Federal Practitioner

The U.S. Senate confirmed former Georgia congressman Doug Collins as the Secretary for the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) on Feb. 4 in a comfortable 77 to 23 vote. Collins received votes from every Republican Senator and 23 Democratic Senators.

“The MISSION Act, the VA Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act and the PACT Act are 3 of the most important veterans laws in recent history,” Collins said during his confirmation hearing. “They received widespread bipartisan support because their focus is exactly where VA’s focus should be: on veteran convenience and accountability for the department.” 

Collins pledged to keep the VA strong but also to expand community care, noting: “I believe you can have both, you can have a strong VA as it currently exists, and you can have the community care aspect.”

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), who voted to confirm Collins, urged the secretary to exempt all VA employees from the Trump Administration’s recent hiring freeze; ensure that financial assistance programs for veterans are exempt from funding pauses; work with President Trump to reappoint VA Inspector General Mike Missal, who was removed from office by the President in January; and to ensure all VA employees receive due process amid recent directives from the Office of Personnel Management.

The VA also announced a number of new political appointees, including Chris Syrek, who set to serve as chief of staff; Cheryl Mason is slated to serve as senior advisory to Secretary Collins; and Lynda Davis is set to serve as the chief officer with VA's Veterans Experience Office. No nominations have been made for the Undersecretary of Health to date.

The U.S. Senate confirmed former Georgia congressman Doug Collins as the Secretary for the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) on Feb. 4 in a comfortable 77 to 23 vote. Collins received votes from every Republican Senator and 23 Democratic Senators.

“The MISSION Act, the VA Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act and the PACT Act are 3 of the most important veterans laws in recent history,” Collins said during his confirmation hearing. “They received widespread bipartisan support because their focus is exactly where VA’s focus should be: on veteran convenience and accountability for the department.” 

Collins pledged to keep the VA strong but also to expand community care, noting: “I believe you can have both, you can have a strong VA as it currently exists, and you can have the community care aspect.”

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), who voted to confirm Collins, urged the secretary to exempt all VA employees from the Trump Administration’s recent hiring freeze; ensure that financial assistance programs for veterans are exempt from funding pauses; work with President Trump to reappoint VA Inspector General Mike Missal, who was removed from office by the President in January; and to ensure all VA employees receive due process amid recent directives from the Office of Personnel Management.

The VA also announced a number of new political appointees, including Chris Syrek, who set to serve as chief of staff; Cheryl Mason is slated to serve as senior advisory to Secretary Collins; and Lynda Davis is set to serve as the chief officer with VA's Veterans Experience Office. No nominations have been made for the Undersecretary of Health to date.

The U.S. Senate confirmed former Georgia congressman Doug Collins as the Secretary for the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) on Feb. 4 in a comfortable 77 to 23 vote. Collins received votes from every Republican Senator and 23 Democratic Senators.

“The MISSION Act, the VA Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act and the PACT Act are 3 of the most important veterans laws in recent history,” Collins said during his confirmation hearing. “They received widespread bipartisan support because their focus is exactly where VA’s focus should be: on veteran convenience and accountability for the department.” 

Collins pledged to keep the VA strong but also to expand community care, noting: “I believe you can have both, you can have a strong VA as it currently exists, and you can have the community care aspect.”

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), who voted to confirm Collins, urged the secretary to exempt all VA employees from the Trump Administration’s recent hiring freeze; ensure that financial assistance programs for veterans are exempt from funding pauses; work with President Trump to reappoint VA Inspector General Mike Missal, who was removed from office by the President in January; and to ensure all VA employees receive due process amid recent directives from the Office of Personnel Management.

The VA also announced a number of new political appointees, including Chris Syrek, who set to serve as chief of staff; Cheryl Mason is slated to serve as senior advisory to Secretary Collins; and Lynda Davis is set to serve as the chief officer with VA's Veterans Experience Office. No nominations have been made for the Undersecretary of Health to date.

Nearly 96,000 US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) employees—about 20% of the workforce—will be required to return to in-office work by the end of February. The announcement follows a Jan. 20 presidential memorandum, which states agency heads must “take all necessary steps to terminate remote work arrangements and require employees to return to work in-person at their respective duty stations on a full-time basis.” According to a Jan. 28 email sent from the Office of Personnel Management but without a signature, federal employees who refuse will be offered “dignified, fair departure from the federal government utilizing a deferred resignation program.”

The revised VA work policy states “eligible employees must work full-time at their respective duty stations (agency worksites) unless excused due to a disability, qualifying medical condition or other compelling reason.” All nonbargaining unit employees and supervisors who are within 50 miles of their office have until Feb. 24 to return. The VA stated that further guidance is coming for those who live > 50 miles from a facility. 

“VA’s policy allows exceptions for arrangements approved for employees as a reasonable accommodation due to a disability or a qualifying medical condition. Exceptions may also be allowed for military spouses with permanent change of station orders,” according to a VA press release.

“This is a commonsense step toward treating all VA employees equally,” acting VA Secretary Todd Hunter said. “Most VA clinical staff don’t have the luxury of working remotely, and we believe the performance, collaboration and productivity of the department will improve if all VA employees are held to the same standard.” 

The impact on Veterans Health Administration operations remains difficult to determine. The order appears to include personnel providing telehealth care from remote locations, including those at the Clinical Resource Hub (CRH) program. CRH uses a hub and spoke model for limited time primary care and mental health care staffing to cover local clinician vacancies. CRH clinicians have provided > 500,000 veterans with care, averaging > 25,000 encounters in the program’s first year. Started during fiscal year 2020 amid the COVID-19 pandemic, CRH employed 636 clinicians, but more recent data are not available. The VA provided > 28 million telehealth sessions to veterans across all of its telehealth modalities in 2023. Details on how many CRH clinicians and other telehealth practitioners work remotely are also not available.

On Feb. 3, the Office of Personnel Management issued a memo to federal agency heads arguing that any collective bargaining agreements that include teleworking may “conflict with management rights” and therefore may be “unlawful and cannot be enforced.”

The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), which represents 800,000 federal employees, disputed the memo. “Federal employees should know that approved union contracts are enforceable by law, and the President does not have the authority to make unilateral changes to those agreements,” AFGE President Everett Kelley said. “AFGE members will not be intimidated. If our contracts are violated, we will aggressively defend them.”

The VA must decide where to put the more than 47,000 workers who may be coming back. According to the Government Accountability Office, “Federal agencies have long struggled to determine how much office space they needed to fulfill their missions efficiently.” The VA has reduced its office space by > 290,000 ft² over the last few years in the National Capital Region alone. 

In his confirmation hearing last month, VA Secretary nominee Doug Collins told lawmakers that, if confirmed, he would “encourage employees to come back to work,” but he also said he would ensure the department was following the White House’s remote work limits. “We’re going to make sure that we get people in there,” he said, “because at the end of the day, it’s about veterans.”

Nearly 96,000 US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) employees—about 20% of the workforce—will be required to return to in-office work by the end of February. The announcement follows a Jan. 20 presidential memorandum, which states agency heads must “take all necessary steps to terminate remote work arrangements and require employees to return to work in-person at their respective duty stations on a full-time basis.” According to a Jan. 28 email sent from the Office of Personnel Management but without a signature, federal employees who refuse will be offered “dignified, fair departure from the federal government utilizing a deferred resignation program.”

The revised VA work policy states “eligible employees must work full-time at their respective duty stations (agency worksites) unless excused due to a disability, qualifying medical condition or other compelling reason.” All nonbargaining unit employees and supervisors who are within 50 miles of their office have until Feb. 24 to return. The VA stated that further guidance is coming for those who live > 50 miles from a facility. 

“VA’s policy allows exceptions for arrangements approved for employees as a reasonable accommodation due to a disability or a qualifying medical condition. Exceptions may also be allowed for military spouses with permanent change of station orders,” according to a VA press release.

“This is a commonsense step toward treating all VA employees equally,” acting VA Secretary Todd Hunter said. “Most VA clinical staff don’t have the luxury of working remotely, and we believe the performance, collaboration and productivity of the department will improve if all VA employees are held to the same standard.” 

The impact on Veterans Health Administration operations remains difficult to determine. The order appears to include personnel providing telehealth care from remote locations, including those at the Clinical Resource Hub (CRH) program. CRH uses a hub and spoke model for limited time primary care and mental health care staffing to cover local clinician vacancies. CRH clinicians have provided > 500,000 veterans with care, averaging > 25,000 encounters in the program’s first year. Started during fiscal year 2020 amid the COVID-19 pandemic, CRH employed 636 clinicians, but more recent data are not available. The VA provided > 28 million telehealth sessions to veterans across all of its telehealth modalities in 2023. Details on how many CRH clinicians and other telehealth practitioners work remotely are also not available.

On Feb. 3, the Office of Personnel Management issued a memo to federal agency heads arguing that any collective bargaining agreements that include teleworking may “conflict with management rights” and therefore may be “unlawful and cannot be enforced.”

The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), which represents 800,000 federal employees, disputed the memo. “Federal employees should know that approved union contracts are enforceable by law, and the President does not have the authority to make unilateral changes to those agreements,” AFGE President Everett Kelley said. “AFGE members will not be intimidated. If our contracts are violated, we will aggressively defend them.”

The VA must decide where to put the more than 47,000 workers who may be coming back. According to the Government Accountability Office, “Federal agencies have long struggled to determine how much office space they needed to fulfill their missions efficiently.” The VA has reduced its office space by > 290,000 ft² over the last few years in the National Capital Region alone. 

In his confirmation hearing last month, VA Secretary nominee Doug Collins told lawmakers that, if confirmed, he would “encourage employees to come back to work,” but he also said he would ensure the department was following the White House’s remote work limits. “We’re going to make sure that we get people in there,” he said, “because at the end of the day, it’s about veterans.”

Nearly 96,000 US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) employees—about 20% of the workforce—will be required to return to in-office work by the end of February. The announcement follows a Jan. 20 presidential memorandum, which states agency heads must “take all necessary steps to terminate remote work arrangements and require employees to return to work in-person at their respective duty stations on a full-time basis.” According to a Jan. 28 email sent from the Office of Personnel Management but without a signature, federal employees who refuse will be offered “dignified, fair departure from the federal government utilizing a deferred resignation program.”

The revised VA work policy states “eligible employees must work full-time at their respective duty stations (agency worksites) unless excused due to a disability, qualifying medical condition or other compelling reason.” All nonbargaining unit employees and supervisors who are within 50 miles of their office have until Feb. 24 to return. The VA stated that further guidance is coming for those who live > 50 miles from a facility. 

“VA’s policy allows exceptions for arrangements approved for employees as a reasonable accommodation due to a disability or a qualifying medical condition. Exceptions may also be allowed for military spouses with permanent change of station orders,” according to a VA press release.

“This is a commonsense step toward treating all VA employees equally,” acting VA Secretary Todd Hunter said. “Most VA clinical staff don’t have the luxury of working remotely, and we believe the performance, collaboration and productivity of the department will improve if all VA employees are held to the same standard.” 

The impact on Veterans Health Administration operations remains difficult to determine. The order appears to include personnel providing telehealth care from remote locations, including those at the Clinical Resource Hub (CRH) program. CRH uses a hub and spoke model for limited time primary care and mental health care staffing to cover local clinician vacancies. CRH clinicians have provided > 500,000 veterans with care, averaging > 25,000 encounters in the program’s first year. Started during fiscal year 2020 amid the COVID-19 pandemic, CRH employed 636 clinicians, but more recent data are not available. The VA provided > 28 million telehealth sessions to veterans across all of its telehealth modalities in 2023. Details on how many CRH clinicians and other telehealth practitioners work remotely are also not available.

On Feb. 3, the Office of Personnel Management issued a memo to federal agency heads arguing that any collective bargaining agreements that include teleworking may “conflict with management rights” and therefore may be “unlawful and cannot be enforced.”

The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), which represents 800,000 federal employees, disputed the memo. “Federal employees should know that approved union contracts are enforceable by law, and the President does not have the authority to make unilateral changes to those agreements,” AFGE President Everett Kelley said. “AFGE members will not be intimidated. If our contracts are violated, we will aggressively defend them.”

The VA must decide where to put the more than 47,000 workers who may be coming back. According to the Government Accountability Office, “Federal agencies have long struggled to determine how much office space they needed to fulfill their missions efficiently.” The VA has reduced its office space by > 290,000 ft² over the last few years in the National Capital Region alone. 

In his confirmation hearing last month, VA Secretary nominee Doug Collins told lawmakers that, if confirmed, he would “encourage employees to come back to work,” but he also said he would ensure the department was following the White House’s remote work limits. “We’re going to make sure that we get people in there,” he said, “because at the end of the day, it’s about veterans.”

TOPLINE:

Adding cetuximab (C) to postoperative radiotherapy (RT) improves disease-free survival (DFS) but not overall survival (OS) in intermediate-risk squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Benefits were specifically observed in human papillomavirus–negative patients, who represented 80.2% of the study participants.

METHODOLOGY:

• Previous research showed that adding high-dose cisplatin to postoperative RT in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) improved outcomes in those with positive margins and nodal extracapsular extension of the tumor.
• The new phase 3 randomized trial, which enrolled patients from November 2009 to March 2018 included 577 individuals with resected SCCHN of the oral cavity, oropharynx, or larynx, specifically.
• Participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either intensity-modulated RT (60-66 Gy) with weekly C (400 mg/m² loading dose, followed by 250 mg/m² weekly) or RT alone.
• The primary endpoint was OS in randomly assigned eligible patients, with DFS and toxicity as secondary endpoints.
• Analysis included stratified log-rank test for OS and DFS, while toxicity was compared using Fisher’s exact test.

TAKEAWAY:

• OS was not significantly improved with RT plus C vs RT alone (hazard ratio [HR], 0.81; 95% CI, 0.60-1.08; P = .0747), though 5-year OS rates were 76.5% vs 68.7%.
• DFS showed significant improvement with combined therapy (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.57-0.98; P = .0168), with 5-year rates of 71.7% vs 63.6%.
• Grade 3-4 acute toxicity rates were significantly higher with combination therapy (70.3% vs 39.7%; P < .0001), primarily affecting skin and mucosa, though late toxicity rates were similar (33.2% vs 29.0%; P = .3101).
• The benefit of RT plus C was only observed in those patients who were human papillomavirus–negative, which comprised 80.2% of trial participants.

IN PRACTICE:

RT plus C “significantly improved DFS, but not OS, with no increase in long-term toxicity, compared with RT alone for resected, intermediate-risk SCCHN. RT plus C is an appropriate option for carefully selected patients with HPV-negative disease,” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Mitchell Machtay, MD, Penn State Health Milton S. Hershey Medical Center in Hershey, Pennsylvania. It was published online  in Journal of Clinical Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

According to the researchers, the OS in the control group was higher than predicted, resulting in the trial being underpowered to detect the initial targeted HR. The authors noted that the better-than-expected survival rates could be attributed to improvements in surgical and radiotherapeutic techniques, including mandatory intensity-modulated RT for all patients. Additionally, the researchers pointed out that patient selection may have influenced outcomes, as only 30% of study participants had more than two risk factors.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the US National Cancer Institute and Eli Lilly Inc. Machtay received grants from Lilly/ImClone, AstraZeneca, and Merck Sharp & Dohme. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Adding cetuximab (C) to postoperative radiotherapy (RT) improves disease-free survival (DFS) but not overall survival (OS) in intermediate-risk squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Benefits were specifically observed in human papillomavirus–negative patients, who represented 80.2% of the study participants.

METHODOLOGY:

• Previous research showed that adding high-dose cisplatin to postoperative RT in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) improved outcomes in those with positive margins and nodal extracapsular extension of the tumor.
• The new phase 3 randomized trial, which enrolled patients from November 2009 to March 2018 included 577 individuals with resected SCCHN of the oral cavity, oropharynx, or larynx, specifically.
• Participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either intensity-modulated RT (60-66 Gy) with weekly C (400 mg/m² loading dose, followed by 250 mg/m² weekly) or RT alone.
• The primary endpoint was OS in randomly assigned eligible patients, with DFS and toxicity as secondary endpoints.
• Analysis included stratified log-rank test for OS and DFS, while toxicity was compared using Fisher’s exact test.

TAKEAWAY:

• OS was not significantly improved with RT plus C vs RT alone (hazard ratio [HR], 0.81; 95% CI, 0.60-1.08; P = .0747), though 5-year OS rates were 76.5% vs 68.7%.
• DFS showed significant improvement with combined therapy (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.57-0.98; P = .0168), with 5-year rates of 71.7% vs 63.6%.
• Grade 3-4 acute toxicity rates were significantly higher with combination therapy (70.3% vs 39.7%; P < .0001), primarily affecting skin and mucosa, though late toxicity rates were similar (33.2% vs 29.0%; P = .3101).
• The benefit of RT plus C was only observed in those patients who were human papillomavirus–negative, which comprised 80.2% of trial participants.

IN PRACTICE:

RT plus C “significantly improved DFS, but not OS, with no increase in long-term toxicity, compared with RT alone for resected, intermediate-risk SCCHN. RT plus C is an appropriate option for carefully selected patients with HPV-negative disease,” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Mitchell Machtay, MD, Penn State Health Milton S. Hershey Medical Center in Hershey, Pennsylvania. It was published online  in Journal of Clinical Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

According to the researchers, the OS in the control group was higher than predicted, resulting in the trial being underpowered to detect the initial targeted HR. The authors noted that the better-than-expected survival rates could be attributed to improvements in surgical and radiotherapeutic techniques, including mandatory intensity-modulated RT for all patients. Additionally, the researchers pointed out that patient selection may have influenced outcomes, as only 30% of study participants had more than two risk factors.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the US National Cancer Institute and Eli Lilly Inc. Machtay received grants from Lilly/ImClone, AstraZeneca, and Merck Sharp & Dohme. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Adding cetuximab (C) to postoperative radiotherapy (RT) improves disease-free survival (DFS) but not overall survival (OS) in intermediate-risk squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Benefits were specifically observed in human papillomavirus–negative patients, who represented 80.2% of the study participants.

METHODOLOGY:

• Previous research showed that adding high-dose cisplatin to postoperative RT in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) improved outcomes in those with positive margins and nodal extracapsular extension of the tumor.
• The new phase 3 randomized trial, which enrolled patients from November 2009 to March 2018 included 577 individuals with resected SCCHN of the oral cavity, oropharynx, or larynx, specifically.
• Participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either intensity-modulated RT (60-66 Gy) with weekly C (400 mg/m² loading dose, followed by 250 mg/m² weekly) or RT alone.
• The primary endpoint was OS in randomly assigned eligible patients, with DFS and toxicity as secondary endpoints.
• Analysis included stratified log-rank test for OS and DFS, while toxicity was compared using Fisher’s exact test.

TAKEAWAY:

• OS was not significantly improved with RT plus C vs RT alone (hazard ratio [HR], 0.81; 95% CI, 0.60-1.08; P = .0747), though 5-year OS rates were 76.5% vs 68.7%.
• DFS showed significant improvement with combined therapy (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.57-0.98; P = .0168), with 5-year rates of 71.7% vs 63.6%.
• Grade 3-4 acute toxicity rates were significantly higher with combination therapy (70.3% vs 39.7%; P < .0001), primarily affecting skin and mucosa, though late toxicity rates were similar (33.2% vs 29.0%; P = .3101).
• The benefit of RT plus C was only observed in those patients who were human papillomavirus–negative, which comprised 80.2% of trial participants.

IN PRACTICE:

RT plus C “significantly improved DFS, but not OS, with no increase in long-term toxicity, compared with RT alone for resected, intermediate-risk SCCHN. RT plus C is an appropriate option for carefully selected patients with HPV-negative disease,” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Mitchell Machtay, MD, Penn State Health Milton S. Hershey Medical Center in Hershey, Pennsylvania. It was published online  in Journal of Clinical Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

According to the researchers, the OS in the control group was higher than predicted, resulting in the trial being underpowered to detect the initial targeted HR. The authors noted that the better-than-expected survival rates could be attributed to improvements in surgical and radiotherapeutic techniques, including mandatory intensity-modulated RT for all patients. Additionally, the researchers pointed out that patient selection may have influenced outcomes, as only 30% of study participants had more than two risk factors.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the US National Cancer Institute and Eli Lilly Inc. Machtay received grants from Lilly/ImClone, AstraZeneca, and Merck Sharp & Dohme. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Heavy menstrual bleeding is more than an inconvenience in adolescents: It often leads to significant medical complications, in addition to disruptions in quality of life. While measuring the true level of bleeding can be a challenge, hematologists say treatments are helpful and can be as simple — and surprising — as doses of aspirin.

About 90% of adolescents with heavy menstrual bleeding will have low ferritin, and 70% will develop anemia, said benign hematologist Juliana Perez Botero, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, in a presentation at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting. “This is an issue of big magnitude that has public health implications, but it’s also an issue of gender equality and social justice.”

 

Measuring Menstruation: What Counts as Heavy Bleeding?

According to hematologist Allison Wheeler, MD, of the University of Washington in Seattle, normal menstrual bleeding is defined as lasting for about 5 days with 30-50 mL of blood loss.

“Historically, heavy menstrual bleeding was defined as bleeding as > 7 days or > 80 mL of blood loss,” Wheeler said. “It’s pretty hard to measure those mL. So a more modern definition is increased menstrual blood loss that interferes with a female’s physical, social, emotional, or material quality of life.”

Measuring blood loss during menstruation isn’t simple. The alkaline hematin method, which measures blood in feminine hygiene products, is the “gold standard, but that’s all I’m going to say about that,” Wheeler said.

An alternative is the Pictorial Blood Loss Assessment Chart, a visual tool that patients can use to estimate blood loss, she said, although there have been questions about its accuracy. In addition, it only covers pads and tampons even though other products are now available.

Another option is the Adolescent Menstrual Bleeding Questionnaire. “It captures both how much patients are bleeding and a lot of quality-of-life aspects,” she said.

 

Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs (NSAIDs), Surprisingly, Can Be Effective Treatments

It seems counterintuitive that NSAIDs can be helpful in patients with heavy bleeding. “We don’t think about them because Cox inhibition ends up leading to decreases in thromboxane A2, which is going to increase bleeding,” Wheeler said. However, she said, the drugs also decrease prostaglandin within the endometrium, which can improve menstrual bleeding.

“In a meta-analysis, when NSAIDs were compared to placebo, there was decreased menstrual bleeding,” she said. “It was pretty similar to estrogen-progesterone formulations together. And when compared to antifibrinolytics, there was a little more menstrual bleeding with the NSAID use.”

Wheeler cautioned that “it’s important to optimize NSAID dosage. You really can’t use lower doses, and you can’t use sporadic doses.”

 

Other Options: Tranexamic Acid, Hormone Management

Tranexamic acid is the most common antifibrinolytic treatment for heavy bleeding, Wheeler said. “This is a lysine analog that’s going to inhibit the conversion from plasminogen to plasmin,” she said. “This is going to strengthen and stabilize blood clots that are already formed.”

Multiple clinical trials have studied the treatment in heavy menstrual bleeding, she said. “There’s no increased risk of venous or arterial thrombosis among participants in these clinical trials, but patients with a history of thrombosis were excluded from the majority of them. So we do need to keep that in mind.”

As for adverse effects, they’re mild and sporadic and include headaches and stomach upset, she said.

Another treatment option is estrogen and progesterone therapy using pill, patch, or vaginal ring, Wheeler said. The treatment leads to a “stable and thin very endometrium,” and typically takes 3-6 months to fully kick in. Studies have suggested the therapy can lead to 35%-80% reduction in menstrual blood loss, she said.

Keep in mind, Wheeler noted, “that there are many contraindications associated with estrogen use. Please take note of this, especially in consideration of discussions with patients shifting over to progesterone-only hormonal therapy” — another option to treat excess bleeding.

In most patients, she added, progesterone-only therapy “is going to result in irregular bleeding when you first start taking it. That irregular bleeding can last from up to 3-6 months. It’s something that’s really important to discuss with patients.”

She also noted that this therapy can be given to patients in forms that do not prevent pregnancy.

Botero had no disclosures. Wheeler reported relationships with Novo Nordisk, Bayer, BioMarin, Bioverativ, CSL Behring, Genentech, HEMA, Octapharma, Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis, Shire North America, Spark, and Takeda.

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

Heavy menstrual bleeding is more than an inconvenience in adolescents: It often leads to significant medical complications, in addition to disruptions in quality of life. While measuring the true level of bleeding can be a challenge, hematologists say treatments are helpful and can be as simple — and surprising — as doses of aspirin.

About 90% of adolescents with heavy menstrual bleeding will have low ferritin, and 70% will develop anemia, said benign hematologist Juliana Perez Botero, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, in a presentation at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting. “This is an issue of big magnitude that has public health implications, but it’s also an issue of gender equality and social justice.”

 

Measuring Menstruation: What Counts as Heavy Bleeding?

According to hematologist Allison Wheeler, MD, of the University of Washington in Seattle, normal menstrual bleeding is defined as lasting for about 5 days with 30-50 mL of blood loss.

“Historically, heavy menstrual bleeding was defined as bleeding as > 7 days or > 80 mL of blood loss,” Wheeler said. “It’s pretty hard to measure those mL. So a more modern definition is increased menstrual blood loss that interferes with a female’s physical, social, emotional, or material quality of life.”

Measuring blood loss during menstruation isn’t simple. The alkaline hematin method, which measures blood in feminine hygiene products, is the “gold standard, but that’s all I’m going to say about that,” Wheeler said.

An alternative is the Pictorial Blood Loss Assessment Chart, a visual tool that patients can use to estimate blood loss, she said, although there have been questions about its accuracy. In addition, it only covers pads and tampons even though other products are now available.

Another option is the Adolescent Menstrual Bleeding Questionnaire. “It captures both how much patients are bleeding and a lot of quality-of-life aspects,” she said.

 

Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs (NSAIDs), Surprisingly, Can Be Effective Treatments

It seems counterintuitive that NSAIDs can be helpful in patients with heavy bleeding. “We don’t think about them because Cox inhibition ends up leading to decreases in thromboxane A2, which is going to increase bleeding,” Wheeler said. However, she said, the drugs also decrease prostaglandin within the endometrium, which can improve menstrual bleeding.

“In a meta-analysis, when NSAIDs were compared to placebo, there was decreased menstrual bleeding,” she said. “It was pretty similar to estrogen-progesterone formulations together. And when compared to antifibrinolytics, there was a little more menstrual bleeding with the NSAID use.”

Wheeler cautioned that “it’s important to optimize NSAID dosage. You really can’t use lower doses, and you can’t use sporadic doses.”

 

Other Options: Tranexamic Acid, Hormone Management

Tranexamic acid is the most common antifibrinolytic treatment for heavy bleeding, Wheeler said. “This is a lysine analog that’s going to inhibit the conversion from plasminogen to plasmin,” she said. “This is going to strengthen and stabilize blood clots that are already formed.”

Multiple clinical trials have studied the treatment in heavy menstrual bleeding, she said. “There’s no increased risk of venous or arterial thrombosis among participants in these clinical trials, but patients with a history of thrombosis were excluded from the majority of them. So we do need to keep that in mind.”

As for adverse effects, they’re mild and sporadic and include headaches and stomach upset, she said.

Another treatment option is estrogen and progesterone therapy using pill, patch, or vaginal ring, Wheeler said. The treatment leads to a “stable and thin very endometrium,” and typically takes 3-6 months to fully kick in. Studies have suggested the therapy can lead to 35%-80% reduction in menstrual blood loss, she said.

Keep in mind, Wheeler noted, “that there are many contraindications associated with estrogen use. Please take note of this, especially in consideration of discussions with patients shifting over to progesterone-only hormonal therapy” — another option to treat excess bleeding.

In most patients, she added, progesterone-only therapy “is going to result in irregular bleeding when you first start taking it. That irregular bleeding can last from up to 3-6 months. It’s something that’s really important to discuss with patients.”

She also noted that this therapy can be given to patients in forms that do not prevent pregnancy.

Botero had no disclosures. Wheeler reported relationships with Novo Nordisk, Bayer, BioMarin, Bioverativ, CSL Behring, Genentech, HEMA, Octapharma, Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis, Shire North America, Spark, and Takeda.

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

Heavy menstrual bleeding is more than an inconvenience in adolescents: It often leads to significant medical complications, in addition to disruptions in quality of life. While measuring the true level of bleeding can be a challenge, hematologists say treatments are helpful and can be as simple — and surprising — as doses of aspirin.

About 90% of adolescents with heavy menstrual bleeding will have low ferritin, and 70% will develop anemia, said benign hematologist Juliana Perez Botero, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, in a presentation at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting. “This is an issue of big magnitude that has public health implications, but it’s also an issue of gender equality and social justice.”

 

Measuring Menstruation: What Counts as Heavy Bleeding?

According to hematologist Allison Wheeler, MD, of the University of Washington in Seattle, normal menstrual bleeding is defined as lasting for about 5 days with 30-50 mL of blood loss.

“Historically, heavy menstrual bleeding was defined as bleeding as > 7 days or > 80 mL of blood loss,” Wheeler said. “It’s pretty hard to measure those mL. So a more modern definition is increased menstrual blood loss that interferes with a female’s physical, social, emotional, or material quality of life.”

Measuring blood loss during menstruation isn’t simple. The alkaline hematin method, which measures blood in feminine hygiene products, is the “gold standard, but that’s all I’m going to say about that,” Wheeler said.

An alternative is the Pictorial Blood Loss Assessment Chart, a visual tool that patients can use to estimate blood loss, she said, although there have been questions about its accuracy. In addition, it only covers pads and tampons even though other products are now available.

Another option is the Adolescent Menstrual Bleeding Questionnaire. “It captures both how much patients are bleeding and a lot of quality-of-life aspects,” she said.

 

Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs (NSAIDs), Surprisingly, Can Be Effective Treatments

It seems counterintuitive that NSAIDs can be helpful in patients with heavy bleeding. “We don’t think about them because Cox inhibition ends up leading to decreases in thromboxane A2, which is going to increase bleeding,” Wheeler said. However, she said, the drugs also decrease prostaglandin within the endometrium, which can improve menstrual bleeding.

“In a meta-analysis, when NSAIDs were compared to placebo, there was decreased menstrual bleeding,” she said. “It was pretty similar to estrogen-progesterone formulations together. And when compared to antifibrinolytics, there was a little more menstrual bleeding with the NSAID use.”

Wheeler cautioned that “it’s important to optimize NSAID dosage. You really can’t use lower doses, and you can’t use sporadic doses.”

 

Other Options: Tranexamic Acid, Hormone Management

Tranexamic acid is the most common antifibrinolytic treatment for heavy bleeding, Wheeler said. “This is a lysine analog that’s going to inhibit the conversion from plasminogen to plasmin,” she said. “This is going to strengthen and stabilize blood clots that are already formed.”

Multiple clinical trials have studied the treatment in heavy menstrual bleeding, she said. “There’s no increased risk of venous or arterial thrombosis among participants in these clinical trials, but patients with a history of thrombosis were excluded from the majority of them. So we do need to keep that in mind.”

As for adverse effects, they’re mild and sporadic and include headaches and stomach upset, she said.

Another treatment option is estrogen and progesterone therapy using pill, patch, or vaginal ring, Wheeler said. The treatment leads to a “stable and thin very endometrium,” and typically takes 3-6 months to fully kick in. Studies have suggested the therapy can lead to 35%-80% reduction in menstrual blood loss, she said.

Keep in mind, Wheeler noted, “that there are many contraindications associated with estrogen use. Please take note of this, especially in consideration of discussions with patients shifting over to progesterone-only hormonal therapy” — another option to treat excess bleeding.

In most patients, she added, progesterone-only therapy “is going to result in irregular bleeding when you first start taking it. That irregular bleeding can last from up to 3-6 months. It’s something that’s really important to discuss with patients.”

She also noted that this therapy can be given to patients in forms that do not prevent pregnancy.

Botero had no disclosures. Wheeler reported relationships with Novo Nordisk, Bayer, BioMarin, Bioverativ, CSL Behring, Genentech, HEMA, Octapharma, Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis, Shire North America, Spark, and Takeda.

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

TOPLINE:

A cross-sectional survey of patients preparing for their first radiation therapy consultation found that many patients worried about the physical effects of radiation therapy, including pain, memory loss, and nausea, and more than 60% said they were concerned about their ability to perform daily activities. Respondents reported a range of other worries, including the financial cost of treatment, transportation to treatment sessions, and the ability to continue working, as well as misconceptions about radiation therapy, such as concerns about emitting radiation to others.

METHODOLOGY:

• Toxicities from cancer therapies can significantly affect patients’ quality of life and may contribute to their apprehensions before starting a new treatment. Some studies have indicated that patients may have misconceptions about chemotherapy, but less is known about patients’ perceptions of radiation therapy.
• Researchers conducted a cross-sectional survey of patients presenting for initial radiation therapy consultation at a single academic institution and analyzed responses from 214 patients (52% men; 51% White individuals) with no prior radiation therapy experience.
• The patients completed a 30-question electronic survey about radiation therapy perceptions and fears or concerns prior to their initial radiation consultation.
• Cancer diagnoses spanned 18 disease sites, with hematologic malignancies (21%), breast cancer (18%), and lung cancer (15%) being the most common.

TAKEAWAY:

• Physical adverse effects were the top concern for patients. These included radiation-induced pain (67%), memory loss (62%), nausea/vomiting (60%), and skin reactions (58%).
• Patients expressed concerns about the impact radiation therapy would have on daily activities, with 62% reporting being moderately or very concerned about their ability to perform daily activities and 37% worried about their ability to continue working. Other concerns included the ability to exercise (over half of respondents), financial cost (36%), and transportation to treatment sessions (26%).
• Misconceptions among patients were also common, with 48% expressing concerns about emitting radiation to others and 45% worrying about excreting radioactive urine or stool.
• Patients had varied levels of prior understanding of radiation therapy. Half of patients reported a complete lack of knowledge about radiation therapy, and 35% said they had read or heard stories about bad adverse effects.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study suggests that a survey administered prior to radiation oncology consultation can reveal patients’ primary concerns which could promote a more patient-centered discussion that addresses specific concerns and involves appropriate services to help the patient,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Jennifer Novak, MD, MS, Department of Radiation Oncology, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, California, was published online in Advances in Radiation Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations included response bias and time constraints, which prevented many eligible patients from completing the survey. The single-institution design limits the generalizability of the findings. The survey results also showed a disproportionate focus on physical effects over the social impacts of radiation therapy, which could have limited the comprehensiveness of the findings.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors reported no specific funding for this work and no relevant competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have influenced the work.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A cross-sectional survey of patients preparing for their first radiation therapy consultation found that many patients worried about the physical effects of radiation therapy, including pain, memory loss, and nausea, and more than 60% said they were concerned about their ability to perform daily activities. Respondents reported a range of other worries, including the financial cost of treatment, transportation to treatment sessions, and the ability to continue working, as well as misconceptions about radiation therapy, such as concerns about emitting radiation to others.

METHODOLOGY:

• Toxicities from cancer therapies can significantly affect patients’ quality of life and may contribute to their apprehensions before starting a new treatment. Some studies have indicated that patients may have misconceptions about chemotherapy, but less is known about patients’ perceptions of radiation therapy.
• Researchers conducted a cross-sectional survey of patients presenting for initial radiation therapy consultation at a single academic institution and analyzed responses from 214 patients (52% men; 51% White individuals) with no prior radiation therapy experience.
• The patients completed a 30-question electronic survey about radiation therapy perceptions and fears or concerns prior to their initial radiation consultation.
• Cancer diagnoses spanned 18 disease sites, with hematologic malignancies (21%), breast cancer (18%), and lung cancer (15%) being the most common.

TAKEAWAY:

• Physical adverse effects were the top concern for patients. These included radiation-induced pain (67%), memory loss (62%), nausea/vomiting (60%), and skin reactions (58%).
• Patients expressed concerns about the impact radiation therapy would have on daily activities, with 62% reporting being moderately or very concerned about their ability to perform daily activities and 37% worried about their ability to continue working. Other concerns included the ability to exercise (over half of respondents), financial cost (36%), and transportation to treatment sessions (26%).
• Misconceptions among patients were also common, with 48% expressing concerns about emitting radiation to others and 45% worrying about excreting radioactive urine or stool.
• Patients had varied levels of prior understanding of radiation therapy. Half of patients reported a complete lack of knowledge about radiation therapy, and 35% said they had read or heard stories about bad adverse effects.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study suggests that a survey administered prior to radiation oncology consultation can reveal patients’ primary concerns which could promote a more patient-centered discussion that addresses specific concerns and involves appropriate services to help the patient,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Jennifer Novak, MD, MS, Department of Radiation Oncology, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, California, was published online in Advances in Radiation Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations included response bias and time constraints, which prevented many eligible patients from completing the survey. The single-institution design limits the generalizability of the findings. The survey results also showed a disproportionate focus on physical effects over the social impacts of radiation therapy, which could have limited the comprehensiveness of the findings.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors reported no specific funding for this work and no relevant competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have influenced the work.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A cross-sectional survey of patients preparing for their first radiation therapy consultation found that many patients worried about the physical effects of radiation therapy, including pain, memory loss, and nausea, and more than 60% said they were concerned about their ability to perform daily activities. Respondents reported a range of other worries, including the financial cost of treatment, transportation to treatment sessions, and the ability to continue working, as well as misconceptions about radiation therapy, such as concerns about emitting radiation to others.

METHODOLOGY:

• Toxicities from cancer therapies can significantly affect patients’ quality of life and may contribute to their apprehensions before starting a new treatment. Some studies have indicated that patients may have misconceptions about chemotherapy, but less is known about patients’ perceptions of radiation therapy.
• Researchers conducted a cross-sectional survey of patients presenting for initial radiation therapy consultation at a single academic institution and analyzed responses from 214 patients (52% men; 51% White individuals) with no prior radiation therapy experience.
• The patients completed a 30-question electronic survey about radiation therapy perceptions and fears or concerns prior to their initial radiation consultation.
• Cancer diagnoses spanned 18 disease sites, with hematologic malignancies (21%), breast cancer (18%), and lung cancer (15%) being the most common.

TAKEAWAY:

• Physical adverse effects were the top concern for patients. These included radiation-induced pain (67%), memory loss (62%), nausea/vomiting (60%), and skin reactions (58%).
• Patients expressed concerns about the impact radiation therapy would have on daily activities, with 62% reporting being moderately or very concerned about their ability to perform daily activities and 37% worried about their ability to continue working. Other concerns included the ability to exercise (over half of respondents), financial cost (36%), and transportation to treatment sessions (26%).
• Misconceptions among patients were also common, with 48% expressing concerns about emitting radiation to others and 45% worrying about excreting radioactive urine or stool.
• Patients had varied levels of prior understanding of radiation therapy. Half of patients reported a complete lack of knowledge about radiation therapy, and 35% said they had read or heard stories about bad adverse effects.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study suggests that a survey administered prior to radiation oncology consultation can reveal patients’ primary concerns which could promote a more patient-centered discussion that addresses specific concerns and involves appropriate services to help the patient,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Jennifer Novak, MD, MS, Department of Radiation Oncology, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, California, was published online in Advances in Radiation Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations included response bias and time constraints, which prevented many eligible patients from completing the survey. The single-institution design limits the generalizability of the findings. The survey results also showed a disproportionate focus on physical effects over the social impacts of radiation therapy, which could have limited the comprehensiveness of the findings.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors reported no specific funding for this work and no relevant competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have influenced the work.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Last year, Eric Singhi, MD, a thoracic medical oncologist at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, noticed a shift in his team. The small band of four clinicians, once motivated and enthusiastic, were now withdrawn and distant.

“We had to take a break from clinic one day. We went out, got food and…acknowledged something was off,” Singhi recalled.

That something: Intense emotional exhaustion.

No thoracic oncology team has it easy. Lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer deaths. But over the last 12 months Singhi’s team had taken on more and more cases in younger patients. Watching patients so close to their own age struggle and ultimately be consumed by this disease took its toll, Singhi said. And the toll was showing up in the lives of his colleagues.

Singhi’s team was suffering from compassion fatigue — the mental, physical, or emotional exhaustion brought on by prolonged exposure to the trauma of people in one’s care. Also referred to secondary trauma, compassion fatigue “leaves someone feeling numb, detached, or like they don’t have emotional resources to keep on giving,” Singhi said.

This fatigue is common among people who work in high-stress caretaking professions. Those involved in cancer care, who frequently find themselves navigating life and death conversations and experiences with patients, are particularly at risk, experts told this news organization.

“I think anyone in medical oncology or hematology who has practiced long enough will feel this,” said Alfred Lee, MD, PhD, burnout researcher and director of the hematology/oncology fellowship at Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut. “It’s par for the course, even in training.”

Still, compassion fatigue can be hard to detect without help. Left unaddressed, compassion fatigue can undermine good patient care, even lead to burnout.

“I’ve absolutely treated people leaving the field who think they shouldn’t be a doctor anymore,” said Jennifer Bickel, MD, recently named MD Anderson’s inaugural vice president and chief wellness officer. Those are preventable losses the field can’t afford in a provider shortage, she said.

 

Recognizing the Signs

Compassion is an essential part of patient care as is empathy. Expressing compassion or feeling empathy toward patients can foster the doctor-patient bond and help both navigate challenging conversations and decisions.

“Compassion and being able to empathize are so important — it’s how you gain trust,” Singhi said. This is especially true for patients who may be underrepresented. “That’s how they become a partner in their care, how they agree to listen about a clinical trial or agree to adhere to their treatment plan,” Singhi noted.

But there’s a risk when clinicians start to give too much.

Overtime, repeated exposure to patients’ trauma can create a sense of heaviness and fatigue, and ultimately cause caregivers to detach, Lee said.

A case study of compassion fatigue, based on the experience of one oncologist, highlighted that the condition parallels posttraumatic stress disorder, aligning on three main symptoms: Feeling hyperarousal, notably hypervigilance or irritability, avoiding stressful situations, and reliving traumatic events.

The initial phases of compassion fatigue, however, can be subtle and easily dismissed. An oncologist may begin to feel a creeping sense of detachment — a divide slowly growing with their patients, a buzz of dissatisfaction on the job, unusual mood changes.

While it’s normal for healthcare workers to experience moments of irritability, dissatisfaction, exhaustion or avoidance, when these experiences become pervasive, compassion fatigue could be the culprit, according to Marra Ackerman, MD, a psychiatrist at NYU Langone Health in New York City.

Compassion fatigue is “a form of coping more than anything,” Ackerman explained. Most of the time, it’s not a conscious choice, she said. When a brain experiences repeated distressing inputs it can shift into self-protection mode. The tipping point is different for everyone, but eventually the brain tries to detach and distance itself from the stressor, Ackerman said. And, in oncology, that stressor is often very sick patients.

If not addressed, the emotional exhaustion can limit a doctor’s efficacy at work. Clinicians suffering from compassion fatigue may find themselves calling in sick more often, making more mistakes, avoiding very sick patients, or having panic attacks at work, said Ackerman.

Clinicians also might use food, drugs, or alcohol to feel better, or detach from their patients, Lee added. “We find if you detach, you can’t provide the care patients need,” he said.

When trying to identify the issue, it’s important to understand that compassion fatigue is not burnout. The two issues can look similar, sharing symptoms like emotional detachment or disillusionment, and may co-exist, but the phenomena stem from different root causes.

While compassion fatigue is rooted in emotions and isn’t necessarily tied to work, burnout is a product of work-related stress. It’s often caused by system-level problems that leave clinicians feeling their work has lost its meaning. Inefficient technology or excessive data entry, for instance, could be drivers of burnout for oncologists because these tasks can pull the doctor away from the meaningful work of treating patients.

 

What Can Be Done

Oncology comes with its own set of risks and traumas, but for a long time, doctors weren’t equipped or encouraged to see the constant life-or-death tension of the job as a risk factor to their well-being, said Bickel.

“It’s not something we are inherently taught to identify and it’s not something we can identify without time for self-reflection,” Bickel told this news organization. In fact, many people don’t see their own compassion fatigue until a colleague points it out or they’re already past it and have some distance.

Although common among oncology clinicians, compassion fatigue is not inevitable. Oncologists can learn strategies to help manage their exposures to suffering and stave off reverting to coping mechanisms that only perpetuate the problem.

The key, Bickel said, is creating environments where people can feel safe and share their vulnerabilities. Formal peer support check-ins are a good example because they normalize regular communication about day-to-day difficulties as they happen and create space to experience grief. In these groups, no one has to worry that they’re complaining, she said.

Formalized groups also serve as a training ground where staff can learn to be better listeners. Healthcare providers are more likely to reach out to peers because so few people outside their field can relate to the challenges, Bickel explained. That’s why Moffitt Cancer Center, where Bickel recently worked before moving to MD Anderson, offers trainings to help staff learn to listen more effectively. Thirty doctors, nurses and health professionals have received the training so far and serve as a point of contact for colleagues who might be struggling, Bickel said. They can offer their peers an empathic ear, without providing unsolicited advice or commentary.

NYU Langone has a similar offering, Ackerman said. Providers can reach out to fellow nurses or doctors who have more mental health training. The conversation isn’t recorded like an appointment with a therapist may be. It’s more like mentorship where doctors can be open about what they are facing and find some comradery from someone who understands, without fear of stigma.

Talking to colleagues or having debriefs with your care team is critical because it eliminates the isolation that allows compassion fatigue to fester, Lee said. “Reflecting on positive encounters can help inspire us to keep going. Reflecting on the negative can be therapeutic and help find that sense of balance that everyone needs to find.”

As for Singhi’s team, “lots has changed since we’ve become more open,” he said. The team talks about hard patients early and often. These discussions have helped team members keep the challenges at work from seeping into their home life.

Experts agree that the threshold for seeking out help and guidance should be low. Waiting for depression or more severe symptoms to set in is not the best point of intervention, Bickel said. As soon as an oncologist begins to acknowledge a shift in how they connect with patients and the job, that’s enough to reach out.

“It’s not about what you can handle, it’s about how can you thrive and find joy,” she said.

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

Last year, Eric Singhi, MD, a thoracic medical oncologist at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, noticed a shift in his team. The small band of four clinicians, once motivated and enthusiastic, were now withdrawn and distant.

“We had to take a break from clinic one day. We went out, got food and…acknowledged something was off,” Singhi recalled.

That something: Intense emotional exhaustion.

No thoracic oncology team has it easy. Lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer deaths. But over the last 12 months Singhi’s team had taken on more and more cases in younger patients. Watching patients so close to their own age struggle and ultimately be consumed by this disease took its toll, Singhi said. And the toll was showing up in the lives of his colleagues.

Singhi’s team was suffering from compassion fatigue — the mental, physical, or emotional exhaustion brought on by prolonged exposure to the trauma of people in one’s care. Also referred to secondary trauma, compassion fatigue “leaves someone feeling numb, detached, or like they don’t have emotional resources to keep on giving,” Singhi said.

This fatigue is common among people who work in high-stress caretaking professions. Those involved in cancer care, who frequently find themselves navigating life and death conversations and experiences with patients, are particularly at risk, experts told this news organization.

“I think anyone in medical oncology or hematology who has practiced long enough will feel this,” said Alfred Lee, MD, PhD, burnout researcher and director of the hematology/oncology fellowship at Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut. “It’s par for the course, even in training.”

Still, compassion fatigue can be hard to detect without help. Left unaddressed, compassion fatigue can undermine good patient care, even lead to burnout.

“I’ve absolutely treated people leaving the field who think they shouldn’t be a doctor anymore,” said Jennifer Bickel, MD, recently named MD Anderson’s inaugural vice president and chief wellness officer. Those are preventable losses the field can’t afford in a provider shortage, she said.

 

Recognizing the Signs

Compassion is an essential part of patient care as is empathy. Expressing compassion or feeling empathy toward patients can foster the doctor-patient bond and help both navigate challenging conversations and decisions.

“Compassion and being able to empathize are so important — it’s how you gain trust,” Singhi said. This is especially true for patients who may be underrepresented. “That’s how they become a partner in their care, how they agree to listen about a clinical trial or agree to adhere to their treatment plan,” Singhi noted.

But there’s a risk when clinicians start to give too much.

Overtime, repeated exposure to patients’ trauma can create a sense of heaviness and fatigue, and ultimately cause caregivers to detach, Lee said.

A case study of compassion fatigue, based on the experience of one oncologist, highlighted that the condition parallels posttraumatic stress disorder, aligning on three main symptoms: Feeling hyperarousal, notably hypervigilance or irritability, avoiding stressful situations, and reliving traumatic events.

The initial phases of compassion fatigue, however, can be subtle and easily dismissed. An oncologist may begin to feel a creeping sense of detachment — a divide slowly growing with their patients, a buzz of dissatisfaction on the job, unusual mood changes.

While it’s normal for healthcare workers to experience moments of irritability, dissatisfaction, exhaustion or avoidance, when these experiences become pervasive, compassion fatigue could be the culprit, according to Marra Ackerman, MD, a psychiatrist at NYU Langone Health in New York City.

Compassion fatigue is “a form of coping more than anything,” Ackerman explained. Most of the time, it’s not a conscious choice, she said. When a brain experiences repeated distressing inputs it can shift into self-protection mode. The tipping point is different for everyone, but eventually the brain tries to detach and distance itself from the stressor, Ackerman said. And, in oncology, that stressor is often very sick patients.

If not addressed, the emotional exhaustion can limit a doctor’s efficacy at work. Clinicians suffering from compassion fatigue may find themselves calling in sick more often, making more mistakes, avoiding very sick patients, or having panic attacks at work, said Ackerman.

Clinicians also might use food, drugs, or alcohol to feel better, or detach from their patients, Lee added. “We find if you detach, you can’t provide the care patients need,” he said.

When trying to identify the issue, it’s important to understand that compassion fatigue is not burnout. The two issues can look similar, sharing symptoms like emotional detachment or disillusionment, and may co-exist, but the phenomena stem from different root causes.

While compassion fatigue is rooted in emotions and isn’t necessarily tied to work, burnout is a product of work-related stress. It’s often caused by system-level problems that leave clinicians feeling their work has lost its meaning. Inefficient technology or excessive data entry, for instance, could be drivers of burnout for oncologists because these tasks can pull the doctor away from the meaningful work of treating patients.

 

What Can Be Done

Oncology comes with its own set of risks and traumas, but for a long time, doctors weren’t equipped or encouraged to see the constant life-or-death tension of the job as a risk factor to their well-being, said Bickel.

“It’s not something we are inherently taught to identify and it’s not something we can identify without time for self-reflection,” Bickel told this news organization. In fact, many people don’t see their own compassion fatigue until a colleague points it out or they’re already past it and have some distance.

Although common among oncology clinicians, compassion fatigue is not inevitable. Oncologists can learn strategies to help manage their exposures to suffering and stave off reverting to coping mechanisms that only perpetuate the problem.

The key, Bickel said, is creating environments where people can feel safe and share their vulnerabilities. Formal peer support check-ins are a good example because they normalize regular communication about day-to-day difficulties as they happen and create space to experience grief. In these groups, no one has to worry that they’re complaining, she said.

Formalized groups also serve as a training ground where staff can learn to be better listeners. Healthcare providers are more likely to reach out to peers because so few people outside their field can relate to the challenges, Bickel explained. That’s why Moffitt Cancer Center, where Bickel recently worked before moving to MD Anderson, offers trainings to help staff learn to listen more effectively. Thirty doctors, nurses and health professionals have received the training so far and serve as a point of contact for colleagues who might be struggling, Bickel said. They can offer their peers an empathic ear, without providing unsolicited advice or commentary.

NYU Langone has a similar offering, Ackerman said. Providers can reach out to fellow nurses or doctors who have more mental health training. The conversation isn’t recorded like an appointment with a therapist may be. It’s more like mentorship where doctors can be open about what they are facing and find some comradery from someone who understands, without fear of stigma.

Talking to colleagues or having debriefs with your care team is critical because it eliminates the isolation that allows compassion fatigue to fester, Lee said. “Reflecting on positive encounters can help inspire us to keep going. Reflecting on the negative can be therapeutic and help find that sense of balance that everyone needs to find.”

As for Singhi’s team, “lots has changed since we’ve become more open,” he said. The team talks about hard patients early and often. These discussions have helped team members keep the challenges at work from seeping into their home life.

Experts agree that the threshold for seeking out help and guidance should be low. Waiting for depression or more severe symptoms to set in is not the best point of intervention, Bickel said. As soon as an oncologist begins to acknowledge a shift in how they connect with patients and the job, that’s enough to reach out.

“It’s not about what you can handle, it’s about how can you thrive and find joy,” she said.

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

Last year, Eric Singhi, MD, a thoracic medical oncologist at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, noticed a shift in his team. The small band of four clinicians, once motivated and enthusiastic, were now withdrawn and distant.

“We had to take a break from clinic one day. We went out, got food and…acknowledged something was off,” Singhi recalled.

That something: Intense emotional exhaustion.

No thoracic oncology team has it easy. Lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer deaths. But over the last 12 months Singhi’s team had taken on more and more cases in younger patients. Watching patients so close to their own age struggle and ultimately be consumed by this disease took its toll, Singhi said. And the toll was showing up in the lives of his colleagues.

Singhi’s team was suffering from compassion fatigue — the mental, physical, or emotional exhaustion brought on by prolonged exposure to the trauma of people in one’s care. Also referred to secondary trauma, compassion fatigue “leaves someone feeling numb, detached, or like they don’t have emotional resources to keep on giving,” Singhi said.

This fatigue is common among people who work in high-stress caretaking professions. Those involved in cancer care, who frequently find themselves navigating life and death conversations and experiences with patients, are particularly at risk, experts told this news organization.

“I think anyone in medical oncology or hematology who has practiced long enough will feel this,” said Alfred Lee, MD, PhD, burnout researcher and director of the hematology/oncology fellowship at Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut. “It’s par for the course, even in training.”

Still, compassion fatigue can be hard to detect without help. Left unaddressed, compassion fatigue can undermine good patient care, even lead to burnout.

“I’ve absolutely treated people leaving the field who think they shouldn’t be a doctor anymore,” said Jennifer Bickel, MD, recently named MD Anderson’s inaugural vice president and chief wellness officer. Those are preventable losses the field can’t afford in a provider shortage, she said.

 

Recognizing the Signs

Compassion is an essential part of patient care as is empathy. Expressing compassion or feeling empathy toward patients can foster the doctor-patient bond and help both navigate challenging conversations and decisions.

“Compassion and being able to empathize are so important — it’s how you gain trust,” Singhi said. This is especially true for patients who may be underrepresented. “That’s how they become a partner in their care, how they agree to listen about a clinical trial or agree to adhere to their treatment plan,” Singhi noted.

But there’s a risk when clinicians start to give too much.

Overtime, repeated exposure to patients’ trauma can create a sense of heaviness and fatigue, and ultimately cause caregivers to detach, Lee said.

A case study of compassion fatigue, based on the experience of one oncologist, highlighted that the condition parallels posttraumatic stress disorder, aligning on three main symptoms: Feeling hyperarousal, notably hypervigilance or irritability, avoiding stressful situations, and reliving traumatic events.

The initial phases of compassion fatigue, however, can be subtle and easily dismissed. An oncologist may begin to feel a creeping sense of detachment — a divide slowly growing with their patients, a buzz of dissatisfaction on the job, unusual mood changes.

While it’s normal for healthcare workers to experience moments of irritability, dissatisfaction, exhaustion or avoidance, when these experiences become pervasive, compassion fatigue could be the culprit, according to Marra Ackerman, MD, a psychiatrist at NYU Langone Health in New York City.

Compassion fatigue is “a form of coping more than anything,” Ackerman explained. Most of the time, it’s not a conscious choice, she said. When a brain experiences repeated distressing inputs it can shift into self-protection mode. The tipping point is different for everyone, but eventually the brain tries to detach and distance itself from the stressor, Ackerman said. And, in oncology, that stressor is often very sick patients.

If not addressed, the emotional exhaustion can limit a doctor’s efficacy at work. Clinicians suffering from compassion fatigue may find themselves calling in sick more often, making more mistakes, avoiding very sick patients, or having panic attacks at work, said Ackerman.

Clinicians also might use food, drugs, or alcohol to feel better, or detach from their patients, Lee added. “We find if you detach, you can’t provide the care patients need,” he said.

When trying to identify the issue, it’s important to understand that compassion fatigue is not burnout. The two issues can look similar, sharing symptoms like emotional detachment or disillusionment, and may co-exist, but the phenomena stem from different root causes.

While compassion fatigue is rooted in emotions and isn’t necessarily tied to work, burnout is a product of work-related stress. It’s often caused by system-level problems that leave clinicians feeling their work has lost its meaning. Inefficient technology or excessive data entry, for instance, could be drivers of burnout for oncologists because these tasks can pull the doctor away from the meaningful work of treating patients.

 

What Can Be Done

Oncology comes with its own set of risks and traumas, but for a long time, doctors weren’t equipped or encouraged to see the constant life-or-death tension of the job as a risk factor to their well-being, said Bickel.

“It’s not something we are inherently taught to identify and it’s not something we can identify without time for self-reflection,” Bickel told this news organization. In fact, many people don’t see their own compassion fatigue until a colleague points it out or they’re already past it and have some distance.

Although common among oncology clinicians, compassion fatigue is not inevitable. Oncologists can learn strategies to help manage their exposures to suffering and stave off reverting to coping mechanisms that only perpetuate the problem.

The key, Bickel said, is creating environments where people can feel safe and share their vulnerabilities. Formal peer support check-ins are a good example because they normalize regular communication about day-to-day difficulties as they happen and create space to experience grief. In these groups, no one has to worry that they’re complaining, she said.

Formalized groups also serve as a training ground where staff can learn to be better listeners. Healthcare providers are more likely to reach out to peers because so few people outside their field can relate to the challenges, Bickel explained. That’s why Moffitt Cancer Center, where Bickel recently worked before moving to MD Anderson, offers trainings to help staff learn to listen more effectively. Thirty doctors, nurses and health professionals have received the training so far and serve as a point of contact for colleagues who might be struggling, Bickel said. They can offer their peers an empathic ear, without providing unsolicited advice or commentary.

NYU Langone has a similar offering, Ackerman said. Providers can reach out to fellow nurses or doctors who have more mental health training. The conversation isn’t recorded like an appointment with a therapist may be. It’s more like mentorship where doctors can be open about what they are facing and find some comradery from someone who understands, without fear of stigma.

Talking to colleagues or having debriefs with your care team is critical because it eliminates the isolation that allows compassion fatigue to fester, Lee said. “Reflecting on positive encounters can help inspire us to keep going. Reflecting on the negative can be therapeutic and help find that sense of balance that everyone needs to find.”

As for Singhi’s team, “lots has changed since we’ve become more open,” he said. The team talks about hard patients early and often. These discussions have helped team members keep the challenges at work from seeping into their home life.

Experts agree that the threshold for seeking out help and guidance should be low. Waiting for depression or more severe symptoms to set in is not the best point of intervention, Bickel said. As soon as an oncologist begins to acknowledge a shift in how they connect with patients and the job, that’s enough to reach out.

“It’s not about what you can handle, it’s about how can you thrive and find joy,” she said.

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

In 2016, Brady Scott was in his parents’ home in Garrett, Kentucky, scrolling his Facebook feed when a post from a local newspaper caught his attention. “The article said that if you grew up in the region I grew up in, compared to the richer Central Kentucky region, the life expectancy differed by about 9 years,” he recalled.

The respiratory therapist, then a PhD student at Rush University, Chicago, was struck and began “Googling” to find out why this was the case. Initially, he thought diabetes, smoking, and economic distress — all prevalent problems in the area — were the culprits. However, he soon found that respiratory disease was particularly common in his region.

Now a professor and program director of the Respiratory Care Program at Rush University, Scott has spent several years trying to understand why people in certain regions experience respiratory illness at higher rates than in other places.

The Environment as a Determinant of Health

When Scott began his PhD, the prevalence of asthma in Southeast Kentucky, part of the Appalachian region, was already well-documented. He focused his research on uncontrolled asthma and the triggers that drove asthma exacerbations.

Housing quality emerged as an important factor. He found that exposure to mold, mildew, dust mites, pests, and rodents increased the risk for asthma and exacerbated existing cases. Lower-income families, more likely to live in poor-quality housing, were significantly affected, even in single-family homes.

Wanda Phipatanakul, MD, MS, director of the Division of Immunology Research Center at Boston Children’s Hospital and S. Jean Emans professor of Pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, Boston, has found similar results in urban environments. She said cockroach and mouse allergen exposure is disproportionately prevalent in urban, low-income neighborhoods. These exposures, closely tied to housing conditions, contribute to worse asthma and respiratory problems, particularly in children.

Scott and Phipatanakul agreed that the environment surrounding people’s homes can also exacerbate respiratory disease.

Rural areas present unique risks, such as agricultural activities that release pesticides and other particulates into the air, said Scott. In mountainous areas like Appalachia, mining operations are another significant contributor. For example, blasting mountains with dynamite creates large clouds of dust and pollutants that settle in valleys. Coal-hauling roads contribute to air quality issues, too. And houses near these roads may be exposed to increased levels of particulate matter, he said.

In the city, Phipatanakul has found that historical practices like redlining have systematically denied certain neighborhoods access to resources and investment, leaving a legacy of poor infrastructure, limited resources, and higher exposure to environmental risks. Today, these areas have more highways and fewer green spaces and are disproportionately linked with a higher incidence of respiratory illnesses.

The findings of both Scott and Phipatanakul underscore a critical bottom line: Health disparities are deeply influenced by environmental factors, which are themselves shaped by socioeconomic conditions and historical inequities. Poor housing quality, exposure to allergens, and proximity to environmental hazards disproportionately affect underserved and minority communities, whether in rural or urban settings.

The Role of Green Spaces in Improving Respiratory Health

Restoring and increasing tree cover and green spaces in urban areas can significantly improve respiratory health by addressing environmental challenges and reducing triggers for respiratory issues. Areas with greater greenness tend to have lower levels of pollutants and fewer environmental infestations, such as mice and cockroaches, explained Phipatanakul. Her research highlights that schools in greener areas have fewer airborne pollutants and particles than those in more urbanized, less green areas, which are usually in poorer suburbs.

Trees absorb pollutants such as particulate matter and sulfur dioxide through dry deposition and stomatal uptake, improving air quality. “The question is whether we can use trees as a public health tool, and this is being done in many cities,” said Alessandro Marcon, PhD, a professor of epidemiology and medical statistics at the University of Verona, Verona, Italy, while speaking at the European Respiratory Society conference held in Vienna last September.

A US analysis showed that existing natural vegetation, such as forests and grasslands, absorbs a large portion of emissions. By restoring land cover, pollution from harmful substances like sulfur dioxide and particulate matter could be reduced by about 30%. This approach is often more cost-effective than technological solutions for managing emissions.

Moreover, tree cover contributes to a healthier air microbiome. Research indicates that urban forest areas have lower pathogenic bacteria and fungi concentrations than nearby urban zones.

Another major advantage is the mitigation of the urban heat island effect. A study conducted in Paris found that municipalities with higher tree coverage experienced 20%-30% lower heat-related mortality than those with less greenery. Increasing tree coverage to 30% could reduce up to 40% of excess mortality associated with urban heat islands. Trees achieve this by providing shade and facilitating evapotranspiration, which cools the surrounding air.

Urban environments, unsurprisingly, often have higher levels of air pollution due to increased traffic and industrial activity. However, despite appearing greener, rural environments may harbor less obvious but significant sources of air pollution. “I live in an urban environment now, but I grew up in a rural environment,” Scott said. “Each has its own issues that affect air quality and health.”

Scott, Phipatanakul, and Marcon reported no relevant financial relationships.■

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

In 2016, Brady Scott was in his parents’ home in Garrett, Kentucky, scrolling his Facebook feed when a post from a local newspaper caught his attention. “The article said that if you grew up in the region I grew up in, compared to the richer Central Kentucky region, the life expectancy differed by about 9 years,” he recalled.

The respiratory therapist, then a PhD student at Rush University, Chicago, was struck and began “Googling” to find out why this was the case. Initially, he thought diabetes, smoking, and economic distress — all prevalent problems in the area — were the culprits. However, he soon found that respiratory disease was particularly common in his region.

Now a professor and program director of the Respiratory Care Program at Rush University, Scott has spent several years trying to understand why people in certain regions experience respiratory illness at higher rates than in other places.

The Environment as a Determinant of Health

When Scott began his PhD, the prevalence of asthma in Southeast Kentucky, part of the Appalachian region, was already well-documented. He focused his research on uncontrolled asthma and the triggers that drove asthma exacerbations.

Housing quality emerged as an important factor. He found that exposure to mold, mildew, dust mites, pests, and rodents increased the risk for asthma and exacerbated existing cases. Lower-income families, more likely to live in poor-quality housing, were significantly affected, even in single-family homes.

Wanda Phipatanakul, MD, MS, director of the Division of Immunology Research Center at Boston Children’s Hospital and S. Jean Emans professor of Pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, Boston, has found similar results in urban environments. She said cockroach and mouse allergen exposure is disproportionately prevalent in urban, low-income neighborhoods. These exposures, closely tied to housing conditions, contribute to worse asthma and respiratory problems, particularly in children.

Scott and Phipatanakul agreed that the environment surrounding people’s homes can also exacerbate respiratory disease.

Rural areas present unique risks, such as agricultural activities that release pesticides and other particulates into the air, said Scott. In mountainous areas like Appalachia, mining operations are another significant contributor. For example, blasting mountains with dynamite creates large clouds of dust and pollutants that settle in valleys. Coal-hauling roads contribute to air quality issues, too. And houses near these roads may be exposed to increased levels of particulate matter, he said.

In the city, Phipatanakul has found that historical practices like redlining have systematically denied certain neighborhoods access to resources and investment, leaving a legacy of poor infrastructure, limited resources, and higher exposure to environmental risks. Today, these areas have more highways and fewer green spaces and are disproportionately linked with a higher incidence of respiratory illnesses.

The findings of both Scott and Phipatanakul underscore a critical bottom line: Health disparities are deeply influenced by environmental factors, which are themselves shaped by socioeconomic conditions and historical inequities. Poor housing quality, exposure to allergens, and proximity to environmental hazards disproportionately affect underserved and minority communities, whether in rural or urban settings.

The Role of Green Spaces in Improving Respiratory Health

Restoring and increasing tree cover and green spaces in urban areas can significantly improve respiratory health by addressing environmental challenges and reducing triggers for respiratory issues. Areas with greater greenness tend to have lower levels of pollutants and fewer environmental infestations, such as mice and cockroaches, explained Phipatanakul. Her research highlights that schools in greener areas have fewer airborne pollutants and particles than those in more urbanized, less green areas, which are usually in poorer suburbs.

Trees absorb pollutants such as particulate matter and sulfur dioxide through dry deposition and stomatal uptake, improving air quality. “The question is whether we can use trees as a public health tool, and this is being done in many cities,” said Alessandro Marcon, PhD, a professor of epidemiology and medical statistics at the University of Verona, Verona, Italy, while speaking at the European Respiratory Society conference held in Vienna last September.

A US analysis showed that existing natural vegetation, such as forests and grasslands, absorbs a large portion of emissions. By restoring land cover, pollution from harmful substances like sulfur dioxide and particulate matter could be reduced by about 30%. This approach is often more cost-effective than technological solutions for managing emissions.

Moreover, tree cover contributes to a healthier air microbiome. Research indicates that urban forest areas have lower pathogenic bacteria and fungi concentrations than nearby urban zones.

Another major advantage is the mitigation of the urban heat island effect. A study conducted in Paris found that municipalities with higher tree coverage experienced 20%-30% lower heat-related mortality than those with less greenery. Increasing tree coverage to 30% could reduce up to 40% of excess mortality associated with urban heat islands. Trees achieve this by providing shade and facilitating evapotranspiration, which cools the surrounding air.

Urban environments, unsurprisingly, often have higher levels of air pollution due to increased traffic and industrial activity. However, despite appearing greener, rural environments may harbor less obvious but significant sources of air pollution. “I live in an urban environment now, but I grew up in a rural environment,” Scott said. “Each has its own issues that affect air quality and health.”

Scott, Phipatanakul, and Marcon reported no relevant financial relationships.■

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

In 2016, Brady Scott was in his parents’ home in Garrett, Kentucky, scrolling his Facebook feed when a post from a local newspaper caught his attention. “The article said that if you grew up in the region I grew up in, compared to the richer Central Kentucky region, the life expectancy differed by about 9 years,” he recalled.

The respiratory therapist, then a PhD student at Rush University, Chicago, was struck and began “Googling” to find out why this was the case. Initially, he thought diabetes, smoking, and economic distress — all prevalent problems in the area — were the culprits. However, he soon found that respiratory disease was particularly common in his region.

Now a professor and program director of the Respiratory Care Program at Rush University, Scott has spent several years trying to understand why people in certain regions experience respiratory illness at higher rates than in other places.

The Environment as a Determinant of Health

When Scott began his PhD, the prevalence of asthma in Southeast Kentucky, part of the Appalachian region, was already well-documented. He focused his research on uncontrolled asthma and the triggers that drove asthma exacerbations.

Housing quality emerged as an important factor. He found that exposure to mold, mildew, dust mites, pests, and rodents increased the risk for asthma and exacerbated existing cases. Lower-income families, more likely to live in poor-quality housing, were significantly affected, even in single-family homes.

Wanda Phipatanakul, MD, MS, director of the Division of Immunology Research Center at Boston Children’s Hospital and S. Jean Emans professor of Pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, Boston, has found similar results in urban environments. She said cockroach and mouse allergen exposure is disproportionately prevalent in urban, low-income neighborhoods. These exposures, closely tied to housing conditions, contribute to worse asthma and respiratory problems, particularly in children.

Scott and Phipatanakul agreed that the environment surrounding people’s homes can also exacerbate respiratory disease.

Rural areas present unique risks, such as agricultural activities that release pesticides and other particulates into the air, said Scott. In mountainous areas like Appalachia, mining operations are another significant contributor. For example, blasting mountains with dynamite creates large clouds of dust and pollutants that settle in valleys. Coal-hauling roads contribute to air quality issues, too. And houses near these roads may be exposed to increased levels of particulate matter, he said.

In the city, Phipatanakul has found that historical practices like redlining have systematically denied certain neighborhoods access to resources and investment, leaving a legacy of poor infrastructure, limited resources, and higher exposure to environmental risks. Today, these areas have more highways and fewer green spaces and are disproportionately linked with a higher incidence of respiratory illnesses.

The findings of both Scott and Phipatanakul underscore a critical bottom line: Health disparities are deeply influenced by environmental factors, which are themselves shaped by socioeconomic conditions and historical inequities. Poor housing quality, exposure to allergens, and proximity to environmental hazards disproportionately affect underserved and minority communities, whether in rural or urban settings.

The Role of Green Spaces in Improving Respiratory Health

Restoring and increasing tree cover and green spaces in urban areas can significantly improve respiratory health by addressing environmental challenges and reducing triggers for respiratory issues. Areas with greater greenness tend to have lower levels of pollutants and fewer environmental infestations, such as mice and cockroaches, explained Phipatanakul. Her research highlights that schools in greener areas have fewer airborne pollutants and particles than those in more urbanized, less green areas, which are usually in poorer suburbs.

Trees absorb pollutants such as particulate matter and sulfur dioxide through dry deposition and stomatal uptake, improving air quality. “The question is whether we can use trees as a public health tool, and this is being done in many cities,” said Alessandro Marcon, PhD, a professor of epidemiology and medical statistics at the University of Verona, Verona, Italy, while speaking at the European Respiratory Society conference held in Vienna last September.

A US analysis showed that existing natural vegetation, such as forests and grasslands, absorbs a large portion of emissions. By restoring land cover, pollution from harmful substances like sulfur dioxide and particulate matter could be reduced by about 30%. This approach is often more cost-effective than technological solutions for managing emissions.

Moreover, tree cover contributes to a healthier air microbiome. Research indicates that urban forest areas have lower pathogenic bacteria and fungi concentrations than nearby urban zones.

Another major advantage is the mitigation of the urban heat island effect. A study conducted in Paris found that municipalities with higher tree coverage experienced 20%-30% lower heat-related mortality than those with less greenery. Increasing tree coverage to 30% could reduce up to 40% of excess mortality associated with urban heat islands. Trees achieve this by providing shade and facilitating evapotranspiration, which cools the surrounding air.

Urban environments, unsurprisingly, often have higher levels of air pollution due to increased traffic and industrial activity. However, despite appearing greener, rural environments may harbor less obvious but significant sources of air pollution. “I live in an urban environment now, but I grew up in a rural environment,” Scott said. “Each has its own issues that affect air quality and health.”

Scott, Phipatanakul, and Marcon reported no relevant financial relationships.■

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

TOPLINE: A small study of veterans found that high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) demonstrated similar oncologic outcomes when compared to standard treatments for localized prostate cancer, while maintaining erectile and urinary function. 

METHODOLOGY: 

•      A retrospective analysis at the Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Houston between 2018 and 2022, with data acquired from electronic health record.
•      A total of 43 veterans were included in the analysis; 31 patients (72%) receiving primary treatment and 12 patients (28%) receiving salvage therapy.
•      Patient risk stratification was performed using prostate specific antigen (PSA), Gleason Score, and clinical stage based on National Comprehensive Cancer Network and D'Amico criteria.
•      Follow-up assessments included serial PSA measurements at 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months, with functional outcomes evaluated through Sexual Health Inventory for Men and American Urological Association Symptom Score questionnaires.

TAKEAWAY:

•       The 31 patients in the primary treatment group had a median PSA nadir of 0.16, while the 12 patients in the salvage therapy group had a median PSA nadir of 0.12, with median follow-up periods of 23 and 25 months, respectively.
•       Local recurrence rates were comparable between groups, occurring in 5 patients (16%) in the primary group and 2 (17%) in the salvage group.
•       Sexual Health Inventory for Men scores and American Urological Association Symptom Score showed no statistically significant differences before and after HIFU therapy in both groups (P = .35). > .05).
•       Short- and intermediate-term results demonstrated HIFU's effectiveness in maintaining potency and urinary function while providing adequate oncological control for both primary and salvage therapies.
•      Two patients (7%) from the primary treatment group experienced 30-day complications, including one case of epididymo-orchitis and 1 case of urethral stricture.
•      Three patients (25%) from the salvage treatment group experienced 30-day complications, including one bladder neck contracture.

IN PRACTICE: "The application of HIFU in a veteran population is of particular interest due to the unique medical challenges this group faces. Veterans often present with complex medical conditions and a higher comorbidity burden compared to the general population, as indicated by a median Charleson Comorbidity Index of 7 in our primary HIFU group," wrote the authors of the study. 

SOURCE: The study was led by Sagar Patel and Ali Antar, Operative Care Line, Urology Section, Michael E. DeBakey Veteran Affairs Medical Center in Houston. It was published online in Life.

 LIMITATIONS: The study's relatively short median follow-up period of 23-25 months limits the assessment of long-term oncological outcomes in prostate cancer. The sample size, while substantial for an initial series, remains modest, particularly for the salvage therapy group. According to the authors, larger multi-center studies with longer follow-up periods will be necessary to confirm and extend these findings, especially for establishing the durability of oncological control and functional preservation. 

DISCLOSURES: The study received no external funding. The research was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and received approval from the Institutional Review Board in February 2024. Support was obtained from the Prostate Cancer Foundation-VALOR Challenge Program. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication

TOPLINE: A small study of veterans found that high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) demonstrated similar oncologic outcomes when compared to standard treatments for localized prostate cancer, while maintaining erectile and urinary function. 

METHODOLOGY: 

•      A retrospective analysis at the Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Houston between 2018 and 2022, with data acquired from electronic health record.
•      A total of 43 veterans were included in the analysis; 31 patients (72%) receiving primary treatment and 12 patients (28%) receiving salvage therapy.
•      Patient risk stratification was performed using prostate specific antigen (PSA), Gleason Score, and clinical stage based on National Comprehensive Cancer Network and D'Amico criteria.
•      Follow-up assessments included serial PSA measurements at 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months, with functional outcomes evaluated through Sexual Health Inventory for Men and American Urological Association Symptom Score questionnaires.

TAKEAWAY:

•       The 31 patients in the primary treatment group had a median PSA nadir of 0.16, while the 12 patients in the salvage therapy group had a median PSA nadir of 0.12, with median follow-up periods of 23 and 25 months, respectively.
•       Local recurrence rates were comparable between groups, occurring in 5 patients (16%) in the primary group and 2 (17%) in the salvage group.
•       Sexual Health Inventory for Men scores and American Urological Association Symptom Score showed no statistically significant differences before and after HIFU therapy in both groups (P = .35). > .05).
•       Short- and intermediate-term results demonstrated HIFU's effectiveness in maintaining potency and urinary function while providing adequate oncological control for both primary and salvage therapies.
•      Two patients (7%) from the primary treatment group experienced 30-day complications, including one case of epididymo-orchitis and 1 case of urethral stricture.
•      Three patients (25%) from the salvage treatment group experienced 30-day complications, including one bladder neck contracture.

IN PRACTICE: "The application of HIFU in a veteran population is of particular interest due to the unique medical challenges this group faces. Veterans often present with complex medical conditions and a higher comorbidity burden compared to the general population, as indicated by a median Charleson Comorbidity Index of 7 in our primary HIFU group," wrote the authors of the study. 

SOURCE: The study was led by Sagar Patel and Ali Antar, Operative Care Line, Urology Section, Michael E. DeBakey Veteran Affairs Medical Center in Houston. It was published online in Life.

 LIMITATIONS: The study's relatively short median follow-up period of 23-25 months limits the assessment of long-term oncological outcomes in prostate cancer. The sample size, while substantial for an initial series, remains modest, particularly for the salvage therapy group. According to the authors, larger multi-center studies with longer follow-up periods will be necessary to confirm and extend these findings, especially for establishing the durability of oncological control and functional preservation. 

DISCLOSURES: The study received no external funding. The research was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and received approval from the Institutional Review Board in February 2024. Support was obtained from the Prostate Cancer Foundation-VALOR Challenge Program. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication

TOPLINE: A small study of veterans found that high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) demonstrated similar oncologic outcomes when compared to standard treatments for localized prostate cancer, while maintaining erectile and urinary function. 

METHODOLOGY: 

•      A retrospective analysis at the Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Houston between 2018 and 2022, with data acquired from electronic health record.
•      A total of 43 veterans were included in the analysis; 31 patients (72%) receiving primary treatment and 12 patients (28%) receiving salvage therapy.
•      Patient risk stratification was performed using prostate specific antigen (PSA), Gleason Score, and clinical stage based on National Comprehensive Cancer Network and D'Amico criteria.
•      Follow-up assessments included serial PSA measurements at 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months, with functional outcomes evaluated through Sexual Health Inventory for Men and American Urological Association Symptom Score questionnaires.

TAKEAWAY:

•       The 31 patients in the primary treatment group had a median PSA nadir of 0.16, while the 12 patients in the salvage therapy group had a median PSA nadir of 0.12, with median follow-up periods of 23 and 25 months, respectively.
•       Local recurrence rates were comparable between groups, occurring in 5 patients (16%) in the primary group and 2 (17%) in the salvage group.
•       Sexual Health Inventory for Men scores and American Urological Association Symptom Score showed no statistically significant differences before and after HIFU therapy in both groups (P = .35). > .05).
•       Short- and intermediate-term results demonstrated HIFU's effectiveness in maintaining potency and urinary function while providing adequate oncological control for both primary and salvage therapies.
•      Two patients (7%) from the primary treatment group experienced 30-day complications, including one case of epididymo-orchitis and 1 case of urethral stricture.
•      Three patients (25%) from the salvage treatment group experienced 30-day complications, including one bladder neck contracture.

IN PRACTICE: "The application of HIFU in a veteran population is of particular interest due to the unique medical challenges this group faces. Veterans often present with complex medical conditions and a higher comorbidity burden compared to the general population, as indicated by a median Charleson Comorbidity Index of 7 in our primary HIFU group," wrote the authors of the study. 

SOURCE: The study was led by Sagar Patel and Ali Antar, Operative Care Line, Urology Section, Michael E. DeBakey Veteran Affairs Medical Center in Houston. It was published online in Life.

 LIMITATIONS: The study's relatively short median follow-up period of 23-25 months limits the assessment of long-term oncological outcomes in prostate cancer. The sample size, while substantial for an initial series, remains modest, particularly for the salvage therapy group. According to the authors, larger multi-center studies with longer follow-up periods will be necessary to confirm and extend these findings, especially for establishing the durability of oncological control and functional preservation. 

DISCLOSURES: The study received no external funding. The research was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and received approval from the Institutional Review Board in February 2024. Support was obtained from the Prostate Cancer Foundation-VALOR Challenge Program. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication

Overtreatment of men with prostate cancer and limited life expectancy (LE) has persisted in the era of active surveillance and worsened in some instances, according to a new study of nearly 250,000 veterans.

“Overtreatment of men with limited longevity for intermediate- and high-risk tumors has not only failed to improve but has actually worsened over the last 20 years,” Timothy Daskivich, MD, MSHPM, with Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said in an interview.

“Many doctors assume that the increase in uptake of active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancers has solved the problem of overtreatment, but this trend has not affected overtreatment of men with low likelihood of living long enough to benefit from treatment who have higher-risk tumors,” Daskivich said.

The study was published online on November 11 in JAMA Internal Medicine.

‘Concerning’ Real-World Data

For men with low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer expected to live fewer than 10 years, prostate cancer screening and aggressive treatment are not recommended.

Daskivich and colleagues analyzed data on 243,928 men (mean age, 66 years) in the Veterans Affairs (VA) Health System with clinically localized prostate cancer diagnosed between 2000 and 2019.

About 21% had LE < 10 years, and about 4% had LE < 5 years, according to the validated age-adjusted Prostate Cancer Comorbidity Index.

Overtreatment was defined as aggressive treatment (surgery or radiation) in those with LE < 10 years and low- to intermediate-risk disease and in those with LE < 5 years and high-risk disease, in line with current guidelines.

Among men with LE < 10 years, the proportion of men overtreated with surgery or radiotherapy for low-risk disease decreased 22% but increased 22% for intermediate-risk disease during the study period.

Among men with LE < 5 years, the proportion of men treated with definitive treatment for high-risk disease increased 29%.

“While lower-risk tumors are treated less aggressively across the board, including in men with limited longevity, it seems that we are more indiscriminately treating men with higher-risk disease without considering their expected longevity,” Daskivich said, in an interview.

Is This Happening in the General US Population?

Daskivich noted that the sample included a large sample of men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer in the VA Health System.

“Rates of overtreatment are likely to be lower in the VA [Health System], so the problem may be worse in the community setting. The VA [Health System] has been exemplary in its uptake of active surveillance for low-risk cancers, leading the effort to reduce overtreatment of men with low-risk cancers. However, the problem of overtreatment of men with limited longevity persists in the VA [Health System], underscoring the pervasiveness of this problem,” he explained.

“We don’t have a perfect head-to-head comparison of overtreatment in the VA setting vs in the community. [However, one study shows] that this is not a VA-specific phenomenon and that there is an increase in overtreatment of men with limited longevity in a Medicare population as well,” Daskivich noted.

Is Overtreatment All Bad?

Overtreatment of prostate cancer, especially in cases where the cancer is unlikely to progress or cause symptoms, can lead to significant physical, psychological, and financial harms, Christopher Anderson, MD, urologist with Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York City, who wasn’t involved in the study, noted in an interview.

In the study by Daskivich and colleagues, over three quarters of the overtreatment was radiation therapy, which carries the risk for urinary, bowel, and sexual issues.

“Overscreening, which can lead to overtreatment, is a core issue,” Anderson said. It’s easy to order a “simple” prostate-specific antigen blood test, but in an older man with limited LE, that can lead to a host of further testing, he commented.

Stopping the pipeline of overscreening that then feeds into the cascade of overtreatment is the first step in addressing the problem of prostate cancer overtreatment, Nancy Li Schoenborn, MD, MHS, with Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, and Louise C. Walter, MD, with University of California San Francisco, wrote in an editorial in JAMA Internal Medicine.

Considering LE during screening decision-making is “fundamental to reducing harms of prostate cancer overdiagnosis and overtreatment” because limited LE increases the likelihood of experiencing “harms all along the diagnostic and treatment cascade following screening,” the editorial writers said.

The time spent diagnosing, monitoring, and treating asymptomatic prostate cancer in men with limited LE distracts from monitoring and treating chronic symptomatic life-limiting illnesses, they noted.

Tough to Talk About?

Anderson noted that, in general, doctors are not great at estimating and counseling patients on LE. “It’s sometimes difficult to have that conversation,” he said.

Daskivich said physicians may fail to include average LE when advising patients on treatments because they believe that the patients do not want to discuss this topic. “Yet, in interviews with patients, we found that prostate cancer patients reported they wanted this information,” he continued, in an interview.

Solving the problem of overscreening and overtreatment will require a “multifaceted approach, including improving access to life expectancy data at the point of care for providers, educating providers on how to communicate this information, and improving data sources to predict longevity,” Daskivich said.

He said it’s equally important to note that some men with prostate cancer may choose treatment even if they have a limited longevity.

“Not all patients will choose conservative management, even if it is recommended by guidelines. However, they need to be given the opportunity to make a good decision for themselves with the best possible data,” Daskivich said.

This work was supported in part by a US Department of VA Merit Review. Daskivich reported receiving personal fees from the Medical Education Speakers Network, EDAP, and RAND; research support from Lantheus and Janssen; and a patent pending for a system for healthcare visit quality assessment outside the submitted work. Schoenborn, Walter, and Anderson had no relevant disclosures.

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

Overtreatment of men with prostate cancer and limited life expectancy (LE) has persisted in the era of active surveillance and worsened in some instances, according to a new study of nearly 250,000 veterans.

“Overtreatment of men with limited longevity for intermediate- and high-risk tumors has not only failed to improve but has actually worsened over the last 20 years,” Timothy Daskivich, MD, MSHPM, with Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said in an interview.

“Many doctors assume that the increase in uptake of active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancers has solved the problem of overtreatment, but this trend has not affected overtreatment of men with low likelihood of living long enough to benefit from treatment who have higher-risk tumors,” Daskivich said.

The study was published online on November 11 in JAMA Internal Medicine.

‘Concerning’ Real-World Data

For men with low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer expected to live fewer than 10 years, prostate cancer screening and aggressive treatment are not recommended.

Daskivich and colleagues analyzed data on 243,928 men (mean age, 66 years) in the Veterans Affairs (VA) Health System with clinically localized prostate cancer diagnosed between 2000 and 2019.

About 21% had LE < 10 years, and about 4% had LE < 5 years, according to the validated age-adjusted Prostate Cancer Comorbidity Index.

Overtreatment was defined as aggressive treatment (surgery or radiation) in those with LE < 10 years and low- to intermediate-risk disease and in those with LE < 5 years and high-risk disease, in line with current guidelines.

Among men with LE < 10 years, the proportion of men overtreated with surgery or radiotherapy for low-risk disease decreased 22% but increased 22% for intermediate-risk disease during the study period.

Among men with LE < 5 years, the proportion of men treated with definitive treatment for high-risk disease increased 29%.

“While lower-risk tumors are treated less aggressively across the board, including in men with limited longevity, it seems that we are more indiscriminately treating men with higher-risk disease without considering their expected longevity,” Daskivich said, in an interview.

Is This Happening in the General US Population?

Daskivich noted that the sample included a large sample of men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer in the VA Health System.

“Rates of overtreatment are likely to be lower in the VA [Health System], so the problem may be worse in the community setting. The VA [Health System] has been exemplary in its uptake of active surveillance for low-risk cancers, leading the effort to reduce overtreatment of men with low-risk cancers. However, the problem of overtreatment of men with limited longevity persists in the VA [Health System], underscoring the pervasiveness of this problem,” he explained.

“We don’t have a perfect head-to-head comparison of overtreatment in the VA setting vs in the community. [However, one study shows] that this is not a VA-specific phenomenon and that there is an increase in overtreatment of men with limited longevity in a Medicare population as well,” Daskivich noted.

Is Overtreatment All Bad?

Overtreatment of prostate cancer, especially in cases where the cancer is unlikely to progress or cause symptoms, can lead to significant physical, psychological, and financial harms, Christopher Anderson, MD, urologist with Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York City, who wasn’t involved in the study, noted in an interview.

In the study by Daskivich and colleagues, over three quarters of the overtreatment was radiation therapy, which carries the risk for urinary, bowel, and sexual issues.

“Overscreening, which can lead to overtreatment, is a core issue,” Anderson said. It’s easy to order a “simple” prostate-specific antigen blood test, but in an older man with limited LE, that can lead to a host of further testing, he commented.

Stopping the pipeline of overscreening that then feeds into the cascade of overtreatment is the first step in addressing the problem of prostate cancer overtreatment, Nancy Li Schoenborn, MD, MHS, with Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, and Louise C. Walter, MD, with University of California San Francisco, wrote in an editorial in JAMA Internal Medicine.

Considering LE during screening decision-making is “fundamental to reducing harms of prostate cancer overdiagnosis and overtreatment” because limited LE increases the likelihood of experiencing “harms all along the diagnostic and treatment cascade following screening,” the editorial writers said.

The time spent diagnosing, monitoring, and treating asymptomatic prostate cancer in men with limited LE distracts from monitoring and treating chronic symptomatic life-limiting illnesses, they noted.

Tough to Talk About?

Anderson noted that, in general, doctors are not great at estimating and counseling patients on LE. “It’s sometimes difficult to have that conversation,” he said.

Daskivich said physicians may fail to include average LE when advising patients on treatments because they believe that the patients do not want to discuss this topic. “Yet, in interviews with patients, we found that prostate cancer patients reported they wanted this information,” he continued, in an interview.

Solving the problem of overscreening and overtreatment will require a “multifaceted approach, including improving access to life expectancy data at the point of care for providers, educating providers on how to communicate this information, and improving data sources to predict longevity,” Daskivich said.

He said it’s equally important to note that some men with prostate cancer may choose treatment even if they have a limited longevity.

“Not all patients will choose conservative management, even if it is recommended by guidelines. However, they need to be given the opportunity to make a good decision for themselves with the best possible data,” Daskivich said.

This work was supported in part by a US Department of VA Merit Review. Daskivich reported receiving personal fees from the Medical Education Speakers Network, EDAP, and RAND; research support from Lantheus and Janssen; and a patent pending for a system for healthcare visit quality assessment outside the submitted work. Schoenborn, Walter, and Anderson had no relevant disclosures.

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

Overtreatment of men with prostate cancer and limited life expectancy (LE) has persisted in the era of active surveillance and worsened in some instances, according to a new study of nearly 250,000 veterans.

“Overtreatment of men with limited longevity for intermediate- and high-risk tumors has not only failed to improve but has actually worsened over the last 20 years,” Timothy Daskivich, MD, MSHPM, with Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said in an interview.

“Many doctors assume that the increase in uptake of active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancers has solved the problem of overtreatment, but this trend has not affected overtreatment of men with low likelihood of living long enough to benefit from treatment who have higher-risk tumors,” Daskivich said.

The study was published online on November 11 in JAMA Internal Medicine.

‘Concerning’ Real-World Data

For men with low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer expected to live fewer than 10 years, prostate cancer screening and aggressive treatment are not recommended.

Daskivich and colleagues analyzed data on 243,928 men (mean age, 66 years) in the Veterans Affairs (VA) Health System with clinically localized prostate cancer diagnosed between 2000 and 2019.

About 21% had LE < 10 years, and about 4% had LE < 5 years, according to the validated age-adjusted Prostate Cancer Comorbidity Index.

Overtreatment was defined as aggressive treatment (surgery or radiation) in those with LE < 10 years and low- to intermediate-risk disease and in those with LE < 5 years and high-risk disease, in line with current guidelines.

Among men with LE < 10 years, the proportion of men overtreated with surgery or radiotherapy for low-risk disease decreased 22% but increased 22% for intermediate-risk disease during the study period.

Among men with LE < 5 years, the proportion of men treated with definitive treatment for high-risk disease increased 29%.

“While lower-risk tumors are treated less aggressively across the board, including in men with limited longevity, it seems that we are more indiscriminately treating men with higher-risk disease without considering their expected longevity,” Daskivich said, in an interview.

Is This Happening in the General US Population?

Daskivich noted that the sample included a large sample of men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer in the VA Health System.

“Rates of overtreatment are likely to be lower in the VA [Health System], so the problem may be worse in the community setting. The VA [Health System] has been exemplary in its uptake of active surveillance for low-risk cancers, leading the effort to reduce overtreatment of men with low-risk cancers. However, the problem of overtreatment of men with limited longevity persists in the VA [Health System], underscoring the pervasiveness of this problem,” he explained.

“We don’t have a perfect head-to-head comparison of overtreatment in the VA setting vs in the community. [However, one study shows] that this is not a VA-specific phenomenon and that there is an increase in overtreatment of men with limited longevity in a Medicare population as well,” Daskivich noted.

Is Overtreatment All Bad?

Overtreatment of prostate cancer, especially in cases where the cancer is unlikely to progress or cause symptoms, can lead to significant physical, psychological, and financial harms, Christopher Anderson, MD, urologist with Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York City, who wasn’t involved in the study, noted in an interview.

In the study by Daskivich and colleagues, over three quarters of the overtreatment was radiation therapy, which carries the risk for urinary, bowel, and sexual issues.

“Overscreening, which can lead to overtreatment, is a core issue,” Anderson said. It’s easy to order a “simple” prostate-specific antigen blood test, but in an older man with limited LE, that can lead to a host of further testing, he commented.

Stopping the pipeline of overscreening that then feeds into the cascade of overtreatment is the first step in addressing the problem of prostate cancer overtreatment, Nancy Li Schoenborn, MD, MHS, with Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, and Louise C. Walter, MD, with University of California San Francisco, wrote in an editorial in JAMA Internal Medicine.

Considering LE during screening decision-making is “fundamental to reducing harms of prostate cancer overdiagnosis and overtreatment” because limited LE increases the likelihood of experiencing “harms all along the diagnostic and treatment cascade following screening,” the editorial writers said.

The time spent diagnosing, monitoring, and treating asymptomatic prostate cancer in men with limited LE distracts from monitoring and treating chronic symptomatic life-limiting illnesses, they noted.

Tough to Talk About?

Anderson noted that, in general, doctors are not great at estimating and counseling patients on LE. “It’s sometimes difficult to have that conversation,” he said.

Daskivich said physicians may fail to include average LE when advising patients on treatments because they believe that the patients do not want to discuss this topic. “Yet, in interviews with patients, we found that prostate cancer patients reported they wanted this information,” he continued, in an interview.

Solving the problem of overscreening and overtreatment will require a “multifaceted approach, including improving access to life expectancy data at the point of care for providers, educating providers on how to communicate this information, and improving data sources to predict longevity,” Daskivich said.

He said it’s equally important to note that some men with prostate cancer may choose treatment even if they have a limited longevity.

“Not all patients will choose conservative management, even if it is recommended by guidelines. However, they need to be given the opportunity to make a good decision for themselves with the best possible data,” Daskivich said.

This work was supported in part by a US Department of VA Merit Review. Daskivich reported receiving personal fees from the Medical Education Speakers Network, EDAP, and RAND; research support from Lantheus and Janssen; and a patent pending for a system for healthcare visit quality assessment outside the submitted work. Schoenborn, Walter, and Anderson had no relevant disclosures.

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