in London.
“By bringing a van with quick and easy testing straight to men at work and in the community, and targeting those who have a higher risk of prostate cancer, we provided thousands of health checks which resulted in almost 100 cancer diagnoses in men who might otherwise have only seen a doctor once their cancer has progressed to a more advanced stage,” he said.
He noted that the medical community worldwide is ill-prepared for the onslaught of prostate cancer cases.
“The solution cannot be training more urologists, radiation oncologists, pathologists, and radiologists because it simply takes too long,” Dr. James said. However, increased use of nurses and artificial intelligence may help. “In my own hospital, biopsies are a nurse-led and -delivered service. AI is extraordinarily good at diagnosis already and will only get better,” he said.
In poorer countries, smartphones could fill gaps too. “The same technology that does face recognition already can say that’s a Gleason 7 prostate cancer,” Dr. James said. “It’s not being rolled out in countries like America of course because pathologists’ income is at risk.”
Dr. James, Dr. Vickers, and Dr. Mahal reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
An “inevitable” global surge in prostate cancer is coming, with a worldwide doubling of cases to 2.9 million and an 85% increase in deaths to nearly 700,000 by the year 2040, the Lancet Commission on Prostate Cancer warned this week.
At a meeting of urologists in Paris, the commission said that the acceleration is already underway in high-income countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom but will gain momentum in low- and medium-income countries.
Nick James, MD, lead author of The Lancet report and professor of prostate and bladder cancer research at The Institute of Cancer Research in London, said that the surge, in part, is a medical success story.
Dr. James told this news organization.
“There is a big rise in the high-income countries. But we’re going to see a big rise in the number of 50-, 60-, 70-year-olds in the coming decades in the poorer countries, and with that comes more prostate cancer. High-income countries such as the UK and USA will also see smaller increases for the same reason.”
According to the report, to be presented April 6 at the 2024 European Association of Urology Congress in Paris, “The case for prostate cancer screening for all men aged 50-70 years (and all men of African origin aged 45–70 years) in high-income countries is strengthening with improved use of technologies such as MRI and growing evidence for the safety of active surveillance.”
Andrew Vickers, PhD, a biostatistician at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, said that the Lancet Commission came to similar conclusions as he and an international group of researchers did in a 2023 policy paper in The BMJ. A major gap, Dr. Vickers said, is misuse of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening.
“We found that the ubiquitous policy compromise of letting patients decide for themselves about PSA has led to the worst possible outcomes of overuse in men unlikely to benefit, high rates of overdiagnosis and overtreatment, and economic and racial inequity,” Dr. Vickers said. “Our view is that PSA screening should be done well — by implementing straightforward harm-reduction strategies like restricting screening in older men and use of secondary tests before biopsy — or not at all.”
Dr. James said that undertreatment of advanced disease is widespread; only about 30%-40% of men in the United States receive combination hormone therapy for metastatic disease, for example. “Simply doing what we know works would improve outcomes,” he said.
Dr. James said that men of African ancestry are twice as likely to develop prostate cancer, but whether treatment should follow a different approach in these men is unclear. The new report stressed the need to include more men of African ancestry in research.
Brandon Mahal, MD, vice chair of research in radiation oncology the University of Miami Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center and a coauthor of the report, said that new approaches are needed to enable earlier diagnosis of prostate cancer in men in low- to middle-income countries, where most patients present with metastatic disease and are less likely to survive for long periods.
Dr. James recommended pop-up clinics and mobile testing to encourage men who are at high risk for prostate cancer but feel well to detect lethal cancers early.
In England, for example, Dr. James helped introduce an outreach program called The Man Van which provided free health checks, including PSA tests, to high-risk men in London.
“By bringing a van with quick and easy testing straight to men at work and in the community, and targeting those who have a higher risk of prostate cancer, we provided thousands of health checks which resulted in almost 100 cancer diagnoses in men who might otherwise have only seen a doctor once their cancer has progressed to a more advanced stage,” he said.
He noted that the medical community worldwide is ill-prepared for the onslaught of prostate cancer cases.
“The solution cannot be training more urologists, radiation oncologists, pathologists, and radiologists because it simply takes too long,” Dr. James said. However, increased use of nurses and artificial intelligence may help. “In my own hospital, biopsies are a nurse-led and -delivered service. AI is extraordinarily good at diagnosis already and will only get better,” he said.
In poorer countries, smartphones could fill gaps too. “The same technology that does face recognition already can say that’s a Gleason 7 prostate cancer,” Dr. James said. “It’s not being rolled out in countries like America of course because pathologists’ income is at risk.”
Dr. James, Dr. Vickers, and Dr. Mahal reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
An “inevitable” global surge in prostate cancer is coming, with a worldwide doubling of cases to 2.9 million and an 85% increase in deaths to nearly 700,000 by the year 2040, the Lancet Commission on Prostate Cancer warned this week.
At a meeting of urologists in Paris, the commission said that the acceleration is already underway in high-income countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom but will gain momentum in low- and medium-income countries.
Nick James, MD, lead author of The Lancet report and professor of prostate and bladder cancer research at The Institute of Cancer Research in London, said that the surge, in part, is a medical success story.
Dr. James told this news organization.
“There is a big rise in the high-income countries. But we’re going to see a big rise in the number of 50-, 60-, 70-year-olds in the coming decades in the poorer countries, and with that comes more prostate cancer. High-income countries such as the UK and USA will also see smaller increases for the same reason.”
According to the report, to be presented April 6 at the 2024 European Association of Urology Congress in Paris, “The case for prostate cancer screening for all men aged 50-70 years (and all men of African origin aged 45–70 years) in high-income countries is strengthening with improved use of technologies such as MRI and growing evidence for the safety of active surveillance.”
Andrew Vickers, PhD, a biostatistician at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, said that the Lancet Commission came to similar conclusions as he and an international group of researchers did in a 2023 policy paper in The BMJ. A major gap, Dr. Vickers said, is misuse of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening.
“We found that the ubiquitous policy compromise of letting patients decide for themselves about PSA has led to the worst possible outcomes of overuse in men unlikely to benefit, high rates of overdiagnosis and overtreatment, and economic and racial inequity,” Dr. Vickers said. “Our view is that PSA screening should be done well — by implementing straightforward harm-reduction strategies like restricting screening in older men and use of secondary tests before biopsy — or not at all.”
Dr. James said that undertreatment of advanced disease is widespread; only about 30%-40% of men in the United States receive combination hormone therapy for metastatic disease, for example. “Simply doing what we know works would improve outcomes,” he said.
Dr. James said that men of African ancestry are twice as likely to develop prostate cancer, but whether treatment should follow a different approach in these men is unclear. The new report stressed the need to include more men of African ancestry in research.
Brandon Mahal, MD, vice chair of research in radiation oncology the University of Miami Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center and a coauthor of the report, said that new approaches are needed to enable earlier diagnosis of prostate cancer in men in low- to middle-income countries, where most patients present with metastatic disease and are less likely to survive for long periods.
Dr. James recommended pop-up clinics and mobile testing to encourage men who are at high risk for prostate cancer but feel well to detect lethal cancers early.
In England, for example, Dr. James helped introduce an outreach program called The Man Van which provided free health checks, including PSA tests, to high-risk men in London.
“By bringing a van with quick and easy testing straight to men at work and in the community, and targeting those who have a higher risk of prostate cancer, we provided thousands of health checks which resulted in almost 100 cancer diagnoses in men who might otherwise have only seen a doctor once their cancer has progressed to a more advanced stage,” he said.
He noted that the medical community worldwide is ill-prepared for the onslaught of prostate cancer cases.
“The solution cannot be training more urologists, radiation oncologists, pathologists, and radiologists because it simply takes too long,” Dr. James said. However, increased use of nurses and artificial intelligence may help. “In my own hospital, biopsies are a nurse-led and -delivered service. AI is extraordinarily good at diagnosis already and will only get better,” he said.
In poorer countries, smartphones could fill gaps too. “The same technology that does face recognition already can say that’s a Gleason 7 prostate cancer,” Dr. James said. “It’s not being rolled out in countries like America of course because pathologists’ income is at risk.”
Dr. James, Dr. Vickers, and Dr. Mahal reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.