AVAHO

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.

A mechanistic link between red meat consumption and colorectal cancer (CRC) has been identified in the form of an alkylating mutational signature, according to investigators.

This is the first time a colorectal mutational signature has been associated with a component of diet, which demonstrates the value of large-scale molecular epidemiologic studies and suggests potential for early, precision dietary intervention, reported lead author Carino Gurjao, MSc, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, and colleagues.

“Red meat consumption has been consistently linked to the incidence of colorectal cancer,” the investigators wrote in Cancer Discovery. “The suggested mechanism is mutagenesis through alkylating damage induced by N-nitroso-compounds (NOCs), which are metabolic products of blood heme iron or meat nitrites/nitrates. Nevertheless, this mutational damage is yet to be observed directly in patients’ tumors.”

To this end, the investigators turned to three long-term, large-scale, prospective cohort studies: the Nurses’ Health Studies I and II, and the Health Professionals Follow-up Study. These databases include nearly 300,000 individuals with follow-up dating back as far as 1976. The investigators identified 900 cases of primary, untreated CRC with adequate tissue for analysis, then, for each case, performed whole exome sequencing on both tumor tissue and normal colorectal tissue.

This revealed an alkylating mutational signature previously undescribed in CRC that was significantly associated with consumption of red meat prior to diagnosis, but not other dietary or lifestyle factors. The signature occurred most frequently in tumors and normal crypts in the distal colon and rectum.

According to the investigators, the presence of the alkylating signature in normal colorectal crypts “suggests that mutational changes due to such damage may start to occur early in the path of colorectal carcinogenesis.”

Further analysis showed that tumors harboring common KRAS and PIK3CA driver mutations had the highest levels of alkylating damage, with higher levels predicting worse survival.

“These results ... further implicate the role of red meat in CRC initiation and progression,” the investigators concluded.
 

Early findings, important implications

Cosenior author Kana Wu, MD, PhD, principal research scientist in the department of nutrition at Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, noted that these are early findings, although they may pave the way toward new dietary recommendations and methods of food production.

“While more detailed analysis needs to be conducted, and our results need to be confirmed in other studies, this study is a promising first step to better understand the biological mechanisms underlying the role of red and processed meats in colorectal cancers,” Dr. Wu said in an interview. “It is important to gain more insight into the biological mechanisms so we can improve dietary guidelines for cancer prevention and guide food reformulation efforts to lower cancer risk.”

For now, Dr. Wu predicted that standing dietary recommendations will remain unchanged.

“This study will not alter current diet recommendations to limit intake of red and processed meats,” Dr. Wu said, referring to similar recommendations across several organizations, including the American Heart Association, the World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research, and the American Cancer Society.

“For example,” Dr. Wu said, “the WCRF/AICR recommends limiting consumption of red and processed meat to ‘no more than moderate amounts [12-18 ounces per week] of red meat, such as beef, pork, and lamb, and [to] eat little, if any, processed meat.’”
 

Possible biomarker?

According to Patricia Thompson-Carino, PhD, deputy director of the Stony Brook (N.Y.) Cancer Center, the study provides convincing evidence linking red meat consumption with development of CRC.

“Higher frequency of the signature in the distal colon is compelling for its consistency with epidemiologic evidence,” Dr. Thompson-Carino said in an interview. “Combined with the observed worse survival in patients harboring the signature and association with oncogenic KRAS and PIK3CA driver mutations, this study significantly elevates the biological plausibility that red meat is a modifiable source of NOC mutagenicity and carcinogenesis in humans.”

The signature could be used as a biomarker to detect exposure to NOCs, and susceptibility to CRC, she added.

Still, Dr. Thompson-Carino suggested that more work is needed to fully elucidate underlying mechanisms of action, which are needed to accurately shape dietary guidance.

“Key to advancing red meat dietary recommendations will be understanding the relationships between the new mutation signature and the NOCs derived from red meat and their source, whether endogenous [for example, intestinal N-nitrosation] or exogenous [for example, chemical preservation or charring],” she said. The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the Stand Up To Cancer Colorectal Cancer Dream Team Translational Research Grant (coadministered by the American Association for Cancer Research), the Project P Fund, and others. The investigators, Dr. Wu, and Dr. Thompson-Carino reported no conflicts of interest related to this study.

A mechanistic link between red meat consumption and colorectal cancer (CRC) has been identified in the form of an alkylating mutational signature, according to investigators.

This is the first time a colorectal mutational signature has been associated with a component of diet, which demonstrates the value of large-scale molecular epidemiologic studies and suggests potential for early, precision dietary intervention, reported lead author Carino Gurjao, MSc, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, and colleagues.

“Red meat consumption has been consistently linked to the incidence of colorectal cancer,” the investigators wrote in Cancer Discovery. “The suggested mechanism is mutagenesis through alkylating damage induced by N-nitroso-compounds (NOCs), which are metabolic products of blood heme iron or meat nitrites/nitrates. Nevertheless, this mutational damage is yet to be observed directly in patients’ tumors.”

To this end, the investigators turned to three long-term, large-scale, prospective cohort studies: the Nurses’ Health Studies I and II, and the Health Professionals Follow-up Study. These databases include nearly 300,000 individuals with follow-up dating back as far as 1976. The investigators identified 900 cases of primary, untreated CRC with adequate tissue for analysis, then, for each case, performed whole exome sequencing on both tumor tissue and normal colorectal tissue.

This revealed an alkylating mutational signature previously undescribed in CRC that was significantly associated with consumption of red meat prior to diagnosis, but not other dietary or lifestyle factors. The signature occurred most frequently in tumors and normal crypts in the distal colon and rectum.

According to the investigators, the presence of the alkylating signature in normal colorectal crypts “suggests that mutational changes due to such damage may start to occur early in the path of colorectal carcinogenesis.”

Further analysis showed that tumors harboring common KRAS and PIK3CA driver mutations had the highest levels of alkylating damage, with higher levels predicting worse survival.

“These results ... further implicate the role of red meat in CRC initiation and progression,” the investigators concluded.
 

Early findings, important implications

Cosenior author Kana Wu, MD, PhD, principal research scientist in the department of nutrition at Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, noted that these are early findings, although they may pave the way toward new dietary recommendations and methods of food production.

“While more detailed analysis needs to be conducted, and our results need to be confirmed in other studies, this study is a promising first step to better understand the biological mechanisms underlying the role of red and processed meats in colorectal cancers,” Dr. Wu said in an interview. “It is important to gain more insight into the biological mechanisms so we can improve dietary guidelines for cancer prevention and guide food reformulation efforts to lower cancer risk.”

For now, Dr. Wu predicted that standing dietary recommendations will remain unchanged.

“This study will not alter current diet recommendations to limit intake of red and processed meats,” Dr. Wu said, referring to similar recommendations across several organizations, including the American Heart Association, the World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research, and the American Cancer Society.

“For example,” Dr. Wu said, “the WCRF/AICR recommends limiting consumption of red and processed meat to ‘no more than moderate amounts [12-18 ounces per week] of red meat, such as beef, pork, and lamb, and [to] eat little, if any, processed meat.’”
 

Possible biomarker?

According to Patricia Thompson-Carino, PhD, deputy director of the Stony Brook (N.Y.) Cancer Center, the study provides convincing evidence linking red meat consumption with development of CRC.

“Higher frequency of the signature in the distal colon is compelling for its consistency with epidemiologic evidence,” Dr. Thompson-Carino said in an interview. “Combined with the observed worse survival in patients harboring the signature and association with oncogenic KRAS and PIK3CA driver mutations, this study significantly elevates the biological plausibility that red meat is a modifiable source of NOC mutagenicity and carcinogenesis in humans.”

The signature could be used as a biomarker to detect exposure to NOCs, and susceptibility to CRC, she added.

Still, Dr. Thompson-Carino suggested that more work is needed to fully elucidate underlying mechanisms of action, which are needed to accurately shape dietary guidance.

“Key to advancing red meat dietary recommendations will be understanding the relationships between the new mutation signature and the NOCs derived from red meat and their source, whether endogenous [for example, intestinal N-nitrosation] or exogenous [for example, chemical preservation or charring],” she said. The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the Stand Up To Cancer Colorectal Cancer Dream Team Translational Research Grant (coadministered by the American Association for Cancer Research), the Project P Fund, and others. The investigators, Dr. Wu, and Dr. Thompson-Carino reported no conflicts of interest related to this study.

A mechanistic link between red meat consumption and colorectal cancer (CRC) has been identified in the form of an alkylating mutational signature, according to investigators.

This is the first time a colorectal mutational signature has been associated with a component of diet, which demonstrates the value of large-scale molecular epidemiologic studies and suggests potential for early, precision dietary intervention, reported lead author Carino Gurjao, MSc, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, and colleagues.

“Red meat consumption has been consistently linked to the incidence of colorectal cancer,” the investigators wrote in Cancer Discovery. “The suggested mechanism is mutagenesis through alkylating damage induced by N-nitroso-compounds (NOCs), which are metabolic products of blood heme iron or meat nitrites/nitrates. Nevertheless, this mutational damage is yet to be observed directly in patients’ tumors.”

To this end, the investigators turned to three long-term, large-scale, prospective cohort studies: the Nurses’ Health Studies I and II, and the Health Professionals Follow-up Study. These databases include nearly 300,000 individuals with follow-up dating back as far as 1976. The investigators identified 900 cases of primary, untreated CRC with adequate tissue for analysis, then, for each case, performed whole exome sequencing on both tumor tissue and normal colorectal tissue.

This revealed an alkylating mutational signature previously undescribed in CRC that was significantly associated with consumption of red meat prior to diagnosis, but not other dietary or lifestyle factors. The signature occurred most frequently in tumors and normal crypts in the distal colon and rectum.

According to the investigators, the presence of the alkylating signature in normal colorectal crypts “suggests that mutational changes due to such damage may start to occur early in the path of colorectal carcinogenesis.”

Further analysis showed that tumors harboring common KRAS and PIK3CA driver mutations had the highest levels of alkylating damage, with higher levels predicting worse survival.

“These results ... further implicate the role of red meat in CRC initiation and progression,” the investigators concluded.
 

Early findings, important implications

Cosenior author Kana Wu, MD, PhD, principal research scientist in the department of nutrition at Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, noted that these are early findings, although they may pave the way toward new dietary recommendations and methods of food production.

“While more detailed analysis needs to be conducted, and our results need to be confirmed in other studies, this study is a promising first step to better understand the biological mechanisms underlying the role of red and processed meats in colorectal cancers,” Dr. Wu said in an interview. “It is important to gain more insight into the biological mechanisms so we can improve dietary guidelines for cancer prevention and guide food reformulation efforts to lower cancer risk.”

For now, Dr. Wu predicted that standing dietary recommendations will remain unchanged.

“This study will not alter current diet recommendations to limit intake of red and processed meats,” Dr. Wu said, referring to similar recommendations across several organizations, including the American Heart Association, the World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research, and the American Cancer Society.

“For example,” Dr. Wu said, “the WCRF/AICR recommends limiting consumption of red and processed meat to ‘no more than moderate amounts [12-18 ounces per week] of red meat, such as beef, pork, and lamb, and [to] eat little, if any, processed meat.’”
 

Possible biomarker?

According to Patricia Thompson-Carino, PhD, deputy director of the Stony Brook (N.Y.) Cancer Center, the study provides convincing evidence linking red meat consumption with development of CRC.

“Higher frequency of the signature in the distal colon is compelling for its consistency with epidemiologic evidence,” Dr. Thompson-Carino said in an interview. “Combined with the observed worse survival in patients harboring the signature and association with oncogenic KRAS and PIK3CA driver mutations, this study significantly elevates the biological plausibility that red meat is a modifiable source of NOC mutagenicity and carcinogenesis in humans.”

The signature could be used as a biomarker to detect exposure to NOCs, and susceptibility to CRC, she added.

Still, Dr. Thompson-Carino suggested that more work is needed to fully elucidate underlying mechanisms of action, which are needed to accurately shape dietary guidance.

“Key to advancing red meat dietary recommendations will be understanding the relationships between the new mutation signature and the NOCs derived from red meat and their source, whether endogenous [for example, intestinal N-nitrosation] or exogenous [for example, chemical preservation or charring],” she said. The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the Stand Up To Cancer Colorectal Cancer Dream Team Translational Research Grant (coadministered by the American Association for Cancer Research), the Project P Fund, and others. The investigators, Dr. Wu, and Dr. Thompson-Carino reported no conflicts of interest related to this study.

Leading oncologist Professor Justin Stebbing has told a medical tribunal he provided “exceptional standards of care” to a cancer patient he’s accused of giving chemotherapy when there was no evidence it would bring any benefit.

Prof. Stebbing, a cancer medicine and oncology professor at Imperial College London with a private practice on Harley Street, claimed the patient would have died without the chemotherapy, and immunotherapy treatment led to him living for another 2 years.

He’s appearing before a Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) fitness-to-practice hearing and is accused of failing to provide good clinical care to 12 patients between March 2014 and March 2017.

In some cases, Prof. Stebbing is accused of inappropriately treating patients given their advanced cancer or poor prognosis, overstating life expectancy and the benefits of chemotherapy, and continuing to treat patients when it was futile, and they had just weeks to live.

The 36 charges – 21 of which he’s admitted – also include failing to keep proper records and failing to gain informed consent for treatment from patients.
 

Patient B

Prof. Stebbing’s international reputation for innovative treatments has led to wealthy, terminally ill cancer patients from around the world turning to him in the hope of extending their lives.

The tribunal heard about one lung cancer patient – known only as Patient B – from Spain he treated between May 2014 and October 2015.

Prof. Stebbing is accused of offering doublet chemotherapy to the patient beyond six cycles, despite evidence emerging that he was developing impaired renal function.

He’s also accused of continuing the treatment at a higher dose after 10 cycles despite a “lack of efficacy” and “evidence of harm emerging.”

It’s alleged the chemotherapy would have exposed the patient to risks “without any conceivable prospect of improving health.”

However, Prof. Stebbing defended his actions, saying he’d explained to the patient that if he stopped chemotherapy at any time, “his disease would progress rapidly and he would die.”

He said immunotherapy “typically took 3 months to work,” and because the patient’s lung cancer hadn’t progressed, it was evident that the chemotherapy had worked.

It was possible to provide chemotherapy in cases of renal failure, he said, and he’d only given it in small doses.

“This is one of two patients in the bundle who has an exceptional standard of care,” he said.

“If you look at the problem with his kidneys, this was the minimus in my terms.

“I think I made some very, very difficult decisions that other people may not have made, but I got them right and, as a result, he lived very happily for another 2 years.”
 

‘Guidelines are a guide’

But Sharon Beattie, for the General Medical Council (GMC), claimed he’d ignored guidelines, and there was no data to support the position he’d taken.

Prof. Stebbing replied: “The guidelines are a guide; they are helpful. They do not replace the skill of an individual doctor.”

“There were no guidelines for a patient like this. I’m absolutely amazed you’re saying, ‘You should have just let him die because there were no guidelines.’”

Ms. Beattie pointed out that Prof. Stebbing had accepted that he’d stopped the chemotherapy treatment in October 2015 because it was clear there was evidence of “toxicity and waning efficacy.”

But he claimed there were only “grade one” levels of toxicity and “mild” disease progression.

At that stage, he said, he realized he was approaching the “end of the line” with the treatment and he was “thinking out of the box” to get immunotherapy for the patient.

Earlier, Prof. Stebbing said the chemotherapy had been “a bridge” to the patient’s immunotherapy treatment, but it had “never been clear” it would be available.

He said: “The whole point of the extended duration chemotherapy was to try to get him to immunotherapy if it was available.”

“It was a very exciting, new possibility. I didn’t know if it was going to be available, but I wanted the patient to have every chance of it being available.”

“The longer he lived for with stable disease the more likelihood it had of becoming available.”

Prof. Stebbing denies failing to discuss the risks and benefits of chemotherapy with the patient and failing to maintain adequate records.

He told the tribunal that he had discussed both the chemotherapy and immunotherapy, but he accepted he’d had “problems” with documenting his decisions.

The tribunal continues.

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

Leading oncologist Professor Justin Stebbing has told a medical tribunal he provided “exceptional standards of care” to a cancer patient he’s accused of giving chemotherapy when there was no evidence it would bring any benefit.

Prof. Stebbing, a cancer medicine and oncology professor at Imperial College London with a private practice on Harley Street, claimed the patient would have died without the chemotherapy, and immunotherapy treatment led to him living for another 2 years.

He’s appearing before a Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) fitness-to-practice hearing and is accused of failing to provide good clinical care to 12 patients between March 2014 and March 2017.

In some cases, Prof. Stebbing is accused of inappropriately treating patients given their advanced cancer or poor prognosis, overstating life expectancy and the benefits of chemotherapy, and continuing to treat patients when it was futile, and they had just weeks to live.

The 36 charges – 21 of which he’s admitted – also include failing to keep proper records and failing to gain informed consent for treatment from patients.
 

Patient B

Prof. Stebbing’s international reputation for innovative treatments has led to wealthy, terminally ill cancer patients from around the world turning to him in the hope of extending their lives.

The tribunal heard about one lung cancer patient – known only as Patient B – from Spain he treated between May 2014 and October 2015.

Prof. Stebbing is accused of offering doublet chemotherapy to the patient beyond six cycles, despite evidence emerging that he was developing impaired renal function.

He’s also accused of continuing the treatment at a higher dose after 10 cycles despite a “lack of efficacy” and “evidence of harm emerging.”

It’s alleged the chemotherapy would have exposed the patient to risks “without any conceivable prospect of improving health.”

However, Prof. Stebbing defended his actions, saying he’d explained to the patient that if he stopped chemotherapy at any time, “his disease would progress rapidly and he would die.”

He said immunotherapy “typically took 3 months to work,” and because the patient’s lung cancer hadn’t progressed, it was evident that the chemotherapy had worked.

It was possible to provide chemotherapy in cases of renal failure, he said, and he’d only given it in small doses.

“This is one of two patients in the bundle who has an exceptional standard of care,” he said.

“If you look at the problem with his kidneys, this was the minimus in my terms.

“I think I made some very, very difficult decisions that other people may not have made, but I got them right and, as a result, he lived very happily for another 2 years.”
 

‘Guidelines are a guide’

But Sharon Beattie, for the General Medical Council (GMC), claimed he’d ignored guidelines, and there was no data to support the position he’d taken.

Prof. Stebbing replied: “The guidelines are a guide; they are helpful. They do not replace the skill of an individual doctor.”

“There were no guidelines for a patient like this. I’m absolutely amazed you’re saying, ‘You should have just let him die because there were no guidelines.’”

Ms. Beattie pointed out that Prof. Stebbing had accepted that he’d stopped the chemotherapy treatment in October 2015 because it was clear there was evidence of “toxicity and waning efficacy.”

But he claimed there were only “grade one” levels of toxicity and “mild” disease progression.

At that stage, he said, he realized he was approaching the “end of the line” with the treatment and he was “thinking out of the box” to get immunotherapy for the patient.

Earlier, Prof. Stebbing said the chemotherapy had been “a bridge” to the patient’s immunotherapy treatment, but it had “never been clear” it would be available.

He said: “The whole point of the extended duration chemotherapy was to try to get him to immunotherapy if it was available.”

“It was a very exciting, new possibility. I didn’t know if it was going to be available, but I wanted the patient to have every chance of it being available.”

“The longer he lived for with stable disease the more likelihood it had of becoming available.”

Prof. Stebbing denies failing to discuss the risks and benefits of chemotherapy with the patient and failing to maintain adequate records.

He told the tribunal that he had discussed both the chemotherapy and immunotherapy, but he accepted he’d had “problems” with documenting his decisions.

The tribunal continues.

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

Leading oncologist Professor Justin Stebbing has told a medical tribunal he provided “exceptional standards of care” to a cancer patient he’s accused of giving chemotherapy when there was no evidence it would bring any benefit.

Prof. Stebbing, a cancer medicine and oncology professor at Imperial College London with a private practice on Harley Street, claimed the patient would have died without the chemotherapy, and immunotherapy treatment led to him living for another 2 years.

He’s appearing before a Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) fitness-to-practice hearing and is accused of failing to provide good clinical care to 12 patients between March 2014 and March 2017.

In some cases, Prof. Stebbing is accused of inappropriately treating patients given their advanced cancer or poor prognosis, overstating life expectancy and the benefits of chemotherapy, and continuing to treat patients when it was futile, and they had just weeks to live.

The 36 charges – 21 of which he’s admitted – also include failing to keep proper records and failing to gain informed consent for treatment from patients.
 

Patient B

Prof. Stebbing’s international reputation for innovative treatments has led to wealthy, terminally ill cancer patients from around the world turning to him in the hope of extending their lives.

The tribunal heard about one lung cancer patient – known only as Patient B – from Spain he treated between May 2014 and October 2015.

Prof. Stebbing is accused of offering doublet chemotherapy to the patient beyond six cycles, despite evidence emerging that he was developing impaired renal function.

He’s also accused of continuing the treatment at a higher dose after 10 cycles despite a “lack of efficacy” and “evidence of harm emerging.”

It’s alleged the chemotherapy would have exposed the patient to risks “without any conceivable prospect of improving health.”

However, Prof. Stebbing defended his actions, saying he’d explained to the patient that if he stopped chemotherapy at any time, “his disease would progress rapidly and he would die.”

He said immunotherapy “typically took 3 months to work,” and because the patient’s lung cancer hadn’t progressed, it was evident that the chemotherapy had worked.

It was possible to provide chemotherapy in cases of renal failure, he said, and he’d only given it in small doses.

“This is one of two patients in the bundle who has an exceptional standard of care,” he said.

“If you look at the problem with his kidneys, this was the minimus in my terms.

“I think I made some very, very difficult decisions that other people may not have made, but I got them right and, as a result, he lived very happily for another 2 years.”
 

‘Guidelines are a guide’

But Sharon Beattie, for the General Medical Council (GMC), claimed he’d ignored guidelines, and there was no data to support the position he’d taken.

Prof. Stebbing replied: “The guidelines are a guide; they are helpful. They do not replace the skill of an individual doctor.”

“There were no guidelines for a patient like this. I’m absolutely amazed you’re saying, ‘You should have just let him die because there were no guidelines.’”

Ms. Beattie pointed out that Prof. Stebbing had accepted that he’d stopped the chemotherapy treatment in October 2015 because it was clear there was evidence of “toxicity and waning efficacy.”

But he claimed there were only “grade one” levels of toxicity and “mild” disease progression.

At that stage, he said, he realized he was approaching the “end of the line” with the treatment and he was “thinking out of the box” to get immunotherapy for the patient.

Earlier, Prof. Stebbing said the chemotherapy had been “a bridge” to the patient’s immunotherapy treatment, but it had “never been clear” it would be available.

He said: “The whole point of the extended duration chemotherapy was to try to get him to immunotherapy if it was available.”

“It was a very exciting, new possibility. I didn’t know if it was going to be available, but I wanted the patient to have every chance of it being available.”

“The longer he lived for with stable disease the more likelihood it had of becoming available.”

Prof. Stebbing denies failing to discuss the risks and benefits of chemotherapy with the patient and failing to maintain adequate records.

He told the tribunal that he had discussed both the chemotherapy and immunotherapy, but he accepted he’d had “problems” with documenting his decisions.

The tribunal continues.

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

Five years of treatment with bisphosphonates after chemotherapy for high-risk early breast cancer is too much, say researchers reporting new results from a phase 3 trial with almost 3,000 women.

Current guidelines call for 3-5 years of bisphosphonate therapy on the theory that these drugs might reduce breast cancer recurrence as well as treatment-related bone problems.

However, the new results show no difference in disease-free survival, distant disease-free survival, and overall survival – regardless of menopausal status – between the 1,540 women who received intravenous zoledronate over a 5-year period and 1,447 women who received such therapy over a 2-year period.

What they did find was a substantially higher risk for adverse events with prolonged bisphosphonate treatment, including risks for grade 3/4 events, bone pain, bone fractures, arthralgia, and jaw necrosis, a rare but well- recognized possibility with bisphosphonates.

Lead investigator Thomas Friedl, PhD, a statistician at University Hospital Ulm (Germany), and colleagues concluded that the current duration of treatment can be reduced and that, short of good reason to use bisphosphonates longer, such as decreased bone density, “treatment with zoledronate for 5 years should not be considered in patients with early breast cancer.”

The study was published online on June 24 in JAMA Oncology.

An accompanying editorial went even further, stating not only that “shorter duration of treatment is sufficient” but also that the whole idea of bisphosphonates for breast cancer is in doubt.

With “the modest outcomes of bisphosphonates, compared with no bone-targeted therapy, in historical trials” and the low rates of recurrence with modern treatment – less than 10% in the trial – “what, if any, is the benefit from adjuvant bisphosphonates? It’s time to reevaluate the guidelines,” said the editorialists, led by Alexandra Desnoyers, MD, a breast cancer fellow at the University of Toronto.

“We suggest that zoledronate or other amino-bisphosphonates should not be given as standard adjuvant therapy for unselected women with breast cancer,” they wrote.
 

Risk for necrosis with 5 years of zoledronate

The women in the trial had primary invasive breast cancer and were at high risk for recurrence. They had either positive nodes or high-risk features, including age (median, 53 years). They were treated at 250 centers in Germany.

The first part of the trial was to see whether use of gemcitabine improved outcomes when added to docetaxel after standard fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide adjuvant therapy following surgery. It did not, and the authors reported in 2020 that adjuvant gemcitabine should not be used in the treatment of high-risk early breast cancer.

The next phase of the trial involved zoledronate. Women were randomly assigned to receive zoledronate for 2 or 5 years after surgery and after undergoing chemotherapy. Dosing was 4 mg IV every 3 months for 2 years. The women in the 5-year group went on to receive 4 mg IV every 6 months for another 3 years.

At a mean of 5 years’ follow-up after the first zoledronate dose, there was no difference in any of the survival measures between the two dosage groups.

There was also no difference in rates of bone recurrence or in circulating tumor cells, which the bisphosphonates theory would have predicted. For instance, 10.5% of women in the 5-year group had one or more circulating tumor cells on follow-up versus 7.2% in the 2-year group.

Almost half of the women in the 5-year treatment group experienced adverse events with zoledronate – including 7.6% with grade 3/4 events – versus just over a quarter in the 2-year arm and only 5.1% with grade 3/4 events.

In the 5-year group, 8.3% of patients experienced bone pain and 5.1% experienced arthralgia versus 3.7% and 3.1%, respectively, in the 2-year arm.

Atypical fractures, such as femoral spiral fractures, are another concern with bisphosphonates. Although this trial did not report on fracture type, fractures were reported in 14 women in the 5-year group but in only 3 in the 2-year arm.

Jaw necrosis, another known adverse effect of bisphosphonates, was reported in 11 women in the 5-year group and in 5 in the 2-year group.

The study was funded by several pharmaceutical companies, including Novartis, the maker of zoledronate. The investigators have numerous industry ties. Dr. Friedl has received payments from Novartis.

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

Five years of treatment with bisphosphonates after chemotherapy for high-risk early breast cancer is too much, say researchers reporting new results from a phase 3 trial with almost 3,000 women.

Current guidelines call for 3-5 years of bisphosphonate therapy on the theory that these drugs might reduce breast cancer recurrence as well as treatment-related bone problems.

However, the new results show no difference in disease-free survival, distant disease-free survival, and overall survival – regardless of menopausal status – between the 1,540 women who received intravenous zoledronate over a 5-year period and 1,447 women who received such therapy over a 2-year period.

What they did find was a substantially higher risk for adverse events with prolonged bisphosphonate treatment, including risks for grade 3/4 events, bone pain, bone fractures, arthralgia, and jaw necrosis, a rare but well- recognized possibility with bisphosphonates.

Lead investigator Thomas Friedl, PhD, a statistician at University Hospital Ulm (Germany), and colleagues concluded that the current duration of treatment can be reduced and that, short of good reason to use bisphosphonates longer, such as decreased bone density, “treatment with zoledronate for 5 years should not be considered in patients with early breast cancer.”

The study was published online on June 24 in JAMA Oncology.

An accompanying editorial went even further, stating not only that “shorter duration of treatment is sufficient” but also that the whole idea of bisphosphonates for breast cancer is in doubt.

With “the modest outcomes of bisphosphonates, compared with no bone-targeted therapy, in historical trials” and the low rates of recurrence with modern treatment – less than 10% in the trial – “what, if any, is the benefit from adjuvant bisphosphonates? It’s time to reevaluate the guidelines,” said the editorialists, led by Alexandra Desnoyers, MD, a breast cancer fellow at the University of Toronto.

“We suggest that zoledronate or other amino-bisphosphonates should not be given as standard adjuvant therapy for unselected women with breast cancer,” they wrote.
 

Risk for necrosis with 5 years of zoledronate

The women in the trial had primary invasive breast cancer and were at high risk for recurrence. They had either positive nodes or high-risk features, including age (median, 53 years). They were treated at 250 centers in Germany.

The first part of the trial was to see whether use of gemcitabine improved outcomes when added to docetaxel after standard fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide adjuvant therapy following surgery. It did not, and the authors reported in 2020 that adjuvant gemcitabine should not be used in the treatment of high-risk early breast cancer.

The next phase of the trial involved zoledronate. Women were randomly assigned to receive zoledronate for 2 or 5 years after surgery and after undergoing chemotherapy. Dosing was 4 mg IV every 3 months for 2 years. The women in the 5-year group went on to receive 4 mg IV every 6 months for another 3 years.

At a mean of 5 years’ follow-up after the first zoledronate dose, there was no difference in any of the survival measures between the two dosage groups.

There was also no difference in rates of bone recurrence or in circulating tumor cells, which the bisphosphonates theory would have predicted. For instance, 10.5% of women in the 5-year group had one or more circulating tumor cells on follow-up versus 7.2% in the 2-year group.

Almost half of the women in the 5-year treatment group experienced adverse events with zoledronate – including 7.6% with grade 3/4 events – versus just over a quarter in the 2-year arm and only 5.1% with grade 3/4 events.

In the 5-year group, 8.3% of patients experienced bone pain and 5.1% experienced arthralgia versus 3.7% and 3.1%, respectively, in the 2-year arm.

Atypical fractures, such as femoral spiral fractures, are another concern with bisphosphonates. Although this trial did not report on fracture type, fractures were reported in 14 women in the 5-year group but in only 3 in the 2-year arm.

Jaw necrosis, another known adverse effect of bisphosphonates, was reported in 11 women in the 5-year group and in 5 in the 2-year group.

The study was funded by several pharmaceutical companies, including Novartis, the maker of zoledronate. The investigators have numerous industry ties. Dr. Friedl has received payments from Novartis.

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

Five years of treatment with bisphosphonates after chemotherapy for high-risk early breast cancer is too much, say researchers reporting new results from a phase 3 trial with almost 3,000 women.

Current guidelines call for 3-5 years of bisphosphonate therapy on the theory that these drugs might reduce breast cancer recurrence as well as treatment-related bone problems.

However, the new results show no difference in disease-free survival, distant disease-free survival, and overall survival – regardless of menopausal status – between the 1,540 women who received intravenous zoledronate over a 5-year period and 1,447 women who received such therapy over a 2-year period.

What they did find was a substantially higher risk for adverse events with prolonged bisphosphonate treatment, including risks for grade 3/4 events, bone pain, bone fractures, arthralgia, and jaw necrosis, a rare but well- recognized possibility with bisphosphonates.

Lead investigator Thomas Friedl, PhD, a statistician at University Hospital Ulm (Germany), and colleagues concluded that the current duration of treatment can be reduced and that, short of good reason to use bisphosphonates longer, such as decreased bone density, “treatment with zoledronate for 5 years should not be considered in patients with early breast cancer.”

The study was published online on June 24 in JAMA Oncology.

An accompanying editorial went even further, stating not only that “shorter duration of treatment is sufficient” but also that the whole idea of bisphosphonates for breast cancer is in doubt.

With “the modest outcomes of bisphosphonates, compared with no bone-targeted therapy, in historical trials” and the low rates of recurrence with modern treatment – less than 10% in the trial – “what, if any, is the benefit from adjuvant bisphosphonates? It’s time to reevaluate the guidelines,” said the editorialists, led by Alexandra Desnoyers, MD, a breast cancer fellow at the University of Toronto.

“We suggest that zoledronate or other amino-bisphosphonates should not be given as standard adjuvant therapy for unselected women with breast cancer,” they wrote.
 

Risk for necrosis with 5 years of zoledronate

The women in the trial had primary invasive breast cancer and were at high risk for recurrence. They had either positive nodes or high-risk features, including age (median, 53 years). They were treated at 250 centers in Germany.

The first part of the trial was to see whether use of gemcitabine improved outcomes when added to docetaxel after standard fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide adjuvant therapy following surgery. It did not, and the authors reported in 2020 that adjuvant gemcitabine should not be used in the treatment of high-risk early breast cancer.

The next phase of the trial involved zoledronate. Women were randomly assigned to receive zoledronate for 2 or 5 years after surgery and after undergoing chemotherapy. Dosing was 4 mg IV every 3 months for 2 years. The women in the 5-year group went on to receive 4 mg IV every 6 months for another 3 years.

At a mean of 5 years’ follow-up after the first zoledronate dose, there was no difference in any of the survival measures between the two dosage groups.

There was also no difference in rates of bone recurrence or in circulating tumor cells, which the bisphosphonates theory would have predicted. For instance, 10.5% of women in the 5-year group had one or more circulating tumor cells on follow-up versus 7.2% in the 2-year group.

Almost half of the women in the 5-year treatment group experienced adverse events with zoledronate – including 7.6% with grade 3/4 events – versus just over a quarter in the 2-year arm and only 5.1% with grade 3/4 events.

In the 5-year group, 8.3% of patients experienced bone pain and 5.1% experienced arthralgia versus 3.7% and 3.1%, respectively, in the 2-year arm.

Atypical fractures, such as femoral spiral fractures, are another concern with bisphosphonates. Although this trial did not report on fracture type, fractures were reported in 14 women in the 5-year group but in only 3 in the 2-year arm.

Jaw necrosis, another known adverse effect of bisphosphonates, was reported in 11 women in the 5-year group and in 5 in the 2-year group.

The study was funded by several pharmaceutical companies, including Novartis, the maker of zoledronate. The investigators have numerous industry ties. Dr. Friedl has received payments from Novartis.

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

Adults with sickle cell disease who experienced a vaso-occlusive crisis had substantially better outcomes when they were treated at specialty infusion centers than those treated in emergency departments (EDs), a prospective observational study shows.

At infusion centers, patients received pain medication an average of 70 minutes faster compared with patients treated in EDs (62 vs. 132 minutes), according to a study published online in the Annals of Internal Medicine. In addition, patients at infusion centers were 3.8 times more likely to have their pain reassessed within 30 minutes of the first dose. And they were 4 times more likely to be discharged home, the researchers found.

“It’s not that the emergency room doctors don’t want to do the right thing,” study author Sophie Lanzkron, MD, said in an interview. “They do, but they aren’t experts in sickle cell disease. They work in an emergency room, which is an incredibly busy, stressful place where they see trauma and heart attacks and strokes and all of these things that need emergency care. And so it just is not the right setting to treat people with sickle cell disease.”

To assess whether care at specialty infusion centers or EDs leads to better outcomes for patients with sickle cell disease with uncomplicated vaso-occlusive crises, Dr. Lanzkron, director of the Sickle Cell Center for Adults at the Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, and colleagues conducted the ESCAPED (Examining Sickle Cell Acute Pain in the Emergency vs. Day Hospital) study.

The trial included 483 adults with sickle cell disease who lived within 60 miles of an infusion center in four U.S. cities: Baltimore, Maryland; Cleveland, Ohio; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Investigators recruited patients between April 2015 and December 2016 and followed them for 18 months after enrollment.

The present analysis focused on data from 269 participants who had infusion center visits or ED visits that occurred during weekdays when infusion centers were open. Two sites had infusion centers solely for adults with sickle cell disease (Baltimore and Milwaukee), and two infusion centers shared infusion space with other hematology-oncology patients. All four sites were in hospitals that also had EDs. 

Although participants may have received comprehensive care at one of the sites with an infusion center, those who lived farther from an infusion center were likely to receive care for acute pain at an ED closer to home, the authors explain in the article.

The investigators used propensity score methodology to balance patient characteristics in the study groups.
 

Quick, effective pain reduction is beneficial

The results suggest that infusion centers “are more likely to provide guideline-based care than EDs,” and this care “can improve overall outcomes,” the authors write. 

Although the specialty infusion centers the researchers studied used various models, similar outcomes were seen at all of them.

The study did not include patients who had complications of sickle cell disease in addition to vaso-occlusive crisis, the researchers note. 

“[Because] the magnitude of the treatment effects estimated in our study is large and we have captured most of the important potential confounders, an unmeasured confounder that can nullify the treatment effect is unlikely to exist,” the authors write. 

“Sickle cell disease is a complicated condition that affects multiple organs. Patients who present with acute pain will have better outcomes being treated under providers who know and understand the disease,” commented Julie Kanter, MD, director of the adult sickle cell disease program and codirector of the Comprehensive Sickle Cell Center at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. “Specialized infusion centers offer the opportunity to both improve outcomes and decrease the cost of care. Most importantly, it is better for the individual with sickle cell disease,” she said.

Dr. Kanter wrote an accompanying editorial about the ESCAPED findings. The editorialist notes that “opioid medications are the only option to reduce the pain caused by microvascular injury” in patients with sickle cell crisis, although these treatments do not reduce the underlying damage and have substantial side effects and risks. Nevertheless, “quick and effective reduction of pain can allow patients to more easily move, stretch, and breathe ... important to increase oxygenation and restore blood flow, which will eventually abate the crisis,” Dr. Kanter wrote. 

The study shows that the infusion center treatment approach can benefit patients across different settings, commented John J. Strouse, MD, PhD, medical director of the adult sickle cell program at Duke University Sickle Cell Center, Durham, N.C., who was not involved in the study. 

“They show that they can definitely get closer to the recommendations of guidelines for acute pain management and sickle cell disease” in a setting that is focused on one problem, he said. “The other piece that is really important is that people are much more likely to go home if you follow the guideline.”
 

Infusion centers are scarce

“These systems need to be built,” Dr. Lanzkron said. “In most places, patients don’t have access to the infusion center model for their care. And in some places, it is not going to be practical.” Still, there may be ways to establish infusion locations, such as at oncology centers. And while there are challenges to delivering sickle cell disease care in EDs, “emergency rooms need to try to meet the needs of this patient population as best as they can,” Dr. Lanzkron said.

“Structural racism has played a role in the quality of care delivered” to patients with sickle cell disease, Dr. Lanzkron said. “The big message is [that] there is a better way to do this.” 

The study was funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr. Lanzkron’s disclosures included grants or contracts with government agencies and companies that are paid to her institution, as well as consulting fees from Bluebird Bio, Novo Nordisk, and Pfizer. Coauthors have disclosed working with sickle cell organizations and various medical companies. Dr. Kanter and Dr. Strouse have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Adults with sickle cell disease who experienced a vaso-occlusive crisis had substantially better outcomes when they were treated at specialty infusion centers than those treated in emergency departments (EDs), a prospective observational study shows.

At infusion centers, patients received pain medication an average of 70 minutes faster compared with patients treated in EDs (62 vs. 132 minutes), according to a study published online in the Annals of Internal Medicine. In addition, patients at infusion centers were 3.8 times more likely to have their pain reassessed within 30 minutes of the first dose. And they were 4 times more likely to be discharged home, the researchers found.

“It’s not that the emergency room doctors don’t want to do the right thing,” study author Sophie Lanzkron, MD, said in an interview. “They do, but they aren’t experts in sickle cell disease. They work in an emergency room, which is an incredibly busy, stressful place where they see trauma and heart attacks and strokes and all of these things that need emergency care. And so it just is not the right setting to treat people with sickle cell disease.”

To assess whether care at specialty infusion centers or EDs leads to better outcomes for patients with sickle cell disease with uncomplicated vaso-occlusive crises, Dr. Lanzkron, director of the Sickle Cell Center for Adults at the Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, and colleagues conducted the ESCAPED (Examining Sickle Cell Acute Pain in the Emergency vs. Day Hospital) study.

The trial included 483 adults with sickle cell disease who lived within 60 miles of an infusion center in four U.S. cities: Baltimore, Maryland; Cleveland, Ohio; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Investigators recruited patients between April 2015 and December 2016 and followed them for 18 months after enrollment.

The present analysis focused on data from 269 participants who had infusion center visits or ED visits that occurred during weekdays when infusion centers were open. Two sites had infusion centers solely for adults with sickle cell disease (Baltimore and Milwaukee), and two infusion centers shared infusion space with other hematology-oncology patients. All four sites were in hospitals that also had EDs. 

Although participants may have received comprehensive care at one of the sites with an infusion center, those who lived farther from an infusion center were likely to receive care for acute pain at an ED closer to home, the authors explain in the article.

The investigators used propensity score methodology to balance patient characteristics in the study groups.
 

Quick, effective pain reduction is beneficial

The results suggest that infusion centers “are more likely to provide guideline-based care than EDs,” and this care “can improve overall outcomes,” the authors write. 

Although the specialty infusion centers the researchers studied used various models, similar outcomes were seen at all of them.

The study did not include patients who had complications of sickle cell disease in addition to vaso-occlusive crisis, the researchers note. 

“[Because] the magnitude of the treatment effects estimated in our study is large and we have captured most of the important potential confounders, an unmeasured confounder that can nullify the treatment effect is unlikely to exist,” the authors write. 

“Sickle cell disease is a complicated condition that affects multiple organs. Patients who present with acute pain will have better outcomes being treated under providers who know and understand the disease,” commented Julie Kanter, MD, director of the adult sickle cell disease program and codirector of the Comprehensive Sickle Cell Center at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. “Specialized infusion centers offer the opportunity to both improve outcomes and decrease the cost of care. Most importantly, it is better for the individual with sickle cell disease,” she said.

Dr. Kanter wrote an accompanying editorial about the ESCAPED findings. The editorialist notes that “opioid medications are the only option to reduce the pain caused by microvascular injury” in patients with sickle cell crisis, although these treatments do not reduce the underlying damage and have substantial side effects and risks. Nevertheless, “quick and effective reduction of pain can allow patients to more easily move, stretch, and breathe ... important to increase oxygenation and restore blood flow, which will eventually abate the crisis,” Dr. Kanter wrote. 

The study shows that the infusion center treatment approach can benefit patients across different settings, commented John J. Strouse, MD, PhD, medical director of the adult sickle cell program at Duke University Sickle Cell Center, Durham, N.C., who was not involved in the study. 

“They show that they can definitely get closer to the recommendations of guidelines for acute pain management and sickle cell disease” in a setting that is focused on one problem, he said. “The other piece that is really important is that people are much more likely to go home if you follow the guideline.”
 

Infusion centers are scarce

“These systems need to be built,” Dr. Lanzkron said. “In most places, patients don’t have access to the infusion center model for their care. And in some places, it is not going to be practical.” Still, there may be ways to establish infusion locations, such as at oncology centers. And while there are challenges to delivering sickle cell disease care in EDs, “emergency rooms need to try to meet the needs of this patient population as best as they can,” Dr. Lanzkron said.

“Structural racism has played a role in the quality of care delivered” to patients with sickle cell disease, Dr. Lanzkron said. “The big message is [that] there is a better way to do this.” 

The study was funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr. Lanzkron’s disclosures included grants or contracts with government agencies and companies that are paid to her institution, as well as consulting fees from Bluebird Bio, Novo Nordisk, and Pfizer. Coauthors have disclosed working with sickle cell organizations and various medical companies. Dr. Kanter and Dr. Strouse have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Adults with sickle cell disease who experienced a vaso-occlusive crisis had substantially better outcomes when they were treated at specialty infusion centers than those treated in emergency departments (EDs), a prospective observational study shows.

At infusion centers, patients received pain medication an average of 70 minutes faster compared with patients treated in EDs (62 vs. 132 minutes), according to a study published online in the Annals of Internal Medicine. In addition, patients at infusion centers were 3.8 times more likely to have their pain reassessed within 30 minutes of the first dose. And they were 4 times more likely to be discharged home, the researchers found.

“It’s not that the emergency room doctors don’t want to do the right thing,” study author Sophie Lanzkron, MD, said in an interview. “They do, but they aren’t experts in sickle cell disease. They work in an emergency room, which is an incredibly busy, stressful place where they see trauma and heart attacks and strokes and all of these things that need emergency care. And so it just is not the right setting to treat people with sickle cell disease.”

To assess whether care at specialty infusion centers or EDs leads to better outcomes for patients with sickle cell disease with uncomplicated vaso-occlusive crises, Dr. Lanzkron, director of the Sickle Cell Center for Adults at the Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, and colleagues conducted the ESCAPED (Examining Sickle Cell Acute Pain in the Emergency vs. Day Hospital) study.

The trial included 483 adults with sickle cell disease who lived within 60 miles of an infusion center in four U.S. cities: Baltimore, Maryland; Cleveland, Ohio; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Investigators recruited patients between April 2015 and December 2016 and followed them for 18 months after enrollment.

The present analysis focused on data from 269 participants who had infusion center visits or ED visits that occurred during weekdays when infusion centers were open. Two sites had infusion centers solely for adults with sickle cell disease (Baltimore and Milwaukee), and two infusion centers shared infusion space with other hematology-oncology patients. All four sites were in hospitals that also had EDs. 

Although participants may have received comprehensive care at one of the sites with an infusion center, those who lived farther from an infusion center were likely to receive care for acute pain at an ED closer to home, the authors explain in the article.

The investigators used propensity score methodology to balance patient characteristics in the study groups.
 

Quick, effective pain reduction is beneficial

The results suggest that infusion centers “are more likely to provide guideline-based care than EDs,” and this care “can improve overall outcomes,” the authors write. 

Although the specialty infusion centers the researchers studied used various models, similar outcomes were seen at all of them.

The study did not include patients who had complications of sickle cell disease in addition to vaso-occlusive crisis, the researchers note. 

“[Because] the magnitude of the treatment effects estimated in our study is large and we have captured most of the important potential confounders, an unmeasured confounder that can nullify the treatment effect is unlikely to exist,” the authors write. 

“Sickle cell disease is a complicated condition that affects multiple organs. Patients who present with acute pain will have better outcomes being treated under providers who know and understand the disease,” commented Julie Kanter, MD, director of the adult sickle cell disease program and codirector of the Comprehensive Sickle Cell Center at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. “Specialized infusion centers offer the opportunity to both improve outcomes and decrease the cost of care. Most importantly, it is better for the individual with sickle cell disease,” she said.

Dr. Kanter wrote an accompanying editorial about the ESCAPED findings. The editorialist notes that “opioid medications are the only option to reduce the pain caused by microvascular injury” in patients with sickle cell crisis, although these treatments do not reduce the underlying damage and have substantial side effects and risks. Nevertheless, “quick and effective reduction of pain can allow patients to more easily move, stretch, and breathe ... important to increase oxygenation and restore blood flow, which will eventually abate the crisis,” Dr. Kanter wrote. 

The study shows that the infusion center treatment approach can benefit patients across different settings, commented John J. Strouse, MD, PhD, medical director of the adult sickle cell program at Duke University Sickle Cell Center, Durham, N.C., who was not involved in the study. 

“They show that they can definitely get closer to the recommendations of guidelines for acute pain management and sickle cell disease” in a setting that is focused on one problem, he said. “The other piece that is really important is that people are much more likely to go home if you follow the guideline.”
 

Infusion centers are scarce

“These systems need to be built,” Dr. Lanzkron said. “In most places, patients don’t have access to the infusion center model for their care. And in some places, it is not going to be practical.” Still, there may be ways to establish infusion locations, such as at oncology centers. And while there are challenges to delivering sickle cell disease care in EDs, “emergency rooms need to try to meet the needs of this patient population as best as they can,” Dr. Lanzkron said.

“Structural racism has played a role in the quality of care delivered” to patients with sickle cell disease, Dr. Lanzkron said. “The big message is [that] there is a better way to do this.” 

The study was funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr. Lanzkron’s disclosures included grants or contracts with government agencies and companies that are paid to her institution, as well as consulting fees from Bluebird Bio, Novo Nordisk, and Pfizer. Coauthors have disclosed working with sickle cell organizations and various medical companies. Dr. Kanter and Dr. Strouse have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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