User login
Consider These Factors in an Academic Radiation Oncology Position
TOPLINE:
— and accept an offer if the practice is “great” in at least two of those areas and “good” in the third, experts say in a recent editorial.
METHODOLOGY:
- Many physicians choose to go into academic medicine because they want to stay involved in research and education while still treating patients.
- However, graduating radiation oncology residents often lack or have limited guidance on what to look for in a prospective job and how to assess their contract.
- This recent editorial provides guidance to radiation oncologists seeking academic positions. The authors advise prospective employees to evaluate three main factors — compensation, daily duties, and location — as well as provide tips for identifying red flags in each category.
TAKEAWAY:
- Compensation: Prospective faculty should assess both direct compensation, that is, salary, and indirect compensation, which typically includes retirement contributions and other perks. For direct compensation, what is the base salary? Is extra work compensated? How does the salary offer measure up to salary data reported by national agencies? Also: Don’t overlook uncompensated duties, such as time in tumor boards or in meetings, which may be time-consuming, and make sure compensation terms are clearly delineated in a contract and equitable among physicians in a specific rank.
- Daily duties: When it comes to daily life on the job, a prospective employee should consider many factors, including the cancer center’s excitement to hire you, the reputation of the faculty and leaders at the organization, employee turnover rates, diversity among faculty, and the time line of career advancement.
- Location: The location of the job encompasses the geography — such as distance from home to work, the number of practices covered, cost of living, and the area itself — as well as the atmosphere for conducting research and publishing.
- Finally, carefully review the job contract. All the key aspects of the job, including compensation and benefits, should be clearly stated in the contract to “improve communication of expectations.”
IN PRACTICE:
“A prospective faculty member can ask 100 questions, but they can’t make 100 demands; consideration of the three domains can help to focus negotiation efforts where the efforts are needed,” the authors noted.
SOURCE:
This editorial, led by Nicholas G. Zaorsky from the Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio, was published online in Practical Radiation Oncology
DISCLOSURES:
The lead author declared being supported by the American Cancer Society and National Institutes of Health. He also reported having ties with many other sources.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
— and accept an offer if the practice is “great” in at least two of those areas and “good” in the third, experts say in a recent editorial.
METHODOLOGY:
- Many physicians choose to go into academic medicine because they want to stay involved in research and education while still treating patients.
- However, graduating radiation oncology residents often lack or have limited guidance on what to look for in a prospective job and how to assess their contract.
- This recent editorial provides guidance to radiation oncologists seeking academic positions. The authors advise prospective employees to evaluate three main factors — compensation, daily duties, and location — as well as provide tips for identifying red flags in each category.
TAKEAWAY:
- Compensation: Prospective faculty should assess both direct compensation, that is, salary, and indirect compensation, which typically includes retirement contributions and other perks. For direct compensation, what is the base salary? Is extra work compensated? How does the salary offer measure up to salary data reported by national agencies? Also: Don’t overlook uncompensated duties, such as time in tumor boards or in meetings, which may be time-consuming, and make sure compensation terms are clearly delineated in a contract and equitable among physicians in a specific rank.
- Daily duties: When it comes to daily life on the job, a prospective employee should consider many factors, including the cancer center’s excitement to hire you, the reputation of the faculty and leaders at the organization, employee turnover rates, diversity among faculty, and the time line of career advancement.
- Location: The location of the job encompasses the geography — such as distance from home to work, the number of practices covered, cost of living, and the area itself — as well as the atmosphere for conducting research and publishing.
- Finally, carefully review the job contract. All the key aspects of the job, including compensation and benefits, should be clearly stated in the contract to “improve communication of expectations.”
IN PRACTICE:
“A prospective faculty member can ask 100 questions, but they can’t make 100 demands; consideration of the three domains can help to focus negotiation efforts where the efforts are needed,” the authors noted.
SOURCE:
This editorial, led by Nicholas G. Zaorsky from the Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio, was published online in Practical Radiation Oncology
DISCLOSURES:
The lead author declared being supported by the American Cancer Society and National Institutes of Health. He also reported having ties with many other sources.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
— and accept an offer if the practice is “great” in at least two of those areas and “good” in the third, experts say in a recent editorial.
METHODOLOGY:
- Many physicians choose to go into academic medicine because they want to stay involved in research and education while still treating patients.
- However, graduating radiation oncology residents often lack or have limited guidance on what to look for in a prospective job and how to assess their contract.
- This recent editorial provides guidance to radiation oncologists seeking academic positions. The authors advise prospective employees to evaluate three main factors — compensation, daily duties, and location — as well as provide tips for identifying red flags in each category.
TAKEAWAY:
- Compensation: Prospective faculty should assess both direct compensation, that is, salary, and indirect compensation, which typically includes retirement contributions and other perks. For direct compensation, what is the base salary? Is extra work compensated? How does the salary offer measure up to salary data reported by national agencies? Also: Don’t overlook uncompensated duties, such as time in tumor boards or in meetings, which may be time-consuming, and make sure compensation terms are clearly delineated in a contract and equitable among physicians in a specific rank.
- Daily duties: When it comes to daily life on the job, a prospective employee should consider many factors, including the cancer center’s excitement to hire you, the reputation of the faculty and leaders at the organization, employee turnover rates, diversity among faculty, and the time line of career advancement.
- Location: The location of the job encompasses the geography — such as distance from home to work, the number of practices covered, cost of living, and the area itself — as well as the atmosphere for conducting research and publishing.
- Finally, carefully review the job contract. All the key aspects of the job, including compensation and benefits, should be clearly stated in the contract to “improve communication of expectations.”
IN PRACTICE:
“A prospective faculty member can ask 100 questions, but they can’t make 100 demands; consideration of the three domains can help to focus negotiation efforts where the efforts are needed,” the authors noted.
SOURCE:
This editorial, led by Nicholas G. Zaorsky from the Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio, was published online in Practical Radiation Oncology
DISCLOSURES:
The lead author declared being supported by the American Cancer Society and National Institutes of Health. He also reported having ties with many other sources.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Medicare Doc Pay Cut Eased, but When Will Serious Revisions Come?
President Joe Biden on March 9 signed into law a measure that softened — but did not completely eliminate — a 2024 cut in a key rate used to determine how physicians are paid for treating Medicare patients.
While physician groups hailed the move as partial relief, they say they’ll continue to press for broader changes in the Medicare physician fee schedule.
The Medicare provision was tucked into a larger spending package approved by the US House and Senate.
The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), the American Medical Association (AMA), and other groups have lobbied Congress for months to undo a 3.4% cut in the base rate, or conversion factor, in the physician fee schedule for 2024.
The conversion factor is used in calculations to determine reimbursement for myriad other services. Federal Medicare officials said the cut would mean a 1.25% decrease in overall payments in 2024, compared with 2023.
“With the passage of this legislation, Congress has offset 2.93% of that payment cut,” said Steven P. Furr, MD, AAFP’s president in a statement. “We appreciate this temporary measure but continue to urge Congress to advance comprehensive, long-term Medicare payment reform.”
In a statement, Representative Larry Bucshon, MD (R-IN), said the payment cut could not be completely eliminated because of budget constraints.
The Medicare physician fee schedule covers much of the care clinicians provide to people older than 65 and those with disabilities. It covers about 8000 different types of services, ranging from office visits to surgical procedures, imaging, and tests, according to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC).
Along with physicians, the fee schedule sets payments for nurse practitioners, physician assistants, podiatrists, physical therapists, psychologists, and other clinicians.
In 2021, the Medicare program and its beneficiaries paid $92.8 billion for services provided by almost 1.3 million clinicians, MedPAC said.
Larger Changes Ahead?
Rep. Bucshon is among the physicians serving in the House who are pressing for a permanent revamp of the Medicare physician fee schedule. He cosponsored a bill (HR 2474) that would peg future annual increases in the physician fee schedule to the Medicare Economic Index, which would reflect inflation’s effect.
In April, more than 120 state and national medical groups signed onto an AMA-led letter urging Congress to pass this bill.
The measure is a key priority for the AMA. The organization reached out repeatedly last year to federal officials about it through its own in-house lobbyists, this news organization found through a review of congressional lobbying forms submitted by AMA.
These required disclosure forms reveal how much AMA and other organizations spend each quarter to appeal to members of Congress and federal agencies on specific issues. The disclosure forms do not include a detailed accounting of spending on each issue.
But they do show which issues are priorities for an organization. AMA’s in-house lobbyists reported raising dozens of issues in 2024 within contacts in Congress and federal agencies. These issues included abortion access, maternal health, physician burnout, and potential for bias in clinical use of algorithms, as well as Medicare payment for physicians.
AMA reported spending estimated cost of $20.6 million. (AMA spent $6.7 million in the first quarter, $4.75 million in the second quarter, $3.42 million in the third quarter, and $5.74 million in the fourth quarter.)
In a March 6 statement, Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, AMA president, urged Congress to turn to more serious consideration of Medicare physician pay beyond short-term tweaks attached to other larger bills.
“As physicians, we are trained to run toward emergencies. We urge Congress to do the same,” Dr. Ehrenfeld said. “We encourage Congress to act if this policy decision is an emergency because — in fact — it is. It is well past time to put an end to stopgap measures that fail to address the underlying causes of the continuing decline in Medicare physician payments.”
There’s bipartisan interest in a revamp of the physician fee schedule amid widespread criticism of the last such overhaul, the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015.
For example, Senate Budget Chairman Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) has proposed the creation of a technical advisory committee to improve how Medicare sets the physician fee schedule. The existing fee schedule provides too little money for primary care services and primary care provider pay, contributing to shortages, Sen. Whitehouse said.
Sen. Whitehouse on March 6 held a hearing on ways to beef up US primary care. Among the experts who appeared was Amol Navathe, MD, PhD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Dr. Navathe said the current Medicare physician fee schedule tilts in favor of procedural services, leading to “underinvestment in cognitive, diagnostic, and supportive services such as primary care.”
In addition, much of what primary care clinicians do, “such as addressing social challenges, is not included in the codes of the fee schedule itself,” said Dr. Navathe, who also serves as the vice chairman of MedPAC.
It’s unclear when Congress will attempt a serious revision to the Medicare physician fee schedule. Lawmakers are unlikely to take on such a major challenge in this election year.
There would be significant opposition and challenges for lawmakers in trying to clear a bill that added an inflation adjustment for what’s already seen as an imperfect physician fee schedule, said Mark E. Miller, PhD, executive vice president of healthcare at the philanthropy Arnold Ventures, which studies how payment decisions affect medical care.
“That bill could cost a lot of money and raise a lot of questions,” Dr. Miller said.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
President Joe Biden on March 9 signed into law a measure that softened — but did not completely eliminate — a 2024 cut in a key rate used to determine how physicians are paid for treating Medicare patients.
While physician groups hailed the move as partial relief, they say they’ll continue to press for broader changes in the Medicare physician fee schedule.
The Medicare provision was tucked into a larger spending package approved by the US House and Senate.
The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), the American Medical Association (AMA), and other groups have lobbied Congress for months to undo a 3.4% cut in the base rate, or conversion factor, in the physician fee schedule for 2024.
The conversion factor is used in calculations to determine reimbursement for myriad other services. Federal Medicare officials said the cut would mean a 1.25% decrease in overall payments in 2024, compared with 2023.
“With the passage of this legislation, Congress has offset 2.93% of that payment cut,” said Steven P. Furr, MD, AAFP’s president in a statement. “We appreciate this temporary measure but continue to urge Congress to advance comprehensive, long-term Medicare payment reform.”
In a statement, Representative Larry Bucshon, MD (R-IN), said the payment cut could not be completely eliminated because of budget constraints.
The Medicare physician fee schedule covers much of the care clinicians provide to people older than 65 and those with disabilities. It covers about 8000 different types of services, ranging from office visits to surgical procedures, imaging, and tests, according to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC).
Along with physicians, the fee schedule sets payments for nurse practitioners, physician assistants, podiatrists, physical therapists, psychologists, and other clinicians.
In 2021, the Medicare program and its beneficiaries paid $92.8 billion for services provided by almost 1.3 million clinicians, MedPAC said.
Larger Changes Ahead?
Rep. Bucshon is among the physicians serving in the House who are pressing for a permanent revamp of the Medicare physician fee schedule. He cosponsored a bill (HR 2474) that would peg future annual increases in the physician fee schedule to the Medicare Economic Index, which would reflect inflation’s effect.
In April, more than 120 state and national medical groups signed onto an AMA-led letter urging Congress to pass this bill.
The measure is a key priority for the AMA. The organization reached out repeatedly last year to federal officials about it through its own in-house lobbyists, this news organization found through a review of congressional lobbying forms submitted by AMA.
These required disclosure forms reveal how much AMA and other organizations spend each quarter to appeal to members of Congress and federal agencies on specific issues. The disclosure forms do not include a detailed accounting of spending on each issue.
But they do show which issues are priorities for an organization. AMA’s in-house lobbyists reported raising dozens of issues in 2024 within contacts in Congress and federal agencies. These issues included abortion access, maternal health, physician burnout, and potential for bias in clinical use of algorithms, as well as Medicare payment for physicians.
AMA reported spending estimated cost of $20.6 million. (AMA spent $6.7 million in the first quarter, $4.75 million in the second quarter, $3.42 million in the third quarter, and $5.74 million in the fourth quarter.)
In a March 6 statement, Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, AMA president, urged Congress to turn to more serious consideration of Medicare physician pay beyond short-term tweaks attached to other larger bills.
“As physicians, we are trained to run toward emergencies. We urge Congress to do the same,” Dr. Ehrenfeld said. “We encourage Congress to act if this policy decision is an emergency because — in fact — it is. It is well past time to put an end to stopgap measures that fail to address the underlying causes of the continuing decline in Medicare physician payments.”
There’s bipartisan interest in a revamp of the physician fee schedule amid widespread criticism of the last such overhaul, the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015.
For example, Senate Budget Chairman Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) has proposed the creation of a technical advisory committee to improve how Medicare sets the physician fee schedule. The existing fee schedule provides too little money for primary care services and primary care provider pay, contributing to shortages, Sen. Whitehouse said.
Sen. Whitehouse on March 6 held a hearing on ways to beef up US primary care. Among the experts who appeared was Amol Navathe, MD, PhD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Dr. Navathe said the current Medicare physician fee schedule tilts in favor of procedural services, leading to “underinvestment in cognitive, diagnostic, and supportive services such as primary care.”
In addition, much of what primary care clinicians do, “such as addressing social challenges, is not included in the codes of the fee schedule itself,” said Dr. Navathe, who also serves as the vice chairman of MedPAC.
It’s unclear when Congress will attempt a serious revision to the Medicare physician fee schedule. Lawmakers are unlikely to take on such a major challenge in this election year.
There would be significant opposition and challenges for lawmakers in trying to clear a bill that added an inflation adjustment for what’s already seen as an imperfect physician fee schedule, said Mark E. Miller, PhD, executive vice president of healthcare at the philanthropy Arnold Ventures, which studies how payment decisions affect medical care.
“That bill could cost a lot of money and raise a lot of questions,” Dr. Miller said.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
President Joe Biden on March 9 signed into law a measure that softened — but did not completely eliminate — a 2024 cut in a key rate used to determine how physicians are paid for treating Medicare patients.
While physician groups hailed the move as partial relief, they say they’ll continue to press for broader changes in the Medicare physician fee schedule.
The Medicare provision was tucked into a larger spending package approved by the US House and Senate.
The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), the American Medical Association (AMA), and other groups have lobbied Congress for months to undo a 3.4% cut in the base rate, or conversion factor, in the physician fee schedule for 2024.
The conversion factor is used in calculations to determine reimbursement for myriad other services. Federal Medicare officials said the cut would mean a 1.25% decrease in overall payments in 2024, compared with 2023.
“With the passage of this legislation, Congress has offset 2.93% of that payment cut,” said Steven P. Furr, MD, AAFP’s president in a statement. “We appreciate this temporary measure but continue to urge Congress to advance comprehensive, long-term Medicare payment reform.”
In a statement, Representative Larry Bucshon, MD (R-IN), said the payment cut could not be completely eliminated because of budget constraints.
The Medicare physician fee schedule covers much of the care clinicians provide to people older than 65 and those with disabilities. It covers about 8000 different types of services, ranging from office visits to surgical procedures, imaging, and tests, according to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC).
Along with physicians, the fee schedule sets payments for nurse practitioners, physician assistants, podiatrists, physical therapists, psychologists, and other clinicians.
In 2021, the Medicare program and its beneficiaries paid $92.8 billion for services provided by almost 1.3 million clinicians, MedPAC said.
Larger Changes Ahead?
Rep. Bucshon is among the physicians serving in the House who are pressing for a permanent revamp of the Medicare physician fee schedule. He cosponsored a bill (HR 2474) that would peg future annual increases in the physician fee schedule to the Medicare Economic Index, which would reflect inflation’s effect.
In April, more than 120 state and national medical groups signed onto an AMA-led letter urging Congress to pass this bill.
The measure is a key priority for the AMA. The organization reached out repeatedly last year to federal officials about it through its own in-house lobbyists, this news organization found through a review of congressional lobbying forms submitted by AMA.
These required disclosure forms reveal how much AMA and other organizations spend each quarter to appeal to members of Congress and federal agencies on specific issues. The disclosure forms do not include a detailed accounting of spending on each issue.
But they do show which issues are priorities for an organization. AMA’s in-house lobbyists reported raising dozens of issues in 2024 within contacts in Congress and federal agencies. These issues included abortion access, maternal health, physician burnout, and potential for bias in clinical use of algorithms, as well as Medicare payment for physicians.
AMA reported spending estimated cost of $20.6 million. (AMA spent $6.7 million in the first quarter, $4.75 million in the second quarter, $3.42 million in the third quarter, and $5.74 million in the fourth quarter.)
In a March 6 statement, Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, AMA president, urged Congress to turn to more serious consideration of Medicare physician pay beyond short-term tweaks attached to other larger bills.
“As physicians, we are trained to run toward emergencies. We urge Congress to do the same,” Dr. Ehrenfeld said. “We encourage Congress to act if this policy decision is an emergency because — in fact — it is. It is well past time to put an end to stopgap measures that fail to address the underlying causes of the continuing decline in Medicare physician payments.”
There’s bipartisan interest in a revamp of the physician fee schedule amid widespread criticism of the last such overhaul, the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015.
For example, Senate Budget Chairman Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) has proposed the creation of a technical advisory committee to improve how Medicare sets the physician fee schedule. The existing fee schedule provides too little money for primary care services and primary care provider pay, contributing to shortages, Sen. Whitehouse said.
Sen. Whitehouse on March 6 held a hearing on ways to beef up US primary care. Among the experts who appeared was Amol Navathe, MD, PhD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Dr. Navathe said the current Medicare physician fee schedule tilts in favor of procedural services, leading to “underinvestment in cognitive, diagnostic, and supportive services such as primary care.”
In addition, much of what primary care clinicians do, “such as addressing social challenges, is not included in the codes of the fee schedule itself,” said Dr. Navathe, who also serves as the vice chairman of MedPAC.
It’s unclear when Congress will attempt a serious revision to the Medicare physician fee schedule. Lawmakers are unlikely to take on such a major challenge in this election year.
There would be significant opposition and challenges for lawmakers in trying to clear a bill that added an inflation adjustment for what’s already seen as an imperfect physician fee schedule, said Mark E. Miller, PhD, executive vice president of healthcare at the philanthropy Arnold Ventures, which studies how payment decisions affect medical care.
“That bill could cost a lot of money and raise a lot of questions,” Dr. Miller said.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
ASTRO Pushes Return to Direct Supervision in RT: Needed or ‘Babysitting’?
Although serious errors during virtual supervision are rare, ASTRO said radiation treatments (RT) should be done with a radiation oncologist on site to ensure high-quality care. But some radiation oncologists do not agree with the proposal to move back to direct in-person supervision only.
Changes to Direct Supervision
Most radiation oncology treatments are delivered in an outpatient setting under a physician’s direction and control.
During the COVID-19 pandemic when social distancing mandates were in place, CMS temporarily changed the definition of “direct supervision” to include telehealth, specifying that a physician must be immediately available to assist and direct a procedure virtually using real-time audio and video. In other words, a physician did not need to be physically present in the room when the treatment was being performed.
CMS has extended this rule until the end of 2024 and is considering making it a permanent change. In the Calendar Year (CY) 2024 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (PFS) Final Rule, CMS asked for comments on whether to extend the rule.
“We received input from interested parties on potential patient safety or quality concerns when direct supervision occurs virtually, which we will consider for future rulemaking,” a CMS spokesperson told this news organization. “CMS is currently considering the best approach that will protect patient access and safety as well as quality of care and program integrity concerns following CY 2024.”
CMS also noted its concerns that an abrupt transition back to requiring a physician’s physical presence could interrupt care from practitioners who have established new patterns of practice with telehealth.
What Are ASTRO’s Concerns?
Late last month, ASTRO sent CMS a letter, asking the agency to change the rules back to direct in-person supervision for all radiation services, citing that virtual supervision jeopardizes patient safety and quality of care.
Jeff Michalski, MD, MBA, chair of the ASTRO Board of Directors, said in an interview that radiation oncologists should be physically present to supervise the treatments.
“ASTRO is concerned that blanket policies of general or virtual supervision could lead to patients not having direct, in-person access to their doctors’ care,” he said. “While serious errors are rare, real-world experiences of radiation oncologists across practice settings demonstrate how an in-person radiation oncology physician is best suited to ensure high-quality care.”
What Do Radiation Oncologists Think?
According to ASTRO, most radiation oncologists would agree that in-person supervision is best for patients.
But that might not be the case.
Radiation oncologists took to X (formerly Twitter) to voice their opinions about ASTRO’s letter.
Jason Beckta, MD, PhD, of Rutland Regional’s Foley Cancer Center, Vermont, said “the February 26th ASTRO letter reads like an Onion article.”
“I’m struggling to understand the Luddite-level myopia around this topic,” he said in another tweet. “Virtual direct/outpatient general supervision has done nothing but boost my productivity and in particular, face-to-face patient contact.”
Join Y. Luh, MD, with the Providence Medical Network in Eureka, California, said he understands the challenges faced by clinicians working in more isolated rural settings. “For them, it’s either having virtual supervision or closing the center,” Dr. Luh said.
“Virtual care is definitely at my clinic and is not only an option but is critical to my patients who are 2+ snowy, mountainous hours away,” Dr. Luh wrote. “But I’m still in the clinic directly supervising treatments.”
Sidney Roberts, MD, with the CHI St. Luke’s Health-Memorial, Texas, tweeted that supervision does require some face-to-face care but contended that “babysitting trained therapists for every routine treatment is a farce.”
Another issue Dr. Luh brought up is reimbursement for virtual supervision, noting that “the elephant in the room is whether that level of service should be reimbursed at the same rate. Reimbursement has not changed — but will it stay that way?”
ASTRO has acknowledged that radiation oncologists will have varying opinions and says it is working to balance these challenges.
CMS has not reached a decision on whether the change will be implemented permanently. The organization will assess concern, patient safety, and quality of care at the end of the year.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com
Although serious errors during virtual supervision are rare, ASTRO said radiation treatments (RT) should be done with a radiation oncologist on site to ensure high-quality care. But some radiation oncologists do not agree with the proposal to move back to direct in-person supervision only.
Changes to Direct Supervision
Most radiation oncology treatments are delivered in an outpatient setting under a physician’s direction and control.
During the COVID-19 pandemic when social distancing mandates were in place, CMS temporarily changed the definition of “direct supervision” to include telehealth, specifying that a physician must be immediately available to assist and direct a procedure virtually using real-time audio and video. In other words, a physician did not need to be physically present in the room when the treatment was being performed.
CMS has extended this rule until the end of 2024 and is considering making it a permanent change. In the Calendar Year (CY) 2024 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (PFS) Final Rule, CMS asked for comments on whether to extend the rule.
“We received input from interested parties on potential patient safety or quality concerns when direct supervision occurs virtually, which we will consider for future rulemaking,” a CMS spokesperson told this news organization. “CMS is currently considering the best approach that will protect patient access and safety as well as quality of care and program integrity concerns following CY 2024.”
CMS also noted its concerns that an abrupt transition back to requiring a physician’s physical presence could interrupt care from practitioners who have established new patterns of practice with telehealth.
What Are ASTRO’s Concerns?
Late last month, ASTRO sent CMS a letter, asking the agency to change the rules back to direct in-person supervision for all radiation services, citing that virtual supervision jeopardizes patient safety and quality of care.
Jeff Michalski, MD, MBA, chair of the ASTRO Board of Directors, said in an interview that radiation oncologists should be physically present to supervise the treatments.
“ASTRO is concerned that blanket policies of general or virtual supervision could lead to patients not having direct, in-person access to their doctors’ care,” he said. “While serious errors are rare, real-world experiences of radiation oncologists across practice settings demonstrate how an in-person radiation oncology physician is best suited to ensure high-quality care.”
What Do Radiation Oncologists Think?
According to ASTRO, most radiation oncologists would agree that in-person supervision is best for patients.
But that might not be the case.
Radiation oncologists took to X (formerly Twitter) to voice their opinions about ASTRO’s letter.
Jason Beckta, MD, PhD, of Rutland Regional’s Foley Cancer Center, Vermont, said “the February 26th ASTRO letter reads like an Onion article.”
“I’m struggling to understand the Luddite-level myopia around this topic,” he said in another tweet. “Virtual direct/outpatient general supervision has done nothing but boost my productivity and in particular, face-to-face patient contact.”
Join Y. Luh, MD, with the Providence Medical Network in Eureka, California, said he understands the challenges faced by clinicians working in more isolated rural settings. “For them, it’s either having virtual supervision or closing the center,” Dr. Luh said.
“Virtual care is definitely at my clinic and is not only an option but is critical to my patients who are 2+ snowy, mountainous hours away,” Dr. Luh wrote. “But I’m still in the clinic directly supervising treatments.”
Sidney Roberts, MD, with the CHI St. Luke’s Health-Memorial, Texas, tweeted that supervision does require some face-to-face care but contended that “babysitting trained therapists for every routine treatment is a farce.”
Another issue Dr. Luh brought up is reimbursement for virtual supervision, noting that “the elephant in the room is whether that level of service should be reimbursed at the same rate. Reimbursement has not changed — but will it stay that way?”
ASTRO has acknowledged that radiation oncologists will have varying opinions and says it is working to balance these challenges.
CMS has not reached a decision on whether the change will be implemented permanently. The organization will assess concern, patient safety, and quality of care at the end of the year.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com
Although serious errors during virtual supervision are rare, ASTRO said radiation treatments (RT) should be done with a radiation oncologist on site to ensure high-quality care. But some radiation oncologists do not agree with the proposal to move back to direct in-person supervision only.
Changes to Direct Supervision
Most radiation oncology treatments are delivered in an outpatient setting under a physician’s direction and control.
During the COVID-19 pandemic when social distancing mandates were in place, CMS temporarily changed the definition of “direct supervision” to include telehealth, specifying that a physician must be immediately available to assist and direct a procedure virtually using real-time audio and video. In other words, a physician did not need to be physically present in the room when the treatment was being performed.
CMS has extended this rule until the end of 2024 and is considering making it a permanent change. In the Calendar Year (CY) 2024 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (PFS) Final Rule, CMS asked for comments on whether to extend the rule.
“We received input from interested parties on potential patient safety or quality concerns when direct supervision occurs virtually, which we will consider for future rulemaking,” a CMS spokesperson told this news organization. “CMS is currently considering the best approach that will protect patient access and safety as well as quality of care and program integrity concerns following CY 2024.”
CMS also noted its concerns that an abrupt transition back to requiring a physician’s physical presence could interrupt care from practitioners who have established new patterns of practice with telehealth.
What Are ASTRO’s Concerns?
Late last month, ASTRO sent CMS a letter, asking the agency to change the rules back to direct in-person supervision for all radiation services, citing that virtual supervision jeopardizes patient safety and quality of care.
Jeff Michalski, MD, MBA, chair of the ASTRO Board of Directors, said in an interview that radiation oncologists should be physically present to supervise the treatments.
“ASTRO is concerned that blanket policies of general or virtual supervision could lead to patients not having direct, in-person access to their doctors’ care,” he said. “While serious errors are rare, real-world experiences of radiation oncologists across practice settings demonstrate how an in-person radiation oncology physician is best suited to ensure high-quality care.”
What Do Radiation Oncologists Think?
According to ASTRO, most radiation oncologists would agree that in-person supervision is best for patients.
But that might not be the case.
Radiation oncologists took to X (formerly Twitter) to voice their opinions about ASTRO’s letter.
Jason Beckta, MD, PhD, of Rutland Regional’s Foley Cancer Center, Vermont, said “the February 26th ASTRO letter reads like an Onion article.”
“I’m struggling to understand the Luddite-level myopia around this topic,” he said in another tweet. “Virtual direct/outpatient general supervision has done nothing but boost my productivity and in particular, face-to-face patient contact.”
Join Y. Luh, MD, with the Providence Medical Network in Eureka, California, said he understands the challenges faced by clinicians working in more isolated rural settings. “For them, it’s either having virtual supervision or closing the center,” Dr. Luh said.
“Virtual care is definitely at my clinic and is not only an option but is critical to my patients who are 2+ snowy, mountainous hours away,” Dr. Luh wrote. “But I’m still in the clinic directly supervising treatments.”
Sidney Roberts, MD, with the CHI St. Luke’s Health-Memorial, Texas, tweeted that supervision does require some face-to-face care but contended that “babysitting trained therapists for every routine treatment is a farce.”
Another issue Dr. Luh brought up is reimbursement for virtual supervision, noting that “the elephant in the room is whether that level of service should be reimbursed at the same rate. Reimbursement has not changed — but will it stay that way?”
ASTRO has acknowledged that radiation oncologists will have varying opinions and says it is working to balance these challenges.
CMS has not reached a decision on whether the change will be implemented permanently. The organization will assess concern, patient safety, and quality of care at the end of the year.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com
New Cancer Surgical Tech Gets Positive Vote, But Some Cite Safety Concerns
A majority of the US Food and Drug Administration’s Medical Imaging Drugs Advisory Committee (MIDAC) on March 5 voted in support of LUMISIGHT’s (pegulicianine) benefit-risk profile.
LUMISIGHT is an optical imaging agent used in combination with Lumicell Direct Visualization System (DVS), a fluorescence-guided imaging system. The technology, developed by Lumicell Inc., helps surgeons identify cancer that may remain in the breast after they’ve completed the main resection of tissue.
Following MIDAC’s positive vote, the FDA will move on to reviewing Lumicell’s new drug application for LUMISIGHT and its premarket approval application for Lumicell DVS.
“We are proud of the efforts and look forward to the next steps as we work with the FDA to finalize the approval process so that women with breast cancer can access the therapy,” Jorge Ferrer, PhD, Lumicell’s chief scientific officer, said in an interview.
However, Freya Schnabel, MD, professor of surgery and director of breast surgery at NYU Perlmutter Cancer Center, said there are some “real concerns” with the technology. She expressed surprise at MIDAC’s overall favorable vote.
In a recently published study, she noted that the use of pegulicianine fluorescence-guided surgery (pFGS) did not meet the prespecified threshold for sensitivity.
“It did meet thresholds for removal of residual tumor and specificity — but this is still basically a negative study, and a low sensitivity raises concerns regarding false negative readings,” she said in an interview. “I’m surprised [the committee] is supportive in light of this result. Also, the technique is logistically challenging, as patients need to be injected 2 to 6 hours before their surgeries, very challenging timing for patients having ambulatory procedures.”
The study, published in the April 2023 NEJM Evidence, analyzed 357 patients who received 1.0 mg/kg intravenous pegulicianine followed by lumpectomy. Tumor left behind after standard lumpectomy was removed in 27 of 357 patients through use of pFGS. Of the 27, 22 patients had cavity orientations deemed “negative” on standard margin evaluation, according to the study. A margin is described as negative or clean when there are no further cancer cells at the edge of the tissue, suggesting that all of the cancer has been removed. Second surgeries were avoided by pFGS in 9 of 62 patients with positive margins, the analysis found.
On per-margin analysis, pFGS specificity was 85.2%, and sensitivity was 49.3%. While the sensitivity endpoint missed the lower boundary of the 95% confidence interval, the LUM system exceeded the specificity endpoint of 60% with a point estimate of 86%, and an accuracy of 84% for imaging residual cancer in the lumpectomy cavity, coinvestigator E. Shelley Hwang, MD, MPH, said during the MIDAC meeting.
“The pivotal study was an adequate and well-controlled study demonstrating the effectiveness of the LUM system to detect residual cancer in the lumpectomy cavity, following the standard of care procedure,” she said. “These results also demonstrate clinical benefit that improves the current standard of care. This is the first and only imaging system that provides results in the lumpectomy cavity in real time, allowing surgeons to use this information at the time of the initial procedure.”
Is the Technology Safe?
Pegulicianine is an imaging agent that contains a fluorescent dye. The agent is given to patients as a 3-minute intravenous infusion 2 to 6 hours before surgery.
After removal of the main tumor specimen, the surgeon inserts a handheld probe into the breast cavity and in combination with the detection software, searches for residual cancer that may have been left behind, Dr. Ferrer explained during the MIDAC meeting.
If the software identifies areas suspicious for residual cancer, those areas display in red on an overhead screen. The surgeon then takes a targeted shave to resect the suspicious tissue. Once the tissue has been removed, the surgeon can rescan the cavity with the probe to ensure a more complete resection has been performed. Use of the LUM system typically takes surgeons less than 7 minutes to use, Dr. Ferrer said.
In the study, a total of 406 patients received the intravenous pegulicianine, but 14 patients were withdrawn before randomization. After a standard lumpectomy procedure, 357 patients were assigned to the pFGS group and 35 patients to the control group.
Of the 406 patients, pegulicianine administration was stopped for adverse events in 6 patients (1.5%). Two patients had grade 3 serious adverse events related to pegulicianine; one had hypersensitivity, and one had an anaphylactic reaction. The other four pegulicianine-related adverse events included allergic reaction, milder hypersensitivity, nausea, and pegulicianine extravasation.
Dr. Schnabel said these reactions are worrisome. While any effort to reduce the need for patients to have more than one surgery to complete a breast conserving approach would be a “real advance,” Dr. Schnabel said she would not feel comfortable using pFGS in her own practice if approved by the FDA as is.
“This is clearly a major issue in terms of incorporating this technique into practice,” she said. “I could go on, but in light of the above, I’m surprised that [the committee] is supportive. I would hope for some refinement of the technique to reduce the risks to patients and improve the results before I’d consider utilizing this approach.”
During the MIDAC meeting, Dr. Ferrer said the company takes the safety events seriously and has developed mitigation strategies to further reduce the risk of patient hypersensitivity. These strategies include: clear labeling that informs users of anaphylaxis risk, incorporating a new section into the device training program to address warnings and precautions, an enhanced pharmacovigilance program to closely track and report hypersensitivity events, and a postmarket study to access the incidence rate and risk of such events in a broader population.
Several MIDAC members raised questions about the adverse reactions observed and about the safety of the technology.
David B. Hackney, MD, a neuroradiologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, questioned the recommendation that patients only be monitored for 15 minutes after the injection.
“Since you don’t have enough data to know how long after injection reactions could occur, why not keep them under monitoring until after the surgery is over?” he said.
Barbara Smith, MD, PhD, lead investigator of the study, explained that per the protocol, there would be frequent monitoring, with a nurse at bedside, and patients would be monitored after injection, on their way to the procedure, and afterward.
She suggested, during the meeting, that more intense monitoring early in the process would be beneficial as that is when investigators observed side effects believed to be attributed to LUMISIGHT.
MIDAC member Kimberly E. Applegate, MD, a retired radiology professor, asked about the learning curve for surgeons and how long it generally takes for physicians to become familiar with the system.
Coinvestigator Kelly Hunt, MD, explained that all surgeons who participated in the trial completed a training program.
“Certainly, there’s a learning curve anytime we introduce new technology in the operating room,” she said. “Surgeons said it usually takes about three procedures before they’re comfortable with the system, including the camera and the software.”
During a presentation period by FDA officials, Anil Rajpal, MD, MPH, FDA, Deputy Division Director for Safety, said it’s important that prescribing information for LUMISIGHT communicate the risk of anaphylaxis and other hypersensitivity reactions, the need to monitor patients, and the need for the appropriate available personnel, medications, and equipment.
“This would be done by warnings and precautions and a boxed warning,” he said. “Note, that [such warnings] would only communicate the risks, it would not further characterize the risk.”
Committee Expresses Support
During a subsequent vote among committee members, most expressed support for the technology and its benefits. Sixteen members voted in support, one abstained, and two voted against the benefit-risk profile.
Andrea Richardson, MD, PhD, professor of pathology at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore, said she voted yes because the incremental benefits of avoiding additional surgeries outweigh the small risk of anaphylaxis.
Henry Royal, MD, MIDAC chair and professor of radiology at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, agreed.
“Even though the benefit of this is on average, quite small, the benefit to the woman who has positive margins that’s converted to negative margins because of use of [LUMISIGHT] is really quite great,” he said. “The risk from this procedure is certainly very manageable.”
Harold J. Burstein, MD, PhD, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, voted against the benefit-risk profile. He said the technology merits more research and that he does not believe it was proven the technology reduces the risk of reoperation.
“I think it’s a great technology,” he said. “I would like to see a well-conducted, randomized, phase III study with the endpoint of reoperation,” he said. “That would really prove the usefulness and benefit of the intervention in my mind.”
Chengjie Xiong, PhD, professor of biostatistics at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, chose to abstain from voting because he said there was not enough data.
The FDA will now complete its review of Lumicell’s new drug application for LUMISIGHT and review of its premarket approval application for Lumicell DVS. The FDA review team has 6-10 months to make a decision. As part of the process, the FDA will evaluate clinical data, travel to clinical study sites to conduct inspections, and assemble a final action package for a senior FDA official to make a final decision.
If deemed safe and effective, the FDA will then work with Lumicell on developing and refining prescribing information.
Dr. Ferrer said his team expects to receive FDA approval in the coming weeks and will continue to work collaboratively with the FDA to expedite approval where possible.
The purpose of the MIDAC is to review and evaluate data about the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational human drug products for use in diagnostic and therapeutic procedures using radioactive pharmaceuticals and make appropriate recommendations to the FDA Commissioner.
A majority of the US Food and Drug Administration’s Medical Imaging Drugs Advisory Committee (MIDAC) on March 5 voted in support of LUMISIGHT’s (pegulicianine) benefit-risk profile.
LUMISIGHT is an optical imaging agent used in combination with Lumicell Direct Visualization System (DVS), a fluorescence-guided imaging system. The technology, developed by Lumicell Inc., helps surgeons identify cancer that may remain in the breast after they’ve completed the main resection of tissue.
Following MIDAC’s positive vote, the FDA will move on to reviewing Lumicell’s new drug application for LUMISIGHT and its premarket approval application for Lumicell DVS.
“We are proud of the efforts and look forward to the next steps as we work with the FDA to finalize the approval process so that women with breast cancer can access the therapy,” Jorge Ferrer, PhD, Lumicell’s chief scientific officer, said in an interview.
However, Freya Schnabel, MD, professor of surgery and director of breast surgery at NYU Perlmutter Cancer Center, said there are some “real concerns” with the technology. She expressed surprise at MIDAC’s overall favorable vote.
In a recently published study, she noted that the use of pegulicianine fluorescence-guided surgery (pFGS) did not meet the prespecified threshold for sensitivity.
“It did meet thresholds for removal of residual tumor and specificity — but this is still basically a negative study, and a low sensitivity raises concerns regarding false negative readings,” she said in an interview. “I’m surprised [the committee] is supportive in light of this result. Also, the technique is logistically challenging, as patients need to be injected 2 to 6 hours before their surgeries, very challenging timing for patients having ambulatory procedures.”
The study, published in the April 2023 NEJM Evidence, analyzed 357 patients who received 1.0 mg/kg intravenous pegulicianine followed by lumpectomy. Tumor left behind after standard lumpectomy was removed in 27 of 357 patients through use of pFGS. Of the 27, 22 patients had cavity orientations deemed “negative” on standard margin evaluation, according to the study. A margin is described as negative or clean when there are no further cancer cells at the edge of the tissue, suggesting that all of the cancer has been removed. Second surgeries were avoided by pFGS in 9 of 62 patients with positive margins, the analysis found.
On per-margin analysis, pFGS specificity was 85.2%, and sensitivity was 49.3%. While the sensitivity endpoint missed the lower boundary of the 95% confidence interval, the LUM system exceeded the specificity endpoint of 60% with a point estimate of 86%, and an accuracy of 84% for imaging residual cancer in the lumpectomy cavity, coinvestigator E. Shelley Hwang, MD, MPH, said during the MIDAC meeting.
“The pivotal study was an adequate and well-controlled study demonstrating the effectiveness of the LUM system to detect residual cancer in the lumpectomy cavity, following the standard of care procedure,” she said. “These results also demonstrate clinical benefit that improves the current standard of care. This is the first and only imaging system that provides results in the lumpectomy cavity in real time, allowing surgeons to use this information at the time of the initial procedure.”
Is the Technology Safe?
Pegulicianine is an imaging agent that contains a fluorescent dye. The agent is given to patients as a 3-minute intravenous infusion 2 to 6 hours before surgery.
After removal of the main tumor specimen, the surgeon inserts a handheld probe into the breast cavity and in combination with the detection software, searches for residual cancer that may have been left behind, Dr. Ferrer explained during the MIDAC meeting.
If the software identifies areas suspicious for residual cancer, those areas display in red on an overhead screen. The surgeon then takes a targeted shave to resect the suspicious tissue. Once the tissue has been removed, the surgeon can rescan the cavity with the probe to ensure a more complete resection has been performed. Use of the LUM system typically takes surgeons less than 7 minutes to use, Dr. Ferrer said.
In the study, a total of 406 patients received the intravenous pegulicianine, but 14 patients were withdrawn before randomization. After a standard lumpectomy procedure, 357 patients were assigned to the pFGS group and 35 patients to the control group.
Of the 406 patients, pegulicianine administration was stopped for adverse events in 6 patients (1.5%). Two patients had grade 3 serious adverse events related to pegulicianine; one had hypersensitivity, and one had an anaphylactic reaction. The other four pegulicianine-related adverse events included allergic reaction, milder hypersensitivity, nausea, and pegulicianine extravasation.
Dr. Schnabel said these reactions are worrisome. While any effort to reduce the need for patients to have more than one surgery to complete a breast conserving approach would be a “real advance,” Dr. Schnabel said she would not feel comfortable using pFGS in her own practice if approved by the FDA as is.
“This is clearly a major issue in terms of incorporating this technique into practice,” she said. “I could go on, but in light of the above, I’m surprised that [the committee] is supportive. I would hope for some refinement of the technique to reduce the risks to patients and improve the results before I’d consider utilizing this approach.”
During the MIDAC meeting, Dr. Ferrer said the company takes the safety events seriously and has developed mitigation strategies to further reduce the risk of patient hypersensitivity. These strategies include: clear labeling that informs users of anaphylaxis risk, incorporating a new section into the device training program to address warnings and precautions, an enhanced pharmacovigilance program to closely track and report hypersensitivity events, and a postmarket study to access the incidence rate and risk of such events in a broader population.
Several MIDAC members raised questions about the adverse reactions observed and about the safety of the technology.
David B. Hackney, MD, a neuroradiologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, questioned the recommendation that patients only be monitored for 15 minutes after the injection.
“Since you don’t have enough data to know how long after injection reactions could occur, why not keep them under monitoring until after the surgery is over?” he said.
Barbara Smith, MD, PhD, lead investigator of the study, explained that per the protocol, there would be frequent monitoring, with a nurse at bedside, and patients would be monitored after injection, on their way to the procedure, and afterward.
She suggested, during the meeting, that more intense monitoring early in the process would be beneficial as that is when investigators observed side effects believed to be attributed to LUMISIGHT.
MIDAC member Kimberly E. Applegate, MD, a retired radiology professor, asked about the learning curve for surgeons and how long it generally takes for physicians to become familiar with the system.
Coinvestigator Kelly Hunt, MD, explained that all surgeons who participated in the trial completed a training program.
“Certainly, there’s a learning curve anytime we introduce new technology in the operating room,” she said. “Surgeons said it usually takes about three procedures before they’re comfortable with the system, including the camera and the software.”
During a presentation period by FDA officials, Anil Rajpal, MD, MPH, FDA, Deputy Division Director for Safety, said it’s important that prescribing information for LUMISIGHT communicate the risk of anaphylaxis and other hypersensitivity reactions, the need to monitor patients, and the need for the appropriate available personnel, medications, and equipment.
“This would be done by warnings and precautions and a boxed warning,” he said. “Note, that [such warnings] would only communicate the risks, it would not further characterize the risk.”
Committee Expresses Support
During a subsequent vote among committee members, most expressed support for the technology and its benefits. Sixteen members voted in support, one abstained, and two voted against the benefit-risk profile.
Andrea Richardson, MD, PhD, professor of pathology at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore, said she voted yes because the incremental benefits of avoiding additional surgeries outweigh the small risk of anaphylaxis.
Henry Royal, MD, MIDAC chair and professor of radiology at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, agreed.
“Even though the benefit of this is on average, quite small, the benefit to the woman who has positive margins that’s converted to negative margins because of use of [LUMISIGHT] is really quite great,” he said. “The risk from this procedure is certainly very manageable.”
Harold J. Burstein, MD, PhD, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, voted against the benefit-risk profile. He said the technology merits more research and that he does not believe it was proven the technology reduces the risk of reoperation.
“I think it’s a great technology,” he said. “I would like to see a well-conducted, randomized, phase III study with the endpoint of reoperation,” he said. “That would really prove the usefulness and benefit of the intervention in my mind.”
Chengjie Xiong, PhD, professor of biostatistics at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, chose to abstain from voting because he said there was not enough data.
The FDA will now complete its review of Lumicell’s new drug application for LUMISIGHT and review of its premarket approval application for Lumicell DVS. The FDA review team has 6-10 months to make a decision. As part of the process, the FDA will evaluate clinical data, travel to clinical study sites to conduct inspections, and assemble a final action package for a senior FDA official to make a final decision.
If deemed safe and effective, the FDA will then work with Lumicell on developing and refining prescribing information.
Dr. Ferrer said his team expects to receive FDA approval in the coming weeks and will continue to work collaboratively with the FDA to expedite approval where possible.
The purpose of the MIDAC is to review and evaluate data about the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational human drug products for use in diagnostic and therapeutic procedures using radioactive pharmaceuticals and make appropriate recommendations to the FDA Commissioner.
A majority of the US Food and Drug Administration’s Medical Imaging Drugs Advisory Committee (MIDAC) on March 5 voted in support of LUMISIGHT’s (pegulicianine) benefit-risk profile.
LUMISIGHT is an optical imaging agent used in combination with Lumicell Direct Visualization System (DVS), a fluorescence-guided imaging system. The technology, developed by Lumicell Inc., helps surgeons identify cancer that may remain in the breast after they’ve completed the main resection of tissue.
Following MIDAC’s positive vote, the FDA will move on to reviewing Lumicell’s new drug application for LUMISIGHT and its premarket approval application for Lumicell DVS.
“We are proud of the efforts and look forward to the next steps as we work with the FDA to finalize the approval process so that women with breast cancer can access the therapy,” Jorge Ferrer, PhD, Lumicell’s chief scientific officer, said in an interview.
However, Freya Schnabel, MD, professor of surgery and director of breast surgery at NYU Perlmutter Cancer Center, said there are some “real concerns” with the technology. She expressed surprise at MIDAC’s overall favorable vote.
In a recently published study, she noted that the use of pegulicianine fluorescence-guided surgery (pFGS) did not meet the prespecified threshold for sensitivity.
“It did meet thresholds for removal of residual tumor and specificity — but this is still basically a negative study, and a low sensitivity raises concerns regarding false negative readings,” she said in an interview. “I’m surprised [the committee] is supportive in light of this result. Also, the technique is logistically challenging, as patients need to be injected 2 to 6 hours before their surgeries, very challenging timing for patients having ambulatory procedures.”
The study, published in the April 2023 NEJM Evidence, analyzed 357 patients who received 1.0 mg/kg intravenous pegulicianine followed by lumpectomy. Tumor left behind after standard lumpectomy was removed in 27 of 357 patients through use of pFGS. Of the 27, 22 patients had cavity orientations deemed “negative” on standard margin evaluation, according to the study. A margin is described as negative or clean when there are no further cancer cells at the edge of the tissue, suggesting that all of the cancer has been removed. Second surgeries were avoided by pFGS in 9 of 62 patients with positive margins, the analysis found.
On per-margin analysis, pFGS specificity was 85.2%, and sensitivity was 49.3%. While the sensitivity endpoint missed the lower boundary of the 95% confidence interval, the LUM system exceeded the specificity endpoint of 60% with a point estimate of 86%, and an accuracy of 84% for imaging residual cancer in the lumpectomy cavity, coinvestigator E. Shelley Hwang, MD, MPH, said during the MIDAC meeting.
“The pivotal study was an adequate and well-controlled study demonstrating the effectiveness of the LUM system to detect residual cancer in the lumpectomy cavity, following the standard of care procedure,” she said. “These results also demonstrate clinical benefit that improves the current standard of care. This is the first and only imaging system that provides results in the lumpectomy cavity in real time, allowing surgeons to use this information at the time of the initial procedure.”
Is the Technology Safe?
Pegulicianine is an imaging agent that contains a fluorescent dye. The agent is given to patients as a 3-minute intravenous infusion 2 to 6 hours before surgery.
After removal of the main tumor specimen, the surgeon inserts a handheld probe into the breast cavity and in combination with the detection software, searches for residual cancer that may have been left behind, Dr. Ferrer explained during the MIDAC meeting.
If the software identifies areas suspicious for residual cancer, those areas display in red on an overhead screen. The surgeon then takes a targeted shave to resect the suspicious tissue. Once the tissue has been removed, the surgeon can rescan the cavity with the probe to ensure a more complete resection has been performed. Use of the LUM system typically takes surgeons less than 7 minutes to use, Dr. Ferrer said.
In the study, a total of 406 patients received the intravenous pegulicianine, but 14 patients were withdrawn before randomization. After a standard lumpectomy procedure, 357 patients were assigned to the pFGS group and 35 patients to the control group.
Of the 406 patients, pegulicianine administration was stopped for adverse events in 6 patients (1.5%). Two patients had grade 3 serious adverse events related to pegulicianine; one had hypersensitivity, and one had an anaphylactic reaction. The other four pegulicianine-related adverse events included allergic reaction, milder hypersensitivity, nausea, and pegulicianine extravasation.
Dr. Schnabel said these reactions are worrisome. While any effort to reduce the need for patients to have more than one surgery to complete a breast conserving approach would be a “real advance,” Dr. Schnabel said she would not feel comfortable using pFGS in her own practice if approved by the FDA as is.
“This is clearly a major issue in terms of incorporating this technique into practice,” she said. “I could go on, but in light of the above, I’m surprised that [the committee] is supportive. I would hope for some refinement of the technique to reduce the risks to patients and improve the results before I’d consider utilizing this approach.”
During the MIDAC meeting, Dr. Ferrer said the company takes the safety events seriously and has developed mitigation strategies to further reduce the risk of patient hypersensitivity. These strategies include: clear labeling that informs users of anaphylaxis risk, incorporating a new section into the device training program to address warnings and precautions, an enhanced pharmacovigilance program to closely track and report hypersensitivity events, and a postmarket study to access the incidence rate and risk of such events in a broader population.
Several MIDAC members raised questions about the adverse reactions observed and about the safety of the technology.
David B. Hackney, MD, a neuroradiologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, questioned the recommendation that patients only be monitored for 15 minutes after the injection.
“Since you don’t have enough data to know how long after injection reactions could occur, why not keep them under monitoring until after the surgery is over?” he said.
Barbara Smith, MD, PhD, lead investigator of the study, explained that per the protocol, there would be frequent monitoring, with a nurse at bedside, and patients would be monitored after injection, on their way to the procedure, and afterward.
She suggested, during the meeting, that more intense monitoring early in the process would be beneficial as that is when investigators observed side effects believed to be attributed to LUMISIGHT.
MIDAC member Kimberly E. Applegate, MD, a retired radiology professor, asked about the learning curve for surgeons and how long it generally takes for physicians to become familiar with the system.
Coinvestigator Kelly Hunt, MD, explained that all surgeons who participated in the trial completed a training program.
“Certainly, there’s a learning curve anytime we introduce new technology in the operating room,” she said. “Surgeons said it usually takes about three procedures before they’re comfortable with the system, including the camera and the software.”
During a presentation period by FDA officials, Anil Rajpal, MD, MPH, FDA, Deputy Division Director for Safety, said it’s important that prescribing information for LUMISIGHT communicate the risk of anaphylaxis and other hypersensitivity reactions, the need to monitor patients, and the need for the appropriate available personnel, medications, and equipment.
“This would be done by warnings and precautions and a boxed warning,” he said. “Note, that [such warnings] would only communicate the risks, it would not further characterize the risk.”
Committee Expresses Support
During a subsequent vote among committee members, most expressed support for the technology and its benefits. Sixteen members voted in support, one abstained, and two voted against the benefit-risk profile.
Andrea Richardson, MD, PhD, professor of pathology at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore, said she voted yes because the incremental benefits of avoiding additional surgeries outweigh the small risk of anaphylaxis.
Henry Royal, MD, MIDAC chair and professor of radiology at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, agreed.
“Even though the benefit of this is on average, quite small, the benefit to the woman who has positive margins that’s converted to negative margins because of use of [LUMISIGHT] is really quite great,” he said. “The risk from this procedure is certainly very manageable.”
Harold J. Burstein, MD, PhD, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, voted against the benefit-risk profile. He said the technology merits more research and that he does not believe it was proven the technology reduces the risk of reoperation.
“I think it’s a great technology,” he said. “I would like to see a well-conducted, randomized, phase III study with the endpoint of reoperation,” he said. “That would really prove the usefulness and benefit of the intervention in my mind.”
Chengjie Xiong, PhD, professor of biostatistics at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, chose to abstain from voting because he said there was not enough data.
The FDA will now complete its review of Lumicell’s new drug application for LUMISIGHT and review of its premarket approval application for Lumicell DVS. The FDA review team has 6-10 months to make a decision. As part of the process, the FDA will evaluate clinical data, travel to clinical study sites to conduct inspections, and assemble a final action package for a senior FDA official to make a final decision.
If deemed safe and effective, the FDA will then work with Lumicell on developing and refining prescribing information.
Dr. Ferrer said his team expects to receive FDA approval in the coming weeks and will continue to work collaboratively with the FDA to expedite approval where possible.
The purpose of the MIDAC is to review and evaluate data about the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational human drug products for use in diagnostic and therapeutic procedures using radioactive pharmaceuticals and make appropriate recommendations to the FDA Commissioner.
Nivolumab Wins First-Line Indication in Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma
Approval was based on the CHECKMATE-901 trial in 608 patients randomized equally to either cisplatin and gemcitabine for ≤ six cycles or nivolumab plus cisplatin and gemcitabine for ≤ six cycles, followed by nivolumab alone for ≤ 2 years.
Median overall survival was 21.7 months with nivolumab add-on vs 18.9 months with cisplatin/gemcitabine alone (hazard ratio [HR], 0.78; P = .0171). The nivolumab group had a slightly higher median progression-free survival of 7.9 months vs 7.6 months in the cisplatin and gemcitabine group (HR, 0.72; P = .0012).
The most common adverse events, occurring in ≥ 15% of nivolumab patients, were nausea, fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, constipation, decreased appetite, rash, vomiting, peripheral neuropathy, urinary tract infection, diarrhea, edema, hypothyroidism, and pruritus.
Among numerous other oncology indications, nivolumab was previously approved for adjuvant treatment following urothelial carcinoma resection and for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma that progresses during or following platinum-containing chemotherapy.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
Approval was based on the CHECKMATE-901 trial in 608 patients randomized equally to either cisplatin and gemcitabine for ≤ six cycles or nivolumab plus cisplatin and gemcitabine for ≤ six cycles, followed by nivolumab alone for ≤ 2 years.
Median overall survival was 21.7 months with nivolumab add-on vs 18.9 months with cisplatin/gemcitabine alone (hazard ratio [HR], 0.78; P = .0171). The nivolumab group had a slightly higher median progression-free survival of 7.9 months vs 7.6 months in the cisplatin and gemcitabine group (HR, 0.72; P = .0012).
The most common adverse events, occurring in ≥ 15% of nivolumab patients, were nausea, fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, constipation, decreased appetite, rash, vomiting, peripheral neuropathy, urinary tract infection, diarrhea, edema, hypothyroidism, and pruritus.
Among numerous other oncology indications, nivolumab was previously approved for adjuvant treatment following urothelial carcinoma resection and for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma that progresses during or following platinum-containing chemotherapy.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
Approval was based on the CHECKMATE-901 trial in 608 patients randomized equally to either cisplatin and gemcitabine for ≤ six cycles or nivolumab plus cisplatin and gemcitabine for ≤ six cycles, followed by nivolumab alone for ≤ 2 years.
Median overall survival was 21.7 months with nivolumab add-on vs 18.9 months with cisplatin/gemcitabine alone (hazard ratio [HR], 0.78; P = .0171). The nivolumab group had a slightly higher median progression-free survival of 7.9 months vs 7.6 months in the cisplatin and gemcitabine group (HR, 0.72; P = .0012).
The most common adverse events, occurring in ≥ 15% of nivolumab patients, were nausea, fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, constipation, decreased appetite, rash, vomiting, peripheral neuropathy, urinary tract infection, diarrhea, edema, hypothyroidism, and pruritus.
Among numerous other oncology indications, nivolumab was previously approved for adjuvant treatment following urothelial carcinoma resection and for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma that progresses during or following platinum-containing chemotherapy.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
TIL for Melanoma: What Are the Costs and Other Challenges to Getting It to Patients?
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently approved the tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte cell therapy (TIL) for use in certain adults with unresectable or metastatic melanoma. This marks the first time the FDA has allowed a cellular therapy to be marketed for a solid tumor cancer.
Lifileucel is made from a patient’s surgically removed tumor. Tissue from that tumor is then sent to a manufacturing center. Turnaround time to when the drug is ready to be sent back to the cancer center for use is approximately 34 days, according to the drug’s manufacturer, Iovance.
Insurance Adjustments
The cost of the one-time lifileucel treatment is $515,000, according to the manufacturer.
Two investigators in the clinical trials of lifileucel, Allison Betof Warner, MD, of Stanford University, Stanford, California, and Igor Puzanov, MD, of Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, New York, shared their expectations regarding factors that would contribute to how much a patient paid for the drug.
Given the drug’s recent approval, the logistical details are still being worked out between cancer centers and insurers regarding how much patients will pay out of pocket for lifileucel, said Dr. Betof Warner, who is assistant professor in the Department of Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology at Stanford University.
The associated costs, including the surgery that is needed to procure the TIL cells for expansion into the final drug product, will be different for each patient, she told this publication.
Patients’ costs for lifileucel will vary based on their insurance, explained Dr. Puzanov, chief of melanoma and professor of oncology at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center.
At Roswell Park, “we will work with our regionally-based payers on a case-by-case basis to seek approval for those patients we believe can most benefit from lifileucel,” he said in an interview. Preauthorization will be required, as is standard for many cancer treatments, he added.
Once payer approval is in place, Dr. Puzanov said, he did not anticipate significant delays in access for patients.
Certified centers such as the multidisciplinary team at Roswell Park are ready to treat patients now. Other centers are similarly prepared, especially those involved in the clinical trials of lifileucel, he said.
Logistics and Infrastructure
A position article and guidelines on the management of and best practices for TIL was published in the Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer on February 29. The paper, of which both Dr. Betof Warner and Dr. Puzanov served as authors, noted that one of the barriers to the use of TIL cell therapy in clinical practice is the need for state-of-the art infrastructure at centers that want to offer the treatment. Scheduling, patient referrals, and surgery, as well as the production and infusion of TIL, must be organized and streamlined for successful treatment, the authors wrote.
The two supply chains involved in TIL — the transportation of the tumor tissue from the treatment center to the manufacturer and transport of the TIL infusion product back to the treatment center — must be timely and precise, they emphasized.
Docs Hope TIL Improves in Several Ways
Although the TIL technology is a breakthrough, “we hope to see even better efficacy and lower toxicity as further research looks at ways to improve on the current TIL standard,” Dr. Puzanov said.
More research and dose adjustments may impact patient costs and side effects, he noted. “I am looking to see TILs used in the front line, with or without checkpoint inhibitors.”
Research is needed to explore how to lower the chemotherapy doses and possibly the associated toxicity, he added. Finally, researchers must consider whether high-dose IL-2 therapy — given as part of the TIL cell therapy — could be replaced with other cytokines, or whether the number of doses could be lowered. Another avenue of exploration is engineering genes for cytokines into TILs, he said.
“The key is to think about TIL therapy before you need it — ideally, when the patient is still doing well on their frontline checkpoint inhibition immunotherapy,” Dr. Puzanov said in an interview. That is the time for evaluation, and specialty centers can provide an expert assessment, he said.
“We are constantly working to improve TIL therapy,” Dr. Betof Warner told this publication. More research is needed optimize the regimen to reduce side effects, which would not only make treatment easier for currently eligible patients, but might allow treatment for patients not currently eligible.
“For example, we are looking for ways to reduce the dose of preparative chemotherapy, which prepares the body for the cells to maximize their longevity and efficacy, and to reduce or eliminate the need to give IL-2 after the cell administration,” continued Dr. Betof Warner, who is also Director of Melanoma Medical Oncology, Director of Solid Tumor Cellular Therapy, and Codirector of the Pigmented Lesion and Melanoma Program at Stanford University. “We are also actively studying next-generation TIL therapies to try to increase the efficacy.”
“Lifileucel has about a 30% success rate for melanoma that has progressed after standard therapy; we are working hard to do better than that,” she noted.
In a press release, Iovance summarized the results of the trial that supported the FDA’s accelerated approval of lifileucel. In an open-label single-arm study, including multiple sites worldwide, 73 adults with unresectable or metastatic melanoma who had received at least one previous systemic therapy underwent a lymphodepleting regimen followed by treatments with fludarabine and aldesleukin. Patients then received lifileucel at a median dose of 21.1 x 109 viable cells; the recommended dose ranges from 7.5 x 109 to 72 x 109 cells.
The primary efficacy outcome was objective response rate (ORR). The ORR in the study was 31.5%, and the median time to initial lifileucel response was 1.5 months.
The clinical trials of lifileucel for which Dr. Betof Warner and Dr. Puzanov served as investigators were sponsored by Iovance.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently approved the tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte cell therapy (TIL) for use in certain adults with unresectable or metastatic melanoma. This marks the first time the FDA has allowed a cellular therapy to be marketed for a solid tumor cancer.
Lifileucel is made from a patient’s surgically removed tumor. Tissue from that tumor is then sent to a manufacturing center. Turnaround time to when the drug is ready to be sent back to the cancer center for use is approximately 34 days, according to the drug’s manufacturer, Iovance.
Insurance Adjustments
The cost of the one-time lifileucel treatment is $515,000, according to the manufacturer.
Two investigators in the clinical trials of lifileucel, Allison Betof Warner, MD, of Stanford University, Stanford, California, and Igor Puzanov, MD, of Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, New York, shared their expectations regarding factors that would contribute to how much a patient paid for the drug.
Given the drug’s recent approval, the logistical details are still being worked out between cancer centers and insurers regarding how much patients will pay out of pocket for lifileucel, said Dr. Betof Warner, who is assistant professor in the Department of Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology at Stanford University.
The associated costs, including the surgery that is needed to procure the TIL cells for expansion into the final drug product, will be different for each patient, she told this publication.
Patients’ costs for lifileucel will vary based on their insurance, explained Dr. Puzanov, chief of melanoma and professor of oncology at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center.
At Roswell Park, “we will work with our regionally-based payers on a case-by-case basis to seek approval for those patients we believe can most benefit from lifileucel,” he said in an interview. Preauthorization will be required, as is standard for many cancer treatments, he added.
Once payer approval is in place, Dr. Puzanov said, he did not anticipate significant delays in access for patients.
Certified centers such as the multidisciplinary team at Roswell Park are ready to treat patients now. Other centers are similarly prepared, especially those involved in the clinical trials of lifileucel, he said.
Logistics and Infrastructure
A position article and guidelines on the management of and best practices for TIL was published in the Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer on February 29. The paper, of which both Dr. Betof Warner and Dr. Puzanov served as authors, noted that one of the barriers to the use of TIL cell therapy in clinical practice is the need for state-of-the art infrastructure at centers that want to offer the treatment. Scheduling, patient referrals, and surgery, as well as the production and infusion of TIL, must be organized and streamlined for successful treatment, the authors wrote.
The two supply chains involved in TIL — the transportation of the tumor tissue from the treatment center to the manufacturer and transport of the TIL infusion product back to the treatment center — must be timely and precise, they emphasized.
Docs Hope TIL Improves in Several Ways
Although the TIL technology is a breakthrough, “we hope to see even better efficacy and lower toxicity as further research looks at ways to improve on the current TIL standard,” Dr. Puzanov said.
More research and dose adjustments may impact patient costs and side effects, he noted. “I am looking to see TILs used in the front line, with or without checkpoint inhibitors.”
Research is needed to explore how to lower the chemotherapy doses and possibly the associated toxicity, he added. Finally, researchers must consider whether high-dose IL-2 therapy — given as part of the TIL cell therapy — could be replaced with other cytokines, or whether the number of doses could be lowered. Another avenue of exploration is engineering genes for cytokines into TILs, he said.
“The key is to think about TIL therapy before you need it — ideally, when the patient is still doing well on their frontline checkpoint inhibition immunotherapy,” Dr. Puzanov said in an interview. That is the time for evaluation, and specialty centers can provide an expert assessment, he said.
“We are constantly working to improve TIL therapy,” Dr. Betof Warner told this publication. More research is needed optimize the regimen to reduce side effects, which would not only make treatment easier for currently eligible patients, but might allow treatment for patients not currently eligible.
“For example, we are looking for ways to reduce the dose of preparative chemotherapy, which prepares the body for the cells to maximize their longevity and efficacy, and to reduce or eliminate the need to give IL-2 after the cell administration,” continued Dr. Betof Warner, who is also Director of Melanoma Medical Oncology, Director of Solid Tumor Cellular Therapy, and Codirector of the Pigmented Lesion and Melanoma Program at Stanford University. “We are also actively studying next-generation TIL therapies to try to increase the efficacy.”
“Lifileucel has about a 30% success rate for melanoma that has progressed after standard therapy; we are working hard to do better than that,” she noted.
In a press release, Iovance summarized the results of the trial that supported the FDA’s accelerated approval of lifileucel. In an open-label single-arm study, including multiple sites worldwide, 73 adults with unresectable or metastatic melanoma who had received at least one previous systemic therapy underwent a lymphodepleting regimen followed by treatments with fludarabine and aldesleukin. Patients then received lifileucel at a median dose of 21.1 x 109 viable cells; the recommended dose ranges from 7.5 x 109 to 72 x 109 cells.
The primary efficacy outcome was objective response rate (ORR). The ORR in the study was 31.5%, and the median time to initial lifileucel response was 1.5 months.
The clinical trials of lifileucel for which Dr. Betof Warner and Dr. Puzanov served as investigators were sponsored by Iovance.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently approved the tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte cell therapy (TIL) for use in certain adults with unresectable or metastatic melanoma. This marks the first time the FDA has allowed a cellular therapy to be marketed for a solid tumor cancer.
Lifileucel is made from a patient’s surgically removed tumor. Tissue from that tumor is then sent to a manufacturing center. Turnaround time to when the drug is ready to be sent back to the cancer center for use is approximately 34 days, according to the drug’s manufacturer, Iovance.
Insurance Adjustments
The cost of the one-time lifileucel treatment is $515,000, according to the manufacturer.
Two investigators in the clinical trials of lifileucel, Allison Betof Warner, MD, of Stanford University, Stanford, California, and Igor Puzanov, MD, of Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, New York, shared their expectations regarding factors that would contribute to how much a patient paid for the drug.
Given the drug’s recent approval, the logistical details are still being worked out between cancer centers and insurers regarding how much patients will pay out of pocket for lifileucel, said Dr. Betof Warner, who is assistant professor in the Department of Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology at Stanford University.
The associated costs, including the surgery that is needed to procure the TIL cells for expansion into the final drug product, will be different for each patient, she told this publication.
Patients’ costs for lifileucel will vary based on their insurance, explained Dr. Puzanov, chief of melanoma and professor of oncology at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center.
At Roswell Park, “we will work with our regionally-based payers on a case-by-case basis to seek approval for those patients we believe can most benefit from lifileucel,” he said in an interview. Preauthorization will be required, as is standard for many cancer treatments, he added.
Once payer approval is in place, Dr. Puzanov said, he did not anticipate significant delays in access for patients.
Certified centers such as the multidisciplinary team at Roswell Park are ready to treat patients now. Other centers are similarly prepared, especially those involved in the clinical trials of lifileucel, he said.
Logistics and Infrastructure
A position article and guidelines on the management of and best practices for TIL was published in the Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer on February 29. The paper, of which both Dr. Betof Warner and Dr. Puzanov served as authors, noted that one of the barriers to the use of TIL cell therapy in clinical practice is the need for state-of-the art infrastructure at centers that want to offer the treatment. Scheduling, patient referrals, and surgery, as well as the production and infusion of TIL, must be organized and streamlined for successful treatment, the authors wrote.
The two supply chains involved in TIL — the transportation of the tumor tissue from the treatment center to the manufacturer and transport of the TIL infusion product back to the treatment center — must be timely and precise, they emphasized.
Docs Hope TIL Improves in Several Ways
Although the TIL technology is a breakthrough, “we hope to see even better efficacy and lower toxicity as further research looks at ways to improve on the current TIL standard,” Dr. Puzanov said.
More research and dose adjustments may impact patient costs and side effects, he noted. “I am looking to see TILs used in the front line, with or without checkpoint inhibitors.”
Research is needed to explore how to lower the chemotherapy doses and possibly the associated toxicity, he added. Finally, researchers must consider whether high-dose IL-2 therapy — given as part of the TIL cell therapy — could be replaced with other cytokines, or whether the number of doses could be lowered. Another avenue of exploration is engineering genes for cytokines into TILs, he said.
“The key is to think about TIL therapy before you need it — ideally, when the patient is still doing well on their frontline checkpoint inhibition immunotherapy,” Dr. Puzanov said in an interview. That is the time for evaluation, and specialty centers can provide an expert assessment, he said.
“We are constantly working to improve TIL therapy,” Dr. Betof Warner told this publication. More research is needed optimize the regimen to reduce side effects, which would not only make treatment easier for currently eligible patients, but might allow treatment for patients not currently eligible.
“For example, we are looking for ways to reduce the dose of preparative chemotherapy, which prepares the body for the cells to maximize their longevity and efficacy, and to reduce or eliminate the need to give IL-2 after the cell administration,” continued Dr. Betof Warner, who is also Director of Melanoma Medical Oncology, Director of Solid Tumor Cellular Therapy, and Codirector of the Pigmented Lesion and Melanoma Program at Stanford University. “We are also actively studying next-generation TIL therapies to try to increase the efficacy.”
“Lifileucel has about a 30% success rate for melanoma that has progressed after standard therapy; we are working hard to do better than that,” she noted.
In a press release, Iovance summarized the results of the trial that supported the FDA’s accelerated approval of lifileucel. In an open-label single-arm study, including multiple sites worldwide, 73 adults with unresectable or metastatic melanoma who had received at least one previous systemic therapy underwent a lymphodepleting regimen followed by treatments with fludarabine and aldesleukin. Patients then received lifileucel at a median dose of 21.1 x 109 viable cells; the recommended dose ranges from 7.5 x 109 to 72 x 109 cells.
The primary efficacy outcome was objective response rate (ORR). The ORR in the study was 31.5%, and the median time to initial lifileucel response was 1.5 months.
The clinical trials of lifileucel for which Dr. Betof Warner and Dr. Puzanov served as investigators were sponsored by Iovance.
Residents Unionizing: What Are the Benefits, the Downsides?
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Hospital administrators and some department heads have been vocal about the potential for unions to affect both the attending-resident relationship and the ability for residents to directly discuss concerns and educational plans.
Sometimes, there are institution-specific issues as well. One example was at Loma Linda. They argued that unionization would go against their religious principles. They filed a lawsuit. That didn’t go through, and the residents won a few months later.
I know there’s always that one senior, older doctor who says, “Back in our day, we just worked, and we never complained.”
Look at the current situation that residents are facing now, with housing and rent prices and increasing costs of childcare. Sprinkle in some inflation, poor hospital staffing, increasing workload, and add in the fact that the average first-year resident salary in 2023 was around $64,000.
Now, if you look back to 2012, the average salary was around $55,000. If you adjust that for inflation, it would be around $75,000 today, which is more than what the average resident is getting paid.
Then, there are hospital administrators who say that the hospital does not have the money to meet these demands; meanwhile, hospital graduate medical education (GME) offices receive about $150,000 of Medicare funds per resident.
Obviously, there are additional costs when it comes to training and supporting residents. In general, unionizing freaks out the people handling all the cash.
There’s also the threat of a strike, which no hospital wants on their public record. A recent highly publicized event happened at New York’s Elmhurst Hospital, when 160 residents went on strike for 3 days until a deal was made.
Critics of unionizing also cite a particular study in JAMA, which included a survey of 5700 general surgery residents at 285 programs. It found that while unions helped with vacation time and housing stipends, the unions were not associated with improved burnout rates, suicidality, job satisfaction, duty hour violations, mistreatment, educational environment, or salary.
Now, granted, this isn’t the strongest study. It only sampled one group of residents, so I wouldn’t generalize these findings, but it’s still commonly cited by anti-union advocates.
Another potential downside, which is purely anecdotal because I can’t find any data to support this, is potential retaliation against residents or harm to the attending-resident relationship.
I’m an attending. I don’t really understand this one. I don’t exactly own stock in my hospital, nor am I making millions of dollars by siphoning GME money. I’m just trying to focus on educating and supporting my residents the best I can.
Dr. Patel is Clinical Instructor, Department of Pediatrics, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons; Pediatric Hospitalist, Morgan Stanley Children’s Hospital of NewYork–Presbyterian, and Benioff Children’s Hospital, University of California San Francisco. He disclosed ties with Medumo Inc.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Hospital administrators and some department heads have been vocal about the potential for unions to affect both the attending-resident relationship and the ability for residents to directly discuss concerns and educational plans.
Sometimes, there are institution-specific issues as well. One example was at Loma Linda. They argued that unionization would go against their religious principles. They filed a lawsuit. That didn’t go through, and the residents won a few months later.
I know there’s always that one senior, older doctor who says, “Back in our day, we just worked, and we never complained.”
Look at the current situation that residents are facing now, with housing and rent prices and increasing costs of childcare. Sprinkle in some inflation, poor hospital staffing, increasing workload, and add in the fact that the average first-year resident salary in 2023 was around $64,000.
Now, if you look back to 2012, the average salary was around $55,000. If you adjust that for inflation, it would be around $75,000 today, which is more than what the average resident is getting paid.
Then, there are hospital administrators who say that the hospital does not have the money to meet these demands; meanwhile, hospital graduate medical education (GME) offices receive about $150,000 of Medicare funds per resident.
Obviously, there are additional costs when it comes to training and supporting residents. In general, unionizing freaks out the people handling all the cash.
There’s also the threat of a strike, which no hospital wants on their public record. A recent highly publicized event happened at New York’s Elmhurst Hospital, when 160 residents went on strike for 3 days until a deal was made.
Critics of unionizing also cite a particular study in JAMA, which included a survey of 5700 general surgery residents at 285 programs. It found that while unions helped with vacation time and housing stipends, the unions were not associated with improved burnout rates, suicidality, job satisfaction, duty hour violations, mistreatment, educational environment, or salary.
Now, granted, this isn’t the strongest study. It only sampled one group of residents, so I wouldn’t generalize these findings, but it’s still commonly cited by anti-union advocates.
Another potential downside, which is purely anecdotal because I can’t find any data to support this, is potential retaliation against residents or harm to the attending-resident relationship.
I’m an attending. I don’t really understand this one. I don’t exactly own stock in my hospital, nor am I making millions of dollars by siphoning GME money. I’m just trying to focus on educating and supporting my residents the best I can.
Dr. Patel is Clinical Instructor, Department of Pediatrics, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons; Pediatric Hospitalist, Morgan Stanley Children’s Hospital of NewYork–Presbyterian, and Benioff Children’s Hospital, University of California San Francisco. He disclosed ties with Medumo Inc.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Hospital administrators and some department heads have been vocal about the potential for unions to affect both the attending-resident relationship and the ability for residents to directly discuss concerns and educational plans.
Sometimes, there are institution-specific issues as well. One example was at Loma Linda. They argued that unionization would go against their religious principles. They filed a lawsuit. That didn’t go through, and the residents won a few months later.
I know there’s always that one senior, older doctor who says, “Back in our day, we just worked, and we never complained.”
Look at the current situation that residents are facing now, with housing and rent prices and increasing costs of childcare. Sprinkle in some inflation, poor hospital staffing, increasing workload, and add in the fact that the average first-year resident salary in 2023 was around $64,000.
Now, if you look back to 2012, the average salary was around $55,000. If you adjust that for inflation, it would be around $75,000 today, which is more than what the average resident is getting paid.
Then, there are hospital administrators who say that the hospital does not have the money to meet these demands; meanwhile, hospital graduate medical education (GME) offices receive about $150,000 of Medicare funds per resident.
Obviously, there are additional costs when it comes to training and supporting residents. In general, unionizing freaks out the people handling all the cash.
There’s also the threat of a strike, which no hospital wants on their public record. A recent highly publicized event happened at New York’s Elmhurst Hospital, when 160 residents went on strike for 3 days until a deal was made.
Critics of unionizing also cite a particular study in JAMA, which included a survey of 5700 general surgery residents at 285 programs. It found that while unions helped with vacation time and housing stipends, the unions were not associated with improved burnout rates, suicidality, job satisfaction, duty hour violations, mistreatment, educational environment, or salary.
Now, granted, this isn’t the strongest study. It only sampled one group of residents, so I wouldn’t generalize these findings, but it’s still commonly cited by anti-union advocates.
Another potential downside, which is purely anecdotal because I can’t find any data to support this, is potential retaliation against residents or harm to the attending-resident relationship.
I’m an attending. I don’t really understand this one. I don’t exactly own stock in my hospital, nor am I making millions of dollars by siphoning GME money. I’m just trying to focus on educating and supporting my residents the best I can.
Dr. Patel is Clinical Instructor, Department of Pediatrics, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons; Pediatric Hospitalist, Morgan Stanley Children’s Hospital of NewYork–Presbyterian, and Benioff Children’s Hospital, University of California San Francisco. He disclosed ties with Medumo Inc.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
How the Change Healthcare Cyberattack Affects Oncology Care
Change Healthcare, a subsidiary of UnitedHealth, took its systems offline after a cyberattack by BlackCat/ALPHV ransomware group.
The American Hospital Association said that this massive interruption is the “most significant cyberattack on the US healthcare system in American history.”
What Is the Change Healthcare Attack?
On February 21, Change Healthcare experienced an outside cybersecurity threat. When it became aware of the issue, the company disconnected its systems to prevent any further issues. Change Healthcare said that it has a “high level” of confidence that the cyberattack did not affect Optum, UnitedHealthcare, and UnitedHealth Group systems, stating it was an isolated attack on Change Healthcare. However, Change Healthcare has not said whether patient information has been compromised.
Who Is Behind the Attack?
In a statement, Change Healthcare announced that BlackCat/ALPHV identified itself to the company, claiming responsibility for the cybercrime. According to the US Department of Justice, BlackCat/ALPHV is the second most prolific ransomware-as-a-service entity in the world, with over 1000 victims of cybercrimes across the globe.
This news organization reached out to the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), a component of the US Department of Homeland Security, for comment on whether CISA or other agencies had taken any previous action to stop the group after other attacks.
“CISA is working with our partners and Change Healthcare to support remediation, assist impacted organizations, and share timely information to reduce the likelihood of similar intrusions,” Eric Goldstein, executive assistant director for cybersecurity, responded in a statement.
How Has the Attack Affected Oncology Practices?
Change Healthcare is a technology company that provides services to hospitals and clinics across the country, including pharmacy claims transactions, clinician claims processing, patient access and financial clearance, clinician payments, and prior authorizations.
The Community Oncology Alliance (COA) said that the cyberattack has caused a massive disruption in claims processing. COA also said that practices have reported the disruption of benefits verification for patients, prior authorizations, and financial assistance from the attack.
“It’s impacting pretty much every facet of the practice and practice management,” said Nicolas Ferreyros, managing director of policy, advocacy, and communications at COA. “Right now, practices are making do, they’re working around these challenges.”
However, Ferreyros cautioned, continuing to manage these challenges “is absolutely, 100% unsustainable” for oncology practices.
“Very soon you’re going to find practices that are having to make tough decisions about what to do, how are they going to make payroll, are they going to take financial risks on filling prescriptions and treating patients?” he added.
What Are Current Workarounds for Clinicians?
Change Healthcare recommends that clinicians use manual methods such as calling the payer’s provider service line to check patients’ claim status and complete eligibility verification and prior authorizations.
The Department of Health & Human Services has issued guidance to Medicare Advantage organizations and Part D sponsors asking them to “remove or relax prior authorization, other utilization management, and timely filing requirements” while systems are offline. The department is also asking Medicare Advantage to offer advance funding to clinicians who have been affected the most.
How Common Are Attacks Like These?
In 2023, a record-setting 725 healthcare security breaches were reported to the Department of Health & Human Services Office for Civil Rights, according to a report from The HIPAA Journal. The number of breachers has increased yearly. Last year, an average of 370,000 healthcare records were breached every day.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Change Healthcare, a subsidiary of UnitedHealth, took its systems offline after a cyberattack by BlackCat/ALPHV ransomware group.
The American Hospital Association said that this massive interruption is the “most significant cyberattack on the US healthcare system in American history.”
What Is the Change Healthcare Attack?
On February 21, Change Healthcare experienced an outside cybersecurity threat. When it became aware of the issue, the company disconnected its systems to prevent any further issues. Change Healthcare said that it has a “high level” of confidence that the cyberattack did not affect Optum, UnitedHealthcare, and UnitedHealth Group systems, stating it was an isolated attack on Change Healthcare. However, Change Healthcare has not said whether patient information has been compromised.
Who Is Behind the Attack?
In a statement, Change Healthcare announced that BlackCat/ALPHV identified itself to the company, claiming responsibility for the cybercrime. According to the US Department of Justice, BlackCat/ALPHV is the second most prolific ransomware-as-a-service entity in the world, with over 1000 victims of cybercrimes across the globe.
This news organization reached out to the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), a component of the US Department of Homeland Security, for comment on whether CISA or other agencies had taken any previous action to stop the group after other attacks.
“CISA is working with our partners and Change Healthcare to support remediation, assist impacted organizations, and share timely information to reduce the likelihood of similar intrusions,” Eric Goldstein, executive assistant director for cybersecurity, responded in a statement.
How Has the Attack Affected Oncology Practices?
Change Healthcare is a technology company that provides services to hospitals and clinics across the country, including pharmacy claims transactions, clinician claims processing, patient access and financial clearance, clinician payments, and prior authorizations.
The Community Oncology Alliance (COA) said that the cyberattack has caused a massive disruption in claims processing. COA also said that practices have reported the disruption of benefits verification for patients, prior authorizations, and financial assistance from the attack.
“It’s impacting pretty much every facet of the practice and practice management,” said Nicolas Ferreyros, managing director of policy, advocacy, and communications at COA. “Right now, practices are making do, they’re working around these challenges.”
However, Ferreyros cautioned, continuing to manage these challenges “is absolutely, 100% unsustainable” for oncology practices.
“Very soon you’re going to find practices that are having to make tough decisions about what to do, how are they going to make payroll, are they going to take financial risks on filling prescriptions and treating patients?” he added.
What Are Current Workarounds for Clinicians?
Change Healthcare recommends that clinicians use manual methods such as calling the payer’s provider service line to check patients’ claim status and complete eligibility verification and prior authorizations.
The Department of Health & Human Services has issued guidance to Medicare Advantage organizations and Part D sponsors asking them to “remove or relax prior authorization, other utilization management, and timely filing requirements” while systems are offline. The department is also asking Medicare Advantage to offer advance funding to clinicians who have been affected the most.
How Common Are Attacks Like These?
In 2023, a record-setting 725 healthcare security breaches were reported to the Department of Health & Human Services Office for Civil Rights, according to a report from The HIPAA Journal. The number of breachers has increased yearly. Last year, an average of 370,000 healthcare records were breached every day.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Change Healthcare, a subsidiary of UnitedHealth, took its systems offline after a cyberattack by BlackCat/ALPHV ransomware group.
The American Hospital Association said that this massive interruption is the “most significant cyberattack on the US healthcare system in American history.”
What Is the Change Healthcare Attack?
On February 21, Change Healthcare experienced an outside cybersecurity threat. When it became aware of the issue, the company disconnected its systems to prevent any further issues. Change Healthcare said that it has a “high level” of confidence that the cyberattack did not affect Optum, UnitedHealthcare, and UnitedHealth Group systems, stating it was an isolated attack on Change Healthcare. However, Change Healthcare has not said whether patient information has been compromised.
Who Is Behind the Attack?
In a statement, Change Healthcare announced that BlackCat/ALPHV identified itself to the company, claiming responsibility for the cybercrime. According to the US Department of Justice, BlackCat/ALPHV is the second most prolific ransomware-as-a-service entity in the world, with over 1000 victims of cybercrimes across the globe.
This news organization reached out to the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), a component of the US Department of Homeland Security, for comment on whether CISA or other agencies had taken any previous action to stop the group after other attacks.
“CISA is working with our partners and Change Healthcare to support remediation, assist impacted organizations, and share timely information to reduce the likelihood of similar intrusions,” Eric Goldstein, executive assistant director for cybersecurity, responded in a statement.
How Has the Attack Affected Oncology Practices?
Change Healthcare is a technology company that provides services to hospitals and clinics across the country, including pharmacy claims transactions, clinician claims processing, patient access and financial clearance, clinician payments, and prior authorizations.
The Community Oncology Alliance (COA) said that the cyberattack has caused a massive disruption in claims processing. COA also said that practices have reported the disruption of benefits verification for patients, prior authorizations, and financial assistance from the attack.
“It’s impacting pretty much every facet of the practice and practice management,” said Nicolas Ferreyros, managing director of policy, advocacy, and communications at COA. “Right now, practices are making do, they’re working around these challenges.”
However, Ferreyros cautioned, continuing to manage these challenges “is absolutely, 100% unsustainable” for oncology practices.
“Very soon you’re going to find practices that are having to make tough decisions about what to do, how are they going to make payroll, are they going to take financial risks on filling prescriptions and treating patients?” he added.
What Are Current Workarounds for Clinicians?
Change Healthcare recommends that clinicians use manual methods such as calling the payer’s provider service line to check patients’ claim status and complete eligibility verification and prior authorizations.
The Department of Health & Human Services has issued guidance to Medicare Advantage organizations and Part D sponsors asking them to “remove or relax prior authorization, other utilization management, and timely filing requirements” while systems are offline. The department is also asking Medicare Advantage to offer advance funding to clinicians who have been affected the most.
How Common Are Attacks Like These?
In 2023, a record-setting 725 healthcare security breaches were reported to the Department of Health & Human Services Office for Civil Rights, according to a report from The HIPAA Journal. The number of breachers has increased yearly. Last year, an average of 370,000 healthcare records were breached every day.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Medicare Pay Bump Provision in Federal Bill Falls Short, Doc Groups Say
Lawmakers have added a provision to raise Medicare payments to clinicians to a $460 billion bipartisan package of federal spending bills that passed in the House on March 6 and is expected to be passed in the Senate and signed by President Biden before then end of March 8, but industry groups have criticized it as paltry.
Lawmakers often tweak Medicare policy by adding provisions to other kinds of legislation, including the spending bills Congress must pass to keep the federal government running.
Physicians’ groups and some lawmakers have long pressed Congress to change Medicare payment rules with little success, even as inflation has caused physicians’ expenses to rise. Doctors now face a 3.4% cut to Medicare reimbursements in 2024, which would be only partly mitigated by the recently announced provision.
The Medical Group Management Association (MGMA) said the proposed increase would total 1.68%. The increase, part of a bipartisan package of bills released by the House and Senate Appropriations committees on March 3, would apply to the budget for fiscal 2024, which began on October 1, 2023.
“We are deeply disappointed with Congress’ half-hearted attempt to remedy the devastating blow physician practices were dealt by the 2024 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule,” Anders Gilberg, senior vice president of MGMA, said in a statement. “Anything less than a full reversal of the 3.4% cut is appallingly inadequate.”
The American Medical Association said it was “extremely disappointed” that the boost only eased, but did not fully reverse, a deeper planned cut.
The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) also expressed disappointment with the proposed increase.
“The AAFP has repeatedly told Congress that the 3.4% Medicare payment reduction that went into effect on January 1 is untenable for family physicians and threatens patients’ access to primary care,” the group said in a statement.
“While we appreciate the partial relief, family physicians continue to face an annual threat of payment cuts that are detrimental to practices and patients,” AAFP said.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Lawmakers have added a provision to raise Medicare payments to clinicians to a $460 billion bipartisan package of federal spending bills that passed in the House on March 6 and is expected to be passed in the Senate and signed by President Biden before then end of March 8, but industry groups have criticized it as paltry.
Lawmakers often tweak Medicare policy by adding provisions to other kinds of legislation, including the spending bills Congress must pass to keep the federal government running.
Physicians’ groups and some lawmakers have long pressed Congress to change Medicare payment rules with little success, even as inflation has caused physicians’ expenses to rise. Doctors now face a 3.4% cut to Medicare reimbursements in 2024, which would be only partly mitigated by the recently announced provision.
The Medical Group Management Association (MGMA) said the proposed increase would total 1.68%. The increase, part of a bipartisan package of bills released by the House and Senate Appropriations committees on March 3, would apply to the budget for fiscal 2024, which began on October 1, 2023.
“We are deeply disappointed with Congress’ half-hearted attempt to remedy the devastating blow physician practices were dealt by the 2024 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule,” Anders Gilberg, senior vice president of MGMA, said in a statement. “Anything less than a full reversal of the 3.4% cut is appallingly inadequate.”
The American Medical Association said it was “extremely disappointed” that the boost only eased, but did not fully reverse, a deeper planned cut.
The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) also expressed disappointment with the proposed increase.
“The AAFP has repeatedly told Congress that the 3.4% Medicare payment reduction that went into effect on January 1 is untenable for family physicians and threatens patients’ access to primary care,” the group said in a statement.
“While we appreciate the partial relief, family physicians continue to face an annual threat of payment cuts that are detrimental to practices and patients,” AAFP said.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Lawmakers have added a provision to raise Medicare payments to clinicians to a $460 billion bipartisan package of federal spending bills that passed in the House on March 6 and is expected to be passed in the Senate and signed by President Biden before then end of March 8, but industry groups have criticized it as paltry.
Lawmakers often tweak Medicare policy by adding provisions to other kinds of legislation, including the spending bills Congress must pass to keep the federal government running.
Physicians’ groups and some lawmakers have long pressed Congress to change Medicare payment rules with little success, even as inflation has caused physicians’ expenses to rise. Doctors now face a 3.4% cut to Medicare reimbursements in 2024, which would be only partly mitigated by the recently announced provision.
The Medical Group Management Association (MGMA) said the proposed increase would total 1.68%. The increase, part of a bipartisan package of bills released by the House and Senate Appropriations committees on March 3, would apply to the budget for fiscal 2024, which began on October 1, 2023.
“We are deeply disappointed with Congress’ half-hearted attempt to remedy the devastating blow physician practices were dealt by the 2024 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule,” Anders Gilberg, senior vice president of MGMA, said in a statement. “Anything less than a full reversal of the 3.4% cut is appallingly inadequate.”
The American Medical Association said it was “extremely disappointed” that the boost only eased, but did not fully reverse, a deeper planned cut.
The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) also expressed disappointment with the proposed increase.
“The AAFP has repeatedly told Congress that the 3.4% Medicare payment reduction that went into effect on January 1 is untenable for family physicians and threatens patients’ access to primary care,” the group said in a statement.
“While we appreciate the partial relief, family physicians continue to face an annual threat of payment cuts that are detrimental to practices and patients,” AAFP said.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
How These MDs Conquered Imposter Syndrome
Do I deserve to be here? Am I doing what I’m supposed to be doing? Is anyone going to tell me if I’m terrible?
Kerri Palamara McGrath, MD, remembered worrying over these questions as chief resident at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, in 2009. Having graduated from New York Medical College, she felt out of step with her peers from Ivy League medical schools and considered herself lucky to be there. In order to measure up, she felt she had to work twice as hard as everybody else.
But as Dr. McGrath moved through residency and spoke with other trainees, she had a realization. Her constant fears, the nagging voice in her head saying she wasn’t good enough, these issues weren’t exclusive to her; they were pervasive.
Today, Dr. McGrath is the director of the Center for Physician Well-Being at Massachusetts General Hospital. The facility aims to address physician stress and equip doctors with the tools to navigate personal and professional issues. Dr. McGrath is also a physician coach, a growing nonclinical field, helping doctors identify their own stressors, values, and measures of success. This type of internal work, Dr. McGrath feels, can help alleviate imposter syndrome, that inner refrain saying: I’ll never be good enough.
What Is Imposter Syndrome?
While not a formal medical diagnosis, imposter syndrome has been defined as «an internal experience of intellectual phoniness.» It›s considered an inability to internalize success and a tendency to attribute gains to external factors — for example, being in the right place at the right time.
“Many people describe imposter phenomena in medicine as fearing that others are going to realize that they don’t belong somewhere or question why they’re there,” said Dr. McGrath.
It’s a “fear of being found out,” added Jessi Gold, MD, a psychiatrist who treats physicians. “In many ways, imposter syndrome shows up as a conflict between the outer self — the metaphorical mask you’re ‘putting on’ [in order] to achieve, and the inner self — how you feel like you’re not measuring up.”
Dr. McGrath said she experienced imposter syndrome before her medical career even began. She applied to 26 medical schools. Only one accepted her. “The whole time, I was like, ‘This is the only school you got into, so you’re obviously not good enough,’” she recalled. Later, having been chosen by a “coveted” institution like Mass General, “you assume that, at some point, someone will realize that the gig is up, that everybody’s better than you.”
Where Does Imposter Syndrome Come From?
Dr. McGrath felt that in medicine, high expectations are often coupled with low self-compassion. “We are so hard on ourselves, and when we set our expectations so high, we’re constantly disappointed in ourselves,” she said. External markers of success — papers published, promotions, or even social media — can further fuel this.
It can feel like “striving for excellence in a sea of excellence,” Dr. McGrath added, and this can invite comparison.
Ravi Parikh, MD, a medical oncologist and physician-scientist at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, remembered struggling with imposter syndrome early in his career. As a new doctor, he had a ton of questions, and yet those above him seemed able to make weighty decisions on their own. The comparison shook his confidence. “I remember thinking that when I became an attending, I would just magically not have to run decisions by people,” said Dr. Parikh. But even then, the “magical” self-assurance didn’t materialize.
Research found that imposter syndrome is more likely to affect women and groups that are underrepresented in medicine. But overall, the incidence is remarkably high.
A 2023 survey published in the Journal of the American College of Surgeons found that 90% of female surgeons and more than two-thirds of male ones experienced imposter syndrome. In a 2023 study on medical students in JAMA, it was nearly universal; 97% reported feelings of imposter syndrome with women 1.7 times more likely to report it than men and underrepresented groups often three times more likely.
‘I’m Clearly in the Minority Here’
The term “imposter” also suggests a lack of belonging. If medicine doesn’t “look like you,” this can create feelings of pressure, like you’re “representing a whole group with your mere existence,” said Dr. Gold, “and you have to keep proving yourself.”
Chloe Slocum, MD, MPH, an assistant professor of physical medicine and rehabilitation at Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, remembered that feeling of conspicuous “otherness.” As a resident, Dr. Slocum began presenting at national meetings and later pursued physician leadership training. Many of her counterparts at these events were older males. “At some programs early on, I’d wonder, ‘I’m clearly in the minority here; did they really make the right decision including me in this?’”
Reactions from those around you can also have an impact. Dr. McGrath — who is 5’ 2” and describes herself as looking “very young” — noted that when she started out, neither patients nor other providers thought she was a doctor.
“I have tried everything in the book to be seen, in somebody else’s eyes, as more consistent with a doctor,” she said. “I’ve dressed down. I’ve dressed up. I’ve worn heels. I’ve worn flats. I’ve worn glasses. I’ve done all the things. When you’re constantly being told you don’t look like a doctor, you start questioning yourself.”
The Emotional Toll
If that sounds mentally exhausting, it is. Research found that imposter syndrome is often linked with burnout, depression, and anxiety.
The need to prove yourself and prevent being “found out” can push some doctors toward traditional measurements of success — promotions or published work, said Dr. Gold. But “if you’re trying to achieve in ways that you don’t value,” she warned, “you’re going to burn out.”
On the other hand, intense self-doubt can also limit advancement. After all, if you don’t think you’re good enough, you may not apply for job opportunities or leadership positions.
This mental burden can persist over years and even decades. A 2020 review of studies on imposter syndrome noted that “it would be reassuring to believe that imposter symptoms decline with age.” Unfortunately, several studies indicated that they do not.
How to Manage Imposter Syndrome
While it can be difficult to overcome imposter syndrome, there are ways to work through it and make it less pervasive or intense. Here are some tips from our experts:
- Prioritize your mental health. This can be difficult for some physicians, but don’t ignore symptoms of depression, anxiety, or burnout. Untreated mental health conditions cloud the ability to reflect on some of the existential questions that will help you navigate imposter syndrome, said Dr. Gold.
- Assess how often you need validation and why. Try to identify what you›re feeling, what needs aren›t being met, and how you can meet those needs. You can then consider where to get that validation either internally or by connecting with a colleague. Dr. McGrath encourages physicians to ask, “What does success look like for me?” and can you make success more personal and meaningful. It might sound shocking, but rather than an unattainable ideal, success should be something that feels good.
- Know the power of teamwork. As Dr. Parikh eventually realized, collaborative care is a common and beneficial part of medicine — not something that makes you a less-than physician. “There’s a lot of opportunity to crowdsource the medical decision-making process in ways that increase your own confidence as a doctor,” he said.
- Practice self-compassion. Critical voices in your head add to an already hard and stressful world. This is where self-compassion comes in. “We don’t have much control over medicine, but we have control over how medicine makes us feel,” Dr. Gold said. Imagine treating yourself how you would treat a friend.
- Consider a physician coach. suggests that physician coaches can help lower rates of burnout and improve well-being, resilience, professional fulfillment, and self-worth. “Coaching looks into the future to help you envision what things would look like if you were feeling differently. It helps you explore what’s in your control and how you want to shape that,” said Dr. McGrath.
- Amplify the good. Apps and web-based tools can remind you to celebrate your own achievements. The “” exercise created by J. Bryan Sexton, PhD, at the Duke Center for Healthcare Safety & Quality for example, was documented in a . When healthcare workers reflected on three good things that happened each day for 2 weeks, they reported significant improvements in depression, burnout, and work-life balance.
- Do a values check. Dr. Gold often suggested that physicians with imposter syndrome ask themselves what they value, what medicine values, and how the two line up. Pausing to consider this can guide you toward useful strategies. If you value family life but feel like medicine doesn’t, for example, you might talk with a colleague who has navigated this conflict.
Dr. Gold added that reminding yourself of the range of options can be freeing. “There’s no ‘one career’ in medicine,” she said. “There are multiple ways to be happy in medicine; there are multiple ways to be happy outside of medicine. And you’re not a failure for the path you choose.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Do I deserve to be here? Am I doing what I’m supposed to be doing? Is anyone going to tell me if I’m terrible?
Kerri Palamara McGrath, MD, remembered worrying over these questions as chief resident at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, in 2009. Having graduated from New York Medical College, she felt out of step with her peers from Ivy League medical schools and considered herself lucky to be there. In order to measure up, she felt she had to work twice as hard as everybody else.
But as Dr. McGrath moved through residency and spoke with other trainees, she had a realization. Her constant fears, the nagging voice in her head saying she wasn’t good enough, these issues weren’t exclusive to her; they were pervasive.
Today, Dr. McGrath is the director of the Center for Physician Well-Being at Massachusetts General Hospital. The facility aims to address physician stress and equip doctors with the tools to navigate personal and professional issues. Dr. McGrath is also a physician coach, a growing nonclinical field, helping doctors identify their own stressors, values, and measures of success. This type of internal work, Dr. McGrath feels, can help alleviate imposter syndrome, that inner refrain saying: I’ll never be good enough.
What Is Imposter Syndrome?
While not a formal medical diagnosis, imposter syndrome has been defined as «an internal experience of intellectual phoniness.» It›s considered an inability to internalize success and a tendency to attribute gains to external factors — for example, being in the right place at the right time.
“Many people describe imposter phenomena in medicine as fearing that others are going to realize that they don’t belong somewhere or question why they’re there,” said Dr. McGrath.
It’s a “fear of being found out,” added Jessi Gold, MD, a psychiatrist who treats physicians. “In many ways, imposter syndrome shows up as a conflict between the outer self — the metaphorical mask you’re ‘putting on’ [in order] to achieve, and the inner self — how you feel like you’re not measuring up.”
Dr. McGrath said she experienced imposter syndrome before her medical career even began. She applied to 26 medical schools. Only one accepted her. “The whole time, I was like, ‘This is the only school you got into, so you’re obviously not good enough,’” she recalled. Later, having been chosen by a “coveted” institution like Mass General, “you assume that, at some point, someone will realize that the gig is up, that everybody’s better than you.”
Where Does Imposter Syndrome Come From?
Dr. McGrath felt that in medicine, high expectations are often coupled with low self-compassion. “We are so hard on ourselves, and when we set our expectations so high, we’re constantly disappointed in ourselves,” she said. External markers of success — papers published, promotions, or even social media — can further fuel this.
It can feel like “striving for excellence in a sea of excellence,” Dr. McGrath added, and this can invite comparison.
Ravi Parikh, MD, a medical oncologist and physician-scientist at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, remembered struggling with imposter syndrome early in his career. As a new doctor, he had a ton of questions, and yet those above him seemed able to make weighty decisions on their own. The comparison shook his confidence. “I remember thinking that when I became an attending, I would just magically not have to run decisions by people,” said Dr. Parikh. But even then, the “magical” self-assurance didn’t materialize.
Research found that imposter syndrome is more likely to affect women and groups that are underrepresented in medicine. But overall, the incidence is remarkably high.
A 2023 survey published in the Journal of the American College of Surgeons found that 90% of female surgeons and more than two-thirds of male ones experienced imposter syndrome. In a 2023 study on medical students in JAMA, it was nearly universal; 97% reported feelings of imposter syndrome with women 1.7 times more likely to report it than men and underrepresented groups often three times more likely.
‘I’m Clearly in the Minority Here’
The term “imposter” also suggests a lack of belonging. If medicine doesn’t “look like you,” this can create feelings of pressure, like you’re “representing a whole group with your mere existence,” said Dr. Gold, “and you have to keep proving yourself.”
Chloe Slocum, MD, MPH, an assistant professor of physical medicine and rehabilitation at Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, remembered that feeling of conspicuous “otherness.” As a resident, Dr. Slocum began presenting at national meetings and later pursued physician leadership training. Many of her counterparts at these events were older males. “At some programs early on, I’d wonder, ‘I’m clearly in the minority here; did they really make the right decision including me in this?’”
Reactions from those around you can also have an impact. Dr. McGrath — who is 5’ 2” and describes herself as looking “very young” — noted that when she started out, neither patients nor other providers thought she was a doctor.
“I have tried everything in the book to be seen, in somebody else’s eyes, as more consistent with a doctor,” she said. “I’ve dressed down. I’ve dressed up. I’ve worn heels. I’ve worn flats. I’ve worn glasses. I’ve done all the things. When you’re constantly being told you don’t look like a doctor, you start questioning yourself.”
The Emotional Toll
If that sounds mentally exhausting, it is. Research found that imposter syndrome is often linked with burnout, depression, and anxiety.
The need to prove yourself and prevent being “found out” can push some doctors toward traditional measurements of success — promotions or published work, said Dr. Gold. But “if you’re trying to achieve in ways that you don’t value,” she warned, “you’re going to burn out.”
On the other hand, intense self-doubt can also limit advancement. After all, if you don’t think you’re good enough, you may not apply for job opportunities or leadership positions.
This mental burden can persist over years and even decades. A 2020 review of studies on imposter syndrome noted that “it would be reassuring to believe that imposter symptoms decline with age.” Unfortunately, several studies indicated that they do not.
How to Manage Imposter Syndrome
While it can be difficult to overcome imposter syndrome, there are ways to work through it and make it less pervasive or intense. Here are some tips from our experts:
- Prioritize your mental health. This can be difficult for some physicians, but don’t ignore symptoms of depression, anxiety, or burnout. Untreated mental health conditions cloud the ability to reflect on some of the existential questions that will help you navigate imposter syndrome, said Dr. Gold.
- Assess how often you need validation and why. Try to identify what you›re feeling, what needs aren›t being met, and how you can meet those needs. You can then consider where to get that validation either internally or by connecting with a colleague. Dr. McGrath encourages physicians to ask, “What does success look like for me?” and can you make success more personal and meaningful. It might sound shocking, but rather than an unattainable ideal, success should be something that feels good.
- Know the power of teamwork. As Dr. Parikh eventually realized, collaborative care is a common and beneficial part of medicine — not something that makes you a less-than physician. “There’s a lot of opportunity to crowdsource the medical decision-making process in ways that increase your own confidence as a doctor,” he said.
- Practice self-compassion. Critical voices in your head add to an already hard and stressful world. This is where self-compassion comes in. “We don’t have much control over medicine, but we have control over how medicine makes us feel,” Dr. Gold said. Imagine treating yourself how you would treat a friend.
- Consider a physician coach. suggests that physician coaches can help lower rates of burnout and improve well-being, resilience, professional fulfillment, and self-worth. “Coaching looks into the future to help you envision what things would look like if you were feeling differently. It helps you explore what’s in your control and how you want to shape that,” said Dr. McGrath.
- Amplify the good. Apps and web-based tools can remind you to celebrate your own achievements. The “” exercise created by J. Bryan Sexton, PhD, at the Duke Center for Healthcare Safety & Quality for example, was documented in a . When healthcare workers reflected on three good things that happened each day for 2 weeks, they reported significant improvements in depression, burnout, and work-life balance.
- Do a values check. Dr. Gold often suggested that physicians with imposter syndrome ask themselves what they value, what medicine values, and how the two line up. Pausing to consider this can guide you toward useful strategies. If you value family life but feel like medicine doesn’t, for example, you might talk with a colleague who has navigated this conflict.
Dr. Gold added that reminding yourself of the range of options can be freeing. “There’s no ‘one career’ in medicine,” she said. “There are multiple ways to be happy in medicine; there are multiple ways to be happy outside of medicine. And you’re not a failure for the path you choose.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Do I deserve to be here? Am I doing what I’m supposed to be doing? Is anyone going to tell me if I’m terrible?
Kerri Palamara McGrath, MD, remembered worrying over these questions as chief resident at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, in 2009. Having graduated from New York Medical College, she felt out of step with her peers from Ivy League medical schools and considered herself lucky to be there. In order to measure up, she felt she had to work twice as hard as everybody else.
But as Dr. McGrath moved through residency and spoke with other trainees, she had a realization. Her constant fears, the nagging voice in her head saying she wasn’t good enough, these issues weren’t exclusive to her; they were pervasive.
Today, Dr. McGrath is the director of the Center for Physician Well-Being at Massachusetts General Hospital. The facility aims to address physician stress and equip doctors with the tools to navigate personal and professional issues. Dr. McGrath is also a physician coach, a growing nonclinical field, helping doctors identify their own stressors, values, and measures of success. This type of internal work, Dr. McGrath feels, can help alleviate imposter syndrome, that inner refrain saying: I’ll never be good enough.
What Is Imposter Syndrome?
While not a formal medical diagnosis, imposter syndrome has been defined as «an internal experience of intellectual phoniness.» It›s considered an inability to internalize success and a tendency to attribute gains to external factors — for example, being in the right place at the right time.
“Many people describe imposter phenomena in medicine as fearing that others are going to realize that they don’t belong somewhere or question why they’re there,” said Dr. McGrath.
It’s a “fear of being found out,” added Jessi Gold, MD, a psychiatrist who treats physicians. “In many ways, imposter syndrome shows up as a conflict between the outer self — the metaphorical mask you’re ‘putting on’ [in order] to achieve, and the inner self — how you feel like you’re not measuring up.”
Dr. McGrath said she experienced imposter syndrome before her medical career even began. She applied to 26 medical schools. Only one accepted her. “The whole time, I was like, ‘This is the only school you got into, so you’re obviously not good enough,’” she recalled. Later, having been chosen by a “coveted” institution like Mass General, “you assume that, at some point, someone will realize that the gig is up, that everybody’s better than you.”
Where Does Imposter Syndrome Come From?
Dr. McGrath felt that in medicine, high expectations are often coupled with low self-compassion. “We are so hard on ourselves, and when we set our expectations so high, we’re constantly disappointed in ourselves,” she said. External markers of success — papers published, promotions, or even social media — can further fuel this.
It can feel like “striving for excellence in a sea of excellence,” Dr. McGrath added, and this can invite comparison.
Ravi Parikh, MD, a medical oncologist and physician-scientist at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, remembered struggling with imposter syndrome early in his career. As a new doctor, he had a ton of questions, and yet those above him seemed able to make weighty decisions on their own. The comparison shook his confidence. “I remember thinking that when I became an attending, I would just magically not have to run decisions by people,” said Dr. Parikh. But even then, the “magical” self-assurance didn’t materialize.
Research found that imposter syndrome is more likely to affect women and groups that are underrepresented in medicine. But overall, the incidence is remarkably high.
A 2023 survey published in the Journal of the American College of Surgeons found that 90% of female surgeons and more than two-thirds of male ones experienced imposter syndrome. In a 2023 study on medical students in JAMA, it was nearly universal; 97% reported feelings of imposter syndrome with women 1.7 times more likely to report it than men and underrepresented groups often three times more likely.
‘I’m Clearly in the Minority Here’
The term “imposter” also suggests a lack of belonging. If medicine doesn’t “look like you,” this can create feelings of pressure, like you’re “representing a whole group with your mere existence,” said Dr. Gold, “and you have to keep proving yourself.”
Chloe Slocum, MD, MPH, an assistant professor of physical medicine and rehabilitation at Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, remembered that feeling of conspicuous “otherness.” As a resident, Dr. Slocum began presenting at national meetings and later pursued physician leadership training. Many of her counterparts at these events were older males. “At some programs early on, I’d wonder, ‘I’m clearly in the minority here; did they really make the right decision including me in this?’”
Reactions from those around you can also have an impact. Dr. McGrath — who is 5’ 2” and describes herself as looking “very young” — noted that when she started out, neither patients nor other providers thought she was a doctor.
“I have tried everything in the book to be seen, in somebody else’s eyes, as more consistent with a doctor,” she said. “I’ve dressed down. I’ve dressed up. I’ve worn heels. I’ve worn flats. I’ve worn glasses. I’ve done all the things. When you’re constantly being told you don’t look like a doctor, you start questioning yourself.”
The Emotional Toll
If that sounds mentally exhausting, it is. Research found that imposter syndrome is often linked with burnout, depression, and anxiety.
The need to prove yourself and prevent being “found out” can push some doctors toward traditional measurements of success — promotions or published work, said Dr. Gold. But “if you’re trying to achieve in ways that you don’t value,” she warned, “you’re going to burn out.”
On the other hand, intense self-doubt can also limit advancement. After all, if you don’t think you’re good enough, you may not apply for job opportunities or leadership positions.
This mental burden can persist over years and even decades. A 2020 review of studies on imposter syndrome noted that “it would be reassuring to believe that imposter symptoms decline with age.” Unfortunately, several studies indicated that they do not.
How to Manage Imposter Syndrome
While it can be difficult to overcome imposter syndrome, there are ways to work through it and make it less pervasive or intense. Here are some tips from our experts:
- Prioritize your mental health. This can be difficult for some physicians, but don’t ignore symptoms of depression, anxiety, or burnout. Untreated mental health conditions cloud the ability to reflect on some of the existential questions that will help you navigate imposter syndrome, said Dr. Gold.
- Assess how often you need validation and why. Try to identify what you›re feeling, what needs aren›t being met, and how you can meet those needs. You can then consider where to get that validation either internally or by connecting with a colleague. Dr. McGrath encourages physicians to ask, “What does success look like for me?” and can you make success more personal and meaningful. It might sound shocking, but rather than an unattainable ideal, success should be something that feels good.
- Know the power of teamwork. As Dr. Parikh eventually realized, collaborative care is a common and beneficial part of medicine — not something that makes you a less-than physician. “There’s a lot of opportunity to crowdsource the medical decision-making process in ways that increase your own confidence as a doctor,” he said.
- Practice self-compassion. Critical voices in your head add to an already hard and stressful world. This is where self-compassion comes in. “We don’t have much control over medicine, but we have control over how medicine makes us feel,” Dr. Gold said. Imagine treating yourself how you would treat a friend.
- Consider a physician coach. suggests that physician coaches can help lower rates of burnout and improve well-being, resilience, professional fulfillment, and self-worth. “Coaching looks into the future to help you envision what things would look like if you were feeling differently. It helps you explore what’s in your control and how you want to shape that,” said Dr. McGrath.
- Amplify the good. Apps and web-based tools can remind you to celebrate your own achievements. The “” exercise created by J. Bryan Sexton, PhD, at the Duke Center for Healthcare Safety & Quality for example, was documented in a . When healthcare workers reflected on three good things that happened each day for 2 weeks, they reported significant improvements in depression, burnout, and work-life balance.
- Do a values check. Dr. Gold often suggested that physicians with imposter syndrome ask themselves what they value, what medicine values, and how the two line up. Pausing to consider this can guide you toward useful strategies. If you value family life but feel like medicine doesn’t, for example, you might talk with a colleague who has navigated this conflict.
Dr. Gold added that reminding yourself of the range of options can be freeing. “There’s no ‘one career’ in medicine,” she said. “There are multiple ways to be happy in medicine; there are multiple ways to be happy outside of medicine. And you’re not a failure for the path you choose.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.