Breast Cancer ICYMI

A study comparing the cost of hypofractionated radiotherapy for early-stage breast cancer with the more expensive multidose conventional form, finds that physicians are increasingly opting for hypofractionated radiotherapy despite lower reimbursements rates for the procedure.

Hypofractionated radiotherapy is administered in fewer fractions requiring fewer hospital visits, which, in turn, should lead to less expensive procedures. According to previously reported randomized controlled trials of patients with early breast cancer, both procedures are equally efficacious. In 2011, the American Society of Radiation Oncology published guidelines recommending hypofractionated whole-breast irradiation for patients who have not undergone chemotherapy and who are at least 50 years old with a small primary tumor (T1-2).

In the new study, Loren Saulsberry, PhD, of the department of public health at the University of Chicago, and colleagues Chuanhong Liao and Dezheng Huo, hypothesized that a fee-for-service incentive structure in which doctors are paid by volume and quantity of services, would drive up use of conventional therapy among patients with commercial insurance. And, they hypothesized that, when presented with a smaller cost difference between the two procedures, physicians would recommend hypofractionated radiotherapy over the conventional form, but neither theory was proven true.

This was a retrospective study of private employer–sponsored health insurance claims processed between 2008 and 2017 for women with early-stage breast cancer who were treated with lumpectomy and whole-breast irradiation.

The study included 15,869 women who received hypofractionated radiotherapy and 59,328 who received the conventional form. Women who underwent hypofractionated radiotherapy received 15-24 fractions over 21-31 days. Those who received conventional radiotherapy received 25-40 fractions over 39-120 days. The primary outcomes and measures were the use of hypofractionated or conventional radiotherapy, costs incurred by insurers and out-of-pocket patient expenses.

Dr. Saulsberry and colleagues found the use of hypofractionated radiotherapy increased during this period. They found no association between the likelihood of receiving hypofractionated radiotherapy and insurance plan characteristics. At $23,286, conventional radiotherapy was $6,253 more expensive than hypofractionated radiotherapy which averaged $17,763.

After out-of-pocket expenses were paid (average of $502 for conventional and $363 for hypofractionated radiotherapy), insurers paid an average of $6,375 more for conventional therapy after adjustments.

“Hypofractionated radiotherapy represents significant savings to both the health care system and to individual patients. It may soon become the dominant form of radiation treatment in the U.S. if current trends continue,” Dr. Saulsberry said in an interview after she presented the study (Abstract P3-19-07) at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

According to the National Cancer Institute, the cost of cancer care grew from $190.2 billion in 2015 to $208.9 billion in 2020.

Dr. Saulsberry declared no conflicts of interest.

A study comparing the cost of hypofractionated radiotherapy for early-stage breast cancer with the more expensive multidose conventional form, finds that physicians are increasingly opting for hypofractionated radiotherapy despite lower reimbursements rates for the procedure.

Hypofractionated radiotherapy is administered in fewer fractions requiring fewer hospital visits, which, in turn, should lead to less expensive procedures. According to previously reported randomized controlled trials of patients with early breast cancer, both procedures are equally efficacious. In 2011, the American Society of Radiation Oncology published guidelines recommending hypofractionated whole-breast irradiation for patients who have not undergone chemotherapy and who are at least 50 years old with a small primary tumor (T1-2).

In the new study, Loren Saulsberry, PhD, of the department of public health at the University of Chicago, and colleagues Chuanhong Liao and Dezheng Huo, hypothesized that a fee-for-service incentive structure in which doctors are paid by volume and quantity of services, would drive up use of conventional therapy among patients with commercial insurance. And, they hypothesized that, when presented with a smaller cost difference between the two procedures, physicians would recommend hypofractionated radiotherapy over the conventional form, but neither theory was proven true.

This was a retrospective study of private employer–sponsored health insurance claims processed between 2008 and 2017 for women with early-stage breast cancer who were treated with lumpectomy and whole-breast irradiation.

The study included 15,869 women who received hypofractionated radiotherapy and 59,328 who received the conventional form. Women who underwent hypofractionated radiotherapy received 15-24 fractions over 21-31 days. Those who received conventional radiotherapy received 25-40 fractions over 39-120 days. The primary outcomes and measures were the use of hypofractionated or conventional radiotherapy, costs incurred by insurers and out-of-pocket patient expenses.

Dr. Saulsberry and colleagues found the use of hypofractionated radiotherapy increased during this period. They found no association between the likelihood of receiving hypofractionated radiotherapy and insurance plan characteristics. At $23,286, conventional radiotherapy was $6,253 more expensive than hypofractionated radiotherapy which averaged $17,763.

After out-of-pocket expenses were paid (average of $502 for conventional and $363 for hypofractionated radiotherapy), insurers paid an average of $6,375 more for conventional therapy after adjustments.

“Hypofractionated radiotherapy represents significant savings to both the health care system and to individual patients. It may soon become the dominant form of radiation treatment in the U.S. if current trends continue,” Dr. Saulsberry said in an interview after she presented the study (Abstract P3-19-07) at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

According to the National Cancer Institute, the cost of cancer care grew from $190.2 billion in 2015 to $208.9 billion in 2020.

Dr. Saulsberry declared no conflicts of interest.

A study comparing the cost of hypofractionated radiotherapy for early-stage breast cancer with the more expensive multidose conventional form, finds that physicians are increasingly opting for hypofractionated radiotherapy despite lower reimbursements rates for the procedure.

Hypofractionated radiotherapy is administered in fewer fractions requiring fewer hospital visits, which, in turn, should lead to less expensive procedures. According to previously reported randomized controlled trials of patients with early breast cancer, both procedures are equally efficacious. In 2011, the American Society of Radiation Oncology published guidelines recommending hypofractionated whole-breast irradiation for patients who have not undergone chemotherapy and who are at least 50 years old with a small primary tumor (T1-2).

In the new study, Loren Saulsberry, PhD, of the department of public health at the University of Chicago, and colleagues Chuanhong Liao and Dezheng Huo, hypothesized that a fee-for-service incentive structure in which doctors are paid by volume and quantity of services, would drive up use of conventional therapy among patients with commercial insurance. And, they hypothesized that, when presented with a smaller cost difference between the two procedures, physicians would recommend hypofractionated radiotherapy over the conventional form, but neither theory was proven true.

This was a retrospective study of private employer–sponsored health insurance claims processed between 2008 and 2017 for women with early-stage breast cancer who were treated with lumpectomy and whole-breast irradiation.

The study included 15,869 women who received hypofractionated radiotherapy and 59,328 who received the conventional form. Women who underwent hypofractionated radiotherapy received 15-24 fractions over 21-31 days. Those who received conventional radiotherapy received 25-40 fractions over 39-120 days. The primary outcomes and measures were the use of hypofractionated or conventional radiotherapy, costs incurred by insurers and out-of-pocket patient expenses.

Dr. Saulsberry and colleagues found the use of hypofractionated radiotherapy increased during this period. They found no association between the likelihood of receiving hypofractionated radiotherapy and insurance plan characteristics. At $23,286, conventional radiotherapy was $6,253 more expensive than hypofractionated radiotherapy which averaged $17,763.

After out-of-pocket expenses were paid (average of $502 for conventional and $363 for hypofractionated radiotherapy), insurers paid an average of $6,375 more for conventional therapy after adjustments.

“Hypofractionated radiotherapy represents significant savings to both the health care system and to individual patients. It may soon become the dominant form of radiation treatment in the U.S. if current trends continue,” Dr. Saulsberry said in an interview after she presented the study (Abstract P3-19-07) at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

According to the National Cancer Institute, the cost of cancer care grew from $190.2 billion in 2015 to $208.9 billion in 2020.

Dr. Saulsberry declared no conflicts of interest.

Long COVID can affect adults, young people, and children, and now for the first time, in a landmark study accepted for publication in the Archives of Disease in Childhood, formal agreement has been made on a research definition for post–acute COVID-19, or “long COVID” as it is commonly known, in children and young people.

The researchers charged themselves with a single objective – to derive a research definition for long COVID (post–acute COVID-19) in children and young people to allow comparisons between research studies. Specifically, so studies on prevalence, course, and outcome of long COVID in this age group can be reliably compared, because to date there has been no consensus. In fact, the authors pointed out how the “slew of definitions” currently used all differ in number, type, and duration of symptoms, which hampers research efforts. In addition, the lack of definition consensus has contributed to very wide reported variations in the estimated prevalence of long COVID in children of 1%-51%, with the authors saying that a “consistently applied definition of long COVID will help reduce the variability of prevalence estimates.”
 

Statements sequentially whittled down

“Using robust consensus methodology,” the authors said, “we derived a research definition for long COVID in children and young people.”

To achieve the definition consensus, a three-phase online Delphi process was used, followed by a virtual consensus meeting. The 123 participants registered to take part in the study included 23 people (19%) in a lived experience panel, 50 (42%) in the researcher or researcher/service delivery combined panel and 47 (39%) in the service delivery panel. Of 120 registered participants, 105 (88%) completed phase 1, 86 eligible participants (82% of those completing phase 1) completed phase 2 and 77 eligible participants (90% of those completing phase 2) completed phase 3. Seventeen participants attended and voted at the consensus meeting – 4 (23%) from the service delivery panel, 11 (65%) from the researcher panel, and 2 (12%) from the lived experience panel.

Presented with 49 statements in each phase, participants scored these from 1-9 based on how important they were perceived to be with regards inclusion in the research definition of long COVID in children and young people. Having been sequentially whittled down in three phases, 10 statements were discussed at the consensus meeting, and a panel of eight 11- to 17-year-olds affected by long COVID also reviewed the statements to reach a final agreement.

Five of the statements were agreed to be included in the definition, which stated that long COVID in children and young people is a condition in which a child or young person has symptoms (at least one of which is a physical symptom) that have continued or developed after a diagnosis of COVID-19 (confirmed with one or more positive COVID tests); impact their physical, mental, or social well-being; are interfering with some aspect of daily living (for example, school, work, home, or relationships); and persist for a minimum duration of 12 weeks after initial testing for COVID-19 (even if symptoms have waxed and waned over that period).

David Strain, MBChB, MD, chair of the BMA board of science and clinical senior lecturer and honorary consultant, University of Exeter (England), told the Science Media Centre: “A Delphi study builds a consensus from the world’s experts by presenting a series of statements and continuing to refine them until there is agreement as to what the definition of pediatric long COVID should be.” He added: “This is vitally important in order to align the global research effort into long COVID.”
 

Reassuringly similar

From the agreed five statements, a further research definition was proposed to align with the World Health Organization definition for adults: “Post–COVID-19 condition occurs in young people with a history of confirmed SARS CoV-2 infection, with at least one persisting physical symptom for a minimum duration of 12 weeks after initial testing that cannot be explained by an alternative diagnosis. The symptoms have an impact on everyday functioning, may continue or develop after COVID-19 infection, and may fluctuate or relapse over time.”

The authors concluded: “This is the first research definition of long COVID (post–COVID-19 condition) in children and young people and complements the clinical case definition in adults proposed by WHO,” adding that the two definitions are “reassuringly similar.”

They reiterated how widespread adoption of this definition would allow comparisons between studies such that a core outcome set can be developed and the prevalence, course and outcome of long COVID in children and young people can be reliably evaluated, which “will substantially help strengthen the evidence base on this debilitating condition.”

In addition, the authors said that a consistently applied definition of long COVID will help to provide a “more accurate picture on the true impact of the condition.”

The researchers emphasized the need to differentiate between a clinical case definition and a research definition of long COVID and explained: “It is understandable that the patient groups representing people with long COVID are concerned about a definition that could restrict access to services that are needed.”

They went on to say that in their view the decision whether a child or young person can see a health care professional, access any support needed, or be referred, investigated, or treated for long COVID should be a “shared decision involving the young person, their carers, and clinicians.”

Dr. Strain reinforced that it was important that the definition was a research one and not a clinical one, pointing out that the 12-week period in the research definition “does not necessarily mean that a child or young person should need to wait 3 months before being offered help or assistance from their health care team, indeed a 3-month delay in offering support to a child or young person, at this vitally important period of their educational development, could have lasting long-term impacts.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.co.uk.

Long COVID can affect adults, young people, and children, and now for the first time, in a landmark study accepted for publication in the Archives of Disease in Childhood, formal agreement has been made on a research definition for post–acute COVID-19, or “long COVID” as it is commonly known, in children and young people.

The researchers charged themselves with a single objective – to derive a research definition for long COVID (post–acute COVID-19) in children and young people to allow comparisons between research studies. Specifically, so studies on prevalence, course, and outcome of long COVID in this age group can be reliably compared, because to date there has been no consensus. In fact, the authors pointed out how the “slew of definitions” currently used all differ in number, type, and duration of symptoms, which hampers research efforts. In addition, the lack of definition consensus has contributed to very wide reported variations in the estimated prevalence of long COVID in children of 1%-51%, with the authors saying that a “consistently applied definition of long COVID will help reduce the variability of prevalence estimates.”
 

Statements sequentially whittled down

“Using robust consensus methodology,” the authors said, “we derived a research definition for long COVID in children and young people.”

To achieve the definition consensus, a three-phase online Delphi process was used, followed by a virtual consensus meeting. The 123 participants registered to take part in the study included 23 people (19%) in a lived experience panel, 50 (42%) in the researcher or researcher/service delivery combined panel and 47 (39%) in the service delivery panel. Of 120 registered participants, 105 (88%) completed phase 1, 86 eligible participants (82% of those completing phase 1) completed phase 2 and 77 eligible participants (90% of those completing phase 2) completed phase 3. Seventeen participants attended and voted at the consensus meeting – 4 (23%) from the service delivery panel, 11 (65%) from the researcher panel, and 2 (12%) from the lived experience panel.

Presented with 49 statements in each phase, participants scored these from 1-9 based on how important they were perceived to be with regards inclusion in the research definition of long COVID in children and young people. Having been sequentially whittled down in three phases, 10 statements were discussed at the consensus meeting, and a panel of eight 11- to 17-year-olds affected by long COVID also reviewed the statements to reach a final agreement.

Five of the statements were agreed to be included in the definition, which stated that long COVID in children and young people is a condition in which a child or young person has symptoms (at least one of which is a physical symptom) that have continued or developed after a diagnosis of COVID-19 (confirmed with one or more positive COVID tests); impact their physical, mental, or social well-being; are interfering with some aspect of daily living (for example, school, work, home, or relationships); and persist for a minimum duration of 12 weeks after initial testing for COVID-19 (even if symptoms have waxed and waned over that period).

David Strain, MBChB, MD, chair of the BMA board of science and clinical senior lecturer and honorary consultant, University of Exeter (England), told the Science Media Centre: “A Delphi study builds a consensus from the world’s experts by presenting a series of statements and continuing to refine them until there is agreement as to what the definition of pediatric long COVID should be.” He added: “This is vitally important in order to align the global research effort into long COVID.”
 

Reassuringly similar

From the agreed five statements, a further research definition was proposed to align with the World Health Organization definition for adults: “Post–COVID-19 condition occurs in young people with a history of confirmed SARS CoV-2 infection, with at least one persisting physical symptom for a minimum duration of 12 weeks after initial testing that cannot be explained by an alternative diagnosis. The symptoms have an impact on everyday functioning, may continue or develop after COVID-19 infection, and may fluctuate or relapse over time.”

The authors concluded: “This is the first research definition of long COVID (post–COVID-19 condition) in children and young people and complements the clinical case definition in adults proposed by WHO,” adding that the two definitions are “reassuringly similar.”

They reiterated how widespread adoption of this definition would allow comparisons between studies such that a core outcome set can be developed and the prevalence, course and outcome of long COVID in children and young people can be reliably evaluated, which “will substantially help strengthen the evidence base on this debilitating condition.”

In addition, the authors said that a consistently applied definition of long COVID will help to provide a “more accurate picture on the true impact of the condition.”

The researchers emphasized the need to differentiate between a clinical case definition and a research definition of long COVID and explained: “It is understandable that the patient groups representing people with long COVID are concerned about a definition that could restrict access to services that are needed.”

They went on to say that in their view the decision whether a child or young person can see a health care professional, access any support needed, or be referred, investigated, or treated for long COVID should be a “shared decision involving the young person, their carers, and clinicians.”

Dr. Strain reinforced that it was important that the definition was a research one and not a clinical one, pointing out that the 12-week period in the research definition “does not necessarily mean that a child or young person should need to wait 3 months before being offered help or assistance from their health care team, indeed a 3-month delay in offering support to a child or young person, at this vitally important period of their educational development, could have lasting long-term impacts.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.co.uk.

Long COVID can affect adults, young people, and children, and now for the first time, in a landmark study accepted for publication in the Archives of Disease in Childhood, formal agreement has been made on a research definition for post–acute COVID-19, or “long COVID” as it is commonly known, in children and young people.

The researchers charged themselves with a single objective – to derive a research definition for long COVID (post–acute COVID-19) in children and young people to allow comparisons between research studies. Specifically, so studies on prevalence, course, and outcome of long COVID in this age group can be reliably compared, because to date there has been no consensus. In fact, the authors pointed out how the “slew of definitions” currently used all differ in number, type, and duration of symptoms, which hampers research efforts. In addition, the lack of definition consensus has contributed to very wide reported variations in the estimated prevalence of long COVID in children of 1%-51%, with the authors saying that a “consistently applied definition of long COVID will help reduce the variability of prevalence estimates.”
 

Statements sequentially whittled down

“Using robust consensus methodology,” the authors said, “we derived a research definition for long COVID in children and young people.”

To achieve the definition consensus, a three-phase online Delphi process was used, followed by a virtual consensus meeting. The 123 participants registered to take part in the study included 23 people (19%) in a lived experience panel, 50 (42%) in the researcher or researcher/service delivery combined panel and 47 (39%) in the service delivery panel. Of 120 registered participants, 105 (88%) completed phase 1, 86 eligible participants (82% of those completing phase 1) completed phase 2 and 77 eligible participants (90% of those completing phase 2) completed phase 3. Seventeen participants attended and voted at the consensus meeting – 4 (23%) from the service delivery panel, 11 (65%) from the researcher panel, and 2 (12%) from the lived experience panel.

Presented with 49 statements in each phase, participants scored these from 1-9 based on how important they were perceived to be with regards inclusion in the research definition of long COVID in children and young people. Having been sequentially whittled down in three phases, 10 statements were discussed at the consensus meeting, and a panel of eight 11- to 17-year-olds affected by long COVID also reviewed the statements to reach a final agreement.

Five of the statements were agreed to be included in the definition, which stated that long COVID in children and young people is a condition in which a child or young person has symptoms (at least one of which is a physical symptom) that have continued or developed after a diagnosis of COVID-19 (confirmed with one or more positive COVID tests); impact their physical, mental, or social well-being; are interfering with some aspect of daily living (for example, school, work, home, or relationships); and persist for a minimum duration of 12 weeks after initial testing for COVID-19 (even if symptoms have waxed and waned over that period).

David Strain, MBChB, MD, chair of the BMA board of science and clinical senior lecturer and honorary consultant, University of Exeter (England), told the Science Media Centre: “A Delphi study builds a consensus from the world’s experts by presenting a series of statements and continuing to refine them until there is agreement as to what the definition of pediatric long COVID should be.” He added: “This is vitally important in order to align the global research effort into long COVID.”
 

Reassuringly similar

From the agreed five statements, a further research definition was proposed to align with the World Health Organization definition for adults: “Post–COVID-19 condition occurs in young people with a history of confirmed SARS CoV-2 infection, with at least one persisting physical symptom for a minimum duration of 12 weeks after initial testing that cannot be explained by an alternative diagnosis. The symptoms have an impact on everyday functioning, may continue or develop after COVID-19 infection, and may fluctuate or relapse over time.”

The authors concluded: “This is the first research definition of long COVID (post–COVID-19 condition) in children and young people and complements the clinical case definition in adults proposed by WHO,” adding that the two definitions are “reassuringly similar.”

They reiterated how widespread adoption of this definition would allow comparisons between studies such that a core outcome set can be developed and the prevalence, course and outcome of long COVID in children and young people can be reliably evaluated, which “will substantially help strengthen the evidence base on this debilitating condition.”

In addition, the authors said that a consistently applied definition of long COVID will help to provide a “more accurate picture on the true impact of the condition.”

The researchers emphasized the need to differentiate between a clinical case definition and a research definition of long COVID and explained: “It is understandable that the patient groups representing people with long COVID are concerned about a definition that could restrict access to services that are needed.”

They went on to say that in their view the decision whether a child or young person can see a health care professional, access any support needed, or be referred, investigated, or treated for long COVID should be a “shared decision involving the young person, their carers, and clinicians.”

Dr. Strain reinforced that it was important that the definition was a research one and not a clinical one, pointing out that the 12-week period in the research definition “does not necessarily mean that a child or young person should need to wait 3 months before being offered help or assistance from their health care team, indeed a 3-month delay in offering support to a child or young person, at this vitally important period of their educational development, could have lasting long-term impacts.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.co.uk.

A relatively large number of late-stage pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas (PDACs) are detected during follow-up surveillance, yet no single patient- or protocol-specific factor appears to be significantly associated with detecting late-stage disease during this period, according to a new systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

The researchers, led by Ankit Chhoda, MD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., wrote in Gastroenterology that interval progression in high-risk individuals “highlights the need for improved follow-up methodology with higher accuracy to detect prognostically significant and treatable lesions.”

Individuals at high risk for PDAC are encouraged to undergo routine surveillance for the disease because early detection and resection of T1N0M0 PDAC and high-grade precursors may improve survival outcomes. According to Dr. Chhoda and colleagues, challenges of interval progression of cancers during the surveillance period for gastrointestinal malignancies have been well described in the general and at-risk patient populations. Previous studies, the authors explained, have not scrutinized the issues associated with late-stage PDACs detected during follow-up surveillance.

“Late-stage PDACs necessitate critical appraisal of current follow-up strategies to detect successful targets and perform timely resections,” the authors wrote. The researchers added that the diagnosis of late-stage PDACs during follow-up emphasizes the need for implementing “quality measures to avoid preventable causes, including surveillance adherence and diagnostic errors.”

To understand the incidence rates of late-stage PDACs during follow-up in high-risk individuals, Dr. Chhoda and researchers performed a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of data that included follow-up strategies for early PDAC detection among a high-risk population.

Outcomes of interest for the analysis included the overall diagnosis of advanced neoplasia as well as surveillance-detected/interval late-stage PDACs (T2–4N0M0/metastatic stage PDAC) during follow-up. The investigators defined surveillance-detected and interval late-stage PDACs as late-stage PDACs that were detected during surveillance and as those presenting symptomatically between visits, respectively.

The researchers also performed metaregression of the incidence rates of late-stage PDACs to examine the relationship with clinicoradiologic features in high-risk individuals.

A total of 13 studies on surveillance in 2,169 high-risk individuals were included in the systematic review, while 12 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Across studies, high-risk individuals were followed for over 7,302.72 patient-years for the purposes of detecting incident lesions or progression of preexisting pancreatic abnormalities.

In all high-risk individuals who underwent follow-up, the investigators identified a total yield of advanced neoplasia of 53. This total yield consisted of 7 high-grade pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasms, 7 high-grade intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms, and 39 PDACs. According to the meta-analysis, the cumulative incidence of advanced neoplasia was 3.3 (95% confidence interval, 0.6-7.4; P < .001) per 1,000 patient-years. During follow-up, the cumulative incidence of surveillance-detected/interval late-stage PDACs was 1.7 per 1,000 patient-years (95% CI, 0.2-4.0; P = .03).

In a separate analysis, the investigators sought to identify the relationship between the modality of follow-up imaging and late-stage PDAC incidence. Imaging modalities used during follow-up were mostly cross-sectional imaging, such as computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging with cholangiopancreatography (n = 4) or endoscopic ultrasound and cross-sectional modalities (n = 8).

The investigators found no significant associations between late-stage PDACs and surveillance imaging, baseline pancreatic morphology, study location, genetic background, gender, or age. Incidence of late-stage PDACs in studies with mostly cross-sectional imaging was 0.7 per 1,000 patient-years (95% CI, 0.0-8.0). This incidence rate was lower than that reported with EUS and cross-sectional modalities (2.5 per 1,000 patient-years; 95% CI, 0.6-5.4), but this difference was not statistically significant (P = .2).

No significant difference was found during follow-up in the incidence of late-stage PDACs between high-risk individuals with baseline pancreatic abnormalities (0.0 no significant difference; 95% CI, 0.0-0.3) vs. high-risk individuals with normal baseline (0.9 per 1,000 patient-years; 95% CI, 0.0-2.8) (P = .9).

Most studies included in the analysis did not report on diagnostic errors and surveillance adherence, the researchers wrote. Nonadherence to surveillance as well as delays in surveillance accounted for four late-stage PDACs, and surveillance cessation and/or delays were reported in 4 out of 19 high-risk individuals. There was limited information on symptoms, presentation timing, site of lesion, and surveillance adherence, which the investigators indicated prevented a formal meta-analysis.

In their summary, the study authors noted that in clinical practice there is a need for improved quality measures and adherence to surveillance programs to reduce the risk of diagnostic errors. The authors stated that evidence on the impact of these quality measures “on surveillance outcomes will not only improve quality of surveillance practices, but also enrich our communication with patients who undergo surveillance.”

The researchers reported no conflicts of interest with the pharmaceutical industry, and the study did not receive any funding.

A relatively large number of late-stage pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas (PDACs) are detected during follow-up surveillance, yet no single patient- or protocol-specific factor appears to be significantly associated with detecting late-stage disease during this period, according to a new systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

The researchers, led by Ankit Chhoda, MD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., wrote in Gastroenterology that interval progression in high-risk individuals “highlights the need for improved follow-up methodology with higher accuracy to detect prognostically significant and treatable lesions.”

Individuals at high risk for PDAC are encouraged to undergo routine surveillance for the disease because early detection and resection of T1N0M0 PDAC and high-grade precursors may improve survival outcomes. According to Dr. Chhoda and colleagues, challenges of interval progression of cancers during the surveillance period for gastrointestinal malignancies have been well described in the general and at-risk patient populations. Previous studies, the authors explained, have not scrutinized the issues associated with late-stage PDACs detected during follow-up surveillance.

“Late-stage PDACs necessitate critical appraisal of current follow-up strategies to detect successful targets and perform timely resections,” the authors wrote. The researchers added that the diagnosis of late-stage PDACs during follow-up emphasizes the need for implementing “quality measures to avoid preventable causes, including surveillance adherence and diagnostic errors.”

To understand the incidence rates of late-stage PDACs during follow-up in high-risk individuals, Dr. Chhoda and researchers performed a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of data that included follow-up strategies for early PDAC detection among a high-risk population.

Outcomes of interest for the analysis included the overall diagnosis of advanced neoplasia as well as surveillance-detected/interval late-stage PDACs (T2–4N0M0/metastatic stage PDAC) during follow-up. The investigators defined surveillance-detected and interval late-stage PDACs as late-stage PDACs that were detected during surveillance and as those presenting symptomatically between visits, respectively.

The researchers also performed metaregression of the incidence rates of late-stage PDACs to examine the relationship with clinicoradiologic features in high-risk individuals.

A total of 13 studies on surveillance in 2,169 high-risk individuals were included in the systematic review, while 12 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Across studies, high-risk individuals were followed for over 7,302.72 patient-years for the purposes of detecting incident lesions or progression of preexisting pancreatic abnormalities.

In all high-risk individuals who underwent follow-up, the investigators identified a total yield of advanced neoplasia of 53. This total yield consisted of 7 high-grade pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasms, 7 high-grade intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms, and 39 PDACs. According to the meta-analysis, the cumulative incidence of advanced neoplasia was 3.3 (95% confidence interval, 0.6-7.4; P < .001) per 1,000 patient-years. During follow-up, the cumulative incidence of surveillance-detected/interval late-stage PDACs was 1.7 per 1,000 patient-years (95% CI, 0.2-4.0; P = .03).

In a separate analysis, the investigators sought to identify the relationship between the modality of follow-up imaging and late-stage PDAC incidence. Imaging modalities used during follow-up were mostly cross-sectional imaging, such as computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging with cholangiopancreatography (n = 4) or endoscopic ultrasound and cross-sectional modalities (n = 8).

The investigators found no significant associations between late-stage PDACs and surveillance imaging, baseline pancreatic morphology, study location, genetic background, gender, or age. Incidence of late-stage PDACs in studies with mostly cross-sectional imaging was 0.7 per 1,000 patient-years (95% CI, 0.0-8.0). This incidence rate was lower than that reported with EUS and cross-sectional modalities (2.5 per 1,000 patient-years; 95% CI, 0.6-5.4), but this difference was not statistically significant (P = .2).

No significant difference was found during follow-up in the incidence of late-stage PDACs between high-risk individuals with baseline pancreatic abnormalities (0.0 no significant difference; 95% CI, 0.0-0.3) vs. high-risk individuals with normal baseline (0.9 per 1,000 patient-years; 95% CI, 0.0-2.8) (P = .9).

Most studies included in the analysis did not report on diagnostic errors and surveillance adherence, the researchers wrote. Nonadherence to surveillance as well as delays in surveillance accounted for four late-stage PDACs, and surveillance cessation and/or delays were reported in 4 out of 19 high-risk individuals. There was limited information on symptoms, presentation timing, site of lesion, and surveillance adherence, which the investigators indicated prevented a formal meta-analysis.

In their summary, the study authors noted that in clinical practice there is a need for improved quality measures and adherence to surveillance programs to reduce the risk of diagnostic errors. The authors stated that evidence on the impact of these quality measures “on surveillance outcomes will not only improve quality of surveillance practices, but also enrich our communication with patients who undergo surveillance.”

The researchers reported no conflicts of interest with the pharmaceutical industry, and the study did not receive any funding.

A relatively large number of late-stage pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas (PDACs) are detected during follow-up surveillance, yet no single patient- or protocol-specific factor appears to be significantly associated with detecting late-stage disease during this period, according to a new systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

The researchers, led by Ankit Chhoda, MD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., wrote in Gastroenterology that interval progression in high-risk individuals “highlights the need for improved follow-up methodology with higher accuracy to detect prognostically significant and treatable lesions.”

Individuals at high risk for PDAC are encouraged to undergo routine surveillance for the disease because early detection and resection of T1N0M0 PDAC and high-grade precursors may improve survival outcomes. According to Dr. Chhoda and colleagues, challenges of interval progression of cancers during the surveillance period for gastrointestinal malignancies have been well described in the general and at-risk patient populations. Previous studies, the authors explained, have not scrutinized the issues associated with late-stage PDACs detected during follow-up surveillance.

“Late-stage PDACs necessitate critical appraisal of current follow-up strategies to detect successful targets and perform timely resections,” the authors wrote. The researchers added that the diagnosis of late-stage PDACs during follow-up emphasizes the need for implementing “quality measures to avoid preventable causes, including surveillance adherence and diagnostic errors.”

To understand the incidence rates of late-stage PDACs during follow-up in high-risk individuals, Dr. Chhoda and researchers performed a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of data that included follow-up strategies for early PDAC detection among a high-risk population.

Outcomes of interest for the analysis included the overall diagnosis of advanced neoplasia as well as surveillance-detected/interval late-stage PDACs (T2–4N0M0/metastatic stage PDAC) during follow-up. The investigators defined surveillance-detected and interval late-stage PDACs as late-stage PDACs that were detected during surveillance and as those presenting symptomatically between visits, respectively.

The researchers also performed metaregression of the incidence rates of late-stage PDACs to examine the relationship with clinicoradiologic features in high-risk individuals.

A total of 13 studies on surveillance in 2,169 high-risk individuals were included in the systematic review, while 12 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Across studies, high-risk individuals were followed for over 7,302.72 patient-years for the purposes of detecting incident lesions or progression of preexisting pancreatic abnormalities.

In all high-risk individuals who underwent follow-up, the investigators identified a total yield of advanced neoplasia of 53. This total yield consisted of 7 high-grade pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasms, 7 high-grade intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms, and 39 PDACs. According to the meta-analysis, the cumulative incidence of advanced neoplasia was 3.3 (95% confidence interval, 0.6-7.4; P < .001) per 1,000 patient-years. During follow-up, the cumulative incidence of surveillance-detected/interval late-stage PDACs was 1.7 per 1,000 patient-years (95% CI, 0.2-4.0; P = .03).

In a separate analysis, the investigators sought to identify the relationship between the modality of follow-up imaging and late-stage PDAC incidence. Imaging modalities used during follow-up were mostly cross-sectional imaging, such as computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging with cholangiopancreatography (n = 4) or endoscopic ultrasound and cross-sectional modalities (n = 8).

The investigators found no significant associations between late-stage PDACs and surveillance imaging, baseline pancreatic morphology, study location, genetic background, gender, or age. Incidence of late-stage PDACs in studies with mostly cross-sectional imaging was 0.7 per 1,000 patient-years (95% CI, 0.0-8.0). This incidence rate was lower than that reported with EUS and cross-sectional modalities (2.5 per 1,000 patient-years; 95% CI, 0.6-5.4), but this difference was not statistically significant (P = .2).

No significant difference was found during follow-up in the incidence of late-stage PDACs between high-risk individuals with baseline pancreatic abnormalities (0.0 no significant difference; 95% CI, 0.0-0.3) vs. high-risk individuals with normal baseline (0.9 per 1,000 patient-years; 95% CI, 0.0-2.8) (P = .9).

Most studies included in the analysis did not report on diagnostic errors and surveillance adherence, the researchers wrote. Nonadherence to surveillance as well as delays in surveillance accounted for four late-stage PDACs, and surveillance cessation and/or delays were reported in 4 out of 19 high-risk individuals. There was limited information on symptoms, presentation timing, site of lesion, and surveillance adherence, which the investigators indicated prevented a formal meta-analysis.

In their summary, the study authors noted that in clinical practice there is a need for improved quality measures and adherence to surveillance programs to reduce the risk of diagnostic errors. The authors stated that evidence on the impact of these quality measures “on surveillance outcomes will not only improve quality of surveillance practices, but also enrich our communication with patients who undergo surveillance.”

The researchers reported no conflicts of interest with the pharmaceutical industry, and the study did not receive any funding.

Oncologists were less likely than many other specialists to be named in malpractice suits during 2021, notes the latest Medscape Malpractice Report.

Over a third (39%) of oncologists who were surveyed said that they had been named in at least one malpractice suit, according to the Medscape Oncologist Malpractice Report 2021.

Jupiterimages/ThinkStock

This number is considerably lower than that reported by physicians across all specialties (51%), and it is also much lower than that reported by oncologists in past years. In the 2019 report, 54% of oncologists surveyed said they had been named in a malpractice suit, while in the 2017 report, the figure was 53%.

The dramatic decline in malpractice suits may have much to do with the COVID-19 pandemic, when oncology care was in a state of flux.

“Fewer people were seeking cancer care during the COVID pandemic, which might have impacted the number of lawsuits brought against oncologists,” says Paul Walker, a New York–based malpractice attorney at Walker Medical Law, who represents physicians and other healthcare professionals.

“Additionally, a fair number of people who died of COVID were also older,” he pointed out, and it is often older people who get cancer, so there were fewer older people who consulted an oncologist or were treated by one, he added.

However, the pandemic may be storing up trouble for future years. “Patient fears of contracting COVID-19 have led many to avoid seeking or resuming care, so delays in diagnosing new cancer cases could mean that more patients are diagnosed at a later stage of their disease, leading to potential adverse events and malpractice claims,” commented David L. Feldman, MD, MBA, chief medical officer of The Doctors Company Group.

This latest 2021 Medscape Malpractice Report was compiled from an online survey that included more than 4,300 physicians from 29 specialties. It included 106 oncologists. More than half of respondents (56%) had been in practice for more than 25 years, and 54% were aged 60 years or older. The survey was available from May 21 to August 28, 2021.

Similar to findings in previous years, complications from treatment/surgery were the most common reason for the lawsuits (31%). Failure to make a correct diagnosis or a delay in diagnosis was the second most common reason (23%), while 20% of patients sued because of a poor outcome or disease progression.
 

Surprise at being sued

Among the oncologists who reported involvement in a lawsuit in 2021, the majority (86%) said they were “very surprised” or “somewhat surprised” by the malpractice suit, which is similar to that of other physicians surveyed. However, fewer were surprised this year as compared to 2019 and 2017 (90% and 94%).

One reason for the surprise over the litigation was that it concerned a patient who had been treated a long time ago. One oncologist wrote that “the patient had not seen me for over 7 years and during that time, he did not call me with his new symptomatology. I was only named in the suit because I had previously been involved.”

Another common scenario reported by oncologists was being named in a lawsuit which was brought by another clinician’s patient. “I was the chairperson of the department, and one of the doctors in the practice was involved in the suit,” wrote one respondent. “I was named as an accomplice.”

More than half of surveyed oncologists said that they were able to identify the patient who bought the suit, and these figures are again comparable to those of other physicians. One oncologist commented that in the case he was involved with, the family did not understand or accept the nature of cancer and the different ways that a patient could die of complications. This patient had died of sepsis and pneumonia related to decubitus ulcers that were completely unrelated to her radiation therapy.

As in the case above, sometimes it is the family who filed the lawsuit, not the patient.

“The patient may even recognize that you did your best and be grateful for your skill and efforts, but the family can’t accept that grandma died of cancer and brings a lawsuit,” said Dennis Hursh, an attorney with Physicians Agreement Health Law in Pennsylvania.

When looking at outcomes of the lawsuit, 40% of oncologists were dismissed from the suit within the first few months, or the case was settled before going to trial. This trend is also consistent with the results from the 2019 and 2017 surveys. When the case did go to trial, 10% received a favorable verdict, which was the same in 2019.

“It seems that most of my clients end up being released from lawsuits, and many lawsuits are dismissed prior to proceeding to trial,” Mr. Hursh commented.
 

Murdering psychopath

Some oncologists weighed in on what they felt was the worst experience of being sued.

“Mental anguish, knowing that I did nothing wrong,” said one physician. Another reported that it was a feeling of being “inadequate and totally alone.”

Another oncologist commented that the “depositions from lawyers implied that I was worse than a murdering psychopath. My reputation was permanently damaged.”

However, the vast majority of oncologists (88%) did not believe that the lawsuit negatively affected their career, which was similar to physicians in general. That said, many did complain about the ongoing requirement to report the lawsuit to the credentialing committee, even if it was dismissed, and then having to pay increased malpractice premiums. “I still need to document this episode every single time I apply for any medical position, even more than 29 years after I was dismissed from the case,” said one respondent.

When asked if they would do anything differently, many oncologists (42%) said no, they would not have done anything differently. This is similar to the responses from physicians in general and with 2019 responses from oncologists. However, 15% of the respondents said that in retrospect, they would not have taken on that patient to begin with.

Some oncologists noted that they would have been more conscientious in relaying the information to the referring physician. Evan Lyman, an associate attorney at Voute, Lohrfink, McAndrew, Meisner & Roberts, LLP, in White Plains, N.Y., pointed out that a common reason for lawsuits is a slip-up of communication between the specialist and the referring physician.

Oncologists who had been sued have some insights to offer to colleagues, should they find themselves in a similar situation.

“Only answer with short and precise statements,” wrote one oncologist. “Attend all the depositions as much as you can; they are more likely to fabricate or exaggerate if you are not sitting in the room.”

Another physician said to base “everything on the medical record and do not answer hypothetical questions.”

“Document all interactions with patients as if a jury will be reading them, word by word,” said one respondent.

As for the public or patients, oncologists had this message: “malpractice suits should be rarely launched and only when gross errors can be absolutely proven.”

Another oncologist pointed out that communication is key. “Speak to the physicians against whom you have distrust. Lots of things could be cleared by good communication.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Oncologists were less likely than many other specialists to be named in malpractice suits during 2021, notes the latest Medscape Malpractice Report.

Over a third (39%) of oncologists who were surveyed said that they had been named in at least one malpractice suit, according to the Medscape Oncologist Malpractice Report 2021.

Jupiterimages/ThinkStock

This number is considerably lower than that reported by physicians across all specialties (51%), and it is also much lower than that reported by oncologists in past years. In the 2019 report, 54% of oncologists surveyed said they had been named in a malpractice suit, while in the 2017 report, the figure was 53%.

The dramatic decline in malpractice suits may have much to do with the COVID-19 pandemic, when oncology care was in a state of flux.

“Fewer people were seeking cancer care during the COVID pandemic, which might have impacted the number of lawsuits brought against oncologists,” says Paul Walker, a New York–based malpractice attorney at Walker Medical Law, who represents physicians and other healthcare professionals.

“Additionally, a fair number of people who died of COVID were also older,” he pointed out, and it is often older people who get cancer, so there were fewer older people who consulted an oncologist or were treated by one, he added.

However, the pandemic may be storing up trouble for future years. “Patient fears of contracting COVID-19 have led many to avoid seeking or resuming care, so delays in diagnosing new cancer cases could mean that more patients are diagnosed at a later stage of their disease, leading to potential adverse events and malpractice claims,” commented David L. Feldman, MD, MBA, chief medical officer of The Doctors Company Group.

This latest 2021 Medscape Malpractice Report was compiled from an online survey that included more than 4,300 physicians from 29 specialties. It included 106 oncologists. More than half of respondents (56%) had been in practice for more than 25 years, and 54% were aged 60 years or older. The survey was available from May 21 to August 28, 2021.

Similar to findings in previous years, complications from treatment/surgery were the most common reason for the lawsuits (31%). Failure to make a correct diagnosis or a delay in diagnosis was the second most common reason (23%), while 20% of patients sued because of a poor outcome or disease progression.
 

Surprise at being sued

Among the oncologists who reported involvement in a lawsuit in 2021, the majority (86%) said they were “very surprised” or “somewhat surprised” by the malpractice suit, which is similar to that of other physicians surveyed. However, fewer were surprised this year as compared to 2019 and 2017 (90% and 94%).

One reason for the surprise over the litigation was that it concerned a patient who had been treated a long time ago. One oncologist wrote that “the patient had not seen me for over 7 years and during that time, he did not call me with his new symptomatology. I was only named in the suit because I had previously been involved.”

Another common scenario reported by oncologists was being named in a lawsuit which was brought by another clinician’s patient. “I was the chairperson of the department, and one of the doctors in the practice was involved in the suit,” wrote one respondent. “I was named as an accomplice.”

More than half of surveyed oncologists said that they were able to identify the patient who bought the suit, and these figures are again comparable to those of other physicians. One oncologist commented that in the case he was involved with, the family did not understand or accept the nature of cancer and the different ways that a patient could die of complications. This patient had died of sepsis and pneumonia related to decubitus ulcers that were completely unrelated to her radiation therapy.

As in the case above, sometimes it is the family who filed the lawsuit, not the patient.

“The patient may even recognize that you did your best and be grateful for your skill and efforts, but the family can’t accept that grandma died of cancer and brings a lawsuit,” said Dennis Hursh, an attorney with Physicians Agreement Health Law in Pennsylvania.

When looking at outcomes of the lawsuit, 40% of oncologists were dismissed from the suit within the first few months, or the case was settled before going to trial. This trend is also consistent with the results from the 2019 and 2017 surveys. When the case did go to trial, 10% received a favorable verdict, which was the same in 2019.

“It seems that most of my clients end up being released from lawsuits, and many lawsuits are dismissed prior to proceeding to trial,” Mr. Hursh commented.
 

Murdering psychopath

Some oncologists weighed in on what they felt was the worst experience of being sued.

“Mental anguish, knowing that I did nothing wrong,” said one physician. Another reported that it was a feeling of being “inadequate and totally alone.”

Another oncologist commented that the “depositions from lawyers implied that I was worse than a murdering psychopath. My reputation was permanently damaged.”

However, the vast majority of oncologists (88%) did not believe that the lawsuit negatively affected their career, which was similar to physicians in general. That said, many did complain about the ongoing requirement to report the lawsuit to the credentialing committee, even if it was dismissed, and then having to pay increased malpractice premiums. “I still need to document this episode every single time I apply for any medical position, even more than 29 years after I was dismissed from the case,” said one respondent.

When asked if they would do anything differently, many oncologists (42%) said no, they would not have done anything differently. This is similar to the responses from physicians in general and with 2019 responses from oncologists. However, 15% of the respondents said that in retrospect, they would not have taken on that patient to begin with.

Some oncologists noted that they would have been more conscientious in relaying the information to the referring physician. Evan Lyman, an associate attorney at Voute, Lohrfink, McAndrew, Meisner & Roberts, LLP, in White Plains, N.Y., pointed out that a common reason for lawsuits is a slip-up of communication between the specialist and the referring physician.

Oncologists who had been sued have some insights to offer to colleagues, should they find themselves in a similar situation.

“Only answer with short and precise statements,” wrote one oncologist. “Attend all the depositions as much as you can; they are more likely to fabricate or exaggerate if you are not sitting in the room.”

Another physician said to base “everything on the medical record and do not answer hypothetical questions.”

“Document all interactions with patients as if a jury will be reading them, word by word,” said one respondent.

As for the public or patients, oncologists had this message: “malpractice suits should be rarely launched and only when gross errors can be absolutely proven.”

Another oncologist pointed out that communication is key. “Speak to the physicians against whom you have distrust. Lots of things could be cleared by good communication.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Oncologists were less likely than many other specialists to be named in malpractice suits during 2021, notes the latest Medscape Malpractice Report.

Over a third (39%) of oncologists who were surveyed said that they had been named in at least one malpractice suit, according to the Medscape Oncologist Malpractice Report 2021.

Jupiterimages/ThinkStock

This number is considerably lower than that reported by physicians across all specialties (51%), and it is also much lower than that reported by oncologists in past years. In the 2019 report, 54% of oncologists surveyed said they had been named in a malpractice suit, while in the 2017 report, the figure was 53%.

The dramatic decline in malpractice suits may have much to do with the COVID-19 pandemic, when oncology care was in a state of flux.

“Fewer people were seeking cancer care during the COVID pandemic, which might have impacted the number of lawsuits brought against oncologists,” says Paul Walker, a New York–based malpractice attorney at Walker Medical Law, who represents physicians and other healthcare professionals.

“Additionally, a fair number of people who died of COVID were also older,” he pointed out, and it is often older people who get cancer, so there were fewer older people who consulted an oncologist or were treated by one, he added.

However, the pandemic may be storing up trouble for future years. “Patient fears of contracting COVID-19 have led many to avoid seeking or resuming care, so delays in diagnosing new cancer cases could mean that more patients are diagnosed at a later stage of their disease, leading to potential adverse events and malpractice claims,” commented David L. Feldman, MD, MBA, chief medical officer of The Doctors Company Group.

This latest 2021 Medscape Malpractice Report was compiled from an online survey that included more than 4,300 physicians from 29 specialties. It included 106 oncologists. More than half of respondents (56%) had been in practice for more than 25 years, and 54% were aged 60 years or older. The survey was available from May 21 to August 28, 2021.

Similar to findings in previous years, complications from treatment/surgery were the most common reason for the lawsuits (31%). Failure to make a correct diagnosis or a delay in diagnosis was the second most common reason (23%), while 20% of patients sued because of a poor outcome or disease progression.
 

Surprise at being sued

Among the oncologists who reported involvement in a lawsuit in 2021, the majority (86%) said they were “very surprised” or “somewhat surprised” by the malpractice suit, which is similar to that of other physicians surveyed. However, fewer were surprised this year as compared to 2019 and 2017 (90% and 94%).

One reason for the surprise over the litigation was that it concerned a patient who had been treated a long time ago. One oncologist wrote that “the patient had not seen me for over 7 years and during that time, he did not call me with his new symptomatology. I was only named in the suit because I had previously been involved.”

Another common scenario reported by oncologists was being named in a lawsuit which was brought by another clinician’s patient. “I was the chairperson of the department, and one of the doctors in the practice was involved in the suit,” wrote one respondent. “I was named as an accomplice.”

More than half of surveyed oncologists said that they were able to identify the patient who bought the suit, and these figures are again comparable to those of other physicians. One oncologist commented that in the case he was involved with, the family did not understand or accept the nature of cancer and the different ways that a patient could die of complications. This patient had died of sepsis and pneumonia related to decubitus ulcers that were completely unrelated to her radiation therapy.

As in the case above, sometimes it is the family who filed the lawsuit, not the patient.

“The patient may even recognize that you did your best and be grateful for your skill and efforts, but the family can’t accept that grandma died of cancer and brings a lawsuit,” said Dennis Hursh, an attorney with Physicians Agreement Health Law in Pennsylvania.

When looking at outcomes of the lawsuit, 40% of oncologists were dismissed from the suit within the first few months, or the case was settled before going to trial. This trend is also consistent with the results from the 2019 and 2017 surveys. When the case did go to trial, 10% received a favorable verdict, which was the same in 2019.

“It seems that most of my clients end up being released from lawsuits, and many lawsuits are dismissed prior to proceeding to trial,” Mr. Hursh commented.
 

Murdering psychopath

Some oncologists weighed in on what they felt was the worst experience of being sued.

“Mental anguish, knowing that I did nothing wrong,” said one physician. Another reported that it was a feeling of being “inadequate and totally alone.”

Another oncologist commented that the “depositions from lawyers implied that I was worse than a murdering psychopath. My reputation was permanently damaged.”

However, the vast majority of oncologists (88%) did not believe that the lawsuit negatively affected their career, which was similar to physicians in general. That said, many did complain about the ongoing requirement to report the lawsuit to the credentialing committee, even if it was dismissed, and then having to pay increased malpractice premiums. “I still need to document this episode every single time I apply for any medical position, even more than 29 years after I was dismissed from the case,” said one respondent.

When asked if they would do anything differently, many oncologists (42%) said no, they would not have done anything differently. This is similar to the responses from physicians in general and with 2019 responses from oncologists. However, 15% of the respondents said that in retrospect, they would not have taken on that patient to begin with.

Some oncologists noted that they would have been more conscientious in relaying the information to the referring physician. Evan Lyman, an associate attorney at Voute, Lohrfink, McAndrew, Meisner & Roberts, LLP, in White Plains, N.Y., pointed out that a common reason for lawsuits is a slip-up of communication between the specialist and the referring physician.

Oncologists who had been sued have some insights to offer to colleagues, should they find themselves in a similar situation.

“Only answer with short and precise statements,” wrote one oncologist. “Attend all the depositions as much as you can; they are more likely to fabricate or exaggerate if you are not sitting in the room.”

Another physician said to base “everything on the medical record and do not answer hypothetical questions.”

“Document all interactions with patients as if a jury will be reading them, word by word,” said one respondent.

As for the public or patients, oncologists had this message: “malpractice suits should be rarely launched and only when gross errors can be absolutely proven.”

Another oncologist pointed out that communication is key. “Speak to the physicians against whom you have distrust. Lots of things could be cleared by good communication.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Psoriasis is an inflammatory skin condition affecting 1% to 5% of the world population. ¹ Guttate psoriasis is a subgroup of psoriasis that most commonly presents as raindroplike, erythematous, silvery, scaly papules. There have been limited reports of guttate psoriasis caused by rhinovirus and COVID-19 infection, but a PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the term COVID-19 guttate psoriasis yielded only 3 documented cases of a psoriatic flare secondary to SARS-CoV-2 infection. ^1-4 Herein, we detail a case in which a patient with mild SARS-CoV-2 infection who did not have a personal or family history of psoriasis experienced a moderate psoriatic flare 3 weeks after diagnosis of COVID-19.

Case Report

A 55-year-old woman was diagnosed with COVID-19 after SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected from a nasopharyngeal swab. She reported moderate fatigue but no other symptoms. At the time of infection, she was not taking medications and reported neither a personal nor family history of psoriasis.

Three weeks after the COVID-19 diagnosis, she reported erythematous scaly papules only on the trunk and backs of the legs. Two months after the COVID-19 diagnosis, she was evaluated in our practice and diagnosed with guttate psoriasis. The patient refused biopsy. Physical examination revealed that the affected body surface area had increased to 5%; erythematous, silvery, scaly papules were found on the trunk, anterior and posterior legs, and lateral thighs (Figure). At the time of evaluation, she did not report joint pain or nail changes.

The patient was treated with triamcinolone acetonide cream 0.1% twice daily for 2 to 4 weeks. The guttate psoriasis resolved.

Comment

A sudden psoriatic flare can be linked to dysregulation of the innate immune response. Guttate psoriasis and generalized plaque-type psoriasis are postulated to have similar pathogenetic mechanisms, but guttate psoriasis is the only type of psoriasis that originates from viral infection. Initially, viral RNA will stimulate the toll-like receptor 3 protein, leading to increased production of the pathogenic cytokine IL-36γ and pathogenic chemokine CXCL8 (also known as IL-8), both of which are biomarkers for psoriasis.¹ Specifically, IL-36γ and CXCL8 are known to further stimulate the proinflammatory cascade during the innate immune response displayed in guttate psoriasis.^5,6

Our patient had a mild case of COVID-19, and she first reported the erythematous and scaly papules 3 weeks after infection. Dysregulation of proinflammatory cytokines must have started in the initial stages—within 7 days—of the viral infection. Guttate psoriasis arises within 3 weeks of infection with other viral and bacterial triggers, most commonly with streptococcal infections.¹

Rodríguez et al⁷ described a phenomenon in which both SARS-CoV-2 and Middle East respiratory syndrome, both caused by a coronavirus, can lead to a reduction of type I interferon, which in turn leads to failure of control of viral replication during initial stages of a viral infection. This triggers an increase in proinflammatory cytokines and chemokines, including IL‐36γ and CXCL8. This pathologic mechanism might apply to SARS-CoV-2, as demonstrated in our patient’s sudden psoriatic flare 3 weeks after the COVID-19 diagnosis. However, further investigation and quantification of the putatively involved cytokines is necessary for confirmation.

Psoriasis, a chronic inflammatory skin condition, has been linked predominantly to genetic and environmental factors. Guttate psoriasis as a secondary reaction after streptococcal tonsillar and respiratory infections has been reported.¹

Our case is the fourth documented case of guttate psoriasis secondary to COVID-19 infection.^2-4 However, it is the second documented case of a patient with a diagnosis of guttate psoriasis secondary to COVID-19 infection who had neither a personal nor family history of psoriasis.

Because SARS-CoV-2 is a novel virus, the long-term effects of COVID-19 remain unclear. We report this case and its findings to introduce a novel clinical manifestation of SARS-CoV-2 infection. 

Psoriasis is an inflammatory skin condition affecting 1% to 5% of the world population. ¹ Guttate psoriasis is a subgroup of psoriasis that most commonly presents as raindroplike, erythematous, silvery, scaly papules. There have been limited reports of guttate psoriasis caused by rhinovirus and COVID-19 infection, but a PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the term COVID-19 guttate psoriasis yielded only 3 documented cases of a psoriatic flare secondary to SARS-CoV-2 infection. ^1-4 Herein, we detail a case in which a patient with mild SARS-CoV-2 infection who did not have a personal or family history of psoriasis experienced a moderate psoriatic flare 3 weeks after diagnosis of COVID-19.

Case Report

A 55-year-old woman was diagnosed with COVID-19 after SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected from a nasopharyngeal swab. She reported moderate fatigue but no other symptoms. At the time of infection, she was not taking medications and reported neither a personal nor family history of psoriasis.

Three weeks after the COVID-19 diagnosis, she reported erythematous scaly papules only on the trunk and backs of the legs. Two months after the COVID-19 diagnosis, she was evaluated in our practice and diagnosed with guttate psoriasis. The patient refused biopsy. Physical examination revealed that the affected body surface area had increased to 5%; erythematous, silvery, scaly papules were found on the trunk, anterior and posterior legs, and lateral thighs (Figure). At the time of evaluation, she did not report joint pain or nail changes.

The patient was treated with triamcinolone acetonide cream 0.1% twice daily for 2 to 4 weeks. The guttate psoriasis resolved.

Comment

A sudden psoriatic flare can be linked to dysregulation of the innate immune response. Guttate psoriasis and generalized plaque-type psoriasis are postulated to have similar pathogenetic mechanisms, but guttate psoriasis is the only type of psoriasis that originates from viral infection. Initially, viral RNA will stimulate the toll-like receptor 3 protein, leading to increased production of the pathogenic cytokine IL-36γ and pathogenic chemokine CXCL8 (also known as IL-8), both of which are biomarkers for psoriasis.¹ Specifically, IL-36γ and CXCL8 are known to further stimulate the proinflammatory cascade during the innate immune response displayed in guttate psoriasis.^5,6

Our patient had a mild case of COVID-19, and she first reported the erythematous and scaly papules 3 weeks after infection. Dysregulation of proinflammatory cytokines must have started in the initial stages—within 7 days—of the viral infection. Guttate psoriasis arises within 3 weeks of infection with other viral and bacterial triggers, most commonly with streptococcal infections.¹

Rodríguez et al⁷ described a phenomenon in which both SARS-CoV-2 and Middle East respiratory syndrome, both caused by a coronavirus, can lead to a reduction of type I interferon, which in turn leads to failure of control of viral replication during initial stages of a viral infection. This triggers an increase in proinflammatory cytokines and chemokines, including IL‐36γ and CXCL8. This pathologic mechanism might apply to SARS-CoV-2, as demonstrated in our patient’s sudden psoriatic flare 3 weeks after the COVID-19 diagnosis. However, further investigation and quantification of the putatively involved cytokines is necessary for confirmation.

Psoriasis, a chronic inflammatory skin condition, has been linked predominantly to genetic and environmental factors. Guttate psoriasis as a secondary reaction after streptococcal tonsillar and respiratory infections has been reported.¹

Our case is the fourth documented case of guttate psoriasis secondary to COVID-19 infection.^2-4 However, it is the second documented case of a patient with a diagnosis of guttate psoriasis secondary to COVID-19 infection who had neither a personal nor family history of psoriasis.

Because SARS-CoV-2 is a novel virus, the long-term effects of COVID-19 remain unclear. We report this case and its findings to introduce a novel clinical manifestation of SARS-CoV-2 infection. 

Psoriasis is an inflammatory skin condition affecting 1% to 5% of the world population. ¹ Guttate psoriasis is a subgroup of psoriasis that most commonly presents as raindroplike, erythematous, silvery, scaly papules. There have been limited reports of guttate psoriasis caused by rhinovirus and COVID-19 infection, but a PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the term COVID-19 guttate psoriasis yielded only 3 documented cases of a psoriatic flare secondary to SARS-CoV-2 infection. ^1-4 Herein, we detail a case in which a patient with mild SARS-CoV-2 infection who did not have a personal or family history of psoriasis experienced a moderate psoriatic flare 3 weeks after diagnosis of COVID-19.

Case Report

A 55-year-old woman was diagnosed with COVID-19 after SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected from a nasopharyngeal swab. She reported moderate fatigue but no other symptoms. At the time of infection, she was not taking medications and reported neither a personal nor family history of psoriasis.

Three weeks after the COVID-19 diagnosis, she reported erythematous scaly papules only on the trunk and backs of the legs. Two months after the COVID-19 diagnosis, she was evaluated in our practice and diagnosed with guttate psoriasis. The patient refused biopsy. Physical examination revealed that the affected body surface area had increased to 5%; erythematous, silvery, scaly papules were found on the trunk, anterior and posterior legs, and lateral thighs (Figure). At the time of evaluation, she did not report joint pain or nail changes.

The patient was treated with triamcinolone acetonide cream 0.1% twice daily for 2 to 4 weeks. The guttate psoriasis resolved.

Comment

A sudden psoriatic flare can be linked to dysregulation of the innate immune response. Guttate psoriasis and generalized plaque-type psoriasis are postulated to have similar pathogenetic mechanisms, but guttate psoriasis is the only type of psoriasis that originates from viral infection. Initially, viral RNA will stimulate the toll-like receptor 3 protein, leading to increased production of the pathogenic cytokine IL-36γ and pathogenic chemokine CXCL8 (also known as IL-8), both of which are biomarkers for psoriasis.¹ Specifically, IL-36γ and CXCL8 are known to further stimulate the proinflammatory cascade during the innate immune response displayed in guttate psoriasis.^5,6

Our patient had a mild case of COVID-19, and she first reported the erythematous and scaly papules 3 weeks after infection. Dysregulation of proinflammatory cytokines must have started in the initial stages—within 7 days—of the viral infection. Guttate psoriasis arises within 3 weeks of infection with other viral and bacterial triggers, most commonly with streptococcal infections.¹

Rodríguez et al⁷ described a phenomenon in which both SARS-CoV-2 and Middle East respiratory syndrome, both caused by a coronavirus, can lead to a reduction of type I interferon, which in turn leads to failure of control of viral replication during initial stages of a viral infection. This triggers an increase in proinflammatory cytokines and chemokines, including IL‐36γ and CXCL8. This pathologic mechanism might apply to SARS-CoV-2, as demonstrated in our patient’s sudden psoriatic flare 3 weeks after the COVID-19 diagnosis. However, further investigation and quantification of the putatively involved cytokines is necessary for confirmation.

Psoriasis, a chronic inflammatory skin condition, has been linked predominantly to genetic and environmental factors. Guttate psoriasis as a secondary reaction after streptococcal tonsillar and respiratory infections has been reported.¹

Our case is the fourth documented case of guttate psoriasis secondary to COVID-19 infection.^2-4 However, it is the second documented case of a patient with a diagnosis of guttate psoriasis secondary to COVID-19 infection who had neither a personal nor family history of psoriasis.

Because SARS-CoV-2 is a novel virus, the long-term effects of COVID-19 remain unclear. We report this case and its findings to introduce a novel clinical manifestation of SARS-CoV-2 infection. 

The pediatric oncology workforce has faced a host of financial, physical, and psychological obstacles during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a study that surveyed workers from more than 200 institutions in 79 countries.

A snapshot of the extensive findings reveals that half of participating institutions experienced staffing shortages that had a “major impact” on pediatric cancer care. On the financial front, many respondents pointed to instances of unpaid leave and diminished salary, and others highlighted the psychological toll of providing care, including high rates of burnout and stress. The challenges were evident across high- and low-income countries.

Despite these barriers, pediatric oncology clinicians demonstrated incredible perseverance.

Health care professionals “caring for children with cancer across the world were shown to be incredibly resilient, coming together to continue to provide care even in the direst circumstances,” Elizabeth R. Sniderman, MSN, APRN, of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, and colleagues concluded.

The findings, published online Jan. 24, 2022, in Cancer, highlight the global impact of COVID-19 on pediatric oncology clinicians early in the pandemic.

The survey, conducted in summer 2020, included responses from 311 pediatric oncology clinicians who completed a 60-item questionnaire about their experiences of clinical care, resources, and support. The investigators also convened 19 multidisciplinary focus groups who answered questions related to teamwork, communication, and changes to care. Respondents practiced in low- to high-income countries, and included pediatric hematologists and oncologists, nurses, and infectious disease physicians.

Overall, the investigators found that just over half of institutions experienced “major” shortages of clinical staff (108 of 213), and two-thirds experienced reductions in staffing availability (141 of 213). Notably, national income was not associated with this reduction; rather, staffing shortages were more likely to occur in countries with greater COVID-19 incidence and mortality rates.

Respondents reported experiencing threats to their physical health, with half pointing to a lack of necessary personal protective equipment. The financial and psychological toll of the pandemic represented another major stressor, with the effects described across all income levels.

One respondent from Belarus commented on financial concerns, noting that “people don’t really want to admit that they don’t feel well ... they know, that if infected, unpaid self-isolation is waiting for them. Either you don’t go to work for 2 weeks, unpaid, or you go to work for 2 weeks, paid, and endanger all of your colleagues with your infection.”

A respondent from Mexico described the psychological stress: “Honestly, I think that sometimes we put aside the mental health of all of us involved, myself included. I think we were all on the verge of collapse ... practically all the residents who were rotating here told us that they had anxiety attacks, panic attacks, they could not sleep, [and] many of them needed psychiatric medicine.”

Others highlighted feelings of guilt about their ability to provide the highest level of care. An oncologist in the United States noted: “This was a major stress for many providers because [we are] feeling unable to provide the same level of care which we used to provide. And this is what eventually takes a toll.”

And despite these pandemic-related challenges, the study authors found that only 46% of institutions (99 of 213) made psychological support available to staff.


 

Rays of hope

But it was not all bad news.

Participants also described a greater sense of teamwork, communication, and collegiality throughout the pandemic – “stabilizing elements,” which helped mitigate the many physical, psychological, and financial stressors.

An infection-control physician in Belarus highlighted the importance of receiving “support and encouragement” from colleagues: “When a person gets tired and they have no more enthusiasm, it’s easy to give up and say: ‘I can’t do this anymore.’ But when you see a colleague who tries ... to share the work, and help each other, then you get extra strength.”

An oncologist in South Africa agreed, noting that “everyone has got their sleeves rolled up and are doing the work ... and that’s a testament to everyone that we work with. There was no one that shied away from work or used this as an excuse to do less work.”

An oncologist in Spain described practicing during the pandemic being “one of the best experiences I have had,” explaining that “I have been working in this hospital for ... 25 years, [and] I have never had the feeling of being so informed at all levels.”

Overall, the findings paint a picture of a resilient workforce, and offer lessons about preparedness for future crises, the investigators concluded.

“To protect pediatric oncology providers and their patients, organizations must pay attention to interventions that increase physical, psychological, and financial safety,” the authors stressed. For instance, providing adequate personal protective equipment and vaccines, allowing for time off and rest, and setting up professional psychology services as well as access to peer-support programs can help protect staff.

Although this survey took place relatively early in the pandemic, organizations should take heed of the findings, Lorena V. Baroni, MD, of Hospital J P Garrahan, Buenos Aires, and Eric Bouffet, MD, of The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

“The results presented in this study should not be taken lightly,” Dr. Baroni and Dr. Bouffet wrote. “The most concerning findings are the physical and psychological impact experienced by pediatric oncology providers.” And perhaps most surprisingly, “the survey did not identify any difference based on country income groups. Participants in both low- and high-income countries described similar oncologic care limitations.”

Overall, these findings “reflect a serious risk that can ultimately affect the care of children and compromise the success of their treatment,” Dr. Baroni and Dr. Bouffet wrote.

This study was supported by the American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities. The study authors and editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The pediatric oncology workforce has faced a host of financial, physical, and psychological obstacles during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a study that surveyed workers from more than 200 institutions in 79 countries.

A snapshot of the extensive findings reveals that half of participating institutions experienced staffing shortages that had a “major impact” on pediatric cancer care. On the financial front, many respondents pointed to instances of unpaid leave and diminished salary, and others highlighted the psychological toll of providing care, including high rates of burnout and stress. The challenges were evident across high- and low-income countries.

Despite these barriers, pediatric oncology clinicians demonstrated incredible perseverance.

Health care professionals “caring for children with cancer across the world were shown to be incredibly resilient, coming together to continue to provide care even in the direst circumstances,” Elizabeth R. Sniderman, MSN, APRN, of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, and colleagues concluded.

The findings, published online Jan. 24, 2022, in Cancer, highlight the global impact of COVID-19 on pediatric oncology clinicians early in the pandemic.

The survey, conducted in summer 2020, included responses from 311 pediatric oncology clinicians who completed a 60-item questionnaire about their experiences of clinical care, resources, and support. The investigators also convened 19 multidisciplinary focus groups who answered questions related to teamwork, communication, and changes to care. Respondents practiced in low- to high-income countries, and included pediatric hematologists and oncologists, nurses, and infectious disease physicians.

Overall, the investigators found that just over half of institutions experienced “major” shortages of clinical staff (108 of 213), and two-thirds experienced reductions in staffing availability (141 of 213). Notably, national income was not associated with this reduction; rather, staffing shortages were more likely to occur in countries with greater COVID-19 incidence and mortality rates.

Respondents reported experiencing threats to their physical health, with half pointing to a lack of necessary personal protective equipment. The financial and psychological toll of the pandemic represented another major stressor, with the effects described across all income levels.

One respondent from Belarus commented on financial concerns, noting that “people don’t really want to admit that they don’t feel well ... they know, that if infected, unpaid self-isolation is waiting for them. Either you don’t go to work for 2 weeks, unpaid, or you go to work for 2 weeks, paid, and endanger all of your colleagues with your infection.”

A respondent from Mexico described the psychological stress: “Honestly, I think that sometimes we put aside the mental health of all of us involved, myself included. I think we were all on the verge of collapse ... practically all the residents who were rotating here told us that they had anxiety attacks, panic attacks, they could not sleep, [and] many of them needed psychiatric medicine.”

Others highlighted feelings of guilt about their ability to provide the highest level of care. An oncologist in the United States noted: “This was a major stress for many providers because [we are] feeling unable to provide the same level of care which we used to provide. And this is what eventually takes a toll.”

And despite these pandemic-related challenges, the study authors found that only 46% of institutions (99 of 213) made psychological support available to staff.


 

Rays of hope

But it was not all bad news.

Participants also described a greater sense of teamwork, communication, and collegiality throughout the pandemic – “stabilizing elements,” which helped mitigate the many physical, psychological, and financial stressors.

An infection-control physician in Belarus highlighted the importance of receiving “support and encouragement” from colleagues: “When a person gets tired and they have no more enthusiasm, it’s easy to give up and say: ‘I can’t do this anymore.’ But when you see a colleague who tries ... to share the work, and help each other, then you get extra strength.”

An oncologist in South Africa agreed, noting that “everyone has got their sleeves rolled up and are doing the work ... and that’s a testament to everyone that we work with. There was no one that shied away from work or used this as an excuse to do less work.”

An oncologist in Spain described practicing during the pandemic being “one of the best experiences I have had,” explaining that “I have been working in this hospital for ... 25 years, [and] I have never had the feeling of being so informed at all levels.”

Overall, the findings paint a picture of a resilient workforce, and offer lessons about preparedness for future crises, the investigators concluded.

“To protect pediatric oncology providers and their patients, organizations must pay attention to interventions that increase physical, psychological, and financial safety,” the authors stressed. For instance, providing adequate personal protective equipment and vaccines, allowing for time off and rest, and setting up professional psychology services as well as access to peer-support programs can help protect staff.

Although this survey took place relatively early in the pandemic, organizations should take heed of the findings, Lorena V. Baroni, MD, of Hospital J P Garrahan, Buenos Aires, and Eric Bouffet, MD, of The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

“The results presented in this study should not be taken lightly,” Dr. Baroni and Dr. Bouffet wrote. “The most concerning findings are the physical and psychological impact experienced by pediatric oncology providers.” And perhaps most surprisingly, “the survey did not identify any difference based on country income groups. Participants in both low- and high-income countries described similar oncologic care limitations.”

Overall, these findings “reflect a serious risk that can ultimately affect the care of children and compromise the success of their treatment,” Dr. Baroni and Dr. Bouffet wrote.

This study was supported by the American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities. The study authors and editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The pediatric oncology workforce has faced a host of financial, physical, and psychological obstacles during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a study that surveyed workers from more than 200 institutions in 79 countries.

A snapshot of the extensive findings reveals that half of participating institutions experienced staffing shortages that had a “major impact” on pediatric cancer care. On the financial front, many respondents pointed to instances of unpaid leave and diminished salary, and others highlighted the psychological toll of providing care, including high rates of burnout and stress. The challenges were evident across high- and low-income countries.

Despite these barriers, pediatric oncology clinicians demonstrated incredible perseverance.

Health care professionals “caring for children with cancer across the world were shown to be incredibly resilient, coming together to continue to provide care even in the direst circumstances,” Elizabeth R. Sniderman, MSN, APRN, of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, and colleagues concluded.

The findings, published online Jan. 24, 2022, in Cancer, highlight the global impact of COVID-19 on pediatric oncology clinicians early in the pandemic.

The survey, conducted in summer 2020, included responses from 311 pediatric oncology clinicians who completed a 60-item questionnaire about their experiences of clinical care, resources, and support. The investigators also convened 19 multidisciplinary focus groups who answered questions related to teamwork, communication, and changes to care. Respondents practiced in low- to high-income countries, and included pediatric hematologists and oncologists, nurses, and infectious disease physicians.

Overall, the investigators found that just over half of institutions experienced “major” shortages of clinical staff (108 of 213), and two-thirds experienced reductions in staffing availability (141 of 213). Notably, national income was not associated with this reduction; rather, staffing shortages were more likely to occur in countries with greater COVID-19 incidence and mortality rates.

Respondents reported experiencing threats to their physical health, with half pointing to a lack of necessary personal protective equipment. The financial and psychological toll of the pandemic represented another major stressor, with the effects described across all income levels.

One respondent from Belarus commented on financial concerns, noting that “people don’t really want to admit that they don’t feel well ... they know, that if infected, unpaid self-isolation is waiting for them. Either you don’t go to work for 2 weeks, unpaid, or you go to work for 2 weeks, paid, and endanger all of your colleagues with your infection.”

A respondent from Mexico described the psychological stress: “Honestly, I think that sometimes we put aside the mental health of all of us involved, myself included. I think we were all on the verge of collapse ... practically all the residents who were rotating here told us that they had anxiety attacks, panic attacks, they could not sleep, [and] many of them needed psychiatric medicine.”

Others highlighted feelings of guilt about their ability to provide the highest level of care. An oncologist in the United States noted: “This was a major stress for many providers because [we are] feeling unable to provide the same level of care which we used to provide. And this is what eventually takes a toll.”

And despite these pandemic-related challenges, the study authors found that only 46% of institutions (99 of 213) made psychological support available to staff.


 

Rays of hope

But it was not all bad news.

Participants also described a greater sense of teamwork, communication, and collegiality throughout the pandemic – “stabilizing elements,” which helped mitigate the many physical, psychological, and financial stressors.

An infection-control physician in Belarus highlighted the importance of receiving “support and encouragement” from colleagues: “When a person gets tired and they have no more enthusiasm, it’s easy to give up and say: ‘I can’t do this anymore.’ But when you see a colleague who tries ... to share the work, and help each other, then you get extra strength.”

An oncologist in South Africa agreed, noting that “everyone has got their sleeves rolled up and are doing the work ... and that’s a testament to everyone that we work with. There was no one that shied away from work or used this as an excuse to do less work.”

An oncologist in Spain described practicing during the pandemic being “one of the best experiences I have had,” explaining that “I have been working in this hospital for ... 25 years, [and] I have never had the feeling of being so informed at all levels.”

Overall, the findings paint a picture of a resilient workforce, and offer lessons about preparedness for future crises, the investigators concluded.

“To protect pediatric oncology providers and their patients, organizations must pay attention to interventions that increase physical, psychological, and financial safety,” the authors stressed. For instance, providing adequate personal protective equipment and vaccines, allowing for time off and rest, and setting up professional psychology services as well as access to peer-support programs can help protect staff.

Although this survey took place relatively early in the pandemic, organizations should take heed of the findings, Lorena V. Baroni, MD, of Hospital J P Garrahan, Buenos Aires, and Eric Bouffet, MD, of The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

“The results presented in this study should not be taken lightly,” Dr. Baroni and Dr. Bouffet wrote. “The most concerning findings are the physical and psychological impact experienced by pediatric oncology providers.” And perhaps most surprisingly, “the survey did not identify any difference based on country income groups. Participants in both low- and high-income countries described similar oncologic care limitations.”

Overall, these findings “reflect a serious risk that can ultimately affect the care of children and compromise the success of their treatment,” Dr. Baroni and Dr. Bouffet wrote.

This study was supported by the American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities. The study authors and editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The names of health care professionals and patients cited within the dialogue text have been changed to protect their privacy.

Early in my career, before I had any notion that years later I would be doing palliative care consults in a cancer center, I heard a senior physician refer to palliative care as “the most misunderstood” medical specialty. I wasn’t sure what she meant at that time, but over the years I have come to realize that she was right – most people, including many within health care, don’t have a good appreciation of what palliative care is or how it can help patients and health care teams.

A recent national survey about cancer-related health information found that of more than 1,000 surveyed Americans, less than 30% professed any knowledge of palliative care. Of those who had some knowledge of palliative care, around 30% believed palliative care was synonymous with hospice.¹ Another 15% believed that a patient would have to give up cancer-directed treatments to receive palliative care.¹

It’s not giving up

This persistent belief that palliative care is equivalent to hospice, or is tantamount to “giving up,” is one of the most commonly held myths I encounter in everyday practice.

I knock on the exam door and walk in.
A small, trim woman in her late 50s is sitting in a chair, arms folded across her chest, face drawn in.

“Hi,” I start. “I’m Sarah, the palliative care nurse practitioner who works in this clinic. I work closely with Dr. Smith.”
Dr. Smith is the patient’s oncologist.

“I really didn’t want to meet you,” she says in a quiet voice, her eyes large with concern.

I don’t take it personally. Few patients really want to be in the position of needing to meet the palliative care team.

“I looked up palliative care on Google and saw the word hospice.”

“Yeah,” I say. “I hear that a lot. Well, I can reassure you that this isn’t hospice.
In this clinic, our focus is on your cancer symptoms, your treatment side effects, and your quality of life.”

She looks visibly relieved. “Quality of life,” she echoes. “I need more of that.”
“OK,” I say. “So, tell me what you’re struggling with the most right now.”

That’s how many palliative care visits start. I actually prefer if patients haven’t heard of palliative care because it allows me to frame it for them, rather than having to start by addressing a myth or a prior negative experience. Even when patients haven’t had a negative experience with palliative care per se, typically, if they’ve interacted with palliative care in the past, it’s usually because someone they loved died in a hospital setting and it is the memory of that terrible loss that becomes synonymous with their recollection of palliative care.

Many patients I meet have never seen another outpatient palliative care practitioner – and this makes sense – we are still too few and far between. Most established palliative care teams are hospital based and many patients seen in the community do not have easy access to palliative care teams where they receive oncologic care.² As an embedded practitioner, I see patients in the same exam rooms and infusion centers where they receive their cancer therapies, so I’m effectively woven into the fabric of their oncology experience. Just being there in the cancer center allows me to be in the right place at the right time for the right patients and their care teams.
 

More than pain management

Another myth I tend to dispel a lot is that palliative care is just a euphemism for “pain management.” I have seen this less lately, but still occasionally in the chart I’ll see documented in a note, “patient is seeing palliative/pain management,” when a patient is seeing me or one of my colleagues. Unfortunately, when providers have limited or outdated views of what palliative care is or the value it brings to patient-centered cancer care, referrals to palliative care tend to be delayed.³

“I really think Ms. Lopez could benefit from seeing palliative care,” an oncology nurse practitioner says to an oncologist.
I’m standing nearby, about to see another patient in one of the exam rooms in our clinic.
“But I don’t think she’s ready. And besides, she doesn’t have any pain,” he says.
He turns to me quizzically. “What do you think?”

“Tell me about the patient,” I ask, taking a few steps in their direction.

“Well, she’s a 64-year-old woman with metastatic cancer.
She has a really poor appetite and is losing some weight.
Seems a bit down, kind of pessimistic about things.
Her scan showed some new growth, so guess I’m not surprised by that.”

“I might be able to help her with the appetite and the mood changes. 
I can at least talk with her and see where she’s at,” I offer.

“Alright,” he says. “We’ll put the palliative referral in.”
He hesitates. “But are you sure you want to see her? 
She doesn’t have any pain.” He sounds skeptical.

“Yeah, I mean, it sounds like she has symptoms that are bothering her, so I’d be happy to see her. She sounds completely appropriate for palliative care.”

I hear this assumption a lot – that palliative care is somehow equivalent to pain management and that unless a patient’s pain is severe, it’s not worth referring the patient to palliative care. Don’t get me wrong – we do a lot of pain management, but at its heart, palliative care is an interdisciplinary specialty focused on improving or maintaining quality of life for people with serious illness. Because the goal is so broad, care can take many shapes.⁴

In addition to pain, palliative care clinicians commonly treat nausea, shortness of breath, constipation or diarrhea, poor appetite, fatigue, anxiety, depression, and insomnia.
 

Palliative care is more than medical or nursing care

A related misconception about palliative care held by many lay people and health care workers alike is that palliative care is primarily medical or nursing care focused mostly on alleviating physical symptoms such as pain or nausea. This couldn’t be further from the truth.

We’ve been talking for a while.
Ms. Lopez tells me about her struggles to maintain her weight while undergoing chemotherapy. She has low-grade nausea that is impacting her ability and desire to eat more and didn’t think that her weight loss was severe enough to warrant taking medication.
We talk about how she may be able to use antinausea medication sparingly to alleviate nausea while also limiting side effects from the medications—which was a big concern for her.

I ask her what else is bothering her.

She tells me that she has always been a strong Catholic and even when life has gotten tough, her faith was never shaken – until now.
She is struggling to understand why she ended up with metastatic cancer at such a relatively young age—why would God do this to her?
She had plans for retirement that have since evaporated in the face of a foreshortened life.
Why did this happen to her of all people? She was completely healthy until her diagnosis.
Her face is wet with tears.

We talk a little about how a diagnosis like this can change so much of a person’s life and identity. I try to validate her experience. She’s clearly suffering from a sense that her life is not what she expected, and she is struggling to integrate how her future looks at this point.

I ask her what conversations with her priest have been like.

At this point you may be wondering where this conversation is going. Why are we talking about Ms. Lopez’s religion? Palliative care is best delivered through high functioning interdisciplinary teams that can include other supportive people in a patient’s life. We work in concert to try to bring comfort to a patient and their family.⁴ That support network can include nurses, physicians, social workers, and chaplains. In this case, Ms. Lopez had not yet reached out to her priest. She hasn’t had the time or energy to contact her priest given her symptoms.
 

“Can I contact your priest for you?
Maybe he can visit or call and chat with you?”
She nods and wipes tears away.
“That would be really nice,” she says. “I’d love it if he could pray with me.”

A few hours after the visit, I call Ms. Lopez’s priest.
I ask him to reach out to her and about her request for prayer.
He says he’s been thinking about her and that her presence has been missed at weekly Mass. He thanks me for the call and says he’ll call her tomorrow.

I say my own small prayer for Ms. Lopez and head home, the day’s work completed.

Sarah D'Ambruoso was born and raised in Maine. She completed her undergraduate and graduate nursing education at New York University and UCLA, respectively, and currently works as a palliative care nurse practitioner in an oncology clinic in Los Angeles. 

References

1. Cheng BT et al. Patterns of palliative care beliefs among adults in the U.S.: Analysis of a National Cancer Database. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2019 Aug 10. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2019.07.030.

2. Finlay E et al. Filling the gap: Creating an outpatient palliative care program in your institution. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2018 May 23. doi: 10.1200/EDBK_200775.

3. Von Roenn JH et al. Barriers and approaches to the successful integration of palliative care and oncology practice. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2013 Mar. doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2013.0209.

4. Ferrell BR et al. Integration of palliative care into standard oncology care: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Update. J Clin Oncol. 2016 Oct 31. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2016.70.1474.

The names of health care professionals and patients cited within the dialogue text have been changed to protect their privacy.

Early in my career, before I had any notion that years later I would be doing palliative care consults in a cancer center, I heard a senior physician refer to palliative care as “the most misunderstood” medical specialty. I wasn’t sure what she meant at that time, but over the years I have come to realize that she was right – most people, including many within health care, don’t have a good appreciation of what palliative care is or how it can help patients and health care teams.

A recent national survey about cancer-related health information found that of more than 1,000 surveyed Americans, less than 30% professed any knowledge of palliative care. Of those who had some knowledge of palliative care, around 30% believed palliative care was synonymous with hospice.¹ Another 15% believed that a patient would have to give up cancer-directed treatments to receive palliative care.¹

It’s not giving up

This persistent belief that palliative care is equivalent to hospice, or is tantamount to “giving up,” is one of the most commonly held myths I encounter in everyday practice.

I knock on the exam door and walk in.
A small, trim woman in her late 50s is sitting in a chair, arms folded across her chest, face drawn in.

“Hi,” I start. “I’m Sarah, the palliative care nurse practitioner who works in this clinic. I work closely with Dr. Smith.”
Dr. Smith is the patient’s oncologist.

“I really didn’t want to meet you,” she says in a quiet voice, her eyes large with concern.

I don’t take it personally. Few patients really want to be in the position of needing to meet the palliative care team.

“I looked up palliative care on Google and saw the word hospice.”

“Yeah,” I say. “I hear that a lot. Well, I can reassure you that this isn’t hospice.
In this clinic, our focus is on your cancer symptoms, your treatment side effects, and your quality of life.”

She looks visibly relieved. “Quality of life,” she echoes. “I need more of that.”
“OK,” I say. “So, tell me what you’re struggling with the most right now.”

That’s how many palliative care visits start. I actually prefer if patients haven’t heard of palliative care because it allows me to frame it for them, rather than having to start by addressing a myth or a prior negative experience. Even when patients haven’t had a negative experience with palliative care per se, typically, if they’ve interacted with palliative care in the past, it’s usually because someone they loved died in a hospital setting and it is the memory of that terrible loss that becomes synonymous with their recollection of palliative care.

Many patients I meet have never seen another outpatient palliative care practitioner – and this makes sense – we are still too few and far between. Most established palliative care teams are hospital based and many patients seen in the community do not have easy access to palliative care teams where they receive oncologic care.² As an embedded practitioner, I see patients in the same exam rooms and infusion centers where they receive their cancer therapies, so I’m effectively woven into the fabric of their oncology experience. Just being there in the cancer center allows me to be in the right place at the right time for the right patients and their care teams.
 

More than pain management

Another myth I tend to dispel a lot is that palliative care is just a euphemism for “pain management.” I have seen this less lately, but still occasionally in the chart I’ll see documented in a note, “patient is seeing palliative/pain management,” when a patient is seeing me or one of my colleagues. Unfortunately, when providers have limited or outdated views of what palliative care is or the value it brings to patient-centered cancer care, referrals to palliative care tend to be delayed.³

“I really think Ms. Lopez could benefit from seeing palliative care,” an oncology nurse practitioner says to an oncologist.
I’m standing nearby, about to see another patient in one of the exam rooms in our clinic.
“But I don’t think she’s ready. And besides, she doesn’t have any pain,” he says.
He turns to me quizzically. “What do you think?”

“Tell me about the patient,” I ask, taking a few steps in their direction.

“Well, she’s a 64-year-old woman with metastatic cancer.
She has a really poor appetite and is losing some weight.
Seems a bit down, kind of pessimistic about things.
Her scan showed some new growth, so guess I’m not surprised by that.”

“I might be able to help her with the appetite and the mood changes. 
I can at least talk with her and see where she’s at,” I offer.

“Alright,” he says. “We’ll put the palliative referral in.”
He hesitates. “But are you sure you want to see her? 
She doesn’t have any pain.” He sounds skeptical.

“Yeah, I mean, it sounds like she has symptoms that are bothering her, so I’d be happy to see her. She sounds completely appropriate for palliative care.”

I hear this assumption a lot – that palliative care is somehow equivalent to pain management and that unless a patient’s pain is severe, it’s not worth referring the patient to palliative care. Don’t get me wrong – we do a lot of pain management, but at its heart, palliative care is an interdisciplinary specialty focused on improving or maintaining quality of life for people with serious illness. Because the goal is so broad, care can take many shapes.⁴

In addition to pain, palliative care clinicians commonly treat nausea, shortness of breath, constipation or diarrhea, poor appetite, fatigue, anxiety, depression, and insomnia.
 

Palliative care is more than medical or nursing care

A related misconception about palliative care held by many lay people and health care workers alike is that palliative care is primarily medical or nursing care focused mostly on alleviating physical symptoms such as pain or nausea. This couldn’t be further from the truth.

We’ve been talking for a while.
Ms. Lopez tells me about her struggles to maintain her weight while undergoing chemotherapy. She has low-grade nausea that is impacting her ability and desire to eat more and didn’t think that her weight loss was severe enough to warrant taking medication.
We talk about how she may be able to use antinausea medication sparingly to alleviate nausea while also limiting side effects from the medications—which was a big concern for her.

I ask her what else is bothering her.

She tells me that she has always been a strong Catholic and even when life has gotten tough, her faith was never shaken – until now.
She is struggling to understand why she ended up with metastatic cancer at such a relatively young age—why would God do this to her?
She had plans for retirement that have since evaporated in the face of a foreshortened life.
Why did this happen to her of all people? She was completely healthy until her diagnosis.
Her face is wet with tears.

We talk a little about how a diagnosis like this can change so much of a person’s life and identity. I try to validate her experience. She’s clearly suffering from a sense that her life is not what she expected, and she is struggling to integrate how her future looks at this point.

I ask her what conversations with her priest have been like.

At this point you may be wondering where this conversation is going. Why are we talking about Ms. Lopez’s religion? Palliative care is best delivered through high functioning interdisciplinary teams that can include other supportive people in a patient’s life. We work in concert to try to bring comfort to a patient and their family.⁴ That support network can include nurses, physicians, social workers, and chaplains. In this case, Ms. Lopez had not yet reached out to her priest. She hasn’t had the time or energy to contact her priest given her symptoms.
 

“Can I contact your priest for you?
Maybe he can visit or call and chat with you?”
She nods and wipes tears away.
“That would be really nice,” she says. “I’d love it if he could pray with me.”

A few hours after the visit, I call Ms. Lopez’s priest.
I ask him to reach out to her and about her request for prayer.
He says he’s been thinking about her and that her presence has been missed at weekly Mass. He thanks me for the call and says he’ll call her tomorrow.

I say my own small prayer for Ms. Lopez and head home, the day’s work completed.

Sarah D'Ambruoso was born and raised in Maine. She completed her undergraduate and graduate nursing education at New York University and UCLA, respectively, and currently works as a palliative care nurse practitioner in an oncology clinic in Los Angeles. 

References

1. Cheng BT et al. Patterns of palliative care beliefs among adults in the U.S.: Analysis of a National Cancer Database. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2019 Aug 10. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2019.07.030.

2. Finlay E et al. Filling the gap: Creating an outpatient palliative care program in your institution. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2018 May 23. doi: 10.1200/EDBK_200775.

3. Von Roenn JH et al. Barriers and approaches to the successful integration of palliative care and oncology practice. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2013 Mar. doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2013.0209.

4. Ferrell BR et al. Integration of palliative care into standard oncology care: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Update. J Clin Oncol. 2016 Oct 31. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2016.70.1474.

The names of health care professionals and patients cited within the dialogue text have been changed to protect their privacy.

Early in my career, before I had any notion that years later I would be doing palliative care consults in a cancer center, I heard a senior physician refer to palliative care as “the most misunderstood” medical specialty. I wasn’t sure what she meant at that time, but over the years I have come to realize that she was right – most people, including many within health care, don’t have a good appreciation of what palliative care is or how it can help patients and health care teams.

A recent national survey about cancer-related health information found that of more than 1,000 surveyed Americans, less than 30% professed any knowledge of palliative care. Of those who had some knowledge of palliative care, around 30% believed palliative care was synonymous with hospice.¹ Another 15% believed that a patient would have to give up cancer-directed treatments to receive palliative care.¹

It’s not giving up

This persistent belief that palliative care is equivalent to hospice, or is tantamount to “giving up,” is one of the most commonly held myths I encounter in everyday practice.

I knock on the exam door and walk in.
A small, trim woman in her late 50s is sitting in a chair, arms folded across her chest, face drawn in.

“Hi,” I start. “I’m Sarah, the palliative care nurse practitioner who works in this clinic. I work closely with Dr. Smith.”
Dr. Smith is the patient’s oncologist.

“I really didn’t want to meet you,” she says in a quiet voice, her eyes large with concern.

I don’t take it personally. Few patients really want to be in the position of needing to meet the palliative care team.

“I looked up palliative care on Google and saw the word hospice.”

“Yeah,” I say. “I hear that a lot. Well, I can reassure you that this isn’t hospice.
In this clinic, our focus is on your cancer symptoms, your treatment side effects, and your quality of life.”

She looks visibly relieved. “Quality of life,” she echoes. “I need more of that.”
“OK,” I say. “So, tell me what you’re struggling with the most right now.”

That’s how many palliative care visits start. I actually prefer if patients haven’t heard of palliative care because it allows me to frame it for them, rather than having to start by addressing a myth or a prior negative experience. Even when patients haven’t had a negative experience with palliative care per se, typically, if they’ve interacted with palliative care in the past, it’s usually because someone they loved died in a hospital setting and it is the memory of that terrible loss that becomes synonymous with their recollection of palliative care.

Many patients I meet have never seen another outpatient palliative care practitioner – and this makes sense – we are still too few and far between. Most established palliative care teams are hospital based and many patients seen in the community do not have easy access to palliative care teams where they receive oncologic care.² As an embedded practitioner, I see patients in the same exam rooms and infusion centers where they receive their cancer therapies, so I’m effectively woven into the fabric of their oncology experience. Just being there in the cancer center allows me to be in the right place at the right time for the right patients and their care teams.
 

More than pain management

Another myth I tend to dispel a lot is that palliative care is just a euphemism for “pain management.” I have seen this less lately, but still occasionally in the chart I’ll see documented in a note, “patient is seeing palliative/pain management,” when a patient is seeing me or one of my colleagues. Unfortunately, when providers have limited or outdated views of what palliative care is or the value it brings to patient-centered cancer care, referrals to palliative care tend to be delayed.³

“I really think Ms. Lopez could benefit from seeing palliative care,” an oncology nurse practitioner says to an oncologist.
I’m standing nearby, about to see another patient in one of the exam rooms in our clinic.
“But I don’t think she’s ready. And besides, she doesn’t have any pain,” he says.
He turns to me quizzically. “What do you think?”

“Tell me about the patient,” I ask, taking a few steps in their direction.

“Well, she’s a 64-year-old woman with metastatic cancer.
She has a really poor appetite and is losing some weight.
Seems a bit down, kind of pessimistic about things.
Her scan showed some new growth, so guess I’m not surprised by that.”

“I might be able to help her with the appetite and the mood changes. 
I can at least talk with her and see where she’s at,” I offer.

“Alright,” he says. “We’ll put the palliative referral in.”
He hesitates. “But are you sure you want to see her? 
She doesn’t have any pain.” He sounds skeptical.

“Yeah, I mean, it sounds like she has symptoms that are bothering her, so I’d be happy to see her. She sounds completely appropriate for palliative care.”

I hear this assumption a lot – that palliative care is somehow equivalent to pain management and that unless a patient’s pain is severe, it’s not worth referring the patient to palliative care. Don’t get me wrong – we do a lot of pain management, but at its heart, palliative care is an interdisciplinary specialty focused on improving or maintaining quality of life for people with serious illness. Because the goal is so broad, care can take many shapes.⁴

In addition to pain, palliative care clinicians commonly treat nausea, shortness of breath, constipation or diarrhea, poor appetite, fatigue, anxiety, depression, and insomnia.
 

Palliative care is more than medical or nursing care

A related misconception about palliative care held by many lay people and health care workers alike is that palliative care is primarily medical or nursing care focused mostly on alleviating physical symptoms such as pain or nausea. This couldn’t be further from the truth.

We’ve been talking for a while.
Ms. Lopez tells me about her struggles to maintain her weight while undergoing chemotherapy. She has low-grade nausea that is impacting her ability and desire to eat more and didn’t think that her weight loss was severe enough to warrant taking medication.
We talk about how she may be able to use antinausea medication sparingly to alleviate nausea while also limiting side effects from the medications—which was a big concern for her.

I ask her what else is bothering her.

She tells me that she has always been a strong Catholic and even when life has gotten tough, her faith was never shaken – until now.
She is struggling to understand why she ended up with metastatic cancer at such a relatively young age—why would God do this to her?
She had plans for retirement that have since evaporated in the face of a foreshortened life.
Why did this happen to her of all people? She was completely healthy until her diagnosis.
Her face is wet with tears.

We talk a little about how a diagnosis like this can change so much of a person’s life and identity. I try to validate her experience. She’s clearly suffering from a sense that her life is not what she expected, and she is struggling to integrate how her future looks at this point.

I ask her what conversations with her priest have been like.

At this point you may be wondering where this conversation is going. Why are we talking about Ms. Lopez’s religion? Palliative care is best delivered through high functioning interdisciplinary teams that can include other supportive people in a patient’s life. We work in concert to try to bring comfort to a patient and their family.⁴ That support network can include nurses, physicians, social workers, and chaplains. In this case, Ms. Lopez had not yet reached out to her priest. She hasn’t had the time or energy to contact her priest given her symptoms.
 

“Can I contact your priest for you?
Maybe he can visit or call and chat with you?”
She nods and wipes tears away.
“That would be really nice,” she says. “I’d love it if he could pray with me.”

A few hours after the visit, I call Ms. Lopez’s priest.
I ask him to reach out to her and about her request for prayer.
He says he’s been thinking about her and that her presence has been missed at weekly Mass. He thanks me for the call and says he’ll call her tomorrow.

I say my own small prayer for Ms. Lopez and head home, the day’s work completed.

Sarah D'Ambruoso was born and raised in Maine. She completed her undergraduate and graduate nursing education at New York University and UCLA, respectively, and currently works as a palliative care nurse practitioner in an oncology clinic in Los Angeles. 

References

1. Cheng BT et al. Patterns of palliative care beliefs among adults in the U.S.: Analysis of a National Cancer Database. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2019 Aug 10. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2019.07.030.

2. Finlay E et al. Filling the gap: Creating an outpatient palliative care program in your institution. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2018 May 23. doi: 10.1200/EDBK_200775.

3. Von Roenn JH et al. Barriers and approaches to the successful integration of palliative care and oncology practice. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2013 Mar. doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2013.0209.

4. Ferrell BR et al. Integration of palliative care into standard oncology care: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Update. J Clin Oncol. 2016 Oct 31. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2016.70.1474.

The newly approved insomnia drug daridorexant (Quviviq) improves sleep onset in adults, new phase 3 data suggest.  In the first of two studies, a 50-mg dose of daridorexant was associated with a reduction in latency to persistent sleep (LPS) of 11.7 minutes at month 3 versus placebo. The drug also was associated with improved daytime function.

Based on these results, the Food and Drug Administration approved daridorexant for the treatment of insomnia in adults earlier in January.

“The study shows that it is a really good drug that works differently from most other drugs,” said Emmanuel Mignot, MD, PhD, professor of sleep medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University. “It’s more specific to sleep,” Dr. Mignot added.

The findings were published in the February issue of The Lancet Neurology.
 

Two trials, three doses

Daridorexant is a dual orexin receptor antagonist intended to reduce excessive wakefulness. The investigators hypothesized that, because of its therapeutic target, the drug would not cause sleepiness on the morning after administration.

To examine daridorexant’s safety and efficacy, the researchers conducted two double-blind, parallel-group, phase 3 trials. Eligible participants were aged 18 years or older, had moderate to severe insomnia disorder, and had a self-reported history of disturbed sleep at least 3 nights per week for at least 3 months before screening.

In study 1, investigators randomly assigned participants in groups of equal size to daridorexant 25 mg, 50 mg, or placebo. In study 2, participants were randomly assigned to daridorexant 10 mg, 25 mg, or placebo.

During a placebo run-in period, participants underwent polysomnography on two consecutive nights to define baseline values. At the end of months 1 and 3 of the treatment period, participants again underwent 2 nights of polysomnography. A final night of polysomnography occurred during the placebo run-out period.

Self-assessments included the Insomnia Daytime Symptoms and Impacts Questionnaire (IDSIQ). This questionnaire, to which participants responded daily, is designed to measure the daytime impairments related to insomnia. The IDSIQ questions focus on sleepiness, mood, alertness, and cognition.

The study’s primary endpoints were change from baseline in wake after sleep onset (WASO) and LPS at months 1 and 3. Secondary endpoints were change from baseline in self-reported total sleep time and change in the IDSIQ sleepiness domain score at months 1 and 3.

The investigators enrolled 930 participants in study 1 and 924 in study 2. In each study, more than two-thirds of participants were women, 39% were aged 65 or older, and demographic and baseline characteristics were similar between treatment groups.
 

Dose-dependent effects

At month 1 in study 1, WASO was reduced by 22.8 minutes (P < .0001) in patients who received the 50-mg dose and by 12.2 minutes (P < .0001) in the 25-mg dose. At month 3, WASO was reduced by 18.3 minutes (P < .0001) in those assigned to 50 mg and by 11.9 minutes (P < .0001) in those assigned to 25 mg.

LPS was reduced by 11.4 minutes (P < .0001) at month 1 and by 11.7 minutes (P < .0001) at month 3 with the 50-mg dose versus placebo. LPS was reduced by 8.3 minutes (P = .0005) at month 1 and by 7.6 minutes (P = .0015) at month 3 with the 25-mg dose versus placebo.

At both time points, self-reported total sleep time was significantly increased and the IDSIQ sleepiness score significantly improved with the 50-mg dose. The 25-mg dose was associated with significant improvements in self-reported total sleep time at both time points, but not with significant improvements in IDSIQ sleepiness score.

In study 2, the 25-mg dose was associated with significant reductions in WASO at month 1 (11.6 minutes, P = .0001) and month 3 (10.3 minutes, P = .0028) compared with placebo. The 25-mg dose was not associated with significant differences in LPS at either time point, however.

Similarly, the 25-mg dose was associated with improvements in self-reported total sleep time, but not with the IDSIQ sleepiness score. The 10-mg dose was not associated with improvements on any endpoint compared with placebo.
 

Longer studies needed

In an accompanying editorial, Kai Spiegelhalder, PhD, University of Freiburg, Germany, and colleagues pointed out that although insomnia disorder is defined by self-reported difficulty initiating or maintaining sleep, none of the primary or secondary endpoints in these trials addressed these symptoms.

However, Dr. Mignot noted the use of the IDSIQ scale is the most interesting aspect of the study. Although difficulty with concentration and mood impairment are major symptoms of insomnia, they are often neglected. “This drug was reversing the daytime impairment that insomniacs have,” said Dr. Mignot. “We now need to systematically study people not only for the effect on sleep, but also that it makes them feel better the day after.”

He added that most of the current hypnotics were not developed to treat insomnia. Daridorexant, in contrast, targets the wake-promoting orexin system. “It works more selectively on sleep and not on other things. Most of the other sleeping pills have more complex effects on the brain,” Dr. Mignot said.

Commenting on the study, John Winkelman, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said the low prevalence of side effects associated with daridorexant was remarkable. “This is not what most of the benzodiazepine receptor agonists looked like,” said Dr. Winkelman, who was not involved with the research.

Many insomnia drugs affect transmitter systems that are widespread in the brain, thus provoking side effects. But orexin-receptor antagonists “don’t seem to produce a lot of side effects,” he noted.

Although the study duration was reasonable, longer studies will be necessary, he added. “And it would be nice to see comparative data. Prescribers want to see some context.” said Dr. Winkelman.

The study was funded by Idorsia Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Mignot reported receiving research or clinical trial funding from Axsome, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Avadel, Apple, Huami, Sunovion, and Takeda. He has also received consulting fees or speakers’ conference reimbursement from Idorsia, Centessa Pharmaceuticals, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Avadel, Dreem, and Takeda. Dr. Winkelman has consulted for Idorsia and has participated in investigator-initiated studies supported by Merck.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The newly approved insomnia drug daridorexant (Quviviq) improves sleep onset in adults, new phase 3 data suggest.  In the first of two studies, a 50-mg dose of daridorexant was associated with a reduction in latency to persistent sleep (LPS) of 11.7 minutes at month 3 versus placebo. The drug also was associated with improved daytime function.

Based on these results, the Food and Drug Administration approved daridorexant for the treatment of insomnia in adults earlier in January.

“The study shows that it is a really good drug that works differently from most other drugs,” said Emmanuel Mignot, MD, PhD, professor of sleep medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University. “It’s more specific to sleep,” Dr. Mignot added.

The findings were published in the February issue of The Lancet Neurology.
 

Two trials, three doses

Daridorexant is a dual orexin receptor antagonist intended to reduce excessive wakefulness. The investigators hypothesized that, because of its therapeutic target, the drug would not cause sleepiness on the morning after administration.

To examine daridorexant’s safety and efficacy, the researchers conducted two double-blind, parallel-group, phase 3 trials. Eligible participants were aged 18 years or older, had moderate to severe insomnia disorder, and had a self-reported history of disturbed sleep at least 3 nights per week for at least 3 months before screening.

In study 1, investigators randomly assigned participants in groups of equal size to daridorexant 25 mg, 50 mg, or placebo. In study 2, participants were randomly assigned to daridorexant 10 mg, 25 mg, or placebo.

During a placebo run-in period, participants underwent polysomnography on two consecutive nights to define baseline values. At the end of months 1 and 3 of the treatment period, participants again underwent 2 nights of polysomnography. A final night of polysomnography occurred during the placebo run-out period.

Self-assessments included the Insomnia Daytime Symptoms and Impacts Questionnaire (IDSIQ). This questionnaire, to which participants responded daily, is designed to measure the daytime impairments related to insomnia. The IDSIQ questions focus on sleepiness, mood, alertness, and cognition.

The study’s primary endpoints were change from baseline in wake after sleep onset (WASO) and LPS at months 1 and 3. Secondary endpoints were change from baseline in self-reported total sleep time and change in the IDSIQ sleepiness domain score at months 1 and 3.

The investigators enrolled 930 participants in study 1 and 924 in study 2. In each study, more than two-thirds of participants were women, 39% were aged 65 or older, and demographic and baseline characteristics were similar between treatment groups.
 

Dose-dependent effects

At month 1 in study 1, WASO was reduced by 22.8 minutes (P < .0001) in patients who received the 50-mg dose and by 12.2 minutes (P < .0001) in the 25-mg dose. At month 3, WASO was reduced by 18.3 minutes (P < .0001) in those assigned to 50 mg and by 11.9 minutes (P < .0001) in those assigned to 25 mg.

LPS was reduced by 11.4 minutes (P < .0001) at month 1 and by 11.7 minutes (P < .0001) at month 3 with the 50-mg dose versus placebo. LPS was reduced by 8.3 minutes (P = .0005) at month 1 and by 7.6 minutes (P = .0015) at month 3 with the 25-mg dose versus placebo.

At both time points, self-reported total sleep time was significantly increased and the IDSIQ sleepiness score significantly improved with the 50-mg dose. The 25-mg dose was associated with significant improvements in self-reported total sleep time at both time points, but not with significant improvements in IDSIQ sleepiness score.

In study 2, the 25-mg dose was associated with significant reductions in WASO at month 1 (11.6 minutes, P = .0001) and month 3 (10.3 minutes, P = .0028) compared with placebo. The 25-mg dose was not associated with significant differences in LPS at either time point, however.

Similarly, the 25-mg dose was associated with improvements in self-reported total sleep time, but not with the IDSIQ sleepiness score. The 10-mg dose was not associated with improvements on any endpoint compared with placebo.
 

Longer studies needed

In an accompanying editorial, Kai Spiegelhalder, PhD, University of Freiburg, Germany, and colleagues pointed out that although insomnia disorder is defined by self-reported difficulty initiating or maintaining sleep, none of the primary or secondary endpoints in these trials addressed these symptoms.

However, Dr. Mignot noted the use of the IDSIQ scale is the most interesting aspect of the study. Although difficulty with concentration and mood impairment are major symptoms of insomnia, they are often neglected. “This drug was reversing the daytime impairment that insomniacs have,” said Dr. Mignot. “We now need to systematically study people not only for the effect on sleep, but also that it makes them feel better the day after.”

He added that most of the current hypnotics were not developed to treat insomnia. Daridorexant, in contrast, targets the wake-promoting orexin system. “It works more selectively on sleep and not on other things. Most of the other sleeping pills have more complex effects on the brain,” Dr. Mignot said.

Commenting on the study, John Winkelman, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said the low prevalence of side effects associated with daridorexant was remarkable. “This is not what most of the benzodiazepine receptor agonists looked like,” said Dr. Winkelman, who was not involved with the research.

Many insomnia drugs affect transmitter systems that are widespread in the brain, thus provoking side effects. But orexin-receptor antagonists “don’t seem to produce a lot of side effects,” he noted.

Although the study duration was reasonable, longer studies will be necessary, he added. “And it would be nice to see comparative data. Prescribers want to see some context.” said Dr. Winkelman.

The study was funded by Idorsia Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Mignot reported receiving research or clinical trial funding from Axsome, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Avadel, Apple, Huami, Sunovion, and Takeda. He has also received consulting fees or speakers’ conference reimbursement from Idorsia, Centessa Pharmaceuticals, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Avadel, Dreem, and Takeda. Dr. Winkelman has consulted for Idorsia and has participated in investigator-initiated studies supported by Merck.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The newly approved insomnia drug daridorexant (Quviviq) improves sleep onset in adults, new phase 3 data suggest.  In the first of two studies, a 50-mg dose of daridorexant was associated with a reduction in latency to persistent sleep (LPS) of 11.7 minutes at month 3 versus placebo. The drug also was associated with improved daytime function.

Based on these results, the Food and Drug Administration approved daridorexant for the treatment of insomnia in adults earlier in January.

“The study shows that it is a really good drug that works differently from most other drugs,” said Emmanuel Mignot, MD, PhD, professor of sleep medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University. “It’s more specific to sleep,” Dr. Mignot added.

The findings were published in the February issue of The Lancet Neurology.
 

Two trials, three doses

Daridorexant is a dual orexin receptor antagonist intended to reduce excessive wakefulness. The investigators hypothesized that, because of its therapeutic target, the drug would not cause sleepiness on the morning after administration.

To examine daridorexant’s safety and efficacy, the researchers conducted two double-blind, parallel-group, phase 3 trials. Eligible participants were aged 18 years or older, had moderate to severe insomnia disorder, and had a self-reported history of disturbed sleep at least 3 nights per week for at least 3 months before screening.

In study 1, investigators randomly assigned participants in groups of equal size to daridorexant 25 mg, 50 mg, or placebo. In study 2, participants were randomly assigned to daridorexant 10 mg, 25 mg, or placebo.

During a placebo run-in period, participants underwent polysomnography on two consecutive nights to define baseline values. At the end of months 1 and 3 of the treatment period, participants again underwent 2 nights of polysomnography. A final night of polysomnography occurred during the placebo run-out period.

Self-assessments included the Insomnia Daytime Symptoms and Impacts Questionnaire (IDSIQ). This questionnaire, to which participants responded daily, is designed to measure the daytime impairments related to insomnia. The IDSIQ questions focus on sleepiness, mood, alertness, and cognition.

The study’s primary endpoints were change from baseline in wake after sleep onset (WASO) and LPS at months 1 and 3. Secondary endpoints were change from baseline in self-reported total sleep time and change in the IDSIQ sleepiness domain score at months 1 and 3.

The investigators enrolled 930 participants in study 1 and 924 in study 2. In each study, more than two-thirds of participants were women, 39% were aged 65 or older, and demographic and baseline characteristics were similar between treatment groups.
 

Dose-dependent effects

At month 1 in study 1, WASO was reduced by 22.8 minutes (P < .0001) in patients who received the 50-mg dose and by 12.2 minutes (P < .0001) in the 25-mg dose. At month 3, WASO was reduced by 18.3 minutes (P < .0001) in those assigned to 50 mg and by 11.9 minutes (P < .0001) in those assigned to 25 mg.

LPS was reduced by 11.4 minutes (P < .0001) at month 1 and by 11.7 minutes (P < .0001) at month 3 with the 50-mg dose versus placebo. LPS was reduced by 8.3 minutes (P = .0005) at month 1 and by 7.6 minutes (P = .0015) at month 3 with the 25-mg dose versus placebo.

At both time points, self-reported total sleep time was significantly increased and the IDSIQ sleepiness score significantly improved with the 50-mg dose. The 25-mg dose was associated with significant improvements in self-reported total sleep time at both time points, but not with significant improvements in IDSIQ sleepiness score.

In study 2, the 25-mg dose was associated with significant reductions in WASO at month 1 (11.6 minutes, P = .0001) and month 3 (10.3 minutes, P = .0028) compared with placebo. The 25-mg dose was not associated with significant differences in LPS at either time point, however.

Similarly, the 25-mg dose was associated with improvements in self-reported total sleep time, but not with the IDSIQ sleepiness score. The 10-mg dose was not associated with improvements on any endpoint compared with placebo.
 

Longer studies needed

In an accompanying editorial, Kai Spiegelhalder, PhD, University of Freiburg, Germany, and colleagues pointed out that although insomnia disorder is defined by self-reported difficulty initiating or maintaining sleep, none of the primary or secondary endpoints in these trials addressed these symptoms.

However, Dr. Mignot noted the use of the IDSIQ scale is the most interesting aspect of the study. Although difficulty with concentration and mood impairment are major symptoms of insomnia, they are often neglected. “This drug was reversing the daytime impairment that insomniacs have,” said Dr. Mignot. “We now need to systematically study people not only for the effect on sleep, but also that it makes them feel better the day after.”

He added that most of the current hypnotics were not developed to treat insomnia. Daridorexant, in contrast, targets the wake-promoting orexin system. “It works more selectively on sleep and not on other things. Most of the other sleeping pills have more complex effects on the brain,” Dr. Mignot said.

Commenting on the study, John Winkelman, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said the low prevalence of side effects associated with daridorexant was remarkable. “This is not what most of the benzodiazepine receptor agonists looked like,” said Dr. Winkelman, who was not involved with the research.

Many insomnia drugs affect transmitter systems that are widespread in the brain, thus provoking side effects. But orexin-receptor antagonists “don’t seem to produce a lot of side effects,” he noted.

Although the study duration was reasonable, longer studies will be necessary, he added. “And it would be nice to see comparative data. Prescribers want to see some context.” said Dr. Winkelman.

The study was funded by Idorsia Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Mignot reported receiving research or clinical trial funding from Axsome, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Avadel, Apple, Huami, Sunovion, and Takeda. He has also received consulting fees or speakers’ conference reimbursement from Idorsia, Centessa Pharmaceuticals, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Avadel, Dreem, and Takeda. Dr. Winkelman has consulted for Idorsia and has participated in investigator-initiated studies supported by Merck.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Many patients with early breast cancer are being undertreated, concludes a novel study that examined the management of such patients across various geographical regions across the United States.

A standard treatment for early breast cancer is endocrine therapy (ET), with drugs such a tamoxifen and aromatase inhibitors.

But the study found that ET was not being used in about half of the eligible patients.

For example, only 13,115 of 26,255 eligible patients (48.8%) initiated ET within 1 year of diagnosis, and only 13,944 (52.1%) continued with ET.

“This is remarkable, considering that ET confers an impressive one-third reduction in the risk of death from breast cancer in the first 15 years after diagnosis,” comment authors Michael J. Hassett, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, and colleagues.

The findings were published online on Jan. 27 in JAMA Oncology.

This study provides an “important and disturbing” glimpse of the hidden barriers patients face when seeking quality, guideline-concordant care, says Kathy Miller, MD, the Ballve Lantero professor of oncology at Indiana University School of Medicine and associate director of clinical research at the IU Simon Comprehensive Cancer Center, Indianapolis, who was approached for comment.
 

Geographical variations

In their study, Dr. Hasset and colleagues set out determine the extent to which geospatial variations in early breast cancer care are attributable to health service area versus patient factors. They analyzed Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Medicare data for 31,571 patients with newly diagnosed with stage I-II nonmetastatic breast cancer between 2007 and 2013 who were followed for at least 3 years.

The patients had a median age of 71 years, and 61.4% had stage I disease at diagnosis.

Geospatial density maps (heat maps) in the paper highlight regional performance patterns. For initiation of ET within 1 year of diagnosis, the regions that appeared the worst (with less than 50% of patients getting this treatment) were parts of California, Utah, New Mexico, Louisiana, Georgia, Kentucky, Washington, and an isolated patch in Michigan.

In addition to the striking finding that nearly half of all women who are eligible for ET did not receive that therapy, the investigators found that 81.6% of 21,190 eligible patients received radiation therapy and 72.8% of 9,903 eligible patients received chemotherapy.

This also varied across the graphical regions, with the heat maps showing that the areas that were delivering radiation and chemotherapy to 70% to 80% of women were similar to the areas that were not initiating ET in about half of these women.

The authors found that the geographical region and health service area (HSA) explained more observed variation (24% to 48%) than patient factors (1% to 4%).

“While patient characteristics, such as race and ethnicity, were significantly associated with variation in breast cancer care, they explained a relatively small proportion of the total observed geospatial variance,” the authors comment.

“In fact, most of the total observed variance was owing to randomness or unexplained factors,” they add. The largest share of variation – 35% to 45% – was unexplained.

“The ET metrics demonstrated the largest total observed variance, the lowest absolute performance (only 49% of patients had an ET prescription within 1 year of diagnosis), and the strongest association with region/HSA,” they conclude.

Though limited by factors inherent in a retrospective review of SEER-Medicare data, the “unexplained nature of most geospatial variation in initial breast cancer care is not likely to change,” they comment.

Future quality improvement efforts should focus on reducing this unwarranted geospatial variation, particularly through the use of ET in eligible patients and with strategies that work across health care delivery systems, they suggest.

Approached for comment on the new findings, Dr. Miller posits that “many factors may be at play.”

“Unfortunately, the SEER database doesn’t allow us to sort out the impact of poverty/cost of care, distance to medical care, availability of specialty and subspecialty care, and payer/provider networks that may limit choices and options for second opinions,” Dr. Miller told this news organization.

She said that patients should be encouraged to consult reliable patient-focused information, such as that provided by the American Society of Clinical Oncology through its disease-specific sites, and to seek a second opinion from a university center. In many cases, major centers have become more accessible through virtual visits made available in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, she noted.

This study was supported by Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and the American Cancer Society. The authors and Dr. Miller have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Miller is a regular contributor to Medscape with her Miller on Oncology column.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Many patients with early breast cancer are being undertreated, concludes a novel study that examined the management of such patients across various geographical regions across the United States.

A standard treatment for early breast cancer is endocrine therapy (ET), with drugs such a tamoxifen and aromatase inhibitors.

But the study found that ET was not being used in about half of the eligible patients.

For example, only 13,115 of 26,255 eligible patients (48.8%) initiated ET within 1 year of diagnosis, and only 13,944 (52.1%) continued with ET.

“This is remarkable, considering that ET confers an impressive one-third reduction in the risk of death from breast cancer in the first 15 years after diagnosis,” comment authors Michael J. Hassett, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, and colleagues.

The findings were published online on Jan. 27 in JAMA Oncology.

This study provides an “important and disturbing” glimpse of the hidden barriers patients face when seeking quality, guideline-concordant care, says Kathy Miller, MD, the Ballve Lantero professor of oncology at Indiana University School of Medicine and associate director of clinical research at the IU Simon Comprehensive Cancer Center, Indianapolis, who was approached for comment.
 

Geographical variations

In their study, Dr. Hasset and colleagues set out determine the extent to which geospatial variations in early breast cancer care are attributable to health service area versus patient factors. They analyzed Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Medicare data for 31,571 patients with newly diagnosed with stage I-II nonmetastatic breast cancer between 2007 and 2013 who were followed for at least 3 years.

The patients had a median age of 71 years, and 61.4% had stage I disease at diagnosis.

Geospatial density maps (heat maps) in the paper highlight regional performance patterns. For initiation of ET within 1 year of diagnosis, the regions that appeared the worst (with less than 50% of patients getting this treatment) were parts of California, Utah, New Mexico, Louisiana, Georgia, Kentucky, Washington, and an isolated patch in Michigan.

In addition to the striking finding that nearly half of all women who are eligible for ET did not receive that therapy, the investigators found that 81.6% of 21,190 eligible patients received radiation therapy and 72.8% of 9,903 eligible patients received chemotherapy.

This also varied across the graphical regions, with the heat maps showing that the areas that were delivering radiation and chemotherapy to 70% to 80% of women were similar to the areas that were not initiating ET in about half of these women.

The authors found that the geographical region and health service area (HSA) explained more observed variation (24% to 48%) than patient factors (1% to 4%).

“While patient characteristics, such as race and ethnicity, were significantly associated with variation in breast cancer care, they explained a relatively small proportion of the total observed geospatial variance,” the authors comment.

“In fact, most of the total observed variance was owing to randomness or unexplained factors,” they add. The largest share of variation – 35% to 45% – was unexplained.

“The ET metrics demonstrated the largest total observed variance, the lowest absolute performance (only 49% of patients had an ET prescription within 1 year of diagnosis), and the strongest association with region/HSA,” they conclude.

Though limited by factors inherent in a retrospective review of SEER-Medicare data, the “unexplained nature of most geospatial variation in initial breast cancer care is not likely to change,” they comment.

Future quality improvement efforts should focus on reducing this unwarranted geospatial variation, particularly through the use of ET in eligible patients and with strategies that work across health care delivery systems, they suggest.

Approached for comment on the new findings, Dr. Miller posits that “many factors may be at play.”

“Unfortunately, the SEER database doesn’t allow us to sort out the impact of poverty/cost of care, distance to medical care, availability of specialty and subspecialty care, and payer/provider networks that may limit choices and options for second opinions,” Dr. Miller told this news organization.

She said that patients should be encouraged to consult reliable patient-focused information, such as that provided by the American Society of Clinical Oncology through its disease-specific sites, and to seek a second opinion from a university center. In many cases, major centers have become more accessible through virtual visits made available in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, she noted.

This study was supported by Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and the American Cancer Society. The authors and Dr. Miller have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Miller is a regular contributor to Medscape with her Miller on Oncology column.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Many patients with early breast cancer are being undertreated, concludes a novel study that examined the management of such patients across various geographical regions across the United States.

A standard treatment for early breast cancer is endocrine therapy (ET), with drugs such a tamoxifen and aromatase inhibitors.

But the study found that ET was not being used in about half of the eligible patients.

For example, only 13,115 of 26,255 eligible patients (48.8%) initiated ET within 1 year of diagnosis, and only 13,944 (52.1%) continued with ET.

“This is remarkable, considering that ET confers an impressive one-third reduction in the risk of death from breast cancer in the first 15 years after diagnosis,” comment authors Michael J. Hassett, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, and colleagues.

The findings were published online on Jan. 27 in JAMA Oncology.

This study provides an “important and disturbing” glimpse of the hidden barriers patients face when seeking quality, guideline-concordant care, says Kathy Miller, MD, the Ballve Lantero professor of oncology at Indiana University School of Medicine and associate director of clinical research at the IU Simon Comprehensive Cancer Center, Indianapolis, who was approached for comment.
 

Geographical variations

In their study, Dr. Hasset and colleagues set out determine the extent to which geospatial variations in early breast cancer care are attributable to health service area versus patient factors. They analyzed Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Medicare data for 31,571 patients with newly diagnosed with stage I-II nonmetastatic breast cancer between 2007 and 2013 who were followed for at least 3 years.

The patients had a median age of 71 years, and 61.4% had stage I disease at diagnosis.

Geospatial density maps (heat maps) in the paper highlight regional performance patterns. For initiation of ET within 1 year of diagnosis, the regions that appeared the worst (with less than 50% of patients getting this treatment) were parts of California, Utah, New Mexico, Louisiana, Georgia, Kentucky, Washington, and an isolated patch in Michigan.

In addition to the striking finding that nearly half of all women who are eligible for ET did not receive that therapy, the investigators found that 81.6% of 21,190 eligible patients received radiation therapy and 72.8% of 9,903 eligible patients received chemotherapy.

This also varied across the graphical regions, with the heat maps showing that the areas that were delivering radiation and chemotherapy to 70% to 80% of women were similar to the areas that were not initiating ET in about half of these women.

The authors found that the geographical region and health service area (HSA) explained more observed variation (24% to 48%) than patient factors (1% to 4%).

“While patient characteristics, such as race and ethnicity, were significantly associated with variation in breast cancer care, they explained a relatively small proportion of the total observed geospatial variance,” the authors comment.

“In fact, most of the total observed variance was owing to randomness or unexplained factors,” they add. The largest share of variation – 35% to 45% – was unexplained.

“The ET metrics demonstrated the largest total observed variance, the lowest absolute performance (only 49% of patients had an ET prescription within 1 year of diagnosis), and the strongest association with region/HSA,” they conclude.

Though limited by factors inherent in a retrospective review of SEER-Medicare data, the “unexplained nature of most geospatial variation in initial breast cancer care is not likely to change,” they comment.

Future quality improvement efforts should focus on reducing this unwarranted geospatial variation, particularly through the use of ET in eligible patients and with strategies that work across health care delivery systems, they suggest.

Approached for comment on the new findings, Dr. Miller posits that “many factors may be at play.”

“Unfortunately, the SEER database doesn’t allow us to sort out the impact of poverty/cost of care, distance to medical care, availability of specialty and subspecialty care, and payer/provider networks that may limit choices and options for second opinions,” Dr. Miller told this news organization.

She said that patients should be encouraged to consult reliable patient-focused information, such as that provided by the American Society of Clinical Oncology through its disease-specific sites, and to seek a second opinion from a university center. In many cases, major centers have become more accessible through virtual visits made available in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, she noted.

This study was supported by Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and the American Cancer Society. The authors and Dr. Miller have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Miller is a regular contributor to Medscape with her Miller on Oncology column.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Mask-wearing in childcare programs is linked with fewer COVID-19–related program closures, new data released suggest.

Researchers included 6,654 childcare professionals in a prospective, 1-year, longitudinal electronic survey study of home- and center-based childcare programs in all 50 states.

Findings by Thomas S. Murray, MD, PhD, with the department of pediatrics, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and coauthors, were published in JAMA Network Open on Jan. 28, 2022.

They found that mask-wearing from the May 22, 2020, baseline to June 8, 2020, was associated with a 13% reduction in program closures within the following year (adjusted relative risk, 0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.77-0.99). Continued mask-wearing throughout the 1-year follow-up was associated with a 14% reduction in program closures (aRR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.74-1.00).

The authors said the evidence supports current masking recommendation in younger children provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

They wrote: “This finding has important public health policy implications for families that rely on childcare to sustain employment.”

The benefits of masking in preventing COVID-19 transmission within kindergarten through 12th-grade classes are well documented. Masks are particularly important in areas where vaccinations are not widespread.

Masks can be worn safely by young children without harming respiratory function, studies have shown.

William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease expert at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., pointed out that the American Academy of Pediatrics has said there are no noteworthy effects on breathing function for most children.

“There’s been so much discussion about the contribution of masks to reducing the risk of COVID that it’s nice to have the data,” he said, adding that this is a relationship that has been difficult to study, but this analysis was able to make the connection with hard numbers.

“It’s an important outcome,” he said in an interview.

The authors pointed out there is evidence that school-age children can identify most emotions in masked faces.

They added that “2-year-old children recognize spoken words better through an opaque mask, compared with a clear face shield, suggesting verbal communication to infants is not harmed by face masks.”

Studies have shown that childhood infection with other respiratory viruses also decreased and asthma symptoms were not reported when preschool children wore masks and used other preventative steps.

The authors wrote that a potential reason for that may be that those who wear masks have less face touching, known to increase the spread of COVID-19.

Paloma Beamer, PhD, an engineer and exposure scientist at University of Arizona, Tucson, who also has a 3-year-old son who wears masks at his daycare center, said in an interview that she works closely with his school on training kids how to wear their masks because getting young children to keep them on and finding ones that fit is challenging.

“We need layered controls and protections in place at schools as much as possible,” she said, adding that the authors didn’t mention ventilation, but that’s another important component as well.

“We’re fortunate in Arizona that we are in an old school and the windows are open as much as possible,” she said.

She said this study shows that “masks are a great form of additional control.” Her son is on his third quarantine this month after three kids tested positive, she added.

She said: “I think these newer variants perhaps make the findings of this study more compelling and it will be interesting to see if the researchers do a follow-up study.”

Strengths of the study include that it utilized prospective data from a large national cohort of childcare professionals. Additionally, the retention rate was high at 1 year. And the self-reported information likely gives better information than looking at policies that may or may not be well followed.

Limitations include potential reporting bias because the self-reports were not independently confirmed. Also, family behavior outside childcare, such as social gatherings where masking is not enforced, also influence COVID-19 cases when children gather and may affect the numbers of closures.

Having the option of childcare centers benefits kids with in-person early education and social interactions with staff, the authors noted. The centers also help parents return to work without interruptions at home.

“Our findings support current national recommendations endorsed by many local and state governments for masking children 2 years and older in childcare programs when community COVID-19 transmission levels are elevated,” the authors wrote.

Dr. Schaffner said the results have implications outside of childcare centers and should be included in discussions of masking in schools and in the general public.

All phases of this study were supported by and coauthors report grants from the Andrew & Julie Klingenstein Family Fund, Esther A. & Joseph Klingenstein Fund, Heising-Simons Foundation, W.K. Kellogg Foundation, Foundation for Child Development, Early Educator Investment Collaborative, and Scholastic. The study was partially funded by the Yale Institute for Global Health. Dr. Schaffner and Dr. Beamer reported no relevant financial relationships.

Mask-wearing in childcare programs is linked with fewer COVID-19–related program closures, new data released suggest.

Researchers included 6,654 childcare professionals in a prospective, 1-year, longitudinal electronic survey study of home- and center-based childcare programs in all 50 states.

Findings by Thomas S. Murray, MD, PhD, with the department of pediatrics, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and coauthors, were published in JAMA Network Open on Jan. 28, 2022.

They found that mask-wearing from the May 22, 2020, baseline to June 8, 2020, was associated with a 13% reduction in program closures within the following year (adjusted relative risk, 0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.77-0.99). Continued mask-wearing throughout the 1-year follow-up was associated with a 14% reduction in program closures (aRR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.74-1.00).

The authors said the evidence supports current masking recommendation in younger children provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

They wrote: “This finding has important public health policy implications for families that rely on childcare to sustain employment.”

The benefits of masking in preventing COVID-19 transmission within kindergarten through 12th-grade classes are well documented. Masks are particularly important in areas where vaccinations are not widespread.

Masks can be worn safely by young children without harming respiratory function, studies have shown.

William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease expert at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., pointed out that the American Academy of Pediatrics has said there are no noteworthy effects on breathing function for most children.

“There’s been so much discussion about the contribution of masks to reducing the risk of COVID that it’s nice to have the data,” he said, adding that this is a relationship that has been difficult to study, but this analysis was able to make the connection with hard numbers.

“It’s an important outcome,” he said in an interview.

The authors pointed out there is evidence that school-age children can identify most emotions in masked faces.

They added that “2-year-old children recognize spoken words better through an opaque mask, compared with a clear face shield, suggesting verbal communication to infants is not harmed by face masks.”

Studies have shown that childhood infection with other respiratory viruses also decreased and asthma symptoms were not reported when preschool children wore masks and used other preventative steps.

The authors wrote that a potential reason for that may be that those who wear masks have less face touching, known to increase the spread of COVID-19.

Paloma Beamer, PhD, an engineer and exposure scientist at University of Arizona, Tucson, who also has a 3-year-old son who wears masks at his daycare center, said in an interview that she works closely with his school on training kids how to wear their masks because getting young children to keep them on and finding ones that fit is challenging.

“We need layered controls and protections in place at schools as much as possible,” she said, adding that the authors didn’t mention ventilation, but that’s another important component as well.

“We’re fortunate in Arizona that we are in an old school and the windows are open as much as possible,” she said.

She said this study shows that “masks are a great form of additional control.” Her son is on his third quarantine this month after three kids tested positive, she added.

She said: “I think these newer variants perhaps make the findings of this study more compelling and it will be interesting to see if the researchers do a follow-up study.”

Strengths of the study include that it utilized prospective data from a large national cohort of childcare professionals. Additionally, the retention rate was high at 1 year. And the self-reported information likely gives better information than looking at policies that may or may not be well followed.

Limitations include potential reporting bias because the self-reports were not independently confirmed. Also, family behavior outside childcare, such as social gatherings where masking is not enforced, also influence COVID-19 cases when children gather and may affect the numbers of closures.

Having the option of childcare centers benefits kids with in-person early education and social interactions with staff, the authors noted. The centers also help parents return to work without interruptions at home.

“Our findings support current national recommendations endorsed by many local and state governments for masking children 2 years and older in childcare programs when community COVID-19 transmission levels are elevated,” the authors wrote.

Dr. Schaffner said the results have implications outside of childcare centers and should be included in discussions of masking in schools and in the general public.

All phases of this study were supported by and coauthors report grants from the Andrew & Julie Klingenstein Family Fund, Esther A. & Joseph Klingenstein Fund, Heising-Simons Foundation, W.K. Kellogg Foundation, Foundation for Child Development, Early Educator Investment Collaborative, and Scholastic. The study was partially funded by the Yale Institute for Global Health. Dr. Schaffner and Dr. Beamer reported no relevant financial relationships.

Mask-wearing in childcare programs is linked with fewer COVID-19–related program closures, new data released suggest.

Researchers included 6,654 childcare professionals in a prospective, 1-year, longitudinal electronic survey study of home- and center-based childcare programs in all 50 states.

Findings by Thomas S. Murray, MD, PhD, with the department of pediatrics, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and coauthors, were published in JAMA Network Open on Jan. 28, 2022.

They found that mask-wearing from the May 22, 2020, baseline to June 8, 2020, was associated with a 13% reduction in program closures within the following year (adjusted relative risk, 0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.77-0.99). Continued mask-wearing throughout the 1-year follow-up was associated with a 14% reduction in program closures (aRR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.74-1.00).

The authors said the evidence supports current masking recommendation in younger children provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

They wrote: “This finding has important public health policy implications for families that rely on childcare to sustain employment.”

The benefits of masking in preventing COVID-19 transmission within kindergarten through 12th-grade classes are well documented. Masks are particularly important in areas where vaccinations are not widespread.

Masks can be worn safely by young children without harming respiratory function, studies have shown.

William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease expert at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., pointed out that the American Academy of Pediatrics has said there are no noteworthy effects on breathing function for most children.

“There’s been so much discussion about the contribution of masks to reducing the risk of COVID that it’s nice to have the data,” he said, adding that this is a relationship that has been difficult to study, but this analysis was able to make the connection with hard numbers.

“It’s an important outcome,” he said in an interview.

The authors pointed out there is evidence that school-age children can identify most emotions in masked faces.

They added that “2-year-old children recognize spoken words better through an opaque mask, compared with a clear face shield, suggesting verbal communication to infants is not harmed by face masks.”

Studies have shown that childhood infection with other respiratory viruses also decreased and asthma symptoms were not reported when preschool children wore masks and used other preventative steps.

The authors wrote that a potential reason for that may be that those who wear masks have less face touching, known to increase the spread of COVID-19.

Paloma Beamer, PhD, an engineer and exposure scientist at University of Arizona, Tucson, who also has a 3-year-old son who wears masks at his daycare center, said in an interview that she works closely with his school on training kids how to wear their masks because getting young children to keep them on and finding ones that fit is challenging.

“We need layered controls and protections in place at schools as much as possible,” she said, adding that the authors didn’t mention ventilation, but that’s another important component as well.

“We’re fortunate in Arizona that we are in an old school and the windows are open as much as possible,” she said.

She said this study shows that “masks are a great form of additional control.” Her son is on his third quarantine this month after three kids tested positive, she added.

She said: “I think these newer variants perhaps make the findings of this study more compelling and it will be interesting to see if the researchers do a follow-up study.”

Strengths of the study include that it utilized prospective data from a large national cohort of childcare professionals. Additionally, the retention rate was high at 1 year. And the self-reported information likely gives better information than looking at policies that may or may not be well followed.

Limitations include potential reporting bias because the self-reports were not independently confirmed. Also, family behavior outside childcare, such as social gatherings where masking is not enforced, also influence COVID-19 cases when children gather and may affect the numbers of closures.

Having the option of childcare centers benefits kids with in-person early education and social interactions with staff, the authors noted. The centers also help parents return to work without interruptions at home.

“Our findings support current national recommendations endorsed by many local and state governments for masking children 2 years and older in childcare programs when community COVID-19 transmission levels are elevated,” the authors wrote.

Dr. Schaffner said the results have implications outside of childcare centers and should be included in discussions of masking in schools and in the general public.

All phases of this study were supported by and coauthors report grants from the Andrew & Julie Klingenstein Family Fund, Esther A. & Joseph Klingenstein Fund, Heising-Simons Foundation, W.K. Kellogg Foundation, Foundation for Child Development, Early Educator Investment Collaborative, and Scholastic. The study was partially funded by the Yale Institute for Global Health. Dr. Schaffner and Dr. Beamer reported no relevant financial relationships.