User login
One Patient Changed This Oncologist’s View of Hope. Here’s How.
CHICAGO — Carlos, a 21-year-old, lay in a hospital bed, barely clinging to life. Following a stem cell transplant for leukemia, Carlos had developed a life-threatening case of graft-vs-host disease.
But Carlos’ mother had faith.
“I have hope things will get better,” she said, via interpreter, to Richard Leiter, MD, a palliative care doctor in training at that time.
“I hope they will,” Dr. Leiter told her.
“I should have stopped there,” said Dr. Leiter, recounting an early-career lesson on hope during the ASCO Voices session at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting. “But in my eagerness to show my attending and myself that I could handle this conversation, I kept going, mistakenly.”
“But none of us think they will,” Dr. Leiter continued.
Carlos’ mother looked Dr. Leiter in the eye. “You want him to die,” she said.
“I knew, even then, that she was right,” recalled Dr. Leiter, now a palliative care physician at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Brigham and Women’s Hospital and an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.
Although there was nothing he could do to save Carlos, Dr. Leiter also couldn’t sit with the extreme suffering. “The pain was too great,” Dr. Leiter said. “I needed her to adopt our narrative that we had done everything we could to help him live, and now, we would do everything we could to help his death be a comfortable one.”
But looking back, Dr. Leiter realized, “How could we have asked her to accept what was fundamentally unacceptable, to comprehend the incomprehensible?”
The Importance of Hope
Alan B. Astrow, MD, said during an ASCO symposium on “The Art and Science of Hope.”
“How we think about hope directly influences patient care,” said Dr. Astrow, chief of hematology and medical oncology at NewYork-Presbyterian Brooklyn Methodist Hospital and a professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City.
Hope, whatever it turns out to be neurobiologically, is “very much a gift” that underlies human existence, he said.
Physicians have the capacity to restore or shatter a patient’s hopes, and those who come to understand the importance of hope will wish to extend the gift to others, Dr. Astrow said.
Asking patients about their hopes is the “golden question,” Steven Z. Pantilat, MD, said at the symposium. “When you think about the future, what do you hope for?”
Often, the answers reveal not only “things beyond a cure that matter tremendously to the patient but things that we can help with,” said Dr. Pantilat, professor and chief of the Division of Palliative Medicine at the University of California San Francisco.
Dr. Pantilat recalled a patient with advanced pancreatic cancer who wished to see her daughter’s wedding in 10 months. He knew that was unlikely, but the discussion led to another solution.
Her daughter moved the wedding to the ICU.
Hope can persist and uplift even in the darkest of times, and “as clinicians, we need to be in the true hope business,” he said.
While some patients may wish for a cure, others may want more time with family or comfort in the face of suffering. People can “hope for all the things that can still be, despite the fact that there’s a lot of things that can’t,” he said.
However, fear that a patient will hope for a cure, and that the difficult discussions to follow might destroy hope or lead to false hope, sometimes means physicians won’t begin the conversation.
“We want to be honest with our patients — compassionate and kind, but honest — when we talk about their hopes,” Dr. Pantilat explained. Sometimes that means he needs to tell patients, “I wish that could happen. I wish I had a treatment that could make your cancer go away, but unfortunately, I don’t. So let’s think about what else we can do to help you.”
Having these difficult discussions matters. The evidence, although limited, indicates that feeling hopeful can improve patients’ well-being and may even boost their cancer outcomes.
One recent study found, for instance, that patients who reported feeling more hopeful also had lower levels of depression and anxiety. Early research also suggests that greater levels of hope may have a hand in reducing inflammation in patients with ovarian cancer and could even improve survival in some patients with advanced cancer.
For Dr. Leiter, while these lessons came early in his career as a palliative care physician, they persist and influence his practice today.
“I know that I could not have prevented Carlos’ death. None of us could have, and none of us could have protected his mother from the unimaginable grief that will stay with her for the rest of her life,” he said. “But I could have made things just a little bit less difficult for her.
“I could have acted as her guide rather than her cross-examiner,” he continued, explaining that he now sees hope as “a generous collaborator” that can coexist with rising creatinine levels, failing livers, and fears about intubation.
“As clinicians, we can always find space to hope with our patients and their families,” he said. “So now, years later when I sit with a terrified and grieving family and they tell me they hope their loved one gets better, I remember Carlos’ mother’s eyes piercing mine ... and I know how to respond: ‘I hope so, too.’ And I do.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
CHICAGO — Carlos, a 21-year-old, lay in a hospital bed, barely clinging to life. Following a stem cell transplant for leukemia, Carlos had developed a life-threatening case of graft-vs-host disease.
But Carlos’ mother had faith.
“I have hope things will get better,” she said, via interpreter, to Richard Leiter, MD, a palliative care doctor in training at that time.
“I hope they will,” Dr. Leiter told her.
“I should have stopped there,” said Dr. Leiter, recounting an early-career lesson on hope during the ASCO Voices session at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting. “But in my eagerness to show my attending and myself that I could handle this conversation, I kept going, mistakenly.”
“But none of us think they will,” Dr. Leiter continued.
Carlos’ mother looked Dr. Leiter in the eye. “You want him to die,” she said.
“I knew, even then, that she was right,” recalled Dr. Leiter, now a palliative care physician at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Brigham and Women’s Hospital and an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.
Although there was nothing he could do to save Carlos, Dr. Leiter also couldn’t sit with the extreme suffering. “The pain was too great,” Dr. Leiter said. “I needed her to adopt our narrative that we had done everything we could to help him live, and now, we would do everything we could to help his death be a comfortable one.”
But looking back, Dr. Leiter realized, “How could we have asked her to accept what was fundamentally unacceptable, to comprehend the incomprehensible?”
The Importance of Hope
Alan B. Astrow, MD, said during an ASCO symposium on “The Art and Science of Hope.”
“How we think about hope directly influences patient care,” said Dr. Astrow, chief of hematology and medical oncology at NewYork-Presbyterian Brooklyn Methodist Hospital and a professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City.
Hope, whatever it turns out to be neurobiologically, is “very much a gift” that underlies human existence, he said.
Physicians have the capacity to restore or shatter a patient’s hopes, and those who come to understand the importance of hope will wish to extend the gift to others, Dr. Astrow said.
Asking patients about their hopes is the “golden question,” Steven Z. Pantilat, MD, said at the symposium. “When you think about the future, what do you hope for?”
Often, the answers reveal not only “things beyond a cure that matter tremendously to the patient but things that we can help with,” said Dr. Pantilat, professor and chief of the Division of Palliative Medicine at the University of California San Francisco.
Dr. Pantilat recalled a patient with advanced pancreatic cancer who wished to see her daughter’s wedding in 10 months. He knew that was unlikely, but the discussion led to another solution.
Her daughter moved the wedding to the ICU.
Hope can persist and uplift even in the darkest of times, and “as clinicians, we need to be in the true hope business,” he said.
While some patients may wish for a cure, others may want more time with family or comfort in the face of suffering. People can “hope for all the things that can still be, despite the fact that there’s a lot of things that can’t,” he said.
However, fear that a patient will hope for a cure, and that the difficult discussions to follow might destroy hope or lead to false hope, sometimes means physicians won’t begin the conversation.
“We want to be honest with our patients — compassionate and kind, but honest — when we talk about their hopes,” Dr. Pantilat explained. Sometimes that means he needs to tell patients, “I wish that could happen. I wish I had a treatment that could make your cancer go away, but unfortunately, I don’t. So let’s think about what else we can do to help you.”
Having these difficult discussions matters. The evidence, although limited, indicates that feeling hopeful can improve patients’ well-being and may even boost their cancer outcomes.
One recent study found, for instance, that patients who reported feeling more hopeful also had lower levels of depression and anxiety. Early research also suggests that greater levels of hope may have a hand in reducing inflammation in patients with ovarian cancer and could even improve survival in some patients with advanced cancer.
For Dr. Leiter, while these lessons came early in his career as a palliative care physician, they persist and influence his practice today.
“I know that I could not have prevented Carlos’ death. None of us could have, and none of us could have protected his mother from the unimaginable grief that will stay with her for the rest of her life,” he said. “But I could have made things just a little bit less difficult for her.
“I could have acted as her guide rather than her cross-examiner,” he continued, explaining that he now sees hope as “a generous collaborator” that can coexist with rising creatinine levels, failing livers, and fears about intubation.
“As clinicians, we can always find space to hope with our patients and their families,” he said. “So now, years later when I sit with a terrified and grieving family and they tell me they hope their loved one gets better, I remember Carlos’ mother’s eyes piercing mine ... and I know how to respond: ‘I hope so, too.’ And I do.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
CHICAGO — Carlos, a 21-year-old, lay in a hospital bed, barely clinging to life. Following a stem cell transplant for leukemia, Carlos had developed a life-threatening case of graft-vs-host disease.
But Carlos’ mother had faith.
“I have hope things will get better,” she said, via interpreter, to Richard Leiter, MD, a palliative care doctor in training at that time.
“I hope they will,” Dr. Leiter told her.
“I should have stopped there,” said Dr. Leiter, recounting an early-career lesson on hope during the ASCO Voices session at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting. “But in my eagerness to show my attending and myself that I could handle this conversation, I kept going, mistakenly.”
“But none of us think they will,” Dr. Leiter continued.
Carlos’ mother looked Dr. Leiter in the eye. “You want him to die,” she said.
“I knew, even then, that she was right,” recalled Dr. Leiter, now a palliative care physician at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Brigham and Women’s Hospital and an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.
Although there was nothing he could do to save Carlos, Dr. Leiter also couldn’t sit with the extreme suffering. “The pain was too great,” Dr. Leiter said. “I needed her to adopt our narrative that we had done everything we could to help him live, and now, we would do everything we could to help his death be a comfortable one.”
But looking back, Dr. Leiter realized, “How could we have asked her to accept what was fundamentally unacceptable, to comprehend the incomprehensible?”
The Importance of Hope
Alan B. Astrow, MD, said during an ASCO symposium on “The Art and Science of Hope.”
“How we think about hope directly influences patient care,” said Dr. Astrow, chief of hematology and medical oncology at NewYork-Presbyterian Brooklyn Methodist Hospital and a professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City.
Hope, whatever it turns out to be neurobiologically, is “very much a gift” that underlies human existence, he said.
Physicians have the capacity to restore or shatter a patient’s hopes, and those who come to understand the importance of hope will wish to extend the gift to others, Dr. Astrow said.
Asking patients about their hopes is the “golden question,” Steven Z. Pantilat, MD, said at the symposium. “When you think about the future, what do you hope for?”
Often, the answers reveal not only “things beyond a cure that matter tremendously to the patient but things that we can help with,” said Dr. Pantilat, professor and chief of the Division of Palliative Medicine at the University of California San Francisco.
Dr. Pantilat recalled a patient with advanced pancreatic cancer who wished to see her daughter’s wedding in 10 months. He knew that was unlikely, but the discussion led to another solution.
Her daughter moved the wedding to the ICU.
Hope can persist and uplift even in the darkest of times, and “as clinicians, we need to be in the true hope business,” he said.
While some patients may wish for a cure, others may want more time with family or comfort in the face of suffering. People can “hope for all the things that can still be, despite the fact that there’s a lot of things that can’t,” he said.
However, fear that a patient will hope for a cure, and that the difficult discussions to follow might destroy hope or lead to false hope, sometimes means physicians won’t begin the conversation.
“We want to be honest with our patients — compassionate and kind, but honest — when we talk about their hopes,” Dr. Pantilat explained. Sometimes that means he needs to tell patients, “I wish that could happen. I wish I had a treatment that could make your cancer go away, but unfortunately, I don’t. So let’s think about what else we can do to help you.”
Having these difficult discussions matters. The evidence, although limited, indicates that feeling hopeful can improve patients’ well-being and may even boost their cancer outcomes.
One recent study found, for instance, that patients who reported feeling more hopeful also had lower levels of depression and anxiety. Early research also suggests that greater levels of hope may have a hand in reducing inflammation in patients with ovarian cancer and could even improve survival in some patients with advanced cancer.
For Dr. Leiter, while these lessons came early in his career as a palliative care physician, they persist and influence his practice today.
“I know that I could not have prevented Carlos’ death. None of us could have, and none of us could have protected his mother from the unimaginable grief that will stay with her for the rest of her life,” he said. “But I could have made things just a little bit less difficult for her.
“I could have acted as her guide rather than her cross-examiner,” he continued, explaining that he now sees hope as “a generous collaborator” that can coexist with rising creatinine levels, failing livers, and fears about intubation.
“As clinicians, we can always find space to hope with our patients and their families,” he said. “So now, years later when I sit with a terrified and grieving family and they tell me they hope their loved one gets better, I remember Carlos’ mother’s eyes piercing mine ... and I know how to respond: ‘I hope so, too.’ And I do.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ASCO 2024
ChatGPT Enhances Readability of Cancer Information for Patients
TOPLINE:
The artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot ChatGPT can significantly improve the readability of online cancer-related patient information while maintaining the content’s quality, a recent study found.
METHODOLOGY:
- Patients with cancer often search for cancer information online after their diagnosis, with most seeking information from their oncologists’ websites. However, the online materials often exceed the average reading level of the US population, limiting accessibility and comprehension.
- Researchers asked ChatGPT 4.0 to rewrite content about breast, colon, lung, prostate, and pancreas cancer, aiming for a sixth-grade readability level. The content came from a random sample of documents from 34 patient-facing websites associated with National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) member institutions.
- Readability, accuracy, similarity, and quality of the rewritten content were assessed using several established metrics and tools, including an F1 score, which assesses the precision and recall of a machine-learning model; a cosine similarity score, which measures similarities and is often used to detect plagiarism; and the DISCERN instrument, which helps assess the quality of the AI-rewritten information.
- The primary outcome was the mean readability score for the original and AI-generated content.
TAKEAWAY:
- The original content had an average readability level equivalent to a university freshman (grade 13). Following the AI revision, the readability level improved to a high school freshman level (grade 9).
- The rewritten content had high accuracy, with an overall F1 score of 0.87 (a good score is 0.8-0.9).
- The rewritten content had a high cosine similarity score of 0.915 (scores range from 0 to 1, with 0 indicating no similarity and 1 indicating complete similarity). Researchers attributed the improved readability to the use of simpler words and shorter sentences.
- Quality assessment using the DISCERN instrument showed that the AI-rewritten content maintained a “good” quality rating, similar to that of the original content.
IN PRACTICE:
Society has become increasingly dependent on online educational materials, and considering that more than half of Americans may not be literate beyond an eighth-grade level, our AI intervention offers a potential low-cost solution to narrow the gap between patient health literacy and content received from the nation’s leading cancer centers, the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study, with first author Andres A. Abreu, MD, with UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, was published online in the Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.
LIMITATIONS:
The study was limited to English-language content from NCCN member websites, so the findings may not be generalizable to other sources or languages. Readability alone cannot guarantee comprehension. Factors such as material design and audiovisual aids were not evaluated.
DISCLOSURES:
The study did not report a funding source. The authors reported several disclosures but none related to the study. Herbert J. Zeh disclosed serving as a scientific advisor for Surgical Safety Technologies; Dr. Polanco disclosed serving as a consultant for Iota Biosciences and Palisade Bio and as a proctor for Intuitive Surgical.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
The artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot ChatGPT can significantly improve the readability of online cancer-related patient information while maintaining the content’s quality, a recent study found.
METHODOLOGY:
- Patients with cancer often search for cancer information online after their diagnosis, with most seeking information from their oncologists’ websites. However, the online materials often exceed the average reading level of the US population, limiting accessibility and comprehension.
- Researchers asked ChatGPT 4.0 to rewrite content about breast, colon, lung, prostate, and pancreas cancer, aiming for a sixth-grade readability level. The content came from a random sample of documents from 34 patient-facing websites associated with National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) member institutions.
- Readability, accuracy, similarity, and quality of the rewritten content were assessed using several established metrics and tools, including an F1 score, which assesses the precision and recall of a machine-learning model; a cosine similarity score, which measures similarities and is often used to detect plagiarism; and the DISCERN instrument, which helps assess the quality of the AI-rewritten information.
- The primary outcome was the mean readability score for the original and AI-generated content.
TAKEAWAY:
- The original content had an average readability level equivalent to a university freshman (grade 13). Following the AI revision, the readability level improved to a high school freshman level (grade 9).
- The rewritten content had high accuracy, with an overall F1 score of 0.87 (a good score is 0.8-0.9).
- The rewritten content had a high cosine similarity score of 0.915 (scores range from 0 to 1, with 0 indicating no similarity and 1 indicating complete similarity). Researchers attributed the improved readability to the use of simpler words and shorter sentences.
- Quality assessment using the DISCERN instrument showed that the AI-rewritten content maintained a “good” quality rating, similar to that of the original content.
IN PRACTICE:
Society has become increasingly dependent on online educational materials, and considering that more than half of Americans may not be literate beyond an eighth-grade level, our AI intervention offers a potential low-cost solution to narrow the gap between patient health literacy and content received from the nation’s leading cancer centers, the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study, with first author Andres A. Abreu, MD, with UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, was published online in the Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.
LIMITATIONS:
The study was limited to English-language content from NCCN member websites, so the findings may not be generalizable to other sources or languages. Readability alone cannot guarantee comprehension. Factors such as material design and audiovisual aids were not evaluated.
DISCLOSURES:
The study did not report a funding source. The authors reported several disclosures but none related to the study. Herbert J. Zeh disclosed serving as a scientific advisor for Surgical Safety Technologies; Dr. Polanco disclosed serving as a consultant for Iota Biosciences and Palisade Bio and as a proctor for Intuitive Surgical.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
The artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot ChatGPT can significantly improve the readability of online cancer-related patient information while maintaining the content’s quality, a recent study found.
METHODOLOGY:
- Patients with cancer often search for cancer information online after their diagnosis, with most seeking information from their oncologists’ websites. However, the online materials often exceed the average reading level of the US population, limiting accessibility and comprehension.
- Researchers asked ChatGPT 4.0 to rewrite content about breast, colon, lung, prostate, and pancreas cancer, aiming for a sixth-grade readability level. The content came from a random sample of documents from 34 patient-facing websites associated with National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) member institutions.
- Readability, accuracy, similarity, and quality of the rewritten content were assessed using several established metrics and tools, including an F1 score, which assesses the precision and recall of a machine-learning model; a cosine similarity score, which measures similarities and is often used to detect plagiarism; and the DISCERN instrument, which helps assess the quality of the AI-rewritten information.
- The primary outcome was the mean readability score for the original and AI-generated content.
TAKEAWAY:
- The original content had an average readability level equivalent to a university freshman (grade 13). Following the AI revision, the readability level improved to a high school freshman level (grade 9).
- The rewritten content had high accuracy, with an overall F1 score of 0.87 (a good score is 0.8-0.9).
- The rewritten content had a high cosine similarity score of 0.915 (scores range from 0 to 1, with 0 indicating no similarity and 1 indicating complete similarity). Researchers attributed the improved readability to the use of simpler words and shorter sentences.
- Quality assessment using the DISCERN instrument showed that the AI-rewritten content maintained a “good” quality rating, similar to that of the original content.
IN PRACTICE:
Society has become increasingly dependent on online educational materials, and considering that more than half of Americans may not be literate beyond an eighth-grade level, our AI intervention offers a potential low-cost solution to narrow the gap between patient health literacy and content received from the nation’s leading cancer centers, the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study, with first author Andres A. Abreu, MD, with UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, was published online in the Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.
LIMITATIONS:
The study was limited to English-language content from NCCN member websites, so the findings may not be generalizable to other sources or languages. Readability alone cannot guarantee comprehension. Factors such as material design and audiovisual aids were not evaluated.
DISCLOSURES:
The study did not report a funding source. The authors reported several disclosures but none related to the study. Herbert J. Zeh disclosed serving as a scientific advisor for Surgical Safety Technologies; Dr. Polanco disclosed serving as a consultant for Iota Biosciences and Palisade Bio and as a proctor for Intuitive Surgical.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Surgeons Most Likely to Behave Unprofessionally: Study
Most doctors mind their manners. But surgeons are the most likely to be reported for unprofessional behavior, while physicians practicing in pediatric settings are the least likely, according to a recent study of more than 35,000 physicians.
The research, published on June 6 in JAMA Network Open, found that fewer than 10% of physicians were reported by their coworkers for at least one instance of unprofessional behavior, and only 1% showed a pattern of such reports.
Data were gathered from the Center for Patient and Professional Advocacy’s (CPPA’s) Coworker Observation Reporting System (CORS) program, a national collaborative in which 193 participating hospitals and practice sites file safety-event reports involving medical workers’ unprofessional behaviors. An algorithm that weights CORS reports based on recency and severity was used to analyze the data. The study was spearheaded by William O. Cooper, MD, MPH, director of the CPPA at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
The retrospective cohort study included deidentified data on credentialed physicians, not including residents or fellows, who practiced at a CORS site between 2018 and 2022.
Why Surgeons?
The authors speculated that the reason surgeons were reported for unprofessional behavior more often than their colleagues in nonsurgical specialties was because surgery is a more stressful environment than other specialties and requires more teamwork, resulting in more interactions during high-stakes events.
Daniel Katz, MD, professor and vice chair of education for the Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, added that part of the problem is that surgeons are expected to perform at very high levels all the time.
“When things that are outside the control of the surgeon don’t go well,” Dr. Katz said, “that can lead to increased frustration and negative emotions, which will then bring out these kinds of behaviors.”
Types of Unprofessional Behaviors
The most common out-of-bounds behaviors reported involved disrespectful communication or lack of professional responsibility. In one example, a physician called a coworker a “bossy cow” when the coworker reminded the physician of the need to do a timeout before beginning a bronchoscopy.
In another case involving professional responsibility, a coworker asked a physician if the team should wait for a disoriented patient’s spouse to arrive. The doctor’s response: “We’ll be here all night if we do that. If you won’t sign as a witness, I’ll get someone else who will.”
The least common reports involved unprofessionalism related to medical care or professional integrity. One cited a physician removing a Foley catheter without wearing gloves and having visible urine on his hands and not washing them before touching other things in the room. In a reported lapse of professional integrity, a physician billed at level five after spending only 4 minutes with a patient.
Impact of Unprofessional Behavior
Unprofessional behavior among physicians is more than just unpleasant. It can threaten the functioning of teams and increase patient complications. In addition, individuals who model unprofessional behaviors are associated with increased malpractice claims, the study’s authors wrote.
Dr. Katz agreed that unprofessional behavior is damaging to both patients and the profession as a whole.
However, this doesn’t happen because some doctors are bad, he said. Physicians today are working in a pressure cooker. The current healthcare environment, with its increased administrative burdens, lack of staffing, and other problems, has increased the overall level of stress and led to burnout among healthcare personnel.
“You have to fix the system to create a working environment that doesn’t cause somebody to explode,” Dr. Katz said.
The goal of the CORS program and this study, Dr. Cooper said, is to help physicians better weather these stresses.
Study Limitations
The authors noted some weaknesses in the study. Some unprofessional behavior may go unreported because of fear of retaliation or for other reasons victims or witnesses did not feel safe to report their colleagues. Also, reports were not evaluated to ensure the truth of the accusations. The records reviewed did not include the gender of the physician, though the researchers pointed out that previous studies have shown that women are less likely than men to receive CORS reports.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Most doctors mind their manners. But surgeons are the most likely to be reported for unprofessional behavior, while physicians practicing in pediatric settings are the least likely, according to a recent study of more than 35,000 physicians.
The research, published on June 6 in JAMA Network Open, found that fewer than 10% of physicians were reported by their coworkers for at least one instance of unprofessional behavior, and only 1% showed a pattern of such reports.
Data were gathered from the Center for Patient and Professional Advocacy’s (CPPA’s) Coworker Observation Reporting System (CORS) program, a national collaborative in which 193 participating hospitals and practice sites file safety-event reports involving medical workers’ unprofessional behaviors. An algorithm that weights CORS reports based on recency and severity was used to analyze the data. The study was spearheaded by William O. Cooper, MD, MPH, director of the CPPA at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
The retrospective cohort study included deidentified data on credentialed physicians, not including residents or fellows, who practiced at a CORS site between 2018 and 2022.
Why Surgeons?
The authors speculated that the reason surgeons were reported for unprofessional behavior more often than their colleagues in nonsurgical specialties was because surgery is a more stressful environment than other specialties and requires more teamwork, resulting in more interactions during high-stakes events.
Daniel Katz, MD, professor and vice chair of education for the Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, added that part of the problem is that surgeons are expected to perform at very high levels all the time.
“When things that are outside the control of the surgeon don’t go well,” Dr. Katz said, “that can lead to increased frustration and negative emotions, which will then bring out these kinds of behaviors.”
Types of Unprofessional Behaviors
The most common out-of-bounds behaviors reported involved disrespectful communication or lack of professional responsibility. In one example, a physician called a coworker a “bossy cow” when the coworker reminded the physician of the need to do a timeout before beginning a bronchoscopy.
In another case involving professional responsibility, a coworker asked a physician if the team should wait for a disoriented patient’s spouse to arrive. The doctor’s response: “We’ll be here all night if we do that. If you won’t sign as a witness, I’ll get someone else who will.”
The least common reports involved unprofessionalism related to medical care or professional integrity. One cited a physician removing a Foley catheter without wearing gloves and having visible urine on his hands and not washing them before touching other things in the room. In a reported lapse of professional integrity, a physician billed at level five after spending only 4 minutes with a patient.
Impact of Unprofessional Behavior
Unprofessional behavior among physicians is more than just unpleasant. It can threaten the functioning of teams and increase patient complications. In addition, individuals who model unprofessional behaviors are associated with increased malpractice claims, the study’s authors wrote.
Dr. Katz agreed that unprofessional behavior is damaging to both patients and the profession as a whole.
However, this doesn’t happen because some doctors are bad, he said. Physicians today are working in a pressure cooker. The current healthcare environment, with its increased administrative burdens, lack of staffing, and other problems, has increased the overall level of stress and led to burnout among healthcare personnel.
“You have to fix the system to create a working environment that doesn’t cause somebody to explode,” Dr. Katz said.
The goal of the CORS program and this study, Dr. Cooper said, is to help physicians better weather these stresses.
Study Limitations
The authors noted some weaknesses in the study. Some unprofessional behavior may go unreported because of fear of retaliation or for other reasons victims or witnesses did not feel safe to report their colleagues. Also, reports were not evaluated to ensure the truth of the accusations. The records reviewed did not include the gender of the physician, though the researchers pointed out that previous studies have shown that women are less likely than men to receive CORS reports.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Most doctors mind their manners. But surgeons are the most likely to be reported for unprofessional behavior, while physicians practicing in pediatric settings are the least likely, according to a recent study of more than 35,000 physicians.
The research, published on June 6 in JAMA Network Open, found that fewer than 10% of physicians were reported by their coworkers for at least one instance of unprofessional behavior, and only 1% showed a pattern of such reports.
Data were gathered from the Center for Patient and Professional Advocacy’s (CPPA’s) Coworker Observation Reporting System (CORS) program, a national collaborative in which 193 participating hospitals and practice sites file safety-event reports involving medical workers’ unprofessional behaviors. An algorithm that weights CORS reports based on recency and severity was used to analyze the data. The study was spearheaded by William O. Cooper, MD, MPH, director of the CPPA at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
The retrospective cohort study included deidentified data on credentialed physicians, not including residents or fellows, who practiced at a CORS site between 2018 and 2022.
Why Surgeons?
The authors speculated that the reason surgeons were reported for unprofessional behavior more often than their colleagues in nonsurgical specialties was because surgery is a more stressful environment than other specialties and requires more teamwork, resulting in more interactions during high-stakes events.
Daniel Katz, MD, professor and vice chair of education for the Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, added that part of the problem is that surgeons are expected to perform at very high levels all the time.
“When things that are outside the control of the surgeon don’t go well,” Dr. Katz said, “that can lead to increased frustration and negative emotions, which will then bring out these kinds of behaviors.”
Types of Unprofessional Behaviors
The most common out-of-bounds behaviors reported involved disrespectful communication or lack of professional responsibility. In one example, a physician called a coworker a “bossy cow” when the coworker reminded the physician of the need to do a timeout before beginning a bronchoscopy.
In another case involving professional responsibility, a coworker asked a physician if the team should wait for a disoriented patient’s spouse to arrive. The doctor’s response: “We’ll be here all night if we do that. If you won’t sign as a witness, I’ll get someone else who will.”
The least common reports involved unprofessionalism related to medical care or professional integrity. One cited a physician removing a Foley catheter without wearing gloves and having visible urine on his hands and not washing them before touching other things in the room. In a reported lapse of professional integrity, a physician billed at level five after spending only 4 minutes with a patient.
Impact of Unprofessional Behavior
Unprofessional behavior among physicians is more than just unpleasant. It can threaten the functioning of teams and increase patient complications. In addition, individuals who model unprofessional behaviors are associated with increased malpractice claims, the study’s authors wrote.
Dr. Katz agreed that unprofessional behavior is damaging to both patients and the profession as a whole.
However, this doesn’t happen because some doctors are bad, he said. Physicians today are working in a pressure cooker. The current healthcare environment, with its increased administrative burdens, lack of staffing, and other problems, has increased the overall level of stress and led to burnout among healthcare personnel.
“You have to fix the system to create a working environment that doesn’t cause somebody to explode,” Dr. Katz said.
The goal of the CORS program and this study, Dr. Cooper said, is to help physicians better weather these stresses.
Study Limitations
The authors noted some weaknesses in the study. Some unprofessional behavior may go unreported because of fear of retaliation or for other reasons victims or witnesses did not feel safe to report their colleagues. Also, reports were not evaluated to ensure the truth of the accusations. The records reviewed did not include the gender of the physician, though the researchers pointed out that previous studies have shown that women are less likely than men to receive CORS reports.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
DEA Training Mandate: 8 Hours of My Life I’d Like Back
It’s time to renew two of my three narcotic prescribing licenses. For the first time in my career, I’ve waffled on whether the financial outlay to the US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) is worth it.
At $888 each, I’ve considered letting two licenses lapse because I only work part-time in Montana. But several friends advised me to keep a “spare” in case I transfer to a new location.
I thought about just paying the fees until I could do a little more research, but there is no mechanism for a refund unless I die within the first year of the 3-year cycle, provide incorrect credit card digits, or accidentally duplicate payments.
The renewal fee is just part of the issue.
Mandatory 8-Hour Training
I also received an alert about the requirement for more “narcotics prescribing education” thanks to the Medication Access and Training Expansion Act (MATE).
The requirement seems counterintuitive because opioid prescribing has decreased for the 10th consecutive year, according to the AMA Overdose Epidemic Report. The continuing rise in overdose deaths is largely due to illegitimate manufacturing of synthetic opioids.
I’ve written zero outpatient narcotics prescriptions in the past 6 years, and I’ve written very few in my 33 years of practice. My use is limited to intravenous morphine for flash pulmonary edema or refractory angina, but unless you graduated from a training program within 5 years of the June 2023 mandate or are boarded in addiction medicine, there is no way to escape the 8-hour education requirement.
The problem is that these courses are never just 8 hours in duration. After signing up for one such CME course that cost $150, I was still dying of boredom and at risk for DVT 4 days later. That’s how long it took to sit through.
Instead of the 30 seconds it should have taken to review the simple instructions to deliver Narcan, there were scores of screens followed by juvenile quizlets and cartoons. All but about 2 hours out of the 4 days is now relegated to that category of “hours of my life that I can never get back.” Additionally, none of that mandatory “education” will change my prescribing habits one whit.
And beware the penalty. 
Of course, I would always be truthful when asked to check the box on the DEA renewal application attesting to my having completed the required education. On the outside chance that you plan to check the yes box without completing the relevant courses, those found guilty of such false claims could be fined up to $250,000 and subject to “not more than four years in prison,” or both. Yikes! 
Larry Houck, a former DEA investigator, explained that “[t]here are lot of people who are coming up for renewal and log on but still don’t know this is a requirement.” Neither ignorance nor complacency is an acceptable defense.
Changes Needed
The only good thing that came of those 4 long days of opioid education was a motivation to drive change in our current licensing and educational experience. Why not use this opportunity to reform the DEA-physician/prescriber relationship?
The educational requirements should be curtailed for those of us who do not provide outpatient narcotic prescriptions even if we use inpatient opioids. Meds with low abuse potential should be rescheduled to minimize who gets caught in the broad net of the education requirement.
We should reduce overregulation of the legitimate prescribers by lowering, instead of increasing, licensing fees. We should change to a single license number that covers every state. In this digital age, there is no legitimate excuse to prevent this from happening.
After all, the settlements from opioid manufacturers and distributors will in time total $50 billion. It seems that at least some of the responsibilities of the DEA could shift to states, cities, and towns.
My friend Siamak Karimian, MD, who provides locum services in multiple states, pays for seven active DEA licenses every 3 years. He pointed out the hypocrisy in the current regulatory system: “It’s funny that you can have only one DEA or state license and work for the government in all other states or territories with no limits, including the VA, Indian healthcare systems, or prison systems.”
All other prescribers require a separate DEA number for every state. Ultimately, you’d think tracking prescriptions for a single DEA number should be far simpler than tracking someone with seven.
Competent physicians not guilty of criminal overprescribing seem to be the last to be considered in nearly every healthcare endeavor these days. It would be refreshing if they would reduce our fees and prevent this waste of our time.
And while we are at it, perhaps a more fitting punishment is due for Richard Sackler and all the Purdue Pharma–affiliated family members. The Sacklers will pay out $6 billion in exchange for immunity against civil litigation. That doesn’t seem like much when they are worth $11 billion.
Perhaps they should be made to take an 8-hour course on opioid prescribing, annually and in perpetuity. Let’s see them complete a few quizlets and sit through screens of instruction on how to administer Naloxone. Of course, that would be a mild punishment for those who manufactured a drug that killed hundreds of thousands. But it would be a start.
Dr. Walton-Shirley, a clinical cardiologist in Nashville, Tennessee, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
It’s time to renew two of my three narcotic prescribing licenses. For the first time in my career, I’ve waffled on whether the financial outlay to the US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) is worth it.
At $888 each, I’ve considered letting two licenses lapse because I only work part-time in Montana. But several friends advised me to keep a “spare” in case I transfer to a new location.
I thought about just paying the fees until I could do a little more research, but there is no mechanism for a refund unless I die within the first year of the 3-year cycle, provide incorrect credit card digits, or accidentally duplicate payments.
The renewal fee is just part of the issue.
Mandatory 8-Hour Training
I also received an alert about the requirement for more “narcotics prescribing education” thanks to the Medication Access and Training Expansion Act (MATE).
The requirement seems counterintuitive because opioid prescribing has decreased for the 10th consecutive year, according to the AMA Overdose Epidemic Report. The continuing rise in overdose deaths is largely due to illegitimate manufacturing of synthetic opioids.
I’ve written zero outpatient narcotics prescriptions in the past 6 years, and I’ve written very few in my 33 years of practice. My use is limited to intravenous morphine for flash pulmonary edema or refractory angina, but unless you graduated from a training program within 5 years of the June 2023 mandate or are boarded in addiction medicine, there is no way to escape the 8-hour education requirement.
The problem is that these courses are never just 8 hours in duration. After signing up for one such CME course that cost $150, I was still dying of boredom and at risk for DVT 4 days later. That’s how long it took to sit through.
Instead of the 30 seconds it should have taken to review the simple instructions to deliver Narcan, there were scores of screens followed by juvenile quizlets and cartoons. All but about 2 hours out of the 4 days is now relegated to that category of “hours of my life that I can never get back.” Additionally, none of that mandatory “education” will change my prescribing habits one whit.
And beware the penalty.
Of course, I would always be truthful when asked to check the box on the DEA renewal application attesting to my having completed the required education. On the outside chance that you plan to check the yes box without completing the relevant courses, those found guilty of such false claims could be fined up to $250,000 and subject to “not more than four years in prison,” or both. Yikes!
Larry Houck, a former DEA investigator, explained that “[t]here are lot of people who are coming up for renewal and log on but still don’t know this is a requirement.” Neither ignorance nor complacency is an acceptable defense.
Changes Needed
The only good thing that came of those 4 long days of opioid education was a motivation to drive change in our current licensing and educational experience. Why not use this opportunity to reform the DEA-physician/prescriber relationship?
The educational requirements should be curtailed for those of us who do not provide outpatient narcotic prescriptions even if we use inpatient opioids. Meds with low abuse potential should be rescheduled to minimize who gets caught in the broad net of the education requirement.
We should reduce overregulation of the legitimate prescribers by lowering, instead of increasing, licensing fees. We should change to a single license number that covers every state. In this digital age, there is no legitimate excuse to prevent this from happening.
After all, the settlements from opioid manufacturers and distributors will in time total $50 billion. It seems that at least some of the responsibilities of the DEA could shift to states, cities, and towns.
My friend Siamak Karimian, MD, who provides locum services in multiple states, pays for seven active DEA licenses every 3 years. He pointed out the hypocrisy in the current regulatory system: “It’s funny that you can have only one DEA or state license and work for the government in all other states or territories with no limits, including the VA, Indian healthcare systems, or prison systems.”
All other prescribers require a separate DEA number for every state. Ultimately, you’d think tracking prescriptions for a single DEA number should be far simpler than tracking someone with seven.
Competent physicians not guilty of criminal overprescribing seem to be the last to be considered in nearly every healthcare endeavor these days. It would be refreshing if they would reduce our fees and prevent this waste of our time.
And while we are at it, perhaps a more fitting punishment is due for Richard Sackler and all the Purdue Pharma–affiliated family members. The Sacklers will pay out $6 billion in exchange for immunity against civil litigation. That doesn’t seem like much when they are worth $11 billion.
Perhaps they should be made to take an 8-hour course on opioid prescribing, annually and in perpetuity. Let’s see them complete a few quizlets and sit through screens of instruction on how to administer Naloxone. Of course, that would be a mild punishment for those who manufactured a drug that killed hundreds of thousands. But it would be a start.
Dr. Walton-Shirley, a clinical cardiologist in Nashville, Tennessee, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
It’s time to renew two of my three narcotic prescribing licenses. For the first time in my career, I’ve waffled on whether the financial outlay to the US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) is worth it.
At $888 each, I’ve considered letting two licenses lapse because I only work part-time in Montana. But several friends advised me to keep a “spare” in case I transfer to a new location.
I thought about just paying the fees until I could do a little more research, but there is no mechanism for a refund unless I die within the first year of the 3-year cycle, provide incorrect credit card digits, or accidentally duplicate payments.
The renewal fee is just part of the issue.
Mandatory 8-Hour Training
I also received an alert about the requirement for more “narcotics prescribing education” thanks to the Medication Access and Training Expansion Act (MATE).
The requirement seems counterintuitive because opioid prescribing has decreased for the 10th consecutive year, according to the AMA Overdose Epidemic Report. The continuing rise in overdose deaths is largely due to illegitimate manufacturing of synthetic opioids.
I’ve written zero outpatient narcotics prescriptions in the past 6 years, and I’ve written very few in my 33 years of practice. My use is limited to intravenous morphine for flash pulmonary edema or refractory angina, but unless you graduated from a training program within 5 years of the June 2023 mandate or are boarded in addiction medicine, there is no way to escape the 8-hour education requirement.
The problem is that these courses are never just 8 hours in duration. After signing up for one such CME course that cost $150, I was still dying of boredom and at risk for DVT 4 days later. That’s how long it took to sit through.
Instead of the 30 seconds it should have taken to review the simple instructions to deliver Narcan, there were scores of screens followed by juvenile quizlets and cartoons. All but about 2 hours out of the 4 days is now relegated to that category of “hours of my life that I can never get back.” Additionally, none of that mandatory “education” will change my prescribing habits one whit.
And beware the penalty.
Of course, I would always be truthful when asked to check the box on the DEA renewal application attesting to my having completed the required education. On the outside chance that you plan to check the yes box without completing the relevant courses, those found guilty of such false claims could be fined up to $250,000 and subject to “not more than four years in prison,” or both. Yikes!
Larry Houck, a former DEA investigator, explained that “[t]here are lot of people who are coming up for renewal and log on but still don’t know this is a requirement.” Neither ignorance nor complacency is an acceptable defense.
Changes Needed
The only good thing that came of those 4 long days of opioid education was a motivation to drive change in our current licensing and educational experience. Why not use this opportunity to reform the DEA-physician/prescriber relationship?
The educational requirements should be curtailed for those of us who do not provide outpatient narcotic prescriptions even if we use inpatient opioids. Meds with low abuse potential should be rescheduled to minimize who gets caught in the broad net of the education requirement.
We should reduce overregulation of the legitimate prescribers by lowering, instead of increasing, licensing fees. We should change to a single license number that covers every state. In this digital age, there is no legitimate excuse to prevent this from happening.
After all, the settlements from opioid manufacturers and distributors will in time total $50 billion. It seems that at least some of the responsibilities of the DEA could shift to states, cities, and towns.
My friend Siamak Karimian, MD, who provides locum services in multiple states, pays for seven active DEA licenses every 3 years. He pointed out the hypocrisy in the current regulatory system: “It’s funny that you can have only one DEA or state license and work for the government in all other states or territories with no limits, including the VA, Indian healthcare systems, or prison systems.”
All other prescribers require a separate DEA number for every state. Ultimately, you’d think tracking prescriptions for a single DEA number should be far simpler than tracking someone with seven.
Competent physicians not guilty of criminal overprescribing seem to be the last to be considered in nearly every healthcare endeavor these days. It would be refreshing if they would reduce our fees and prevent this waste of our time.
And while we are at it, perhaps a more fitting punishment is due for Richard Sackler and all the Purdue Pharma–affiliated family members. The Sacklers will pay out $6 billion in exchange for immunity against civil litigation. That doesn’t seem like much when they are worth $11 billion.
Perhaps they should be made to take an 8-hour course on opioid prescribing, annually and in perpetuity. Let’s see them complete a few quizlets and sit through screens of instruction on how to administer Naloxone. Of course, that would be a mild punishment for those who manufactured a drug that killed hundreds of thousands. But it would be a start.
Dr. Walton-Shirley, a clinical cardiologist in Nashville, Tennessee, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA Expands Repotrectinib Label to All NTRK Gene Fusion+ Solid Tumors
The approval is a label expansion for the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), which received initial clearance in November 2023 for locally advanced or metastatic ROS1-positive non–small cell lung cancer.
NTRK gene fusions are genetic abnormalities wherein part of the NTRK gene fuses with an unrelated gene. The abnormal gene can then produce an oncogenic protein. Although rare, these mutations are found in many cancer types.
The approval, for adult and pediatric patients aged 12 years or older, was based on the single-arm open-label TRIDENT-1 trial in 88 adults with locally advanced or metastatic NTRK gene fusion solid tumors.
In the 40 patients who were TKI-naive, the overall response rate was 58%, and the median duration of response was not estimable. In the 48 patients who had a TKI previously, the overall response rate was 50% and median duration of response was 9.9 months.
In 20% or more of participants, treatment caused dizziness, dysgeusia, peripheral neuropathy, constipation, dyspnea, fatigue, ataxia, cognitive impairment, muscular weakness, and nausea.
Labeling warns of central nervous system reactions, interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis, hepatotoxicity, myalgia with creatine phosphokinase elevation, hyperuricemia, bone fractures, and embryo-fetal toxicity.
The recommended dose is 160 mg orally once daily for 14 days then increased to 160 mg twice daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.
Sixty 40-mg capsules cost around $7,644, according to drugs.com.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The approval is a label expansion for the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), which received initial clearance in November 2023 for locally advanced or metastatic ROS1-positive non–small cell lung cancer.
NTRK gene fusions are genetic abnormalities wherein part of the NTRK gene fuses with an unrelated gene. The abnormal gene can then produce an oncogenic protein. Although rare, these mutations are found in many cancer types.
The approval, for adult and pediatric patients aged 12 years or older, was based on the single-arm open-label TRIDENT-1 trial in 88 adults with locally advanced or metastatic NTRK gene fusion solid tumors.
In the 40 patients who were TKI-naive, the overall response rate was 58%, and the median duration of response was not estimable. In the 48 patients who had a TKI previously, the overall response rate was 50% and median duration of response was 9.9 months.
In 20% or more of participants, treatment caused dizziness, dysgeusia, peripheral neuropathy, constipation, dyspnea, fatigue, ataxia, cognitive impairment, muscular weakness, and nausea.
Labeling warns of central nervous system reactions, interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis, hepatotoxicity, myalgia with creatine phosphokinase elevation, hyperuricemia, bone fractures, and embryo-fetal toxicity.
The recommended dose is 160 mg orally once daily for 14 days then increased to 160 mg twice daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.
Sixty 40-mg capsules cost around $7,644, according to drugs.com.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The approval is a label expansion for the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), which received initial clearance in November 2023 for locally advanced or metastatic ROS1-positive non–small cell lung cancer.
NTRK gene fusions are genetic abnormalities wherein part of the NTRK gene fuses with an unrelated gene. The abnormal gene can then produce an oncogenic protein. Although rare, these mutations are found in many cancer types.
The approval, for adult and pediatric patients aged 12 years or older, was based on the single-arm open-label TRIDENT-1 trial in 88 adults with locally advanced or metastatic NTRK gene fusion solid tumors.
In the 40 patients who were TKI-naive, the overall response rate was 58%, and the median duration of response was not estimable. In the 48 patients who had a TKI previously, the overall response rate was 50% and median duration of response was 9.9 months.
In 20% or more of participants, treatment caused dizziness, dysgeusia, peripheral neuropathy, constipation, dyspnea, fatigue, ataxia, cognitive impairment, muscular weakness, and nausea.
Labeling warns of central nervous system reactions, interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis, hepatotoxicity, myalgia with creatine phosphokinase elevation, hyperuricemia, bone fractures, and embryo-fetal toxicity.
The recommended dose is 160 mg orally once daily for 14 days then increased to 160 mg twice daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.
Sixty 40-mg capsules cost around $7,644, according to drugs.com.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
AMA Wrestles With AI But Acts on Prior Authorization, Other Concerns
The largest US physician organization wrestled with the professional risks and rewards of artificial intelligence (AI) at its annual meeting, delaying action even as it adopted new policies on prior authorization and other concerns for clinicians and patients.
Physicians and medical students at the annual meeting of the American Medical Association (AMA) House of Delegates in Chicago intensely debated a report and two key resolutions on AI but could not reach consensus, pushing off decision-making until a future meeting in November.
One resolution would establish “augmented intelligence” as the preferred term for AI, reflecting the desired role of these tools in supporting — not making — physicians’ decisions. The other resolution focused on insurers’ use of AI in determining medical necessity.
(See specific policies adopted at the meeting, held June 8-12, below.)
A comprehensive AMA trustees’ report on AI considered additional issues including requirements for disclosing AI use, liability for harms due to flawed application of AI, data privacy, and cybersecurity.
The AMA intends to “continue to methodically assess these issues and make informed recommendations in proposing new policy,” said Bobby Mukkamala, MD, an otolaryngologist from Flint, Michigan, who became the AMA’s new president-elect.
AMA members at the meeting largely applauded the aim of these AI proposals, but some objected to parts of the trustees’ report.
They raised questions about what, exactly, constitutes an AI-powered service and whether all AI tools need the kind of guardrails the AMA may seek. There also were concerns about calls to make AI use more transparent.
While transparency might be an admirable goal, it might prove too hard to achieve given that AI-powered tools and products are already woven into medical practice in ways that physicians may not know or understand, said Christopher Libby, MD, MPH, a clinical informaticist and emergency physician at Cedars Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles.
“It’s hard for the practicing clinician to know how every piece of technology works in order to describe it to the patient,” Dr. Libby said at the meeting. “How many people here can identify when algorithms are used in their EHR today?”
He suggested asking for more transparency from the companies that make and sell AI-powered software and tools to insurers and healthcare systems.
Steven H. Kroft, MD, the editor of the American Journal of Clinical Pathology, raised concerns about the unintended harm that unchecked use of AI may pose to scientific research.
He asked the AMA to address “a significant omission in an otherwise comprehensive report” — the need to protect the integrity of study results that can direct patient care.
“While sham science is not a new issue, large language models make it far easier for authors to generate fake papers and far harder for editors, reviewers, and publishers to identify them,” Dr. Kroft said. “This is a rapidly growing phenomenon that is threatening the integrity of the literature. These papers become embedded in the evidence bases that drive clinical decision-making.”
AMA has been working with specialty societies and outside AI experts to refine an effective set of recommendations. The new policies, once finalized, are intended to build on steps AMA already has taken, including last year releasing principles for AI development, deployment, and use.
Congress Mulling
The AMA delegates are far from alone in facing AI policy challenges.
Leaders in Congress also are examining AI guardrails, with influential panels such as the Senate Finance and House Energy and Commerce committees holding hearings.
A key congressional AI effort to watch is the expected implementation of a bipartisan Senate “road map,” which Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and colleagues released in May, said Miranda A. Franco, a senior policy advisor at the law firm Holland & Knight.
The product of many months of deliberation, this Senate road map identifies priorities for future legislation, including:
- Creating appropriate guardrails and safety measures to protect patients.
- Making healthcare and biomedical data available for machine learning and data science research while carefully addressing privacy issues.
- Providing transparency for clinicians and the public about the use of AI in medical products and clinical support services, including the data used to train models.
- Examining the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ reimbursement mechanisms as well as guardrails to ensure accountability, appropriate use, and broad application of AI across all populations.
Congress likely will address issues of AI in healthcare in piecemeal fashion, taking on different aspects of these challenges at different times, Ms. Franco said. The Senate road map gives the key committees directions on where to proceed in their efforts to develop new laws.
“I think this is all going to be slow and rolling, not big and sweeping,” Ms. Franco told this news organization. “I don’t think we’re going to see an encompassing AI bill.”
AMA Policies Adopted on Other Issues
At the June meeting, AMA delegates adopted the following policies aiming to:
- Increase oversight and accountability of health insurers’ use of prior authorization controls on patient access to care.
- Encourage policy changes allowing physicians to receive loan forgiveness when they practice in an Indian Health Service, Tribal, or Urban Indian Health Program, similar to physicians practicing in a Veterans Administration facility.
- Advocate for federal policy that limits a patient’s out-of-pocket cost to be the same or less than the amount that a patient with traditional Medicare plus a Medigap plan would pay.
- Oppose state or national legislation that could criminalize in vitro fertilization.
- Limit what the AMA calls the “expensive” cost for Medicare Advantage enrollees who need physician-administered drugs or biologics.
- Help physicians address the handling of de-identified patient data in a rapidly changing digital health ecosystem.
- Support efforts to decriminalize the possession of non-prescribed buprenorphine for personal use by individuals who lack access to a physician for the treatment of opioid use disorder.
- Expand access to hearing, vision, and dental care. The new AMA policy advocates working with state medical associations to support coverage of hearing exams, hearing aids, cochlear implants, and vision exams and aids. The revised AMA policy also supports working with the American Dental Association and other national organizations to improve access to dental care for people enrolled in Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP programs.
- Increase enrollment of more women and sexual and gender minority populations in clinical trials.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The largest US physician organization wrestled with the professional risks and rewards of artificial intelligence (AI) at its annual meeting, delaying action even as it adopted new policies on prior authorization and other concerns for clinicians and patients.
Physicians and medical students at the annual meeting of the American Medical Association (AMA) House of Delegates in Chicago intensely debated a report and two key resolutions on AI but could not reach consensus, pushing off decision-making until a future meeting in November.
One resolution would establish “augmented intelligence” as the preferred term for AI, reflecting the desired role of these tools in supporting — not making — physicians’ decisions. The other resolution focused on insurers’ use of AI in determining medical necessity.
(See specific policies adopted at the meeting, held June 8-12, below.)
A comprehensive AMA trustees’ report on AI considered additional issues including requirements for disclosing AI use, liability for harms due to flawed application of AI, data privacy, and cybersecurity.
The AMA intends to “continue to methodically assess these issues and make informed recommendations in proposing new policy,” said Bobby Mukkamala, MD, an otolaryngologist from Flint, Michigan, who became the AMA’s new president-elect.
AMA members at the meeting largely applauded the aim of these AI proposals, but some objected to parts of the trustees’ report.
They raised questions about what, exactly, constitutes an AI-powered service and whether all AI tools need the kind of guardrails the AMA may seek. There also were concerns about calls to make AI use more transparent.
While transparency might be an admirable goal, it might prove too hard to achieve given that AI-powered tools and products are already woven into medical practice in ways that physicians may not know or understand, said Christopher Libby, MD, MPH, a clinical informaticist and emergency physician at Cedars Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles.
“It’s hard for the practicing clinician to know how every piece of technology works in order to describe it to the patient,” Dr. Libby said at the meeting. “How many people here can identify when algorithms are used in their EHR today?”
He suggested asking for more transparency from the companies that make and sell AI-powered software and tools to insurers and healthcare systems.
Steven H. Kroft, MD, the editor of the American Journal of Clinical Pathology, raised concerns about the unintended harm that unchecked use of AI may pose to scientific research.
He asked the AMA to address “a significant omission in an otherwise comprehensive report” — the need to protect the integrity of study results that can direct patient care.
“While sham science is not a new issue, large language models make it far easier for authors to generate fake papers and far harder for editors, reviewers, and publishers to identify them,” Dr. Kroft said. “This is a rapidly growing phenomenon that is threatening the integrity of the literature. These papers become embedded in the evidence bases that drive clinical decision-making.”
AMA has been working with specialty societies and outside AI experts to refine an effective set of recommendations. The new policies, once finalized, are intended to build on steps AMA already has taken, including last year releasing principles for AI development, deployment, and use.
Congress Mulling
The AMA delegates are far from alone in facing AI policy challenges.
Leaders in Congress also are examining AI guardrails, with influential panels such as the Senate Finance and House Energy and Commerce committees holding hearings.
A key congressional AI effort to watch is the expected implementation of a bipartisan Senate “road map,” which Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and colleagues released in May, said Miranda A. Franco, a senior policy advisor at the law firm Holland & Knight.
The product of many months of deliberation, this Senate road map identifies priorities for future legislation, including:
- Creating appropriate guardrails and safety measures to protect patients.
- Making healthcare and biomedical data available for machine learning and data science research while carefully addressing privacy issues.
- Providing transparency for clinicians and the public about the use of AI in medical products and clinical support services, including the data used to train models.
- Examining the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ reimbursement mechanisms as well as guardrails to ensure accountability, appropriate use, and broad application of AI across all populations.
Congress likely will address issues of AI in healthcare in piecemeal fashion, taking on different aspects of these challenges at different times, Ms. Franco said. The Senate road map gives the key committees directions on where to proceed in their efforts to develop new laws.
“I think this is all going to be slow and rolling, not big and sweeping,” Ms. Franco told this news organization. “I don’t think we’re going to see an encompassing AI bill.”
AMA Policies Adopted on Other Issues
At the June meeting, AMA delegates adopted the following policies aiming to:
- Increase oversight and accountability of health insurers’ use of prior authorization controls on patient access to care.
- Encourage policy changes allowing physicians to receive loan forgiveness when they practice in an Indian Health Service, Tribal, or Urban Indian Health Program, similar to physicians practicing in a Veterans Administration facility.
- Advocate for federal policy that limits a patient’s out-of-pocket cost to be the same or less than the amount that a patient with traditional Medicare plus a Medigap plan would pay.
- Oppose state or national legislation that could criminalize in vitro fertilization.
- Limit what the AMA calls the “expensive” cost for Medicare Advantage enrollees who need physician-administered drugs or biologics.
- Help physicians address the handling of de-identified patient data in a rapidly changing digital health ecosystem.
- Support efforts to decriminalize the possession of non-prescribed buprenorphine for personal use by individuals who lack access to a physician for the treatment of opioid use disorder.
- Expand access to hearing, vision, and dental care. The new AMA policy advocates working with state medical associations to support coverage of hearing exams, hearing aids, cochlear implants, and vision exams and aids. The revised AMA policy also supports working with the American Dental Association and other national organizations to improve access to dental care for people enrolled in Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP programs.
- Increase enrollment of more women and sexual and gender minority populations in clinical trials.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The largest US physician organization wrestled with the professional risks and rewards of artificial intelligence (AI) at its annual meeting, delaying action even as it adopted new policies on prior authorization and other concerns for clinicians and patients.
Physicians and medical students at the annual meeting of the American Medical Association (AMA) House of Delegates in Chicago intensely debated a report and two key resolutions on AI but could not reach consensus, pushing off decision-making until a future meeting in November.
One resolution would establish “augmented intelligence” as the preferred term for AI, reflecting the desired role of these tools in supporting — not making — physicians’ decisions. The other resolution focused on insurers’ use of AI in determining medical necessity.
(See specific policies adopted at the meeting, held June 8-12, below.)
A comprehensive AMA trustees’ report on AI considered additional issues including requirements for disclosing AI use, liability for harms due to flawed application of AI, data privacy, and cybersecurity.
The AMA intends to “continue to methodically assess these issues and make informed recommendations in proposing new policy,” said Bobby Mukkamala, MD, an otolaryngologist from Flint, Michigan, who became the AMA’s new president-elect.
AMA members at the meeting largely applauded the aim of these AI proposals, but some objected to parts of the trustees’ report.
They raised questions about what, exactly, constitutes an AI-powered service and whether all AI tools need the kind of guardrails the AMA may seek. There also were concerns about calls to make AI use more transparent.
While transparency might be an admirable goal, it might prove too hard to achieve given that AI-powered tools and products are already woven into medical practice in ways that physicians may not know or understand, said Christopher Libby, MD, MPH, a clinical informaticist and emergency physician at Cedars Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles.
“It’s hard for the practicing clinician to know how every piece of technology works in order to describe it to the patient,” Dr. Libby said at the meeting. “How many people here can identify when algorithms are used in their EHR today?”
He suggested asking for more transparency from the companies that make and sell AI-powered software and tools to insurers and healthcare systems.
Steven H. Kroft, MD, the editor of the American Journal of Clinical Pathology, raised concerns about the unintended harm that unchecked use of AI may pose to scientific research.
He asked the AMA to address “a significant omission in an otherwise comprehensive report” — the need to protect the integrity of study results that can direct patient care.
“While sham science is not a new issue, large language models make it far easier for authors to generate fake papers and far harder for editors, reviewers, and publishers to identify them,” Dr. Kroft said. “This is a rapidly growing phenomenon that is threatening the integrity of the literature. These papers become embedded in the evidence bases that drive clinical decision-making.”
AMA has been working with specialty societies and outside AI experts to refine an effective set of recommendations. The new policies, once finalized, are intended to build on steps AMA already has taken, including last year releasing principles for AI development, deployment, and use.
Congress Mulling
The AMA delegates are far from alone in facing AI policy challenges.
Leaders in Congress also are examining AI guardrails, with influential panels such as the Senate Finance and House Energy and Commerce committees holding hearings.
A key congressional AI effort to watch is the expected implementation of a bipartisan Senate “road map,” which Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and colleagues released in May, said Miranda A. Franco, a senior policy advisor at the law firm Holland & Knight.
The product of many months of deliberation, this Senate road map identifies priorities for future legislation, including:
- Creating appropriate guardrails and safety measures to protect patients.
- Making healthcare and biomedical data available for machine learning and data science research while carefully addressing privacy issues.
- Providing transparency for clinicians and the public about the use of AI in medical products and clinical support services, including the data used to train models.
- Examining the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ reimbursement mechanisms as well as guardrails to ensure accountability, appropriate use, and broad application of AI across all populations.
Congress likely will address issues of AI in healthcare in piecemeal fashion, taking on different aspects of these challenges at different times, Ms. Franco said. The Senate road map gives the key committees directions on where to proceed in their efforts to develop new laws.
“I think this is all going to be slow and rolling, not big and sweeping,” Ms. Franco told this news organization. “I don’t think we’re going to see an encompassing AI bill.”
AMA Policies Adopted on Other Issues
At the June meeting, AMA delegates adopted the following policies aiming to:
- Increase oversight and accountability of health insurers’ use of prior authorization controls on patient access to care.
- Encourage policy changes allowing physicians to receive loan forgiveness when they practice in an Indian Health Service, Tribal, or Urban Indian Health Program, similar to physicians practicing in a Veterans Administration facility.
- Advocate for federal policy that limits a patient’s out-of-pocket cost to be the same or less than the amount that a patient with traditional Medicare plus a Medigap plan would pay.
- Oppose state or national legislation that could criminalize in vitro fertilization.
- Limit what the AMA calls the “expensive” cost for Medicare Advantage enrollees who need physician-administered drugs or biologics.
- Help physicians address the handling of de-identified patient data in a rapidly changing digital health ecosystem.
- Support efforts to decriminalize the possession of non-prescribed buprenorphine for personal use by individuals who lack access to a physician for the treatment of opioid use disorder.
- Expand access to hearing, vision, and dental care. The new AMA policy advocates working with state medical associations to support coverage of hearing exams, hearing aids, cochlear implants, and vision exams and aids. The revised AMA policy also supports working with the American Dental Association and other national organizations to improve access to dental care for people enrolled in Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP programs.
- Increase enrollment of more women and sexual and gender minority populations in clinical trials.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Delivery of Care: The Ethical Imperative in Healthcare
The ethical imperative in healthcare necessitates equitable delivery of care to all individuals, regardless of their socio-economic status or insurance coverage. This principle is rooted in the concept of justice and is crucial to achieving health equity.
As gastroenterologists, despite our various practice settings, we have seen the harmful effects of economic and social disparities on health outcomes. We must therefore ensure that we acknowledge the existence of these disparities, and then begin to provide a framework that allows us to ethically and successfully navigate these complexities for our patients and our affiliated structures.
The following cases illustrate the complexities and ethical dilemmas that gastroenterology and hepatology healthcare professionals encounter in delivering care within the traditional healthcare system.
- Case 1: A 44-year-old male presents to the hospital with intermittent rectal bleeding every few weeks without associated abdominal pain or weight loss and not associated with straining. He has bowel movements every 2-3 days. There is no family history of underlying gastrointestinal disease or associated neoplasm. He is accompanied at the time of the interview by his coworker who offered to drive him to the hospital as he is having personal car trouble. Physical examination reveals normal hemodynamics, abdomen is benign, a digital rectal exam reveals small internal hemorrhoids without pain. Hemoglobin is 10, MCV 85. There is scant blood on the glove. He is uninsured. A GI consult is placed to determine the disposition of the patient. The resident on service suggests outpatient follow-up given low risk of clinical deterioration.
- Case 2: A 28-year-old woman postpartum 6 weeks presents in the office with a history of ulcerative colitis which was diagnosed 2 years prior. She was initially placed on steroid therapy. She underwent a colonoscopy at the time of her diagnosis and was following with a gastroenterologist at which time she was found to have moderate left-sided disease with a modified Mayo score of 9. She complains of urgency and rectal bleeding. She saw a gastroenterologist during her pregnancy and was placed on oral mesalamine, which she remains on at the time of evaluation. Once her physical examination is completed and laboratory values are reviewed, you begin to discuss advanced therapies including biologics as she has failed conventional therapies.
- Case 3: You receive a phone call from an outside hospital about a potential transfer for a 46-year-old male who is an immigrant of unknown citizenship status with fulminant liver failure. He meets all criteria including encephalopathy and coagulopathy. He drinks only socially. His secondary liver workup for extensive disease including ceruloplasmin remains pending. Viral hepatology serologies and autoimmune serologies are negative.
Challenges to the Delivery of Equitable Care
These cases underscore the challenges of delivering equitable care within a system that often fails to address the social determinants of health (SDOH). The disparity in the evaluation and treatment of patients based on insurance status not only affects patient outcomes, but also emphasizes the ethical dilemma of balancing cost with population health management.
The introduction of measures SDOH-1 and SDOH-2 by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services in the 2023 IPPS Final Rule is a step towards requiring hospitals to systematically collect patient-level SDOH data, aiming to establish meaningful collaborations between healthcare providers and community-based organizations for whole-person care.1 The primary goal is to allow ecosystems to collect patient-level social risk factors followed by the creation of meaningful collaboration between healthcare providers and the community-based organizations.
The office settings may or may not implement the SDOH and the current electronic medical record systems. However, from a social history standpoint and certainly from a decision standpoint, the impact of SDOH is realized in all settings.
Interplay of SDOH and Ethical Considerations
The recognition of social determinants of health is crucial for ethical healthcare delivery. In the first case, considering the patient’s identified social determinants of health — including lack of insurance and transportation, combined with the rising incidence of colorectal cancer in individuals under 55 — an argument could be made for admitting the patient under observation for inpatient colonoscopy.
Data have shown disparities in treatment and referrals in emergency care setting for Black patients with rectal bleeding.2 It is imperative that we recognize these existing disparities in diagnosis and outcomes, along with determining SDOH to appropriately come to a final disposition. This approach aligns with the principle of justice and the imperative to deliver equitable care.
In the third case study, we have a patient facing the life-or-death situation of fulminant liver failure. He requires an expeditious decision to be made about transfer candidacy for liver transplant evaluation by the hepatology team.
Impact of Insurance Status on Healthcare Access
Insurance status significantly influences access to healthcare and disparities in treatment outcomes. As seen in case 2 and case 3, our therapies often hinge upon access.
In the inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) case, the therapy that we will choose for our IBD patient may be more influenced by access than efficacy. In a national sample of children with Crohn’s disease, publicly insured children were more likely to receive a biologic within 18 months of diagnosis compared to children with private insurance.3 This would suggest that those with private insurance perhaps experience increased barriers.
In the IBD case that we presented here, we do have a publicly insured woman who will face a potential loss of her Medicaid coverage. Our therapeutic decision will therefore not just rely on risk stratification and individualized approach, but rather the programs that are put in place by our pharmaceutical partners to support a future self-pay patient. This may or may not be favorable to her outcome. This discrepancy points to systemic inequalities in healthcare access and the need for policies that ensure equitable treatment for all, regardless of insurance status.
Conclusion
The delivery of care in healthcare is an ethical imperative that demands equity and justice. The cases discussed above illustrate the complex interplay between socioeconomic factors, insurance status, and the ethical challenges in providing equitable care.
Systematic efforts to address social determinants of health, as mandated by recent CMS measures, along with a commitment to ethical principles, are essential steps toward reducing disparities and ensuring that all individuals receive the care they need. As healthcare expenditures continue to rise, particularly in areas like gastrointestinal health, addressing these ethical and systemic challenges becomes even more critical for the sustainability of the healthcare system and the well-being of the population it serves.
Gastrointestinal healthcare expenditures totaled $119.6 billion in 2018. Annually there were more than 36.8 million ambulatory visits for GI symptoms and 43.4 million ambulatory visits with primary GI diagnosis.4 The use of higher-acuity settings and lack of continuity of care, and the under-recognition and lack of longitudinal framework to follow those families at risk continue to compromise our healthcare system.
Dr. McCutchen is a gastroenterologist at United Digestive, Atlanta, Georgia. She is vice chair of the AGA Research Foundation. Dr. Boules is vice president of global medical and scientific affairs at Ironwood Pharmaceuticals, Cleveland, Ohio.
References
1. www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-08-10/pdf/2022-16472.pdf.
2. Shields HM et al. Disparities in evaluation of patients with rectal bleeding 40 years and older. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014 Apr. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2013.07.008.
3. Quiros JA et al. Insurance type influences access to biologics and healthcare utilization in pediatric Crohn’s disease. Crohns Colitis 360. 2021 Aug. doi: 10.1093/crocol/otab057.
4. Peery AF et al. Burden and cost of gastrointestinal, liver, and pancreatic diseases in the United States: Update 2021. Gastroenterology. 2022 Feb. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2021.10.017.
The ethical imperative in healthcare necessitates equitable delivery of care to all individuals, regardless of their socio-economic status or insurance coverage. This principle is rooted in the concept of justice and is crucial to achieving health equity.
As gastroenterologists, despite our various practice settings, we have seen the harmful effects of economic and social disparities on health outcomes. We must therefore ensure that we acknowledge the existence of these disparities, and then begin to provide a framework that allows us to ethically and successfully navigate these complexities for our patients and our affiliated structures.
The following cases illustrate the complexities and ethical dilemmas that gastroenterology and hepatology healthcare professionals encounter in delivering care within the traditional healthcare system.
- Case 1: A 44-year-old male presents to the hospital with intermittent rectal bleeding every few weeks without associated abdominal pain or weight loss and not associated with straining. He has bowel movements every 2-3 days. There is no family history of underlying gastrointestinal disease or associated neoplasm. He is accompanied at the time of the interview by his coworker who offered to drive him to the hospital as he is having personal car trouble. Physical examination reveals normal hemodynamics, abdomen is benign, a digital rectal exam reveals small internal hemorrhoids without pain. Hemoglobin is 10, MCV 85. There is scant blood on the glove. He is uninsured. A GI consult is placed to determine the disposition of the patient. The resident on service suggests outpatient follow-up given low risk of clinical deterioration.
- Case 2: A 28-year-old woman postpartum 6 weeks presents in the office with a history of ulcerative colitis which was diagnosed 2 years prior. She was initially placed on steroid therapy. She underwent a colonoscopy at the time of her diagnosis and was following with a gastroenterologist at which time she was found to have moderate left-sided disease with a modified Mayo score of 9. She complains of urgency and rectal bleeding. She saw a gastroenterologist during her pregnancy and was placed on oral mesalamine, which she remains on at the time of evaluation. Once her physical examination is completed and laboratory values are reviewed, you begin to discuss advanced therapies including biologics as she has failed conventional therapies.
- Case 3: You receive a phone call from an outside hospital about a potential transfer for a 46-year-old male who is an immigrant of unknown citizenship status with fulminant liver failure. He meets all criteria including encephalopathy and coagulopathy. He drinks only socially. His secondary liver workup for extensive disease including ceruloplasmin remains pending. Viral hepatology serologies and autoimmune serologies are negative.
Challenges to the Delivery of Equitable Care
These cases underscore the challenges of delivering equitable care within a system that often fails to address the social determinants of health (SDOH). The disparity in the evaluation and treatment of patients based on insurance status not only affects patient outcomes, but also emphasizes the ethical dilemma of balancing cost with population health management.
The introduction of measures SDOH-1 and SDOH-2 by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services in the 2023 IPPS Final Rule is a step towards requiring hospitals to systematically collect patient-level SDOH data, aiming to establish meaningful collaborations between healthcare providers and community-based organizations for whole-person care.1 The primary goal is to allow ecosystems to collect patient-level social risk factors followed by the creation of meaningful collaboration between healthcare providers and the community-based organizations.
The office settings may or may not implement the SDOH and the current electronic medical record systems. However, from a social history standpoint and certainly from a decision standpoint, the impact of SDOH is realized in all settings.
Interplay of SDOH and Ethical Considerations
The recognition of social determinants of health is crucial for ethical healthcare delivery. In the first case, considering the patient’s identified social determinants of health — including lack of insurance and transportation, combined with the rising incidence of colorectal cancer in individuals under 55 — an argument could be made for admitting the patient under observation for inpatient colonoscopy.
Data have shown disparities in treatment and referrals in emergency care setting for Black patients with rectal bleeding.2 It is imperative that we recognize these existing disparities in diagnosis and outcomes, along with determining SDOH to appropriately come to a final disposition. This approach aligns with the principle of justice and the imperative to deliver equitable care.
In the third case study, we have a patient facing the life-or-death situation of fulminant liver failure. He requires an expeditious decision to be made about transfer candidacy for liver transplant evaluation by the hepatology team.
Impact of Insurance Status on Healthcare Access
Insurance status significantly influences access to healthcare and disparities in treatment outcomes. As seen in case 2 and case 3, our therapies often hinge upon access.
In the inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) case, the therapy that we will choose for our IBD patient may be more influenced by access than efficacy. In a national sample of children with Crohn’s disease, publicly insured children were more likely to receive a biologic within 18 months of diagnosis compared to children with private insurance.3 This would suggest that those with private insurance perhaps experience increased barriers.
In the IBD case that we presented here, we do have a publicly insured woman who will face a potential loss of her Medicaid coverage. Our therapeutic decision will therefore not just rely on risk stratification and individualized approach, but rather the programs that are put in place by our pharmaceutical partners to support a future self-pay patient. This may or may not be favorable to her outcome. This discrepancy points to systemic inequalities in healthcare access and the need for policies that ensure equitable treatment for all, regardless of insurance status.
Conclusion
The delivery of care in healthcare is an ethical imperative that demands equity and justice. The cases discussed above illustrate the complex interplay between socioeconomic factors, insurance status, and the ethical challenges in providing equitable care.
Systematic efforts to address social determinants of health, as mandated by recent CMS measures, along with a commitment to ethical principles, are essential steps toward reducing disparities and ensuring that all individuals receive the care they need. As healthcare expenditures continue to rise, particularly in areas like gastrointestinal health, addressing these ethical and systemic challenges becomes even more critical for the sustainability of the healthcare system and the well-being of the population it serves.
Gastrointestinal healthcare expenditures totaled $119.6 billion in 2018. Annually there were more than 36.8 million ambulatory visits for GI symptoms and 43.4 million ambulatory visits with primary GI diagnosis.4 The use of higher-acuity settings and lack of continuity of care, and the under-recognition and lack of longitudinal framework to follow those families at risk continue to compromise our healthcare system.
Dr. McCutchen is a gastroenterologist at United Digestive, Atlanta, Georgia. She is vice chair of the AGA Research Foundation. Dr. Boules is vice president of global medical and scientific affairs at Ironwood Pharmaceuticals, Cleveland, Ohio.
References
1. www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-08-10/pdf/2022-16472.pdf.
2. Shields HM et al. Disparities in evaluation of patients with rectal bleeding 40 years and older. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014 Apr. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2013.07.008.
3. Quiros JA et al. Insurance type influences access to biologics and healthcare utilization in pediatric Crohn’s disease. Crohns Colitis 360. 2021 Aug. doi: 10.1093/crocol/otab057.
4. Peery AF et al. Burden and cost of gastrointestinal, liver, and pancreatic diseases in the United States: Update 2021. Gastroenterology. 2022 Feb. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2021.10.017.
The ethical imperative in healthcare necessitates equitable delivery of care to all individuals, regardless of their socio-economic status or insurance coverage. This principle is rooted in the concept of justice and is crucial to achieving health equity.
As gastroenterologists, despite our various practice settings, we have seen the harmful effects of economic and social disparities on health outcomes. We must therefore ensure that we acknowledge the existence of these disparities, and then begin to provide a framework that allows us to ethically and successfully navigate these complexities for our patients and our affiliated structures.
The following cases illustrate the complexities and ethical dilemmas that gastroenterology and hepatology healthcare professionals encounter in delivering care within the traditional healthcare system.
- Case 1: A 44-year-old male presents to the hospital with intermittent rectal bleeding every few weeks without associated abdominal pain or weight loss and not associated with straining. He has bowel movements every 2-3 days. There is no family history of underlying gastrointestinal disease or associated neoplasm. He is accompanied at the time of the interview by his coworker who offered to drive him to the hospital as he is having personal car trouble. Physical examination reveals normal hemodynamics, abdomen is benign, a digital rectal exam reveals small internal hemorrhoids without pain. Hemoglobin is 10, MCV 85. There is scant blood on the glove. He is uninsured. A GI consult is placed to determine the disposition of the patient. The resident on service suggests outpatient follow-up given low risk of clinical deterioration.
- Case 2: A 28-year-old woman postpartum 6 weeks presents in the office with a history of ulcerative colitis which was diagnosed 2 years prior. She was initially placed on steroid therapy. She underwent a colonoscopy at the time of her diagnosis and was following with a gastroenterologist at which time she was found to have moderate left-sided disease with a modified Mayo score of 9. She complains of urgency and rectal bleeding. She saw a gastroenterologist during her pregnancy and was placed on oral mesalamine, which she remains on at the time of evaluation. Once her physical examination is completed and laboratory values are reviewed, you begin to discuss advanced therapies including biologics as she has failed conventional therapies.
- Case 3: You receive a phone call from an outside hospital about a potential transfer for a 46-year-old male who is an immigrant of unknown citizenship status with fulminant liver failure. He meets all criteria including encephalopathy and coagulopathy. He drinks only socially. His secondary liver workup for extensive disease including ceruloplasmin remains pending. Viral hepatology serologies and autoimmune serologies are negative.
Challenges to the Delivery of Equitable Care
These cases underscore the challenges of delivering equitable care within a system that often fails to address the social determinants of health (SDOH). The disparity in the evaluation and treatment of patients based on insurance status not only affects patient outcomes, but also emphasizes the ethical dilemma of balancing cost with population health management.
The introduction of measures SDOH-1 and SDOH-2 by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services in the 2023 IPPS Final Rule is a step towards requiring hospitals to systematically collect patient-level SDOH data, aiming to establish meaningful collaborations between healthcare providers and community-based organizations for whole-person care.1 The primary goal is to allow ecosystems to collect patient-level social risk factors followed by the creation of meaningful collaboration between healthcare providers and the community-based organizations.
The office settings may or may not implement the SDOH and the current electronic medical record systems. However, from a social history standpoint and certainly from a decision standpoint, the impact of SDOH is realized in all settings.
Interplay of SDOH and Ethical Considerations
The recognition of social determinants of health is crucial for ethical healthcare delivery. In the first case, considering the patient’s identified social determinants of health — including lack of insurance and transportation, combined with the rising incidence of colorectal cancer in individuals under 55 — an argument could be made for admitting the patient under observation for inpatient colonoscopy.
Data have shown disparities in treatment and referrals in emergency care setting for Black patients with rectal bleeding.2 It is imperative that we recognize these existing disparities in diagnosis and outcomes, along with determining SDOH to appropriately come to a final disposition. This approach aligns with the principle of justice and the imperative to deliver equitable care.
In the third case study, we have a patient facing the life-or-death situation of fulminant liver failure. He requires an expeditious decision to be made about transfer candidacy for liver transplant evaluation by the hepatology team.
Impact of Insurance Status on Healthcare Access
Insurance status significantly influences access to healthcare and disparities in treatment outcomes. As seen in case 2 and case 3, our therapies often hinge upon access.
In the inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) case, the therapy that we will choose for our IBD patient may be more influenced by access than efficacy. In a national sample of children with Crohn’s disease, publicly insured children were more likely to receive a biologic within 18 months of diagnosis compared to children with private insurance.3 This would suggest that those with private insurance perhaps experience increased barriers.
In the IBD case that we presented here, we do have a publicly insured woman who will face a potential loss of her Medicaid coverage. Our therapeutic decision will therefore not just rely on risk stratification and individualized approach, but rather the programs that are put in place by our pharmaceutical partners to support a future self-pay patient. This may or may not be favorable to her outcome. This discrepancy points to systemic inequalities in healthcare access and the need for policies that ensure equitable treatment for all, regardless of insurance status.
Conclusion
The delivery of care in healthcare is an ethical imperative that demands equity and justice. The cases discussed above illustrate the complex interplay between socioeconomic factors, insurance status, and the ethical challenges in providing equitable care.
Systematic efforts to address social determinants of health, as mandated by recent CMS measures, along with a commitment to ethical principles, are essential steps toward reducing disparities and ensuring that all individuals receive the care they need. As healthcare expenditures continue to rise, particularly in areas like gastrointestinal health, addressing these ethical and systemic challenges becomes even more critical for the sustainability of the healthcare system and the well-being of the population it serves.
Gastrointestinal healthcare expenditures totaled $119.6 billion in 2018. Annually there were more than 36.8 million ambulatory visits for GI symptoms and 43.4 million ambulatory visits with primary GI diagnosis.4 The use of higher-acuity settings and lack of continuity of care, and the under-recognition and lack of longitudinal framework to follow those families at risk continue to compromise our healthcare system.
Dr. McCutchen is a gastroenterologist at United Digestive, Atlanta, Georgia. She is vice chair of the AGA Research Foundation. Dr. Boules is vice president of global medical and scientific affairs at Ironwood Pharmaceuticals, Cleveland, Ohio.
References
1. www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-08-10/pdf/2022-16472.pdf.
2. Shields HM et al. Disparities in evaluation of patients with rectal bleeding 40 years and older. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014 Apr. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2013.07.008.
3. Quiros JA et al. Insurance type influences access to biologics and healthcare utilization in pediatric Crohn’s disease. Crohns Colitis 360. 2021 Aug. doi: 10.1093/crocol/otab057.
4. Peery AF et al. Burden and cost of gastrointestinal, liver, and pancreatic diseases in the United States: Update 2021. Gastroenterology. 2022 Feb. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2021.10.017.
Advice, Support for Entrepreneurs at AGA Tech 2024
CHICAGO — Have a great tech idea to improve gastroenterology? Start-up companies have the potential to transform the practice of medicine, and to make founders a nice pot of money, but it is a difficult road. At the 2024 AGA Tech Summit, held at the Chicago headquarters of MATTER, a global healthcare startup incubator, investors and gastroenterologists discussed some of the key challenges and opportunities for GI startups.
The road is daunting, and founders must be dedicated to their companies but also maintain life balance. “It is very easy, following your passion, for your life to get out of check. I don’t know what the divorce rate is for entrepreneurs, but I personally was a victim of that. The culture that we built was addictive and it became all encompassing, and at the same time [I neglected] my home life,” Scott Fraser, managing director of the consulting company Fraser Healthcare, said during a “Scars and Stripes” panel at the summit.
For those willing to navigate those waters, there is help. Investors are prepared to provide seed money for companies with good ideas and a strong market. AGA itself has stepped into the investment field with its GI Opportunity Fund, which it launched in 2022 through a partnership with Varia Ventures. The fund’s capital comes from AGA members, with a minimum investment of $25,000. To date, AGA has made investments in six companies, at around $100,000 per company. “It’s not a large amount that we’re investing. We’re a lead investor that signals to other venture capital companies that this is a viable company,” Tom Serena, CEO of AGA, said in an interview.
The fund grew out of AGA’s commitment to boosting early-stage companies in the gastroenterology space. AGA has always supported GI device and tech companies through its Center for GI Innovation and Technology, which sponsored the AGA Tech Summit. The center now provides resources and advice for GI innovators and startups. The AGA Tech Summit has created a gathering place for entrepreneurs and innovators to share their experiences and learn from one another. “But what we were missing was the last mile, which is getting funding to the companies,” said Mr. Serena. The summit itself has been modified to increase the venture capital presence. “That’s the networking we’re trying to [create] here. Venture capitalists are well acquainted with these companies, but we feel that AGA can bring clinical due diligence, and the startups want to be exposed to venture capital,” said Mr. Serena.
During the “Learn from VC Strategists” panel, investors shared advice for entrepreneurs. The emphasis throughout was on marketable ideas that can fundamentally change healthcare practice, though inventions may not have the whiz-bang appeal of some new technologies of years past.
“We’re particularly focused on clinical models that actually work. There were a lot of companies for many years that were doing things that had minimal impact, or very incremental impact. Maybe they were helping identify certain patients, but they weren’t actually engaging those patients. We’re now looking very end-to-end and trying to make sure that it’s not just a good idea, but one that you can actually roll out, engage patients, and see the [return on investment] in that patient data,” said Kelsey Maguire, managing director of the Blue Venture Fund, which is a collaborative effort across Blue Cross Blue Shield companies.
Part of the reason for that shift is that healthcare has evolved in a way that has put more pressure on physicians, according to Barbara H. Jung, MD, AGAF, past president of AGA, who was present for the session. “I think that there’s huge burnout among gastroenterologists, [partly because] some of the systems have been optimized to get the most out of each specialist. I think we just have to get back to making work more enjoyable. [It could be less] fighting with the insurance companies, it could be that you spend less time typing after hours. It could be that it helps the team work more seamlessly, or it could be something that helps the patient prepare, so they have everything ready when they see the doctors. It’s thinking about how healthcare is delivered, and really in a patient and physician-centric way,” Dr. Jung said in an interview.
Anna Haghgooie, managing director of Valtruis, noted that, historically, new technology has been rewarded by the healthcare system. “It’s part of why we find ourselves where we are as an industry: There was nobody in the marketplace that was incented to roll out a cost-reducing technology, and those weren’t necessarily considered grand slams. But [I think] we’re at a tipping point on cost, and as a country will start purchasing in pretty meaningfully different ways, which opens up a lot of opportunities for those practical solutions to be grand slams. Everything that we look at has a component of virtual care, leveraging technology, whether it’s AI or just better workflow tools, better data and intelligence to make business decisions,” said Ms. Haghgooie. She did note that Valtruis does not work much with medical devices.
Specifically in the GI space, one panelist called for a shift away from novel colonoscopy technology. “I don’t know how many more bells and whistles we can ask for colonoscopy, which we’re very dependent on. Not that it’s not important, but I don’t think that’s where the real innovation is going to come. When you think about the cognitive side of the GI business: New diagnostics, things that are predictive of disease states, things that monitor disease, things that help you to know what people’s disease courses will be. I think as more and more interventions are done by endoscopists, you need more tools,” said Thomas Shehab, MD, managing partner at Arboretum Ventures.
Finally, AI has become a central component to investment decisions. Ms. Haghgooie said that Valtruis is focused on the infrastructure surrounding AI, such as the data that it requires to make or help guide decisions. That data can vary widely in quality, is difficult to index, exists in various silos, and is subject to a number of regulatory constraints on how to move or aggregate it. “So, a lot of what we’re focused on are the systems and tools that can enable the next gen application of AI. That’s one piece of the puzzle. The other is, I’d say that every company that we’ve either invested in or are looking at investing in, we ask the question: How are you planning to incorporate and leverage this next gen technology to drive your marginal cost-to-deliver down? In many cases you have to do that through business model redesign, because there is no fee-for-service code to get paid for leveraging AI to reduce your costs. You’ve got to have different payment structures in order to get the benefit of leveraging those types of technologies. When we’re sourcing and looking at deals, we’re looking at both of those angles,” she said.
CHICAGO — Have a great tech idea to improve gastroenterology? Start-up companies have the potential to transform the practice of medicine, and to make founders a nice pot of money, but it is a difficult road. At the 2024 AGA Tech Summit, held at the Chicago headquarters of MATTER, a global healthcare startup incubator, investors and gastroenterologists discussed some of the key challenges and opportunities for GI startups.
The road is daunting, and founders must be dedicated to their companies but also maintain life balance. “It is very easy, following your passion, for your life to get out of check. I don’t know what the divorce rate is for entrepreneurs, but I personally was a victim of that. The culture that we built was addictive and it became all encompassing, and at the same time [I neglected] my home life,” Scott Fraser, managing director of the consulting company Fraser Healthcare, said during a “Scars and Stripes” panel at the summit.
For those willing to navigate those waters, there is help. Investors are prepared to provide seed money for companies with good ideas and a strong market. AGA itself has stepped into the investment field with its GI Opportunity Fund, which it launched in 2022 through a partnership with Varia Ventures. The fund’s capital comes from AGA members, with a minimum investment of $25,000. To date, AGA has made investments in six companies, at around $100,000 per company. “It’s not a large amount that we’re investing. We’re a lead investor that signals to other venture capital companies that this is a viable company,” Tom Serena, CEO of AGA, said in an interview.
The fund grew out of AGA’s commitment to boosting early-stage companies in the gastroenterology space. AGA has always supported GI device and tech companies through its Center for GI Innovation and Technology, which sponsored the AGA Tech Summit. The center now provides resources and advice for GI innovators and startups. The AGA Tech Summit has created a gathering place for entrepreneurs and innovators to share their experiences and learn from one another. “But what we were missing was the last mile, which is getting funding to the companies,” said Mr. Serena. The summit itself has been modified to increase the venture capital presence. “That’s the networking we’re trying to [create] here. Venture capitalists are well acquainted with these companies, but we feel that AGA can bring clinical due diligence, and the startups want to be exposed to venture capital,” said Mr. Serena.
During the “Learn from VC Strategists” panel, investors shared advice for entrepreneurs. The emphasis throughout was on marketable ideas that can fundamentally change healthcare practice, though inventions may not have the whiz-bang appeal of some new technologies of years past.
“We’re particularly focused on clinical models that actually work. There were a lot of companies for many years that were doing things that had minimal impact, or very incremental impact. Maybe they were helping identify certain patients, but they weren’t actually engaging those patients. We’re now looking very end-to-end and trying to make sure that it’s not just a good idea, but one that you can actually roll out, engage patients, and see the [return on investment] in that patient data,” said Kelsey Maguire, managing director of the Blue Venture Fund, which is a collaborative effort across Blue Cross Blue Shield companies.
Part of the reason for that shift is that healthcare has evolved in a way that has put more pressure on physicians, according to Barbara H. Jung, MD, AGAF, past president of AGA, who was present for the session. “I think that there’s huge burnout among gastroenterologists, [partly because] some of the systems have been optimized to get the most out of each specialist. I think we just have to get back to making work more enjoyable. [It could be less] fighting with the insurance companies, it could be that you spend less time typing after hours. It could be that it helps the team work more seamlessly, or it could be something that helps the patient prepare, so they have everything ready when they see the doctors. It’s thinking about how healthcare is delivered, and really in a patient and physician-centric way,” Dr. Jung said in an interview.
Anna Haghgooie, managing director of Valtruis, noted that, historically, new technology has been rewarded by the healthcare system. “It’s part of why we find ourselves where we are as an industry: There was nobody in the marketplace that was incented to roll out a cost-reducing technology, and those weren’t necessarily considered grand slams. But [I think] we’re at a tipping point on cost, and as a country will start purchasing in pretty meaningfully different ways, which opens up a lot of opportunities for those practical solutions to be grand slams. Everything that we look at has a component of virtual care, leveraging technology, whether it’s AI or just better workflow tools, better data and intelligence to make business decisions,” said Ms. Haghgooie. She did note that Valtruis does not work much with medical devices.
Specifically in the GI space, one panelist called for a shift away from novel colonoscopy technology. “I don’t know how many more bells and whistles we can ask for colonoscopy, which we’re very dependent on. Not that it’s not important, but I don’t think that’s where the real innovation is going to come. When you think about the cognitive side of the GI business: New diagnostics, things that are predictive of disease states, things that monitor disease, things that help you to know what people’s disease courses will be. I think as more and more interventions are done by endoscopists, you need more tools,” said Thomas Shehab, MD, managing partner at Arboretum Ventures.
Finally, AI has become a central component to investment decisions. Ms. Haghgooie said that Valtruis is focused on the infrastructure surrounding AI, such as the data that it requires to make or help guide decisions. That data can vary widely in quality, is difficult to index, exists in various silos, and is subject to a number of regulatory constraints on how to move or aggregate it. “So, a lot of what we’re focused on are the systems and tools that can enable the next gen application of AI. That’s one piece of the puzzle. The other is, I’d say that every company that we’ve either invested in or are looking at investing in, we ask the question: How are you planning to incorporate and leverage this next gen technology to drive your marginal cost-to-deliver down? In many cases you have to do that through business model redesign, because there is no fee-for-service code to get paid for leveraging AI to reduce your costs. You’ve got to have different payment structures in order to get the benefit of leveraging those types of technologies. When we’re sourcing and looking at deals, we’re looking at both of those angles,” she said.
CHICAGO — Have a great tech idea to improve gastroenterology? Start-up companies have the potential to transform the practice of medicine, and to make founders a nice pot of money, but it is a difficult road. At the 2024 AGA Tech Summit, held at the Chicago headquarters of MATTER, a global healthcare startup incubator, investors and gastroenterologists discussed some of the key challenges and opportunities for GI startups.
The road is daunting, and founders must be dedicated to their companies but also maintain life balance. “It is very easy, following your passion, for your life to get out of check. I don’t know what the divorce rate is for entrepreneurs, but I personally was a victim of that. The culture that we built was addictive and it became all encompassing, and at the same time [I neglected] my home life,” Scott Fraser, managing director of the consulting company Fraser Healthcare, said during a “Scars and Stripes” panel at the summit.
For those willing to navigate those waters, there is help. Investors are prepared to provide seed money for companies with good ideas and a strong market. AGA itself has stepped into the investment field with its GI Opportunity Fund, which it launched in 2022 through a partnership with Varia Ventures. The fund’s capital comes from AGA members, with a minimum investment of $25,000. To date, AGA has made investments in six companies, at around $100,000 per company. “It’s not a large amount that we’re investing. We’re a lead investor that signals to other venture capital companies that this is a viable company,” Tom Serena, CEO of AGA, said in an interview.
The fund grew out of AGA’s commitment to boosting early-stage companies in the gastroenterology space. AGA has always supported GI device and tech companies through its Center for GI Innovation and Technology, which sponsored the AGA Tech Summit. The center now provides resources and advice for GI innovators and startups. The AGA Tech Summit has created a gathering place for entrepreneurs and innovators to share their experiences and learn from one another. “But what we were missing was the last mile, which is getting funding to the companies,” said Mr. Serena. The summit itself has been modified to increase the venture capital presence. “That’s the networking we’re trying to [create] here. Venture capitalists are well acquainted with these companies, but we feel that AGA can bring clinical due diligence, and the startups want to be exposed to venture capital,” said Mr. Serena.
During the “Learn from VC Strategists” panel, investors shared advice for entrepreneurs. The emphasis throughout was on marketable ideas that can fundamentally change healthcare practice, though inventions may not have the whiz-bang appeal of some new technologies of years past.
“We’re particularly focused on clinical models that actually work. There were a lot of companies for many years that were doing things that had minimal impact, or very incremental impact. Maybe they were helping identify certain patients, but they weren’t actually engaging those patients. We’re now looking very end-to-end and trying to make sure that it’s not just a good idea, but one that you can actually roll out, engage patients, and see the [return on investment] in that patient data,” said Kelsey Maguire, managing director of the Blue Venture Fund, which is a collaborative effort across Blue Cross Blue Shield companies.
Part of the reason for that shift is that healthcare has evolved in a way that has put more pressure on physicians, according to Barbara H. Jung, MD, AGAF, past president of AGA, who was present for the session. “I think that there’s huge burnout among gastroenterologists, [partly because] some of the systems have been optimized to get the most out of each specialist. I think we just have to get back to making work more enjoyable. [It could be less] fighting with the insurance companies, it could be that you spend less time typing after hours. It could be that it helps the team work more seamlessly, or it could be something that helps the patient prepare, so they have everything ready when they see the doctors. It’s thinking about how healthcare is delivered, and really in a patient and physician-centric way,” Dr. Jung said in an interview.
Anna Haghgooie, managing director of Valtruis, noted that, historically, new technology has been rewarded by the healthcare system. “It’s part of why we find ourselves where we are as an industry: There was nobody in the marketplace that was incented to roll out a cost-reducing technology, and those weren’t necessarily considered grand slams. But [I think] we’re at a tipping point on cost, and as a country will start purchasing in pretty meaningfully different ways, which opens up a lot of opportunities for those practical solutions to be grand slams. Everything that we look at has a component of virtual care, leveraging technology, whether it’s AI or just better workflow tools, better data and intelligence to make business decisions,” said Ms. Haghgooie. She did note that Valtruis does not work much with medical devices.
Specifically in the GI space, one panelist called for a shift away from novel colonoscopy technology. “I don’t know how many more bells and whistles we can ask for colonoscopy, which we’re very dependent on. Not that it’s not important, but I don’t think that’s where the real innovation is going to come. When you think about the cognitive side of the GI business: New diagnostics, things that are predictive of disease states, things that monitor disease, things that help you to know what people’s disease courses will be. I think as more and more interventions are done by endoscopists, you need more tools,” said Thomas Shehab, MD, managing partner at Arboretum Ventures.
Finally, AI has become a central component to investment decisions. Ms. Haghgooie said that Valtruis is focused on the infrastructure surrounding AI, such as the data that it requires to make or help guide decisions. That data can vary widely in quality, is difficult to index, exists in various silos, and is subject to a number of regulatory constraints on how to move or aggregate it. “So, a lot of what we’re focused on are the systems and tools that can enable the next gen application of AI. That’s one piece of the puzzle. The other is, I’d say that every company that we’ve either invested in or are looking at investing in, we ask the question: How are you planning to incorporate and leverage this next gen technology to drive your marginal cost-to-deliver down? In many cases you have to do that through business model redesign, because there is no fee-for-service code to get paid for leveraging AI to reduce your costs. You’ve got to have different payment structures in order to get the benefit of leveraging those types of technologies. When we’re sourcing and looking at deals, we’re looking at both of those angles,” she said.
FROM THE 2024 AGA TECH SUMMIT
Carefully Designing De-escalation Trials in Breast Cancer
Over the past few years, several new, highly effective treatment strategies have improved survival outcomes in patients with early breast cancer.
“We’ve been very fortunate” to see these advances, Sara M. Tolaney, MD, MPH, chief, Division of Breast Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, told attendees at the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) Breast Cancer annual congress.
However, Dr. Tolaney noted, these new treatment approaches can come with big limitations — namely, potential overtreatment of some patients as well as short- and long-term toxicities, some of which can be life-threatening.
These caveats have prompted trials exploring strategies to de-escalate therapy, which essentially means providing the right amount of treatment to the right patient at the right time, said Dr. Tolaney. The goal is to “right-size” or “optimize therapy” to maintain strong outcomes while mitigating side effects.
she explained.
But, she added, de-escalation trials are “not a very attractive strategy to pharmaceutical companies” and can be challenging for researchers to conduct. These trials may, for instance, lack adequate sample sizes and sufficient statistical power, which can interfere with achieving clinically meaningful findings that may affect practice.
That is why carefully designing de-escalation trials is crucial, Dr. Tolaney said.
In her talk at ESMO Breast, Dr. Tolaney highlighted several strategies for designing these trials.
One strategy is to shorten the duration of therapy, said Dr. Tolaney.
This approach was explored in the PHARE and PERSEPHONE trials, which looked at 6 vs 12 months of trastuzumab in nonmetastatic breast cancer. Other trials, such as GeparNuevo and KEYNOTE-522, explored whether adjuvant checkpoint inhibitor therapy was needed, or could be skipped, following neoadjuvant therapy. This approach requires establishing noninferiority, or similar efficacy, between the standard of care and the shorter duration of therapy.
A second strategy is to remove part of the chemotherapy regimen, typically the most toxic agent, Dr. Tolaney continued.
Conducting a prospective, randomized trial exploring this approach in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–positive (HER2+) early breast cancer, for example, would be difficult for a range of reasons, such as the need to enroll thousands of patients.
Dr. Tolaney and colleagues, however, designed a nonrandomized prospective study — the APT trial — with just over 400 patients to assess adjuvant paclitaxel plus trastuzumab in patients with node-negative HER2+ disease. The open-label, single-arm, phase 2 APT trial found that adjuvant paclitaxel and trastuzumab led to a 10-year recurrence-free interval of 96.3%, 10-year overall survival of 94.3%, and 10-year breast cancer–specific survival of 98.8%.
Outcomes with this adjuvant regimen were comparable to previous findings in historical controls who received doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, paclitaxel, and trastuzumab or docetaxel, carboplatin, and trastuzumab.
Dr. Tolaney concluded that given few events, “it’s unlikely we need to escalate therapy to do better for most patients,” and the APT regimen “can be considered a reasonable and appealing approach for the majority of patients” with node-negative HER2+ breast cancer.
“A single-arm design for a de-escalation study can be practice-changing but only if there are very few recurrences,” Dr. Tolaney said.
Substituting chemotherapy with a targeted, potentially less-toxic agent is a third de-escalation approach. The ATEMPT trial compared patients receiving trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) with those receiving paclitaxel plus trastuzumab followed by maintenance trastuzumab.
Investigators found that de-escalation with T-DM1 was associated with very few recurrences but similar rates of certain adverse events, including grade 2 or higher neurotoxicity, febrile neutropenia, and grade 4 or higher hematologic toxicity.
However, there are questions about how to define “less toxic,” Dr. Tolaney said. The trial found, for instance, that T-DM1 did have some advantages — patients reported better quality of life and experienced less alopecia and neurotoxicity, as well as a less severe impact on fertility.
Understanding the right endpoint to demonstrate less toxicity is critical, “as we start to think about how to replace standard chemotherapies with better targeted drugs,” she added.
The ATEMPT 2.0 trial, which is currently enrolling, will aim to answer some of these questions about defining and demonstrating less toxicity, she said.
Finally, some researchers are attempting to omit chemotherapy altogether with the help of biomarkers. The TAILORx trial, for instance, aimed to stratify patients with early-stage breast cancer by clinical risk factors combined with a 21-gene expression assay and found that adjuvant chemotherapy was not necessary in a large proportion of these women.
On the biomarker front, oncologists might be able to use ctDNA to guide decision-making and personalize therapy, Tolaney said. The presence of ctDNA is associated with an almost 100% likelihood of having a recurrence, whereas its absence suggests better outcomes, she explained.
Oncologists could use the presence or absence of ctDNA to guide next steps — assign patients to follow-up assessments when ctDNA is not present or to standard or experimental treatment when it is present. It may also be possible to leverage the presence of minimal residual disease to help direct treatment choices.
But ctDNA is currently not as perfect a predictor of outcome as it could be, she cautioned. “We need more sensitive assays [so] I’m not sure we’re quite ready to use lack of ctDNA to de-escalate treatment,” she said.
Dr. Tolaney declared relationships with Novartis, Pfizer, Merck, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, Eisai, Sanofi, Bristol Myers Squib, and other companies.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
Over the past few years, several new, highly effective treatment strategies have improved survival outcomes in patients with early breast cancer.
“We’ve been very fortunate” to see these advances, Sara M. Tolaney, MD, MPH, chief, Division of Breast Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, told attendees at the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) Breast Cancer annual congress.
However, Dr. Tolaney noted, these new treatment approaches can come with big limitations — namely, potential overtreatment of some patients as well as short- and long-term toxicities, some of which can be life-threatening.
These caveats have prompted trials exploring strategies to de-escalate therapy, which essentially means providing the right amount of treatment to the right patient at the right time, said Dr. Tolaney. The goal is to “right-size” or “optimize therapy” to maintain strong outcomes while mitigating side effects.
she explained.
But, she added, de-escalation trials are “not a very attractive strategy to pharmaceutical companies” and can be challenging for researchers to conduct. These trials may, for instance, lack adequate sample sizes and sufficient statistical power, which can interfere with achieving clinically meaningful findings that may affect practice.
That is why carefully designing de-escalation trials is crucial, Dr. Tolaney said.
In her talk at ESMO Breast, Dr. Tolaney highlighted several strategies for designing these trials.
One strategy is to shorten the duration of therapy, said Dr. Tolaney.
This approach was explored in the PHARE and PERSEPHONE trials, which looked at 6 vs 12 months of trastuzumab in nonmetastatic breast cancer. Other trials, such as GeparNuevo and KEYNOTE-522, explored whether adjuvant checkpoint inhibitor therapy was needed, or could be skipped, following neoadjuvant therapy. This approach requires establishing noninferiority, or similar efficacy, between the standard of care and the shorter duration of therapy.
A second strategy is to remove part of the chemotherapy regimen, typically the most toxic agent, Dr. Tolaney continued.
Conducting a prospective, randomized trial exploring this approach in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–positive (HER2+) early breast cancer, for example, would be difficult for a range of reasons, such as the need to enroll thousands of patients.
Dr. Tolaney and colleagues, however, designed a nonrandomized prospective study — the APT trial — with just over 400 patients to assess adjuvant paclitaxel plus trastuzumab in patients with node-negative HER2+ disease. The open-label, single-arm, phase 2 APT trial found that adjuvant paclitaxel and trastuzumab led to a 10-year recurrence-free interval of 96.3%, 10-year overall survival of 94.3%, and 10-year breast cancer–specific survival of 98.8%.
Outcomes with this adjuvant regimen were comparable to previous findings in historical controls who received doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, paclitaxel, and trastuzumab or docetaxel, carboplatin, and trastuzumab.
Dr. Tolaney concluded that given few events, “it’s unlikely we need to escalate therapy to do better for most patients,” and the APT regimen “can be considered a reasonable and appealing approach for the majority of patients” with node-negative HER2+ breast cancer.
“A single-arm design for a de-escalation study can be practice-changing but only if there are very few recurrences,” Dr. Tolaney said.
Substituting chemotherapy with a targeted, potentially less-toxic agent is a third de-escalation approach. The ATEMPT trial compared patients receiving trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) with those receiving paclitaxel plus trastuzumab followed by maintenance trastuzumab.
Investigators found that de-escalation with T-DM1 was associated with very few recurrences but similar rates of certain adverse events, including grade 2 or higher neurotoxicity, febrile neutropenia, and grade 4 or higher hematologic toxicity.
However, there are questions about how to define “less toxic,” Dr. Tolaney said. The trial found, for instance, that T-DM1 did have some advantages — patients reported better quality of life and experienced less alopecia and neurotoxicity, as well as a less severe impact on fertility.
Understanding the right endpoint to demonstrate less toxicity is critical, “as we start to think about how to replace standard chemotherapies with better targeted drugs,” she added.
The ATEMPT 2.0 trial, which is currently enrolling, will aim to answer some of these questions about defining and demonstrating less toxicity, she said.
Finally, some researchers are attempting to omit chemotherapy altogether with the help of biomarkers. The TAILORx trial, for instance, aimed to stratify patients with early-stage breast cancer by clinical risk factors combined with a 21-gene expression assay and found that adjuvant chemotherapy was not necessary in a large proportion of these women.
On the biomarker front, oncologists might be able to use ctDNA to guide decision-making and personalize therapy, Tolaney said. The presence of ctDNA is associated with an almost 100% likelihood of having a recurrence, whereas its absence suggests better outcomes, she explained.
Oncologists could use the presence or absence of ctDNA to guide next steps — assign patients to follow-up assessments when ctDNA is not present or to standard or experimental treatment when it is present. It may also be possible to leverage the presence of minimal residual disease to help direct treatment choices.
But ctDNA is currently not as perfect a predictor of outcome as it could be, she cautioned. “We need more sensitive assays [so] I’m not sure we’re quite ready to use lack of ctDNA to de-escalate treatment,” she said.
Dr. Tolaney declared relationships with Novartis, Pfizer, Merck, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, Eisai, Sanofi, Bristol Myers Squib, and other companies.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
Over the past few years, several new, highly effective treatment strategies have improved survival outcomes in patients with early breast cancer.
“We’ve been very fortunate” to see these advances, Sara M. Tolaney, MD, MPH, chief, Division of Breast Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, told attendees at the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) Breast Cancer annual congress.
However, Dr. Tolaney noted, these new treatment approaches can come with big limitations — namely, potential overtreatment of some patients as well as short- and long-term toxicities, some of which can be life-threatening.
These caveats have prompted trials exploring strategies to de-escalate therapy, which essentially means providing the right amount of treatment to the right patient at the right time, said Dr. Tolaney. The goal is to “right-size” or “optimize therapy” to maintain strong outcomes while mitigating side effects.
she explained.
But, she added, de-escalation trials are “not a very attractive strategy to pharmaceutical companies” and can be challenging for researchers to conduct. These trials may, for instance, lack adequate sample sizes and sufficient statistical power, which can interfere with achieving clinically meaningful findings that may affect practice.
That is why carefully designing de-escalation trials is crucial, Dr. Tolaney said.
In her talk at ESMO Breast, Dr. Tolaney highlighted several strategies for designing these trials.
One strategy is to shorten the duration of therapy, said Dr. Tolaney.
This approach was explored in the PHARE and PERSEPHONE trials, which looked at 6 vs 12 months of trastuzumab in nonmetastatic breast cancer. Other trials, such as GeparNuevo and KEYNOTE-522, explored whether adjuvant checkpoint inhibitor therapy was needed, or could be skipped, following neoadjuvant therapy. This approach requires establishing noninferiority, or similar efficacy, between the standard of care and the shorter duration of therapy.
A second strategy is to remove part of the chemotherapy regimen, typically the most toxic agent, Dr. Tolaney continued.
Conducting a prospective, randomized trial exploring this approach in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–positive (HER2+) early breast cancer, for example, would be difficult for a range of reasons, such as the need to enroll thousands of patients.
Dr. Tolaney and colleagues, however, designed a nonrandomized prospective study — the APT trial — with just over 400 patients to assess adjuvant paclitaxel plus trastuzumab in patients with node-negative HER2+ disease. The open-label, single-arm, phase 2 APT trial found that adjuvant paclitaxel and trastuzumab led to a 10-year recurrence-free interval of 96.3%, 10-year overall survival of 94.3%, and 10-year breast cancer–specific survival of 98.8%.
Outcomes with this adjuvant regimen were comparable to previous findings in historical controls who received doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, paclitaxel, and trastuzumab or docetaxel, carboplatin, and trastuzumab.
Dr. Tolaney concluded that given few events, “it’s unlikely we need to escalate therapy to do better for most patients,” and the APT regimen “can be considered a reasonable and appealing approach for the majority of patients” with node-negative HER2+ breast cancer.
“A single-arm design for a de-escalation study can be practice-changing but only if there are very few recurrences,” Dr. Tolaney said.
Substituting chemotherapy with a targeted, potentially less-toxic agent is a third de-escalation approach. The ATEMPT trial compared patients receiving trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) with those receiving paclitaxel plus trastuzumab followed by maintenance trastuzumab.
Investigators found that de-escalation with T-DM1 was associated with very few recurrences but similar rates of certain adverse events, including grade 2 or higher neurotoxicity, febrile neutropenia, and grade 4 or higher hematologic toxicity.
However, there are questions about how to define “less toxic,” Dr. Tolaney said. The trial found, for instance, that T-DM1 did have some advantages — patients reported better quality of life and experienced less alopecia and neurotoxicity, as well as a less severe impact on fertility.
Understanding the right endpoint to demonstrate less toxicity is critical, “as we start to think about how to replace standard chemotherapies with better targeted drugs,” she added.
The ATEMPT 2.0 trial, which is currently enrolling, will aim to answer some of these questions about defining and demonstrating less toxicity, she said.
Finally, some researchers are attempting to omit chemotherapy altogether with the help of biomarkers. The TAILORx trial, for instance, aimed to stratify patients with early-stage breast cancer by clinical risk factors combined with a 21-gene expression assay and found that adjuvant chemotherapy was not necessary in a large proportion of these women.
On the biomarker front, oncologists might be able to use ctDNA to guide decision-making and personalize therapy, Tolaney said. The presence of ctDNA is associated with an almost 100% likelihood of having a recurrence, whereas its absence suggests better outcomes, she explained.
Oncologists could use the presence or absence of ctDNA to guide next steps — assign patients to follow-up assessments when ctDNA is not present or to standard or experimental treatment when it is present. It may also be possible to leverage the presence of minimal residual disease to help direct treatment choices.
But ctDNA is currently not as perfect a predictor of outcome as it could be, she cautioned. “We need more sensitive assays [so] I’m not sure we’re quite ready to use lack of ctDNA to de-escalate treatment,” she said.
Dr. Tolaney declared relationships with Novartis, Pfizer, Merck, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, Eisai, Sanofi, Bristol Myers Squib, and other companies.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
FROM ESMO BREAST CANCER 2024
The ASCO Annual Meeting Starts This Week
From its origins in 1964, ASCO’s annual event has grown to become the world’s largest clinical oncology meeting, drawing attendees from across the globe.
More than 7000 abstracts were submitted for this year’s meeting a new record — and over 5000 were selected for presentation.
This year’s chair of the Annual Meeting Education Committee, Thomas William LeBlanc, MD, told us he has been attending the meeting since his training days more than a decade ago.
The event is “just incredibly empowering and energizing,” Dr. LeBlanc said, with opportunities to catch up with old colleagues and meet new ones, learn how far oncology has come and where it’s headed, and hear clinical pearls to take back the clinic.
This year’s theme, selected by ASCO President Lynn M. Schuchter, MD, is “The Art and Science of Cancer Care: From Comfort to Cure.”
Dr. LeBlanc, a blood cancer specialist at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, said the theme has been woven throughout the abstract and educational sessions. Most sessions will have at least one presentation related to how we support people — not only “when we cure them but also when we can’t cure them,” he said.
Topics will include patient well-being, comfort measures, and survivorship. And for the first time the plenary session will include a palliative care abstract that addresses whether or not palliative care can be delivered effectively through telemedicine. The session is on Sunday, June 2.
Other potentially practice changing plenary abstracts tackle immunotherapy combinations for resectable melanoma, perioperative chemotherapy vs neoadjuvant chemoradiation for esophageal cancer, and osimertinib after definitive chemoradiotherapy for unresectable non–small cell lung cancer.
ASCO is piloting a slightly different format for research presentations this year. Instead of starting with context and background, speakers have been asked to present study results upfront as well as repeat them at the end of the talk. The reason behind the tweak is that engagement and retention tend to be better when results are presented upfront, instead of just at the end of a talk.
A popular session — ASCO Voices — has also been given a more central position in the conference: Friday, May 31. In this session, speakers will give short presentations about their personal experiences as providers, researchers, or patients.
ASCO Voices is a relatively recent addition to the meeting that has grown and gotten better. The talks are usually “very powerful narratives” that remind clinicians about “the importance of what they’re doing each day,” Dr. LeBlanc said.
Snippets of the talks will be played while people wait for sessions to begin at the meeting, so attendees who miss the Friday talks can still hear them.
In terms of educational sessions, Dr. LeBlanc highlighted two that might be of general interest to practicing oncologists: A joint ASCO/American Association for Cancer Research session entitled “Drugging the ‘Undruggable’ Target: Successes, Challenges, and the Road Ahead,” on Sunday morning and “Common Sense Oncology: Equity, Value, and Outcomes That Matter” on Monday morning.
As a blood cancer specialist, he said he is particularly interested in the topline results from the ASC4FIRST trial of asciminib, a newer kinase inhibitor, in newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukemia, presented on Friday.
As in past years, this news organization will be on hand providing coverage with a dedicated team of reporters, editors, and videographers. Stop by our exhibit hall booth — number 26030 — to learn about the tools we offer to support your practice.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
From its origins in 1964, ASCO’s annual event has grown to become the world’s largest clinical oncology meeting, drawing attendees from across the globe.
More than 7000 abstracts were submitted for this year’s meeting a new record — and over 5000 were selected for presentation.
This year’s chair of the Annual Meeting Education Committee, Thomas William LeBlanc, MD, told us he has been attending the meeting since his training days more than a decade ago.
The event is “just incredibly empowering and energizing,” Dr. LeBlanc said, with opportunities to catch up with old colleagues and meet new ones, learn how far oncology has come and where it’s headed, and hear clinical pearls to take back the clinic.
This year’s theme, selected by ASCO President Lynn M. Schuchter, MD, is “The Art and Science of Cancer Care: From Comfort to Cure.”
Dr. LeBlanc, a blood cancer specialist at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, said the theme has been woven throughout the abstract and educational sessions. Most sessions will have at least one presentation related to how we support people — not only “when we cure them but also when we can’t cure them,” he said.
Topics will include patient well-being, comfort measures, and survivorship. And for the first time the plenary session will include a palliative care abstract that addresses whether or not palliative care can be delivered effectively through telemedicine. The session is on Sunday, June 2.
Other potentially practice changing plenary abstracts tackle immunotherapy combinations for resectable melanoma, perioperative chemotherapy vs neoadjuvant chemoradiation for esophageal cancer, and osimertinib after definitive chemoradiotherapy for unresectable non–small cell lung cancer.
ASCO is piloting a slightly different format for research presentations this year. Instead of starting with context and background, speakers have been asked to present study results upfront as well as repeat them at the end of the talk. The reason behind the tweak is that engagement and retention tend to be better when results are presented upfront, instead of just at the end of a talk.
A popular session — ASCO Voices — has also been given a more central position in the conference: Friday, May 31. In this session, speakers will give short presentations about their personal experiences as providers, researchers, or patients.
ASCO Voices is a relatively recent addition to the meeting that has grown and gotten better. The talks are usually “very powerful narratives” that remind clinicians about “the importance of what they’re doing each day,” Dr. LeBlanc said.
Snippets of the talks will be played while people wait for sessions to begin at the meeting, so attendees who miss the Friday talks can still hear them.
In terms of educational sessions, Dr. LeBlanc highlighted two that might be of general interest to practicing oncologists: A joint ASCO/American Association for Cancer Research session entitled “Drugging the ‘Undruggable’ Target: Successes, Challenges, and the Road Ahead,” on Sunday morning and “Common Sense Oncology: Equity, Value, and Outcomes That Matter” on Monday morning.
As a blood cancer specialist, he said he is particularly interested in the topline results from the ASC4FIRST trial of asciminib, a newer kinase inhibitor, in newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukemia, presented on Friday.
As in past years, this news organization will be on hand providing coverage with a dedicated team of reporters, editors, and videographers. Stop by our exhibit hall booth — number 26030 — to learn about the tools we offer to support your practice.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
From its origins in 1964, ASCO’s annual event has grown to become the world’s largest clinical oncology meeting, drawing attendees from across the globe.
More than 7000 abstracts were submitted for this year’s meeting a new record — and over 5000 were selected for presentation.
This year’s chair of the Annual Meeting Education Committee, Thomas William LeBlanc, MD, told us he has been attending the meeting since his training days more than a decade ago.
The event is “just incredibly empowering and energizing,” Dr. LeBlanc said, with opportunities to catch up with old colleagues and meet new ones, learn how far oncology has come and where it’s headed, and hear clinical pearls to take back the clinic.
This year’s theme, selected by ASCO President Lynn M. Schuchter, MD, is “The Art and Science of Cancer Care: From Comfort to Cure.”
Dr. LeBlanc, a blood cancer specialist at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, said the theme has been woven throughout the abstract and educational sessions. Most sessions will have at least one presentation related to how we support people — not only “when we cure them but also when we can’t cure them,” he said.
Topics will include patient well-being, comfort measures, and survivorship. And for the first time the plenary session will include a palliative care abstract that addresses whether or not palliative care can be delivered effectively through telemedicine. The session is on Sunday, June 2.
Other potentially practice changing plenary abstracts tackle immunotherapy combinations for resectable melanoma, perioperative chemotherapy vs neoadjuvant chemoradiation for esophageal cancer, and osimertinib after definitive chemoradiotherapy for unresectable non–small cell lung cancer.
ASCO is piloting a slightly different format for research presentations this year. Instead of starting with context and background, speakers have been asked to present study results upfront as well as repeat them at the end of the talk. The reason behind the tweak is that engagement and retention tend to be better when results are presented upfront, instead of just at the end of a talk.
A popular session — ASCO Voices — has also been given a more central position in the conference: Friday, May 31. In this session, speakers will give short presentations about their personal experiences as providers, researchers, or patients.
ASCO Voices is a relatively recent addition to the meeting that has grown and gotten better. The talks are usually “very powerful narratives” that remind clinicians about “the importance of what they’re doing each day,” Dr. LeBlanc said.
Snippets of the talks will be played while people wait for sessions to begin at the meeting, so attendees who miss the Friday talks can still hear them.
In terms of educational sessions, Dr. LeBlanc highlighted two that might be of general interest to practicing oncologists: A joint ASCO/American Association for Cancer Research session entitled “Drugging the ‘Undruggable’ Target: Successes, Challenges, and the Road Ahead,” on Sunday morning and “Common Sense Oncology: Equity, Value, and Outcomes That Matter” on Monday morning.
As a blood cancer specialist, he said he is particularly interested in the topline results from the ASC4FIRST trial of asciminib, a newer kinase inhibitor, in newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukemia, presented on Friday.
As in past years, this news organization will be on hand providing coverage with a dedicated team of reporters, editors, and videographers. Stop by our exhibit hall booth — number 26030 — to learn about the tools we offer to support your practice.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .