User login
Communicating Bad News to Patients
Communicating bad news to patients is one of the most stressful and challenging clinical tasks for any physician, regardless of his or her specialty. This task is more frequent for physicians caring for oncology patients and can also affect the physician’s emotional state.
The manner in which bad news is communicated plays a significant role in the psychological burden on the patient, and various communication techniques and guidelines have been developed to enable physicians to perform this difficult task effectively.
Revealing bad news in person whenever possible, to address the emotional responses of patients or relatives, is part of the prevailing expert recommendations. However, it has been acknowledged that in certain situations, communicating bad news over the phone is more feasible.
Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the disclosure of bad news over the phone has become a necessary substitute for in-person visits and an integral part of clinical practice worldwide. It remains to be clarified what the real psychological impact on patients and their closest relatives is when delivering bad news over the phone compared with delivering it in person.
Right and Wrong Ways
The most popular guideline for communicating bad news is SPIKES, a six-phase protocol with a special application for cancer patients. It is used in various countries (eg, the United States, France, and Germany) as a guide for this sensitive practice and for training in communication skills in this context. The SPIKES acronym refers to the following six recommended steps for delivering bad news:
- Setting: Set up the conversation.
- Perception: Assess the patient’s perception.
- Invitation: Ask the patient what he or she would like to know.
- Knowledge: Provide the patient with knowledge and information, breaking it down into small parts.
- Emotions: Acknowledge and empathetically address the patient’s emotions.
- Strategy and Summary: Summarize and define a medical action plan.
The lesson from SPIKES is that when a person experiences strong emotions, it is difficult to continue discussing anything, and they will struggle to hear anything. Allowing for silence is fundamental. In addition, empathy allows the patient to express his or her feelings and concerns, as well as provide support. The aim is not to argue but to allow the expression of emotions without criticism. However, these recommendations are primarily based on expert opinion and less on empirical evidence, due to the difficulty of studies in assessing patient outcomes in various phases of these protocols.
A recent study analyzed the differences in psychological distress between patients who received bad news over the phone vs those who received it in person. The study was a systematic review and meta-analysis.
The investigators examined 5944 studies, including 11 qualitative analysis studies, nine meta-analyses, and four randomized controlled trials.
In a set of studies ranging from moderate to good quality, no difference in psychological distress was found when bad news was disclosed over the phone compared with in person, regarding anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder.
There was no average difference in patient satisfaction levels when bad news was delivered over the phone compared with in person. The risk for dissatisfaction was similar between groups.
Clinical Practice Guidelines
The demand for telemedicine, including the disclosure of bad news, is growing despite the limited knowledge of potential adverse effects. The results of existing studies suggest that the mode of disclosure may play a secondary role, and the manner in which bad news is communicated may be more important.
Therefore, it is paramount to prepare patients or their families for the possibility of receiving bad news well in advance and, during the conversation, to ensure first and foremost that they are in an appropriate environment. The structure and content of the conversation may be relevant, and adhering to dedicated communication strategies can be a wise choice for the physician and the interlocutor.
This story was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Communicating bad news to patients is one of the most stressful and challenging clinical tasks for any physician, regardless of his or her specialty. This task is more frequent for physicians caring for oncology patients and can also affect the physician’s emotional state.
The manner in which bad news is communicated plays a significant role in the psychological burden on the patient, and various communication techniques and guidelines have been developed to enable physicians to perform this difficult task effectively.
Revealing bad news in person whenever possible, to address the emotional responses of patients or relatives, is part of the prevailing expert recommendations. However, it has been acknowledged that in certain situations, communicating bad news over the phone is more feasible.
Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the disclosure of bad news over the phone has become a necessary substitute for in-person visits and an integral part of clinical practice worldwide. It remains to be clarified what the real psychological impact on patients and their closest relatives is when delivering bad news over the phone compared with delivering it in person.
Right and Wrong Ways
The most popular guideline for communicating bad news is SPIKES, a six-phase protocol with a special application for cancer patients. It is used in various countries (eg, the United States, France, and Germany) as a guide for this sensitive practice and for training in communication skills in this context. The SPIKES acronym refers to the following six recommended steps for delivering bad news:
- Setting: Set up the conversation.
- Perception: Assess the patient’s perception.
- Invitation: Ask the patient what he or she would like to know.
- Knowledge: Provide the patient with knowledge and information, breaking it down into small parts.
- Emotions: Acknowledge and empathetically address the patient’s emotions.
- Strategy and Summary: Summarize and define a medical action plan.
The lesson from SPIKES is that when a person experiences strong emotions, it is difficult to continue discussing anything, and they will struggle to hear anything. Allowing for silence is fundamental. In addition, empathy allows the patient to express his or her feelings and concerns, as well as provide support. The aim is not to argue but to allow the expression of emotions without criticism. However, these recommendations are primarily based on expert opinion and less on empirical evidence, due to the difficulty of studies in assessing patient outcomes in various phases of these protocols.
A recent study analyzed the differences in psychological distress between patients who received bad news over the phone vs those who received it in person. The study was a systematic review and meta-analysis.
The investigators examined 5944 studies, including 11 qualitative analysis studies, nine meta-analyses, and four randomized controlled trials.
In a set of studies ranging from moderate to good quality, no difference in psychological distress was found when bad news was disclosed over the phone compared with in person, regarding anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder.
There was no average difference in patient satisfaction levels when bad news was delivered over the phone compared with in person. The risk for dissatisfaction was similar between groups.
Clinical Practice Guidelines
The demand for telemedicine, including the disclosure of bad news, is growing despite the limited knowledge of potential adverse effects. The results of existing studies suggest that the mode of disclosure may play a secondary role, and the manner in which bad news is communicated may be more important.
Therefore, it is paramount to prepare patients or their families for the possibility of receiving bad news well in advance and, during the conversation, to ensure first and foremost that they are in an appropriate environment. The structure and content of the conversation may be relevant, and adhering to dedicated communication strategies can be a wise choice for the physician and the interlocutor.
This story was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Communicating bad news to patients is one of the most stressful and challenging clinical tasks for any physician, regardless of his or her specialty. This task is more frequent for physicians caring for oncology patients and can also affect the physician’s emotional state.
The manner in which bad news is communicated plays a significant role in the psychological burden on the patient, and various communication techniques and guidelines have been developed to enable physicians to perform this difficult task effectively.
Revealing bad news in person whenever possible, to address the emotional responses of patients or relatives, is part of the prevailing expert recommendations. However, it has been acknowledged that in certain situations, communicating bad news over the phone is more feasible.
Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the disclosure of bad news over the phone has become a necessary substitute for in-person visits and an integral part of clinical practice worldwide. It remains to be clarified what the real psychological impact on patients and their closest relatives is when delivering bad news over the phone compared with delivering it in person.
Right and Wrong Ways
The most popular guideline for communicating bad news is SPIKES, a six-phase protocol with a special application for cancer patients. It is used in various countries (eg, the United States, France, and Germany) as a guide for this sensitive practice and for training in communication skills in this context. The SPIKES acronym refers to the following six recommended steps for delivering bad news:
- Setting: Set up the conversation.
- Perception: Assess the patient’s perception.
- Invitation: Ask the patient what he or she would like to know.
- Knowledge: Provide the patient with knowledge and information, breaking it down into small parts.
- Emotions: Acknowledge and empathetically address the patient’s emotions.
- Strategy and Summary: Summarize and define a medical action plan.
The lesson from SPIKES is that when a person experiences strong emotions, it is difficult to continue discussing anything, and they will struggle to hear anything. Allowing for silence is fundamental. In addition, empathy allows the patient to express his or her feelings and concerns, as well as provide support. The aim is not to argue but to allow the expression of emotions without criticism. However, these recommendations are primarily based on expert opinion and less on empirical evidence, due to the difficulty of studies in assessing patient outcomes in various phases of these protocols.
A recent study analyzed the differences in psychological distress between patients who received bad news over the phone vs those who received it in person. The study was a systematic review and meta-analysis.
The investigators examined 5944 studies, including 11 qualitative analysis studies, nine meta-analyses, and four randomized controlled trials.
In a set of studies ranging from moderate to good quality, no difference in psychological distress was found when bad news was disclosed over the phone compared with in person, regarding anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder.
There was no average difference in patient satisfaction levels when bad news was delivered over the phone compared with in person. The risk for dissatisfaction was similar between groups.
Clinical Practice Guidelines
The demand for telemedicine, including the disclosure of bad news, is growing despite the limited knowledge of potential adverse effects. The results of existing studies suggest that the mode of disclosure may play a secondary role, and the manner in which bad news is communicated may be more important.
Therefore, it is paramount to prepare patients or their families for the possibility of receiving bad news well in advance and, during the conversation, to ensure first and foremost that they are in an appropriate environment. The structure and content of the conversation may be relevant, and adhering to dedicated communication strategies can be a wise choice for the physician and the interlocutor.
This story was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Democratic Lawmakers Press Pfizer on Chemotherapy Drug Shortages
In a statement about their February 21 action, the legislators, led by Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the committee’s ranking minority member, described their work as a follow up to an earlier investigation into price hikes of generic drugs. While the committee members queried Pfizer over the three oncology medications only, they also sent letters to drugmakers Teva and Sandoz with respect to shortages in other drug classes.
A representative for Pfizer confirmed to MDedge Oncology that the company had received the representatives’ letter but said “we have no further details to provide at this time.”
What is the basis for concern?
All three generic chemotherapy drugs are mainstay treatments used across a broad array of cancers. Though shortages have been reported for several years, they became especially acute after December 2022, when an inspection by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) led to regulatory action against an Indian manufacturer, Intas, that produced up to half of the platinum-based therapies supplied globally. The National Comprehensive Cancer Care Network reported in October 2023 that more than 90% of its member centers were struggling to maintain adequate supplies of carboplatin, and 70% had trouble obtaining cisplatin, while the American Society of Clinical Oncology published clinical guidance on alternative treatment strategies.
What has the government done in response to the recent shortages?
The White House and the FDA announced in September that they were working with several manufacturers to help increase supplies of the platinum-based chemotherapies and of methotrexate, and taking measures that included relaxing rules on imports. Recent guidance under a pandemic-era federal law, the 2020 CARES Act, strengthened manufacturer reporting requirements related to drug shortages, and other measures have been proposed. While federal regulators have many tools with which to address drug shortages, they cannot legally oblige a manufacturer to increase production of a drug.
What can the lawmakers expect to achieve with their letter?
By pressuring Pfizer publicly, the lawmakers may be able to nudge the company to take measures to assure more consistent supplies of the three drugs. The lawmakers also said they hoped to glean from Pfizer more insight into the root causes of the shortages and potential remedies. They noted that, in a May 2023 letter by Pfizer to customers, the company had warned of depleted and limited supplies of the three drugs and said it was “working diligently” to increase output. However, the lawmakers wrote, “the root cause is not yet resolved and carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate continue to experience residual delays.”
Why did the committee target Pfizer specifically?
Pfizer and its subsidiaries are among the major manufacturers of the three generic chemotherapy agents mentioned in the letter. The legislators noted that “pharmaceutical companies may not be motivated to produce generic drugs like carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate, because they are not as lucrative as producing patented brand name drugs,” and that “as a principal supplier of carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate, it is critical that Pfizer continues to increase production of these life-sustaining cancer medications, even amidst potential lower profitability.”
The committee members also made reference to news reports of price-gouging with these medications, as smaller hospitals or oncology centers are forced to turn to unscrupulous third-party suppliers.
What is being demanded of Pfizer?
Pfizer was given until March 6 to respond, in writing and in a briefing with committee staff, to a six questions. These queries concern what specific steps the company has taken to increase supplies of the three generic oncology drugs, what Pfizer is doing to help avert price-gouging, whether further oncology drug shortages are anticipated, and how the company is working with the FDA on the matter.
In a statement about their February 21 action, the legislators, led by Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the committee’s ranking minority member, described their work as a follow up to an earlier investigation into price hikes of generic drugs. While the committee members queried Pfizer over the three oncology medications only, they also sent letters to drugmakers Teva and Sandoz with respect to shortages in other drug classes.
A representative for Pfizer confirmed to MDedge Oncology that the company had received the representatives’ letter but said “we have no further details to provide at this time.”
What is the basis for concern?
All three generic chemotherapy drugs are mainstay treatments used across a broad array of cancers. Though shortages have been reported for several years, they became especially acute after December 2022, when an inspection by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) led to regulatory action against an Indian manufacturer, Intas, that produced up to half of the platinum-based therapies supplied globally. The National Comprehensive Cancer Care Network reported in October 2023 that more than 90% of its member centers were struggling to maintain adequate supplies of carboplatin, and 70% had trouble obtaining cisplatin, while the American Society of Clinical Oncology published clinical guidance on alternative treatment strategies.
What has the government done in response to the recent shortages?
The White House and the FDA announced in September that they were working with several manufacturers to help increase supplies of the platinum-based chemotherapies and of methotrexate, and taking measures that included relaxing rules on imports. Recent guidance under a pandemic-era federal law, the 2020 CARES Act, strengthened manufacturer reporting requirements related to drug shortages, and other measures have been proposed. While federal regulators have many tools with which to address drug shortages, they cannot legally oblige a manufacturer to increase production of a drug.
What can the lawmakers expect to achieve with their letter?
By pressuring Pfizer publicly, the lawmakers may be able to nudge the company to take measures to assure more consistent supplies of the three drugs. The lawmakers also said they hoped to glean from Pfizer more insight into the root causes of the shortages and potential remedies. They noted that, in a May 2023 letter by Pfizer to customers, the company had warned of depleted and limited supplies of the three drugs and said it was “working diligently” to increase output. However, the lawmakers wrote, “the root cause is not yet resolved and carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate continue to experience residual delays.”
Why did the committee target Pfizer specifically?
Pfizer and its subsidiaries are among the major manufacturers of the three generic chemotherapy agents mentioned in the letter. The legislators noted that “pharmaceutical companies may not be motivated to produce generic drugs like carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate, because they are not as lucrative as producing patented brand name drugs,” and that “as a principal supplier of carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate, it is critical that Pfizer continues to increase production of these life-sustaining cancer medications, even amidst potential lower profitability.”
The committee members also made reference to news reports of price-gouging with these medications, as smaller hospitals or oncology centers are forced to turn to unscrupulous third-party suppliers.
What is being demanded of Pfizer?
Pfizer was given until March 6 to respond, in writing and in a briefing with committee staff, to a six questions. These queries concern what specific steps the company has taken to increase supplies of the three generic oncology drugs, what Pfizer is doing to help avert price-gouging, whether further oncology drug shortages are anticipated, and how the company is working with the FDA on the matter.
In a statement about their February 21 action, the legislators, led by Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the committee’s ranking minority member, described their work as a follow up to an earlier investigation into price hikes of generic drugs. While the committee members queried Pfizer over the three oncology medications only, they also sent letters to drugmakers Teva and Sandoz with respect to shortages in other drug classes.
A representative for Pfizer confirmed to MDedge Oncology that the company had received the representatives’ letter but said “we have no further details to provide at this time.”
What is the basis for concern?
All three generic chemotherapy drugs are mainstay treatments used across a broad array of cancers. Though shortages have been reported for several years, they became especially acute after December 2022, when an inspection by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) led to regulatory action against an Indian manufacturer, Intas, that produced up to half of the platinum-based therapies supplied globally. The National Comprehensive Cancer Care Network reported in October 2023 that more than 90% of its member centers were struggling to maintain adequate supplies of carboplatin, and 70% had trouble obtaining cisplatin, while the American Society of Clinical Oncology published clinical guidance on alternative treatment strategies.
What has the government done in response to the recent shortages?
The White House and the FDA announced in September that they were working with several manufacturers to help increase supplies of the platinum-based chemotherapies and of methotrexate, and taking measures that included relaxing rules on imports. Recent guidance under a pandemic-era federal law, the 2020 CARES Act, strengthened manufacturer reporting requirements related to drug shortages, and other measures have been proposed. While federal regulators have many tools with which to address drug shortages, they cannot legally oblige a manufacturer to increase production of a drug.
What can the lawmakers expect to achieve with their letter?
By pressuring Pfizer publicly, the lawmakers may be able to nudge the company to take measures to assure more consistent supplies of the three drugs. The lawmakers also said they hoped to glean from Pfizer more insight into the root causes of the shortages and potential remedies. They noted that, in a May 2023 letter by Pfizer to customers, the company had warned of depleted and limited supplies of the three drugs and said it was “working diligently” to increase output. However, the lawmakers wrote, “the root cause is not yet resolved and carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate continue to experience residual delays.”
Why did the committee target Pfizer specifically?
Pfizer and its subsidiaries are among the major manufacturers of the three generic chemotherapy agents mentioned in the letter. The legislators noted that “pharmaceutical companies may not be motivated to produce generic drugs like carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate, because they are not as lucrative as producing patented brand name drugs,” and that “as a principal supplier of carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate, it is critical that Pfizer continues to increase production of these life-sustaining cancer medications, even amidst potential lower profitability.”
The committee members also made reference to news reports of price-gouging with these medications, as smaller hospitals or oncology centers are forced to turn to unscrupulous third-party suppliers.
What is being demanded of Pfizer?
Pfizer was given until March 6 to respond, in writing and in a briefing with committee staff, to a six questions. These queries concern what specific steps the company has taken to increase supplies of the three generic oncology drugs, what Pfizer is doing to help avert price-gouging, whether further oncology drug shortages are anticipated, and how the company is working with the FDA on the matter.
Is Mammography Ready for AI? Opinions Mixed on Usage, Cost Methods
Screening mammograms miss close to one in eight breast cancers. But early research suggests artificial intelligence (AI) could close this detection gap and markedly improve early diagnosis of the disease. Still, questions remain regarding how to best incorporate AI into screenings and whether it’s too soon to deploy the technology.
Already, some radiology clinics are offering AI analysis of mammograms through an add-on cost method.
Mammography patients who visit RadNet facilities, for example, have the option of an additional AI screening of their images. RadNet, the largest national owner and operator of fixed-site diagnostic imaging centers in the United States with more than 370 locations, first launched its AI program in the Northeast. The company has now rolled out its product across all regions in the country.
Because the AI is not reimbursed by insurers, patients must pay a $40 out-of-pocket fee if they want the AI analysis.
“RadNet practices have identified more than 400 women whose cancer was found earlier than it would have been had the AI not been present,” said Greg Sorensen MD, chief science officer for RadNet.
How RadNet’s AI Program Works
Patients coming to RadNet facilities for screening mammography undergo 3D high-resolution mammography that includes the use of 70-micron resolution detector technology, said Dr. Sorensen. The mammogram is reviewed by a qualified radiologist with assistance from two Food and Drug Administration–cleared AI programs, Saige-Q and Saige-Density. The radiologist then makes an interpretation.
Saige-Q is an AI tool that helps identify more suspicious mammograms by providing a quick signal to radiologists if the AI considers a given mammogram to be in a suspicious category, according to Dr. Sorensen. Saige-Density provides a density rating for each mammogram using one of the four standard categories:
- A. Almost entirely fatty
- B. Scattered areas of fibroglandular density
- C. Heterogeneously dense
- D. Extremely dense
Starting in September 2024, the FDA will require all mammogram reports to indicate density.
For patients who choose the $40 add-on service, called Enhanced Breast Cancer Detection, two other FDA-registered AI programs are also applied: Saige-Dx and Saige-Assure. These AI programs go a step further by placing marks on areas within the images that they find suspicious. Mammograms flagged as “high-suspicion” by the AI are then reviewed by a second human radiologist. The first and second radiologists confer to agree on a final diagnosis, Dr. Sorensen explained.
“Our research shows that approximately 20% more cancers are found when the safeguard review process is in place,” Dr. Sorensen said. “We also have seen [30%] decreases in recall rates” — the percentage of screening cases in which further tests are recommended by the radiologist.
Bethesda radiologist Janet Storella, MD, has used the AI program for about 3 years and said the technology has improved her screening performance.
The AI is linked to her practice’s imaging software, and radiologists have the option of turning the AI on at any time during their reading of screening mammograms, Dr. Storella explained. Some radiologists review the mammogram first and then initiate the AI, while others like Dr. Storella turn it on at the start, she said. Once initiated, the AI draws bounding boxes — or outlines — around areas that it deems suspicious.
The AI helps focus Dr. Storella’s attention on suspicious areas and grades the level of suspicion into one of four categories: high, intermediate, low, and minimal, she said.
“I find it especially useful in patients who have dense breast tissue,” said Dr. Storella, medical director of women’s imaging at Community Radiology Associates, a RadNet practice. “In these situations, the tissue on the mammogram is a field of white, and cancers are also white, so you’re looking for that little white golf ball on a sea of snow. The AI really helps hone that down to specific areas.”
About 35% of RadNet’s screening mammography patients have enrolled in the Enhanced Breast Cancer Detection program, according to RadNet data. In a recent study of nine general radiologists and nine breast imaging specialists, all radiologists improved their interpretation performance of DBT screening mammograms when reading with RadNet’s AI versus without it. (An average AUC [area under the receiver operating characteristic curve] of 0.93 versus 0.87, demonstrating a difference in AUC of 0.06 (95% CI, 0.04-0.08; P < .001)
Is Mammography Ready for AI?
RadNet is among a growing number of commercial companies offering AI solutions for mammography. MammoScreen and Hologic, for example, are two other companies that provide AI programs to assist radiologists in reading screening mammograms.
“We are at the start of the AI integration into breast imaging at this point,” said Laura Heacock, MD, a breast imaging radiologist and associate professor of radiology at NYU Langone Health. “There are multiple commercial AI models now available to radiologists to use in their practice [ and] there will likely be more. We’re in the transition stage where people are still deciding: Which is the best model to go with? How do I put it in my system? How do I ensure it works they way it was intended? Every practice and medical system will have a different answer to that question.”
At NYU Langone Health, researchers have been developing and studying optimal AI models for breast imaging for several years, Dr. Heacock said. Researchers thus far, have developed AI models for 2D digital mammography, 3D mammograms, breast ultrasound, and breast MRI. Similar to commercial AI systems, the AI is embedded into the picture archiving and communication (PACS) system used by radiologists to review images. Radiologists press a button to launch the AI, which draws a box around suspicious areas of the image and scores the suspicion.
“I take a look of where it is on the mammogram and decide whether that fits my level of suspicion,” Dr. Heacock said. The AI may not understand things about the mammogram like we do. For example, surgical scars look very suspicious to an AI model. But if I’m looking at a mammogram where [the patient] has had a stable scar that hasn’t changed in 10 years, I’m not concerned that the AI found it suspicious. My clinical judgment is the ultimate decider. This is just an additional piece of information that’s helpful to me.”
Research by New York University (NYU) has shown that when used by an expert radiologist the AI models have improved breast cancer detection in all four modalities, she said.
However, the AI has not yet launched at NYU Langone. More research is needed before deploying the technology, according to Dr. Heacock.
“At NYU, we are still testing the benefits to patients,” she said. “We know it improves cancer detection, but we want to make sure there are no drawbacks. We are still exploring the best ways to put it into effect at our institution.”
Dr. Heacock pointed to recent studies on AI in screening mammography that show promise.
An analysis of more than 80,000 women, for example, published in The Lancet Oncology in August, found that AI-supported screen reading led to a similar cancer detection rate as compared with a two-person reader system. This screening resulted in 244 screen-detected cancers, 861 recalls, and a total of 46,345 screen readings, according to the study. Standard screening resulted in 203 screen-detected cancers, 817 recalls, and a total of 83,231 screen readings.
The AI system also reduced the screen-reading workload for radiologists by 44%, the study found.
Meanwhile, a September 2023 study, published in The Lancet Digital Health, found that replacing one radiologist with AI resulted in more cancer detection without a large increase in false-positive cases. The AI led to a 4% higher, noninferior cancer detection rate, compared with radiologist double reading, the study found.
Dr. Heacock emphasized that both studies were conducted in Europe where the standard is for two radiologists to evaluate mammograms.
“That makes the results exciting, but not directly applicable to US practice just yet,” she said.
What Do the Experts Recommend?
Stamatia V. Destounis, MD, FACR, chair of the American College of Radiology (ACR) Breast Imaging Commission, said the college welcomes ongoing research into the efficacy of AI technologies and that AI may prove to be beneficial as an improved workflow tool.
The ACR has not released any guidance about the use of AI for radiologists and have no recommendation about best practices, Dr. Destounis said.
“The decisions regarding which technologies that various health systems and radiology sites choose to use are made by those facilities,” she said.
Dr. Destounis said more research is needed to demonstrate whether or not AI technologies help radiologists produce better results in identifying disease, injury, and illnesses among the general population or in specific groups — whether based on age, physical characteristics, race, ethnicity or risk status for breast cancer.
“Also, a way to measure each AI product is needed so that we can be certain they are relatively equivalent in their efficacy and accuracy — initially and over a prolonged period of time,” she said.
No consensus or concrete recommendation exists about the use of AI in mammography screening, adds Peter P. Yu, MD, FACP, FASCO, physician-in-chief at the Hartford HealthCare Cancer Institute and a member of the newly-created American Society of Clinical Oncology AI task force.
One of the many discussions concerning AI is to what degree patients should be aware that AI is being used in their healthcare and whether they should be required to give consent to its use, Dr. Yu said.
If AI is used to assist radiologists with mammographic interpretation, radiologists should discuss with patients how it’s being used and explain the ultimate reading is in the hands of their physician radiologist, he said.
“In the unlikely situation where there wasn’t a human in the loop and AI was in effect making a medical decision, the patient needs to be aware,” he said. “I’m not aware that any such situation exists today. AI is more likely to be subtly embedded in the software that operates technology, much like it is embedded in manufacturing and transportation.”
Who Will Pay for AI?
When it comes to payment, Dr. Yu said shifting the cost of AI to patients creates serious risk.
“It has enormous potential to increase health inequities,” he said. “If we believe health care is a fundamental human right, AI should inure to the benefit of all, not just those who can afford it. Healthcare should not be a luxury item; if it works, it works for all.”
In general, the issue of payment for AI is still pretty “thorny,” Dr. Heacock noted. Currently, there’s no way for physicians to request direct reimbursement for AI reads of mammograms.
While Dr. Heacock says she is sympathetic to the companies that spend significant time and effort on their AI technology, she doesn’t think charging patients is the right solution.
“We know that many women already have difficulty in paying for mammography-related services and this is just one more charge to confuse them or that they can’t pay,” she said.
Dr. Sorensen expects that, similar to 3D mammography, payers will eventually cover RadNet’s AI technology and that patients will no longer need to pay out of pocket. One Blue Cross carrier will start covering the AI in April 2024, he said.
Screening mammograms miss close to one in eight breast cancers. But early research suggests artificial intelligence (AI) could close this detection gap and markedly improve early diagnosis of the disease. Still, questions remain regarding how to best incorporate AI into screenings and whether it’s too soon to deploy the technology.
Already, some radiology clinics are offering AI analysis of mammograms through an add-on cost method.
Mammography patients who visit RadNet facilities, for example, have the option of an additional AI screening of their images. RadNet, the largest national owner and operator of fixed-site diagnostic imaging centers in the United States with more than 370 locations, first launched its AI program in the Northeast. The company has now rolled out its product across all regions in the country.
Because the AI is not reimbursed by insurers, patients must pay a $40 out-of-pocket fee if they want the AI analysis.
“RadNet practices have identified more than 400 women whose cancer was found earlier than it would have been had the AI not been present,” said Greg Sorensen MD, chief science officer for RadNet.
How RadNet’s AI Program Works
Patients coming to RadNet facilities for screening mammography undergo 3D high-resolution mammography that includes the use of 70-micron resolution detector technology, said Dr. Sorensen. The mammogram is reviewed by a qualified radiologist with assistance from two Food and Drug Administration–cleared AI programs, Saige-Q and Saige-Density. The radiologist then makes an interpretation.
Saige-Q is an AI tool that helps identify more suspicious mammograms by providing a quick signal to radiologists if the AI considers a given mammogram to be in a suspicious category, according to Dr. Sorensen. Saige-Density provides a density rating for each mammogram using one of the four standard categories:
- A. Almost entirely fatty
- B. Scattered areas of fibroglandular density
- C. Heterogeneously dense
- D. Extremely dense
Starting in September 2024, the FDA will require all mammogram reports to indicate density.
For patients who choose the $40 add-on service, called Enhanced Breast Cancer Detection, two other FDA-registered AI programs are also applied: Saige-Dx and Saige-Assure. These AI programs go a step further by placing marks on areas within the images that they find suspicious. Mammograms flagged as “high-suspicion” by the AI are then reviewed by a second human radiologist. The first and second radiologists confer to agree on a final diagnosis, Dr. Sorensen explained.
“Our research shows that approximately 20% more cancers are found when the safeguard review process is in place,” Dr. Sorensen said. “We also have seen [30%] decreases in recall rates” — the percentage of screening cases in which further tests are recommended by the radiologist.
Bethesda radiologist Janet Storella, MD, has used the AI program for about 3 years and said the technology has improved her screening performance.
The AI is linked to her practice’s imaging software, and radiologists have the option of turning the AI on at any time during their reading of screening mammograms, Dr. Storella explained. Some radiologists review the mammogram first and then initiate the AI, while others like Dr. Storella turn it on at the start, she said. Once initiated, the AI draws bounding boxes — or outlines — around areas that it deems suspicious.
The AI helps focus Dr. Storella’s attention on suspicious areas and grades the level of suspicion into one of four categories: high, intermediate, low, and minimal, she said.
“I find it especially useful in patients who have dense breast tissue,” said Dr. Storella, medical director of women’s imaging at Community Radiology Associates, a RadNet practice. “In these situations, the tissue on the mammogram is a field of white, and cancers are also white, so you’re looking for that little white golf ball on a sea of snow. The AI really helps hone that down to specific areas.”
About 35% of RadNet’s screening mammography patients have enrolled in the Enhanced Breast Cancer Detection program, according to RadNet data. In a recent study of nine general radiologists and nine breast imaging specialists, all radiologists improved their interpretation performance of DBT screening mammograms when reading with RadNet’s AI versus without it. (An average AUC [area under the receiver operating characteristic curve] of 0.93 versus 0.87, demonstrating a difference in AUC of 0.06 (95% CI, 0.04-0.08; P < .001)
Is Mammography Ready for AI?
RadNet is among a growing number of commercial companies offering AI solutions for mammography. MammoScreen and Hologic, for example, are two other companies that provide AI programs to assist radiologists in reading screening mammograms.
“We are at the start of the AI integration into breast imaging at this point,” said Laura Heacock, MD, a breast imaging radiologist and associate professor of radiology at NYU Langone Health. “There are multiple commercial AI models now available to radiologists to use in their practice [ and] there will likely be more. We’re in the transition stage where people are still deciding: Which is the best model to go with? How do I put it in my system? How do I ensure it works they way it was intended? Every practice and medical system will have a different answer to that question.”
At NYU Langone Health, researchers have been developing and studying optimal AI models for breast imaging for several years, Dr. Heacock said. Researchers thus far, have developed AI models for 2D digital mammography, 3D mammograms, breast ultrasound, and breast MRI. Similar to commercial AI systems, the AI is embedded into the picture archiving and communication (PACS) system used by radiologists to review images. Radiologists press a button to launch the AI, which draws a box around suspicious areas of the image and scores the suspicion.
“I take a look of where it is on the mammogram and decide whether that fits my level of suspicion,” Dr. Heacock said. The AI may not understand things about the mammogram like we do. For example, surgical scars look very suspicious to an AI model. But if I’m looking at a mammogram where [the patient] has had a stable scar that hasn’t changed in 10 years, I’m not concerned that the AI found it suspicious. My clinical judgment is the ultimate decider. This is just an additional piece of information that’s helpful to me.”
Research by New York University (NYU) has shown that when used by an expert radiologist the AI models have improved breast cancer detection in all four modalities, she said.
However, the AI has not yet launched at NYU Langone. More research is needed before deploying the technology, according to Dr. Heacock.
“At NYU, we are still testing the benefits to patients,” she said. “We know it improves cancer detection, but we want to make sure there are no drawbacks. We are still exploring the best ways to put it into effect at our institution.”
Dr. Heacock pointed to recent studies on AI in screening mammography that show promise.
An analysis of more than 80,000 women, for example, published in The Lancet Oncology in August, found that AI-supported screen reading led to a similar cancer detection rate as compared with a two-person reader system. This screening resulted in 244 screen-detected cancers, 861 recalls, and a total of 46,345 screen readings, according to the study. Standard screening resulted in 203 screen-detected cancers, 817 recalls, and a total of 83,231 screen readings.
The AI system also reduced the screen-reading workload for radiologists by 44%, the study found.
Meanwhile, a September 2023 study, published in The Lancet Digital Health, found that replacing one radiologist with AI resulted in more cancer detection without a large increase in false-positive cases. The AI led to a 4% higher, noninferior cancer detection rate, compared with radiologist double reading, the study found.
Dr. Heacock emphasized that both studies were conducted in Europe where the standard is for two radiologists to evaluate mammograms.
“That makes the results exciting, but not directly applicable to US practice just yet,” she said.
What Do the Experts Recommend?
Stamatia V. Destounis, MD, FACR, chair of the American College of Radiology (ACR) Breast Imaging Commission, said the college welcomes ongoing research into the efficacy of AI technologies and that AI may prove to be beneficial as an improved workflow tool.
The ACR has not released any guidance about the use of AI for radiologists and have no recommendation about best practices, Dr. Destounis said.
“The decisions regarding which technologies that various health systems and radiology sites choose to use are made by those facilities,” she said.
Dr. Destounis said more research is needed to demonstrate whether or not AI technologies help radiologists produce better results in identifying disease, injury, and illnesses among the general population or in specific groups — whether based on age, physical characteristics, race, ethnicity or risk status for breast cancer.
“Also, a way to measure each AI product is needed so that we can be certain they are relatively equivalent in their efficacy and accuracy — initially and over a prolonged period of time,” she said.
No consensus or concrete recommendation exists about the use of AI in mammography screening, adds Peter P. Yu, MD, FACP, FASCO, physician-in-chief at the Hartford HealthCare Cancer Institute and a member of the newly-created American Society of Clinical Oncology AI task force.
One of the many discussions concerning AI is to what degree patients should be aware that AI is being used in their healthcare and whether they should be required to give consent to its use, Dr. Yu said.
If AI is used to assist radiologists with mammographic interpretation, radiologists should discuss with patients how it’s being used and explain the ultimate reading is in the hands of their physician radiologist, he said.
“In the unlikely situation where there wasn’t a human in the loop and AI was in effect making a medical decision, the patient needs to be aware,” he said. “I’m not aware that any such situation exists today. AI is more likely to be subtly embedded in the software that operates technology, much like it is embedded in manufacturing and transportation.”
Who Will Pay for AI?
When it comes to payment, Dr. Yu said shifting the cost of AI to patients creates serious risk.
“It has enormous potential to increase health inequities,” he said. “If we believe health care is a fundamental human right, AI should inure to the benefit of all, not just those who can afford it. Healthcare should not be a luxury item; if it works, it works for all.”
In general, the issue of payment for AI is still pretty “thorny,” Dr. Heacock noted. Currently, there’s no way for physicians to request direct reimbursement for AI reads of mammograms.
While Dr. Heacock says she is sympathetic to the companies that spend significant time and effort on their AI technology, she doesn’t think charging patients is the right solution.
“We know that many women already have difficulty in paying for mammography-related services and this is just one more charge to confuse them or that they can’t pay,” she said.
Dr. Sorensen expects that, similar to 3D mammography, payers will eventually cover RadNet’s AI technology and that patients will no longer need to pay out of pocket. One Blue Cross carrier will start covering the AI in April 2024, he said.
Screening mammograms miss close to one in eight breast cancers. But early research suggests artificial intelligence (AI) could close this detection gap and markedly improve early diagnosis of the disease. Still, questions remain regarding how to best incorporate AI into screenings and whether it’s too soon to deploy the technology.
Already, some radiology clinics are offering AI analysis of mammograms through an add-on cost method.
Mammography patients who visit RadNet facilities, for example, have the option of an additional AI screening of their images. RadNet, the largest national owner and operator of fixed-site diagnostic imaging centers in the United States with more than 370 locations, first launched its AI program in the Northeast. The company has now rolled out its product across all regions in the country.
Because the AI is not reimbursed by insurers, patients must pay a $40 out-of-pocket fee if they want the AI analysis.
“RadNet practices have identified more than 400 women whose cancer was found earlier than it would have been had the AI not been present,” said Greg Sorensen MD, chief science officer for RadNet.
How RadNet’s AI Program Works
Patients coming to RadNet facilities for screening mammography undergo 3D high-resolution mammography that includes the use of 70-micron resolution detector technology, said Dr. Sorensen. The mammogram is reviewed by a qualified radiologist with assistance from two Food and Drug Administration–cleared AI programs, Saige-Q and Saige-Density. The radiologist then makes an interpretation.
Saige-Q is an AI tool that helps identify more suspicious mammograms by providing a quick signal to radiologists if the AI considers a given mammogram to be in a suspicious category, according to Dr. Sorensen. Saige-Density provides a density rating for each mammogram using one of the four standard categories:
- A. Almost entirely fatty
- B. Scattered areas of fibroglandular density
- C. Heterogeneously dense
- D. Extremely dense
Starting in September 2024, the FDA will require all mammogram reports to indicate density.
For patients who choose the $40 add-on service, called Enhanced Breast Cancer Detection, two other FDA-registered AI programs are also applied: Saige-Dx and Saige-Assure. These AI programs go a step further by placing marks on areas within the images that they find suspicious. Mammograms flagged as “high-suspicion” by the AI are then reviewed by a second human radiologist. The first and second radiologists confer to agree on a final diagnosis, Dr. Sorensen explained.
“Our research shows that approximately 20% more cancers are found when the safeguard review process is in place,” Dr. Sorensen said. “We also have seen [30%] decreases in recall rates” — the percentage of screening cases in which further tests are recommended by the radiologist.
Bethesda radiologist Janet Storella, MD, has used the AI program for about 3 years and said the technology has improved her screening performance.
The AI is linked to her practice’s imaging software, and radiologists have the option of turning the AI on at any time during their reading of screening mammograms, Dr. Storella explained. Some radiologists review the mammogram first and then initiate the AI, while others like Dr. Storella turn it on at the start, she said. Once initiated, the AI draws bounding boxes — or outlines — around areas that it deems suspicious.
The AI helps focus Dr. Storella’s attention on suspicious areas and grades the level of suspicion into one of four categories: high, intermediate, low, and minimal, she said.
“I find it especially useful in patients who have dense breast tissue,” said Dr. Storella, medical director of women’s imaging at Community Radiology Associates, a RadNet practice. “In these situations, the tissue on the mammogram is a field of white, and cancers are also white, so you’re looking for that little white golf ball on a sea of snow. The AI really helps hone that down to specific areas.”
About 35% of RadNet’s screening mammography patients have enrolled in the Enhanced Breast Cancer Detection program, according to RadNet data. In a recent study of nine general radiologists and nine breast imaging specialists, all radiologists improved their interpretation performance of DBT screening mammograms when reading with RadNet’s AI versus without it. (An average AUC [area under the receiver operating characteristic curve] of 0.93 versus 0.87, demonstrating a difference in AUC of 0.06 (95% CI, 0.04-0.08; P < .001)
Is Mammography Ready for AI?
RadNet is among a growing number of commercial companies offering AI solutions for mammography. MammoScreen and Hologic, for example, are two other companies that provide AI programs to assist radiologists in reading screening mammograms.
“We are at the start of the AI integration into breast imaging at this point,” said Laura Heacock, MD, a breast imaging radiologist and associate professor of radiology at NYU Langone Health. “There are multiple commercial AI models now available to radiologists to use in their practice [ and] there will likely be more. We’re in the transition stage where people are still deciding: Which is the best model to go with? How do I put it in my system? How do I ensure it works they way it was intended? Every practice and medical system will have a different answer to that question.”
At NYU Langone Health, researchers have been developing and studying optimal AI models for breast imaging for several years, Dr. Heacock said. Researchers thus far, have developed AI models for 2D digital mammography, 3D mammograms, breast ultrasound, and breast MRI. Similar to commercial AI systems, the AI is embedded into the picture archiving and communication (PACS) system used by radiologists to review images. Radiologists press a button to launch the AI, which draws a box around suspicious areas of the image and scores the suspicion.
“I take a look of where it is on the mammogram and decide whether that fits my level of suspicion,” Dr. Heacock said. The AI may not understand things about the mammogram like we do. For example, surgical scars look very suspicious to an AI model. But if I’m looking at a mammogram where [the patient] has had a stable scar that hasn’t changed in 10 years, I’m not concerned that the AI found it suspicious. My clinical judgment is the ultimate decider. This is just an additional piece of information that’s helpful to me.”
Research by New York University (NYU) has shown that when used by an expert radiologist the AI models have improved breast cancer detection in all four modalities, she said.
However, the AI has not yet launched at NYU Langone. More research is needed before deploying the technology, according to Dr. Heacock.
“At NYU, we are still testing the benefits to patients,” she said. “We know it improves cancer detection, but we want to make sure there are no drawbacks. We are still exploring the best ways to put it into effect at our institution.”
Dr. Heacock pointed to recent studies on AI in screening mammography that show promise.
An analysis of more than 80,000 women, for example, published in The Lancet Oncology in August, found that AI-supported screen reading led to a similar cancer detection rate as compared with a two-person reader system. This screening resulted in 244 screen-detected cancers, 861 recalls, and a total of 46,345 screen readings, according to the study. Standard screening resulted in 203 screen-detected cancers, 817 recalls, and a total of 83,231 screen readings.
The AI system also reduced the screen-reading workload for radiologists by 44%, the study found.
Meanwhile, a September 2023 study, published in The Lancet Digital Health, found that replacing one radiologist with AI resulted in more cancer detection without a large increase in false-positive cases. The AI led to a 4% higher, noninferior cancer detection rate, compared with radiologist double reading, the study found.
Dr. Heacock emphasized that both studies were conducted in Europe where the standard is for two radiologists to evaluate mammograms.
“That makes the results exciting, but not directly applicable to US practice just yet,” she said.
What Do the Experts Recommend?
Stamatia V. Destounis, MD, FACR, chair of the American College of Radiology (ACR) Breast Imaging Commission, said the college welcomes ongoing research into the efficacy of AI technologies and that AI may prove to be beneficial as an improved workflow tool.
The ACR has not released any guidance about the use of AI for radiologists and have no recommendation about best practices, Dr. Destounis said.
“The decisions regarding which technologies that various health systems and radiology sites choose to use are made by those facilities,” she said.
Dr. Destounis said more research is needed to demonstrate whether or not AI technologies help radiologists produce better results in identifying disease, injury, and illnesses among the general population or in specific groups — whether based on age, physical characteristics, race, ethnicity or risk status for breast cancer.
“Also, a way to measure each AI product is needed so that we can be certain they are relatively equivalent in their efficacy and accuracy — initially and over a prolonged period of time,” she said.
No consensus or concrete recommendation exists about the use of AI in mammography screening, adds Peter P. Yu, MD, FACP, FASCO, physician-in-chief at the Hartford HealthCare Cancer Institute and a member of the newly-created American Society of Clinical Oncology AI task force.
One of the many discussions concerning AI is to what degree patients should be aware that AI is being used in their healthcare and whether they should be required to give consent to its use, Dr. Yu said.
If AI is used to assist radiologists with mammographic interpretation, radiologists should discuss with patients how it’s being used and explain the ultimate reading is in the hands of their physician radiologist, he said.
“In the unlikely situation where there wasn’t a human in the loop and AI was in effect making a medical decision, the patient needs to be aware,” he said. “I’m not aware that any such situation exists today. AI is more likely to be subtly embedded in the software that operates technology, much like it is embedded in manufacturing and transportation.”
Who Will Pay for AI?
When it comes to payment, Dr. Yu said shifting the cost of AI to patients creates serious risk.
“It has enormous potential to increase health inequities,” he said. “If we believe health care is a fundamental human right, AI should inure to the benefit of all, not just those who can afford it. Healthcare should not be a luxury item; if it works, it works for all.”
In general, the issue of payment for AI is still pretty “thorny,” Dr. Heacock noted. Currently, there’s no way for physicians to request direct reimbursement for AI reads of mammograms.
While Dr. Heacock says she is sympathetic to the companies that spend significant time and effort on their AI technology, she doesn’t think charging patients is the right solution.
“We know that many women already have difficulty in paying for mammography-related services and this is just one more charge to confuse them or that they can’t pay,” she said.
Dr. Sorensen expects that, similar to 3D mammography, payers will eventually cover RadNet’s AI technology and that patients will no longer need to pay out of pocket. One Blue Cross carrier will start covering the AI in April 2024, he said.
How to Navigate Challenging Patient Encounters in Dermatology Residency
Dermatologists in training are exposed to many different clinical scenarios—from the quick 15-minute encounter to diagnose a case of atopic dermatitis to hours of digging through a medical record to identify a culprit medication in a hospitalized patient with a life-threatening cutaneous drug reaction. Amidst the day-to-day clinical work that we do, there inevitably are interactions we have with patients that are less than ideal. These challenging encounters—whether they be subtle microaggressions that unfortunately enter the workplace or blatant quarrels between providers and patients that leave both parties dissatisfied—are notable contributors to physician stress levels and can lead to burnout.1,2 However, there are positive lessons to be learned from these challenging patient encounters if we manage to withstand them. When we start to understand the factors contributing to difficult clinical encounters, we can begin to develop and apply effective communication tools to productively navigate these experiences.
Defining the Difficult Patient
In 2017, the Global Burden of Disease study revealed that skin disease is the fourth leading cause of nonfatal disease burden worldwide.3 Based on this statistic, it is easy to see how some patients may experience frustration associated with their condition and subsequently displace their discontent on the physician. In one study, nearly 1 of every 6 (16.7%) outpatient encounters was considered difficult by physicians.4 Family medicine physicians defined the difficult patient as one who is violent, demanding, aggressive, and rude.5 Others in primary care specialties have considered difficult patients to have characteristics that include mental health problems, more than 5 somatic symptoms, and abrasive personalities.4,6
Situational and Physician-Centered Factors in Difficult Patient Encounters
In our medical system, the narrative often is focused on the patient, for better or worse—the patient was difficult, thereby making the encounter difficult. However, it is important to remember that difficult encounters can be attributed to several different factors, including those related to the physician, the clinical situation, or both. For example, dermatology residents juggle their clinical duties; academic work including studying, teaching, and/or research; and systemic and personal pressures at all times, whether they are cognizant of it or not. For better or worse, by virtue of being human, residents bring these factors with them to each clinical encounter. The delicate balance of these components can have a considerable impact on our delivery of good health care. This is particularly relevant in dermatology, where residents are subject to limited time during visits, work culture among clinic staff that is out of our control, and prominent complex social issues (for those of us practicing in medically underserved areas). Poor communication skills, underlying bias toward specific health conditions, limited knowledge as a trainee, and our own personal stressors also may play large roles in perceiving a clinical encounter as difficult during dermatology residency.7
Strategies to Mitigate Difficult Encounters
As a resident, if you make a statement that sparks a negative response from the patient, acknowledge their negative emotion, try to offer help, or rephrase the original statement to quickly dispel the tension. Validating a patient’s emotions and helping them embrace uncertainty can go a long way in the therapeutic relationship, especially in dermatology where so many of our diseases are chronic and without a definite cure.8 Additionally, it is important to apply strategies to redirect and de-escalate the situation during emotionally charged conversations, such as active listening, validating and empathizing with emotions, exploring alternative solutions, and providing closure to the conversation. Consensus recommendations for managing challenging encounters established by the American Academy of Family Physicians in 2013 include setting boundaries or modifying schedules, as needed, to handle difficult encounters; employing empathetic listening skills and a nonjudgmental attitude to facilitate trust and adherence to treatment; and assessing for underlying psychological illnesses with referral for appropriate diagnosis and treatment. Finally, the CALMER method—catalyst for change, alter thoughts to change feelings, listen and then make a diagnosis, make an agreement, education and follow-up, reach out and discuss feelings—is another approach that may be useful.7 In dermatology, this approach may not only dissipate unwanted tension but also make progress toward a therapeutic relationship. We cannot control the patient’s behavior in a visit, but we need to keep in mind that we are in control of our own reactions to said behavior.9 After first acknowledging this, we can then guide patients to take steps toward overcoming the issue. Within the time restrictions of a dermatology clinic visit, residents may use this approach to quickly feel more in control of a distressing situation and remain calm to better care for the patient.
Final Thoughts
Difficult patient encounters are impossible to avoid in any field of medicine, and dermatology is no exception. It will only benefit residents to recognize the multiple factors impacting a challenging encounter now and learn or enhance conflict resolution and communication skills to navigate these dissatisfying and uncomfortable situations, as they are inevitable in our careers.
- Bodner S. Stress management in the difficult patient encounter. Dent Clin North Am. 2008;52:579-603, ix-xx. doi:10.1016/j.cden.2008.02.012
- West CP, Dyrbye LN, Shanafelt TD. Physician burnout: contributors, consequences and solutions. J Intern Med. 2018;283:516-529. doi:10.1111/joim.12752
- Seth D, Cheldize K, Brown D, et al. Global burden of skin disease: inequities and innovations. Curr Dermatol Rep. 2017;6:204-210. doi:10.1007/s13671-017-0192-7
- An PGRabatin JSManwell LB, et al. Burden of difficult encounters in primary care: data from the minimizing error, maximizing outcomes study. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169:410-414. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2008.549
- Steinmetz D, Tabenkin H. The ‘difficult patient’ as perceived by family physicians. Fam Pract. 2001;18:495-500. doi:10.1093/fampra/18.5.495
- Breuner CC, Moreno MA. Approaches to the difficult patient/parent encounter. Pediatrics. 2011;127:163-169. doi:10.1542/peds.2010-0072
- Cannarella Lorenzetti R, Jacques CH, Donovan C, et al. Managing difficult encounters: understanding physician, patient, and situational factors. Am Fam Physician. 2013;87:419-425.
- Bailey J, Martin SA, Bangs A. Managing difficult patient encounters. Am Fam Physician. 2023;108:494-500.
- Pomm HA, Shahady E, Pomm RM. The CALMER approach: teaching learners six steps to serenity when dealing with difficult patients. Fam Med. 2004;36:467-469.
Dermatologists in training are exposed to many different clinical scenarios—from the quick 15-minute encounter to diagnose a case of atopic dermatitis to hours of digging through a medical record to identify a culprit medication in a hospitalized patient with a life-threatening cutaneous drug reaction. Amidst the day-to-day clinical work that we do, there inevitably are interactions we have with patients that are less than ideal. These challenging encounters—whether they be subtle microaggressions that unfortunately enter the workplace or blatant quarrels between providers and patients that leave both parties dissatisfied—are notable contributors to physician stress levels and can lead to burnout.1,2 However, there are positive lessons to be learned from these challenging patient encounters if we manage to withstand them. When we start to understand the factors contributing to difficult clinical encounters, we can begin to develop and apply effective communication tools to productively navigate these experiences.
Defining the Difficult Patient
In 2017, the Global Burden of Disease study revealed that skin disease is the fourth leading cause of nonfatal disease burden worldwide.3 Based on this statistic, it is easy to see how some patients may experience frustration associated with their condition and subsequently displace their discontent on the physician. In one study, nearly 1 of every 6 (16.7%) outpatient encounters was considered difficult by physicians.4 Family medicine physicians defined the difficult patient as one who is violent, demanding, aggressive, and rude.5 Others in primary care specialties have considered difficult patients to have characteristics that include mental health problems, more than 5 somatic symptoms, and abrasive personalities.4,6
Situational and Physician-Centered Factors in Difficult Patient Encounters
In our medical system, the narrative often is focused on the patient, for better or worse—the patient was difficult, thereby making the encounter difficult. However, it is important to remember that difficult encounters can be attributed to several different factors, including those related to the physician, the clinical situation, or both. For example, dermatology residents juggle their clinical duties; academic work including studying, teaching, and/or research; and systemic and personal pressures at all times, whether they are cognizant of it or not. For better or worse, by virtue of being human, residents bring these factors with them to each clinical encounter. The delicate balance of these components can have a considerable impact on our delivery of good health care. This is particularly relevant in dermatology, where residents are subject to limited time during visits, work culture among clinic staff that is out of our control, and prominent complex social issues (for those of us practicing in medically underserved areas). Poor communication skills, underlying bias toward specific health conditions, limited knowledge as a trainee, and our own personal stressors also may play large roles in perceiving a clinical encounter as difficult during dermatology residency.7
Strategies to Mitigate Difficult Encounters
As a resident, if you make a statement that sparks a negative response from the patient, acknowledge their negative emotion, try to offer help, or rephrase the original statement to quickly dispel the tension. Validating a patient’s emotions and helping them embrace uncertainty can go a long way in the therapeutic relationship, especially in dermatology where so many of our diseases are chronic and without a definite cure.8 Additionally, it is important to apply strategies to redirect and de-escalate the situation during emotionally charged conversations, such as active listening, validating and empathizing with emotions, exploring alternative solutions, and providing closure to the conversation. Consensus recommendations for managing challenging encounters established by the American Academy of Family Physicians in 2013 include setting boundaries or modifying schedules, as needed, to handle difficult encounters; employing empathetic listening skills and a nonjudgmental attitude to facilitate trust and adherence to treatment; and assessing for underlying psychological illnesses with referral for appropriate diagnosis and treatment. Finally, the CALMER method—catalyst for change, alter thoughts to change feelings, listen and then make a diagnosis, make an agreement, education and follow-up, reach out and discuss feelings—is another approach that may be useful.7 In dermatology, this approach may not only dissipate unwanted tension but also make progress toward a therapeutic relationship. We cannot control the patient’s behavior in a visit, but we need to keep in mind that we are in control of our own reactions to said behavior.9 After first acknowledging this, we can then guide patients to take steps toward overcoming the issue. Within the time restrictions of a dermatology clinic visit, residents may use this approach to quickly feel more in control of a distressing situation and remain calm to better care for the patient.
Final Thoughts
Difficult patient encounters are impossible to avoid in any field of medicine, and dermatology is no exception. It will only benefit residents to recognize the multiple factors impacting a challenging encounter now and learn or enhance conflict resolution and communication skills to navigate these dissatisfying and uncomfortable situations, as they are inevitable in our careers.
Dermatologists in training are exposed to many different clinical scenarios—from the quick 15-minute encounter to diagnose a case of atopic dermatitis to hours of digging through a medical record to identify a culprit medication in a hospitalized patient with a life-threatening cutaneous drug reaction. Amidst the day-to-day clinical work that we do, there inevitably are interactions we have with patients that are less than ideal. These challenging encounters—whether they be subtle microaggressions that unfortunately enter the workplace or blatant quarrels between providers and patients that leave both parties dissatisfied—are notable contributors to physician stress levels and can lead to burnout.1,2 However, there are positive lessons to be learned from these challenging patient encounters if we manage to withstand them. When we start to understand the factors contributing to difficult clinical encounters, we can begin to develop and apply effective communication tools to productively navigate these experiences.
Defining the Difficult Patient
In 2017, the Global Burden of Disease study revealed that skin disease is the fourth leading cause of nonfatal disease burden worldwide.3 Based on this statistic, it is easy to see how some patients may experience frustration associated with their condition and subsequently displace their discontent on the physician. In one study, nearly 1 of every 6 (16.7%) outpatient encounters was considered difficult by physicians.4 Family medicine physicians defined the difficult patient as one who is violent, demanding, aggressive, and rude.5 Others in primary care specialties have considered difficult patients to have characteristics that include mental health problems, more than 5 somatic symptoms, and abrasive personalities.4,6
Situational and Physician-Centered Factors in Difficult Patient Encounters
In our medical system, the narrative often is focused on the patient, for better or worse—the patient was difficult, thereby making the encounter difficult. However, it is important to remember that difficult encounters can be attributed to several different factors, including those related to the physician, the clinical situation, or both. For example, dermatology residents juggle their clinical duties; academic work including studying, teaching, and/or research; and systemic and personal pressures at all times, whether they are cognizant of it or not. For better or worse, by virtue of being human, residents bring these factors with them to each clinical encounter. The delicate balance of these components can have a considerable impact on our delivery of good health care. This is particularly relevant in dermatology, where residents are subject to limited time during visits, work culture among clinic staff that is out of our control, and prominent complex social issues (for those of us practicing in medically underserved areas). Poor communication skills, underlying bias toward specific health conditions, limited knowledge as a trainee, and our own personal stressors also may play large roles in perceiving a clinical encounter as difficult during dermatology residency.7
Strategies to Mitigate Difficult Encounters
As a resident, if you make a statement that sparks a negative response from the patient, acknowledge their negative emotion, try to offer help, or rephrase the original statement to quickly dispel the tension. Validating a patient’s emotions and helping them embrace uncertainty can go a long way in the therapeutic relationship, especially in dermatology where so many of our diseases are chronic and without a definite cure.8 Additionally, it is important to apply strategies to redirect and de-escalate the situation during emotionally charged conversations, such as active listening, validating and empathizing with emotions, exploring alternative solutions, and providing closure to the conversation. Consensus recommendations for managing challenging encounters established by the American Academy of Family Physicians in 2013 include setting boundaries or modifying schedules, as needed, to handle difficult encounters; employing empathetic listening skills and a nonjudgmental attitude to facilitate trust and adherence to treatment; and assessing for underlying psychological illnesses with referral for appropriate diagnosis and treatment. Finally, the CALMER method—catalyst for change, alter thoughts to change feelings, listen and then make a diagnosis, make an agreement, education and follow-up, reach out and discuss feelings—is another approach that may be useful.7 In dermatology, this approach may not only dissipate unwanted tension but also make progress toward a therapeutic relationship. We cannot control the patient’s behavior in a visit, but we need to keep in mind that we are in control of our own reactions to said behavior.9 After first acknowledging this, we can then guide patients to take steps toward overcoming the issue. Within the time restrictions of a dermatology clinic visit, residents may use this approach to quickly feel more in control of a distressing situation and remain calm to better care for the patient.
Final Thoughts
Difficult patient encounters are impossible to avoid in any field of medicine, and dermatology is no exception. It will only benefit residents to recognize the multiple factors impacting a challenging encounter now and learn or enhance conflict resolution and communication skills to navigate these dissatisfying and uncomfortable situations, as they are inevitable in our careers.
- Bodner S. Stress management in the difficult patient encounter. Dent Clin North Am. 2008;52:579-603, ix-xx. doi:10.1016/j.cden.2008.02.012
- West CP, Dyrbye LN, Shanafelt TD. Physician burnout: contributors, consequences and solutions. J Intern Med. 2018;283:516-529. doi:10.1111/joim.12752
- Seth D, Cheldize K, Brown D, et al. Global burden of skin disease: inequities and innovations. Curr Dermatol Rep. 2017;6:204-210. doi:10.1007/s13671-017-0192-7
- An PGRabatin JSManwell LB, et al. Burden of difficult encounters in primary care: data from the minimizing error, maximizing outcomes study. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169:410-414. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2008.549
- Steinmetz D, Tabenkin H. The ‘difficult patient’ as perceived by family physicians. Fam Pract. 2001;18:495-500. doi:10.1093/fampra/18.5.495
- Breuner CC, Moreno MA. Approaches to the difficult patient/parent encounter. Pediatrics. 2011;127:163-169. doi:10.1542/peds.2010-0072
- Cannarella Lorenzetti R, Jacques CH, Donovan C, et al. Managing difficult encounters: understanding physician, patient, and situational factors. Am Fam Physician. 2013;87:419-425.
- Bailey J, Martin SA, Bangs A. Managing difficult patient encounters. Am Fam Physician. 2023;108:494-500.
- Pomm HA, Shahady E, Pomm RM. The CALMER approach: teaching learners six steps to serenity when dealing with difficult patients. Fam Med. 2004;36:467-469.
- Bodner S. Stress management in the difficult patient encounter. Dent Clin North Am. 2008;52:579-603, ix-xx. doi:10.1016/j.cden.2008.02.012
- West CP, Dyrbye LN, Shanafelt TD. Physician burnout: contributors, consequences and solutions. J Intern Med. 2018;283:516-529. doi:10.1111/joim.12752
- Seth D, Cheldize K, Brown D, et al. Global burden of skin disease: inequities and innovations. Curr Dermatol Rep. 2017;6:204-210. doi:10.1007/s13671-017-0192-7
- An PGRabatin JSManwell LB, et al. Burden of difficult encounters in primary care: data from the minimizing error, maximizing outcomes study. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169:410-414. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2008.549
- Steinmetz D, Tabenkin H. The ‘difficult patient’ as perceived by family physicians. Fam Pract. 2001;18:495-500. doi:10.1093/fampra/18.5.495
- Breuner CC, Moreno MA. Approaches to the difficult patient/parent encounter. Pediatrics. 2011;127:163-169. doi:10.1542/peds.2010-0072
- Cannarella Lorenzetti R, Jacques CH, Donovan C, et al. Managing difficult encounters: understanding physician, patient, and situational factors. Am Fam Physician. 2013;87:419-425.
- Bailey J, Martin SA, Bangs A. Managing difficult patient encounters. Am Fam Physician. 2023;108:494-500.
- Pomm HA, Shahady E, Pomm RM. The CALMER approach: teaching learners six steps to serenity when dealing with difficult patients. Fam Med. 2004;36:467-469.
RESIDENT PEARLS
- Challenging patient encounters are inevitable in our work as dermatology residents. Both physician- and patient-related factors can contribute.
- Setting boundaries, active listening, and addressing emotions during and after the visit can help to mitigate challenging encounters.
Patients Want the Facts Delivered in a Personal Story
Poor communication between physician and patient can cause a lot of harm, according to Joseph N. Cappella, PhD, Gerald R. Miller Professor Emeritus of Communication at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, and Richard N. Street Jr, PhD, professor of communication and media science at Texas A&M University in Houston, Texas. When a physician and patient talk past each other, it may impair the patient’s compliance with preventive measures, screening, and treatment; undermine the physician-patient relationship; exacerbate fears and concerns; and possibly lead patients to rely on misleading, incomplete, or simply incorrect information, turning away from evidence-based medicine.
Drs. Cappella and Street made these points in an essay recently published in JAMA. The essay marks the beginning of the JAMA series Communicating Medicine.
“Helping clinicians deliver accurate information more effectively can lead to better-informed patients,” wrote Anne R. Cappola, MD, professor of endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolism at the University of Pennsylvania, and Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, in an accompanying editorial. Drs. Cappola and Bibbins-Domingo also are editors of JAMA.
To establish a common understanding between physician and patient, Drs. Cappella and Street identified the following four responsibilities of the physician:
- Discover what the patient understands and why
- Provide accurate information in an understandable manner
- Promote the credibility of the information
- Verify whether the patient has understood.
“Research has shown that although medical facts need to be the basis for the clinician’s core message, those facts are more effectively communicated in a patient-clinician relationship characterized by trust and cooperation and when the information is presented in a manner that fosters patient understanding,” wrote Drs. Cappella and Street. This approach includes using interpreters for patients who do not fluently speak the physician’s language and supplementing explanations with simple written information, images, and videos.
Patients generally believe their physician’s information, and most patients view their physicians as a trustworthy source. Trust is based on the belief that the physician has the patient’s best interests at heart.
However, patients may be distrustful of their physician’s information if it contradicts their own belief system or personal experiences or because they inherently distrust the medical profession.
In addition, patients are less willing to accept explanations and recommendations if they feel misunderstood, judged, discriminated against, or rushed by the physician. The basis for effective communication is a relationship with patients that is built on trust and respect. Empirically supported strategies for expressing respect and building trust include the following:
- Affirming the patient’s values
- Anticipating and addressing false or misleading information
- Using simple, jargon-free language
- Embedding facts into a story, rather than presenting the scientific evidence dryly.
“Conveying factual material using these techniques makes facts more engaging and memorable,” wrote Drs. Cappella and Street. It is crucial to inquire about and consider the patient’s perspective, health beliefs, assumptions, concerns, needs, and stories in the conversation.
This story was translated from the Medscape German edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Poor communication between physician and patient can cause a lot of harm, according to Joseph N. Cappella, PhD, Gerald R. Miller Professor Emeritus of Communication at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, and Richard N. Street Jr, PhD, professor of communication and media science at Texas A&M University in Houston, Texas. When a physician and patient talk past each other, it may impair the patient’s compliance with preventive measures, screening, and treatment; undermine the physician-patient relationship; exacerbate fears and concerns; and possibly lead patients to rely on misleading, incomplete, or simply incorrect information, turning away from evidence-based medicine.
Drs. Cappella and Street made these points in an essay recently published in JAMA. The essay marks the beginning of the JAMA series Communicating Medicine.
“Helping clinicians deliver accurate information more effectively can lead to better-informed patients,” wrote Anne R. Cappola, MD, professor of endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolism at the University of Pennsylvania, and Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, in an accompanying editorial. Drs. Cappola and Bibbins-Domingo also are editors of JAMA.
To establish a common understanding between physician and patient, Drs. Cappella and Street identified the following four responsibilities of the physician:
- Discover what the patient understands and why
- Provide accurate information in an understandable manner
- Promote the credibility of the information
- Verify whether the patient has understood.
“Research has shown that although medical facts need to be the basis for the clinician’s core message, those facts are more effectively communicated in a patient-clinician relationship characterized by trust and cooperation and when the information is presented in a manner that fosters patient understanding,” wrote Drs. Cappella and Street. This approach includes using interpreters for patients who do not fluently speak the physician’s language and supplementing explanations with simple written information, images, and videos.
Patients generally believe their physician’s information, and most patients view their physicians as a trustworthy source. Trust is based on the belief that the physician has the patient’s best interests at heart.
However, patients may be distrustful of their physician’s information if it contradicts their own belief system or personal experiences or because they inherently distrust the medical profession.
In addition, patients are less willing to accept explanations and recommendations if they feel misunderstood, judged, discriminated against, or rushed by the physician. The basis for effective communication is a relationship with patients that is built on trust and respect. Empirically supported strategies for expressing respect and building trust include the following:
- Affirming the patient’s values
- Anticipating and addressing false or misleading information
- Using simple, jargon-free language
- Embedding facts into a story, rather than presenting the scientific evidence dryly.
“Conveying factual material using these techniques makes facts more engaging and memorable,” wrote Drs. Cappella and Street. It is crucial to inquire about and consider the patient’s perspective, health beliefs, assumptions, concerns, needs, and stories in the conversation.
This story was translated from the Medscape German edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Poor communication between physician and patient can cause a lot of harm, according to Joseph N. Cappella, PhD, Gerald R. Miller Professor Emeritus of Communication at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, and Richard N. Street Jr, PhD, professor of communication and media science at Texas A&M University in Houston, Texas. When a physician and patient talk past each other, it may impair the patient’s compliance with preventive measures, screening, and treatment; undermine the physician-patient relationship; exacerbate fears and concerns; and possibly lead patients to rely on misleading, incomplete, or simply incorrect information, turning away from evidence-based medicine.
Drs. Cappella and Street made these points in an essay recently published in JAMA. The essay marks the beginning of the JAMA series Communicating Medicine.
“Helping clinicians deliver accurate information more effectively can lead to better-informed patients,” wrote Anne R. Cappola, MD, professor of endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolism at the University of Pennsylvania, and Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, in an accompanying editorial. Drs. Cappola and Bibbins-Domingo also are editors of JAMA.
To establish a common understanding between physician and patient, Drs. Cappella and Street identified the following four responsibilities of the physician:
- Discover what the patient understands and why
- Provide accurate information in an understandable manner
- Promote the credibility of the information
- Verify whether the patient has understood.
“Research has shown that although medical facts need to be the basis for the clinician’s core message, those facts are more effectively communicated in a patient-clinician relationship characterized by trust and cooperation and when the information is presented in a manner that fosters patient understanding,” wrote Drs. Cappella and Street. This approach includes using interpreters for patients who do not fluently speak the physician’s language and supplementing explanations with simple written information, images, and videos.
Patients generally believe their physician’s information, and most patients view their physicians as a trustworthy source. Trust is based on the belief that the physician has the patient’s best interests at heart.
However, patients may be distrustful of their physician’s information if it contradicts their own belief system or personal experiences or because they inherently distrust the medical profession.
In addition, patients are less willing to accept explanations and recommendations if they feel misunderstood, judged, discriminated against, or rushed by the physician. The basis for effective communication is a relationship with patients that is built on trust and respect. Empirically supported strategies for expressing respect and building trust include the following:
- Affirming the patient’s values
- Anticipating and addressing false or misleading information
- Using simple, jargon-free language
- Embedding facts into a story, rather than presenting the scientific evidence dryly.
“Conveying factual material using these techniques makes facts more engaging and memorable,” wrote Drs. Cappella and Street. It is crucial to inquire about and consider the patient’s perspective, health beliefs, assumptions, concerns, needs, and stories in the conversation.
This story was translated from the Medscape German edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Unleashing Our Immune Response to Quash Cancer
This article was originally published on February 10 in Eric Topol’s substack “Ground Truths.”
It’s astounding how devious cancer cells and tumor tissue can be. This week in Science we learned how certain lung cancer cells can function like “Catch Me If You Can” — changing their driver mutation and cell identity to escape targeted therapy. This histologic transformation, as seen in an experimental model, is just one of so many cancer tricks that we are learning about.
Recently, as shown by single-cell sequencing, cancer cells can steal the mitochondria from T cells, a double whammy that turbocharges cancer cells with the hijacked fuel supply and, at the same time, dismantles the immune response.
Last week, we saw how tumor cells can release a virus-like protein that unleashes a vicious autoimmune response.
And then there’s the finding that cancer cell spread predominantly is occurring while we sleep.
As I previously reviewed, the ability for cancer cells to hijack neurons and neural circuits is now well established, no less their ability to reprogram neurons to become adrenergic and stimulate tumor progression, and interfere with the immune response. Stay tuned on that for a new Ground Truths podcast with Prof Michelle Monje, a leader in cancer neuroscience, which will post soon.
Add advancing age’s immunosenescence as yet another challenge to the long and growing list of formidable ways that cancer cells, and the tumor microenvironment, evade our immune response.
An Ever-Expanding Armamentarium
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors
The field of immunotherapies took off with the immune checkpoint inhibitors, first approved by the FDA in 2011, that take the brakes off of T cells, with the programmed death-1 (PD-1), PD-ligand1, and anti-CTLA-4 monoclonal antibodies.
But we’re clearly learning they are not enough to prevail over cancer with common recurrences, only short term success in most patients, with some notable exceptions. Adding other immune response strategies, such as a vaccine, or antibody-drug conjugates, or engineered T cells, are showing improved chances for success.
Therapeutic Cancer Vaccines
There are many therapeutic cancer vaccines in the works, as reviewed in depth here.
Here’s a list of ongoing clinical trials of cancer vaccines. You’ll note most of these are on top of a checkpoint inhibitor and use personalized neoantigens (cancer cell surface proteins) derived from sequencing (whole-exome or whole genome, RNA-sequencing and HLA-profiling) the patient’s tumor.
An example of positive findings is with the combination of an mRNA-nanoparticle vaccine with up to 34 personalized neoantigens and pembrolizumab (Keytruda) vs pembrolizumab alone in advanced melanoma after resection, with improved outcomes at 3-year follow-up, cutting death or relapse rate in half.
Antibody-Drug Conjugates (ADC)
There is considerable excitement about antibody-drug conjugates (ADC) whereby a linker is used to attach a chemotherapy agent to the checkpoint inhibitor antibody, specifically targeting the cancer cell and facilitating entry of the chemotherapy into the cell. Akin to these are bispecific antibodies (BiTEs, binding to a tumor antigen and T cell receptor simultaneously), both of these conjugates acting as “biologic” or “guided” missiles.
A very good example of the potency of an ADC was seen in a “HER2-low” breast cancer randomized trial. The absence or very low expression or amplification of the HER2 receptor is common in breast cancer and successful treatment has been elusive. A randomized trial of an ADC (trastuzumab deruxtecan) compared to physician’s choice therapy demonstrated a marked success for progression-free survival in HER2-low patients, which was characterized as “unheard-of success” by media coverage.
This strategy is being used to target some of the most difficult cancer driver mutations such as TP53 and KRAS.
Oncolytic Viruses
Modifying viruses to infect the tumor and make it more visible to the immune system, potentiating anti-tumor responses, known as oncolytic viruses, have been proposed as a way to rev up the immune response for a long time but without positive Phase 3 clinical trials.
After decades of failure, a recent trial in refractory bladder cancer showed marked success, along with others, summarized here, now providing very encouraging results. It looks like oncolytic viruses are on a comeback path.
Engineering T Cells (Chimeric Antigen Receptor [CAR-T])
As I recently reviewed, there are over 500 ongoing clinical trials to build on the success of the first CAR-T approval for leukemia 7 years ago. I won’t go through that all again here, but to reiterate most of the success to date has been in “liquid” blood (leukemia and lymphoma) cancer tumors. This week in Nature is the discovery of a T cell cancer mutation, a gene fusion CARD11-PIK3R3, from a T cell lymphoma that can potentially be used to augment CAR-T efficacy. It has pronounced and prolonged effects in the experimental model. Instead of 1 million cells needed for treatment, even 20,000 were enough to melt the tumor. This is a noteworthy discovery since CAR-T work to date has largely not exploited such naturally occurring mutations, while instead concentrating on those seen in the patient’s set of key tumor mutations.
As currently conceived, CAR-T, and what is being referred to more broadly as adoptive cell therapies, involves removing T cells from the patient’s body and engineering their activation, then reintroducing them back to the patient. This is laborious, technically difficult, and very expensive. Recently, the idea of achieving all of this via an injection of virus that specifically infects T cells and inserts the genes needed, was advanced by two biotech companies with preclinical results, one in non-human primates.
Gearing up to meet the challenge of solid tumor CAR-T intervention, there’s more work using CRISPR genome editing of T cell receptors. A.I. is increasingly being exploited to process the data from sequencing and identify optimal neoantigens.
Instead of just CAR-T, we’re seeing the emergence of CAR-macrophage and CAR-natural killer (NK) cells strategies, and rapidly expanding potential combinations of all the strategies I’ve mentioned. No less, there’s been maturation of on-off suicide switches programmed in, to limit cytokine release and promote safety of these interventions. Overall, major side effects of immunotherapies are not only cytokine release syndromes, but also include interstitial pneumonitis and neurotoxicity.
Summary
Given the multitude of ways cancer cells and tumor tissue can evade our immune response, durably successful treatment remains a daunting challenge. But the ingenuity of so many different approaches to unleash our immune response, and their combinations, provides considerable hope that we’ll increasingly meet the challenge in the years ahead. We have clearly learned that combining different immunotherapy strategies will be essential for many patients with the most resilient solid tumors.
Of concern, as noted by a recent editorial in The Lancet, entitled “Cancer Research Equity: Innovations For The Many, Not The Few,” is that these individualized, sophisticated strategies are not scalable; they will have limited reach and benefit. The movement towards “off the shelf” CAR-T and inexpensive, orally active checkpoint inhibitors may help mitigate this issue.
Notwithstanding this important concern, we’re seeing an array of diverse and potent immunotherapy strategies that are providing highly encouraging results, engendering more excitement than we’ve seen in this space for some time. These should propel substantial improvements in outcomes for patients in the years ahead. It can’t happen soon enough.
Thanks for reading this edition of Ground Truths. If you found it informative, please share it with your colleagues.
Dr. Topol has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Dexcom; Illumina; Molecular Stethoscope; Quest Diagnostics; Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. Received research grant from National Institutes of Health.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
This article was originally published on February 10 in Eric Topol’s substack “Ground Truths.”
It’s astounding how devious cancer cells and tumor tissue can be. This week in Science we learned how certain lung cancer cells can function like “Catch Me If You Can” — changing their driver mutation and cell identity to escape targeted therapy. This histologic transformation, as seen in an experimental model, is just one of so many cancer tricks that we are learning about.
Recently, as shown by single-cell sequencing, cancer cells can steal the mitochondria from T cells, a double whammy that turbocharges cancer cells with the hijacked fuel supply and, at the same time, dismantles the immune response.
Last week, we saw how tumor cells can release a virus-like protein that unleashes a vicious autoimmune response.
And then there’s the finding that cancer cell spread predominantly is occurring while we sleep.
As I previously reviewed, the ability for cancer cells to hijack neurons and neural circuits is now well established, no less their ability to reprogram neurons to become adrenergic and stimulate tumor progression, and interfere with the immune response. Stay tuned on that for a new Ground Truths podcast with Prof Michelle Monje, a leader in cancer neuroscience, which will post soon.
Add advancing age’s immunosenescence as yet another challenge to the long and growing list of formidable ways that cancer cells, and the tumor microenvironment, evade our immune response.
An Ever-Expanding Armamentarium
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors
The field of immunotherapies took off with the immune checkpoint inhibitors, first approved by the FDA in 2011, that take the brakes off of T cells, with the programmed death-1 (PD-1), PD-ligand1, and anti-CTLA-4 monoclonal antibodies.
But we’re clearly learning they are not enough to prevail over cancer with common recurrences, only short term success in most patients, with some notable exceptions. Adding other immune response strategies, such as a vaccine, or antibody-drug conjugates, or engineered T cells, are showing improved chances for success.
Therapeutic Cancer Vaccines
There are many therapeutic cancer vaccines in the works, as reviewed in depth here.
Here’s a list of ongoing clinical trials of cancer vaccines. You’ll note most of these are on top of a checkpoint inhibitor and use personalized neoantigens (cancer cell surface proteins) derived from sequencing (whole-exome or whole genome, RNA-sequencing and HLA-profiling) the patient’s tumor.
An example of positive findings is with the combination of an mRNA-nanoparticle vaccine with up to 34 personalized neoantigens and pembrolizumab (Keytruda) vs pembrolizumab alone in advanced melanoma after resection, with improved outcomes at 3-year follow-up, cutting death or relapse rate in half.
Antibody-Drug Conjugates (ADC)
There is considerable excitement about antibody-drug conjugates (ADC) whereby a linker is used to attach a chemotherapy agent to the checkpoint inhibitor antibody, specifically targeting the cancer cell and facilitating entry of the chemotherapy into the cell. Akin to these are bispecific antibodies (BiTEs, binding to a tumor antigen and T cell receptor simultaneously), both of these conjugates acting as “biologic” or “guided” missiles.
A very good example of the potency of an ADC was seen in a “HER2-low” breast cancer randomized trial. The absence or very low expression or amplification of the HER2 receptor is common in breast cancer and successful treatment has been elusive. A randomized trial of an ADC (trastuzumab deruxtecan) compared to physician’s choice therapy demonstrated a marked success for progression-free survival in HER2-low patients, which was characterized as “unheard-of success” by media coverage.
This strategy is being used to target some of the most difficult cancer driver mutations such as TP53 and KRAS.
Oncolytic Viruses
Modifying viruses to infect the tumor and make it more visible to the immune system, potentiating anti-tumor responses, known as oncolytic viruses, have been proposed as a way to rev up the immune response for a long time but without positive Phase 3 clinical trials.
After decades of failure, a recent trial in refractory bladder cancer showed marked success, along with others, summarized here, now providing very encouraging results. It looks like oncolytic viruses are on a comeback path.
Engineering T Cells (Chimeric Antigen Receptor [CAR-T])
As I recently reviewed, there are over 500 ongoing clinical trials to build on the success of the first CAR-T approval for leukemia 7 years ago. I won’t go through that all again here, but to reiterate most of the success to date has been in “liquid” blood (leukemia and lymphoma) cancer tumors. This week in Nature is the discovery of a T cell cancer mutation, a gene fusion CARD11-PIK3R3, from a T cell lymphoma that can potentially be used to augment CAR-T efficacy. It has pronounced and prolonged effects in the experimental model. Instead of 1 million cells needed for treatment, even 20,000 were enough to melt the tumor. This is a noteworthy discovery since CAR-T work to date has largely not exploited such naturally occurring mutations, while instead concentrating on those seen in the patient’s set of key tumor mutations.
As currently conceived, CAR-T, and what is being referred to more broadly as adoptive cell therapies, involves removing T cells from the patient’s body and engineering their activation, then reintroducing them back to the patient. This is laborious, technically difficult, and very expensive. Recently, the idea of achieving all of this via an injection of virus that specifically infects T cells and inserts the genes needed, was advanced by two biotech companies with preclinical results, one in non-human primates.
Gearing up to meet the challenge of solid tumor CAR-T intervention, there’s more work using CRISPR genome editing of T cell receptors. A.I. is increasingly being exploited to process the data from sequencing and identify optimal neoantigens.
Instead of just CAR-T, we’re seeing the emergence of CAR-macrophage and CAR-natural killer (NK) cells strategies, and rapidly expanding potential combinations of all the strategies I’ve mentioned. No less, there’s been maturation of on-off suicide switches programmed in, to limit cytokine release and promote safety of these interventions. Overall, major side effects of immunotherapies are not only cytokine release syndromes, but also include interstitial pneumonitis and neurotoxicity.
Summary
Given the multitude of ways cancer cells and tumor tissue can evade our immune response, durably successful treatment remains a daunting challenge. But the ingenuity of so many different approaches to unleash our immune response, and their combinations, provides considerable hope that we’ll increasingly meet the challenge in the years ahead. We have clearly learned that combining different immunotherapy strategies will be essential for many patients with the most resilient solid tumors.
Of concern, as noted by a recent editorial in The Lancet, entitled “Cancer Research Equity: Innovations For The Many, Not The Few,” is that these individualized, sophisticated strategies are not scalable; they will have limited reach and benefit. The movement towards “off the shelf” CAR-T and inexpensive, orally active checkpoint inhibitors may help mitigate this issue.
Notwithstanding this important concern, we’re seeing an array of diverse and potent immunotherapy strategies that are providing highly encouraging results, engendering more excitement than we’ve seen in this space for some time. These should propel substantial improvements in outcomes for patients in the years ahead. It can’t happen soon enough.
Thanks for reading this edition of Ground Truths. If you found it informative, please share it with your colleagues.
Dr. Topol has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Dexcom; Illumina; Molecular Stethoscope; Quest Diagnostics; Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. Received research grant from National Institutes of Health.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
This article was originally published on February 10 in Eric Topol’s substack “Ground Truths.”
It’s astounding how devious cancer cells and tumor tissue can be. This week in Science we learned how certain lung cancer cells can function like “Catch Me If You Can” — changing their driver mutation and cell identity to escape targeted therapy. This histologic transformation, as seen in an experimental model, is just one of so many cancer tricks that we are learning about.
Recently, as shown by single-cell sequencing, cancer cells can steal the mitochondria from T cells, a double whammy that turbocharges cancer cells with the hijacked fuel supply and, at the same time, dismantles the immune response.
Last week, we saw how tumor cells can release a virus-like protein that unleashes a vicious autoimmune response.
And then there’s the finding that cancer cell spread predominantly is occurring while we sleep.
As I previously reviewed, the ability for cancer cells to hijack neurons and neural circuits is now well established, no less their ability to reprogram neurons to become adrenergic and stimulate tumor progression, and interfere with the immune response. Stay tuned on that for a new Ground Truths podcast with Prof Michelle Monje, a leader in cancer neuroscience, which will post soon.
Add advancing age’s immunosenescence as yet another challenge to the long and growing list of formidable ways that cancer cells, and the tumor microenvironment, evade our immune response.
An Ever-Expanding Armamentarium
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors
The field of immunotherapies took off with the immune checkpoint inhibitors, first approved by the FDA in 2011, that take the brakes off of T cells, with the programmed death-1 (PD-1), PD-ligand1, and anti-CTLA-4 monoclonal antibodies.
But we’re clearly learning they are not enough to prevail over cancer with common recurrences, only short term success in most patients, with some notable exceptions. Adding other immune response strategies, such as a vaccine, or antibody-drug conjugates, or engineered T cells, are showing improved chances for success.
Therapeutic Cancer Vaccines
There are many therapeutic cancer vaccines in the works, as reviewed in depth here.
Here’s a list of ongoing clinical trials of cancer vaccines. You’ll note most of these are on top of a checkpoint inhibitor and use personalized neoantigens (cancer cell surface proteins) derived from sequencing (whole-exome or whole genome, RNA-sequencing and HLA-profiling) the patient’s tumor.
An example of positive findings is with the combination of an mRNA-nanoparticle vaccine with up to 34 personalized neoantigens and pembrolizumab (Keytruda) vs pembrolizumab alone in advanced melanoma after resection, with improved outcomes at 3-year follow-up, cutting death or relapse rate in half.
Antibody-Drug Conjugates (ADC)
There is considerable excitement about antibody-drug conjugates (ADC) whereby a linker is used to attach a chemotherapy agent to the checkpoint inhibitor antibody, specifically targeting the cancer cell and facilitating entry of the chemotherapy into the cell. Akin to these are bispecific antibodies (BiTEs, binding to a tumor antigen and T cell receptor simultaneously), both of these conjugates acting as “biologic” or “guided” missiles.
A very good example of the potency of an ADC was seen in a “HER2-low” breast cancer randomized trial. The absence or very low expression or amplification of the HER2 receptor is common in breast cancer and successful treatment has been elusive. A randomized trial of an ADC (trastuzumab deruxtecan) compared to physician’s choice therapy demonstrated a marked success for progression-free survival in HER2-low patients, which was characterized as “unheard-of success” by media coverage.
This strategy is being used to target some of the most difficult cancer driver mutations such as TP53 and KRAS.
Oncolytic Viruses
Modifying viruses to infect the tumor and make it more visible to the immune system, potentiating anti-tumor responses, known as oncolytic viruses, have been proposed as a way to rev up the immune response for a long time but without positive Phase 3 clinical trials.
After decades of failure, a recent trial in refractory bladder cancer showed marked success, along with others, summarized here, now providing very encouraging results. It looks like oncolytic viruses are on a comeback path.
Engineering T Cells (Chimeric Antigen Receptor [CAR-T])
As I recently reviewed, there are over 500 ongoing clinical trials to build on the success of the first CAR-T approval for leukemia 7 years ago. I won’t go through that all again here, but to reiterate most of the success to date has been in “liquid” blood (leukemia and lymphoma) cancer tumors. This week in Nature is the discovery of a T cell cancer mutation, a gene fusion CARD11-PIK3R3, from a T cell lymphoma that can potentially be used to augment CAR-T efficacy. It has pronounced and prolonged effects in the experimental model. Instead of 1 million cells needed for treatment, even 20,000 were enough to melt the tumor. This is a noteworthy discovery since CAR-T work to date has largely not exploited such naturally occurring mutations, while instead concentrating on those seen in the patient’s set of key tumor mutations.
As currently conceived, CAR-T, and what is being referred to more broadly as adoptive cell therapies, involves removing T cells from the patient’s body and engineering their activation, then reintroducing them back to the patient. This is laborious, technically difficult, and very expensive. Recently, the idea of achieving all of this via an injection of virus that specifically infects T cells and inserts the genes needed, was advanced by two biotech companies with preclinical results, one in non-human primates.
Gearing up to meet the challenge of solid tumor CAR-T intervention, there’s more work using CRISPR genome editing of T cell receptors. A.I. is increasingly being exploited to process the data from sequencing and identify optimal neoantigens.
Instead of just CAR-T, we’re seeing the emergence of CAR-macrophage and CAR-natural killer (NK) cells strategies, and rapidly expanding potential combinations of all the strategies I’ve mentioned. No less, there’s been maturation of on-off suicide switches programmed in, to limit cytokine release and promote safety of these interventions. Overall, major side effects of immunotherapies are not only cytokine release syndromes, but also include interstitial pneumonitis and neurotoxicity.
Summary
Given the multitude of ways cancer cells and tumor tissue can evade our immune response, durably successful treatment remains a daunting challenge. But the ingenuity of so many different approaches to unleash our immune response, and their combinations, provides considerable hope that we’ll increasingly meet the challenge in the years ahead. We have clearly learned that combining different immunotherapy strategies will be essential for many patients with the most resilient solid tumors.
Of concern, as noted by a recent editorial in The Lancet, entitled “Cancer Research Equity: Innovations For The Many, Not The Few,” is that these individualized, sophisticated strategies are not scalable; they will have limited reach and benefit. The movement towards “off the shelf” CAR-T and inexpensive, orally active checkpoint inhibitors may help mitigate this issue.
Notwithstanding this important concern, we’re seeing an array of diverse and potent immunotherapy strategies that are providing highly encouraging results, engendering more excitement than we’ve seen in this space for some time. These should propel substantial improvements in outcomes for patients in the years ahead. It can’t happen soon enough.
Thanks for reading this edition of Ground Truths. If you found it informative, please share it with your colleagues.
Dr. Topol has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Dexcom; Illumina; Molecular Stethoscope; Quest Diagnostics; Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. Received research grant from National Institutes of Health.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Balancing Patient Satisfaction With Saying No
Your patients come in wanting a script for the latest medication they saw on a television commercial (Ozempic anyone?), a request for a medical marijuana card for their shoulder ache, or any number of pleas for drugs, procedures, or tests that are medically inappropriate.
One of the toughest parts of the job as a physician is balancing patient requests with patient satisfaction.
Turns out, you can likely reroute those patient-driven requests if you can get to the heart of the issue the patient is looking to resolve, suggested Peter Lee, MD, a plastic surgeon at Wave Plastic Surgery in Los Angeles.
“The conversation between physicians and patients hinges less on the answer ‘no’ than it does on being a careful listener,” he said. “This includes focusing on the different available treatment options and then deciding which of these is most suitable to the particular situation facing that patient.”
Here are a few failsafe ways to say no — and why physicians think these approaches can make the difference between a contentious appointment and a positive one.
Hear Patients Out
When patients book an appointment with a physician to discuss a noncritical issue, they likely have a sense from Google of what they might need, which is why Dara Kass, MD, an emergency medicine physician in Hartford, Connecticut, always asks patients “why did you come in” and “what test do you think you need.”
“For example, they may say, ‘I came for a CT scan of my head because I’ve had a headache for 2 years, and it’s frustrating trying to find a neurologist,’” she said. “Maybe they don’t need a CT scan after all, but it’s up to me to figure that out, and letting them share what they think they need frames out a feeling that we’re making joint decisions.”
Help Patients Rethink Requests
The ubiquity of online searching is just one reason patients may tend to arrive at your office armed with “information.” This is especially true for patients seeking plastic surgery, said Dr. Lee. “A plastic surgeon’s reaction to such a request may be less about saying ‘no’ than taking the patient a few steps back in the decision-making process,” he said. “The goal should be to educate the patient, in the case of plastic surgery, about what is actually causing the appearance he or she is trying to correct.”
For something like a marijuana card for a slight ache, explaining that it may not be appropriate and “here’s what we can do instead” goes a long way in getting the patient to rethink and understand that their request may not be legitimate.
Use Safety Concerns as an Out
Often, a patient just isn’t a good candidate for a procedure, said Samuel Lin, MD, a plastic surgeon in Boston and an associate professor of surgery at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “They may think they need to have a procedure, but it might not be a safe thing for them to have it,” he said.
“I would lean heavily on the fact that it may not be medically safe for this patient to have this procedure due to elements of their medical history or the fact that they have had prior surgeries. Then, if you pivot to the more conservative things you can do, this can help you say no when a patient is seeking a certain procedure.”
Likewise, explaining that a weight loss drug may have more risks than benefits and isn’t appropriate for that 15 pounds they’re struggling with couched as a safety concern can ease the disappointment of a no.
Remind Patients That Tests Can Be Costly
It’s one thing for a patient to request certain tests, say an MRI or a CT scan, but those same patients may grumble when they get the bill for the tests. That said, it’s always a good idea to remind them of the costs of these tests, said Dr. Kass. Patients will get bills in the mail after their visit for those extra tests and scans. “They may not realize this until after they asked for it, and if they, for example, have $1000 in coinsurance, that bill may be a very upsetting surprise.”
You Can’t Always Prevent a Negative Patient Review
No matter how hard you try, a patient may still be unhappy that you’ve declined their request, and this may show up in the form of a negative review for all to see. However, it’s always best to keep these reviews in perspective. “The ‘no’ that might result in a bad review can happen for everything from waiting 15 minutes to see the doctor to not getting a discount at checkout and everything in between including being told they don’t need the drug, test, or procedure they requested.”
“I feel like people who write bad reviews want money back, or they have an alternative agenda. That’s why, I educate patients and empower them to make the right decisions,” said Jody A. Levine, MD, director of dermatology at Plastic Surgery & Dermatology of New York City.
Dr. Lee told this news organization that the fundamental pledge to “do no harm” is as good as any other credo when saying no to patients. “If we don’t believe there is a likely probability that a surgery will be safe to perform on a patient and leave the patient satisfied with the result, then it is our duty to decline to perform that surgery.”
Ultimately, being transparent leads to a happy doctor-patient relationship. “As long as you are clear and honest in explaining to a patient why you are declining to perform a procedure, most patients, rather than being angry with you, will thank you for your candor,” he said. “They’ll leave your office a little bit wiser, too.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Your patients come in wanting a script for the latest medication they saw on a television commercial (Ozempic anyone?), a request for a medical marijuana card for their shoulder ache, or any number of pleas for drugs, procedures, or tests that are medically inappropriate.
One of the toughest parts of the job as a physician is balancing patient requests with patient satisfaction.
Turns out, you can likely reroute those patient-driven requests if you can get to the heart of the issue the patient is looking to resolve, suggested Peter Lee, MD, a plastic surgeon at Wave Plastic Surgery in Los Angeles.
“The conversation between physicians and patients hinges less on the answer ‘no’ than it does on being a careful listener,” he said. “This includes focusing on the different available treatment options and then deciding which of these is most suitable to the particular situation facing that patient.”
Here are a few failsafe ways to say no — and why physicians think these approaches can make the difference between a contentious appointment and a positive one.
Hear Patients Out
When patients book an appointment with a physician to discuss a noncritical issue, they likely have a sense from Google of what they might need, which is why Dara Kass, MD, an emergency medicine physician in Hartford, Connecticut, always asks patients “why did you come in” and “what test do you think you need.”
“For example, they may say, ‘I came for a CT scan of my head because I’ve had a headache for 2 years, and it’s frustrating trying to find a neurologist,’” she said. “Maybe they don’t need a CT scan after all, but it’s up to me to figure that out, and letting them share what they think they need frames out a feeling that we’re making joint decisions.”
Help Patients Rethink Requests
The ubiquity of online searching is just one reason patients may tend to arrive at your office armed with “information.” This is especially true for patients seeking plastic surgery, said Dr. Lee. “A plastic surgeon’s reaction to such a request may be less about saying ‘no’ than taking the patient a few steps back in the decision-making process,” he said. “The goal should be to educate the patient, in the case of plastic surgery, about what is actually causing the appearance he or she is trying to correct.”
For something like a marijuana card for a slight ache, explaining that it may not be appropriate and “here’s what we can do instead” goes a long way in getting the patient to rethink and understand that their request may not be legitimate.
Use Safety Concerns as an Out
Often, a patient just isn’t a good candidate for a procedure, said Samuel Lin, MD, a plastic surgeon in Boston and an associate professor of surgery at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “They may think they need to have a procedure, but it might not be a safe thing for them to have it,” he said.
“I would lean heavily on the fact that it may not be medically safe for this patient to have this procedure due to elements of their medical history or the fact that they have had prior surgeries. Then, if you pivot to the more conservative things you can do, this can help you say no when a patient is seeking a certain procedure.”
Likewise, explaining that a weight loss drug may have more risks than benefits and isn’t appropriate for that 15 pounds they’re struggling with couched as a safety concern can ease the disappointment of a no.
Remind Patients That Tests Can Be Costly
It’s one thing for a patient to request certain tests, say an MRI or a CT scan, but those same patients may grumble when they get the bill for the tests. That said, it’s always a good idea to remind them of the costs of these tests, said Dr. Kass. Patients will get bills in the mail after their visit for those extra tests and scans. “They may not realize this until after they asked for it, and if they, for example, have $1000 in coinsurance, that bill may be a very upsetting surprise.”
You Can’t Always Prevent a Negative Patient Review
No matter how hard you try, a patient may still be unhappy that you’ve declined their request, and this may show up in the form of a negative review for all to see. However, it’s always best to keep these reviews in perspective. “The ‘no’ that might result in a bad review can happen for everything from waiting 15 minutes to see the doctor to not getting a discount at checkout and everything in between including being told they don’t need the drug, test, or procedure they requested.”
“I feel like people who write bad reviews want money back, or they have an alternative agenda. That’s why, I educate patients and empower them to make the right decisions,” said Jody A. Levine, MD, director of dermatology at Plastic Surgery & Dermatology of New York City.
Dr. Lee told this news organization that the fundamental pledge to “do no harm” is as good as any other credo when saying no to patients. “If we don’t believe there is a likely probability that a surgery will be safe to perform on a patient and leave the patient satisfied with the result, then it is our duty to decline to perform that surgery.”
Ultimately, being transparent leads to a happy doctor-patient relationship. “As long as you are clear and honest in explaining to a patient why you are declining to perform a procedure, most patients, rather than being angry with you, will thank you for your candor,” he said. “They’ll leave your office a little bit wiser, too.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Your patients come in wanting a script for the latest medication they saw on a television commercial (Ozempic anyone?), a request for a medical marijuana card for their shoulder ache, or any number of pleas for drugs, procedures, or tests that are medically inappropriate.
One of the toughest parts of the job as a physician is balancing patient requests with patient satisfaction.
Turns out, you can likely reroute those patient-driven requests if you can get to the heart of the issue the patient is looking to resolve, suggested Peter Lee, MD, a plastic surgeon at Wave Plastic Surgery in Los Angeles.
“The conversation between physicians and patients hinges less on the answer ‘no’ than it does on being a careful listener,” he said. “This includes focusing on the different available treatment options and then deciding which of these is most suitable to the particular situation facing that patient.”
Here are a few failsafe ways to say no — and why physicians think these approaches can make the difference between a contentious appointment and a positive one.
Hear Patients Out
When patients book an appointment with a physician to discuss a noncritical issue, they likely have a sense from Google of what they might need, which is why Dara Kass, MD, an emergency medicine physician in Hartford, Connecticut, always asks patients “why did you come in” and “what test do you think you need.”
“For example, they may say, ‘I came for a CT scan of my head because I’ve had a headache for 2 years, and it’s frustrating trying to find a neurologist,’” she said. “Maybe they don’t need a CT scan after all, but it’s up to me to figure that out, and letting them share what they think they need frames out a feeling that we’re making joint decisions.”
Help Patients Rethink Requests
The ubiquity of online searching is just one reason patients may tend to arrive at your office armed with “information.” This is especially true for patients seeking plastic surgery, said Dr. Lee. “A plastic surgeon’s reaction to such a request may be less about saying ‘no’ than taking the patient a few steps back in the decision-making process,” he said. “The goal should be to educate the patient, in the case of plastic surgery, about what is actually causing the appearance he or she is trying to correct.”
For something like a marijuana card for a slight ache, explaining that it may not be appropriate and “here’s what we can do instead” goes a long way in getting the patient to rethink and understand that their request may not be legitimate.
Use Safety Concerns as an Out
Often, a patient just isn’t a good candidate for a procedure, said Samuel Lin, MD, a plastic surgeon in Boston and an associate professor of surgery at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “They may think they need to have a procedure, but it might not be a safe thing for them to have it,” he said.
“I would lean heavily on the fact that it may not be medically safe for this patient to have this procedure due to elements of their medical history or the fact that they have had prior surgeries. Then, if you pivot to the more conservative things you can do, this can help you say no when a patient is seeking a certain procedure.”
Likewise, explaining that a weight loss drug may have more risks than benefits and isn’t appropriate for that 15 pounds they’re struggling with couched as a safety concern can ease the disappointment of a no.
Remind Patients That Tests Can Be Costly
It’s one thing for a patient to request certain tests, say an MRI or a CT scan, but those same patients may grumble when they get the bill for the tests. That said, it’s always a good idea to remind them of the costs of these tests, said Dr. Kass. Patients will get bills in the mail after their visit for those extra tests and scans. “They may not realize this until after they asked for it, and if they, for example, have $1000 in coinsurance, that bill may be a very upsetting surprise.”
You Can’t Always Prevent a Negative Patient Review
No matter how hard you try, a patient may still be unhappy that you’ve declined their request, and this may show up in the form of a negative review for all to see. However, it’s always best to keep these reviews in perspective. “The ‘no’ that might result in a bad review can happen for everything from waiting 15 minutes to see the doctor to not getting a discount at checkout and everything in between including being told they don’t need the drug, test, or procedure they requested.”
“I feel like people who write bad reviews want money back, or they have an alternative agenda. That’s why, I educate patients and empower them to make the right decisions,” said Jody A. Levine, MD, director of dermatology at Plastic Surgery & Dermatology of New York City.
Dr. Lee told this news organization that the fundamental pledge to “do no harm” is as good as any other credo when saying no to patients. “If we don’t believe there is a likely probability that a surgery will be safe to perform on a patient and leave the patient satisfied with the result, then it is our duty to decline to perform that surgery.”
Ultimately, being transparent leads to a happy doctor-patient relationship. “As long as you are clear and honest in explaining to a patient why you are declining to perform a procedure, most patients, rather than being angry with you, will thank you for your candor,” he said. “They’ll leave your office a little bit wiser, too.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Is ChatGPT Reliable for CRC Screening/Surveillance Advice?
TOPLINE:
ChatGPT (version 3.5) provides relatively poor and inconsistent responses when asked about appropriate colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and surveillance, a new study showed.
METHODOLOGY:
- Three board-certified gastroenterologists with 10+ years of clinical experience developed five CRC screening and five CRC surveillance clinical vignettes (with multiple choice answers), which were fed to ChatGPT version 3.5.
- ChatGPT’s responses were recorded over four separate sessions and screened for accuracy to determine reliability of the tool.
- The average number of correct answers was compared to that of 238 gastroenterologists and colorectal surgeons answering the same questions with and without the help of a previously validated CRC screening mobile app.
TAKEAWAY:
- ChatGPT’s average overall performance was 45%; the average number of correct answers was 2.75 for screening and 1.75 for surveillance.
- ChatGPT’s responses were inconsistent in a large proportion of questions; the tool gave a different answer in four questions among the different sessions.
- The average number of total correct answers of ChatGPT was significantly lower (P < .001) than that of physicians with and without the mobile app (7.71 and 5.62 correct answers, respectively).
IN PRACTICE:
“The use of validated mobile apps with decision-making algorithms could serve as more reliable assistants until large language models developed with AI are further refined,” the authors concluded.
SOURCE:
The study, with first author Lisandro Pereyra, MD, Department of Gastroenterology, Hospital Alemán of Buenos Aires, Argentina, was published online on February 7, 2024, in the Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology.
LIMITATIONS:
The 10 clinical vignettes represented a relatively small sample size to assess accuracy. The study did not use the latest version of ChatGPT. No “fine-tuning” attempts with inputs of diverse prompts, instructions, or relevant data were performed, which could potentially improve the performance of the chatbot.
DISCLOSURES:
The study had no specific funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
ChatGPT (version 3.5) provides relatively poor and inconsistent responses when asked about appropriate colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and surveillance, a new study showed.
METHODOLOGY:
- Three board-certified gastroenterologists with 10+ years of clinical experience developed five CRC screening and five CRC surveillance clinical vignettes (with multiple choice answers), which were fed to ChatGPT version 3.5.
- ChatGPT’s responses were recorded over four separate sessions and screened for accuracy to determine reliability of the tool.
- The average number of correct answers was compared to that of 238 gastroenterologists and colorectal surgeons answering the same questions with and without the help of a previously validated CRC screening mobile app.
TAKEAWAY:
- ChatGPT’s average overall performance was 45%; the average number of correct answers was 2.75 for screening and 1.75 for surveillance.
- ChatGPT’s responses were inconsistent in a large proportion of questions; the tool gave a different answer in four questions among the different sessions.
- The average number of total correct answers of ChatGPT was significantly lower (P < .001) than that of physicians with and without the mobile app (7.71 and 5.62 correct answers, respectively).
IN PRACTICE:
“The use of validated mobile apps with decision-making algorithms could serve as more reliable assistants until large language models developed with AI are further refined,” the authors concluded.
SOURCE:
The study, with first author Lisandro Pereyra, MD, Department of Gastroenterology, Hospital Alemán of Buenos Aires, Argentina, was published online on February 7, 2024, in the Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology.
LIMITATIONS:
The 10 clinical vignettes represented a relatively small sample size to assess accuracy. The study did not use the latest version of ChatGPT. No “fine-tuning” attempts with inputs of diverse prompts, instructions, or relevant data were performed, which could potentially improve the performance of the chatbot.
DISCLOSURES:
The study had no specific funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
ChatGPT (version 3.5) provides relatively poor and inconsistent responses when asked about appropriate colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and surveillance, a new study showed.
METHODOLOGY:
- Three board-certified gastroenterologists with 10+ years of clinical experience developed five CRC screening and five CRC surveillance clinical vignettes (with multiple choice answers), which were fed to ChatGPT version 3.5.
- ChatGPT’s responses were recorded over four separate sessions and screened for accuracy to determine reliability of the tool.
- The average number of correct answers was compared to that of 238 gastroenterologists and colorectal surgeons answering the same questions with and without the help of a previously validated CRC screening mobile app.
TAKEAWAY:
- ChatGPT’s average overall performance was 45%; the average number of correct answers was 2.75 for screening and 1.75 for surveillance.
- ChatGPT’s responses were inconsistent in a large proportion of questions; the tool gave a different answer in four questions among the different sessions.
- The average number of total correct answers of ChatGPT was significantly lower (P < .001) than that of physicians with and without the mobile app (7.71 and 5.62 correct answers, respectively).
IN PRACTICE:
“The use of validated mobile apps with decision-making algorithms could serve as more reliable assistants until large language models developed with AI are further refined,” the authors concluded.
SOURCE:
The study, with first author Lisandro Pereyra, MD, Department of Gastroenterology, Hospital Alemán of Buenos Aires, Argentina, was published online on February 7, 2024, in the Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology.
LIMITATIONS:
The 10 clinical vignettes represented a relatively small sample size to assess accuracy. The study did not use the latest version of ChatGPT. No “fine-tuning” attempts with inputs of diverse prompts, instructions, or relevant data were performed, which could potentially improve the performance of the chatbot.
DISCLOSURES:
The study had no specific funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Urologist Sues Health System Over Noncompete Clause
The lawsuit brings renewed attention to the ongoing public discourse around restrictive covenants for physicians as more state and federal legislators signal plans to limit or ban the practice.
According to a civil suit filed on January 30 in the Court of Common Pleas, Scranton, Pennsylvania, Eric Rottenberg, MD, signed a 3-year employment agreement with Commonwealth Health Physician Network (CPN) in November 2022. He worked for the health system from May to November 2023, seeing patients at several of its locations, including Wilkes-Barre General Hospital and other facilities throughout northeast and central Pennsylvania.
Although Dr. Rottenberg previously practiced in Albany, New York, court records state he did not bring a significant referral or patient base to the new role, receive any specialized training, or have knowledge of CPN’s trade secrets during his tenure.
Instead, he was a “9-to-5 practitioner,” or a physician-employee like a “locum tenens whose replacement would not cost the employer more than his traditional compensation,” the complaint said. Dr. Rottenberg only treated patients assigned to him by CPN and its parent company, Commonwealth Health Systems, and did not take a patient base with him upon his departure from CPN.
Commonwealth Health spokesperson Annmarie Poslock declined to comment on pending litigation.
After becoming frustrated by “restrictions on his ability to practice medicine” at CPN, Dr. Rottenberg submitted the required 90-day written notice to terminate the employment agreement. He subsequently received a letter from Simon Ratliff, CPN’s chief executive officer, confirming that his last day of employment would be February 11, 2024. Ratliff also reiterated that the noncompete clause would be enforced, essentially banning Dr. Rottenberg from practicing within a 20-mile radius of his previous CPN locations for the next 2 years, court documents said.
Dr. Rottenberg was recruited by Lehigh Valley Physician Group (LVPG), part of Lehigh Valley Health Network, in December 2023 for a urology position at its Dickson City and Scranton locations — some of which are within 20 miles of CPN facilities, the complaint said.
Employers often include noncompete terms in physician contracts because they want to keep the departing physician’s patients from following them to a competitor. However, about a dozen states and the District of Columbia have passed legislation that allows physicians and other clinicians to more easily exit contracts and change jobs.
For example, an Indiana law took effect on July 1 that prohibits employers from entering a noncompete agreement with primary care physicians. Minnesota legislators also banned new noncompete agreements for all employees effective July 1.
“There’s actually been a long-standing push for bans on physician noncompetes going back to some of the first states to pass them, like Colorado, Delaware, and Massachusetts, in the late 1970s and early 1980s,” said Evan Starr, PhD, associate professor of management and organization at the Robert H. Smith School of Business at the University of Maryland.
Although New York Governor Kathy Hochul recently vetoed a bill that would have outlawed restrictive covenants, more states may consider passing laws that limit or ban noncompetes amid increasing patient equity and care access concerns. Dr. Starr told this news organization that one reason to eliminate restrictive covenants is because they can cause “third-party harm” to patients. “The patient doesn’t get the choice to sign a noncompete, but they’re going to be impacted by that agreement if the physician has to leave the area,” he said.
Interestingly, one profession — lawyers — is the only occupation in the US for which noncompete agreements are banned, says Dr. Starr. “Basically, the American Medical Association (AMA) and other physician governing bodies haven’t made the same policies to exempt themselves that the lawyers have.”
That may be changing. In June, the AMA’s House of Delegates adopted policies to support the prohibition of noncompete contracts for employed physicians. The change came several months after the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) proposed a new rule that could more broadly ban companies from enforcing noncompete clauses.
Despite Rottenberg’s attorney, Ryan Campbell, Esq, claiming that the noncompete is unenforceable without a protectable business interest, CPN would not release him from the agreement and opted to move forward with litigation, court records said. The suit cites several other cases where Pennsylvania judges have released physicians from similar restrictive covenants.
Mr. Campbell told this news organization that he and his client are “working diligently with CPN and its counsel to resolve the matter amicably and without further litigation.”
As employers await the FTC’s final rule, Dr. Starr says they could take steps to eliminate noncompete agreements altogether in favor of other stipulations. Contract terms prohibiting physicians from soliciting former patients could protect business interests and still allow patients to seek their preferred physician on their own accord.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
The lawsuit brings renewed attention to the ongoing public discourse around restrictive covenants for physicians as more state and federal legislators signal plans to limit or ban the practice.
According to a civil suit filed on January 30 in the Court of Common Pleas, Scranton, Pennsylvania, Eric Rottenberg, MD, signed a 3-year employment agreement with Commonwealth Health Physician Network (CPN) in November 2022. He worked for the health system from May to November 2023, seeing patients at several of its locations, including Wilkes-Barre General Hospital and other facilities throughout northeast and central Pennsylvania.
Although Dr. Rottenberg previously practiced in Albany, New York, court records state he did not bring a significant referral or patient base to the new role, receive any specialized training, or have knowledge of CPN’s trade secrets during his tenure.
Instead, he was a “9-to-5 practitioner,” or a physician-employee like a “locum tenens whose replacement would not cost the employer more than his traditional compensation,” the complaint said. Dr. Rottenberg only treated patients assigned to him by CPN and its parent company, Commonwealth Health Systems, and did not take a patient base with him upon his departure from CPN.
Commonwealth Health spokesperson Annmarie Poslock declined to comment on pending litigation.
After becoming frustrated by “restrictions on his ability to practice medicine” at CPN, Dr. Rottenberg submitted the required 90-day written notice to terminate the employment agreement. He subsequently received a letter from Simon Ratliff, CPN’s chief executive officer, confirming that his last day of employment would be February 11, 2024. Ratliff also reiterated that the noncompete clause would be enforced, essentially banning Dr. Rottenberg from practicing within a 20-mile radius of his previous CPN locations for the next 2 years, court documents said.
Dr. Rottenberg was recruited by Lehigh Valley Physician Group (LVPG), part of Lehigh Valley Health Network, in December 2023 for a urology position at its Dickson City and Scranton locations — some of which are within 20 miles of CPN facilities, the complaint said.
Employers often include noncompete terms in physician contracts because they want to keep the departing physician’s patients from following them to a competitor. However, about a dozen states and the District of Columbia have passed legislation that allows physicians and other clinicians to more easily exit contracts and change jobs.
For example, an Indiana law took effect on July 1 that prohibits employers from entering a noncompete agreement with primary care physicians. Minnesota legislators also banned new noncompete agreements for all employees effective July 1.
“There’s actually been a long-standing push for bans on physician noncompetes going back to some of the first states to pass them, like Colorado, Delaware, and Massachusetts, in the late 1970s and early 1980s,” said Evan Starr, PhD, associate professor of management and organization at the Robert H. Smith School of Business at the University of Maryland.
Although New York Governor Kathy Hochul recently vetoed a bill that would have outlawed restrictive covenants, more states may consider passing laws that limit or ban noncompetes amid increasing patient equity and care access concerns. Dr. Starr told this news organization that one reason to eliminate restrictive covenants is because they can cause “third-party harm” to patients. “The patient doesn’t get the choice to sign a noncompete, but they’re going to be impacted by that agreement if the physician has to leave the area,” he said.
Interestingly, one profession — lawyers — is the only occupation in the US for which noncompete agreements are banned, says Dr. Starr. “Basically, the American Medical Association (AMA) and other physician governing bodies haven’t made the same policies to exempt themselves that the lawyers have.”
That may be changing. In June, the AMA’s House of Delegates adopted policies to support the prohibition of noncompete contracts for employed physicians. The change came several months after the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) proposed a new rule that could more broadly ban companies from enforcing noncompete clauses.
Despite Rottenberg’s attorney, Ryan Campbell, Esq, claiming that the noncompete is unenforceable without a protectable business interest, CPN would not release him from the agreement and opted to move forward with litigation, court records said. The suit cites several other cases where Pennsylvania judges have released physicians from similar restrictive covenants.
Mr. Campbell told this news organization that he and his client are “working diligently with CPN and its counsel to resolve the matter amicably and without further litigation.”
As employers await the FTC’s final rule, Dr. Starr says they could take steps to eliminate noncompete agreements altogether in favor of other stipulations. Contract terms prohibiting physicians from soliciting former patients could protect business interests and still allow patients to seek their preferred physician on their own accord.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
The lawsuit brings renewed attention to the ongoing public discourse around restrictive covenants for physicians as more state and federal legislators signal plans to limit or ban the practice.
According to a civil suit filed on January 30 in the Court of Common Pleas, Scranton, Pennsylvania, Eric Rottenberg, MD, signed a 3-year employment agreement with Commonwealth Health Physician Network (CPN) in November 2022. He worked for the health system from May to November 2023, seeing patients at several of its locations, including Wilkes-Barre General Hospital and other facilities throughout northeast and central Pennsylvania.
Although Dr. Rottenberg previously practiced in Albany, New York, court records state he did not bring a significant referral or patient base to the new role, receive any specialized training, or have knowledge of CPN’s trade secrets during his tenure.
Instead, he was a “9-to-5 practitioner,” or a physician-employee like a “locum tenens whose replacement would not cost the employer more than his traditional compensation,” the complaint said. Dr. Rottenberg only treated patients assigned to him by CPN and its parent company, Commonwealth Health Systems, and did not take a patient base with him upon his departure from CPN.
Commonwealth Health spokesperson Annmarie Poslock declined to comment on pending litigation.
After becoming frustrated by “restrictions on his ability to practice medicine” at CPN, Dr. Rottenberg submitted the required 90-day written notice to terminate the employment agreement. He subsequently received a letter from Simon Ratliff, CPN’s chief executive officer, confirming that his last day of employment would be February 11, 2024. Ratliff also reiterated that the noncompete clause would be enforced, essentially banning Dr. Rottenberg from practicing within a 20-mile radius of his previous CPN locations for the next 2 years, court documents said.
Dr. Rottenberg was recruited by Lehigh Valley Physician Group (LVPG), part of Lehigh Valley Health Network, in December 2023 for a urology position at its Dickson City and Scranton locations — some of which are within 20 miles of CPN facilities, the complaint said.
Employers often include noncompete terms in physician contracts because they want to keep the departing physician’s patients from following them to a competitor. However, about a dozen states and the District of Columbia have passed legislation that allows physicians and other clinicians to more easily exit contracts and change jobs.
For example, an Indiana law took effect on July 1 that prohibits employers from entering a noncompete agreement with primary care physicians. Minnesota legislators also banned new noncompete agreements for all employees effective July 1.
“There’s actually been a long-standing push for bans on physician noncompetes going back to some of the first states to pass them, like Colorado, Delaware, and Massachusetts, in the late 1970s and early 1980s,” said Evan Starr, PhD, associate professor of management and organization at the Robert H. Smith School of Business at the University of Maryland.
Although New York Governor Kathy Hochul recently vetoed a bill that would have outlawed restrictive covenants, more states may consider passing laws that limit or ban noncompetes amid increasing patient equity and care access concerns. Dr. Starr told this news organization that one reason to eliminate restrictive covenants is because they can cause “third-party harm” to patients. “The patient doesn’t get the choice to sign a noncompete, but they’re going to be impacted by that agreement if the physician has to leave the area,” he said.
Interestingly, one profession — lawyers — is the only occupation in the US for which noncompete agreements are banned, says Dr. Starr. “Basically, the American Medical Association (AMA) and other physician governing bodies haven’t made the same policies to exempt themselves that the lawyers have.”
That may be changing. In June, the AMA’s House of Delegates adopted policies to support the prohibition of noncompete contracts for employed physicians. The change came several months after the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) proposed a new rule that could more broadly ban companies from enforcing noncompete clauses.
Despite Rottenberg’s attorney, Ryan Campbell, Esq, claiming that the noncompete is unenforceable without a protectable business interest, CPN would not release him from the agreement and opted to move forward with litigation, court records said. The suit cites several other cases where Pennsylvania judges have released physicians from similar restrictive covenants.
Mr. Campbell told this news organization that he and his client are “working diligently with CPN and its counsel to resolve the matter amicably and without further litigation.”
As employers await the FTC’s final rule, Dr. Starr says they could take steps to eliminate noncompete agreements altogether in favor of other stipulations. Contract terms prohibiting physicians from soliciting former patients could protect business interests and still allow patients to seek their preferred physician on their own accord.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
Nepali IMG Sues NBME for Invalidating USMLE Scores in Cheating Scandal
in response to a widespread cheating scandal.
Latika Giri, MBBS, of Kathmandu, claims the board violated its own procedures by invalidating exam scores before giving examinees a chance to argue and appeal, according to documents filed on February 12 in the US District Court for the District of Columbia. Dr. Giri alleges that the NBME’s actions were discriminatory against Nepali doctors and run afoul of the Civil Rights Act.
Dr. Giri is requesting that the court block NBME from invalidating her scores while the lawsuit continues and restore her original results. The complaint was filed as a class action suit on behalf of Dr. Giri and other as yet unnamed plaintiffs affected by the board’s action.
The lawsuit stems from a January 31 statement from the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) program that it was voiding scores attained by some examinees after an investigation revealed a pattern of anomalous exam performance associated with test-takers from Nepal.
The announcement came just before the report about the selling and buying of USMLE questions online, and concerns that cheating on the exam had become “rampant” in recent years. The article was cited in Dr. Giri’s lawsuit.
A spokesman for the NBME said the board does not comment on pending litigation.
Kritika Tara Deb, a Washington, DC–based attorney representing Dr. Giri, declined to answer specific questions about the case but expressed confidence in the outcome of the suit.
“A policy that explicitly denies employment to an entire nationality or ethnicity is counter to US law and the USMLE’s non-discrimination principles,” Deb told this news organization in an email. “Such a blatantly discriminatory policy severely punishes honest doctors while unfairly maligning an entire nationality, and we’re confident it will not stand.”
Doctor Says She Didn’t Cheat
Dr. Giri is one of 22,000 foreign medical school graduates who complete the USMLE each year, in addition to the 24,000 US medical school graduates who take the exam.
A 2022 graduate of the Kathmandu University School of Medical Sciences, Dr. Giri completed her board exams in 2023. According to her lawsuit, she studied hard and did not cheat, passing Step 1 and scoring a 252 on Step 2 and a 229 on Step 3. Dr. Giri took Step 1 in Nepal, Step 2 in India, and Step 3 in Connecticut, according to court documents. In January 2024, Dr. Giri was preparing to enter the residency match pool and hoping to start her training in the summer when she received an email from NBME saying her USMLE scores had been invalidated. She was accused of “extremely improbable answer similarity with other examinees testing on the same form at similar times, unusually high performance, and abnormal question response times,” according to the complaint.
Dr. Giri and other examinees affected by the invalidations were given until February 16 to choose from three options. They could request that NBME reconsider its decision, which could take up to 10 weeks; agree to retake the test; or do nothing, in which case their scores would remain invalid and their access to USMLE would be suspended for 3 years.
If examinees chose options 1 or 2, they would be required to waive their right to sue NBME, according to Dr. Giri’s lawsuit.
“Because of the schedule of medical-residency matching, all three options result in graduates being unable to practice medicine for at least a year,” attorneys for Dr. Giri wrote in the complaint. “All three options force many people to abruptly leave the country within 30 days and cause every affected person to lose their jobs or the opportunity to seek a job.”
Lawsuit: Board Did Not Follow Published Practices
Dr. Giri contends that NBME’s handling of the suspected cheating violates its own published procedures and treats the subset of Nepali examinees differently from other medical graduates. Examinees suspected of cheating are typically first advised of the matter, given an opportunity to share relevant information, and provided the right to appeal, according to the suit. During the process, the test-taker’s score is treated as valid.
Dr. Giri and others were not provided this same treatment and had their scores invalidated on “the explicit basis that they were associated with Nepal,” the suit claims. The actions are in direct violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which forbids discrimination against “any individual with respect to his terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin,” according to the complaint.
About 800 people are in the subset of Nepali test-takers targeted by the NBME, according to the suit.
Dr. Giri said the score invalidations will cause plaintiffs “irreparable harm” if the NBME’s actions are not promptly halted.
“As of January 31, 2024, plaintiffs who are applying to medical residencies are all ineligible for the Match, the deadline for which is February 28, 2024,” attorneys for Dr. Giri wrote. “All plaintiffs will thus miss this year’s Match no matter what. And NBME has offered no explanation for why it waited until the day before the Match opened to abruptly suspended plaintiffs’ scores: Dr. Giri and many others took some of the invalidated exams more than a year ago.”
Dr. Giri is requesting a decision by the court by February 21. The NBME meanwhile, plans to issue a legal response by February 19, according to court documents.
Meanwhile, a petition started on change.org by a US emergency physician born calls for the USMLE program to degeneralize the wording of its January 31 statement. The USMLE statement “casts a shadow over the achievement of a supermajority of physicians from Nepal who succeeded through perseverance, honesty, and intelligence,” according to the petition. Petitioners want the USMLE program to change and clarify that it does “not mean to malign physicians from the entire country of Nepal.” More than 2700 people have signed the petition.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
in response to a widespread cheating scandal.
Latika Giri, MBBS, of Kathmandu, claims the board violated its own procedures by invalidating exam scores before giving examinees a chance to argue and appeal, according to documents filed on February 12 in the US District Court for the District of Columbia. Dr. Giri alleges that the NBME’s actions were discriminatory against Nepali doctors and run afoul of the Civil Rights Act.
Dr. Giri is requesting that the court block NBME from invalidating her scores while the lawsuit continues and restore her original results. The complaint was filed as a class action suit on behalf of Dr. Giri and other as yet unnamed plaintiffs affected by the board’s action.
The lawsuit stems from a January 31 statement from the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) program that it was voiding scores attained by some examinees after an investigation revealed a pattern of anomalous exam performance associated with test-takers from Nepal.
The announcement came just before the report about the selling and buying of USMLE questions online, and concerns that cheating on the exam had become “rampant” in recent years. The article was cited in Dr. Giri’s lawsuit.
A spokesman for the NBME said the board does not comment on pending litigation.
Kritika Tara Deb, a Washington, DC–based attorney representing Dr. Giri, declined to answer specific questions about the case but expressed confidence in the outcome of the suit.
“A policy that explicitly denies employment to an entire nationality or ethnicity is counter to US law and the USMLE’s non-discrimination principles,” Deb told this news organization in an email. “Such a blatantly discriminatory policy severely punishes honest doctors while unfairly maligning an entire nationality, and we’re confident it will not stand.”
Doctor Says She Didn’t Cheat
Dr. Giri is one of 22,000 foreign medical school graduates who complete the USMLE each year, in addition to the 24,000 US medical school graduates who take the exam.
A 2022 graduate of the Kathmandu University School of Medical Sciences, Dr. Giri completed her board exams in 2023. According to her lawsuit, she studied hard and did not cheat, passing Step 1 and scoring a 252 on Step 2 and a 229 on Step 3. Dr. Giri took Step 1 in Nepal, Step 2 in India, and Step 3 in Connecticut, according to court documents. In January 2024, Dr. Giri was preparing to enter the residency match pool and hoping to start her training in the summer when she received an email from NBME saying her USMLE scores had been invalidated. She was accused of “extremely improbable answer similarity with other examinees testing on the same form at similar times, unusually high performance, and abnormal question response times,” according to the complaint.
Dr. Giri and other examinees affected by the invalidations were given until February 16 to choose from three options. They could request that NBME reconsider its decision, which could take up to 10 weeks; agree to retake the test; or do nothing, in which case their scores would remain invalid and their access to USMLE would be suspended for 3 years.
If examinees chose options 1 or 2, they would be required to waive their right to sue NBME, according to Dr. Giri’s lawsuit.
“Because of the schedule of medical-residency matching, all three options result in graduates being unable to practice medicine for at least a year,” attorneys for Dr. Giri wrote in the complaint. “All three options force many people to abruptly leave the country within 30 days and cause every affected person to lose their jobs or the opportunity to seek a job.”
Lawsuit: Board Did Not Follow Published Practices
Dr. Giri contends that NBME’s handling of the suspected cheating violates its own published procedures and treats the subset of Nepali examinees differently from other medical graduates. Examinees suspected of cheating are typically first advised of the matter, given an opportunity to share relevant information, and provided the right to appeal, according to the suit. During the process, the test-taker’s score is treated as valid.
Dr. Giri and others were not provided this same treatment and had their scores invalidated on “the explicit basis that they were associated with Nepal,” the suit claims. The actions are in direct violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which forbids discrimination against “any individual with respect to his terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin,” according to the complaint.
About 800 people are in the subset of Nepali test-takers targeted by the NBME, according to the suit.
Dr. Giri said the score invalidations will cause plaintiffs “irreparable harm” if the NBME’s actions are not promptly halted.
“As of January 31, 2024, plaintiffs who are applying to medical residencies are all ineligible for the Match, the deadline for which is February 28, 2024,” attorneys for Dr. Giri wrote. “All plaintiffs will thus miss this year’s Match no matter what. And NBME has offered no explanation for why it waited until the day before the Match opened to abruptly suspended plaintiffs’ scores: Dr. Giri and many others took some of the invalidated exams more than a year ago.”
Dr. Giri is requesting a decision by the court by February 21. The NBME meanwhile, plans to issue a legal response by February 19, according to court documents.
Meanwhile, a petition started on change.org by a US emergency physician born calls for the USMLE program to degeneralize the wording of its January 31 statement. The USMLE statement “casts a shadow over the achievement of a supermajority of physicians from Nepal who succeeded through perseverance, honesty, and intelligence,” according to the petition. Petitioners want the USMLE program to change and clarify that it does “not mean to malign physicians from the entire country of Nepal.” More than 2700 people have signed the petition.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
in response to a widespread cheating scandal.
Latika Giri, MBBS, of Kathmandu, claims the board violated its own procedures by invalidating exam scores before giving examinees a chance to argue and appeal, according to documents filed on February 12 in the US District Court for the District of Columbia. Dr. Giri alleges that the NBME’s actions were discriminatory against Nepali doctors and run afoul of the Civil Rights Act.
Dr. Giri is requesting that the court block NBME from invalidating her scores while the lawsuit continues and restore her original results. The complaint was filed as a class action suit on behalf of Dr. Giri and other as yet unnamed plaintiffs affected by the board’s action.
The lawsuit stems from a January 31 statement from the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) program that it was voiding scores attained by some examinees after an investigation revealed a pattern of anomalous exam performance associated with test-takers from Nepal.
The announcement came just before the report about the selling and buying of USMLE questions online, and concerns that cheating on the exam had become “rampant” in recent years. The article was cited in Dr. Giri’s lawsuit.
A spokesman for the NBME said the board does not comment on pending litigation.
Kritika Tara Deb, a Washington, DC–based attorney representing Dr. Giri, declined to answer specific questions about the case but expressed confidence in the outcome of the suit.
“A policy that explicitly denies employment to an entire nationality or ethnicity is counter to US law and the USMLE’s non-discrimination principles,” Deb told this news organization in an email. “Such a blatantly discriminatory policy severely punishes honest doctors while unfairly maligning an entire nationality, and we’re confident it will not stand.”
Doctor Says She Didn’t Cheat
Dr. Giri is one of 22,000 foreign medical school graduates who complete the USMLE each year, in addition to the 24,000 US medical school graduates who take the exam.
A 2022 graduate of the Kathmandu University School of Medical Sciences, Dr. Giri completed her board exams in 2023. According to her lawsuit, she studied hard and did not cheat, passing Step 1 and scoring a 252 on Step 2 and a 229 on Step 3. Dr. Giri took Step 1 in Nepal, Step 2 in India, and Step 3 in Connecticut, according to court documents. In January 2024, Dr. Giri was preparing to enter the residency match pool and hoping to start her training in the summer when she received an email from NBME saying her USMLE scores had been invalidated. She was accused of “extremely improbable answer similarity with other examinees testing on the same form at similar times, unusually high performance, and abnormal question response times,” according to the complaint.
Dr. Giri and other examinees affected by the invalidations were given until February 16 to choose from three options. They could request that NBME reconsider its decision, which could take up to 10 weeks; agree to retake the test; or do nothing, in which case their scores would remain invalid and their access to USMLE would be suspended for 3 years.
If examinees chose options 1 or 2, they would be required to waive their right to sue NBME, according to Dr. Giri’s lawsuit.
“Because of the schedule of medical-residency matching, all three options result in graduates being unable to practice medicine for at least a year,” attorneys for Dr. Giri wrote in the complaint. “All three options force many people to abruptly leave the country within 30 days and cause every affected person to lose their jobs or the opportunity to seek a job.”
Lawsuit: Board Did Not Follow Published Practices
Dr. Giri contends that NBME’s handling of the suspected cheating violates its own published procedures and treats the subset of Nepali examinees differently from other medical graduates. Examinees suspected of cheating are typically first advised of the matter, given an opportunity to share relevant information, and provided the right to appeal, according to the suit. During the process, the test-taker’s score is treated as valid.
Dr. Giri and others were not provided this same treatment and had their scores invalidated on “the explicit basis that they were associated with Nepal,” the suit claims. The actions are in direct violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which forbids discrimination against “any individual with respect to his terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin,” according to the complaint.
About 800 people are in the subset of Nepali test-takers targeted by the NBME, according to the suit.
Dr. Giri said the score invalidations will cause plaintiffs “irreparable harm” if the NBME’s actions are not promptly halted.
“As of January 31, 2024, plaintiffs who are applying to medical residencies are all ineligible for the Match, the deadline for which is February 28, 2024,” attorneys for Dr. Giri wrote. “All plaintiffs will thus miss this year’s Match no matter what. And NBME has offered no explanation for why it waited until the day before the Match opened to abruptly suspended plaintiffs’ scores: Dr. Giri and many others took some of the invalidated exams more than a year ago.”
Dr. Giri is requesting a decision by the court by February 21. The NBME meanwhile, plans to issue a legal response by February 19, according to court documents.
Meanwhile, a petition started on change.org by a US emergency physician born calls for the USMLE program to degeneralize the wording of its January 31 statement. The USMLE statement “casts a shadow over the achievement of a supermajority of physicians from Nepal who succeeded through perseverance, honesty, and intelligence,” according to the petition. Petitioners want the USMLE program to change and clarify that it does “not mean to malign physicians from the entire country of Nepal.” More than 2700 people have signed the petition.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.