AVAHO

The risk of in-hospital complications and poor birth outcomes were greater in pregnant women with current or historical cancer diagnoses, new research suggests.

The study, published in Mayo Clinic Proceedings, found that women with current and historical cancer diagnoses had an increased risk of death, kidney injury, and stroke during delivery hospitalizations, compared with those with no cancer. When it came to delivery outcomes, this group also had a higher risk for preterm birth and postpartum hemorrhage. Those with a current cancer diagnoses had a 1.7-fold increase in odds for a preterm birth, compared with women without cancer.

“Our study found that metastases increased the odds of mortality, cesarean delivery, preterm birth, and stillbirth,” the researchers noted. “Coupled with previous research reporting that pregnant women are more likely to be diagnosed with advanced disease, this implies that pregnant women with newly diagnosed cancer have poor prognoses.”

However, although women with prior cancer had increased odds of mortality, the researchers said it was not statistically significant.

“The study really did not show an increase of mortality [for women with prior cancer diagnosis],” said Justin Chura, MD, a specialist in gynecologic oncology who was not involved in the study. “And the reason might be because there is not or the reason might be because it’s such a rare event. You would need 100 million births to assess that. So I would actually use caution in that interpretation.”

Researchers analyzed more than 43 million delivery hospitalizations of women with or without current or historical cancer diagnoses between January 2004 and December 2014. They found that the most common cancer diagnoses were hematologic, thyroid, cervical, skin, and breast.

Of the five most common cancers, the prevalence of all maternal complications and negative delivery outcomes was the highest among women with hematologic cancers. They were more likely to experience peripartum cardiomyopathy, acute kidney injury, and arrhythmia, compared with other cancers. Postpartum hemorrhage, maternal mortality, and placental abruption was also more likely to occur in those with this type of cancer.

“I was surprised that it was the hematologic cancers that were worse when they did it by cancer type,” said Dr. Chura, who is the chief of surgery and the director of gynecologic oncology and robotic surgery at the Cancer Treatment Centers of America’s Eastern Regional Medical Center in Philadelphia. “I think this is a useful bit of information for counseling our patients and also to identify the cohort with the highest risk.”

The findings also suggested that those with skin cancer had the highest odds for stroke, while women with cervical and breast cancers were more likely to experience acute kidney injury and preterm birth.

Dr. Chura said cancer treatments can have an impact on a woman’s health when she’s giving birth. For example, if a woman is diagnosed with cervical cancer, doctors may perform a cone biopsy on her where they remove a large portion of the cervix and still leave them with the ability to conceive and become pregnant. However, those patients are left with a higher risk of a preterm delivery.

For women with a hematologic cancer like non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, chest radiation may cause some subsequent damage to their heart muscles “and now the stress of pregnancy puts more demand on the heart that can lead to cardiac complications for that patient,” Dr. Chura said.

“There are potential long-term effects from radiation and chemotherapy,” Dr. Chura said.

Previous studies have shown that chemotherapy may affect pregnancy and delivery. A 2019 study published in the Journal of Cancer also found that 59 pregnant women with cancer had increased mortality compared with those without the long-term illness. Meanwhile, another 2018 study published in Cancer found that women who conceived less than a year after starting chemotherapy had higher risks of preterm birth in comparison with those who conceived more than a year after starting chemotherapy. The study also found that cancer survivors who conceived more than a year after finishing chemotherapy with or without radiation had no higher risk of a preterm birth than those without cancer.

Dr. Chura said the new study could force doctors to think about the long-term effects of their cancer therapies and make them more apt to think about how to make cancer therapy less toxic with less long-term health consequences, while still curing patients.

“Most oncologists, when dealing with younger patients, are very focused on curing the cancer at hand, but not necessarily thinking 5 or 10 years down the road,” Dr. Chura said. “[This study] could help inform or at least make us aware of the long-term consequences of our cancer therapies.”

Dr. Chura had no relevant financial disclosures.

The risk of in-hospital complications and poor birth outcomes were greater in pregnant women with current or historical cancer diagnoses, new research suggests.

The study, published in Mayo Clinic Proceedings, found that women with current and historical cancer diagnoses had an increased risk of death, kidney injury, and stroke during delivery hospitalizations, compared with those with no cancer. When it came to delivery outcomes, this group also had a higher risk for preterm birth and postpartum hemorrhage. Those with a current cancer diagnoses had a 1.7-fold increase in odds for a preterm birth, compared with women without cancer.

“Our study found that metastases increased the odds of mortality, cesarean delivery, preterm birth, and stillbirth,” the researchers noted. “Coupled with previous research reporting that pregnant women are more likely to be diagnosed with advanced disease, this implies that pregnant women with newly diagnosed cancer have poor prognoses.”

However, although women with prior cancer had increased odds of mortality, the researchers said it was not statistically significant.

“The study really did not show an increase of mortality [for women with prior cancer diagnosis],” said Justin Chura, MD, a specialist in gynecologic oncology who was not involved in the study. “And the reason might be because there is not or the reason might be because it’s such a rare event. You would need 100 million births to assess that. So I would actually use caution in that interpretation.”

Researchers analyzed more than 43 million delivery hospitalizations of women with or without current or historical cancer diagnoses between January 2004 and December 2014. They found that the most common cancer diagnoses were hematologic, thyroid, cervical, skin, and breast.

Of the five most common cancers, the prevalence of all maternal complications and negative delivery outcomes was the highest among women with hematologic cancers. They were more likely to experience peripartum cardiomyopathy, acute kidney injury, and arrhythmia, compared with other cancers. Postpartum hemorrhage, maternal mortality, and placental abruption was also more likely to occur in those with this type of cancer.

“I was surprised that it was the hematologic cancers that were worse when they did it by cancer type,” said Dr. Chura, who is the chief of surgery and the director of gynecologic oncology and robotic surgery at the Cancer Treatment Centers of America’s Eastern Regional Medical Center in Philadelphia. “I think this is a useful bit of information for counseling our patients and also to identify the cohort with the highest risk.”

The findings also suggested that those with skin cancer had the highest odds for stroke, while women with cervical and breast cancers were more likely to experience acute kidney injury and preterm birth.

Dr. Chura said cancer treatments can have an impact on a woman’s health when she’s giving birth. For example, if a woman is diagnosed with cervical cancer, doctors may perform a cone biopsy on her where they remove a large portion of the cervix and still leave them with the ability to conceive and become pregnant. However, those patients are left with a higher risk of a preterm delivery.

For women with a hematologic cancer like non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, chest radiation may cause some subsequent damage to their heart muscles “and now the stress of pregnancy puts more demand on the heart that can lead to cardiac complications for that patient,” Dr. Chura said.

“There are potential long-term effects from radiation and chemotherapy,” Dr. Chura said.

Previous studies have shown that chemotherapy may affect pregnancy and delivery. A 2019 study published in the Journal of Cancer also found that 59 pregnant women with cancer had increased mortality compared with those without the long-term illness. Meanwhile, another 2018 study published in Cancer found that women who conceived less than a year after starting chemotherapy had higher risks of preterm birth in comparison with those who conceived more than a year after starting chemotherapy. The study also found that cancer survivors who conceived more than a year after finishing chemotherapy with or without radiation had no higher risk of a preterm birth than those without cancer.

Dr. Chura said the new study could force doctors to think about the long-term effects of their cancer therapies and make them more apt to think about how to make cancer therapy less toxic with less long-term health consequences, while still curing patients.

“Most oncologists, when dealing with younger patients, are very focused on curing the cancer at hand, but not necessarily thinking 5 or 10 years down the road,” Dr. Chura said. “[This study] could help inform or at least make us aware of the long-term consequences of our cancer therapies.”

Dr. Chura had no relevant financial disclosures.

The risk of in-hospital complications and poor birth outcomes were greater in pregnant women with current or historical cancer diagnoses, new research suggests.

The study, published in Mayo Clinic Proceedings, found that women with current and historical cancer diagnoses had an increased risk of death, kidney injury, and stroke during delivery hospitalizations, compared with those with no cancer. When it came to delivery outcomes, this group also had a higher risk for preterm birth and postpartum hemorrhage. Those with a current cancer diagnoses had a 1.7-fold increase in odds for a preterm birth, compared with women without cancer.

“Our study found that metastases increased the odds of mortality, cesarean delivery, preterm birth, and stillbirth,” the researchers noted. “Coupled with previous research reporting that pregnant women are more likely to be diagnosed with advanced disease, this implies that pregnant women with newly diagnosed cancer have poor prognoses.”

However, although women with prior cancer had increased odds of mortality, the researchers said it was not statistically significant.

“The study really did not show an increase of mortality [for women with prior cancer diagnosis],” said Justin Chura, MD, a specialist in gynecologic oncology who was not involved in the study. “And the reason might be because there is not or the reason might be because it’s such a rare event. You would need 100 million births to assess that. So I would actually use caution in that interpretation.”

Researchers analyzed more than 43 million delivery hospitalizations of women with or without current or historical cancer diagnoses between January 2004 and December 2014. They found that the most common cancer diagnoses were hematologic, thyroid, cervical, skin, and breast.

Of the five most common cancers, the prevalence of all maternal complications and negative delivery outcomes was the highest among women with hematologic cancers. They were more likely to experience peripartum cardiomyopathy, acute kidney injury, and arrhythmia, compared with other cancers. Postpartum hemorrhage, maternal mortality, and placental abruption was also more likely to occur in those with this type of cancer.

“I was surprised that it was the hematologic cancers that were worse when they did it by cancer type,” said Dr. Chura, who is the chief of surgery and the director of gynecologic oncology and robotic surgery at the Cancer Treatment Centers of America’s Eastern Regional Medical Center in Philadelphia. “I think this is a useful bit of information for counseling our patients and also to identify the cohort with the highest risk.”

The findings also suggested that those with skin cancer had the highest odds for stroke, while women with cervical and breast cancers were more likely to experience acute kidney injury and preterm birth.

Dr. Chura said cancer treatments can have an impact on a woman’s health when she’s giving birth. For example, if a woman is diagnosed with cervical cancer, doctors may perform a cone biopsy on her where they remove a large portion of the cervix and still leave them with the ability to conceive and become pregnant. However, those patients are left with a higher risk of a preterm delivery.

For women with a hematologic cancer like non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, chest radiation may cause some subsequent damage to their heart muscles “and now the stress of pregnancy puts more demand on the heart that can lead to cardiac complications for that patient,” Dr. Chura said.

“There are potential long-term effects from radiation and chemotherapy,” Dr. Chura said.

Previous studies have shown that chemotherapy may affect pregnancy and delivery. A 2019 study published in the Journal of Cancer also found that 59 pregnant women with cancer had increased mortality compared with those without the long-term illness. Meanwhile, another 2018 study published in Cancer found that women who conceived less than a year after starting chemotherapy had higher risks of preterm birth in comparison with those who conceived more than a year after starting chemotherapy. The study also found that cancer survivors who conceived more than a year after finishing chemotherapy with or without radiation had no higher risk of a preterm birth than those without cancer.

Dr. Chura said the new study could force doctors to think about the long-term effects of their cancer therapies and make them more apt to think about how to make cancer therapy less toxic with less long-term health consequences, while still curing patients.

“Most oncologists, when dealing with younger patients, are very focused on curing the cancer at hand, but not necessarily thinking 5 or 10 years down the road,” Dr. Chura said. “[This study] could help inform or at least make us aware of the long-term consequences of our cancer therapies.”

Dr. Chura had no relevant financial disclosures.

Declining trends in melanoma death rates accelerated from 2014 to 2018 in the United States, even as incidence rates increased for both males and females, according to an annual report by several national organizations.

“Death rates for cutaneous melanoma have declined rapidly in recent years following introduction of new therapies, including targeted and immune checkpoint inhibitors, the first of which was approved by the [Food and Drug Administration] in early 2011,” Farhad Islami, MD, PhD, of the American Cancer Society, and associates wrote in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

The American Cancer Society, along with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Cancer Institute, and the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries, issue a joint report each year to update the incidence and mortality of the most common cancers and analyze short- and long-term trends since 2001.

Long-term melanoma mortality gets divided into two trends: First a slow decline over about a decade, then an accelerated decline until the end of the study period, although the timing is slightly different between males and females. For men, the death rate fell by an average of 0.9% a year from 2001 to 2009, compared with 5.7% per year in 2013-2018. For women, the average annual change went from –0.3% for 2001-2012 to –4.4% in 2012-2018.

The incidence of melanoma, however, headed in the opposite direction, rising 1.9% per year for females and 2.2% for males from 2001 to 2017, without the notable change in trend seen with death rates, Dr. Islami and associates said.

Incidence by race/ethnicity, reported for 2013-2017, shows that melanoma is much more common among white non-Hispanics: 37.4 per 100,000 standard population for males and 24.5 for females. Non-Hispanic American Indians/Alaska Natives were next at 10.8 (men) and 6.7 (women), followed by Hispanics (5.1/4.5), non-Hispanic Asians/Pacific Islanders (1.6/1.3), and non-Hispanic Blacks (1.2/1.0), they reported.

Death rates for melanoma, reported for 2014-2018, follow a similar pattern. White males (4.2 per 100,000) and females (1.8 per 100,000) had the highest mortality, then American Indians/Alaska Natives (1.0/0.5) and Hispanics (0.9/0.5), but rates were the same for Blacks and Asians/Pacific Islanders (0.4/0.3), the investigators said.

The accelerated decline in death rates in more recent years reflects “a substantial increase in survival for metastatic melanoma,” the participating organizations noted in a joint statement.

Increases in 2-year survival in distant-stage disease averaged 3.1% per year for those diagnosed during 2009-2014, which “slightly preceded the FDA approval of new therapies, likely because of the administration of these therapies through clinical trials and the FDA expanded access programs prior to the approval,” Dr. Islami and associates wrote.

The 2-year relative survival for those with nonmetastatic melanoma also improved over the study period, but the increases were much smaller: 0.4% per year for regional-stage disease and just 0.03% localized-stage cases diagnosed in 2001-2014, they reported.

The report was funded by the four participating groups. Six of the 12 investigators are employees of the American Cancer Society whose salaries are solely paid by the society; the other authors had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

[email protected]

Declining trends in melanoma death rates accelerated from 2014 to 2018 in the United States, even as incidence rates increased for both males and females, according to an annual report by several national organizations.

“Death rates for cutaneous melanoma have declined rapidly in recent years following introduction of new therapies, including targeted and immune checkpoint inhibitors, the first of which was approved by the [Food and Drug Administration] in early 2011,” Farhad Islami, MD, PhD, of the American Cancer Society, and associates wrote in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

The American Cancer Society, along with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Cancer Institute, and the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries, issue a joint report each year to update the incidence and mortality of the most common cancers and analyze short- and long-term trends since 2001.

Long-term melanoma mortality gets divided into two trends: First a slow decline over about a decade, then an accelerated decline until the end of the study period, although the timing is slightly different between males and females. For men, the death rate fell by an average of 0.9% a year from 2001 to 2009, compared with 5.7% per year in 2013-2018. For women, the average annual change went from –0.3% for 2001-2012 to –4.4% in 2012-2018.

The incidence of melanoma, however, headed in the opposite direction, rising 1.9% per year for females and 2.2% for males from 2001 to 2017, without the notable change in trend seen with death rates, Dr. Islami and associates said.

Incidence by race/ethnicity, reported for 2013-2017, shows that melanoma is much more common among white non-Hispanics: 37.4 per 100,000 standard population for males and 24.5 for females. Non-Hispanic American Indians/Alaska Natives were next at 10.8 (men) and 6.7 (women), followed by Hispanics (5.1/4.5), non-Hispanic Asians/Pacific Islanders (1.6/1.3), and non-Hispanic Blacks (1.2/1.0), they reported.

Death rates for melanoma, reported for 2014-2018, follow a similar pattern. White males (4.2 per 100,000) and females (1.8 per 100,000) had the highest mortality, then American Indians/Alaska Natives (1.0/0.5) and Hispanics (0.9/0.5), but rates were the same for Blacks and Asians/Pacific Islanders (0.4/0.3), the investigators said.

The accelerated decline in death rates in more recent years reflects “a substantial increase in survival for metastatic melanoma,” the participating organizations noted in a joint statement.

Increases in 2-year survival in distant-stage disease averaged 3.1% per year for those diagnosed during 2009-2014, which “slightly preceded the FDA approval of new therapies, likely because of the administration of these therapies through clinical trials and the FDA expanded access programs prior to the approval,” Dr. Islami and associates wrote.

The 2-year relative survival for those with nonmetastatic melanoma also improved over the study period, but the increases were much smaller: 0.4% per year for regional-stage disease and just 0.03% localized-stage cases diagnosed in 2001-2014, they reported.

The report was funded by the four participating groups. Six of the 12 investigators are employees of the American Cancer Society whose salaries are solely paid by the society; the other authors had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

[email protected]

Declining trends in melanoma death rates accelerated from 2014 to 2018 in the United States, even as incidence rates increased for both males and females, according to an annual report by several national organizations.

“Death rates for cutaneous melanoma have declined rapidly in recent years following introduction of new therapies, including targeted and immune checkpoint inhibitors, the first of which was approved by the [Food and Drug Administration] in early 2011,” Farhad Islami, MD, PhD, of the American Cancer Society, and associates wrote in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

The American Cancer Society, along with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Cancer Institute, and the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries, issue a joint report each year to update the incidence and mortality of the most common cancers and analyze short- and long-term trends since 2001.

Long-term melanoma mortality gets divided into two trends: First a slow decline over about a decade, then an accelerated decline until the end of the study period, although the timing is slightly different between males and females. For men, the death rate fell by an average of 0.9% a year from 2001 to 2009, compared with 5.7% per year in 2013-2018. For women, the average annual change went from –0.3% for 2001-2012 to –4.4% in 2012-2018.

The incidence of melanoma, however, headed in the opposite direction, rising 1.9% per year for females and 2.2% for males from 2001 to 2017, without the notable change in trend seen with death rates, Dr. Islami and associates said.

Incidence by race/ethnicity, reported for 2013-2017, shows that melanoma is much more common among white non-Hispanics: 37.4 per 100,000 standard population for males and 24.5 for females. Non-Hispanic American Indians/Alaska Natives were next at 10.8 (men) and 6.7 (women), followed by Hispanics (5.1/4.5), non-Hispanic Asians/Pacific Islanders (1.6/1.3), and non-Hispanic Blacks (1.2/1.0), they reported.

Death rates for melanoma, reported for 2014-2018, follow a similar pattern. White males (4.2 per 100,000) and females (1.8 per 100,000) had the highest mortality, then American Indians/Alaska Natives (1.0/0.5) and Hispanics (0.9/0.5), but rates were the same for Blacks and Asians/Pacific Islanders (0.4/0.3), the investigators said.

The accelerated decline in death rates in more recent years reflects “a substantial increase in survival for metastatic melanoma,” the participating organizations noted in a joint statement.

Increases in 2-year survival in distant-stage disease averaged 3.1% per year for those diagnosed during 2009-2014, which “slightly preceded the FDA approval of new therapies, likely because of the administration of these therapies through clinical trials and the FDA expanded access programs prior to the approval,” Dr. Islami and associates wrote.

The 2-year relative survival for those with nonmetastatic melanoma also improved over the study period, but the increases were much smaller: 0.4% per year for regional-stage disease and just 0.03% localized-stage cases diagnosed in 2001-2014, they reported.

The report was funded by the four participating groups. Six of the 12 investigators are employees of the American Cancer Society whose salaries are solely paid by the society; the other authors had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

[email protected]

Martin D. Greenberg, MD, was sued in May for secretly using his own sperm to inseminate one of his infertility patients 38 years earlier. The patient’s daughter found out last year when she used a DNA test from 23andme to learn about her family history. The 77-year-old New York gynecologist is retired in Florida.

Dr. Greenberg is one of more than 30 U.S. physicians who have so far been identified as having used their own sperm without telling their patients, and more cases are likely. All but one of the cases took place before 1990. Most of them came to light in the past few years, when biological offspring found out from home DNA tests.

“It is a gross betrayal of the trust that a patient puts in her doctor. It is an absolute perversion of the practice of medicine,” said Dev Sethi, a plaintiff attorney who sued a Tucson, Ariz., physician who inseminated at least 10 patients with his own sperm. “The hubris of a doctor to impregnate his own patient, in some effort to either save money or populate the world with his offspring, is striking.”

Why would these physicians use their own sperm and then keep it secret? Why were there so many of them? When their offspring now try to communicate with them, do they want to have a relationship? And how do they react when they’re found out?

The doctors’ behavior mystifies Sigal Klipstein, MD, a reproductive endocrinologist in Hoffman Estates, Ill., who is chair of the ethics committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine.

“These doctors lived with secrets for many years. How do you live with that as a doctor?” said Dr. Klipstein, who was still in high school when most of these cases occurred. “It surprises me that anybody would do this.”
 

Lack of training and lots of secrecy

Were these physicians particularly selfish or egotistical? Or was expedience the prime motivation?

At the time, there was little training in the techniques and ethics of infertility care, said Jody Madeira, JD, PhD, a law professor at Indiana University, Bloomington, who has closely studied the doctors.

“Many of them were ob.gyns., but they did not take CME courses for this work,” she said. The subspecialty of reproductive endocrinology and infertility was just beginning in the early 1970s, according an ASRM spokesman.

Treatment of infertility was a rather hush-hush topic at that time, which made it easier to be deceptive. In 1955, an Illinois court held that artificial insemination constituted adultery. “The social stigma resulting from the practice forces the parents to keep secret the infant’s origin,” a law review article from 1955 stated.

“In the 1950s and 1960s and even into the 1970s and 1980s, infertility treatments were considered shameful, and patients were often advised to keep their treatment to themselves,” Dr. Madeira said. “With everything so secret, it was easy to be deceptive.”

The field has become more sophisticated since then, Dr. Klipstein said. “For known donors, there is a legal contract between the recipient and donor. And it is no longer possible to be an anonymous donor. People can find you through DNA tests.”

Owing to changes in the field as well as the growing likelihood of being caught through DNA tests, most experts believe that rampant infertility fraud ended long ago.
 

How they were found out

When the doctors were active, there was little risk of being exposed. In those times, paternity tests were based on broad factors such as blood type and were unreliable. More accurate DNA tests were underway, but the doctors’ offspring did not think of using them because they suspected nothing.

Most of the doctors’ deeds only came to light with the rise of a new industry – home DNA testing for people who are curious about their family background. First came 23andme in 2007, then Ancestry.com in 2015. The number of people being tested reached almost 2 million in 2016, 7 million in 2017, and 30 million in 2020.

As more people entered company databases, it became easier to pinpoint biological fathers through other relatives. This explains how doctors who had not taken a home DNA test were identified.

The home tests have been shown to be highly accurate. None of the results for doctors accused of using their own sperm have proven to be false, and courts recognize similar DNA tests as proof of paternity.

But when found out, many of the physicians disputed the results and acted as if they could still keep their secret. “I don’t deny it; I don’t admit it,” Paul Brennan Jones, MD, a Colorado doctor, said when he was accused of siring eight children through his infertility patients decades before. Asked whether he would provide a DNA sample, the 80-year-old doctor responded: “No ... because I don’t want to have any incriminating evidence against me.”
 

How often did it happen?

Donor Deceived, a website that monitors these cases, reports 32 cases of physicians surreptitiously providing sperm to their patients. Eleven of the doctors are linked to 1 known offspring, two are linked to more than 75 offspring, one to 15, one to 10, three to 9, three to 7, and two to 5.

“It’s unlikely that any of the doctors did it just once,” said Adam B. Wolf, a San Francisco attorney who is representing the plaintiff in the Greenberg case. “It’s happened before. When doctors get the idea to do something crazy, they do it multiple times.”

Mr. Wolf believes that, because most people haven’t taken a DNA test, there are many more biological children of infertility doctors who have yet to come forward.

Many of the doctors who were found out have negotiated settlements with patients, under which they pay undisclosed sums of money in exchange for the patient’s keeping silent. Mr. Wolf said that, of the two dozen victims of sperm-donor doctors his law firm has represented, all but three have settled.

“We give an opportunity to the doctor to resolve the claims without having to publicly out this person for using his own sperm in his patients,” Mr. Wolf said. “Most doctors jump at the opportunity to not be known as the kind of person who would do that.”

Cases about to go to trial have been withdrawn because of being settled. In May, a case against Gerald E. Mortimer, MD, in Idaho, was dismissed after 3 years of litigation. The judge had made some key decisions that made it less likely that Dr. Mortimer would win. Dr. Mortimer’s biological daughter filed the initial case. She alleged medical negligence, failure to obtain informed consent, fraud, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and several other causes of action.

Dr. Madeira objects to the use of confidential settlements, because other offspring cannot be alerted. But she also believes that, as more people find out about their parentage through DNA tests, it will be harder for accused doctors to make confidential settlements with all of them, and the doctors will eventually be identified.

In settlements, offspring ask for the medical histories of these doctors. So far, offspring have linked the development of Tay-Sachs disease, cystic fibrosis, and ovarian cancer with these doctors.
 

Denial: Physicians’ most frequent reaction

Once identified, most of the doctors denied the charge. When Gary Phillip Wood, MD, of Arkansas, was tracked down by his biological son, Dr. Wood insisted he had had a vasectomy years before the man was born but still would not agree to a DNA test. He died in April 2021.

None of the identified sperm doctors were interested in having a relationship with their newly identified offspring. When Gary Vandenberg, MD, of California, was contacted by his biological daughter, he abruptly ended the conversation, wishing her “good luck in life,” she recalled. “When I first found out, I was very suicidal. I did not want this existence. I still have those days. My husband had to take off work and stay home quite a bit to make sure I didn’t do anything to myself.”

When Gary Don Davis, MD, of Idaho, was asked about his paternity, he replied: “Let me check on that. Goodbye.” He could not be reached after that, and he died a few months later.

The accused doctors often have no medical records of their work. Dr. Wood said that all his records had been destroyed, and Dr. Greenberg said he did not have any records on his accuser and doubted that he had ever treated her. A 1977 survey found that more than half of infertility doctors did not keep any medical records so as to preserve the donor’s anonymity.

Many of the accused doctors said they used their own sperm because they were deeply committed to helping their patients. At one physician’s trial, his defense attorney said: “If Cecil made any mistakes, it was in losing his objectivity and trying so hard to get patients pregnant.”
 

Was it really ethically wrong?

Many of the doctors don’t accept that they did any harm, says Julie D. Cantor, MD, JD, a former adjunct professor at the University of California, Los Angeles. “These doctors seemed to be thinking: ‘The patient wanted to get pregnant and have a baby, and that’s what happened, so no harm done.’ But the entire interaction is based on a lie.”

The doctors also had the problem of having to use fresh sperm rather than frozen sperm, as is used today. Sperm had to be used within hours of being produced. If the donor did not show up at the time of the appointment, the doctor might decide to keep the appointment with the patient anyway and provide his own sperm.

However, “these doctors didn’t have to use their own sperm,” Mr. Wolf said. “They could have rescheduled the appointment until a new donor could be found.”

Some say that the doctors seemed to have had a very high opinion of themselves and their own sperm. “Some of them had savior complexes,” Dr. Madeira said. “They seemed to be thinking: ‘I’m giving the gift of life, and I’m the only one who can really do it, because I have great genes.’ ”

When Kim McMorries, MD, of Texas, was confronted with the fact that he had donated sperm 33 years before, he insisted that it was ethical at the time. “When this occurred, it was not considered wrong,” he wrote in an email to his biological daughter.

Today, doctors are bound by the doctrine of informed consent, which holds that patients should be informed about all steps taken in their care. The term was coined by a judge in 1960, and it took some time for some in the medical world to fully accept informed consent. Still, Dr. Madeira asserts it was always unethical to secretly fertilize patients.

“Even in the more paternalistic era of the 1970s and 1980s, it was not right to lie to your patients about such an important part of their lives,” she said.

Some sperm doctors insisted that they had received informed consent when the patient agreed to use an anonymous donor. “Dr. Kiken did that which he was asked to do,” wrote the attorneys for Michael S. Kiken, MD, of Virginia. “Anonymous donor meant that the patient would not know the donor’s identity, he would be anonymous to her.”

Dr. Madeira does not accept this argument either. “The doctor may have thought it was understood that he could be the anonymous person, but the patients did not see it that way,” she said. “They were not expecting the anonymous donor would be their own doctor.”

“I think what happened is a crime,” said Dr. Klipstein. “It’s an ethical violation, a fracture in the trust between doctor and patient.”

Existing laws, however, don’t make it easy to prosecute the doctors. When lawsuits are filed against these doctors, “you have to shoehorn existing statutes to fit the facts, and that may not be a terrific fit,” Dr. Cantor said.

The doctors have been charged with battery, fraud, negligence, breach of duty, unjust enrichment, and rape. But none of them have been found guilty specifically of secretly using their own sperm. Two of the doctors were convicted, but for other offenses, such as perjury for denying their involvement.

Since 2019, five states – Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Indiana, and Texas – have passed statutes specifically outlawing infertility fraud. In addition, a 1995 California law requires identifying the sperm donor.

It may be difficult, however, to apply these new laws to offenses by aging sperm doctors that happened decades ago. “Some states have inflexible limits on the amount of time in which you can sue, even if you didn’t know about the problem until recently,” Dr. Madeira said. “Texas, for example, allows civil lawsuits only up to 10 years after commission.”

Before the fertility fraud physicians can be brought to justice, many of them might just fade away.

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

Martin D. Greenberg, MD, was sued in May for secretly using his own sperm to inseminate one of his infertility patients 38 years earlier. The patient’s daughter found out last year when she used a DNA test from 23andme to learn about her family history. The 77-year-old New York gynecologist is retired in Florida.

Dr. Greenberg is one of more than 30 U.S. physicians who have so far been identified as having used their own sperm without telling their patients, and more cases are likely. All but one of the cases took place before 1990. Most of them came to light in the past few years, when biological offspring found out from home DNA tests.

“It is a gross betrayal of the trust that a patient puts in her doctor. It is an absolute perversion of the practice of medicine,” said Dev Sethi, a plaintiff attorney who sued a Tucson, Ariz., physician who inseminated at least 10 patients with his own sperm. “The hubris of a doctor to impregnate his own patient, in some effort to either save money or populate the world with his offspring, is striking.”

Why would these physicians use their own sperm and then keep it secret? Why were there so many of them? When their offspring now try to communicate with them, do they want to have a relationship? And how do they react when they’re found out?

The doctors’ behavior mystifies Sigal Klipstein, MD, a reproductive endocrinologist in Hoffman Estates, Ill., who is chair of the ethics committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine.

“These doctors lived with secrets for many years. How do you live with that as a doctor?” said Dr. Klipstein, who was still in high school when most of these cases occurred. “It surprises me that anybody would do this.”
 

Lack of training and lots of secrecy

Were these physicians particularly selfish or egotistical? Or was expedience the prime motivation?

At the time, there was little training in the techniques and ethics of infertility care, said Jody Madeira, JD, PhD, a law professor at Indiana University, Bloomington, who has closely studied the doctors.

“Many of them were ob.gyns., but they did not take CME courses for this work,” she said. The subspecialty of reproductive endocrinology and infertility was just beginning in the early 1970s, according an ASRM spokesman.

Treatment of infertility was a rather hush-hush topic at that time, which made it easier to be deceptive. In 1955, an Illinois court held that artificial insemination constituted adultery. “The social stigma resulting from the practice forces the parents to keep secret the infant’s origin,” a law review article from 1955 stated.

“In the 1950s and 1960s and even into the 1970s and 1980s, infertility treatments were considered shameful, and patients were often advised to keep their treatment to themselves,” Dr. Madeira said. “With everything so secret, it was easy to be deceptive.”

The field has become more sophisticated since then, Dr. Klipstein said. “For known donors, there is a legal contract between the recipient and donor. And it is no longer possible to be an anonymous donor. People can find you through DNA tests.”

Owing to changes in the field as well as the growing likelihood of being caught through DNA tests, most experts believe that rampant infertility fraud ended long ago.
 

How they were found out

When the doctors were active, there was little risk of being exposed. In those times, paternity tests were based on broad factors such as blood type and were unreliable. More accurate DNA tests were underway, but the doctors’ offspring did not think of using them because they suspected nothing.

Most of the doctors’ deeds only came to light with the rise of a new industry – home DNA testing for people who are curious about their family background. First came 23andme in 2007, then Ancestry.com in 2015. The number of people being tested reached almost 2 million in 2016, 7 million in 2017, and 30 million in 2020.

As more people entered company databases, it became easier to pinpoint biological fathers through other relatives. This explains how doctors who had not taken a home DNA test were identified.

The home tests have been shown to be highly accurate. None of the results for doctors accused of using their own sperm have proven to be false, and courts recognize similar DNA tests as proof of paternity.

But when found out, many of the physicians disputed the results and acted as if they could still keep their secret. “I don’t deny it; I don’t admit it,” Paul Brennan Jones, MD, a Colorado doctor, said when he was accused of siring eight children through his infertility patients decades before. Asked whether he would provide a DNA sample, the 80-year-old doctor responded: “No ... because I don’t want to have any incriminating evidence against me.”
 

How often did it happen?

Donor Deceived, a website that monitors these cases, reports 32 cases of physicians surreptitiously providing sperm to their patients. Eleven of the doctors are linked to 1 known offspring, two are linked to more than 75 offspring, one to 15, one to 10, three to 9, three to 7, and two to 5.

“It’s unlikely that any of the doctors did it just once,” said Adam B. Wolf, a San Francisco attorney who is representing the plaintiff in the Greenberg case. “It’s happened before. When doctors get the idea to do something crazy, they do it multiple times.”

Mr. Wolf believes that, because most people haven’t taken a DNA test, there are many more biological children of infertility doctors who have yet to come forward.

Many of the doctors who were found out have negotiated settlements with patients, under which they pay undisclosed sums of money in exchange for the patient’s keeping silent. Mr. Wolf said that, of the two dozen victims of sperm-donor doctors his law firm has represented, all but three have settled.

“We give an opportunity to the doctor to resolve the claims without having to publicly out this person for using his own sperm in his patients,” Mr. Wolf said. “Most doctors jump at the opportunity to not be known as the kind of person who would do that.”

Cases about to go to trial have been withdrawn because of being settled. In May, a case against Gerald E. Mortimer, MD, in Idaho, was dismissed after 3 years of litigation. The judge had made some key decisions that made it less likely that Dr. Mortimer would win. Dr. Mortimer’s biological daughter filed the initial case. She alleged medical negligence, failure to obtain informed consent, fraud, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and several other causes of action.

Dr. Madeira objects to the use of confidential settlements, because other offspring cannot be alerted. But she also believes that, as more people find out about their parentage through DNA tests, it will be harder for accused doctors to make confidential settlements with all of them, and the doctors will eventually be identified.

In settlements, offspring ask for the medical histories of these doctors. So far, offspring have linked the development of Tay-Sachs disease, cystic fibrosis, and ovarian cancer with these doctors.
 

Denial: Physicians’ most frequent reaction

Once identified, most of the doctors denied the charge. When Gary Phillip Wood, MD, of Arkansas, was tracked down by his biological son, Dr. Wood insisted he had had a vasectomy years before the man was born but still would not agree to a DNA test. He died in April 2021.

None of the identified sperm doctors were interested in having a relationship with their newly identified offspring. When Gary Vandenberg, MD, of California, was contacted by his biological daughter, he abruptly ended the conversation, wishing her “good luck in life,” she recalled. “When I first found out, I was very suicidal. I did not want this existence. I still have those days. My husband had to take off work and stay home quite a bit to make sure I didn’t do anything to myself.”

When Gary Don Davis, MD, of Idaho, was asked about his paternity, he replied: “Let me check on that. Goodbye.” He could not be reached after that, and he died a few months later.

The accused doctors often have no medical records of their work. Dr. Wood said that all his records had been destroyed, and Dr. Greenberg said he did not have any records on his accuser and doubted that he had ever treated her. A 1977 survey found that more than half of infertility doctors did not keep any medical records so as to preserve the donor’s anonymity.

Many of the accused doctors said they used their own sperm because they were deeply committed to helping their patients. At one physician’s trial, his defense attorney said: “If Cecil made any mistakes, it was in losing his objectivity and trying so hard to get patients pregnant.”
 

Was it really ethically wrong?

Many of the doctors don’t accept that they did any harm, says Julie D. Cantor, MD, JD, a former adjunct professor at the University of California, Los Angeles. “These doctors seemed to be thinking: ‘The patient wanted to get pregnant and have a baby, and that’s what happened, so no harm done.’ But the entire interaction is based on a lie.”

The doctors also had the problem of having to use fresh sperm rather than frozen sperm, as is used today. Sperm had to be used within hours of being produced. If the donor did not show up at the time of the appointment, the doctor might decide to keep the appointment with the patient anyway and provide his own sperm.

However, “these doctors didn’t have to use their own sperm,” Mr. Wolf said. “They could have rescheduled the appointment until a new donor could be found.”

Some say that the doctors seemed to have had a very high opinion of themselves and their own sperm. “Some of them had savior complexes,” Dr. Madeira said. “They seemed to be thinking: ‘I’m giving the gift of life, and I’m the only one who can really do it, because I have great genes.’ ”

When Kim McMorries, MD, of Texas, was confronted with the fact that he had donated sperm 33 years before, he insisted that it was ethical at the time. “When this occurred, it was not considered wrong,” he wrote in an email to his biological daughter.

Today, doctors are bound by the doctrine of informed consent, which holds that patients should be informed about all steps taken in their care. The term was coined by a judge in 1960, and it took some time for some in the medical world to fully accept informed consent. Still, Dr. Madeira asserts it was always unethical to secretly fertilize patients.

“Even in the more paternalistic era of the 1970s and 1980s, it was not right to lie to your patients about such an important part of their lives,” she said.

Some sperm doctors insisted that they had received informed consent when the patient agreed to use an anonymous donor. “Dr. Kiken did that which he was asked to do,” wrote the attorneys for Michael S. Kiken, MD, of Virginia. “Anonymous donor meant that the patient would not know the donor’s identity, he would be anonymous to her.”

Dr. Madeira does not accept this argument either. “The doctor may have thought it was understood that he could be the anonymous person, but the patients did not see it that way,” she said. “They were not expecting the anonymous donor would be their own doctor.”

“I think what happened is a crime,” said Dr. Klipstein. “It’s an ethical violation, a fracture in the trust between doctor and patient.”

Existing laws, however, don’t make it easy to prosecute the doctors. When lawsuits are filed against these doctors, “you have to shoehorn existing statutes to fit the facts, and that may not be a terrific fit,” Dr. Cantor said.

The doctors have been charged with battery, fraud, negligence, breach of duty, unjust enrichment, and rape. But none of them have been found guilty specifically of secretly using their own sperm. Two of the doctors were convicted, but for other offenses, such as perjury for denying their involvement.

Since 2019, five states – Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Indiana, and Texas – have passed statutes specifically outlawing infertility fraud. In addition, a 1995 California law requires identifying the sperm donor.

It may be difficult, however, to apply these new laws to offenses by aging sperm doctors that happened decades ago. “Some states have inflexible limits on the amount of time in which you can sue, even if you didn’t know about the problem until recently,” Dr. Madeira said. “Texas, for example, allows civil lawsuits only up to 10 years after commission.”

Before the fertility fraud physicians can be brought to justice, many of them might just fade away.

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

Martin D. Greenberg, MD, was sued in May for secretly using his own sperm to inseminate one of his infertility patients 38 years earlier. The patient’s daughter found out last year when she used a DNA test from 23andme to learn about her family history. The 77-year-old New York gynecologist is retired in Florida.

Dr. Greenberg is one of more than 30 U.S. physicians who have so far been identified as having used their own sperm without telling their patients, and more cases are likely. All but one of the cases took place before 1990. Most of them came to light in the past few years, when biological offspring found out from home DNA tests.

“It is a gross betrayal of the trust that a patient puts in her doctor. It is an absolute perversion of the practice of medicine,” said Dev Sethi, a plaintiff attorney who sued a Tucson, Ariz., physician who inseminated at least 10 patients with his own sperm. “The hubris of a doctor to impregnate his own patient, in some effort to either save money or populate the world with his offspring, is striking.”

Why would these physicians use their own sperm and then keep it secret? Why were there so many of them? When their offspring now try to communicate with them, do they want to have a relationship? And how do they react when they’re found out?

The doctors’ behavior mystifies Sigal Klipstein, MD, a reproductive endocrinologist in Hoffman Estates, Ill., who is chair of the ethics committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine.

“These doctors lived with secrets for many years. How do you live with that as a doctor?” said Dr. Klipstein, who was still in high school when most of these cases occurred. “It surprises me that anybody would do this.”
 

Lack of training and lots of secrecy

Were these physicians particularly selfish or egotistical? Or was expedience the prime motivation?

At the time, there was little training in the techniques and ethics of infertility care, said Jody Madeira, JD, PhD, a law professor at Indiana University, Bloomington, who has closely studied the doctors.

“Many of them were ob.gyns., but they did not take CME courses for this work,” she said. The subspecialty of reproductive endocrinology and infertility was just beginning in the early 1970s, according an ASRM spokesman.

Treatment of infertility was a rather hush-hush topic at that time, which made it easier to be deceptive. In 1955, an Illinois court held that artificial insemination constituted adultery. “The social stigma resulting from the practice forces the parents to keep secret the infant’s origin,” a law review article from 1955 stated.

“In the 1950s and 1960s and even into the 1970s and 1980s, infertility treatments were considered shameful, and patients were often advised to keep their treatment to themselves,” Dr. Madeira said. “With everything so secret, it was easy to be deceptive.”

The field has become more sophisticated since then, Dr. Klipstein said. “For known donors, there is a legal contract between the recipient and donor. And it is no longer possible to be an anonymous donor. People can find you through DNA tests.”

Owing to changes in the field as well as the growing likelihood of being caught through DNA tests, most experts believe that rampant infertility fraud ended long ago.
 

How they were found out

When the doctors were active, there was little risk of being exposed. In those times, paternity tests were based on broad factors such as blood type and were unreliable. More accurate DNA tests were underway, but the doctors’ offspring did not think of using them because they suspected nothing.

Most of the doctors’ deeds only came to light with the rise of a new industry – home DNA testing for people who are curious about their family background. First came 23andme in 2007, then Ancestry.com in 2015. The number of people being tested reached almost 2 million in 2016, 7 million in 2017, and 30 million in 2020.

As more people entered company databases, it became easier to pinpoint biological fathers through other relatives. This explains how doctors who had not taken a home DNA test were identified.

The home tests have been shown to be highly accurate. None of the results for doctors accused of using their own sperm have proven to be false, and courts recognize similar DNA tests as proof of paternity.

But when found out, many of the physicians disputed the results and acted as if they could still keep their secret. “I don’t deny it; I don’t admit it,” Paul Brennan Jones, MD, a Colorado doctor, said when he was accused of siring eight children through his infertility patients decades before. Asked whether he would provide a DNA sample, the 80-year-old doctor responded: “No ... because I don’t want to have any incriminating evidence against me.”
 

How often did it happen?

Donor Deceived, a website that monitors these cases, reports 32 cases of physicians surreptitiously providing sperm to their patients. Eleven of the doctors are linked to 1 known offspring, two are linked to more than 75 offspring, one to 15, one to 10, three to 9, three to 7, and two to 5.

“It’s unlikely that any of the doctors did it just once,” said Adam B. Wolf, a San Francisco attorney who is representing the plaintiff in the Greenberg case. “It’s happened before. When doctors get the idea to do something crazy, they do it multiple times.”

Mr. Wolf believes that, because most people haven’t taken a DNA test, there are many more biological children of infertility doctors who have yet to come forward.

Many of the doctors who were found out have negotiated settlements with patients, under which they pay undisclosed sums of money in exchange for the patient’s keeping silent. Mr. Wolf said that, of the two dozen victims of sperm-donor doctors his law firm has represented, all but three have settled.

“We give an opportunity to the doctor to resolve the claims without having to publicly out this person for using his own sperm in his patients,” Mr. Wolf said. “Most doctors jump at the opportunity to not be known as the kind of person who would do that.”

Cases about to go to trial have been withdrawn because of being settled. In May, a case against Gerald E. Mortimer, MD, in Idaho, was dismissed after 3 years of litigation. The judge had made some key decisions that made it less likely that Dr. Mortimer would win. Dr. Mortimer’s biological daughter filed the initial case. She alleged medical negligence, failure to obtain informed consent, fraud, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and several other causes of action.

Dr. Madeira objects to the use of confidential settlements, because other offspring cannot be alerted. But she also believes that, as more people find out about their parentage through DNA tests, it will be harder for accused doctors to make confidential settlements with all of them, and the doctors will eventually be identified.

In settlements, offspring ask for the medical histories of these doctors. So far, offspring have linked the development of Tay-Sachs disease, cystic fibrosis, and ovarian cancer with these doctors.
 

Denial: Physicians’ most frequent reaction

Once identified, most of the doctors denied the charge. When Gary Phillip Wood, MD, of Arkansas, was tracked down by his biological son, Dr. Wood insisted he had had a vasectomy years before the man was born but still would not agree to a DNA test. He died in April 2021.

None of the identified sperm doctors were interested in having a relationship with their newly identified offspring. When Gary Vandenberg, MD, of California, was contacted by his biological daughter, he abruptly ended the conversation, wishing her “good luck in life,” she recalled. “When I first found out, I was very suicidal. I did not want this existence. I still have those days. My husband had to take off work and stay home quite a bit to make sure I didn’t do anything to myself.”

When Gary Don Davis, MD, of Idaho, was asked about his paternity, he replied: “Let me check on that. Goodbye.” He could not be reached after that, and he died a few months later.

The accused doctors often have no medical records of their work. Dr. Wood said that all his records had been destroyed, and Dr. Greenberg said he did not have any records on his accuser and doubted that he had ever treated her. A 1977 survey found that more than half of infertility doctors did not keep any medical records so as to preserve the donor’s anonymity.

Many of the accused doctors said they used their own sperm because they were deeply committed to helping their patients. At one physician’s trial, his defense attorney said: “If Cecil made any mistakes, it was in losing his objectivity and trying so hard to get patients pregnant.”
 

Was it really ethically wrong?

Many of the doctors don’t accept that they did any harm, says Julie D. Cantor, MD, JD, a former adjunct professor at the University of California, Los Angeles. “These doctors seemed to be thinking: ‘The patient wanted to get pregnant and have a baby, and that’s what happened, so no harm done.’ But the entire interaction is based on a lie.”

The doctors also had the problem of having to use fresh sperm rather than frozen sperm, as is used today. Sperm had to be used within hours of being produced. If the donor did not show up at the time of the appointment, the doctor might decide to keep the appointment with the patient anyway and provide his own sperm.

However, “these doctors didn’t have to use their own sperm,” Mr. Wolf said. “They could have rescheduled the appointment until a new donor could be found.”

Some say that the doctors seemed to have had a very high opinion of themselves and their own sperm. “Some of them had savior complexes,” Dr. Madeira said. “They seemed to be thinking: ‘I’m giving the gift of life, and I’m the only one who can really do it, because I have great genes.’ ”

When Kim McMorries, MD, of Texas, was confronted with the fact that he had donated sperm 33 years before, he insisted that it was ethical at the time. “When this occurred, it was not considered wrong,” he wrote in an email to his biological daughter.

Today, doctors are bound by the doctrine of informed consent, which holds that patients should be informed about all steps taken in their care. The term was coined by a judge in 1960, and it took some time for some in the medical world to fully accept informed consent. Still, Dr. Madeira asserts it was always unethical to secretly fertilize patients.

“Even in the more paternalistic era of the 1970s and 1980s, it was not right to lie to your patients about such an important part of their lives,” she said.

Some sperm doctors insisted that they had received informed consent when the patient agreed to use an anonymous donor. “Dr. Kiken did that which he was asked to do,” wrote the attorneys for Michael S. Kiken, MD, of Virginia. “Anonymous donor meant that the patient would not know the donor’s identity, he would be anonymous to her.”

Dr. Madeira does not accept this argument either. “The doctor may have thought it was understood that he could be the anonymous person, but the patients did not see it that way,” she said. “They were not expecting the anonymous donor would be their own doctor.”

“I think what happened is a crime,” said Dr. Klipstein. “It’s an ethical violation, a fracture in the trust between doctor and patient.”

Existing laws, however, don’t make it easy to prosecute the doctors. When lawsuits are filed against these doctors, “you have to shoehorn existing statutes to fit the facts, and that may not be a terrific fit,” Dr. Cantor said.

The doctors have been charged with battery, fraud, negligence, breach of duty, unjust enrichment, and rape. But none of them have been found guilty specifically of secretly using their own sperm. Two of the doctors were convicted, but for other offenses, such as perjury for denying their involvement.

Since 2019, five states – Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Indiana, and Texas – have passed statutes specifically outlawing infertility fraud. In addition, a 1995 California law requires identifying the sperm donor.

It may be difficult, however, to apply these new laws to offenses by aging sperm doctors that happened decades ago. “Some states have inflexible limits on the amount of time in which you can sue, even if you didn’t know about the problem until recently,” Dr. Madeira said. “Texas, for example, allows civil lawsuits only up to 10 years after commission.”

Before the fertility fraud physicians can be brought to justice, many of them might just fade away.

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

A homeopathic doctor licensed in California was arrested July 14 and charged with a scheme to sell homeoprophylaxis immunization pellets and to falsify COVID-19 vaccination cards by making it appear that her customers had received the Moderna vaccine, according to the U.S. Department of Justice.

Juli A. Mazi, 41, of Napa, is charged with one count of wire fraud and one count of false statements related to health care matters. The case is the first federal criminal fraud prosecution related to homeoprophylaxis immunizations and fraudulent vaccination record cards, the DOJ said in a news release.

In April, according to federal authorities, an individual submitted a complaint to the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General, stating that family members had purchased the immunization pellets from Ms. Mazi. The complainant stated that the family members had told her/him that Ms. Mazi had said the pellets contained the COVID-19 virus and would create an antibody response in the immune system.

The affidavit noted that none of the family members had received injections of any of the COVID-19 vaccines authorized by the Food and Drug Administration.

However, the complainant said, Ms. Mazi sent COVID-19 vaccination cards listing Moderna to the complainant family. Ms. Mazi allegedly instructed the family members to mark the cards to falsely state that they had received the Moderna vaccine on the date that they ingested the homeoprophylaxis immunization pellets.

She also allegedly provided instructions on how to fraudulently complete the cards to make it appear that a customer had received two doses of the Moderna vaccine. She even supplied Moderna lot numbers to enter on the cards.

In addition, Ms. Mazi allegedly offered homeoprophylaxis immunizations for childhood illnesses that she falsely claimed would satisfy the immunization requirements for California schools, and falsified immunization cards that were submitted by parents to California schools.

Ms. Mazi further stated that her customers could provide the pellets to children for COVID-19 immunity, and that “the dose is actually the same for babies,” the news release said.

Ms. Mazi is alleged to have falsely claimed that ingesting the pellets would result in full lifelong immunity from COVID-19. In addition, she exploited the disinformation and fear surrounding COVID-19 vaccination by falsely claiming that the FDA-authorized vaccines contain “toxic ingredients,” the DOJ said.
 

Homeopathic preparations

According to the DOJ, “Homeophrophylaxis involves the exposure of an individual to dilute amounts of a disease, purportedly to stimulate the immune system and confer immunity.”

According to Australia’s National Centre for Immunisation Research & Surveillance (NCIRS), a private organization funded by the Australian and New South Wales governments, there is no high-quality research showing that homeopathic preparations are effective in preventing infectious disease.

Typical homeopathic preparations dilute a disease, tissue, or plant extract in water “to the point where none of the original material is contained within the preparation by the end of the process,” an NCIRS fact sheet says.

Referring to Ms. Mazi, Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco said in the news release, “This defendant allegedly defrauded and endangered the public by preying on fears and spreading misinformation about FDA-authorized vaccinations, while also peddling fake treatments that put people’s lives at risk.

“Even worse, the defendant allegedly created counterfeit COVID-19 vaccination cards and instructed her customers to falsely mark that they had received a vaccine, allowing them to circumvent efforts to contain the spread of the disease.”

The case against Ms. Mazi was brought in coordination with the DOJ Health Care Fraud Unit’s COVID-19 Interagency Working Group, which organizes efforts to address illegal activity involving health care programs during the pandemic.

The fraud unit leads the department’s Health Care Fraud Strike Force, which has existed since 2007. In May, U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland established the COVID-19 Fraud Enforcement Task Force in partnership with other government agencies to combat and prevent pandemic-related fraud.

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

A homeopathic doctor licensed in California was arrested July 14 and charged with a scheme to sell homeoprophylaxis immunization pellets and to falsify COVID-19 vaccination cards by making it appear that her customers had received the Moderna vaccine, according to the U.S. Department of Justice.

Juli A. Mazi, 41, of Napa, is charged with one count of wire fraud and one count of false statements related to health care matters. The case is the first federal criminal fraud prosecution related to homeoprophylaxis immunizations and fraudulent vaccination record cards, the DOJ said in a news release.

In April, according to federal authorities, an individual submitted a complaint to the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General, stating that family members had purchased the immunization pellets from Ms. Mazi. The complainant stated that the family members had told her/him that Ms. Mazi had said the pellets contained the COVID-19 virus and would create an antibody response in the immune system.

The affidavit noted that none of the family members had received injections of any of the COVID-19 vaccines authorized by the Food and Drug Administration.

However, the complainant said, Ms. Mazi sent COVID-19 vaccination cards listing Moderna to the complainant family. Ms. Mazi allegedly instructed the family members to mark the cards to falsely state that they had received the Moderna vaccine on the date that they ingested the homeoprophylaxis immunization pellets.

She also allegedly provided instructions on how to fraudulently complete the cards to make it appear that a customer had received two doses of the Moderna vaccine. She even supplied Moderna lot numbers to enter on the cards.

In addition, Ms. Mazi allegedly offered homeoprophylaxis immunizations for childhood illnesses that she falsely claimed would satisfy the immunization requirements for California schools, and falsified immunization cards that were submitted by parents to California schools.

Ms. Mazi further stated that her customers could provide the pellets to children for COVID-19 immunity, and that “the dose is actually the same for babies,” the news release said.

Ms. Mazi is alleged to have falsely claimed that ingesting the pellets would result in full lifelong immunity from COVID-19. In addition, she exploited the disinformation and fear surrounding COVID-19 vaccination by falsely claiming that the FDA-authorized vaccines contain “toxic ingredients,” the DOJ said.
 

Homeopathic preparations

According to the DOJ, “Homeophrophylaxis involves the exposure of an individual to dilute amounts of a disease, purportedly to stimulate the immune system and confer immunity.”

According to Australia’s National Centre for Immunisation Research & Surveillance (NCIRS), a private organization funded by the Australian and New South Wales governments, there is no high-quality research showing that homeopathic preparations are effective in preventing infectious disease.

Typical homeopathic preparations dilute a disease, tissue, or plant extract in water “to the point where none of the original material is contained within the preparation by the end of the process,” an NCIRS fact sheet says.

Referring to Ms. Mazi, Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco said in the news release, “This defendant allegedly defrauded and endangered the public by preying on fears and spreading misinformation about FDA-authorized vaccinations, while also peddling fake treatments that put people’s lives at risk.

“Even worse, the defendant allegedly created counterfeit COVID-19 vaccination cards and instructed her customers to falsely mark that they had received a vaccine, allowing them to circumvent efforts to contain the spread of the disease.”

The case against Ms. Mazi was brought in coordination with the DOJ Health Care Fraud Unit’s COVID-19 Interagency Working Group, which organizes efforts to address illegal activity involving health care programs during the pandemic.

The fraud unit leads the department’s Health Care Fraud Strike Force, which has existed since 2007. In May, U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland established the COVID-19 Fraud Enforcement Task Force in partnership with other government agencies to combat and prevent pandemic-related fraud.

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

A homeopathic doctor licensed in California was arrested July 14 and charged with a scheme to sell homeoprophylaxis immunization pellets and to falsify COVID-19 vaccination cards by making it appear that her customers had received the Moderna vaccine, according to the U.S. Department of Justice.

Juli A. Mazi, 41, of Napa, is charged with one count of wire fraud and one count of false statements related to health care matters. The case is the first federal criminal fraud prosecution related to homeoprophylaxis immunizations and fraudulent vaccination record cards, the DOJ said in a news release.

In April, according to federal authorities, an individual submitted a complaint to the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General, stating that family members had purchased the immunization pellets from Ms. Mazi. The complainant stated that the family members had told her/him that Ms. Mazi had said the pellets contained the COVID-19 virus and would create an antibody response in the immune system.

The affidavit noted that none of the family members had received injections of any of the COVID-19 vaccines authorized by the Food and Drug Administration.

However, the complainant said, Ms. Mazi sent COVID-19 vaccination cards listing Moderna to the complainant family. Ms. Mazi allegedly instructed the family members to mark the cards to falsely state that they had received the Moderna vaccine on the date that they ingested the homeoprophylaxis immunization pellets.

She also allegedly provided instructions on how to fraudulently complete the cards to make it appear that a customer had received two doses of the Moderna vaccine. She even supplied Moderna lot numbers to enter on the cards.

In addition, Ms. Mazi allegedly offered homeoprophylaxis immunizations for childhood illnesses that she falsely claimed would satisfy the immunization requirements for California schools, and falsified immunization cards that were submitted by parents to California schools.

Ms. Mazi further stated that her customers could provide the pellets to children for COVID-19 immunity, and that “the dose is actually the same for babies,” the news release said.

Ms. Mazi is alleged to have falsely claimed that ingesting the pellets would result in full lifelong immunity from COVID-19. In addition, she exploited the disinformation and fear surrounding COVID-19 vaccination by falsely claiming that the FDA-authorized vaccines contain “toxic ingredients,” the DOJ said.
 

Homeopathic preparations

According to the DOJ, “Homeophrophylaxis involves the exposure of an individual to dilute amounts of a disease, purportedly to stimulate the immune system and confer immunity.”

According to Australia’s National Centre for Immunisation Research & Surveillance (NCIRS), a private organization funded by the Australian and New South Wales governments, there is no high-quality research showing that homeopathic preparations are effective in preventing infectious disease.

Typical homeopathic preparations dilute a disease, tissue, or plant extract in water “to the point where none of the original material is contained within the preparation by the end of the process,” an NCIRS fact sheet says.

Referring to Ms. Mazi, Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco said in the news release, “This defendant allegedly defrauded and endangered the public by preying on fears and spreading misinformation about FDA-authorized vaccinations, while also peddling fake treatments that put people’s lives at risk.

“Even worse, the defendant allegedly created counterfeit COVID-19 vaccination cards and instructed her customers to falsely mark that they had received a vaccine, allowing them to circumvent efforts to contain the spread of the disease.”

The case against Ms. Mazi was brought in coordination with the DOJ Health Care Fraud Unit’s COVID-19 Interagency Working Group, which organizes efforts to address illegal activity involving health care programs during the pandemic.

The fraud unit leads the department’s Health Care Fraud Strike Force, which has existed since 2007. In May, U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland established the COVID-19 Fraud Enforcement Task Force in partnership with other government agencies to combat and prevent pandemic-related fraud.

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

In what could be a model for other states, Texas has become the first state to exempt physicians from prior authorizations for meeting insurer benchmarks.

The law was passed in June and will take effect in September. It excuses physicians from having to obtain prior authorization if, during the previous 6 months, 90% of their treatments met medical necessity criteria by the health insurer. Through this law, doctors in the state will spend less time getting approvals for treatments for their patients.

Automatic approval of authorizations for treatments – or what the Texas Medical Association (TMA) calls a “gold card” – “allows patients to get the care they need in a more timely fashion,” says Debra Patt, MD, an Austin, Tex.–based oncologist and former chair of the council on legislation for the TMA.

Eighty-seven percent of Texas physicians reported a “drastic increase over the past five years in the burden of prior authorization on their patients and their practices,” per a 2020 survey by the TMA. Nearly half (48%) of Texas physicians have hired staff whose work focuses on processing requests for prior authorization, according to the survey.

Jack Resneck Jr., MD, a San Francisco–based dermatologist and president-elect of the American Medical Association (AMA), said other states have investigated ways to ease the impact of prior authorizations on physicians, but no other state has passed such a law.

Administrative burdens plague physicians around the country. The Medscape Physician Compensation Report 2021 found that physicians spend on average 15.6 hours per week on paperwork and administrative duties.
 

Better outcomes, less anxiety for patients

Dr. Patt, who testified in support of the law’s passage in the Texas legislature, says automatic approval of authorizations “is better for patients because it reduces their anxiety about whether they’re able to get the treatments they need now, and they will have better outcomes if they’re able to receive more timely care.”

Recently, a chemotherapy treatment Dr. Patt prescribed for one of her patients was not authorized by an insurer. The result is “a lot of anxiety and potentially health problems” for the patient, said Dr. Patt.

She expects that automatic approval for treatments will be based on prescribing patterns during the preceding 6 months. “It means that when I order a test today, the [health insurer] looks back at my record 6 months previously,” she said. Still, Dr. Patt awaits guidance from the Texas Department of Insurance, which regulates health insurers in the state, regarding the law.

Dr. Resneck said the pharmacy counter is where most patients encounter prior authorization delays. “That’s when the pharmacist looks at them and says, ‘Actually, this isn’t covered by your health insurer’s formulary,’ or it isn’t covered fully on their formulary.”

One of Dr. Resneck’s patients had a life-altering case of eczema that lasted many years. Because of the condition, the patient couldn’t work or maintain meaningful bonds with family members. A biologic treatment transformed his patient’s life. The patient was able to return to work and to re-engage with family, said Dr. Resneck. But a year after his patient started the treatment, the health insurer wouldn’t authorize the treatment because the patient wasn’t experiencing the same symptoms.

The patient didn’t have the same symptoms because the biologic treatment worked, said Dr. Resneck.

Kristine Grow, a spokesperson for America’s Health Insurance Plans, a national association for health insurers, said, “The use of prior authorization is relatively small – typically, less than 15% – and can help ensure safer opioid prescribing, help prevent dangerous drug interactions, and help protect patients from unnecessary exposure to potentially harmful radiation for inappropriate diagnostic imaging. Numerous studies show that Americans frequently receive inappropriate care, and 25% of unnecessary treatments are associated with complications or adverse events.”

Medical management tools, such as prior authorization, are an “an important way” to deliver “safe, high-quality care” to patients, she added.
 

State and federal efforts to curb prior authorization

In addition to efforts to curb prior authorization in other states, the AMA supports the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act (HR 3173). The act includes a provision related to “gold-carding,” said Robert Mills, an AMA spokesperson.

The bill establishes requirements and standards for prior authorization processes related to Medicare Advantage (MA) plans. The requirements and standards for MA plans include the following:

• Establishing an electronic prior authorization program that meets specific standards, such as the ability to provide real-time decisions in response to requests for items and services that are routinely approved.
• Publishing on an annual basis specific prior authorization information, including the percentage of requests approved and the average response time.
• Meeting standards set by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services related to the quality and timeliness of prior authorization determinations.

The act was introduced to the U.S. House of Representatives in May, after which it was referred to two committees for consideration.

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

In what could be a model for other states, Texas has become the first state to exempt physicians from prior authorizations for meeting insurer benchmarks.

The law was passed in June and will take effect in September. It excuses physicians from having to obtain prior authorization if, during the previous 6 months, 90% of their treatments met medical necessity criteria by the health insurer. Through this law, doctors in the state will spend less time getting approvals for treatments for their patients.

Automatic approval of authorizations for treatments – or what the Texas Medical Association (TMA) calls a “gold card” – “allows patients to get the care they need in a more timely fashion,” says Debra Patt, MD, an Austin, Tex.–based oncologist and former chair of the council on legislation for the TMA.

Eighty-seven percent of Texas physicians reported a “drastic increase over the past five years in the burden of prior authorization on their patients and their practices,” per a 2020 survey by the TMA. Nearly half (48%) of Texas physicians have hired staff whose work focuses on processing requests for prior authorization, according to the survey.

Jack Resneck Jr., MD, a San Francisco–based dermatologist and president-elect of the American Medical Association (AMA), said other states have investigated ways to ease the impact of prior authorizations on physicians, but no other state has passed such a law.

Administrative burdens plague physicians around the country. The Medscape Physician Compensation Report 2021 found that physicians spend on average 15.6 hours per week on paperwork and administrative duties.
 

Better outcomes, less anxiety for patients

Dr. Patt, who testified in support of the law’s passage in the Texas legislature, says automatic approval of authorizations “is better for patients because it reduces their anxiety about whether they’re able to get the treatments they need now, and they will have better outcomes if they’re able to receive more timely care.”

Recently, a chemotherapy treatment Dr. Patt prescribed for one of her patients was not authorized by an insurer. The result is “a lot of anxiety and potentially health problems” for the patient, said Dr. Patt.

She expects that automatic approval for treatments will be based on prescribing patterns during the preceding 6 months. “It means that when I order a test today, the [health insurer] looks back at my record 6 months previously,” she said. Still, Dr. Patt awaits guidance from the Texas Department of Insurance, which regulates health insurers in the state, regarding the law.

Dr. Resneck said the pharmacy counter is where most patients encounter prior authorization delays. “That’s when the pharmacist looks at them and says, ‘Actually, this isn’t covered by your health insurer’s formulary,’ or it isn’t covered fully on their formulary.”

One of Dr. Resneck’s patients had a life-altering case of eczema that lasted many years. Because of the condition, the patient couldn’t work or maintain meaningful bonds with family members. A biologic treatment transformed his patient’s life. The patient was able to return to work and to re-engage with family, said Dr. Resneck. But a year after his patient started the treatment, the health insurer wouldn’t authorize the treatment because the patient wasn’t experiencing the same symptoms.

The patient didn’t have the same symptoms because the biologic treatment worked, said Dr. Resneck.

Kristine Grow, a spokesperson for America’s Health Insurance Plans, a national association for health insurers, said, “The use of prior authorization is relatively small – typically, less than 15% – and can help ensure safer opioid prescribing, help prevent dangerous drug interactions, and help protect patients from unnecessary exposure to potentially harmful radiation for inappropriate diagnostic imaging. Numerous studies show that Americans frequently receive inappropriate care, and 25% of unnecessary treatments are associated with complications or adverse events.”

Medical management tools, such as prior authorization, are an “an important way” to deliver “safe, high-quality care” to patients, she added.
 

State and federal efforts to curb prior authorization

In addition to efforts to curb prior authorization in other states, the AMA supports the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act (HR 3173). The act includes a provision related to “gold-carding,” said Robert Mills, an AMA spokesperson.

The bill establishes requirements and standards for prior authorization processes related to Medicare Advantage (MA) plans. The requirements and standards for MA plans include the following:

• Establishing an electronic prior authorization program that meets specific standards, such as the ability to provide real-time decisions in response to requests for items and services that are routinely approved.
• Publishing on an annual basis specific prior authorization information, including the percentage of requests approved and the average response time.
• Meeting standards set by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services related to the quality and timeliness of prior authorization determinations.

The act was introduced to the U.S. House of Representatives in May, after which it was referred to two committees for consideration.

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

In what could be a model for other states, Texas has become the first state to exempt physicians from prior authorizations for meeting insurer benchmarks.

The law was passed in June and will take effect in September. It excuses physicians from having to obtain prior authorization if, during the previous 6 months, 90% of their treatments met medical necessity criteria by the health insurer. Through this law, doctors in the state will spend less time getting approvals for treatments for their patients.

Automatic approval of authorizations for treatments – or what the Texas Medical Association (TMA) calls a “gold card” – “allows patients to get the care they need in a more timely fashion,” says Debra Patt, MD, an Austin, Tex.–based oncologist and former chair of the council on legislation for the TMA.

Eighty-seven percent of Texas physicians reported a “drastic increase over the past five years in the burden of prior authorization on their patients and their practices,” per a 2020 survey by the TMA. Nearly half (48%) of Texas physicians have hired staff whose work focuses on processing requests for prior authorization, according to the survey.

Jack Resneck Jr., MD, a San Francisco–based dermatologist and president-elect of the American Medical Association (AMA), said other states have investigated ways to ease the impact of prior authorizations on physicians, but no other state has passed such a law.

Administrative burdens plague physicians around the country. The Medscape Physician Compensation Report 2021 found that physicians spend on average 15.6 hours per week on paperwork and administrative duties.
 

Better outcomes, less anxiety for patients

Dr. Patt, who testified in support of the law’s passage in the Texas legislature, says automatic approval of authorizations “is better for patients because it reduces their anxiety about whether they’re able to get the treatments they need now, and they will have better outcomes if they’re able to receive more timely care.”

Recently, a chemotherapy treatment Dr. Patt prescribed for one of her patients was not authorized by an insurer. The result is “a lot of anxiety and potentially health problems” for the patient, said Dr. Patt.

She expects that automatic approval for treatments will be based on prescribing patterns during the preceding 6 months. “It means that when I order a test today, the [health insurer] looks back at my record 6 months previously,” she said. Still, Dr. Patt awaits guidance from the Texas Department of Insurance, which regulates health insurers in the state, regarding the law.

Dr. Resneck said the pharmacy counter is where most patients encounter prior authorization delays. “That’s when the pharmacist looks at them and says, ‘Actually, this isn’t covered by your health insurer’s formulary,’ or it isn’t covered fully on their formulary.”

One of Dr. Resneck’s patients had a life-altering case of eczema that lasted many years. Because of the condition, the patient couldn’t work or maintain meaningful bonds with family members. A biologic treatment transformed his patient’s life. The patient was able to return to work and to re-engage with family, said Dr. Resneck. But a year after his patient started the treatment, the health insurer wouldn’t authorize the treatment because the patient wasn’t experiencing the same symptoms.

The patient didn’t have the same symptoms because the biologic treatment worked, said Dr. Resneck.

Kristine Grow, a spokesperson for America’s Health Insurance Plans, a national association for health insurers, said, “The use of prior authorization is relatively small – typically, less than 15% – and can help ensure safer opioid prescribing, help prevent dangerous drug interactions, and help protect patients from unnecessary exposure to potentially harmful radiation for inappropriate diagnostic imaging. Numerous studies show that Americans frequently receive inappropriate care, and 25% of unnecessary treatments are associated with complications or adverse events.”

Medical management tools, such as prior authorization, are an “an important way” to deliver “safe, high-quality care” to patients, she added.
 

State and federal efforts to curb prior authorization

In addition to efforts to curb prior authorization in other states, the AMA supports the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act (HR 3173). The act includes a provision related to “gold-carding,” said Robert Mills, an AMA spokesperson.

The bill establishes requirements and standards for prior authorization processes related to Medicare Advantage (MA) plans. The requirements and standards for MA plans include the following:

• Establishing an electronic prior authorization program that meets specific standards, such as the ability to provide real-time decisions in response to requests for items and services that are routinely approved.
• Publishing on an annual basis specific prior authorization information, including the percentage of requests approved and the average response time.
• Meeting standards set by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services related to the quality and timeliness of prior authorization determinations.

The act was introduced to the U.S. House of Representatives in May, after which it was referred to two committees for consideration.

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

Consumers should stop using certain brands of spray-on sunscreen products made by Johnson & Johnson. The company has issued a voluntary recall after finding low levels of benzene, a known cancer-causing agent, in some samples.

Benzene is not an ingredient of sunscreen, and should not be present in these products. The levels detected were low and would not be expected to have an adverse effect on health, but the company says it is recalling the products anyway “out of an abundance of caution.”

The sunscreen products that have been recalled are:

• NEUTROGENA® Beach Defense® aerosol sunscreen.
• NEUTROGENA® Cool Dry Sport aerosol sunscreen.
• NEUTROGENA® Invisible Daily™ defense aerosol sunscreen.
• NEUTROGENA® Ultra Sheer® aerosol sunscreen.
• AVEENO® Protect + Refresh aerosol sunscreen.

These products were distributed nationwide through a variety of retail stores. Consumers should stop using these products and throw them away, the company said.

At the same time, it emphasized the importance of using alternative sunscreen products to protect the skin from excessive sun exposure, which can lead to skin cancer including melanoma.

Johnson & Johnson has launched an investigation into how benzene got into these products.

One of the company’s other spray sunscreen products, Neutrogena Wet Skin, was not included in the recall.

Recently, benzene was found in 78 widely-used sunscreen products in tests conducted by the online pharmacy and laboratory Valisure. Most of the products were aerosol sprays, and the company called on the Food and Drug Administration to recall them all.

That petition suggested that the finding of benzene was the result of contamination somewhere in the manufacturing process.

“This isn’t a sunscreen issue, it’s a manufacturing issue,” said Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chief of dermatology at George Washington University. “We don’t want those things to be blurred.”

There is a risk that people take away the wrong message from these findings.

“People already have ambivalence about sunscreen, and this is just going to make that worse,” Dr. Friedman said in an interview.

He pointed out that benzene is present in car exhaust, second-hand smoke, and elsewhere. Inhalation exposure has been the primary focus of toxicology investigations, as has exposure from things such as contaminated drinking water – not via topical application. “We don’t know how effectively [benzene] gets through the skin, if it gets absorbed systemically, and how that then behaves downstream,” he noted.

On the other hand, ultraviolet radiation is a well-established carcinogen. Avoiding an effective preventive measure such as sunscreen could prove more harmful than exposure to trace amounts of benzene, he said.

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

Consumers should stop using certain brands of spray-on sunscreen products made by Johnson & Johnson. The company has issued a voluntary recall after finding low levels of benzene, a known cancer-causing agent, in some samples.

Benzene is not an ingredient of sunscreen, and should not be present in these products. The levels detected were low and would not be expected to have an adverse effect on health, but the company says it is recalling the products anyway “out of an abundance of caution.”

The sunscreen products that have been recalled are:

• NEUTROGENA® Beach Defense® aerosol sunscreen.
• NEUTROGENA® Cool Dry Sport aerosol sunscreen.
• NEUTROGENA® Invisible Daily™ defense aerosol sunscreen.
• NEUTROGENA® Ultra Sheer® aerosol sunscreen.
• AVEENO® Protect + Refresh aerosol sunscreen.

These products were distributed nationwide through a variety of retail stores. Consumers should stop using these products and throw them away, the company said.

At the same time, it emphasized the importance of using alternative sunscreen products to protect the skin from excessive sun exposure, which can lead to skin cancer including melanoma.

Johnson & Johnson has launched an investigation into how benzene got into these products.

One of the company’s other spray sunscreen products, Neutrogena Wet Skin, was not included in the recall.

Recently, benzene was found in 78 widely-used sunscreen products in tests conducted by the online pharmacy and laboratory Valisure. Most of the products were aerosol sprays, and the company called on the Food and Drug Administration to recall them all.

That petition suggested that the finding of benzene was the result of contamination somewhere in the manufacturing process.

“This isn’t a sunscreen issue, it’s a manufacturing issue,” said Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chief of dermatology at George Washington University. “We don’t want those things to be blurred.”

There is a risk that people take away the wrong message from these findings.

“People already have ambivalence about sunscreen, and this is just going to make that worse,” Dr. Friedman said in an interview.

He pointed out that benzene is present in car exhaust, second-hand smoke, and elsewhere. Inhalation exposure has been the primary focus of toxicology investigations, as has exposure from things such as contaminated drinking water – not via topical application. “We don’t know how effectively [benzene] gets through the skin, if it gets absorbed systemically, and how that then behaves downstream,” he noted.

On the other hand, ultraviolet radiation is a well-established carcinogen. Avoiding an effective preventive measure such as sunscreen could prove more harmful than exposure to trace amounts of benzene, he said.

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

Consumers should stop using certain brands of spray-on sunscreen products made by Johnson & Johnson. The company has issued a voluntary recall after finding low levels of benzene, a known cancer-causing agent, in some samples.

Benzene is not an ingredient of sunscreen, and should not be present in these products. The levels detected were low and would not be expected to have an adverse effect on health, but the company says it is recalling the products anyway “out of an abundance of caution.”

The sunscreen products that have been recalled are:

• NEUTROGENA® Beach Defense® aerosol sunscreen.
• NEUTROGENA® Cool Dry Sport aerosol sunscreen.
• NEUTROGENA® Invisible Daily™ defense aerosol sunscreen.
• NEUTROGENA® Ultra Sheer® aerosol sunscreen.
• AVEENO® Protect + Refresh aerosol sunscreen.

These products were distributed nationwide through a variety of retail stores. Consumers should stop using these products and throw them away, the company said.

At the same time, it emphasized the importance of using alternative sunscreen products to protect the skin from excessive sun exposure, which can lead to skin cancer including melanoma.

Johnson & Johnson has launched an investigation into how benzene got into these products.

One of the company’s other spray sunscreen products, Neutrogena Wet Skin, was not included in the recall.

Recently, benzene was found in 78 widely-used sunscreen products in tests conducted by the online pharmacy and laboratory Valisure. Most of the products were aerosol sprays, and the company called on the Food and Drug Administration to recall them all.

That petition suggested that the finding of benzene was the result of contamination somewhere in the manufacturing process.

“This isn’t a sunscreen issue, it’s a manufacturing issue,” said Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chief of dermatology at George Washington University. “We don’t want those things to be blurred.”

There is a risk that people take away the wrong message from these findings.

“People already have ambivalence about sunscreen, and this is just going to make that worse,” Dr. Friedman said in an interview.

He pointed out that benzene is present in car exhaust, second-hand smoke, and elsewhere. Inhalation exposure has been the primary focus of toxicology investigations, as has exposure from things such as contaminated drinking water – not via topical application. “We don’t know how effectively [benzene] gets through the skin, if it gets absorbed systemically, and how that then behaves downstream,” he noted.

On the other hand, ultraviolet radiation is a well-established carcinogen. Avoiding an effective preventive measure such as sunscreen could prove more harmful than exposure to trace amounts of benzene, he said.

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

Use of metformin was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of developing basal cell carcinoma (BCC), based on data from a population case-control study in Iceland.

“In addition to general anticarcinogenic effects, metformin has also been shown to directly inhibit the sonic hedgehog pathway, a key pathway in basal cell carcinoma (BCC) pathogenesis,” Jonas A. Adalsteinsson, MD, of the University of Iceland, Reykjavik, and colleagues wrote. “The relationship between metformin and keratinocyte carcinoma has not been well-characterized but is of importance considering that metformin is a commonly prescribed medication.”

They added that the hedgehog pathway inhibitors vismodegib (Erivedge) and sonidegib (Odomzo), approved for treating BCC, “are highly effective for BCC prevention, but their broad use for BCC prophylaxis is limited due to numerous side effects.”

In the study, published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, the researchers identified 6,880 first-time cancer patients with BCC, squamous cell carcinoma in situ (SCCis), or invasive SCC, and 69,620 population controls using data from the Icelandic Cancer Registry and the Icelandic Prescription Medicine Register between 2003 and 2017. Metformin exposure was defined as having filled at least one prescription of metformin more than 2 years prior to cancer diagnosis. They used grams and daily dose units of metformin in their analysis; one DDU of metformin, “or its average daily maintenance dose when used for its primary indication, is 2 grams,” they noted.

Overall, metformin use was associated with a significantly lower risk of developing BCC, compared with nonuse (adjusted odds ratio, 0.71; 95% confidence interval, 0.61-0.83).

The reduced risk occurred similarly across age and gender subgroups, with the exception of individuals younger than 60 years, the researchers said. “This might signify that metformin has less of a protective effect in younger individuals, but we might also have lacked power in this category.” The association with reduced BCC risk remained significant at all three cumulative dose levels measured: 1-500 DDUs, 501-1,500 DDUs, and more than 1,500 DDUs.

Metformin use was not significantly associated with reduced risk of invasive SCC (aOR, 1.01) and in most cases of SCCis. However, the 501-1,500 DDU dose category was associated with a slight increase in risk of SCCis (aOR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.00-1.96), “showing a possible increased risk of SCCis,” the authors wrote.

The decrease in BCC risk was seen across all metformin dosing levels, but the reason for this remains unclear, and might be related to a confounding factor that was not considered in this study, the researchers said. “It could also be that metformin’s BCC risk-lowering effect is immediate, with only a low dose being needed to see a clinical benefit.”

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the retrospective design and the inability to adjust for factors including ultraviolet exposure, Fitzpatrick skin type, and comorbidities. The frequent use of metformin by people with type 2 diabetes suggests diabetes itself or other diabetes medications could be possible confounding factors, the researchers wrote.

However, the results were strengthened by the large study population, and the data suggest an association between reduced risk of first-time BCC and metformin use, they added.

“Randomized, prospective trials are required to fully understand the effect metformin has on BCC and SCC risk,” the researchers concluded.

“There is a dire need to reduce incidence of skin cancers in general, and consequently a need for new non-surgical treatment options for keratinocytic nonmelanoma skin cancers,” Amor Khachemoune, MD, a dermatologist at the State University of New York, Brooklyn, and the department of dermatology of the Veteran Affairs NY Harbor Healthcare System, also in Brooklyn, said in an interview.

Dr. Khachemoune, who was not involved with the study, said that he was not surprised by the findings. “Like other well-studied sonic hedgehog inhibitors, vismodegib and sonidegib, metformin has a demonstrated effect on this pathway. The medical community outside of dermatology has extensive experience with the use of metformin for a host of other indications, including its role as anticarcinogenic, so it seemed natural that one would consider widening its use to quell the ever-expanding cases of basal cell carcinomas.”

However, complications from long-term use, though likely rare, could be a limitation in using metformin as a chemoprotective agent, Dr. Khachemoune said. Metformin-associated lactic acidosis is one example of a rare, but potentially life-threatening adverse event.

“Finding the right dosage and having an algorithm for follow up monitoring of side effects would certainly need to be put in place in a standardized way,” he emphasized. “As stated by the authors of this study, more inclusive research involving other groups with nonkeratinocytic malignancies in larger cohorts is needed.”

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and Dr. Khachemoune had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Use of metformin was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of developing basal cell carcinoma (BCC), based on data from a population case-control study in Iceland.

“In addition to general anticarcinogenic effects, metformin has also been shown to directly inhibit the sonic hedgehog pathway, a key pathway in basal cell carcinoma (BCC) pathogenesis,” Jonas A. Adalsteinsson, MD, of the University of Iceland, Reykjavik, and colleagues wrote. “The relationship between metformin and keratinocyte carcinoma has not been well-characterized but is of importance considering that metformin is a commonly prescribed medication.”

They added that the hedgehog pathway inhibitors vismodegib (Erivedge) and sonidegib (Odomzo), approved for treating BCC, “are highly effective for BCC prevention, but their broad use for BCC prophylaxis is limited due to numerous side effects.”

In the study, published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, the researchers identified 6,880 first-time cancer patients with BCC, squamous cell carcinoma in situ (SCCis), or invasive SCC, and 69,620 population controls using data from the Icelandic Cancer Registry and the Icelandic Prescription Medicine Register between 2003 and 2017. Metformin exposure was defined as having filled at least one prescription of metformin more than 2 years prior to cancer diagnosis. They used grams and daily dose units of metformin in their analysis; one DDU of metformin, “or its average daily maintenance dose when used for its primary indication, is 2 grams,” they noted.

Overall, metformin use was associated with a significantly lower risk of developing BCC, compared with nonuse (adjusted odds ratio, 0.71; 95% confidence interval, 0.61-0.83).

The reduced risk occurred similarly across age and gender subgroups, with the exception of individuals younger than 60 years, the researchers said. “This might signify that metformin has less of a protective effect in younger individuals, but we might also have lacked power in this category.” The association with reduced BCC risk remained significant at all three cumulative dose levels measured: 1-500 DDUs, 501-1,500 DDUs, and more than 1,500 DDUs.

Metformin use was not significantly associated with reduced risk of invasive SCC (aOR, 1.01) and in most cases of SCCis. However, the 501-1,500 DDU dose category was associated with a slight increase in risk of SCCis (aOR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.00-1.96), “showing a possible increased risk of SCCis,” the authors wrote.

The decrease in BCC risk was seen across all metformin dosing levels, but the reason for this remains unclear, and might be related to a confounding factor that was not considered in this study, the researchers said. “It could also be that metformin’s BCC risk-lowering effect is immediate, with only a low dose being needed to see a clinical benefit.”

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the retrospective design and the inability to adjust for factors including ultraviolet exposure, Fitzpatrick skin type, and comorbidities. The frequent use of metformin by people with type 2 diabetes suggests diabetes itself or other diabetes medications could be possible confounding factors, the researchers wrote.

However, the results were strengthened by the large study population, and the data suggest an association between reduced risk of first-time BCC and metformin use, they added.

“Randomized, prospective trials are required to fully understand the effect metformin has on BCC and SCC risk,” the researchers concluded.

“There is a dire need to reduce incidence of skin cancers in general, and consequently a need for new non-surgical treatment options for keratinocytic nonmelanoma skin cancers,” Amor Khachemoune, MD, a dermatologist at the State University of New York, Brooklyn, and the department of dermatology of the Veteran Affairs NY Harbor Healthcare System, also in Brooklyn, said in an interview.

Dr. Khachemoune, who was not involved with the study, said that he was not surprised by the findings. “Like other well-studied sonic hedgehog inhibitors, vismodegib and sonidegib, metformin has a demonstrated effect on this pathway. The medical community outside of dermatology has extensive experience with the use of metformin for a host of other indications, including its role as anticarcinogenic, so it seemed natural that one would consider widening its use to quell the ever-expanding cases of basal cell carcinomas.”

However, complications from long-term use, though likely rare, could be a limitation in using metformin as a chemoprotective agent, Dr. Khachemoune said. Metformin-associated lactic acidosis is one example of a rare, but potentially life-threatening adverse event.

“Finding the right dosage and having an algorithm for follow up monitoring of side effects would certainly need to be put in place in a standardized way,” he emphasized. “As stated by the authors of this study, more inclusive research involving other groups with nonkeratinocytic malignancies in larger cohorts is needed.”

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and Dr. Khachemoune had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Use of metformin was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of developing basal cell carcinoma (BCC), based on data from a population case-control study in Iceland.

“In addition to general anticarcinogenic effects, metformin has also been shown to directly inhibit the sonic hedgehog pathway, a key pathway in basal cell carcinoma (BCC) pathogenesis,” Jonas A. Adalsteinsson, MD, of the University of Iceland, Reykjavik, and colleagues wrote. “The relationship between metformin and keratinocyte carcinoma has not been well-characterized but is of importance considering that metformin is a commonly prescribed medication.”

They added that the hedgehog pathway inhibitors vismodegib (Erivedge) and sonidegib (Odomzo), approved for treating BCC, “are highly effective for BCC prevention, but their broad use for BCC prophylaxis is limited due to numerous side effects.”

In the study, published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, the researchers identified 6,880 first-time cancer patients with BCC, squamous cell carcinoma in situ (SCCis), or invasive SCC, and 69,620 population controls using data from the Icelandic Cancer Registry and the Icelandic Prescription Medicine Register between 2003 and 2017. Metformin exposure was defined as having filled at least one prescription of metformin more than 2 years prior to cancer diagnosis. They used grams and daily dose units of metformin in their analysis; one DDU of metformin, “or its average daily maintenance dose when used for its primary indication, is 2 grams,” they noted.

Overall, metformin use was associated with a significantly lower risk of developing BCC, compared with nonuse (adjusted odds ratio, 0.71; 95% confidence interval, 0.61-0.83).

The reduced risk occurred similarly across age and gender subgroups, with the exception of individuals younger than 60 years, the researchers said. “This might signify that metformin has less of a protective effect in younger individuals, but we might also have lacked power in this category.” The association with reduced BCC risk remained significant at all three cumulative dose levels measured: 1-500 DDUs, 501-1,500 DDUs, and more than 1,500 DDUs.

Metformin use was not significantly associated with reduced risk of invasive SCC (aOR, 1.01) and in most cases of SCCis. However, the 501-1,500 DDU dose category was associated with a slight increase in risk of SCCis (aOR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.00-1.96), “showing a possible increased risk of SCCis,” the authors wrote.

The decrease in BCC risk was seen across all metformin dosing levels, but the reason for this remains unclear, and might be related to a confounding factor that was not considered in this study, the researchers said. “It could also be that metformin’s BCC risk-lowering effect is immediate, with only a low dose being needed to see a clinical benefit.”

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the retrospective design and the inability to adjust for factors including ultraviolet exposure, Fitzpatrick skin type, and comorbidities. The frequent use of metformin by people with type 2 diabetes suggests diabetes itself or other diabetes medications could be possible confounding factors, the researchers wrote.

However, the results were strengthened by the large study population, and the data suggest an association between reduced risk of first-time BCC and metformin use, they added.

“Randomized, prospective trials are required to fully understand the effect metformin has on BCC and SCC risk,” the researchers concluded.

“There is a dire need to reduce incidence of skin cancers in general, and consequently a need for new non-surgical treatment options for keratinocytic nonmelanoma skin cancers,” Amor Khachemoune, MD, a dermatologist at the State University of New York, Brooklyn, and the department of dermatology of the Veteran Affairs NY Harbor Healthcare System, also in Brooklyn, said in an interview.

Dr. Khachemoune, who was not involved with the study, said that he was not surprised by the findings. “Like other well-studied sonic hedgehog inhibitors, vismodegib and sonidegib, metformin has a demonstrated effect on this pathway. The medical community outside of dermatology has extensive experience with the use of metformin for a host of other indications, including its role as anticarcinogenic, so it seemed natural that one would consider widening its use to quell the ever-expanding cases of basal cell carcinomas.”

However, complications from long-term use, though likely rare, could be a limitation in using metformin as a chemoprotective agent, Dr. Khachemoune said. Metformin-associated lactic acidosis is one example of a rare, but potentially life-threatening adverse event.

“Finding the right dosage and having an algorithm for follow up monitoring of side effects would certainly need to be put in place in a standardized way,” he emphasized. “As stated by the authors of this study, more inclusive research involving other groups with nonkeratinocytic malignancies in larger cohorts is needed.”

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and Dr. Khachemoune had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Patients with cancer have shown varying responses to COVID-19 vaccination, with good responses in patients with solid tumors (even while on systemic therapy) and poor responses in patients with blood cancers, particularly those on immunosuppressive therapies.

The data are evolving to show factors associated with a poor response but are not strong enough yet to recommend booster shots, say researchers.

The work is defining who will likely need a COVID vaccine booster when they become available. “It’s definitely not all cancer patients,” said Dimpy Shah, MD, PhD, a cancer epidemiologist at the Mays Cancer Center, University of Texas, San Antonio.
 

Public anxiously awaiting boosters

Boosters aren’t recommended in the United States at the moment, in large part because the Emergency Use Authorization under which the vaccines are being administered allows for only two shots of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines and one shot of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

Even so, regulators and policymakers are “keenly aware that physicians and patients alike are anxious to get going and start doing boosters,” Dr. Shah said. There’s concern that antibody response might wane over time, perhaps even more quickly in patients with cancer.

Pfizer is already in talks with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to authorize a third dose of its vaccine in the United States. Guidelines could very well change in coming months, said Ghady Haidar, MD, a specialist in infectious diseases and cancer at the University of Pittsburgh.

However, it’s still early in the game, and it’s not clear yet if boosters are necessary in cancer, Dr. Haidar said in an interview.

For one thing, it’s unknown if poor antibody response really means that patients aren’t protected, he explained. The vaccines elicit T-cell responses that could protect patients regardless of antibody levels. It’s also unclear if antibody titer levels are clinically relevant, and there hasn’t been much indication yet that less-than-robust vaccine responses translate to worse COVID outcomes in patients with cancer.

Those and other questions are areas of active investigation by Dr. Shah, Dr. Haidar, and others. Dozens of clinical trials are investigating vaccine response in patients with cancer, including the use of boosters.

Meanwhile, some cancer patients aren’t waiting around for more study results. “I get many, many emails a day” about booster shots, Dr. Haidar said. “We recommend against” them for now but some people bend the rules and get an extra shot anyway. “I get it. People are apprehensive.”
 

Three COVID deaths despite full vaccination

The vaccine clinical trials had fewer patients with cancer, so researchers are moving fast to backfill the data. Although there is some variation in what’s being reported, an overall picture is slowly emerging.

Dr. Shah and her team reported on responses to the mRNA COVID vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna and found a 94% seroconversion rate in 131 patients with cancer 3-4 weeks after their second dose of vaccine. They also found good responses among patients on cytotoxic chemotherapy within 6 months of their first vaccine dose, although their antibody titer levels were significantly lower than seen in other patients with cancer.

Investigators from Montefiore Medical Center in New York City also recently reported a 94% seroconversion rate among 200 patients with cancer, including 98% seroconversion in patients with solid tumors. Rates were lower in patients with blood cancers but were still 85% overall, with 70% conversion among patients on anti-CD20 therapies and 73% among stem cell transplant patients. 

Dr. Haidar’s group reported a seroconversion rate of 82.4% among patients with solid tumors but only 54.7% among those with blood cancer. Risk factors for poor response included treatment with antimetabolites and anti-CD20 therapies, and, in the solid tumor group, radiation therapy, likely because of its overall toxicity and impact on lymphocyte function.   

Israeli investigators reported in May a 90% seroconversion rate after two doses of the Pfizer vaccine among 102 patients with solid tumors on active treatment, which compared favorably to the 100% conversion rate in healthy controls, but they noted that antibody titers were considerably lower in patients with cancer.

The only variable associated with lower titer levels was combined use of chemotherapy and immunotherapy, they noted. There were also three women on dose-dense chemotherapy for breast cancer who did not produce any antibodies.

In a study limited to patients with blood cancers, a Lithuanian team recently reported that among 885 patients, those on Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors, ruxolitinib (Jakafi), venetoclax (Venclexta), or anti-CD20 therapies mounted almost no antibody response to the Pfizer vaccine.

The Lithuanian group also reported nine breakthrough COVID infections among their fully vaccinated blood cancer patients, including three deaths.  

A team from the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York reported that more than 15% of 260 patients with multiple myeloma also had no response to the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine; they were on BCMA-targeted therapy or anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody therapy at the time of vaccination, but a few had undergone CAR-T cell therapy more than 3 months beforehand.
 

Heated debate about antibody testing

Despite these reports of some patients with cancer having poorer responses, there’s some uncertainty over the benefit of giving a third (booster) shot.

There’s the question about the clinical relevance of antibody titer levels, and very little work has been done to date on cellular T-cell immunity from the vaccines.  

“Right now, we are using titer levels like they actually mean something when they might not,” said Ravi Parikh, MD, a genitourinary and thoracic oncologist at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, who co-wrote an editorial that accompanies the Israeli report.

That’s one of the reasons why the FDA and others do not currently recommend antibody tests for COVID vaccine decisions outside of a clinical trial, but not everyone agrees with that position.

There’s been “a lot of heated debate in the medical community” over the issue, Dr. Haidar said.

The Icahn team, for instance, said that their results “underscore the need for routine serological monitoring of [multiple myeloma] patients following COVID-19 vaccination” to see if they might still need to mask-up and socially distance. 

There is precedence, too, for vaccine boosters in cancer. As Dr. Parikh noted in his editorial, guidelines recommend revaccination after stem cell transplant for meningococcus, tetanus, and varicella, and other infections.

In France, COVID booster shots are already standard care for patients on dialysis and those on anti-CD20 agents, as well as for solid organ transplant recipients, for whom the literature supporting the benefit of COVID boosters is much more evolved than in cancer.

Israel has also authorized vaccine boosters for immunocompromised patients, including those with cancer, according to news reports.

It is also almost certain that the FDA will grant a formal approval for the COVID vaccines, at which point doctors will be free to administer boosters as they see fit.

“People are going to have to think really hard about what to do with them” if guidance hasn’t changed by then, Dr. Haidar said.

As the story unfolds, Dr. Haidar and others said in an interview that the take-home message for oncologists remains largely what it has been – namely to get patients vaccinated but also to consider masks and social distancing afterward for those at risk of a poor response. 

Dr. Shah, Dr. Haidar, and Dr. Parikh have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Parikh is a regular contributor to Medscape Oncology.

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

Patients with cancer have shown varying responses to COVID-19 vaccination, with good responses in patients with solid tumors (even while on systemic therapy) and poor responses in patients with blood cancers, particularly those on immunosuppressive therapies.

The data are evolving to show factors associated with a poor response but are not strong enough yet to recommend booster shots, say researchers.

The work is defining who will likely need a COVID vaccine booster when they become available. “It’s definitely not all cancer patients,” said Dimpy Shah, MD, PhD, a cancer epidemiologist at the Mays Cancer Center, University of Texas, San Antonio.
 

Public anxiously awaiting boosters

Boosters aren’t recommended in the United States at the moment, in large part because the Emergency Use Authorization under which the vaccines are being administered allows for only two shots of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines and one shot of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

Even so, regulators and policymakers are “keenly aware that physicians and patients alike are anxious to get going and start doing boosters,” Dr. Shah said. There’s concern that antibody response might wane over time, perhaps even more quickly in patients with cancer.

Pfizer is already in talks with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to authorize a third dose of its vaccine in the United States. Guidelines could very well change in coming months, said Ghady Haidar, MD, a specialist in infectious diseases and cancer at the University of Pittsburgh.

However, it’s still early in the game, and it’s not clear yet if boosters are necessary in cancer, Dr. Haidar said in an interview.

For one thing, it’s unknown if poor antibody response really means that patients aren’t protected, he explained. The vaccines elicit T-cell responses that could protect patients regardless of antibody levels. It’s also unclear if antibody titer levels are clinically relevant, and there hasn’t been much indication yet that less-than-robust vaccine responses translate to worse COVID outcomes in patients with cancer.

Those and other questions are areas of active investigation by Dr. Shah, Dr. Haidar, and others. Dozens of clinical trials are investigating vaccine response in patients with cancer, including the use of boosters.

Meanwhile, some cancer patients aren’t waiting around for more study results. “I get many, many emails a day” about booster shots, Dr. Haidar said. “We recommend against” them for now but some people bend the rules and get an extra shot anyway. “I get it. People are apprehensive.”
 

Three COVID deaths despite full vaccination

The vaccine clinical trials had fewer patients with cancer, so researchers are moving fast to backfill the data. Although there is some variation in what’s being reported, an overall picture is slowly emerging.

Dr. Shah and her team reported on responses to the mRNA COVID vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna and found a 94% seroconversion rate in 131 patients with cancer 3-4 weeks after their second dose of vaccine. They also found good responses among patients on cytotoxic chemotherapy within 6 months of their first vaccine dose, although their antibody titer levels were significantly lower than seen in other patients with cancer.

Investigators from Montefiore Medical Center in New York City also recently reported a 94% seroconversion rate among 200 patients with cancer, including 98% seroconversion in patients with solid tumors. Rates were lower in patients with blood cancers but were still 85% overall, with 70% conversion among patients on anti-CD20 therapies and 73% among stem cell transplant patients. 

Dr. Haidar’s group reported a seroconversion rate of 82.4% among patients with solid tumors but only 54.7% among those with blood cancer. Risk factors for poor response included treatment with antimetabolites and anti-CD20 therapies, and, in the solid tumor group, radiation therapy, likely because of its overall toxicity and impact on lymphocyte function.   

Israeli investigators reported in May a 90% seroconversion rate after two doses of the Pfizer vaccine among 102 patients with solid tumors on active treatment, which compared favorably to the 100% conversion rate in healthy controls, but they noted that antibody titers were considerably lower in patients with cancer.

The only variable associated with lower titer levels was combined use of chemotherapy and immunotherapy, they noted. There were also three women on dose-dense chemotherapy for breast cancer who did not produce any antibodies.

In a study limited to patients with blood cancers, a Lithuanian team recently reported that among 885 patients, those on Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors, ruxolitinib (Jakafi), venetoclax (Venclexta), or anti-CD20 therapies mounted almost no antibody response to the Pfizer vaccine.

The Lithuanian group also reported nine breakthrough COVID infections among their fully vaccinated blood cancer patients, including three deaths.  

A team from the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York reported that more than 15% of 260 patients with multiple myeloma also had no response to the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine; they were on BCMA-targeted therapy or anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody therapy at the time of vaccination, but a few had undergone CAR-T cell therapy more than 3 months beforehand.
 

Heated debate about antibody testing

Despite these reports of some patients with cancer having poorer responses, there’s some uncertainty over the benefit of giving a third (booster) shot.

There’s the question about the clinical relevance of antibody titer levels, and very little work has been done to date on cellular T-cell immunity from the vaccines.  

“Right now, we are using titer levels like they actually mean something when they might not,” said Ravi Parikh, MD, a genitourinary and thoracic oncologist at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, who co-wrote an editorial that accompanies the Israeli report.

That’s one of the reasons why the FDA and others do not currently recommend antibody tests for COVID vaccine decisions outside of a clinical trial, but not everyone agrees with that position.

There’s been “a lot of heated debate in the medical community” over the issue, Dr. Haidar said.

The Icahn team, for instance, said that their results “underscore the need for routine serological monitoring of [multiple myeloma] patients following COVID-19 vaccination” to see if they might still need to mask-up and socially distance. 

There is precedence, too, for vaccine boosters in cancer. As Dr. Parikh noted in his editorial, guidelines recommend revaccination after stem cell transplant for meningococcus, tetanus, and varicella, and other infections.

In France, COVID booster shots are already standard care for patients on dialysis and those on anti-CD20 agents, as well as for solid organ transplant recipients, for whom the literature supporting the benefit of COVID boosters is much more evolved than in cancer.

Israel has also authorized vaccine boosters for immunocompromised patients, including those with cancer, according to news reports.

It is also almost certain that the FDA will grant a formal approval for the COVID vaccines, at which point doctors will be free to administer boosters as they see fit.

“People are going to have to think really hard about what to do with them” if guidance hasn’t changed by then, Dr. Haidar said.

As the story unfolds, Dr. Haidar and others said in an interview that the take-home message for oncologists remains largely what it has been – namely to get patients vaccinated but also to consider masks and social distancing afterward for those at risk of a poor response. 

Dr. Shah, Dr. Haidar, and Dr. Parikh have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Parikh is a regular contributor to Medscape Oncology.

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

Patients with cancer have shown varying responses to COVID-19 vaccination, with good responses in patients with solid tumors (even while on systemic therapy) and poor responses in patients with blood cancers, particularly those on immunosuppressive therapies.

The data are evolving to show factors associated with a poor response but are not strong enough yet to recommend booster shots, say researchers.

The work is defining who will likely need a COVID vaccine booster when they become available. “It’s definitely not all cancer patients,” said Dimpy Shah, MD, PhD, a cancer epidemiologist at the Mays Cancer Center, University of Texas, San Antonio.
 

Public anxiously awaiting boosters

Boosters aren’t recommended in the United States at the moment, in large part because the Emergency Use Authorization under which the vaccines are being administered allows for only two shots of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines and one shot of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

Even so, regulators and policymakers are “keenly aware that physicians and patients alike are anxious to get going and start doing boosters,” Dr. Shah said. There’s concern that antibody response might wane over time, perhaps even more quickly in patients with cancer.

Pfizer is already in talks with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to authorize a third dose of its vaccine in the United States. Guidelines could very well change in coming months, said Ghady Haidar, MD, a specialist in infectious diseases and cancer at the University of Pittsburgh.

However, it’s still early in the game, and it’s not clear yet if boosters are necessary in cancer, Dr. Haidar said in an interview.

For one thing, it’s unknown if poor antibody response really means that patients aren’t protected, he explained. The vaccines elicit T-cell responses that could protect patients regardless of antibody levels. It’s also unclear if antibody titer levels are clinically relevant, and there hasn’t been much indication yet that less-than-robust vaccine responses translate to worse COVID outcomes in patients with cancer.

Those and other questions are areas of active investigation by Dr. Shah, Dr. Haidar, and others. Dozens of clinical trials are investigating vaccine response in patients with cancer, including the use of boosters.

Meanwhile, some cancer patients aren’t waiting around for more study results. “I get many, many emails a day” about booster shots, Dr. Haidar said. “We recommend against” them for now but some people bend the rules and get an extra shot anyway. “I get it. People are apprehensive.”
 

Three COVID deaths despite full vaccination

The vaccine clinical trials had fewer patients with cancer, so researchers are moving fast to backfill the data. Although there is some variation in what’s being reported, an overall picture is slowly emerging.

Dr. Shah and her team reported on responses to the mRNA COVID vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna and found a 94% seroconversion rate in 131 patients with cancer 3-4 weeks after their second dose of vaccine. They also found good responses among patients on cytotoxic chemotherapy within 6 months of their first vaccine dose, although their antibody titer levels were significantly lower than seen in other patients with cancer.

Investigators from Montefiore Medical Center in New York City also recently reported a 94% seroconversion rate among 200 patients with cancer, including 98% seroconversion in patients with solid tumors. Rates were lower in patients with blood cancers but were still 85% overall, with 70% conversion among patients on anti-CD20 therapies and 73% among stem cell transplant patients. 

Dr. Haidar’s group reported a seroconversion rate of 82.4% among patients with solid tumors but only 54.7% among those with blood cancer. Risk factors for poor response included treatment with antimetabolites and anti-CD20 therapies, and, in the solid tumor group, radiation therapy, likely because of its overall toxicity and impact on lymphocyte function.   

Israeli investigators reported in May a 90% seroconversion rate after two doses of the Pfizer vaccine among 102 patients with solid tumors on active treatment, which compared favorably to the 100% conversion rate in healthy controls, but they noted that antibody titers were considerably lower in patients with cancer.

The only variable associated with lower titer levels was combined use of chemotherapy and immunotherapy, they noted. There were also three women on dose-dense chemotherapy for breast cancer who did not produce any antibodies.

In a study limited to patients with blood cancers, a Lithuanian team recently reported that among 885 patients, those on Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors, ruxolitinib (Jakafi), venetoclax (Venclexta), or anti-CD20 therapies mounted almost no antibody response to the Pfizer vaccine.

The Lithuanian group also reported nine breakthrough COVID infections among their fully vaccinated blood cancer patients, including three deaths.  

A team from the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York reported that more than 15% of 260 patients with multiple myeloma also had no response to the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine; they were on BCMA-targeted therapy or anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody therapy at the time of vaccination, but a few had undergone CAR-T cell therapy more than 3 months beforehand.
 

Heated debate about antibody testing

Despite these reports of some patients with cancer having poorer responses, there’s some uncertainty over the benefit of giving a third (booster) shot.

There’s the question about the clinical relevance of antibody titer levels, and very little work has been done to date on cellular T-cell immunity from the vaccines.  

“Right now, we are using titer levels like they actually mean something when they might not,” said Ravi Parikh, MD, a genitourinary and thoracic oncologist at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, who co-wrote an editorial that accompanies the Israeli report.

That’s one of the reasons why the FDA and others do not currently recommend antibody tests for COVID vaccine decisions outside of a clinical trial, but not everyone agrees with that position.

There’s been “a lot of heated debate in the medical community” over the issue, Dr. Haidar said.

The Icahn team, for instance, said that their results “underscore the need for routine serological monitoring of [multiple myeloma] patients following COVID-19 vaccination” to see if they might still need to mask-up and socially distance. 

There is precedence, too, for vaccine boosters in cancer. As Dr. Parikh noted in his editorial, guidelines recommend revaccination after stem cell transplant for meningococcus, tetanus, and varicella, and other infections.

In France, COVID booster shots are already standard care for patients on dialysis and those on anti-CD20 agents, as well as for solid organ transplant recipients, for whom the literature supporting the benefit of COVID boosters is much more evolved than in cancer.

Israel has also authorized vaccine boosters for immunocompromised patients, including those with cancer, according to news reports.

It is also almost certain that the FDA will grant a formal approval for the COVID vaccines, at which point doctors will be free to administer boosters as they see fit.

“People are going to have to think really hard about what to do with them” if guidance hasn’t changed by then, Dr. Haidar said.

As the story unfolds, Dr. Haidar and others said in an interview that the take-home message for oncologists remains largely what it has been – namely to get patients vaccinated but also to consider masks and social distancing afterward for those at risk of a poor response. 

Dr. Shah, Dr. Haidar, and Dr. Parikh have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Parikh is a regular contributor to Medscape Oncology.

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

Overall cancer mortality in females continues to decrease in the United States, but “previous declining trends in death rates slowed” for breast cancer in recent years, according to an annual report by several national organizations.

The analysis of long-term trends in cancer death rates shows that a decline of 1.4% per year from 2001 to 2016 accelerated to 2.1% per year in 2016-2018, the American Cancer Society, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Cancer Institute, and the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries said.

Decreases in overall cancer mortality were seen in females of all races and ethnic groups over the most recent 5-year period included in the report, 2014-2018, varying from –1.6% per year in both non-Hispanic Blacks and Whites to –0.9% for non-Hispanic American Indians/Alaska Natives (AI/ANs), Farhad Islami, MD, PhD, of the American Cancer Society, Atlanta, and associates said in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

Over those 5 years, death rates fell for 14 of the 20 most common cancers in females; increased for liver, uterus, brain, pancreas, and soft tissue including heart; and remained stable for cancers of the oral cavity/pharynx, they reported.

Breast cancer was among those that declined, but the rate of that decline has been slowing. Mortality declined by an average of 2.3% per year in 2003-2007, by 1.6% a year in 2007-2014, and by just 1.0% annually during 2014-2018, based on data from the National Center for Health Statistics’ National Vital Statistics System.

Mortality from all cancers in 2014-2018 was 133.5 deaths per 100,000 standard population, with the racial/ethnic gap ranging from 85.4 per 100,000 (non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander) to 154.9 (non-Hispanic Black), Dr. Islami and associates said.

Melanoma had the largest decline in mortality over that period among the 20 most common cancers in females, falling by an average of 4.4% per year, with lung cancer next at 4.3%. Among those with increased death rates, uterine cancer saw the largest rise at 2.0% a year, the research team said.

The deaths caused by cancer of the uterus were most common in non-Hispanic Black females, 8.9 per 100,000 population, followed by non-Hispanic White (4.5), Hispanic (4.1), non-Hispanic AI/AN (4.0), and non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander (3.3), they reported.

“Long-term increasing trends in uterine cancer death rates parallel trends in incidence, although death rates are increasing at a somewhat faster rate. Increasing uterine cancer incidence has been attributed to increasing obesity prevalence and decreased use of combined hormone replacement therapy,” Dr. Islami and associates pointed out.

Breast cancer deaths also were most common among Blacks in 2014-2018, occurring at a rate of 28.2 per 100,000, as were deaths from cancer of the cervix (3.4 per 100,000), while ovarian cancers deaths were highest in White females (7.1 per 100,000), the researchers noted.

The continuing racial and ethnic disparity “largely reflects a combination of multiple intertwined factors” of tumor biology, diagnosis, treatment, and systemic discrimination, they wrote, adding that Black persons “are more likely to have a higher exposure to some cancer risk factors and limited access to healthy food, safe places for physical activity, and evidence-based cancer preventive services.”

The report was funded by the four participating groups. Six of the 12 investigators are employees of the American Cancer Society whose salaries are solely paid by the society; the other authors had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

[email protected]

Overall cancer mortality in females continues to decrease in the United States, but “previous declining trends in death rates slowed” for breast cancer in recent years, according to an annual report by several national organizations.

The analysis of long-term trends in cancer death rates shows that a decline of 1.4% per year from 2001 to 2016 accelerated to 2.1% per year in 2016-2018, the American Cancer Society, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Cancer Institute, and the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries said.

Decreases in overall cancer mortality were seen in females of all races and ethnic groups over the most recent 5-year period included in the report, 2014-2018, varying from –1.6% per year in both non-Hispanic Blacks and Whites to –0.9% for non-Hispanic American Indians/Alaska Natives (AI/ANs), Farhad Islami, MD, PhD, of the American Cancer Society, Atlanta, and associates said in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

Over those 5 years, death rates fell for 14 of the 20 most common cancers in females; increased for liver, uterus, brain, pancreas, and soft tissue including heart; and remained stable for cancers of the oral cavity/pharynx, they reported.

Breast cancer was among those that declined, but the rate of that decline has been slowing. Mortality declined by an average of 2.3% per year in 2003-2007, by 1.6% a year in 2007-2014, and by just 1.0% annually during 2014-2018, based on data from the National Center for Health Statistics’ National Vital Statistics System.

Mortality from all cancers in 2014-2018 was 133.5 deaths per 100,000 standard population, with the racial/ethnic gap ranging from 85.4 per 100,000 (non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander) to 154.9 (non-Hispanic Black), Dr. Islami and associates said.

Melanoma had the largest decline in mortality over that period among the 20 most common cancers in females, falling by an average of 4.4% per year, with lung cancer next at 4.3%. Among those with increased death rates, uterine cancer saw the largest rise at 2.0% a year, the research team said.

The deaths caused by cancer of the uterus were most common in non-Hispanic Black females, 8.9 per 100,000 population, followed by non-Hispanic White (4.5), Hispanic (4.1), non-Hispanic AI/AN (4.0), and non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander (3.3), they reported.

“Long-term increasing trends in uterine cancer death rates parallel trends in incidence, although death rates are increasing at a somewhat faster rate. Increasing uterine cancer incidence has been attributed to increasing obesity prevalence and decreased use of combined hormone replacement therapy,” Dr. Islami and associates pointed out.

Breast cancer deaths also were most common among Blacks in 2014-2018, occurring at a rate of 28.2 per 100,000, as were deaths from cancer of the cervix (3.4 per 100,000), while ovarian cancers deaths were highest in White females (7.1 per 100,000), the researchers noted.

The continuing racial and ethnic disparity “largely reflects a combination of multiple intertwined factors” of tumor biology, diagnosis, treatment, and systemic discrimination, they wrote, adding that Black persons “are more likely to have a higher exposure to some cancer risk factors and limited access to healthy food, safe places for physical activity, and evidence-based cancer preventive services.”

The report was funded by the four participating groups. Six of the 12 investigators are employees of the American Cancer Society whose salaries are solely paid by the society; the other authors had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

[email protected]

Overall cancer mortality in females continues to decrease in the United States, but “previous declining trends in death rates slowed” for breast cancer in recent years, according to an annual report by several national organizations.

The analysis of long-term trends in cancer death rates shows that a decline of 1.4% per year from 2001 to 2016 accelerated to 2.1% per year in 2016-2018, the American Cancer Society, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Cancer Institute, and the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries said.

Decreases in overall cancer mortality were seen in females of all races and ethnic groups over the most recent 5-year period included in the report, 2014-2018, varying from –1.6% per year in both non-Hispanic Blacks and Whites to –0.9% for non-Hispanic American Indians/Alaska Natives (AI/ANs), Farhad Islami, MD, PhD, of the American Cancer Society, Atlanta, and associates said in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

Over those 5 years, death rates fell for 14 of the 20 most common cancers in females; increased for liver, uterus, brain, pancreas, and soft tissue including heart; and remained stable for cancers of the oral cavity/pharynx, they reported.

Breast cancer was among those that declined, but the rate of that decline has been slowing. Mortality declined by an average of 2.3% per year in 2003-2007, by 1.6% a year in 2007-2014, and by just 1.0% annually during 2014-2018, based on data from the National Center for Health Statistics’ National Vital Statistics System.

Mortality from all cancers in 2014-2018 was 133.5 deaths per 100,000 standard population, with the racial/ethnic gap ranging from 85.4 per 100,000 (non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander) to 154.9 (non-Hispanic Black), Dr. Islami and associates said.

Melanoma had the largest decline in mortality over that period among the 20 most common cancers in females, falling by an average of 4.4% per year, with lung cancer next at 4.3%. Among those with increased death rates, uterine cancer saw the largest rise at 2.0% a year, the research team said.

The deaths caused by cancer of the uterus were most common in non-Hispanic Black females, 8.9 per 100,000 population, followed by non-Hispanic White (4.5), Hispanic (4.1), non-Hispanic AI/AN (4.0), and non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander (3.3), they reported.

“Long-term increasing trends in uterine cancer death rates parallel trends in incidence, although death rates are increasing at a somewhat faster rate. Increasing uterine cancer incidence has been attributed to increasing obesity prevalence and decreased use of combined hormone replacement therapy,” Dr. Islami and associates pointed out.

Breast cancer deaths also were most common among Blacks in 2014-2018, occurring at a rate of 28.2 per 100,000, as were deaths from cancer of the cervix (3.4 per 100,000), while ovarian cancers deaths were highest in White females (7.1 per 100,000), the researchers noted.

The continuing racial and ethnic disparity “largely reflects a combination of multiple intertwined factors” of tumor biology, diagnosis, treatment, and systemic discrimination, they wrote, adding that Black persons “are more likely to have a higher exposure to some cancer risk factors and limited access to healthy food, safe places for physical activity, and evidence-based cancer preventive services.”

The report was funded by the four participating groups. Six of the 12 investigators are employees of the American Cancer Society whose salaries are solely paid by the society; the other authors had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

[email protected]

Albuquerque oncologist Barbara McAneny, MD, has a patient in his 30s who experienced rectal bleeding for 6 months in 2020 but didn’t see a physician because he was afraid of catching COVID-19. He hoped it was just hemorrhoids.

When he finally came in to see her recently, Dr. McAneny diagnosed a large colon cancer. She fears the delay could prove fatal. “We’ll do our best to cure him, but I don’t know if he’ll be treatable,” she said. “Six months absolutely can make a difference.”

She and other oncologists around the country are seeing many patients in the past few months with advanced breast, colon, lung, and other cancers who were not diagnosed and treated during the COVID-19 pandemic because the patients didn’t want to come in, or because medical facilities weren’t taking nonemergency or non-COVID patients.

Given that failure to diagnose cancer is among the most common medical malpractice allegations, should oncologists be worried that they are at legal risk?
 

Pandemic provides ‘safe harbor’

In a March survey done by medical malpractice insurer The Doctors Company, one-third of physicians said they were very concerned or somewhat concerned that malpractice claims related to care during the pandemic will rise.

But in most of these cases, physicians and hospitals have little to worry about in terms of medical malpractice liability, according to veteran plaintiff and defense attorneys and the head of a large medical liability insurer.

“You had people with diseases like cancer not getting care because health care systems were overwhelmed,” said Sean Domnick, JD, a malpractice plaintiff attorney in Boca Raton, Fla. “Will those lead to successful malpractice lawsuits? Most likely not.”

“The risks will be low because it’s hard to pin it on the doctor if the patient didn’t want to come in or facilities weren’t scheduling appointments because of the public health emergency,” said Richard Roberts, MD, JD, a professor of family medicine at the University of Wisconsin–Madison who is also a malpractice defense attorney.

In addition, liability protections enacted in more than 30 states because of the COVID-19 pandemic will help shield clinicians from lawsuits. Those laws generally require allegations of gross negligence or reckless conduct far beyond ordinary negligence, which are hard to prove. But the immunity provisions remain largely untested in the courts, and it’s unclear how they will affect cases involving care for conditions other than COVID-19.

Another helpful factor is the widespread public appreciation of the valiant work by health care professionals throughout the pandemic, though that halo effect could fade over the next several years as malpractice claims from the pandemic period are filed and tried.

“In many circumstances, the pandemic will prove to be a safe harbor for providers,” said Steven Wigrizer, JD, a malpractice plaintiff attorney in Philadelphia. “Jurors will be reluctant to impose liability on providers who were doing their best in a global pandemic the world hadn’t seen in 100 years.”
 

Risky situations

These predictions from liability experts should reassure physicians who are anxious over reports that many cancer diagnoses were missed as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Still, there are situations where physicians and hospitals could be vulnerable to malpractice claims despite the pandemic conditions. The highest-risk cases are those where patients recognized a potential cancer symptom like a breast lump or rectal bleeding, and tried to visit a doctor’s office or hospital, but were told they couldn’t be seen.

“Those kinds of cases lend themselves to delayed diagnosis claims,” said Richard Anderson, MD, an oncologist who is chairman and CEO of The Doctors Company. “My guess is we will see claims,” though he expects a reduced number arising from 2020 care scenarios, compared with previous years.

So far, his company has seen 20% fewer claims in 2020, which he said isn’t surprising given that the volume of physician and hospital visits plummeted.

Another risky situation is where physicians – particularly primary care physicians but also specialists like gynecologists and urologists – did not inform patients about concerning test results and order a follow-up test or visit. That is dangerous even if the physician did try to schedule a visit but the patient canceled the appointment.

“The jury will ask, ‘What did you do to get the patient back?’ ” said Sean Byrne, JD, a malpractice defense attorney in Richmond, Va. “The provider will say: ‘I’m sure we called.’ But it’s a difficult defense to say the patient didn’t return the call. I need written proof.”

Mr. Domnick said failures to follow up on suspicious test results could produce viable malpractice claims, pandemic or not. “The question becomes to what extent doctors will try to hide behind COVID to explain otherwise run-of-the-mill negligence,” he said. “We’ll have to see how that plays out.”

There are also worries about missed cancer diagnoses during telemedicine visits. “On telemedicine, I can’t feel a lymph node, I can’t palpate a breast mass, and I can’t see if someone’s liver is enlarged,” Dr. McAneny fretted. “I think you’ll get suits because you’ll miss stuff.”

One other area of exposure cited by the experts: Radiologists and pathologists could be sued for missing tumors in reading imaging tests. “The COVID-19 demand on resources has been immense,” Mr. Byrne said. “If that production pressure resulted in any quality loss in testing services, we could see claims.”
 

Patient protocols provide protection

There’s no question that cancer screenings dropped sharply during the pandemic. In June 2020, the National Cancer Institute estimated there was a 75% decrease in mammograms and colonoscopies during the first few months of the pandemic. It projected that delays in screenings, diagnoses, and treatment likely would result in 10,000 more breast and colorectal cancer deaths than otherwise expected over the next decade.

Delays of even 1 month in treatment for seven common forms of cancer can increase mortality risk by 6%-13%, according to a BMJ study.

While many medical facilities stopped doing preventive screening tests during the height of the pandemic last year, health care professionals still found ways to bring in patients with diagnosed cancers or who were at heightened cancer risk for tests and treatment.

Most facilities convened multidisciplinary tumor boards to decide which patients could wait for treatment, which patients could be maintained on drug therapy, and which ones needed immediate surgery, said Carla Fisher, MD, director of breast surgery at Indiana University, Indianapolis. For breast cancer, they used guidelines from her professional group, the American Society of Breast Surgeons.

Following such protocols for prioritizing patients for treatment during the pandemic should help protect against liability, experts said.

Even if it can be shown that a clinician’s negligence led to delayed diagnosis or treatment of a patient’s cancer, plaintiff attorneys will be wary about filing such claims. That is because it is difficult in most cases to prove that the delay significantly worsened the course of the patient’s disease or the odds of survival. Showing harm may be more possible with certain cancers known to be particularly aggressive.

“The plaintiff attorney will have to get an expert to say that the 3-month delay in getting the patient a mammogram caused her great harm,” said Dr. Roberts. “But it’s hard to calculate that scientifically, and it’s really hard to lay that all on the doctor or health system, because they were supposed to lock down during the pandemic.”
 

Playing catch-up

With patients now feeling more comfortable about coming in for physician visits, Mr. Byrne urges clinicians to make a special effort to mitigate potential liability arising from the past year. Physicians should carefully review patients’ charts and make sure to catch them up on preventive screenings. Some health systems, like Kaiser Permanente, have been doing proactive patient outreach for cancer screening throughout the pandemic.

“Providers may need to be extra diligent, and consider expanding the exam into a wellness visit and remind patients about cancer surveillance,” he said.

Overall, however, the expert consensus is that physicians should focus on providing the best quality care going forward, and not worry excessively about the care they wish they could have delivered over the past year during the extraordinary pandemic conditions.

“Liability risks will be decreased, because state laws have changed and doctors will be cut some slack, not just by judges and juries but by patients themselves,” Dr. Roberts said. “As you are running down the hall to take care of the next person, don’t be looking over your shoulder or you’ll run into the wall.”

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

Albuquerque oncologist Barbara McAneny, MD, has a patient in his 30s who experienced rectal bleeding for 6 months in 2020 but didn’t see a physician because he was afraid of catching COVID-19. He hoped it was just hemorrhoids.

When he finally came in to see her recently, Dr. McAneny diagnosed a large colon cancer. She fears the delay could prove fatal. “We’ll do our best to cure him, but I don’t know if he’ll be treatable,” she said. “Six months absolutely can make a difference.”

She and other oncologists around the country are seeing many patients in the past few months with advanced breast, colon, lung, and other cancers who were not diagnosed and treated during the COVID-19 pandemic because the patients didn’t want to come in, or because medical facilities weren’t taking nonemergency or non-COVID patients.

Given that failure to diagnose cancer is among the most common medical malpractice allegations, should oncologists be worried that they are at legal risk?
 

Pandemic provides ‘safe harbor’

In a March survey done by medical malpractice insurer The Doctors Company, one-third of physicians said they were very concerned or somewhat concerned that malpractice claims related to care during the pandemic will rise.

But in most of these cases, physicians and hospitals have little to worry about in terms of medical malpractice liability, according to veteran plaintiff and defense attorneys and the head of a large medical liability insurer.

“You had people with diseases like cancer not getting care because health care systems were overwhelmed,” said Sean Domnick, JD, a malpractice plaintiff attorney in Boca Raton, Fla. “Will those lead to successful malpractice lawsuits? Most likely not.”

“The risks will be low because it’s hard to pin it on the doctor if the patient didn’t want to come in or facilities weren’t scheduling appointments because of the public health emergency,” said Richard Roberts, MD, JD, a professor of family medicine at the University of Wisconsin–Madison who is also a malpractice defense attorney.

In addition, liability protections enacted in more than 30 states because of the COVID-19 pandemic will help shield clinicians from lawsuits. Those laws generally require allegations of gross negligence or reckless conduct far beyond ordinary negligence, which are hard to prove. But the immunity provisions remain largely untested in the courts, and it’s unclear how they will affect cases involving care for conditions other than COVID-19.

Another helpful factor is the widespread public appreciation of the valiant work by health care professionals throughout the pandemic, though that halo effect could fade over the next several years as malpractice claims from the pandemic period are filed and tried.

“In many circumstances, the pandemic will prove to be a safe harbor for providers,” said Steven Wigrizer, JD, a malpractice plaintiff attorney in Philadelphia. “Jurors will be reluctant to impose liability on providers who were doing their best in a global pandemic the world hadn’t seen in 100 years.”
 

Risky situations

These predictions from liability experts should reassure physicians who are anxious over reports that many cancer diagnoses were missed as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Still, there are situations where physicians and hospitals could be vulnerable to malpractice claims despite the pandemic conditions. The highest-risk cases are those where patients recognized a potential cancer symptom like a breast lump or rectal bleeding, and tried to visit a doctor’s office or hospital, but were told they couldn’t be seen.

“Those kinds of cases lend themselves to delayed diagnosis claims,” said Richard Anderson, MD, an oncologist who is chairman and CEO of The Doctors Company. “My guess is we will see claims,” though he expects a reduced number arising from 2020 care scenarios, compared with previous years.

So far, his company has seen 20% fewer claims in 2020, which he said isn’t surprising given that the volume of physician and hospital visits plummeted.

Another risky situation is where physicians – particularly primary care physicians but also specialists like gynecologists and urologists – did not inform patients about concerning test results and order a follow-up test or visit. That is dangerous even if the physician did try to schedule a visit but the patient canceled the appointment.

“The jury will ask, ‘What did you do to get the patient back?’ ” said Sean Byrne, JD, a malpractice defense attorney in Richmond, Va. “The provider will say: ‘I’m sure we called.’ But it’s a difficult defense to say the patient didn’t return the call. I need written proof.”

Mr. Domnick said failures to follow up on suspicious test results could produce viable malpractice claims, pandemic or not. “The question becomes to what extent doctors will try to hide behind COVID to explain otherwise run-of-the-mill negligence,” he said. “We’ll have to see how that plays out.”

There are also worries about missed cancer diagnoses during telemedicine visits. “On telemedicine, I can’t feel a lymph node, I can’t palpate a breast mass, and I can’t see if someone’s liver is enlarged,” Dr. McAneny fretted. “I think you’ll get suits because you’ll miss stuff.”

One other area of exposure cited by the experts: Radiologists and pathologists could be sued for missing tumors in reading imaging tests. “The COVID-19 demand on resources has been immense,” Mr. Byrne said. “If that production pressure resulted in any quality loss in testing services, we could see claims.”
 

Patient protocols provide protection

There’s no question that cancer screenings dropped sharply during the pandemic. In June 2020, the National Cancer Institute estimated there was a 75% decrease in mammograms and colonoscopies during the first few months of the pandemic. It projected that delays in screenings, diagnoses, and treatment likely would result in 10,000 more breast and colorectal cancer deaths than otherwise expected over the next decade.

Delays of even 1 month in treatment for seven common forms of cancer can increase mortality risk by 6%-13%, according to a BMJ study.

While many medical facilities stopped doing preventive screening tests during the height of the pandemic last year, health care professionals still found ways to bring in patients with diagnosed cancers or who were at heightened cancer risk for tests and treatment.

Most facilities convened multidisciplinary tumor boards to decide which patients could wait for treatment, which patients could be maintained on drug therapy, and which ones needed immediate surgery, said Carla Fisher, MD, director of breast surgery at Indiana University, Indianapolis. For breast cancer, they used guidelines from her professional group, the American Society of Breast Surgeons.

Following such protocols for prioritizing patients for treatment during the pandemic should help protect against liability, experts said.

Even if it can be shown that a clinician’s negligence led to delayed diagnosis or treatment of a patient’s cancer, plaintiff attorneys will be wary about filing such claims. That is because it is difficult in most cases to prove that the delay significantly worsened the course of the patient’s disease or the odds of survival. Showing harm may be more possible with certain cancers known to be particularly aggressive.

“The plaintiff attorney will have to get an expert to say that the 3-month delay in getting the patient a mammogram caused her great harm,” said Dr. Roberts. “But it’s hard to calculate that scientifically, and it’s really hard to lay that all on the doctor or health system, because they were supposed to lock down during the pandemic.”
 

Playing catch-up

With patients now feeling more comfortable about coming in for physician visits, Mr. Byrne urges clinicians to make a special effort to mitigate potential liability arising from the past year. Physicians should carefully review patients’ charts and make sure to catch them up on preventive screenings. Some health systems, like Kaiser Permanente, have been doing proactive patient outreach for cancer screening throughout the pandemic.

“Providers may need to be extra diligent, and consider expanding the exam into a wellness visit and remind patients about cancer surveillance,” he said.

Overall, however, the expert consensus is that physicians should focus on providing the best quality care going forward, and not worry excessively about the care they wish they could have delivered over the past year during the extraordinary pandemic conditions.

“Liability risks will be decreased, because state laws have changed and doctors will be cut some slack, not just by judges and juries but by patients themselves,” Dr. Roberts said. “As you are running down the hall to take care of the next person, don’t be looking over your shoulder or you’ll run into the wall.”

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

Albuquerque oncologist Barbara McAneny, MD, has a patient in his 30s who experienced rectal bleeding for 6 months in 2020 but didn’t see a physician because he was afraid of catching COVID-19. He hoped it was just hemorrhoids.

When he finally came in to see her recently, Dr. McAneny diagnosed a large colon cancer. She fears the delay could prove fatal. “We’ll do our best to cure him, but I don’t know if he’ll be treatable,” she said. “Six months absolutely can make a difference.”

She and other oncologists around the country are seeing many patients in the past few months with advanced breast, colon, lung, and other cancers who were not diagnosed and treated during the COVID-19 pandemic because the patients didn’t want to come in, or because medical facilities weren’t taking nonemergency or non-COVID patients.

Given that failure to diagnose cancer is among the most common medical malpractice allegations, should oncologists be worried that they are at legal risk?
 

Pandemic provides ‘safe harbor’

In a March survey done by medical malpractice insurer The Doctors Company, one-third of physicians said they were very concerned or somewhat concerned that malpractice claims related to care during the pandemic will rise.

But in most of these cases, physicians and hospitals have little to worry about in terms of medical malpractice liability, according to veteran plaintiff and defense attorneys and the head of a large medical liability insurer.

“You had people with diseases like cancer not getting care because health care systems were overwhelmed,” said Sean Domnick, JD, a malpractice plaintiff attorney in Boca Raton, Fla. “Will those lead to successful malpractice lawsuits? Most likely not.”

“The risks will be low because it’s hard to pin it on the doctor if the patient didn’t want to come in or facilities weren’t scheduling appointments because of the public health emergency,” said Richard Roberts, MD, JD, a professor of family medicine at the University of Wisconsin–Madison who is also a malpractice defense attorney.

In addition, liability protections enacted in more than 30 states because of the COVID-19 pandemic will help shield clinicians from lawsuits. Those laws generally require allegations of gross negligence or reckless conduct far beyond ordinary negligence, which are hard to prove. But the immunity provisions remain largely untested in the courts, and it’s unclear how they will affect cases involving care for conditions other than COVID-19.

Another helpful factor is the widespread public appreciation of the valiant work by health care professionals throughout the pandemic, though that halo effect could fade over the next several years as malpractice claims from the pandemic period are filed and tried.

“In many circumstances, the pandemic will prove to be a safe harbor for providers,” said Steven Wigrizer, JD, a malpractice plaintiff attorney in Philadelphia. “Jurors will be reluctant to impose liability on providers who were doing their best in a global pandemic the world hadn’t seen in 100 years.”
 

Risky situations

These predictions from liability experts should reassure physicians who are anxious over reports that many cancer diagnoses were missed as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Still, there are situations where physicians and hospitals could be vulnerable to malpractice claims despite the pandemic conditions. The highest-risk cases are those where patients recognized a potential cancer symptom like a breast lump or rectal bleeding, and tried to visit a doctor’s office or hospital, but were told they couldn’t be seen.

“Those kinds of cases lend themselves to delayed diagnosis claims,” said Richard Anderson, MD, an oncologist who is chairman and CEO of The Doctors Company. “My guess is we will see claims,” though he expects a reduced number arising from 2020 care scenarios, compared with previous years.

So far, his company has seen 20% fewer claims in 2020, which he said isn’t surprising given that the volume of physician and hospital visits plummeted.

Another risky situation is where physicians – particularly primary care physicians but also specialists like gynecologists and urologists – did not inform patients about concerning test results and order a follow-up test or visit. That is dangerous even if the physician did try to schedule a visit but the patient canceled the appointment.

“The jury will ask, ‘What did you do to get the patient back?’ ” said Sean Byrne, JD, a malpractice defense attorney in Richmond, Va. “The provider will say: ‘I’m sure we called.’ But it’s a difficult defense to say the patient didn’t return the call. I need written proof.”

Mr. Domnick said failures to follow up on suspicious test results could produce viable malpractice claims, pandemic or not. “The question becomes to what extent doctors will try to hide behind COVID to explain otherwise run-of-the-mill negligence,” he said. “We’ll have to see how that plays out.”

There are also worries about missed cancer diagnoses during telemedicine visits. “On telemedicine, I can’t feel a lymph node, I can’t palpate a breast mass, and I can’t see if someone’s liver is enlarged,” Dr. McAneny fretted. “I think you’ll get suits because you’ll miss stuff.”

One other area of exposure cited by the experts: Radiologists and pathologists could be sued for missing tumors in reading imaging tests. “The COVID-19 demand on resources has been immense,” Mr. Byrne said. “If that production pressure resulted in any quality loss in testing services, we could see claims.”
 

Patient protocols provide protection

There’s no question that cancer screenings dropped sharply during the pandemic. In June 2020, the National Cancer Institute estimated there was a 75% decrease in mammograms and colonoscopies during the first few months of the pandemic. It projected that delays in screenings, diagnoses, and treatment likely would result in 10,000 more breast and colorectal cancer deaths than otherwise expected over the next decade.

Delays of even 1 month in treatment for seven common forms of cancer can increase mortality risk by 6%-13%, according to a BMJ study.

While many medical facilities stopped doing preventive screening tests during the height of the pandemic last year, health care professionals still found ways to bring in patients with diagnosed cancers or who were at heightened cancer risk for tests and treatment.

Most facilities convened multidisciplinary tumor boards to decide which patients could wait for treatment, which patients could be maintained on drug therapy, and which ones needed immediate surgery, said Carla Fisher, MD, director of breast surgery at Indiana University, Indianapolis. For breast cancer, they used guidelines from her professional group, the American Society of Breast Surgeons.

Following such protocols for prioritizing patients for treatment during the pandemic should help protect against liability, experts said.

Even if it can be shown that a clinician’s negligence led to delayed diagnosis or treatment of a patient’s cancer, plaintiff attorneys will be wary about filing such claims. That is because it is difficult in most cases to prove that the delay significantly worsened the course of the patient’s disease or the odds of survival. Showing harm may be more possible with certain cancers known to be particularly aggressive.

“The plaintiff attorney will have to get an expert to say that the 3-month delay in getting the patient a mammogram caused her great harm,” said Dr. Roberts. “But it’s hard to calculate that scientifically, and it’s really hard to lay that all on the doctor or health system, because they were supposed to lock down during the pandemic.”
 

Playing catch-up

With patients now feeling more comfortable about coming in for physician visits, Mr. Byrne urges clinicians to make a special effort to mitigate potential liability arising from the past year. Physicians should carefully review patients’ charts and make sure to catch them up on preventive screenings. Some health systems, like Kaiser Permanente, have been doing proactive patient outreach for cancer screening throughout the pandemic.

“Providers may need to be extra diligent, and consider expanding the exam into a wellness visit and remind patients about cancer surveillance,” he said.

Overall, however, the expert consensus is that physicians should focus on providing the best quality care going forward, and not worry excessively about the care they wish they could have delivered over the past year during the extraordinary pandemic conditions.

“Liability risks will be decreased, because state laws have changed and doctors will be cut some slack, not just by judges and juries but by patients themselves,” Dr. Roberts said. “As you are running down the hall to take care of the next person, don’t be looking over your shoulder or you’ll run into the wall.”

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